CCPC Agenda 02/20/2009 S
CCPC
SPECIAL
MEETING
AGENDA
RLSA REVIEW COMMITTEE'S
5-YEAR PROGRAM REVIEW
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FEBRUARY 20, 2009
[CARRYOVER FEBRUARY 26, 2009]
AGENDA
COWER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 1:00 P.M. FRIDAY FEBRUARY 20, 2009
[CARRYOVER DATE OF FEBRUARy 26, 2009] AT COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
CENTER, CONFERENCE ROOMS 609/610, LOCATED AT 2800 N. HORSESHOE DRIVE, NAPLES,
FLORIDA:
~ INDrVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES
ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF
AN OJlGANlZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOlmAOED AND MAY BE
AllOlTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED
BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITI'EN OR
GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS
MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DA VS PRIOR TO
THE RESPECTIVE PUBUC HEARlNO. IN ANY CASE, WJU1TEN
MATERIAlS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHAll
BE SUBMITI'ED TO 1lIE APPROPlUATE COUNlY STAFF A MINIMUM
OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO TIlE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL
USED IN PRESENT ATJONS BEFORE THE cepc WILL BECOME A
PERMANENT PART OF TIlE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR
PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, IF
APPUCABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISfON OF mE CCPe
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERT AmINO
THERETO, AND TIJEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A
VERBATIM RECORD OF mE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH
RECORD INCLUDES TIlE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON
WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. FIVE YEAR. REVIEW OF THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM PHASE II REPORT
PREPARED BY THE RURAL LANDS STEW ARDSHlP AREA REVIEW COMMIDEE, DATED
JANUARY, 2009.
4. ADJOURN
~
2l2Q109 CCPe All~
c
c :Ount:y
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW OF THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
[VOLUME 1]
PHASE J REPORT-TECHNICAL REVIEW
[Five-Year review of activities under the Rural Lands Stewardship Program]
AND
PHASE II REPORT- REVIEW OF THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY
(Five-Year review and recommendations to increase the effectiveness ofthe RLSA Overlay)
COLLIER COUNTY RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY
OF THE
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
Prepared bv:
Date:
The Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee
January, 2009
Co~-y <;;;:Ou:nt:;y
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
. FlCE, Engineering Excellence Awards, Honorable Mention, 2004
Economic Development Council of Collier County, Innovation Awards, 2003
. Sustainable Florida Council, Award-Winning Best Practices, 2003
. American Planning Association, Florida Chapter, Awards of Excellence, 2003
The Phase I Report also provided the foundation for the RLSA Committee's Phase II
qualitative evaluation of ways in which the RLSA Overlay Growth Management Plan Policies
could be improved to more effectively implement the program's overriding Goals and Objectives
and achieve the RLSA Committee's Project Management Plan mandate to consider "potential
opportunities and amendments to the Growth Management Plan". As a result of exhaustive
public input and expert testimony, the RLSA Committee unanimously approved the following
proposed amendment to the Goal for the RLSA Overlay:
"Collier County's goal is to retain land for agricultural activities, to direct
incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat, to protect and restore
habitat connectivity, to enable the conversion of rural land to other uses in
appropriate locations, to discourage urban sprawl, and to encourage development
that employs creative land use techniques through the use of established
incentives."
The Honorable Tom Henning, Chairman
and Members
January 5, 2009
Page 2
As the RLSA Committee considered this reconstituted Goal in the context of existing
Growth Management Plan ("GMP") Policies, the Committee developed strategies to create
incentives to encourage rural landowners to voluntarily agree to:
eliminate their right to convert agricultural land to non agricultural uses In
exchange for compensation:
. retain agriculture within Open Lands as an alternative to conversion of such lands
using Baseline Standards (and thereby reduce the size of the "development
footprint" and the threat of urban sprawl in the RLSA Overlay):
. create, restore and enhance panther corridor connections;
restore flow ways and habitat through a credit generating system that considers
cost, difficulty and benefit value of each restoration type through a newly adopted
tiered system;
impose a cap of 45,000 SRA acres in the RLSA Overlay and rccalibrate 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 JI 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 JI
Report. Volume I of the Report is organized and respectfully submitted in the following sections:
The Honorable Tom Henning, Chairman
and Members
January 6,2009
Page 3
. Phase I Report previously delivered to you as the basis for our qualitative
evaluation of ways to more effectively implement the RLSA Goal and Objectives.
. Phase 2 Report, Section 1 contains the RLSA Committee's recommended
substantive policy amendments.
Phase 2 Report, Section 2 contains all of the RLSA Committee's recommended
policy amendments, whether substantive or insubstantial.
. Phase 2 Report, Section 3 contains the supporting documentation for the
amendments.
. Phase 2 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:
I. Achieve a balance of natural resource protection, agriculture and sustainable community
development at the planning horizon year and at build-out.
2. Provide new and meaningful economic incentives for agriculture to remain as a viable
component of the economy of Collier County.
3. Increase the total area of lands expected to be placed into Stewardship Sending Areas
from 92,000 acres to 134,300 acres.
4. Enable protection and restoration of critical natural resources on private land usmg
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 1/4 of the
total RLSA; or 15% when open space within new communities is accounted for.
7. Reduce the potential for conversion of open lands to non-RLSA baseline development,
thereby reducing urban sprawl.
8. Accommodate forecasted population growth in a substantial manner and ensure that
supporting public facilities, services, and infrastructure are provided.
9. Create new opportunities to site economic development driven new businesses in
proximity to places for employees to live.
10. Accommodate a long range interconnected transportation network plan that serves
Eastern Collier County.
The Honorable Tom Henning, Chairman
and Members
January 6,2009
Page 4
Volume II of the Five Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program includes all
support information including major documents, presentations, minutes, etc. considered by the
Committee during the course of its twenty three [23] public meetings.
Finally, immediately following this transmittal letter is an overview of the RLSA
Supporting Documentation [see Phase 2 Report, Section 3] which was presented to the
Committee.
Given that the RLSA Committee's work effort has resulted in specific recommended
policy amendments to improve the RLSA program, and in keeping with the Board's vote to
expedite the review process, the RLSA Committee recommends and respectfully requests that the
Board of County Commissioners initiate a special cycle for Growth Management Plan RLSA
Overlay amendments to consider the recommendations found within the Phase II Report.
We appreciate the opportunity to serve the Board of County Commissioners and stand
ready to proceed in whatever way you believe best serves the people of Collier County.
r~ your; /J
'.' 'Y'" '/yvv<-!-vY
~ -- -. ,
/RonH \
Chainnan, Rural Lands Stewardship Review Committee
cc: County Manager James V. Mudd
...
ca
~
ca 5
J: .~
~ ...
~ 0
:I: .
C "C C
.!!!Q).!!!
Q. J: c..
"tn_
..., .- c
'o,:c Q)
Q) ca E
- -
ca tn Q)
.QQ)C)
tn Q) ca
E J: C
..._ca
Q).n::E
"i'NJ:
C)o -
C N ~
0-0
-0'"
ca...C)
tnca~
.- G) ....,
~~C
ca C ~
i: 0 0
~.~ (.)
O ... ...
o Q)
.c=
<C C)O
CJ)C(.)
...I ._
O:::CQ)
Q)CJ:
_ca-
--c
I- Q.._
~
u
== Q)
OJ:
c..1-
- .
...0
caan
~~
C C
o .-
N 0
-- .-
... ...
o ca
:I: C
an Q)
N U
o tn
N~
Q) ~
J: 0
- I
J:::2
- .-
o ~
.c.c
~
tn:'
Q) ca
- U
ca .-
~-
- Q)
ca ...
> 0
Q) Q) a;
tn:5"C
.- ~
tnca-
~"C U
- C
ca C .-
C ca tn
ca_u
Q) N .-
J: N Q.
I-~.s
E
Q)
-
tn
~
CJ)
-
.-
"C
Q)
...
(.)
<C
CJ)
...I
0:::
Q)
J:
I-
o
Q.
ca
u
~
CJ)
Q)
...
u
ca
o
o
o
-
an
~
<C
o
tn
Q.
ca
::E
-
Q.
Q)
U
C
o
(.)
o
an
o
N
"C
C
ca
an
N
o
N
o
tn
.-
tn
~
-
ca
C
<C
C
o
.-
-
ca
t::
o
Q.
tn
C
ca
.:
<C
CJ)
...I
0:::
o
-
'0 ~
Q) ~
t/)_
&.3
o .2
... ...
Q.en
'0 ca
I: -
ca ~
- Q)
I: ...
~ ca
... Q)
~ (,)
(,) ...
~
~ ~ c:
... Q) 0
ca ... ._
Q.- -
E ca E
o ... 0
(,)~-
- t/)
t/) ca Q)
._ c ....
~E'C
-01:
ca ... ca
1:....
ca '0 ur
- ". ...
.- w 0
'0'1;'0
Q) ... .-
... Q) ...
(,) I: ...
c(Q)8
en en ...
..Jt/)Q)
O:::::!::J:
Q)'C'C:
J:~ca
I-(,)Q.
'0
Q)
'0 t/)
I: I:
Q) en ...
E i~
EQ)I:'C:
o=Q)ca
(,)oJ:Q.
Q) -
...- ca
Q)I:J:'C
". 0 (,) .-
W' ._ '-
t::;J:o
.- ca ~ -
E... LL
E~ci.Q)
OQ)B=
U en _ ....
Q):!:: ~ 0
J:'C0t/)
-Q)'C-
:>..._ca
~ (,) .- 0
OQ)~en
J:_ Q)
t/)cac(J:
~.Qf:t:-
o:=en=
J: ca(,) Q) .;:
t/) ... ~ .
.!! == ~ E ~
~~OEo,
-t/)oeno
caQ)~o...
i en It) ... Q.
I: -.:r Q. _
-ca __
.- J: '0 "" 0
'0 (,) Q) ~^ ._
Q) t/) VI -
... >. 0..J ~
(,) (,) Q. 0:::: _
Q):=0Q)0
J:0"'J:~
I-Q.Q.__
III
::
"
CI)
...
()
0000
0000
0000
c061'-an
N<ON....
....--....-- C")
III
::
"
~
()~
"'0
CI) Q)
_ '-
EU
.- Q)
_ l/l
l/l
.~
'0
~
U
l/l
-
m m III
Q) Q) CI)
'- '- ...
l..l l..l <(u
<(<(
lOl'-N
1'-(')....
(,)0lC")
O)(,)M
(') "'lit
<f2.
o
....--
.....
Q) III
'-'0
l..l Q)
lll.....
'- III
Q) E
0.. ._
.....
III m m
CI) ~ Q)
... '0 m
U Q) Q)
_ '- '-
.w U l..l III
~CX)<(~
(1)(;i~~
"mc~
CI) Q) Q)
_'-OJ
llll..l CI)
E <( l..l
.- <( ..0 III
1iia::::J-
wO)a..t2
l/l m III '-
Q) Q) CI) 0
... '- ...
l..l l..l l..l '0
<(<(<(~
0000
000-
O. I'- 1'-_ ~
lOCX)C")Q)
....--N "'lit '0
Q)
..0
'0
:J
o
l..l
'0
C
"ili III
:;::: OJ
e c
S~ c
00) 2
_~ OJ
5i 0 .~
E m 03
o~ ,,-g
-0) e:J
~ .~ ...Illl m
CI) '0 .~
"Q) 'Oem
~. ~ c CI) c
C:; III Q,'(ij
=l..l'O...JO(j)_
3l .~ c c Cl '- <(m
lll.....lllQ)e'O
r:noc...J .-cO)
cO.!:..!!1O)
'OQ)UlllcO
e c 0..0) E Q) 'E
e III 0 U CI) 0...-
.- ...J ... 0 '0
lllcU<(-mQ)
E Q) 0) C III .- l..l
&!8"~~~~~
~
..c
"
(1,)_
" .-
c"
(I,) (I,)
Eo
E c.
o .-
(J.c
~~
...
~ta
~ ~
... (I,)
(1,)-
>UJ
o (I,)
<C;
UJ (I,)
..JC)
c:: C
(I,) ta
.c.c
_ (J
0"
--
In :J
(I,) 0
C)~
c (I,)
ta (I,)
.c_
(J;t:
"EUi
~ES
ootaE
c.(J
o .-
...(1,)1;)
a..;(I,)
Q)
...
u
C1l
...
Q)
Q) a.
... (J) .
U ."t: J!!
C1l -0 .-
<D~-g
a.u'"
UlOU
..... . (I)
'ON...
~ro=
UU:;
<O(/)"
NUl;,
.....<(.....
C1lQ)....
U..c"ij
,,....... -
- v, - 0
C"I!uo_
N<(Q)O
>- Q) :!2 00
" ..c (J)
-- ....... ....... 0)
oc:JCIC)
ll. .- 0
--o-o~
Ul c c (I)
;!::C1lC1l1lj
~-o-oE
(I) Q) Q) ._
....................
U C1l C1l Ul
(I) C C W
... .21.21
:s Ul (J)
-Q)Q)
:;-0-0
" c c
.;: Q) Q)
a. a.
<00
..c
.....
:J
o
Ul
-0
C
C1l
..c
t
o
c
Q)
..c
.....
c Ul
~Q);!::
~..."C
c U (I)
C1l C1l ...
<(<DU
0::: a. ...
~ Ul 0
:!:: "C
'+- "'0 ";:
o Q) ...
Ul ... 0
~UU
U 0 ...
C1l ..- (I)
o.......c
OC1lC
" 0 Ul I'Cl
.- . Q) "
-~ L.....
0-0 Uo
ll.cC1l0
UlC1l00
:""'_-ogri
"C c "'. N
(l)1!l~"C
uco.!
... Q) C1l I'Cl
o a...... E
..00.-
w ....._
.- - Ul
::OC1lW
o Ul ...
u~-2
... U Ul
(I) C1l ...
..co.g
- 0'-
C M l:::
I'Cl . 0
ll...-u
o
o
o
o . Ul
0<0_
o ~.-
. ..- "C
co .. (I)
N2a..
.- U
" -0
=;..:...~c
o..-uo
..- ,-
ll. c-
- 0 I'Cl
UlCP:;:;O
(I)..-C1l_
- ... Ul
I'Cl Ul 0
E<(U;&
.- (/) Q)
-(/)"'0
Ul_Q)o
WUl"'O
....,.......::J ..
:S'6'S~
(I)~-....
"'u-o~
U c c (I)
C 0 C1l_
0:;:; OJ I'Cl
.- C1l c E
liL-~;
....8cUl
OUlQ)W
-Q)a.
Ul ...
(1)-0-0
0::: Q) Q)
.....
"C > C1l
(I) e E
:u a.:;:;
._ a. Ul
I-<(W
f
"
I'Cl
...
(I)
Ul
f (I)
" ...
I'Cl "
I'Cl
0...
0(1)
o
~ Ul
.... -
....:s
o (I)
- ...
.- U
E
=00
C E
.2 E!
-....
~ 0
..
,- I'Cl
:0:::
"C:t::
~~
InU
000000
000000
000000
cO 0 ..,f 0) ('<) ~
NN'3'ooNO
..-..- ~
-
.....
:J
o 00
00 Q) ~
<(00 U
(/)~ Cll
(/) 0.__0
"0 c"O 000
Q)OQ)~('<)
ooo.(jjUN
Cll :J :J Cll 00
..c -"--' 0 Q)
J!l~oE(/)
0::: .- - 0 :J :=
z"O 000
~ '3'oo"g
"Cll() _Cll..
en ~(I) U
:= E 00 .- +" 00
"Co:J"O'C...."C
Gl...t:: 5 ~ ~.g.!
a:l () .;:: III
UJ!l.,...c():SE
"C 'C ~.Q ~ () ;:
.!~C""':J....(/)
Ill()UJ~:!:Q)W
E Q) >..8 i3.s
;: f/)"'t: VJ'C C S
(/) Cll Cll 2 OJ Cll 0
Wa:lUJ.......<(o...~
~
U
Cll
<(
0:::
(/)
....
(/) Q)
:=0.
"C 00
Gl:!:
""0
U ~
'S()
00
.....
Cll
::1"0
(/)2
<( ~
U) >
U)J!l
"C .-
Gl"O
- ~
u()
,Gl <(
~(/)
Il.(/)
00
:!:
"0
~
U
00
00
'3'
I'--
0)
Q)
....
U
Cll
<(
0:::
(/)
....
Q)
a.
00
:!:
"0
~
()
o
..-
.....
Cll
00
<(
(/)
(/)
OJ
C
C
Cll
E
Q)
0:::
00
:!:
"0
Q)
....
U
N
..-
l.C)
<0
o
('<)
00 00 (/) 00 (/)
~ ~ l! ~ l!
U U U U U
Cll Cll III Cll III
<0"-1'--(,<)0
ool.C)(")ooN
..-<OCON_
NON'3't--
..-('<)~ ~
"C
Gl
(/)
::I
Gl
..
III
(/)
:=
"C
l! Q) ~
U....U ::!2.
U Cll 0
-Cll.... 0
1ll....Q) ..-
c~oo~Cil N
.- 00 :!: c::: "0 '3'
E :!: "0 U) Q) >.
::I"OQ)....-:;:: U
(/) ~ 0 CD E g: '0
(/)()o;:l:;::;......
III '-ooU""'"
(/)oo"-CQ)IllQ>
~~~::~....~~
1llQ)Q)"CuU)O
-:;:::;4) 0
~E'Eo~.!!!Lfi
U)Q)Q)....'ajc::
"CooooOCGlCll
Gl~~iiiQ)o"O
ouu_-cQ.Q)
GlCllCllOu_o.
'0 <( ;;s :Q :0 .s g-
..o:::.......::I:J 0"
Il.(/)(/)U)o...~~
(/)
l!
u
III
o
III
;:~
;U)
ou)
..
o
(/)
E~
0U)
- C
Gl .-
>"C
Gl Gl
"C"C
Gl ::I
c-
._ 0
Gi ,=
(/)-
III 0
a:I c
"C
C C
.- III
.= ...I
III C
E Gl
GlQ.
0::0
~ ~ ~ ~
Iii 0 0 0 0
C! v CD 0
0 .... ~ cO 0
l- V 0
.....
'0
~
0
f-- - f--
III 0 0 0 0 0 CD U)
V
1II 0 0 0 0 0 V CO
... 0 q .... '" 0 ex> ..;
.:l N N '" '" r-: cD
(J) a> ':t ':t co ~ a>
.....
f-- I--- r-
~
<J)
:E
0>
'C
Ql
.~
~ Qi
<J)
III <1l
.c
E 0 -
E - c
c .;:
:l 0 Co <J)
In 'Vi 0 ::l
~ 0
1II Ql 0 Ql
VI > LL c
:::l c - <1l
0 c Qi
'tl u 1II U
C CO E <J)
III ~
...J ~ Co
<J) Ql 0 -C
c( <( 0 a; c
In (/) Iii c. > <1l
...J (/) 0 ~ 1II -C <(
0:: -C - -C 0 C II)
.. Ql J:l c Iii <1l ...J
C <J) ::I <1l :;::: ...J a::
....J
GI <1l II) c .2
... .c c <J) 1II Iii
... ii <( Ql r2 0 :0 0
:l II) C. ::l
(J Z II) 0 (/) 0.. fl. I-
~ >R. >R. ~ ';!. ~ ~
Iii 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 ':t ~ It) 0 LO 0
- .... 0 ~ 00 ..; cO 0
0
I- ':t N U) N 0
.....
'0
~
0
I--- - -
III 0 0 0 0 0 CD U)
0 ~
1II 0 0 0 M 0 V
... 0 0 '" 0 LO
() N 0 .; ..; CD ..;
<( N M a>
(J) ':t ..... V ~ .....
- f-- -
~
III
E
E
:l
In
GI
VI
:::l
'tl
C
III
...J
c(
In
...J ~
0:: ~ <J)
::l
'tl 0
GI II) Ql
.. C
III - .!!1
... - Qi
J:l c
1II u
1\I E <J)
u <J) Co ~
e <J) <J) ~ 0 -c
<( <( 0 ~ c
'tl (/) (/) -c Iii <1l
C (/) (/) 'C 1II
~ - -c <(
1\I ~ 0 0 0 c
-c <.) - <1l II)
'tl Ql J:l Iii
1II C/) ~ ~ ::I ....J ...J
VI <1l ::l Ql II) :;::: a::
'S: .c u .t:: c .2 Iii
ii 'C 'E <( ~ .c
GI 0> <1l II) ::l ~
0:: Z <( fl. II) 0.. fl.
0 <(
- Cf)
~ ~ ....J
0:::
Cf)
..c: Cf) CO
-
u E 0
CO "0 -
0) :J C 0)
'+- E CO ..c:
0 Ox -
"0 '+-
-;:!2. CO 0
0 E 0)
J.!) a. -;:!2.
C") ~ 0 0
J.!)
'+- 0) 0) T"""
0 >
E u 0) 0
CO "0 -
:J a.
E (/) 0) CO
.0 :J
C C C-
O) 0)
E a. .~ (/)
0
CO 0) (/) -
(/) .0 0) C
'- .C
0) u a.
'- CO
.~ -
:J 0 0
C- ~ .E
0) J.!)
'- "0 N "0
0 Cf) 0) 0) 0)
T""" '+- ..c: N a.
0) 0 U '+- 0
""" U CO 0 0)
(/) 0)
>- CO 0) '- E >
u a. '- (/) 0)
0 (/) U :J "0
a.. c CO 0) E -
0) 0 0> X 0)
<( a. J.!) CO CO C
Cf) 0 r--. 0) E 0)
- '-
....J 0) J.!) u ..c:
0::: .0 T""" CO <( I-
-
o
m
-0 c
Q) 0
...... ......
:J CO
.0 U
.c 0
...... m
mQ)......
-o..cffi
~mE
>-~o..
CO 0.. 0
E U ~
m .- Q)
Q) 0.. 0
m Q)
:J -0 co
......0......
...... ...... :J
cmO::::
COO......
~ .0 ~
oEo..
..c >- E
Q) m
N 0> 0
cO
CO .-
:Jm-o
m :J c
.- _ CO
> <( m
m U) Q)
0......J 0>
CO 0:::: CO
~ Q) >'
........c
0........ _
Q) c m
u ._ c
c ..c ~
8i~
0>
C
-0
C
Q)
U)
0.. . CO
.- ......
..c c
m Q)
-0......
...... 0
CO 0..
~-o
Q) c
...... CO
U)
Q) m m
u -0 CO
...... C Q)
:J CO ......
0-<(
m c 0>
Q) Q) c
...... 0..._
CO 0-0
...... Q) C
:J ...... Q)
mCOU)
cmo..
CO .-
Q)Q)..c
...... ...... m
COco-o
......
m c CO
CO Q) ~
~ Q) Q)
CO............
O>U)
c......Q)
Q) ..c ......
Q) .2> :J
......-......
<.9 -:J
m u
~ CO ._
ro~o,
0<(<(
m
Q)
.C
CO
>
o 0
0::::.0
o E
...... >-
o m
Q) Q)
0>0>
CO CO
--
>>
>-
-OQ)= a..
-..c......
:J......co ~
0_...... ,,,
..coc_",
m c..:! 0-0
-ooo-oQ)
c .- > ...... ......
CO:UQ)~g.
- 0...0 m -0
.0 Q) t5 CO
ro-o:J~Q)
cQ)Ec..c
Q) .> :J ......
U :!:: Q) 0 ..c
mcmo:!::
Q)<+=Q)......~
.0 ~ :5 .Q) Q)
.- m = u
m ...... CO 0 C
~ 0 _0 CO
o..O>mQ)"E
Q) .c <( ..c 0
c-oU)......u
o .~ U) >- ~
.......0.......0
:J CO 0 -0 .~
~~~m~~
c \U 0 Q)
Q)-o ......cm
m Q) U) 0.. 0 ~
Q) :J - 0..._ :J
c..~oco~-o
Q) m Q) ~.- Q)
......cN-Eu
~8m~Ee
CO m......-oO 0..
~ 'E ~ :> 0 0
Q) Q) o-o~o
.- c c I
m .0 ...... .- ......
Q)......CO-o:J-o
..c 0 Uo c 00 c
I-c_co CO
- ......
c 0 Q)
~ C N
~~m
>-~ Q)
~..c~
...... u ~
o CO 0
-Q)=
Q)......CO
N CO
.- ..c E
m......:J
- Q)
~ E .E
c :J X
Q) m CO
...... m E
~~ Q)
-o..c
oc......
Q)02
0>-0 c
c Q)
CO >. m
...... - Q)
Q) ~ c..
..c .- Q)
I- ~ ......
>.
eo
i::
0)
>
o
<(
00
.....J
0::
-0
0)
-
0.
o
-0
eo
0)
.c.
-
-
o
0>
C
.C
0)
-0
C
0)
'-
-0
0)
~
0.
E
en
eo
en
<(
0. 0.
eo eo
~~
-
- 0> 0
o c
en c '5 ~
co .- '-
:;:;O):J
o:Ju_
-.00) eo
~~o::~
c en .0. Q5
O)-o.c..c.
EO)en-
E.c.'E 0
O-eo-o
u '- ::: c
0) .E 0) eo
'- -
en . 0 00 en
- '- 0)
0) eo u
2c~eo
;<:~O)o.
Een'-OO
E <( c
0) 0> 0)
o.oco.
() 'en ~ 0
:> en c
a3 00) en
'> 0. 00 eo
O)eoo.~
o::::::c<(
oooen-
I .c. -0 eo
...... ,-'-
o::eneo2
0) () ::: :J
.c.-oO)u
...., +-' .-
COO '- .
c eo 0><(
o fJ) .eo <( ~
~enc~o::
en 0. 0)
eoeoo~O)
fJ) ~ 0. <( :5
o
.C
eo
c
0)
u
en
'-
eo
~
c
o
N
'C
o
I
L()
N
o
N
0)
.0
en
en
o
0.
0)
C
o
~
o
.c.
en
fJ)
0.
eo
~
o
'C
eo
c
0)
u
en
+--
:J
o
-0
:J
.0
o
L()
o
N
0)
.0
en
en
o
0.
0)
C
o
~
o
.c.
en
()
0.
eo
~
LO
N..c
~~
'+--00
00).....
lJ) ..... 0>
<( lJ) 0)
n:: r5 ~
U)~"S
ro.E'::
.- 0
CO)'+-
0) :5 0)
..... -0
o 0) ._
0....... >
O{ge
......00..
lJ) E 0
1:5 E lJ)
o..oro
O)U-o
-oUc
o..roro
ro 32 C
~5~
..... :> ro
0..>_
0) ..... :J
uroo..
C ..c 0
o ..... 0..
() .~ -0
LO lJ) C
N ro
o g> lJ)
N ._ 0)
0) ~ E
..c ro 0
I->..c
-0
0) .....
0..0
o lJ)
0) .....
> ro
0) @. 0)
-0 .-...c
>,~ ~
200
...........~
o lJ) 0)
cO)o>
-g16~
ro.....=
lJ)~>
(?50
U)~~
-oo~
0) U
>.....-0
e lJ) ~
o..roo
0.. .....
rolJ)o..
0) 0..
lJ) 0> ro
1:5~c
'0.. = ro
0) > 0)
-0 -0..... .
o..co~
roro'Q).....
E lJ) ..c 0)
cO)o..
0) ~ ..... E
~~~8
o
a>,
0_
~ - I
-.:::t :J C
N'+-O
>,O)C
O)..c-o
10-0.$
E 5 .ro
'x ~ g
e 0) lJ)
0..0>lJ)
o..roro
roO)-O
0) t; c
..... ro ro
ro ..... lJ)
C ro 0)
~ :5 E
o '+- 0
..co..c
lJ)N-o
lJ) - 0)
0) ...... .-
0>>,0..
~ 0) B
=.....u
> ro 0
-0 .E ..c ~
CX:t:::lJ)
ro e ~ :J
lJ) 0.. -0 -
s; 0.. 0) .~
> <( 0.......
~ . 0 53
r-lJ)O)-o
0) ~ > .-
..c U 0) lJ)
I-ro-o~
lJ)0
o
lJ)("")
0) -
E~
o lJ)
..c .-
'+- C
o 0
.....~
0) ro
..c -
E 5-
:J 0
C 0..
-0 -0
0) 0)
..... .....
lJ) lJ)
ro ro
U U
0) 0)
..... .....
.E.E
_lJ) 0
>'0...
C~
:J
o 0)
u..c
.....
0)-0
:5 C
- ro
LOa
NO
Or--
N -
cLO
_N
O>C/)
C 0)
0) -g E
..c:: 0) ::J
.... a. C/)
C 0) ~
..c::"c
:;:0(0)
;>('I')"c
C'\l 0
~C'iE
E ('I') C
o ~ 0
..c::"c;;:;
'+- C ro
Orot
.... ('I') 0
0) 0) a.
.coq-C/)
~cOffi
CO'::
~-
"CCO)
.$ 0) U
C/) 0) ....
~~g
0) 0) C/)
o.cCi)
'+- C/) ro
~ ~ ~
.... c.... .
- ro 0 ~
o....'+-......
LO<(O)('I')
O(j)..c::~
C'\l ....('1')
c~5~
'+- 0)
o..c::
.... .
C/) 0) C
~m;:
(j)-gro
O)E5.
.c E 0
C/)oo.
C/)U"c
o U C
o.roro
<O"CC/)
~-O)
::J
C/) 0 E
t5 ~ 0
.- ..c::
a. >- '+-
0) 0) 0
"c > ....
a.;;:; 0)
roU.c
:2: 0) E
.... 0 ::J
o.uc
0)....0
uroLO
C..c::O
0....
OO)C'\l
N"C
OC/)O)
LO ....
o 0> C/)
C'\l .~ ~
0) ~ 0)
..c:: ro ....
I->.E
0)
..c:: C/)
.... C/)
C/) 0
ro ....
"co>
0) 0)
C/) 0>
o ro
a.....
o 0)
.... >
o.ro
C/) C
ro
..c::
....
.~
....
ro
..c::
....
C/)
0)....
.... ::J
U 0
ro"c
o
0.5
o
- ....
LO ro
oq-<(
C(j)
O).....J
C/)a:::
~ 0)
o...c::
0)....
.... ....
C/).E
~
(j)
0)
....
U
ro
....
0)
a.
C/)
....
C
::J
o
('I')
"c
C
ro
LO
C'\l
C
0)
~
....
0)
.c
>-
~
C/)
o.C
ro 0)
U"c
"c
C
ro
0) 0 C/)
........<(
.a....a:::
::JO)(j)
U "E 0)
'C O..c::
O>C....
<( .- 0)
- C/) :;::;
<(<(;;:;
a:::(j)C
S(j)~
- "c ....
<(O)C/)
(j)>....
Ie~
-a.....
<( a. 0
(j)ro
LLC~
C/) ..c:: ro
ro .... C/)
"c .~ ~
.$ ~ ~
.U ro C
0.0)0)
O)U..c::
"Cro....
C/) a. 0)
ro(j)(ti
0) C ....
ro 0) 0)
o.C
<( 0 ~
@)
L()
C\I
o
C\I
@)
....
ctl
~
C
o
N
.C
o
I
0....
I-
0:::
--.J
C
o
.....
ctl
N
C
ctl
OJ
....
o
OJ
C
C
C
ctl
0....
c
ctl
~
(/)
.....
