The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Agenda 09/25/2020COLLIER 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 25, 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. Collier County Planning Commission Page I Printed 911812020 September 2020 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call by Secretary 3. Addenda to the Agenda 4. Planning Commission Absences 5. Approval of Minutes 6. BCC Report - Recaps Chairman's Report 8. Consent Agenda 9. Public Hearings A. Advertised **Note: This Agenda Item was continued from the September 3, 2020 CCPC Meeting to the September 17, 2020 CCPC Meeting, and is further continued to the September 25, 2020 CCPC Meeting *** 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] 2. *** This item has been continued from the September 17, 2020 CCPC Meeting to the September 25, 2020 CCPC Meeting.*** Recommendation to amend an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, PL20180002507 - Florida, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series by amending the Urban Commercial district to add the Greenway-Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict to allow development of up to 20,000 square feet of C-3, commercial intermediate uses and furthermore, directing transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability and providing for an effective date. The subject property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Greenway Road in Sections 12 and 13, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 2.81E acres. [PL20180002507] [Adoption] [Companion PL201800023741. Collier County Planning Commission Page 2 Printed 911812020 September 2020 3. *** This item has been continued from the September 17, 2020 CCPC Meeting to the September 25, 2020 CCPC Meeting.*** RZ-PL20180002374: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) zoning district to allow up to 20,000 square feet of commercial development for property located at the northwest corner of Tamiami Trail East (US 41) and Greenway Road, in Sections 12 and 13, Township 51 South, Range 26, East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 2.81+/- acres; and by providing an effective date. (Companion to PL20180002507) [Coordinator: Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] 4. *** This item has been continued from the September 17, 2020 CCPC Meeting to the September 25, 2020 CCPC Meeting. ***CU-PL20190001278: A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida providing for the establishment of a conditional use to allow a sports instructional school and camp for shooting instruction and training within an Agricultural (A) zoning district in the Area of Critical State Concern and Special Treatment overlay (ACSC/ST), pursuant to Section 2.03.0l.a.l.c.19 of the Collier County Land Development Code for a 10.77+/- acre property located on the west side of State Road 29, approximately 8 miles south of I-75, in Section 7, Township 51 South, Range 30 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] 5. *** This item has been continued from the September 17, 2020 CCPC Meeting to the September 25, 2020 CCPC Meeting.*** PUDA-PL2019002323: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 09-15, as amended, the Heavenly Community Facility Planned Unit Development, to increase the maximum size of the house of worship use to 35,000 square feet; to increase the accessory uses to 88,000 square feet; to remove the daycare and school permitted accessory uses; to add outdoor recreational areas, playgrounds and playlots as permitted accessory uses; to eliminate Tract A and Tract B references; to modify the conceptual PUD master plan; to delete Exhibit G, depiction of vertical building, Exhibit H, architectural renderings and Exhibit I, conditions of approval; add a deviation regarding chain link fencing; and add a deviation regarding paved aisles for the area utilized for grass overflow parking. The property is located at 6926 Trail Boulevard between Ridge Drive and Myrtle Road in Section 3, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 15.93E acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] B. Noticed 10. New Business 11. Old Business 12. Public Comment Collier County Planning Commission Page 3 Printed 911812020 September 2020 13. Adjourn Collier County Planning Commission Page 4 Printed 911812020 9.A.1 09/25/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.1 Item Summary: **Note: This Agenda Item was continued from the September 3, 2020 CCPC Meeting to the September 17, 2020 CCPC Meeting, and is further continued to the September 25, 2020 CCPC Meeting *** 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] Meeting Date: 09/25/2020 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst — Planning Commission Name: Diane Lynch 09/17/2020 6:29 PM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning — Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 09/17/2020 6:29 PM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Additional Reviewer Skipped 09/17/2020 6:08 PM Zoning Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 09/17/2020 6:08 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped Growth Management Department Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 09/17/2020 6:08 PM Zoning Diane Lynch Additional Reviewer Skipped 09/17/2020 6:08 PM Zoning Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 09/17/2020 6:08 PM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 09/25/2020 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 5 9.A.1.a c�o*e-r C;0.141-lty 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: —1— PL20190002292 Staff Proposed Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments Packet Pg. 6 9.A.1.a "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. —2— PL20190002292 Staff Proposed Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments Packet Pg. 7 9.A.1.a 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. —3— PL20190002292 Staff Proposed Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments Packet Pg. 8 9.A.1.a 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. Current RLSA in 2020 12% 37 Natural Resources Remaining ■ Naural Resources in SSA c Ag1 in SSA Open Figure 1 Proposed RLSA ■ Natural Resources SSA Agriculture SSA SRAs 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; —4— PL20190002292 Staff Proposed Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments Packet Pg. 9 9.A.1.a • 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. —5— PL20190002292 Staff Proposed Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments Packet Pg. 10 9.A.1.a 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 Attnnhmantc- • 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 —6— PL20190002292 Staff Proposed Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments Packet Pg. 11 9.A.1.a • Resolution with Exhibit A: Text and map changes —7— PL20190002292 Staff Proposed Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments Packet Pg. 12 9.A.1.b CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 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 Packet Pg. 13 9.A.1.b CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PHASE I - TECHNICAL REVIEW 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. 21 Packet Pg. 14 9.A.1.b CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 Definitions (LDC 4.08.01): ACSC. Area of Critical State Concern Agricultural Group 1 Uses (4.08.06 134). Generally higher intensity agricultural uses including: row crops, citrus, nurseries, and related support uses. Agricultural Group 2 Uses (4.08.06 134). 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 BA., 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, WRA), 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. 31 P a a P Packet Pg. 15 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A 9.A.1.b PL20190002292 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 1 D where exact acreages are reported to the one -hundredth of an acre. 41 Page Packet Pg. 16 9.A.1.b CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 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 % W RA 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 1 D 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% W RA 18,200 3,034 17% Open 93,100 1 474 < 1 % Total 182,400 1 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% W RA 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 1 A illustrates the 19,825 acres of FSA within SSAs approved and pending; • Map 1 B illustrates the 29,986 acres of HSA within SSAs approved and pending; • Map 1 C illustrates the 3,078 acres of WRA within SSAs approved and pending; 51 Page Packet Pg. 17 9.A.1.b CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 • Map 1 D illustrates the 3,067 acres of Open, including 500-foot restoration buffer zones, within SSAs approved and pending; and • Map 1 E 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, Tablel-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 141.18 654.01 585.91 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 61 Page Packet Pg. 18 9.A.1.b CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 SSA # Acreage TypOpen Acres Ag — 1 Ag - 2 Other Total Acres 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 FS A 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 1,713 663 WRA 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 559953.88 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 71 Packet Pg. 19 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A 9.A.1.b PL20190002292 agricultural lands adjacent to the FSAs. These lands provide major hydrological and ecological linkages within the region. As depicted on Map 1 E, 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 1 F 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 81 Payer Packet Pg. 20 9.A.1.b CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 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 Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) within the RLSA. 28,658.4 Stewardship Credits generated from SSAs (4,000 ac) is the only approved The Town of Ave Maria utilized 1 through 6 (See Table 3-13). 91 Page Packet Pg. 21 9.A.1.b CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 Table 3-B Summary of Credits Transferred and Utilized for the Town of Ave Maria Credits Credits Held for SSA # Acres Total Credits Transferred and Future Use (includes Assigned Utilized for Town R-2) of Ave Maria 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 Characteristics Summary and Recorded SSA Easement Agreements. *SSAs 3A and 5A post dated the approval of Ave Maria SRA, transferred and utilized for Ave Maria. Sending Area (SSA) Land therefore no Credits were 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 1 16,985.41 30,792.9 9,187.41 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 101 Pagc Packet Pg. 22 9.A.1.b CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 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 T e 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 1,201 -27.26% TOTAL 94,498 -0058 -480 +427 89,397±.01 % 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 A) 572 Pasture/Rangeland 429 Row Crop 2,562 Specialty 449 TOTAL 5,027± 5. The amount, location and type of land converted to non-agricultural use with, and without participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption. Conversion of Agricultural lands using the RLSA program - Approximately 5,058 acres of land has been converted from agriculture to non -agriculture uses since 2002. As shown on Table 5-A, Ave Maria accounts for 4,455 acres, conservation uses within an SSA accounts for 553 acres, and 50 acres was converted to mining. Map 4 illustrates the location of all Ag to Non-Ag land use conversions. Conversion of Agricultural lands without using the RLSA program - A total of 480 acres of land within the RLSA have been approved for conversion from agricultural usage without using the RLSA program. Two areas totaling 233 acres received 11 1 Pagc Packet Pg. 23 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A 9.A.1.b PL20190002292 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 a -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. 121 Page Packet Pg. 24 9.A.1.b CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 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 Location Restoration Type Acres SSA 3A Wading Bird (R1) 248.9 SSA 5A Wading Bird (R1) 651.3 Flow way (R1, R2) 575.0 SSA 6 Other Listed Species (R1, R2) 619.2 WadingBird R1, R2 24.8 Large Mammal Corridor R1, R2 331.9 SSA 7 Other Listed Species R1, R2 75.7 Wading Bird (R1, R2) 51.4 SSA 8 Wadin Bird (R1, R2) 74.9 Flow way (R1, R2) 571.5 SSA 9 Large Mammal Corridor (R1, R2) 61.0 Wading Bird (R1, R2) 58.9 TOTAL 3344.51 Total R1 acres = 900± Total R2 acres = 2444.5± Source: SSA applications 131 Page Packet Pg. 25 9.A.1.b CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 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. 141 Page Packet Pg. 26 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 Coiler County RLSA OVERLAY MARCH 2O09 HENDRY COUNT( \I 0 a �Ri N" I WLU ``�& SSA 76 w, ♦`� SSA 8 ` 4 AS ��♦` `;SSA 3 �//{ IIiVlm KA E ♦ R84CGR 840 SA 4 t w ki. I(A E 41 J ACE LEGEND QVED DARY ® APPROVED VED SSA q_ 1* SSA 10 ®AREAOF CRITICALSTATE CONCERN L`\ ®CREW LAND ? \ I� NATRUALRESOURCE PROTECTIONARE4 `` �+ ♦`'� , ® RURALFRINGE MU DISTRICT `\V! QS ♦♦```♦♦`♦� I'� TOWN OF WE MARIA `,,``♦♦♦♦`♦r �` Stewardship `♦,•♦`♦♦♦♦• -500-FOOT RESTORATION AREA ? - FLOWHAYSTEWARDSHIPAREA(FSA) ` - HABITATSTEWARDSHIPARE4(HSA) I ® WATER R ETE N TI O N AR EA(WRA) 1_ �l +0- POTENTIAL PANTHER CORRIDORS ; ; : k �.- •� ` PPE... � (O - SER �`♦ L PRE 4 A .. WILDLIiE III X X x A _ X X X XI X X x x A X X X x xi x x x x } X X X din I , ■ ii/: �l�d-ice iri pi 11 Ism. 151 Page Packet Pg. 27 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A 9.A.1.b PL20190002292 I y a � I I flR iQL Jm dA7l�Yb f f €7 Apprwed SSA Flcwwav Aves S&A 2 654 S&A 3 6]_ e-PA 4 D K &O%A 5 13 Zih r 4A &%A 8 1,621. Subtotal! `J,20 $&I if 0 �.v..9 SM TT f mi -SM TF f 7d6 zwl Kr 412J& SM Tj% T.1w2 Jf 4�;v»c 5liin ay SM T-5 2.110 _ ��•.,,.ri.,.,..-..: Sal Td ],]4 r• M L m la•c 5r ,M*Aw [arm Ubffimf jo,ar-P +aw,. Tat for �rrpFo-vftgw-N-M due b rammv % l u I FLOWWAY OYELVIETi'4 IliAF 1A o i � h r� COLLIER RLSA = P=YP YF AX REVIEW Q 161 Page Packet Pg. 28 9.A.1.b CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 4+ — f f Appry 1 aror�v .�e.0 pgf� �ini+�Rid�� MLYr Pr „L %W Mg I� 03 M l 11MCr�NLL�:IF1j 16Nr JrudLi F0.w i�d� wig as HABITAT OVERVIEW : MAP 1B n5 G i 3 N 'i CqaLLIER 3LM3A = rivr -'L:1R Arvirw red SSp Hah1131 �.CfeS SSA : 31 SSA 3 $E� SSA � 1 Gib $U 1 �S Fe. �:�7 S5t4'f 22T{]Z �vp +J SSA l�'1 � YT'L}� � Ji14�lO ��.J� Totsl.�cree 9, 986 171Page Packet Pg. 29 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A 9.A.1.b PL20190002292 4—L�Nlzl am NI �I cwd 3�4 I Water 9RerWr Ames I rar �Ur�tWall 44 'Z*I SSA •t ski �0 ' '4aA '2 0 / sG.hl.wo-o,.ri Wh'M5i�•Rrarim £_Ji 74 ! !Cjh Ram %wu %Wr BdITkF SSA y5 1209 4nl sd she d1b+a10_zd� vc',r1.5 5��'Rfaf �_l' i�+7 C1 ✓11Y &DiD nv:2 aW4 Total Aare U7B "U, iq of error SA ;D ravorq ry 'WATER RETENTION OVERVIEW: MAP 1C ry ",• C7ILI=Iti R75A _ I'[vL YZAS RI;YIu;Y a 181 Page Packet Pg. 30 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A 9.A.1.b PL20190002292 r r� (�l L4,4ppmad •.Vhh �`pn Laia -:F-P—•i YC Op- Laid mo-raa a.r_•,l a �.. OW L... Grim ]ILJuJ SeA -DAiI .i 1 FlRgwwMinnZarbActs 88b 1 88d ; 88f 3 8gAi 8'26 5 27 aeA } a fa.'HE 2.59' F,an& 4 8Sw W 5 SEA i' 99 8!14 rig % .SSA f2 260 .SSA 14 . SM 1.5 M4 ,f s rl �f 1 # -A?1 Au" 8,097 OPEN LAND OVERVIEW. MAP II) ram. COLLIER RLSA : FIVE Y12AR REVIEW r a 191 Page Packet Pg. 31 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A 9.A.1.b PL20190002292 111111 / L� s k� r Y L aV'1 _ nLM ��FGF u. �1 I ul 4 An- 1 — f arL VhML .r F I art 0L5} ll Emd �I VI !A L03MEM —a Wh W17 ra Rad Luc:5- add* Aw 6ai ar+ Rawab 'SbNI ktk 1% mk f LIYir k4wkkr 'kwul d* km LAND DESIGNATION DIVERVIEW : MAT 1E �6 0 1 3 N Mi" COLLIER RLSA = FIVE YEAR .REVIEW G[sQ�lFN�FI��'•9�� ®IIIIIIIII �?4'Z.�T71TR2'TIT7r^.TdLT�G7F �'7�!' $iL RFT.'rrJ• :JILT Q 201Page Packet Pg. 32 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A 9.A.1.b PL20190002292 CI i r ?s crrrg a,3 r Luu `• L r-L-r---1a CONSLRV----MONLANDSOVERVM-% :,NfAF LF �+� COLLIER RLSA _ FIFE YEAR- REVIllEW r a 211 Page Packet Pg. 33 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A 9.A.1.b PL20190002292 -- __ 11 FND ICF ML41Ti l l.L- FC Cf1G34 4B �� iE 1 I h ,7ri^rt5 t • 27L' 441111• SY RLLJP III I I II 4 c �• Lcc rul: Cj_3 SIJ..c,'t71S. 61 so SIl. P,t w �$'i p7 i4J L3'A IZI—� SRA LOCATIONS MAP 2 MI �� COLLIER RKSA = FYVF YEAR REVIYW }I Q 221 Page Packet Pg. 34 CCPC Transmittal Hearing I —.. L4. — Staff Report Attachment A ! -ND2YCOFiV7T 47 y8A _ ttt8.= Jrey�k n r2.41 :BL.9 Creel r %A .2ag.6 vrptll4c SEA 3 26 626.1 vre]Ik SM8 S i'{ 1 8 •_ re,11LG 9.A.1.b PL20190002292 aap � a�a� •=�dnc �A S I : -red �fIL' ALL LP 1 �l AM !;u CD PWIU lwq 5WMU!MMJAM ff=r-Mj WCW �7a�r�F� P.•w :�i Ylrwrbl�.4�L SSA CREDIT ASSIGNMEItiTS ; MAP 3 o � 3 raL COLLIER RLSA = FIVE YEAR -REVIEW a 231 Page Packet Pg. 35 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A 9.A.1.b PL20190002292 _ z-0k reer:ho-rMlt�.��ec it 01-6 358.= P.�GI �• SSA 17_• 83p 9 1 : ]' : =.FrlfirtJk on +saris Pe�6alailan �Dx+G - %� .. F 661 3 wai ton AaraG r SS63 Racmraion Aare& n- 14 IL+o r a:�•a 2SA4 i1 ISA� :8 # Re�l-ora on Rarer: dy �iJJP ,y—� Q 7rf.i9 219p.B Rstarailor Aare; nukn n rrr ISM 1,219 Rworat of Aare LEGEND Pencing Gad �D FUIra1 Jere S-IMWOS� a Area EMrrdary FlorkA� Sxatiara7a.kma n in•r Fe�rllted'�k�Y �cxrllon.lrce SSA RESTORATION A CRIES: M AP 3A N COLLIER RLSA = FIVE YEAR REVIEW Q 241 Page Packet Pg. 36 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A 9.A.1.b PL20190002292 J i • ! * -� a � _'- ti 1 r •lam • IF (1 { . j ". w �L• }} • { L gyp}, 1 �yVlj��p�T J• 1 ,I 6V`'Ir ir Lake P 1 G + 1..-71 ice, L J� .J.� r, � � - III � '•�.• �••_ • - - 11i} A. L. . i . •- ':ram-= "': �F,• �. '.r��i � ,F ' X F ,� rF � ri T• . 1 � I I Lar-d Uae Cho ige r' 'f l'}J�11 ��[.I �YJ1�I.M.iYI e_. ••� r ry 1}'ja L:lu-j� hlu {�lIIT Q 251 Page Packet Pg. 37 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A 9.A.1.b PL20190002292 J J r rt 1 i �Ic ran ,_ � Haul L■-y sl.wr�rio-,U.. y�vr �y _4n r F■ty i Y ns jP01"I o w U-m --' '-- I I'dLft nw Lrcpi s�rrp 00.2 LANDUS E MAP 4 bi N w■CO- .LIER ALSA = FIVE YEAR R'-YIEW Q 261 Page Packet Pg. 38 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A 9.A.1.b PL20190002292 m I LJ ____1 d 1 7 I W. L ■ a ■ M D <D K.M Lard Sl-.1W VAwa Ul 1J..P 1W 6r11 iy I'rll: _rirb C-40 • Fa Lrw hEL V2hMx V4ilYntr �• Iwr_ih x1lushry y M— V- 5ar LI} -'f Aij bo Hon AU 4w _LTf1r Yrl�]I�I,�f{�d 40 LYa-r re. A :200" LAIC DI S E ; MAP 4B COLLIER RLSA : FIFE YEAR REVIEW a 271 Page Packet Pg. 39 9.A.1.b CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 AVE 1 [ RIA 2002 L D ZTSE :Ai_4P 4C 281 Page Packet Pg. 40 ABjJanp LojV diyspiemalg spue-1 laanU UZZ0006WIld MU) I aseyd MIDIAGH JA-9 V JjV :juaWyae;;ly Q a7 Q; a T 46 6 T 47 3 T 46 3 T 41 S T 6U S T 51 6 T 52 6 T 53 S o N: In a j cz ❑■®❑gym❑. I'SW0 ®I y t� aa�■ a sa I gW ❑�0 ■■R I ps ■NEi� M❑ ■❑■ le gi€ „s jell, 1i €hp c as i1� 4 hw� mesa 9e 3 gE �� H�4 Wa � g�fY3 � m €ag° 99:k v`e. € ❑(�f2a �€ ■■■W000■❑mL c_E.. vgn � a S^C_ g SF ' p� 3 � & m" ga m5 mo q OF B3 8a w a�a� -.a B Ba as �z a A1Nf1�� .a'�MOYfB "i IWVDi 291 Page 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 Co e- �ouH-ty January 6, 2009 The Honorable Tom Henning, Chairman and Members Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 Dear Chairman Henning and Commissioners: In February 2008, the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee (the "RLSA Committee"), of which I am privileged to serve as Chairman, transmitted out the Phase I Technical Review (the "Phase I Report") to the Board of County Commissioners. The Phase I Report contained a quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (the "RLSA Overlay") in meeting its prescribed goal of protecting natural resources, retaining valuable agriculture and promoting compact rural mixed use development through an incentive based land use system on approximately 195,000 acres in eastern Collier County. The Phase I Report concluded that significant progress had been made in achieving the RLSA Overlay goal and validated the extraordinary recognition the program has received in garnering awards from the following organizations during the first years of its existence: • 1000 Friends of Florida, Better Community Award, 2005 • FICE, Engineering Excellence Awards, Honorable Mention, 2004 • Economic Development Council of Collier County, Innovation Awards, 2003 • Sustainable Florida Council, Award -Winning Best Practices, 2003 • American Planning Association, Florida Chapter, Awards of Excellence, 2003 The Phase I Report also provided the foundation for the RLSA Committee's Phase II qualitative evaluation of ways in which the RLSA Overlay Growth Management Plan Policies could be improved to more effectively implement the program's overriding Goals and Objectives and achieve the RLSA Committee's Project Management Plan mandate to consider "potential opportunities and amendments to the Growth Management Plan". As a result of exhaustive public input and expert testimony, the RLSA Committee unanimously approved the following proposed amendment to the Goal for the RLSA Overlay: "Collier County's goal is to retain land for agricultural activities, to direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat, to protect and restore habitat connectivity, to enable the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations, to discourage urban sprawl, and to encourage development that employs creative land use techniques through the use of established incentives." Packet Pg. 42 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 The Honorable Tom Henning, Chairman and Members January 5, 2009 Page 2 As the RLSA Committee considered this reconstituted Goal in the context of existing Growth Management Plan ("GMP") Policies, the Committee developed strategies to create incentives to encourage rural landowners to voluntarily agree to: • eliminate their right to convert agricultural land to non agricultural uses in exchange for compensation; • retain agriculture within Open Lands as an alternative to conversion of such lands using Baseline Standards (and thereby reduce the size of the "development footprint" and the threat of urban sprawl in the RLSA Overlay); • create, restore and enhance panther corridor connections; • restore flow ways and habitat through a credit generating system that considers cost, difficulty and benefit value of each restoration type through a newly adopted tiered system; • impose a cap of 45,000 SRA acres in the RLSA Overlay and recalibrate the credit system to ensure the balance essential to the sustainability of a voluntary incentive based program which generates significant public benefits without incurring public expenditures; and • cooperate with Collier County in its creation of a plan for a county transportation network that meets the adopted Level of Service through build out of the county and considers the location of public services needed to accommodate the build out population. The RLSA Committee also engaged the public and various interest groups in a rigorous assessment of each and every RLSA Overlay policy to ensure internal consistency, thoughtful precision and careful scrutiny of the data, analysis and justification for each of the proposed Policy amendments. The work product of the RLSA Committee for its Phase II Report therefore actually consists of proposed GMP Policy amendments. Further, after intensive discussion, we concluded that the public proceedings embodied twenty three [23] public meetings and thousands of man hours of work expended by scores of interested parties should be appropriately recognized. The RLSA Committee's Five Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program incorporates two volumes. Volume I incorporates both the earlier Phase I Report and the Phase II Report. Volume I of the Report is organized and respectfully submitted in the following sections: Packet Pg. 43 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 The Honorable Tom Henning, Chairman and Members January 6, 2009 Page 3 • Phase I Report previously delivered to you as the basis for our qualitative evaluation of ways to more effectively implement the RLSA Goal and Objectives. • Phase 2 Report, Section 1 contains the RLSA Committee's recommended substantive policy amendments. • Phase 2 Re ort, Section 2 contains all of the RLSA Committee's recommended policy amendments, whether substantive or insubstantial. • Phase 2 Report, Section 3 contains the supporting documentation for the amendments. • Phase 2 Report, Section 4 provides an account of public participation and comments, committee deliberations, and committee action. • Phase 2 Report, Section 5 contains the RLSA Committee's recommended new Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element of the GMP based on a proposal for a county transportation network initiated by Collier County Transportation Planning Director Nick Casalanguida. In summary, based upon the adopted RLSA Overlay and the RLSA Committee's recommended policies as contained in Volume I of the Five Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program, the RLSA will: 1. Achieve a balance of natural resource protection, agriculture and sustainable community development at the planning horizon year and at build -out. 2. Provide new and meaningful economic incentives for agriculture to remain as a viable component of the economy of Collier County. 3. Increase the total area of lands expected to be placed into Stewardship Sending Areas from 92,000 acres to 134,300 acres. 4. Enable protection and restoration of critical natural resources on private land using incentives that do not require public dollars for acquisition or management. 5. Align the RLSA program with the Florida Panther Protection Program's objectives. 6. Establish a maximum SRA development footprint of 45,000 acres -less than 114 of the total RLSA; or 15% when open space within new communities is accounted for. 7. Reduce the potential for conversion of open lands to non-RLSA baseline development, thereby reducing urban sprawl. 8. Accommodate forecasted population growth in a substantial manner and ensure that supporting public facilities, services, and infrastructure are provided. 9. Create new opportunities to site economic development driven new businesses in proximity to places for employees to live. 10. Accommodate a long range interconnected transportation network plan that serves Eastern Collier County. Packet Pg. 44 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 The Honorable Tom Henning, Chairman and Members January 6, 2009 Page 4 Volume II of the Five Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program includes all support infonnation including major documents, presentations, minutes, etc. considered by the Committee during the course of its twenty three [23] public meetings. Finally, immediately following this transmittal letter is an overview of the RLSA Supporting Documentation [see Phase 2 Report, Section 3] which was presented to the Committee. Given that the RLSA Committee's work effort has resulted in specific recommended policy amendments to improve the RLSA program, and in keeping with the Board's vote to expedite the review process, the RLSA Committee recommends and respectfully requests that the Board of County Commissioners initiate a special cycle for Growth Management Plan RLSA Overlay amendments to consider the recommendations found within the Phase II Report. We appreciate the opportunity to serve the Board of County Commissioners and stand ready to proceed in whatever way you believe best serves the people of Collier County. DM l it Chairman, Rural Lands Stewardship Review Committee County Manager James V. Mudd Packet Pg. 45 Aelaanp eeiV dlyspiema;g spue-1 lean{ Z6ZZ0006WZ-ld Zb9£6) II aseyd MOIAGI{ JA-9 13 jjV :juauayaejjv LM I _ C O (L I_ N%...• •L ♦••� ._ 3 O L. m Co Lo O �� _ � ._ _ _ cz t CL O •" i N Lo v .�.+ N 0 � N CD y C Nsm a..� 4)Lg o Ns � r. N 3 O O 4— O 0 V L �^ �✓ V .d+ 0 L d GA N > •L L Q) N ._ J C (D s d =N N N- E P .1-: N •N Q N � E cr) sz g CL �t O d L V Q cn � s I— Ca O L d• Q N -� LO o CV C co LM Q J D D D D ABIJOnp eajV dlyspiema;g spue-1 lean{ Z6ZZ0006WZ-ld Zb9£6) II aseyd MOIAGI{ JA-9 13 jjV :juauayaejjv Q A L it 0 •� � {U �LV Cl. M CL r. m V O •- s.. O q� RS E i LL L� E=Rt vs p C� `'- L O RS Os � O N aiimmommm a G U 0 O C0,1 •�-' '_dw O—Cl) i� E •1■+ L •1•� y L tm a. _ O O O w it 0. _ co Oy L 'a v � cn 0 . J N O L Q J *00 0 _ d os o I— 0 CL F-- sZ a I. ABIJOnp eajV dlyspiema;g spue-1 lean{ Z6ZZ0006WZ-ld Zti9U) II aseyd MOIAGI{ JA-9 13 jjV :juauayaejjv Q 0 co N rL� V 0 CD 0 000 CO Imo- to Cc N r � M U) c V 60 m -v o 'a _ MU E TUJU v a) cu o N co p wmcrwF— U) Qi Q Q Q co, CDM 0 co M co d' m U co .2 L Co cn N � � L V � � U LU 00 < n � a� � u � CO E Q N � � ucnCL y L Q C: O t— N U ` o < Q Q (D 0 0 0 CL p O O F. � �t7 06 M cv CV 'd' -0 N O U C co C •C N V} p) L o C .�. cn L J =3 m CL •N J C : C 0) fn c co;`c �0 c 0 CL 0 � Vasa•— L °-0 cU<t �cncM`—"D o- o<tzF°� U o ''' -c m Q ABIJOAO eajV dlyspiema;g spue-1 lean{ Z6ZZ0006WZ-ld : Zti9U) II aseyd MOIAGI{ JA-9 13 IIV :Iuauayaelly Q O� U d E N O QU 0 a U N Ucn N O =p Q U � o U N d U U 0 cv U Q U r ^U N O *.# N<C 00 0Co0 N m c� uccN C: W vn 0) �'�n'in v c c •� Cl Cl �t00 O O 0 N r O 7 CO M c O O N o p E< � � 0 W � � 0 cn L O m nor o O cn QW IV L L E � Cal � �¢w c� C ABIJOAO eajV dlyspiema;g spue-1 lean{ Z6ZZ0006WZ-ld Zb9£6) II aseyd MOIAGI{ JA-9 13 jjV :juauayaejjv Q O� 00000 00000 0 0 0 0 0 00 O d' O m N N d' 00 N r T- O t^^n'' N a N L � co cr�o-�vo N O N N M N C N N N fY� z cn �O O �.yw N (� ,.. L U ,-- to CO y ENS=�u�U � c a) o Ca O Co U U -v .� ) 0 U (D U W N ,A W a)>, Q U � mmmwtmm R WmWCL.Ca- N U N (D O M i} U c� ca 00 N "Z3 : F'' � O m cu 9� cu Vl N c 4 N L M V t o °) c M 4.0 V} CL H fJ 0 N N►. 0 0 to O! D_ r Y V fC d r Q ABIJOnp eajV dlyspiema;g spue-1 lean{ Z6ZZ0006WZ-ld Zb9£6) II aseyd MOIAGI{ JA-9 13 jjV :juauayaejjv Q ai 0 rQ� 1d i J U U) O N O •X 4- a N O LO E co O o s O (U Q _ O c -� a- . � Q = cu _ E o .(n N � L O O cr LO O - O 4- -C N CL O 0 4— O U � O > a Rf tU O Z3m ' X Q) 0 Lo I0 (� cu � .D r C N LO O! d a+ d Y V R d ABIJOnp eajV dlyspiema;g spue-1 lean{ UZZ0006WUld Zb9£6) II aseyd MOIAGI{ JA-9 13 jjV :juauayaejjv Q W CL ., O � � O p N-0 Co U) 3 O-p L N N -� `E O V1 Q.-Q O a U) a)W E a)4-a (u � > 0 C co L a-- (n 0 ��; oN 0 oCa 2 � � O �. s� � cu Co C N o 0 N o o� � - Q M '2 0 cu N L C.� cd U q) S o o E Q L N a) L-0 co a)o C CL .(n 4-0 N N a)N • U cu a s a) c Co > �- a `NN w a) >- —vza)n c!) qj a) m LN � ) `O�O •M 2 3 o o= o O `� RS .cn p O IL a) C7 N 7, � N a) o c� 0 �c a) a) o 0 U I— 0< Q I— L I— c ca U cu M LO CL r Y V fC d ABIJOnp eajV dlyspiema;g spue-1 lean{ Z6ZZ0006WZ-ld Zti9U) II aseyd MOIAGI{ JA-9 13 jjV :juauayaejjv Q - - 0 � ctii ., C 0 fn > 0 o co � Q � Co o -a L LL � J � N � (U U -O «3 E�EE CA o co a) 4-0 Ua a) L C N 0 N �O '� � U) N M U N N a)c � vi U 'i 0 �=3 o E cl) LO N a LO 0 (U CL oN co q} o �mQL Q �. C. o c� :3 0 0 U cc ''N < O O .N o 0 ca U) cLn aC 0 �CO 00 U co co a M co m 2� m� CL 2 2 v LO a m a ABIJOnp eajV dlyspiema;g spue-1 lean{ Z6ZZ0006WZ-ld Zb9£6) II aseyd MOIAGI{ JA-9 13 jjV :juauayaejjv LO oCL o c) . o N o o ?, ° a) o N o ��C cQ >►-0 >,(CU c E u-) L� U �+ N 0 •co (n O O _ O `'_ `�' O ° E O �+- C {6 �- � +� •U o© boo ��,° 'off° cu a) -o� a�� m CU a CU � o °"moo '�> �� : c s�. o a L ca o as as ) E o ° cc .. NcuO Z3 V C °o_ om CL0=° 4-otO >`oECco o NN cn00 s- >0)� .0 o acu o >C�C� NQc a coa � �. � c� > M ° vi 0 a)-a2 co . .� (� N -0 -a -v C) -0 c!) o. -O LO N O C) C U) O N N ° O O p O N O E O i— N 'C3 N P.- Q) �'�,' E N L O LO -� CU O O O O -� U N N — N I-- > .r- i— I— E U I— CU -0 1- LO to t+ Y V R d ABIJOnp eajV dlyspiema;g spue-1 lean{ Z6ZZ0006WZ-ld : Zti9U) II aseyd MOIAGI{ JA-9 13 jjV :juauayaejjv C N �+.. a) a) � N Cc:E O cn C en 0 O cuco -a o ca ( � 72 u� •'S 00 co -0 4} O CL U •�- O a) � N O � E Q L U Q +. a) N LOl > ca •� — O O O U� �� `� O c � U- RS (� , cA Co Q3 Q (n C a) " <C a) 4) � U 'S O c U) > cn M •��o � bo o O � CO C� a � L CUMO-U CO CU c a) � .� o. 3 U c L L cn fi7 co O }, O U 3 LO cu cu '= U Ocn GL N a) *, U ca �'` W L- a) U) U) O.oJ a)•0 Om O U N () a) ..0 � N O• N -p Q CDN 7D co O M O N L >' Occ LO OQ�_CU N U N cn a) �� 1- 9cCL �Q� �—JC: —W o� �-- ° 0 u(D vm QO v� CD LO 6 a m a ABIJGnp eajV dlyspiema;g spue-1 lean{ Z6ZZ0006WZ-ld Zti9U) II aseyd MOIAGI{ JA-9 13 jjV :juauayaejjv Q cn L 4-A 0 .� N � •` Al 0 IE L^` -� W c E .L 0 < +( IIn CL W cOn N iY J of co J O UJ O J C/) N J O M N N od -E O W %` c6 O N Co =3 L Ir 2cr L .L •M a fu O OW �� .C: O �� C6 J .� Q} W c cr LU I-- cP cn cu � O cn I` 0 c m � E 5 O U o Q o L (a Lam- L Q Ln Z3 0 a)CO co a) 0 � �� N J L O CC7 N p N Crl < of <C U- N- U N <C <C D O 11 O D D Aelaanp eajV dlyspiema;g spue-1 lean{ UZZ0006WUld Zti9U) II aseyd MOIAGI{ JA-9 13 jjV :juauayaejjv Q W mm �V N ,� N U) co 0 ,� < o co cu � o � a) E Ui o a) N : co > L _ o p 5 •L a Q o ca � -a o J .N N cc a) coU" Q N<� 0 Q C U) 4-0 • U <t70 0-e o U cn o z3 �: , N o j CD in -0 <t 72 -aI---;M LL 0 o o Cl) v N N •o c CU Cn ❑ ❑ W ~ �¢- CL W co LO r Y V fC d r Q O� ABIJOnp eajV dlyspiema;g spue-1 lean{ Z6ZZ0006WZ-ld : Zti9£6) II aseyd MOIAGI{ JA-9 13 IIV :Iuauayaelly Q 0 �+ CL CL � O . � o U I o ui CQ C � U N 0 LL' o -� C O o ca C CU -v_ o Q c O o � O m `t cu O O Q 0 � 00 0 0 0 z O co N CU 0 o 0 0 � O U U CL z U 0 c D O O D 0 Cb CL r Y V fC d ABIJOn0 eajV dlyspiema;g spue-1 lean{ Z6ZZ0006WZ-ld Zti9U) II aseyd MOIAGI{ JA-9 13 jjV :juauayaejjv Q ■C O L .0 M 03 >, C O O cu a) C 3 N () O U— O O s` O w V) •L-C "_ -vimCO 0 C CD 4- U o C 'c 0 0 a o a O cn .� U c E -0 c c A N O O �O O C.) .=o -vim �� _ ocu :! U Q} U O U O L O O +, U C ' Q O Q.CV O _O +� X O Z3 LL O N .O 2 N N cn ++ +, CL O N � tZ cv 0 cu -� o o (� `Q 0 O O NL O cD L E o c� c c�� °? .Q cu cu CL U � fA O cu •�O 0 U •� U .per �= �� aaN Quo �cn a� E N ,.,,, '�, .� NL 3 Co •� c O cr CD 2 < a- O !� W W a cu Q 11 ABIJOn0 eajV dlyspiema;g spue-1 lean{ Z6ZZ0006WZ-ld : Zti9U) II aseyd MOIAGI{ JA-9 13 jjV :juauayaejjv Q ■= L CD N Q (c C O 3 > c M Q O UO O ?i- C C C O (D C6 O O_ tn _ 'C _ C C' C� O .0 O N C .CL O C N �y oas �o =� �o _0 O� �, .� E U O C C O Q Q•l- C= OC13 O 0 C D O L O Z7 +� U `� V O O •N ctS .0 O cn L U J4) > Q q� >, -C .� v 1 d �.�J%O 0 0-0)L� O a .�O N N L q�j C O C V a '> 0 v E o v o t Nasrs .�EQ � E x O nCo -�0 a) N O ON OO CoO cu O co Q O .a � pQ C +) O 0 co .F.r C i.-• a V N N O CO Q? .E S OE O cn cUa)00V w 0 W.C mQ a N to 6 a m Y V fC d 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 TABLE OF CONTENTS [Volume 11 PHASE I REPORT [review of activities within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area during its first years of existence... completed in February, 2008] PHASE II REPORT [review and recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay] Section 1: Major Committee -recommended revisions to improve the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay • Preface to Committee Recommendations • Group 1 Policies • Group 2 Policies • Group 3 Policies • Group 4 Policies • Group 5 Policies Section 2: All Committee -recommended revisions to the improve the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay • Stewardship Area Overlay Map • Attachment A -Existing Credit Worksheet • Recommended amendment to Attachment A- Credit Worksheet • Recommended amendment to Attachment B-Land Use Layers • Attachment C-SRA Characteristics [final approved] • Attachment C-SRA Characteristics [proposed amendment] Section 3: Supporting Documentation • Preface and Introduction to Section 3 • Collier County Rural Stewardship Five Year Review Supporting Documentation for Amendments Section 4: Public Participation and Comments, Committee Deliberations and Committee actions • Preface to Section 4 • Group 1 Policies • Group 2 Policies • Group 3 Policies • Group 4 Policies • Group 5 Policies Section 5: Committee -recommended new Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element of the GMP [related to proposed amended Policy 4.5 of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay] PAGE 1-29 30 30 30 30-33 33-34 34-35 35-40 40-44 45-67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 74 74-92 93 93-94 94-112 112-119 119-133 133-156 156-165 166 Packet Pg. 63 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 PHASE U REPORT "REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE a RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY" a PREPARED BY THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE CREATED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH RESOLUTION 2007-305A SECTION I VOMMITTEE-RECOMMENDED SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENTS REVISIOM TO THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY Preface This Section of the Report summarizes the Committee's recommended RLSA Overlay amendments recognized as substantive in improving the RLSA program. These substantive amendments provide for greater incentives to protect agriculture land, refine the Stewardship Credits assigned to restoration activities with greater emphasis on new panther corridors, will set a cap on the amount of Stewardship Receiving Area development, and revises some of the Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics. Following this Section, Section 2 provides the full RLSA Overlay Program as evaluated and recommended. The RLSA Overlay Recommended Substantive Amendments Group Ipolicies set forth the general purpose and structure of the RLSA Overlay. The Committee evaluated the incentive based purpose of the RLSA and the structure of SSAs, SRAs and the Stewardship Credit system. Evaluating all policies under Group and hearing from stakeholders the Committee recommends a new policy to further rune the structure and process of designating a SSA, and added emphasizes on the Stewardship Credit system as the primary basis for permanent protection of agricultural lands. The Committee recommends a refinement to the Goal to further clarify the intent of the RLSA in using incentives to retain land for agriculture actives and protect and restore habitat connectivity. Goal (recommended amendment) Collier County seeks to address the long-term needs of residents and property owners within the Immokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment. Collier County's goal is to preteet retain land for agricultural activities, uses to direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat, to protect and restore habitat connectivity, to enable the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations, to discourage urban sprawl, and to encourage development that des employs creative land use planning techniques and through the use of established incentives. 301Page Packet Pg. 64 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Policy 1.6 (recommended amendment) Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within the RLSA that are to be kept in permanent agriculture, open space or conservation uses. These lands will be identified as Stewardship Sending Areas or SSAs. All privately owned lands within the RLSA are a candidate for designation as a SSA. Land becomes designated as a SSA upon petition by the property owner seeking such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC), which acknowledges the property owner's request for such designation and assigns Stewardship Credits or other compensation to the owner for such designation. Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved SSA. Designation as an SSA shall be administrative and shall not require an amendment to the Growth Management Plan, but shall be retroactively incorporated into the adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment process when it periodically occurs. A Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall be developed that identifies those allowable residential densities and other Iand uses which remain. Once land is designated as a SSA and Credits or other compensation is granted to the owner, no increase in density or additional uses unspecified in the Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall be allowed on such property unless the SSA is terminated as provided elsewhere herein. Policy 1.6_1 (recommended new policy) Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, upon initial approval of a Stewardship Sending Area ("SSA"),_the Stewardship Easement shall be established for a term of five years "Conditional Period") and shall be deemed a Conditional Stewardship Easement. The Conditional Period may be extended for one additional 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 ro ert 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_ pen2etual 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 J ("SRA"). and the SRA has received all necessary final and non -appealable development orders permits or a other discretionary approvals necessary to commence construction, including subdivision flat and site cq development elan approval, but not building hermits. If Stewardship Credits from the SSA have been assigned w 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-, 0 M s 2. The owner of the SSA lands has sold or transferred any Stewardship Credits to another.2erson or entity, a including a Stewardship Credit Trust as described in Policy 1.20 the closing has occurred and the owner has .2 m received the consideration due from such sale or transfer, but not expressly excluding_ L (a) a sale or transfer of the Stewardship Credits ancillary to the sale or transfer of the underlying fee title to theLO land, or m w Q (b) instances where a landowner establishes an SSA for a specific SRA. whether the SRA is owned or developed bX a separate or related entity, and the Stewardship Credits are transferred as required by the Growth Management E Plan or Land Development Code for SRA approval or E 3. The owner_ of the SSA lands has received in exchange for the creation of the Stewardship Easement Agreement a other compensation from local, state, federal or private revenues (collectively, the "Events" 311 Page Packet Pg. 65 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 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 N 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 g2peal of a necessary development order,permit or other discretionM 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 orgRpeal record a Notice of Termination. Upon the recording of such Notice of Termination the Stewardship Easement A eement and corres ondin 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 cogy 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 aLiy 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 u date the overlay ma.R to reflect the termination of aLay SSA or SRA. This policy shall be implemented in the LDC within 12 months after adoption hereof. a� Policy 1.7 (recommended amendment) s a 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 a_ County Land Development Code (LDC). Such procedures shall include but ne not be limited to the following: (1) :r, All Credit transfers shall be recorded with the Collier County Clerk of Courts; (2) a covenant or perpetual m 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, Depai4...ew of Envir-enmew al Pfete tiefl, Q w st.,tewide land `mst; and (3) for each SSA, the Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement will identify the Q specific land management measures that will be undertaken and the party responsible for such measures. �a r 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 321Page Packet Pg. 66 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 bonus to encourage the voluntary establishment of SSAs within the RLSA. The bonus shall be in the form of an additional one Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as a HSA located outside of the ACSC and one-half Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as HSA located inside the ACSC. The early entry bonus shall be available for five years from the effective date of the adoption of the Stewardship Credit System in the LDC. The early designation of SSAs, and resulting protection of flowways, habitats, and Water retention areas does not require the establishment of SRAs or otherwise require the early use of Credits, and Credits generated under the early entry bonus may be used after the termination of the bonus period. The maximum number of Credits that can be generated under the bonus is 27,000 Credits, and such Credits shall not be transferred into or used within the ACSC. Group 2 policies are intended to provide for the continued viability of agriculture. The Committee evaluated the policies in meeting the goal to protect agriculture land and heard from industry experts and agriculture interests The Committee determined that a few of the policies were no longer necessary, such as the establishment of an Agriculture Advisory Committee. However, the Committee felt strongly that greater attention should be placed on incentives for agriculture through the Credit system. To improve the ability to protect agriculture lands within the ALSA, the Committee recommends the following amendments to Group 2 policies. Group 2 - Policies to amd retain land for agricultural activities through the use of established incentives in order to continue the viability of agricultural production through the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. (recommended amendment) Policy 2.1 (recommended amendment) Agricultureal landowners will be provided with by rg-incentives that encourage the voluntary elimination of the property owner's right to convert agriculture land to non-agricultural uses in exchange for compensation as described in Policyies 1.4 and 2.2 and by the establishment of SRAs. as the c Fm of eempaet PdFal-develepment in the RLSAva —lay. A,elysi.,has shown that SRA9 will allow the prejeeted pepulation of the RLSA in the Her-izeit year of 2025 to b land effieiew eempaet mral de-velopmem will niini"ze twe ef the prifnefy market fooers that eemse pr-efnatu 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 I.S. 012en Lands are 41---- 1...-..1- — A__J 00 A C41r% A TT rr1 A TTel A — A ___ ____t- t _ 1 ., — . . . . . Resource Index on land designated Open, these lands shall be assigned two (2.0) Stewardship Credits per acre outside of the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSA, , and two and sixth tenths (2_6)Credits per acre within the ACSC. All non -agriculture uses shall be removed and the remaining uses are limited to agEiculture Land Use Levels 5,_6 and 7 on the Land Use Matrix. Each laver is discreet and shall be removed sequentially and cumulatively in the order presented in the Matrix. If a layer is removed all uses and activities in that layer are eliminated and no longer available. Following approval of an Agricultural SSA, Collier County shall update the RLSA Zoning Overlay District MaR to delineate the boundaries of the Agricultural SSA. 331 Page Packet Pg. 67 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Pelie), 3.3 (recommended deletion) Within ene (1) year- fi;om the effeetive date ef these ameadffteFAs, Collier Ceenty will establish an Agrieultuf Advisefy Cettfteil eemprised ef net less than five aer- mere than nine ftppeifited FePr-eSePAa6N'eS of the agFieukthr-e bafr-ieFS ift C-ellier- Geunt . The AAG will alga assess whether- exeeptiens from taniddat;djs _ to agrieuktife should be allowed under- an adffti�stfative pen*kif pr-eeess and make reeemmendatiefis to the BC-G. Policy2.4(recommended deletion) The BC-G will eensider- the Y-eeewAnendatietls of the AAG and faeiliteAe the implementation ef strategies and r-eeammendatiens idenfified by the ACC thM are deteFmined to be Vprepfiate. The BGC- may adept amendment Group 3 policies address the protection of the natural water regime as well as listed species and their habitat. Following the evaluation of all the policies and input received from county environmental staff and wildlife interests and others, the Committee's major revision under this Group of policies focused on the further definition and credit assignment to restoration activates, and the clarification of the use of the Water Retention Areas for the support of water management. Policy 3.11(recommended amendment) 1. In certain locations there may be the opportunity for flow -way or habitat restoration. Examples include, but are N not limited to, locations where flow -ways have been constricted or otherwise impeded by past activities, or where c additional land is needed to enhance wildlife corridors. Priority shall be given to restoration witNn the Camp c Keais Strand FSA of eentiguatis . Should a property owner be willing to dedicate land for restoration o activities within a FSA or HSA the -Camp —Keais Strand FSA er eentiguees HSAS, €eax two additional a Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated. Affi additional twe Stewards'-:- The actual "I implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive such credits and the costs of M 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 €eef additional Credits for each acre a, 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 a at 2 Credits per acre, or for exotic controllburning at 4 Credits per acres or for flow way restoration at 4 Credits per acre, or for native habitat restoration at 6 Credits per acre. Within the area proposed for restoration Land Use 3 Layers 1-6 must be removed The specific process for assignment of additional restoration Credits shall be w included in the Stewardship District of the LDC. >, m T 2. In certain locations, as generally illustrated in the RLSA Overlay Map there may be opportunities to create a restore, and enhance a northern panther corridor connection and a southernpanther corridor connection Should a M property owner be willing to dedicate land for the purpose of establishing and maintaining the northern or wE southern panther corridor, 2 additional Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated Should an owner also effectively complete the corridor restoration this shall be rewarded with 8 additional Credits per acre. a 3. In order to address a siarlificant loss in Southwest Florida of seasonal shallow wetland wading bird fora in habitat, restoration of these unique habitats will be incentivized in the RLSAO. Dedication of any area inside an FSA, HSA, or WRA for such seasonal wetland restoration shall be rewarded with 2 additional Credits per acre 341Page Packet Pg. 68 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Should the landowner successfully com lete the restoration and additional 6 Credits per acre shall be awarded. Only one tune of restoration shall be rewarded with these Credits for each acre designated for restoration This policy does not preclude other forms of compensation for restoration which may be addressed through public -private partnership agreement such as a developer contribution agreement or stewardship agreement between the parties involved. Also not precluded are various private and publicly funded restoration pro rgrams such as the federal Farm Bill conservation proMms. The specific process for assignment of additional restoration credits shall be included in the Stewardship District of the LDC. Policy 3.13 (recommended amendment) Water Retention Areas (WRAs) as generally depicted on the Overlay Map have been permitted for this purpose and will continue to function for surface water retention, detention, treatment and/or conveyance, in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permits applicable to each WRA. WRAs can also be permitted to provide such functions for new uses of land allowed within the Overlay. WRAs may be incorporated into a SRA master plan to provide water management functions for properties within such SRA, but are not required to be designated as a SRA in such instances. However, if the WRA provides water treatment and retention exclusively for a SRA the acreage of the WRA shall be included in the SRA. WRA boundaries are understood to be approximate and are subject to refinement in accordance with SFWMD permitting. Group 4 policies set forth the planning techniques and development characteristics to be utilized for Stewardship Receiving Areas. The Committee reviewed each technique and notably recommends a maximum total SRA development footprint of 45,000 acres Other recommended amendments include the elimination of Hamlets, and revisions to emphasize transportation mobility plaits and economic development. Group 4 recommended policy amendments are: Policy 4.2 (recommended amendment) All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible for designation as a SRA, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been designated as a Stewardship Sending Area. Land proposed for SRA designation shall meet the suitability criteria and other standards described in Group 4 Policies. Due to the long-term vision of the RLSA Overlay, extending to a horizon year of 2025, and in accordance with the guidelines established in Chapter 163.3177(11) F.S., the specific location, size and composition of each SRA cannot and need not be predetermined in the GMP. In the RLSA Overlay, lands that are eligible to be designated as SRAs generally have similar physical attributes as they consist predominately of 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 18,900 15000 acres within the ACSC. Total SRA designation shall be a maximum of 45,000 acres. . Because the Overlay requires SRAs to be compact, mixed -use and self sufficient in the provision of services, facilities and infrastructure, traditional locational standards normally applied to determine development suitability are not relevant or applicable to SRAs. Therefore the process for designating a SRA follows the ....:..eipler, of the R-wal La procedures set forth herein and the adopted RLSA Zoning Overlay District. Policy 4.3 (recommended amendment) Land becomes designated as a SRA upon petition by a property owner to Collier County seeking such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the BCC granting the designation. The petition shall include a SRA master plan as described in Policy 4.5. The basis for approval shall be a finding of consistency with the policies of the Overlay, including required suitability criteria set forth herein, compliance with the LDC Stewardship District, and assurance that the applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement the SRA uses. Wi4him ene year fiem the effeetive date ef this amendinent, Collier- Geui-Ay shall adept LDG ameadments to establish the pr-eeedtifes and submittal requiftmeRm, for- designatien as a SRA, to inelude previsieas fe 351Page Packet Pg. 69 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Policy 4.5 (recommended amendment) To address the specifics of each SRA, a master plan of each SRA will be prepared and submitted to Collier County as a part of the petition for designation as a SRA. The master plan will demonstrate that the SRA complies with all applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District and is designed so that incompatible land uses are directed away from wetlands and critical habitat identified as FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map. To the extent practicable._ the SRA Master Plan shall be consistent with the County's then -adopted Long Range Transportation Plan LRTP the County Build Out Vision Plan referenced in Policy 3.7 of the Future Transportation Element, and Access Management procedures. Each SRA master plan shall include a Management Plan with provisions for minimizing human and wildlife interactions. Low intensity land uses (e.g. parks, passive recreation areas, golf courses) and vegetation preservation requirements, including ag1iculture. 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 managementplans 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 opportunites for negative interaction such as approgriate waste disposal practices. Policy 4.6 SRA characteristics shall be based upon innovative planning and development strategies referenced in Chapter 163,3177 (11), F.S. and 9J-5.006(5)(1). These planning strategies and techniques include urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area -based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, and mixed -use development that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services. The SRA shall also include a mobility plan that includes consideration of vehicular, 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 trategies such as bus subsidies, route sponsorship or other incentives which encourage the use of mass transit services. The development of SRAs shall also consider the needs identified in the County Build Out Vision Plan and plan land uses to accommodate services that would increase internal capture, and reduce trip length and long distance travel. Such development strategies are recognized as methods of discouraging urban sprawl: ,encouraging alternative modes of transportation, increasing internal capture and reducing_ vehicle miles traveled. Policy 4.7 (recommended amendment) There are few three specific forms of SRA permitted within the Overlay. These are Towns, Villages, ems, and Compact Rural Development (CRD). The Characteristics of Towns, Villages, Hawilets, and CRD are set forth in Attachment C and are generally described in Policies 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3 and 4�4. r-,.r�GeurAy shall establish more s Specific regulations, guidelines and standards within the LDC Stewardship District t$ guide the design and development of SRAs to include innovative planning and development strategies as set forth in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. and OJ-5.006(5)(1). The size and base density of each form shall be consistent with the standards set forth on Attachment C. The maximum base residential density as set forth in Attachment C may only be exceeded through the density blending process as set forth in density and intensity blending provision of the Immokalee Area Master Plan or through the affordable -workforce housing density bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element. The base residential density is calculated by dividing the total number of residential units in a SRA by the overall area therein. The base residential density does not restrict net residential density of parcels within a SRA. The location, size and density of each SRA will be determined on an individual basis during the SRA designation review and approval process. 361 Page Packet Pg. 70 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 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. Town, 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 lesE than 4-,W 1.500 acres or more than 4,N@ 5,000 acres and are comprised of several villages and/or neighborhood: 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 pr-e-vided described in Policy 4.4-S 4.15.1. Towns may also include those compatible corporate office research develo ment cam anies and light industrial uses such as those permitted in the Business Park and Research and Technology Park Subdistricts of the FLUE, and those included in Policy 4.7.4. Towns shall be the preferred location for the full range of schools, and to the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located abutting each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities and as provided in Policies 4.15.2 and 4.15.3. Design criteria for Towns are shall be included in the LDC Stewardship District. Towns shall not be located within the ACSC. Policy 4.7.2 (recommended amendment) Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be not less than 100 acres or more than 1,000 acres inside the Area of Critical Concern and not more than 1,500 acres outside the Area of Critical Concern. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed -use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages shall include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15. Appropriately scaled uses described in Policy 4.7.4 shall also be permitted in Villages. Villages are an appropriate location for a full range of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located adjacent to each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. Design criteria for Villages shall be included in the LDC Stewardship District. Peliey 4:7.3—(recommended deletion) er-iewed serviees. HarMets shall be not less than 4 0 er mere than 100 aefes. Hantlets, will sefve as a mer-e eempaet altemative to traditional five aef:e let rafal subdivisions euffently allowed in the baseline standards. Hafrilets shall have a publie green spaee fer- neighbefheeds, HafrAets ineltide eewvenienee retail uses, in a r-atie as provided Town,te the approval of a Village er- , Town.GRPs of 100 aefes or- less, may be approved fer- eaeh subsequent Village or- Policy 4.7-.4 4.7.3 (recommended amendment) Compact Rural Development (CRD) is a form of SRA that shall support and further Collier County's valued attributes of a_ iiculture, natural resources and economic diversity. CRDs shall demonstrate a unique set of uses and support services necessary to further these attributes within the RLSA Primary CRD uses shall be those associated with and needed to support research, education tourism or recreation. Appropriately scaled compatible uses described in Policy 4.7.4 may also be permitted in CRDs. A CRD may 371Page Packet Pg. 71 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 include, but is not required to have permanent residential housing. and the sefvieL s and c eil t:es that suppeo pefmatient resident. The number of residential units shall be equivalent with the demand venerated by the primary CRD use but shall not exceed the maximum of two units Rer gross acre. A CRD shall be a maximum size of 100 acres. Emeept as deser-ibed above, a GRP will eea&rm te the -ehavaeteri sties ef a Village or- Hawk( as set feo en A4taehment G based en the size of the GR-D. As r-es:depttial units are net a fequir-ed t1se, these geeds and seFv'ees that suppei4 residents stieh as fetail, eWi I . . , — efmneataj and institutional kises shall also not b ,_Hs sen-iees listed abeve shall be pfevided in aeeefdanee with Attaekment G. To maintain a pfopertion ef GRDs e 100 aer-es ef less to Villages and Towns, not fner-e than 5 C—PrPs ef 100 aefes or less, itt eembinaiien with HawAets GRDs ef 100 aefes or less, in eembiftation with HaAets, maybe approved fer- eaek subsequent for- af*, GRD that does iftelude pefmanent residential housing, the There shall be no mer-e than 5 C—RDs of more than 100 aefes in size. The appfepriateness ef this liffli4taiineff—A&H be r-eviewed n C yeafs ptiFemant to Poo 1.22. Policy 4.7.4 (recommended new policy) Existing urban areas. Towns and Villages shall be the preferred location for business and industry within the _RLSA, to further promote economic development diversification and job creation. Permitted uses shall include, but not be limited to environmental research, agricultural research aviation and aerospace, health and life sciences, corporate headquarters, computer hardware software and services information technology, manufacturing, research & development wholesale trade & distribution,• technology commercialization and development initiatives, trade clusters, and similar uses. Policy 4.9 (recommended amendment) A SRA must contain sufficient suitable 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-��. To further direct development away from wetlands and critical habitat, residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within a SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. In addition, conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. Infrastructure necessary to serve permitted uses may be exempt from this restriction, provided that designs seek to minimize the extent of impacts to any such areas. The Index value of greater than 1.2 represents those areas that have a high natural resource value as measured pursuant to Policy 1.8. Less than 2% of potential SRA land achieves an Index score of greater than 1.2. Policy 4.14 (recommended amendment) The SRA must have either direct access to a Oounty 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 so as to reduce travel time and travel ex enses improve interconnectivity, increase internal capture, and keep the use of county arterial roads to a minimum when traveling between developments in the RLSA. Public and private roads within an SRA shall be maintained by the primary town or community it serves Signalized intersections within or adjacent to an SRA that serves the SRA shall be maintained by the primary a 381Page Packet Pg. 72 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 town or community iseerves. 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 Concurreney Managemen, 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 r uired to mitigate an SRA's traffic impacts, actions may be taken tc 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 proiect traffic on existing or proposed roadways that are anticipated to be expanded o2 constructed. Policy 4.18 (recommended amendment) The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon yeas based on a cost/benefit fiscal impact analysis model acceptable to or as may be adopted by the County. The BCC may grant exceptions to this policy to accommodate affordable -workforce housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the analysis shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards. It is recognized that SRA development in the RLSA may generate surplus revenues to Collier County and Collier County may choose to allocate a l2ortion of such s lus revenues to ensure that sufficient resources are available to allow Collier Count,, t�pond expeditiously to economic opportunities and to compete effectively for high - value research development and commercialization innovation and alternative and renewable energy business projects. Policy 4.19 (recommended amendment) Eight Credits shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA, where such Credits were created from a Stewardship Sending Area deemed vested under the eight Credit ratio. Ten Credits per acre shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA, where such Credits were created from any other Stewardship Sending Area. exeeptfor e- 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 449 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, 44 3 4.15.1 and Attachment C. Such uses shall be identified, located and quantified in the SRA master plan. Policy 4.20 (recommended amendment) The acreage of a public benefit use shall net count toward the maximum acreage limits described in Policy 4.7 but shall not count_ toward the consumption of Stewardship Credits. For the purpose of this policy, public benefit uses include: public schools (preK-12) and public or private post secondary institutions, including ancillary uses; community parks exceeding the minimum acreage requirements of Attachment C, municipal golf courses; regional parks; and governmental facilities excluding essential services as defined in the LDC. The location of public schools shall be coordinated with the Collier County School Board, based on the interlocal agreement 163.3177 F.S. and in a manner consistent with 235.193 F.S. Schools and related ancillary uses shall be encouraged to locate in or proximate to Towns; and Villages, and Hamlets subject to applicable zoning and permitting requirements. 391Page Packet Pg. 73 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Policy 4.21(recommended amendment) Lands within the ACSC that meet all SRA criteria shall also be restricted such that credits used to entitle a SRA in the ACSC must be generated exclusively from SSAs within the ACSC. Further, the only form of SRA allowed in the ACSC east of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be Hid CRDs of 100 acres or less and the only form of SRA allowed in the ACSC west of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be CRDs and Villages and GRDs of not more than 300 acres and Provided, however, that CRDs, or two Villages M14a of not more than 500 acres each, exclusive of any lakes created prior to the eeeti e ants of th, s ..,..,e„a,.,,,..* June 30, 2002 as a result of mining operations, shall be allowed in areas that have a frontage on State Road 29 and that, or, e f the effeetiv data r 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. Policy 4.22 (recommended new policy) When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA through the SRA designation process the applicant in conjunction with the Florida Division of State and Historic Resources will assess the historic or cultural significance and explore the educational and public awareness opportunities regarding significant resources. Group 5 policies are intended to protect the natural water regime and protect listed species on land that is not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area program. Hearing from wildlife experts and county environmental staff, the Committee evaluated all Group 5 policies and recommends the following amendments. Policy 5.1 (recommended amendment) To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime in areas mapped as FSAs and designated Restoration Zones on the Overlay Map prior to the time that they are designated as SSAs under the Stewardship Credit Program . s 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 e* not be allowed in FSAs.with a Nat fal D ,....,.. ree Stewardship Index value e f 1.2 - 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. Policy 5.4 (recommended amendment) Collier County will coordinate with appropriate State and Federal agencies concerning the provision of wildlife crossings at locations determined to be appropriate. A map of these potential crossing locations will be developed within 12 months of the effective date of the Growth Management Plan Amendment and used in evaluating community, cultural and historical, and transportation Manning for the RLSA, including all SRAs described in Group 4 Policies. Policy 5.5 (recommended amendment) For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, non-agricultural development, excluding individual single family residences, shall be directed away from the listed species and their habitats by complying with the following guidelines and standards: 401Page Packet Pg. 74 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 1. A wildlife survey shall be required for all parcels when listed species are known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site or where listed species or protected species are directly observed on the site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidelines. The County shall notify the FFWCC and USFWS of the existence of any listed species or protected species that may be discovered. Z. Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species shall be submitted for County approval. A plan shall be required for all projects where the wildlife survey indicated listed species are utilizing the site, or the site is capable of supporting wildlife and can be anticipated to be occupied by listed species. These plans shall describe how the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed species or protected species and their habitats. a. Management plans shall incorporate proper techniques to protect listed species or listed species and their habitats from the negative impacts of proposed development. The most current and completed data and local state and federa guidelines and regulations shall be utilized to prepare the required management plans. Open—spaec vegetatieft pr-eseFvatien r-equir-emei4s shall be used to establish bu areas between wildlife -.--s and areas Provisions such as fencing, walls, or other obstructions shall be provided to minimize development impacts to the wildlife and to facilitate and encourage wildlife to use wildlife corridors. Appropriate roadway crossings, underpasses and signage shall be used where roads must cross wildlife corridors. Mitigation for impacting listed species habitat shall be considered in the management plans as appropriate i. The fellewing referenees shall be used, as appr-eigr-iefe, to prepare the Fe"ired Management . 1. South Flefida Multi Fpeeies Reeeyei=y Plan, USFWS, , 999. 2. 14abitat Management Goidelines for- the Bald Eagle -H the Set4heast Regieii, USFWS, 199:?� 3. Eleelegy and Habitat Pr-eteetion Needs ef Gepher Tei4eise (Gepherds pelyphemus) Pepulatiens found en bands Slated fer- Large Seale Pewvelepment in Flefida, Teehnileal Repatit No. 4, Fier-ida Game and Fresh Water- Fis Geixdpiissiefl, 1 97. . wauuvua R..Yvu i .v. v, a av■ auu vuan , f Fier-ida Game affid Fresh Water- Pis f i. ii- The County shall consider any other techniques recommended by the USFWS and FFWCC, subject to the provision of paragraph 3 of this policy, ii. iii- When listed species are directly observed on site or indicated by evidence, such as denning, foraging, or other indications, a minimum of 40% of native vegetation on site shall be retained, with the exception of clearing for agricultural purposes. The County shall also consider the recommendation of other agencies, subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 of this policy. b.Mana eg, ment plans shall include provisions for minimizing human and wildlife interactions Low intensity land uses (e.g. parks, passive recreation areas golf courses) and vegetation preservation requirements including agriculture shall be used to establish buffer areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated by human activities Consideration shall be given to the most current guidelines and regulations on techniques to reduce human wildlife conflict. The management plans shall also require the dissemination of information to local residents businesses and governmental services about the presence of wildlife and practices (such as appropriate waster disposal methods) that enable responsible coexistence with wildlife while mininzing opportunites for negative ineraction such as appropriate waste disposal practices. c.The Management Plans shall contain a monitoring program for developments greater than ten acres. I ZZ 21 M-11 040110 6 M —M; - �. 41 Page Packet Pg. 75 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 - _ �.� 4.. ' - - _ ..Mr. MMR- MERT-Mr.".In _ - - - - - •�• Ham 3. The County shall, consistent with applicable policies of this Overlay, consider and utilize recommendations and letters of technical assistance from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and recommendations from the US Fish and Wildlife Service in issuing development orders on property eentaining utilized by listed species. It is recognized that these agency recommendations, on a case by case basis, may e-hange 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 Swill be considered as these shall constitute minimum standards for wildlife protection Policy 5.6 (recommended amendment) For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, Collier County shall direct non-agricultural land uses away from high functioning wetlands by limiting direct impacts within wetlands. A direct impact is hereby defined as the dredging or filling of a wetland or adversely changing the hydroperiod of a wetland. This policy shall be implemented as follows: 1. There are two (2) major wetlands systems within the RLSA, Camp Keais, Strand and the Okaloacoochee Slough. These two systems have been mapped and are designated as FSA's. Policy 5.1 prohibits certain uses within the FSA's, thus preserving and protecting the wetlands functions within those wetland systems. 2. The other significant wetlands within the RLSA are WRA's as described in Policy 3.3.These areas are protected by existing SFWMD wetlands permits for each area. 3. FSAs, HSAs and WRAs, as provided in Policy 5.3, and the ACSC have stringent site clearing and alteration limitations, nonpermeable surface limitations, and requirements addressing surface water flows which protect wetland functions within the wetlands in those areas. Other wetlands within the RLSA are isolated or seasonal wetlands. These wetlands will be protected based upon the wetland functionality assessment described below, and the final permitting requirements of the South Florida Water Management District. a. The County shall apply the vegetation retention, open space and site preservation requirements specified within this Overlay to preserve an appropriate amount of native vegetation on site. Wetlands shall be preserved as part of this vegetation requirement according to the following criteria: a 421Page Packet Pg. 76 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 i. The acreage requirements specified within this Overlay shall be met by preserving wetlands with the highest wetland functionality scores. Wetland functionality assessment scores shall be those described in paragraph b of this policy. The vegetative preservation requirements imposed by Policies 5.3 and 5.5 shall first be met through preservation of wetlands having a functionality assessment score of 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method score of 0.7, or greater. Within one year from the effective date of this Amendment, the County shall develop specific criteria in the LDC to be used to determine those instances in which wetlands with a WRAP functionality assessment score of 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method score of 0.7, or greater must be preserved in excess of the preservation required by Policy 5.3. ii. Wetlands and contiguous upland buffers that are utilized by listed species, or serving as corridors for the movement of listed species, shall be preserved on site. Wetland flowway functions through the project shall be maintained. iii. Proposed development shall demonstrate that ground water table drawdowns or diversions will not adversely change the hydoperiod of preserved wetlands on or offsite. Detention and control elevations shall be set to protect surrounding wetlands and be consistent with surrounding land and project control elevations and water tables. In order to meet these requirements, projects shall be designed in accordance with Sections 4.2.2.4.6.11 and 6.12 of SFWMD's Basis of Review, January 2001. Upland vegetative communities may be utilized to meet the vegetative, open space and site preservation requirements of this Overlay when the wetland functional assessment score is less than 0.65. b. In order to assess the values and functions of wetlands at the time of project review, applicants shall rate functionality of wetlands using the South Florida Water Management District's Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP), as described in Technical Publication Reg-001, dated September 1997, and updated August 1999, or the Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method, identified as F.A.C. Chapter 62-345. The applicant shall submit to County staff agency -accepted WRAP scores, or Uniform Wetlands Mitigation Assessment scores. County staff shall review this functionality assessment as part of the County's EIS provisions and shall use the results to direct incompatible land uses away from the highest functioning wetlands according to the requirements found in paragraph 3 above. c. All direct impacts shall be mitigated for pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (f) of this policy. d. Single family residences shall follow the requirements contained within Policy 6.2.7 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. e. The County shall separate preserved wetlands from other land uses with appropriate buffering requirements. The County shall require a minimum 50-foot vegetated upland buffer abutting a natural water body, and for other wetlands a minimum 25-foot vegetated upland buffer abutting the wetland. A structural buffer may be used in conjunction with a vegetative buffer that would reduce the vegetative buffer width by 50%. A structural buffer shall be required abutting wetlands where direct impacts are allows ed. Wetland buffers shall conform to the following standards: i. The buffer shall be measured landward from the approved jurisdictional line. ii. The buffer zone shall consist of preserved native vegetation. Where native vegetation does not exist, native vegetation compatible with the existing soils and expected hydrologic conditions shall be planted. iii. The buffer shall be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. iv.The following land uses are considered to be compatible with wetland functions and are allowed within the buffer: (1) Passive recreational areas, boardwalks and recreational shelters; (2) Pervious nature trails; (3) Water management structures; (4) Mitigation areas; (5) Any other conservation and related open space activity or use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses. v.A structural buffer may consist of a stem -wall, berm, or vegetative hedge with suitable fencing. f. Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts to wetland in order to result in no net loss of wetland functions. Mitigation Requirements: a� s a m m o! LO m w a c 0 E s V �a r a 431Page Packet Pg. 77 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 i. "No net loss of wetland functions" shall mean that the wetland functional score of the proposed mitigation equals or exceeds the wetland functional score of the impacted wetlands. Priority shall be given to mitigation within FSA's and HSA's. ii. Loss of storage or conveyance volume resulting from direct impacts to wetlands shall be compensated for by providing an equal amount of storage or conveyance capacity on site and within or abutting the impacted wetland. iii. Protection shall be provided for preserved or created wetland or upland vegetative communities offered as mitigation by placing a conservation easement over the land in perpetuity, providing for initial exotic plant removal (Class I invasive exotic plants defined by the Florida Exotic Plan Council) and continuing exotic plant maintenance, or by appropriate ownership transfer to a state or federal agency along with sufficient funding for perpetual management activities. iv. Exotics removal or maintenance may be considered acceptable mitigation for the loss of wetlands or listed species habitat if those lands if those lands are placed under a perpetual conservation easement with perpetual maintenance requirements. i-Y _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 particil2atin ig n M programs that provide incentives funding or other assistance in facilitating wetland and habitat restoration on private lands including, but not limited to, federal farm bill agricultural conservation programs, private or public grants, tax incentives, easements and fee or less than fee sale to conservation programs. Policy 5.7 (recommended new Policy) An development on lands not participating in the RLS program shall be compatible with surrounding land uses. Outdoor lighting shall be reasonablmanaged to protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy, and enhance safety and security_ Policy 5.8 (recommended new Policy) When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA, the applicant in conjunction with the Florida Division of State and Historic Resources will assess the historic or cultural significance and explore the educational and public awareness opportunities regarding significant resources. a� s a m m o: L LO CO T y.+ Q r- 4) E t 0 Q 441Page Packet Pg. 78 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 NECTTON A ALL COMMITTEE -RECOMMENDED REVISION$ TO IMPROVE THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY Preface Section 2 of this Report includes the full RLSA Overlay Program as evaluated. The Review Committee determined that most of the policies in the RLSA Overlay did not require an amendment so often took action to "leave policy unchanged." Those policies that were amended, including those set forth in Section 1, and those with minor language corrections, are shown below with strike through and underlines. In addition to all RLSA text, the following are attached with recommend amendments. ➢ Stewardship Overlay Map ➢ Attachment A - Stewardship Credit Worksheet ➢ Attachment B - Land Use Layers Matrix ➢ Attachment C - Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics Table The RLSA Overlay Recommended Amendments Goal (recommended amendment) Collier County seeks to address the long-term needs of residents and property owners within the Immokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment. Collier County's goal is to prefeet retain land for agricultural activities, to prevent the prema 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 des employs creative land use planning techniques and through the use of established incentives. Objective (recommended amendment) To meet the Goal described above, Collier County's objective is to create an incentive based land use overlay system, herein referred to as the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, based on the principles of rural land stewardship as defined in Chapter 163.3177(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; ate. and. Group 4 policies relate to conversion of land to other uses and economic diversification. Group 5 are regulatory policies that ensure that land that is not voluntarily included in the Overlay by its owners shall nonetheless meet the minimum requirements of the Final Order pertaining to natural resource protection. Group 1 - General purpose and structure of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Policy 1.1 To promote a dynamic balance of land uses in the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) that collectively contributes to a viable agricultural industry, protects natural resources, and enhances economic prosperity and diversification, Collier County hereby establishes the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (Overlay). The Overlay was created through a collaborative community_based planning process involving county residents, area property owners, and representatives of community and governmental organizations under the direction of a citizen oversight committee. 451Page Packet Pg. 79 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 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 Im mokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment referred to in the State of Florida Administration Commission Final Order No. AC-99-002. The RLSA generally includes rural lands in northeast Collier County lying north and east of Golden Gate Estates, north of the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and Big Cypress National Preserve, south of the Lee County Line, and south and west of the Hendry County Line, and includes a total of approximately 195,846 acres, of which approximately 182,334 acres is privately owned. The Overlay Map is an adopted overlay to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Policy 1.4 Except as provided in Group 5 Policies, there shall be no change to the underlying density and intensity of permitted uses of land within the RLSA, as set forth in the Baseline Standards, as defined in Policy 1.5, unless and until a property owner elects to utilize the provisions of the Stewardship Credit System. It is the intent of the Overlay that a property owner will be compensated for the voluntary stewardship and protection of important agricultural and natural resources. Compensation to the property owner shall occur through one of the following mechanisms: creation and transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition of conservation easements, acquisition of less than fee interest in the 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 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 (recommended amendment) Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within the RLSA that are to be kept in permanent agriculture, open space or conservation uses. These lands will be identified as Stewardship Sending Areas or SSAs. All privately owned lands within the RLSA are a candidate for designation as a SSA. Land becomes designated as a SSA upon petition by the property owner seeking such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC), which acknowledges the property owner's request for such designation and assigns Stewardship Credits or other compensation to the owner for such designation. Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved SSA. Designation as an SSA shall be administrative and shall not require an amendment to the Growth Management Plan, but shall be retroactively incorporated into the adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment process when it periodically occurs. A Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall be developed that identifies those allowable residential densities and other land uses which remain. Once land is designated as a 461Page Packet Pg. 80 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 SSA and Credits or other compensation is granted to the owner, no increase in density or additional uses unspecified in the Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall be allowed on such property unless the SSA is terminated as provided elsewhere herein. Polx�cv 1.6.1 (recommended new policy) Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, uvon initial approval of a Stewardshiv Sending Area ("SSA"), Q the Stewardship Easement shall be established for a term of five years ("Conditional Period") and shall be deemed a a Conditional Stewardship Easement. The Conditional Period may be extended for one additional ear at the option of the owner by providing_ written notice to the County prior to the expiration of the initial five ,period All conditions and restrictions of the Stewardship Easement related to maintaining the existingproperty conditions including all management obligations of the owner of the SSA lands, shall be in full force throughout the Conditional Period If at 0 any time during the Conditional Period any of the following events occur, then the Conditional Stewardship Easement M shall become a Permanent StewardshiR Easement which shall be final, peKpetual and non -revocable in accordance with Q the terms set forth therein: a 4. Stewardship Credits from the SSA have been assigned to entitle an a proved Stewardship Receiving Area '00) "SRA"I and the SRA has received all necessaKy final and non -appealable development orderspermits, or other 0 3 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 y SRA then the receipt of all necessaryovemmental final and non -a ealable development orders permits,or other c discretiona a rovals necessa to commence construction of an SRA shall automaticallycause the Conditional J Stewardshiv Easement to become a Permanent Stewardship Easement; 5. The owner of the SSA lands has sold or transferred any Stewardship Credits to another person or enti1y, including a 3 Stewardship Credit Trust as described in Policy 1.20, the closing has occurred, and the owner has received the N consideration due from such sale or transfer, but not expressly excluding_ c 0 (c) a sale or transfer of the Stewardship Credits ancillary to the sate or transfer of the underl3dng fee title to the 0 land, N J IL (d) instances where a landowner establishes an SSA for a specific SRA, whether the SRA is owned or developed N by a s arate or related entity,and the Stewardship Credits are transferred as required by the Growth Management Plan or Land Development Code for SRA approval; or 6, The owner of the SSA lands has received in exchange for the creation of the StewardshiI2 Easement Agreement a) 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 M s a 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_ tY 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 dax th of the Conditional Period terminate the Conditional Stewardship Easement by recording a Notice of Termination. m In addition, if_a challenge and/or appeal of a necessary development order, permit or other discretionary approval is Q 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 E 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 Q 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. 471Page Packet Pg. 81 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 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, rightsprivileges, restrictions and obligations associated_ with the SSA shall be null and void, and the land shall revert to its underling zoning classification, free and clear of any encumbrance from the Conditional Stewardship Easement and SSA Credit Agreement. If reguested by the owner of the SSA lands Collier Count and the other Uantees 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 Coun shalt update the overlay map to reflect the termination of any SSA or SRA. This policy shall be implemented in the LDC within 12 months after adoption hereof. Policy 1.7 (recommended amendment) The range of Stewardship Credit Values is hereby established using the specific methodology set forth on the Stewardship Credit Worksheet (Worksheet), incorporated -herein as Attachment A. This methodology and related procedures for SSA designation will also be adopted as part of the Stewardship Overlay District in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). Such procedures shall include but ee not be limited to the following: (1) All Credit transfers shall be recorded with the Collier County Clerk of Courts; (2) a covenant or perpetual restrictive easement shall also be recorded for each SSA, shall run with the land and shall be in favor of Collier County and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, , statewide land tmst; 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 e� (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 40, sum of these six factors is the index value for the land. Both the characteristics used and the factors assigned a thereto were established after review and analysis of detailed information about the natural resource attributes of 3 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 L' m A Natural Resource Index Map Series (Index Map Series) indicates the Natural Resource Stewardship Index a value for all land within the RLSA. Credits from any lands designated as SSAs, will be based upon the Natural w Resource Index values in effect at the time of designation. Any change in the Characteristics of land due to E alteration of the land prior to the establishment of a SSA that either increases or decreases any Index Factor will s 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. a 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. 481Page Packet Pg. 82 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 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 Iayer is discrete and shall be removed sequentially and cumulatively in the order presented in the Matrix, starting with the residential layer (layer one) and ending with the conservation layer (layer eight). If a layer is removed, all uses and activities in that layer are eliminated and are no longer available. Each layer is assigned a percentage of a base credit in the Worksheet. The assigned percentage for each layer to be removed is added together and then multiplied by the index value on a per acre basis to arrive at a total Stewardship Credit Value of the land being designated as a SSA. Policy 1.12 Credits can be transferred only to lands within the RLSA that meet the defined suitability -criteria and standards set forth in Group 4 Policies. Such lands shall be known as Stewardship Receiving Areas or SRAs. Policy 1.13 The procedures for the establishment and transfer of Credits and SRA designation are set forth herein and will also be adopted as a part of a Stewardship District in the LDC (District). LDRs creating the District will be adopted within one (1) year from the effective date of this Plan amendment. Policy 1.14 (recommended amendment) Stewardship Credits will be exchanged for additional residential or non-residential entitlements in a SRA on a per acre basis, as described in Policy 444 4.19. Stewardship density and intensity will thereafter differ from the Baseline Standards. The assignment or use of Stewardship Credits shall not require a GMP Amendment. Policy 1.15 Land becomes designated as an SRA upon the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approving the petition by the property owner seeking such designation. Any change in the residential density or non-residential intensity of Iand use on a parcel of land located within a SRA shall be specified in the resolution reflecting the total number of transferable Credits assigned to the parcel of land. Density and intensity within the RLSA or within an SRA shall not be increased beyond the Baseline Standards except through the provisions of the Stewardship Credit System, the Affordable -workforce Housing Density Bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of the FLUE, and the density and intensity blending provision of the Immokalee Area Master Plan. Policy 1.16 Stewardship Receiving Areas will accommodate uses that utilize creative land use planning techniques and Credits shall be used to facilitate the implementation of innovative and flexible development strategies described in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. and 9J-5.006(5)(1). Policy 1.17 Stewardship Credits 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). 491Page Packet Pg. 83 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Policy 1.19 All local land or easement acquisition programs that are intended to work within the RLSA Overlay shall be based upon a willing participant/seller approach. It is not the intent of Collier County to use eminent domain acquisition within this system. Policy 1.20 The County may elect to acquire Credits through a publicly funded program, using sources identified in Policy 1.18. Should the County pursue this option, it shall establish a Stewardship Credit Trust to receive and hold Credits until such time as they are sold, transferred or otherwise used to implement uses within Stewardship Receiving Areas. Policy 1.21(recommended amendment) The incentive based Stewardship Credit system relies on the projected demand for Credits As as the primary basis for permanent protection of agricultural lands, flowways, habitats and water retention areas. The County recognizes that there may be a lack of significant demand for Credits in the early years of implementation, and also recognizes that a public benefit would be realized by the early designation of SSAs. To address this issue and to promote the protection of natural resources, the implementation of the Overlay will include an early entry bonus to encourage the voluntary establishment of SSAs within the RLSA. The bonus shall be in the form of an additional one Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as a HSA located outside of the ACSC and one-half Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as HSA 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 1.22 (recommended amendment) The RLSA Overlay was designed to be a tong -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 as part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report process. The purpose of the review shall be to assess the participation in and effectiveness of the Overlay implementation in meeting the Goal, Objective and Policies set forth herein. The specific measures of review shall be as follows: 1. The amount and location of land designated as FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and other SSAs. 2. The amount and location of land designated as SRAs. 3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated, assigned or held for future use. 4. A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at the time of a Study and time of review. 5. The amount, location and type of land converted to non-agricultural use with and without participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption. 6. The extent and use of funding provided by Collier County and other sources Local, State, Federal and private revenues described in Policy 1.18. 7. The amount, location and type of restoration through participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption. 8. The potential for use of Credits in urban areas. Group 2 - Policies to 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. (Recommended amendment) Policy 2.1(recommended amendment) 501Page Packet Pg. 84 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Agricultural landowners will be provided with lands will be-ateetea from -o.. a4ife een e_ io • other- p N..,..,..�.,.., y.,..iiy•M1V vvaa: va uavia �v-v cric.-[ti:sca by er-eatint--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 feFm of eempaet odevelopment in the Pcb8A Over -lay. Analysis has hey"n that SRAs will allew the pr-ej eeted population ef the RLSA ia the Her-imen year- ef 2025 to be aeeewiffladated e tely 10% of the aereage ether -wise required if sueh eempeet Fur -a! de-,,elepmeat wer-e net allowed due te 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 L6, The protection measures for SSAs are set forth in Policies 1.6, 1.7, 1.10, and 1.17. In addition to protecting_agdculture activities in SSAs within FSA HSA and WRA as further described in Policies 3.1, 3.2 and 33, 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 pen these lands shall be assigned two (2.0) Stewardship Credits per acre outside of the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSA), and two and sixth tenths (2.6) Credits per acre within the ACSC. All non -agriculture uses shall be removed and the remaining uses are limited to agriculture Land Use _Levels 5, 6 and 7 on the Land Use Matrix. Each laver is discreet and shall be removed seguentially and cumulatively in the order presented in the Matrix. If a laver is removed all uses and activities in that layer are eliminated and no longer available. Following approval of an Agricultural SSA Collier County shall update the RLSA Zoning Overlay District Map to delineate the boundaries of the Agricultural SSA. Peke)-23 (recommended deletion) Within one (1) year- fiem the eff-eetive date of these ameadfnents, Collier- Geuf4y will establish afl. elitrAnate stieh baMefs in Collier- Cetmty. The AckC will alse assess whether- e*eepfiefis &0 standards fef busittess uses related to agr-ieukur-e 96aeld be allowed tmder- aft administfative pefw& pmeess an wake meemmendatiens to the BGG. Pokey 2.4 (recommended deletion) Policy 2.5 3 (recommended amendment) Agriculture is an important aspect of Collier County's quality of life and economic well -being. —Agricultural activities shall be protected from duplicative regulation as provided by the Florida Right -to -Farm Act. Policy 2.6- 4 (recommended amendment) Notwithstanding the special provisions of Policies 3.9 and 3,10, nothing herein or in the implementing LDRs, shall restrict lawful agricultural activities on lands within the RLSA that have not been placed into the Stewardship program. a 511 Page Packet Pg. 85 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 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 3 1, 100 acres. FSAs are primarily privately owned wetlands that are located within the Camp Keais Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough. These lands form the primary wetland flowway systems in the RLSA. The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect FSAs by the creation and transfer of Credits, elimination of incompatible uses, and establishment of protection measures described in Group 1 Policies. Not all lands within the delineated FSAs are comparable in terms of their natural resource value; therefore the index shall be used to differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation. Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that FSA lands score within a range of 0.7 to 2.4; approximately 96% score greater than 1.2 while 4% score 1.2 or less. The average Index score of FSA land is 1.8. Policy 3.2 (recommended amendment) Listed animal and plant species and their habitats shall be protected through the establishment of Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. HSAs are delineated on the Overlay Map and contain approximately 49,000 45,782 acres. HSAs are privately owned agricultural areas, which include both areas with natural characteristics that make them suitable habitat for listed species and areas without these characteristics. These latter areas are included because they are located contiguous to habitat to help form a continuum of landscape that can augment habitat values. The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect HSAs by the creation and transfer of Credits, resulting in the elimination of incompatible uses and the establishment of protection measures described in Group 1 Policies. Not all lands within the delineated HSAs are comparable in terms of their habitat value; therefore the index shall be used to differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation. Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that HSA lands score within a range of 0.6 to 2.2. There are approximately 1-3,890- 15,156 acres of cleared agricultural fields located in HSAs. The average Index score of IkS HSA designated lands is 1.3, however, the average index score of the naturally vegetated areas within HSAs is 1.5. Policy 3.3 Further protection for surface water quality and quantity shall be through the establishment of Water Retention Areas (WRAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. WRAs are delineated on the Overlay Map and contain approximately 18,200 acres. WRAs are privately owned lands that have been permitted by the South Florida Water Management District to function as agricultural water retention areas. In many instances, these WRAs consist of native wetland or upland vegetation; in other cases they are excavated water bodies or may contain exotic vegetation. The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect WRAs by the creation and transfer of Credits, elimination of incompatible uses, and establishment of protection measures described in Group I Policies. Not all lands within the delineated WRAs are comparable in terms of their natural resource value; therefore the index shall be used to differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation. Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that WRA lands score within a range of 0.6 to 2.4; approximately 74% score greater than 1.2 while 26% score 1.2 or less. The average Index score of WRA land is 1.5. Policy 3.4 Public and private conservation areas exist in the RLSA and serve to protect natural resources. Corkscrew Marsh and Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest include approximately 13,500 acres. Analysis shows that they score within an Index range of 0.0 to 2.2; with an average Index score of 1.5. Because these existing public areas, and 521Page Packet Pg. 86 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 any private conservation areas, are already protected, they are not delineated as SSAs and are not eligible to generate Credits, but do serve an important role in meeting the Goal of the RLSA. Policy 3.5 Residential uses, General Conditional uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses (layers 1-4) as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in FSAs in exchange for compensation to the property owner as described in Policy 3.8. Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, other than those necessary to serve permitted uses or for public safety, shall only be allowed in FSAs with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less. Where practicable, directional -drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil and gas extraction in FSAs in order to minimize impacts to native habitats. Other layers may also be eliminated at the election of the property owner in exchange for compensation. The elimination of the Earth Mining layer shall not preclude the excavation of lakes or other water bodies if such use is an integral part of a restoration or mitigation program within a FSA. Policy 3.6 Residential Land Uses listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in Habitat Stewardship Sending Areas in exchange for compensation to the property owner as described in Policy 3.8. Other layers may also be eliminated at the election of the property owner in exchange for compensation. Policy 3.7 (recommended amendment) General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses shall be allowed only on HSA lands with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less. Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, other than those necessary to serve permitted uses or for public safety, shall only be allowed in HSAs with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less. Asphaltic and concrete batch making plants are prohibited in all HSAs. Where practicable, directional -drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil and gas Extraction in HSAs in order to minimize impacts to native habitats. In addition to the requirements imposed in the LDC for approval of a Conditional Use, such uses will only be approved upon submittal of an E49 Environmental Im act Statement EIS which demonstrates that clearing of native vegetation has been minimized, the use will not significantly and adversely impact listed species and their habitats and the use will not significantly and adversely impact aquifers. As an alternative to the foregoing, the applicant may demonstrate that such use is an integral part of an approved restoration or mitigation program. Golf Course design, construction, and operation in any HSA shall comply with the best management practices of Audubon International's Gold Program and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Compliance with the following standards shall be considered by Collier County as meeting the requirement for minimization of impact: Clearing of native vegetation shall not exceed 15% of the native vegetation on the parcel. Areas previously cleared shall be used preferentially to native vegetated areas. Buffering to Conservation Land shall comply with Policy 4.13. Policy 3.8 Compensation to the property owner may occur through one or more of the following mechanisms: creation and transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition of conservation easements, acquisition of less than fee interest in the land, or through other acquisition of land or interest in land through a willing seller program. Policy 3.4 (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 [limited to Open Land designation only], and similar activities, including related agricultural support uses. In existing Ag 1 areas within FSAs and HSAs, all such activities are permitted to continue, and may convert from one type of Agriculture to another and expand to the limits allowed by applicable permits. Once the Stewardship Credit System is utilized and an owner receives compensation as previously described, no further expansion of Ag 1 will 531Page Packet Pg. 87 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 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 I areas, square up existing farm fields, or provide access to or from other Ag 1 areas, provided that the Ag 1 Land Use Layer has been retained on the areas to be incidentally cleared, and the Natural Resource Index Value score has been adjusted to reflect the proposed change in land cover. Incidental clearing is defined as clearing that meets the above criteria and is limited to 1% of the area of the SSA. In the event said incidental clearing impacts lands having a Natural Resource Index Value in excess of 1.2, appropriate mitigation shall be provided. Policy 3.10 Ag 2 includes unimproved pastures for grazing and ranching, forestry and similar activities, including related agricultural support uses. In existing Ag 2 areas within FSAs and HSAs, such activities are permitted to continue, and may convert from one type of Agriculture to another and expand to the limits allowed by applicable permits. Once the Stewardship Credit System is utilized and an owner receives compensation as previously described, no further expansion of Ag 2 or conversion of Ag 2 to Ag 1 will be allowed in FSAs or HSAs beyond existing or permitted limits within property subject to a credit transfer. Policy 3.11 (recommended amendment) in 1. In certain locations there may be the opportunity for flow -way or habitat restoration. Examples include, but are -aa not limited to, locations where flow -ways have been constricted or otherwise impeded by past activities, or where J additional land is needed to enhance wildlife corridors. Priority shall be given to r-esteilatien wiIhin the G-T Should a property owner be willing to dedicate land for restoration 3 activities within a FSA or HSA theCamp Keais Stfand FSA er- Deus- HSAs, fey two additional N Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated. sha ll be assigned for eaeh aer-e of land dedieated for- r-ester-atien aetivities within other- FSA9 and HSA9.The actual c implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive such credits and the costs of restoration shall be borne by the governmental agency or private entity undertaking the restoration. Should an c owner also complete restoration improvements, this shall be rewarded with €etw additional Credits for each acre of restored land upon demonstration that the restoration met applicable success criteria as determined by the 0- permit agency authorizing said restoration. The additional Credits shall be rewarded for either caracara restoration at 2 Credits per acre, or for exotic control/burning at_4 Credits per acres, or for flow way restoration at 4 Credits M per acre, or for native habitat restoration at 6 Credits per acre. Within the area proposed for restoration Land Use v 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. s 2. in certain locations, as generally illustrated in the RLSA Overlay Map, there may be opportunities to create a 3 restore, and enhance a northern panther corridor connection and a southern panther corridor connection. Should a property owner be willing to dedicate land for the12=ose of establishing and maintaining the northern or 4) southern panther corridor, 2 additional Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated Should an. owner also effectively complete the corridor restoration, this shall be rewarded with 8 additional to Credits per acre. m T Q 3. In order to address a significant loss in Southwest Florida of seasonal, shallow wetland wading bird foraging habitat restoration of these uni ue habitats will be incentivized in the RLSAO. Dedication of aLay area inside an FSA, HSA. or WRA for such seasonal wetland restoration shall be rewarded with 2 additional Credits per acre Should the landowner successfully complete the restoration, and additional 6 Credits per acre shall be awarded ;a Only one type of restoration shall be rewarded with these Credits for each acre desi rimed for restoration a 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 541Page Packet Pg. 88 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 such as the federal Farm Bill conservation programs. The specific process for assignment of additional restoratior, 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 publicfprivate conservation land include the land appropriate and necessary to accomplish the Goal pertaining to natural resource protection. To further direct other uses away from and to provide additional incentive for the protection, enhancement and restoration of the Okaloacoochee Slough and Camp Keais Strand, all land within 500 feet of the delineated FSAS that comprise the Slough or Strand that is not otherwise included in a HSA or WRA shall receive the same natural index score (0.6) that a HSA receives if such property is designated as a SSA and retains only agricultural, recreational and/or conservation layers within the matrix. Policy 3.13 (recommended amendment) Water Retention Areas (WRAs) as generally depicted on the Overlay Map have been permitted for this purpose and will continue to function for surface water retention, detention, treatment and/or conveyance, in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permits applicable to each WRA. WRAs can also be permitted to provide such functions for new uses of land allowed within the Overlay. WRAs may be incorporated into a SRA master plan to provide water management functions for properties within such SRA, but are not required to be designated as a SRA in such instances. However, if the WRA provides water treatment and retention exclusively for a SRA the acreage of the WRA shall be included in the SRA. WRA boundaries are understood to be approximate and are subject to refinement in accordance with SFWMD permitting. Policy 3.14 During permitting to serve new uses, additions and modifications to WRAs may be required or desired, including but not limited to changes to control elevations, discharge rates, storm water pre-treatment, grading, excavation or fill. Such additions and modifications shall be allowed subject to review and approval by the SFWMD in accordance with best management practices. Such additions and modifications to WRAs shall be designed to ensure that there is no net loss of habitat function within the WRAs unless there is compensating mitigation or restoration in other areas of the Overlay that will provide comparable habitat function. Compensating mitigation or restoration for an impact to a WRA contiguous to the Camp Keais Strand or Okaloacoochee Slough shall be provided within or contiguous to that Strand or Slough. Group 4 - Policies to enable conversion of rural lands to other uses in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas. Policy 4.1 Collier County will encourage and facilitate uses that enable economic prosperity and diversification of the economic base of the RLSA. Collier County will also encourage development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques and facilitates a compact form of development to accommodate population growth by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs). Incentives to encourage and support the diversification and vitality of the rural economy such as flexible development regulations, expedited permitting review, and targeted capital improvements shall be incorporated into the LDC Stewardship District. Policy 4.2 (recommended amendment) All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible for designation as a SRA, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been designated as a Stewardship Sending Area. Land proposed for SRA designation shall meet the suitability criteria and other standards described in Group 4 Policies. Due to the long-term vision of the RLSA Overlay, extending to a horizon year of 2025, and in accordance with the guidelines established in Chapter 163.3177(11) F.S., the specific Iocation, 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 551Page Packet Pg. 89 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 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 74,588 72,000 acres outside of the ACSC and apRroximajely 18,300 15,000 acres within the ACSC. Total SRA desigLiation shall be a maximum of 45,000 acres. ° . Because the Overlay requires SRAs to be compact, mixed -use and self sufficient in the provision of services, facilities and infrastructure, traditional locational standards normally applied to determine development suitability are not relevant or applicable to SRAs. Therefore the process for designating a SRA follows the prineiples of the R-twal T �a Ste ar,d hip Aet as fiii4 e- aeseri ed procedures set forth herein and the adopted RLSA Zoning Overlay District. Policy 4.3 (recommended amendment) Land becomes designated as a SRA upon petition by a property owner to Collier County seeking such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the BCC granting the designation. The petition shall include a SRA master plan as described in Policy 4.5. The basis for approval shall be a finding of consistency with the policies of the Overlay, including required suitability criteria set forth herein, compliance with the LDC Stewardship District, and assurance that the applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement the SRA uses. , Gellief- GeurAy shall adopt LPG amendments Policy 4.4 Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved SRA. Such updates shall not require an amendment to the Growth Management Plan, but shall be retroactively incorporated into the adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment process when it periodically occurs. Policy 4.5 (recommended amendment) To address the specifics of each SRA, a master plan of each SRA will be prepared and submitted to Collier County as a part of the petition for designation as a SRA. The master plan will demonstrate that the SRA complies with all applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District and is designed so that incompatible land uses are directed away from wetlands and critical habitat identified as FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map. To the extent practicable, the SRA Master Plan shall be consistent with the Count 's then-adol2ted Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the County Build Out Vision Plan referenced in Policy 3.7 of the Future Transportation Element and Access Management Rrocedures. Each SRA master plan shall include a Management Plan with provisions for minimizing human and wildlife interactions. Low intensity land uses (e.g. parks, passive recreation areas, golf courses) and vegetation preservation requirements, including agriculture, shall be used to establish buffer areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated by human activities. Consideration shall be given to the most current guidelines and re_aations on techniques to reduce human wildlife conflict. The managementplans 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. Policy 4.6 SRA characteristics shall be based upon innovative planning and development strategies referenced in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. and 9J-5.006(5)(1). These planning strategies and techniques include urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area -based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, and mixed -use development that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services. The SRA shall also include a mobility plan that includes consideration of vehicular, bicycle/pedestrian. public transit internal circulators, and other modes of travel/movement within and between SRAs and areas of outside development and W N M s a. 3 m m a: LO m Q w c W E s V r a 561Page Packet Pg. 90 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 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 SR.As shall also consider the needs identified in the County Build Out Vision Plan and plan land uses to accommodate services that would increase internal capture, and reduce trip length and long distance travel. Such development strategies are recognized as methods of discouraging urban sprawl: encouraging alternative modes of transportation, increasin internal capture and reducing vehicle miles traveled. Policy 4.7 (recommended amendment) There are four three specific forms of SRA permitted within the Overlay. These are Towns, Villages, HawAets, 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 emd 4-7-.4. establish ner-e-s Specific regulations, guidelines and standards within the LDC Stewardship District to guide the design and development of SRAs to include innovative planning and development strategies as set forth in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. and OJ-5,006(5)(1). The size and base density of each form shall be consistent with the standards set forth on Attachment C. The maximum base residential density as set forth in Attachment C may only be exceeded through the density blending process as set forth in density and intensity blending provision of the Immokalee Area Master Plan or through the affordable -workforce housing density bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element. The base residential density is calculated by dividing the total number of residential units in a SRA by the overall area therein. The base residential density does not restrict net residential density of parcels within a SRA. The location, size and density of each SRA will be determined on an individual basis during the SRA designation review and approval process. Policy 4.7.1 (recommended amendment) Towns are the largest and most diverse form of SRA, with a full range of housing types and mix of uses. Towns have urban level services and infrastructure that support development that is compact, mixed use, human scale, and provides a balance of land uses to reduce automobile trips and increase livability. Towns shall be not less than 4-,809 1,500 acres or more than 4,4W 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 Rark 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 retie as pied described in Policy 44S 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 shallbeincluded in the LDC Stewardship District. Towns shall not be located within the ACSC. Policy 4.7.2 (recommended amendment) Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be not less than 100 acres or more than 1,000 acres inside the Area of Critical Concern and not more than 1,500 acres outside the Area of Critical Concern. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed -use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages shall include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15. Appropriately scaled uses described in Policy 4.7.4 shall also be12ennitted in Villages. Villages are an appropriate location for a full range 571Page Packet Pg. 91 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located adjacent to each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. Design criteria for Villages shall be included in the LDC Stewardship District. PolieQ.. y 4.7.3—(recommended deletion) Ha"ets are small fffal r-esidential areas with primarily single faw�ily hatising and lintited range ef eenvenienee eriented sefyiees. 14a"ets shall be not less than 40 or- mer-e than 100 aer-es. Hamlets will sen,e as a ffiere eeffligaet altemative to traditional five aefe lOt FdFal stibdivis 4 Ems euffently allewed in the baseline s4apAar-ds. HawAets shall GRDs of inn , o or less, be , s.yedd ;.: el�_sWast.l,uent Village or rr .�.-.~J YY� � Village Town. Policy 444 4.7.3 (recommended amendment) Compact Rural Development (CRD) is a form of SRA that shall support and further Collier County's valued attributes of agriculture natural resources and economic diversity. CRDs shall demonstrate a unique set of uses and support services necessary to further these attributes within the RLSA Primary CRD uses shall be those associated with and needed to support research education tourism or recreation. ARpropriately scaled compatible uses described in Policy 4.7.4 may also be permitted in CRDs. A CRD may include, but is not required to have permanent residential housing. and the services and f ..;1;.ies that ..,.ppe. A pemiaftent 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 acres. sen,iees that stippoi4 residents sueh as retail, effie mmewal atid instittAiettal uses shall also not b 100 aer-es er- less to Villages and Tew I 'han 5 GRDs ef 100 aer-es of less, in eembina6eft with. an Attaehmew G based on the size of the GRP, As residential tiffits a ir-ed use, these goods and CRDs ef 100 aer-es er- less, in eembinatien with l4awAets, maybe appr-eved for- eaeb stibsequent may be appreved as SRAs prior- te the appfeval ef a Village er- Tewn, and ther-eafter- not mer-e than 5 additional. There shall be no more than 5 GRDs of inere thaft 100 aeFes in s.ze. The appr-epr-ioteness ef Otis limitatien shall µ G years w be ed ..t ate. Pel; 1 22 Policy 4.7.4 (recommended new policy) Existing, urban areas, Towns and Villages shall be the preferred location for business and industry within the RLSA, to further promote economic development diversification and job creation Permitted uses shall include but not be limited to environmental research a igr cultural research aviation and aerospace health and life sciences, corporate headquarters computer hardware, software and services information technology manufacturing, research & development, wholesale trade & distributions technology commercialization and development initiatives, trade clusters, and similar uses. a Policy 4.8 An SRA may be contiguous to a FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in Policy 4.13. A SRA may be contiguous to and served by a WRA without requiring the WRA to be designated as a SRA in accordance with Policy 3.12 and 3.13, 581Page Packet Pg. 92 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Policy 4.9 (recommended amendment) A SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development in an environmentally acceptable manner. The primary means of directing development away from wetlands and critical habitat is the prohibition of locating SRAs in FSAs; and HSAs, a-�a—ems. 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 o serve permitted uses may be exempt from this restrictionprovided that designs seek to minimize the extent of im acts to aLly such areas. The Index value of greater than 1.2 represents those areas that have a high natural resource value as measured pursuant to Policy 1.8. Less than 2% of potential SRA land achieves an Index score of greater than 1.2. Policy 4.10 (recommended amendment) Within the RLSA Overlay, open space, which by definition shall include public and private conservation lands, underdeveloped areas of designated SSAs, agriculture, water retention and management areas and recreation uses, will continue to be the dominant land use. Therefore, open space adequate to serve the forecasted population and uses within the SRA is provided. To ensure that SRA residents have such areas proximate to their homes, open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, ar Village. , er there GRDs emeeeding 100 aeres. 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 a SRA, leeated eetside ef the AGSC, exceeding the required thirty-five percent shall not be required to consume Stewardship Credits. Policy 4.11 The perimeter of each SRA shall be designed to provide a transition from higher density and intensity uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property. The edges of SRAs shall be well defined and designed to be compatible with the character of adjoining property. Techniques such as, but not limited to setbacks, landscape buffers, and recreation/open space placement may be used for this purpose. Where existing agricultural activity adjoins a SRA, the design of the SRA must take this activity into account to allow for the continuation of the agricultural activity and to minimize any conflict between agriculture and SRA uses. Policy 4.12 Where a SRA adjoins a FSA, HSA, WRA or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map, best management and planning practices shall be applied to minimize adverse impacts to such lands. SRA design shall demonstrate that ground water table draw down or diversion will not adversely impact the adjacent FSA, HSA, WRA or conservation land. Detention and control elevations shall be established to protect such natural areas and be consistent with surrounding land and project control elevations and water tables. Policy 4.13 Open space within or contiguous to a SRA shall be used to provide a buffer between the SRA and any adjoining FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map. Open space contiguous to or within 300 feet of the boundary of a FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land may include: natural preserves, lakes, golf courses provided no fairways or other turf areas are allowed within the first 200 feet, passive recreational areas and parks, required yard and set -back areas, and other natural or man- made open space. Along the west boundary of the FSAs and HSAs that comprise Camp Keais Strand, i.e., the area south of Immokalee Road, this open space buffer shall be 500 feet wide and shall preclude golf course fairways and other turf areas within the first 300 feet. 591Page Packet Pg. 93 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 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 _SRAapproval, an SRA proposed to adjoin land designated as an SRA or lands designated as Open shall provide for the Mortunity 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 so as to reduce travel time and travel Menses, improve interconnectivity, increase internal ca ture and keo the use of county arterial roads to a minimum when traveling between develol2ments in the RLSA. Public and private roads within an SRA shall be maintained by the Drima1y town or community it serves. Signalized intersections within or adjacent to an SRA that serves the SRA shall be maintained by the Rrimary town or community it serves. No SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA designation. A transportation impact assessment meeting the requirements of Section 2.7.3 of the LDC, or its successor regulation shall be prepared for each proposed SRA to provide the necessary data and analysis. To the extent re uired to mitigate an SRA's traffic im acts actions may be taken to include, but shall not be limited_ to, provisions for the construction and/or permitting of wildlife crossing environmental mitigation credits, right of way dedication(s), water management and/or fill material which may be needed to expand the existing or 12rol2osed roadway network. Any such actions to offset traffic im acts 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 that are anticipated to be expanded or constructed. Policy 4.15.1 (recommended amendment) c 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 o appropriate mix of retail, office, recreational, civic, governmental, and institutional uses will be available to serve a 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 v the Immokalee Urban Area. By example, each Village or Town shall provide for neighborhood retail/office uses _M to serve its population as well as appropriate civic and institutional uses, however, the combined population of " several Villages and may be required to support community scaled retail or office uses in a nearby Town. Standards for the minimum amount of non-residential uses in each category are set forth in Attachment C, and shall be also included in the Stewardship LDC District. ii Policy 4.15.2 The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) may, as a condition of approval and adoption of an SRA tY 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 m aside shall be subject to the same provisions of the LDC as are applicable to public facility dedications required as T a condition for PUD rezoning. a w Policy 4.15.3 E 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, r the following information shall be provided: a 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 601Page Packet Pg. 94 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 3. The potential for locating a public educational facility or facilities within the SRA, and the size of any sites that may be dedicated, or otherwise made available for a public educational facility. Policy 4.16 (recommended amendment) A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or such infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand. The level of infrastructure provided will depend on the form of SRA development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC requirements. The capacity of infrastructure necessary to serve the SRA at build -out must be demonstrated during the SRA designation process. Infrastructure to be analyzed includes transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, and solid waste. Transportation infrastructure is discussed in Policy 4.14. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities are required in Towns and, —Villages, emd these GRD9 e3teeeding one hundred (100) aer-es 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 pennitted in Hamlets may be permitted in CRDs of 100 acres or less in size. Policy 4.17 The BCC will review and approve SRA designation applications in accordance with the provisions of Policy 1.1.2 of the Capital Improvement Element of the GMP for Category A public facilities. Final local development orders will be approved within a SRA designated by the BCC in accordance with the Concurrency Management System of the GMP and LDC in effect at the time of final local development order approval. Policy 4.18 (recommended amendment) The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year based on a cost/benefit fiscal impact analysis model acceptable to or as may be adopted by the County. The BCC may grant exceptions to this policy to accommodate affordable -workforce housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the analysis shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards. It is recognized that SRA development in the RLSA may generate surplus revenues to Collier County and Collier County may choose to allocate a portion of such surplus revenues to ensure that sufficient resources are available to allow Collier County to respond expeditiously to economic opportunities and to compete effectively f�gh- value research, development and commercialization, innovation, and alternative and renewable energy business projects. Policy 4.19 (recommended amendment) Eight Credits shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA, where such Credits were created from a Stewardship Sending Area deemed vested under the eight Credit ratio. Ten Credits per acre shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA. where such Credits were created from any other Stewardship Sending Area. eNeeptfor- e- _Open space in excess of the required thirty-five percent as described in Policy 4.10 or for land that is fi1 1 Page Packet Pg. 95 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 designated for a public benefit use described in Policy 449 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, 445 4.15.1 and Attachment C. Such uses shall be identified, located and quantified in the SRA master plan. Policy 4.20 (recommended amendment) The acreage of a public benefit use shall 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: 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, apA HawAets subject to applicable zoning and permitting requirements. Policy 4.21(recommended amendment) Lands within the ACSC that meet all SRA criteria shall also be restricted such that credits used to entitle a SRA in the ACSC must be generated exclusively from SSAs within the ACSC. Further, the only form of SRA allowed in the ACSC east of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be 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 aftd GRD9 of not more than 300 acres amass. Provided, however, that CRDs. or two Villages or- C-RBs of not more than 500 acres each, exclusive of any lakes created prior to the effe tine dare a f.L..:,.........n.,men June 30, 2002 as a result of mining operations, shall be allowed in areas that have a frontage on State Road 29 and that, of the afF etiv . date of these ....,.....a_.,..._`,., had been predominantly cleared as a result of Ag Group I or Earth Mining or Processing Uses. This policy is intended to assure that the RLSA Overlay is not used to increase the development potential within the ACSC but instead is used to promote a more compact form of development as an alternative to the Baseline Standards already allowed within the ACSC. No policy of the RLSA Overlay shall take precedence over the Big Cypress ACSC regulations and all regulations therein shall apply. Policy 4.22 (recommended new policy) When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA through the SRA desiggation 12rocess, the applicant in conjunction with the Florida Division of State and Historic Resources will assess the historic or cultural si2nificance and explore the educational and public awareness opportunities regarding significant resources. Group 5 - Policies that protect water quality and quantity and the maintaining of the natural water regime and protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats on land that is not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area program. Policy 5.1 (recommended amendment) To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime in areas mapped as FSAs and designated Restoration Zones on the Overlay Map prior to the time that they are designated as SSAs under the Stewardship Credit Program . , Residential Uses, General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses (layers 1-4) as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated_ in Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, except those necessary to serve permitted uses or for public safety, shall e* not be allowed in FSAs. 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. a� M s a m m a_ L LO m T Q a� E s V a 621Page Packet Pg. 96 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Policy 5.2 To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime and to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats in areas mapped as FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs on the Overlay Map that are within the ACSC, all ACSC regulatory standards shall apply, including those that strictly limit non-agricultural clearing. Policy 5.3 To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime and to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats in areas mapped as FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs on the Overlay Map that are not within the ACSC, if a property owner proposes to utilize such land for a non-agricultural purpose under the Baseline Standards referenced in Policy 1.5 and does not elect to use the Overlay, the following regulations are applicable, shall be incorporated into the LDC, and shall supercede any comparable existing County regulations that would otherwise apply. These regulations shall only apply to non-agricultural use of land prior to its inclusion in the Overlay system. Policy 5.4 (recommended amendment) Collier County will coordinate with appropriate State and Federal agencies concerning the provision of wildlife crossings at locations determined to be appropriate. A map of these potential crossing locations will be developed within 12 months of the effective date of the Growth Management Plan Amendment and used in evaluating community, cultural and historical, and transportation planning for the RLSA including all SRAs described in Group 4 Policies. Policy 5.5 (recommended amendment) For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, non-agricultural development, excluding individual single family residences, shall be directed away from the listed species and their habitats by complying with the following guidelines and standards: 1. A wildlife survey shall be required for all parcels when listed species are known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site or where listed species or -protected species are directly observed on the site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidelines. The County shall notify the FFWCC and USFWS of the existence of any listed species or protected species that may be discovered. 2. Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species shall be submitted for County approval. A plan shall be required for all projects where the wildlife survey indicated listed species are utilizing the site, or the site is capable of supporting wildlife and can be anticipated to be occupied by listed species. These plans shall describe how the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed species or protected species and their habitats. b.Management plans shall incorporate proper techniques to protect listed species or listed species and their habitats from the negative impacts of proposed development. The most current and completed data and local, state, and federa guidelines and regulations shall be utilized to prepare the required management plans. used to establish buffier v&eas between wildlife habitat arws and areas dewAfifited by hufflaff a eT Provisions such as fencing, walls, or other obstructions shall be provided to minimize development impacts to the wildlife and to facilitate and encourage wildlife to use wildlife corridors. Appropriate roadway crossings, underpasses and signage shall be used where roads must cross wildlife corridors. Mitigation for impacting listed species habitat shall be considered in the management 121ans, as appropriate. Region,i. The fellewing Fefer-enees shall be used, as appropriate, te pr-epe&e the required managenwat 6. Habitat Management Guideliffes fer- the Bald Eagle in the Southeast USFWS, i 997. 631 Page Packet Pg. 97 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 Pepulatiens feund on hands Slated fer- Lafge Seale Development in Flefida, T-eehnieal g. ei4 ter, n Fier -:a,, r`aRie and z•_n �. �>;ratef cir Ge f?n�issi__ 198; �i....,., ..�,. �, ❑x�aarv,:srrr wAl., l ..,Jll .. wl..l ,. , , 8. Eeelegy and Development Related Habitat Requirements ef the Fler-ida Serub Jay (Apeleeenta eeefuleseens), T-eelH+ieal Repei4 Ne. 8, Fier-ida Game and Fresh Water Fish G,.wunn: ., 1991. Spa Paulus) s' =-Loge-seele Development Sites in Flefida, Nefigame �'�iefti. Oi7QCf Game and Resh UIVl Fish i. ii- The County shall consider any other techniques recommended by the USFWS and FFWCC, subject to the provision of paragraph 3 of this policy. ii. iii-. When listed species are directly observed on site or indicated by evidence, such as denning, foraging, or other indications, a minimum of 40% of native vegetation on site shall be retained, with the exception of clearing for agricultural purposes. The County shall also consider the recommendation of other agencies, subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 of this policy. b.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 waster disposal methods) that enable responsible coexistence with wildlife, while minimizing opportunites for negative ineraction such as appropriate waste disl2osal practices c.The Management Plans shall contain a monitoring_proaam for developments greater than ten acres. .. -WRYINVER NOR OWNIPS_ !CIMMI M- ... hfi ! _ r� Q 641P age Packet Pg. 98 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 WIN - • sell - -MY■ 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 eentaip�ng utilized by listed species. It is recognized that these agency recommendations, on a case by case basis, may ehange stren hen the requirements contained within these wildlife protection policies and any such change shall be deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan. However, no reduction of the wildlife protection policies of Policy 5.5will be considered as these shall constitute minimum standards for wildlife protection. Policy 5.6 (recommended amendment) For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, Collier County shall direct non-agricultural land uses away from high functioning wetlands by limiting direct impacts within wetlands. A direct impact is hereby defined as the dredging or filling of a wetland or adversely changing the hydroperiod of a wetland. This policy shall be implemented as follows: 3. 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. The other significant wetlands within the RLSA are WRA's as described in Policy 3.3.These areas are protected by existing SFWMD wetlands permits for each area. FSAs, HSAs and WRAs, as provided in Policy 5.3, and the ACSC have stringent site clearing and alteration limitations, nonpermeable surface limitations, and requirements addressing surface water flows which protect wetland functions within the wetlands in those areas. Other wetlands within the RLSA are isolated or seasonal wetlands. These wetlands will be protected based upon the wetland functionality assessment described below, and the final permitting requirements of the South Florida Water Management District. a. The County shall apply the vegetation retention, open space and site preservation requirements specified within this Overlay to preserve an appropriate amount of native vegetation on site. Wetlands shall be preserved as part of this vegetation requirement according to the following criteria: i. The acreage requirements specified within this Overlay shall be met by preserving wetlands with the highest wetland functionality scores. Wetland functionality assessment scores shall be those described in paragraph b of this policy. The vegetative preservation requirements imposed by Policies 5.3 and 5.5 shall first be met through preservation of wetlands having a functionality assessment score of 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method score of 0.7, or a 651CP'a Packet Pg. 99 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 greater. Within one year from the effective date of this Amendment, the County shall develop specific criteria in the LDC to be used to determine those instances in which wetlands with a WRAP functionality assessment score of 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method score of 0.7, or greater must be preserved in excess of the preservation required by Policy 5.3. ii. Wetlands and contiguous upland buffers that are utilized by listed species, or serving as corridors for the movement of listed species, shall be preserved on site. Wetland flowway functions through the project shall be maintained. iii. Proposed development shall demonstrate that ground water table drawdowns or diversions will not adversely change the hydoperiod of preserved wetlands on or offsite. Detention and control elevations shall be set to protect surrounding wetlands and be consistent with surrounding land and project control elevations and water tables. In order to meet these requirements, projects shall be designed in accordance with Sections 4.2.2.4.6.11 and 6.12 of SFWMD's Basis of Review, January 2001. Upland vegetative communities may be utilized to meet the vegetative, open space and site preservation requirements of this Overlay when the wetland functional assessment score is less than 0.65. b. In order to assess the values and functions of wetlands at the time of project review, applicants shall rate functionality of wetlands using the South Florida Water Management District's Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP), as described in Technical Publication Reg-001, dated September 1997, and updated August 1999, or the Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method, identified as F.A.C. Chapter 62-345. The applicant shall submit to County staff agency -accepted WRAP scores, or Uniform Wetlands Mitigation Assessment scores. County staff shall review this functionality assessment as part of the County's EIS provisions and shall use the results to direct incompatible land uses away from the highest functioning wetlands according to the requirements found in paragraph 3 above. c. All direct impacts shall be mitigated for pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (f) of this policy. d. Single family residences shall follow the requirements contained within Policy 6.2.7 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. e. The County shall separate preserved wetlands from other land uses with appropriate buffering requirements. The County shall require a minimum 50-foot vegetated upland buffer abutting a natural water body, and for other wetlands a minimum 25-foot vegetated upland buffer abutting the wetland. A structural buffer may be used in conjunction with a vegetative buffer that would reduce the vegetative buffer width by 50%. A structural buffer shall be required abutting wetlands where direct impacts are allows ed. Wetland buffers shall conform to the following standards: i. The buffer shall be measured landward from the approved jurisdictional line. ii. The buffer zone shall consist of preserved native vegetation. Where native vegetation does not exist, native vegetation compatible with the existing soils and expected hydrologic conditions shall be planted. iii. The buffer shall be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. iv. The following land uses are considered to be compatible with wetland functions and are allowed within the buffer: (3) Passive recreational areas, boardwalks and recreational shelters; (2) Pervious nature trails; (3) Water management structures; (4) Mitigation areas; (5) Any other conservation and related open space activity or use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses. v. A structural buffer may consist of a stem -wall, berm, or vegetative hedge with suitable fencing. f. Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts to wetland in order to result in no net loss of wetland functions. Mitigation Requirements: 661Page Packet Pg. 100 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 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 Dlaced under a pmetual conservation easement with 12=etual maintenance requirements. 4v 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 PIant Council. Land uses allowed in these areas shall be limited to those listed above (3.e.iv.) and shall not include any other activities that are detrimental to drainage, flood, control, water conservation, erosion control or fish and wildlife habitat conservation and preservation. 4. All landowners shall be encoura eg d to consider participating in any programs that provide incentives, funding or other assistance in facilitating wetland and habitat restoration on private lands including, but ut not limited to, federal farm bill a igr cultural conservation programs,_ private or public grants, tax incentives, easements and fee or less than fee sale to conservation Rroaams. Policy 5.7 (recommended new Policy) Any development on lands not participating in the RLS program shall be compatible with surrounding land uses. Outdoor liahting shall be reasonably managed to protect the nighttime environment conserve energy, and enhance safety, and secudW. Policy 5,8 (recommended new Policy) When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA the applicant in conjunction with the Florida Division of State and Historic Resources will assess the historic or cultural significance and explore the educational and public awareness opportunities regarding significant resources. a� c� s a 3 m m a_ L LO CO T y.+ Q r- 0 E t 0 Q 671Page Packet Pg. 101 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 Stewardship Overlay Map 681Page Packet Pg. 102 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 EXISTING ATTACHMENT A ... STEWARDSHIP CREDIT WQRKSHEET Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Stewardship Credit Worksheet Appendix H anr•'i•aff Simardship croft Matrix _Gw✓.aw LWI -. ' a.wunlll A"4��ry_ ,•�1�' h i..r...1...w.. w.wwewr f.e.a awf.o wa.. r.ea. e..: r +rrwwn..r W rtl M•r} IWS{1ariRe�rve Index Scores �.rNw awarrruewa - >o•rr - rrr.. I✓tr .rrar �V IYaaM rw.. wuw.wn.}w. .o.. - wn..•.w+anr •W w rw. _ I _.. Owl a�nwrrw� YM I.P. 4f 'ad ba•Y1r•i __ R.C+.'aCAN R-LCa GrO.Ysi �- R-�aGYM fwRaxarwuucln}f }. anra•pruiwn.+y.lwnww�fnwl.°amMr�Iwne.+nN�naata wwatr•a Wb.@.fft—yH/.raNr rnw�rc•raus m. W_>Aw�bO..tir +�°.R�wrtea..•t} t'wd w taw W I lane tqr L.rw pq w n. rmbr.e I.wn M. p.�l u yw aw eywreWq pMa a w pwws w..o how sB.rrsf•.sfa+AreWgfwimna nfwatrrr �Y+rr,.ana.ssowwncY++.nw�w.awvinMwMwN+tlrmsnwa+uct.ala af�ew.laiw• }ra.arlane u� - aw.rm�wrv� — ey1y�A{.-G'C1w1 1gilaAuv • 9fya11111f lgiw.fitaeY 1 W�� hda•fo�,NYalPfmos a�--c..m. x �o aera.ea�pc,.dK ' fa..raweruw.' I fe.w`r.f.rn.r� 1 flw.+r+uw. 1 1 •nvaw.aa.o� � 691Page Packet Pg. 103 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT TO ATTACHMENT A ... STEWARDSHIP CREDIT WORKSHEET 'lireetree Mole. /'eF.tore 1fach= a ftm., 14 mvstwe FwMery' S FrtW� Aea :`SA• hteW'Yewwmlie Atp INSAi _ tvo.� Retw�Yat1 Ara tAItM� Aar.. d CMte151W Cmpwn IAts_, F�aw of M WOW _ _ betllne __ bnNeeed F'J.•1t$rlwYdiq d�' Y.1Pat 3001r1 w FSA a NSA 03 000 NN of.,Aft w PhM RYIWYe Mrd +.w �df M abbn beMat obw PeYd Iteew hwwt wew Waw wetw-dM •ye.fTSa 1 Wlls mremal oatborrpbretwV wen .rv®r MWrWa arrd � realorMen weY 12?- hwd Nabrw-ereY _ rated 1par.M rptateU. Map trrr of M above �t-au..=lrwcaY:F - rttwa_5 Ce!L*, V 2 'uxu Coda r—, 3 '_UCCS Cpda-' 44 Craeueeitw 7.W r f N l V Recommended Revision to Allaehm*M A Collier Courtly RLSA Stewardship Credit Workshest PraP 1 .�eadlatYtb PrMeotbte tYr y Lends ti M ACSC ra largo WWI& ftAcgu- AwfflbiktritsVYua -- dedoeon _ alep 3 ca..ua vLtst a:R i-aaatirtn� _- SqP 7.a d trebeat craw mendw L-w v" Meemx tto b MYNt LMM UN V" b ee eehl{eNAd ReddeneY U— e,x D."6 cords -al Wee 0.2 Erin mliy and Uses o1 AWW tua 1 uw 11-1 Oro z Uses 0.1 Ft —*don.. N0,, r F,— Uaea p,0 CumWIM tetel el Land IIM YNtAn NxTMelee stewwWblp melt Cetudettee hPmeeeeni N*h" R— hd" VeMee Plop 1• M NRI V Ov each pmw of lab is rala4Md by M SfsM ft* model bated M NRI Fepare, SteP 1.L Det.mt e M *A SendnO AW 6*4 UM LOYete wM W 4Wn died and wm M Leib UN Valle. slap 1.b. UN UN NMIIaI ResalAm stFwltddfa Credb Fatrreq W Sttettrine r.Anbee M CtMxm. AokW tee L&W AWwS0e S*P L D.WV xte M*M agtWR.. rW- b we t.M M bgPPe sap 2-the the Ae1Lb—St—dabp Credx Fpimxa b dot w. nuteber Or GedlU A'es V.We Aa WWA Sap 3. Seteot Rp "u" Dedcebm %0 3.e. DelenaY .Okh tss" Won.." MM M YnPra .AW Prep UL t4e M Rt Woe Formula b dtl—AW raneet df Crodb. Stewardship Credit Formulas Natural Resources Stewardship credits = Am x cumulative NRl score x cumulatNe Land Use Value Agriculture Stewardship Credts (d appRa*) =Acres x Agriculture Value —� ResWation Credits (d applicable) = Acres x ( 2 + Restoration Value) Note: This Worlmhett is irdsWed to ilustrate the Fadon, Values, FplrMdas and Irnhuclions used to rakWate Stewardship Credits. To properly+akulate Stewadship Credits. the Natural Resources hMex Map and Stewardship model must be used alorV wlh the applicable RLSA policies 701Page Packet Pg. 104 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 ATTACHMENT B-LAND USE LAYERS [s##ke-through is proposed deletion] 4.08.06 B.4.b Land Use Matrix (P=Permitted: A=Accessory; CU= Conditional Use) (Laver 1) (Laver 2) (Laver 31 (Laver 4) (Laver 5) (Laver R) rl avar 71 n aver Al Residential General Earth Mining Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture Conservation, Land Uses Conditional and Recreational Group 1 - Support Uses Group 2 Restoration and Uses Processing Uses Uses Natural Resources Single-family Family care Excavation, Golf courses Crop raising; Farm labor housing Unimproved Wildlife management, dwelling, Incl. facilities (P) extraction or andlor golf horticulture; (A) posture plant and wildlife mobile home earthmining and driving fruit and grazing, conservancies, refuges P) related ranges and nut forestry and sanctuaries (P) processing (CU) production; (P) and production groves; (CU)nurseries; Improved pasture P Mobile homes Collection and Asphaltic and Sports Animal breeding Retail sale of fresh, Ranching; livestock Water management, ((P) in MH transfer sites for concrete batch Instructional (other than Unprocessed raising (P) groundwater recharge Overlay; (A) as resource making plants schools and livestock), agricultural (P) temporary use] recovery (CU) camps (CU) raisingproducts; (CU) training, grown primarily on tabling or the kenneling (P) property (A) Private veterinary clinic Sporting and Dairying, Retail plant Hunting cabins Restoration, mitigation boathouses (CU) Recreational beekeeping; nurseries (CU) (P) and camps (CU) poultry and egg (CU) docks on lake, production; milk canal or production (P) waterway lots A Recreational Child care centers Asuasu lure for Packinghouse or Cultural, Water supply, well facilities and adult day care A010Y similar agricultural educational, fields integral centers processing of farm or recreational (P);oil and gas to residential products produced facilities and their exploration (P) development, native species) on related modes of e.g., golf the property (A) transporting course, participants, clubhouse, viewers community or patrons; tour center building operations, such and tennis is, facilities, but not limited to parks, alrboats, swamp playgrounds buggies, horses and and playfields (Al similar modes of transportation CU Guesthouses Zoo, aquarium, The commercial Sawmills (CU) Excavation and Boardwalks, nature A) aviary, botanical production, raising related processing trails garden, or other Dr incidental to Ag(A) (P) similar uses (CU) breeding or exotic animals CU Churches and Wholesale reptile Natural resources not other places of breeding and otherwise listed (P) worship (CU) ising non -venomous (P) and venomous(CU) Communications Essential services (P towers (P)(CU) and CU) Social and Oil and gas field Fraternal development and organizations (C) production (CU) Private landing strips for general aviation (CU) Cemeteries (CU) chools (CU) i,relti6es, oup care ALF CU Note to Attachment B: The removal of land use layers yields Stewardship Credits measured on a per acre Basis. 71 [Page Packet Pg. 105 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 Tyww Charadertatics Slzo (Gran Aorta) Re Wes" Un" (DU*) per wM ass bno dermity Raider" "ouolny Styles Ma_dmren Floor Aron Rabb or Woreity Goods and Servkss wow and Wa m.Aww Rovsau-and Ow Spars C-W. Gawtrawtai ad In bh ,.f S-Was Attachment C-Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics [final and approved] AtWhn*W C Collier County RLSA Overlay StewardsMP Receiving Area Chwactariatics Town' VyIar 1,000-s,000 sacs 100-1.00DWa- 14 W s Per erOn sae- 14 Dl" Per gross sae^ Full range of akgta fwrWV and muu•IsnYFy DlvaraRy a1 ekgN 6ndy.ld mrid qm horKlrg types, atybs, kK aWs how(e4 tyW, uyks, bt eh.a Rated B OfBne Raid SONG - .5 CWWGOwmmaWrotMutton-.a CMdGewrrsnwrl n*ft1tfon-.0 MWaAdWWW .15 Groue Fkrdro-,45 St[4.iR±W fbe-.s5 Tnnahra i ,w.w..28 ups net -T'nrrlea LedaL g - 20 up. at Tarn Carer vA11 Ccmaalky and Naphtorlwod Gonda ww Swvlm In T V Wes CwtW with NaghbndoW Goon and VA.ga Cwdaa: Rsrinwan s5 SF gmu am Sarwc.s kl Y4ys Canton: AQrina; WkSnp aru f1w Du:.f�e9tds, 25 SF gross busdhp eras pw DU Cwdrakad ordeanralxod wwwru*y CeMrafzed or dwAWak.d Nmmaeh trermaot syatom ,seam W u.l ¢...u¢...u. 1learrreri sysl m km dm WM C2AW COr ity Parka (200 SFIDU) and Pays d Public Crasn Spaoas wfn NakhbahWda (nreinsarr 1 % of prop arr..1 ParU s Public Green SP.ea vdn N*hbortwds Lakes Own SPea Mlriraan 35%of SRA Lakes open Space MW4 w 35%of SRA Wk1a RW" of sw.feaa - mairwm 1s sl Auto • eww-sr-w ded ayalm of eofw bW made: rag Aw cau tbn to cau -dada 7ranepodagon I IMercorutedad SWVN k ad P'KSM JI Cour" Twm Aaasa Nw.Nt Compact Rural Dowt"trraM 40.100 sass^ lad Actes of Was- Graatw Thar 100 ACM.- 112 -2 DU per eras -a- V2.2 W Per gran acre-•• 14 DUs Per gross ape^` Skgle FartPlLfDd,�py ( sbals Fames eM Wrr.ed +u .. T.^-• C: _��Na��y.,ts Groue Hausry. ,45 ImftlMt �t..n..w.. 29 up net - 1adP0' .a5 - 25 ups nel r1A11tkfs.L,^�^'^a • 28 un Ce.ua.irlee Gootls art Swldcea: Milim n ComenWm Goode and Swr kft! K*WM Wago Coma With Nayhbartmod Gs 10 SF prow IKAdby area Per W 10 SP prose wrkdkrg eras pw OU and Swvieae In V Wye Cwrtaz: 6AMn 25 $F ynaa bu&kv wuW W IndMdua WOM arrd Sephe System; InOhMlal WM end Sept,, s", Qi2i"'Odo,romoorl.rued Cenfnkzed or d—Oallted oa Iraarmwra aWW treahrwd waf-s Putlb Gran $Paoe for Netyhbwhoa0a (nlingnum l%dyraeacree) Public Green Space for Natyhborlwods (AWWnum 1%M grose atrse) laerin Wef aM c-rw Parlu s Public Gas Spsow'n 14 yrbodroods(Mkinun l%of gm I lekae GP. Space kirinwn 36%of sRA Modsrsta R.nga of SerAae - rriirvlrAn 1 SFIDU: FWI Rarw n! C�w..r. Pr.-K Lhm .gh Eig-M -- c dwoh Aulo - inlaaawdad system of oolsde aM focal read,; r"Ubod r»rinecf on to AIAD - Ireaannw.tad spasm Of bcsl road AWo - kaannedad em of to l n cotazar a ataW '� IrgWWfwo tad ddawan end pathw" Pedestrian Par." Podeahlan PeNvays Eeewldan iraL Townie are proftb d W Nn the ACSC, Par po0e11.7.1.1 the Goers, Objedi,, and Pasaaa. Villages. kleraaa, and CCnvkdldRUra Den4pm.Mswflltrt tM ACW. AjW b bastbn ak, ,,a Ynrkr40rla. pa peNey alprrd a. subJed to Chapter 2&25. FAC. esn t>♦ in kwkWo Barra low ph An AlfW W& O pmP Dansky Benue or through 0u dw.ay Mmnrllrq Wawytmpar policy d.7 Those CRDs fhM irGWs ekpN a rraa4}sntkt. redtlaraial usq a11ek krdWa Pmpadabrlela support awvka. UrldelTtl.d u6® ws rqt required recta. a�s.e...ae. sFmu M Auto-Mercorsreded y*tM of csAsd Auto bead roads; rsgtWad anwndYerr k aOksderw on" N Inleroorinedad sltlowak aM Pst w M"a"M CL COMAV I=KA--_. 3 (v Nd 1.6 L m a..r Q C ai E t ti M Q 721Page Packet Pg. 106 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 Size It Residi Reside Maxim Goods Water: Recrea Civic, C. Transw Attachment C-Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics [Recommended Amendment] [Proposed] Typical Characteristics Town' Village Compact Rural Development 3ross Acres) 1,500-5.000 acres 100-1,500 acres— 100 Acres or less- mtial Units (DUs) per gross acre base dens ty 1-4 DUs per gross acre— 1-4 DUs per gross acre— 112 -2 DU per gross acre— mtial Housing Styles Full range of single family and multi -family Diversity of single family and multi-famill housing types, styles, lot Sizes housing types, styles, lot Sizes Single Famikv and limited multi -family"' Retail & Office - .5 Retail & Office - .5 Retail & Office- .5 Civic/Govemmentalfirislitution - .6 CivictGovemmenladlnstitution -.6 CiviclGovemmental lnslitution- .6 um Floor Area Ratio or Intensity Man ufactt rinalUght I_ ndystnal..45 Group Housing-.45 Group Housing- .45 Group Housing- .45 Transient Lodoing- 26 upa net Transient Lodaing- 26 upa net Transient Lodging- 26 upa net Town Center with Community and and Services Neighborhood Goods and Services in Town an I Village Center with Neighborhood Good Research, Education,Touhsm & RecreaU Village Centers: Minimum 65 SF gross buildii g and Services in Village Centers: Minimum Convenience Goods and Services- Minimu area per DU Comorale Offi .d�d�r" 25 SF gross building area per DU 10 SF gross building area per DU and Light Industrial Centralized or decentralized community Centralized or decentralized community Individual Well and Septic System; Centralized or decentralized ommunity snd Wastewater treatment system treatment systems treatment system _Interim Well and Septic Intorn Well andc Community Parks (200 SFlDU) Parks & Public Green Spaces win Neighborhoods (minimum 1 % of gross Public Green S g pace for Neighborhoods ate (minimum 1 % of gross acres) Parks & Public Green Spaces win Active RecreationlGolf C1 urses - Neighborhoods tion and Open Spaces Lakes -Alive RecreatiWGolf Courses Open Space Minimum 35% of SRA Lakes Open Space Minimum 35% of SRA Wide Range of Services - minimum 15 SF/D1 J Moderate Range of Services - minimum 1 L mited Services �ovemmental and Institutionat Services SF/DU; Full Range of Schools Full Range of Schools Pre l( through Elementary Sch Is Auto • interconnected system of collector an Auto - interconnected system of cwlleclo local roads; required connection to collector r and local roads; required connection to Auto - interconnected system of local road arterial collector or arterial xtation Interconnected sidewalk and pathway syste Interconnected sidewalk and pathway pedestrian Pathways ys County Transit Access Eauestrian Trails Eauestrian Trails County Transit Access Towns are prohibited within the ACSC, per policy 4.7.1 of the Goals. Objectives, and Policies. Villages and Compact Rural Developments within the ACSC are subject to location and size limitations. per policy 4,22. and are subject to Chapter 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 proportalonate support services. Undedinsduses are not required uses. r� Q 731 Page Packet Pg. 107 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 SECTION .3 SUPPQRTING DOCL MENTA�TON Preface The Committee's recommended RLSA Overlay amendments are supported by a substantive analysis of several subject areas that have been discussed by the RLSA Review Committee. The full analysis is provided for in Section 3. These subject areas include: • The RLSA Credit System analysis which compares current and proposed Credit projections derived from natural resource areas, agriculture, panther corridors, and restoration. • The analysis shows how the recommended policy changes relate to the proposed 45,000 acre SRA cap, which aligns the RLSA Program with the goals of the Florida Panther Protection Program and provides a basis to evaluate long term transportation infrastructure plans. • The population analysis compares different County study results and shows how the RLSA is consistent with adopted projections. • The Concept Maps help to visualize how land uses may be distributed within the RLSA, and graphically illustrate one possible scenario for the distribution of potential Stewardship Sending Areas, Stewardship Receiving Areas, Agricultural Areas, Open Spaces, and other features of the RLSA that could occur at the 2025 Horizon Year and 2050 based on implementation of the recommended policies. • The RLSA Transportation Analysis describes the development and evaluation of a set of long-range transportation plan improvements that support the land development potential at 2025 and at Build -Out as depicted in the 2025 and 2050 Concept Maps. Introduction The Committee on September 23, September 30, and December 18, 2008 reviewed and voted to accept the = following analysis to support its recommendations regarding revisions to several of the RLSA Overlay and its 3 related Credit System. ii 3 m Collier County Rural Land Stewardship Five Year Review L Supporting Documentation LO [a working draft] m w I. Introduction a r c W The RLSA Overlay is a long-term strategic plan with a planning horizon year of 2025, the established s HorizonYear in the Collier County Growth Management Plan. This analysis was performed for both the 2025 Horizon Year and for a theoretical "build -out" scenario in 2050 in order to evaluate the potential long-range a implications of implementing the recommendations to amend certain RLSA policies set forth within this Phase 11 Report. The RLSA Review Committee's (Committee) Phase 11 work focused in part on policy changes to strengthen the incentive to protect agriculture land and new panther corridors, to focus restoration activities, and to cap the total potential Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) footprint within the RLSA program at 45,000 acres. Consistent 741 Page Packet Pg. 108 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 with the framework of the RLSA and the Stewardship Credit system, the Committee incentivized the preservation of agriculture lands by awarding new Stewardship Credits for agriculture land preservation and panther corridors, and changed the Credits associated with restoration to more specifically defined activities. The recommended changes required a reanalysis of the Stewardship Credit system and rebalancing of the Credits to align with the Committees recommended maximum SRA footprint and projected demands. Further analysis was completed to determine if the recommended 45,000 SRA footprint could accommodate the acreage necessary for the projected population, and the goods and services required in towns and villages within the RLSA Overlay. Along with population, a transportation analysis was completed in order to evaluate a potential transportation network to support a maximum 45,000 acre SRA scenario. II. Stewardship Credit System Analysis The Stewardship Credit System analysis begins with consideration of the generation of Credits under the currently adopted RLSA Overlay. The Committee's recommended Credit system changes are then evaluated and compared to the existing program. 1. CREDIT GENERATION UNDER CURRENTLY ADOPTED RLSA OVERLAY Base Credits Base Credits are the Credits generated by use of the Natural Resource Index and the Land Use Layer System. They are created from FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and Open lands that are designated as SSAs by the property owners. To estimate the total potential Base Credits, a model run of the NRI values was performed using current mapping of AG1 and AG 2 land uses as recently adjusted during the Stage 1 process. It is assumed that all FSAs, HSAs and WRAs become SSAs with land use layers removed down to current AGI or AG2 use. This model was applied to all of the FSAs, HSAs and WRAs lands regardless of whether they are in approved SSAs or not. Modeled credits were compared to actual SSA Base Credits generated from SSAs 1-13, and this analysis shows that actual Base Credits in these approved and pending SSAs are approximately 15% greater than the model due to the inclusion of more site specific data, such as listed species surveys which have enabled a greater level of accuracy in calculating NRI values. However, this variance will be less going forward based on the composition of future SSAs being more heavily weighted toward WRAs. Therefore an adjustment factor of +10% is applied to the model derived Base Credits (116,329). The rounded total estimate is 128,000 Base Credits. Restoration Credits Restoration Credits are generated by application of Policy 3.11. Because these Credits are dependent on site specific conditions that require detailed evaluations and restoration planning and permitting by each property owner, as well as successful implementation, it was not possible to estimate these Credits at the inception of the RLSA Overlay. With 5 years of actual data from 13 approved and pending SSAs one can estimate the use of the restoration program. Notwithstanding, the same variables of site specific conditions, owner decisions, and permitting requirements will still apply to future restoration. For this estimate, the following approach has been used: Total acres of FSA, HSA, and Restoration Zone within RLSA: 73,000 Acres of planned restoration, SSAs 1-13: 12,000 Acres deemed not suitable for restoration SSAs 1-13 21,000 Maximum eligible acreage for future restoration: 40,000 For SSAs 1-I3, approximately 29% of the total acreage is proposed for restoration. Assuming that the same percentage applies to the 40,000 acres that are eligible for future restoration, 11,600 additional acres would be restored (40,000 x 0.29 = 11,600). The projected additional restoration credits generated under the current system would be approximately 78,000 credits, as shown in the table below: 751Page Packet Pg. 109 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 systern Potential Restoration Acres Estimated Restoration Potential acresx 29% Restoration Credits credits/acre Estimated. Cradifs Camp Keais 15,000 4,350 8 34 800 K ROSlou h 25,000 7250 ,3,500 6 4 OTAL 40,000 11,600 WA E78,300 The total estimate for restoration credits under the current system is: Approved restoration credits (SSAs 1-9, 11): 28,000 Pending restoration credits (SSAs 10, 12, 13): 54,000 Estimated future restoration credits (rounded): _ _ 78,000 Total restoration credit estimate for current system: 160,000 _Early Entry Bonus Credits RLSA Policy 1.21 provides for a maximum of 27,000 Early Entry Bonus Credits. These Credits are available until January 31, 2009, at which time they are no longer available. Potential Credits and SRA acres under currently adopted RLSA Prop -ram Base Credits: 128,000 Restoration Credits: 160,000 Early Entry Bonus Credits: 27,000 Total Credits: 315,000 Credits SRA Acres at 8 Credits per acre: 39,375 Acres Public Benefit Acres estimated at 10%: 3,937 Acres Total SRA Acres: 43,312 Acres Remaining Baseline development potential Open Land not included in SRAs or SSAs ACSC Open Land 15,000 Acres Non ACSC Open Land 28,700 Acres Total remaining Open Land 43,700 Acres 2. CREDIT GENERATION UNDER THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED RSLA OVERLAY MODIFICATIONS Three proposed changes to the RLSA Overlay recommended by the Committee would change the Stewardship Credit estimates described previously. Two are new credit categories that resulted from the Florida Panther Protection Program, and the third is a proposed modification to the Restoration Credit system. Agriculture Credits (Policy 2.2) These Credits result from a property owner agreeing to eliminate non- agricultural uses from Open designated land and an alternative to development under baseline zoning rights. Estimates are calculated based on the acreage of privately owned Open designated land in the ACSC not already included in approved SSAs (approximately 15,000 acres) at 2.6 Credits per acre yielding 39,000 Credits, and privately owned Open designated land outside of the ACSC (approximately 72,000 acres), less the amount of potential SRA acres proposed under the Florida Panther Protection Program (45,000) and less the acreage of a potential Panther Corridors on such Open Lands (approximately 1,300 acres) and miscellaneous land (700 acres). This results in an estimated 25,000 acres of Agriculture outside of the ACSC at 2.0 credits per acre, or 50,000 Credits. Therefore, the rounded total estimate is 89,000 total Agriculture Credits. 761 Page Packet Pg. 110 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Panther Corridor Credits (Policy 3.11) Panther Corridor Credits result from a property owners agreeing to designate land and construct improvements to implement the north and south Panther Corridors referenced in the Florida Panther Protection Program. These corridors will require the use of both Open Lands and WRAs. We currently estimate approximately 1,300 acres of Open land and 1000 acres of WRA land in the north and south corridors would be required for a total of 2,300 acres at 10 Credits per acre, or 23,000 Panther Corridor Credits. It is possible for these acreages to be more or less, and the viability of these corridors is currently under review by the Florida Panther Protection Program Scientific Technical Review Committee. Tiered Restoration Credit Estimates (Policy 3.11) The proposed tiered restoration system is a modification to the current program to better define the type and relative value of different restoration types. For this estimate, we assume that 11,600 acres within future SSAs are suitable for restoration activities as previously described, with 600 acres dedicated for panther habitat restoration, and the remaining 11,000 acres split equally between the four other restoration types (caracara, exotic removal / burning, flow way, and native habitat restoration). For this analysis, we also assume that approved and pending SSAs will be considered as vested under the current program, and that future SSAs will use the tiered system. The calculations are as follows: Restora Lion Acres . Credi ts ger re Restorato�Credifs . Panther Habitat 600 10 6,000 Caracara 2,750 4 11,000 Exotic Control/Burning 2,750 6 16,500 Flow Way 2,750 6 16,500 Native Habitat Rest. 2,750 8 22,000 Total 11,600 N/A 72,000 The total estimated restoration credits with implementation of the tiered system for future SSAs are shown below: Approved restoration credits (SSAs 1-9, 11): 28,000 Pending restoration credits (SSAs 10, 12, 13): 54,000 Estimated future restoration credits: 72,000 Tiered Restoration Credits: 154,000 These restoration estimates are subject to substantial variation based on site specific analysis for restoration suitability, decisions made by the property owner as to appropriate restoration, approval by the County and permitting agencies and successful restoration implementation. Potential Credits and SRA acres under a revised RLSA Overlay Should the three modifications described above be adopted without further changes, there would be the following resulting Credits and SRA acres: Base Credits: 128,000 Restoration Credits: 154,000 Early Entry Bonus Credits: 27,000 Agriculture Credits 89,000 Panther Corridor Credits 23,000 Total Credits: 421,000 Credits SRA Acres at 8 Credits per acre: 52,625 Acres Public Benefit Acres at 10%: 5,263 Acres Total SRA Acres: 57,888 Acres Remaining Baseline development potential Open Land not included in SRAs or SSAs 0 Acres 771 Page Packet Pg. 111 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 3. ADJUSTMENTS TO MEET 45,000 ACRE SRA CAP In Policy 4.2, the Committee recommends a cap of 45,000 SRA acres in the RLSA and, as a result, certain adjustment will be necessary so that the RLSA Overlay Credit System will produce sufficient Credits to entitle 45,000 acres, without leaving a substantial number of excess Credits. The following items are recommended by the Committee: 1. The cap of 45,000 SRA acres should include public benefit acres. (Policy 4.2 and 4.20) 2. The proposed Tiered Restoration System should be used for all future SSAs (Policy 3.11). 3. No extension of the Early Entry Bonus Program beyond January 31, 2009. Approximately 7,000 EEBs not included in approved or pending SSAs will be eliminated (Policy 1.21) . 4. A change in the SRA Credit Ratio from 8 Credits per SRA acre to 10 Credits per SRA acre for Credits generated from any future, non -vested SSAs (Policy 4.19). 5. SSA vesting will be applied as follows: a. All approved SSAs would be vested at the 8 Credit per SRA acre ratio and in accordance with the restoration programs set forth therein. This represents a total of 73,488 credits. Any SRA acres entitled with these Credits will be computed at the current 8 Credit per acre ratio. This includes Credits and SRA acres already approved for and applied to the Town of Ave Maria. b. Proposed SSAs 14, 15, and 16 would be vested at the current 8 Credit per SRA acre ratio to the extent required to entitle the proposed Town of Big Cypress DRIISRA. These SSAs will include restoration designation credits at the current rate of 4 per acre in the Camp Keais Strand. Total restoration credits per acre will not exceed the level provided under the new tiered system as approved. This represents an estimated total of 24,000 Credits and 3,000 SRA acres. c. Proposed SSAs 10, 12, and 13 will continue to be processed and approved under current adopted standards (8 Credits per SRA acre and non -tiered restoration). Should all of the proposed modifications be approved, the owners of these SSAs will agree to subsequently amend these SSAs to adjust to the 10 Credit per SRA acre ratio and tiered restoration system following approval and adoption of these new standards. This would reduce the estimated restoration credits by 10,000. Should the proposed modifications not be adopted, these SSAs will not be amended. 6. All new SSAs will conform to the new adopted standards. With these adjustments, the following table shows the resulting number of Credits and potential SRA acres: Estimated Credits (assumin,2 full vrooertv owner oarticination): Base Credits from all NRI based SSAs 128,000 Early Entry Bonus Credits (upon phase out) 20,000 Restoration Credits 144,000 Agriculture Credits (40,000 acres) 89,000 Panther Corridors (assumes 2,300_acres) 23,000 _ Total Estimated Credits 404,000 Credits Proiected SSA suooly of Credits SSAs 1-9, 11 Vested Credits (approved) 73,498 credits SSAs 14-16 Vested Credits estimated 24,000 credits SSA Credits vested at 8 Credits per SRA acre 97,488 credits Remaining SSAs at 10 Credits per SRA acre 306,512 credits 781 Page Packet Pg. 112 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 Proiected SRA acres assuming all Credits are used: SRA acres entitled at 8 Credits per acre 12,186 acres SRA acres entitled at 10 Credits per acre 30,651 acres Subtotal of Credit entitled SRAs 42,837 acres Public benefit acres estimated at 10% _ 4,283 acres Total potential SRA acres 47,120 acres Remaining Baseline development potential Open Land not included in SRAs or SSAs 0 acres Credit estimates and excess Credits The total supply of Credits entitles less than 45,000 acres of SRAs, but estimated public benefit acres must also be considered. Because the RLSA is a voluntary, market based system and these estimates assume 100% property owner participation in the RLSA Program, and each category of estimate has a range of assumptions built in to the estimated number, it is advisable to allow for some variance. The above estimates result in sufficient Credits that, together with public benefit acres, provides for an approximate 5% variance in total potential SRA acres. There are a number of factors that could offset this potential "excess" including but not limited to: less than 100% participation by all property owners in the RLSA, less than 10% public benefit acres, purchase of land and/or Credits by a publicly funded conservation program, less than 100% success rate in restoration implementation, and lack of market demand for all of the potential Credits. 4. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE CREDIT SYSTEMS The following three tables illustrate the land use summaries at full utilization using the current and revised and recalibrated programs. With the proposed revisions, the acreage of potential SRAs increases nominally from 43,300 acres (Tables 4.1 and 4.2) to 45,000 acres (Table 4.3). However the potential development footprint of Open Land converted to baseline development could be reduced dramatically, depending on the use of the new Agriculture Credit. Table 4.1 shows 100% of Open Lands converted to baseline uses under the current program and Table 4.3 shows 100% of Open Lands placed in Agriculture SSAs under the revised program. It is unrealistic to expect that all of the Open land outside of SRAs would be converted to baseline development under the current program. Market incentives that favor well planned, compact, mixed use communities with a wide range of housing options served by high quality infrastructure and services would satisfy most of the demand for new homes in the RLSA. In addition, Golden Gate Estates already offers a significant supply of 2.25 to 5 acre lots without such services for those that prefer this alternative. Table 4.2 shows a more realistic scenario for comparison, where 10% of ACSC Open lands are converted {based on ACSC regulations limiting site alterations to 10% of any site} and 25% of non ACSC Open Lands are converted. Comparing Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 still demonstrates that the potential development footprint is reduced by approximately 7,000 acres using the revised RLSA system. Table 4.1: Current RLSA Land Use Summary at full utilization with 100 % baseline conversion Acres % of Total NRI based SSAs 92,000 SSA Subtotal 92,000 47.0 % Open Land conversion to baseline rights SRAs 43,700 43,300 Potential Development Footprint 87,000 44.4% Public Land and Miscellaneous 16,846 8.6% Total RLSA 195,846 100.0 % 791 Page Packet Pg. 113 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Table 4.2: Current RLSA Land Use Summary with artial baseline conversion Acres % of Total NRI based SSAs 92,000 SSA Subtotal 92,000 47.0% ACSC Open Land conversion at 10% Non ACSC Open Land conversion at 25% SRAs 1,500 7,175 43,300 Potential Development Footprint 51,975 26.5 % Open Land remaining in Agriculture 35,025 17.9% Public Land and Miscellaneous 16,846 8.6% Total RLSA 195,846 100.0% Table 4.3: Revised and recalibrated RLSA Land Use Summary at full utilization Acres % of Total NRI based SSAs Agriculture SSAs Panther Corridors 92,000 40,000 2,300 47.0% 20.4% 1.1%© SSA Subtotal 134,300 68.5% Potential Development (SRAs) 45,000 23.0% Public Land and Miscellaneous 16,546 8.5% Total RLSA 195,846 100.0% Under the revised and recalibrated RLSA system, in addition to agricultural uses retained on the majority of 92,000 acres of NRI based SSAs, 40,000 additional acres of agricultural land are protected as Agriculture SSAs. Two important Panther corridors are also incentivised. It should also be noted that current RLSA Overlay Policy 4.10 requires a minimum of 35% of each SRA to be open space. As a result, a minimum of 15,750 acres of the total 45,000 acres of SRA will be open space, and a maximum of 29,250 acres will be developed land. This results in a net developed footprint equal to 15% of the total RLSA acreage. III. Population Analysis This analysis is based on the projected population within the RLSA and does not include or accommodate projected urban populations in areas beyond the RLSA. Population projections for the horizon year of 2025 were reviewed from multiple sources as shown in Table II-1. First, the Collier County Build -Out Study is an analysis done by County Comprehensive Planning staff in 2005 to evaluate a potential population of the RLSA at that time. That study estimated a RLSA population projection of 71,600 by 2025. The more recent Collier County East of CR 951 Interactive Growth Model (2008) analyzed a projected population for the county east of CR 951 area, and included a discrete projection for the RLSA. This study projected an RLSA population of 45,000. The Collier County MPO 2025 land use forecast uses the county's accepted projections of a population of 56,300. Using the data derived from the transportation analysis and SRA requirements contained in the RLSA Overlay, a projected population of 51,303 is obtained, slightly below the County's accepted MPO projections. 801 Page Packet Pg. 114 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 Table II-12025 Horizon Year Projections within the RLSA SF Dwelling SF MF Dwelling MF TOTAL Total Units Population Units Population Dwelling UnitCollier Population County 171100 43,400 14,800 28,200 31,900 71,600 Build -out Stud Collier County Interactive n/a n/a n/a n/a 24,663 45,400 Growth Model Collier MPO 2025 Forecast 13,900 34,200 11,800 22,100 25,700 56,300 RLSA Overlay Forecast 12,656 28,476 13,044 22,827 25,700 51,303 There is no requirement for Collier County to "accept" population projections beyond the established horizon year of 2025 and therefore an MPO population figure is not included in Table II-2. However several other sources have included "build -out" projections including the 2005 Collier County Build -out Study, and the Collier County Interactive Growth Model, both illustrated in Table II-2. For the purposes of this analytical comparison we used the maximum SRA 45,000 acres and extrapolated a population based on the SRA requirements for towns and villages and the adopted Collier County persons per households. Table II-2 Build -Out Projections within the RLSA SF Dwelling SF MF Dwelling MF TOTAL DUe Total Units Population Units Population Ong Population Collier County Build -out Study 66,403 220,722 65,879 168,421 132,238 389,193 Collier County Interactive n/a n/a n/a n/a 106,493 210,632 Growth Model RLSA Overlay Forecast 72,700 _J� L3,602 40,514 70,970 113,214 234,572 Note: Table II - RLSA Overlay Forecast totals include SRA development and Baseline development existing in 2000. How the projected population might be accommodated within SRAs is addressed in the following RLSA Concept Maps. RLSA Concept Maps To help visualize how land uses may be distributed within the RLSA, and to graphically illustrate the Comparison of alternatives previously described three Maps have been prepared the currently adopted RLSA Overlay Map (Figure A); the 2025 RLSA Concept Map (Figure B); and the 2050 RLSA Concept Map (Figure Q. Map A is a rendering of the Overlay Map and Maps B and C each present one possible scenario for the distribution of potential Stewardship Sending Areas, Stewardship Receiving Areas, Agricultural Areas, Open Spaces, and other features of the RLSA that could occur at the 2025 Horizon Year and 2050 based on implementation of the recommended policies. The Maps also depict the primary transportation network and the possible location of Panther Corridors. The Concept Maps use symbols to depict possible locations of Towns, Villages and Compact Rural Developments. The range of potential size for any Town, Village or CRD varies widely, and one should not assume that each Town or Village symbol represents the maximum allowable size, as this would result in a total 811Page Packet Pg. 115 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 SRA development footprint well in excess of what is possible under the proposed cap. For example, a Town will fall within a range of 1,500 acres — 5,000 acres under the proposed policies. In 2025, the forecasted number of dwelling units is 25,700 and the MPO forecasted population is 56,300. The 2025 Concept Map depicts 10 potential SRAs of varying size that collectively would accommodate the forecasted 2025 population and also provide for future growth. Please note that these maps depict "approved" SRAs and not fully developed Towns and Villages, as it commonly takes 10-25 years before an approved Town or Village would be completed. To accommodate this fact, the total acreage of approved SRA Towns and Villages shown is approximately 24,000 acres and it is estimated that collectively approximately 1/2 of the SRA acreage would be fully developed at this time with occupied homes and associated non- residential uses. In 2050, the forecasted number of dwelling units within the RLSA ranges between 106,493 and 132,238 depending on the forecast source. The 2050 Concept Map depicts 16 possible SRAs of varying size that collectively would accommodate the forecasted 2050 population and, if fully developed at this time, represent the 45,000 acres of SRA that is proposed as the cap for the RLSA at buildout, with an average gross density between 2.5 and 3.0 units per acre. It should also be noted that, with the RLSA Review Committee's recommended changes to the RLSA Overlay Credit System, essentially all of the areas depicted as FSA, HSA, WRA, Agriculture and Open Space would be within approved SSAs in order to generate the necessary Credits to entitle the SRAs. As noted on each Map, these Maps represent but one possible scenario, and should not be misconstrued as a binding or definitive depiction of the location or size of SRAs or SSAs, as these must be voluntarily and individually approved by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners in accordance with the adopted GMP and LDC procedures. [this intentionally left blank] 821 Page Packet Pg. 116 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 RLSA OVERLAY 1 i Atx BOUNW& POEENIW1 pEVtlOPMENT WATER MIUMON AREA HABITAT STEWAPDSNIP AREA ROW WAY STEWARDSHIP AREA This RLSA Overlay plan was prepared solely for the purpose of presenting a general depiction of potential Stewardship Sending Areas, potential development areas, and other features based on the adopted RLSA Overlay. The RLSA is a voluntary, incentive based program, and the specific features shown on this plan are not to be construed as part of the Future Land Use Map, shall not be used in a regulatory manner, nor shall it be construed to be a binding or definitive depiction of future SRAs or SSAs, which are subject to the designation and approval procedures set forth in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code. Areas shown as potential development may become SRAs, SSAs, or be developed in accordance with the underlying RuraVAgricultural zoning classification. ua`raxa,.nrx��en 831 Page Packet Pg. 117 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 Figure B — 2025 RLSA Concept Plan. 2025 RLSA CONCEPT PLAN Im GOLDEN GATE ESTATES TRRp !M OKRI.EE f4• 7 BIG CYPREss NATIONAL PRESERVE RLSA BOUNDARY ACSC BOUNDARY POTENnALDEVELOPMENT FLOlUDA PANTHER TOWN NATIONALWILDUFf REnIGf AGRICULTURE AND OVEN SPACE AE WATER RETFNTICN AREA HABITAT VEWAADSHIP AREA s« FLOW WAY STEWARDSHIP AREA -....-r... — • �' -- .,�r�.'._ INTERSTATE-?5`ALV6AToCkUEY•..,. FLORIDA PANTHER CORIUDOA i This RLSA 2025 Horizon Year Concept Wan was prepared solely for the purpose of presenting a general depiction of one possible scenario for the location of potential Stewardship Sending Areas, Stewardship Receiving Areas, Agricultural Areas, and other features of the RLSA at the 2025 horizon year. The RLSA is a voluntary, incentive based program, and the specific number, size, location, and relationship of Stewardship Sending and Receiving Areas, or other features shown on this plan are not to be construed as part of the Future Land Use Map, shall not be used in a regulatory manner, nor shall it be 841 construed to be a binding or definitive depiction of future SRAs or SSAs, which are subject to the designation and approval procedures set forth in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and land Development Code, Packet Pg. 11 f L..o.....,.> Q 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 Figure C — 2050 Build -Out RLSA Concept Plan. 2050 RLSA CONCEPT PLAN _a Fop *.. 4 ,RA am !M OIC,aLEE r' I - '.a t GOLDEN ` GATE ESTATES BIGPRE G,n NATIONALALPRESERVE -- - RASA RoIRaDARY ASC BOUNDARY © POTENTIALI) EtOPMENT iLOR1DA PANTHER NATIONAL MLDIA REFUGE AGRKULTURE AND OPEN SPACE WATER RETEN7FON AREA HABITAT STEWARDSHIP AREA FLOW WAY MWAADirtPfi ff -- WERS TTATE_25-AUK.ATOR�AUET -" -- FtanDAVATFTHERcowaooR This RI -SA 2050 Horizon Year Concept Plan was prepared solely for the purpose of presenting a general depiction of one possible scenario for the location of potential Stewardship Sending Areas, Stewardship Receiving Areas, Agricultural Areas, and other features of the RLSA at the 2050 horizon year. The RLSA is a voluntary, incentive based program, and the specific number, size, location, and relationship of Stewardship Sending and Receiving Areas, or other features shown an this plan are not to be construed as part of the Future Land Use Map, shall not be used in a regulatory manner, nor shall it be construed to be a binding or definitive depiction of future SRAs or SSAs, which are subject to the designation and approval procedures set forth in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code, 85 1 Packet Pg. 119 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 IV. Transportation A long-range transportation analysis was performed for two separate timeframes; 2025, the established Horizon Year in the Collier County Growth Management Plan, and a theoretical RLSA "Build -Out" in 2050, in order to evaluate the long-range transportation implications of development within the RLSA Overlay. The first analysis performed was for 100% build -out of Collier County with specific emphasis placed on the roadway network needs with the RLSA Overlay "study area". It should be emphasized that these are conceptual in nature and depict one theoretical scenario for potential development in the RLSA at the horizon year and at build -out. Both analyses were conducted using the FDOT District One District -wide 2030 Model as a base. Since the Study Area has a significant amount of potential to interact with both Lee and Hendry County in addition to western Collier County, the District -wide model was seen as a better tool for this exercise than the MPO's Lee/Collier Bi-County model that does not interact with Hendry County. Build -Out Analysis Starting with the District -wide 2030 Financially Feasible Model, the Collier County traffic analysis zones (TAZs) were "populated" with land use socioeconomic (SE) data developed by Collier County as part of the Collier County Build -Out Study. For the TAZs outside of Collier County, a growth rate derived from an estimate of the build -out year for Collier County was developed, and land use data in surrounding counties was extrapolated at that resulting growth rate in order to "grow" adjacent counties for the same period as Collier County. With the exception of the TAZs wholly or partially within the RLSA Overlay boundary, all of the TAZ SE data used was provided by Collier County. For TAZs split by the RLSA Overlay boundary, an estimate for RLSA and non-RLSA lands was made, and the TAZ contents distributed accordingly. For the RLSA Overlay TAZs the SE data was developed to illustrate one possible scenario of SRAs. Land use variable were developed to establish the amounts of dwelling units and non-residential floor area, as well as hotel units and school enrollment, all variables used by the travel models. Lastly, the RLSA Overlay totals were divided into TAZs that generally represent one possible scenario of how development may occur. It should be understood, that the RLSA program allows for certain level of flexibility to develop with Open lands, and until such time as agricultural and environmental lands are placed into SSAs and like wise Open Iands are designated as SRAs, there will be a lack of specificity as to where development will actually occur. The land areas (TAZs) identified in the analyses, are one of a number of potential scenarios. Further, it should be noted that the number of TAZs does not necessarily equate to the number of potential future SRAs, since in the travel model structure a single SRA may be comprised of more than one TAZ and thus have multiple centroids in the model. The potential development for the Build -Out Scenario examined for purposes of this amendment is shown in Table 1 H. The potential development areas were generally located as illustrated in Figure D. [left blank intentionally] 861 Page Packet Pg. 120 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 Table III - Traffic Analysis Zones with the RLSA at Build -Out ' 4140... Single Family Detached 5,886 Condo Townhouse 5,114 Retail Shopping (K Sq. Ft.) 1,885 1,604 Office (K Sq. Ft.) 628 535 Student Population 3,311 Hotel (Room) 500 • 4141 6,650 2,850 3,126 W 430 6,650 2,850 1,425 475 3,126 380 41143u_ _' 3,500 1,500 750 250 1,645 200 4144 _ 5,190 3,460 1,021 340 2,699 270 4145 1,225 525 263 88 576 - 4146 , 6,650 2,850 1,425 475 3,126 380 414, . 2,538 1,088 544 181 1,193 150 41,49 4,988 1,663 2,138 713 1,069 356 356 2,344 290 - 4149' _ 119 781 4150 . 3,500 1,500 750 250 1,645 200 41'51 2,407 6,561 987 664 2,292 280 4192 2,450 1,050 525 175 1,152 140 41:`5 2,450 1,050 525 175 1,152 140 4154, 3,213 1,377 689 230 1,510 180 41'S5 5,775 2,475 1,238 413 2,714 330 4i5s_ 4167 _788 422 338 169 56 370 - �- - - - - _ _._- 410 5,250 2,250 1,125 375 2,468 300 41'69_ - - 38 13 - 200 Various 1,929 827 413 138 906 110 73x1 _ .. _ . 40,514 18,799' ; 5,935 30,134' . 4'480; General Assumptions: Residential Density: 2.525 DUs per Gross Acre Retail Shopping: .38 K Sq. Ft. per Gross Acre Office/Service: .13 K Sq. Ft. per Gross Acre Student Population: .38 per SF DU and .21 per MF DU Hotel: .10 rooms per Gross Acre [left blank intentionally] 871 Page Packet Pg. 121 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 Figure D — New District -Wide Model TAZs within the RLSA During the course of the Build -Out Analysis, various roadway network options were examined, including options to expand along existing alignments as well as new roads that would help to form a grid network. The iterative process of developing a build -out network involved running the computer models, examining the results, updating the network with improvements (adding/deleting), re -running the model, etc. This exercise was repeated several times in order to achieve a long-range transportation network that can sustain the travel demand of the RLSA Overlay at build -out. The resulting network from the Build -Out Analysis is attached as Exhibit A. Note: This map is preliminary and has not been approved by Collier County, will be updated and refined as part of the process involved with the implementation of proposed Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element of the GMP [see Section Sl, and the Committee endorses the provision of necessary lands for other forms of transportation, including rail and transit. 881 Page Packet Pg. 122 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 2025 Anal Fallowing completion of the Build -Out Analysis, attention was turned to the interim horizon year of 2025 which corresponds to the adopted Transportation Element of the County's Growth Management Plan. A Naples MPO 2025 Lee/Collier land use TAZ dataset was used to populate the Lee and Collier County TAZs within the 2030 Districtwide model. 2025 SE data for all other TAZs in the District -wide Model counties were developed by interpolating between the District -wide validation year (2000) dataset and the 2030 dataset, and when combined with the Lee/Collier 2025 TAZ contents, effectively created a 2025 District -wide model. With the exception of the TAZs wholly or partially within the RLSA Overlay boundary, all of the TAZ SE data was used as provided by Collier County. For TAZs split by the RLSA Overlay boundary, a proportional estimate for RLSA and non-RLSA lands was made, and the TAZ contents distributed accordingly. Within the RLSA Overlay TAZs, an assessment of what amount of the build -out total for each TAZ would be actually constructed by 2025 was made. Additionally, for purposes of context, the amount of SRA acreage that would need to be entitled in order to accommodate a lesser degree of actual developed acreage was estimated (see previous discussion regarding the Concept Maps). This calculation, although not relevant to the analysis, places the developed acreage into proper perspective, as a part of the estimated entitled SRA acreage in the year 2025. This assessment recognizes the reality that there will always be some level of un-built inventory of SRA acreage available at any given time. The estimates shown below in Table IV for the 2025 horizon year have been translated into land use variables that essentially match the totals that were attributed to the RLSA TAZs in the 2025 MPO model. While the dwelling unit totals match to the original estimates, no attempt was made to match the single family/multi-family mix shown in the original estimates. Additionally, because the nature of the proposed development patterns and the associated mix of unit types is expected to be different than that proposed in the original County dataset, the net result is a slightly lower overall persons per household rate within the RLSA Overlay, resulting in a slightly lower total population. [left blank intentionally blank] 891 Page Packet Pg. 123 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 Table IV — Traffic Analysis Zones with the RLSA at 2025 4-40. 4141 5,297 4,60 1,697 393 566 2,980 450 1,6291 698 131 766 110 4142 - 4143 �4144. - - - 148 - 314 - - 49 - 105 - - 391 - 689 - 123 _ - - - 753 5 02 446 - - 4146 _ 1,466 628 41J7 _ - 263 158 -_ - 4148 4149 4150 113 56 19 - - 68 34 11 - 74 - - - - - - 4151 .. 4 52 2,164 51898 - 887 - 597 2,061 _ 250 - - - - - - 17 111 - - --- - 56 370 - - 41�54- - - 4155 4156 - - 236 _- T41 101 51 4157 4168 - - 338 169 4_159 - - - - - - - - - Various I - 12,-752 ?.- 12; 48 ` 3748 1;551 7465. $10 24,600 Estimated SRA Acreage Entitled 10,200 Estimated Acreage Developed 41 % Percentage of Entitled Actual Developed 22% Percentage of Build -out Acreage Actual Developed 25,700 Revised RLSA DU Distribution 25,700 Original DU Control Total in Collier County Model 0 Difference During the modeling analysis of 2025, the build -out network developed previously was used as a starting point, realizing that a substantially lower development program in 2025 would require less roadway capacity than the build -out scenario. As in the Build -Out Analysis, multiple iterations were needed to "prune" the build -out network of excess capacity that would not be necessary by 2025, resulting in the roadway network depicted in attached Exhibit B. As in the case of the build -out scenario, the 2025 represents one of many scenarios of where development may exist by the year 2025. With respect to both the build out and 2025 scenarios, because they represent one of many possible outcomes, it will be important for the County to monitor in -coming SRA applications, and their associated transportation impact assessments for consistency with the analyzed scenarios, and where necessary, update the build -out and 2025 networks as needed to reflect changed conditions. This is consistent with the current practice of periodically re -analyzing the growth patterns for changes in trends and conditions, and making any necessary modifications to adopted roadway plans. (Continued Next Page) 901 Page Packet Pg. 124 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 Exhibit A — Conceptual Build -Out Roadway Network. 911 P a g e Note: This map is preliminary and has not been approved by Collier County, will be updated and refined as part of the process involved with the implementation of proposed Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element of the GMP [see Section S], and the Co Packet Pg. 125 the provision of necessary lands for other forms of transportation, including rail and transit. 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 Exhibit B - Conceptual 2025 Roadway Network Note: This map is preliminary and has not been approved by Collier County, will be updated and refined as part of the process involved with 92 I P age the implementation of proposed Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element of the GMP [see Section SI, and the Committee endorses the provision of necessary lands for other forms of transportation, including rail and transit. Packet Pg. 126 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 SEC TION.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATON AND -COMMENTS coMNII3"JL'EE DELIBRATIONS COMMIT -TEE ACTIONS RE AtRDINGM RECOMII ND D AI► EI�IIMENTS To. RURAL.LANDS STEWARDSHIP ARKA 01MLA Preface to Section 4 Committee recommendations the Phase II Report include revisions and updates to the Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO). These recommendations are being advanced to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners {BCC} in accordance with BCC Resolution 2007-305A for further direction and a request for a special Growth Management Plan Amendment cycle to consider the proposed amendments to the RLSAO as provided within the Phase II Report. During the preparation of the Phase I Report and Phase II Report the Committee focused on whether the RLSA Overlay, during its 2003-2008 history, supported the goals of the Collier County RLSA Overlay, which are: 1. to protect agricultural activities and to prevent the premature conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses; 2. to direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat; 3. to enable the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations; 4. to discourage urban sprawl; and 5. to encourage development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques. The Committee has determined that the RLSAO supports all of the above goals, but feels strongly that these goals can be further attained by implementation of the Committee -recommended amendments contained within this Phase II Report. Accordingly, the Committee has recommended that the BCC authorize a special Growth Management Plan Amendment cycle exclusively for the purpose of considering the recommended amendments to the RLSAO as contained within this Phase II Report. The BCC is authorized two cycles per calendar year. However, the BCC policy provides for one statutory GMP cycle per calendar year. The Phase II Report is based upon public presentations, discussions and documents received and reviewed during the Committee's 20 public meetings held beginning on March 4, 2008 and continuing through December 18, 2008. Meetings were held in accordance with the Public Open Meeting Laws of the State of Florida and complied with Resolution 2007-305A of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners which approved the creation of the Committee and provided for its functions, powers and duties. Committee meetings were well attended; open dialogue was encouraged; and minutes were taken and maintained as part of the public record by staff of the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department. These meetings were held in the Ave Maria University Academic Building, in the Community Development and Environmental Services Building and at the North Collier Regional Park'. Committee -recommended amendments to the RLSAO were based, in part, upon the following: 1. Expert speakers who spoke during Committee meetings; 2. Independent research reports, statements, and issues expressed relative to the Rural Lands Stewardship program; 3. Public participation; 4. Data and analysis/justification; and 5. Staff input The Committee extends special thanks to all individuals and organizations involved in the deliberate participation during Committee meetings were of great assistance to the Committee in the preparation of the Phase II Report. Organizations which have actively participated and disseminated information affecting the Committee's recommendations include, but are not limited to: 1 1. Audubon Society 2. Collier Citizen 3. Collier County Planning Commission 931Page Packet Pg. 127 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 4. Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Division 5. Collier County Environmental Advisory Council 6. Collier County Transportation Division 7. Conservancy of Southwest Florida 8. Defenders of Wildlife 9. "East Collier Property Owners" 10. Florida Gulf Coast University 11, Florida Department of Community Affairs 12. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 13, Florida Wildlife Federation 14. Fort Myers News -Press 15. Naples Daily News 16. One Thousand Friends of Florida 17. Sierra Club 18. South Florida Water Management District 19. University of Florida Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences 20. Cheffy Passidomo Wilson and Johnson 21. Wilson Miller Preface to Group 1 Policies Group 1 Policies set the framework for the RLSA Overlay. Major Committee -recommended revisions to Group 1 Policies include: Policy 1.6.1(new Policy) The recommended new Policy 1.6.1 permits a five year "Conditional Period" for a Conditional Stewardship Easement with a possible extension for one additional year. Policy 1.7 (amendment) The recommended amendment to Policy 1.7 provides that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission would be a grantee (along with Collier County) to future "perpetual restrictive easements" (Stewardship Easements) rather than the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services which has been the grantee in past BCC - approved RLSA Stewardship Easements. Policy 1.22 (amendment) Currently, Policy 1.22 language provides for RLSAO review, "upon the five year anniversary of the adoption of the Stewardship District in the Land Development Code (LDC)". The amendment proposes to have the review completed as part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report process as required by Chapter 163 of the Florida State Statutes. 6ohl (recommended amendment) Collier County seeks to address the long-term needs of residents and property owners within the I.mmokalee Area. Study boundary of the Collier Coanty Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment. Collier County's goal is to preteet retain land for agrieult activities; nl< t r -' _ vises, to direct incompatible ases away from wetlands and upland habitat, to -protect and restore'habitat connectivity, to enable the conversion of rural land to other u:so in appropriate locations, to discourage urban sprawl, and to encourage development that atil employs creative land.. use -planning techniques and through the use of establisli,ed incentives. Public Comments: The Governor's order was aimed at creating a balance between Agriculture, development and environmentally sensitive land. What ended with up is a plan that can create an imbalance as the program is geared to produce more environmentally set aside land and development and greatly reduces agriculture. This will result in Agriculture being pushed further out and destroying more pristine systems under the auspices of the Right to Farm Act. [Mark Strain written comments dated 4-2-20051. 941 Page Packet Pg. 128 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Staff Comments: This is considered a major amendment. The elimination of the word "premature" from the goal may seem like an innocuous change. However, the proposed deletion of "premature" raises a flag because the existing phrase has its genesis in the Final Order No. AC-99-002 of the Administrative Commission and is the basis for the current RLSA Overlay which was initiated prior to the enactment of the State RLSA Program. Any step perceived as undoing the Final Order -based GMPAs (established in the RLSA and RFMUD) might cause issue at Department of Community Affairs (DCA), especially if DCA is leaning towards trying to make Collier County's RLSA subject to compliance with statutory RLSA provisions. [Comprehensive Planning] Committee Deliberations: The above proposed draft amendments are based upon an email received from Review Committee member Tom Jones on March 28, 2008, distributed to Committee members on March 28, and preliminarily approved during the April 1, 2008 Committee meeting. The Committee position is that the word "premature" cannot be defined for use in the RLSA Overlay and should be stricken. Additionally, there was one grammatical correction to the Policy. The Committee, on June 17, 2008, revisited the staff s comments and stated that the proposed amendments would strengthen rather than weaken the RLSAO. June 17, 2008 Committee Action: The Committee voted to recommend the amendments to the Goal as shown. Objective (recommended amendment) To meet the Coal 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 163.31277(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 dfcribe 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 protections 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 Orrder pertaining to naturad urcg�protection. Public Comments: Minor grammatical recommendations are shown. [Judith Hushon] Staff Comments: proposed grammatical changes are acceptable to staff Committee Deliberations: The Committee agreed that the grammatical corrections should be made. Committee June 17, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to amend the Objective as annotated. Group 1- General purpose and structure of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Policy 1.1 (recommended amendment) `I'o promote a dynamic balance of land uses in the Collier County Rural I..ands Surv�,ardship Axea (RLSA) that collectively contributes to a viable agricultural industry, lirmt cts 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.lhodirectionwf a ci izen�oversight committee. Public Comments: Minor grammatical recommendations are shown [Judith Hushon]. Eastern Collier Property Owners [ECPO] agrees with the Committee's recommendation of no changes (other than grammatical changes as shown) as decided during the meeting June 17, 2008. Committee Deliberations: The Committee agreed that the grammatical corrections should be made. Staff Comments: proposed grammatical changes are acceptable to staff Committee June 17 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to amend this Policy as annotated above. 951 Page Packet Pg. 129 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Policy 1.2 The Overlay protects natural resources and retains viable agriculture hypromoting compact rural mixiM-use development as an alternative to low -density single. use development, and provides a system of compensation to private property owners for the elimination oftertain land uses in order to protect natural resources and viable agriculture4in exchange fbr transferable credits, that can be used to entitle such compact development. The strategies herein are based in part on the principles of*lorida's Rural Lands Stewardship Act, Chapter 16391-77(11) F.S. The Overlay includes`inovative and incentive based tools, techniques and strategies that are not dependent on a regulatory approach, but %, ill complement existing local,. regional, state and federal regulator_y�rograms. Public Comments: The intent of Policy 1.2 is to create, "techniques and strategies that are not dependent on a regulatory approach, but will complement existing local, regional, state and federal regulatory programs." The compatibility of the RLSA to regulations, such as the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, must be assessed during the five-year review and changes made where necessary to ensure compatibility. In addition, if new agency data is obtained or new regulations are enacted, the RLSA should be reassessed and amended at that time, not waiting for another five-year review process. [Conservancy]. 1. Clarify how RLS interacts with state and federal permitting agencies [FWF]. ECPO comments [also refer to Appendix J]. The RLSA will always need to comply with State and Federal regulatory programs such as the Clean Water and Endangered Species Acts. Those requirements need not be written directly into the RLSA. The regional approach used in the RLSA to secure permits ensures that all interests are party to the process. [ECPO comments of July 1]. Eastern Collier Property Owners agrees with the Committee's recommendation of no changes as decided during the meeting June 17, 2008. Staff Comments: Laura Roys stated that the most recent available data is required and usually is less than one (1) year old and Environmental Services checks for this as well as all required federal and state permits. The Committee was informed that all permits must be obtained regardless of whether or not a project is in the RLSAO. Committee Deliberations: The Committee, after discussion, agreed that there is no warrant for an amendment of this Policy at this time. Committee June 17 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to retain the existing language. Policy 1.3 This Overlay to the Future Land Use Mapis depicted on the Stewardship Overlay Map (Oveilay'Nlap) and applies to rural designawd 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 northeastCollier County lying north and east of Golden Gate; ,states,.north of the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and Big Cypress NationalPreserve, south of the Lee County Line, andisouth and west of the Hendry Counq Line, and includes a total of approximately 195,84E acres, of which approximately 182,334 acres is privately owned. The Overlky Map is an adopted overlay to the Future Land Use Map (FLU". Public Comments: ECPO agrees with the Committee's recommendation of no changes as decided during the meeting June 17, 2008. Staff Comments: No comments. Committee Deliberations: The Committee agreed that there is no need to amend this Policy. Committee June 17, 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended no change to this policy. P. 61ky IA 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 compensate&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 prc,gram a� M s a 3 m o: LO m w Q r c 0 E s V �a a 961 P a g c Packet Pg. 130 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Public Comments: l . What happens to baseline density - should disappear as in Rural Fringe TDR program [FWF] Note: Also related to policy 1.5. ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The RLSA program is incentive -based; should a property owner elect not to participate in the program, the Group 5 policies provide for use of the property under the baseline provisions. Eastern Collier Property Owners agrees with the Committee's recommendation of no changes as decided during the meeting June 17, 2008. Staff Comments: No comments. Committee Deliberations: The Committee position is that property owners must have the ability to use their properties and that the baseline density should not disappear but that the Committee would study providing incentives for retaining agricultural uses and it voted not to change Policy 1.4. Committee June 17 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to not recommend a change to this Policy. Policy 1.5 (recommended amendment) As referred to in these Overlay Policies, Baseline Standards are the,permitted uses, density, intensity and other land development regulations assigned to land in the RLSA by the G GM Nlanarc;ment Plan tQNSi, Collier County Land Development Regulations and Collier Country 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 Stewardsliip Credits, except as provided for in Group 5 Policies. No part of the Stewardship Credit System shall he imposed upon a property owner without thavewn h! wnegs consent. Public Comments: ECPO [Appendix J] agrees with the Committee's recommendation of no changes to this policy as decided during the meeting June 17, 2008 (other than minor correction and clarification). Staff Comments: Minor correction and amendments for clarification purposes only. Committee Deliberations: The Committee approved the staff's correction and agreed to study agricultural incentives when the Committee reviews Group 2 policies regarding agriculture. Committee June 17, 2008 Action: The Committee voted to amend this Policy as outlined above. Pblic q 1.6 (recommended amendment) StewardshipCredits Credits. are created from an lands within the RI —,SA that ate to be kept in "�' (Credits) y p permanent agriculture, open space or conservation uses. These lands will lac 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 acid 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. Tcsignation as an SSA shall he administrative and shall not require an amendment to the Growth�,Management flan, but shall be retroactiyely incorporated into the adopted Overlay :Map during the 'FAR based amendment process when it periodically cx=rs. A Stewardship,,Sending Area Credit Agreement shallibe developed that identifies those dllowable 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 SendiLag .Area Credit Agreement shall be allowed on such property SSA ' . terminated as prodded elsewhere herein; a� M a. m m LO m T a c 0 E s V �a r a 971 Packet Pg. 131 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 Aay €f -[hu following events accur.lien the CunditionilI Ste ardshin_,F��c t shah Iwvon� a Permanenr. Ste�ar� Easement which SbAU be final etual and non-revin accordance with the reims set forth nccr6n: Stewardship Cretiir frnttk the 5SA have. been . asif�l . cttiill an approved Sttv�ardshi_ Rrcei�±lntr Area (` :SRX"), end fhe SRA has rweiaed all r1ecess� -final turd ncu3-4? e a€ le d vela ttXeTJ I +girders, Wrrr ts.. or other discrefionacv approvals necessM to cr,.rn=qcc� coristnwtiun, .including subdivisit-ut tilat and Site dgrye-l2pruent plan anr+ro''4l ,but not N61cfrig rmils- If Stew,ards]>ip Credits feom the SSA have been assigned to fli aye Irian one 5RA, then rheraccipt of a.11 necem4a guvep=nW.fin a[ anrf-ttinn -ap eaiable ddy4- luijment.orders. }nerrtnits, or.r discretionary_appiu als necessary t� _c annttnerice c[urstruction of am Slt shall utnrrtazaca�l� 5use the Ctnr itZ nal rewgAship E.asctneni to becomeome &Ft=g2;uent.Stcwgrdship lenient; - The of the SSA.ds hars.s oa ttaraser any ie'kardllip feints to arts pesctn Or ent juciiin StcwaTdsbip Credit Trust as describer{ in NACy 1,20 the closia � hag occuried acid the o�Tter hits received the c id=ticnt clue froui sash sale or transf(-r, bui-goC m2=gy exc.ludin ( ssk or transfer of the SfewardsMjz Credits anc—Ula-M to the sale Or -transfer of the. underiyitig fee title to (he land. or -- (#1 a. Lance whcrc.Ft ltxndowmer establishes. an_SSA foa- a specifro SRA, whether the-SRA. Ls qwneJ or developed by a separate t)r tt=tared entiU, and the Sipawm€ishin Credits are irnnsferred as rewired !_the .Cn-ow Bth Mana ement lan or I� nd l]cvog inert Code for SRA a rcr�.al ctr 9- The owner of the SSA Iands has received in exchanp_r,� for the creativa i tit the Sl:eward�hii).Fascmertt A c:empnf Other compensation fi-o n local state federal or phyate re .c�tucs. collecriyel . [he " Evcnts" Die LDC t !hall specify how pggLiing a Jtiotzcc of Tez ii� n "ias h redf it descrihed) ban�naf been recorded, the Conditipnai. tc7 ardship Easement shall autoinallgally convert to a Pem-kanent Stewardship Fla!enwaz upon the earliest to occur of -(a) arty (if the foreguin , Events diAna the .Con4iilioraxl Period. or (b) 180 db.-s after. the last day of tho Ccanditional Perik �d,. as acid to rhAc exteut t�,xtended hesaunder- hi._rhe CV:Ilt that carte of, thefore to en has rrxgut!d during the Conditional Period, rhgji Cho owner of the SSA ids n3a�r. wifhic, 180 days after zhe hst dM of the COnditionaI Period terminate the Ccinditional SttwardMiip &1 .-s nernt by reccsf4ju& gtice-af-TgmY inxtion. In addition,. if a pt>ailcngc andior appeal A a necessafy dtw—Ior)nmrkt aid r, permit or other discred mM appr4)cal is filed, the owner of the SSA-jands may elect to extend. the Conditional period until rbe c.bg0engt or appeal is firjal� C C1�yM. If the challeli0 .ctr af�l�cai k not ct:solveci such Lb at the construction may eotiatnence- under terms .ccentahle.to the. Ouuer of ibe SSA Iands. the Owner of ttri, SSA lands mU withitl 180 days of the f iial Aspusitiun of the challenge or. �ts[neal.Tccord a NOticd-of Terminaticrrx-..1:�}nn t}nc Tccer[limg of such Notice of 3"grfninatinn, the wwyrdl chip Dement Agrgrynnaul and wiTespunding 5tewardshi) Senjing Arcs Chit Agreement shall„eI rc and tEjir inau% ttre 8tewardit Credits gcncrztcd by the SSiL shall cease to ex.isTthe. righs acid obli ag ions.sef in, Lhc Stcwardit Easement: sl7all. r10 INIACC con�tatU[e ail encurnbraricr aua-thi�_prnocrt.y, and the SSA Memorandum -shall be Teyised accotding_ly. The owner of thc. ,SA lands shall proVide.a.ggIV of the NoUe of rnirn Ireration.to the County. In the avant that the Stewardship Credits from an ,S A have been aced to obtain .one or Miscue S-RA approvals, but none of the foi-09outg events has occurred ;Turing the C.oridiIional Period, then! rite Notice.o Tet�rtiin;ition.shaLt also provide for termination of auk SRA�, that have been assi-gged credits frow.Lbd SSA, unless .tht. SRA owiwr has obtained. sufficient S#e ardshlp Crcc,tits !torn ano[her source and snch.Stcv rdslzip C rt c its have bwm a lied to the SR,k- In ih *vent tlidt a Notice cf Terminacinn does Wn-n.inate an SRA the owner of ncc- SRA lands shall join in the Notice o . Termination, la [ht even[ rhaf a Condition al w ar&hiy ascsalent is tenninatej .,allbenefitsi rights, �rri��ilef=.es�, restrictions and ghligaticr�k5 alsojated with the SS.A. ghall he null and r,ujd, and the. land shall revert to its urrcierlying aom.m 8ass3fcadon, free alld �.lear u� ,tiny encrtmbranre from) tine. ('Ondilion al Sjen ardsW r 1 3. a menI anti 5SA Credit &Ireemtnt- If reguestad k� the owner of the SSA. lanlq- Colher (fiW[y and the other grantee ytiander [ire Stc+wardshig ) asernemt Agreenpept sha11 [ co'Adr, a wrintn release..and terming iota of e%sement and credo Agreeirnen[ f{ r rccoIciin i prtb3lc_rtci,rds_vcridAII. ] 7 days of request from the- owner of the S SA.lands, CoMer C�gunjj shall uixiare rake ovLla • imp to reflect the teim-A nation of any SSA. ur Sl -- Q 'a m 0 Cu Q a L as Ch c �a J N rn N N O 0 0 rn 0 N J e_ N 1w to M m Cu IL aD m a c m E t r r Q 981Page Packet Pg. 132 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 Xhispolicy shall be implemented ig the LUG 2 th n 12 months after adoptiowhereof: Public Comments: 1. SSA's can be created in a non-contiguous and piece meal fashion, thus assuring no functionality of wetland land mass. Even though to date that has not been the case, we should consider language that encourages contiguous SSA's. [Mark Strain written comments of 4-2-05] 2. No emphasis is put on trying to avoid fragmentation of natural areas and the maintenance of corridors. [Judith Hushon] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: While it is true that individual SSAs can be non-contiguous, the ultimate implementation of the RLSA creates two large interconnected environmental systems. It is understood that this will take many years and the voluntary participation of many landowners to realize. Map "IF' of the RLSA Five -Year Review, Phase I Technical Report clearly demonstrates that the approved and pending SSAs are forming large contiguous blocks of protected lands that have been targeted for public acquisition since the 1970s. The RLSA program design has resulted in a predictable pattern of environmental protection, and eventually, all or nearly all of the FSA and HSA areas are likely to be designated SSA lands. A review of the RLSA Overlay Map (Phase I — Technical Review, Map 1) clearly illustrates that the FSA, HSA, WRA, and Restoration Zone overlays collectively comprise a vast, interconnected system of flow ways and associated native habitats. These overlays were created for the expressed purpose of preventing wetland and habitat fragmentation, and maintaining existing wildlife corridors. Map IE of the Phase 1 Technical Review reveals that the approved and pending SSAs form a contiguous block of protected lands that already incorporate a majority of FSA and HSA lands. 3. Maintain habitat connectivity/prevent habitat fragmentation with large linkages on a landscape scale and in association with land uses in the open area to maintain functioning systems and preserve the wetland to upland interface. Of particular note, are further protection of Camp Keais Strand and maintaining the habitat linkage in the vicinity of SR 29 and Oil Well Road. [Defenders of Wildlife] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The RLSA stewardship overlays (FSA, HSA, WRA, Restoration Zone, and Open) do not pre -determine sending and receiving area designations, but do influence the potential location of SSAs and SRAs. In 2002, the sum total of FSA, HSA, and WRA lands coincided with 91 percent of panther telemetry points collected between 1981 and 2000. A recent GIS analysis shows that these same overlays now contain 94 percent of all telemetry points recorded between 1981 and 2007. These data suggest that the overlays very effectively protect the habitat areas utilized by the Florida panther. The FWC least cost path analyses suggest that the RLSA program may require refinements in selected areas to accommodate panther movements between large habitat blocks. These potential landscape connections are currently being reviewed as part of the RLSA five-year review. 4. SSA approval is not subject to EAC or CCPC review only BCC. SRA approval occurs via EAC, CCPC and BCC process, as should have been provided for SSA approval [Judith Hushon] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The designation of an SSA is a voluntary process, through which a property owner relinquishes private property rights, reduces the residual land use value of their property, and provides a public benefit by permanently protecting natural resources and agriculture, without requiring publicly funded compensation. The rules and requirements for establishing an SSA are clear, straightforward, and are not subject to the imposition of conditions and stipulations. RLSA incentives are designed to minimize obstacles to property owners in implementing the program. Multiple public hearings are costly and time consuming. Members of the public, including advisory board members, are not precluded from commenting on an SSA at the BCC hearing. The SRA approval process is more involved, as it deals with the establishment of design guidelines, assessment of infrastructure impacts, and other matters, that warrant the review and recommendations of the CCPC. 991 Page Packet Pg. 133 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 ECPO's experience in implementing the RLSA within the process that now exists has resulted in a successful program, and does not believe changes are needed to the process. ECPO does not have recommended revisions at this time. However, this policy may need further review with additional discussion of SSAs. Also per policy, the RLSA Overlay Map should be updated to reflect SSAs and Ave Maria SRA. John Passidomo stated that what you see [Appendix L] embodies the consensus of ECPO and the assistant county attorney. Staff Comments: With respect to July 15 Committee action, the amendments recommended are minor to correct the title of each of the SSA Credit Agreements. [Comprehensive Planning] Tom Greenwood stated that the Assistant County Attorney would prefer that the language be brief in the RLSA Overlay and more detailed in the LDC. He stated that, should the Committee wish to include the specificity in the RLSA Overlay that is included in John Passidomo's language, then the language as submitted to the Committee is acceptable. Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney, corroborated Mr. Passidomo's statement and the content of the language before the Committee. Committee July 15, 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously approved the proposed minor text amendments to Policy 1.6 as outlined with no other changes. Committee Deliberations: John Passidomo presented and discussed with the Committee proposed new language for a new Policy [1.6.1] and an amendment to existing Policy 1.6. [refer to Appendix L]. Mr. Jones stated that the two attorneys have agreed to the language. Committee October 28, 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended the additional amendment to Policy 1.6 [reference to new Policy 1.6. 1) and the new Policy language for Policy 1.6.1. Policy 1.7 (recommended amendment) Me range of Stewardship Credit Values is hereby established using the specific methodology set 'forth on the Stewardship Credit Worksl eet (Worksheet), incorporated_ herein as Attachment A. This methWoltagy and m4ated procedures for SSA designation -will also be adopted as hart of the Stewardship Overlay District in the Collier Gaunt Land Development Code (LDC). Such procedures shall include but ne, not be limited to the following: (1) All Credit transfers sliall be recorded with the Collier County Clerk of Courts; (2) a covenant nr-perpetUal restriotive easement shall' also he recorded for each SSA, shall run with the land and shall be in favorlof Collier County,and the Plorida.Fish and Wildlife 0onservation Commission. and (3) for each SSA, the Stewardship Sending.Area Credit Agreement will identify the specific land management measures that willibe undertaken and :the�party responsible fo,• such measures:. Public Comments: 1. Indices are determined using a grid pattern that averages uses within each grid. This can have the effect of reducing the value of viable wetlands when the grid is split between activities. A proportional area of the land types within each grid could be applied to determine a more balanced index value. [Mark Strain] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The indices are not determined by a grid pattern, nor are attributes averaged. Rather, the natural resource data layers (e.g. FLUCCS) are mapped in a conventional manner and entered into a GIS. The individual polygons within a data layer are then scored according to the Natural Resource Index (NRI) values. After the scoring occurs, each data layer is then converted to a grid of one -acre grid cells. The gridding process was necessary to arithmetically add the data layer values in GIS. The gridding process does create minor discrepancies along the boundaries between polygons with different NRI values. However, the individual errors are less than 0.5 acres and are essentially random errors that will generally cancel out across a given property. When the value in any specific grid cell is questionable, it is easily rectified by reviewing aerial imagery and individual data layers that are coincident with the grid cell. The grid system is used solely for the Credit calculation process and has no effect on how environmental regulations are applied to the land during the permitting process. 1001Page Packet Pg. 134 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 2. Clarification should be made in the GMP that while SSAs do remove land use layers from sensitive environmental lands, they are not conservation easements and should not be allowed to substitute or double as conservation easements by regulatory agencies during the agency permitting process. Separate conservation easements should still be entered into with the necessary agencies for state and federal permitting mitigation requirements. [Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: No data and analysis, or clear rationale supports the contention that stewardship easements "should not be allowed to substitute or double as conservation easements by regulatory agencies during the agency permitting process." The relevant question is whether or not a given stewardship easement is consistent with the mitigation requirements for impacts to wetlands and/or wildlife, as determined by agency protocols. It is the purview of the regulatory agencies to determine, on a specific case -by -case basis, whether the stipulations contained within a stewardship easement are compatible with project -specific mitigation requirements. 3. SSA Credit Agreements reference specifically the policies within the GMP that remove land uses per the RLSA program. These agreements are the mechanism for removal of land uses. As such, the Conservancy believes these agreements should include the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as the State's land planning oversight agency, as a signatory. Also, the idea of requiring a national, state or local environmental organization signatory should be assessed. [Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The Collier RLS program is specifically designed for implementation at the local level, and to our knowledge, the formation and official filing of SSA Credit Agreements has successfully been achieved without issue. The Department of Community Affairs is an advisory agency, not a regulatory agency, and as such, should not be required as a signatory. SSA Credit Agreements run with the land and the easements are in favor of Collier County, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the South Florida Water Management District, or a statewide land trust. 4. No development south of Oil Well Road [FWF] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The RLSA stewardship overlays (FSA, HSA, WRA, Restoration Zone, and Open) do not pre -determine sending and receiving area designations, but do influence the potential location of SSAs and SRAs. In 2002, the sum total of FSA, HSA, and WRA lands coincided with 91 percent of panther telemetry points collected between 1981 and 2000. A recent GIS analysis shows that these same overlays now contain 94 percent of all telemetry points recorded between 1981 and 2007. These data suggest that the overlays very effectively protect the habitat areas utilized by the Florida panther. The FWC least cost path analyses suggest that the RLSA program may require refinements in selected areas to accommodate panther movements between large habitat blocks. These potential landscape connections are currently being reviewed as part of the RLSA five-year review. The references to the Eastern Collier Study and the Kautz paper should be considered in light of panther conservation planning at a regional scale, and also site -specific analyses at the local scale. Both papers incorporate implicit and explicit assumptions regarding panther habitat utilization, corridor widths, impediments to panther movement, etc. that may or may not be valid. Neither paper provides definitive data and analyses to substantiate a change to the current overlays, beyond those potentially suggested by the FWC least cost path analyses. The comment to preclude development south of Oil Well Road is not supported by any data and analysis. While large areas of panther habitat do exist south of Oil Well Road, there are also large areas of agricultural lands that lack evidence of panther utilization. These land use patterns are reflected by the current stewardship overlays. No panther credits from sending lands that will be surrounded or significantly diminished in value by development [FWF] 1011Page Packet Pg. 135 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 ECPO Comments [Appendix Jl: The suggestion to preclude assignment of an "occupied panther habitat" score (per the Stewardship Credit Worksheet NRI scoring) is valid where SSA lands are entirely surrounded by development. Precluding the assignment of panther habitat scores is not applicable where connections to offsite panther habitat are maintained, because these areas may provide habitat support functions. 6. Review easement language and who holds the easements - possibly FWC should hold, but no stewardship easements to be held by private entities. [FWF] 7. Signatory to easements should include the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission [Defenders of Wildlife] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The Collier RLS program is specifically designed for implementation at the local level, and to our knowledge, the formation and official filing of SSA Credit Agreements has successfully been achieved without issue. The Department of Community Affairs is an advisory agency, not a regulatory agency, and as such, should not be required as a signatory. SSA Credit Agreements run with the land and the easements are in favor of Collier County, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the South Florida Water Management District, or a statewide land trust. 8. A concept is being discussed that would create a mechanism to ensure that when a landowner within the Collier RLSA establishes a SSA, a "conditional easement" is placed on the subject property until such time as all permits are in hand for the SRA to which the credits from the SSA will be applied and providing no action is taken prior to permitting that diminishes the resource values on the SSA; at which point the easement becomes permanent. [submitted as part of the July 1, ZOOS submittal to the Committee entitled, "Florida Panther Protection Program" dated June 30, 2008] July 15, 2008 Public Discussion: Nicole Ryan stated that she would like to see the DCA as a signatory to the perpetual restrictive easement since the DCA is involved with land uses. Nicole Ryan stated that all issues listed in the Phase 2 Working Paper should be dealt with and not ignored. Additionally, any further discussion during the Committee meetings will be summarized in the minutes and also recorded verbatim. Staff Comments: Minor amendments are needed to correct the title of each of the SSA Credit Agreements. Previously approved Stewardship Easement Agreements [considered the same as "perpetual restrictive easement"] are in the name of Collier County and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, as grantees. The language proposed to be deleted is found in Section 163.3177 (11)(d)(6)k, F.S. However, the Collier County RLSAO does not come under the Florida Statutes which would then give Collier County discretion to amend this language. Staff, in checking with the Legal Department of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission in September, 2008, confirmed through Mr. Tim Breault, Director of Habitat and Species Conservation, that FWC is willing to be listed on future easements. Tom Greenwood stated that the summary minutes are intended to capture all the major points and discussions and all meetings are recorded. [Comprehensive Planning with additional analysis completed following July 15 action of the Committee] Committee Deliberations: Torn Jones stated that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission is a regulatory agency and the RLSA program is mostly about preservation of natural resources and agricultural lands and the DCA is involved in actions which are the basis for the RLSA program and not involved in regulatory aspects of the program. Bill McDaniel stated that the Committee's "read ahead" receipt of the Phase 2 Working Paper should be an indication that the Committee members have read the documentation. Brad Cornell stated that all discussion should be considered, both verbal and written. Mr. McDaniel stated that he did not want to see rebuttal statements within the Phase 2 Working Paper, but it is OK to have them in the Committee minutes. Mr. Farmer stated that he would like to see Mark Strain updated on an on -going basis as to the responses to his issues and comments to which other members stated that they did not agree with this and pointed out that the Phase 2 Working Paper is on the web site for review by all.The Committee consensus was that this Policy should be amended to allow the FFWCC to be the grantee on future perpetual easements [Stewardship Easements] 1021 Page Packet Pg. 136 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Committee July 15 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously approved the annotated amendments as shown above and Tom Jones and/or ECPO may come back to the Committee at a later date with suggested language to amend Policy 1.7 which would provide for the possibility of a conditional easement which would be placed on the subject property until such time as all permits are in hand for the SRA to which the credits from the SSA will be applied and providing no action is taken prior to permitting that diminishes the resource values on the SSA; at which point the easement becomes permanent. Policy 1.8 The natural resource value of land within the RLSA is measuredtby the Stewardship Natural Resource Index. (Index) set forth on theWork-sheet. The Index established the relative natural resource value by 6bjectivvely treasuring six different characteristics of land and assigning an index factor based on each, characteristic. The sum of these six factors is the index value for the land. Both the characteristics used an&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 Gould be directed away from important natural resources. The six characteristics measured arc: Stewardship Overlay Designation, Sending Area Proximity; Listed Species Habitat, Soils/Surface Water, Restoration Potential, and Lan. bselLand Cover. Public Comments: I. Indices are weighted heavier towards environmentally sensitive lands when in actuality those are the areas least likely to ever be used for development based on various agency regulations. The SSA credit system does not consider the jurisdictional aspects of SFWMD or the ACOE to assess developmental potential. Off -setting indices should have been considered for this. [Mark Strain written comments dated 4-2-05) ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The decision to assign a high priority to environmental protection was in direct response to the mandates of the Final Order and the result of a three-year collaborative effort among land owners, citizen stakeholders, staff, environmental organizations and the review committee that conducted the Study and created the RLSA framework. Regulatory programs have limitations in encouraging integrated regional environmental planning and protection. In the incentive -based RLSA program, the weighting toward environmentally sensitive lands encourages large-scale protection of natural systems. The CREW lands, for example, have been targeted for protection since the mid-1970s. It was only 0 after the RLSA was established that the CREW lands were effectively protected via multiple SSAs. a 3 The recent state acquisition of Babcock Ranch, among others, illustrates two major points. First, environmental assets do have economic and public benefit value, and therefore deserve to be highly weighted. Second, funding for acquisition of sensitive lands is limited, and acquisition cannot protect more than a fraction of lands that should be protected. The cost of acquiring Babcock Ranch was equivalent to a full year's budget of Florida Forever. m w These observations are also valid for Conservation Collier. In December, 2007, Conservation Collier purchased 367.7 a acres within the RLSA boundary, adjacent to Corkscrew Sanctuary. The total purchase price was $5.3 million with a a $300,000 contribution from CREW Trust. If this relative cost of acquisition was applied to the 24,124 acres of land ? protected to date as SSA's at no cost to the public, it would have cost the taxpayers of Collier County more than 0 $325,000,000 to purchase these lands. This exceeds the total purchasing capacity of Conservation Collier. a 2. The Conservancy strongly supports the habitat stewardship crediting system be revised to use current best available science with regard to the preservation of Florida panther habitat. The panther habitat assessment methodology that the habitat stewardship crediting valuation system is predicated on has been substantially revised since by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for application by the agency based on more recent scientific literature on the value of certain 1031Page Packet Pg. 137 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 by the agency based on more recent scientific literature on the value of certain land cover types as Florida panther habitat. The Conservancy believes that in updating and revising the habitat stewardship crediting element of the RLSA program based on the best available Florida panther science will provide important incentives for preserving critical Florida panther habitat areas and more accurately guide receiving areas to areas that are less impactive to the subsistence and recovery of the Florida panther species.[Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The most current and accepted methodology should be used to evaluate the stewardship credit system. Habitat preservation and provision of buffered corridors in a Regional Plan and an all inclusive panther preservation strategy could also address this concern. 3. Revisit sending and receiving designations - telemetry & GPS, FWC's Least Cost Analysis, Eastern Collier Study (Smith, Ross & Main), FWC's SR 29 Dispute Resolution Letter, and Kautz, et al (all have been submitted to the county for data and analysis) [FWF] 4. Corner of Oil Well Road and 29 - particularly the northwest corner - change to sending to protect important panther travel corridors - panther 131 found dead 04/]6/081 [FWF] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The RLSA stewardship overlays (FSA, HSA, WRA, Restoration Zone, and Open) do not pre -determine sending and receiving area designations, but do influence the potential location of SSAs and SRAs. In 2002, the sum total of FSA, HSA, and WRA lands coincided with 91 percent of panther telemetry points collected between 1981 and 2000. A recent GIS analysis shows that these same overlays now contain 94 percent of all telemetry points recorded between 1981 and 2007. These data suggest that the overlays very effectively protect the habitat areas utilized by the Florida panther. The FWC least cost path analyses suggest that the RLSA program may require refinements in selected areas to accommodate panther movements between large habitat blocks. These potential landscape connections are currently being reviewed as part of the RLSA five-year review. The references to the Eastern Collier Study and the Kautz paper should be considered in light of panther conservation planning at a regional scale, and also site -specific analyses at the local scale. Both papers incorporate implicit and explicit assumptions regarding panther habitat utilization, corridor widths, impediments to panther movement, etc. that may or may not be valid. Neither paper provides definitive data and analyses to substantiate a change to the current overlays, beyond those potentially suggested by the FWC least cost path analyses. 5. Revisit wildlife values on farm fields - caracara, sand hill crane, burrowing owl, gopher tortoise [FWF] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The wildlife value of agricultural land is highly dependent upon cropping systems, tillage, water management, fallow periods, surrounding land uses, and many other variables. The dynamic nature of agriculture precludes a general statement about habitat value within these areas. For example, a slight change in vegetation structure (e.g., maturing row crops, unmowed pastures) or water management can easily render agricultural fields unusable for all of the species mentioned above. For these reasons, agricultural areas were not necessarily assigned wildlife values. However, the potential habitat value of RLSA agricultural fields is already recognized in two important ways. One, agricultural fields that occurred within a landscape matrix of natural vegetation communities were incorporated into HSA overlays. Of the 40,000 acres of HSA overlay, approximately 13,000 acres are existing or former agricultural fields. Many of these areas have already been designated as SSAs. Secondly, over 3,000 acres of these farm fields and pastures have been designated for habitat restoration, serving all of the species mentioned. In summary, due to the dynamic nature of agriculture and landscape context, the most appropriate means for recognizing wildlife value of farm fields is through incentives for restoration within existing FSA and HSA overlays. 1041Page Packet Pg. 138 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 6. I don't believe that the NRI, as originally developed, can be taken as gospel —it needs to be tested and re- evaluated as part of this process. Policy 1.9 states that the score will be based on..."the Natural Resource Index values in effect at the time of designation," implying a need to update it regularly. The NRI was developed five years ago by Wilson Miller, but since that time new data have become available that could well lead to different answers. Nowhere is the NRI actually explained —it is presented as a black box with fixed weightings. At least it should be handled in detail in another companion document or as an appendix. There is no explanatory document posted on the RLSA website. There is also the need to re-examine the data upon which the NRI scores are based —for example, there are new panther data and new primary and secondary panther maps. There is also new scrub jay management guidance from FWS. Additionally, it might be a good idea to include a panther map overlay with your maps that appear at the end of the Phase 1 report. [Judith Hushon] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The Natural Resource Index (NRI) factors were developed as part of a public process from 2000-2002, with repeated input from Collier County staff and the general public. The intent of the NRI scoring was essentially to discriminate between areas of high environmental value and low environmental value. The NRI scores also provide a rational basis for determining how many acres of SSA lands are required to entitle a SRA. The NRI model was calibrated with input from Collier County staff and the general public, and the NRI maps closely correlated with lands that were deemed as environmentally sensitive. While listed species occurrence data, panther telemetry, land cover, and other data may change over time, the basis for the NRI scoring remains sound. The NRI scoring system and the stewardship overlays are consistent with the new data for panther telemetry and panther habitat selection. The primary and secondary panther maps are not primary data; they are derivative map products that are specifically designed to assist the USFWS with the panther regulatory program in south Florida. They are not designed to discriminate between lands that panthers occupy or avoid. Similarly, the scrub jay management guidelines may be useful if scrub areas can be restored, but there are few (if any) viable scrub jay areas within the RLSA (known scrub jay areas do occur within the Immokalee Urban Boundary). 7. Why are credits awarded in the ACSC, when there are already restrictions to development? [CCPC] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The underlying philosophy of the RLS program is that environmentally sensitive areas are valuable, and this value should be reflected in incentives for protection. The state of Florida recently paid $350 million for Babcock Ranch, which one could also argue was also under significant development restrictions. Within the RLSA, this protection comes at no cost to Collier County, and the property remains on the local tax rolls. Restrictions on development within the ACSC do not eliminate all development. As one example, the Florida panther utilizes many areas within the ACSC. Highly dispersed, low density development that is allowable under existing ACSC regulations can adversely affect panther movement within the ACSC. By providing incentives for protecting large blocks of interconnected panther habitat, and by eliminating development rights in those areas, the ACSC remains viable as an area for panther utilization and movement. 8. Incorporate wording in each policy group that reflects best available science will be used in conducting and analyzing the program (e.g., Group 1 Policy 1.22). The SSAs and SRAs should be reassessed in light of current scientific findings, [Defenders of Wildlife] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: There is often disagreement about what constitutes "best available science" for any given environmental issue, even among experts. A more workable approach may be to document the scientific references that were used for policy development in a data and analysis report that accompanies each review of the RLSA program. Staff Comments: Environmental Services Department had comments but subsequently withdrew them during the August 5 meeting. 1051Page Packet Pg. 139 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Committee Deliberations during the July 15 2008 Committee meetin : Brad Cornell stated that the RLSA program is doing what it is intended to do ... protect the environmentally sensitive lands and agricultural lands by using an incentive based system rather than a regulatory system. -Mr. Farmer stated that he somewhat agrees with Mr. Cornell's statement but has some reservations about providing incentives [credits] on lands, because of their nature, are not likely to be developed anyway. Kirsten Wilkie stated that she would like to have item #16 on page 74 [Environmental comments] placed under Policy 1.8. The Committee agreed and asked Environmental Services to provide some analysis of their suggestions during the August 5 regular meeting. Laura Roys stated that the staff suggestions would result in a change to the NRI scores. Nicole Ryan stated that the Conservancy would like to have the Natural Resource Index mapping updated. Tom Jones stated that Darrell Land of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission [spoke to the Committee on June 3] stated that the NRI used for Collier County is about 95% accurate and closely matches that in his use. Judy Hushon stated that the NRI needs to be updated. Tom Jones stated that each SSA and SRA application is accompanied by the most current FLUCCS maps and listed species and prepared by Iicensed professionals and are site specific. Tim Durham stated that the Committee needs to focus on the big picture. Darrell Land stated that Collier County mapping and NRI is 95% consistent with his information. The GPS study of collared Panthers indicates where the cats are traveling day and night and there is little difference between their travel habits from day and night. David Farmer questioned why an NRI of 1.2 was used rather than 1.1 or 1.3 and whether there were ever any maps developed which showed the differences in "Open" lands using these two alternatives. Tim Durham stated that there were many computer/GIS runs on these and other alternative NRI cut-off scenarios and the 1.2 seemed to be the most appropriate score to use. Brad Cornell made a motion and seconded by Fred Thomas to refer Policies 1.8 and 1.9 to the Technical Committee as well as the Environmental and Transportation issues. After further discussion by the Committee, and a reminder by Tom Jones and Neno Spagna that these items have not come to the Committee and they felt uncomfortable about having the Technical Committee make recommendations before the Committee has thoroughly vetted it, the motion failed/withdrawn. Committee July 15 and August 5. 2008 Actions: The Committee voted unanimously on July 15 to leave Policy 1.8 unchanged, but to have the Engineering and Environmental Services Department Staff provide at the August 5 meeting a detail and analysis of the changes suggested directly above and possible impacts on the RLSA Overlay with the understanding that the Committee may change its recommendation regarding Policy 1.8 during the course of its review of the entire RLSA Overlay. Committee deliberations on August 5, 2008: After hearing from Laura Roys and the public, the consensus of the Committee is that the existing language of this Policy is adequate. Committee August 5, 2008 action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy 1.8 unchanged. Policy 1.9 A natural Resource Index Map Series (index Map Series) indicates the Natural Resource Stewardship 1bde:t value foriiall land within. the RLSA. Credits from any lands designated as SSAs, will be based upon the `natural Resource Index values in effect at the tink,of designation. Any change in the Characteristics of land dae to alteration of the land prior to the establishment,af a SSA that either.inoreases,or decreases any Index Factor will result in an adjustment of the factor values and a correspondg adjustment in the, credit value. The Index and the .index Map tides are adopted as a part of the RLSA Overlay. Public Comments: During the August 5, 2008 meeting Nicole Ryan stated that she is concerned that the map is outdated and needs to be updated. Staff Comments: There should be an update of the initial mapping. Not all land use/land cover codes are included and there could be more areas like Lake Trafford Ranch and Half Circle Ranch that were improperly designated. [Engineering and Environmental Services Department] Committee Deliberations: Mr. Jones stated that all SSAs submitted must present the most current information on each specific SSA area at time of submittal and that Darrell Land stated that the county RLSA mapping appears to be about 95% accurate. Mr. Cornell stated that the natural resource index map NRIs in SSA is a good balance between science, preservation policy and private property owner rights. Committee August 5 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to recommend not to amend Policy 1.9 1061Page Packet Pg. 140 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 Policy 1.10 Xn SSAs, the greater the number of uses eliminated from the property, and the higher the naturalrestauree value of the land, the higher the priority for protection, the greater the level of Credits that are generaiL-d from such lands, 'and therefore the greater die incentive4to participate in the Stewardship Credit System and protect the natural resources of the land. Public Comments: none received Staff Continents: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee August 5, 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended to leave Policy 1.10 unchanged. Policy 1.11 The,Land Use Matrix, Attachment B, lists uses arla ic-tiviiies allowed undeii Xe A,' teal Agricultural Tuning 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 Niatiix, 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 ache basis to arrive at a total Stewardship Credit. Value of the land being designated os a SSA. Public Comments: 1. What is fate of remaining uses on designated sending lands and suggestion of removing those remaining uses to meet mitigation obligations? [FWFJ 2. Remove all layers at one time - concern that several layers are contrary to conservation and/or agriculture preservation goals. [FWF] 3. Clarify what is included in Ag 2 and Ag 1 - concerns about aquaculture [FWF] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: When lands are designated as a SSA, the land owner voluntarily relinquishes specified N land use rights, and retains other specified property rights. Depending upon which land use rights are retained, it may be ii appropriate to relinquish these "remaining uses" to meet mitigation obligations. For example, a land owner who retained N Ag-1 land use rights to a farm field could relinquish their agricultural Iand use rights and restore the farm field as a native wetland to address mitigation obligations. The specific characteristics of the SSA will determine if removing additional land uses can potentially satisfy specific mitigation requirements, and is ultimately under the purview of regulatory = agencies. N M The ability to remove individual land use rights in layers motivates property owners to put larger areas into SSAs because they can manage operations and unique resources that may be a smaller portion of the whole. Changing the policy to force removal of all layers at one time will likely have a negative effect on protection goals by creating uncertainty among the landowners and slowing the process of creating SSAs. L The uses included in Ag 2 and Ag 1 are set forth on the Land Use Matrix, Attachment B, of the GOPs. The uses are the '' landowners' existing rights as permitted under the Rural Agricultural Zoning District. m ECPO [Appendix J] supports the land use matrix as it currently exists. a r Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none s Committee August 5, 2008 Action: The Committee recommended, by a vote of 9 to 2, that Policy 1.11 remain r unchanged. a Policy 1.12 Credits can be transferred only to_ lands within the RLSA that meet the defined suitability_criteriaRand standards set forth in Group 4 Policies,. Such lands shall be known as Stewardship Receiving areas or SRAs. 1071Page Packet Pg. 141 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 Public Continents: none received Staff Continents: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee August 5, 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended that Policy 1.12 remain unchanged. policy-1.13 The procedures for the establishment and transfer of Credits and SPA designation are set .forth herein and will also be adopted as a part of a Stewardship .District in the LDC (.0istrict). LDRs creating the District will tie adopted within one (1) year from the effective date of this flan amendment. Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee August 5, 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.13 remain unchanged. Policy 114 (recommended amendment) Stewardship Credits will be exchanged for additional residential car non=residential entitlements in a SRA on a per acre basis, as described in Polity 44$ 4.19. Stewardship density and intensity will thereafter differ from the Baseline Standards. The assignment or use of. Stewardship .@redits,shall not rewire a CMP Amendment. Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: Minor amendment to provide for the accurate Policy reference. Committee Deliberations: The Committee supported the Staff recommendation to correct this Policy. Committee August 5, 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.14 remain unchanged, with the exception of the correction shown above with strikethrough and underline. Poek 1.15 0 Land becomes designated as an SRA upon the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of County j Commissioners (BM approving the petition by the property owner seeking such. designation. Any change in the a resident al density or non-residential intensity of land use on a parecl of land located within a SRA shall be specified in � the resolution reflecting the total number of tt'ansferable 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 dousing Density Bonus as referenced in the -Density Rating System of the FLUE, and the density and intensity blending,provision of'che Iiromokalee Area.Master Plan. s Public Comments: none received a Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none m Committee August 5, 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.15 remain unchanged. Policy 11 m Stewardship Receiving Areas will accommodate uses that, utilize creative land use planning techniques and Credits shall a be used to facilitate the implementation of innovative and flexible development strategies described in Chapter 163.3177 F.S. andtWJ 5.006(5)(i). Public Comments: none received s Staff Comments: no comments �a Committee Deliberations: none a Committee Au ust 5 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.16 remain unchanged. 1081Page Packet Pg. 142 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 Policy 1.17 :stewardship Credits may bettransfen-0 between different parcels or within a single parcel, subject3to cor:iplianee with all applicable provisions of these policies. residential clustering shall only occur within the R:LSA'through the use of the ,Stewardship Credit. System, and other4orms ofrresidential clustering; shall not he permitted. Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee August 5 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.17 remain unchanged. Policy 1:18 A blend of Local; State; Federal and private revenues, such as but not limited io Florida Forever, Federal and Stag conservation and stewardship programs, foundation grants, private conservation organizations, 1+" option taxes, general ebunty revenues, and other monies can augment the Stewardship program through the acquisition of conservation easements, Credits, or Ixid that is identified as the highest priorit}- for natural resource protection, including, but is not limited to, areas identified on the Overlay Map as Flow way Stewardship Areas (I SAs), Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), Water Retention Areas and land within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concem (ACSC). Public Comments: 1. Indices are weighted heavier towards environmentally sensitive lands when in actuality those are the areas least likely to ever be used for development based on various agency regulations. The SSA credit system does not consider the jurisdictional aspects of SFWMD or the ACOE to assess developmental potential. Off -setting indices should have been considered for this. [Mark Strain] ECPO Comments [Appendix Jl: The decision to assign a high priority to environmental protection was in direct response to the mandates of the Final Order and the result of a three-year collaborative effort among land owners, citizen stakeholders, staff, environmental organizations and the review committee that conducted the Study and created the RLSA framework. Regulatory programs have limitations in encouraging integrated regional environmental planning and protection. In the incentive -based RLSA program, the weighting toward environmentally sensitive lands encourages large-scale protection M of natural systems. The CREW lands, for example, have been targeted for protection since the mid-1970s. It was only after the RLSA was established that the CREW lands were effectively protected via multiple SSAs. _ a� The recent state acquisition of Babcock Ranch, among others, illustrates two major points. First, environmental assets do s have economic and public benefit value, and therefore deserve to be highly weighted. Second, funding for acquisition of 0- sensitive lands is limited, and acquisition cannot protect more than a fraction of lands that should be protected. The cost of 2 acquiring Babcock Ranch was equivalent to a full year's budget of Florida Forever. L These observations are also valid for Conservation Collier. In December, 2007, Conservation Collier purchased 367.7 ul acres within the RLSA boundary, adjacent to Corkscrew Sanctuary. The total purchase price was $5.3 million with a m $300,000 contribution from CREW Trust. If this relative cost of acquisition was applied to the 24,124 acres of land a protected to date as SSA's at no cost to the public, it would have cost the taxpayers of Collier County more than w $325,000,000 to purchase these lands. This exceeds the total purchasing capacity of Conservation Collier. s Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none a Committee August 5, 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.18 remain unchanged. Policy mg All local land or easement ar_quisitioii prograt:ts that are intended to work within4he RI .SA 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. 109 1 F L, _, Packet Pg. 143 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 Public Comments: none received Staff Continents: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee August 5, 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.19 remain unchanged. Policy, 1.20 The County may, elect. to acquire Credits through a publicly funded program, using sources identified in Policy 1.18, Should the County pursue this option,: it shall establish a Stewardship Credit Trustnto receive and hold Credits until such time as they are sold, transferred or atherwisc used toimplement uses within. Stewardship Receiving Areas: Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee August 5, 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.20 remain unchanged. Policy 1.21 (recommended amendment) The incentive basal StewardshipbCredit systems relies on the projected demand for Credits as the primar-y basis foz permanent protection of Ulicultural _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 issuekand to promote the protection of natural resources, the implementation of the Overlay will inoiude an early entry bonus to encourage the voluntary establishment of SSAs within the RLSA. The bonus shallthe in thedorm 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 HSAA located inside. the ACSC. The early entry bonus shall be available for five years from the effective elate of the adoption of the Stewardship Credit System in the LDC.. The early designation of S`SAs, and resulting protection of flowways, habitats, and Water retention areas does not require the establishmenttof SRAs or othenvise require the, early use of Credits, and Credits generated wider 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. Public Comments: _M 1. The incentive program to jump start the RLSA program was too generous and only increased the magnitude of " development and the speed in which it will occur in the rural areas. Because of this, a need to look at longer range studies in lieu of the typical 5-years associated with concurrency issues should be considered. [Mark Strain] 0 ECPO Comment [Appendix J]: The Early Entry Bonus Credit was specifically designed to jump start the protection of Er - natural resources, not the speed of development. Policy 1.21 states that: .2 "The early designation of SSAs, and resulting protection of flowways, habitats, and water retention areas does not W require the establishment of SRAs or otherwise require the early use of Credits". �+ During the review process of the RLSA, the Department of Community Affairs supported the EEB program as a way to m jump start the program through designation of SSAs in advance of market demand for Credits. This objective has been a realized, as approximately 55,000 acres of SSAs are approved or pending compared to approximately 8,000 acres of a approved and pending SRAs. At full utilization, 27,000 Early Entry Bonus (EEB) Credits are allowed, which translates E into 3,375 acres of Receiving Areas. To date, approximately 7,719 EEB Credits have been approved and approximately 5 9,195 EEB Credits have been applied for in pending SSA applications. By any measure, the EEB program has been a a success, and has not resulted in an increase in either the magnitude or speed of development in the rural areas. Staff Comments: 1. The amendment in the first line is a simple correction and the second line adds "agricultural lands" as a land to be permanently protected. [Comprehensive Planning] 1101 P a g e Packet Pg. 144 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 2. For information purposes, the Early Entry Bonus is scheduled to expire on January 30, 2009 per the existing Land Development Code. A total of 7,719 Early Entry Bonus Credits were approved for SSAs 1-9 with a total of approximately 15,500 estimated to be approved if all 16 existing and proposed SSAs are approved prior to January 30, 2009, or approximately 57% of the authorized limit of 27,000. The Committee should decide whether it wishes to recommend the continuation of the Early Entry Bonus to protect HSA. [Comprehensive Planning] Committee Deliberations: The Committee consensus was to make the minor correction and addition to this Policy as annotated. Committee Au ust 5 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.21 remain unchanged, with the exception of the minor corrections and addition as annotated. PPol cyd-22 (recommended amendment) The RLS�Ov�rlay was designed to be a long-term strategic plan wiib a planning horizon Year of ?'025. Many of the ffiques and strategies of the Overlay are.new, ]renovative, incentive based, and have yet to babe tes actual ImpR-litatron. A comprehensive review of the Overlay shall be prepared for and reviewed by Collier County an apartment of Community Affairs _ as,part of4the Evaluation andAppraxsal. Report process. The urpose' o>S'the eview "shall be to assess the partial att a°'�rzd effecti eness of the Overlay inip ementation in meeting fhe Go Ob ecteve Pol cues set "foirtti herein Th . specific measures ofireview shall be as follows:; 1. The amount and location of land designated as FSAs,.HHSAr,, WRAs and other SSAs. 2. The amount and location of land designated as SRAs.. 3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated, assigned orylield 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 sincelim adoption. 6. The extent and use of funding provided by Collier County and other sources focal, State, Federal WOprivate revenues described in Policy 1'.18. 7. The amount, location and tyW. of restoration through participation in the Stewardship Credit System since. its adoption. 8. The potential for use of Credits in urban areas. Public Comments: L The Conservancy believes the five year review for the Collier RLSA should be each five years, not just at the first five year anniversary. [Conservancy] 2. Review should reoccur at least every five years. Establish interim process for modifications if new, sound and defensible information becomes available. [Defenders of Wildlife] 3. Monitoring: The program should include presentation of a written annual report to the Board of County Commissioners at a BCC meeting, with adequate public notice of the item and notice to interested parties. At a minimum the report should include the number of acres in SSAs and SRAs, proposed SSAs and SRAs, available credits that could entitle development, infrastructure (roads, utilities) constructed and proposed, a status assessment of listed species and their habitat, and acres and activities involved in restoration. [Defenders of Wildlife] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: Policy 1.22 requires a comprehensive review of the RLSA upon the five-year anniversary of the adoption of the Stewardship District in the LDC. The initial 5-year review period was put in place because RLS was adopted as an innovative, break -through program that incorporated many interests. Specific criteria are to be addressed, and this task is currently being conducted by the Review Committee. The County currently has procedures for review and appraisal of the entire GMP (the EAR process) and the RLS program should not be subject to a more rigorous schedule than already in place. Consideration should also be given to the staffing of County personnel to perform evaluation of specific GMP policies as opposed to review of the entire GMP. If it is determined that review is on a 5-year cycle, it will be important to restrict this review to local agencies that are responsible for implementation and oversight of the program. 1111 Page Packet Pg. 145 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Providing for a requirement to provide annual reports is onerous and unnecessary. Since approval of the RLS program, one new town has been approved and is under construction. All documentation relative to this approved SRA and all approved SSA's is public record and available for review by any interested party. County staff already has numerous monitoring and reporting requirements for various local and state initiatives and directives, and the costs associated with such a requirement (staff time, legal advertisement, etc.) would be an unnecessary burden on County taxpayers. ECPO [Appendix J] supports 5-7 year reviews. Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: The Committee agreed that, should now be reviewed as part of the EAR process. Committee involved in the EAR review process. Committee August 5 2008 Action: The Committee with the exception of the annotated changes shown. with the completion of the first 5 years of the RLS Program, it The Committee discussed the possible need to have a special unanimously recommended that Policy 1.22 remain unchanged, Comments received which are not clearly associated with existing policies and would, therefore, require drafting new Group 1 policies. 1. Collier County should re-evaluate how other Growth Management Plan (GMP) policies may be appropriate for applicability to the RLSA. For example, the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) now has additional provision for stormwater treatment that require 150% treatment. Certain GMP policies may be appropriate for application to the RLSA and should be considered for inclusion in the RLSA. At a minimum, exempting the RLSA from other provisions within the GMP should be re-evaluated. [Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The adopted GMP goals and polices and associated LDC provisions for the RLSA are extensive and clearly detailed, and were a result of approximately three years of meetings and public input. Keeping these provisions together in one place in both the FLUE and LDC provide for a comprehensive, single source guide. We are not aware of any data that supports the need to require other provisions of the Growth Management Plan be incorporated into the provisions of the RLSA. Existing permitting procedures address specific and detailed requirements. Adding permitting related regulations to the Growth Management Plan is not necessary and could also be a disincentive to potential participants. 2. Because there are only a few large landowners in eastern Collier County, they are generally using their own agricultural land to offset development on other land that they own (i.e_, using their own credits). There is N essentially no market for the credits accrued by several small landowners. [Create a County Credit Bank] [Judith Hushon] a 3 m ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: Further discussion with Mrs. Hushon related this item to the establishment of a Credit Bank to track the availability of Credits. A "Stewardship Credit Trust is currently provided for in Policy 1.20 L LO Preface to Group 2 Policies m a Group 2 Policies provide specific guidance for the preservation of agricultural lands. Major Committee -recommended revisions to Group 2 Policies include: s Group 2 (amendment) w The recommended amendment to the Group 2 language eliminates the language related to protection of agricultural a lands from premature conversion to other uses, and replaces this language with new language related to the retention of land for agricultural production. Policy 2.1 (amendment) The recommended amendments to Policy 2.1 eliminate the language related to protection of agricultural lands from premature conversion to other uses. Also included is the elimination of the language comparing acreage needed to 1121 Page Packet Pg. 146 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 accommodate the projected population of the RLSA in the Horizon year of 2025 with the acreage required to accommodate such projected population if the RLSAO were not utilized. Policy 2.2 (amendment) The recommended amendments to Policy 2.2 provide for additional Stewardship Credits to retain agriculture lands within the RLSA. Group 2 - policies to eteet- ate retain land .for Wicultural activides.:through the use of established incentives .in order to continue the viability of agricultural production through the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardshi7p?A1rOverlay, (recommended amendment) Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: This is a major amendment to the RLSA Overlay. The elimination of the word "premature" may seem like an innocuous change. However, it raises a flag because the existing phrase has its genesis in the Final Order No. AC- 99-002 of the Administrative Commission. Any step perceived as undoing the Final Order -based GMPAs (established in the RLSA and RFMUD) might cause issue at the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), especially if DCA is leaning towards trying to make Collier County's RLSA subject to compliance with statutory RLSA provisions. In view of the preceding, staff recommends that the language of the goal remain unchanged. [Comprehensive Planning Department]. Committee Deliberations: The Committee consensus is that it is impossible to determine what is or is not premature conversion of agricultural lands and wished to provide additional incentives to retain land for agricultural activities. Committee September 2 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to approve the language amendment as provided above. Policy 2.1 (recommended amendment) Agricultur.,eal landowners. will be provided with -€ � e-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 Poli'c�ies 1.4 andT12 and by the establishment of SRA`s'. arx i1�4'fi4Fm of r=ofnpaot faml.1 9.A fa7T,V1...J.. Aat ysis 1.: a.u�r:T cxrccc. ��- - - III f-I0.....0..x- WeM e. allowed ;& .. r-r.-_.4i41C - . R landf Public Comments: 1. PoIicy 2.1 states that, "Analysis has shown that [Stewardship Receiving Areas] SRAs will allow the projected population from the RLSA in the Horizon year of 2025 to be accommodated on approximately 10% of the acreage otherwise required if such compact rural development were not allowed due to the flexibility afforded to such development." How this policy will be met needs to be assessed during the five-year review. Based on the figures from Policy 1.3, there are 182,334 acres of privately -owned land. These lands, prior to the RLSA, were allowed a density of one unit per five acres. Thus, 36,467 units would have been allowed. Assuming development would have occurred in the worst -case scenario of the allowed one unit per five acres, all 182,334 acres could have been impacted by development (though this is highly unlikely, as permits could not likely be obtained for development within the sloughs and other extremely sensitive areas). Thus, to comply with the policy goal of the future population being contained on 10% of this land, development should be contained to 18,233 acres of the RLSA. This would be a ratio of development to non -development of 9: 1. Currently, the SRA to SSA ratio for Ave Maria, the only approved RLSA town to date, is 1131Page Packet Pg. 147 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 approximately 3: I. Collier County must assess how the ultimate 9: I ratio, or development on 10% of the land, will be achievable in the future, if all new SRAs come in at Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) to SRA ratios of less than 9:1. The Conservancy believes the manner in which this policy will be met should be further clarified. [Conservancy] ECPO Comment [Appendix J]: ECPO agrees with the April 1, 2008 minutes of the Review Committee where Alan Reynolds clarified the relevance and purpose of the 10% figure. Discussion during September 2 2008 meeting: Mr. Greenwood stated that the language proposed to be eliminated by the Committee simply states that a typical compact urban development in the RLSA Overlay would have a density approximately 10 times that of the underlying zoning which is 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres of land and this was explained by Al Reynolds during the April 1 meeting. Nicole Ryan stated that the 10% footprint for SRA should be recalculated. Do not eliminate this language, but simply update it. Al Reynolds stated that the language needs to be removed from Policy 2.1 and deal with the SRAs in Group 4 policies. The RLSA Overlay is voluntary, an option, and the language really just points out the difference is development density between the underlying zoning and the RLSA Overlay. Staff Comments: This is a major amendment. Staff detailed comments were outlined previously under the RLSAO Goal and under Group 2-Policy introduction statement above with respect to eliminating the words "premature conversion". [Comprehensive Planning] Mr. McDaniel stated that he did not want to see rebuttal statements within the Phase 2 Working Paper, but it is OK to have them in the Committee minutes. Mr. Farmer stated that he would like to see Mark Strain updated on an on -going basis as to the responses to his issues and comments to which other members stated that they did not agree with this and pointed out that the Phase 2 Working Paper is on the web site for review by all. Committee Deliberations: Mr. McDaniel stated the credits and the SRA footprint needs to be quantified during the Group 3 and 4 discussions and that he favors the removal of this language as it misleads the reader as to what the intent of the language means. Brad Cornell stated that we need to get our arms around the projections of credits and SRAs under the existing RLSA Overlay versus the proposed RLSA Overlay. Mr. Farmer stated that approximately 85,000 acres of open lands could all be developed either under the underlying AG zoning or the RLSA as SRAs. There was general discussion, in particular by David Wolfley, about the number of credits increasing too much where the credit value would be diluted, as discussed by Tom Jones and Gary Eidson and that a proper balance would have to be achieved. DCA also pointed this out in the ORC letter relative to the Half Circle Ranch GMP amendment proposal which has been withdrawn. Mr. Farmer pointed out that all 85,000 acres of Open land is available for development, either under the underlying zoning or through the RLSA Overlay. Tammie Nemecek referred to the cap of 45,000 credits proposed under the summary of July 1, 2008 of the Florida Panther Protection Program. Gary Eidson questioned how we incentivize the Open Land owners to reserve their lands in perpetuity for agricultural uses. Mr. Jones stated that Policy 2.2 is proposing to incentivize Open Areas and provide a disincentive to underlying zoning development at 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. Committee Se tember 2 2008 Action: The Committee voted, 8-2, to recommend the amendments to Policy 1.2 as outlined above. Policy Z.2 (recommended amendment) AAgrieulture 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 io Policies 1 b, 1.7, 110, and.1.1�7 In 1141F:.,+.: Packet Pg. 148 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 Public Continents: 1. More lands east of 29 into sending or protective status - this is ACSC land. [FWF] ECPO Comment [Appendix Jl: The RLSA Review Committee is already considering new agricultural policies that will incentivize the protection of agricultural land uses. The Agriculture Preservation program, if adopted, will result in the designation of many "Open' agricultural lands as SSAs. The proposed program provides extra incentives for protection of agricultural lands within the ACSC. The proposed program may work in concert with other regional conservation programs to provide vast areas of agricultural and native landscapes. 2. Agriculture preservation in receiving areas - incentives? What is left after towns/villages are built? [FWF] ECPO Comment [Appendix J]: The agriculture incentives within the Group 2 policies proposed by the Committee provide greater opportunity for landowners to continue agriculture operations while removing land rights on lands designated as "Open." This incentive is directly related to the desire for agriculture preservation. Provided landowners maintain the ability to create new towns and villages, with the addition of the new agriculture incentive full implementation of the RLSA should result in three land categories — natural resource SSAs, agriculture SSAs and towns and villages. 3. If the Committee genuinely wishes to adopt policies to encourage the preservation of meaningful Agricultural Lands for the future, these policies and incentives must reward the preservation of lands with substantive Agricultural value. The preservation of higher quality lands with the potential to produce citrus, row crops, or other high value horticultural crops in the future obviously should carry a higher incentive in development credits than minimally valuable grazing lands or pasture. Agricultural value alone should be the criteria. The location of many of these lands in Collier County is well established. in response to Mr. Jones' proposal, I do not believe that AU credits should be granted for the preservation of Agricultural lands in the Area of Critical State Concern. These lands are in environmentally sensitive areas and are under little development pressure. Most should never be intensively used and hold limited Agricultural value for the future. In my opinion, a separate category of Agricultural Stewardship Sending Lands (ASSA) should be created. This could identify the difference between the Ag preservation effort and current SSA's which in practice are strictly environmental. Criteria for credits and goals should be separate. This need not be excessively complex, but should give the most reward to landowners who preserve the land with the most current and potential value to Agricultural uses, not natural resource value or conservation. This should be very acceptable and desirable to landowners as this rewards them the most for keeping the lands currently generating the most income. Agriculture is currently very well defined and highly regulated by a myriad of state and federal agencies. Any RLSA Agricultural policies should not be crippled by additional environmental restrictions. In any RLSA Ag. program there should be no additional restrictions of any kind to any legitimate agricultural uses. Landowners should be able to capitalize on future technology. Intensity of use should not be restricted or frozen at current levels. Any RLSA must function within laws including best management practices. Regulation and restriction should be Ieft to the law makers and regulatory agencies, not the environmental advocacy interests. The committee has serious work to do in the details of a viable Ag preservation incentive policy. I hope that all committee members will read, in detail the 2007 RLSA Program Annual Report to the legislature from DCA. This review outlines their concerns with the Collier County RLSA program and policies and defines issues and shortcomings that the committee surely must address. To develop an Ag policy that will be acceptable to DCA will no doubt be challenging simply because it will generate an additional inventory of development credits. It is most likely that DCA will be reluctant to endorse any policy that exacerbates their current stated concerns include the following: * The maximum number of stewardship credits in the RLSA is not known and therefore the maximum development footprint cannot be determined. * The Collier RLSA Plan has not established how many new towns and villages can be created. * Spatial arrangement and extent of various land uses has not been addressed. Fragmentation of both Environmental and Agricultural lands could make both unsustainable_ The distribution pattern of Development as well as necessary buffers, greenbelts, or other provisions to preserve rural character have not been adequately addressed, putting it at risk. 1151Page Packet Pg. 149 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 The committee will ultimately have to address these issues, and most will have to be addressed en route to any functional and DCA-acceptable Agricultural incentive policy. All of this must be accomplished in light of the elephant in the middle of the room, and that is the underling land use in Collier County of 1 dwelling unit for five acres of land. This density, although low, is the reason why only agricultural land with a high natural resource value has been preserved to date. All RLSA credits to date have been structured in a highly rewarded environmental context. A separate and well defined Ag policy, with similar incentives, is needed. To be acceptable, I am afraid this will require that the entire RLSA, at build out, be considered and better defined. Is the committee willing and prepared to do this? I look forward to discussing Group 2,3, and 5 Policies, however, in my opinion, the present Collier RLSA shortcomings and criticisms must be addressed before additional or new Agriculture policy (or for that matter, any other new policy ) can be created. I therefore propose to the Committee that a structured review and discussion of DCA stated concerns be undertaken at this time. This should be done before any complex new policy is considered, or any new specific policy Ianguage is adopted. [Tim Nance] 4. Will there be a continuation of loss of agricultural acreage in the RLSA in the future? Agricultural Productive areas need to be preserved. [CCPC] 5. Establish new category of agriculture preserves; however, assure that the process does not set up a competition between conservation and agriculture preservation that would result in failure to protect natural resources. [We note that while conservation benefits have certainly accrued from the acres currently designated as Ag 1 and Ag 2, very few (-650 acres) have actually been categorized as Conservation.] [Defenders of Wildlife] ECPO Comment [Appendix Jl: The Review Committee has proposed new policies to provide incentives for landowners to preserve agriculture land within the Open designation. Note: The following Appendices were submitted to the Committee on July 1, 2008 as part of the "Florida Panther Protection Program Summary" dated June 30, 2008: A Proposed Florida Panther Protection Program Summary as presented initially to the Review Committee on July 1, 2008 B July 1, 2008 letter from Jennifer Hecker of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida to Paul Souza of US Fish and Wildlife Service related to the proposed Florida Panther Protection Plan C July 1, 2008 letter from Nicole Ryan of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida to Ron Hamel and the RLSA Review Committee regarding the proposed Panther Protection Program and other possible changes to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay D June 29, 2008 letter from 1000 Friends of Florida to Ron Hamel and the RLSA Review Committee regarding the proposed Panther Protection Program E June 16, 2008 letter to Thomas Reese from Charles Gauthier of the Florida Department of Community Affairs relative to possible changes to the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay F Undated July 1, 2008 presentation from Andrew McElwaine, President and CEO of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee 1161Page Packet Pg. 150 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Public Continents during September 2, 2008 meeting: Nancy Payton spoke in support of the language proposed unde Policy 2.2 as it encourages keeping agriculture land in agriculture or similar uses. Nicole Ryan stated that the Committee should provide an incentive in the ACSC land for panther habitat protection; that the NRI values need to be updated; an( passed out a color map showing [in yellow] areas where panthers habitat could be in conflict with Open lands when SRAs might be allowed. Mr. McElwaine, representing the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, encouraged the Committee to vote against the proposed amendments to Policy 2.2 and raised questions about DCA's caution of not using the existing RLSA Overlay authorization, adequate infrastructure, justification and whether there is a need based upon shortage o. existing development. Staff Comments: Staff can confirm that the average number of Stewardship Credits per acre assigned in SSAs 1-9 is approximately 2.65 credits per acre for lands classified as HSA, FSA, or WRA and 0.85 credits per acre for land, classified as Open Lands. The assigned credits include both R-I and R-2 credits although. The development of additiona. stewardship credit values within the Stewardship Credit Worksheet to support the voluntary retention of Agriculture - Group I lands for permanent open or agricultural uses will be required to support definitive language amendments tc Policy 2.2. [Comprehensive Planning] Committee Deliberations: David Wolfley suggested putting all credit reference in Group 3 policies. Torn Jones stated r that the proposal is intended to create a new incentive for agricultural preservation and he felt the credit reference should o be in Group 2 policies and this was discussed initially by the Committee in April and is attempting to address the criticism of DCA about not doing enough to protect agricultural lands. He stated that the 2.0 credits per acre outside of the ACSA 3 is an incentive to the property owners to retain agricultural lands, as the current average NRI in Open lands would generate approximately just 0.2 credits per acre. He stated that the 2.6 credits per acre is an added incentive to maintain agricultural lands in the ACSC and is close to the 2.65 average credits per acre generated by lands classified as HSA, c4 WRA or FSA in SSA 1-9. He stated that the Group 2 and Group 3 credit generation will need to be balance with SRA N entitlement potential to be addressed in Group 4 policies. Mr. Wolfley stated that all credits should be discussed and c reviewed in one area and not in several Groups of policies. Mr. Jones stated that if there are too many credits, then we will o have to pull back on the number of credits being generated and too many acres of SRA. He stated that a potential N maximum 45,000 acres of development footprint under SRAs was proposed in the summary of the Panther Protection a Program presented on July 1, 2008 to the Committee. Brad Cornell stated that agricultural stewardship credits will need to be calculated and still wants an incentive for the preservation of agricultural lands. He suggested adding to the last 11 sentence the words, "Agriculture" before SSA in the two locations in that sentence and that there be language placed that would disallow returning to the AG-1 land use layer after the land has been voluntarily taken down to AG-2. Mr. McDaniel stated that he could support the first part, but not the second part. Mr. Farmer asked about the acreage classified as Open in the ACSC. Mr. Jones stated that the 15,000+ acres of Open land within the ACSC can become SSAs but there om is also a limit of 10% of clearing limitation in the ACSC. Dave Wolfley stated he agrees with the added language but not a with the numbers. 3 m Committee September 2. 2008 Action: The Committee voted 9-1 to recommend that the word "Agricultural' be inserted W before "SSA" in the two locations found in the last sentence of Policy 2.2. LO Committee Sel2tember 2 2008 Action: The Committee, by a vote of 7-3, to recommend that the following language be m added just prior to the last sentence of Policy 2.2: "Each layer is discreet and shall be removed sequentially and a cumulatively in the order presented in the Matrix. If a layer is removed, all uses and activities in that layer are eliminated r- and no longer available." E s Committee September 30 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended to add the shown additional a language to Policy 2.2 to better define Open Lands. 1171 Page Packet Pg. 151 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 (recommended deletion) pfaceand to 64e Bcc - .tom i•y* Public Comments. none received Staff Comments. no comments Committee Deliberations: The Committee discussed the fact that the Agriculture Advisory Council was never created; that there was no overt interest to date to establish the AAC, and that there are many agricultural interest groups and orgartizations alraeatdy established which can initiate discussions and actions before local, state, and federal agencies and elected bodies relative to their agricultural interests. Committee September 2.. 2M Action: The Committee unanimously recommended that Policy 13 be deleted from the RLSA Overlay. Abliey 2.4 (recommended dele6m) , 1BGV ! of stia A A C — aiid t �fttl riee :.L: pAifii ad b 04e A(;(' shot nrfl. -44w%.., y adept"t71S'rT7'-Ehc 1J)G that irn*fflent Pe,' .. 413ekt: . Public Comments: none received Stdr CommenntS: no comments Committee Deliberations: The Committee discussed the fact that the Agriculture Advisory Council was never created; that there was no overt interest to date to establish the AAC, and that there are many agricultural interest groups and organizations already established which can initiate discussions and actions before local, state, and federal agencies and elected bodies relative to their agricultural interests. Committee Setptember2, 208 Act o : The Committee unanimously recommended that Policy 2.4 language be stricken, Policy 2.-5� 3 (recommended amendment) Agriculture is an important aspect of Collier Couwt s quality of life and ecnnomic well-being:-Agric Wtural activities shall �e_irotected Grp -duplicative regulal m as provided by the 1,iorida Right -to -Farm Pict. Publk Comments: none received Staff Comments; 1F Policies 2.3 and 2.4 are recommended for deletion by the Committee, then current Policy 2.5 would become Policy 2,3.[Comprehew4ve Planning] Committee Mbemtiolw: none Committee September 2, 208 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended to renumber Policy 2.5 to 2.3. Policy .(recommended anwWment) Notwithstanding the specie provision,; of Policies 3.9 and =3..10, nothing herein or in the impl--elating I DRg, shall restrict lawful agricultural activities on lands within the Rf.SA that hgve not been placed into the Stewardship program Public Comments: none received Stark Comments: The deletion of Policies 2.3 and 2.4 would require that current Policy 2..6 become Policy 2.4.[Comprehensive Planning] Committee Deliberations: none Committee September 2, 2M Action: The Committee unanimously recommended the renumbering of Pol icy 2.6 to 2A. 1181Page Packet Pg. 152 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 Preface to Group 3 Policies Group 3 Policies set the framework for environmental preservation, including "perpetual conservation easements" [Stewardship Easements] through Stewardship Sending Areas. Major Committee -recommended revisions to Group 3 Policies include: Policy 3.11 (amendment) The recommended amendments to Policy 3.11: • eliminate the restoration priority language related to restoration work within the Camp Keais Strand Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA) or contiguous Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs); provide language allowing for two additional Stewardship Credits (rather than the 4 Credits now permitted) for restoration activities within a FSA or HSA, regardless of location in the RLSA; elimination of the additional two Stewardship Credits for each acre of land dedicated for restoration activities within other FSAs and HSAs; and provide additional Credits for either caracara restoration at 2 Credits per acre, or for exotic control/buming at 4 Credits per acres, or for flow way restoration at 4 Credits per acre, or for native habitat restoration at 6 Credits per acre. Within the area proposed for restoration, Land Use Layers 1-6 must be removed. The specific process for assignment of additional restoration Credits shall be included in the Stewardship District of the LDC; • provide for Stewardship Credits to incentivize the creation, restoration, and enhancement of a northern panther corridor connection and a southern panther corridor connection by providing for 2 additional Stewardship Credits for each acre of land so dedicated and, should the owner also effectively complete the corridor restoration, an additional 8 Credits per acre would be awarded; • provide for Stewardship Credit incentives for restoration of shallow wetland wading bird foraging habitat located in FSA, HSA, or Water Retention Area (WRA) at the rate of 2 additional Credits per acre and, upon successful completion of the restoration, an additional 6 Credits per acre shall be awarded; and • limit Credit incentives to only one type of restoration for each acre so designated for restoration Policy 3.13 (amendment) The recommended amendment to Policy 3.13 requires the acreage of a WRA, if such acreage provides for water treatment and retention exclusively for a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA), to be included in the SRA acreage and would require the use of Stewardship Credits to enable the use of such an area for this purpose in a SRA. Group. 3 -- Policies to protect watee° quality and quantity aD .maintain the natural water regime, as weal as listed animal and plaatspecies and thek habitats by dlirecting incompatible uses:away from wetlands and tiplansi habitat through the establishment of Flow way- Stewardship Areas, :Habitat Stewardship Areas, and Water Retention seas, where lanlis are- voluntarily inclu&ain the Rural..Lands S.tewalydship:.Arta program. Public Comments: no comments received regarding the Group 3 objective above. The following documents received by the Committee on July 1, 2008, due to their length and relationship to the proposed Florida Panther Protection Program addressed in Policy 3.11, were placed in the Appendices section as Appendices A-F and are described below: Appendix A Proposed Florida Panther Protection Program Summary as presented initially to the Review Committee on July 1, 2008 Appendix B July 1, 2008 letter from Jennifer Hecker of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida to Paul Souza of US Fish and Wildlife Service related to the proposed Florida Panther Protection Plan Appendix C July 1, 2008 letter from Nicole Ryan of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida to Ron Hamel and the RLSA Review Committee regarding the proposed Panther Protection Program and other possible changes to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Appendix D June 29, 2008 letter from 1000 Friends of Florida to Ron Hamel 1191 Page Packet Pg. 153 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 and the RLSA Review Committee regarding the proposed Panther Protection Program Appendix E June 16, 2008 letter to Thomas Reese from Charles Gauthier of the Florida Department of Community Affairs relative to possible changes to the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Appendix F Undated July 1, 2008 presentation from Andrew McElwaine, President and CEO of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee Staff comments: Mr. Greenwood suggested that all of the documents received by the Committee at its July 1 meeting related to the Florida Panther Protection Program be placed in the Appendices section at the back of the report in their entirety due to their combined 20+ pages. Committee Deliberations: The Committee discussed, at the suggestion of Brad Cornell, adding reference to restoration activities to the Group 3 statement above. The Committee consensus was that this would be covered later in the Group 3 policies and need not be placed here. Committee September 2. 2008 action: The Committee unanimously voted to leave the existing language for Group 3 unchanged. Policy 3.1 Protection of water quality and quantity, and the maintenance of the nal-UMI water regime shall occur through the establishment of'Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs), as SSAs within the RI -SA Overlay. FSAs are delineated on the Overlay Map and contain approximately 3-1,100 acres. FSAs are primarily privately owned wetlands that are located within the Camp Keais Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough. These lastds 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 I Policies. Not all lands within the delineated FSAs are comparable in terms of their natural resouro'e value; therefore the index shall be used to differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the purp )se of Overlay implementation. Analysis of the index Map Series shows that i SA lands score within a range of 0.7 to 2.4, approximately 9696' score greater than 1.2 while 4% score 1.2 or less. The average Index score of FSA land is 1.8, Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee September 2, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave the existing language for Policy 3.1 unchanged. Policy 3.2 (recommended amendment) bisted animal and plant species and their habitats shall be protected through the establishment of Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. HSAs are delineated on the Overlay .Map and contain approximately 40,000 45,782 acres. HSAs are privately owned agricultural areas, which include both areas with natural characteristics that make them suitable habitat for listed species and areas without these characteristics. These latter arras are included because they are located contiguous,,to habitat to help form a continuum of landscape that can aup-meat-habitat values. The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect HSAs by the creation and. transfer of Credits, resulting in th.e elimination oVincompatible uses and the establishment of protection measures described'in Group 1 Policies. Not all lands within the delineated 1TSAs are comparable in terms of their habitat value; therefore the index shall be used to differentiate higher value ,from lower value lands for the purposeAof Overlay implementation. Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that HSA lands score within a range of-0.6 to'2.2. There ate approximately 13,900 14,i5� aL res of cleared agricultural fields located in HSAs. The average index score of RAS 11S1,desig�atecl lands is 1.3, however, the average index score of the naturally vegetated areas within HSAs is. L5, Public Comments: none received 1201Page Packet Pg. 154 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Staff Comments: 1. The total HSA acreage should be changed from 40,000 acres to 45,782 acres as the 40,000 acres figure was an estimate, while the 45,782 acres is based upon current GIS data. The 13,800 acreages for HSAs should be changed to 15,156 acres upon recalculation by the Environmental staff using the SFWMD Land cover data form 2004/2005 for improved pasture, un-improved pasture, row crops, field crops, and orchards to get a value for "cleared agriculture" of 15,156 acres, not including woodland pasture, tree nursery, or upland shrub and brush. [Environmental staff] 2. "HAS" [resulted from a "spell check"] error and needs to be changed to "HSA". [Comprehensive Planning staff] 3. Protection of listed species and wildlife habitat from intense land uses is one of the requirements in the Growth Management statutes. The HSAs were delineated to protect listed species and their habitat. During the first 5 years of the RLSA program there have been several instances of listed species in Open areas. The HSAs alone do not provide adequate protection to listed species. Additionally the 2002 definition of panther habitat is very limited compared to the habitat valuation matrix utilized by USFWS now. [Environmental staff] ECPQ Comments [Appendix KJ: The HSAs, FSAs, and WRAs collectively comprise over 89,000 acres and provide large, interconnected blocks of high -quality habitat for listed species and other wildlife. These overlay areas contain the vast majority of the native vegetation communities that occur within privately held RLSA lands, and also include over 13,000 acres of agricultural lands. The native vegetation that does occur within the Open overlay is highly fragmented, often impacted by surrounding land uses, and generally of much lower habitat quality that native vegetation communities with the FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs. Staff does not provide any data and analysis to support the statement that HSAs (and presumably FSAs and WRAs) "do not provide adequate protection to listed species." Collier County and DCA did conclude that listed species protection was adequate when the plan was approved in 2002. We dispute that the 2002 definition of panther habitat is "very limited" compared to the current USFWS habitat valuation matrix. In fact, the latest published panther research {Land, Shindle, et. al., 2008) and a current USFWS review of multiple published studies indicates that the 2002 definition of panther habitat closely approximates the current understanding of panther habitat utilization. In fact, the RLSA Habitat, Flow way, and Water Retention Stewardship Areas as designed in 2002 incorporated ninety-one percent of the panther telemetry. Currently, the panther telemetry within these same areas has increased to ninety-four percent. This concludes that the habitat is protected. Committee Deliberations: The Committee was informed of the more updated source of the acreage numbers and concurred that the numbers should be amended as shown. September 2.2008 Committee Action: The Committee voted unanimously to amend the text of Policy 3.2 as annotated above to more closely reflect the most current information in the RLSA Overlay. Policy 3.3 Further protection for surface water quality and quantity shall he through the establishrntmL of Water Retention Areas Ws.:), as SSAs within the RLSA Over -lay. WRAs are delineated on the Overlay Nlal-. and contain approximately. 18200 acres. WRAs are privately owned lands thaPhave been permitted by theaSourh Horida Water Management Distri to function as agricultural water rewition areas. fn many instances, these WRAs consist of native wetland or upland vegetation; in -other cases they atc excavated water bodies or inay cc?ntain exotic vegetation. The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect NVRAs by tfie creation and transfer of Credits, elinijution 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 bower value l'an�ds for the purpose of OverIay implementation. Analysis of the index Map Series shows that AAA 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 averagg Index score ofsWRA land is 1.5: Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee September 2 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to not recommend any change to Policy 3.3. 1211 Pa'ae L Packet Pg. 155 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Policy 3.4 Public and private conservation areas exist iri tfie RASA and serve to protect nahiral resources. Cork -screw Marsh and Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest include approximately 133,MG acres. Analysis shows that they score within an Index range oN.,a to 2.2: 1xith an average Tndex 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 ofithe RLSA. Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee Se tember 2 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to not recommend any change to Policy 3.4. Policy 3.5 Residential uses, General Conditional uses, F-vulh. Mining and Processing Uses. and. Recreational Uses (layers 1-4) as listed in the Nlatnx shall be eliminated in FSAs in exchange for compensation to the property owner as described in Policy I& 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 preel'ade the excavation of lakes. or other water bodies if such use is, an integral part of a restoration or mitigation program within a FSA. Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee Seiptember 2 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to not recommend any change to Policy 3.5 Policy 3.6 Residential Land Uses listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in Habitat Stewardship Sending Areas in exchange for compensation to the property owner as described in Policy 3.8. Other layers may also be elintinated at the election of the prty_owner in exchange, for compensation. Public Comments: 1. The Conservancy strongly supports regulation of land uses in the Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSA) and Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSA), regardless of whether the landowner participates in the RLSA program. This should include restrictions of some permitted and conditional uses and should include all lands, regardless of their participation in the RLSA. For example, on lands not voluntarily participating in the RLSA, Policy 5.1 removes use Iayers 1-4 within FSAs. However, Collier County should assess whether all agricultural activities are appropriate for FSAs, and potentially remove the more active agricultural uses as incompatible with protection of the quality, quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime in the FSAs. Within Policy 5.1, for HSAs, the only outright prohibition is for asphaltic and concrete batch making plants. The Conservancy believes this should be reassessed, with the opportunity to expand the prohibited uses within HSAs and FSAs. Also, Policy 3.7 specifically should be reassessed as to the allowances within HSAs. The Conservancy believes that golf courses, and other impacting uses, are incompatible with all HSAs. [Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: Land owner participation in the RLS program is voluntary and based on market conditions; it is not a regulatory technique, rather an incentive based program. Stripping additional uses off lands not a� M s a m o_ L LO m T Q r c a� E s V �a a 1221 Page Packet Pg. 156 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 participating in the RLS program would reduce the market value of that land and open the County to a Bert Harris claim action or violation of the Right to Farm Act. FSAs and HSAs were purposely defined broadly enough to allow a justified mix of habitat required for species and adequate land uses. Additional ag lands, although they did not meet the specific criteria for habitat, were included in HSAs in order to provide habitat connectivity. Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee September 2, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to not recommend any change to Policy 3.6. Policy 3.7 (recommended amendment) General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Cases shall be allowed onl}..on NSA lands with a Natural. Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less. Conditional use essential ser% ces and governmental essential services, ether than those necessary Co serve permitted uses car for public —safety. shall only be allowed in HSAA'g with a Natural Resource Stewardship index value of 1.2 or less. Asp altic 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 an 11SAs in order to minimize impacts to native habitats. fn addition to the requirements imposed in the LDS for approval of a Conditional Use, such uses will only he, approved upon submittal of an E19 Environmental .6ppact Statement -.(EIS). which demonstrates tliat clearing of native vegetation has bx.cn minimized the use will not significantly and adversely impact'listed species and theirihabitats and the use will not significantly and { adversely impact aquifers. As an alternative to the foregoing, the applicant may demonstrate that such use is anrintegral part of an approved restoration or, mitigation prr grain. Golf Course design. construction, and operation in any HSA shall comply with the best management practices of Audubon International's Gold Program aad 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 oPnative vegetation shall not exceed 15% of the native vegetation oA the parcel. • Areas previously�cleared shall be used preferentially to native vegetilted?areas. • Buffering to Gonservation Land shall comply with Policy 44.13, Public Comments: 1. The Conservancy strongly supports regulation of land uses in the Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSA) and Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSA), regardless of whether the landowner participates in the RLSA program. This should include restrictions of some permitted and conditional uses and should include all lands, regardless of their participation in the RLSA. For example, on lands not voluntarily participating in the RLSA, Policy 5.1 removes use layers 1-4 within FSAs. However, Collier County should assess whether all agricultural activities are appropriate for FSAs, and potentially remove the more active agricultural uses as incompatible with protection of the quality, quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime in the FSAs. Within Policy 5.1, for HSAs, the only outright prohibition is for asphaltic and concrete batch making plants. The Conservancy believes this should be reassessed, with the opportunity to expand the prohibited uses within HSAs and FSAs. Also, Policy 3.7 specifically should be reassessed as to the allowances within HSAs. The Conservancy believes that golf courses, and other impacting uses, are incompatible with all HSAs. [Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: Land owner participation in the RLS program is voluntary and based on market conditions; it is not a regulatory technique, rather an incentive based program. Stripping additional uses off lands not participating in the RLS program would reduce the market value of that land and open the County to a Bert Harris claim action or violation of the Right to Farm Act. FSAs and HSAs were purposely defined broadly enough to allow a justified mix of habitat required for species and adequate land uses. Additional ag lands, although they did not meet the specific criteria for habitat, were included in HSAs in order to provide habitat connectivity. a� M s (L 3 m m o_ LO CO w Q w a) E s V �a r a 1231 Page Packet Pg. 157 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Public Discussion during the September 2, 2008 meeting, Lauri McDonald stated that mining should be kept out of the layers and dealt with separately as mines have a greater negative impact on habitat than most types of land uses. Nancy Payton agreed with Ms. McDonald. Bill McDaniel stated that he does mining for a living and that mines provide a site for new habitat once they are finished off and full of water. Mr. Wolfley stated that he felt that mines do not have the negative impact on habitat as many other uses which are permanently intensive land uses. Brad Cornell stated that it may be well to require HSAs to remove land use Layers 1-4. Mr. Jones stated that Layers 1-4 have been removed in the first 9 SSAs since the property owners felt it was the environmentally sensible act to take in HSAs. Al Reynolds stated that the RLSA Overlay is a voluntary program and that the earth mining is a permitted use in the underlying AG zoning and that it would be better to process an earth mining operation under the RLSA Overlay rather than under AG zoning. Stab Comments: This is a clarification for the reader who may not know what "EIS" stands for as "EIS" is used extensively throughout this portion of the RLSA Overlay. [Comprehensive Planning] Committee Deliberations: see previous paragraph. Committee September 2, 2008 Action: The Committee voted 9-1 to not recommend any change to Policy 3.7 other than to make the clarification recommended by staff.. Policy 3.8 Compensation to the .propw- y owner -may occur through one or more of the following mechanisms: creation and transfer ot8tewardship Credits, acquisition t)f conservation easements, acquisition of less than fee interest in the land, orthrough ,other acquisition of -land or interest in land through a willing seller program. Public Comments on September 16, 2008. Mr. Dane Scofield stated that he would like to broaden the language to allow other avenues to use credits. Staff Comments: Staff suggested adding the words, "such as, but not limited to Conservation Collier" to the end of Policy 3.8 [Environmental Services] Committee Deliberations: The Committee saw no reason to single out any agency. Committee September 16, 2008 action: The Committee voted unanimously not to make any to change Policy 3.8. Pojicy 3.9 (recommended amendment) 1. Agriculture aFiil continue to bcPa perrin - i use and its supporting activities will continue to be permitted as " conditional uses within FSAs and HS-As, pw,suant to the Agriculture Group classifications described in the .Mat' W The Ag I group includes row crops, citrus, specialty farms, horticulture, plant nurseries, iml roved pastures for 02 grazing and ranching, aquaculture Gi ted to Open Land designation onlyl and similar- activities, including related a agricultural support uses. in existing Ag 1 areas within FSAs acid 11SAs, all such activities are permitted to continue; � and may convert from one type of Agriculture to another and expand to the hinits allowed byjapplicable pormits. >� Once the Stewardship Credit System is utilized and an owner receives compensation as previously described, no o: further expansion of Ag I will be allowed in FSA,; and HSAs beyond:existing or permitted limits aridun propi:rty ? subject to a credit transfer, except,for incidental clearing as setJorth,in Para` ht2 I�eiow. m w a 2. In order to encourage viable Ag 1 activities, and to accomroo'daw the ability,' to convert.from one Ag l use .to another, incidental clearing is allowed to join existing Ag 1 areas, square up existing farm fields, or provide access to or from E other Ag 1 areas, provided that. the Ag I 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 r clearing is defined as clearing that meets the above criteria and is limited to I T.o of the area of the SSA. In the event a Said incidental clearing.tim pacts Ianils having a.Natural Resource Indent. Value in excess of 12, apLnitt�i propriate on shall be provided. Public Comments: 1. Review of the SSAs currently designated indicates that out of the approximately 23,000 acres that are in SSA easements, only 650 acres have been taken down to 7241Page Packet Pg. 158 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 their conservation land use. The Conservancy believes that Collier County should be more active in securing lands that will be maintained for conservation purposes. While grazing may sometimes be compatible with conservation uses, more active agricultural activities may not, especially if the environmental value of the land would benefit from restoration activities. Collier County should revisit the SSA Group 3 policies to require more SSAs be taken down to conservation through incentives or regulations. A better understanding of the uses removed within SSAs could be vetted if SSA designation was required to go through the EAC, CCPC and Board of County Commissioners for approval. [Conservancy] Note: Also related to policy 3.10 ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: The Conservancy's statement does not acknowledge that of the 24,124 acres within approved SSAs, 19,034 acres (79%) are designated as Ag-2 lands. Of the 19,034 acres under Ag-2 land uses, 16,334 acres exist under native vegetation, and an additional 1,781 acres are comprised of pastures. These Ag-2 land uses retain only grazing rights and other low -intensity agricultural uses that are entirely compatible with listed species conservation. Lands within approved SSAs "maintained for conservation purposes" are therefore more accurately quantified as the sum of Ag- 2 and Conservation land uses (19,684 acres), or 82% of all approved SSA lands. The designation of an SSA is a voluntary process, through which a property owner relinquishes private property rights, reduces the residual land use value of their property, and provides a public benefit by permanently protecting natural resources and agriculture, without requiring publicly funded compensation. The rules and requirements for establishing an SSA are clear, straightforward, and are not subject to the imposition of conditions and stipulations. RLSA incentives are designed to minimize obstacles to property owners in implementing the program. Multiple public hearings are costly and time consuming. Members of the public, including advisory board members, are not precluded from commenting on an SSA at the BCC hearing. 2. Provide incentive for organic farming for ag remaining in FSAs and HSAs [FWF] 3. Continuing agricultural use in the SSAs should be with Best Management Practice (BMP) standards, at a minimum. Discussion during September 16, 2008 Meeting. Laura Roys stated staff suggested the BMP because SSAs should have higher standards and that the BMP language could be added to the Stewardship Credit Agreements. Dane Scofield stated that all his uses of land generate BMPs. Who will decide which BMP to use and how. He stated that he is opposed to the proposed BMP language. Nicole Ryan stated that her organization would support BMPS in that the property owners are receiving SSAs. Russ Priddy stated that he takes special care of his lands over the years and is opposed to BMPs being placed in the RLSA Overlay and that such is a huge disincentive to participate in the RLSAO. Staff Comments: Continuing agricultural use in the SSAs should be with Best Management Practice (BMP) standards, at a minimum. [Engineering and Environmental Services Department] ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: The RLSA agricultural areas have been farmed for decades, utilizing standard agricultural operations that are covered by existing state agricultural regulations. Additional restrictions could potentially render these agricultural operations unprofitable, counter to the goals of the RLSA. The prescription of BMPs could also create disincentives for land owners to include agricultural areas within SSAs, thereby fragmenting landscape mosaics that would otherwise be protected as large, interconnected blocks of land. Committee Deliberations: Mr. Jones stated that he was not in favor of the Best Management Practices language because it will lead to more confusion as to who will verify it is being done, which BMP to use and for what use.. Brad Cornell stated that we should find a way to incentivize BMPs. Mr. Farmer stated that the incentives are already in place such that the property owner is not found in violation [SFWMD requires BMPs for developments of 10+ acres and DEP requires as well]. Mr. Eidson stated that we do not need more laws as we are short of staff to enforce the ones we have. Mr. Standridge stated that the BMPs are not regulatory. Mr. Farmer disagreed stating that property owners must use BMPs for 1251Page Packet Pg. 159 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 10+ acre developments approved by SFWMD and DER Brad Cornell stated that he would like to see aquaculture addressed in the LDC. Committee September 16, 2008 action: The Committee voted unanimously to not amend Policy 3.9. By separate motion, the Committee voted unanimously have the language "limited to Open Land designation only", added after the word "aquaculture" in line fourth line of Policy 3.9. Policy 3.10 Ag 2 includes unimproved pastures for graying and ranching, forestry and -similar activities, including relatediagricultural support uses:,In existing Ag 2 areas within FSAs and HSAs, such activities are permitted to continue, and may,convert horn 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 ptvviously 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. Public Comments: The uses retained on lands, such as Ag 2, are not preservation lands yet they are proffered as such in subsequent development analysis. This then supports arguments to completely remove wetlands within the areas where development was to take place when in reality the ratios of natural set aside preservation lands were much smaller in comparison to the wetlands being destroyed if the Ag2 lands were excluded. While some A2lands are in more natural states, the fact they are not truly conservation lands is misleading. [Mark Strain] ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: The majority of SSA lands designated as Ag-2 consist of native vegetation communities and unimproved pastures and rangelands that contain both wetland and upland land cover. Once an SSA easement is placed on such property, the residential, earth mining, recreation, and intensive agriculture land use rights are removed and no further intensification of these natural areas is allowed. As a result, there is little difference between "preservation or conservation lands", and Stewardship Sending Area lands at the Ag 2 level, other than the fact that the land owner is obligated to continue to manage the land in accordance with the Stewardship Easement Agreement, rather than the public incurring this obligation and cost for public preservation land. One critical land use that is retained by the Ag-2 designation is the right to graze cattle, which is an important land management tool. In natural forest communities within the RLSA, grazing of cattle enhances forest function by suppressing exotic vegetation and controlling overgrowth in the understory. Ultimately, these Ag-2 lands do provide conservation benefits similar to those provided by public lands within and adjacent to the RLSA. With respect to wetland impacts in SRAs, the RLSA is a planning tool that works in a complimentary fashion to wetland and wildlife regulatory programs, not as a replacement. Any proposed wetland impacts and mitigation requirements are assessed and approved by the regulatory agencies for each SRA independently of RLSA process, using standard methodologies such as the Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM). The RLSA program addresses the issue on a major system basis, which regulatory programs do not, and protects vast acreages of regional flow ways and larger high -quality wetland systems that greatly exceed the wetland mitigation ratios typically required by SFWMD and the US Army Corps of Engineers. This is one reason why the Collier County RLSA is held in high regard by the SFWMD, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee September 16, 2008 action: The Committee unanimously voted to not amend Policy 3.10. Policy 3.11 1.. In certain Iocations there may be the opportunity for flow -way or habitat restoration. Examples include, but are not limited to, locations where flow -ways have been constricted or otherwise impeded by past activities, or where additional laird is needed to enhance wildlife corridors. t�1-1-�-t eontiguous . Should a property owner be willing to dedicate laird for restoration activities %.ithin a FSA or HSA the Camp Keck cpaw FS -' 4as 14 "3, 43-1 two additional Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of laird so dedicated. An Y.A.44.c104 ,.��.4,hi., .,,d:rn qh ,, bassag .,-fHr eah-t r Ft s and Lie .t The actual implementation of restoration improvements is riot required for the -owner to receive such credits and the costs of restoration shall be borne by the governmental agency or private entity 1261 Packet Pg. 160 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 undertaking the restoration. Should an -owner' also complete -restoration impVvveuIents; Lhis shall be rewarded with f additional Credits for each acre of restored land upon demonstration that theirestoration met applicable success criteria as #determined by the permit agency authorizing said restoration. The additiona'1_Credirs shall be rewarded. fare r her cascara restoration at .2 Credit"s'_perlacre, or for exotic controllbuming at 4 Credits.;ger acres, ox�for. flow way restoration at 4 _ .._ . shalLbe rewarded with these Credits for each acre. desi ated_forTestoration.'This policy does not.preclude othef forms of compensation for restoration which may be .addressed through pudic -private partnership agreement such a a developer contribution agreement or stewardship agreement between the parties involved. Also not precluded are various )Late and publicl funded_ restoration programs such as the. federal Farm Bill conservatiion.pro�[ams. The specific process fcrt assipmentof additional restoration credits shall be included in the Stewardship District of the LDC. Public Comments: 1. Many acres within SSA's are Ag lands that have been used in the past for a variety of activities that have the potential to cause soil and water contamination. These uses include cattle dipping, petroleum spillage from wells and even solid waste disposal areas from hunting or remote camps. Since the SSA's are given credit for their environmental value a requirement for a clean environmental audit prior to the SSA's credit issuance on all property within the SSA should be mandatory. [Mark Strain) ECPO Comments [Appendix K): Cattle grazing (and its related uses), is a permitted use throughout the RLSA, and may a) be allowed to continue when property is voluntarily placed within an SSA by its owners depending upon the land use OM Iayers removed. Land within an SSA that has been cleared or altered for agricultural support activities will be scored BE accordingly. SSA lands normally remain in private ownership and the property owner retains the obligation for land management, including compliance with regulatory requirements associated with agricultural practices. Environmental '� Audits are typically required only in conjunction with a change in ownership. Requiring an environmental audit to be a_ performed on thousands of acres of land would be an extraordinary expense and is therefore a disincentive for property owners to consider placing their property within an SSA, m Cattle dipping vats were constructed throughout the State of Florida as a result of local, state, and federal programs a conducted from 1906 through 1961, for the prevention, suppression, control, or eradication of the disease commonly a known as tick fever by eradicating the cattle fever tick. Most vats were constructed with public funds and operated under WE local, state, and Federal Government supervision and control, and participation in the eradication program was mandated by state law and not voluntary. Chapter 376.306(2), Florida Statutes states: r a Any private owner of property in this state upon which cattle -dipping vats are located shall not be liable to the state under any state law, or to any other person seeking to enforce state law, for any costs, damages, or penalties associated with the discharge, evaluation, contamination, assessment, or remediation of any substances or derivatives thereof that were used in the vat for the eradication of the cattle fever tick. This provision shall be broadly construed to the benefit of said private owner. 1271Page Packet Pg. 161 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Any potential oil spills are closely scrutinized by the Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and should there be an occurrence, immediate action is required. DNR maintains records of all petroleum spills and the action taken to address said spills. When wells are abandoned, oil companies and property owners are required to plug the wells and clean up the site under the direction of DNR. Hunting camps are handled via written leases with the property owner. The stipulations of these legal leases include the requirement for any lessee to properly dispose of all solid waste and also include annual inspection by the property owner to insure the terms of the lease are being met. Private property owners take great care in the protection of their land when allowing others to use their property for hunting or camping purposes. 2-The Conservancy believes that retention of AG 1 or AG2 uses on Iands where credits are generated for restoration activities creates the potential for incompatibility. Even lower -impact agricultural uses, such as unimproved pasture, may present conflicts to replanting and management for lands based on the restoration plan. The Conservancy suggests that on lands where stewardship credits are generated for restoration plans and actual restoration activities, all land use layers should be removed down to the conservation use. In addition, appropriate fencing should be required to provide a sufficient separation between agricultural uses and restoration areas. [Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: The process for restoration credits requires the removal of AGI uses, so there is no potential for incompatibility between restoration and AG1 uses under the RLSA program. Cattle grazing is a proven land management too]. When properly managed, cattle grazing limits under brush from becoming an extensive fire hazard, keeps exotics from more rapid proliferation, and requires more continuous oversight of the land. Removing all agricultural uses from the land would be a disincentive to restoration because there is a cost associated with land management. There must be a mechanism available to ensure that restoration and conservation remain viable options in the market. 3. The Conservancy believes Policy 3.11 should be reexamined as to the ability for additional Stewardship Credits to be obtained for dedication of land for restoration. The Conservancy believes credit should be given only on lands dedicated for restoration, where restoration has been implemented. [Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: In the RLSA, restoration is a two step process. First land is dedicated for restoration, and then the restoration is completed. The RLS program assigns credits for each step. By assigning credits for the first step, dedication, the program sets aside and protects lands for a future restoration activity. When viewed in a regional context this dedication process is useful to other entities, such as Conservation Collier, when prioritizing which lands to a protect and restore. To eliminate the dedication step from the credit system would be a disincentive to property owners to dedicate any restoration land until the restoration is to be completed, thereby depriving those other entities of knowing what the true regional restoration plan is. L 4. Incentives for restoring farm fields in receiving [Open] areas [FWF] LO m ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: This comment is apparently referring to the potential for restoring farm fields within a the "Open" overlay designation. The RLSA program was designed to achieve a balance between agricultural sustainability, environmental protection, and economic development. As noted in the previous response, ample opportunities for farm field restoration already exist within the FSA and HSA overlays. While restoration within the FSA and HSA overlays can occur within a landscape matrix of native vegetation communities, restoration within the Open r overlay lacks a landscape -scale context, and should not be a priority. a 5. Better handle on potential credits and restoration credits that can be generated - too many credits. [FWF] ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: Both Collier County staff and ECPO are preparing more accurate estimation of total potential stewardship credit generation, including restoration credits. 1281Page Packet Pg. 162 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 6. Why have credits been established to be awarded just for preparing a restoration plan that does not have to be implemented? [CCPC] ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: (See response to 3 above). 7. Restoration credits: credit should be generated only for actual restoration work, this could be a two step scale involving the start of restoration and meeting specified success criteria. [Defenders of Wildlife] ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: The purpose of providing restoration designation credits is two -fold. One, the restoration designation credits can provide a source of capital necessary to initiate the restoration work, including the costs of permitting, detailed restoration planning, etc. Secondly, there are situations where a land owner may be amenable to allowing a local (such as Conservation Collier), state or federal agency to perform restoration work on their land. The restoration designation credits provide an incentive for land owners to cooperate with agencies where they otherwise may have declined to participate, and the agencies can implement the restoration program. Staff Comments: Final language for this GMP amendment will be subject to further substantive review for sufficiency and consistency with all elements of the GMP, the Final Order, and data and analysis sufficient to justify and support this GMP amendment. [Comprehensive Planning] 1. Any level of restoration or maintenance receives the same amount of credits. The credit value should be tied to the functional lift and there should be levels of credit that could be earned. [Engineering and Environmental Services] 2. The management plan should include more than the 1 exotic plants listed by County Code (FLEPPC Category 1). Various other exotics have been observed. [Engineering and Environmental Services] 3. The LDC should define more specific requirements on what management plans entail. [Engineering and Environmental Services] 4. Restoration should be to a native habitat. [Engineering and Environmental Services] ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: ECPO agrees that a tiered system of restoration credits, tied to the restoration functional lift, the difficulty of restoration, and the cost of restoration would be beneficial. An approach will be provided to the RLSA Review Committee in the near future. Management plans are currently incorporated into Stewardship Credit and Easement Agreements, so enforceability is already present in the system. We agree that it is appropriate to include the 12 Category 1 exotic plant species identified by FLEPPC in future management plans. The SSA restoration management plans submitted to date have included sufficient specificity to ensure the achievement of restoration goals, but we will work with the RLSA Review Committee and staff if a standardized checklist will provide clarity for all parties while preserving flexibility in restoration implementation. We disagree that restoration should be limited to native habitats. Emphasis on pasture -dependent species highlights the need for inclusion of pastures as potential restoration habitat. Caracaras, for instance, prefer properly managed pastures over any other habitat, including native dry prairie. Restricting restoration to native habitats could potentially compromise recovery efforts for these species. Public Discussion on September 16.2008. Mr. Greenwood stated that there was a proposal submitted on September 2 to provide for amendments to Policy 3.11 prepared by Wilson Miller and intended to the provide language to accommodate the Panther Protection Program. Mr. Cornell prepared and distributed at the beginning of the September 16d' meeting a revised Policy 3.11 which was then aired by those present as follows: Mr. Farmer stated that he was concerned about unintended consequences. Mr. Jones stated that he thinks the breakdown is covered well and covered under the habitat language. Mr. Farmer stated that he will vote in favor of the amendment, but wants to know how we are going to spend all the extra credits. Tim Durham stated that Brad Cornell has the right idea. Judy Hushon stated that caracara restoration is easy to do and that there may be too many credits being proposed for this restoration. Mr. Jones stated that this language would go into the management plan for R-1 and R-2 credits. Russ Priddy stated that this language would go into the management plan for R-1 and R-2 credits. Laurie McDonald stated that she supports elimination of oil wells as permitted uses in certain land use categories of the Land Use Matrix and that the words, "restore, and enhance" 1291Page Packet Pg. 163 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 should follow "create" in the second line of paragraph 2 and that the words "and maintain" should be inserted directly after "establishing" in the fourth line of paragraph 2. Laura Roys stated that it should be made clear that the credits will not be cumulative. Russ Priddy stated that he has an oil well with a location that is in some of the best habitat for bear, etc. and that there is no science that shows that oil wells are degrade the habitat. Nancy Payton stated that there is a map which has been circulated which shows the panther corridors. Noah Standridge asked if there had been consideration given to bonding out panther credits for up front dollars. Committee Deliberations: see previous paragraph. Committee September 16 2008 action: The Committee voted unanimously to amend Policy 3.11 as shown above which includes the recommendations of Laurie McDonald and Luara Roys above. Policy 3.12 Based on the data and analysis of the Study, FSAs, HSAs, WRM, and existing publielprivate conservation land include the land appropriate and necessary -to accomplish the Gold pertaining to natural resourcoh protection. To further direct othex uses away from,and to provide additional incentive for+the protection, enhancement and restoration of the Okaleacoochee Slough and Camp Keais Strand, all land within 500 feet of the,de'lineated FSAs that comprise the Slough or Strand that i5 not otherwise included in a HSA or '�k`12A shall receive the same natural index score (06) that a HSA receives if such property�isAesignated as a SSA and retains only agricultural, recreational and/or conservation layers within theanairix. Public Comments: I. The Conservancy believes that wider buffers around HSAs, FSAs and Water Retention Areas (WRAs) should be required and should be examined during the five-year assessment [Conservancy) 2. More upland buffers for Camp Keais Strand & OK Slough [FWF] ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: The need for more upland buffers adjacent to existing FSA and HSA areas has not been demonstrated or supported by any data and analysis. Aside from that fact, Restoration Zone overlays were already designated in 2002 along key portions of both regional flow ways, and comprise over 2,000 acres of potential buffers. These 500-feet wide Restoration Zones create incentives for restoration of buffers, and can work in conjunction with SRA buffers as well. Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: limited Committee September 16, 2008 action: The Committee voted unanimously to not amend Policy 3. Oolicy 3:13 (recommended amendment) Water. Retention Areas (WRAs) as generally depicted on the Overlay Flap 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 Distdct> (SF NU_) j r - g permits applicable to each 1�4;1t;.A. V►�RAs can also be permitted to provide such functions for new ases'of land allowed within. 11ic Overlay. WRAs may be incorporated into a SRA-master plan to provide water management fuActionsdor properties within such SkA, but are not required to be designated as a SRA in such instances.'However if1he�WRA des water treatment and retention exclusively for a SRA the acre of the WRA shall be included.in thee. SRA. WRA boundaries are understood to be approximate and,,are subject to refinement in acdor�ian" We W h _SFA f berm itting. Public Input: 1. Currently, WRAs are allowed to be used as either SSAs or as part of the water management system for a SRA. The Conservancy believes the appropriateness of utilizing WRAs as part of stormwater management should be reevaluated, especially for those WRAs that are part of historic wetland tlowways and would benefit from restoration. However, if certain WRAs are deemed acceptable for stormwater treatment and are incorporated as part of the development's stormwater treatment system for a development project, their acreage should be included within the maximum acreage of the SRA. The Conservancy would like 1301 Page Packet Pg. 164 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 to see this changed in Policy 3.13 and other applicable policies.[Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: The comment refers to Water Retention Areas or WRAs, which are one of three types of SSA classification. Two Policies are relevant to the comment: Policy 3.13 Water Retention Areas (WRAs) as generally depicted on the Overlay Map have been permitted for this purpose and will continue to function for surface water retention, detention, treatment andlor conveyance, in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permits applicable to each WRA. WRAs can also be permitted to provide such functions for new uses of land allowed within the Overlay. WRAs may be incorporated into a SRA master plan to provide water management functions for properties within such SRA, but are not required to be designated as a SRA in such instances. WRA boundaries are understood to be approximate and are subject to refinement in accordance with SFWMD permitting. Policy 3.14 During permitting to serve new uses, additions and modifications to WRAs may be required or desired, including but not limited to changes to control elevations, discharge rates, storm water pre-treatment, grading, excavation or fill. Such additions and modifications shall be allowed subject to review and approval by the SFWMD in accordance with best management practices. Such additions and modifications to WRAs shall be designed to ensure that there is no net loss of habitat function within the WRAs unless there is compensating mitigation or restoration in other areas of the Overlay that will provide comparable habitat function. Compensating mitigation or restoration for an impact to a WRA contiguous to the Camp Keais Strand or Okaloacoochee Slough shall be provided within or contiguous to that Strand or Slough. The SFWMD will encourage or require that storm water continue to be directed into these reservoirs, even after converting adjoining land uses from farm to development. This is anticipated by RLS Policy 3.13 and 3.14. There will be many cases where on -going agricultural operations continue to use the WRA simultaneously with the developed land. In these cases, there is no purpose served by trying to distinguish how much of the WRA is serving the farm, and how much is serving the development, as the overall acreage of the WRA will not change. Continuing to use these systems for water retention is efficient and beneficial to the environment, and results in land use patterns that are more compact and cost effective. Eliminating water flows would negatively impact hydrology and hydroperiod and would cause detrimental changes to the habitat values of these reservoirs. These reservoirs are typically large (over 100 acres), and often are located between the developable land and ultimate outfalls to flowway systems. In instances where a WRA is permitted to function solely for SRA water quality treatment and detention, it may be appropriate to include this acreage in the SRA acreage calculation. Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: Mr. Jones stated that he supports the proposed change as outlined above because the water treatment has to be done on -site and gives the developer the ability to use the remaining lands in the SRA. He stated that they were criticized with the Town of Ave Maria SRA because they were not counting the WRA as part of its SRA. Committee September 16. 2008 action: The Committee voted unanimously to add the additional language to Policy 3.13. Policy 3.14 During permitting to serve new -uses, additions and modifications to WRAs may be reyu redzor desired, including but not limited to changes to control elevations, discharge races, storm eater, pre-treatment. grading, excavation or fill. Such additions and modifications shall be allowed subject to review and approval by the SPWM' Q in accordance with best management practices. Such additions and .modifications to WRAs shall he designed to ensur' a 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.Slougb shall be provided witlx n or -contiguous to that Strand or Slough. 131 Packet Pg. 165 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee September 16,z2008 action: The Committee unanimously voted to not amend Policy 3.14. Preface to Group 4 Policies Group 4 Policies set the framework for conversion of rural lands to other uses in the form of Stewardship Receiving Areas. Written documents submitted, reviewed, and commented upon by the Committee relating to Group 4 Policies include Appendices G, H, M, N, O, Q, and R. Major Committee -recommended revisions to Group 4 Policies include: Policy 4.2 (amendment) This recommended amendment to Policy 4.2 corrects/updates acreage calculations within the RLSAO which are both outside of and inside the Area of Critical State Concern and limits the amount of lands that can be designated as SRAs to 45,000 acres. The separate Comprehensive Planning Department Staff SRA build -out projection and Wilson Miller build -out projection of the maximum SRA acreage allowable under the existing RLSAO [if 100% of property owners participate using the existing Credit system] is 41,040 SRA acres and 43,312 SRA acres, respectively. This SRA acreage does not include any development which may occur under the underlying zoning of Rural Agricultural - A District and which would not be participating in the RLSAO. Policy 4.5 (amendment) This recommended amendment to Policy 4.5 provides for the SRA Master Plan to be consistent with the County's Long Range Transportation Plan, the County Build Out Vision Plan referenced in recommended new Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element of the GMP, and Access Management procedures. The recommended amend to Policy 4.5 also includes a requirement for the provision of a Management Plan as part of the SRA Master Plan which includes provisions for minimizing human and wildlife interactions between the SRA and surrounding undeveloped properties. Policy 4.6 (amendment) This recommended amendment to Policy 4.6 requires an SRA to include a mobility plan that includes consideration of vehicular, bicycle/pedestrian, public transit, internal circulators, and other modes of travel/movement within and between SRAs and areas of outside development and land uses. Policy 4.7 (amendment) This recommended amendment to Policy 4.7 eliminates Hamlets as a specific forms of SRA and reduces the number of specific forms of SRAs from four to three in conjunction with the recommended deletion of Policy 4.7.3 language related to Hamlets. Policy 4.7.1(amendment....Towns) This recommended amendment to Policy 4.7.1 increases the minimum size of a Town from 1,000 acres to 1,500 acres, increases the maximum size from 4,000 acres to 5,000 acres, and provides for the requirement of an internal mobility plan. Policy 4.7.3 (deletion...Hamlets) Policy 4.7.3 is recommended for deletion. Policy 4.7.4 [now renumbered Policy 4.7.3 (amendment... Compact Rural Development)] The recommended amendment to Policy 4.7.4 keeps the maximum size of a Compact Rural Development (CRD) at 100 acres while providing language supporting the location of research, education, tourism, recreation, and housing within CRDs. 1321Page Packet Pg. 166 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Policy 4.7.4 (new) This new Policy 4.7.4 stresses that Towns and Villages are the preferred locations for business and industry in the RLSA to further promote economic development, diversification, and job creation with a list of examples of permitted uses such as environmental research, agricultural research, aviation and aerospace, health and life sciences, corporate headquarters, computer hardware, software and services, etc. Policy 4.14 (amendment) The recommended amendments to Policy 4.14 provide: • language requiring a proposed new SRA, at the time of SRA approval, to provide for the opportunity to provide direct vehicular and pedestrian connections to an adjoining SRA or adjoining lands designated as Open; • new language requiring that public or private roads and connecting signalized intersections within or adjacent to an SRA be maintained by the primary town or community it serves; and • new language providing for a variety of mitigation credits and offsets. Policy 4.19 (amendment) This recommended amendment to Policy 4.19 provides for: • 8 Credits required for each acre of land included in a SRA where such Credits were created from a Stewardship Credit Sending Area deemed vested under the 8 Credit ratio; and • 10 Credits required for each acre of land included in a SRA where such Credits were created from any other Stewardship Sending Area Policy 4.22 (new) This new Policy 4.22 provides that assessment of historic or cultural resources be done when such are identified in the RLSA through the SRA designation process, including the assessment of such resource's historic or cultural significance and the exploration of educational and public awareness opportunities regarding such significant resources. Group 4 - Policies to enable conversion of rural lands to other uses in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas. Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: none Committee Deliberations: none a� Committee September 23 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to this objective unchanged. s a Policy 4.1 3 m Collier County will encourage and facilitate uses that enable economic prosperity and &versification of the economic base of the RLSA. Collier County will also encourage development that utilizes creative land use plaaning techniques and � facilitates a compact farin of development to accommodate population growth -by die establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs). Incentives to encourage and support the diversification and vitality of the rural economy such as m flexibly: development regulations, expedited lsermitting.review, and targeted capital improvements shall be iscorporated a into the LDC Stewardship District. Public Comments: none received E Staff Comments: no comments �a Committee Deliberations: none a Committee September 23, 2008 action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy 4.1 unchanged 1331Page Packet Pg. 167 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Policy 4.2 (recommended amendment) All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible for designation as a SRA. except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land_ that has been designated as a Stewardship Sending Axea. LaN proposed for SRA designation shall meetithe suitability criteria and other standards described in Group 4 Policies. Due to the long. -term vision of the RLSA Overlay, extending to a-borizon year of 2025, and in accordance -ath the guidi✓line. 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 Rl A Overlay, lands that are eligible to be designated as SRAs generally have similar physical attributes as theylconsist.predominately, of agriculture lands which have been cleared or otherwise altered for this purpose. Lands shown on the Overlay Map as eligible for SRA de-.sjgnation include approximately 74;580 72,acres outside U the ACSC and .approximately 15,000 acres within the ACSC Total. SRA designation shall he a maximum of 4 0 acres. Appttaxj f jho,;e jan sear-e gr-eate�E t,,..., Becauset Overlay requires 9R.,%s to be compact, mixed -use and self sufficient in the provision of services, facilities acid 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 thei�-tlte TSte h tlwf dleseFibed procedures set forth herein and the adopted RLSA Zoning Overlay District, Public Comments: 1. Evaluation of water consumption must be compared to actual agricultural pumpage and not permitted volumes when reviewing consumptive use impacts. Agricultural uses do not use water 12 months a year so their actual use is not consistent with the impacts of residential irrigation. This change in withdrawals over different periods of time should be reviewed for impacts on the aquifers. Also, when SFWMD converts agricultural water use to landscaping there is a reduction applied that reduced maximum availability should be used when analyzing water resources for new SRAs. [Mark Strain] ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: Applicants are required to provide an analysis meeting SFWMD standards during water use permitting to provide assurances that the conversion from agriculture use to development uses will not cause adverse impacts to groundwater resources, surrounding wetlands, or surrounding property owners. In most cases, the conversion of land from agriculture to SRA uses reduces the consumption of groundwater by a significant percentage. Climate conditions vary from year to year, therefore actual pumpage rates and volumes can change significantly. The fact that a farm operation may not pump its maximum rate in any given year, depending on climate cycles, does not limit their legal right to do so when the demand dictates. Regarding seasonal agricultural consumption, there is a large acreage of perennial crops (e.g. citrus) in the area whose temporal irrigation demand matches that of lawn and landscape. Seasonal row crops are generally grown in the dry season and use substantial quantities of water when impacts to the aquifer are most critical. Typical landscape demand associated with future development should ameliorate rather than further impact the groundwater resource. 2. The Conservancy strongly supports further delineation of potential areas appropriate for SRAs within the plan. While the mapping of the FSAs and HSAs are prohibited from being allowed designation as SRAs, there is a large area (almost 100,000 acres) that could potentially be used as SRAs. Further refinement of areas where development should be directed, based on infrastructure and environmental compatibility, should be reviewed. For example, additional provisions should be included that further directs development and other incompatible uses away from the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). A maximum number of towns, villages, hamlets and CROs within the RLSA should also be explored. [Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix O] : RLS Policy 4.16 requires that an SRA have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development. Infrastructure includes transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater 1341Page Packet Pg. 168 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 management, and solid waste. SRA applications are required to include several components including a natural resource index assessment, an impact assessment report (relative to infrastructure), and an economic assessment report. These components are thoroughly considered during the review process, and it is the responsibility of the applicant to justify the size, location, and land use components of a particular SRA. One town has been approved since adoption of the RLS program and it does not appear that the existing regulations have caused a proliferation of development in the area. The timing and location of future SRAs will be guided by existing market conditions and the ability of an applicant to prove that the necessary infrastructure can be provided and that the project is fiscally neutral or positive. 3. The Conservancy believes that there should be specific guidelines for distance separations between SRAs. If SRAs are allowed to be located back-to-back, without any true separation, mega -towns could result in areas where rural character should be maintained. [Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: The goal of the RLS Group 4 Policies is to enable conversion of other uses in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques. Specifically, Policy 4.11 requires the perimeter of each SRA be designed to provide a transition from higher density and intensity uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property. The edges of SRAs are to be well defined and designed to be compatible with the character of adjoining property. Also, Policy 4.14 requires an SRA to have direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer, and that no SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate. Since approval of the RLS program, one 5,000-acre town has been approved, while approximately 55,000 acres of SSAs are approved or pending. 4. Establish distances between villages and towns; and distance from Immokalee. [FWF] ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: The goal of the RLS Group 4 Policies is to enable conversion of other uses in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques. Specifically, Policy 4.11 requires the perimeter of each SRA be designed to provide a transition from higher density and intensity uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property. The edges of SRAs are to be well defined and designed to be compatible with the character of adjoining property. Also, Policy 4.14 requires an SRA to have direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer, and that no SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate. Since approval of the RLS program, one 5,000-acre town has been approved, while approximately 55,000 acres of SSAs are approved or pending. Tom Taylor, a General Partner of Lake Trafford Ranch, LLLP, by email to Tom Greenwood dated September 24, 2008 stated: "We have an approved and adopted SSA Agreement that removed certain use rights from portions of our Ranch. Although we have not submitted an application for an SRA, the SSA Agreement approved by the Board of County Commissioners generated Stewardship Credits that may be utilized on the remaining portions of our Ranch within the RLSA. In addition, the Immokalee Overlay and RLSA have provisions that allow for transfer of development rights within our Ranch from our Immokalee Urban Area Lands to our Ranch RLSA lands as part of a density/intensity blending provision. Considering the fact that we have taken a significant step toward development our Ranch via the SSA Agreement, we request that no change be made that would inhibit our opportunity to utilize within our Ranch all SAA credits that exist or can be developed from our Ranch. The proposed comment should be revised so that it does not prevent utilization of SSA credits developed from lands that are near Immokalee within those lands." 5. There should be more guidance on where towns and villages can be located. As it is written now, it is possible to locate towns near each other with only a small buffer between which encourages sprall. Without planning, all the density will be located on the western portion of the RLSA. Ideally the towns should be spread out, with large agricultural areas between them. Maybe a maximum number of towns needs to be agreed upon and the general areas where these can be located indicated on a map. At a minimum, there needs to be more guidance provided as 1351Page Packet Pg. 169 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 to where towns can be located and their buffering requirements. This will facilitate all types of future infrastructure planning by the County. [Judith Hushon] ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: Areas suitable for development are currently mapped as "Open' on the RLSA Overlay Map. The RLSA policies and implementing Land Development Code provide locational and suitability criteria as well as design standards to guide development. 6. Provide maps of build out scenarios. Further, just as natural resources are mapped, so should the areas most suitable for development. [Defenders of Wildlife] WilsonMiller Comments: [Appendix H] Staff Comments: Staff pointed out that the proposed additions and deletions were presented by ECPO via a communication dated September 18, 2008. [Comprehensive Planning] Committee Deliberations: Brad Cornell stated that he would like to have the 45,000 acre cap proposed in the RLSA be reduced by an acreage amount each time a property is developed under the base zoning of Agriculture. Mr. Jones stated that he likes the 45,000 cap and that we need to keep away from baseline zoning as such a mechanism will hurt the credit system. Russ Priddy stated that one must understand that there are about 240 smaller property owners in the RLSA and that about 175-180 of these property owners own 5 to 10 acre properties. He stated that most of these properties have homes on them and, if there is 0% participation in the RLSA program by such owners, then there will be maybe 8,000 acres at a density of l unit/5 acres. He stated the proposal of Mr. Cornell is not warranted and could cause more harm than good to the RLSA Overlay. Committee September 23, 2008 and September 30`h Action: The Committee, by a vote of 6-1, accepted the proposed amendments as shown. On September 3e the Committee voted to accept the Wilson Miller documentation regarding Credits and SRA authorizations under the existing the revised RLSA Overlay. [Appendix H] Policy 43 {recommended amendment} Land becomes designated as a SRA "petition by a property owner to Collier County seeking such designation and#the adoption of a resolution by the BCC granting the designation. Thelpetition shall include a SR_A. master plan as described in Policy 4.5. The basis for approval shall be a finding of consistency with the policies of the Overlay, includi»g required suitability criteria set forth herein, compliance with the LDC Stewardship District, and assurance that the applicant has acgttired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement the SRA uses. Wlkhi , tre y€ r o .Ror,. , to pffavisien�,, f r ati* it 3n any Public Comments: WilsonMiller Comments: [Appendix N] Staff Comments: The language proposed was submitted on behalf of ECPO for deletion as it is no longer needed. [Comprehensive Planning] Committee Deliberations: The Committee stated that the proposed language to be deleted is obsolete and no longer needed. Mr. McDaniel referred back to Policy 4.2 and stated that he is not comfortable with the 45,000 cap on SRA acres in Policy 4.2. Mr. Eidson and Mr. Russ Priddy stated that there has to be some certainty as to what is going to happen in the RLSA Overlay area. Committee September 30, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to amend Policy 4.3 as shown. 1361Page Packet Pg. 170 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 Policy 4A Coliierr County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries ofaeach approved SRA. Such updates shall not require an amendment to the Growth Management Plan, but shall be Tetrnactiveiy4ticorporated into the adopted Civerla: Map .during the EAR based amendment --process when it periodically occurs. Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: none Committee Deliberations: The Committee was advised that ECPO did not agree with Transportation Planning Department proposals for Policy 4.4 and several other Group 4 Policies. Committee Seyteinber 30, 2008 Action: The Committee tabled action pending a report back from the Transportation Planning Department and ECPO. Mr. Passidomo stated that a meeting was held this morning with Transportation he stated that they may have some language to present as early as one to two weeks. The Committee referred this Policy to John Passidomo and the Transportation Division to resolve. Public comments on November 10, 2008: None. Staff Comments on November 10, 2008: the language shown above was agreed upon by the Transportation Division and John Passidomo to remain unchanged and the Committee should vote on this policy [Comprehensive Planning] Committee action on November 10, 2008: The Committee voted unanimously not to amend Policy 4.4. Policy 4.5 (recommended amendment) To address the 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 vMh all applicable lacilicie� of the Overlay and the LDC S(ewardship:Tlistrict and is designed so thatincompatible land uses are direciedaway $roux wetlands. and critical habitat identified as FSAs and HSAs. on the Overlay Map. To the extent practicable, the SRA waste disposanr etices. Public Comments: 1. Concentrated centers of development will produce a night time glow from electric light sources, the impacts of which should be considered on nearby conservation lands, such as Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. [Mark Strain] ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: Lighting is a design standard that is considered during the Receiving Area (SRA) application review. Public Discussion on September 30, 2008. Mr. Passidomo stated that a meeting was held this morning with Transportation he stated that they may have some language to present as early as one to two weeks. Brad Cornell stated that he would like to have Nancy Payton's proposal on outdoor lighting considered today as it is separate from the Transportation language. Nancy Payton stated that the outdoor lighting language should go into the RLSA Overlay in 1371Page Packet Pg. 171 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 general and more specifics would be worked out for LDC language. Nicole Ryan stated that she supports the language and the lighting standards should be developed for the connecting roads between the SRAs. Staff comments: The language shown above is proposed by consensus of the Transportation Division and John Passidomo to be changed as shown above. Committee action on September 23, , 2008: The Committee referred this Policy to John Passidomo and the Transportation Division to resolve_ Committee Deliberations on September 30, 2008: Refer to discussions in earlier paragraphs. Committee September 30, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to put the word "reasonably" in front of the word "managed" and that the wording in the last 3 sentences related to transportation be tabled. Public Comment on November 10, 2008: Judy Hushon suggested a few changes or word smithing to the new paragraph 2 language which changes are shown above in paragraph 2 of Policy 4.5_ Thomas Greenwood stated that the same language should be amended in Policy 5.5 which was approved by the Committee on October 28 h. Committee action on November 10, 2008: The Committee unanimously voted to approve the amended language for both Policy 4.5 and for the portion relating to the Management Plan contained in Policy 5.5 as approved by the Committee on October 28'h and to amend the language in Policy 4.5 as shown above which is acceptable to the Transportation Division. Policy 4.6 (recommended amendment) SRA characteristics shall be based upon innovative planning and development strategies referenced in Chapter 163.3177 (111, F.S. and 91-5.006(6)(1). These planning strategies and techniques include urban villages, new towns, satellite communities; area -based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, and mixed -use development that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting; environmentallll 'sensitive areas; maintaining (he ecanomic�viabilty.of agricultural and other predominantly rural l usesan ovading for the cost-efficient deliveryo public facilities and servzces. The SRA shall also includbility�vlanthat includes consideration. of vehicular would increase internal capture, and reduce trip. eng an laii "dis'tanee i vetW.Such development strategies are recognized as methods of discouraging urban sprawl: encoura&g altemative_rnodes of trans nation increasi.n .internal capture and reducing vehicle miles traveled. Public Comments: Public discussion on September 30, 2008 Mr. Al Reynolds stated that the transit language will likely be placed in Policy 4.14 but that Policy language has yet to be worked out. He stated that the language does not have to be in two policies. Brad Cornell asked about trip capture rates in SRAs. Mr. Jones stated that Ave Maria is "over the top". Al Reynolds stated that the projected trip capture rate was 60% although it is now about 90%_ He stated that the trip capture rate will likely get to the 60% range when the town develops further. Public Comment on November 10 2008: Nicole Ryan stated that the Conservancy has some concerns about the use such words as "consideration', "encourage", etc. and that the language should be more definitive. David Wolfley stated that he agrees with Ms. Ryan. Russ Priddy stated that the RLSAO is a voluntary program and the property owners do not need more regulations or the program will be less likely to work and suggested leaving the language the way it is. Tammie Nemecek stated that the program does need to be flexible. Judy Hushon stated that sustainability of communities is key to making the RLSA Overlay program work. Gary Eidson stated that the language needs to be wide enough and broad enough to cover everything. Mr. Casalanguida suggested the following change in the second new proposed sentence the words "consider the applicability of to "provide mobility" and to change the word "and" to "or" in the same sentence. Mr. Hamel asked Mr. Priddy if he was OK with that change to which Mr. Priddy stated that he was. 1381Page Packet Pg. 172 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Staff Comments: The language shown above is proposed by consensus of the Transportation Division and John Passidomo to be changed as shown above. [Comprehensive Planning] Committee action on September 30, 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to leave the Policy 4.6 language unchanged. Committee Deliberations: See previous paragraphs. Committee action on November 14 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to accept the proposed language change so as to amend the language of Policy 4.6 as shown above by also changing in the second new proposed sentence the words "consider the applicability of to "provide mobility" and to change the word "and" to "or" in the same sentence. Policy 4.7 (recommended amendment) There are € three specific forms of 91LA permitted within the Overlay. These are Towns, Villages, 14k,4nleis, and Compact. Rural Development +(CRD-). ne Characteristics of Towns, Villages, KaWets, and CRD am set forth in Attachment C and are generally described in Policies 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4-R.3 4-4-44. t s Specific regulations, guidelinevand standards within the LDC Stewardship. District to guide the design and development f—SR-As to include innovative planning and development strategies as set forth in Chapter 163.3177 01), F S. and OJ- 5.006(5)(1). The size and base density of each form shall he consistent with the standards sefforth 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 froth in density and intensity blending provision of the Tmmokalee Area Master Plan or through the affordable -work force housing density bongs as referenced in the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element. 'The base residential density is calculated by dividin¢ the total: number of residential units in a RA. 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 SRY� will be determined on an individual basis during the SRA designation review .and approval process. Public Comments: I. A feasibility study needs to be conducted to determine if the smaller development nodes, such as 40-100 acre hamlets, can realistically achieve self-sufficiency to the extent that they are compatible with the overall goals of the program. If these small development nodes do not contain adequate levels of self containment or self sufficiency, then their allowance under the RLSA should be reconsidered. [Conservancy] Note: Also related to the following policies 4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.7.4, 4.16, 4.17, 4.18 2. No hamlets or "compact rural developments" compact rural development could be a "Coconut Point," - no cap on size of some types of CRDs. [FWF] Note: Also related to policies 4.7.3, 4.7.4 The following documents received by the Committee on July 1, 2008, due to their Iength and relationship to the proposed Florida Panther Protection Program addressed in Policy 3.11 and the various proposals advanced to amend several of the Group 4 Policies, were placed in the Appendices section as Appendices A-F and are described below: Appendix A Proposed Florida Panther Protection Program Summary as presented initially to the Review Committee on July 1, 2008 Appendix B July 1, 2008 letter from Jennifer Hecker of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida to Paul Souza of US Fish and Wildlife Service related to the proposed Florida Panther Protection Plan Appendix C July 1, 2008 letter from Nicole Ryan of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida to Ron Hamel and the RLSA Review Committee regarding the proposed Panther Protection Program and other possible changes to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Appendix D June 29, 2008 letter from 1000 Friends of Florida to Ron Hamel and the RLSA Review Committee regarding the proposed 1391 Page Packet Pg. 173 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Panther Protection Program Appendix E rune 16, 2008 letter to Thomas Reese from Charles Gauthier of the Florida Department of Community Affairs relative to possible changes to the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Appendix F Undated July 1, 2008 presentation from Andrew McElwaine, President and CEO of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee ECPO Comments [Attachment 01: The Eastern Collier Property Owners propose the following relative to forms and characteristics of SRAs: • Hamlets are not a permitted form of SRA [proposed to be deleted] • Towns shall not be more than 5,000 acres [increased from 4,000 acres to 5,000 acres] • Outside the Area of Critical State Concern, Villages shall not be more than 1,500 acres. Within the Area of Critical State Concern, the existing Collier RLSA Overlay Program shall apply to Villages [1,000 acres]. • Towns shall not be located within the Area of Critical State Concern. • Compact Rural Development (CRD) primary uses shall be associated with research, education, tourism or recreation and shall not be more than 100 acres. WilsonMiller Comments: [Appendix NJ Staff Comments: none Committee Deliberations: Mr. Cornell stated that hamlets are too small to be self sustaining and could be seen as ,,controlled sprawl'. Committee September 30, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to recommend the amendment to Policy 4.7 as shown. Policy 4.7.1 (recommended amendment) Towns are the largest and most diverse form of SRA, with a Bill range of housrng'typs anal mix of uses. Towns have urban level. services and infrastructure that snpport-ldeveloprnent that is compact, mixed �nian scale, and provides a balance of land uses to.xeduce automobile trips and increase l vahility. Towns shall be not less,than 4-,flEit3 1, 500 acmes or more than 4}9 5,000 acres and are comprised of several villages and/or neighborhoods that have indi,,ldual identity and character. Towns shall have a;mbced-use town center that will serve as a focal point -for community facilities andisupport services. Tlovvns shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and, bicycle cirPeMation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving11 residential n eighborhoods. Towns shall include an internal. rhobiliU_ ulan,. wlii pint for`anternal and externalaptibli-ER ans�rtation. Towns shall have at least one community park with a minimum sizr r dwelling the T _ - - of 200 square- feet pet g unit in _ Towns shall also have parks or .public green spaces within neighbonccxds. Tows shall include both community and neighborhood scaled -retail and office uses, in a:fa#ae as pf�w- described in Policy 4 4.15.1. Towns may also include. those compatible corporate office,ge-search, development comp antes. and light industrial use, such as those permitted in the Business Park and Research and Technology Park Subdistricts of the FLUE: and those included in. Poiic_y 4.7.4. Towns shall be the preferred location for thetfull range of schools; and to the extent possible, schools and p� slid be located abutting each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities and .as provided in. Policies �4.1;5.-25A 5-3- Design criteria for Towns are shall he included in the LDC Stewardship District, Towns shall not be- located within the .ACSC.. 1401Parge Packet Pg. 174 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 Public Comments: Towns shall not exceed 5,000 acres. [submitted as part of the July 1, 2008 submittal to the Committee entitled, "Florida Panther Protection Program" dated June 30, 2008] WilsonMiller Comments: [Appendix N] Staff Comments: Policy 4.15 was previously deleted and replaced with new Policies 4.15.1, 4.15.2, and 4.15.3. The above amendments would harmonize Policy 4.7.1 with these three new policies. [Comprehensive Planning] Committee September 30, 2008 Action: The Committee tabled action pending a report back from the Transportation Planning Department and ECPO. Mr. Passidomo stated that a meeting was held this morning with Transportation he stated that they may have some language to present as early as one to two weeks. Committee Deliberations and Public discussion on November 10, 2008: Nick Casalanguida stated that the word, "may", should be changed to "shall" in the proposed new sentence included in the first paragraph. Tom Jones stated that he is comfortable with that change. Tammie Nemecek explained the minor changes to paragraph 2. Brian Gogen suggested adding "development companies" as a uses which may be permitted in Towns. Tammie Nemecek stated that she felt that would be a good addition. Committee action taken on November 10, 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to recommend the amendments to Policy 4.7.1 as shown above. Policy 4.71 (recommended amendment) Villages are primarily residential comimutlities with a diversity ofihousing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character 4 rhe..particular village. Villages shall be not less than 100 acres or more than LOW acres,inside the Area of Critical. Concern and not more than: 1,500 acres. outside the. Area .of Critical .Concern. Villages are comprised of residential. neighborhoods and shall include a mixed -use village center to serve as the fcxml point for the community's support services and facilities. 'pillages shall ire designed to encourage:pedestrian and bicycle circtilation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residentiafteighborhoods.. Villages shall have parks or public �- green spaces within neighborhaods Villages shall include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15. Appropriately scaled uses described in Policy 4 7 4 shall also beaptrn2itted 4jWiugges. Villages ire an appropriate location for a full range of schools. To the extentspossible, schools and parks sh.rll be located adjacent to each orher'to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. Design criteria for Villages, shall bc, included in the LDC Stewardship District. Public Comments: Outside the Area of Critical State Concern, Villages shall not exceed 1,500 acres. Inside the Area of Critical Concern, the current Collier County RLSA Overlay standards shall apply to Villages. [submitted as part of the July 1, 2008 submittal to the Committee entitled, "Florida Panther Protection Program" dated June 30, 2008] WilsonMiller Comments: [Appendix N] September 30, 2008„discussion Nicole Ryan stated that, rather than increase to size of a village, the density should be consiereed for an increase. Mr. Eidson asked what the problem would be in increasing the maximum size of a village. Christian Spilker stated that the is related to the elimination of hamlets because it is difficult to develop hamlets from an economic standpoint because there is a substantial commercial requirement if over 1000 acres in size. He stated that villages with a larger footprint are easier to develop. Mr. Jones restated what Mr. Spilker stated. Mr. Priddy stated that he concurs with the 1,500 maximum allowable acre amendment. Anita Jenkins state that she also agreed with this amendment, stating that open space requirements on a 1,000 acre SRA would limit development on 650 acres which is not enough land to justify proceeding economically with a village. Mr. McDaniel stated that he did not disagree with Ms. Ryan about raising densities, but stated that doing such may not be feasible. Staff Comments: none Committee Deliberations: see previous paragraph. 141 JPage Packet Pg. 175 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Committee September 30, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to amend Policy 4.7.2 as shown in the second and third lines of said Policy. Committee Deliberations on November 10, 2008: Tammie Nemecek stated that the addition of the 0 sentence from the bottom of this Policy is needed to refer to a new proposed Policy 4.7.4. Staff comments: none Committee action on November 10, 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to approve the additional sentence, "Appropriately scaled uses described in Policy 4.7.4 shall also be permitted in Villages." ftl°^y " 7(recommended deletion) -ram '-A€ . Tf.,y,,.iOtS_.5hith lw „0 1�.S }hap AllEw fe r1.&a-1: . firs family , 41 s - as•�, p CGEnh stir. .:tti._GR4)s EW 1.00 acres - l be @ppFaved�ft A,. - Of a atla Of ^� thereafter--aot meEo than 5 addi fieaal 1 jaRk . in ,M OD.lN.-.F.-; 00 - be appFeVed-k* ..1: Public Comments: Hamlets will be eliminated as a form of SRA [submitted as part of the July 1, 2008 submittal to the Committee entitled, "Florida Panther Protection Program" dated June 30, 2008] ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: The Eastern Collier Property Owners propose the following relative to forms and characteristics of SRAs: • Hamlets are not a permitted form of SRA [proposed to be deleted] • Towns shall not be more than 5,000 acres [increase from 4,000 acres to 5,000 acres] • Outside the Area of Critical State Concern, Villages shall not be more than 1,500 acres. Within the Area of Critical State Concern, the existing Collier RLSA Overlay Program shall apply to Villages [1,000 acres] • Towns shall not be located within the Area of Critical State Concern. • Compact Rural Development (CRD) primary uses shall be associated with research, education, tourism or recreation and shall not be more than 100 acres. WilsonMiller Comments: [Appendix N] Staff Comments: none Committee Deliberations: The Committee felt that Hamlets are too small to be self-sustaining communities and are more a form of planned urban sprawl [see Committee deliberations related to Policy 4.7] Committee September 30, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to delete Policy 4.7.3 as it relates to hamlets which are proposed for deletion. Policy 44:A 4 (recommended amendment) Compact Rural Development (CRD) is a form of SRA that wi`ll 1421F,-!cj Packet Pg. 176 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 associated Ar h and needed to sup7agxesearrh. education, tourism or recreation. AppLgj�dately scaled compg ible use4 described. in Policy 4.7.4 ruay also be remitted in QkDs, A CRI) may include, but is not required to have perruanew residenti-al housing The number of residential utdts shall be etc uivakrit with the deuaud ggn�ra ed ray the��yritttar} t:R-D use..bul sha31 nay€�t exceed the maxi�nuia.�f t. rI units peI fjross Ac`ie0 A.CRD Shall be a maximutusize of 1W acres. 14 is- an at..,...:m:yii.!age that r. ,.ti i f -a a tom} eatain-lamsioa mg y, },,.,� 7.� Ygyyyy�� iSliiLt'I 5- pro*- -` 7 the Kppfa.Y .7 .,F_„ i411.r& OF TOY..d rleEF,ftethffl. etl... C 15+:..7 flY. of 711 .ffes r less, .,3...r,fl.« VA Li -44affllee q, "ley -f3e appf 3yed f4F Aak 14 subs@ilkheR . 7 ._. ,_ ,1'heFe st.nn be n e than c Gl�n,. Public Cowurients: 1. Compact. Rural Developments (CRDs) seem to be too loosely designated and could provide a loophole for increased development in areas that are already built up. A CRD of 100 acres or less seems to be a meaningless designation and it is my belief that this type of development could be dropped. [Judith Hushon) 2. Compact Mural Development ("CRD") shall include, as a permitted use. eco tourism lodging, recreational hunting and fishing enterprises, and family homesteads for the Rural Landowners. [submitted as part of the July 1, 2008 submittal to the Committee entitled, "Florida Panther Protection Program" dated gone 30, 2M) ECPO Conunents [Appendix D]c The Eastern Collier Property Owners propose the following relative to forms and characteristics of SRA's: + Hamlets are not a permitted form of SRA► [propose to eliminate] • Towns shall not be more than 5,000 acres [increase from 4,000 acres to 5,000 acres] + Outside the Area of Critical State Concern. Villages shall not be more than 1,500 acres. Within the Area of Critical State Concern, the existing Collier RLSA Overlay Program shall apply to Villages 11,000 acres] a Towns shall not be located within the Area of Critical State Concern. + Compact Rural Development (C.RD) primary uses shall be associated with research, education, tourism or recreation and shall not be more than 100 acres. WWonNfiller Comments. [Appendix N] Staff Comments. The language amendments were provider! by ECPO via Wilson Miller [Appendix NJ, [Comprehensive Planning] Committee Deliberations: The Committee discussed the character, role and the need for CRDs in the RLSAO. [Also see the public discussion on November 10 which follows.] Committee &2jrMber 30, 2W Action. The Committee voted unanimously to amend Policy 4.7.4 as shown and renumber it to Policy 4.7.3. Public discussion on :November 10, 2008 (Appendix R]: Tammie Nemecek stated that the only additional sentence being added is the (Fourth sentence and that she would like to change the ward "shall" to „may" Cary Eidson stated that the word "compatible" could be added after the word "scaled". Judy Hushon stated that she does not like industry in CRDs and felt that it should be limited to Towns and Villages. Nancy Payton stated that she felt the same but there are nature and agricultural based uses that would be appropriate and that the compatibility issue can be addressed in the LIB'. 1431Page Packet Pg. 177 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Tom Jones agreed with Nancy Payton. Gary Eidson asked if CRDs, as proposed, are not morphing into Hamlets. Anita Jenkins pointed out that the first two sentences point out that the uses must be in support of agriculture, natural resource< and economic diversity and that the CRDs must demonstrate a set of uses to further these attributes within the RLSA. Mr, Farmer stated that the CRDs must be very small in size. Mr. Wolfley stated that he is concerned about an intense use being placed on a 100-acre site. Russ Priddy stated that he might do two or three CRDs and asked what if someone wanted to do agricultural research, etc. He stated that the door needs to be left open for these uses. Mr. Jones stated that a use might be a fishing lodge. Anita Jenkins stated that the Committee needs to address the intent of the CRD as it is now written. Judy Hushon stated that CRDs should be limited to environmental and agricultural uses. Brad Cornell stated thal the word "shall" may be too strong and that it should be changed to "may" as uses are not permitted by right and that there will be a need for strong LDC language. After further discussion both Gary Eidson and Tom Jones agreed to amend the motion by substituting "may" for "shall' and inserting the word "compatible" after the word "scaled". Staff comment: none Committee action on November 10 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to add the fourth sentence with the two changes of changing "shall' to "may" and adding the word "compatible" following the word "scaled". Poliev 4,7`41new.,pohcy Public discussion on November 10, 2008 [Appendix R]: Tammie Nemecek stated that she would like to add environmental research and agricultural research to the use of permitted uses. Brad Cornell stated that he would like to see the words, "existing urban areas" added at the beginning of the Policy as this is a preferred location of business as the infrastructure is already in place. Nancy Payton asked to have CRDs eliminated as preferred locations for business and industry although such would not necessarily prohibit such uses and that "environmental research" and "agricultural research" be listed as examples of permitted uses. Tammie Nemecek stated that she is comfortable with the changes promoted by Brad Cornell and Nancy Payton. WilsonMiller Comments: [Appendix N] Staff comments: _ a� Committee action on November 10, 2008: The Committee voted, 7-1, to recommend the creation of new Policy 4.7.4 as s outlined above, including all changes discussed. a 3 PWicy 4.8 An SA may be contiguous to a FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in Policy 4.1;3. A SRA may he contiguous to and served by a WRA without requiring the WRA to be desi�pated as a SRA in accordance wAHT61icy 3.12 and 3.1.3. m w Public Comments: a 1. Buffers from wildlife habitat were established at distances that did not adequately address hydrologic impacts. The hydrological impacts of agricultural uses are far different than the uses of a town or village and these need to be better understood to assure no impacts to surrounding wetlands. Agricultural control elevations r should be compared for compatibility with changes brought on by development. [Mark Strain] Note: Also a relates to Policy 4.12 and 4.13 ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: We are not aware of any data that supports the opinion that buffers are inadequate. Buffers were included within the RLSA program as a land use planning technique to provide a transition between receiving areas and natural areas, primarily for the benefit of water quality and wildlife. The state and federal wetland permitting procedures meticulously review existing wetland hydroperiod data, proposed surface water management 1441Page Packet Pg. 178 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 designs, outfall control elevations, etc., with the expressed purpose of preventing hydrologic impacts to surrounding wetlands. The SFWMD Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permits details these procedures. Permits are not issued until the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed activity does not hydrologically impact these wetlands, regardless of the buffer location or distance. As part of the Environmental Resource permitting process, control elevations are determined based on average wet season water table elevation as typically determined by hydro -biological indicators, soil types, ground water well monitoring data, and surrounding permitted control elevations. 2. The Conservancy believes that wider buffers around HSAs, FSAs and Water Retention Areas (WRAs) should be required and should be examined during the five-year assessment. Note: Also relates to Policy 4.12 and 4.I3 [Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: The most current peer -reviewed research on panther habitat utilization concluded, "[Our] results indicated that forests are the habitats selected by panthers and generally support the current United States Fish and Wildlife Service panther habitat ranking system." (Land, Shindle et. al., 2008). This research employed GPS collars to characterize panther habitat selection during nocturnal and diurnal periods, and compared GPS data to standard diurnal VHF radiotelemetry data. As such, this research does represent "the best available Florida panther science" and does not support the Conservancy's contention that the RLSA panther habitat methodology needs to be revised. Currently, WRAs are allowed to be used as either SSAs or as part of the water management system for a SRA. The Conservancy believes the appropriateness of utilizing WRAs as part of stormwater management should be reevaluated, especially for those WRAs that are part of historic wetland flowways and would benefit from restoration. However, if certain WRAs are deemed acceptable for stormwater treatment and are incorporated as part of the development's stormwater treatment system for a development project, their acreage should be included within the maximum acreage of the SRA. The Conservancy would like to see this changed in Policy 3.13 and other applicable policies. Note: Also relates to Policy 4.12 and 4.13 [Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: ECPO supports the RLSA Review Committee amendment made on September 16, 2008 to Policy 3.13. Staff Comments: Buffer requirements for FSAs and HSAs for adjacent SRAs allow open space uses such as required yards and lakes immediately adjacent to them. There should be a minimum buffer with no area of impact. [Engineering and Environmental Services Department] Note: Also relates to Policy 4.12 and 4.13. Committee September 30 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy 4.8 unchanged. Policy 4.99 (recommended amendment) A SRA .must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned dev�:lcvment in an environmentally acceptable manner. The primary means of directing development awayfrom wetlands and critical habitat is the prohibition of locating SRAsin FSAs; anEd HSAs-'i&' s. 'ro further direct developmem away from wetlands and critical habitat, residential, commercial, manufacturing(light industrial, group housing-, and transienVY 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 tndex Value of greater than 121. Infrastructure necessary to serve�pecmitted uses may be eaemt,t from ah s_ .restriction, Vravided that desip-ris-seekFto_minimize the extent of impacts.to any such areas. The Index value of greater than 1.2 represents those areas tha have a high natural resource value as measured ;pursuant to Policy 1.8. ixbs than 2% of potential SRA [and acliieves an4ndex score of greater than 1.2, Public Input: WilsonMiller Comments: [Appendix N] 1451 Page Packet Pg. 179 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Staff Comments: Listed species that utilize uplands are not adequately protected by the NRI score. IAt is thought that this need is limited. However, the designation of the Ave Maria SRA did identify a caracara nest and habitat areas that die not score greater than 1.2. There were numerous listed species in farm ditches, fallow fields, and marshy areas within pastures. The only native habitat with protected species was some small remnant marshes within the pastures. The SSAs created to enable this SRA removed the development rights (except for agriculture and essential services) from approximately 13,352 acres of a mixture of pasture and row crop fields. Staff is uncertain whether the increase in NRI score would result in more on -site preservation of habitat. [CDES Environmental Services] Public discussion on September 30, 2008. Mr. McDaniel stated that the environmental provisions being advanced could be put into the NRI and/or LDC_ Mr. Cornell stated that the language seems focused so that one does not have to use credits and is persuaded that it is something that should be considered. Mac Hatcher stated that the NRI scores will not protect these nests as the bald eagle is no longer a listed species. Mr. McDaniel asked if there could not be and adjustment to the NRI. Mac Hatcher stated that adjustment to the NRI score would be very complicated and difficult to do. Mr. Jones stated that he opposed to the language proposed because we might be looking at protecting nests in ditches and because the RLSA program is not set up to address all listed species and that he is not comfortable with the language proposed. He further stated that Policy 4.9 is not broken. Mr. Eidson asked if there is enough protection... Mr. Jones says yes and the county says no. He stated that he feels the DCA looks at agricultural protection first and environmental projection second and, because of that, he would not favor adding the environmental language. Tim Durham stated that the environmental protections are already in place and that he could not see where the added language would add value or solve a problem. Mr. Jones stated that he would like to keep in the sentence which provided exemptions for infrastructure necessary to serve permitted uses. Nancy Payton asked why one would construct a road through a critical habitat area. Mr. Jones stated that the language referring to critical habitat area should be stricken as it has not been defined. Committee Deliberations: See previous paragraph. Committee September 34 2008 Action: The Committee voted 7-1 to keep the language amendment in the second sentence and the additional sentence exempting infrastructure necessary to serve permitted uses from the restriction and that all the other language provided by Environmental Services not be included in the amended Policy 4.9. Policy 4.10 (recommended amendment) Within the RLSA Overlay, open space, which 'hy de_fiinition 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. ,, w t46 . 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 a SRAM t ialf ,tie ' f' 9 C, eseeeding. the xequired thhty-five percent shall not €�e required to�consume Stewardship Credits; Public Comments: WilsonMiller Comments: [Appendix N] Staff Comments: none Committee Deliberations: The Committed consensus is that these amendments are needed in order to harmonize the Policies within Group 4 of the RLSA Overlay and incorporate the Wilson Miller and ECPO comments. Committee September 30, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to amend Policy 4.10 as outlined by Wilson Miller and ECPO. Policy 4.11 The perimeter of each SItA shall be designed to provide a transition from higher density and intensity uses within the SkA 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. placcrnent may be used for this purpose. Where existing agricultural activity adjoins .a SRA, the design of the SRA must take this activity into account to allow for the continuation of the agricultural activity and to minimize any conflict between agriculture and SRA uses. 146 P 'a Packet Pg. 180 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Public Coin o; none, received StW Comrments: bone Commill.w Mliberatlow. The Committee consensus was that Policy 4.1 i is acceptable in its current language- omtmittee September 30. MM &-fiam: The ODmmittee voted unanimously to leair, Policy 4. l 1 unchanged, Policy 4.12 Wheae a SRA adjoins a FSA, HSAj WRA or existing public of private conser-vahem land delineated on the Ovczlay &lap, hest management and planning practices shall be applied to rninimize adverse impacts to such lands. SRA design shah dcmonstrate that ground water ;able dray down or diversion will not adversely impact the adjacent. FS-A, HSA, V4'RA or GQi s&wVation laud. Detention and control elevations shall be established to prptect such natural areas and be amsist t with surmundirig Iand and project control elevatimis and water' tables. Public: Comlmos. ozone received Staff Comments: none Comm tree Mbemflons: The Committee conwnsus was that Policy 4,12 is acceptable in its current language. Committee September 30. 2M Action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy 4,12 unchanged. Policy 4.13 Open space within or contiguous to a R_X shall be used to prcar'ide a buffer ktween the SRA a arij� a oinmrig P A, 115 A, ot` existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Over]ay Map, Open spare contiguous tci or withiji 300 feet of the boundary of a 1~'SA, VISA, oT existing public Oo' private Conservation land may include: natural presorves, lakes, golf courses provided no fairways of other turf areas are allowed within the first 200 feet, passive recreational area and parks, regvived yard and set -back areas, and other natttrai of roan -made open space- Ali g the 'west boundary of the FSA i and HSAs that compcisc QuIlp beats Strand, i,e., the area south of Jm mokalee iced, this open space - uffer she be 500 ket wide and shaR preclude golf cn e fairways and offer turf areas within the first V) feet - Public Comments. nme received S(df Comnwinen none Committee DdWeraOow: The Committee consensus was that Policy 4.13 is acceptable in its current language, f_`.ommkigc emtember 30, 200 Action: The Committee voted unanim yously to leave Policy 4.13 unchanged. Policy 4.14 (recarnrsri ded amendment) The SRA must have either direct access to a f OUMy collpc'Wr or art urial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the propos,0 &vciopment in accordance with accepted. transpnrtatiort planning standards, At the time of SR A app oval. an Sk,� yr�pus�tl i� acii��in lard desi�natcd.as Mtn )ELF►21 lands. desipmatvd as {been shall p mJde for the oVpyqunity to proa,ide direct vehicular artd jxdestrim conpecticros fry said ;"rear to the. Co ty's arteriallcollectoz' road ii�[wCik w shown on the. Col rnCy ktuild Out. )Vision flan so as to reduce travel time aad tra.vcl expenses. imprc�ye interconneetiyity, increaser internal cagture- and.kedp the use of Egony at ediil. roads to a inhiiinum when travel iiog between &v.olo rueSts in the RL. SA- Public and private rva.cis within an SRA shall be Waintained 1 .fire priinarp town'or COMMU v: sei'j?es. z 31iz intersections within or adjacent to an SIC& that serveF, the SPA shall be imintsined by the uri mry town or. cosmnunit i t serves. No SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector rxr artej'ial mad(s) serving the SRA is detnonstrau d to -be adequate ii. accordance with the Collief County Conc<urrency Mahagenicut Systeria in effect at the time of SRA designation- A transpormon hapadt assessment meeting the mquitoincnts of Section 2-7-3 cf the I'DC ' or its successor reguiatlon stall be, propared for each proposed RA to provide the necessary data and analysis. To thq t ateiif rt c ire[ .ylt� mitigate an SRA',, traffic impacts, .actions may. be taken to include, but shall hot.be fin-iited to, provisions.for the constmetiou anciicu perrnittin caf v.7ldlife cxosstn s. environmerlta_1 mitt atisti credit . ri t.of way_dedicadnn(s), water management and/or fill 1nateri2Ll which may he needed to..expand the eaistia�car_1proposed roadway net +�ror�t;_:;iny �,ycb_ actions to offset traffic_ impjpx:ts shall be nXiUgJaHzed in a develc-Ter coouribution aw e;gent. 'Fhi�-se actions shall be considered within the area of sJMn ficant influence of the project traffic an exr dy,-ays that ire tticipatcd to be exm - ande..ur.� st�€ucted_ - 1471 a Packet Pg. 181 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Public Comments: 1. Vesting issues and concurrency were not adequately addressed and as a result separate developer contribution agreements are being created that provide excessive development rights beyond those contemplated in the original SRA.DCA's should not be allowed until an SRA is approved in order to better understand the impacts from the SRA. [Mark Strain] ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: Policy 4.14 of the RLSA Overlay subjects all SRAs to the County's adopted Concurrency Management System. Developer Contribution Agreements are used throughout Collier County as a mechanism to address concurrency issues through public -private partnerships to improve the transportation network. All such agreements are subject to Board of County Commissioner approval and must be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code. In order to assure the impacts of an SRA (or any development) are addressed and mitigated, Developer Contribution Agreements are approved either prior to or concurrent with approval of the development. DRI's, such as Ave Maria, are thoroughly analyzed because of the Regional Planning Council staff and other reviewing entities analyses and the transportation and other impacts are well understood prior to approval of the SRA. 2. An analysis is needed to determine how is the long range transportation plan is coordinated with the transportation needs plan and the transportation financially feasible plan for this area. Using the 5-year modeling of the GMP is inadequate for an area the size of the RLSA and we should be analyzing the SRA's on their impact to the 30-year build out study.[Mark Strain] ECPO Comments [Appendix O] : The coordination of long range transportation planning with future land use planning is a continuous process. Historically, the County's long-range transportation planning horizon timeframe has been 20 years. Given that the future population projections of a full -build condition of the urban areas and RLSA may not occur for 50 or more years, and absent a planning horizon or transportation model capable of analyzing that timeframe, it is clear that, in the past, neither the urban areas nor the RLSA have been fully addressed with respect to transportation planning. To address this need, three separate efforts are underway today that will provide a better understanding of the future transportation needs of the RLSA. The County is beginning to develop a County -wide Interactive Growth Model and an updated Long -Range Transportation Model. In addition to the two County studies, the Eastern Collier Property Owners (ECPO) have undertaken the task of developing a long-range conceptual plan for the RLSA that depicts one possible scenario of how environmental and agricultural lands, and lands suitable for development can fit within the program. While the areas with the highest environmental value were clearly defined in the current RLSA Program, lands that would be most suitable for long-term agriculture and likewise those lands most suitable for long-range development potential were not clearly understood. ECPO has identified one potential development concept plan that quantifies and locates the amount of development envisioned at a build -out horizon. While it is only one possible configuration, it does allow for a conceptual roadway needs analysis to be performed, and allows for a basis of establishing viable corridors that can be further explored through regular County and State transportation planning channels. ECPO is working closely with the County in an effort to bring all three of these studies into alignment. All of these tools should help in the long term evaluation of the transportation needs of the County. Now, five years after inception, we have a better understanding of how the RLSA will "grow up" and with the new tools currently being developed, planners can more appropriately identify and evaluate the transportation system of the future. Staff Comments: Provide for direct connections between traffic -generating developments so as to reduce travel time, travel expenses, improve interconnectivity, and to keep the use of county arterial roads to a minimum when traveling between developments in the RLSA [Transportation Division] Committee September 30 2008 Action: The Committee tabled action pending a report back from the Transportation Planning Department and ECPO. Mr. Passidomo stated that a meeting was held this morning with Transportation he stated that they may have some language to present as early as one to two weeks. Public discussion on November 10, 2008: Nick Casalanguida stated that the language proposed is now in two paragraphs rather than the existing one paragraph and has been developed in working with ECPO. Gary Eidson asked about the Open Lands and if no development occurs in such lands. Laurie McDonald stated that "DCA" should be spelled 1481Page Packet Pg. 182 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 out because of possible confusion with the Department of Community Affairs. Nancy Payton stated that the language on mitigation needs to be clarified as to whether it is environmental or transportation impact. Nick Casalanguida stated thaw the intent is transportation mitigation. Dave Wolfley stated that the word "Credits" should be capitalized and not to use the DCA abbreviation. After further discussion concerning language in the new second paragraph the Committee asked Nick Casalanguida, Nancy Payton, and ECPO to resolve and clear up ambiguities and report back to the Committee when resolved. Later in the meeting, Nick Casalanguida read the proposed new language for the second paragraph and stated that this language was agreed to by those meeting this morning. Committee action on November 10, 2008: The Committed voted unanimously to approve the above language amendments to Policy 4.14. Committee action on December 18 2008: The Committee heard from Nick Casalanguida of the need to amend the November 10-approved first sentence of the second paragraph of this policy so that it reads as shown and voted unanimously to make this amendment. No person from the public spoke. Policy 4.15.1 (recommended amendment) SRAs are intended to be mixed usejand shall be allowed the full'range of uses permitted by the Urban Designation of the FLUE, as modified by�Policies ,T_7, 4.1.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3,44.4 and AttachmentaC: An appropriate mix of retail, office, recreational, civic`, governmental; and institutional uses will be available to serve the daily -needs and commuaily wide needs of*residents of the R4 $A. Depending on the size, scale, and character of a. SRA, such -uses may be provided eithet within the specific SRA, within other SRAs,in the Rl_.SA or within the Immokalee. Urban Area. By example, each Village. or Town shall provide for neighborhood retail/office uses to serve its population as well as appropriate civic and institutional uses, however, the combined population of several Villages a,9d Hamlet:; may be required to suplrra•. community scaled retail or office uses in a nearby Town. Standards for the minimum amount of non-residential uses io each category are set.forth in Attachment C. and shedlibe also included in the Stewardship WC District. Public Input: WilsonMiller Comments: [Appendix N] Staff Comments: none Committee September 30 008 Action: The Committee harmonize with the elimination of hamlets as an SRA. voted unanimously to amend Policy 4.15.1 as shown to Policy 4.15,2 il'he 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 3 :use. When the BCC requires such a set-aside5for .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', Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: none Ul) Committee Deliberations: The Committee consensus was that Policy 4.15.2 is acceptable in its current language. m Committee September 30 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy 4.15.2 unchanged. a olicy 4.15.3 a� Apphcants for SRA designation shall coordinate with Collier County Schuol Board staff to allow planning to occur to s accommodate any impacts to the public schools as a result of the SRA. As a part of the. SRA application,. ;be following information shall be provided., a 1. Number oftesidential units by tyM. 2. Antestimate of the number of school -aged children for each type of school impacted (elementary, middle, high sebool ); and 3. The potential for locating a public educational facility or facilities within the 1491PaC= Packet Pg. 183 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 SRA. and the size of any sites that,may be dedicated, or otherwise made available for a public�educational facility. Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: none Committee Deliberations: The Committee consensus was that Policy 4.15.3 is acceptable in its current language. Committee September 30 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy 4.15.3 unchanged. Policy 4.16 (recommended amendment) A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the prapoged development, or such infrastructure m= be provided concurrently with, the demand. The level of irtfrasu.-tic~ture provided will depend on the form of SILA development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC requirements. The capacity of infrastructure necessary tc.. serve the SRA at build -out must be demonstrated during the SRA designation process. Infrastructure to be analyzed includes transportation, potable water, wastewater, irn on water, stxmwater management, and solid waste. Transportation infrastructure is discussed in Policy 4.14. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities are required in Towns and,-�Viliages, and dhase-�':I?D. e*ee ;;;g 1:��:: d � : .., �ti� in and may be required in CRbs that are one hundred (100) acres or less.in size, depending upon theipermitted uses approval within the CRD. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities shall be constmete-4, owned, operated and maintained by a private utility service, dic developer, a Community Development District, the. Immokalee Water�Sewer Service District, Collier County, or other governmental entity. Innovative alternative. water and wa�tewaite treatment systems sui:h as decentralized community treatment systems shall not be prohibited by this policy proviVeM they mee all applicable regulatorycriteria. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems, limited to a maximum of i'00 acres of any Yawn_ 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 Wad in Aamleis and matt be perrriitted in CRD's of 100 acres or less ingsize. Public Comments: 1. Impacts on certain elements of regional infrastructure were not given adequate analysis. Hurricane evacuation and shelters space, health care facilities and affordable housing as example, were not adequately addressed and minimum standards should be considered as guidelines for SRA approval. [Mark Strain] ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: Infrastructure is defined by Collier County as drainage (water management), roads, potable water and sanitary sewer facilities pursuant to the Code of Laws and Ordinance of Collier County, Section 106- _ 32. RLSA Policy 4.16 requires that infrastructure be analyzed with each Stewardship Receiving Area application, and also includes irrigation water and solid waste. It states: s a 3 "A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or such infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand. The level of infrastructure provided will a: depend on the type of development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC requirements. The capacity of infrastructure serving the SRA must be demonstrated during the SRA designation process in Ln accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA m designation. Infrastructure to be analyzed includes transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation a water, stormwater management, and solid waste. " a� While hurricane shelter space, health care facilities and affordable housing are each important types of facilities, they are not defined as infrastructure and not subject to concurrency management. However, every Town or Village in excess of r 2000 units will be required to undergo DRI review, where regional issues such as hurricane evacuation, health care, and a affordable housing are addressed in accordance with State Law. With respect to hurricane evacuation, the RLSA is the least vulnerable part of Collier County as demonstrated by the fact that no part of the RLS falls within a Landfalling Storm Category 1-4 map zone. Accordingly, it is the area least likely to require evacuation. In implementation, Ave Maria provided hurricane shelter for coastal residents within the university 1501 Page Packet Pg. 184 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 buildings, and in cooperation with Emergency Services, provided storage space for emergency supplies that can be used throughout the county. Planning for health care can only be properly addressed once specific SRAs are proposed. Hospitals must go through a separate state needs analysis before any new hospital can be built. These items are addressed by SRA and DRI review procedures. The need for affordable housing was contemplated during the formation of the RLSA. The GMP policies, Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics chart, and associated LDC standards state that the densities associated with a town, village, hamlet or CRD can be increased beyond the base density through the affordable housing density bonus. Section 2,06.01.0 of the LDC specifically addresses the affordable housing density bonus within the RLS. Specific affordable housing conditions for a particular project are determined during the review and approval process for an SRA (similar to the PUD and/or DRI review/approval process). Affordable housing was provided at Ave Maria in a ratio well in excess of any other large scale community in Collier County. All infrastructure is carefully analyzed and consider throughout the public hearing process. 2. Evaluation of water consumption must be compared to actual agricultural pumpage and not permitted volumes when reviewing consumptive use impacts. Agricultural uses do not use water 12 months a year so their actual use is not consistent with the impacts of residential irrigation. This change in withdrawals over different periods of time should be reviewed for impacts on the aquifers. Also, when SFWMD converts agricultural water use to landscaping there is a reduction applied that reduced maximum availability should be used when analyzing water resources for new SRA's. [Mark Strain] 3. Collier County should require, as part of the evaluation for new towns, villages and hamlets, a comparison of water consumption proposed for the new development versus actual agricultural pumpage (not just a comparison of new consumption to permitted volumes) when reviewing consumptive use impacts. [Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: Applicants are required to provide an analysis meeting SFWMD standards during water use permitting to provide assurances that the conversion from agriculture use to development uses will not cause adverse impacts to groundwater resources, surrounding wetlands, or surrounding property owners. In most cases, the conversion of land from agriculture to SRA uses reduces the consumption of groundwater by a significant percentage. Climate conditions vary from year to year, therefore actual pumpage rates and volumes can change significantly. 4. As it is universally recognized that the wide -scale use of septic systems as a long term solution to wastewater treatment in Florida is problematic, all SRAs should be required to have a plan for conversion to a private or public sewer system. While development may initially be on septic systems, the plan, with timelines, for conversion to sewer should be in place at the time of development approval. [Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix Of : RLS Policy 4.16 indicates that interim septic systems are permitted within towns, villages and CRD's greater than 100 acres, and individual septic systems are permitted within hamlets and CRD's less than 100 acres. The conversion of septic systems to centralized or decentralized community wastewater utilities is managed through the permitting process and additional provisions in the GMP are not necessary. 5. New roads and road improvements including potential 1-75 interchange must be included [FWF] ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: Proper planning for new roads and road improvements including a potential 1-75 interchange is the product of coordination between long-range transportation planning and future land use planning. Historically, the County's long-range transportation planning horizon timeframe has been 20 years. Future population projections of a full -build condition of the urban areas and RLSA may not occur for 50 or more years, and absent a planning horizon or transportation model capable of analyzing that timeframe, it is clear that neither the urban areas nor the RLSA have been fully addressed with respect to transportation planning. The County is beginning to develop a County -wide Interactive Growth Model and an updated Long -Range Transportation Model. The Eastern Collier Property Owners have prepared a Concept Plan that demonstrates one (of many) possible land use scenarios, Additionally, ECPO 1511Page Packet Pg. 185 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 has prepared a preliminary transportation network analysis that supports that Concept Plan, and will be working closely with the County planners to achieve a consistent and comprehensive analysis of the future potential of the RLSA. Together these tools should help in the long term evaluation of the transportation needs of the County. Today, there is better understanding of how the RLSA is likely to mature over time and with the new tools currently being developed. planners can more appropriately identify and evaluate the transportation system improvements of the future. 6. Each new development should have to identify traffic contributions, water usage and other resource requirements at the time they are being planned. You may want to consider the changes in these variables from agriculture tc increased density. [Judith Hushon] ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: See response to number 1 above. WilsonMiller Comments: [Appendix NJ Staff Comments: Interconnectivity between traffic generating developments in SRAs is consistent with Policy 7.3 of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan which states: "All new existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. [Transportation] Committee September 30, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to recommend the amendment to Policy 4.16 as shown by leaving in the ECPO proposed addition and strikethroughs to harmonize the language with language related to hamlets and CRDs previously approved and not to include any of the staff -recommended language. Policy 4.17 The BCC will review and approve SRA designation applications M accordance with the provisions of Policy 1.1.2 of'the Capital Improvement Element of the GMY for Category .A public facilities. Final local development orders Nw711 be approved within a SRA designated by the BCC in accordance with the CdncLuzency Man, agement S-ystem of the GklFP and 1-15C in effect at the time of finallocal development order ap r.1a �vai. Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: none Committee Deliberations: The Committee consensus was that Policy 4.17 is acceptable in its current language. Committee September 30 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy 4.17 unchanged. Policy 4.18 (recommended amendment) The SRA will be planned and designed tobe 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 > CC :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, pomble water, wastewater, irrigation water, storrnwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public./private partnerships shall address any potential advew, impacts to adopted levels of service standards.. Public Comments: 1. Fiscal impact analysis model (F1AM) minimum standards should be no less than minimum county wide standards as a conservative approach until historic data is acquired. This will provide the maximum protection to the taxpayers. The analysis needs to be re -visited and the development provided corrections made every year and 1521 Pag Packet Pg. 186 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 include accurate absorption rates, traffic capture rates and sales demographics, all of which have significant effects on the outcome of the FIAM. [Mark Strain] ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: FIAM was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on October 24, 2007, as the official model for review of DRI's, and projects within the RLSA. Since the County has adopted FIAM, it is advisable for the County to keep the calibrated items up to date with the most current data available and meeting County- wide standards, such as current budgets, persons per household, millage rates, etc. Similarly, when an applicant prepares a FIAM for a specific project, the FIAM will be populated with the initial data projected for the project and subsequently with the most current data available at the five year interval or phasing dates to reflect adjusted development plans including sales prices, absorption rates, etc. Policy 4.18 of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District ("RLSAO") and Section 4.08.07.1, of the Collier County LDC both require an SRA applicant to submit a FIRM as a part of the application for SRA approval, and each 5 years after approval. An annual fiscal analysis and review would not be appropriate as it would not account for the dynamics of the land development process, the cyclical nature of the economy, nor would it account for the period of time necessary for a community to reach a point in its growth where a stabilized balance of population, facilities and services are reached. The LDC specifically requires that the project demonstrate fiscal neutrality every five years as noted below: " Monitoring Requirement. To assure fiscal neutrality, the developer of the SRA shall submit to Collier County a fiscal impact analysis report ("Report") every five (S) years until the SRA is ninety (90) percent built out. The Report will provide a fiscal impact analysis of the project in accord with the methodology outlined above. " The five year or phase measurement was determined to be an appropriate timeframe by all parties participating in the creation of the RLSA program due to the above mentioned reasons and the fact that there are significant fiscal variations from year to year. This timeframe allowed for the project to stabilize and to account for economic cycles. In cases where a project does not meet its estimated absorption schedule, then it may not generate the projected revenues, however, there will also be a corresponding reduction in the cost of public services. Therefore, any measurement must be in terms of net fiscal impact, not just revenue shortfall. 2. Water storage areas that SFWMD allowed for Ag are allowed to be used for development storm water as well, yet these areas were not required to be included in development acreages nor analysis provided to determine effects of this additional use. This occurs for many uses within the developmental areas, thus making it appear as though development is using less acreage when in fact the impacts from development may cause changes to the water quality and quantity in land that is not part of the SRA. [Mark Strain] ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: ECPO supports the RLSA Review Committee amendment made on September 16, 2008 to Policy 3.13. Public discussion on September 30, 2008 Mr. Greenwood stated that the staff -proposed language is intended to follow the annual fiscal budgeting which the county does, both for operating and capital expenditures and revenues and proposes a fiscal neutrality check every year rather than every five years. This would be consistent with the AUIR and the Capital Improvements Element done each year and the CIE must show committed revenues for projects during the first 3 years of the CIE, stating that showing impact fees as a major source of committed revenues may be misleading as impact fees are very difficult to predict lately due to the decline in construction in recent years. Mr. Farmer stated that 5 years may be too long, but that one year may be too short. Russ Weyer stated that Fishkind and Associates developed the FIAM used by the County and that the 5 years review was chosen because it allows the SRA to get established and stabilize. He stated that 50% for transportation purposes were paid up front for the Town of Ave Maria. He referred to the Developer Contribution Agreement as providing for other sources of private contribution. Mr. Eidson stated that he feels the language in this policy should be reflective of the language in the LDC. He wondered who makes up the financial gap and what happens if revenues are not available. Mr. Greenwood stated that some projects may be delayed or scaled back to fall within available revenues. Mr. Weyer stated that the revenues fall into two categories... operating and capital. He 1531Page Packet Pg. 187 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 stated that when a project is not developing as fast as planned the operating costs of the county are not as high as they would be if development were occurring faster. Mr. Jones stated that he has an issue with a FIAM on an annual basis. He stated that the first few years is not a good measure for fiscal neutrality. He stated that he prefers the existing Policy 4.18 language. Mr. Al Reynolds stated that he feels the existing language is appropriate. Staff Comments: This Policy language should be modified to reflect the language which is already included in LDC Section, 4.08.07 K.L.2 and LDC Section 4.08.07 K.L.3 as copied below from the LDC. [Comprehensive Planning] • LDC Section, 4.08.07 K. L. 2. "Monitoring requirement, To assure fiscal neutrality, the developer of the SRA shall submit to Collier County a fiscal impact analysis report ("Report") every five (5) years until the SRA is ninety percent built out. The Report will provide a fiscal impact analysis of the project in accord with the methodology outlined above." 0 LDC Section, 4.08.07 K. L. 3. - "Imposition of Special Assessments. If the Report identifies a negative fiscal impact of the project to a unit of local government referenced above, the landowner will accede to a special assessment on his property to offset such a shortfall or in the alternative make a lump sum payment to the unit of local government equal to the present value of the estimated shortfall for a period covering the previous phase (or five year interval). The BCC may grant a waiver to accommodate affordable housing." Committee September 30,2008 Action: The Committee voted 7-1 to leave Policy 4.18 unchanged. . Public discussion on November 10, 2008 [Appendix R]: Tarnmie Nemecek explained the rationale for this language. Judy Hushon stated that a CRD might provide such surplus revenues. Laurie McDonald asked if such surplus revenues could be used for environmental purposes. Tarnmie Nemecek stated that the purpose of the revenues is to further economic development. Brian Goguen stated, as chair elect of the EDC, that he supported this language. Staff comments: none Committee action on November 10, 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to recommend the additional language to Policy 4.18. P61icy 4.19 (recommended amendment) Eight Credits shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA, where such Credits were created from.a of4land included in a SRA, where such Credits-kwere_createdUffin- a y other Stewardship Sending Areas Open _ space in excess ofithe required flinty -five percent as described in Policy 410 or for land that is designated for a public N �enefit use described in 1'dl ey AU 4.20 Rio. not require use of Credits. In order to promote compact, mixed use m development and provide the necessary support -facilities and services to residents of rural areas, the SRA designatioii a entitles a fill range of uses, accessory uses and associated uses that provide a mix of services to and are supportive to the residential population of a LSRA, as provided for in Policies 4.7. 444 445J and Attachment C. Such uses shall be. m identified, located and quantified in the SRA master plan. L LO Public Comments: m 1. The conversion ratio used to create Stewardship Credits should have been reviewed and applied in a model as the a maximum scenario for development. The averages that were used understated the growth potential. Future adjustments should be based on a maximum impact analysis to assure a conservative approach for taxpayers. [Mark Strain] �a r ECPO Comments: See the memo to Tom Greenwood from WilsonMilIer dated September 18, 2008 [Appendix H], a Staff Comments: In the third line of Policy 4.19 the reference to Policy 4.19 needs to be corrected to reference Policy 4.20. Policy 4.15 was deleted and Policy 4.15.1 is now the correct reference. [Comprehensive Planning] Committee Deliberations: The Committee discussed each of the changes and the information included in Appendix H. 1541Page Packet Pg. 188 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Committee September 30 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to amend Policy 4.19 as shown which is consistent with previous actions taken by the Committee. Policy4..20 (recommended amendment) The acreage -of a public benefit use shall t daunt toward the maximum acreage limits described -in Policy 4�9'hut_ shal] not count toward the consumption of Stewardship Credits. -For the urpnse of this pohay: public benefi�include Public schools (preK-12) and public or private post secondary- institutions, including ancillary, uses; community parks exceeding the ininimum acreagewequirements of Attachment C; municipal golf courses; regional�ks; and governmental facilities excluding essential services as defined in the LDC. The location of public schools shall he coordinated with thg Collier County School. Board, based on the interlocal agreement 1633 O T.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 Villagesread Bamle; subject to applicable zoningiand permitting requirements. Public Comments: 1. In order to ensure that the maximum size of a town is limited to 4,000 acres, the Conservancy believes that all town uses, including schools and universities, should be incorporated into the maximum 4,000 acre footprint. [Conservancy] 2. Why is acreage for "Public Benefit" not included within the overall acreage calculation for any SRA [CCPC] ECPO Comments [Appendix 01: ECPO recommends a revision to Policy 4.20 to include the acreage of a public benefit use towards the maximum acreage limits of a SRA. Staff Comments: none Committee September 30 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to approve the amendment to Policy 4.20 as shown. Policy 4.21 (recommended amendment) Lands within the ACSC that meet ail SRA criteria shrill 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;allow cl in the ACSC east of the Okal.oacoochee Slough shall lie l s-aa>d,CRDs of 100acres or less and the only form ofaSRA allowed in the ACSC west of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be GRDs and Villages ead- GRO of not more than 300 acres and Mamim. Provided, however, that. C1tI oiitwo Villages of GRDs of not more than 500 acres each, exclusive of any lakes created prior to° `--ameedipm June-30. 2002 as a result.of mining operations, shall he allowe4 in areas that have a frontage on State Road 29 and that, as °,} the erg five date of the% ame-Wment& had been predominantly cleared as a result of Ag Qroup I or Earth Mitling or Processing Uses. This policy is intended to assure that the RLSA. Overlay is not used to increase the development potentiallwithin the ACSC but instead is used'to promote o more compact farm of development as an alternative to the Baseline Standards alreadyiallowed within the ACSC. No policy of the RLSA Overlay shall take precedence over the Big Cypress ACSC regulations and all regulations therein shall apply. Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: none Committee September 30, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to approve the amendment to Policy 4.21 as shown. Policy 4.22 (new policy_), explore the educationahand public awareness .opportunities regarding_signnificant.resources. Public discussion on November 10, 2008 [Appendix Q]: Noah Standridge presented the proposed Policy 4.22. Tom Jones asked if the Policy was intended just to promote. Gary Eidson asked who is going to determine historic or cultural resources to which Noah Standridge stated the County and the Florida Department of State Division of Historical 1551Page Packet Pg. 189 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Resources determine such at time of a development review. Gary Eidson questioned whether this Policy is superfluous. Noah Standridge stated that the Policy is intended to promote, once such is identified. Gary Eidson suggested moving the first clause to the back of the Policy. Christian Spilker stated that the State often keeps its responses to development reviews as quiet as possible because of the possibility of someone destroying or removing such if that information gets into the news media. Gary Eidson asked Noah Standridge to re -craft the language for each Policy and report back to the Committee. This item and Policy 5.8 were temporarily tabled. Noah Standridge reappeared during the meeting and presented revised language for Policies 4.22 and 5.8 which was re -crafted with input from Christian Spilker and ECPO. Staff comments: Tom Greenwood stated that if the County and State find an historic or cultural resource, then such must be preserved per the LDC. Final language for this GMP amendment will be subject to further substantive review for sufficiency and consistency with all elements of the GMP, the Final Order, and data and analysis sufficient to justify and support this GMP amendment. [Comprehensive Planning] Committee action on November 10, 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to approve the language as re -crafted above. Comments received that are not clearly associated with existing policies so therefore would require drafting new Group 4 policies. 1. Tie transportation planning to conservation goals ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: Agreed. Preface to Grow 5 Policies Group 5 Policies set the framework for protection of water quality and quantity and maintaining the natural water regime and protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats on land that is not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Program Appendices P and Q are referred to by reference. Major Committee -recommended revisions to Group 5 Policies include: Policy 5A (amendment) This recommended amendment to Policy 5.4 provides language to establish a map of potential wildlife crossing _ within 12 months of the effective date of the GMP amendments to be used in evaluating community, cultural and historical, and transportation planning for the RLSA, including all SRAs described in Group 4 Policies. M s a Policy 5.5 (amendment) This recommended amendment to Policy 5.5: > • deletes certain outdated references relative to the preparation of management plans; • provides requirement for preparation of a management plan for the purpose of minimizing human and wildlife ?� interactions between agricultural and non-agricultural lands uses; and m • provides for a monitoring program for developments greater than 14 acres. a r c a� Policy 5.7 (new) E This new Policy 5.7 requires that any development on lands not participating in the RLS program to be compatible with surrounding land uses and that outdoor lighting shall be reasonably managed to protect the nighttime a environment, conserve energy, and enhance safety and security. Policy 5.8 (new) This new Policy 5.8 provides that assessment of historic or cultural resources be done when such are identified in the RLSA, including the assessment of such resource's historic or cultural significance and the exploration of educational and public awareness opportunities regarding such significant resources. 1561Page Packet Pg. 190 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Group 5 - Policies that protect water quality and quantity and the maintaining of the natural water regime and protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats on land that is not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area program. 1 I Policy 5.1 '1'o protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime in areas mapped as FSAs aid designated Restora4o zones on the Overlay heap prior to tbr, time that they are designated as SSAs under the stewardship Creditfl?rogram ; , Residential Uses, tieneral Conditional `L`ses; Earth Miming and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses (,layers 1- ) as listed in the Matrix --,shall be eliminated. in PSAsr Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, except those necessary to serve permitted uses or for pul5lic safety, shall eta} Aot be allowed in FSAs. N -of 4,2 !F 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 winimize 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 Fmgram, as well as the right to sell conservation easements -or a4tee or lesser interest�in the land, shall constitute compensation for the loss of these.rights. Public Comments: 1. The Conservancy strongly supports regulation of land uses in the Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSA) and Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSA), regardless of whether the landowner participates in the RLSA program. This should include restrictions of some permitted and conditional uses and should include all lands, regardless of their participation in the RLSA. For example, on lands not voluntarily participating in the RLSA, Policy 5.1 removes use layers 1-4 within FSAs. However, Collier County should assess whether all agricultural activities are appropriate for FSAs, and potentially remove the more active agricultural uses as incompatible with protection of the quality, quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime in the FSAs. Within Policy 5.1, for HSAs, the only outright prohibition is for asphaltic and concrete batch making plants. The Conservancy believes this should be reassessed, with the opportunity to expand the prohibited uses within HSAs and FSAs. Also, Policy 3.7 specifically should be reassessed as to the allowances within HSAs. The Conservancy believes that golf courses, and other impacting uses, are incompatible with all HSAs. [Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix Q]: FSAs and HSAs were purposely defined broadly enough to allow a justified mix of habitat required for species and adequate land uses. The mix of land use activities within FSAs and HSAs are necessary to enable the delineation of the large interconnected systems. The Group 5 policies collectively provide a set of minimum land development standards that apply only when a land owner does not participate in the RLS program. In the case of Policy 5.1, the FSA provision addresses a narrow issue of water quality within regional flow ways, where the more intensive land uses could impact offsite areas. Of the 31,100 acres of FSA, only 800 acres are active agriculture. Within the HSAs it has been confirmed by many biological experts, including Darrel Land who spoke with the RLS Committee, that species are very adept at utilizing and traversing agriculture lands. Committee deliberations on October 7,_ 2008 Mr. McDaniel moved and Mr. Cornell seconded to accept Mr. CornelI's rewording of Policy 5.1 as provided to the Committee by Mr. Cornell this morning. Mr. Jones stated that he is opposed to the language proposed as Policy 5.1 is not broken and does not need fixing. Mr. Cornell stated that this is a way to ensure that development does not occur on the edge of the OK Slough and the Camp Keais Strand. Mr. Jones stated that the County may be subjected itself to a taking of a property owner's rights and subject to litigation. Mr. Cornell stated that the owner would receive compensation if he chose to participate in the RLSAO. The Committed discussed that would entail a property owner losing rights to use that land and that setbacks in the LDC may be the way to handle this. Also, if a land owner loses rights to use his land through a government action a Bert Harris violation would likely occur and the County could be subject to a lawsuit. Staff Comments: none 1571 Page Packet Pg. 191 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Committee Action taken on October 7 2008: The Committee unanimously voted to amend Policy 5.1 by changing the period to a comma after the word "program" in the third line by adding the words, "and designated Flowway buffers" after "FSAs" in the second line and to change "only" to "not" in the second sentence. Policy 5.2 To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime and to protect listed animal and plant .pecies and their habitats in areas mapped as FSAs, i3SAs, and WR . s on the Overlay Map that are within the ACSC, all VACSC regulatory standards shalt apQy, includWg those that strictly limit non-agricultural clearing, Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: none Committee Deliberations: The Committee could not determine a reason to amend this Policy. Committee Action taken on October „7, 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to leave this Policy unchanged. Policy 5.3 To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime and to protect listed animal and plant 1pecies and their habitats in.areas mapped as FSAs, IISAs, acid WRAs on the Overlay Map tl avare:not u-ithin the ACSC; i%a,prczpei ty owner proposes to utilize such land £ar a non-agricultural purpose under the Baseline Standards referenced irk 1.S and does not elect to use tl3e Overlay, the following regulations are applicable, shall be incorporated into the C, and shall supercede any comparable existing. County regulations that would otherwise apply. Thcso regulations shall only apply to non=agricultural'use of --land prior to its inclusion in the Overlay system: Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: none Committee Deliberations: The Committee could not determine a reason to amend this Policy. Committee Action taken on October 7, 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to leave this Policy unchanged. Policy 5.4 (recommended amendment) Collier County will coordinate with appropriate State and Federai agencies concerning the provision of wildlife crossings at locations determined to be:appropriate. A mQ of these potential crossingdocations will be developed withinA2..mauft IM Public Input: 1. Stronger language for wildlife underpasses and a map of locations [FWF] ECPO Comments [Appendix P]: The RLSA program provides a tremendous framework for facilitating the establishment of wildlife underpasses, by protecting large expanses of habitat with SSA lands. The actual need assessments, locating, design, and construction of wildlife underpasses occurs through the efforts of state and/or federal wildlife and transportation agencies, either as part of public works projects or as part of the regulatory process for development projects. As one example, FWC researchers continually evaluate the need for panther crossings, and have maps of existing and proposed panther underpasses. 2. Panther deaths on 846 are mentioned, but not those on Rte 29 or 41 east, which are many. [Judith Hushon] 1581Page Packet Pg. 192 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 ECPO Comments [Appendix P]: Panther deaths on Route 41 East are miles south of the RLSA, as are incidents on SR 29 south of the Sunniland mines. The panther -vehicle collisions on CR 846 east of Immokalee were considered when designating the FSA and HSA stewardship overlays in that area. SSA 3 and SSA 4 were Iater designated along that segment. of CR 846 specifically to provide opportunities for future panther crossings. Committee deliberations on October 7, 2008. Mr. Thomas stated that he would to have the word "cultural" added to the new sentence proposed by Mr. Cornell. Mr. McDaniel suggested eliminating the deadline of January, 2010 for the creation of the wildlife crossings map as that could be problematic. Mr. Eidson suggested making the date January, 2011. Laura Roys asked who is going to prepare the map and which study is it based upon. Mr. Cornell stated that the map to be used is that prepared for the Eastern Collier County Panther Study as the basis for crossing needs and for future used for site development plans, stewardship receiving areas, the MPO, etc. He stated that the map is essentially done. Elizabeth Fleming stated that the word "identified" would be better because the study has already identified such crossings. Nancy Payton gave a brief history of the development of the Panther Study. Staff Comments: none Committee Deliberations: see preceding discussions Conmdttee Action taken on October 7 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to amend Policy 5.4 as outlined above. Committee deliberations on October 14, 2008. Brad Cornell stated that he would like the Committee to consider adding additional language to Policy 5.4 which was acted upon during the October 7 meeting. He asked the Committee to add the following language at the end of the last sentence of Policy 5.4: ", including all SRAs described in Group 4 Policies." Committee action taken on October 14: The Committee voted unanimously to add the words at the end of the last sentence of Policy 5.4: ", including all SRAs described in Group 4 Policies" so that Policy 5.4 now reads as shown above. Policy 5.5 (recommended amendment) For thoselands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural I. -,ands Stewardship program, non-agricultural development, excluding individual single family residemcesi shall be directed away fcnm , the , fisted skies and1 tl�r u, Brats by comp]ying with4the following guidelines and standards; _ I. A wildlife survey shall be required for all parcels when listed species are known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing - in site or where listed species or Vrotected species are directly observed on the site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the: Florida fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. (FFWCC) and O.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)fguidelines. The County shall notifyithe Ffh kMand %ISFWS of the existence o&any listed species 06pnotected sNeies'that maybe discovered 2. Witlfllife.habi[ t ement plans for listed species shilf be siibi- itited-for County approval. A plats shall be required for all projects where the wildlife survey indicated listed species are. utilizing the. site, or the site is :capalie of supporting vvldife and can, be anicipd to be occupied by listed species. These plans shall describe, bow the :pr6itMdirects_incompatib1e land: uses aa,ay.,from listed species,m rotected s itafs'cies and their habi agWm�enplans shallncorpnratexproper techniquesto protect listibd species orfI sted.sbecies thetats from the negative impacts of,proposed development7ost�`cz n 1591 Page Packet Pg. 193 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 --Y- --- - 1 f ,19$?= Hale O z;�a �. �Y. _..- __ ,_, army -Y. _ } F616etion Nee6 44 the Owee Game and Fwh Water Fish Gt�t�k-aa-,4J944-. i_ 4, The County shall consider any other techniques recommended by the USF S and F°FWCC, subject [o the provision of paragraph 3 of this policy, i_i_-. iii- When listed species are directly observed can site or indicated by evidence, such as donning, foraging, or other indications, a ilminitalillt?1 of 40 of nacre ve etatinzi 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 Pfovisions of paragraph 3 ai this policy. b.'ia.na2eMent plans shall include provisions -for qja nj� -human and wildlife intenc Lions. Low intensity laud uses Ce.g,--parlcs, passive recreation areas, golf courses) and _w�egetatinM preservation requirements. rtlkcludui�griGulture� shall be used to (--sEablish buffer, argaa betwoen ,wildlife habitat areas and areas domi.nared by howan acti�,Jies. Consideration shall be ti'erl to the most cclirent pidelutes and regulations on techniques to reduce }ibinan y6ldlife conflict, The mana cment_plans-shall also require the dissemination of infun-nation_to local residents, businesses and wvernmental services at►out the presence of wildlife and. practic;es(such s appro a_te. waste disposal methods) thac enable res oil,, ihle coexistence with Aildlife, while minirni7,ing Uportunites for negative ineraction, wuch as appEo x7atc waste disposal practices. c.,` he ManaAement Flans shall comaia a. moniWpLn rc am for. develop rtiets greater than to n 3CA'e S, 7Iq IibV i�Ce.!i „fr.n.R9 .:pheF kA�9iW..AY ghOA hegivenM . ?ita anon f43E - , .. ^�'riS}._ d .ry. 7' Ti [y t �^ N AT ^--i�ci! J'Q'r`:' N4. 9, AeFida Galge aBd i'.^rt-k Si; .,• (� t _ 3 as eeii4f�iany--'r tea/ be- Sioudh RopAi- .4J f ' �1 -.-_every } LO r� i Q Plansr-� o ieascm- Tbe,,qeC d -Aall be 1 h:{,,,r 7{3i1fY. (- cl ca EM'61He�'#�5i etr tO Q FMEH On s4o diswball S -- 1 1f _ .. -Man, may t � -th -y; it gwhage 1601 Packet Pg. 194 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 �., - -y -. _ 3. The. County shall, ccrosistent with applicable policies of this Overlay, consider and utilizo* recommendations and letters of technical assistarsce frorn the Florida Fish and -Wildlife Consm-ation Commission and recotk me.-Tidations from the U5 Fish and Wildlife Service in issuing development azderson property eenuiiaig utiliz�ci bA limed species. itis recognized that these agency recommendations, on a Case by case basis, may changa strew iea the i:etluirements contained within these wildlife protection policies and any such change shall he deemed consistent %nth the Grove Management flan. HDAever, Do reduction of the wildlife proteedun policies of Policy 5.5will be considered as these s1W1 nstitute minimum standards for wildlife prole ti�ti: Public Comments: Committee deliberation on October 14, 2008: Torn Jones stated that he has a problem with inclusion of the additional language in Policy 5.5. naragaph I but would hold his vote for later. Brad Cornell stated that he is OK with deleting that language. Brad Cornell stated that all the studies need to be updated. Bill McDaniel stated that the Committee should consider reference language to the most current studies and not cite each plan. brad Cornell stated that he does not object to a universal species clause rather than list specific studies. Tom Jones suggested that draft language be prepared for Policy 5.5f. Bill McDaniel suggested drafting language and sending it out to the Committee. Tom Jones stated that he is trying to forego a list of 68 species. Elizabeth Fleming stated that the language is a forward looking policy on people interactim it would require provision of information about wildlife to people. Gary Eidson stated that this discussions would be a lot easier if there were specific motion language to vote on and not just ideas. Public Input: Lauri McDonald stated that she felt the use of the word "utilizing" rather than "containing'" in the first sentence of Policy 5.5. garag hh33 would be more appropriate. Staff Comments: none Committee DeliberMions: see discussion above. Committee Action on OctoWr 14. The Committee voted unanimously to have staff develop language for Policy 5.5.2. f and report back to the Committee on October 21. Committee Action of October 14, 2W.- Tyre Committee voted, 7-1, to amend Policy 5.5, paragraph 3 to include the changes proposed in the last two sentences. C*mnnittee Action of October 14, 2iM . The Committee voted unanimously to amend the word "containing" to "utilized by". a 1611Page Packet Pg. 195 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Public Discussion on October 28, 2008: Mr. Wolfley stated that he did not feel that bald eagles should be called out specifically, but that other listed species should be included as well in paragraph 1 of Policy 5.5. Elizabeth Fleming agreed that other listed species should be cited so that the wording is more inclusive. Brad Cornell and Nancy Payton both agreed with Mr. Wolfley and Ms. Fleming. Committee Action on October 28, 2008 on paragraph 1 of Policy 5.5: The Committee voted unanimously to accept the language amendments for paragraph 1 of Policy 5.5 as shown above. Committee Action on October 28, 2008 on paragraph 2 of Policy 5.5. subsection a: The Committee voted unanimously to accept the language amendments for paragraph 2 of Policy 5.5 through paragraph a as shown above. Committee Action on October 28, 2008 on paragraph-2--of Policy 5.5, subsection b: The Committee voted unanimously to accept the language amendments for paragraph 2 of Policy 5.5 through paragraph b as shown above. Committee Action on October 28, 2008 on paragraph 2 of Policy 5.5, subsection b: The Committee voted unanimously to move the last sentence regarding mitigation to the last sentence of paragraph 2.2a of Policy 5.5. Committee Action on October 28, 2008 on paragraph 2 of Policy 5.5. subsection c: The Committee voted unanimously to approve the language as shown in subsection c of Policy 5.5. Committee Action on October 2$ 2008 on deletion of existing ara ra hs 2b through 2h of Policy 5.5: The Committee voted unanimously to delete this existing language. Committee Action on October 28 2008 on amending the language of paragraph 3of Polic 5.5: The Committee voted unanimously to delete this existing language. Policy 5;6 (recommended amendment) For those lands that arefnot voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship. pxogram; Collier County shall direct non, agricultural :land uses away from. high Nnctioning�,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 hydrtVriod of a v4.etland. This policy shall be4mplemented 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 mappedfand are des' ated as FSA's. Policy 5.1 prohibits certain uses within the FSA's, .thus preserving and rop�tecting the wetlands functions within those wetland systems. 2. The other significant wetlands within the RLSA are W RA's as described in policy 3:3:+These areas are protected by existing SFVAM wetlands permits for each area_ :3. FAs, HSAs and U4ls, 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 wethinds within,,thWRLSA are isolated or seasonal wetlands. These wetlands will be protected based upon the wetland functionality, assessment .described below. and the final pci-witting requirements of the South. Florida Water Management District. a. The County shall apply the vegetation retention, open space and site preservation rcquirernents specified within this ' .Overlay to preserve an appropriate amount of native vegetation & site, Wetlands shall be. preservedlas part of this vegetation requirement accordingito theafollo g criteria: i. The acreagerrequirements*specifiedawithio..this: Overlay shall be met by preserving wetlands with the hi est wetland°firnona7ty scores. Wetland functionality assesstnentrseores sltalltbe those described in paragraph b of this policy. The. vegetative preservation requiremenm 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 UUniform Wetland ivlitigatiQn Assessment Methodkore of 0.-7, or greater. Within one year from the effective. crate of this Amendment. the County shall develop specific criteria in the LDC to b�r_ used to determine those instances in which wetlands with a WRAP functionality assessment score of 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method scone of 0.1, or greater must be preserved in excess of the preservation required by. Policy :5.3. ii. Wetlands and contiguous upland buffers that are utilized by listed species, or serving as corridors for the movement of listed species, shall be preserved on site. Wetland flowway functions through the project shall be maintained. 1621Page Packet Pg. 196 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 iii_ Prdpnsed develapmentshall demonstralp that ground water table. drawdoWts or diVersions will S1.0t ai verss~ly-thange the hydr43cs7od of p cavod wedands oft. or offs te. 1 tention and -control elevations shall -be se4 to protect surrounding wedands -itnd he consistent wlCh s,arro=ding land plid project a untrol elevations and water tables. In order to meet these requirement5, prarje�ts shall he des;igrt cd in acdordance v�,zth Sec.-tions 4_2,2A,6_11 Ud 6.1-2. of FVW' 's Basis Gf Review, January 21 _ C,lpiatid. vegetative cornmanities triay be utiiized to meet the v'egetatix'c, open space and sit.. preservation requirements of this Overlay wlte� tht -wetland functicmal assessment score is lc & than 0.65, t+. In .order• to a�9css the values and functions of wetlands at the time of project review, applicants shall rate func[ianahty of wetlands using the South Plonda Water Management 7]istiicf s, Wetlaiid Rapid Assessment Proced e ('U RAC'), .as desetibed in Technical Publicakiai l cg-00,1, dated September 1997, aivd updated August 1999, or thr, uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment INItz god., i&hdfivd as F.A.C. Chapter 62-345. The applicant shall womit. to CounL_y staff agency -accepted W AP scares, or 1_Tnimrm Wedands Mitigation Assessment scores. C:ounry staff shall review this functionality assessment as part of the County's EI5 provisimN and shall use the re�sultS lu direct inccrmpAtihle land i ses away from the hj& a ftinaiaa fig& we laads acc pgdai , to the requirements found in paragraph 3 above. c. All direct -impacts sball be ndtigated feu pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (f) of this policy. d, Single faraily tesidences shall follow the requirements a antained within Policy 0,2.7 of Lhe Can servation and-Cemtx.i Management Element_ . The County shall separate prrF,erwd wetlands from other land uses Mth appropriate bufforing regnirernents. The County shall require a minimum .0,fnot wgetatcd upland buff r abutting a natural water body, and for other vietlabds a miaimam 25-foot vegetated upland buffer ahutti�kg the wetland, A structural bi €fa may be used in cmjuraction with- a vegetadvr, butter that would iedttce ttri_� vegetative Duffer width by .�O , A structural buffer shall be, required aNning wetlands where direct impacts are allow i-ed.. Wetland Buffers shall oodonn to the following standaWs, i_ The -buffer shall be measured landwar.i from the approved jurisdictional line. ii. 'fhe buffer zone shall ccrosist of preserved native vegetation. lWhtnre native vegetation does n.rrt exist, native vegetation 00tcrpatible with the existing snils bind c pe ted..h 'di`ola ou�cliti4rns shall be planted_ i'i. The buffer shall be maintained €ree of Catngory l inw'as rye a oti l i s, as definedby the �lvrida Exotic Pest Plant CoLwciL iv_ The following land- uses are donWbred to be coinpa6ble with weOlnd func6bns� and are allowed within the buffer: (1)- Passive r�-c,-eatf()nal areas, boardWalks and reoreational shelters; (2.) Pervious nature trails; _ (3) Water manmanagement structures; -(d) Mi6ption area;; {5� Ariy other conserva6mi and related o space r�Clivity oar use which is oomparablc in haturc with'the .fdregoing uses. v. A structural buffer may corisira of a stun -wall, berm, oar vegetativeltedgr~ with.stgitable feneipg. f Mitigation shaU -required for direct impacts to wetland in order to result, in no net loss of wetland function;. Mitigetion RN.uirementw L "No net loss of wet nd fingctions" shall. mean that the wetland fi-maim- al senora of th'e pixxposed ibiiigaticn equals or -exceeds the wetland fuha; imal scomof the: iinpatted wetlands. Priority shall be given to niitigaiicp u6thlri F A's and HSA`s: _ ii. Lass of storage or conve-yaocc volume rescilting fro rri direct impacts trr wetlands shafl be cormpcnsated for by providing an equal amauxft of st rage or cogXe�B(riCe capacity nri site azx[� within or.abatting the impactz.d wed and. iii. Pit'oiection AaU be provided for preserved or ctxcaWd wetlmd or uphind vegetative cor wimities offered as tnitigafion by placing a easement over the la d In perpetaity, providing for itutml exotic plant remaval Class 1 invasive cxotie plants ck-fined by the Flcrrida Exotic Plari m CU a ai aD LO ca r a 4J c a� E t r Q 163 1f age - Packet Pg. 197 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 Council) and continuing exotic plant maintenance, or brappropriate ownership transfer to a state or federal agency along with ,uf.ficient,funding f perpetual management activities. _ 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 thisapolicy and .SFARMD stau ds. If agency pet -nits have not provided_ mitigation consistent with this policy, Collier County will require mitigation exceeding that of theJurisdictional agencies. g. NVetland preservation, buffer areas; and mitigation areas shall be,identified or platted as sepatate tracts. In the case of a Planned Unit. D'evelboiment {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 f invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Test 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 detrimenral to drainage, flood, control, water conservation, erosion control or fish and wildlife habitat conservation and preservation. easements .and fee ordess than fee,sale to conservation o ams. Public Comments: 1. The actual ability to develop in the RLSA under the standard zoning did not include an analysis of what amount of non jurisdictional lands could actually be permitted. This produced a false sense of urgency to protect environmentally sensitive land that in reality may never have been allowed to be improved. Even as 5 or 10 acre home sites, the ability to infringe upon wetlands is limited. [Mark Strain] ECPO Comments f Appendix P]: An analysis of the specific jurisdictional wetland permitting conditions of the entire 300 square mile RLS was not within the scope of the Rural Land Study, nor is such an analysis required for comprehensive planning. Further, as the RLSA is an optional overlay, it is an alternative to development under the existing zoning, not a replacement. The standard zoning of the entire RLSA is Agriculture. Under this zoning, a wide range of land uses are permitted by right or conditional use that can have impacts to jurisdictional areas, including the full range of agricultural activities, _ farmworker housing, commercial excavations, and residential development. Under the standard zoning, land ownership N can be subdivided and fragmented in ways that compromise wetland and habitat connectivity. Once this occurs, it is very s expensive and difficult to reassemble land into manageable systems (Southern Golden Gate Estates). The RLSA creates a incentives for more sustainable and environmentally sound patterns of protection and development on a landscape basis. In addition, many environmentally sensitive lands within the RLSA are not jurisdictional wetlands, yet provide important habitat for Florida panther, Florida black bear, Big Cypress fox squirrel, and other listed species. Large areas of non - jurisdictional land are included in Habitat Stewardship Areas, particularly where these occur in proximity to native m vegetated areas or flowways. a The "sense of urgency" for protecting environmentally sensitive lands pre -dates the RLSA, and in fact was a key catalyst w that led to the establishment of the Final Order, the Rural Lands Study, and the resulting RLSA program. The Florida s Forever program (and its predecessors) targeted the CREW lands (Camp Keais Strand) and the Okaloacoochee Slough long before the creation of the RLSA. Various state and federal analyses projected strong development pressures on a wetlands within the RLSA before the RLSA program was created. The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration program predicates much of its land acquisition strategy on potential wetland losses and landscape -scale fragmentation. Staff Comments: minor corrections [Comprehensive Planning] Currently there are no buffer requirements to FSAs, HSAs or WRAs if the project is going through base -line standards, besides the standard 25' for wetlands. Recommend some type of buffer -commercial excavation has no minimum setback to an FSA/HSA. Policy 5.6 [Environmental Staff] 1641 Page Packet Pg. 198 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B 9.A.1.c PL20190002292 Committee Action on October 28 2008: The Committee voted, 8-1, to accept the proposed new language in Policy 5.6, section 3, subsection f iv. Committee Action on October 28, 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to leave the language in existing subsection 3f iv of Policy 5.6 unchanged but to renumber to subsection 3fiv to 3fv_ Committee Action on October 28,2008: The Committee voted unanimously to leave the language in existing subsection 3g of Policy 5.6 unchanged. Committee Action on October 28, 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to add Section 4 to Policy 5.6.. Committee Action on December 18,, 2008: The Committee following input from Brad Cornell, other members of the Committee, and the public voted unanimously to modify the first Iine of Policy 5.6, paragraph 3, subparagraph a, subparagraph ii to read as follows: "ii. Wetlands and contiguous upland buffers that are...". (recommended new Policy) securi Public Comments: none Public Discussion on October 28, 2008: The proposed new language was advanced by Nancy Payton. Dane Scofield asked for someone to define a smoke easement. Christian Spilker stated that he is concerned about smoke easements and it gives him pause. Nancy Payton suggested eliminating the last sentence and that can be addressed in the LDC. Brad Cornell stated that he had no opposition to eliminating the last sentence. Russ Priddy stated that he would like to see the entire Policy deleted. David Wolfley stated that lighting is almost always an issue when land use intensity is proposed to increase. Staff comments: none Committee Deliberations: see October 28 public discussion Committee Action taken on October 28, 2008: The Committee by a vote of 8-1 voted to add new Policy 5.7 as outlined above. Policy. 5.8 (recommended new policy) awareness.-Mortunities regarding "significant resources. Public comment on November 10, 2008: Refer to Public discussion above under Policy 4.22 and Appendix R. Noah Standridge stated that the re -crafted language has been developed and approved by Naples Cultural Landscape. Staff comments: Tom Greenwood stated that if the County and State find an historic or cultural resource, then such must be preserved per the LDC. [Comprehensive Planning] Committee action on November 10, 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to approve the language as re -crafted above. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. 1651Page Packet Pg. 199 9.A.1.c CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 S)CTIN S COM14iITTEE-RECONSIE V E&NEW POL Y_3.7 OF THE `f~RANSPORTA' 1WELEMENtT OF THE GRONN"TH MjkNAGENIE T PLAN Preface While the Committee discussed revisions to Group 4 RLSA Overlay Policies with the Transportation Planning Department of the Transportation Division of Collier County and, in particular Policy 4.5 of the RLSA Overlay, it became apparent that a new companion Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan would be required. Below is the Committee -recommended new Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. This recommended Policy was crafted by the Transportation Division due to proposed language amendments to Policy 4.5 of the RLSAO. New Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) requires County adoption of a plan for a transportation network that has been shown to meet the adopted Level of Service through the build out of the County (County Build Out Vision Plan"). This Policy 3.7 was deemed appropriate because of other recommended amendments to certain Group 4 Policies. Public Comment on November 10, 2008: Nick Casalanguida, Director of the Transportation Planning Department, stated that this proposed new Policy is intended to apply county -wide and not be limited to the RLSA Overlay. Staff Comments: The language shown above is proposed new Policy 3.7 to be located in the Transportation Element of the GRP and is outside of the RLSAO, but should be considered for recommendation by the Committee as it would harmonize the new language being proposed in the RLSAO with the Transportation Element. The above language represents a consensus by those Transportation Division staff personnel participating in its creation with representatives of Eastern Collier Property Owners [ECPO]. Committee Deliberations on September 23, 2008: Mr. Farmer asked what is considered "long distance travel' to which Nick Casalanguida replied that it is subjective, but generally a trip in excess of 30 minutes in length. Committee action on September 23, 2008: The Committee referred certain Group 4 Policies to John Passidomo and the Transportation Division to resolve and this new policy outside of the RLSAO was found to be needed. Committee action on November 10, 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of new Policy 3.7 as outlined above. 1661Page Packet Pg. 200 9.A.1.d CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 NECTTON A ALL COMMITTEE -RECOMMENDED REVISION$ TO IMPROVE THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY Preface Section 2 of this Report includes the full RLSA Overlay Program as evaluated. The Review Committee determined that most of the policies in the RLSA Overlay did not require an amendment so often took action to "leave policy unchanged." Those policies that were amended, including those set forth in Section 1, and those with minor language corrections, are shown below with strike through and underlines. In addition to all RLSA text, the following are attached with recommend amendments. ➢ Stewardship Overlay Map ➢ Attachment A - Stewardship Credit Worksheet ➢ Attachment B - Land Use Layers Matrix ➢ Attachment C - Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics Table The RLSA Overlay Recommended Amendments Goal (recommended amendment) Collier County seeks to address the long-term needs of residents and property owners within the Immokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment. Collier County's goal is to prefeet retain land for agricultural activities, to prevent the prema 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 des employs creative land use planning techniques and through the use of established incentives. Objective (recommended amendment) To meet the Goal described above, Collier County's objective is to create an incentive based land use overlay system, herein referred to as the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, based on the principles of rural land stewardship as defined in Chapter 163.3177(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; ate. and. Group 4 policies relate to conversion of land to other uses and economic diversification. Group 5 are regulatory policies that ensure that land that is not voluntarily included in the Overlay by its owners shall nonetheless meet the minimum requirements of the Final Order pertaining to natural resource protection. Group 1 - General purpose and structure of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Policy 1.1 To promote a dynamic balance of land uses in the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) that collectively contributes to a viable agricultural industry, protects natural resources, and enhances economic prosperity and diversification, Collier County hereby establishes the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (Overlay). The Overlay was created through a collaborative community_based planning process involving county residents, area property owners, and representatives of community and governmental organizations under the direction of a citizen oversight committee. 451Page Packet Pg. 201 9.A.1.d CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 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 Im mokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment referred to in the State of Florida Administration Commission Final Order No. AC-99-002. The RLSA generally includes rural lands in northeast Collier County lying north and east of Golden Gate Estates, north of the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and Big Cypress National Preserve, south of the Lee County Line, and south and west of the Hendry County Line, and includes a total of approximately 195,846 acres, of which approximately 182,334 acres is privately owned. The Overlay Map is an adopted overlay to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Policy 1.4 Except as provided in Group 5 Policies, there shall be no change to the underlying density and intensity of permitted uses of land within the RLSA, as set forth in the Baseline Standards, as defined in Policy 1.5, unless and until a property owner elects to utilize the provisions of the Stewardship Credit System. It is the intent of the Overlay that a property owner will be compensated for the voluntary stewardship and protection of important agricultural and natural resources. Compensation to the property owner shall occur through one of the following mechanisms: creation and transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition of conservation easements, acquisition of less than fee interest in the 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 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 (recommended amendment) Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within the RLSA that are to be kept in permanent agriculture, open space or conservation uses. These lands will be identified as Stewardship Sending Areas or SSAs. All privately owned lands within the RLSA are a candidate for designation as a SSA. Land becomes designated as a SSA upon petition by the property owner seeking such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC), which acknowledges the property owner's request for such designation and assigns Stewardship Credits or other compensation to the owner for such designation. Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved SSA. Designation as an SSA shall be administrative and shall not require an amendment to the Growth Management Plan, but shall be retroactively incorporated into the adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment process when it periodically occurs. A Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall be developed that identifies those allowable residential densities and other land uses which remain. Once land is designated as a 461Page Packet Pg. 202 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C 9.A.1.d PL201900002292 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 tetnunated as provided elsewhere herein. Q Polx�cv 1.6.1 (recommended new policy) a Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, uvon initial approval of a Stewardshiv Sending Area ("SSA" ), 0 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 ear at the option of the owner by providing_ written notice to the County prior to the expiration of the initial five ,period All conditions p and restrictions of the Stewardship Easement related to maintaining the existingproperty conditions including all management obligations of the owner of the SSA lands, shall be in full force throughout the Conditional Period If at Q any time during the Conditional Period any of the following events occur, then the Conditional Stewardship Easement a shall become a Permanent StewardshiR Easement which shall be final, peKpetual and non -revocable in accordance with N the terms set forth therein: c� 3 4. Stewardship Credits from the SSA have been assigned to entitle an a proved Stewardship Receiving Area "SRA" and the SRA has received all necessaKy final and non -appealable development orderspermits, or other y 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 ovemmental final and non-apnealable development orderspermits, or other a discretiongy gpRrovals necessaKy to commence construction of any SRA shall automatically cause the Conditional 3 Stewardshiv Easement to become a Permanent Stewardship Easement; N Q> 5. The owner of the SSA lands has sold or transferred an StewardshipCredits to another person or enti including a N o Stewardship Credit Trust as described in Policy 1.20, the closing has occurred, and the owner has received the o consideration due from such sale or transfer, but not expressly excluding_ r' 0 N (c) a sale or transfer of the StewardshipCredits ancillaryto the sale or transfer of the underl 'n fee title to the a land, N V (d) instances where a landowner establishes an SSA for a specific SRA, whether the SRA is owned or developed �_ by a s arate or related entity,and the Stewardship Credits are transferred as required by the Growth w Management Plan or Land Development Code for SRA approval; or c a� E 6, The owner of the SSA lands has received in exchange for the creation of the StewardshiI2 Easement Agreement = other compensation from local, state, federal or private revenues (collectively, the "Events") Q 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_ Ww 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 dax u) of the Conditional Period terminate the Conditional Stewardship Easement by recording a Notice of Termination. m In addition, if_a challenge and/or appeal of a necessary development order, permit or other discretionary approval is o filed, the owner of the SSA lands may elect to extend the Conditional Period until the challenge or appeal is finally v resolved. If the challenge or appeal is not resolved such that the construction may commence under terms Q acceptable to the owner of the SSA lands, the owner of the SSA lands may within 180 days of the final disposition w of the challenge or appeal record a Notice of Termination. U12on the recording of such Notice of Termination the a=i Stewardship Easement Agreement and corresponding Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall expire E 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 Q Memorandum shall be revised accordingly. The owner of the SSA lands shall provide a copy of the Notice of Termination to the County. 471Page Packet Pg. 203 9.A.1.d CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 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 a the Notice of Termination. S In the event that a Conditional Stewardship Easement is terminated, all benefits, rightsprivileges, restrictions and obligations associated_ with the SSA shall be null and void, and the land shall revert to its underling zoning classification, free and clear of any encumbrance from the Conditional Stewardship Easement and SSA Credit Agreement. If reguested by the owner of the SSA lands Collier Count and the other Uantees 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 Coun shalt update the overlay map to reflect the termination of any SSA or SRA. This policy shall be implemented in the LDC within 12 months after adoption hereof. Policy 1.7 (recommended amendment) The range of Stewardship Credit Values is hereby established using the specific methodology set forth on the Stewardship Credit Worksheet (Worksheet), incorporated -herein as Attachment A. This methodology and related procedures for SSA designation will also be adopted as part of the Stewardship Overlay District in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). Such procedures shall include but ee not be limited to the following: (1) All Credit transfers shall be recorded with the Collier County Clerk of Courts; (2) a covenant or perpetual restrictive easement shall also be recorded for each SSA, shall run with the land and shall be in favor of Collier County and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, , statewide land tmst; 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 characteristics used and the factors assigned thereto were established after review and analysis of detailed information about the natural resource attributes of land within the RLSA so that development could be directed away from important natural resources. The six characteristics measured are: Stewardship Overlay Designation, Sending Area Proximity, Listed Species Habitat, Soils/Surface Water, Restoration Potential, and Land Use/Land Cover. Policy 1.9 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. 481Page Packet Pg. 204 9.A.1.d CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 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 Iayer is discrete and shall be removed sequentially and cumulatively in the order presented in the Matrix, starting with the residential layer (layer one) and ending with the conservation layer (layer eight). If a layer is removed, all uses and activities in that layer are eliminated and are no longer available. Each layer is assigned a percentage of a base credit in the Worksheet. The assigned percentage for each layer to be removed is added together and then multiplied by the index value on a per acre basis to arrive at a total Stewardship Credit Value of the land being designated as a SSA. Policy 1.12 Credits can be transferred only to lands within the RLSA that meet the defined suitability -criteria and standards set forth in Group 4 Policies. Such lands shall be known as Stewardship Receiving Areas or SRAs. Policy 1.13 The procedures for the establishment and transfer of Credits and SRA designation are set forth herein and will also be adopted as a part of a Stewardship District in the LDC (District). LDRs creating the District will be adopted within one (1) year from the effective date of this Plan amendment. Policy 1.14 (recommended amendment) Stewardship Credits will be exchanged for additional residential or non-residential entitlements in a SRA on a per acre basis, as described in Policy 444 4.19. Stewardship density and intensity will thereafter differ from the Baseline Standards. The assignment or use of Stewardship Credits shall not require a GMP Amendment. Policy 1.15 Land becomes designated as an SRA upon the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approving the petition by the property owner seeking such designation. Any change in the residential density or non-residential intensity of Iand use on a parcel of land located within a SRA shall be specified in the resolution reflecting the total number of transferable Credits assigned to the parcel of land. Density and intensity within the RLSA or within an SRA shall not be increased beyond the Baseline Standards except through the provisions of the Stewardship Credit System, the Affordable -workforce Housing Density Bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of the FLUE, and the density and intensity blending provision of the Immokalee Area Master Plan. Policy 1.16 Stewardship Receiving Areas will accommodate uses that utilize creative land use planning techniques and Credits shall be used to facilitate the implementation of innovative and flexible development strategies described in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. and 9J-5.006(5)(1). Policy 1.17 Stewardship Credits 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). 491Page Packet Pg. 205 9.A.1.d CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 Policy 1.19 All local land or easement acquisition programs that are intended to work within the RLSA Overlay shall be based upon a willing participant/seller approach. It is not the intent of Collier County to use eminent domain acquisition within this system. Policy 1.20 The County may elect to acquire Credits through a publicly funded program, using sources identified in Policy 1.18. Should the County pursue this option, it shall establish a Stewardship Credit Trust to receive and hold Credits until such time as they are sold, transferred or otherwise used to implement uses within Stewardship Receiving Areas. Policy 1.21(recommended amendment) The incentive based Stewardship Credit system relies on the projected demand for Credits As as the primary basis for permanent protection of agricultural lands, flowways, habitats and water retention areas. The County recognizes that there may be a lack of significant demand for Credits in the early years of implementation, and also recognizes that a public benefit would be realized by the early designation of SSAs. To address this issue and to promote the protection of natural resources, the implementation of the Overlay will include an early entry bonus to encourage the voluntary establishment of SSAs within the RLSA. The bonus shall be in the form of an additional one Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as a HSA located outside of the ACSC and one-half Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as HSA 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 1.22 (recommended amendment) The RLSA Overlay was designed to be a tong -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 as part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report process. The purpose of the review shall be to assess the participation in and effectiveness of the Overlay implementation in meeting the Goal, Objective and Policies set forth herein. The specific measures of review shall be as follows: 1. The amount and location of land designated as FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and other SSAs. 2. The amount and location of land designated as SRAs. 3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated, assigned or held for future use. 4. A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at the time of a Study and time of review. 5. The amount, location and type of land converted to non-agricultural use with and without participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption. 6. The extent and use of funding provided by Collier County and other sources Local, State, Federal and private revenues described in Policy 1.18. 7. The amount, location and type of restoration through participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption. 8. The potential for use of Credits in urban areas. Group 2 - Policies to 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. (Recommended amendment) Policy 2.1(recommended amendment) 501Page Packet Pg. 206 9.A.1.d CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 Agricultural landowners will be provided with lands will be-ateetea from -o.. a4ife een e_ io • other- p N..,..,..�.,.., y.,..iiy•M1V vvaa: va uavia �v-v cric.-[ti:sca by er-eatint--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 feFm of eempaet odevelopment in the Pcb8A Over -lay. Analysis has hey"n that SRAs will allew the pr-ej eeted population ef the RLSA ia the Her-imen year- ef 2025 to be aeeewiffladated e tely 10% of the aereage ether -wise required if sueh eempeet Fur -a! de-,,elepmeat wer-e net allowed due te 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 L6, The protection measures for SSAs are set forth in Policies 1.6, 1.7, 1.10, and 1.17. In addition to protecting_agdculture activities in SSAs within FSA HSA and WRA as further described in Policies 3.1, 3.2 and 33, 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 pen these lands shall be assigned two (2.0) Stewardship Credits per acre outside of the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSA), and two and sixth tenths (2.6) Credits per acre within the ACSC. All non -agriculture uses shall be removed and the remaining uses are limited to agriculture Land Use _Levels 5, 6 and 7 on the Land Use Matrix. Each laver is discreet and shall be removed seguentially and cumulatively in the order presented in the Matrix. If a laver is removed all uses and activities in that layer are eliminated and no longer available. Following approval of an Agricultural SSA Collier County shall update the RLSA Zoning Overlay District Map to delineate the boundaries of the Agricultural SSA. Peke)-23 (recommended deletion) Within one (1) year- fiem the eff-eetive date of these ameadfnents, Collier- Geuf4y will establish afl. elitrAnate stieh baMefs in Collier- Cetmty. The AckC will alse assess whether- e*eepfiefis &0 standards fef busittess uses related to agr-ieukur-e 96aeld be allowed tmder- aft administfative pefrp& pmeess an wake meemmendatiens to the BGG. Pokey 2.4 (recommended deletion) Policy 2.5 3 (recommended amendment) Agriculture is an important aspect of Collier County's quality of life and economic well -being. —Agricultural activities shall be protected from duplicative regulation as provided by the Florida Right -to -Farm Act. Policy 2.6- 4 (recommended amendment) Notwithstanding the special provisions of Policies 3.9 and 3,10, nothing herein or in the implementing LDRs, shall restrict lawful agricultural activities on lands within the RLSA that have not been placed into the Stewardship program. 511 Page Packet Pg. 207 9.A.1.d CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 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 3 1, 100 acres. FSAs are primarily privately owned wetlands that are located within the Camp Keais Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough. These lands form the primary wetland flowway systems in the RLSA. The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect FSAs by the creation and transfer of Credits, elimination of incompatible uses, and establishment of protection measures described in Group 1 Policies. Not all lands within the delineated FSAs are comparable in terms of their natural resource value; therefore the index shall be used to differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation. Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that FSA lands score within a range of 0.7 to 2.4; approximately 96% score greater than 1.2 while 4% score 1.2 or less. The average Index score of FSA land is 1.8. Policy 3.2 (recommended amendment) Listed animal and plant species and their habitats shall be protected through the establishment of Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. HSAs are delineated on the Overlay Map and contain approximately 49,000 45,782 acres. HSAs are privately owned agricultural areas, which include both areas with natural characteristics that make them suitable habitat for listed species and areas without these characteristics. These latter areas are included because they are located contiguous to habitat to help form a continuum of landscape that can augment habitat values. The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect HSAs by the creation and transfer of Credits, resulting in the elimination of incompatible uses and the establishment of protection measures described in Group 1 Policies. Not all lands within the delineated HSAs are comparable in terms of their habitat value; therefore the index shall be used to differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation. Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that HSA lands score within a range of 0.6 to 2.2. There are approximately 1-3,890- 15,156 acres of cleared agricultural fields located in HSAs. The average Index score of IkS HSA designated lands is 1.3, however, the average index score of the naturally vegetated areas within HSAs is 1.5. Policy 3.3 Further protection for surface water quality and quantity shall be through the establishment of Water Retention Areas (WRAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. WRAs are delineated on the Overlay Map and contain approximately 18,200 acres. WRAs are privately owned lands that have been permitted by the South Florida Water Management District to function as agricultural water retention areas. In many instances, these WRAs consist of native wetland or upland vegetation; in other cases they are excavated water bodies or may contain exotic vegetation. The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect WRAs by the creation and transfer of Credits, elimination of incompatible uses, and establishment of protection measures described in Group I Policies. Not all lands within the delineated WRAs are comparable in terms of their natural resource value; therefore the index shall be used to differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation. Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that WRA lands score within a range of 0.6 to 2.4; approximately 74% score greater than 1.2 while 26% score 1.2 or less. The average Index score of WRA land is 1.5. Policy 3.4 Public and private conservation areas exist in the RLSA and serve to protect natural resources. Corkscrew Marsh and Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest include approximately 13,500 acres. Analysis shows that they score within an Index range of 0.0 to 2.2; with an average Index score of 1.5. Because these existing public areas, and 521Page Packet Pg. 208 9.A.1.d CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 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) a as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in FSAs in exchange for compensation to the property owner as 2 described in Policy 3.8. Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, other than those 0 necessary to serve permitted uses or for public safety, shall only be allowed in FSAs with a Natural Resource ca, 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 0 native habitats. Other layers may also be eliminated at the election of the property owner in exchange for m compensation. The elimination of the Earth Mining layer shall not preclude the excavation of lakes or other water a bodies if such use is an integral part of a restoration or mitigation program within a FSA. :.c Policy 3.6 Residential Land Uses listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in Habitat Stewardship Sending Areas in exchange m for compensation to the property owner as described in Policy 3.8. Other layers may also be eliminated at the o election of the property owner in exchange for compensation. -a Policy 3.7 (recommended amendment) c ca J General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses shall be allowed only on 3 HSA lands with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less. Conditional use essential services and N 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 c 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 c native habitats. In addition to the requirements imposed in the LDC for approval of a Conditional Use, such uses will only be approved upon submittal of an E49 Environmental Im act Statement EIS which demonstrates that a clearing of native vegetation has been minimized, the use will not significantly and adversely impact listed v 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 w practices of Audubon International's Gold Program and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. cc 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. a • Areas previously cleared shall be used preferentially to native vegetated areas. • Buffering to Conservation Land shall comply with Policy 4.13. > a� a: Policy 3.8 Compensation to the property owner may occur through one or more of the following mechanisms: creation and r transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition of conservation easements, acquisition of less than fee interest in the a land, or through other acquisition of land or interest in land through a willing seller program. o U Policy 3.9 (recommended amendment) a 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, 0 improved pastures for grazing and ranching, aquaculture [limited to Open Land designation only], and r similar activities, including related agricultural support uses. In existing Ag 1 areas within FSAs and a HSAs, all such activities are permitted to continue, and may convert from one type of Agriculture to another and expand to the limits allowed by applicable permits. Once the Stewardship Credit System is utilized and an owner receives compensation as previously described, no further expansion of Ag 1 will 531Page Packet Pg. 209 9.A.1.d CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 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 I areas, square up existing farm fields, or provide access to or from other Ag 1 areas, provided that the Ag 1 Land Use Layer has been retained on the areas to be incidentally cleared, and the Natural Resource Index Value score has been adjusted to reflect the proposed change in land cover. Incidental clearing is defined as clearing that meets the above criteria and is limited to 1% of the area of the SSA. In the event said incidental clearing impacts lands having a Natural Resource Index Value in excess of 1.2, appropriate mitigation shall be provided. Policy 3.10 Ag 2 includes unimproved pastures for grazing and ranching, forestry and similar activities, including related agricultural support uses. In existing Ag 2 areas within FSAs and HSAs, such activities are permitted to continue, and may convert from one type of Agriculture to another and expand to the limits allowed by applicable permits. Once the Stewardship Credit System is utilized and an owner receives compensation as previously described, no further expansion of Ag 2 or conversion of Ag 2 to Ag 1 will be allowed in FSAs or HSAs beyond existing or permitted limits within property subject to a credit transfer. Policy 3.11 (recommended amendment) 1. In certain locations there may be the opportunity for flow -way or habitat restoration. Examples include, but are not limited to, locations where flow -ways have been constricted or otherwise impeded by past activities, or where additional land is needed to enhance wildlife corridors. Priority shall be given to r-esteilatien wilhin the Camp Should a property owner be willing to dedicate land for restoration activities within a FSA or HSA the Camp Keais Stfand FSA er- Deus- HSAs, fey two additional Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated. shall be assigned for eaeh aer-e of land dedieated for- r-ester-atien aetivities witWn other- FSA9 and HSA9. The actual implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive such credits and the costs of restoration shall be borne by the governmental agency or private entity undertaking the restoration. Should an owner also complete restoration improvements, this shall be rewarded with €eur additional Credits for each acre of restored land upon demonstration that the restoration met applicable success criteria as determined by the permit agency authorizing said restoration. The additional Credits shall be rewarded for either caracara restoration at 2 Credits per acre, or for exotic control/burning at_4 Credits per acres, or for flow way restoration at 4 Credits per acre, or for native habitat restoration at 6 Credits per acre. Within the area proposed for restoration Land Use Layers 1-6 must be removed. The specific process for assignment of additional restoration Credits shall be included in the Stewardship District of the LDC. 2. in certain locations, as generally illustrated in the RLSA Overlay 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 be willing to dedicate land for the12=ose of establishing and maintaining the northern or southern panther corridor, 2 additional Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated Should an. owner also effectively complete the corridor restoration, this shall be rewarded with 8 additional Credits per acre. 3. In order to address a significant loss in Southwest Florida of seasonal, shallow wetland wading bird foraging habitat restoration of these uni ue habitats will be incentivized in the RLSAO. Dedication of aLay area inside an FSA, HSA. or WRA for such seasonal wetland restoration shall be rewarded with 2 additional Credits per acre Should the landowner successfully complete the restoration, and additional 6 Credits per acre shall be awarded Only one type of restoration shall be rewarded with these Credits for each acre desi rimed for restoration This policy does not preclude other forms of compensation for restoration which may be addressed through public -private partnership agreement such as a developer contribution agreement or stewardship agreement between the parties involved. Also not precluded are various private and publicly funded restoration programs 541Page Packet Pg. 210 9.A.1.d CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 such as the federal Farm Bill conservation programs. The specific process for assignment of additional restoratior, 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 publicfprivate conservation land include the land appropriate and necessary to accomplish the Goal pertaining to natural resource protection. To further direct other uses away from and to provide additional incentive for the protection, enhancement and restoration of the Okaloacoochee Slough and Camp Keais Strand, all land within 500 feet of the delineated FSAS that comprise the Slough or Strand that is not otherwise included in a HSA or WRA shall receive the same natural index score (0.6) that a HSA receives if such property is designated as a SSA and retains only agricultural, recreational and/or conservation layers within the matrix. Policy 3.13 (recommended amendment) Water Retention Areas (WRAs) as generally depicted on the Overlay Map have been permitted for this purpose and will continue to function for surface water retention, detention, treatment and/or conveyance, in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permits applicable to each WRA. WRAs can also be permitted to provide such functions for new uses of land allowed within the Overlay. WRAs may be incorporated into a SRA master plan to provide water management functions for properties within such SRA, but are not required to be designated as a SRA in such instances. However, if the WRA provides water treatment and retention exclusively for a SRA the acreage of the WRA shall be included in the SRA. WRA boundaries are understood to be approximate and are subject to refinement in accordance with SFWMD permitting. Policy 3.14 During permitting to serve new uses, additions and modifications to WRAs may be required or desired, including but not limited to changes to control elevations, discharge rates, storm water pre-treatment, grading, excavation or fill. Such additions and modifications shall be allowed subject to review and approval by the SFWMD in accordance with best management practices. Such additions and modifications to WRAs shall be designed to ensure that there is no net loss of habitat function within the WRAs unless there is compensating mitigation or restoration in other areas of the Overlay that will provide comparable habitat function. Compensating mitigation or restoration for an impact to a WRA contiguous to the Camp Keais Strand or Okaloacoochee Slough shall be provided within or contiguous to that Strand or Slough. Group 4 - Policies to enable conversion of rural lands to other uses in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas. Policy 4.1 Collier County will encourage and facilitate uses that enable economic prosperity and diversification of the economic base of the RLSA. Collier County will also encourage development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques and facilitates a compact form of development to accommodate population growth by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs). Incentives to encourage and support the diversification and vitality of the rural economy such as flexible development regulations, expedited permitting review, and targeted capital improvements shall be incorporated into the LDC Stewardship District. Policy 4.2 (recommended amendment) All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible for designation as a SRA, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been designated as a Stewardship Sending Area. Land proposed for SRA designation shall meet the suitability criteria and other standards described in Group 4 Policies. Due to the long-term vision of the RLSA Overlay, extending to a horizon year of 2025, and in accordance with the guidelines established in Chapter 163.3177(11) F.S., the specific Iocation, 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 551Page Packet Pg. 211 9.A.1.d CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 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 74,588 72,000 acres outside of the ACSC and apRroximglely 18,300 15,000 acres within the ACSC. Total SRA desigLiation shall be a maximum of 45,000 acres. ° . Because the Overlay requires SRAs to be compact, mixed -use and self sufficient in the provision of services, facilities and infrastructure, a traditional locational standards normally applied to determine development suitability are not relevant or 2 applicable to SRAs. Therefore the process for designating a SRA follows the prineiples of the Rura T ands 0 Ste -'wdship Aet as fui4 e- aeseri ed procedures set forth herein and the adopted RLSA Zoning Overlay District. ca Policy 4.3 (recommended amendment) L 0 Land becomes designated as a SRA upon petition by a property owner to Collier County seeking such designation m and the adoption of a resolution by the BCC granting the designation. The petition shall include a SRA master a 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 3 uses. Within ene ffem the eff-eetive date ef this Gellief- GeurAy LPG year- antendment, shall adopt amendments to N c J Policy 4.4 L Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved SRA. Such updates 3 N shall not require an amendment to the Growth Management Plan, but shall be retroactively incorporated into the N adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment process when it periodically occurs. c Policy 4.5 (recommended amendment) 0 To address the specifics of each SRA, a master plan of each SRA will be prepared and submitted to Collier C2 County as a part of the petition for designation as a SRA. The master plan will demonstrate that the SRA complies 0- with all applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District and is designed so that incompatible v land uses are directed away from wetlands and critical habitat identified as FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map. M To the extent practicable, the SRA Master Plan shall be consistent with the Count 's then-adol2ted Lonja Ranize Transportation Plan (LRTP), the County Build Out Vision Plan referenced in Policy 3.7 of the Future w Transportation Element and Access Management Rrocedures. Each SRA master plan shall include a Management Plan with provisions for minimizing human and wildlife interactions. Low intensity land uses (e.g. parks, passive recreation areas, golf courses) and vegetation preservation requirements, including agriculture, shall be used to establish buffer areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated by human activities. Consideration shall be given to the most current guidelines and re_aations on techniques to reduce human wildlife conflict. The managementplans 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. Policy 4.6 SRA characteristics shall be based upon innovative planning and development strategies referenced in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. and 9J-5.006(5)(1). These planning strategies and techniques include urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area -based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, and mixed -use development that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services. The SRA shall also include a mobility plan that includes consideration of vehicular, bicycle/pedestrian. public transit internal circulators, and other modes of travel/movement within and between SRAs and areas of outside development and 561Page Packet Pg. 212 9.A.1.d CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 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 SR.As shall also consider the needs identified in the County Build Out Vision Plan and plan land uses to accommodate services that would increase internal capture, and reduce trip length and long distance travel. Such development strategies are recognized as methods of discouraging urban sprawl: encouraging alternative modes of transportation, increasin internal capture and reducing vehicle miles traveled. Policy 4.7 (recommended amendment) There are four three specific forms of SRA permitted within the Overlay. These are Towns, Villages, HawAets, 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. establish ner-e-s Specific regulations, guidelines and standards within the LDC Stewardship District to guide the design and development of SRAs to include innovative planning and development strategies as set forth in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. and OJ-5.046(5)(1). The size and base density of each form shall be consistent with the standards set forth on Attachment C. The maximum base residential density as set forth in Attachment C may only be exceeded through the density blending process as set forth in density and intensity blending provision of the Immokalee Area Master Plan or through the affordable -workforce housing density bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element. The base residential density is calculated by dividing the total number of residential units in a SRA by the overall area therein. The base residential density does not restrict net residential density of parcels within a SRA. The location, size and density of each SRA will be determined on an individual basis during the SRA designation review and approval process. Policy 4.7.1 (recommended amendment) Towns are the largest and most diverse form of SRA, with a full range of housing types and mix of uses. Towns have urban level services and infrastructure that support development that is compact, mixed use, human scale, and provides a balance of land uses to reduce automobile trips and increase livability. Towns shall be not less than 4-,809 1,500 acres or more than 4,4W 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 Rark and ride area that is appropriately located within the town to serve the connection point for internal and external public transportation. Towns shall have at least one community park with a minimum size of 200 square feet per dwelling unit in the Town. Towns shall also have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Towns shall include both community and neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratie as primed described in Policy 44S 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 shallbeincluded in the LDC Stewardship District. Towns shall not be located within the ACSC. Policy 4.7.2 (recommended amendment) Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and nix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be not less than 100 acres or more than 1,000 acres inside the Area of Critical Concern and not more than 1,500 acres outside the Area of Critical Concern. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed -use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages shall include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15. Appropriately scaled uses described in Policy 4.7.4 shall also be12emitted in Villages. Villages are an appropriate location for a full range 571Page Packet Pg. 213 9.A.1.d CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located adjacent to each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. Design criteria for Villages shall be included in the LDC Stewardship District. PolieQ.. y 4.7.3—(recommended deletion) eriented sefyiees. 14a"ets shall be not less than 40 or- mer-e than 100 aer-es. Hamlets will sen,e as a ffiere eermpaet Ha"ets are small fffal r-esidential areas with primarily single faw�ily hatising and lifilited range ef eenvemenee L ' o' less, may be appreved as SRAs pfie m Villageto the appFeval of a a' in eeffibinafien wit L Town, ' Q GRDs of inn aer-es or le y b pp veld eh sWas q ent Village r Town. Policy 444 4.7.3 (recommended amendment) Compact Rural Development (CRD) is a form of SRA that will previde f!c„b:" h Speet to th i o shall support and further Collier County's valued attributes of agriculture natural resources and economic diversity. CRDs shall demonstrate a unique set of uses and support services necessary to further these attributes within the RLSA Primary CRD uses shall be those associated with and needed to support research education tourism or recreation. ARpropriately scaled compatible uses described in Policy 4.7.4 may also be permitted in CRDs. A CRD may include, but is not required to have permanent residential housing. and the services and f ..;1;.ies that ..,,ppe. + peFaiaftent 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 acres. sen,iees that 9uppai4 residents sueh as retail, effie mmewal afid instittAiettal uses shall also not b 100 aer-es er- less to Villages and Tew I 'han 5 GR4)s ef 100 aer-es of less, in eembina6eft with. HawAetsj may be appreved as SRAs prior- te the appfeval ef a Village er- Tewn, and ther-eafter- not mer-e than 5 additional. CRDs ef 100 aer-es er- less, in eembinatien with l4awAets, maybe appr-eved for- eaeb stibsequent an Attaehmew G based on the size of the GRP, As residential tiffits a ir-ed use, these goods and There shall be no more than 5 GRDs of inere thaft 100 aeFes in s.ze. The appr-epr-iateness ef Otis limitatien shall ber-eviewed in G yearspufs..t ate. Pel; 1 22 Policy 4.7.4 (recommended new policy) Existing, urban areas, Towns and Villages shall be the preferred location for business and industry within the RLSA, to further promote economic development diversification and job creation Permitted uses shall include but not be limited to environmental research a igr cultural research aviation and aerospace health and life sciences, corporate headquarters computer hardware, software and services information technology, manufacturing, research & development, wholesale trade & distributions technology commercialization and development initiatives, trade clusters, and similar uses. Policy 4.8 An SRA may be contiguous to a FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in Policy 4.13. A SRA may be contiguous to and served by a WRA without requiring the WRA to be designated as a SRA in accordance with Policy 3.12 and 3.13. 581Page Packet Pg. 214 9.A.1.d CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 Policy 4.9 (recommended amendment) A SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development in an environmentally acceptable manner. The primary means of directing development away from wetlands and critical habitat is the prohibition of locating SRAs in FSAs; and HSAs, a-�a—ems. 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 o serve permitted uses may be exempt from this restrictionprovided that designs seek to minimize the extent of im acts to aLly such areas. The Index value of greater than 1.2 represents those areas that have a high natural resource value as measured pursuant to Policy 1.8. Less than 2% of potential SRA land achieves an Index score of greater than 1.2. Policy 4.10 (recommended amendment) Within the RLSA Overlay, open space, which by definition shall include public and private conservation lands, underdeveloped areas of designated SSAs, agriculture, water retention and management areas and recreation uses, will continue to be the dominant land use. Therefore, open space adequate to serve the forecasted population and uses within the SRA is provided. To ensure that SRA residents have such areas proximate to their homes, open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, ar Village. , er there GRDs emeeeding 100 aeres. 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 a SRA, leeated eetside ef the AGSC, exceeding the required thirty-five percent shall not be required to consume Stewardship Credits. Policy 4.11 The perimeter of each SRA shall be designed to provide a transition from higher density and intensity uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property. The edges of SRAs shall be well defined and designed to be compatible with the character of adjoining property. Techniques such as, but not limited to setbacks, landscape buffers, and recreation/open space placement may be used for this purpose. Where existing agricultural activity adjoins a SRA, the design of the SRA must take this activity into account to allow for the continuation of the agricultural activity and to minimize any conflict between agriculture and SRA uses. Policy 4.12 Where a SRA adjoins a FSA, HSA, WRA or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map, best management and planning practices shall be applied to minimize adverse impacts to such lands. SRA design shall demonstrate that ground water table draw down or diversion will not adversely impact the adjacent FSA, HSA, WRA or conservation land. Detention and control elevations shall be established to protect such natural areas and be consistent with surrounding land and project control elevations and water tables. Policy 4.13 Open space within or contiguous to a SRA shall be used to provide a buffer between the SRA and any adjoining FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map. Open space contiguous to or within 300 feet of the boundary of a FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land may include: natural preserves, lakes, golf courses provided no fairways or other turf areas are allowed within the first 200 feet, passive recreational areas and parks, required yard and set -back areas, and other natural or man- made open space. Along the west boundary of the FSAs and HSAs that comprise Camp Keais Strand, i.e., the area south of Immokalee Road, this open space buffer shall be 500 feet wide and shall preclude golf course fairways and other turf areas within the first 300 feet. 591Page Packet Pg. 215 9.A.1.d CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 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 _SRAapproval, an SRA proposed to adjoin land designated as an SRA or lands designated as Open shall provide for the Mortunity 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 so as to reduce travel time and travel Menses, improve interconnectivity, increase internal ca ture and keo the use of county arterial roads to a minimum when traveling between develol2ments in the RLSA. Public and private roads within an SRA shall be maintained by the Drima1y town or community it serves. Signalized intersections within or adjacent to an SRA that serves the SRA shall be maintained by the Rrimary town or community it serves. No SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA designation. A transportation impact assessment meeting the requirements of Section 2.7.3 of the LDC, or its successor regulation shall be prepared for each proposed SRA to provide the necessary data and analysis. To the extent re uired to mitigate an SRA's traffic im acts actions may be taken to include, but shall not be limited_ to, provisions for the construction and/or permitting of wildlife crossing environmental mitigation credits, right of way dedication(s), water management and/or fill material which may be needed to expand the existing or 12rol2osed roadway network. Any such actions to offset traffic im acts 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 that are anticipated to be expanded or constructed. Policy 4.15.1 (recommended amendment) SRAs are intended to be mixed use and shall be allowed the full range of uses permitted by the Urban Designation of the FLUE, as modified by Policies 4.7, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3, 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. By example, each Village or Town shall provide for neighborhood retail/office uses to serve its population as well as appropriate civic and institutional uses, however, the combined population of several Villages and may be required to support community scaled retail or office uses in a nearby Town. Standards for the minimum amount of non-residential uses in each category are set forth in Attachment C, and shall be also included in the Stewardship LDC District. Policy 4.15.2 The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) may, as a condition of approval and adoption of an SRA development, require that suitable areas for parks, schools, and other public facilities be set aside, improved, and/or dedicated for public use. When the BCC requires such a set aside for one or more public facilities, the set aside shall be subject to the same provisions of the LDC as are applicable to public facility dedications required as a condition for PUD rezoning. Policy 4.15.3 Applicants for SRA designation shall coordinate with Collier County School Board staff to allow planning to occur to accommodate any impacts to the public schools as a result of the SRA. As a part of the SRA application, the following information shall be provided: Number of residential units by type; 2. An estimate of the number of school -aged children for each type of school impacted (elementary, middle, high school); and 601Page Packet Pg. 216 9.A.1.d CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 3. The potential for locating a public educational facility or facilities within the SRA, and the size of any sites that may be dedicated, or otherwise made available for a public educational facility. Policy 4.16 (recommended amendment) A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or such infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand. The level of infrastructure provided will depend on the form of SRA development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC requirements. The capacity of infrastructure necessary to serve the SRA at build -out must be demonstrated during the SRA designation process. Infrastructure to be analyzed includes transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, and solid waste. Transportation infrastructure is discussed in Policy 4.14. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities are required in Towns and, —Villages, emd these GRD9 e3teeeding one hundred (100) aer-es 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 pennitted in Hamlets may be permitted in CRDs of 100 acres or less in size. Policy 4.17 The BCC will review and approve SRA designation applications in accordance with the provisions of Policy 1.1.2 of the Capital Improvement Element of the GMP for Category A public facilities. Final local development orders will be approved within a SRA designated by the BCC in accordance with the Concurrency Management System of the GMP and LDC in effect at the time of final local development order approval. Policy 4.18 (recommended amendment) The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year based on a cost/benefit fiscal impact analysis model acceptable to or as may be adopted by the County. The BCC may grant exceptions to this policy to accommodate affordable -workforce housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the analysis shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards. It is recognized that SRA development in the RLSA may generate surplus revenues to Collier County and Collier County may choose to allocate a portion of such surplus revenues to ensure that sufficient resources are available to allow Collier County to respond expeditiously to economic opportunities and to compete effectively, for high research, development and commercialization, innovation, and alternative and renewable energy business projects. Policy 4.19 (recommended amendment) Eight Credits shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA, where such Credits were created from a Stewardship Sending Area deemed vested under the eight Credit ratio. Ten Credits per acre shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA. where such Credits were created from any other Stewardship Sending Area. eNeeptfor- e- _Open space in excess of the required thirty-five percent as described in Policy 4.10 or for land that is fi1 1 Page Packet Pg. 217 9.A.1.d CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 designated for a public benefit use described in Policy 449 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, 445 4.15.1 and Attachment C. Such uses shall be identified, located and quantified in the SRA master plan. a Policy 4.20 (recommended amendment) The acreage of a 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: 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, apA HawAets subject to applicable zoning and permitting requirements. Policy 4.21(recommended amendment) Lands within the ACSC that meet all SRA criteria shall also be restricted such that credits used to entitle a SRA in the ACSC must be generated exclusively from SSAs within the ACSC. Further, the only form of SRA allowed in the ACSC east of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be 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 aftd GRD9 of not more than 300 acres amass. Provided, however, that CRDs. or two Villages or- C-RBs of not more than 500 acres each, exclusive of any lakes created prior to the effe tine dare e f t1 fi .........n.,men June 30, 2002 as a result of mining operations, shall be allowed in areas that have a frontage on State Road 29 and that, of the afF etiv . date of these ....,.....a_.,..._`,., had been predominantly cleared as a result of Ag Group I or Earth Mining or Processing Uses. This policy is intended to assure that the RLSA Overlay is not used to increase the development potential within the ACSC but instead is used to promote a more compact form of development as an alternative to the Baseline Standards already allowed within the ACSC. No policy of the RLSA Overlay shall take precedence over the Big Cypress ACSC regulations and all regulations therein shall apply. Policy 4.22 (recommended new policy) When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA through the SRA desiggation 12rocess, the applicant in conjunction with the Florida Division of State and Historic Resources will assess the historic or cultural si2nificance and explore the educational and public awareness opportunities regarding significant resources. Group 5 - Policies that protect water quality and quantity and the maintaining of the natural water regime and protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats on land that is not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area program. Policy 5.1 (recommended amendment) To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime in areas mapped as FSAs and designated Restoration Zones on the Overlay Map prior to the time that they are designated as SSAs under the Stewardship Credit Program . , Residential Uses, General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses (layers 1-4) as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated_ in Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, except those necessary to serve permitted uses or for public safety, shall eta not be allowed in FSAs. 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. 621Page Packet Pg. 218 9.A.1.d CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 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 a the ACSC, all ACSC regulatory standards shall apply, including those that strictly limit non-agricultural clearing. [L Policy 5.3 To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime and to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats in areas mapped as FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs on the Overlay Map that are not within the ACSC, if a property owner proposes to utilize such land for a non-agricultural purpose under the Baseline Standards referenced in Policy 1.5 and does not elect to use the Overlay, the following regulations are applicable, shall be incorporated into the LDC, and shall supercede any comparable existing County regulations that would otherwise apply. These regulations shall only apply to non-agricultural use of land prior to its inclusion in the Overlay system. Policy 5.4 (recommended amendment) Collier County will coordinate with appropriate State and Federal agencies concerning the provision of wildlife crossings at locations determined to be appropriate. A map of these potential crossing locations will be developed within 12 months of the effective date of the Growth Management Plan Amendment and used in evaluating community, cultural and historical, and transportation planning for the RLSA including all SRAs described in Group 4 Policies. Policy 5.5 (recommended amendment) For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, non-agricultural development, excluding individual single family residences, shall be directed away from the listed species and their habitats by complying with the following guidelines and standards: 1. A wildlife survey shall be required for all parcels when listed species are known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site or where listed species or -protected species are directly observed on the site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidelines. The County shall notify the FFWCC and USFWS of the existence of any listed species or protected species that may be discovered. 2. Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species shall be submitted for County approval. A plan shall be required for all projects where the wildlife survey indicated listed species are utilizing the site, or the site is capable of supporting wildlife and can be anticipated to be occupied by listed species. These plans shall describe how the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed species or protected species and their habitats. b.Management plans shall incorporate proper techniques to protect listed species or listed species and their habitats from the negative impacts of proposed development. The most current and completed data and local, state, and federa guidelines and regulations shall be utilized to prepare the required management plans. used to establish buffier v&eas between wildlife habitat arws and areas dewAfifited by huffiall a eT Provisions such as fencing, walls, or other obstructions shall be provided to minimize development impacts to the wildlife and to facilitate and encourage wildlife to use wildlife corridors. Appropriate roadway crossings, underpasses and signage shall be used where roads must cross wildlife corridors. Mitigation for impacting listed species habitat shall be considered in the management 121ans, as appropriate. Region,i. The fellewing Fefer-enees shall be used, as appropriate, te pr-epe&e the required managenwat 6. Habitat Management Guideliffes fer- the Bald Eagle in the Southeast USFWS, i 997. 631 Page Packet Pg. 219 9.A.1.d CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 Pepulatiens feund on hands Slated fer- Lafge Seale Development in FIE)fida, T-eehnieal g. ei4 ter, n Fier -:a,, r`aRie and z•_n �. �>;ratef cir Ge f?n�issi__ 198; �i....,., ..�,. �, ❑x�aarv,:srrr wAl., l ..,Jll .. wl..l ,. , , 8. Eeelegy and Development Related Habitat Requirements ef the Fler-ida Serub Jay (Apeleeenta eeefuleseens), T-eelH+ieal Repei4 Ne. 8, Fier-ida Game and Fresh Water Fish G,.wunn: ., 1991. Spa Paulus) s' =-Loge-seele Development Sites in Flefida, Nefigame T'niefti. Oi7QCf Game and Resh UIVl Fish i. ii- The County shall consider any other techniques recommended by the USFWS and FFWCC, subject to the provision of paragraph 3 of this policy. ii. iii-. When listed species are directly observed on site or indicated by evidence, such as denning, foraging, or other indications, a minimum of 40% of native vegetation on site shall be retained, with the exception of clearing for agricultural purposes. The County shall also consider the recommendation of other agencies, subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 of this policy. b.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 waster disposal methods) that enable responsible coexistence with wildlife, while minimizing opportunites for negative ineraction such as appropriate waste disl2osal practices c.The Management Plans shall contain a monitoring_proaam for developments greater than ten acres. .. .0. W IWON ! - 641P age Packet Pg. 220 9.A.1.d CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 - ' - - I . - • IN fV --MUM IN - - ' . . 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 eentaip�ng utilized by listed species. It is recognized that these agency recommendations, on a case by case basis, may ehange stren hen the requirements contained within these wildlife protection policies and any such change shall be deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan. However, no reduction of the wildlife protection policies of Policy 5.5will be considered as these shall constitute minimum standards for wildlife protection. Policy 5.6 (recommended amendment) For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, Collier County shall direct non-agricultural land uses away from high functioning wetlands by limiting direct impacts within wetlands. A direct impact is hereby defined as the dredging or filling of a wetland or adversely changing the hydroperiod of a wetland. This policy shall be implemented as follows: 1. There are two (2) major wetlands systems within the RLSA, Camp Keais, Strand and the Okaloacoochee Slough. These two systems have been mapped and are designated as FSA's. Policy 5.1 prohibits certain uses within the FSA's, thus preserving and protecting the wetlands functions within those wetland systems. 2. The other significant wetlands within the RLSA are WRA's as described in Policy 3.3.These areas are protected by existing SFWMD wetlands permits for each area. 3. FSAs, HSAs and WRAs, as provided in Policy 5.3, and the ACSC have stringent site clearing and alteration limitations, nonpermeable surface limitations, and requirements addressing surface water flows which protect wetland functions within the wetlands in those areas. Other wetlands within the RLSA are isolated or seasonal wetlands. These wetlands will be protected based upon the wetland functionality assessment described below, and the final permitting requirements of the South Florida Water Management District. a. The County shall apply the vegetation retention, open space and site preservation requirements specified within this Overlay to preserve an appropriate amount of native vegetation on site. Wetlands shall be preserved as part of this vegetation requirement according to the following criteria: i. The acreage requirements specified within this Overlay shall be met by preserving wetlands with the highest wetland functionality scores. Wetland functionality assessment scores shall be those described in paragraph b of this policy. The vegetative preservation requirements imposed by Policies 5.3 and 5.5 shall first be met through preservation of wetlands having a functionality assessment score of 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method score of 0.7, or 651CP'a Packet Pg. 221 9.A.1.d CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 greater. Within one year from the effective date of this Amendment, the County shall develop specific criteria in the LDC to be used to determine those instances in which wetlands with a WRAP functionality assessment score of 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method score of 0.7, or greater must be preserved in excess of the preservation required by Policy 5.3. ii. Wetlands and contiguous upland buffers that are utilized by listed species, or serving as corridors for the movement of listed species, shall be preserved on site. Wetland flowway functions through the project shall be maintained. iii. Proposed development shall demonstrate that ground water table drawdowns or diversions will not adversely change the hydoperiod of preserved wetlands on or offsite. Detention and control elevations shall be set to protect surrounding wetlands and be consistent with surrounding land and project control elevations and water tables. In order to meet these requirements, projects shall be designed in accordance with Sections 4.2.2.4.6.11 and 6.12 of SFWMD's Basis of Review, January 2001. Upland vegetative communities may be utilized to meet the vegetative, open space and site preservation requirements of this Overlay when the wetland functional assessment score is less than 0.65. b. In order to assess the values and functions of wetlands at the time of project review, applicants shall rate functionality of wetlands using the South Florida Water Management District's Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP), as described in Technical Publication Reg-001, dated September 1997, and updated August 1999, or the Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method, identified as F.A.C. Chapter 62-345. The applicant shall submit to County staff agency -accepted WRAP scores, or Uniform Wetlands Mitigation Assessment scores. County staff shall review this functionality assessment as part of the County's EIS provisions and shall use the results to direct incompatible land uses away from the highest functioning wetlands according to the requirements found in paragraph 3 above. c. All direct impacts shall be mitigated for pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (f) of this policy. d. Single family residences shall follow the requirements contained within Policy 6.2.7 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. e. The County shall separate preserved wetlands from other land uses with appropriate buffering requirements. The County shall require a minimum 50-foot vegetated upland buffer abutting a natural water body, and for other wetlands a minimum 25-foot vegetated upland buffer abutting the wetland. A structural buffer may be used in conjunction with a vegetative buffer that would reduce the vegetative buffer width by 50%. A structural buffer shall be required abutting wetlands where direct impacts are allows ed. Wetland buffers shall conform to the following standards: i. The buffer shall be measured landward from the approved jurisdictional line. ii. The buffer zone shall consist of preserved native vegetation. Where native vegetation does not exist, native vegetation compatible with the existing soils and expected hydrologic conditions shall be planted. iii. The buffer shall be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. iv. The following land uses are considered to be compatible with wetland functions and are allowed within the buffer: (3) Passive recreational areas, boardwalks and recreational shelters; (2) Pervious nature trails; (3) Water management structures; (4) Mitigation areas; (5) Any other conservation and related open space activity or use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses. v. A structural buffer may consist of a stem -wall, berm, or vegetative hedge with suitable fencing. f. Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts to wetland in order to result in no net loss of wetland functions. Mitigation Requirements: 661Page Packet Pg. 222 9.A.1.d CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 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 Dlaced under a pmetual conservation easement with 12=etual maintenance requirements. 4v 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 PIant Council. Land uses allowed in these areas shall be limited to those listed above (3.e.iv.) and shall not include any other activities that are detrimental to drainage, flood, control, water conservation, erosion control or fish and wildlife habitat conservation and preservation. 4. All landowners shall be encoura eg d to consider participating in any programs that provide incentives, funding or other assistance in facilitating wetland and habitat restoration on private lands including, but ut not limited to, federal farm bill a igr cultural conservation programs,_ private or public grants, tax incentives, easements and fee or less than fee sale to conservation Rroaams. Policy 5.7 (recommended new Policy) Any development on lands not participating in the RLS program shall be compatible with surrounding land uses. Outdoor liahting shall be reasonably managed to protect the nighttime environment conserve energy, and enhance safety, and secudW. Policy 5,8 (recommended new Policy) When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA the applicant in conjunction with the Florida Division of State and Historic Resources will assess the historic or cultural significance and explore the educational and public awareness opportunities regarding significant resources. 671Page Packet Pg. 223 9.A.1.d CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 Stewardship Overlay Map 681Page Packet Pg. 224 9.A.1.d CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 EXISTING ATTACHMENT A ... STEWARDSHIP CREDIT WQRKSHEET Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Stewardship Credit Worksheet Appendix H rr.:.aei• Simardshlp Croft Matrix b U. t+... a... -- h i..r».w...w.. 7wwwtlr�y M.r.w NMeuu wa.. rr•a. err: r +rrw—sww 4st,-•-••••_+•••1 W rtl Mrr} --wrr».arw 1'ariRe�rve Index Scores ."kqjjj �.vm. ssrrrraewa . i Arllw �r��Y°'aly _._ AM�M.OwM�um.vw IwMrsr�� W fi�1 +ew _ wwarw.-vrr � �,a:7 w R.C91Gw wwRwRrrnwlclb�s 2 •wd �MN�WI,4M�tb.IbM�YN Wlmmrip.�inlbyY�u,.a.sapw ��wyNhYaerrr rrwNrmF,m.Q... tTw�wyb p.wivp�.p��yryea...t} priw0la wd� ylr r.en..e s�hn..ewr.A..owg.wr� nwwnrrr ai�N+,.arc..sso.�knev++.^�^w.aacnch�wwerbl+rtlhmr.warati.ala nwa.arl.�e r� I pp �rhp re reu..p lion M1awltdlb. � gprw -Oar 1 p{,yµ.. gl}gpl Ws lg6w. • (irarY ; C-1 hOx.fo4 NrtralPdos a�--c..m. x �o aer�c,.dK I 691Patj Packet Pg. 225 9.A.1.d CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT TO ATTACHMENT A ... STEWARDSHIP CREDIT WORKSHEET 'lireetre. Mole. /'.F.tore 1fach= a ftm., 14 mvstwe hteW'Yewwmlie Atp INSAi _ tvo.� Retw�Yat1 Ara tAlt.� Aar.. d CMte15iW Cmpwn IAts_, F�aw of M WOW _ _ betllne __ bnNe..d F'J.•1t$rlwYdiq d�' Y.1P.t 3001r1 w FSA a NSA 03 000 NN of.,Aft ar PhM RYWYe Mrd +•w oaf M abbn beMat obw PeYd Iteew hwwt wew Waw wetw-dM "^•�'...'>• sale •ye.fTSa 1 Wlls mremal oatborrpbretwV wen .rv®r yWwWa arrd � realorMen w.Y 12?- hwdfKbrw-ereY _ rated 1par.M rp1m.U. Map trrr of M above �t-au..=lrwcaY:F - rttwa_5 Ce!L*, V 2 'uxu Coda :.e.F 3 '_UCCS Cpda-' 44 Craeueeltw 7.W r f N l V Recommended Revision to Allaehm*M A Collier Courtly RLSA Stewardship Credit Workshest PraP 1 .�.adlaahb PrM.Otbte tYr y Lends ti M ACSC ra largo WWI& ftAcgu— AwfflbiktritsVYua -- dedb6on _ a1.p 3 ca..ua vLtst a:R i-aaatirtn� _- SqP 7.a d trebeat ar.w txendw L-w v" Meemx tto b MYNt L.4 UN V" b e. eehl{eNAd R*00.tY U— e,x o. "a coeaso w us.e e.z Erin mliy and U..s 0; AWW ua Iw 01 Oro z Us.s 0.1 Ft—*don.ae N0,, r F,— U.e. p,0 CumWIM tetel el Land IIM YNtAn NxTMel.e stewwWblp melt Cahrdeffen hPmeeeeni N*h" R— hd" VeMee Plop 1• M NRI V Ov each pmw of lab is rala4Md by M Sf.. ft* model bet.d M NRI F.pare, SteP 1.L Det.mt a M*A SendnO AW 6*4 UM LOYete * W 4Wn dial and wm M LW1d UN Valle. slap 1.b. UN UN NMIIaI ResalAm SMwMdpYp Credb Faerreq W dtt.ttrine r.Anpee M Cntxm. AokW t, L&W AWwS0e Se.P L D.tennxte M*M ag Wit.. rW- b we t.M M bgPOe sap 2-tb. the Ae1Lb—St—dabp Cr.A Fpimxa b dof w. nuteber Or GedlU A'es V.We Aa WW. Sap 3. Select Rp "u" D.6c bm Sbp 3... D.t .m .OYth tss" Won erlrAly list M kW—. AW Prep UL tN. M Rt Wpm Formula b dtl—AW raneet of G— Stewardship Credit Formulas Natural Resources Stewardship credits = Am x cumulative NRl score x cumdatm Land Use Value Agriculture Stewardship credts (d appRa*) =Acres x Agriculture Value —� ResWation Credits (d applicable) = Acres x ( 2 + Restoration Value) Note: This Worlmhett is imsWed to ilustrate the Fadon, Values, FplrMdas all Irnhuclions used to rakWate Stewardship Credits. To properly +.*Mate Stewwdehlp Credits. the Natural Resource. hMex Map and Stewardship model must be used alorV wlh the applicable RLSA policies 701Page Packet Pg. 226 9.A.1.d CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 ATTACHMENT B-LAND USE LAYERS [StFike-thFOUgh IS proposed deletion] 4.08.06 B.4.b Land Use Matrix (P=Permitted: A=Accessory; CU= Conditional Use) (Laver 1) (Laver 2) (Laver 31 (Laver 4) (Laver 5) (Laver R) rl avar 71 n aver Al Residential General Earth Mining Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture Conservation, Land Uses Conditional and Recreational Group 1 - Support Uses Group 2 Restoration and Uses Processing Uses Uses Natural Resources Single-family Family care Excavation, Golf courses Crop raising; Farm labor housing Unimproved Wildlife management, dwelling, Incl. facilities (P) extraction or andlor golf horticulture; (A) posture plant and wildlife mobile home earthmining and driving fruit and grazing, conservancies, refuges P) related ranges and nut forestry and sanctuaries (P) processing (CU) production; (P) and production groves; (CU)nurseries; Improved pasture P Mobile homes Collection and Asphaltic and Sports Animal breeding Retail sale of fresh, Ranching; livestock Water management, ((P) in MH transfer sites for concrete batch Instructional (other than Unprocessed raising (P) groundwater recharge Overlay; (A) as resource making plants schools and livestock), agricultural (P) temporary use] recovery (CU) camps (CU) raisingproducts; (CU) training, grown primarily on tabling or the kenneling (P) property (A) Private veterinary clinic Sporting and Dairying, Retail plant Hunting cabins Restoration, mitigation boathouses (CU) Recreational beekeeping; nurseries (CU) (P) and camps (CU) poultry and egg (CU) docks on lake, production; milk canal or production (P) waterway lots A Recreational Child care centers Asuasu lure for Packinghouse or Cultural, Water supply, well facilities and adult day care A010Y similar agricultural educational, fields integral centers processing of farm or recreational (P);oil and gas to residential products produced facilities and their exploration (P) development, native species) on related modes of e.g., golf the property (A) transporting course, participants, clubhouse, viewers community or patrons; tour center building operations, such and tennis is, facilities, but not limited to parks, alrboats, swamp playgrounds buggies, horses and and playfields (Al similar modes of transportation CU Guesthouses Zoo, aquarium, The commercial Sawmills (CU) Excavation and Boardwalks, nature A) aviary, botanical production, raising related processing trails garden, or other Dr incidental to Ag(A) (P) similar uses (CU) breeding or exotic animals CU Churches and Wholesale reptile Natural resources not other places of breeding and otherwise listed (P) worship (CU) ising non -venomous (P) and venomous(CU) Communications Essential services (P towers (P)(CU) and CU) Social and Oil and gas field Fraternal development and organizations (C) production (CU) Private landing strips for general aviation (CU) Cemeteries (CU) chools (CU) i,relti6es, oup care ALF CU Note to Attachment B: The removal of land use layers yields Stewardship Credits measured on a per acre Basis. 71 [Page Packet Pg. 227 9.A.1.d CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 TTMca CharadertaRes Slzo (Gran Aorta) Re Wes" Un" (DU*) Per wM ass boo dermity Raider" "ouolrg Styles M.*l Floor Aron Rabb or kWerrity Goods and Servkss wow and Wa .Aww Ransauon and Open Spars C-W. Gowrrawral ad Imttul ,.f SaWoes Attachment C-Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics [final and approved] AtWhlT*W C Collier County RLSA Overlay StewardsMP Receiving Area Chwactariatics Torat' VqIar 1,000-s,000 saes 100-1.00DWa- 14 W s Per gsau sae- 14 Dl" Per gross sae^ Full range of aigla farrky and muu•IsnYFy Dlvardy of eigN 6nily.ld mrid•gm horKlrg type, atybs, kM elz.s Igrrirq tyW, uyks, bt a@es Rahrd B OfBne Raid SONG - .5 CWWGO—an rotMullon-.a CMdGewrrsnarrl n*ftt M-.0 MWaAdWWW .15 Groue Fkrdrq-,45 St[4.iR±W fbg-.s5 TnruNra i ,w.w..28 ups net -T'nrrlea Ledai g - 20 Up. at Tarn Carer vA11 Ccmaalky and N09hbodred Gonda ww Swvlm In T V Wgs CwtW with NNghbo&oW Gsac and VA.ga Cwdaa: hsrinllm s5 SF gmu am Sarwc.s kl Y4gs Centers: AQrins; WkSnp ores P.r Du:.f�e9tds, 25 SF grog busdhp eras pw DU Cwdrakad ordeesnralxod aorwr.a0ly CaMraked or dwAWak.d edmmuih trermaot syatom aadm W�t�u�.r ¢...u. wearrreri systems km dm WM C2AW Corrrltnity Parka (200 SFIDU) and Pais d Public Crean Spaces wfn NakhbahWde (nriinsarr 1 % of prop ¢'.c1 ParU s Public Gram SP.ees vdn N*hbortwd. Ad" Lakes Own SPaa "Auras, 35%of SRA Lakes open Spsa Mklhwm 35%of SRA Wkla RW" of sw.feaa - miirrwm 1s sl Auto • ewwmnrged ayalm of oofa local made: requlrad cau tbn to cau -dada 7raneponaeon I IMercorurtlad abawak ad PKSM JI Cour" Twm Aacasa Nw.Nt Compact Rural Dowt"trram 40-100 sass^ lad Actes a leas- ONAw Thar 100 ACM.- 112-2 DU Pa gross -a- V2.2W Per gran acre-•• 14 DUa Par gross aps^` Skgle FartglLfDd,�py ( sbals Fames eM krr.ed +U .. T•^-• C: _��Na��y.,ts Groue Hausrq. ,45 ImftlMt �t..n..w.. 29 up net - 1adP0' .a5 - 25 ups nel r1A11tkfs.L,^�^'^a • 28 un Ca I"rig' a Gootls art Swldaa: Milim n ComenWm Goode and Swr kft! kkrkn Wago Coma With NaghhortOod Ge 10 SF area 1>updbg area Per W 10 SP grove bukdkg eras pw OU and sw-'Oft In Vilage Cwrtaz: 6AMn 25 $F groan buWig wu Aer W lndMdea WOM arrd S"fic System; InOhMral WM end Sept,, s", Qi2i"'Odo,romoorlrrned Cenfnkzed or d—Oaa--W oamsn rraarmwit aWW treahrwd walwm Putlle l2k- $Psa for Neighbwhcaft (nllninum l%dgraa anal Public Gram Space for Nafghbomaods (milYnum l%Mgress ease) laerin Wes aM C-+� Parlu s Pubk G— S, saa w'n N.igbbodloods (miinum 7%ef arse arsrrl lake GP. S. kirhrnwn 36%of sRA Modsrala Raga of SerAae - rrinkiwan 1 SFIDU: - SFIDII FWI Rarw nl C�w..r. Pre-I(Lrim ..h FEW-•c - PMKlhmu+ Aulo-inlaamectad eyaam of ookeae Auto and local uiad n.ction b AIM - IMaarprw,yad ayetam o1 Ioca road AyW . IMacennadad syaem of bal ro and "00 roaga; rsgtMad _ of colsoi eornactbn i cc WJer a wlwla IMwoomxtad aldawak end pahsrsy iywaP Padeatrtan par." Podeshlan Patt-y, hoo oom.aal side-k and patt." Eaaedwn irate � ayNem C Trare A_— Tonne are prob bW WNn the ACSC, Par po0eyl.7.1.1 the Goers, Oojeei,, and Pok ba. Villages. Nemleta, and DCnvkdrdRUra 4pnlarMswflrit tM ACW. AjW b bestbn and.tza Ynrkr40rla. pa Poky aprrd a. subject to Chapter 2&25. FAC. ears t>♦ inaeesW Barra low gh V. Al W W. a PMP Danaky Bonus or Through 0r dwray bl.Mhg pmvfpapw pokcf d.7 Tlrqu8s, fanirGWoed usarraa4}sntkl. resitlaNial uses a11ek bdWesPmpadabnot. support aW�Joas. UrldelTtl.d ue® es rrt regrirad use. aiwMen.aaw 721Page Packet Pg. 228 9.A.1.d CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900O02292 Size It Residi Reside Maxim Goods Water: Recrea Civic, C. Transw Attachment C-Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics [Recommended Amendment] [Proposed] Typical Characteristics Town' Village Compact Rural Development 3ross Acres) 1,500-5.000 acres 100-1,500 acres— 100 Acres or less- mlial Units (DUs) per gross acre base dens ty 1-4 DUs per gross acre— 1-4 DUs per gross acre— 112 -2 DU per gross acre— mtial Housing Styles Full range of single family and multi -family Diversity of single family and multi-famill housing types, styles, lot Sizes housing types, styles, lot Sizes Single Famikv and limited multi -family"' Retail & Office - .5 Retail & Office - .5 Retail & Office- .5 Civic/Govemmentalfirislitution - .6 CivictGovemmenladlnstitution -.6 CiviclGovemmental lnslitution- .6 um Floor Area Ratio or Intensity Man ufactt rinalUght I_ ndystnal..45 Group Housing-.45 Group Housing- .45 Group Housing- .45 Transient Lodoing- 26 upa net Transient Lodaing- 26 upa net Transient Lodging- 26 upa net Town Center with Community and and Services Neighborhood Goods and Services in Town an I Village Center with Neighborhood Good Research, Education,Touhsm & RecreaU Village Centers: Minimum 65 SF gross buildii g and Services in Village Centers: Minimum Convenience Goods and Services- Minimu area per DU Comorale Offi .d�d�r" 25 SF gross building area per DU 10 SF gross building area per DU and Light Industrial Centralized or decentralized community Centralized or decentralized community Individual Well and Septic System; Centralized or decentralized ommunity snd Wastewater treatment system treatment systems treatment system _Interim Well and Septic Intorn Well andc Community Parks (200 SFlDU) Parks & Public Green Spaces win Neighborhoods (minimum 1 % of gross Public Green S g pace for Neighborhoods ate (minimum 1 % of gross acres) Parks & Public Green Spaces win Active RecreationlGolf C1 urses - Neighborhoods tion and Open Spaces Lakes -Alive RecreatiWGolf Courses Open Space Minimum 35% of SRA Lakes Open Space Minimum 35% of SRA Wide Range of Services - minimum 15 SF/D1 J Moderate Range of Services - minimum 1 L mited Services �ovemmental and Institutionat Services SF/DU; Full Range of Schools Full Range of Schools Pre l( through Elementary Sch Is Auto • interconnected system of collector an Auto - interconnected system of cwlleclo local roads; required connection to collector r and local roads; required connection to Auto - interconnected system of local road arterial collector or arterial xtation Interconnected sidewalk and pathway syster o Interconnected sidewalk and pathway pedestrian Pathways ys County Transit Access Eauestrian Trails Eauestrian Trails County Transit Access Towns are prohibited within the ACSC, per policy 4.7.1 of the Goals. Objectives, and Policies. Villages and Compact Rural Developments within the ACSC are subject to location and size limitations. per policy 4,22. and are subject to Chapter 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 proportalonate support services. Undedinsduses are not required uses. 731 Page Packet Pg. 229 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 C;o)#-Ijte-r Cou"ty Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Restudy White Paper Prepared by the Growth Management Department, Community Planning Section Staff May 21, 2019 Packet Pg. 230 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 o elTr 00941HItyy _5j Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Restudy White Paper Table of Contents Paqe Tableof 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 Paqe 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 TableB-4: SRA Acreage............................................................................................16 RLSA Restudy White Paper Packet Pg. 231 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Paqe 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 Remainingfor 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 Paqe Figure A-1: Stewardship Overlay Map............................................................................7 Figure B-1: RLSA Adoption Map..................................................................................13 Figure B-2: Ave Maria TDR Transactions Credits............................................................17 Figure C-1: Adopted RLSA Overlay Features.................................................................26 Figure C-2: RLSA Elevations......................................................................................27 Figure C-3: RLSA Surface Drainage............................................................................27 Figure C-4: Collier County Hydrology...........................................................................31 Figure D-1: 2012 FLUCCS Land Use — Agriculture Land...................................................36 Figure D-2: Agriculture Economic Impact to Collier County...............................................37 Figure D-3: Economic Considerations for Growers..........................................................38 RLSA Restudy White Paper ii Packet Pg. 232 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Paqe 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 FigureF-1: Town Transect.........................................................................................66 Figure F-2: Vehicle/Panther Collisions..........................................................................75 RLSA Restudy White Paper Packet Pg. 233 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Go (i Asir Compity Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay White Paper Definitions (LDC Section 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 one additional Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as SSA in an HSA located outside of the ACSC and one-half Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as SSA in an HSA located inside the ACSC. The early entry bonus expired for SSAs created after 2009. Fallow. Farmland that is not currently being farmed but has been in the past and could be in the future. FSA - Flowway Stewardship Area. Lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay Map, which primarily include privately owned wetlands that are located within the Camp Keais Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough. FSAs form the primary wetland flow way systems in the RLSA District. Future Land Use Map (FLUE). Map of the adopted and amended areas within the RLSA.. HSA - Habitat Stewardship Area. Lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay Map, which include both areas with natural characteristics that make them suitable habitat for listed species and areas without these characteristics. These latter areas are included because they are located contiguous to habitat with natural characteristics, thus forming a continuum of landscape that can augment habitat values. Land Use Layer. Permitted and conditional land uses within the Baseline Standards that are of similar type or intensity and that are grouped together in the same column on the Land Use Matrix, "Attachment B". Layers are removed in order from higher to lower intensity and include: Residential Land Uses, General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, Recreational Uses, Agriculture - Group 1, Agriculture — Support Uses, Agriculture - Group 2, Conservation. Land Use Matrix (Matrix). The tabulation of the permitted and conditional land uses within the Baseline Standards set forth in "Attachment B", with each Land Use Layer displayed as a single column. RLSA Restudy White Paper v Packet Pg. 234 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. RLSA Restudy White Paper v Packet Pg. 235 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 o elTr 00941HItyy _5j 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. Packet Pg. 236 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. Packet Pg. 237 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 activities, 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 define 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 Packet Pg. 238 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 a 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 Packet Pg. 239 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 "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. Q 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 Packet Pg. 240 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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.coiliercountyfl.gov/vour-government/divisions-a-e/comprehensive-planning/rural- land-stewardship-area-rlsa-overlay-program/-fsiteid-1. Packet Pg. 241 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D 9.A.1.e PL201900002292 Figure A-1 COLLIER COUNTY RURAL & AGRICULTURAL AREA ASSESSMENT (STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY MAP) ra a s� a2 v rt SSA 11 0 a m 7 SSA'9 AMENDED - JANUARY 25, 2007 Ord. No 20fl7-1& AKIENM - 07DER 14 2008 Ord. No. 2008-59) AMENDED - SEPTEMBER 13. 1011 6r, . Na 2111-26f AMEN3FD - JUNE 13. 2D17 C D rd. No. 2917-22 BE 1 RD ACSC iRA ACSC ACSC ACSC BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL FOREST 1-75 Legend W y Majur Roads Suwardship Areas ISPk.g ` A". 500 F rl(�p a RA bbl Re91m i Ar r Rrra of Crifiul Sla@ C.— III♦ FI—W51—M.rllp Area IF SA) +� - Fkh11Ba[ Slewartlshq Area (NSA] Q 1 L 4 SMwardxhip Rcreiuwg 0.rya y$RA VYa[er HeLenBm Area{WHA] Miles ® Sm rd hip8rnding Ar JSSA) Open — Big Cypress Nxb W F-1 Packet Pg. 242 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 Packet Pg. 243 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 a 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: httDs://www.colliercountvfl.aov/vour-aovernment/divisions-s-z/zonina-division/communitv- Dlannina-section/rural-lands-stewardshiD-area-restudv/rural-lands-stewardshiD-area-restudv- 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/vour-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 Packet Pg. 244 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. ■ ■ / Packet Pg. 245 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. Packet Pg. 246 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D Go r �ol>tt, _5 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay White Paper B. Data Update Acreage and Credits Program Acreage Calculations 9.A.1.e PL201900002292 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] Packet Pg. 247 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D Figure B-1 ,co►z. RLSA ADOPTION MAP 9.A.1.e PL201900002292 l{aloecoochee Slough SIMS Fm•9st du .2 � Carkscraw Reglnal �'/ff//�� Ecosystem Watersh fff/J - WRA J I KE TRAFFORD RL +Fr AIN ST W 5' CR ad8 !` FSA a WRA IF F Y A Lti WRA 56 c / f o s HSA HSA a Big Cypress National Preserve PUBLIC LAND ACRES N-S-A 1,616 Packet Pg. 248 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 1 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 Total Acres SSA Acres Pending Percentage of Designation 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 Packet Pg. 249 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 Packet Pg. 250 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 Public Benefit Total Planned Goods and SRA Designation Acres Uses (Acres) Acreage Gross Services Density 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 Packet Pg. 251 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. Q Figure B-2 AVE MARIA TDR TRANSACTIONS CREDITS 7 1 - r---] .1 1 � AN E �C.�o LEGEND RLSA BOUNDARY ® SSA CREDITS TO AV E MARIA SRA MAVE MARIA SRA STEWARDSHIP AREAS: NAME 500 FOOT BUFFER ACSC FLOW WAY HABITAT WATER RETENTION 0 1 2 4 N Miles j s Packet Pg. 252 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 Q under staff review. Both are submitted as Villages. S 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. Packet Pg. 253 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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] Packet Pg. 254 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Table B-7 Summary of Credits Transferred and Utilized for the Town of Ave Maria and Credits Remaining for Future Use Q 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 Base Early R-1 Total Credit R-2 SSA # Acres Credits Entry Credits Potential Credits 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. Packet Pg. 255 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Table B-9 Stewardship Sending Areas with Amendments Pending Additional Credits R-2 Credits SSA # Acres Base Credits under App under App under 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 7,789.1 20,392.8 21,662.0 App. Credits 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% I 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. Packet Pg. 256 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. Packet Pg. 257 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. Q 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.E 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 Packet Pg. 258 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Table B-12 (Continued) Amount and Types of Restoration in SSAs 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 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% Packet Pg. 259 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Go (11 it ir Compity 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 Packet Pg. 260 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee. These Overlay features encourage development outside important flowways and wetlands. Figure C-1 Adopted RLSA Overlay Features FSA kr HSA HSA Carkscr.w Feglonal Eceeystem Wacersh ,,. WRA q HSA SA FSA WRA L.;KA ysr. WRA HSA WRA } „" ✓��%/ WRA/f WRA WRA /f WRA HSA HSA HSA WRA B19 Cypre%%National Preserve HSA WRA S ' Plerlda PaWMr Legend National Wlltlllle PBfugp S1a-ard�hiP Araaa Qrd�a±dPL4AP��h. Qso .o osoraror oa nr�..r uwra wr.car� -�ewr n ei � rm we na O 1 2 Sta. P.rk Miles a w Fckahcichae Preserve Park reE. 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. Packet Pg. 261 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 Packet Pg. 262 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. Q 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 Packet Pg. 263 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 Packet Pg. 264 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. Q 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. Packet Pg. 265 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 a 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 Frrze 9rachn' M)j to Chkww 64"Ry S. ppzv *2W swoo Wei r-OA? (gog-) Cxt -i er 5 ® &20LJ h Yar Apt* =rmrrrce +kC� � iai•a Yfaxr AG-+Jn Other conservation programs include low -flow fixture enforcement, stepped water use rates, leak detection systems, asset management systems, irrigation restrictions, and education Packet Pg. 266 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. Q 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." Packet Pg. 267 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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] Packet Pg. 268 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 RLSA Public WorkshoD Summ Stormwater Management Staff Stakeholder and community input Water Resources, 9/27/18 [web workshop page] Five Year Review Recommendations [web library] Packet Pg. 269 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 _5CZ-;o er Comnay 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] Packet Pg. 270 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Figure D-1 2012 FLUCCS LAND USE -AGRICULTURAL LAND Q Packet Pg. 271 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 a 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 OF/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 OF/IFAS study, 2015. The positive economic impact of farming in Collier County exceeds $4 billion annually. Along with economic significance, the importance of food security, local sourcing and employment were all factors mentioned by the public. Figure D-2 Agriculture: Economic Impact to Collier County Dir �t sales D Collier ($M) Crop, Livestock, Forestry and Fisheries Ag-Inputs & Services Food Mfg. Food Distribution Forest Prod Mfg. Nature — Recreation Mining Total Source: Alan W Hodges, UF11FAS/FREE, 2015 Agricultural and Natural Resource Sectors Direct Sales and Total Economic Impact, 2013 Total Economic Impact Value Added Business Taxes Jobs UIFIRYERpS I_ �l Y^f Yr IFAS�FaV.nslon`uV Packet Pg. 272 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 OF/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 Grower Prices Juice Oranges Bx $10.00 $5.77 - $9.92 (on -tree, 220 bx) Tomatoes Ctn (1,400 ctns) $12.50 $4.95 - $32.95 Bell Peppers 5u $18.50 $5.35 - $51.65 (1,000 1lul) UFIFiciRmA IFAS E.-iwi 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. Packet Pg. 273 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 Packet Pg. 274 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 Packet Pg. 275 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. Q 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, OF/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] Packet Pg. 276 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 _5Cz-;o er ot*ntty 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 Packet Pg. 277 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. Packet Pg. 278 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 e,C-1 RLSA STATUS MAP March, 2019 Packet Pg. 279 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D 9.A.1.e PL201900002292 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 CoerCaxnty RLSA APPROVED AND PROPOSED MAP Fol Hy le Park River rass— W RA W RA VVRA HSA Big Cypress National Preserve Legend r ACRESHSA) 40,000(FSA) 31,000 iWater(WRA) 18,000 iEa r 500r Restore Area 1 800 0pen Area 95,000 We TOTAL 1135,800 Packet Pg. 280 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 Packet Pg. 281 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 Packet Pg. 282 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. Packet Pg. 283 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. Q As noted in the data summary, above, a large number of credits have derived from R-1 restoration designation. Only a small portion of that designated area has received R-2 restoration completion credits. This is not to say that restoration activities are not underway in other locations. The overall amount of earned and potential restoration credits seems to be out of balance with the base credits in the program. As a percentage of approved SSAs, the earned restoration credits are already at 55% of the base credits (38,461/70,210). This percentage does not reflect the completion of most of the restoration work and would be much higher if successful completion results. The program allows amendments to SSAs for additional restoration. Thus, SSAs 14-16 have submitted amendment applications for another 49,844 credits based on restoration potential and completion. If we consider only the restoration designation (R-1) credits, those result in a figure that is 95% of the SSA designation credits when looking at SSAs 1 through 16, without requiring any actual completion. In other words, R-1 designation credits have doubled the credit compensation to landowners who have created SSAs, without the necessity to complete the restoration projects. The result if restoration is successful in all designated and applied for SSAs, which we certainly hope obtains, would be 116,838 credits or 166% of the base credits. If projected through the remaining targeted stewardship designated areas at the same rate, we would add roughly 95,594 additional credits for restoration. Such a projection would result in a credit balance, as between these two types, as follows: • Base (SSA) credits 127,432 • R-1 and R-2 credits 212,432 Meanwhile, only 34% of the existing SSA acreage is proposed for restoration at this time. The regulations do not prohibit owners from amending SSA applications at any time to earn additional restoration credits in areas not previously identified for restoration. In practice, applicants have sought R-1 designation for exotic vegetation removal on the basis of listed species enhancement, rather than performing this maintenance function under the terms of the SSA easement. As indicated in the recommendation above, at least a minimum exotic maintenance standard should be included in all SSAs. 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. Packet Pg. 284 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 Packet Pg. 285 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. Q 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 Packet Pg. 286 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. Q 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 Iandcover 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 Packet Pg. 287 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 • 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 Packet Pg. 288 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 • 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 1-75 • 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 Packet Pg. 289 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 • 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? Packet Pg. 290 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. Packet Pg. 291 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 regarding listed species." Ultimately, through a final biological opinion and incidental take permit, the Service must decide whether to issue, issue with conditions, or deny the HCP application. The County supports the professional judgment employed by the USFWS staff. USFWS takes primary responsibility for enforcement of the federal Endangered Species Act. In passing, staff notes two points captured from the final application for the HCP plan. First, where preservation is ultimately determined to be appropriate, conservation easements will be placed on the land to secure this preservation in perpetuity. A state agency, either FDEP or FFWCC, will hold the easement. Importantly, the federal government through USFWS will hold third party enforcement, further securing the obligations in parallel with County easements. Packet Pg. 292 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 t• r� 1 _. "... FIG URE 2-1 St Figure E-4 HCP Exhibit Primary/Secondary panther Habitat, SW Florida <! Lakc � Oke ecbob ee i - - Cf of i Mex,�o �9�9 pa°,>,q°Fo�nb ASP, Prmary Za ne ` rsscondary lnnc Arspe.sar lone Binary oRperseU Fxpenvon Area Orspersal Padiwe ys j \`� P21Ly na kewa mrsnr Aica Boundary caxaLy`maadary wamr _.,._.._....._..... FIGURE 4-1 :,_.,.....,- �y a•an _ usFws aamr�rzonas vgonai row ..,., �A', Packet Pg. 293 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Figure E-5 below illustrates panther telemetry points over 3 decades. Figure E-5: HCP Exhibit Panther Telemetry Since 1981 FIGURE 4-5 4^ V Stantec - P.M. Rodin to �� pDoto-xega,flV w -� LA 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, Packet Pg. 294 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. Q 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 Packet Pg. 295 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D 9.A.1.e PL201900002292 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 i - � t � � G r r _ C K r > Fi A 1J IM N 1 Legend Panther collision holspols as of Jan. 2018 syalbolln 3b e� M9. rfgpr ltOBd B IL 1 N D - Packet Pg. 296 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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] Packet Pg. 297 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 _5CZ-;o er ot*ntty 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 % 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 Packet Pg. 298 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 • 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 20t" 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. Packet Pg. 299 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 Packet Pg. 300 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. Figure F-1 Town Transect Source: DPZ CoDESIGN 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 '/4 mile of these mixed -use areas should be established and required, Packet Pg. 301 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 a neighborhood areas. 2 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 Packet Pg. 302 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. Q Require minimum densities within a % mile of a Town Center, Town Core or Village Center. Based on the SmartCode v.9.2, those areas (center/core plus % 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, Packet Pg. 303 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 public or private post -secondary institutions, excess (over required) acreage within community parks and government facilities (excluding essential services). Excess open space is not well defined, and consideration should be given to removing this exemption from the use of credits. On paper, it may appear that open space beyond the required 35% would be a benefit to people and the natural environment. In practice, it appears that this reduction in "credit cost" is incentivizing poor land planning, including "sausage lakes" with long cul de sacs, golf courses and the like. Open space should be carefully defined, and no exemption should be given for excess open space. 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 Packet Pg. 304 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 persons to be employed within an SRA. Availability could be measured both on and off -site. Off -site accommodation required an estimate of commuting length, time, and cost. A plan was required to address any shortcomings. As an example, the Town of Big Cypress, following its inventory and needs analysis, committed to providing 500 moderate income units and 732 Low Income units under the Collier County definitions. In return, they requested eligibility in trip count adjustments, impact fee deferral 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. Packet Pg. 305 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. Packet Pg. 306 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. Packet Pg. 307 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. Q 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). Packet Pg. 308 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 The 5-year Review recommended a Mobility Plan as a component of the SRA Master Plan. The Mobility Plan would include "vehicular, bicycle/pedestrian, public transit, internal circulators, and other modes of travel/movement within and between SRAs and other areas of outside development and land use." Strategies might include "bus subsidies, route sponsorship, or other incentives which encourage the use of mass transit services." Importantly, the mobility plan would demonstrate "land uses to accommodate services that would increase internal capture and reduce trip length and long-distance travel." Internal mobility planning should address FDOT's "complete streets" program, including the accessibility and safety characteristics, for pedestrian movement, bicycle travel, neighborhood electric vehicles, and other motorized carriers. Safe street crossings and traffic calming designs should also be included. Separated pathways should be favored for some modes, depending on context. Transit infrastructure, including bus shelters and transit cut-outs, should be required in Town Core, Town Center and Village Center areas. In terms of fiscal impact, the 5-year Review clarifies that all internal roads, both public and private, should be built and maintained by the SRA that they serve. External mobility should be demonstrated through connection points to adjacent or future SRAs and other developments. These are best accommodated by having an internal network that is a grid of local collector roads. Require Mobility Plans as a component of an SRA Master Plan, with specific components as identified in the LDC. Additional LDC components should include specification in the Master Plan to provide depictions of local streets to demonstrate connectivity. 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. Packet Pg. 309 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Figure F-2 Vehicle/Panther Collisions Gulf of Mexico - Vehicle Related Injury ■ Vehicle Related Mortality �l Rural land Stewardship IUI Area Boundary County Boundary Water H Wildlife Crossing ■ Lake Okeechobee Figure 4-3 m ®... Stantec W Panther -Vehicle Collisions, 1972-2017 �\ Packet Pg. 310 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 a 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 0' slower speeds in rural areas. Along with lower speed limits, traffic calming and enforcement L measures would be necessary. a a 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 3 needs, including goods, services, entertainment, civic uses, and employment within the same in geographic area. This is consistent with the smart growth philosophy. c J Provide needed wildlife underpasses inside and outside of SRAs, and lower speed limits on L collector and arterial roadways for human safety and wildlife preservation. N 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) Packet Pg. 311 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 o elTr 00941HItyy _5j Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay White Paper G. Credit System Analysis and Recommendations This Credit System portion of the White paper is intended to (1) 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 Dart 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. Packet Pg. 312 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. "Public benefit acres" TOTAL. 2002 Plan Estimate in 2009 SRA acres: 3,375 Credits: 27,000 Acres: 3,940 SRA Acres: 43,315 Credits: 315,000 Packet Pg. 313 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 a 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 Packet Pg. 314 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 1) 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. Packet Pg. 315 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 SRA Development Footprint (8 credits/acre) 322,980 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 Packet Pg. 316 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. Packet Pg. 317 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 _5CZ-;o er County 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 Packet Pg. 318 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. Packet Pg. 319 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 oelTr >tt,r _5� 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. Packet Pg. 320 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. Packet Pg. 321 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 Require minimum densities within a % mile of a Town Center, Town Core or Village Center. Based on the SmartCode v.9.2, those areas (center/core plus % 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. Packet Pg. 322 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. Packet Pg. 323 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. Packet Pg. 324 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D CQ&e,r Count y Appendix A 9.A.1.e PL201900002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Restudy Public Outreach - Meeting Summaries January 2018 - March 2019 Packet Pg. 325 CCPC Transmittal Hearing 4Z' O �� /� ��rt PL201900002292 �17�1ty Meeting Summarya. a RLSA Restudy "Kick-off' Meeting c� Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM, North Collier Regional Park, Exhibit Hall aD 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 Packet Pg. 326 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy "Kick-off' Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 2 Packet Pg. 327 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy "Kick-off' Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM 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 Societyjoined 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 3 Packet Pg. 328 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy "Kick-off' Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM 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: www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 4 Packet Pg. 329 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy "Kick-off' Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM • 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, www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 5 Packet Pg. 330 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy "Kick-off' Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 6 Packet Pg. 331 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy "Kick-off' Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM 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 acreage, 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 www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 7 Packet Pg. 332 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy "Kick-off' Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 8 Packet Pg. 333 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy "Kick-off' Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 9 Packet Pg. 334 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy "Kick-off' Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM 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 isjust 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 10 Packet Pg. 335 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy "Kick-off' Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM • 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 11 Packet Pg. 336 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy "Kick-off' Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 12 Packet Pg. 337 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy "Kick-off' Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM 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. OF/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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 13 Packet Pg. 338 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy "Kick-off' Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM 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 www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 14 Packet Pg. 339 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy "Kick-off' Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 15 Packet Pg. 340 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy "Kick-off' Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 16 Packet Pg. 341 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing CvR--Po-r i54�:"t PL201900002292 y Meeting Summary a a 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: Packet Pg. 342 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting — General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM Gavlene 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 www.coIIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 2 Packet Pg. 343 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting — General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM 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 www.coIIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 3 Packet Pg. 344 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting — General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM 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 www.coIIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 4 Packet Pg. 345 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting — General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM 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 www.coIIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 5 Packet Pg. 346 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting — General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM 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. Layers 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. www.coIIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 6 Packet Pg. 347 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting — General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM 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 policies 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 rlsarestudv@collierRov.net and confirmed that written comments can be submitted, and they will be addressed. www.coIIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 7 Packet Pg. 348 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting — General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM 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 M resources. a www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 8 Packet Pg. 349 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting — General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM 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 www.coIIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 9 Packet Pg. 350 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting — General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM 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? www.coIIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 10 Packet Pg. 351 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting — General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM 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 Red • Consensus: Super majority should be required for all approvals. • Barriers to consensus: Not enough knowledge base to ensure alternatives that result in responsible development. • 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. www.coIIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 11 Packet Pg. 352 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting — General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM 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@collierRov.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. www.coIIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 12 Packet Pg. 353 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 CO%��`76Y COTi17'lt y 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 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 roundtobles, 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. Packet Pg. 354 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting — Protection of Agricultural Lands March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM 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 www.colIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 2 Packet Pg. 355 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting — Protection of Agricultural Lands March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM "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 a a 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 a 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. N c J Mr. Van Lengen said one feedback item from participants was that the prior workshops got too L 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 a Mr. Van Lengen anticipates the opportunity for the audience to identify the policy issues to N N discuss. 0 as Mr. Van Lengen introduced Dallas Townsend, who formerly worked for IFAS and is now a celebrity. 0 N Mr. Van Lengen acknowledged the participation of IFAS, and noted the success of their recent a agricultural tour. N Iq 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 www.colIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 3 Packet Pg. 356 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting — Protection of Agricultural Lands March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM 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. Q a c� 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 0 in Lee County at that time. a 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 N page. _J L 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 a pesticide to kill the ticks every fourteen days, which was expensive. The cattle dipping program N N 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 N 1940, noting the dipping vat is still there. a Mr. Townsend explained that screwworms became a problem for the cattle industry in the 1930s. N The female screwworms laid eggs on the umbilical cord of calf and at flesh upon birth, killing the v 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. N Mr. Townsend presented maps of Collier County showing the geographic coverage of the cattle f, industry in 1923-1996. He said that cattle reached 40 cents per pound in the 1940s. In 1949 a 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 N 80 cents per pound, and two years later prices dropped to 15 cents per pound. He summarized as that the cattle industry has had its ups and downs. vai, 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 www.colIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 4 Packet Pg. 357 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting — Protection of Agricultural Lands March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM 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 a a 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 a� 0 pineapple was grown in Everglades City and Marco Island. During that time vegetables had to be a grown on the coast or river because of the lack of interior roads. In 1921, the railroad made its a 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. 3 m 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 N 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 N N seen today. o a� Before World War II the soils in the pine and palmetto woods areas were highly acidic with a ph N of 4.5 or less. However, research showed that adding limestone or high calcium lime to the soil a could raise the ph and allow vegetables to grow. There was a massive use of this type of terrain CN for farming after World War II. M r 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 N that is in Immokalee, now known as the Southwest Florida Agriculture Research Center, which Dr. Nt W Calvin Arnold now directs. L �. a 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). o r a 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 c 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 a www.collierizov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv(@colliergov.net Page 5 Packet Pg. 358 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting — Protection of Agricultural Lands March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM 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, a a 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 0 part of the Roberts Ranch property. ;v a 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 N 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 www.colIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 6 Packet Pg. 359 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting — Protection of Agricultural Lands March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM 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, OF/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. www.colIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 7 Packet Pg. 360 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting — Protection of Agricultural Lands March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM 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 a a 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 a new state specialized agent in food safety, which is a big issue for vegetable growers and citrus a growers. Regulations needs to be sensible and logical. L 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 Cn food quality assessment lab for the accelerator. This will serve the entrepreneurs looking to N commercialize food products, such as sauces. _J L 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 a Immokalee, Dr. Kelly Morgan. N N Dr. Arnold said Dr. Wade started conducting research to better understand the economics of 0 0 BMPs. Asking farmers to carry out practices must be economical for the farmer, otherwise it is 0 N not a realistic BMP. a Dr. Arnold explained that water farming is storage of water on agricultural lands. Florida has about N M 55 inches of rainfall per year. That rainfall needs to be stored because it pollutes estuaries. Storing r fresh water inland helps the public collectively. Payment for Environmental Services (PES) is N storing rainfall inland. If landowners are expected to store water on their farmland then it's Nt realistic they should be paid for it. This program involves dispersed waters, not large reservoirs. W f, It makes the owner's land wetter, increases the water level which creates less land for cattle and a 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. N 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 www.colIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 8 Packet Pg. 361 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting — Protection of Agricultural Lands March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM 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 a a 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 0 land left. Whatever is proposed, it needs to be economically feasible for the agricultural ;v landowner. Water is the common denominator and is really important to agricultural landowners. a 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 3 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 IFAST' Mr. Arnold N 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 OF N passed through to IFAS. Faculty has worked hard preparing grant proposals and contract N proposals. Federal grants come from the United States Department of Agriculture and Florida o 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 0 N 60% of funding comes from private contracts and grants. a Another audience member asked, "In relation to water storage on farm lands, is the water then N M used for irrigation in dry season?" Dr. Arnold responded that normally the water would not be r pumped back and used for irrigation. Depending on the design of the individual system, it is N 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 a 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 OF 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. o www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 9 Packet Pg. 362 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting — Protection of Agricultural Lands March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM 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 www.colIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 10 Packet Pg. 363 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting — Protection of Agricultural Lands March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM 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. www.colIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 11 Packet Pg. 364 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting — Protection of Agricultural Lands March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM 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 www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 12 Packet Pg. 365 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting — Protection of Agricultural Lands March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM 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 a captured to help identify themes that emerge in these discussions. a c� She said the point of the exercise is the dialogue and discussion of divergent opinions. The meeting attendees convened in working group discussions. o>' Dr. Evans reconvened, and the group representatives reported on their discussions as follows: a a Yellow/Green/Red Group The Yellow/Green/Red Group reached consensus that the importance of agriculture ranks as a 10. 3 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. J 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 N to protect and preserve lands in the program goal. N 0 0 An action item identified by the Group was: "Where does this actual conversion happen?" There a is a policy need for protection and smart planning to prevent urban sprawl. Include details in the N plan to incentivize agricultural land owners to keep their land. a- N 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. o� There were no barriers to consensus for this group. N L Blue/White Group Q. 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 www.collierizov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv(@colliereov.net Page 13 Packet Pg. 366 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting — Protection of Agricultural Lands March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM 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 aftertowns 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 14 Packet Pg. 367 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 CO%��`76Y COTi17'lt y a a Meeting Summary RLSA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting Protecting Natural Resources o 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 241h 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, Packet Pg. 368 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting — Protecting Natural Resources April 26, 2018, 6:00 PM 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 2 Packet Pg. 369 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting — Protecting Natural Resources April 26, 2018, 6:00 PM 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 www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 3 Packet Pg. 370 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting — Protecting Natural Resources April 26, 2018, 6:00 PM 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 4 Packet Pg. 371 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting — Protecting Natural Resources April 26, 2018, 6:00 PM 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 5 Packet Pg. 372 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting — Protecting Natural Resources April 26, 2018, 6:00 PM 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 a restored? www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 6 Packet Pg. 373 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting — Protecting Natural Resources April 26, 2018, 6:00 PM 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 7 Packet Pg. 374 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting — Protecting Natural Resources April 26, 2018, 6:00 PM 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. a a Policies 3.13 and 3.14 relate to water retention areas (WRAs). These areas can be used for c� 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? www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 8 Packet Pg. 375 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting — Protecting Natural Resources April 26, 2018, 6:00 PM (c) Please identify any additional information that would help in your assessment, such as costs or standards. a a 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 9 Packet Pg. 376 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting — Protecting Natural Resources April 26, 2018, 6:00 PM 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 www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 10 Packet Pg. 377 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting — Protecting Natural Resources April 26, 2018, 6:00 PM an explanation for the restoration activity benefits. Look at land being lost to both conservation and development because it's no longer available for agriculture. IV Next Meeting and Adjourn Dr. Evans thanked everyone for their participation. She said that all the comments and feedback would be recorded and available. She invited the audience to provide feedback through comment cards and email if there the audience had items there were not able to discuss today or thought about later. Dr. Evans gave a reminder for next month's meeting scheduled for May 24 at the same venue (North Collier Regional Park, Exhibit Hall) and mentioned that a panther expert will be speaking. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 11 Packet Pg. 378 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 CO%��`76Y COL17'lt y 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 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. a www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 1 Packet Pg. 379 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting — Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2) May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM 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? www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 2 Packet Pg. 380 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting — Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2) May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 3 Packet Pg. 381 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting — Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2) May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM 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 Grou 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 www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 4 Packet Pg. 382 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting — Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2) May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM using a planning approach to locate towns accordingly. This approach is supportive of panthers and might extend the panther's life. a a The Brown Group members asked when should Collier County reevaluate the primary and c� 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 5 Packet Pg. 383 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting — Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2) May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 6 Packet Pg. 384 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting — Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2) May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM 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 1-75. 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 www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 7 Packet Pg. 385 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting — Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2) May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 8 Packet Pg. 386 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting — Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2) May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM 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 verifythere 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 www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 9 Packet Pg. 387 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting — Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2) May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM 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 Serivice 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 10 Packet Pg. 388 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting — Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2) May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM 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 www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 11 Packet Pg. 389 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting — Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2) May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM 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 www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 12 Packet Pg. 390 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting — Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2) May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM 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 www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 13 Packet Pg. 391 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting — Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2) May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM habitat. The big decline of deer population in the southern areas of Big Cypress National Preserve south of U.S. 41 is likely due to hydrology, water releases, and the increasing native (panther) and non-native (Burmese python) large predator population. Availability of prey is a social issue because people assume the issue is caused by the panther. Habitat improvement and burning can help ameliorate prey decline. Mr. Shindle added that the University of Georgia and FWC is conducting a south Florida deer study to examine deer dynamics in south Florida across three study areas to find better ways to monitor the deer, and to look at factors affecting deer survivability including impacts of the panther. Brad Cornell asked about the issue with compensation to ranchers for depredation. Is the problem that ranchers are not interested in the program or funding sources? Mr. Shindle replied that the Conservancy of Southwest Florida will compensate for calf losses. The issue isn't funding, but rather the roadblock is the design of the system that requires verification of loss, verification it was due to a panther, and basis of the losses on a percentage criterion. Changes are required to the farm bill and down. The rules are tough and can change. It is required to establish a beginning inventory based on pregnancy checks which is costly, the inventory at time of sale, and then calculation of loss. In the past veterinary checks was an acceptable measure of inventory. Three applications were denied this year because the veterinary pregnancy verification method is no longer acceptable. This drives frustration and the program doesn't work for ranchers. Ranchers must provide so much documentation and then the payment is only 75% of the loss. It's necessary to design a new program. A collaborative approach might work similar to the coexistence councils. For example, the Mexican wolf livestock coexistence council is a group of stakeholders including agencies, NGOs and ranchers. They use funds from the Livestock Demonstration Project Fund allocated by Congress. The council makes their own rules and pays out based on the criteria they set. The new budget has language for the wolf livestock demonstration project legislation including the option to evaluate this program for the panther. This program involves collaborating with the state, which is not a problem. Mr. Shindle added that the FSA Livestock Indemnity Program will always be available. The issue of the panthers snatching money from the ranchers' pockets needs to be addressed. Mr. Shindle advocates for building rancher receptivity. Ranchers north of the river are watching what is happening in south Florida with the lack of compensation and incentives. An attendee mentioned water recharge, noting the panther preserve is already in an impaired watershed. There is so much development in the priority panther habitat. The information presented by Dr. Frakes suggests there is far less priority panther habitat than originally estimated. Issues with ranchers, development pushing panthers to ranches, and development creating less food sources is a recipe for disaster. The situation looks very grim. Mr. Van Lengen ended the meeting at 8:15. He thanked everyone for their participation and invited attendees back for the next meeting at the South Library. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliergov.net Page 14 Packet Pg. 392 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 CO%��`76Y COTi17'lt y Meeting Summary RLSA Restudy Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts August 23, 2018, 6:00-8:00 PM, South Regional Library 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, www.colIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliercountyfLgov Page 1 Packet Pg. 393 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM 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 www.coIIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@coIIiercountyfLgov Page 2 Packet Pg. 394 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM 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 1-75 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. www.coIIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@coIIiercountyfLgov Page 3 Packet Pg. 395 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM 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 Coordinatorfor 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 www.coIIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@coIIiercountyfLgov Page 4 Packet Pg. 396 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM 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. Q The twelve counties of District 1 were assessed to determine truck trips. Almost 500,000 truck a c� 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 0 that move. Mr. Robbins explained that the study included the assumption that the agriculture a shift is not a 1:1 ratio. The shift may include a change of crop or change of size of agricultural land a 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. 3 as 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 N is already occurring. J R L 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 a traffic, such as U.S. 27, State Road 70 and State Road 80, will increase in agricultural truck traffic. c Mapping of 2020 and 2035 truck volumes reveals large numbers of trucks will be on some roads 0 in 2035. The numbers anticipated for production traffic does not include traffic relating to an N increase in workers, commuters, or supplies needed to sustain agricultural operations. a Coastal counties are projected to lose 8-49% of their agricultural truck volume. The inland N counties are expected to grow 8-10% in agriculture truck volume. The anticipated growth in truck M 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 0 Ci 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. L a These roads were not built to sustain the current volume and weight of the freight traffic. a as 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 r and Glades County. Collier and Okeechobee hubs will connect major facilities as freight movement a flow changes. Small towns will have more packing centers and distribution centers that are located closer to the agricultural operations. E a www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliercountyfl.Rov Page 5 Packet Pg. 397 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM 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 www.coIIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@coIIiercountyfLgov Page 6 Packet Pg. 398 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM 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. Q a Mr. Bellone advised that the Collier County Water and Sewer District (CCWSD) provides raw c� 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 0 utility standards including new rules for storm resiliency. Once the infrastructure is built, the a developers' assets are conveyed to the Water and Sewer District to own and operate. a 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. N Collier County is working with new developments in the northeast to advance a portion of their impact fees. _J 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. www.collierizov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv(@colliercountvfl.L-ov Page 7 Packet Pg. 399 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM 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 Q students and traffic. The cost differential is driven by geography, such as urban versus rural, and a 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, a� 0 density, mix of use, design of compatible uses next to each other, market rate of growth, balance a of mix in the market, and inflation rates that examine revenues and costs. a E 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%, y because the base population was lower. As the base population gets higher, the growth rate is more moderate. _J L 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 a highest base population of 211,600 with a projected growth of 35,000 people which is about a .5% c annual growth rate. This area has the interstate and infrastructure to support growth. The low 0 annual growth rate of 1.68% in Plan Area 2 can be accommodated. Plan Area 3, the medical area, N anticipates a population increase of 40,000 people. The annual growth rate is 4.06% because the a base population is low at 17,900 people. This area does not have supporting infrastructure or CN facilities, creating a great impact, which will affect the actual growth rate versus absolute growth. M r 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 0 Ci residents age 60 and older than the overall Florida average. The student generation rate is lower W for older counties like Collier County. The age range distribution determines the facilities needed L a 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. r a Ms. Kamp noted that property tax value per capita is healthy, and it's important to keep up that r c 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 a www.collierizov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv(@colliercountvfl.L-ov Page 8 Packet Pg. 400 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM 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, % 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, % middle school, % 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 www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliercountyfl.Rov Page 9 Packet Pg. 401 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM Presenters convened in the front of the room for questions and answers, and Dr. Evans facilitated questions from the audience. a An audience member said we have talked about RLSA in a theoretical sense, but let us shift to a c� 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 0 those be funded? How does the gas tax work? a Ms. McLaughlin said State Road 29 and State Road 82 are on their way with primary funding by a 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. N Mr. Bosi said generally Rural Lands West gets evaluated by each of the infrastructure providers. J 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 a new roads. They also identify all road segments impacted beyond the local area. The N c proportionate share of needed improvements must be paid through impact fees. A Developer 0 Contribution Agreement is drafted and the developer fronts money to the County to start a N project, and they are paid back with impact fee credits. Utilities, Parks and Transportation use this a- model. N 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 building 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, www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliercountyfl.Rov Page 10 Packet Pg. 402 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM 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 Q growth should pay for growth. Tindale Oliver has calculated impact fees for the last 25 years. a 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 a� calculated by Tindale Oliver over the last 25 years. > 0 M The audience member asked how Tindale Oliver calculates impact fees. Ms. Kamp said the legally a accepted impact fee formula looks at the cost of providing service, how the county is funding La - 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 3 and costs is part of the process. The County's numbers are compared to statewide numbers. N 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 fiscal) neutral or positive. Mr. Bosi said the fiscal neutrality or positive outcome is required at f° Y p Y p q � the completion of the development. From a land use perspective, a single-family home uses $1.20 N of every dollar generated in taxes, commercial consumes 65-75 cents on the dollar, industrial uses N 30-40 cents. Residential land use is costly. Mr. Bosi said land use budgeting is required in the rural CD lands with a minimum commercial mix, noting that a top-heavy residential land use pattern at 0 build out is undesirable. A balanced land use pattern including job -creating commercial and � a - industrial uses is preferred. He noted that Rural Lands West proposes 10,000 dwelling units and N two million square feet of nonresidential, which will be a better revenue mix over time and should M 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 0 economy combined with the higher initial costs at the start of a project. But projects with the Ci right land use mix start to have positive or neutral fiscal outcomes toward the end. The land use L mix is important to have the balance to be self-sustaining. a a 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. J A Facebook Live question was recited about impact fees, specifically, is it correct to say that a r developer pays for the development and conveys it over to the County, and then homeowners a 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. E www.coIIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@coIIiercountyfLgov Page 11 Packet Pg. 403 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM 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 Q 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 > 0 that it is concerning about the availability of food and losing food growing areas, noting that L California is suffering wildfires, and Florida is a food basket for the country. a a 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 3 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 y serve population growth. Developments are required to provide infrastructure needed to satisfy J 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 fora parking a spot is an inconvenience, but needing water to flush your toilet is of primary importance. N c Ms. McLaughlin said the population figures are from BEBR. The travel demand model does have 0 0 o 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 a are taken into consideration. Ms. McLaughlin said the current plan and projection is for 160,000 N people over a 20+ year timeframe. The complexity of the question is hard to answer in a quick Q CO) n & A period. The County is trying to build more complete communities in the east that are intendedCD to capture more internal traffic. 0 N 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, Q. a 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. r a 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 c E renegotiate? Mr. Tindale said if the situation is risky, the money is required to be paid up front by the developer. a www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliercountyfl.Rov Page 12 Packet Pg. 404 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM 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 Q 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. a� > 0 An audience member said there are a number of developments that would like to come on line in a the next 10-year period, and asked if the County has a budget for putting in infrastructure. If so, a 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 3 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 J 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. a An audience member asked Mr. Robbins about agriculture shifting from coastal urban areas to N N 0 rural areas, noting that his study was based on a regional area, and inquired about Mr. Robbins' o 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 a - would go to the closest available area. Mr. Bosi said two restudies of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use N (RFMU) area and the RLSA are addressing the topic of credits to incentivize permanent agricultural M production. He said three scales were considered in the original adoption, including property rights, environmental protection and agriculture protection. A suggested amendment from the 0 Ci 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 L a impact that agriculture has on the County. Mr. Robbins said the shift is not just happening within a the district, but some of the shift is happening from the east coast to the west coast. An example as 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 J use patterns. 0 Mr. Van Lengen voiced appreciation for the audience's input and noted the time remaining for the r a 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 E 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 a www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliercountyfl.Rov Page 13 Packet Pg. 405 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM 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. Q An audience member made a personal observation. She inquired with moving companies and a c� 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. O as L An audience member said agriculture lands are diminishing rapidly in the County. If you are going a to develop land, is it a lot easier or cheaper to develop agriculture land? Mr. Bosi said the open a y 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 N c 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 a acreage loss in agriculture, and what is that number in 2018? Mr. Bosi recognized that there has N c been significant loss in agriculture. There are macroeconomic issues impacting farming. The 0 farming production from South and Central America and international markets have undercut the N ability for some farmers to have a profitable and successful operation. He said there are some a factors beyond what we can influence locally, but we can try to make the best regulatory CN framework possible. Farmers need to be profitable to sustain their business here. Farmers are M r 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 0 Ci their participation. He reminded the audience of the next meeting on September 27, 2018. The W meeting concluded at approximately 8:15 p.m. L Q. www.coIIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@coIIiercountyfLgov Page 14 Packet Pg. 406 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 CO%��`76Y COL17'lt y a a Meeting Summary RLSA Restudy Water Resources September 27, 2018, 6:00-8:00 PM, South Regional Library 8065 Lely Cultural Parkway, Naples, 34113 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. www.colIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliercountyfLgov Packet Pg. 407 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Water Resources September 27, 2018, 6:00 PM 9.A.1.e PL201900002292 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 www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliercountyfl.Rov Page 2 Packet Pg. 408 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Water Resources September 27, 2018, 6:00 PM 9.A.1.e PL201900002292 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 www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliercountyfl.Rov Page 3 Packet Pg. 409 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Water Resources September 27, 2018, 6:00 PM 9.A.1.e PL201900002292 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. www.coIIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@coIIiercountyfLgov Page 4 Packet Pg. 410 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Water Resources September 27, 2018, 6:00 PM 9.A.1.e PL201900002292 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliercountyfl.Rov Page 5 Packet Pg. 411 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Water Resources September 27, 2018, 6:00 PM 9.A.1.e PL201900002292 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. www.coIIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@coIIiercountyfLgov Page 6 Packet Pg. 412 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Water Resources September 27, 2018, 6:00 PM 9.A.1.e PL201900002292 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/I 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 www.coIIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@coIIiercountyfLgov Page 7 Packet Pg. 413 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Water Resources September 27, 2018, 6:00 PM 9.A.1.e PL201900002292 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 overthe 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliercountyfl.Rov Page 8 Packet Pg. 414 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Water Resources September 27, 2018, 6:00 PM 9.A.1.e PL201900002292 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 www.coIIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@coIIiercountyfLgov Page 9 Packet Pg. 415 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Water Resources September 27, 2018, 6:00 PM 9.A.1.e PL201900002292 Rural Lands West will provide additional fresh water? Mr. Martin said the reduction in agricultural water use will provide fresh water to Collier County, not to the system. Mr. Van Lengen asked for an explanation of the costs for production of water. Mr. Messner said of the three water treatment options (lime softening, membrane filtration, and reverse osmosis of brackish water), reverse osmosis is the most costly. It takes power to drive the pumps to make the reverse osmosis work. The lower the water quality, the higher the cost of treating the water. Technologies are getting better but there is additional cost for treating brackish water supply. An audience member commented that solar panels should be included on these plants. She asked if development is allowed on the County's 51 stormwater basins? Mr. Kurtz said yes, the basins cover the whole County. The audience member asked when someone wants to develop in the basin, do they have to do certain things? Mr. Kurtz said the maximum discharge rate determines how the designer designs the project. This applies to remaining parcels that are yet to be developed, and the resulting water management system is more robust and the runoff is released at a reduced rate. This controls adverse impact on the existing system, so the burden goes on the parcels yet to be developed to do a more robust water management system. Low impact development forces treating the runoff on the site to relieve the burden of conveying the water rapidly off the property. The audience member asked if the County will require more pervious systems? Mr. Kurtz said that is a growing trend and mentioned that the upcoming sports center and Rural Lands West projects should be considered relative to perviousness. An audience member referenced that farmers are upset about retaining water south of the lake and asked how did farmers determine they would convert their land? Mr. Kurtz said the decisions by property owners are based on their own reasons. An audience member asked how to access the projects being referenced in the eastern lands? Mr. Martin said Oil Well Road, just east of Golden Gate Estates. The audience member asked if Vanderbilt Road is going out that way? Mr. Van Lengen said access is off Oil Well Road just past the Estates. The audience member asked if the developer is going to pay for the road? Mr. Van Lengen said that is a topic for another workshop. IV Adjourn Mr. Van Lengen thanked everyone for their participation and encouraged the audience to complete the comment cards. The meeting ended at 8:05. www.coIIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@coIIiercountyfLgov Page 10 Packet Pg. 416 CCPC Transmittal Hearing 4Z' O �� rt PL201900002292 �17�1ty Meeting Summarya. a RLSA Restudy Public Workshop c� 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 29t" 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 611 and the Committee will be discussing the direction for future meetings that will be aimed at building consensus on any proposed policy changes. The public is encouraged to participate at the GMOC meeting. The first meeting in 2019 will include revisiting Group 1 policies and consensus building. Mr. Van Lengen highlighted opportunities for participation, noting that Facebook Like is available for anyone not able to attend meetings in person. Past meeting archives including workshop summaries, PowerPoint presentations and videos can be accessed at www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies. Feedback can be emailed to RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov. Comment cards are collected at the end of the meeting and are appreciated. II Population Concepts Speaker: Mr. David Weeks, Collier County Comprehensive Planning Manager www.colIiercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfLgov Packet Pg. 417 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 (BFBR). The County uses census ratios in small geographic areas known as Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) that consider dwelling units and permanent population, divided to identify the ratio of persons per household, and then certificates of occupancy are monitored each year for determining annual population growth in the TAZ. This gets aggregated based on geographic area and then officials arrives at population estimates. The estimates are published in April, and then converted in October considering the County's fiscal year cycle. Mr. Weeks said that Collier County's peak season population is 20% more than the October permanent population. The 2018 projected population is 442,420, which reflects a 74,000 person increase due to season. Some areas of the county experience greater seasonal influx than others. Areas such as Immokalee have seasonal influx due to migrant laborers and trucking industry employees associated with agriculture activity in and around Immokalee. The concept "build it and they will come" is a spin-off from the movie Field of Dreams. In reality, before development occurs, the developer considers demographics, the national, local and regional economy, infrastructure capacity (available water, wastewater, roads, fire and police protection), regulatory changes that could impact the success of the development, and competition. Other considerations include events like red tide that could impact decisions by people who might relocate to this area. Unless causes of issues are addressed, the issues can deter development. Mr. Weeks explained that regulatory matters also impact development, such as County land use allowances www.coIIiercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@coIIiercountyfLgov Packet Pg. 418 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. a 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 0 obtained approval and sat dormant for 10-12 years. For example, Lely Resort at US 41 & Collier a Boulevard was approved in 1985 with 10,150 dwelling units; today the residential units are about a halfway built out and the commercial components are about halfway built out. The developer y estimated a 40-year absorption, which would conclude in 5-7 years from now. 3 Mr. Weeks said that experience shows the larger the project is, the less likely it is that the approved m 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. N N Remaining units are called ghost units by the County. Ave Maria was approved in 2004 with 11,000 c dwelling units. These projects take time even after the permitting is obtained. Rural Lands West a will take decades to build. N J a Mr. Weeks then opened discussion and questions from the audience. An audience member asked N how many units have been built in Ave Maria? Mr. Weeks said there is a regulatory glitch. Ave M Maria is not required to submit an annual report to the County. Annual reports are required for v Planned Unit Developments (PUDs). Ave Maria was a Development of Regional Impact (DRI), but o the Florida legislature did away with DRIB a few years ago. The audience member asked if Ci communities in the RLSA will have to submit an annual report? Mr. Weeks said no, RLSA f communities will not submit an annual report, and that is something the County should fix. An m audience member asked if a Development Order (DO) count is available? Mr. Weeks said the County a. could get a DO count, but it is not prepared for the meeting tonight. Mr. Van Lengen said he would obtain the requested Ave Maria information and post on the website. III Growth Patterns Speaker: Mrs. Laura DeJohn, Director of Planning and Landscape Architecture, Johnson Engineering, Inc. Mrs. DeJohn introduced herself and indicated she has been working on behalf of Collier County in support of the RLSA public workshops. She said that she will present a high level review of the Group 4 policies, and quoted that the Group 4 policy objective is to enable conversion of rural lands to www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Packet Pg. 419 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 other uses in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs). To gain perspective about growth patterns and community development, look nearby to downtown Naples and the early mid-1900s large-scale platting of Golden Gate Estates. From a planning perspective these developments were not sensitive to nature because the homogenous grid did not accommodate any existing land or water features. The outcomes of historic Collier County land development plans can be seen in Collier County today. She depicted piecemeal land development examples such as two -acre Estates lots and PUD communities that have been pieced together across the County's landscape over time. Developers can anticipate the type of people that want to move and live here and can design land to accommodate these people. She pointed out an example of development proposed to fill in where very limited space is left to develop. The piecemeal development pattern is being perpetuated, and is also seen moving further east into Lee County along Corkscrew Road. Residential development projects displayed along Corkscrew Road illustrate how a large scale outcome results from several individual projects being approved over time, based on their own individual merits. These developments aggregate to form a 6,000-acre area where 6,000 single-family homes will be built, with no consideration for commercial uses or services. Relating this information back to the study areas, the RLSA was originally agricultural land subdivided into 5-acre tracts where individual homesites would be allowed across the landscape. What came about from the RLSA program was an effort to do something better. If you want to do something to protect rural lands, it should be well planned, creative and not piecemealed. Geographically the RLSA is a very large area that will not be built in a short amount of time. There are multiple private interests involved in the RLSA, family legacies, land values and property rights that need to be protected. Public interests include ecological values in this area, fiscal impacts of growth and community sustainability. Mrs. DeJohn explained that the design with nature concept is a fundamental planning theory. The evolution of Babcock Ranch is an example of designing with nature. This community evaluated and identified the most valuable land areas, displayed as green areas on the map, and then determined the areas for development as seen in the gray areas on the map. The footprint for developable areas is based on protecting the most valuable areas. This concept was the same foundation for RLSA. High quality environmental areas were the areas set aside for protection first, then the remaining areas are available for property owners to use as allowed per their property rights, such as agriculture or other types of development. As described previously, individual owners doing what they want with their property results in piecemeal development. The RLSA approach is a much more difficult formula than the piecemeal approach. The RLSA requires more intense collaboration with property owners to plan smarter growth. www.coIIiercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@coIIiercountyfLgov Packet Pg. 420 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Mrs. DeJohn queried, do RLSA strategies accomplish this balance as described? Is the development being done sustainably? Are green development goals met? Are sustainable design standards implemented? Are smart growth and compact walkable communities available? Sustainability is making sure that development meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Sustainability also protects the environment, including maintenance of agriculture, and upholds the rights of property owners. Mrs. DeJohn cited the American Planning Association Policy Guide on Smart Growth that this approach to growth and planning can not only deliver dynamic attractive communities with greater choices for consumers but can be a powerful tool for farmland, open space and habitat preservation. Policy 4.6 includes these sustainably concepts, including protecting the environment, maintaining agriculture and being cost-efficient. Mrs. DeJohn said the Restudy effort is an evaluation of whether there are better methods to accomplish the objectives. As a member of the Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC), she said efforts are underway to explore green development options through the Florida Green Building Coalition. This is an example of how Collier County is continually looking into sustainable development concepts. An audience member said it was useful to see the history and the development overtime which were not of best practice. He said we are now looking at projects in this area which are huge in scale, and asked if designing or thinking of things so large in scale is the appropriate thing to do? Mrs. DeJohn said the alternative to large scale planning is the piecemeal style. She said we have to ask what is the best way for Collier County to move forward with growth because growth will continue. Large scale planning is a thoughtful approach. Piecemeal development is a less thoughtful approach. The audience member agreed, but still thinks Rural Lands West is too large of an area for planning. He worries that communities and their needs are evolving, so it does not seem logical forecast for something so large. Another audience member said it seems the proposed development concepts are aspirational, but are you actually working with developers to achieve these ideas? Mrs. DeJohn said she is not a consultant for developers in the County's rural areas. However, other consultants have the same information and follow the same program and the goals outlined in the GMP. The purpose of this Restudy is to make sure the RLSA goals are being met. Do the current goals outlined in Policy 4.6 protect our natural environment, maintain economic viability of agriculture and discourage sprawl? If not, the purpose of this Restudy is to look for improvements and alternatives to meet the outlined goals. Another audience member recommended to provide the following information to DSAC. She said we should look at how we can force higher density planning and mixed -use development planning to actually get walkable and bikeable towns. That didn't happen in Ava Maria and it's a random sprawl town. She said in Ave Maria you cannot get everywhere with a baby carriage. A better idea is to plan a community with one or multiple town centers with the right amenities and density highest at the town center, then density should reduce as it goes out. The audience member stressed the need to rework the rules to maintain high density in town centers. She said in terms of www.coIIiercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@coIIiercountyfLgov Packet Pg. 421 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 planning communities, one of the problems is developers build giant golf communities here, and we need to do more community planning like Mercato. The audience member said we need shops, churches, restaurants, daycares, and things communities need to thrive located where people can access within the community so residents do not have to leave their community. Ava Maria residents must drive so far to reach a food store. Mrs. DeJohn appreciated the thoughtful comments and indicated that density is not going to be a matter fully addressed by the DSAC. She also indicated that Mr. Van Lengen will discuss density and requirements next, which may help address her ideas. Another audience member asked where does stormwater runoff go and where are detention ponds located? What happens to the water? Mrs. DeJohn said we had a great presentation last month from the County Stormwater Manager, Jerry Kurtz, and he described historical methods to channel water off of properties through canals efficiently, but how the RLSA is different because of lessons learned. In the RLSA, there are areas that allow for continuing the natural stormwater drainage patterns of the area. IV Selected Development Provisions Speaker: Mr. Kris Van Lengen, Collier County Mr. Van Lengen said the Group 4 policies are broad with 28 policies and topics that include program goals, location, compatibility, credits and infrastructure. He noted that comments cards are on the tablles, and he encouraged participants to suggest policies to discuss at the next meeting. He referred to the paperwork that was provided on the audience tables outlining Group 4 policies. Also provided was highlighted material reflecting the five year review recommendations. He encouraged the audience to review all of the material, and indicated the highlighted goals and others are equally important. Group 4 policies include location of SRAs, method of approval, administration, master plan requirements, goal statements, compatibility, transportation requirements, SRA components, public facilities, coordination with the School District, infrastructure, fiscal neutrality, credit requirements, public benefit uses, Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) special provisions, historical resources, and lighting. Mr. Van Lengen summarized that the Group 4 policies as they exist today, the recommendations from the five year review committee, and Attachment C are the printouts provided on the tables. Mr. Van Lengen said his presentation will focus on the forms of development referenced in Policy 4.7, and that Attachment C shows the level of goods and services required for towns, villages, hamlets and Compact Rural Developments (CRDs). He said the Congress of New Urbanism was a source for determining sizes of required goods and services, and a more recent tool is the (Collier Interactive Growth Model (CIGM). He noted that Ave Maria and Rural Lands West provide more goods and services than the minimums required. Mr. Van Lengen highlighted that towns are defined as areas 1,000 to 4,000 acres, villages are 100 to 1,000 acres, hamlets are 40 to 100 acres, and CRDs need to be better defined. Some elements, such www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Packet Pg. 422 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 a character and fiscal benefits to local government and taxpayers. Towns, as described in Policy 4.7.1, provide an urban community level of goods and services, human scale, balance of land uses, mixed -use town center, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, parks, full range of schools, and corporate offices. The Land Development Code has provisions and detailed requirements to regulate development. Collier County welcomes suggestions for improvements. He clarified that towns cannot be located in Areas for Critical State Concern (ACSC). He said that Land Development Code Section 4.08.07 more specifically provides for transects from core to edge. Architectural standards, landscape, streetscape, lighting, building heights, setbacks, parking and environmental standards are also provided in the Land Development Code. The five year review provided ideas for improvement on Policy 4.7.1 including the requirement for a more formalized "Mobility Plan" to address transit, park and ride facilities, and increasing the town size range to be 1,500 to 5,000 acres. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy has suggested to add a housing analysis requirement to address workforce accommodation in the towns and villages so they are more self-sufficient. Villages are smaller than towns with a lower threshold for goods, services and parks. Villages still require a village center focal point, interconnected sidewalks, parks or public green space, and are an appropriate location for schools. The five year review provided ideas for improvement in village criteria, including an increase in the size range to 100 to 1,500 acres, requiring a mobility plan similar to towns, and allowing corporate office and light industrial as an option in villages. In the discussion of hamlets, Mr. Van Lengen said that these could be eliminated. An example in the vicinity of Brantley Boulevard was shown. The structure for hamlets is similar to the piecemeal growth pattern. Mr. Van Lengen said he thinks hamlets should be eliminated but is open to discussion on why they should be kept. Compact Rural Developments (CRDs) support concepts like eco-tourism and accommodate transient lodging facilities. Mr. Van Lengen said that uses in CRDs need to be better defined. The CRD designation is generally a catch-all to accommodate different uses in the future. An audience member said a concern is trailer communities. Mr. Van Lengen agreed that it is important to look at the definition of CRDs more closely. The requirement for goods and services is at different levels for towns, villages and other forms of development ranging from 10 to 65 square feet of gross building area per dwelling unit. The idea is to have dynamic levels of activity within the towns and villages. The mix of uses formula requires residential development to be supported with goods and services and employment and civic uses that in turn contribute to mobility, efficiency and character. www.coIIiercountyfLgov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@coIIiercountyfLgov Packet Pg. 423 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Mr. Van Lengen pointed out that Group 4 policies are about SRAs, which is where development goes if and landowner opts into the RLSA program. Group 5 policies are for landowners outside of SRAs who do not choose to own, buy or spend stewardship credits. Underlying zoning is still in effect, and Group 5 policies provide tightened restrictions and requirements when landowners develop without invoking RLSA Overlay. Mr. Van Lengen noted that the policies are structured such that an owner cannot petition the Board of County Commissioners for development of a gated community unless they go through the stewardship program and develop according to the criteria applicable to SRAs. When not developing through an SRA, various uses are allowed within the baseline zoning of Agriculture including farming, mining, recreation, cemeteries and other conditional uses. Residential uses are allowed at a density of one unit per five acres under Agricultural zoning. Mr. Van Lengen summarized that Group 5 policies impose strict environmental rules and restrictions for development, including that site clearing and nonpermeable surfaces are restricted and an Environmental Impact Statement is required. Property within the ASCS is subject to even tighter restrictions. Wildlife surveys and habitat management plans are also required for non-residential development. V Group Input Mr. Van Lengen initiated the question for the audience to discuss: Do Towns, Villages, Hamlets and Compact Rural Developments provide the right pattern of development within the RLSA? If not, what changes would you recommend? Dr. Amanda Evans said comments on Facebook Live will be included in the feedback tracker and encouraged the audience to continue participating. Dr. Evan reminded the audience that all comments are recorded in the feedback tracker. An audience member asked if any information is available on the number of people needed to support specific uses, like a gas station, hospital, or grocery store. Mr. Van Lengen said the CIGM models what is needed in terms of goods and services to support certain uses. Developers know that projects like Ava Maria need a Publix and that it will not be profitable for a while, but that need must be fulfilled. Roughly 12,000 people are needed to support such a use. Dr. Evans followed up linking this discussion to the group question, guiding the audience to provide a consensus on what policies work and which need improvement. Dr. Evans encouraged the audience to provide suggestions for improvement, noting that it is difficult to make recommendations without specific suggestions for improvement. Understanding that some people are not comfortable speaking within the group, she mentioned the comment cards provided on the table for written feedback. Dr. Evans pointed out to the Facebook Live audience that this meeting is not about the Rural Lands West project, and is about the Rural Lands Stewardship Area restudy. While the public's comments www.coIIiercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@coIIiercountyfLgov Packet Pg. 424 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 on the Rural Lands West project are important, she said they are not applicable for the restudy effort being discussed at this meeting. a 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 0 land; certain essential services are needed before occupancy; and stronger zoning laws are needed a to fill in gaps, such as rules on pervious surfaces. The Purple Group supported variable affordable a housing options and green building standards. This group wanted to see developers that are y 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, N N or aging in place? c The Green Group reached consensus on requiring a %-mile radius for walkability for all 0 as o neighborhoods with amenities at the center. Mobility efficiency should be considered, and cars may a not even be needed. Minimize automobile centricity. Government support should be provided for N amenities. Streamline the process to make sure people have what they need. Increase minimum M densities and increase clustered development. The separation between SRAs should be defined so v they are not sprawling together and rather so that they have edges. Amenities must be put in 0 developments even if the services must be subsidized, and maybe tax dollars can be provided to Ci support the town center at the beginning stages of development. " as Q. The Pink Group had consensus items including: staging permitting so that not all developments are a 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 3 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 a action items include: restudy the credit methodology and the RLSA worksheet to take into account best available science for panthers and other habitat; the %-mile average walkability radius is o important; green space and smart growth patterns are desired. a The Blue Group reached consensus that: SRA policies should include requirements for new r 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 a criteria to guide the development of towns, villages and hamlets; require architectural standards for www.coIIiercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@coIIiercountyfLgov Packet Pg. 425 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 a not be built in primary panther habitat; and the best available science needs to be used. Dr. Evans said reoccurring topics, such as panthers and other protected species, will be revisited in future meetings. Mr. Van Lengen said the wrap up discussion of Group 1 Policies will cover the credit system and panther habitat scoring and that the County needs to consider a third -party opinion on the best available science on future panther viability. VI Adjourn Dr. Evans said the comments and discussion has been very valuable and encouraged additional comments to be provided by email or on comment cards. The meeting ended at approximately 8:10 p.m. www.co I I ierco u ntyfLgov/gm prestu dies RLSArestudy@coIIiercountyfLgov Packet Pg. 426 CCPC Transmittal Hearing 4Z' O �� /� ��rt PL201900002292 �17�1ty Meeting Summarya. a RLSA Restudy Public Workshop c� Discouraging Sprawl and Encouraging Responsible Development November 29, 2018, 6:00-8:00 PM, South Regional Library 8065 Lely Cultural Parkway, Naples, 34113 Introduction Speaker: Mr. Kris Van Lengen, Collier County Mr. Van Lengen opened the meeting and welcomed the audience at 6:10, making note of an accident on US 41 that might cause delay in attendees arriving. He welcomed newcomers to the meeting and invited them to contact him if they have any questions or want more background information. He outlined the evening's agenda, which will include his introduction, followed by an explanation of case studies of new towns and villages by Laura DeJohn, and a presentation of lessons learned at Ave Maria by David Genson. Questions will be welcomed after each speaker, and an opportunity for discussion at the end of the meeting will allow for more input if time permits. Mr. Van Lengen explained that the County audio/video staff could not attend this evening, and audio of the meeting will be available on the County website. Summaries and PowerPoint presentations can be found on the website also. He added that the RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov email address can be used for sending comments, and comment cards can be filled out and returned during the meeting as well. In January the venue will change to North Collier Regional Park, however space is not available January 24 and is available January 31. The date of January 31 is also a conflicting time for the audio/video staff. Mr. Van Lengen advised that the Growth Management Oversight Committee mentioned they would like to see a meeting held in Immokalee or Ave Maria, and he asked if a night meeting in Immokalee or Ave Maria is favorable. An audience member commented that previously meetings in the eastern part of the County were held in the morning. By a show of hands, about half of the audience was in favor of an evening meeting in Immokalee or Ave Maria and about half the audience was opposed. Mr. Van Lengen described that the February and March workshops will be consensus building meetings held at North Collier Regional Park. The consensus building process will be reviewed with www.colIiercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudv@colliercountyfl.gov Page 1 Packet Pg. 427 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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, %-mile radius walking distances per neighborhood, tax incentives for earlier commercial phasing, requiring wildlife crossings where appropriate, separation between towns and villages, addressing decreased habitat value of Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) adjacent to towns, not approving too many projects in close timeframes, attracting visionary developers, and considering emergency evacuation planning. Mr. Van Lengen highlighted questions from the October workshop. The first question was about the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). Mr. Van Lengen explained the base zoning in the Rural Lands area is agricultural zoning, which allows certain conditional uses such as mining, recreation, and schools. Residential development is allowed at one unit per five acres. He explained that the ACSC covers 750,000 acres, and roughly 60,000 acres of the RLSA is in the ACSC. The rules for the ACSC restrict uses and limit site alteration to 10% for any kind of development. The maximum density is one unit per five acres. The State of Florida must review any zoning change, regulation change or building permit. The State review is a double protection to make sure rules are followed. The second question from the October workshop was about population. Mr. Van Lengen said approximately 1,600 certificates of occupancy have been issued in Ave Maria out of the maximum of 11,000 units allowed within the project. This maximum does not include assisted living or dormitory units. The rate of growth was also a question at the October workshop. Mr. Van Lengen displayed figures from the Collier Interactive Growth Model (CIGM) showing population growth in five-year increments. The data revealed approximately 47,000 people are projected in 2040. By 2070 when the Habitat Conservation Plan expires, the area will be halfway to buildout. Golden Gate Estates currently has 45,000 people and is anticipated to be 90% built out by 2040. That number is a concern for traffic, which illuminates the need for places for work, shop and play. Another question Mr. Van Lengen addressed was about the cost burden of RLSA development. Displaying slides from the Tindale Oliver presentation from the August workshop, Mr. Van Lengen explained that when a new development begins, the total cost for infrastructure is greater than the revenue generated by impact fees and ad valorem taxes. Public subsidy and developer subsidy are greater than revenues at the beginning of the project. At a certain point in time, the revenue starts to exceed the expenditures. He said that the RLSA program requires that fiscal neutrality must be demonstrated at the time of development application for approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Van Lengen referenced a final question from the October workshop about the market for towns and villages, and he said Mr. Genson's presentation will address this. www.coIIiercountyfLgov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@coIIiercountyfl.gov Page 2 Packet Pg. 428 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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- a residential development is an important part of the fiscal neutrality equation and planning process. An audience member said that it would be nice to show Ave Maria's actual fiscal data for today's conditions and projected future conditions. Mr. Van Lengen said the conditions of Ave Maria were discussed at the June 26th BOCC meeting as item 11B (around the 4:46 mark on the meeting video) and encouraged the audience to listen to the tape. Mr. Van Lengen said he cannot answer where the balance of reaching fiscal positivity is for Ave Maria. Commissioner Taylor asked how to plan for fiscal neutrality if the financial details are not known. Ave Maria has been there for ten years and it would be important to know if the fiscal goals are being met. The Tindale Oliver presentation is so subjective, and there are so many variables that cannot be controlled. Mr. Van Lengen said it is important to know the answer, and the experts must be relied upon at the time of application. It's the Board's duty to make sure the models do work out. In the past, the Fiscal Impact Analysis Model (FIAM) was jettisoned because it was assumed to be subject to manipulation. An audience member asked if the timeline of fiscal input and output has been prepared or provided for Ave Maria, and how much has the County and the developer contributed by year, and the payback? Mr. Van Lengen said it was a great suggestion to find out more information on Ave Maria. An audience member asked since this meeting is not filmed, whether the PowerPoint slides will be available online, and if the meeting is being taped. Mr. Van Lengen said yes, the presentations and the audio of the meeting will be posted on the County website. An audience member said many states including northern Virginia have been through this, and it would be helpful to see the fiscal neutrality data from those other communities. Mr. Van Lengen asserted that Tindale Oliver does such studies, and such information was presented at the August 23, 2018 RLSA workshop. He added that another consultant, Urban3, is scheduled to perform a return on investment analysis for Collier County in 2019. An audience member commended the County for bringing Urban 3 onboard to provide a return on investment analysis. An audience member said Smart Growth America does work on fiscal neutrality all over the country. As to build out periods, the audience member noted that Rural Lands West proposes a 20-year build out period and questioned if 20 years should be used as the fiscal neutrality timeline for Rural Lands West. An audience member from the town of Columbia, Maryland said that community started developing in 1965 and was near build -out but had not reached build -out in the 2000s. She concluded that large urban developments do not get built out, for example, Reston is still not built out, and the timeframe for buildout will likely be longer than 20 years. www.coIIiercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@coIIiercountyfl.gov Page 3 Packet Pg. 429 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 II Survey of Sustainable New Towns Speaker: Mrs. Laura DeJohn, Director of Planning and Landscape Architecture, Johnson Engineering, Inc. Ms. DeJohn gave an overview that she'll present case studies focused on development standards as defined in the RLSA program and as they are being developed in actual towns and villages. She noted that comparing and learning from other communities is helpful, and she asked the audience to write down standards that they like and dislike during the presentation to compile suggestions and feedback. Mrs. DeJohn presented five different town examples, based on the RLSA definition of a town per the Attachment C handout provided to the meeting attendees at each table. She noted that towns are the largest development type allowed in the RLSA, and the first example of a town to be reviewed was Ave Maria in Collier County. The RLSA town size criterion is 1,000 to 4,000 acres, and Ave Maria is at the top of the size range with 4,000 acres excluding public benefit acres. The allowable residential unit range for RLSA towns is 1,000 to 16,000 units, and Ave Maria is approved for 11,000 units. The density range allowed for RLSA towns is 1 to 4 dwellings units per acre, and Ave Maria is permitted with 2.75 dwelling units per gross acre. An audience member asked how the density figure was calculated. Ms. DeJohn said it was calculated by dividing 11,000 units by 4,000 acres. She noted that some areas of the project will have clustered development with a higher density, and other areas will be large open areas. The density is calculated according to the project's gross acreage. Standards are not in place to mandate higher densities or minimum densities near town centers. Ave Maria was approved for non-residential development including: 600,000 square feet of retail; 510,000 square feet of office; and 600,000 square feet of business/employment. The RLSA town criterion for open space is 35% of the entire project, and Ave Maria provides 45% of the project as open space. RLSA towns are to include a full range of housing types, and Ave Maria includes single and multi- family housing types. The minimum goods and services ratio (restaurants, shops, etc.) for an RLSA town is 65 square feet per dwelling, and Ave Maria has nearly double with 112 square feet per dwelling. The minimum park ratio for an RLSA town is 200 square feet per dwelling, and the proposed community parks for Ave Maria provide 294 square feet per dwelling. Civic and institutional type buildings must be provided with at least 15 square feet per dwelling in an RLSA town. Ave Maria exceeds this standard with 367 square feet per dwelling, attributable to the university, church, government buildings, and school sites. Water and wastewater services must be centralized for RLSA towns, and this is achieved at Ave Maria through its own private utility provider. Transportation requirements for RLSA towns include connectivity, an interconnected sidewalk system, and connection to transit, which are all addressed by the Ave Maria plan. Mrs. DeJohn said she will highlight four more towns, followed by a side -by -side comparison of the communities. www.colliercountvfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudv@colliercountyfl.gov Page 4 Packet Pg. 430 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 She explained the next example is Rural Lands West, which is proposed but not yet approved by the Collier County Commissioners. The size of this project is at the high end of the allowable range with 3,964 acres excluding any public benefit areas. Similar to Ave Maria, 10,000 units are proposed which equates to a density of 2.51 dwelling units per gross acre. Proposed non-residential development includes: 800,000 square feet of retail, 450,000 square feet of office; 250,000 square feet of business/employment; 132,000 square feet of hotel; and 250,000 square feet of medical office and hospital. The minimum 35% open space for RLSA towns is proposed to be met in Rural Lands West. The standard full range of housing types is also proposed to be met in Rural Lands West, with one- third of the housing units proposed to be multifamily and two-thirds proposed to be single family. Rural Lands West proposes more than doubling the minimum goods and services ratio for RLSA towns with 138 square feet per dwelling proposed. Parks are proposed to be more than double the RLSA town standard with 518 square feet proposed per dwelling. The civic and institutional provision is proposed to be met with 21 square feet per dwelling for civic uses plus 106 acres for public school sites. An audience member asked if golf courses were considered parks. Ms. DeJohn said that golf courses are counted towards open space, but are not counted as parks. The water and wastewater systems will be centralized according to the Rural Lands West application, and transportation systems are generally proposed to meet RLSA criteria, however transit service is still to be determined. Ms. DeJohn introduced the third example, Babcock Ranch, noting it is in Charlotte County. She said that development is underway following initial approval in 2007. The expected build out date is 2045. This project is 13,631 acres and therefore much larger than the standard town size for Collier County. The project contains areas designated as villages, hamlets, and a town center. Preservation areas like those classified as Habitat Stewardship Areas or Flowway Stewardship Areas in the RLSA are located inside the Babcock Ranch community in the form of greenways. Roughly 6,500 acres of greenways are within the 13,631-acre Babcock Ranch project boundary. Nearly 18,000 units are proposed at Babcock Ranch. Given the open spaces and preserves within the project boundary, the gross density is brought down to 1.31 dwelling units per gross acre. Density is allowed to be up to 24 dwelling units per net acre in the town center and up to 16 dwelling units per net acre in villages and hamlets. Non-residential development is proposed to include: 1.4 million square feet of retail; 3.5 million square feet of office; 650,000 square feet of industrial; 360,000 square feet of hotel; 177 hospital beds; and 418 assisted living units. The minimum open space to be provided at Babcock Ranch is similar to the RLSA town standard at 35%. The full range of housing types proposed in the community include accessory dwellings, such as garage apartments and guest houses, which are important for providing more housing choices. www.coIIiercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@coIIiercountyfl.gov Page 5 Packet Pg. 431 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. a The minimum goods and services ratio for RLSA towns is 65 square feet per dwelling, and Babcock Ranch is permitted for 294 square feet per dwelling. Parks are proposed in the form of community parks, mini -parks, neighborhood parks and community/regional parks at three times the Collier County standard of 200 square feet per dwelling. Ms. DeJohn pointed out that Babcock Ranch is a Development of Regional Impact (DRI). DRI's are subject to a regulatory process through which specific developer commitments are determined. Substantial detail is provided for civic and institutional uses in the DRI approval, such as the number and size of school sites, educational service centers, law and fire rescue buildings, sheriff substation site, EMS vehicles, and library contributions. These contributions are eligible for reimbursement of impact fees. Civic uses do not count toward the maximum allowable non- residential development. For Babcock Ranch, central water and wastewater must be provided at time of Certificate of Occupancy. Transportation requirements are defined in detail within the DRI approval, and an internal capture goal of 55% to 70% is identified in the traffic analysis. An elaborate trail system of sidewalks and on- and off -road multiuse paths is provided, and an internal autonomous vehicle program is being pursued by the Babcock Ranch developer. Additional commitments for the Babcock Ranch development that are not addressed in RLSA town criteria include: pattern books to establish development standards at each phase of development, low flow fixtures, one zero energy model home, and compliance with Florida Green Building Collation or equivalent standards. The Babcock Ranch Community pattern book is aspirational in nature, and it conveys to the regulatory agencies, the county and to the public what is envisioned for the community. A pattern book is pictorial including diagrams, development standards, and examples of how the development is intended to look and feel. Ms. DeJohn provided a series of the Florida Green Building Coalition standards, noting that achieving compliance with the standards is based on a scoring system. For full review of all the standards and program criteria, Ms. DeJohn referred the audience to the organization's website FloridaGreenBuilding.org. She summarized the program criteria, noting the environmental protection category contains the most standards. Circulation is a separate category with ten standards for measurement and scoring. The Utilities category has nine standards including green power, irrigation standards and a conservation approach to utilities provision. Amenities is another category that addresses features such as golf courses, landscaping, and community gardens. The category of Covenants and Deed Restrictions has standards to help engage homeowners in maintenance of the green aspects of their homes and community. The category www.coIIiercountyfLgov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@coIIiercountyfl.gov Page 6 Packet Pg. 432 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 of Education addresses the need for education through provision of materials or educational staff members within the community. _ An audience member asked if compliance with Florida Green Building Coalition standards is required. Ms. DeJohn affirmed that compliance with Florida Green Building Collation Certification or equivalent standards is a condition of the Babcock Ranch DRI approval. Another audience member asked how all this information relates to sustainability. Mrs. DeJohn said that having a development that complies with Florida Green Building Coalition standards is a way to be closer to achieving the objective of sustainability, which is to see that resources are protected in a way that future generations are ensured to have the resources they need. Another audience member asked if the County Commissioners or the final report from these restudy workshops would recommend to include green standards because it would be a progressive move. Ms. DeJohn replied that the audience input and feedback help to drive recommendations. Dr. Amanda Evans said that these workshops are structured to provide information and get audience input, collect feedback, and ultimately use it to arrive at a meaningful outcome for the RLSA Restudy. Another audience member requested a show of hands by those whom agree that the County should require compliance with green development standards, and a majority of audience members raised their hands. Mrs. DeJohn introduced the fourth town of Haile Village Plantation in northern Florida near Gainesville, noting that the community was approved in 1992 and comprises 1,700 acres with approval for 2,700 units. The gross density is 1.6 dwelling units per gross acre, however townhomes are allowed at a density of up to 16 dwelling units per acres. The town is approved for 160,000 square feet of retail and office space, which manifests in 48 different businesses. The community's open space is increased because it includes 54 golf holes. A takeaway from this exercise is that marketing drives perception on what is good new urbanism planning practice. New urbanism makes up a limited part of this larger golf course community. But having been developed for over 20 years and having seen success, it is worth comparing how this community has developed against the RLSA towns criteria. Haile Village Plantation has a variety of housing types including live -work units, accessory dwellings, and units within a 50-acre mixed use village center. There is no calculation provided for the square footage of community parks; a village green anchors the village center. The civic and institutional components of this development are limited, with a 3,200-square foot town hall owned and operated by the developer as a for -profit event space. Space is also provided for a post office, sheriff's office and homeowners association office. Ms. DeJohn said she did not find water and wastewater utility information, but it can be assumed that public utilities are available given the site's close proximity to Gainesville. The transportation system is characterized by narrow streets to promote slower traffic and walkable conditions. The www.coIIiercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@coIIiercountyfLgov Page 7 Packet Pg. 433 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. a Ms. DeJohn presented Abacoa as the final town example. Located in Jupiter, Florida, Abacoa started developing in 1995 and is anticipated to build out soon. Measuring 2,055 acres, Abacoa is roughly half the size of Ave Maria and of the proposed Rural Lands West project. Abacoa was originally approved through the DRI process, with 6,325 units permitted and density range of a minimum of 3 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of 16 dwelling units per acre in the urban residential areas. The allowable non-residential development includes: 1.75 million square feet of workplace; 841,000 square feet of retail; 217,720 square feet of office; 130 hotel rooms; a 4,009 seat movie theater; and the 7,500 seat Roger Dean Baseball Stadium. The open space in Abacoa is just under 25%, and this includes golf course area. Common use areas are required at a rate of 3%, or minimum of three acres, per neighborhood, and a minimum one - acre public square is required per neighborhood. This form -based approach helps achieve the desired outcome of visible and accessible green space versus the unpredictable outcome of applying a general acreage threshold. A full range of housing types is provided in Abacoa; a minimum of 10% of all units must be multifamily. The RLSA town criteria of 65 square feet of retail and office per dwelling is exceeded with 167 square feet per dwelling. Additionally, Abacoa has 277 square feet of workplace per dwelling. A community parks ratio could not be calculated, nor could the civic and institutional square footage, however institutional assets include the Florida Atlantic University Honors Campus and other school sites. Abacoa has centralized water and wastewater systems, and transportation connections are provided given the community's adjacency to Interstate 95 and other main roads, along with a system of connecting sidewalks and paths. A Tri Rail station is also proposed. Ms. DeJohn summarized the towns with a display of the attributes of each example compared to the RLSA town criteria. She noted the presentation will be online for those that want to study or compare in depth at a later time. She then focused on RLSA criteria for villages. Villages are a smaller in size than towns, and there are currently no villages in the RLSA. The first example she presented was Habersham in South Carolina. The RLSA standard for village size is 100 to 1,000 acres, and Habersham is 266 acres with 950 dwelling units, which yields a density of 3.6 dwelling units per gross acre. Non-residential development includes 77,895 square feet of retail, restaurant and office space. The minimum open space is 27%. A full range of housing types and parks are provided. The ratio of goods and services provided per dwelling units exceeds the RLSA village standard by nearly three times. Neighborhoods in RLSA villages must have a minimum of 1% of gross acreage in parks and public green space. Habersham requires parks and public green space in the forms of: parks and squares www.coIIiercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@coIIiercountyfl.gov Page 8 Packet Pg. 434 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 a has a centralized water and sewer system, and the transportation system is characterized by narrow streets, on street parking, and walking trails. The second village example was I'On, also in South Carolina. This community is 243 acres with 750 dwelling units, and a density of 3.1 dwelling units per gross area. Non-residential development includes 30,000 square feet of retail and office space. Open space acreage data was not available, open space is provided in natural open areas, a wetlands corridor and creek, lakes and recreational facilities, and pocket parks. I'On has a range of housing types including dwellings as small as 950 square feet and as large as 6,000 square feet, which provides flexible and affordable housing options. The square footage of goods and services provided exceeds the RLSA village standard of 25 square feet per dwelling, and the village center includes a mixed use main street and a central square. Eight sites are reserved within the community for civic and institutional buildings such as community meeting hall, school and church sites. I'On is a suburban infill site with available central utilities. Streets are narrow, and the "marshwalk" is a trail that provides connections through the community's natural areas. Baldwin Park in Orlando, Florida was presented as the third example village. The site is 776 acres and approved for 3,500 dwelling units. The density of 4.5 dwelling units per gross acre exceeds the maximum density for RLSA villages of 4 dwelling units per acre. Baldwin Park is approved for 200,000 square feet of retail, one million square feet of office, and a 54-acre mixed -use village center. Ample open space is provided with 250 acres of lakes and 200 acres of parks and green space. Baldwin Park's variety of housing types includes a range of units including some within a vertical mixed -use context. This community has a high ratio of goods and services with 343 square feet of retail and office per dwelling. No data was available for civic and institutional uses. Baldwin Park was formerly the Orlando Naval Training Center, and utilities are centralized. The transportation system is characterized by a grid network and an extensive trail system. Ms. DeJohn summarized with a side -by -side table comparing the three example villages, which can be viewed in the PowerPoint presentation available on the County's website. Ms. DeJohn concluded with a series of take-aways learned from the examples. She said the Collier County standards are quantified, formula driven and measurable as provided in Attachment C. The outcomes from the example communities reveal there are aspects of placemaking that are not formula driven but rather are more qualitative and subjective, such as the placement and form of green space in the community. www.coIIiercountyfLgov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@coIIiercountyfl.gov Page 9 Packet Pg. 435 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 %, %, and 3/ mile radius distances, because this would make towns more walkable. Another audience member asked whether the example communities have been successful. Ms. DeJohn said the examples were considered successful case studies from organizations such as the Urban Land Institute, American Planning Association and the Congress for New Urbanism. She said success is measured relative to the community, its context and the people living in the community. This is a good question to ask, but there is no scoring system to determine success and no single model that can be replicated with any guarantee of success. Another audience member asked why the Seaside community was not presented? Ms. DeJohn said she did not present Seaside or Celebration because they are unique projects that were not developed organically, and she purposefully researched examples that would be relevant to the type of development that goes on in Collier County. Ms. DeJohn said another take -away is the concept of adjusting RLSA standards to add locational criteria for green space. Also, an impact fee reimbursement for developer -funded civic, government or institutional facilities such as schools or an EMS station is a tool to get those facilitates established. She said that mobility standards can be improved by adding a requirement for multimodal analysis that considers bicycle and pedestrian paths between residential and non- residential areas, an off -road greenway/trail system, and other non -auto oriented transportation modes. She added that Pattern Books can be implemented to improve the review and approval process and provide more opportunity for innovative designs. Another option is to add a www.coIIiercountyfLgov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@coIIiercountyfl.gov Page 10 Packet Pg. 436 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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. a III Ave Maria Lessons Learned Speaker: Mr. David Genson, Senior Vice President and Director of Development Barron Collier Companies Mr. Genson said he has been involved with the Ave Maria project since 2002. He explained that his presentation will cover how the project started and the current conditions, and he'll address some of the questions that were brought up during the evening. Ave Maria is entitled as a 4,000- acre town, with approval for: 11,000 homes; 1.2 million square feet of office and retail; 600,000 square feet of light industrial; and a 6,000-student university. The population is estimated to be 30,000 people at buildout. Mr. Genson said Ave Maria is considered a self-sustaining town with a private water and sewer utility system, four privately developed parks, and 15 miles of privately developed roadways. The roads within Ave Maria are privately owned and maintained. He said by the end of 2018, roughly 2,000 homes will have been purchased, and those homes amount to $44 million in impact fees paid to Collier County. Mr. Genson gave the site's history beginning in April 2005 when the Ave Maria lands were farm fields. In 2009, development was underway and the current population is 6,000 people. Home prices range from $200,000 to $450,000 with an average price of $320,000. The homebuilding trend equates to an average of three hundred homes constructed per year. Mr. Genson cited that Ave Maria has been ranked as the #1 selling community in Southwest Florida for four years. Also, this community has been ranked as one of the Top 40 Selling Master Planned Communities in the United States for the past three years. Mr. Genson described the progress of the community as of 2017, including development of Coquina at Maple Ridge which is a denser neighborhood at approximately six units per acre. He described how Publix was an important business to establish early for residents, and showed images of the town center. He explained how Arthrex has been a major impact with 400,000 square feet of building area supporting 1,500 employees. He said that several hundred of those employees have purchased homes in Ave Maria, resulting in short commutes for employees. The Park of Commerce now has a gas station and medical office buildings in place, and the university will have the largest incoming freshman class ever in the coming year. Mr. Genson described the range of neighborhood types within Ave Maria, including estate homes, condominiums, and neighborhoods that are oriented toward families, active adults, and the workforce. The market for Ave Maria is not just a single demographic; it serves everyone including retirees, young families, and active adults. Amenities include parks, water parks, softball fields, and soccer fields that constitute a $17 million investment by the developer. A fitness center and www.colliercountvfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudv@colliercountyfl.gov Page 11 Packet Pg. 437 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 1-75 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 %-mile of the town center. He said the higher densities are not feasible everywhere because the development pattern becomes too costly and overbearing. He said neighborhood centers outside the town center provide some degree of convenient access to services. An audience member asked if any of the neighborhood centers have been built with retail uses. Mr. Genson affirmed that the Del Webb community clubhouse includes restaurant space that is open to the public. On the topic of buildout, Mr. Genson said that a 20-year horizon is not realistic. At the rate of 300 homes per year, it would take roughly 30 years to build the remaining units in Ave Maria. On the topic of fiscal neutrality, Mr. Genson said that Oil Well Road is always mentioned as a negative issue. He gave an explanation on the history of Oil Well Road, noting it was a two-lane congested road prior to development of Ave Maria. He said the widening of the road was needed for many years regardless of the addition of Ave Maria. He said Oil Well Road did cost the County www.coIIiercountyfLgov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@coIIiercountyfl.gov Page 12 Packet Pg. 438 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 money upfront. The original developer contribution agreement contemplated that all the impact fees of Commission District 5, including Golden Gate Estates and Ave Maria, were supposed to fund Oil Well Road. In 2012 the County Manager said that many other projects are in need of the District's impact fee funds, therefore it was limited so that only Ave Maria impact fees became the funding source for Oil Well Road improvements. Mr. Genson highlighted that utilities infrastructure at Ave Maria is private and not County funded. Community parks are private, yet community park impact fees are paid to Collier County. He emphasized that the developer has not made money on Ave Maria. At one point, Ave Maria was costing the developer $30,000 per day to subsidize. On the topic of green development standards, Mr. Genson was in favor of incorporating such standards in the RLSA program. He mentioned that some people express concern about impacts of Ave Maria on the water table, and he explained that the prior use as farm fields consumed greater amounts of water than the permitted level of water use for Ave Maria. Mr. Genson supported that the County should examine Ave Maria to help formulate ideas during the restudy process, noting that examples of what does and does not work can be gathered from experience at Ave Maria. He concluded that Ave Maria is a long term project, and the developer will continue for many years to see the project through. An audience member asked if a small gas station, basic food store, and drug store should have been established in the community earlier. Mr. Genson said the community started in 2007 and the Publix and gas station opened in 2009. The recession impacted the community, evidenced by the fact that the gas station closed and only 30 homes were sold in 2009. The audience member said that Reston, Virginia started with a successful town center. The developer did not collect rent from the grocery store vendor for the first five years, and the store provided an important service to the community for those years. Mr. Genson said Barron Collier Companies also subsidizes the Ave Maria town center, noting the commercial lease rate of $5 per square foot versus $40 per square foot in other areas of the County during the recession. The developer still helps tenants with subsidies during the summer months. An audience member asked if it was a good business decision to build in eastern Collier County, and will Rural Lands West have the same problems? Mr. Genson clarified that Rural Lands West is proposed by Collier Enterprises which is a different entity from Barron Collier Companies. He said that people will continue to move to Collier County and the growth should be accommodated through developments that embody sustainable, smart growth principles. This restudy is about determining how to develop correctly and with foresight. Mr. Van Lengen asked Mr. Genson to clarify his statements about mixed use development. Mr. Genson clarified that vertical mixed use has not been successful, but horizontal mixed use with housing, retail and employment opportunities in proximity to one another is good for balance www.coIIiercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@coIIiercountyfl.gov Page 13 Packet Pg. 439 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 within the community, and it supports a healthy internal capture rate to reduce vehicle miles travelled. An audience member asked about Mercato as an example of vertical mixed use development, noting that affordability is key to securing residents for a vertical mixed use project. She suggested that marketing to the right population and providing units at densities that make them affordable would be a more successful model. Mr. Genson said increasing density is the best way to help make units more affordable, especially in coastal Collier County. He said leaders are starting to recognize and understand this issue. He cited examples of an apartment building developed with a density of 100 units per acre in St. Petersburg, and another development with a density of 75 units per acre in Sarasota, noting that these examples are aesthetically pleasing additions to those communities. An audience member asked if it would it be more economical if the vertical mixed use building was taller, making units more affordable? Mr. Genson said the Oratory is what drove the proportions and building heights in Ave Maria's town center. He affirmed that buildings with more stories help make the units more affordable. An audience member asked why apartment buildings are not in place where parking lots currently exist near the Oratory? Mr. Genson said there are townhouses planned in the vicinity of the referenced parking lots. He added that bicycles and golf carts are the popular transportation method when Mass is held at the Oratory. Commissioner Talyor complimented Barron Collier Companies for how they resolved the controversy over the Jackson Labs project. She said that the efforts taken to bring Arthrex to the Ave Maria community speaks to Barron Collier Companies' business acumen. Mr. Genson acknowledged the significance of the efforts to secure Arthrex as part of the community. IV Adjourn Mr. Van Lengen said that the County will be interested in working with Barron Collier Companies to further understand the fiscal aspects of development in the RLSA. He welcomed the audience members to return and participate at the next meeting in January, noting that the meeting date and location will be posted online once confirmed. www.coIIiercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@coIIiercountyfl.gov Page 14 Packet Pg. 440 CCPC Transmittal Hearin rt PL201900002292 g �O f4,-lty 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 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliercountyfl.gov Packet Pg. 441 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM 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 www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfLgov Page 2 Packet Pg. 442 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfLgov Page 3 Packet Pg. 443 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM 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 % 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfLgov Page 4 Packet Pg. 444 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfLgov Page 5 Packet Pg. 445 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM 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 www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfLgov Page 6 Packet Pg. 446 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfLgov Page 7 Packet Pg. 447 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfLgov Page 8 Packet Pg. 448 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM 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 membersaid nothing is done in return forthe 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) www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfLgov Page 9 Packet Pg. 449 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 10 Packet Pg. 450 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM 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. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfLgov Page 11 Packet Pg. 451 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM Dr. Evans said the more precise the recommendations, the better. She said while some topics can become polarized, there have been many conversations throughout the year of workshops where many people were on the same page. Trust has been an underlying issue. The next two meetings are important for tightening up thoughts and recommendations and consensus building. The many pages of data collected from all the workshops will be organized to pull out specific recommendations. An audience member asked if additions can be made to the feedback tracking? Dr. Evans said any changes can be brought forward by email or contacting the County staff, but feedback will not be redacted. She said when consensus is not reached, it will be identified and the barriers to reaching consensus are important because they could represent a whole policy issue. An audience member said several attendees were in attendance, and they would like to endorse the paper from the Conservancy. Dr. Evans said that is fine. An audience member said the issue of the data could be clarified if the original data was available and compared with how the data is now classified. It would help clarify the changes as someone tries to assess how the system is working. The original data and the new data would be helpful for understanding what has happened at the site. Dr. Evans said this is a helpful recommendation to assess the efficacy of the program. Dr. Evans said we are all living on land that was developed poorly, and it's important to resolve the best way to continue how development occurs. An audience member said that Rural Lands West can be reviewed as a good study of the original data and updated data for comparison. Mr. Van Lengen said the next meeting is February 28th and closed the meeting at 8:05 p.m. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfLgov Page 12 Packet Pg. 452 CCPC Transmittal Hearin rt PL201900002292 g �O f4,-lty Meeting Summary a RLSA Restudy Public Meeting c� Consensus Workshop February 28, 2019, North Collier Regional Park, Exhibit Hall 15000 Livingston Rd., Naples, 34109 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. www.colIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliercountyfLgov Packet Pg. 453 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting — Consensus Workshop February 28, 2019, 6:00 PM 9.A.1.e PL201900002292 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 28tn [Photos were taken at the close of the meeting of the comments adhered to the boards.] www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colIiercountyfLgov Page 2 Packet Pg. 454 CCPC Transmittal Hearin rt PL201900002292 g �O f4,-lty Meeting Summary a RLSA Restudy Public Meeting c� Consensus Workshop March 28, 2019, North Collier Regional Park, Exhibit Hall 15000 Livingston Rd., Naples, 34109 Opening Remarks Speaker: Kris Van Lengen, Collier County Mr. Van Lengen, Collier County Community Planning Manager, opened the meeting at approximately 6:05 p.m. He stated that the agenda begins with a presentation from the Eastern Collier Property Owners group (ECPO), who represent the majority of landowners in the eastern Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA). He explained that Mitch Hutchcraft will present for ECPO and there will be time for a few questions, followed by Dr. Evans continued affinity diagramming. For any item where consensus cannot be reached, the item is still important. Such items constitute areas that need to be explored because of difference of opinion. Mr. Van Lengen explained that after the public engagement workshops, staff will generate an analysis based on public comments, owner comments, and professional input which is planned to be ready for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners in June. Mr. Van Lengen noted that 170 people are on the email distribution list, and fifteen emails did not transmit. Mr. Van Lengen asked the audience to please provide email addresses on the sign in sheets if they did not receive an email on Monday. Mr. Van Lengen gave an update that Collier County staff is getting the data that underlies the Natural Resource Index (NRI) scores. Staff has the composite scores. Stantec has worked to provide the data, and the legal staff is working on how to provide the information publicly. An audience member asked about the data for stewardship credits generally, and the data for restoration credits. Mr. Van Lengen said the NRI value score includes restoration potential. The stewardship credits and restoration credit information is resolved later in the process and is not part of this data set. II Eastern Collier Land Owners Perspective Speaker: Mitch Hutchcraft, President, King Ranch Mr. Hutchcraft said it seemed some people haven't had the benefit of working on this project from the very beginning, and that he wants to give an overview of the regulatory framework that makes www.colIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliercountyfl.gov Page 1 Packet Pg. 455 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 notjust for setting aside the rural lands forever, but rather for maintaining the viability of agriculture in the economy. He summarized that Florida Statutes recognize protection of private property rights in rural areas, and the statutes were modified to reference Collier County's RLSA program and to recognize the program as compliant. Mr. Hutchcraft displayed a map of the RLSA showing several property owners, all having different interests and having the choice to opt in or out of the program. The program was designed to create credits, allowing two landowners to work together to achieve a better big picture outcome. He said that if all owners don't participate, then the outcome is diminished. If all landowners participate, the result is maximum preservation and protection of agriculture going forward. Mr. Hutchcraft posed the question, why was the program set up the way that it is? Before the RLSA program, if a property owner had wetlands or habitat, this was a devaluing effect. The public desired preservation and protection of water resources and habitat, while the landowners want to protect property rights and values. Mr. Hutchcraft argued that the program aligns the interests of the public www.coIIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@coIIiercountyfl.gov Page 2 Packet Pg. 456 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 and the landowner. If the public wants more wetlands or wildlife conservation, the owner is credited for that either through value of the land or through a different currency such as density offered in the RLSA program. The incentives are structured to align private property rights and property values with the interests of the public. Mr. Hutchcraft explained that another option is public acquisition. The County, State or Water Management District could provide money for public land acquisition, however money and resources to acquire land for public acquisition is diminishing. The protection of land without a cost to taxpayers is achieved through the use of development rights as currency for landowners to preserve habitat or cluster density. Mr. Hutchcraft said the regulatory framework involves how the credits are calculated. The most environmentally sensitive areas with wetlands or wildlife habitat generate the highest scores and value, and those credits can be used to develop on lower value lands. Mr. Hutchcraft displayed a sample calculation indicating how different levels of property rights can be removed to gain credits. Mr. Hutchcraft displayed a map to show the effect of land use regulations before the RLSA program to portray how base rights could allow development to occur on what is currently open space, tomato fields, pasture, wetlands, etc. By implementing the RLSA program, including the 5-year review recommendations, the likely outcome was displayed on a map showing that more land gets preserved or maintained for agriculture. He highlighted that the financial ramifications include no costs to the public for land acquisition or maintenance. Mr. Hutchcraft said since 2002, 180,000 acres of private land has been rezoned to limit the land's development potential to a clustered pattern. He noted that most landowners in the RLSA are large landowners, and since 2002, no land has been subdivided into five -acre lots. He said the benefit of the program is less rural sprawl, noting that total conservation land has grown to 50,000 acres which will be perpetually preserved and maintained at no cost to the public. Mr. Hutchcraft added that some well -planned development has occurred. He said for every one acre developed, six to eight acres get set aside for preservation. He stressed that landowners are making long-term decisions in reliance on the program, and when the 5-year review was performed and recommendations were proposed, those recommendations were supported at the time. In reference to the 50,000 areas preserved through the RLSA program, Mr. Hutchcraft said it is anticipated that 134,000 acres will be ultimately preserved at no cost to the public. He described that the Ave Maria development of about 5,000 acres, with additional proposed development totaling 7,300 acres, has resulted in 50,000 acres of preserved lands, noting that these preserves provide for flowways, wildlife and habitat. Mr. Hutchcraft displayed calculations of the costs associated with preserved lands. He said that the Conservation Collier program has preserved 4,000 acres with an average cost of over $25,000 per acre, and that Jim Beever of the Regional Planning Council identifies economic value to the public as $144 million annually. He said the Lee County 2020 program saved 30,000 acres with an average cost of $12,000 per acre. The RLSA program has already preserved almost 51,000 acres at zero acquisition costs. With zero acquisition cost and zero maintenance cost, he said the value to the www.coIIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@coIIiercountyfl.gov Page 3 Packet Pg. 457 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 public of preserved RLSA lands is about $1 billion annually. Considering the potential of 130,000 acres of preserve, the numbers become staggering. He added that all the preserved land stays on _ the tax rolls, albeit that the values do go down. Mr. Hutchcraft said the 5-year review effort was a result of original Comprehensive Plan policy to review the program and determine if it could work better. It was a robust process involving a committee appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. Significant consensus was reached on a few key components. The County Commissioners ultimately accepted the Committee's report but did not adopt it. Mr. Hutchcraft summarized key recommendations from the 5-year review, including: 1. Better incentives for protection of agricultural land. 2. Better focus on land preservation for panther corridors that are more functional with incentivization. 3. Cap on the number of credits and number of receiving acres. Create a maximum development footprint of 45,000 acres. 4. Add credits for panther corridors and agriculture. 5. Restoration credits should be capped. Mr. Hutchcraft reported that the projections for the program today are: 92,000 acres of Stewardship Sending Area (SSA), 43,000 acres of Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA), and 43,800 acres not participating and still developing at the base density. By adopting the 5-year review recommendations, he said that credits are recalibrated to account for agriculture credits, and there would be more agricultural use of the 43,800 acres that would not have participated previously. Mr. Hutchraft described that questions have been raised about economic impact assessments. He said the Collier County LDC requires a review of economic impact of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) each time an application is submitted. Rules are established for the evaluation. He said that the Smart Growth America study does not follow the rules established by Collier County, and said if the study cannot be validated, it cannot be considered a valid study. He argued that credit should be given to the landowners' studies that comply with the rules. He concluded by noting that the landowners wanted to reach out and provide perspective, and that ECPO supports the adopted plan and supports the 5-year review recommendations. He offered that the program aligns private and public interests, provides positive outcomes, maintains agriculture, and provides diversity in the economy. He reiterated that for nearly two decades, landowners have acted on reliance on the program, stating that the program is law and landowners feel strongly about maintaining the program, and they continue making decisions in reliance on the program. Mr. Hutchcraft said that ECPO does not find it appropriate to consider additional changes until the 5-year review recommendations are done, and that now is time to move forward with the www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 4 Packet Pg. 458 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 recommendations. Afterwards, he said landowners will continue to work with the community to move forward. An audience member asked why the BOCC did not adopt the 5-year recommendations. Mike Bosi, Collier County Planning and Zoning Director, said the cost to do the 5-year review recommendations could not be funded by the BOCC due to the recession. April Olson of The Conservancy said she has been involved in the RLSA program for twenty years, and she wants to set the record straight. She said The Conservancy was in support of the RLSA program in 2002, but there was an understanding that it yielded 16,800 acres of development and an estimated build -out population of 87,000 people. She said that tens of thousands of credits were put into the program just days before the program was adopted, and it was never disclosed to the public. Instead of 16,000 acres, she said 45,000 acres, or 250% more development, is proposed. She said this was not revealed until the 5-year review in 2008. She said that the program as understood by The Conservancy in 2002 is not the program we have today. She appealed for comments identifying flaws or inconsistencies found in the Smart Growth America report. She stated that The Conservancy opposes the 5-year review, noting it was conducted ten years ago and is outdated. She said the 2008 Wilson Miller calculations of the credits are still wrong, and now more lands are eligible for restoration. Dr. Evans offered that there is disagreement on this issue, and it is a fact that some topics will not achieve consensus. She acknowledged that property owners and The Conservancy have different perspectives, which can be explored further. Any issue identified as a non -consensus item can be captured as such and will not go away. Another audience member expressed confusion from the presentation. She said the presentation should have been at the beginning of the workshop series and not at the last meeting. She summarized that she heard the landowners don't want any changes and don't plan to adhere to any changes. She noted here impression that nothing was in place until the Commissioners adopt the plan. She questioned what the point is of a 5-year review if nothing happens. Dr. Evans said the effort underway is a restudy; it is another effort to refine the program. The audience member asked what the point is if there is not consensus? Dr. Evans said the last 14 months have provided clarification of the policies. Areas of consensus are visible and non -consensus areas are visible. This process makes it clear where everyone is on the same page. Where they are not in agreement, those issues can be identified and presented to the BOCC as topics needing further discussion or exploration. An audience member asked if development rights are currently four units per acre, noting that other cities do not allow development in wetlands. He added that he is concerned that no land is set aside for surface water. Dr. Evans said he can offer a recommendation based on this concern, and it can be determined if consensus is reached for the recommendation during the affinity mapping exercise. www.coIIiergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@coIIiercountyfl.gov Page 5 Packet Pg. 459 9.A.1.e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 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 281n 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.] www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudv@colliercountyfl.gov Page 6 Packet Pg. 460 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment E 9.A.1.f PL20190002292 COLLIER COUNTY 2020 STEWARDSHIP CREDIT ANALYSIS August 2020 Collier County Growth Management Department Packet Pg. 461 9.A.1.f CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment E PL20190002292 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. 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. Map 1 RLSA COMPOSITE NRI SCORE 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 462 9.A.1.f CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment E PL20190002292 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: Q • 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. Figure 1: RLSA Ovrelay in 2020 �2% 29% Collier County's staff analysis provides an updated analysis based on the RLSA implementation to date. Figure 1 4% provides a simple illustration of the implementation of the RLSA. The majority of lands within the RLSA are valued natural resources and agriculture Natural Resources Remaining lands. To date, the RLSA has protected approximately 56% of the lands ■ Naural Resources in SSA incentivized for preservation. A small ■ Ag1 in SSA percentage of land shown in orange are SSAs that maintains active agriculture Open uses. The Stewardship Credits generated SRA Approved and Potential 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. 2 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 463 9.A.1.f CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment E PL20190002292 Map 2: PROPOSED RLSA OVERLAY MAP APAENDED - JANUARY x5- 2007 AME"MO rQ. Nb. 200 6 - OCT4BER 14, 2005 1O'd. No. 2&N4Dy AMENDED - SEPTEMBER 13. 2011 8rro No. 2011-a4 AMENDED • JUNE 11. 2011 Om. No xv1T-x2 N xxx,xxxx *r4. No. XXX-M Npf-' The official designated titles of SSAs can be found within SSA Credit Agreements. 3 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 464 9.A.1.f CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment E PL20190002292 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: Q 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. Figure 2: Type of Approved Stewardship Credits 120000 100000 80000 60000 L u 40000 20000 0 Base Restoration Early Entry 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. 30,000.0 25,000.0 20,000.0 0 a) Q 15,000.0 10,000.0 5,000.0 0.0 FSA 08/06/2020 Figure 3: Lands Designated SSA HSA W RA 91 Packet Pg. 465 9.A.1.f CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment E PL20190002292 To estimate the future potential Base Credits, the data within the Stewardship NRI model is analyzed. 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 Map 3: PROPOSED RLSA OVERLAY MAP NORTH CORRIDOR GENERAL LOCATION SSA 11 ssA 1s ACSC SSA7 © NE TRAFFORD RD pp SSA5 SSA3 r� SSA 4 SSA 13 �nJ SSA 14 n ' I SSA 15 RA 55A2 SOum cD1010CR GENERJIL AT10 RIVERGRASS �, SSA 1 ACSC VILLAGE y 5 AGSC SSA 9 RA OIL WELL RE K SSA 15 WRA SSA 72 o SSA 10 SSA F GOLDENG EBLV➢ BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL FOREST o AGSC a 0 1.75 1.75 MIENDED - JANUMY 25. P007 O. N.200T 1B ,J�, w. '?tee Legend uyci 5rss SlewartlaMa Meaa AMENDED - vCTGDER +i, 2ooe�%fly fON. No. 2PBAd9 u O R v.f•,yi.v A,u _ i.,nr AMENDED SEPTEMBER 13, ]011 O.o x'1 TFT' O 1 2 4 QMiles .o�ur..d I� Noevcves Edetmw•• F " mo Are tls+ �""'�"' � •..� Hrm�; ®m•—'d`rki^xel•••[SSA#wm• �� eco.nv AMENDED-.eUNEt],]OI] PRItNUlV-rUrX.%%XX fora xz1 projections due to the Note, The official designated titles of SSAs can be found within SSA C red It Agreements. 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. 5 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 466 9.A.1.f CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment E PL20190002292 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 Staffs 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 M 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 467 9.A.1.f CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment E PL20190002292 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. 7 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 468 9.A.1.f CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment E PL20190002292 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 PROPOSED RLSA OVERLAY MAP � XORTH GORR�nOR GENERAL LOGATOX SEA 11 SSA 16 ACSG BSA NE rnAEFORO RD SSA5 S5A3 rRo SSA4 SSA 13 ]nI SSA 14 SSA 15 RA SSA 2 SOGIN GGN, C � GENERALL GAT1ONj RIVERGRASS n, $5A 1 ACSC VILLAGE $ vo AGSG SSA 9 0 NA ' DILWELL P➢ SSA 15 WRMA $SA 12 SSA 10 A BSA GOLDEN G fiVD BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL FOREST ACSC 0 I-7S 1.75 M11011 ArvunRi 11.Y 11 Legend ,MENDED-GMKR,<, mu ENNEo�s�eT o„°as is, �0 0 1 2 4 A -IN. o 1— 1nj�IIII rvo ®s��a.ws.a.�r...nsai `# �•• op. Na xxlAx .- -• approved SSAs, the proposed panther Note! The of1aaldesianateoIKiIo+$$Agcar be found vAthin$$ACrealtRpreemeni5. 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 E:3 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 469 9.A.1.f CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment E PL20190002292 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 5-Year 5-Year 2020 2020 Analysis Report Tiered Analysis Tiered Restoration Credits Estimated Restoration Credits Estimated Restoration Type per Acre Acres Credits per Acre Acres 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 Not Not wetland 3 included included 4 1,900 7,600 Total 11,600 72,000 1 13,570 1 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 9 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 470 9.A.1.f CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment E PL20190002292 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. Adiustments 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 10 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 471 9.A.1.f CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment E PL20190002292 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 toequal 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 d E 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. Q 11 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 472 9.A.1.f CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment E PL20190002292 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. Current RLSA in 2020 12% 37% Natural Resources Remaining ■ Naural Resources in SSA ■Ag1 in SSA Open SRA Approved and Potential Figure 4 Proposed RLSA J 24% 54% ■ Natural Resources SSA Agriculture SSA SRAs 12 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 473 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment F PL201900002292 9.A.1.g 1111 METRO FORECASTING M FM MODELS 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 (Sgft/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 Sgft/DU, and is broken down as follows: • Towns have an average demand of 170 Sgft/DU. • Villages have an average demand of about 53 Sgft/DU. Precise Data I Expert Analytics I Optimal Solutions Packet Pg. 474 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment F PL201900002292 9.A.1.g 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). FLORIDA COUNTIES COMMERCIAL SC1FT 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 55,1781628 454,442 121 Martin County 15,813,086 161,170 98 Average 103 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 sgft 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. 2 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 475 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment F PL201900002292 9.A.1.g 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 sgft/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. 2050 RLSA CONCEPT PLAN .��uGFAl9lM E Attachment B 5-year review Phase II of 159 (red arrows added by MFM) 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 3 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 476 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment F PL201900002292 9.A.1.g 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 t; 170 sf/unit Villages: 24 square feet per person x 2.25 persons/unit z 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. 4 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 477 9.A.1.h CCPC Transmittal Hearin Staff Re ort Attachment G PL20190002292 Q a c� ASUMMARY OF RLSA AMENDMENTS INCLUDING 2009 EAC, CCPC, AND BOARD COMMENTS ON 5-YEAR REVIEW AMENDMENTS, AND STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS c a� E c a� E a a J w Packet Pg. 478 9.A.1.h CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 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 stfike dffettgk are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5- Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or are staff s recommendations from the RLSA White Paper, October 2019. Proposed Amendments to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO) Goal (recommended amendment) o Collier County seeks to address the long-term needs of residents and property owners within the a 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 I of agr-ieultuivadl Inandd to non agr-ieultur-al uses, to direct incompatible uses away from T 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 f development that utilizes employs creative land use planning techniques: through the use of E established incentives. c a� E Staff Comments: The 5-Year Review Committee Report (Committee Report) recommendations further Q express the goal of retaining agricultural lands. This is implemented through related RLSA policy J 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. o 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. 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 are staff's recommendations. Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 479 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 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 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 are staff's recommendations. 2 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 480 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 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 185,935 acres . The Overlay Map is an adopted overlay to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Staff Comments: Staffs 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 GN4-P 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 b 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 are staff's recommendations. Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 481 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 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 Polices 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 apolitical, 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 contrga, Lipon 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 CopM 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: 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 necessm 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 underlLng fee title to the land, or 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 are staff's recommendations. 4 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 482 9.A.1.h CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 (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 reauired by the Growth Management Plan or Land Develonment Code for SRA annroval: or a a 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").f° a� The LDC shall specify how, assuming a Notice of Termination (as hereafter described) has not been 0 recorded, the Conditional Stewardship Easement shall automatically convert to a Permanent �a Stewardship Easement upon the earliest to occur of (a) any of the foregoing Events during the Q Conditional Period, or (b 1) 80 days after the last day of the Conditional Period, as and to the extent a N 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 3 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 y 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 CA Agreement and corresponding Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall expire and N terminate, the Stewardship Credits generated by the SSA shall cease to exist, the rights and c obligations set forth in the Stewardship Easement shall no longer constitute an encumbrance on the CD property, and the SSA Memorandum shall be revised accordingly. The owner of the SSA lands shall CD provide a copy of the Notice of Termination to the Counter N N a In the event that the Stewardship Credits from an SSA have been used to obtain one or more SRA I to 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 f and such Stewardship Credits have been applied to the SRA. In the event that a Notice of Termination E does terminate an SRA, the owner of the SRA lands shall join in the Notice of Termination. a� In the event that a Conditional Stewardship Easement is terminated, all benefits, rights, privileges, Q restrictions and obligations associated with the SSA shall be null and void, and the land shall revert to Q 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 recordingipublic records M within 15 days of request from the owner of the SSA lands. Collier Coun shall update the overlay E map to reflect the termination of any SSA or SRA. This policy shall be implemented in the LDC within 12 months after adoption hereof. Q 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 are staff's recommendations. Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 483 9.A.1.h CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 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 tion provided an application for such withdrawal is implemented within 6 months of the adoption of this Polices 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 Agreements. When the Committee presented their amendment. The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of the amendment. adds the FFWCC to future Stewardship Easement recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this 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 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. 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 are staff's recommendations. Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 484 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 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 f are part of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlav District in the E LDC (District). this Plan a� E Staff Comments: Staffs amendment recommendation is an update to reflect the accomplishment of the a a policy direction with the adoption of LDC Section 4.08.00 — Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning J 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 4-49 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. 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 are staff's recommendations. Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 485 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 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 (It), F.S. and 9J-5.006(5)(1). 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 implement uses within Stewardship Receiving Areas. 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 are staff's recommendations. Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 486 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 Poliey 4.2 !-(recommended amendment) - - -- - ------------ -- - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - L111141 - ... - - 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 (recommended amendment) The RLSA Overlay was designed to be a long-term strategic plan. Many of the tools, techniques and strategies of the Overlay are new, innovative, and incentive based 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]. 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: 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. 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 are staff's recommendations. Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 487 9.A.1.h CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 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 canned at 430-000 404,000 to entitle no more than 45,000 acres of Stewardship Receiving Areas. Generating Stewardship Credits does not vest deve ,,,.v ent fighta:presurne approval of Stewardship Receiving Staff Comments: Staffs 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. Cn 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 E Credit vesting needs further details, including language that states that all SSAs approved or submitted c and under review by Collier County prior to the adoption of the amendments will retain an 8 Credit ratio E for each SRA acre requiring Credits. Q a Judith Hushon, Ph.D. Comments: The proposal to change from 8 credits to 14 credits per SRA W acre is not sufficient. The original adoption of 8 credits per acre of development was arrived at o 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 E increasing to 430,000, if one divides that number by the number of acres projected (16,800) one E gets 25 credits per acre that should be required for development. This has been a windfall for U) 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 Q 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. E 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 are staff's recommendations. 10 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 488 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 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 ature eonversion to oth uses *" 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 other- uses by er-eating incentives that encourage the voluntary elimination of the property owner's right to convert agriculture land to non-agricultural uses in exchange for compensation as described in Policies 1.4 and 2.2 and by the establishment of SRAs. as the fefm of eempaet rffal development in the RLSA i .......... I ...... 17iti7" �� 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. 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 are staff's recommendations. 11 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 489 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 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, these lands shall be assigned two 2.0) Stewardship Credits per acre -t :a,. �F JL,. A... r J2..jj; @ ., St @ C;@ a-- ,- —c T iTa -h 1 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 laver 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 laver are eliminated and no longer available. Following approval of an Agricultural SSA, Collier Count, 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 I 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 I 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) Collier County wi44 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 AAG will also assess whether- exeeptions from standar-ds for- b i a -Wed to aoeultwe should 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 are staff's recommendations. 12 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 490 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 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. Staffs 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 3 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. 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 are staff's recommendations. 13 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 491 9.A.1.h CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 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 4` 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 a*d 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 , ° 18.428 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. 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. (recommended amendment) 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 are staff's recommendations. 14 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 492 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 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 aw&jA(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� 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 4r6 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 34=3.7. Other layers may also be eliminated at the election of the property owner in exchange for compensation. Staff Comments: Staffs 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 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, 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 aiq 3.6 (recommended amendment) 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 are staff's recommendations. 15 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 493 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 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 a* Els 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 Cooperative Sanctuary Program ASCPI 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 &S 32 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" S(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, aquaettittife and similar 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 are staff's recommendations. 16 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 494 9.A.1.h CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 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 I 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 940 3,2 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 944 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. Pr-ieFity shall given t restoration within the Camp Keais Stfand FS nor- eoiq4igueus 14 n Should a property owner be willing to dedicate land for restoration activities within a FSA or HSA ,,pAig, ous uc n r^,,,. two one additional Stewardship Credit$ shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated. ' An add"di-anal two Stewardship or -edits shall be assigned for- ea0h aer-e of lan dedie-atea este-latien aetivities-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 fetw 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 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 are staff's recommendations. 17 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 495 9.A.1.h CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 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. a 2. In certain locations, as generally illustrated in the RLSA Overlay Map, there maybe opportunities to a create, restore, and enhance a northern panther corridor connection and a southern panther corridor connection. Should a property owner in a federally Wroved corridor designate the required property for such corridor, :� 2 Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated. Issuance of the 8 -9—restoration implementation credits mawphased to coincide with a phased p implementation process in accordance with the federal permit. The procedures shall be set forth in the LDC Q 3. In order to address a significant loss in Southwest Florida of seasonal, shallow wetland wading bird a foraging habitat, restoration of these unique habitats will be incentivized in the RLSAO. Dedication of -ate any area inside an FSA, HSA, or WRA for such seasonal wetland restoration shall be rewarded with 2 3 additional Credit$ per acre. Should the landowner successfully complete the restoration, an additional=6 7 Credits per acre shall be awarded. y 4. Only one We 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. J This policy does not preclude other forms of compensation for restoration which may be addressed L through public -private partnership agreement such as a developer contribution agreement or N stewardship agreement between the parties involved. Also not precluded are various private and N publicly funded restoration programs such as the federal Farm Bill conservation progams. ams. The o specific process for assignment of additional restoration credits shall be included in the Stewardship CD District of the LDC. o Staff Comments: The 5-Year Committee Report recommended amendments are substantive in defining N a and restructuring Restoration Credits. When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC N recommend the second and third sentence found in paragraph 2. The Committee included these changes coo in the recommendations to the Board. The Board had no objections. r The RLSA White Paper recommended restructuring the timing of award of Restoration Credits so that c 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 M completion of the restoration activity. The Collier County 2020 Credit Analysis, Attachment 1, shows the potential total Restoration Credits Q under the proposed tiered system results in approximately 170,000 Stewardship Credits. This total J 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 O overall recommended Credit cap to achieve the goal. E Brad Cornell Comments: Suggests adjusting the restoration values for carcara from 3 to 2 Credits and the wading bird from 2 to 3 Credits. c� ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments with a change to 3.10.2 Q correcting the implementation credits from 9 to 8 credits, so the total Panther Corridor Credit is 10. m ECPO recommends that the estimated Restoration Credits should be 144, 000 total RI and R2 Credits, E consistent with the 5 Year review. 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 are staff's recommendations. 18 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 496 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 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 444 J U 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 944 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 n� for an SRA, the acreage of the WRA used for stormwater quality treatment 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. 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 are staff's recommendations. 19 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 497 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 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 944 313 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 946 3.14 (recommended amendment) Any development on lands participating in the RLSA OverlavPmgmm shall be compatible with surrounding land uses. Within one eof the e ff etive date of this D hey By year of the date of adoption of the ordinancel. 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. 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 are staff's recommendations. 20 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 498 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 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 3.12is 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 yow 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 45,300 15,000 acres within the ACSC. Total SRA designation shall be a maximum of 45,000 acres. ° 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 pr-ineiples of the Rum! Lands Stewardship Aet as fur-ther- dese procedures set forth herein and the adopted RLSA ZoningOy 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. 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 are staff s recommendations. 21 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 499 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 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 . ea f f em the off etive da4e of this amendment, Collier- Geu*ty shall adopt LDC amendments to establish the preeediffes a s4mittal requirements for- designation as a SRA ' to include pt:evisions for- consideration of impaets-, 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 be retroactively incorporated into the adopted Overlay Map by amendment periodically initiated by the County. 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 Lone Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). t r, W44* D--:'a "- i; �'; =�� 121Q. La O=pra�a and Access Management procedures. Each SRA master elan 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 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. 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. 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 are staff's recommendations. 22 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 500 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 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. Staffs 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)(1). These planning strategies and techniques include urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area -based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, and mixed -use development that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services. The SRA shall also include a mobility plan that includes 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 MPO Long ange 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 mobilityplans with future SRA application. The r amendment includes the CCPC recommendations. The Board had no objections. E 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 E process, not to fund and maintain the development of another process for transportation planning in a eastern Collier County. Staff's objection to the reference for a County Build Out Vision Plan doesn't J preclude the Board from additional focus on transportation planning for SRAs. The Board may request this effort at any time they find appropriate. o ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments. Policy 4.7 (recommended amendment) There are €ear three specific forms of SRA permitted within the Overlay. These are Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and Compact Rural Development (CRD). The Characteristics of Towns, Villages, lets, 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-.74. Collier Cetm4y sha4l 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)(1). The size and 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 are staff's recommendations. 23 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 501 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 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 oet less tha � �nnn greater than 1,500 acres and up to E)r more than n nnn 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 gppropriately 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. J• � 1 ♦ �1 �1 1 gig_RlieatJnn,—(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 Fa4ie as premed described in Policy 44-5 4.15.1. Towns may also include those compatible corporate office, research, development companies, and light industrial uses such as those permitted in the Business Park and Research and Technology Park Subdistricts of the FLUE, and those included in Polices. 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 she included in the LDC Stewardship District. Towns shall not be located within the ACSC. 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 are staff's recommendations. 24 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 502 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 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. Staffs 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 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 net less than 4=00 300 acres and up to vcn 1,000 acres inside the Area of Critical State Concern and up to not Mow 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 are 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 are staff's recommendations. 25 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 503 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 included in the LDC Stewardship District. Villages greater than 500 acres shall include an internal mobilily 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. J•• - 1 1 L'1Ji (Policy Staff Comments: This amendment retains the 11000 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 grocery store. When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board had no objections. Staffs 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, N Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics. The proposed amendments are based on the Collier M 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 r 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 E to 53 SFper dwelling unit. E ECPO Comments: ECPO does not support the staff recommended amendment as it represents substantive a 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 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 are staff's recommendations. 26 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 504 9.A.1.h CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 water recharge area via the Okaloacoochee Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA). The county should not permit development in the ACSC. Pohey 4�3-(recommended amendment) Namlets are small Fwai r-esideatial areas with pfimar-ily single family hattsing and limited range of eonvenienee oriented serviees. Hamlets shall be not less than 40 or more than 100 aeres. Hamlets will baseline standar-ds. 14amlets shall hm,e a pub!i - . ae for- neighbor -hoods. Namlets ineitt convenienee retail uses, in a ratio as pr-evided in Attael ....... t G. 14amlets may be an appropriate loeation for pre K through elementary schools. Design eriteria for Hamlets shall be ineluded in the LDG Hamlets, in eombination with CRDs of 100 aer-es or less, may be approved as SRAs prior- to the approval of a Village or- Town, and thereafter- not more than 5 additional 14amiets, in eombination with CRDs -of i nn aeres r toss y be approvedfor eaeh subsequent Villageor- rr,,.,.., 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 flexibility with respeet to the mix of uses and design standaMs, but shall ethefwise eemply with the standards of a Hamlet or- Village, shall support and further Collier CouM'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 se o and f edit es that suppeft pe nl 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 4-00 300 acres. retail,would een4ain ledging f4eilities a -ad serviees appropriate to eeo tourists, but may not provide will eenfbfm to the ehar-aeter-isties of a Village of 14amiet as set feFth On Attaehmefft C based on the size. of the GRP. As residential units afe not a r-e"ir-ed use, those goods a -ad sen4ees that support FeesideiAs stteh as > > mtal and insfitil ional uses shall also not be , _ —aer-es or- less to Villages and a Towns,for- any CRP that does inelude peFma-nent r-esidepAial housing, the proportionate support setwiees !is f 100 less, >Town, less, and thereafter- nor- more in eembiaa4ien with Hamlets, subse, ent Village or Tayffi. To maintain a proportion of CRDs of 4-00 300 acres or less to Villages Towns, not more than 5 CRDs of 4-00 300 acres or less mabpproved as SRAs prior to the approval of a Village or Town, and thereafter not more than 5 additional CRDs of 4-00 300 acres or less may be approved prior to each subsequent Village or Town. There shall be no fner-e than 5 GRPs fmore than 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 are staff's recommendations. 27 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 505 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 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. Staffs 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 c permitted. E D� '�;� ey A� 7 c E a oFEwifnate a ,,,1 s1 a fe infir,sf...,, twe shall be . o..mo,l Wien . ee to,l the !'',,,,aw s4 ll feview the � J 70 0l pA O 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. Text with single underline or single strife through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or are staff's recommendations. 28 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 506 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 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(sl 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 capfor 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, a�d—TVs. To further direct 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 are staff's recommendations. 29 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 507 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 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 and areas. The Index value of greater than 1.2 represents those areas that have a high natural resource value as measured pursuant to Policy 1.8. Less than 2% of potential SRA land achieves an Index score of greater than 1.2. 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. , . 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. 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. f The Board had no objections. E c 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 Q 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 _J management areas. Incentivizing non -usable open space over 35% conflicts with the RLSA intent of 4- 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. 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 are staff's recommendations. 30 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 508 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 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 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 Counter's arterial/collector roadway network as shown on tho G@#PAy Boild 0#4 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 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 are staff's recommendations. 31 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 509 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 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 a d 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. 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 are staff's recommendations. 32 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 510 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 Policy 4.15.2 The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) may, as a condition of approval and adoption of an SRA development, require that suitable areas for parks, schools, and other public facilities be set aside, improved, and/or dedicated for public use. When the BCC requires such a set aside for one or more public facilities, the set aside shall be subject to the same provisions of the LDC as are applicable to public facility dedications required as a condition for PUD rezoning. Policy 4.15.3 Applicants for SRA designation shall coordinate with Collier County School Board staff to allow planning to occur to accommodate any impacts to the public schools as a result of the SRA. As a part of the SRA application, the following information shall be provided: Number of residential units by type; 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 GRPs exeee ing one hun oa (100aer-essize,and may be required in CRDs that e e hundred (nm o or-los- 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 ..o.-mittoa in Hamlets a 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. 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 are staff's recommendations. 33 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 511 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 Policy 4.17 The BCC will review and approve SRA designation applications in accordance with the provisions of Policy 1.4=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.= . 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, ineludiffe awv, r-ela4ed iwwa is to Collier- GOU*t.. outside f these a;Yee*',, generated by the.-SRA- SR ^ 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 M T 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 c f energy business projects. E Staff Comments: The Committee's recommendation provides for the use of surplus SRA revenues for the a� use for economic development. The Committee included the CCPC recommendations into their Report E with the exception of, " The Board had no objections. J Staff recommends approval of the amendment. o 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 4i&=approved prior to (the adoption date of this Ordinance). Ten (10) TAi#eeft7(134 Credits per acre shall be required for each acre of land included in an SRA. where such Credits were created from anv other Stewardship Sending Area. Land that is designated for a public benefit use described in Policy 4As14.20 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 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 are staff's recommendations. 34 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 512 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 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, 443 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 SPA 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 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 exel ,, ing essential seiwiees 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 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 are staff's recommendations. 35 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 513 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 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 Tr.,,� CRDs of 100 acres or less and the only form of SRA allowed in the ACSC west of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be CRDs And Villages a -ad GRBs of not more than 300 acres �a�. Provided; not more than 1,000 aces of SRA development in the form of Villages or CRDs however-, that GRDs of m e than 500 Rer-es eaen3 exclusive of any lakes created prior to the e ff-eetive date of this .,,y,eaavn&4 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 off etive date of these mend. et4s, 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 &tata=md 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. 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 are staff's recommendations. 36 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 514 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 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) Anv development on lands participatine in the RLS Program shall be compatible with surroundiniz land uses. Within one year of the effective date of this Policy LDC regulations shall be implemented for outdoor lightini 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 o* 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. . 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. 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 are staff's recommendations. 37 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 515 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 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 f llew ng regulations are appl eable, 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 f 12 months of the adoption of this Ordinance' within 12 _. @nth . of the; =- � d O U 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. Axis defined as speeies thm have been delisted atfor- W-nthere remain federal, state andler- leeal pr-eteetions andlei: raa-nagemen4 plans speeifying guidelines their- pr-eteetion. 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 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 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 are staff's recommendations. 38 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 516 9.A.1.h CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 regulations shall be utilized to prepare the required managementplans. Open areas between wildlife habitat afeas a -ad afeas deminated by h*ma* aetivi 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. Miti ag tion for impacting listed species or SSLC habitat shall be considered in the management plans, as appropriate. i. The following refer-enees shall used, as appropriate, to prepare the 1 SouthrFlorzda Multi Speeies Reeevery Plan, TTCFWS 1 aTr 2 Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle —in the Southeast Region, USFWS, • pelr,yp Io, us) Populations fi3und en r 7 ands i lr ato,l��for- Large�Cz�ic Development�Fierida, Technical Repeft No. 4,ierida Game and From, Water- Fish Commission, 1987. 4 Eeeiegy—and Develeprnent Related Habitat Requirements of the Florida Setmubpelosemseepdleseens), T€ehnieal Repeft N� 4�da (F.,lee Spaiwe Paulus)E)n Large 0 .,le Development cites i T11,,fid Nongame Teehnieal Repot4 -No. 13, Florida Game and Fresh IA14er- Fis 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. ii-. When listed species or SSLC are utilizing a 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 managementplans 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. 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 are staff's recommendations. 39 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 517 9.A.1.h CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 be to the largest 1 1 . I given pr-oteeting most burr-oow eontiguotts -9—. for- ;• ing •, labitat with to the gieatest number of active s, and eonneetion o _ adjaee t toi4 :so ^^ ^ Q site gopher- p a ,F t the i Teehnieal Report No. 4 Florida r`_a,Y,o ffn guidelines eontained .1 Fresh Water- F Commission, 1991. .1 11 � ��s�is��xxsr.^,�'�ke�e�e�-;��rgei�e�it�x=�s�� Plan L de for d also --a maintenanee to program the and speeify an appfepfiatenor O mechanical protocols maintain natufal sefub cede plan shall a� ra the the site- L a pr-eseR,e need maintain sefl;t eget�t>-e�kze�emeas s Q shall to the UP IC South Florida Multi Species Recovery Dla.. consistent with fn May 1999, „bjeet t the py-ovisions of paragraph (3) f this ,.,,key. R 3 the m plans shall establish pfoteetive The zones armound eagle fiest Festfieting eel4aift Cl) aetivities. plans shall also addF of aetivities to during the These qhAI be e TAIS nest season. r-equir-e..tq South Pofid Multi Speeies J f paragraph (3) of this p,.liey, � L the 1pieoides bofealis), the habita 3 e.Fof fed -eoc e peeker- required impaets t, ^ pivteeti6zr- plan -si"11azl oti xrotid nne to metastirmes-to t f r avoid ci&ef:se .�t�=erc��=efeef eti eets N a' N eittsterr,nd minimize ecs-t6zvres g N be be taken to distufbance O ean not avoided, measufes shall minimize on site O O O be a ^ :ste t T the U �xIC South F a Multi C'peeies Reeo Plan, MaY CD with rmi a fy , O N 1999, „ eet to the o f 3) o f this J �� f. in p the Florida pafag-aph black bear- (Ufsus policy. floridanus) be IL afeas ^. where t the shall ameficanus o that «la .^ to .laa^ may 1in be CM prm^ management plans arm idepAi ttliods t6 vfm Weal also y fn r rmesidmstke-eofieermfis- rmelated-te ,:table llaek bear shall be sidef0.1 themanagement � for a in pla.+ E laea4e Prmie,-:ty Torm Prmio,-:ty TT Da,-,tlef 1iabitr'4 u�1.,� ti7.,p � g. vimirvJeets afeas, r- the destruetioir-vf agemont plan shall eotifage undisstifbed na4ive habitats that—afe by the Flofia ther by pfefeffed (Felis eoi3eslor eot�yi) a a N J kt ..m the intense la.-.,1 the by to iatefisitmy fedf most tises of p eet using w land (e.g., Gold O tises paFks, passive rmeewational armeas, gol� eotifses). eaufses 0 the Rormal Lands Armea be designed Nvithin fettfid th-isOvefla. shall The and managed using :b , standarm] a to cC E within management planslliden E lighting fef these the 7 eontfols pefmitted tises and shall also addfess oppoAttaky to buming t6 utilize presermiao'1 maintain adapted pt:esen,ed vegetation � bt:w ferrite deer. These eemmunities be and pfavide the se UFWS South Flofida -tailed Multi Speeies rmequifementsshall Reeovef Plan Q eonsistent with >\a 1999 h t t the t this C xsxcr�x � � � � suvj'eec cv cxx�Piv�� isi9ns-6 jai'-agiap �T6 (3) �cy�T e,��ci Deeov^ . Plan (1(994 shall .moteetio-fl E nst;t„te minimumwildlife star,la,.,as f r the DT e n n U cc r a Text with single underline or single st:ke thFouo are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or are staff s recommendations. M Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 518 9.A.1.h CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 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 Eet4ainin utilized by listed species or SSLC. It is recognized that these agency recommendations, on a case by case basis, may aange stren tgthen 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 SSLG is defitied as speeies that have been de!kW but for wWeh there renfain federat, stote and4or lo " 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 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 wotlands pomks 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 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 are staff's recommendations. 41 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 519 9.A.1.h CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 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 4.2.2.4.3 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 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 V49 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. 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 are staff's recommendations. 42 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 520 9.A.1.h CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 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€er-the loss of wetlands eF listed speeies habitat if those !ands if these !a -ads are plae , ;rider —a -perpetual censey-vation easement with perpetual maintenanee ems. 4v 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 encouraized to consider participatingin n 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 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 are staff's recommendations. 43 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 521 9.A.1.h CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 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 a the exceptions of the text struck through in paragraph 3.f iv. "..for- the less or,:,o+'ands or- listed speeies � habitat if these lands if those lands are plaeed under- a perpetual eonsevvation easemea4 with per-pet+tal maintefia-M" The Board had no objections. (D Staff recommends approval of the amendment. 0 �a a� Nick Penniman Comments: To remove the requirement to place restored lands in a permanent Q conservation easement is an appropriate solution and should be retained in the GMP amendments. a t U) Policy 5.7 3 Any development ^snot 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 y outdoor lighting_ , to protect the _ nighttime environment, conserve energy, and enhance safety and security_ —J L Staff Comments: The Committee accepted the CCPC recommendations regarding this new Policy, with 3 W the exception of . The Board CN had no objections. N N Staff recommends approval of the amendment. 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 are staff's recommendations. 44 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 522 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G 9.A.1.h PL20190002292 Proposed Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element 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 outpopulation. 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 longterm 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. 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 are staff's recommendations. 45 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Packet Pg. 523 9.A.1.i August 24, 2020 Dear Planning Commissioners: Edwin Fryer, Edwin Fryer@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.' 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 ' 1000 Friends of Florida Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay to Support Collier County Restudy, March 2019 Packet Pg. 524 9.A.1.i 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: 2 Packet Pg. 525 9.A.1.i • 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.' • 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. Z 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. 3 Packet Pg. 526 9.A.1.i 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.' 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. ' 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. 0 Packet Pg. 527 9.A.1.i 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 Whv are excess credits a concern? 6 See also "Summary of Board of County Commissioners Actions Taken on April 21, 2009." 5 Packet Pg. 528 9.A.1.i 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 Order? 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. ' 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. 0 Packet Pg. 529 9.A.1.i 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. s • 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. s 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. 7 Packet Pg. 530 9.A.1.i 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. 0 Packet Pg. 531 9.A.1.i 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. Cr Packet Pg. 532 9.A.1.i 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. 10 Packet Pg. 533 9.A.1.i 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.darkskV.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. " 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. 11 Packet Pg. 534 9.A.1.i 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 12 Packet Pg. 535 9.A.1.i 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." 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 " Memorandum to Kris Van Lengen from Metro Forecasting Models "Collier County RLSA Ideal Future Town Size" May 10,2019. 13 Packet Pg. 536 9.A.1.i 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 1 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. 14 Packet Pg. 537 9.A.1.i 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. 15 Packet Pg. 538 9.A.1.i 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 16 Packet Pg. 539 9.A.1.i 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 17 Packet Pg. 540 9.A.1.i 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 a bove. 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 'a LDC Section 4.08.07 requires that an SRA "offer a range of housing types and price levels to accommodate diverse ages and incomes." IN Packet Pg. 541 9.A.1.i 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. " 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. 19 Packet Pg. 542 9.A.1.i 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. 20 Packet Pg. 543 9.A.1.i 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. 21 Packet Pg. 544 9.A.1.i 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." 