C
0)
E
"0
C
0)
E
<(
<(
C/)
--.J
0:::
t::
o
0..
0..
::J
C/)
o
.....
(/)
(/)
(/)
>'c
ctl 0)
~ ~
--
o....w
I- 0)
0::: (/)
--.J::>
---
c"O
ctl C
o....~
C 0)
.0 ::;
..... .....
ctl ::J
t::LL
~ctl
~ ~W
~ 0..::>
I- o..--.J
,n ::J LL
0, C/) :::-
C 0 C
ctl ..... 0)
O:::"OE
OJ~"O
C .- C
o ::J 0)
--.J g E
<(0:::<(
o
C
0)
~
.....
0)
.0
>.
u
C
O)W
w::>
~~
o~
U_
-w
~I-
....---
0).....
..... C
C 0)
0) E
.=: 0)
::Jw
0-
0) C
0::: . 0
.....
(/) ctl
0)1::
::J 0
.....0..
19 (/)
C/) C
--.J ~
LLI-
o
....
ctl
~
C
o
N
'C
o
I
W
I-
>.
.....
C
::J
o
U
....
0)
o
U
o
o
0..
eo
.....("1)
0)0
~C\I
o
"0
0)
....
::J
0-
0)
0:::
(/)
(/)
>.
ctl
C
<(
L()
C\I
o
C\I
<(
o
It::
ctl
.....
C/)
>.
.0
"0
0)
.....
(/)
0)
::J
0-
0)
0:::
(/)
(/)
>.
ctl
C
<(
.....
::J
o
I
"0
::J
OJ
<(
o
-
c
0>
E
a.
o
0>
>
0>
o
0..
~
0:::
....J
C
0>
(.)
-
(.)
Ctl
.....
0..
-0
.....
Ctl
-0
C
Ctl
-
en
o
-0
0>
.....
Ctl
a.
0>
.....
0..
en
en
~
Ctl
C
<(
-
:J
o
I
-0
:J
CD
o
en
~
Ctl
C
<(
LO
C'\l
o
C'\l
>>
..c
-0
~
o
o
LL
o
0>
c
o
N
en
en
~
Ctl
C
<(
(.)
il:::
Ctl
.....
~
0>
:J
0-
C
::::>
c
Ctl
0>
.....
<(-
-Q
C Q)
0> .....
E ::J
o..!;2>
OLl...:
0> 0>
> 0>
0> en
0-
-
..eN
~~
W_
o
Ctl
0>
.....
<(
C
Ctl
..c
.....
::::>
0>
0>
Ctl
.::t:.
o
E
E
0>
-0
en
C
-0
C
Ctl
<(>>
en-
....J C
0::: 5
O>()
:0>>
en..c
-
:J-O
o~
en .-
N ~
~ct
o
-
en
<(
en
en
-
en
-
en
Ctl
(.)
0>
.....
o
LL
Ctl
C
0)
.;::
o
......
o
-0
0>
a.
a.
.;::
-
en
en
N
~
0)
C
-
en
.x
W
o
C
-0
Q)
-0
Q)
-- Q)
'0:::( z
....... Q)
"-
.c L-
'- co
-- -0 ..c::: en
- tb
- Q) Q)
-
~ en Ol
::> Q) -- c
.c Q) co co
~ Q) en ....... ..c
"-
-0 -- :0 ()
Q) 0 -0 $' -
..c:::
Q) ~ Q) - tb >.
en Q.. Q) C
-- -0 0 - CO
c .c --
0 Q) ~
'C CO > ~ -0
CO E Q) -- Q) ......
Q.. CO
C Q) 0 0 0 ..c
Q) 0 "C ~ ......
u ~ co Q) c
(J) L- >
Q) ~ c Q) en Q)
...... > Q) Q) E
::::J co ...... u 0 c Q)
0 L- Q) (J) E
I- ~
I Z L- W
-0 Q) 1.0 ~ L-
N Q) C
-0 en ......
::::J .~ -0 0 ...... Q) 0
CO N Q) 0 ......
I Q) Z co
...... Q) co en t::
co u
;;::; 'C Z ...... en en 0
c ...... ~ C -0 >. Q..
Q) en ...... Q) Q) en
...... 0 ::::J ...... Q) co c
0 0 0 Z c CO
a.. l- I a.. <{ L-
Q) 0 -0 Q) 1.0 en l-
N
C 0 ::::J C 0 ..c Q)
0 LL CO 0 N I- ..c
......
0 0 0 0 0 0
~
CI)
'S;
CI)
0:::.:..:
-
en .-
..J ~
0:::<(
(1)en
.c..J
-0:::
't:I CI)
r:::.c
ca_
~ ~
ca In
_ CI)
~ .-
~~
og,
<('t:I
en CI)
..J't:I
0::: r:::
't:I (1)E
CI)
'Q.E
o 0
't:I 0
ca CI)
~
CI) In
.c~
- CI)
r:::,B
o~
't:I E
CI) E
~ 0
[0(,)
"0 ....
c ro
ro ~
~ c
:::::J 0
_ N
"5 'C
u 0
'C ..c
OlCl
ro c
c c
o c
:;::; ro
u a.
2 0)
O..c:
.... -
0.-
0) ro
e'E
:::::J 0)
o E
III a.
~ 0
ro 0)
.... >
:::::J 0)
- "0
ro
c >.
-
- c
o :::::J
0) E
g E
roo:5
ro u 0
.00)"0
ro .0 :::::J
O)ro..c
>c_
0) ro ro
..c-"O
u III
<t:~~
o
-
~~
:::::J C
=: :::::J
:::::J 0
.!:20
....
Ol....
ro .0)
.... 0
.Eo
1Il_
0) 0
>
.- >.
'E E
0) 0
U C
.S 0
u u
0)
E 0)
O..c:
c-
o-
u 0
0)-
c
- 0)
.2 c
010
C a.
'c E
ro 0
0) U
E 0)
"0.0
C ro
ro .-
>
3: ro
0) III
C ro
0) c
"0
.- ro
1) E
.... 0)
a.. ....
III
0)
....
u
ro
00
-0
CC')
"O...f
O)C')
u......
ro 0
0.-
0) III
.0 0)
....
o u
- ro
"00
0)0
t)o
0) -
o.N
><0>
0) E
III 0
-0 ....
c-
ro ~
- 0)
o ....
ro<t:
0) Ol
.... c
ro:.c
- c
.$! 0)
.8(/)
0) a.
..c: .-
_..c
0) III
1Il"E
ro ro
~ 3:
u 0)
C-
-(/)
c ....
0.E
III ~
~ ro
....-
:::::J 0
0-0
III U
0)=
.....0
~ 5-
:::::J 0)
- ....
ro .-
c :::::J
0-
ro 0)
u ....
+:; +-'
.- 0
t; C
- 0
0-0
c_
o ro
:.;::; ..c
ro-
.... III
00)......
- > C
III ._ 0)
~'EE
"00)0)
c u Cl
ro .S ro
c Ol c
o c ro
:';::;'00 E
U :::::J ....
0) 0
- -0
o C C
.... ro 0
Q.-;.e
0) 0) III
- -
..c ro :::::J
ro>o-
c 'C U
Wo.ro
c
o
:;::;
U
0)
-
e
c...
....
0)
..c:
-
c
ro
a..
ro
"0
'C
o
u..
0)
..c:
-
..c
-
'3:
E
ro .
.... III
0l0)
o >
.... .-
Q.t)
<t: 0)
(/):0-
..J 0
a::: III
0) E
..c: ro
- ....
COl
.Ol e
<t:a..
~
Q)
">
Q)
0:::.:.:
-
~ 'i
o::<e
Q)cn
.s:::...J
-0::
't:J Q)
C.s:::
co_
>. ~
co II)
- Q)
... "-
~~
o 0
<eo.
cn't:J
...J Q)
o::-g
't:J Q)
Q) E
'Q.E
o 0
't:J (.)
CO Q)
...
Q) II)
.s:::~
- Q)
C Q)
-
0.:=
't:J E
~ E
CO 0
mu
~
I Q)
en e:
Q) e:
....
u~
ctl-
o .~
o Q)
o u
L() ctl
'<to.
_ en
o e:
- Q)
e: 0.
'C 0
.9-e:
o Q)
.E~
- ~
a5~
El.O
0.......
o (;
Q) .-
a; <( ...:
,,(/)o
.....J ......
<(0::::"
Cl::_Q)
(/)ctl-
_ e:
Eo :J
- 0
:J Q) U
E ~ U
.- - ctl
>< - en
ctl 0 ._
E '<t en
-- Q)
ctl ..- ._
-
~ e:'-
en ctl e:
=~E:J
.0 _
El en E
en en 0
W Q) U
<(
(/)
.....J
0::::
5 ~
e: ctl
....
o 0.
- en
en
" ctl
e:;;::;
ctl e:
Q)
e:-
Q) 0
0.0.
o Ol
_ e:
o 'u
e: :J
0"
'00 ~
....
Q) >-
>.0
e: ~
o Q)
u~
.... -
o
- -
e:
.ctl Q)
c E
Q) 0.
- 0
8.Q)
>
Q) Q)
~-o
-
Q) ~
U ._
:J-
" Q)
Q) en
o::::~
....
Q)
e:
e:
ctl
E
Q)
.0
~"
.- e:
ctl ctl
-
en
:J
en
ctl
e:
en
Q)
U
.~
Q)
~ en
j en
o .Q)
.... -
Ol=
e: '0
o~
:;:; U
ctl ._
- -
:J.o
0.:J
o 0.
0.0l'
-oe:-O
Q) -- Q)
_t:::-o
en 0--
ctl 0. >
uo.e
Q) :J 0.
(; en Q)
'+'- _....
Q) ctl ctl
~
Cii-~
-0 Q) :J
0....-
E :J U
en :J
Ee:~
o Q) en
u" ~
Ue:-
<(ctle:
~
Q)
e:
e:
Q)
>
'C
-0
-
e: Q)
Q) >
E
0.0
0-
Q) en
> Q)
Q) Q)
-0>-
U 0
.- 0.
E E
o Q)
e: ....
8..2
Q) en
Q) Q)
~ U
en ctl
o 0.
-
en.8
.Q) >-
~ :!:
e: E
:J ._
t::: ><
o e
0.0.
o.e:
o ._
~ en
Q) Q)
e: en
en
Q) Q)
- e:
ctl __
Q) en
.... :J
0.0
~
....
o
~
Q)
e:
e:
o
:;:;
ctl
t:::
o
0.
en
e:
~
-
"
Q)
-
U >.
Q)-
e: e:
e: :J
o 0
~o
Q) ....
- Q)
e: ._
'- -
Q) 0
010
e:
ctl e:
.... ....
012
e: en
o m
ctl en
Q) Q)
- ~
ctl Q)
-g en
ECii
Ef;
o e:
g ctl
<(0.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
[Volume 1]
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 I Policies
. Group 2 Policies
. Group 3 Policies
. Group 4 Policies
. Group 5 Policies
PAGE
1-29
30
30
30
30-33
33-34
34-35
35-40
40-44
Section 2: All Committee-recommended revisions to the improve the 45-67
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay
· Stewardship Area Overlay Map 68
· Attachment A-Existing Credit Worksheet 69
. Recommended amendment to Attachment A- Credit Worksheet 70
. Recommended amendment to Attachment B-Land Use Layers 71
· Attachment C-SRA Characteristics [final approved] 72
· Attachment C-SRA Characteristics [proposed amendment] 73
Section 3: Supporting Documeutation
· 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 I Policies
. Group 2 Policies
. Group 3 Policies
. Group 4 Policies
. Group 5 Policies
74
74
74-92
93
93-94
94-112
112-119
119-133
133-156
156-165
Section 5: Committee-recommended new Policy 3.7 ofthe Transportation 166
Element ofthe GMP [related to proposed amended Policy 4.5 of the
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay]
NOTE: THIS IS THE PHASE I-TECHNICAL REPORT COMPLETED BY THE RURAL LANDS
STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE DATED FEBRUARY, 2008.
Q
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
1lPage
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 rurai 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.
2lPage
Definitions (LDC 4.08.01):
ACSC. Area of Critical State Concern
Agricultural Group 1 Uses (4.08.06 B4). Generally higher intensity agricultural uses including:
row crops, citrus, nurseries, and related support uses.
Agricultural Group 2 Uses (4.08.06 B4). Generally lower intensity agricultural uses including:
pasture, forestry, hunting cabins, cultural and recreational facilities, and related support uses.
Early Entry Bonus Credits (FLUE RLSA Policy 1.21). The bonus shall be in the form of an
additional one Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as a HSA located outside of the
ACSC and one-half Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as HSA located inside the
ACSC. The early entry bonus shall be available for five years from the effective date of the
adoption of the Stewardship Credit System in the LDC.
Fallow. Farmland that is not currently being farmed but has been in the past and could be in the
future.
FSA - Flow way Stewardship Area. Privately owned lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay
Map, which primarily include privately owned wetlands that are located within the Camp Keais
Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough. FSAs form the primary wetland flow way systems in the
RLSA District.
Future Land Use Map (FLUE). Two maps of Collier County are provided as exhibit 1 (2007
GMP FLUE RLSA submap) and exhibit 5 (2002 FLUE).
HSA - Habitat Stewardship Area. Privately owned lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay Map,
which include both areas with natural characteristics that make them suitable habitat for listed
species and areas without these characteristics. These latter areas are included because they
are located contiguous to habitat with natural characteristics, thus forming a continuum of
landscape that can augment habitat values.
Land Use layer. Permitted and conditional land uses within the Baseline Standards that are of
a similar type or intensity and that are grouped together in the same column on the Land Use
Matrix. Layers are removed in order from higher to lower intensity and include: Residential
Land Uses, General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, Recreational Uses,
Agriculture - Group 1, Agriculture - Support Uses, Agriculture - Group 2.
land Use Matrix (Matrix). The tabulation of the permitted and conditional land uses within the
Baseline Standards set forth in Section 4.08.06 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.
3lPage
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.
4lPage
Table 1-A
Summary of RLSA Designations within Sending Areas Approved
RLSA Total RLSA SSA Acres Approved 5-yr Percentage
Deslanatlon Acres
FSA 31,100 9,206 30%
HSA 40,000 12,283 31%
WRA 18,200 44 0.2%
Ooen 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 1-8
Summary of RLSA Designations within Sending Areas Pending
RLSA Total Acres SSA Acres Pending 5-yr Percentage
Desianatlon
FSA 31,100 10,619 34%
HSA 40,000 17,703 44%
WRA 18,200 3,034 17%
Ooen 93,100 474 < 1%
Total 182,400 31,830 17%
Source: SSAs under review and property owners
Table 1-C
Summary of RLSA Designations within Sending Areas Approved & Pending
RLSA Total Acres SSA Acres Approved & 5-yr Percentage
Desianatlon Pendlno
FSA 31,100 19,825 64%
HSA 40,000 29,986 75%
WRA 18,200 3,078 17%
Ooen 93,100 3,067 3%
Total 182,400 55,956 31%
Source: Recorded SSA Easement Agreements, SSAs under review, and property owners
A series of maps have been prepared to illustrate the location of the protected lands and their
designations.
. Map 1A illustrates the 19,825 acres of FSA within SSAs approved and pending;
. Map 18 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;
5lPage
. 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,
Table1-D provides detailed information for each SSA including acreage designation type and
land uses remaining as set forth in each recorded SSA easement agreement that has been
approved by the county.
Each SSA is subject to a perpetual restrictive easement (Stewardship Easement) that runs with
the land. The Stewardship Easements are required to be in favor of Collier County and one of
the following: Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services, SFWMD, or a recognized statewide land trust. The
Stewardship Easement sets forth the land uses that have been eliminated and which the SSA
property is prohibited from utilizing. The Stewardship Easement also sets forth the land uses
that remain on the SSA property, the specific land management measures that must be
undertaken, and the party responsible for implementing those measures.
Table 1-D shows Ag-1, which includes agricultural uses remain, including: row crops, citrus,
specialty farms, horticulture, plant nurseries, improved pastures for grazing, and similar
activities, including agricultural support uses. Ag-2 includes these agricultural activities remain,
including: unimproved pastures for grazing and ranching, forestry, and similar uses and related
support uses. In summary, the SSAs approved have protected 23,422.4 acres of agriculture
use. All other more intensive uses not otherwise indicated have been removed from the land.
Table 1-0
Each SSA Approved & Pending Acreage Type and Land Use Levels Remaining
SSA# Acreage Acres Ag-I Ag-2 Other Total Acres
Tvpe
SSA I FSA 146.58 146.58 146.58
FSA 653.65
SSA2 704.14 704.14
HSA 50.49
FSA 509
SSA3 2,686 1,07864 2,116.91 3,195.54
HSA
SSA 3a HSA 248.9 220.6 nla.
FSA 198.18
SSA4 654.01 585.91 1.239.92
HSA 1,041.74
FSA 196.0
SSA5 HSA 1,629.8 1,852.3 1,852.3
Open 26.5
FSA 1.7 651.3
SSA Sa nla.
HSA 649.6 Conservation
FSA 4,9262
SSA 6 HSA 4,984.9 2,7127 7.198.4 9,911.1
FSA 399.6
SSA 7 985.4 985.4
HSA 486.5
6lPage
SSA# Acreage Acres Ag-l Ag-2 Other Total Acres
Tvoe
Open 99.3
FSA 1,619.9
SSA8 HSA 1,247.9 815.0 4,484.5 5,299.5
Open 2,432.0
Open 34.2
FSA 556.5 50.1
SSA9 739.3 Earth Mining 789.4
WRA 43.5
HSA 155.2
Total Approved 24,123.88 5,260.35 19,034.04 701.40 24,123.88
FSA 0
SSA 10** HSA 5,854
Application WRA 1 5,861
Submitted
Open 6
FSA 1,191
SSA 11 ** HSA 2,212
Application WRA 198 3,700
Submitted
Open 99
FSA 1,788
SSA 12** HSA 2,933 4,791
Pre-app meeting held WRA 0
ODen 70
FSA 4,232
SSA 13** HSA 1,313 7,430
Pre-app meeting held WRA 1,616
ODen 269
FSA 1,048
SSA 14** HSA 663
Application WRA 1 1,713
Submitted ODen 0
FSA 2,196
SSA 15** HSA 1,827 5,259
Pre-app meeting held WRA 1,209
ODen 27
FSA 164
SSA 16** HSA 2,901 3,077
Pre-app meeting held WRA 9
ODen 3
Total Pending 31,830 nla** n/a** nla** 31,830
Total 55,953.88 55,953.88
Approved + Pending
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
7lPage
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 iands 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
4,000
2,798
6,798
SRA Designation
Town of Ave Maria SRA
Town of Bi Cress SRA*
Total
*proposed
Acres
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
alPage
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 Assianed R-2 Credits
1 146.58 263.6 0
2 704.14 1,268.1 0
3 3,195.54 4,675.3 0
3A* 0 606.6 0
4 1,239.92 1,676.7 0
5 1,852.3 2,938.3 0
5A* 0 1,504.9 0
6 9,911.1 25,525.1 4,286.4
7 985.4 5,870.1 1,835.9
8 5,299.5 7,876.1 299.6
9 789.4 7,246.6 2,765.5
TOTAL 24.123,88 59,451.49 9,187.4
Source: Recorded SSA Easement Agreements
* SSAs 3A & 5A are amended applications to designate restoration areas.
Acreage is already included in SSAs 3 & 5.
B. STEWARDSHIP CREDITS ASSIGNED OR HELD FOR FUTURE USE
As of December 11, 2007, the Town of Ave Maria (4,000 ac) is the only approved
Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) within the RLSA. The Town of Ave Maria utilized
28,658.4 Stewardship Credits generated from SSAs 1 through 6 (See Table 3-B).
9lPage
Table 3-B
Summary of Credits Transferred and Utilized for the Town of Ave Maria
Credits .--
Total Credits Transferred and Credits Held for
SSA# Acres Assigned Utilized for Town Future Use (includes
of Ave Maria R-2)
1 146.58 263.6 263.6 0
2 704.14 1,268.1 1,268.1 0
3" 3,195.54 4,675.2 4,675.3 0
4 1,239.92 1,676.7 1,676.7 0
5" 1,852.3 2,938.3 2,938.3 0
6 9,911.1 25,525.1 - 17,836.5 7,688.6
Source: Collier County data included in the Rural Land Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Land
Characteristics Summary and Recorded SSA Easement Agreements.
"SSAs 3A and 5A post dated the approval of Ave Maria SRA, therefore no Credits were
transferred and utilized for Ave Maria.
SSAs 6,7,8, and 9 have been approved and contain a total of 16,985.4 acres (See Table 3-C).
The total Credits assigned to these SSAs are 46,517.9. Of this total, 9,187.4 are R-2 Credits
and are not available for utilization and transfer until the restoration work has been successfully
completed. There are 28,681.4 total assigned Credits held for future use, including unused and
R-2 Credits.
Table 3-C
Summary of Approved Credits Held for Future Use
-----.--,,- ---------.---- -~
SSA# Acres Total Credits R-2 Credits Credits Currently
Assigned and Assigned Available for
not Utilized Utilization
----
3A 0 606.6 0 606.6
5A 0 1,504.9 0 1,504.9
6 9,911.1 7,688.6 4,286.4 3,402.2
7 985.4 5,870.1 1,835.9 4,034.2
8 5,299.5 7,876.1 299.6 7,576.5
9 789.4 7,246.6 2,765.5 4,481.1
.-... --.....---
TOTAL 16,985.4 30,792.9 9,187.4 21,605.5
Source: Collier County data included in the Rural Land Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Land
Characteristics Summary and Recorded SSA Easement Agreements
Map 3 shows the location of each SSA and the associated Credits assigned to each.
4. A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at the time
of study and time of review.
Maps 4, 4A and 4B illustrate a comparison between the type of Agriculture that existed in 2002,
and the agriculture uses that exist in 2007. As shown on the maps there has been some
change in the agricultural land cover and Ave Maria now exists in place of the agriculture land
cover that existed there in 2002 (Map 4C).
Table 4-A below summarizes the type of agricultural uses in 2002 compared to the type of
agriculture uses in 2007. Additionally, conversions in agricultural land use within and without
10 I P age
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
2002 With Without New 2007 %
Aaricultural TYDe ACRES RLSA RLSA Ag ACRES CHANGE
Citrus 39,468 38,233 -3.13%
Fallow 7,974 8,799 10.35%
Pasture/Rangeland 17,863 16,129 -9.71%
Row Crop 27,542 25,035 -9.10%
Specialty 1,651 1,201 -27.26%
TOTAL 94.498 -5,058 -480 +427 89,397:1:.01 % -5.40%
Sources: 2002 and 2007 RLSA land cover/land use GIS data, RLSA Property
Owners, and aerial photo interpretation.
Table 4-8
2002 Ave Maria Agricultural Uses
2002
Agricultural TYDe ACRES
Citrus 839
Fallow 177
Natural Wetlands and Uplands (Non Ag) 572
Pasture/RanQeland 429
Row Crop 2,562
Specialty 449
TOTAL 5,027:1:
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
11lPage
-_...."=.__...._"._'.~""-_.~_.,.,,..-.
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
Without With
RLSA RLSA
Ag Land Conversion Proaram Program
Conditional Use for earth minino -210
Conditional Use for recreation -33
Starnes Property Conservation (not entirely zoned
aq) . _ . -237
Ave Maria -4,455
SSA Conservation -553
SSA minino -50
TOTAL ACRES -480 -5,058
New Aqriculture +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.
12lPage
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.
Location Restoration Type Acres
SSA 3A Wadinq Bird (R 1) 248.9
SSA 5A Wadinq Bird (R1) 651.3
Flow way (R1, R2) 575.0
SSA6 Other Listed Species (R1, R2) 619.2
Wadinq Bird (R1, R2) 24.8
Larqe Mammal Corridor (R1, R2) 331.9
SSA7 Other Listed Species (R1, R2) 75.7
Wadinq Bird (R1, R2) 51.4
SSA8 Wadinq Bird (R1, R2) 74.9
Flow way (R1, R2) 571.5
SSA9 Larqe Mammal Corridor (R1, R2) 61.0
Wading Bird (R1, R2) 58.9
TOTAL 3344.5
Total R1 acres = 900:t
Total R2 acres = 2444.5:t
Table 7-A
Amount and Types of Restoration in SSAs
Source: SSA applications
131 P age
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 P age
1,'-:: L
ENDR l' COUNTY
- --.! CLLI O,,~
J~ c'. !C', Q_ ~~_,
')p ~~ ____''; - .I!..,
~ l' ,,--~J
'\: ,Il j~
~. '\
Q r ! _'-'.
, ." ,
, l'" )
\i"::N:;:;
!...J
,
;:;
.
t
~
~
ti
I
,~
IYIIA
OILIY1::LLIID
j',J'l,
I
I
GOLD1::N GAtt:: B1IID
I)',
I
l t (;... D
C::J Rural Land Stewardship Area Bouooal)
Are~ at Cfllica! St~t8 Concern
5lJO..Faat Restor~tianZone
: . Flowway Stewardship Area
,.HabitatStewardshipAr....
i 0 Open Stew~'dshlp Are~
p",miKed Wale< Retention Area
j
N
~
C
RLSA OVERLAY
MAP 1
MIIo~
COLLIER RLSA : fIVE YEAR REVIEW
15 I P a 9 ("
$'i82
--
-~
t,
"
-----
--------
.....
/--
,",It,
GOLDE GA TE BLVD
:1
Approved SSA
SSA1
SSA2
SSA3
SSA4
SSA5
SSA6
SSA7
SSA8
SSA9
Subtotal
Pending SSA
SSA 10
SSA 11
SSA 12
SSA 13
SSA14
I SSA 15
SSA16
Subtotal
Total Acres
I
I
I
I@SSA-ApprovedWithFIO'NWay
! S8A-PendingWithFIa,w,ay I
'110 RUfallHld Steward5hipAlea Boundary ,
_ Flowway Stewardsh'pArea
l
~ ~~
N
, ~ G , " f1
-J
I
Flowway Acres
147
654
509
198
196
4,926
400
1,620
557
9,206
o
1.191
1.788
4.232
1,048
2.196
164
10,619
19,825
FLOWWAY OVERVIEW; MAP lA
Margin of efT or +/-1% du& 10 rounding
1.1"""
COLLIER RLSA , FIVE YEAR REVIEW
161 P age
~!8~
-~
~ ~
~- ----
----.
....
. ;~~~
, t, !{..
( '~'"~~,
<;. ,---,(, -"
" ,.---
11~1>,
I
1'-"
\
,
'~ .....
'MM2.\;od:
'I~
'i;
,
~
~
c
~
.
<3
~
GOLDE GATE BLVD
~t
\
,,,
I l.tGI"tl
I
I
,
iW SSA-Appmvad With Habital ,
I SSA-PandlngWithHaIlltat
.,0 Rural Land Stewan:lshipArea Boundary:
1_ Habitat Stewardship Area I
~
N
~
w
~
.
~
~
OIL WELL RD
~
~
Approved SSA
SSA1
SSA2
SSA3
SSA4
SSA5
SSA6
SSA 7
SSA8
SSA9
. Subtot.1
Pending SSA
SSA 10
SSA 11
SSA 12
SSA 13
SSA 14
SSA 15
SSA 18
Subtot.1
Total Acres
Habitat Acres
o
51
2,686
1,042
1,630
4,985
487
1,248
'55
12,283
5.854
2,212
2,933
1,313
663
1,827
2,901
17,703
29,986
MIles
HABITAT OVERVIEW
MAP 1B
Margin of error +/.1% dve 10 rounding
~
o ,
COLI.IER RLSA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW
17IPage
...'"
~~E-'!!J
\..;". }-
J'
.....
~~
,Pf-.L-r~ ",.,=:"1
..... ~Fi' --_______
i1 '----
.~ ;)J'~'----______
"j7
~
!
~
,
D~-
.'
,.~~~
- ':-:~Y1.-.
- .'j
.....
-
-
[)
C'.
~
.
.
..~
"
'"
\.
~o"
riD ~,__
;~"""E'" '--','
---'-L -
- I ~
. wJ OIL WELLRD
'L:o':::
~
.
~
.
~
~
----'-=::--:.
.r'
, "
r
"_':.=::L- i
-L_/i
':~-
~
~
~
.
~
~
,
',-
~/
,.- r,
..-' ".
~
"
,J.
""..
\',1
I
.....
,-
I' .,~
-.\--".....1-- -.
.....
'_J'_
GOLDE GATE BLVD
-
i
I
~I
~I
Approved SSA
SSAl
SSA2
SSA3
SSA4
SSA5
SSA6
SSA 7
SSA6
SSA9
Subtotal
Pending SSA
SSA 10 1
SSA 11 198
SSA 12 0
SSA 13 1616
SSA 14 1
SSA 15 1209
SSA 16 9
Subtotal 3,034
Total Acres 3,078
Margin of error +/.1% due to rounding
Water Retention Acres
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
44
44
"
175
l ~ " t ... II
;C.ID SSA-Approved Wllh Waler Retention I
I SSA-Pending W~h Water Retention !
o Rural land StewardshipAraa Boundary;
'=-' WalerRelenliollStewan:JshipArea
I
..'1
N
M"<>5
WATER RETENTION OVERVIEW: MAP lC
COLLIER RLSA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW
~
o ,
181 P a 9 p
~
~
u -,
~
~ --
u
, -
~
~
c
ill
o
~
m
GOLDE GATE BLVD
175
l t G f'" D
S~82
- I.
~
/'
1-'
~~.
,
.....
.....
IMIIOKALEE RD
EJ
.....
,
J
,
@, SSA-Approved With Open Land
SSA-Pe<1ding Wilh Open Land
o Rural Land Stewardship Area Boundary
5QO.Foot Rastoration Zone
Open Land Desigroation
..\
N
~
o ,
M.~s
19\ P age
I
.....
.....
OKALEE
~--~
(
J
~I
!I
~
I
I
/~
~j
I
,
.....
-
~i
:/
-
-
.....
eR8"
~
-
.
u
Open Land and 500 Ft Restoration Zone Acres
o
o
o
o
27
o
..
2,432
34
2,593
Approved SSA
SSA1
SSA2
SSA3
SSA4
SSA5
SSA6
SSA7
--SSAB
SSA9
Subtotlll
PendlngSSA
SSA 10
SSA 11
SSA 12
SSA 13
SSA 14
SSA 15
SSA 16
Subrot.'
Tot.1 Acre.
MBfgin of error +/-, % due 10 rounc/ing
OPEN LAND OVERVIEW: MAP 1D
COLLIER RLSA , FIVE YEAR REVIEW
,
99
70
2..
o
27
3
474
3.087
~
~
"
~
~.
~ ---------
/ ~~~___J
/
/
;J
~
i!
~
i
GOLDE GA TE BLVD
'"
i
WSSA-Approved I
SSA-Pending .
o Rural Land SiewaroshipArea Boundary I
_ FlowwayStllWardshipArea '
_ Habita! SlewardshipArea
o Open Stewardship A,....
-= Will.<< Retention Stewardship Area
~
l,Cf.'D
~
N
-l
I~LEE
.~(
}
~I
~,
~i
~i
~:
-J-'
I .
I
~
~
ApprovedSSA
'SA ,
'SA'
'SA'
'SA.