22 Packet Pg. 545 9.A.1.i 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 23 Packet Pg. 546 9.A.1.i 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. 211 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. 24 Packet Pg. 547 9.A.1.i Sincerely, LWVCC Environmental Committee Patricia Forkan Charlotte Nycklemoe Susan Calkins Judy Hushon Alison Wescott Bonnie Michaels Loralee LeBoeuf Lynn Martin Gaylene Vasaturo 25 Packet Pg. 548 9.A.1.i ATTACHMENT 1 VILLAGES OF BIG CYPRESS STEWARDSHIP DISTRICT 26 Packet Pg. 549 9.A.1.i 27 Packet Pg. 550 9.A.1.i 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 % 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 m Packet Pg. 551 9.A.1.i 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? 29 Packet Pg. 552 9.A.1.j CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Protecting Southwest Florida's unique natural environment and quality of life ... now and forever. Conservancy's Comments on the Mari , a, 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 a 2020. Since adoption of the program in 2002 and the first review of the program, referred to as the "S-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.' 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 commuri ies.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, httl2s://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.colliercount,Lgov/home/showdocument?id=84778 Conservancy of Southwest Florida has been awarded Charity Navigator's prestigious 3-Star top rating for good governance, sound fiscal management and commitment to accountability and transparency. Charity Navigator is America's largest and most respected independent evaluator of charities. 1495 Smith Preserve Way I Naples, Florida 34102 1 239.262.0304 1 Fax 239.262.0672 1 www.conservancy.org Packet Pg. 553 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 2 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 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. S. 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 staffs 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 staffs efforts. Page 2 of 32 Packet Pg. 554 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 3 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 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. 2427 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). Page 3 of 32 Packet Pg. 555 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 4 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 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 CreditAnalysis 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 Page 4 of 32 Packet Pg. 556 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 5 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 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. Estimated Credits: Base Credits from all NRI based SSA& 128,000 Eady Envy Bonus Credits (upon phase out) 20,000 Restoration Credits (adjusted) 144.000 Agdeullum Credits 00,000 acres) 89,000 Panther Comdors(assumes2.300 acres) 23.000 Total Estimated Credits 404,000 ProlO- SSA sunuly of Credits SSA Credits vested at 6 Credits per SRA acre Projected SRA acres assuming all Credits are used: SRA acres entltled at 8 Credits per acre 12,186 acres SRAacres entitled at 10 Credits cer acre 30.651 acres Subtotal of Credit entitled BRAS 42.637 acres Puhk benefit acres )estimated at 1o%, 4233 acres Total potential SRA acres 47,120 acres Source: Phase 2 Report PowerPoint Presentation- 5-Year Review (2009) The 2020 draft RLSA Proposed Amendments, based on the 5-Year review, adheres to the same logic. The County's draft202O CreditAnalysis 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 Table 9. Recommruded Poliev Estimated SRA Adjustment Acres StewardshipCredit Total SSA approved and in escrow 19'7,298 SRA Acre potential (a. 9 Credits er acre including10% ublic benefit acres 27,127 Recommended Policv Amendments Future Credits 232,712 Remainingr SRA toequal 45,000 acres incIades 10% ubiic benefit acres 17,873 New SRA Credit Ratio Romainin Credits--Rernainin SRA, less 10% public benefit acres) 14 Retnaining Basel devela mint otential I unit per 5 ac 0 Source: Collier County 2020, Stewardship Credit Analysis, p. 11. 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. Page 5 of 32 Packet Pg. 557 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 6 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 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 d.2n�v 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. Page 6 of 32 Packet Pg. 558 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 7 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) landowners understand they have the ability to earn credits beyond the cap, it is likely they would challenge the cap, perhaps claiming Bert Harris$, and demand that the cap is removed. This would be a likely scenario especially for non-ECP09 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 1/2 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 and 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. Page 7 of 32 Packet Pg. 559 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 8 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 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 , and two and s4 tenths (2.6) Credits per n,.re 14dt in the aGS " 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: io Collier County May 2019 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Restudy White Paper, p. 87. httl2s://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=87491 State of Florida Administrative Commission Final Order No. AC-99-002 (1999, June 22). Page 8 of 32 Packet Pg. 560 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 9 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) "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. Page 9 of 32 Packet Pg. 561 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 10 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 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 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."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 11 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%20Recovery0/020Plan.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. Page 10 of 32 Packet Pg. 562 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 11 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 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_S be amended to reflect these changes. AMENDED POLICY 3-.&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 staffs 2019 White Paper recommendation agree that land uses 1-4, including golf courses, should be prohibited in Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs).21 AMENDED POLICY 34-0 3.11- WHAT WE DO NOT SUPPORT (AND OUR SOLUTIONS): Amendments to Policy 340 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 3.10.13.11.1): 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.colliercount,Leov/home/showdocument?id=24206 Collier County May 2019 Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Restudy White Paper (p. 87) httl2s://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=87491 Page 11 of 32 Packet Pg. 563 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 12 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 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 S0,000 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 1S Amendment (SSA1S). Without having to spend one dime on restoration, the applicant for SSA1S 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). Source: 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) Page 12 of 32 Packet Pg. 564 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 13 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) Credits for other types of restoration (Amended Policies 3404 3.11.1 and 3.10.3 3.11.3): The Amendment to Policy '103.11 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 3.10z 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 34-2 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 their 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/ld7zL6UyrrieDMUCuAP4HHe9iShuYUbBGh/view Page 13 of 32 Packet Pg. 565 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 14 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 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 3-44 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 33-3.14 (CuFr-e r 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 habitatfunction,, quantity, and/or spatial extent of wildlife habitat.141ithiP *hn rUpnr „Pl„�� i-q -r-Ompensating mitigation OF rester-atien in -Pth-pp Gre-1 -J er4Gj, that will provide c.,v,„ arable abitat fun..tien n AMENDED POLICY �4 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): new GFoup 3 GMP policy is added to aCICIFess nume]FOUS issues with the restoFation plan process. The 2019 White Paper Recommendations31 acknowledge the need for 'further data and vetting of the land management and restoration recommendations 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) httl2s://www.colliercouniyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=87491 Page 14 of 32 Packet Pg. 566 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 15 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 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. A. -me- d-m- nts 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 TFansmittal to stu_qY the need • 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 Page 15 of 32 Packet Pg. 567 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 16 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 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 pFoposed changes to this policy are imnnrtant 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. httl2s://www.conservancy.org/file/15---policy, /rural-lands/2018-10-08-Letter-re-Rural -Lands -West-SRA-Application-No. - PL20150001335.udf Page 16 of 32 Packet Pg. 568 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 17 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) We also agFee with the t:ecomme-p-d—ation to include Additional meaqiwer, f0vaffOFEIable housing "needed to support the mix of uses and employee income levels based on the jobs er-eated in the Town." Cor-onavir-us has r-eminded us of the impor-tance of essen personnel. NuFses, fire per-sennel, police, EMS WOF!EeFs, teachers, sanitaFy and U#4ty wor-ker-s, grocery store and restaurant wor-ker-s are vital personnel necessary to pr-ovide assessments of SRA village applications demonstr-ate that developers plan to provide housing at prices much higher- than the median value for- Collier- Coo ty -33 which would affordable housing requirements would clarify that communities— t A- h- e equipped with loe l p el to vide necessary „hlicc s. We also support increasing the minimum and maximum requirements for goods and services under Attachment C (as mentioned in the March 9, 2020 Amendments mobility pl.,,,--, 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. Page 17 of 32 Packet Pg. 569 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 18 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) Require minimum densities within % mile of a Town Core or Village Center. Based on the SmartCode v.9.2, those areas (center/core plus % 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 Policv 4.7.5 for our comments Dertaining the new affordable housing languagel. 4.74), the am -ended language pFe-vid-es additional specificity pertaining W affOFEIable heus ng requirements WHAT WE DO NOT SUPPORT: We recommend that Policy 4.7.2 is amended to prohibit gny 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.colliercount,Lfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=87491 Page 18 of 32 Packet Pg. 570 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 19 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 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 trig 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 WRA " 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. Page 19 of 32 Packet Pg. 571 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 20 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 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 ofgreater 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%. Staffs 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. Page 20 of 32 Packet Pg. 572 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 21 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 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 �4 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. 31 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.colliercount,Leov/home/showdocument?id=24206 Page 21 of 32 Packet Pg. 573 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 22 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 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 OKslough. • 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) httl2s://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=87491 Page 22 of 32 Packet Pg. 574 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 23 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 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 SSLU AMENDED POLICY 5.6.311v - 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 5.6.31, 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 "defines] 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. Page 23 of 32 Packet Pg. 575 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 24 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 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 Page 24 of 32 Packet Pg. 576 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 25 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 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. Approved 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.coIliercountvfl.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_12df Page 25 of 32 Packet Pg. 577 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 26 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 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. S. How manages/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 1.214-.2-2 (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 County 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). Source Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Restudy White Paper, May 21, 2019, p. 7/89. Page 26 of 32 Packet Pg. 578 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 27 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 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) B. An analysis of credits for use in urban areas should be included: Amended Policy 1.214-.2-2 (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. howeveF, 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: 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. httl2s://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=87491 Page 27 of 32 Packet Pg. 579 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 28 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 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? S. 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? 51 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 County, 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." httl2s://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=72825 55 Urban Three: Collier County Town and Village Analysis. Page 28 of 32 Packet Pg. 580 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 29 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 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 OKslough. • 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 Page 29 of 32 Packet Pg. 581 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 30 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 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 ofgovernmental 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 % mile of a Town Core or Village Center. Based on the SmartCode v.9.Z those areas (center/core plus % 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 ofyears 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 Page 30 of 32 Packet Pg. 582 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 31 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 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. Page 31 of 32 Packet Pg. 583 9.A.1.j Conservancy of Southwest Florida 32 Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) a Attachment 1: Conservancy's Vision Plan for RLSA n L 3 SR 82 —1 y f y _ 5�82 •-,� - � Sk 82 N An Y Y a S - tir J f f j �Al�/VS CR 846 N a ) � �O \ *IMMOKALEE RID E - � i� I m N o i R W ^/ R 2018 LSA Vision Map GOLDEN GATE eLVpW J Legend O RLSA Boundary CONSERVANCY VISION MAP Proposed Open area: 36,881 acres Area of Crifieai State Concern _ Hogan Island quarry - Permit Challenged CONSERVANCY Proposed Additional HSA of Southwest Florida ``��' The Conservancy's additional proposed Potential Development Areas ouRWATEP, IAno.WILOCIFS. FuruPF. HSA area of 50,762 acres would protect: WRA 47,727 acres of Primary Panther Habitat = HSA 41,430 acres of Agricultural Lands FSA 175 1 6,103 acres of Wetlands -• Ave Mafia - Already Permitted Date: 11126/2018 as C R J L N O N N O O O O N J N M Page 32 of 32 `` Packet Pg. 584 Z6ZZ0006WZId : Zti9£0 Suoi;epUGWWOOO.a S.AOUeAJOSUOD SA SIUOWPUOWV VS -la OZ-SZ-8 :IUGWt43ePV L � O - U 00 = � a) U n G1 0 N a) cNa m E v 3 vi N >. Q a) O _ > •M ra O ^ E > .Q f>6 (n • N1 00 O 'O O -0 a) a) L • • 3 aJ u1 0 f6 O C i O ° *' ru v CL '6 N G1 v o f6 ai 0 O •U m • Q 3 f6 iJ N V-0 (� -to O O N > • �' U v Gi *' N >- > L • _O 'L Q c m N N o Q a) `� tv v�i � N 0 ; 'n c: N 4 4-U O O a) N C L f0 U n3 a) -� Q J In O 0 N a1 E > E aJ �' N W • GC o 3 : O w v a; > E ++ coy O m V ' Q 40 • • N N • • (A• • 0 0 0 � — v 4- Q c 3 (Ij V) �_ UD • +J (6 '� O O" U bo O •L -0 C C • . Oo Q � +� Q +� O two o > O E O N a, aj O i li v 4 J U O N a) -0 u > O V1 U > v •L cQJ VLrl N J oC N (B c.� V) 0 L 0 0 • E = a o d0Ga, a^ • O 3 aj O—v Q = aJ Occo 75 a O aj • E o t Q 3 Q a o O v -a O ,n +� > • • p O av U +, +, m E aj E m N O U U v CL. m c v � s Q 3 '6 O + O = O • -W O !En ai p O E i a1 cv s • . • > E 5 • •� re C 5 CA In 00 LO a m Y V R Z6ZZ0006WZId : Zti9£0 SUoi;epUGWWOOOJ S.AOUeAJOSUOD SA S;UOWPUOWV VS-JM OZ-SZ-8 :;UGWLpejjv 00 O O O N a.., O O 41 U N N V O cv 0 > O ON it C a U E to U tv a-; c GJ i 7 0 oO E N ate' N v '' (� ` M` Ln M° U 3 c = o o ++ QJ t cC > Y cv L O O 'a ep 0 O S 4 , �' +' N O> a) -0 M c 3 'C O -0 v N V �� H U 4� C LO -2 u O Li v ° dp o'�� U o 0 0" O E f6 GJ Chi ° v CL CU o o v o v vOi O 4-1 V, 3 a 1 a", a a� o '+� Q- O ++ O E a c in _ cv v o s N 0 �, 0° +- a > a fl- �. ++ C� = 3 c N o o Q c v c c 4- r 3 v E C u 3 DJ E L +J Q° �' -� •i Q U E aj c ° 4.�0 cu c�_ *� = r' 3 v o o� M O t �.+ o o a Q t E c w a oc a E > O CC cos i Z a .r a 0 -0 tlo .� p = CA H U 3 3 E Q a v� w CL r 3 0 Y v a� 41 z aJ V O O 0� i . GJ H CA •� E O v O L +� c c f6 w cO a i N G% N E 3 0- v i Q) +' do Lo o ° E o O ++ > s U Q z Q E M>' L 0- O b.0 C N w J a 0) v v v O N ca L t ++ DC E s � -0 � U N (U b.0 GJ M +' 00 N 4- V) 'Z- v oo O ; 4-1 o Y V)j v�i U m_0 V) O i 4-1M t 2 Q- -a vJ c ° �'3 ++ 4 M41 aj L 4° > c °U X L 4 'O 6 Q O U 4- t *' C +' _0c u +, v 4 J o cc 3 do H �_ co M — co co n c 0 0+ E t o U M 0 N O i fC > 01 t G1 u Ln 0 s d• 3� M N 5 cn �n et+ i 0 w v 5 0 W �z to 00 W a m Y V M Z6ZZ0006WZId : Zti9C0 SU011epUGWWOOaa S.AOueAJOSUOD SA SIUOWPUOWV VS-JM OZ-SZ-8 :jUGWL 0ejjv 00 to N VI 4- Ul t > a, U N c�i� t O 4+ c � °J N Q Q� `" *' t O E t Q N L coo a oC ,c u 0 0 H O -� L w N L^ u GJ t aJ Q cv O t ar ;n m Q c cV'o 0 ++ E Q c 4-0 c 3 U Z w0 Vl' D O c aJ ut O U '� +J a ° 3 N 4 V O a1 •X i E m" o�,o LCU c U i1 +' 0 m L4.Pi a CO w of a) " co 7 (O L LJ aJ i i ON a, �E Q � n E •w �� GJ 0 fC �' O v c v 3 cu c 3 m *' m � >� c CA�� E c > O aj O a ' a E -C E L O C • O. • • C M L t N Q m fl- F . 0 0 N s aj o _u '— a) � v O O L U ° � aJai Z to Q U aJ a� aJ v v u t +� c U} c O >- a--+ 0 a1 O 4-1 U fo iJ V a- Co L aJ aiO a) 4' Q M O v O "-0O c cQJ .w te a-+ E c(o u " O c v?v `- 4-1 N aJ n O a) -6 M �- � N c c cLo fY6 L .`—' > wV + NQc O> co n a) i 4-1 N4J c ac 0 U aJ O up OuO p ) 7 in +J 'j E E Ln N M O 3 (o Ln aJ •� t v a1 L u cO co +J a co O L u O — E aJ Q a m O dA � O co U dA E c a, L 'y UA Q }, c N U N L E N+ E> cm: � tv A v a� LJ L i Q N -0 C .c c OL O '4 � co O N N c a� c o Q (o +, ° 0 +2 E v c .E L v 0 v '- V v'1 d 4A .�' 'U_ Q N= O Q i ° Q ; W > fl- on � m Q O O Q Q c i 'a v v V, W t O O� c ,>- c (o v, 4� aj m u GJ E a>i E w f9 *' O > (IJ 4-1 > c° Oo a s ns o V) .� - L Q Q -0 0- v Q X • O • 3 • u i 3 H a cn ro 19 5 O w v 5 0 w 0 �z Z6ZZ0006WZId : Zti9£0 SUoi;epUGWWOOOJ S.AOUeAJOSUOD SA S;UOWPUOWV VS-JM OZ-SZ-8 :;UGWLpejjv 00 O ° :� � Q o y O p) � � i = O ° O n L s C 4-1 o v v �^ c> OL 3 v w ++ O Q "� 3 O 4- 4J t +' E 3 Oa, V QJ N (n L U1 � Y w 4J O L O_0 E v a IOU E E v oo co E n, O WD O o 'c� ^yO L " y cv � L W V � 4 -a L N + C:L a N E Q 4! vi a E E O o O O ° � C:4-1 c aJ V W Q Q L N 0 O O � i � Q o�.� cEo Q� � t cEo •� Q3 (U o a� o� I![ •V �ao� a-+ j ° Q O_ IR m t }' U v N Q L ��Q � L a 3(n t � `a t N w-0 o O O O .�^ G) CL • • O • • r 45 AO CL r M .� 0 0 o � v > i. .= (Ii cN C)QJ 4• 4 t y Q cn U N -Q 4J C 4-1N m x� L o- 3 U }' �O a„r H r_ O N O L > N u Q C ca W M L mVf + un Ln `n 41 N i V O � ao E ° CO Ln a � O GJ o LnQ > vL 4-1 n O r4, O to ? ° = co Q" L O v 0 0 vi vi N GJ N fB O � fC i Q O Q +N Q E v ate-+ t Q 3 i E- O1 � N O +, -i� +' s '> E > -O 3 E4- }U CN U O E Ln °u v 41 O U. cn v > O � >�o��v°� N E GJ M O w + ++ 4J W O •V -0 rGJ vI � m oA -0 }�. v ^�, W 3 L U Q - M L C .twi •� N O N E t� E .� !Ecn U au -00 C O a ° � �� w 4- � 3C m� " D -0 r- 5 cn �n et+ i 0 w v 5 0 W 0 v U 0 M> �o w u Q i N � X •O � Wen 0 • �, N G1 Can � N co co W a a am Y V m d Z6ZZ0006WZId : Zti9£0 SUoi;epUGWWOOOJ S.AOUeAJOSUOD SA S;UOWPUOWV VS-JM OZ-SZ-8 :;UGWLpejjv N N 4- 0 Vf N fC wr- H Cm aJ 4•+ 3 aA E 3 O L Q fC O _ E_ ++ = .� aJ (A = s O a, L> -0 a, S 3 = O _ v O a dJ +' i = a) u> •i aJ ' O ++ m H O O H N N N .� L aJ O Q _ r— M to E as m V w w o a, a i 3 = a O w 0 Q t L Q _ '6 _ dp .N f0 d r- N +, L N *' w t 4- o _ ++ = N C 0 d W M ++ O t N E > w N O 0 L O V :Ew f0 fC �-+ o E N O G L > fC t O u E-p i cC a 3 C m (Aw •`a L =_ *' _ ,= Q N W u is t E N fa L J 'w > f�C a=J +S+ t u O N _ M O -0 aJ t L W u-0 M L E= N E a E ai > _ O U Vo i N w ,4., G IA = MIA . '� N V 'w aJ E i � QVj O V 'L i :t iJ �% L L CL ai a '3 aQ aO+ °a� 3 = O cO.i Q .� CL 0 0 0 -0 _ m L w C 4- L O ca 4 C Q 45 ++ vA m +� a v :2 0 ca 4 U C L o° °U 3: 4-1 V aj CL _ = cu _ '� L cL N F, . c ? Q aJ +� 'V aj aJ co a) O 4.0 N 3 O w _0 L cn " bA O Q o U •� O N L O L E , fa O o 0 'O vi ON �_ .dA �C 0 N s 'N c Lr, c V, '^ N °_ -O -a v o L ci cC aJ fC cut ~ 4- M CA Qj i• ON 3 Q-M o -0C- N U E L o c c +_, +_+ Q V �--� m aQ = aj ca ++ Qi Z; = t L O 10 O m �' O V fC N CL a, a w E t -i M • w V E a E � ° ° aJ z 5 un Ln Z6ZZ0006WZId : Zti9£0 SU011epUGWWOOOJ S.AOueAJOSUOD SA SIUOWPUOWV VS-JM OZ-SZ-8 :jUGWL 0ejjv 00 ° 0 O 3 N ° Z L a, co s O C^ W bn * r M °J s E E E 4-1 a E 3 s w ° E ° bA-0 E� �� '3 u ° '++ C 0 = aJ x .L a, v E a �+ a' a u W E — a� O aj u= aJ Q W E W aJ GJ ++ N GJ s ++ O 0 O ° E °n L O s_0 O a' te, o EAL LA O- a m a" o v ao v t E �lu> w b s qjE ._ +L+ Y s � (u � CA = ° - 0 N N L 4-0 i -0 41 aJ L CJ +�+ u i N ++ fp c c O u f6 —_ -0 !EQ +5+ 4- G a1 O + O + `� O O 0 ca s u c s E CA ,�_ O O N O i s •� O v v v 3 L 3 bA o O. Ln o O O a fC Vf CL tL0 In u +�+ Q ~ E -i GJ L f0 Ln O >_ 1^ bA O O O O4-1 L 3 N {A i .N 3 to x •O 11A -0 t+�+ N In > C > EA O O N > *' U u N .O cc O L 4� o Ll (6 w 0 O ap a� - r-° O. u p x -0 •GJ i Q N In s �+ U H y 3� LL N a N Q .LA a1 O• • • L a1 u DC a d L Vf ++ {A 5 ON et+ 1 a~ 0 w v 5 0 W 0 �z Z6ZZ0006WZId : Zti9£0 SU011epUGWWOOOJ S.AOueAJOSUOD SA SIUOWPUOWV VS-JM OZ-SZ-8 :jUGWL 0ejjv L Obi O U 3 L t� Q N '> N O v u o v O 0 1 EAL fC GJ C a a� 4-1 •_-0o O 'O 0 o c r- N E} tL.7 i � n, a a, N u C v a 4.5 v a v v � '� Ln N o� ate , � '3 v CO L 3 v u v v OJ ``� E v LZ O •� +' a .� a GJ ++ +�+ GJ4- a t .L rij 4,Z > v E fC E GJ > v 0, W GJ 3 aJ a i i 3 -o V O +S+ O Q N N o ++ GJ N 3 o N ;� Y G1 [0o v o r Q r 45 0 0 N i ai W O 4-0 N O t� N + v CA ca Y L Q f0 L D tm L O QJ }1 GJ � o f6 'a a GJ GJ i L W v4� o a O s a � lr6 (O Q v �•d 3 L Q p s = N -C E E 3 o v o .� u 3 Q U "3: N +' t GJ ro_0 a 0 O O L t> 4 J o> u to U GJ 4-1 N O 4,, O Q 0- ° O fC Q �' O �_ o _0 O 00 C i en O L -0 4J > ++ CA o CL � � N N" a- 3 = i Q N E �, o �' p N o� v c O v +r vaf 4-1 Q �' ° a Q v s a� ui a �q*-0 0 5 cn ON et+ O w v 5 0 W O n Z6ZZ0006Wld : UIS0 SUO148PUOWWOOOJ S.A:)UBAJOSUOO SA S4UOWPUOWV VS-JN OZ-SZ-8 :IUOWL10844V v (1) O t ca aJ Y N to S N QJQj L H QJ 2 ++ O O cr cu -C E m H -o `~ ' a O it +�+ .� fB fC o Ln v �_ of t i fC i _v 0 0 O a� 0- N N> r-I N to hA 3 3 4-0 c a +, Q m U L CALL ._ Q O O •� w 3 _0 (UJ i L h a) ++ m L V V m ++ �,, aJ •o a £ to O w O a o ++ v Q1 m o aJ m m c •ca c(U a) � c 3 Q L o s 40 C +O+ i•, (UO 3 Q a o coy a (1) .� m 0 0 N v v aJ O 4� v O a _0 O •IA o v s IA (U N u V O .� O m O s buD Q D •o a) 0 to > O L I CL O O Q v N c tov o '} O U. a L a c e,o '�n v 13 a v, c a) cn �_ +S' aJ .v 'a O � O O O L s C +N•� +0 c U ++ H -1 ON O w Q 4A +L E C a U V .v W >• wU m E v o V a O o Z a= o N U N in a) r U a O_ i._ O uo o '+� +J +J v N v N Q o i 0 co al CAC cos N o v C1A Ln a' U v O v O �^ N O a s .L a u �� v m Q c Q w w m m i • • • • • • 00 5 N CA u 0 bri 4 . 4 . 4 � o wU iL CD �i N � X .o � W� 0 N cy1 � N N 0 d r+ d Y V m a UZZ0006WId : MEN) Suoi;epUOWWoaaa S,AOUe/UOSUOO SA S;uauapuau V VS-JN OZ-SZ-S :IUGWLIae;;y m 0 73 z O a, t � 3 L � � oaC >• s a to r 0 O s m a a C c �- c .r M E o 3 N Q ass a, o a� t u •� t+s+ ass ai r- O 3 +s+ s i i m +' to aJ 3 Cr 0 a y a, o a N +� � y s •� Q i% Q fC y Q ai ca aA •�, a 3 s a, bn + cca m w `^ 3 `^ m v Q a-0 E '0 °"° 'IA dA oc of W L y ca 3 s tw E o r' o 4—cn H — Q c a o s= o 0 0 r fp y rr aJ _ ++ 3 a ca y >• n� , O +' y *' -0 Ln L O a� i LAO of v i oa 'C i L •� 4' E fC E Q y f0 V+'f E m aJ w O 1% LA y +s+ cC +y+ >' m o o E " w s s = >• � E y o i-0 m WU s .N O. dA O a) IA +' IAL O� �' �' O 3 i NO , y a) 'A 0 y% is-+ `Lj V s y E y s 'y > L aJ 4 � a 01 A +' L a, s CL W y ++ •— > a ' u �r-° a ,-=r-rm to >,oNE O E .m ry (Uca Os=asou -0 E m m O 5 CA M Lf) a m m a 9.A.1.1 CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida r OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Protecting Southwest Florida's unique natural environment and quality of life ... now and forever. 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: 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. 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. 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 Packet Pg. 594 9.A.1.1 CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida r OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Protecting Southwest Florida's unique natural environment and quality of life ... now and forever. 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. IL 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 ofgovernmental 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. 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 Packet Pg. 595 9.A.1.1 CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida r OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Protecting Southwest Florida's unique natural environment and quality of life ... now and forever. 16. Provide an avenue for County purchase of land or credits in the RLSA; create LDC standards for discretionary approval ofprivate 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. 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 Packet Pg. 596 9.A.1.1 CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida r OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Protecting Southwest Florida's unique natural environment and quality of life ... now and forever. 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. 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 Packet Pg. 597 9.A.1.1 Co County 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. 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 -A CSC 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. RLSA Restudy White Paper Packet Pg. 598 9.A.1.1 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. RLSA Restudy White Paper Packet Pg. 599 9.A.1.1 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 % mile of a Town Center, Town Core or Village Center. Based on the SmartCode v.9.2, those areas (center/core plus % 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. RLSA Restudy White Paper Packet Pg. 600 9.A.1.1 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. RLSA Restudy White Paper Packet Pg. 601 9.A.1.1 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. RLSA Restudy White Paper Packet Pg. 602 9.A.1.m RESOLUTION NO.20- 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; AND FURTHERMORE DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. [PL20190002292] WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, Collier County staff has prepared amendments relating the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay of the Future Land Use Element Series; and WHEREAS, on , the Collier County Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan pursuant to the authority granted to it by Section 163.3174, F.S., and has recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, on , the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing approved the transmittal of the proposed amendment to the state land planning agency in accordance with Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of Collier County's proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, various State agencies and the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) have thirty (30) days to review the proposed amendments and DEO must transmit, in writing, to Collier County its comments within said thirty (30) days pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and [19-ENS-00625/1555489/1140 RLSA Overlay Restudy PL20190002292 7/31/20 Words underlined are additions; Words stmsk dwou are deletions. * * * * * * * * * * * * are a break in text Packet Pg. 603 9.A.1.m WHEREAS, Collier County, upon receipt of the written comments from DEO must adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment within one hundred and eighty (180) days of such receipt pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, the DEO, within five (5) days of receipt of Collier County's adopted Growth Management Plan Amendment, must notify the County of any deficiencies of the Plan Amendment pursuant to Section 163.3184(3), F.S. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein, for the purpose of transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity and other reviewing agencies thereby initiating the required State evaluation of the Growth Management Plan Amendment prior to final adoption. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote this day of , 2020. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: i. Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Burt L. Saunders, Chairman Attachment: Exhibit "A" — Text amendments and attachments [19-ENS-00625/1555489/1]40 RLSA Overlay Restudy PL20190002292 7/31/20 Words underlined are additions; Words stmek through are deletions. *** *** *** *** are a break in text Packet Pg. 604 Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 9.A.1.m 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 Pa Packet Pg. 605 9.A.1.m Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments — CCPC Transmittal Draft II. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES *** *** *** *** text break V. OVERLAYS AND SPECIAL FEATURES 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 10] [Page 98] [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 pr-efflatWe 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, ate_ 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 Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** * * * **) denotes break in text. 0 N M ti 0 c 0 d c d E z M Q 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Pa Packet Pg. 606 9.A.1.m Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments — CCPC Transmittal Draft 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 acresef whieh approximate' 182,334 aeres ;s 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 CAg 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 ems 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 Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** * * * **) denotes break in text. 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Pa Packet Pg. 607 9.A.1.m Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments — CCPC Transmittal Draft 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 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 M 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 Countyprior 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: 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 reauired by the Growth Management Plan or Land Development Code for SRA approval: or Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted Rows of Asterisks (** * * * **) denotes break in text. 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Pa Packet Pg. 608 9.A.1.m Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments — CCPC Transmittal Draft 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 Q recorded, the Conditional Stewardship Easement shall automatically convert to a Permanent a 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 0 O 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 a other discretioaM gpproval is filed, the owner of the SSA lands may elect to extend the Conditional a Period until the challenge or appeal is finally resolved. If the challenge or appeal is not resolved such w 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-4 Notice of Termination. Upon the recording of such Notice of Termination, the Stewardship Easement Cn Agreement and corresponding Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall expire and N terminate, the Stewardship Credits generated by the SSA shall cease to exist, the rights and C obligations set forth in the Stewardship Easement shall no longer constitute an encumbrance on the J property, and the SSA Memorandum shall be revised accordingly. The owner of the SSA lands shall L provide a copy of the Notice of Termination to the County N O� In the event that the Stewardship Credits from an SSA have been used to obtain one or more SRA o approvals, but none of the foregoing events has occurred during the Conditional Period, then the c Notice of Termination shall also provide for termination of any SRAs that have been assigned credits r' from the SSA, unless the SRA owner has obtained sufficient Stewardship Credits from another source N and such Stewardship Credits have been applied to the SRA. In the event that a Notice of Termination a does terminate an SRA, the owner of the SRA lands shall join in the Notice of Termination. N co In the event that a Conditional Stewardship Easement is terminated, all benefits, rights, privileges, V restrictions and obligations associated with the SSA shall be null and void, and the land shall revert to 0 its underling zoning classification, free and clear of any encumbrance from the Conditional `V Stewardship Easement and SSA Credit Agreement. If requested by the owner of the SSA lands, M c Collier County and the other grantees under the Stewardship Easement Agreement shall provide a ' written release and termination of easement and credit agreements for recordingpublic records c within 15 days of request from the owner of the SSA lands. Collier County shall update the overlay man to reflect the termination of anv SSA or SRA. (nn This policy shall be implemented in the LDC within 12 months after adoption hereof. a) E 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 M from the SSA, the property owner may withdraw the SSA designation provided an application for Q such withdrawal is implemented within 6 months of the adoption of this Polices Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** * * * **) denotes break in text. 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Pa Packet Pg. 609 9.A.1.m Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments — CCPC Transmittal Draft 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 characteristics used and the factors assigned thereto were established after review and analysis of detailed information about the natural resource attributes of land within the RLSA so that development could be directed away from important natural resources. The six characteristics measured are: Stewardship Overlay Designation, Sending Area Proximity, Listed Species Habitat, Soils/Surface Water, Restoration Potential, and Land Use/Land Cover. Policy 1.9 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. Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** * * * **) denotes break in text. 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Pa Packet Pg. 610 9.A.1.m Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments — CCPC Transmittal Draft 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 ^ are part of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay_District in the LDC (District). LDRs creating the Distriet will be adopted within one (1) year from the effective Ela4e 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 4-4-9 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). Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** * * * **) denotes break in text. 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Pari- I Packet Pg. 611 9.A.1.m Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments — CCPC Transmittal Draft 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. OW 1111111om.1111 MEMO _ FROMM- a .. ,IN1 Policy 1.21442 The RLSA Overlay was designed to be a long-term strategic plan. with a planning hor- zo Year- f 2025 Many of the tools, techniques and strategies of the Overlay are new, innovative, and incentive based-,7ml have yet to be tested in aetual implementation. A comprehensive review of the Overlay shall be prepared for and reviewed by Collier County every seven (7) years beginning f date of adoption of this Ordinance].and the Depaftmen4 of Community Aff-air-s upon the five year- I r the adoption -of the Stewardship Dist-Fiet in the LDG. as part of the Evalumien and Appraisal Repoi4 pr-oeess= 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. c 2. The amount and location of land designated as SRAs. E 3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated, assigned or held for future use. M 4. A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at the time of a Study Q 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. Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** * * * **) denotes break in text. 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Pa Packet Pg. 612 9.A.1.m Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments - CCPC Transmittal Draft 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. 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 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 ' d will be pr-eteeted f+em pfefnatufe r *� other- eses by er-ea4iag 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 f ff of eempaet t-r^' dvvelepmefAl in the n r S n 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 Gr- fi St4e Coneem (ACSA), and two and sixth tenths (2.6) Credits pef aer-e within the AGSG as established b!, F.S. 380.053-as ofMar-eh 3, 2409-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 lam is discreet and shall be removed sequentially and cumulatively in the order presented in the Matrix. If a laver 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, Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** * * * **) denotes break in text. 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Pa Packet Pg. 613 9.A.1.m Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments — CCPC Transmittal Draft Collier County shall periodically update the RLSA Zoning Overlay District Map to delineate the boundaries of the Agricultural SSA. Policy 2.3 Within one "`year- f a the off etive da4e of these aendfaor*�, 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 AAG will also assess whether exeeptions from standards for b i ala4ed to agrietiltwe should 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 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 Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** * * * **) denotes break in text. 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Pap,; Packet Pg. 614 9.A.1.m Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments — CCPC Transmittal Draft 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 4c 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 a*d 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. 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 Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** * * * **) denotes break in text. O8/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Pag Packet Pg. 615 9.A.1.m Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments — CCPC Transmittal Draft 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 a EIS -Eav ..,,nmea4a i aet State. eft EIS4 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 tnte mien ''s Gold P -og 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, aqttaettl4ffe 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 Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** * * * **) denotes break in text. O8/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Pap,; Packet Pg. 616 9.A.1.m Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments — CCPC Transmittal Draft 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 Should a property owner be willing to dedie te-desi ng ate land for restoration activities within a FSA or HSA the Camp Ke St -fa -ad FS n ,.,,ntig, ous ruc n ^ four_- one additional Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated. An additional two Stewardship er-edits shall be assigned for- eaeh aer-e of lan A dedie-ated for- restoration aetivities-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 feuf 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 Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** * * * **) denotes break in text. O8/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Pap,; Packet Pg. 617 9.A.1.m Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments — CCPC Transmittal Draft deded. Should an owner also complete panther corridor restoration improvements, this shall be rewarded with €ems 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 ;n 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. Designation of any area inside an FSA, HSA, or WRA for such seasonal wetland restoration shall be rewarded with 2 additional Credit$ 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 We 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, Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** * * * **) denotes break in text. 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Pap,; Packet Pg. 618 9.A.1.m Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments — CCPC Transmittal Draft 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 Pfeefam shall be compatible with surrounding land uses. Within one eof the e ff etive date of this Pokey 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 securit. 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, exteading to a hoFiz^„ 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 19,300 15,000 acres within the ACSC. Total SRA designation shall be a maximum of 45,000 acres. n „„ -e .,col.. 29 f these lands .,ehie„e an index s o e to . 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 pFineiples e_ the Rufal Lands Stew., -dsh „ net s f,,.ther- dese.;,.oa procedures set forth herein and the adopted RLSA Zoning Overlay District. Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** * * * **) denotes break in text. O8/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Pag Packet Pg. 619 9.A.1.m Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments — CCPC Transmittal Draft 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 yeaf f em the eff etive submittal requirements for designation as a SRA, to inelude provisions for consideration of da4e of this amendment, Collier Geu+Ay shall adopt I.PG amendments to establish the procedures a Policy 4.4 Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved SRA. Such updates shall not regtrire an— e entte t'� � ageme*� shall be retroactively incorporated into the adopted Overlay Map during —the EAR D base by amendment prey periodically initiated by the County. gee 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), *Le G^,,,,t,, Bt+il d OtA Visie,, Plan as may be amen and r-efer-eneed i Pokey 3.7 of the rr..^ sper-tatio,, Element-1-and Access Management procedures. Each SRA master Dlan 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 oDDortunities for negative interaction. such as aDnronriate waste disposal practices. Policy 4.6 SRA characteristics shall be based upon innovative planning and development strategies referenced in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. and 9J-5.006(5)(1). These planning strategies and techniques include urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area -based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, and mixed -use development that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services. The SRA shall also include a mobilitv nlan that includes vehicular, bicvcle/Dedestrian. Dublic transit, internal circulators, and other modes of travel/movement within and between SRAs and areas of Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** * * * **) denotes break in text. 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Pap,; Packet Pg. 620 9.A.1.m Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments — CCPC Transmittal Draft 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 Getz�;,a n„+��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 few three specific forms of SRA permitted within the Overlay. These are Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and Compact Rural Development (CRD). The Characteristics of Towns, Villages, ems, and CRD are set forth in Attachment C and are generally described in Policies 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3 affd 4-.74. Collier- C—eo#y shall establish more 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)(1). The size and base density of each form shall be consistent with the standards set forth on Attachment C. The maximum base residential density as set forth in Attachment C may only be exceeded through the density blending process as set forth in density and intensity blending provision of the Immokalee Area Master Plan or through the affordable -workforce housing density bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element. The base residential density is calculated by dividing the total number of residential units in a SRA by the overall area therein. The base residential density does not restrict net residential density of parcels within a SRA. The location, size and density of each SRA will be determined on an individual basis during the SRA designation review and approval process. Policy 4.7.1 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 � �nnn greater than 1,500 acres and up to of more than�,nnn 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 nano as provide described in Policy 4.4-5 4.15.1. Towns may also include those compatible corporate office, research, development companies, and light industrial uses such as those permitted in the Business Park and Research and Technology Park Subdistricts of the FLUE, and those included in Polices. 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. Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** * * * **) denotes break in text. O8/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Pap,; Packet Pg. 621 9.A.1.m Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments — CCPC Transmittal Draft Policy 4.7.2 (recommended amendment) Villages are p,.:,,,.,rily residepAial communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character oOf the particular village. Villages shall be not less than 4-00 300 acres, and up to 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. ■_MFM - - Policy 4-.7-.4 4.7.3 Compact Rural Development (CRD) is a form of SRA that 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 ser-viees-a f oilit es that suppoFt r ent 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 4-00 300 acres. - A- of a GRD is an eeotetifism Village that will eofifefm to the ehar-aetefisties of a Village or- Hamlet as set feFth on ARaeliffient C based on t4e size of the CRP. As residential units are not a r-e"ir-ed use, those goods and setwiees thM suppeA residents Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** * * * **) denotes break in text. 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Pap,; Packet Pg. 622 9.A.1.m Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments — CCPC Transmittal Draft institutional be SO& aS Fetail, Off4ee, eiN, and uses shall also not r-e"ir-ed, . 1 for C D that doe's if housing, the 4ees listed any ienit fre-side-n-fial pr-epo#ionate support be i-n- Attaehment G. To GRDs 100 above shall provided ae-en-f-d—Anee with maintain a proportion of of less to Villages Tevffis, than 5 GR-Ds 100 less, in aer-es or- and not mer-e of aefes E)r- eombina4ion with Hamlets, be SRAs to the Village Tevffl, thereafter- may approved as prior- appr-oval of a or- and nor- mor-e than 5 additional GRPs of 100 aer-es or- less, in eembination with Hamlets, may be approved OfF eaek IL subsequent Village or- Town. To maintain a proportion of CRDs of IN 300 acres or less to Villages and Towns, not more than 5 CRDs of IN 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 4-88 300 acres or less may be approved prior to each subsequent Village or Town. Thorn shall be no ,, o fe than 5 CRDs fmore t ,, O100 in The this limitation be in 5 to Pokey aer-es size. appropriateness of shall feviewed yeafs ptir-stiant ° 2, a` a Policy 4.7.4 w 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 Cn Qualified Target Industries. The appropriate scale and compatibility of these uses within a Town or N Village will be addressed during SRA application process. C J Policy 4.7.5 L To address the accommodation of Affordable Housing in a Town or Village, the SRA applicant shall ° utilize one of the following_ options: N 1) Affordable Housing Land Reservation o a) Reservation of one or more site(s) within the SRA or within a proximal SRA in the RLSAO with c densities and development standards that accommodate Affordable Housing residential uses at a c minimum density of 10 units per acre, for acquisition by either Collier County, a Community J Land Trust, a private developer or any other affordable housing provider. a b) The aggregate acreage of such site(s) shall be equal to or greater than 2.5% of the gross area of N the SRA. M c) The acreage of land reserved for Affordable Housing will be considered as a Public Benefit UseCD V and not require the consumption of Stewardship Credits but shall be included in the calculation of N total SRA acreage. ti d) The County shall verify the sites is/are appropriate and approve the site(s) at time of SRA approval, subject to standards to be established in the LDC. c 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 °' E approved by the Board of County Commissioners to address housing affordability issues in the subject SRA. Q 3) The process and procedures to implement this policy shall be set forth in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Zoning District. Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted Rows of Asterisks (** * * * **) denotes break in text. O8/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Pap,; Packet Pg. 623 9.A.1.m Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments — CCPC Transmittal Draft 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 withe 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 IAI�. 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 and areas. The Index value of greater than 1.2 represents those areas that have a high natural resource value as measured pursuant to Policy 1.8. Less than 2% of potential SRA land achieves an Index score of greater than 1.2. Policy 4.10 (recommended amendment) Within the RLSA Overlay, open space, which by definition shall include public and private conservation lands, underdeveloped areas of designated SSAs, agriculture, water retention and management areas and recreation uses, will continue to be the dominant land use. Therefore, open space adequate to serve the forecasted population and uses within the SRA is provided. To ensure that SRA residents have such areas proximate to their homes, open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town; or Village. , of these GRPs e3weeding 100 aefes. 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. , within an SRA, loeated otitside of the AGSG, exeeediag the r-e"ir-ed thiFty five pefeent shall not required to eensume Stewardship Credits but shall be eou*ted as pa+t of the SRA aeFeage. 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 Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** * * * **) denotes break in text. 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Pap,; Packet Pg. 624 9.A.1.m Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments — CCPC Transmittal Draft 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 Count 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 a*d Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** * * * **) denotes break in text. O8/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Pag Packet Pg. 625 9.A.1.m Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments — CCPC Transmittal Draft 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 t,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, (1 nmaer-essize,and may be required in CRDs dia4 e e hundred (nm o 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 may be permitted in CRDs of 100 acres or less in size. Policy 4.17 Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** * * * **) denotes break in text. 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Pap,; Packet Pg. 626 9.A.1.m Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments - CCPC Transmittal Draft The BCC will review and approve SRA designation applications in accordance with the provisions of Policy 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._ 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, generates surplus revenues to Collier County, -a d Collier County may choose to allocate a portion of such surplus revenues to ensure that sufficient resources are available to allow Collier County to respond expeditiously to economic opportunities and to compete effectively for high -value research. development and commercialization, innovation. and alternative and renewable energy business projects. Policy 4.19 Eight Credits shall be required for each acre of land included in an SRA, where such Credits were created from a Stewardship Sending Area 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. -exeept for- e. . %eess of the required thirty five pefeeftt as deser-ibed in Pokey 4. 10 or- fe-F Land that is designated for a public benefit use described in Policy 4.494.20 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, 444 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 spaee exeeeding thirty five po er* a*d public benefit use shall not count toward the maximum acreage limits of an SRA, desefibed in Pehey 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 exelud „g essential sefvi_e as defined in the LDC. The location of public schools shall be coordinated with the Collier County School Board, Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** * * * **) denotes break in text. O8/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Pap,; Packet Pg. 627 9.A.1.m Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments — CCPC Transmittal Draft 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 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 an CRDs of 100 acres or less and the only form of SRA allowed in the ACSC west of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be CRDs And Villages a -ad CRPs of not more than 300 acres abets. Provided; not more than 1,000 aces of SRA development in the form of Villages or CRDs howeverthat CRDs or- not tier-e than 500 aer-es e-aan3 exclusive of any lakes created prior to the off etive da4e f this ameaamefA 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 off e five date of these ,,,.v.ona,. et4s, had been predominantly cleared as a result of Ag Group I or Earth Mining or Processing Uses. This policy is intended to assure that the RLSA Overlay is not used to increase the development potential within the ACSC but instead is used to promote a more compact form of development as an alternative to the Baseline Standards already allowed within the ACSC. No policy of the RLSA Overlay shall take precedence over the Big Cypress ACSC regulations and all regulations therein shall apply. Policy 4.22 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- n Historic Resources will assess the historic or cultural significance and explore the educational and public awareness opportunities reeardine sijznificant 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. erless. 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 Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** * * * **) denotes break in text. 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Pap,; Packet Pg. 628 9.A.1.m Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments — CCPC Transmittal Draft 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 Fee ulati ns a+e applieable, 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_f 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. " c�TJ defined as speeies that ha-ve been delisted but far- whieh there remain federal, state andor- leeal pr-oteetions and/or- management plans speeifying guidelines for- their- pr-eteetion. 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 diFeetly observed ^„ 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. Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** * * * **) denotes break in text. 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Pag Packet Pg. 629 9.A.1.m Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments — CCPC Transmittal Draft 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. 9pen 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. Miti ag tion for impacting listed species or SSLC habitat shall be considered in the management plans, as appropriate. i. The following refer-enees shall be used, as appropriate, to preparethe 1 Sotit Flee- a., Mutt; Speeies Reeoi,ei=y Plan, r rSFWS , 999-. 2 Habitat Guidelineser=anagemenr- - for- the Eagle in the Southeast Region, USFWS, • pe�yphe us) Populations 4;3,,n hands Slato'a�rzrrge—vEirlc� Development ift Florida, Technie-al Repe e. 4, Fierida Game anFresh w4er- Fish Commission, 1987. 4 Eeelegy and Deve epA Related Habitat Requirements f ements ofFlorida S ' rpeleeema eee seens),Teehnie l Report NE). 9, Game and Fresh Water- Fish Gon*nission, 199 1. (Fal e craw, Paulus) o I=afge ale Development cites i Flefid Nongame Teehnieal Repot4 No. 13, Florida Game and Fresh Water- Fis 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 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. Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** * * * **) denotes break in text. 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Pap,; Packet Pg. 630 9.A.1.m Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments — CCPC Transmittal Draft c. The Management Plans shall contain a monitoring program for developments greater than ten acres. , MMI 1110h 'M WIN • ._ ••• 41 Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** * * * **) denotes break in text. M O M L Q CL t N L M 3 a) Cn c M J L NN� LPL N (n N N O Co O O� O N J a N O M O N_ M ti O Q 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Pap,; Packet Pg. 631 9.A.1.m Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments — CCPC Transmittal Draft 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 eefi4aiaing utilized by listed species or SSLC. It is recognized that these agency recommendations, on a case by case basis, may ehange stren tg hen 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 pe 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 Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** * * * **) denotes break in text. O8/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Pap,; Packet Pg. 632 9.A.1.m Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments — CCPC Transmittal Draft 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 4.2.2.4.3 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 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 €49 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. Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** * * * **) denotes break in text. O8/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Pap,; Packet Pg. 633 9.A.1.m Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments — CCPC Transmittal Draft 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€er-the less of wetlands or- listed speeies habitat if these lands if these lands are plaeed under- a perpetual eenserwation easement with per-petua4 maintenanee 4v 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 participatingin n 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 Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** * * * **) denotes break in text. O8/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Pap,; Packet Pg. 634 9.A.1.m Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments — CCPC Transmittal Draft programs, private or public grants, tax incentives, easements, and fee or less than fee sale to conservation programs. Policy 5.7 Anv development ^snot participating in the RLS Prouram shall be compatible with surroundin 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. Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** * * * **) denotes break in text. O8/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Pap,; Packet Pg. 635 E \ _ L dWg AeliOA0 eeiVdt4siemmSs ue-1 lenNZZ00M0 ]d:Z9 O OUC o-uo|n� s u :juqwt43ejjv � k o $ � \ � »_w_ -- � ƒ § )!)) § o § !\ !! !: 2 \ ` i\) / ) \\} ()§ \)j ;2) \ \ r_ (VdWJ Aelianp eeiV diyspieme;S spue-1 leina UZZOOMOZ-1d : ZtM) OZ6£LO - uoi}nlosou :;uewt4oelly a c -lid X-mi, 04 w `o A N N � " � Y o � o m 3 N 7 C (O i6 N � N E OJ � �� C�f70 N T m0 U IC 3 E '6 C N t>o O L]. � O £ p � � (6 U w m � � G> C Y N f0 C10 Q p u Z� c � N N � N c io O '^ N O O io • ^ a m •Y v f6 > c°i c � a$ � o � noa w� v m � r z o wc=.i o Ov a N N " O N � a Y fl_ O '^ � fYa >^ p N fp O p in u � u c +' E v �� O g3 t v U f6 v aci L i V Q i E Q m C U E L U El (`ddWJ Aelianp eeiV diyspieme;S spue-1 leina UZZOOMOZ-1d : MCO OZ6£LO - uoi}nlosou :;uewt4oelly C y m N p Z N m Z C m w C C 10 C m y C co E0 T y C 0 m N O m V N 0)E p isK E m E y rnE U O w N° (� N N 3 N .2 m .0 .° OQ d a .O. @ O y d +O- .� m N y L N N m rn m m° Z o wU O a mN m C 3 N Q U Y may' m N a N l6 d m O) N O U N O° Q 7 Q N N m 0° m O` ? m N O O a 0 > C � O. 3 w E y O m E p �6 O1 a O C v m °> c ° E O m N .EN 3 Um N 3 N m 'O C U 0 1Tp J m D tm m 2' I 3 m U w > O C N N W O.a N a+ T � C O 7 y Q Y E N C 0 Q j w OI C � E2 O U O O. L �0 92 C N a y U >. 7 9 {p N y m L> O cL y y - O O o _ 0 °' C CL E J m N C° C m m& m m LL o no a mA£ U a C y E m y O 0. m C V d m C C d L T O O C i L a Y N a C N O m N O m O m C d U 3 .. >> a C 9 o o m ; N 9 u y E o d V `al N C ` N O) > C c p E F. J J N ,Vl O O Q m ayi o o �. m E c :c ?` o. �' c°> > 'v r. m E E °c °c o a U w rn Q£ Y O a E F an` U m>> N N c w ° � U N O U m O m J m ro c 2 y c j dE2 0 0 o E m U �- Q' C E rn c c 0 w 0 d U y O N O d N U U y O O U C C m a N U p_ 7 m c C c m C m Y M c > E y U m m E T.0 U W ami nU Q a N LL N c ayi a° > 7 c L r o U a NZO m f7 ID d m U m L^ c 16 `o > `m t o c a 'c U w D m C "E "O C p N C y a)m E V 3 U N y =p m V 42 N m U m N N y O T U m mC l6 EO� m N (a r y U O� o 3 m aU) cu o °0) >m m q ° U LL U Z m Na.tl o O Of U) .... U O) y V c � c Z• v � Y m E MC N OD a. m ayi m L Y o m N c a cmi o y o m J R L L¢ m m a c O O E U m m m m = N m o y E 43 o m m J O �n E O> y 2 O. m Y 0 N a� 3 O N N O O C Q - 0 n a 3 (7 cu E (L U d U U 0 N 0 N cM 0 0 0 V N d Aelianp eeiV diyspieme;g spue-1 leinN UZZOOMOZ-1d : MEO OZ6£LO - uoi;nlosou :;uewt4oe;;v * v E ' c 0 ? c 0 0 0 q '_ v c o o v E E N 3 0 ? o E °o .c L 0 O n %a+ G t N G p y u ti O E 5 m uv '" E '° Q E Y O1O c z m a c — c° '0 m E v — 0 c a m y" = $ r w N « `w c u E 6 u 'Z = x a v v Y " c 1O o o v p « 0 v o a `w > in j1p E > amZlw0 £ tA E L o ol jo O cEE oOooE uo7 oc n m 0 E ° om v c m >:a c c u a> ,_o V Q E a 0 E C a0 2E w C c E ate+ E L^ O w O L — O * @ J E N J u1 n _ a u °- 0 N ` -' a u L —0> in — V C f N N N °' N ate+ O Z U_ a@-• Y L12 _ v p — c V1 pp V�1 `> m Z W w E a o 3 0 ry s o \ c C l7 Y v O 0 U J Q E 3 > O p > v E 109 c E c° h0 Q E — c 3 o L o c o v E i 3° o o .� v n o a v vi a 0 O N p. r o a� o a a e O t0 '� w vi L o c E o f0 a u 1O �o y .v. '^ n E m Y °00 o w vc o O c s o l7 w yN 'a 0 s z u o. m p O —p C w o m me p U — YJ N C � N > m U Z O— � Q o ? 0 E 0 9 c 3 c Q N o - No w b a o n vi 0 v, ° c m 3 °' m ou :- -o E v 0 w vi E o ° c u u i0 N a+ O N tO 3 N aa+ N N O N a N C l7 m E C L V1 E O a W 3 o m m O L 0 p L 0 0 c N 0Ic v L c 0 y E ° W W ate+ a+ N c 0 y m O O d n °1 a — J= o 3 v c v E 3 u J C _O 3 0o E 0 a, o g o p L 7 tCa C LEO V n 0 C a m > N v O V a a n c n Q O v p 0 w Lb0 an d a — w V a ° N W Z > m Q o m u m `m U a a a a � m `a > N '= c m `o ° s y y vni — 0 co_ - a N — v ~ E o w E o 3 0 16 m E c o > r a a E K v i On c N w w 0 p '03 3 w > u 5 o > c V O cu O O t p w o O O OF c a C m c° N Ul U u a d Y U 0_ U o. w y a o. w Y CO L I N J a+ � N O O - > n a ° � o m v w o .� m u w o a 2 r a c 0 O 0 'o J y a t N C N o w v v o o 3 � c L N a+ "O v c > w v n w w n p L p _ E � « o w v '& O U 0 N L v O 04 a y « @ O o E o 0 ovu c o w 3 H O � a c (`ddWJ Aelianp eeiV diyspieme;S spue-1 leina UZZOOMOZ-1d : MCO OZ6£LO - uoi}nlosou :;uewt4oelly d E a 0 m m 0 ' .E c 0 �r ty 00 0 a * * _ g m Z m c >, o chi o EO LO .y0.. V J a C U N ao OI m N 10 U O N N E -O y N U C 01 C j .02 m aO N N' N Z p U G T L N m Q 0 O o e `0 m _ E o t d C7 m f6m°'a°i y Cl) 0)°«o W m co c $ o C m .Y E Q J E 0 rn`m mLL N a n d mU N O m (nE E p� C y ° ^ o c (O y U N O „� m J O m LL,� E ii Ur N m c�7 > 3� d � (D '- w Y c a U .ci c U c - uGi a Q x N 0 c m y N N 0 m m r a E O O G U C N N N O N 0 0 y E J N m O N a� C O O Qi N _m m N J N N C CON C J M O m Nam_ t � LL U NyO m V m O Y m m= (q O a rn m O c 0 S y rn Q 'O £ m d .- N c d C N y E m 0 O U N 3 0 m-- d.. G m yLL M o. cD 03 2 a 3.'o'�a m �« _ €m o m c �� mE ooU a> y w N Ecn o T C U l=0 mNJ E Um O `�rn ¢ a O 0E> Qo 0 coT' 'p m C7 z U a w (O a Cm E m ❑G j C U) LL U 0o T y C 3 m Y O j N C C V E E N y E U U (6 LL �n U v0 �? o y a > >Nimm-00 O a y ui u ° c0 °o Eco <9m c Ea`mzS Q m mCt M. No N y v� t° m-y0 C O O d y U C C C .01 N G y t y J N m y m m E (n U C. G N ai m O O myO zyOmm d0o >a LLv 0 O&ai mUE LMz m G y m m °� muCmyy O i0 m0 j 00 OLL f D m O IR (n 0 LLN Hym o ~ aci U U LL m LL Q U y O N N a N U m N O U1 C N O N m C O N Im 2 m c F N y m m LL a _O O C C E > m C m O p C O N C @ 00 d N iq N v N (7 m 2i N Q� > U (n H m 0 O y N C N COLLIER COUNTY RURAL & AGRICULTURAL AREA ASSESSMENT 11 (STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY MAP) / rok 0 > J Z m 0 J H w m J O O O Y w w > LLI GOLDEN G E BLVD 0 N RES LAKE TRAFFORD RD Li9 Lake Trafford . IN ST01 A Camp .Ke ad 7IrStra rn ayardshiD m SSA SSAL. j j9'4 ENDED - 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 8/03/2020 WELL RD ACSC N Of Cn ACSC 1 HSA v loacoochee Slough Flowway 0 Stewardship Area �13 tb Co BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL FOREST Q 1-75 Legend N P`/( —Major Roads Stewardship Areas w E Q RLSA Program Area 500 Foot Restoration\AreaaA Area of Critical State Concern Flowway Stewardsh 0 1 2 4 ®7 Stewardship Receiving Area(SRA)- Habtitat Stewardship Area(HSA) Miles EM Stewardship Sending Area (BSA) Water Retention Area(WRA) - Open ;ae„� Transmittal He iil� Big Cypress National Forest pag F. 'M r �,b�,r.,.�.re,.,,.„m..,M,,m, Packet Pg. 1 Proposed Draft RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY MAIJ 0 7 S NORTH CORRIDOR GENERAL LOCATION rn U) RD 2i9� AFT IN ST to I °� SSA` 15 <�z — WRA RIVERGRASS < SSA 2 VILLAGE SRA SS 1 HYDE PARK VILLAGE SRA SSA 9 ❑ J z m ❑ LH O] J O O O 00 uJ w WRA > ❑ w GOLDEN G E BLVD OIL WELL RD 1� WRA SOUTH CORRIDOR GENERAL 1-86ATIO1 11 WRA WRA SSAA 0 Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest Okaloacoochee Slough Flowway C) Stewardship Area OD C, oo WRA Big Cypress National Forest o ACSC J Florida Panther ONational Wildlife Refuge r F Q O w 1-75 I-75 Legend — Major Roads Stewardship Areas AMENDED - JANUARY 25, 2007 N Q RLSA Program Area 500 Foot Restoration Area Ord. NO. 2007-18 a wi e ® Area of Critical State Concern Fl-y Stewardship Area(FSA) AMENDED - OCTOBER 14, 2008 (Ord. No. 2008-59) ® Stewardship Receiving Area(SRA) Habtitat Stewardship Area(HSA) �MFAI r1Fr1 _ CF GTFMRGR 13 2011 s Water Retention Area (WRA) 26 0 1 4 ® Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Open Public Lands �y Panther Corridor 2017 Miles z KXXX MZC PaTransmittaI Hearing (Di-aimer:rn �nmrmaronnro ded; n�J X) oFocoo ..d= ..,d=oa..o....M.P d G—nd—ev,9 dre—rd=—,h a Packet Pg. 642 Note: The official designated titles of SSAs can be found within SSA Credit Agreements 9.A.1.n CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. CRITIQUE AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF COLLIER COUNTY'S RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA PROGRAM: 2018-2019 RLSA Restudy January 2019 Packet Pg. 643 9.A.1.n 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.' 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 species 2, 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 .S 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, 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 ' Collier County's 2008 Interactive Growth Model and 2005 Collier County Residential Build -Out Study, Preliminary Report, 8. County website: https://www.colliercountyfl.lzov/liome/showdocument?id=830 2 Stantec Consulting, hic. (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 review 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.orgZpdf/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: b-qs://www.freshfromflorida.com/Agriculture-Indus! /Florida -Agriculture -Overview -and - Statistics 5 Wilson Miller (2000, December). "Immokalee Area Study Stage I 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). 11 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 644 9.A.1.n 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.'0 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 plans of 45 holes. iil Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 645 9.A.1.n 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." 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 dollarsla 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! " Smart Growth America (2018, September). The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns - Rural Lands Stewardship Area, Collier County, Florida. https://www.conservancy.or /g 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 vertebrate 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/I14/30/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.or /g file/policy-rlsa/The-Fiscal-Implications-of-Development-Patterns---RLSA-Collier-County-FINAL.pdf lv Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 646 9.A.1.n 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.............................................................I 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 v Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 647 9.A.1.n 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 TOBE 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- INTERES T......................................................................................................................... 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..................................................................... I I 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 vi Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 648 9.A.1.n 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 vil Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 649 9.A.1.n 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 Implement Traditional Neighborhood design standards from: Toward WILL LEAD TO SPRAWL, Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, RESULTING IN HIGH Florida: ECONOMIC & 1. Increase Minimum and Maximum Density. ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS 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 Reduce Development Potential by Recalibrating Credits. ALLOWS 250% MORE DEVELOPMENT THAN WAS INTENDED. FLAW III - NATURAL Update NRI values using best available science. RESOURCE INDEX VALUES 1. Update Listed Species Habitat Indices and NRI Values ARE OUTDATED 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 FLAW IV - LANDOWNERS Collier County should obtain & house original NRI data which establishe CONTROL NRI DATA the NRI value for each acre of land. FLAW V - SRAs ARE Conservancy's 2018 RLSA Vision Map - directs development away from PERMITTED WITHIN habitat that is critical to the survival of the endangered Florida panther, PRIMARY ZONE & ADULT thereby saving listed species habitat, wetlands, agricultural lands, and BREEDING HABITAT infrastructure costs. FLAW VI - DEVELOPMENTS Amend GMP and LDC policies to state that SRA design shall demonstrat MAY RESULT IN REDUCED development will not adversely impact habitat and functionality of listed HABITAT FUNCTIONALITY species habitat in adjoining FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and SSAs. IN ADJACENT SENDING AREAS. FLAW VII - THE Eliminate "double-dipping" of credits and remove conflicts -of -interest STEWARDHIP CREDIT 1. Eliminate Double -Dipping by Eliminating R-1 Credits SYSTEM FOR RESTORATION 2. Adjustments to NRI Values should be made during SRA NEEDS TO BE RE- applications EVALUATED. 3. The County should Select Consultant for SSA Applications 4. Additional Measures for Restoration Plans vill Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 650 9.A.1.n 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!8 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: htt2s://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 species. 17 Collier County's 2008 Interactive Growth Model and 2005 Collier County Residential Build -Out Study, Preliminary Report, 8. County website: https://www.colliercountyfl.2ov/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 Packet Pg. 651 9.A.1.n 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. Table 2 — Collier County Development Scenarios - Net Fiscal Impact Dollars (in Billions unless Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: otherwise indicated) Sprawl More Compact Smart Growth Development Total Costs - 20 Years $10.9 $9.9 $7.1 Est. Tax Revenue - $7.6 $7.4 $7.6 20 Years Net Fiscal Impact - -$3.3 -$2.5 +$9.4 20 Years Net Fiscal Impact - -$540 Million -$125 Million +$21 Million Per Year* Smart Growth America, 2018 -*Annual costs are average costs per year. The estimated costs on an annual basis would vary from year to year. 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 2 Packet Pg. 652 9.A.1.n 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: hgps://www.conservancy.ora/file/15---policy-main/rural- lands/CS WFL-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 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 653 9.A.1.n 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.) 1.2 Flaw: Roadwav Network will have Hiah 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 4 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 654 9.A.1.n 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 Hinman, 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 Memorandum 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 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 655 9.A.1.n Panther Vehicle Mortality in 25 mile buffer of RLSA • ' t • • • '• • • w• •• dO • • N• ' ' . i • Ca ul' Sc ouP aka Date: Figure 2 Panther mortality RLSA 1981-2017 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 " Noss, R. F. (2018, November). "Review of Eastern Collier Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan: A Report to the Conservancy of Southwest Florida." Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 6 Packet Pg. 656 9.A.1.n 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.l Found here: hitp://1000friendsofflorida.ora/florida2O7O/wp- content/uploads/2016/09/florida2070technicalreportfinal.pdf p. 25. 37 Ibid. pg. 15 (Statistics combine Protected Agricultural lands and Agriculture - croplands, livestock, and aquaculture ) 7 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 657 9.A.1.n 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. " 1 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/florida2O7O/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/florida2O70technicalroortfinal.pdf 41 American Planning Association. APA Guide on Smart Growth. Found here: https://www.planning.org(policy/guides/adgpted/smartgrowth.htm 42 Information provide by David Genson of Barron Collier Enterprises at Collier County RLSA workshop on November 29, 2018. Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 658 9.A.1.n 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 44Ibid, p. 2.6 as 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 County, Florida." p. i. 41Ibid, p. 2.32. 9 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 659 9.A.1.n 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 1/2 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. 41Ibid. 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. 10 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 660 9.A.1.n Table 3: Comparison of Densities in Collier County WWW Wowe Density per Acre Estimated Buil • • .• • •u = • out Downtown Mixed Use (varies per project) TUp to 12 du; (in certain n/a District areas density is limited to parking requirements & 3 story height limit) 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 (varies per project) Up to 18 du n/a Mid Rise & High Rise High Density Residential (varies per project) Up to 25 du n/a Tower UILMEM 0 evelopments "toss Acres aross Density per acr lbuild� pUDs) in unincorporated rIlier Lstimated County 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• 52 • Town of Ave Maria 5,057 (includes 11000 2.18 du 2005-2030 acre university; without university density is 2.75) Town of Rural Lands West 4,092 2.44 du (Application (proposed) pending) Collier Lakes (proposed 655 2.74 du (Application village) 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 2070.9555 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 htg2s://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/florida207O 55 Ibid. p. 2 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 661 9.A.1.n 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'/4 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 t/4 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 t/4 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 t/4 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. 5 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 JPrev 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 is over 2 miles in some areas. 12 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 662 9.A.1.n threshold of t/4 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. Figure 3: Example of town plan with 5-Minute walk radius A� T 600 ^ R. %� i d � ON t +� I w• s r MW4 Land Uuadt �7 .. it 4. ft IL Ot s+ t irk - * �► �, svec� cw�c sties f 6� � r � • At 4P i ,k # 1} �;� �' •�Yf� *rl►�� ire r � ~ #4 y� _ii budding Iypes �f i A .� � r �e�1•, r i � 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 JPrev 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: htips://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 13 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 663 9.A.1.n 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 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 4.08.077.2.d.i-iii. 14 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 664 9.A.1.n 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." 15 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 665 9.A.1.n 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 11115111, 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." 16 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 666 9.A.1.n 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: hqs://www.colliercountya.gov/home/showdocument?id=830 17 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 667 9.A.1.n 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 credits 86 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 Credit 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. " 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 18 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 668 9.A.1.n 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 19 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 669 9.A.1.n Figure 4: Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Map COLLIER COUNTY RURAL & AGRICULTURAL AREA ASSESSMENT STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY MAP sq�r c, CLOX %T LAK THAF OHO 'rq �9 Clcloacoachgg 4Vabila[ Loa IMMOKALEE Slene rtahlpM® CPB Traflertl NBA Acsc okama b,, Slough Flowway wPA Gleaa Nship,Wea FSA) O IaEA a M �r 9A m 9 b VRA OIL WELL FI a 0 - FSA m HSA GOLD NGATE BL D Big Cypress Flodda Panther N.—I Preserve N."M Wildlils nehge Legend Pw+ w1a:1,.n—1 4.1 Solution: Financial Benefits of Recalibratin2 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 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 20 Packet Pg. 670 9.A.1.n 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 IA. Conversation starts approximately 40 min 52 seconds. 21 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 671 9.A.1.n 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 intensiflcation.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. Figure 5: Landscape Resource Priorities from CLIP v.4 prioritization 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: htip://www.fhai.orgZpdf/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. 22 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 672 9.A.1.n Data from the 2000 Immokalee Area Study Stage I 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 Committee for the Immokalee Area Study. P. 34. 9' Ibid. p. 14 9' Kautz, et al. (2006) How much is enough? Landscape —scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation 130, p. 118-133 9' Kautz, et al. (2006) How much is enough? Landscapescaleconservation 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 23 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 673 9.A.1.n 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 d� I�4,, Panther Zones _ Primary Zone �.- Sowrioary Zone _ - O'spersa3 zone c � 7 Wei 1 I 4 4 � 4 _ Adult Panther Habitat + Primary Zone ti ® Secondary Zone Study Area 1 w c 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 recovery 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. loo 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, 2001. 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 /joumal.pone.0133044 102 lbid, P. 15-16 24 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 674 9.A.1.n 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 los US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008. "Florida Panther Recovery Plan, 3`d Revision." 104Ibid. P. 101. "' U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2008) "Florida Panther Recovery Plan, 3rd Revision." p.89 25 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 675 9.A.1.n 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 lob Collier County LDC 4.08.0IQ 26 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 676 9.A.1.n 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.lo8 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. htt2:Hmyfwc.com/panther 27 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 677 9.A.1.n • The Florida panther is restricted to less than 5% of its historic range, which include RLSA lands.'o9 • Habitat loss is the greatest threat to the Florida panther.' 10 • The Florida panther has one breeding population, which is located in southern Florida.' 11 • 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.' 13 • The Florida panther is our state official mammal elected by school children in 1982. Figure 8: Graphic of Florida panther as umbrella species, by Steve Carbol 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). 10 Kautz, et al. (2006) How much is enough? Landscape —scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation 130, p. 119 "' Frakes RA, Beldon RC, Wood BE, James FE. (2015). Landscape Analysis of Adult Florida Panther Habitat. PLoS ONE, 10(7). 12 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) Found here: htips:Hecos.fvvs. op v/ecp0/reports/species- 'isted-by-state-totals-report "' U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge pamphlet: https://www. fws. goy/uploadedFiles/Fl°/a2OPantherGeneral%20brochure°/`2011.18.08.pdf 14 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." 28 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 678 9.A.1.n terms of quality and quantity from proposed HCP development (SRAs). Figure 9 shows loss of adult panther habitat quality post HCP development. 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. 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. 29 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 679 9.A.1.n 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). (a) Figure 10: HCP jeopardizes panther corridor connectivity between Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. Source: Frakes (2018) 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 30 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 680 9.A.1.n 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.' 15 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.' 17 "'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). 16 Three of the 19 listed species mentioned are under review for listing status or are considered candidate species. 1" 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 construction). 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. 31 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 681 9.A.1.n Sri 8a � t SR82 z I � l . 16 *11,�m KA LEE RD E go I VX CR 858 ❑ LA...�� .. J LU 0] ^T ❑ ■ ui H W W GOLDEN GATE BLVD W Ms. CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida DUR WVER• 1M0. W1 LCUFE, FUMPE 1 Ins Date: 11 /26/2018 so CR 846 2018 LSA Vision Map -I Legend rGOINI'SERVANCY VISION MAP � RLSA Bou nda ry Area of Critical State Concern sed open area: 36,887 acres _Hogan Island Quarry - Pe "it Challenged _ Proposed Add i1 onat KSA The Conservancy's additional proposed Polential Development Areas HSA area of 50,762 acres would protect: - WRA 4 7,72 7 acres of Primary Panther Habitat Hs" 4 1,43 0 acres ofAgricultural Lands FSA 6,103 acres of Wetlands Ave Maria -Already Pemritted 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 other 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. Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 32 Packet Pg. 682 9.A.1.n 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.1l8 I LFLAW 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 neighborhoodslight, 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 Reconciliation 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 be 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. 33 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 683 9.A.1.n HCP includes Rural Lands West SSA 17 55P Panther Habitat Value JP) Before C-0opmant =s 0.3 - 0.31 • 01 ® 041 O. -0.6 =061-07 _ 0.71 • a a MOM • 0e -0.Y1-1 ® RLW DW FeMpj 0 RLw Baled L9nhe Keais Strand Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA) Cypress SSA 17 Figure 12: Frakes (2018). Panther Habitat Value Before and After RLW Development anther Hebkat Value [PE fler Development Q • a 3 - 0.31 -0.4 011 -05 �051-06 0.61 . U.7 �071 •0e _Oe1-1 ® RLW 0- FMP, r1 RLW P.Od Limy, Lamp Keais Srand Stewardship Area (FSA) 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. 34 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 684 9.A.1.n 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. " Polices "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. 35 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 685 9.A.1.n to minimize adverse impacts to such lands. SRA design shall demonstrate that development will not adversely impact habitat and habitat functionality, or 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° or 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 121 Collier County LDC 4.08.06.13.3.f(3) 126 Collier County LDC 4.08.063.3.f(4). 1 27 Passarella & Associates. Stewardship Sending Area 15 Amendment Application. 36 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 686 9.A.1.n 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! Table 4: Credits from SS 15 amendment application. (Source: Passarella and Associates — Stewardship Sending Area 15) Credit Source Approved Proposed Total Credits Additional Credits Credits" Early Entry Bonus Credits 1,826.9 0.0 1,826.9 Base Credits 5,434.9 4,684.9 10,119.8 (for removing land use layers 1-6) (Layers 1-4 (Layers 5-6 removed removed) & Restoration Potential index) 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 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). 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. 121 Collier County. (2018, April 26). Meeting Summary RLSA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting — Protecting Natural Resources. 37 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 687 9.A.1.n 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.12' 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 Abblicant'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.'33 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 RI and R2 and Restoration Potential Index. 38 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 688 9.A.1.n 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 131 Collier County LDC4.08.06.B.5.f(5) 39 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 689 9.A.1.n 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 analysis would then be paid for by the applicant out of an escrow account and then restoration credits granted. 40 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 690 9.A.1.n 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 polic. t�quire 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 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 redevelopment 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 41 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 691 9.A.1.n 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 ones 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". 42 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 692 9.A.1.n 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. 141 14' 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." 43 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 693 9.A.1.n 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. 44 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 694 9.A.1.n 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 I dwelling per 5-acres on A Agriculture zoned land as a control total, the maximum number of dwelling units that could be constructed on the 182,331 acres ofprivately 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 -A CSC 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) 45 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 695 9.A.1.n 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. "lab 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 1/10`h 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) "$ 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) 46 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 696 9.A.1.n 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.'51 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) "0 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. 15' 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. 47 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 697 9.A.1.n 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). Table 5: Estimates of credits and development acreage from 2002 and 2008 and current status of program. WilsonMiller's 2002 WilsonMiller's 2008 Approved and Pending Estimate of Total Estimate of Total Credits as of 3/1/2019156 Stewardship Credits154 Stewardship Credits155 136,909 credits 315,000 credits 226,406 credits WilsonMiller's 2002 WilsonMiller's 2008 Current Development Estimate of Total RLSA Estimate of Total RLSA Potential Based on Approved Development Potential Development Potential and Pending Credits 16,805 acres 43,312 acres (includes 10% 31,130 acres (includes 10% for pubic benefit acres) 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 the 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. 48 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 698 9.A.1.n 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.'61 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 complete the restoration work. 159 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 "0 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 4.08.06 161 Collier County FLUE RLSA Overlay Policy 3.11. 49 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 699 9.A.1.n 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. 50 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 700 9.A.1.n 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 enhancement 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 opportunities (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 4.08.06133f(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) 51 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 701 9.A.1.n 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. Figure 13 Core Foraging Area - Wood Stork 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. 52 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 702 9.A.1.n 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 Max Early Entry Credits Potential Restoration Credits Total Potential Stewardship Credits in RLSA Program 128,000 27,000 160,000 (Assumes 29% of SSAs qualify) 315,000 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 generated. 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. 01 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 703 9.A.1.n 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. Table 6: Increase of Development Capacity of RLSA Program over Time 100,000.00 90,000.00 80,000.00 70,000.00 60,000.00 50,000.00 40,000.00 30,000.00 20,000.00 10,000.00 in 11 o Estimate of Total RLSA Development Capacity in at 100% Participation in Program 2002 WM 2008 WM 2019 Conservancy (16,805 acres) (43,312 acres) (90,550 acres) 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. US, Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 704 9.A.1.n 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 12 Collier County Land Development Code 4.08.06.13.31(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. bgps:Hen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort Lauderdale, Florida Fort Lauderdale is equivalent to 36.31 square miles or 23,238.4 acres. 55 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 705 9.A.1.n 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. 16 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. 56 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Packet Pg. 706 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIATc- aA10 Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commission will hold a ' ' on September 3, 2020 commencing at 9:00 A.M. in the Board of County Commissioners Chamber, I hird 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 COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, RF TO THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY RESTUDY AND SPECIFICALLY AM] THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEM] CHANGE ACREAGES, STEWARDSHIP CREDITS, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND PR REQUIREMENTS; AND FURTHERMORE DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENTS FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. [PL20190002292] RLSA RESTUDY AREA mam 1 s*y�'' '•' � E�1S�3 �.I ell JA RIVERGRASS '�.�►O I� �� ro �►®�� ' E .� maxi 1� All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed RESOLUT] be made available for inspection at the GMD Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Sectij N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday througl Furthermore, the materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk'. Fourth Floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 401, Naples, o: prior to the scheduled hearing. Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directe GMD Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section. Written comments filed with the Clej Board's Office 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 pande public 11 have the opportunity to provide public comments remotely, as well as in person this proceeding. Individuals who would like to participate remotely, should register any time agenda is posted on the County website which is 6 days before the meeting through the link I on the front page of the County website at www.colliercountya.¢ov. Individuals who regi receive an email in advance of the public hearing detailing how they can participate remotel meeting. For additional information about the meeting, please call Thomas Clarke at (239) 252 email to CCPCRemoteParticilation@CollierCountyFL.gov. a a c� Q HE LTG NG TO kM HE will 300 lay. ice, °ek the the the ing the led will his or Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Collier County Planning Commission wi: d a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatir Ord of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which th, eal is based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participat4 his proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please coj the Collier County Facilities Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail 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 Of - Edwin Fryer, Chairman Packet Pg. 707 Collier County Planning Commission August 14, 2020 9.A.1.p Nicholas G. Penniman IV 2386 Terra Verde Lane Naples, FL 34015 ngpivC&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. Packet Pg. 708 9.A.1.p 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. Packet Pg. 709 9.A.1.p 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. Packet Pg. 710 9.A.1.p 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 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." The original NRI took data only from daytime locations for collared panthers 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 considerations. 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). Packet Pg. 711 9.A.1.p 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.' 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. 2 Packet Pg. 712 0 C\! r- � k ¢ E E 0 Q (D -0 0 � @ % 7 spume lenN Z 0 MO ]d:Z9 O suempueme¥S]m 4eiQuomuemmo je Rt4a mS:}emt4oe n¥ # $ \ � \ )§ ! \� ) ! !,| - � !)I <z Zb 1 !))/ 9.A.1.p 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 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." The original NRI took data only from daytime locations for collared panthers 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 considerations. 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). Packet Pg. 714 9.A.1.p 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.' 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. 2 Packet Pg. 715 9.A.1.p 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 Page 1 of 3 Packet Pg. 716 9.A.1.p 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. Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 717 Stewardship Credit Analysis 9.A.1.p 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 Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 718 9.A.1.p 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 straightjacket 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 Packet Pg. 719 9.A.1.p 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. Packet Pg. 720 9.A.1.p 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. Packet Pg. 721 9.A.1.p Growth in Total & Restoration Credits 2002 to Current I Restoration Credits (Current & Extrapolated) 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 A �\\el \mace a� S�PG, yea Jc Q0�a 4r �` eta ,cam ti CJ Yr 2002 County & DCA 2008 5 yr Plan & Estimate Yr 2009 Cap ■ Total Credits ■ Restoration credits 134,000 0 315,000 160,000 404,000 144,000 Year 2019 Current & Extrapolated 322,9801 168,640 Year 2019 Total actual current credits, excles Ave Maria & Ag = 226,000 credits Reigning in Credits 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 Q 60,000 d 50,000 40,000 tl:z (� 000 20,000 • R-1 "Dedication 10,000 Credits 0 � 5 ? ■ R-2 Potential Cr O> N ova• N 5Q Ci`' L o,yea � a is cC Reigning in credits 1. Eliminate Future R-1 "Dedication" restoration Cr N s 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 v rn in N 4. Cap Base credits, Restoration and Ag credits. N c rn 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. 2 0 N J d N tD M Packet Pg. 722 9.A.1.p 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 restoration 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 dominance) 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. Packet Pg. 723 9.A.1.p 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 SSA1S 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 clear 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 4 Packet Pg. 724 9.A.1.p 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/nuisance 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 different 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. Packet Pg. 725 9.A.2 09/25/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.2 Item Summary: *** This item has been continued from the September 17, 2020 CCPC Meeting to the September 25, 2020 CCPC Meeting .*** Recommendation to amend an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, PL20180002507 - Florida, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series by amending the Urban Commercial district to add the Greenway-Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict to allow development of up to 20,000 square feet of C-3, commercial intermediate uses and furthermore, directing transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability and providing for an effective date. The subject property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Greenway Road in Sections 12 and 13, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 2.81f acres. [PL20180002507] [Adoption] [Companion PL201800023741. Meeting Date: 09/25/2020 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Principal — Zoning Name: Sue Faulkner 09/17/2020 10:00 AM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning — Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 09/17/2020 10:00 AM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Sue Faulkner Review item Skipped 09/17/2020 9:50 AM Zoning Sue Faulkner Review Item Skipped 09/17/2020 9:50 AM Zoning Sue Faulkner Additional Reviewer Skipped 09/17/2020 9:50 AM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Sue Faulkner Review Item Skipped Growth Management Department Sue Faulkner Review Item Skipped 09/17/2020 9:50 AM Zoning Sue Faulkner Review Item Skipped 09/17/2020 9:50 AM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 09/25/2020 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 726 9.A.2.a COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT Greenway-Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict p mare[ee UR FL I PROPOSED PROPERTY L 3 m L Mesquite DR CD Achill DR (ADOPTION HEARING) P L20180002 507/C PSS-2019-08 CCPC: September 17, 2020 BCC: October 27, 2020 a E c m t9 0 Ln N O O O O 0 N J d O CO) O Cl) W O U U IL U U c m a a Packet Pg. 727 9.A.2.b TABLE OF CONTENTS CCPC September 17, 2020 Small Scale GMP Amendment Adoption PL20180002507/CPSS-2019-08 Greenway-Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict E M 1) TAB: Adoption Staff Report DOCUMENTS: CCPC Staff Report E H 2) TAB: Ordinance DOCUMENTS: Adoption Ordinance with Exhibit m m "A" text (and/or maps): ti 0 uO N O 3) TAB: Project PL20180002507/ DOCUMENT: Petition/Application CD CPSS-2019-08 N J a- O M 4) TAB: Title Document: Title M r H z LU 5) TAB: NIM Document: PowerPoint z 0 U U- 6) TAB: Legal Advertisement DOCUMENT: CCPC Advertisement 0 w J m Q H 7) TAB: Sign Posting DOCUMENT: Sign Posting & Affidavit W E t c� r 8) TAB: Correspondence DOCUMENTS: No Correspondence Q Packet Pg. 728 9.A.2.c Co e-r bounty a STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION E 2 E t— TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: September 17, 2020 RE: PETITION CPSS-2019-08/PL20180002507, SMALL SCALE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (Companion to RZ-PL20180002374) [ADOPTION HEARING] ELEMENT: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) AGENT/APPLICANT/OWNER(S): Agents: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Vice President Holes Montes, Inc. 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34108 Applicant/Owners GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: William B. Yeomans TBC Greenway, LLC 13920 58th Street N., Suite 1014 Clearwater, FL 33760 The subject property comprises f2.81-acres and is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Greenway Road and Tamiami Trail East, US 41, the northern portion of the subject site is in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East and the southern portion of the subject site is in Section 13, Township 51 South, Range 26 East (Royal Fakapalm Planning Community). Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 Page 1 of 7 Packet Pg. 729 9.A.2.c a;.. .J . L , rm�; REOUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes a small-scale Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Future Lane Use Element (FLUE), specifically to create a new subdistrict, Greenway — Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict, within the Urban Designation, Urban — Commercial District. The applicant also proposes to amend the countywide Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and create a new map ("Greenway — Tamiami Trail East Subdistrict") in the FLUM series of the FLUE, to identify the newly created Subdistrict. The proposed amended Subdistrict text is as follows: (Single underline text is added, single strike -through text is deleted, and is also reflected in the Ordinance Exhibit A). FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** I. URBAN DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** C. Urban Commercial District *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 14. Seed to Table Commercial Subdistrict Q a. E M T t— c m m 0 u� N O O O 00 O N J d O M to M Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 Page 2 of 7 Packet Pg. 730 9.A.2.c *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 15, Greenway — Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict The Greenway - Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict consists of f 2.81 acres and is located d at the northwest corner of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41) and Greenway Road, in 2 Section 12, Township, 51 South, Range 27 East. The purpose of the Subdistrict is to provide small- scale shopping and convenience commercial uses to the surrounding neighborhood within convenient travel distance and to serve the public traveling on Tamiami Trail East. The E development of this Subdistrict shall comply with the following restrictions, limitations and standards: a. Allowable uses are those permitted by right in the C-3, Commercial Intermediate zoning 3 district, as listed in the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as c amended. The maximum allowable commercial intensity shall be 20,000 square feet. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of this Growth Management Plan Amendment is to create text and a map for a new subdistrict, Greenway — Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict. The subdistrict will provide small-scale shopping and convenience commercial uses to the surrounding neighborhood within convenient travel distance and to serve the public traveling on Tamiami Trail East. Allowable uses are those permitted by right in the C- 3, Commercial Intermediate zoning district, as listed in the Collier County Land Development Code. There is a companion Rezone zoning petition (PL20180002374) that specifies a possible use of a convenience store with fuel pumps. The GMPA application included the submission of a Needs/Market Analysis that also discusses a convenience store with fuel pumps. The Greenway-Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict language was more generalized and does not specify a convenience store with fuel pumps. SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: SuMect Property: The +2.81-acre, heavily treed, subject site is undeveloped. The subject site is zoned Agricultural/Rural (A). The purpose and intent of the rural agricultural district (A) is to provide lands for agricultural, pastoral, and rural land uses by accommodating traditional agricultural, agricultural related activities and facilities, support facilities related to agricultural needs, and conservation uses. Uses that are generally considered compatible to agricultural uses that would not endanger or damage the agricultural, environmental, potable water, or wildlife resources of the County, are permissible as conditional uses in the A district. The +2.81-acre subject site shows two separate designations in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). The northern portion of the subject site is depicted as Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map. The southern portion of the subject site is depicted as Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. All of the subject site is designated within the Coastal High Hazard Area. Urban designated areas (in the Future Land Use Element) will accommodate residential uses and a variety of non-residential uses. Commercial uses can be allowed under (12. Commercial uses subject to criteria identified...) in the Urban Designation section of the FLUE. The applicant submitted a small-scale Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) application to create the Greenway-Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict for the purpose of providing small-scale shopping and convenience commercial Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 Page 3 of 7 Packet Pg. 731 9.A.2.c uses to the surrounding neighborhood within convenient travel distance and to serve the public traveling on East Tamiami Trail (US 41). The Greenway-Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict will be listed under the Urban Designation 12. Commercial uses. This small-scale GMPA (PL20180002507) must be approved in order to rezone the subject parcel from Agricultural/Rural zoning district to C-3 and be consistent with the GMP. The companion zoning petition (PL20180002374) cannot be approved until this d GMPA is adopted and goes into effect; the effective date can be linked to the effective date of the companion GMP amendment petition. T 2 The Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) boundary is generally depicted on the Future Land Use Map and E is more precisely shown in the Future Land Use Map series; all lands lying seaward of that boundary arecu within the CHHA. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Immediately to the north is low density housing on the majority of the f2.5 and 5.0-acre parcels of land with single family residences on many of the parcels. The parcels to the north are zoned Agricultural/Rural zoning district. The FLUE designates the land to the north of the subject site as Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict and within the CHHA. East: Immediately adjacent to the east lies an undeveloped, heavily treed, f24-acre parcel. It is zoned Travel Trailer Recreational Vehicle Campground Zoning District. This site is designated Agricultural/Rural, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District — Receiving Lands, and within the CHHA. South: Immediately adjacent to the south (across Tamiami Trail East — US 41) are currently existing land uses for residential lots under construction. The zoning is Fiddler's Creek PUD Zoning District. The FLUE designates this area to the south of the subject site as Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe and within the CHHA. To the southeast, a commercial development, including a new Publix site, is under construction within the Fiddler's Creek PUD. West: Immediately adjacent to the west lies undeveloped f1.5 — 6.5-acre parcels. The zoning to the west is Agricultural/Rural Zoning Districts. Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict and within the CHHA. STAFF ANALYSIS: Background and Considerations: The applicant is proposing a GMP amendment to allow for the creation of a new subdistrict that will allow small-scale shopping and convenience commercial uses serving the surrounding neighborhood within a convenient travel distance and to serve the traveling public on Tamiami Trail East. Allowable uses would be those uses permitted by right in the C-3, Commercial Intermediate zoning district, as listed in the Collier County Land Development Code. The objective of the Small-scale Growth Management Plan Amendment (SSGMPA) and companion rezone is to allow permitted C-3 uses up to a maximum of 20,000 square feet. The C-3 zoning establishes development standards in order to facilitate redevelopment of the site with existing intensities. These site - specific development standards are particularly important given the relatively small size of the subject site. The subject site consists of f2.81-acres and is comprised of one tax parcel. This GMPA amendment has a companion zoning petition (PL20180002374) to rezone the subject site from Agricultural/Rural to C-3 Commercial Intermediate Zoning District. Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 Page 4 of 7 Packet Pg. 732 9.A.2.c Compatibility: Given the mixed -use nature of this neighborhood with the proximity of the subject site to the Commercial development currently under construction in the Fiddler's Creek PUD (diagonally across Tamiami Trail East and less than 200 feet to the southeast); and access to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian activity, the d requested small-scale shopping and convenience commercial uses are appropriate. (Conditional uses (CU) in the C-3 district may be appropriate and would be determined on a case -by -case basis with a separate CU zoning petition). The Fiddler's Creek PUD commercial development is intended to include a Publix. T Given the mixed -use nature of this neighborhood, which includes residential and both current and future commercial uses, this site will be compatible with the surrounding area. Compatibility can be more specifically addressed with the zoning petition, and may include building height and size limitations, 3 setback and buffer requirements, etc. c Justifications for Proposed Amendment: The 2.81-acre site is a corner property fronting on a 4-lane roadway (Tamiami Trail East — U. S. 41) and a local roadway (Greenway Road). The site is located diagonally across Tamiami Trail East from the Fiddler's Creek PUD commercial (C-3) site. The Market Analysis states that the population within a 10-minute drive of the proposed site is approximately 23,000 people. The Market Analysis shows this is a fairly substantial population base for the proposed commercial uses and that there will be sufficient demand. All necessary urban services are available to serve the site. The proposed C-3 uses on this site will result in job creation, capital investment, and economic development. Identification and Analysis of the Pertinent Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment Criteria in Florida Statutes Chapter 163.3187: Process for adoption of small scale comprehensive plan amendment. (1) A small scale development amendment may be adopted under the following conditions: (a) The proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer. [The subject site comprises ±2.81 acres.] (b) The proposed amendment does not involve a text change to the goals, policies, and objectives of the local government's comprehensive plan, but only proposes a land use change to the future land use map for a site -specific small-scale development activity. However, text changes that relate directly to, and are adopted simultaneously with, the small-scale future land use map amendment shall be permissible under this section. [This amendment does include a text change to the Comprehensive Plan and those text changes are directly related to the proposed future land use map amendment.] (c) The property that is the subject of the proposed amendment is not located within an area of critical state concern, unless the project subject to the proposed amendment involves the construction of affordable housing units meeting the criteria of s. 420.0004(3), and is located within an area of critical state concern designated by s. 380.0552 or by the Administration Commission pursuant to s. 380.050). [The subject property is not located within an Area of Critical State Concern.] Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 Page 5 of 7 Packet Pg. 733 9.A.2.c (2) Small scale development amendments adopted pursuant to this section require only one public hearing before the governing board, which shall be an adoption hearing as described in s. 163.318401). [This project will be heard with only one public adoption hearing.] (3) If the small scale development amendment involves a site within a rural area of opportunity as defined d under s. 288.0656(2)(d) for the duration of such designation, the 10-acre limit listed in subsection (1) shall be increased by 100 percent to 20 acres. The local government approving the small scale plan amendment shall certify to the state land planning agency that the plan amendment furthers the 2 economic objectives set forth in the executive order issued under s. 288.0656(7), and the property E subject to the plan amendment shall undergo public review to ensure that all concurrency requirements and federal, state, and local environmental permit requirements are met. [This amendment does not involve a site within a rural area of opportunity.] (4) Comprehensive plans may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to s. 163.3177. Corrections, updates, or modifications of current costs which were set out as part of the comprehensive plan shall not, for the purposes of this act, be deemed to be amendments. [This amendment preserves the internal consistency of the plan and is not a correction, update, or modification of current costs which were set out as part of the comprehensive plan.] Environmental Impacts and Historical and Archaeological Impacts: Craig Brown, Senior Environmental Specialist with Collier County Environmental Planning Section, completed his review and approved this petition in March 25, 2020. He provided the following comments: "In the Urban Residential Subdistrict, the subject site is 2.81 Acres and located in the Coastal High Hazard Area, zoned AG. A small-scale growth management amendment is proposed Commercial Sub -district. 1.62 acres of Native vegetation 10% to be preserved." Public Facilities Impacts: Eric Fey, Senior Project Manager with Collier County Public Utilities Engineering & Project Management Division, approved this project on January 27, 2020. Transportation Impacts: Michael Sawyer, Project Manager with Collier County Transportation Planning, completed his review and approved this petition, without any conditions, in March 28, 2020. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS: A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), as required by Land Development Code (LDC) Section 10.03.05 A, was duly advertised, noticed, and held on June 30, 2020, 5:30 p.m. at the New Hope Ministries, Lecture Hall — Room 211, 7675 Davis Boulevard, Naples, FL 34104. This NIM was advertised, noticed, and held jointly for this small scale GMP amendment and the companion Rezone (RZ) petition. Although there were no members of the public attending, the applicant's team gave the prepared presentation. The applicant filmed the presentation to place on the agent's website. See applicant's NIM notes included in the companion PUDZ packet. A total of zero (0) members of the public along with 4 members of the applicant's team and 2 County staff signed in at the NIM. Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 Page 6 of 7 Packet Pg. 734 9.A.2.c The consultant explained that there were two separate applications: a small-scale amendment for the Growth Management Plan (creation of a new subdistrict) and a zoning action for a rezone petition. The meeting ended at approximately 5:50 p.m. Q [synopsis prepared by Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section] E 2 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY STAFF: E t— Comprehensive Planning staff received no correspondence of objection/concern or of support. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS: • The reason for this GMPA and companion RZ zoning petition is to create a subdistrict that will allow C-3 zoning and a maximum of 20,000 square feet of commercial; and to allow a C-3 zoning district with a maximum of 20,000 square feet of commercial • There are no adverse environmental impacts as a result of this petition. • No historic or archaeological sites are affected by this amendment. • There are no transportation or utility -related concerns as a result of this petition. • The uses are generally compatible with surrounding development based upon the high-level review conducted for a GMP amendment LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney's Office on August 28, 2020. The criteria for GMP amendments to the Future Land Use Element are in Sections 163.3177(1)(f) and 163.3177(6)(a)2, Florida Statutes. The criteria for changes to the Future Land Use Map is in Section 163.3177(6)(a)8, Florida Statutes [HFAC] STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PL20180002507/CPSS- 2019-08 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve (adopt) and transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK] Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 Page 7 of 7 Packet Pg. 735 9.A.2.d ORDINANCE NO. 2020- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.89- 05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES BY AMENDING THE URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO ADD THE GREENWAY-TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST a COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 20,000 SQUARE FEET OF C-3, COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE USES AND FURTHERMORE, DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE E I ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY ~ AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE 3 INTERSECTION OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST AND GREENWAY L ROAD IN SECTIONS 12 AND 13, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 2.81f ACRES. [PL20180002507] 0 WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, TBC Greenway, LLC requested an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series to create the Greenway-Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 163.3187(1), Florida Statutes, this amendment is considered a Small -Scale Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Subdistrict property is not located in an area of critical state concern or a rural area of opportunity; and [ 19-CMP-01061 /1558602/ 1 ]66 7-Eleven Greenway Words underlined are added, words stmek tleaxgh have been deleted. Pagel of 3 PL20180002507 8/14/20 Packet Pg. 736 9.A.2.d WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) on considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan and recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County did take action in the manner prescribed by law and held public hearings concerning the proposed adoption of the amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Growth Management Plan on ; and WHEREAS, all applicable substantive and procedural requirements of law have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN The Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts this small-scale amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. The text and map amendment are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION TWO: SEVERABILITY. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. SECTION THREE: EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this plan amendment, if the amendment is not timely challenged, shall be 31 days after the state land planning agency notifies the local government that the plan amendment package is complete. If timely challenged, this amendment shall become effective on the date the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission enters a final order determining this adopted amendment to be in compliance. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the state land planning agency. [I 9-CMP-0 1061/ 155 8602/ 1166 7-Eleven Greenway Words underlined are added, words stmek have been deleted. Page 2 of 3 PL20180002507 8/ 14/20 Packet Pg. 737 9.A.2.d PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida this day of , 2020. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Deputy Clerk Burt L. Saunders, Chairman a o E M Approved as to form and legality: ~ Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A — Proposed Text Amendment & Map Amendment [ 19-CMP-01061 / 1558602/ 1166 7-Eleven Greenway Words underlined are added, words struoL through have been deleted. PL20180002507 8/ 14/20 Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 738 9.A.2.d PL20190002507JCPSS-2019-08 EXHIBIT A FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** TABLE OF CONTENTS *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** II. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY * GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK * FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES * Future Land Use Map * Mixed Use & Interchange Activity Centers Maps *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** * Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict Map * East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map * Greenwav — Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** II. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** Policy 1.5: The URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** C. URBAN — COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict 2. Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 13. East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict 14. Seed to Table Commercial Subdistrict 15. Greenwav — Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** Page 1 of 3 Q Q Page 1 of 5 Packet Pg. 739 9.A.2.d PL201900 025 07/CP S S-2019-0 8 FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** I. URBAN DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** b. Non-residential uses including: *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 12. Commercial uses subject to criteria identified in the Urban — Mixed Use District, PUD Neighborhood Village Center Subdistrict, Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict, Residential Mixed Use Neighborhood Subdistrict, Orange Blossom Mixed -Use Subdistrict, Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict, Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict, Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict, Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict, Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict, Livingston/Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict, Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict, Davis — Radio Commercial Subdistrict; and, in the Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict, Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Livingston Road/Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict, Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict, Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Subdistrict, East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Seed to Table Commercial Subdistrict, Greenwav — Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict, in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay; and, as allowed by certain FLUE policies. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** C. Urban Commercial District *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 14. Seed to Table Commercial Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 15. Greenwav — Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict The Greenway - Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict consists of ± 2.81 acres and is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41) and Greenwav Road, in Section 12, Township, 51 South, Range 27 East. The purpose of the Subdistrict is to provide small-scale shopping and convenience commercial uses to the surrounding neighborhood within convenient travel distance and to serve the public traveling on Tamiami Trail East. The development of this Subdistrict shall comply with the following restrictions, limitations and standards: Page 2 of 3 ., a C9 �a E 3 c a� a� ti 0 LO N 0 0 0 0 0 N J a 0 M c� M 0 N v 0 0 m U c c E L O N r.+ C a� E U r a Page 2 of 5 Packet Pg. 740 9.A.2.d PL20190002507/CPSS-2019-08 a. Allowable uses are those permitted by right in the C-3, Commercial Intermediate zoning district as listed in the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance No 04-41 as amended. The maximum allowable commercial intensity shall be 20,000 sauare feet. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES Future Land Use Map Activity Center Index Map *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** Seed to Table Commercial Subdistrict Map Livingston RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict Map Greenway — Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict Page 3 of 3 Q a 2 0 c� 3 d d ,L^ V ti O LO N O O O O T O N J IL 0 CO) O M O N r O O N t,1 _ CU _ L 0 N _ d E L t� �6 w Q Page 3 of 5 Packet Pg. 741 EXHIBIT A 9.A.2.d PL20180002507/CPSS-2 - O/ �P►�'� GREENWAY - TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA �ecflm— Maretee D PROPOSED PROPERTY Mes ui Achill DR I Q am ADOPTED - XXXX, XXX 0 100 200 400 Feet LEGEND (ORD. NO. XXX-XX)' Greenway - Tamiami Trail East 03 Commercial Subdistrict Paae 4 of a a c� E 3 ,L^ V 0 LO N O O O 00 0 N J a Q Packet Pg. 742 W h W M 0.' (VdWJ !We!uael - AeMUGG-10 LOGZ0008LOZ-ld ME OZVM - GOueu!pa0 (Z :;uauay3e;}1y m 14b5 1475 1 raoa 1++� e�o 1 rarer r�cu 1 raoo ti (L s^ter �R err �. wr �rwn.r. U =a="owb=a" solos10-a ` d m��-- _ rc 'c rc g s mW8 pgz igw W$o ��- ° $ igo„ eG w oR wes rr 3 o 'wz z =. �R <i oRaR ~z'wo z°'z°of of z`<z` zwz w =oe000aw eew wows°owowaos'wseaIaioga�a=a=a W 0.' f lu i M t r $ W N a. E 1 ,� m p a W cm I �t Ott / / a N � N "r 1'16 W f �1u i 1_ _ by W � a G Ww�g LU Va �W Q~U> w N ='c aWQo N��»°p r C wZK a e N =0 r J U '05R <wrm Q a ® r a N W J?�W p LL U �W w�o� x LL Urn �w�N ✓ .._ uJzs .. O � YW,rgggg 'N L�L og� W r M j00Q ` ' w x ` ` ' ��FFFF� � IJ. o a ✓ u �z { G If ( M e 0 I C) w o e a S LI m T46S T47S T48S T49S T50S T51 S T52S T53S ilt ,-V LVvtg 4t.11Fs«' ZttJai lar< 79 tz j1F4 r6s .f- arle. r u (A, T'?P, lh I A-1 r- -1 &.1 'LA, `' P- k'-f 6 `k ly '` °Guy kt eL j (1 Q E 0 E H 3 G,y d CD ti Cm Cm Zmi j CO Q CD CO r Q N r J IL 0 M to M w d e t� a 7 d 'c Q a M Q s _ 11Li cjj VA" f � �� s rp,, t �/ r �/ V 19t ° ti I' G# i 4e4 f� httl LJo- � dS �3T 1 f t C%` jvA bt$rws�%G�a. _f (attach additional pages if necessary) Packet Pg. 744 9.A.2.e GMP Amendment Pre -application Meeting Standard Comments The Comprehensive Planning Section schedules all GMP amendment pre -application meetings, which are mandatory, and coordinates the review of all amendment petitions received. Per the current Fee Schedule, adopted 3/8/16, the non-refundable pre -application meeting fee is $500.00; it is credited towards the petition fee — if the petition is submitted within nine months. The petition fee is $16,700.00 ($9,000.00 for a small-scale petition), which is non-refundable, plus a proportionate share of the legal advertising costs. For small-scale petitions, there are only two hearings — one each before the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and Board of a County Commissioners (BCC); one '/4 page ad is placed in the Naples Daily News prior to CCPC hearing, and one prior to BCC hearing. At present, the total cost for the 2 ads is approximately $1,864.80. For all other amendment petitions, a total of four public hearings are held - Transmittal E hearing before CCPC and BCC, and Adoption hearing before same two bodies. Presently, the LZ total cost for the 4 legal ads is approximately $3,729.60. The estimated legal advertising costs will E be provided to each petitioner and payment will be required prior to advertising for any hearings; ~ any refund due the petitioner after hearings are held will be provided at that time. Final action is taken by the BCC; approval requires a supermajority vote. 3 In addition to the petition fee and legal ad costs noted above, payment must also be made for a Traffic Impact Study Review Fee. This fee should be submitted directly to the Transportation Planning Section. Please see their website at: http//www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=566 and/or contact them for more details. Finally, there is cost to advertise for and conduct a Neighborhood Information Meeting, and to post a public hearing notice (sign). Section 10.03.00 of the Land Development Code (LDC) requires the petitioner of a site -specific GMP amendment to hold a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM); this would occur after a finding of sufficiency of the petition submittal but prior to the first public hearing. The LDC also requires the petitioner of a site -specific GMP amendment to post a notice(s) of the CCPC hearing on the property, for both Transmittal and Adoption hearings. The tri-annual amendment cycle is established by Resolution 12-234. The submittal deadline is 5:00 a.m, on the last Fridav in the months established by the BCC (for 2013-2018. February, June, October). Some amendment petitions are exempt from the tri-annual cycle — may be submitted and processed at any time; these include, but are not limited to, DRI-related amendments and small-scale amendments. A small-scale amendment is limited to a parcel <10 acres and is limited to a map amendment only and any directly -related text; the map amendment cannot result in a conflict between the map and text — there can be no internal inconsistency in the GMP. (Note: Notwithstanding the significant changes made in 2011 (HB7207) to Ch. 163, Florida Statutes, Collier County limits amendments to the tri-annual amendment cycle noted above, and continues to consider demonstration of need and reduction in greenhouse gas in evaluating GMP amendments.) For the most part, there is no guidance/criteria/standards provided in the GMP by which to review amendments for consistency; an exception is for significant impacts upon public facilities as provided for in Policy 1.1.2 of the CIE. However, Chapter 163, F.S., does provide guidance. Note particularly the requirement to provide appropriate data and analysis. Generally, staff reviews for, and an applicant should adequately address in the submittal: • Appropriateness of uses/compatibility with surrounding area. • Impact upon surrounding properties — will it make them less developable under their present FLUM designation? Will it create a domino effect leading to future designation changes on the surrounding properties? Packet Pg. 745 9.A.2.e • Need for the designation change — data and analysis, e.g. market demand study for commercial uses, to demonstrate the change is warranted, that more inventory of the requested uses is needed. Too often, the data only demonstrates the petition site is viable for the proposed uses ("build it & they will come") rather than demonstrate there is a need for a new or expanded GMP provision to provide for the proposed uses, and that the need is at the subject location. The data should be specific to the proposed land uses, proposed trade service area, persons per household in subject area, etc. as applicable. It is recognized there is more than one acceptable methodology, e.g. radial distance from site (ULI standards for neighborhood/community/regional commercial centers), drive time, etc. Regardless of methodology, the raw data needs to be submitted to allow staff to review it a for completeness and accuracy (sometimes parcels are omitted, double counted, included when shouldn't be, etc.). Also, as with all submitted documents, maps of trade service area 0 need to be legible and include adequate identification features, e.g. major roads, Section- E Township -Range. c� 2 • LOSS (level of service standards) impacts upon public facilities — roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, drainage, solid waste, parks & recreation facilities, etc. , • Within the above is consideration of site -specific impacts, e.g. impact upon wetlands and 3 listed species habitats on -site and nearby; and, traffic impacts (operational/safety) from the = traffic volume generated/attracted and/or the ingress/egress points - turning movements, L median openings, traffic signals, etc. Included within this would be a comparison between impacts that would be expected under the existing zoning and/or FLUM designation vs. that Q which could be expected under the proposed amendment. LO c • Consistency/conformity/harmony with other Goals, Objectives, Policies (GOPs) and g provisions in the Element being amended and any other Element of the GMP relevant to00 the petition, as well as any other applicable regulations (e.g. Manatee Protection Plan, J specific LDC provisions). a • Furtherance of existing GOPs relevant to the petition. c • Furtherance of any other plans or designations that is applicable or relevant to the petition M (e.g. a redevelopment plan, Area of Critical State Concern, Rural Area of Critical Economic Concern). d • Energy efficiency and conservation, reduction of greenhouse gases, reduction of vehicle 49 miles travelled, etc., as required in HB 697 (2008). a Market Study Info for Commercial Requests It is the responsibility of every applicant to utilize and provide the best available data as a sound foundation on which to build their requested amendment. Collier County annually produces population estimates and projections. The County also prepares regular updates to its commercial inventory — and these are available to use in market studies. Generally, the actual need for a FLUM designation change is determined through data and analysis, e.g, market demand study for commercial uses, with results which demonstrate the change is warranted, and that additional inventory of the requested uses is needed. Too often, the data fails to reach the desired standard, merely demonstrating the subject site is viable for the proposed uses ("build it & they will come) rather than demonstrating there is an actual need for a new or expanded GMP provision to provide for the proposed uses, and that this need is best served at this location. Data and analysis should substantiate that benefits from the proposed project will be evident Countywide — or at least throughout the market area to be served, without detriment to other existing and planned developments — and not only to the property owner. The data should be specific to the proposed land uses, proposed trade, market or service area, persons per household in subject area, etc., as applicable. Market demand studies should develop scenarios to explain how the subject property will compete with other `like areas' in or near the market, service or trade, area. 2 a Packet Pg. 746 9.A.2.e Market demand studies should also gauge the amount of vacant units/square footage/leasable area within the Planning Community/Communities involved, and of `like area' nodes in the market area, such as within each Mixed Use Activity Center (MUAC), each Estates Neighborhood Center, each Subdistrict, and so on — acknowledging the premise that vacancies and vacancy rates are valid indicators for determining need/demand/support. A commercial market study should contain a sufficient amount of information for a substantive review, including: Identification and description of the project's trade/market area: • Trade/market area — radial, gravity, drive -time model or other method? Q o Radial: analyses are performed by selecting and evaluating demographics that fall within a pre -defined C9 radial distance from the business location. o Gravity: provides an approximation of business trade area by looking spatially at the distribution of all e0 locations, including competitors, and evaluating each location's relative attractiveness. E o Drive -time: analyses include digitized roadway systems (accounts for speed, lanes, barriers, etc.). Method is valid for convenience scenarios where patrons are expected to go to the closest or most logistically convenient location. 0 • Trade/market area size varies depending upon the scale of the development. The boundary may not be spherical — adjusted based on transportation network, geographic constraints, density, etc. 2. Guidelines for determining the Market Area (ULI) Center Type Leading Typical GLA General Typical Minimum Market Size Tenant Range in Minimum Support (Radius) GLA Site Area Required Neighborhood Supermarket 50,000 sq. ft. 30,000 — 3 acres 2,500 — 1 '/z miles or Drugstore 100,000 sq. 40,000 ft. people Community Variety 150,000 sq. 100,000- 10 + acres 40,000 — 3-5 miles Discount or ft. 450,000 sq. 150,000 Junior Dept. ft. people Store Regional One or more 400,000 sq. 300,000 — 30-50 acres 150,000 or 8 miles full -line ft. 1,000,000 or or more more Dept. stores more people of at least 100,000 sq. ft. of GLA Trade/market data must include the following figures: (estimates and projections are needed for most categories) • Population • Number of dwelling units • Household income • Total trade area income • Sales per sq. ft. (method — divide total retail sales w/in county by # of sq. ft. of retail space) • Floor Area Ratios (building to land ratios — derive from inventory) • Retail expenditures (some studies break down figures by retail type, others by percentage from Census or other source) • Supportable square feet (divide projected retail expenditures by sales per sq. ft. then multiply supportable sq. ft. by vacancy rate [to obviously account for vacancies]) a 3 Packet Pg. 747 9.A.2.e Land use requirement (divide total supportable sq requirements) Supply of commercial land uses Compare supply to demand ft. by 43,560 and then by FAR to detennine acreage Office demand is calculated on a per capita method (sq. ft./person) must factor in the vacancy percentage/rate. Too often the "Market Factors"/ "Population Factors" / "Commercial Analysis" portions of a Study appear to provide only some of these figures, but in the forni of broad statements and drawn conclusions, with the lack of proper data and analysis evident. Of course, many applicants have chosen to provide more data and analysis, but the items shown above represent the minimum amount of information necessary to form a detennination. • Prepare a needs analysis using the former Florida Department of Community Affairs's market factor of 1.25 (reference the Florida Senate Interim Report 2010-107, October 2009). It is important to carefully organize the amendment package; be sure all exhibits are consistently labeled, are in the proper order, and are correctly referenced on the pages of the application. For site -specific amendments, be sure to clearly identify the subject site, include North arrow and scale, and source. A petition narrative is often helpful. For corporate ownership, it is not acceptable to only list the corporation name. In some instances, property is owned by a corporation that in turn is comprised of other corporations. It is necessary to provide a list of individuals as officers or stockholders of the corporation(s) for purposes of full disclosure - to reveal the individuals with an interest in the property (including seeing if any staff or public officials are included). A petition may be submitted in electronic version, preferably in PDF format, or hard copy; electronic is preferred. If hard copy, the petition packages, including support materials, need to be submitted on 3-hole punch paper - and preferably two-sided copies - as the amendments are presented to some hearing body members in 3-ring binders. Oversize exhibits should be folded and placed in a pocket insert made for 3-ring binders. Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-2400 Website: https://www,colliercountyfl, ov/your-government/divisions-a-e/comprehensive-planning Note ter'staff Fir pett�ai to tnGseasc allcawbl denstl)' plss pra�rd'pettfi+can tc� lets+rrtY TY)cSr4f (pkart.t t;pil>r e �rty`sPti� Scl?e1s'a.5?a„3lalTrai, tp�s,1t3, ftar.co( ►rrttr1Y( relit+: GMPA pre-app standard comments - CLEAN G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\COMP PLANNING GMP DATA\Comp Plan Amendments\GMP Pre-App Standard Comments dw/3-23-04 & 1/21/05 & 2/9/05 & 4/19/05 [added 3-25-04]; [added 1/21/05, and re -arranged paragraphs, and modified 2/9/05]; [added 4/19/05]; [added or modified 7/12/05]; [modified 3/29/06]; [added 1/30/07]; [added 2/27/07]; [added 3/9/07]; [added 11/5/07]; [added 3/26/08]; [added 5/14/08]; [added 1/7/09]; [added 3/23/09]; [added & modified 3/22/10]; [tweaks 4/9/10]; [tweaks 6-4-10]; [tweaks 7-8-10]; [edits 4-16-12]; [12-18-13]; [7-3-14] [7-6- 15; ad fees revised 8-20-18; 9-4-18] Q 20 E Packet Pg. 748 9.A.2.e FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) PL20180002507 I, William Yeomans Jr (print name), as Manager (title, if applicable) of TBC Greenway. LLC (company, If applicable), swear or affirm under oath, that I am the (choose one) owner applicant=contract purchaser=and that: 1. 1 have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this Q application and the Land Development Code; 2. All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. 1 have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours 2 for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that E 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. 5. Well authorize Henderson Franklin Starnes & Holt P.A. to act as our/my representative 3 in any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above. *Notes: ® If the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed by the corp. pres. or v. pres. ® if the applicant is a Limited Liability Company (L.L.C.) or Limited Company (LC.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's "Managing Member." ® If the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. ® If the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the "general partner" of the named partnership. ® If the applicant is a trust, then they must include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee". ® In each instance, first deternyap the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate forma hat ownership. Under pe ale of fury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the fac s d i are e. re 1 � v Date STATE OF FLORI COUNTY O Thforgoing instru en orn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me on a by ®i (name of person providing oath o affirmation), as who is personall known to r who has produced (type of identif ation) as identification. - STAMP/SEAL S' ature of Notary Public CAROL ANN KENNEDY �= Notary Public state of Florida "4; Commission 4 GG 939427 � '!? �;.•r' My Cornm, Expires Dec 19, 2023 CP108-COA-001151155 REV 3/24/14 Packet Pg. 749 9.A.2.e FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) I, William Yeomans Jr (print name), as Manager (title, if applicable) of TBC.Grgenway, LLC _ (company, If applicable), swear or affirm under oath, that I am the (choose one) ownerm applicant =contract purchaser=and that: 1. 1 have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this a application and the Land Development Code; 0. 2. All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. 1 have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours E for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that E 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. , 5. We/I authorize- 0WIth-One & Associates. hic to act as our/my representative � in any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above. 3 *Notes: • If the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed by the corp. Ares. or v. pres. • If the applicant is a Limited Liability Company (L.L.C.) or Limited Company (L.C.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's "Managing Member." • If the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • If the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the "general partner" of the named partnership. • If the applicant is a trust, then they must include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee". • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penait' s j y, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts st e i a #rt1e"` Si9fiaturk bate___. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF�e9tt A Th foregoing an ument was sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me � ( ` te) by ' ' (name person prov !ng th or affirmation), as who is !ly known to or who has produce (type of ide i a� 1 entification._ STAMP/SEAL 111P< Nota�� ANN 00,10*0V y Pybh4 5�*t� at F�u+ids S' natur of Notary P1a Ic � •• 1A�i:11f��A � tY :1�t39G f +fir Comm Expires Get 15 20*1 CPM-COA-001151155 IIEN' 3124/14 Packet Pg. 750 9.A.2.e FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) 1, William Yeomans Jr (print name), as Maria e� r (title, if applicable) of TBC Greenway. LLC (company, If applicable), swear or affirm under oath, that I am the (choose one) owner��applicantontract purchaseroand that: 1. I have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this a application and the Land Development Code; IL 2. All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter 0 attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; .9 3. 1 have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours 2 for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that E 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. 5. Well authorize Bob Where FAICP Hole Mantes to act as our/my representative � in any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above. *Notes: • If the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed by the corp. pros. or v. pres. • If the applicant is a Limited Liability Company (L.L.C.) or Limited Company (L.C.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's "Managing Member." • If the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • If the applicant Is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the "general partner" of the named partnership. • If the applicant is a trust, then they must include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee". • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format forviat ownership. Under penaltR�; Zoaln- I declare that I have read the foregoiing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts stated i�Oju `�.. STATE OF FLORIDA \ � \ -------.___.�. Date Packet Pg. 751 1 9.A.2.e COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT r PROPERTY OWNE S IIP DISCLOSURE FORM This Is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the 21 C. )ercentage of such interest: Name and Address % of Ownership If the property is owned by a CORPORATION. list the officers and stockholders and the of stocK owned by each: L— Name and Address I % of Ownership If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE list the beneficiaries of the trust with the iercentage of interest: Name and Address % of Ownership Created 9/28/2017 Page 1 of 3 Packet Pg. 7 2 9.A.2.e COLLIER COUNTY sti 51 e. 10 9. 2800 NORTHHORSESHOE DRIVE If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP list the name of the general and/or limitedpartners: Name and Address % of Ownership William B Yeomans JR 31.968% William B Yeomans SR 31.968% Nicole D Smigliani 3.366% KonKam Holdings, LLC (John McGlynn 100%) / Robert Carroll _ 21.91% / 10.79% If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners: Name and Address V % of Ownership Date of Contract: 7/12/18 If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or of Date subject property acquired i, or trust: Name and Address ❑ Leased: Term of lease years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 7 3 9.A.2.e COAWil ��b�, T County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH ti O' DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 M` } Date of option: Date option terminates: or Anticipated closing date: a AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP iINf A' E E Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form. Any change in ownership whether individually or with a Trustee, Company or other interest -holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition's final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that ail of the Information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. The completed application, ail required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 at William B. Yeomans, JR., a Manager ofBG Groenway, LLC Agent/Owner Name ( ase print Created 9/28/2017 lxvy Date Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 754 9.A.2.e APPLICATION NUMBER: PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE DATE: DATE SUFFICIENT: DATE RECEIVED: This application, with all required supplemental data and information, must be completed and accompanied by the appropriate fee, and returned to the Growth Management Department, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. 239-252- 2400. The application must be reviewed by staff for sufficiency within 30 calendar days following the filing deadline before it will be processed and advertised for public hearing. The applicant will be notified in writing, of the sufficiency determination. If insufficient, the applicant will have 30 days to remedy the deficiencies. For additional information on the processing of the application, see Resolution 97-431 as amended by Resolution 98-18 (both attached). If you have any questions, please contact the Comprehensive Planning Section at 239-252-2400. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS I. GENERAL INFOMRATION A. Name of Applicant: William B. Yeomans Company: TBC Greenway, LLC Address: 13920 58th Street N. Suite 1014 City: Clearwater State: FL Zip Code: 33760 Phone Number: 315-372-3722 Fax Number: N/A B. Name of Agent* Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Hole Montes, Jeff Wright, Land Attorney, Henderson Franklin • THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company: Hole Montes Inc Address: 950 Encore WaX City: Naples State: FL Zip Code: 34110 Phone Number: 239-254-2000 Fax Number: 239-254-2099 C. Name of Owner (s) of Record: TBC Greenway, LLC Address: 13920 58th Street N. Suite 1014 City: Clearwater State: Zip Code: 33760 a a. C9 T E Packet Pg. 755 9.A.2.e Phone Number: 315-372-3722 Fax Number: NIA D. Name, Address and Qualifications of additional planners, architects, engineers, environmental consultants and other professionals providing information contained in this application. a a Name of Engineer* AL Quattrone, P.E. C9 Company: Quattrone & Associates Inc Address: 4301 Veronica Shoemaker Blvd. City: Fort Myers State: FL Zip Code: 33916 m Phone Number: 239-936-5222 Fax Number: 239-936-7228 Name of Engineer* Michelle Salberq, P.E. Company: Quattrone & Associates, Inc. Address: 4301 Veronica Shoemaker Blvd. City: Fort Myers State: FL Zip Code: 33916 Phone Number: 239-936-5222 Fax Number: 239-936-7228 Name of Environmental Consultants* Dex Bender Company: Dex Bender Address: 4470 Camino Real Way, Suite 101 City: Fort Myers State: FL Zip Code: 33966 Name of Transportation Consultants* Ted Treesh Company: TR Transportation Consultants Address: 2726 Oak Ridge, Suite 503 City: Fort Myers State: FL Zip Code: 33923 Phone Number: 239-279-3090 Fax Number: 239-278-1906 2 Packet Pg. 756 9.A.2.e III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: Exhibit 111. - Special Warranty Deed A. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Exhibit III. "A" Warranty Deed B. GENERAL LOCATION: North West Corner of Tamiami Trail E and Greenway Rd. C. PLANNING COMMUNITY: Royal Faka alm D. TAZ: 357 E. SIZE IN ACRES: ±2.81 F. ZONING: A -AGRICULTURE G. SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN: Refer to "Exhibit V.A.3 Zoning Map H. FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION(S): Urban Residential Subdistrict IV. TYPE OF REQUEST: A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT (S) TO BE AMENDED: Housing Element Traffic Circulation Sub -Element Aviation Sub -Element Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element Solid Waste Sub -Element Capital Improvement Element x Future Land Use Element Immokalee Master Plan Recreation/Open Space Mass Transit Sub -Element Potable Water Sub -Element NGWAR Sub -Element Drainage Sub -Element CCME Element Golden Gate Master Plan B. AMEND PAGE (S): A, 10, 26, 69, 148 OF THE: Future Land Use ELEMENT AS FOLLOWS: (Use Str4fe-tk}fa6iqh-ta identify language to be deleted; Use Underline to identify language to be added). Attach additional pages if necessary: C. AMEND FUTURE LAND USE MAP(S) DESIGNATION FROM_ Urban Mixed -Use District TO Urban Mixed -Use District, Greenway Tamiami Trail Commercial Subdistrict D. AMEND OTHER MAP(S) AND EXHIBITS AS FOLLOWS: (Name & Page #) Add the Greenway Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict Map E. DESCRIBE ADDITINAL CHANGES REQUESTED: _NIA Q Packet Pg. 757 9.A.2.e V. REQUIRED INFORMATION, NOTE: ALL AERIALS MUST BE AT A SCALE OF NO SMALLER THAN I" =400'. At least one copy reduced to 8- 1/2 x 1 1 shall be provided of all aerials and/or maps. a A. LAND USE Exhibit V.A. i Provide general location map showing surrounding developments (PUD, O DRI's, existing zoning) with subject property outlined_ Exhibit V.A. 2 Provide most recent aerial of site showing subject boundaries, source, and 2 date. M Exhibit V.A.3 Provide a map and summary table of existing land use and zoning within a radius of 300 feet from boundaries of subject property. >, B. FUTURE LAND USE AND DESIGNATION Exhibit V.A.1 Provide map of existing Future Land Use Designations) of subject property and adjacent lands, with acreage totals for each land use designation on the subject property. C. ENVIRONMENTAL Exhibit C- Provide most recent aerial and summary table of acreage of native Environmental habitats and soils occurring on site. HABITAT IDENTIFICATION MUST BE Data CONSISTENT WITH THE FDOT-FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCCS CODE). NOTE: THIS MAY BE INDICATED ON SAME AERIAL AS THE LAND USE AERIAL IN "A" ABOVE. Exhibit C Provide a summary table of Federal (US Fish & Wildlife Service) and State Environmental (Florida Game & Freshwater Fish Commission) listed plant and animal Data species known to occur on the site and/or known to inhabit biological communities similar to the site (e.g, panther or black bear range, avian rookery, bird migratory route, etc.). Identify historic and/or archaeological sites on the subject property. D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Reference 9J-11.006, F.A.C. and Collier County's Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.1.2 (Copies attached). 1. INSERT "Y" FOR YES OR "N" FOR NO IN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING: N Is the proposed amendment located in an Area of Critical State Concern? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)(5), F.A.C.). IF so, identify area located in ACSC. N Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380 F.S.? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)7. a, F.A.C.) Y/N Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Small Scale Development Activity pursuant to Subsection 163,3187 (1) (c), F.S.? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)7. b, F.A.C.) Does the proposed amendment create a significant impact in population which is defined as a potential Packet Pg. 758771 9.A.2.e increase in County -wide population by more than 5% of population projections? (Reference Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2). If yes, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. Y Does the proposed land use cause an increase in density and/or intensity to the uses permitted in a specific land use designation and district identified (commercial, industrial, etc.) or is the proposed land use a a new land use designation or district? (Reference Rule 9J-5.006(5) F.A.C.). If so, provide data and analysis to support the suitability of land for the proposed use, and of environmentally sensitive land, ground water and natural resources. (Reference Rule 9J-1 1.007, F.A.C.) 2 E. PUBLIC FACILITIES ~ 1. Provide the existing Level of Service Standard (LOS) and document the impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities: 3 V.E.1 Potable Water V.E.1 Sanitary Sewer V.E.1 Arterial & Collector Roads; Name specific road and LOS See TIS included as Attachment "A" LO N O O O O V.E.1 Drainage J _ V.E.1 Solid Waste a. V.E.1 Parks: Community and Regional If the proposed amendment involves an increase in residential density, or an increase in intensity for commercial and/or industrial development that would cause the LOS for public facilities to fall below the adopted LOS, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. (Reference Capital Improvement Element Objective 1 and Policies) 2. X Provide a map showing the location of existing services and public facilities that will serve the subject property (i.e. water, sewer, fire protection, police protection, schools and emergency medical services. 3. X Document proposed services and public facilities, identify provider, and describe the effect the proposed change will have on schools, fire protection and emergency medical services. F. OTHER Identify the following areas relating to the subject property: V.F.1 Flood zone based on Flood Insurance Rate Map data (FIRM). N/A Location of wellfields and cones of influence, if applicable. (Identified on Collier County Zoning Maps) Packet Pg. 759 9.A.2.e N1A�Traffic Congestion Boundary, if applicable V.F.1 Coastal Management Boundary, it applicable N/A High Noise Contours (65 LDN or higher) surrounding the Naples Airport, if applicable (identified on Collier County Zoning Maps). G. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION as $16,700.00 non-refundable filing fee made payable to the Board of County T Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus, proportionate share of advertising costs) L E x $9,000.00 non-refundable tiling tee for a Small -Scale Amendment made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. �o (Plus, proportionate share of advertising costs) c aD x Proot of ownership (copy of deed) C9 x Notarized Letter of Authorization it Agent is not the Owner (See attached form)LO c x Original and 5 complete, signed applications with all attachments including c 0 maps, at time of submittal. After sutticiency is completed, 25 copies of the co CD complete application will be required. N * If you have held a pre -application meeting and paid the pre -application fee of $250.00 at the meeting, deduct that amount trom the above application fee amount when submitting your application. All pre -application tees are included in the total application submittal tee. Otherwise the overage will be applied to tuture proportionate share advertising costs. * Maps shall include: North arrow, name and location of principal roadways and shall be at a scale of 1 "=400' or at a scale as determined during the pre -application meeting. LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I hereby authorize Robert J Mulhere FAICP Vice President Planning and Business Development (Name of Agent) to serve as my Agent in a request to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan affecting property identified in this Application. Signed: (Name of Owner(s) of Record) Date: Packet Pg. 760 9.A.2.e a a C9 T M E TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN i hereby authorize (Name of Agent) to serve as my Age t i re est to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan affecting property identifie i s plic Lion. TBC Gyre ' Signed: _ Date: X ` (Name of wner( of Re ord) William B. Yeomans, J ., Manager Packet Pg. 761 9.A.2.e I hereby certify that I have the authority to make the true, correct and complete to the best of my knowle of Name - TviDed or Printed that the application is STATE OF FLORIDA } COUNTY OF } r Sworn t an subscribed before me th' - clay of . w' tots a i3 _ MY COMASION EXPIRES: _ � _- gam.. • , , •r.�,. «, i •' / did take an Oath did not take and Oath NOTICE - BE AWARE THAT: Florida Statute Section 837.06 - False Official Law states that: "Whoever knowingly makes a false statement In writing with the Intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided by a fine to a maximum of %500.00 and/or maximum of a sixty day jail term." a a C9 E Packet Pg. 762 9.A.2.e GREENWAY — TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT SSGMPA AND COMPANION REZONE (C-3) NARRATIVEJU STI FI C ATION Background- Q The subject parcel is 2.81 acres in size and is located on the north side of Tamiami Trail East 0. approximately 3.37 mile east of Collier Boulevard. The property is designated Urban and located 0 within the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. Property is also located within E the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). The subject parcel is presently zoned A- Agriculture. 2 5UBJCT SITE Exbibit 1. Aerial with Site Location Packet Pg. 7 3 9.A.2.e DIRECTION FLUM ZONING LAND USE North Urban, Urban Mixed A -Agriculture undeveloped, agriculture and Use Urban Residential single family South Tamiami Trail, Urban PUD (Fiddler's commercial, undeveloped Coastal Fringe Creek East AglRural — RFMLTD A -Agriculture Greenway Rd., Single-family Receiving West Urban, Urban Mixed A -Agriculture undeveloped Use, Urban Residential Surrounding FLUM Designation, Zoning, and Existing Land Use Nature of the Request: The proposed SSGMPA creates the 2.81 acre Greenway- Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict. The Subdistrict is intended to provide to small-scale shopping and convenience commercial uses to the surrounding neighborhood within convenient travel distance and to serve the public traveling on East Tamiami Trail (US 41), by allowing permitted uses in the C-3 zoning district (Subdistrict language below). The Subdistrict limits intensity to 20,004 square feet, subject to a maximum. Trip Cap. 15. Greenway - Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict The Greenwav - Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict consists off'± 2.81 acres and is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41) and Greenway_ Road in Section 12 Township, SI South Ran e 27 East. The pumose of the Subdistrict is to provide small-scale shopping and convenience commercial asses to the surroun.din� neighborhood within convenient travel distance and to serve the public traveling on Tamiami Trail East. The development of this Subdistrict shall comply with the following restrictions, limitations and standards: a. Allowable uses are those permitted by right in the C-3 Commercial Intermediate zoning district, as listed in the Collier County .hand Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-4.1, as amended. The maximum allowable commercial intensity shall be 2� 000 square feet subject to a maximum Trip Cap established in the rezone ordinance. The parcel is located diagonally across the Tamiami Trail East (US 41) from a commercial tract in the Fiddlers Creek PUT] (designated "B" — Business/Commercial on the on the Fiddler's Creek Master Plan - Ordinance 18-27). This commercial area within Fiddler's basically allows C-3 uses, but also allows indoor air-conditioned self -storage. NARRATI V EI,IU STIFICATION GREENWAY — TAMrAMI TRAM.. EAST COMM. SUBDISTRICT SSGMPA (AND COMPANION REZONE) PAGE 2of5 February 17, 2020 Q 0 E H Packet Pg. 764 9.A.2.e Exhibit2., Subject Site in Relation to Fiddler's Creek Commercial Tract (across Tamianii Trail) Florida Statute 163.31779(6)(a)2 2. The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon 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, The Subdistrict is located within the County's Urban designated area (on the Future Land Use Map). With respect to a. and b., above, please see the Market Study proved with this application. c. The character of undeveloped land. At present, the subject site is undeveloped. The subject parcel contains 1.62 acres of native vegetation. (See report entitled "7 Eleven Greenway Road Rezoning Environmental Information" date June 2019). The LDC requires retention of 7,056.72 square feet of native vegetation (10% of the existing native vegetation on the site). Assuming the SSGMPA and Companion rezone to C-3 are approved, this will be addressed at time of SDP, in accordance with. The property is a "corner" fronting on a 6 lane arterial roadway (Tamiami Trails East) and a local roadway (Greenway). It is located diagonally across from a larger commercially designated tract within Fiddler's Creek PUD. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. NARRATIVE/JUSTIFICATION GRIZENWAY— TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST COMM. SUBDISTRICT SSGMPA (AND COMPANION REZONE) PAGE 3 of 5 February 17, 2020 Q IL c� 20 E Packet Pg. 765 9.A.2.e All necessary urban services are available to serve the site (and on potential commercial uses). See the TIS and the Public Facilities Report submitted with this application. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military a installations. g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. E_ h. The discouragement of urban sprawl. Subparagraphs e. through h. above are not applicable. 3 i. The needforjob creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community's economy. ti This is a relatively small parcel at 2.81 acres; however, approval of the proposed N S SGMPA and Rezone will allow for needed commercial development of the site which c will result in job creation, capital investment, and economic development. 000 0 N j. The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated a subdivisions. 0 M t0 Subparagraph, j. above is not applicable. Consistency with FLUE Objective 5: Implement land use policies that promote sound planning, protect environmentally sensitive lands a and habitat for listed species while protecting private property rights, ensure compatibility of land c uses and further the implementation of the Future Land Use Element. .• .Policy 5.2: Land use policies supporting Objective 5 shall continue to be implemented upon the a adoption of amendments to the Growth Management Plan. Policy 5.3: All rezonings must be consistent with this Growth Management Plan. Policy 5.4: All applications and petitions for proposed development shall be consistent with this Growth Management Plan, as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. The companion rezone to C-3 can be deemed to be consistent with all applicable Goals, Objective, and Policies of the GMP, assuming the amendment establishing the Subdistrict is adopted. Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code. The LDC provides development and design standards, which often vary by use, and which ensure that development will be compatible with the surrounding area. NARRATIVE/JUSTIFICATION GREENWAY — TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST COMM. SUBDISTRICT SSGMPA (AND COMPANION REZONE) PAGE 4 of 5 February 17, 2020 Packet Pg. 766 9.A.2.e Conclusion• The approval of this SSGMPA is consistent with State statutes regulating comprehensive plan amendments and it is consistent with applicable GMP policies related to the same. The SSGMPA will allow for small-scale shopping and convenience commercial uses to the surrounding neighborhood within convenient travel distance and to serve the public traveling on East Tamiami Trail (US 41), by allowing permitted uses in the C-3 zoning district. Assuming the SSGMPA is a approved, then the proposed rezone to C-3 may also be deemed consistent. a 20 E NARRATIVE/JUSTIFICATION GREENWAY — TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST COMM. SUBDISTRICT SSGMPA (AND COMPANION REZONE) PAGE 5 of 5 February 17, 2020 Packet Pg. 767 9.A.2.e EXHIBIT "A" Description: Q a Beginning at the Northeast corner of Section 13, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida (said corner also being the Southeast corner of Section 12): Thence along the East line of said Section 13, S 0°19'37" W 336.19 feet to the Northerly right of way line of US-41 (State Road 90); thence along said right of way line N 54°18'59" W 484.26 , feet; thence N 35°41101" E 400.00 feet; thence S 54°18'59" E 200.00 feet to the East line of Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; thence along the East = line of Section 12, S 09 F20" W 154.53 feet to the Place of Beginning, and being a part of the L Northeast 1/4 of said Section 13 and part of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 12, LESS the East ti Thirty -feet (30') thereof conveyed to Collier County by virtue of Quit Claim Deed recorded in N Official Records Book 1050, page 196, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. o Parcel Identification Number: 00737560004 Packet Pg. 7 8771 INSTR 5543574 OR 5500 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK DOC@.70 $2,310.00 REC CONS $330,000.00 Prepared by: Attachment " i ` ®® Special Warranty Dee PG 1192 RECORDED 4/20/2018 3: d��`2 OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA $18.50 Michael D. Gentzle, Esq. Q WITHOUT REVIEW OR OPINION OF TITLE IL Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 ,. 239-435-3535 File Number: 15492.002 Consideration: $330,000.00 [Space Above This Line For Recording Data] Special Warranty Deed This Special Warranty Deed made this Z `4day....of March, 2018 between Ronald Mentecki, Roger Fritchey and Robert Johnson whose post office address iS,.43 �1(c(ec� c Drive, Naples, FL 34112, grantor, and TBC Greenway, LLC, a Florida limited liability c aa�y ose-po * ress is 14004 Roosevelt Blvd., Suite 601C, Clearwater, FL 33762, grantee: ` (Whenever used herein the terms "grantor" and "g iantee' ekrde�-a{i-�thE parties to this instru nt ari�i the heirs, legal representatives, and assigns of individuals, and the successors and assigns of corpg1mation. , tru aa4 trusteesT"'""""^ Jl 1r Witnesseth, that said grantor, for an6 in do iCce io o `tt�e'Is o E N�/100 DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable considerations to sai gr to j in h p 'd s �d ra, e the rec ipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, and sold to the 4� a � Is eirs d si &q rever, the following described land, situate, lying and being in Collier Court pri a to -wit: Beginning at the Northeast cor a r 'Section 13, Townsh,ltMj o f� nge 26 East, Collier County, Florida (said corner also being th dut east corner of Section 2'r:'� �4 Thence along the East line of said SecElo JAM,4-9x3�7--kZ►+'`ki X 9 feet to the Northerly right of way line of US-41 (State Road 90); thence gtig�htt�ay'Iinc N 54°l8'S9" W 484.26 feet; thence N 35041'01" E 400.00 feet; thence S 54°18'591' E 0I1:60 feet to the East line of Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; thence along the East line of Section 12, S 0*11'20" W 154.53 feet to the Place of Beginning, and being a part of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 13 and part of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 12, LESS the East Thirty -feet (30') thereof conveyed to Collier County by virtue of Quit Claim Deed recorded in Official Records Boole 1050, page 196, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Parcel Identification Number: 00737560004 Subject to: (a) ad valorem real property taxes for the year 2018 and subsequent years; (b) zoning, building code and other use restrictions imposed by governmental authority; (c) outstanding oil, gas and mineral interests of record, if any; and (d) restrictions, reservations, and easements common to the subdivision, if any. The land described herein is not the homestead of the grantor(s) and neither the grantor(s) nor the grantor(s) spouse, nor anyone for whose support the grantor(s) is responsible resides on or adjacent to said land. Together with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. To Have and to Hold, the same in fee simple forever. And the grantor hereby covenants with said grantee that the grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that the grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that the grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said Doubt Packet Pg. 769 *** OR 5500 PG 1193 *** 9.A.2.e land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons claiming by, through or under grantor, but against no other persons. In Witness Whereof, grantor has hereunto set grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. Sign , seal and delivered in our presence: (as to all) f Witness Name: Witness Maureen ullivan State of Florida County of Collier The foregoing instrument was acknowla attorney -in -fact for both Ronald Mer 6111416 driver's license as identification. 4a az* Ronald Mentecki by Roger Fritchey, his Attorney -in -Fact [Notary Seal] oe„'1st., MI*IACLD.Gf 111L61E MY COMMISSION Ik f6'11396 EXPIRES: January'III,2019 �9 p. NNW Thro Notary NY,l�ndeivniieia e�ux.��uw�;a«was.+�v�r.�aw�x+�r.+ca,gkvr.;�•x:. by Roger Fritchey, individually and as ally known or [X] has produced a Notary Public Printed Name: My Commission Expires: Q IL E H Warranty Deed - Page Z Doubt Packet Pg. 770 9.A.2.e milli III I11111111 „ ' lull III 111111111 ■11111 111 /11 111111 ■ 11111111 /111111 11 ■1111 1 1I I11111111 "� ■111111 11 11 1111 1 ■1mill111 /111111111 0 111/111I 11111MEN INN 1111 1 1111111 ■■,,. ` 11111111I ■1 111111I ' „ ■ ��1_11111I " I a w c� 19m Naples, Encore Way GREEN WAY - TAMIAMI EAST Naples, FL. 34110 Phone: (239) 254-2000 COMMERCIAL SUB DISTRICT HOLE MONTES Florida Certificate of EXHIBIT IV.D.1 ENGINEERS -PLANNERS -SURVEYORS Authorization No.1772 Q a .0 3 d ,L^ V ti 0 LO N O O O O O N J IL 0 M t0 M d Y V a. 0 d a _ 0 ns a a Q M _ d E t t� r Q 800 0 800 SCALE IN FEET CHECKED BY : JAC PROJECT No. 2019.034 DRAWN BY : MK CAD FILE NAME: 2019.034MST DATE ; 11/ Packet Pg. 771 (VdWJ ivaeivael - AeMUGG-10 L05Z0008WZ-ld : 0£9£O 10313ed U01140d uoi;eoilddV (£ :;u8wt43ePV dbW NO11V�05 M9Efi•BC' • 91fRC Rwll'wA1V uaj • Pa1F)+ap�ana aaarvC.S [ofa 9i ! �� rji hua�^WaQS G{vaain F I 1 VVA 1191HX3 ge i sa v auI sal'OlOOSSv V aualula H dVA NollV_Vl mLsm9 IVI�tl3"l 03 SSVa1 lI1W I-AVMNMWD 3 a833-a>1��E.8_ �I�i111��1��111 ME N 1` ti a d d Y u m (w L (VdWJ !we1wel - AeMuaaa0 LOSZ0008WZ-ld : 0£9£O 1013ed uo!;!}ad uo!}eo!!ddv (£ :;uewyoe}}br N d (V 0 iweiwel - AeMU00JO LOSZOOOS W-ld : ME 0 1013ed UOIWad uoi}eoilddV (E :;uewy3e4jv — dlRi swnoa 2iZf9FdfiFi' 91fi[[ eowli -A. wi �pip uywoys.fiwan [AFv [WlrynsaaJ lua gavQ y Yaaword'—. u3 d @ •• - - aow 9NINOa1.7Ja15106ns 7N5H3wwd7 LSV3lIVtll lwVIWVJ.-Atlegr+-{Ra9 pill S2jEig85Si� ?s Quolp7ano + z u a u u a a e� a f a a ewe t LL x z W El w.yy 9 8 B N £ g = q g o oaoa,,, S a9Ell, h L o x 4w zk? LL� T--i- F + -I -I + + + + + + + A- t + + 1U + + + + + + + ! k + +• + + + + 1 1 + + + + + + + T + + i + f f. + - - 1 { ! -I-I- + + -I I w p J + O ¢ .V .+ 1 I F Q w + + + +- I• h -I i ! F f + fl I C -- i (VdWJ !WB1 ael - AeMu00a0 L05Z0008WZ-1d : 0£9£O 10313ed u01140d uoi;eoijddV (£ :;u8wt43e11d dbYf3Sp ONV13tlfllflj LLif�Ffi'fi[[-v�N.[ u—W uJ•PIG -4-45-'---AiIIEV �NNM'uall ^�^lon�p'B' VU'A LIUIHK3 III 1s2;EioossV W ou=una kJ aN'i 35n o4V13fbun laleLtlGGfi6 We 31A p 1b 1AltlLRmWI'L•RYMip3W p d aornrrr�-rr��aa�ra� 4 , I��1r1��1.. a rrlr 9.A.2.e EXHIBIT V.E.1 GREENWAY-TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT PUBLIC FACILITIES REPORT UPDATED 2-27-19 The proposed Subdistrict does not authorize residential development and does not increase population within the County. Therefore, no significant increased demands on public facilities will occur as a result of a approval of this request. Collier County Public Utilities will provide water service for potable and fire protection needs, as well as 2 wastewater service. The subject property is within the South Service Area. The County has sufficient capacity to provide water and sewer. M The intent is to develop a 5,000 square foot gas station/convenience store on the 2.81-acre parcel. We have also analyzed potable water and wastewater average daily and peak demand for the subject property for both that use and for 10,000 square feet of general commercial use (in the event another commercial use is developed). As is illustrated below, the intended use of gas/convenience is the greater generator. For 10,000 square feet of commercial uses: Potable Water 1,400 GPD average daily (1,820 Peak GPD) Wastewater 1,000 GPD average daily (1,500 Peak GPD) For 5,000 square foot gas station/convenience store: Potable Water 2,275 GPD average daily (2,958 Peak GPD) Wastewater 1,625 GPD average daily (2,438 Peak GPD) According to the Collier County 2019 AUIR, currently there is an existing landfill capacity of 13,547,175 tons, and a ten-year landfill capacity requirement of 2,675,006 tons. The estimated life of the landfill is 42 years. This is adequate to accommodate expected tons per capita generated by the proposed project. Stormwater retention and detention will comply with SFWMD requirements, and State and County standards for off -site discharges will be met, resulting in no adverse impacts to stormwater management (drainage) level of service. The site does not affect County -maintained canals, ditches, or stormwater control structures. No residential development is approved through the Subdistrict; therefore, there are no impacts to level of service for schools. The proposed subdistrict will not increase the population and will not increase demands for emergency medical services or county parks and recreation services. An EMS/fire station is located approximately 3.2 miles west at 6055 Collier Boulevard. The subject site is within the Greater Naples Fire Rescue District. The proposed subdistrict does not create any significant and adverse impacts to the area roadway network. The roadway network is projected to operate above the adopted Level of Service (LOS) standard with or without the project at 2023 future build -out conditions. Please see the attached Traffic Analysis for transportation impacts and further details. Page 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 776 (VdWJ !we1wel - AeMuaaa0 LOSZ0008WZ-ld : 0£9£O 1013ed uo!;!}ad uo!}eo!!ddv (£ :;uewyoe}}br dvw saur AS=AHM Dnena Z'3'A 1191HY3 dWt 631U- 3V;l G'IOIAa35 i�iaisiaenriviaa3wwoa IS%g IMU iwuxrwi xeu a a s �Ul o� w W a4 L) o �a.ii a P of ai a il•� 4 O � OO N �o T w u W0 W W N LLIw w a W 2 j¢ N a Y 0 U O LL J C N 7 U O u! � u r ❑ d y w o0 U 2 ❑ h to ❑ us ■ ll� `v a W � �• � ci LL w W n a N O t7 N A (`ddWJ !Welwel - AeMUGGJ0 LOSZ0008WZ-ld : 0£ CO 10313ed uoi;i;ad uoi;eoilddNf (£ :;ugwLj3e;4,y JWI VIW Wl11� I,YAJ.191Hx3 4mV-Vq VMIAIQWL Ioms TFIotl3' 3is" Wei 1W mVW AVMW33LS i.:S9C6+fiFI.9i6FFRWRa ��W ws, Apnl¢wy�wao.S WIw�AIOIi eygnleq�lua IanaR Y'p+apoq,!'etal.I 3 �uI `sa��etaussd ag auaa �n�] E p ro a � ez s Z '. . v • U �I • I i1 iv.• ■ Y� ■ Q � y� a h � U N rn � W � N Real Avµlr39ao ••. • • ■ . .' • •. ..•. •'....'i .. .••'mi LC4 i•,ti i- � a ''p.......... ..........'+ 00 ti ti a m V m a 9.A.2.e COMMERCIAL NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY AT 11099 GREENWAY ROAD COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA FEBRUARY 18, 2020 Prepared for Creighton Companies, LLC Suite 202 900 SW Pine Island Road Cape Coral, FL 33991 Prepared by 11 1 Real Estate Ecflnometrics, Inc. Real Estate Econometrics, Inc. Suite 100 707 Orchid ❑rive Naples, Florida 34102 (239) 269-1341 Ree-i.Corn Packet Pg. 779 9.A.2.e Background Creighton Companies, LLC ("Client") is preparing to submit a Collier County Growth Management Plan ("GMP") amendment to change the zoning on a 2.81 +/- acre parcel located at 11099 Greenway Road ("Subject Property") at the corner of Tamiami Trail East approximately 4.0 miles southeast of C.R. 951 (Collier Boulevard) in Collier County, Florida. The Subject Property is located as within the Urban Mixed -Use District and is currently zoned A — Rural Agriculture. The Client is seeking to amend the GMP to establish the Greenway — Tamiami E Trail East Commercial Sub district (and to rezone the parcel to a C3 Commercial Intermediate zoning district). The Client is interested in developing the property as a C-3 Commercial site and has established a maximum intensity of 20,000 square feet of C-3 commercial space. The Client has retained Real Estate Econometrics, Inc. ("Consultant") to prepare a Commercial Needs Analysis ("Study") to determine the potential for developing retail and office space on the Subject Property. The Study is being submitted to, in part, the data and analysis requirements of Florida Statutes — Chapter 163.3184. The Consultant is well- o versed in preparing real estate market studies especially in the Southwest Florida N marketplace. o This Study is comprised of four parts; the Subject Property assessment, the demand component, the supply component and the demand/supply comparison analysis with conclusions. 1.0 Subject Property Assessment 1.1 Subject Property Attributes The Subject Property is located on the north side of Tamiami Trail East (US41), approximately 2 miles SE of Manatee Road and across from the Sandpiper Drive entrance to Fiddler's Creek, in Section 12 — Township 51 -- Range 26. The Subject Property attributes data and aerial photo in Table 1.1.1 on the next page was obtained from the Collier County Property Appraiser website for the Subject Property. Also, in Table 1.1.1 is a summary of the Subject Property's legal, location, zoning, and land use attributes. (Rest of Page left intentionally blank) Packet Pg. 7 0771 9.A.2.e Table 1.1.1 1 "��: . �.�� yAWMIL. 0 1W Coll iera p praiser"com: 11:al rk- sV a r,-I Ilr-rrsfdal ail•111, 0?? id=64971009.1&Map=W F, Q El {} Property Summary® 5 it. Address Sit. Inn. PatteV No 00737560n04 •131-himer Site Clty ,Nate N.mel Address TBCGREENWAYLLC 141104 ROO5 EVELT BLVD STE 601 C City CLEARWATER Stnt. FL Zlp 33762 Map No. Strap No, Section Township Rring. Acres 'Erfimated 6512 000f000096812 12 51 26 3.1 Legal 12 51 26 BEG AT SE COR SEC 12.5 13S•26 FT, N 54DEG W aU.26 FT. N 35DEG E Awy.5 540 EG E 100 FT, 5 150FT TO PO3 LESS E 30FT RW 3-f 0 AC OR 757 PG 1350 Milla9iALid 25 Mmag9113ita"o --ralculntlnns Suh.1[nndo Tan - ACREAGE HEADER School ether Total Sl.MS9Ai6 99. ACREAGE NOT ZONED AGRICULTURAL 5.003 6.3071 11.3901 Latest Sales History 2019 Certified Tax Roll IN or all Wr t an Iial.d du. W (v Fd—TWRyl l5 uhjn^"!a Chan lei Date Book -Page Amount Land Value J S 155,000 03/29/18 SS 9 JAPL2 S 330,000 I, imp—d Val Ue SO 01/1 of" 5500.1186 s0 1-1 Market Vat.. ><159,000 011181f8 SSOp_1129 so - - 04/19/99 253E-294_I f 60A00 l-I 'Oiz F.d Value $ 135,000 06/01/78 757.135D $0 School T6zebl. Value =1s5,o00 0f101/73 S.R_ 421 $O 1.1 74R9h1e W.. =155.000 If .1I V.I— .how. char..11-1 0 thl l P.rc.I xm —"d ow th. Final T- Ae11 Source: Collier County Property Appraiser, December, 2019 Packet Pg. 781 9.A.2.e 1.2 Location Analysis The Subject Property's strategic location allows reasonable access to the Subject Property and provides an ideal location for commercial activities. The Subject Property is located approximately four (4) miles from designated Activity Center 18 shown in Figure 1.2.1 below. Figure 1.2.1 i ■* d■■ .. •f.'''..'- .. � uyi .................. i ZVI 0 lip . j ' ='� ~ � . � »IIII II IIIIIII III IHII��J� I,JI^Ilp Source: Collier County Growth Management Plan As noted above, the Subject Property is strategically located to accommodate the proposed C-3 commercial uses. The commercial offerings will have high visibility to Tamiami Trail East and provides easy ingress and egress access to Greenway Drive immediately north of Tamiami Trail East. The following figure show the location of the property and the property up close. I a a. c� E �a 3 c a� L ti O N O O O O O N a. M W M d U W a. 0 a. c 0 �a .Q a a M c as E t U r a Packet Pg. 782 9.A.2.e Figure 1.2.2 SouRcF. GOOGLE MAPS 2.0 Population Growth Around Subject Property 2.1 Overview of Florida Population Florida is currently the nation's fourth most populous state, home to an estimated 19.1 million people according to the Census Bureau. By the year 2030, Florida's population is projected to total 23.6 million people according to the medium range series from the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research. This represents an increase of 245,000 per year. Florida's population growth is depicted in Figure 2.1.1 below. This shows the latest projections of growth by county for the year 2030. The most heavily populated counties in Florida are Broward, Miami -Dade and Palm Beach counties in Southeast Florida; Hillsborough and Pinellas counties in the Tampa metro market; Orange County in Central Florida, and Duval County in the Jacksonville metro area. Figure 2.1.1 a a. C9 E �a Packet Pg. 783 9.A.2.e 2030 Population Projections by County Florida Counties Populatfnn Projections 2030 I DO,= or less - 10OA01-250A00 - 250,OD1-50Q000 - w0 101 • 1.0m000 - 1,600.00i + F /N`y iu4 a£ o AS 90 IN FAM Source: University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research 2.2 Overview of Collier County Population Growth. Currently, there are an estimated 383,166 people living year-round in Collier County. Since the 2000 Census, the County's population has increased by over 45%, the equivalent of 125,240 new residents as shown in Figure 2.2.1 on the next page. Looking ahead, the County will continue to gain new residents at a rate greater than that of the state of Florida. By the year 2045, the population of Collier County is projected to total 569,322 residents. This is a projected annual growth rate of just over 2% from 2015 to 2045 compared to Florida's annual growth rate of 1.08% during the same time period. Q A E M E to Packet Pg. 784 9.A.2.e Figure 2.2.1 Countywide Total Population Growth 2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Permanent Population Estimates and Forecasts 257,926 322,653s L. =4Tp0 $8 411C7 _ V. 5-year Percent Increase 7,55% 10,42% 8.73% 7.12% 8.45% 8.45°l0 8.45% WNM= Average Annual Growth Rate between 2015 and 2045 8.45% = Average 5-Year Growth between 2010 and 2030 to forecast 2035-2045 Source: Collier County Growth Management Department Population growth in Collier County is primarily due to the in -migration of the ongoing arrival of baby boomer retirees. The number of baby boomers reaching retirement age peaks in 2020. 2.3 1O-Minute Drive Time Demographic Detail The Urban Land Institute ("ULI" ) defines commercial shopping centers in three categories. The categories are neighborhood, community and regional. Those categories are characterized by drive times and size in square feet as shown in Table 2.2.1 below. Table 2.2.1 Neighborhood 10-Minute Drive Time = <100,000 Sq. Ft. Community 20-Minute Drive Time = 100,000 to 300,000 Sq. Ft. Regional 30-Minute Drive Time = >300,000 Sq. Ft. Source: Urban Land Institute, Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, 2008 G Packet Pg. 785 9.A.2.e The Subject Property proposed development plan would categorize it as a Neighborhood Center. ULI defines Neighborhood Centers in their 2008 Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers as follows: "A neighborhood center provides for the sale of convenience goods (foods, drugs and sundries) and personal services (laundry and dry cleaning, barbering, shore repairing, etc.) for the day-to-day living needs of the immediate neighborhood. It is often built around a a supermarket as the principal tenant and typically contains a gross leasable area a. of about 60,000 square feet. In practice, it may range in size from 30,001 to 100,000 square feet." Drive times are calculated by Environmental Systems Research Institute E ("ESRI"). The ESRI Business Analyst program calculates drive times by actual street networks and posted speed limits. In general, Neighborhood Centers have a drive time area of 10 minutes, Community Centers have a drive time area of 3 20 minutes and Regional Centers have a drive time area of 30 minutes. Since the Subject Property is proposed for 28,100 square feet of commercial space, it ;v falls within the Neighborhood Center category and the supply/demand analysis will be performed within the 10-minute drive time market area. Figure 2.4.1 on the next page depicts the 10-minute drive time area from the Subject Property. (Rest of Page Left Intentionally Blank) W Packet Pg. 7 6 9.A.2.e Figure 2.4.1 Source: ESRI ArcG1S Business Analyst Mapping Systen? The following table on the next page shows the demographic profile of the population that lives within the 10-minute drive time of the Subject Property. The population grew at an annual rate of 1.8% during the 9-year period between 2010 and 2019. That rate nearly matched the 2.08% annual growth rate the County realized over the same period. The growth rate for this area is expected to exceed the county growth rate over the next 10 years as development reaches maturity along the coastal urban area and moves southeast along the Tamiami Trail East Road corridor. There are a number of current real estate projects under development surrounding the Subject Property and more are in the planning stages around the Subject Property. The Subject Property is located right in the path of this future growth. a a. C9 E �a Packet Pg. 7 7 9.A.2.e Table 2.4.1 esriDemographic andIncome-Profile 11053-11099 Geenway Rd, Naples, Florida, 34114 Drive Time: tO frinute radlus Prepared by Osri summary census 2010 F 2010' 2014 Population 23,069 26,519 31,838 Households 9,115 10,S56 12,846 Farrll le s 6,450 7,386 8,920 Average Household Size 2.51 2.49 2.46 owner Occupied Housing units 6,651 7,182 8,619 Renter Occupled Housing units 2,464 3,374 4,227 Median Age 45.1 49.7 53.2 Trends: 2016 - 2021 Annual Rate Area state National Popu fat Ion 3.72%' 1, 29% 0. B40/o Households 4.00%r 1.21% 0, 79% Farriiles 3.85%' 1.13% 0.72% owner HHs 3.729%' 1.09% 0.73% Median Household Incorre 1.53%r 2.52% 1.86% 2019 2024 Households by Income Number Percent Number Percent c$15,000 880 8.3% 1,051 8.3% $15,000 - $24,999 1,161 I1.0% 1,513 11,60/0 $25,000 - $34,999 1,430 13.5% 1,368 10.6% $35,000 - $49,999 1,576 14.9% 1,521 11.8% $50,000- $74,999 2,225 21,1% 2,973 23.1% $75,000 - $99,999 1,138 10.6% 1,508 11,7% $100,000 - $149,999 1,147 10.9% 1,552 12.1% $150,000 - $199,999 495 4,7% 757 5.9% $200,000+ 504 4.8% 591 4.6% Median Household Income $51,707 $55,785 Average Household Income $74,606 $79,702 Per Capita income $29,596 $31,905 Census 2010 2019 2024 Population by Age NurMer Percent Number Percent Number Percent 0 - 4 1,423 6.2% 1,469 5,50/6 1,640 5.2% 5-9 1,424 6.2% 1,422 5.4% 1,531 4,80/ 10 - 14 1,267 5.5% 1,350 5,1% 1,482 4.71/. 15 - 19 1,337 5.9% 1,254 4.7% 1,432 4.5% 20 - 24 1,127 4.90.E 1,352 5.1% 1,468 4.60/. 25 - 34 2,437 10.6% 2,710 10.2% 3,121 9.8% 35 - 44 2,483 10.6% 2,459 9.3% 2,804 B.8% 45 - 54 2,527 11.0% 2,717 10.2% 3,005 9.4% 55 - 64 3,138 13.6% 3,897 14.7% 4,891 15.4% 65 - 74 3,613 15.7170 4,940 18.6% 6,512 20.5% 75 - 84 1,857 8.1% 2,345 0.8% 3,152 9.9% 85+ 435 1.9% 604 2.3% 800 2.5% Census 2010 2019 2024 Race and Ethnicity Number Percent Number Percent Nurnher Percent White Alone 17,375 75.3%v 19,696 74.3% 23,374 73.4% Black Alone 2,877 12.5% 3,426 12.9% 4,184 13.1% American Indian Alone 113 0.5% 135 0.5% 167 0.50/0 Aslan Alone 151 0.7% 219 0.8% 327 1.00/0 Pacific Islander Alone 5 0.0% 7 0.0% 10 0.0% Some Other Race Alone 2,077 9.0% 2,462 9.3% 3,054 9.6% Two or More Races 470 2.0% 575 2,2% 723 2.3% Hispanic Origin (Any Race) 7,895 34.2% 9,277 35.0% 11,593 36.41/a Da to IN Ole: lncanc 1%a%Press ed In cu rree l d ON ors. 5 cure a: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 20T Summery Flle t Esrl rcrecesls RX zGE and 2824. Source: ESRI Decerrber 05, 2019 �j Q IL E 0 E H Packet Pg. 788 9.A.2.e In order to determine commercial demand coming from the 10-minute drive time market area, it is important to determine the ratio between the overall County population and the population in the 10-minute drive time market area. In 2010, the population in the 10-minute drive time market area was 23,069, which was 7.15% of the County population. That percent increased to 7.71 % of the County population in 2020 for an increase of 0.56% over 10 years. With the growth potential for Southeast Collier County area due to the large percentage of undeveloped land and the slowing of growth in the north Collier County area due to the rapid absorption of undeveloped land along Immokalee Road, the Consultant utilized the 0.56% increase of the Drive Time market area population in relation to the County population growth and divided that in half to 0.28% increase over each 5-year period going forward. The use of this professionally acceptable percentage is shown in Table 2.4.2 below. Table 2.4.2 Year 2010 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Collier County GMD Population Forecast 322,653 344,127 --- --- --- --- --- 10-Minute Market Area Census Population 23,069 26,519 --- --- --- --- --- Share 7A5% 7.71% 7.98% 8.26% 8.54% 8.82% 9.10% Collier County GMD Population Forecast 383,166 416,607 446,284 484,017 524,939 10-Minute Market Area Census Population 30,593 34,422 38,116 42,685 47,754 Source: Collier County Growth Management Department, Population Projections June 18, 2018 (Appendix G) and the U.S. Census Bureau 3.0 MARKET ANALYSIS 3.1 Market Area Demand The most reliable indicator of commercial market demand in the County is to determine the amount of commercial square footage built in the County then divide that total amount by the County population to arrive at square feet per capita (person) in the existing market. Historical commercial development in relation to population growth encompasses all aspects of land development over time including geography, economic fluctuations and various commercial uses as they relate to market demographics. Collier County in particular has shown a propensity for commercial development to follow residential development as the primary economic drivers are tourism, agriculture and real estate construction. The limited economic diversification fuels residential development, which then supports commercial development as peoples moving into the County require goods and services. Therefore, the commercial square feet per capita measure takes into account all of the factors previously mentioned. a a. c� E E �a Packet Pg. 789 9.A.2.e The Consultant utilized the 2014 commercial inventory spreadsheets by planning area as provided by the Collier County Growth Management Department ("CCGMD" ) to determine the total amount of commercial square footage built in the County as of 2015. Acreage not built upon was not used in this calculation. a a. The Consultant then used the 2014 Collier County population from the CCGMD to calculate the commercial square footage per capita in the County. The E Commercial square foot demand per capita in Collier County is 78.22 as shown f° in Table 3.1.1 below. Table 3.1.1 Collier County 2014 Planning Area Square Feet Immokalee Area 2,355,554 Marco Island 158,081 Central Naples 2,732.949 Corkscrew 70,748 East Naples 4,244,976 Golden Gate 1,574,301 North Naples 9,726,289 Royal Fakapalm 522,764 Rural Estates 452,781 South Naples 2,277,828 Urban Estates 2,500,631 26,616,902 2014 Population 340,293 (October 1st Fiscal Year) Demand in Square Feet: 78.22 Source: Collier County Growth Management Department 6y comparison, Lee County had a 2015 Commercial Demand Forecast Report prepared by Metro Forecasting Models, the same company that is updating the Collier Interactive Growth Model ("CIGM") adopted in September, 2007. The Lee County county -wide commercial demand per capita was 109.O0 sq. ft. It was forecasted to go up to 111.53 sq. ft. per capita in 2020. (See Appendix E) I Packet Pg. 790 9.A.2.e The CIGM Executive Summary (Appendix F) prepared by Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Inc. (now Metro Forecasting Models) in September 2008 focused on the future development of lands east of CR 951 in Collier County. The Subject Parcel falls within this future growth area. The CIGM summary pointed out that the build out population for this area would be 442,537 and the commercial square footage needed to support this population would be a 45,498,1063 square feet. The demand for commercial square feet in this area a. would be 102.81 sq. ft. per capita. c� With the 10-minute drive time market area estimated population and County- wide commercial demand in square feet per capita (78.22) determined, the Consultant calculated the estimated commercial square footage demand for the ~ 10-minute drive time market area through the year 2045 as shown in table 3.1.2 below. Table 3.1.2 L 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 ti 0 County Population 383,166 416,607 446,284 484,017 524,939 569,322 c I0-Minute Drive Time Population 26,519 30,593 34,422 38,116 42,685 47,754 c Demand Square Feet Per Capita 78.22 78.22 78.22 78.22 78.22 78.22 00 Commercial Square Feet Demand 2,074,253 2,392,938 2.692,434 2,981,338 3,338,724 3,735,232 J Source: Collier county Growth Management Department and the Consultant a The Lee and Collier County growth models mentioned above show that the 78.22 sq. ft. per capita used as the demand number is professionally acceptable and is very conservative and appropriate for this analysis. 3.2 Market Area Supply The next step in the commercial needs analysis is to determine the amount of existing and potential competing commercial square footage in the 10-minumte drive time market area. The Consultant performed a three-part process in the ESRI ARCgis desktop program to determine both the existing and potential competing commercial parcels that would be used in the analysis. The first step in the process is to join all of the Collier County Property Appraiser data with the ESRI ARCgis program. The second step is to join the 10-minute drive time market area overlay shape file with the Property Appraiser data. Figure 3.2.1 on the next page shows the parcels joined in this process. 12 Packet Pg. 791 9.A.2.e Figure 3.2.1 Source: ESRI ArcGIS Business Analyst Mapping System The final step is to join the Excel commercial inventory data obtained from Collier County Comprehensive Planning Staff with the 10-minute drive time market area. This last step required joining the East Naples Inventory, South Naples Inventory and Royal Fakapalm Inventory spreadsheets with the 10-minute drive time market area since the drive time area touched each of three planning areas. All of the parcels included or excluded within the 10-minute drive time market area are shown in Appendix Tables A through ❑ at the end of this analysis. Table 3.2.1 on the next page indicates the total amount of existing and potential commercial square feet in the 10-minute drive time market area. The developed commercial square feet also provides data for determining the floor area ratio on existing commercial properties. There are E9 existing commercial parcels with 1,027,548 square feet on 187.54 acres. That equates to a floor area ratio of 5,479 square feet of commercial square footage per acre. a a. C9 E �a Packet Pg. 7 2 9.A.2.e Using the 5,479 square feet per acre figure, the potential competing square feet on undeveloped Commercial parcels can be calculated. With 92 parcels encompassing 399.05 acres, there is a potential of 2,186,430 square feet commercial square footage in the 10-minute drive time market area. By combining the developed and undeveloped commercial parcels, the Consultant determined that there is 3,213,978 square feet of existing and potential commercial square feet of supply in the 10-minute drive time market area. a c� Table 3.2.1 M E Parcels Acres Square Feet FAR H Developed Commercial 69 187.54 1,027,548 5,479 Undeveloped Commercial 92 399.05 2,186,430 5,479 3 Totals 161 586.59 3,213,978 m L Source: Collier County Growth Management Department, Collier County Property Appraiser and ESRI ARCgis mapping system ti 0 3.3 Supply — Demand Analysis The final step of the Study is to put the supply and demand calculations together in order to determine the oversupply or undersupply of commercial space in the 10-minute drive time area both with the current existing and potential commercial square footage and with the proposed project acreage being included in the supply totals. Table 3.3.1 on the next page shows that over the next five years there is a under supply of exi sti ng commercial square feet in the 10-m1nute drive time market area. However, economic history has proved that markets are efficient and with the vacant potential square footage in the market area, that demand will ultimately be filled through 2030. After 2030, there will be a significant need to develop more commercial space in the market area to accommodate the future demand. (Rest of Page Left Intentionally Blank) 14 Packet Pg. 793 9.A.2.e Table 3.3.1 Retail Demand (sq. ft.) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Demand Per GMD Commercial Inventory & Population 2,074,253 2,392,938 2,692,434 2,981,338 3,338,724 3,735,232 Retail Supply Q Developed 1 027 548 1,027,548 1,027,548 1,027,548 1,027,548 1,027,548 Vacant 2,186,479 2,186,479 2,186,479 2,186,479 2,186,479 2,186,479 0 Total Supply 3,214,027 3,214,027 3,214,027 3,214,027 3,214,027 3,214,027 ra H Allocation Ratio 1.55 1.34 1.19 1.08 0.96 0.86 c� Source: Collier County Growth Management Department, Collier County Property Appraiser, ESRI 3 ARCgis mapping system and the Consultant 'W V By adding the proposed 28,100 square feet of commercial space proposed for ti N the Subject Property as shown in Table 3.3.2 below, there is a minimal change CD in the supply -demand analysis. The basic allocation ratio moves less than 1 % 0 so the Subject Property will not create an imbalance in the overall supply. N J a. Table 3.3.2 0 M Retail Demand (sq. ft.) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 t0 Demand Per GMD Commercial Inventory & Population 2,074,253 2,392,938 2,692,434 2,981,338 3,338,724 3,735,232 Y U M IL Retail Supply c Developed 1,055,648 1,055,648 1,055,648 1,055.648 1,055,648 1,055,648 .2 Vacant 2,186,479 2,186,479 2,186,479 2,186,479 2,186,479 2,186,479 0 d Total Supply 3,242,127 3,242,127 3,242,127 3,242,127 3,242,127 3,242,127 0 ra Allocation Ratio 1.56 1.35 1.20 1.09 0.97 0.87 Q Source. Collier County Growth Management Department. Collier County Property Appraiser, ESRI Q ARCgis mapping system and the Consultant -- M r C d If the CIGM future commercial demand per capita is used, the results indicate t even a more compelling reason for the addition of the Subject Property to the U County's commercial supply. The allocation ratio falls to 0.82 in the 2030 Horizon a Year and moves to 0.83 in the same year with the Subject Property added to the County's commercial inventory as shown in Tables 3.3.3 and 3.3.4 on the next page- 15 Packet Pg. 794 9.A.2.e Table 3.3.3 Retail Demand (sq. ft.) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Demand Per GMD Commercial Inventory & Population 2,726,418 3,331,163 3,943,127 4,568,134 5,327,576 6,182,782 Q IL 2 Retail Supply 0 Developed 1,027,548 1,027,548 1,027,548 1,027,548 1,027,548 1,027,548 Vacant 2,186,501 2,186,501 2,186,501 2,186,501 2,186,501 2,186,501 Total Supply 3,214,049 3,214,049 3,214,049 3,214,049 3,214,049 3,214,049 Allocation Ratio 1.18 0.96 0.82 0.70 0.60 0.52 3 Source: Collier County Growth Management Department, Collier County Property Appraiser, ESRI m ARCgis mapping system, the Collier Interactive Growth Model and the Consultant � ti 0 LO Table 3.3.4 0 0 0 Retail Demand (sq. ft.) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 c N J Demand Per GMD Commercial Inventory & Population 2,726,418 3,331,163 3,943,127 4,568,134 5,327,576 6.182.782 a 0 M Retail Supply M Developed 1,055,648 1,055,648 1,055,648 1,055,648 1,055,648 1,055,648 Vacant 2,186,501 2,186,501 2,186,501 2,186,501 2,186,501 2,186,501 Total Supply 3,242,149 3,242,149 3,242,149 3,242,149 3,242,149 3,242,149 t c 0 Allocation Ratio 1.19 0.97 0.83 0.71 0.61 0.52 E Source: Collier County Growth Management Department, Collier County Property Appraiser, ESRI d ARCgis mapping system, the Collier Interactive Growth Model and the Consultant r- O R .Q The future demand generally looks out to the local government entity a Comprehensive Plan's horizon year, which can range from 2025 to 2050 M depending on the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan and growth management plan horizon year requirements. In Collier County's case, the Comprehensive t Plan's horizon year is 2030 as verified by the Collier County Growth U Management Department Representatives. a 16 Packet Pg. 795 9.A.2.e It is at this point of the analysis that has caused an anomaly in determining a true economic supply and demand result. On the supply side, it is relatively easy to determine the amount of existing and approved supply from the property appraiser data. The difficulty lies in the vacant non -approved potential lands. Collier County Staff requires the Applicant to take all of those lands that have a commercial overlay on them and include them as supply by putting a floor area ratio figure to the acreage. as The issue becomes apparent when all of the lands that are not in the existing or approved category are included in the particular land use analysis. By putting all of the potential lands in the supply category, the assumption is that all of that land would be developed as that particular land use overlay and nothing else. The flaw in that representation is all of those vacant approved parcels and parcels designated by the FLUM as having the potential to be developed as one use, which could be a non -competing or some other commercial use. The same parcels are also counted as competing supply when a commercial needs analysis is performed for another commercial use. Essentially, they are double counted in both analyses when they will actually be developed as the market demand dictates. A general economic principal states that all markets are efficient and that supply for the most part is generated as demand dictates. It is a rare situation where supply generates demand. The allocation ratio measures the amount of additional acreage required in relation to the directly utilized acreage to assure proper market functioning in the sale, usage and allocation of land. The additional acreage is required in order to maintain market level pricing and to account for the likelihood that certain lands will not be placed on the market for sale during the forecast horizon, or may be subject to future environmental or other constraints. Thus, the lands allocated in the FLUM should be considerably greater than those that will actually be used or developed. As stated earlier, basic economic principals have shown that markets are efficient in terms of supply and demand and the ultimate lack of available commercial choices creates an impediment to the market functioning properly. One must also consider that not all of the office/commercial designation in the future land use map will be developed as such since the owners of those properties will only develop the land with uses that respond to market demand. The increased acres will maintain flexibility within the comprehensive plan, keep prices reasonable by not constraining land supply, and compensate for lands which may be unavailable for sale or subject to environmental or other development constraints. 17 Packet Pg. 796 9.A.2.e Growth management practices have suggested that the greater the time horizon of the comprehensive plan, the greater the allocation ratio needed to maintain flexibility of the comprehensive plan. Other factors that influence the residential acreage allocation ratio are the nature and speed of the developing area and the area's general exposure to growth trends in the market. The Consultant believes that to ensure proper flexibility in the comprehensive plan of a rapidly growing county like Collier County, a commercial allocation ratio in the range of 1.5 is a necessary to maintain planning flexibility and to account for the double counting c� of land uses. E History has shown that the former Florida Department of Community Affairs M E ("DCA") (Currently the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity) ("DEO") recommended an allocation ratio of 1.25 in the horizon year of a comprehensive plan yet both departments have seen and approved allocation ratios in the 1.8 to 3 2.4 range and, in some cases, even larger allocation ratios for longer forecast horizon years. Otherwise, if allocation ratios are not used in the analysis, then an appropriate breakdown of the potential lands between the various land use o types needs to be undertaken in order to more accurately analyze the need for N a comprehensive land use change. o 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 4.1 The Consultant used all of the data and analysis in the previous sections to determine the total supply and demand for commercial space in the Subject Property's market area from 2020 through 2045. The results show compellingly that the addition of the Subject Property to the Collier County commercial inventory will not adversely affect the balance of commercial supply in the County. The Allocation Ratio is 1.20 in the Collier County Comprehensive Plan horizon year with the addition of the Subject Property and is below the recommended 1.25 allocation ratio as suggested by the former Florida DCA now Florida DEO. While the total existing and potential commercial supply exceeds the demand, the potential supply makes up 68% of the total future supply in the County. Markets are efficient and the future supply will be developed as the market grows and diversifies. However, the future supply will be exhausted as it related to future demand just after 2035 so it is imperative that the future of the commercial supply in this 10-minute drive time market area needs to be studied. Packet Pg. 7 7 9.A.2.e AFIFIENDICIES 19 a a C9 TO m 3 c aD a� ,L^ V ti O LO N O O O co T" O N J a Packet Pg. 7 8771 9.A.2.e Appendix Table A - 10-Minute Drive Time Developed Corn peting Commercial Parcels FID ACRES OWNER ❑OR LAND USE DESCRIPTION BLDG. SQ. FT. 1757 0.46 WILSON, GEORGE F=& RENEE B One Story Office 1,463 29239 2.76 MCGUIRE FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC Florist, Greenhouse 2,451 29247 1.77 LENNY'S FURN WAREHOUSE INC Store (One Story) 29,463 29783 0.92 GRIMES, JOE A=& MARJORIE E Store (One Story) 2,430 a 30159 1.76 REFERENCE ONLY Condominiums 4,749 C9 30175 2.62 REFERENCE ONLY Condominiums 4,423 30178 3.70 SUNDERLAND ASSOCIATES LLC Multi -Story Office 19,503 30181 4.12 JCS REALTY GROUP LLC Community Shopping Center 60,175 37150 25.13 KRG 951 & 41 LLC Vacant Commercial 123,201 ~ 37533 1.01 SOUTHERN MANAGEMENT CORP Drive Thru Restaurant 4,228 37536 0.88 KRG EAGLE CREEK III LLC Store (One Story) 4,448 37541 2.07 RTG LLC Store (One Story) 16,448 L 37556 1.15 FIFTH THIRD BANK Financial Institution 5,807 0 37776 20.89 CORAL ISLE FACTORY SHOPS LTD Community Shopping Center 17,363 Q 38256 1A6 HAWK CAPITAL GROUP LLC Mixed -Use - Store/Office (with 5FR) 1,047 N 0 38570 1.25 CIRCLE K STORES INC Store (One story) 3,231 c 39220 4.76 LEFES, STEVE=& DOROTHY C Store (One Story) 2,846 00 0 39673 4.44 HERITAGE PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC Store (One Story) 97,554 04 40527 0.79 MARMAX VENTURES CORP Store (One Story) 2,961 a 40707 1.D0 HAMMOCK REALTY CORP Restaurant 1,371 M 85512 1.29 TJS NAPLES LLC Store (One Story) 18,860 M 8S514 1.09 TJS NAPLES LLC Store (One Story) 7,995 85519 13.43 LOWE'S HOME CENTERS INC Store (One Story) 152,760 Y 97843 1.26 NAPLES INVESTMENT GROUP LLC Multi -Story Office 10,822 a 97844 1.43 SPIRIT MASTER FUNDING VII LLC Multi -Story Office 8,396 0 97847 1.76 951 INVESTMENTS LLC Financial Institution 5,877 105978 1.15 BARNETT BANK NA NAPLES Financial Institution 6,571 a 106133 22.34 NEW PLAN FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC Community Shopping Center 95,111 c 106134 1.00 MCDONALDS CORPORATION Drive Thru Restaurant 3,497 106135 2.16 BAYROCK INVESTMENT CO Mixed -Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 5,983 178508 1.83 KOOPS, EARL C=& CHARLOTTE J Community Shopping Center 3,343 Q 178686 4.02 LELY SQUARE PARTNERSHIP Community Shopping Center 13,911 .-. M 178870 1.00 REALTY TRUST GROUP INC Financial Institution 4,985 179873 8.72 NAPLES SOUTH REALTY ASSN LLC Community Shopping Center 13,397 c E 178874 0.96 FIFTH THIRD BANK Multi -Story Office 7,245 178924 2.93 REFERENCE ONLY Condominiums 41,184 178933 2.50 DEWANE, BISHOP FRANK J Churches 11,788 Q 180249 1.19 SUNTRUST BANK Financial Institution 5,128 204269 0.69 RICK, THOMAS=& LINDA Store (One Story) 11,729 204290 1.39 FERG US COMPANY LLC, THE Store (One Story) 7,743 20 Packet Pg. 799 9.A.2.e 204293 1.38 NAPLES, LODGE 2010 BENEVOLENT Store (One Story) 7,402 204294 1.22 11226 TTE LLC Store (One Story) 4,247 204295 0.69 11222 TAM IAMI LLC Store (One Story) 10,378 204365 1.29 U S A L INC Service Station 1,592 208469 7.22 PRU NAPLES LLC Community Shopping Center 2,808 208469 1,07 HC 8625 COLLIER BIND LLC One Story Office 8,013 Q 208470 0.73 SOUTHTRUST BANK Financial Institution 4,967 a- 208474 1.07 FIFTH THIRD BANK Financial Institution 8,056 C9 208643 0.71 WEST STORES INC Mixed -Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 2,580 209002 0.96 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY Cultural organizations, facilities 19,799 E 209003 0.48 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF Cultural organizations, facilities 11,275 209007 0.96 NWFP HOLDINGS CORP Store (One Story) 3,000 209403 0.57 IACONELLI TR, MICHAEL G=& JOAN Stare (One Story) 12,967 3 209410 0.60 MAX CAP INC Service Station 4,318 209411 0.96 MAX CAP INC Mixed -Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 1,543 209412 0.52 RANDALL, DAVID Mixed -Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 6,733 ti 209413 0.26 BOLAND FAMILY PROPERTIES LLC Mixed -Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 2,071 N 209417 0.44 ANGELILLI, FRANK=& ANGELA Store (One Story) 4,335 c 209598 1.05 DRUMMOND, MARVIN=& BARBARA Store (One Story) 1,21S 0000 213971 0.49 PLATINUM COAST FINANCIAL CORP Mixed -Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 5,745 r N 214021 0.40 KANELOPOULOS IR, GEORGE J Mixed -Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 3,138 a 214022 0.44 SHElLA RONALD DEC TRUST Mixed -Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 3,136 c 214023 0.82 SOUTHLAND CORPORATION, THE Store (One Story) 2,439 228627 1.11 BLUE MARLIN STATIONS LLC Store (One Story) 12,815 239731 1.00 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK Financial Institution 5,245 241023 1.75 41 THOMASSON PROPERTY LLC Store (One Story) 16,567 U 241024 1.45 HERITAGE NAPLES LLC Financial Institution 5,750 a 241034 1.66 BANK OF AMERICA NA Financial Institution 7,873 0 244515 1.13 WACHOVIA BANK Financial Institution 7,D6❑ 187.54 1,027,548 a Source: Collier County Growth Management Deparfrnenf Commercial Inventory, c G Collier County Properly Appraiser and RrcGIS 21 Packet Pg. 800 9.A.2.e Appendix Table B --10-Minute Drive Time Undeveloped Competing Parcels FLN ACRES GIS O NAME1 LUSEDOR D 622 1.53 WAL-MART STORES EAST LP Vacant Commercial 1461 2.52 BROCK CENTER LLC Vacant Commercial 1688 0.49 MUNZENRIEDER TR, JOHN Vacant Commercial _ 25121 10.42 ABERCIA, RALPH Vacant Commercial Q a 26695 2.96 NAPLES/DAVIS BLV❑ LP Vacant Commercial C9 26711 12.15 FFT SANTA BARBARA Il LLC Vacant Commercial T 27002 16.65 HIGHLAND PROP OF LEE & COLLIER Acreage not zoned agricultural 27153 19.19 WILTON LAND COMPANY LLC Vacant Commercial �a 27162 0.47 HACIENDA LAKES OF NAPLES LLC Acreage not zoned agricultural ~ 27163 9.28 COLLIER RATTLESNAKE LLC Vacant Commercial >+ 27166 4.75 AMERISITE LLC Vacant Commercial c� 3 c 27167 18.46 WILTON LAND COMPANY LLC Acreage not zoned agricultural (D L 27169 9.50 AMERISITE LLC Vacant Commercial C9 28810 8.97 SD TRACT 22 LLC Vacant Commercial 28822 0.29 RAVEN SECURITIES INC Vacant Commercial N 0 28832 1.15 N FLA LIMITED LIABILITY CO Vacant Commercial o 29631 3.73 STRATTON ASSOCIATES LLC Vacant Commercial 00 c 29635 1.85 12840 EAST TRAIL LLC Vacant Commercial N J 29663 3.70 GRAFTON ASSOCIATES LLC Vacant Commercial a 29679 1.07 12840 EAST TRAIL LLC Vacant Commercial M 29885 1.85 ❑EE TR, BRUCE D Vacant Commercial 29886 1.85 GEHRING, CHRISTOPHER Vacant Commercial .. 29887 2.31 GEHRING, CHRISTOPHER Vacant Commercial 29888 2.77 UTOPIA EAST TRAIL LLC Vacant Commercial w a 29889 1.85 12000 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST LLC Vacant Commercial o 29891 4.62 MARTIN TR, LONNIE J Vacant Commercial 29902 0.33 LLERENA, RAMIRC=& MARTHA Vacant Commercial a 37098 1.69 ABC LIQUORS INC Vacant Commercial c 37151 2.00 ROOK AT NAPLES li LLC Vacant Commercial 37153 4.06 ROOK AT NAPLES II LLC Vacant Commercial 2 37161 1.30 BLACK RIVER ROCK LLC Vacant Commercial Q 37168 2.21 ROOK AT NAPLES it LLC Vacant Commercial M 37197 4.29 PRICE AND 41 LLC Vacant Commercial 37406 40.23 ROOKERY BAY BUSINESS PARK LLC Vacant Commercial c 39140 7.32 14601 EAST TRAIL LLC Vacant Commercial 39278 13.60 FC COMMERCIAL LLC Acreage not zoned agricultural 39866 14.10 FC COMMERCIAL LLC Acreage not zoned agricultural Q 40063 10.01 FC COMMERCIAL LLC Acreage not zoned agricultural 40223 0.90 CLAUSEN, ROBERT IAN Vacant Commercial 47361 2.06 PORT OF THE ISLANDS PROP LLC Vacant Commercial 22 Packet Pg. 801 9.A.2.e 49246 87564 88448 88584 106595 106596 160469 175732 179660 179927 181267 2OS623 205624 205648 205650 205652 205671 205674 205675 205679 206331 206339 206440 209052 209903 209909 209911 209916 210058 210427 210428 210827 210828 210835 215366 233628 233629 243195 243196 246881 246883 246886 246889 11.27 EDEN OF THE EVERGLADES INC 2.38 STOCK DEVELOPMENT LLC 4.56 ESPROP LLC 0.24 JLW REALTY ASSOCIATES LP 2.56 ESPROP LLC 4.54 ESPROP LLC 34,15 HACIENDA LAKES OF NAPLES LLC 14.89 STOCK DEVELOPMENT LLC 0.39 LELY SQUARE PARTNERSHIP 0.89 5101 EAST TRAIL LLC 9.19 STOCK DEVELOPMENT LLC 4.97 KC NAPLES TAM iAMI LLC 2.07 KN NAPLES TAM IAM I LLC 1.92 KC NAP LES TAM I AM I LLC 0.69 0 BRIAN SR TR, DANIEL P 2.83 MD MARCO CAPITAL LLC 1.52 THOMPSON, LAWRENCE N 0.65 CAROLE CONST OF NAPLES INC 1.37 CAROLE CONST OF NAPLES INC ❑.69 11222 TAM IAMI LLC 0,19 N FLA LIMITED LIABILITY CO 0.19 N FLA LIMITED LIABILITY CO 0.49 MU NZENRIEDER TR, JOHN 0.50 MUNZENRIEDER TR, JOHN 0.20 N FLA LIMITED LIABILITY CO 0.18 N FLA LIMITED LIABILITY CO 0.69 PRU NAPLES LLC 0.98 MUNZENRIEDER TR, JOHN 1.03 LEROY H HUENEFELD III RV TRUST 0.48 1NTERAMERICAN BANK FSV 0.48 INTERAMERiCAN BAK FSB 0.85 ROGER J GEMMEN M D TRUST ❑.57 KENERSON JR, ORVILLE B 0.26 BOLAND FAMILY PROPERTIES LLC 0.67 MICHAEL S FULLER REV TRUST 2.34 CLOVERFIELD INVESTMENTS INC 3.21 CLOVERFIELD INVESTMENTS INC 1.77 CDC LAND INVESTMENTS INC 0.84 FIFTH THIRD BANK 1.74 SIERRA MEADOWS LLC 1.64 SIERRA MEADOWS LLC 1.82 RACETRAC PETROLEUM INC 2.18 RACETRAC PETROLEUM INC Acreage not zoned agricultural Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Acreage not zoned agricultural Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commerclal Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial Vacant Commercial 23 Packet Pg. 802 9.A.2.e 246892 1.40 SWAN FM LLC Vacant Commercial 246894 1.95 NAPLES SENIOR HOUSING Vacant Commercial 246900 2.00 SIERRA MEADOWS LLC Vacant Commercial 246902 6.91 NAPLES SENIOR HOUSING Vacant Commercial 246904 7.40 NAPLES SENIOR HOUSING Vacant Commercial 253433 0.69 STAR F€SH INVESTMENT & Vacant Commercial 253437 1.38 PROGENY II CORPORATION Vacant Commercial 267358 1.05 MURPHY OIL USA INC Vacant Commercial 267360 2.74 ROOK AT NAPLES I LLC Vacant Commercial 399.05 Source: Collier County Growth Management Department Commercial Inventory, Collier County Property Appraiser and RrcGIS 24 Packet Pg. 803 9.A.2.e Appendix Table C —10-Minute Drive Time Non -Competing Developed Commercial Eliminated Developed Non -Competitive Uses BLDG FID ACRES_GIS 0_NAME1 LUSE❑OR ❑ ZONING SQFT 209405 1.424 ROGER J GEMMEN M.D. TRUST Auto Sales/Service C4 8,892 Q 178694 3.832 PEDDE LLC Auto Sales/Service C4 4,132 251408 1.096 PROGENY iI CORPORATION Auto Sales/Service C5 110 37544 2.95 CPI NAPLES LLC Auto Sales/Service C5 488 207699 6.051 NAPLES LKS COUNTRY CLUB Golf courses, driving ranges PUD 29 E 208466 0.530 RJJ LLP Hotel or Motel C4 5,924 �a 208644 0.322 HOLISTIC HEALTH HEALING INC Hotel or Motel C4 5,150 29241 1.002 HOLISTIC HEALTH HEALING INC Hotel or Motel C4 4,101 3 209006 0.962 BOWEIN, LLOYD L Hotel or Motel C4 3,783 c (a) 209416 0.596 ETM TAMIAMI LLC Motel or Motel C4 2,503 0 29243 0.378 HOLISTIC HEALTH HEALING INC Hotel or Motel C4 2,377 ~ 0 251407 0.813 ERIK H PAPENFUSS IRREV TRUST Light Manufacturing C5 206 c 37528 3.02 SOUTH NAPLES CENTER LLC Lumber Yard C5 28,279 c 37532 2.04 SOUTH NAPLES CENTER LLC Lumber Yard C4 15,387 0 r 213981 1.06 FULLER TR, MICHAEL S Mortuaries, cemeteries, crematoriums C4 10,167 04 40704 1.03 HAMMOCK REALTY CORP Open storage, building supplies, junk yard C3 4,715 .. 207853 5.222 NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB Outdoor recreational or parkland, etc. PUD 672 38285 0.390 RIVERWOO❑ ESTATES HOMEOWNERS Outdoor recreational or parkland, etc. C4 446 to 29226 1.212 STOCK DEVELOPMENT LLC Outdoor recreational or parkland, etc. PUD 403 29429 1.387 VK TRAIL LLC Race Track: Horse, Auto, Dog PUD 2,602 Y U 259020 3.068 LENNAR HOMES LLC Right-of-way, street, road, or ditches, PUD 354 a 259253 8.91 VERONAWALK HOMEOWNERS ASSO INC Right-of-way, street, road, or ditches, PUD 133 p 178511 4.888 SNH/LTA PROPERTIES TRUST Sanitariums, convalescent, and rest home C4 38,316 178509 8.841 WILLOUGH HEALTHCARE INC Sanitariums, convalescent, and rest home C4 153 d 101542 2.75 FCC MARSH LLC Tourist Attraction PUD 11,007 g 204267 0.691 SMITH CARTER LLC Vacant Commercial C4 3,530 37531 0.546 KRG EAGLE CREEK IV LLC Vacant Commercial C4 2,290 a 204241 0.691 CUBES MART L P Vacant Commercial PUD 1,477 Q 38276 1.547 RACETRAC PETROLEUM INC Vacant Commercial C4 857 1792 0,229 HITCHING POST CO-OP Vacant Commercial C3 55 m 27591 4.75 AMERISITE LLC Vacant Commercial C5 1,375 t 208642 1.035 LLERENA, RAMIRO E=& MARTHA R Warehousing, distribution terminals, etc. C4 13,014 r 251406 2.439 CUBES MART L P Warehousing, distribution terminals, etc. CS 6,027 Q 204243 1.813 CUBESMART L P Warehousing, distribution terminals, etc. PUD 3,047 37478 3.61 STORAGE PARTNERS NAPLES FL LLC Warehousing, distribution terminals, etc. PUD 1,599 25 Packet Pg. 804 9.A.2.e Eliminated Buildings Less than 1,000 square feet. FID ACRESGIS NAME1 LUSEDOR ❑ ZONING BLDG SQFT 241026 11.73 PHU HAMMOCK COVE LLC Community Shopping Center PUD 122 180187 0.902 JPMDRGAN CHASE BANK NATL ASSN Financial Institution PUD 698 30183 1.385 ALPERT, NORMAN R Mixed -Use - Store/Office (with SFR) C3 304 29427 4.195 SSP ASSOCIATES INC Mixed -Use - Store/Office (with SFR) C3 86 209415 0.518 LLERENA, RAMIRO=& MARTHA R Restaurant C4 450 40708 1.08 HAMMOCK REALTY CORP Service Station C3 392 209409 1.133 L&R RAM LLC Store (One Story) C4 571 37484 0.953 LA MONTE & CYNTHIA ISOM THUST Stare (One Story) C4 106 208640 0.837 L & R RAM LLC Store (One Story) C4 90 208472 0.516 13406 CORTEZ BLVD PRTNR5HP Store (One Story) C4 27 Source: Collier County Growth Management Department Commercial Inventory, Collier County Property Appraiser and ArcGIS 26 Q a 2 E �a H 3 c a� m L ti 0 N O O O O r O N J IL 0 M t0 M d Y V W d C O d a. c 0 �a .Q a Q M r C d E t V r r� Q Packet Pg. 805 9.A.2.e Appendix Table 0 — 10-Minute Drive Time Non -Competing undeveloped Commercial Parcels Eliminated Vacant Nan -Competitive Uses FID ACRES GIS O NAME1 LUSEDOR D 209004 258883 241018 179068 248254 209404 40474 244853 207702 178512 208477 208481 208479 256 244749 101537 208476 175111. 85516 265104 85517 8551.8 0.482 2.514 1.41 0.49 0.902 0,S69 3.91 3.964 1.538 1.383 1.089 ❑.734 0.160 0.116 0.079 1.32 1.680 ❑.671 0.952 0.730 0.283 ❑.220 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF LENNAR HOMES LLC HAMMOCK COVE LLC REALTY TRUST GROUP INC SUNCOAST SCHOOLS FED CR UN[ON IACONELLI TR, MICHAEL G=& JOAN HERITAGE PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC SIERRA MEADOWS PROPERTY INC NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB INC LAP, PETRUS P PRU NAPLES LLC PRU NAPLES LLC PRU NAPLES LLC HAMMOCK WOODS LLC HAMMOCK WOODS LLC FC COMMERCIAL LLC PRU NAPLES LLC STOCK DEVELOPMENT LLC LOWE'S HOME CENTERS INC WAL-MART STORES EAST LP LOWE'S HOME CENTERS INC LOWE'S HOME CENTERS INC Cultural organizations, facilities Outdoor recreational or parkland, or hig Parking Lots, Mobile Home Park Parking Lots, Mobile Home Park Parking Lots, Mobile Home Park Parking Lots, Mobile Home Park Parking Lots, Mobile Home Park Right-of-way, street, road, or ditches, Right-of-way, street, road, or ditches, Right-of-way, street, road, or ditches, Right-of-way, street, road, or ditches, Right-of-way, street, road, or ditches, Right-of-way, street, road, or ditches, Right-of-way, street, road, or ditches, Right-of-way, street, road, or ditches, Right-of-way, street, road, or ditches, River, Lake, or Submerged Land River, Lake, or Submerged Land Sewage, Solid Waste, or Borrow Pit Sewage, Solid Waste, or Borrow Pit Sewage, Solid Waste, or Borrow Pit Sewage, Solid Waste, or Borrow Pit Source: Collier County Growth Management Department Commercial Inventory, Collier County property Appraiser and ArcG)S 27 Packet Pg. 806 9.A.2.e Appendix E — Excerpts from the 2015 Lee County Commercial Demand Forecast prepared by Metro Forecasting Models NM a a C9 T M E Packet Pg. 8 7 9.A.2.e IMETRO IFORECASTING MFNiMoDELs Lee County, Florida -- 2015 Forecast Report Population, Housing and Commercial Demand Thank you for purchasing this report, which contains forecasts of population growth, housing demand and demand for commercial space for goods and services for Lee County, Florida (the Cape Coral —Fort Myers Metropolitan Statistical Area or MS1). The analytical methods used to prepare these forecasts have proven to be more accurate than the industry standard of straight-line (linear) forecasts- Our goal is to maintain the most accurate forecasting models, which w-e based on our history of forecasting-' - In 1982 the City of North Port, Florida, asked Dr. Paul Van Buskirk (author of the Metro Forecasting Model) to forecast the population of their city in 2007, then 25 years into the future- In 1980 North Port had a permanent population of 6,350 people- Dr. Van Buskirk forecasted that in 2007 there would be a permanent population of 57,452; in 2010, the Census counted 57,350 people in North Port. The forecast was 99-710 accurate 25 years into the future. ■ In 2002 the City of Cape Coral, Florida, engaged Dr. Van. Buskirk to prepare a population forecast for their city to use in planning for future commercial sites, fire stations and schools- His 2010 forecast was 155,179 permanent residents; in 2010, the Census counted 154,305 permanent residents. The information in this report can be used by businesses, property owners, developers, lenders and planners to help understand the past and future of the Lee County metro area and then use accurate forecasts in decision -making: Businesses: Metro's growth V Develapers: Current and forecasted forecasts help make marketing demand versus supply are used in due - decisions because growth diligence reviews and pro forma forecasts can be compared to preparation, as well helping to broadly forecasts in other metropolitan gauge absorption. areas. V Lenders: Loan requests for new V Property Owners: Housing and construction can be compared to the commercial demand forecasts help forecasted demand for commercial or property owners understand how residentia l projects. V' Pl their land may increase or anners population, housing and decrease in value based on the commercial forecasts are used to evaluate current and future supply versus the need for zoning changes desired by demand for their respective land their clients. uses. For more detailed forecasts of population, housing and commercial demand, see our Ay ehsite. 9001 Highland Woods Boulevard, Suite 2, Bonita Springs, FL 34135 299-918.6949 www.MetroForecasting.com Copyright 2016n Meim Forncugdng Modds, A41 Uighls Reserved, P,eprint permission must he requested in writing f -om N[etroForecovHng MWe] s. LLC. a a .0 E Packet Pg. 808 9.A.2.e Lee County, Florida -- Cape Coral —Fart Myers MSA Population, Housing and Commercial Remand Forecast The Lee County metro area is located in southwest Florida- In 2014 the permanent population was 679,513 according to the US Cengug, up from 1,414 in 1890. Metro Forecasting Models 1XVI V uses proprietary modeling software to forecast the future population of this MSA in 5-year increments. Whereas forecasters often apply linear extrapolation of past census data, a technique which becomes inaccurate over longer periods, MFM forecasting methodology has been documented to be far more accurate over time. Figure 1 below is a population graph of the Lee County metro area showing actual change in population from 1950 to 2010. 1,600.000 1,40o'coo1 1,200,000 1,1000.00o 800,000 6TJ'000 800,000 200,0OD After the MFM Composite Forecast Curve is established (the blue line), similar curves are generated for both an expanding and contracting economy for the entire MSA. In statistical jargon, these similar curves are each two standard deviations from the mean (composite) curve. We find that MSA growth falls within these boundaries 95% of the time, barring catastrophic events (war, natural disaster, etc.) that permanently alter development potential - Figure 1 presents a summary of our population forecasts for 2020 and beyond for the Lee County metro area (Cape Coral —Fort Myers MSA). Figure 1. MFM Population Forecast in 2015 Lee Count}; Florida s r_ MFM 202OPop. " 752,585 � r 1950 1970 1990 2010 20M 2050 —Population --A Censes/Ac_ual Expanding Economy Source: US Census & Metro Forecasting Models, LLC Parr 2 2070 2090 2110 ... Contracting Economy Published,f4 9015 Packet Pg. 809771 9.A.2.e Population Forecast Table I presents our specific analysis and population growth forecast for the Lee County metio area in 5-year increments for three different economies. The blue column, labeled "Composite," shows how the population will grow over time in a balanced economy. The orange column, labeled "Expanding," presents a higher forecast for the population growth curve in a `Bull Market" economy. The data presented in this column provides a reliable guide for our clients who need to understand how this MSA will grow under favorable economic conditions. The green column, labeled "Contracting," presents a lower forecast for the population growth curve in a `Bear Market' economy. The data presented in this column provides a guide for our clients who need to understand how economic trends, business decisions and government policy (national or local) could affect this MSXs growth under less favorable economic conditions. As the economy cycles from bull to hear markets, the day-to-day or year-twyear population growth will revert to the Composite forecast. Depending upon the significance of economic trends and government and business policy, the change in growth can appear to be a never-ending boom -bust cycle. The general population tends to mentally forecast growth by what has happened over the last year of their lives- If last year showed low or no growth, then next year would be the same or worse under that scenario. If last year was a good year, then next year will be just as good or better_ The Composite forecast provides a balanced view of what the future holds for this MSA. The population forecasted in Table i provides a reliable guide for wise industry leaders who understand the pace of the last few years' growth does not mean that growth will continue in the same pattern. The expanding and contracting economy forecasts provide ranges for strategic planning by governments and the private sector. P,r Oe Table 1: Lee Metro Area Population Forecast Year Composite Expanding Contracting 1970 114,069 119,811 1 o 8, 5 02 1975 155,643 162,536 148,919 1980 204,751 212,733 196,926 1985 260,810 269,762 251,994 1990 322,901 332,663 313,250 1995 399,966 400,249 379,564 2000 460,405 471,208 449,653 2005 533,183 544,208 522,179 2010 606,905 617,966 595,939 2015 680,385 691,316 669,425 2020 754585 763,244 741,876 2025 822,636 832,910 812,297 2030 829,850 899,650 879,974 2035 953,711 962,974 944,364 2040 1,013,962 1,022, 547 1,005,089 2045 1,070,088 1,078,172 1,061,912 2050 1,122,288 1,129,768 1,114, 718 2055 1,170,465 1,177, 346 1,163,495 2060 1,214,694 1,220,993 1,208,309 2065 1,255,111 1,260, 853 1,249,287 2070 1,291,892 1,297,107 1,286,601 2075 1,325,245 1,329,965 1,320,454 2080 1,35S,393 1,359,651 1,351,067 2085 1,382,565 1,386,398 1,378,671 2090 1,406,997 1,410,438 1,403,499 2095 1,428,925 1431999 1,425,780 2100 1,444,5401 1, 451, 299 1,445,735 Source: Metro Forecasting Models, LLC Publiohed Jul 015 a IL E 20 E Packet Pg. 810 9.A.2.e Commercial Demand Forecast Table 3 presents the Lee County metro area commercial retail trade and services demand forecast in 5-year increments. The demand for retail and office space increases as the population grows. When the increased population meets certain thresholds, the market can support new or expanded stores and services. For example a small population may want a big -box retail store but not have enough people to support the economic investment by the retailer. In those cases, the demand for the big box store is met by neighboring communities that are large enough to meet the minimum investment expectation by the retailer_ Lee County has two super -regional shopping centers that are supplemented in part by demand from Collier, Hendry and Charlotte Counties. The demand forecast shown in Table 3 is the t Owner commercial and office space in the MSA. A community of commercial development allowed ihnough local aoni sf"!`S' °�� demand for commercial space exists but supply is ni 109.00 sf - demand is met outside that community. For examp 111.53 sf = shopping centers may require a population of only 8, self-sustaining, while community and regional sllopp need a threshold population of 30,000 and 150,000 respectively. An MSA may also have more commercial space than the MSNs population could naturally support. In these cases, demand for certain services from the population of neighboring communities may be met by the local MSA's supply. The forecasted commercial demand in Table 3, combined with the knowledge of the existing commercial supply and vacancy rates, is useful in determining how much new spare will be needed in 5-year steps. Note the demand is not linear; one 5-year step may forecast a demand rate that is greater or less than the previous r-year period. Figure 2 helps illustrate the changing demand for commercial space over time. Figure 2. Lee Metro Area Commercial Demand Forecast 1,0OO's SF 120,000 160.003 1C3,043 S7,ti7� A� 83,939 r 60 �} 65,391 47.188 agGan I rr 20,r�4 1940 1950 i980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2.080 2100 Source_ Metro Forecasting Madels, LLC MFM Formst-&-2000-A-2010--A--2Q20 Atgr .i Table 3: Lee Metro Area Commercial Demand Forecast- Sq. Ft. Bldg. Year 1,000's SF 1970 9,460 1975 13,358 1920 15,235 1985 24,124 1990 30,992 1995 38,735 2000 47,188 2005 56,146 2010 65,391 2015 74,717 2020 83,939 2025 92,911 2030 101,519 2035 109,693 2040 117,352 2045 124,497 2050 131,110 2055 137,193 2060 142,760 2065 147,833 2070 152,439 2075 156,606 2080 160,365 2085 163,747 2090 166,783 2095 169,503 2100 171,935 Source: Metro Forecasting ModeI5, LLC a IL C9 E �a Packet Pg. 811 9.A.2.e Appendix F — Excerpts from the Collier Interactive Growth Model a 2 0 E M E Executive Summary ~ September 29, 2008 29 Packet Pg. 2 9.A.2.e THE COLLIER INTERACTIVE GROWTH MODEL CIGM EXEC CUTTTE SUMMARY a c� Prepared for: T M Tiie Collier County Board of County Commissioners E And ~ The Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department T CA; "'er County By - Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Inc. 100 Estero Boulevard, Suite 434 Fort Myers Beach, Florida 33931 Phone: (239) 463-3929 Fax: (239) 463-5050 Webpage and Email: www..interactivegrowthniodel.com September 29, 2008 CD Cop) -right 2008 12%, Van Buskirk, Ryffel and.. Associates, Inc., all rights reserved. Reprint perutission must be 1'equested ill %vi-iting front Vail Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Inc, Interactive Growth rviOdelrns is a registered tradenza rk. Packet Pg. 813 9.A.2.e Section 5 Population Distribution to Build -out Table 4 Study Area Population Forecast 2007 Build -out* 2007 79569 2010 89910 2015 117916 2020 153631 2025 191329 2030 230283 2035 269814 2040 308560 2045 343071 2050 371180 2055* 392562* 2060 407970 2070 418623 2075 430524 2080 433628 Build -out 442537 Source: Van Buskirk. RyffeI. and Associates. Inc. '190% of Buifd-0uL In the interest of a clearer understanding, the population forecast output data shown above, was converted to visual representations that are more easily interpreted. By way of example, Maps 3 to 12 shows the population distribution and intensity in the year's 20d7, 2010, 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050, 2060, 2070, 2080, and Build -out, respectively for the entire study area. Likewise, Maps 13 to 22 show the RFMUD and GGE areas and Maps 23 to 32 show the RLSA and Immokalee areas during those same time intervals. The various degrees of green shadings on these maps represent the percentage of build -out population of each TAZ at the particular 10-year interval. This was done in 10 percent increments with greater populations shown in darker shading. 21 a A E E �a Packet Pg. 814 9.A.2.e Map 19 Population Distribution, Year 2060 Ce[Pefrnl¢ Gra0vth ruder - FtFmU3 and GGE Year Yuar2060 ' Pcptllarlvn: 1115.29 Map 21 Popuiation Distribution. Year 2080 COW lniere[tlY Grown *vdcl gFalua ogd rye Year 2080 ftl-uu— 19S.95 r 26 Map 20 Population Distribution. Year 2070 Cc111er rnteraarre GTOH1h+.TodN RFr1uv antl G6E Year2870 vapl�rarl: ras,7ltI m Map 22 o ulatinn Distribution Year Suil.d-Out Collier Fx,%Fm -jo G*owth 1.1odN RFC.WO and GGE Ye a r Bui ld-0u! Fammuom: 114.A&I - im l ti Packet Pg. 815 9.A.2.e 3500000 3000000 2500000 200000 1500000 1000000 500000 0 Retail Supply Retail Demand Source; Van Buskirk. INIM and Assoclatcs, Inc. 50000000 45000000 40000000 35000000 30000000 25000000 20000000 15000000 10000000 5000000 0 Retail Supply Retail Office Supply Office Total Supply Total Demand Demand Retail/Office Demand Figure 7 Commercial/Office Floor Area Supply And Demand - 2007 3,i5d,t Office Supply Office Total Supply Total Demarid Retail/Office Demand Retail/Office Figure 8 Commercial 1Office Floor Area Supply And Demand -- Build -Out Source: Van Buskirk, RvffLI and As;ccla[es, Inc. Owner 12/14/2017 2:49,36 PM Sticky (Vote 45,498,983 sf / 442,537 pop. = 102.81 sf per capita a C9 T M E H ca 3 c aD a� L c� ti 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 T" 0 N J a 0 M M m a c 0 d a c 0 r 0 U M a a M aD E M v �a Q Packet Pg. 816 9.A.2.e Appendix G — Collier County Permanent Population Estimates a and Projections — June 18, 2018 0 30 M E Packet Pg. 7 Q! N d (VdWJ !we1wel - AeMuaaa0 LOSZ0008WZ-ld : 0£9£O 1013ed uo!;!}ad uo!}eo!!ddv (£ :;uewyoe}}br X I 'gym YS�N M�a4 a Y n M.B tpY��i�^�rviYs !!pp � $ n r r :t�v�S^ New a$�ma9SM3 S� Nor 2m ;6$SWw m �A: imS m I $ m R� QSm ffi��nS�r;�a�N I N i" mpg a mr3� E � z c 3 9 z 9 �^ t ya a $49Ei y 00 T- oo 6 a m i V m a 9.A.2.e MARKET ANALYSIS FOR PROPOSED SOUTH NAPLES CONVENIENCE STORETUEL STATION ON TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA July 26, 2019 Prepared for Creighton Companies, LLC Suite 202 900 SW Pine Island Road Cape Coral, FL 33991 Prepared by Real Estate Econometrics, Inc. Real Estate Econometrics, Inc. Suite '100 707 Orchid ❑rive Naples, Florida 34102 (239) 269-1341 Ree-i.Com Packet Pg. 819 9.A.2.e Executive Summary Creighton Companies LLC ("Developer") is seeking approval for a proposed convenience store/fuel station ("Project") at the northwest corner of Tamiami Trail East and Greenway Road in Collier County's South Naples planning area. The Project will make a significant contribution to the Collier County economy a while at the same time support the rapid growth in the Project's market area (defined in Section 1.1) without adversely affecting the efficient gasoline market economy in that market area. M E • Gasoline market demand is anticipated to grow 21.55% in the Project's market area over the next five years. The proposed convenience store/gas station will increase the same gasoline market supply by 17.11% The proposed Project will keep the gasoline markets efficient by providing the needed supply to accommodate the growing demand in Collier County's South Naples planning area. Background The Developer is seeking C-3 zoning for a 3.1-acre parcel of land currently identified as acreage not zoned agriculture and located at the northwest corner of Tamiami Trail East and Greenway Road in Collier County's South Naples planning area. The Developer is proposing a convenience store/fuel station on the property. Real Estates Econometrics, Inc. ("Consultant") has been retained to analyze the fuel market for the Developer. The Consultant is well -versed in preparing market analysis studies especially in the Southwest Florida marketplace. This Study is comprised of three (3) parts; the market area demographics, the demand/supply comparison analysis and conclusion. Packet Pg. 8 0771 9.A.2.e 1.0 Market Area Demographics 1.1 Market Area Definition Since the convenience store/fuel station market is being analyzed, it is appropriate to define the market area for such use by using a drive time calculation. Drive times are calculated by Environmental Systems Researcha. a Institute ("ESRI"). The ESRI Business Analyst mapping program is geographic information system -based ("GIS") that calculates market area drive times by actual street networks and posted speed limits and allows for the extraction of census data from that drive time market area. E A March 1, 2017 study by the National Association of Convenience Stores ("NACS") on how consumers behave at the pump (See Appendix A) shows that consumers are attracted to convenience store/fuel station facilities based on a 3 number of factors including: a • Price • Location Convenience • Brand • Ease of ingress/egress As most consumers of a convenience store/fuel station facility are drawn to that facility based primarily on the four factors noted above, it would stand to reason that an immediate market area would include driving within 5-minutes to such a facility to obtain fuel. Most consumers would be fueling as a secondary action while driving for other reasons such as going to the grocery store or traveling to and from work. The above factors indicate that a convenience store/fuel facility market analysis would encompass a 5-minute drive time market area ("Market Area"). (Rest of Page Left Intentionally Blank) W Packet Pg. 821 9.A.2.e Figure 1.1.1 below depicts the Market Area for the Project. Figure 1.1.1 Source: ESRI ArcGIS Business Analyst Mapping System The Market Area configuration will change over time as growth occurs in the area and new roads with new residences are developed. That is important to note when the Market Area demographic detail is reviewed over the next five years in the next section. 1.2 Market Area Demographic Detail In order to determine the convenience store/fuel station facility demand, a demographic profile of the Market Area is required. The Consultant utilized the Environmental Systems Research Institute's ("ESRI") geographic information systems ("GIS" ) both desktop and web -based. ESRI's Business Analyst on-line and ArcGIS desktop programs allow for the most current data collecting at the local level. Table 1.2.1 on the next page shows the census -based demographic profile of the population that lives within the Market Area of the subject site. a a. C9 E �a Packet Pg. 822 9.A.2.e Table 1.2.1 4pesn Demographic _Profile Piz M.is,.i C;, r1.c A1L r-4 Ste, giruol Stars . F1 L 1f es tI% Es 1 J 451-11 g4+ �;-11ta1ww y rid, 144PWK. Mrrda, 1A 11+ Ur•r. Tigir: 5 nllnrfJl rldus J1wwrlrrr omwo. 70to K1P1ia11pn },BSa Wpusrhtidi 1,E+33 Y,$63 2.236 FiInJrYa 14-1: r,147 C,431 AvilfIaa H15,20 WE Sf1• 1.3s Dwier arsatr all tin lfr Ito 11 non 1,757 l,Sh1 1.971 Rl'r4r 1399190d 11rurlM L1n1r 7;R 302 1ifi 01t4ma 4 X" 57 " 60.6 Ttreft"1 aH9 - 2024A*"&III ItrA1e lllre. low" 1Mati9rlrl Np li al l a+ 1, 37% 0.7 7 % nsuralmlas 131% MsIkk taminc 18A% 1 3411. 0.".4 l71V--'a1 rini i 74% 1 13,92% 4rdlrclkuW41slwi:wnF 791% 2.37Va 2 794 yam} 2024 ift .1 1 Partfrit ok%000 147 7.45b 13s 6.1k4 C15,00a - $24,9ti7 ML Y.7SF. I6A t 4% ¢73,17an-:p4,9t79 364 ffSV. 361 7.1% 1►5,r,Q0-149.9?q "IT 14691k 7.&H 1iOlk $517100 - V4.999 424 1-2 Rib 497 ax.3+1d S74,C60 • 1971,995 210 11.34F 271t 124%. 51t0.800, $10,916 Ito 12.3% 904 I" I. i1111,0011-S1W,%94 1]0 9.C% 2x 981A wad,13W4. :sl 0.11•a 104 62%. Media* Fi:+l,krii lnr7mr W, Y3P 54S.9b1 4lirrdrHmaIF310 Tn t�--v sks,191 "9.034 N, [7J1Tu lf111•'U 93 81.C, 14.540 Crn.ua 193.0 "J.'s tali P.P.=ril0a by Aq. rJ Jrrurr IY1.:rn1 1iAr1Wf 112"an! 111urn4w 14rsad I 1C4 4 FN :J7 1 a% IRS 14% 17q 4 Ati 173 4.04. "1 34% I.7 L4 177 4.6% 191 4.A% 231 4.4ti 15L9 1c6 4.3% 164 ?4% 232 4ON = • 14 Ito 2.9N 232 "J.A,% 142 28% 25 - 34 :411 d.4% Ado a 21% 1-11 d• 3x 75 • 44 340 +f,0% '1" 40% FEN 41; 14 4tl 1R,74c 4.?9 47% AM G 7*4 55 60 632 16.4% 651 IF.t'b 1161 Id 9'4 ES - 74 sit 7L:3% 4,7 711+. 1,11ra .0?N 71: - 34 WIT 110vo !Y'FJ 16 1% DST if 991 *+ 114 1.0% 211 F, 4% 293 1 A tgnmm ?rota lath 1!alAF Rrca.nd C lllnaclty Il urb0 hfaanl h'a"ber I'ararit hurter N11VA LYk1a 1Vx0 S i".M1 42.ri% 3.4 t1 47 714i. AAA Y! 4S mincic Aunr =3; d 71% 437 14 rR, 63a 1[ -1% Am of0-4n radlm Ahriff 1,1 0.3% 114 014. 10 (1 N asltn 14rm 23 O.Fn J4 04% 52 L C'+ P kIR WA -die Alw* 0 0.ni4 n 0411t. c. C C►: Smra Mist Fwm ,4rea raa 6.0% 387 E..7Sh Q4 Jt tia Tw. 01 N.0M RA_r1 qm 1.3% 72 1 PC ti13 laiprnlr 4110T1 (APr 4Viml 7Ea 21l.7% 475 =2 a k L.4" rf- 5+s C*l.r, lf' 7*.AAc 6 Fal,rr e4111, WAIrir OrMvh rlWti. Il.L L.Htmm b" EMMA IVJLITilRlifc rR-r i LAI Ixl . •J I ::ia .a.: ...1 Source: ESRI and U.S. Census Bureau 9 a a. C9 E R E LC Packet Pg. 823 9.A.2.e In 2019, the population for the Market Area is 4,311 and the number of households is 1,863. The majority of household incomes range from $35,000 to $150,000 and the median household income of the Market Area is $57,138. The average household income for this market area is $85,391. Table 1.2.2 below shows the workforce makeup of the Market Area. The workforce makes up 35.17% of the total market area population and will be significant contributors to the product sales of the convenience store/fuel station. And the majority of the workforce is in the services industry and is white collar in occupation. Table 1.2.2 Oesn-RIE. . ;,,,poses C13riLR1.10I)re ST-a r L-Pii.eI PJepared by Em 11053-1109 ris�CeMWVIV Vi t, Na, •t.. Pkrlrlll, 14114 L•-•roa Trrflo-. 5 rrinul: *idi, 1l R1p�Mw "IQ RwIV"" polio LLts" list &V Irrdnrl ry 7-:01 AQntullulif Hlrnnp LnndrLzll:rS ylbr-OaMAr9 L %1P.lNu—IfWN Sllrlal lrmde Trens�7f i11i}on rLR I Ilia1 11dlRfl�r11ip11 F1rPAfV9elMWTIrCVRIal FAIa1a rv-v ,p PI.a11C 6N•rynlltrlr,4n 14131 tMFtoyad PopviYlaw 16 1 41' DMUPEdrvn 1 cr W1 Har,ayi • •'ri3ulcvwYl.If+nrl�a! p7Gl++r�nr 9••Ryl1 Ad1111rn11Attu SOPO'UII Swvx%. Qllll C011Ar farm npfFD 6s[fr; F.SI ,ry+ CIInrlrrxl Met-truttl Irr1 lA%tlulow 11 NNirrlNT1M;W 4"tor R:!4CCldn T,/rlipaRai131•; h1�111yr1Y� POA"ig 1.31a 48. M 4,7% 11.R4G 17. �fil 25.Si� 2.G1F SC.�J74 7.3rh 3.BM 6Oft }Wwt3•l!J K—%U ]ln• �r SSiLh•1lr - tll:nl?+^r!M. . -• r..i•,••.1;rr�1,EllarH21zIS� s1•a�rr_ _ Source: ESRI and U.S. Census Bureau a A E M E �a Packet Pg. 824 9.A.2.e 2.0 MARKET ANALYSIS 2.1 Market Area Demand The Consultant next determined the market area demand for gasoline in 2019 and then over a 5-year period to 2024 in order to calculate the future demand for gasoline coming from the Market Area. Table 2.1.1 shows that the market area's 2019 population is 4,311 and the persons per household is 2.30 as taken from a. Table 1.2.1 and equates to a household count of 1,863. The household count is required since the annual amount spent on fuel in the Market Area is calculated on a per household basis. E Table 2.1.1 tM Population Persons Per Household 4,311 2.30 Households 1,863 Source: ESRI and U.S. Census Bureau In order to determine the 2024 population for the same Market Area, the Consultant then utilized the population projection from Table 1.2.1. The table and its forecasts are based on census data. Table 2.1.2 below shows that the Market Area population is projected to increase by 929 people between 2019 and 2024. Table 2.1.2 Year 5-Minute Drive Time Population 2019 4,311 2024 5,240 Increase: 929 Source: ESRI and US Census Bureau There are many real estate projects currently under development along the both sides of Tamiami Trail East in the Market Area and more are in the planning stages. This future growth will become a part of the Market Area and will alter its shape. It is in this area where the majority of the Market Area's future growth will take place. The next step in calcuiating the demand for gasoline from the Market Area is to determine the number of gallons of fuel consumed annually in the Market Area. The Consultant utilized the U.S. Census population data for the Market Area and combined it with the U.S. Census automotive expenditures data (Appendix e) and the Market Area average price to calculate the Market Area's annual consumption of gasoline. Table 2.1.3 on the next page shows the calculation. The Consultant made the same calculation for both 2019 and 2024 Packet Pg. 825 9.A.2.e 2.2 Table 2.1.3 2019 2024 Population 4,331 5,240 Households 1,811 2,202 Average Amount spent per Household $2,1.67.12 $2,167.12 Total Amount Spent in market area $3,925,400.97 $4,771,306.22 Average gasoline price per gallon (from Appendix Q $2.72 $2.72 Gallons Consumed Annually in Market Area: 1,441,396 1,752,010 Demand Increase from 2019 to 2024: 21.55% Source: ESRI, Automotive Aftermarket Expenditures, Consultant Field Study (Appendix C) The annual gallons of fuel consumed in the market area will increase by 310,614 which equates to a Market Area increase of 21.55% over the five-year period. Market Area Supply In order to determine the impact the Project will have on the supply, the Consultant first needs to identify the existing gas stations in the Market Area, then calculate the number of cars using the existing gas stations on a weekly basis and finally determine the number of cars that would be using the Project's fuel to ascertain the percent growth the Project's supply will have on the total Market Area supply. The Consultant first used the same Market Area drive time to determine the number of competitive gas stations located within the boundaries of the Market Area. Figure 2.2.1 on the next page shows the competitive gas stations in red as they geographically relate to the Project location (blue marker). 7 Packet Pg. 826 9.A.2.e Figure 2.2.1 Source: ESRI, Collier County Property Appraiser, DOR List with Consultant Field Study (Appendix C) There are three (3) gas stations within convenience store/fuel stations. The DOR Petroleum Products Facilities List, Appendix C. the Market Area boundary and all are list of the competitive stations from the their makeup and photos are located in The Consultant then utilized NAGS data to examine the supply side of the competition in the Market Area. The NAGS 2015 Fuel Report (Appendix D, Page 30) along with the American Independent Business Alliance ("AMIBA") report (Appendix E, Page 2) points out that big box mass merchandise stores sell 278,000 gallons of gasoline per month and that amount is more than half of the amount sold by convenience store/fuel station locations. Based on that statistic, the Consultant used 270,000 gallons as a base amount and used 50% (135,000) of that amount as the average amount of gallons sold per month at a convenience store/fuel station location. There was no state, regional or local data available. From that point, the Consultant calculated the 3-station Market Area gallons sold during the weekday for a week. Table 2.2.1 on the next page shows that calculation. a aC. ,C V E r Packet Pg. 827 9.A.2.e Table 2.2.1 Station Gallons per Month: 135,000 Station Gallons per week: 33,750 Station Gallons for 5 weekdays: 24,107 Stations: 3 Market Area Gallons per 5-day week: 72,321 Source: MACS 2015 Fuel Report {Appendix D) and AM]BA Report [Appendix F] The Project's contribution in terms of total supply is then added to the Market Area total so that the number of cars per 5-day week could be determined. Table 2.2.2 below shows that calculation. Table 2.2.2 Market Area Gallons per 5-day week: 72,321 Project Contribution per 5-day week: 24,107 Market Area Gallons per 5-day week with Project: 96,429 Source: Consultant The next step is to calculate the number of gallons per week is consumed per car in the marketplace. A cars per household statistic is required for this calculation. The Consultant utilized a study by Governing, a highly regarded media platform covering politics, policy and management for state and local government leaders (Appendix F). Each car uses 8.60 gallons per week in the Market Area. This calculation is shown in Table 2.2.3 below. Table 2.2.3 Drive Time Population 4,311 Drive Time Households 1,811 Annual Fuel Cost per Household $2,167.12 Cars Per Household (Appendix F) 1.78 Annual Fuel Cost per Car $1,217.48 Total Annual Market Area Fuel Spending $5,248,569.84 Avg. Market Area Price per Gallon (Appendix Cl $2.72 Annual Gallons Consumed per Car 447.06 Weeks per Year 52 Gallons Per Car Per Week 8.60 Source: ESR1, Automotive Aftermarket Expenditures, Consultant Field Study (Appendix C), Governing calculations of 2015 and 2016 one-year Census American Community Survey 0 Q a C9 E M E �a Packet Pg. 828 9.A.2.e The next calculation is to convert the gallons per 5-day week to cars purchasing those gallons in the Market Area in order to compare to the cars per 5-day week as calculated by the Project traffic study that will purchase fuel at the Project. Table 2.2.4 shows that calculation. Table 2.2.4 a IL Market Area Gallons per 5-day week with Project (from Table 2.2.2): 96,429 C9 Gallons per car per week (from Table 2.2.3); 8.60 E Cars per 5-day week in Market Area: 11,213 E Source: Consultant �a ~ The number of cars per 5-day week for the Project is the next calculation needed to compare the Project's contribution to the supply. Using the Project's traffic study (Appendix G) and a study performed by C-Store Shopper Insights (Appendix H), the Consultant determined that 1,918 cars will be purchasing gasoline at the Project's fuel stations over a 5-weekday period. Table 2.2.5 below shows that calculation. Cars buying Gasoline at the Project during 5-Weekday period Weekday Per hour am (4 hours) Weekday Per hour pm (4 hours) Total Cars in per weekday: C-Store data: 690% cars in for gas Project cars buying gas over 5-weekdays: Per hour Total Cars in 69 276 70 280 556 69.00% 384 1,918 Source: Project Traffic Study (Appendix G), page 7. C-Store Shopper Insights, Page 1 (Appendix H) The Project's percentage of contribution to the Market Area supply is the last calculation. Table 2.2.6 below shows that the Project will contribute 3,767 fuel purchasers to the Market Area, equating to a Market Area supply increase of 17,11% Table 2.2.6 Market Area cars per 5-weekdays including Project (from Table 2.2.4); 11,213 Project cars per 5-weekdays (from Table 2.2.5): 1,918 Project Supply percent increase to the Market Area Supply: 17.11% Source: Consultant 10 Packet Pg. 829 9.A.2.e 2.3 Supply — Demand Analysis The final step in the Market Study supply -demand analysis is to put the supply and demand calculations together in order to determine the oversupply or undersupply of gasoline in the Market Area with the addition of the Project. Table 2.3.1 shows that over the next five years there will be a 4.44% deficit supply of gasoline to serve the Market Area over the next five (5) years. A basic economic principal states that all markets are efficient and that supply is for the most part generated as demand dictates. It is a rare economic situation where supply generates demand. This basic economic principal shows that markets are efficient in terms of supply and demand and the ultimate lack of available fuel station choices creates an impediment to the market functioning properly. The economic principal stated above would indicate that fuel station supply will be added to the Market Area in order to equalize the demand side of the Market Area's supply/demand equation. The Project will increase the Market Area's supply side by 17.11 % thus stabilizing the Market Area's supply/demand equation for the next five (5) years. There will still be a 4.44% supply deficit in the next five (5) years even with the Project addition to the supply. Table 2.3.1 Market Area Growth (Table 2.1.3) 21.55% Project percent of market (Table 2.2.6) 17.11% Market Area 5-year supply- surplus/{deficit} (4.44%) The addition of the Project will not only satisfy the increased demand over the next five (5) years, it will also keep gasoline prices reasonable by absorbing a majority of the five (5) year projected demand increase and not constraining the gasoline supply thus forcing gas prices to escalate. The Project will compensate for properties along the Market Area corridor that may not be developed as convenience store/fuel stations due to being unavailable for sale or subject to other development constraints. And the Project will be new to the market in terms of construction and exterior ambiance thus providing an upgrade to the East Trail Development Corridor and potentially force competitors to upgrade their exterior and interior appearances. I Packet Pg. 830 9.A.2.e 3.0 CONCLUSIONS 3.1 The Consultant used all of the data and analysis in the previous sections to determine the total supply and demand for gasoline sales in the Project's market area for the next five years. From there, the Consultant then determined the Project's impact on the Market Area in terms of the Market Area's percent of a. demand growth versus the Market Area's percent of supply increase with the addition of the Project's supply. The results show compellingly that the addition of the Project to the Market Area will not adversely affect the balance of gasoline supply while ~ addressing the demand coming from the future growth and make significant economic contributions to Collier County in terms of gas taxes, sales taxes and property taxes. a The Market Area is currently assumed to be in equilibrium as economic studies have shown that markets are efficient in terms of supply and demand and the future supply will be developed as the market grows and diversifies. The Project will help address the demand coming to the Market Area over the next five years. Based on the analysis, there will be even more of a gasoline supply need for the Market Area over the next five (5) years and beyond even with the addition of the Project. 