'SA'
...8
'SA 7
'SA 8
'SA 8
.....-
_'SA
Ss.41fJ 0 5B54 1 ti .5,8(11
SSA11 1,1511 2212 Ii! ~ 3.6ge
SSA 12 1.78/J 29J3 0 70 4,791
SSA 13 4.232 1313 1616 2159 7.430
SSA14 1.048 H3 1 1 1,714
SSA 1.5 2.1114 1827 1208 27 ~259
SSA1(1 154 ZiOI SI 3 3.076
S"'**' ,o.'ft 17,10:1 .1,1W! 474 .11,&311
TobII AcrH ".825 at.... 3.011 S,081 suse
Nola: AerainlNatalllll ~beIn lllUI'ocled 10 ..,."..~_ ~olenurm')'be +/_ 1%
FlQ_.y Acres H.biIol Acres Water Reten\Jon Acres Open Land Acru Total At.ra
141 0 0 0 147
654 51 0 0 704
509 2.686 0 0 3.196
1ge 1,042 0 0 1.240
196 1.630 0 21 1,852
4,926 4,9115 0 0 9,911
4lXI 487 0 99 985
1,620 1,248 0 2,432 5,300
551 155 44 34 789
1,201 12,213 44 2,B) 2.,121
~ LAND DESIGNATION OVERVIEW: MAP IE
o ,
Miles COLLIER RLSA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW
20lPage
J OKALEE
~
"'"
~----------
~
~-----
~-
~~.
~
5
~
~
~
~
"
~ IIJ
- ,
.
OIL WELL RD
~/-
----~/
~
.
<5
~
....
.....
GOLDE GA TE BLVD
'75
}
IlG'''O
I Ci~ $A-Approved
SSA-Pending
o Rural land SlewardshipArea.Boundary
_ExiSling?ubliclaOOS
_FIOridaForevefTargeiedlandS
j
N
ru----l
a 08 16
Miles
CONSERVATION LANDS OVERVIEW: MAP IF
COLLIER RLSA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW
21 I P age
ENDRJ" COU^Tl"
C LLlER U Tr
I
'--
r-------------..JJ'(""
,/ ~
.4_''j;''---..r
'tY '-'.
---------
----
-~~
l~
I OICALEE
fMMOLAUf;RD
"
,
~
~
.
~
~
~
"
~
,'J
,
otLWl!LLBt>
/10"."''''
/,/-
'./
I
GOLDEJIIGATEBLYD
I
'OSRA-APPfO\led
@SRA-P'OPOS8d
o Rurall"nd SlewardshipAr6B Boundary
"'ExistingPublK:Lands
~
N
~
o , ,
Miles
SRA LOCATIONS
MAP 2
COLLIER RLSA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW
22lPage
I ENDR j" COUNT!'
C LLlLR 0 \
._~~
-~
~------I
--.,
I
I
.
~
~
,
~
~
.
SA , UlMVlvlLEE ND
1.268.1 C"dl, J
OILWULRD
I~MLEE
/[
["
SSA1 ~
263.6 Credit!
["
~
I
SSA9
,
7,246.6 Crdits
S,SA:&
~~,52~U Credits
,
I
GOLDENGttTE8LV/J
j
N
SSA5
4443.2 Credits
SSA3
5,281.9 Credits
~
\1
~
o 2
"''''
SSA CREDIT ASSIGNMENTS: MAP 3
COLLIER RLSA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW
23 I P age
SSA8
t:18~~.1 Credtts
Cll
~4
'i,~~I"
O!LWELLRD
'-.//'
1 f G f" II
o Approved SSA
c) Rural land Slewardsh~ Area BOllndary
1_ Flowway SlewardshipAraa
_HabilalStewardshipArea
: 0 Open SIBwardshipArea
! Permllled Water RelentiOllArea
------....
,
JeNDRJ' COUNT)"
e Lifo
...,
SSA3
8.9 Restoration Acres
~4J
~
-----------. '
---,
,
,
,
.
.
t
g
.
~
. . "'oi",,,,,. -~ f
Ir~'.1rSSA2 !~
,.. SSA1 i~
I~
~<,
~
~\
I
!
I
SSA~
691.4 Restorat,ton Acres
Q/LWELLIID
!O/LWEURD
I
I
-'--'/-
G()LDENG~TEBL~D
!
,
I~
iW/.l!;~
I
!
,
I
r lEG E !\; D
I
P Approved SSA
, .
I Pending SSA
.~ 8SA Restoration
~~) Rural land Stewardship Area Boundary i
~ FloWONay Stewardship Area I
.. Habitat Stewardship Area r
I I
I~ Open Stewardship Area I
Permitted Water Retention Area !
j
N
~
o
M.I..,
SSA RESTORATION ACRES: MAP 3A
COLLIER R1SA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW
24lPage
Land Use Change
_AglOConservabon,Approved
_lntensify,Approved
o Rural land Stewardship Area Boundary
eExistingPubJiclands
Ag Type Change
No Change
M""
COLLIER RLSA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW
25lPage
~;j
.
jt'" .
Ii .'" .
~....~. . .... -'::-
,/,;-- . ,i,~o.. 'J~'
) Rural land Stewardship Area Boundary
i~. ExislingPubliclands
CitrlJs
Fallow
Nat.Uplands&Wellaods
,ePasture
~
N
~
o , ,
2002 LANDUSE
MAP4A
MJIU'
COLLIER RLSA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW
26lPage
I" G f N 0
Rural land Slewardship Area Boundary
'~*'i Existing Public lands
C~fUS
Fallow
Nat. Upland; Wetlands
'-Paslure;Raogeland
i Ag to NonAg
1_ Conservation,ApPfoved
_+ntensify,ApproVed
..'i
N
~
o ,
"'"
2007 LANDUSE
MAP 4B
COLLIER RLSA , FIVE YEAR REVIEW
27lPage
Ave Maria DRI
Citrus
Fallow
Nat. Uplands & Wetlands
.. Pasture
Row Crops
,'~ Specially
COLLIER RLSA , FIVE YEAR REVIEW
28lPage
I T 46 S
T 47 S
ti , ~
~ fl!
" '
II i ~ i ~ ~
i"'~~~i~~
:~3~!!~~~
~"I ' . ~ tn"
oJ:! ~ ~ u
~ ~&l ~: I
<10 olli,
,
..
.,
!!
~ gi
! "
, t ~~
t ~ :i~
0..
-I
~ "
~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~";
OJ .. !! I" I" 1" ~ .
. "!i H "'..
~ ~ ~ ~ .,! ~~ ~ i i ~;' i ~ ffi ~
',~ n ~5~~ii ~ ~~" 's ~ ~ ~ ~
i,! !i!lii!! i Ii~! i!! ! ~ ~
~ "~~" j ~" ...... 1!l !I ~ ;t ;;; 0
~,~ ~ ~~ ~Pd!~ - ~~ 5:: ~ 8 ~ ~ w u,
,!, !'iI;II;, i il ~~O' " .
li~ i ~u Oy oUJ~ ~ ~:!: ..
~.. .~r m
~
~
=
~i
:1
,
I
~ ~ i!
i'<I" ,
, i ~ ! I. .
~ ~;~H~!~~~
~ ~ ~~ll'~_~~il iJ ~
~! ~ ; i ; i~U~li~~~hj
i:;~ ~ ~ HIU~" ~.~~~~
~~ ~ 1 i! !~ 1u;L~:;II.
:!:: i ~ ; ! ~;~;HHh ~i
~: ~ ~ ,5J~~HlJ...
~i~O,_;,>~o
~
~
i56
83
03'"
~
=
~
N
~
N
I
,
~i'--)
JI~'
=
o..,!,
><
:)!;
a.
;;; C
:IE
...
en
:::I
~ Cl
Z
C
....
.
~
~
u.
':>
"
,
o
C
~
N
.!!
"3
... co
II:
:::I
~
:::I
...
=
S 9t 1
S !'II
29lPage
T 48 S
T 49 S
T 51 S
T 50 S
T 52 S
T 53 S
I
- ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ i ~
! '" ~ .
; 1 i l'
:"J ~ ! ;
i ~ ~ ~ ~ ,
~ ~: i i ~
~~H ~ ~
~~pn : I
I '!l,. , I
'''. ~~~~~
~ ~;!~ i' j
~~~~!~ ~
i~~~~g~~
~;HI~Hf
~~l~~~~~~
" ~ ~ ~ 'I ~', . I
H~~~ *~~
LI~iS;q~
~t ~~~~~~
t~ ~~~~~~
~i~~;H~~I'
1~~~~~iE~
L lSe ~h~
~~~~~!~~~~
__-.J
~
=
~
~
N
~
=
~
.'
.,.__r
"
=
~
.(
=
~n'
r~"
!
~
~
N
=
,
//
I
I
,l.
, \?
. ~,~.
,,~ //."
~':li;, /_' j .
... r~,.,
' , - "tlll .r:~_. '\ .
.';'-. .,_.._-.:~_.
J'.' "~~~lt;':-. ""', ~
~. ,~~~ ".:.~
0....,0. l!
.~
~; ~
b ~i
L<"[
~i
;;;
.
.
"'h
.,
~ :e
~~ <10
5~:
~~jl
~~;
:H
I~~
H~...
H~~
i~~ m=
.,
~;~
~p
h~
l~
Me
~
C.1LI
_ z
S it 1
IS 6t 1
s O~ 1
S t~ 1
s ZS 1
PHASE II REPORT
"REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY"
PREPARED BY
THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE
CREATED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH
RESOLUTION 2007-30SA
CO~.Ii1E.;g: ~Q
.'~-' .a:~'M~':Yd~'
-IiV"'" ',A'U~'
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 Overlav 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 refine the structure and process of designating a SSA, and added emphasizes on the Stewardship
Credit system as the primary basis for permanent protection of agricultural lands.
The Committee recommends a refinement to the Goal to further clarify the intent of the RLSA in using
incentives to retain land for agriculture actives and protect and restore habitat connectivity.
Goal (recommended amendment)
Collier County seeks to address the long-term needs of residents and property owners within the lmmokalee Area
Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment Collier County's goal is to preteet
retain land for agricultural activities, to l'reveftt tile pfeffilltlH'e eOHversiElR Elf agrieliltllffillaRa tEl HElR agrieHltlifal
"""" 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 Htilizes employs creative land use planning techniques and through the
use of established incentives.
30lPage
Policy 1.6 (recommended amendment)
Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within the RLSA that are to be kept in perman<"
agriculture, open space or conservation uses. These lands will be identified as Stewardship Sending Areas
SSAs. All privately owned lands within the RLSA are a candidate for designation as a SSA Land becomes
designated as a SSA upon petition by the property owner seeking such designation and the adoption of a
resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) , which acknowledges the property
owner's request for such designation and assigns Stewardship Credits or other compensation to the owner for
such designation. Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved SSA
Designation as an SSA shall be administrative and shall not require an amendment to the Growth Management
Plan, but shall be retroactively incorporated into the adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment
process when it periodically occurs. A Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall be developed that
identifies those allowable residential densities and other land uses which remain. Once land is designated as a
SSA and Credits or other compensation is granted to the owner, no increase in density Dr additional uses
unspecified in the Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall be allowed on such property unless the SSA
is tenninated 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 bv providing written notice to the County prior to the expiration of the initial five vear
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 anv of the following events occur. then the
Conditional Stewardship Easement shall become a Pennanent Stewardship Easement which shall be final.
perpetual and non-revocable in accordance with the terms set forth therein:
I. 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. pennits. or
other discretionary approvals necessary to commencc construction. including subdivision plat and site
development plan approval. but not building pennits. 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. pennits. 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 120. the closing has occurred. and the owner has
received the consideration due from such sale or transfer. but not expresslv excluding:
(a) a sale or transfer of the Stewardship Credits ancillary to the sale or transfer of the underlying fee title to the
land. or
(b) instances where a landowner establishes an SSA for a specific SRA. whether the SRA is owned or developed by
a separate or related entity. and the Stewardship Credits are transferred as required bv the Growth Management
Plan or Land Development Code for SRA approval: or
3. The owner of the SSA lands has received in exchange for the creation of the Stewardship Easement Agreement
other compensation from local. state. federal or private revenues (collectively. the "Events").
31 I P age
The LDC shall specify how. assuming a Notice of Tennination (as hereafter described) has not been recorded.
the Conditional Stewardship Easement shall automatically convert to a Permanent Stewardship Easement upon
the earliest to occur offal any of the foregoing Events during the Conditional Period. or (b) 180 days after the
last dav 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 tenninate the Conditional Stewardship Easement by recording a
Notice of Termination. In addition. if a challenge and/or appeal of a necessary development order. pennit or
other discretionary approval is filed. the owner of the SSA lands may elect to extend the Conditional Period
until the challenge or appeal is finally resolved. If the challenge or appeal is not resolved such that the
construction may commence under terms acceptable to the owner of the SSA lands. the owner of the SSA lands
may within 180 days of the final disposition of the challenge or appeal record a Notice of Tennination. Upon
the recording of such Notice of Tennination. the Stewardship Easement Agreement and corresponding
Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall expire and tenninate. 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 accordinglv. The owner
of the SSA lands shall provide a copy of the Notice of Tennination 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 Tennination
shall also provide for tennination 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 Tennination does tenninate an SRA. the owner of the SRA
lands shall ioin in the Notice of Tennination.
In the event that a Conditional Stewardship Easement is tenninated. 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 Countv and the other grantees under the
Stewardship Easement Agreement shall provide a written release and tennination of easement and credit
agreements for recording in the public records within 15 davs of request from the owner of the SSA lands.
Collier County shall update the overlay map to reflect the termination of anv 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 Be not be limited to the following: (I)
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, Dejlartmont Elf En'firoHfHefttal Proteetion.
Dejlartmeftt Elf f.g;rieulture ami CElRSUmer Serviees. SEllltll Florida \li atei' Managemont Distriet, or a reeElgnizeEl
statewiEle lanEl 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 1.21(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. t1owways, 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
32 I P age
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 ofland designated as a HSA located outside of the ACSC and one.he' -
Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as HSA located inside the ACSC The early entry bonus shall ,
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 tlowways, 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 tennination of the bonus period. The maximum number of Credits that
can be generated under the bonus is 27,000 Credits, and such Credits shall not be transferred into or used within
the ACSC
Group 2 policies are intended to provide for the continued viability of agriculture. The Committee evaluated
the policies in meeting the goal to protect agriculture land and heard from industry experts and agriculture
interests. The Committee determined that a few of the policies were no longer necessary, such as the
establishment of an Agriculture Advisory Committee. However, the Committee felt strongly that greater
attention should be placed on incentives for agriculture through the Credit system. To improve the ability to
protect agriculture lands within the RLSA, the Committee recommends the following amendments to Group 2
policies.
Group 2 - Policies to prate<t agrieHltHTal laRds from prematHre e08Yer~ioR to athcr Hses IHIfI retain land
for agricultural activities throul!h the use of established incentives in order to continne the viahility of
agricnltural prodnction through the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay.
(recommended amendment)
Policy 2.1 (re<ommended amendment)
Agricultureallandowners will be provided with lanas will Be I'fSteelea ffElm prcmatHfe esn',ersisR ts Eltller us,
by ereating; 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 Policvies I A and 22 and
by the establishment of SRAs. as tile fsrm sf eElFHpaet rural ae',elEll'meRt iR tile RLSi\ Overlay. fillalysis lias
SIlElWR tllat SR.f.s will allElw tile prEljeetea pspHlatiElH Elf tile R.L~A in tile HElrizsn year Elf 2925 tEl be
aeeEllllfHElaated Sf} appr8J[imately I O~~ sf tHe aereage otller\'.ise re'luiroa if sHeil esmpaet ruml ae"elElpment 'NeFe
HElt allElwea aile tEl tHe fle)[ibility affsraea tEl sueR aevelElpment. THe esmBinatiElR Elf slewarasllip iReefttives aRa
laBEl effieieRt eElml'aet ruFaI aovelopmeHt will minimize t',vEl Elf tile primary market faetElrs tllat eallse I'refHlltllre
eElHversiElH Elf agFiellltllre.
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, LlO.
and Ll7. In addition to protecting agriculture 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 Open, these lands shall be assigned two (2.0) Stewardship Credits per acre
outside of the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSA). and two and sixth tenths (2.6) Credits per acre within the
ACSC All non-agriculture uses shall be removed and the remaining uses are limited to agriculture Land Use
Leyels 5. 6 and 7 on the Land Use Matrix. Each ~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 Countv shall update the
RLSA Zoning Overlay District Map to delineate the boundaries of the Agricultural SSA.
33 I P age
Poliey 2.3 (recommended deletion)
'NithiH eHe (I) year Hem tile effeetive aate Elf tllese amenameftts, CElllief CElunIj' will establisll aR f.grie'llltrne
.^.avisElry CElIiHeil eElFHflrised Elf nElt less tllan five ner mElfe than aiRe appoifttea fejlfesefttak/es Elf tile agrieHltHfe
iHcilistFY, tEl aavise the BCC ElR matters relatiRg tEl f.grieultlire. The :\pieHltHfe AElvisory Ceuneil (.^~^.C) will
'.\'Elrk te iaefttifj' ElPI'ElRHnities ana l'rellare strategies tEl enhllHee aRd l'romete tile eElntillHanee, e)[flaRSiElR ana
aivorsifioatiElH Elf agrieHltHfe iH CElllier CEluftty. Tile i\f.C will alsEl iaefttify Barriers tEl tile eElfttinuanee, e)[l'aHSiElR
ana aiversitieatisn Elf the agrieultuml iadHstry llHa ','..ill prejlare reeElfHfHeHaaliElHS to elimiHate er minimize suell
Barriers iR CElllier COHftty. Tile .'\..^.C will alsEl assess whotller eJleeptiElRS from staaaaras fElr business Hses related
tEl agrioukHre sllElHIEl Be allEl.....ea unaer aR administrative permit praeess aRd make reeElFnfHeRaatiElHS tEl the BCC
Poliey 2.4 (recommended deletion)
Tile BCC will eElnsiaer the reeElFnfHendutiElns Elf tile .^~^.C aRd fueilitate the iFHfllemefttatiEln Elf strategies aaa
reeElFnfHeaaatiens iaeatitiea BY the .'\CC tllat are aetemllnea tEl Be aJll'fEll'nate. Tile BCC may aaElpt BmeRamonts
tEl tile LDC that iFHfllemont I'Ellieies tIIat SH!'I'ElR agriooltHfe a~otivities.
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.n (recommended amendment)
L 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 giVOR tEl restsratieH ',..itffiR tile Caml'
Keais StraRa PS.^. Elf eElfttiguElHS I1S.'\s. Should a property owner be willing to dedicate land for restoration
activities within a FSA or HSA the Caml' Keais Strflfld P8.'\ Of eElfttigHElus lISAs, tflHr two additional
Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated. Aft aaaitiElaal tWEl StewaraDhil' ereaits
sllall Be assigaeEl for eaell aere Elf lana aeaieated for restoration aetivities witlliR Elther PSf.s aHd lISAs. 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 agcncy or private entity undertaking the restoration. Should an
owner also complete restoration improvements, this shall be rewarded with fuHF additional Credits for each acre
of restored land upon demonstration that the restoration met applicable success criteria as detennined by the
pennit agency authorizing said restoration. The additional Credits shall be rewarded for either caracara restoration
at 2 Credits per acre. or for exotic controllburning at 4 Crcdits 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
Lavers 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 Overlav 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 the purpose of establishing and maintaining the northem 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 unique habitats will be incentivized in the RLSAO. Dedication of anv area inside an
FSA. HSA. or WRA for such seasonal wetland restoration shall be rewarded with 2 additional Credits per acre.
34lPage
Should the landowner successfullv complete the restoration. and additional 6 Credits per acre shall be awarded.
Only one type of restoration shall be rewarded with these Credits for each acre designated for restoration.
This policy does not preclude other forms of compensation for restoration which may be addressed through
public-private partnership agreement such as a developer contribution agreement or stewardship agreement
between the parties involved. Also not precluded are various private and publicly funded restoration programs
such as the federal Farm Bill conservation orograms. 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 pennitted 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 pennitted 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 Area.., The Committee reviewed each technique and notably recommends a maximum
total SRA development footprint of 45,000 acres. Other recommended amendment.. include the elimination of
Hamlet.., and revision.. to emphasize transportation mobility plans and economic development, Group 4
recommended policy amendments are:
Policy 4.2 (recommended amendment)
All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible for designation ~
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 altored for this purpose. Lands shown on the Overlay
Map as eligible for SRA designation include approximately +4,300 72.000 acres outside of the ACSC and
approximately ~ 15.000 acres within the ACSC Total SRA designation shall be a maximum of 45.000
acres. ,^.p]3rEl"i_tely 2~~ Elf tllese lanes aemeve aR lFule" seore groater thaFl 12. Because the Overlay requires
SRAs to be compact, mixed-use and self sufficient in thc provision of services, facilities and infrastructure,
traditional locational standards normally applied to detennine development suitability are not relevant or
applicable to SRAs. Therefore the process for dcsignating a SRA follows the I'riFleil'les Elf tile RiIflll LaRes
Ste-.vaFtlsllip i\et as further eescribed procedures sct forth hercin and the adopted RLSA Zoning Overlav 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. Thc basis for approval shall bo 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. Witllin Elne year from tile effective eate Elf IlliG amenElment, Collier CElHFlty sllall adEl]3t LDC amendments tEl
establiSH tile prEleeeHres and sHBmittal re'lHirements fElr designation as a SR.^.. to iHel>lde I'foviGiElFlG for
eORsiElefatiEln Elf ifHjlaets, iHelHding eHviwHfHeRtal aRd pHillie infmstruetllfe ifHjlaets, and previsioRS fer pHllli
nEltiee Elf flHEI the ElppElFllmity fer pHblie l'aFlioipatiEln iR an)' eOFlGidemtiElR by the BCC Elf suell a desigHatiEla.
35 I P age
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 intoosity 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 goverrunental services about the presence of
wildlife and nractices(such as appropriate waste disposal methods) that enable responsible coexistence with
wildlife. while minimizing opportunites for negative interaction, such as appropriate waste disposal practices.
Policy 4.6
SRA characteristics shall be based upon innovative planning and development strategies referenced in Chapter
1633177 (II), 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 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 fuW' three specific forms of SRA pennitted within the Overlay. These are Towns, Villages, Hamlets,
and Compact Rural Development (CRD). The Characteristics of Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and CRD are set forth
in Attachment C and are generally described in Policies 4.7.1, 4.72, and 4.7.3 and +.+.4. CElllier Cmolftty shall
eatalllish mElre s S.pecific regulations, guidelines and standards within the LDC Stewardship District ta guide the
design and development of SRAs to include innovative planning and development strategies as set forth in
Chapter 163.3177 (II), F.S. and OJ-5.006(5)(1). The size and base density of each form shall be consistent with
the standards sct 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 Jmmokalee 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 detennined on
an individual basis during the SRA designation review and approval process.
36lPage
Policy 4.7.1 (recommended amendment)
Towns are the largest and most diverse form ofSRA, with a full range of housing types and mix of uses. To"
have urban level services and infrastructure that support development that is compact, mixed use, human scak,
and provides a balance of land uses to reduce automobile trips and increase livability. Towns shall be not less
than +,GOO 1,500 acres or more than 4;OO\l5.000 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 cooununity 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 Dr public green spaces within neighborhoods. Towns shall include both community
and neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, ill a ratiEl as pre'liae" described in Policy 4,H 4.15.1. Towns may
also include those compatible corporato offIce. research. development companies. and light industrial uses such
as those pennitted 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.] 5.2 and 4.15,1. 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 acr'
inside the Area of Critical Concern and not more than 1.500 acres outside the Area of Critical Concern. Village
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 haye parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages shall include
neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.] 5. Appropriately scaled uses
described in Policy 4.7.4 shall also be pennitted 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.
Poliey 1.7.3 (recommended deletion)
Hamlets ace sHlflll rural resiElefttial aceas witll primarily siRgle family IIslising aRa limite" fange of eEllPlolliellee
ElrieFltea serviees. Hamlets sllall be HElt leas thaR 10 aT mElre tllaR 100 aeTes. Hamlets ..;ill serve as a mere eElffiJlaet
altemati'le to tm"itiElntll fi'le aeTe lElt ruFal sHB"i'iisioRs OHffefttly allElwe" in tile baseline stanEiaras. Hamlets shall
have a pHblie gfeeR spaee fElr ReigRllElrROEl"s. Hamlels iRelH"e eElltveHieFlee retail Hses. iH a fatiEl as l'revi"e" iH
AttaehFHeRt C. Hamlets ma)' be aR apl'fElpriate lEleatiElR fer pre K tllrEllig;R elemeRtarj' sellElElls. DeaigH eriteria f..,r
Hamlets allall ee iRelH"e" iH tile LDC Stev;ar"ship Distriet. Te maifllaiR a I'ropElrtien Elf Hamlets tEl Villages aRd
TElWHS, net mElre tllaR 5 Hamlets, ill eElFHbiflatiElR '.vitll CRDs Elf 100 aeres Elr less, ma)' be aJlpravea as SP~^.s l'r;or
tEl tile al'l'fElval Elf a Village or TEl'Nfl, aREI tllereafter flElt mElre than 5 a"aitiElllal Hamlets, ill cElmbinatioH y;ith
CRDs Elf 109 acres Elr less, may be appreyeEl for eaeh sH13se'lHellt Village or TElwn.
Policy 4.+.4 4.7.3 (recommended amendment)
Compact Rural Development (CRD) is a form ofSRA that will pre'liae fIe)[ibility witll Fesl'eet te the mi)[ Elfuses
alla E1esign stall"aras, bHt shall Eltller;viae cElml'lj' witll tile stan"arEls ef a Hamlet Elr Village. shall support and
further Collier Countv's valued attributes of agriculture, natural resources and economic diversitv. CRDs sha'
demonstrate a unique set of uses and support services necessarv to further these attributes within the RLSA.
Primarv CRD uses shall be those associated with and needed to suPport research. education. tourism or recreation.
Appropriately scaled compatible uses described in Policv 4.7.4 mav also be pennitted in CRDs. A CRD may
37 I P age
include, but is not required to have permanent residential housin& aHa tile serviees ana faeilitieG tllat sllflflert
l'elll1aneRt resiaeBlG. The number of residential units shall be equivalent with the demand generated by the
primarv CRD use, but shall not exceed the maximum of two units per grOSS acre. A CRD shall be a maximum size
of 100 acres. f.fl e"ample Elf a CRD iG aft eeEltElHrism '/ilIage toot wElula lI"ye a ufliE]He set Elf Hses and sllfll'Elrt
seryiees aiffefeftt frem a trilaitiElR,,1 reGiaeFltial village. It Y/ElHla eElfttaiR tfUllsieFlt lElagillg faeilities ana serviees
"fll'fElflriate tEl eeEl tElllriStG, IlHt FHa)' RElt I'rElviae far the fUHge Elf serviees that ~ Heeessary te fiHl'I'Elrt peFFHaHeHt
resiaefttG. E"eel't as aeGeribea ..sElve, a CRD will eElllfeffH to the ellameteristies Elf a Village Elr Hamlet as fiet fortll
ElR AttaehFHeFlt C basea ElR tile size of tile CRD. ;\s resiaefttial Hnits are HElt a reE]Hirea Hse, these gElElas ana
serviees tllat SHPflElrt resiaeftts SHeft as ,etail, Elffiee, ei'iie, gElvemrHefttal aHa iHstitutional HfieG sllall alsEl HElt he
reE]uirea, , Hllewever, fElr all)' CRD that aees illelHae l'effHaHeftt resiaefttial 1I0Hsing, tile I'fElpElrtiElllate GlIfll'ort
serviees listea ..sove sllallbe flfoviaea iH aeeElfaallee with i\ttachFHeftt C. To mailltaiH a l"ElI'Elrtion of CRDs ef
100 aereG Elr less to Villages aHa T ElV/IlS, IlElt more tllaH 5 CRDs of 100 aeres Elr less. iR eElmBiHatiElH witll Hamlets,
ma)' be apl'fElyea as 8~^.s prior tEl tile "flflrElval Elf a Village Elr TewR, alla tllereafter not more tllall 5 aaaitiElHal
CRDs Elf 100 aores Elr leGs, in cElmbiHatiElH ';:ith Hamlets. ma)' be "flflfElvea fBr eaOO sHbse'lueftt Village er TElv/Il.
Tllere fillall be IlEl mElre tRan 5 CRDs ef mere thaH 100 aeres iR size. The apPf0l'riateness Elf tllis limitatioll shall
be reviewea iR 5 )'ea" l'ursu"llt tEl PEllie)' 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 iob creation. Pennitted 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, aRa '),iRA.s. 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 pennitted uses and for public safety, shall not be
sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 12. Infrastructure necessarv to serve
pennitted uses may be exempt from this restriction. orovided that designs seek to minimize the extent of imoacts
to anv such areas. The Index value of greater than 12 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 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 aoproval. an SRA proposed to adioin land
designated as an SRA or lands designated as Open shall orovide for the opportunity to provide direct vehicular
and pedestrian connections from said areas to the Countv's arterial/collector roadway network as shown on the
County Build Out Vision Plan so as to reduce travel time and travel expenses. improve interconnectivity. increase
internal capture, and keep the use of county arterial roads to a minimum when traveling between developments in
the RLSA
Public and orivate roads within an SRA shall be maintained by the primarv town or community it serves.
Signalized intersections within or adiacent to an SRA that serves the SRA shall be maintained by the primary
38lPage
town or communitv 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 Manageme-
System in effect at the time of SRA designation. A transportation impact assessment meeting the requirements
Section 2.73 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 mav be
needed to expand the existing or proposed roadway network Anv 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 or
constructed.
Policy 4.18 (recommended amendment)
The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year
based on a cost/benefit fiscal impact analysis model acceptable to or as may be adopted by the County. The BCC
may grant exceptions to this policy to accommodate affordable-workforce housing, as it deems appropriate.
Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other special
districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum. the analysis shall consider the following public facilities and
services: transportation, potable water, wastewater. irrigation water. stormwater management, solid waste, parks,
law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing. developer contributions and mitigation, and other
public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards.
It is recognized that SRA development in the RLSA mav 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 effcctivelv for high-
value research. development and commercialization. ilillovation. and alternative and renewable energv busine
proiects.
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 vcsted under thc 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.
c)[eept fm 0 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 +.J.9 4.20 do not require use of Credits. In order to promote
compact, mixed use development and provide tho 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 supportiye to the residential population of a SRA, as provided for in Policies 4.7. ~ 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 shallllEl! 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 goverrunental facilities excluding essential services as defined in the LDC. The location of
public schools shall be coordinaled 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, aRe lIamleto subject to applicable zoning and
pcrmitting requircments.
39 I P age
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 lIaH1lets aHEI 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 anEl CRDs of not more
than 300 acres aREI Hamlets. Provided, however, that CRDs. or two Villages Elr CRDs of not more than 500 acres
each, exclusive of any lakes created prior to tile effoetive aate Elf this ameRaH~ellt 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 Elf the effeeti',e
date ef tllese amellameftts. 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.
Policv 4.22 (recommended new policy)
When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA through the SRA designation process. the
applicant in coni unction 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, . Residential Uses, General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses,
and Recreational Uses (layers 1-4) as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated, iH F8As. Conditional use essential
services and governmental essential services, except those necessary to serve pennitted uses or for public safety,
shall elliy not be allowed in FSAs. ,:,itll a NaIlifal ReSElllree 8towarasmp lHElell valHe of 1.2 Elr 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 detennined to be appropriate. A map of these potential crossing locations will be developed
within 12 months of the effective date of the Growth Manal!ement 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:
40lPage
I. 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. n.
survey shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservati,
Commission (FFWCC) and US. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidelines. The County shall notify the
FFWCC and USFWS ofthe 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.
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. OlleR Dpaee aHd
'legetatiElR preGen'atiElH reEllliremeRts sllall Be lIseEl te eataBlisll BlifTer areas Bet'Neen 'vildlife lIaBitat areas anEl areaG
demiHated BY 1I11man activities. Provisions such as fencing, walls, or other obstructions shall be provided to
minimize development impacts to the wildlife and to facilitate and encourage wildlife to use wildlife corridors.
Appropriate roadway crossings, underpasses and signage shall be used where roads must cross wildlife corridors.
Mitigation for impacting listed species habitat shall be considered in the management plansj as appropriate.
i. The fEllle-::illg fefereRees shall Be lIsed, as apl'rElpriate, tEl prepaFe tile reElllired maflagemeRt p aaG:
I. SElutll Flarida Mlilti Speeies Recovery' PlaH, USFV/S, 1999.
2. HaBitat MaHagemeat GHiEleliae3 fer tile Bald Eagle ill the SClHtheast RegiEln, USFWS, 1987.
3. EeElIElgy aRd lIaBitat PrElteetion Nee,h of GElpher TertEliGe (Copherns pElI)~Hemus) PEll'ulatiElHS fElHHd OH LaHds
Slated for Large Seale Develoj3meflt ia FIElrida. TeehHieal Report No.1, Florida Came aRd Fresll Water Fisll
CElflllRiGsiElH, 1987.
1. EeEllElgy aRd De'lelel'meRt Related HaBitat ReElHiremeflts Elf tile PloFida SemB Jay (f.pelEleElma eeeruleseeHs),
ToellHieal Report NEl. 8, FIElrida Game aRd FreGH Water Fisll CElmrnissisR, 1991.
5. EeEllElgy aRd HaBitat Proteetiofl Needs of tHe SEllltheastem "^JflerieaR Kentfel (Pales Span'eriliG Palilus) Elfl Large
seale DevelElpmeHt Sites in FlElrida. NElngame Teelmieal RepElrt ~le. 13, FlElrida Came aHEI Freoo Water Pi.
Commission. 1993.
L fr The County shall consider any other techniques reconunended by the USFWS and FFWCC, subject to the
provision of paragraph 3 of this policy.
!L ifr 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 ofthis policy.
b.Management plans shall include proyisions 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 teehniQues to reduce human wildlife
conflict The management plans shall also require the dissemination of information to local residents. businesses
and goverrunental services about the presence \if wildlife and practices (such as appropriate waster disposal
methods) that enable responsible coexistence with wildlife, while minimizing opportunites for negative ineraction.
such as appropriate waste disposal practices.
cThe Management Plans shall contain a monitoring program for developments greater than ten acres.
B. PElr pareels eElfltaiHiHg gopllor tertEliseG (Col'lIerus I'ElI)~lIemus), primity sllall Be give" to proteetiHg tile largeDt
mElDt eElHtigHElllG gOl'lIer tmtElise lIaBitat witll tHe greatest HHmBer of aetive Imrre'::s, afld for pro',<iding a eElllHeetiefl
tEl Elff site adjaeellt gElpher tertElise preser:e.;.
e.llaBitat preaen'atioH fElr the FIElrisa scruB jay (f.pllelElcoma eserllleseeHG) sllall eElHfefH1 tEl tHe gHidelifleG eElfltaiRed
iH Teehnieal Rel'ert No.8, rIorida Game afld Fresh ')later FiGII CommissiElIl, 1991. Tile reElllireEl maaagemeRt j3lan
allall alsEl j3Hl':ide fur a maillteHaHee program afld speeify aH apj3rspriate fire sr meellaHieal pfElteeels tEl maifttaiR
the aatlH'al sernll eElHUllHRity. The plall sllall alsEl EllitliHe a I'HBlie a'Narenesa prElgram tEl educate residcHts aBEllfl tll
ElR site presen'e aRd tile flees to maiatain tile semb vogetatiEla. These reElHiremcflts sllall be eElaaistellt '1:ith tile
UFWS SEllltll Florisa Mlilti Sl'eeies Reeovery PlaR, May 1999, subject to the provisisHG of pafagrapll (3) sf this
~
41 I P age
d.FElr tile bald eagle (Haliaeetus leueEleephalua), tile re'lHired habitat maRagemeftt plalls sllnll eotablislll'fElteetive
ZElHeS aHllJRd the eagle Rent rentrietiRg eertaill aetivities. The l'lalls sllall alsEl addreos restrietiRg eortaiH types Elf
aeti'/itieo E1HfiHg tile Hest SeaSElH. Tllese re'luiremoftts sllall be eElRsioteRt ';:itll the UFWS SElutll Flerida MHlti
Sl'eeies Reeever Plllfl, May 1999, sHbjeet tEl the I'fEl'iisiElRS efl'amgmpll (3) eftllio l'oliey.
e.FElf tile reEl eElekaded wOEldl'eeker Il'ieElideo berealis), the re'lHired lIabitat pwteetioR I'laH "lIall oHtliRe meaSHres tEl
,,"vElid adverse iFHf'aets to aetive elHsters alld tEl HHlliHHze impaets to fElragiRg habitat "'hore advefOe eff-eets eaH not
be aVElided. meaSlireo sHall be taken tEl HHHiHHze ElR site dioturballee aHd eElmpeHoale or mitigate fElr iFHf'aets lflat
romain. Tllese re'lHiremeftts SHall be eOHsioteftt v:itll tile UFWS SElutll FlElriEla MHlti Sl'eeies ReeElvery Plan, May
1999. sHbjeet tEl tile pro'/isiElR of l'ar-agrapll 3) Elf this l'eliey.
f In areas WHere tile Flerida blaek bear (UfOUS amorieullHs flElfidaRHs) may be preoeHt, the maRagemeftt plaHs shall
re'JUiFe lflat garbage be plaeed iR bear prElElf eontainers, at Ellle Elr mElre eefttmllEleatiElns. Tile mllflagemeHt I'lull
SHall alse iaefttity metllElds to imElrm lEleal resideftts Elf tile eOReerns related te ifttemetiElR bet'l;eea blaek bears aHd
oo_S. MitigatiElH for iFHf'aetillg lIabitat sHitable fElr blaek bear shall be eElHsiderod in tile maHagemeHt plaa.
g.FElr l'rajeets loeated iH PriElrity I or PriElrity II Faftther Habitat areas, tile fHallagomellt l'lan "hall diseElHfage tile
E1estmetioR of undistHfbed, Hative lIabitats tllat are preforreEl by the Florida paffiher (Felis e81leEllElr eElryi) by
direetillg ifttellsive lUlld uses to eurrefttly dioturbed areas. Preferred habitats iRelHde pille flatwElElds aHd lIardwElEld
hammElelw. In turn. tllese areas sflall be bHffereEl from the most iRteRse laHEI Hses of the l'rajeet by Hsillg low
ifttellsity laRd lises (e.g.. parks, pasoive reereatiElnalar-eao, golf eElurseo). GElid eElHrses ';;ithiR tile RHflll Laads /\fea
sllall be desigHed alld managed tisillg standards fOHad witlliR this O'/erlay. Tile maHagement l'lans sllall idefttify
apl'fElpriate liglltillg eontrols for tllese permitted Hoes aRd shall also address tile ElppElrtHRity to utilize preseribed
burnillg tEl maifttaiH fife adapt eEl preserveEl vegetatiElH eOffiffillfiities aHd I'rElvide Imnvse fElr ....lIite taileEl deeL Tllese
re'lHiwmeftts shall be eOHnisteftt witll the UF'NS South F1Elrida Multi Sl'eeies ReeEl'/er PlaR, May 1999, sHbjeet to
the pfGvisiElns Elf l'aragmpll (3) Elf this pElliey. The Mtilti S1geeies Recovery PlaH (1999) shall eElRotitute HHnimum
wildlife 19fElteetiElH "taRdarEls for the RLSf,o.
IITlle MaHagemeHt PlllHs sllall eeHtaiH a mOllitElriHg prElgram fElr developmollts greater than 10 aeres.
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 eofttailliRg utilized by listed
species. It is recognized that these agency recommendations, on a case by case basis, may e!>aFlge strengthen the
requirements contained within these wildlife protection policies and any such change shall be deemed consistent
with the Growth Management Plan. However. no reduction of the wildlife protection policies of Policy 5.5will be
considered as these shall constitute minimum standards for wildlife protection.
Policy 5.6 (recommended amendment)
For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, Collier County shall
direct non-agricultural land uses away horn 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:
I. 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 33These areas are
protected by existing SFWMD wetlands pennits for each area.
3. FSAs, HSAs and WRAs, as provided in Policy 53, 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 pennitting 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:
42lPage
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 ;
paragraph b of this policy. The vegetative preservation requirements imposed by Policies 5.3 and 55 sh
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 detennine 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
4.22.4.6.11 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-OOl, dated September 1997, and updated
August 1999, or the Unifonn Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method, identified as F.AC. Chapter 62-345.
The applicant shall submit to County staff agency-accepted WRAP scores, or Uniform Wetlands Mitigation
Assessment scores. County staff shall rcview 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 functionin~
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 requiro a minimum 50-foot yegetated 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 tfom 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:
(I) Passive recreational areas, boardwalks and recreational shelters;
(2) Pervious nature trails;
(3) Water management structures;
(4) Mitigation areas;
(5) Any other conservation and relatcd 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:
43lPage
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 vogetative 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.
tv y. Prior to issuance of any final development order that authorizes site alteration, the applicant shall
demonstrate compliance with paragraphs (1) 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.ejv.)
and shall not include any other activities that are detrimental to drainage, flood, control, water conservation,
erosion control or fish and wildlife habitat conservation and preservation.
4. All landowners shall be encouraged to consider participating in any programs that provide incentives. funding or
other assistance in facilitating wetland and habitat restoration on private lands including. but not limited to. federal
farm bill agricultural conservation programs. private or public grants, tax incentives. easements. and fee or less than
fee sale to conservation programs.
Policy 5.7 (recommended new Policy)
Any development on lands not participating in the RLS program shall be compatible with surrounding land uses.
Outdoor lighting shall be reasonably managed to protect the nighttime environment. conserve energy. and enhance
safetv and security.
Policy 5.8 (recommended new Policy)
When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA. the applicant in coni unction 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.
44lPage
Preface
Section 2 of this Report includes the full RLSA Overlay Program as evaluated. The Review Committee
detennined 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 I, and those
with minor language corrections, are shown below with strike thrElHgh 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 pr8teet retain land for agricultural activities, t8 prevent the premllture
e8n';ersi8n 8f llgrieulturlll lllnd t8 n8n llgrieulturlll 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 util~es 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 I 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, aflfl~ and. Group 4 policies relate to
conversion of land to other uses and economic diyersification. 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 pnrpose 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 contribute~ to a viable agricultural industry, protect~ natural resources, and enhance~ 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 goverrunental organizations under the
direction of a citizen oversight committee.
45lPage
Policy 1.2
The Overlay protects natural resources and retains viable agriculture by promoting compact rural mixed-u,-
development as an alternative to low-density single use development, and provides a system of compensation
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.8. 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 lmmokalee 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
pennitted 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 followin
mechanisms: creation and transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition of conservation easements, acquisition (,
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 pennitted 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-99-00L 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 eWl1ef3 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 Stowardship 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 Managemen'
Plan, but shall be retroactively incorporated into the adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendmem
process when it periodically occurs. A Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall be developed that
identifies those allowable residentJal densities and other land uses which remain. Once land is designated as a
46lPage
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 tenninated as provided elsewhere herein.
Policy 1.6.1 (recommended new policy)
Notwithstanding anv provision herein to the contrarv. 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 vear at the option of
the owner bv providing written notice to the Countv prior to the expiration of the initial five vear period. All conditions
and restrictions of the Stewardship Easement related to maintaining the existing propertv conditions. including all
management obligations of the owner of the SSA lands. shall be in full force throughout the Conditional Period. If at
anv time during the Conditional Period anv of the following events occur, then the Conditional Stewardship Easement
shall become a Permanent Stewardship Easement which shall be final. perpetual and non-revocable in accordance with
the terms set forth therein:
4. Stewardship Credits from the SSA have been assigned to entitle an approved Stewardship Receiving Area
("SRA"). and the SRA has received all necessary final and non-appealable development orders. permits. Dr other
discretionarvaoorovals necessary to commence construction. includim! subdivision olal and site develooment vlan
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 aoorovals necessary to commence construction of any SRA shall automatically cause the Conditional
Stewardship Easement to become a Permanent Stewardship Easement;
5. The owner of the SSA lands has sold or transferred anv Stewardship Credits to another person or entity. including a
Stewardship Credit Trust as described in Policv 1.20. the closing has occurred, and the owner has received the
consideration due from such sale or transfer. but not expresslv excluding:
(c) a sale or transfer of the Stewardship Credits ancillarv to the sale or transfer of the underlving fee title to the
land. or
(d) instances where a landowner establishes an SSA for a specific SRA, whether the SRA is owned or developed
by a separate or related entity. and the Stewardship Credits are transferred as required by the Growth
Management Plan or Land Development Code for SRA approval: Dr
6. The owner of the SSA lands has received in exchange for the creation of the Stewardship Easement Agreement
other compensation from local, state, federal or J?rivate revenues (collectivelv. the "Events").
The LDC shall specifv how. assuming a Notice of Termination (as hereafter described) has not been recorded. the
Conditional Stewardship Easement shall automaticallv convert to a Permanent Stewardship Easement upon the
earliest to occur of (a) any of the foregoing Events during the Conditional Period. or (b) ISO davs 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 davs after the last day
of the Conditional Period terminate the Conditional StewardshiJ? Easement bv recording a Notice of Termination.
In addition. if a challenge and/or appeal of a necessary development order, permit or other discretionary approval is
filed. the owner of the SSA lands may elect to extend the Conditional Period until the challenge or appeal is finallv
resolved. If the challenge or appeal is not resolved such that the construction mav commence under terms
acccotable to the owner of the SSA lands. the owner of the SSA lands mav within ISO davs of the final disposition
of the challenge or appeal record a Notice of Termination. Upon the recording of such Notice of Termination. the
Stewardship Easement Agreement and corresponding Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall expire
and terminate. the Stewardship Credits generated bv the SSA shall cease to exist. the rights and obligations set
forth in the Stewardship Easement shall no longer constitute an encumbrance on the propertv, and the SSA
Memorandum shall be revised accordingly. The owner of the SSA lands shall provide a copv of the Notice of
Termination to the County.
47 I P age
In the event that the Stewardshio Credits trom an SSA have been used to obtain one or more SRA aoprovals. but
none of the foregoing events has occurred during the Conditional Period. then the Notice of Termination shall al,-
orovide for termination of anv SRAs that have been assigned credits from the SSA. unless the SRA owner I
obtained sufficient Stewardshio Credits from another source and such Stewardship Credits have been aoplied to the
SRA. In the event that a Notice of Termination does terminate an SRA. the owner of the SRA lands shall ioin in
the Notice of Termination.
In the event that a Conditional Stewardship Easement is terminated, all benefits. rights. privileges. restrictions and
obligations associated with the SSA shall be null and void. and the land shall revert to its underlying zoning
classification. free and clear of anv encumbrance from the Conditional Stewardship Easement and SSA Credit
Agreement If requested bv the owner of the SSA lands. Collier Countv and the other grantees under the
Stewardship Easement Agreement shall orovide a written release and termination of easement and credit
agreements for recording in the public records within 15 davs of request from the owner of the SSA lands. Collier
Countv shall uodate the overlav map to reflect the termination of anv SSA or SRA.
This oolicv shall be implemented in the LDC within 12 months after adootion 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 Be not be limited to the following: (I)
All Credit transfers shall be rccorded 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, DepartmeHt of EnvifoflHleatal ProteotieR.
De]lartmeat of f,grieHltHre ami COHSHmer Serviee3, SElHtll Floriaa Water Managemeat Distriet, or a feeegnizc-'
statewide lalla trust; and (3) for each SSA, the Stewardship Scnding Area Credit Agreement will identifY tj
specific land management measures that will he 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 detail cd information about the natural resource attributes of
land within the RLSA so that development could be dirccted 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 CoveL
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 1.1 0
In SSAs, the greater the number of uses eliminated from the property, and the higher the natural resource value or
the land. the higher the priority for protection. the greater the level of Credits that are generated from such land,
and therefore the b'feater the incentive to participate in the Stewardship Credit System and protect the natural
resources of the land.
48lPage
Policy 1.11
The Land Use Matrix, Attachment B, lists uses and activities allowed under the A, Rural Agricultural Zoning
District within the Overlay. These uses are grouped together in one of eight separate layers in the Matrix. Each
layer is discrete and shall be removed sequentially and cumulatively in the order presented in the Matrix, starting
with the residential layer (layer one) and ending with the conservation layer (layer eight). If a layer is removed. all
uses and activities in that layer are eliminated and are no longer available. Each layer is assigned a percentage of a
base credit in the Worksheet The assigned percentage for each layer to be removed is added together and then
multiplied by the Index value on a per acre basis to arrive at a total Stewardship Credit Value of the land being
designated as a SSA
Policy 1.12
Credits can be transferred only to lands within the RLSA that meet the defined suitability_criteria and standards
set forth in Group 4 Policies. Such lands shall be known as Stewardship Receiving Areas or SRAs.
Policy 1.13
The procedures for the establishment and transfer of Credits and SRA designation are set forth herein and will
also be adopted as a part of a Stewardship District in the LDC (District). LDRs creating the District will be
adopted within one (1) year from the effective date of this Plan amendment
Policy 1.14 (recommended amendment)
Stewardship Credits will be exchanged for additional residential or non-residential entitlements in a SRA on a per
acre basis, as described in Policy +.+& 4.19. 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-workforco Housing Density
Bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of the FLUE, and the density and intensity blending provision
of the lmmokalee 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 1633177 (II), F.S. and 9J-5.006(5)(I).
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 pennitted.
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).
49lPage
Policy 1.19
All local land or easement acquisition programs that are intended to work within the RLSA Overlay shall r^
based upon a willing participant/seller approach. It is not the intent of Collier County to use eminent doma
acquisition within this system.
Policy 1.20
The County may elect to acquire Credits through a publicly funded program, using sources identified in Policy
U 8. 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 pennanent 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 ofthe Stewardship Credit System in the LDC The
early designation of SSAs. and resulting protection of flowways. habitats, and Water retention areas does not
require the establishment of SRAs or otherwise require the early use of Credits. and Credits generated under the
early entry bonus may be used after the termination of the bonus period. The maximum number of Credits that
can be generated under the bonus is 27.000 Credits, and such Credits shall not be transferred into or used within
the ACSC.
Policy 1.22 (recommended amendment)
The RLSA Overlay was designed to be a long-term strategic plan with a planning horizon Year of2025. 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 reyiewed by Collier
County and the Department of Community Affairs HpElA the five year an;liversar/ Elf tile a6ElptisR sf the
Ste'l:af6sllip Diatriet iH tile LDC as part of the Evaluatjon 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. Thc specific measures ofreview shall be as follows:
L The amount and location ofland 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 prateet agrieultural laulls frolB prelBature eaRversioB ta athcr uses afttI 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,} (recommended amendment)
50 I P age
Agricultur!!llandowners will be provided with laHas will be prElteetea fram premallolfe eBlweroiElR tEl Eltller IiGes
by ereatiag 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 I A and 22 and by
the establishment of SRAs. as tile fElffH Elf eElffiJlaet l1Hal eeyelsj3ffieftt in tHe RLSf. Overlay. Analysis Has sHev;n
tllat SRf.s will allmv the prajeetea I'Elj3HlatiEln Elf the RLSf. in the JlElriZElH year Elf 2025 tEl be aeeElffifHElaateEl on
al'l'rElJ[iFHately I O~~ Elf the aereage Eltllef'.';ise re'luirea if "Hell eElffiJlaet fljffil E1evelElpmeftt were RElt allElwea ffite tEl
tile fleJ[ieility affElraea to sliell aeyelEll'meRt Tile eeFHl3inatien Elf "tewaraGhip ineelltiyes aHa lana effieieftt
eElffiJlaet rural de'"elElpment will miHimize two Elf the primary market metElfS that eause prematHre eElHyersiEln of
agrieHltllfe.
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, UO,
and U 7. In addition to protecting agriculture activities in SSAs within FSA. HSA. and WRA, as further
described in Policies 3.1. 32 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 Open, these lands shall be assigned two (2.0) Stewardship Credits per acre
outside of the Area of Critical State Concem (ACSA), and two and sixth tenths (2.6) Credits per acre within the
ACSC All non-agriculture uses shall be removed and the remaining uses are limited to agriculture Land Use
Levels 5. 6 and 7 on the Land Use Matrix. Each layer is discreet and shall be removed sequentially and
cumulativelv 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 Overlav District Map to delineate the boundaries of the Agricultural SSA
Pelicy 2.3 (recommended deletion)
'HitlliR Elne (I) yoar fram tile effeetive aate Elf tllese ameHBmefttG, CElllier CEllillty '"ill eGlaelisll aa
.^.grieHlture :\e'lisElry CeHOeil eElffiJlrised of RElt less tllaR fi-;e nor mElfe tllaH nine llfll'EliftteEl rejlreGeFltatives Elf tile
agrieHltllfe iHdustry, to aayise the BCC Eln matters relating tEl .^.grieHltHfe. Tile .^.grietiltlH'e :\avisElr)' CEluReil
(.^~^.C) ''lill werk to iaefttify opj3ortlillitiea aaa prepare strategies tEl enhaRee aaa pfElmElte tHe eontiRHllflee,
eJ[paHsiEln ana E1iyersifieatieH Elf agrieultllfe iR CElllier CeHHty. The :\.^.C will alse ieefttify eaffiero to the
eElRtiHHunee, eJ<paasiEln aHa E1iversilieation of the af,"fieHltHFal inGu"try aHe will prepare reeBlillnenaatiElIlS to
elimiHate Elr miRimize s<lell eaffiem in Collier Couftt)'. THe .^j.C will alsEl assess wlletller eJwel'tieHs from
stunaaras far eHsiaeGs Hses relateEl te agrieHltHre "hOHle be allewea HOaer an aclministFative peFFHit l'raee"s and
make roeElfHfHeRaatiElas to the BCC
Policy 2.1 (recommended deletion)
Tile BCC 'hill eElHsiaer tile reeElfHfHeHElatiElns of tile .'\. \C aHa fneililate tile iffiJllemefttatieH of "tmtegiea ana
reeeffifHeneatiElRa iElefttified by tile .^.CC tllat are aeteffl1iHoa to be llfll'rapriate. The BCC may aael't amenameftts
tEl tile LDC that iffiJllemeftt PEllieiea that GHppElrt agrieHItHfe aetiyities.
Policy 2.S J. (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 Actf
Policy 2.6- ~ (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.
51 I P age
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 anti
upland habitat through the establishment of Flow way Stewardship Areas, Habitat Stewardship Areas, a
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 L JOO 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 I 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
2A; approximately 96% score greater than 1.2 while 4% score 1.2 or less. The average Index score of FSA land is
LS.
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 4{),(lOO 45.7S2 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 permanentlv
protect HSAs by the creation and transfer of Credits, rcsulting in the elimination of incompatible uses and tl
establishment of protection measures describcd in Group I Policies. Not all lands within the delineated HSAs are
comparable in terms of their habitat value; therefore the index shall bc used to differentiate higher value from
lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implemontation. Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that HSA
lands score within a range of 0.6 to 2.2. Thcre are approximately l3,SQO 15.156 acres of cleared agricultural
fields located in HSAs. The average Index scorc of HA,S 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 IS,200 acres. WRAs are privately owned lands that have been pennitted by thc 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 vcgetation. The Overlay provides an incentive to pcrmanently 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 dclineated WRAs are comparable in terms of their natural resource value;
therefore the index shall be used to differentiatc higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of Oycrlay
implementation. Analysis of the Index Map Scries shows that WRA lands score within a range of 0.6 to 2A;
approximatcly 74% score greater than 1.2 while 26% scorc 1.2 or less. Tho average Index score of WRA land is
IS
Policy 3.4
Public and private conservation areas exist in the RLSA and serve to protect natural resources. Corkscrew Mars
and Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest include approximately 13,500 acres. Analysis shows that they scor~
within an Index range of 0.0 to 2.2; with an average Index score of 1.5. Because these existing public areas, and
52 I P age
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 K Conditional use essential services and goverrunental essential services, other than those
necessary to serve pennitted uses or for public safety, shall only be allowed in FSAs with a Natural Resource
Stewardship Index value of 12 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 FSk
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
goverrunental essential services, other than those necessary to serve pennitted uses or for public safety, shall only
be allowed in HSAs with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 12 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 BlS Environmental Impact Statement tEIS) 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 desil,'ll, 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% ofthe 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 intorest in the
land. or through other acquisition ofland or interest in land through a willing seller program.
Policy 3.9 (recommended amendment)
I. Agriculture will continue to be a pennitted use and its supporting activities will continue to be pennitted
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 rJimited to Open Land designation only 1 and
similar activities, including related agricultural support uses. In existing Ag I areas within FSAs and
HSAs, all such activities are pennitted to continue, and may convert from one type of Agriculture to
another and expand to the limits allowed by applicable pennits. Once the Stewardship Credit System is
utilized and an owner receives compensation as previously described, no further expansion of Ag I will
53 I P age
be allowed in FSAs and HSAs beyond existing or pennitted limits within property subject to a credit
transfer, except for incidental clearing as set forth in Paragraph 2 below.
L In order to encourage viable Ag I activities, and to accommodate the ability to convert from one Ag I 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 I 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 clearing is defined as clearing that meets the above
criteria and is limited to I % of the area of the SSA In the event said incidental clearing 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 pasturcs 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 pennitted to continue,
and may convert from one type of Agriculture to another and expand to the limits allowed by applicable pennits.
Once the Stewardship Crodit System is utilized and an owner receives compensation as previously described. no
further expansion of Ag 2 or conversion of Ag 2 to Ag I will be allowed in FSAs or HSAs beyond existing or
permitted limits within property subject to a credit transfer.
Policy 3.11 (recommended amendment)
L 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 "hall lle gh'CR tEl restElratiElR WitlllR tile CaFllp
Keais StFaRa rs,^. Elr eentiguElllS I1S,^,s. Should a property owner be willing to dedicate land for restoration
activities within a FSA or HSA tile Camp Keais StraHa FS,^, Elr eElHtigHElllS I1S,^.s. Hmr two additional
Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated. /\n aaaitie",,1 tWEl StewflfElslll]3 ereaits
sllalllle assigaeEl fur eaell aere of laRa aeElieatea for restElFatieH aetivities withiH otller FS,^.s aHa HSf.s. The actual
implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive such credits and the costs (
restoration shall be borne by the governmental agency or private entity undertaking the restoration. Should at,
owner also complete restoration improvements. this shall be rewarded with fe!if additional Credits for each acre
of restored land upon demonstration that the restoration met applicable success criteria as detennined 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 acro. or for native habitat restoration at 6 Credits per acre. Within the area proposed for restoration. Land Use
Layers 1-6 must be rcmoved. 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 mav be opportunities to create,
restore. and enhance a northern panther corridor connection and a southern panther corridor connection. Should a
property owner be willing to dedicate land for the purpose of establishing and maintaining the northern or
southern panther corridor. 2 additional Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated.
Should an owner also effectively complete the corridor restoration. this shall be rewarded with 8 additional
Credits per acre.
3. In order to address a significant loss in Southwcst Florida of seasonal. shallow wetland wading bird foraging
habitat. restoration of these unique habitats will bc incentivized in the RLSAO. Dedication of any area inside an
FSA, HSA. or WRA for such seasonal wetland restoration shall be rewarded with 2 additional Credits per acre.
Should the landowner successfullv complete the restoration. and additional 6 Credits per acre shall be awarded.
Onl v one tvoe of restoration shall be rewarded with these Credits for each acre designated for restoration.
This policy does not prcclude other forms of compensation for rcstoration which may be addressed througl.
public-private partnership agreement such as a developer contribution agreement or stewardship agreement
between the parties involved. Also not precluded arc various private and publicly funded restoration programs
54lpage
such as the federal Farm Bill conservation programs. The specific process for assignment of additional restoration
credits shall be included in the Stewardship District of the LDC
Policy 3.12
Based on the data and analysis of the Study, FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and existing public/private conservation land
include the land appropriate and necessary to accomplish the Goal pertaining to natural resource protection. To
further direct other uses away from and to provide additional incentive for the protection, enhancement and
restoration of the Okaloacoochee Slough and Camp Keais Strand. all land within 500 feet of the delineated FSAs
that comprise the Slough or Strand that is not otherwise included in a HSA or WRA shall receive the same natural
index score (0.6) that a HSA receives if such property is designated as a SSA and retains only agricultural,
recreational and/or conservation layers within the matrix.
Policy 3.13 (recommended amendment)
Water Retention Areas (WRAs) as generally depicted on the Overlay Map have been pennitted 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) pennits applicable to each WRA. WRAs can also
be pennitted 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 orovides 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 pennitting.
Policy 3.14
During pennitting 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 Dr
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 diyersification of the
economic base of the RLSA Collier County will also encourage development that utilizes creative land use
planning techniques and facilitates a compact form of development to accommodate population growth by the
establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs). Incentives to encourage and support the diversification
and vitality of the rural economy such as flexible development regulations, expedited permitting review, and
targeted capital improvements shall be incorporated into the LDC Stewardship District
Policy 4.2 (recommended amendment)
All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible for designation as
a SRA, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been designated as a Stewardship Sending
Area. Land proposed for SRA designation shall meet the suitability criteria and other standards described in
Group 4 Policies. Due to the long-term vision of the RLSA Overlay, extending to a horizon year of 2025. and in
accordance with the guidelines established in Chapter 163.3177(11) F.S., the specific location, size and
composition of each SRA cannot and need not be predetennined 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
55 I P age
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 ~ 72.000 acres outside of the ACSC and
approximatelv ~ 15.000 acres within the ACSC Total SRA designation shall be a maximum of 45,0
acres. '^4']3fEl"imately 2~~ Elf tllese laHEls aeHieve aR !J"l"" scare gfeater tllan 1.2. Because the Overlay requireo
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 priRei]3les Elf tHe RHral Lalles
Stewanlsm]3 Act as furtller deserieee 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. 'Nitllill ElH" year ffGm tile effeetiye date Elf tllis amenameRt, CElllier COHftty sllall adEll't LDC ameRemeRts to
cstablisll tile pmeeeHfes aRa sHemittal re'lHirem"Hts for eesigllatioR as a S~^" tEl iHelHae pf(wisieRs for
cElHsiEleFatieH of impaets, iRelHaiHg environmeRtal aHd puelie infr;lstruetllfe impaets, alla I'revisiElns for I'Helic
notie" sf ana tile ol'l'ElrtHHit)' f",r puelie particil'atiElR ill aR) eElflsiaemtiElR ey tile BCC Elf suell a aesigRatiElR.