12 Packet Pg. 831 9.A.2.e A a aM,,wl 13 a a C9 T M E 3 c aD a� ,L^ V ti O LO N O O O O T" O N J a Packet Pg. 832 9.A.2.e How Consumers Behave at the Pump I NACS Online —Your Business — ... http:llwww.naesonline.com/YourBusiness/FaelsCenter/Basics/ArIicles/P... Ask NACS Conexxus Terms of Use Advertise 1600 Duke Street About NACS Fuels Institute Privacy Policy For Suppliers Alexandria, Va 22314 Foundation Related Glossary Copyright C] 2017 NACS Associations THE ASSOCIATION FOR CONVENIENCE & FUEL RETAILING NACS Online About Basics Articles Multimedia News Research Basics IArticle s I How Consumers Behave at the Pump HOW CONSUMERS BEHAVE AT THE PUMP I Am Looking For: search this site... p Nearly 4a milllon Americans fill up theirvehicles everyday. How they drive, cansidergas prices and determine whetherthey go inside the stare has a profound impact on Canveniente stores. RELATED ARTICLES By NACS Published: 3/1/2017 10 '••y� What Consumers Say About Tags: Consumers; Pay at the Pump.' Fueling Sy NACS Read More Nearly 40 million Americans fill up their vehicles every day. How they drive, consider gas prices and determine whether to shop inside a convenience store for food, snacks and beverages has a r Are You Average? profound impact on the retail channel that sells 80% of the fuel purchased in the United States. Let's By NACS Read More look at some of the broad characteristics of how consumers buy gas and examine how convenience retailers can keep them coming back. In particular, we examine: Survey Says... By NACS Magazine Read More ■ Consumer behavior at the pump ik • What retailers can do to change consumer behavior ■ overall driving habits NACS has surveyed consumers about their perceptions related to gas prices since 2007 and has conducted monthly consumer sentiment surreys since 2013. NACS commissioned Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates LLC to conduct 1,114 online Interviews with adult Americans on January 3-6, 2017. The margin of error for the entire sample Is +/- 2.95°% at the 95% confiden ce interval and higher for subgroups. Below are the questions and overall responses. Consumer Behavior at the Pump Understanding how consumers feel about gasoline prices can help convenience retailers execute their marketing strategies. It's also important to determine how oensumers buy gas, which reveals some interesting variations. Filling Up the Tank Consumers are more likely to buy gas during the evening rush than the morning daypart (36°% vs. 22°%), likely because of morning time pressures. But these time pressures vary by demographic. Those most likely to purchase fuel in the morning are consumers age 34-49 who generally face time pressures related to organizing family activities, etc. There may be an opportunity to focus marketing on this segment to encourage more breakfast items. Meanwhile, those age 50 and older are most likely to purchase gas mid -day, outside of rush hours. A promotional campaign around slowing down and enjoying a snack or meal inside the store might appeal to this demographic. Q. What time of the day do you often purchase gas? (%) Gas Consumers 2017 Morning, or roughly 6 am to 10 am Midday, or roughly 10 am to 3 pm Age 16-34 35.49 50+ 22 19 28 21 32 27 25 41 ] of 6 1 8 3 Packet Pg. Haw Consumers Behave at the Pump I NACS Online — Your Business — 9.A.2.e http:llwww. naesonline. com/YourB usiness/Fue] sCenter/BasicslArti cies/P... Afternoon, or roughly 3 pm to 7 pm 36 41 Night, or roughly 7 pm to midnight 9 13 Overnight, or roughly midnight to 6 am 1 0 37 32 10 6 1 0 Most fueling sites offer three octane grades, regular (usually 87 octane), mid -grade (usually 89 octane), and premium (usually 92 or 93 octane), Regular octane is the dominant fuel, while those who buy higher -octane fuels are likely doing so because their vehicle requires it. There are some variations by age; younger consumers are the least interested in mid -grade as a fueling option. Q: What octane grade do you typically purchase for the vehlcla you most commonly drive? Gender Age W G C um rs 21117 ( ] as ons e M F 18-34 35-49 50+ Regular 82 BU 84 82 78 86 Mid -grade 8 10 7 5 11 5 Premium 8 10 7 11 10 5 Other 1 0 1 0 1 1 Don't know 0 0 1 1 0 0 Fully three quarters of consumers pay by plastic (73%). The percentage of consumers who pay by plastic has increased by 9 percentage points between 2009 and 2017. in reviewing subcategories, debit cards am most used by females (41%) and those age 18-34 {45%}, Credit cards are most popular with those age 50 and alder (47%). Q: Which payment method do you typically use to purchase gas? Track (%] Gas Consumers 21117 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2009 Cash 26 28 23 27 27 33 35 Credit 36 34 40 37 35 41 37 Debit 37 38 38 36 37 24 27 Total debit and credit 73 72 76 73 72 65 64 Shopping on price The rise of mobile commerce, apps and price -checking websites make It easier for consumers to shop for deals and "steals" on everything from appilances to now shoes, a mentality that also carries over to gasoline. Simply put, no matter what the price per gallon is, consumers want to find the best price they can. Approximately two in three consumers have consistently shopped on price, whether gas was as low as $1.62 per gallon at the start of 2009, or as high as $3.28 per gallon at the start of 2013- However, a focus on price Is diminishing and has lal[an 10 percenlage points in just two years. Location has grown more important to consumers, as well as the in -stare food offer. The price per gallon Is least important to those who over the past 30 days who bought a sandwich at a place where they also purchased gas (56%). Q. When buying gas, which of the following factors Is Important to you? Track G C 2nt7 { o} as onsumers 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2009 Price 61 64 71 66 71 63 70 Location of storelstaf ri 25 20 18 20 18 20 19 Brand a 9 8 6 8 a 9 Ease of entrance or exit 4 6 3 4 2 6 - Other 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 So how do price -sensitive consumers shop by price? The traditional gas price sign remains the most common method, parilcularly among drivers during the morning rush (65%). Loyalty cards are a second choice and are used by one in seven (16%) price -sensitive consumers. Q 2of6 Packet Pg. 834 9.A.2.e How Consumers Behave at the Pump I MACS Online — Your Business — .., http://www.nacsonline.com[YourBusiness/FuelsCenterBasics/Articles/P... Interestingly, loyalty cards are not popular with tech -savvy younger consumers, who are instead much mare likely to took at the price sign. Track Age f I ) Gas Consumers 2017 0 '16 '15 '14 '13 '12 18-34 35-49 50+ Price sign at store 59 63 63 57 65 65' 67 54 56 Store tied to a loyalty card or other gas discount 16 16 18 18 16 5' 9 20 19 Store has reputation for low prices 12 11 9 10 7 5' 14 12 11 0nIIne gas prlce aggregatorlwebshe 11 10 9 14 10 3• 11 13 11 Other 1 1 1 1 1 21' 0 1 2 While 16 % of price -sensitive consumers say they regularly use loyally cards to price shop, a much higher percentage of consumers say they have at least tried using a loyalty card, changing their payment method or by eaming discounts for buying additional items to reduce the price per gallon. q: Have you taken advantage of these discounts? (multiple responses permitted) Track Gender (%) Gas Consumers 2017 '16 '15 M F Discount for using a loyalty card or app 46 41 43 44 49 Discount for paying with cash Instead of debiUcredit card 23 22 22 26 20 Discount for using a specific credit card to buy gas 16 15 16 18 14 Discount for buying something else at the gas station (car wash, something 14 12 14 16 12 in the store) None of the above 32 37 35 31 33 Have of all consumers (49%) say they prefer a specific store or chain. Price Is the top reason for this preference, but reputation also plays a strong role, whether for quality of fuel (41 %) or quality of in-store items (16%), A strong 36% of consumers who say they bought a sandwich at a convenience store over the past 30 days say the in-store offer is Important. Q: Why do you prefer a partleuIar convenience store? (Asked of the 49% with a preference, multiple responses permitted.) Track Age (°%f Gas Consumers 2017 '16 '15 '12 18-34 35-49 50+ It usually has lower prices 51 47 57 ' 57 49 49 quality of fuel 41 39 46 38 39 45 41 Loyalty program with chain 30 33 37 5 33 34 25 Loyalty program with Individual store 17 17 14 ' 21 15 15 Quality of items Inside the store 16 12 11 1 27 18 7 Other 9 8 5 36 9 7 10 Don't know 1 1 0 1 t 1 1 ' This response was not included In 2012 study What Retailers Can Do to Change Consumer Behavior How might consumers adjust their behavior to save money on gas, beyond selecting the best price they see in their neighborhood or on a trip? Goad news for convenience retailers: Consumers especially would consider an alternallve payment method to save money at the pump. q: Do you agree with the following statement? Total agree Total agree Total agree Total agree Gas consumers 2017 2016 2015 2014 3 of 6 1 Packet Pg. 835 9.A.2.e Haw Consumers Behave at the Pump 1 NACS Online — Your Business — ... http;J/www.naesonline.comlYour$usinesslFuelsCenterBasies/Articles/P... I would pay with a debit card instead of a credit 74 73 fib 78 card to save 5 cents per gallon on gas I would pay wish cash instead of a debit or credit 74 72 72 76 card to save 5 cents per gallon on gas I would take a left-hand tum across a busy street 64 64 64 67 to save 5 cents per gallon on gas I would drive 5 minutes out of my way to save 5 67 60 63 66 cents per gallon on gas I would drive 10 minutes out of my way to save 5 38 39 36 39 cents per gallon an gas Price at time of survey ($) 2.30 1.98 2.20 3.35 Younger consumers (ages 18-34) aria most Ilike ly to consider discounts for gas purchases with a debit card (85%) or by cash (80%). Consumers also would go out of their way to save money on their gas purchases. Approximately two In three say that they would take a left-hand turn across a busy street (64%) or drive 5 minutes out of their way (67%) to save 5 cents per gallon. Ramarkably, these percentages are very similar to 2014 when gas prices were higher Furthermore, 3 8 % say they would drive 10 minutes out of their way to save 5 cents per gallon. While It might feel good to find a "deal" on gas prices, the action is a money -losing proposition, even with gas prices at $2.30 per gallon. Driving 10 minu[as out of the way to save 5 cents per gallon means a 20-minute roundlrlp. Assuming the car travels 45 mph and gets 30 miles per gallon, the trip would burn 0.5 gallons of gas —or roughly $1.15 at January 2016 prlcos. To make it financially worthwhile to save 5 cents per gallon, ane would have to buy 23 gallons of gas at $2.30 per gallon simply to break even. More than anything else, this exam plifles consumer price sensitivity relating to gas prices. Whether they actually save money, consumers want to feel like they found a "deaf' er "did se moth Ing" about the price they paid. Getting Them Inside the Store Role [ara know that if [hey can get a customer to fill -up at their store, they have a good chance to get them Inside the store to buy other Items. Arid because In-store sales make up around two-thirds of a store's overall profits, it's vital to get customers to buy something besides low -margin fuels. And nearly halt of all gas customers do go inside the store. ❑: Thinking Just about the last time you purchased gas, did you also go inside the store? Age G C 2017 { ) as onsumers 18-34 35-49 50* Yes 42 51 47 33 No 52 45 50 60 There was no c-s lore associated with that location 5 5 4 7 Most younger consumers age 1 B- 34 (51 %) go inside the store. And a strong 48% of these who buy gas in the morning go inside the store, setting up a great opportunity for convenience stares to communicate their breakfast and coffee program. Among those who went inside the stare, drinks were the most popular items purchased, especially among those ages 35-49 (55%). Mee nwhile, meals were most popular with younger consumers age 18-34 (13%). 0: Which of the following did you do while you were inalde the store? (multiple responses permitted) Age ( I6) Gas Consumers 2017 18-34 35-49 50+ 4of6 1 8 6 Packet Pg. 9.A.2.e How Consumers Behave at the Pump I NACS Online — Your Business — ... http:llwww.nacsanline.comfYourBusiness/FaelsCenter/Basics/Articles/P... Paid for gas at the regls[or 50 47 52 52 Bought a beverage 45 47 55 32 Bought a snack 36 47 39 22 Bought lottery tickets 25 23 24 28 Bought cigarettes 24 26 28 17 Used the bathroom 22 23 27 18 Used the ATM 11 18 10 7 Bought a sandwich or other meat 8 13 6 5 Bought beerlwine a 10 10 6 Bought grocery [terns like bread or milk 6 3 9 6 Went in to look but did not buy anything 4 6 3 2 Other 3 1 2 6 None of the above 3 2 3 4 overall Driving Habits In 2016, fuel demand in the United States increased 1.1% to 9.32 million barrels perday, and the U.S. Department of Energy expects consumption to Increase to record levels in each of the next two years. Demand was clearly up, but only about one in eight (12 ) people drove greater distances in 2016. Thirty-three percent of all consumers said that their driving increased and only 38 % of that group said they drove more than In 2015, Ll: Corpared to a year ago, has the amount you drive changed7 (%) Gas Consumers Yes 33 No 54 Don't know 3 Q: Compared to a year ago, are driving...? [asked among the 331 who said the amount they drive has changedy Track Age [ I j Gas Consumers 2016 18-34 35-49 50+ Much more 11 14 16 11 3 Somewhat more 27 45 29 34 17 Somewhat less 43 28 43 35 53 Much less 19 14 12 20 27 Younger consumers age 18--34 are most likely to drive more (45%), whlle those age 5o or older are least likely (20%), Finally, it's important to understand why people are driving more. More than 40%of all Americans (419%) who said they are driving more said it was because of their job, whether It was a new jab, a second job or a longer commute. Only 8% said that they drove more because gas prices were low 0: Why are you driving more than you were a year ago? (%j Gas Consumers My job/longer commute to work![ got a new or second job Lower gas prices School![ commute to mylmy child's school visit famllylfriends more now My chitdrenflaking my children to more placeslactivities Gender Age M F 18.34 35.49 5G+ 41 39 42 49 32 36 8 8 8 11 6 3 8 2 12 7 11 4 7 5 8 5 6 16 6 5 7 3 9 7 5afe 8 7 Packet Pg. 9.A.2.e How Consumers Behave at the Ptunp I MACS Online — Your Business — ... http:llwww.naesonline.tomlYourBusiness/FucIsCenterBasics/Articles/P... More appointmentsla family member has more appolntments 4 6 3 6 2 5 Shopping morelgoing to the mall morelstores are further away 3 2 3 0 3 8 now I have to travel further nowli live in a place where things are 3 4 2 5 ❑ 4 further away now I am going more places 2 4 1 2 4 ❑ 1 have a better car now 2 4 1 2 ❑ 8 1 have a license now 2 ❑ 3 4 ❑ 0 General negalive 2 2 2 2 3 0 Other 10 14 6 3 19 9 Packet Pg. 838 6❑ft5 9.A.2.e 14 a a C9 T M E �o 3 c aD a� ,L^ V ti O LO N O O O O T" O N J a Packet Pg. 839 9.A.2.e Aft �I Automotive 'Expenditures wesProposed Convenience Stare/FuelStatlon Prepared by Esrl 11053-11099 Greenway Rd, Naples, Florida, 34114 Drive Time: 5 minute radius Demographic Summary 201.9 2024 Population 4,311 5,240 Households 1,863 2,236 Families 1,197 1,431 Median Age 60.6 61.1 Median Household Income $57,138 $65,961 Spending Potential Average Amount Xndex Spent Total Payments on Vehicles excluding Leases 97 $2,476.33 $4,613,400 Gasoline and Motor Oil Gasoline Diesel Fuel Motor Oil other Vehicle Expenses Vehicle Maintenance & Repairs Vehicle Coolant/Brake/Transmission Fluids Tire Purchase/Replacement Vehicle Parts/Equipment/Accessories Vehicle Accessories including Labor Vehicle Cleaning Services including Car Washes Miscellaneous Auto Repair/Servicing Vehicle Body Work & Painting Vehicle or Engine Repairs Vehicle Motor Tune-up Lube/0il Change & 011 Filters Vehicle Front End Alignment/Wheel Balance & Vehicle Shock Absorber Replacement Tire Repair and other Repair Work Auto Repair Service Policy Vehicle Insurance Rental of Vehicles excluding Trips Leased Vehicles Basic Lease Charge for Cars/Trucks Car/Truck Lease Fees & Down Payments Vehicle Pers. Property Taxes/SLate & Local Registr Fees Driver's License Fees Vehicle Inspection Fees Parking Fees & Tolls excluding Trips Parking Fees excluding Residence (Not on Trips) Tolls/Electronic Toll Passes excluding Trips Towing Charges Auto Service Clubs & GPS Services 98 $4,037,349 121 $65.31 $121,668 109 $16.79 $31,275 102 $1,163.30 $2,167,226 98 $8.49 $15,808 108 $194,77 $362,863 102 $67.13 $125,070 114 $13.70 $25,523 94 $26.13 $48,683 80 $126.37 $235,418 108 $40.08 $74,673 107 $264.47 $492,709 117 $57.47 $107,062 100 $118.96 $221,615 106 $32.86 $61,213 101 $15.39 $28,670 99 $149A2 $277,802 117 $48.37 $90,116 100 $1,541.98 $2,872,705 103 $57.39 $106,919 84 $340.89 $635,071 84 $300.98 $S60,718 90 $39.91 $74,353 109 $205.21 $382,309 93 $11,68 $21,756 103 $16.24 $30,255 76 $88.20 $164,309 75 $42.81 $79,755 78 $45.39 $84,554 83 $5.49 $10,224 111 $39.45 $73,487 Data Note: The Spending Potentlal Index (SPI) is household -based, and represents the amount spent for a product or service relative to a national average of 100. Source. Esri forecasts for 2019 and 2024; Consumer Spending data are derived from the 2016 and 2017 Consumer Expenditure Surveys, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Q A E R E H Packet Pg. 840 9.A.2.e APPENDIX C 15 a M E 3 c aD a� ,L^ V ti O LO N O O O O T" O N J a Packet Pg. 841 9.A.2.e COMPETITIVE RETAIL GAS STATION FACILITIES FACILITY -ID FACILITY NAME FACILITY_ ADDRESS STATUS FACILITY TYPE CONVENIENCE STORE 87 89 93 STATIONS PUMPS OCTANE OCTANE OCTANE 119804326 7-ELEVEN FOOD STORE H33004 12750 TAMIAMI TRAIL E OPEN A -Retail Station YES 6 12 2.69 2.99 3.29 118626888 CIRCLE K 91700 12800 E TAMIAMI TR OPEN A -Retail Station YES 4 8 2.69 3.05 3.31 118518215 WEST DIAMOND PETROLEUM LLC 14501 TAM IAMI TRAIL E 41 OPEN A-Retall Station YES 2 4 2.79 3.49 3.69 TOTALS AND AVERAGES: 12 24 2.72 3.18 3.43 SOURCE: DOR Petroleum Product Facilities Report - Se ptomher 2U17, Consultant Field Study 7-19-19 1= 3 c (D m 'L^ V ti O Lii LV O O O O r O N J a 0 M t0 M d Y V w d C O d a c O to .Q a Q M r C d E t V r r� Q a Packet Pg. 842 9.A.2.e 7-11 12750 Tamiami Trail East 6 Stations — 12 Pumps 87 Octane 89 Octane 93 Octane $2.69 $2.99 $3.29 3 E 3 C 0 m 'L^ V ti O LO N O O O Ib r O N J IL 0 M t0 M r d Y V Its d C 0 m a C 0 a .Q a Q M r C Iv E M V r r� Q a Packet Pg. 843 9.A.2.e Circle K - Shell 12800 Tamiami Trail East 4 Stations — 8 Pumps 87 ❑ctane 89 Octane 93 Octane $2.69 $3.06 $3.31 12800 Now 7.69 3.06 Q A E M E �a H Packet Pg. 844 9.A.2.e Green Store #108 - Sunoco 14501 Tamiami Trail East 2 Stations — 4 Pumps 87 Octane 89 Octane 93 Octane $2.79 $3.49 $3.59 —T4501 01 Q A E M E �a H Packet Pg. 845 9.A.2.e a E M E ,L^ V ti O LO N O O O O T" O N J a Packet Pg. 846 9.A.2.e Q A E M E �a H c� 3 c aD m 'L^ V ti O Ln N O O O O r O N J a r� Q Packet Pg. 847 9.A.2.e 2015 NACS Retail Fuels Report The NACS Retail Fuels Report, now in its 14th year, ex- plains market conditions that affect gas prices — and what to watch for in 2015. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction p. 4 Are You Average? p. 5 Some metrics looking at how the average American drives and uses fuel. CONSUMER RESEARCH Price Still Dominates Gas Purchasing Decisions. p, 8 It doesn't matter whether gas prices are $4 or $2 per gallon, price is the most dominant reason why consumers select a specific location to buy fuel. PRICES The Price Per Gallon p. 16 No matter who owns the station, retail fuels prices are ultimately determined by four sets of costs: crude oil, taxes, refining costs and distribution and mar- keting. Why Prices Historically Go Up in the Spring p. 21 Summer -blend fuels, infrastructure maintenance and, of course, an increase in seasonal demand all create challenges that can affect retail fuels prices. a Packet Pg. 848 9.A.2.e r RETAIL OPERATIONS Who Sells America's Fuel? p. 28 Convenience stores sell 8o% of the gasoline in the United States —most are one -store businesses and less than 0.4% are owned by the major oil companies. How Branded Stations Operate p. 31 That branded station on the corner is almost certainly owned and operated by an independent dealer. Here is a look at their operating structure. Cards at the Pump: A Primer p. 34 The use of plastic at the pump is incredibly convenient. But that convenience comes at a cost. GRAPHICS The Fueling Industry at a Glance p. 44 A snapshot of the stores and infrastructures that provide fuels. Gasoline Taxes by State p. 45 Combined state and federal gasoline taxes range from a low of 29.7 cents per gallon in Alaska to 68.9 cents per gallon in Pennsylvania. Unique Fuel Requirements in the United States p. 46 There are 15 unique fuels required across the United States, which complicates the efficient distribution of gasoline to consumers. Q C9 E H 3 c aD m 'L^ V ti O LO N O O O 00 r O N J a 0 M c� M m U M a c 0 m a c 0 .Q a M c m E M U ca r Q a 2015 NACS Retail Fuels Repn i 1 _i Packet Pg. iO w "3 A 9.A.2.e INTRODUCTION NearlY40 million Americans fill up their gas tanks on a dai- ly basis, oftentimes searching for a good price and convenient E location. There is arguably no product that consumers think M more about on a daily basis -- yet at the same time is so misun- derstood. Because U.S, convenience stores sell an estimated 8o% ec of the gasoline purchased, NAGS wants to demystify how the = market works — from the time crude oil is extracted from the d ground to when fuel flows into a consumer's gas tank. The 2o1Sj NACS Retail Fuels Report continues our tradition of providing a fact -based analysis of market dynamics to explain how gas is sold and the composition of the retail fuels indus- try. This resource is updated throughout the year online, with monthly consumer survey data and new backgrounders featured at nacsonline.com/gasprices. As 2oi5 began, oil and gas prices were at six -year lows, and while consumers were delighted with lower prices, that could change as supply and demand shift, whether from world events or from the annual spring transition to summer -blend fuel. For more than a decade, NACS has timed the launch of this re- source to occur in early February. The reason is simple: The first week of February traditionally marks the beginning of the spring transition to summer -blend fuels for the petroleum industry. Since z000, gasoline prices have increased, on average, more than So cents between the first week in February and the time of the seasonal high price, typically in late May. While the circum- stances may be different year-to-year, the overall pattern in the petroleum markets is surprisingly familiar. This resource was developed to help facilitate an open discus- sion about the issues impacting supply — and prices — through a better understanding of the retail fuels markets and help ease frustrations that consumers often experience when gasoline prices increase. And, most importantly, we hope this resource can help provide insights and expertise on discussions that address the U.S. mo- tor fuels industry. More information on the fueling industry, including back - grounders on fuels and the fueling industry, is available at nacsonline.com/gasprices. 2015 NACS Retail Fuels Report 14 Packet Pg. 851 9.A.2.e The average U.S. vehicle: HOW DO AMERICANS GET TO WORK? _4gooftah., (Source: U.S. Census Bureau) 85%1& drive or carpool 5% public transportation 3 % walk 4 % *work at home Packet Pg. 852 9.A.2.e w w w w r w w r 22,27 barrels of ail (Source: CIA World Factbook) The average household buys: ip w 6M w w w iM 729 gallons of gas each year (Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration) 78%of gas customers pay by credit or debit card. (Source: 2015 NACS Consumer Fuels Survey) 35% of gas customers also go inside the store (Source: 2015 NACS Consumer Fuels Survey) Packet-Pg. 853 9.A.2.e� a 601 is 0 P7- (D Packet Pg. 854 9.A.2.e Price Still Dominates Gas Purchasing Decisions It doesn't matter whether gas prices are $4 or $2 per gallon, price is the most dominant reason why consumers select a specific location to buy fuel. Consumers are price sensitive for a number of reasons. For one, fuel expenses are a big part of their budgets. Fuels expenses have averaged around 5% of overall consumer spending over the past few years, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Second, there is the opportunity to price shop. Because gas is a commodity, its price is constantly changing. (It is listed on NYMEX as "RB0B" but this price does not include taxes and delivery and retail costs. In addition, this price serves only as a benchmark and reflects the price for a specific formulation delivered to a specific region. Wholesale prices throughout the country can vary greatly from the NYMEX reported price.) Prices can vary from location to location based on wholesale costs, expenses and overall business practices. Q a C9 E 2015 NACS Retall Fuels Report 18 Packet Pg. 855 9.A.2.e And unlike any other product in the country, gas prices are prominently displayed outside stores, allowing drivers to price shop at 40 miles per hour. Add to the mix websites that compare prices or even songs about gas prices (Bruce Springsteen's "Held Up Without a Gun," The Kinks' "A Gallon of Gas" and NRBQ's "Get That Gasoline Blues" come to mind) and you can see why consumers always seem to care about gas prices, whether they are rising, falling or relatively stable. Retailers understand this price sensitivity and it affects their marketing strat- egy to attract customers. If they can have competitive gas prices, they attract more customers, both at the pump and inside the store. NACS has surveyed consumers about their perceptions related to gas prices since zoo7, and has conducted monthly consumer sentiment surveys since 2oi3. The following results are from the MACS Consumer Fuels Survey, conducted January 6-8, 2ois, by esteemed polling firm Penn Schoen Berland. Overall, i,io8 consumers were surveyed, and the margin of error for this sur- vey is z.gq% at the 95% confidence level. In some cases, historical charts are included for context. In many cases, subcategory data is referenced, but is not included in the charts. Overall Purchasing Behavior Before examining what consumers will do at the pump, especially to save money, it's important to understand how they buy gas. Of the two rush hours, consumers are much more likely to buy gas during the evening rush than morning (39% vs. 23%), likely because of morning time pres- sures of getting to work on time. 0: Generally speaking, at what time of the day do you most often purchase gas? Morning, or roughly 6:00 am to 10:00 am 23� 22% 17% _� 24% Midday, or roughly 10:00 am to 3:00 pm 29% 31 % 31% 22% Afternoon, or roughly 3:00 pm to 7:00 pm 38% 38% 40% 29% Night, or roughly 7:00 pm to 12:00 pm 10% 8% 11% 9% Overnight or roughly 12:00 pm to fi _00 am 0 1% F 1% 0- Men are more likely than women to fill up in the morning (z53' vs. zo%) and night (14%vs. 7%). Meanwhile, those age So and above are more likely to buy gas midday (38%) and those ages tg-34 are most likely to buy gas during the after- noon rush (48%). Also, more than three quarters of consumers pay by plastic (78%). The percentage of consumers who pay by plastic has increased 24% over the past six years. Q IL c� 20 E 2015 NAGS Recall Fuels Report 19 Packet Pg. 856 9.A.2.e 0: Which method do you typically use to purchase gas with? Cash 23% 27% 27% 1 33% 35% Credit 1 40% 37% 35% 41 % 37% Debit 38% 36% 37% 24% 27% Total debit and Credit 78% 73% 72% 65% 64% Consumers buying gas mid -day are most likely to pay by cash (zg%) and those age 5o and over are most likely to pay by credit card (48%). Credit card fees are typically 2%, so retailers often look for ways to reduce these costs and past the savings on to customers. Price Remains Essential It really doesn't matter what the price of gas is, consumers want to find the best price that they can. Approximately two in three consumers consistently shop on price, whether gas was as low as $1-6z per gallon in zoog or as high as $3.z8 per gallon in zox3 to start the new year. Even after the sharp gas price declines over the past few months, consumers still price shop for gasoline. Q. When buying gas, which of the following factors is most important to you? Price 71% 66% 71% 63% 70% Location of storelstarion 18% 20% 18% 26% 19% Brand 8% 8%_ 8% 8% 9% — Ease of entrance or exit 3% 4% 2% 6% D Other - - - 1% 1%. 1% 2% 1% Gas price on date survey was Initiated* $2.22 $3.22 $3.28 $3.22 $1.62 *Gas price determined by OPI5 Retail Fuel Watch, published weekly There were slight variations by demographics. Females were more likely to price shop than men (74% vs. 68%] and consumers buying gas after 7: oo pm were most likely to price shop (75%), likely because they do not face the same time pressures ofrush-hour drivers. 5o how do price -sensitive consumers shop by price? The traditional gas price sign remains the most common method, particularly among drivers during the morning rush (67%). Loyalty cards remain a strong second choice and are used by nearly one in five (18%) price -sensitive consumers. Loyalty cards are most impor- tant to consumers shopping mid -day (eight) and least popular during the morning rush (13%). 2015 NAGS Retail Fuels Report 1 10 Packet Pg. 8 7 9.A.2.e Q: How do you shop for price (asked of the 71 % who said "price" was the most important factor when buying gas)? Price sign at stare 63% 57% 66% Store tied to a loyalty cord or other gas discount 18% 18% 16% Online gas price aggregator / web site I. 9% 10% 7% Company/store has reputation for law prices 9% 14% 10% Other 1% 1% 1% While 18% of price -sensitive consumers say that they regularly use loyalty cards to price shop, nearly two in three consumers (65%) have taken advan- tage of some sort of discount to reduce their gas price, whether by using a loy- alty card, changing their payment method or by getting discounts for buying additional items. A: Have you ever taken advantage of any of these discounts offered by gas sta- tions? Please select all that apply (multiple responses permitted) Discount for using a loyalty card or app 43% Discount for paying with cash instead of a debit/credit cord 22% Discount for using a specific credit card to buy gas 16% Discount for buying something else at the gas station 14% (carwash, something in the stare, etc.) None of the above 35% Consumers in the Northeast were most likely to have paid by cash or debit card to reduce their gas price (28%), while younger consumers were much more likely to buy additional items to reduce their gas price (19% of those ages 18-34, compared to only 9 of those age 5o and over). Nearly half of all consumers have a preferred gas station or chain (48%), and not surprisingly, the main reason is lower prices. g: Why do you prefer that gas station or chain (asked to the 48% who had a pre- ferred station or chain)? PERCENT OF GAS CONSUMERS 2015 II usually has lower prices 57% Quality of fuel 46% Loyalty program with chain 37% Loyalty program with individual store 14% Quality of items inside the store 11 % other 5% 2015 MACS Retail Fuels Repo Packet Pg. 858 9.A.2.e Consumers Will Change Their Behavior to Save Money How might consumers adjust their behavior to save money on gas, beyond selecting the best price that they see in their neighborhood or their trip? Good news for retailers: Consumers especially would consider an alternative pay- ment method to save money at the pump. 9: Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? I would pay with a debit card instead of a credit 40% 29% 69% card to save 5 cents per gallon on gas. I would pay with cash Instead of a debit or credit 34% 38% 72% card to save 5 cents per gallon on gas. I would take a left-hand turn across a busy street to 27% 37% 64 �� ° save 5 cents per gallon on gas. I would drive 5 minutes out of my way to save 5 25°l0 38°la 63% cents per gallon on gas. I would drive 10 minutes out of my way to save 5 11% 25% 36% cents per gallon on gas. ................................. . While cash discounts have been around for a number of years, debit card discounts are much more recent. Younger consumers, who already are more likely to pay by plastic, would particularly embrace payment discounts. Of those ages 18-34, 82% would seek out debit card discounts and 78% would seek cash discounts. Beyond payments, consumers also would go out of their way to save money on their gas purchases. Nearly two in three say that they would take a left- hand turn across a busy street (64%) or drive 5 minutes out of their way (63%) to save 5 cents per gallon. And, more than one in three consumers say that they would drive to minutes out of their way to save 5 cents per gallon. While it might feel good to find a "deal" on gas prices, the action is a money -losing proposition, even with gas prices hovering around $z.zo per gallon. Driving io minutes out of the way to save 5 cents per gallon means a 20-min- ute roundtrip. Assuming the car travels 45 mph and gets 30 miles per gallon, the trip would burn o.5 gallons of gas — or $mo at January xor5 prices. To make it financially worthwhile, at 5 cents per gallon one would have to buy at least 22 gallons of gas at $2.2o per gallon simply to break even. Plus, there is the cost of 20 minutes of inconvenience. More than anything else, this demonstrates consumer price sensitivity over gas prices. Whether or not they actually save money, consumers want to feel like they found a "deal" or did something about the price. And if they feel good, they may also go inside the store to buy other items. 2015 MACS Retail Fuels Report Packet Pg. 859 i Packet Pg. 860 9.A.2.e Dols Prices Drive In -Store Traffic over the past five years, gross margins for gasoline have averaged 18.9 cents per gallon. After factoring in expenses, including credit card fees, the average profit per gallon is typically a nickel or less, or 1%-7% of the overall cost of the gas. So why would retailers operate on such slim margins? The reason is sim- ple: If you get a consumer to your gas pump, you have a much better chance of Q getting that customer inside the store to buy other items with more tradition- a al profit margins. And that is exactly what happens; more than one in three consumers (357-) go inside the store after buying gas there. E ra: Thinking just about the last time you purchased gas, did you also go Inside a M E store associated with the gas station? M Yes 35°% No 61 % There was no store associated with that gas station. 4°% Younger consumers were most likely to go inside the store to buy other items 42.% of those ages 18-3¢ went inside the store the last time that they pur- chased gas. Going inside the store doesn't necessarily mean that a consumer will buy items. Consumers may have intended to buy something but didn't find anything that they wanted. Or they may have come inside for other reasons, whether to use the bathroom or the ATM. Still, a sizable percentage of con- sumers buy one or more items, whether drinks, snacks or even meals, which are increasingly embraced by consumers at convenience stores that sell gas. Q: Which of the following did you do while you were in the store associated with the gas station? Please select all that apply (asked of the 35% who went inside the store on their last visit; multiple responses permitted). PERCENT OF GAS CONSUMERS 2015 Paid for gas of the register 42% Bought a drink (coffee, fountoln drink, can or bottle) Bought a snack Bought cigarettes Bought lottery tickets Used the bathroom Bought beer 1 wine Bought fill-in grocery items, like bread or milk Bought a sandwich or other meal Used the ATMw Went in to look but did not buy anything Other None of the above 36% 33°% 24% 22°% 17% 11% 9°% 8°% 6% 6% 3% 4% 2015 NAGS Retail Fuels Report 1 14 Packet Pg. 861 ' a a � I E Au I E UK7w >4 , �o 3 c . P ti 0 04 N O O O O T" O N J a a =' Q I _ C E Q Packet Pg. 862 9.A.2.e M, The Price Per Gallon Retail gasoline prices are among the most recognizable price points in American commerce. And with good reason: Gasoline purchases account for approximately 5% of consumer spending. The U.S. Energy Information Administration forecasts that the average U.S. household will spend about $z,000 for gasoline in zor5. At the same time, gas prices are among the least understood prices in the country because they often appear to increase or decrease without much reason. Here is a primer on what goes into the price of a gallon of gasoline, and what causes prices to go up or down and vary from store to store. 2015 MACS Retail Fuels Report 1 16 Packet Pg. 863 9.A.2.e Ownership and Supply Arrangements Unlike a few decades ago, when the major oil companies owned and op- erated a significant percentage of retail fueling locations, less than 0.4% of all convenience stores selling fuels today are owned by one of the major oil companies. About another 4% are owned by a refining company. Instead, the vast majority — about 95% of stores — are owned by independent companies, whether one -store operators or regional chains. Each of these companies has different strategies and/or strengths in operations, which can dictate the type of fuel that they buy and how they sell it. There are four broad factors that can impact retail prices: Fuel Type — Typically, stores that sell fuel under the brand name of a refiner pay a premium for that fuel, which covers marketing support and signage, as well as the proprietary fuel's additive package. These branded stores also tend to face less wholesale price volatility when there are supply disruptions. Delivery method — Retailers who purchase fuels via "dealer tank wagon" have the fuel delivered directly to the station by the refiner. They may pay a higher price than those who receive their fuels at "the rack" or terminal. In addition, a retailer may contract with a jobber to deliver the fuel to his stations or operate his own trucks — the choice will influence his overall cost. • Length of contract — Even if they sell unbranded fuels, retailers may have long-term contracts with a specific refiner. The length of the contract — which can be io years, sometimes longer — and associated terms of that contract can affect the price that retailers pay for fuels. • Volume —As in virtually every other business, retailers may get abetter deal based on the amount of fuels that they purchase, whether based on volume per store or total number of stores. Even within a specific company, stores may not each have the same arrange- ments, since companies often sell multiple brands of fuels, especially if they have acquired sites with existing supply contracts. Crude Oil's Affect on Gas Prices No matter who owns the station, retail fuels prices are ultimately affected by four sets of costs: crude oil costs, taxes, refining costs and post refinery (which accounts for all costs after the fuel leaves the refinery). Crude oil prices have by far the biggest effect on retail prices. Crude oil costs are responsible for about two-thirds of the cost of a gallon of gasoline. In 2014, crude oil costs were 65% of the retail price of gasoline. While there may be slight variations in the costs of refining or distributing and retailing fuels, crude oil prices can experience huge swings. Q 20 E 3 d ,L^ V ti 0 LO N O 0 0 0 0 N J a 0 M m M m Y V a d a _ 0 B.- cc Q a Q M _ d E s Q a 2015 NACS Retail Fuels Report 1 17 Packet Pg. 8 47 9.A.2.e OIL IS TWO-THIRDS OF THE COST OF GASOLINE Crude oil Post Refinery Refining Taxes (Source. US.Enerpj Information Administration, cumrrlatiuezor4 monthly aueroges. Figures do notadd up to r00% because of rounding.} Given there are 42 gallons in a barrel, a rough calculation is that retail prices ulti- mately move approximately 2.4 cents per gallon for every $r change in the price of a barrel of crude ail. While this is not an exact calculation and ignores a variety of influencing factors, it helps demonstrate that as crude prices change, so does the price of retail gasoline. Taxes are largely per gallon, although some areas have sales taxes on fuels, and those taxes increase as the price increases. There sometimes are significant tax disparities between stations located in the same market area but in different cities, countries or states. For instance, New Jersey has a gasoline tax af32.9 cents per gallon, while neighboring Pennsylvania's gas tax is 68.9 cents per gallon. (See map ofstate tax rates on page 45.) Sales Strategies Impact Gas Prices Fuel retailers face the same question that all retailers face: sell at a low profit per unit and make up for it on volume, or sell at a higher profit per unit and expect less volume? But there also are several considerations in setting fuel prices that retailers of other products don't face. Wholesale puce changes — Competing retailers in a given area may have very different wholesale prices based on when they purchased their fuel, especial- ly during times of extreme: price volatility. Gasoline is a commodity, and its wholesale price can have wild swings. It's not unusual to see wholesale price swings of io cents or more in a given day. Depending on sales volumes and storage capacity, retailers get as many as three deliveries a day or as few as one delivery every three days or so. Due to competition for consumers, retailers may notbe able to adjust their prices in response to an increase in wholesale prices because their competition may not have incurred a similar increase in their cost of goods sold. Conversely, a retailer may adjust his prices when the competition adjusts prices, either following or in advance ofa shipment. 3 d d ,L^ V ti 0 LO N O 0 0 0 0 N J a 0 M m M m Y V a 0 W d a _ 0 cc Q a Q M d E s 0 Q 2015 NAGS Retail Fuels Repo1 a Packet Pg. 865 9.A.2.e Contracts — How retailers buy fuel can play a significant role in pricing strategy. Retailers sign long-term contracts (to years is the norm) and these contracts may dictate the amount and frequency of their shipments. When supplies are tight, retailers with long-term contracts may have low- er wholesale costs than retailers who compete for a limited supply on the open market, but they may also face allocations (a limit on the amount of fuel that they may obtain) on the amount of fuel they receive. a • $rand — Who retailers buy fuel from also affects pricing strategies. Brand- C9 ed retailers often pay a premium for fuel in exchange for marketing sup- port, imaging and other benefits. Branded retailers typically have the least 2 E choice in how they obtain fuel, or at what price, but that is offset by the many benefits that a brand provides. Each of these factors adds complexity to a retailer's pricing strategy, and they 3 can create unusual market dynamics. There are times when the retailer with e the highest posted price in a given area actually may be making the least per L gallon, based on when, how and where the fuel was purchased. (9 No matter what their pricing strategy, retailers tend to reduce their markup to remain competitive with nearby stores when their wholesale gas prices increase. This can lead to a several -day lag from the time wholesale prices rise until retail prices rise. Likewise, when wholesale gas prices decrease, retailers may be able to extend their markup and recover lost profits, with retail gas prices dropping slower than wholesale prices. Despite extreme volatility, retail margins for fuel are fairly consistent on an annual basis. Over the past five years, the annual average retail mark-up (the difference between retail price and wholesale cost) has averaged t8.9 cents per gallon. Ultimately, retailers set a price that best balances their need to cover their casts with the need to remain competitive and attract consumers, who are very price sensitive and will shop somewhere else for a difference of a few cents per gallon. WHOLESALE AND RETAIL GASOLINE PRICES TRACK OIL PRICES (2014) wTl oil 0 Brent oil M Wholesale Gas 0 Retail Gas S12a $100 2 6 m m Sa0 Nn G C C In S60 p 1 (Sources. OPIS "Retail Fuel Watch",- U.S. Energy Information Administration) S4.00 $3.ba MOO C s2zo O0q C% MOD N Q N $1.5a c O $1.00 C Sabo So 2015 MACS Retail Fuels Report 119 Packet Pg. 8 6 9.A.2.e Retail Profitability Measured Over Time The pattern of retail profitability is the opposite of what most consumers think. Due to the volatility in the wholesale price of gasoline and the compet- itive structure of the market, fuel retailers typically see profitability decrease as prices rise, and increase when prices fall. On average, it costs a retailer about iz to 16 cents to sell a gallon of gasoline. Using the five-year average markup of 18.9 cents, the typical retailer averages about 3 to S cents per gallon in profit. (Retailer costs to sell fuel include credit card fees, utilities, rent and amortization of equipment.) Over the course of a year, retail profits (or even losses) on fuels can vary wildly. In some cases, a few great weeks can make up for an otherwise dreadful year — or vice versa. RETAIL FUEL MARGINS EXPERIENCE WILD VARIATIONS OVER TIME (2014) Wholesale ■ Retail 0 Gross Margin 0 Breakeven $4,00 83.50 as ca R 51.50 "P""s�'eP (Sources; U.S. Energy Information Administration, OPIS) ❑.as 0.90 0.35 c O a 0.30 U' 025 c G1 t� c 020 I 0.16 r 0.1 ❑ 0.05 With its extreme volatility, fuels retailing is not for the faint of heart— or for those with limited access to capital. Perhaps that is why that since 1994, while overall fuels demand in the United States has increased, the total number of fueling locations (all convenience stores selling fuel, plus gas -only stations, grocery stores selling fuel, marinas, etc.) has decreased from more than zoo,000 to a little mare than iSo,000 sites. 2015 MACS Retail Fuels Report 2 Packet Pg. 867 9.A.2.e Why Prices Historically Go Up in the Spring By springtime, gas prices begin to increase and generally peak around Memorial Day. Most consumers assume that prices peak at this point because of the advent of the summer -drive season. But is that the case? To a certain extent, seasonal demand is a factor. But there are other events that, with demand, collectively have a greater effect on prices each spring, leading to price peaks right before Memorial Day. In six of the past is years (4o% ofthe time), the seasonal peak took place between May 9 and May 24. Crude oil prices drive gas prices, but how the crude oil is processed also plays a significant role in price increases. The petroleum industry's switchover to summer -blend fuels, a process that begins each February and ends June I, creates challenges that also affect retail fuels prices. Since final implemen- tation of the Clean Air Act Amendments in z000, the seasonal transition to summer -blend fuel has helped gasoline prices climb significantly before they reached their peak. Comparing prices the first week in February to their seasonal peak, increases have ranged from a low of zo cents per gallon in 2oo3 to a high of $1.13 per gallon in 2008; on average, the average annual increase is 5z cents per gallon. 2014 Feb.3 $3.279 April28 $3.713 43.40 13.2 2013 Feb.4 $3.538 Feb.25 $3.784 24.60 7.0 2012 Feb.6 $3.482 April $3.941 45.90 13.2 2011 Feb. 7 $3.132 May 9 $3.965 83.30 26.6 2010 Feb. 1 $2.661 7 May 1❑ $2.905 24,40 9.2 2009 Feh. 2 $1.892 June 22 $2.691 79.90 42.2 2008 Feb, 4 $2.978 July 21 $4.104 $1.126 37.8 2007 Feb. 5 $2.191 May 21 $3,218 $1.027 46.9 2006 Feb. 6 $2.342 May 15 $2.947 60.5c 25.8 2005 Feb. 7 $1.909 April 11 $2.280 37.1 C 19.4 2004 Feb. 2 $1.616 May 24 $2.064 44,80 27.7 2003 Feb, 3 $1.527 March 17 $1.728 20.1 C 13.2 2002 Feb.4 $1.116 April $1.413 29.70 26.6 2001 Feb. 5 $1.443 May 14 $1.713 27.00 18.7 2000 Feb, 7 $1.325 June 19 $1.681 35.6t 26.9 (Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration) 2015 NACS Retail Fuels Repor Packet Pg. 868 9.A.2.e Refinery Maintenance During the First Quarter Refineries convert crude oil into a variety of products, including gasoline, diesel fuel (known as "distillates") and jet fuels, among other products. The United States has greater demand for gasoline (as opposed to diesel fuel). Therefore, U.S. refineries are optimized to produce gasoline, and their main- tenance schedules are based on gasoline demand. Demand for gasoline in the United States is generally the lowest during the first two months of the year, so refinery maintenance, known as a "turna- round," is often scheduled during the first quarter. Another reason for sched- uling turnarounds during this period is that it is the time between peak heat- ing oil season and peak summer drive season, allowing refineries to retool for summer -blend fuels. A turnaround is a planned, periodic shut down (total or partial) of a refinery process unit or plant to perform maintenance, overhaul and repair operations and to inspect, test and replace materials and equipment. On average, refin- eries experience turnarounds about every four years, meaning that about one quarter of the country's refineries experience a turnaround in a given year. These turnarounds are scheduled at least one to two years in advance, and can be from one to four weeks in duration. Because of the long lead time required to plan turnarounds, they are costly to reschedule and usually proceed as planned, even if refining capacity is sud- denly tight because of unplanned refinery shutdowns elsewhere. Add to this mix the reduction in the number of refineries throughout the country— there are currently 142 operable refineries in the United States, about half the total from 198o — and any unanticipated refinery shutdowns can have a ripple effect on supply. Further, like any maintenance, some turnarounds may not go as planned and take longer than originally anticipated, further stressing the system. To minimize the impact of turnarounds on overall supply, they are staggered through a roughly three-month window. Refineries Switch to Summer -blend Production in April The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines April to June as the "transition season" for fuel production. Refineries lead this transition and switch over to summer -blend production in March and April. The blends of gasoline used in the summer months are different than the blends used in the winter. In the winter, fuels have a higher Reid vapor pres- sure, meaning they evaporate more easily and allow cars to start in colder weather. In the warm summer months, these evaporative attributes would lead to increased emissions and the formation of smog. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 199o, which had final implementation in zo oo, requires that different fuels be used in many metropolitan areas, affecting more than 30 percent of the gas purchased in the country. Refor- mulated gas (RFG) is required in cities with high smog levels and is optional elsewhere. It is currently used in 18 states and the District of Columbia. (EPA publishes a listing at www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/gasolinefuels/rfg/areas.htm of where RFG is used.) Q IL E 3 d L ti 0 LO N 0 0 0 0 0 N J IL 0 M t0 M m Y a 0 d IL _ 0 Q Q M d s 0 2 Q 2015 NACS Retoil Fuels Report 122 Packet Pg. 869 9.A.2.e There are also more fuels to produce during the transition season. In the winter months, only a few fuels are used across the United States. However, be- cause of various state or regional requirements,14 different fuel specifications are required for the summer months. Refineries must produce enough for each area to ensure that there are no supply shortages. (See map on page 46.) Summer -blend fuel is more expensive to make than winter -blend fuel for two reasons. First, the production process takes longer and is costlier. Second, the overall yield of gasoline per barrel of oil is lower. These complexities add several cents per gallon to the cost to produce these higher -grade fuels. In addition to added costs to produce the fuel, prices are also affected by in- creased demand, maintenance costs and capacity decreases. Retail Deadlines Go Through June The end point in a series of handoffs to prepare for summer -blend fuel is the date that retailers must sell the fuel. In most areas of the country that require summer -blend fuels, retailers have until June i to switch to summer -grade gas. Some retailers must sell summer -blend fuels much earlier. California, which has one -eighth of the country's population, has among the most stringent re- quirements, both in terms of the complexity of the fuel and the date at which summer -blend fuel must be sold. In Northern California, retailers must sell summer -blend fuel a month earlier than the rest of the country: May i. In Southern California, the deadline is two months earlier: April i. One of the reasons why California has a longer summer -blend period than other states is because of its longer period of high temperatures — particularly in the desert areas, which are located in the air district with the worst quality of air. There are other key deadlines that additionally put stress on the system. Na- tionwide, refiners must produce summer -blend fuel no later than April i. (Ob- viously, deadlines are earlier for California's fuels.) From refineries, fuels travel through pipelines at about 4 miles per hour, or ioo miles per day. Fuels refined in the Gulf Coast can take several weeks to reach storage terminals throughout the country. This is why the deadline to have summer -blend fuel at terminals and storage facilities is May i — a month after the transition at the refineries. The May 1 deadline for terminals is considered one of the biggest factors in the seasonal price increases. Terminals have to fully purge their systems of winter -blend fuels and be near empty to make the transition and be in com- pliance. Those out of compliance face stiff penalties, so most terminal oper- ators would rather be out of inventory than out of compliance. This regula- tory requirement leads to lower inventories at the terminal. Combined with increased demand, this puts upward pressure on prices. Demand Increases, Beginning in February Demand is often cited as the main reason for spring price increases. In 2014, U.S. demand for petroleum products averaged 19a million barrels per day, of which 8.9 million were gasoline. But world demand for oil is around 91 million barrels per day, more than four times the total of U.S. demand and io Q IL 20 E 3 ,L^ V ti 0 0 N O O O 0 0 N J IL 0 M m M m Y V a d IL _ 0 Q a Q M d E s 0 Q 2015 NACS Retail Fuels Report Packet Pg. 870 9.A.2.e times U.S, demand for gasoline alone. While U.S. demand for gasoline had declined from its peak in 2007, world demand for oil has increased, which elevates oil prices and subsequently drives gas prices. Still, U.S, gasoline demand is a factor in the annual spring increase. Demand increases every year beginning in February, and typically peaks in August. The common misperception is that there is a huge increase in demand for the Memorial Day weekend with the official beginning of the summer -drive sea- son. There is an increase in demand, but it is only a few percentage points per month. However, a i% increase in U.S. gasoline demand does mean that an extra 9o,000 barrels per day must be produced, which is the equivalent of the output of a small refinery. During the seven -month period when demand in- creases, the problem is compounded, Demand in August 20i4 was 849,000 barrels per day (io.3%) greater than demand in January 2.014. That demand increase creates enormous pressure on the system and makes it extremely vulnerable to supply disruptions. January 8.278 -- -6.6% ------+0,696 — - - February 8.325 March 8.794 +5.6% April 8.683 -1.39� May 9.100 +4.8% June 8.966 -1.5% July 8.948 -0.2% August 9.127 +2.0% September 8.890 -4.8% October 8.911 +2.5% November 9.220 +3.5% December 1 9.263 +0.5% {Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Weekly Average U.S. Product Supplied of FinishedMotor Gasoline") Gasoline demand in 2013 1 o-a 9-8 9.6 8.2 5,0 January February March Apr11 Mav June h1y August Seplember October NowmbvDeoember 2015 NAGS Retail Fuels Report Packet Pg. 871 9.A.2.e A Slight Bump in the Fall As demand decreases and temperatures cool, retailers can switch over to selling winter -blend fuel, beginning September 1S. While these winter -blend fuels are cheaper to produce, the complications of the switchover often lead to a temporary bump in price, usually a few cents per gallon. The weather may also affect gas prices in the fall. Hurricanes, especially those that damage Gulf Coast refining operations, place significant pressure on sup- plies and affect prices across the country. Unlike in the spring, the change to winter -blend fuel is not required. Howev- er, because winter -blend fuel costs less, retailers often sell the cheaper fuel so they can be as price competitive as possible. Not all retailers begin selling this fuel on September 1S; most wait to make the switch until their inventories are low. A retailer's volume will dictate how often a station receives deliveries, with some stores having multiple deliveries per day and others needing just one or two deliveries per week. By the end of September, gas prices generally decrease as the complications from this switchover are processed and demand continues to fall. Despite what conspiracy theorists believe, price decreases in the fall have everything to do with a decrease in demand and shift in fuel specifications and nothing to do with pre -election politics. Also, California's summer -blend fuels season is longer than the rest of the country. Both Northern and Southern California's summer -blend require- ments run through the end of October. This exacerbated the problems with supply in California in early October 2o12, when fires at two important re- fineries limited state -specific production and caused wholesale and retail gas prices to spike to record levels. Exceptions to the Rule Summer -blend fuel requirements may be relaxed in times of emergencies or when potential shortages are possible. That was the case in 2ooS as Hurri- cane Katrina made landfall in Louisiana at the end of August and significantly affected Gulf Coast refining operations. Several states successfully petitioned for waivers to temporarily exempt retailers from RFG and other fuel require- ments through September 1S. Only the U.S. Environmental Protection Agen- cy has the authority to issue these waivers. Q IL 20 E 3 d ,L^ V ti 0 LO N O 0 0 0 0 N J IL 0 M m M m Y V a 0 CD _ 0 cc Q a Q M d E s Q 2015 NACS Retail Fuels Repor125 Packet Pg. 872 9.A.2.e no f a C9 T M E co c aD a� ,L^ V ti O ui N O O O co O N J a 0 M O M .......... ail P, I All ex, T� It. 0 0 N 00 w-j R IF VAM. J. $AT I Ol a 4t WL 4la— N 9.A.2.e Q a C9 E �a Who Sells America's Fuel? Americans fuel up their cars about four to five times every month at more than 150,000 fueling stations across the United States. But who owns these fueling locations? It's highly unlikely that it's an oil company and very likely its a one -store local business. 2015 NAGS Retell Fuels Report 1 28 Packet Pg. 8 57 9.A.2.e Small Businesses Fuel America There are 127,599 convenience stores selling fuel in the United States, and these retailers sell an estimated go% of all the fuel purchased in the country. Overall, 58% of the convenience stores selling fuel are single -store operators — more than 70,000 stores. Many of these small businesses may not have the resources to brand their stores separately from the brand of fuel they sell and a promote on their canopies, often leading to consumer misperceptions that they are businesses awned and operated by a major oil company. C9 OWNERSHIP OF CONVENIENCE STORES SELLING FUEL E 5% ■ 1 Store ■ 2-10 Stares 11-50 Stores 51-200 Stores 201-500 Stores N 500 + Stores (Source: NACS/Nielsen 2015 Convenience Industry Stare Count) Big Oil Continues to Exit Retail Large, integrated oil companies, especially since z007, have exited the retail business to focus more on resource production and refining operations. Exx- onMobil, Shell, BP and ConocoPhillips have eitherbegun or completed the process of selling off all of their directly operated facilities. Of the iz7,588 con- venience stores selling fuels, less than 0.4% (443 stores) of them are owned by one of the five major oil companies as of June z014. MAJOR OIL -OPERATED RETAIL ODILt15: Chevron 423 Shell 20 ExxonMohil 0 BP 0 ConocoPhillips 0 (Source: Nielsen, June 2014) 2015 NACS Retail Fuels Report 129 Packet Pg. 876 9.A.2.e Major Oil Keeps Its Brand Presence While the major oil companies are withdrawing from retail operations, their brands remain. In fact, roughly half of retail outlets sell fuel under the brand of one of the 15 largest refiner -suppliers. Virtually all of these branded loca- tions are operated by independent entrepreneurs who have signed a supply contract with a particular refiner/distributor to sell a specific brand of fuel, Q but these retailers do not share in the profit/loss of their suppliers. The remaining 5o% sold "unbranded" fuel. These stations often are owned by � companies that have established their own fuel brand (i.e., QuikTrip, Wawa, 20 7-Eleven) and purchase fuels either on the open market or via unbranded con- E tracts with a refiner/distributor. I— Other Retail Channels Sell Fuels Convenience stores sell more than 8o% of the fuels purchased in the United States, and their dominance continues to grow. over the past decade, the number of convenience stores selling fuels has grown by 15% (from 110,895 to 127,588 stores). Meanwhile, the overall number of fueling locations has dropped. There were 152,995 total retail fueling sites in the United States in 2o13, the last year measured by the now -defunct National Petroleum. News' Market - Facts. This was a steep and steady decline since 1994, when the station count topped 2o2,800 sites. Another channel also has seen growth over the past decade: big -box grocery stores and mass merchandising stores, otherwise known as "hypermarkets." As of May 7014, the 5,z35 hypermarket retail fueling sites sold an estimated 13.8% of the motor fuels (gasoline) purchased in the United States, according to Energy Analysts International. These sites sell approximately 278,000 gal- lons per month, more than twice the volume of a traditional fuels retailer. The top five hypermarkets selling fuel, by store count: • Kroger (i,22o) • Walmart (999 stations, mainly Murphy USA with small mix of others; up to zoo new Murphy USA sites are due by end of 2or5 per agreement) • Sam's Club (5os) • Costco (381) • Safeway (346) (Source: Energy Analysts hiternatiatial) The remainder offuels sales in the United States comes from traditional ser- vice stations without convenience operations and very low -volume fueling sites, such as at marinas. 2015 NAGS Retoil Fuels Report 130 Packet Pg. 877 9.A.2.e How Branded Stations Operate Major oil companies have essentially exited the retail fuels business, but it often looks like they dominate the a retail landscape. About half of the fueling stations in the United States sell a brand of fuel from one of the iS major E refiners/suppliers, which often makes the signage touting a particular fuel brand seem like an oil company owns the 3 C store. But instead the contractual relationship for fuels is much like that inside the store, where beverage companies often help provide branded fountain dispensers that dispense a branded soft drink. Both the oil company and the beverage company help the retailer sell product, but that doesn't mean they own the store. 2015 NAGS Retoil Fuels Report 131 Packet Pg. 8 8771 9.A.2.e Retailer Benefits For retailers, being branded means consumer recognition. More than half of all convenience stores selling fuels (58%) are single -store operations, so having a branded contract with a major refiner/supplier instantly provides a retailer with a familiar brand for their top product: motor fuels. A branded fuel can also determine where some customers choose to shop. While price is still the number -one determinant for gas purchases, about one in 12 motorists consider fuel brand as the top reason for their purchasing decision. A branded contract also guarantees fuel supply, especially when supplies are tight. Supply guarantees can also smooth out extreme price volatility seen in the wholesale gas markets. There also are non -fuel benefits to branding. Operators can take advantage of the oil company's knowledge in retail best practices for attracting customers and employee training tools. Retailers can also receive financial support such as an imaging allowance (loan) to improve the look of the store. Major Oil Company Benefits Major oil companies shed their retail portfolios to better utilize their assets in upstream production — that is, oil refining and/or oil production. Instead of tying up resources on real estate and making a few cents a gallon selling fuel, they can funnel their resources into large-scale, long-term pro- jects. But there is obvious value to having your company name displayed in front of millions of consumers every day. And this is why the major oil com- panies continue to brand stations that they don't own or operate. A second reason is that branded relationships give oil companies a guaranteed customer for their product, and at predictable volumes. The same holds true for other refiners or supply companies. Contractual Terms What are the typical terms of these branded contacts? While every contract differs, here is a broad overview: • Length — A typical contract is for io years, although contracts maybe as long as 20 years or as short as 3 years for renewed contracts. Volume requirements —Contracts typically set forth a certain amount of fuel each month that retailers must sell. Usually retailers can sell more than the agreed -to amount, but when supply disruptions exist, they may be put on allocation and only given a percentage of what they historically receive in a given time period. This enables the supplier to more efficiently manage fuel distribution to all branded outlets in an equitable fashion. Image requirements — A branded retailer receives marketing muscle from its oil company partner, which may include broad advertising to encour- age in-store sales. Also, the oil company may provide financial incentives to display its brands. This also depends on who operates the station and 3 d L ti 0 LO N 0 0 0 00 0 N J a 0 M m M m Y V a W d a _ 0 W cc Q a Q M d E s 0 cc Q 2015 NACS Retail Fuels Report 132 Packet Pg. 879 9.A.2.e whether the store owner has access to capital. In exchange, the oil compa- ny expects the store to adhere to certain imaging requirements, including specific colors, logos and signage, standards of cleanliness and service. The oil company often relies on mystery -shopping programs to assess compli- ance. Wholesale price requirements — A branded retailer must purchase fuel from a branded supplier or distributor. Branded contracts benchmark the wholesale price to common fuels indexes, such as Platt's, plus a premium of a few cents for brand/marketing support. Some branded contracts also stipulate the retail markup on the fuel through a "consignment agree- ment," whereby the supplier or distributor retains ownership of the fuel until it is sold and pays the retailer a commission. Types of Branded Retailers There are different ownership structures within the branded station universe: Regional company or chain operated — A chain of convenience stores with a common name that operates the branded locations. In many cases, a chain may sell different brands at different stores, based on the needs of the marketplace and terms of contracts that may have been carried for- ward from stores that were acquired from other operators. Many opera- tions of this kind serve as distributors to themselves and maintain supply agreements with the branded oil companies. Lessee dealers —The dealer/retailer owns the business. A major or region- al oil company or a distributor owns the land and building and leases it to a dealer. The dealer operates the location and pays rent to the owner, as opposed to an open dealer who owns the property. This arrangement gives the oil company or distributor a guaranteed supply outlet for its petroleum products, pursuant to a supply contract. A typical lessee dealer may operate more than one facility and does not wholesale gasoline or sell to other dealers. • Open dealer operated — The independent dealer purchases fuel from the oil company or a distributor, supplies fuel to the station — and possibly others — owns the business and owns or leases the building/facility independent from any supply agreement. The dealer may contract with a manager to run the business or run it himself. Company operated — A "salary operation" where a major or regional oil company or a distributor owns the building/facility and the business. The company pays a salary to the managers/proprietors and supplies fuel to the location. This is also known as company -operated and direct operated retail Q a 20 E 3 ,L^ V ti 0 LO N O 0 0 0 0 N J a 0 M t0 M m Y V a d a _ 0 cc Q a Q M d E s 0 cc Q 2015 NAGS Retail Fuels Repor133 Packet Pg. 880 9.A.2.e Credit and Debit Cards at the Pump The use of plastic at the pump is incredibly convenient. But that convenience comes at a cost. a c� In 2003, Americans for the first time made more payments by credit or debit card at stores than they did with cash or E checks, according to the American Bankers Association. Over the past decade, the trend has accelerated, especially 3 at the gas pump. Today, 78 % of consumers fueling up 0 ti pay by plastic, according to results from the 'zo15 MACS N Consumer Fuels Survey. An estimated 40 million Americans fill up every day and 30 million of them pay at the pump. However, the system is not without its problems. Cred- it card and debit card rates are set in a duopoly, where the two largest card issuing companies (Visa and MasterCard) set rates and write rules for retailers that they can either follow or refuse to accept cards, which is not much of an option in today's competitive marketplace. The rules that retailers must adhere to also are incredibly complex, running hundreds of pages long. Rates also vary based on the store and even the customer. The card fees that retailers pay are based on the type of card used (rewards cards cost retailers more to accept), the type of business (larger retailers may get better rates based on volume discounts) and how the card is used (fueling islands tend to have higher rates because it they are considered unattended terminals). 2015 NAGS Retail Fuels Report 134 Packet Pg. 881 9.A.2.e Ultimately, the convenience of paying at the pump comes at a cost — both in terms of higher gas prices and a slew of security -related challenges. This back - grounder examines these challenges with a look ahead at a system that began taking shape nearly a century ago. Cards and Fueling: A Long History Together The use of cards at the pump is almost as old as the service station. In 1924, only ii years after the first purpose-built gas station opened, gas credit cards were issued. These cards followed the simple dog -tag style metal plates issued by department stores prior to World War I. While this nascent payment system was still devel- oping, the onset of the Great Depression and World War II quashed the concept of credit cards for several decades. Post War optimism rekindled the idea of charge cards. American Express con- sidered the concept in 1946. Then in i9 So, the modern credit card system was introduced by Frank McNamara and Ralph Schneider with their Diners Club Card. In 19S8, Bank of America introduced BankAmericard (which later became Visa); American Express also began issuing cards in 19S8. (Master Charge, which became MasterCard, was first issued in 1966.) While credit card payments could be made with in some retail establishments, you couldn't easily charge for your gas. In 1964, the concept of remote fueling set the stage for its introduction. The simple innovation ofbeing able to pump your own gas, without a service attendant, and then pay, was revolutionary. It allowed consumers to save a few cents a gallon because of reduced labor costs, but they still had to go inside to pay, whether by cash or by credit card. Some retailers in the early 198os experimented with pre -paid gas cards and in- stalled card readers — similar to the technology used in rapid mass transit— into the pumps to read the cards. Next, were credit card readers at the pump, which were introduced in the Unit- ed States in 1986. (They were introduced in Europe in 1982.) E-Z Serve and its subsidiary AutoGas in Abilene, Texas, installed dispensers featuring a built-in credit/pre-paid card reader system. However, not everyone in the industry embraced pay -at -the -pump. Many retailers were concerned that this convenience would reduce in-store sales because customers would buy their gas and then leave without any other pur- chases. Yes, many customers do buy gas and leave without going inside the store to buy other items. But it enhanced the shopping experience for every- one. Gas -only customers were able to quickly leave. And in-store customers had a better experience because they didn't have to stand in line behind some- one who needed to pay for gas. Still, adoption was slow. Only 13% of convenience stores had pay -at -pump technology by 1994, but 80% of convenience stores were using the technology by zooz, and virtually all stores do today. The payments landscape also continues to evolve beyond cards. Some retailers, notably Tennessee -based MAPCO, allow consumers to pay for their gas via a mobile app and New England retailer Cumberland Farms was among the first 3 d L ti 0 LO N O 0 0 0 0 N J a 0 M m M m Y V a 0 d a _ 0 cc Q a Q M d E s Q 2015 NACS Retail Fuels Report 135 Packet Pg. 882 9.A.2.e to embrace Apple Pay as a payment option. But while the method of payment is evolving, the cost associated with delivering convenient payment options remains a problem. The Hidden Cost of Cards With more than three-quarters of consumers at the pump paying by plastic, IL most retailers have no choice but to accept credit and debit cards. However credit and debit card transactions result in retailers paying swipe fees (also known as E "interchange fees.") These fees typically average between 21. and 3% of the total •2 E purchase, but can be as high as 4%. Because retailers already have razor -thin margins on fuel (the average gross margin on fuel has averaged only 5.7% before expenses over the past 5 years), these costs are passed along to the consumer in terms of higher gas prices. 3 Gross margins aren't to be confused with profit margins. After factoring in expenses, most retailers make, at best, a few cents per gallon in pretax profit, and may even lose money on some sales when margins are tight and credit card expenses are high. In every year since 20o6, overall convenience store profits were lower than the fees that they paid credit card companies and banks for processing transactions. In 7013 the industry reported profits of $7.1 billion and credit card fees of $it.z billion. THE COSTS OF PAYMENTS based on a 1 o-gallon fill -up when gas is $3.00/gallon CASH: No cost. DEBIT: 2.4 cents pet gallon. Debit fees are 21 cents per transaction*, plus other costs, with a maximum charge of 24 cents for the transaction. (*This is only true for the 60% of debit cards that are regulated. The other 40% of debit cards carry fees that are closer to those for credit cards: around 2%.) CREDIT: 6 cents per gallon. Credit card swipe fees include both fixed and variable costs. Taken together on a typical fueling, they average 2%, or 6 cents per gallon. Retailers Fight to Change the Broken System For more than a decade, retailers have fought to change the broken credit card system that costs consumers too much money at the pump and everywhere else they use plastic. Their argument is that credit card fees are essentially a "tax" that they collect for the credit card companies. When consumers are taxed, they have less money to spend, and that hurts retail sales. 2015 NACS Retali Fuels Report 136 Packet Pg. 883 9.A.2.e NACS and other groups pushed for debit fee reform and it was signed into law on July 21, 2oio, as part of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Pro- tection Act. That law directed the Federal Reserve to ensure debit swipe fees were "reasonable and proportional" to the costs incurred by the banks in handling an individual transaction, among other things. Originally, the Federal Reserve proposed rates Of to 12 cents per transaction for debit cards, still significantly higher than the 4 cents per transaction that banks reported that debit processing costs. However, the final rules were markedly higher: 21 cents plus r cent for fraud prevention and o.o5°j of the transaction to cover fraud losses, capped at 24 cents. NACS and others filed suit challenging the Fed's rules, but on January 2o, 2oiS, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal. NACS also filed private antitrust litigation against the major credit card com- panies and banks in 2ooS. Counsel for the class of retailers in that case reached a proposed $7.2 billion settlement that did not address problems with the bro- ken payments system and was rejected by a majority of the plaintiffs. NACS led the opposition to the proposed settlement, but despite the objections of NACS and thousands of other merchants, the judge accepted the proposed settlement. The appeal process is ongoing. Retailers Offer Consumers Savings to Reduce Costs The rise in credit card expenses has led to an increasing number of retailers to seek alternatives, especially cash discounts. Amounts for the discount vary, but most retailers offer approximately 5 cents offper gallon to customers paying by cash. Some retailers offer significantly higher discounts for cash, particularly if the gas purchase is tied to another purchase, such as a car wash. It's important to note that there is a difference between cash discounts and surcharges for paying by plastic. Until recently, surcharges were forbidden by the contracts developed by the credit card companies. As part of the proposed $7.2 billion antitrust settlement (see "Retailers Fight to Change the Broken System"), the card companies added a provision to allow surcharging. However, there are significant limitations and it is inherently consumer unfriendly. NACS is not aware of any retailer who has instituted surcharges. Requirements for how retailers offer cash discounts are set by the state depart- ment of Weights and Measures. Typically, retailers must most prominently post the higher (credit) price. Some retailers also have dispenser "pumptoppers" and advertising billboards that rotate between the cash and credit price. What about discounts for debit cards, which carry lower costs at the pump? Some retailers have adopted the practice as well. Nice N Easy Grocery Shoppes, a chain based in Canastota, New York, offers debit card users the same discount as it gives cash customers, even though there are costs associated with debit. Q 20 E ns 3 d ,L^ V ti 0 LO N O 0 0 0 0 N J IL 0 M m M m Y V a d a _ 0 cc Q a Q M d E s 0 2 Q a 2015 NACS Retail Fuels Repo Packet Pg. 8 47 9.A.2.e Clarifying the Confusion Over 'Holds' As the use of plastic at the pump has increased, so have concerns over debit or credit "holds." While online banking statements look like the hold has been placed by the retailer, the retailer is only responsible for setting the amount of the hold — a a decision highly influenced by credit card rules that could later deny payments for some transactions. Both Visa and MasterCard require that retailers place holds, or "pre-authori- f° zations," on debit and credit card gas purchases. Most consumers don't notice holds on their credit cards because they have sufficient credit lines that they don't exceed, even with holds. Holds are standard practice for any business that accepts plastic as a form of pay- ment in a situation where the final dollar amount to be assessed is unknown in advance. Holds placed on gas purchases are similar to the pre -authorizations that hotels do with a credit card when you check in or at car rental counters. Most car rental agencies and hotels don't allow customers to use debit cards because the hold would be too large. However, debit cards are permitted at the pump and it can cause problems — especially for those who carry low balances in their checking accounts. An unexpected debit hold can begin a cascade of overdraft fees or even cause a customer to be locked out of making vital purchases that they intended to make with their "held" money. One more point of clarification. There are actually two charges that hit a custom- er's account when they purchase gas. One is an "authorization" charge, typically for $t. This charge isn't permanent and is later removed. Its purpose is to make CONSUMERS HAVE A CHOICE Consumers can make sure the hold is released immediately by using their PIN, since PIN debit transactions should be registered immediately. An increasing num- ber of stations — an estimated 60%-- also have PIN pads at the pump. Consumers should ask their bank about its policy regarding the length of debit holds. If the hold lasts longer than a few minutes for PIN -based transactions, or longer than three days for signature -based debit transactions, consumers should discuss the matter with their bank to learn why the holds are lasting so long. Most banks print their phone numbers on the backs of their cords. When posed with the option of credit or debit, consumers should always choose the PIN debit option because that transaction will be Immediate, whereas credit or signature -based debit transactions can take days. Plus, PIN -based debit Is much more secure. Check online bank statements regularly and call the bank it something looks out of the ordinary on a statement. 2015 NACs Retail RAS Rep Packet Pg. 885 9.A.2.e sure that the card being used is "live" —that is, that it is a valid card. The second charge is the debit hold. Debit card holds are required by card network rules and the bank issuing the debit/credit card is responsible for the length of the hold. The amount of a hold varies from retailer to retailer, who set the limit based a on a variety of factors. Most commonly, holds are between $75 and $izS and are designed to cover the maximum cost of a fill -up. Retailers with higher hold amounts may have more traffic from vehicles with larger gas tanks, E such as trucks. E It's not the retailer who is responsible for continuing the hold, since credit/debit ~ card network rules make it impossible for the retailer to extend the hold. Also, retailers have nothing to gain from holding onto their customers' money —it 3 freezes accounts that could be used to spend money in the store. Ultimately, it is d the banks that can reap added benefits from holds, such as assessing overdraft fees CD that happen as a result of unanticipated holds. ti The amount of the hold and the time of a hold may vary, but the length of a 0 c hold is significantly affected by how the card is used. PIN -debit transactions are c real-time transactions (that is, they are processed at roughly the speed of digital 00 transmissions) and holds should be released immediately. However, so-called N signature -based debit transactions --- those where customers do not use a PIN — are processed like a credit card transaction and have longer hold times that could a take several days to clear. M Signature -based debit transactions holds, like the holds on credit cards that to M can affect a customer's spending limit, can remain, for 48 to 72 hours, since m the processing times are slower. Generally, they should last a shorter period of time because retailers conduct "batch" transactions at least daily; any time a that the hold lasts beyond that time for signature -based debit is due to bank c settlement processes. For PIN -based debit transactions, which are real-time, online transactions, W d a the hold should last only minutes. When a customer swipes their card and c the pump says "authorizing," that is when the hold is being charged to their W account. After the fill -up is complete, the issuing bank is automatically noti- 2 fied, and the hold amount should immediately change to the amount that the a customer actually purchased. Q 2015 NAGS Retail Fuels Rem " Packet Pg. 886 9.A.2.e Payment Card Authorization Limits Also Confuse Consumers Authorization limits imposed by some banks can force retailers to cut off gasoline sales at a pre-set amount, related to the hold amount for payments by plastic. Set the limit too high operators risk ire over high holds; set the limit too low and they risk irritating drivers of large -tank vehicles such as S Ws that are unavailable to completely fill up. This situation forces retailers to select one of two bad options. One choice is to adhere to this authorization limit and hope that affected consumers don't take out their frustration on the store by refusing to return. If these frustrated custom- ers do not immediately drive away and instead stay to continue fueling up, they must initiate a second "fill -up" authorization, which further alienates customers and adds more costs for retailers because of the fixed -cost pricing component of swipe fees on the second sale. The other option is to allow customers exceed this authorization limit. Retailers who choose this option risk having part of the charge denied by the bank (known as "Reason Code 96"), even if the card is not fraudulent, and lose getting credited for the amount of the sale above the limit. Still, many retailers have taken on this risk to reduce customer inconvenience. (Consumers are still assessed the full amount if the retailer is denied payment in this situation, but the bank, not the re- tailer, keeps the additional money. With low gasoline margins, a handful of these chargebacks can wipe out the day's gasoline profits.) Protecting Consumers From Fraud Debit and credit cards also create concerns related to data security, and retail- ers take steps to protect their customers. One way is to ask customers at the pump to enter a 5-digit ZIP code associated with their credit card before fue- ling. The concept is that someone who has a stolen card is much less likely to know the ZIP code associated with the card, especially at a store near a highly trafficked road, where people could be coming from a much greater distance than the immediate area. This information is not used for marketing purposes, as it often is in other retail settings where customers are asked for their ZIP code or phone number. It is purely to verify the owner of the card. Thieves often test cards to see if they are still "live" at places where they don't have to engage in a face-to-face transaction, such as the gas pump and risk having the card confiscated. After a successfull test, the thieves may then try it at retail locations. So, by requiring a ZIP, it may limit options for the thief. And it could also reduce gas costs. A 2ori analysis for the California Senate's Judiciary Com- mittee explained that credit card companies provided financial incentives to use ZIP code verification at the pump. The credit card processor may view these transactions as less risky and may opt to offer discounts to stations requiring ZIP verification. If customers do not enter their ZIP code or enter an incorrect one, the pump will not dispense fuel. Unfortunately, this adds a level of inconvenience for law-abid- ing customers. And it can be even more inconvenient for visitors travelling from other countries, especially Canada, which has a 6-digit postal code that is a com- d ,L^ V ti 0 LO N O 0 0 0 O N J a 0 M M m Y V a 0 d a _ 0 cc Q a Q M d E s 0 Q 2015 NACS Retail Fuels Repor Packet Pg. 887 9.A.2.e bination of letters and numbers. But there are some workarounds besides going inside to get the pump authorized. One other option suggested by some experts is for Canadians to enter the numbers in their postal code, plus an additional two zeroes. So, if a Canadian billing address is H2W 1L2, the customer would enter 21200. Protecting Consumers From Data Breeches Fuel dispensers can be attractive targets for thieves looking to steal credit and deb- it card information by "skimming," an aggressive tactic used to illegally obtain consumer card data for fraudulent purposes. The cost of skimming incidents goes beyond the monetary risk or cost at any lo- cation. These types of thefts often are very high profile, and companies that have been the targets of a data breach find that consumers are sometimes more hesitant to stop at their locations, whether or not the retailer was at fault. Just as consum- ers will treat a convenience store as "lucky" for selling a winning lottery ticket, they may also consider a store to be bad luck if it suffers a data breach. Skimming occurs when a third -party card -reading device is installed either outside or inside a fuel dispenser, which then allows a thief to capture cred it and debit card information. Skimming equipment can be difficult to identify, especially when it's hidden inside the dispenser. There are two types of shimmers. External Skimmers: External skimmers can be quickly installed by criminals who don't need to gain access to the inside of a dispenser. The most common technique used is a keypad overlay that matches up with the buttons of the legitimate keypad below it and presses them when operated, but records or transmits the keylog of the PIN entered by wireless. This device, or group of devices installed illicitly on an unattended location (typically ATM or gas dispenser) is colloquially known as a "skimmer." The criminals come back to collect the device, which now contains consumer data. Until the thieves collect the skimmer, data may not have been accessed. Therefore, it is essential that if a skimmer has been identified that it is not im- mediately removed. Retailers typically are told to take the dispenser offiine and notify law enforcement, but to also keep the skimmer in place so that the crimi- nals can be apprehended when they return to collect it. Here are some things that retailers and consumers alike should look for related to external skimmers: Look to see if the keypad is raised to an unusually high level. While thin, the overlays will still be obvious if you look closely. Look to see if the keypad is secure. Many overlays are secured in a way where they may be crooked or not adhered fully. They may feel loose compared to a d d ti 0 LO N O 0 0 0 0 N J a 0 M t0 M CD Y V a 0 d a _ 0 cc Q a Q M d E s Q 2015 NACS Retail Fuels Repor Packet Pg. 888 9.A.2.e proper keypad. Run your finger around the keypad to see if it feels right. Look for telltale visuals. Ifa keypad appears new yet the rest of the dispenser is weather beaten, that could be a signal a slimmer has been recently installed. Internal skimmers: Internal skimmers are attached inside a fuel dispenser. They are more difficult to install and more difficult to notice. Skimmers, formally called "portable magstripe readers," are box -like devices usually z to 3 inches long. The can be purchased for about $400. Criminals can obtain a slimmer and preprogrammed laptop for about $i, 000. To install these skimmers, criminals need access to the dispenser. There are two methods to gain access. One is by using a key used to open the dispenser, but most criminals gain access by plying open the door. To do so, they often leave signs of entry, whether a panel door that appears misaligned after forced entry or telltale signs like scratches and other marks indicating forced entry. To guard against this type of slimmer, retailers regularly inspect their dispensers to detect signs of entry. They may also use tamper -evident labels on door entries, which help identify potential security breaches if skimming devices are inserted at fuel dispensers. If the label is lifted to open a dispenser door and insert a skim- ming device, a "void" message appears on the label, providing a visual alert to store employees so that additional action can be taken. Because the labels clearly indicate that they prevent tampering, the labels also assure customers that their data is secure, and discourage criminals targeting the store. If a customer believes that a dispenser may have been comprised, the first course ofaction is to treat the area as a crime scene. For one, don't touch anything in case a criminal was dumb enough to leave fingerprints. Report what has been found to the retailer so that they can immediately take the affected dispenser offiine and contact law enforcement. 3 d ,L^ V ti 0 0 N O O 0 0 0 N J a 0 M m M m Y V a d a _ 0 W cc Q a Q M _ d E M 0 r Q 2015 NAGS Retail Fuels Repor Packet Pg. i89 9.A.2.e More Changes Coming in 2015 With data security a growing concern, there are continuing actions to address data security. Many larger retailers were subject to new Payment Card Industry (PCI) Data Security Standards beginning January 1, 2o15. These "levels" retailers are the first wave of retailers that must implement new controls. Retailers that process fewer transactions will be phased in to also conform over a multi -year period. Later in 2oi5, card issuers will be required to replace traditional credit and deb- it cards that have magnetic stripes on the back with new cards featuring EMV technology. EMV (an acronym for Europay, MasterCard and Visa) requires that embedded chips be used in cards, a practice common in the rest of the world. The chips in these cards, when used in conjunction with PINs (known as "Chip & PIN"), have reduced fraud in other countries. However, the credit card companies and banks in the United States intend to issue cards without PINS, which will likely undercut the security benefits of the new cards. Retailers will face added costs in upgraded their terminals and software to accept EMV. And retailers who don't upgrade by October 15, 2015, may be liable for the cost of fraudulent purchases. Roughly one-third of all retailers today have upgraded by the beginning of 2o15. (The deadline to comply at gas dispensers is not unti12o17.) Some card issuers, however, have backed off on their previous commitments to deliver EMV cards. Their argument is that the benefits don't justify the costs. If PIN isn't required for EMV, the card issuers' concern may become a self-fulfill- ing prophecy. Meanwhile, retailers want proven fraud -reduction measures like PIN included because they currently pay more of the costs associated with fraud than the banks do, especially at the pump. With EMV, retailers will want to see ifthe swipe fees that they pay will decrease, since the card companies have long argued that the cost of fraud was a maj or component of swipe fees. What will the future hold? Well, it's in the cards. a a C9 E E �o 3 c aD C9 r` 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 N J a 2015 NACS Retail Fuels Report 143 Packet Pg. 8 0771 9.A.2.e 8.Ut U.S. gasoline demand increased 1.1 % to 8.9 million barrels per day in 2014. (Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Short -Term Energy Outlook, January 2015) Over the past five years, retailer gross margins have averaged 5.7% (18.9 cents per gallon). (Source: OPTS) A $1 change in the price of a barrel of oil roughly translates to a 2.40 change per gallon at the pump, (Bused on 42 gallons in a barrel of oll) $ 1 /barrel * 2,40/ga I Ion A total of 16.8 million light -vehicles were sold in 2014, the strongest sales year since 2OO6. (Source: WardsAuto.ccrn) There are 253.6 million registered vehicles in the United States. (Source: U.S. Federal Highway Administration) Where Does Your Fill Up Go? 0 65°% Crude Oil I 12% Past -refinery 13% Taxes 11 I Refining (Source: U,S. Energy Information Administration) , There are 127588 convenience stores selling motor fuels in the United States. Less than 500 of these stores ore owned by one of the five major oil companies. (Source: NAGS/Nielsen 2015 Convenience Industry Slore Count) i a c� TO E M H �o c a� C9 r` 0 LO N O 0 0 ao 0 N J a 0 M O M a+ d Y V a c 0 a a c O r M Q a M aD E �o a 2015 NAGS Retail Fuels Report 1 44 Packet Pg. 891 9.A.2.e GASOLINE TAXES Combined local, state and federal (cents/gallon) (as of January 16, 2015) U.S. Average: 48.29 cents/gallon Greater than 49.5 cents/gallon 40.0 — 49.5 cents/gallon Less than 40.0 cents/gallon MA 44.94 R1 51.40 CT 61.62 NJ 32.90 DE 41.40 MD 48.70 0C 41.90 63.40 Source: American Petroleum Institute. This report is provided foririforrnationafpiirposes only acid should nothe relied upon or usedfor compliance purposes. 2015 NAGS Retail Fuels Report 1 45 Packet Pg. 892 9.A.2.e U.S. GASOLINE REQUIREMENTS Oxygenated Fuels CHIIMIL RFG wl Ethanol CA RFG N RFG wl Ethanol CA OXY RFG S RFG wl Ethanol AZ CBG 7.0 RVP Oxy Fuels 17.8 RVP 7.8 RVP Oxy Fuels 17.0 RVP 7.8 RVP N❑ 1 psi EtOH Allowance Conventional Conv, No 1 psi EtOH allowance Source: Exxon Mobil This map is not intendedto provide legal advice or to be used asguidancefor state and/orfederal fuel requirements, including but not limited to oxyfuel or RF'G compliance requirements. ExxonMobil makes no representations or warranties, express or otherwise, as to the accuracy or completeness of this map. 2015 NAC3 Retail Fuels Report 146 Packet Pg. 893 9.A.2.e a E M E Copyright 0 2015, by NACS All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means - graphic, mechanical or electronic, including photocopying, taping, recording or information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior, written permission of the publisher. NAGS l 1600 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 www,nacsonline.com Packet Pg. 894 9.A.2.e a. APPENDIX E - 17 3 c aD a� ,L^ V ti O LO N O O O O T" O N J a Packet Pg. 895 9.A.2.e >� Who Sells Motor Fuels in the United States? https://www.amiba.net/members/member-recruitment/grey-areas/gas-stat... American Independent Business Alliance V 406.582.1255 1 va — A►Ihcr.� aofnddpelldeni UI fTeSe' lit' " Motor Fuels in the United States? First Published February 2, 2009 - from NAGS Online V There are 162,350 retail gasoline outlets in the United States, based on the 2009 station count by industry publication National Petroleum News. This count includes all fueling f outlets in the country, including many very low volume retailers, such as marinas. Of this total, more than 115,000 are convenience stores. These convenience stores sell the overwhelming majority of the gasoline purchased in the United States and despite canopies ib that promote a specific brand of gasoline, very few of these stores - less than 2 percent - are owned and operated by one of the integrated, major oil companies. It is much more likely that the business is owned by an independent entrepreneur who lives in the community. Of the roughly 115,000 convenience stores selling gasoline in the United States in 2008, about 56 percent were ❑ne-store operations, compared to only about 14 percent that were operated by a company having 500 or mare stores. (Source: NACS/TDLinx Official Industry Store Count Jan. 2010) Convenience stores in 2009 sold an estimated 80 percent of ail gasoline and diesel fuel purchased in the United States. The other 20 percent is sold through an increasing number of hypermarkets (mass retailers, supermarkets, discount stores, warehouse stores) and a declining number of fuel -only stations. Overall, 79.8 percent of convenience stores sell motor fuels, and in 2008 gasoline and diesel fuel sales account for 72.1 percent of the convenience store 1ndustry's total sales. (However, low gross margins on fuel means that motor fuels sales contributed approximately one- third of total store gross margins dollars - 37.6 percent.) Major Oil Is Exiting the Retail Marketplace In recent years, several major integrated oil companies have announced their decision to exit the retail marketplace and sell all of their remaining corporate retail locations. As of August 2009, the five largest integrated oil companies owned and operated 1,719 retail locations: Packet Pg. 896 1 of 5 » Who Sells Motor Fuels in the United States? 9.A.2.e https: Jl www. amiba. net/memberslmemb er-reeruitmentlgrey-areaslga s - s to t... ■ BP: 513 • ChevronTexaco:383 • ConocoPhillips:3 . ExxonMobil:777 • Shell: 43 (Source: Convenience Store Nevus, Aug. 2009) Of these companies, BP, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil have all announced their intention y to leave the retail marketplace in the near future. Once these sales are complete, major oil will own and operate less than 1 percent of the U.S. convenience stores that sell motor f fuels. d399 Branded and Unbranded Independent Retailers Despite their exit from the retail marketplace, the major integrated oil companies will retain a presence at retail through their branded outlets. These are independent businesses that sign a supply and marketing contract with their refiner -supplier to sell fuel under the brand of that supplier. These locations are designed to reflect the image of the fuel supplier and are often mistaken by consumers as being directly owned and operated by the refiner - supplier. However, the reality is that there is n❑ link beyond an agreement to sell a specific gasoline. The arrangement is similar to arrangements inside the store, where a store may choose to dispense a specific brand of soft drink and receive branded dispensers and other signage. But the business arrangement ends there. The other retail format prevalent in the market is the independent, unbranded retailer. These businesses have not signed a supply and marketing agreement with a refiner - supplier and often establish their own, private brand for their store and their fuel offer. of the 162,350 retail gasoline outlets in the United States, the ownership breaks down as follows: Other Motor Fuels Retailers In addition to convenience stores and gas stations, there are a number of big -box retailers that sell fuel, including Walmart, Costco and a number of grocery chains. As of September 2009, hypermarket companies in the United States operated nearly 4,400 "hype rmart° sites (big -box retailers) and sold 14.1 billion gallons of gasoline. These sites sell approximately 1269,000 gallons per month, about twice the volume of a traditional fuel retailer. overall, the Q IL C9 E �a Packet Pg. 897 of 5 9.A.2.e » Who Sells Motor Fuels in the United States? https://www.amiba.netimembers/member-recruitment/grey-areas/gas-stat... W f digg fuel site growth for hypermarts has slowed down, but recently developed alliance and newly formed partnerships yield an expected growth potential to more than 11,000 retail locations. * Major Oil Company calculation includes locations selling gasoline branded as BP, Chevron Texaco, Conoco -Philips, ExxonMobil, Shell ** Refiner Company calculation includes locations selling gasoline branded as Citgo, Getty, Hess, Marathon, Sunoco, Tesoro, Valero Back to Gas Stations Back to Recruitment Grey Areas Back to Member Development Member Resources AM IBA Overview Renew Your AMIBA Affiliation Share Your Story AMIBA Programs for Affiliates Membership Recruitment and Retention Sample Member Recruitment Page for lndie Business Coalitions The Value of Surveying Your Business Members Automated Dues Payments Business Membership Dues Citizen Membership Dues Community Organization Membership Dues Collection Information & Suggestions Member Recruitment Engaging Member Businesses in Member Recruitment Member Welcome Kit Membership Brochures Recommendations for Dealing with Franchises, Co-ops & Recruitment Grey Areas Should Franchises Be Part of 'Buy Local' Initiatives? Sample Statement on Dealing with Local Franchises Packet Pg. 898 3af5 9.A.2.e a. APPENDIX F - 3 c aD a� ,L^ V ti O LO N O O O O T" O N J a Packet Pg. 899 9.A.2.e Vehicle Ownership in U.S. Cities Data and Map https:llwww.goveming.com/gov-data/car-ownership-numbers-o -ve c e... Q IL c� 20 E MAGAZINE NEWSLETTERS PODCASTS EVENTS SPONSORED: PAPERS SPECIAL PROJECTS STORIES DATA Vehicle Ownership in U.S. Cities Data and Map Some cities and areas of the country are much more auto -dependent than others. One way to assess a city's reliance on cars is to compare shares of households without access to vehicles. An estimated 8.7 percent of U.S. households were without vehicles in 2016. Car -free households are generally much more common in densely -populated urban areas and high poverty neighborhoods where residents can't afford vehicle ownership. Research also suggests younger- families and one -person households are more likely to not 7 of 21 1 Packet Pg. 900 Vehicle Ownership in U.S. Cities Data and Map 9.A.2.e littps://www.goveming.com/gov-data/car-ownership-numbers-o -ve is e... own a car. Another useful measure of vehicle ownership for cities is the number of vehicles per household. According to Census survey estimates, there were about 1.8 vehicles available per U.S. household in 2016. Both vehicle statistics are shown below for jurisdictions with populations exceeding 100,000: Search: 2015 Households 2016 Households 2015 Vehicles P Jurisdiction Without Vehicles Without Vehicles Household Abilene, Texas 5.4% 8.0% 1.71 1.69 Akron, Ohio 14.5% 12.9% 1.42 1.46 Albuquerque, New Mexico 8.5% 6.9% 1.69 1.75 Alexandria, Virginia 10.1% 10.0% 1.38 1.34 Allentown, Pennsylvania 19.2% 16.9% 1.31 1.33 Amarillo, Texas 6.1 % 4.2% 1.73 1.81 Anaheim, California 5.7% 5.2% 2.01 2.05 Anchorage, Alaska 6.8% 6.1% 1.84 1.95 Ann Arbor, Michigan 12.4% 11.5% 1.45 1.44 Antioch, California 5.7% 3.3% 2.14 2.24 Arden -Arcade, California 8.8% 9.6% 1.53 1.58 Arlington, Texas 4.7% 3.7% 1.85 1.89 Arlington, Virginia 13.4% 12.7% 1.38 1.40 Arvada, Colorado 3.7% 3.6% 2.04 2.07 Athens -Clarke County, Georgia 11.2% 9.0% 1.52 1.67 Atlanta, Georgia 15.2% 16.4% 1.31 1.28 Augusta -Richmond County, 9.3% 9.1% 1.68 1.69 Georgia Source: Governing calculations of 2015 and 2016 one-year Census American Community Survey estimates. Note that one-year estimates have high margins of error for smaller cities. Cars Per Household for U.S. Cities Map The following map shows numbers of vehicles per household, calculated using two-year averages from 2015 and 2016 Census survey estimates. Data is shown for the 200 most populated cities, with cities having more vehicles shaded dark orange. Click a city to display its measures. Zoom in to view cities clustered together, or pan the map for Alaska and Hawaii. 8 of 21 1 Packet Pg. 901 Vehicle Ownership in U.S. Cities Data and Map 9.A.2.e https:llwww.goveming.com/gov-datalcar-ownership-numbers-a -ve uc e... Day�ona Du nnellun Ocala beach paStnna Spring gdrw Hx i { Rr�SItt��13Pf% I 5 { Clearwtatery f .�ii klay 1 p Ski Pe!?°r, xirGJ i �� f9rdd�ntee� Cape Carols Flatida Hnrih ?QiS-16 Average Ratio 2015 Vehicles Per Household NA11 2016 Vet,ides u Per Household G� Zoom to ' n Key W Est 3.75 1.72 1.78 17 x 9 of 21 1 Packet Pg. 902 9.A.2.e a. APPENDIX G - 19 3 c aD a� ,L^ V ti O LO N O O O O T" O N J a Packet Pg. 903 9.A.2.e TRANSPORTATION %T,RC0-\SJLIAN IS. INC '1 n tile. 4 L'rip Generation --14nv Tl-1ps i-Fltwc:rr 50.1 Gi-m-mv:mv Road Laud Use Weekdays A.N1. Peak dour in Out Tatal Weekday P.M. Peak 1n i Out Hour ` TgjW Dally (2-way) cf!]so ii1C L'I'ell:1'..��iieitlilTl -- - W ill: C'or vtmiemx I- 13110 61 136 iil -11 94 s l dis 70r,v,; F_!ti 3-13r' -66 -66 -137 -66 J,1(i -1 2 -i : 7o New Trips €3 132 64 1 4 1'lie tt:ps the proposed develop mex is witL ipa,ed to generate -as shomvi> rn Talk 4 cvu thou ass[Frcd to thc: surround'utg roadwtq n.:oxork, 1 he n-cm, trips rinticipl-,iw l to be ::rldial t{� the .9:1]Tr]ll!')&TI.V. T[,lcldV;4k' I'l-pi urk u"-1g-m!J Fr!{;:�,.I iip-mi Ike rc+u�zs driven, Lj-L! all tiVil�uNcL its cltiIi.1X tO alr•Irrt VCh J I U 4ul,ject sit0. €"iL',LLIV A-1, 11K.;1 U&d iu the App endcx of this r€:pon, illustrm s the percen: pf% j ect trafflic distribution and a5Si Dr.Ij)-Znt of tiro iiv-1 proj►o tri.pi, Ftgtum.. A-2, indti&d in the Npp��idix of :hip r,�L ixi. ili:lrtrslos i.hn Po,ct l proim!i I-ailii dislrih:r.im anal rsw%ii=lsrilC'nl of pmoi-ley Imps. figure 2ll.ltilra. s Rie rese,ltiit- umi�, inem i :' all ?-E:leh�el: pro"LYU rel01-�d Lr-.ps (iieL ne-Vi I.��,-say)- V. I'I;<(l,lEC"FED C'C>ENCURRENCY Fn o t ear 1.o domvi-1ninv wl-NiV1- 11:11ilxrxy sc ��mlrrli surrminding 11.1:s .,ile will be sigls lis:aw ly impacted, Tait4o IA. cowil i d i!! the Appendix, Lyas crealed. TL'titi taifle it!ldicales 'Lvlliclt !x ladk4 av I i llks i3 ill �s�1 r 1i r i, IdaLe ar, wiloult t o F _3r j ec:, tru [11c greater t:ta17 t1:e "-' %�,-2Ti,-3 Siwniftcaace l ti }t. -11ic im new tips pricrated as a resUlt of Ili- prop ow-d rczoc_il.g applicari-011 on L)-c stl l�- Cct s itc as .slmvit ill Table 4 ware com pa: i with the i. apa cc-y for L'c:, k How — 1"ok >)i;x :ticin Ire l'1i : i.1$1t11itilml lis &,T111k7LI by Hil. ,t l collive (-momV -lrR marl pdarte hn-vrPtoq. - Report (AtrTRI, Ida sod !:!1 Ils,: irfimr liim c:l rmir ml %vithln Ta ilc 1 A, rn+ imadLiay sr-mel1la -411-Ev =_, N..gm fiL:alil IIr:Lsuc.t ms a resali oll., the developmec't I":.11lic bteiiig ec'.dL:d [c! the ItOL WLt} IWIM- -K. a E fa E I - a Packet Pg. 904 9.A.2.e a a APPENDIX H - 20 3 c aD a� ,L^ V ti O LO N O O O O T" O N J a Packet Pg. 905 Fueling Sales Inside and Out I CSP Daily News 9.A.2.e http://www.cspdailynews.com/print/csp-magazine/article/fucling-sa es-iii... INDUSTRY MEWS MERGERS & ADQUISITIONS FUELS DATA SPONSORED CONTENT EVENTS Beverages roodservice General Merchandise Services Snacks & Candy Tobacco MERCHANDISING MADE EASY lot MIT IM. , ( arches & fuel all in one place WHOLESALE PRICING � i rrMa Prints CSP Magazine /%Ur, July 2013 rust FuelingSales Inside and Out �4 An exclusive peek at latest VideoMining heat -map study reveals challenge of 4'L. pump -to -store conversion, opportunity of layout. By Samantha Otler, Senior Ed ito r/ Fu e Is, CSP 4wq�m� More than 25 years ago, pay at the pump debuted in the United States, introducing great convenience to motorists and a big conundrum to retailers. If you enable customers to pay for fuel at the pump, how do you Today'S TC persuade them to come inside the store to buy higher -margin items? If recent research from VideoMinIngCorp. is any indication, it's a challenge that fuel retailers have still nat More New Engia Petroleum Mark. mastered. ixty-nIne percent of gas customers are just paying for gas and leaving, regardless of whether they are paying at the pump or prepaying [inside the storel,"says Priya Baboo, executive vice president of shopper insights & strategy for Video -Mining Corp., State College, Pa., which produces the annual C-Store Shopper Insights (CSI) Program, a research effort that documents the c-store shopping trip. This fourth iteration of the study, conducted in late summer 2012 and shared exclusively with CSP, included 10 chains representing 144 stores in 20 markets. Consider that for every 100 gasoline customers, 64 pay at the pump, and of the 64 pay only for gas and leave, according to Video Mining. Let's put aside this latter group —"It is much harder to convince someone who is just thinking of pumping gas to walk into the stare, because they may be in a hurry," Baboo says —and focus solely on the opportunity presented by the others. The 36 fuel customers who walk into the stare to pay are truly "low -hanging fruit, "she insists, "because in the stare you have a better opportunity of converting them. But unfortunately, we're not leveraging that opportunity." How poor is that leverage? Less than a third of these customers will ultimately make an in-store purchase. Video Mining evaluates this type of c-store shopper behavior through a combination of tech no[ogles. Ceiling - mounted cameras track customers' movements through the c-store, while proprietary video -analysis software processes millions of hours of shopping trips. This data is crass -referenced with point -of -sale data to correlate store traffic with purchasing behavior and generate insights on everything from the basics (average time spent in store, average in-store basket) to the rates at which customers shopped particular categories and made a purchase. I of 5 1 Packet Pg. 906 Fueling Sales Inside and Out I CSP Daily News 9.A.2.e http://www.espdailynews.com/print/esp-magazine/article/fueling-sa es -in... For the 2012 study, Video Mining turned its cameras out to the pump to assess how well convenience retailers were drawing fuel customers inside the store and triggering an additional purchase. For many of the participants —which included amp, Chevron, Circle K, Cumberland Farms, Get Go, Hess, Holiday Stationstores, Maverik, RaceTrac and Thorntons—the results were sobering. "We were a little surprised at the conversion from pump to store; we thought it would have been higher than it was," says Rich Green, segment manager for Maveriklnc., North Salt Lake, Utah, which has more than 240 sites in 10 states, and had one location participating in the 2012 VideoMiningstudy. In Maverik's case, a low pump -to store conversion rate may have partly been because the store was relatively new and in a market where the chain does not have a concentration of sites. "Having said that, the conversion wasn't as high as we'd like;" he says. "At the same time, all of the solutions people give you for improving conversion —we're allover that. That's an enigma at this point" While Video Mining did not examine which factors drove conversion for this iteration of the study, Baboo says retailers who enjoy a higher rate are using different methods of communicating with fuel customers. "1 think these retailers made a point to emphasize what's new or better in their stores;' says Baboo. "Once people walk into the store, [the retailers are] doing a better job of emphasizing fresh food or saying the coffee is better. It may not be signage at the pump, but they also have signage at the forecourt. They are also doing other things like leveraging mobile technology, and maybe having even outdoor communications" Maverik uses pump toppers that advertise food and beverage combos and popular items, as well as its loyalty program. "We're looking at other areas of opportunity to help improve conversion, "Green says. "As we continue to develop the loyalty program, there will be more opportunity as well" Here are highlights from the 2012 CSIProgram, including a look at pump -to store conversion, the effect of store layout on impulse purchases, and how the type of foodservice program a retailer adopts can shape all the aspects of a customer's visit. Store Layout & Impulse Categories As a key component of its research methodology,VideoMining constructs heat map charts showing the direction and outcome of store traffic. Its video -analysis software, correlated with POS data, reveals not only where customers tend to walk and shop most frequently —indicated in the charts on the facing page in red —but also where they stop to pick up an item for purchase. Examining how traffic c flows through different sites reveals how the placement of key destination and impulse categories influences the outcome of the average shopping trip. For example, in stores No. 1 and 2, foot traffic is concentrated in one particular area of the store: near the counter. "For whatever reason, the right side of the store is not getting as much traffic as it should be;' which is indicated in blue and also hosts many of the impulse categories, Baboo says. Also notice that Stores No. 1 and 2 have foodservice and fountain in the same areas of the store. "The layout definitely has an impaction how traffic flows through the store, "says Baboo. "You don't want to have all the key categories on one side. If you do, you want to think how you will get traffic c to flow through the store and where to place some of the key categories" For store No. 3, traffic c is more spread out. "When we talk about foodservice, coffee and fountain, this store had destination categories organized clearly against the back walls; it's kind of like pushing the traffic to Q a 20 E r- 2 of 5 1 Packet Pg. 9 7 Fueling Sales Inside and Out ( CSP Daily News 9.A.2.e http://www.cspdailynews.com/prinUcsp-magazine/article/fueling-sa es -in... different regions;' says Baboo"They've really thought through how to position complementary categories, how-to have the traffic c flow through the entire store" The effect of these layouts on impulse category purchases —candy, salty snacks, cookies and crackers —is clear. Compare the higher area index for these categories in store No. 3 (see chart, above ) vs. stores No.1 and 2. The maps can also suggest opportunities to take better advantage of store layout. For example, at Maverik (not shown here),traffic c heat maps revealed that customers were queuing around the store's horseshoe - IL shaped cash wrap. "We don't channel customers through any kind of merchandising in the queuing area or design of the cash E 2 wrap; it's straight -on approach;" says Green"There's an opportunity to help customers queue better in that E area, and it could be a combination of changes to the future design, and opening certain registers and M closing others at certain times of day." 3 Adding Fuel to the Fire L The average fuel customer spends 4 minutes and 26 seconds on the fuel island, which seems a veritable eon ti compared to how little time —less than 2 minutes —is spent inside the store. Each presents a stage upon which N to influence a purchase decision, but not many retailers are dominating that opportunity, says Baboo. o 0 00 "It's relatively easy to convert people walking into the store because they're in the store and you have so 0 many opportunities to drive conversion ... [such as] signage for deals where you buy something inside the N _J IL store and get a discount;" she says, citing the example of retailers such as Sheetz who offer gas customers a c discount toward an in-store purchase or a free item such as a cup of coffee. M M "Even offering a $1 discount for same -day purchases ...could be one way to drive loyalty," she continues. "How +, do we leverage it, how do we use it to increase conversion?" m a Foodservice Findings c To confirm findings from the previous year with its expanded sample, Video -Mining again examined the effect a of foodservice program on the overall store visit. The result? The more sophisticated foodservice program, the c better a store is able to draw traffic c and the more buyers it tallies. "Foodservice is playing a role in terms of bringing traffic into the store;' saysBaboo of VideoMining. "If you have a good food program —it doesn't have to be a QSR-type offering, but even roller grill —as long as you make sure you are communicating it properly, maybe differentiating it from a price or variety standpoint, you will get the same amount of traffic c. But if you just have prepackaged food items, the number of people who will walk in is much less" One area where stores with prepackaged food scored highest was in store basket size; however, this is because the baskets typically include higher-pricepointitems, such as cigarettes. The CSI Program also revealed how greatly conversion rates can vary by daypart, with purchases most prevalent in the morning and lunch time frames, butte lowest after 2 p.m. And that slump is not simply because c-stores do not have compelling foodservice offerings for the p.m. crowd; it could also be that stores are not consistently executing the program. For example, executives with Maverik noticed that a very high traffic time of day did not correlate with a 3 of 5 1 Packet Pg. 9 8771 Fueling Sales Inside and out I CSP Daily News 9.A.2.e http;llwww.cspdailynews.contlprinticsp-magazine/artiale/fuelmg-sa es -in.,. foodservice sales spike. "The warmer was probably not being filled to capacity at this particular time of day;' says Green. "We have very unique foodservice program; it's pretty robust, and one of the major traffic c drivers for our company. We've got to have food there. This particular store showed us there was some opportunity there as Well for that day -part' Also in this issue Ideas 2 CITGO Q The Trend Setters a C9 Prepare and Protect Catching Fire H Mobile Apprehension c� July 2013 Back Rumor aD m E-Cigs, Silver Bullets and Hypocrisy � A Concept to Be Shared r` LO N O Convenience Cookout e The Little Green Button That Could Click here to download full article Trending stories "�� ►7C'roC �Ms zat s::1 Why Consumers Like Trying New Products INDUSTRY NEWS & ANALYSIS 7-Eleven Hosting Reverse 7-11 Promos on 11-7 INDUSTRY NEWS & ANALYSIS INDUSTRY NEWS & ANALYSIS QuickChek's First Long Isla C-Store Opens CATEGORY NEWS Judge Dismisses Final Federal Case Heineken Launches'Spectl Against Pilot Flying J Campaign Since 2003 CSP magazine has ranked No. i in readership and market share over all EWCSP MAGAZINEflIGITAL other industry publications. C-store marketers have identified CSP as the=V1 EdITION preferred magazine source for their trade marketing communications. WithVIEWCSPMAGAIINEb�CHIflES industry -leading, highly targeted circulation to more than 100,000 subscribers, CSP reaches the key convenience retailing decision -makers fifteen times a year. MIIIIIIIIIIIII i, lr 4of5 Packet Pg. 909 9.A.2.e 2726 OAK RIDGE COURT, SUITE S03 FORT MYERS, FL 33901.9356 TRANSPORTATION OFFICE 239.278.1906 TRCONSULTANTS, I N C FAX ENGINEERING G TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING SIGNAL SYSTEMS)DESIGN TO: Mr. Al Quattrone, P.E. Quattrone & Associates, Inc. FROM: Yury Bykau Transportation Consultant DATE: February 17, 2020 RE: 7-Eleven Greenway Naples — Updated Concurrency Analysis NWC of US 41 and Greenway Road Collier County, Florida At the request of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. has updated the Concurrency Analysis for the above project based on the latest 2019 Annual Update & Inventory Report (AUIR). The original traffic study and its Concurrency Analysis was completed based on the 2018 AUIR, which was the latest version available at the time. Attached to this letter are Tables IA-3A, which have been revised based on the 2019 AUIR. As can be seen within Table 2A, sufficient capacity is indicated on US 41 west of Greenway Road in 2024 both with and without the proposed development. The analysis also indicates US 41 east of Greenway Road to operate with insufficient capacity in the background (without project) traffic conditions. Therefore, the conclusions of the Concurrency Analysis based on the 2019 AUIR remain the same as the conclusions as part of the original traffic study report, which was completed based on the 2018 AUIR. If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Yury Bykau, E.I. Transportation Consultant Attachments KA\2019\04 April\13 7-Eleven Tamiami Trail East\Collier County Subtnittal\2019 AUIR AnalysW2-17.2020 Traffic Metno.doe Q IL c� 20 E Packet Pg. T,0 (`ddWJ !Welwel - Aeanu00a0 LOSZ0008WZ-ld : 0£9£O 10313ed UOIMOd uoi;eoilddNf (£ :;u0uay3e;4,y m � F F 0 O II II Z Z N V M M F ¢ t-I L L d z z z � F- (n 9 1 w O O g O uvi ' W � ae o� O Z M O 0 r m o m ti w o U LLI LL o J M U Oy w O F m e o t�tO J z MI M p Z U O F 00 a w m ul i M W S 0 z ° z U oo 0 0 Om CO to N a O Z O 0 W V Z LL m o 0 w ¢ O rf N li CO F- z 0 m o ti U o 0 O v J } gIQ N O U z Z 2 pl ui ui O rn rn Z w M W 0 2 X N N W z a r a m m a (`ddWJ !Welwel - AeMUGGJ0 LOSZOOO8WZ-ld MCO 10313ed UOIMad uoi;eoilddNf (£ :;ugwLj3e;4,y N N Q pw0 lu y w M- w ~ U LL pmJp Q J W Q Z a. J LL N Q Q} U Q d U m �U al CO ; M U 4 w L lu O U Q tL d) i M w w O z N U Z U Q ~ co 0 N w a il. w cD 0 N LL U LL GI ~ o 0 ZZ O q coo o~o Q L6 Lo Z Z h LLQ' Z U as Lu a �.- N U Lu U w J m M rn ® 0 O c N Q N UJ (O W U_ w W W Q N �L J o o J Z m W V Q ? a Z O O a_ p m z > O W � o LL O N U W IL a � t+ a 0 (DD ti Y Q co N m 0 EL t11 111 Z Z 7 y o o m < O J N c M z 2 N Z Z 0 u >��} N M M N 11 U II U T � rn d T n n W T d N IL iL O O @ M w li O Z 0 Z ¢Y W ¢Y¢ W n. a CL Q O O O rn 9.A.2.e TABLE M ANNUAL GROWTH RATE CALCULATIONS BASED UPON HISTORICAL AUIR DATA 2009 2019 ANNUAL ACTUAL CURRENT AUIR AUIR YRS OF GROWTH GROWTH ROADWAY SEGMENT ID# VOLUME VOLUME GROWTH RATE RATE US 41 W. of Greenway Rd 95.2 588 1,040 10 5.87% 5.87% E. of Greenway Rd 95.3 588 1,040 10 5,87% 5.87% All traffic volumes were obtained from the 2009 & 2019 Annual Update Inventory Reports (AUIR) In instances where the historical data indicates a reduction in traffic or insufficient data was available to calculate a growth rate due to construction, a minimum annual growth rate of 2.0% was assumed. SAMPLE GROWTH RATE CALCULATION 2019 AUIR "(11Yrs of Growth) Annual Growth Rate (AGR) _ -1 2009 AUIR 040 g1110) AGR (US 41) _ 1,-1 588 AGR (US 41) = 5.87% i a C9 T R E to I— to C ,L^ V r` 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 T" 0 N J a 0 M M d c� ca a c 0 m a c 0 r R r, M a a M C E t V f0 r Q Packet Pg. 913 9.A.2.e 2726 OAK RIDGE COURT, SUITE 503 TRANSPORTATION FORT MYERS,EL 3356 OFFICE 239,278,3.2783090 ,1906 ;7ATRCONSULTANTS, I N C FAX 239.2E TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING SIGNAL SYSTEMSIDESIGN M 7-ELEVEN @ GREENWAY ROAD COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (MAJOR STUDY REVIEW - $1,500) (METHODOLOGY REVIEW FEE - $500) PROJECT NO. F1904.13 PREPARED BY: TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. Certificate of Authorization Number: 27003 2726 Oak Ridge Court, Suite 503 Fort Myers, Florida 33901-9356 (239) 278-3090 Revised: June 5, 2020 a E M E Packet Pg. 914 9.A.2.e '// TR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION II. EXISTING CONDITIONS III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IV. TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION V. PROJECTED CONCURRENCY VI. INTERSECTION ANALYSIS VII. CONCLUSION a a c� T M E Packet Pg. 915 9.A.2.e '// TRCONSULTANTS,TRANSPORTATION INC I. INTRODUCTION TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. has conducted a traffic impact statement for the rezone application for the proposed 7-Eleven convenience store with gas pumps and car wash. The proposed 7-Eleven is to be located at the northwest corner of US 41 and Greenway Road in Collier County, Florida. This report has been completed in compliance with the guidelines established by the Collier County Transportation Planning Division for developments seeking rezoning approval. The approximate location of the subject site is illustrated on Figure 1. The approximate 2.8 acre subject site is currently zoned Agricultural (A). The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject site to Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) to permit a development of an approximately 5,000 square foot convenience store and 19 refueling positions (16 unleaded refueling positions and 3 diesel refueling positions) as well as a carwash. Note, a maximum of 3 vehicles can utilize the proposed 2 diesel pumps at one time due to limited space between the pumps. Access to the site is proposed to US 41 via a right-in/right-out only access drive and to Greenway Road via two connections. The southernmost connection to Greenway Road is proposed to be limited to a right -out only. An interconnection is also proposed to be provided to the west. Methodology meeting notes were exchanged with Collier County Staff via e-mail in order to discuss the proposed development. The initial meeting checklist and the latest methodology notes are attached to the end of this document for reference. This report examines the impact of the development on the surrounding roadways. Trip generation and assignments to the site access driveways will be completed and analysis conducted to determine the impacts of the development on the surrounding intersections. Page 2 Packet Pg. 916 AMelod' L San df i e I d -L-n---,, �An drearL�ri i 7 �aihL, , -.;i =�• James-Rd.1. Eeeil-R.d-.� �Marete-Dr{ y— . r..:.,_4 . < Achill D r_ ill -r ..-. i x_ T. �cA,._ Get � � '`•�. . 9.A.2.e 7ATR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject site is currently vacant. The subject site is bordered by Greenway Road to the a. east, US 41 to the south, and by vacant land to the north and west. T M US 41 (Tamiami Trail East) is a four -lane divided arterial between Joseph Lane and E Greenway Road and a two-lane undivided arterial to the south of Greenway Road. US 41 has an adopted Level of Service Standard of LOS "D". The Level of Service standard volume for US 41 between Joseph Lane and Greenway Road (Roadway Link ID #95.2) is a� 2,000 vehicles in the peak hour, peak direction. The Level of Service standard volume forLO ti US 41 south of Greenway Road (Roadway Link ID #95.3) is 1,075 vehicles in the peak N CD hour, peak direction. US 41 has a posted speed limit of 50 mph to the west of Greenway co c N Road and 60 mph to the east. US 41 is under the jurisdiction of Florida Department of a Transportation (FDOT). US 41 within the vicinity of the subject site has an Access Management Classification of Class 4, which requires a minimum connection spacing of 660 feet. Greenway Road is a two-lane undivided roadway within the public right-of-way that borders the subject site to the east. Collier County does not report traffic data on this roadway. Since Greenway Road has no posted speed limit, the speed limit per Florida Stature 316.183(2) is 30 mph. III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject site to Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) to permit a development of an approximately 5,000 square foot convenience store and 19 refueling positions (16 unleaded refueling positions and 3 diesel refueling positions) as well as a carwash. Note, a maximum of 3 vehicles can utilize the proposed 2 diesel pumps at one time due to limited space between the pumps. Additionally, the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) report indicates that a presence of a carwash Page 4 Packet Pg. 918 9.A.2.e ' TRCONSULTANTS,TRANSPORTATION INC at a convenience store with gas pumps does not have any effect on the trip generation rates. Table 1 summarizes the proposed land use utilized for trip generation purposes for a the subject site. a. c� E Table 1 LZ Land Uses 7-Fleven r> Greenway Road ~ Land' Use Size 7-Eleven Convenience 5,000 sq. ft. Store w/ Gas Pumps & Car & Wash 19 re -fueling positions Access to the site is proposed to US 41 via a right-in/right-out only access drive and to Greenway Road via two connections. The southernmost connection to Greenway Road is proposed to be limited to a right -out only. An interconnection is also proposed to be provided to the west. IV. TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION The trip generation for the proposed development was determined by referencing the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (1TE) report, titled Trip Generation Manual, loth Edition. A trip generation comparison was conducted for the subject site based on the number of re -fueling positions for Land Use Code 945 (Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market) and based on the floor area of the convenience store using Land Use Code 853 (Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps). The trip comparison is shown in the Appendix for reference. Based upon the results of the trip generation comparison, utilizing the number of refueling positions (LUC 945) as an independent variable to estimate the trip generation potential of the subject site yields the most conservative results. Table 2 outlines the anticipated weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour and daily trip generation of the facility as currently proposed. Page 5 Packet Pg. 919 9.A.2.e TRANSPORTATION 7ATRCONSULTANTS, INC Table 2 Trip Generation 7-Flown (a-) Greenwav Road Land Use Weekda A.M. Peak Hour Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Daily (2-way) In Out Total in Out I Total Gasoline/Service Station With Convenience Market 135 129 264 136 130 266 3,940 (19 Re -Fueling Positions) The trips shown for the proposed 7-Eleven use in Table 2 will not all be new trips added to the adjacent roadway system. ITE estimates that a gasoline station/convenience market of comparable size may attract a significant amount of its traffic from vehicles already traveling the adjoining roadway system. This traffic, called "pass -by" traffic, reduces the development's overall impact on the surrounding roadway system but does not decrease the actual driveway volumes. ITE indicates an average "pass -by" traffic reduction for Land Use Code 945 of 62% during the A.M. peak hour and 56% during the P.M. peak hour. However, the Collier County Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) Guidelines permit a maximum peak hour pass -by trip reduction for this land use of 50%. For this analysis, the "pass -by" traffic was accounted for in order to determine the number of "new" trips the development will add to the surrounding roadways. Table 3 summarizes the "pass -by" percentage for the proposed use. Table 4 summarizes the development traffic and the breakdown between the new trips the development is anticipated to generate and the "pass -by" trips the development is anticipated to attract. It should be noted that the driveway volumes are not reduced as a result of the "pass -by" reduction, only the traffic added to the surrounding streets and intersections. Table 3 Pass -by Trip Reduction Factors 7-Eleven (q-), Greenway Road a a. c� E E H Page 6 Packet Pg. 920 9.A.2.e // TR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC Table 4 Trip Generation - New Trips 7-T.leven (a-) Greenwav Road WeekdayA.M. Peak Hour Weekda ` P.M. Peak Hour Daily Land Use (2-way) In Out Total In Out Total Gasoline Service Station With Convenience Market 135 129 264 136 130 266 3,940 (5,000 Sq. Ft. C-Store & 19 Re- Fuelin Positions) Less 50% Pass -By -66 -66 -132 -66 -66 F -132 -1,970 New Tri s 69 63 132 70 64 134 1,970 The trips the proposed development is anticipated to generate as shown in Table 4 were then assigned to the surrounding roadway network. The new trips anticipated to be added to the surrounding roadway network were assigned based upon the routes drivers are anticipated to utilize to approach the subject site. Figure A-1, included in the Appendix of this report, illustrates the percent project traffic distribution and assignment of the net new project trips. Figure A-2, included in the Appendix of this report, illustrates the percent project traffic distribution and assignment of pass -by trips. Figure 2 illustrates the resulting assignment of all 7-Eleven project related trips (net new + pass -by). V. PROJECTED CONCURRENCY In order to determine which roadway segments surrounding the site will be significantly impacted, Table 1A, contained in the Appendix, was created. This table indicates which roadway links will accommodate an amount of project traffic greater than the 2%-2%-3% Significance Test. The net new trips generated as a result of the proposed rezoning application on the subject site as shown in Table 4 were compared with the Capacity for Peak Hour - Peak Direction traffic conditions as defined by the 2019 Collier County Annual Update Inventory Report (AUIR). Based on the information contained within Table IA, no roadway segments show a significant impact as a result of the development traffic being added to the roadway network. a a. c� TO E M Page 7 Packet Pg. 921 9.A.2.e a a C9 T M E �o 3 c aD a� ,L^ V ti O LO N O O O O T" O N J a Packet Pg. 922 1 9.A.2.e ;7ATRTRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC In addition to the significant impact criteria, Table 2A includes the concurrency analysis on the Collier County Roadway network. The current remaining capacity and Level of Service Standard for each roadway segment analyzed was obtained from the 2019 Collier County Annual Inventory Update Report (AUIR). A five-year planning analysis was also conducted. In order to estimate the projected 2024 background traffic volumes, the existing 2019 peak hour peak direction traffic volumes from the 2019 AUIR were adjusted by the appropriate growth rate. The growth rate calculations are shown in Table 3A of the Appendix. These projected volumes were then compared with the 2019 existing plus trip bank volumes from the 2019 AUIR. The more conservative of the two volumes was then utilized as the 2024 background traffic volume. The concurrency analysis was performed by subtracting the project traffic volumes that will result with the proposed 7-Eleven development from the 2024 background remaining capacity in order to determine whether or not sufficient capacity will be available after the addition of the net new traffic associated with the proposed rezoning approval. Based on the information contained within Table 2A, there will be sufficient capacity on US 41 west of Greenway Road. US 41 east of Greenway Road is projected to have insufficient capacity without the addition of the trips generated as a result of the proposed development. Therefore, US 41 east of Greenway Road is considered as a pre - development deficiency that this project should not be responsible for. It should be noted that US 41 between Greenway Road and Six L's Farm Road is shown to be widened to a four lane facility based on the attached Collier County's 2040 Cost Feasible Plan. However, this improvement is not funded in the Five Year Capital Improvement Program. Figure 3 was created to indicate the results of the concurrency analysis on the adjacent roadway network. As can be seen within Figure 3, the proposed 7-Eleven development does not cause any roadways links to operate below capacity. Page 9 Packet Pg. 923 9.A.2.e a E M E 3 c aD a� ,L^ V ti O LO N O O O O T" O N J a Packet Pg. 924 9.A.2.e ;FATR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC VI. INTERSECTION ANALYSIS An intersection analysis was conducted utilizing the latest version of the Highway a Capacity Software (HCS7) to determine the operational characteristics of the c� unsignalized intersection of US 41 with Greenway Road as well as the proposed site TO access drives along Greenway Road and US 41 during the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Peak hour turning movement counts were conducted by TR Transportation at the �o intersection of US 41 with Greenway Road in April of 2019. The peak hour turning movements were then adjusted for peak season conditions based on peak season factor data as provided by FDOT in their Traffic Information Online resource. The FDOT peak LO season correction factor is included in the Appendix of this report for reference. The CD existing peak season traffic volumes were then increased by a growth rate factor to c N determine the projected 2024 background turning movement volumes. Table 3A of the a. Appendix illustrates the methodology utilized to formulate the appropriate annual growth M rates for each roadway segment. The turning volumes projected to be added to the intersection as illustrated on Figure 2 were then added to the 2024 background volumes to estimate the future 2024 traffic volumes with the project. These volumes are based on a c the data from the spreadsheet contained in the Appendix of this report titled Development o of Future Year Background Turning Volumes. The HCS7 summary sheets, attached to this report for reference, indicate that all individual movements at the unsignalized intersection of US 41 with Greenway Road will operate at an acceptable LOS in 2024 both with and without the project trips in the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours. The results also indicate all individual movements at the proposed site access drives along Greenway Road and US 41 to operate at acceptable LOS in 2024. Therefore, no intersection improvements will be warranted based on the intersection analysis conducted as part of this report. Turn lane improvements at the site access drive intersections will be evaluated at the time the project seeks site development plan approval application. Page 11 Packet Pg. 925 9.A.2.e 4 TR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC VII. CONCLUSION The proposed rezoning is to allow the approximate 2.8 acre subject site to be developed a. a 2 an approximately 5,000 square foot convenience store and 19 refueling positions (16 0 unleaded refueling positions and 3 diesel refueling positions) as well as a carwash. The LZ E site, located at the northwest corner of US 41 and Greenway Road, meets Collier County Consistency and Concurrency requirements. The surrounding roadway network was analyzed based on the 2019 Collier County Annual Update Inventory Report (AUIR) a� and future 2024 build -out traffic conditions. As a result, sufficient capacity is indicated along all surrounding roadways, except for US 41 east of Greenway Road in 2024 both with and without the proposed rezoning. US 41 east of Greenway Road is projected to have insufficient capacity without the addition of the trips generated as a result of the proposed development. Therefore, US 41 east of Greenway Road is considered as a pre - development deficiency that this project should not be responsible for. Intersection analysis was conducted at the intersection of US 41 with Greenway Road as well as the proposed site access drives along Greenway Road and US 41. The results of this analysis indicate that all individual movements at all analyzed intersections will operate at an acceptable LOS in 2024 both with and without the project trips in the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Therefore, no intersection improvements will be warranted based on the intersection analysis conducted as part of this report. K:\2019\04 Aprih13 7-Eleven Tamiami Trail East\Collier County Submittal\Sut7iciency\June Update\6-5-2020,Repor ,doc Page 12 Packet Pg. 926 9.A.2.e a a C9 T M E �o 3 c aD a� ,L^ V ti O LO N O O O O T" O N J a Packet Pg. 927 METHODOLOGY MEETING NOTES :;z a. T M E r_ 0 a. C 0 U (D E I Packet Pg. 928 9.A.2.e APPENDIX A INITIAL MEETING CHECKLIST Suggestion: Use this Appendix as a worksheet to ensure that no important elements are overlooked. Cross out the items that do not apply. a Location: via e-mail c� People Attending: E Name, Organization, and Telephone Numbers I (a 1) 2) Study Preparers Preparer's Name and Title: Yury Byau, Transportation Consultant Organization: TR Transportation Consultants, hic. Address & Telephone Number: (239) 275-3090 2726 Oak Ridge Court, Suite 503 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Reviewer(s)• Reviewer's Name & Title: Michael Sawyer, Transportation Collier County Transportation Planning Department Organization & Telephone Number: (239) 252-2613 Applicant: Applicant's Name: Al Quattrone, PE. Address: 4301 Veronica Shoemaker Blvd, Fort Myers FL, 33916 Telephone Number: Proposed Development: Name: 7-Eleven at Greenway Road (RZ) PL#20180002374 Location: Northeast corner of US 41 and Greenway Read. Land Use Type: Gasoline Station ITE Code #: LUC 945 (Refueling Positions) vs LUC 553 (Convenience Store Size). Proposed number of development units: 3,454 square feet & 19 refueling positions puffs (16 unleaded refueling positions and 3 diesel refiieling�positions) as well as carwash. Note, a maximum of 3 vehicles can utilize the diesel pumps at one time. As per ITE Trip Generation Manual, a presence of a car wash at a gasoline station does not have a demonstrative effect on trip generation rates. Offier: N/A Description: Gasoline Statioa Zoning: A — Agdeultural Packet Pg. 929 9.A.2.e t0% Zo% Existing: Vacant Comprehensive plan recommendation: N/A Requested: CPUD - Commercial Planned Unit Development Findings of the Preliminary Study: Project is anticipated to generate approximately 132 net new AM peak hour trips and 134 net new PM peak hour trips See the attached trip generation comparison. Study Type: Small Scale TIS ❑ Minor TIS ❑ Study Area: Boundaries: US 41 east and west of Greenway Road (Links #95.2 and 95.3) based upon the Collier County 2%-2%-3% Significant Impact Criteria. Additional intersections to be analyzed: US 41 /Greenway Road Horizon Year(s): 2024 Analysis Time Period(s): AM & PM peak hours Future Off -Site Developments: None Source of Trip Generation Rates: ITE Trip Generation, 10th Edition Reductions in Trip Generation Rates: None: Pass -by trips: 50% AM/PM Internal trips (PUD): None Transmit use: n/a Other: n/a Horizon Year Roadway Network Improvements: None Methodology & Assumptions: Non -site traffic estimates: 2018 AUIR Site -trip generation: ITE Trip Generation loth Edition - LUC 945 (Refueling Positions) vs I UC 853 (Convenience Store Size) See attached Tables IA and 1B for the trip generation comparison for the proposed gasoline station. Trip distribution method: By Hand — 55% to/from the north of Greenway Road on US 41, Road and /o to/from the south on Sandpiper Road. ra is assignment method: By Hand Traffic growth rate: From comparison of the 2009 & 2018 AUIR's Packet Pg. 930 9.A.2.e Special Features: (from preliminary study or prior experience) Accidents locations: Sight distance: Queuing: Access location & configuration: One right-in/right-out only connection to US 41 and two connections to Greenway Road. a Traffic control: a Signal system location & progression needs: On -site parking needs: E Data Sources: ITE Trip Generation. Report, 1 Oth Edition t° E Base maps: Prior study reports: , Access policy and jurisdiction: Review process: _ Requirements: L Miscellaneous: SIGNATURES Study Preparer Reviewers Applicant Packet Pg. 931 9.A.2.e TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON ITE TRIP GENERATION MANUAL910M EDITION PROPOSED GAS STATION Table 1 Prnnnced band Uses Land Use Size 3,454 sq. ft. C-store Proposed: & 7-Eleven 19 Re -Fueling Positions Table 1A Trip Generation m. s.. ! .. ,r..+..,.. U..aA ..n 10 Vitalina Pncitinnc t].1TC 04AI Land Use ^ Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Weekday P.M. Peak Hour ` Daily (2-way) In Out Total In Out Total Gasoline Service Station With Convenience Market 135 129 264 136 130 266 3,940 (19 Re -Fueling Positions) *LUC 945 governs since it generates more trips than Luq, a3.i. Table 1B Trip Generation Tria Generation based on 3,454 SQ. FT. of Floor Area of C-Store (LUC 853) Weekda A.M. Peak Hour I Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Daily Land Use in Out 'Total In Out Total (2-way)jj Convenience Market w/Gasoline Pumps 70 70 140 85 85 170 2,156 (3.454 S . Ft.) Table 2 Na+Naw'rrine PrnnncPd aaq,c R'tatinn Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Weekday P.M. Peak HoL4w aily Land Use In put Total In Out Toay) Gasoline Service Station With Convenience 135 129 264 136 130 266 3,940 Market (3,454 Sq. Ft. C-Store & 19 Re - Fueling Positions) Less Pass -By 1 -66 -66 -132 -66 -66 -132 -1,970 New Trips 69 63 132 70 64 134 1,970 *50% Pass -by rate. a a c� E Packet Pg. 933 9.A.2.e i ' ! a E M E 3 c aD a� ,L^ V ti O LO N O O O O T" O N J a Packet Pg. 934 9.A.2.e Michelle Salber From: Clark, Mark <Mark.Clark@dot.state.fl.us> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 9:06 AM To: Al Quattrone; Michelle Salberg; levans@creightondev.com Cc: DeBoy, Brian T; Kautz, Nathan; Schaill, Deanna Subject: Pre -application Meeting Minutes 7-11 US 41 and Greenway Road in Collier County (Sect 03010, MP: 23.56 - 23.65) Attachments: Sign In Sheet 7-11.pdf All, A meeting was held on August 27th, 2018, at the FDOT Southwest Area Office. The stipulations agreed to during the meeting were based upon conceptual information provided to the department at the time of the meeting and are subject to change pending any changes to the development plans for the property, changes to the existing state roadway system, or changes to the department's standards or specifications that could impact the development of said property. • This meeting was held to provide FDOT an opportunity to provide comments regarding a proposed gas station convenience store located on the northwest quadrant of US 41 and Greenway Road in Collier County. • This portion of US 41 has an Access Management Classification of 3 with a posted speed of 60 mph. The established spacing standard is 660 feet between driveway connections,1320 feet for directional median openings, and 2640 feet for full median openings and signals spacing. • The development team explained the new development would consist of a 3000 sqft convenience store with 16 fueling station. A concept plan was provided reflecting a single right in / right out driveway on US 41 and two additional access points on Greenway Road. • FDOT staff explained the site does not have adequate frontage on US 41 to obtain a conforming access point. However, the Department would not object to issuing a non -conforming driveway on US 41 with the understanding the development will have to provide a cross access to the neighboring parcel(s) to the west. • FDOT staff explained while the driveway on US 41 does not meet spacing, there are no immediately conflicting access points west of Greenway Road, so the non -conforming driveway would provide reasonable access in the intern condition, until such time as a conforming access can be achieved in the future. • The driveway on US 41 must be designed with an inbound lane width of 16 feet and an outbound lane width of 12 feet with a minimum ingress and egress radii of SO feet. • If the site warrants a westbound right turn deceleration lane it will be design to FDOT's standards and include a 7' bicycle "key hole" lane. The deceleration length shall be based on the posted speed limit. • A traffic impact analysis must include trip generation based on the latest edition of the ITE trip generation manual, A.M & P.M. peak hour movement, traffic distribution and turning movement analysis provide in graphic format. The study must also include an Intersection analysis of US 41 and Greenway Road. The a a C9 T M E Packet Pg. 935 9.A.2.e development team was informed ITE 101h edition included a new land use code specifically for Super Convenience Market/Gas Station, (LUC 960). Based on the characteristic shown on the concept plan, this would be the appropriate land use code for this project. • FDOT staff explained additional offsite improvements maybe required, those improvements will be reviewed once Department has an opportunity to review the traffic impacts for the development. These improvements may include construction or extending deceleration lanes that will be utilized by the parcel. Q • The developer should provide centerline profile of proposed driveway with elevations and slope percentages a from the centerline of the state road to 50 ft. beyond property line. E • When the developer moves forward with this project, they should be aware it will be a condition of the 2 E permit that if and when signal warrants are met within 1 full year after total build out of the site, the developer of this project will be required to review the intersection using the intersection Comprehensive Evaluation (ICE) to determine the preferred alternative design of the intersection. The developer will be 3 required to pay and construct the preferred design atthe intersection. All analyses necessary for determination of the preferred design shall be the responsibility of the developer. L Per F.A.C.14-96.003(4): "Traffic control features and devices in the right of way such as traffic signals, channelizing islands, medians, median openings, and turn lanes are operational and safety characteristics of the State Highway System and are not means of access. The Department may install, remove, or modify any present or future traffic control feature or device in the right of way to promote traffic safety in the right of way or promote efficient traffic operations on the highway. A connection permit is only issued for connections and not for any present or future traffic control devices at or near the permitted connections. The permit may describe these features and/or devices, but such description does not create any type of interest in such features." Please respond to this e-mail within five (5) business days if you believe the information provided above does not accurately summarize the meeting. If there are no comments or suggested changes, the above meeting notes will be considered as acceptable. Malik Clark Access Matiagettteiit Specialist FDOT SIt7FT SrutGrude. Center 10041 Datuels Patkrivj, Fo1TMyels, Florida 33913 Illark-.cl,�lk -Odotstite fl trs (239) 225-1984 Packet Pg. 936 9.A.2.e TABLES 1 ♦ , 1 a a C9 T M E �o 3 c aD a� ,L^ V ti O LO N O O O O T" O N J a Packet Pg. 937 (`ddWJ !Welwel - Aeanu00a0 LOSZ0008WZ-ld : 0£9£O 10313ed UOIMDd uoi;e0ilddNf (£ :;ugwLj3e;4,y u O 0 � r Z Z Zti al$ z 0 to LU U- LU oLU K U O W CL Q 0 2 d = c e H W Z �) 9 H 0 P e O r U � LL � W H U � W O de 34 2 w O J Z �I M 0 O U O 0 U uj W Z W S Z O 2 W O O 10 a m� woo Zo❑Q W U Z U u ems° W C O o a X Z a � p o Q O U v 2Jv H 2 O W z � ui w U z nW. U U U- ILL T � r € W W 2 � Sj as �� ILIL ww �w >> 0 O __ Y �z W d d Q a a 3 a o � 0 o D 00 Cl) m Cb a m U m a m 0 !Wm we -Ae mua J@ Lo§ZOOO8 Z d: MCO 1031aad U01 and ugmm MdNf % uewLj,q; m(%fd W 2 Q _ § z Ea. LU � � \ j CO 0 LU � Z � ] J u > « ® a a ( - § a � R � - § - ] § a 2 § ¢ _ o , 2 LLI 2 § p \@ @ k } ) } Z } ) § G § � LL, co \ < 7 « « Z _ _ -J Z § d D D 2 ° § Z o 0 2 16 z § ) o R O U R a- § $ m © ƒ k I , cq e a § \ § § S � ƒ o � ] LLI _ q m 8 > > I § / / / )42 ) ( �f } ■ ( \ LLI LLI Z § ) C k 2 0 0 ® % 5 § LLI D. 9 ? + � 2 2 r & % 0 2 S � g 9.A.2.e TABLE 3A ANNUAL GROWTH RATE CALCULATIONS BASED UPON HISTORICAL AUIR DATA 2009 2019 ANNUAL ACTUAL CURRENT AUIR AUIR YRS OF GROWTH GROWTH ROADWAY SEGMENT ID# VOLUME VOLUME GROWTH RATE RATE US 41 W. of Greenway Rd 95.2 588 1,040 10 4.00% 5.87% E. of Greenway Rd 95.3 588 1,040 10 4.00% 5.87% • All traffic volumes were obtained from the 2009 & 2019 Annual Update Inventory Reports (AUIR) •• Per County SDP comments (PL20200000677), dated May 12, 2020, a growth rate of 4.0% was used Instead. SAMPLE GROWTH RATE CALCULATION 2019 AUIR "(1Nrs of Growth) Annual Growth Rate (AGR) _ -1 2009 AUIR 1,040 ^(1/10) AGR (US 41) _ -1 588 AGR (US 41) = 5.87% a Packet Pg. 940 9.A.2.e a E M E 3 c aD a� ,L^ V ti O LO N O O O O T" O N J a Packet Pg. 941 N d (V 0 iweiwel - AeMU00JO LOSZOOOS Wed : ME 0 1013ed uoi;i}ad uoi}eoilddV (E :;uewy3e4jv w rJ�u A a R u v m m m m u mla A 14 W U R Qju m m 14 o u s0 LJ m m W a [iEfq L u u w w w q u u NO V A iJ 4 C1 R h� a�P��i1n7FRF�15�3tl�iiE$��7��5•.��q�;aW��F'^'.gfR�$ d�' ilk lfv�'r: ^•� 111O��S.xn�ae��ilxi��'.�1��iq��e�� Y i .��$'� aRnp. g �6 4e.8§n�8�1��G°�P��RGBn 0 n$zge Ej�.iT-9-En- _ `?{Rn�R"' virnn or 3 'AAA' ,t�a��a °fat -ter 9F3b OTI!! e� �i -iS �a aC� r� � � ��^8 - i -p�N+r�nry xrl 1 N xMS �- r7'`r'�R 3 vSe �'�Yei "�x�a.. •e ar�.�rCfR'.v''��i4SO9 p k"�i �°`�•F. cF'i�BY °FY •-iCr�eegga I,. rrw.�a Y-.^phi Tk EZ..n ��'_r`Ti rv.�ti i�n��v;�$es�� c��e aS��°'i �. �.� gS•Svy.x }I��nv •ri r'+�y'{7^a3v ass ! SLUMsa"a$A�Z, ;S �vNQQ3�F Q.ay.�SoSw"4.'^e'4a9Jtng�y�,� n '�1 n w e•1 - - - .-i a Y �iiy OR891 °�5�ir�i rS iZ$B�F 'ia-»�.t..Sri-iR 8R8F�8 iy m 7 % x •r. en 7 7 1 W 4! 7 L;'W W W W m o 3 =� T. 7 M T. 7 x x 3 N•en men � en�3'+3 rin�3��,�Si v�S�ih N:il:3�71�w��nFN�n �,�•,��33a��i13Y� n5:63tl��n.�nn� 71e, 8 RIB S r 3 3' P 1 11. 9 s 1 1� - .,Er 9� atill 1 - I�igSgdl 3 3eRP3 $ t c: � �9� yAN maj wF �y 'NEMORE] Hgg$ I y ri4a7:�v1�7 q It gg s� k W y q �3W.ii a Y a a a FFr-hht- I+N FHYiF •� ,$j• i•F ? •i� ] u 9 S� •�i N ..e6i �jx"i>� F I» �AAP "^ [l I :1 r.��ri ui ,°uil y�n Gi � 0p�DPPlAit yti, ?`3„,1., F R. N a m M a SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT FIGURES A-1 & A-2 :;z E M E I Packet Pg. 943 9.A.2.e a E M E 3 c aD a� ,L^ V ti O LO N O O O O T" O N J a Packet Pg. 944 pTRANSPORTATION TRCONSULTANTS, INC z w w of N.T.S. :;z (&om LEGEND 0 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 0 4-(000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC -4- 00 (4-(20% ONE-WAY AM TRIP DISTRIBUTION 4�_( 0 " 4-(20%) ONE-WAY PM TRIP DISTRIBUTION SSIGNIVIENT & DISTRIBUTION OF PASS -BY PROJECT TRIPS 7-ELEVEN @ GREENWAY ROAD F oure An Packet Pg. 945:] 9.A.2.e COST FEASIBLE PLANT a E M E Packet Pg. 946 (V E)!WBl ael - Aennuaaa9 L05Z0009WZ-1d : MCO 10313ed uoi;i;ad uoi;eoijddV (£ :;uewt43ePV UNION IN M111111111119111111IM1111111.1110 oil Bill ..... . ...... 1� ti a m m a Em :;z E M E I Packet Pg. 948 9.A.2.e 2018 PEAK SEASON FACTOR CATEGORY REPORT - REPORT TYPE: DISTRICT CATEGORY: 0300 COLLIER COUNTYWIDE MOCF: 0.89 WEEK DATES SF PSCF 1 01/01/2018 - 01/06/2018 0.94 1.06 2 01/07/2018 - 01/13/2013 0.94 1.06 3 01/14/2018 - 01/20/2018 0.94 1.06 * 4 01/21/2018 - 01/27/2D18 0.92 1.03 * 5 01/26/2018 - 02/03/2D18 0.90 1.01 * 6 02/04/2018 - 02/10/2018 0.89 1.00 Q * 7 02/11/2018 - 02/17/2018 0.87 0.98 * e 02/18/2018 - 02/24/2018 0.86 0.97 * 9 02/25/2018 - 03/03/2010 0.86 0.97 *10 03/04/2018 - 03/10/2018 0.86 0.97 *11 03/11/2018 - 03/17/2019 0.86 0.97 E *12 03/18/2019 - 03/24/2018 0.87 0.98 *13 03/25/2018 - 03/31/2010 0.88 0.99 E *14 04/01/2018 - 04/07/2018 0.90 1.01 *15 04/08/2018 - 04/14/2018 0.91 1.02 *16 04/15/2018 - 04/21/2018 0.93 1.04 >% 17 04/22/2018 - 04/2B/2018 0.95 1.07 ca 18 04/29/2018 - 05/05/2018 0.98 1.10 19 05/06/2018 - 05/12/2018 1.01 1.13 y 20 05/13/2016 - D5/19/2018 1.04 1.17 L 21 05/20/2018 - 05/26/2018 1.05 1.18 (� 22 05/27/2018 - D6/02/2018 1.06 1.19 23 06/03/2018 - 06/09/2018 1,06 1.21 24 06/10/2018 - 06/16/2018 1.09 1.22 N 25 06/17/2018 - 06/23/2018 1.08 1.21CD 26 06/24/2018 - 06/30/2D18 1.08 1.21 27 07/01/2018 - 07/07/2018 1.07 1.20 00 r 28 07/08/2018 - 07/14/2018 1.06 1.19 N 29 07/1s/2018 - D7/21/2018 1.06 1.19 J 30 07/22/2018 - D7/28/2018 1.06 1.19 a 31 07/29/2018 - 08/04/2028 1.06 1.19 32 08/05/2018 - 08/11/2018 1.06 1.19 M 33 08/12/2018 - 09/18/2018 1.07 1.20 M 34 08/19/2016 - 08/25/2018 1.08 1.21 35 08/26/2018 - 09/01/2D18 1.10 1.24 36 09/02/2018 - 09/08/2018 1.11 1.25 37 09/09/2018 - 09/15/2018 1.13 1.27 Y 38 09/16/2018 - 09/22/2018 1.12 1.26 v 39 CF9/23/2018 - 09/29/2018 1.10 1.24 dto 40 09/30/2018 - 10/06/2018 1.09 1.22 0 41 10/07/2018 - 10/13/2019 1.09 1,21 0 42 10/14/2016 - 10/20/2018 1.06 1.19 +' 43 10/21/2018 - 10/27/2018 1.04 1.17 4) 44 10/28/2018 - 11/03/2018 1.02 1.15 45 11/04/2018 - 11/10/201B 0.99 1.11 r- 0 46 11/11/2018 - 11/17/2018 0.97 1.09 47 11/18/2018 - 11/24/2018 0.96 1.08 v 48 11/25/2018 - 12/01/2018 0.96 1.08 - 49 12/02/2018 - 12/08/2018 0.95 1.07 Q 50 12/09/2018 - 12/15/2018 0.94 1.06 Q 51 12/16/2018 - 12/22/2018 0.94 1.06 52 12/23/2018 - 12/29/2018 0.94 1.06 c") 53 12/30/2018 - 12/31/2018 0.94 1.D6 d * PEAK SEASON E t 26-FEB-2D19 1B:31:28 830UPD 1 0300 PKSEASON.TXT -- v cC r Q Packet Pg. 949 :;z a. T M E I Packet Pg. 950 c t Q N M N 4 NV m ^3 i.. L (0 V r N (`ddWJ !Welwel - AeMUGGJ0 LOSZ0008WZ-ld : 0£9£O 10313ed UOIMad uoi;eoilddNf (£ :;ugwLj3e;4,y 5 z pQ4 e} r I- r I- t1' O) 00 eb G 0 O M In m 0000 �o 00 Q1 r 0 0 Cl O Ih r C. O p N O) r r N N 00 N N r N co r O O O m p ti e0- er- M ar- Or O h c ti E O O COi z O O O O O O O O O O O O O OC t✓ O z c, 40 O r h 0D M O O M O O w O � r J er p 4f J V~' sN^ sN^ OOD r o o p Co .0 O � N 03 O N .0 N 40� ti N h h to tM0 N M O t~O O O w N 0 M O O r N r r r N O r C 0 M w O Q I.- v M M ti O O Q F r O O O lz r r O O O O N � N N I co i3jj0 .Q ��z � � o0000 ooror o r o 0 0 O z 0 m CDO wN u( N wOd' V~' wN O C NN N O Q F O O 0 O O 00 o 0 0 0 0 c O Z O O O M O 'd' ti O aN- !O � 4 C OO O t- M t0 0 jj � �' tM N o tr0 'd' d' N O 'd' N 0 N eq C L t0 V O M b O1 N N r r t0 r 0 0 0 r O I� r O O M a�i O O O O O CL r M M Q1 V' r N CD O M N CD Q O �1' M O N LO N N N N O CDN O O r Li O O O � w N O O eO'i w C N r N O I O O O r N eM O 00 O O 0 N l6 � ` O sr O O O h p t r M r r t0 O r O O r O f` O O O ih M 00 CD O 00 V' O r w I r O W M N tD M N O N (� �' F YMv}9 0 Ln VO 9a o2°¢o� emu E s )CL o IL _inin00 0o do ao o Cl Cl O OO OO d E U N U c V U O E H 0 a F- z D U LO m 6 a m m a N d a) O N 1 M N 1 M 3 L to t9 d' D (`ddWJ !Welwel - AeMuaaa0 LOSZ0008WZ-ld : 0£9£O 1e313ed 1-101Mad uoi;eoilddNf (£ :;ugwLj3e;4,y m 0 N M N V' O ao d E z m o IL J US 41 3 212 6 0 Right Thru Left U-Turn C M N M N So U 1+ OD o► 5i E Norm m U. ,iO0 at=== a) M M a 4) a) 2o-a0L aQa � 4 </ wnl-n 3481 m4l 1461H 0 9v OGZ 06 av sn a N Vrc O � N N LO m a m m a IU N d (`ddWJ !Welwel - AeMUGGJ0 LOSZ0008WZ-ld : 0£9£O 10313ed UOIMad uoi;eoilddNf (£ :;ugwLj3e;4,y m 0 N M N O 2 �o p Lo w e e r �D N N w w N O O L M ~ N N N N T N N N N Im O O C to P P Oa O ., r N P OV4O QI Q O to P c O O G Z 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 O O Q G t0 P O Z CDP+ Ln w N N N O t0 a0 O O Ln O m a =p J N N N G G fG ti G N a � a A W aa n n Ln N O e� w O Im N CD t0 OMO F N IOp IOp N N O N p lq OD t0 NIP lf7 N O Oa tD O O N lf7 O P to � P O m co O tT r a 0 oa C � O O O O >> O 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 I O O O Q O O m Z C � 01 r17 00 M tf7 00 OD O N OD O M M p+ r t0 O O O O w aD, I P f0 � f00 o a O L M O O P a P O O O I L O M O O r Ol P O M T IN O O O N N O r� tT p p r17 aT O O O P G ID l I O r r Oa Oa M tl0f G f0 �f7 E I I O O i O O tZ0 9 _ oo ep P r M N M O oD O N O M O O G O Of P Lq .y O O a rn h. m vN n P 0' O N r17 m O �f7 Lq tT' Lq fV 0 G o r. trf7 CO m M T Of O N Lq Q P Q G G O r 00 to P O a �.. �D N OD M CDLo W P r` I P O O O O O Q~ P N O E00 00 0 00 0 Sy7 M !M O O N O P O P N P O N tt7 O a CD o o c Z o t O O O O O O O O O O O O c c o Z V ~ P t t0 r to N P N ac CD •�"—' P T T T �"P P T �"' (' oI- ^a YO UO Ln O Ln O LnCL E Mo ,o0 O ovoo P = IL a M O N 67 N d 0 a 67 W C m aEi > 0 m E 0 0 a z 0 U M LO m 6 a m U m a (V 0 iuleiulel - AeMuaaa9 LOSZOOO8WZ-ld : O£ CO 10313ed uoi;i;ad uoi;eailddV (£ :;uawLj3e;4,y m 0 N a a El rn 0 N m M o Z (D o U. J US 41 14 507 19 0 Right Thru Left U-Tum co � as N d �m> W Y a m R a r. IL CL IL aQ,aa uinl-n 31e1 nj41 1481a 0 9L 96Z W �v en E 0 U tM f0 U rn c .c 0 0 U 0 M LO m a m m a 9.A.2.e 040,11rolmom fill 0 it TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES a a C9 T M E Packet Pg. 955 (`ddWJ !Welwel - AeMUGG10 LOSZ0008WZ-ld : 0£9£O 10313ed UOIMOd uoi;eoilddNf (£ :;u0uay3e;4,y to N d N 4) E 0 V cm J9 t� m L d V i� U. 0 i� C 4) E a 0 0 d G 0 0 >mMOM ptntn rr N m�ON 00inti ti m ??N�-N N N ?? Co CO 0 (O p U) 1, 1- m > r > N mNOcc OtUO 0 co w �- r N r' W F- Opp 0 pal, 'Tm F- co aWN�- M to m aw O M � Ot) tt) I;r �� co Q W O npj�O U! O n. v OmNOtj 10 pto� ear O m _ � s- N r r = to IL Ot (- n M o- U')m cn r N N N 0-0 p to Nco co It co � r C.I 1 N'. �p Z O O F- z d � N �� v J CM N m Z N D d N �. 0 tt) p tt) 0 tp to to `- N ti pOp 0 Ott)O r N �. 'tAOtA 0 O�tO m r N t .4 - � CU U O C) iy c o N °> c ` rn En` E U C CU y O F- 0 + N p Ca 0 'D D 0 U� O C C o 0)cx v o 0 c 2 le E to to n iKSm� F— F- to C •C O m V m Y ` d �Q.0 O �N 0 pN C�i-N aN IF, [YpIO O0�� OM t `- N o p O 0 pLa ' U) r tLO d' N 0 N N r N �. to 0 0 0�ti ti N �Or 0 0U')to Ntto N M 0 M , M r- II- co o �p 0 U')00 M t�0 0 r r N N p 0 p 0- p in O mm s- r r N NON 00C4 MM r N �. to 0 tp o 0 tp to to r N ti 0- o th er � o0 r N � D Oh OR O 1- ti r N N E O V N p U LL 2 0) �c0 o O M Q E U C N N` N f- 0 t > - Ca O O tD ' .O �U� Cock vo 0 c)o 0 Co a �m F- in C m V m Tu p N �a U c�>-N aN LO m Cb a m i U m a (%fdVV0 !Welwe-L - AeMU00J0,LO5;Z0008WZ-ld : MCO 10313ed UOIMGd uoijeoilddNf (C :ju0wLj3ej4,v 0 I- 0 Qs 0 E M 0 00) > CN ce)- c CN 't t'iQC:) C,4 M c) C) c) Lo 0 0 C) c; F- M r-- C:) C) C:) 10-0 C) Lo 0 0 c) c) 0 Lo 0 0 in c) C) c) 0 � 0 CY) LO U) c) c) C) Lo o C) W C; CL 0 co in C) C). c) LO 0 0 a9w 0 0 in C) C). o C) Lo 0 0 x ri) C; CL F- r-- C�j co C) LO W) an 2 aC) N in CD O p CDCD to 0 0 C; w w r- -.0- CD CD 6 co CD LO O CD CD W) C-i CD CD CD CDCD to 0 0 6 U) C: 0 U- > c to A) a) .0 CL E C NE 0 F- + > " 0 (n CO > 0 CD c c c 0 m 0) 'F- (n a) CO CL -�z a) V) c m ca co m Y 2 CQO) t 2 co C-4 O -t 2:4) :"o CL U (D > N CL c-4 ti c) C) c) r- c) o c) ti c) C) c) C) too ci C) to 0 C) qC) to 0 C) 0 0 0 r- C) to 0 LO In C) ti IR 0 pop qC) to 0 0 C) pop "R 0 8to 0 C) 0 C; ti pop 0-0 C3to 0 C) 0 C; 0)It r- c)Lo �09 C) 00 00 N to 0 ci m c) c) 00 to 0 0 Z C) C:) eo C) -.-, 0 C) LO C) CN N 00 CY) z N M c) Q c) a to 9 Z C) 42 E � C cn :3 U a) :3 -6 0 co E > LL :3 c co 0) C cn A) 0. (1) .0 '6 E E E 0 N :3 F- :3 + > 2 U) , Cq 0 0 "D 0 > -0 c C C -�z w ion a) 0 CD - :3 0) c 0 'E c CO CL -�z 0 CD _ F- toc 0 co — (n w 3: -Y- T E,t M " CD :3 o CO C,4 p N CN:, CL U ("D >T CRI CL I- LO m 6 a. m a. (`ddWJ !Welwel - Aeanu00a0 LOSZ0008WZ-ld : 0£9£O 10313ed UOIMDd uoi;e0ilddNf (£ :;ugwLj3e;4,y O C O L t� m L L U. d O ,Q O E Z Q O '6 {0 O N 0 � d N N CL O t? Q N m F m JI co m W F m W 0 M O e( W 0 M h Y U) Y {0 d IL IF: J m UJ � pop r- 0 pop � o ouzo o Dino O o O � m m m > pop 0 �tt�O O m W r- 000 o o no o F- am O 0 pop rnta ono cW o pOp Ott�O 000T O m `- oo = cn Y t0 d a ti N O M o U to d m V- C) O Cc UJ O LL, m Z F m Z 0 O C) O O r � tt) O i A Ln r N . O p � 0 0000 0000 O r- p o p c- oop r- 000 U) O ono o OR 00 Lo O o 0 O r- p0 OR � O pOp �tt�0 O o OR '- ci rOR - p O p Lo O O O O toh O ONO ONO � N r. p O p o 00 t0 O O � O p O p 0 U-) O O MOp OtOT T OOO OHO ONO ONO O t U 0) O (j U- N O E � E d t c N a) N 1- 0 + O 2 U(f) 0 m C �G co v o - L o 0 -E N t0 d M CO I U F U F'm C = Om 5m N Q N dN 00 LO m 6 a m m a d E O C .a C O t� t� m m i it LL O C d E a O m d cl (`ddWJ !Welwel - Aeanuaaa0 LOSZ0008WZ-ld : 0£9£O 10313ed UOIMad uoi;e0ilddNf (£ :;ugwLj3e;4cy N d a N N M � N t �- N U) aO M Q N c`a o a) 0 - 0 c O c O m GO 7 mCCC J co m p O C:)to )q M r V' O O O o o 4t1 \ 0tn0 co 0 O 4t1 O m 7 t- mm `� J GO O O �- r coo c0 �- CO 0 O O o oInM o� w 0-0- Nino m co O o 0 C� 0 0 In 0 O m h o 0 � 0 Co V) 0 O w r p w O C.0 OHO o0tn0 O W OHO o �tn0 O O O a 0 M C CO C.0 o OR o t n 0 O to J m 0 0 0 O in 0 O aW o o oW �- o O Om000 o ouzo o `'r" co co �� o m0o0 o Dino 0 cn►o r- r. = U) �- o = U) o Y x m IL a t- ampoo r- ouzo o CL H aU) ti o o ono 0 U) o o m0g0 m0 0 �tAO O U) r O LL m z GO z po O � O h, pOp o �tnC O o pOp 0 00tn0 O � O co t= " : O U O U L ° rn c o o> c •E u� a� . Eo Q E U C CD a)0 :3 F- � t �UC(D c rnc rnc,d vo ca °- o coca C a W m O F- U) c ° C ~ m 8.4 �Q.() (Di-N N GO z J GO z p O p �tAO O � O 000 ouzo 0 r- O E., o O co h — c U N p V Lca L 2 C C O °> c_ m °' E c En` f� + .O O �L) me �c� °�°�E ai -v o 'c cn m U Oca U f- I—U) C _ �m Um Q ca �- O m N p N Lr 0.0 U� N Q N a) LO m 6 a m U m a 9.A.2.e a a C9 T M E �o 3 c a� a� ,L^ V ti O LO N O O O Co T" O N J a Packet Pg. 960 9.A.2.e US 41 a a C9 T M E �o 3 c aD a� ,L^ V ti O LO N O O O O T" O N J a Packet Pg. 961 9.A.2.e a a C9 T M E �o 3 c aD a� ,L^ V ti O Lo N 0 0 0 00 T" 0 N J a 0 2024 AM PEAK SEASON PEAK HOUR M M a+ d Y V fd a c 0 m a c 0 r R a a a M C E t V f0 r Q Packet Pg. 962 9.A.2.e MEN=, General Information Site Information Analyst Intersection US 41 & Greenway Rd Agency/Co. TR Transportation Cons. Jurisdiction Collier County/FDOT Date Performed 6/7/2019 East/West Street US 41 Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Greenway Rd/Sandpiper Dr Time Analyzed AM Pk Hr Background Peak Hour Factor 0.95 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description F1904.13 Lanes` rr Mnjv Street East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U 1 T R Priority lU 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration L T R L T R L T R LTR Volume (veh/h) 0 1 53 * 414 106 0 7 303 3 61 0 6 2 3 145 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion 'rime Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No Median Type ( Storage Left + Thru 2 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 Critical Headway (sec) 4.16 4.16 7.56 6.56 6.96 E7.56 6.S6 6.96 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.S 4.0 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 223 2.23 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 56 7 64 0 6 158 Capacity, c (veh/h) 1227 '. 1011 400 416 783 826 v/c Ratio 0.0S 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.01 0.19 95% Queue Length, Qys (veh) 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.7 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.1 8.6 pE 15.7 13.7 9.6 10.4 Level of Service (LOS) ::f:A: IEE A C B A B Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.7 0.2 15.2 10A Approach LOS C B Copyright m 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSI TWSC Version 7.8 Generated: 6/7/2019 3:53:21 PM TW5Cl.xtw c as V,L^ ti LID O N 0 0 0 00 0 N J I1 0 M <O M d Y 0 M a O r d a _ Q Q Q M _ d E s 0 M Q Packet Pg. 963 9.A.2.e Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Year Time Analyzed Intersection Orientation Project Description TR Transportation Cons. 6/3/2020 2024 AM Pk Hr W/ Project East-West F1904.13 ww, anwrmaiwn Intersection Jurisdiction East/West Street North/South Street Peak Hour Factor Analysis Time Period (hrs) US 41 & Greenway Rd Collier County/FDOT US 41 Greenway Rd/Sandpiper Dr 0.9S 0.25 Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T I R U L T R U L - T R Priority lU 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration L T R L T R L T R LTR Volume (veh/h) 16 1 115 1 337 106 0 7 272 14 61 14 6 48 16 145 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No Median Type I Storage Left + Thru 2 Critical and Follow;. -up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 6.4 4.1 41 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6,5 6.9 Critical Headway (sec) 6,46 4.16 4.16 7.56 6.56 6.96 7.56 6.56 6.96' Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.5 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.53 2,23 2.23 3.53 4.03 3.33 ' 3.53 4.03 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 138 7 64 15 6 220 Capacity, c (veh/h) 1163 1084 332 356 : 832 629 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.01 0.19 0.04 0.01 0.35 95% Queue Length, Q9s (veh) 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.0 '' 1.6 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.5 8.3 18.4 15.6 9A 13.8 Level of Service (LOS) A A C C A B Approach Delay (s/veh) 1.9 0.2 17.3 13.8 Approach LOS C 8 opyright ® 2020 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS'°' TWSC Version 7.8.5 Generated: 6/5/2020 10:10:33 AM Q E to E to H C N d ,L^ V ti LO N O O O 00 O N J IL 0 M <O M d Y v O a a d a C O .Q CL Q M +.i C d s t� O Q AM Peak Hr With Project.xtw d Packet Pg. 964 9.A.2.e a a C9 T M E �o 3 c aD a� ,L^ V ti O Lo N 0 0 0 00 T" 0 N J a 0 2024 PM PEAK SEASON PEAK. HOUR M a+ d Y V fd a c 0 m a c 0 r R Packet Pg. 965 9.A.2.e Analyst Intersection US 41 & Greenway Rd Agency/Co. TR Transportation Cons. Jurisdiction Collier County/FDOT Date Performed 6/7/2019 East/West Street US 41 Analysis Year Time Analyzed Intersection Orientation 2024 North/South Street PM Pk Hr Background Peak Hour Factor East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) Greenway Rd/Sandpiper Dr 0.94 0.25 Project Description F1904.13 Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound ! Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority lU 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 1 ` 2 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration L T R L T R L T R LTR Volume (veh/h) 0 88 423 72 0 22 724 17 77 4 6 2 0 79 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 J 3 3:= 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Right Tum Channelized No No No Median Type Storage Left + Thru 2 Base Critical Headway (sec) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 Critical Headway (sec) 4.16 4.16 7.56 6.56 6.96 7.56 6.56 6.96 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 E4O3E3.33 Follow-Up Headway (sec) 2.23 2.23 3.53 4.03 3.33353 Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 94 23 82 4 1 6 86 Capacity, c (veh/h) 821 1030 28S 236 77S 593 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.02 0.29 0.02 0.01 0.15 95% Queue Length, Q9s (veh) 0.4 0.1 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 Control Delay (s/veh) 10.0 8.6 22.6 20.5 9.7 12.1 Level of Service (LOS) A A C C A B oachDelay (s/veh) 1.5 0.2 21.6 12.1 oach LOS F C B Copyright 0 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS'' TWSC Version 7.8 benerateo: t/i/Luly s:�/::)u viw AM Peak Hr With Project.xtw Packet Pg. 966 9.A.2.e General Information Site Information Analyst Intersection US 41 & Greenway Rd Agency/Co. TR Transportation Cons. Jurisdiction Collier County/FDOT Date Performed 6/3/2020 East/West Street US 41 Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Greenway Rd/Sandpiper Dr Time Analyzed PM Pk Hr W/ Project Peak Hour Factor 0.94 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description F1904.13 Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T I R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration L T R L T R L T R LTR Volume (veh/h) 13 140 359 72 0 22 650 33 77 18 6 34 1 13 79 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Right Turn Channeiized No No No Median Type I Storage Left + Thru 2 Base Critical Headway (sec) 6.4 4.1 4.1 7.S 1 6.5 6.9 7.5 1 6.5 1 6.9 Critical Headway (sec) 6.46 4.16 4.16 7.56 6.56 6.96 7.56 6.56 6.96 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.5 2.2 2.2 3.S 4.0 3.3 3.S 4.0 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.53 2,23 2.23 ' 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 163 23 82 19 6 134 Capacity, c (veh/h) 803 1092 237 200 815 409 v/c Ratio 0.20 0,02 0.35 0.10 0,01 0.33 95%Queue Length, Q9s (veh) 0.8 0.1 1.S 0.3. 0.0 1.4 Control Delay (s/veh) 10.6 8.4 28.0 24.9 9.S 18.1 Level of Service (LOS) B A D C A C Approach Delay (s/veh) 2.8 0.3 26.3 18.1 Approach LOS D C opyright ® 2020 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS" TWSC Version 7.8.5 Generated: 6/5/2020 10:12:18 AM PM Peak Hr With Project.xtw Packet Pg. 967 * SOUTH SITE ACCESS :;z a. T M E 0 0 (D E I Packet Pg. 968 :;z a. T M E 2024 AM PEAK SEASON PEAK HOUR fd r_ 0 a. C 0 (D E I Packet Pg. 969 9.A.2.e General Information Site Information Analyst Intersection Greenway Rd & S. Site Acc Agency/Co. TR Transportation Cons. Jurisdiction Collier County/FDOT Date Performed 6/3/2020 East/West Street S. Site Access Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Greenway Road Time Analyzed AM Pk Hr W/ Project Peak Hour Factor 0,95 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.2S Project Description 171904.13 Lanes I Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T I R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 B 9 lU 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration R T T Volume (veh/h) 59 143 150 Percent Heavy Vehicles (°/,) 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized No Median Type I Storage Undivided Critical and follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 6.2 Critical Headway (sec) 6.23 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 62 Capacity, c (veh/h) &8S v/c Ratio 0.07 95% Queue Length, Qss (veh) 0.2 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.4 Level of Service (LOS) A Approach Delay (s/veh) 9.4 Approach LOS R opyright 0 2020 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS- TWSC Version 7.8.5 Generated: 6/5/2020 10:13:03 AM AM Peak Hr With Project.xtw Q a E d d 'L^ V ti LO N O O O 00 O N J a 0 M t0 M d Y V O a C O r d a .Q CL Q M C d E s Q Packet Pg. 970 9.A.2.e a a C9 T M E �o 3 c aD a� ,L^ V ti O Lo N 0 0 0 00 T" 0 N J a 0 2024 PM PEAK SEASON PEAK HOUR. M a c 0 m a c 0 r R C E t V f0 r Q Packet Pg. 971 9.A.2.e General Information Site Information Analyst Intersection Greenway Rd & S. Site Acc Agency/Co. TR Transportation Cons. Jurisdiction Collier County/FDOT Date Performed 6/3/2020 East/West Street S. Site Access Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Greenway Road Time Analyzed PM Pk Hr W/ Project Peak Hour Factor 0,94 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description F1904.13 Lanes I Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Sout bound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 lU 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration R T T Volume (veh/h) 45 192 82 Percent Heavy Vehicles ON 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (°!o) 0 Right Tum Channelized No Median Type ) Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 6.2 Critical Headway (sec) 6.23 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.33 Delay, Queue length, and level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 48 Capacity, c (veh/h) 968 v/c Ratio 0.05 9S% Queue Length, Q9s (veh) 0.2 Control Delay (s/veh) 8•9 Level of Service (LOS) '` A Approach Delay (s/veh) 8.9 Approach LOS A opyright 0 2020 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS' TWSC Version 7.8.5 Generated: 6/5/2020 10:13:40 AM PM Peak Hr With Project.xtw Q a E H d d ,L^ V ti 0 LO N O 0 0 00 0 N J IL 0 M t0 M d Y V a r d a C a CL Q M C d E s Q Packet Pg. 972 9.A.2.e @ NORTH SITE ACCESS a a C9 T M E �o 3 c aD a� ,L^ V ti O LO N O O O O T" O N J a Packet Pg. 973 9.A.2.e 2024 AM PEAK SEASON PEAK HOUR a E M E 3 c (D a� ,L^ V ti Lo N O O O 00 T" O N J a m L) m a c 0 m a c 0 r R L) a a a M C E t V f0 r Q Packet Pg. 974 9.A.2.e General Information Site mirorma ion Analyst Intersection Greenway Rd & N. Site Acc Agency/Co. TR Transportation Cons. Jurisdiction Collier County/FDOT Date Performed 6/3/2020 East/West Street N. Site Access Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Greenway Road Time Analyzed AM Pk Hr W/ Project Peak Hour Factor 0.95 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description F1904.13 Lanes Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L 7 R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 lU 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LR LT TR Volume (veh/h) 9 0 87 56 150 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles ON 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type I Storage Undivided Base Critical Headway (sec) 7.1 6.2 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 6A3 6.23 4.13 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.53 3.33 2.23 Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 91 L 111 92 Capacity, c (veh/h) 559 1403 v/c Ratio 0.02 0,07 95%Queue Length, Qss (veh) 0.1 0.2 Control Delay (s/veh) 11.5 7.7 Level of Service (LOS) B A Approach Delay (s/veh) 11.5 4.9 Approach LOS B opyright ® 2020 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS' TW5C Version 7.8.5 Generated: 6/5/202010:14:32 AM AM Peak Hr With Project.xtw Q a E c� E d d 'L^ V ti LO tV O O O 00 O tV J a t7 M t0 M d Y t� a _ r a C V .Q CL Q M C tU s Q Packet Pg. 975 9.A.2.e . .024 PM PEAK SEASON PEAK, a a C9 T M E �o 3 c (D a� ,L^ V ti Lo N O O O 00 T" O N J a L) m a c 0 m a c 0 r R L) C E t V f0 r Q Packet Pg. 976 9.A.2.e General Information Site Information Analyst Intersection Greenway Rd & N. Site Acc Agency/Co. TR Transportation Cons. Jurisdiction Collier County/FDOT Date Performed 6/3/2020 East/West Street N. Site Access Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Greenway Road Time Analyzed PM Pk Hr W/ Project Peak Hour Factor 0.94 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description F1904.13 Q a E ca E C N d ,L^ V ti LO N O O O 00 O N Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound a Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R o Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 lU 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 M c� M Number of Lanes 0 1 D 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 l 0 Configuration LR LT TRCD Volume (veh/h) 10 0 82 110 82 10 U Percent Heavy Vehicles (%} 3 3 3 d C Proportion Time Blocked r Percent Grade (ON 0 d RightTum Channelized C Median Type I Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Q Base Critical Headway (sec) 7.1 6.2 4.1 C Critical Headway (sec) 6 A3 6.23 4.13 CO) Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.5 3.3 2.2 = Follow-Up Headway (sec) 3.53 3.33 2.23 CD Delay, Queue length. and level of Service s c Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 11 87 Q Capacity, c (veh/h) 578 1489 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.06 95% Queue Length, Q,s (veh) 0.1 0.2 Control Delay (s/veh) 11.3 1.6 Level of Service (LOS) B A Approach Delay (s/Veh) 11.3 3.5 Approach LOS B opyright 0 2020 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS- TWSC Version 7,8,5 Generated: 6/5/202010:15:18 AM PM Peak Hr With Project.dw Packet Pg. 977 9.A.2.e @ SITE ACCESS a a C9 T M E Packet Pg. 978 9.A.2.e a a C9 T M E �o 3 c aD a� ,L^ V ti O Lo N 0 0 0 00 T" 0 N J a 0 M 2024 AM PEAK. SEASON PEAK HOUR M a c 0 m a c 0 r R a a a M C E t V f0 r Q Packet Pg. 979 9.A.2.e General Information Analyst Site Intormation Intersection US 41 & Site Access Agency/Co. TR Transportation Cons. Jurisdiction Collier County/FDOT Date Performed 6/3/2020 East/West Street US 41 Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Site Access Time Analyzed AM Pk Hr W/ Project Peak Hour Factor 0.9S Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.2S Project Description F1904.13 Lanes Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L I T R U L T R U L T R Priority lU 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Configuration T TR R Volume (veh/h) S01 38 61 Percent Heavy Vehicles M 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized No Median Type I Storage Undivided Critical and Fallow -up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 6.9 Critical Headway (sec) 6.96 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.33 Delay, Queue Length. and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 64 Capacity, t (vehfi) 710 v/c Ratio 0.09 9S% Queue Length, Qes (veh) 0.3 Control Delay (s/veh) 10.6 Level of Service (LOS) 6 Approach Delay (s/veh) 10.6 Approach LOS 8 opyright m 2020 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS'" TWSC Version 7.8.5 Generated: 6/5/2020 10:16:04 AM Q a c� E E c as d ,L^ V ti O N O 0 0 0 0 N J a 0 M <O M d Y V O a C O d a _ O Q CL Q M C d E s r Q AM Peak Hr With Project.xtw Packet Pg. 980 2024 PM PEAK SEASON PEAK HOUR :;z a. T M E L) m 0 0 L) (D E I Packet Pg. 981 9.A.2.e Genera! Information Site Information Analyst Intersection US 41 & Site Access Agency/Co. TR Transportation Cons. Jurisdiction Collier County/FDOT Date Performed 6/3/2020 East/West Street US 41 Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Site Access Time Analyzed PM Pk Hr W/ Project Peak Hour Factor 0.94 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description F1904.13 Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U I L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Configuration T TR R Volume (veh/h) 832 44 75 Percent Heavy Vehicles M) 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized No Median Type I Storage Undivided Base Critical Headway (sec) 6.9 Critical Headway (sec) 6.96 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.33 Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 80 Capacity, c (veh/h) 541 v/c Ratio 0.15 9S%Queue Length, Q,5 (veh) 0.5 Control Delay (s/veh) 12.8 Level of Service (LOS) B Approach Delay (s/veh) 118 Approach LOS B opyright O 2020 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HC5- TWSC Version 7.8.5 Generated: 6/5/2020 10:16:39 AM PM Peak Hr With Project.xiw Q a c� E c� E cr: d d 'L^ V Iti O LO N O O 0 0 O N J a 0 M 0 M d Y t� O a C O d a _ O M V Q tZ Q M C d E s t� tC Q Packet Pg. 982 :;z a. T M E I Packet Pg. 983 9.A.2.e CONVENIENCE STORE WITH SELF SERVE FUEL PUMPS ITE TRIP GENERATION REPORT, IOth EDITION 5,000 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE 19 RE -FUELING POSITIONS Land Use Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Daily (2-way) Gasoline Service Station T = 19.00 (X) — 96.53 T = 13.99 (X) W/Convenience Market (51 % In/49% Out) (51 % In/49% Out) T = 268.46 (X)—1161.00 (LUC 945) T = Number of trips, X = Vehicle Re -Fueling Positions Convenience Market T = 40.59 (X) T = 49.29 (X) w/Gasoline Pumps (50% In/50% Out) (50% In/50% Out) T = 624.20 (X) (LUC 853) T = Number of trips, X = 1,000's of square feet of Gross Floor Area (GFA) Table IA Trip Generation Trip Generation based on 19 Fueling Positions (LUC 945) Land Use Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Weekda P,M. Peak Hour Daily (2-way) In Out I Total In Out I Total Gasoline Service Station With Convenience Market 135 129 264 136 130 266 3,940 (t 9 Re-EEe Positions) *LUC 945 governs since it generates more trips than LUC 853. Table 1B Trip Generation Trip Generation based on 5,000 Sq. Ft. C-Store (LUC 853) Land Use Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Daily (2-way) In Out Total In Out I Total Convenience Market w/Gasoline Pumps 101 102 203 123 123 246 3,121 (5,000 Scl, Ft.) a E TO E Packet Pg. 984 9.A.2.e 7 Eleven Greenway Road Rezoning Environmental Information (June 2019) a a The 7 Eleven Greenway Road site is composed of one (1) parcel and is located at the northwest corner C9 of US 41 and Greenway Road. The property totals 2.81 acres in size. There is currently 1.62 acres of E "native vegetation" (as currently defined by Collier County LDC Section 3.05.07.A.1) on the property. LZ The Florida Land Use, Cover, and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) codes was used to delineate the E vegetative communities on -site. The western two thirds of the parcel appear to have been in row crop ~ production prior to 1973 (see attached 1973 aerial). Portions of this area have revegetated with slash pine and was included in the 1.62-acre FLUCCS 411E2. Please see the attached Vegetation Map and Collier County Native Vegetation Summary Map for the vegetative communities within the property. The attached Protected Species Assessment contains a discussion of the current conditions within the property. Ashley Kneram of DexBender prepared the Protected Species Assessment. A copy of her credentials is attached. Packet Pg. 985 9.A.2.e SEC770M 12 TOWAISHP. sr S RANGE-- 26 E 7 Eleven Greenway Road I 0 50 100 SCALE FEET FLUCCS description Acreage *411E2 Pine Flatwoods invaded by Exotics (26-50%) 1.62 ac. 740 Disturbed Land 1.19 ac. 2.81 ac. * Indicates Native Vegetation Association (1.62 ac.) Notes: Ply Rff-IT USE ONLY 1. Property boundary provided by Quattrone and Associates, Inc. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTMY 2. Mapping based on photointerpretation of 2019 aerial photography June 05, 2019 10:58:02 a.m. and ground trathing in May 2019. Drawing: CREIGH14PLAN.DWG Collier County Native Vegetation Summary Map (2019 Aerial) 9 DEXBENDER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING FORT MYERS 239-334-3680 a a C9 E �a Packet Pg. 986 9.A.2.e SEC70M 12 7 Eleven Green way Road TOWAUHlP M S R AGE.- 26 E i 0 50 100 SCALE FEET FLUCCS Description Acreage "411E2 Pine Flatwoods Invaded by Exotics (26-50%) 1.62 ac. 740 Disturbed Land 1.19 ac. 2.81 ac. * Indicates Native Vegetation Association (1.62 ac.) No tes: 1. Property boundary provided by Quattrone and Associates, Inc. 2. 1973 aerial photograph obtained from the Florida Department of June 05, 2059 10:58:02 a.m. Revenue. pERffrTUSEONLY, NOT FOR CONSTf2I1CT1o1Y drawing: CREIGH74PLAN.DWG Collier County Native Vegetation DEXBENDER Summar Ma (1973 Aerial) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING y FDl?T MYERS 239---334-3680 Q a C9 E �a Packet Pg. 987 1 9.A.2.e 7-Eleven #1043366 Greenway Road Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East Collier County, Florida Protected Species Assessment Prepared for: Creighton Companies, LLC 900 SW Pine Island Road, Suite 202 Cape Coral, FL 33991 Prepared by: DexBender 4470 Camino Real Way, Suite 101 Fort Myers, FL 33966 (239) 334-3680 a a T H Packet Pg. 988 9.A.2.e INTRODUCTION The 2.81± acre project is located within a portion of Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The parcel is bordered to the north and west by vacant land, to the east by Greenway Road, and to the south by US-41. SITE CONDITIONS This site consists of exotic infested uplands with disturbed areas. VEGETATIVE CLASSIFICATIONS The predominant vegetation associations were mapped in the field on 2019 digital 1" _ 100' scale aerial photography. The property boundary was provided by Quattrone and Associates, Inc. and inserted into the digital aerial. Two vegetation associations were identified using the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS). Figure 1 depicts the approximate location and configuration of these vegetation associations and Table 1 summarizes the acreages by FLUCCS Code. A brief description of each FLUCCS Code is provided below. Table 1. Acreaae Summary by FLUCCS Code FLUCCS CODE DESCRIPTION ACREAGE' 411 E2 Pine Flatwoods - Invaded by Exotics (26-50%) 1.62 740 Disturbed Land 1.19 Total 2.81 FLUCCS Code 411 E2, Pine Flatwoods - Invaded by Exotics (26-50%) This upland area includes canopy vegetation consisting of slash pine (Pinus elliotti►) and earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis). Mid canopy and ground cover vegetation is dominated by Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), grape vine (Vitis sp.), bushy bluestem (Andropogon glomeratus), and air potato (Dioscorea bulbifera). Scattered cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), and dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium) are also present. FLUCCS Code 740 Disturbed Land Vegetation in the disturbed areas consist of earleaf acacia, Brazilian pepper, cogongrass, grape vine, bushy bluestem, panicum grass (Panicum sp.), whitehead broom (Spermacoce verticillata), rosary pea (Abrus precatorius), and air potato. a a. c� E Packet Pg. 989 9.A.2.e SEC770M 12 TOWA S P. 51 S R.41VGE- 26 E 7 Eleven Green way Road I 0 50 100 SCALE FEET FLUCCS Description Acreage 411E2 Pine Flatwoods Invaded by Exotics (26-50%) 1.62 ac. 740 Disturbed land 1.19 ac. 2.81 ac. Notes: R RM. ITSl+' ONLY 1. Property boundary provided by Quattrone and Associates, Inc. A70T FOR CaNSTRUCTl4N 2. Mapping based on photointerpretation of 2019 aerial photography June 05, 2019 10:5B:02 a.m. and ground truthing in May 2019. Drawing: CREIGH14PLAN.DWG Figure 1 Protected Species DEXBENDEI4 Assessment Map ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING FORT MYERS 239-334-3680 Packet Pg. 990 1 9.A.2.e O D Based on the general habitat types (FLUCCS Codes) identified on -site there is a low potential for a limited number of species listed as endangered, threatened, or species of a special concern by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) or the a United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to potentially occur on the subject parcel. These species include Gopher Frog (Rana areolata), Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon E corgis couperi), Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), Red -cockaded Woodpecker Lo (Picoides borealis), Southeastern American Kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus), Big Cypress Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia), Florida Black Bear (Ursus americanus , floridanus), Florida bonneted -bat (Eumops floridanus), and Florida Panther (Felis concolor coryi). The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), which has been delisted by the FWC and FWS, is still protected by other regulations and was therefore included in L the survey. The Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus), delisted in 2012, is still c� protected by the Florida Black Bear Management Plan and was therefore included in the o survey. In addition, per Collier County regulations three species of orchids (Cyrtopodium o punctatum, Encyclia cochleata, and E. tampensis) and four species of wild pine g (Tillandsia fasciculata, T. utriculata, T. balbisiana, and T. flexuosa) which could potentially T" occur on -site were included in the survey. N In order to comply with FWC/FWS survey methodology guidelines, each habitat type was surveyed for the occurrence of the species listed above using meandering pedestrian belt transects. Observations for listed species were made during specific protected species survey events. The meandering pedestrian belt transects were spaced approximately 50 feet apart. The approximate location of direct sighting or sign (such as tracks, nests, and droppings) of a listed species, when observed, was denoted on the aerial photography. The 1" = 100' scale aerial Protected Species Assessment map (Figure 1) depicts the approximate location of the survey transects and the results of the survey. The listed species survey was conducted during the mid -morning hours of June 4, 2019. The weather at the time of the survey was hot and sunny. Prior to conducting the protected species survey, a search of the FWC listed species database (updated in June 2019) was conducted to determine the known occurrence of listed species in the project area. This search revealed no known protected species occurring on or immediately adjacent to the site. The database indicated that Florida black bear have been recorded adjacent to the property (Figure 2). The Florida black bear is listed as threatened by the FWC but is not listed by the FWS. In addition, the property is located within the secondary zone of the 2007 Florida Panther Focus Area identified by the FWS. The Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi) is listed as endangered by both the FWS and FWC. Packet Pg. 9 1771 N d co r �o (`ddWJ !Welwel - AeMUGGJ0 LOSZ0008WZ-ld : 0£9£O 10313ed UOIMad uoi;eoilddNf (£ :;uewLj3e;4,y z u N m a am V m a 9.A.2.e SURVEY RESULTS Collier County Plants No listed orchids or wild pines listed in LDC 3.04.03 were observed on the site. a a. Other Listed Species T No cavity trees suitable for use by the Florida bonneted bat have been observed on -site. LZ No other species listed by either the FWS or the FWC were observed on the site during the protected species survey. No species listed by either the FWS or the FWC were observed on the site during the protected species survey. In addition to the site inspection, a search of the FWC species database (updated in June 2019) revealed no known protected species within or immediately adjacent to the project limits. a YACREIG-14\PSA.docx Packet Pg. 9 3 9.A.2.e DEXBENDER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING Ashley S. Kneram, Ecologist Current Responsibilities a Provides an array of environmental services related to land development and property evaluation in Southwest Florida. These activities, performed for private landowners and public entities, include the following: protected species assessments, threatened and endangered species surveys (RCW, burrowing owl, gopher tortoise, FBB), preparation of vegetation and land use maps (FLUCCS maps), preparation of wetland functional assessments using UMAM and WRAP, development suitability reports, environmental resource permit application 3 preparation, general site inspections, and biological observations. a Education and Certifications B.S. - Marine Science/Geology/Biology, Florida Gulf Coast University, 2016 FWC Registered Burrowing Owl Agent Qualified Bald Eagle Monitor, City of Cape Coral Mariner Merchant Credential License USA0003427 Environmental Permitting Summer School — Florida Environmental Network, 2017 Affiliations Coastal Conservation Association — Eagles Chapter Vice President Edison Big Snook — Board Member USA & UCl BMX — Professional Athlete Packet Pg. 994 9.A.2.e NIM Summary 7-Eleven Greenway Naples Rezone (RZ-PL20180002374) Greenway — Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict(SSGMPA-PL20180602507/CPSS-2019-8) Tuesday, June 30, 2020 at 5:30 PM New Hope Ministries, Lecture Hall — Room 211 7675 Davis Boulevard, Naples, Florida 34104 The NIM was held for the above referenced petitions. The petitions are described as follows: a a. 1. Petition RZ-PL20180002374 — A rezone application requesting a rezone from A - Agricultural Zoning District to C-3 Zoning District to allow up to 20,000 square feet of C-3 permitted uses, including a convenience store with fuel pumps, on the property located in the northwest corner of US 41 and Greenway Road in Collier County, Florida, in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 2.81+ acres. , 2. Petition SSGMPA-PL20180002507/CPSS-2019-8, Greenway—Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict — A Small Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment to the Future Land Use Element, to allow C-3 commercial uses limited to a maximum of 20,000 square feet on the property located in the northwest corner of US 41 and Greenway Road in Collier County, Florida, in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 2.81:L acres. Note: This is a summary of the NIM. An audio recording is also provided. Attendees: On behalf of the Applicants: Lauren Evans, Creighton Construction & Management Robert Mulhere, FAICP, Hole Montes Jeff Wright, Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A. Al Quattrone, P.E., Quattrone & Associates County Staff: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section No members of the public were in attendance. Mr. Mulhere made the presentation for county staff in attendance and for audio and video recording purposes. The video recording has been uploaded and sent to members of the public at their request. Mr. Mulhere started the presentation by introducing himself and the other consultants. He went on to provide an overview of the project. The meeting concluded at approximately 5:30 PM. Packet Pg. 995 9.A.2.e Naples Bat"11j, Nms'1110 PARPOF7HE USA TODAY kELWORK Published Daily Naples, FL 34110 HOLES MONIES ASSOCIATES INC 950 ENCORE WAY STE 200 NAPLES FL 34110 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WISCONSIN COUNTY OF BROWN Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Joe Heynen who on oath says that he serves as legal clerk of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida, distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida; that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed,. Affiant further says that the said Naples Dally News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published In said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida , for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper, 611512020 Subscribed and sworn to before on June 15, 2020 Notary, State of WI, County of Brown -fARA' MOND O H Notary Public: State of Wisconsin My commission expires: August 6, 2021 Publication Cost: $94i,00 Ad No GC10434148 Customer No: 530712 PO#: Packet Pg. 996 9.A.2.e The public is invited to attend a neighborhood informaflon meeting held by Robert J. Muth FAICP, President of Hole Montes, Inc, on behalf of the property owner at the following time and location: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. New Hope Ministries, Lecture Hall — Room 211 7675 Davis Boulevard., Naples, FL 34104 The following formal applications have been made to Collier County: 1) Petition RZ-PL20180002374—A rezone application requesting a rezone from A -Agricultural Zoning District to C-3 Zoning District to allow up to 20,000 square feet of C-3 permitted uses, including a convenience store with fuel pumps, on the property located in the northwest corner of US 41 and Greenway Road in Collier County, Florida, in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 2,81± acres. 2) Petition SSGMPA-PL20180002507/CPSS-2019-8, Greenway Tamlami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict— A Small Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment to the Future Land Use Element, to allow C-3 commercial uses limited to a maximum of 20,000 square feet on the property located in the northwest corner of US 41 and Greenway Road in Collier County, Florida, in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 2.81± acres. WE VALUE YOUR INPUT Business and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation . and discuss the project with the owners and Collier County staff. We will be adhering to social distancing protocols during the meeting. If you would rather not or are unable to attend the meeting and would like to view a video of the meeting, please email us at NeighborhoodMeeting@hmeng.com and we will send a link of the video. You may also email any comments or questions to NeighborhoodMeeting@hmeng.com. Please reference 7-Eleven Greenway Naples in subject line. Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, President, Hole Montes, Inc., 950 Encore Way, Naples, FL 34110 NMC10A.V146 01 Phone: 239-254-2000 a E c� Packet Pg. 997 Q! N d (VdWJ !WBl ael - Aennu00a0 L05Z000860Z-ld : 0£9£6) 10313ed u01140d uoi;eoilddV (£ :;u8wt43ePV C 0 i � Y E Uw- C: ❑ ❑ ❑ C L ❑ cz s d U. -0 0 0 y y N Iti C ❑ [v CL ❑ m vLn r m L Y-+ .❑ � y 'N [tl y Si L Q] C U-:3c_ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C � at t N ❑ 00 Q7 '13 y :3 bm _ T C r 3 C, tn E cn ❑ u c cu 'ra C, m m a) r Q to d y [I] ❑ 1 BA -❑ y ❑- L ❑ � ❑ c ❑ ❑ " a ❑ u L7 CL >• ❑ u m r- 41 y O ? ro m ❑- C +' N U C ❑ Q, C ❑ Q7 +1 ❑ [� X E 0 a � O N � L L U) cn 0] L. Q W [i Cb ca Z 00 a m m a 9.A.2.e "M HOLE MONTES ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS 950 Encore Way • Naples, Florida 34114 - Phone 239.254.2000 • Fax: 239.254.2099 June 15, 2019 Re: 7-Eleven Greenway Naples Rezone (RZ-PL20180002374) Greenway -- Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict (SSGMPA-PL201800025071CPSS-2019-8) HM File No.: 2019.034 c� Dear Property Owner: T Please be advised that Robert I. Mulhere, FAICP, President of Hole Mantes, Inc. on behalf of the M property owner has made two (2) formal concurrent applications to Collier County: 1) Petition RZ-PL20180002374 — A rezone application requesting a rezone from A - Agricultural Zoning District to .C-3 Zoning District to allow up to 20,000 square feet of C- 3 permitted uses, including a convenience store with fuel pumps, on the property located in the northwest corner of US 41 and Greenway Road in Collier County, Florida, in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 2.81zL acres. 2) Petition SSGMPA-PL201800025071CPSS-2019-8, Greenway—Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict — A Small Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment to the Future Land Use Element, to allow C-3 commercial uses limited to a maximum of 20,000 square feet on the property located in the northwest corner of US 41 and Greenway Road in Collier County, Florida, in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 2.81L acres. In compliance with the Land Development Code requirements, a Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held to provide you an opportunity to hear a presentation about this petition and ask questions. The Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 30, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. at New Hope Ministries, Lecture Hall - Room 211, 7675 Davis Boulevard, Naples, Florida 34104. We will be adhering to social distancing protocols during the meeting. If you would rather not or are unable to attend the meeting and would like to view a video of the meeting, please email us at Neiv-hborhoodMeeting@hiiiong.com and we will send a link of the video. You may also email any comments or questions to Nei hborhoodMeetin en .com. Please reference 7-Eleven Greenway Naples in subject line. Very truly yours, HOLE MONTES, INC. Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP President RJMlsek Packet Pg. 999 Naples • Fort Myers 9.A.2.e AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-41, of the Collier County Land Development Code, I did cause the attached newspaper advertisement to appear and I did give notice by mail to the following property owners and/or condominium and civic associations whose members may be affected by the proposed land use changes of an application request for a rezoning, PUD a a amendment, or conditional use, at least 15 days prior to the scheduled Neighborhood Information Meeting. For the purposes of this requirement, the names and addresses of property owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tax rolls of Collier County and any other personas or entities who have rude a formal request of the county to be notified. The said notice contained the laymen's description of the site property of proposed change and the date, time, d and place of a Neighborhood Information Meeting. Per the attached letters, property owner's list, and copy of newspaper advertisement which are hereby made a part of this Affidavit of Compliance of App STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing Affidavit of Compliance was acknowledged before me this 1P day of rune, 2020 by means of -,y _physical presence or online notarization, by Robert J. Mulhere, who is personally known to me� or who has produced as identification. Inc A Q Signature of Notary Public —je&A'lt Kink Printea Name of Notary (Notary ,Seal) STEPHANIE KAROL Notary Public - State of Fiodda Commission N GG 965039 asrw My Comm. Expires Mar 9, 2024 $onded through Nadanl Notary Assn, HA2019120190341W?\N M1Affidavit of Compliance (6-15-2020).doe Packet Pg. 1000 T[70 ALEXIS, VALERIE 14729 APALACHEE ST NAPLES, FL 34114--- 8622 ANDERSON, KELVIN L CANDEE M SAFERIAN 11001 GREENWAY RD NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPE SERVICES INC 241S1 VENTURA BLVD CALABASAS, CA 91302 --- 0 CATHCART, STEPHEN & PATRICIA 2770 AVIAMAR CIR NAPLES, FL 34114---0 CHARLEE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSN INC %SENTRY MGMT, INC 2180 W SR 434,#S000 LONGWOOD, FL 32779-0 FC OYSTER HARBOR LLC 81S6 FIDDLERS CREEK PKWY NAPLES, FL 34114-0 FCC PRESERVE LLC 81S6 FIDDLERS CREEK PKWY NAPLES, FL 34114-9430 FIDDLER'S CREEK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 2 %WOODWARD PIRES & LOMBARDO PA 3200 TAMIAMI TRL N STE 200 NAPLES, FL 34103-0 FREEMAN REVOCABLE TRUST 1290S W 17ST ST OVERLAND PARK, KS 66221 --- 0 GARCIA, RUBEN & VIOLA 2545 MESQUITE DR NAPLES, FL 34114--- 3120 09 L8/09 L9Q AJaAV oaAa algltedwoo ww Lg x ww 9Z juwjoJ op agonbn9 09 1.8/09 L9® AaaAV Utlm alglt-edwoo „g/9 Z x „L azis lagel ANDERSON, KELVIN L 11001 GREENWAY RD NAPLES, FL 34114---0 ANDERSON, RICHARD H MICHELLE ANNE ANDERSON 2782 AVIAMAR CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 BROWN, PATTI J 14740 APALACHEE ST NAPLES, FL 34114--- 8621 CHARLEE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSN INC %SENTRY MGMT, INC 2180 W SR 434, #S000 LONGWOOD, FL 32779--0 CISNEROS JR, HUMBERTO 2S46 MESQUITE DR NAPLES, FL 34114--3119 FCC AVIAMAR LLC 81S6 FIDDLERS CREEK PKWY NAPLES, FL 34114--- 9430 FCC PRESERVE LLC 81S6 FIDDLERS CREEK PKWY NAPLES, FL 34114--- 9430 FIDDLER'S CREEK COMMUNITY f DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 2 81S6 FIDDLERS CREEK PKWY NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 G SOTO LAWN SERVICE INC 109SO GREENWAY ROAD NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 I' I. I GINORIS, LEONOR 4021 W 2ND AVE HIALEAH, FL 33012---0 I Ii I sm 9.A.2.e O ANDERSON, KELVIN L CANDEE M SAFERIAN 11001 GREENWAY RD NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 BERGER, BENNETT & FRAN 19 RYAN COURT RANDOLPH, NJ 07869 --- 0 CALLS, GLORIA 14741 APALACHEE ST NAPLES, FL 34114--- 8622 CHARLEE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSN INC %SENTRY MGMT, INC 2180 W SR 434, #S000 LONGWOOD, FL 32779--0 FC OYSTER HARBOR LLC S51 N CATTLEMAN RD # 200 SARASOTA, FL 34232 --- 0 FCC PRESERVE LLC 81S6 FIDDLERS CREEK PKWY NAPLES, FL 34114--9430 FIDDLERS CREEK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 2 % WOODWARD PIRES & LOMBARDO PA 3200 TAMIAMI TRL N # 200 NAPLES, FL 34103 --- 0 FIDDLER'S CREEK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 2 81S6 FIDDLERS CREEK PKWY NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 GARCIA, RUBEN & VIOLA 2S4S MESQUITE DR NAPLES, FL 34114--3120 I I GINORIS,.LOURDES 710 EVERGLADES BLVD N NAPLES, FL 34120 --- 0 i a C9 E R to H ca c a> C9 ti 0 0 N O 0 0 0 0 N J a 0 M O M d c� ca a c O d a c O R c,> Q Q a M c O E t c� ca Q Packet Pg. 1 171 aim '' � , © label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160/8160 2 - _ .. n-a ,.,...,..-..3:1.1...., ..... A,...-.. /\Ci.. Wo 091,9/09 G5® fiaand oane algl}edwoo ww L9 x ww 5Z }ewjol op apanbq 9.A.2.e 091.9/09 L5® fJanV q}Inn algl}edwoo „819 Z x „l. azis lagel o HABITAT FOR HUMANITY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY jj HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF CC COLLIER COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY INC I I 1114S TAMIAMI TRAIL E 1114S TAMIAMI TRL E j 11145 TAMIAMI TRL E I i NAPLES, FL 34113 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34113---7753 j NAPLES, FL 34113--- 7753 HAMILTON, BARBARA DAVID CONTORNO 9710AK RIDGE BLVD ELGIN,IL 60120 --- 0 KNAPEK, MICHAEL S & LAURA A 2794 AVIAMAR CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34114-0 LOPEZ, JOSE MANUEL VERONICA QUEZADA 14745 APALACHEE ST NAPLES, FL 34114---8622 MATT DOWNS TRUST DEIRDRE C DOWNS 359 W 1ST STREET ELMHURST, IL 60126--0 MIRELES, FIDENCIO & YADIRA 14744 APALACHEE ST NAPLES, FL 34114--- 8621 PHELPS, WILLIAM B 2501 ACHILL DR NAPLES, FL 34114---3118 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 --- 0 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 BONITASPRINGS, FL 34134--0 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 3d0 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 --- 0 HEPFC LLC 851 S FEDERAL HIGHWAY SUITE 201 BOCA RATON, FL 33432 --- 0 l� KRAUSS, ROBERT M JACQUELINE R KRAUSS 2790 AVIAMAR CIR 11 NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 MALDONADO, CELSO CASTANEDA MARIA DE JESUS CASTANEDA 1093S GREENWAY RD NAPLES, FL 34114-3114 MCLUCKIE, JOSEPH SHONA MCLEOD 2723 AVIAMAR CIR NAPLES, FL 34114---0 1 PATSY LSUMPTERTRUST 709S BUNKER CT EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55346 --- 0 POUL EST, DEBRA L 14737 APALACHEE ST NAPLES, FL 34114--- 8622 I PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 BONITASPRINGS, FL 34134 --- 0 j r PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134--0 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 BONITASPRINGS, FL 34134 --- 0 I- I IACONIANNI, FRANK & ROBIN 1912 FAIRMOUNT DR JAMISON, PA 18929 --- 0 KRUPINSKI 1R, JOSEPH A SHERYL A SCHERR 2778 AVIAMAR CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34114--0 MATEO, BERNARDO JOSE PETRONA PASCUAL BARTOLO 14732 APALACHEE ST NAPLES, FL 34114--8621 MILES, KEVIN HELEN MILES 2481 MARETE DR NAPLES, FL 34114--3122 PEREZ,ROSA 14736 APALACHEE ST NAPLES, FL 34114---8621 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 --- 0 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 --- 0 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 --- 0 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC j 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 --- 0 Packet Pg. 1 2 %r ° label size 1" x.2 5/8" compatible with Avery 0516018160 T910 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 --- 0 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 BONITASPRINGS, FL 34134 --- 0 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 BONITASPRINGS, FL 34134--0 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 --- 0 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 ' BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134--0 RAPPIN, STEVEN R & JAN 2763 AVIAMAR CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34114--0 ROBERT T CROVO 201S REV TRUST 2747 AVIAMAR CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34114---0 SOTO, GUILLERMO A 11000 GREENWAY RD NAPLES, FL 34114-0 TAYLOR III, CHARLES & CYNTHIA 2779 AVIAMAR CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34114---0 09!•S/091.9@ A18AV Sane algl}edwoo ww Z9 x ww 9Z }ewiol op a:anbq 091.8/09I.9® taaAV q}IM algi}edwoo „g/9 Z x,!. ozis Iagei PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC ' 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 BONITA SPRINGS, FL, 34134 --- 0 9.A.2.e AMIA9 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134--0 • 1 i PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC i PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC I 24311 WALDON CENTER DR 24311 WALDON CENTER DR i STE 300 I STE 300 BONITASPRINGS, FL 34134--0 I BONITASPRINGS, FL 34134---0 i PULTE HOME -COMPANY LLC PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC j 24311 WALDON CENTER DR I i 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 STE 300 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134--0 I j � i BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 i PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR I 24311 WALDON CENTER DR i STE 300 STE 300 BONITASPRINGS, FL 34134--0 I i ' I BONITASPRINGS, FL 34134 --- 0 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC i R MCQUEARY IRREV TRUST 24311 WALDON CENTER DR CATHERINE JONES STE 300 BETTY J MOZZONE BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 --- 0 + j 6650 APACHE CIR ! i I CINCINNATI, OH 45243 --- 0 RICHARD S SGARLATA TRUST RIVES, JESUS LLORCA .2783 AVIAMR CIRCLE I MARTHA LAHITTE TAMAYO NAPLES, FL_ 34114 --- 0 I 14733 APALACHEE ST i NAPLES, FL 34114--8622 SEPULVEDA, DAVID & LAURA t SHARON DRUCK MARITAL TRUST 2S15 MESQUITE DR 1 721 WOODS OF LADUE LANE i NAPLES, FL 34114-3120 I SAINT LOUIS, MO 63124--0 SOTO, GUILLERMO A SOTO, GUILLERMO A 11000 GREENWAY RD 11000 GREENWAY RD NAPLES, FL 34114--3115 I NAPLES, FL 34114--3115 TBC GREENWAY LLC THOMAS J PERRINO IRREV TRUST 14004 ROOSEVELT BLVD STE 601C I MARY DELL'IMPERIO IRREV TRUST CLEARWATER, FL 33762 --- 0 I 3010 BRIGHTWATERS CT WANTAGH, NY 11793--0 THOMASJ PERRINO TRUST i WHITE, EDWARD G & ISAURA MARY DELL'IMPERIO TRUST j 2480 MARETE DR' 3010 BRIGHTWATERS CT j NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 WANTAGH, NY 11793 --- 0 WHITE, EDWARD G & ISAURA 2480 MARETE DR NAPLES, FL 34114--- 3121 i a E R H ca c a> ti 0 Ln N O 0 0 0 0 N J a 0 M M d c� ca a 0 d a c O R v .Q a M c O t c� r Q o% - nna rma� label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160/8160 Packet Pg. 1003 ` N 09 b8/09 Lq@ IueAV oeAe elgltedwoo ww L9 x ww 9Z tewa01 op 0140nbll3 09 1,8/091.9® AAuAV gjIm algipdwoa „g/9 Z x „ 4 azis leg -el WILLIAM LYNCH REVOCABLE TRUST East Naples Civic Association, Inc. 304 GULF BLVD 8595 Collier Blvd., Suite 107 I INDIAN RK BCH, FL 33785--- 2538 PMB #49 Naples; FL 34114-3556 I I P D F W (CZ (2, 11 ':I I �I label size 1 x.2 5 8" compatible with Avery 05160/8160 3 c aD a� ,L^ V ti O LO N O O O O T" O N J a 0 M O -- M T- a Packet Pg. 1004 9.A.2.e lei County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWrH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT MAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.collierco2nlyfl.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 2S2-6358 Hybrid Virtual Quasi-Judkial Public Hearing Waiver a Emergency/Executive Order 2020-04 a. Hearing of the Collier County Planning Commission C9 and Board of County Corqmlsslonerg E E For Petition Number(s): SSG MPA-PL-20180002507 & RZ-PL-20180002374 ~ TBC Greenway, LLC & William B. Yeomans Regarding the above subject petition number(s), (Name of Applicant) elects to proceed during the declared emergency with hybrid virtual public hearings of the Collier County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners, and waives the right to contest any procedural irregularity due to the hybrid virtual nature of the public hearing. Name: Jeff E. Wright r� Signature*: ❑ Applicant ® Legal Counsel to Applicant Date: August 5, 2020 * This form must be signed by either the Applicant (if the applicant is a corporate entity, this must be an officer of the corporate entity) or the legal counsel to the Applicant. Packet Pg. 1005 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARI Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commission will hold a public m 9.A.2.f er 17, 2020 commencing at 9:00 A.M. in the Board of County Commissioners Chamber, Third Floor, County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL. The purpose of the hearing is to consider: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, F AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANA( PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY AM THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES BY AM THE URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO ADD THE GREENWAY-TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST COMN SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 20,000 SQUARE FEET OF C-3, COMN INTERMEDIATE USES AND FURTHERMORE, DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMEP TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIL PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NOR' CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST AND GREENWAY ROAD IN SECT AND 13, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 2.81± ACRES. [PL2018000251 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, F AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS F UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBI PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO A COMMERCIAL INTERR DISTRICT (C-3) ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST COR TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST (US 41) AND GREENWAY ROAD, IN SECTIONS 12 AND 13, TOWNSHIP 51 RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 2.81+/- ACRES; AND BY PROVII EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20180002374] R 3 L T J h7j 0° Project rR�� Location �O tG0 �a All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed ORDINANCES) will available for inspection at the GMD Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 N. Horse Naples, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Furthermore, the mat be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office, Fourth Floor, Collier County Goy Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 401, Naples, one week prior to the scheduled hearing. Any c pertaining to the documents should be directed to the GMD Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to September 17, 2020, will be i considered at the public hearing. As part of an ongoing initiative to promote social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic, the publi have the opportunity to provide public comments remotely, as well as in person, during this proceedir Individuals who would like to participate remotely, should register any time after the agenda is posted the County website which is 6 days before the meeting through the link provided on the front page of County website at www.colliercountyfl.aov. Individuals who register will receive an email in advance of the public hearing detailing how they can participate remotely in this meeting. For additional informath about the meeting, please call Thomas Clarke at (239) 252-2526 or email to CC PC Remote Participatio CollierCountyFL.gov. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Collier County Planning Commission wi record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim recc proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is ba: If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this prod you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier Ci Facilities Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5351 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired e available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. DA NT NG NG IAL Q IAL D_ NT ND :ST E 12 c0 E cC H DA ND 3 HE NG !AL L LTE 0 OF p FH, N AN 0 0 0 00 T 0 N J a 0 M M 0 N ti C6 U L ade Dr., Ewill M ent )ns > on. Q ind c� d J to Edwin Fryer, Chairman Collier County Planning Commission Packet Pg. 1006 9.A.2.g SIGN POSTING INSTRUCTIONS (CHAPTER 8, COLLIER COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT) A zoning sign(s) must be posted by the petition of the petitioner's agent on the parcel for a minimum of fifteen (15) calendar days in advance of the first public hearing and said sign(s) must be maintained by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent through the Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Below are general guidelines for signs, however these guidelines should not be construed to supersede any requirements of the LDC. For specific sign requirements, please refer to the Administrative Code, Chapter 8 E. The sign(s) must be erected in full view of the public, not more than five (5) feet from the nearest street right-of-way or easement. The sign must be securely affixed by nails, staples, or other means to a wood frame or to a wood panel and then fastened securely to a post, or other structure. The sign may not be affixed to a tree or other foliage. The petitioner or the petitioner's agent must maintain the sign(s) in place, and readable condition until the requested action has been heard and a final decision rendered. If the sign(s) is destroyed, lost, or rendered unreadable, the petition or the petitioner's agent must replace the sign(s). NOTE: AFTER THE SIGN HAS BEEN POSTED, THIS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE SHOULD BE RETURNED NO LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST HEARING DATE TO THE ASSIGNED PLANNER. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY, PERSONALLY APPEARED ROBERT J MULHERE FAICP, WHO ON OATH SAYS THAT HE/SHE HAS POSTED PROPERTY NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 10.03.00 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON THE PARCEL COVERED IN PETITION NUMBER(S) PL-20180002507 AND PL-20180002374. Hole Montes Inc 950 Encore Way SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT OR AGENT STREET OR P.O. BOX Robert J Mulhere FAICP President NAME (TYPED OR PRINTED) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER Naples FL 34110 CITY, STATE ZIP The for g..ing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this 31 st day of August 2020, by means of physical presence or_online notarization, by Robert J Mulhere, who is personally known tome or who has produced as identification and who did/did nottake an oath. PY 9TPHAHIE MROL IoWy Fedd lk—state or Flortgg $ig re if y (Public f CFM?IMj%9ftn # GG 965839 r 1 or M1 My Comm, Ex ices Mar 9 2014 PrimbEdN ame of Kbtary (Public (Stamp with serial number) " Q IL c� E c� t— Packet Pg. 1007 ff- —,�}� A ial 1 �� ` t'• .. �� „ � , , • .,-fY lam%:`- •:� - -. -•,fit ��: s•�y�-'r'-_, '' _ � 1' • �•v I'{ �'i,` �.,i�+ti. �� .�Ar�; - `ie'�� I ,.ter -„ JAI 9.A.2.h cj&r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliercountvfi.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Q d Hybrid Virtual Quasi -Judicial Public Hearing Waiver � E Emergency/Executive Order 2020-04 2 Hearing of the Collier County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners ~ For Petition Number(s): SSG M PA-PL-20180002507-P-20180002374 TBC Greenway, LLC & William B. Yeomans Regarding the above subject petition number(s), (Name of Applicant) elects to proceed during the declared emergency with hybrid virtual public hearings of the Collier County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners, and waives the right to contest any procedural irregularity due to the hybrid virtual nature of the public hearing. Name: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Pres. Signature*: ❑ Applicant ❑ Legal Counsel to Applicant XAgent Date: August 4, 2020 * This form must be signed by either the Applicant (if the applicant is a corporate entity, this must be an officer of the corporate entity) or the legal counsel to the Applicant. Packet Pg. 1010 (VdWJ !Weivael - Aen UME) L09Z000 OZ1d : 0£9£6) OZOZ-0£-9 WIN AeMUGGJ!D uanal3-1 (9 :}uewt43844d CD d d Y V a 4--j C) 4-j cn � M � O O O U , cn N � W M N � U •� o � p CV •�-+ pi I� OLr) I� co 0 N O ' O O00 •� r-1 c cd 0 �+ �, -C� 'lz� Cl- (`ddWJ !we1wel - Aemu00.10 LOM0081,OZ-1d : 0£ CO OZOZ-0£-9 WIN AeM000aE) UGA013-L (5 :lUGwL40e;;'y N Q ci N Q ci (`ddWJ !we1wel - Aemu00.10 LOM0081,OZ-1d : 0£9£l,) OZOZ-0£-9 WIN AeM000aE) UGA013-L (5 :lUGwL40ell'V O op O Op +'•'4RY7 T•4ri•'iLC I'�'h-c :�,.iR�ce-�rs�s�eU,.Yra ✓w HRala+tl ar.a4ltiM1 TrRj� HY.i n 3 �+ Q 711 1 LL•' 4 F i, •'t -}-� .fig ,- ..., -�.�� : , -- i� ' -� � - 'i. •ilr. is i��l� "4'�afW:l•�1�.1�� ''aii 1 -' .. N Q ci (`ddWJ !we1wel - Aemu00.10 LOM0081,OZ-1d : 0£ CO OZOZ-0£-9 WIN AeM000aE) UGA013-L (5 :lUGwL40e;;'y N W CY w w O U N v .o 00 �--j • 'r-4 N W cn U ,O CCU U � N � r--4 • ct U U O cn ct W H .ct ct 4-4 a� ct U U A &A .ct U O U 4� ct O ' c ct ct O •o 'o U N pl::� U O � U 41 4 � Q •� (`ddWJ !we1wel - Aemuaaa0 LOM0081,OZ-1d : O£ CO OZOZ-O£-9 WIN AeanuaaaE) uan013-L (5 :;uauayae;;'y N Q 6 _ (VdWO Iwelwel - AeMU00-JO LOSZ0008I,OZ-ld : ME OZOZ-0£-9 WIN AeMUGG.10 uanal3-L (S :luOwt43ellV T N O Q T O C'1 a a� Y V <4 a CD f o z o lk •\ F * �tr - J f� Ny '• r i I qjr 1K�. �-� J ' J • I Aim i to � L7 f __ `•�'44 I z $ I � rrr� � �- • � \ r f � r4' � ryl.. C� :. � I O U (VdWJ luaeIWB-L - Aen UME) L09ZOOMOZ1d : 0£9£6) OZOZ-0£-9 WIN AeMUGGJ!D uanal3-1 (9 :}uewt43844d 0 T e• (`ddWJ !we1wel - Aemu00.10 LOM0081,OZ-1d : 0£ CO OZOZ-0£-9 WIN AeM000aE) UGA013-L (5 :lUGwL40e;;'y 00 O d d Y V a 9.A.2.j TITLE An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series by amending the Urban Commercial district to add the Greenway-Tamiami Trail East Commercial subdistrict to allow development of up to 20,000 square feet of C-3, commercial intermediate uses and furthermore, directing transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability and providing for an effective date. The subject property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Greenway Road in Sections 12 and 13, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 2.81f acres. [PL20180002507] [I 9-CMP-0 1061/ 1558601 / 1165 7-Eleven Greenway PL20180002507 8/ 14/20 a a. v Packet Pg. 1019 9.A.3 09/25/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.3 Item Summary: *** This item has been continued from the September 17, 2020 CCPC Meeting to the September 25, 2020 CCPC Meeting .*** RZ-PL20180002374: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) zoning district to allow up to 20,000 square feet of commercial development for property located at the northwest corner of Tamiami Trail East (US 41) and Greenway Road, in Sections 12 and 13, Township 51 South, Range 26, East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 2.81+/- acres; and by providing an effective date. (Companion to PL20180002507) [Coordinator: Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 09/25/2020 Prepared by: Title: — Zoning Name: Tim Finn 09/17/2020 10:38 AM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning — Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 09/17/2020 10:38 AM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Tim Finn Review item Skipped 09/17/2020 10:31 AM Zoning Tim Finn Review Item Skipped 09/17/2020 10:31 AM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Tim Finn Review Item Skipped 09/17/2020 10:31 AM Growth Management Department Tim Finn Review Item Skipped 09/17/2020 10:31 AM Zoning Tim Finn Review Item Skipped 09/17/2020 10:31 AM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 09/25/2020 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 1020 9.A.3.a CoffieT CO-Uftty 0WWW%"-- _ mwmft. STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION — ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 2020 SUBJECT: RZ-PL20180002374; 7-ELEVEN GREENWAY NAPLES COMPANION ITEM: PL20180002507/CPSS-2019-8 M Owner: N 0 0 0 0 William B. Yeomans, Jr. c TBC Greenway, LLC a 13920 58th St. N., Suite 1014 Clearwater, FL 33760 to Agents: V Al Quattrone, P.E. Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP Jeff Wright, Land Attorney Quattrone & Associates, Inc. Hole Montes, Inc. Henderson, Franklin, 4301 Veronica Shoemaker Blvd. 950 Encore Way Starnes & Holt. PA Fort Myers, FL 33916 Naples, FL 34110 8889 Pelican Bay Boulevard, Suite 400 Naples, FL 34108 REOUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to amend Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) zoning district. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property consists of 2.81± acres and is located at the northwest corner of Tamiami Trail East (US 41) and Greenway Road, in Sections 12 and 13, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (see location map, page 2). RZ-PL20180002374; 7-Eleven Greenway Naples Page 1 of 10 Revised: September 9, 2020 Packet Pg. 1021 AennuooaE) uonol3-L VL£ZOOMOZ-11d : MCO :podob jjejS ouozeN soldeN AeanuooaE) uonol3-L :;uouayoe};y N Ci o Q fa - a� H I ® cn J � � LL CIi O Q �¢T- fj A U r RZ-PL20180002374; 7-Eleven Greenway Naples Revised: September 9, 2020 CV 0 C) C) co r C) CV J L z 0 �1 � 0 I - CL ca 0 -b-I /� V 0 J Page 2 of 10 9.A.3.a PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The approximate 2.8-acre subject property is currently zoned Agricultural (A). The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject site to Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) to permit a development of an approximately 5,000 square foot convenience store and 19 refueling stations (16 unleaded refueling positions and 3 diesel refueling positions) as well as a carwash. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Mostly undeveloped with sparse single-family residential, zoned Agriculture (A) South: Tamiami Trail East (six -lane arterial), then developed single-family residential, zoned Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek PUD East: Greenway Road (local road), then undeveloped land zoned Agriculture (A) and to the south zoned Travel -Trailer Recreational Vehicle Campground (TTRVC) West: Undeveloped, zoned Agriculture (A) T M to M Aerial Map (County GIS) RZ-PL20180002374; 7-Eleven Greenway Naples Page 3 of 10 Revised: September 9, 2020 Packet Pg. 1023 9.A.3.a GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The undeveloped subject property is designated Urban, Urban Mixed -Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, and within the Coastal High Hazard Area, as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. The subject site abuts the Rural Fringe Receiving Area to the east (across Greenway Road.) The Urban designated area accommodates residential uses and a variety of non-residential uses, including commercial uses modifying locational criteria. This site does not qualify for a rezone to a commercial zoning district. The applicant has submitted a small-scale Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) application to create the Greenway-Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict for the purpose of providing small-scale shopping and convenience commercial uses to the surrounding neighborhood within convenient travel distance and to serve the public traveling on East Tamiami Trail (US 41). The companion GMPA (PL20180002507) must be approved in order to rezone the subject parcel to C-3 and be consistent with the GMP. This petition cannotbe approved until this companion GMPA is adopted and goes into effect and the PUD ordinance needs to provide for the effective date to be linked to the effective date of the companion GMP amendment petition. (see Attachment B — FLUE Consistency Review) Transportation Element: The project is consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan, which states, "The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, andproposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five-year AUIR planning period unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and C. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways. " According to the Transportation Impact Statement (TIS) dated June 5, 2020 (revised), provided with this petition; the proposed 7-Eleven Convenience Store with Gas Facility will generate an additional projected total of +/-134 PM peak hour two-way trips on the following roadway segments with the listed capacities according to the current 2019 AUIR: RZ-PL20180002374; 7-Eleven Greenway Naples Page 4 of 10 Revised: September 9, 2020 M to M Packet Pg. 1024 9.A.3.a Roadway Link Current 2019 2019 Peak Hour AUIR AUIR Peak LOS Remaining Capacity Direction Service Volume/Peak Direction Tamiami Trail East Joseph Lane to 2,000/East C 682 (US-41) Greenway Road Tamiami Trail East Greenway Road to 1,800/West F* (120) (US-41) San Marco Drive *The proposed development has a de minimis (less than 1%) impact on this road segment, therefore it is an existing background deficiency. FDOT and Collier County continue to monitor this segment of US-41. Based on the 2019 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed new trips for this development within the 5-year planning period (as noted above). Therefore, the subject Rezone can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan with the following condition of approval: Recommended condition of approval: The developer, their successors or assigns, shall pay M fair share costs of a future signal at Tamiami Trail East (US-41) and Greenway Road M should FDOT determine the signal meets warrants and is required. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental staff has evaluated the petition. The property is 2.81 acres; the project has been found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the CCME. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including Section 10.02.08.17, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC's recommendation. Drainage: The proposed rezone request is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area. Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage will be addressed through the environmental resource permitting process with the South Florida Water Management District. County staff will also evaluate the project's stormwater management system, calculations, and design criteria at the time of site development plan (SDP) and/or platting (PPL). Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed this petition. The site contains approximately +1.62 acres of native vegetation, which equates to a preserve requirement of 0.162 acres (1.62 x 10% = 0.162). There were no observed listed species on the property. RZ-PL20180002374; 7-Eleven Greenway Naples Page 5 of 10 Revised: September 9, 2020 Packet Pg. 1025 9.A.3.a Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this development with the above -noted condition of approval. Landscape Review: The conceptual site plan provided demonstrates that the code required buffer widths can be provided. The 30' wide buffer along Greenway Rd. will be required to be within the property. This buffer is depicted within the right of way on the conceptual site plan, but the plans show that the 30' wide buffer can be provided within the property along the eastern boundary. Utilities Review: The project lies within the regional potable water and south wastewater service areas of the Collier County Water -Sewer District. Water and wastewater services are readily available via existing infrastructure along the project's frontage on Greenway Road. Sufficient water and wastewater treatment capacities are available Zoning Services Review: This rezone petition currently has a companion small scale growth management plan amendment (SSGMPA) via (PL20180002507) which will establish the 2.81- acre Greenway- Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict. The Subdistrict is intended to provide small-scale shopping and commercial uses to the surrounding neighborhood within convenient travel distance and to serve the public traveling on East Tamiami Trail (US 41), by allowing permitted uses in the C-3 zoning district (Proposed subdistrict language italicized below). "IS. Greenway - Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict The Greenway - Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict consists of ± 2.81 acres and is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Greenway Road, in Section 12, Township, SI south, Range 27 east. The purpose of the Subdistrict is to provide small-scale shopping and convenience commercial uses to the surrounding neighborhood within convenient travel distance and to serve the public traveling on East Tamiami Trail (US 41). The development of this Subdistrict shall comply with the following restrictions, limitations, and standards: a. Allowable uses are those permitted by right in the C-3, Commercial Intermediate zoning district, as listed in the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended. The maximum allowable commercial intensity shall be 20,000 square feet. " The subject property is located diagonally across the Tamiami Trail East (US 41) from a commercial tract in the Fiddlers Creek PUD (designated "B" — Business/Commercial on the on the Fiddler's Creek Master Plan - Ordinance 18-27). This commercial area within Fiddler's basically allows C-3 uses and would be compatible with the proposed Greenway - Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict which would allow for the proposed C-3 uses and the gas station with a convenience store. The approval of this SSGMPA is consistent with State statutes regulating comprehensive plan amendments and it is consistent with applicable GMP policies related to the same. Assuming the SSGMPA is approved, then the proposed rezone to C-3 may also be deemed consistent. REZONE FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners ... shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to RZ-PL20180002374; 7-Eleven Greenway Naples Page 6 of 10 Revised: September 9, 2020 Packet Pg. 1026 9.A.3.a the following when applicable." (Zoning Division staff responses in non -bold): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the elements of the GMP. Comprehensive Planning staff has determined the petition is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the FLUM and other elements of the GMP. (subject to approval of the companion GMPA) 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern related to surrounding properties is described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section of this report. The proposed uses will not change the existing land use patterns in the area. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The rezone will not create an isolated district to adjacent and nearby districts. The intent of the proposed C-3 zoning district is to provide small-scale shopping and commercial uses to the surrounding neighborhoods and to serve the public traveling on US 41. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The existing district boundaries are logically drawn. There are no boundary changes M proposed. M 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of theproposed rezoning necessary. Changing conditions do not make the passage of the proposed rezone necessary. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed change will not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Development will meet site design standards set by the LDC. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed development at this time, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation Element consistency review. The project's development must also comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations and operational RZ-PL20180002374; 7-Eleven Greenway Naples Page 7 of 10 Revised: September 9, 2020 Packet Pg. 1027 9.A.3.a improvements when development approvals are sought at the time of Site Development Plan (SDP) review. Ingress and egress to the subject property will utilize access locations on Tamiami Trail East and Greenway Road. Additional operational impacts for the facility will be reviewed at the time of Site Development Plan (SDP). The TIS submitted by the applicant indicates that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the 5-year planning period as noted above and not adversely impact further the surrounding roadway network. & Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. It is not anticipated that the rezone request to C-3 will create drainage problems in the area. Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage for this project will be addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). County environmental staff will evaluate the stormwater management system and design criteria at the time of SDP or PPL. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The proposed rezone from A to C-3 would not reduce light or air to adjacent areas. a Development will meet the site design standards set by the LDC. T M to 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent areas. Property value is affected by many factors. It is driven by market conditions and is generally a subjective determination. Zoning alone is not likely to adversely affect property values. Generally, market conditions prevail. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Staff does not anticipate the rezoning would be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. If the proposed development complies with the GMP through the proposed rezone, then that constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. RZ-PL20180002374; 7-Eleven Greenway Naples Page 8 of 10 Revised: September 9, 2020 Packet Pg. 1028 9.A.3.a 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. There are no substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with the existing zoning; however, with frontage on US41, the existing zoning does not result in the highest and best use for the property. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. It is staff s position that the proposed rezoning to C-3 is not out of scale with the needs of the community or the County. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not specifically review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which J would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses a under the proposed zoning classification. M to M Any future development anticipated by the rezoning would require an extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the building permit c process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The activity proposed by this amendment will have no adverse impact on public utilities facility adequacy. M Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant conducted a NIM on June 30, 2020, 5:30 PM, at New Hope Ministries, Lecture Hall — Room 211, located at 7675 Davis Boulevard, Naples, FL. No members of the public were in attendance. Bob Mulhere (agent) gave a PowerPoint presentation for county staff in attendance RZ-PL20180002374; 7-Eleven Greenway Naples Page 9 of 10 Revised: September 9, 2020 Packet Pg. 1029 9.A.3.a and for audio and video purposes. For further information, please see the NIM Summary information in the back-up material. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. COUNTY ATTORNEY REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed this staff report for content and legality on September 2, 2020. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning Division staff recommends the CCPC forward petition RZ-PL20180002374 — 7-Eleven Greenway Naples to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer, their successors or assigns, shall pay fair share costs of a future signal at Tamiami J Trail East (US-41) and Greenway Road should FDOT determine the signal meets warrants and a is required. M to M 2. The maximum allowable commercial intensity shall be 20,000 square feet. Attachments: A) Proposed Ordinance B) FLUE Consistency Review C) Application/Back up materials RZ-PL20180002374; 7-Eleven Greenway Naples Page 10 of 10 Revised: September 9, 2020 Packet Pg. 1030 9.A.3.b ORDINANCE NO.20- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO A COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT (C-3) ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW UP TO 20,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST (US 41) AND GREENWAY ROAD, IN SECTIONS 12 AND 13, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26, EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 2.81+/- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20180002374] WHEREAS, Robert J, Mulhere, FAICP, of Hole Montes, Inc. and Al Quattrone PE of Quattrone & Associates, Inc., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property more particularly described in Exhibit A, located in Sections 12 and 13, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning District to a Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) Zoning District to allow up to 20,000 square feet of commercial development for a 2.81+/- acre project, subject to the conditions shown in Exhibit B. Exhibits A and B are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The appropriate [I 9-CPS-01 941/1559780/ 1 ]69 7-Eleven Greenway Naples / PL20180002374 8/20/20 Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 1031 9.A.3.b zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State and on the date that the Growth Management Plan Amendment in Ordinance No. 2020- becomes effective. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of , 2020. ATTEST: CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK am , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Exhibit A: Legal Description Exhibit B: Conditions of Approval [19-CPS-01941/1559780/1169 7-Eleven Greenway Naples / PL20180002374 8/20/20 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Page 2 of 2 Burt L. Saunders, Chairman Packet Pg. 1032 9.A.3.b EXHIBIT "A" Description: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Section 13, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida (said corner also being the Southeast corner of Section 12): Thence along the East line of said Section 13, S 0°19'37" W 336.19 feet to the Northerly right of way line of US-41 (State Road 90); thence along said right of way line N 54°18'59" W 484.26 feet; thence N 35°41'01" E 400.00 feet; thence S 54°18'59" E 200.00 feet to the East line of Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; thence along the East line of Section 12, S 0°11'20" W 154.53 feet to the Place of Beginning, and being a part of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 13 and part of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 12, LESS the East Thirty -feet (30') thereof conveyed to Collier County by virtue of Quit Claim Deed recorded in Official Records Book 1050, page 196, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Parcel Identification Number: 00737560004 Packet Pg. 1033 9.A.3.b Exhibit B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The developer, and its successors or assigns, shall pay fair share costs of a future signal at Tamiami Trail East (US-41) and Greenway Road should Florida Department of Transportation determine the signal meets warrants and is required. 2. The maximum allowable commercial intensity shall be 20,000 square feet. [19-CPS-01941/1559103/1166 Packet Pg. 1034 9.A.3.c Co�r �ouHty Growth Management Department Zoning Division Comprehensive Planning Section MEMORANDUM To: Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner a Zoning Services Section, Zoning Division Z From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner 3 Comprehensive Planning Section, Zoning Division m L Date: July 2, 2020 c m Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review w PETITION NUMBER: Rezone (RZ)) - PL20180002374 - REV 5 PETITION NAME: 7-Eleven Greenway Naples M o REQUEST: The application is requesting to rezone the subject parcel from A, Rural/Agricultural Zoning District 0 0 ar° to C-3 Commercial Intermediate Zoning District. Submittal 2 revised the Conceptual Site Plan, the Public Utilities J calculations and TIS. Submittal 3 revised the Statement of Utility Provision form, and the Master Plan, a revised a Application, a revised Site Plan, a revised Affidavit of Representations, a revised Survey, and a new exhibit showing r the closest gas station to the proposed site. Submittal 4 included a legal description (Exhibit A) in response to the M County Attorney's request and an accompanying Address Checklist. Submittal 5 revised the TIS and shows no more than a de minimus impact. 3 m LOCATION: The f2.81-acre site is at the northwest corner of Tamiami East Trail (US41) and Greenway Road, approximately 3.37 miles east of Collier Blvd. (CR951), in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East. >, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The undeveloped subject property is designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict and within the Coastal High Hazard Area, as identified on the A Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. The subject site abuts the Rural Fringe Receiving Area to 0 the east (across Greenway Road.) v w The Urban designated area accommodates residential uses and a variety of non-residential uses, including commercial _J uses modifying locational criteria. This site does not qualify for a rezone to a commercial zoning district. The ca applicant has submitted a small-scale Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) application to create the T Greenway-Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict for the purpose of providing small-scale shopping and d convenience commercial uses to the surrounding neighborhood within convenient travel distance and to serve the z public traveling on East Tamiami Trail (US 41). The companion GMPA (PL20180002507) must be approved in order to rezone the subject parcel to C-3 and be consistent with the GMP. This petition cannot be approved until Q this companion GMPA is adopted and goes into effect and the PUD ordinance needs to provide for the effective date to be linked to the effective date of the companion GMP amendment petition. E z In reviewing for compliance with Policy 5.6 (shown in italics below) of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) staff provides the following analysis in [bracketed bold text.] Q FLUE Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). [Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning staff as part of their review Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 .239-252-2400 Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 1035 9.A.3.c of the petition in its entirety. Staff recommends to zoning staff that they consider the following: 1) the subject site's proximity to residential land uses to the north and northwest of the site are within 500 feet, 2) the distance to another commercial site already operating provides convenience shopping and gasoline (just over 1/2 mile to the west on Tamiami Trail), and 3) that the FLUE designation for land adjacent to the east side of Greenway Road is Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Receiving Lands.] In reviewing for compliance with FLUE Objective 7 and related Policies (shown in italics), staff provides the following analysis in [bracketed bold text]. FLUE Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [The `Conceptual Site Plan' document in the petition packet depicts frontage on Tamiami Trail East (US41), a principal arterial (urban and rural), with an ingress/egress to US41 that is located at the southwest corner of the subject site. According to the submitted `Conceptual Site Plan,' two additional ingress/egress points will be located on Greenway Road, a local roadway that acts as a collector road. The Traffic Impact Study also shows the same three access points.] FLUE Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [`Conceptual Site Plan' shows what appears to be a sketch showing a `traffic pattern' looping around the outskirts of the entire site. Since this is a small f2.81-acre site, the circular `traffic pattern' is unlikely to help reduce vehicle congestion on the nearby arterial and local roads or eliminate the need for a traffic signal.] FLUE Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or their Q interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The o interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. a [`Conceptual Site Plan' indicates a vehicular interconnection point with the adjoining undeveloped parcel zoned `A' Rural/Agricultural District to the west. An email from FDOT's SWFL office was included with the M TIS stating that although there is not adequate frontage to obtain an access point, the applicant could achieve M an access point on US 41 at the southwest corner of the proposed site, if the applicant were to share that access with the parcel to the west — therefore creating a shared access point. Staff encourages this future interconnection to the west as shown on the `Conceptual Site Plan.' Staff agrees that an interconnection to the developed parcel zoned `A' to the north will not support an interconnection. Tamiami Trail East is to the south of the parcel and Greenway Road is to the east of the subject site.] FLUE Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [There is an existing sidewalk on Tamiami Trail East (US41). The proposed commercial development is for small-scale shopping and convenience commercial uses. No blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities, or range of housing prices and types would apply to this development. Sidewalks will be required per the LDC.] CONCLUSION Based on the above analysis, staff finds the subject petition not consistent with Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan, however, once the following stipulations have been met, it may be found consistent: 1. This petition may only be deemed consistent with the FLUE if the companion GMP amendment petition (PL20180002507/CPSS-2019-8) is adopted and goes into effect and all uses and standards in the GMPA are reflected in the PUD. 2. The PUD Ordinance needs to provide for the effective date to be linked to the effective date of the companion GMP amendment petition. cc: Anita Jenkins, AICP, Community Planning Manager, Zoning Division Raymond V. Bellows, Manager, Zoning Services Section, Zoning Division RZ-PL20180002374 7-Eleven R5.docx Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 .239-252-2400 Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 1036 9.A.3.d • Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 2S2-2400 Pre -Application Meeting Notes Petition Type: Rezone (RZ) Date and Time: Tuesday 9/4/18- 10 : 30 AM Assigned Planner: _ Timothy Finn Engineering Manager (for PPL's and FP's): Project Information Project Name: 7-Eleven Greenway Naples (RZ) PL#: 20180002374 PropertylD#: 00737560004 Current Zoning: Agricultural Project Address: City: Naples State: FL Zip:_ Applicant: Michelle Salberg PE AgentName: Al Quattrone PE Phone: 4301 Veronica Shoemaker B1vd.,Fort Myers, Agent/Firm Address: City: State Property Owner: TBC Greenway LLC Please provide the following, if applicable: i. Total Acreage: 3.1 ii. Proposed # of Residential Units: iii. Proposed Commercial Square Footage: iv. For Amendments, indicate the original petition number: N rL M Z 3 c W m C� c W am w M N 0 0 0 0 Co N J a M M FL 33916 Zip: V. If there is an Ordinance or Resolution associated with this project, please indicate the vi. type and number: If the project is within a Plat, provide the name and AR#/PL#: Updated 7/24/2018 Page ( 1 / or- t'/ Packet Pg. 1037 QI 9 A 3 d I �►�- 2-0 I `�� LS .-) Li r CoNew County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 Meeting Notes Landscape: Label East and South buffers per section 5.05.05.E of the LDC. 25' Type'D' along roads. Label North and South buffers as per adjacent land use at time of permitting.L'ofm hS jam. r r M M N R �L d C� C Q 3 Y V R m C O cc .Q Q U c d E t v O r r Q p,.EAOP14 Packet Pg. 1038 9.A.3.d CAA County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 Meeting Notes As of 10/16/2017 all Zoning applications have revised applications, and your associated Application is included in your notes; additionally a *new Property Ownership Disclosure Form is required for all applications. A copy of this new form is included in your pre-app Note — link is https://www.colliergov.net/Home/ShowDocument?id=75093. EnlJ1QC•J n�.,.l F & P(�SE rtlf.Jy ' Prai;1; Eojyt aw IA C Mp'-- ts st)r%JF—q w � E M N O O hw� Edo 5E QI 4--ir go 0F1 t 4,(- T" RNdCo 1k V1lj,E�v►eN 5• 07r a �4 Rio(Js U �E -6 be-1 � rM,Pjf M �L d c Disclaimer: Information provided by staff to applicant during the Pre -Application Meeting is based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant of issues that could arise during the process. The Administrative Code and LDC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required data for an application may not fully outline what is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide all required data. 3! P0 Updated 7/24/2018 Page I Packet Pg. 1039 9.A.3.d Environmental Data Checklist 1 Project Name GQEENWA, E 1E.VE The Environmental Data requirements can be found in LDC Section 3.08.00 Provide the EIS fee if PUD or CU. WHO AND WHAT COMPANY PREPARED THE ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REPORT? Preparation of v Environmental Data. Environmental Data Submittal Requirements shall be prepared by an individual with academic credentials and experience in the area of environmental sciences or natural resource management. Academic credentials and experience shall be a bachelor's or higher degree in one of the biological sciences with at least two years of ecological or biological professional experience in the State of Florida. 3. Identify on a current aerial, the location and acreage of all SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) and include this information on the SDP or final plat construction plans. Wetlands must be verified by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) or Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) prior to SDP or final plat construction plans approval. For sites in the RFNW district, provide an assessment in accordance with 3.05.07 F and identify on the FLUCFCS map the location of all high quality wetlands (wetlands having functionality scores of at least 0.65 WRAP or 0.7 UMAM) and their location within the proposed development plan. Sites with high quality wetlands must have their functionality scores verified by the SFWMD or DEP prior to first development order approval. Where functionality scores have not been verified by either the SFWMD or DEP, scores must be reviewed and accepted by County staff, consistent with State regulation. 4. SDP or final plat construction plans with impacts to five (5) or more acres of wetlands shall provide an analysis of potential water quality impacts of the project by evaluating water quality loadings expected from the project M (post development conditions considering the proposed land uses and stormwater management controls) M compared with water quality loadings of the project area as it exists in its pre -development conditions. The analysis shall be performed using methodologies approved by Federal and State water quality agencies, and must A �a demonstrate no increase in nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) loadings in the post development scenario. M 5. Where treated stormwater is allowed to be directed into preserves, show how the criteria in 3.05.07 H have been �IJJ met. Will Stormwater be directed in the wetland preserves? 3 6. Where native vegetation is retained on site, provide a topographic map to a half foot and, where possible, provide elevations within each of the FLUCFCS Codes identified on site. For SDP or final plat construction plans, include this information on the site plans. If wetlands will be used for stormwater provide the topo map 07 Provide a wildlife survey for the nests of bald eagle and for listed species known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines or recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Survey times may be reduced or waived where an initial habitat assessment by the environmental consultant indicates that the likelihood of listed species occurrence is low, as determined by the FFWCC and USFWS. Where an initial habitat assessment by the environmental consultant indicates that the likelihood of listed species occurrence is low, the survey time may be reduced or waived by the County Manager or designee, when the project is not reviewed or technical assistance not provided by the FFWCC and USFWS. Additional survey time may be required if listed species are discovered 8. Provide a survey for listed plants identified in 3.04.03 9. Wildlife habitat management and monitoring plans in accordance with 3.04.00 shall be required where listed species are utilizing the site or where wildlife habitat management and monitoring plans are required by the FFWCC or USFWS. These plans shall describe how the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed species and their habitats. Identify the location of listed species nests, burrows, dens, foraging areas, and the location of any bald eagle nests or nest protection zones on the native vegetation aerial with FLUCFCS overlay Packet Pg. 1040 9A for the site. Wildlife habitat management plans shall be included on the SDP or final plat construction plans. Bald eagle management plans are required for sites containing bald eagle nests or nest protection zones, copies of which shall be included on the SDP or final plat construction plans. 10. For sites or portions of sites cleared of native vegetation or in agricultural operation, provide documentation that the parcel(s) were issued a permit to be cleared and are in compliance with the 25 year rezone limitation pursuant to section 10.02,06. For sites permitted to be cleared prior to July 2003, provide documentation that the parcel(s) are in compliance with the 10 year rezone limitation previously identified in the GMP. Criteria defining native vegetation and determining the legality, process and criteria for clearing are found in 3.05.05, 3.05.07 and 10.02.06. l . Identify on a current aerial the acreage, location and community types of all upland and wetland habitats on the project site, according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS), and provide a legend for each of the FLUCFCS Codes identified. Aerials and overlay information must be legible at the scale provided. Provide calculations for the acreage of native vegetation required to be retained on -site. Include the above referenced calculations and aerials on the SDP or final plat construction plans. In a separate report, demonstrate how the preserve selection criteria pursuant to 3.05.07 have been met. Where applicable, include in this report an aerial showing the project boundaries along with any undeveloped land, preserves, natural flowways or other natural land features, located on abutting properties. 