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 Colli.
County as a part of the petition for designation as a SRA. The master plan will demonstrate that the SRA compliL
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 Policv 3.7 of the Future
Transportation Element. and Access Management procedures.
Each SRA master plan shall include a Management Plan with provisions for minimizing human and wildlife
interactions. Low intensity land uses (e.g. parks. passive recreation areas. golf courses) and vegetation
preservation requirements. including agriculture. shall be used to establish buffer areas between wildlife habitat
areas and areas dominated by human activities. Consideration shall be given to the most current guidelines and
regulations on techniques to reduce human wildlife conflict. The management plans shall also require the
dissemination of information to local residents. businesses and goverrunental 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
1633177 (II), 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 proyisions, and mixed-use
development that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting
environmentally sensitiye 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 als
include a mobilitv plan that includes consideration of vehicular, bicvcle/pedestrian, public transit, intema,
circulators, and other modes of travel/movement within and between SRAs and areas of outside development and
56 I P age
land uses. The mobility plan shall provide mobility strategies such as bus subsidies. route sponsorship or other
incentives which encourage the use of mass transit services. The development of SRAs shall also consider the
needs identified in the County Build Out Vision Plan and plan land uses to accommodate services that would
increase internal capture. and reduce trip length and long distance travel. Such development strategies are
recognized as methods of discouraging urban sprawl, ,encouraging alternative modes of transportation. increasing
internal capture and reducing vehicle miles traveled.
Policy 4.7 (recommended amendment)
There are futH' three specific forms of SRA pennitted within the Overlay. These are Towns, Villages, Hamlets,
and Compact Rural Development (CRD). The Characteristics of Towns, Villages, Hamlets. and CRD are set forth
in Attachment C and are generally described in Policies 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3 and 4+.4. Collier CeHRty sllall
estaelish mElre s Specific regulations, guidelines and standards within the LDC Stewardship District ta guide the
design and development of SRAs to include innovative planning and development strategies as set forth in
Chapter 163.3177 (II), F.S. and 01-5.006(5)(1). The size and base density of each form shall be consistent with
the standards set forth on Attachment C The maximum base residential density as set forth in Attachment C may
only be exceeded through the density blending process as set forth in density and intensity blending provision of
the lmmokalee 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 detennined 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 +,GOO 1.500 acres or more than 4,\lOO 5,000 acres and are comprised of several villages and/or neighborhoods
that have individual identity and characteL 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
i:!JWropriately 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, iR a ratie as I'fElviaeEl described in Policy ~ 4.15.1. Towns may
also include those compatible corporate office. research. development companies, and light industrial uses such
as those pennitted 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 4.152 and 4.15.3. Design criteria for Towns are shall ee 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 pennitted in Villages. Villages are an appropriate location for a full range
57 I P age
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.
Paliey 1.7.3 (recommended deletion)
Hamlels aFe small rural reoidefttial areas witll primarily siftgle famly IIElusiHg aftEl limited raage Elf eElR'/OnieRee
Elrieftted serviees. Hamlets shall Be net less thaR 10 Elr mElre tllaR 100 aeres. Hamlets will serve as a mElre eElFHJ'laet
altornative te traditiElRal five aere lElt rural sHBaivisiElRS eHffclltly allElwea ifl tile BaseliRe stanaaras. I1aFHiets sllall
have a pHBlie greefl sl'aee fBr Reigli8Elrlloaas. Hamlets iflelHae eElR'lellieRee retail Hoes. iH a ratiEl as l'ra'/iaea iH
,A.ttaehFHeRt C. Uamlets may Be aR al'prElpriate lEleatiElfl for flre K thrElllgh elemeRtar/ sellElElls. DesigR eriteria far
HaFHlets shall Be iRolHaea iR the LDC Ste\'/arashifl Distriet TEl maifttaiR a I'fEll'ElrtiaH of Hamlets te Villages aftd
TewRo, Ilet mElre thaH 5 HllfHlets, ill eElmBiflatieH witll CRDs af 100 aeres Elr less, may Be ilflflrElVea as S~A.S l'rior
tEl tile ilflflrEl'lal ef a Village Elr TElwfl, aRa tllereafter flat mElre tllaft 5 aaElitiellal Hamlets. iR eemBiRatiElft ';:itll
CRDs Elf 100 aeres Elr less, may Be al'flfElVea f-er eaell sUBse'lHellt Village ar TOWH.
Policy 4.+A 4.7.3 (recommended amendment)
Compact Rural Development (CRD) is a form of SRA that willl're'/iae flexiBility with resl'eet tEl the mill efliseo
aRa aesiga slaRaaras, But sllall Eltherwise eOFHply with tile staHaaras ef a Hamlet ar Village. shall support and
further Collier County's valued attributes of agriculture. natural resources and economic diversitv. CRDs shall
demonstrate a unique set of uses and support services necessarv to further these attributes within the RLSA.
Primarv CRD uses shall be those associated with and needed to support research. education, tourism or recreation.
Appropriately scaled compatible uses described in Policv 4.7.4 mav also be permitted in CRDs. A CRD may
include, but is not required to have pennallent residential housing" aHEI tile servioes aHa faeililies tllat slfl'I'Elrt
peffHaHeftt resiaeftls. The number of residential units shall be equivalent with the demand generated by the
primarv CRD use. but shall not exceed the maximum of two units per I!ross acre. A CRD shall be a maximum size
of 100 acres. ,A.n ellaFHJ'lle Elf a CRD is aH eeeteHrisffi village toot \'Ieula lIa'le a HRique set Elf Hses anEl SllppElrt
serliees differeftl frElm a traElitieftal residelltial village. It wOllla eElfttaift traftsient leagiHg faeililies aRa sorvie'
apprEll'riate to eeEl tElHrisls, But may IlElt previae fElr tile raRge Elf serviees tllat are HeeeOSlll)' Ie slfl'flElrt l'effHaHel.
resiaeRts. EJ<eejlt as aeseriBea aBElve, a CRD will eElRfElffH tEl tile ellaraeteristies Elf a Village er Hamlet as set furth
on i\tlaehFHeRI C Basea aR the size Elf tile CRD. ,A.S resiaefttial HHits are ftElt a reqHireEl lioe, tllElse gElElas aRd
serviees tllat sUl'pElrt fOsiaellts suell as retail, Elftiee, eivic. gElvernmeRlal aRd iRstitlitiaHallises shall also Het be
reqHired, " HhElwever, for aH)' CRD that dEles iHelllde peffHaReRt resiaeRtial 110HsiHg, the prElflertiElftate slfl'flElrt
ser;ieeo listea aBElve shall Be previaea iH aeemaanee 'I;itll ,A.ttaehFHeRt C TEl fHllifttaiR a I'rElpElrtiElR ef CRDs of
100 aeres or less IEl Villages and TO\';Rs, not mElre thaR 5 CRD3 Elf 100 aeres or less, in eElmBiRatiElR ';:itll HllfHleto,
may he apl'fElvea as S~A.S priElr to IRe apprEl',al sf a Village 8f TElwn, aHa tllereafter RElt mElre thaR 5 aaaitiElllal
CRDs Elf JQO aeres Elr leos, in eembiRatieR witllllaFHiets. may Be aflflroved fer eaell sHBseqHeRt Village Elr Tmvn.
Tllere shall Be REl m8re tllan 5 CRDs sf more thaH 100 acres in size. Tile ilflPfElpriateRess ef tllis limtatiElR sllall
Be reviewea in 5 years flHfsllaRt tEl Poliey 1.22.
Policv 4.7.4 (recommended new policy)
Existing urban areas. Towns and Villages shall be the preferred location for business and industrv within the
RLSA. to further promote economic development. diversification and iob creation. Pennitted uses shall include,
but not be limited to envirorunental research. agricultural research. aviation and aerospace. health and life
sciences. corporate headquarters. cQmputer hardware. software and services. information technology,
manufacturing. research & development, wholesale trade & distribution; technolol!v commercialization and
deyelopment 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 t
be designated as a SRA in accordance with Policy 3.12 and 3.13.
58 I P age
Policy 4,9 (recommended amendment)
A SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development in an environmentally
acceptable manneL The primary means of directing development away from wetlands and critical habitat is the
prohibition oflocating SRAs in FSAs; and HSAs, aRa WR,'\B. 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 goverrunental
essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve pennitted uses and for public safety, shall not be
sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 12. Infrastructure necessarv to serve
pennitted uses may be exemot from this restriction. provided that designs seek to minimize the extent of imoacts
to any such areas. The Index value of greater than 12 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 12.
Policy 4.10 (recommended amendment)
Within the RLSA Overlay, open space, which by definition shall include public and private conservation lands,
underdeveloped areas of designated SSAs, agriculture, water retention and management areas and recreation uses,
will continue to be the dominant land use. Therefore, open space adequate to serve the forecasted population and
uses within the SRA is provided. To ensure that SRA residents have such areas proximate to their homes, open
space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town; or
Village. , or thElse CRDs e"eeeaing 100 aeres. Lands within a SRA greater than one acre with Index values of
greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open spacc, except for the allowance of uses described in Policy 4.9. As an
incentive to encourage open space, such uscs within a SRA, lEleateEl olllsiae ef the ,^,CSC. 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
59 I P age
Policy 4.14 (recommended amendment)
The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a roe .
provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordar.
with accepted transportation planning standards. At the time of SRA approvaL an SRA proposed to adioin land
designated as an SRA or lands designated as Open shall provide for the opportunity to provide direct vehicular
and pedestrian connections from said areas to the County'S arterial/collector roadway network as shown on the
County Build Out Vision Plan so as to reduce travel time and travel expenses, improve interconnectivity. increase
internal capture. and keep the use of county arterial roads to a minimum when traveling between developments in
the RLSA.
Public and private roads within an SRA shall be maintained by the primarv town or community it serves.
Signalized intersections within or adiacent to an SRA that serves the SRA shall be maintained by the primarv
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 2.73 of the LDC. Dr 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 mav be taken to
include. but shall not be limited to. proyisions for the construction and/or pennitting of wildlife crossings.
environmental mitigation credits. right ofwav dedication(sl. 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 roadwavs 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 pennitted by the Urb
Designation of the FLUE, as modified by Policies 4.7, 4.7.1, 4.72. and 4.7.3,4.+.4 and Attachment C An
appropriate mix of retail, office. recreational, civic, goverrunental, 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 lmmokalee 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 aHB 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 ofthe SRA application,
the following information shall be provided:
I. 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
60 I P age
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, aHEI thElse CRDs exeeediag ElHe hlllldred (I 00)
aeres iR size, and may be required in CRDs that are one hundred (IOO) 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 lmmokalee Water Sewer Service District, Collier County, or other goverrunental 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 pennitted on an interim basis until services from a centralized/decentralized community system
are available. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems are permitted iH Hamlets and may be
pennitted in CRDs of 1 00 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 effectivelv for high-
value research. development and commercialization. innovation. and alternative and renewable energy business
orolects.
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.
elwejlt for 0 Qpen space in excess of the required thirty-five percent as described in Policy 4.10 or for land that is
61 I P age
designated for a public benefit use described in Policy +.+9 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
services to and are supportive to the residential population of a SRA, as provided for in Policies 4. 7, ~ 4.15"
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 oot 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 goverrunental 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
] 63.3177 F.S. and in a manner consistent with 235.1 93 F.S. Schools and related ancillary uses shall be
encouraged to locate in or proximate to Towns, and Villages. aRd Hamlet3 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 aHEI 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 alld CRDs of not more
than 300 acres aHd Hamlets. Provided. however, that CRDs, or two Villages or CRDs of not more than 500 acres
each, exclusive of any lakes created prior to the effeeti-:e Elate of this amondment June 30. 2002 as a result of
mining operations, shall be allowed in areas that have a frontage on State Road 29 and that, a3 ef the effeeti-:e
date of tfie3e amoRsment3. 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 developmer
potential within the ACSC but instead is used to promote a more compact form of development as an alternati,
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.
Policv 4.22 (recommended new policy)
When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA through the SRA designation process, the
applicant in coniunction 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 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, iH 1'8As. Conditional use essential
services and goverrunental essential services. except those necessary to serve permitted uses Dr for public safety,
shall eft!y not be allowed in FSAs. witll a Natuml Reseume 8tewarsshil' luse" value Elf 1.2 or leGS. Where
practicable. directional-drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil or
gas extraetion 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, sha1
constitute compensation for the loss of these rights.
62 I P age
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 detennined to be appropriate. A map ofthese 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:
I. 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
obscrved 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 notity 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. OpeR sl'aee aHEI vegetotiEln pre"ervatien re'llliremeRt3 sllall 'ee
usee tEl e"ta'elish 'eHffer areas 'eetweea wildlife lIaBitat Meas aRe Mea" E1ElmiHatee BY IIHmaH
aeti':ities. 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. Tbe follEl\ViHg refcreftees sllall Be u"ee, a3 ejll'rElpriate, te propaFe the reElHired maRagemeftt
~
5. Smith FlElrida MHlti Sl'eeie3 ReeevefY PlaFl, USFWS, 1999.
o. HaBitat MaHagemeftt GHidelines fElr tile Bald Eagle iB tile Seutheast RegiElH, USFWS,
+98+.
63lPage
7. EeEllElgy and Habitat PreteetiElH Needs of Gel'lIer Terteise (Ca!,heres l'el)'!'hefHHG)
Pa!,ulatiElRs fuHfld Elfl Lands Slated fer Large Seale De'fela!'meflt iH PlElriEla, Toellnieal
Re!,Elrt J>!a. 1. PlaREla Game aRd Presll Water Pioll CElmmissiafl, 19&7.
8. EeEllEl~;Y aRd DeveJElpment Related Habilat ReE[uifomeftts af the PIElrida Serne Ja)
V<flelEleElma eElemleoeens), Teeh.'lieal Rejlert Ne. 8. FlElRda Came alld Fresll Water FiGII
CElmmiSSiElH,1991.
5. EeEllElgy aHd Haeitat PreteetiEln Needs af tile SOHtheastem ,^JflerieaR Keolrol (Falee
S!,arveriHs PaHIHs) eH Large seale DevelEll'meftt Sites iH naRda, NElflgame Teehnieal
Report NEl. 13, FlElRaa Game and Fresll Water Fisll CElmmiSOiElH, 1993.
L fro The County shall consider any other techniques recommended by the USFWS and FFWCC.
subject to the provision of paragraph 3 of this policy.
11, ifr 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 disposal practices.
cThe Management Plans shall contain a monitoring program for developments greater than ten
acres.
e. for pareels eElfltaiRiHg gElpller taFtEliseo (GEll'lIereo pEllj'!,lIemHs), I'RaRty sllall ee giyen to
proteetiRg tile largeGt mElst eaflligllElHS gel'lIer tElRElise lIaeitat wilh the greatest IlHfHeor Elf aetive
eHffElWG, alld fBr providillg a eefllleetiElIl tEl Elff site adjaeellt gel'lIer tElFtElise !,reserves.
e.Haeitat !'reservatiEln fur tRe Plerida serne jay V'l'lIelEleema eeemleGeeflG) shall eElHfElffH ta tile
gHiEleliRes eElfttailled ifl Tecllflieal Rel'ert NEl. 8, FlElREla Game aaa Fresll 'Nater Fisll
CElmmissiEla, 1991. Tile feE[Hirea HlLlaagemeHt plaH sllall alsa I'rElvide for a maiateflnnce
prElgt'llm alld sl'eeify aH al'prepriate fife Elr meellaaieall'fEltEleElls te maiHtain tile aatHffil seme
eElmfHHaity. Tile plan sllall alsEl GlItliae a Pllblie awareRess prElgram ta edHeate fesidellts aeelll
tile ElH site I'reGef\'e anEl the fleed to maiRtaiR tile sorue vegetatiEln. Those reE[Hifomeats sllall ee
eElllsisteRt witR the UFWS Soutll FIElriEla Multi Sl'eeies ReeElvery Plan. May 1999, sHbjeet te
tRe !,fElvisiElRS efparilgra!,1I (3) Elftllis policy.
a.FElr tile eald eagle (Haliaeerns leueeeepllalus). tile re'lHired lIabitat maRagemeRt plllfts sllall
estaelisR I'fElteetive ZElReS arElllRd the eagle nest restrietiHg eertaiH aetivities. Tile plalls sllall
alsEl address restReting eertain types Elf aetivities dllriag tile Hest seaseR Tllese feE[HiremeRts
shall be eElllsiGteRt with tile UFWS SmltR FlElRda MlIlti Speeieo ReeEl'/er Plaa, May 1999,
sHbjeet to tile !,rEl'/isioRs Elf!,aragrapll (3) Elf this !,Elliey.
e.FElr tile red eoekaded v;oodpeekor lpieaiaes earealis), tile reE[HireEl lIaeitat I'reteetieH plan shall
Ellltliae IReasmes to a'cElia adyerse impaets to aetiye elllsters aHEI to miHimize impaets 10
forngiag lIabitat Wllere aaverse effoeb ean RElt be a'. Eliaea. meaSHreG SRall be takeH to
minimize on site E1istllfbaHee ana eElmpensate or mitigate far impaets tllat refHfliR TheGe
re'luirements sllall ee eonsisteRt '.vitll tile UF'HS SEllllII FIElRda Multi Speeies ReeElvery PlaR,
May 1999, sHbjeot tEl the provisiElfl ofparagrapR 3) oftRisl'Elliey.
f. In areaG '?'hefe tile Florida elaek bear (UrsHs amerieaRus flElRElanlls) may ee I'reseHt, the
maRagemellt plans sllall reE[uife that garAage be l'laeea iH bear prEl8f cefttainem. at 8Re Elr mElrl
eelltrallEleatiElRs. Tile managemeet !,laR sllall alsEl iaentify metlloas to iflfoffH loeal resideat. of
64lPage
the eeReerns related tEl iRteraetioR BehyeeH Blaek Bears andllumans. MitigatiElH fElr iffipaetiRg
haBitat suitaBle fElr Blaek Bear shall Be eElRoidered iR tile maRagoffieftt plan.
g.For l'rajeets leeated iR PriElrit)' I Elr PriElrity II PaRtller HaBitat afeas, the maHagemeftt plnn sllall
E1iseElHfllge the destmetiElR Elf uRElistliffleEl, Rative haBitats that are prefcffeEl BY tile Flerida
pafttller (Felis eeneEllElr eElryi) BY E1ireeting ifttensive land Hses tEl eurrelltIy E1isturfled areas.
Pref.,ffeEl lIallitats iRelHde l'ille flatweods and lIardwEledllamrneeks. In turn, tllese areas sllall Be
BHff.,reEl from tile mElst iRteRse land Hses of the project BY HoiHg lElW illtellsity land Hoes (e.g.,
parks, passive reereatiElnal arcas, golf eElufGeo). GEllEl eElHfSeS witllin the RHffil Lallds :\rea shall
Be desigaed and maHageEl Hsing standards fElHHd 'lIithiR tllis Overlay. The mallagemeRt plans
shall identify appHlpriate liglltiRg eElfttrels for these l'emlitted Hses and sllall alse address the
ElpperlHnity to Htilize I'feseriBElEl burniRg tEl maifttaiR fire adapted preserved yegetatiEln
eElffimHnities aRdl'rEl'.ide Brewse f<lr white tailed deer. Tllese fOEJHireffieRts shall Be eOllsistellt
y..itll tile UFWS SElutll FlElrida MHlti Speeies ReeElver PlaH, May 1999, sHBjeet to tile previsiElRs
of paregrapll (3) Elf this l'eliey. Tile MHlti Seeeies ReeevelY PIeR (J 999) shall eElfilltilHte
miRimum wildlife llreteetiElR standards for tile RLSf.O.
II.Tlle MaRagemcRt Plans slIall eEllltaiR a mElllitElring pregram far E1evelElpments greater tllaH 10
-
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
eElHtainiRg utilized by listed species. It is recognized that these agency recommendations, on a case by case
basis, may ehange strengthen the requirements contained within these wildlife protection policies and any
such change shall be deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan. However, no reduction of the
wildlife protection policies of Policy 5.5will be considered as these shall constitute minimum standards for
wildlife protection.
Policy 5.6 (recommended amendment)
For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, Collier County shall
direct non-agricultural land uses away from high functioning wetlands by limiting direct impacts within
wetlands. A direct impact is hereby defined as the dredging or filling of a wetland or adversely changing the
hydroperiod of a wetland. This policy shall be implemented as follows:
L 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 3.3These 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
assossment 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. Wotland 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
65lPage
66lPage
greateL Within one year from the effective date of this Amendment. the County shall develop
specific criteria in the LDC to be used to detennine those instances in which wetlands with"
WRAP functionality assessment score of 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessml
Method score of 0.7, or greater must be preserved in excess of the preservation required by
Policy 5.3.
11. Wetlands and contiguous uoland 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.
lll. Proposed deyelopment 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 422.4.6.11 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-OOl, dated September
1997, and updated August 1999. or the Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method, identified
as F.AC 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 ElS 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 (I) of this policy.
d. Single family residences shall follow the requirements contained within Policy 6.2.7 of It
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 cd. Wctland bufTers shall confonn to the following standards:
i. The buffer shall be measured landward from the approvedjurisdictionallinc.
ii. The buffer zone shall consist of preserved native vcgetation. 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 Counci L
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) Watcr 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, benn. 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:
L "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.
-w y. Prior to issuance of any final development order that authorizes site alteration, the applicant
shall demonstrate compliance with paragraphs (I) 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 excceding that of the jurisdictional agencies.
g. Wetland prescrvation, 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.ejv.) and shall not include any other activities that
are detrimental to drainage, flood, control, water conservation, erosion control or fish and wildlife
habitat conservation and preservation.
4. All landowners shall be encouraged to consider participating in anv programs that provide incentives.
funding or other assistance in facilitating wetland and habitat restoration on private lands including. but not
limited to. federal farm bill agricultural conservation programs. private or public grants. tax incentives.
easements. and fee or less than fee sale to conservation programs.
Policy 5.7 (recommended new Policy)
Any development on lands not participating in the RLS program shall be compatible with surrounding land uses.
Outdoor lighting shall be reasonably managed to protect the nighttime environment. conserve energy. and
enhance safety and security.
Policy 5.8 (recommended new Policy)
When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA, the applicant in coni unction 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.
67 I P age
-I.:"
Stewardship Overlay Map
JiENDRYCOUNTr
~':">~_____ cJU" ",t'
u~~ .~ ~ ~~
~ ~_''''''! -(-I 1 tl_-'
--------- ~ ~:, "~1}'
----_______.. c. l J\ J
~ '-',' '\
. , "" -".
!';-S.':hi-
L · '?;
.
.
.
1
o
~
~
,
i
I
'-
,
GOWEN9" ""0
I
llGE...D
',OR.....aILandStawardshipAreaBoundary
AfeaofCnticalStateConcem
500.Foot Restofation Zone
_FlowwaYSlewardShipArea
:.HabitatStewardshipArea
!OOpenStewardshipArea
Pefmilted Waler RelentionArea
i
N
681P:1qe
~
RLSA OVERLAY
MAP 1
M,~~
COLLIER RlSA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW
EXISTING A TT ACHMENT A...STEW ARDSHIP CREDIT WORKSHEET
Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay
Stewardship Credit Worksheet
Appendix H
L.anIIU..a..yer.
Stew8rd.hlpCredit MatrlJ(
L Step ii2l
ill....'"
~
FIo,I_lil\llUoo.
G....,Co<1il1lIOllOillMs
e..JlhMnlngon~PKlCOO'iogU'"
Raa..IiMoIUseo
...,~...Groupl
",,~""".S"llPO"U'"
A&l<1WI...-G<Oup2
~-
.,~'.t;i
_....u_
_ole_u...
EoIIo ..... iJo..
"..._lIon
--,,^,'
O'"l..'U'"
..................,
Con""'oibn,A"""oIioo,No""oIA..",,o",
TOI.I.'ot'uv-
......2;!!!L.c.-.
x~a8t'Wllr""hIPcr"1l1'
~
Sl_'~""pN'",r.lR..o...",,'_FO<1'"
:;;~,;..-,:r:.:>
__ _(I<..l
..--....
....oIC......"....O........csc
~- "~
-_c..-...._..'..""..._M'-
UM_c..-"__""""
""'"':-=~~.
'WCC5""""1I l
FWCCS"""'<l<<"".
f'LlICCSCo<lo<O<<"".
~~
Slew_d.hlpCredllll
-........,
...-"'!'!r.......
"Lb... ...H......W...
w___..,.....H$.<
w___or .. "",..........,...
......-
~....._---
._~-
...('1._.....
- .-
O;"'~,t,:
-...-.-.....
0___
.........--
011Io<_ ._100.....
...........-
....,"".>IUT...Tllucno...
1.So"ol'F>lrc.'wI","r.gI.hom""._".,,,,,dcovo'~)'P.,,,,,,,,,,,,,yz.d"""'<I,,,,,,,,,pr,,,,.."'.dorl"....""""O\I""''''~,....o1N.'"''''A..Il<J'''.'"do,fo'''..IL...S..w''''.h\>O'"'.yDO"Do,'"""P",,'m"yift_o,o".!
~,Sot.et"'_"""Lamlu..o""yoo"IX)"'b."im""'<l''''m'"O''K.O''o''"",'hoS..wo",.'''''G_'.'''''",,"'""'oro..,ol.yoo"...',,",,
3.E""r",o""".""",.,,,.._."'~Tho",,,,,,"'o"m"",,,yt""t,,,,c,,,,,p,,oor.by"'o"""'''O'."..I"'hop."..""i.Id''''''''''Slowo'',hIpC"oito
69lPage
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT TO ATTACHMENT A...STEWARDSHIP CREDIT WORKSHEET
"ulll""-nI__.Noe
RO......Slewo....shA...FSA
,".tIllalS_n:lsIlIAtIllHSA
WllOIRoI",Ii<>nAr... 'MlA
elolC~ISlMeCo"<.mIACSCI
~n.oflhe.bo..
p'oo~...........,
E<K:Io~b FS HSA,orWRA
WllhOl300,,"elofFSAOIHSA
WIlNn300leeIol Mcorrlvolo oenteland
_oflhe_
"'_l.
Recommel'lCkld R.vi,lon 10 AttllChment A Collier COYnty RLSA St_ardahlp Credit Work,heet
L..,dU..V.lue
-I
lr--
PI......,oc:cuoItclhlOIIo1rorat_lndtoletlltcll04",,___ol..
P.~"""OCCUlIadllabllal{oreforred_lo"".I.dl
1Jl~.""'J071...lo(!ll.lo(!'_'nabH"1
f<ano.llhe.b.IflI
~lorordM""'Deo....lon."d~
s..... O_n loll.
~1...'T'~I)oolls
Nn~~n.ooII.
L.. mlmmalcon1<lor...I"lliono"o.
C....-""'_..,.lIowwIvr8llnfation."."" "
!'I'~lnObO'd_Ilon.,...
Ql.!'-'isled_...reototationaroa.
"_,,,,!,.oflholbow
Lari4.~..i"";~~_~
HUCCSCO<IloGrouol
FL!!.CCSCodIGr0Ull2
FLUCCScw. 3
FlUCCSCodlGr
1liiii'-"""ii!i~~~"filii;-n'l
: - --,~~', ~~,.___,__. ..#HJ'
Agni:lu4I\.oILarldo..IMI\CSC
Agn",IturIL..-.l.o",,_ttIoACSC
70 I P age
...- l~J
~.!I1TJ.
.
,
c:::sr,-p-J~_l
~IIM_,""".
Io__~
R..I<lBnIilllU...
O.nor.I&C.nd;bon.IU....
E_ _",-..I Uua
A O\jlt"",Grn lU... 01
oIJIl\KeClrQ 2U... D'f--
ROSID"'''''''oncINotuI.~U... C...............,OIIII<lfbndU..V..UII~~
.-~l
L~...J
IOMOlrI.
-===_O'r--"
--- - ~~
~;';';iii;C;dc.r.;;,I;j.;;;r;;'lfucll':""
N.aI~,,"Re"'~,"I_V"UII'
'..p 1. An NRI.--I,,,..ch pa'ool o.l""d >. co'culo!8d by 'he S,-.hip mod.' ~o..d on NRI F~,!o"
...P1.o.o.tomIlno....lotIS..-.!ir>gAr..l.ndU..l.y......lb..'imln.tad.nd.umth.L.ndU.. Vol.....
S.op 1.1>. U.. "'. No.IU-.I R..m,roeSIo".rd.nlp'-;'adit. FOfmulo to d.'"",,;ne """,boroIC'adi!.
Af1'Jc~ItureLatOII_
Sl'p 2. OotemHne""id1Ojl1;",,"~,.v.lu. to u,e bo..d 0" locolion
Sl.p :... V..!tl& "ll"ClJllu'. SI.wo'd.hio C,.~;t FO,,"ul. 10 determine "umb.. ot C'odl!.
Re.o".lIonAc/lvIU..
SlOJl). SOloclR..olf;Ulon """icoOoo
Slopl... O....mln.lOtOcIl'...o,._.<~v"yv.;~~e;mpl.m.n!8d
~~.3~~~~!~.!':~.~!.'!'!".~.~.~~1"'!";~. ~!'.!' 01 C'~i",
Stew.m.hlp eNdll Formulas
Nalural Resources Stewardship Credils" Acres x cumu~five NRI SCOff X cumulative Land Use Value
- r ;-io'Pibl
Agriculture Stewardship Credll:s {it applicablej "Acres x Agricullure Val ue
--'51op2..1
Restofalion CI&eli!s (if applicable) : Acres ~ (2 + Resloration Value)
-~~~.~
Note This Worksheet is intWded to Illustrate the Fac:1ors. Values, Formulas and lostruclions used to
calculate Stewardship Credll$. To propllrly calculat.. Slewardshlp Credits, Ihe Natural Resources Index
Map and Stewardship model must be used along with Ihe appjlcabl.. RLSA ~Icle"
ATTACHMENT B-LAND USE LAYERS [strike through is proposed deletion]
4.08.06 BA.b Land Use Matrix (P=Permitted; A=Accessory; CU= Conditional Use)
(laver 1\ (laver 2 \ '(laver 3\ 'laver 4\ {laver 5\ (laver 6\ (laver 7\ laver 8\
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 andlorgolf horticulture; (A) asture plant and wildlife
mobile home earthmining and driving ruil and grazing, conselVancies, refuges
(P) related aoges and nut oreslry and sanctuaries (P)
rocessing (CU) production; (P)
and production groves;
(CU) urserles:
improved
asture-iPl
Mobile homes Collection and Asphaltic and Sports Animal breeding Retail sale of fresh, Ranching; livestock Water management,
{(P)ln MH transfer sites for concrete batch Instructional (other than Unprocessed raising (PI groundwater recharge
Overlay; (AI as resource making plants schools and livestock), agricultural (P)
temporary use) ecovery CUI camps (CU) ailing roducts;
(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: urseries CUI (P)
nd camps (CU) poultry and egg (CU)
docks on lake, production; milk
canal or production (P)
w~l~rway lots
Recreational Child care centers ~Gulturefer Packinghouse or Cultural, Water supply, well
facilities and adult day care similar agricultural educational, ields
'ntegral centers processing of farm or recreational (P): oil and gas
to residential .... products produced facilities and their exploration (PI
development, ) ,n related modes of
.g., golf the property (A) transporting
.;ourse, participants,
clubhouse, iewers
community or patrons; tour
center building operations, such
and tennis s,
facilities, but not limited to
parks, airboats, swamp
playgrounds buggies, horses
snd nd
playfields (A) similar modes of
transDortatio~ icuI
Guesthouses Zoo, aquarium, The commercial Sawmills (CU) Excavation and Boardwalks, nature
(A) aviary, botanical production, raising related processing trails
garden,orother r incidental to Ag(A) (P)
similar uses (CUI breeding or exotic
animals/CUI.
Churches and Wholesale reptile Natural resources not
other places of breeding and othelWlse listed (P)
worship (CU) aising
non-venomous (P)
and venomous{CUI
ommunlcations Essential services {P
towers (R)(CUI and CU)
Social and Oil and gas field
Fraternal development and
organizations (C) production (CU)
Private landing
strips for general
aviation (CU)
Cemeteries (CU)
Schools (CU)
I ~:oup care
acillties, ALF ICUI
71 I P age
Note to
Attachment B:
The removal of
land use layers
yields
Stewardship
Credits
measured
on a per acre
basis.
TypiealC......ael.r!.Iies
Size (Gro.. Acr...)
R...identl.1 Unils(OU.) per gross ac", base
d.nBity
ResidenbalHou.lngSlyles
MaxirnurnFIOOrAl..RatinorlntanBily
Good'.ndServices
W.lerandW....lewals'
Recrell1;onand OJ>lln Spa"".
CivOc,Gov."'mentalandlnBl~utionaIServices
Transport.tion
Attachment C-Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics
[final and approved]
Town'
Attachment C
Collier County RLSA Overlay
StewardShip Receiving Area CharacterlsUcs
1 ,000.<1,000 acres 100.1,000acr...-
VIII.
1.<1 DUsper g'ossacr..-- 1.4 DU. per g'o.. act.'"
Retail & Off".. 5
Ci.iclGo.ernmentsVlnSlilution.6
FUll tange 01 .Ingle family and mu~i.f.mily Or.sroity oloingle family and mulli.famil
nou.lngtYP.',.tylos,lotsizes ncu.inglyPs.,styl..,lofSizs,
RSloil&Olfrc._5
Ci.iclGovsm""'nteV'n.t~ut"n_ 6
Ma"''''.'''"r1nn!tlntl1IM'FJlIIjat.4S
~g.4S
~Uln9.26upanet
TownCenterwilhComrnunityand
Ne;gnboorl\ood Good. sndSItrVIOB. In Town
and V~lagaCenter&' Minim"", 65 SF g'OB'
building ars. p.rDU'Coroor",~ 011lr...,
Msnufach"'fVlsndiit>ntlnrt".tr..1
C.nt,aliz&d ord.cBnt'a~ZBd community
Ire.tmenlsystern
Infe",,,WsllandS.nlic
Cornmun~y P.rko (100 SFIOUj
Parl!'&PubllcGr..nS~oo.wln
Noighborl1oo~o
Actlv~ RAr~Ralln"'r.~Ifr.t"".R'
L.ka.
OpenSpacoMJnll11ul113S%ofSRA
W<l.RangaofSefYico._m"l11\ImlSSFID
FultR"r1n~"'!;ehnni.
Au!o-;nt.,connecledoy.temofcollBclolen
lo""lroacl.;r"qU;'&dconneclionlccoIIBclo,
arl.rial
In!e'COhnecl"dsldewBikartdpsthway.y.te
CounlyTransnAco"".
~_l:lIDmWg..45
Tran"Rnt I odning. 26 upanB1
V,lag.C.nt.rW1th Neighborl1cM Gooo
encl Servlc,," in Village Centers, Minimu
25 SF gross bU~ding 8r.a par OU
Cem,alizsdordecent.-alizedcornmunity
tnlat""",lsYSI.I11.
.lnlllfimWRII.nd!;,."IIC
Psrl!s "-PUblicGrun SplIC8.wln
N.ighborhcods(mlnlmurnl%ofgros$
.rr..\
Acli"oR""r8~ltnnl(''''lf~""
L~...
Qp"" Spaca Minil11um 35% olSRA
Moderal.R.ng.afS8rvlc",,_min,rnum1
SFIDU,
Fuji RftfVl" of Sr.hcol.
Auto-II1I.,connecledsyslemofcotIBclo
andlocalroadB:rsquiftldoonneclionlo
collectn'orarten81 I
'""""~~~~;:~~~~::"".., 1-
"-,
40-1ooac,ss--
112.20Up.,g'oU.c,....
Single Farnilil!lld 'imrt~~ m,,~j.I.m,t.
Rata;1 & Offl08. ,5
Ci.,cJr.oV"",m8ntJIlf!nlll1llLio....6
--.-. ~
Transi"nl i~da;og_26 upa net
COn"a"'eMe Gondsand SSrvicBS; Minimu
10 SF gro.s bui<ling Bfupe'DU
Indi.idusIWollandSapticSy.t.m;
_ C.""8~'<ul nr ~~c_r".''''' OOmm 'My
-"''''"'''''''''"
PUbiicG'eenSpac. forNeighboorho~d.
(rninimuml%ofgro~.ac",.)
I ,m~"" SA",j"".
p,...Kthm"on Flemanta", Schonls
Aulo-im.rwnnect&d.y.ternoflocai'Oad
P&d.Btri.nPathw.ys
FO'_ri~hTr~i1.
cj
--Townsa'.PfOhlb~actwlthlnth..ACSC, per policylIl of the Go.I., Objoctives, a~dPolio..s
.. - Vmage., Hamlet>, and Comp.ct R",..I O""sloptner,t'_IlleACSC.. Olltijed 10 _ion.oo &IH lImlbUIno, p<< policy 4.2llIlld ar. ."bjeo! 10 Chapter 16.25. fAC
- -Oensdycan b.lnc(l.aaod~ltlab-.~IIro"li'hth.Afforlia<M. HOIISlng D.f\S"y80nu. o'lhmUgh lhed..ns~y blending provisinfP<<pollcy4 7
.-- ThO.. CRD. that indude .i~leo, rnu~~(amjly ,oeidenl;.,1 u.. .he~ ",duds proporta;onate support Bervioe.
Undertinedu.e.arenol'equlrodU'..
"-""'--~<",,,~~,,,,,
72 I P age
Comp""tRur..O'''''lop.....nt
100 Acres Of Ie..- Gre.< TllI.n 100 Ac,.s"
t/1.2DUpe,g,o..sc,..'- 1-4DUspergro".cre-_
B.mit.&~_.5
Sino.. F.m.v ~M Iimil.d ""'W:fiImj~-- Sino'" Familv ""d rmite~ "'''lIi_f..mlly
Civicjr.ov""""~~t.lllo.~....6
~g.4S
T'en~iAt11lndning. 211upe n"l
Conv.oian""GoodsandServicos:Mi",rnu
10 SF grossbulldinQ or.a p.'DU
Indiv<luaIWellanclSaplioS)'$lem;
Cent,,,",,," Or ~A""t11f~Ii,.<I ""mm,,,,ity
''''"'m.IlI.''''!.....
PUblicG'e..nSp"""fmN..lghboor!looo.
(minirnum l%ofg,o.s acre.)
Limrt.... S9rvic~.
Pr...K'n'o"onFI9m""t~rvSd"'nls
Auto In'e,connscl&d.yBlsrnofloealroad
P&daslrianPalt1w.y.
Eou...frianT'sjl.
---.---.--,----.-.-
---_.._-----~._----
-B'~...5
~~llIumuo~I.llh._l.,.~...-8
~-_4S
T -26 UP. net
V~lag..C.nls,with N"'ghborhood Good
and Servics. in ViII.ge C.m",.: Mfnlmu
25 SF gro..bcnl<ling......p..,OU
Centrailz.do,d9centt..jizedcommunily
traatrnem'Y'I""'S
InterlmW.II~n~s-.J'c
Pa,ks& Public Green Spac.s w/n
N.ighbotnocd>(mirHmum1%of
.e",.\
Acllv.R"""'alioolc:ol'Cllwl.....
,~~
Open Space Minimum 35% of SRA
Mod"'oI9R~""&~;O~._.jlllDitrnlm..
P,...KthmlKlhFIA""""arvSOhnnls
Aulo-,merconnectodsYslemofcolI.<:to
aOO 10",,1 rood.; requi'&d COM8<.11on 10
colieo!otor art.ri.1
Inte'conneele~S<l_kO"dp.a,hwaY
system
!;Ca"s.t'ianTrall.
C01Jn!vTrao.ilAr""",.
t==':.~::-:=:=-=--=-..:::=-::-_ __
Attachment C.Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics
[Recommended Amendment]
[Proposed]
Size (G
TyplcalCharacterlstlt;s Town' Village Compact Rural Development
rossAcres) 1,500-5,000acre5 10Q-1,500acres" 100 Acres or less.'
ntial Units (DUs) per gross acre base dens ty 1-4 DUs per gross acre." 1-4 DUs per gross acre'" 1/2 -2 DU per gross acre'"
ntial Housing Styles Full range of single family and multi-family Diversityofsinglefamilyandmulli-famil SimIle FAmilv and limited rntJlti-familr'.
housing types, slyles, lot sizes housing types, styles,lotsizes
Relail & Office. .5 Retail &Offiee 5 k~!Qe-.5
Civic/Governmental/Institution _ 6 Civic/Governmental/Institution - 6 Civic/Governmentalfln!'ltilulion.6
Manulaclurino/Liohllndustria~ 45 Grauo Housing..45 GrolJn Hou!'\ing-45
urn Floor Area Ratio or Intensity
GrouoHou!';ing-A5 Transient I ndaing-26 upanet Transient Lndoing-26 upanet
Transient I m!oing-26 upanet
Town Cenler with CommuOlly and
Neighborhood Goods and Services in Town an Village Center with Neighborhood Good Research, Education,Tourism & Recreatio
and Services Village Centers: Minimum 65 SF gross buildi g and Services in Village Centers: Minimu Convenience Goods and Services- Minimu
area per DU'CoroaratA Office Manutacturin 25 SF gross building area perDU 1Q SF gross building area perDU
and Liahl Jndu!';trial
Centralized or decentralized community Centralized or decentraiized community Individual Well and Septic System;
trealmentsystem treatment systems Cenlrali7edor dAcentrali7P.flcommunity
and Wastewater treatmentsvstem
InterimWeli and Seotic Interim Weiland Sentic
Parks & Public Green Spaces win Public Green Space for Neighborhoods
Community Parks (200 SFIDU) Neighborhoods (minimum 1 % of gross (minimum 1% of gross acres)
;>r,,,,,,'
Parks & Public Green Spaces win Active Recreation/Golf Courses
Neighborhoods
tion and Open Spaces
Lakes
Active Recreation/[:;nlfCourses Open Space Minimum 35% of SRA
Lakes
Open Space Minimum 35% of 8RA
Wide Range of Services - minimum 15 SFfD Moderate Range of Services - minimum 1 Limited Services
Governmental and Inslilutional Services SF/DU;
Fuli RanoeofSchonls Fuli RanoeofSchools Pre-K throuoh Elemf!ntarv Schools
Auto-interconnected system of collector an Auto-interconnected system ofcollecto
local roads; required connection to collector , and local roads; required connection to Auto-interconnected system 01 local road
arteriai collector or arterial
ortation Interconnected sidewalk and pathwaysyste Interconnected sidewalk and pathway Pedestrian Pathways
system
County Transit Access Eauestrian Trails Eouestrian Trails
COllntvTransitAccess
Reside
Reside
Maxim
Goods
Water
Recrea
Civic,
Transp
* - Towns are prohibited within the ACSC, per policy 4,7,1 of the Goais. 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 inciude praportaionate support services
Underli@dusesarenotreQuireduses
73 I P age
fi,IlQ"3
~~ijMs
Preface
The Committee's recommended RLSA Overlay amendments are supported by a substantiye 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
Receiying 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 deyelopment 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 IS, 200S reviewed and voted to accept the
following analysis to support its recommendations regarding revisions to several of the RLSA Overlay and its
related Credit System.
Collier County Rural Land Stewardship
Five Year Review
Supporting Documentation
[a working draft]
I. Introduction
The RLSA Overlay is a long-term strategic plan with a planning horizon year of 2025, the established
Horizon Y ear in the Collier County Growth Management Plan. This analysis was performed for both the 2025
Horizon Year and for a theoretical "build-out" scenario in 2050 in order to evaluate the potential long-range
implications of implementing the recommendations to amend certain RLSA policies set forth within this Phase II
Report.
The RLSA Review Committee's (Committee) Phase II work focused in part on policy changes to strengthen the
incentive to protect agriculture land and new panther corridors, to focus restoration actiyities, and to cap the total
potential Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) footprint within the RLSA program at 45,000 acres. Consistent
74 I P age
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 an"
panther corridors, and changed the Credits associated with restoration to more specifically defined activities. Th
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 Oyerlay. 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.
I. CREDIT GENERA nON UNDER CURRENTLY ADOPTED RLSA OVERLA Y
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 AG I 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 I -13, and this analysis sho\V
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 haye 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 + IO'7o is applied to
the model derived Base Credits (116.329). The rounded total cstimate is 128,000 Base Credits.
Restoration Credits
Restoration Credits are generated by application of Policy 3.1 L Because these Credits are dependent on site
specific conditions that require detailed eyaluations 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:
Acres of planned restoration, SSAs 1-13:
Acres deemed not suitable for restoration, SSAs 1- I 3
Maximum eligible acreage for future restoration:
73.000
12,000
21.000
40.000
For SSAs 1-13, approximately 29% of the total acreage is proposed for restoration. Assuming that the same
percentage applies to tbe 40,000 acres that are eligible for future restoration. I 1.600 additional acres would be
restored (40,000 x 029 = I] ,600). The projectod additional restoration credits generatcd under the current system
would be approximately 78,000 credits, as shown in the table below:
75 I P age
The total estimate for restoration credits under the current system is:
Approved restoration credits (SSAs 1-9. II): 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 proyides for a maximum of 27,000 Early Entry Bonus Credits. These Credits are ayailable
until January 31, 2009, at which time they are no longer available.
Potential Credits and SRA acres under currently adopted RLSA Program
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:
Public Benefit Acres estimated at 10%:
Total SRA Acres:
39,375 Acres
3,937 Acres
43,312 Acres
Remaining Baseline development potential
Open Land not included in SRAs or SSAs
ACSC Open Land
Non ACSC Open Land
Total remaining Open Land
15,000 Acres
28,700 Acres
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 22)
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 approyed SSAs
(approximatelyI5,000 acres) at 2.6 Credits per acre yielding 39,000 Credits, and priyately 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 1.0 credits per acre, or 50,000 Credits. Therefore,
the rounded total estimate is 89,000 total Agriculture Credits.
76 I P age
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. The~
corridors will require the use of both Open Lands and WRAs. We currently estimate approximately] ,300 acres at
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
relatiye 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 hetween the four other restoration types (caracara. exotic removal /
burning, flow way. and natiye 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:
,l'3ti!lntr .
Panther Habitat
Caracara
Exotic
Control/Bumin
Flow Wa
Natiye Habitat Rest.
Total
. ~~per
. Acre
600
2,750
10
4
"~.~~c~~ ..
6,000
11,000
2.750
2,750
2,750
1I,600
6
6
8
N/A
16,500
16.500
22,000
72,000
The total estimated restoration credits with implementation of the tiered system for future SSAs are shown below:
Approyed restoration credits (SSAs 1-9. II): 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 aboye be adopted without further changes, there would be the
following resulting Credits and SRA acres:
Base Credits:
Restoration Credits:
Early Entry Bonus Credits:
Agriculture Credits
Panther Corridor Credits
Total Credits:
SRA Acres at 8 Credits per acre;
Public Benefit Acres at 10%:
Total SRA Acres:
Remaining Baseline development potential
Open Land not included in SRAs or SSAs
128,000
154.000
27,000
89,000
23,000
421.000 Credits
52,625 Acres
5.263 Acres
57,888 Acres
o Acres
77lPage
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 leaying a substantial number of excess Credits. The following items are recommended by
the Committee:
L The cap of 45,000 SRA acres should include public benefit acres. (Policy 4.2 and 420)
2. The proposed Tiered Restoration System should be used for all future SSAs (Policy 3.1]).
3. No extension of the Early Entry Bonus Program beyond January 3], 2009. Approximately 7,000 EEBs
not included in approved or pending SSAs will be eliminated (Policy] 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, nOll-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 witb these Credits will be computed at the cmrent 8 Credit per acre ratio. This includes
Credits and SRA acres already approved for and applied to the Town of Ave Malia.
b. Proposed SSAs J 4, 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 DRlISRA. 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 proyided 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 approyed 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 ] 0,000. 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 (assuming full property owner participation):
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 supply of Credits
SSAs 1-9, ]1 Vested Credits (approved)
SSAs ]4-]6 Vested Credits (estimated)
SSA Credits vested at 8 Credits per SRA acre
Remaining SSAs at 10 Credits per SRA acre
73,488 credits
24,000 credits
97,488 credits
306,512 credits
78 I P age
Proiected SRA acres assuming all Credits are used:
SRA acres entitled at 8 Credits per acre
SRA acres entitled at 10 Credits per acre
Subtotal of Credit entitled SRAs
Public benefit acres estimated at 10%
Total potential SRA acres
12.186 acres
30,651 acres
42,837 acres
4,283 acres
47,120 acres
Remaining Baseline development potential
Open Land not included in SRAs or SSAs
o 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 yoluntary, 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 conseryation 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 ne\
Agriculture Credit. Table 4.1 shows 100% of Open Lands conyerted to baseline uses under the current program
and Table 43 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 CUlTent 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, Goldcn Gate Estates already offers a significant supply of 225
to 5 acre lots without such services for those that prefer this altemative.
Table 42 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 43 still demonstrates that the potential deyelopment 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 43.700
SRAs 43,300
Potential Development Footprint 87,000 44.4%
Public Land and Miscellaneous 16.846 8.6%
Total RLSA 195,846 100.0%
79lPage
Darb ase Ine conversIon
Acres % of Total
NRI based SSAs 92,000
SSA Subtotal 92,000 47.0%
ACSC Open Land conyersion at 10% 1,500
Non ACSC Open Land conversion at 25% 7.175
SRAs 43,300
Potential DeveloDment FootDrint 51,975 26.5%
Open Land remaining in Agriculture 35,025 17.9%
Public Land and Miscellaneous ]6,846 8.6%
Total RLSA 195,846 100.0%
Table 4.2: Current RLSA Land Use Summary with
'al b r
Table 4.3: Revised and recalibrated RLSA Land Use Summary
at full utilization
Acres % of Total
NRI based SSAs 92,000 47.0%
Agriculture SSAs 40,000 20.4%
Panther Corridors 2,300 U%
SSA Subtotal 134.300 68.5%
Potential DeveloDment (SRAs) 45,000 23.0%
Public Land and Miscellaneous 16,546 85%
Total RLSA 195,846 100.0%
Under the reyised 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 incentiyised.
It should also be noted that current RLSA Oyerlay 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 deyeloped 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 RLSk
Population projections for the horizon year of 2025 were reviewed from multiple sources as shown in Table II-I.
First, the Collier County Build-Out Study is an analysis done by County Comprehensiye Planning staff in 2005 to
eyaluate 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 lnteractiye 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.
80lPage
e - orIzon ear ro ec Ions WI III e
SF Dwelling SF MF Dwelling MF TOTAL Total
Dwelling
Units Population Units Population Unit. Population
Collier County 17.100 43,400 14.800 28.200 31,900 71,600
Build-out Study
Collier County
Interactive nla n/a nla nla 24.663 45,400
Growth Model
Collier MPO 13.900 34,200 11,800 22,100 25.700 56.300
2025 Forecast
RLSA Overlay 12,656 28,476 13,044 22.827 25,700 51,303
Forecast
Tabl II 1 2025 H '
y
P . t'
'th' th RLSA
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 haye 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.
a e - u - u rOJec IOns WI III e
SF Dwelling SF MF Dwelling MF TOTAL Total
Dwelling
Units Population Units Population Units Population
Collier County 66,403 220,722 65,879 168,421 132,238 389,193
Build-out Study
Collier County
Interactive nla n/a nla nla 106,493 210,632
Growth Model
RLSA Overlay 72. 700 163,602 40,514 70.970 113,214 234.572
Forecast
TbIII2BildOtP't'
'thO th RLSA
Note: Table Il - 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 Concert Maps
To help visualize how land uses may be distributed within the RLSA, and to graphically illustrate the Comparison
of alternatiyes previously described three Maps have been prepared the cUlTently adopted RLSA Overlay Map
(Figure A); the 2025 RLSA Concept Map (Figure B); and the 2050 RLSA Concept Map (Figure C). Map A is a
rendering of the Overlay Map and Maps Band C each present one possible scenmio for the distribution of
potential Stewardship Sending Areas, Stewm'dship ReceiYing 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 thc primm'y transportation network and the possible location Of
Panther Corridors. The Concept Maps use symbols to depict possible locations of Towns. Villages and Compacc
Rural Deyelopments. 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
81 I P age
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 approyed Town or Village
would be completed. To accommodate this fact. the total acreage of approyed 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 Oyerlay Credit System. essentially all of the areas depicted as FSA, HSA, WRA,
Agriculture and Open Space would be within approyed 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 yoluntarily and
individually approved by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners in accordance with the adopted
GMP and LDC procedures.
[this intentionally left blank]
82lpage
..._-.,---~,..-----._"".__.,~._~,",-,"_..---_.--
RLSA OVERLAY
il
i,;. ..... "J
...._~-_."
. if; Of'
'Ii"
~1"r, ",,,,,,. e.'
"- -j,'" J'.!Ii
.. . '"
\'..;
.
~
,
,
._,,,w,",,,":,"~.~
IMMOKALEE
)
4:
4tI'
~
"',
0,..",,,-"(;'-'1'
,_",,',;'I_"',;,,'J"',,\
GOLDEN
GATE
ESTATES
'/f,',U',.,',tn,.,,--:;.;
~IG lYPR!;,~
Ni\TlONALP~ES"R\lE
--.".....,\"""ci:......;
c:::=J ~ WUNDARY
~::.:JA(,CIlOl";UARY
FlORlDAPANTH,R
N.o.TIOl'tAl W1lDUFE RHUG~
11pcl[NTIAlDEVHor','I.NT
~WATEP."l:lWII')NAIilA
I!BI HA!lliATS1lWA!ID,f!IPA!lEA
lBIII FlOWW",YSIlWAADSHIPAlIEA
I', :i:R"lAI, ;~ "l,.U"A'u~ .\[C"
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 S$As, 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 RuraVAgric:ultural zoning classification.
UpdO"'_".l<XIO
831 p ... 9 e
w.__"~_....,..<=-."_~_._..-."_,,,._w.,,~_____~__"~'''''_ ~ .<-.-.-..-----
'<'igure B - 2025 RLSA Concept Plan.
2025 RLSA CONCEPT PLAN
,/
""
.
,..)
"cL.,.,..'
: ,,----~f, ;~;.,~t~~, i"
''''""",~..., \~,.,
~. '\. ~
..~ .,,'\l....
.~:\\ '
, ,
~ '"\. "'j""Yff.'
~';
,
i..M!i""',,,e'.,=,
IMMOKALEE
...
,..'"
.)~'
h'\
i
~,
\
;l
c~ ,,_WllJ. eoJI[I
....~tAL."GJu:v~,~
GOLDEN
GATE
ESTATES
"A"m~~a'LlV'l!N''')N
eIGCVI'f\E55
~.ATIONAl PllESfRVE
r'O'Di"';'O''1.""Uv...."
(=:::;;:] RlSA eOUNDA~l
~AC;CBOlJNOA-lh
FLORIOAPA,I',THER
NATIQNALWllOlIFE RE~U(;f"
r==J POltNTlAt. OfYt:lO?MENT
c==J AGRI(J.'L1vRE ANI) OPt!. SPAC"
VILLAGE r;r~ WAH;R ~~TfNTIO!\ ARf:A
EI HA8ITA,1m\"AAD)HI~AllEA
.. FLO"V WAY STEWARDSHIP AREA
C-J flORI~A ?AAl'-lEI< (ORj(lOO~
INTEf':STA1<'7, A.Ltj(,4TOP.AU~Y
841 p
This RlSA 2025 Horizon Year Concept Plan was prepared solely for the purpose of presenting a general depiction of one possible scenario for the location
of potential Stewardship Sending Areas, Stewardship Receiving Areas, Agricultural Areas, and otl1er features of the RLSA at the 2025 horizon year. The
RLSA is a voluntary, incentive based program, and tile specific number, size, location, and relationsl1ip of Stewardship Sending and Receiving Areas, or
otl1er features shown on tl1is plan are not to be comtrued as part of the Future land Use Map, shall not be used in a regulatory manner, nor shall it be
con~tfued to be a binding or definitive depiction of future SRAs or S5As, which are subject to the designation and approval procedures set forth in the
Collier County Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code.
"
-~,.,"'"
~jgure C - 2050 Build-Out RLSA Concept Plan.
2050 RLSA CONCEPT PLAN
.",'M...~
f"c
t\, "';:~-~:1':''';''
\<~~;
._", ,__.,,--;-:0.
"~~ '"'..=\1\,....~ '
:!olI"
~.
'e" ,
,
~.jV;:,
.;"'iF'
~
c~H""WRL'.~""
IMMOKALEE
~
.'\'/
-"pitt,
'::li':~
-"
~
I
,
''''''O''il'C.,,'H''''''
GOLDEN
GATE
ESTATES
IA~I);;"'" v:l'f<I_C"
61G c.YPllfS~
~^TIONAlP~EStRVt
C"..>U>lN""'H....v'f\I~.C
c::::;:;;J~BOlIND"''lY
I A~lBOUNDAAY
,eo
t i POT(I'fT\A,o,VnON<t.tNT
l _.J N;fI:{JJlftiR!: AND UPoN "~An
r~WA'H'RE1"F10NARtA
IE!IiI riABlTAl STIWI>.RD5hiP AM"
JI;II LOW WA~ 51(WARDSHW /I,~lA
':' I
fLQRlDAFAN1HfRCOAAlDOR
FWRlOAPANfH,R
NAflO,.,AlWlLDL,.,RElUG<
Vlu.;.Gl
INll~:;lAlj.~~~ "l.LftiA](j~ ALL<Y
This RLSA 2050 Horizon Year Concept Plan was prepared solely for the purpose of preSl:!nting a general depiction of one possible scenario for the location
of potential Stewardship Sending Areas, Stewardship Re<eiv\ng Area':i, Agricultural Areas, and other features of the Rl5A at the 2050 horizon year, The
Rl5A is a voluntary, incentive baSt?d program, and the spe<:ific number, size, location, and relationship of Stewardship Sending and Receiving Areas, or
other features shown on this plan are not to be construed as part of the Future Land Use Map, shall not be used in a regulatory manner, nor shall it be
construed to be a binding or definitive depiction of future SRAs or SSAs, which are subject to the designation and approval procedures set forth in the
Collier County Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code
"__",'_
851["age
_..._____M".'_....._'___
-----.-. .~-,~.__.._~
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
eyaluate 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 deyelopment in the RLSA at the horizon year and at build-out Both
analyses were conducted using the FOOT 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 Oyerlay boundary, all of the TAZ SE data
used was provided by Collier County. For T AZs split by the RLSA Oyerlay boundary, an estimate for RLSA and
non-RLSA lands was made. and the TAZ contents distributed accordingly.
For the RLSA Overlay T AZs the SE data was developed to illustrate one possible scenario of SRAs. Land use
yariable 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 trayel models. Lastly, the RLSA Overlay totals were
divided into T AZs 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 lands are designated
as SRAs, there will be a lack of specificity as to whcre deyelopment will actually occur. The land areas (T AZs)
identified in the analyses. are one of a number of potential scenarios. Further, it should be noted that the number
of T AZs 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 T AZ and thus have multiple centroids in the modeL
The potential development for the Build-Out Scenario examined for purposes of this amendment is shown in
Table III. The potential deyelopment areas were generally located as illustrated in Fignre D.
[left blank intentionally]
86lPage
Table III - Traffic Analysis Zones with the RLSA at Build-Out
4140 . 5,886 5,114 _J,885 628 __~11 500
....
4141 6,650 2,850 1,604 535 3,126 430
4142 6,650 2,850 1,425 475 3,126 380
4143 3,500 1,500 750 250 1,645 200
4144 5,190 3,460 1,021 340 ___~,699 270
4145 __1,225 525 263 88 576
4146 6,650 2,850 1,425 475 3,126 380
4147 2,538 1,088 544 181 1,193 150
4148 4,988 2,j3!3. __ 1,06!) 356 2,344 290
-.-.----
4149 1,663 713 356 119 781
4150 3,500 1,500 750 250 1,645 200
4151 2,407 6,561 987 664 2,292 280
4152 2,450 1,050 525 175 1,152 140
- ------.---.--
4153 2,450 1,050 525 175 1,152 140
u_uu.u.___._
4154 3,213 1,377 689 230 1,510 180
4155 5,775 2,475 1,238 413 2,714 330
4156 788 338 169 56 370
__..___.uu_ ---~
4157 422
4158 5,250 2,250 1,125 375 2,468 300
4159 38 13 200
Various 1,929 827 413 138 906 110
73,122 40,514 16,799 5,935 36,134 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]
87lPage
Figure D - New District- Wide Model T AZs within the RLSA
I
During the course of the Build-Out Analysis, various roadway network options were cxamined, 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
Oyerlay 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 SJ, and the Committee endorses
the provision of necessary lands for other forms of transportation, including rail and transit.
88lPage
2025 Analysis
Following completion of the Build-Out Analysis, attention was turned to the interim horizon year of 2025 which
corresponds to the adopted Transportation Element of the County's Growth Management Plan. A Naples MPO
2025 Lee/Collier land use T AZ dataset was used to populate the Lee and Collier County T AZs within the 2030
Districtwide modeL 2025 SE data for all other T AZs 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 T AZ contents, effectively created a 2025 District-wide modeL
With the exception of the T AZs wholly or partially within the RLSA Oyerlay boundary, all of the T AZ SE data
was used as provided by Collier County. For T AZs split by the RLSA Overlay boundary, a proportional estimate
for RLSA and non-RLSA lands was made, and the T AZ 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
preyious 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 leyel 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]
89 I P age
Table IV - Traffic Analysis Zones with the RLSA at 2025
'41
4141
4142
4143
4144
4145
4146
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
4155
4156
4157
4158
4159
Various
753 502 148 49 391
- ,
--~--"- I ---- ---~--
1.466 628 314 105 689
._----~
263 113 1 56 19 123
158 68 34 11 74
-'--- ----
-
------ ---T -"------_...._.~-- --------
2,164 _?,89l3. 887 ~97 r- 2,061 250
236 101 51 , 17 111
,
I -- --~'-r-"~--'~--'---"
- i
+-.- ------ ---- ---,
788 i 338 169 56 ' 370
--I
12,752 12,948 3,748 1,551 7,565 810
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
o 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)
90lPage
Exhibit A - Conceptual Bnild-Out 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
the implementation of proposed Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element of the GMP {see Section SJ, and the Committee endorses
the provision of necessary lands for other forms of transportation, including rail and transit.