12. Include on a separate site plan, the project boundary and the land use designations and overlays for the RLSA, RFMU, ST and ACSC-ST districts. Include this information on the SDP or final plat construction plans. 13. Where off -site preservation of native vegetation is proposed in lieu of on -site, demonstrate that the criteria in CD section 3.05.07 have been met and provide a note on the SDP or final plat construction plans indicating the type d of donation (monetary payment or land donation) identified to satisfy the requirement. Include on the SDP or final plat construction plans, a location map(s) and property identification number(s) of the off -site parcel(s) if off -site donation of land is to occur. 14. Provide the results of any Environmental Assessments and/or Audits of the property, along with a narrative of the measures needed to remediate if required by FDEP. 15. Soil and/or ground water sampling shall be required at the time of first development order submittal for sites that occupy farm fields (crop fields, cattle dipping ponds, chemical mixing areas), golf courses, landfill or junkyards or for sites where hazardous products exceeding 250 gallons of liquid or 1,000 pounds of solids were stored or processed or where hazardous wastes in excess of 220 pounds per month or 110 gallons at any point in time were generated or stored. The amount of sampling and testing shall be determined by a registered professional with experience in the field of Environmental Site Assessment and shall at a minimum test for organochlorine pesticides (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 8081) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 8 metals using Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) soil sampling Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) FS 3000, in areas suspected of being used for mixing and at discharge point of water management system. Sampling should occur randomly if no points of contamination are obvious. Include a background soil analysis from an undeveloped location hydraulically upgradient of the potentially contaminated site. Soil sampling should occur just below the root zone, about 6 to 12 inches below ground surface or as otherwise agreed upon with the registered professional with experience in the field of Environmental Site Assessment. Include in or with the Environmental Site Assessment, the acceptable State and Federal pollutant levels for the types of contamination found on site and indicate in the Assessment, when the contaminants are over these levels. If this analysis has been done as part of an Environmental Audit then the report shall be submitted. The County shall coordinate with the FDEP where contamination exceeding applicable FDEP standards is identified on site or where an Environmental Audit or Environmental Assessment has been submitted. 16. Provide justification for deviations from environmental LDC provisions pursuant to GMP CCME Policy 6.1.1 (13), if requested. a I nF' V Packet Pg. 1041 9.A.3.d 17. Where applicable, provide evidence of the issuance of all applicable federal and/or state oil and gas permits for proposed oil and gas activities in Collier County. Include all state permits that comply with the requirements of Chapter 62C-25 through 62C-30, F.A.C., as those rules existed on January 13, 2005. I S. Identify any Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones (WRM-ST) within the project area and provide an analysis for how the project design avoids the most intensive land uses within the most sensitive WRM-STs and will comply with the WRM-ST pursuant to 3.06.00. Include the location of the Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones on the SDP or final plat construction plans. For land use applications such as standard and PUD rezones and CUs, provide a separate site plan or zoning map with the project boundary and Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones identified. 19. Demonstrate that the design of the proposed stormwater management system and analysis of water quality and quantity impacts fully incorporate the requirements of the Watershed Management regulations of 3.07.00. 20. For sites located in the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern -Special Treatment overlay district (ACSC- ST), show how the project is consistent with the development standards and regulations in 4.02.14. 21. For development orders within RFMU sending lands, show how the project is consistent with each of the applicable Objectives and Policies of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP. G The County Manager or designee may require additional data or information necessary to evaluate the project's compliance with LDC and GMP requirements. (LDC 10.02.02.A.3 f) The following to be determined at preapplication meeting: (Choose those that apply) Provide overall description of project with respect to environmental and water management issues. c a Explain how project is consistent with each of the applicable objectives and policies in the CCME of the to GMP. c. Explain how the project meets or exceeds the native vegetation preservation requirement in the CCME and A 19 LDC. d Indicate wetlands to be impacted and the effects of the impact to their functions and how the project's design compensates for wetland impacts. Address each one. Indicate how the project design minimizes impacts to listed species. Describe the measures that are proposed 3 v as mitigation for impacts to listed species. M 023 PUD zoning and CU petitions. For PUD rezones and CU petitions, applicants shall collate and package applicable Environmental Data Submittal Requirements into a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) document, prior to public hearings and after all applicable staff reviews are complete. Copies of the EIS shall be provided to the County Manager or designee prior to public hearings. 24. Is EAC Review (by CCPC) required? 'Tb%E DckcVM%Nt-I a} U+5 poioT 25. PUD master plan or PPL./SDP site plan notes: Where preserves occur adjacent to development off site and will be used in lieu of landscape buffers, include the following condition in the environmental commitments section of the PUD document. Preserves may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer requirements after exotic vegetation removal in accordance with LDC sections 4.06.02 and 4.06.05.E. I. Supplemental plantings with native plant materials shall be in accordance with LDC section 3.05.07. A note needs to be added to the MCP and preserve as a buffer needs to be added to the commitments. 26. Additional comments 27. Stipulations for approval (Conditions) &6F6ofN Packet Pg. 1042 Straight Rezone Checklist 144. s project is in compliance with the overlays, districts and/or zoning on the subject site and/or the surrounding properties. (i.e. CON, ST, PUD, RLSA designation, RFMU district, etc.) (LDC 2.03.05-2.03.08; 4.08.00) 147. Submit a current aerial photograph and clearly delineate the subject site boundary lines. If the site is vegetated, provide FLUCFCS overlay or vegetation inventory identifying upland, wetland and exotic vegetation. (LDC 10.08.00.B.6) 050.Clearly identify the location of all preserves and label each as "Preserve" on all plans. (LDC 3.05.07.A.2). preserves labeled ab rovide calculations on site plan showing the appropriate acreage of native vegetation to e retained, the max. amount and ratios permitted to be created on -site or mitigated off - site. Exclude vegetation located within utility and drainage easements from the preserve calculations (LDC 3.05.07.13-1); 3.05.071; 3.05.07.H. Ld-e). preserve calculation 203 Created and retained preserve areas shall meet the minimum width requirements per LDC 3.05.07.H. Le. Q;4. Retained preservation areas shall be selected based on the criteria defined in LDC a .05.07.A.3, include all 3 strata, be in the largest contiguous area possible and shall be interconnected within the site and to adjoining off -site preservation areas or wildlife corridors. (LDC 3.05.07.A.1-4) preserve selection 208 Provide the justification for proposing a created preserve versus retaining existing native vegetation. (LDC 3.05.07.H.l.e.i) 3boundary. Principle structures shall be located a minimum of 25' from the boundary of the preserve No accessory structures and other site alterations, fill placement, grading, plant alteration or removal, or similar activity shall be permitted within 10' of the boundary unless it can be shown that it will not affect the integrity of the preserve (i.e. stem wall or berm around wetland preserve). Provide cross -sections for each preserve boundary identifying all site alterations within 25'. (LDC 3.05.07.H.3; 6.01.02.C.) preserve setback G211211 Provide the location, maintenance plan, and type of habitat of any proposed off -site preservation/mitigation. (LDC 3.05.07.F.4) Owetland Wetland line shall be approved by SFWMD and delineated on the site plan. Provide permits from the applicable agencies. (LDC 3.05.07.F; 10.02.03.13.1 j.) wetland line a�criosvistency ide a complete and sufficient EIS (and the review fee) identifying author credentials, determination with the GMPs, off -site preserves, seasonal and historic high water levels, and analysis of water quality. For land previously used for farm fields or golf course, provide soil sampling/groundwater monitoring reports identifying any site contamination. (LDC 10.02.02) EIS required ��Plan rovide a wildlife survey and include the species specific wildlife habitat management on the site plan. The management plan shall include a monitoring program for sites ,?6-6c. 7 os- r4 Packet Pg. 1043 9.A.3.d larger than 10 acres. (LDC 3.04.00) species survey & management Additional Comments: Stipulations for approval (Conditions) j4t16F- 0 ofiy Packet Pg. 1044 9.A.3.d Straight Rezone Checklist 144. Is project is in compliance with the overlays, districts and/or zoning on the subject site and/or the surrounding properties. (i.e. CON, ST, PUD, RLSA designation, RFMU district, etc.) (LDC 2.03,05-2.03.08; 4.08.00) 147. Submit a current aerial photograph and clearly delineate the subject site boundary lines. If the site is vegetated, provide FLUCFCS overlay or vegetation inventory identifying upland, wetland and exotic vegetation. (LDC 10.08.00.B.6) 150. Clearly identify the location of all preserves and label each as "Preserve" on all plans. (LDC 3.05.07.A.2). preserves labeled 151. Provide calculations on site plan showing the appropriate acreage of native vegetation to be retained, the max. amount and ratios permitted to be created on -site or mitigated off - site. Exclude vegetation located within utility and drainage easements from the preserve calculations (LDC 3.05.07.13-13; 3.05.071; 3.05.07.H.Ld-e). preserve calculation 203. Created and retained preserve areas shall meet the minimum width requirements per LDC 3.05.07.H. Le. 154. Retained preservation areas shall be selected based on the criteria defined in LDC ii 3.05.07.A.3, include all 3 strata, be in the largest contiguous area possible and shall be interconnected within the site and to adjoining off -site preservation areas or wildlife corridors. (LDC 3.05.07.A.1-4) preserve selection 208. Provide the justification for proposing a created preserve versus retaining existing native vegetation. (LDC 3.05.07.H.l.e.i) 210. Principle structures shall be located a minimum of 25' from the boundary of the preserve boundary. No accessory structures and other site alterations, fill placement, grading, plant alteration or removal, or similar activity shall be permitted within 10' of the boundary unless it can be shown that it will not affect the integrity of the preserve (i.e. stem wall or berm around wetland preserve). Provide cross -sections for each preserve boundary identifying all site alterations within 25'. (LDC 3.05.07.H.3; 6.01.02.C.) preserve setback 211. Provide the location, maintenance plan, and type of habitat of any proposed off -site preservation/mitigation. (LDC 3.05.07.F.4) 115. Wetland line shall be approved by SFWMD and delineated on the site plan. Provide wetland permits from the applicable agencies. (LDC 3.05.071; 10.02.03.13.1.j.) wetland line 153. Provide a complete and sufficient EIS (and the review fee) identifying author credentials, consistency determination with the GMPs, off -site preserves, seasonal and historic high water levels, and analysis of water quality. For land previously used for farm fields or golf course, provide soil sampling/groundwater monitoring reports identifying any site contamination. (LDC 10.02.02) EIS required 152. Provide a wildlife survey and include the species specific wildlife habitat management plan on the site plan. The management plan shall include a monitoring program for sites ,?,E E 4 �u Packet Pg. 1045 9A larger than 10 acres. (LDC 3.04.00) species survey & management Additional Comments: Stipulations for approval (Conditions) '>,.« i vd-04 — - Packet Pg. 1046 9.A.3.d Cover County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 Meeting Notes ��'a` FASCI: �. �ij'.�,rli� ri '.�• = Am R�►la'_ ilia !� Disclaimer: Information provided by staff to applicant during the Pre -Application Meeting is based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant of issues that could arise during the process. The Administrative Code and LDC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required data for an application may not fully outline what is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide all required data. Updated 7/24/2018 Page I —'I l( cp l `i Packet Pg. 1047 9.A.3.d Collier County Tr. :portation Planning and PUD Monitoring Pre-App Notes Developer Commitments: Transportation Planni " The maximum total da illy trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed two-way PM peak hour net trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval." PUD Monitoring "One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close- v out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this CPUD approval, the Managing Entity is the Insert CM Company Name Here. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and o commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that c CN needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County a. staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an M acknowledgement of the commitments required by the CPUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the A Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed -out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments." a Miscellaneous "Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development." �1 1L OF It/ Packet Pg. 1048 9.A.3.d Cofer County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 Pre -Application Meeting Sign -In Sheet PL# 20180002374 Collier County Contact Information: Name Review Discipline Phone Email David Anthony Environmental Review 252-2497 david.anthony@colliercountyfl.gov SummerAraque _ Environmental Review 252-6290 summer.brownaraque@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Claudine Auclair GMD Operations and Regulatory Management 252-5887 claudine.auclair@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Steve Baluch Transportation Planning 252-2361 stephen.baluch@colliercountyfl.gov Ray Bellows Zoning, Planning Manager 252-2463 raymond.bellows@colliercountyfl.gov 171 Laurie Beard PUD Monitoring 252-5782 laurie.beard@colliercountyfl.gov I._I�Craig Brown Environmental Specialist 252-2548 craig.brown@colliercountyfl.gov Heidi Ashton Cicko Managing Asst. County Attorney 252-8773 heidi.ashton@colliercountyfl.gov Thomas Clarke Operations Coordinator 252-2584 thomas.carke@coiliercountyfLgov Cl Kay Deselem Zoning Services 252-2586 kay.deselem@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Dale Fey North Collier Fire 597-9227 dfey@northcollierfire.com ❑ Eric Fey, P.E. Utility Planning 252-1037 eric.fey@colliercountyfl.gov Tim Finn, AICP Zoning Division 252-4312 timothy.finn@colliercountyfl.gov L.I�Sue Faulkner Comprehensive Planning 252-5715 sue.faulkner@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Paula Fleishman Impact Fee Administration 252-2924 paula.fleishman@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ James French Growth Management Deputy Department Head 252-5717 252-2426 252-2434 james.french@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Michael Gibbons Structural/Residential Plan Review michael.gibbons@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Storm Gewirtz, P.E. Engineering Stormwater storm.gewirtz@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA Zoning Division 252-2484 nancy.gundiach@colliercountyfl.gov Shar Hingson Greater Naples Fire District 774-2800 shingson@gnfire.org El John Houldsworth Engineering Subdivision 252-5757 john.houldsworth@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Jodi Hughes Transportation Pathways 252-5744 jodi.hughes@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Alicia Humphries Right -Of -Way Permitting 252-2326 alicia.humphries@colIiercountyfl.gov Marcia Kendall Comprehensive Planning 252-2387 marcia.kendall@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ John Kelly Zoning Senior Planner 252-5719 john.kelly@colliercountyfl.gov J Gil Martinez Zoning Principal Planner 252-4211 gilbert.martinez@colliercountyfl.gov Thomas Mastroberto Greater Naples Fire 252-7348 thomas.mastroberto@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Jack McKenna, P.E. Engineering Services 252-2911 jack.mckenna@colliercountyfl.gov F.J.Matt McLean, P.E. Development Review Director 252-8279 matthew.mclean@colliercountyfl.gov Updated 7/24/2018 Page 1-4 uf-9- l3 Orly M M - Packet Pg. 1049 - OI 9 A d I Cother County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 ❑ Michele Mosca, AICP Capital Project Planning 252-2466 michele.mosca@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Annis Moxam Addressing 252-5519 annis.moxam@colliercountyfl.gov stefanie.nawrocki@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Stefanie Nawrocki Development Review - Zoning 252-2313 ❑ Richard Orth Stormwater Planning 252-5092 richard.orth@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Brandy Otero Transit 252-5859 brandy.otero@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Brandi Pollard Utility Impact fees 252-6237 brandi.pollard@colliercountyfl.gov triggall@northcollierfire.com daniel.roman@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Todd Riggall North Collier Fire 597-9227 ❑ Daniel Roman, P.E. _ _ Engineering Utilities Development Review Principal Project Manager 252-2538 ❑ Brett Rosenblum, P.E. 252-2905 brett.rosenblum@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Sabo, AICP Zoning Principal Planner james.sabo@colliergo.net /James Ltd' Michael Sawyer Transportation Planning 252-2926 michael.sawyer@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Corby Schmidt, AICP Comprehensive Planning 252-2944 Corby.schmidt@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Chris Scott, AICP Development Review - Zoning 252-2460 chris.scott@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Peter Shawinsky Architectural Review 252-8523 peter.shawinsky@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Camden Smith Zoning Division Operations 252-1042 Camden.smith@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Scott Stone Assistant County Attorney 252-5740 scott.stone@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Mark Strain Hearing Examiner/CCPC 252-4446 mark.strain@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Mark Templeton Landscape Review 252-2475 mark.templeton@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Jessica Velasco Zoning Division Operations 252-2584 jessica.velasco@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Jon Walsh, P.E. Building Review 252-2962 jonathan.walsh@colliercountyfl.gov / ✓I David Weeks, AICP Comprehensive Planning Future Land Use Consistency 252-2306 david.weeks@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Kirsten Wilkie Environmental Review 252-5518 kirsten.wilkie@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Christine Willoughby Development Review -Zoning 252-5748 Christine.willoughby@colliercountyfl.gov Additional Attendee Contact Information: Name Representing �sSzyC q Phone S22 Email Nip a,►^!�- i Ik a� - - 1�1t�t �NoEa w00'tON I cktlr' 50n C �k I i Updated 7/24/2018 Page of f `f 0 �Ie V. CO, - M W M Packet Pg. 1050 9.A.3.d Cfie-r C014ftty Applicant/Agent may also send site L plans or conceptual plans for review in advance if desired. Growth Management Department Zoning Division PL20180002374 — 7-Eleven Greenway Naples (RZ) - PRE-APP INFORMATION Assigned Ops Staff: Tom Clarke Camden Smith,(Ops Staff) STAFF FORM FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PRE -APPLICATION MEETING INFORMATION • Name and Number of who submitted pre-app request Sharon Hrobak, Quattrone & Associates (239) 936-5222 Sharon@QA1NC.net • Agent to list for PL# 0 CD Al Quattrone PE, Quattrone & Associates 00 (239) 936-5222 N AI@QAINC.net J d r • Owner of property rty all owners foral parcels o TBC Greenway LLC 14004 Roosevelt Blvd Ste 601 C Clearwater FL 33762 rn • Confirm Purpose of Pre-App: (Rezone, etc.) Ta L Rezone together with Small Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment (FLU change) • Please list the density request of the project if applicable and number of homes/units/offices/docks (any that apply): Proposed construction of a 3,500 sf +/- convenience store, underground fuel storage tanks, fuel distribution and vent piping, 2 free standing canopies, 8 multi -product dispensers (16 fueling positions) for gasoline and 2 multi -product dispensers (4 fueling positions) for diesel. A single bay self service carwash is also proposed. • Details about Project (choose type that applies): Rezone (RZ) — The proposed construction will be single phase on one lot/tract. REQUIRED Supplemental Information provided by: Name: Michelle Sal berg PE , Quattrone & Associates Title: Senior Engineer Email: Michelle@QAINC.net Phone: (239) 936-5222 Created April 5, 2017 ,`•. A, Location: K:\CDES Planning Services\Current\Zoning Staff Information Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, RoWa 34104.239.252-2400-www.cdiergov net Packet Dny. 1051 AemuaajE) UBA013-L VLEZOOMOZ-1d : MCO sleijejeW dmjoeEj-uoijeoijddV - 3 juawVellV:luGwt43ellV uppoij 4 9z 32uuH .111nos 15 d!qs---.L 'I I W Z I suu! 03S Jo uOPOd R JO A—ns sdswvl-lv ?J J 0 Ic tt Eif H, N, 7 ! / ./ "', I, P 4t AemuaajE) UBA013-L VLEZ0009LOZ-ld MCO sleuejeW dmjoeEj-uoijeoijddV - 3 juawVejlV:luGwt43ellV LO CD T- Ch a. F z,, I -i CL tz u z 0 u LO C. L) 2i CY) (Y) -j LL (6 w z < 0 Z LLJ w Of Z W w uj ZA uj I 'i In 0 GI 01 r Collier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: ❑ PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code ❑ Amendment to PUD- Ch. 3 G. 2 of the Administrative Code ❑ PUD to PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Tv Pat) The following Submittal Requirement checklist is to be utilized during the Pre -Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At final submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with an up-to-date application. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. A Model PUD Document is available online at http://www.colliercountvfl.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=76983. REQUIREMENTS COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Cover Letter with Narrative Statement including a detailed description of why amendment is necessary ❑ ❑ Completed Application with required attachments (download latest version) 1 Pre -application meeting notes 1EJ Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized 1 Property Ownership Disclosure Form 1 Notarized and completed Covenant of Unified Control 1 Completed Addressing Checklist 1 Warranty Deed(s) 1 ❑ List Identifying Owner and all parties of corporation 1 ❑ Signed and sealed Boundary Survey 1 Architectural Rendering of proposed structures 1 Current Aerial Photographs (available from Property Appraiser) with project boundary and, if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included on aerial. 1 full ❑ Statement of Utility Provisions 1 Environmental Data Requirements pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00 1 ❑ Environmental Data Requirements collated into a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) packet at time of public hearings. Coordinate with project planner at time of public hearings. ❑ MV ❑ Listed or Protected Species survey, less than 12 months old. Include copies of previous surveys. 1 ❑ Traffic Impact Study 1 Historical Survey 1 School Impact Analysis Application, if applicable 1 Electronic copy of all required documents 1 Completed Exhibits A-F (see below for additional information)' ❑ ❑ List of requested deviations from the LDC with justification for each (this document is separate from Exhibit E) El ❑ Checklist continues on next page July 30, 2018 Page 9 of 11 r M M Packet Pg. 1054 �:.. Collier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Revised Conceptual Master Site Plan 24" x 36"and One 8 %" x 11" copy Original PUD document/ordinance, and Master Plan 24" x 36" — Only if Amending the PUD m 4 ❑ Revised PUD document with changes crossed thru & underlined 1 ❑ Copy of Official Interpretation and/or Zoning Verification 1 ❑ *If located in Immokalee or seeking affordable housing, include an additional set of each submittal requirement 'The following exhibits are to be completed on a separate document and attached to the application packet: Exhibit A: List of Permitted Uses Exhibit B: Development Standards .ice Exhibit C: Master Plan- See Chapter 3 E. 1. of the Administrative Code eExhibit D: Legal Description 4/Exhibit E: List of Requested LDC Deviations and justification for each X Exhibit F: List of Development Commitments If located in RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use) Receiving Land Areas Pursuant to LDC subsection 2.03.08.A.2.a.2.(b.)i.c., the applicant must contact the Florida Forest Service at 239- 690-3500 for information regarding "Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan." PLANNERS — INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: ElSchool District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart ❑ Conservancy of SWFL: Nichole Johnson Utilities Engineering: Eric Fey Parks and Recreation: Barry Williams & David Berra Emergency Management: Dan Summers ❑ Immokalee Water/Sewer District: City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director Other: P t, ./ _j I ASSOCIATED FEES FOR APPLICATION I Pre -Application Meeting: $500.00 /- PUD Rezone: $10,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre PUD to PUD Rezone: $8,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre ❑ PUD Amendment: $6,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review: $2,250.00 V Environmental Data Requirements -EIS Packet (submittal determined at pre -application meeting): $2,500.00 A4_ ❑ Listed or Protected Species Review (when an EIS is not required): $1,000.00 '•�'j Transportation Review Fees: }� Methodology Review: $500.00, to be paid directly to Transportation at the Methodology Meeting* *Additional fees to be determined at Methodology Meeting. O Minor Study Review: $750.00 O Major Study Review $1,500.00 July 30, 2018 Page 10 of 11 r M M Packet Pg. 1055 9 A Coier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net Legal Advertising Fees: o CCPC: $1,125.00 o BCC: $500.00 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 ❑ School Concurrency Fee, if applicable: o Mitigation Fees, if application, to be determined by the School District in coordination with the County Fire Code Plans Review Fees are collected at the time of application submission and those fees are set forth by the Authority having jurisdiction. The Land Development Code requires Neighborhood Notification mailers for Applications headed to hearing, and this fee is collected prior to hearing. All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. *Additional fee for the 5' and subsequent re -submittal will be accessed at 20% of the original fee. Signature of Petitioner or Agent Printed named of signing party July 30, 2018 Date Page 11 of 11 r M M Packet Pg. 1056 1 9.A.3.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net Goer County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Pre -Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: Standard Rezone Chapter 3 H. of the Administrative Code I ne tollowing Submittal Requirement Checklist is to be utilized during the Pre -Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At time of submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW # OF COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Completed Application (download current form from County website) 1 Pre -Application meeting notes Project Narrative 1^� 1 Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized 1 Completed Addressing Checklist 1 Property Ownership Disclosure Form 1 Utility Provisions Statement with sketches 1 1 Signed and Sealed Survey__ Conceptual Site Plan Architectural Rendering List identifying Owner & all parties of corporation Warranty Deeds 1 Environmental Data Requirements, pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00' 1 21 Listed Species Survey; less than 12 months old. Include copies of previous surveys 1 ❑ El Current aerial photographs (available from Property Appraiser) with project and, if vegetated, FLUCFGS Codes with legend included on_aeriat Historical Survey or waiver request 1 Traffic Impact Statement, with applicable fees 1 School Impact Analysis Application — residential projects only 1 Electronic copy of all documents and plans 1 *If located in Immokalee or seeking affordable housing, include an additional set of each submittal requirement If located in RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use) Receiving Land Areas Pursuant to LDC subsection 2.03.08.A.2.a.2.(b.)i.c., the applicant must contact the Florida Forest Service at 239- 690-3500 for information regarding "Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan." Tv 09/28/217 Page 7 of 8 - - Packet Pg. 1057 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net CO er Gmnty 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Planners: Indicate if the petition needs to be routed to the following additional reviewers: Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment: Executive Director Historical Review ❑ City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director ❑ Immokalee Water/Sewer District: Conservancy of SWFL: Nichole Johnson ❑ Parks and Recreation: Barry Williams and David Berra Emergency Management: Dan Summers; and/or EMS: Artie Bay ❑ School District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart ❑ Other: I ❑ I Other: w FEE REQUIREMENTS 11� X Pre -Application Meeting: $500.00 (Applications submitted 9 months or more after the date of the last Iq pre -application meeting shall not be credited towards application fees and a new pre -application c meeting will be required) c X Rezone Petition (regular): $6,000.00 plus $25.00 an acre (or fraction thereof) 00 o Additional Fee for 51' and subsequent reviews: 20% of original fee T" N Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review: $750.00 J Listed/Protected Species Survey: $1,000.00 d r n Estimated Legal Advertising: CV) o CCPC- $1,125.00 o BCC- $500.00 T Transportation Fee: Ta �Q Methodology Review: $500.00 (Additional fees to be determined at Methodology meeting) a; School Concurrency Review: If required, to be determined by the School District in coordination with f° the County a Fire Code Plans Review Fees are collected at the time of application submission and those fees are set forth by the Authority having jurisdiction. The land Development Code requires Neighborhood Notification mailers for Applications headed to hearing, and this fee is collected prior to hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department Planning and Regulation ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Agent/Owner Signature Applicant/Owner Name (please print) Date 09/28/217 Page 8 of 8 Packet Pg. 1058 9.A.3.d FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) PL20180002324 I, William Yeomans Jr (print name), as Manager — (title, if applicable) of TBC Greenwav, LLC (company, If applicable), swear or affirm under oath, that I am the (choose one) owner applicant=contract purchaser=and that: 1. I have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2. All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. 1 have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. 5. We/I authorize Henderson Franklin Starnes & Holt P.A. to act as our/my representative in any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above. 'Notes: in ® if the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed by the core. pres. or v. pres. c ® If the applicant is a Limited Liability Company (L.L.C.) or Limited Company (L.C.), then the documents should co typically be signed by the Company's "Managing Member. " c ® if the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. N • If the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the "general a partner" of the named partnership. ® if the applicant is a trust, then they must include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee". ® In each instance, first deterrrj�ica the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate formaV6r,1that ownership. Under pe al 'e7,,bf WJury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the fac s fed i are e. Date Th. for going instru eorn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me on - v by (name of person providing oath o affirmation), as who is personally known to r who has produced (type of identify ation) as identification. sTAMPiSEAL S ature of Notary Public KEE ANN KENNEDYc State of Floridaion 4 GG 939427xpires Dec 15, 2021 cP\0s-con-00115%155 REV 3/24/14 Packet Pg. 1059 9.A.3.d AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) P _2D M002374 I, William Yeomans Jr (print name), as _Manager (title, if applicable) of TBC Greenway, LLC (company, If applicable), swear or affirm under oath, that I am the (choose one) owner applicant=contract purchaser=and that: 1. I have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2. All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. 1 have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application, and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. 5. Well authorize QUattronc c', Associates Inc to act as our/my representative in any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above. *Notes: r M • If the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed b the co N pp rp y y corp. Ares, or v. puss. o 0 • If the applicant is a Limited Liability Company (L.L.C.) or Limited Company (L.C.), then the documents should o 0 typically be signed by the Company's "Managing Member." c • If the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. N • If the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the general d partner" of the named partnership. • If the applicant is a trust then they must include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee" M 0 • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penaitwxvafelhAruel p`rjyfy, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts st ifs � tit Date STATE OF FLORIDA ;' J. It COUNTY OF-6At� Th fo egoing in ument was sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before mete} by ` (name person prov' ing th or affirmation), as whose, • Ily known to or who has produce (type of ide , I as ic'�entifica#ion,,,.,�� Mtn+r.. C�9t ANN ;f,�t11E11Y �, ZSnatur of Notary Pu ICSTAMPISEAI - „,' 1qG niy PUb1K •ke Ot FlUttdi � wmmfisioe r* 'r v3tn9L z + _ �r Conx► EVir®s Dee 15 30�! CP\08-COA-00115\155 IIEN' 3/24/14 Packet Pg. 1060 9.A.3.d AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) P1 2W$ -aU24 I, William Yeomans Jr (print name), as Mina ear (title, if applicable) of TBC Greenway, LLB _ (company, If a l[cable), swear or affirm under oath, that I am the (choose one) owner�applicantQcontract purchaserrand that: 1. 1 have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2. All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. 1 have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. 5. We/I authorize Bob Where,_FAICP Hole Montes to act as our/my representative in any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above. 'Notes: N • If the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed b the co 0 pp >lc Y Y carp. pros, or v. pres. o 0 • If the applicant is a Oinited Liability Company (L.L.C.) or Limited Company (L.C.), then the documents should 00 typically be signed by the Company's 'Managing Member," o • If the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. � • if the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the "general a. partner' of the named partnership. M • If the applicant is a trust, then they must include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee". c0 M • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format forU,iat ownership. Under penaltiO ofjur `) declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts stated i 1 ar r '°•. natu Date STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF Th f r oin jn trument was sworn to or affirmed and subscribed before me (date) by �Y�_ ( ) (name of person pro in ath or affirmation), as who is personally known to or who has produced (type of i ent ids t . %J w STAMP/SEAL. �gnatUr Notary blic �tNllfry iT - .�•,. crack alYw rsfq+�rFar ' e j �a+ � Vi: �•Y pvbl,e ++7SI•!t Plun�i 'e • •_v.�+An1tlliOn N F1 91t190 `'`w�,«..,....�.,,... My Comm f , 1019 a him. t i y 11011ry P C t7�9t ? ll 931390 CP\08-00A-001 I51155 ,a+ UV CItR py 1S, tUt 0 REV 3/24114 ytsn 4 � 20, W Packet Pg. 1061 9.A.3.d AW"", it Ie"-r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.cglliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP ERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM This Is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the ►ercentage of such interest: Name and Address % of Ownership b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: Name and Address % of Ownership C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE list the beneficiaries of the trust with the ►ercentage of interest: Name and Address % of Ownership Created 9/28/2017 Page 1 of 3 r M M k Packet Pg. 1062 9.A.3.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT a i d. e. 9 9. 2900 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 2S2-6358 If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners: Name and Address % of Ownership_ William B Yeomans JR 31.968% William B Yeomans SR 31.968% Nicole D Smigliani 3.366% KonKam Holdings, LLC (John McGlynn 100%) / Robert Carroll 21.91 % / 10.79% If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE. with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the 4ticers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners: Name and Address % of Ownership Date of Contract: 7/12/18 If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or titers, it a corporation, partnership, or trust: Name and Address Date subject property acquired ❑ Leased: Term of lease years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 i Packet Pg. 1063 9.A.3.d my COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colifergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Date of option: Date option terminates: . or Anticipated closing date: Cx��i.R, 1_HP Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form. Any change In ownership whether Individually or with a Trustee, Company or other interest -holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County Immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition's final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: ii y Growth Management Department r ATTN: Business Center M to 2800 North Horseshoe Drive M Naples, FL 34104 per- N Agent Owner SijnaturK Date William B, Yeomans, JR., a� Manager of�13C Greenway, LLC Agent/Owner Name ( Created 9/28/2017 Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 1 4 9.A.3.d Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colifergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 STANDARD REZONE APPLICATION LDC Section 10.02.08 Chapter 3 H. of the Administrative Code PROJECT NO PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff DATE PROCESSED APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Property Owner(s): TBC Greenway, LLC Name of Applicant if different than owner: William B. Yeomans, Jr. Address: 13920 58th St. N, Suite 1014 City: Clearwater State: FL Telephone: 315-372-3722 Cell: 315-372-3722 Fax: N/A E-Mail Address: bill.yeomans@brooklinecompanies.com Name of Agent: Al Quattrone, P.E.-see attached sheet Firm: Quattrone & Associates, Inc ZIP: 33760 Address: 4301 Veronica Shoemaker City: Fort Myers State: FL ZIP: 33916 Telephone: 239-936-5222 Cell: Fax: E-Mail Address: permits@gainc.net PROPERTY INFORMATION Provide a detailed legal description of the property covered by the application, if space is inadequate, attach on separate page: • If the request involves changes to more than one zoning district, the applicant shall include a separate legal description for property involved in each district; • The applicant shall submit 4 copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1" to 400' scale), if required to do so at the pre -application meeting; and • The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required, Section/Township/Rangerrs_ L /26 Lot: Block: Subdivision: n/a Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: 09/28/2017 00737560004 Page 1 of 8 Packet Pg. 1 571 9.A.3.d Additional Agent List: Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt. PA Jeff Wright, Land Attorney 8889 Pelican Bay Boulevard, Suite 400 Naples, FL 34108 RobertJ. Mulhere, FAICP 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34110 239-254-2000 r M M Packet Pg. 1066 9.A.3.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net Co er County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Size of Property: ±323.74 ft. X ±357.45 ft. = ±112,291 Total Sq. Ft. Acres: ±2.81 Address/ General location of Subject Property: Northeast corner of Tamiarni Trail E (US 41) and Greenway Rd. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land Use N A Zoning Residence S PUD(Fiddlers Creek) vacant/Single Family Residence E TTRVC/A Zoning A Zoning mm Vacant W Vacant Land If the owner of the subject property owns contiguous property please provide a detailed legal description of the entire contiguous property: (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page) Section/Township/Range: Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: Lot: Block: Subdivision: Metes & Bounds Description: REZONE REQUEST This application is requesting a rezone from: A Zoning district(s) to the C-3 Present Use of the Property: Vacant zoning district(s). Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the subject property: C-3 to allow Convenience Store w/ Gas Station Be aware that Collier County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yourself accordingly and ensure that you are in compliance with these regulations. 09/28/217 Page 2 of 8 Packet Pg. 1067 9.A.3.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net Co er County ASSOCIATIONS 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239)252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Requirement: List all registered Home Owner Association(s) that could be affected by this petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County Commissioner's website at http://www.colliergov.net/index.aspx?page=774. Name of Homeowner Association: East Naples Civic Association Mailing Address: 8595 Collier Blvd. Suite 107 City: Naples State: FL Name of Homeowner Association: Fiddlers Creek HOA Mailing Address: 8152 Fiddlers Creek Pkwy City. Naples State: FL Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: Zip: 34114 Zip: 34114 City: State: ZIP: City: State: _______ ZIP: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: City: State- ZIP: EVALUATION CRITERIA Pursuant to LDC section 10.02.08, staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria. On a separate sheet attached to the application, please provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria noted below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, future land use map and elements of the Growth Management Plan. 2. The existing land use pattern. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property for the proposed change. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment (rezone) when necessary. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. 09/28/217 Page 3 of 8 Packet Pg. 1 871 9.A.3.d Coer County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will seriously affect property values in the adjacent area. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code Ch.106, art. II], as amended]. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the board of county commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions; however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing? Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? Yes Q No if so please provide copies. 09/28/217 Page 4 of 8 Packet Pg. 1 971 9.A.3.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliereov.net CO1L18Y County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR STANDARD REZONE REQUEST APPLICANT INFORMATION Name of Applicant(s): Al Quattrone, P.E. Address: 4301 Veronica Shoemaker Blvd Telephone: 239-936-5222 Cell: E-Mail Address: permits@gainc.net Address of Subject Property (If available): City: State: ZIP: City: Fort Myers State: FL LEGAL DESCRIPTION Section/Township/Range: 12/51/26 Lot: Block: Subdivision: N/A Fax: Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: 00737560004 Metes & Bounds Description: TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a. County Utility System b. City Utility System C. Franchised Utility System d. Package Treatment Plant e. Septic System Provide Name: (GPD Capacity): ZIP: 33916 I TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED I a. County Utility System I b. City Utility System C. Franchised Utility System Provide Name: d. Private System (Well) Total Population to be Served: Convenience Store & Carwash (See attached calculation) Peak and Average Daily Demands: A. Water -Peak: 2008 GPD Average Daily: 1488 GPD B. Sewer -Peak: 1435 GPD Average Daily: 1063 GPD 09/28/217 Page 5 of 8 Packet Pg. 1070 9.A.3.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net Coer County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 If proposing to be connected to Collier County Regional Water System, please provide the date service is expected to be required: 12/20/20 Narrative statement: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. Applicant intends to connect the proposed convenience store to the County's Sewer System. The carwash will utilize a reclaim system with an overflow to the sewer system. Refer to attached calculation for estimated average and peak flows. Collier County Utility Dedication Statement: If the project is located within the service boundaries of Collier County's utility service system, a notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area to the Collier County Utilities. This shall occur upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at that time. This statement shall also include an agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable, the statement shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. Applicant intends for all utilities within the project boundary to be privately owned and maintained. Portions of utilities within the County right-of-way will be dedicated to Collier County utilities. Statement of Availability Capacity from other Providers: Unless waived or otherwise provided for at the pre -application meeting, if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided. I PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS I This land use petition requires a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), pursuant to Chapter 3 H. of the Administrative Code and LDC section 10.03.06. Following the NIM, the applicant will submit a written summary and any commitments that have been made at the meeting. Refer to Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for the NIM procedural requirements. Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code requires that the applicant must remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign(s) immediately. 09/28/217 Page 6 of 8 M M Packet Pg. 1071 9.A.3.d 7-Eleven Store # 38985 - Tamiami Trail & Greenway Road WASTEWATER FLOW CALCULATION 3,454 SF Convenience Store & Carwash From CH64-E Service Station: 325 GPD/Water Closet (Open 16+ hours per day) 2 Water Closets In Bay Auto Car Wash* 14.23 Gallon per Wash 29 **Est washes per day *(Provided by RYKO SGXS FoamBrite est Fresh Gallons per wash) **(Average. As provided by 7-Eleven) WASTEWATER FLOW = 1063 GPD Average Daily WASTEWATER Flow= 1063 GPD Average Daily WATER Flow = (WASTEWATER) x 1.4 1488 GPD Peaking Factor (Per 2014 CCU Master Plan) 1.35 PEAK WASTEWATER FLOW = 1435 GPD PEAK WATER FLOW = 2008 GPD 650 GPD 412.67 GPD r M M Packet Pg. 1072 9.A.3.d Co er CoWmnty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Pre -Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: Standard Rezone Chapter 3 H. of the Administrative Code The following Submittal Requirement Checklist is to be utilized during the Pre -Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At time of submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW # OF C REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Completed Application (download current form from County website) 1 Pre -Application meeting notes IL ✓ Project Narrative 1 ✓ Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized 1 Completed Addressing Checklist 1 _ Property Ownership Disclosure Form 1 Utility Provisions Statement with sketches 1 ✓ Signed and Sealed Survey 1 Conceptual Site Plan 1 ,/ Architectural Rendering List identifying Owner & all parties of corporation 1 ✓ Warranty Deeds Environmental Data Requirements, pursuant to LDC section 3,08.00 1 ✓ Listed Species Survey; less than 12 months old. Include copies of previous surveys 1 Current aerial photographs (available from Property Appraiser) with project boundary and, if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included on aerial. a ❑ Historical Survey or waiver request 1 Traffic Impact Statement, with applicable fees 1 ✓ School Impact Analysis Application — residential projects only 1Li Electronic copy of all documents and plans 1 ✓ *If located in Immokalee or seeking affordable housing, Include an additional set of each submittal requirement If located in RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use) Receiving Land Areas Pursuant to LDC subsection 2.03.08.A.2.a.2.(b.)i.c., the applicant must contact the Florida Forest Service at 239- 690-3500 for information regarding "Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan." 09/28/217 Page 7 of 8 I Packet Pg. 1073 9.A.3.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net Cot[ieY County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Planners: Indicate if the petition needs to be routed to the following additional reviewers: eayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment: Executive Director ❑ Historical Review ❑ City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director ❑ Immokalee Water/Sewer District: ❑ Conservancy of SWFL: Nichole Johnson ❑ Parks and Recreation: Barry Williams and David Berra ❑ Emergency Management: Dan Summers; and/or EMS: Artie Bay ❑ School District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart TTI Other: Other: FEE REQUIREMENTS bi Pre -Application Meeting: $500.00 (Applications submitted 9 months or more after the date of the last pre -application meeting shall not be credited towards application fees and a new pre -application meeting will be required) Ix Rezone Petition (regular): $6,000.00 plus $25.00 an acre (or fraction thereof) o Additional Fee for 5`h and subsequent reviews: 20% of original fee A Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review: $750.00 1i Listed/Protected Species Survey: $1,000.00 N Estimated Legal Advertising: a CCPC- $1,125.00 cx BCC- $500.00 IX Transportation Fee: ask ted had method mtg and paid if not are you having o Methodology Review: $500.00 (Additional fees to be determined at Methodology meeting) School Concurrency Review: If required, to be determined by the School District in coordination with the County N/A Fire Code Plans Review Fees are collected at the time of application submission and those fees are set forth by the Authority having jurisdiction. The Land Development Code requires Neighborhood Notification mailers for Applications headed to hearing, and this fee is collected prior to hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department Planning and Regulation ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 A nt/ ner Si natur Al Quttrone, P/E Applicant/Owner Name (please print) 09/28/217 G ) m Date Page 8 of 8 Packet Pg. 1074 INSTR 5543574 OR 5500 PG 1192 RECORDED 4/20/2018 3:07 PM PAGES 2 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA DOC@.70 $2,310.00 REC $18.50 CONS $330,000.00 DNA Prepared by: Michael D. Gentzle, Esq. WITHOUT REVIEW OR OPINION OF TITLE Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 239-435-3535 File Number: 15492.002 Consideration: $330,000.00 Above This Line For Recording Special Warranty Deed This Special Warranty Deed made this V#day-oiMarch, 2018 between Ronald Mentecki, Roger Fritchey and Robert Johnson whose post office address i A-3 �C� ake Drive, Naples, FL 34112, grantor, and TBC Greemvay, LLC, a Florida limited liability c rt'i a ly �vnose pe €.l `address is 14004 Roosevelt Blvd., Suite 601C, Clearwater, FL 33762, grantee: (Whenever used herein the terms "grantor" and " individuals, and the successors and assigns of corp( to this instru*nt ari4 the heirs, legal representatives, and assigns of Witnesseth, that said grantor, for an in Sn d to o t ets o E N N�1100 DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable considerations to sai gr pto in h n p 'd s t— ra e th rec'ipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, and sold to the } ra_ ltaie¢? r t 's eirs d si &q rever, the following described land, situate, lying and being in Collier Coun ri a to -wit: Beginning at the Northeast cor e Section 13, Townshi0i 1 0 nge 26 East, Collier County, Florida (said corner also being th -6 t4east corner of Section 2, J Thence along the East line of said Seai n 4-T-37"_'At"Mig-9 feet to the Northerly right of way line of US-41 (State Road 90); thence alo g dightib�_ q'fine N 54°18'59" W 484.26 feet; thence N 35041'01" E 400.00 feet; thence S 54018'59" E 260 h0 feet to the East line of Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; thence along the East line of Section 12, S 0°11'20" W 154.53 feet to the Place of Beginning, and being a part of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 13 and part of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 12, LESS the East Thirty -feet (30') thereof conveyed to Collier County by virtue of Quit Claim Deed recorded in Official Records Book 1050, page 196, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Parcel Identification Number: 00737560004 Subject to: (a) ad valorem real property taxes for the year 2018 and subsequent years; (b) zoning, building code and other use restrictions imposed by governmental authority; (c) outstanding oil, gas and mineral interests of record, if any; and (d) restrictions, reservations, and easements common to the subdivision, if any. The land described herein is not the homestead of the grantor(s) and neither the grantor(s) nor the grantor(s) spouse, nor anyone for whose support the grantor(s) is responsible resides on or adjacent to said land. Together with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. To Have and to Hold, the same in fee simple forever. And the grantor hereby covenants with said grantee that the grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that the grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that the grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said r M M DoubleTime® Packet Pg. 1075 *** OR 5500 PG 1193 *** 9.A.3.d land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons claiming by, through or under grantor, but against no other persons. In Witness Whereof, grantor has hereunto set grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. Sign , seal and delivered in our presence: (as to all) Witness Name: Witness Name. aureen ullivan State of Florida County of Collier Ronald Mentecki by Roger Fritchey, his Attorney -in -Fact The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before�thjsK attorney-ii-fact for both Ronald Mentecki and Robert` -ohn 644" driver's license as identification. [Notary Seal] MICFih :i7, tif�7�lt MY COMPrIISSION It rF'Ifi1 s88 ?� P EXPIRES: January 1fl, 2019 Bonded Thru Notary PuhQ l!ndew�iiers ___ _..a+v�4'i�imi`-a.��um+avc •n,ia`riefem:�wn::uk'�xu:•ali Fritchey, his by Roger Fritchey, individually and as pally known or [X] has produced a Notary Public Printed Name: My Commission Expires: r M M Warrant}, Deed - Page 2 DoubleTim& Packet Pg. 1076 9.A.3.d EXHIBIT "A" Description: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Section 13, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida (said corner also being the Southeast corner of Section 12): Thence along the East line of said Section 13, S 0°19'37" W 336.19 feet to the Northerly right of way line of US-41 (State Road 90); thence along said right of way line N 54' 18,59" W 484.26 feet; thence N 35°41'01" E 400.00 feet; thence S 54°18'59" E 200.00 feet to the East line of Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; thence along the East line of Section 12, S 0°11'20" W 154.53 feet to the Place of Beginning, and being a part of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 13 and part of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 12, LESS the East Thirty -feet (30') thereof conveyed to Collier County by virtue of Quit Claim Deed recorded in Official Records Book 1050, page 196, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Parcel Identification Number: 00737560004 Packet Pg. 1077 ABMUaaaE) uan013-L VL£Z00MOZ-1d : LOU) slelaa;eW do)joe8-uoi;eoilddV - :D;uewLjoe;;V :;uowL4oe;;y a cp C 00 r- 0 T a aD cO Y rn R M a 0 N } x ro E co co co (n N V m M M R ro N ti N cA m r m } c E 06 N C) 0 0 0 v 0 O K c E 06 w W W J 9.A.3.d GREENWAY — TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT SSGMPA AND COMPANION REZONE (C-3) NARRATIVE/JUSTIFICATION Background - The subject parcel is 2.81 acres in size and is located on the north side of Tamiami Trail East approximately 3.37 mile east of Collier Boulevard. The property is designated Urban and located within the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. Property is also located within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). The subject parcel is presently zoned A- Agriculture. SUBJCT SITE Exhibit 1: Aerial with Site Location M W M r Packet Pg. 1 971 9.A.3.d DIRECTION FLUM ZONING LAND USE North Urban, Urban Mixed A -Agriculture undeveloped, agriculture and Use, Urban Residential single family South Tamiami Trail, Urban PUD (Fiddler's commercial, undeveloped Coastal Fringe Creek East Ag/Rural — RFMUD A -Agriculture Greenway Rd., Single-family Receiving West Urban, Urban Mixed A -Agriculture undeveloped Use, Urban Residential Surrounding FLUM Designation, Zoning, and Existing Land Use Nature of the Request: The proposed SSGMPA creates the 2.81 acre Greenway- Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict. The Subdistrict is intended to provide to small-scale shopping and convenience commercial uses to the surrounding neighborhood within convenient travel distance and to serve the public traveling on East Tamiami Trail (US 41), by allowing permitted uses in the C-3 zoning district (Subdistrict language below). The Subdistrict limits intensity to 20,000 square feet, subject to a maximum Trip Cap. 15. Greenway - Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict M W M The Greenway - Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict consists of ± 2.81 acres and is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41) and Greenway TO Road, in Section 12, Township, 51 South, Range 27 East. The purpose of the Subdistrict is to provide small-scale shopping and convenience commercial uses to the surrounding neighborhood within convenient travel distance and to serve the public traveling on Tamiami a Trail East. The development of this Subdistrict shall comply with the following restrictions, limitations and standards: m a. Allowable uses are those permitted by right in the C-3, Commercial Intermediate zoning c district, as listed in the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended. The maximum allowable commercial intensity shall be 20, 000 square feet subject to 2 Q a maximum Trip Cap established in the rezone ordinance. Q- The parcel is located diagonally across the Tamiami Trail East (US 41) from a commercial tract in the Fiddlers Creek PUD (designated `B" — Business/Commercial on the on the Fiddler's Creek Master Plan - Ordinance 18-27). This commercial area within Fiddler's basically allows C-3 uses, but also allows indoor air-conditioned self -storage. NARRATIVE/JUSTIFICATION GREENWAY — TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST COMM. SUBDISTRICT SSGMPA (AND COMPANION REZONE) PAGE 2 of 5 February 17, 2020 Packet Pg. 1080 9.A.3.d Fiddler's Creek naples, florida i wo yi" Subject Sit Fiddler's Comme ial Tract � 4,\ w ��l •� ,,, Dat ovcmbcr 2017 ` Ma er Plan W�' •� tip ro r . i; -� �oiir—��i,r�iin��crurrarrrvr�rnrwriii� Exhibit 2: Subject Site in Relation to Fiddler's Creek Commercial Tract (across Tamiami Trail) Florida Statute 163.31779(6)(a)2: 2. The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon 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. The Subdistrict is located within the County's Urban designated area (on the Future Land Use Map). With respect to a. and b., above, please see the Market Study proved with this application. c. The character of undeveloped land. At present, the subject site is undeveloped. The subject parcel contains 1.62 acres of native vegetation. (See report entitled "7 Eleven Greenway Road Rezoning Environmental Information" date June 2019). The LDC requires retention of 7,056.72 square feet of native vegetation (10% of the existing native vegetation on the site). Assuming the SSGMPA and Companion rezone to C-3 are approved, this will be addressed at time of SDP, in accordance with . The property is a "corner" fronting on a 6 lane arterial roadway (Tamiami Trails East) and a local roadway (Greenway). It is located diagonally across from a larger commercially designated tract within Fiddler's Creek PUD. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. NARRATIVE/JUSTIFICATION GREENWAY — TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST COMM. SUBDISTRICT SSGMPA (AND COMPANION REZONE) PAGE 3 of 5 February 17, 2020 M M Packet Pg. 1081 9.A.3.d All necessary urban services are available to serve the site (and on potential commercial uses). See the TIS and the Public Facilities Report submitted with this application. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming 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 discouragement of urban sprawl. Subparagraphs e. through h. above are not applicable. i. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community's economy. This is a relatively small parcel at 2.81 acres; however, approval of the proposed SSGMPA and Rezone will allow for needed commercial development of the site which will result in job creation, capital investment, and economic development. M j. The need to mod fy land uses and development patterns within antiquated M subdivisions. Subparagraph j. above is not applicable. Consistency with FLUE Objective 5: Implement land use policies that promote sound planning, protect environmentally sensitive lands and habitat for listed species while protecting private property rights, ensure compatibility of land uses and further the implementation of the Future Land Use Element. Policy 5.2: Land use policies supporting Objective 5 shall continue to be implemented upon the adoption of amendments to the Growth Management Plan. Policy 5.3: All rezonings must be consistent with this Growth Management Plan. Policy 5.4: All applications and petitions for proposed development shall be consistent with this Growth Management Plan, as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. The companion rezone to C-3 can be deemed to be consistent with all applicable Goals, Objective, and Policies of the GMP, assuming the amendment establishing the Subdistrict is adopted. Policy 5.6.• New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code. The LDC provides development and design standards, which often vary by use, and which ensure that development will be compatible with the surrounding area. NARRATIVE/JUSTIFICATION GREENWAY — TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST COMM. SUBDISTRICT SSGMPA (AND COMPANION REZONE) PAGE 4 of 5 February 17, 2020 Packet Pg. 1082 9.A.3.d Conclusion The approval of this SSGMPA is consistent with State statutes regulating comprehensive plan amendments and it is consistent with applicable GMP policies related to the same. The SSGMPA will allow for small-scale shopping and convenience commercial uses to the surrounding neighborhood within convenient travel distance and to serve the public traveling on East Tamiami Trail (US 41), by allowing permitted uses in the C-3 zoning district. Assuming the SSGMPA is approved, then the proposed rezone to C-3 may also be deemed consistent. NARRATIVE/JUSTIFICATION GREENWAY — TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST COMM. SUBDISTRICT SSGMPA (AND COMPANION REZONE) PAGE 5 of 5 February 17, 2020 Packet Pg. 1083 9.A.3.d GREENWAY-TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT REZONE CRITERIA 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, future land use map and elements of the Growth Management Plan. The proposed change is consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) goals, objectives, and policies, and Future Land Use Map (FLUM), and the goals, objectives and policies as applicable, of the Growth Management Plan. There is a concurrent application to amend the GMP to create the Greenway-Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict. 2. The existing land use pattern. The proposed amendment is compatible with the existing land use pattern. Property to the north is zoned A and is partially developed with large lot single family residences and agricultural uses. Property to the south is zoned PUD (Fiddler's Creek) and is undeveloped; however, the Fiddler's Creek PUD allocates these parcels for commercial uses. Property to the east and west is partially developed with large lot single family residences. The subject site is at the northeastern corner of the intersection of Greenway Road and East Tamiami Trail (US 41). 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The amendment will not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The rezone to C-3 is compatible with the surrounding residential and commercial uses. The intent of the C-3 zoning district is to provide small-scale shopping and commercial uses to the surrounding neighborhoods and to seine the public traveling on US 41. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property for the proposed change. Existing district boundaries are not illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property for the proposed change. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment (rezone) necessary. Changing conditions do not make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed change will not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Development will meet the site design standards set by the LDC. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The proposed amendment will not create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses or otherwise affect public safety. Page 1 of 3 Packet Pg. 1084 9.A.3.d 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The site will be designed to meet all County and SFWMD requirements. No drainage problems will be created. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The requested amendment will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. Development will meet the site design standards set by the LDC. 10. Whether the proposed change will seriously affect property values in the adjacent area. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The proposed change will not be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. The proposed change will not constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. There are no substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; however, with frontage on US 41 the existing zoning does not result in the highest and best use for the property. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. The change is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or county. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county or the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. It is not impossible to find adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 1085 9.A.3.d zoning classification is typical of and not different from any other similarly zoned property in Collier County. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code Ch. 106, art. Il, as amended]. There is availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, to serve the project. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC. Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 1086 AemuaaaE) uanal3-L'PLEZ000860 -ld : ME sleua;ew dnjoe8-uoi;eollddV- 3;uewt4oe;;d :;uewt4oe;;d ti -q co Ci o 3 Z w z LU zj! F O W N C4 O VI Ci FLL Oo € Z`� m o d8 ZW d \\V7`U/ V W F uoi W m U LU /SIT\/�22, Z l �J UU N a ZZc� m u g Z Q N = z� �a oo- a w O F' O� NW UN NNE U XX II F F .. U oWo P. N O Ito W t9- z an❑ O r a0. O W F IW7 .�" u y So d u�¢ ad Ho n� z•-•- e`ih car g w i 210 �1�\V�Jf LL Q/ / J 2 p l i a s i I w � I.. vi -m I o c'i AO'006 3.TO.SbeSE N \ jz I I- o = a Y a AemuaaaE) uanal3-L tiLEZ000OM-ld : ME sleua;ew dnjoe8-uoi;eollddv- 3;uewt4oe;4d :;uewt4oe44d crMy�- o c' J H'^ VJ W Z 0 li Q W LLJ W W I W W W a N m 0 Z F f y �N l7 c N WII M, W� WZx � l7 Z� 2 N U QQ v ax W ZN C U LU NO O� Qi, n j-II O e Z� OU Q6¢� WQ WOX a' uxl¢ Om Ko 00 you 2 Rk. t� \ • 2 i a i' 11 Hll�.�tL i'llt L•.LIF ��tl a,R ,� ' N: s64 �",. ,�jo�� l t �{r '�-; ,� � ", a � � •� 6 1"Y' �'�. • I, �,r �i �m �uu� Icr. rmnNl lavuuaa .4Y R �4[ Im3nli�v sa�a.M woa xvnwa3eo H3na�3zsozoan•Newaelaa 10 10 0 a. Y V a AemuaaaE) uanal3-L tiLEZ000860 -ld ME 6) sleua;ew dnjoe8-uoi;eollddv- 3;uewt43e;4d :;uewt4Oe4: T i I U w w 0 a z 0 0 lJl U F w d w wQ = OC z U C7 to V tl rn 00 0 r a m Y V a AemuaaaE) uanal3-L tiLEZ000OM-ld : ME sleua;ew dnjoe8-uoi;eollddv- 3;uewt4oe;4d :;uewt4oe4a d- U 0 i S o i� J w LO 0 0 LLp F �IWlllli�llll�__- xF O 2 O id x o ��m n nnnrl0."_ 30 �_ lI1tIIQftI¢� t3 ® 4 yoy: 30 AemuaaaE) uana13-L tiLEZ000860 -ld ME 6) slelaa;eW dnjoe8-uoi;eollddv- 3;uewt4oe;4d :;uewt4oe44br 9°Sep EZtL'SLZ 6EZd szzo'sLz ssz:a SN3NNVld NVld HOOId _ se t;? CO6EEla'Stl3AWltlOa SID311HJNV :2 q 4llEE ldS3ldVN p O 91�3=�1 i0U3L S3l�tlI�A3lNtltlSEV �„ 1 6 _ '¢A OVOH AVMN333kltJ q€;li S3HO1S N3A313-L Q e4s3�E��' VOl l300Y13S SNgll116 — T]e Y3c d0 �`n2 Z F ©pOp© _W II II h II II II 11 II II I 1 I AemuaaaE) uana13-L'PLEZ000860Z1d : ME Slepe;ew dmjoe8-uoi;eollddV- 3;uewt4oe;;d :;uewt4oe;;d N CD M epuo13 @@ y Q _ '6noo iaglo3 9cu8 9Z oguvy 1tpnoS 15 .wr+wm oHrna iav d1g9um01'EI xB ZI MOMS Jo uoluod uJo g T aY tl3WV�3Lf1 tlNQ1S AaNnSSISN/tljW W 9 a d r Y V .gg y-fig{ x yp g gg yygf 22 a$] y{ S E $ R� 6.sa Eli! gel.� az = s 88 ��tf� SSg$g0t �� M b§�R9g l a? 'pI IIpp ` n H Nil g�`� � � ` Y iiy FI F ¢ y g 1. € a $� ; p ��. �`8.��$ a �e�� 9 ��7� �, $5Qi 2 qq iF� 5� €$�$$$6 1111, qg E C j �Y EE2:W INN,y wil ¢q Iiglmg$gI}¢I gIg $ E$3 S�$€Ry"arWHOM dl I s i I�Y 'a ar. 9.A.3.d 2726 OAK RIDGE COURT, SUITE 503 FORT MYERS, FL 33901-9356 TRANSPORTATION OFFICE 239.278.1906 ;7ATm CONSULTANTS , INC FAX TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ENGINEERING G TRANSPORTATION PLANNING SIGNAL SYSTEMS/DESIGN TO: Mr. Al Quattrone, P.E. Quattrone & Associates, Inc. FROM: Yury Bykau Transportation Consultant DATE: February 17, 2020 RE: 7-Eleven Greenway Naples — Updated Concurrency Analysis NWC of US 41 and Greenway Road Collier County, Florida At the request of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. has updated the Concurrency Analysis for the above project based on the latest 2019 Annual Update & Inventory Report (AUIR). The original traffic study and its Concurrency Analysis was completed based on the 2018 AUIR, which was the latest version available at the time. Attached to this letter are Tables IA-3A, which have been revised based on the 2019 AUIR. As can be seen within Table 2A, sufficient capacity is indicated on US 41 west of Greenway Road in 2024 both with and without the proposed development. The analysis also indicates US 41 east of Greenway Road to operate with insufficient capacity in the background (without project) traffic conditions. Therefore, the conclusions of the Concurrency Analysis based on the 2019 AUIR remain the same as the conclusions as part of the original traffic study report, which was completed based on the 2018 AUIR. If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Yury Bykau, E.I. Transportation Consultant Attachments K:\2019\04 Apri1\13 7-Eleven Tamiami Trail East\Collier County Submitta1\2019 AUIR Analysis\2-17-2020 Tragic Memo.doc Packet Pg. 1093 muaaBua 013z EZ 00 LOZ d:M EO meiameWdmjoe8ugmmMdV-3 awVe nV:uewt4,e■�V z 2 o z z ! z z g ® as (@ (@ § A at R: @ .. F U.2 u A 2 ) q# z j_j e G / ® m f 2 ) o 00 0 q » § 2 ( $ S � } j � Z § m > \0 > \ u ` $ §) § / t z m a w § LLJ � ) \ o 2 a = m S«§ \ m m i o u Z § 2 w K& ) E§* a i G G Lƒ§ 2 q 2 ` cl U) ( § \ G p \ (n ] % 0 # # k \ § ) $ § re I / _ _ s \ o § m z EL m w > & g @ § § ! of e e / § § ( z ■ | \ \ \ § { 4 j 9 ? ) ( f f k , j ( ) j z k IL \ IL AemuaaaE) uan013-L VL£Z0008LOZ-ld MCO slelaa;eW dnjoe8-uoi;eollddV - 3 juawVejlV :;uauayoellV LO rn cYi m o w Os w U w O LLCLZ d J In U $ Y � V �- aI00 N a Li °? F- w w o Q ° a� 0 c CIO Z ?� aaZ m Z �Qq: Lu �U V Z U LL1 Z r O w U -J w ti Z Z 0 w z U _z V h aw N 9 Q d M 0 w Q a a w K g w M m F O a M N LL V Q [o ~ z p ~ m m Qcc LO ui Z O z z w a co N U uj U W d OI 'd W m Lx m a Q) N � v w oo O LL = V N � 0 21mw a % mM e v O rn w J 9.A.3.d TABLE M ANNUAL GROWTH RATE CALCULATIONS BASED UPON HISTORICAL AUIR DATA N IX rn 2009 2019 ANNUAL ACTUAL CURRENT AUIR AUIR YRS OF GROWTH GROWTH Z ROADWAY SEGMENT ID# VOLUME VOLUME GROWTH RATE RATE US 41 W. of Greenway Rd 95.2 588 1,040 10 5.87% 5.87% E. of Greenway Rd 95.3 588 1,040 10 5.87% 5.87% y 'L^ V All traffic volumes were obtained from the 2009 & 2019 Annual Update Inventory Reports (AUIR) " In instances where the historical data indicates a reduction in traffic or insufficient data was available to calculate d W a growth rate due to construction, a minimum annual growth rate of 2.0% was assumed. 11� M SAMPLE GROWTH RATE CALCULATION c 0 0 2019 AUIR "(1/Yrs of Growth) T" Annual Growth Rate (AGR) = -1 N 2009 AUIR J d 1,040 ^(v10) M AGR (US 41) = 1 M 588 to AGR (US 41) = 5.87% D ra Ci C d E L v tts r Q C d E t v t4 Q Packet Pg. 1096 9.A.3.d 2726 OAK RIDGE COURT, SUITE 503 TRANSPORTATION FORT MYERSCE 3 ,278.3356 OFFICE 239.278A906 ;7ATRCONSULTANTS, I N C FAX ENGINEERING 6 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING SIGNAL SYSTEMS/DESIGN TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT i •n 7-ELEVEN @ GREENWAY ROAD COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (MAJOR STUDY REVIEW - $1,500) (METHODOLOGY REVIEW FEE - $500) PROJECT NO. F1904.13 PREPARED BY: TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. Certificate of Authorization Number: 27003 2726 Oak Ridge Court, Suite 503 Fort Myers, Florida 33901-9356 (239) 278-3090 Revised: June 5, 2020 Packet Pg. 1097 9.A.3.d '// TRCONSULTANTS,TRANSPORTATION INC CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION II. EXISTING CONDITIONS III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IV. TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION V. PROJECTED CONCURRENCY VI. INTERSECTION ANALYSIS VII. CONCLUSION Packet Pg. 1098 9.A.3.d '/I TRTRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC I. INTRODUCTION TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. has conducted a traffic impact statement for the rezone application for the proposed 7-Eleven convenience store with gas pumps and car wash. The proposed 7-Eleven is to be located at the northwest corner of US 41 and Greenway Road in Collier County, Florida. This report has been completed in compliance with the guidelines established by the Collier County Transportation Planning Division for developments seeking rezoning approval. The approximate location of the subject site is illustrated on Figure 1. The approximate 2.8 acre subject site is currently zoned Agricultural (A). The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject site to Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) to permit a development of an approximately 5,000 square foot convenience store and 19 refueling positions (16 unleaded refueling positions and 3 diesel refueling positions) as well as a carwash. Note, a maximum of 3 vehicles can utilize the proposed 2 diesel pumps at one time due to limited space between the pumps. Access to the site is proposed to US 41 via a right-in/right-out only access drive and to Greenway Road via two connections. The southernmost connection to Greenway Road is proposed to be limited to a right -out only. An interconnection is also proposed to be provided to the west. Methodology meeting notes were exchanged with Collier County Staff via e-mail in order to discuss the proposed development. The initial meeting checklist and the latest methodology notes are attached to the end of this document for reference. This report examines the impact of the development on the surrounding roadways. Trip generation and assignments to the site access driveways will be completed and analysis conducted to determine the impacts of the development on the surrounding intersections. Page 2 Packet Pg. 1099 ,-M61ody-,Ln San df ie I d -L-n,-,--- �A- n, d r,'e 8, L-,� n e s - 6,K.athy L AW '—C- eci -R-d----7-- —4, ar-ete-.Dr- 'A b I t < Achill D r- ci�to viam ar-- Sandpipe E, 9.A.3.d '/I TR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject site is currently vacant. The subject site is bordered by Greenway Road to the east, US 41 to the south, and by vacant land to the north and west. US 41 (Tamiami Trail East) is a four -lane divided arterial between Joseph Lane and Greenway Road and a two-lane undivided arterial to the south of Greenway Road. US 41 has an adopted Level of Service Standard of LOS "D". The Level of Service standard volume for US 41 between Joseph Lane and Greenway Road (Roadway Link ID #95.2) is 2,000 vehicles in the peak hour, peak direction. The Level of Service standard volume for US 41 south of Greenway Road (Roadway Link ID #95.3) is 1,075 vehicles in the peak hour, peak direction. US 41 has a posted speed limit of 50 mph to the west of Greenway Road and 60 mph to the east. US 4I is under the jurisdiction of Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). US 41 within the vicinity of the subject site has an Access Management Classification of Class 4, which requires a minimum connection spacing of 660 feet. Greenway Road is a two-lane undivided roadway within the public right-of-way that borders the subject site to the east. Collier County does not report traffic data on this roadway. Since Greenway Road has no posted speed limit, the speed limit per Florida Stature 316.183(2) is 30 mph. III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject site to Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) to permit a development of an approximately 5,000 square foot convenience store and 19 refueling positions (16 unleaded refueling positions and 3 diesel refueling positions) as well as a carwash. Note, a maximum of 3 vehicles can utilize the proposed 2 diesel pumps at one time due to limited space between the pumps. Additionally, the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) report indicates that a presence of a carwash Page 4 Packet Pg. 1101 9.A.3.d '// TR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC at a convenience store with gas pumps does not have any effect on the trip generation rates. Table 1 summarizes the proposed land use utilized for trip generation purposes for the subject site. Table 1 Land Uses 7-Eleven (5) Greenwav Road Land Use Size 7-Eleven Convenience 5,000 sq. ft. Store w/ Gas Pumps & Car & Wash 19 re -fueling positions Access to the site is proposed to US 41 via a right-in/right-out only access drive and to Greenway Road via two connections. The southernmost connection to Greenway Road is proposed to be limited to a right -out only. An interconnection is also proposed to be provided to the west. IV. TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION The trip generation for the proposed development was determined by referencing the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) report, titled Trip Generation Manual, loth Edition. A trip generation comparison was conducted for the subject site based on the number of re -fueling positions for Land Use Code 945 (Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market) and based on the floor area of the convenience store using Land Use Code 853 (Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps). The trip comparison is shown in the Appendix for reference. Based upon the results of the trip generation comparison, utilizing the number of refueling positions (LUC 945) as an independent variable to estimate the trip generation potential of the subject site yields the most conservative results. Table 2 outlines the anticipated weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour and daily trip generation of the facility as currently proposed. Page 5 Packet Pg. 1102 9.A.3.d 7ATRTRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC Table 2 Trip Generation 7-Eleven (a-) Greenwav Road Land Use Weekda A.M. Peak Hour Weekda P.M. Peak hour Daily {2-way) In Out I Total In Out Tatal Gasoline/Service Station With Convenience Market 135 129 264 136 130 2676 3,940 (19 Re -Fueling Positions) The trips shown for the proposed 7-Eleven use in Table 2 will not all be new trips added to the adjacent roadway system. ITE estimates that a gasoline station/convenience market of comparable size may attract a significant amount of its traffic from vehicles already traveling the adjoining roadway system. This traffic, called "pass -by" traffic, reduces the development's overall impact on the surrounding roadway system but does not decrease the actual driveway volumes. ITE indicates an average "pass -by" traffic reduction for Land Use Code 945 of 62% during the A.M. peak hour and 56% during the P.M. peak hour. However, the Collier County Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) Guidelines permit a maximum peak hour pass -by trip reduction for this land use of 50%. For this analysis, the "pass -by" traffic was accounted for in order to determine the number of "new" trips the development will add to the surrounding roadways. Table 3 summarizes the "pass -by" percentage for the proposed use. Table 4 summarizes the development traffic and the breakdown between the new trips the development is anticipated to generate and the "pass -by" trips the development is anticipated to attract. It should be noted that the driveway volumes are not reduced as a result of the "pass -by" reduction, only the traffic added to the surrounding streets and intersections. Table 3 Pass -by Trip Reduction Factors 7-Eleven t� Greenwav Road Land Use Percentage Trip Reduction Gasoline/Service Station 50% AM/ PM With Convenience Market Page 6 Packet Pg. 1103 9.A.3.d // TR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC Table 4 Trip Generation — New Trips 7-Eleven ro-) rreenwav Road Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Weekda P.M. Peak Hour Daily Land Use (2-way) In Out Total In Out Total Gasoline Service Station With Convenience Market 135 129 264 136 130 266 3,940 (5,000 Sq. Ft. C-Store & 19 Re - Fueling Positions) Less 50% Pass -By -66 -66 -132 -66 -66 - 332 -1,970 New Trips 69 63 132 70 64 134 1,970 The trips the proposed development is anticipated to generate as shown in Table 4 were then assigned to the surrounding roadway network. The new trips anticipated to be added to the surrounding roadway network were assigned based upon the routes drivers are anticipated to utilize to approach the subject site. Figure A-1, included in the Appendix of this report, illustrates the percent project traffic distribution and assignment of the net new project trips. Figure A-2, included in the Appendix of this report, illustrates the percent project traffic distribution and assignment of pass -by trips. Figure 2 illustrates the resulting assignment of all 7-Eleven project related trips (net new + pass -by). V. PROJECTED CONCURRENCY In order to determine which roadway segments surrounding the site will be significantly impacted, Table 1A, contained in the Appendix, was created. This table indicates which roadway links will accommodate an amount of project traffic greater than the 2%-2%-3% Significance Test. The net new trips generated as a result of the proposed rezoning application on the subject site as shown in Table 4 were compared with the Capacity for Peak Hour -- Peak Direction traffic conditions as defined by the 2019 Collier County Annual Update Inventory Report (AUIR). Based on the information contained within Table IA, no roadway segments show a significant impact as a result of the development traffic being added to the roadway network. Page 7 Packet Pg. 1104 9.A.3.d N N O tv Z R 3 c m m 'L^ V d W M N O O O O T- O N J d Gl Ci Q - cr - - Packet Pg. 1105 9.A.3.d 7ATR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC In addition to the significant impact criteria, Table 2A includes the concurrency analysis on the Collier County Roadway network. The current remaining capacity and Level of Service Standard for each roadway segment analyzed was obtained from the 2019 Collier County Annual Inventory Update Report (AUIR). A five-year planning analysis was also conducted. In order to estimate the projected 2024 background traffic volumes, the existing 2019 peak hour peak direction traffic volumes from the 2019 AUIR were adjusted by the appropriate growth rate. The growth rate calculations are shown in Table 3A of the Appendix. These projected volumes were then compared with the 2019 existing plus trip bank volumes from the 2019 AUIR. The more conservative of the two volumes was then utilized as the 2024 background traffic volume. The concurrency analysis was performed by subtracting the project traffic volumes that will result with the proposed 7-Eleven development from the 2024 background remaining capacity in order to determine whether or not sufficient capacity will be available after the addition of the net new traffic associated with the proposed rezoning approval. Based on the information contained within Table 2A, there will be sufficient capacity on US 41 west of Greenway Road. US 41 east of Greenway Road is projected to have insufficient capacity without the addition of the trips generated as a result of the proposed development. Therefore, US 41 east of Greenway Road is considered as a pre - development deficiency that this project should not be responsible for. It should be noted that US 41 between Greenway Road and Six L's Farm Road is shown to be widened to a four lane facility based on the attached Collier County's 2040 Cost Feasible Plan. However, this improvement is not funded in the Five Year Capital Improvement Program. Figure 3 was created to indicate the results of the concurrency analysis on the adjacent roadway network. As can be seen within Figure 3, the proposed 7-Eleven development does not cause any roadways links to operate below capacity. Page 9 N as a z 3 c aD c� c m as w v M N O O 0 0 0 N J d r M O M Packet Pg. 1106 9.A.3.d N N O tv Z R 3 c m m 'L^ V d W M N O O O O T- O N J d Gl Ci Q Packet Pg. 1107 9.A.3.d 7ATRTRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC VI. INTERSECTION ANALYSIS An intersection analysis was conducted utilizing the latest version of the Highway Capacity Software (HCS7) to determine the operational characteristics of the unsignalized intersection of US 41 with Greenway Road as well as the proposed site access drives along Greenway Road and US 41 during the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Peak hour turning movement counts were conducted by TR Transportation at the intersection of US 41 with Greenway Road in April of 2019. The peak hour turning movements were then adjusted for peak season conditions based on peak season factor data as provided by FDOT in their Traffic Information Online resource. The FDOT peak season correction factor is included in the Appendix of this report for reference. The existing peak season traffic volumes were then increased by a growth rate factor to determine the projected 2024 background turning movement volumes. Table 3A of the Appendix illustrates the methodology utilized to formulate the appropriate annual growth rates for each roadway segment. The turning volumes projected to be added to the intersection as illustrated on Figure 2 were then added to the 2024 background volumes to estimate the future 2024 traffic volumes with the project. These volumes are based on the data from the spreadsheet contained in the Appendix of this report titled Development of Future Year Background Turning Volumes. The HCS7 summary sheets, attached to this report for reference, indicate that all individual movements at the unsignalized intersection of US 41 with Greenway Road will operate at an acceptable LOS in 2024 both with and without the project trips in the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours. The results also indicate all individual movements at the proposed site access drives along Greenway Road and US 41 to operate at acceptable LOS in 2024. Therefore, no intersection improvements will be warranted based on the intersection analysis conducted as part of this report. Turn lane improvements at the site access drive intersections will be evaluated at the time the project seeks site development plan approval application. Page 11 Packet Pg. 1108 9.A.3.d 7ATR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC VII. CONCLUSION The proposed rezoning is to allow the approximate 2.8 acre subject site to be developed an approximately 5,000 square foot convenience store and 19 refueling positions (16 unleaded refueling positions and 3 diesel refueling positions) as well as a carwash. The site, located at the northwest corner of US 41 and Greenway Road, meets Collier County Consistency and Concurrency requirements. The surrounding roadway network was analyzed based on the 2019 Collier County Annual Update Inventory Report (AUIR) and future 2024 build -out traffic conditions. As a result, sufficient capacity is indicated along all surrounding roadways, except for US 41 east of Greenway Road in 2024 both with and without the proposed rezoning. US 41 east of Greenway Road is projected to have insufficient capacity without the addition of the trips generated as a result of the proposed development. Therefore, US 41 east of Greenway Road is considered as a pre - development deficiency that this project should not be responsible for. Intersection analysis was conducted at the intersection of US 41 with Greenway Road as well as the proposed site access drives along Greenway Road and US 41. The results of this analysis indicate that all individual movements at all analyzed intersections will operate at an acceptable LOS in 2024 both with and without the project trips in the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Therefore, no intersection improvements will be warranted based on the intersection analysis conducted as part of this report. K:\2019\04 April\13 7-Eleven Tamiami Trail East\ColIier County Submittat\SufficiencyUune Update\6-5-2020,Report.doc Page 12 Packet Pg. 1109 9.A.3.d APPENDIX N N O tv Z R 3 c m m 'L^ V d W M N O O O O r O N J d Gl Ci Q Packet Pg. T, 071 9.A.3.d N N O tv Z R 3 c m m 'L^ V Q) d W M N O O O O r O N J d r M O M r METHODOLOGY MEETING DOTES N �L d C C O O u Ci Q Packet Pg. T, 171 9.A.3.d APPENDIX A INITIAL MEETING CHECKLIST Suggestion: Use this Appendix as a worksheet to ensure that no important elements are overlooked. Cross out the items that do not apply. Location: via e-mail People Attending: Name, Organization, and Telephone Numbers 1) Yury Bykau. TR Transportation Consultants, Inc., (239) 278-3090 2) Michael Sawyer, Collier County Transportation, (239) 252-2926 Study Preparers Preparer's Name and Title: Yury Bykau, Transportation Consultant Organization: TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. Address & Telephone Number: (239) 278-3090 2726 Oak Ridge Court, Suite 503 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Reviewer(s)• Reviewer's Name & Title: Michael Sawyer, Transportation Collier County Transportation Planning Department Organization & Telephone Number: (239) 252-2613 Applicant: Applicant's Name: Al Quattrone, PE. Address: 4301 Veronica Shoemaker Blvd, Fort Myers FL, 33916 Telephone Number: Proposed Development: Name: 7-Eleven at Greenwa Road (RZ) PL#20180002374 Location: Northeast corner of US 41 and Greenway Road. Land Use Type: Gasoline Station ITE Code #: LUC 945 (Refueling Positions) vs LUC 853 (Convenience Store Size). Proposed number of development units: 3,454 square feet & 19 refueling positions pumps (16 unleaded refueling positions and 3 diesel refueling_ positions) as well as carwash. Note, a maximum of 3 vehicles can utilize the diesel pumps at one time. As per ITE Trip Generation Manual, a presence of a car wash at a gasoline station does not have a demonstrative effect on trip generation rates. Other: N/A Descriptiow Gasoline Station Zoning: A — Agricultural Packet Pg. 1112 9.A.3.d Existing: Vacant Comprehensive plan recommendation: N/A Requested: CPUD - Commercial Planned Unit Development Findings of the Preliminary Study: Project is anticipated to generate approximately 132 net new AM peak hour trips and 134 net new PM peak hour trips. See the attached trip generation comparison. Study Type: Small Scale TIS ❑ Minor TIS ❑ Major TIS Study Area: Boundaries: US 41 east and west of Greenway Road (Links #95.2 and 95.3) based upon the Collier County 2%-2%-3% Significant Impact Criteria. Additional intersections to be analyzed: US 41 /Greenway Road Horizon Year(s): 2024 Analysis Time Period(s): AM & PM peak hours Future Off -Site Developments: None Source of Trip Generation Rates: ITE Trip Generation, 10t" Edition Reductions in Trip Generation Rates: None: Pass -by trips: 50% AM/PM Internal trips (PUD): None Transmit use: n/a Other: n/a Horizon Year Roadway Network Improvements: None Methodology & Assumptions: Non -site traffic estimates: 2018 AUIR Site -trip generation: ITE Trip Generation loth Edition - LUC 945 (Refueling Positions) vs LUC 853 (Convenience Store Size). See attached Tables IA and 1B for the trip generation comparison for the proposed gasoline station. Trip distribution method: By Hand — 55% to/from the north of Greenway Road on US 41. t h 25% to/from the south of Greenway Road on US 41 /o to/from the north on Greenwa Road, and !o to/from the south on Sandier Road. l ;7:� 2©� - ra is assignment method: By Hand Traffic growth rate: From comparison of the 2009 & 2018 AUIR's Packet Pg. 1113 9.A.3.d Speciat Features: (from preliminary study or prior experience) Accidents locations: Sight distance: Queuing: Access location & configuration: One right-in/right-out only connection to US 41 and two connections to Greenway Road. Traffic control: Signal system location & progression needs: On -site parking needs: Data Sources: ITE Trip Generation Report, 1 oth Edition Base maps: Prior study reports: Access policy and jurisdiction: Review process: Requirements: Miscellaneous: SIGNATURES Study Preparer Reviewers Applicant p; 013-t!C'';B;i Tam;ami i iai! 3 ti';let}ii:rl^.',.; y'" fell o-,ci•; : +,1= urg rN"fes 3-6-M,,,) r; r M M Packet Pg. 1114 9.A.3.d TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON ITE TRIP GENERATION MANUAL, LOTH EDITION PROPOSED GAS STATION Table 1 Proposed Land Uses Land Use Size Proposed: 3,454 sq. ft. C-store 7-Eleven & 19 Re -Fueling Positions Table lA Trip Generation Trip Generation based on 19 Fueling, Positions (LUC 945) Land Use Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Daily (2-way) In Out I Total In Out I Total d Gasoline Service Station With Convenience Market 135 129 264 136 130 266 3,940 (19 Re -Fueling Positions) *LUC 945 governs since it generates more trips than LUC 853. Table 1B Trip Generation Trip Generation based on 3,454 SQ. FT. of Floor Area of C-Store (LUC 853) Land Use Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Daily I (2-way) In Out I Total hi Out I Total Convenience Market w/Gasoline Pumps 70 70 140 85 85 170 2,156 (3,454 Sq. Ft.) Table 2 Net New Trips — Proposed Gas Station Weekda A.M. Peak Hour Weekda P.M. Peak Hour Daily Land Use (2-way) In Out Total In Out Total Gasoline Service Station With Convenience Market 135 129 264 136 130 266 3,940 (3,454 Sq. Ft. C-Store & 19 Re - Fueling Positions) Less Pass -By 1 -66 -66 -132 -66 -66 -132 -1,970 New Tri s 69 63 132 70 64 134 1,970 *50% Pass -by rate. r M M Packet Pg. 1116 9.A.3.d FDOT P-R-E-APP NOTES N N O tv Z R 3 c m m 'L^ V d W M N O O O O r O N J d Gl Ci Q Packet Pg. 1117 9.A.3.d Michelle Salberg From: Clark, Mark <Mark.Clark@dot.state.fl.us> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 9:06 AM To: Al Quattrone; Michelle Salberg; levans@creightondev.com Cc: DeBoy, Brian T; Kautz, Nathan; Schaill, Leanna Subject: Pre -application Meeting Minutes 7-11 US 41 and Greenway Road in Collier County (Sect 03010, MP: 23.56 - 23.65) Attachments: Sign In Sheet 7-11.pdf All, A meeting was held on August 27th, 2018, at the FDOT Southwest Area Office. The stipulations agreed to during the meeting were based upon conceptual information provided to the department at the time of the meeting and are subject to change pending any changes to the development plans for the property, changes to the existing state roadway system, or changes to the department's standards or specifications that could impact the development of said property. • This meeting was held to provide FDOT an opportunity to provide comments regarding a proposed gas ii station convenience store located on the northwest quadrant of US 41 and Greenway Road in Collier County. CV) M • This portion of US 41 has an Access Management Classification of 3 with a posted speed of 60 mph. The established spacing standard is 660 feet between driveway connections, 1320 feet for directional median T ca openings, and 2640 feet for full median openings and signals spacing. • The development team explained the new development would consist of a 3000 sgft convenience store with 16 fueling station. A concept plan was provided reflecting a single right in / right out driveway on US 41 and two additional access points on Greenway Road. • FDOT staff explained the site does not have adequate frontage on US 41 to obtain a conforming access point. However, the Department would not object to issuing a non -conforming driveway on US 41 with the understanding the development will have to provide a cross access to the neighboring parcel(s) to the west. • FDOT staff explained while the driveway on US 41 does not meet spacing, there are no immediately conflicting access points west of Greenway Road, so the non -conforming driveway would provide reasonable access in the intern condition, until such time as a conforming access can be achieved in the future. • The driveway on US 41 must be designed with an inbound lane width of 16 feet and an outbound lane width of 12 feet with a minimum ingress and egress radii of 50 feet. • If the site warrants a westbound right turn deceleration lane it will be design to FDOT's standards and include a 7' bicycle "key hole" lane. The deceleration length shall be based on the posted speed limit. • A traffic impact analysis must include trip generation based on the latest edition of the ITE trip generation manual, A.M & P.M. peak hour movement, traffic distribution and turning movement analysis provide in graphic format. The study must also include an intersection analysis of US 41 and Greenway Road. The Packet Pg. 1118 9.A.3.d development team was informed ITE 1011 edition included a new land use code specifically for Super Convenience Market/Gas Station, (LUC 960). Based on the characteristic shown on the concept plan, this would be the appropriate land use code for this project. • FDOT staff explained additional offsite improvements may be required, those improvements will be reviewed once Department has an opportunity to review the traffic impacts for the development. These improvements may include construction or extending deceleration lanes that will be utilized by the parcel. • The developer should provide centerline profile of proposed driveway with elevations and slope percentages from the centerline of the state road to 50 ft. beyond property line. When the developer moves forward with this project, they should be aware It will be a condition of the permit that if and when signal warrants are met within 1 full year after total build out of the site, the developer of this project will be required to review the intersection using the Intersection Comprehensive Evaluation (ICE) to determine the preferred alternative design of the intersection. The developer will be required to pay and construct the preferred design at the intersection. All analyses necessary for determination of the preferred design shall be the responsibility of the developer. Per F.A.C. 14-96.003(4): `Traffic control features and devices in the right of way such as traffic signals, c channelizing islands, medians, median openings, and turn lanes are operational and safety characteristics00 of the State Highway System and are not means of access. The Department may install, remove, or modify c any present or future traffic control feature or device in the right of way to promote traffic safety in the CN right of way or promote efficient traffic operations on the highway. A connection permit is only issued for d connections and not for any present or future traffic control devices at or near the permitted r M connections. The permit may describe these features and/or devices, but such description does not create M any type of interest in such features." Please respond to this e-mail within five (5) business days if you believe the information provided above does not accurately summarize the meeting. If there are no comments or suggested changes, the above meeting notes will be considered as acceptable. Mark Clark Access Manageirtent Specialist FDOT ST T VT Stul Gtude Center 10041 Daluels Patkrrvay Fo.rtMyeis, Flotrda 33913 uiark.clark �dotstate.fltrs (239) 225 -1984 Packet Pg. 1119 9.A.3.d TABLES IA, 2A & 3A N N O tv Z R 3 c m m 'L^ V d W M N O O O O r O N J d Gl Ci Q Packet Pg. 1120 muaaBua 013z EZ 00 LOZ d:M EO meiameWdmjoe8ugmmMdV-3 awVe nV:uewt4,e■�V ■ z 02 � 2� « �L)Z v ujaCD �■m k% �LU � � i # g k LL ) F- { { b b § § I ( 7 3 ( ( 4 j ( ? I ( } ( 0R 2 g 04 a. \ a AemuaaaE) uan013-L VL£Z0008LOZ-ld MCO slelaa;eW dnjoe8-uoi;eollddV - 3 juawVejlV :;uauayoellV N N M Q W m Z > W 01 0:W ~ m d F- J to Q (Q � QD C.) t a LLI U Q a Q� m NO as a<Z CM UJ W L) ,,w Q Lu V M z 0 W z> O ui ci —J W ti m V co co a C.) FW- H a U 2 U N N n a a IL U W Z U of R' z a N N LL m a ~ W o 0 z p a o 0 U z U U U W U WI R' 0 U. j C. OV Q N { J O O F i mlm� a Q) m 0 t~A o LO a o N J z z W # N M 2 GI QOi T W y N � 3 3 zc W CD W o 0 0 ui 9.A.3.d TABLE 3A ANNUAL GROWTH RATE CALCULATIONS BASED UPON HISTORICAL AUIR DATA 2009 2019 ANNUAL ACTUAL CURRENT AUIR AUIR YRS OF GROWTH GROWTH ROADWAY SEGMENT ID# VOLUME VOLUME GROWTH RATE RATE US 41 W. of Greenway Rd 95.2 588 1,040 10 4.00% 5.87% E. of Greenway Rd 95.3 588 1.040 10 4.00% 5.87% All traffic volumes were obtained from the 2009 & 2019 Annual Update Inventory Reports (AUIR) Per County SDP comments (PL20200000677), dated May 12, 2020, a growth rate of 4.0% was used instead, SAMPLE GROWTH RATE CALCULATION 2019 AUIR "t1Nrs ofGrowth) Annual Growth Rate (AGR) _ -1 2009 AU I R 1,040 "(ono) AGR (US 41) _ -1 588 AGR (US 41) = 5.87% Packet Pg. 1 3 9.A.3.d s ► � me N N O tv Z R 3 c m m 'L^ V d W M N O O O O T- O N J d Gl Ci Q Packet Pg. 1 4 M d AemuaaaE) uanal3-L tiLEZ000860Z1d : ME sleua;ew dnjoe8-uoi;eollddv- 3;uewt43e;4d :;uewt4Oe44d LL � ' g � I f 1 a U Um 4114i w ViV 0 U 0Um In p0aU 00 �• U UV w -4 qu Ulm 0.4.OD UroAa 00-wamU00 mm O6U4UUUq � r£t al.dnvnYYvdt.Vialvr4�y� �b i'• 1: bfIF�l�21 �:�! ]! Eli, �: v.' .��rf5� K $Nh. T Y.� � ,a��;� :! `!Y.y� �VF,bOIt•� is TfX�x �i: IF i• �.��`I�IN is A'XK T' a��ab T'�J .�,�;��: mR4g: 'Ada�aARa � O��ii •an�Vi O$Y o o P��Seba0�swa��lg-Y.Nn�$Nt�'. rFa`ba��F�N~a.p.G ��br%i� N� ��ONNW bf�'M HN��Ie bNS�T-aa Nlar1 Vi C�O�e Y1N�e O.��TMi1H��N�bONlYrl O o O�o n "I h e a r^rr IYY r1 Y^i n iVi ra�pw P r4i ^ v a a>e�{NNb Ai��MNO flaV ^VyYd^:aae N o msohTvFaf1Y g�b�eTb-�--S NY n0P- �ON!j a .. rOa � �ti I-rl�� bN1r�P(� jO �• DONY - � � YbN .�. O hOb NP u, Ise bN�v�fV�ROo • �O bH„fir C-- V-111MA n sr3.-ja{�2(-N(C�M�2 �n VN O'A V A0"CaaGIX :yyam f�S f11n n V �i 'I�^.. '7 tn�H�n�1'�b2��}�� f1��C{I •! ^.Q .., rft3 nno-►7�A.i d� n l�r; 17�v1� TIP 0 hy: 9 •rio n :V 'R iY'Pm —P r: 1c:c�l lo�•nejn TT�o'f w..Y'.'9 ��;rnn 2-aiT$rerl�Narn�et9��ct`,a%man_�b�Y�M—.a•-a+'�sc--,.-�.�RM�hN�19Y1>ire•1L;( 331�$Q3S6ag$��L,^��X�koYlzgav tl3 R�li�8SfI�ryHRea� ems^n:R3a��f -r .. w ... 3h$nso ..--- s^=69��. N N r 1-.. o.aina'$3 - -S nn aa^.eJ`��^Ddt2 �nn -CI ••I � &St��n"f�� 59OF n-n N J � � � m�Spq��S�88�4�g��§��$�38�5$�SSSBS�, � � 1 r M .•i n n M � � � .i nl I� li Iri m .i .7 rn F� M�MI r� -1 t•1 fr1 .� CI �'i � f1 rf fi I� w7w7.7Y.i-ZZ7wrn 7ulwaWw�tWwW iaaa3x77 w2ZZx aNwrnH w w w w w w wl w. W 7_Z7.77_I aaCq gw,ww wqa Oggww wwwwggqa qqw Aww wq qAq Aoq gawW w wgagq'awww wwq RR9s°@@;i nr°n Be22R3R'a°e9°°@°0Oe<°'9e@99il'ilN°2,9iine8@pA0 a is v = 4 �9 ti �. >sU a�{a��g��2z� S 2� ia�i9 N 'Jq s � s -1 s'� q U �3e g � a 5I 10, U.S OU m�c�a z 9 sn' � F .. 90� :�� ❑ = {u Y 6r7 _ 1 � JAI 1 sWE N� 0911 U>;. >auxmo a 3.. 3� H ?U.n6OVP m U bN '�I1 yp 1q� Itl '.t31 1A� �q}u/ 11] I ri�1 Eol � &h� ; �a'a�•'a'i•'a°� eH :7J�rW�pp P�m��I� :13L HH ,yt a ,ugeg y,y 116u i (q�jfi{�y]m °A�t�i N Fn�GiGiDSi::.Pt%TiSirg. mayex�� N777.7.']a.7 :]r'17.7 ?i17i1Yi0D .7 �7 1.0G�U � fi1,1: Atu oa ^r�Qt�rn.^Ii1n7f1^nv°°i.Pi oogaoaooao o'..' :"B�^ee'Sent`o3��Rnf.�P:e'Eli.lm-i-'�1�:3e'sS�Si$'Rlb`SSaoSn.Xacrit.'Rf`;a$.I�3�i� a? rya aoo 000�eaa 0000a,o 000 ��q �f}qoo oovo 9.A.3.d SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT M M SUPPLEMENTAL GRAPHICS N FIGURES A-1 & A-2 Packet Pg. 1126 9.A.3.d N O rL R Z R 3 c aD aD ,L^ V i _a) W M N O O O 00 O N J IL El i Packet Pg. 1127 9.A.3.d '// TR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC SITE 0 Q z w w of C? (26) 40 I tf) LEGEND 4- 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 4-(000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 4-20% ONE-WAY AM TRIP DISTRIBUTION (4-(20%) ONE-WAY PM TRIP DISTRIBUTION ,SSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION OF PASS -BY PROJECT TRIPS 7-ELEVEN @ GREENWAY ROAD N N tv Z 3 c m m 'L^ V d W M N 0 0 0 00 O N J d M M Figure A-2 Packet Pg. 1128 9.A.3.d 2040 COLLIER COUNTY COST FEASIBLE PLAN N N O tv Z R 3 c m m 'L^ V d W M N O O O O r O N J d Gl Ci Q Packet Pg. 1129 M d AemuaaaE) uanal3-L tiLEZ000860 -ld : ME sleua;ew dnjoe8-uoi;eollddv- 3;uewt4oe;4d :;uewt4oe44d ■ �Y�11 nui ■o�� reu� �� UNION M an mae FDOT FLORIDA TRAFFIC ONLINE IV, (2018) Packet Pg. 1131 9.A.3.d 2018 PEAK SEASON FACTOR CATEGORY REPORT - REPORT TYPE: DISTRICT CATEGORY: 0300 COLLIER COUNTYWIDE MOCF: 0.89 WEEK DATES SF PSCF 1 01/01/2018 - 01/06/2018 0.94 1.06 2 01/07/2018 - 01/13/2018 0.94 1.06 3 01/14/2018 - 01/20/2018 0.94 1.06 * 4 01/21/2018 - 01/27/2018 0,92 1.03 * 5 01/28/2018 - 02/03/2018 0.90 1.01 * 6 02/04/2018 - 02/10/2018 0.89 1.00 * 7 02/11/2018 - 02/17/2018 0.87 0.98 * 8 02/18/2018 - 02/24/2018 0.86 0.97 * 9 02/25/2018 - 03/03/2018 0.86 0.97 *10 03/04/2018 - 03/10/2018 0.86 0.97 *11 03/11/2018 - 03/17/2018 0.86 0.97 *12 03/18/2018 - 03/24/2018 0.87 0.98 *13 03/25/2018 - 03/31/2018 0.88 0.99 *14 04/01/2018 - 04/07/2018 0.90 1.01 *15 04/08/2018 - 04/14/2018 0.91 1.02 *16 04/15/2018 - 04/21/2018 0.93 1.04 17 04/22/2018 - 04/28/2018 0.95 1.07 18 04/29/2018 - 05/05/2018 0.98 1.10 19 05/06/2016 - 05/12/2018 1.01 1.13 20 05/13/2018 - 05/19/2018 1.04 1.17 21 05/20/2018 - 05/26/2018 1.05 1.18 22 05/27/2018 - 06/02/2018 1.06 1.19 23 06/03/2018 - 06/09/2018 1.08 1.21 24 06/10/2018 - 06/16/2018 1.09 1.22 25 06/17/2018 - 06/23/2018 1.08 1.21 26 06/24/2018 - 06/30/2018 1.08 1.21 27 07/01/2018 - 07/07/2018 1.07 1.20 28 07/08/2018 - 07/14/2018 1.06 1.19 29 07/15/2018 - 07/21/2018 1.06 1.19 30 07/22/2018 - 07/28/2018 1.06 1.19 31 07/29/2018 - 08/04/2018 1.06 1.19 32 08/05/2018 - 08/11/2018 1.06 1.19 33 08/12/2018 - 08/18/2018 1.07 1.20 34 08/19/2018 - 08/25/2018 1.08 1.21 35 08/26/2018 - 09/01/2018 1.10 1.24 36 09/02/2018 - 09/08/2018 1.11 1.25 37 09/09/2018 - 09/15/2018 1.13 1.27 38 09/16/2018 - 09/22/2018 1.12 1.26 39 0-9/23/2018 - 09/29/2018 1.10 1.24 40 09/30/2018 - 10/06/2018 1.09 1.22 41 10/07/2018 - 10/13/2018 1.08 1.21 42 10/14/2018 - 10/20/2018 1.06 1.19 43 10/21/2018 - 10/27/2018 1.04 1.17 44 10/28/2018 - 11/03/2018 1.02 1.15 45 11/04/2018 - 11/10/2018 0.99 1.11 46 11/11/2018 - 11/17/2018 0.97 1.09 47 11/18/2018 - 11/24/2018 0.96 1.08 48 11/25/2018 - 12/01/2018 0.96 1.08 49 12/02/2018 - 12/08/2018 0.95 1.07 50 12/09/2018 - 12/15/2018 0.94 1.06 51 12/16/2018 - 12/22/2018 0.94 1.06 52 12/23/2018 - 12/29/2018 0.94 1.06 53 12/30/2018 -- 12/31/2018 0.94 1.06 * PEAK SEASON 26-FEB-2019 18:31:28 830UPD 1-0300-PKSEASON.TXT N Q' CL m Z m 3 c C9 c _d W r r M N 0 0 0 0 0 N J a V Q Packet Pg. 1132 9.A.3.d TRAFFIC COUNTS US 41 cv GREENWAY ROAD Packet Pg. 1133 ABMUaaaE) uan013-L VL£ZOOMOZ-1d : LOU) slelaa;eW do)joe8-uoi;eoilddV - :D;uewLjoe;;V :;uowL4oe;;y m 0 N M N V O N (n all p to * < P- N-e m 00 0 00 C O O M Cn N 00 �... 00 0) r 0 p O lh r N N 0 M O to ^ 0! < r N N 00 CV r r O O00 O C n' O O � 0 CD M N M +m' r �` O 000 0 0 M< er O 00i h O < r Q H M r< O 3 O 0 M Z F O O C. O O O O O O O O O p p ~O O M Z O O O f0 W- r 00 O W o M w O O O jM„' LO T OR rV O J VV — aN- M 00 0 0 o c CA "n O m W O N L N f00 D M N tD h h w w N h N O c~'> O ti t0 M M O O ^ N 0 O p l O h 00 O O O O f� O) N r N t•. N M- M N C.: Oa O O N a 0<< Q r l t r N N N 00 O M O O ti ti O O O O M Z =` O O O O O O O O O I O O O C O Z F N N 00 ti 00 < r � O M r C C < r O M r < r N NICr O 04 T 1- J r r r O 0 O O O O r O r O < 00 CD 0 Z F- O O o L N O O M N m r 0< r I M < N N O t0 O co fC O O O f0 w O O O O C. CD N a 0 f00 V' N N I 0 V' a O N lN N O a 00 o N 00 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o o c o p c o Z y C y < r M 0 o O M O v n O O N ti O O O M t0 O e 00 J O o O C t7 N O m r ogn N fro at' V' N 'V m N O 0 N p CI N N r r t0 r p O 0 I �" O h rf7 C OG � M O O 0) 'cf' M w N (T N N N N 0) O N C N Lq Q F O 0 0 O >> o 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 o I a o 0 oc ors O O 0) Z V N O O O O O t0 O O< N Cl) O f0 f0 O C +'C,. 7 of th O M M y 0 < M r<( t0 O< O O l r O h CV 0 O c� fA O C. O p 'C 00 0) O 00 M -e O r f0 0 M O i� O ppj N O M CV M N < N N N N ( O1 O I N O r O O n r p O E O '!- M 7 O Ln O M 'A ld Ln C ra.. O. w U .z 2 LL 1- o 0 0 o F o 0 0 o F 10- Q F o f Q C-14 L Q a Q d E 0 N U rn c C U m AemuaaaE) uan013-L VL£Z0008LOZ-ld : MCO sleiia;eW dnjoe8-uoi;eoilddV - 3 juauayoejlV :;uGwt43ellV r N M N it M 3 !r L (0 r d' N D O) O N N O W O al Q rn O N CqN 4 T m 3 c CD a� C7 _ N U) ca � Z Gf E m 0 Z R U. J US 41 3 212 6 0 Right Thru Left U-Turn 0 M N M N ag �tiGo d N E N O v L > Al m U. L L L s°0o'' -F -4 as cc4) Co0)g a a- a Q Q Q Q � <'/ </ wnl•n ua-1 ni41 14BIN 0 9v 06Z 06 tv sn a F O b C J Lo L c� Y F o 0 Cl) 01 O W a c 0 0. a� n_ c d E d 0 OI C E H O a z O U LO M i� d d Y U IL M d ABMUaaaE) uan013-L VL£ZOOMOZ-1d : LOU) slelaa;eW do)joe8-uoi;eoilddV - :D;uewLjoe;;V :;uowL4oe;;y (D N co N d O to co 0 `o Fa p to to t0 t0 LO 10 N N 00 CO N p O N r O M ~ N N N N N N m O C. tp Qr y N N N C, r ar- O C C O Ol a' T M O co O w to er-0 �0-- O p O O p 2 F CD O O O O O O O O 0 O p O p O + O m Z 7 O h t0 O O O n 00 r O a 0 df N r- r J rh N N N N O r r r N a O O f71 p y to" r, M N m W to O N L h to coMh Oa N w t0 w N 't>• O N N to t0 w N CD07 O NCD to p r, r I to O wr m J O O Of v M N O O O �6 tG �` O t0 cam- r O O r O = to 't p O a •mi M tf! r N r N r �! h 01 co r r N r r h O O h a0CL 0, O O O O p 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O CDp p + O m m F- O O Z O � C N 00 M O O O O N O O � h t0 O C N N J r r r O I r r N r tp m O C. tD 00 A C 0 .sz M 0 l r O ill M O O to "? z O O O r t7 t tb M O h O r O N) r N O O O N I N O h er' O O Ln x O O O 0 O -e M M O r r r I Q b to t0 T I tp0 O M O O O tp N m Q F r to E O O Z 0 0 0 0 0 I O O O p 0 O I O p p + O m Z o o O. O M O p th m C J W t0 r l r M N M O !b O N O O O r to O tt O M N h p r h 0 V 04 L N to O O 0 h r Or 0 O r O O p M O M co a Oa N e} O O to O N o fm N t0 N N M M r m O N O N rco O 0 O M to . O O O r O b O o o a o to N m M O. O N r r 0f uo CO r h t0 r r N r h b C tD m t0 h ,v c o 0 o z CDp o 0 0 j I 0 0 0 0 o p ( o o o + b m r r Z 0 C M M O O O (JDClr O r N r O N r V' b t0 O CD N W O J O O O p .Q 4a Z ` O L 0 0 0 0 0 O O CD O O O O C. O w (7 (n ~ r m N I h :� w m 0 h O f` t0 O O m N r l0 r r r tD O O w 1a p y O to O to O T O to N C �O y O LL E O r M 0. is tD iD er o r� n: r h O LO o o ` E 0 C 0 O J V. AemuaaaE) uan013-L VL£Z0009LOZ-ld : M£O slelaa;eW dnjoe8-uoi;eollddV - 3 juawLl3ejlV :;uGwLl3ellV m 0 N co N d O N N hr- I,N o E �© T 3 c Ley r , 1 r- m Z rn s US 41 14 507 19 0 Right Thru Left U�-Tuurn ~ �` V V uinl-n ue"I w41 44BIN 0 9L 96Z 69 Lv sn a� rc ae1 ♦� F A 3 v co .. C7 o m 0 m N O1 (e a r 0 0. m c w E aw O Of c E 7 H O $. Z O U 9.A.3.d N N O tv Z R 3 c m m 'L^ V d W M N O O O O T O N J d T DEVELOPMENT OF, FUTURE YEAR M T N TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES 3 Y V R m C O u Ci Q Packet Pg. 1138 AemuaaaE) uan013-L VL£Z0008LOZ-ld : MCO slelaa;eW dnjoe8-uoi;eollddV - 3 juawVejlV :;uauayoellV w m m QW O M co m o w M 1� O � Y d a am cn J m m -p Z ltf W 3 m' d Z d _O (' O N �` v J CM r N m .Q N Z Q N c0 } M C)0 in = •� U m 0 M M r NON N r N 00 r IM4M 00 O 1!') M N o� 004 OLot- O N r d' r �- - N ti m mo > CO0�N lqt O In r r r Ln r LO r O h O� N in Ln co Nt O L,N N 0 M 0)W) c0 04 N r p0)�N 0 o O 0p�� co r~ lt) to LO O N 0�1� N h N N 0) 0Lf)I-. OM nom , Nrm Otno00 c!M r.to NM NrM c) ACV) a W O O 1� O"�� co U) * d mti�a0o ti c 0`nDoo Cl*�od0 co N O w N O oLO 00 v- LO T- 7 _� CO O ti N N N Y t4 d G. ounr, �� aED000 o`)o �m N r,• NON 0toN -v mN N o N N MM r N Cn r N ti o to O LO 000 to r N 000 C)1fl0 �r r N LO ti o I.n CD O to to `- CV k: .co - 7 tO O O O cu E U > t LL D o c U) CU c O > tU �-. c � 0 c N N h- _ � + > O p a 7-0 >-0 �(im , O 017 0) c Y m U O CD c 0 C 'C W N a M Lb .YY = � i_ Cn C t O m V m > Y d N O N N >- a m Z m z J m Z to ` E CO U) p 0 co 7 > LL rn U c c p c C N O O N .0> U c 0_ > " N ~ O t O p CU U 3 C > c c D> c -se— G p m 1 o N- L o c N N (6 d m U 3 Y U Nm Um N M 2 ` CN N � 0_ U (D7 - N IL 04 rn M d d Y U a AemuaaaE) uan013-L VLI Q of m m J m> m W N �C C QW 0 co � O � J .i Q w � O M t� C � 0 O 0 co m� Y to v a f- 2co m Q UJ L d L (r LL. U Q Q � 7 C N C. C L O Q N C N a 4 .n N � Q N 20008LOZId : ME sleuejeW dnjoe8-uoi;eollddV - 3 juawL4oejjV :;uauayoejjV F T T a p O p O Ln 0 O m O 0 O N LO O O Y r O > r CD 10 a pop 0LO0 0 �oQo Otoo 0 r 0 r O ti 000 r c 0 O J MODO h, r o 0LO0 O p 0 pOp o Cl tn0 0 �� mp W p O `- � 00too r O O 00p 0too O �wODO OtnO O o a o 0 0 pOp C)wC) O t!'1 m0�0 0 CDw0 O `- O O W r O O d' v O p p 0 to O O LL O m ti O o O r CD r O ca a� ti,1-tp NOM o O O a 2a. o � O �N 000 N0�t 00 N CV � 000 \ Otg0 O wOQO o Otn0 O r p O n CD CD c 8LO0 O LL Z'. r O 00oLD 0 0`nton 00 Z N 10�0 0 tn0 O m r O 0 90 -0ti o 0 U) O O r O ce) e 0 O L � N � 0 r r T N T h o 0 o Cc)u O r p• 41 7-6 O U O (j U- +' O O Ca) 0 > C to •O O O Ea EUC N F 0 f > �Uu? i =3 0) n NN O L C O 0) E t6 Q 0m m 0! U j 1_ U F- Ui C - m V m 0) �GGY � - O ON pN LL EL (9 } N O N AemuaaaE) uan013-L VL£Z0008LOZ-ld : MCO slelaa;eW dnijoe8-uoi;eollddV - 3 juawVellV :;uawyoellV N m _ L o Y L Y- o ++ � o T T mono C)Lo0 o moC?o otno CD m Y O O a nano 0 �C) 0 Cl no 0 �0Qo `- o o ti 000 0 M 0 0 �000 Gino 0 o o mono 0 otno o moQo 0 oLo0 0 w o w o MC) o QVno oo 0 --m000 0 Q4no 0 aw a.w o0 CD M 0 O ap LO mo�0 0 LA O 0)0 rL mono CD OO 00 o W Q o W O v v O m ti 0 0 0 o O to 0 O TO 7 �' O m ti 0 0 0 o QO � O O O = O N O IL a. Q m N O co , o LO a m m o o oo (n r r r T N T Cl) N _I m000 t� a O� O 0 .J coo I- o Otno O Cl) O C T 0 N V 0 m0 0 o oLn0 O mo00 r 0Un0 O Z '- O Z O o z r co o .- o co co LA H ZOT� M o 0 0 0 Oar 0 � Z't LO p�LO N N r � O b N M J ZODO ti co ZOO 0 OtAO 00co QN OHO L7QN a) N y E E C` to O V N 7 p c O N 7 V 0 p O U� n U U t �o> a)o n �o> c En`. E U c a) , O F- j + E U a) a) m 3 F- 3 + 000 z3 c > C O `O d 7 > C V ii 1 7 O) : ci U) 3 0) O N m C Y 'a 0` C O` O O a5 N '� O C O p G tOA NCc a. CO Co m Y E cn tp 0 IO m Y O C HU) c c Co m N F-Uc a) L m sn �m CO 'D O �- Y 4 M y c} p mN pN ?> Y m'- cF p WN (D cF pN C C� m 9(L U (D i N n. N d V � i- N M N AemuaaaE) uan013-L VL£Z0008LOZ-ld : MCO slelaa;eW dnjoe8-uoi;eollddV - 3 juawVejlV :;uauayoellV L m L d Iy L a co 0 0 Q MM mpOp o 0to0 V-IRT Y r o r O 10 a 0 o o to 0 O co m coo om LO M M r d O tf> to to r Co 00 0o m O CD O C� Lo O O m O O 0 to O O r 7 r O O co CD 0 0 Oln0 O m000 w p w O �mOdO Ot�O 0 gCO000 coo O a W r o a o M o OD am o 0 O O � a OtnO o 0 O `mo00 O O M O O CD O o OOO UOO =- I� Cl OO 1- tiD o O Y x a a. a mpgo OtoO O Q mODO 000 O p r O J co t� o c? o O � 0 u) o o m O o o o o Lo o 0 U) r O U) r 0 U- m Z h d a Z drn N o N J CM � Q N c0 } (6 7 N -0 5 U m i. pop o Otn0 O r O (� 000 Rl O 0Uno 0 r p pOp o 0 to0 O o t: ram• - 7-6 N U O U � 2 0) --=o = o ] m c E tn� of a- E6= N F 0 + 0 id .� 0 v s`Ucn o c C co C 6 o 0- •` m Y -Ue U O U) q t6 O O N p N LL 0-0 (D N Q. N m Z 1- 0o z ti p 0 0 o D O O O r O poo O 0Lo0 0 `- o pl- 090 o 0 Lo 0 O co C O O V N O 0 V LL c c o > c cn m o m Ea` E _ �c o+ ; �- to �� p O �U(q O)CY "O O � c 0 E m ton a) t4Q. N �m U E,U F- U) C m U in !l5 O N O d p N �dU C9�-N 0 N 9.A.3.d INTERSECTION ANALYSIS HCS SUMMARY SHEETS N N O tv Z R 3 c m m 'L^ V d W M N O O O O r O N J d Gl Ci Q Packet Pg. 1143 9.A.3.d US 41 @, GREENWAY ROAD Packet Pg. 1144 9.A.3.d N N O tv Z R 3 c m m 'L^ V d W M N O O O O r O N J d r M O M 2024 AM PEAK SEASON PEAK HOUR �L d C C O O u Ci Q Packet Pg. 1 571 9.A.3.d General Information •- )-Control Report Site Information Analyst Intersection US 41 & Greenway Rd Agency/Co. TR Transportation Cons... Jurisdiction Collier County/FDOT Date Performed 6/7/2019 East/West Street US 41 Analysis Year 2024 ": North/South Street Greenway Rd/Sandpiper Dr Time Analyzed AM Pk Hr Background Peak Hour Factor 0.95 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description F1904.13 Lanes 1 J 4 1.1.4. 1. 4 1L "1 I. "% Y i' I' t.tajor Street East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L `' T R U L T t,.V" U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NumberofLanes 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 1.. 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration L T R L T R L T R LTR Volume (veh/h) 0 : 53 ` 414 . 106 0 7 303 3 61 0 6 2 3 145 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Right Tum Channelized :..`' No No No Median Type I Storage Left + Thru 2 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 TS 6.5 6.9 Critical Headway (sec) 4.16 4.16 7.56 6.56 6.96 :; 7.56 6.56 6.96 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) E E223 2.23 3.53 4.03 3.33 3,53 4.03 3.33 - Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 56 7 64 0 6 158 Capacity, c (veh/h) 1227 loll 400 416 783 826 v/c Ratio 0.05 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.01 0.19 95%Queue Length, Q9s (veh) 0.1 0.0.:. 0.6 0.0 0.0 - 0.7 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.1 8.6 15.7 13.7 9.6 10.4 Level of Service (LOS) - A A C B A B Approach Delay (s%veh) 0.7 0.2 15.2 10A Approach LOS C B Copyright ® 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS` TWSC Version 7.8 Generated: 6/7/2019 3:53:21 PM TWSC1.xtw N to CL m Z M 3 c m m ,L^ V i _d W M N O O O CD O N J a M to M N �L d sZ 7 tt cc m C O cc t2 Q a L) Q Packet Pg. 1146 9.A.3.d VC■!r../P/ i/11 V11■/P iIV�■ Analyst Intersection US 41 & Greenway Rd Agency/Co. TR Transportation Cons. Jurisdiction Collier County/FDOT Date Performed 6/3/2020 East/West Street US 41 Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Greenway Rd/Sandpiper Dr Time Analyzed AM Pk Hr W/ Project Peak Hour Factor 0.95 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description F1904.13 Lanes Major street: East -west Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R. Priority lU 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 ': 0 1 0' Configuration L T R L T R L T R LTR Volume (veh/h) 16 ,` 115 337 106 0 7 272 14 61 14 6 48 16 14S , Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No Martian Tvna I itnranc Left + Thru 2 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 6.4 1 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 Critical Headway (sec) 6.461 4.16 : 4.16 7.56 6.56 '6.46 `' 7.56 6.56 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.5 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.53 ' 2.23 2,23 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.S3 4.03 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 138 7 64 15 6 220 Capacity, c (veh/h) 1163 . 1084 332 356 832 629 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.01 0.19 0.04 0.01 0,35 95% Queue Length, Q.s (veh) 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.1, 0.0 1.6 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.5 8.3 18.4 15.6 9A 13.8 Level of. Service (LOS) ... A A C C A B ............ Approach Delay (s/veh) 1.9 0.2 17.3 13.8 Approach LOS C B opyright ® 2020 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS`" TWSC Version 7.8.5 Generated: 6/5/202010:10:33 AM AM Peak Hr With Project.xtw N fY M Z M c (D as ,L^ V i LLI M N O O O CD O N J a T M O Cl) Packet Pg. 1147 9.A.3.d N N O tv Z R 3 c m m 'L^ V d W M N O O O O r O N J d r M O M r 2024 PM PEAK SEASON PEAK HOUR N �L d C C O O u Ci Q Packet Pg. 1 871 9.A.3.d HCS7, Two General Information -Way Stop -Control Report Site Information Analyst Intersection US 41 & Greenway Rd Agency/Co. TR Transportation Cons. Jurisdiction Collier County/FDOT Date Performed 6/7/2019 East/West Street US 41 Analysis Year 2024 , North/South Street Greenway Rd/Sandpiper Dr Time Analyzed PM Pk Hr Background Peak Hour Factor 0.94 Intersection Orientation East 1N%est Analysis Time Period (his) 0.25 Project Description F1904.13 Lanes 1 J4 1J.4- L i Major Street East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority lU 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 a. 1 1 0 1 0 .; Configuration L i T R L T R L T R LTR Volume (veh/h) 0 88 423 72 0. 22 724 17 77 4 6 _" 2 0 79 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Right Turnthannelized No No No Median Type I Storage Left + Thru 2 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 Critical Headway (sec) 4.16 4.16 7.56 6.56 6.96 7.56 6.56 6.96 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.23 2.23 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 94 23 82 4 6 86 Capacity, c (veh/h) 821 1030 285 236 775 593 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.02 0.29 0.02 0.01 0.15 95% Queue Length, Q9s (veh) 0.4 0.1 1.2 0.11. 0.0 0.5 Control Delay (s/veh) 10.0 8.6 22.6 20.5 9.7 12.1 Level of Service (LOS) A A C C A 6 Approach Delay (s/veh) 1.5 0.2 21.6 12.1 Approach LOS C B Copyright ® 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS11 TWSC Version 7.8 Generated: 6/7/2019 3:57:50 PM AM Peak Hr With Project.xtw N rL M Z M 3 c aD m ,L^ V i _d LU M N O O O CD 0 N J a V C d E s 0 cc C d E t V M Q Packet Pg. 1149 9.A.3.d General Information site iniormation Analyst Intersection US 41 & Greenway Rd Agency/Co. TR Transportation Cons. Jurisdiction Collier County/FDOT Date Performed 6/3/2020 East/West Street US 41 Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Greenway Rd/Sandpiper Dr Time Analyzed PM Pk Hr W/ Project Peak Hour Factor 0.94 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description F1904.13 Lanes 1 4 a ^7 -1 4 4 ,4 4- L +a- 1 'i 'i +Y t f r Nbjor St,eet East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority lU 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 1 2 1 _0 11 .` 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration L T R L T R L T R LTR Volume (veh/h) 13 140 359 72 0 22 650 33 77 18 6 34 13 79 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No Median Type I Storage Left + Thru 2 Critical and follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 6A 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 Critical Headway (sec) 6.46 ! 4.16 ` ; : 416 :. 156 6.56 6.96 7.56 6.56 6.96 `. Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.5 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.53 123 2.23 153 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 163 23 82 19 6 134 Capacity, c (veh/h) 803 1092 237 200 815 409 .` v/c Ratio 0.20 0.02 0.35 0.10 0,01 0.33 95% Queue Length, Qes (veh) 0.8 0.1 ` 1.5 0.3 0.0 1.4 Control Delay (s/veh) 10.6 8.4 28.0 T24,9 9.5 18.1 Level of Service (LOS) B A` C Approach Delay (s/veh) 2.8 0.3 26.3 18.1 Approach LOS D C opyright m 2020 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved, HCS- TWSC Version 7.8.5 Generated: 6/5/2020 10:12:18 AM PM Peak Hr With Project.xtw N N O M Z M 3 c aD m ,L^ V i _d W r r M N O O O O O N J a M O M N TO +r CL 7 t� cc m C O t2 CL a V C d s 0 cc a d E s V M Q Packet Pg. 1150 9.A.3.d GREENWAY ROAD @ SOUTH SITE ACCESS Packet Pg. 1151 9.A.3.d N N O tv Z R 3 c m m 'L^ V d W M N O O O O r O N J d r M O M r 2024 AM PEAK SEASON PEAK HOUR N �L d C C O O u Ci Q Packet Pg. 1152 9.A.3.d General Information Site Information Analyst Intersection Greenway Rd & S, Site Acc Agency/Co. TR Transportation Cons. Jurisdiction Collier County/FDOT Date Performed 6/3/2020 East/West Street S. Site Access Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Greenway Road Time Analyzed AM Pk Hr W/ Project Peak Hour Factor 0.95 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description F1904.13 Lanes Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration R T T Volume (veh/h) 59 143 150 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade N 0 Right Turn Channelized No.._ Median Type I Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 6.2 Critical Headway (sec) 6.23 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 62 Capacity, c (veh/h) v/c Ratio 0.07 95% Queue Length, Qss (veh) 0.2 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.4 Level of Service (LOS) A Approach Delay (s/veh) 9.4 Approach LOS A opyright ® 2020 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS1 TWSC Version 7.8.5 Generated: 6/5/2020 10:13:03 AM AM Peak Hr With Projectxtw, N Q M Z M 3 c aD m ,L^ V i W M N O O O CD T O N J a M O M Packet Pg. 1153 9.A.3.d N N O tv Z R 3 c m m 'L^ V d W M N O O O O r O N J d r M O M r 2024 PM PEAK SEASON PEAK HOUR N �L d C C O O u Ci Q Packet Pg. 1154 9.A.3.d General Information v Site Information Analyst Intersection Greenway Rd & S. Site Acc Agency/Co. TR Transportation Cons. Jurisdiction Collier County/FDOT Date Performed 6/3/2020 East/West Street S. Site Access Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Greenway Road Time Analyzed PM Pk Hr W/ Project Peak Hour Factor 0.94 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description F1904.13 Major Street Noah South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 it 12 7 8 9 lU 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 .. ' 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration R T T Volume (veh/h) 45 192 82 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Tum Channeiized No Median Type I Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 6.2 Critical Headway (sec) Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 33 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3,33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 48 Capacity, c (veh/h) 968 v/c Ratio 0.05 95% Queue Length, Qys (veh) 0.2 Control Delay (s/veh) B•9 Level of Service (LOS) A Approach Delay (s/veh) 8.9 Approach LOS A opyright J 2020 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS"' TWSC Version 7.8.5 Generated: 6/5/2020 10:13:40 AM PM Peak Hr With Project.xtw N Q' N Q rL M Z M 3 c m m ,L^ V i 0 _d LLI M N O O O CD T O N J a M O M Packet Pg. 1155 9.A.3.d @, NORTH SITE ACCESS Packet Pg. 1156 9.A.3.d N N O tv Z R 3 c m m 'L^ V d W M N O O O O r O N J d r M O M 2024 AM PEAK SEASON PEAK. HOUR �L d C C O O u Ci Q Packet Pg. 1157 9.A.3.d General Information .............. Site Information _ Analyst Intersection Greenway Rd & N. Site Acc Agency/Co. TR Transportation Cons. Jurisdiction Collier County/FDOT Date Performed 6/3/2020 East/West Street N. Site Access Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Greenway Road Time Analyzed AM Pk Hr W/ Project Peak Hour Factor 0.95 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description F190413 Lanes Major Street North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T I R U L T R U L I T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 .. .0 Configuration LR LT TR Volume (veh/h) 9 0 87 56 150 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type I Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 7.1 6.2 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 6.43 6.23 4.13 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.53 3.33 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 9 92 Capacity, c (veh/h) 559 1403 v/c Ratio 0.02 0,07 95% Queue Length, Q9s (veh) 0.1 0.2 Control Delay (s/veh) 11.5 7.7 Level of Service (LOS) B t A Approach Delay (s/veh) 11.5 4.9 Approach LOS B opyright © 2020 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS'" TWSC Version 7.8.5 Generated: 6/5/2020 10:14:32 AM AM Peak Hr With Project.xtw N N Q M Z R 3 c aD aD ,L^ V i _a) W M N O O O 00 T" O N J a M M Packet Pg. 1158 9.A.3.d N N O tv Z R 3 c m m 'L^ V d W M N O O O O r O N J d r M O M r 2024 PM PEAK SEASON PEAK HOUR N �L d C C O O u Ci Q Packet Pg. 115971 9.A.3.d General Information Site Information Analyst Intersection Greenway Rd & N. Site Arc Agency/Co. TR Transportation Cons. Jurisdiction Collier County/FDOT Date Performed 6/3/2020 East/West Street N. Site Access Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Greenway Road Time Analyzed PM Pk Hr W/ Project Peak Hour Factor 0.94 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description F1904.13 Lanes Major Street North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 lU 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LR LT TR Volume (veh/h) 10 0 82 110 82 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade N 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type I Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 7.1 6.2 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 6.43 6.23 4.13 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.53 3.33 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 11 87 Capacity, c (veh/h) 578 1489 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.06 95% Queue Length, Q9s (veh) 0.1 0.2 Control Delay (s/veh) 11.3 7.6 Level of Service (LOS) B A Approach Delay (s/veh) 11.3 3.5 Approach LOS B opyright © 2020 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved, HCS- TWSC Version 7.8.5 Generated: 6/5/2020 10:15:18 AM PM Peak Hr With Project.xtw N d' rn Q M Z R 3 c aD m ,L^ V i _a) W M N CD O O CD T" O N J a M M Packet Pg. 1160 9.A.3.d US 41 @ SITE ACCESS N N O tv Z R 3 c m m 'L^ V d W M N O O O O r O N J d Gl Ci Q Packet Pg. 1 171 9.A.3.d N N O tv Z R 3 c m m 'L^ V d W M N O O O O r O N J d r M O M r 2024 AM PEAK SEASON PEAK BOOR �L d C C O O u Ci Q Packet Pg. 1 2 9.A.3.d General Information Site Information Analyst Intersection US 41 & Site Access Agency/Co. TR Transportation Cons. Jurisdiction Collier County/FDOT Date Performed 6/3/2020 East/West Street US 41 Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Site Access Time Analyzed AM Pk Hr W/ Project Peak Hour Factor 0.95 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description F1904.13 N to Q M Z Lanes 3 c J•I1.1.4� 1�4 aD m ,L^ V -4 1- m 4 LU G O O O f O Major Street: Last West O N Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments J IL Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound M Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R M Priority lU 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 2! 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 N M Configuration T TR R L y Volume (veh/h) 501 38 61CL O Percent Heavy Vehicles N 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked v Percent Grade (%) 0 O m Right TurnChannelized NO C O Median Type I Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways a Base Critical Headway (sec) 6.9 Q Critical Headway (sec) 6.96 U Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.33 v Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service r Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 64 Q t+ Capacity, c (veh/h) 710 v/c Ratio 0.09 95%Queue Length, Qvs (veh) 0.3 Control Delay (s/veh) 10.6 Q Level of Service (LOS) 8 Approach Delay (s/veh) 10.6 Approach LOS B opyright 2J 2020 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved HCSTM TWSC Version 7.8.5 Generated: 6/5/2020 10:16:04 AM AM Peak Hr With Project.xtw Packet Pg. 1163 9.A.3.d N N O tv Z R 3 c m m 'L^ V d W M N O O O O r O N J d r M O M r 2024 PM PEAK SEASON PEAK HOUR N �L d C C O O u Ci Q Packet Pg. 1164 9.A.3.d General Information Site Information Analyst Intersection US 41 & Site Access Agency/Co. TR Transportation Cons. Jurisdiction Collier County/FDOT Date Performed 6/3/2020 East/West Street US 41 Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Site Access Time Analyzed PM Pk Hr W/ Project Peak Hour Factor 0,94 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description F1904.13 Lanes I G Major Street East-Wot Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T .i R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0..: 0 Configuration T TR R Volume (veh/h) 832 44 75 ;. Percent Heavy Vehicles (°/u) 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (90} 0 Right Tum Channelized No Median Type I Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) Critical Headway (sec) '; N3.33 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) Follow -Up Headway (sec) Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 80 Capacity, c (veh/h) 541 Vic Ratio 0.15 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.5 Control Delay (s/veh) 12.8 Level of Service (LOS) B Approach Delay (s/veh) 118 Approach LOS B opyright ® 2020 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSa" TWSC Version 7.8.5 Generated: 6/5/2020 10:16:39 AM PM Peak Hr With Project xtw N f1' N M Z M 3 c aD c� aD a� w M N O O O CD O N J a T C d z U M Q C d t U M r Q Packet Pg. 1165 9.A.3.d r TRIP GENERATIOl'vII EQUATIONS & M r Packet Pg. 1166 9.A.3.d TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON CONVENIENCE STORE WITH SELF SERVE FUEL PUMPS ITE TRIP GENERATION REPORT, loth EDITION 5,000 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE 19 RE -FUELING POSITIONS Land Use Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Daily (2-way) Gasoline Service Station T = 19.00 (X) — 96.53 T = 13.99 (X) W/Convenience Market (51% In/49% Out) (51 % In/49% Out) T = 268.46 (X) — 1161.00 (LUC 945) T = Number of trips, X = Vehicle Re -Fueling Positions Convenience Market T = 40.59 (X) T = 49.29 (X) w/Gasoline Pumps (50% In/50% Out) (50% ln/50% Out) T = 624.20 (X) (LUC 853) T = Number of trips, X = 1,000's of square feet of Gross Floor Area (GFA) Table IA Trip Generation Trip Generation based on 19 Fueling Positions (LUC 945) Land Use Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Daily ay) In Out I Total In Out TotalJ(2_w Gasoline Service Station With Convenience Market 135 129 264 136 130 266 3,940 (19 Re -Fueling Positions) *LUC 945 governs since it generates more trips than LUC 853. Table 1B Trip Generation Trip Generation based on 5,000 Sq. Ft. C-Store (LUC 853) Land Use Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Weekda P.M. Peak Hour Daily (2-way) In Out I Total In Out I Total Convenience Market w/Gasoline Pumps 101 102 203 123 123 246 3,121 (5,000 S . Ft.) r M M Packet Pg. 1167 9.A.3.d 7 Eleven Greenway Road Rezoning Environmental Information (June 2019) The 7 Eleven Greenway Road site is composed of one (1) parcel and is located at the northwest corner of US 41 and Greenway Road. The property totals 2.81 acres in size. There is currently 1.62 acres of "native vegetation" (as currently defined by Collier County LDC Section 3.05.07.A.1) on the property. The Florida Land Use, Cover, and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) codes was used to delineate the vegetative communities on -site. The western two thirds of the parcel appear to have been in row crop production prior to 1973 (see attached 1973 aerial). Portions of this area have revegetated with slash pine and was included in the 1.62-acre FLUCCS 411E2. Please see the attached Vegetation Map and Collier County Native Vegetation Summary Map for the vegetative communities within the property. The attached Protected Species Assessment contains a discussion of the current conditions within the property. Ashley Kneram of DexBender prepared the Protected Species Assessment. A copy of her credentials is attached. Packet Pg. 1168 9.A.3.d SECTION 12 TOWNSHIP-- 51 S RANGES 26 E 7 Eleven Greenway Road I 0 50 100 SCALE FEET FLUCCS Description Acreage *411E2 Pine Flatwoods Invaded by Exotics (26-50%) 1.62 ac. 740 Disturbed Land 1.19 ac. 2.81 ac. * Indicates Native Vegetation Association (1.62 ac.) Notes: PER1LlIT USE ONLY 1. Property boundary provided by Quattrone and Associates, Inc. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 2. Mapping based on photointerpretation of 2019 aerial photography June 05, 2019 10:58:02 a.m. and ground truthing in May 2019. Drawing: CREIGHI4PLAN.DWG Collier County Native Vegetation PDEXBENDER Summary Map (2019 Aerial) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING FORT MYERS 239-334-3680 Packet Pg. 1169 9.A.3.d SECTION: 12 7 Eleven Greenway Road TOWNSHIP- 67 S R AAIGLE- 26 E t 0 50 100 SCALE FEET FLUCCS Description Acreage *411E2 Pine Flatwoods Invaded by Exotics (26-50%) 1.62 ac. 740 Disturbed Land 1.19 ac. 2.81 ac. * Indicates Native Vegetation Association (1.62 ac.) Notes. 1. Property boundary provided by Quattrone and Associates, Inc. 2. 1973 aerial photograph obtained from the Florida Department of June 05, 2019 10:58:02 a.m. Revenue. PfMfIT USE ONLY, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Drawing: CREIGHI4PLAN.DWG 00, Collier County Native Vegetation DEXBENDER Summary Map (1973 Aerial) 9ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING FORT MYERS 239-334-3680 / Packet Pg. 1170 9.A.3.d 7-Eleven #1043366 Greenway Road Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East Collier County, Florida Protected Species Assessment June 2019 Prepared for: Creighton Companies, LLC 900 SW Pine Island Road, Suite 202 Cape Coral, FL 33991 Prepared by: DexBender 4470 Camino Real Way, Suite 101 Fort Myers, FL 33966 (239) 334-3680 Packet Pg. 1171 9.A.3.d INTRODUCTION The 2.81± acre project is located within a portion of Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The parcel is bordered to the north and west by vacant land, to the east by Greenway Road, and to the south by US-41. SITE CONDITIONS This site consists of exotic infested uplands with disturbed areas. VEGETATIVE CLASSIFICATIONS The predominant vegetation associations were mapped in the field on 2019 digital 1" = 100' scale aerial photography. The property boundary was provided by Quattrone and Associates, Inc. and inserted into the digital aerial. Two vegetation associations were identified using the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS). Figure 1 depicts the approximate location and configuration of these vegetation associations and Table 1 summarizes the acreages by FLUCCS Code. A brief description of each FLUCCS Code is provided below. Table 1. Acreage Summary by FLUCCS Code FLUCCS CODE DESCRIPTION ACREAGE 411 E2 Pine Flatwoods - Invaded by Exotics (26-50%) 1.62 740 Disturbed Land 1.19 Total 2.81 FLUCCS Code 411 E2, Pine Flatwoods - Invaded by Exotics (26-50%q) This upland area includes canopy vegetation consisting of slash pine (Pines elliotth) and earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis). Mid canopy and ground cover vegetation is dominated by Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), grape vine (Vitis sp.), bushy bluestem (Andropogon glomeratus), and air potato (Dioscorea bulbifera). Scattered cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), and dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium) are also present. FLUCCS Code 740, Disturbed Land Vegetation in the disturbed areas consist of earleaf acacia, Brazilian pepper, cogongrass, grape vine, bushy bluestem, panicum grass (Panicum sp.), whitehead broom (Spermacoce verticillata), rosary pea (Abrus precatorius), and air potato. Packet Pg. 1172 9.A.3.d SECTION 12 TOWAISHIP- 61 S RANGES 26 E 7 Eleven Green way Road i 0 50 100 SCALE FEET FLUCCS Description Acreage 411 E2 Pine Flatwoods Invaded by Exotics (26-50%) 1.62 ac. 740 Disturbed Land 1.19 ac. 2.81 ac. Notes: PERWT USE ONLY 1. Property boundary provided by Quattrone and Associates, Inc. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 2. Mapping based on photointerpretation of 2019 aerial photography June 05, 2019 10:58:02 a.m. and ground truthing in May 2019. Drawing: CREIGHI4PLAN.DWG Figure 1 Protected Species DEXBENDER Assessment Map ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING FORT MYERS 239-334-3680 Packet Pg. 1173 9.A.3.d SURVEY METHOD Based on the general habitat types (FLUCCS Codes) identified on -site there is a low potential for a limited number of species listed as endangered, threatened, or species of a special concern by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) or the z United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to potentially occur on the subject parcel. These species include Gopher Frog (Rana areolata), Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corals couperl), Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), Red -cockaded Woodpecker L (Picoides borealis), Southeastern American Kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus), Big c� Cypress Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia), Florida Black Bear (Ursus americanus floridanus), Florida bonneted -bat (Eumops floridanus), and Florida Panther (Felis a� concolor coryi). The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), which has been delisted by w the FWC and FWS, is still protected by other regulations and was therefore included in the survey. The Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus), delisted in 2012, is still N protected by the Florida Black Bear Management Plan and was therefore included in the o survey. In addition, per Collier County regulations three species of orchids (Cyrtopodium o punctatum, Encyclia cochleata, and E. tampensis) and four species of wild pine N (Tillandsia fasciculata, T. utriculata, T. balbisiana, and T. flexuosa) which could potentially a occur on -site were included in the survey. r In order to comply with FWC/FWS survey methodology guidelines, each habitat type was M surveyed for the occurrence of the species listed above using meandering pedestrian belt transects. Observations for listed species were made during specific protected species survey events. The meandering pedestrian belt transects were spaced approximately 50 feet apart. The approximate location of direct sighting or sign (such as tracks, nests, and droppings) of a listed species, when observed, was denoted on the aerial photography. The 1" = 100' scale aerial Protected Species Assessment map (Figure 1) depicts the U approximate location of the survey transects and the results of the survey. The listed m species survey was conducted during the mid -morning hours of June 4, 2019. The o weather at the time of the survey was hot and sunny. o Prior to conducting the protected species survey, a search of the FWC listed species database (updated in June 2019) was conducted to determine the known occurrence of listed species in the project area. This search revealed no known protected species occurring on or immediately adjacent to the site. The database indicated that Florida black bear have been recorded adjacent to the property (Figure 2). The Florida black bear is listed as threatened by the FWC but is not listed by the FWS. In addition, the property is located within the secondary zone of the 2007 Florida Panther Focus Area identified by the FWS. The Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi) is listed as endangered by both the FWS and FWC. Packet Pg. 1174 AennuaaaE) uan013-L bL£Z0008LOZ-ld : MCO slepa;eW dnj3e8-uoi;eollddV - 3 ju9wLl3ePV :;uauayoellV CO 2 3 W �2) V W i0 u LO r- r r �1 a_ d Y V R a 9.A.3.d SURVEY RESULTS Collier County Plants No listed orchids or wild pines listed in LDC 3.04.03 were observed on the site. Other Listed Species No cavity trees suitable for use by the Florida bonneted bat have been observed on -site. No other species listed by either the FWS or the FWC were observed on the site during the protected species survey. No species listed by either the FWS or the FWC were observed on the site during the protected species survey. In addition to the site inspection, a search of the FWC species database (updated in June 2019) revealed no known protected species within or immediately adjacent to the project limits. YACREIG-14\PSA.docx Packet Pg. 1176 9.A.3.d DEXBENDER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING Ashley S. Kneram, Ecologist Current Responsibilities Provides an array of environmental services related to land development and property evaluation in Southwest Florida. These activities, performed for private landowners and public entities, include the following: protected species assessments, threatened and endangered species surveys (RCW, burrowing owl, gopher tortoise, FBB), preparation of vegetation and land use maps (FLUCCS maps), preparation of wetland functional assessments using UMAM and WRAP, development suitability reports, environmental resource permit application preparation, general site inspections, and biological observations. Education and Certifications B.S. - Marine Science/Geology/Biology, Florida Gulf Coast University, 2016 M FWC Registered Burrowing Owl Agent M Qualified Bald Eagle Monitor, City of Cape Coral Mariner Merchant Credential License USA0003427 a Environmental Permitting Summer School — Florida Environmental Network, 2017 Affiliations Coastal Conservation Association — Eagles Chapter Vice President Edison Big Snook — Board Member USA & UCI BMX — Professional Athlete Packet Pg. 1177 9.A.3.d UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION PROPOSED 7-ELEVEN STORE #1043366 US 41 (TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST) AND GREENWAY ROAD NAPLES, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA UES Project No. 0530.1800189.0000 PREPARED FOR: Creighton Companies, LLC 900 SW Pine Island Road, Suite 202 Cape Coral, Florida 33991 PREPARED BY: Universal Engineering Sciences 5971 Country Lakes Drive Fort Myers, Florida 33905 (239) 995-1997 August 30, 2018 Consultants in: Geotechnical Engineering • Environmental Sciences • Construction Materials Testing • Threshold Inspection Offices in: Orlando • Daytona Beach • Fort Myers - Gainesville - Jacksonville • Ocala • Palm Coast • Rockledge - Sarasota • Miami St. Auoustine - Panama Citv • Fort Pierce - Hiohlandssbura • Tamoa • Tifton • West Palm Beach - Atlanta. GA Packet Pg. 1 871 9.A.3.d UNIVERSAL tuENGINEERING SCIENCES Consultants In: Geotechnical Engineering • Environmental Sciences Geophysical Services • Construction Materials Testing • Threshold Inspection Building Inspection • Plan Review • Building Code Administration August 30, 2018 Attention: Mr. Will Anderson Creighton Companies, LLC 900 SW Pine Island Road, Suite 202 Cape Coral, Florida 33991 Wanderson(a)creightondev. com Reference: Geotechnical Exploration Proposed 7-Eleven Store #1043366 NWC US 41 (Tamiami Trail East) and Greenway Road Naples, Collier County, Florida UES Project No. 0530.1800189.0000 Dear Mr. Anderson: LOCATIONS: • Atlanta • Daytona Beach • Fort Myers • Fort Pierce • Gainesville • Jacksonville • Miami • Ocala Orlando (Headquarters) • Palm Coast • Panama City • Pensacola • Rockledge • Sarasota • Tampa • Tifton • West Palm Beach Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. (UES) has completed a geotechnical exploration on the c above -referenced site in Naples, Collier County, Florida. Our scope of services was in general accordance with UES Proposal dated July 20, 2018. a This report contains the results of our study, an engineering interpretation of the subsurface M data obtained with respect to the project characteristics described to us, geotechnical design recommendations, and general construction and site preparation considerations. rn 76 L We appreciate the opportunity to have worked with you on this project and look forward to a continued association with your firm. Please contact us if you have any questions, or if we may further assist you as your plans proceed. a Respectfully Submitted, UNIVERSAL. ENGINEERING SCIENCES, INC. Certificate of Authorization No. 549 Octavio Vazquez Staff Engineer 1 —cc (email ) •� — N0.4 Q * ds y STATE regional 3C,A/ 11790 5971 Country Lakes Dr. • Fort Myers, Florida 33905 • (239) 995-1997 • Fax (239) 313-2347 www.UniversalEngineering.com Packet Pg. 117971 9.A.3.d Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................2 1.1 GENERAL.........................................................................................................................2 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................2 2.0 PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGIES...................................................................................3 2.1 PURPOSE.........................................................................................................................3 3.0 FINDINGS............................................................................................................................4 3.2.1 SOIL SURVEY............................................................................................................................................. 4 3.2.2 SOIL BORINGS........................................................................................................................................... 4 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................................5 4.1 GENERAL.........................................................................................................................5 4.2 GROUNDWATER.............................................................................................................5 4.3 BUILDING FOUNDATION AND FLOOR SLAB..................................................................6 4.3.1 GENERAL.................................................................................................................................................... 6 4.3.2 BEARING CAPACITY................................................................................................................................. 7 4.3.3 BEARING MATERIAL................................................................................................................................. 7 4.3.4 FOOTING SIZE AND BEARING DEPTH................................................................................................... 7 4.3. S FLOOR SLAB.............................................................................................................................................. 7 4.3.6 FLOOR SLAB MOISTURE REDUCTION.................................................................................................. 7 4.3.7 ESTIMATED STRUCTURAL SETTLEMENT.............................................................................................. 8 4.4 PAVEMENT SECTIONS.................................................................................................... 8 4.4.1 GENERAL....................................................................................................................................................8 4.4.2 LAYER COMPONENTS..............................................................................................................................8 4.4.3 STABILIZED SUBGRADE.......................................................................................................................... 9 4.4.4 BASE COURSE............................................................................................................................................ 9 4.4.5 FLEXIBLE SURFACE COURSE................................................................................................................. 9 4.4.6 RIGID PAVEMENT OPTION....................................................................................................................10 4.4.7 EFFECTS OF GROUNDWATER.............................................................................................................. 11 4.4.8 CURBING..................................................................................................................................................12 4.4.9 CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC.....................................................................................................................12 4.5 SITE PREPARATION......................................................................................................12 4.6 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK CONSIDERATIONS...............................................14 4.7 CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES........................................................................14 5.0 LIMITATIONS.....................................................................................................................15 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY ................................................ N a� a z 3 c m m L C9 c m as w r— v M N O 0 0 00 0 N J d r M M r Packet Pg. 1180 9.A.3.d LIST OF APPENDICES SITELOCATION MAP................................................................................................................A BORINGLOCATION PLAN........................................................................................................B BORINGLOGS..........................................................................................................................B SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART................................................................................................B ASFE IMPORTANT GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION............................................................. C CONSTRAINTS AND RESTRICTIONS..................................................................................... C N as a z 3 c m m 'L^ V d W r— M N O O O O r O N J d r M O M r Packet Pg. 1181 9.A.3.d Proposed 7-Eleven Store #1043366 LIES Project No. 0530.1800189.0000 Naples, Collier County, Florida UES Report No. --- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY We prepared this summary to provide a quick overview of our findings. Please review, and rely on, the full report for recommendations and other considerations. Project Description The project is understood to consist of the design and construction of a proposed 7-Eleven convenience store and fueling station at the northwest corner of US 41 (Tamiami Trail East) and Greenway Road in Naples, Collier County, Florida. The project will consist of a single story, convenience store, carwash, and a gas pump station with canopy, underground fuel tank, asphalt pavement and drive areas. It is anticipated the building will be comprised of CBS and/or steel frame construction. Soil and Groundwater Conditions The soils found consist of dark brown and gray fine sands in loose and medium dense states up to approximately 6 feet below existing grade underlain by a strata of light gray fine sand with varying amounts of silt fines and cemented rock fragments in loose, medium dense and dense states up to the maximum depth explored of 25 feet below existing grade. A layer of hard rock was encountered at a depth of approximately 6 to 11 feet below ground surface at the location of test boring numbered B-01. The groundwater was measured at depths of 1 to 2 feet below existing grades. Estimated seasonal high groundwater levels could be around 0 to 1 foot below ground surface at the boring locations. Water will likely be ponded at ground surface during periods of heavy rainfall. N M Foundation Design`, Based on our exploration and analysis the foundations may consist of conventional shallow a continuous and spread footings. The floor slabs may be ground supported. U fC Site Preparation CO 0 We envision normal earthwork practices to prepare the native subgrade and place and compact fill soils. - .Q a Excavation Consideration a U A hard rock and condition indicative of fractured rock layer was encountered at the boring locations generally starting at a depth of 6 feet below existing grade. Difficulty will likely be E encountered excavating below this depth particularly in a confined space such as utility trench or fuel tank excavation. y 1 Packet Pg. 1182 9.A.3.d Proposed 7-Eleven Store #1043366 UES Project No. 0530.1800189.0000 Naples, Collier County, Florida UES Report No. --- 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 GENERAL In this report we present the results of our geotechnical exploration on the site of the Proposed 7-Eleven Store #1043366 located on the northwest corner of US 41 (Tamiami Trail East) and Greenway Road, Naples, Collier County, Florida. This report contains the results of our study, an engineering interpretation of the subsurface data obtained with respect to the project characteristics described to us, and our recommendations for geotechnical design and general site preparation. Our scope of services was in general accordance with UES Proposal dated July 20, 2018. 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand you plan to design and construct a new 7-Eleven convenience store with a pump canopy, underground fuel tank, asphalt pavement and drive and areas located on the northwest corner of US 41 (Tamiami Trail East) and Greenway Road, Naples, Collier County, Florida. The single story retail building site plan will cover approximately 3,400 square feet given conceptual site plan provide in initial proposal. We anticipate the building will be comprised of CBS and/or steel frame construction with a soil supported slab -on -grade. We were provided with conceptual plan depicting the location of the proposed improvements. a We used this information to perform our exploration. M No anticipated structural loads were available for our analyses. Therefore, we have assumed that loads on continuous footings will be 4 to 5 kips per lineal foot or less, and loads on v, individual column footings will be 50 to 75 kips or less. 2 L Based on current site grades, we anticipate nominal amounts of fill (0 to 2 feet) will be required to raise site grades to finished levels. Our geotechnical recommendations are based upon the above provided information, assumptions and considerations. If UES is not informed of changes to final design information, the recommendations contained herein are not considered valid as we cannot be responsible for the consequences of changes of which we were not informed. A general location map of the project area appears in Appendix A: Site Location Map. 2 Packet Pg. 1183 9.A.3.d Proposed 7-Eleven Store #1043366 UES Project No. 0530,1800189.0000 Naples, Collier County, Florida UES Report No. --- 2.0 PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGIES 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of our services was: to generally characterize the shallow subsurface conditions at the site using a limited amount of Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings; to evaluate the soil/structure relationships using subsurface information interpreted from the borings and project information described to us or assumed by us; and To provide geotechnical engineering design information and recommendations for building foundations and pavements, and general recommendations for building pad subgrade preparation. This report presents an evaluation of site conditions on the basis of traditional geotechnical procedures for site characterization. The recovered samples were not examined, either visually or analytically, for chemical composition or environmental hazards. Our study was confined to the zone of soil likely to be influenced by the proposed structural foundation systems. Our scope of services did not address the potential for surface expression of deep geological conditions, such as sinkhole development related to karst activity. 2.2 FIELD EXPLORATION The subsurface conditions at the site were explored with a total of six (6) borings and three (3) hand borings. The subsurface conditions in the proposed building area and fuel tank area were explored with four (4) borings completed to depths of 25 feet bgs. The fuel pump canopy area was explored with a two (2) borings completed to a depth of 15 feet bgs. The subsurface conditions in the proposed parking, pavement and drive areas explored with three (3) hand augers completed to depths of approximately 5 feet bgs. These borings were advanced using the rotary wash method, and samples were collected while performing the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) at regular intervals. We performed the SPT test in general accordance with ASTM D-1586 guidelines. However, at depths of 10 feet or less we sampled continuously in order to note variations in the upper soil profile. In general, the SPT test consists of a standard split -barrel sampler (split -spoon) driven into the soil using a 140-pound hammer free -falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler 12 inches, after first seating it 6 inches, is designated the penetration resistance, or SPT-N value. This value is used as an index to soil strength and consistency. Consider the indicated locations, elevations and depths to be approximate. Our drilling crew located the borings based upon estimated distances and spatial relationship from existing site features. If more precise location and elevation data are desired, a registered professional land surveyor should be retained to locate the borings and determine their ground surface elevations. The Boring Location Plan is presented in Appendix B. 3 � Packet Pg. 1184 9.A.3.d Proposed 7-Eleven Store #1043366 UES Project No. 0530.1800189.0000 Naples, Collier County, Florida UES Report No. --- Soil, rock, water, and/or other samples obtained from the project site are the property of the client. Unless other arrangements are agreed upon in writing, UES will store such samples for no more than 60 calendar days from the date UES issued the first document that includes the data obtained from these samples. After that date, UES will dispose of all samples. 2.3 LABORATORY TESTING The soil samples recovered from the test borings were returned to our laboratory and visually classified by our technical staff. No Laboratory testing was conducted. 3.0 FINDINGS 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS The site is comprised moderately -wooded vacant parcel with grass ground cover. The proposed 7-Eleven will be constructed in the Northwestern corner of the intersection of US 41 and Greenway Road. It is relatively flat. We did not note any debris or standing water on site at the time of our field exploration. At the start of our geotechnical exploration, we reviewed aerial photographs available from the Collier County Property Appraiser's office and USGS topographic quadrangle maps. According to USGS topographic information, the elevation across the property is on the order of +9 to +11 feet NGVD. 3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.2.1 SOIL SURVEY We also reviewed USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) data for Collier County (1998). According to SCS, the following surficial soil groups underlying this site. A summary of selected properties for the identified soil group on the site is included below in Table 1. TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF SOIL INFORMATION Soil Map Unit & Name Hydrologic Indications of Water Table SHWT Soil Group Shallow Rock Type Depth Location 2: Holopaw fine sand, B/D 50-80 inches Apparent 0 to 1 foot Entire Site limestone substratum 3.2.2 SOIL BORINGS The boring locations and detailed subsurface conditions are illustrated in Appendix B: Boring Location Plan and Boring Logs. The classifications and descriptions shown on the logs are based upon visual characterizations of the recovered soil samples. Refer to Appendix B: Soils Classification Chart, for further explanation of the symbols and placement of data on the Boring Packet Pg. 1185 9.A.3.d Proposed 7-Eleven Store #1043366 LIES Project No. 0530.1800189.0000 Naples, Collier County, Florida LIES Report No. --- Logs. The general subsurface soil profile on the site, based on the soil boring information, is described below. For more detailed information, please refer to the boring logs. The soils found consist of dark brown and gray fine sands in loose and medium dense states up to approximately 6 feet below existing grade underlain by a strata of light gray fine sand with varying amounts of silt fines and cemented rock fragments in loose, medium dense and dense states up to the maximum depth explored of 25 feet below existing grade. A layer of hard rock was encountered at a depth of approximately 6 to 11 feet below ground surface at the location of test boring numbered B-01. The shallow water table was measured at approximately 1 to 2 feet below existing grade at the boring locations, measured upon first encounter. These readings were unstabilized and are subject to fluctuation. The boring logs and related information included in this report are indicators of subsurface conditions only at the specific locations and times noted. Our field exploration did not find w unsuitable or unexpected materials at the time of occurrence. However, borings for a typical geotechnical report are widely spaced and generally not sufficient for reliably detecting the M presence of isolated, anomalous surface or subsurface conditions, or reliably estimating o unsuitable or suitable material quantities. Accordingly, UES does not recommend relying on our c boring information to negate presence of anomalous materials or for estimation of material co quantities unless our contracted services specifically include sufficient exploration for such N purpose(s) and within the report we so state that the level of exploration provided should be a sufficient to detect such anomalous conditions or estimate such quantities. Therefore, UES will not be responsible for any extrapolation or use of our data by others beyond the purpose(s) for which it is applicable or intended. 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 GENERAL In this section of the report we present our geotechnical design recommendations, general site preparation recommendations and information pertaining to the construction related services UES can provide. Our recommendations are made based upon a review of the attached soil test data, our understanding of the proposed construction as it was described to us, and our stated assumptions. If UES is not informed of changes to the provided final design information, the recommendations contained herein are not considered valid as we cannot be responsible for performance issues that may arise from design changes of which we are unaware. Additionally, if subsurface conditions are encountered during construction that was not found in the test borings, report those conditions immediately to us for observation and recommendations. 4.2 GROUNDWATER Based upon our visual review of the recovered soil samples, review of information obtained from SWFWMD and the USDA Soil Survey of Collier County, and our general knowledge of local and regional hydrogeology, the estimated seasonal high groundwater leveled is on the order of 0 to 1 foot below existing site and grade at the boring location. Water will likely be ponded at ground surface during periods of heavy rainfall. 5 Packet Pg. 1186 9.A.3.d Proposed 7-Eleven Store #1043366 UES Project No. 0530.1800189.0000 Naples, Collier County, Florida UES Report No. --- Several factors influence the determination of the seasonal high water table (SHWT). Over time natural, undisturbed soils are subjected to alternating cycles of saturation and drying, resulting in discoloration or staining that is not part of the dominant soil color occurs. This is called mottling, and manifests itself in various shades of gray, brown, red or yellow. There are numerous processes that lead to this discoloration, including mineral accretions, oxidation, and N bacteria growth within the soil. The presence of this discoloration indicates that groundwater has repetitively reached that elevation and remained there long enough to cause any or all of these processes to occur. The SHWT elevation is assumed to be the highest level at which a mottling is observed in the natural soil profile, regardless of whether water is present at the time z of observation. This estimate is independent of the actual location of the groundwater table. Because the mottling process takes time and repetitive episodes, man-made soil fills do not 3 exhibit such mottling and seasonal high estimates cannot be made in this manner. a m L It should be noted that the estimated SHWT does not provide any assurance that groundwater levels will not exceed this level in the future. Should impediments to surface water drainage exist on the site, or should rainfall intensity and duration exceed the normally anticipated w amounts, groundwater levels may exceed our seasonal high estimate. Also, future development around the site could alter surface runoff and drainage characteristics, and cause our seasonal high estimate to be exceeded. We therefore recommend positive drainage be N established and maintained on the site during construction. Further, we recommend permanent g measures be constructed to maintain positive drainage from the site throughout the life of theco project. Finally, we recommend all foundation and pavement grades account for the seasonal N high groundwater conditions. a Temporary dewatering will be required for any deep excavations, such as the underground fuel M storage tanks. Therefore, we recommend that the contract documents provide for determining M the depth to the groundwater table just prior to construction, and for any required remedial dewatering. Further, we recommend that the groundwater table be maintained at least 24 76 inches below all earthwork and compaction surfaces. Dependent upon local jurisdictional requirements, a dewatering plan may be required; UES can assist you with required dewatering plans if desired. The dewatering means and methods are 3 the sole responsibility of the contractor. 4.3 BUILDING FOUNDATION AND FLOOR SLAB 4.3.1 GENERAL The soil strata found at the SPT boring locations should be adaptable to support structures having loading conditions as outlined in this report using conventional shallow foundations. Therefore, we recommend supporting the proposed structures using the foundation type desired. However, if the actual building loads exceed those we have previously stated, our foundation recommendations presented herein may not be applicable, and UES should be retained to review the updated loading information and revise our recommendations as needed. 6 Packet Pg. 1187 9.A.3.d Proposed 7-Eleven Store #1043366 UES Project No. 0530.1800189.0000 Naples, Collier County, Florida UES Report No. --- 4.3.2 BEARING CAPACITY The foundation system may be designed for a maximum net soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) for code dead and live loads plus any short duration loadings for the continuous wall footings and column footings. These bearing pressure values assume the surficial soils to a depth of 1 foot are densified to at least 95% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (MPMDD) (ASTM D-1557) prior to foundation construction and that the foundations are no deeper than 1 foot from finished exterior grades. If any of these assumptions are not valid, UES must review this bearing capacity recommendation. 4.3.3 BEARING MATERIAL Bearing level soils must be suitable structural fill or existing, granular soils compacted to at least 95% MPMDD. This degree of compaction must be verified to a depth of 1 foot below the base of footing elevation immediately prior to placing foundation concrete. 4.3.4 FOOTING SIZE AND BEARING DEPTH The base of all individual foundations should be embedded at least 18 inches below lowest N adjacent grade (finished surrounding grade, for example). Maintain minimum foundation widths a of 18 inches for continuous strip footings, and 24 inches for isolated column footings, even though the maximum allowable soil bearing stress may not be developed in all cases. We M estimate that foundations so designed will have a minimum factor of safety of two against M bearing capacity failure. 4.3.5 FLOOR SLAB The floor slab may be ground supported and in the case of a monolithic floor slab adequately reinforced to prevent distress due to differential movements. A fibermesh concrete mix or welded wire fabric may be used to reduce thermal cracking. If welded wire is used, we recommend using flat wire instead of rolled. Normal weight concrete having a 28-day compressive strength (f'c) of at least 2500 psi should be used. A conservative modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pci can be used for floor slab design, assuming the slab is supported on compacted structural fill or well compacted existing subgrade soils (minimum 95% MPMDD). 4.3.6 FLOOR SLAB MOISTURE REDUCTION UES recommends the use of a vapor barrier which covers the bearing soils beneath ground supported floor slabs in accordance with Florida Building Code (FBC) requirements. The FBC recommends a minimum 6-mil thick polyvinyl chloride or polyethylene sheet membrane for this purpose. The performance of the vapor barrier is ultimately dependent upon its proper installation, including lapping and sealing plus repair of tears and punctures prior to placement of concrete. 7 Packet Pg. 1188 9.A.3.d Proposed 7-Eleven Store #1043366 UES Project No. 0530.1800189.0000 Naples, Collier County, Florida UES Report No. --- 4.3.7 ESTIMATED STRUCTURAL SETTLEMENT For foundations designed as recommended and site earthwork accomplished according to the recommendations provided later in this report, we estimate total and differential foundation settlement due to structure loads of less than one inch, and less than one half inch, respectively. However, if the site is not prepared according to the guidelines provided later in this report, our estimates of total and differential settlement may be exceeded during the design life of the structure. We note that our settlement estimates do not include potential settlement from the following: erosion of foundation subgrade soils; ground subsidence from sinkhole activity; localized hydraulic compaction of soils from storm or irrigation waters; undermining of foundations from adjacent excavation; or any other cause not related to the actual soil stresses induced by the structural building loads. 4.4 PAVEMENT SECTIONS 4.4.1 GENERAL We recommend using a flexible pavement section on this project. Flexible pavements combine the strength and durability of several layer components to produce an appropriate and cost- effective combination of available materials. 4A.2 LAYER COMPONENTS M For preliminary pavement designs, we recommend using a three -layer pavement section consisting of stabilized subgrade, base course, and asphaltic concrete surface course placed on top of a compacted embankment. 76 L We recommend that light duty pavement sections have a minimum of 6 inches of stabilized subgrade, 6 inches of base course, and a minimum of 1.5 inch of surface course, and that heavy duty pavement sections have 12 inches of stabilized subgrade, 8 inches of base course, and 2 inches of surface course. The minimum recommended thicknesses may lead to more than normal periodic maintenance and may not meet typical life expectancies for some pavements. If projected traffic loads become available, we recommend that an appropriate pavement design be used and the component thicknesses be adjusted accordingly. Because traffic loadings are commonly unavailable, we have generalized our pavement design into two groups. The group descriptions and the recommended component thicknesses are presented in Table 2: Pavement Component Recommendations. The structural numbers in Table 2 are based on a structural number analysis with the stated estimated daily traffic volume for a 15-year placement design life. For traffic loading conditions greater than those presented in Table 2, we recommend that you have a complete pavement design performed based on projected traffic data. 8 Packet Pg. 1189 9.A.3.d Proposed 7-Eleven Store #1043366 UES Project No. 0530.1800189.0000 Naples, Collier County, Florida LIES Report No. --- TABLE 2: FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT COMPONENT RECOMMENDATIONS Required Provided Component Thickness (inches) Traffic Group Structural Structural Stabilized Base Surface Number Number Subgrade Course Course Light -duty 1.9 2.1 - 2.2 6 6 1.5 Heavy-duty 2.4 2.6 - 2.8 12 8 2.0 Light -duty: auto parking areas; over eighty cars; light panel and pickup trucks; average gross weight of 4,000 pounds, total equivalent 18-kip single axle loads (ESALs) equals 90,000 Heavy-duty: commercial driveways, small roadways; twenty trucks or less per day; average gross vehicle weight of 25,000 pounds, total ESALs equals 250,000 4.4.3 STABILIZED SUBGRADE We recommend stabilizing the subgrade materials to a minimum Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) of 40. The stabilized subgrade should be "free draining" when overlain by crushed concrete base. The upper 12 inches of subgrade materials and the stabilized subgrade materials should be compacted to at least 98% MPMDD. 4.4.4 BASE COURSE M We recommend using either limerock* or a crushed concrete base course material. The base utilized should be obtained from an FDOT approved source, and should meet current FDOT requirements. Crushed concrete should meet MOT requirements for graded aggregate base. Place the base in maximum 6-inch lifts and compact each lift to a minimum density of 98% °r MPMDD. Perform compliance base density testing for the full lift thickness at a frequency of one test per 10,000 square feet, or at a minimum of two test locations, whichever is greater. *Note: If limerock base material is to be used, adequate separation between groundwater and the base must be maintained (see Section 4.4.7). Limerock is highly moisture sensitive and becomes unstable when saturated. Therefore, if the guidelines discussed in Section 4.4.7 cannot be met, the use of limerock base on this project is not recommended without installation of under drains. 4.4.5 FLEXIBLE SURFACE COURSE In light duty areas where there is occasional truck traffic, but primarily passenger cars, we recommend using an asphaltic concrete, FDOT Superpave SP-9.5 of former FDOT Type S-III, which has a minimum stability of 1,000 pounds. In heavy duty pavement areas, we recommend FDOT SP-12.5 or former FDOT Type S-1 asphaltic concrete, which has a minimum stability of 1500 pounds. 9 Packet Pg. 1190 9.A.3.d Proposed 7-Eleven Store #1043366 UES Project No. 0530.1800189.0000 Naples, Collier County, Florida UES Report No. --- Superpave mixes should comply with the 2010 FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. Structural asphaltic concrete mixes (S-3 or S-1) should be based on former FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, 2000 Edition. Test samples of the materials delivered to the project to verify that the aggregate gradation and asphalt content satisfies the mix design requirements. In the absence of an on -site test strip to set compaction criteria, compact the asphalt to a minimum of 95 percent of the Marshall Laboratory design density. After placement and field compaction, core the wearing surface to evaluate material thickness and to perform laboratory densities. Obtain cores at frequencies of at least one core per 3,000 square feet of placed pavement or a minimum of two cores per day's production. In parking areas, a potential method of extending the life expectancy of the surface course, is to apply a coal tar emulsion sealer at least six months after placement of the surface course. The seal coat may help to seal surface cracks and voids, and provide limited protection of the surface from damaging ultraviolet light and automobile liquid spillage. Please note that applying the seal coat earlier than six months after placement may hinder the "curing" of the surface course, leading to premature deterioration. 4.4.6 RIGID PAVEMENT OPTION In heavily loaded and/or high traffic areas such as aprons and garbage corrals we recommend a using a rigid pavement system for increased strength and durability and for longer life. Portland cement concrete pavement is a rigid system that distributes wheel loads to the subgrade soils over a larger area than a flexible asphalt pavement. This results in reduced localized stress to r� the subgrade soil. We recommend using a compacted subgrade below concrete pavement with 2 the following stipulations: M Subgrade soils must be "free -draining' (K > 5 ft/day) and densified to at least 98% MPMDD to a depth of at least 1-foot directly below the bottom of the concrete slab. 2. The surface of the subgrade soils must be smooth, and any disturbances or wheel rutting corrected prior to placement of concrete. 3. The subgrade soils must be moistened prior to placement of concrete. 4. Concrete pavement thickness should be uniform throughout, with exception to the thickened edges (curb or footing). 5. The bottom of the pavement should be separated from the estimated seasonal high groundwater level by at least 12 inches. Our recommendations for slab thickness for standard and heavy duty concrete pavements are based on (1) densification of subgrade soils to at least 98% MPMDD, (2) conservative modulus of subgrade reaction (k) equal to 100 pci, (3) a 15-year design life, and (4) total equivalent 18 kip single axle loads (ESAL) of 90,000 and 225,000, respectively. We recommend using the design shown in the following tables for concrete pavements that meet the above ESAL criteria. 10 Packet Pg. 1191 9.A.3.d Proposed 7-Eleven Store #1043366 UES Project No. 0530.1800189.0000 Naples, Collier County, Florida LIES Report No. --- TABLE 3: STANDARD DUTY RIGID PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Maximum Control Joint Recommended Sawcut Minimum Pavement Thickness Spacing Depth 5 Inches 10 Feet x 10 Feet 11/4 Inches TABLE 4: HEAVY DUTY RIGID PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Maximum Control Joint Recommended Sawcut Minimum Pavement Thickness Spacing Depth 7 Inches 14 Feet x 14 Feet 11/2 Inches For both standard duty and heavy duty rigid pavement sections, we recommend using normal weight concrete having a 28 day compressive strength (f,) of 4,000 psi, and a minimum 28-day flexural strength (modulus of rupture) of at least 600 psi (based on the 3 point flexural test of concrete beam samples). Layout of the sawcut control joints should form square panels, and the depth of sawcut joints should be % of the concrete slab thickness. We recommend allowing Universal Engineering Sciences to review and comment on the final M concrete pavement design, including section and joint details (type of joints, joint spacing, etc.), M prior to the start of construction. For further details on concrete pavement construction, please reference the "Guide to Jointing of Non -Reinforced Concrete Pavements published by the Florida Concrete and Products Association, Inc., and "Building Quality Concrete Parking Areas," published by the Portland Cement Association. 4.4.7 EFFECTS OF GROUNDWATER One of the most critical influences on pavement performance in Florida is the relationship between the pavement subgrade and the seasonal high groundwater level. It has been our experience that roadways and parking areas have been damaged as a result of deterioration of the base and the base/surface course bond due to moisture intrusion. Regardless of the type of base selected, we recommend that the seasonal high groundwater and the bottom of the base course be separated by at least 18-inches for flexible pavement and 12 inches for rigid pavement with free -draining subgrade. At this site pavement constructed on or above finished grade should meet the minimum required separation. Packet Pg. 1192 9.A.3.d Proposed 7-Eleven Store #1043366 UES Project No. 0530.1800189.0000 Naples, Collier County, Florida UES Report No. --- 4.4,8 CURBING Typical curbing is extruded and placed atop the asphaltic concrete surface. This type of curbing does not act as a horizontal cutoff for lateral migration of storm and irrigation water into the base material and as a result this it is not uncommon for base and subgrade materials adjacent to these areas to become saturated with subsequent localized pavement deterioration. Consequently, we recommend that all pavements abutting irrigated landscape areas be equipped with an underdrain system that penetrates a minimum depth equal to the bottom of stabilized subgrade to intercept trapped shallow water and discharges it into a closed system or other acceptable discharge point. Alternatively, curbing around any landscaped sections adjacent to the parking lots and driveways could be constructed with full -depth curb sections to reduce horizontal water migration. However, underdrains may still be required dependent upon the soil type and spatial relationships. UES should review final grading plans to evaluate the need and placement of pavement and landscape underdrains. 4.4.9 CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC Incomplete pavement sections may not perform satisfactorily under construction traffic N loadings. We recommend that construction traffic (e.g. construction equipment, concrete trucks, c sod trucks, dump trucks, etc.) be re-routed away from these roadways during construction of theCO infrastructure of the development. If this is not practical, then the pavement section may be c completed and then protected with a sacrificial cover material, or alternatively the pavement N section may be only partially completed until the need for most of the construction traffic has a ended (for example, allow construction traffic to drive over the compacted base course, and then rework and repair the base course locally as needed) and then place the asphaltic M concrete after the frequency of the infrastructure construction traffic has subsided. It should be noted that after the infrastructure construction has been completed, the construction traffic associated with the subsequent construction of individual homes over a period of months or years should not negatively impact the performance of the completed standard or heavy-duty pavement section, as we expect the increase to the traffic loading frequencies stated in Section 4.4.2 of this report will be minor. 4.5 SITE PREPARATION We recommend normal, good -practice site preparation procedures. These procedures include clearing the site of above and below grade improvements, proof -rolling and proof -compacting the subgrade, and filling to grade with engineered fill as needed. A more detailed synopsis of this work is as follows: 1. If required, perform remedial temporary dewatering prior to any earthwork operations to reduce the likelihood of pumping of the shallow subgrade soils during normal construction operations. Maintain groundwater levels at least 24 inches below the lowest anticipated cut and/or all compaction surfaces. 12 Packet Pg. 1193 9.A.3.d Proposed 7-Eleven Store #1043366 UES Project No. 0530.1800189.0000 Naples, Collier County, Florida UES Report No. --- 2. Remove/Strip the site of existing trees, grass, roots, topsoil, construction debris, and other deleterious materials within and 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed building areas, paved areas, or other areas receiving improvements. Expect clearing and grubbing to depths of 12 inches, on average. N 3. Proof -roll the subgrade with a heavily loaded, rubber -tired vehicle under the observation of a Universal Engineering Sciences geotechnical engineer or his representative. Proof- 2 rolling will help locate any zones of especially loose or soft soils not encountered in the z soil test borings. Then undercut, or otherwise treat these zones as recommended by the Z engineer. 3 4. Prior to any filling of the site, proof -compact the subgrade from the surface using suitable c L compaction equipment, until you obtain a minimum density of 95% MPMDD to a depth of 1 foot below stripped grade. In order to achieve the required degree of compaction, the soils may need to be moisture conditioned until the in -situ water content is within +/- 2% > of the optimum moisture content (OMC). w 5. Test the subgrade for compaction at a frequency of not less than one test per 2,500 square feet per foot of depth improvement in the building areas or at a minimum of N two test locations, whichever is greater. g 6. Place fill material, as required. The fill should consist of fine to medium sand with less 0 CO c than 5 percent soil fines. You may use fill materials with soil fines between 5 and J 12 percent, but strict moisture control may be required. Place fill in uniform 10 to 12 inch a loose lifts and compact each lift to a minimum density of 95% MPMDD at moisture content of +/- 2% of optimum (OMC). M 7. Perform compliance tests within the fill at a frequency of not less than one test per 2,500 square feet per lift in the building areas, or at a minimum of two test locations, 76 whichever is greater. 8. Test all final footing cuts for compaction to a depth of 1 foot. Additionally, we recommend testing every column footings, and at least one test per every 50 lineal feet 3 of wall footing. Using vibratory compaction equipment at this site may disturb nearby structures. Vibratory compaction within 50 feet of existing structures is not recommended. Furthermore, we recommend you monitor nearby structures before and during any compaction operations on - site. If disturbance is noted, halt vibratory compaction and inform Universal Engineering Sciences immediately. We will review the compaction procedures and evaluate if the compactive effort results in a satisfactory subgrade complying with our original design assumptions. 13 Packet Pg. 1194 9.A.3.d Proposed 7-Eleven Store #1043366 UES Project No. 0530.1800189.0000 Naples, Collier County, Florida UES Report No. --- 4.6 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK CONSIDERATIONS A hard rock and conditions indicative of a weathered/fractured rock layer (which may contain zones of hard rock) were encountered below a depth of 6 at the boring location. It is anticipated that the fractured/weathered rock can likely be excavated with a large track hoe by using the seams, voids and crevices in the rock to pry and dislodge the large material. Specialized procedures such as pneumatic rams, headache balls, etc. will likely be necessary to excavate into or through the hard rock. A layer of hard rock was encountered from a depth of approximately 6 to 11 feet below existing grade at boring location B-01. Temporary dewatering procedures will be an important factor in the planing and execution of the c tank excavations. We recommend the tank excavation backfill be placed in 8 to 10 inch thick, L loose layers compacted to 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density. The soils c� encountered up to approximately 6 feet below existing grade in the tank area should be suitable for reuse in backfilling the tank excavation. Some aeration and drying of the soils excavated > from the below the water table may be required to provided a moisture content suitable to w achieve the desired level of compaction during backfilling operations should construction proceed during the rainy season. The soils encountered below a depth of 6 feet contained M varying amounts of silt fines, which would require a combination of restricted moisture control o and extended period of aeration to achieve the proper compaction and therefore could be suited c for re -use as backfill with proper site preparation. Oversized rock fragments encountered should °r° be processed through a crusher to at least 3-5 inches, prior to re -use as backfill. Our evaluation J concerning the re -use of the excavated soil and temporary groundwater control are based on a traditional geotechnical principles. M 4.7 CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES M Universal Engineering Sciences (UES) operates and maintains an in-house, Florida Department of Transportation certified Construction Materials Testing laboratory. Our technicians are highly trained and experienced, and our engineering staff is already familiar with the details of your project. Therefore, we recommend the owner retain UES to perform construction materials testing and field observations on this project. This includes monitoring all stripping and grading, observation of foundation excavation and construction and all other construction testing and inspection services that may be needed on this project. The geotechnical engineering design does not end with the advertisement of the construction documents. It is an on -going process throughout construction. Because of our familiarity with the site conditions and the intent of the engineering design, our engineers are the most qualified to address problems that might arise during construction in a timely and cost-effective manner. 14 Packet Pg. 119571 9.A.3.d Proposed 7-Eleven Store #1043366 UES Project No. 0530.1800189.0000 Naples, Collier County, Florida UES Report No. --- 5.0 LIMITATIONS Our services were rendered in general accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical community and our proposal contract agreement. It is not uncommon for project plans to change or for more specific project information to become known after completion of our geotechnical services. We strongly recommend that UES be contacted to review final design plans and modify or amend the recommendations contained herein as appropriate. If UES is not informed of changes to the final design information, the recommendations contained herein are not considered valid as we cannot be responsible for the consequences of changes of which we were not informed. Our field exploration did not find unsuitable or unexpected materials at the time of occurrence. However, borings for a typical geotechnical report are widely spaced and generally not sufficient for reliably detecting the presence of isolated, anomalous surface or subsurface conditions, or reliably estimating unsuitable or suitable material quantities. Accordingly, UES does not recommend relying on our boring information to negate presence of anomalous materials or for estimation of material quantities unless our contracted services specifically include sufficient exploration for such purpose(s) and within the report we so state that the level of exploration provided should be sufficient to detect such anomalous conditions or estimate such quantities. Therefore, UES will not be responsible for any claims, damages, or liability associated with any extrapolation, interpretation, or use of our data by others beyond the purpose(s) for which it is applicable or intended. During the early stages of most construction projects, geotechnical issues not addressed in this report may arise. Because of the natural limitations inherent in working with the subsurface, it is M not possible for a geotechnical engineer to predict and address all possible subsurface variations. An Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences (ASFE) N publication, "Important Information about Your Geotechnical Engineering Report' appears in 20 Appendix D, and will help explain the nature of geotechnical issues. Further, we present documents in Appendix D: Constraints and Restrictions, to bring to your attention the potential concerns and the basic limitations of a typical geotechnical report. a 15 Packet Pg. 1196 9.A.3.d Proposed 7-Eleven Store #1043366 UES Project No. 0530.1800189.0000 Naples, Collier County, Florida UES Report No. --- 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Project Name: Proposed 7-Eleven Store #1043366 Project No: 0530.1800189.0000 Project Location: NWC US 41 (Tamiami Trail East) County, Florida Foundation Design: Foundation Type: Spread Footings Max. Allowable bearing pressure: 2,500 psf Minimum footing dimensions: Individual: 24" Minimum footing Embedment: Exterior: 18" Field Observation/Testing: Depth of Stripping: Estimate 12 inches and Greenway Road, Naples, Collier Continuous: 18" Interior: 1811 Native Ground Compaction: 95% ASTM D1557 to 1 foot below base of foundation or 1 foot below stripped grade, whichever is deeper Recommended Compaction Tests: Building Area: 1 Test for Each 2,500 Sq. Ft. each foot of Improvement Fill Material Composition: Recommend less than 5% fines, 5-12% fines w/strict moisture (+/- 2% optimum) Fill Material Compaction: 95% ASTM D1557 12 inch max loose lifts Building Area: 1 Test for Each 2,500 Sq. Ft. each Lift Foundation Bottom Compaction: 1 Test per 50 LF, test every column footing Utility Lines: Fill - Sand (SP) Bedding Level compaction: 95% ASTM D1557 for upper 12 inches Trench backfill compaction: 95% ASTM D1557 beside pipe and above in 6 "max loose lifts, 98% ASTM D1557 for final (upper) 12" lift FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT SECTION CRITERIA Component Light Duty (in) Heavy Duty (in) Minimum Compaction Minimum LBR or FBV Frequency Stabilized Subgrade* 6 12 98% 40 LBR 10,000 SF Base Material** 6 8 98% 100 LBR 10,000 SF Asphaltic Concrete*** 1.5 2 t 95% --- 1 core/3000SF * Stabilized Subgrade must be "free -draining" (k> 1 x 10-3 cm/sec) except for limerock base ** Base Material choices: Limerock or Crushed Concrete *** Type SP-9.5 or SP-12.5 FDOT 2010 Edition of Type S-1 or S-III, FDOT 2000 Edition t Based on Marshall Density of laboratory mix design 16 Packet Pg. 1197 9.A.3.d UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES N O rL R Z R 3 c aD aD ,L^ V i _a) W M N 0 0 0 00 Co N J a El a Packet Pg. 1 871 9.A.3.d Lharlutle Babcock' Babcock Harbor cccti M Ranch Preserve Webb- Preserve State Park Fort Myers Lehigh Acres Pine Island Sound Aquatic Cape Coral Preserve &1l libel Estero f_ a Bonita Springs North +lawlcs Kluec CaBr_rlr.. IlTimokalee Ave Iviar!a IJy SITE ay Rd (T CCU11r_ 3w,%A 11 EVert)I oes City CIIokuloL;kee UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROPOSED 7—ELEVEN STORE #1043366 NWC US 41 (TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST) AND GREENWAY ROAD NAPLES, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SITE LOCATION MAP CLIENT: CREIGHTON COMPANIES, LLC DRAWN BY: OVAZ DATE: AUGUST 30 2201 SCALE: NOT TO SCALE PROJECT NO: 0540-1800189 REVIEWED BY: LW APPENDIX: A N N tv Z c m C9 c d d W M N O O O O O N J d r M O M Packet Pg. 1199 9.A.3.d UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES N O rL R Z R 3 c aD aD ,L^ V i _a) W M N 0 0 0 00 0 N J a El Packet Pg. 1200 9.A.3.d . $HA-1 Y y. I LEGEND: $B—# Approximate Sample location UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROPOSED 7—ELEVEN STORE #1043366 NWC US 41 (TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST) AND GREENWAY ROAD NAPLES, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BORE LOCATION PLAN CLIENT: CREIGHTON COMPANIES, LLC DRAWN BY: OVAZ DATE: AUGUST 30. 201 SCALE: NOT TO SCALE I PROJECT NO: 0540-1800189 1 REVIEWED BY: LW APPENDIX: B N rn Z tv 3 C d i C9 m m w v r` M N O O O O T" O N J a. M O M Packet Pg. 1201 9.A.3.d M C c c u z 2 n UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO-: 0530.1800080,0000 REPORT NO.. BORING LOG PAGE 1 PROJECT: Proposed 7-Eleven Store #1043366 NWC US 41 (Tamiami Trail East) and Greenway Road Naples, Collier County, FL CLIENT: Creighton Companies, LLC LOCATION: See Boring Locaton Plan REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B-01 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: R.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 8129118 WATER TABLE (ft): 2.0 DATE FINISHED: 8/29118 DATE OF READING: 8/29118 DRILLED BY: SH/JE EST. WS.W T (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM 1583 DEPTH (FT.) S A M PL E BLOWS PER 6" INCREMENT N {BLOWS/ FT.) W.T. S Y M BO L DESCRIPTION 200 {%) Moisture Content N UNIT WEIGHT (pc� PHI ANGLE ORGANIC CONTENT (%) SAT. MOIST 0 Loose and Medium Dense Dark Gray and Brown Fine Sand (SP) 1-2-4 6 5-5-5 10 4-4-8 12 8-5-4 9 Hard Gray Limestone Rock (LIMESTONE) 38-50/2" 50+ 50/0" 50+ i 10 — x 50/0" 50+ Loose and Medium Dense Light Gray Fine Sand with Silt and Cemented Rock Fragments (SP-SM) 15 544 8., 20 6-676 .12. Medium Dense Light Gray Silty Sand with Cemented Shell Rock Fragments (SM) 25 5-6-6. 12 '• �' �. BORING TERMINATED AT 25' N N ty Q Z C d i i� c d d W M 04 O 0 0 0 0 04 J d r M 0 M Packet Pg. 1202 9.A.3.d u PROJECT NO.: 0530,1800080,0000 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES REPORT NO.: BORING LOG PAGE: 2 PROJECT: Proposed 7-Eleven Store #1043366 NWC US 41 (Tamiami Trail East) and Greenway Road Naples, Collier County, FL CLIENT: Creighton Companies, LLC LOCATION: See Boring Locaton Plan REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B-02 SHEET: I OT 7 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: R,S, ELEVATION (ft): WATER TABLE (ft): 2.0 DATE OF READING: 8/29/18 EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): DATE STARTED: 8/29/18 DATE FINISHED: 8129/18 DRILLED BY: SH/JE TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM 1583 S A S Y Moisture UNIT WEIGHT (per ORGANIC DEPTH M BLOWS PER 6" (BLOWS/ N W.T 8 DESCRIPTION -200 ("�a) Content ( �u) PHI ANGLE CONTENT SAT. MOIST (FT.) P INCREMENT FT.) 0 E L 0 Loose and Medium Dense Dark Brown and Gray Fine Sand (SP) 1-2-2 4 3-3-3 6 5-6-5 11 5 5-5-4 9 Dense and Medium Dense Light Gray Cemented Fine Sand with Silt and Rock Fragmnets (SP-SM) 9-1 a-21 39 17-17-12 29 3 10 — x10-11-10 21 s u i u r C r 15 a-.6-9. 15 _ BORING TERMINATED AT 15' s c z i Y W LU U` 7 2 r' W O O Q: a 0 J z _Z a 0 ca N to Q Z C i� c d d W r— M N O O 0 0 0 N d r M O M Packet Pg. 1203 9.A.3.d m UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES BORING LOG PROJECT: Proposed 7-Eleven Store 91043366 NWC US 41 (Tamiami Trail East) and Greenwey Road Naples, Collier County, FL CLIENT: Creighton Companies, LLC LOCATION: See Boring Locaton Plan REMARKS: PROJECT NO,: 0530,1800080.0000 REPORT NO.: PAGE: 3 BORING DESIGNATION: B-03 SHEET: I Of 9 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: R.S, ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 8/29/18 WATER TABLE (ft): 2A DATE FINISHED: 8/29/18 DATE OF READING: 8/29/18 DRILLED BY: SH/JE EST. W.S.W.T- (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM 1583 S A BLOWS N S Y Moisture UNIT WEIGHT (P ORGANIC DEPTH P 6" (8 OWS/ W.T. O DESCRIPTION (20) Content ANGLE PHI CONTENT SAT. MOIST E INCPER REMENT L 0 Loose and Medium Dene Dark Brown and Gray .' Fine Sand (SP) 1-1-3 4 4-44 8 4-5-3 8 5-7-8 15 Medium Dense and Dense Light Gray Silty Sand with Cemented Rock Fragments (SM) 6-5-10 15 14-14-17 31 10 16-15-17 32 15 8-.6-8.. 14.. ... . BORING TERMINATED AT 15' N IY to Q Z C 0) i i� c d d W M N 0 0 0 0 0 N J 11 M M Packet Pg. 1204 9.A.3.d c i i u PROJECT NO.: 0530,1800080.0000 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES REPORT NO: BORING LOG PAGE: 4 PROJECT: Proposed 7-Eleven Store #1043366 NWC US 41 (Tamiami Trail East) and Greenway Road Naples, Collier County, FL CLIENT: Creighton Companies, LLC LOCATION: See Boring Locaton Plan REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B-04 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: R,S. ELEVATION (ft): WATER TABLE (ft): 2.0 DATE OF READING: 8129118 EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): DATE STARTED: 8/29/18 DATE FINISHED: 8129/18 DRILLED BY: SHME TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM 1583 S A S Y Moisture UNIT WEIGHT ORGANIC DEPTH M BLOWS PER 6" N (BLOWS/ W.T. M DESCRIPTION % ( ) Content (per PHI ANGLE CONTENT SAT. MOIST (FT.) P L INCREMENT FT.) B O (°�0) (�0) E 0 Loose to Medium Dense Dark Brown and Gray Fine Sand (SP) -X 1-2-2 4 3-4-4 8 5-5-6 11 5-5-5 10 7-8-9 17 Dense and Medium Dense Light Gray Cemented Fine Sand with Silt and Rock Fragments (SP-SM) 8-13-18 31 10 ' 10-12-13 25 Loose and Medium Dense Light Gray Silty Sand .' with Shell Rock Fragments (SM) 15 x .4�374 7 i i i 20 i 1 ; i Ud Medium Dense Light Gray Fine Sand with Silt and Rock Fragments (SP-SM) i i 3 25 6,7-7 14 BORING TERMINATED AT 25' i N N Q Z C d i 0 C d d W M N O O O 00 0 N J IL M M Packet Pg. 1205 9.A.3.d RP PROJECT NO.: 0530A800080-0000 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES REPORT NO-: BORING LOG PAGE. 5 PROJECT: Proposed 7-Eleven Stare #1043366 NWC US 41 (Tamiami Trail East) and Greenway Road Naples, Collier County, FL CLIENT: Creighton Companies, LLC LOCATION: See Boring Locaton Plan REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B-05 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: R.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 8/29/18 WATER TABLE (ft): 2.0 DATE FINISHED: 8/29118 DATE OF READING: 8/29/18 DRILLED BY: SHME EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM 1583 S A S Y Moisture UNIT WEIGHT (PC0 ORGANIC DEPTH M BLOWS PER 6" (BLOWS/ N W.T. B DESCRIPTION -200 (%) Content PHI ANGLE CONTENT (off) SAT, MOIST (FT-) � INCREMENT FT.) O E L 0 Loose and Medium Dense Dark Brown and Gray Fine Sand (SP) 1-3-4 7 4-3-3 6 6-5-7 12 5 _ _.. 8-8-6 14 �x 5-6-6 12 Medium Dense Light Gray Silty Sand with Cemented Shell Rock Fragments (SM) s 7-7-7 14 10 5-6-9 17 i Medium Dense Light Gray Cemented Fine Sand with Silt and Rock Fragments (SP-SM) a C J r 15 .6.9-.10, a a z D Y Z lu Lu C L'7 P7 Lo 2 0 7-8 8 16 z u w r- u 0 a a X.89 °0 25 7.._ 16. BORING TERMINATED AT 25' 0 z a o m N to Q R Z R C Iv d 'L^ V c Iv d W M N O O 0 0 0 N J ♦1 M 0 M Packet Pg. 1206 9.A.3.d RP 1 PROJECT NO: 0530,1800080,0000 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES REPORT NO.: BORING LOG PAGE: 6 PROJECT: Proposed 7-Eleven Store #1043366 NWC US 41 (Tamiami Trail East) and Greenway Road Naples, Collier County, FL CLIENT: Creighton Companies, LLC LOCATION: See Boring Locaton Plan REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B-06 SHEET: 1 Of 9 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: R.S. ELEVATION (ft): WATER TABLE (ft): 2.0 DATE OF READING: 8/29/18 EST, W,S.W,T, (ft): DATE STARTED: 8/29/18 DATE FINISHED: 8/29118 DRILLED BY: SHME TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM 15B3 S A S Y Moisture UNIT WEIGHT (per ORGANIC DEPTH M BLOWS PER 6" N (BLOWSI W.T. M B DESCRIPTION -200 (%) Content PHI ANGLE CONTENT ( ) SAT. MOIST (FT.) � INCREMENT FT.) O too) E L 0 Loose to Medium Dense Dark Brown and Gray Fine Sand (SP) 2-2-3 5 3-3-3 6 3-4-5 9 5 5-6-5 11 6-6-6 12 Loose and Medium Dense Light Gray Silty Sand with varying Cemented Shell Rock Fragments `. (SM) i 4-4-4 8 � 10—x _. i i 9-10-12 22 i i i i 15 _5473_. ... Z..... _ s Medium Dense Dark Light Gray Cemented Fine Sand with Silt and Rock Fragments (SP-SM) r i n u 7 d 20 7. 7-6. .... - 13 w m 0 0 0 Cr 0 25 fl-8-8. _ , . _16. BORING TERMINATED AT 10' 0 z a: 0 toll N N Q Z C 0) c� c d d W r— M N O O 0 0 T" 0 N J d M 0 M Packet Pg. 1207 9.A.3.d RP PROJECT NO.: 0530,1800080.0000 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES REPORT NO.: BORING LOG PAGE: 7 PROJECT: Proposed 7-Eleven Store #1043366 NWC US 41 (Tamiami Trail East) and Greenway Road Naples, Collier County, FL CLIENT: Creighton Companies, LLC LOCATION: See Boring Locaton Plan REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: HA-01 SHEET: I Of I SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: R S ELEVATION (ft): WATER TABLE MY 1.0 DATE OF READING: 8/29/16 EST W,S.W.T. (ft): DATE STARTED: 8/29/18 DATE FINISHED: 8/29/18 DRILLED BY: SH/JE TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM 1583 S A S Y Moisture UNIT WEIGHT ORGANIC DEPTH M BLOWS PER 6" N (BLOWS/ W.T. M DESCRIPTION 200 (�o) Content (pcfl PHI ANGLE CONTENT SAT. MOIST (FT.) P L INCREMENT FT,) B O (PAP) (PAP) E L 0 Dark Brown and Gray Fine Sand (SP) Z 5— BORING TERMINATED i i e i 7 L 0 N to Q Z R C d d 'L^ V c d ry W M N O O O 00 0 N J d r M O M r Packet Pg. 1208 9.A.3.d u PROJECT NO.: 0530.1800080.0000 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES REPORT NO,: BORING LOG PAGE: ---8 PROJECT: Proposed 7-Eleven Store #1043366 NWC US 41 (Tamiami Trail East) and Greenway Road Naples, Collier County, FL CLIENT: Creighton Companies, LLC LOCATION: See Boring Locaton Plan REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: HA`02 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: R.S ELEVATION MY DATE STARTED: 8/29/18 WATER TABLE (ft): 1.0 DATE FINISHED: 8/29/18 DATE OF READING: 8129/18 DRILLED BY: SH/JE EST. W.S,W,T, MY TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM 1583 S S Y Moisture UNIT WEIGHT ORGANIC DEPTH A M BLOWS PER 6" (BLOWS/ N W.T. 6 DESCRIPTION -200 (aA) Content (Pcf) PHI ANGLE CONTENT (%) SAT. MOIST (FT.) INCREMENT FT.) O L E L 0 Dark Brown and Gray Fine Sand (SP) 5 BORING TERMINATED AT 6' i i 7 J u i 5 u r z 3 z D (L Q Z w a: 04 a U) z z w M to O 0 a O a r Z z Q O m Packet Pg. 1209 9.A.3.d q -1 PROJECT NO.: 0530.1800080.0000 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES REPORT NO.: BORING LOG - - PAGE: 9 PROJECT: Proposed 7-Eleven Store #1043366 NWC US 41 (Tamiami Trail East) and Greenway Road Naples, Collier County, FL CLIENT: Creighton Companies, LLC LOCATION: See Boring Locaton Plan REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: HA-03 SHEET: 9 Of 1 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: R.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 8129118 WATER TABLE (ft): 1.0 DATE FINISHED: 8/29/18 DATE OF READING: 8/29/18 DRILLED BY: SH/JE EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM 1583 S A S Y Moisture UNIT WEIGHT ORGANIC MM BLOWS PER 6" IN (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION (%) Content (P� PHI ANGLE CONTENT SAT. MOIST (FT.) L INCREMENTFT,) O Pu) ( ) E L 0 Dark Brown and Gray Fine Sand (SP) 5 i i i BORING TERMINATED AT 6' i i i i I i i i i C 0 r i u u u u i C L 7 J 7 Z C A N N ty Q Z C d d 'L^ V c d d W M N O O O O 0 N J d r M O M Packet Pg. 1210 9.A.3.d UNIVERSAL ENGI NEERIMG SCIENCES KEY TO BORING LOGS TERMS DE5CR1tlINC CONSISTENCY QR CONOITt4N COARSE -GRAINED SOILS (major portions retained on No. 200 slave); Includes (1) ctaan gravel and sands and (2) silty or clayey gravels and sands. Condition Is rated according to relative density as datarmihted by laboratory tests or standard penetration reelntancs tests. Dnscrintiva Terms Rolative Onnaky SPT glow Count Very loose 0 to 15 % < 4 Loose 15 to 35 % 4 to 10 Medium dense 35 to 65 % 10 to 30 .Dense 651085 % 30 to 50 Very dense 65 to 100 % > 50. C,gRERANQTES 1. Classifications are based on the United Sall Classification. System and Include consistency, moisture, and color. Field descriptions have bean modified to reflect results of laboratory tests where ddenled appropriate, 2. Surface elevations are based on topographic macs and estimated locations. 3; Descriptions on these boring )ogs apply only at the specific boring locations and at the time the borings wore etude. They are not guaranteed to be representative of subsurface conditions at other FINE-GRAINED SOILS (major portions passing on No. 200 stave); Includes(l) inorganic end organic opts and ciays, (2) gravelly, sandy, of still, clays, and (3) clayey sllta. Consillem-'y Is rated according to shooting stmrtgth, ns indicated by peneunmater readings, SPT blow count, or unconfined compression tests. Y Unconfined Compressive Descriptive Tanns Strength kPa SPT Slow Count Verysoft < 25 t < 2 Soft 25 to 50 2 to 4 Medium stiff s0 tb 100 4 to 6 stiff 100 to 200 8 to 15 Very stiff 200 to 400 15 to 30 Hard > 400 > 30 SYMBOLS Measured Water v Estimated Seasonal Table Level Hlgh Water Table__ Major Dlvisions Group Symbols Typical Names Laboratory Classification Criteria " "y, GW Well -graded gravels, gravel -sand O = DW greater then 4; C : { 0")1 between 1 and 3 u Dt° 'w mixtures, little or no fines — ° DSQ x Dw .v a S S I cu i� m e m N o o 0 0 GP Poorly -graded gravels, gravel -sand Nat mea8ng alhgradeuon requirements for GW a S v n v rc mixtures, little or no fines gav no N `_„ w GM gravels, gravelixtures -sand-silt Atierberg limits below'A' Ilea or P.I. lass than 4 Above "A" Ilne with P.I. !d t In v al e mixtures t " v between 4 and 7 are harder- U GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -slit Atlanlerg limlle above "A' line or PA, than 7 •+ w o w �' c $> u T _ au" rn line cases requiring use of duel symbols N a d ; mixtures m 5 E greeter N " G SIN Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, 0, { D. )3 C_ greater than e; C between t and 3 p &-a � '; o �j g y t9 u E O �j •89 n c Ilttle or no fines q�Q � c u- o14 c v v 8 o 5P Poorly -graded sands, gravelly sands, Not mealing all gradation requirements for SW 9 lJ 'o -W ;gm 4 little or no fines DD , C 3 C OZ t C a ,�, m z` SM Silty sands, sand -alit mixtures Atterbdrg limits below "A" line trrl'.1. iess Than 4 Above "A"floe with P,{. be m� $ 6{ between 4 and 7 era border- 'c t" Atler4orglimits above "A" �s°.usi line casea requiring use of m o` c m F SC Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures Y ni w v fine or P1 greater then 7 dual symbols W N a m oa•a inolg4tilc slits and very fine sands, ML rock floor, silty or clayey One sands alightplasticityao z c _ or clayey slits with FVASIMNFICATIafIaPPlitt-011AYItASQl4TIla i(, PIN5dM5a75a i17Mttlee OPlxNaaC�14/,VIGO 50.Y8 ~� aa7 > 4 2 ~o __ CL clays of low to medium gravelly clayo, sandy clays, aInorganic ra . iV i�ti rp 3 r O y a ` plesliclty, silty clays, lean clays 5e ¢ N za OL Organic silts and organic silty clays z z w - Esn . a0 I rn n 5 of low plasticity 0 T Ole Inorganic slits, micatuaouS ar dlsto- i r1 N m S a MH macaous tine sandy or silty soils. tS i al $ ° u organic silts O E o 9 0 m Inorganic clays. of high Plasticity, l� a I m' / u P N ti � n'o d CH t fatcleys G� MH -' 'zi. ' t5 I Organic ciays of medium to high72 titL a OL 1 OH 'plasticity, UfQanic Slits E r Uoulp uMtr 0.l ) I w w v � t other highly Ca0115 Pt peat and Plasticityy Chart 'Anon Inn oercant passing a No. 200 518a° Is between 5% bind 12%, a dual symbol Is used to danols the Sol, at axomcto; SP•5c; po°tly-graded sand with clay content ootWoon 5% and 12%, Packet Pg. 1211 9.A.3.d UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES N O rL R Z R 3 c aD m ,L^ V i _4) W M N 0 0 0 00 Co N J a El Packet Pg. 1212 9.A.3.d Geotechnical Engineeping Report —) Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persona, and Protects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clie. ;. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil en ;per. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one — not even you —should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. A Gootechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set of Protect-Specif c Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study, Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, not prepared for your project, not prepared for the specific site explored, or completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, composition of the design team, or project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes —even minor ones —and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- ing reportwhose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ —sometimes significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Report's Recommendations Are Abt final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi- neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual N N Z 3 c m m 'L^ V r_ d W M N 0 0 0 00 0 N J (L Gl c m E U 0 r Q a� E �a Q Packet Pg. 1213 9.A.3.d subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Engineering Report is Subject to Midderpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give COMPacters a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responsibility PPovisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi- bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Readthese provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geolechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvi- ronmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk manage- ment guidance. Do not rely on an environmental reportprepared for some- one else. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper Implementation of the recommendations conveyed In this report will not of itself he sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved. Rely, on Your ASK -Member GeotechncW Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership In ASFE/THE BEST PEOPLE ON EARTH eXpOS8S geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with your ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFETHE GEOPROFESSIOAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION 8811 Galesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone:301/565-2733 Facsimile:301/589-2017 e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2012 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE's specific written permission. Excerpfing, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission ofASFE, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members ofASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. IIGER03135 OMRP N a z 3 c m C9 c m m w v r` M N 0 0 0 0 0 N J rl i, Q Packet Pg. 1214 9.A.3.d CONSTRAINTS AND RESTRICTIONS WARRANTY a M z Universal Engineering Sciences has prepared this report for our client for his exclusive use, in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices, and makes no other warranty either expressed or implied as to the professional advice provided in the report. L UNANTICIPATED SOIL c as The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from w soil boringsperformed at the locations indicated on the boring Location Plan. This report does not reflect any variations which may occur between these borings. M N The nature and extent of variations between borings may not become known until excavation o begins. If variations appear, we may have to re-evaluate our recommendations after performing 00 on -site observations and noting the characteristics of any variations. N J d CHANGED CONDITIONS r M We recommend that the specifications for the project require that the contractor immediately notify Universal Engineering Sciences,.- as..- well . as the owner,- when :subsurface conditions are. encountered:that;are-differ:,e.nt:from-a'those., present, in.this •report: :d: No claim by the contractor for any conditions differing from those anticipated .in the plans, .,..specificationis;;.andahose:found: in::this,.,report", should:.-be:.allowed: uniess,the contractor-.:notifies..th'e':::: ;.._ : ":,,,,..-I, owner and Universal Engineering, Sciences. of such changed conditions:: Further, -we recommend that all foundation work and site improvements be observed by a representative of Universal Engineering Sciences°to monitor:field conditions and changes, to�verify design assumptions and to evaluate and recommend any appropriate modifications to this report. MISINTERPRETATION OF SOIL ENGINEERING REPORT Universal Engineering Sciences is responsible forthe conclusions and opinion contained within this report based upon the data relating only to the specific project and location discussed herein. If the conclusions or recommendations based upon the data presented are made by others, those conclusions or recommendations are not the responsibility of Universal Engineering Sciences. CHANGED STRUCTURE OR LOCATION This report was prepared in order to aid in the evaluation of this project and to assist the architect or engineer in the design of this project. If any changes in the design or location of the structure as outlined in this report are planned, or if any structures are included or added that are not discussed in the report, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions modified or approved by Universal Engineering Sciences._ Packet Pg. 1215 9.A.3.d USE OF REPORT BY BIDDERS N Bidders who are examining the report priorto submission of a bid are cautioned that this report was prepared as an aid to the designers of the project and it may affect actual construction operations. a Bidders are urged to make their own soil borings, test pits, test caissons or other investigations Z determine those conditions that may affect construction operations. Universal Engineering Sciences cannot be responsible for any interpretations made from this report or the attached boring logs with regard to their adequacy in reflecting subsurface conditions which will affect construction L operations. c as STRATA CHANGES w Strata changes are indicated by a definite line .on the boring logs which accompany this report. � However, the actual change in the ground may be more gradual. Where changes occur between N soil samples, the location of the change must necessarily be estimated using all available o information and may not be shown at the exact depth. � 00 0 OBSERVATIONS DURING DRILLING � a Attempts are made to detect and/or identify•:occurrences during :drilling :and sampling, such as: M water level, boulders, zones of lost circulation, relative east or resistance to drilling progress,, unusual sample recovery, variation of driving, resistance,. obstructions, etc.; however, lack of mention does not preclude their presence. N �a L WATER LEVELS Water level readings have been made in the drill holes during -drilling and they indicated normally 3 occurring conditions. Water levels may not have been stabilized at the last reading. This data has U been reviewed and interpretations made inthis report:. However,]t must be noted that fluctuation m in the level of the groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, tides,�and other o factors not evident at the time measurements were made and reported. Since the probability of such variations is anticipated, design drawings and specifications should accommodate such 2 possibilities and construction planning should be based upon such assumptions and variations. a Q LOCATION OF BURIED OBJECTS c All users of this report are cautioned that there was no requirement for Universal Engineering Sciences to attempt to locate any man-made buried objects during the course of this exploration and that no attemptwas made by Universal Engineering Sciences to locate any such buried objects r which are subsequently encountered during construction that are not discussed within the text of Q this report. E TIME a This report reflects the soil conditions at the time of investigation. If the report is not used in a a reasonable amount of time, significant changes to the site may occur and additional reviews may be required. Packet Pg. 1216 9.A.3.d NIM Summary 7-Eleven Greenway Naples Rezone (RZ-PL20180002374) Greenway — Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict (SSGMPA-PL20180602507/CPSS-2019-8) Tuesday, June 30, 2020 at 5:30 PM New Hope Ministries, Lecture Hall — Room 211 7675 Davis Boulevard, Naples, Florida 34104 The NIM was held for the above referenced petitions. The petitions are described as follows: 1. Petition RZ-PL20180002374 — A rezone application requesting a rezone from A - Agricultural Zoning District to C-3 Zoning District to allow up to 20,000 square feet of C-3 permitted uses, including a convenience store with fuel pumps, on the property located in the northwest corner of US 41 and Greenway Road in.Collier County, Florida, in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 2.81+ acres. 2. Petition SSGMPA-PL20180002507/CPSS-2019-8, Greenway—Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict — A Small Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment to the Future Land Use Element, to allow C-3 commercial uses limited to a maximum of 20,000 square feet on the property located in the northwest corner of US 41 and Greenway Road in Collier County, Florida, in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 2.81± acres. r Note: This is a summary of the NIM. An audio recording is also provided. M Attendees: N On behalf of the Applicants: Lauren Evans, Creighton Construction & Management Robert Mulhere, FAICP, Hole Montes Jeff Wright, Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A. Al Quattrone, P.E., Quattrone & Associates County Staff: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section No members of the public were in attendance. Mr. Mulhere made the presentation for county staff in attendance and for audio and video recording purposes. The video recording has been uploaded and sent to members of the public at their request. Mr. Mulhere started the presentation by introducing himself and the other consultants. He went on to provide an overview of the project. The meeting concluded at approximately 5:30 PM. Packet Pg. 1217 9.A.3.d IYART 01`7HE USA TODAY 1, &.W...0171( Published Daily Naples, FL 34110 HOLES MONIES ASSOCIATES INC 950 ENCORE WAY STE 200 NAPLES FL 34110 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WISCONSIN COUNTY OF BROWN Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Joe Heynen who on oath says that he serves as legal clerk of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida, distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida; that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed.. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mall matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida , for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper, 6/16/2020 Subscribed and sworn to before on June 15, 2020; — —Ao—Lrr._.Yvl irvz Notary, State of WI, County of Brown TARA MONDLOCH Notary Public: State of Wisconsin My commission expires: August 6, 2021 Publication Cost: $945,00 Ad No GC10434148 Customer No: 530712 POf1: Packet Pg. 1218 9.A.3.d The public is invited to attend a neighborhood information'meefing held by Robert J. Muih FAICP, President of Hole Montes, Inc, on behalf of the property owner at the following time and location: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 at 5.30 p.m. New Hope Ministries, Lecture Hall — Room 211 7675 Davis Boulevard, Naples, FL 34104 The following formal applications have been made to Collier County: 1) Petition RZ-PL20180002374—A rezone application requesting a rezone from A -Agricultural Zoning District to C-3 Zoning District to allow up to 20,000 square feet of C-3 permitted uses, including a convenience store with fuel pumps, on the property located in the northwest corner of US 41 and Greenway Road in Collier County, Florida, in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 2.81± acres. 2) Petition SSGMPA-PL20180002507/CPSS-2019-8, Greenway—Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict — A Small Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment to the Future Land Use Element, to allow C-3 commercial uses limited to a maximum of 20,000 square feet on the property located in the northwest corner of US 41 and Greenway Road in Collier County, Florida, in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 2.81± acres. WE VALUE YOUR INPUT Business and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation . and discuss the project with the owners and Collier County staff. We will be adhering to social distancing protocols during the meeting. if you would rather not or are unable to attend the meeting and would like to view a video of the meeting, please email us at NeighborhoodMeeting@hmeng.com and we will send a link of the video. You may also email any comments or questions to NeighborhoodMeeting@hmeng.com. Please reference 7-Eleven Greenway Naples in subject line. Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, President, Hole Montes, Inc., 950 Encore Way, Naples, FL 34110 N@Gd64y. 14tOI Phone: 239-254-2000 Packet Pg. 1219 AemuaaaE) uan013-L VL£Z0008LOZ-ld : MCO slelaa;eW dnjoe8-uoi;eollddV - 3 juawVejlV :;uauayoellV zs Q cs A. -0 N m v M r L a L ai U :s O + C _ O O C p O M 00 V 1 �n aJ c o t (II Q 7 0 E cu o L Y-� N N Y 3 m EA (a'CV) .0 (IJ L di O " O t% O C L o o o a ++ c0 U c e E co L 0 +1 bi 4�o c O c C U j O �-0 EobN °-C 3 tee N U y ::, 5 E +� �E�� UL L .r..r w C C O Q b A (6 o 41 bo y � o S f0 U N +' tlo L m O Q) o O O 4- T O UO y L ? u - U O a0 L •- Co U O N g >- 0 U c0 C O +� > N N 41 U Vl [0 L •Y N (3) 4 N O C L1 O r Q i o cost 'Z, , 4 ca E 3 L ° m o Ln o .F, ai L � f-' U 0 N N d d Y V a IRM HOLE MONTES ENGINEERS • PLANNERS - SURVEYORS 950 Encore Way • Naples, Florida 34110 - Phone 239.254.2000 • Fax: 239.254.2099 June 15, 2019 Re: 7-Eleven Greenway Naples Rezone (RZ-PL20180002374) Greenway — Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict (SS GMPA-PL20180002507/CPSS-2019-8) HM File No.: 2019.034 Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, President of Hole Montes, Inc. on behalf of the property owner has made two (2) formal concurrent applications to Collier County: 1) Petition RZ-PL20180002374 — A rezone application requesting a rezone from A - Agricultural Zoning District to .C-3 Zoning District to allow up to 20,000 square feet of C- 3 permitted uses, including a convenience store with fuel pumps, on the property located in the northwest corner of US 41 and Greenway Road in Collier County, Florida, in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 2.81± acres. 9.A.3.d 2) Petition SSGMPA-PL20180002507/CPSS-2019-8, Greenway—Tamiami Trail East a Commercial Subdistrict — A Small Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment to the M Future Land Use Element, to allow C-3 commercial uses limited to a maximum of 20,000 M square feet on the property located in the northwest corner of US 41 and Greenway Road in Collier County, Florida, in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, consisting a L of 2.81± acres.; In compliance with the Land Development Code requirements, a Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held to provide you an opportunity to hear a presentation about this petition and ask questions. The Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 30, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. at New Hope Ministries, Lecture Hall - Room 211, 7675 Davis Boulevard, Naples, Florida 34104. We will be adhering to social distancing protocols during the meeting. If you would rather not or are unable to attend the meeting and would like to view a video of the meeting, please email us at NeighborhoodMeeting@hmeng.com and we will send a link of the video. You may also email any comments or questions to NeighborhoodMeeting@hmeng.com. Please reference 7-Eleven Greenway Naples in subject line. Very truly yours, HOLE MONTES, INC. Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP President RJM/sek Naples • Fort Myers I Packet Pg. 1221 9.A.3.d AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-41, of the Collier County Land Development Code, I did cause the attached newspaper advertisement to appear and I did give notice by mail to the following property owners and/or condominium and civic associations whose members may be affected by the proposed land use changes of an application request for a rezoning, PUD amendment, or conditional use, at least 15 days prior to the scheduled Neighborhood Information Meeting. For the purposes of this requirement, the names and addresses of property owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tax rolls of Collier County and any other persons or entities who have made a formal request of the county to be notified. The said notice contained the laymen's description of the site property of proposed change and the date, time, and place of a Neighborhood Information Meeting. Per the attached letters, property owner's list, and copy of newspaper advertisement which are hereby made a part of this Affidavit of Compliance ignature of STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing Affidavit of Compliance was acknowledged before me this 15th day of June, 2020 by means of physical presence or online notarization, by Robert J. Mulhere, who is personally known to me or who has produced Signature of Notary Public Kank Printea Name of Notary as identification. (Notary Seal) EBond]edthrough STEPHANIE KAROLry Public . State of Floridaommission N GG 965839omm. Expires Mar 9, 2024 National Notary Assn. H:\2019\2019034\WP\NIM\Affidavit of Compliance (6-15-2020).doe Packet Pg. 1222 W® 09 L8/0915® lJany oaAs algl}> dwoo uaru L9 x uiva gZ teuaaof op 9}}anbli3 09 68/09 G9@ IUeAV gIIM olgl}edwoo „9/9 Z x „t, ozls label 0 q z. d 9.A.3.d ALEXIS, VALERIE 14729 APALACHEE ST NAPLES, FL 34114--- 8622 ANDERSON, KELVIN L CANDEE M SAFERIAN 11001 GREENWAY RD NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPE SERVICES INC 24151 VENTURA BLVD CALABASAS, CA 91302 --- 0 CATHCART, STEPHEN & PATRICIA 2770 AVIAMAR CIR NAPLES, FL 34114---0 CHARLEE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSN INC %SENTRY MGMT, INC 2180 W SR 434, #5000 LONGWOOD, FL 32779-0 FC OYSTER HARBOR LLC 8156 FIDDLERS CREEK PKWY NAPLES, FL 34114--0 FCC PRESERVE LLC 8156 FIDDLERS CREEK PKWY NAPLES, FL 34114--9430 FIDDLER'S CREEK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 2 %WOODWARD PIRES & LOMBARDO PA 3200 TAMIAMI TRL N STE 200 NAPLES, FL 34103--0 FREEMAN REVOCABLE TRUST 12905 W 17ST ST OVERLAND PARK, KS 66221 --- 0 GARCIA, RUBEN & VIOLA 2545 MESQUITE DR NAPLES, FL 34114---3120 ANDERSON, KELVIN L 11001 GREENWAY RD NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 ANDERSON, RICHARD H MICHELLE ANNE ANDERSON 2782 AVIAMAR CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34114---0 BROWN, PATTI J 14740 APALACHEE ST NAPLES, FL 34114--- 8621 CHARLEE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSN INC %SENTRY MGMT, INC 2180 W SR 434, #5000 LONGWOOD, FL 32779--0 CISNEROS JR, HUMBERTO 2546 MESQUITE DR NAPLES, FL 34114--3119 FCC AVIAMAR LLC 8156 FIDDLERS CREEK PKWY NAPLES, FL 34114--- 9430 FCC PRESERVE LLC 8156 FIDDLERS CREEK PKWY NAPLES, FL 34114--- 9430 FIDDLER'S CREEK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 2 8156 FIDDLERS CREEK PKWY NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 G SOTO LAWN SERVICE INC 10950 GREENWAY ROAD NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 GINORIS, LEONOR 4021 W 2ND AVE HIALEAH, FL 33012-0 l 11 II I, i ANDERSON, KELVIN L CANDEE M SAFERIAN 11001 GREENWAY RD NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 BERGER, BENNETT & FRAN 19 RYAN COURT RANDOLPH, NJ 07869 --- 0 CALLE, GLORIA 14741 APALACHEE ST NAPLES, FL 34114--- 8622 CHARLEE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSN INC %SENTRY MGMT, INC 2180 W SR 434, #5000 LONGWOOD, FL 32779--0 FC OYSTER HARBOR LLC 551 N CATTLEMAN RD # 200 SARASOTA, FL 34232 --- 0 FCC PRESERVE LLC 8156 FIDDLERS CREEK PKWY NAPLES, FL 34114--9430 FIDDLERS CREEK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 2 WOODWARD PIRES & LOMBARDO PA 3200 TAMIAMI TRL N # 200 NAPLES, FL 34103 --- 0 FIDDLER'S CREEK COMMUNITY I DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 2 8156 FIDDLERS CREEK PKWY NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 GARCIA, RUBEN & VIOLA 2545 MESQUITE DR NAPLES, FL 34114--- 3120 GINORIS,.LOURDES 710 EVERGLADES BLVD N NAPLES, FL 34120 --- 0 , - ® label size 1 " x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160/8160 Packet Pg. 1223 � , Etiquette do format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery ®5160/8160 04A Wo 09 1-8/091.5® AnAV Dena olgpdwoo ww 29 x ww gZ puot op apanbq _ D091.8/09 i q@ hJaAd qjp algl}adwoo „9/9 Z x,, G ozls lagal ® I D.A.3.d HABITAT FOR HUMANITY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF CC COLLIER COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY INC 11145 TAMIAMI TRAIL E 11145 TAMIAMI TRL E 11145 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES, FL 34113 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34113--- 7753 j NAPLES, FL 34113--- 7753 HAMILTON, BARBARA DAVID CONTORNO 971 OAK RIDGE BLVD ELGIN, IL 60120---0 KNAPEK, MICHAEL S & LAURA A 2794 AVIAMAR CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34114--0 LOPEZ, LOSE MANUEL VERONICA QU EZADA 14745 APALACHEE ST NAPLES, FL 34114--- 8622 MATT DOWNS TRUST DEIRDRE C DOWNS 359 W 1ST STREET ELMHURST, IL 60126---0 MIRELES, FIDENCIO & YADIRA 14744 APALACHEE ST NAPLES, FL 34114--- 8621 PHELPS, WILLIAM B 2501 ACH ILL DR NAPLES, FL 34114--- 3118 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 --- 0 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134-0 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 BONITASPRINGS, FL 34134 --- 0 HEPFC LLC 851 S FEDERAL HIGHWAY SUITE 201 BOCA RATON, FL 33432 --- 0 KRAUSS, ROBERT M JACQUELINE R KRAUSS 2790 AVIAMAR CIR NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 MALDONADO, CELSO CASTANEDA MARIA DE JESUS CASTANEDA 10935 GREENWAY RD NAPLES, FL 34114--3114 MCLUCKIE, JOSEPH SHONA MCLEOD 2723 AVIAMAR CIR NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 PATSY L SUMPTER TRUST 7095 BUNKER CT EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55346 --- 0 POUL EST, IYEBRA L 14737 APALACHEE ST NAPLES, FL 34114--- 8622 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 --- 0 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 --- 0 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 BONITASPRINGS, FL 34134 --- 0 IACONIANNI, FRANK & ROBIN I i 1912 FAIRMOUNT DR JAMISON, PA 18929 --- 0 KRUPINSKI JR, JOSEPH A SHERYL A SCHERR 2778 AVIAMAR CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34114--0 MATEO, BERNARDO JOSE PETRONA PASCUAL BARTOLO 14732 APALACHEE ST NAPLES, FL 34114--- 8621 MILES, KEVIN HELEN MILES 2481 MARETE DR NAPLES, FL 34114--3122 PEREZ,ROSA 14736 APALACHEE ST NAPLES, FL 34114--- 8621 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 --- 0 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 --- 0 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 --- 0 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 --- 0 N a� tv Z tv c d d C9 c d m W M N O 0 0 00 0 N J a. to M label size 1" x.2 5/8" ® . compatible with Avery @5160/8160 Packet Pg. 1224 , ; : Etiquette do format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 fl4A Wo PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 --- 0 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134--0 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR - STE 300 BONITASPRINGS, FL 34134-0 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 --- 0 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 ' BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134--0 RAPPIN, STEVEN R & JAN 2763 AVIAMAR CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34114--0 ROBERTT CROVO 2015 REV TRUST 2747 AVIAMAR CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34114--0 SOTO, GUILLERMO A 11000 GREENWAY RD NAPLES, FL 34114--0 TAYLOR 111, CHARLES & CYNTHIA 2779 AVIAMAR CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 THOMASJ PERRINO TRUST MARY DELL'IMPERIO TRUST 3010 BRIGHTWATERS CT WANTAGH, NY 11793 --- 0 09 L8/091.9® haaAV oane alglledwoo ww L9 x ww 9Z lewaoJ op m4anblti 09 GS/09 G9® Aj9AV utlM algljedwoo „ q/5 Z x l azls lagel PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 i BONITA SPRINGS, FL. 34134 --- 0 S3 IdVD�.3.d:] 0 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 --- 0 I PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC i PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 I STE 300 W BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134--0 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 --- 0 N I � 1 tv Z PULTE HOME -COMPANY LLC PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC 24311 WALDON CENTER DR I 24311 WALDON CENTER DR STE 300 STE 300 y BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134--0 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134-0 ; c PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC W 24311 WALDON CENTER DR I 24311 WALDON CENTER DR 11� STE 300 STE 300 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134--0 j BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 --- 0 N I 00 PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC I , R MCQUEARY IRREVTRUST CD N 24311 WALDON CENTER DR CATHERINE JONES d STE 300 j BETTYJ MOZZONE BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 --- 0 I 6650 APACHE CIR M I I CINCINNATI, OH 45243 --- 0 I I RICHARD S SGARLATA TRUST RIVES, JESUS LLORCA N 2783 AVIAMR CIRCLE I MARTHA LAHITTE TAMAYO NAPLES, FL 34114 --- 0 14733 APALACHEE ST NAPLES, FL 34114--8622 i a I` I t u V SEPULVEDA, DAVID & LAURA SHARON DRUCK MARITAL TRUST 00 2515 MESQUITE DR I 721 WOODS OF LADUE LANE 0 NAPLES, FL 34114-3120 ; I SAINT LOUIS, MO 63124 --- 0 u l i i Q II I� l Q SOTO, GUILLERMO A } SOTO, GUILLERMO A U I j 11000 GREENWAY RD ; 11000 GREENWAY RD NAPLES, FL 34114--3115 I NAPLES, FL 34114--311S E v u I r TBC GREENWAY LLC THOMAS J PERRINO IRREV TRUST 14004 ROOSEVELT BLVD STE 601C MARY DELL'IMPERIO IRREV TRUST CLEARWATER, FL 33762 --- 0 3010 BRIGHTWATERS CT t I WANTAGH, NY 11793--0 WHITE, EDWARD G & ISAURA WHITE, EDWARD G & ISAURA 2480 MARETE DR' I 2480 MARETE DR NAPLES, FL 34114---0 •i I I NAPLES, FL 34114--- 3121 Packet Pg. 1225 label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160/8160 iaffa fin fnrmnt 26 mm x 67 mm nomnatible aver Avery 05160/8160 0A VVm WILLIAM LYNCH REVOCABLETRUST 304 GULF BLVD INDIAN RK BCH, FL 33785--2538 091.9/09l-4® fdany oanu alglfudwoo ww L9 x ww 9Z 1ewao} op at4anbit3 09I.6/0969® haaAV gflnA alglfedwou „9/9 Z x „b azls lagel East Naples Civic Association, Inc. 8595 Collier Blvd., Sdite 107 PMB #49 Naples, FL 34114-3556 i i 1. I. 1 i I I � I I I i I �I .I I 1 'II i ,i II label size 1" x.2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160/8160 Etiquette do format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 o ' - ` �� 9.A.3.d N N Z 3 c m P 0 r- W M N O O O 00 T" O N J d r M M rn Packet Pg. 1226 flA 9.A.3.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercou ntvfi.M 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 For Petition Number(s): SSGMPA-PL-20180002507 & RZ-PL-20180002374 TBC Greenway, LLC & William B. Yeomans Regarding the above subject petition number(s), (Name of Applicant) elects to proceed during the declared emergency with hybrid virtual public hearings of the Collier County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners, and waives the right to contest any procedural irregularity due to the hybrid virtual nature of the public hearing. Name: Jeff E. Wright t� Signature*: ❑ Applicant ® Legal Counsel to Applicant Date: August 5, 2020 * This form must be signed by either the Applicant (if the applicant is a corporate entity, this must be an officer of the corporate entity) or the legal counsel to the Applicant. r M M Packet Pg. 1227 9.A.3.e SIGN POSTING INSTRUCTIONS (CHAPTER 8, COLLIER COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT) A zoning sign(s) must be posted by the petition of the petitioner's agent on the parcel for a minimum of fifteen (15) calendar days in advance of the first public hearing and said sign(s) must be maintained by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent through the Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Below are general guidelines for signs, however these guidelines should not be construed to supersede any requirements of the LDC. For specific sign requirements, please refer to the Administrative Code, Chapter 8 E. 1. The sign(s) must be erected in full view of the public, not more than five (5) feet from the nearest street right-of-way or easement. 2. The sign must be securely affixed by nails, staples, or other means to a wood frame or to a wood panel and then fastened securely to a post, or other structure. The sign may not be affixed to a tree or other foliage. 3. The petitioner or the petitioner's agent must maintain the sign(s) in place, and readable condition until the requested action has been heard and a final decision rendered. If the sign(s) is destroyed, lost, or rendered unreadable, the petition or the petitioner's agent must replace the sign(s). NOTE: AFTER THE SIGN HAS BEEN POSTED, THIS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE SHOULD BE RETURNED NO LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST HEARING DATE TO THE ASSIGNED PLANNER. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY, PERSONALLY APPEARED ROBERT J. MULHERE, FAICP, WHO ON OATH SAYS THAT HE/SHE HAS POSTED PROPERTY NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 10.03.00 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON THE PARCEL COVERED IN PETITION NUMBER(S) PL-20180002507 AND PL-20180002374. Hole Montes, Inc., 950 Encore Way SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT OR AGENT STREET OR P.O. BOX Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, President Naples, FL 34110 NAME (TYPED OR PRINTED) CITY, STATE ZIP STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The fopr9going instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this 31st day of August, 2020, by means of physical presence or online notarization, by Robert J. Mulhere, who is personally known to me A or who has produced as identification and who did/did not take an oath. STEPHANIEKAROL"� ;�•= Not Public •State of Florida Signat re of Notary Public Commission # GG 965639 orn My Comm. Expires Mar 9, 2024 �� /��(� BondNthrous ationalNotaryAssn. Printed ame of Notary Public (Stamp with serial number) Packet Pg. 1228 s it f ♦ 1 .1`. ,jell ♦ kf�i nLJLJ i CO t. CD , ,t. +, ,LU cn C r • • S . t I I . '- r •' '� 1 Lu i Lo �. CO wi CD uj Wi LLJ �* '�.I�'��.:'.i'r•;`'�F��.,1., ,fir ., e uj I •'' Li l l��.j �y r% C..;l� %'•G �c��;'1 •• . � a '$: � r ((ZN) saideN AeanuaaaE) uan013-L VLEZOOMOZ-1d : MEN) u6iS 6uiaeaH ailgnd - Q;uauayaejly :;uauayae;; rv:ta.a+.l��,Ti3�ii119 'I •4' ,�, �•r c N M. ') � 4 ' N - N U') 0) ,y N M ' N M N .. C � C c a. co _ a CL � o 9.A.3.f WOODWARD, FIRES & LoM BARDO, P.A. EST. I97I 7 ATTORNEYS AT LAW September 4, 2020 MARK J. WOODWARD &rend Ccrdfied: Real EsratL Lawand inCoMonmihun& PWined�tlopnen=Law Via Email ANTHONYP.PIRES,]R. o Collier County Planning Commission Timothy. Finn 0colliercountO.-goam Loci C10%WMyXnt LAW c/o Timothy Finn 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive ].CHRimrRERLo BARDo Board Cankdtal Naples, Florida 34104 and FamihyUw ANTHONY J. DimORA LixnxzlinFLaMOH Re: 7-Eleven, Greenwa Road, Naples; PL20180002374 (Rezoning, y p ` "RZ") and PL20180002507 ("GMPA"), the "Applications" I.ENORE T. SRAxEFiELD Dear Commissioners: CRAIG R. WOODWARD Senior Caunsd BoA ` Real '�"te� This law firm represents both Fiddler's Creep Community Development District #1 (CDD#1) and Fiddler's Creek Community KENNETHV.MuNDY Development District #2 (CDD#2), collectively the "Districts", with regards to zACHARYW. LOMBARDO the above -referenced matter(s). The Districts are local government bodies CAMERON G. WOODWARD that were established to provide and maintain certain infrastructure and Ross E.5cHuLmAN services for properties within the Fiddler's Creek Community ("Fiddler's Ik"�inF'aMNY Creek"). Fiddler's Creek is located South of U.S. 41 (S.R. 90) directly South SHAY S.RAJA of the property that is the subject of the above Applications. See attached Licensed in FL aM DC Exhibit "A". ' It has come to the attention of the Districts that the above Applications are scheduled for consideration by the Collier County Planning Commission ("CCPC") on September 17, 2020 and by the Board of County Commissioners ("BCC ") on October 27, 2020. Provided the "proportionate fair share" requirement outlined below is included in the adopted PUD Ordinance, the Districts do not object to the proposed rezoning RZ- PL20180002374 or its companion PL20180002507/CPSS-2019- REPLY TO: SOME BACKGROUND ® 3200 TAwAMI TRAIL N. SUINAPLES, FL 3410 Section 12.5 of Collier County Ordinance 2018-27 (the "Fiddler's 2394 AX 239-644-7342 FAX Creek PUD") contains a stipulation which provides that subject to FDOT approval, the Developer or the Community Development District for c BALD EAGLE oo Fiddler's Creek is to provide a traffic signal at the intersection on U.S. 41 P.O. Box ONE "when deemed warranted by the County Engineer". See Exhibit "B". The MARCO ISLAND, EL 34146 239-394-5161 referenced intersection on U.S. 41 is the intersection of Sandpiper Drive 239 642 6402 FAX and U.S. 41, as depicted on the attached Exhibit "C". WWW.WPL—LEGAL.COM T ti M N 0 0 0 00 0 N J d M t0 M Packet Pg. 1231 9.A.3.f As the traffic from the proposed "7-11" site on Greenway Road (7-11 Site") will impact the U.S. 41 intersection and as the developer/owner of the 7-11 Site will M benefit from any traffic signal constructed at the intersection of Greenway o Road/Sandpiper Drive and U.S. 41 (the "Traffic Signal") the developer /owner of the 00 7-11 Site should pay a proportionate fair share for the cost of the design, installation N and construction of the Traffic Signal. This will help reduce the cost to the Districts a associated with the installation of the Traffic Signal. The payment by the developer /owner of the 7-11 Site should be in the form of a monetary contribution to the Districts for the cost of the design, installation and construction of the Traffic Signal, with the payment to be made upon receipt by the developer of a statement from N Collier County that details the amount of the fair share payment and directs the CU payment to be made to the Districts. Such a proportionate fair share payment and monetary contribution by the developer /owner of the 7-11 Site is site related and project related and is in line with the County Staff comments found at the Cityview portal, the pre -application notes and in County review letters including in Review Number 1, where the County Staff advised the applicant that: "As indicated in pre application meeting notes. This project will be required to pay fair share for a potential signalization at the intersection if -when warranted_ Please acknowledge in your RZ request and TIS." (see Exhibit "0") It is my understanding that a similar stipulation and condition of approval will be included in the Staff Report, i.e., a stipulation and condition requiring that the developer, their successors or assigns and grantees, pay the fair snare costs of a future signal at Tamiami Trail East (US-41) and Greenway Road should FDOT determine the signal meets warrants and is required. That requirement should be included in the PUD Ordinance as a developer/property owner commitment and Obligation. We suggest the following language: "The owner/developer, its successors and assigns or grantees of the property (the Developer) shall pay the fair share costs of the design (including required traffic studies), installation and construction of a traffic signal at Tarniami Trail East (U.S. 41/S.R. 90) and Greenway Road/Sandpiper Drive when deemed warranted by FDOT. The payment is to be made jointly to Fiddler's Creek Community Development District #1 and Fiddler's Creek Community Development District #2, within thirty (30) days after receipt by the Developer of a statement from Collier County that details the amount of the fair share payment." K Packet Pg. 1232 9.A.3.f We look forward to the favorable recommendation by the Collier County Planning Commission that any PUD Ordinance that is adopted contain the above language. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. APP/Ig Enclosure(s) Cc: with encl: Heidi Ashton-Cicko No rights, comments, concerns, arguments, positions or objections of the Districts concerning the above applications are waived by anything stated herein or omitted herefrom and the right t❑ present, make and submit additional comments, objections, arguments and materials before the Collier County Planning Commission ("CCPC" ) and the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County ("BCC"} or any court or any administrative proceedings are specifically reserved. The Districts specifically reserve the right to make additional comments, objections, filings and submittals with regards to the above zoning and growth management plan applications (the "Applications"). 3 V ti M N O O O O r O N J a r M O M Packet Pg. 1233 9.A.3.f EXHIBIT "A" TO cm M N FIDDLER'S CREEK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS #1 AND #2 0 00 LETTER TO COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION N J REGARDING a r M PL20180002374 ("RZ") M r and N PL20180002507 ("GMPA") Packet Pg. 1234 9.A.3.f EXHIBIT "B" TO cm M N FIDDLER'S CREEK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS #1 AND #2 0 00 LETTER TO COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION N J REGARDING a r M PL20180002374 ("RZ") M r and N PL20180002507 ("GMPA") Packet Pg. 1236 9.A.3.f ti Administrative Code. The easement is to be dedicated subiect to compensation at N fair market value of the land orequivalent impact fee credit pursuant to Section c 74-205 of the Collier County Code of Ordinances at the time of plat recording or o Site Development Plan permitting, unless waived at that time by the Public N Utilities Department. a 12.5 STIPULATIONS AND COMMITMENTS —TRAFFIC M Subject to FDOT approval, the Developer or a Community Development District formed for N Fiddler's Creek shall provide the following: A. Traffic signals at each of the new intersections created on SR-951 and US-41 when deemed warranted by the County Engineer. The signals shall be owned, operated and maintained by Collier County. B. All required auxiliary turn lanes at each new intersection created on SR-951 and US- 41. C. Street Lighting at major entrances into the development. D. The Developer of Fiddler's Creek has contributed an 18.4 acre fill source to Collier County to supply fill for the widening of State Road 951 to four lanes between New York Avenue and the Marco Bridge. Pursuant to that certain Agreement between the County and Developer relating to the widening of State Road 951 dated April 4, 1995, all Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and PUD conditions which had restricted development and construction traffic have been fully satisfied by construction of the existing four lanes of State Road 951 and by execution of said Agreement. All such prior restrictions and conditions on development related to traffic impacts are no longer applicable. All prior obligations of Developer under this PUD document relating to the provision of fill for State Road 951 have been fully satisfied by execution of the Agreement between Developer and Collier County granting the County the right to enter upon the property for the purpose of excavation of the fill needed for the Four-laning of State Road 951. The Developer shall provide traffic signals at internal intersections when deemed warranted by the County Engineer. 12.6 PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department reviewed this petition and has the following recommendations: A. That the staff report recognizes that SR-951, after four -caning, will be approaching its capacity in 1990 and that appropriate recommendations be made to include the future t- laning of the northern most section in the county's Comprehensive Plan. B, That Unit 24 be prohibited from any development until SR-951 is 4-laned or the applicant be required to donate to the County the cash equivalent of the construction cost for the 4- tanine of 500 feet of SR-951. This donation, to be used by the County solely for the 4- Words mdurliny are additions: words &M%wk4hw*&A are deletions Alamo Shoreslriddler's Creek PUD Last Revised Alq Z 2018 Page 69 of 71 Packet Pg. 1237 9.A.3.f EXHIBIT "C" TO M N FIDDLER'S CREEK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS #1 AND #2 0 00 LETTER TO COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION N J REGARDING a r M PL20180002374 ("RZ") M r and N P L20180002507 ("G M PA") Packet Pg. 1238 F 1i " I , - -x -M61o4,1_n'� San dfiel d-L-n-- �A.n'dr'e'a',L,in ►uKtathy,ILhiirj, I VIOL P" Iq esTR'dJ-- e Ir G) Achill D r--- 9.A.3.f ti EXHIBIT "D" TO M N O FIDDLER'S CREEK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS #1 AND #2 00 LETTER TO COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION J a REGARDING to M PL20180002374 ("RZ") and N PL20180002507 ("GMPA") cu Packet Pg. 1240 k � 2 �9ammQ awdgaaQ &mnwwoo)Iaojo umpm]-jm9]oZ z` ,agwmdeS -] IL 0 j / I � 1 J|E E 0 � 2 � Q § a| E < 0 \� 4 Q�Q �mQea Cc, - co &0& 2=e3# \a22 Co e) 6#3oc %E&5£ _�E*3 «%\k« f ?± a\ )$®a] Q)wt0) tE§{c m��3 m co EE%2@ z CO 2�c»: co *o C* �,m� a Cr3 =fjf@ $&aZx at8»2� I =27E§§ k�3\t� E7§aa2 2�«�aZ /ff/#/ \Ek{(j =a&A�a ��-2m> § k $ k J. k % 9.A.3.f 4z;ofler CA3mmty ti Gmwth Managerment Department N 0 0 October 30, 2019 0000 0 N J a Al Quattrone, P.E. Quattrone & Associates, Inc. 4301 Veronica Shoemaker Fort Myers, FL 33916 N RE: RZ-PL20180002374; 7-Eleven Greenway Naples Dear Mr. Quattrone: The following comments regarding the above referenced project that was submitted on 8-6-19, are being provided as requested. Please be aware that this is not a comprehensive list and is only being provided as a courtesy. All reviews must be completed prior to resubmittal. Rejected Review: Environmental Review; Reviewed By: Craig Brown 1. MCP Document and Master Plan shall state the minimum acreage required to be preserved. 2. Provide calculations on site plan showing the appropriate acreage of native vegetation to be retained, the maximum amount and ratios permitted to be created on -site or mitigated off -site. Exclude vegetation located within existing utility, drainage, and access easements from the preserve calculations (LDC3.05.07 B. - D.). 3. Principle structures must be setback a minimum of 25 feet from the boundary of preserves and accessory structures, a minimum of 10 feet from the boundary of preserves. Include these setbacks in setback table on the site plans. (LDC 3.05.07 H.3 & 3.05.07 H.1 h.) 4. Retained preservation areas shall be selected based on the criteria defined in LDC 3.05.07.A.3, include all 3 strata, be in the largest contiguous area possible and shall be interconnected within the site and to adjoining off -site preservation areas or wildlife corridors. (LDC 3.05.07 H.1.£) 5. Created and retained preserve areas shall meet the minimum width requirements per LDC section 3.05.07.H. Lb. 6. A soil sampling report will be required for review with the submittal of the first development order in accordance with LDC 3.08.00 AAA. Rejected Review: Landscape Review; Reviewed By: Mark Templeton 1. Please label the 30' wide buffer required along the North, the 10' buffer along the West and the 30' wide buffer required along the East where there is residential use across the street. 2. The scale shown below the north arrow on the plan is wrong. The scale shown on the right side of the page is correct. Packet Pg. 1242 9.A.3.f Rejected Review: Public Utilities - PUED Review; Reviewed By: Eric Fey ti ti 1. 10/22/2019: Estimate average daily wastewater flow per Part 2 of the Design Criteria, N following Table I of F.A.C. 64E-6.008 for non-residential uses. Estimate average daily water o demand as 1.4 (ERC ratio of 350:250) times the average daily wastewater flow. Estimate the 00 peak daily water demand using a peaking factor of 1.35 per our 2014 Master Plan. Estimate peak T_ N daily wastewater flow likewise. Revise the Statement of Utility Provisions accordingly, and state a all assumptions, including number of water closets, operating hours per day, and the anticipated water demand and wastewater flow for the carwash. co M Rejected Review: Transportation Planning Review; Reviewed By: Michael Sawyer N 1. Additional Items that need to be addressed for Transportation Operations Review: Rev. 1: As requested at the pre application meeting. Contact Mark Clark with FDOT regarding this project. Staff has confirmed that this request has not been made, further the site only has 447 feet of frontage and the proposed connection does not meet the minimum spacing of 660 feet. Additionally, the turning movement diagram provided indicates the site will function with a single access which needs to be on Greenway Road which can meet minimum standards for a single access as far from the intersection as possible. 2. Additional Items that need to be addressed for Transportation Operations Review: Rev. 1: Reference TIS; Provide the trip distribution percentages graphically. 3. Additional Items that need to be addressed for Transportation Operations Review: Rev. 1: The P.M. peak hour traffic analysis for the US 41 site access drive is missing from the appendix. 4. Additional Items that need to be addressed for Transportation Operations Review: Rev. 1: The background traffic between the intersection of US 41 at Greenway Road and the US 41 site access drive is not balanced. 5. Additional Items that need to be addressed for Transportation Operations Review: Rev. 1: Reference comment 1 above ... Access Management Resolution 13-257, Section 3.09.2.1, does not permit more than one connection per road frontage. Revise the MCP and the TIS to remove one of the proposed connections to Greenway Road. 6. Additional Items that need to be addressed for Transportation Operations Review: Rev. 1: As indicated in pre application meeting notes. This project will be required to pay fair share for a potential signalization at the intersection if -when warranted. Please acknowledge in your RZ request and TIS; and note that compensating ROW will be provided at time of SDP -Plat. 7. Additional Items that need to be addressed for Transportation Operations Review: Packet Pg. 1243 9.A.3.f Rev. 1: As noted in pre application notes. Revise master plan to show potential interconnection (provide arrow) to the northwest. Rejected Review: Zoning Review; Reviewed By: Timothy Finn 1. A Master Concept Plan dated 3-6-2018 and a Preliminary Site Plan dated 6-25-2019 was submitted. They both show different layouts and building configurations. Please choose which of these plans you are using and then relabel as "Conceptual Site Plan." On this Conceptual Site Plan please include the following information: - Existing and proposed structures and their dimensions - Provisions for existing and/or proposed ingress and egress (including pedestrian ingress and egress to the site and the structures on site) - Existing and/or proposed parking and loading areas (including a matrix indicating required and provided parking and loading, and required parking for the disabled) - Required yards, open spaces and preserve areas - Proposed and/or existing location of utility services to the site - Proposed and/or existing landscaping and buffering that may be required by the County - This is a corner lot; therefore, this lot has two frontages off Greenway Road and Tamiami Trail with minimum front setbacks of 50 ft. The north and west property lines are considered sides with a minimum side setbacks of 40 ft. As such, illustrate that all structures comply with these setbacks by creating a distance measurement from each of these structures to the property lines. - Show and label all proposed structures include the fuel pump canopies and dumpster enclosures and illustrate the distance measurements to the property lines from these structures. - Include revision date on Conceptual Site Plan 2. Affidavit of Authorizations - Provide the Petition # PL20180002374, on both forms. Moreover, TBC Greenway, LLC is giving consent to Bob Mulhere, Hole Montes; however, Bob Mulhere, Hole Montes is not listed on the application as an additional agent. As such, please include Bob Mulhere, Hole Montes as an additional agent on application under the Applicant Contact Information section. 3. On a separate sheet, please provide a response to each of the 18 rezone criteria under LDC Section 10.02.08.17. See below each criteria: 1) Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. 2) The existing land use pattern. 3) The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. 4) Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. 5) Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. 6) Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. 7) Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or T ti M N O O O 00 O N J a M �O M Packet Pg. 1244 9.A.3.f projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. 8) Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. 9) Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 10) Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. 11) Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. 12) Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. 13) Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. 14) Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. 15) Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. 16) The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. 17) The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code ch. 106, art. II], as amended. 18) Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. 4. Please list and illustrate on a map the name and address of the nearest gas station and the distance of this gas station from the subject property. Rejected Review: County Attorney Review; Reviewed By: Heidi Ashton-Cicko 1. County Attorney review will commence with Submittal 2. If all County staff approve Submittal 1, the County Attorney's office will be notified and submittal 1 will be reviewed. Rejected Review: Engineering Surveyor Review; Reviewed By: Marcus Berman 1. Boundary Survey: The basis of bearing in general note #7 should read southwest. Informational Comments (Comprehensive Planning): This petition may only be deemed consistent with the GGAMP if the companion GMP T ti M N O O O 00 0 N J a M �O M Packet Pg. 1245 9.A.3.f amendment petition (PL20180002507/CPSS-2019-8) is adopted and goes into effect and all uses and standards in the GMPA are reflected in the PUD. 2. The PUD Ordinance needs to provide for the effective date to be linked to the effective date of the companion GMP amendment petition. GENERAL COMMENTS: [Timothy Finn] 1. Additional comments or stipulations may be forthcoming once a sufficient application has been submitted for review. This correspondence should not be construed as a position of support or non-support for any issues within the petition. Staff will analyze the petition and the recommendation will be contained in the staff report prepared for the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) or Hearing Examiner (Hex). 2. Please be advised that pursuant to the LDC, an application can be considered closed if there has been no activity on the application for a period of six (6) months. That six months period will be calculated from the date of this letter. 3. Please ensure that all members of your review team that may testify before the Hex/CCPC and the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) are registered as lobbyists with the county pursuant to the regulations regarding that issue. 4. When addressing review comments, please provide a cover letter outlining your response to each comment. Include a response to all comments. 5. Please put revised dates on all exhibits and in the title block of the Site Plan. The PUD document should include a footer that reflects the project name, petition number, date and page X of Y for the entire document. Documents without this information will be rejected. 6. A partial resubmittal cannot be accepted; please do not resubmit until you can respond to ALL review comments. 7. Public hearings cannot be held until the Neighborhood Information criteria has been met. In some petition types a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) must be held while other petition types only require the agent to send a letter. All letters and ads must be pre -approved by the county planner. For additional information about the process please contact me. Please note that the NIM must be held at least 15 days prior to the first hearing. As you prepare for that meeting, please be aware of the following items: a) Please provide the required affidavit and its attachments prior to the meeting (in compliance with the LDC); and b) Please post signs to direct attendees to the exact meeting location; and c) Please ensure that there is sound amplification equipment available and working for this meeting. If there is no permanent equipment, please bring a tested/working portable microphone; and a) You must provide a written synopsis of the meeting that includes a list of all questions and answers as well as providing the audio/video tape; and b) Please prepare documents for hand out to all NIM attendees and the public hearing file, that show the differences in the uses that would be allowed in the existing and proposed zoning districts. This request is based upon recent CCPC direction. 8. Note the adopted fee schedule requires payment of additional fees for petitions that require more than four resubmittals; please contact the appropriate staff and resolve issues to avoid this fee. Timothy Finn, AICP Principal Planner T ti M N O 0 0 0 0 N J a M �O M Packet Pg. 1246 9.A.3.f Cc: Al Quattrone, P.E., Quattrone & Associates, Inc., Mike Sawyer, Heidi-Ashton-Cicko, Marcus Berman, Eric Fey, Craig Brown, Mark Templeton, Sue Faulkner ti ti M N O O O 00 T- O N J a Packet Pg. 1247 9.A.3.f 4z;ofler CA3mmty ti Gmwth Managerment Department N 0 0 December 30, 2019 00 0 N J IL Al Quattrone, P.E. Quattrone & Associates, Inc. 4301 Veronica Shoemaker Fort Myers, FL 33916 N RE: RZ-PL20180002374; 7-Eleven Greenway Naples Dear Mr. Quattrone: The following comments regarding the above referenced project that was submitted on 11-22-19, are being provided as requested. Please be aware that this is not a comprehensive list and is only being provided as a courtesy. All reviews must be completed prior to resubmittal. Rejected Review: Public Utilities - PUED Review; Reviewed By: Eric Fey 1. 10/22/2019: Estimate average daily wastewater flow per Part 2 of the Design Criteria, following Table I of F.A.C. 64E-6.008 for non-residential uses. Estimate average daily water demand as 1.4 (ERC ratio of 350:250) times the average daily wastewater flow. Estimate the peak daily water demand using a peaking factor of 1.35 per our 2014 Master Plan. Estimate peak daily wastewater flow likewise. Revise the Statement of Utility Provisions accordingly, and state all assumptions, including number of water closets, operating hours per day, and the anticipated water demand and wastewater flow for the carwash. 12/27/2019: Report peak and average daily demands in GPD, and ensure the average daily water demand is reported correctly. 2. 12/27/2019: Please enter the property I.D. (folio) number on the Statement of Utility Provisions form. Rejected Review: Transportation Planning Review; Reviewed By: Michael Sawyer 1. Additional Items that need to be addressed for Transportation Operations Review: Rev.2: Comment not addressed ... TIS has not been updated. Rev. 1: The background traffic between the intersection of US 41 at Greenway Road and the US 41 site access drive is not balanced. 2. Additional Items that need to be addressed for Transportation Operations Review: Rev.2: Although Greenway Road may not have been classified as a collector, it is still functioning as a collector. The reference to Table 2 in Section 3.09.2 is incorrect. The intent was to refer to the table in Section3.09.4 regarding corner clearances. The previous site plan indicated Packet Pg. 1248 9.A.3.f that the fuel deliveries can be made from the access driveway on US 41. Similarly, it appears the site will support diesel truck access from the either the access driveway on US 41 or the north access driveway on Greenway Road. Carwash customers appear to have sufficient access without the south access driveway on Greenway Road. Rev.1: Reference comment 1 above ... Access Management Resolution 13-257, Section 3.09.2.1, does not permit more than one connection per road frontage. Revise the MCP and the TIS to remove one of the proposed connections to Greenway Road. 3. Additional Items that need to be addressed for Transportation Operations Review: Rev.2: The issue of intersection control is not related to your development alone or current needs, as indicated with your analysis. This was also discussed at the pre app meeting, this is a projected -anticipated improvement. The issue is your fair share of any eventual traffic control intersection improvement devise including but not limited to signalization. There have already been discussions regarding an eventual warrant study for this intersection and your responsibility will be limited to your proportionate fair share. This needs to be a condition -commitment of this Rezone request. Rev.1: As indicated in pre application meeting notes. This project will be required to pay fair share for a potential signalization at the intersection if -when warranted. Please acknowledge in your RZ request and TIS; and note that compensating ROW will be provided at time of SDP -Plat. 4. Additional Items that need to be addressed for Transportation Operations Review: Rev.2: Site plan shows a stub -out connection, but no note or arrow is included for clarification. Rev.1: As noted in pre application notes. Revise master plan to show potential interconnection (provide arrow) to the northwest. 5. Additional Items that need to be addressed for Transportation Operations Review: Rev.2: The TIS shows the size of the convenience store as 5000 sq. ft. However, the site plan shows the site as 5,500 sq.ft. Please revise the TIS accordingly. Rejected Review: Zoning Review; Reviewed By: Timothy Finn 1. Rev 2: Affidavit of Authorization - Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A. and Robert Mulhere were provided as additional agents. However, an additional Affidavit of Authorization was not submitted that gives consent from the property owner, TBC Greenway, LLC, to Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A. As such please submit at next submittal. Revl : Affidavit of Authorizations - Provide the Petition # PL20180002374, on both forms. Moreover, TBC Greenway, LLC is giving consent to Bob Mulhere, Hole Montes; however, Bob Mulhere, Hole Montes is not listed on the application as an additional agent. As such, please include Bob Mulhere, Hole Montes as an additional agent on application under the Applicant Contact Information section. 2. Rev 2: Requested map was not submitted, see comment from first review below. T ti M N O O O 00 O N J a M �O M Packet Pg. 1249 9.A.3.f Rev 1: Please list and illustrate on a map the name of the nearest gas station and the distance of this gas station from the subject property. ti ti Rejected Review: County Attorney Review; Reviewed By: Heidi Ashton-Cicko N 0 0 1. Affidavit of Representations: Please fill in the petition numbers. 00 0 N 2. Please provide the legal description on a single page labelled Exhibit A. a Rejected Review: Engineering Surveyor Review; Reviewed By: Marcus Berman M 1. Boundary Survey: The basis of bearing in general note #7 should read southwest. N REV2: Please submit a revised survey. Informational Comments: 1. This petition may only be deemed consistent with the GGAMP if the companion GMP amendment petition (PL20180002507/CPSS-2019-8) is adopted and goes into effect and all uses and standards in the GMPA are reflected in the PUD. 2. The PUD Ordinance needs to provide for the effective date to be linked to the effective date of the companion GMP amendment petition. GENERAL COMMENTS: [Timothy Finn] 1. Additional comments or stipulations may be forthcoming once a sufficient application has been submitted for review. This correspondence should not be construed as a position of support or non-support for any issues within the petition. Staff will analyze the petition and the recommendation will be contained in the staff report prepared for the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) or Hearing Examiner (Hex). 2. Please be advised that pursuant to the LDC, an application can be considered closed if there has been no activity on the application for a period of six (6) months. That six months period will be calculated from the date of this letter. 3. Please ensure that all members of your review team that may testify before the Hex/CCPC and the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) are registered as lobbyists with the county pursuant to the regulations regarding that issue. 4. When addressing review comments, please provide a cover letter outlining your response to each comment. Include a response to all comments. 5. Please put revised dates on all exhibits and in the title block of the Site Plan. The PUD document should include a footer that reflects the project name, petition number, date and page X of Y for the entire document. Documents without this information will be rejected. 6. A partial resubmittal cannot be accepted; please do not resubmit until you can respond to ALL review comments. 7. Public hearings cannot be held until the Neighborhood Information criteria has been met. In some petition types a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) must be held while other petition types only require the agent to send a letter. All letters and ads must be pre -approved by the county planner. For additional information about the process please contact me. Please note that the NIM must be held at least 15 days prior to the first hearing. As you prepare for that meeting, please be aware of the following items: a) Please provide the required affidavit and its attachments prior to the meeting (in compliance with the LDC); and Packet Pg. 1250 9.A.3.f b) Please post signs to direct attendees to the exact meeting location; and c) Please ensure that there is sound amplification equipment available and working for this ti meeting. If there is no permanent equipment, please bring a tested/working portable microphone; and N a) You must provide a written synopsis of the meeting that includes a list of all o questions and answers as well as providing the audio/video tape; and 00 b) Please prepare documents for hand out to all NIM attendees and the public hearing file, N that show the differences in the uses that would be allowed in the existing and proposed a zoning districts. This request is based upon recent CCPC direction. 8. Note the adopted fee schedule requires payment of additional fees for petitions that require more than four resubmittals; please contact the appropriate staff and resolve issues to avoid this fee. Timothy Finn, AICP Principal Planner Cc: Al Quattrone, P.E., Quattrone & Associates, Inc., Mike Sawyer, Heidi-Ashton-Cicko, Marcus Berman, Eric Fey Packet Pg. 1251 9.A.4 09/25/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.4 Item Summary: *** This item has been continued from the September 17, 2020 CCPC Meeting to the September 25, 2020 CCPC Meeting . ***CU-PL20190001278: A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida providing for the establishment of a conditional use to allow a sports instructional school and camp for shooting instruction and training within an Agricultural (A) zoning district in the Area of Critical State Concern and Special Treatment overlay (ACSC/ST), pursuant to Section 2.03.0l.a.l.c.19 of the Collier County Land Development Code for a 10.77+/- acre property located on the west side of State Road 29, approximately 8 miles south of I-75, in Section 7, Township 51 South, Range 30 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 09/25/2020 Prepared by: Title: — Zoning Name: Tim Finn 09/17/2020 10:46 AM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning — Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 09/17/2020 10:46 AM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Tim Finn Review item Skipped 09/17/2020 10:43 AM Zoning Tim Finn Review Item Skipped 09/17/2020 10:43 AM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Tim Finn Review Item Skipped 09/17/2020 10:43 AM Growth Management Department Tim Finn Review Item Skipped 09/17/2020 10:43 AM Zoning Tim Finn Review Item Skipped 09/17/2020 10:43 AM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 09/25/2020 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 1252 9.A.4.a Co t t-ier County k STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION — ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 2020 SUBJECT: CU-PL20190001278; DEEP 50 GUN RANGE PROPERTY OWNER//AGENT: Owner: Agent: Deep 50 Industries, LLC D. Wayne Arnold, AICP 8951 Bonita Beach Road Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Suite# 525-304 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 REOUESTED ACTION: To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application for a Conditional Use to allow a sports instructional school and camp for shooting instruction and training within an Agricultural (A) zoning district in the Area of Critical State Concern and Special Treatment overlay (ACSC/ST), pursuant to Section 2.03.0l.A.l.c.19 of the Collier County Land Development Code. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is 10.77 +/- acres and is located on the west side of State Road 29, approximately eight miles south of I-75, in Section 7, Township 51 South, Range 30 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on page 3) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner seeks a Conditional Use to redevelop the property for a sports instructional school and camp for the purpose of providing a membership -based gun range that will provide organized competitive training. The primary former prison building was recently demolished, and the CU-PL20190001278, Deep 50 Gun Range Revised Date: September 8, 2020 Page 1 of 12 Packet Pg. 1253 9.A.4.a petitioner intends to utilize some of the remaining small structures for storage and maintenance. The range will be oriented in a north/south manner, away from S.R. 29. Earthen berms will be provided along the south and east property lines in order to ensure projectiles do not travel beyond the property boundary. The conceptual site plan (see pages 4 and 5) provides ingress/egress from S.R. 29, landscape buffering, rifle target area, gun range target area, earthen berms, storage/maintenance/refuse/services areas, and an area for parking and loading. Intentionally blank CU-PL20190001278, Deep 50 Gun Range Revised Date: September 8, 2020 Page 2 of 12 Packet Pg. 1254 Mo) oBueb unE) OS daaa SMOOMOZ-1d : Z£9£L) ofteN un!D 09 daaa - :podajj}}e;g :;uewLjoe;;d CU-PL20190001278, Deep 50 Gun Range Revised Date: September 8, 2020 cz max] C 0 NJ n M J Ln N T- Cb IL d Y V IL Page 3 of 12 Quo) a6ueu unE) 09 dead BLU000660Z-1d : Z£M) a6uetj unE) 09 dead-:podall j}e}S :ju9wt4oejjd S.R.-29 — _ _ I wI4.� p LL W � Uj oil O ZONED: A-ACSCfST USE: UNDEVELOPED �^, T X — I� ' PARKI IINNGILLOADI Hi l] 3]'Iq hTT] ]G d�3C Si �1]VVJ��T]l:MhM'la - "C1naS:NMYIc\ 1l�]'l 4 1 b wo J a � 5 W LU Q W z W s �Lw C+] C7 GO------- a a NL — — — — — — — W J 0 m LLJ qz�q ------ z— — — — — — — qM°q r� x -------- u— — — — — — — q �q it q 12' HIGH EARTHEN BERM IRIFLE 6ERiA—I— -- --'-- -- -- -- -- - J LL- w ¢ I WLL m j _- C IF oVi w LOU ZONED: XACSCfST z O USE: UNDEVELOPED LU PARKENG NGowl unimuiri I I I y d CL LU I > LU I � ! z Z) I I jw I ,Wz � U I� I 1= I a I a �I I it ZGNED:A-ACSClS7 USE: UNDEVELOPED CU-PL20190001278, Deep 50 Gun Range Revised Date: September 8, 2020 Page 4 of 12 9.A.4.a SITE INFORMATION: ZONING- A-ACSCIST, .AGRICULTURAL (ACSCIST) SITE AREA: 10.77± AC. OPEN SPACE (30% REQUIRED): REQUIRED: 3.23t ACRES (10.77 X .30) PROVIDED: 3.23± ACRES PRESERVE (MINIMUM): REQUIRED: 0± ACRES (0 ACRES NATIVE VEGETATION X .90) PROVIDED: 0± ACRES NATIVE VEGETATION SETBACKS (MINIMUM PR]NCIPAL STRUCTURE: NORTHERN BOUNDARY: 3D FEET EASTERN BOUNDARY: 50 FEET SOUTHERN BOUNDARY: 30 .FEET WESTERN BOUNDARY: 5D FEET ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: NORTHERN BOUNDARY: 3D FEET EASTERN BOUNDARY: 50 FEET SOUTHERN BOUNDARY: 30 FEET WESTERN BOUNDARY: 5D FEET GTES: 1. A TOTAL OF 24 NATIVE TREES EXIST Old -SITE, 22 NATJVE TREES ARE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED ON -SITE (24 X 9D%=21.6)_ FOR EVERY TREE REMOVED WITH A DISH OF TWO FEET OR MORE THAT TREE SHALL BE REPLACED WITH A MINIMUM OF THREE (3) 10-FOOT HIGH NATIVE TREES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTION 3.05.07_A.2_ 2. THIS PLAID IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS - DEEP u .z , r� . r tiEGrad�Tvlinor DEEP so G'I,,;' I{ L,N�C£ L,)4CIT1Q`vAL U'�E SITE PLAN NOTES M. 1nciciiknZ2L-L :_a,r.m':,i -A..u:*ck' LI!EVI�EU 03/23/2020 ,•� 3 .Su....'¢r�M24. 1:41 :r.fi]I..W CU-PL20190001278, Deep 50 Gun Range Revised Date: September 8, 2020 Page 5 of 12 Packet Pg. 1257 9.A.4.a SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding the boundaries of the subject property, which is the site of the former Copeland prison that is zoned Agricultural (A) zoning district in the Area of Critical State Concern and Special Treatment overlay (ACSC/ST). North: Undeveloped land, with a current zoning designation of Agricultural (A) zoning district in the Area of Critical State Concern and Special Treatment overlay (ACSC/ST) East: S.R. 29 (state road), then developed with a fire and maintenance facility, with a current zoning designation of Agricultural (A) zoning district in the Area of Critical State Concern and Special Treatment overlay (ACSC/ST) South: Undeveloped land, with a current zoning designation of Agricultural (A) zoning district in the Area of Critical State Concern and Special Treatment overlay (ACSC/ST) West: Undeveloped land, with a current zoning designation of Agricultural (A) zoning district in the Area of Critical State Concern and Special Treatment overlay (ACSC/ST) Aerial - Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. CU-PL20190001278, Deep 50 Gun Range Revised Date: September 8, 2020 Page 6 of 12 Packet Pg. 1258 9.A.4.a GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed this request and offered the following comments: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Conservation, within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) Overlay, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The subject site is currently zoned A-ACSC/ST and is the site of the former Copeland Road Prison. The stated intent is to demolish the main prison building and develop the site with a gun range. The Conservation designation is intended to "conserve and maintain the natural resources of Collier County and their associated environmental, and recreational and economic benefits." Accordingly, allowable land uses are limited; the proposed conditional use is not listed as an allowable use. However, the "A" zoning (or its predecessor agricultural zoning district) existed on the site prior to the Conservation designation established in 1989. Therefore, all permitted and conditional uses in the "A" district are allowed. The ACSC Overlay in the FLUE and LDC contain the same regulations as appear in State law (Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern, Ch. 28.25, F.A.C.); the State regulations were enacted in 1973-74 time period. The ACSC regulations do not restrict land uses rather impose certain limitations on development and design. Notably, site alteration is limited to 10% of the total site size (10.77 acres x 10% = 1.077 acres of site alteration allowed) and impervious surface area is limited to 50% of that area (1.077 acres x 50% = 0.54 acres of impervious area allowed). The Property Appraiser's website shows that at least one building permit was issued in 1971 for the subject site. Presumably, the site was developed prior to creation of the State's ACSC regulations thereby grandfathering the site. However, the final determination of compliance with ACSC regulations will be made by the ACSC Review Team within the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. All development orders issued or approved within the ACSC must be rendered to DEO for their compliance review; DEO has the authority to challenge (appeal) the issuance or approval within 45 days. Based on the above analysis, staff finds the subject petition consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. (See Attachment B) Transportation Element: The project is consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan, which states, "The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five-year AUIR planning period unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: CU-PL20190001278, Deep 50 Gun Range Revised Date: September 8, 2020 Page 7 of 12 Packet Pg. 1259 9.A.4.a a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and C. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3 % of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways. " According to the TIS provided with this petition dated December 3, 2019, the proposed Run Range will generate a projected total of +/- 70 PM peak hour, two-way trips on the adjacent roadway State Road 29. According to the current 2019 AUIR, this road segment operates at a LOS of `B" with a remaining capacity of 760 trips (peak capacity service volume is 900). Therefore, the subject Conditional Use can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan, and as noted above the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) indicates that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the five-year planning period. Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition request, the CU document and Master Plan for right-of-way and access issues and is recommending approval. Stormwater Review: Drainage: The proposed Conditional Use request is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area. Stormwater management will be addressed through the environmental resource permitting process with the South Florida Water Management District. Collier County staff will also evaluate the project's stormwater management system, calculations, and design criteria at the time of site development plan (SDP) and/or platting (PPL). Landscape Review: The project requires a Type D buffer along the East boundary which is labeled on the Master Plan. Historic Preservation Review: The subject property lies with a Historical/Archaeological Probability Area. As such the petitioner was required to submit a waiver application from the required historical and archaeological survey and assessment application. This application was heard before the Historic/Archaeological Preservation Board (HAPB) at its August 21, 2020 meeting and approved this waiver subject to the condition, "No excavation of any type commences on the property." (See Attachment C) Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff has found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The project site consists of 24 native trees. A minimum of 22 trees (90%) of the existing native trees shall be maintained onsite. CU-PL20190001278, Deep 50 Gun Range Revised Date: September 8, 2020 Page 8 of 12 Packet Pg. 1260 9.A.4.a STAFF ANALYSIS: When considering a Conditional Use petition, the CCPC must make findings that 1) approval of the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property of uses in the same district of neighborhood; 2) all specific requirements for the individual Conditional Use will be met; and 3) satisfactory provisions have been made concerning the following matters, where applicable: L Section 2.03.0l.A.l.c.19, of the LDC, permits conditional uses in the Agricultural (A) zoning district in the Area of Critical State Concern and Special Treatment overlay (ACSC/ST). The requested use for a sports instructional school and camp for shooting instruction and training is allowed as a conditional use in the Agricultural (A) zoning district in the Area of Critical State Concern and Special Treatment overlay (ACSC/ST), subject to the standards and procedures established in section 10.08.00, conditional uses procedures, of the LDC. 2 Consistency with the Land Development Code (LDC) and the Growth Management Plan (GMP). This request is consistent with the GMP and, with the conditions proposed by staff, this project will be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Land Development Code (LDC). 3 Ingress and egress to the property and proposed structures thereon, with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. Ingress and egress to the subject property will be limited to a single access point on State Road 29 as shown on the master site plan. The TIS submitted by the applicant indicates that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the 5- year planning period as noted above and not adversely impact the surrounding roadway network. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation Element consistency review. The project's development must also comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations and operational improvements when development approvals are sought at time of Site Development Plan (SDP) review. In regard to parking requirements, it is of staff s opinion that the proposed gun range use would be comparable to an archery field as the gun range use is not listed in Section 4.05.04, Table 17, Parking Space Requirements. As such, the minimum parking requirements for an archery field is 1 per 1.5 target practice stalls. Extrapolating this parking ratio to the gun range use this would equate to 1 space per 1.5 shooting ranges stalls. The site plan depicts 16-gun range stalls (16 x 1.5 = 24 required spaces). The other remaining uses include an office trailer and a storage/maintenance building. The office trailer is approximately 1,200 s.f. which has a CU-PL20190001278, Deep 50 Gun Range Revised Date: September 8, 2020 Page 9 of 12 Packet Pg. 1261 9.A.4.a parking requirement of 1 space per 300 s.f. which equates to 4 required spaces. The storage/maintenance building is approximately 4,500 s.f. which has a parking requirement of 1 space per 20,000 square feet which equates to 1 required parking space. In total, the gun range property requires 29 spaces. The conditional use site plan shows that 36 spaces will be provided; therefore, this petition shows compliance with the LDC requirements. 4 The effect the Conditional Use would have on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic, or odor effects. The subject site is currently zoned Agricultural (A) zoning district in the Area of Critical State Concern and Special Treatment overlay (ACSC/ST). This property has undeveloped land to the north, south, and west with a fire and maintenance facility to the east. The gun range will not produce high traffic volumes and will be low impact on the surrounding properties. In essence, the subject property is isolated and away from any developed urban area and should not have any deleterious effects on the surrounding area. As such, the proposed use should have minimal impact on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic, or odor effects. 5. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district. If the proposed Conditions of Approval are adopted, the proposed gun range can be found compatible with adjacent properties and other properties in the immediate area. ENVIRONMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the Conditional Use petition to address environmental concerns. The property is 10.77 acres and is in an Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). The ACSC Overlay was established preserve and limit impacts to sensitive habitat. The property was historically developed as a prison; the Master Concept Plan provides for 22 native trees to be maintained onsite, which meets the minimum 90% preservation requirement in accordance with LDC section 3.05.07 (24 trees x 90%=21.6 trees). The property has been cleared and developed since the 1950's, which predated the designation and establishment of the ACSC Overlay. The ACSC regulations were established in 1973. The property has been maintained devoid of native midstory vegetation and ground cover; as such, a tree survey was used to determine the native tree preservation requirement for the proposed development. No listed animal species were observed on the property; however, the property is surrounded by unimpacted dense native vegetation which has suitable habitat for various listed species. The potential nesting onsite for Big Cypress Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia) exists based on adjacent native vegetation. Prior to the site clearing stage of the proposed development, additional observations for Big Cypress Fox Squirrel nests will be needed. The proposed project is located within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) consultation area for Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus). One cavity tree was observed onsite with the potential to contain Bonneted Bat; however, no evidence was found indicating the tree was being utilized. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) wildlife data indicate the presence of Black Bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) in the area. A black bear management plan will need to be included at PPL or SDP review. The Environmental Data indicates the subject property falls within FWS Primary Habitat zone for the CU-PL20190001278, Deep 50 Gun Range Revised Date: September 8, 2020 Page 10 of 12 Packet Pg. 1262 9.A.4.a Florida Panther Habitat (Felis concolor corgi). There was no evidence or observations of panther onsite. Additionally, Twisted Air Plant (Tillandsia flexuosa) and Stiff -leafed wild -pine (Tillandsia fasciculata), listed as a less rare plants, have been observed on the property and will be protected in accordance with LDC 3.04.03. No listed animal species were observed on the property. This project does require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Specifically, this project is located within the Area of Critical State Concern/Special Treatment (ACSC/ST) zoning overlay. Staff recommends approval of the proposed petition. It is important to note that if the conditional use is approved, the site development plan is exempt from another public hearing per LDC 4.02.14.H.3. Therefore, based on LDC 4.02.14.H.3, staff may administratively approve a site alteration or site development plan without an additional public hearing if a conditional use has been approved. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant conducted a duly noticed and advertised NIM on March 3, 2020, at South Regional Library, located at 8065 Lely Cultural Pkwy, Naples, FL 34113. The meeting commenced at approximately 5:30 p.m. and ended at 5:41 p.m. with only one person in attendance. The applicant's agent explained the request for the conditional use. Wayne Arnold, the agent, conducted the meeting with introductions of the consultant team and staff, and an overview of the proposed gun range application. The agent explained that the gun range will feature a pistol area and rifle range. The prison building is demolished, and the maintenance building will remain. Following the agent's presentation, the meeting was opened to attendees to make comments and ask the consultant team questions regarding the proposed gun range. There were questions about a panther fence and property utilization which the agent had answered. The agent had explained that the neighboring properties are owned by state and federal entities. No commitments were made. A copy of the sign -in sheet, transcript, and PowerPoint presentation is included in the backup materials in Attachment D. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed the staff report on 9-3-20. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) approve Petition CU- PL20190001278, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Deep 50 Gun Range Conditional Use shall be limited to that which is depicted on the "Deep 50 Gun Range Conditional Use Site Plan and Site Alteration Plan (Per LDC Section 4.02.14), revised 3/26/2020," prepared by Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. CU-PL20190001278, Deep 50 Gun Range Revised Date: September 8, 2020 Page 11 of 12 Packet Pg. 1263 9.A.4.a 2. The facility is open only to club members, and government and law enforcement members only. 3. The facility shall be gated and secured at all times. 4. No firearms or ammunition shall be stored or sold on the premises. 5. Hours of operation for members shall be from dawn to dusk. Sanctioned competitive events and law enforcement or governmental training may occur beyond dusk. 6. The applicant must follow the Best Management Practices for Environmental Stewardship of Florida Shooting Ranges as developed by the Department of Environmental Protection. 7. No excavation of any type shall be allowed on the property. However, any final grading shall be limited to those areas of the shooting range necessary to facilitate the drainage of the shooting and parking areas to the water management system. Attachments: A) Proposed Resolution B) FLUE Consistency Review dated 4-16-2020 C) Waiver from Cultural Archaeological Assessment D) Application/Backup Materials CU-PL20190001278, Deep 50 Gun Range Revised Date: September 8, 2020 Page 12 of 12 Packet Pg. 1264 9.A.4.b RESOLUTION NO.20- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW A SPORTS INSTRUCTIONAL SCHOOL AND CAMP FOR SHOOTING INSTRUCTION AND TRAINING WITHIN AN AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT IN THE AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN AND SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY (ACSC/ST), PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.03.0l.A.l.c.19 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR A 10.77+/- ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF STATE ROAD 29, APPROXIMATELY 8 MILES SOUTH OF I-75, IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (PL20190001278) WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 67-1246, Laws of Florida, and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on Collier County the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended) which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of Conditional Uses; and WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals (Board), being the duly appointed and constituted planning board for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a Conditional Use to allow to allow a sports instructional school and camp for shooting instruction and training within an Agricultural (A) Zoning District in the Area of Critical State Concern and Special Treatment Overlay (ACSC/ST), pursuant to Section 2.03.0I.A.1.c.19 of the Collier County Land Development Code on the property hereinafter described, and the Collier County Planning Commission has made findings that the granting of the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest and the specific requirements governing the Conditional Use have been met and that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 10.08.00.D. of the Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in a public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented. [19-CPS-01962/1540460/1] 58 Deep 50 / PL20190001278 7/30/20 Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 1265 9.A.4.b NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: Petition Number PL20190001278 filed by Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. on behalf of Deep 50 Industries, LLC, with respect to the property hereinafter described in Exhibit A, be and the same is hereby approved for a Conditional Use to allow a sports instructional school and camp for shooting instruction and training within an Agricultural (A) Zoning District in the Area of Critical State Concern and Special Treatment Overlay (ACSC/ST), pursuant to Section 2.03.01.A.1.c.19 of the Collier County Land Development Code, in accordance with the Conceptual Site Plan described in Exhibit B, and subject to the conditions in Exhibit C. Exhibits A, B, and C are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this i4. 4 This Resolution adopted after motion, second, and super -majority vote, this _ , 2020. ATTEST: BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Sally A. Ashkar Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A - Legal Description Exhibit B - Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit C — Conditions of Approval [19-CPS-01962/1540460/1] 58 Deep 50 / PL20190001278 7/30/20 Page 2 of 2 Burt L. Saunders, Chairman day of Packet Pg. 1266 9.A.4.b Exhibit "A" Legal Description r � r Packet Pg. 1267 ((Do) a6ueb unE) 0g deaa OLU0006LOZld : Z£9£0 uoi;niosab pasodoJd - V luauayoelly :;uauayoelly OZOZ LL f OMO-LA3d-NVld hIS lVnl 3 NGJ SONIMY80 BLZL000610Cltl nn 30NYtl Nn0 N d330 6L-n0tl0090 ONINNVId 8d ONINNVld lU LM L'LN g 29 N N - - - 2 o fj — —`�-� g w J a Q w W �s aZv J5- � I � ui ¢ a v w o oLL �I I p LL z o W CO W in Z wQON Z F}-� I IL m ��wo IZ w Q o ZONED: A-ACSC/ST ��I Z I W I ZONED: A-ACSC/ST p z O 4 0 U) N> U USE: UNDEVELOPED g I� I o USE: UNDEVELOPED g a o o Z a w co- % Imo_' Z W o a J W O o 5C� I Ln I � I T (IT I I .-JTTTMTTT'J1TI PARKING ¢v=� PARKING/LOADING 3m- 9' Y % W U Ow a o I Q — — — — — — — - QW U I o J W O I I z Z w '- I > 'c a t j 0 Zw Z I w I U _ I Z _ o" e 3 o 0 Z W Q `� I I c, 5 �I ._-----_._ Qw ��Q _c v I co �� LuQ c I W wQ w Iz I1.1 'C I �N Q J w m -------_ ~~ w w — — — — — — 1= I C7 5 WN Iwl Q �� aQ I� � © m 3 v � �O ~> I w I Q �` o Q IT- _O g -------- w Q ------- =_ Q I I m Q I=I -jo QZ� Q I� I o IN I o o N I X=o� ------- Z Q------- I N �x v I I— — — — — — — — — — — — — — II— I I — — — — — — 0 — — — — — — — 1 I I 20' HI H O 12' HIGH EARTHEN BERM TRIFLE BERM— — Ln J ZONED: A-ACSC/ST USE: UNDEVELOPED 9.A.4.b SITE INFORMATION: ZONING: A-ACSC/ST, AGRICULTURAL (ACSC/ST) SITE AREA: 10.77± AC. OPEN SPACE (30% REQUIRED): REQUIRED: 3.23± ACRES (10.77 X .30) PROVIDED: 3.23± ACRES PRESERVE (MINIMUM): REQUIRED: 0± ACRES (0 ACRES NATIVE VEGETATION X .90) PROVIDED: 0± ACRES NATIVE VEGETATION SETBACKS (MINIMUM): PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE: NORTHERN BOUNDARY: 30 FEET EASTERN BOUNDARY: 50 FEET SOUTHERN BOUNDARY: 30 FEET WESTERN BOUNDARY: 50 FEET ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: NORTHERN BOUNDARY: 30 FEET EASTERN BOUNDARY: 50 FEET SOUTHERN BOUNDARY: 30 FEET WESTERN BOUNDARY: 50 FEET KInTGC- 1. A TOTAL OF 24 NATIVE TREES EXIST ON -SITE, 22 NATIVE TREES ARE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED ON -SITE (24 X 90% = 21.6). FOR EVERY TREE REMOVED WITH A DBH OF TWO FEET OR MORE THAT TREE SHALL BE REPLACED WITH A MINIMUM OF THREE (3) 10-FOOT HIGH NATIVE TREES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTION 3.05.07.A.2. 2. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. w VA GradyMinor ATmaraxJ "'( %1a... DEEP 50 CUN RANCE °`1131 CONDITIONAL USE SITE PLAN NOTES Ruuila Syrl nyx. Fluride 3137 CivlI Engineers Land Surveyors . Planners . Landscape Architects CCM1. xf Axlp. R-5151 Ccri. xf ANh. I's(lp51M sx.e Lc 26000266 REVISED 03/23/2020 B,nWWSpdi &,. 239.947.1144 uwu. /; r,vdy l/innr.rnm Fortkly— 239.690.4380 x[[c� SrtE GU _7 SHEET 2 OF 2 min Packet Pg. 1269 9.A.4.b Exhibit "C" Conditions of Approval 1. The Deep 50 Gun Range Conditional Use shall be limited to that which is depicted on the "Deep 50 Gun Range Conditional Use Site Plan and Site Alteration Plan (Per LDC Section 4.02.14), revised 3/26/2020," prepared by Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 2. The facility is open only to club members, and government and law enforcement members only. 3. The facility shall be gated and secured at all times. 4. No firearms or ammunition shall be stored or sold on the premises. 5. Hours of operation for members shall be from dawn to dusk. Sanctioned competitive events and law enforcement or governmental training may occur beyond dusk. 6. The applicant must follow the Best Management Practices for Environmental Stewardship of Florida Shooting Ranges as developed by the Department of Environmental Protection. 7. No excavation of any type shall be allowed on the property. However, any final grading shall be limited to those areas of the shooting range necessary to facilitate the drainage of the shooting and parking areas to the water management system. (19-CPS-01962/1560441/1] Packet Pg. 1270 9.A.4.c coi�eY co-wv,.ty Growth Management Department Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section Memorandum To: Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: April 16, 2020 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PL20190001278 PETITION NAME: Deep 50 Gun Range CU — REVIEW 3 REQUEST: To obtain a Conditional Use (CU) on a +10.77-acre site zoned A-ACSC/ST, Rural Agricultural within the Area of Critical State Concern/Special Treatment overlay, for "sports instructional schools and camps" to permit development of a gun range. Submittal 3 revised the Site Plan's notes, updated the Environmental Data, and included Proposed Conditions of Approval. LOCATION: The subject site is located on the west side of SR 29, ±9 miles north of US 41 and +7 miles south of I-75, in Section 7, Township 51 South, Range 30 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated Conservation, within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) Overlay, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The subject site is currently zoned A-ACSC/ST and is the site of the former Copeland Road Prison. The stated intent is to demolish the main prison building and develop the site with a gun range. The Conservation designation is intended to "conserve and maintain the natural resources of Collier County and their associated environmental, and recreational and economic benefits." Accordingly, allowable land uses are limited; the proposed conditional use is not listed as an allowable use. However, the "A" zoning (or its predecessor agricultural zoning district) existed on the site prior to the Conservation designation established in 1989. Therefore, all permitted and conditional uses in the "A" district are allowed. The ACSC Overlay in the FLUE and LDC contain the same regulations as appear in State law (Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern, Ch. 28.25, F.A.C.); the State regulations were enacted in 1973-74 time period. The ACSC regulations do not restrict land uses rather impose certain limitations on development and design. Notably, site alteration is limited to 10% of the total site size (10.77 acres x 10% = 1.077 acres of site alteration allowed) and impervious surface area is limited to 50% of that area (1.077 acres x 50% = 0.54 acres of impervious area allowed). The Property Appraiser's website shows that at least one building permit was issued in 1971 for the subject site. Presumably, the site was developed prior to creation of the Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 1271 9.A.4.c State's ACSC regulations thereby grandfathering the site. However, the final determination of compliance with ACSC regulations will be made by the ACSC Review Team within the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. All development orders issued or approved within the ACSC must be rendered to DEO for their compliance review; DEO has the authority to challenge (appeal) the issuance or approval within 45 days. LStaff encourages the applicant to consult DEO for a courtesy review of this petition prior to final action by Collier County (Board ofZoning Appeals or Hearing Examiner).J Certain applicable Future Land Use Element (FLUE) policies are shown below in italics followed by staff analysis in bold text. FLUE Policy 5.6 (shown below in italics) followed by staff analysis in [bracketed bold text]. New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). [Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning staff as part of their review of the petition.] Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [The subject property (as shown on the Conditional Use Site Plan) has its access on SR 29, depicted as an arterial roadway in the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan.] Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [The Site Plan as proposed is a single development project. No loop road (drive) or internal access is shown on the Master Concept Plan — parking aisles will allow for circulation.] Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [The Conditional Use Site Plan shows no interconnections with abutting property. All surrounding lands are owned by the State of Florida (Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park).] Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [Most of this policy is not applicable given that this is a single development and is a non-residential development. Open space must be provided per the Land Development Code.] CONCLUSION Based on the above analysis, staff finds the subject petition consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. PETITION ON CITYVIEW cc: Anita Jenkins, AICP, Community Planning Manager, Zoning Division Raymond V. Bellows, Manager, Zoning Division, Zoning Services Section CU-PL20190001278 Deep 50 Gun Range R3.docx Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 1272 9.A.4.d COLLIER COUNTY WAIVER APPLICATION FROM THE REQUIRED HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT DATE SUBMITTED: PLANNER: 'T� .,. , 'Pr,1.-e J 2 l P L Vh-fW PETITION NUMBER ASSOCIATED WITH THE WAIVER: PL20190001278 (To Be Completed By Zoning and Land Development Review Staff) PROJECT NAME: Deep 50 Gun Range CU LOCATION: (Common Description) The subject property is located on the west side of State Road 29 at the former Copeland Prison. SUMMARY OF WAIVER REQUEST: The proposed Conditional Use site is approximately 10.7t acres, which was previously developed with the former Copeland Prison. The Archaeological Probability Map #22, shows the project maybe located in an area that indicates areas of Historical/Archaeological probability or known sites. The project is located in Section 7, Township 51 S, Range 30 E on the south side of Manatee Road. (Properties located within an area of Historical and Archaeological Probability but with a low potential for historical/archaeological sites may petition the Community Development & Environmental Services Administrator County Manager or designee to waive the requirement for a Historical/Archaeological Survey and Assessment. Once the waiver application has been submitted, it shall be reviewed and acted upon within five (5) working days. The waiver request shall adequately demonstrate that the area has low potential for historical/archaeological sites.) Historic Preservation/Forms/rev. 06/05/08 Packet Pg. 1273 9.A.4.d SECTION ONE: APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DATA A. Name of applicant (s) (if other than property owner, state relationship such as option holder, contract purchaser, lessee, trustee, etc.): Deep 50 Industries, Inc. Mailing Address: 8951 Bonita Beach Rd, Suite #525-304, Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Phone: (239) 201-2600 FAX: E-Mail: matt(&deep50.com B. Name of agent(s) for applicant, if any: D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Mailing Address: O. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 Phone: 239.947.1144 FAX: 239.947.0375 E-Mail: warnold(a'gradyminor.com C. Name of owner(s) of property: Same as Applicant Mailing Address: Phone: E-Mail: FAX: Note: If names in answers to A and/or B are different than name in C, notarized letter(s) of authorization from property owner (C) must be attached. SECTION TWO: SUBJECT PROPERTY DATA (Attach copy of the plat book page (obtainable from Clerk's Office at the original scale) with subject property clearly marked.) A. Legal description of subject property. Answer only 1 or 2, as applicable. Within platted subdivision, recorded in official Plat Books of Collier County. Subdivision Name: Plat Book Page Unit Tract Lot Section 7 Township 51 S Range 30 E 2. If not in platted subdivision, a complete legal description must be attached which is sufficiently detailed so as to locate said property on County maps or aerial photographs. The legal description must include the Section, Township and Historic Prescrvation/Fomis/rcv. 06/05/08 Packet Pg. 1274 9.A.4.d Range. If the applicant includes multiple contiguous parcels, the legal description may describe the perimeter boundary of the total area, and need not describe each individual parcel, except where different zoning requests are made on individual parcels. A boundary sketch is also required. Collier County has the right to reject any legal description, which is not sufficiently detailed so as to locate said property, and may require a certified survey or boundary sketch to be submitted. B. Property dimensions: Area: 469,141 square feet, or 10.77f acres Width along roadway: 800± feet (State Road 29) Depth: 570± feet C. Present use of property: Former Copeland Prison D. Present zoning classification: A-ACSC/ST SECTION THREE: WAIVER CRITERIA Note: This provision is to cover instances in which it is obvious that any archaeological or historic resource that may have existed has been destroyed. Examples would be evidence that a major building has been constructed on the site or that an area has been excavated. A. Waiver Request Justification. Interpretation of Aerial Photograph Photo shows property developed. 2. Historical Land Use Description: Copeland Prison. 3. Land, cover, formation and vegetation description: The site contains vegetation. 4. Other: B. The County Manager or designee may deny a waiver, grant the waiver, or grant the waiver with conditions. He shall be authorized to require examination of the site by an accredited archaeologist where deemed appropriate. The applicant shall bear the cost of such evaluation by an independent accredited archaeologist. The decision of the County Manager or designee regarding the waiver request shall be provided to the applicant in writing. In the event of a denial of the waiver request, written notice shall be provided stating the reasons for such denial. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the County Manager or designee regarding a waiver request may appeal to the Preservation Board. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the Preservation Board Historic Prescnvation/Forms/rcv. 06/05/08 Packet Pg. 1275 9.A.4.d regarding a waiver request may appeal that decision to the Board of County Commissioners. SECTION FOUR: CERTIFICATION A. The applicant shall be responsible for the accuracy and completeness of this application. Any time delays or additional expenses necessitated due to the submittal of inaccurate or incomplete information shall be the responsibility of the applicant. B. All information submitted with the application becomes a part of the public record and shall be a permanent part of the file. C. All attachments and exhibits submitted shall be of a size that will fit or conveniently fold to fit into a legal size (8 t/2" x 14") folder. Signature of Applicant or Agent D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Printed Name of Applicant or Agent -TO BE COMPLETED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION - SECTION FIVE: NOTICE OF DECISION The County Manager or designee has made the following determination: ❑ Approved on: By: Approved with Conditions on: f- 2)-2.o By: (see�-a0eehedco.. ❑ Denied on: By: (((see attached) ( r r �v ��, i ¢ 1 � : ! \% ti PXCc{ V'.;.-t-t�.. C� ^f c.., � ."1 �� ,1 `Z C'o r1'�►"��'►'i'�> C)�. -'i1-� � r .��s2�-�_ 1 Historic Preservation/Forms/rev. 06/05/08 4 Packet Pg. 1276 8LZ6000660Z1d : Z£9£4) ;UOWSSOssb 180160108eLpiV lein;ln:) LUOJJ JOA18M - 3;UaUay08;;d :;Uauay08;;d oli lit, F�� $#`4e , � � � 9A�e� � �_�� '� all a k `�18oii��$B:O 1INS11 Jill £ 9t.��aRPRAAA..AtlW.• Ie ,..l�RQlayr.ay[tllll fi A y� Q tlE 1 IAAN! 9�311 11 WIN110111111 1< Q,E.QA ER FAllc.va 81Z600MOZ1d Z£9£6) ;uawSSeSS r 1e3lBO1Oaet43jV lein;ino woa;aanieM- 3;u8w143ejjV :;uawy3ejjV a h a gggh R=�ah,�g< < <a q - ii -FF g $g p c lE P �I"� �7��$ R g$,°Re�e� $��a� as g�a< �6 gg i girls@<.a$-� �� zgg hg <v �X �h Fr a I�ei p E9 as a ih j=Y1e"a�ar$�s ��673 5 IL @ gg Y Y < c h a h R $3 toy 2R 8 B Q@ B ae 8 °alqggPOW i o a Q{4p$�8T§5h1a8p�R5g r rya [8�$$� v, w y a $$$wg l�R BS Fa CE �B CBi$E 3 w 2 a $ $ y$" eo tl r W >z. iO $ S t` a o g m a w_ !g FU [ .x 4 1- U rr N $'2 JI =� A. r c 'O A 'aa 1 rc g e e 1 � I t"' $3 qqgg g i g ! §@gg 9 s 3866pi a■p pqq @Q e (@g ai! 1P�9 gg441 pp§ iM- �� w t!BB p . Qe44aaER€asaeaeaFFFt,xQQa°..aSQeiYl5F4x§asQaev$_s4�. Q c:a$s a 4! ! U++a� 8i€! OD ti N d N Y V R d 9.A.4.d RNG 291 RNG 30 RNG 301 RNG 31 I j "I 7 I 18 j 16 15 13 I 4p j H23 j 19*20 1 21 2224 I i ' • —30 i 30 29 I 28 27 26 25 g RI I� j hl jm j j I 31 32 33 j 34 35 j Lxas(ah I 1 6 5 i 4 I 3 2 1 �,.. 6 12 7 8 j 9 I 10 11 12 7 I � raaeD 13 18 uen 17 I 16 I 15 14 13 18 24 19 20 I 21 I 22 23 24 19 30, 25 �` ^° 29 28 27 26 25 30 LEGEN n xxx PREVIOUSLY SURVEYED ROAD - INDICATES AREAS OF HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL INDICATES HISTORIC STRUCTURE (NOT TO SCALE) INDICATES ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE (NOT TO SCALE) INDICATES HISTORIC DISTRICT rwP 50 rWP 51 DEEP LAKE QUADRANGLE AREAS OF HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL• PROBABILITY M U_ 4) c m c 0 L0 Q 4) 4) 0 a0 ti N O 0 0 0 T 0 N J a N M to M v Packet Pg. 1279 1 9.A.4.e Deep 50 Gun Range CU (PL20190001278) Application and Supporting Documents September 17,, 2020 CCPC Hearing MGradyMinor Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 • 239-947-1144 • engineering@gradyminor.eom • www.gradyminor.c( Packet P j. 1280 GradyMinor 9.A.4.e Civil Engineers * Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects December 16, 2019 Mr. Timothy Finn, AICP Collier County Growth Management Division/ Planning and Regulation Land Development Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Collier County Application for Public Hearing, Deep 50 Gun Range (CU) — PL20190001278, Submittal 1 Dear Mr. Finn: A Collier County application for Public Hearing for Conditional Use (CU) is being filed electronically for review. The subject property is 10.7+/- acres in size and is located on the west side of State Road 29 at the former Copeland Prison. The applicant is proposing to redevelop the property for a sports instructional school and camp for the purpose of providing a membership -based gun range that will provide organized competitive training. Documents filed with submittal 1 include the following: 1. Cover Letter 2. Application for a Public Hearing for CU 3. Evaluation Criteria 4. Pre -application meeting notes 5. Affidavit of Authorization 6. Addressing Checklist 7. Property Ownership Disclosure Form 8. Warranty Deed(s) 9. Boundary Survey 10. Location Map 11. Conceptual Site Plan 12. Environmental Data 13. Traffic Impact Study Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Ph.239-947-1144 Fax.239-947-0375 EB 0005151 LB 0005151 LC 26000266 www.gradyminor.com Packet Pg. 1281 Mr. Timothy Finn, AICP RE: Collier County Application for Public Hearing, Deep 50 Gun Range (CU) — PL20190001278, Submittal 1 December 16, 2019 Page 2 of 2 Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Matthew Pitel GradyMinor File Packet Pg. 1282 9.A.4.e Coffier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR: CONDITIONAL USE LDC Section 10.08.00 & Code of Laws section 2-83 — 2-90 Chapter 3 C.1 of the Administrative Code PETITION NO (PL) PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff DATE PROCESSED ❑ A CONDITIONAL USE TO BE HEARD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ❑■ A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE TO BE HEARD BY THE OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Property Owner(s): Deep 50 Industries, LLC Name of Applicant if different than owner: Deep 50 Industries, LLC Address: 8951 Bonita Beach Road, Suite #525-304 Telephone. 239.201.2600 Cell: E-Mail Address: matt@deep50.com City: Bonita Springs Name of Agent(s): D. Wayne Arnold AICP Firm: Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Address: 3800 Via Del Rey Telephone: 239.947.1144 Cell: City: Bonita Springs E-Mail Address: warnold@gradyminor.com State: FL ZIP: 34135 Fax: State: FL ZIP: 34134 Fax: BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. 5/08/2018 Page 1 of 12 Packet Pg. 1283 Coffier County 9.A.4.e COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net ASSOCIATIONS 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Required: List all registered Home Owner Association(s) that could be affected by this petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County Commissioner's website at http://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=774. Name of Homeowner Association: N.A. Mailing Address: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: City: City: State: ZIP: State: ZIP: City: State: ZIP: City: State: ZIP: City: State: ZIP: PROPERTY INFORMATION On separate page, provide a detailed legal description of the property covered by the application: • If the request involves changes to more than one zoning district, the applicant shall include separate legal description for property involved in each district; • The applicant shall submit 4 copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1" to 400' scale), if required to do so at the pre -application meeting; and • The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. Property I.D. Number: 00982880005 Section/Township/Range: 07 /51 /30 Plat Book: N.A. Page #: N.A. Subdivision: N.A. Lot: N.A. Metes & Bounds Description: Please see Boundary Survey Size of Property: 570 ft. X 800 ft. = 469,141 Total Sq. Ft. Acres: 10.77 Address/ General Location of Subject Property: 20201 SR 29 Block: N.A. 5/08/2018 Page 2 of 12 Packet Pg. 1284 9.A.4.e Coffier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning land Use N A-ACSC/ST Undeveloped S A-ACSC/ST Undeveloped E A-ACSC/ST Big Cypress National Preserve W A-ACSC/ST Undeveloped If the owner of the subject property owns contiguous property please provide a detailed legal description of the entire contiguous property: (If space is inadequate, attach on a separate page) Section/Township/Range:07 /51 /30 Lot: N.A- Block: N.A. Subdivision: N.A. Plat Book: N-A- Page #: N.A Metes & Bounds Description: _ Property I.D. Number: 00982880005 See Deed included with Submittal 1 CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST DETAIL Type of Conditional Use: This application is requesting a conditional use as allowed, pursuant to LDC section 2.03.00, of the Agricultural zoning district for Shooting Instruction (type of use). Present Use of the Property: Former prison 5/08/2018 Page 3 of 12 Packet Pg. 1285 CO*er County 9.A.4.e COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 EVALUATION CRITERIA Pursuant to LDC section 10.08.00 and Chapter 3 CA of the Administrative Code, staff's recommendation to the reviewing body shall be based upon a finding that the granting of the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and that the specific requirements governing the individual conditional use, if any, have been met. Further, satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning the following matters, where applicable. On a separate page, provide a narrative statement describing a request for a conditional use and a detailed response to the criteria listed below. Specify how and why the request is consistent with each of the criteria. a. Describe how the project is consistent with the Collier County Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan. Include information on how the request is consistent with the applicable section or portions of the Future Land Use Element. b. Describe the existing or planned means of ingress and egress to the property and proposed structure thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. c. Describe the effect the conditional use will have on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic impact, and odor. d. Describe the site's and the proposed use's compatibility with adjacent properties and other properties in the district. e. Please provide any additional information which you may feel is relevant to this request. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions; however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing? No Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? ❑■ No ❑ Yes (If yes please provide copies.) 5/08/2018 Page 4 of 12 Packet Pg. 1286 9.A.4.e Coffier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 ��l_tl�t�iL�l�tli�I��j�l�ylr'�1:Z�1�1�9[�I>•�� FOR CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST APPLICANT INFORMATION Name of Applicant(s): Deep 50 Industries, LLC Address: 8951 Bonita Beach Road, Suite #525-304 City: Bonita Springs State: FL ZIP: 34135 Telephone: 239.201.2600 Cell: E-Mail Address: matt@deep50.com Address of Subject Property (If available): City: Naples State: 20201 SR 29 ZIP: 34117 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Section/Township/Range:07 /51 /30 Lot: N.A. Block: N.A. Subdivision: N.A. Fax: Plat Book: N.A. Page #: N.A. Property I.D. Number: 00982880005 Metes & Bounds Description: Please see Boundary Survey TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a. County Utility System ❑ b. City Utility System ❑ C. Franchised Utility System ❑ Provide Name:. d. Package Treatment Plant ❑ (GPD Capacity): e. Septic System X❑ TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED a. County Utility System b. City Utility System C. Franchised Utility System d. Private System (Well) ❑ PROVIDE NAME x❑ Total Population to be served: N.A. Peak and Average Daily Demands: A. Water -Peak: N.A. Average Daily: N.A. B. Sewer -Peak: N.A. Average Daily: N.A. 5/08/2018 Page 5 of 12 Packet Pg. 1287 9.A.4.e Coffier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 If proposing to be connected to Collier County Regional Water System, please provide the date service is expected to be required: N.A. Narrative statement: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. N.A. County Utility Dedication Statement: If the project is located within the service boundaries of Collier County's utility service system, a notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area to the Collier County Utilities. This shall occur upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at that time. This statement shall also include an agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable, the statement shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. r Statement of Availability Capacity from other Providers: Unless waived or otherwise provided for at the pre -application meeting, if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided. 5/08/2018 Page 6 of 12 Packet Pg. 1288 CO*er County 9.A.4.e COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 RECORDING OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS Within 30 days of adoption of the Ordinance, the owner or developer at their expense shall record in the Public Records of Collier County a Memorandum of Understanding of Developer Commitments or Notice of Developer Commitments that contains the legal description of the property that is the subject of the land use petition and contains each and every commitment of the owner or developer specified in the Ordinance. The Memorandum or Notice shall be in form acceptable to the County and shall comply with the recording requirements of F.S. §695. A recorded copy of the Memorandum or Notice shall be provided to the assigned Principal Planner, Zoning Services Department, within 15 days of recording of said Memorandum or Notice. Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code requires that the applicant must remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign(s) immediately. 5/08/2018 Page 7 of 12 Packet Pg. 1289 CoAr County 9.A.4.e COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Pre -Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: ❑ A Conditional Use to be heard by the Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals ❑■ A Minor Conditional Use to be heard by the Office of the Hearing Examiner Chapter 3 C.I. of the Administrative Code The following Submittal Requirement Checklist is to be utilized during the Pre -Application Meeting, and at time of application submittal. At time of submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. Requirements for Review # Of Copies Required Not Required Completed Application (download current form from County website) 1 ® ❑ Cover letter briefly explaining the project 1 ✓ Pre -Application Notes 1 ✓ Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized 1 ® ❑ Completed Addressing Checklist 1 ® ❑ Property Ownership Disclosure Form 1 ® ❑ Warranty Deed(s) 1 P ❑ Boundary Survey 1 a ❑ Conceptual Site Plan 24" X 36" plus (one 8 Y2 X 11 copy) ❑ ✓ Plans showing proposed location for utilities, if required ❑ Plans for screening and buffering the use with reference as to type, dimensions, and character, if required ❑ ❑ EZI Plans showing the proposed landscaping and provisions for trees protected by County regulations, if required ❑ ❑ 0 Plans showing the proposed signs and lighting, including type, dimensions, and character, if required ❑ ❑ 0 Architectural Rendering of Proposed Structure(s), if applicable 1 0 Current aerial photographs (available from Property Appraiser) with project boundary and, if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included on aerial. 1 21 ❑ Statement of utility provisions (with all required attachments & sketches) 1 ✓ Environmental Data Requirements, pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00 1 �/ Environmental Data Requirements collated into a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) at time of public hearings. Coordinate with project planner at time of public hearing. ❑ ❑ ✓❑ Listed Species Survey; less than 12 months old. Include copies of previous surveys. 1 ✓ Traffic Impact Study (TIS) or waiver 1 ❑✓ Historical and Archeological Survey, or waiver 1 ✓ Electronic copy of all documents and plans * Please advise: The Office of the Hearing Examiner requires all materials to be submitted electronically in PDF format. 1 ❑✓ ❑ * If located in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, include an additional set of each submittal requirement 5/08/2018 Page 8 of 12 Packet Pg. 1290 Coffier County 9.A.4.e COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS: • Following the completion of the review process by County review staff, the applicant shall submit all materials electronically to the designated project manager. • Please contact the project manager to confirm the number of additional copies required. Planners: Indicate if the petition needs to be routed to the followine additional reviewers: ❑ Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment: Executive Director ❑ Emergency Management: Dan Summers; and/or EMS: Artie Bay ❑ Conservancy of SWFL: Nichole Johnson ❑ GMD Graphics ❑ City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director ❑ Utilities Engineering: Eric Fey ❑ Parks and Recreation: Barry Williams ❑ Immokalee Water/Sewer District: ❑ Other: ❑ School District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart Communication Towers: ❑ I Mosquito Control ❑ I Collier County Airport Authority ❑ I Naples Airport Authority Commercial Mining: ❑ Impact Fees 5/08/2018 Page 9 of 12 Packet Pg. 1291 CoAr County 9.A.4.e COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 FEE REQUIREMENTS All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners Pre -Application Meeting: $500.00 (to be credited towards the application fee if the application is filed within 9 months of pre -application meeting) X Conditional Use Application Fee: $4,000.00 o When filed with Rezone Petition: $1,500.00 o Additional fee for 5tb and subsequent reviews: 20% of original fee X Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review: $300.00 Environmental Data Requirements -EIS Packet (submittal determined at pre -application meeting): $2, 500.00 X Listed or Protected Species survey review fee (when an EIS is not required): $1,000.00 X Transportation Fee, if required: Methodology Review Fee: $500.00 Minor Study Review Fee: $750.00 Major Study Review Fee: $1,500.00 X Estimated Legal Advertising Fee for the Hearing Examiner or CCPC: $1,125.00 X Estimated Legal Advertising Fee for the BZA, if required: $500.00 Fire Code Plans Review Fees are collected at the time of application submission and those fees are set forth by the Authority having jurisdiction. The Land Development Code requires Neighborhood Notification mailers for Applications headed to hearing, and this fee is collected prior to hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Digitally signed by D. Wayne Arnold, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP AICP 12/16/2019 Date: 2019.12.16 09:38:42-05'00' Agent/Owner Signature Date D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Agent/Owner Name (please print) 5/08/2018 Page 10 of 12 Packet Pg. 1292 9.A.4.e Coffier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Public Participation Requirements LDC Section 10.03.06 B. or C. Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code Notice for Minor Conditional Use Petitions Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) Requirements: Applicant must conduct a NIM at least 15 days prior to the Hearing Examiner's receipt of the staff report and application materials in accordance with the applicable sections of the Administrative Code. The NIM shall be advertised and a mailed written notice shall be given to the property owners in the notification area at least 15 days prior to the NIM meeting. Mailed Notice: Written notice shall be sent to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days before the advertised Hearing Examiner hearing. Newspaper Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before the advertised Hearing Examiner hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: • Date, time, and location of the hearing; • Description of the proposed land uses; and • 2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location. Sign: A sign shall be posted at least 15 days before the advertised Hearing Examiner hearing date. Public Hearing for Minor Conditional Use Petitions Hearing Examiner: The Hearing Examiner shall hold at least 1 advertised public hearing See Chapter 9 of the Administrative Code for the Office of the Hearing Examiner procedures. Notice for Conditional Use Petitions Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) Requirements: Applicant must conduct a NIM at least 15 days prior to the advertised public hearing. The NIM shall be advertised and a mailed written notice shall be given to the property owners in the notification area at least 15 days prior to the NIM meeting. 5/08/2018 Page 11 of 12 Packet Pg. 1293 9.A.4.e Coffier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Mailed Notice: Written notice shall be sent to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days before the advertised public hearing. Newspaper Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before the advertised public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: • Date, time, and location of the hearing; • Description of the proposed land uses; and • 2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location. Sign: A sign shall be posted at least 15 days before the advertised public hearing date. Public Hearing for Conditional Use Petitions Environmental Advisory Committee (EAQ The EAC shall hold at least 1 advertised public hearing, if required. Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC): The CCPC shall hold at least 1 public hearing. Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA): The BZA shall hold at least 1 advertised public hearing. 5/08/2018 Page 12 of 12 Packet Pg. 1294 9.A.4.e Deep 50 Gun Range Conditional Use (PL20190001278) Proposed Conditions of Approval The approval of this conditional use is subject to the following condition(s): 1. The facility is open only to club members, and government and law enforcement members only 2. The facility shall be gated and secured at all times. 3. No firearms or ammunition shall be stored or sold on the premises 4. Hours of operation for members shall be from dawn to dusk. Sanctioned competitive events and law enforcement or governmental training may occur beyond dusk. March 30, 2020 M GradyMinor Page 1 of 1 Proposed Conditions of Approval.docx Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 • 239-947-1144 • engineering@gradyminor.com • www.gradyrninor.co packet Pg. 1295 9.A.4.e Deep 50 Gun Range Conditional Use (PL20190001278) Evaluation Criteria Pursuant to LDC section 10.08.00 and Chapter 3 CA of the Administrative Code, staff's recommendation to the reviewing body shall be based upon a finding that the granting of the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and that the specific requirements governing the individual conditional use, if any, have been met. Further, satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning the following matters, where applicable. On a separate page, provide a narrative statement describing a request for a conditional use and a detailed response to the criteria listed below. Specify how and why the request is consistent with each of the criteria. Narrative The subject property is 10.7+/- acres in size and is located on the west side of State Road 29 at the former Copeland Prison. The property is designated Agricultural/Rural, Conservation on the Future Land Use Map. The property is zoned A-ACSC/ST. The applicant is proposing to redevelop the property for a sports instructional school and camp for the purpose of providing a membership -based gun range that will provide organized competitive training. The primary former prison building was recently demolished, and the applicant intends to utilize some of the remaining small structures for storage and maintenance. The range will be oriented in a north/south manner, away from S.R. 29. Earthen berms will be provided along the south and east property lines in order to insure projectiles do not travel beyond the property boundary. The site is isolated and has no nearby residential neighbors. The National Park Service does own nearby property and maintains a fire and maintenance facility immediately east across S.R. 29. No overnight lodging is anticipated. a. Describe how the project is consistent with the Collier County Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan. Include information on how the request is consistent with the applicable section or portions of the Future Land Use Element. The property is located in the Agricultural/Rural, Conservation Designation on the Collier County Future Land Use Map. This designation permits agricultural uses and sporting and recreational camps as long as lodging does not exceed 1 du/5 ac. This application seeks to establish a Sports & Instructional School and Camp in the Agricultural Zoning District through the conditional use process for a membership gun range and training facility. The Agricultural/Rural, Conservation Designation provides for a variety of non- agricultural uses, including open space and recreational uses, including sports and recreational camps as proposed. December 12, 2019 W GradyMinor Page 1 cf 3 D50GRCU-19 Evaluation Criteria.docx Civil Engincers • Land surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 • 239-947-1144 • engineering@gradyminor.com • www.gradyrninor.co Packet Pg. 1296 9.A.4.e Deep 50 Gun Range Conditional Use (PL20190001278) Evaluation Criteria This application is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and therefore, consistent with FLUE Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). Policy 5.6 of the FLUE requires new developments to be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses. The site is a former prison previously owned by the State of Florida. There are no residential neighbors within 3± miles of the subject property. All adjacent lands are owned by the State or Federal Government and given the conservation designation will never have residential development. Further, the property owner will supplement the existing earthen berms in order to construct a physical barrier impenetrable by the projectiles. Policy 7.1 of the FLUE encourages developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting arterial roads. The application has an existing connection to State Road 29, which is an arterial roadway. Policy 7.2 of the FLUE encourages internal accesses or loop roads in order to reduce congestion on collector and arterial roads. There are no opportunities nor is there a necessity to connect to the adjacent government owned conservation lands. Policy 7.3 of the FLUE encourages projects to provide vehicular and pedestrian interconnections to adjoining neighborhoods or other developments. There are no opportunities nor is there a necessity to connect to the adjacent government owned conservation lands. The Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) requires preservation of native vegetation and open space. Policy 6.1.1 of the CCME requires preservation of native vegetation for non-residential projects and compliance with the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). The conditional use is limited to that area that was cleared in the 1050's and 1060's, which pre -dated the ACSC designation. The Conditional Use Site Plan identifies a small area of native trees which will be retained, and non - permeable surfaces will not exceed 50% of the site consistent with the standards of the FLUE ACSC Overlay b. Describe the existing or planned means of ingress and egress to the property and proposed structure thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. December 12, 2019 W GradyMinor Page 2 of 3 D50GRCU-19 Evaluation Criteria.docx Civil Engincers • Land surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 • 239-947-1144 • engineering@gradyminor.com • www.gradyrninor.co Packet Pg. 1297 9.A.4.e Deep 50 Gun Range Conditional Use (PL20190001278) Evaluation Criteria The project is located on State Road 29 approximately. The project has existing ingress/egress on State Road 29, which will continue to be utilized for the sports and instructional camp. c. Describe the effect the conditional use will have on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic impact, and odor. The gun range will have limited lighting and with the exception of any training for law enforcement, the facility will be open dawn to dusk. Although the discharge of firearms will create noise, no residential neighbors will be within 3± miles of the site and will not be negatively impacted by the noise. d. Describe the site's and the proposed use's compatibility with adjacent properties and other properties in the district. All adjacent lands are owned by State or Federal agencies and contain no residential structures. The conversion of the site from prison to a membership sports and instructional camp and school will be compatible with surrounding properties. e. Please provide any additional information which you may feel is relevant to this request Redevelopment of this site to permit the proposed sports and instructional camp and school to permit a private membership -based gun range for target based shooting is appropriate and makes good use of an impacted rural property. The proposed facility will not sell firearms or ammunition. December 12, 2019 W GradyMinor Page 3 cf 3 D50GRCU-19 Evaluation Criteria.docx Civil Engincers • Land surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 • 239-947-1144 • engineering@gradyminor.com • www.gradyrninor.co Packet Pg. 1298 CoTer County 9.A.4.e COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 Pre -Application Meeting Notes Petition Type: Conditional Use (CU) Date and Time: Monday 6/3/2019 10 : OOAM Assigned Planner: Tim Finn Engineering Manager (for PPL's and FP's): Project Information Project Name: Deep 50 GR use (CU) PL#: 20190001278 Property ID #: 00982880005 Current Zoning: Agricultural -ACSC/ST Overlay ProectAddress:20201 State Road 29, Naples FL 34117 1 City. State: Zip: Applicant: Matthew Pitel Andrew Pitel Agent Name: Deep 50 Industries/ Phone: _ 8951 Bonita Beach Rd SE#525-304, Bonita Agent/Firm Address: City: Property Owner: Deep 50 Industries #525-304 Please provide the following, if applicable: i. Total Acreage: 20.03 ii. Proposed # of Residential Units: iii. Proposed Commercial Square Footage: iv. For Amendments, indicate the original petition number: 239-201-2600 Springs, FL 34135 State• Zip: V. If there is an Ordinance or Resolution associated with this project, please indicate the type and number: vi. If the project is within a Plat, provide the name and AR#/PL#: Updated 4/4/2019 Page 1 1 of 5 Packet Pg. 1299 9.A.4.e Cover County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 Meeting Notes As of 10/16/2017 all Zoning applications have revised applications, and your associated Application is included in your notes; additionally a *new Property Ownership Disclosure Form is required for all applications. A copy of this new form is included in your pre-app Note — link is https://www.colliergov.net/Home/ShowDocument?id=75093. ..� `Jr�.vL-.� ci C:`x-7-r ,1'•�.•r � V' CC- i�en�i..'1 'G' K,nI /% �C.'`��Y �-b-. �ii[�.((r iL.s` A � h rr{ -F �/1 C (' ✓� "�� i I, f 1�1� % YC G" L ( L� e LL i 1, j X,.w� Disclaimer: Information provided by staff to applicant during the Pre -Application Meeting is based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant of issues that could arise during the process. The Administrative Code and LDC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required data for an application may not fully outline what is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide all required data. q CT s 5�r-=�,� t��2�, -��rls �.a�LhC )(c)(1ip ) Gcs 4 �G'h d4411-i-/ t- i-2 r Updated 4/4/2019 Page 1 2 of 5 Packet Pg. 1300 Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net Meeting Notes 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 f VEA& WcaS& CURE GCALs % t'1 ExPjAk'#J1 j Now f-hE P'ro jpec - MEiE �' IkF- AL IZEaugi-Aa. i t-s SEE LU L1. L - 1 AN S I rE- ml T Wtij bE �'e6'0';tFd.EXj5ijyJ1 1�yaid�atl S �© k£ if-MN]EA AVEA C (eAQE Other required documentation for submittal (not listed on application): S¢e- -�F !;-rrwv-ware, Norv-s Disclaimer: Information provided by staff to applicant during the Pre -Application Meeting is based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant of issues that could arise during the process. The Administrative Code and LDC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required data for an application may not fully outline what is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide all required data. Updated 4/4/2019 Page 1 3 of 5 Packet Pg. 1301 9.A.4.e Tom Clarke, This conditional use has little or nothing to do with stormwater planning, so we will not be attending the pre -application meeting. Please include the following comment(s) to the pre -application notes. The site is within the "Other" classification for drainage basins with regulated discharge rates; which have a design discharge rate of 0.15 cfs/ac. This site appears not to have any previous SFWMD ERP permits. Please contact Richard Orth at 239-252-5092 or Richard.Orth@collierCountyFL.gov should you have any questions related area stormwater drainage. Thank you again Thomas, Rick Orth Richard Orth, P.G., Sr. Environmental Specialist Collier County Growth Management Department Capital Project and Impact Fees Program Management Stormwater Management Section 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Ste 103, Naples, FL 34104 Office 239-252-5092, Cellular 239-634-9024 RichardOrth@CollierGov.Net Packet Pg. 1302 9.A.4.e Collier County Transportation Planning and PUD Monitoring Pre-App Notes Developer Commitments: / Transportation Planning��,•9 " The maximum total daily trip generation for the fE= shall not exceed two-way PM peak hour net trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval." Use Codes Provide both ITE and SIC use codes in the TIS. PUD Monitoring "One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity all be responsible for PUD monitoring until close- out of the PUD, and this entity shall aljoYe respon ible for satisfying al commitments until close-out of the P AtZe ti of this CPUD proval, the paging is the Insert Company Name Here. the Managing Enti esi to transfer the mom ng and commitments to a succes tity, then it must provide of a legally binding doc at ids to be approve or legal ficiency by the ounty Atto Y. After suc pproval, th staff, an off trac the be released of Dr entity shall iging Entity 'tie commitm 94mer's agreement to co xit Managing Entity shall not be re ' closed -out, then the Managing Enti of PUD commitments." Miscellaneous w''upon written appro of th ansfer by County Managing Entity. As O and Developer sell re -,written notice t County at includes an Is required by CPUD the new owner d the new the Commitments t gh the Managing Entity, ut the of its responsibility unde is Section. When the PUD is is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment "Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development." Packet Pg. 1303 9.A.4.e Environmental Checklist Conditional Use Project Name LEQ So &VIJ Q4N_gE Ql . Is the project is in compliance with the overlays, districts and/or zoning on the subject site and/or the surrounding properties? (CON, ST, PUD, RLSA, RFMU, etc.) (LDC 2.03.05-2.03.08; 4.08.00) Not in CV Library �2 Submit a current aerial photograph (available from the Property Appraiser's office) and clearly delineate the subject site boundary lines. If the site is vegetated, provide FLUCFCS overlay and vegetation inventory identifying upland, wetland and exotic vegetation (Admin. Code Ch. 3 G.1. Application Contents #24). FLUCFCS Overlay -P627 (D Clearly identify the location of all preserves and label each as "Preserve" on all plans. (LDC 3.05.07.A.2). Preserve Label- P546 IY\E£ViH, acSc. Lu 4.0t. ly . C ' 1 4 SDp, �4 Provide calculations on site plan showing the appropriate acreage of native vegetation to be retained, the max. amount and ratios permitted to be created on -site or mitigated off -site. Exclude vegetation located within utility and drainage easements from the preserve calculations (LDC 3.05.07.13-1); 3.05.07.17; 3.05.07.H.1.d-e). Preserve Calculation - P547 Created and retained preserve areas shall meet the minimum width requirements per LDC 3.05.07.H. l .b. Preserve Width - P603 ( 6.) Retained preservation areas shall be selected based on the criteria defined in LDC 3.05.07.A.3, include all 3 strata, be in the largest contiguous area possible and shall be interconnected within the site and to adjoining off -site preservation areas or wildlife corridors. (LDC 3.05.07.A.1-4) Preserve Selection- P550 Principle structures shall be located a minimum of 25' from the boundary of the preserve boundary. No accessory structures and other site alterations, fill placement, grading, plant alteration or removal, or similar activity shall be permitted within 10' of the boundary unless it can be shown that it will not affect the integrity of the preserve (i.e. stem wall or berm around wetland preserve). Provide cross -sections for each preserve boundary identifying all site alterations within 25'. (LDC 3.05.07.H.3; 6.01.02.C.) Preserve Setback — New Wildlife survey required for sites where an EIS is not required, when so warranted. (LDC 10.02.02.A.2.f) Listed Species - P522 9. Provide Environmental Data identifying author credentials, consistency determination with the GMPs, off -site preserves, seasonal and historic high water levels, and analysis of water quality. For land previously used for farm fields or golf course, provide soil sampling/groundwater monitoring reports identifying any site contamination. (LDC 3.08.00) Environmental Data Required — P 522 10. Master Plan shall state the minimum acreage required to be preserved. (LDC 10.02.13.A.2) Master Plan Contents-P626 90110 ®fr- vey-14}'av). RcsC- • Additional Comments: 0 a� c M c 0 0 a m d 0 0 1- N 0 0 0 on 0 N a N M M Packet Pg. 1304 9.A.4.e Environmental Data Checklist Project Name DEEP So Gvd (1k+)5 iE The Environmental Data requirements can be found in LDC Section 3.08.00 1. Provide the EIS fee if PUD or CU. V WHO AND WHAT COMPANY PREPARED THE ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REPORT? Preparation of Environmental Data. Environmental Data Submittal Requirements shall be prepared by an individual with academic credentials and experience in the area of environmental sciences or natural resource management. Academic credentials and experience shall be a bachelor's or higher degree in one of the biological sciences with at least two years of ecological or biological professional experience in the State of Florida. Please include revision dates on resubmittals. 30. Identify on a current aerial, the location and acreage of all SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) and include this information on the SDP or final plat construction plans. Wetlands must be verified by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) or Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) prior to SDP or final plat construction plans approval. For sites in the RFMU district, provide an assessment in accordance with 3.05.07 F and identify on the FLUCFCS map the location of all high quality wetlands (wetlands having functionality scores of at least 0.65 WRAP or 0.7 UMAM) and their location within the proposed development plan. Sites with high quality wetlands must have their functionality scores verified by the SFWMD or DEP prior to first development order approval. Where functionality scores have not been verified by either the SFWMD or DEP, scores must be reviewed and accepted by County staff, consistent with State regulation. 4. SDP or final plat construction plans with impacts to five (5) or more acres of wetlands shall provide an analysis of potential water quality impacts of the project by evaluating water quality loadings expected from the project (post development conditions considering the proposed land uses and stormwater management controls) compared with water quality loadings of the project area as it exists in its pre -development conditions. The analysis shall be performed using methodologies approved by Federal and State water quality agencies, and must demonstrate no increase in nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) loadings in the post development scenario. 5. Where treated stormwater is allowed to be directed into preserves, show how the criteria in 3.05.07 H have been met. Where native vegetation is retained on site, provide a topographic map to a half foot and, where possible, KPI provide elevations within each of the FLUCFCS Codes identified on site. For SDP or final plat construction plans, include this information on the site plans. Provide when treated stormwater is being directed into preserves (45 above). GProvide a wildlife survey for the nests of bald eagle and for listed species known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines or recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Survey times may be reduced or waived where an initial habitat assessment by the environmental consultant indicates that the likelihood of listed species occurrence is low, as determined by the FFWCC and USFWS. Where an initial habitat assessment by the environmental consultant indicates that the likelihood of listed species occurrence is low, the survey time may be reduced or waived by the County Manager or designee, when the project is not reviewed or technical assistance not provided by the FFWCC and USFWS. Additional survey time may be required if listed species are discovered ( 8. Provide a survey for listed plants identified in 3.04.03 ®9 Wildlife habitat management and monitoring plans in accordance with 3.04.00 shall be required where listed species are utilizing the site or where wildlife habitat management and monitoring plans are required by the FFWCC or USFWS. These plans shall describe how the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed m a� c M c 0 0 a m d c 0 I- N_ O 0 0 on 0 N J a N M O M Packet Pg. 1305 9.A.4.e species and their habitats. Identify the location of listed species nests, burrows, dens, foraging areas, and the location of any bald eagle nests or nest protection zones on the native vegetation aerial with FLUCFCS overlay for the site. Wildlife habitat management plans shall be included on the SDP or final plat construction plans. Bald eagle management plans are required for sites containing bald eagle nests or nest protection zones, copies of which shall be included on the SDP or final plat construction plans. Note: Not required at time of Land use petitions except for Bald Eagle Management Plans. Staff requests management plans for other species are only provided at time of Plat or SDP. 10. For sites or portions of sites cleared of native vegetation or in agricultural operation, provide documentation that the parcel(s) were issued a permit to be cleared and are in compliance with the 25 year rezone limitation pursuant to section 10.02.06. For sites permitted to be cleared prior to July 2003, provide documentation that the parcel(s) are in compliance with the 10 year rezone limitation previously identified in the GMP. Criteria defining native vegetation and determining the legality, process and criteria for clearing are found in 3.05.05, 3.05.07 and 10.02.06. 11. Identify on a current aerial the acreage, location and community types of all upland and wetland habitats on the project site, according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS), and provide a legend for each of the FLUCFCS Codes identified. Aerials and overlay information must be legible at the scale provided. UProvide descriptions of each FLUCFCS code Provide calculations for the acreage of native vegetation required to be retained on -site. aO Demonstrate on map. b. Provide a companion chart. Include the above referenced calculations and aerials on the SDP or final plat construction plans. 12. Include on a separate site plan, the project boundary and the land use designations and overlays for the RLSA, RFMU, ST and ACSC-ST districts. Include this information on the SDP or final plat construction plans. 13. Where off -site preservation of native vegetation is proposed in lieu of on -site, demonstrate that the criteria in section 3.05.07 have been met and provide a note on the SDP or final plat construction plans indicating the type of donation (monetary payment or land donation) identified to satisfy the requirement. Include on the SDP or final plat construction plans, a location map(s) and property identification number(s) of the off -site parcel(s) if off -site donation of land is to occur. 14. Provide the results of any Environmental Assessments and/or Audits of the property, along with a narrative of the measures needed to remediate if required by FDEP. 15. Soil and/or ground water sampling shall be required at the time of first development order submittal for sites that occupy farm fields (crop fields, cattle dipping ponds, chemical mixing areas), golf courses, landfill or junkyards or for sites where hazardous products exceeding 250 gallons of liquid or 1,000 pounds of solids were stored or processed or where hazardous wastes in excess of 220 pounds per month or 110 gallons at any point in time were generated or stored. The amount of sampling and testing shall be determined by a registered professional with experience in the field of Environmental Site Assessment and shall at a minimum test for organochlorine pesticides (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 8081) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 8 metals using Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) soil sampling Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) FS 3000, in areas suspected of being used for mixing and at discharge point of water management system. Sampling should occur randomly if no points of contamination are obvious. Include a background soil analysis from an undeveloped location hydraulically upgradient of the potentially contaminated site. Soil sampling should occur just below the root zone, about 6 to 12 inches below ground surface or as otherwise agreed upon with the registered professional with experience in the field of Environmental Site Assessment. Include in or with the Environmental Site Assessment, the acceptable State and Federal pollutant levels for the types of contamination found on site and indicate in the Assessment, when the contaminants are over these levels. If this analysis has been done as part of an Environmental Audit then the report shall be m a� c M c 0 0 a m as c 0 I- N T 0 0 0 on T 0 N J a N M M T v Packet Pg. 1306 9.A.4.e submitted. The County shall coordinate with the FDEP where contamination exceeding applicable FDEP standards is identified on site or where an Environmental Audit or Environmental Assessment has been submitted. 16. Shoreline development must provide an analysis demonstrating that the project will remain fully functional for its intended use after a six-inch rise in sea level. 17. Provide justification for deviations from environmental LDC provisions pursuant to GMP CCME Policy 6.1.1 (13), if requested. 18. Where applicable, provide evidence of the issuance of all applicable federal and/or state oil and gas permits for c� proposed oil and gas activities in Collier County. Include all state permits that comply with the requirements of Chapter 62C-25 through 62C-30, F.A.C., as those rules existed on January 13, 2005. `° 19. Identify any Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones (WRM-ST) within the project area c 0 and provide an analysis for how the project design avoids the most intensive land uses within the most sensitive 0 Ln WRM-STs and will comply with the WRM-ST pursuant to 3.06.00. Indicate that the petition is in compliance m with 3.06.00 and does not propose any prohibited uses per LDC 3.06.00. o Include the location of the Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones on the SDP or final plat 00 construction plans. For land use applications such as standard and PUD rezones and CUs, provide a separate site c plan or zoning map with the project boundary and Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones rn identified. N 20. Demonstrate that the design of the proposed stormwater management system and analysis of water quality and J a quantity impacts fully incorporate the requirements of the Watershed Management regulations of 3.07.00. M T 21. For sites located in the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern -Special Treatment overlay district (ACSC- ST), show how the project is consistent with the development standards and regulations in 4.02.14. A 22. For multi -slip docking facilities with ten slips or more, and for all marina facilities, show how the project is consistent with 5.05.02. Refer to the Manatee Protection Plan for site specific requirements of the Manatee Protection Plan not included in 5.05.02. 23. For development orders within RFMU sending lands, show how the project is consistent with each of the applicable Objectives and Policies of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP. 24. The County Manager or designee may require additional data or information necessary to evaluate the project's compliance with LDC and GMP requirements. (LDC 10.02.02.A.3 f) The following to be determined at preapplication meeting: (Choose those that apply) a. Provide overall description of project with respect to environmental and water management issues. Explain how project is consistent with each of the applicable objectives and policies in the CCME of the GMP. 0 Explain how the project meets or exceeds the native vegetation preservation requirement in the CCME and LDC. ® Indicate wetlands to be impacted and the effects of the impact to their functions and how the project's design compensates for wetland impacts. kJ. Indicate how the project design minimizes impacts to listed species. Describe the measures that are proposed v as mitigation for impacts to listed species. 25. PUD zoning and CU petitions. For PUD rezones and CU petitions, applicants shall collate and package applicable Environmental Data Submittal Requirements into a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Packet Pg. 1307 9.A.4.e document, prior to public hearings and after all applicable staff reviews are complete. Copies of the EIS shall be provided to the County Manager or designee prior to public hearings. 26. Is EAC Review (by CCPC) required? 10 %E D2J1vJ mi-gEA 27. PUD master plan or PPUSDP site plan notes (note requirements subject to change during review process) Type B or C Landscape Buffer (provide as Buffer commitment): Preserves may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer requirements after exotic vegetation removal in accordance with LDC sections 4.06.02 and 4.06.05.E.1. Supplemental plantings with native plant materials shall be in accordance with LDC section 3.05.07. In order to provide the required (insert Type B or C) buffer, a minimum 6-foot-wide landscape buffer easement located outside of the preserve will be conveyed by owner to a homeowner's association or condominium association at time of SDP or plat approval. Owner will plant additional landscape material in the buffer easement to achieve the opacity requirement no later than one year from the issuance of the first residential certificate of occupancy. 1. Packet Pg. 1308 9.A.4.e ACSC Permit requirements. 19T3 Per LDC 4.02.14.C.1., Site alteration shall be limited to ten (10) percent of the total site size. However, a minimum of 2,500 square feet may be altered on any permitted site. To clarify, up to ten (10) percent of the total area may be altered if the parcel is greater than 25,000 square feet in size. If the parcel is less than 25,000 square feet in size, then up to 2,500 square feet may be altered. Regarding the 2,500 square feet alteration restriction within the ACSC, the County would not apply that restriction to parcels altered prior to the establishment of the 1973 ACSC. The nonconformity may remain, but cannot be expanded beyond the limitation in LDC Section 4.02.14.C.1. Lots altered after 1973 and lots proposed to be altered are subject to the 2,500 square feet alteration restriction. The 2,500 square feet maximum impervious requirement is in effect for any parcel, regardless of when alteration took place. For more details, please refer to LDC 4.02.14. Packet Pg. 1309 Co.r County 9.A.4.e COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 Pre -Application Meeting Sign -In Sheet PL# 20190001278 Collier County Contact Information: Name Review Discipline Phone Email ❑ David Anthony Environmental Review 252-2497 david.anthony@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Claudine Auclair GMD Operations and Regulatory Management 252-5887 claudine.auclair@colliercountyfl.gov Sally Ashkar Assistant County Attorney 252-8842 sally.ashkar@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Steve Baluch Transportation Planning 252-2361 stephen.baluch@colliercountyfl.gov Ray Bellows X Laurie Beard Zoning, Planning Manager PUD Monitoring 252-2463 252-5782 raymond.bellows@colliercountyfl.gov laurie.beard@ col IiercountyfLgov Craig Brown Environmental Specialist 252-2548 craig.brown @colliercountyfLgov ❑ Alexandra Casanova Operations Coordinator 252-2658 Alexandra.casanova @colliercountyfLgov ❑ Heidi Ashton Cicko Managing Asst. County Attorney 252-8773 heidi.ashton@colliercountyfl.gov Thomas Clarke Operations Coordinator 252-2584 thomas.clarke@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Jamie Cook Prin. Environmental Specialist 252-6290 Jaime.cook@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Eric Fey, P.E. Utility Planning 252-1037 eric.fey@colliercountyfl.gov Tim Finn, AICP Zoning Division 252-4312 timothy.finn@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Sue Faulkner Comprehensive Planning 252-5715 sue.faulkner@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Paula Fleishman Impact Fee Administration 252-2924 paula.fleishman@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ James French Growth Management Deputy Department Head 252-5717 james.french@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Michael Gibbons Structural/Residential Plan Review 252-2426 michael.gibbons@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Storm Gewirtz, P.E. Engineering Stormwater 252-2434 storm.gewirtz@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA Zoning Division 252-2484 nancy.gundlach@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Shar Hingson Greater Naples Fire District 774-2800 shingson@gnfire.org ❑ John Houldsworth Engineering Subdivision 252-5757 john.houldsworth@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Alicia Humphries Right -Of -Way Permitting 252-2326 alicia.humph ries@colIiercountyfLgov ❑ Erin Josephitis Environmental Specialist, Senior 252-2915 erin.josephitis@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Marcia Kendall Comprehensive Planning 252-2387 marcia.kendall@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ John Kelly Zoning Senior Planner 252-5719 john.kelly@colliercountyfl.gov Diane Lynch Operations Analyst 252-8243 diane.lynch@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Gil Martinez Zoning Principal Planner 252-4211 gilbert.martinez@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Thomas Mastroberto Greater Naples Fire 252-7348 thomas.mastroberto@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Jack McKenna, P.E. Engineering Services 252-2911 1 jack.mckenna@colliercountyfl.gov Updated 4/4/2019 Page 1 4 of 5 Packet Pg. 1310 Co er County 9.A.4.e COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 ❑ Matt McLean, P.E. Development Review Director 252-8279 matthew.mclean@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Michele Mosca, AICP Capital Project Planning 252-2466 michele.mosca@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Annis Moxam Addressing 252-5519 annis.moxam@colliercountyfl.gov Richard Orth Stormwater Planning 252-5092 rchard.orth@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Brandy Otero Transit 252-5859 bra ndy.otero@colliercountyfLgov ❑ Brandi Pollard Utility Impact fees 252-6237 brandi.pollard@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Todd Riggall North Collier Fire 597-9227 triggall@northcollierfire.com ❑ Brett Rosenblum, P.E. Development Review Principal Project Manager 252-2905 brett.rosenblum@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ James Sabo, AICP Zoning Principal Planner 252-2708 james.sabo@colliergo.net Michael Sawyer Transportation Planning 252-2926 michael.sawyer@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Corby Schmidt, AICP Comprehensive Planning 252-2944 corby.schmidt@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Chris Scott, AICP Development Review - Zoning 252-2460 chris.scott@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Linda Simmons North Collier Fire 252-2311 Linda.Simmons@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Peter Shawinsky Architectural Review 252-8523 peter.shawinsky@colliercountyfl.gov Camden Smith Zoning Operations Manager 252-1042 camden.smith@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Scott Stone Assistant County Attorney 252-5740 scott.stone@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Mark Strain Mark Templeton Hearing Examiner/CCPC Landscape Review 252-4446 252-2475 mark.strain@colliercountyfl.gov mark.templeton@coiliercountyfLgov ❑ Jessica Velasco Zoning Division Operations 252-2584 jessica.velasco@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Jon Walsh, P.E. Building Review 252-2962 jonathan.walsh@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ David Weeks, AICP Comprehensive Planning Future Land Use Consistency 252-2306 david.weeks@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Kirsten Wilkie Environmental Review Manager 252-5518 kirsten.wiIkie@coiliercountyfLgov ❑ Christine Willoughby Development Review -Zoning 252-5748 christine.willoughby@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Daniel Zunzunegui North Collier Fire 252-2310 Daniel.Zunzunegui@colliercountyfl.gov Additional Attendee Contact Information: Name Representing Phone Email Updated 4/4/2019 Page 1 5 of 5 Packet Pg. 1311 9.A.4.e 00 787 co-t471ty Applicant/Agent may also send site plans or conceptual plans for review in advance if desired. Growth Management Department Zoning Division PL20190001278 - Deep 50 GR use. (CU) PRE-APP INFO Assigned Ops Staff: Thomas Clarke Camden Smith,(Ops Staff) c STAFF FORM FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PRE -APPLICATION MEETING INFORMATION c • Name and Number of who submitted pre-app request Lo Matthew Pitel / 239-201-2600 J Matt@deep50.com a a� a� 0 00 ti • Agent to list for PL# N r O Deep 50 Industries / Matthew Pitel c T O • Owner of property (all owners for all parcels) C4 Deep 50 Industries / Matthew Pitel AMBR a N M to • Confirm Purpose of Pre-App: (Rezone, etc.) M To rezone the property from Prison to education gun club. N • Please list the density request of the project if applicable and number of homes/units/offices/docks (any that apply): The scope of the project is fairly basic in nature. We wish the demolish the existing main prison building, several of the "outbuildings" and the un permitted shade shelters. From there, we want to construct "Shooting berms" utilizing the existing above grade dirt material. We would like to put up a few sun shades but that is it. no other construction is required. Details about Project: Conditional Use — Operating as a private gun club, we want to sell "Annual Memberships" to qualified individuals and family for their use to the club. We want to conduct formal organized competitions sanctioned from the United States Practical Shooting Association. REQUIRED Supplemental Information provided by: Name: Matthew Pitel Title: President Email: matt@deep50.com Phone: 239-201-2600 Cancellation/Reschedule Requests: Contact Danny Condomina-Client Services Supervisor danny.condomina@colliercountyfl Phon ZoNng Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, Florida 34104. 239-252-2400 • www.cdiagov.net Packet Pg. 1312 9.A.4.e Deep 50 Industries 20201 SR 29 Naples, FL 34117 ( Former Copeland Prison) Proposal : To demolish the main facility and several outbuildings to make room to erect Shooting bays utilizing the existing material above grade to construct and operate a private gun club. This private gun club is designed for the family and competition type of person. We want to keep it private so we have the right to decline anyone who may be unsafe, not able to legally own a firearm or who may have different motives. We will not sell firearms, ammunition or anything of the such. This range is for the simple purpose of allowing those that we properly screen to enjoy a day outside shooting at targets. The membership type is an annual period with immediate revocation if safety rules are violated. A non-member will not have access to the range at all. To Learn ,:more about the competition type of matches, you can visit: www.uspsa.org The United States Practical Shooting Association This sport is an international sport held all over the world. We have already received our sanction and are approved to hold these types of competitions. This type of competition is known for being the safest shooting sport in the world in it's 50 plus year history. For newer members who want to improve their skills, we will have Certified instructors to aid in teaching them. We have no interest in combat or military style training for civilians. Again, this facility is designed to be a fun, safe family orientated day at the range. Packet Pg. 1313 � rm .It ir, s x alp T .: JL s yy loop A kx i .w ilY"" �1_.wn•" y.... ro • frk - ,.t Y iP: ' L?. r s "' 9.A.4.e Pia Pmd wad )"A O� U_ d c R c o Ln Q Co ti N r O O O a) r O N J d N j M I M N I Packet Pg. 1315 9.A.4.e Cotbeo r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Pre -Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: ❑ A Conditional Use to be heard by the Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals ❑ A Minor Conditional Use to be heard by the Office of the Hearing Examiner Chanter 3 C.I. of the Administrative Code The following Submittal Requirement Checklist is to be utilized during the Pre -Application Meeting, and at time of application submittal. At time of submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. Requirements for Review # Of Copies Required Not Required Completed Application (download current form from County website) 1 ® ❑ Cover letter briefly explaining the project 1 Pre -Application Notes 1LJ __�F Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized 1 ® ❑ Completed Addressing Checklist 1 ® ❑ Property Ownership Disclosure Form 1 ® ❑ Warranty Deed(s) 1 ❑ Boundary Survey 1 ❑ Conceptual Site Plan 24" X 36" plus (one 8 % X 11 copy) ❑ ?� Plans showing proposed location for utilities, if required ❑ Plans for screening and buffering the use with reference as to type, dimensions, and character, if required ❑ R ❑ Plans showing the proposed landscaping and provisions for trees protected by County regulations, if required ❑ El ❑ Plans showing the proposed signs and lighting, including type, dimensions, and character, if required El Architectural Rendering of Proposed Structure(s), if applicable 1 ❑ Current aerial photographs (available from Property Appraiser) with project boundary and, if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included on aerial. 1 ❑ Statement of utility provisions (with all required attachments & sketches) 1 Environmental Data Requirements, pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00 1 Environmental Data Requirements collated into a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) at time of public hearings. Coordinate with project planner at time of public hearing. 0 Listed Species Survey; less than 12 months old. Include copies of previous surveys. 1 Traffic Impact Study (TIS) or waiver 1 Historical and Archeological Survey, or waiver 1 Electronic copy of all documents and plans * Please advise: The Office of the Hearing Examiner requires all materials to be submitted electronically in PDF format. 1 ❑ * If located in the Bays hore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, include an additional set of each submittal requirement 5/08/2018 Page 8 of 12 Packet Pg. 1316 9.A.4.e Co*.-r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS: • Following the completion of the review process by County review staff, the applicant shall submit all materials electronically to the designated project manager. • Please contact the project manager to confirm the number of additional copies required. Planners: Indicate if the netitinn naPdc to ha rnutad to tha fnllnwinv ndditinnal raviawarc- ❑ Bays h o re/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment: Executive Director Emergency Management: Dan Summers; and/or EMS: Artie Bay ❑ Conservancy of SWFL: Nichole Johnson ®' GMD Graphics ❑ City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director Utilities Engineering: Eric Fey ❑ Parks and Recreation: Barry Williams ❑ Immokalee Water/Sewer District: ❑ Other: ❑ School District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart Communication Towers: ❑ Mosquito Control I ❑ Collier County Airport Authority ❑ I Naples Airport Authority Commercial M 5/08/2018 Page 9 of 12 Packet Pg. 1317 9.A.4.e Co-r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 FEE REQUIREMENTS All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners 'Pre -Application Meeting: $500.00 (to be credited towards the application fee if the application is filed within 9 months of pre -application meeting) conditional Use Application Fee: $4,000.00 o When filed with Rezone Petition: $1,500.00 o Additional fee for 5th and subsequent reviews: 20% of original fee Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review: $300.00 Environmental Data Requirements -EIS Packet (submittal determined at pre -application meeting): $2,500.00 f0h Listed or Protected Species survey review fee (when an EIS is not required): $1,000.00 Transportation Fee, if required: a,*' Methodology Review Fee: $500.00 o Minor Study Review Fee: $750.00 o Major Study Review Fee: $1,500.00 Estimated Legal Advertising Fee for the Hearing Examiner or CCPC: $1,125.00 Estimated Legal Advertising Fee for the BZA, if required: $500.00 Fire Code Plans Review Fees are collected at the time of application submission and those fees are set forth by the Authority having jurisdiction. The Land Development Code requires Neighborhood Notification mailers for Applications headed to hearing, and this fee is collected prior to hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Agent/Owner Signature Agent/Owner Name (please print) 5/08/2018 Date Page 10 of 12 Packet Pg. 1318 9.A.4.e AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) PL20190001278 I Matthew P'!el (print name), as 4u,hpr.zea Ne qe' applicable) of Deep 50 Inpusines. LLC (title, if under oath, that I am the choose one owner (company, If ap licable), swear or affirm L ) DappficantElcontract purchaserMand that; 1, i have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2. All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. l have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. 5. Well authorize c Grady Miror 6 Associates. P n in any matters regarding this petition Including T through 2 above, to act as ourlmy representative "Notes: • If the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed by the carp, pres. or v. pres. • If the applicant is a Limited Liability Company (L, L. C. ) or Limited Company (L. C.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's "Managing Member. " • If the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • if the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the "general partner" of the named partnership. ■ if the applicant is a trust. then they must include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee" • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts stated in it are tru nature Date STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me on Matthew Pitel Authorized Memlw (name of person who is personally known to (type of identification) as identification. STAMPISEAL Christopher Lynch NOTARY PUBLIC V1. STATE OF FLORIDA Comm* GGei 3422 Expires 9/16/2023 M08-C(1A-001 1-1155 RF% 312-1II4 U (date) by oath or affirmation}, as Public Packet Pg. 1319 Collier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and email to GMD_Addressing@colliergov.net or fax to the Operations Division at 239-252-5724 or submit in person to the Addressing Section at the above address. Form must be si , n�Y Addressing personnel prior to pre -application meeting, please allow 3 days for processing. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold type are required. FOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED. Forms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Section. PETITION TYPE (Indicate type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition type) ❑ BL (Blasting Permit) ❑ SDP (Site Development Plan) ❑ BD (Boat Dock Extension) ❑ SDPA (SDP Amendment) ❑ Carnival/Circus Permit ❑ SDPI (Insubstantial Change to SDP) 0 CU (Conditional Use) ❑ SIP (Site Improvement Plan) ❑ EXP (Excavation Permit) ❑ SIPI (Insubstantial Change to SIP) ❑ FP (Final Plat ❑ SNR (Street Name Change) ❑ LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) ❑ SNC (Street Name Change — Unplatted) ❑ PNC (Project Name Change) ❑ TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) ❑ PPL (Plans & Plat Review) ❑ VA (Variance) ❑ PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) ❑ VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) ❑ PUD Rezone ❑ VRSFP (Vegetation Removal & Site Fill Permit) ❑ RZ (Standard Rezone) ❑ OTHER LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description may be attached) S7, T51, R30 (See Exhibit A) FOLIO (Property ID) NUMBER(s) of above (attach to, or associate with, legal description if more than one) 00982880005 STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, if already assigned) 20201 SR 29 • LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of project/site in relation to nearest public road right- of-way • SURVEY (copy -needed only for unplatted properties) CURRENT PROJECT NAME (if applicable) N.A. PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (if applicable) Deep 50 Gun Range PROPOSED STREET NAMES (if applicable) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for existing projects/sites only) SDP - or AR or PL # Rev. 6/9/2017 1 Packet Pg. 1320 Collier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if application; indicate whether proposed or existing) Deep 50 Gun Range Please Return Approved Checklist By: F�] Email Applicant Name: Deep 50 Industries, LLC ❑ Fax ❑ Personally picked up Phone: 239-947-1144 Email/Fax: sumpenhour@gradyminor.com Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Division. FOR STAFF USE ONLY Folio Number 00982880005 Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number 0�__ Approved by: Date: 9 / 9 / 19 Updated by: Date: IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED Rev. 6/9/2017 Packet Pg. 1321 *** OR 5604 PG 3657 *** 9.A.4.e EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION (A) Commence at the Northeast corner of the Southeast 1/4 of, Section 7, Township 51 South, Range 30 East Collier County, Florida and run South 00133' 10" East 354.66 feet along the east boundary of said Southeast 1/4 thence run South 89°26'50" West 351.67 feet, crossing State Road 29 and the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad right of way line to the POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT HEREIN DESCRIBED: continue thence South 89126'50" West 800.00 feet; thence South 00133'10" East 1089.00 feet; thence North 89°26'50" East 800.00 feet; thence North 00133'10" West 1089.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; lying in and being a part of the East 1/2 of the ,nSoutheastn of Section 7, Township 51 South, Range 30 East. .. i`" o r ALSO (B) Commencing at the S4 ast corner Of ct A" a described: thence North I ,, 00°33'10" West 255.00 feet* POINT OF BEN1IOF TRACT B, HEREIN DESCRIBED; thence North '6 0" East 260.36 feet t6. ' ,,point on the westerly right of way boundary line of the Atlanti d is ig Railraa sW' * A oundary line at this point lying on a curve Northwesterly and to the" aof 5645.65 feet and tangent at said point bearing North 04130'49" West; thence following said boundary line Northwesterly along said curve to the left and through a central angle of 00°30'31" a distance of 50.13 feet; thence South 89°26'50" West 256.68 feet; thence South 00033'10" East 50.00 feet to POINT OF BEGINNING. Packet Pg. 1322 Collier County Property Appraiser Property Summary Site 20201 SR Site Zone Parcel No 00982880005 Address 29 Site City I NAPLES *Note 341: *Disclaimer Name / Address IDEEP 50 INDUSTRIES 8951 BONITA BEACH RD #525-304 0 M City BONITA SPRINGS State I FL I Zip 34135 0 Map No. Strap No. Section Township Range Acres *Estimated Q. 6F07 000100 002 6F07 7 51 30 20.03 c 00 Legal 17 5130 PART OF SE1/4 DEEDED TO STATE FOR PRISON CM 0 Milla a Area a 35 Milla a Rates a *Calculations 0 o Sub./Condo 100 - ACREAGE HEADER School Other Total N Use Code a 35 - TOURIST ATTRACTIONS 5.083 8.6351 13.7181 a N Latest Sales History 2019 Preliminary Tax Roll M Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) (Subject to Chanqe) 77 Date Book -Page Amount 03/04/19 5604-3655 $ 400,000 03/06/18 5483-3887 $ 100 03/08/12 4772-3347 $ 300,000 02/11/04 3500-348 $ 0 10/21/52 25-373 $ 0 Land Value $ 47,744 (+) Improved Value $ 625,5! (_) Market Value $ 673,31 (_) Assessed Value $ 673,3! (_) School Taxable Value $ 673,1 (_) If all Final Taxable Value $ 673,3; Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Tax Roll Packet Pg. 1323 Collier County Property Appraiser Property Aerial Site 20201 SR I Site Zone Parcel No 00982880005 Address 29 Site City I NAPLES *Note 341: *Disclaimer Open GIS in a New Window with More Features. Packet Pg. 1324 Coffie-' County 9.A.4.e COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE Fd This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the [7 C. erLt211Ldr'C VI -- iUu I III-ICJL. Name and Address % of Ownershi If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the ercentage of stock owned by each: Name and Address % of Owners If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the G Created 9/28/2017 Page 1 of 3 Packet Pg. 1325 Co ier County 9.A.4.e COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the -1 CIICI aI a11U/vi nIII cu Nun ...-+• Name and Address % of Ownership Deep 50 Industries, LLC, 8951 Bonita Beach Road, Suite #525- 304, Bonita Springs, FL 34135 100 Matthew Pitel, Authorized Member 100 e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, includingthe officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, orpartners: Name and Address % of Ownership f 9. Date of Contract: If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or of Date subject property acquired 03/04/2019 ❑ Leased: Term of lease years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 1326 9.A.4.e CO �jer COunty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Date of option: Date option terminates: , or Anticipated closing date: AFFIRM PROPER V OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form. Any change in ownership whether individually or with a Trustee, Company or other interest -holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition's final publichearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 11 [ Agent/Owner Signature Date (V\ , , (_ Agent/Owner Name (please print) Created 9/28/2017 Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 1327 INSTR 5680504 OR 5604 PG 3655 E-RECORDED 3/6/2019 11:25 AM PAGES 3 CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA DOC@.70 $2,800.00 REC $27.00 CONS $400,000.00 9.A.4.e Prepared by and return to: C. Lane Wood Attorney at Law Wood, Buckel & Carmichael, PLLC 2150 Goodlette Road N. Sixth Floor Naples, FL 34102 239-552-4100 Consideration: $400,000.00 Above This Line For Recording Special Warranty Deed This Special Warranty Deed made thisa, y. of March, 2019 between Deep Lake OPS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, whose post office address is -`" me, outh, Naples, FL 34102, grantor, and Deep 50 Industries, a Florida limited liability compa,� a a is 27161 Serrano Way, Bonita Springs, FL 34135, grantee: fj/ ,t,` (Whenever used herein the terms "grantor" and individuals, and the successors and assigns of cor parties to this instrilgtent 4d the heirs, legal representatives, and assigns of 1100 DOLLARS ($10.00) and other Witnesseth, that said grantor, for and in , o i t D good and valuable considerations to s id g t r in a p. id; gr to , th rec ipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, and sold to th i r eeirs d ss orever, the following described land, situate, lying and being in Collier Con orida to -wit: See Exhibit A f A �r Parcel Identification Number: 009 T .; Together with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. To Have and to Hold, the same in fee simple forever. And the grantor hereby covenants with said grantee that the grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that the grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that the grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons claiming by, through or under Grantor; and that said land is free of all encumbrances, except taxes accruing subsequent to December 31, 2018. THIS SPACE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY SEE NEXT PAGE FOR SIGNATURES DoubleTime" Packet Pg. 1328 OR 5604 PG 3656 9.A.4.e In Witness Whereof, grantor has hereunto set grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence: ��C Witness N e: i Ct C_'.t_ >tness Name: 4 . (.G u l State of Florida County of Collier The foregoing instrument was acknowl 71 LLC, a Florida limited liability compaqy, to me or [ ] has produced a driver's lic m [Notary Seal] Deep Lake Ops, LLC, a Floridali ited-lia ility company By: Robert D. White, Authorized Member (Corporate Seal) C. LANE WOOD MY COMMISSION # FF 193 EXPIRES: March 10, 2019 Bonded Thru Notary Public Underwdters My Cr C § March, O1 by Robert D. White o Deep Lake Ops, i behalf f th company. He[ is personally known m a� c c 3 (7 0 LO fl. d w N O O O tr 0 N J a N M M Warranty Deed - Page 2 DoubleTime"' Packet Pg. 1329 *** OR 5604 PG 3657 *** 9.A.4.e EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION (A) Commence at the Northeast corner of the Southeast 1/4 of, Section 7, Township 51 South, Range 30 East Collier County, Florida and run South 00133' 10" East 354.66 feet along the east boundary of said Southeast 1/4 thence run South 89°26'50" West 351.67 feet, crossing State Road 29 and the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad right of way line to the POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT HEREIN DESCRIBED: continue thence South 89126'50" West 800.00 feet; thence South 00133'10" East 1089.00 feet; thence North 89°26'50" East 800.00 feet; thence North 00133'10" West 1089.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; lying in and being a part of the East 1/2 of the ,nSoutheastn of Section 7, Township 51 South, Range 30 East. .. i`" o r ALSO (B) Commencing at the S4 ast corner Of ct A" a described: thence North I ,, 00°33'10" West 255.00 feet* POINT OF BEN1IOF TRACT B, HEREIN DESCRIBED; thence North '6 0" East 260.36 feet t6. ' ,,point on the westerly right of way boundary line of the Atlanti d is ig Railraa sW' * A oundary line at this point lying on a curve Northwesterly and to the" aof 5645.65 feet and tangent at said point bearing North 04130'49" West; thence following said boundary line Northwesterly along said curve to the left and through a central angle of 00°30'31" a distance of 50.13 feet; thence South 89°26'50" West 256.68 feet; thence South 00033'10" East 50.00 feet to POINT OF BEGINNING. Packet Pg. 1330 I I e'`al — �91 €da ;E POB SO"23I8"E 265 x vv ro w (n) E s a min �J NO.2328"W 570.00' m) FYa3 S O'2328"E 255.00' e n ° p®pom®�goe.mm®mmm3� a ro� A m � a s vv roc N)��Y l�+uaz wrs) I�mJ V w �pooioi 9aG E•o J��E EY.�� § Deep 50 Gun Range Conditional Use Location Map 9.A.4.e mGradyMinor Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Packet Pg. 1332 a6ueb ung 09 daap SLU0006W-ld Z£9£O Wlia;ew do)joe8-uoi;eoilddV- Q;uewLIoe;;d :;uaw 3el V "W b` M �? M — o a M a — S.R. 2� " C) o @ ui o a QZ U W �U� zz� w 1 I a_ 0 w owl o� o No4N wm I z ��zID wm Z) �w �w O N�� Z mil �� m �, � -) w(aj1 wU U Q<U LLJ o oo-� I� oU) w zw�w Ln w ZONED: A-ACSC/ST o �n Q IL 1 Z ZONED: A-ACSC/ST z °0 � c w w v USE: UNDEVELOPED J I� 1 0 USE: UNDEVELOPED o o Ch Ch oQ w I< —� �w z(0 �— — -- -- -- -- -- -- -- — oW I CD Ln O mQ — — 1 — PARKING PARKING/LOADING 1 _ - 1 a --� Z _ o I Q w O Q o I Z 0 F- 1 > y I � "' z w w w `�— — — — — — — - Q QCl) I o = _ o= - z o I v, z z z z I I w U) � Qw w c �< � I ml Q-------- w� ��Q LU I Cl) 0 _ Owl z w� �< U)w< w zl Qw �� Iz 1 F- I F- w m— — — — — — — - w w — — — — — — Iw I v = Q c�Q �m F- �- U Iw QLD > ��w 1¢ 1 Q Q I� w�-------- w>------- Iw I Izl o wO = a Y .. J Qz �I o w 1�1 �LL Q Qo = w z------- � z— — — — — —— CAI z O 1 X? Q O I � �x 1 it 0 0 I I I ------- — — — — — — — N� � � I ,o� l I------- � 0 0 11 = 0HIGH C 12' HIGH EARTHEN BERM I RIFLE BERM n 0 ZONED: A-ACSC/ST USE: UNDEVELOPED - I 9.A.4.e I SITE INFORMATION: ZONING: A-ACSC/ST, AGRICULTURAL (ACSC/ST) SITE AREA: 10.77± AC. OPEN SPACE (30% REQUIRED): REQUIRED: 3.23± ACRES (10.77 X .30) PROVIDED: 3.23± ACRES PRESERVE (MINIMUM): REQUIRED: 0± ACRES (0 ACRES NATIVE VEGETATION X .90) PROVIDED: 0± ACRES NATIVE VEGETATION SETBACKS (MINIMUM): PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE: NORTHERN BOUNDARY: 30 FEET EASTERN BOUNDARY: 50 FEET SOUTHERN BOUNDARY: 30 FEET WESTERN BOUNDARY: 50 FEET ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: NORTHERN BOUNDARY: 30 FEET EASTERN BOUNDARY: 50 FEET SOUTHERN BOUNDARY: 30 FEET WESTERN BOUNDARY: 50 FEET K1nTFC- 1. A TOTAL OF 24 NATIVE TREES EXIST ON -SITE, 22 NATIVE TREES ARE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED ON -SITE (24 X 90% = 21.6). FOR EVERY TREE REMOVED WITH A DBH OF TWO FEET OR MORE THAT TREE SHALL BE REPLACED WITH A MINIMUM OF THREE (3) 10-FOOT HIGH NATIVE TREES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTION 3.05.07.A.2. 2. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. G((l 0. Crady Minor :nld 1swcluletl. P.A. radyMinor 3111I11 � 1. 1. Roy Ro1111a SP1iogs. Plm•Aln 34131 Civil Engineers Land Surveyors . Planners . Landscape Architects C,,L,AAuth. N:130000161 C,,Lof Auth. 1,130005151 lo,sme CC 26000266 Bonita Springs: 239.947.1144 a wa. Grady Woor.com Fort Myers: 239.690.4380 DEEP 50 GUN RANGE CONDITIONAL USE SITE PLAN NOTES REVISED 03/23/2020 FILE NIL 11 Packet Pg. 1334 9.A.4.e 3.08.00 Environmental Data Purpose As per requirements in LDC Sections 3.08.00 and questions in the CU Checklist Preparation Of Environmental Data Preparation of Environmental Data, Environmental Data Submittal Requirement shall be prepared by an individual with academic credentials and experience in the area of environmental science or natural resource management. Academic credentials and experience shall be a bachelor's or higher degree in one of the biological sciences with at least two years of ecological or biological professional experience in the State of Florida Qualifications of Environmental Consultant Collier Environmental Consultants Inc. 2/96 - Present 3211 681h Street SW Naples, Florida 34105 Marco A. Espinar- Biologist Environmental Data. The following shall be submitted where applicable to evaluate projects. A) Wetlands i} Identify on Current Aerial / the location of all Collier County / SFWMD Jurisdictional wetlands according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System FLUCFCS A FLUCFCS map and vegetation inventory has been included. The site consists of approximately 10.77 acres. This parcel is an old correction institution, Copeland Prison. This parcel is almost entirely cleared with structures associated with the prison. The parcel is located on the west side of State Road 29 approximately 6 miles north of Copeland. This parcel is surrounded by native habitat consisting of mixed wetland hardwoods such as, cypress, live and laurel oak, red maples, bay and pop ash. The actual 10.77 acres is cleared and previously developed as such no wetlands and/or native habitat exists. B) Listed Species and Bald Eagle Nests and Nest Protection Zones i) Provide a wildlife survey for the nests of bald eagle and for listed species known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site. The Packet Pg. 1335 9.A.4.e survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines or recommendations of the FFWCC and the USFWS. Survey times may be reduced or waived where an initial habitat assessment by the environmental consultant indicates that the likelihood of listed species occurrence is low as determined by the FFWCC and USFWS. Where an initial habitat assessment by the environmental consultant indicates that the likelihood of listed species occurrence is low, the survey time may be reduced or waived by the County Manager or designee. Wildlife Listed Species Study (LDC10.02,3.A.2.m) An examination of the parcel was conducted. While no listed animals were identified on site the area is known to support several Iisted species. This parcel is located in the Fakahatchee Strand Forest thus the 10.77 acre Condition Use parcel is surrounded by conservation lands. The surrounding lands do provide functional habitat for vertebrates. A listed species study was conducted and attached. No listed vertebrates' species were seen on the 10.77 acre. An alligator was seen in the borrow pit just off site. ii) Provide Listed Plants identified in LDC Section 3.04.03 See Attached Vegetation List / FLUCCS Code Map A few Tillandsia spp. were found on site. No other listed plants were found. iii) Wildlife Management Plans in accordance with LDC Section 3.04.00 See Attached Listed Species Study, Black bear management plan may be required at the time of SDP. C) Native Vegetation Preservation i) For Sites or Portions of Sites Cleared of Native Vegetation or in Agricultural Use: Not Applicable ii) Identify on a current aerial the acreage, location and community types of all upland and wetland habitats on the project site, according to the FLUCFCS system and provide a legend foe each of the FLUCFS codes identified. Aerials and overlay information must be legible at the scale provided. Provide calculations for the acreage of native vegetation required to be retained on site. Include the above referenced calculations and aerials on the SDP or PPL. In a separate report, demonstrate how the preserve criteria pursuant to LDC section 3.05.07 have been meet. Packet Pg. 1336 9.A.4.e Location Maps / Aerials (LDC 10.02.3.A.2.m) Aerials and location maps have been provided. The entire parcel consists of approximately 10.77 acres. The parcel is in Section 07, Township 51, Range 30; in Collier County, Florida. The dominant forest type on this project site consists of cleared land however the surrounding area is 617- Mixed Hardwood Wetlands. The native habitat is outside the boundaries of this project. Most of the site is cleared with structures and some scattered trees. See Attached Location Maps, Vegetation Maps / FLUCCS Maps Native Vegetation Calculation (LDC3.05.07.A) 3.05.07 Preservation Standards This site is totally void of any native vegetation. This site was previously the Copeland Road Prison. The site does have a few scattered live oaks, royal palms and cabbage palm. These are mostly landscape vegetation such as at the entrance. 3.05.07.A.2 Native trees Where a property has been legally cleared and only native trees remain and the native ground cover replaced with law or pasture, then only the native trees shall be retained. The percent requirement of native trees required to be retained shall be by tree count based on the percent requirement for native vegetation pursuant to 3.05.07 B. Only slash pine trees with an 8 inch DBH or greater, hardwood trees with a 18 inch DBH or greater, or palms with a minimum of 8 foot of clear trunk, shall be used for calculating this requirement. Native trees with a DBH of two feet or more shall be replaced with tree (3) 10 foot high native trees. This site as previously stated is void of native habitat. Some royal palms and oak trees remain. Approximately 16 live oaks, 1 red cedar and 7 royal palms were identified on the 10.77 acre condition use parcel boundaries. Native trees will be protected in accordance LDC 3.05.07. A.2 At the time of SDP permitting ever effort will be done to try to save as many trees as possible. Currently only tree trees are targeted for removal. This will necessitate the replacement with (9) nine, 10 foot native trees. Packet Pg. 1337 9.A.4.e Clearly identify the location of all preserves: The preserve area has been identified on the Exhibit C Master plan. Soil Ground Water Sampling Natural Site Packet Pg. 1338 9.A.4.e m a� c ca c 0 O Q. a� a� 0 00 r— N r O O O r O N J d a Packet Pg. 1339 9.A.4.e m a� c ca c 0 O Q. a� a� 0 00 r— N r O O O r O N J d a Packet Pg. 1340 a6ueb unE) Og daaa SM0006LOZld : MSO sleiia;ew dn4ae8-uoi;eaijddd - a ivauayaejjv :ivauayaejjv 9.A.4.e SOILS a Packet Pg. 1342 COLLIER COUNTY SOIL LEGEND REVISED 1 f9O H. YAMATAKI IrmRuc - x 2 goLOPAw FS H LIMESTONE SIIESTRATUM . H � - MALAB.AR FS _ CHOBEE, LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM A� DANIA M x DEPRESSIONAL Uci�s 6 RI'VTERAr -LIMESTONE SUBS IMMOKALEE FS TRATUM-COPELAND PS $ MYAKKA FS 10 OLDSMAK FS, LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM 11 H FS 14 PI�NE��F E LIMESTONE 15 POMELLO FS SUBSTRATUM H 16 OLDSMAR FS H 17 BASINGER FS 18 RIVIERA FS, LIMESTONE SUBSTRA DRUM- AND MALABAR _ HIGH•_ FS TCJM H 21 BOCA FS 22 CHQBEE, WINDER H 23 HOLOPAW ESSIQNAL AND GATOR SOILS, DEPRESSI H 27 25 BOCA, AND OKEELANTA SOILS DEPRDSSI RIVIERA, LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM AND ONAL H COPELAND FS DEPRESSTONAL H •HOLOPAW FS _ 28 PIN'DA AND RIVIERA FS H 29 WABASSO FS 31 HILOLO LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM, �iI7PIT MAR.GATE • SOILS ER AND 3 2 DEAN LAM 33 BAN LAND HOLOPAW BASINGER COMPLEX 35 34 URBAN LAND IMNlO Sr]BSTRATLFM COMPLEXES OLDSMAR LIMESTONE 35 UDOR ANTS �QDENTS COMPLEX ORGANIC SUBSTRATTJM 37 TUSCAWILLA pHAPEi� 38URBAN B0� O ND MATLA,CHA LIMESTONE SDBSTR.ATi M H 39 SATELLITE FS ap DIIR$IN AND WULFERT MUCKS 4 URBAN LAND SATELLITE C()MPL2, 42 C VERAL S H 43 WINDER �S ASSOCIATION RiVIEgAt LIMESTONE CHOBEE SOILS DEPRESS=OIL SIIBSTRATDk_'- ND a5 PAOLA FS (1-8 Percent! slopes) - - _H 4 S PEN7.JSa'CCO SOIL - . H 49 HAT�,,USU (marl prairie) H 5Q OCHOPEEE AND $oCA PS (slough) ` H 51 4CHOPEE F,5L PRAIRIE (marl ) -- H 52 KESSON = H MUCK FRE . 53 ESTERO AND PECK�� SO -"IS Ly FLOODED H 5d FREQUENTLY_ FLOODED H I�.B4CA COMPLEX 56Asx�rc� FS, oceASzOWkLLy _ FLOODED . Packet Pg. 1343 9.A.4.e m c m d' c 0 O Q. a� a� 0 00 r— N r O O O r O N J d a Packet Pg. 1344 9.A.4.e SITE PLAN a Packet Pg. 1345 a6uell ung 05 daaa SLZL0006LOZ-ld UK s1e1ja;ew do)joe8-uoi;eoijddd- a;uewLjoejjV :juauayoejjV >,wmaatl @CL lQO Itl ld - . - - _ - !1 39N Vl1 NN9 'JS d33a 6L-li C) NINNtRd - rONd ONWN r a S.R. 29 ui o a �a _— — — r U I I - I I z ZN I I 4 O Q rY �Q I I n Lo z vn o Z w m I 1.1 w ❑ I � `- ' cn j �J w z w ZONED: A-ACSCIST w¢ IJ� I LU w ZONED: A-ACSCIST p g USE: UNDEVELOPED o¢ xuj Q I� I wQ USE: UNDEVELOPED a w a w n mom_ I I PARKING I z� PARKING/LOADING jjI J a s m LU ❑ l � c� I I w a z I O LU J I w R = I Z > � II —--- -- I Li z ICI � I ❑ i i w I < c7 t ❑ I� zXm i I Q I QI - — — — — — — - Uj w -- ate —— � z I o IwI I< ❑ Q z Q +1 N ❑ I� I a z I x � w o I I it I O Ld 27 I l I Of w .off I w I � � w 12'HIGH EARTHEN BERM a ZONED: A-ACSCIST USE: UNDEVELOPED i r d Q a6uell ung 05 daaa 8LZL0006L0Z-ld Z£M) slepejew dnjoe8-uoi;eoijddd - a;uauay3L'jjv :iuowt43ejjv -rvv itl 1L5 lMi(d33NCo 59NIMpNO 8 t N066 iOZld PZ, 3�NVk Nn� 09 d330 d90 0 NINN4'l - roNd 7N IW Nb'1d 1Li TdJpN7 Z; S.R.29 — - u ui o �a QZ W LL I w a Ch n��o p W u- Q w a �o DI I ❑ �o4� wm F awam nzrn w w gl �w 0 �¢ a�o� o gnl� I F QU <U,o _ o aQ�Q w ZONED: A-ACSClST z IJ I ZONED: A-ACSGIST z a L o V) Y USE: UNDEVELOPED O ~ u' - > w t� I� I USE: UNDEVELOPED a W❑ o a Of (7LJ i Iw IQ Z w r w� U C7 co r •-- •mow---•—_.•_—.--� PARKING I I tix` PARKING/LOADING I o Lu am _ �m I i I ❑ a �. ❑ I 1 °—— I w ..r a o w i a w p o I I z w`-' I w i I _ a z� w a= �l w in z w¢ I 1 Iml Q� —_____� Qw �' �a< I I cn = 'y 0 wQ w(D aLLw D Al Iwl x 0QQ Q Iw� aw ww z I <1 � � _D (D m---•--- i= 1 � Q Imo± �p w� �¢ I Q �r I------ z ICI LL Q <0 i= I w c I i _ _---r'— i z �z N w __ z Q — I z 0:Dw� i I i ----_ I I I,o�I i 0 0 it 2fl• HIGH 12' HIGH EARTHEN BERM I RIFLE BERM � � I ZONED: A-ACSC/ST USE: UNDEVELOPED - m 9.A.4.e LISTED SPECIES STUDY a Packet Pg. 1348 9.A.4.e I Introduction / Purpose This report is an account of a Listed Species survey recently performed on approximately 10.7 acre in an area known as Copeland Road Prison. The prison is in eastern Collier County, Florida. The zoning overlay from A-ACSC/ST. The purpose of this study is meet county requirements by identifying and describing key habitats and report any listed species. This survey and report are based on fieldwork performed during September — October 2019. II Site Description The parcel is in Section 07, Township 51, Range 30; in Collier County, Florida. The prison is located approximately 6 miles north on SR 29 from Copeland. The town of Copeland abuts the Fakahatchee Strand State Forest. This area is known as prime habitat for numerous species. The actual site is void of native habitat. The site was previously a prison. A few native trees such as live oaks, royal palms and cabbage palms are on the premises. The following habitats were the most common native habitat surrounding the prison. Wetlands Mixed Wetland Hardwoods 617 Borrow pits 742 Uplands Correctional Institute 176 III Listed Species Survey The required survey for a Listed Species Survey calls for a survey covering 100 % of the site, at prescribed transect distances per site acreage. This study is slightly different since the primary area is populated and has high human activities. So the primary areas studied were the outer edges of Copeland. Such a survey was conducted in September 30- October S, 2019. Transects were ground - located and walked by compass bearing. Early morning (06:30 10:00), mid -day (11:00—15:00) and late -day (15:00—19:00) time periods were chosen to survey these transects. This survey was conducted daily for a total of approximately 20 hours. All possible species of plants and animals listed by state and federal agencies were noted. Packet Pg. 1349 9.A.4.e IV Results & Discussions Listed FIora Several species of plants that are listed by government agencies were found on this Property during the transect surveys and none of the onsite plants are considered as being rare. Several species of Tillandsia spp. were found. These plants are listed by the State of Florida primarily due to commercial value. Refer to Exhibit - FLUCCS Map - Vegetation Inventory An entire plant list of vegetation identified has been included with this report. In addition, a list of potential listed species, no seen but suspected, has also been included. Listed Fauna A description of all wildlife encountered during this study has been included with this report. This area is known to be utilized by numerous vertebrates. Of which several are on the Listed species list. These include such species as Black bears, Panthers and numerous wading birds. Refer to Exhibit - Wildlife Species Observed Key Species Discussion: Red Cockaded Woodpeckers Red -Cockaded woodpeckers are known to inhabit Pine Flatwoods. Observations were keyed to searching for signs or calls of these animals. No individuals or cavity trees were identified during this survey. This area provides little to no viable habitat for RCW's. Gopher Tortoise This site does not offer suitable habitat for Gopher tortoise. Searches were keyed in areas with spoil material (mound). However, no signs or burrows were identified on any subject parcels. Big Cypress Fox Squirrels Big Cypress Fox Squirrels are known to use similar habitat as Red - Cockaded Woodpeckers. Observations were keyed to searching for signs or calls of these animals, such as leaf nests in canopy trees or the distinctive chattering of territorial squirrels_ Several chewed pinecones were found on site. However, gray squirrels were observed actively foraging. No Fox squirrels were identified on site during this survey. Fox squirrels are known to inhabit surrounding areas. It is safe to assume that some Packet Pg. 1350 9.A.4.e individuals may inhabit the surrounding areas. Florida Panther This area is known as Prime Panther Habitat. No individuals were encountered however the area is known to be inhabited by panthers. Florida Black Bear No individuals were observed during this survey even though Black bears are known to inhabit the general area. Special attention was given for signs such as scraps, tracks and scat. This mammal has a large home range and is known to inhabit the surrounding areas. Wading Birds The Borrow pit area provides some habitat for wading birds. A few birds were seen utilizing this area, none seen are listed. (see Wildlife Species Observed) Bonneted Bat The Florida bonneted bat is the largest species of bat in Florida. Previously known as the Florida (Wagner's) mastiff bats these bats were reclassified as a separate species unique to Florida. The species can grow to a length of 6.5 inches with a wingspan of 20 inches. This is a flying mammal free to traverse great distances. Examination of all trees with potential cavities was conducted. The site did have a dead cabbage palm with a cavity. This tree cavity was examined. No individuals and/or guano were found. This project is not anticipated to negatively impact this species. Conclusions Transects were walked on straight compass bearings along a grid spaced at approximately 10 yards apart for the entire area. Stationary observations were also conducted. All transects were walked at varying times from post -dawn & mid -day to pre -sunset hours. The site is void of any native habitat. This listed species study encompasses more the surrounding area than it does the actual site. Several species of plants that are listed by government agencies were found on this Property during the transect surveys and none of the onsite plants are considered as being rare. Several species of Tillandsia spp. were found. These plants are listed by the State of Florida primarily due to commercial value. In conclusion, parcel lies in an area rich with natural resources. The native habitats outside of the prison footprint are in good shape. A few exotic plants and some human encroachment have occurred. Some of the impacts have occurred so long ago that there is Packet Pg. 1351 9.A.4.e dense secondary growth hiding the impacts. Overall the surrounding areas are viable and incredibly diverse. The actual site is void of any native habitat. Threatened Endangered and S ecies of Special Concern Species Present Absent Sus ectgd Black bear Florida panther xx Everglades mink x Big Cypress Fox squirrel x Indigo snake x American alligator X Gopher tortoise X Gopher Frog x Southeastern American kestrel X Red -Cockaded woodpecker X Florida Scrub Jay x Wood stork Snail kite Bald eagle Xx Limpkin x Osprey x White ibis Tricolored heron xx Snowy egret x Reddish egret x Little blue heron X as c �a c 0 0 Q. a� a� 0 00 I— N 0 0 0 rn 0 N J a. N M t0 M Packet Pg. 1352 a6ueb unE) Og daaa SM0006LOZld : MU) sleiialew dn4ae8-uoi;eaijddd - a ivauayaejjv :ivauayaejjv M M Cb a d Y V a 9.A.4.e FLUCCS CODE AND VEGETATION INVENTORY FLUCCS Code - Description Common Name Scientific Name Indicator Status 176 Correctional This is an old correctional facility no longer in use. Cabbage palm Sabal palmetto FAC M,O Live oak Quercus virginiana FACU C C Royal palm Roystonea regia FDA/E FACW Cp,O 617 Mixed Hardwood Wetlands The area is dominated with a mixture of canopy trees such as: oaks, cypress, red maples, pop ash, and bay. The midstory varies with dogwood, wax myrtle, buttonbush and saltbush. The ground cover varies with sawgrass, swamp fern and alligator flag. Cypress Cabbage Palm Slash Pine Pop ash Red maple Royal palm Strangler fig water oak laurel oak Live oak Brazilian pepper Dahoon holly Dogwood Bay Sweet bay Gumbo limbo Carolina willow Buckthorn wax myrtle salt bush salt bush Button bush elderberry primrose willow rush fuirena swamp lilly Taxodium spp. OBL Cp,C Sabal palmetto FAC Cp,C Pinus elliottii FACW Cp,O Fraxinus caroliniana OBL Cp,O Acer rubrum FAC Cp,D Roystonea regia FDA/E FACW Cp,O Ficus aurea FAC M,C Quercus nigra FACW Cp,D Quercus laurifolia FACW Cp,D Quercus virginiana FACU Cp,C Schinus terebinthifolious FAC M C Ilex cassine OBL M,C Cornus foemina FACW M, O Persea palustris OBL MHO Magnolia virginiana FACW MO Bursera smaruba UPI M,O Salix caroliniana OBL M,C Bumelia reclinata FAC M,O Myrica cerifera FAC+ M,C Baccharis hal imifol is FACW+ M,O Baccharis glomerulifolia FAC M,O Cephalanthus occidentalis OBL M,C Sambucus canadensis FAC M,O Ludwigia peruviana OBL M,O Fuirena scirpoidea OBL GO Crinum americanum OBL G,C Packet Pg. 1354 9.A.4.e musky mint Hyptis alata FACW G,O Fakahatchee Grass Tripsacum dactyloides FAC G,O Swamp fern Blechnum serrulatum FACW+ G,C chain fern Woodwardia virginica OBL G,O St. Johns wort Hypericum spp. FACW G,C camphor weed Pluchea rosea FACW G,C sawgrass Cladium jamaicense OBL GC beakrush Rhynchospora microcarpa FACW+ G,C alligator flag Thalia geniculata OBL G,O paspalum Paspalum monostachyum OBL G,O Pipewort Eriocaulon decangulare OBL G C Yellow -eyed grass Xyris elliottii OBL G,C Fakahatchee Grass Tripsacum dactyloides FAC G,O Ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia FACU G,O mat lippa Phyla nodiflora FACW G,O tick seed Coreopsis gladiata FACW G,O fleabane Erigeron quercifolius FAC+ G,O blue maidencane Amphicarpum muhlenbergianum FACW G,O umbrella sedge Cyperus ligularis FACW G,O pennywort Hydrocotyle spp. FACW G,C Guineagrass Panicum maximum FAC- M,C Sandspur Cenchrus echinatus FAC G,C Broom sedge Andropogon glomeratus FACW G,O Lantana Lantana camara FACU G,O Ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia FACU G,C Dog Fennel Eupatorium capillifolium FACU GC 742 Borrow Pit This area is a small pond 743 Spoil Area Spoil material has been placed in these areas. 8143 Two Lane Highway This is a State two (2) lane highway known as SR 29. 832 Power Lines Utilities, Power / Telephone Lines Packet Pg. 1355 9.A.4.e ABREVIATIONS — Canopy (Cp), Midstory (M), Ground Cover (G) Dominant (D), Common (C), Occasional (0) INDICATOR STATUS - Obligate (OBL), Facultative wet plants (FACW ), Facultative plants (FAC), Upland (UPL) VINES Poison Ivy Toxicodendron readicans grape vine Vitus spp. Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia Greenbrier Smilax spp. Morning glory Ipomoea cordatotriloba Love vine Cassytha filiformis EEPiuhytic Plants Wild Pines Stiff - leaved Tillandsia fasiculata FDA/C Recurved T. balbisiana FDA/T wired -leaved T. setacea FDA/T Spanish moss T. usneoides Resurrection Fern Polypodium polypodioides Shoestring fern Vittaria lineata Golden polypody Polypodium sp. Exotic and Nuisance Species Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolious Wedelia Wedelia trilobata Air potato Dioscorea bulbifera Mexican clover Richardia grandiflora Exotic G, C Bahia grass Paspalum notatum UPL G O Known Listed Plants Orchids That Occur in the Fakahatchee Strand Not seen within the footprint of proposed project Carters orchid Basiphyllaea corallicola Costa Rican ladies tresses Beloglottis costaricensis Spider orchid Brassia caudate presumed extirpated- thought to occur only in the Fakahatchee Strand Rat tailed orchid Bulbophyllum pachyrachis Simpson grass pink Calopogon tuberosus Packet Pg. 1356 9.A.4.e Moss Loving cracichis Ghost orchid Florida butterfly orchid Cone bearing epidendrum Wild coco Two keeled galeandra Florida govenia Crimson lepanthopsis Trinidad macradenia False butterfly orchid Florida oncidium Frosted pleurothallis Small flowered prescottia Dwarf butterfly orchid Fakahatchee beaked orchid Giant ladies tresses Spotted mule eared orchid Many flowered tropidia Leafless vanilla Dillions vanilla Oblong -leaved vanilla Cranichis muscossa Dendrophylax lindenii Encyclia tampensis Epidendrum strobiliferum Eulophia alta Galeandra bicarinata Govenia floridana Lepanthopsis melanantha Macradenia lutescens Maxillaria crassifolia Oncidium floridanum Pleurothallis gelida Prescottia oligantha Prosthechea pygmaea Sacoila lanceolata Spiranthes praecox Trichocentrum undulatum Tropidia polystachya Vanilla barbellata Vanilla dilloniana Vanilla phaeantha Extrapated only in Collier County Packet Pg. 1357 9.A.4.e WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED Common Name Species Fish: Mosquitofish Gambusia spb. Amphibian & Reptiles: Softshell turtle A alone ferox American alligator Alligator mississi iensi Six- lined racerunner Cnemido horus seximeatus Brown anole Anolis sa rei Black racer Columber constrictor Birds: Turkey Melea is gallopavo Dove- mourning Zenaida macroura mockingbird Mimus pol. Vulture, turkey -lottos Cathartes aura Vultue, Black Coragyps atratus Red shoulder hawk Buteo lineatus Crow, American Corvus brachyrhynchos Bluejay Cy xitta cristata Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis Cardinal Richmondena cardinalis Great Blue Heron Ardea herodius Anhinga Anhin a anhin a Pileated woodpecker D oco us pileatus Northern flicker Colytes auratus Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis Mammals: Bobcat Felis rufus Virginia opossum Dide1 his vim iniana Raccoon Procyon lotor Nine -banded armadillo Das us novemcinctus Hispid cotton rat Sigipodon his idus Gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Status Observation Sight Sight Sight Sight Sight Sight Sight Sight Sight Sight Sight Sight Sight Call Call Call Sight Sight Sight Sight Sight Scat /Tracks Tracks Tracks Signs Sight Sight Packet Pg. 1358 d v d a6ueN unE) OS daap SLZL0006LOZ-ld : UK slepa;ew dnAoe8-uoi;eoijddd - a juauayoe;;b :;uauayoe;;d 9.A.4.e HISTORICAL AERIALS a Packet Pg. 1360 d Q e6ueb un!D 09 doea SLZL0006LOZ-ld : ME slepejew dnAoee-uoi;eoijddd- a;uowt43e;;b :;uauayoe;;y � x' 9.A.4.e m a� c ca c 0 O Q. a� a� 0 00 r— N r O O O r O N J d a Packet Pg. 1363 9.A.4.e TREE SURVEV a Packet Pg. 1364 INN 9.A.4.e Collier Environmental Consultants Inc. TOTAL TREE COUNT TREES WITHIN PROJECT FOOTPRINT Yellow Dots — Live Oaks 33 Total In Bold 16 Total - Live Oaks Orange Dots- Red Cedar 1 Total 1 Total - Red Cedar Red Dots- Royal Palms 8 Total 7 Total - Royal Palms Black Dot- Dead Cabbage palm witb cavity 1 Total All measurements are DBH in inches 4 - Inches 1- 45 21- 37 2- 37 3/4 22- 32 '/2 3- 56'/ 23- 27 3/4 4- 18 24- 28 5- 39 '/2 25- 26 %4 6- 37 3/ 26- 30 '/4 7- 33'/4 27- 41 8- 27 28- 30 9- 28 % 29- 33 10- 30 30- 18 % 11- 33'/4 31-17'/4 12- 28 3/ 32- 20'/4 13- 32 '/4 33- 33 14- 28 3/4 34- 36 '/4 15- 31 '/ 35- 35 16- 32 %2 36- 21 3/4 17- 30 '/4 37- 39 18-31 % 38-19V2 19-39 39-12Y2 20- Dead 40- 16'/ 41- 24 '/ 42- 17 % Packet Pg. 1366 9.A.4.e Collier Environmental Consultants Inc. TREE CALCULATION v 16 Total - Live Oaks a� 1 Total - Red Cedar a M 7 Total - RoyaI Palms c C9 Black Dot- Dead Cabbage Palm with cavity 1 Total 0 0 Q- m as c ACSC requires Iimits of 10% thus: 0 c 24 trees x .90 = 21.6 trees required to be maintained (saved) 0 Cn 0 N J a TREES PROPOSED TO BE ELIMINATED REPLACEMENT TREES M # 5 391/2 inches 4 0 # 17 30 1/4 inches 3 2 a� # 41 24 %2 inches 3 M Native trees with a DBH of two feet or more shall be replaced with Three (3) 10 - foot high native trees. Areas of retained trees shall not be subject to this requirement of 3.05.07 H. * TOTAL TREE REPLACEMENT 0 0) - 10 foot high native trees * Actual tree replaced count (calculation) may be adjusted during the SDP permitting process Packet Pg. 1367 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6F3CCB15-3C33-4ED1-BD3C-43C47C9E3F9C I 9.AAe I JMB TRANSFORTAT113N ENGINEERING, ING. TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING SERVICES TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT For Deep 50 Gun Range (20201 State Road 29, Collier County, Florida) December 3, 2019 Coun TIS Review Fees TIS Methodology Review Fee = $500, 00 TIS (Minor Study) Review Fee —$750. 00 Prepared by: JMB TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. 4711 7TH AVENUE SW NAPLES, FLORIDA 341 1 9 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZAT113N No. 27830 (PROJECT NO. 791 1 1 2) DocuSigned by: / Lwmtls i�7aUn PCs E519D679D23E47F... JA E B� FLO 1 A REG V\C EN '. s� I No 43860 1241 A- q O P _F [6A Packet Pg. 1368 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6F3CCB15-3C33-4ED1-BD3C-43C47C9E3F9C 9.A.4.e TABLE OF CONTENTS Conclusions 2 Methodology 2 U Scope of Project 3 c Figure 1 - Project Location and Roadway Classification 3 �a c Q Site Plan 3.1 0 Site Access 4 Q. a 0 Site -Generated Traffic 4 00 N Table A — Site -Generated Trips 4 0 0 CD rn Existing + Committed Road Network 5 r O N a. Project Traffic Distribution 5 N M Area of Significant Impact 5 Table 2 - Area of Impact/Road Classification 5.1 L 2019 thru 2020 Project Build -out Traffic Conditions 6 a Y Table 3 - 2019 & 2020 Link Volumes 6.1 00 c 0 Table 4 - 2020 Link Volumes/Capacity Analysis 6.2 2 .Q Appendix 7 a Q 1 Packet Pg. 1369 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6F3CCB15-3C33-4ED1-BD3C-43C47C9E3F9C 9.A.4.e Conclusions Based upon the findings of this report, it was determined that Deep 50 Gun Range will not have a significant or negative impact upon the surrounding road network. It was verified that all roadways, within the project's area of influence, currently have a surplus of capacity and can accommodate the traffic associated with the proposed land use. As determined, the road network will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service for the foreseeable future and the project will not create any off -site transportation deficiencies that need to be mitigated. Site -Related Improvements Based upon the criteria set forth by the Collier County Right -of -Way Handbook, an ingress turn lanes will not be warranted at the site's access on S.R. 29. Methodology On November 27, 2019, a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) Methodology Report was submitted to the office of Collier County Transportation Planning Department. The $500.00 methodology meeting fee will be paid at the time of submitting the SDP application. The TIS methodology was reviewed by staff and a copy of the approved methodology is provided in the appendix (refer to pages M I thru M11). 2 Packet Pg. 1370 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6F3CCB15-3C33-4ED1-BD3C-43C47C9E3F9C 9.A.4.e Scope of Project Deep 50 Gun Range is a proposed membership -use only gun range, which will be located at 20201 State Road 29, Collier County, Florida. The 10.7 +/- acre facility will provide members with multiple shooting disciplines of practice, classes, tactical training, and organized competitions. The gun range is predominantly for handgun use, but will include rifle and shotgun targets. In order to capture all projectiles, all gunfire will be directed at stationary targets that are protected by a downfield earth embankment. Skeet, sporting clays, trap, etc. type shooting will be prohibited. W San Carle= Park Estero CREW Flint Corkscrew Pen Strand Swamp Sanctuary Bonita Springs hNaples krthi Golden Gate ps Lely Figure 1 — Site Location r„..r., State Forest _ Dinner lsfand Ranch Mldhfe M.I nagemenr Area Lelg Rcror. Picayune Strand State forest .I E. t.�aFCC 15�7T,•;1 . Cape Pumano ImmokM[ Av_ Mana Harker 'J Florida Panther National _ Fakahatchee Strand State 2020 i F{r„id.z 29 Reserve J ?�scsme �i C r3mna:�Vv rt �i6�kr.c ,r d Big cypr. Natiam PfcSL'ry 0 a� c M c O LO !Z N 00 1- N_ O O O Gn O N J a N M Cp M Packet Pg. 1371 Sigr a6ueN ung 05 daa❑ 8LZL0006LOZ-ld : ZS9EL) slepejeW dnAoeg-uoi;eoilddV - a juawLioe;;V quauatloe;;V d Q ' S.R. 2� O z LU Q 7 i LU ZONED: A-ACSCIST w U) w U USE: UNDEVELOPED � ❑ Q a m C7 � o co I I I ) I I N p cm X w f ii cd a yv k lJ l o J a LLI o(n ❑ z D O V w ZONED: A-ACSCIST 0 0 USE:UNDEVELOPED a �JTI-TTI� I � I T PARKING PARKING/LOADING f I w Li� w - a I O W o f � I cwi3 I � --------- ILU r — — — — — --- � I � jz ui Q 2 ¢ ICI --...—M.,.--- Ow I LU ,0� LU (D www J Z ¢ Q F-- Lu Z)¢O ~ z 0 LLI X LL w 0 z a z w z a LU c� 0 IM\9 i CL o Uj I w I � I f � i I n I I � i I � I� U a ----.�..-- Im I Q LI LU r— la I z IW � I ------- � oil I I -------_ — — — — — — — I I I I I f a EARTHEN BERM — cn i.0 U CV Cl LU Q z O I-- tY LU U) LU ry 0- w w Of z Q a LU U) a z 0 0 z D u ZONED: A-ACSCIST USE: UNDEVELOPED 3.1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6F3CCB15-3C33-4ED1-BD3C-43C47C9E3F9C 9.A.4.e Site Access Ingress/egress to the gun range will be via a single -point of access on State Road 29. The entrance will be gated, which can only be activated by membership -issued readable cards. Members can bring guests, but otherwise the range will be closed to the general public - Site -Generated Traffic Because the ITE Trip Generation Manual does not provide trip estimates for a gun range or similar type of land uses, the site -generated traffic was estimated based upon the description of the use's business operations by the owner/operator. The owner is a registered Chief Range Officer that has experience in the operations and activities of this type of land use, as described below. The hours of operation are from dawn to dusk and Monday thru Sundays. Typically, the facility will have one (1) employee that will perform routine maintenance and clean-up; and most often the site will have no more than 15 to 20 members using the course per day, except for scheduled competitions and/or training classes. On competition/class weekdays, these events will usually occur between 5:00 PM until dusk and on weekends the events will be more often in the mornings. It is expected that there will be no more than 35 participants /instructors/range officers, during weekdays and possibly slightly more participants on weekends. Conservatively assuming all members travel to the site in separate automobiles and all arrive within the same hour and depart after one -hour of shooting, then the range will generate 35 enter/35 exit trips during the PM peak hours on weekdays. Although it is very unlikely that the described trip generation volume will be that great on weekdays, for the purpose of assessing the project's potential traffic impacts on the adjacent network, the estimated 70 two-way PM peak hour trips will be used. Table A Site -Generated Trips (Summation of Table 1) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trips Generated Trips Generated (v h) (vph 6 70 35 enter/35 exit Based upon the anticipated site generated trips, this project falls within the "minor study" threshold. As such, this report analyzes the project's impacts based upon that criteria. 0 Packet Pg. 1373 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6F3CCB15-3C33-4ED1-BD3C-43C47C9E3F9C 9.A.4.e Existing + Committed Road Network Table 2 provides a detail of the surrounding E + C road network. Table 2A depicts the minimum level of service performance standards and capacity for the roads within the project's area of influence. State Road 29 is a two-lane arterial that is maintained by the Florida Department of Transportation ('DOT). The road extends between its southern terminus within Everglades City to its northern continuation from Collier County and into Hendry County. Within proximity to the site, S.R. 29 has a posted speed limit of 60 MPH. Project Traffic Distribution The project's traffic was distributed to the surrounding roadway network based upon logical means of ingress/egress; current and future traffic patterns in the area; location of surrounding businesses and commercial centers, as well as residential land uses. Table 2 provide a detail of the traffic distributions based on a percentage basis. Table 2 also details the project tip assignments by volume. Area of Significant Impact The area of significant impact was determined based upon Collier County's 2%, 2% and 3% criteria (i.e., if the project's traffic is 2% or more of a roadway's adopted level of service capacity, then the project has a significant impact upon that link). Table 2 describes the project traffic distributions and the level of impact on the surrounding roadways. Roads and intersections that were identified as being within the projects area impact are shown in Table 2. J Packet Pg. 1374 Sigr-._.._�_ - .--, a6ueb un� 0g daaa OLZL0006LOZId MEN) slepejew dnAoee-uoi;eoijddd- a;uawt4oe;;b :;uowt4oe;;y ti Q z z M C � in a �a o � @ o rn � � ('7 a IL �rio L_ U ` Q W T Y N C. cr] d � C O z W 2 G y z (n -, a (L a H C3 U�� a W = N IL a a LL y O O o�Ac)o a w N �s c Wa 2� �E J �ao � L 3 a o a~ o> a a � Q !g N N x C LLf W 4A � M M m U) u � o a a o a j O LO Q L_ 0 cu co Y C � O a z 04 f9 16 '6 O u u � W W W o O iC a a rn DocuSign Envelope ID: 6F3CCB15-3C33-4ED1-BD3C-43C47C9E3F9C 9.A.4.e 2019 thru 2020 Project Build -out Traffic Conditions In order to establish 2019 thru 2020 project build -out traffic conditions, two forecasting methods were used. The first traffic forecasting method was the County's traffic count data was adjusted for peak season conditions, peak hour conditions, peak direction, and an annual growth rate was then applied. The peak season/peak hour/peak direction and annual growth rates were derived from the 2019 Collier County AUIR Report. Using the annual growth rate, the 2020 background traffic conditions were determined, which are depicted in Table 3. The second traffic forecasting method was to add the vested trips (trip bank) identified in the 2019 AUIR report to the adjusted peak season, peak hour and peak direction traffic counts. The vested trips "+" 2020 background traffic volumes are depicted in Table 3. The greater of the two values produced by the two forecasting procedures was then considered to reflect the 2020 background traffic. The net new project generated traffic was then added to the background traffic. Table 4 provides a sunnmary of the 2019 thru 2020 traffic conditions and the roadways' level of service and remaining available capacity. As shown, all project impacted roadways will continue to operate at the County's adopted minimum level of service thresholds at project build -out. Packet Pg. 1376 Sigr-._.._�_ - .--, a6ueb un� 0g daaa OLZL0006LOZId MEN) slepejew dnAoee-uoi;eoijddd- a;uawt4oe;;b :;uowt4oe;;y � M Q � IL d Y V IL C L C 'Q •Q 0 +J 3 A O o= v 0 o C. aN� r h a m 49.1 a as 4 'o ��//�� V/ W 0 O C L V N Y m [� Y O a CUO o a m Q) Y Z a �= O Q a 0 0 o a Q Vr N (N M � J � s of z z Q 0 a oCD c•' ¢ N a a) T- O N am M .n I &)r�.�.�.,��,��;„�� @ eeueN un§ 0 doeQ SM 0006LOZ d:Z 9 L mel,meW dnAo 8- mmm @d¥-a Wemt4,e■� V:} emt4om; / CL�e 5 IL 5 0 0 2 9 )) 5 = e u � % - 3 / a CIA s e o 2 in _ �c » (L > ± A (La. j \ ) > o k } § ) { J t ( 2 (L � /\Amz Q Z y Q \ - & f = a 7��/mom a U z z0 Q � /LLI CL a D § ~ CD � 0 a � � 2 0 � in o m w > D t a CO to z z �Z J Q )�§_ ❑ CL QEL CO 0 qoc 0 CD) § § j > \ / % a ƒ DocuSign Envelope ID: 6F3CCB15-3C33-4ED1-BD3C-43C47C9E3F9C 9.A.4.e APPENDIX Support Documents a� c c 0 Q. a� a� 0 CO I— N r O O O CD r O N J d a Packet Pg. 1379 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6F3CCB15-3C33-4ED1-BD3C-43C47C9E3F9C 9.A.4.e JMB TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING SERVICES TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT METHODOLOGY REPORT For Deep 50 Gun Range (20201 State Road 29, Collier County, Florida) November 27, 2019 County TIS Review Fees TIS Methodology Review Fee — $5 00.00 TIS (Minor Study) Review Fee=S750.00 Prepared by: JMB TRANSP©RTATION ENGINEERING. INC. 4711 7TH AVENUE SW MAPLES, FLORIDA 341 1 9 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NO. 27830 (PROJECT No. 1 91 1 1 1 ) JAMES FLORID ANKS, P.E. EG. NO. 43860 //'Z7-201 q DATE M� Packet Pg. 1380 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6F3CCB15-3C33-4ED1-BD3C-43C47C9E3F9C 9.A.4.e APPENDIX. A INITIAL MEETING CHECKLIST Suggestion: Use this Appendix as a worksheet to ensure that no important elements are overlooked. Cross out the items that do not apply. Date:11-27-2019 Time: Location: Collier County Government Offices(North Horseshoe Drive People Attending: Name, Organization, and Telephone Numbers 1) James M. Banks, JMB Transportation Engineering, Inc., 239-919-2767 2) Michael Sawyer, Collier County Government 3) 4) Study Prepares: Preparer's Name and Title: James M, Banks, P.E., President Organization: JMB Transportation Engineering, Inc. Address & Telephone Number: 4711 7th Avenue SW Naples, Florida 34119 239 -919- 2767 Reviewers . Reviewer's Name & Title: Michael Sawyer Collier County Transportation Division Applicant: Applicant's Name: Address: Telephone Number: Proposed Development: Name: Deep 50 Gun Range Location: 20201 State Road 29 Land Use Type: Gun Range ITE Code #: None Proposed number of development units: 10.7 +/- acres Other: Description: Zoning: Existing: Comprehensive plan recommendation: Requested: Findings of the Preliminary Study: See the attached C:SUsersVmbswOeskfopiCOLLIERi19ii11 Deep 50 Gun RangeWeWdcfogyReportdac MIL I Packet Pg. 1381 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6F3CCB15-3C33-4ED1-BD3C-43C47C9E3F9C 9.A.4.e Study Type: Minor Study Study Area: Boundaries: Based upon the Counts 2%, 2% & 3% impact rule. See attached Additional intersections to be analyzed: None Horizon Year(s): 2020 Analysis Time Period(s): PM Peak Future Off -Site Developments: None Source of Trip Generation Rates: Owner/Operator Reductions in Trip Generation Rates: Pass -by trips: Internal trips (PUD): Transmit use: Other: Horizon Year Roadway Network Improvements. 2023 per Collier County s S_year CIE. Methodology & Assumptions: Non -site traffic estimates: See Attached Site -trip generation: See Table A Trip distribution method: Based a on manual assignment See Table 2 Traffic assignment method: Traffic growth rate: Per Collier Cojmjy Historical & Current AUIR Reports, but not less than 2% or background or vested trips method, whichever is egr. ater. C�4Usersy +bswlbesktopVCOLLfER1191111 Deep 50 Gun RaageWefhodofogyReooRdec a[Y 1 ?j Packet Pg. 1382 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6F3CCB15-3C33-4ED1-BD3C-43C47C9E3F9C 9.A.4.e Special Features: (from preliminary study or prior experience) Accidents locations: Sight distance: Queuing: Access location & configuration: Traffic control: Signal system location & progression needs: On -site parking needs: Data Sources: Base maps: Prior study reports: Access policy and jurisdiction: Review process: Requirements: _ Miscellaneous: Small Scale Study — No Fee Minor Study - $750.00 X Major Study - $1500.00 Includes 2 intersections Additional Intersections - $500.00 each None All fees will be agreed to during the Methodology meeting and must be paid to Transportation prior to our sign -off on the application. Reviewers Applicant C%U5ers1j nbswlDesWp]CGLLJM,'9711i Dw 50 Gun RangeW0oda1ogyRepurt.d6c M1 Packet Pg. 1383 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6F3CCB15-3C33-4ED1-BD3C-43C47C9E3F9C 9.A.4.e Deep 50 Gun Range 20201 State Road 29, Collier County, Florida Project Description & Location Deep 50 Gun Range is a proposed membership -use only gun range, which will be located at 20201 State Road 29, Collier County, Florida. The 10.7 +/- acre facility will provide members with multiple shooting disciplines of practice, classes, tactical training, and organized competitions. The gun range is predominantly for handgun use, but will include rifle and shotgun targets. In order to capture all projectiles, all gunfire will be directed at stationary targets that are protected by a downfield earth embankment. Skeet, sporting clays, trap, etc. type shooting will be prohibited. Figure 1- Site Location Felda State Forest E Dinner island ".- Ranch wildlife San Gar9ra _ Manogerrrenr Park Area Estero . _ imrrr�kalee CREW Flirt Corkscrew Pen Strand Sv.R=np Sanctuary Bonita Sprin.yc Ave'-,lara Harter - Orangetree -' North hap?cs Florida Golden Gate - Panther Natrortal - Wildlife_. - f Spies C LOY l.elp Rescr"_ Picayune } akastatChCe - Strand Strand Stale 'G2�Jl Ronda 29 Erg Cypr< State Forest Preserve Natrom: Presers Marcolslard Cafe Romano -• CarnEStc :'. . ryie^ ry a� c M c 0 O LO a a� as c 00 I- N O O O M 0 N J a N M O M Zr Packet Pg. 1384 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6F3CCB15-3C33-4ED1-BD3C-43C47C9E3F9C 9.A.4.e Site Access Ingress/egress to the gun range will be via a single -point of access on State Road 29. The entrance will be gated, which can only be activated by membership -issued readable cards. Members can bring guests, but otherwise the range will be closed to the general public. Site -Generated Traffic Because the ITE Trip Generation Manual does not provide trip estimates for a gun range or similar type of land uses, the site -generated traffic was estimated based upon the description of the use's business operations by the owner/operator. The owner is a registered Chief Range Officer that has experience in the operations and activities of this type of land use, as described below. The hours of operation are from dawn to dusk and Monday thru Sundays. Typically, the facility will have one (1) employee that will perform routine maintenance and clean-up; and most often the site will have no more than 15 to 20 members using the course per day, except for scheduled competitions and/or training classes. On competition/class weekdays, these events will usually occur between 5:00 PM until dusk and on weekends the events will be more often in the mornings. It is expected that there will be no more than 35 participants /instructors/range officers, during weekdays and possibly slightly more participants on weekends. Conservatively assuming all members travel to the site in separate automobiles and all arrive within the same hour and depart after one -hour of shooting, then the range will generate 3 5 enter/3 5 exit trips during the PM peak hours on weekdays. Although it is very unlikely that the described trip generation volume will be that great on weekdays, for the purpose of assessing the project's potential traffic impacts on the adjacent network, the estimated 70 two-way PM peak hour trips will be used. Table A Total Development -Generated Trips (Summation of Table I) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trips Generated Trips Generated (h) (Vph 6 70 35 enter/35 exit Based upon the anticipated site generated trips, this project falls within the "minor study" threshold. As such, this report analyzes the project's impacts based upon that criteria. 2 Packet Pg. 1385 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6F3CCB15-3C33-4ED1-BD3C-43C47C9E3F9C 9.A.4.e Existing + Committed Road Network Table 2 provides a detail of the surrounding E + C road network. Table 2A depicts the minimum level of service performance standards and capacity for the roads within the project's are of influence. State Road 29 is a two-lane arterial that is maintained by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). The road extends between its southern terminus within Everglades City to its northern continuation from Collier County and into Hendry County. Within proximity to the site, S.R. 29 has a posted speed limit of 60 MPH - Project Traffic Distribution The project's traffic was distributed to the surrounding roadway network based upon logical means of ingress/egress; current and future traffic patterns in the area; location of surrounding businesses and commercial centers, as well as residential land uses. Table 2 provide a detail of the traffic distributions based on a percentage basis. Table 2 also details the project tip assignments by volume. Area of Significant Impact The area of significant impact was determined based upon Collier County's 2%, 2% and 3% criteria (i.e., if the project's traffic is 2% or more of a roadway's adopted level of service capacity, then the project has a significant impact upon that link). Table 2 describes the project traffic distributions and the level of impact on the surrounding roadways. Roads and intersections that were identified as being within the projects area impact are shown in Table 2. M Packet Pg. 1386 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6F3CCB15-3C33-4ED1-BD3C-43C47C9E3F9C 9.A.4.e 2019 thru 2020 Project Build -out Traffic Conditions In order to establish 2019 thru 2020 project build -out traffic conditions, two forecasting methods were used. The first traffic forecasting method was the County's traffic count data was adjusted for peak season conditions, peak hour conditions, peak direction, and an annual growth rate was then applied. The peak season/peak hour/peak direction and annual growth rates were derived from the 2019 Collier County AUIR Report. Using the annual growth rate, the 2020 background traffic conditions were determined, which are depicted in Table 3. The second traffic forecasting method was to add the vested trips (trip bank) identified in the 2019 AUIR report to the adjusted peak season, peak hour and peak direction traffic counts. The vested trips "+" 2020 background traffic volumes are depicted in Table 3. The greater of the two values produced by the two forecasting procedures was then considered to reflect the 2020 background traffic. The net new project generated traffic was then added to the background traffic. Table 4 provides a summary of the 2019 thru 2020 traffic conditions and the roadways' level of service and remaining available capacity. As shown, all project impacted roadways will continue to operate at the County's adopted minimum level of service thresholds at project build -out. 4 M g Packet Pg. 1387 Sigr-._.._�_ - .--, a6ueb un� 0g daaa OLZL0006LOZId : MEN) slepejew dnAoee-uoi;eoijddd- a;uawt oe;;b quaw oe;;y 00 Q c E z Z m a o o V i E a 1cri6 a U CL o N N — w U) � Y a a c0 OI Z (L Z L_ f+ L m 2 Y N 'pad �CY)� a 0 0 z L) U L a- N 2 � 0 z U) a`fLCL F a=p�N s v m a Y a a LL O U _ �y w N o 0 Q p � 0 O d W rL N W a) c J Q U o EO CD rn L O O �-. W -j (L oloo IL aN C M �� Z � U N N �x c w w W) LD Cl) Cl) II i o Q O CL L C Q N 0 Y Lo t` n C.1 0)0 _ C o U ❑ Q1 E Cn M ❑ 0 a d o a. z v c) rn lam' N T T p F 00 Q1 Cl) N �O �O a a «� ca .a ou� MC� Sgr`� /em un^o g d a OL m0 6 OZ d z£ E } mepejeW dnAo 8- m |dd @ § ■ | ¥-Q Wemt4,e■�V:}emt4om; 2 � IL \ IL « Q) \ W \ 2 2 § m � § a Y � Z 7 J z § § W \ C \ z z � CD� ® « / \ C F- » -7-71, � r O N 3 m Sigr-._.._�_ - .--, a6ueb un� 0g daaa OLZL0006LOZId MEN) slepejew dnAoee-uoi;eoijddd- a;uawt4oe;;b :;uowt4oe;;y 'a y �. Ui iu u+ M Q O EL J Naa� IL N o= a mrnco o -6 x L _ N-mo moo a m 0. Y 7 IL o L > T mY a o N _ L Q N T p v co It a (n m IL J 4 'L aLl cn z a a` o Z z a o 0 U z a � -Y ol z co a. aIL U o Q Y Y CL LU a a y D o 'Or- c o 00 `as rn o� m m Q 7 CMM Q Y 1 J " a m a Z -.2 i— J (L 00 o c a 0_�� N t0 Q Y i a 3 O CV o U o0 N N R 0 Q Y a Mai 9.A.4.e COLLIER COUNTY WAIVER APPLICATION FROM THE REQUIRED HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT DATE SUBMITTED: PLANNER: PETITION NUMBER ASSOCIATED WITH THE WAIVER: PL20190001278 (To Be Completed By Zoning and Land Development Review Staff) PROJECT NAME: Deep 50 Gun Range CU LOCATION: (Common Description) The subject property is located on the west side of State Road 29 at the former Copeland Prison. SUMMARY OF WAIVER REQUEST: The proposed Conditional Use site is approximately 10.7± acres, which was previously developed with the former Copeland Prison. The Archaeological Probability Map #22, shows the project maybe located in an area that indicates areas of Historical/Archaeological probability or known sites. The project is located in Section 7, Township 51 S, Range 30 E on the south side of Manatee Road. (Properties located within an area of Historical and Archaeological Probability but with a low potential for historical/archaeological sites may petition the Community Development & Environmental Services Administrator County Manager or designee to waive the requirement for a Historical/Archaeological Survey and Assessment. Once the waiver application has been submitted, it shall be reviewed and acted upon within five (5) working days. The waiver request shall adequately demonstrate that the area has low potential for historical/archaeological sites.) Historic Preservation/Forms/rev. 06/05/08 Packet Pg. 1391 9.A.4.e SECTION ONE: APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DATA A. Name of applicant (s) (if other than property owner, state relationship such as option holder, contract purchaser, lessee, trustee, etc.): Deep 50 Industries, Inc. Mailing Address: 8951 Bonita Beach Rd, Suite #525-304, Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Phone: (239) 201-2600 FAX: E-Mail: matt(&deep50.com B. Name of agent(s) for applicant, if any: D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Mailing Address: Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 Phone: 239.947.1144 E-Mail: warnoldkgradyminor.com C. Name of owner(s) of property: Same as Applicant Mailing Address: Phone: E-Mail: FAX: FAX: 239.947.0375 Note: If names in answers to A and/or B are different than name in C, notarized letter(s) of authorization from property owner (C) must be attached. SECTION TWO: SUBJECT PROPERTY DATA (Attach copy of the plat book page (obtainable from Clerk's Office at the original scale) with subject property clearly marked.) A. Legal description of subject property. Answer only 1 or 2, as applicable. 1. Within platted subdivision, recorded in official Plat Books of Collier County. Subdivision Name: Plat Book Page Unit Tract Lot Section 7 Township 51 S Range 30 E 2. If not in platted subdivision, a complete legal description must be attached which is sufficiently detailed so as to locate said property on County maps or aerial photographs. The legal description must include the Section, Township and Historic Preservation/Forms/rev. 06/05/08 2 Packet Pg. 1392 9.A.4.e Range. If the applicant includes multiple contiguous parcels, the legal description may describe the perimeter boundary of the total area, and need not describe each individual parcel, except where different zoning requests are made on individual parcels. A boundary sketch is also required. Collier County has the right to reject any legal description, which is not sufficiently detailed so as to locate said property, and may require a certified survey or boundary sketch to be submitted. B. Property dimensions: Area: 469,141 square feet, or 10.77± acres Width along roadway: 800± feet (State Road 29) Depth: 570± feet C. Present use of property: Former Copeland Prison 1] Present zoning classification: A-ACSC/ST SECTION THREE: WAIVER CRITERIA Note: This provision is to cover instances in which it is obvious that any archaeological or historic resource that may have existed has been destroyed. Examples would be evidence that a major building has been constructed on the site or that an area has been excavated. A. Waiver Request Justification. 1. Interpretation of Aerial Photograph Photo shows property developed. 2. Historical Land Use Description: Copeland Prison. 3. Land, cover, formation and vegetation description: The site contains vegetation. 4. Other: B. The County Manager or designee may deny a waiver, grant the waiver, or grant the waiver with conditions. He shall be authorized to require examination of the site by an accredited archaeologist where deemed appropriate. The applicant shall bear the cost of such evaluation by an independent accredited archaeologist. The decision of the County Manager or designee regarding the waiver request shall be provided to the applicant in writing. In the event of a denial of the waiver request, written notice shall be provided stating the reasons for such denial. Any parry aggrieved by a decision of the County Manager or designee regarding a waiver request may appeal to the Preservation Board. Any parry aggrieved by a decision of the Preservation Board Historic Preservation/Forms/rev. 06/05/08 Packet Pg. 1393 9.A.4.e regarding a waiver request may appeal that decision to the Board of County Commissioners. SECTION FOUR: CERTIFICATION A. The applicant shall be responsible for the accuracy and completeness of this application. Any time delays or additional expenses necessitated due to the submittal of inaccurate or incomplete information shall be the responsibility of the applicant. B. All information submitted with the application becomes a part of the public record and shall be a permanent part of the file. C. All attachments and exhibits submitted shall be of a size that will fit or conveniently fold to fit into a legal size (8 '/2" x 14") folder. <,-D- (-�-j Signature of Applicant or Agent D. WMe Arnold, AICP Printed Name of Applicant or Agent -TO BE COMPLETED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION - SECTION FIVE: NOTICE OF DECISION The County Manager or designee has made the following determination: ❑ Approved on: Utz ❑ Approved with Conditions on: By: (see attached) 01 Denied on: _ (see attached) LIZA Historic Preservation/Forms/rev. 06/05/08 4 Packet Pg. 1394 ' N�a"r�:�a� HCoW8� Ogg In ne o �o X�z��, tgtg'' . 44� n fiM �"ahk8$�' �k�i$ "Rull' � �"s 8 w ��a€ ��u ��R= �.MI 0. a'`al dal �91 €da n� \ POB ��m oen SO"2328"E 265 8 a min R NO.2328"W 570.00' s vv roe ry)� /M1 !� uuz lam) w r m) FYa3 S O'2328"E 255.00' AWI i e n ° p®Bom®�goe.mm®mmm3� mR g a has �� ro� s .yam a A III Mal :seas&Pa'ar.ea�sl��$ m � a V w�pooioi 9aG E•' � @fee a@sl �€ 1 I 1 1 I 1 ■ I 1 e s wg`�°Smw a' YkQ o �o n ON �5'llh mm If 11 � m � o F o • e y i ,00008 311-1.11 N O y 5 �dmwdit 6.. x c = a � a W � R S ti U ° M a 3 J � g eRm g a"y W � �IIN I I H toll E€ a a $$a 4 � � e €p� .e " Ee@:e�aaa�@��@saEar��s�x�x�y.ea5lg��$�aa��a8@a�cea.®�� g ■ cava� as �g . a 9.A.4.e RNG 291 RNG 30 RNG 301 RNG 31 ' I 1 18 16 15 14 13 V I C i j Azee� O 19 yCA6 4 20 i 21 22 23 24 C � � • �A66A G � I o O 30 29 11 28 27 26 25 a m 1 I I€ Im CA666 • 31 32. I i 33 34 35 36 a: CL 3 1 TWP Y TWP m I Q 1 6 5 I 4 � 3 2 1 cnzae � 6 2 a CIL G "i CAdB2� •CR463 (D �A 6 E 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 c d, E � u Q 13 teen 18 17 cAdae • 16 I 15 14 13 18 24 19 N 20 i 21 22 23 24 19 I 30 25 A 6 29 28 27 26 25 30 LEGEND xxxxxxx FREVIOUSLY SURVEYED ROAD INDICATES AREAS OF HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL 7t INDICATES HISTORIC STRUCTURE (NOT TO SCALE) ® INDICATES ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE (NOT TO SCALE) INDICATES HISTORIC DISTRICT cmix.o�.wc eryoao wwwm mcxm iwv wxcc vwnnxo omiarvwr DEEP LAKE QUADRANGLE AREAS OF HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROHAHILM 9.A.4.e AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE Petition PL20190001278, Deep 50 Gun Range Conditional Use I hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-41, of the Collier County Land Development Code, I did cause the attached newspaper advertisement to appear and I did give notice by mail to the following property owners and/or condominium and civic associations whose members may be affected by the proposed land use changes of an application request for a rezoning, PUD amendment, or conditional use, at least 15 days prior to the scheduled Neighborhood Information Meeting. For the purposes of this requirement, the names and addresses of property owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tax rolls of Collier County and any other persons or entities who have made a formal request of the county to be notified. The said notice contained the laymen's description of the site property of proposed change and the date, time, and place of a Neighborhood Information Meeting. Per the attached letters, property owner's list, and copy of newspaper advertisement which are hereby made a part of this Affidavit of Compli ce. (!:] Sharon Umpenhour as Senior Planning Technician for Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. State of Florida County of Lee The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before me this 14th day of February 2020 by Sharon Umpenhour as Senior Planning Technician for O. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., who is personally known to me. 4 (Signature of Ndtary Public) Carin J. Dwver Printed Name of Notary — CABIN J. DWYER �° " = ANY COMMMION 0 FF 970M N'". 1 a'� p,'„t,• Handed 11 I �Io W U�nderwr*n Packet Pg. 1398 GradyMinor 9.A.4.e Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects February 13, 2020 RE: Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM); Petition PL20190001278, Deep 50 Gun Range Sports and Instructional School and Camp Conditional Use (CU) Dear Property Owner: A Neighborhood Information Meeting hosted by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., representing Deep 50 Industries, LLC (Applicant) will be held on Tuesday, March 3, 2020, 5:30 pm at the South Regional Library, 8065 Lely Cultural Pkwy, Naples, FL 34113. Deep 50 Industries, LLC submitted a formal application to Collier County, seeking approval of a Conditional Use for a Sports & Instructional School and Camp in the Agricultural Zoning District. This applicant proposes to redevelop the property for a sports instructional school and camp for the purpose of providing a membership -based gun range that will provide organized competitive training facilities. The subject property (Parcel Number 00982880005) is comprised of 10.77± acres, located on the west side of State Road 29 at the former Copeland Prison site in Section 7, Township 51 South, Range 30 East, Collier County, Florida. Project information is posted online at www.gradyminor.com/planning. If you have questions or comments, they can be directed to Sharon Umpenhour, Senior Planning Technician, Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134, sumpenhour@gradyminor.com, phone 239-947-1144, fax 239-947-0375. The Collier County Public Library does not sponsor or endorse this program. PROJECT LOCATION MAP W 175 c N 0 N+E 2 ` Q a SUBJECT PROPERTY E d' (D VS' U) t � v N � � Q `Us 41 w Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Ph. 239-947-1144 Fax. 239-947-0375 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 LB 000515 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Packet Pg. 1399 ■!:  :! ■ (§( a #& aueN aeGdaaa sU00060 d: MU si_mdn5j39AV-e4u_q3e m a_,_V 2/14/2020 LJ Public Notices Public Notices 9.A.4.e NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Petition PL20190001278, Deep 50 Gun Range Sports and Instructional School and Camp Conditional Use (CU) A Neighborhood Information Meeting hosted by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, PA_, representing Deep 50 Industries, LLC (Applicant) will be held on: March 3, 2020, 5:30 pm at the South Regional Library, 8065 Lely Cultural Pkwy, Naples, FL 34113 Deep 50 Industries, LLC submitted a formal application to Collier County, seeking approval of a Conditional Use for a Sports & Instructional School and Camp in the Agricultural Zoning District. This applicant proposes to redevelop the property for a sports instructional school and camp for the purpose of providing a membership -based gun range that will provide organized competitive training facilities. The subject property (Parcel Number 00982880005) is comprised of 10.77± acres, located on the west side of State Road 29 at the former Copeland Prison site in Section 7, Township 51 South, Range 30 East, Collier County, Florida. Project information is posted online at www.gradyminor.com/planning. If you have questions or comments, they can be directed to Sharon Umpenhour, Senior Planning Technician, Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134, sumpenhour(Ogradyminor.com, phone 239-947-1144, fax 239-947- 0375. The Collier County Public Library does not sponsor or endorse this program. Packet Pg. 1401 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Petition PL20190001278, Deep 50 Gun Range Conditional Use February 24, 2020 PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY 'Pease be advised*** The information on this sheet is to contact you regarding this project and future public meetings. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses, phone numbers and certain home addresses are public records once received by a government agency. If you do not want your e-mail address, phone number or home address released if the county receives public records request, you can refrain from including such information on this sheet. You have the option of checking with the county staff on your own to obtain updates on the project as well as checking the county Web site for additional information. 1 NAME: " EMAIL: ADDRESS: oII �WVA�fw U PHONE: 3a Spa-37 NAME: EMAIL: ADDRESS: PHONE: NAME: EMAIL: ADDRESS: PHONE: NAME: EMAIL: ADDRESS: PHONE: NAME: EMAIL: ADDRESS: PHONE: NAME: EMAIL: ADDRESS: PHONE: NAME: EMAIL: ADDRESS: PHONE: NAME: EMAIL: ADDRESS: PHONE: N I M Sign -in Sheet 03-03-2020 9.A.4.e m a� c ca c 0 O LO Q. a� a� 0 00 N O O O CD r O N J d N M tG M r Packet Pg. 1402 9.A.4.e Transcript PL20190001278 Deep 50 Gun Range CU, March 3, 2020 NIM Wayne Arnold: All right. Good evening, I'm Wayne Arnold and I'm with Grady Minor & Associates, and this is Sharon Umpenhour with Grady Minor and she's going to be recording our meeting. It's, uh, the neighborhood information meeting for conditional use known as the Deep 50 Gun Range. Also, it's called a sports and instructional school and camp conditional use application. So, what I'll do is give a brief overview of the application and what we're doing and then ask some questions. And I know, sir, that you were talking to Pitel prior to the start of the meeting and so, you know, probably have a lot of other conversation, but I think for the formal presentation for the county, we'll go through this. It'll be recorded; it'll be part of the public record. So, let me continue on. This is Marco Espinar. Marco's an environmental consultant on the side who's doing the environmental assessment on the property. And that's Tim Finn who is staff principal planner and is here to monitor the meeting and answer any questions process -related with the county. And you met Matthew Pitel, the property owner. So, with that, uh, again this is a conditional use and a conditional use means that the use isn't normally allowed unless we go through a process, uh, vetting it through the public hearing, in which case the county has the ability to look at the property, the project, the location and make determination whether it's appropriate and if it's appropriate, does it need special conditions. You know, in this particular case for the gun range, I'm sure we're going to have conditions that talk about our berm heights and, you know, other safety -related features and that's just part of the evolution of our application as it moves through the process. So, we're zoned agriculture and one of the, uh, conditional uses allowed is a sports and instructional camp, and the gun range is going to be that. It's going to be a membership driven gun range opportunity for folks and it'll feature both the pistol area as well as at least one rifle range for a little bit longer distance shooting. Obviously it's located on State Road 29, it's south of I-75, north of US 41. It's pretty isolated. It's the former Copeland Road Prison, if you've been around long enough. I know that the area you still see the building, but if you go out there today, the building's been demolished and Mr. Pitel worked with the local fire districts to do fire training there and they've demolished the building and so it's, uh, much different, then some of the maintenance buildings remaining. But the, the main part of the prison building is gone. What I've been displaying up here right now is the conceptual site plan that we'll prepare for the site that's required by the county. Access from State Road 29, there's going to be a gated entry that we're working with the Florida Wildlife Commission and other Pagel of 5 Packet Pg. 1403 Transcript PL20190001278 Deep 50 Gun Range CU, March 3, 2020 NIM 9.A.4.e agencies to do some cooperation with the gate. Obviously it's a panther habitat area and it's got the panther fencing. So, they want to make sure that the range is secured so that the panther's — you know, the gate's not open for, you know, the duration of the day. So, it would be open and closed as vehicles come and go. And the, the area that was the prison is going to be repurposed into the gun range and we're showing some areas where there can be fixed and moveable targets in the area for pistol shooting. On the, uh, north side we've got an area that would be for rifle target areas. Uh, obviously shooting to the west higher berm for about 20 feet proposed for that end of the thing. Otherwise, we've got, uh, 12-foot-high berms we're proposing on three sides of the, the property, just to make sure we contain and safely operate the facility. Uh, showing some parking and loading, you know, uh, where the parking areas currently are for the prison. Uh, probably may have some sort of modular office trailer that would house, uh, some of the supplies and be there to process members as they, uh, arrive on the site and things like that. This is not a place where — You're not going to buy guns here. And I don't think you can buy ammo here. It's place where you can come and learn to shoot and practice your shooting. So, that's, in essence what we're proposing to do. We're in the review process right now. We've obtained staff comments. They're still reviewing our application. We're required to hold this meeting before we can move ahead to have a public hearing and in this case, Tim, this is where I might need your help. Our hearing examiner, which this could have been heard by, resigned and I don't know if they intend to fill or when they will fill, but otherwise — Timothy Finn: We don't know when that's going to be filled as of yet. So, right now this will not be going to HEX, it will be going to, uh, uh, planning commission and then on to the board of county commissioner. Wayne Arnold: Okay. It will have to go to the county commission as well. Okay. Timothy Finn: Yes. Wayne Arnold: Unless that changes. If we get back the hearing examiner and that process can get back on track, but I probably, from a timing standpoint — Timothy Finn: Yeah, we don't know when that's going to happen. Page 2 of 5 Packet Pg. 1404 9.A.4.e Transcript PL20190001278 Deep 50 Gun Range CU, March 3, 2020 NIM Wayne Arnold: — Correct. So, I think we wanna keep this moving. I think you should have Matthews obviously. George Petrakakis: I would like the job [laughs]. Wayne Arnold: So, sir, we don't have hearing dates yet. I mean, you don't live near the site as you indicated, but, you know, normally there'll be zoning signs that get posted on the site. You've seen them around town, the 4x8 posters that says, "Hearing signs." If you got noticed for this, you said you got notice from an email blast from the county commissioner's office? George Petrakakis: Yeah, I'll double check. Wayne Arnold: So, I don't know if they'll notice. You probably will get the notice for the planning commission hearing as well then. So, if you, you know, care to attend that, you're welcome to do that and — Or if you want to stay in touch, Sharon's got some of her business cards here and you can take hers and email us. Our information is Also, in the document I gave you, our website and the county's portal where you can look at our application materials. Wayne Arnold: So, that's kind of in a nutshell what we're proposing to do. So, I don't know if you have any specific questions about what we're doing. George Petrakakis: Couple few. So, what's a panther fence? Wayne Arnold: Panther fence, you've seen them around if you go out all the way. If you — you live off Immokalee Road, you said. If you go all the way out toward Immokalee? George Petrakakis: Okay. Wayne Arnold: You'll see it they're 12 foot high fences. They have, uh, barbwire on top of them, that's canterevered and that's to control and contain the panthers and funnel them to underpasses that are in the roads. I'm not sure where the one is on State Road 29, nearest here, Marco? Marco Espinar: North. Wayne Arnold: It's north? But the fencing will direct the panthers and other small mammals to those areas to safely cross the street and not get hit by a car, hopefully. Page 3 of 5 Packet Pg. 1405 9.A.4.e Transcript PL20190001278 Deep 50 Gun Range CU, March 3, 2020 NIM George Petrakakis: Now, on, on, that diagram there, uh, can Mr. Pitel add more or that's, that's, that's the maximum capacity for the property and what it zoned for and all that? Wayne Arnold: We're utilizing — He owns additional property, but what we're doing is using the property that was only previously cleared, and, and utilized by the prison. It makes it much easier from a permitting standpoint for him not to have to go and deal with, dealing with vegetation, the areas to the north to start abutting other preservation areas owned by the state and federal government. And we don't — really we'd rather deal with areas that were cleared. George Petrakakis: Okay. Wayne Arnold: It's, it's 10 acres. It's plenty ample size for, you know, the proposed use. George Petrakakis: I haven't been out there so I don't know, it's why I'm asking. Okay, because I see the vegetation on the map itself. Wayne Arnold: Yeah. It's not a great image, but if you look in what we gave you, there's an inset that kinda shows it in relation to everything else that's around it, on page four of that. George Petrakakis: Ah, yes, yes, yes. Wayne Arnold: Across the street is that — Was that not Division of Forestry, it's —' Matthew Pitel: It was the Big Cypress, it's a fire station? Wayne Arnold: — Yeah, it's a fire station. Matthew Pitel: Yeah, I think it's the Big Cypress. Wayne Arnold: They're located right here, that's the driveway right across the street. So, that's our only neighbor. I don't think there's another house within three or four miles, so it's isolated, which is perfect for, you know, proposed use as a gun range. And I know prior to the meeting you were having some detailed conversations with Mr. Pitel and you're welcome to continue those dialogue. They probably aren't necessary for the public's discussion or the planning commission members to read the transcript of, so. George Petrakakis: I received the email from webmaster@colliercountyflorida.gov, so. Page 4 of 5 Packet Pg. 1406 Transcript PL20190001278 Deep 50 Gun Range CU, March 3, 2020 NIM 9.A.4.e Matthew Pitel: Is that you, Tim? Colliercountyflorida.gov? Wayne Arnold: Yeah, that's the county's website for sure. Timothy Finn: Yeah, that's our website. Wayne Arnold: Okay. George Petrakakis: So, I subscribed to the emails for commissioners. I just received this yesterday — Wayne Arnold: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Timothy Finn: — but as we get closer, feel free to call me. Wayne Arnold: Okay. Timothy Finn: And I'll let you know if anything — Wayne Arnold: Yeah, I'm guessing that our planning commission hearing, probably it's March. I doubt if April's in the offering right now, so it's probably going to be May perhaps, hopefully. I mean, it could be earlier, but I don't know. Timothy Finn: Yeah, it could later, I don't know [laughs]. Wayne Arnold: We just don't know yet. I mean, I don't think there are too many large issues related to the project. I mean, the sufficiency letter was pretty minimal, so hopefully we're on track to be sufficient and we can get scheduled for a hearing soon. Any other questions of me? George Petrakakis: No. Wayne Arnold: Okay, well, then I think why don't we close the, the neighborhood information meeting. If you wanna continue to talk guns with Mr. Pitel, you're totally welcome to do that [laughs]. Thanks for taking the time to be here. George Petrakakis: My pleasure. Thank you. Wayne Arnold: All right. [End of Audio] Duration: 10 minutes Page 5 of 5 Packet Pg. 1407 daad gLU0006Wld : MCO sleua;eW dnjoe8-uoi4eoijddd - Q;u9uayoe44V :4uauayoe4ly o z- V �V � y � _ O O � � � O } 4- Go CL _ r**,*N p o C4 U O o rl O E o� U 'a z N o J = N CL o NO i LO 02 o.0 daa(3 gLU0006Wld MCO sleua;eW dnjoe8-uoi4eoijddd - Q;uauayoe;;d :;uauayoe;;d V vi "F► 0 Q � O U Q Q) Q Q) 0 o� Q) L 0 c U-i Q) I Q Ln O i 0 O N � m = ca = C I � � 0 N CL •O Q O W N Q CL V E O V U J � of Q W W = L Q m Q W a O 1 daa(3 gLU0006Wld : MCO sleua;eW dnjoe8-uoi4eoijddd - Q;u9uayoe44V :4uauayoe4ly a 0 rn O O •O � O � GO Q) j �4- 06 -+- V) p ioJc: � 0 V N " a .0 L o o Q) V w CL CU D m IL a� u V IL deea SM000 OZ1d : MU) slepe4ew dnjoe8-uoi4eoijddy - Q4uowy3e4lV :4uawyoe4ly v Q 1 v F daaa SLU000660Z1d : Z£9£6) slel�a;eW dnjoe8-uol4eoiIddV - Q;uowyoe;;V :;uawyoe;;vy r�4-1 U(L ---- ---------- - S.R. 29 _-- — — - w; U I E } a - 7 ) I ° � z z wm 'I a uwm aLi m a LU o cU) I� o F w ZONED: A-ACSC/ST USE: UNDEVELOPED 3 z Iw r g) I� c ZONED: A-ACSC/ST USE: UNDEVELOPEDLd z g O U I Iw I� Ja 9(j)—� z �—— • — —— -- -,L =— -- -- --� —� I I r -- -- --- I I I PARKING I PARKING/LOADING °w I I w a - - - - - - - - w � �� I o I o ° I I z , �v, w w �3; o I I 0 Z I I Z Z 12 I wI w V) w ui ui � Im. -------- Qw o�� ICI z u�Q �of= (n �a w wca-------- J LUw «<— iw I 0¢� �j Iz I U Q Imo. ��--____—_ �o ------� Q I� I Q ui zZ IN I N LLJQz z 0------ LU I I 0? ------ z i� ON O I X 0 i I� 0 0 Iy� I� — — — — — — — 0 ------- 0 I,c4l ------_ 0 RIFLE BERM 0 12' HIGH EARTHEN BERM I — — — — — — — — — ZONED: A-ACSC/ST USE: UNDEVELOPED LiJ daa(3 gLM006Wld : Z£9£6) sleua;eW dnjoe8-uol4eoilddd - (3;u9wgoe44d :4uauayoe4ly 4) CL 4) V r O 'i' L7n S.R.29 w, I } oil I ou o W [n a W cn w 0O Lu > ZONED: A-ACSCIST IuJ I W ZONED- A-ACSC/ST z g a USE UNDEVELOPED o USE: UNDEVELOPED [Yo Iwco I (7 Jb C7 y - -- - - - i----- r�T �-� i ► PARKINGiiU PARKING/LOADING i i ------ Qw O o l F Lu Lu > w I --------- LLJ < _ w I Lu o I in `z2 w z , I w - - - - - - - ~�' u w < I I w LLI WIo- I Y L o ¢ wQ �O w�� lI [Y WI¢ � m I rl rJ -------_ ww Z I ui F cn cn Wi �� QQ �__---- Im fn Q I IQO � -------_ uJ ~> — — — — — —— I U o O INI m uJz w OZp 0 I 1= I w Z I¢ ------- Z------- IN I z O i i X w (D Lu I� i ON I I Hli h 12' HIGH EARTHEN BERM I J ZONED: A-ACSC/ST USE: UNDEVELOPED daad SLU0006W-1d : MCO sleua;eW dnjoe8-uoi4eoijddd - Q;u9uayoe44V :4u9uay3e4jv --%-Z VJ n� '> U >' U} ?m 0 U > 0 '� 0 0 'E U o O)o 0 > o Q -0 0 0U v > 0 o 0 0� m � a� o ° a_ o U) U D- co 0 -Q 7U o U o 0 �U U o � E � �n 0 0 U ^U �U 0 •� o �� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD U =U� _ D 0 0 9.A.4.f Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DR GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34: www.colliercountyfl.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6: Hybrid Virtual Quasi -Judicial Public Hearing Waiver Emergency/Executive Order 2020-04 Hearing of the Collier County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners For Petition Number(s): PL20190001278 Regarding the above subject petition number(s), Deep 50 Industries, LLC (Name of Applicant) elects to proceed during the declared emergency with hybrid virtual public hearings of the Collier County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners, and waives the right to contest any procedural irregularity due to the hybrid virtual nature of the public hearing. Name: Matthew Pitel, Authorized Member Signat'b ❑✓ Ipplicant ❑ �egal Counsel to Applicant Date: - — 3 � - 2-U Z * This In, must be signed by either the Applicant (if the applicant is a corporate entity, this must be an officer olthe corporate entity) or the legal counsel to the Applicant. Packet Pg. 1415 9.A.4.g (CHAPTER 8, COLLIER COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT) A zoning sign(s) must be posted by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent on the parcel for a minimum of fifteen (15) calendar days in advance of the first public hearing and said sign(s) must be maintained by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent through the Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Below are general guidelines for signs, however these guidelines should not be construed to supersede any requirement of the LDC. For specific sign requirements, please refer to the Administrative Code, Chapter 8 E. The sign(s) must be erected in full view of the public, not more than five (5) feet from the nearest street right-of-way or easement. The sign(s) must be securely affixed by nails, staples, or other means to a wood frame or to a wood panel and then fastened securely to a post, or other structure. The sign may not be affixed to a tree or other foliage. The petitioner or the petitioner's agent must maintain the sign(s) in place, and readable condition until the requested action has been heard and a final decision rendered. If the sign(s) is destroyed, lost, or rendered unreadable, the petitioner or the petitioner's agent must replace the sign(s) NOTE; AFTER THE SIGN HAS BEEN POSTED, THIS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE SHOULD BE RETURNED NO LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST HEARING DATE TO THE ASSIGNED PLANNER. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY, PERSONALLY SAYS THAT HE/SHE HAS POSTED PROPER NOTICE AS COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON THE PL- 90001278 Dee 50 Gun Ran a Conditional Use. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANTOR AGENT Sharon Umpenhour as Senior Planning Technician for Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. NAME (TYPED OR PRINTED) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER APPEARED SHARON UMPENHOUR WHO ON OATH REQUIRED BY SECTION 10.03.00 OF THE COLLIER PARCEL COVERED IN PETITION NUMBER(S) 3800 Via Del Rey STREET OR P.O. BOX Bonita Springs, Florida 34110 CITY, STATE ZIP The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this 27 day of August _, 2020, by Sharon Umpenhour as Senior Planning Technician for O. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., personally known to me erwho - produeed as and who 4Wdid not take an oath. ........... CARIN J. DWYER C.c g , : MY COMMISSION # GG 982367 Signature of No Public , Pa EXPIRES: May ay`114, 2,0�2,4� �y %FOP FL�: Banded h, N W NNIC Ull ,,b, Carin J. Dwyer Printed Name of Notary Public My Commission Expires: (Stamp with serial number) Rev. 3I412015 Packet Pg. 1416 9.A.4.g PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE, DEEP 50 GUN RANGE CONDITIONAL USE Petition No. PL20190001278 CCPC: SEPTEMBER 17, 2020 - 9:00 a.m. BCC: OCTOBER 27, 2020 - 9:00 a.m. - COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 3299 EAST TAIVIIAMI TRAIL. NAPLES, FL 34112 TIMOTHY FINN. AICP: 239-252-4312 a Packet Pg. 1417 9.A.5 09/25/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.5 Item Summary: *** This item has been continued from the September 17, 2020 CCPC Meeting to the September 25, 2020 CCPC Meeting .*** PUDA-PL2019002323: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 09-15, as amended, the Heavenly Community Facility Planned Unit Development, to increase the maximum size of the house of worship use to 35,000 square feet; to increase the accessory uses to 88,000 square feet; to remove the daycare and school permitted accessory uses; to add outdoor recreational areas, playgrounds and playlots as permitted accessory uses; to eliminate Tract A and Tract B references; to modify the conceptual PUD master plan; to delete Exhibit G, depiction of vertical building, Exhibit H, architectural renderings and Exhibit I, conditions of approval; add a deviation regarding chain link fencing; and add a deviation regarding paved aisles for the area utilized for grass overflow parking. The property is located at 6926 Trail Boulevard between Ridge Drive and Myrtle Road in Section 3, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 15.93f acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 09/25/2020 Prepared by: Title: — Zoning Name: Tim Finn 09/17/2020 10:51 AM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning — Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 09/17/2020 10:51 AM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Tim Finn Review item Skipped 09/17/2020 10:49 AM Zoning Tim Finn Review Item Skipped 09/17/2020 10:49 AM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Tim Finn Review Item Skipped 09/17/2020 10:49 AM Growth Management Department Tim Finn Review Item Skipped 09/17/2020 10:49 AM Zoning Tim Finn Review Item Skipped 09/17/2020 10:49 AM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 09/25/2020 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 1418 9.A.5.a CoffieT CO-Uffty 0WWW%"-- _ mwmft. STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION — ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 2020 SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20190002323 HEAVENLY Owner/Applicant: The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc. 6926 Trail Blvd. Naples, FL 34108 Agents: D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Coleman, Yovanovich, and Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 REOUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to amend Ordinance Number 09-15, as amended, the Heavenly Community Facility Planned Unit Development (PUD). GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property consists of 15.93+/- acres and is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of US 41 and Ridge Drive in Section 3, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida (see location map, page 2). PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner seeks to amend the Heavenly Community Facility Planned Unit Development PUD, approved via Ordinance 09-15, to eliminate Tract A and Tract B references, to remove 200 seats from the previous Tract B, and adding those 200 seats into the previous Tract A for a revised total of 1,200 seats. The current PUD provides Tract A with 1,000 seats and the revised master plan and PUD remove the tract designations. Moreover, the petitioner seeks to increase the maximum size of the house of worship to 35,000 square feet; to increase the accessory uses to 88,000 square feet; to remove the daycare and school permitted accessory uses; to add outdoor recreational areas, playgrounds, and playlots as permitted accessory uses; to delete Exhibit G, depiction of vertical building, Exhibit H, architectural renderings and Exhibit I, conditions of approval; and add a deviation regarding chain link fencing, and add a deviation regarding paved aisles for the area utilized as grass overflow parking. PUDA-PL20190002323; Heavenly Page 1 of 13 Revised: September 8, 2020 Packet Pg. 1419 m d (Nand) AlUGAeOH £Z£Z00611,OZ-1d : ££9£O AIuaneOH-:podlea 1jejS :;uewt4oe;;y LL _ _ + t,.., r=� IY4 11111111,nllidl■' ''� i y'•n �li•l...oi�,iilh �'}' •'foil �, • J��1 r �.��' i�ii i�1[ l.1i ��u fw' o''uiJ4 ■ ��1llIIIL�� inn[ PUDA-PL20190002323; Heavenly Revised: September 8, 2020 ca 0 N co N {Y] C) C) C) C) N J CL L_ �3 C D CL co 0 a--' ca J Page 2 of 13 0 N a d Y V a 9.A.5.a SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding boundaries of Heavenly Community Facility Planned Unit Development PUD: North: Ridge Drive, (local road) then developed single-family residential, with a current zoning designation of Residential Single-Family-1 (RSF-1) South: Myrtle Road, (local road) then developed single-family residential, with a current zoning designation of Residential Single-Family-1 (RSF-1) East: West Street, (local road) then developed single-family residential, with a current zoning designation of Residential Single-Family-1 (RSF-1) West: Tamiami Trail North, a six -lane arterial roadway, and then developed single-family residential within Pelican Bay PUD, and is approved for commercial, golf course, single and multi -family, and open space/conservation Source: Collier County Property Appraiser PUDA-PL20190002323; Heavenly Page 3 of 13 Revised: September 8, 2020 Packet Pg. 1421 9.A.5.a GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land -use decisions, such as this proposed amendment. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any amendment petition. This petition is consistent with the GMP. Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The ±15.9-acre site is designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. The Urban Mixed Use District is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses, including mixed -use developments such as Planned Unit Developments. According to the FLUE in the Urban Designation Section, Urban designated areas will accommodate non-residential uses including Community facilities, such as churches. This application proposes to amend the Heavenly CFPUD to reconfigure the allowable square footage within the overall PUD and increase the allowable square footage for the overall PUD, remove Child/Adult Day Care / Pre-K/Kindergarten / School uses (with no more than a combined cumulative total of 220 students/individuals enrolled/attending for the entire CFPUD), and to add outdoor recreational areas, playlots, playgrounds. The amendment also proposes to add a deviation to LDC Subsection 5.03.02.G.1.a, fences forward of the primary fagade. The cover letter to the applicant's request to not complete a Traffic Impact Statement stated, "No change is proposed to the total number of seats permitted within the PUD; therefore, there are no additional trips associated with the principal permitted use. Further, because the applicant is eliminating the K-8 grade private school from the list of permitted uses, P.M. peak hour trips will be reduced by eliminating the private school use." The total seats for the principle use (church) are increasing from 1000 to 1200, but they are proposing to eliminate the 220 seats for the Child/Adult Day Care / Pre-K/Kindergarten / School uses; so, it is a net decrease in P.M. peak hour trips. In essence, the sanctuary could increase by 200 seats but the overall cap for former Tract A and Tract B remains the same. Based upon the analysis of the current petition, this proposed PUDA may be deemed consistent with the FLUE. (See Attachment B — FLUE Consistency Review) Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant's February 5, 2020, TIS waiver request, and revised PUD Document for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP. Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states; "The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five-year AUIR planning PUDA-PL20190002323; Heavenly Page 4 of 13 Revised: September 8, 2020 Packet Pg. 1422 9.A.5.a period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways. " Staff finding: According to the TIS waiver and revised PUD document the number of seats allowed by the PUD will remain the same by removing 200 seats from the previous Tract B and adding those 200 seats to Tract A for a revised total of 1,200 seats (note that the current PUD provides Tract A with 1,000 seats and the revised master plan and PUD remove the tract designations). Further, the applicant is also removing the K-8th grade private school use which will result in a reduction in traffic impact potential for this PUD. Based on the TIS waiver and the revised PUD, the subject PUD Amendment can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan because there are no additional traffic impacts resulting from the proposed changes. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The native vegetation required to be retained for the PUD was approved in accordance with Ordinance 09-15. A minimum of 0.12 acres of native vegetation shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County. A conservation easement for a 0.12-acre created preserve has been placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County (OR 4577, Pages 3408 — 3414). STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Section 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC's recommendation. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning Services Analysis." Drainage: The proposed PUD Amendment request is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area. Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage will be addressed through the environmental resource permitting process with the South Florida Water Management District. County staff will also evaluate the project's stormwater management system, calculations, and design criteria at the time of site development plan (SDP) and/or platting (PPL). PUDA-PL20190002323; Heavenly Page 5 of 13 Revised: September 8, 2020 Packet Pg. 1423 9.A.5.a Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the PUD petition to address environmental concerns. The proposed PUD changes will still meet the minimum preserve requirement of 0.12 acres. Landscape Review: The current PUD ordinance includes language regarding buffer plantings under Development Standards for both Tract A and Tract B. The proposed ordinance has moved the buffer requirements to the Developer Commitments section. Therefore, landscape review staff recommends approval. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval. Utilities Review: The project lies within the regional potable water and north wastewater service areas of the Collier County Water -Sewer District and already has County water and wastewater services. System capacity will not be significantly impacted by the changes proposed by this petition Zoninz Services Review: The Covenant Presbyterian Church is the sole property owner of all property within the Heavenly CFPUD. The church requests to relocate the church offices from their existing location within two former single-family homes in the northwest portion of the site into a newly constructed building located in the northeast portion of the site. The two existing houses would then be demolished and would be designated as open space areas. The existing sanctuary building in the northeast portion of the site will be demolished in order to construct the new church offices. The applicant proposes to amend the CFPUD to reconfigure the allowable square footage for the overall CFPUD, increase the allowable square footage for the overall PUD, remove Child/Adult Day Care / Pre-K/Kindergarten / School use, add outdoor recreational areas, playlots, and playgrounds. The maximum sanctuary seating for the PUD will remain at 1,200 seats. The amendment also proposes to add a deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.G. La, fences forward of the primary facade in order to permit a chain -link fence to be installed around the proposed outdoor play area and another deviation from LDC Section 4.05.02.B.l.a.i, which will serve as both a youth play yard and as grass overflow parking. A revised Master Plan is proposed which eliminates the Tract A and B designations and labels the proposed uses on the plan. One access point to West Street is also eliminated. Staff has no issue with these additions and changes. As such, staff has determined the proposed uses and modifications would be appropriate and compatible with the PUD. LDC Section 10.02.13.13.5 states that "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria in addition to the findings in LDC Section 10.02.08": 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. PUDA-PL20190002323; Heavenly Page 6 of 13 Revised: September 8, 2020 Packet Pg. 1424 9.A.5.a Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and is of the opinion the uses and property development regulations are compatible with the development approved in the area Moreover, the PUD already receives potable water and wastewater services from the CCWSD, and there are adequate water and wastewater treatment capacities available to future development as proposed by this petition. The project already has County water and wastewater services. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of conformity with the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency portion of this staff report on page 4. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. As described in the Staff Analysis section of this staff report, the proposed changes to the PUD do not affect the landscaping standards of the original PUD. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. No deviation from the required usable open space is being requested, and compliance would be demonstrated at the time of SDP or PPL. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure will continue to be sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. Finally, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals, including but not limited to any plats and or site development plans, are sought. Moreover, there is adequate water and wastewater treatment capacity to accommodate the insignificant increase in demand/flow resulting from the proposed changes to the PUD. PUDA-PL20190002323; Heavenly Page 7 of 13 Revised: September 8, 2020 Packet Pg. 1425 9.A.5.a 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure, including adjacent Collier County Water - Sewer District potable water and wastewater mains, to accommodate the insignificant increase in demand/flow resulting from the proposed changes to the PUD. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. All future development proposed on the Heavenly Community Facility Planned Unit Development PUD would have to comply to the LDC and other applicable codes. The petitioner is requesting two new deviations to the LDC. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.17 states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners ... shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable": 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the GMP. Comprehensive Planning staff determined the subject petition is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the (FLUM) and other elements of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern (of the abutting properties) is described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section of this staff report. The proposed use would not change the existing land use patterns of the surrounding properties. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The property is currently zoned PUD and would remain as such. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. This petition does not propose any change to the boundaries of the PUD. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of theproposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary; however, it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes because the petitioner wishes to include the PUDA-PL20190002323; Heavenly Page 8 of 13 Revised: September 8, 2020 Packet Pg. 1426 9.A.5.a proposed uses and development standards that are specific to the subject parcel. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed PUD Amendment is not anticipated to adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure will continue to have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. & Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed PUD Amendment request is not anticipated to create adverse drainage impacts in the area; provided stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage on this project are addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). County staff will evaluate the project's stormwater management system, calculations, and design criteria at the time of SDP and/or PPL. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. It is not anticipated the changes proposed to this PUD Amendment would seriously reduce light or air to the adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent areas. This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. All immediately adjacent properties are developed, and the proposed amendment is consistent with those permitted on the site and should not be a deterrent to improvement or PUDA-PL20190002323; Heavenly Page 9 of 13 Revised: September 8, 2020 Packet Pg. 1427 9.A.5.a redevelopment of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. If the proposed development complies with the GMP through the proposed amendment, then that constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property can be used in accordance with existing zoning; however, the proposed uses cannot be achieved without amending the PUD. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. It is staff s opinion that the proposed uses, associated development standards, and developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not specifically review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD Document would require considerable site alteration, and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the SDP and/or platting processes, and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The activity proposed by this amendment will have no adverse impact on public utilities facility adequacy. PUDA-PL20190002323; Heavenly Page 10 of 13 Revised: September 8, 2020 Packet Pg. 1428 9.A.5.a M Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. It is to be determined at the public hearings DEVIATION DISCUSSION: The PUD was approved via Ordinance 09-15 with six deviations for Tract A and three deviations for Tract B. The petitioner is now seeking to withdraw all three deviations for Tract B and add, withdraw, and modify deviations of the prior Tract A.. The new proposed deviations and modified deviations has been directly extracted from the proposed PUD ordinance. The petitioner's justification and staff analysis/recommendation for these deviations are listed below. Deviation #1: (Sidewalk/Bike Lane Requirements) "Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A. Sidewalk and Bike Lane Requirements which requires sidewalks within road right-of-way; except that sidewalks shall be provided along Trail Boulevard. The property owner shall make a payment in lieu of providing the sidewalks along the balance of the abutting right-of-way and that portion of Myrtle Road between Trail Boulevard and the project ingress -egress driveway to Myrtle Road. The developer shall also construct one sidewalk extension from the central building campus across Trail Boulevard to the pavement along US 41 to provide access to a potential bus stop, as conceptually depicted on the CFPUD Master Plan or provide payment in lieu of to Collier County. Petitioners Justification: This was previously approved by Ordinance 2009-15. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff has no issue with adding the language "or provide payment in lieu of to Collier County" as underlined in Deviation 1. Zoning staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.13.51, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #2: (Man -Made Lakes and Water Management Areas) — No modifications proposed, was previously approved by Ordinance 2009-15. Deviation # 3: Removed Per PMC-PL2011-872 Deviation #4: (Pedestrian Pathway Connections) — No modifications proposed, was previously approved by Ordinance 2009-15. Deviation #5: WITHDRAWN, Tracts A and B are being eliminated as PUD is now under the unified ownership of The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc PUDA-PL20190002323; Heavenly Page 11 of 13 Revised: September 8, 2020 Packet Pg. 1429 9.A.5.a Deviation # 6: (Masonry/Prefabricated Concrete Wall) — No modifications proposed, was previously approved by Ordinance 2009-15. Deviation #7: (Chain -Link Fencing) "Deviation #7 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 5.03.02.G.1.a., Supplemental Standards, which requires chain link (including wire mesh) and wood fences are prohibited forward of the primary fagade and shall be a minimum of 100 feet from a public right-of-way. If these types of fences face a public or private street, then they shall be screened with an irrigated hedge planted directly in front of the fence on the street side. Plant material shall be a minimum of 3 gallons in size and planted no more than 3 feet on center at time of installation. This plant material must be maintained at no less than three-quarters of the height of the adjacent fence, to instead allow the use of up to a 6-foot-high chain -link fence forward of the primary fagade where the chain link fence is screened with an irrigated hedge planting directly in front of the fence facing the external right-of-way." Petitioners Justification: The proposed chain link fencing is proposed to be used to provide a safe play lot for congregant children. Other portions of the Heavenly CFPUD have utilized chain link fencing with hedge screening. The use of chain link forward of the primary building Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.13.51, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #8: (Grass Overflow Parking) "Deviation #8 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 4.05.02.B.l.a.i., "Design Standards", which requires Parking lots and spaces shall meet the following surfacing standards: i. Grass parking spaces shall be compacted, stabilized, well -drained, and surfaced with a durable and maintained grass cover. Driveways, handicapped spaces, and access aisles shall be paved. This deviation will instead not require this CFPUD to provide paved aisles for the area utilized for grass overflow parking where designated on the PUD Master Plan which can accommodate approximately 67 vehicles." Petitioners Justification: The proposed grass overflow parking does not reduce the required number of parking spaces on -site, but rather provides for multi -use of the play area. Because it is limited to only 67 cars, the low volume does not necessitate a paved drive aisle which would otherwise restrict the area as a children's play area. On -site staff will also be present during the days in which overflow parking is required to direct vehicles. Additionally, a concrete or asphalt apron will be installed at the entrance where the highest vehicle volumes and turning would occur. When the grass overflow parking lot is not being utilized, gates have been provided and will restrict vehicular access. The field's primary use is as a youth play yard and the secondary use as PUDA-PL20190002323; Heavenly Page 12 of 13 Revised: September 8, 2020 Packet Pg. 1430 9.A.5.a grass overflow parking will seldom be used. If this deviation is not approved then the paved drive isles will have a dramatic negative effect on the areas use as a playfield. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant conducted a NIM on July 7, 2020, 5:30 PM, at the Covenant Church of Naples Sanctuary, located at 6926 Trail Blvd, Naples, FL. No members of the public were in attendance. Rich Yovanovich (agent) gave a PowerPoint presentation for county staff in attendance and for audio and video purposes. For further information, please see the NIM Summary information in the back-up material. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EACI RECOMMENDATION: This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed this staff report on September 2, 2020. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: A) Proposed Ordinance B) FLUE Consistency Review C) Application/Backup Materials PUDA-PL20190002323; Heavenly Page 13 of 13 Revised: September 8, 2020 Packet Pg. 1431 9.A.5.b ORDINANCE NO.20- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 09-15, AS AMENDED, THE HEAVENLY COMMUNITY FACILITY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF THE HOUSE OF WORSHIP USE TO 35,000 SQUARE FEET; TO INCREASE THE ACCESSORY USES TO 88,000 SQUARE FEET; TO REMOVE THE DAYCARE AND SCHOOL PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES; TO ADD OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL AREAS, PLAYGROUNDS AND PLAYLOTS AS PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES; TO ELIMINATE TRACT A AND TRACT B REFERENCES; TO MODIFY THE CONCEPTUAL PUD MASTER PLAN; TO DELETE EXHIBIT G, DEPICTION OF VERTICAL BUILDING, EXHIBIT H, ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS AND EXHIBIT I, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; ADD A DEVIATION REGARDING CHAIN LINK FENCING; AND ADD A DEVIATION REGARDING PAVED AISLES FOR THE AREA UTILIZED FOR GRASS OVERFLOW PARKING. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 6926 TRAIL BOULEVARD BETWEEN RIDGE DRIVE AND MYRTLE ROAD IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 15.93t ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20190002323] WHEREAS, on March 24, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance No. 09-15, which created the Heavenly Community Facility Planned Unit Development (PUD); and WHEREAS, the PUD was subsequently amended by the Board of County Commissioners by Ordinance No. 13-31; and WHEREAS, The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc. represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the PUD. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: [20-CPS-0198 I / 1560374/ 1 ]75 Heavenly PUDA Page 1 of 2 PL20190002323 8/24/20 Packet Pg. 1432 9.A.5.b SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT TO THE PUD DOCUMENT The PUD Document attached as Exhibits "A" through "I" to Ordinance No. 09-15, as amended, is hereby amended and replaced with the revised PUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibits "A" through "F" and incorporated by reference herein. SECTION TWO: EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of ATTEST: CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK IN , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A - List of Permitted Uses Exhibit B - Development Standards Exhibit C - Master Plan Exhibit D - Legal Description Exhibit E - List of Requested Deviations Exhibit F - List of Developer Commitments [20-CPS-0 1981/ 15603 74/ 1175 Heavenly PUDA PL20190002323 8/24/20 2020 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Page 2 of 2 Burt L. Saunders, Chairman Packet Pg. 1433 9.A.5.b HEAVENLY COMMUNITY FACILITY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CFPUD) EXHIBITS A through IF Words underlined are additions; words tFHe� are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev6.docx August 24, 2020 Page 1 of 23 Packet Pg. 1434 9.A.5.b EXHIBIT A GENERAL: Development of the Heavenly CFPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Ordinance and applicable sections and parts of the Land Development Code (LDC) and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order, such as, but not limited to final subdivision plat, final site development plan, excavation permit, and preliminary work authorization, to which such regulations relate. PERMITTED USES: No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: 1. One house of worship with a maximum seating capacity of 1,000-1,200 individuals. (See Exhibit F, ' r-aet A, r,,,,.,,...,;t,...,en4 Number- 6 item A.5.). B. Accessory Uses: 1. Religious Educational Classrooms and Chorus Rehearsal Room 2. Social/Meeting and Fellowship Center 3. Administrative Church Offices limited to S� ' 7 thfetigh 7 with no mer-e than a eombined eumulative total of 220 students/individuals eP&o11ed/a#endiag for- the en4ir-e- of the T-r-aet A and B owners [if m diff'....., owner -ship] provided the total number- o -5-.4.Non-commercial accessory uses characterized by civic group meetings such as The Pine Ridge Civic Association, Scouting, community service organizations (e.g. the Naples' Parkinson's Association), safety fairs for the community and the like; and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures; except that parking garages are prohibited. Business and trade activities, including but not limited to a "market", "community market", direct marketing outlet or "farmers' market", are not accessory uses associated with the permitted principal uses and structures. 5. Outdoor recreational areas, play lots, playgrounds, which may include shade structures. 1. TeWer-ar-y Wilding stmetufes may be t4ilized to aeeemmedate existing uses in the initial redevelopment eonstmetion t-Fansition period. Stieh uses shall not begin ui#il after- the pr-opei4y owner applies for- a building pefmit for the first new permanent building and the ma -xi period of tise of stieh temporary building(s) shall be for- a period of 27 months, after- the building a 0 a 21 c as a� x M N M N 0 0 a) r O N J d M M W M O U c c �a L O N O am O L- a Q c as E Q c as E U a r a Words underlined are additions; words stmek thtwugh are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev6. docx August 24, 2020 Page 2 of 23 Packet Pg. 1435 9.A.5.b No building or- > > for- other- than the fell 0 a A. Prineipal Uses.! >, c m a� x M . N M N O 1 7?R a,, l !`1, CD Religious ,,,s a�; Classrooms and ,, ,,s Rehearsal Room C1 2. c,,,.;,,i rnaoof;r and Fellowship Gente o N 2 A a,ti.;,.;� �. ,t;�,o llF�; o� J 7. d i ■MI ■ Opm ■ 14 Asseeiation),like; I the that N with pefmitted pr-ineipal uses and stmetufes; exeept pafking gar -ages are prohibited. 0. cc » cceemfntmity » C dir-eet "fafmer-s' the marketing outlet or- market", are not aeeesser-y uses asseeiated with c m E V Q c a) E z U a r r Q Words underlined are additions; words s*mek through are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev6. docx August 24, 2020 Page 3 of 23 Packet Pg. 1436 9.A.5.b EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TRACT - Together with the text that follows below are the development standards for land uses within Trathis CFPUD Subdistrict. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the site development plan (SDP). PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY MINIMUM LOT AREA 14± acres N/A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 538 ft. N/A MINIMUM YARDS (from right-of-way line abutting the property) wag) est Street Expanded Ridge Drive New stmetttfesTrail Boulevard The fan ft r the height SP-S30 ft. SPS30 ft. SP530 ft. (g) greater- zoned of stmetufe200 ft. -5 -200 ft. for- expanded pet4i , 200 z.; exeept—,50 ft.Tr-ail t.-. MINIMUM V A RDS (between ets) Side 34'ft-. MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES The greater of 15 ft. or the sum of the zoned building heights SPS15 ft. MAXIMUM ZONED HEIGHT 35 ft. 35 ft. MAXIMUM ACTUAL HEIGHT MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES New 50 ft.(1)(2) 2(3) 4- 50 ft. (1) 00) 2(D SS MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 2,500 sq. ft. 400 sq. ft. MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE House of Worship (64) Accessory Uses/Maintenance/Storage (75) (9) Gir-eulatiE)n�N4ain4enaneeAStefage 2835,000 sq. ft. 4088,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. ft. PRESERVE SETBACKS (860 25 ft. 25 ft. SPS=Same as Principal Structure (1) Includes the vertical distance between the finished floor elevation and the average center line elevation of abutting roads, which is estimated to be between 4 feet and 5 feet. a 0 D a 21 c as a� x M N M N O 0 a) 0 N J d M M CO M O U c c O as N O O. 0 a c as E Q c as E U r r a Words underlined are additions; words stmek through are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev6. docx August 24, 2020 Page 4 of 23 Packet Pg. 1437 9.A.5.b (2) Maximum actual height of the house of worship may be exceeded by up to 40 feet by non - occupiable building elements, singularly or in combination, such as a steeple, cupola, religious symbol or other excluded height permitted by LDC Subsection 4.02.0I.D.1, as may be amended. The maximum combined square footage of such building elements shall be 4,000 square feet. See (3) Exclusive of mezzanines, loft areas and attic or attic storage areas. (4) Should beth TF-Aet B and T-r-aet A be in the same owner -ship, then the permitted intensity shall be aggi!egated, provided that in no even4 shall the squar-e footage of all stmettir-es within the (5) Expansions whieh add square footage to any existing individual building are limited to 2090; of the building's squar-e footage as of the date of PUD appr-eval. A signed and sealed sufvey of the existing btfilding(s) proposed for- expansion and an additional exhibit prepared by and signed and sealed by a pr-efessienal engineer-, whieh depiets the propose (6)(4) House of worship square footage not utilized shall be available for religious educational classrooms. (7)(5) The maximum area of an individual room shall be 12,000 square feet. (8)(6) Listed setback is for all principal and accessory structures. Setback provisions, relative to preserves, for parking lots, sidewalks and other site improvements shall be governed by applicable LDC provisions in effect at the time of SDPA application. f�3 ffom West Stfeet, Ridge Drive and MyAle Road. (14D)(7) Buildings located outside of the "church campus building envelope" depicted on the Master Plan shall be limited to 25 feet in height. (g) Unenclosed shade structures may be permitted 25 feet from Trail Boulevard. (9) Does not apply to unenclosed shade structures. 110111 11117 41 3. The fnaxiffpam water- management area within the eembined ffentage btiff-er-s of Tr-aets A and B shall be 0 maxmufnwater-fnanagefnen4usenotexeee0 of the buffer-'s Words underlined are additions; words stmek through are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev6. docx August 24, 2020 Page 5 of 23 Q d 21 c m c� a� 2 M N M N O 0 a) r 0 N J a M Cl) CD Cl) as U c c �a L 0 a� N 0 am 0 a` a r c a� E Q c as E U 0 r Q Packet Pg. 1438 9.A.5.b IF M- NO M- pv_wm so . m I WE , . pv_wm so . m I WE , . N MINNOW • Ilk ssstis�— -11 ..� 1 M •oil! C :y c m a� 2 M N M N O O O r O N J a Q Words underlined are additions; words stmek through are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev6. docx August 24, 2020 Page 6 of 23 Packet Pg. 1439 9.A.5.b IN ON as meastifed .,t . ,.t of elevation, shall be 25 feet. Q See fianem and asseetated landseape installation standards within this Or-diflaflee. D a , for- the feliewing development management system shall at a minimum provide neneeffmiative standards.! ca less than the fir-st half ineh the ' 2 pr-etfeatment of not of minfall over- ,and — the 0(net N greater- of water-quaaser-equr-ementessesqenteet's dr-y less than 1.5 inehes the N s area) within water- managemen4 areas and not over- entire O Om pr-qjeet's stonnwater- management capacity shall pr-ovide eompensatof!Y water quality for- the of West Stfeet adjaeent to the O portion pfojeet-. N J The West Stfeet be to IL roadside swale and one or- more abu#ing roadside swales shall redesigned allow cn M to designed to weept these additional flows. U Par4ing f�onting buffer- landseape the hand Development Code develop.—II-e-11," spaees and areas shall tAilize that to lessen the the.efe., C standard pefmits vehiettlaf ever -hang ametmt ef pa-vement a e&ee L s area. O The loeated between the buildings the to O plaza area eent-fal eampus and —eter- sidewalk andlo o O petwietts. L a F. Flat r-eef a pr-ohibition, c m E Flat be hidden 4om by the m r-oofs may utili—I -'-- ----Hdar-y r-oof areas when view use of affieula* arehiteetural elements .,.1,;..1, , onto and p ;,lo for- a aft;..,,late , of fin Q c a� G. Pr-ejeet Phasing. E z U The Master- Plan depiets the Tr-aet A. it is that the r aRaehed is likely to be r-edevelopment ef under -stood likely inelude the r-edeveleptitefit a realized over- existing btfildings and their- associated a ntmi-ber- of impr-evements phases w-hieh will between fetenlion phases. of one or- more _ .. Words underlined are additions; words stmek through are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev6. docx August 24, 2020 Page 7 of 23 Packet Pg. 1440 9.A.5.b —1110 Milli - is USES ACCESSO USEPRINCIPAL MINIMUM LOT AREA ''.°yes N4A 03 FFon Existiftg Expanded bffikliags(74 ,.To A etwe SgS SgS Sps Of 50 ft. for- expanded pe 504. Sie SAS C :y Em c m a� 2 Cl) N M N O O a) r O N J d M M CO M O U C C L 0 N O am O L a c m E Q c a� E z U a r Q Words underlined are additions; words stmek through are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev6. docx August 24, 2020 Page 8 of 23 Packet Pg. 1441 9.A.5.b DISTANCE �B=,-rW�N STRUCTURES zened building heights MAXIMUM ZONED HEIGHT 5-€t MAXIMUM ACTUAL HEIGHT 4 (O� 45-*.M MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES 2m -2 MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 500 sq. ft 400 sq. t. MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE f� 140tise of (-'} Aleelesser-y Uses " • e 000 sq. A may be- „i t o . ,, a storage) n � i mill IJII� PM all �- -1111of m.- ■ Olin • .. - C :y Em r Q Words underlined are additions; words s*mek through are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev6. docx August 24, 2020 Page 9 of 23 Packet Pg. 1442 9.A.5.b 3. Medges landseape buffer-s West Street Ridge Drive be within maintained to a 4. There shall be ne per-imetef minimum sifffaee height of 6 feet. water- management along ese within and the beffer-s. shall grown an Q perimeter- o a B. Par -king Lot Lighting >, m Pele lights te height 16 feet, to the tep the fixtii are r-estrieted a ma-ximem of measured of emitting their- is f4fther- to interior lots to level ingress a� x use r-estr-ieted pafking and meeting after-ial r-equir-ements at M egress drives. Bellar-ds shall have a ma-xim-um height of 4 8 . N M N O G. Existing Ingress Egress Driveways � r O N Existing driveways be depieted the GFPUD Master- Plan, the J shall eliminated or- r-eeenfigffed, as en as a the M r-eeenstmetion> > O T t egress to t��s��e�:�-�a��i��u�� will b shared1 to.l within Tr-aet A v as U D. Open Spaee c c �a The ° O pr-ojeet shall provide and maintain a minimum of 4.&kaer-es] Open ineltides but is limited te landseape buffers, interior- landseaping, as open spaee. spaee not N building f ,,,,.1atio,, 1.,n.1s.,.,ping .lr,. ,,,.,tor management areas and 1., Q. O L- the time build thereafter-, the 4 oAt a of out, and pr-oj eet shall provide and Maintain a Minimum of less than 6.3d� Beild to this Q ,et area [i.e. not aer-es] as epen spaee. eut relative provision, shall Qn nnn ��r�„ros ;�withinTr, n C or whenl, o o� ,, exist E Tr-aet B ineltide buffer-s that the LDC landseape for- buffer-s, interior- landseaping shall fneet requirements Wilding foundation These landseaped Q and planting afeas. and any other- and open spaee afeas shall c d E t 0 0 0 „t sh ll two 2noi f �l,o o of Tr-aet B. v cv r r Q �fi . - iEfl!!�S:Efii!*!�EST.SlI��:�!!*:!!!!fP.�'ZS�7:�T.�:�!�TS�7a.!!�5. - • � - ►�:� aa7i�iViiR� � Words underlined are additions; words stmek thtwugh are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev6. docx August 24, 2020 Page 10 of 23 Packet Pg. 1443 9.A.5.b !mIaP-W7WMOM11�. Wa4er- . d for- the f4eilities that to ineluding these Tr-aet management B, be by the . f4eilities existing in Tr-aet A. These are r-emain, f4eilities within be loeated may met and eapaeity areas of existing may the Tr-aet A befm that Q etAside ef management eentaifffnent provided eempensating water- management 0 for- the ha-,ve been Tr-aet B be integrated in4o the D areas aer-eage provided. shall master- wa4er- managemen a system if and when Tr-aet B is redeveloped. >, c m for- the folln� development a� x managemen4 system shall at a minimum provide �mulative stand-ards- less than the first half ineh Cs i M pr-e4eatmefA of net of minfall entire M the 0 ty N greater- of ase r-emen4 (not es over- pr-ojeet's O dry less than 1.5 inehes O s area) within water management areas a -ad not ever-theentir- p—j" OD ' O N J a M The West S4eet roadside swale and ene er- mer-e abtA4ing roadside swales shall be redesigned to allew fan M O M designed to a ept those a.l.l;t;. na flews. O V Par -king spaees ftenting beffer- and landseape areas shall utilize the Land Development Cede develepme C QL N O F. Flat rmeef prmehibiti O L a Flat feefs may not be utilized as a fineipal feef eempenent. Flat feefs may be utilized fo Q c m E G. Pfejeet Phasing. Q c it is tmidefsteed that the fedevelopment may be fealized over a number of phases and may inelude the a� E z rmetenlion of the existing buildings and assoeiated imprmovements between phases. U a r r Q . .Fr.mmmii!7!Wl ". M-%mm .". WNW I....a-'�.! Him 0 moll Pg - is Words underlined are additions; words stmek through are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev6. docx August 24, 2020 Page 11 of 23 Packet Pg. 1444 9.A.5.b —.10MY.9 III MIN JJI C :y c m c� a� 2 M N M N O O a) O N J a- r Q Words underlined are additions; words stmek through are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev6. docx August 24, 2020 Page 12 of 23 Packet Pg. 1445 I 100008b8ZL9 a ON °1I°N 2'00042 -9 'ON 01I0' 90008968ZL9 :'ON 0110� ZYILI AIIWV� 3N0NIS .asn ,IIIWVN .asn ,ITVIVI 3N0NIS .asn 6uluoz 1-1SH buluoz buluoz I I L- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J avoll 311HAW (1N3Wf100O Mad SV) M3HHf19 '1H OZ VA �2��fld .. I- --- ------- �1 1 1 1 W =AH0 N3 � 1 1 1 1 1—D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 W � 1 J Z 1 � � 1 1 Q 1 � a 1 1 1 1 ; Y K a 0 L)W Z LU z W � 2 ofQ F waZ W 3 LU Uof Q 0 Z J m 30NVN31NIVW 139VIdOIS z Z 2 n SNDIHVd y a Q c.