911 p
Exhibit B - Conceptual 2025 Roadway Network
921 p
n
,
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 5], and the Committee endorses
the provision of necessary lands tor other forms of transportation, including rail and transit.
S1tG'JIt).r'it
~OMMITTEEA' .
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 2003-200S history, supported the goals of the Collier County RLSA Overlay, which are:
I. 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 conyersion 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 fmther attained by implementation of the Committee-recommended amendments contained within this Phase II
Report. Accordingly, the Committee has recommended that the BCC auth01;ze 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 receiyed and reyiewed during
the Committee's 20 public meetings held beginning on March 4, 200S and continuing through December IS, 200S.
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 proyided 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:
I. Expert speakers who spoke during Committee meetings;
L Independent research reports. statements, and issues expressed relatiye 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:
]. Audubon Society
L Collier Citizen
3. Collier County Planning Commission
931Page
4. Collier County Community Deyelopment and Environmental Services Division
5. Collier County Environmental Adyisory Council
6. Collier County Transportation Division
7. Conseryancy of Southwest Florida
8. Defenders of Wildlife
9. "East Collier Property Owners"
m Florida Gulf Coast University
11. Florida Department of Community Affairs
12. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
13. FlOlida Wildlife Federation
14. Fort Mvers 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 I Policies set the framework for the RLSA Overlay. Major Committee-recommended revisions to Group I
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 L 7 provides that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conseryation Commission
would be a grantee (along with Collier County) to future "perpetual restrictive easements" (Stewardship Easements)
rather than the Florida Depmtment 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 Deyelopment Code (LDC)". The amendment proposes to have the review completed
as part of the Eyaluation and Appraisal Report process as required by Chapter 163 of the Florida State Statutes.
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 imhalance as the program is geared to produce more
enYironmentally set aside land and development and greatly reduces agriculture. This will result in Agriculture bein,
pushed further out and destroying more plistine systems under the auspices of the Right to Farm Act. [Mark Strain
written comments dated 4-2-2005],
941page
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-oo2 of the Administrative Commission and is the basis for the current RLSA
0yerlay 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 2S, 200S, distributed to Committee members on March 2S, and preliminarily
approyed during the April I. 200S 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, 200S, 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.
~ii~j!!I' (recommended amendment)
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 yoted unanimously to amend the Objective as annotated.
Group 1 - General purpose and structure of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay
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, 200S.
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.
95lPage
-
Public Comments:
The intent of Policy 1.2 is to create, "techniques and strategies that are not
dependent on a regulatory approach, but will complemcnt 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 fiye-year revicw 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 rcassessed and amended at that time.
not waiting for another fivc-year rcvicw process.[Conservancy].
L 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 I]. Eastern Collier Property Owners agrees with the Committee's recommendation of no
changes as decided during the meeting Junc 17. 200S.
Staff Comments: Laura Roys stated that the most recent available data is required and usually is less than one (I) year
old and Environmental Seryices checks for this as well as all required federal and state pennits. 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.
~ommittee .Tune 17,2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to rctain the existing language.
~Ji~~
Public Comments: ECPO agrees with the Committee's recommendation of no changes as decided during the meeting
June 17, 200S.
Staff Comments: No comments.
Committee Deliberations: The Committee agreed that there is no need to amend this Policy.
Committee .Tune 17.2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended no change to this policy.
~o.. 1;4
". ~
961Page
Public Comments:
I. What happens to baseline density - should disappear as in Rural Fringe TDR program [FWF] Note: Also related
to policy L5. 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, 200S.
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 104.
Committee .June 17.2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to not recommend a change to this Policy.
g~ti;t:l.S': (recommended amendment)
Public Comments: ECPO [Appendix J] agrees with the Committee's recommendation of no changes to this policy as
decided during the meeting June 17, 200S (other than minor cOlTection and clarification).
~ Staff Comments: Minor correction and amendments for clarification purposes only.
:::ommittee Deliberations: The Committee approved the staff's correction and agreed to study agricultural incenti ves
when the Committee reviews Group 2 policies regarding agriculture.
Committee .June 17. 2008 Action: The Committee yoted to amend this Policy as outlined aboye.
97 I P age
_I__~-'~""'~','~l'''j~i~
s,
(e) a '~r pr transfer' of the Stewatclshin Credits _Blow lfuthe.~~ otI,tfAl\it&.6t~)lrttlB'rliollil<<,tiii ~'tbe
larol-j)i'
9.. .'
oth
981Page
T1lis:.i",*",;5lfIlIt1le jm,;)i>!~~1I!:i1i'Ihil;l.~tl1fn'~~lj,l\i$~h~li1jb;Jllifilcif,
Public Comments:
I. SSA's can be created in a non-contiguous and piece meal fashion, thus assuring no functionality of wetland land
mass. Eyen 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 ayoid fragmentation of natural areas and the maintenance of corridors. [Judith
Hushon]
ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: While it is true that individual SSAs can be non-contiguous, the ultimate
implementation of the RLSA creates two large interconnected environmental systems. It is understood that this will take
many years and the voluntary participation of many landowners to realize. Map "IE" of the RLSA Five-Year Review,
Phase 1 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 I) 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 oyerlays 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 oyerlays (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 Hushou]
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.
'he SRA approval process is more inyolved, as it deals with the establishment of design guidelines, assessment of
mfrastructure impacts, and other matters, that walTant the review and recommendations of the CCPC.
991Page
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 haye recommended revisions at this tim'
Howeyer. this policy may need further review with additional discussion of SSAs. Also per policy, the RLSA Oyerh..
Map should be updated to reflect SSAs and Ave Maria SRA.
John Passidomo stated that what you see [Appendix LJ 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 blief 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 ML 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 prescnted and discussed with the Committee proposed new language for a
new Policy [1.6.lJ and an amendment to existing Policy 1.6. [refer to Appendix LJ. 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.lJ and the new Policy language for Policy 1.6.1.
rgl!!ll'il,7 (recommended amendment)
Public Comments:
I. Indices are determined using a glid 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 acti vities. A proportional area of the land types within each grid
could be applied to determine a more balanced index value. [Mark StrainJ
ECPO Comments [Appendix JJ: The indiccs 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 propelly. When the value in any specific grid cell is questionable. it is easily rectified by reviewing aeria'
imagery and indiyidual data layers that are coincident with the grid cell. The grid system is used solely for the Credi.
calculation process and has no effect on how environmental regulations are applied to the land during the permitting
process.
1001Page
2. Clarification should be made in the GMP that while SSAs do remove land use
layers from sensitiye 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 conseryation
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 releyant question is whether or not a giyen 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
leyel, 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
:::ounty, the Department of Enyironmental Protection, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Seryices, 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 9] percent of panther telemetry points collected
between 198] 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 yery effectiyely 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 reyiew.
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 mayor
may not be valid. Neither paper provides definitiye 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 deyelopment 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 eyidence
,f panther utilization. These land use patterns are reflected by the current stewardship overlays.
5. No panther credits from sending lands that will be sunounded or significantly diminished III value by
development [FWF]
101 I P age
ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: 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 developmen'
Precluding the assignment of panther habitat scores is not applicable where connections to offsite panther habitat a.
maintained, because these areas may proYide 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 Conseryation 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 adyisory 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 Seryices, 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 yalues on the SSA; at which
point the easement becomes permanent[submitted as part of the July 1, 2008 submittal to the
Committee entitled, "Florida Panther Protection Program" dated June 30, 2008]
July 15, 2008 Public Discussion: Nicole Ryan stated that she would like to see the DCA as a signatory to the pcrpetm
restrictive easement since the DCA is involyed with land uses. Nicole Ryan stated that all issues listed in the Phase ~
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 verhatim.
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 restrictiye 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 1633177 (\ l)(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 Conseryation Commission in September, 200S, confirmed through ML
Tim Breault. Director of Habitat and Species Conservation, that FWC is willing to be listed on future easements. Tom
Greenwood stated that the summary minutes are intended to capture all the major points and discussions and all meetings
are recorded. [Comprehensive Planning with additional analysis completed following July 15 action of the
Committee]
Committee Deliberations: Tom Jones stated that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission is a regulatory
agency and the RLSA program is mostly about preservation of natural resources and agricultural lands and the DCA is
involyed in actions which are the hasis 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. ML 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. ML 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 alLThe Committee consensu'
was that this Policy should be amended to allow the FFWCC to be the grantee on future perpetual easements [Stewardshi~
Easements]
1021Pa98
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 proyide 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.
Pi!Jillt M
Public Comments:
I. Indices are weighted heavier towards enyironmentally sensitive lands when in
actuality those are the areas least likely to eyer be used for development based on
yarious 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 collaboratiye effort among land owners, citizen
stakeholders, staff, environmental organizations and the review committee that conducted the Study and created the RLSA
framework.
Regulatory programs have limitations in encouraging integrated regional environmental planning and protection. In the
incentive-based RLSA program, the weighting toward environmentally sensitive lands encourages large-scale protection
of natural systems. The CREW lands, for example, have been targeted for protection since the mid-1970s. It was only
after the RLSA was established that the CREW lands were effectively protected via multiple SSAs.
The recent state acquisition of Babcock Ranch, among others, illustrates two major points. First, environmental assets do
have economic and public benefit yalue, 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 equi valent to a full year's budget of Florida ForeveL
These obseryations are also valid for Conservation CollieL In December, 2007, Conservation Collier purchased 367.7
acres within the RLSA boundary, adjacent to Corkscrew Sanctuary. The total purchase price was $5.3 million with a
$300,000 contribution from CREW Trust If this relative cost of acquisition was applied to the 24,124 acres of land
protected to date as SSA's at no cost to the public, it would have cost the taxpayers of Collier County more than
$325,000,000 to purchase these lands. This exceeds the total purchasing capacity of Conservation Collier.
2. The Conservancy strongly supports the habitat stewardship crediting system be
revised to use CUlTent 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
1031 P age
by the agency based on more recent scientific literature on the yalue 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 ayailable Florida panther science will provide
important incenti ves for preserying critical Florida panther habitat areas and more
accurately guide receiving areas to areas that are less impactive to the subsistence
and recoyery of the Florida panther species.[Conservancy]
ECPO Comments [Appendix .I]: The most current and accepted methodology should be used to evaluate the
stewardship credit system. Habitat preseryation and provision of buffered corridors in a Regional Plan and an all inclusive
panther preservation strategy could also address this concem.
3. Revisit sending and receiving designations - telemetry & GPS, FWC's Least Cost Analysis, Eastem 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. Comer of Oil Well Road and 29 - particularly the northwest comer - change to sending to protect important
panther travel corridors - panther 131 found dead 04/]6/081 [FWF]
ECPO Comments [Appendix .I]: The RLSA stewardship overlays (FSA, HSA, WRA. Restoration Zone, and Open) do
not pre-determine sending and receiying 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 yery 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
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 Eastem 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 mayor
may not be valid. Neither paper provides definitive data and analyses to substantiate a change to the current oyerlays,
beyond those potentially suggested by the FWC least cost path analyses.
5. Reyisit wildlife yalues on farm fields - caracara, sand hill crane, bunowing owl. gopher tortoise [FWF]
ECPO Comments [Appendix .I]: 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., matming 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 yalues.
However, the potential habitat value of RLSA aglicultural 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
oyerlays. Of the 40.000 acres of HSA overlay, approximately 13.000 acres are existing or former aglicultural 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 inccntives for restoration within existing FSA and HSA overlays.
1041Page
6. I don't believe that the NRI, as originally developed, can be taken as gospel-it needs to be tested and re-
evaluated as part of this process. Policy 1.9 states that the score will be based on.. ,"the Natural Resource Index
yalues in effect at the time of designation," implying a need to update it regularly. The NRI was developed fiye
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 fe-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 I 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
proyide a rational basis for detennining 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 scmb jay areas within the RLSA (known scmb jay areas do occur within the lmmokalee Urban Boundary).
7. Why are credits awarded in the ACSC. when there are already restrictions to deyelopment? [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 ayailable science will be used in conducting and
analyzing the program (e.g., Group I Policy L22). 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 ayailable science" for any
given environmental issue, eyen 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 reyiew of the RLSA program.
,taff Comments: Environmental Services Department had comments but subsequently withdrew them during the
August 5 meeting.
1051Page
Committee Deliberations durine: the July 15. 2008 Committee meetine:: Brad Cornell stated that the RLSA program is
doing what it is intended to dOH .protect the enyironmentally sensitive lands and agricultural lands by using an incenti'
based system rather than a regulatory system._Mr. Farmer stated that he somewhat agrees with Mr. Cornell's statement t
has some reseryations about proyiding incenti ves [credits] on lands. because of their nature, are not likely to be deyeloped
anyway. Kirsten Wilkie stated that she would like to haye item #16 on page 74 [Environmental comments] placed under
Policy I.S. The Committee agreed and asked Environmental Seryices 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 haye 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 NRl needs to be updated. Tom Jones stated that each SSA and SRA application is accompanied by
the most current FLUCCS maps and listed species and prepared by licensed professionals and are site specific. Tim
Durham stated that the Committee needs to focus on the big picture. Darrell Land stated that Collier County mapping and
NRI is 95% consistent with his information. The GPS study of collared Panthers indicates where the cats are traveling
day and night and there is 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 deyeloped 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 alternati ve 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 I.S and 1.9 to the Technical Committee as well as the
Enyironmental 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 haying the Technical
Committee make recommendations before the Committee has thoroughly yetted it, the motion failed/withdrawn.
Committee July IS and Aue:ust 5, 2008 Actions: The Committee voted unanimously on July ]5 to leaye Policy I.S
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 t!>-
understanding that the Committee may change its rccommendation regarding Policy I.S during the course of its reyiew
the entire RLSA Overlay.
Committee deliberations on August 5, 2008: After hearing from Laura Roys and the puhlic, the consensus of the
Committee is that the existing language of this Policy is adequate.
Committee Aue:ust 5. 2008 action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy I.S unchanged.
~Qlil;y 1.9
Public Comments: During the August 5, 200S meeting Nicole Ryan stated that she is concemed that the map is outdated
and needs to be updated.
Stafr Comments: There should be an update of the initial mapping. Not all land use/land coyer 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: ML 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. ML Cornell stated that the natural resource index map NRls in SSA is a good balance betweep
science, preservation policy and private property owner lights.
Committee Aue:ust 5, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to recommend not to amend Policy 1.9.
1061Page
1'~1~
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee AUl!lJst 5. 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended to leave Policy l.IO unchanged.
P9~ti1;l
Public Commenfs:
1. What is fate of remaining uses on designated sending lands and suggestion of removing those remaining uses to
meet mitigation obligations? [FWF]
L 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
land use rights, and retains other specified property rights. Depending upon which land use rights are retained, it may be
appropriate to relinquish these "remaining uses" to meet mitigation obligations. For example, a land owner who retained
Ag-l land use rights to a farm field could relinquish their agricultural land use rights and restore the farm field as a native
wetland to address mitigation obligations. The specific characteristics of the SSA will detennine if removing additional
land uses can potentially satisfy specific mitigation requirements, and is ultimately under the purview of regulatory
agencies.
The ability to remoye 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
remoyal of all layers at one time will likely have a negative effect on protection goals by creating uncertainty among the
landowners and slowing the process of creating SSAs.
The uses included in Ag 2 and Ag I are set forth on the Land Use Matrix, Attachment B. of the GOPs. The uses are the
landowners' existing rights as permitted under the Rural Agricultural Zoning District.
ECPO [Appendix J] supports the land use matrix as it currently exists.
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee AUl!.ust 5, 2008 Action:
unchanged.
The Committee recommended. by a vote of 9 to 2, that Policy 1.1 I remam
-- PQJicY;~12
_~', c '" 'if .;':'- '~_"':,.:'::,-
","_""0 """.
~~:;;
~~YJ)ti~nli'~l't.stil:6@t4$J..BIlt::tOJth
1071Page
'_^~._..~"..,_.~_.__._w____<>.___._",_._,_._._.___,..___,>._.....
Public Comments: none receiyed
Stafr Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee AUl!Ust 5. 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended that Policy 1.12 remain unchanged.
Pol{qi:'l:13
.Credits d",sn-.. ~ ....! '-Jire-set,f"..h,.
, . . ~".~:.,' ~"~~9!;I,, ", ~~hi~
" ;(Di~itt}"';:';"ffl;':;~'lffe:~lnt(W4t
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee AUl!ust 5, 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.13 remain unchanged.
PQIi' ').ll4
.~..-
S
(recommended 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 AUl!ust 5, 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy L14 remain unchanged,
with the exception of the correction shown above with strikethrough and underline.
Poli(Iy;:l:;.15
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee AUl!ust 5. 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.15 remain unchanged.
P9ij~Y.J.16
~:~~!f~~;;~~4~~f!16~~:':r;'~~~i~l;~~J~fi~;t~"~"H~~1
(11), P.5ial'l'a,9Ji,.MQ9(S)tl).
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee AUl!ust 5. 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1 .16 remain unchanged.
1081Page
~iIN,~7
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee AUl!Ust 5. 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.17 remain unchanged.
Public Comments:
I. Indices are weighted heavier towards environmentally sensitiye lands when in actuality those are the areas least
likely to ever be used for deYelopment 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 J]: The decision to assign a high priority to enyironmental 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
,takeholders, staff, enyironmental organizations and the review committee that conducted the Study and created the RLSA
framework
Regulatory programs have limitations in encouraging integrated regional environmental planning and protection. In the
incentive-based RLSA program, the weighting toward environmentally sensitive lands encourages large-scale protection
of natural systems. The CREW lands, for example, have been targeted for protection since the mid-1970s. It was only
after the RLSA was established that the CREW lands were effectiyely protected via multiple SSAs.
The recent state acquisition of Babcock Ranch. among others, illustrates two major points. First, enyironmental 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 morc 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 ForeveL
These observations are also valid for Conseryation Collier. In December, 2007, Conservation Collier purchased 367.7
acres within the RLSA boundary, adjacent to Corkscrew Sanctuary. The total purchase price was $5.3 million with a
$300,000 contribution from CREW Trust. If this relative cost of acquisition was applied to the 24,124 acres of land
protected to date as SSA's at no cost to the public, it would have cost the taxpayers of Collier County more than
$325,000.000 to purchase these lands. This exceeds the total purchasing capacity of Conservation Collier.
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee AUl!ust 5. 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy I. I 8 remain unchanged.
'. ':t_~wtt~~:~~..
1091Page
.-._-~-...-_--,--'""_......~,-"'''--~..-,...~_.-., --'-""-~-------_."'---"'~
Public Comments: none receiyed
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee AUl!ust 5. 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy I .19 remain unchanged.
Public Comments: none receiyed
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee AUl!ust 5. 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.20 remain unchanged.
Public Comments:
1. The incentive program to jump strut the RLSA program was too generous and only increased the magnitude of
development and the speed in which it will occur in the rural areas. Because of this. a need to look at longer range
studies in lieu of the typical 5-years associated with concurrency issues should be considered. [Mark Strain]
ECPO Comment [Appendix J]: The Early Entry Bonus Credit was specifically designed to jump start the protection of
natural resources, not the speed of development. Policy 1.21 states that:
"The early designation of SSAs, and resulting protection offlowways, habitats, and water retention areas does not
require the establishment of SRAs or otherwise require the early use of Credits".
During the review process of the RLSA, the Department of Community Affairs supported the EEB program as a way to
jump start the program throngh designation of SSAs in advance of market demand for Credits. This objective has been
realized, as approximately 55,000 acres of SSAs arc approved or pcnding compared to approximately 8,000 acres of
approved and pending SRAs. At full utilization, 27,000 Early Entry Bonus (EEB) Credits are allowed, which translates
into 3,375 acres of Rcceiving Areas. To date, approximately 7,719 EEB Credits have been approved and approximately
9,195 EEB Credits haye been applied for in pending SSA applications. By any measure. the EEB program has been a
success, and has not resulted in an increase in either the magnitude or speod 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 Ie
permanently protected. [Comprehensive Planning]
110lPage
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 approyed 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 AUlmst 5. 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy L21 remain unchanged,
with the exception of the minor corrections and addition as ,mnotated.
'Jt$As, ~S"lUld~~~ SSAs.
A
review.
5.The iltnQUDt, location a!'I,d:type;of:I~:d' c~yilrted to lioo"agt;~:tllfuraI'.lise with and' Wil:hout partimp<lilim: in tbe
Sle~sm . !:redit $ys~tn $nce"1fs;'Wtlt#llI.
6. r~'" . '~~;eiIi.~rl' ,;. i(~QVi~!l: by:€olijer CoUnty 'lind,.~the(soUi'cesLoCal; Stare; FederaFaiitf private
7. Tht: ,Uht/looaiiori 'and: . ot restoration, t!u:o.ugh partioiplUfonin tlied' SteW,iIrdSllip CreditSyst~m. sincei'ts
1I4~.,,",;
~:~ntialfor use.of Ctedits in Ui'ban areas.
. Uie,
.-".teif at the time 'ofiiStu4Y;:~dtime Of
8;
Public Comments:
I. The Conservancy belie yes the five year reyiew 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 122 requires a comprehensive review of the RLSA upon the five-year
anniversary of the adoption of the Stewardship Distlict 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
1 5-year cycle, it will be important to restJict this review to local agencies that are responsible for implementation and
oversight of the program.
1111Page
--'-'--"'--~-"'>"--~-----
'..-..-.'.'-.---,---.-------------
Providing for a requirement to proyide annual reports is onerous and unnecessary. Since approval of the RLS program,
one new town has been approyed and is under construction. All documentation relative to this approved SRA and ~"
approyed SSA's is public record and ayailable for reyiew by any interested party. County staff already has numero
monitoring and reporting requirements for yarious local and state initiatives and directives, and the costs associated with
such a requirement (staff time, legal adyertisement, etc.) would be an unnecessary burden on County taxpayers.
ECPO [Appendix J] supports 5-7 year reviews.
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: The Committee agreed that, with the completion of the first 5 years of the RLS Program, it
should now be reyiewed as part of the EAR process. The Committee discussed the possible need to have a special
Committee involyed in the EAR review process.
Committee AUl!ust 5. 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended that Policy 1.22 remain unchanged,
with the exception of the annotated changes shown.
Comments received which are not clearly associated with existing policies and would, therefore, require drafting
new Group 1 policies.
I. 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
proyision for storm water 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-eyaluated. [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 the
proyisions together in one place in both the FLUE and LDC proYide for a comprehensiye, single source guide. We are nOl
aware of any data that supports the need to require other proyisions of the Growth Management Plan be incorporated into
the provisions of the RLSk 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 castern Collier County, they are generally using their own
agricultural land to offset dcyelopment on other land that they own (i.e.. using their own credits). There is
essentially no market for the credits accrued by sevcral small landowners. [Create a County Credit Bank] [Judith
Hushon]
ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: Furthcr discussion with Mrs. Hushon related this item to the establishment of a Credit
Bank to track the availability of Credits. A "Stewardship Credit Trust is currently provided for in Policy 1.20
Preface to Group 2 Policies
Group 2 Policies provide specific guidancc for the preservation of agricultural lands. Major Committee-rccommended
revisions to Group 2 Policies include:
Group 2 (amendment)
The recommended amendment to the Group 2 language eliminates the language related to protection of agricultural
lands from premature conversion to other uses, and replaces this language with new language related to the retention
of land for agricultural production.
Policy 2.1 (amendment)
The recommended amendments to Policy 2.1 eliminate thc 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
112lPage
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 22 proyide for additional Stewardship Credits to retain agriculture lands
within the RLSA.
Public Comments: none receiyed
stafr Comments: This is a major amendment to the RLSA Overlay. The elimination of the word "premature" may seem
like an innocuous change. Howeyer, 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.
(recommended amendment)
. - . '. ;l'~'>~'::,'- i
Public Comments:
I. Policy 2.1 states that, "Analysis has shown that [Stewardship Receiving Areas]
SRAs will allow tbe 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 flexihility
afforded to such deyelopment." How this policy will be met needs to be assessed
during the five-yearreview. Based on the figures from Policy 1.3, there are
IS2,334 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, alllS2,334 acrcs 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 IS,233 acres of the RLSA.
This would be a ratio of development to non-deyelopment of9: I. Currently. the
SRA to SSA ratio for Ave Maria, the only approyed RLSA town to date, is
1131Page
approximately 3: 1. 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 wi II be met should be
further clarified. [Conservancy]
ECPO Comment [Appendix J]: ECPO agrees with the April I. 2008 minutes of the Review Committee where Alan
Reynolds clarified the releyance and purpose of the 10% figure.
Discussion durine. September 2. 2008 meetine.; ML Greenwood stated that the language proposed to be eliminated by
the Committee simply states that a typical compact urban development in the RLSA Oyerlay would have a density
approximately 10 times that of the underlying zoning which is I 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% footpJint for SRA should be recalculated. Do
not eliminate this language, but simply update it. Al Reynolds stated that the language needs to be remoyed from Policy
L I 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 OyerJay.
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 conyersion".
[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
haye them in the Committee minutes. ML 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 languagc as it misleads thc reader as to what the intent of
the language means. Brad Cornell stated that we nccd to get our arms around the projections of credits and SRAs und,
the existing RLSA Overlay versus the proposed RLSA Oyerlay. Mr. Farmer stated that approximately 85,000 acres 01
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 thc number of credits increasing too much where the credit yalue would
be diluted, as discussed by Tom Jones and Gary Eidson and that a proper balancc 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 deyelopment, 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 I, 2008 of the Florida Panther Protection Program. Gary Eidson questioned how we incentiyize the
Open Land owncrs to reservc their lands in pcrpetuity for agricultural uscs. Mr. Jones statcd that Policy 22 is proposing to
incentivize Open Areas and provide a disincentive to undcrlying zoning dcvelopment at 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres.
Committee September 2. 2008 Action: The Committee voted, 8-2. to recommend the amendments (0 Policy 1.2 as
outlined above.
.. - (recommended amen<iID~nt)
114lPaqe
Public Comments:
I. More lands east of 29 into sending or protectiye status - this is ACSC land. [FWF]
ECPO Comment [Appendix J]: The RLSA Review Committee is already considering new agI1cultural 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 proYides 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.
L 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 incentiye 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 yalue. 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
any credits should be granted for the preservation of Agricultural lands in the Area of Critical State Concern.
These lands are in environmentally sensitiye areas and are under little development pressure. Most should never
be intensively used and ho4I limited Agricultural value for the future.
In my opinion, a separate category of AgI1cultural Stewardship Sending Lands (ASSA) should be created.
This could identify the difference between the Ag preservation effort and cunent SSA's which in practice are
strictly environmental. Criteria for credits and goals should be separate. This need not be excessively complex,
but should giye the most reward to landowners who preserve the land with the most current and potential value to
Agricultural uses, not natural resource yalue 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 restJ1ctions. In any RLSA Ag.
program there should be no additional restrictions of any kind to any legitimate agricultural uses. Landowners
should be able to capitalize on future technology. Intensity of use should not be restricted or frozen at current
levels. Any RLSA must function within laws including best management practices. Regulation and restriction
should be left to the law makers and regulatory agencies, not the environmental advocacy interests. The
committee has serious work to do in the details of a viable Ag preseryation 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
Enyironmental 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.
115lPage
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 incentiye policy. All of this must be accomplished in light of t~
elephant in the middle of the room, and that is the underlying land use in Collier County of I dwelling unit I
fiye acres of land. This density, although low, is the reason why only agricultural land with a high natural
resource yalue has been preserved to date. All RLSA credits to date have been structured in a highly rewarded
enyironmental 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')
1 look forward to discussing Group 2,3, and 5 Policies, howeyer, 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 reyiew and discussion of
DCA stated concerns be undertaken at this timc. This should be done before any complex new policy is
considered, or any new specific policy language is adopted. [Tim Nance]
4. Will there be a continuation of loss of agricultural acreage in the RLSA in the future? Agricultural Productiye
areas need to be preseryed. [CCPe)
5. Establish new category of agriculture preserves; however. assure that the process does not set up a competition
between conservation and agriculture preservation that would result in failure to protect natural resources. [We
note that while conservation benefits have certainly accrued from the acres currently designated as Ag 1 and Ag 2,
very few (-650 acres) have actually been categorized as Conservation.] [Defenders of Wildlife]
ECPO Comment [Appendix J]: The Review Committee has proposed new policies to provide incentives for
landowners to preserve agriculture land within the Open designation.
Note: The following Appendices were submitted to the Committee on July 1, 2008 as part of the "Florida Panthel
Protection Program Summary" dated June 30, 2008:
A Proposed Florida Panther Protection Program Summary
as presented initially to the Review Committee on July I. 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 I, 200S 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, 200S letter from 1000 Fliends of Florida to Ron Hamel
and the RLSA Reyiew Committee regarding the proposed
Panther Protection Program
E June 16, 200S letter to Thomas Reese from Charles Gauthier of
the FlOlida Department of Community Affairs relative to possible
changes to the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlay
F Undated July 1, 200S presentation from Andrew McElwaine.
President and CEO of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida to
the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee
116lPage
Public Comments during September 2, 2008 meeting: Nancy Payton spoke in support of the language proposed under
Policy 2.2 as it encourages keeping agriculture land in agriculture or similar uses. Nicole Ryan stated that the Committee
should provide an incentiye in the ACSC land for panther habitat protection; that the NRI values need to be updated; and
passed out a color map showing [in yellow] areas where panthers habitat could be in conflict with Open lands where
SRAs might be allowed. Mr. McElwaine, representing the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, encouraged the Committee
to vote against the proposed amendments to Policy 1.2 and raised questions about DCA's caution of not using the existing
RLSA Overlay authorization, adequate infrastructure, justification and whether there is a need based upon shortage of
existing development.
Staff Comments; Staff can confirm that the average number of Stewardship Credits per acre assigned in SSAs I -9 is
approximately 2.65 credits per acre for lands classified as HSA, FSA, or WRA and 0.S5 credits per acre for lands
classified as Open Lands. The assigned credits include both R-l and R-2 credits although. The development of additional
stewardship credit yalues within the Stewardship Credit Worksheet to support the yoluntary retention of Agriculture-
Group I lands for permanent open or agricultural uses will be required to support definitive language amendments to
Policy 2.2. [Comprehensive Planning]
Committee Deliberations: David Wolfley suggested putting all credit reference in Group 3 policies. Tom Jones stated
that the proposal is intended to create a new incentive for agricultural preseryation and he felt the credit reference should
be in Group 2 policies and this was discussed initially by thc Committee in April and is attempting to address the criticism
of DCA about not doing enough to protect agricultural lands. He stated that the 2.0 credits per acre outside of the ACSA
is an incentive to the property owners to retain agricultural lands. as the current average NRI in Open lands would
generate approximately just 0.2 credits per acre. He stated that the 2.6 credits per acre is an added incentive to maintain
agricultural lands in the ACSC and is close to the 2.65 average credits per acre generated by lands classified as HSA,
WRA or FSA in SSA 1-9. He stated that the Group 2 and Group 3 credit generation will need to be balance with SRA
entitlement potential to be addressed in Group 4 policies. Mr. Wolfley stated that all credits should be discussed and
reviewed in one area and not in several Groups of policies. ML Jones stated that if there are too many credits, then we will
have to pull back on the number of credits being generated and too m'my acres of SRA. He stated that a potential
maximum 45,000 acres of development footprint under SRAs was proposed in the summary of the Panther Protection
Program presented on July I, 200S to the Committee. Brad Cornell stated that agricultural stewardsbip credits will need to
be calculated and still wants an incentive for the preseryation of agricultural lands. He suggested adding to the last
sentence the words, "Agriculture" before SSA in the two locations in that sentence and that there be language placed that
would disallow returning to the AG-l land use layer after the land has been voluntarily taken down to AG-2. Mr.