> Q V z N D x Q O OM Had SM H3fJf19 '13 OZ 1 C9 j Z � K �e 1 ja L O i it W ® 1 own 1 w O 1 7 p 1 O Z 1 Q j 1 1 1 W 0 K z j EL LU U z a W W I z z J W O 1 r----- - - — - -- --- - - I I Z00029L8ZL9 °N o!IoN 00001.L8ZL9 °N °ll°1 800008L8ZL9 °N °ll°A ,I7IWVA 3l9NIS :asn 1,IIWVA 319NIS :asn /,NIWVJ 3l9NIS :asn 1-dS21 6uluoz 1-Jsd 6ulu07 1-�Sb 6uluoz LU f n W � O p W Q N N Cl OO fh In w O 5 U Ur w >I D a Z< g< p W a z J CN7a oO: C7 O g o D Z Lu maaj p p<wOOa N M V LO F N M N 0 IM I e w < M C� ao WN Q a w of a z U W Z ¢Um tw=p W< w p az Q w< aim OM U Q'Nw p Oi-F oQ < oW 33:>wOFoQ '5O pwwzO woolaN pL�jwj. < m<6Lp Lu a. �3 5W0<0maw v mwp aaz 2 0 Q V c 0 I 9.A.5.b I DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY 1-415.9 ± AC --TRACT-A HOUSE OF WORSHIP 10001200 SEAT MAXIMUM CAPACITY 2835,000 SF ACCESSORY USES/COMMON AREAS INCLUDING CIRCULATION/ MAINTENANCE/ STORAGE 4088,000 SF COMMON AREAS INCLUDING CIRCULATION/ MAINTENANCE/ STORAG- 4� !1® 0 TOTAL 80123,000 SF PRESERVE NOTES: THE MINIMUM REQUIRED NATIVE VEGETATION FOR THIS SITE IS 44 NATIVE TREES FOR THE PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED PORTION OF THIS SITE AND A MINIMUM OF AN ADDITIONAL 0.12 ACRES OF CREATED PRESERVE (CP) - 15% OF THE EXISTING 0.8 ACRES OF NATIVE VEGETATION. THE LOCATION OF THE 44 TREES IS PROPOSED TO BE AN INTEGRATION WITHIN PERIMETER LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG WEST STREET AND MYRTLE ROAD. THE .12 ACRE CREATED PRESERVE REFERENCED IN THE PUD COMMITMENTS SHALL BE LOCATED AT THE TIME OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL. NOTES: 1. ANY SDP APPLICATION SHALL FURTHER CONFORMANCE WITH THIS MASTER PLAN. THE PHASED DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN SHALL BE IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THIS APPROVED MASTER PLAN; EXCEPT TO ADDRESS THE POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT OF BUILDINGS LABELED ON THIS MASTER PLAN AS "EXISTING" AND THEIR ASSOCIATED PARKING LOTS AND RELATED IMPROVEMENT; AND, SHOULD COUNTY TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS REQUIRE RE -ALIGNMENT OF DEPICTED ACCESS DRIVE LOCATIONS FROM TRAIL BOULEVARD - PROVIDED THAT A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 330 FEET IS MAINTAINED FROM THE NORTH AND SOUTH CFPUD BOUNDARIES. 2. USE OF TI 1E EXISTING BUILDINGS WIT' 'IN TRACT A, REFERENCED TO TI 'IS NOTE, FOR CI 1ILD CARE OR SCI IOO USE, IS PRO' "BITER o REDEVELOPMENT ENT OF TRACT "B" 1S GOVERNED BY CFPUD DEVELOPMENT ENT STANDARDS. © HEAVENL,Y CFPUD GradyMinorO. Grady Minor :...a P.'y . aoa coos: ��1�1�,i., Ur1 Re Bom0la Springs. I Id 31134 EXHIBIT C nnaE: MASTER PLAN NOTE SHEET Civil Engineers Land Surveyors . Planners . Landscape Architects F1 xsme o f,,L,AAuth. N:B0005161 CerLof Auth. 1,130005151 Business CC 26000266 [ irc-uurtre rury [s]nuwo[�mao-reJd Bonita Springs: 239.947.1144 a wa.(lrady Woor. com Fort Myers: 239.690.4380 REVISED 08/24/2020 Packet Pg. 1447 9.A.5.b EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION (TRACT A) fTili ri70 0011 m7 NZ�yiz�LirT.T�T�T�tyiz�Ziz�7�T�T�Ti�yiz�Z�rtT�T�T�Tr�T.7�z!Z�rsIIT�T�fI LOTS 1 7 "D 10 through 13, BLOCK "O", PINE RIDGE EXTENSION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 51, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. a 0 D a 21 c as a� x M N M N O O a) r O N J d M M CO M O t� C C 0 N O am O a c m E Q c a� E z U a r r Q Words underlined are additions; words stmek thtwugh are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev6. docx August 24, 2020 Page 15 of 23 Packet Pg. 1448 9.A.5.b EXHIBIT E LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC 1. Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A. Sidewalk and Bike Lane Requirements which requires sidewalks within road right-of-way; except that sidewalks shall be provided along Trail Boulevard. The property owner shall make a payment in lieu of providing the sidewalks along the balance of the abutting right-of-way and that portion of Myrtle Road between Trail Boulevard and the project ingress -egress driveway to Myrtle Road. The developer shall also construct one sidewalk extension from the central building campus across Trail Boulevard to the pavement along US 41 to provide access to a potential bus stop, as conceptually depicted on the CFPUD Master Plan or provide payment in lieu to Collier County. 2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 4.06.05.N. which requires naturalization of man made lakes and water management areas through the use of curvilinear edges; to permit accomplishment of the intent through the use of a curvilinear landscape installation instead of a curvilinear physical contour. 3. Removed Per PMC-PL2011-872 4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 5.05.08.E.2.c. Minimum ratios. Pedestrian pathway connections must be provided from the building to adjacent road pathways at a ratio of one for each vehicular entrance to a project, AND and drive aisles leading to main entrances must have at least a walkway on one side of the drive aisle; to permit a reduction to a maximum of five pedestrian pathways to: two (2) to Trail Boulevard, one (1) to Myrtle Road, one (1) to Ridge Drive and one (1) to West Street in the locations depicted on the CFPUD Master Plan; AND to permit them in locations other than along one side of the drive aisle. A and B; pr-ovided that the equivaleat squar-e footage of the 10 ot wide bti r-, for- that length not Tr-aet. Should the entire ■ ■. , the buffef would net be r-equir-ed and therefore this deviation r-equest would net be appheable-.)Mithdrawn. 6. Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Subsections 5.03.02.E.2. and 5.03.02.E.4. to eliminate the requirement for a nonresidential development located opposite a residentially zoned district to provide a four (4) foot masonry wall or prefabricated concrete wall located a minimum of three (3) feet from the rear of the right-of-way landscape buffer line. 7. Deviation #7 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 5.03.02.G.1.a.. Sunnlemental Standards. which reauires chain link (including wire mesh) and wood fences are prohibited forward of the primary facade and shall be a minimum of 100 feet from a public right-of-way. If these types of fences face a public or private street then they shall be screened with an irrigated hedge planted directly in front of the fence on the street side. Plant material shall be a minimum of 3 gallons in size and planted no more than 3 feet on center at time of installation. This plant material must be maintained at no less than three-quarters of the height of the adjacent fence, to instead allow the use of up to a 6-foot-high chain link fence forward of the primary facade, where the chain link fence is screened with an irrigated hedge plantingdirectly irectly in front of the fence facing the external right-of-way_ a 0 D a c as a� x M N M N O O a) r O N J a M M to M aD U c M c �a L O N O am O a` a c m E U Q c as E U M r a Words underlined are additions; words stmek through are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev6. docx August 24, 2020 Page 16 of 23 Packet Pg. 1449 9.A.5.b 8. Deviation #8 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.02.B. l.a.i., "Design Standards", which requires Parking lots and spaces shall meet the following surfacing standards: L Grass parking spaces shall be compacted, stabilized, well drained and surfaced with a durable and maintained grass cover. Driveways, handicapped spaces, and access aisles shall be paved. This deviation will instead not require this CFPUD to provide paved aisles for the area utilized for overflow parking where designated on the PUD Master Plan which can accommodate approximately 67 vehicles. Q 0 (TRACT D a Em ■_ . _ ■. Raet. Shetild the entire GFPUD aer-eage be sibmitted fer- pefmitting as a single SDP, the buffer- weul M t0 o.,,,,,- A .,,, 4 +k...� ro �1�;� ao..; ,�; ,,� o ,,,o�� .,. ,,,1 a ,, ,� l.o ,,�,�1; ,l�lo � O N r-eaf of the fight of way lmdseape buffef line. am O a c m E Q c a� E z U a r r Q Words underlined are additions; words stmek through are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev6. docx August 24, 2020 Page 17 of 23 Packet Pg. 1450 EXHIBIT F 9.A.5.b LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS areas. A. TRANSPORTATION -2-.1_The minimum throat length as measured from the roadway edge of payment to the internal parking area shall be 50 feet for driveways from Myrtle Road, West Street and Ridge Drive; and, 75 feet for driveways from Trail Boulevard. �2_For services and other periods and events of significant traffic generation, as determined by Collier County staff, the property owner shall provide traffic control by law enforcement or a law enforcement approved service provider as directed by Collier County staff, with staffing and at location(s) as directed by the Collier County Transportation Administrator or his designee. 4.3The Ridge Drive primary egress driveway will be restricted to a "no right turn" condition. The Myrtle Road egress driveway will be restricted and signed to a "no left turn" condition. The Myrtle Road access shall be closed at dusk. Commitment completed. -54. A west bound turn lane on Ridge Drive, extending from the egress driveway to US 41, shall be constructed concurrently by the property owner with the initial redevelopment phase of development. Commitment completed. •� I MAN jx ■ilk 0111, • ■_ •_ • a 0 r Q Words underlined are additions; words stmek through are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev6. docx August 24, 2020 Page 18 of 23 Packet Pg. 1451 9.A.5.b first quafter- of a ealeadar- year- for- impaets exeeeding these established as "the base" in the pr-eeeding paragraph. Commitment completed. 6. A payment -in -lieu -of contribution shall be made by the property owner to the County for otherwise required sidewalks within abutting right-of-way to the northern and eastern portion of the project boundary prior to issuance of the first Site Development Plan for a new permanent building. Commitment completed. 7. Existing driveways located on West Street and the northernmost driveway on Ridge Drive will be eliminated as the PUD is redeveloped. NO B. LANDSCAPE BUFFERS 1. All perimeter landscape buffers shall be installed with the first SDP for a new permanent building or with the SDP that provides for the relocation of the lake. 2. All reauired buffer trees along Mvrtle Road. Ridge Drive and West Street shall be Ouercus virginiana, and/or Bucida buceras provided in 65 Gallon containers at 14 feet in height and are to be Florida #1 or Florida Fancy. Buffer trees are to be planted on 30 feet center. Quercus virginiana/Bucida Buceras are not to be planted within the reauired 6 feet wide shrub Dlantiniz bed specified below. 3. (a) The hedgeponent of the continuous perimeter LDC Type D landscape buffer abutting West Street and Myrtle Road (extending to the east side of the driveway on Myrtle Road), shall be installed with a minimum height of 5 feet, spaced 4 feet on center and grown and maintained to a minimum a 0 D a. d as x M N M N O O CD O N J a a Words underlined are additions; words stmek thtwugh are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev6. docx August 24, 2020 Page 19 of 23 Packet Pg. 1452 9.A.5.b height of 12 feet above grade of any adjacent berm; and a 6 foot black or green clad chain link fence shall be hidden within this double hedize row. (b) Along West Street the hedge shall be maintained at a minimum height of 12 feet. (c) Along Ridge Drive and Myrtle Road the hedge shall be maintained at a minimum height of 12 feet east of the project entrance and a minimum height of 6 feet west of the project entrance. d) Along Trail Boulevard. the hedves shall be 2 feet in height at the time of nlantiniz and maintained at three feet in height except for sight distance triangles, which shall be maintained at 30 inches. C. PARKING LOT LIGHTING o a. Pole lights shall be restricted to a maximum of 16 feet in height, measured to the top of the emitting fixture, and their use shall be further restricted to interior parking lots and at ingress -egress drives. Campus lighting shall be limited to bollards, landscape and building lighting fixtures. Bollards shall have a maximum height of 48 inches. _ M N D. OPEN SPACE M N O O O 1. The project will provide and maintain a minimum of 30% of _rg oss project area [i.e. not less than N 4.8± acres] as open space. a. 2. At the time of build -out, and thereafter, the project shall provide and maintain a minimum of 40% M M of the gross project area [i.e. not less than 6.3± acres] as open space. Build -out, relative to this v provision, shall be the time when 80,000 square feet of structures exist within the PUDT+aet-A. c E. WATER MANAGEMENT cc L O 1. The existing 3.3± acre borrow pit lake, shall be reconfigured and relocated as depicted on the a CFPUD Master Plan. The project shall provide the greater of (1) the capaci required by water 00 . management design standards for a 3-day, 25-year storm event, (2) the capacity of the existing lake OM or 3) the capacity required by water management design standards at the time that development a order approval is sought.Capacity may be met, in part, with dry water management areas. a c a) 2. The surface water management system shall be designed such that no surface water runoff or discharge is directed towards or into the Pine Ridge surface water management system including o adjacent roadside swales to the north, east and south. Q 3. The surface water management system shall be a zero -discharge system or the discharge shall be c E routed through the project to the west, through existing or new drainage facilities in Trail Boulevard, U Tamiami Trail North (SR-45) and then ultimately to the Gulf of Mexico. a 4. The minimum lake setback from the CFPUD boundary, as measured at control elevation, shall be 25 feet. See fencing and associated landscape installation standards within this Ordinance. 5. Subject to final jurisdictional agency permitting, the designed capaci . of the proposed storm water management system shall at a minimum provide for the following noncumulative development standards: pretreatment of not less than the first half inch of rainfall over the project's entire Words underlined are additions; words stmek thtwugh are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev6. docx August 24, 2020 Page 20 of 23 Packet Pg. 1453 9.A.5.b impervious area, and the greater of 150% of water quality base requirement (not less than 2.5 inches over the entire project's impervious area) within dry water management areas and not less than 1.5 inches over the entire project. The balance of the project's stormwater management capacity shall provide compensatory water quality for the portion of West Street adjacent to the project. 6. The West Street roadside swale and one or more abutting roadside swales shall be redesigned to allow run off from the existing roads adjacent to the project to flow to the outfall route. The outfall route shall be designed to accept these additional flows. 7. Parking spaces fronting buffer and landscape areas shall utilize the Land Development Code development standard that hermits vehicular overhang to lessen the amount of pavement and therefore reduce impervious area. a 0 a 8. The plaza area located between the central campus buildings and the campus perimeter sidewalk 2 and/or curb shall be a minimum of 50% pervious. F. FLAT ROOF PROHIBITION = M N Flat roofs may not be utilized as a primary or principal roof component. Flat roofs may be utilized for c secondary roof areas when hidden from view by the use of articulated architectural elements which create o and provide for an articulated roof line. N J a G. PROJECT PHASING M to It is understood that the redevelopment is likelv to be realized over a number of phases which will likelv FP include the retention of one or more existingbuildings uildings and their associated improvements between phases. c H. PRESERVE L 0 The minimum required native vegetation for this site is 44 native trees (for the previously developed m portion of this site) and a minimum of an additional 0.12 acres of created preserve (15% of the existing wo 0.8 acres of native vegetation). The location of the 44 trees shall be within the perimeter landscape buffer along West Street and Myrtle Road. The location of the created preserve shall be identified at the time of a review and approval of the first SDP. a c a) I. PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS The minimum parking spaces provided shall be 3 for each 7 seats within the house of worship. There Q shall be no additional parking requirements for the additional uses. The maximum number of vehicular c parking spaces, exclusive of loading and drop-off parking areas shall be 600. E M U M J. HOURS OF OPERATION RESTRICTIONS a 1. Worship between 6:30 a.m. and 10:30 p.m. Normal operational hours may be exceeded up to 2 times per month for the accommodation of special functions. 2. Non -worship use of the facilities: between 7:30 am and 10:30 pm. Words underlined are additions; words s*mek through are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev6. docx August 24, 2020 Page 21 of 23 Packet Pg. 1454 9.A.5.b 3. Music Outdoor music is prohibited; and indoor music shall only be allowed when windows and doors are closed. There shall be no live, recorded or amplified music of any kind prior to 8 a.m. or after 9:30 p.m. The limitation on the time for live. recorded or amplified music may be exceeded up to two times per month for accommodation of special worship functions. K. PUD MONITORING One entity (hereinafter the Managing ntity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close- out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is Covenant Presb. erian Church of Naples Inc., 6926 Trail Boulevard, Naples, Florida 34108. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing ntity will be released of its obligations upon written agpproval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing ntity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed -out, then the Managing ntity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. M. MISCELLANEOUS 1. The initial redevelopment SDP shall include (Commitment completed a. the replacement of the existing lake with a new lake(s) and associated dry water management areas; b. the redevelopment of landscape buffers abutting the lake(s) and associated dry water management_ areas; c. the re -grading of the right-of-way_ green space between the CFPUD boundary and edge of pavement of the four adjacent roadways to enhance storm water management for these roadway areas. 2. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. 3. Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S.. Issuance of a development permit by a countv does not in an way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liabili . on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. 4. The required 0.12-acre re-created preserve shall meet County preserve requirements and shall recreate the habitat that previously existed on -site (,pine flatwoods), including all three vegetative strata. Commitment completed. Words underlined are additions; words s*mek thmugh are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev6. docx August 24, 2020 Page 22 of 23 a 0 D a. c as as x M N M N O O CD 0 N J a M M O M as U c c �a L 0 as N 0 Q. 0 a c as E Q c as E M U 0 r a Packet Pg. 1455 9.A.5.b 5. A landscape planting plan shall be submitted for review and approval at the time of the first SDP for each development stage. 6. The owner shall install pursuant to county standards and specifications, or shall pay the County to provide, a bus shelter at the existing Collier Area Transit stop located adjacent to US 41, which is located at the stub -out in the median separating Trail Boulevard and US 41 as depicted on the Master Plan. This bus shelter is required to be constructed when development reaches a one percent or rg eater impact on US-41, or as a stipulation of Phase Two improvements, whichever occurs first. C n Em c as a� x M N M N O O a) r O N J d M M CO M O U C C L 0 N O Om O L a c a) E Q c a) E z U ns r r Q Words underlined are additions; words stmek through are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev6. docx August 24, 2020 Page 23 of 23 Packet Pg. 1456 I 9.A.5.bf I Roof Line Mid Point Average Centerline Road Elevatioo Front Elevation Permittcd Exclusions Limited to 4,000 s.f. Maximum Mid Point of Roof Adjacent Average Centerline Road Elevation Rear Elevation Ex:�TBIT G Q. GRAOY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, PA CIVIL Sls(iIN&£RS • LAND SURVEYORS •PLANNERS • LANDSCAPE ARCIIIFECIS aw �IO1IFM1SPR3�'GS . iORT rIYFRS NORf, TRT 1 fFa iHW st HCODH: HCFPUD DATE:12.2.17$ SCALE: 1" 30' FILENAME: Exhibit G wwW.ORAUYM3N0R.Ce>7 Packet Pg. 1 I 9.A.5.b/I Q N -OCCUPIABLE BUILDING ELEMENTS d ELEV, = 52'-0" (- A MAXIMUM ACTUAL HEIGHT FROM d AVERAGE CENTERLINE ELEVATION > OF ABUTTING ROAD y ELEV. = 45'-0" _ MAXIMUM ZONED HEIGHT Cl) (MIDPOINT OF ROOF) M OF ELEV. = W-0" N 0 0 r O N J Cl) M CO M r O U C C L O fn O F€MSH FLOOR HEIGHT am ELEV. = T-0" O` AVERAGE CENTERLINE ELEVATION a OF ABUTTING ROAD APPROX. ELEV, m -0'-0" Q \ C d E t A RAPHIC EXAMPLE OF "TRACT B11- MAXIMUMS DEPICTED a "CONCEPTUAL ONLY" E U a Q A Graphic Example of "Tract B" Florida Community Bank Copier County, Florida DATE: February 18, 2009 HUMPHREY • ROSAN A R C H I T E C T S 3200 9TH ST, NORTH (239) 263-4201 SUITE 4300 FAX (239) 263-4451 - - NAPLES, FLORIDA 34103 Packet Pg. 1 Exhibit G (1) I m I 9.A.5.b I EXHIBIT I CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL February 3, 2009 1. y plan submitted pursuant to this CFPUD shall be in substantial con ance with th pproved conceptual Master Plan entitled "Exhibit C Master PI prepared by Pl\Plan, opment Incorporated, consisting of one sheet, dat November 25, 20through January 16, 2009, except as conditioned. 2. Ths located on West Street and Ridge Drive, d cted on Tract B of the M11 close when this tract redevelops. 3. The required 0.1\--. ted preserve /meetounty preserve requirements and shall recreateat previously e (pine flatwoods), including all three vegetativ4. A landscape planbesubmittedd approval at the time of the first SDP for each 5. The property owners shall provi or s pay the County to provide, a bus shelter at the existing Collier Area Transit st ated adjacent to US 41, which is located at the stub -out in the median separating '1 Boulevard and US 41 as depicted on the Master Plan. This bus shelter is r ire o be constructed when development reaches a one percent or greater im ct on -41, or as a stipulation of Phase Two improvements, whichever oc s first. Packet Pg. 1460 1 9.A.5.c Growth Management Department Zoning Division/Comprehensive Planning Section MEMORANDUM To: Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner Zoning Division, Zoning Services Section From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Section, Zoning Division Date: July 2, 2020 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PL20190002323 — CFPUDA - REV 4 PETITION NAME: Heavenly Community Facilities Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) REQUEST: The applicant requests to amend the Heavenly CFPUD to increase the number of seats from 1,000 to 1,200 for the house of worship, and allow 88,000 square feet for accessory uses and structures including circulation, maintenance, and storage located within the CFPUD, and eliminate the Child/Adult Day Care / Pre-K/Kindergarten / School uses from permitted uses, and add outdoor recreational areas, play lots, play grounds which may include shade structure. Submittal 2 combined Tract A and Tract B together into one, since there is now only one owner. As a result of this change, there were significant revisions made to the Master Plan and the PUD document (last approved with Ord. #13-31) from the previously proposed documents in March 2020. Submittal 3 included revisions to the PUD Document and the Master Plan in response to staff comments on Submittal 2. Submittal 4 revised deviations per staff comments. LOCATION: The subject site is located on Trail Boulevard, south of Ridge Drive and north of Myrtle Road in Section 3, Township 49 South, Range 25 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The f15.9-acre site is designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. The Urban Mixed Use District is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses, including mixed -use developments such as Planned Unit Developments. According to the FLUE in the Urban Designation Section, Urban designated areas will accommodate non-residential uses including Community facilities, such as churches. This application proposes to amend the Heavenly CFPUD to reconfigure the allowable square footage within the overall PUD and increase the allowable square footage for the overall PUD, remove Child/Adult Day Care / Pre- K/Kindergarten / School uses (with no more than a combined cumulative total of 220 students/individuals enrolled/attending for the entire CFPUD), and to add outdoor recreational areas, playlots, playgrounds. The amendment also proposes to add a deviation to LDC Subsection 5.03.02.G.1.a, fences forward of the primary facade. The cover letter to the applicant's request to not complete a Traffic Impact Statement stated, "No change is proposed to the total number of seats permitted within the PUD; therefore, there are no additional trips associated with the Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 .239-252-2400 Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 1461 9.A.5.c principal permitted use. Further, because the applicant is eliminating the K-8 grade private school from the list of permitted uses, P.M. peak hour trips will be reduced by eliminating the private school use." The total seats for the principle use (church) are increasing from 1000 to 1200, but they are proposing to eliminate the 220 seats for the Child/Adult Day Care / Pre-K/Kindergarten / School uses; so, it is a net decrease in P.M. peak hour trips. In reviewing for compliance with Policy 5.6 (shown in italics below) of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) staff provides the following analysis in [bracketed bold text.] FLUE Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). [Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. However, it should be kept in mind that the Heavenly CFPUD was first approved via Ordinance 09-15.] In reviewing for compliance with FLUE Objective 7 and related Policies (shown in italics), staff provides the following analysis in [bracketed bold text]. FLUE Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [`Exhibit C, Master Concept Plan,' (dated January 24, 2020) submitted in the petition packet, depicts four access points: one left -in and right-in/right-out on Myrtle Road, on right-in/left-in/left-out only on Ridge Drive; and two full access points on Trail Boulevard. All three of these roadways are local roads.] FLUE Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [`Exhibit C — Master Concept Plan' shows a parking/driveway circulation pattern.] FLUE Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [`Exhibit C - Master Concept Plan' does not indicate any interconnections with adjoining properties. The subject property is bounded on all four sides by local roadways: West Street, Myrtle Road, Trail Boulevard, and Ridge Drive. Staff does not see an opportunity to have an interconnection with this project site.] FLUE Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [There are existing sidewalks along Trail Blvd., the Master Plan shows a connection to this. The PUD document details the f6.3- acre open space (40% of entire site). Deviations were previously approved for sidewalks. Frequently churches serve as civic facilities. No housing is proposed.] CONCLUSION: Based on the above analysis, staff finds the subject petition consistent with the FLUE. Petition on CityView cc: Anita Jenkins, AICP, Community Planning Manager, Zoning Division, Community Planning Section Raymond V. Bellows, Manager, Zoning Division, Zoning Services Section PUDA-PL2019-2323 Heavenlv CFPUD R4.docx Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 .239-252-2400 Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 1462 9.A.5.d Heavenly CFPUD Amendment (PL20190002323) Application and Supporting Documents September 17,, 2020 CCPC Hearing M GradyMinor Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 • 239-947-1144 • engineering@gradyminor.eom • www.gradyminor.c( Packet P j. 1463 9.A.5.d GradyMinor Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects February 6, 2020 Mr. Timothy Finn, AICP Collier County Growth Management Division/ Planning and Regulation Land Development Services Department Comprehensive Planning Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Heavenly CFPUD Amendment — PL20190002323, Submittal 1 Dear Mr. Finn: A Collier County application for Public Hearing for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment for properties located on Trail Boulevard, south of Ridge Drive and north of Myrtle Road is being filed electronically for review. This application proposes to amend the Heavenly CFPUD to reconfigure the allowable square footage within the overall PUD, increase the allowable square footage for the overall PUD, remove Child/Adult Day Care / Pre-K/Kindergarten / School use add outdoor recreational areas, playlots, playgrounds to Tract A, move administrative offices from accessory uses to principal use and remove house of worship from the principal uses on Tract B. the amendment also proposes to add a deviation for Tract A to LDC Subsection 5.03.02.G.1.a, fences forward of the primary fagade. Documents filed with submittal 1 include the following: 1. Cover Letter 2. Application for a Public Hearing for PUD Rezone 3. Evaluation Criteria 4. Pre -application meeting notes 5. Affidavit of Authorization 6. Property Ownership Disclosure Form 7. Covenant of Unified Control 8. Addressing Checklist 9. Warranty Deed(s) Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Ph.239-947-1144 Fax.239-947-0375 EB 0005151 LB 0005151 LC 26000266 www.gradyminor.com Packet Pg. 1464 Mr. Timothy Finn, AICP RE: Heavenly CFPUD Amendment— PL20190002323, Submittal 1 February 6, 2020 Page 2 of 2 10. Aerial Location Map 11. Traffic Impact Study Waiver Request 12. Deviation Justification 13. Revised PUD Exhibits A-F 14. Original PUD document Please feel free to contact Rich Yovanovich at 435-3535 or me should you have any questions. Sincerely, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP c: The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc. Richard D. Yovanovich GradyMinor File 9.A.5.d Packet Pg. 1465 CoAr County 9.A.5.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Application for a Public Hearing for PUD Rezone, Amendment to PUD of PUD to PUD Rezone PETITION NO PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff DATE PROCESSED ❑ PUD Rezone (PUDZ): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F., Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code ❑■ Amendment to PUD (PUDA): LDC subsection 10.02.13 E. and Ch. 3 G. 2 of the Administrative Code ❑ PUD to PUD Rezone (PUDR): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F. Name of Property Owner(s): APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc. Name of Applicant if different than owner: Address: 6926 Trail Blvd City: Naples Telephone: 239.597.3464 Cell: E-Mail Address: lohn.hunter@covenantnaples.com State: FL ZIP: 34108 Name of Agent: D. Wayne Arnold and Richard Yovanovich Firm: Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A Address: 3800 Via Del Rey Telephone: 239-947-1144 and 239-435-3535 Cell: Fax: and Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. City: Bonita Springs State: FL ZIP: 34134 Fax: E-Mail Address: warnold@gradyminor.com and rovanovich@cyklaw.com Be aware that Collier County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yourself accordingly and ensure that you are in compliance with these regulations. February 1, 2019 Page 1 of 11 Packet Pg. 1466 9.A.5.d CoAr County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 REZONE REQUEST This application is requesting a rezone from: Heavenly CFPUD Zoning district(s) to the Heavenly CFPUD zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: House of worship and similar accessory uses related to churches House of worship, administrative offices and similar accessory uses related to churches Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: Original PUD Name: Heavenly CFPUD Ordinance No.: 2009-15 and 2013-31 PROPERTY INFORMATION On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a detailed legal description of the property covered by the application: • If the request involves changes to more than one zoning district, the applicant shall include a separate legal description for property involved in each district; • The applicant shall submit 4 copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1" to 400' scale), if required to do so at the pre -application meeting; and • The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. Section/Township/Range: 2___/4�25 Lot: 1-13 Block: O Subdivision: Pine Ridge Extension Metes & Bounds Description: See PUD Exhibit D Plat Book: 3 Page #: 51 Property I.D. Number: 67285160009 Size of Property: 1'290+_ ft. x 540+/- ft. = 696,600+/- Total Sq. Ft. Acres: 1 5.9+/- Address/ General Location of Subject Property: 6926 Trail Blvd. PUD District (refer to LDC subsection 2.03.06 Q ❑ Commercial ❑ Residential ❑■ Community Facilities ❑ Mixed Use ❑ Other: ❑ Industrial February 1, 2019 Page 2 of 11 Packet Pg. 1467 CoAr County 9.A.5.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land Use N RSF-1 Residential S RSF-1 Residential E RSF-1 Residential W Relican Bay DRI/PUD Residential and U.S. 41 ROW If the owner of the subject property owns contiguous property please provide a detailed legal description of the entire contiguous property on a separate sheet attached to the application. Section/Township/Range: N.A. /N.A. /N.A. Lot: N.A. Block: N.A. Subdivision: N.A. Plat Book: N.A. Page #: N.A. Property I.D. Number: N.A. Metes & Bounds Description: N.A. ASSOCIATIONS Required: List all registered Home Owner Association(s) that could be affected by this petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County Commissioner's website at http://www.colliergov.net/]ndex.aspx?page=774. Name of Homeowner Association: Pine Ridge Civic Association (PRCA@PineRidge34108.com) Mailing Address: PO Box 111208 City: Naples State: FL Zip: 34108 Name of Homeowner Association: E Mailing Address: City: State: m ZIP: �a r r Q Name of Homeowner Association: r Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner Association: R a Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: February 1, 2019 Page 3 of 11 Packet Pg. 1468 9.A.5.d Co*er Count y COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 EVALUATION CRITERIA Pursuant to LDC subsections 10.02.13 B, 10.02.08 F and Chapter 3 G. of the Administrative Code, staff's analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria. On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. a. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. b. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. C. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. (This is to include identifying what Sub -district, policy or other provision allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that Sub -district, policy or other provision.) d. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. h. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions; however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. February 1, 2019 Page 4 of 11 Packet Pg. 1469 CoAr County 9.A.5.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing? N.A. Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? ❑ Yes ❑■ No if so please provide copies. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS This land use petition requires a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), pursuant to Chapter 3 E, of the Administrative Code and LDC section 10.03.06. Following the NIM, the applicant will submit a written summary and any commitments that have been made at the meeting. Refer to Chapter 8 B. of the Administrative Code for the NIM procedural requirements. Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code requires that the applicant must remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign(s) immediately. RECORDING OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS Within 30 days of adoption of the Ordinance, the owner or developer (specify name) at their expense shall record in the Public Records of Collier County a Memorandum of Understanding of Developer Commitments or Notice of Developer Commitments that contains the legal description of the property that is the subject of the land use petition and contains each and every commitment of the owner or developer specified in the Ordinance. The Memorandum or Notice shall be in form acceptable to the County and shall comply with the recording requirements of Chapter 695, FS. A recorded copy of the Memorandum or Notice shall be provided to the Collier County Planned Unit Development Monitoring staff within 15 days of recording of said Memorandum or Notice. LDC subsection 10.02.08 D This application will be considered "open" when the determination of "sufficiency" has been made and the application is assigned a petition processing number. The application will be considered "closed" when the petitioner withdraws the application through written notice or ceases to supply necessary information to continue processing or otherwise actively pursue the rezoning, amendment or change, for a period of 6 months. An application deemed "closed" will not receive further processing and an application "closed" through inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. An application deemed "closed" may be re -opened by submission of a new application, repayment of all application fees and the grant of a determination of "sufficiency". Further review of the request will be subject to the then current code. February 1, 2019 Page 5 of 11 Packet Pg. 1470 9.A.5.d CoAr County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name ofApplicant(s): The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc. Address: 6926 Trail Blvd Telephone:239.597.3464 Cell: City: Naples State: FL E-Mail Address: john.hunter@covenantnaples.com Address of Subject Property (If available): 6926 Trail Blvd. city: Naples State: FL ZIP: 34108 ROPERTY INFORMATION Section/Township/Range: 2-- J= Lot: 1-13 Block: O Subdivision. Pine Ridge Extension Metes & Bounds Description: See PUD Exhibit D Plat Book: 3 Page #: 51 Property I.D. Number: Fax: 67285160009 ZIP: 34108 TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a. County Utility System x❑ b. City Utility System ❑ C. Franchised Utility System ❑ Provide Name: d. Package Treatment Plant ❑ (GPD Capacity): e. Septic System ❑ I TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED I Check applicable system: a. County Utility System x❑ b. City Utility System ❑ C. Franchised Utility System ❑ Provide Name: d. Private System (Well) ❑ Total Population to be Served: Additional 25,600 square feet of Accessory Uses* Peak and Average Daily Demands: A. Water -Peak: 7258 gpd Average Daily: 5376 gpd B. Sewer -Peak: 5184 gpd Average Daily: 3840 gpd If proposing to be connected to Collier County Regional Water System, please provide the date service is expected to be required: December 2021 February 1, 2019 Page 6 of 11 Packet Pg. 1471 9.A.5.d CoAr County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Narrative statement: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. N.A. Collier County Utility Dedication Statement: If the project is located within the service boundaries of Collier County's utility service system, a notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area to the Collier County Utilities. This shall occur upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at that time. This statement shall also include an agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable, the statement shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. N.A. Statement of Availability Capacity from other Providers: Unless waived or otherwise provided for at the pre -application meeting, if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided. *Accessory Uses include the following: Religious educational classrooms and chorus rehearsal room Social/meeting and fellowship center Administrative church offices February 1, 2019 Page 7 of 11 Packet Pg. 1472 Co*er Count y 9.A.5.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 COVENANT OF UNIFIED CONTROL The undersigned do hereby swear or affirm that we are the fee simple titleholders and owners of record of property commonly known as Heavenly CFPUD, Property I.D. Number 67285160009 6926 Trail Blvd. (Street address and City, State and Zip Code) and legally described in Exhibit attached hereto. The property described herein is the subject of an application for CF planned unit development CF 0, anoviM KoesteroPte PA. and Coleman, ( PUD) zoning. We hereby designate , legal representative thereof, as the legal representatives of the property and as such, these individuals are authorized to legally bind all owners of the property in the course of seeking the necessary approvals to develop. This authority includes, but is not limited to, the hiring and authorization of agents to assist in the preparation of applications, plans, surveys, and studies necessary to obtain zoning approval on the site. These representatives will remain the only entity to authorize development activity on the property until such time as a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to Collier County. The undersigned recognize the following and will be guided accordingly in the pursuit of development of the project: 1. The property will be developed and used in conformity with the approved master plan including all conditions placed on the development and all commitments agreed to by the applicant in connection with the planned unit development rezoning. 2. The legal representative identified herein is responsible for compliance with all terms, conditions, safeguards, and stipulations made at the time of approval of the master plan, even if the property is subsequently sold in whole or in part, unless and until a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to and recorded by Collier County. 3. A departure from the provisions of the approved plans or a failure to comply with any requirements, conditions, or safeguards provided for in the planned unit development process will constitute a violation of the Land Development Code. 4. All terms and conditions of the planned unit development approval will be incorporated into covenants and restrictions which run with the land so as to provide notice to subsequent owners that all development activity within the planned unit development must be consistent with those terms and conditions. 5. So long as this covenant is in force, Collier County can, upon the discovery of noncompliance with the terms, safeguards, and conditions of the planned unit development, seek equitable relief as necessary to compel compliance. The County will not issue permits, certificates, or licenses to occupy or use any part of the planned unit development and the County may stop ongoing construction activity until the project is brought into compliance with all terms, conditions and safeguards of the planned unit development. Owner John C. Hunter, III as VP of The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc. Printed Name STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me this who is personally known to me or has produced Owner Printed Name day of 201_ by as identification. Notary Public (Name typed, printed or stamped) February 1, 2019 Page 8 of 11 Packet Pg. 1473 Co*er Count y 9.A.5.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: ❑ PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code ■❑ Amendment to PUD- Ch. 3 G. 2 of the Administrative Code ❑ PUD to PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 The following Submittal Requirement checklist is to be utilized during the Pre -Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At final submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with an up-to-date application. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. A Model PUD Document is available online at http://www.colliercountyfl.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=76983. REQUIREMENTS COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Cover Letter with Narrative Statement including a detailed description of why amendment is necessary 1 0 ❑ Completed Application with required attachments (download latest version) 1 Pre -application meeting notes 1 0 ❑ Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized 1 Property Ownership Disclosure Form 1 Notarized and completed Covenant of Unified Control 1 Completed Addressing Checklist 1 Warranty Deed(s) 1 0 ❑ List Identifying Owner and all parties of corporation 1 0 ❑ Signed and sealed Boundary Survey 1 ❑ 0 Architectural Rendering of proposed structures 1 ❑ 0 Current Aerial Photographs (available from Property Appraiser) with project boundary and, if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included on aerial. 1 ❑ ❑ Statement of Utility Provisions 1 0 ❑ Environmental Data Requirements pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00 1 ❑ El Environmental Data Requirements collated into a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) packet at time of public hearings. Coordinate with project planner at time of public hearings. ❑ ❑ 0 Listed or Protected Species survey, less than 12 months old. Include copies of previous surveys. 1 ❑ ❑ Traffic Impact Study 1 ❑ ❑ Historical Survey 1 ❑ El School Impact Analysis Application, if applicable 1 ❑ El Electronic copy of all required documents 1 ❑ ❑ Completed Exhibits A-F (see below for additional information)' ❑ ❑ 0 List of requested deviations from the LDC with justification for each (this document is separate from Exhibit E) ❑ 0 ❑ Checklist continues on next page February 1, 2019 Page 9 of 11 Packet Pg. 1474 CoAr County 9.A.5.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Revised Conceptual Master Site Plan 24" x 36"and One 8 %" x 11" copy ❑ 0 ❑ Original PUD document/ordinance, and Master Plan 24" x 36" — Only if Amending the PUD ❑ 0 ❑ Revised PUD document with changes crossed thru & underlined 1 0 ❑ Copy of Official Interpretation and/or Zoning Verification 1 ❑ 0 *If located in Immokalee or seeking affordable housing, include an additional set of each submittal requirement 'The following exhibits are to be completed on a separate document and attached to the application packet: Exhibit A: List of Permitted Uses Exhibit B: Development Standards Exhibit C: Master Plan- See Chapter 3 E. 1. of the Administrative Code Exhibit D: Legal Description Exhibit E: List of Requested LDC Deviations and justification for each Exhibit F: List of Development Commitments If located in RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use) Receiving Land Areas Pursuant to LDC subsection 2.03.08.A.2.a.2.(b.)i.c., the applicant must contact the Florida Forest Service at 239- 690-3500 for information regarding "Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan." PLANNERS — INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: El School District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart El conservancy of SWFL: Nichole Johnson ❑ Utilities Engineering: Eric Fey ❑ Parks and Recreation: Barry Williams (Director) ❑ Emergency Management: Dan Summers ❑ Immokalee Water/Sewer District: ❑ City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director ❑ Other: ❑ I City of Naples Utilities ❑ Other: ASSOCIATED FEES FOR APPLICATION Pre -Application Meeting: $500.00 PUD Rezone: $10,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre PUD to PUD Rezone: $8,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre X PUD Amendment: $6,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre X Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review: $2,250.00 Environmental Data Requirements -EIS Packet (submittal determined at pre -application meeting): $2,500.00 Listed or Protected Species Review (when an EIS is not required): $1,000.00 X Transportation Review Fees: X Methodology Review: $500.00 *Additional fees to be determined at Methodology Meeting. o Minor Study Review: $750.00 o Major Study Review $1,500.00 February 1, 2019 Page 10 of 11 Packet Pg. 1475 Co*er County 9.A.5.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net X Legal Advertising Fees: X CCPC: $1,125.00 X BCC: $500.00 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 School Concurrency Fee, if applicable: o Mitigation Fees, if application, to be determined by the School District in coordination with the County Fire Code Plans Review Fees are not listed, but are collected at the time of application submission and those fees are set forth by the Authority having jurisdiction. The Land Development Code requires Neighborhood Notification mailers for Applications headed to hearing, and this fee is collected prior to hearing. All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. *Additional fee for the 5t' and subsequent re -submittal will be accessed at 20% of the original fee r- '�-:) 01-27-2020 Signature of Petitioner or Agent Date D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Printed named of signing party February 1, 2019 Page 11 of 11 Packet Pg. 1476 9.A.5.d Heavenly CFPUD (PL20190002323) Evaluation Criteria Pursuant to LDC subsections 10.02.13 B, 10.02.08 F and Chapter 3 G. of the Administrative Code, staff's analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria. Provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. The Heavenly Community Facility Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) is a 15.9 ± acre property located on Trail Boulevard, south of Ridge Drive and north of Myrtle Road. The property is Designated Urban Residential, Urban Mixed Use Residential on the Future Land Use Map. The property is currently zoned Heavenly CFPUD. The Covenant Presbyterian Church is now the sole property owner of all property within the Heavenly CFPUD. The church wishes to relocate the church offices from their existing location within two former single-family homes in the northwest portion of the site into a newly constructed building located in the northeast portion of the site. The two existing houses would then be demolished and would be designated as open space areas. The existing sanctuary building in the northeast portion of the site will be demolished in order to construct the new church offices. The applicant proposes to amend the CFPUD to reconfigure the allowable square footage for the overall CFPUD, increase the allowable square footage for the overall PUD, remove Child/Adult Day Care / Pre- K/Kindergarten / School use, add outdoor recreational areas, playlots and playgrounds. Maximum sanctuary seating for the PUD will remain at 1,200 seats. The amendment also proposes to add a deviation from LDC Subsection 5.03.02.G.1.a, fences forward of the primary fa4ade in order to permit a chain link fence to be installed around the proposed outdoor play area. A revised Master Plan is proposed which eliminates the Tract A and B designations and labels the proposed uses on the plan. One access point to West Street is also eliminated. a. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The site has previously been deemed suitable for the church and related uses. The property immediately located to the north, east and south are zoned RSF-1 and developed with residential. Buffers have been established consistent with those required by the PUD Development Standards and Collier County Land Development Code. The applicant has committed to increase the height of the hedge along Ridge Drive and West Street, consistent with the hedge previously installed on West Street. b. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained June 16, 2020 Page 1 of 6 HCFPUDA-19 Evaluation Criteria-rev2.docx © GradyMinor Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Packet Pg. 1477 9.A.5.d Heavenly CFPUD (PL20190002323) Evaluation Criteria at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the countyattorney. The applicant controls all the land within the Heavenly CFPUD. C. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. (This is to include identifying what Sub -district, policy or other provision allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that Sub -district, policy or other provision.) Future Land Use Element: The property is located in the Urban mixed Use, Urban Residential Subdistrict. The urban designated areas of the County are designed to accommodate community facilities such as churches. Policy 5.6 of the Future Land Use Element requires that developments are compatible and complementary to the surrounding land uses. The CFPUD was previously determined to be compatible and complementary to the surrounding area. The CFPUD includes buffers and development standards which insure compatibility. The church has demonstrated its ability to be a compatible land use. None of the proposed changes to the PUD will create an incompatible land use relationship. Objective 7 and related policies promote interconnectivity of land uses. Access to the site exists from West Street, Ridge Drive and Myrtle Road. Access commitments were negotiated with the Pine Ridge community and will remain in the PUD. the proposed PUD modifications are consistent with the Growth Management Plan. d. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The existing CFPUD provides for landscape buffers which have previously been installed along the property's boundaries. This buffer type is consistent with that required when a non- residential use abuts a residential use and will be continued along West Street and Ridge Drive. The amended CFPUD as proposed will continue to be internally and externally compatible. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The project will provide open space consistent with the requirements of the PUD and LDC, which will include lakes, buffers and recreational areas. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. June 16, 2020 Page 2 of 6 HCFPUDA-19 Evaluation Criteria-rev2.docx © GradyMinor Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Packet Pg. 1478 9.A.5.d Heavenly CFPUD (PL20190002323) Evaluation Criteria Adequate infrastructure is in place at the project site to service the proposed commercial uses. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The CFPUD boundary is not proposed to be modified and cannot be expanded due to existing public roadways surrounding the CFPUD. h. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The CFPUD includes development standards and conditions which will assure compatible and complementary development. Two new deviations are being requested from the Land Development Code, one to allow a chain link fence forward of the primary fa4ade to enclose the outdoor play area and one to not require paved aisles for the area utilized for grass overflow parking. 10.02.08 - Requirements for Amendments to the Official Zoning Atlas F. Nature of requirements of Planning Commission report. When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners required in LDC section 10.02.08 E shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following findings, when applicable: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Future Land Use Element: The property is located in the Urban mixed Use, Urban Residential Subdistrict. The urban designated areas of the County are designed to accommodate community facilities such as churches. Policy 5.6 of the Future Land Use Element requires that developments are compatible and complementary to the surrounding land uses. The CFPUD was previously determined to be compatible and complementary to the surrounding area. The CFPUD includes buffers and development standards which insure compatibility. The church has demonstrated its ability to be a compatible land use. None of the proposed changes to the PUD will create an incompatible land use relationship. Objective 7 and related policies promote interconnectivity of land uses. Access to the site exists from West Street, Ridge Drive and Myrtle Road. Access commitments were negotiated with the Pine Ridge community and will remain in the PUD. the proposed PUD modifications are consistent with the Growth Management Plan. June 16, 2020 Page 3 of 6 HCFPUDA-19 Evaluation Criteria-rev2.docx © GradyMinor Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Packet Pg. 1479 9.A.5.d Heavenly CFPUD (PL20190002323) Evaluation Criteria 2. The existing land use pattern. The subject property has been developed as a church campus for over 20 years. The properties located to the north, east and south are zoned RSF-1, which are developed with single family homes. Buffers have been installed consistent with the CFPUD and LDC to insure compatibility of uses and development standards have been included to insure continued compatibility. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The CFPUD is existing and therefore no isolated district is being created. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The boundaries are not illogically drawn and comprise all of the property under the unified control of the applicant. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The property is currently zoned Heavenly CFPUD. Due to the now singular property ownership the owner wishes to modify the plan for their long-term utilization. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The CFPUD document includes development standards to ensure that it is compatible with the immediately surrounding properties. The CFPUD master plan identifies appropriate buffers and open spaces, which will further insure that the development of the CFPUD will have no adverse impacts to the neighborhood. Access to the project is from Trail Boulevard, Ridge Drive and Myrtle Road. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. A traffic impact analysis has been submitted in support of the proposed amendment. No level of service issues have been identified. The character of traffic will not be discernably different June 16, 2020 Page 4 of 6 HCFPUDA-19 Evaluation Criteria-rev2.docx © GradyMinor Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Packet Pg. 1480 9.A.5.d Heavenly CFPUD (PL20190002323) Evaluation Criteria than that historically permitted for the subject property, or the type of traffic currently utilizing Trail Boulevard, Ridge Drive and Myrtle Road. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The project has internal water management facilities including detention areas to control the drainage for the project. No drainage issues will result from this project. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas Given the limitation on building heights, setbacks, and the existing buffering, there will be no reduction in light or air for adjacent properties. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Development subject to the CFPUD standards will not adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. All immediately adjacent properties are developed, and the proposed amendment is consistent with those permitted on the site and should not be a deterrent to improvement or redevelopment of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. This process does not grant a special privilege to a property owner and the process is consistent with the process outlined in Chapter 163, F.S. for amendments. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The amendment is necessary to create a long-term utilization plan for the site now that the applicant controls all of the property within the PUD. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. The proposed amendment is in scale with the needs of the neighborhood and Collier County. June 16, 2020 Page 5 of 6 HCFPUDA-19 Evaluation Criteria-rev2.docx © GradyMinor Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Packet Pg. 1481 9.A.5.d Heavenly CFPUD (PL2O19OOO2323) Evaluation Criteria 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The Heavenly CFPUD is an approved and existing PUD. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. The subject property is developed and there are no obstacles to construct the proposed uses. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code ch. 106, art. II], as amended. There are adequate roadways and utilities available at the site. There are no public facilities deficiencies at the present time, and none will occur as a result of this project. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. The project is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and it is compatible with surrounding development. June 16, 2020 Page 6 of 6 HCFPUDA-19 Evaluation Criteria-rev2.docx © GradyMinor Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Packet Pg. 1482 Coder County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.coiliereo►+.net (239) 252-2400 Pre -Application Meeting Notes Petition Type: PUDA Date and Time: Monday, 10/28/19 10 : 30AM Assigned Planner: 'timothy Finn Engineering Manager (for PPL's and FP's): Project Information Project Name: Heavenly PL#: PL20190002323 Property ID #: 67285160009 Current Zoning: CFPUD Project Address: 6926 Trail Blvd City: Naples State: FL Zip: 34108 Applicant: Sharon Umpenhour D. Wayne Arnold, AICP & Agent Name: -Richard D Yovanovich Phone: (239) 947-1144 3800 Via Del Ray Bonita Agent/Firm Address: y City: Springs State: FL zip: 34134 Property Owner: Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc. Please provide the following, if applicable: i. Total Acreage: ii. Proposed # of Residential Units: iii. Proposed Commercial Square Footage: iv. For Amendments, indicate the original petition number: V. If there is an Ordinance or Resolution associated with this project, please indicate the type and number: vi. If the project is within a Plat, provide the name and AR#/PL#: Updated 7/11/2019 Page 1 1 of 5 9.A.5.d Packet Pg. 1483 CO er Count y 9.A.5.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 Meeting Notes As of 10/16/2017 all Zoning applications have revised applications, and your associated Application is included in your notes; additionally a *new Property Ownership Disclosure Form is required for all applications. A copy of this new form is included in your pre-app Note — link is https://www.colliergov.net/Home/ShowDocument?id=75093. .a U ✓ ,` J ai If Site is within the City of Naples Water Service Area please send to Naples Utilities and Planning Departments. Then, if the petition is submitted, we are to send it (by email) to the four persons below in their Utilities and Planning Depts. - along with a request that they send us a letter or email of "no objection" to the petition. Bob Middleton RMiddleton(dnaplesgov.com Allyson Holland AMHolland@naplesgov.com Robin Singer RSinoer@naplesgov.com Erica Martin emartin(a)naplesgov.com Disclaimer. Information provided by stab to applicant during the Pre -Application Meeting is based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant of issues that could arise during the process. The Administrative Code and LDC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required data for an application may not fully outline what is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide all required data. Updated 7/11/2019 Page 1 2 of 5 Packet Pg. 1484 Co*er County 9.A.5.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.collier ov.net Meeting Notes 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239)252-2400 rY� vt orsWn eylvifulftl nt0l data aquad. Other required documentation for submittal (not listed on application): Disclaimer.- Information provided by staff to applicant during the Pre -Application Meeting is based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant of issues that could arise during the process. The Administrative Code and LDC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required data for an application may not fully outline what is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide all required data. Updated 7/11/2019 Page 1 3 of 5 c a� a� x M N M CV O O O O N J a M M O M T Packet Pg. 1485 9.A.5.d Transportation Planning and PUD Monitoring Pre-App Notes Developer Commitments: Transportation Planning " The m ' um total daily trip genera ' -for the PUD not exceed o-way PM peak-` hour trips base n the use co in the ITEM al on trip gene r n rates in effec the ti a of applic on for SDP/S A or subdivis' plat approval." Use Codes Provide Moth ITE and SIC use codes in the TIS. PUD Monitoring "One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close- out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this CPUD approval, the Managing Entity is the Insert Company Name Here. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legat sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the CPUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed -out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments." Miscellaneous "Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development." Packet Pg. 1486 Co*er County 9.A.5.d L. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www,colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 Pre -Application Meeting Sign -in Sheet PL# PL20190002323 Collier County Contact Information: Name Review Discipline Phone Email David Anthony Environmental Review 252-2497 david.anthony@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Claudine Auclair GMD Operations and Regulatory Management 252-5887 claudine.auclair@colliercountyfl.gov Sally Ashkar Assistant County Attorney 252-8842 sally.ashkar@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Steve Baluch Transportation Planning 252-2361 stephen.baluch@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Ray Bellows Zoning, Planning Manager 252-2463 raymond.bellows@colliercountyfl.gov Laurie Beard PUD Monitoring 252-5782 laurie.beard@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Craig Brown Environmental Specialist 252-2548 craig.brown@colhercountyfl.gov ❑ Alexandra Casanova Operations Coordinator 252-2658 Alexandra.casanova@colliercountyfl.gov Heidi Ashton Cicko Managing Asst. County Attorney 252-8773 heidi.ashton@colliercountyfl.gov IL Thomas Clarke Operations Coordinator 252-2584 thomas.clarke@coliiercountyfl.gov Jamie Cook Prin. Environmental Specialist 252-6290 Jaime.cook@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Eric Fey, P.E. Utility Planning 252-1037 eric.fey@colliercountyfl.gov im Finn, AICP Zoning Division 252-4312 timothy.finn @colliercountyfLgov Sue Faulkner Comprehensive Planning 252-5715 sue.faulkner@colliercountyfl.gov Jeremy Frantz LDC Manager 252-2305 Jeremy.Frantz@colliercountyfLgov I James French Growth Management Deputy Department Head 252-5717 james.french@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Michael Gibbons Structural/Residential Plan Review 252-2426 michael.gibbons@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Storm Gewirtz, P.E. Engineering Stormwater 252-2434 storm.gewirtz@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA Zoning Division 252-2484 nancy.gundlach@colliercountyfLgov ❑ Richard Henderlong Principal Planner 252-2464 rchard.henderlong@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ John Houldsworth Engineering Subdivision 252-5757 johr.houldsworth@colliercountyfLgov ❑ Alicia Humphries Right -Of -Way Permitting 252-2326 alicia.humphries@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Erin Josephitis Environmental Specialist, Senior 252-2915 erin.josephitis@colliercountyfl.gov Marcia Kendall Comprehensive Planning 252-2387 marcia.kendall@colliercountyfLgov I John Kelly Zoning Senior Planner 252-5719 john.kelly@coiliercountyfl.gov ❑ Diane Lynch Operations Analyst 252-8243 diane.lynch @colliercountyfLgov ❑ Gil Martinez Zoning Principal Planner 252-4211 gilbert.martinez@colliercountyfl.gov L Thomas Mastroberto Greater Naples Fire 252-7348 thomas.mastroberto@colliercountyfLgov Updated 7/11/2019 Page 1 4 of 5 Packet Pg. 1487 CO*6r Count 9.A.5.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 Jack McKenna, P.E. Engineering Services 252-2911 jack. mckenna@col liercountyfl.gov Matt McLean, P.E. Development Review Director 252-8279 matthew.mclean@colliercountyfLgov L Michele Mosca, AICP Capital Project Planning 252-2466 michele.mosca@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ nnis Moxam Addressing 252-5519 annis.moxam@colliercountyfLgov Richard Orth Stormwater Planning 252-5092 richard.orth@colliercountyfLgov ❑ Brandy Otero Transit 252-5859 bra ndy.otero@colliercountyfLgov Brand[ Pollard Utility Impact fees 252-6237 brandi.pollard@colliercountyflgov _ Todd Riggall North Collier Fire 597-9227 triggall@northcollierfire.com C Brett Rosenblum, P.E. Development Review Principal Project Manager 252-2905 brett.rosenbium@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ James Sabo, AICP Zoning Principal Planner 252-2708 james.sabo@colliergo.net Michael Sawyer Transportation Planning 252-2926 michael.sawyer@colliercountyflgov ❑ Corby Schmidt, AICP Comprehensive Planning 252-2944 corby.schmidt@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Chris Scott, AICP Development Review - Zoning 252-2460 chris.scott@colliercountyfLgov ❑ Linda Simmons North Collier Fire 252-2311 Linda.Simmons@colliercountyfLgov ❑ Peter Shawinsky Architectural Review 252-8523 peter.shawinsky@colliercountyfLgov ❑ Camden Smith Zoning Operations Manager 252-1042 camden.smith@colliercountyfLgov ❑ Mark Strain Hearing Examiner/CCPC 252-4446 mark.strain@colliercountyfLgov X Mark Templeton Landscape Review 252-2475 mark.templeton@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Jessica Velasco Zoning Division Operations 252-2584 jessica.velsco@colliercountyfl.gov C Jon Walsh, P,E, Building Review 252-2962 jonathan.walsh@colliercountyfLgov ❑ David Weeks, AICP Comprehensive Planning Future Land Use Consistency 252-2306 david.weeks@colliercountyfLgov ❑ Kirsten Wilkie Environmental Review Manager 252-5518 kirsten.wilkie@colliercountyfLgov ❑ Christine Willoughby Development Review -Zoning 252-5748 Christine.willoughby@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Daniel Zunzunegui North Collier Fire 252-2310 Daniel.Zunzunegui@colliercountyfLgov )-11I C—Ilc, 'Y}uffc 1� r<.�,a�� c��d►fir Additional Attendee ontact Information: Name Representing Phone Email %to✓ ifQ V h u _ SIG �cr nph ►- *, ?J, Updated 7/11/2019 Page 1 5 of 5 06e L" Packet Pg. 1488 9.A.5.d Applicant/Agent may also send site Co ley county plans or conceptual plans for review in advance if desired. Growth Management Department Zoning Division PL20190002323 - Heavenly PUDA - PRE-APP INFO Assigned Ops Staff: Ellen Murray Camden Smith, (Ops Staff) STAFF FORM FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PRE -APPLICATION MEETING INFORMATION • Name and Number of who submitted pre-app request Sharon Umpenhour / 239-947-1144 / sumpenhour2gradyminor.com • Agent to list for PL# D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Richard D. Yovanovich, Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. **Please copy Sharon Umpenhour (sumpenhour@gradyminor.com) on all emails pertaining to this project. • Owner of property (all owners for all parcels) o- 67285160009 — Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc. 0 Confirm Purpose of Pre-App: (Rezone, etc.) PUD Amendment • Please list the details of the project including density, proposed or considered uses for the project, size of commercial vs. residential, number of homes/units/offices/docks (any that apply): Amend the PUD to remove daycare and school uses, modify development standards and Master Plan • Details about Project (choose type that applies): PUD-A — is this a phased development, adding uses to an existing PUD or what changes are you proposing or what project are you seeking input for. Is there any specific Tract or addition of a Tract/Use? REQUIRED Supplemental Information provided by: Sharon Umpenhour Senior Planning Technician sumpenhour@gradyminor.com 239-947-1144 Created April 5, 2017 Location: K:\CDES Planning Services\Current\Zornirig Staff Information Zoning Derision - 20 North Horseshoe Drwe - Naples, Florida 34104. 239-252-2400• wwwcoliergm.mc Packet Pg. 1489 Co per County 9.A.5.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov_net Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: ❑ PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code Amendment to PUD- Ch. 3 G. 2 of the Administrative Code PUD to PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 The following Submittal Requirement checklist is to be utilized during the Pre -Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At final submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with an up-to-date application. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. A Model PUD Document is available online at http://www.coiliercountyfi.gov/HomeShowDocument?id=76983. REQUIREMENTS COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Cover Letter with Narrative Statement including a detailed description of why amendment is necessary 1 ❑ Completed Application with required attachments (download latest version) 1 Pre -application meeting notes 1i ❑ Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized 1 Property Ownership Disclosure Form 1 Notarized and completed Covenant of Unified Control 1 Completed Addressing Checklist 1 ❑ Warranty Deed(s) 1 ❑ List Identifying Owner and all parties of corporation 1 ❑ Signed and sealed Boundary Survey 1 ❑ Architectural Rendering of proposed structures 1 ❑ Current Aerial Photographs (available from Property Appraiser) with project boundary and, if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included on aerial. 1 [] Statement of Utility Provisions 1 ❑ Environmental Data Requirements pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00 1 _+ Environmental Data Requirements collated into a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) packet at time of public hearings. Coordinate with project planner at time of public hearings. ❑ ❑ fl Listed or Protected Species survey, less than 12 months old. Include copies of previous surveys. 1 ❑ Traffic Impact Study 1 ❑ Historical Survey 1 ❑ School Impact Analysis Application, if applicable 1 ❑ Electronic copy of all required documents 1 ❑ Completed Exhibits A-F (see below for additional information)+ ❑ ❑ List of requested deviations from the LDC with justification for each (this document is separate from Exhibit E) ❑ ❑ Checklist continues on next page February 1, 2019 Page 9 of 11 Packet Pg. 1490 9.A.5.d Coer Count COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 "The following exhibits are to be completed on a separate document and attached to the application packet: X Exhibit A: List of Permitted Uses X Exhibit B: Development Standards Exhibit C: Master Plan- See Chapter 3 E. 1. of the Administrative Code ❑ Exhibit D. Legal Description Exhibit E: List of Requested LDC Deviations and justification for each Exhibit F: List of Development Commitments If located in RFMU Rural Fringe Mixed Use Receiving Land Areas Pursuant to LDC subsection 2.03.08.A.2.a.2.(b.)i.c., the applicant must contact the Florida Forest Service at 239- 690-3500 for information regarding "Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan." PLANNERS — INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO RF RnttTFn Tn TNF Fni i nuuirur. R1:X/1r1A19:Rc• School District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart ❑ Conservancy of SWFL Nichole Johnson Utilities Engineering: Eric Fey ❑ Parks and Recreation: Barry Williams (Director) Emergency Management: Dan Summers ❑ Immokalee Water/Sewer District: City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director ❑ Other: ❑ City of Naples Utilities I ❑ I Other: ASSOCIATED FEES FOR APPLICATION I Pre -Application Meeting: $500.00 PUD Rezone: $10,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre PUD to PUD Rezone: $8,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre PUD Amendment: $6,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review: $2,250.00 Environmental Data Requirements -EIS Packet (submittal determined at pre -application N meeting): $2,500.00 N j Pt Listed or Protected Species Review (when an EIS is not requireft $1,000.00 Transportation Review Fees: V�wj_Ak_ > a Methodology Review: $500.00 *Additional fees to be determined at Methodology Meeting. o Minor Study Review: $750.00 o Major Study Review $1,500.00 February 1, 2019 Page 10 of 11 Packet Pg. 1491 Coil V Count y 9.A.5.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net XLegal Advertising Fees: CCPC: $1,125.00 BCC: $500.00 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 School Concurrency Fee, if applicable: Mitigation Fees, if application, to be determined by the School District in coordination with the County Fire Code Plans Review Fees are not listed, but are collected at the time of application submission and those fees are set forth by the Authority having jurisdiction. The Land Development Code requires Neighborhood Notification mailers for Applications headed to hearing, and this fee is collected prior to hearing. All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. *Additional fee for the 5" and subsequent re -submittal will be accessed at 20% of the original fee. Signature of Petitioner or Agent Printed named of signing party Date February 1, 2019 Page 11 of 11 Packet Pg. 1492 9.A.5.d AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) PL20190002323 1 John C. Hunter, III (print name), as Vice President applicable) Of The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc. (company, If applicable under oath, that I am the (choose one) owner=applicant F71contract purchaser and th 1. I have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to impose covenants < the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in act; application and the Land Development Code; 2. All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches, data or other sup attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. 1 have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during norr for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this applic 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to th restrictions imposed by the approved action. 5. Well authorize Q. Grady Minor & Assoc., P.A. and Coleman, Yovonavich & Koester, P.A. t0 act as ou rl in any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above. *Notes: • If the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed by the corp. Ares. or v. pres. • If the applicant is a Limited Liability Company (L. L. C.) or Limited Company (L. C.), then the typically be signed by the Company's "Managing Member." • If the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • If the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identifiE partner" of the named partnership. • If the applicant is a trust, then they must include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee' • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust, pan use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authoriza the facts stated in it are true. 1 Lv to Signature Da- id�C. Hunter, III as VP of The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me on 6 —0V ad John C. Hunter, III (name of person providing oath or a .i VP of The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc. Wh is personally known to me or who has produced (type of identification) as identification. STAMP/SEAL ia•........ M BETHEL J. NAGY MY COMMISSION # GG 01119$ •r z ro EXPIRES. November 9, 2020 '•:fa 6. Bonded Thru Notary Public Underwriters �a Signature of Notiq Public CP\08-COA-00115\155 REV 3/24/14 Packet Pg. 1493 9.A.5.d Coiner County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 nROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest: C Name and Address I % of Ownership If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: Name and Address % of Ownership The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc. 100% a Florida not for profit corporation If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest: Name and Address I % of Ownership Created 9/28/2017 Page 1 of 3 Packet Pg. 1494 Coiner County 9.A.5.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners: e f [* Name and Address I % of Ownership If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the 'I IIut=I J, JLUL.RI IUIUIn J, UCI ICI IL.IQI ICJ, UI PCII LI ICI J. Name and Address % of Ownership Date of Contract: If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers. if a comoration. DartnershiD. or trust: Date subject property acquired ❑ Leased: Term of lease Name and Address 19815 2010 years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 1495 Coiner County 9.A.5.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Date of option: Date option terminates: or Anticipated closing date: AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form. Any change in ownership whether individually or with a Trustee, Company or other interest -holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition's final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 D. Wayne D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Datleally 20signed20.01.14y144: 600 05'00 Arnold, AICP Agent/Owner Signature D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Agent/Owner Name (please print) Created 9/28/2017 01 /14/2020 Date Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 1496 Ca*er County 9.A.5.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 COVENANT OF UNIFIED CONTROL The undersigned do hereby swear or affirm that we are the fee simple titleholders and owners of record of property commonly known as Heavenly CFPUD, Property I.D. Number 67285160009 6926 Trail Blvd. (Street address and City, State and Zip Code) and legally described in ExhibitA attached hereto. The property described herein is the subject of an application for CF planned unit development (CF PUD) zoning. We hereby designateY—GZvviYch3Ksler,Ppes,P.A.atlColeman, legal representative thereof, as the legal representatives of the property and as such, these individuals are authorized to legally bind all owners of the property in the course of seeking the necessary approvals to develop. This authority includes, but is not limited to, the hiring and authorization of agents to assist in the preparation of applications, plans, surveys, and studies necessary to obtain zoning approval on the site. These representatives will remain the only entity to authorize development activity on the property until such time as a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to Collier County. The undersigned recognize the following and will be guided accordingly in the pursuit of development of the project: 1. The property will be developed and used in conformity with the approved master plan including all conditions placed on the development and all commitments agreed to by the applicant in connection with the planned unit development rezoning. 2. The legal representative identified herein is responsible for compliance with all terms, conditions, safeguards, and stipulations made at the time of approval of the master plan, even if the property is subsequently sold in whole or in part, unless and until a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to and recorded by Collier County. 3. A departure from the provisions of the approved plans or a failure to comply with any requirements, conditions, or safeguards provided for in the planned unit development process will constitute a violation of the Land Development Code. 4. All terms and conditions of the planned unit development approval will be incorporated into covenants and restrictions which run with the land so as to provide notice to subsequent owners that all development activity within the planned unit development must be consistent with those terms and conditions. 5. So long as this covenant is in force, Collier County can, upon the discovery of noncompliance with the terms, safeguards, and conditions of the planned unit development, seek equitable relief as necessary to compel compliance. The County will not issue permits, certificates, or licenses to occupy or use any part of the planned unit development and the County may stop ongoing construction activity until the project is brought into compliance with all terms, conditions and safeguards of the planned unit development. 90�rOwner J . Hurler, III as VP of The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc. Printed Name Printed Name STATE OF FLORIDA) ' COUNTY OF COLLIER) (� Swor o (or affirmed) and subscribed before me this �n day of 20&0 by dT l(�k4 Q (i� � r' who Is personally knowrt to me Qr has produced as identification. ry r ti►*%::' i BETHEL J. NAGY My COMMISSION # GG 011198 ig: WIRES. November 9, „?+7 Bonded Thru Notary Public Unlerwriters February 1, 2019 a Notary Public (Name typed, printed or stamped) Page 8 of 11 Packet Pg. 1497 9.A.5.d Heavenly CFPUD Amendment (PL2019O002323) Exhibit A LOTS 1-13, BLOCK "0", PINE RIDGE EXTENSION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 51, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. January 14, 2020 GradylAlintir Page 1 of 1 HCFPUDA-19 ExhibitA.docx Civil Pugincers • Land StuTevors • Planners • Landscape Architects Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 • 239-947-1144 • engineering@gradyminor.com • www.gradyminor.co Packet Pg. 1498 Collier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and email to GMD_Addressing@colliergov.net or fax to the Operations Division at 239-252-5724 or submit in person to the Addressing Section at the above address. Form must be si , n�Y Addressing personnel prior to pre -application meeting, please allow 3 days for processing. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold type are required. FOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED. Forms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Section. PETITION TYPE (Indicate type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition type) ❑ BL (Blasting Permit) ❑ SDP (Site Development Plan) ❑ BD (Boat Dock Extension) ❑ SDPA (SDP Amendment) ❑ Carnival/Circus Permit ❑ SDPI (Insubstantial Change to SDP) ❑ CU (Conditional Use) ❑ SIP (Site Improvement Plan) ❑ EXP (Excavation Permit) ❑ SIPI (Insubstantial Change to SIP) ❑ FP (Final Plat ❑ SNR (Street Name Change) ❑ LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) ❑ SNC (Street Name Change — Unplatted) ❑ PNC (Project Name Change) ❑ TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) ❑ PPL (Plans & Plat Review) ❑ VA (Variance) ❑ PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) ❑ VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) ❑ PUD Rezone ❑ VRSFP (Vegetation Removal & Site Fill Permit) ❑ RZ (Standard Rezone) Fol OTHER PUD Amendment LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description may be attached) Pine Ridge Extension Lot 1-13, Block O, PB 3 PG 51 - S3/T49/R25 FOLIO (Property ID) NUMBER(s) of above (attach to, or associate with, legal description if more than one) 67285160009 STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, if already assigned) 6926 Trail Blvd. • LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of project/site in relation to nearest public road right of -way • SURVEY (copy -needed only for unplatted properties) CURRENT PROJECT NAME (if applicable) Heavenly CFPUD (Not approved at this time.) PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (if applicable) PROPOSED STREET NAMES (if applicable) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for existing projects/sites only) SDP - or AR or PL # SDPA-PL20130000534 Rev. 6/9/2017 1 Packet Pg. 1499 Collier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if application; indicate whether proposed or existing) Heavenly CFPUD Please Return Approved Checklist By: 0 Email Applicant Name: Sharon Umpenhour ❑ Fax ❑ Personally picked up Phone: 239-947-1144 Email/Fax: sumpenhour@gradyminor.com Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Division. FOR STAFF USE ONLY Folio Number 67285160009 Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Approved by: (//Ir Date: 01/23/2020 Updated by: Date: IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED Rev. 6/9/2017 1 Packet Pg. 1500 Collier County Property Appraiser Property Aerial Site 6926 TRAIL Parcel No 67285160009 Address BLVD Site City NAPLES *Disclaimer Open GIS in a New Window with More Features. 9.A.5.d Site Zone 341, *Note Packet Pg. 1501 10Oah3v (STATUTORY FOAM—SEQH)N 68t.02 F.S.) 9.A.5.d This instrument was prepi THOMAS E. MALONEY, ESQ. MALONEY & MNE, CHAltT6 M INS .& C.:: it0i 7L�i as d. Iwo NAPIA& F7.OitmA 33W WITHOUT OPINION OF TITLE 4*9 , Mode this day of ITGU " t 19 81 . ;rim" Q P. W. EDWARDS, TRUSTEE OF THE EDWARDS' CHARITABLE TRUST OFF. REC. g 2 � PAGE 19 59 a of the county of Collier State of Florida grantor*, and C THE COVENANT PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NAPLES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION whose post office address is 3961 Gordon Drive, Naples, a) d of the county of Collier state of Florida 33940 grantee', _ M Nttuefsf j4. That said grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of ----------------------------------- `04 ---------------TEN AND NO/100 ($10.00)---------------------------------------- Dollars, CV and other good and valuable considerations to said grantor in hand paid by said grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby CD acknowledged. has granted, bargained and sold to the said grantee, and grantees heirs and assigns forever, the following C) described land, situate, lying and being in Collier County. Florida, to wit. r CV Lot 2, Block 0, PINE RIDGE„ 1(1E4S I �er Pf f" -Pjaf Book 3, page 51, a Public Records of Collipf ou tfit . fi x,ada .. ,f SUBJECT to restrictii6p6 vations and easements �co hor the subdivision. M CC N 7.7 i F - 3 ( , CL and said grantor does h k rgy 4y arrant the title to said land d' ❑ `vili defend tjne some the lawfuf claims of all persons whomsoever. a� t r�a't rind 'grantee" are used for sincyuiaw; ral. cfs co ea,� �'�tus�es. �p Jit Witurso R� herri a', , , �� ntor has hereunto set grantor's ha d and se❑#tlae r /and year first above written. m Signed, seoied and deliveredprese'�ce- :r Q ,.,,��P W� �ifiWA �f�1fSTEE OF THE :�DWAR05' " � � S �1hST 1 h 'yam.,, Seale, Q Seaf' t STATE of FLORIDA +U+ COUNTY Of COLLIER = I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before meon officer duly qualified to take acknowledgmentspersonally appeared 4) P. W. EDWARDS, TRUSTEE OF THE EDWARDS' CHARITABLE TRUST to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged before me that he executed the some M WIT8N1ESS my hand and official seal in the County and State lost aforesaid this day M =t tL 19 My commission expires. Notary Public a) 3yav N Tlgtc>irn r Th. n. gip. pr�r0 C) 33f vv cou,ro CWNrY FL0Rtd4 M Metes F. W,�LtAM J 0 GAN a.+ C-e 0 cim,q court �••� Packet Pg. 1502 01476279 '0-1k 01 -; nit=11 a Tx; s > AIZPANty GEED ?"de t"e pMfs T >'4ON rOOMEiry ;*I'd W i t JON4 t. m r s` i her e.rkefter called the sfra"tof' . to a CC + SNtE C13`+ Titw•iT �kl h#;YTiRI�'«`t t)a at;Ci+ Cr t�;ht $. tt+�f .. p*tta• t sn � r"RIAil �Itiat:ino Under the leaks Of the State of R'or ida. M¢t for p*afi! . tu+� tNx,.,... — wtith itxs por"anent oast of`ice address atj b925 U.S. Al North ttiD......— tr<aolec. Florida 33g63 �_„r erei"aftw_r called the grantee, ++t l+iirr (wherever used herein the terms 'grantor' and 'grantoe' include all the parties to this instrument and the heirs. legal reoresen•- tativ+es and aigns of individuals. and true successors and the stt{ctess*r's and assitgns of corporations. WITNESSETH: That the grintOr for .and in consideration of the sum of $10.00 and other valuable considerations, receipt w;hereof edged, hereby grants, bargains. sells. aliens, is hereby aricnorrl d confirms unto the grantee. all remises, releases. conveys an .s,a: rart,in land situated in Collier County, Florida, vit.' LOT 3, BLOCK 0, PINE RIDGE EXTENSION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 51 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PROPERTY I.D.067285200008 SUBJECT TO TAXES FOR THE YEAR 1991 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS AND LIMITATIONS TOGETHER WITH EASEMENTS AS THEY APPEAR_E3tMONG THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER 4X� COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND APPL3'CAB Z0�11NG ORDINANCES, IF ANY. TOGETHER with all the >+emerrts ditaments and appurtenan- ces thereto belonging or,in anywyse``ertaining. TO HAVE AND TO H010; the same in feel,simple forever. AND the grantor hexeby--°+�vBPants tk' said grantee that the grantor is lawfully !e,tzec f"estid land x�n ',fee simple; that the grantor has good�`righ �n�"11 t1?rity to sell and convey said land; that the t g actor 9hreY �kl warrants the title to said land and will• ,d f c Chess meagain!t�the lawful claims of all persons whomspa 4r tb't '� "land is free of all encumbrances, ex(4', t' taxes accruing`sui3 �quent to December 31, 1990. " r , IN WITNESS WHEREO �< the said grabof --has signed and sealed these presents the day tad Year first abbave written. Signed, sealed and deelive4_d�i 0 r°.p�`esence= �e�4 �,V�g�RT OARVINWONT�Y 4WINESS #2 WINONA C. MONTGOMERY YtY61 I D C) rr STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized in the State aforesaid and in the County aforesaid to take acknowledgements, personally appeared ROBERT MARVIN MONTGOMERY and WINONA C. MONTGOMERY, HUSBAND AND WIFE to me known to bthe ing instrslhuted the o ument andthey acknowedged beforeme thattheyexecuted the same. Witness my hand and official seal in the County and State last .af,;gresaid this ✓IST DAY OF MAY, A.D. 1991.� e Y, Notary Public Notary Public. State of flodda at U r+ C commission wites July 22, �! : My commission expiresw Q 1 a D C')a T c d m x N Cl)N O o > rn o� N a� Cl). M �- �o M Ul R •L R c Y U R m c 0 M v Q a Q c m s m Q c N E L V R ' '7'•. Global Title Company �j' �' 7f#jo�, ,:nstrument prepared by: 4501 Tamiami Tr. N. #107 ,,ve'� ok i 3eceiv.A �; «0 j!. ;ra rn TaxNaples, oS 0 �-•�= Naples , FL 33940 Receive t; _,,, �iqFile47 #GT-4777-91 .:. �,_ REF ;Oi.LIER COUNTY CLcf;nJ7F� a x i3Y a�siirt Q Packet Pg. 1503 9.A.5.d toS'b VAR rw V% Pic;: Dv 714TS WA40,AWTv 2EtD Mk*de tfie Z1 0,Ary or 3RA'r A D , 1 x?1 L* e�Ci a�i?G+4$ # fi4ski'.' �tfi .r4C11i tf7tiitKE,xF'r . 10 : r•,.t> by i�srtl 7+r0►a7teE'�w {i�rh...rrw here€ft4fter 441led the txrante? . to �KVwrwnw�. t+��.ra! T14E COVIEJ�M4T PRESBYTERIAN CJAJA,34 OF 3yz,P'LE5. ITT- , a C0rP0r4; in- fvv%woo etist€ng fender the laws of the Stato of Plorida. Rot for profit, frith its per»anent ",at >ffiCe address at: 6926 ri.5. Est North t4aples. Florida 33463 here€nafter called the grantee: (wherover used here€n the terms 'grantor' and 'grantee' include ,all the parties to this instrument and the heirs, legal represen- tatives and assigns of individuals, and the successors and the successors and assigns of corporations.) o WITNESSETH: That the grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of $10 es 00 and other valuable cnnaEderations. recatot whereof a is herebyacknowledged, hereby grants, bargains, sells, aliens, a �j remises, releases, conveys and confirms unto the grantee, all that certain land situated in Collier County, Florida, viz: � m cz w = LOT 4, BLOCK 0, PINE RIDGE EXTENSION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT M THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 51 OF THE PUBLIC N N RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. g PROPERTY I.O.067285200008 ---_ J = THIS IS VACANT LAND. '"�iT a SUBJECT TO THAT PEfl-(AIN ___MORTGAGE EXECUTED BY ROBERT MARVIN MONTGOMERY , A MARRIED ; �MA� TO '3OW-E:1 GUIDI , ; DATED MAY 21, 1991 .a . AND RECORDED IN b.R. BODK 1618 AT PAGE 694 OF THE PUBLIC RECORQ$ ' Ct -1 I ti 1s�NTt':,, FLORIDA, WHICH HAS A PRINCIPAL BALANCE ¢'F �10 3 DO f 40,; WF C i `SAID GRANTEE HEREIN tL� i AGREES TO ASSUME cry U SUBJECT TO TAXES FOR,",'HE YEAR 1991`NDiSUBSEGIUENT YEARS, pc CONDITIONS, RESTRICT NS, RESERVA�TONS A�NP LIMITATIONS TOGETHER WITH EASEMENTS AS T4*,"RPPEAR AMONG'T "PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER -� _j COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND APPLICABLE ZONI,NGT,_6RCSINANCES, IF ANY_ TOGETHER with all thee 3rieY�t---hereditaments and appurtenan- ces thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same in fee simple forever. AND the grantor hereby covenants with said grantee that the grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that the grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that the grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever; and that said land is free of all encumbrances, except taxes accruing subsequent to December 31, 1990. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said grantor has signed and sealed these presents the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in our fpresence: at WITNESS # ROBE T ARVIN MONTGO Y 4j 3C/1Y7 /U �D /J W NESS #2 WINONA C. MONTG02+7 Y 0 � ZeCelvetJ $ +i4 a � 5� nosusnentary Stamp lax ble Received $ Class l opertyIntangiTa Persona! Property Tax ©LLt£R COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS RV v11 W Mctt1 a C Packet Pg. 1504 9.A.5.d 110 16 18 001711 OR 1300K PAGE STATE (W F1.OA10A COUNTY OP COLLIER I iWi;PEDY CERTIFY that on this day. before +fie, an officar el'Ily authorizes: in the State Aforesaid and in the County aforesaid to tape a acksioolodvollonts. 0orsonailY Appeared A01BtRi PIA4VIN MONTGOMERY joined by his rrife. WtNONA C. flofir"HERY to rye know" to be the persona described in and who executed the foregoing instrument a0d they 4tkno;ledgod before me that they executed thw same. Witness my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this vA/4 DAY OF MAY, A D. 1991. Notary publ io i My commission exp*Mw_'Xw Fj1Y2?,im ..4n4, instrument prepared by: Global Title CampanY c 4501 Tamiami Tr. N. #107 Naples, FL 33940 File #GT--4791--91 G 40A C yc AtdsCo `.��\�A Sept �et� L�'A�tSG. Packet Pg.1505 k D I S41491 a Wit a S� S# 1 ��'!It!!A•1p1RR11f1l OK1�D Hade the V1? DA.�r of tWC:VMrV, A.V. 1991 by AiUMfM PSpWtLtA and ADA PNP to A,. HtS WITZ whose address is 911 hest Street, staples, FL 33903 htre "fter aell d "o grantor. to COvEttAltT PttBSBYTEiRIAN CWMCH OF VAPLES, tfic.., a corporation not -for -profit existing under the laws of the State of Florida, with its permanent post office address at: 6929 Frail Blvd. Naples, Florida 33963 whose Tax I.D. # is: E4 hereinafter called the grantee: (Wherever used herein the terms "grantor" and "grantee" include all the parties to this instrument and the heirs, legal representatives and assigns of irldividU—S, c'.:..a. the successors and the successors and assigns of corporations.) WITNESSETHs That the grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of $10.00 and other valuable considerations, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, hereby grants, bargains, sells, aliens, remises, releases, conveys and confirms unto the grantee, all that certain land situated in Collier County, Florida, viz: LOT 5, BLOCK "O", PINE RIDGE EXTENSION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 51, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PROPERTY I . D. #67285280002 SUBJECT' TO TAXES FOR'`THi,-•YEAR 1992'ANa:., GENT YEARS CONDITIONS RESTRICTIONS RESERVATIONS' IMITATION TOGETHER WITH EASEMNTS AS THEY EAR AMONG THE L C RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND AP L C,]�BLE ZONING ORD N JCS, IF ANY. TOGETHER with all tenements, h�ei ,a� nts and appurtenan- ces thereto belonging or in anywise Ming. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same in f ,�s mple forever. AND the grantor hereby , venasats;s�i rh said grantee that the grantor is lawfully seized oVida d and"in fee simple; that the grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that the grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever; and that said land is free of all encumbrances, except taxes accruing subsequent to December 31, 1991. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said grantor has signed and sealed these presents the day and year first above written. Signed, sealedAgd delivered in our presence: L.S. ESS # / ARMANDO P ENEL Pri t Witne Name: li�7NN na�� .S. WITNES # ADA PEPENELLA Print Witness Name: Z_ leceived $ Received $ Cisss 'CLtf£R COUNTY CLERK U"' t RY 9.A.5.d rn a c � a� 0 N J a Packet Pg. 1506 r 9.A.5.d 1' STATE OF FLORIDA COUM OP COLLIER I HEREDY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized in the state aforesaid and eai edheRMA1D4yFaforesaidato take acknowledgements, personally app ADA YEMELLA, =38AND A;:D eJirr_ to ma known to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged before me that they executed the same. witness my hand and official seal in he county and State last aforesaid this DAY OF DECEMBER, A. D. N—Ouvey Pub2 is print NQtary Name: ,Onji trument �Yy WA 1993 •Tjtlg Company imVL 13394AN. #.10? t File #GT-5812-91 {7 �C Re�pc�fVGE\ \4 )p 0 a T C d R d M N Cl) N O O O> CD O to J a M M M M Packet Pg. 1507 9.A.5.d 3530526 OR: 3703 PG: 2 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 12/23/2001 at 02:24PN MIGHT E. BROCL, CLERK CONS 1670000.00 RIC 111 27.00 DOC-.10 11690.00 Retn: GOODLETTE COLENAN ET AL 4001 TANIAKI TR N I300 NAPLES FL 34103 WARRANTY DEED THIS WARRANTY DEED, made on the 21"day ofDecember, 2004, between Living Word Family Church, Inc., a Florida not for profit corporation, whose post office address is 521 West Avenue, Naples, Florida 34108, Grantor, and Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc., a Florida not for profit corporation, wl� �Gofi`"less is 6929 Trail Boulevard, Naples, Florida 34108, Grantee. (Where use e to *0,,. d Grantee shall be construed as singular or qq plural as the context re, it �e P WITNESSETH that tl DOLLARS ($10.00) and other the receipt whereof is hereby ac Grantee's heirs and assigns fo County of Collier, State of Flc LEGAL DESCRIPTION or; md,inconsic eratiori of the sum of TEN AND 00/100 KV lu* o tl rat for in hand paid by Grantee, dg&d, 4asJgr te# � bh 6ed and sold to the said Grantee and �e dllc ir�g €ie ribe I d, mate, lying and being in the wit: 4 'A UED HERET!E , AS EXHIBIT A. Property ID Numbers 67295360003 and 67285320001 Subject to: (a) ad valorem real property taxes for the year 2005 and subsequent years; (b) zoning, building code and other use restrictions imposed by governmental authority; (c) outstanding oil, gas and mineral interests of record, if any; and (d) restrictions, reservations, and easements common to the subdivision, if any. TOGETHER with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. Warranty Deed Page 1 of 2 %4toi Packet Pg. 1508 9.A.5.d OR: 3703 PG: 200 AND the Grantor hereby covenants with the Grantee that the Grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that the Grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey this land; that the Grantor hereby fully warrants the title to the land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his or her hands and seal the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed, and delivered Grantor: in the presence of: Living Word Family Church, Inc., a Florida not for profit cor oration Dyr Witness # 1 r� Print Name: '�� fyI/fie, ' ' n�rli it rpeiriPnt Vljit+ess #2 U Pn'nt Name: J0,01,ik G S Y STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER e The foregoing instrument wa�erw�le� 2004, by Paul Foslien as Presid of L`vi>o�g��W corporation, who is �sonally' kn S TRACYGLHU Y MY COMMISSION # DO 265444 EXPIRES: November 6, 2007 e«aw iho, No" PWc unaent*" PREPARED BY: Kevin G. Coleman, Esq. Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103 PREPARATION OF DEED ONLY. NO OPINION OF TITLE RENDERED. SCUMW. Pd,..i Cha *U]ft Wad F. IYCNWM4tdhD W—Nry,D"mg 1 his day of f 1r P/Yl hW . w4 F. miI .Church, Inc., a Florida not for profit 1-too - me or who has produced as identification, and who did not take an oath. Notary Public Print Name: Commission Expires #) r & Warranty Deed Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 1509 9.A.5.d *** OR: 3703 PG: 200 Exhibit A Part of Lot 6, Block 0, Pine Ridge Extension, being more particularly described as follows: A tract or parcel of land being a part of Lot 6, Block 0, Pine Ridge Extension, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 3, Pages 51 through 51E, inclusive, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Lot 6, thence North 00000'11" East, along the East line of said Lot 6, for 156.94 feet to an iron rod and cap #6569, now set; thence along the arc of a non -tangential curve to the right, having as its elements a radius of 45.00 feet, a central angle of 34143'54", a chord of North 59016'57" West for 26.86 feet, for an arc distance of 27.28 feet; thence South 8805737" West for 276.96 feet to the West line of said Lot 6, passing over an iron rod and cap #6569, now set at 176.98 feet; thence along the West and South lines of said Lot 6 the following two (2) courses; South for 165.64 feet and North 89059'54" East for 300.00 feet to the_point of beginning. d AND N. Lot 7 and a part of Lot 6, Block O4`P�,fudge Extension, being more particularly described as follows: A tract or parcel of land being Ludt 7 and a part of Lot 6 Blppk 0, Pine Ridge Extension, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 3�;�` Pages'S-1T-through 5ir, nclusivey of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, said tract or parce(of-Fend r quIa rEE 1 as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner* said` & e,c ui� 0 0O1,i" West, along the East line of said Lot 7 and a portion of the East I ndtof aid oti6, or Z5 f t to an.iro0 rod and cap #6569, now set; thence along the arc of a non-riett��'Urfe ig' , ha has it,�lements a radius of 45.00 feet, a central angle of 34043'54" a �iob of North 59016'57" Vest fo 26 $bet for an arc distance of 27.28 feet; thence South 88057'37" �r 276.96 feet to the fist I're,,�M(s I Lot 6, passing over an iron rod and cap #6569, now set at 176.�� i. thence along the West,ir�e Id Lots 6 and 7, North for 244.45 feet to the Northwest corn ol_O. W Lot 7; thence alo4t e arth line of said Lot 7, South 89057'59" East for 300.00 feet to th � %f inning. Packet Pg. 1510 INSTR 4480276 OR 4609 PG 2900 RECORDED 9/30/2010 9:57 AM PAGES 10 DWIGHT E. BROCK, COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT DOC@.70 $5,975.20 REC $86.50 CONS $853,600.00 9.A.5.d �(UTT(o- f— r- s6. Sa RERN TO: 0-:5,S. � 9'1 D First American Title Insurance 25400 US Highway 19 N, Suite 135 Clearwater, Florida�3763 33931 This instrument was prepared by: FDIC 1601 Bryan Street, Energy Plaza Dallas, TX 75201 FDIC #10181004743 SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED (Florida) Date: September 27, 2010 '( ) Grantor: FEDERAL DEPO`'IVSURANCE ( as Receiver for/1~lunity Ba Grantor's Mailing 1601 Bryan w ' a Dallas, TX 7 ,1� � r Grantee: Covenant Presbaa Church of Naple' �s,* � Grantee's Mailing Address: 692��ra1 Botllvrc1 Consideration: Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged. Property Description (including any improvements): Lots 8 and 9, Block O, PINE RIDGE EXTENSION, according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 51, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Whereas, the subject Property hereinabove described was acquired by Grantor by that certain Certificate of Title executed on October 6, 2008, and recorded on October 6, 2008 in OR Book 4398, Page 3952 of the Official Records of Collier County, State of Florida. Grantor, for the consideration stated and subject to any reservations from and exceptions to conveyance and warranty stated herein, grants, sells and conveys to Grantee the Property, any and all improvements located thereon and affixed thereto, together with all and singular the rights and appurtenances thereto in any wise belonging, to have and hold the Property unto Grantee, Grantee's Packet Pg. 1511 OR 4609 PG 2901 9.A.5.d successors and assigns forever, subject to (a) the Permitted Encumbrances, as hereinafter defined, and (b) the exceptions, limitations and conditions herein set forth. Grantor binds Grantor and Grantor's successors and assigns to warrant and forever defend the title to the Property to Grantee and Grantee's heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns against every person whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim the same or any part thereof, except as to any reservations from and exceptions to conveyance and warranty herein, when and only when the claim is by, through, or under Grantor but not otherwise. Except for the limited covenant of warranty stated immediately above, the Property is conveyed: (a) without covenant, representation, or warranty of any kind or nature, express or implied, and (b) subject to the following matters (such matters hereinafter referred to individually and collectively as "Permitted Encumbrances"): (1) easements, rights of way, and prescriptive rights, whether of record or not; licenses and leases, whether written or oral, recorded or unrecorded; all presently recorded restrictions, resery_atove"rts,"conditions, oil and gas leases, mineral severances; liens, conveyances, and o h_TIEt�g the Property that have not been created, or do not arise, by, through .fir rder Grantor; righ`�«.p'1 qo�Q gwners and co -tenants; rights of adjoining owners in any walls and es situated on a commo6bou ary; discrepancies, conflicts, and shortages in area or bo idar " lixl� any-eneroachments protrusions, or overlapping of improvements; any condition, riot, ciaim,6r.othq matter which`wodid be revealed by a current survey of the Property or which �ouldT 'dtscover��Jby�i spection Hof the Property; all rights, obligations and other, matters em ►abng or abde in"g b ftelson ofthe creation, establishment, maintenance, and operation ar%sou Water- fi r-o emer plstricOdunicipal Utility District, or similar governmental or quasi,�O; rnmental agency, to , anclasse�s ents ofwhatever kind, type, or nature, assessed, levied, du ea gable for the year of0had dti(ih$ which this conveyance takes place and for any subsequent yeah rpeEiod, the payment ofwhicl Grantee assumes; taxes, penalties, and assessments for the year in whi 'isconveyance takes Oahe"and prior years due to change in land usage, ownership, or omission ai7d/ota�stakfsesrient, the payment of which Grantee assumes; (2) existing building and zoningrdanes, land use laws and regulations, and environmental regulations; and (3) rights of parties in possession. BY ACCEPTANCE OF THIS DEED, GRANTEE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT GRANTOR HAS NOT MADE AND DOES NOT MAKE ANY REPRESENTATIONS AS TO THE PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY, OR ANY OTHER MATTER AFFECTING OR RELATED TO THE PROPERTY (OTHER THAN WARRANTIES OF TITLE AS PROVIDED AND LIMITED HEREIN). GRANTEE EXPRESSLY AGREES THAT TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THE PROPERTY IS CONVEYED "AS IS" AND "WITH ALL FAULTS", AND GRANTOR EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS, AND GRANTEE ACKNOWLEDGES AND ACCEPTS THAT GRANTOR HAS DISCLAIMED, ANY AND ALL REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES OR GUARANTIES OF ANY KIND, ORAL OR WRITTEN, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED (EXCEPT AS TO TITLE AS HEREIN PROVIDED AND LIMITED) CONCERNING THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, (i) THE VALUE, CONDITION, MERCHANTABILITY, HABITABILITY, MARKETABILITY, PROFITABILITY, SUITABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE, OF THE PROPERTY, (ii) THE MANNER OR QUALITY OF THE CONSTRUCTION, OR THE MATERIALS, IF ANY, INCORPORATED INTO THE CONSTRUCTION, OF ANY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROPERTY, (iii) THE MANNER OF REPAIR, QUALITY OF REPAIR, STATE OF REPAIR OR LACK OF REPAIR OF ANY SUCH IMPROVEMENTS, AND (iv) ACCESS. GRANTEE HAS Packet Pg. 1512 OR 4609 PG 2902 9.A.5.d MADE ALL INSPECTIONS OF THE PROPERTY TO DETERMINE ITS VALUE AND CONDITION DEEMED NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE BY GRANTEE. GRANTEE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT GRANTEE IS NOT RELYING ON ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED BY GRANTOR IN DETERMINING THE PROPERTY CONDITION. BY ACCEPTANCE OF THIS DEED, GRANTEE SPECIFICALLY ASSUMES ALL RISK, COSTS AND LIABILITIES OF WHATEVER NATURE ARISING OUT OF THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY. When the context requires, singular nouns and pronouns include the plural. Signed, sealed & delivered in the presence of: WITNESSES: CD G NTQ R N N F d Printed Nam -a, [� FE)EPOSIT INSURANCE Cl) CORPO TIO N, as Receiver for Florida Co Muni an t (O N gy m j •� Printed Name: f€ ' .ameS S.COX '� '�me _ RNFY IN FACT a It Attornb. In Fact �e c STATE OF FLo Q I D A )( )( COUNTY OF JI)KyAt, )( stru was acknowledged before me on this the � day of September, 2010 by James S. O� Attorney In Fact, on behalf of the FEDERAL ATTO MWANdE CORPORATION acting in the capacity therein stated. My Commission Expires: Notary Public Notary's Name Printed or Typed NOTARY puBLIGSTATE OF FLORMA " Mark A. Haines Commission #DD991338 ,,,�•� :empires: MAY 12, 2011w4 BMED TMU muync r, co, n(r- Packet Pg. 1513 OR 4609 PG 2903 9.A.5.d STATE OF FLORIDA OFFICE OF FINANCIAL REGULATION. IN RE: FLORIDA COMMUNITY BANK, a state -chartered bank located in Immokalee, Collier County, Florida. Administrative Proceeding OFR Case No: 0703-FI-12/09 NOTICE IS HEREBY GWEN that as Commissio`tier of the Office of Financial Regulation, in accordance with tie tt4oritk)Tff0_ n me by the lawskof the State of Florida, I have taken possession of FLOMDA COM, MUN 7,—BA ,j'ap ointed the Federal Deposit r i 1 Insurance Corporation ("F C� as receiver not FLORIDA OIL � ITY BANK, and have authorized the FDIC to take and possession oat and affairs of FLORIDA COMMUNITY BANK pursuant to 08.,.8$�58.82, Florida Statutes (2009), ggpp gg¢$ effective January 29, 2010, at 6:00 p.m. EST, of aisuch earlier time on that date as the Offce's duly authorized on site representative specifies. J. 4omas Cardwell, Commissioner Ofyce of Financial Regulation EXHIBIT Packet Pg. 1514 OR 4609 PG 2904 9.A.5.d FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201 Division of Resolutions and Receiverships January 29, 2010 Mr. J. Thomas Cardwell, Commissioner _..u.___._.a,p�, Florida Office of Financial Regulation 200 E. Gaines Street ' Tallahassee, FL 32399 Subject: Florida ComrruranC`i Dear Commissioner Cardwell! j Plcase be advi that the FedeTepoftt:nsuratieperation accepts appointment as Receiderdf Florida Community Ba� Immo)� 'FL pursuant to an order in form and substance as attached. Sincerely, By: Dennis T per Receiver in harge, FDIC Packet Pg. 1515 OR 4609 PG 2905 9.A.5.d Doc # 2010184822, OR 13K 15331 Page 394, Number Pages: 4, Recorded 08/09/2010 at 12:41 PM, JIM FULLER CLERK CIRCUIT COURT DUVAL COUNTY RECORDING $35.50 Prepared by: Renee Marie Araujo, Esq. FDIC East Coast Temporary Satellite Otrice 7777 Br/meadows way west Jacksonville, FL 32256 (hart alaaa Abort dA. Ilse kr Rt d* la —doer) (spars abavt"sat a..1 be at Iu.t 7 t a .) LIM3TED POWER OF ATTORNEY KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that the FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATIo ration organized and existing under an Act of Congress, hereinafter `tllt.'atn its Receivership capacity or separate Corporate capacity or as Matlagtite"'FSi.IC dtuiWet 'has acquired and will acquire certain assets for liquidation and`ha§ determined that it is nccts�a#'to appoint a representative to act on its behalf in connection with the maintenance and liquidation of said assets, hereinafter called the "Acquired Assets —�� WHEREAS, the FDIC dim o igtate;JAMF.S S1 COX as attorney -in -fact for the limited purpose pfw f" ' dYim" s ufr� of the Acquired Assets; and €91 ere WtWRktthe tiadcrsignc11,�tias fiilf, autho$ to extd—'*,This instrument on behalf of the FDi n er applicable Resolutions`{4 the IC's/ of Directors and redelegations theredt' -�\ NOW, ^�OR,E, the FDIC appoints'" as its true and lawful attorney -in -fact to act ' Its J'"" G Place, and stead and hcrt �g'ts JAMES S. COX the authority, subject to the 1' t iiemfi follows (1) Sign, am de iv e# is the act ind`d�d - the FDIC any instrument in writing, and to do every other thing necessary and proper for the collection and recovery of any and all monies and properties of every kind and nature whatsoever for and on behalf of the FDIC and to give proper receipts and acquittance therefor in the name and on behalf of the FDIC; (2) Release, discharge or assign any and all judgments, mortgages on real estate or personal property, including the release and discharge of the same of record in the Official or Public Records of the Clerk of any Circuit Court or any other official public records or registries, wherever located, where payments on actount of the same in redemption or otherwise may have been made by the Limited Po ofAnemey—JAMLS S. COX Pate Iof Packet Pg. 1516 OR 4609 PG 2906 9.A.5.d OR BK 15331 PAGE 395 debtor(s), and to endorse receipt of such payment upon the records in any appropriate public office; (3) Receive, collect and give all proper acquittance for* any other sums of money owing to the FDIC for any Acquired Asset which the attorney -in -fact may sell or dispose of; (4) Execute any and all transfers and assignments as may be necessary to assign any securities or other chosen in action; (5) Sign, seal, acknowledge and deliver any and all agreements, easements, or conveyances as shall be deemed necessary or proper by the FDIC attomey-in-fact in the care and management of the Acquired Assets; (6) Sign, seal, acknowledge and deliver indemnity agreements and surety bonds in the name of and on behalfg >he (7) Sign recejp(s .payhteai o3 alima d� is due or to become due on the Acquired (8) Exetute, aB ewle ilge�agd deliver deeds of real'property in the name of the FDIC t' y r vc �4 S k (9) Exten to 9 dther action regarding arty mo ra lie 1 ae] m e e l C� � ' a (10) a°l vte� alS do v the o f tta ` c a power Of attorney er necessary or required b} w to attorn ployed by the FDIC; k*,' (11) Fo y mortgage or other liett� al or personal Property, wherev (12) Do and "'far, tNe use, liquidation or collection of the Acqutred tlsst�tti II ut (be LL,, a wtlte FDIC; (13) Sign, seal, acknowledge and deliver any and all documents as may be necessary to settle any acticn(s)'or claims) asserted against the FDIC, either in its Receivership or corporate capacity, or as Manager of the FSLIC Resolution Fund. This Power of Attorney shall be effective May 10, 2010, and shall continue in full force and effect through May 9, 2012. unless otherwise terminated by any official of the FDIC authorized to do so by the Board of Directors of the FDIC. t.imiW Po ofAnomry—JA_Hn S COX Pap Z of1 a c eu ea d 2 Cl) N Cl) N 0 0 rn 0 N J a Cl) Cl) 0 Cl) Packet Pg. 1517 OR 4609 PG 2907 9.A.5.d OR EK 15331 PIECE 396 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the FDIC, by its duly authorized officer empowered by appropriate resolution of its Board of Directors, has caused these presents to be subscribed in its name this V day of August, 2010. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION /1 Nan"PHELIA JONES r - - Title: Manager of Customer Service - East Coast Temporary Satellite Office 7777 Baymeadows way west Jacksonville, FL 32256 Signed in thppraence of. witness: p� �' Printed Name: Witness: R Printed NanJ STATE OF FLORIA� COUNTY OF DUAL On this 4' `d*. of u�20�0ibe or a Not, llubh4 f��a�d for the State of Florida appeared OPIE� �NES,`to tad pe so kno o� k *. by me first duly sworn did depose d hef a is Manager of Customer ce, East Coast Temporary Satellite Office of the Fed t Insurance Corporation (tCorporalt*`-);,in whose name the foregoing Limited Posh Attomcy was executed and si9iscribcd,'and the said Limited Power of Attorney was executed9d subscribed on behalf of the satd�'6orporation by due authority of the Corporation's Board of Duecitors, and the said OPiELIA` OAFS, acknowledged the said Limited Power of Attorney to be�ihas* aU w d_Mci o f "id Mon_ [PLACE NOTARY SEAL BELOW i-lE-- 1t0 M PUBLIC -STATE or nc=A Ata Davis Th=u 1"sl tiwfDD93TX8 Notary lic �tl bMirer NOY02,2013 Printed ameofNo pLLt n S3mr0canw.t *CKD om.V Commission No.: PD-��QJ�y ��1oRAQS My Commission expires: 11mited Power of Artomry — JAMES & COX Page 3 of i a c R d 2 M N M N 0 0 am T 0 N J a M Cl) rfl Cl) Packet Pg. 1518 OR 4609 PG 2908 9.A.5.d OR BK 15331 PAGE 397 STATE OF FLORIDA } COUNTY OF DUVAL } On this 91-daa f August, 2010, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Florida apI�ed _ifLnnP_ 11A rL,riPe` (witness #1) and _. (witness #2), to me pcis0uaiiy lmowrs TD be t2 persons whose names are subscribed as witness to the foregoing instrument of writing, and after being duly swum by me stated on oath that they saw OPHELIA JOKES, Manager of Customer Srnice, Fast Coast Temporary Satellite Office, of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the person who executed the foregoing instrument, and had subscribed the same, and that they had signed the same as a witness at the request of the person who executed the same. [PLACE NOTARY SEAL BELOW HERE] NOTART PLBLIC•57ATE OF FWIMA 61) Auwan Davis Tbomss CoauML60a ODD937703 E:pim, HONt 02.2013 10ram itac �TSARfe �W➢gee. PC vt Printed Name of? Commission No.: Limited Power of Attorney _ JAMS S. COX - Pie 1 of 4 STATE OF FLORIDA DUVAL COUNTY I, THE U1IDERSIGNED Clerk of the CircU;t COCrI, Dural Cur'. Florida, DO HEREBY CERTfFY the within and Icreeoine is a true and correct copy of the original as it acpears on rec, rd and rite in the office of the Clerk of Circuit Corrl of Oura: Co;nt% Florida, and the same is in full I Ce and effect. YlITNESS my hand and al of Clerk it Court lacisonrille, Florida, this the day c1 A. 20 JIM FULR C k, Circuit and County. s Duva County, FloridaT, By Beputy Clerk Packet Pg. 1519 *** OR 4609 PG 2909 *** MIS I CERTIFIED COPY OF TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OFORIGINAL NDUVAL ORIGINAL z9ffv I Packet Pg. 1520 1 Heavenly CFPUD Location Map z E GradyMinor Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors - Planners - Landscape Architects I& I I '.� .9 + ,Subject Property F 9.A.5.d w E S 180 90 0 180 Feet " Packet Pg. 1521 9.A.5.d GradyMinor MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Michael Sawyer, AICP Collier County Transportation Planning FROM: D. Wayne Arnold, AICP SUBJECT: Heavenly CFPUD, PL20190002323 TIS Waiver Request DATE: February 5, 2020 The application proposes to amend the Heavenly CFPUD to increase the allowable square footage for accessory structures located within the PUD. No change is proposed to the total number of seats permitted within the PUD; therefore, there are no additional trips associated with the principal permitted use. Further, the applicant is eliminating the K-8 grade private school from the list of permitted uses. P.M. peak hour trips will be reduced by eliminating the private school use. The applicant requests a waiver from preparation of a Traffic Impact Statement, as no new or additional trips result from the proposed changes. Cc: The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc. Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. GradyMinor File Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Civil Engineers • Surveyors • Land Planners • Landscape Architects 3800 Via Del Rey • Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 • (239) 947-1144 • Fax (239) 947-0375 EB 0005151 . LB 0005151 . LC 26000266 HCFPUDA-19 TIS Waiver Request 02-05-2020. docx Page 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 1522 9.A.5.d Heavenly CFPUD Amendment (PL20190002323) Deviation Justification 1. Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A. Sidewalk and Bike Lane Requirements which requires sidewalks within road right-of-way; except that sidewalks shall be provided along Trail Boulevard. The property owner shall make a payment in lieu of providing the sidewalks along the balance of the abutting right-of-way and that portion of Myrtle Road between Trail Boulevard and the project ingress -egress driveway to Myrtle Road. The developer shall also construct one sidewalk extension from the central building campus across Trail Boulevard to the pavement along US 41 to provide access to a potential bus stop, as conceptually depicted on the CFPUD Master Plan or provide Davment in lieu of to Collier Countv. (Previously approved by Ordinance 2009-15). 2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 4.06.05.N. which requires naturalization of man made lakes and water management areas through the use of curvilinear edges; to permit accomplishment of the intent through the use of a curvilinear landscape installation instead of a curvilinear physical contour. (Previously approved by Ordinance 2009-15). 3. Removed Per PMC-PL2011-872 4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 5.05.08.E.2.c. Minimum ratios. Pedestrian pathway connections must be provided from the building to adjacent road pathways at a ratio of one for each vehicular entrance to a project, and drive aisles leading to main entrances must have at least a walkway on one side of the drive aisle; to permit a reduction to a maximum of five pedestrian pathways to: two (2) to Trail Boulevard, one (1) to Myrtle Road, one (1) to Ridge Drive and one (1) to West Street in the locations depicted on the CFPUD Master Plan; AND to permit them in locations other than along one side of the drive aisle. (Previously approved by Ordinance 2009-15). TFacts A and B; pFevided that the equivalent squaFe footage ef the 10 feet wide buffeF, feF that length b- -ffeF '.yv"cFIrd—PA-t be Fequired- a.A P-1 thP-.refA-re this dev utieR Fequest V1X A- PAt hC ^WITHDRAWN, Tracts A and B are being eliminated as PUD is now under the unified ownership of The Covenant Presbvterian Church of Naples. Inc. 6. Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Subsections 5.03.02.E.2. and 5.03.02.E.4. to eliminate the requirement for a nonresidential development located opposite a residentially zoned district to provide a four (4) foot masonry wall or prefabricated concrete wall located a minimum of three (3) feet from the rear of the right-of-way landscape buffer line. (Previously approved by Ordinance 2009- 15). n a c m (D M N M N O O a) r O N J 11 ch M O M June 11, 2020 W GradyMinor Page 1 of 2 HCFPUDA-19 Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Chril Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. :1800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 • 239-947-1144 • engineering@gradyminor.com • www.gradyminor.co Packet Pg. 1523 9.A.5.d 7. Deviation #7 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 5.03.02.G.1.a., Supplemental Standards, which requires chain link (including wire mesh) and wood fences are prohibited forward of the primary facade and shall be a minimum of 100 feet from a public right-of-way. If these types of fences face a public or private street, then they shall be screened with an irrigated hedge planted directly in front of the fence on the street side. Plant material shall be a minimum of 3 gallons in size and planted no more than 3 feet on center at time of installation. This plant material must be maintained at no less than three- quarters of the height of the adjacent fence, to instead allow the use of up to a 6-foot-high chain link fence forward of the primary facade where the chain link fence is screened with an irrigated hedge planting directly in front of the fence facing the external right-of-way. Justification: The proposed chain link fencing is proposed to be used to provide a safe play lot for congregant children. Other portions of the Heavenly CFPUD have utilized chain link fencing with hedge screening. The use of chain link forward of the primary building facade to secure the proposed tot lot will not be unsightly with the vegetative screening proposed. 8. Deviation #8 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 4.05.02.B.1.a.i., "Design Standards", which requires Parking lots and spaces shall meet the following surfacing standards: Grass parking spaces shall be compacted, stabilized, well drained and surfaced with a durable and maintained grass cover. Driveways, handicapped spaces, and access aisles shall be paved. This deviation will instead not require this CFPUD to provide paved aisles for the area utilized for grass overflow parking where designated on the PUD Master Plan which can accommodate approximately 67 vehicles. Justification: The proposed grass overflow parking does not reduce the required number of parking spaces on site, but rather provides for multi -use of the play area. Because it is limited to only 67 cars, the low volume does not necessitate a paved drive aisle which would otherwise restrict the area as a children's play area. On -site staff will also be present during the days in which overflow parking is required to direct vehicles. Additionally, a concrete or asphalt apron will be installed at the entrance where the highest vehicle volumes and turning would occur. When the grass overflow parking lot is not being utilized, gates have been provided and will restrict vehicular access. The field's primary use is as a youth play yard and the secondary use as grass overflow parking will seldom be used. If this deviation is not approved then the paved drive isles will have a dramatic negative affect on the areas use as a play field. r; a 21 c as as x M N M N O 0 rn 0 N J d M M t0 M Packet Pg. 1524 9.A.5.d HEAVENLY COMMUNITY FACILITY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CFPUD) EXHIBITS A through IF Words underlined are additions; words St.-He� are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev5.docx July 8, 2020 Page 1 of 23 Packet Pg. 1525 9.A.5.d EXHIBIT A GENERAL: Development of the Heavenly CFPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Ordinance and applicable sections and parts of the Land Development Code (LDC) and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order, such as, but not limited to final subdivision plat, final site development plan, excavation permit, and preliminary work authorization, to which such regulations relate. a 0 a c m PERMITTED USES: as x No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, M for other than the following: c 0 a� r A. Principal Uses: N J d 1. One house of worship with a maximum seating capacity of 1,000-1,200 individuals. (See M Exhibit F, ' r-aet A, r,,,,.,,...,;t,...,en4 Number- 6 item A.5.). c`�o M T B. Accessory Uses: y 1. Religious Educational Classrooms and Chorus Rehearsal Room 2. Social/Meeting and Fellowship Center 3. Administrative Church Offices 4. ChildLAdult Day Cafe / We K/KindefgaAen/ Sehool, limited to 1' thfetigh 8th; with no more than a eombined eumulative total of 220 students/individuals ep&o1led/attendifig for- the en4ir-e of the T-r-aet A and B owners [if in diff'....., owner -ship] provided the total number- o -5-.4.Non-commercial accessory uses characterized by civic group meetings such as The Pine Ridge Civic Association, Scouting, community service organizations (e.g. the Naples' Parkinson's Association), safety fairs for the community and the like; and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures; except that parking garages are prohibited. Business and trade activities, including but not limited to a "market", "community market", direct marketing outlet or "farmers' market", are not accessory uses associated with the permitted principal uses and structures. 5. Outdoor recreational areas, play lots, playgrounds, which may include shade structures. 1. TeWer-ar-y Wilding stmetufes may be t4ilized to aeeemmedate existing uses in the initial redevelopment eonstmetion t-Fansition period. Stieh uses shall not begin ui#il after- the pr-opeAy owner applies for- a building pefmit for the first new permanent building and the ma -xi period of tise of stieh temporary building(s) shall be for- a period of 27 months, after- the building Words underlined are additions; words stmek thtwugh are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev5. docx July 8, 2020 Page 2 of 23 Packet Pg. 1526 9.A.5.d Q or-paft there f shall be 0 ecte 1 altered o esed, f land used, whole of in art p a c A. Prineipal Uses.! m c� a� x • M N Cl) N O • O O r O J CL ON, MAMI a Givie Assoeia4ion>Seou4in the les� � Y >serviee 0 m the that itke'd. with pefmitted pr-ineipal uses and stfuetufes; exeept pafking gar -ages are pr-ohi OC Business trade but limited to cc » cc » "' and >ineludin not a > market > 2 dir-eet cc ' » the fnafketing outlet or- fnafket , are not aeeessor-y uses assoeiated with Q c.i C d E t t� a :_ M E a Words underlined are additions; words stmek through are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev5. docx July 8, 2020 Page 3 of 23 Packet Pg. 1527 9.A.5.d EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TRACT - Together with the text that follows below are the development standards for land uses within Trathis CFPUD Subdistrict. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the site development plan (SDP). PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY MINIMUM LOT AREA 14± acres N/A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 538 ft. N/A MINIMUM YARDS (from right-of-way line abutting the property) wag) est Street Expanded Ridge Drive New stmetttfesTrail Boulevard The fan ft r the height SP-530 ft. S530 ft. SP530 ft. (g) greater- zoned of stmetufe200 ft. -5 -200 ft. for- expanded pet4i , 200 z.; exeept,50 ft.Tr-ail nUNIA4111A4 v nnc +...,,.+s) (between Side 33 ft-. SP& MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES The greater of 15 ft. or the sum of the zoned building heights S515 ft. MAXIMUM ZONED HEIGHT 35 ft. 35 ft. MAXIMUM ACTUAL HEIGHT MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES New 50 ft.(1)(2) 2(3) i- 50 ft. (1) 00) 2(D SPS MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 2,500 sq. ft. 400 sq. ft. MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE House of Worship (64) Accessory Uses/Maintenance/Storage (75) (9) Gir-eulatiE)n�N4ain4enaneeAStefage 2835,000 sq. ft. 4088,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. ft. PRESERVE SETBACKS (860 25 ft. 25 ft. SPS=Same as Principal Structure (1) Includes the vertical distance between the finished floor elevation and the average center line elevation of abutting roads, which is estimated to be between 4 feet and 5 feet. a 0 c as as x M N M N 0 0 a) r 0 N J d M M t0 M T Words underlined are additions; words stmek through are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev5. docx July 8, 2020 Page 4 of 23 Packet Pg. 1528 9.A.5.d (2) Maximum actual height of the house of worship may be exceeded by up to 40 feet by non - occupiable building elements, singularly or in combination, such as a steeple, cupola, religious symbol or other excluded height permitted by LDC Subsection 4.02.0I.D.1, as may be amended. The maximum combined square footage of such building elements shall be 4,000 square feet. See (3) Exclusive of mezzanines, loft areas and attic or attic storage areas. (4) Should beth TF-Aet B and T-r-aet A be in the same owner -ship, then the permitted intensity shall be aggi!egated, provided that in no even4 shall the squar-e footage of all stmettir-es within the (-5) Expansions w-hieh add square footage to any existing individual building are limited to 2090; of the building's squar-e footage as of the date of PUD appr-eval. A signed and sealed sufvey of the existing btfilding(s) proposed for- expansion and an additional exhibit prepared by and signed and sealed by a pr-efessienal engineer-, whieh depiets the propose (6)(4) House of worship square footage not utilized shall be available for religious educational classrooms. (7)(5) The maximum area of an individual room shall be 12,000 square feet. (8)(6) Listed setback is for all principal and accessory structures. Setback provisions, relative to preserves, for parking lots, sidewalks and other site improvements shall be governed by applicable LDC provisions in effect at the time of SDPA application. f�3 ffom West Stfeet, Ridge Drive and MyAle Road. (14D)(7) Buildings located outside of the "church campus building envelope" depicted on the Master Plan shall be limited to 25 feet in height. (g) Unenclosed shade structures may be permitted 25 feet from Trail Boulevard. (9) Does not apply to unenclosed shade structures. 3. The fnaxiffmm water- management area within the eembined ffentage btiff-er-s of Tr-aets A and B shall be 0 maxmufnwater-fnanagefnen4usenotexeee0 of the buffer-'s Words underlined are additions; words stmek through are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev5. docx July 8, 2020 Page 5 of 23 a a c c� d 2 M N Cl) N O O a� 0 N J d M Cl) CD C) Packet Pg. 1529 9.A.5.d IF M- Along Ridge Drive MyAle Read the hedge be height 6 fee (e) a -ad shall maif4ained at a miflim-um of Q for- that to MyAle Read deser-ibed be 0 exeept pei4ion adjaeefA above whieh shall maintained at a IL V 21 c Along Tr Boulevard, the hedges be 2 feet in height the time m (d) -ail shall at of planting and maif4ainedat > thfee feet in height for- distanee be 30 in c� exeept sight ' whieh shall maintained at x M N B. Dn,k;,. Let ,t Light;,. ,1,t;,. , M N O O Pole lights be to f 16 feet in height, to the top the O r shall r-estr-ieted a meastwed of emitting O fix-vdfe,and their- be fin4her- to interior- ingress lots NJ use shall restricted and at Campus lighting be limited to bellar-ds, landseape building lighting fixter-es. Bellar-ds have d shall and shall • M t0 M r v �„ G. ExistingIngress Egress —a---_ Driveways J,n N •L Existing driveways be depieted the CFPUD Master- Plan, the d will eliminated er- f as on as y+ 4vnn•1n are redeveloped.cc� G 7 Y D. Open Spa-ee C� m The 0esspr-ojeetareanotess � pr-ojeet will provide and maint 9 . rO cv f 7 2 figundation 7areas C. At the time build oout ' of f 7ll O �,et less than 6.3EL Btfild this r area [i.e. net aer-es] as epen spaee. eut 7 f shall Qnfnnn L;,A d ,lo, o o� ,f ��„�,,o� exist ,;t ,,,� E C� E. Water- Manageme-n-t. C Master- Plan. The the the by E pr-ejeet shall pr-evide greater- of (1) eapae4y r-equir-ed water- manageme t design for- 3 25 C� R standards a 7event, �+ by design the time that development is r Q r-equir-ed water- management standards at order- approval sought. cn eity may be met � , t „t af�, ,1,•„ water- o t,. ,�, o 0„ 4 areas. Words underlined are additions; words stmek through are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev5. docx July 8, 2020 Page 6 of 23 Packet Pg. 1530 9.A.5.d Water- . d for- the f4eilifies that te ineluding these Tmet management , existing are r-emain, within the Tmet A befm that et4side ef for- the management have been eentaifffnent provided Tr-aet B be in4egr-ated eempensating in4o water- management the areas system if aer-eage and when Tmet B is provided. redeveloped. shall mastef water- management Q 0 The lake ffefn the GFPUD betmdar-y, be 25 feet. fniniffmm sethaek as measiffed at eent-fel elevation, shall See fenein and assoeiated landseape installation standards within this Or-dinanee. 21 c� for- the feliewing development management system shall at a minimum provide nenetm+ttlative standards.! M less than the first half ineh the ' M pr-etfeatment of not of minfall over- N the 0 O greater- of water-aser-equr-ement(netess • CO dr-y less than 1O T s area) within water- managemen4 areas and not • O de N eompensatofy water quality J to ,.., L. f; „n ,� �x7os� C�, oo� n a; ntheo„� , �o ,� o .� d M M The West S4eet be to t0 M roadside swale and one or- more abu#ing roadside swales shall redesigned allow T v designed to n ept those additional FIows. � �L d Par4ing f�onting buffer- landseape the hand Development Code developmen C� spaees and areas shall utilize G that to lessen the ther-efer-e standard pefmits vehiettlaf ever -hang ametmt ef pa-vement and r-eduee Y s area. C� m The loeated between the buildings the plaza area eent-fal eampus and —eter- sidewalk an&o V Q F. Flat r-eef . Q c.i Flat be hidden ffom by the d r-oofs may utili—I -'-- ---Ufldar-y r-oof areas when view use of affieula* E ide � arehiteetural elements whieh a onto and p for- an aft;..,,lnte , e f fin t1 c0 a G. Pr-ejeet Phasing. �.; :_ m The Master- Plan depiets the Tmet A. it is that the E a4aehed r-edevelopment ef under -stood r-edevelopment m is likely to be likely inelude the realized over- a ntmi-ber- of phases w-hieh will fetenlion of one or- more existing btfildings and their- associated impr-evements between phases. Words underlined are additions; words stmek through are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev5. docx July 8, 2020 Page 7 of 23 Packet Pg. 1531 9.A.5.d —1110 Milli is VMM PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSO USES MINIMUM LOT AREA 1.9dE aer-es N�A 04 FFon €xisti Expanded bffikliags(74 New stf ep&r-e SgS SgS SPS Of 50 ft. for- expanded pe 504. . Sie Existin New stmetwes fi -n f S s 0 c m c� d 2 M N M N O O T O N J d M M t0 M T v A �L d Cm G Y V m m C O R 2 Q Q C d E t tt m r� a C E m a Words underlined are additions; words stmek through are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev5. docx July 8, 2020 Page 8 of 23 Packet Pg. 1532 MrSTSM AAA c m a� x M N M N O O O T O N J d AAA c m a� x M N M N O O O T O N J d M M to ineludes the distanee between the finished floor- the line M veffieal fends, elevation ; to be between and wVer-age G fo n feet eefiter- v elevation of'abutting w-hieh estimated and (2) A4n*jmiim Ar-wal height be by to 7 feet by building Ah may exceeded iip one non eeeiipiable element, L d as a steeple, ) of feligious •+ m G Exel„niye i„os) left n o ., n#in n#in n o of fnezza n stet ge � CT!Sheeld A be in the then the intensity be V faet safne ownefship ) pefmitted shall � MM W IL ((�� Cam!wofship feeta be fef sqttafe e net utilized shall amNailable aeeessery0 (6) feetage individual be less than the footage —e of any rmeem shall squafe ii Q Q. (7) - Expansions footage to individual building limited 4e a whieh add squafe any existing afe 0 A the building(s) form apprmoval. signed and sealed sufvey of existing prmoposed e"ansion and a C by by depiets E additional exhibit pfepafed and signed and sealed a pfefessienal engineef who the the date PUP be pfoposed and all p Ms sinee of apprmoval, shall submitted with • a �3—TfaetTrmaet r-. andafeownedormdevelopedthesamepefsenormthenthe Tfaet A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS be fef the GFPUD, N shall efilized all pfepe..Y within E t i6,000 feet the heights fef Tfaet B R not exceed squafe and maximum pefmitted afe maintained, r Additionally, A.f , ie fn,-'i'faet B shall still n Q the andH. urms fO effifi, n pl. Words underlined are additions; words s*mek through are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev5. docx July 8, 2020 Page 9 of 23 Packet Pg. 1533 9.A.5.d 3. Medges landseape buffer-s West Street Ridge Drive be within maintained to a per-imetef minin+am height of 6 feet. along and shall grown an Q 0 4. There shall be ne sifffaee water- management ese within the perimeter- beffer-s. IL V 21 c B. Par Lot Lighting m -king c� a� feet, x ,antheir- is f4fther- to interior lots to level ingress N M use r-estr-ieted paf-king and meeting after-ial r-equir-ements at N drives. Bellar-ds have height 4 8 CO egress shall a ma-xim-um of • CO O r O G. Existing Ingress Egress Drveways J Existing driveways be GFPUD thesite M shall eliminated or- >Plan, as M is The two dr-i—I Tr-aet B be with t0 M redeveloped. the r-estfieted one way aeeess ng shall r-emoved the ingfess r v 7 7 , y egrmess to thefaet will bevia shafed dFiveways iv^utoc within zxmaet rr.D. •L d yr Open Spaee CC� G The 0less Y prmojeet shall pfovide and maintain a minimum of grossprmojeetafeanotV m 4.&kaefes] Open ineltides but is limited te landseape buffers, interior- landseaping, m as open spaee. spaee not building foendation , dfy watef management afeas and WAt r R c� the time build f 4 oout — of > >ll Q. to this > felative pfovisien,shallQ ' when Qn nnn squaf o feet f st,.,,,.tufes exist within rr,maet A. c d E Wilding foundation These landseaped z and planting afeas. and any ethef and open spaee afeas shall 5 c� to the the eontrmibute ovefall open spaefQ. of ' a C „ 0 0 0 � mil, ,ll L.o �noi f �l,o ssaf0 T, , .� i2 d E E. Waterm Management Q 25 the the lake the by > yeaf design stofm event, (2) the eapaeity tifne of existing that development of (3) eapaei is fequifed watef C., eity may be mop management in aft „with standuds dry . ,,,to,. at management „t efdef appfeval sought. Words underlined are additions; words stmek thtwugh are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev5. docx July 8, 2020 Page 10 of 23 Packet Pg. 1534 9.A.5.d !mIaP-W7WMOMl�. Wa4er- d for- the faleilities that to ineluding these Tr-aet .-. management existing are r-emain, within a B, be by the faleilities in Tr-aet A. These faleilities be loleated 0 may met and eapaleity areas of existing may the Tr-aet A befm that a etAside ef management leentaimalent provided leempensating water- management for- the ha-,ve been Tr-aet B be integrated in4o the areas aer-eage provided. shall master- wa4er- management if Tr-aet B is m system and when redeveloped. c� a� x M for- the foil development N M managemen4 system shall at a mini provide �mulative standards.: N less than the first half ineh Cs impletmetis O pr-e4eatmefA of net of minfall entire area, the 1501,; base the greater- of of water- quality r-equir-emen4 (not nehes over- en4ir-e pr- elet's O dry less than the N s area) within water management areas and not •inehes ever entire prejeet.J e d M • Cl) t0 M The West S4eet be to T v roadside swale and ene er- mer-le abtAting roadside swales shall redesigned allew fan is d r+ c� G Par ftenting beffer- landseape the Land Development Cede develepme -king spalees and areas shall utilize 7 that to lessen the therefore d440,li.. Y standard pefmits vehiettlar- ovefhang amoufA of pavement and r- V cc m r F. Flat r-eef prohibit* R V Q Flat be Flat be fo r-eefs may not utilized as a r-ineipal r-eef leempenent. r-eefs may utilized Q �.± •+ d E G. Pr-ejeet Phasing. C� it is that the be inelude the a tmider-steed redevelopment may realized over a number of phases and may C retention of the existing buildings and assoleiated impr-ovements between phases. M 14. Pafkiag Spaee Requirements a Restfi eti ons Words underlined are additions; words stmek through are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev5. docx July 8, 2020 Page 11 of 23 Packet Pg. 1535 9.A.5.d • k• • _ • . • loll 1 M M CD M T v A �L d Cm G Y V m m C O R c2 Q Q V C d E z tt to r� r� a C E m m a Words underlined are additions; words stmek through are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev5. docx July 8, 2020 Page 12 of 23 Packet Pg. 1536 I > O J p v I Q o m � C7 O cZ oN O .� ..Z 0 l 100008b8ZL9 :ON o!ION c'000b8b8ZL9 'ON o!lo' 900088b8ZL9 :'oN OpoL ),TINV� 3N0NIS .asn ,IIIWVN 3N9NIS .asn ,IIIWVA 3MNIS .asn 1 1 —jSb 6u!uoz 1-1Sa buluoz 1—JS?J 6ulupZ 1 I L— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — J avoll 311HAW (1N3Wf1�0O Ofld Mad SV) M3j9f19 '19 OZ VA 1 � 1 W =AH0 Na � 1 ' 1 � 1 1 1 ' 1 1 w � J Z 1 � � 1 , Q 1 � a � 1 1 1 ; Y K a 0 U W ZILrU 2 K Q zw� EL waz LU U Q (n Z z M - -i0NVN3INIVW 139VIdOIS I pl =01 WMwi Cal U' z L) Z OLLI Y UO1 N 71 I , 1� z 2 Rd n SNDIHVd y IL Q c.> Q V z N D x Q O 17171787 Ha-6,M— 13 OZ r----- - - — - -- --- - - I I Z00088L8ZL9 : ON 01IoN OOOOb8L8ZL9 �'oN o!lo� HOOOO8L8ZL9 �'oN o!lo- - ,I7IWV] 3l9NIS :asn ),IIWVA 319NIS :asn J,NIWVA 3l9NIS :asn 1—JS21 bu!uoz 1—NSa buluoz 1—LSb buluoz I w a-i"aN" O10 O� co +1 W (�,7 Mm � W Q N N Cl OO fh In w O 3 U m 5� U� w >� 0 a 11 g<< o w a z- Jcm7a mom: UO g aYOWOZ ampL w�aj< co OOa < N M V 1p F10 u7 M N m O I e w U M LQ m IQ N N IN U Q Lu w K a ~ N w z w w Is a� w < Nz :0 ¢ w w za< a Q� U wal 1 0 � < N w U Oil FoQ < OW 3>� w ow ,O QF p awN wO Noo4 Lai<z O w j w Q p= w Q < m¢NLu a. O W�o35�<wm v mwo ¢az f U Q W H z m z ru = W w w s z O a w 0 I 9.A.5.d I DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY 1-415.9 ± AC --TRACT-A HOUSE OF WORSHIP 10001200 SEAT MAXIMUM CAPACITY 2835,000 SF ACCESSORY USES/COMMON AREAS INCLUDING CIRCULATION/ MAINTENANCE/ STORAGE 4088,000 SF COMMON AREAS INCLUDING CIRCULATION/ MAINTENANCE/ STORAG- 42 n 1 TOTAL 80123,000 SF PRESERVE NOTES: THE MINIMUM REQUIRED NATIVE VEGETATION FOR THIS SITE IS 44 NATIVE TREES FOR THE PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED PORTION OF THIS SITE AND A MINIMUM OF AN ADDITIONAL 0.12 ACRES OF CREATED PRESERVE (CP) - 15% OF THE EXISTING 0.8 ACRES OF NATIVE VEGETATION. THE LOCATION OF THE 44 TREES IS PROPOSED TO BE AN INTEGRATION WITHIN PERIMETER LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG WEST STREET AND MYRTLE ROAD. THE .12 ACRE CREATED PRESERVE REFERENCED IN THE PUD COMMITMENTS SHALL BE LOCATED AT THE TIME OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL. NOTES: 1. ANY SDP APPLICATION SHALL FURTHER CONFORMANCE WITH THIS MASTER PLAN. THE PHASED DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN SHALL BE IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THIS APPROVED MASTER PLAN; EXCEPT TO ADDRESS THE POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT OF BUILDINGS LABELED ON THIS MASTER PLAN AS "EXISTING" AND THEIR ASSOCIATED PARKING LOTS AND RELATED IMPROVEMENT; AND, SHOULD COUNTY TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS REQUIRE RE -ALIGNMENT OF DEPICTED ACCESS DRIVE LOCATIONS FROM TRAIL BOULEVARD - PROVIDED THAT A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 330 FEET IS MAINTAINED FROM THE NORTH AND SOUTH CFPUD BOUNDARIES. n REDEVELOPMENT ENT OF TRACT "B" IS GOVERNED NED BY CFPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS © HEAVENLY CFPUD scA GradyMinor O. Grady Minor :..... car.. Rey `E cone: vunn,ia Uri Rey Bonita Spring,. 1'1or dd 34134 EXHIBIT C DATE: MASTER PLAN NOTE SHEET Civil Engineers . Land Surveyors . Planners . Landscape Architects E1LE xAme o C,,L,fA,Ah. N:B0005161 CerLof A,Ah. 1,130005151 Business CC 26000266 E 31Tc-uAsrt-[51 AMENDED saw-F Bonita Springs: 239.947.1144 a wa. Grady Woor.com Fort Myers: 239.690.4380 REVISED 07/08/2020 Packet Pg. 1538 9.A.5.d EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION (TRACT A) FOLIO NUMBERS: 67285460009 67285280002, 67285360003, 003 67285320004 004 Q LOTS 1 7 A" D 10 through 13, BLOCK "O", PINE RIDGE EXTENSION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT � THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 51, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER a COUNTY, FLORIDA. 21 as as x M N c'M N O O O r O N J LEGAL DESCM-PTION (TRACT CT B M M t0 M T v Words underlined are additions; words stmek thtwugh are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev5. docx July 8, 2020 Page 15 of 23 Packet Pg. 1539 9.A.5.d EXHIBIT E LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC 1. Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A. Sidewalk and Bike Lane Requirements which requires sidewalks within road right-of-way; except that sidewalks shall be provided along Trail Boulevard. The property owner shall make a payment in lieu of providing the sidewalks along the balance of the abutting right-of-way and that portion of Myrtle Road between Trail Boulevard and the project ingress -egress driveway to Myrtle Road. The developer shall also construct one sidewalk extension from the central building campus across Trail Boulevard to the pavement along US 41 to provide access to a potential bus stop, as conceptually depicted on the CFPUD Master Plan or provide payment in lieu of to Collier County. 2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 4.06.05.N. which requires naturalization of man made lakes and water management areas through the use of curvilinear edges; to permit accomplishment of the intent through the use of a curvilinear landscape installation instead of a curvilinear physical contour. 3. Removed Per PMC-PL2011-872 4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 5.05.08.E.2.c. Minimum ratios. Pedestrian pathway connections must be provided from the building to adjacent road pathways at a ratio of one for each vehicular entrance to a project, AND and drive aisles leading to main entrances must have at least a walkway on one side of the drive aisle; to permit a reduction to a maximum of five pedestrian pathways to: two (2) to Trail Boulevard, one (1) to Myrtle Road, one (1) to Ridge Drive and one (1) to West Street in the locations depicted on the CFPUD Master Plan; AND to permit them in locations other than along one side of the drive aisle. A and B; pr-ovided that the equivaleat squar-e footage of the 10 ot wide btiffer-, for- that length not Tr-aet. Should the entire ■ ■. , the buffef woul net be r-equir-ed and therefore this deviation r-equest would net be app1ieabk-)Yithdrawn. 6. Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Subsections 5.03.02.E.2. and 5.03.02.E.4. to eliminate the requirement for a nonresidential development located opposite a residentially zoned district to provide a four (4) foot masonry wall or prefabricated concrete wall located a minimum of three (3) feet from the rear of the right-of-way landscape buffer line. 7. Deviation #7 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 5.03.02.G.1.a.. Sunnlemental Standards. which reauires chain link (including wire mesh) and wood fences are prohibited forward of the primary facade and shall be a minimum of 100 feet from a public right-of-way. If these types of fences face a public or private street then they shall be screened with an irrigated hedge planted directly in front of the fence on the street side. Plant material shall be a minimum of 3 gallons in size and planted no more than 3 feet on center at time of installation. This plant material must be maintained at no less than three-quarters of the height of the adjacent fence, to instead allow the use of up to a 6-foot-high chain link fence forward of the primary facade, where the chain link fence is screened with an irrigated hedge plantingdirectly irectly in front of the fence facing the external right-of-way_ a 0 a c as x M N M N O O a� r O N J d M M O M T v Words underlined are additions; words stmek through are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev5. docx July 8, 2020 Page 16 of 23 Packet Pg. 1540 9.A.5.d 8. Deviation #8 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.02.B. La.i., "Design Standards", which requires Parking lots and spaces shall meet the following surfacing standards: L Grass parking spaces shall be compacted, stabilized, well drained and surfaced with a durable and maintained grass cover. Driveways, handicapped spaces, and access aisles shall be paved. This deviation will instead not require this CFPUD to provide paved aisles for the area utilized for overflow parking where designated on the PUD Master Plan which can accommodate approximately 67 vehicles. ■ a 0 a c m c� a� x M N M N O O O r O N J d a Words underlined are additions; words stmek through are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev5. docx July 8, 2020 Page 17 of 23 Packet Pg. 1541 a 0 a c m c� a� x M N M N O O O r O N J d a Words underlined are additions; words stmek through are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev5. docx July 8, 2020 Page 17 of 23 Packet Pg. 1541 EXHIBIT F 9.A.5.d LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS areas. A. TRANSPORTATION -2-.1_The minimum throat length as measured from the roadway edge of payment to the internal parking area shall be 50 feet for driveways from Myrtle Road, West Street and Ridge Drive; and, 75 feet for driveways from Trail Boulevard. �2_For services and other periods and events of significant traffic generation, as determined by Collier County staff, the property owner shall provide traffic control by law enforcement or a law enforcement approved service provider as directed by Collier County staff, with staffing and at location(s) as directed by the Collier County Transportation Administrator or his designee. 4.3The Ridge Drive primary egress driveway will be restricted to a "no right turn" condition. The Myrtle Road egress driveway will be restricted and signed to a "no left turn" condition. The Myrtle Road access shall be closed at dusk. Commitment completed. -54. A west bound turn lane on Ridge Drive, extending from the egress driveway to US 41, shall be constructed concurrently by the property owner with the initial redevelopment phase of development. Commitment completed. • ■ ■ • eil •11111110 l ■ ■ilk 0111, • ■_ W •_ • a 0 a Words underlined are additions; words stmek through are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2021 docx July 8, 2020 Page 18 of 23 Packet Pg. 1542 9.A.5.d first quafter- of a ealeadar- year- for- impaets exeeeding these established as "the base" in the pr-eeeding paragraph. Commitment completed. 7. The new buildings on Tr-aet A shall be eonsisteftt with the conceptual ar-chitectur-al refidefing a a 6. A payment -in -lieu -of contribution shall be made by the property owner to the County for otherwise 21 c required sidewalks within abutting right-of-way to the northern and eastern portion of the project boundary prior to issuance of the first Site Development Plan for a new permanent building. Commitment completed. M N M N 7. Existing driveways located on West Street and the northernmost driveway on Ridge Drive will be c eliminated as the PUD is redeveloped. o N J (TRACT B) •generation,as detefmined by GellieCetmvy M t0 M � T v 7 with staffing and at leeatien(s) y •L d CC� G !d sidewalks within abtA4ing fight ef way te Tfaet B pfief te issttanee of the fifst Site 0 0 0Tf:ae V m 3. The flew building on Tfaet B shall be afehiteettituily compatible with the new buildings on Tfae! A. 0 The C oDfive,Q. Q c.i B. LANDSCAPE BUFFERS c m E 1. All perimeter landscape buffers shall be installed with the first SDP for a new permanent building 5 or with the SDP that provides for the relocation of the lake. a 2. All required buffer trees along Myrtle Road, Ridge Drive and West Street shall be Quercus m virginiana, and/or Bucida buceras provided in 65 Gallon containers at 14 feet in height and are to s be Florida #1 or Florida Fancy. Buffer trees are to be planted on 30 feet center. Quercus virginiana/Bucida Buceras are not to be planted within the reauired 6 feet wide shrub Dlantiniz bed Q specified below. 3. (a) The hedge component of the continuous perimeter LDC Type D landscape buffer abutting West Street and Myrtle Road (extending to the east side of the driveway on Myrtle Road), shall be installed with a minimum height of 5 feet, spaced 4 feet on center and grown and maintained to a minimum Words underlined are additions; words stmek thtwugh are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev5. docx July 8, 2020 Page 19 of 23 Packet Pg. 1543 9.A.5.d height of 12 feet above grade of any adjacent berm; and a 6 foot black or green clad chain link fence shall be hidden within this double hedize row. (b) Along West Street the hedge shall be maintained at a minimum height of 12 feet. (c) Along Ridge Drive and Myrtle Road the hedge shall be maintained at a minimum height of 12 feet east of the project entrance and a minimum height of 6 feet west of the project entrance. d) Along Trail Boulevard. the hedves shall be 2 feet in height at the time of nlantiniz and maintained at three feet in height except for sight distance triangles, which shall be maintained at 30 inches. a 0 C. PARKING LOT LIGHTING a 21 Pole lights shall be restricted to a maximum of 16 feet in height, measured to the top of the emitting c fixture, and their use shall be further restricted to interior parking lots and at ingress -egress drives. Campus lighting shall be limited to bollards, landscape and building lighting fixtures. Bollards shall have M a maximum height of 48 inches. N 0 D. OPEN SPACE 0 0 N 1. The project will provide and maintain a minimum of 30% of gross project area [i.e. not less than J 4.8± acres] as open space. M c� M 2. At the time of build -out, and thereafter, the project shall provide and maintain a minimum of 40% T y of the gross project area [i.e. not less than 6.3± acres] as open space. Build -out, relative to this �a provision, shall be the time when 80,000 square feet of structures exist within the PUDT+aet-A. E. WATER MANAGEMENT Y V 1. The existing 3.3± acre borrow pit lake, shall be reconfigured and relocated as depicted on the co m CFPUD Master Plan. The project shall provide the greater of (1) the capaci required by water o . management design standards for a 3-day, 25-year storm event, (2) the capacity of the existing lake or 3) the capacity required by water management design standards at the time that development Q order approval is sought.Capacity may be met, in part, with dry water management areas. Q 2. The surface water management system shall be designed such that no surface water runoff or discharge is directed towards or into the Pine Ridge surface water management system including E adjacent roadside swales to the north, east and south. a 3. The surface water management system shall be a zero -discharge system or the discharge shall be routed throu_.hg the project to the west, through existing or new drainage facilities in Trail Boulevard, 4) Tamiami Trail North (SR-45) and then ultimately to the Gulf of Mexico. co 4. The minimum lake setback from the CFPUD boundary, as measured at control elevation, shall be Q 25 feet. See fencing and associated landscape installation standards within this Ordinance. 5. Subject to final jurisdictional agency permitting, the designed capaci . of the proposed storm water management system shall at a minimum provide for the following noncumulative development standards: pretreatment of not less than the first half inch of rainfall over the project's entire Words underlined are additions; words stmek thtwugh are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev5. docx July 8, 2020 Page 20 of 23 Packet Pg. 1544 9.A.5.d impervious area, and the greater of 150% of water quality base requirement (not less than 2.5 inches over the entire project's impervious area) within dry water management areas and not less than 1.5 inches over the entire project. The balance of the project's stormwater management capacity shall provide compensatory water quality for the portion of West Street adjacent to the project. 6. The West Street roadside swale and one or more abutting roadside swales shall be redesigned to allow run off from the existing roads adjacent to the project to flow to the outfall route. The outfall route shall be designed to accept these additional flows. 7. Parking spaces fronting buffer and landscape areas shall utilize the Land Development Code a development standard that permits vehicular overhang to lessen the amount of pavement and therefore reduce impervious area. a 21 c 8. The plaza area located between the central campus buildings and the campus perimeter sidewalk 41 and/or curb shall be a minimum of 50% pervious. M F. FLAT ROOF PROHIBITION M CN 0 Flat roofs may not be utilized as a primary or principal roof component. Flat roofs may be utilized for o secondary roof areas when hidden from view by the use of articulated architectural elements which create 14 and provide for an articulated roof line. a M M G. PROJECT PHASING M T It is understood that the redevelopment is likely to be realized over a number of phases which will likely include the retention of one or more existingbuildings uildings and their associated improvements between phases. M H. PRESERVE Y V M The minimum required native vegetation for this site is 44 native trees (for the previously developed m portion of this site) and a minimum of an additional 0.12 acres of created preserve (15% of the existing o 0.8 acres of native vegetation). The location of the 44 trees shall be within the perimeter landscape buffer m, along West Street and Myrtle Road. The location of the created preserve shall be identified at the time of 'Q review and approval of the first SDP. a I. PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS c d E The minimum parking spaces provided shall be 3 for each 7 seats within the house of worship. There shall be no additional parking requirements for the additional uses. The maximum number of vehicular a parking spaces, exclusive of loading and drop-off parking areas shall be 600. c a) I HOURS OF OPERATION RESTRICTIONS M 1. Worship between 6:30 a.m. and 10:30 p.m. Normal operational Q hours may be exceeded uD to 2 times Der month for the accommodation of special functions. 2. Non -worship use of the facilities: between 7:30 am and 10:30 pm. Words underlined are additions; words stmek through are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev5. docx July 8, 2020 Page 21 of 23 Packet Pg. 1545 9.A.5.d 3. Music Outdoor music is prohibited; and indoor music shall only be allowed when windows and doors are closed. There shall be no live, recorded or amplified music of any kind prior to 8 a.m. or after 9:30 p.m. The limitation on the time for live. recorded or amplified music may be exceeded up to two times per month for accommodation of special worship functions. K. PUD MONITORING a One entity (hereinafter the Managing ntity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close- a out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is Covenant Presb. erian21 Church of Naples Inc., 6926 Trail Boulevard, Naples, Florida 34108. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County M Attorney. After such approval, the Managing ntity will be released of its obligations upon written N agpproval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing ntity shall provide written notice to 0 County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but a the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is M closed -out, then the Managing ntity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. M. MISCELLANEOUS 1. The initial redevelopment SDP shall include (Commitment completed):�- a. the replacement of the existing lake with a new lake(s) and associated dry water management areas; 6 m b. the redevelopment of landscape buffers abutting the lake(s) and associated dry water management o _ areas; Co c. the re -grading of the right-of-way_ green space between the CFPUD boundary and edge of Q Q pavement of the four adjacent roadways to enhance storm water management for these roadway v areas. C c a) E 2. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the r development. a 3. Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., Issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any a way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and E does not create any liabili . on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes a actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. 4. The required 0.12-acre re-created preserve shall meet County preserve requirements and shall recreate the habitat that previously existed on -site (,pine flatwoods), including all three vegetative strata. Commitment completed. Words underlined are additions; words stmek thmugh are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev5. docx July 8, 2020 Page 22 of 23 Packet Pg. 1546 9.A.5.d 5. A landscape planting plan shall be submitted for review and approval at the time of the first SDP for each development stage. 6. The owner shall install pursuant to county standards and specifications, or shall pay the County to provide, a bus shelter at the existing Collier Area Transit stop located adjacent to US 41, which is located at the stub -out in the median separating Trail Boulevard and US 41 as depicted on the Master Plan. This bus shelter is required to be constructed when development reaches a one percent or rg eater impact on US-41, or as a stipulation of Phase Two improvements, whichever occurs first. a 0 c m c� a� x M N M N O O O r O N J d M M t0 M T v A �L d Cm G Y V m m C O R c2 Q Q V C d E z tt to r� r� a C E m m a Words underlined are additions; words stmek through are deletions Heavenly CFPUD Exhibits A-F 2020-rev5. docx July 8, 2020 Page 23 of 23 Packet Pg. 1547 I 9.A.5.cV I Ib N Roof Line Average Centerline Road Elevation Front Elevation Permitted Exclusions Limited to 4,000 s.f. Maximum Adjacent Average Centerline Road Flovation Rear Elevation Mid Point Mid Point of Roof EX:i BTT Cr Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A,\ CIVIL Sls(iIN&£RS • LAN A SURVEYORS • PLANNERS • LnHDSCAPE ARCIIIFLCIS aw _1745PRWGS . TORT rIYFPS WMI MRT 1 fFa iHW st BC©DE: HCFPLiD DATE: 12.2.6$ SCALE: I " = 30' FILENAME: Exhibit G W W W.ORAUYM3NQR.COM Packet Pg. 1 I 9.A.5.d/ I N -OCCUPIABLE BUILDING ELEMENTS ELEV, = 52'-0" cC MAXIMUM ACTUAL HEIGHT FROM = AVERAGE CENTERLINE ELEVATION OI~ ABUTTING ROAD N ELEV. = 45'-0" c" MAXIMUM ZONED HEIGHT N o (MID POINT OF ROOF) ELEV. = 35'-0" o N J d M M W M T A RAPHIC EXAMPLE OF "TRAC B11- MAXIMUMS DEPICTED "CONCEPTUAL ONLY" A Graphic Example of "Tract 13" Florida Community Gunk Collier County, Florida DATE: February 18, 2003 HUMPHREY • ROSA1N A R C H I T E C T S 3200 9TH 5T, NORTH (239} 263-4201 SUITE 9300 PAX (239) 263-4451 NAPLES, FWRiDA 34103 Exhibit G (1) Packet Pg. 1 I m I 9.A.5.d I EXHIBIT I CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL February 3, 2009 1. y plan submitted pursuant to this CFPUD shall be in su/anance with th pprc ved conceptual Master Plan entitled "Exhibit C PIepared by Pl g Development Incorporated, consisting of one smber 25, 2' 8, revised through January 16, 2009, except as condit2. The access ints located on West Street and Ridge Drive,t B of the Master Pian, all close when this tract redevelops. 3. The required 1 cre re-created preserve shall meet and shall recrea0.te th%abitat that previously /existedall three vegetative str 4. A landscape planting plan all be submitted first SDP for each of the trac inty preserve requirements (pine flatwoods), including and approval at the time of the 5. The property owners shall provi or s pay the County to provide, a bus shelter at the existing Collier Area Transit st ated adjacent to US 41, which is located at the stub -out in the median separating it Boulevard and US 41 as depicted on the Master Plan. This bus shelter is r ire o be constructed when development reaches a one percent or greater im, ct on -41, or as a stipulation of Phase Two improvements, whichever oc s first. Packet Pg. 1551 1 9.A.5.d ORDINANCE NO. 09- - 15 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF ,' �s' a COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE -- % APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY •� i CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE ^ _ HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A SINGLE- _ FAMILY (RSF-1) ZONING DISTRICT TO A COMMUNITY - _ M M FACILITY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CFPUD) N 0 ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS THE 0 M HEAVENLY CFPUD, LOCATED IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP N 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a CONSISTING OF 15.93f ACRES, AND BY PROVIDING AN M EFFECTIVE DATE. 7 WHEREAS, Richard D. Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A., representing The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc. and Florida Community Bank, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 3, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from the RSF-1 Zoning District to a Community Facility Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) Zoning District, known as The Heavenly CFPUD, in accordance with Exhibits A through 1, attached hereto and incorporated herein and by reference made part hereof The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. Page l of 2 Packet Pg. 1552 9.A.5.d SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this;q day of AtA_'_c , 2009. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWjG tf"9. DOCK, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Jan . ' BY: 0 I�e uty Clerk DONNA FIALA, Chairman f1EQ114��'`OA i ■ Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: eidi Ashton-Cicko Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A - List of Permitted Uses Exhibit B - Development Standards Exhibit C - Master Plan Exhibit D - Legal Description Exhibit E - List of Requested Deviations o Exhibit F - List of Developer Commitments a Exhibit G — Graphic Depiction & Guide of Vertical Building Height Exhibit G-I- Graphic Depiction & Guide of Vertical Building Height -Tract B Exhibit H — Conceptual Architectural Rendering Exhibit I Conditions of Approval This ordinance filed with the Sec e�tary of St te's Office_ the dory of �`� CP108-CPS-00840160 2/25/09 HFAC and acknowledgement akrhat fi[i racc#Yedis this 4 day of Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 1553 9.A.5.d HEAVENLY COMMUNITY FACILITY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CFPUD) EXHIBITS A through I March 25, 2009 Packet Pg. 1554 9.A.5.d EXHIBIT A GENERAL: Development of the Heavenly CFPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Ordinance ar applicable sections and parts of the Land Development Code (LDC) and Growth Management Ph (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order, such as, but not limited to fin subdivision plat, final site development plan, excavation permit, and preliminary work authorization, i which such regulations relate. a 0 (TRACT A) a 21 PERMITTED USES: M No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or i M part, for other than the following: M N O A. Principal Uses: T O N 1. One house of worship with a maximum seating capacity of 1,000 individuals. (See Exhibit 1 a Tract A, Commitment Number 6). M M CD M B. Accessory Uses: L Religious Educational Classrooms and Chorus Rehearsal Room 2. Social/Meeting and Fellowship Center 3. Administrative Offices 4. Child/Adult Day Care / Pre-K/Kindergarten / School, limited to I" through P; with no mor than a combined cumulative total of 220 students/individuals enrolled/attending for the entir, CFPUD. The allocation to Tract A shall be 170, but may be increased by mutual agreemen of the Tract A and B owners [if in different ownership] provided the total number o students/individuals for the entire CFPUD does not exceed 220. 5. Non-commercial accessory uses characterized by civic group meetings such as The Piny Ridge Civic Association, Scouting, community service organizations (e.g. the Naples Parkinson's Association), safety fairs for the community and the like; and structure: customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures; except that parkin garages are prohibited. Business and trade activities, including but not limited to a "market,' "community market," direct marketing outlet or "farmers' market," are not accessory use: associated with the permitted principal uses and structures. C. Temporary Uses: 1. Temporary building structures may be utilized to accommodate existing uses in the initial redevelopment construction transition period. Such uses shall not begin until after the property owner applies for a building permit for the first new permanent building and the maximum period of use of such temporary building(s) shall be for a period of 27 months, after the building permit is issued for the first new permanent building. Any such building(s) shall meet CFPUD setbacks requirements for new structures. March 25, 2009 , Packet Pg. 1555 9.A.5.d (TRACT B) PERMITTED USES: No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or i part, for other than the following: A. Principal Use: In 1. One House of worship with a maximum seating capacity of 200 individuals. Accessory Uses: 1. Religious Educational Classrooms and Chorus Rehearsal Room 2. Social/Meeting and Fellowship Center 3. Administrative Offices 4. Child/Adult Day Care / Pre-K/Kindergarten / School, limited to I" through 3`d; with no mot than a combined cumulative total of 220 students/individuals enrolled for the entire CFPUf The allocation to Tract B shall be 50, but may be reallocated to Tract A by mutual agreemer of the Tract A and B owners [if under different ownership] provided the total number c students/individuals for the entire CFPUD does not exceed 220. 5. Non-commercial accessory uses characterized by civic group meetings such as The Pin Ridge Civic Association, Scouting, community service organizations (e.g. the NapleE Parkinson's Association), safety fairs for the community and the like; and structure customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures; except that parkin, garages are prohibited. Business and trade activities, including but not limited to a "market, "community market," direct marketing outlet or "farmers' market," are not accessory use associated with the permitted principal uses and structures. i1; a March 25, 2009 Packet Pg. 1556 9.A.5.d EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TRACT A Together with the text that follows below are the development standards for land uses within Tract A of th CFPUD Subdistrict. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the site development plan (SDP). PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES MINIMUM LOT AREA 14± acres N/A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 538 ft. N/A MINIMUM YARDS (from right-of- way line abutting the property) Existing The greater of 30 ft. or the zoned height SPS of structure. SPS Expanded buildings(S) 50 ft. for expanded portion New structures 200 ft.; except, 50 ft. from Trail Boulevard SPS MINIMUM YARDS (between tracts) _ Side 30 ft. SPS MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN The greater of 15 ft. or'/Z the sum of the SPS STRUCTURES zoned building heights MAXIMUM ZONED HEIGHT 35 ft. 35 ft. MAXIMUM ACTUAL HEIGHT 50 ft. 50ft. MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES New 2(3) 2 Existing/Expanded I SPS MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 2,500 sq. ft. 400 sq. ft. MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE House of Worship(6) 28,000 sq. ft. Accessory Uses(7) (9) 40,000 sq. ft. Circulation/Maintenance/Storage 12,000 sq. ft. PRESERVE SETBACKS 25 ft. 25 ft. SPS= Same as Principal Structure Includes the vertical distance between the finished floor elevation and the average center line elevation of abutting roads, which is estimated to be between 4 feet and 5 feet. (2) Maximum actual height of the house of worship may be exceeded by up to 40 feet by non occupiable building elements, singularly or in combination, such as a steeple, cupola, religious symbol or other excluded height permitted by LDC Subsection 4.02.01.D.1, as may be amended March 25, 2009 Packet Pg. 1557 9.A.5.d The maximum combined square footage of such building elements shall be 4,000 square fee See Exhibit G for graphic depiction of vertical elevation measurement. c3) Exclusive of mezzanines, loft areas and attic or attic storage areas. (4) Should both Tract B and Tract A be in the same ownership, then the permitted intensity shall be aggregated, provided that in no event shall the square footage of all structures within the bounde of the CFPUD exceed 96,000 square feet. (5) Expansions which add square footage to any existing individual building are limited to cumulative maximum of 20% of the building's square footage as of the date of PUD approval. , o signed and sealed survey of the existing building(s) proposed for expansion and an addition, a exhibit prepared by and signed and sealed by a professional engineer, which depicts the propose c and all prior expansions since the date of PUD approval, shall be submitted with the associate R SDPA and building permit applications. _ (6) House of worship square footage not utilized shall be available for religious educations M classrooms. o (7) The maximum area of an individual room shall be 12,000 square feet. o (g) 04 Listed setback is for all principal and accessory structures. Setback provisions, relative t a preserves, for parking lots, sidewalks and other site improvements shall be governed b M applicable LDC provisions in effect at the time of SDPA application. M (9) The Child/Adult Day Care/Pre-K/Kindergarten/School use shall be located a minimum of 20, feet from West Street, Ridge Drive and Myrtle Road. TO <<ot Buildings located outside of the "church campus building envelope" depicted on the Master Play shall be limited to 25 feet in height. A. Buffers 1. All perimeter landscape buffers shall be installed with the first SDP for a new permanen building or with the SDP that provides for the relocation of the lake. 2. All required buffer trees along Myrtle Road, Ridge Drive and West Street shall be Quercu: virginiana, provided in 65 Gallon containers 14 feet height and are to be Florida #1 or Floridz Fancy. Street trees are to be planted on 30 feet center. Quercus virginiana is to be planted minimum of 10 feet from the center line of the required planting bed towards the adjacen ROW and is specifically not to be planted within the required 6 feet wide shrub planting bec specified below. Trail Blvd. buffer trees shall be Roystonia regia (Royal Palms) as provided fol in deviation #3. 3. The maximum water management area within the combined frontage buffers of Tracts A and B shall be 50%; and the maximum width of the water management use shall not exceed 70% of the buffer's depth. 4. (a) The hedge component of the continuous perimeter LDC Type D landscape buffer abutting West Street and Myrtle Road (extending to the driveway on Myrtle Road) shall be installed with a minimum height of 5 feet, spaced 4 feet on center and grown and maintained to a minimum height of 12 feet above grade of any adjacent berm; and a 6 foot black or green clad chain link fence shall be hidden within this double hedge row. March 25, 2009 Packet Pg. 1558 9.A.5.d (b) Along West Street the hedge shall be maintained at a minimum height of 12 feet exce that portion abutting Tract B which shall be maintained at a minimum height of 6 feet. (c) Along Ridge Drive and Myrtle Road the hedge shall be maintained at a minimum height c 6 feet except for that portion adjacent to Myrtle Road described above which shall t maintained at a minimum height of 12 feet. (d) Along Trail Boulevard, the hedges shall be 2 feet in height at the time of planting an maintained at three feet in height except for sight distance triangles, which shall be maintame o at 30 inches. a B. Parking Lot Lighting Pole lights shall be restricted to a maximum of 16 feet in height, measured to the top of the emittin M fixture, and their use shall be further restricted to interior parking lots and at ingress -egress drive! N Campus lighting shall be limited to bollards, landscape and building lighting fixtures. Bollards sha. c have a maximum height of 48 inches. 0 N C. Existing Ingress — Egress Driveways a M Existing driveways will be eliminated or reconfigured, as depicted on the CFPUD Master Plan, as th tracts are redeveloped. D. Open Space The project will provide and maintain a minimum of 30% of gross project area [i.e. not less that 4.8tacres] as open space. Open space includes but is not Iimited to landscape buffers, interio landscaping, building foundation landscaping, dry water management areas and lakes. At the time of build -out, and thereafter, the project shall provide and maintain a minimum of 40% of th( gross project area [i.e. not less than 6.3± acres] as open space. Build -out, relative to this provision, shal be the time when 80,000 square feet of structures exist within Tract A. E. Water Management The existing 3.3f acre borrow pit lake, shall be reconfigured and relocated as depicted on the CFPUE Master Plan. The project shall provide the greater of (1) the capacity required by water management design standards for a 3 day, 25 year storm event, (2) the capacity of the existing lake, or (3) the capacity required by water management design standards at the time that development order approval is sought. Capacity may be met, in part, with dry water management areas. The surface water management system shall be designed such that no surface water runoff or discharge is directed towards or into the Pine Ridge surface water management system including adjacent roadside swales to the north, east and south. The surface water management system shall be a zero discharge system or the discharge shall be routed through the project to the west, through existing or new drainage facilities in Trail Boulevard, Tamiami Trail North (SR-45) and then ultimately to the Gulf of Mexico. March 25, 2009 Packet Pg. 1559 9.A.5.d Water management areas required for the existing facilities that are to remain, including those with Tract B, may be met by the facilities and capacity in Tract A. These areas of existing facilities may I located outside of the Tract A management containment berm provided that compensating wat management areas for the acreage have been provided. Tract B shall be integrated into the master wat management system if and when Tract B is redeveloped. The minimum lake setback from the CFPUD boundary, as measured at control elevation, shall be feet. See fencing and associated landscape installation standards within this Ordinance. Subject to final jurisdictional agency permitting, the designed capacity of the proposed storm watt o management system shall at a minimum provide for the following noncumulative developmej a_ standards: pretreatment of not less than the first half inch of rainfall over the project's entire imperviol area, and the greater of 150% of water quality base requirement (not less than 2.5 inches over the entii a project's impervious area) within dry water management areas and not less than 1.5 inches over tr entire project. The balance of the project's stormwater management capacity shall provide compensator M water quality for the portion of West Street adjacent to the project. M N O The West Street roadside swale and one or more abutting roadside swales shall be redesigned to allo, r run off from the existing roads adjacent to the project to flow through the project to the outfall route J The outfall route shall be designed to accept these additional flows. a M Parking spaces fronting buffer and landscape areas shall utilize the Land Development Cod M development standard that permits vehicular overhang to lessen the amount of pavement and therefor reduce impervious area. The plaza area located between the central campus buildings and the campus perimeter sidewalk and/c curb shall be a minimum of 50% pervious. F. Flat roof prohibition. Flat roofs shall not be utilized as a primary or principal roof component, as depicted in Exhibits G ani H. Flat roofs may be utilized for secondary roof areas when hidden from view by the use of articulate( architectural elements which create and provide for an articulated roof line. G. Project Phasing. The attached Master Plan depicts the redevelopment of Tract A. It is understood that the redevelopmen is likely to be realized over a number of phases which will likely include the retention of one or mon existing buildings and their associated improvements between phases. H. Preserve. The minimum required native vegetation for this site is 44 native trees (for the previously developer portion of this site) and a minimum of an additional 0.12 acres of created preserve (15% of the existing 0.8 acres of native vegetation). The location of the 44 trees shall be within the perimeter landscape buffer along West Street and Myrtle Road. The location of the created preserve shall be identified at the time of review and approval of the first SDP. 1. Parking Space Requirements and Restrictions. March 25, 2004 Packet Pg. 1560 9.A.5.d The minimum parking spaces provided shall be 3 for each 7 seats within the house of worship. The shall be no additional parking requirements for the additional uses. The maximum number of vehicul parking spaces, exclusive of loading and drop-off parking areas shall be 500. Should Tract B and Tra A be in the same ownership, then the permitted parking intensity for the combined Tracts shall 1 aggregated. Hours of Operation Restrictions: 1. Child care and School: between 6:30 am and 6:30 pm, Monday through Friday; fc operational hours. Normal operational hours may be exceeded until 9:30 p.m. up to 4 times per month for accommodation of special functions. 2. Adult care: between 6:30 am and 8:30 pm. 3. Non -worship use of the facilities: between 7.30 am and 10:30 pm. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TRACT B Together with the text that follows are the development standards for land uses within Tract B of this CFPUD Subdistrict. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the site development plan (SDP). PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES MINIMUM LOT AREA 1.9± acres N/A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 236 ft. N/A MINIMUM YARDS Front Existing The greater of 30 ft. or the zoned height of SPS structure. SPS Expanded buildings �7� 50 ft. for expanded portion SPS New structures 50 ft. Side SPS Existing 20 ft. New structures 30 ft. MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN The greater of 15 ft. or the sum of the SPS STRUCTURES zoned building heights MAXIMUM ZONED HEIGHT 35 ft 35 ft. MAXIMUM ACTUAL HEIGHT 45 ft. 45 ft. MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES 2(3) 2 MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 2,500 sq. ft. 400 sq. ft. a d d x M N M N O O O 0 N J a M M O M Z March 25, 2009 IQ Packet Pg. 1561 9.A.5.d MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE House of Worship (5) 5,600 sq. ft. Accessory Uses and Circulation/ 10,400 sq. ft. (of Maintenance/Storage which a maximum 2,000 sq. ft. may bi circulation and - I storage) _ SPS= Same as Principal Structure a Includes the vertical distance between the finished floor elevation and the average center line C elevation of abutting roads, which is estimated to be between 4 feet and 5 feet. R (2) Maximum actual height may be exceeded by up to 7 feet by one non -occupiable buildir = element, such as a steeple, cupola, or religious symbol. The maximum combined footag square of such building elements shall be 2,000 sf. M o (3) Exclusive of mezzanines, loft areas and attic or attic storage areas. 0 (4) Should both Tract B and Tract A be in the same ownership, then the permitted intensity shall be o a aggregated. (5) House of worship square footage not utilized shall be available for accessory uses. to (6) The maximum square footage of any individual room shall be less than the square footage of the house of worship. •L (7) Expansions which add square footage to any existing individual building are limited t M cumulative maximum of 20% of the building's square footage as of the date of PUD approval. 2 C signed and sealed survey of the existing building(s) proposed for expansion and an additionE R exhibit prepared by and signed and sealed by a professional engineer who depicts the propose 00 and all prior expansions since the date of PUD approval, shall be submitted with the associate) SDPA and building permit applications. cg) If Tract B and Tract A are owned or controlled or developed by the same person or entity, the] Q a the Tract A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS shall be utilized for all property within thi c� CFPUD, including Tract B, provided, however, that the total square -footage of all structures 01 E Tract B do not exceed 16,000 square -feet and the maximum permitted heights for Tract B art maintained. Additionally, the Music and Hours of Operation for Tract B shall still apply. a (9) If Tract B and Tract A are owned or controlled or developed by the same person or entity, then will be no direct access to or from West Street. A. Buffers 1. Except as otherwise required or provided herein, perimeter buffers shall be installed concurrently with the redevelopment improvements in their proximity. All right-of-way perimeter landscape buffers shall be installed with the first SDP for a new permanent building on Tract B. 2. All required buffer trees along Ridge Drive and West Street shall be Quercus virginiana. March 25, 2009 Packet Pg. 1562 9.A.5.d 3. Hedges within perimeter landscape buffers along West Street and Ridge Drive shall be grown ar maintained to a minimum height of 6 feet. 4. There shall be no surface water management use within the perimeter buffers. B. Parking Lot Lighting Pole lights are restricted to a maximum height of 16 feet, measured to the top of the emitting fixture, ar their use is further restricted to interior parking lots and to meeting arterial level requirements at ingress egress drives. Bollards shall have a maximum height of 48 inches. Q 0 a C. Existing Ingress — Egress Driveways d Existing driveways shall be eliminated or reconfigured, as depicted on the CFPUD Master Plan, as tf. d site is redeveloped. The two restricted one-way access driveways serving Tract B shall be removed wit = the reconstruction, removal, replacement or demolition of the existing buildings. Thereafter, the ingres: M egress to the Tract will be via shared driveways located within Tract A. c 0 D. Open Space N J a The project shall provide and maintain a minimum of 30% of gross project area [i.e. not less tha M 4.8±acres] as open space. Open space includes but is not limited to landscape buffers, interic cn landscaping, building foundation landscaping, dry water management areas and lakes. At the time of build -out, and thereafter, the project shall provide and maintain a minimum of 40% of th gross project area [i.e. not less than 6.3± acres] as open space. Build -out, relative to this provision, shai be the time when 80,000 square feet of structures exist within Tract A. Tract B shall include buffers that meet the LDC landscape requirements for buffers, interior landscapin; and building foundation planting areas. These and any other landscaped and open space areas shal contribute to the overall open space requirement of the CFPUD. The minimum open space requiremen for Tract B and its associated contribution toward meeting the gross CFPUD minimum open spac, requirement shall be 20% of the gross area of Tract B. E. Water Management The existing 3.3f acre borrow pit lake, shall be reconfigured and relocated as depicted on the CFPUF Master Plan. The project shall provide the greater of (1) the capacity required by water managemen design standards for a 3 day, 25 year storm event, (2) the capacity of the existing lake, or (3) thf capacity required by water management design standards at the time that development order approval i! sought. Capacity may be met, in part, with dry water management areas. The surface water management system shall be designed such that no surface water runoff or discharge is directed towards or into the Pine Ridge surface water management system including adjacent roadside swales to the north, east and south. The surface water management system shall be a zero discharge system or the discharge shall be routed through the project to the west, through existing or new drainage facilities in Trail Boulevard, Tamiami Trail North (SR-45) and then Pelican Bay ultimately to the Gulf of Mexico. March 25, 2009 Packet Pg. 1563 9.A.5.d Water management areas required for the existing facilities that are to remain, including those with Tract B, may be met by the facilities and capacity in Tract A. These areas of existing facilities may 1 located outside of the Tract A management containment berm provided that compensating wat management areas for the acreage have been provided. Tract B shall be integrated into the master wat management system if and when Tract B is redeveloped. Subject to final jurisdictional agency permitting, the designed capacity of the proposed storm wat, management system shall at a minimum provide for the following non -cumulative developmej standards: pretreatment of not less than the first half inch of rainfall over the project's entire impervioi area, and the greater of 150% of water quality base requirement (not less than 2.5 inches over the enti, o project's impervious area) within dry water management areas and not less than 1.5 inches over tf, a entire project. The balance of the project's stormwater management capacity shall provid >, compensatory water quality for the portion of West Street adjacent to the project. The West Street roadside swale and one or more abutting roadside swales shall be redesigned to allo, _ run off from the existing roads adjacent to the project to flow to the outfall route. The outfall route sha M be designed to accept these additional flows. c 0 Parking spaces fronting buffer and landscape areas shall utilize the Land Development Cod N development standard that permits vehicular overhang to lessen the amount of pavement and therefor a reduce impervious area. M F. Flat roof prohibition. Flat roofs may not be utilized as a primary or principal roof component. Flat roofs may be utilized fe secondary roof areas when hidden from view by the use of articulated architectural elements whit] create and provide for an articulated roof line. G. Project Phasing. It is understood that the redevelopment may be realized over a number of phases and may include th( retention of the existing buildings and associated improvements between phases. H. Parking Space Requirements and Restrictions. The minimum parking spaces provided shall be 3 for each 7 seats within the house of worship. There shall be no additional parking requirements for the additional uses. The maximum number of vehicular parking spaces, exclusive of loading and drop-off parking areas shall be 100. Should both Tract B anc Tract A be in the same ownership, then the permitted parking intensity of the combined Tracts shall be aggregated. 1. Hours of Operation Restrictions: r a 1. Child care and School: between 6:30 am and 6:30 pm, Monday through Friday; for operational hours. Normal operational hours may be exceeded until 9:30 p.m. up to 4 times per month for accommodation of special functions. 2. Adult care: between 6:30 am and 8:30 pm. 3. Non worship use of the facilities: between 7:30 am and 10:30 pm. 4. Worship between 6:30 a.m. and 10:30 p.m. Normal operational hours may be exceeded up to 2 times per month for the March 25, 2009 Pa e 11 of 18 Packet Pg. 1564 9.A.5.d accommodation of special functions. 5. Music Outdoor music is prohibited; and indoor music shall on be allowed when windows and doors are closed. The shall be no live, recorded or amplified music of any kir prior to 8 a.m. or after 9:30 p.m. The limitation on the tin for live, recorded or amplified music may be exceeded r to two times per month for accommodation of speci worship functions. March 25, 2009 Packet Pg. 1565 ((`dand) AIuaneaH £Z£ZOMOZ-1d ££9£6) slei.je;eW dnj3e8-uol;e3IlddV - 0)uewLj3 jV :;uewt43e;;V �ci LO o d Yi I I 1 I ' I ' I f ' I 1 ;I 1 I I 1 I ' W I ' 1 J ' { 1 I 1 I 1 I f j 1 I I 1 I On E� ■i ■mm P N F=e� it $_F:91 ON, 9,9AY E 9.A.5.d EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION (TRACT A) FOLIO NUMBERS: 67285160009, 67285280002, 67285360003, 67285320001 Q 0 LOTS 1-7 AND 10-13, BLOCK "O", PINE RIDGE EXTENSION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREO a AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 51, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNT' 21 FLORIDA. d x M N M N O O O O N J a LEGAL DESCRIPTION M (TRACT B) Cn FOLIO 67285400002 LOTS 8 AND 9, BLOCK O, PINE RIDGE EXTENSION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOI RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 51 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNT FLORIDA. March 25, 2009 Packet Pg. 1567 9.A.5.d 1. 2. 3 EXHIBIT E LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC A) Deviation 41 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A. Sidewalk and Bike Lane Requirements whit requires sidewalks within road right-of-way; except that sidewalks shall be provided along Tra a Boulevard and along that portion of Myrtle Road between Trail Boulevard and the project ingress -egret driveway to Myrtle Road. The property owner shall make a payment in lieu of providing the sidewall a along the balance of the abutting right-of-way. The developer shall also construct one sidewal extension from the central building campus across Trail Boulevard to the pavement along US 41 1 > provide access to a potential bus stop, as conceptually depicted on the CFPUD Master Plan. M Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 4.06.05.N. which requires naturalization of man mad N lakes and water management areas through the use of curvilinear edges; to permit accomplishment c o the intent through the use of a curvilinear landscape installation instead of a curvilinear physical contou o N J Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 4.06.05.D.2.a. which provides that no more than 30% c a the canopy trees may be substituted by palms within an individual Type D Buffer to permit up to 100° utilization of palms along Trail Boulevard provided that the percentage of palms does not exceed 30% c the required perimeter buffer trees for Tracts A and B; and, that the palms utilized are Royal Palms; anc that all required buffer trees along Myrtle Road, West Street and Ridge Drive shall be canopy/ shad .L trees. a� 4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 5.05.08.E.2.c. Minimum ratios. Pedestrian pathwa, connections must be provided from the building to adjacent road pathways at a ratio of one for eacl vehicular entrance to a project, AND drive aisles leading to main entrances must have at least a walkwa, on one side of the drive aisle; to permit a reduction to a maximum of five pedestrian pathways to: two (2) to Trail Boulevard, one (1) to Myrtle Road, one (1) to Ridge Drive and one (1) to West Street in thl locations depicted on the CFPUD Master Plan; AND to permit them in locations other than along oni side of the drive aisle. 5. Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 4.06.01.A to eliminate the required buffer between Tracts A and B; provided that the equivalent square footage of the 10 foot wide buffer, for that lengtl not provided, and the associated tree requirement of 1 tree per 30 linear feet, is located elsewhere within the Tract. Should the entire CFPUD acreage be submitted for permitting as a single SDP, the buffer would not be required and therefore this deviation request would not be applicable. 6. Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Subsections 5.03.02.E.2. and 5.03.02.E.4. to eliminate the requirement for a nonresidential development located opposite a residentially zoned district to provide G four (4) foot masonry wall or prefabricated concrete wall located a minimum of three (3) feet from the rear of the right-of-way landscape buffer line. March 25, 2009 Packet Pg. 1568 9.A.5.d (TRACT 1. Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A. Sidewalk and Bike Lane Requirements whic require sidewalks within abutting rights -of -way. The property owner shall make a payment in -lieu � providing sidewalk segments which would otherwise be required prior to the issuance of the first SE for a new permanent building. 2. Deviation 42 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 4.06.01.A to eliminate the required buffer betwee Tracts A and B; provided that the equivalent square footage of the 10 foot wide buffer, for that lengl a. not provided, and the associated tree requirement of 1 tree per 30 linear feet, is located elsewhel within the Tract. Should the entire CFPUD acreage be submitted for permitting as a single SDP, th buffer would not be required and therefore this deviation request would not be applicable. x 3. Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Subsections 5.03.02.E.2. and 5.03.02.E.4. to eliminate th M requirement for a nonresidential development located opposite a residentially zoned district to provide c four (4) foot masonry wall or prefabricated concrete wall located a minimum of three (3) feet from th o rear of the right-of-way landscape buffer line. J a M M M March 25, 2009 Packet Pg. 1569 9.A.5.d EXHIBIT F LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS (TRACT A) l . The initial redevelopment SDP for Tract A shall include: o a. the replacement of the existing lake with a new lake(s) and associated dry water managemez a areas; 21 b. the redevelopment of landscape buffers abutting the lake(s) and associated dry wate management areas; c. the regrading of the right-of-way green space between the CFPUD boundary and edge c M pavement of the four adjacent roadways to enhance storm water management for these roadwa N areas. c 2. The minimum throat length as measured from the roadway edge of payment to the internal parkin, area shall be 50 feet for driveways from Myrtle Road, West Street and Ridge Drive; and, 75 feet fc a driveways from Trail Boulevard. M M 3. For services and other periods and events of significant traffic generation, as determined by Collie N County staff, the property owner shall provide traffic control by law enforcement or a lay .� enforcement approved service provider as directed by Collier County staff, with staffing and a location(s) as directed by the Collier County Transportation Administrator or his designee. 4. The Ridge Drive primary egress driveway will be restricted to a "no right turn" condition. Thi Myrtle Road egress driveway will be restricted and signed to a "no left turn" condition. The Myrtle Road access shall be closed at dusk. 5. A west bound turn lane on Ridge Drive, extending from the egress driveway to US 41, shall bf constructed concurrently by the property owner with the initial redevelopment phase o development. 6. The seating capacity of the House of Worship shall be limited to 780 seats (980 for the entire CFPUD), and the total number of students/individuals enrolled in Child/Adult Day Care / Pre. K/Kindergarten / School, limited to 1st through 3`d, within Tract A shall be limited to 60 persom unless the Tract B owner agrees to reallocate all or a portion of its allocation to Tract A (110 for the entire CFPUD), until US 41 turn lanes serving the site are extended to meet design standards; or a traffic study, based in part on actual traffic counts, is provided to and confirmed by the County, demonstrating that the existing turn lanes are adequate. The traffic counts for this traffic study will be taken during the first quarter of a calendar year to more accurately portray peak season loading measures and will include traffic counts at Myrtle Road and West Street and Ridge Drive and West Street. One year after the seating capacity of 853 for the entire CFPUD and the 110 person Child/Adult Day Care/Pre-K/Kindergarten/School limited to lst through 3rd for the entire CFPUD ("the base") is reached, a supplemental traffic study will be done to determine the trips originating or leaving the CFPUD through the neighborhood. The traffic counts for this supplemental traffic study will be taken during the first quarter of a calendar year to more accurately portray peak season loading and March 25, 2009 Packet Pg. 1570 9.A.5.d will include traffic counts at Ridge Drive and West Street, Myrtle Road and West Street, Ridg Drive and Trail Boulevard and Myrtle Road and Trail Boulevard. This supplemental data will t utilized by the County to determine if additional improvements to minimize impact to 6 neighborhood are appropriate and should be required to address the existing uses and as a conditio of approval for the additional seating capacity of 347 and/or the additional 110 students/individual; The additional traffic improvements may include traffic calming measures. The traffic counts required as part of the required PUD monitoring report shall be done during th first quarter of a calendar year for impacts exceeding those established as "the base" in the precedin — paragraph. o a 7. The new buildings on Tract A shall be consistent with the conceptual architectural renderin attached as Exhibit H. a� x M N M (T R ACT B) c N J a For services and other periods and events of significant traffic generation, as determined by Collie M County staff, the property owner shall provide traffic control by law enforcement or a lav enforcement approved service provider shall be as directed by Collier County staff, with staffing an( N at location(s) as directed by the Collier County Transportation administrator or his designee. 2. A payment -in -lieu -of contribution shall be made by the property owner to the County for otherwis( required sidewalks within abutting right-of-way to Tract B prior to issuance of the first Siti Development Plan for a new permanent building on Tract B. 3. The new building on Tract B shall be architecturally compatible with the new buildings on Tract A. March 25, 2009 Packet Pg. 1571 9.A.5.d 9.A.5.d C BUILDING ELEM& > !. = 52'-0" 2 JAL HEIGHT FROM M ERLINE ELEVATIOI Cl) 7ING ROAD C 45'-0" o ONED HEIGHT IT OF ROOF) o = 35'-0" J (L )OR HEIGHT ELEV. = 0'-0" AVERAGE CENTERLINE ELEVATION OF ABUTTING ROAD APPROX. ELEV. =-4'-0" A GRAPHIC EXAMPLE OF "TRACT B" - MAXIMUMS DEPICTED "CONCEPTUAL ONLY" A Graphic Example of "Tract B" Florida Community Bank HUMPHREY ROSAL A R C H I T E C T S Collier County, Florida ;_:.,, - 3200 9TH ST. NORTi! (239}263-42u1 <i; SUITE #300 FAX (239) 263-4451 DATE: February i6, 2009 NAPLES. FLORIDA34103 Packet P�g.l3 ...�.....�.�_.� F.xhihit ._._a_..._.. a , 9.A.5.d EXHIBIT I CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL March 27, 2009 1. Any plan submitted pursuant to this CFPUD shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Master Plan entitled "Exhibit C Master Plan," prepared by Planning Development Incorporated, consisting of one sheet, dated November 25, 2008, as revised through March 24, 2009, except as conditioned. 2. The access points located on West Street and Ridge Drive, depicted on Tract B of the Master Plan, shall close when this tract redevelops. 3. The required 0.12-acre re-created preserve shall meet County preserve requirements and shall recreate the habitat that previously existed on -site (pine flatwoods), including all three vegetative strata. 4. A landscape planting plan shall be submitted for review and approval at the time of the first SDP for each of the tracts. 5. The property owners shall provide, or shall pay the County to provide, a bus shelter at the existing Collier Area Transit stop located adjacent to US 41, which is located at the stub -out in the median separating Trail Boulevard and US 41 as depicted on the Master Plan. This bus shelter is required to be constructed when development reaches a one percent or greater impact on US-4I, or as a stipulation of Phase Two improvements, whichever occurs first. Packet Pg. 1575 9.A.5.d STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) CO I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for thr" I '7: & a Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, dc��,-, �7 s E hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correctly' m x copy of: M N ORDINANCE 2009-15 O 0 N J a Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners M 0 on the 24th day of March, 2009, during Regular Session. M WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 31st day of March, 2009. DWIGHT E. BROCK Clerk of Courts ar�d ,Q'lerk Ex-officio to Board of - County Commissioners By: Teresa Polask { Deputy Clerk Packet Pg. 1576 9.A.5.d Co -ter County Growth Management Division Planning & Regulation Land Development Services December 22, 2011 Richard D. Yovanovich Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. Northern Trust Bank Building 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 RE: PUD Minor Change, Heavenly CFPUD for Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, PMC-PL2011-872 Dear Mr. Yovanovich: This letter is in response to your application accepted on May 6, 2011 seeking administrative approval of minor refinements to the adopted Heavenly Community Facilities PUD (Ordinance #09-15) Master Concept Plan pursuant to Section 10.02.13.E.8 of the Land Development Code (LDC). The proposed changes to the buffer standards in Exhibit B. Development Standards for Tract A, Item A: Buffers are as follows: 1. Install Live Oak (Quercus virginiana) trees 30 feet inward (away from the street) from the overhead FPL line instead of beneath the overhead FPL line along West Street. 2. Install Black Olive (Bucida buceras) trees instead of Live Oak trees between the lake bank and the street along West Street. 3. Install minimum code required trees instead of Royal Palms (Roystonia regia) along Trail Boulevard. Additionally, the applicant seeks relief from the sidewalk provision the area along that portion of Myrtle Road between Trail Boulevard and the project ingress -egress driveway to Myrtle Road. In support of these requests the application includes a December 23, 2010 letter from Landscape Architectural Design, Inc. and a March 15, 2011 letter from Al Jones representing the Pine Ridge Civic Association, representing the residents of Pine Ridge subdivision. The changes approved to Ordinance 09-15 are shown in a strike-thru and underline format on the following page: Land Development Services - 2800 North Horseshoe Drive - Naples, Florida 34104.239-252-2400 • www.colliergov.ne Packet Pg. 1577 9.A.5.d Letter to Richard Yovanovich RE: Heavenly CFPUD for Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, PMC-PL2011-872 December 22, 2011 Exhibit B. Development Standards for Tract A Item A: Buffers' 2. All required buffer trees along Myrtle Road, Ridge Drive and West Street shall be Quercus virginiana,and/or Bucida buceras provided in 65 Gallon containers at 14 in feet height and are to be Florida #1 or Florida Fancy. Street trees are to be planted on 30 feet center. Quercus virginiana/Bucida buceras i-s are to be planted a 10 root f m the e to line f the -,u_-ed Y=a==t___g bed towards the adjaeent ROW and is are Sp-la-ekwalny not to be planted within the required 6 feet wide shrub planting bed specified below. Trail Blvd buffer- trees shall b Rej,w�enia regia (Royal Palms) as pr-evided for- in deviation #-3-. 3. * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * 4. (a) The hedge component of the continuous perimeter LDC Type D landscape buffer abutting West Street and Myrtle Road (extending to the driveway on Myrtle Road) shall be installed with a minimum height of 5 feet, spaced 4 feet on center and grown and maintained to a minimum height of 4-2 8 feet above grade of any adjacent berm; and a 6 foot black or green clad chain link fence shall be hidden within this double hedge row. (b) Along West Street the hedge shall be maintained at a minimum height of 42-8 feet except that portion abutting Tract B which shall be maintained at a minimum height of 6 feet. (c) Along Ridge Drive and Myrtle Road the hedge shall be maintained at a minimum height of 6 feet except for that portion adjacent to Myrtle Road described above which shall be maintained at a minimum height of 4-2 8 feet. (d) Along Trail Boulevard, the hedges shall be 2 feet in height at the time of planting and maintained at three feet in height except for sight distance triangles, which shall be maintained at 30 inches. Exhibit C: Master Plan The petitioner has provided a Master Plan, dated last revised 4/25/11 that depicts the changes proposed. Exhibit E, List of Requested Deviations from LDC (Tract AZ Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A, Sidewalk and Bike Lane Requirements, which requires sidewalks within road right-of-way; except that sidewalks shall be provided along Trail Boulevard and along that peftien of Myrtle Read between Trail Bettlevar-d and the inb- Rss driveway Ve Myrtle Read. The property owner shall make a payment in lieu of providing the sidewalks along the balance of the abutting right-of-way and that portion of Myrtle Road between Trail Boulevard and the project ingress -egress driveway to Myrtle Road. The developer shall also construct one sidewalk extension from the central building campus across Trail Boulevard to the pavement along US 41 to provide access to a potential bus stop, as conceptually depicted on the CFPUD Master Plan. Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 1578 9.A.5.d Letter to Richard Yovanovich RE: Heavenly CFPUD for Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, PMC-PL2011-872 December 22, 2011 Ail N-1 - Please be advised that the information presented in this letter is based on the Collier County Land Development Code and/or Growth Management Plan in effect as of this date. It is possible that subsequent amendment(s) to any of these documents could affect the validity of this verification letter. It is also possible that development of the subject property could be affected by other issues not addressed in this letter, such as, but not limited to, concurrency related to the provision of adequate public facilities, environmental impact, and other requirements of the Collier County Land Development Code or related ordinances. This letter represents a determination of Land Development Services Department staff. Should you disagree with this determination, you may request an Official Interpretation by the Zoning Director of the provisions of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances and the Land Development Code pursuant to Sections 1.06.0LA and 10.02.02.F.I of that Code. The fee for an Official Interpretation is identified in the most recent Fee Schedule Resolution as approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Approval of this application was confirmed by action of the Board of County Commissioners on December 13, 2011, as agenda item 16.A.6. A copy of this letter and the attached PUD Master Concept Plan will be filed with the adopted PUD documents. You may wish to have this letter and the attached Master Concept Plan recorded in the official records of Collier County as a permanent record of this administrative approval. If you need further information or assistance, please contact me at 239-252-2931 or via email at KayDeselem@colliergov.net. Researched and prepared by: Ka D elem, AICP, Principal Planner Land Development Service Department Reviewed by: Ray dnd V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Land Development Service Department Attachment: Revised Master Concept Plan for Heavenly CFPUD, dated April 25, 2011. cc: Laurie Beard, PUD monitoring Mike Sawyer, Project Manager, Zoning PUD file Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 1579 ((dand) AIuaneaH £Z£ZOMOZ-1d : ££9£ O slelao;ew dnjoe8-uol;eoilddV - 3 juauay3e;;y�:;uewLj3e;;d di y3 a la 7 � R ! ' 1000091,9LL9 ' ON -VS£OOOF9bBZL9 'oN o'loi 500099b9ZL9 ', ON api ! i7 AIIWVi 310N1$ :asn AIIWtli 310Ni5 :asn AIIWtl! ilsms z j 1W e ---�--- -•- --- --- -- ammi 31114 i 1 w v3avtN31435vNdw N31vm ),Ma 1130NVMN3 , z Z p\ b- n 03dVO80Ntll ; fail oll Y 1 Z I y 2 i 1 I ,EM\'a 9 B IL '. tai I ---- --- -- �3 \\ X y V LLLL!! .•,I 1 t E �\ a ¢ Z!Ci a;j i m i ld3 Vi L - \ LL n p � gee 0 0 Lo a d Y V a .. 2 s lk\j�� I ORDINANCE NO. 13- 31 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2009-15, THE HEAVENLY PUD, TO REVISE THE ACCESSORY USES TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM GRADE LEVEL FOR A SCHOOL FROM THIRD GRADE TO EIGHTH GRADE; AND TO REPLACE ALL REFERENCES TO THIRD GRADE WITH EIGHTH GRADE IN THE DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 15.93f ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc. and Florida Community Bank, represented by Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., has petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to revise the Heavenly PUD. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OI =--COMT COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: M' rn- r rn 1 SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT "A", LIST OF PERMTTEP:- S O ORDINANCE NO. 2009-15. CD> aN o Exhibit "A", the List of Permitted Uses of Ordinance No. 2009-15, is hereby amended and replaced with Exhibit "A" attached hereto. SECTION TWO: AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT "F", LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS OF ORDINANCE NO. 2009-15. Exhibit "F", the List of Developer Commitments of Ordinance No. 2009-15, is hereby amended and replaced with Exhibit "F" attached hereto. SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall become effective upon tiling with the Department of State. Heavenly PUDA / PUDA-PL20120001 104 Pagel of 2 Rev. 4/09/ 13 Packet Pg. 1581 9.A.5.d PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of , 2013. ATTEST DWIGHT. $IZI C�I�'tXLERK By: ' D ` t�C perk Attest aMo -- hairn=[ signature oAly....y. ; Approv d as to form and legal sufficiency: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIE C UNTY, FLORIDA B lIJ Y� GVORGTA A. HILLER, ESQ. Chairwoman Attachments: Exhibit A — List of Permitted Uses Exhibit F — List of Developer Commitments CP\ 12-CPS-01 170\21 Heavenly PUDA / PUDA-PL20120001 104 Page 2 of 2 Rev. 4/09/ 13 This ordinance filed with the Secretary of State's Office the LX tday of MQ�-- 9O15-. and acknowledgement of that filin received this _ V%dcy of By—`� beo G1e,k Packet Pg. 1582 9.A.5.d EXHIBIT A (TRACT A) PERMITTED USES: No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: A house of worship with a maximum seating capacity of 1,000 individuals. See Exhibit F, Tract A, Commitment Number 6). B. Accessory Uses: 1. Religious Educational Classrooms and Chorus Rehearsal Room 2. Social/Meeting and Activity Center 3. Administrative Offices 4. Child/Adult Day Care / Pre-K/Kindergarten / School, limited to 1st through 8th 3�d; with no more than a combined cumulative total of 220 students/individuals enrolled/attending for the entire CFPUD. The allocation to Tract A shall be 170, but may be increased by mutual agreement of the Tract A and B owners [if in different ownership] provided the total number of students/individuals for the entire CFPUD does not exceed 220. 5. Non-commercial accessory uses characterized by civic group meetings such as The Pine Ridge Civic Association, Scouting, community service organizations (e.g. the Naples' Parkinson's Association), safety fairs for the community and the like; and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures; except that parking garages are prohibited. Business and trade activities, including but not limited to a "market", "community market", direct marketing outlet or "farmers' market", are not accessory uses associated with the permitted principal uses and structures. C. Temporary Uses: Temporary building structures may be utilized to accommodate existing uses in the initial redevelopment construction transition period. Such uses shall not begin until after the property owner applies for a building permit for the first new permanent building and the maximum period of use of such temporary building(s) shall be for a period of 27 months, after the building permit is issued for the first new permanent building. Any such building(s) shall meet CFPUD setbacks requirements for new structures. Heavenly PUD\PUDA-PL20120001104 I oft Rev. 8/23/12 Words stFU& 113FOtgh are deleted; words underlined are added. a 0 D a c a� M a� x M N M N O 0 CD 0 N J d M M t0 M Packet Pg. 1583 9.A.5.d (TRACT B) PERMITTED USES: No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or i part, for other than the following: o a A. Principal Uses: c as 1. House(s) of worship with a maximum seating capacity of 200 individuals. x B. Accessory Uses: M N O 1. Religious Educational Classrooms and Chorus Rehearsal Room a 2. Social/Meeting and Activity Center N 3. Administrative Offices a 4. Child/Adult Day Care / Pre-K/Kindergarten / School, limited to 15` through 8th 3,; with n( M more than a combined cumulative total of 220 students/individuals enrolled for the entir, M CFPUD. The allocation to Tract B shall be 50, but may be reallocated to Tract A by mutua agreement of the Tract A and B owners [if under different ownership] provided the tota number of students/individuals for the entire CFPUD does not exceed 220. 5. Non-commercial accessory uses characterized by civic group meetings such as The Pin( 15 Ridge Civic Association, Scouting, community service organizations (e.g. the Naples c. Parkinson's Association), safety fairs for the community and the like; and structure: customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures; except that parking m garages are prohibited. Business and trade activities, including but not limited to a "market" c "community market", direct marketing outlet or "farmers' market", are not accessory uses M associated with the permitted principal uses and structures. V Heavenly PUD'PUDA-PI-20120001104 2 of Rev. 8/23i 12 Words StFUCk are deleted; words underlined are added. Packet Pg. 1584 9.A.5.d Q EXHIBIT F LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS (TRACT A) a 0 a The initial redevelopment SDP for Tract A shall include: 21 a. the replacement of the existing lake with a new lake(s) and associated dry water managemer areas; as b. the redevelopment of landscape buffers abutting the lake(s) and associated dry wate M management areas; M c. the re -grading of the right-of-way green space between the CFPUD boundary and edge o 0 pavement of the four adjacent roadways to enhance storm water management for these roadwa: o areas. J a The minimum throat length as measured from the roadway edge of payment to the internal parkin] area shall be 50 feet for driveways from Myrtle Road, West Street and Ridge Drive; and, 75 feet fo driveways from Trail Boulevard. 3. For services and other periods and events of significant traffic generation, as determined by Collie County staff, the property owner shall provide traffic control by law enforcement or a lav enforcement approved service provider shall be as directed by Collier County staff, with staffing an( at location(s) as directed by the Collier County Transportation Administrator or his designee. 4. The Ridge Drive primary egress driveway will be restricted to a "no right turn" condition. The Myrtle Road egress driveway will be restricted and signed to a "no left turn" condition. The Myrtle Road access shall be closed at dusk. 5. A south bound turn lane on Ridge Drive, extending from the egress driveway to US 41, shall be constructed concurrently by the property owner with the initial redevelopment phase of development. 6. The seating capacity of the House of Worship shall be limited to 780 seats (980 for the entire CFPUD), and the total number of students/individuals enrolled in Child/Adult Day Care / Pre- K/Kindergarten / School, limited to 1" through 8th 3`d, within Tract A shall be limited to 60 persons unless the Tract B owner agrees to reallocate all or a portion of its allocation to Tract A (110 for the entire CFPUD), until US 41 turn lanes serving the site are extended to meet design standards; or a traffic study, based in part on actual traffic counts, is provided to and confirmed by the County, demonstrating that the existing turn lanes are adequate. The traffic counts for this traffic study will be taken during the first quarter of a calendar year to more accurately portray peak season loading measures and will include traffic counts at Myrtle Road and West Street and Ridge Drive and West Street. Heavenly PUD',PUDA-PL20120001 104 1 of 2 Rev. 8/23/ 12 Words stwc-k tlFeug# are deleted; words underlined are added. Packet Pg. 1585 9.A.5.d One year after the seating capacity of 853 for the entire CFPUD and the 110 person Child/Adult D� Care/Pre-K/Kindergarten/School limited to I" through 8th 3`d for the entire CFPUD ("the base") reached, a supplemental traffic study will be done to determine the trips originating or leaving ff CFPUD through the neighborhood. The traffic counts for this supplemental traffic study will b taken during the first quarter of a calendar year to more accurately portray peak season loading an will include traffic counts at Ridge Drive and West Street and Myrtle Road and West Street, Ridg Drive and Trail Boulevard and Myrtle Road and Trail Boulevard. This supplemental data will b utilized by the County to determine if additional improvements to minimize impact to th o neighborhood are appropriate and should be required to address the existing uses and as a conditio a of approval for the additional seating capacity of 347 and/or the additional 110 students/individual: The additional traffic improvements may include traffic calming measures. M The traffic counts required as part of the required PUD monitoring report shall be done during th M first quarter of a calendar year for impacts exceeding those established as "the base" in the precedin, M paragraph. c 0 rn 7. The new buildings on Tract A shall be consistent with the conceptual architectural rendering J Attached as Exhibit H. a M M �O M r (TRACT B) For services and other periods and events of significant traffic generation, as determined by Collies County staff, the property owner shall provide traffic control by law enforcement or a lam enforcement approved service provider shall be as directed by Collier County staff, with staffing anc at location(s) as directed by the Collier County Transportation administrator or his designee 2. A payment -in -lieu -of contribution shall be made by the property owner to the County for otherwise required sidewalks within abutting right-of-way to Tract B prior to issuance of the first Site Development Plan for a new permanent building on Tract B. 3. The new building on Tract B shall be architecturally compatible with the new buildings on Tract A. Heavenly PUD',PUDA-PL20120001 104 2 of 2 Rev. 8/23/12 Words StFUCk tlffOug# are deleted; words underlined are added. Packet Pg. 1586 9.A.5.d STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of: ORDINANCE 2013-31 which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 14th day of May, 2013, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 20th day of May, 2013. DWIGHT E. BROC " ' C t Clerk of Courtr. and-•Cj�e??k Ex-officio to B.o' rd°�of, County Commz�` ie�rg' f , By: Martha Vargatal''" Deputy Clerk Q 0 c m d x M N M N O O O O N J a M M to M Packet Pg. 1587 9.A.5.d AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE Petition PL20190002323, Heavenly CFPLID Amendment I hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-41, of the Collier County Land Development Code, I did cause the attached newspaper advertisement to appear and I did give notice by mail to the following property owners and/or condominium and civic associations whose members may be affected by the proposed land use changes of an application request for a rezoning, PUD amendment, or conditional use, at least 15 days prior to the scheduled Neighborhood Information Meeting. For the purposes of this requirement, the names and addresses of property owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tax rolls of Collier County and any other persons or entities who have made a formal request of the county to be notified. The said notice contained the laymen's description of the site property of proposed change and the date, time, and place of a Neighborhood Information Meeting. Per the attached letters, property owner's list, and co y of newspaper advertisement which are hereby made a part of this Affidavit of Compliant e. Shar en our as Senior Planning Technician for Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. State of Florida County of Lee The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before me this 23rd day of June, 2020 by Sharon Um enhour as Senior Planning Technician for Q. Grady Minor & Associates P.A., who is personally known to me. (Signature of N ary Public) Carin J. Dwver Printed Name of Notary CARIN J. DWYER MY COMMISSION # GG 982367 EXPIRES: May 14, 2024 EPF fl ° Bonded Th. Notary Public Underwriters Packet Pg. 1588 GradyMinor 9.A.5.d Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners e Landscape Architects June 19, 2020 RE: Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM); Petition PL20190002323, Heavenly Community Facility Planned Unit Development Amendment Dear Property Owner: A Neighborhood Information Meeting hosted by Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. representing The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc. (Applicant) will be held on Tuesday, July 7, 2020, 5:30 pm at the Covenant Church of Naples Sanctuary, 6926 Trail Blvd, Naples, FL 34108. The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc. submitted a formal application to Collier County, seeking approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment. This applicant proposes to amend the CFPUD to reconfigure the allowable square footage for the overall CFPUD, increase the allowable square footage for the overall CFPUD, remove Child/Adult Day Care / Pre-K/Kindergarten / School use, add outdoor recreational areas, playlots, playgrounds and relocate the church offices from the northwest portion of the site to the northeast portion of the site. The amendment also proposes to add two deviations from the Land Development Code (LDC) to permit a chain link fence forward of the primary fagade to enclose the proposed outdoor play area and to not require paved aisles for the area utilized for grass overflow parking. A revised Master Plan is proposed which eliminates the Tract A and B designations and labels the proposed uses on the plan. One access point to West Street is also eliminated. Maximum sanctuary seating for the overall CFPUD will remain at 1,200 seats. The subject property (Property I.D. Number 67285160009) is comprised of 15.9± acres, located at 6926 Trail Boulevard in Section 3, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. If you are unable to attend the meeting or have questions or comments, please contact Sharon Umpenhour at Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134, sumpenhour@gradyminor.com, phone 239-947-1144, fax 239-947-0375. Project information is posted online at www.gradyminor.com/planning. The Neighborhood Information Meeting is for informational purposes only, it is not a public hearing. PROJECT LOCATION MAP Turkey Oak LN SUBJECT PROPERTY �d�c 0 Pitch Apple LN lRidge I]R Pine Creek LN d 0 z Willowwood LN E m West PL Pineside LN E r G 7 J Arro wheal m LN L yrtle FAD Tanbark p, i a E m m x CO) N M N O O rn r 0 N J (L CO) M W M Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Ph. 239-947-1144 Fax. 239-947-0375 3800 Via Del Rey Ell 0005151 1,11 000515 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 «ti«x' Packet Pg. 1589 o ((v(ind) AIuaneaH £Z£Z006LOZ-1d : ££9£L) sleualew dn5loe8-uolleollddy- 3;uawyoelIV :;uawyoea;y CD Q oiN�8�SS<S'�me�o�mMmmmBM�"��Ro8s�8��""mmmmm�m^��m8��o�e�mmm"mm�8m^8o<8^^<�8�m8�m c os�$mo�o��og��^=��soosoo"8ssm8ososo"88sso$soo soaoaoososoosm000�ss�a sssom8s00000so"8sooa �^ a s osoosoossso osooso s ss ss000sso oss ss sosss sss .AdddddJ,N J,�d�br d ��N.dnNJ,�d,.A d d 2 H H. d.A dNdd.A d, n �Ad� �d�b .ANd 22229 9922d S mS 000000 mSmmm S °°°°°0°°°° ° ° ° °° °° °° °°°°°°°°°° °°° ° ° ° °°° o°°°° °°°°o c °cco°c°cc°c°c ° cc°ccc°coc o c c cc co co cccccccccc ccc ° c c c°c cccoc c°ec° f f............m f ........... f .Nff ff ff f......... f.. f fof f.. f.... f.... zwz zzzzzzzzzz^z z zwzz zz zz zzzzzzzzzz.ozzz z zwz 222222222 ... DD 22222 O"o0000000000o0mo 000000000000 O�oo00 00 00 00000000000,000 ON Om° 000°00000 00000 o 000000000000. 0 0000000000 ao o^omoo 00 00 0000000000a000 o^ .Mo 000a00000 00000 ow00000000oouuu000oo000o0�0 oFoorcoo 00 00 OOOOOOOOOOWO00 0mn orco 00000000 00000 o m0000000000000ou 0000000000— om0000 00 00 0000000000.c000 om 500 000�!00000 00000 mm m mmmmmmmmmmm.Nm mmmmmmmmmmmm m mmmmmmm�mmg mmmmmmmmmmmmmm"m ^mmm mmm mmmmm^mmmmm -¢ ¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ L¢w¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢a¢8¢Na ¢�¢¢�¢¢�¢¢�¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢8¢¢¢8¢ q¢q¢�¢¢¢q¢¢¢¢¢8¢¢¢¢< zg ggggggggggqqqwoN uu.uuuu"u B 4 4 00 00 00- 0000000000mgggag agagygogmguu,u o0000 ....................... aaaaaaaaaaaaa.a.aaaa W¢z¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢z¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢z¢Z¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢z¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢�¢¢¢�¢z�¢x¢z¢¢¢�¢¢¢¢¢�¢¢¢¢¢ > >> >> x x x � x x �x � x x w>YYYYYYYYYYYYY>Y>YYYYYYYYYY'u`n>Y>YwYYwYYwYY>YYYYYYYYYY'uYYYwy>wy'uY>YYYwY YYYYwYYYYY aaaaaaaaaaaaaaamamaaaaaaaaaawaaaaawaawaawaaaaaaaaaaaaawaaawaawawaaaaawaaaaawaaaaa w °1oo00000000000 0 000000000000010°10°00°00°00°10000000000000000°10000°1000000000000000 °owzwwwwwwwwwwwwwzwzwwwwwwwwww�wzwzw�ww9ww9wwzwwwwwwwwww�www�wz�w°wzwww�wwwww�wwwww rcwawwwwwwwwwwwwwawawwwwwwwwwwrcwawawrcwwrcwwrcwwawwwwwwwwwwrcwwwrcwarcwrcwawwwrcwwwwwrcwwwww w rc o rc rc rc rc rc rc rc rc rc rc rc rc rc o rc o rc rc rc rc rc rc rc rc rc rc w rc o rc o rc w rc rc w rc rc w rc rc o rc rc rc rc rc rc rc rc rc rc w rc rc rc w rc o w rc w rc o rc rc rc w rc rc rc rc rc w rc rc rc rc rc a Sa3355555555555a5a33333333�3a5a3a3a33a33a33a5333333333a333a3aa3a3a333a33333a33333 a 91 z s �m �a 4 4 4 4 '4�4�amR44R �444��mq��R44R�rc°444�444i4444�$4i44 �444i4R44 iR4 i4z 4 4i4$ 40 =0>�o8owe0000� '000m o�w�o ooaw000& oo00003<00oo>oog�'0000000�oao��No�jo�000fOoo& Zo m w2 ova w oLLo�w�dow°oLL �_a=Jurc « uia 3rcLLw wowdaw rcw wpLLSwdw °� mdw� LLW wFLLwzoLLddLLW� LLLLaUozwwfO��`dYdd�wdddg�dddddwd�m LLdLL�WzjLLdddddddiLL�LLz iLLrc doLLdd�wLL� �zw �w" m�wzwwwwzmwwwwaw-ww�FLL.=Fwwwp-.>.OrcyNy"amwwwwwwwwwwQJ�wmwYwNc°iJzwwwwLLwz z ^two » oawww �wwwwwww z¢wwww x>zowwwwwwww owrcwza zwwww>wz ~zZazm��aaaaokaaaz2'oxzzo�u�¢w¢¢a'¢¢¢¢'d¢¢¢¢¢¢Y¢�z¢¢¢¢ao �a z¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢w¢o¢cai¢�a ¢w¢¢°w ¢¢¢Ymiw H°mzzzzoazzzs�mLLmm°3mzwzzamzzzmzzzzzz5zOazzzzmam>zzzzzzzzaz°zmzwz3>zwzzz53 ° a = o >Y 3z o z '< z wF a r °N rc rc rc 3 �j z _ °o 3 o 3 m ' ° o `° m ¢ F o m °w m'0 r¢ rcuz xza =< rv$o, �w or rc� xg or mm a o oo' N w c m� fm �a ° z? _LLw QQo Kpa zmm w o a 2 ? wa KN �j o m 5 a rc u w w �rc rc w° o �< o �U gm'e N rco r w3 w' w zN rrc �o I N 3 r w Mc �mo� ozi� > rc� M z mw �> ° w� w °w o 6Nrc 2 orc rcU > ° �BWZg 8wwL orc > o Wore wogLorcrc O> z U� wOZ o2 #N ai �w zowYzN>�Yc�° 000UwQrcLLzzQ�Qo�w�zwao��ti�000w?zomoau, o'o'w�moo��goi� avow°¢mij orco�oYi °x m am °za ware "wzmrcrcrcwQ><rc�rcrcaoz>mg��aaarcow�o °o o>m ZzZ �rc�xorc¢-rcw G rcw WrcrcZrc.,zrc �ZwmUKKomUZm rcjj - rcw0 mz aw6Zw� o rc�wm mm�mN momY iwFwwrc rcNm¢cxmww Jwmwm�Wwim�aJ-°ou�ox¢¢ - am 3Urc_ °Yamwmz3m2 x¢rc zomjzzozxozw5a rc oow5 a z°z�zo kz�z°zowzxiwJ�>wrc� iiwYwiwwwwLL qw �rc-�zozwrcz m m�oo�zw ��°m o�3�o�°3°°>°kw�3�o��rc��iwm��m-3¢�m�iL5 ZF ,-H. cai33awFw>mwMrc�rc��a� maav ASm �aa �zo �rczau�z �a ^�8m'�z9m,a�weo� `Oo mb Smo�a�WSawB� " �NmmN "mm�m ��m¢mmN�mm" mN�mmm �o^m" m¢ "e rc�� mmmc-,wm mmmerc�" mm m w m I I F z a I a o� > w wzw a W F > �zo g i �F aw o �� wy mrc a z a z o I zwx w n x w-> w o Iwm ° °w �wma� w wz rc�m° mrc z 4w F Z., Owmrc u ¢ W Z O rc V wr�nurc> �jsw ow-z a a z3 w�5 oro >3> �> two>mz°rc °tlo > wi ,e_aw mfy orw xz o rc ¢rc2i ,� �¢wm roY >>N rcm�� orc ww ¢ 2Wx rcrc>orc w wm > ww ox�m §m wu Zrcw� �rcx� ��m¢rcwwrcrc ¢> wz gw°12m o um irc�wz ma u- rc z o orc Jo=o qw°r LLNOF z > fix - qrc rcwrcm �wYrc-zse0o zmzetl�¢ rc v¢i�i¢zmo ¢¢ w rc ¢ °z rc a s Orc?°zw� owrc mx �z °_umzozrcw >sa'z mm3:, s� ¢mwm�w� arczu_x5ow�m wmm- rc-wwa i wYxii ws rc�mw�oioxm Om,V�2 ¢wmdorcoaxrcN wowwFg�ZzY¢ °<2 2m�rm�x?rcO cM M.0 orc3��x-.nx .. rmm az3¢LL��a�oo f"VaiiKuj ui O 22TWMR�xw OZ¢<Jm Jz �LL¢ZKU¢ ¢i >= a 0 OJ U awzp ewm w "ez_ �w°w izma°oz > �u Ow¢wzzddirc�wdw - oyw28 �'a o�iiioQi °g 3 rircwQrcg�F�rwxrcrc3Qorcw5 mrczxrcorc�u WOrcF orc » �wzao�za�O as >aw'a33oaaaww$m °o°o°o°o °o �rc rcN¢ S wzrcyaaa'a ��3000rcrc » aaaaaaaxxx50000000�rcaawaauc� rcrc°z a a�aaaaammmmmmmmmmmmmm°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°000e0000wwwwwwwwwwLLLLLLLLLL°°°°°°°°°°c�c�c�c�°°xx o ((v(ind) AIuaneaH £Z£Z006LOZ-1d : ££9£L) sleualew dn5loe8-uolleallddy- 3;uawyoeIIV :;uawyoegy rn Q mi �8Bm�8^<NcS�mccB""�88�8s8888�oe8�o�So�mmWm " ��8NS8omS<Bm^^<8eema<momoe888N8668S�8m�8<`° c� oBooBoos$�so��2000So�2 sssom�2 sSos"BSs�o"BS�osos$oome$��m<m��ss ^g��o°eSo�2o�2 a o�00000�oomo�oe eeew�eeeeeeeeeoeoeweeee�oeo umiary �irvrvrvrvrvrvrvmrvrvrvrvrvrvrvrvrvrvrvrvrvarvrvrvrvrvmrvrvrv�rvrvrvrvrvrvrv�mrvrvrvrvrvmrvrvarvarvrvarvrvrvamrvrvrvrvrvrvrvrvrvrvrvm �imrvrvrvrvmrvrvu' y v'iu5^oSiBmnSinnSiSiu58u5u5Siu5Siu5Siu5Siu5Siu5Si^oSiSiRRRERRR99.RRRRRRRSiRRRRiSiSiSiSiuSSiSiuSuRR -RnRinuRRREm8E RRRSi8ER {6 a og2sggg o00"0�00a0od09 "0a9 "a09 "e0o0o"0as�0 e0a0"0ao�0ga0 a000 "0a0d0g0am0�m0"em0 "am0am0�g0d�0�m0 ed "Iada sag mb mmm^m^mmm9mmgmmmmegmg mmme mem 9�m�mm o mmm 222 0." 00 00 000 UUUU EE m mmmmmmE mmm°mmm°mmmmm mmm°° mEm Emm°°Em EmmEm mm m mm mmE mm°°°EmmEmm i<°°Em EmmE sso. �...... sssssssssssss sssss�sss sssssss��sssss �� sssssssssss<��ssss 2222 2zaz zzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzazzz zzzzzzzaazzzzz zzmz zz zzz zzz------zz-°�zzzz .... mmNm mmmmmmm �� mmm2mommm ��oa�� mm-,m mm mmm � Z.z zzzzz J°�� 2222 00 OwO000000 0000000000000 00000^000 0000000p"00000 00V,0 00 000 00000000o9om do0000 0000 E E�E^EEEEEEE EESEEEEEEEEE. ESEEE^mmm EEEEEEE^^mmmmm mmam mm mmm mmmmmmmmmmm aoammmm SEES o orco�0000000 0000000000000 00000rc000 0066666 00000 oo„o 00 000 00000000000rcmaz0z0z0z0 0000m0000000 000000000000. 00000 O000 00000000000000 oomo 00 000 000000000000 z..o.o rc "8z, mmmmmmm ..mmmmmmm mmm....... �'...mzzzzz..� mmmmmmmmmmm >.... zzmz, oz ^ ozzzzz Nm "' ozozzozzzowzzzzzzzzzzzfO a a�a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaJaaaaa�aaa�aaaaaaa� aaaaa.a z8zozzJaaaJ,,aaaaaaaaaaam �aaaa�aaaa 00 0 0000000g00000000000go 00000m000g0000000gN00000gooZ OZoo oo.Z .......00000 a m0000ggogo ................ .a a.a a�aaaaaaa..aaaaa-aamamaamaaam�aaaaaaaaaaa��maaaa�aaaa aawo aaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaa aaa aaaaaaa��aaaaa as a aa�aaa�zaaaaaaaaaaa��aaaa�aaaa mw > > x x > » > wmwmmwmmmwm ">YYYYYYY>............Ywmmmmmwmmm>YYYYYYY » YYYYY>YY >......Y YYYY » wmmmm>YYYY 8.0. z0000000z0000000000000�0000o�000z0000000zz00000zoo�o�oo�000�z00000000000zz�0000z0000 J J9JZJJJJJJJZJJJJJJJJJJJJJ9JJJJJ9JJJZJJJJJJJZZJJJJJZJJSJ9JJ9JJJ9ZJJJJJJJJJJJZZ9JJJJZJJJJ rcrc wawwwwwwwawwwwwwwwwwwwwrcwwwwwrcwwwawwwwwwwaawwwwwawwrcwrcwwrcwwwrcawwwwwwwwwwwaamwwwwawwww rc w m Y m m m m m m m u m m m m m m m m m m m m m w m m m m m w m m m u m m m m m m m u u m m m m m u m m w m w m m w m m m w u m m m m m m m m m m m Y Y w m m m m u m m m m 55a5a5555�55a5555555555555a55555a555a5555555aa55555a55a5a55a555aa55555555555aaa5555a5555 ^9 4 2e- OR 944 e ale d; �� M �o �4m �� m�°m dY�SoJ;e�R.o 4.o smzS 4.ALLaoom- Wm ouououoJu m°J;o8d AJJdLLALLJm�ooNa�p��yod�� oJLLJ�modwmLLmodwouwozx oupwmQou od��aow>�S'zod �a- ouiAu �JNoc��d �u,JuS�sa�,JuSo�=��0Ju �0d"o�i�0d"�u�u"�u Q3w u^Y�-x4�uR�uJ i>pyQ��iou�e�i�- i�ou 4,ody�mwm4�oJ;mYa moi�3- 4�ou�ouP�ouPiaou5�rz>� i$o�i4d�J ao�l-4mcm$ �o � 0mz<... O.. iOQzo p Z y a wi°wmwwwwZw�m�w�wxLLwwww wSwo�K' �4aoJLL5 Vi�maoa LLm°ou LLJ w p°oo zyww°www°ww OJrcwJwzJo,ZYm > °�aZmzzb]z°zzozSmZzaa_aEaaozzzzz3zzmzzzzmzzzz¢mzzzzazMzzzzzzozLLo3zFLLZ<553�.vwaaa Nmf°om rc U O 0 C a 5 a a a j w ° 0 J y !1 0 U !1 Q m !1 !1 m Z g QQ W x �i w Q m a K mj ZO Iz ` p '�i ¢Z 1J '00 F O m >O 2 �g ZQZ F ZQZ F c ZQZ O F Q H ZQZ �F ZQ FEU' 0- �o > ° F Z m m m em me e� mH m F mo Is W F w U Z 0 CU' o O m0 H O H> > $ m ry F m w i = w z...OQ ~ m^m O EF rvQ g U ry mry u zj$� m zw mm 0 a J ya wEd z> c�wa zZor>rc'omoww rc y a rc a� °rc�aN mz w'Omw�a > z oo—aoao > m i mz a �FoO��w�zi3�QYzwwo=¢o3wa"¢�zm^�mrcozo¢w¢�w¢¢om¢m¢wF~Fw¢¢m�¢��w=kao¢so��xwc1. ai caimuJ��rcoQ3° ¢y OY.�ZZJ.-OZI Wz xU'wm(�WJLLammK-wz VSF�C z.Z-< 22Y W UO J�Wj�i mZwm,°j,aaH F�piaa wx a owxm wF> zrcrcww gYu o rcJi wozxrc�irc rcz ° zzLL�Zrc rcmrc �xmSazym sozwwwoazxiJ o rc3om E o F�a z� zm Sw ��ao>z �zoRlmi�a�' z� z m3oFFz°aa > > zm °tea a - ax EE�m z mo 8o<om mz M ^� z�000 oo a m`"i8 Y�oB wNo„s�s N z3 �rc n agwQQa�zm�o a < mm o��m_m�mmN�m� WN��m�mm�m �^ oemomN�. m.mmm�-wiz �mm�N m�mm�mmm�mm�� °¢� mmm mo m�� j�rJ�z�wmowrcrcw wN>J m��cxigJz�aa�Jza N _ a w w LL§ I ¢rc wJaa�J i.5JzQz J cw�s o z a ,R wzx W. zo-o N o �mrco3w��Yzwxwa��aJ;mLL>�J " w�5 3ww � M <L w 'S W. ,I ¢ o z��a¢ x w1 Z. oi° a> z H mw rcro¢¢rco >womacmox�� w> wzgx z >i�3a�mrcaauarcw awJ �w zzooircx>wo>z �kNyrc�ozwUzom'Sw Jazw��LLjom��°SzFm��w1Joo�zu°" 0 QoW-. rco9Ya$. '� °mi x"z ��zNwaazw� arc°� ofWzw3zW i �ywYam' zTwwaawiIx °�was� �i�a�i=w�wW. o> >w mozom�zz�Nwsw��° arcF m�om �4wz�w xx» zooozzza�c�5zo>o a z_- wZ. oSzoo$�9zSzw��_rcZ zFxxxromz mxaom�z� ((vand) AIuaneaH £Z£ZOMOZ-1d : ££9£L) sleuajew dn5j3e8-uoijeoijddy- 0 juawyoelIV :;uewyoe;;y o gom000g�g`Bao`a om000em vov�ieom `o rv0000000mmgorvmoo m2 o�81 88 o�o88SoSo38SmoBoms88S.888888. S., 0 rc 5 z U as 22222.J 9.1 m S U UUUaU C CCC�� UU U UC C U 0000 C CCCC U U UUU UCU U UUUUUUU UU C CUUUUUC UU f fffmf ffnf f ffff f fff f �fffffff nff a zz-<2 ry mmmm..;a 22o2 2mmm Z zzzz m mmmm Z m zzz mmm Z dZZZZZZZ�dZZ OOOOmOOOmO O ?20000 ^O 000 O rv0000000d�00 K 0000¢Oy 66�6 O W0000 WO 666 O �OOOOOOOM�00 O .... UUOU U ..... .0 UUU U ODUUUU..vo.. » > Y O Y O Y Y > > » » > » Y > » > Y Y » O » �mmmmm 5mmNmmmm�mm mmmm mmmm m�mm�mmmmmmmN�mm 006666W68F66S6s6F 6666� 6q666F6000066- -<8 8QQ z U UUU U UU U U- UUUUN U... ......UN wUU w�w'w------- m mddddFdmFddmdmdFFdddd=FdmdddHdmmmmdddddddmmdd Q QQQ zQF2QQFQFQ22QQQQ 77 WWzzQFQQQZQFFFFQQQQQQQFFQQ X � XWWWm mWWm .>Yw>YYwYwN » YYYY » YwYYY>Yw 0000 W6m QQWQWQaaQQQQmmQWQQQmQWWWWQQQQQQQWWQQ U 00000 0U OOUOUOmm0000 00000 ODUUU0000000UU00 z��z�0000�� CCW 2W w CaWWCWCW- WWWWaaWCWWWaWCCCCWWWWWWWCCWW y -- V my�2- .yam UUmmmm V UKy�mmm V m W W W W KKmmmmmy�y�mm sa5555a5aa55a5a5aa5555aa5a355a5aaaa5555555ELEL 44m� iiiN 44^44�4ai� m m^4i4i4i4� i��`44iii ��a5a¢oo�oAA�oLLA .00�o,m��AaS��,Sz�o� z z o o o oo Sw�5� LLAz��4 �4 �4 �4 �4 �4 -o �5 x�u� mFJ�iJ ow 'wrc� LL9w dddw�o dddwmdwmwddowawddNwFWwddddd dx-w» wuuuu rc- ay wwww�w ..wywwNa��z��xws yyyyyy.ozwww�wwwww arc$ rcwa°www5wwuuwrcw>wuuuuuua�rcw-rmwwwww zzzzxw zzzovxzzow z.30¢¢¢¢¢ O� Ozzzwz3 zzzz z3 ozzzzzzzw.z.�zzzzzz Y Z N F mz Y F I z.O<w U 0 =a 0 U a K - ww' - mH 2 Z K ZZ m m m 6 W. j n m m m F O o . . U4 $ F � o HOC v>,o a¢ 5>w°sma �"a t � �rc�o ¢a.-rc >w ¢¢ oozaYomWw,z„yo�ozoa°oi�wa�mzz'wm om�3 t wl yz o0 �rcrcz'� rcorcmw�rc>rc>w wrcxzww- �°wxmwmma iw`m-mmrc3wrcrc y Nmm��ao mwzww ¢�¢m Frc ma L'azx 3 J ¢ ¢¢ aw rc o y�w��>��w3m ymm 33¢Nw�aYoz¢o¢`mow>¢W��ao�zw¢3>rc3axrNzw>11 z;zw... m Sm��mm�zm m��mm�� m�mm��m s �N >W a w a w w �x a< wI az N a w aN xm F� wWz>m az-w w z 9� w w.- u�i'> wym y°� arc x o oo-•�-w mrcz off zu�,Qorc wma oocwioLL wmoa �w� aa2� z. zomm m waw w< �,w a3wrcrcw�zz?w zYwm z w 3rcw. xmwz�az� w o xzm aO wzomw wOo- zawj��O mpzwazmmapz g om¢2wSwwi�o�ro�r�nrc�o > OOdYY�U Woks iworcrc�Ow ¢rc-•2_i�zw~yE rc ��¢ w�om¢ a ao �z,a> °N��; �; aao>za3 _ orcc°�oaQNW OW�3o 0 m o�oo�LL=awwiYwwwaa? o ocrcjw ZO. za m�-z w R ww?Yyw-i°z ao.00000....wrcxw- o�.owzY� 6 °REOOO HOWO»1awxm5��»'m �a»>zz�awwz ao z zrcrcrcrcrcrcrcrcrcrcrcrcrcrcrcrc WW..........rFrrrr » >3333W » z O Q U O U Q U U w K w z a NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Petition PL20190002323, Heavenly Community Facility Plan 9.A.5.d Development Amendment A Neighborhood Information Meeting hosted by Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. representing The Covenant Presbyterian ( :;h of Naples, Inc. (Applicant) will be held on: Tuesday, July 7, 2020, 5:30 pm at the Covenant Church of Naples SanctL 6926 Trail Blvd, Naples, FL 34108 The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc. submitted a formal applice Collier County, seeking approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendmei applicant proposes to amend the CFPUD to reconfigure the allowable square foot the overall CFPUD, increase the allowable square footage for the overall CFPUD, I Child/Adult Day Care / Pre-K/Kindergarten / School use, add outdoor recreationa playlots, playgrounds and relocate the church offices from the northwest portior site to the northeast portion of the site. The amendment also proposes to al deviations from the Land Development Code (LDC) to permit a chain link fence f of the primary fagade to enclose the proposed outdoor play area and to not paved aisles for the area utilized for grass overflow parking. A revised Master proposed which eliminates the Tract A and B designations and labels the proposE on the plan. One access point to West Street is also eliminated. Maximum sal seating for the overall CFPUD will remain at 1,200 seats. The subject property (Property I.D. Number 67285160009) is comprised of 15.9:i located at 6926 Trail Boulevard in Section 3, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, County, Florida. Tucka}r Dnk LN SUBJECT �PROPGRTY Plmg Crurrk LN 7 E u West PL F,Ine61d9 tH .E H hem 4M Tnalark Q a to �' lis cD for m ive 2 3.s, N he N NO c ird i re N Is a ;es .. lry M M to M Z. :s. ier If you are unable to attend the meeting or have questions or comments, se contact Sharon Umpenhour at 0. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 00 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134, sumpenhour@gradyminor.com, phone 239-947-1144, fax 239-947-0375. Project informs at www.gradyminor.com/planning. The Neighborhood Info Packet Pg. 1593 or informational purposes only, it is not a public hearing. PL20190002323 Heavenly CFPUDA July 7 2020 NIM 9.A.5.d Good evening. My name is Rich Yovanovich, and I am the attorney representing the Covenant Church going through an amendment to the Heavenly PUD. With me tonight is John Hunter with the church and Sharon Umpenhour with Grady Minor, and Tim Finn is the county planner who is also here as part of the process. The county establishes and requires that a neighborhood information meeting be held, as we're going through the amendment process to an existing PUD or for the establishment of a new PUD. With the COVID virus that is in our community, we are doing both live and virtual neighborhood information meetings. We have nobody here from the public at the meeting, but I will go ahead and do the full presentation for those who are participating virtually. If you'll go to the next slide, please. The current zoning for the property is the Heavenly Community Facility Planned Unit Development. And the existing future land designation is urban residential, under the comprehensive plan. The project is approximately 16 acres. And, as most of you probably live in the Pine Ridge community or nearby the Pine Ridge community, you're aware of where the church is located. It's off of Trail Boulevard, which also fronts US 41. You have Ridge Drive to the north. You have Myrtle Road to the south. And you have West to the east of the property, surrounding the full 15.9 acres. The PUD that currently exists allows for essentially two churches to occur on the 15.9 acres. It contemplated that Covenant might, at some day in the future, buy the church that was located at the northeast quadrant of the property. And then the property would be consolidated into one church campus. We're here basically to clean up the PUD to allow for that reconfiguration of the church. And we're also here to do some slight increases to the overall square footage allowed in the church. The PUD currently allows for a total worship space of 33,600 square feet we're increasing that to 35,000 square feet. We're also increasing the overall allowed square footage on the property, which is currently 96,000, to allow for up to 123,000 square feet. As I'll get into some later slides, that's primarily to address a slightly larger area for the mirror of the fellowship hall portion of the building that will be an educational building to allow for little extra additional square foot there and to also allow for a little additional square footage for what will be the relocated administrative services portion of the building. We'll also be removing the child and adult daycare Pre-K and kindergarten school uses that currently. In the PUD we'll be adding an outdoor recreation area, which is currently where the administrative buildings are located. And the administrative buildings will be relocated to where the other church, exists on the, northeast quadrant of the property. We're gonna be adding two deviations to the PUD, and I'll briefly go through those — If you'll go to the next slide, please. The two deviations allow for us to put a fence around the play area where children will be allowed to play, and that is obviously for security and safety reasons for the children that are playing there. Currently, you're not allowed to have a fence, extends beyond the front fagade of the main structure. And we're allowing for a fence there. As well as, the play area can substitute or be used as grass parking, so we're Paget of 3 Packet Pg. 1594 PL20190002323 Heavenly CFPUDA July 7 2020 NIM 9.A.5.d asking for a deviation to not be required to have paved areas in between the grass parking spaces. So, the entire area can be a play area for children. Next slide, please. This is the currently approved master plan. As I had mentioned, in the northeast corner, which was formerly tract B, that is the existing — that's the second church that's on this site. And I think it's currently being used for another ministry of this church, but allowing for church services to occur on that site. In the northwest corner, which is being labeled as "landscape enhanced prior retention," that's the area where the current houses and offices — Well, they're houses, but they're actually used as office buildings. Those will be going away. And on the next slide is the proposed master plan that shows in the northeast corner, the new church office is. That would be a one-story building that will be architecturally compatible with the current, existing building. And in the northwest corner, you'll see the outdoor play area will, be replacing the, existing administrative offices. On this master plan, you'll see that the overall envelope of where the church facility's gonna be located, the building we're in right now, the existing fellowship hall and classroom space, as well as, the new expansion — the new building will all be in the same area that was previously approved. The number of approved sanctuary seats is currently 1,200. That's staying at 1,200, so there's no increase there. Really, the changes are, simply to allow for accessory uses to occur as contemplated. But, Covenant is in a — I think a unique and fortunate situation in that families with children are coming to the church, and they need more space to minister to the children and youth that are attending this church. And that's the reason for the slight expansion in accessory -use space for that ministry, as well as, for the administrative offices. The traffic numbers will remain the same and, frankly, will ultimately go down since we're giving up the school use and the childcare use, um. And with that, that's the overall summary of what we're proposing to do. If you have any questions regarding the petition, Tim Finn with the County is your contact person, and Tim's phone number is 239-252 — What's the rest of your number? Tim: 4312. What? Tim: 4312. 4312. So, 252-4312 is Tim's number. And if you want to talk to the consulting team, we ask for Sharon at Grady Minor, and that's 239-947-1144. And obiously you can contact John Hunter at Covenant Church. And with that, that's — I think I've covered everything that needs to be covered. And if you have any questions, call anyone of us, and we'll be happy to answer your questions. Thank you. Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 1595 PL20190002323 Heavenly CFPUDA July 7 2020 NIM 9.A.5.d [End of Audio] Duration: 8 minutes Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 1596 M N M N £Z£Z006MId : ££9£6) sleijejeW do)joe8-uopeoijddV - 0 4uewLjoej4V :4uewLjoej4V 0 E 0 0 0 �0 Z N N AF -4.4 7-0 Y it a £Z£Z006WZ1d : ££9£6) sleua;ew dn){oe8-uoi;eoilddy- 0;uewLioe;;Vy :;uewLioe44V vi a Q L� Q) -+- V) O U O O O _U Q O Q E Q Q) I u = I Vf ^� L i.� O Z Q O to s � U � L = D a U N •L W } t O CL = O ~ O � U > O I% U a CL a £Z£ZOO OZ1d ££9£6) sleua;ew dn){oe8-uoi4eoijddy - 0 4uewLjoej4V :;uewLjoe44V q O V Q) � O O 0 • -f� Q -� Q) Q) V) Q) O E 0 Q vi 0 Q) Q) N V) cn O Q) p N ) V) Q) Q) O Q)U� —�� p O Q) o Q U O O n V O � Q� 00 E Q) 4-- Q)p�Q o N N Q)CT N OLl- •O ' �>.O U �� p-�-'- U O Q) O � 0 O O Q) vo Lo O O O U O O O L O O Q U Q)" z � � O N I uc U O � •• a ai ai��v0-� ��p0� V U a �Q:— U E-0 p 4� ��w� CL V ii a a £Z£ZOO OZ1d : ££9£6) sleua;ew dn){oe8-uoi4eoijddy - 0 4u9uayoe;4Vy :;uewLjoe44V o a G C Ua. OA�9 1leJl i a vi £Z£ZOO OZ1d : ££9£6) sleua;ew dn){oe8-uoi4eoijddy - 0 4u9uayoe;4Vy :4uewLjoe44V a U O N U .� O Q 4- _N Q) Q) M Q) Q) i C O Q � Le � ' N X � - � CL O N .*= O Q "- Q)p N Q) N O U O O E O �Vi � ��0 Q) Q)U� „ �� Q) U i i E C +— Q) cn +_ p .� C N E p Q) �o U V)O O p c„ p 0 LO C p U Q)16 U U Q) O Q � O 3 E O N O Q) O Q) O _O Q p Q U Vi > U Q Q) p p Q)_0 Q) Q U O U Q) O Q) °EvN� a) 3� > •- �� a) Q o oQ)o�o� 'o ��°Ln N Q) Eoc� c c O Q) •U 'c "- O O LO {- U vi U CL ��'�� _� NQ) Q p � � 3 H Q) Q 3 � Q O Q O Q) Q) O� U p U Q) .> N c O OQ) O.Ln Q) v) 0) Q)Q �Q) O U� Q O "- V) V) F- U (� Q) •� Q) Q) p Q) Q C* p U O Q) O O O O O, 0) U Q] "— Q) N E V u `~ U L a) a) �� Q)4- �E Q)--��E�Qo Q)� Q)co �� c c N N oc V)—I.-vi c cU �� Q>)3'u O C � Q) C O U -0Q O 7o rl N> oUNQoo°-0 Q0 i-o'o 0 CL 9 CZCZ006LOZ-1d:CC9r0 siLije4eWdn)13ea-uoi4e3ilddV-O;uewLl3e44V:4ueLuL]3e44v r-.. 114L I M / 0. IVI 100009"U9 : oN �Ioj IC=g -� -11-3 1 90008M919 qI-zI Jul Al 710NI5 :— CINIS — AIIMJ 3MNI5 9 Ill`.........._.......L.1..11 ."I— . ..... ....I ................ I i UVOU 311HAN ............. a P 2 1 Zvi I —2 .... ................ ........... .......... . ......... —j IL a IMP Ir -------- 4! 01 0 u 5 I z ........... .................... 2 ja AJUG 3001H ------- - ---- A1IWJ 3MNuor MA Ms, Os 41mi 31D4IS 'T�S-:, 9 P. i coo£Z£Z00660Z1d : ££9£6) sieua;eW do)13e8-uoi;eailddy - O;uewy3e;;y :;uawy3e;;y �,.� 114L �a C L u s x W O CL O CL I 1 ll -d 31 I 11 -d 31 1 I ll -d 31 1 I i._._._._._._._._._._._.._._._._._._._._._._._ _._._._._.._._._._._.-.' J I11111 V 1NIIN3`JVNVIII N31VM AHO 030NWHN3 j 03dVJ40N11'1 :: � _ 1 1 1 1 _ 1 1 1 II a 1 i 1 I II 3 II 3 II 3 1 j 11 --1 31 1 11 -3 31 1 I 11 -1 31 1 —3 li I —j it I —j n i IV 3' 0 3 V U 5 U W� ao Z~Z N W $0. �oQ 5s 3w3 � � W mKJ 0.0�� O �O O O �rc��aIloIIl1W wy�dy Ur�NFO<w 0 - m W y~a0 30�d_n m c N V r LJ £Z£Z006MId : ££9£6) sleijejeW do)joe8-uoi4eoijddV - 0 4uewLjoej4V :4uewLjoe44V 0 Q) C V O D 0 a Q) M N M O (� O O i= a O N � C E z Z Q) c E ,o CL O 0 6 T a) x QW VV vi Vm Q) V V) Q) _ C: 0) �o �O C L V) .� .SQ E .E Q) E E -� O O (jV -� Q) C > c O -0 _V CL-� >, >, O Q0 O O Q V m° ,Q) ,Q) O O O � VV Ln O Q L; � Q) .0 .0 _ _ Coder County 9.A.5.d COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercountyfl.gov 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Hybrid Virtual Quasi -Judicial Public Hearing Waiver For Petition Number(s): Emergency/Executive Order 2020-04 Hearing of the Collier County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners PL20190002323 Regarding the above subject petition number(s), The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc. (Name of Applicant) elects to proceed during the declared emergency with hybrid virtual public hearings of the Collier County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners, and waives the right to contest any procedural irregularity due to the hybrid virtual nature of the public hearing. Name: John C. Hunter, III Signature*: d App ❑ Legal Counsel to Applicant Date:,_ �D� 3fla p * This form must be signed by either the Applicant (if the applicant is a corporate entity, this must be an officer of the corporate entity) or the legal counsel to the Applicant. Packet Pg. 1605 9.A.5.e (CHAPTER 8, COLLIER COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT) A zoning sign(s) must be posted by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent on the parcel for a minimum of fifteen (15) calendar days in advance of the first public hearing and said sign(s) must be maintained by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent through the Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Below are general guidelines for signs, however these guidelines should not be construed to supersede any requirement of the LDC. For specific sign requirements, please refer to the Administrative Code, Chapter 8 E. 1. The sign(s) must be erected in full view of the public, not more than five (5) feet from the nearest street right-of-way or easement. 2. The sign(s) must be securely affixed by nails, staples, or other means to a wood frame or to a wood panel and then fastened securely to a post, or other structure. The sign may not be affixed to a tree or other foliage. 3. The petitioner or the petitioner's agent must maintain the sign(s) in place, and readable condition until the requested action has been heard and a final decision rendered. If the sign(s) is destroyed, lost, or rendered unreadable, the petitioner or the petitioner's agent must replace the sign(s) NOTE: AFTER THE SIGN HAS BEEN POSTED, THIS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE SHOULD BE RETURNED NO LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST HEARING DATE TO THE ASSIGNED PLANNER. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY, PERSONALLY APPEARED SHARON UMPENHOUR WHO ON OATH SAYS THAT HE/SHE HAS POSTED PROPER NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 10.03.00 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON THE PARCEL COVERED IN PETITION NUMBER(S) 0190002323 avenl P D Amendment. 3800 Via Del Rey SIGNATURE OF APPLICAN OR AGENT STREET OR P.O. BOX Sharon Umpenhour as Senior Planning Technician for Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. NAME (TYPED OR PRINTED) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER Bonita Springs, Florida 34110 CITY, STATE ZIP The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this 25 day of August _ _, 2020, by Sharon Umpenhour as Senior Planning Technician for O. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., personally known to me eriie produced as identifi eati4n and who di&did not take an oath. CARIN J. DWYER Signature of Not Public MY COMMISSION II GG W=7 +y lPw EXPIRES: May 14, 2024 o►�s�?•` B6rided Thal NOWY PLOC Ihl W MMM My Commission Expires: (Stamp with serial number) Carin J. Dwyer Printed Name of Notary Public Rev. 3/4/2015 Packet Pg. 1606 9.A.5.e �f PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE HEAVENLY CFPUD AMENDMENT Petition No. PL20190002323 ® CCPC: SEPTEMBER 17, 2020 - 9:00 a.m. BCC: OCTOBER 27, 2020 - 9:00 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 3299 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FL 34112 TIMOTHY FINN, AICP: 239-252-4312 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE HEAVENLY CFPUO AMENDMENT Petition No. PL20190002323 CCPC: SEPTEMBER 17, 2020 - 9:00 a.m. BCC: OCTOBER 27, 2020 - 9:00 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 3299 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FL 34112 TIMOTHY FINN, AICP: 239-252-4312 x -r PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE HEAVENLY CFPUD AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Petition No. PL20190002323 HEAVENLY CFPUD AMENDMENT CCPC: SEPTEMBER 17, 2020 - 9:00 a.m. Petition No. PL20190002323 BCC: OCTOBER 27, 2020 - 9:00 a.m. CCPC: SEPTEMBER 17, 2020 - 9:00 a.m. 3 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER BCC: OCTOBER 27, 2020 - 9:00 a.m. 3299 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FL 34112 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 3299 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FL 34112 g TIMOTHY FINN, AICP: 239-252-4312 o TIMOTHY FINN, AICP: 239-252-4312 Packet Pg. 1607