McDaniel stated that he could support the first paI1, but not the second paI1. Mr. Fanncr asked about the acreage classified
as Open in the ACSC. Mr. Jones stated that the ]5.000+ acres of Open land within the ACSC can become SSAs but there
is also a limit of 10% of clearing limitation in the ACSC. Daye Wolfley stated he agrees with the added language but not
with the numbers.
Committee September 2. 2008 Action: The Committee voted 9-1 to recommend that the word "Agricultural" be inserted
before "SSA" in the two locations found in the last sentence of Policy 2.1.
Committee September 2. 2008 Action: The Committee, by a vote of 7-3, to recommend that the following language be
added just prior to the last sentence of Policy 2.2: "Each layer is discreet and shall be removed sequentially and
cumulatively in the order presented in the Matrix. If a layer is remoyed, all uses and activities in that layer are eliminated
and no longer available."
Committee September 30, 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended to add the shown additional
language to Policy 2.2 to better define Open Lands.
117lPage
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: The Committee discusscd 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 SeDtember 2. 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended that Policy 2.3 be deleted from the
RLSA Overlay.
,,'{-" (recommended deletion)
",K'"
Public Commeut~: 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
organizations already established which can initiate discussions and actions before local, state, and federal agencies and
elected bodies relative to their agricultural interests.
Committee SeDtember 2. 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended that Policy 2.4 language be
stricken.
.~~~~~:~~~
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: IF Policies 2.3 and 2.4 are recommended for deletion by the Committee, then current Policy 2.5 would
become Policy 2.3.[Comprehensive Planning]
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee Se tember 2 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended to renumber Policy 2.5 to 2.3.
. '(recomm~!,ded a~~!.1dment)
_~~it; ';"
Public Comments: none received
Staff 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 SeDtember 2. 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended the renumbering of Policy 2.6 to
2.4.
118lPage
Preface to Group 3 Policies
Group 3 Policies set the framework for environmental preservation, including "perpetual conservation easements"
[Stewardship Easements] through Stewardship Sending Areas. Major Committee-recommended revisions to Group 3
Policies include:
Policy 3.11 (amendment)
The recommended amendments to Policy 3.11:
. eliminate the restoration priority language related to restoration work within the Camp Keais Strand Flowway
Stewardship Area (FSA) or contiguous Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs); provide language allowing for two
additional Stewardship Credits (rather than the 4 Credits now permitted) for restoration activities within a FSA or
HSA, regardless of location in the RLSA; elimination of the additional two Stewardship Credits for each acre of
land dedicated for restoration activities within other FSAs and HSAs; and provide additional Credits for either
caracara restoration at 2 Credits per acre, or for exotic control/burning at 4 Credits per acres, or for flow way
restoration at 4 Credits per acre, or for native habitat restoration at 6 Credits per acre. Within the area proposed for
restoration, Land Use Layers 1-6 must be removed. The specific process for assignment of additional restoration
Credits shall be included in the Stewardship District of the LDC;
. provide for Stewardship Credits to incentivize the creation, restoration, and enhancement of a northern panther
corridor connection and a southern panther corridor connection by providing for 2 additional Stewardship Credits
for each acre of land so dedicated and. should the owner also effectively complete the corridor restoration, an
additional 8 Credits per acre would be awarded;
. provide for Stewardship Credit incentives for restoration of shallow wetland wading bird foraging habitat located
in FSA, HSA, or Water Retention Area (WRA) at the rate of 2 additional Credits per acre and, upon successful
completion of the restoration, an additional 6 Credits per acre shall be awarded; and
. limit Credit incentives to only one type of restoration for each acre so designated for restoration
Policy 3.13 (amendment)
The recommended amendment to Policy 3.13 requires the acreage of a WRA, if such acreage provides for water
treatment and retention exclusively for a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA), to be included in the SRA acreage and
would require the use of Stewardship Credits to enable the use of such an area for this purpose in a SRA.
Public Comments: no comments received regarding the Group 3 objective above.
The following documents received by the Committee on July I, 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 I, 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 I, 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 FlOlida to Ron Hamel
1191Page
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 FlOlida Department of Community Affairs relative to possible
changes to the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlay
Appendix F Undated July I, 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 I 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.
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.
Public Comments: none received
120 I P age
Staff Comments:
1. The total HSA acreage should be changed from 40,000 acres to 45,782 acres as the 40,000 acres figure was an estimate,
while the 45,782 acres is based upon current GIS data. The 13,800 acreages for HSAs should be changed to 15,156 acres
upon recalculation by the Environmental staff using the SFWMD Land cover data form 2004/2005 for improved pasture,
un-improved pasture, row crops, field crops, and orchards to get a value for "cleared agriculture" of 15,156 acres, not
including woodland pasture, tree nursery, or upland shrub and brush. [Environmental staff]
2. "HAS" [resulted from a "spell check"] error and needs to be changed to "HSA". [Comprehensive Planning staff]
3. Protection of listed species and wildlife habitat from intense land uses is one of the requirements in the Growth
Management statutes. The HSAs were delineated to protect listed species and their habitat. During the first 5 years of
the RLSA program there have been several instances of listed species in Open areas. The HSAs alone do not provide
adequate protection to listed species. Additionally the 2002 definition of panther habitat is very limited compared to the
habitat valuation matrix utilized by USFWS now. [Environmental staff]
ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: The HSAs, FSAs, and WRAs collectively comprise over 89,000 acres and provide
large, interconnected blocks of high-quality habitat for listed species and other wildlife. These overlay areas contain the
vast majority of the native vegetation communities that occur within privately held RLSA lands, and also include over
13,000 acres of agricultural lands. The native vegetation that does occur within the Open overlay is highly fragmented,
often impacted by surrounding land uses, and generally of much lower habitat quality that native vegetation communities
with the FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs.
Staff does not provide any data and analysis to support the statement that HSAs (and presumably FSAs and WRAs) "do
not provide adequate protection to listed species." Collier County and DCA did conclude that listed species protection was
adequate when the plan was approved in 2002.
We dispute that the 2002 definition of panther habitat is "very limited" compared to the current USFWS habitat valuation
matrix. In fact, the latest published panther research (Land, Shindle, et. aI., 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. Cunently, 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.
SeDtember 2. 2008 Committee Aetion: 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.
"
"ublic Comments: none received
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee SeDtember 2, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to not recommend any change to Policy 3.3.
121lpage
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee September 2, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to not recommend any change to Policy 3.4.
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee SeDtember 2. 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to not recommend any change to Policy 3.5
. ~~s~~t.tIle~;:;::~l~~:~~~q,~~~:r~SIn:i~~=t
'''e . Qilslltl6n.
Ii
P
Public Comments:
I. 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, w'e incompatible with all HSAs. [Conservancy]
ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: Land owner participation ill the RLS program is voluntary and based on market
conditions; it is not a regulatory technique, rather an incentive based program. Stripping additional uses off lands not
1221 P age
-
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
- nix 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.
.;~';B:
t>ublic Comments:
I. 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]
li~t1i.li' ak~);
'al!~, P .
ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: Land owner participation in the RLS program is voluntary and based on market
conditions; it is not a regulatory technique, rather an incentive based program. Stripping additional uses off lands not
participating in the RLS program would reduce the market value of that land and open the County to a Bert Harris claim
action or violation of the Right to Farm Act. FSAs and HSAs were purposely defined broadly enough to allow a justified
mix of habitat required for species and adequate land uses. Additional ag lands, although they did not meet the specific
criteria for habitat, were included in HSAs in order to provide habitat connectivity.
1231 P age
Public Discussion durin!! the September 2, 2008 meetin!!. Lauri McDonald stated that mining should be kept out of tr'
layers and dealt with separately as mines have a greater negative impact on habitat than most types of land uses. Nar.
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. AI Reynolds stated that the RLSA
Overlay is a voluntary program and that the earth mining is a pennitted use in the underlying AG zoning and that it would
be better to process an earth mining operation under the RLSA Overlay rather than under AG zoning.
Staff Comments: This is a clarification for the reader who may not know what "ElS" stands for as "EIS" is used
extensively throughout this portion of the RLSA Overlay. [Comprehensive Planning]
Committee Deliberations: see previous paragraph.
Committee SeDtember 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. .
. th~r,,1I9}v.i'nI!:lI;1eeh~~JlIS~~!l~~i!t~~!lMer
<of lesi"thllii fee; lriteleSrfji;tjIe' IlUta::~;~Q\lgh
Public Comments on SeDtember 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
Policy 3.8 [Environmental Services I
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.
Public Comments:
I. Review of the SSAs cunently designated indicates that out of the approximately
23,000 acres that are in SSA easements, only 650 acres have been taken down to
1241 P age
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 poliey 3.10
ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: The Conservancy's statement does not acknowledge that of the 24,] 24 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 agJ1cultural 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.
Diseussion durin!! September 16' 2008 Meetin!!. 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 Practiees 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. Fanner stated that the incentives are already in place such that
!he 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 ShOlt of staff to enforce the ones we have. Mr.
Standridge stated that the BMPs are not regulatory. Mr. Farmer disagreed stating that property owners must use BMPs for
1251 P age
10+ acre developments approved by SFWMD and DEP. 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.
Public Comments: The uses retained on lands, such as Ag 2, are not preservation lands yet they are proffered as such in
subsequent development analysis. This then supports arguments to completely remove wetlands within the areas where
development was to take place when in reality the ratios of natural set aside preservation lands were much smaller in
comparison to the wetlands being destroyed if the Ag2 lands were excluded. While some A2 lands are in more natural
states, the fact they are not truly conservation lands is misleading. [Mark Strain]
ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: The majority of SSA lands designated as Ag-2 consist of native vegetation
communities and unimproved pastures and rangelands that contain both wetland and upland land cover. Once an SSA
easement is placed on such property, the residential. earth mining, recreation, and intensive agriculture land use rights are
removed and no further intensification of these natural areas is allowed. As a result, there is little difference between
"preservation or conservation lands". and Stewardship Sending Arca 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, rath
than the public incurring this obligation and cost for public preservation land. One cliticalland 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 no!' 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.
Public Comments:
1. Many acres within SSA's are Ag lands that have been used in the past for a
variety of activities that have the potential to cause soil and water contamination.
These uses include cattle dipping, petroleum spillage from wells and even solid
waste disposal areas from hunting or remote camps. Since the SSA's are given
credit for their environmental value a requirement for a clean environmental audit
prior to the SSA's credit issuance on all property within the SSA should be
mandatory. [Mark Strain]
ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: Cattle grazing (and its related uses), is a permitted use throughout the RLSA, and may
be allowed to continue when property is voluntarily placed within an SSA by its owners depending upon the land use
layers removed. Land within an SSA that has been cleared or altered for agricultural support activities will be scored
accordingly. SSA lands normally remain in private ownership and the property owner retains the obligation for land
management, including compliance with regulatory requirements associated with agricultural practices. Environmental
Audits are typically required only in conjunction with a change in ownership. Requiring an environmental audit to be
perfOlmed on thousands of acres of land would be an extraordinary expense and is therefore a disincentive for property
owners to consider placing their property within an SSA.
Cattle dipping vats were constructed throughout the State of Florida as a result of local, state, and federal programs
conducted from 1906 through 1961, for the prevention, suppression, control, or eradication of the disease commonly
known as tick fever by eradicating the cattle fever tick. Most vats were constructed with public funds and operated under
local, state, and Federal Government supervision and control, and participation in the eradication program was mandated
by state law and not voluntary. Chapter 376.306(2), Florida Statutes states:
Any private owner of property in this state upon which cattle-dipping vats are located shall not be liable
to the state under any state law, or to any other person seeking to enforce state law, for any costs,
damages, or penalties associated with the discharge, evaluation, contanlination, 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.
127lPage
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'
address said spills. When wells are abandoned, oil companies and property owners are required to plug the wells a
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. Pri vate 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 I or AG2 uses on lands where
credits are generated for restoration activities creates the potential for
incompatibility. Even lower-impact aglicultural 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 AG I uses under the RLSA program. Cattle grazing is a proven land
management tool. 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]: fn the RLSA, restoration is a two step process. First land is dedicated for restoration,
and then the restoration is completed. The RLS program assigns credits for each step. By assigning credits for the first
step, dedication, the program sets aside and protects lands for a future restoration activity. When viewed in a regional
context this dedication process is useful to other entities, such as Conservation Collier, when prioritizing which lands to
protect and restore. To eliminate the dedication step from the credit system would be a disincentive to property owners to
dedicate any restoration land until the restoration is to be completed, thereby depriving those other entities of knowing
what the true regional restoration plan is.
4. Incentives for restoring farm fields in receiving [Open] areas [FWF]
ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: This comment is apparently referring to the potential for restoring farm fields within
the "Open" overlay designation. The RLSA program was designed to achieve a balance between agricultural
sustainability, environmental protection, and economic development. As noted in the previous response, ample
opportunities for farm field restoration already exist within the FSA and HSA overlays. While restoration within the FSA
and HSA overlays can occur within a landscape matrix of native vegetation communities, restoration within the Open
overlay lacks a landscape-scale context, and should not be a priority.
5. Better handle on potential credits and restoration credits that can be generated - too many credits. [FWF]
ECPO Comments (Appendix K]: Both Collier County staff and ECPO are preparing more accurate estimation of total
potential stewardship credit generation, including restoration credits.
128lPage
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]
I. 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 I exotic plants listed by County Code (FLEPPC Category I).
Vatious 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 I 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. COTIlell prepared and distributed at the beginning of the September
16th 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-l and R-2 credits. Russ Priddy stated that this language
would go into the management plan for R-I 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 Mattix and that the words, "restore, and enhance"
1291 P age
"<'"~_._.__.."- '. ,...~...,-,--,----
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 w'
not be cumulative. Russ Priddy stated that he has an oil well with a location that is in some of the best habitat for be~
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 SeDtember 16, 2008 action: The Committee voted unanimously to amend Policy 3.11 as shown above
which includes the recommendations of Lamie McDonald and Luara Roys above.
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 fFWFj
ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: The need for more upland buffers adjacent to existing FSA and HSA areas has n
been demonstrated or supported by any data and analysis. Aside from that fact, Restoration Zone overlays were alreao)
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.
~_~i (recommended amendment)
Public Input:
I. 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 storrnwater management should be reevaluated,
especially for those WRAs that are pmt 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
130lPage
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 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. 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
hydropeliod 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 flow way 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.
~i/.y3;l4
131lPage
.".-.--.....-..- --~."~------"'-
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee September 16. 2008 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, 0, 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 J
also includes a requirement for the provision of a Management Plan as part of the SRA Master Plan which include,
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.
Poliey 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.
Poliey 4.7.3 (deletion...Hamletsl
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 housir
within CRDs.
132lpage
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
nrban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes ereative land use planning techniques by the
establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas.
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: none
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee September 23. 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to this objective unchanged.
~;4d
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee September 23. 2008 action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy 4.] unchanged.
1331 P age
-'--~-'~"~"'''"'-''"'''''-~'<'----''''---''^ .',
R~~~' (recommended amendment)
Public Comments:
I. 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 in'igation. This change in withdrawals
over different periods of time should be reviewed for impacts on the aquifers.
Also, when SFWMD convetts 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]
ECPO Comments [Appendix 0]: 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. slliTounding 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. citrns) 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.[Conservancyl
ECPO Comments [Appendix 0] : 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
1341 P age
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 wiU 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 0]: 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 coUector 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 lmmokalee. [FWF]
-" ECPO Comments [Appendix 0]: The goal of the RLS Group 4 Policies is to enable conversion of other uses in
lppropriate 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 lUterial road or indirect access via a road
provided by the developer, and that no SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County coUector 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 Raneh, 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 opportuuity 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
'--'---"-~-"~"-'-""'-""_.-,,.,-~~._-._._..~_..,
to where towns can be located and their buffering requirements. This will facilitate all types of future
infrastructure planning by the County. [Jndith Hushon]
ECPO Comments [Appendix 0]: 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 propelties. 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 I unitJ5 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 SeDtember 30th Action: The Committee, by a vote of 6-1, accepted the proposed
amendments as shown. On September 30m the Committee voted to accept the Wilson Miller documentation regarding
Credits and SRA authorizations under the existing the revised RLSA Overlay. [Appendix H]
~~{i.cy,~~ (recommended amendment)
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 SeDtember 30. 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to amend Policy 4.3 as shown.
136 I P age
trjl'-''';;o
.~V8~~
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: none
Committee Deliberations: The Committee was advised that ECPO did not agree with Transportation Planning
Department proposals for Policy 4.4 and several other Group 4 Policies.
Committee September 30, 2008 Action: The Committee tabled action pending a report back from the
Transportation Planning Department and ECPO. Mr. Passidomo stated that a meeting was held this morning
with Transportation he stated that they may have some language to present as early as one to two weeks. The
Committee referred this Policy to John Passidomo and the Transportation Division to resolve.
Public comments on November 10, 2008: None.
Staff Comments on November 10, 2008: the language shown above was agreed upon by the Transportation Division
and John Passidomo to remain unchanged and the Committee should vote on this poliey [Comprehensive Planning]
Committee action on November 10.2008: The Committee voted unanimously not to amend Policy 4.4.
:efl~eY!\:f$ (recommended amendment)
Public Comments:
I. 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 0]: 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
rranspOltation 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
...._'--~"._-,..-.,--_._.-....__.,.,_.- ".-------....-..-...--.
."..~-_._,~.........----......~~..~.~.~- ...__.~....,~~-~"..,>
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 281h
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 28th and to amend the language in Policy 4.5 as shown above which is acceptable to the Transportation
Division.
~liii)t-;4J1' (recommended amendment)
Public Comments:
Public discussion on SeDtember 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 tlip 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 Pliddy 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 an"
broad enough to cover everything. Mr. Casalanguida suggested the following change in the second new proposed sentem
the words "consider the applicability or' to "provide mobility" and to change the word "and" to "or" in the same sentence.
Mr. Hamel asked Mr. Priddy if he was OK with that change to which Mr. Priddy stated that he was.
1381 P age
Staff Comments: The language shown above is proposed by consensus of the Transportation Division and John
Passidomo to be changed as shown above. [Comprehensive Planning]
Committee action on September 30. 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to leave the Policy 4.6 language
unchanged.
Committee Deliberations: See previous paragraphs.
Committee action on November 10. 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to accept the proposed language change
so as to amend the language of Policy 4.6 as shown above by also changing in the second new proposed sentence the
words "consider the applicability of' to "provide mobility" and to change the word "and" to "or" in the same sentence.
~_'4'.?" (recommended amendment)
Pnblic Comments:
1. A feasibility study needs to be conducted to determine if the smaller development
nodes, such as 40-100 acre hamlets, can realistically achieve self-sufficiency to
the extent that they are compatible with the overall goals of the program. If these
small development nodes do not contain adequate 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 length and relationship to the proposed
Florida Panther Protection Program addressed in Policy 3.1 1 and the various proposals advanced to amend several of the
Group 4 Policies, were placed in the Appendices seetion 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 I, 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 I, 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
139 I P age
~"'~"~-"'-'-~'--'''''''-''''~''~'-''''''-''
- .....,-.,.....,-,......~~._"~-.>~~.~.,~------,._-,---._,~._-,-~,-~-
Panther Protection Program
Appendix E June 16, 2008 letter to Thomas Reese from Charles Gauthier of
the Florida Department of Community Affairs relative to possible
changes to the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlay
Appendix F Undated July 1, 2008 presentation from Andrew McElwaine,
President and CEO of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida to
the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee
ECPO Comments [Attachment 0]: The Eastern Collier Propel1y 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) Plimary uses shall be associated with research, education, tourism or
recreation and shall not be more than 100 acres.
WilsonMilIer Comments: [Appendix N]
Staff Comments: none
Committee Deliberations: Mr. Cornell stated that hamlets are too small to be self sustaining and could be seen .
"controlled sprawl".
Committee Seotember 30, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to recommend the amendment to Policy
4.7 as shown.
1401Page
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]
WilsonMilIer 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.
J;l~~~,?~ (recommended amendment)
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]
WilsonMilIer Comments: [Appendix N]
SeDtember 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 I ,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.
1411Page
Committee Sentember 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 41h sentence from
the bottom of this Policy is needed to refer to a new proposed Policy 4.7.4.
Staff comments: none
Committee action on November 10. 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to approve the additional sentence,
"Appropriately scaled uses described in Policy 4.7.4 shall also be permitted in Villages."
Public Comments:
Hamlets will be eliminated as a form of SRA [submitted as part of the July 1, 2008 submittal to the Committee
entitled, "Florida Panther Protection Program" dated June 30, 2008]
ECPO Comments [Appendix 0]: The Eastern Collier Property Owners propose the following relative to forms aI1~
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
CIitical 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.
1421 P age
Public Comments:
l. 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 Rural Development ("CRD") shall include, as a permitted use, eco toruism lodging, recreational hunting
and fishing enterplises, 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 June 30, 2008]
ECPO Comments [Appendix 0]: 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 [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: The language amendments were provided by ECPO via Wilson Miller [Appendix N].
[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 SeDtember 30. 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to amend Policy 4.7.4 as shown and
renumber it to Policy 4.7.3.
Publie 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 word "shall" to "may". Gary Eidson stated that
,he 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 LDC.
1431Page
"'_'___~,_"'~_. ....w,._.__.~_..~_.._.~.,._ _~"..__ __
"". '~~'_-""""''''''."",,",~-----_.,...
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. 1
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 loo-acre site. Russ Priddy stated that he might do two or three CRDs and asked what if someone
wanted to do agricultural research, etc. He stated that the door needs to be left open for these uses. Mr. Jones stated that a
use might be a fishing lodge. Anita Jenkins stated that the Committee needs to address the intent of the CRD as it is now
written. Judy Hushon stated that CRDs should be limited to environmental and agricultural uses. Brad Cornell stated that
the word "shall" may be too strong and that it should be changed to "may" as uses are not permitted by right and that there
will be a need for strong LDC language. After further discussion both Gary Eidson and Tom Jones agreed to amend the
motion by substituting "may" for "shall" and inserting the word "compatible" after the word "scaled".
Staff comment: none
Committee action on November 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".
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'
see the words, "existing urban areas" added at the beginning of the Policy as this is a preferred location of business as h
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 eomments:
Committee action on November 10. 2008: The Committee voted. 7-1, to recommend the creation of new Poliey 4.7.4 as
outlined above, including all changes discussed.
Po!i~y4',8
A,ri;S~.~~~tlnt1~u$;to!aFSA<>'r;
~~~~d1fi:i~IJ~~~tj.~<?'!/.'1;'f' ,. '..,
~~iil~tll~~~~
.' ~!,l9r~Cl'Q~int!l;:!~~'_,~
. .. ""-,,,>,.. -""",.". . ._.~.."""""'.~. ..~ .
;.~\~n;:ser:vi,;!1'~vYl' If'-.'- w,,,,,,,,,'; ,
/3:1~;
Public Comments:
I. 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 (own or village and these need to be better understood
to assure no impacts to surrounding wetlands. Agricultural control elevations
should be compared for compatibility with changes brought on by development. [Mark Strain] Note: Also
relates to Policy 4.12 and 4.13
ECPO Comments [Appendix 0]: We are not aware of any data that supports the opinion that buffers are inadequat
Buffers were included within the RLSA program as a land use planning technique to provide a transition betweel.
receiving areas and natlU'al areas, primarily for the benefit of water quality and wildlife. The state and federal wetland
pennitting procedures meticulously review existing wetland hydroperiod data, proposed surface water management
144lPage
designs, outfall control elevations, etc., with the expressed purpose of preventing hydrologic impacts to surrounding
-. wetlands. The SFWMD Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permits details these procedures. Permits are not
issued until the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed activity does not hydrologically impact these wetlands,
regardless of the buffer location or distance. As part of the Environmental Resource permitting process, control elevations
are determined based on average wet season water table elevation as typically determined by hydro-biological indicators,
soil types, ground water well monitoring data, and surrounding permitted control elevations.
2. The Conservancy believes that wider buffers around HSAs, FSAs and Water
Retention Areas (WRAs) should be required and should be examined during the
five-year assessment. Note: Also relates to Policy 4.12 and 4.13 [Conservancy]
ECPO Comments [Appendix 0]: 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. aI., 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.
3. Currently, WRAs are allowcd 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 palt of historic wetland flow ways 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 0]: 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.]3.
Committee SeDtember 30. 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy 4.8 unchanged.
"91U\y~9 (recommended amendment)
Public Input: WilsonMiller Comments: [Appendix N]
145lPage
~'."'~"~-"-';"''"''~-~.."""""."-_._-",---""",, ,~
Staff Comments: Listed species that utilize uplands are not adequately protected by the NRI score. IAt is thought tr
this need is limited. However, the designation of the Ave Maria SRA did identify a caracara nest and habitat areas that l
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 DC A 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 clitical habitat area. Mr. Jones
stated that the language referring to critical habitat area should be stJicken as it has not been defined.
Committee Deliberations: See previous paragraph.
Committee September 30, 2008 Action: The Committee voted 7-1 to keep the language amendment in the secon"
sentence and the additional sentence exempting infrastructure necessary to serve permitted uses from the restriction a.
that all the other language provided by Environmental Services not be included in the amended Policy 4.9.
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.
.-. Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: none
Committee Deliberations: The Committee consensus was that Policy 4.11 is acceptable in its current language.
Committee September 30, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy 4.11 unchanged.
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: none
Committee Deliberations: The Committee consensus was that Policy 4.12 is acceptable in its current language.
Committee September 30. 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy 4.12 unchanged.
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: none
Committee Deliberations: The Committee consensus was that Policy 4.13 is acceptable in its current language.
Committee September 30. 2008 Aetion: The Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy 4.13 unchanged.
,~j:~4~' (recommended amendment)
1471Page
_..----,--~...~..--,--~-,_._..........~
Public Comments:
1. Vesting issues and concurrency were not adequately addressed and as a result separate developer contributir
agreements are being created that provide excessive development rights beyond those contemplated in the origil
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 0]: 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. DR!' 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~yea.r
build out study.[Mark Strain]
ECPO Comments [Appendix 0] : 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 transportatir
planning. To address this need, three separate efforts are underway today that will provide a better understanding of II
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 effOlt 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 tv,
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
1481F'age
out because of possible confusion with the Department of Community Affairs. Nancy Payton stated that the language on
mitigation needs to be clarified as to whether it is environmental or transportation impact. Nick Casalanguida stated that
the intent is transportation mitigation. Dave Wolfley stated that the word "Credits" should be capitalized and not to use
the DCA abbreviation. After further discussion concerning language in the new second paragraph the Committee asked
Nick Casalanguida, Nancy Payton, and ECPO to resolve and clear up ambiguities and report back to the Committee
when resolved. Later in the meeting, Nick Casalanguida read the proposed new language for the second paragraph and
stated that this language was agreed to by those meeting this morning.
Committee action on November 10. 2008: The Committed voted unanimously to approve the above language
amendments to Policy 4.14.
Committee action on December 18. 2008: The Committee heard from Nick Casalanguida of the need to amend the
November IO-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.
~4n:~'4;Ud' (recommended amendment)
Public Input:
WilsonMiller Comments: [Appendix N]
Staff Comments: none
Committee September 30.2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to amend Policy 4.15.1 as shown to
harmonize with the elimination of hamlets as an SRA.
~liti~4;:t~2
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: none
Committee Deliberations: The Committee consensus was that Policy 4.15.2 is acceptable in its current language.
Committee SeDtember 30, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy 4.15.2 unchanged.
:t>~jt~ii.~~15:3
1. Nl@"'~:f9f,t~ep.iiiit~t#I:1~'~;
2. ~~tiWl.tl\~.I)th:ll~ii4ill1irlif'~~~g~;~:t!%l.lt;~ype~~1
i~:~lb~_~~),~.llbd
3. fJlli$wtPnti8J,fOfJ~~'~:.Ii\'lhli~~~~6i!~tln;Ui~~t!iy
1491 P age
,....~.'N._~._..~..__,,_____..,__...__.~.~._,...;_.~.__>__,
~~Ab'JiIL~~~~~-bj:,\~~j):D~
"t~~tii'"""t..u''''4iiilit~i\\lNi''''iitillt' .
!L...,...._~.. .... ..""..Y
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.
p(jli~(J~ (recommended amendment)
ts,.
Public Comments:
I. Impacts on certain elements of regional infrastructure wcre 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 0]: Infrastructure is defined by Collier County as drainage (water management), roads,
potable water and sanitary sewer facilities pursuant to the Code of Laws and Ordinance of Collier County, Section 106-
32. RLSA Policy 4.16 requires that infrastructure be analyzed with each Stewardship Receiving Area application, and
also includes irrigation water and solid waste. It states:
"A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or such
infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand. The level of infrastructure provided will
depend on the type of development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC requirements. The
capacity of infrastructure serving the SRA must be demonstrated during the SRA designation process in
accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA
designation. Infrastructure 10 be analyzed includes transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation
\t'ater, stonnwater management, and solid waste. "
While hurricane shelter space, health care facilities and affordable housing are each important types of facilities, they are
not defined as infrastructure and not subject to concurrency management. However, every Town or Village in excess of
2000 units will be required to undergo DRl review, where regional issues such as hurricane evacuation, health care, and
affordable housing are addressed in accordance with State Law.
With respect to hurricane evacuation, the RLSA is the least vulnerable part of Collier County as demonstrated by the fa
that no part of the RLS falls within a Landfalling Storm Category 1-4 map zone. Accordingly, it is the area least likely tc
require evacuation. In implementation, Ave Maria provided hurricane shelter for coastal residents within the university
150 I P age
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.C 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 0]: 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, sunounding 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 time lines, for
conversion to sewer should be in place at the time of development approval. [Conservancy]
ECPO Comments [Appendix 0]: 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 0]: 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
ulanning hOlizon 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
151 I P age
'~'------'~-"--'"""---""--'--_._"""~ -';"~'~'~'''_~_'._",.''rr__'''.,.."",."""",_,~..~_..... ..__..._
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 RLSp
Together these tools should help in the long term evaluation of the transportation needs of the County. Today, there i.
better understanding of how the RLSA is likely to mature over time and with the new tools currently being developed,
planners can more appropriately identify and evaluate the transportation system improvements of the future.
6. Each new development should have to identify traffic contributions, water usage and other resource requirements
at the time they are being planned. You may want to consider the changes in these variables from agriculture to
increased density. [Judith Hushon]
ECPO Comments [Appendix 0]: See response to number I above.
WilsonMiIler Comments: [Appendix N]
Staff Comments: lnterconnectivity 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.
, . ~9,-," #RPijcat.ipns.,in,II-<:C9rd~1l\le,With th~ l>royis~Q
. . if'll ".', ";~~~J:~~~~~~:~~:Jt:t
. . J!i~o~finli11clClIf;q~VelQpmeJ1t'Qrd!lr apjl!:6:Yli1.
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.
Publie Comments:
1. Fiscal impact analysis model (flAM) minimum standards should be no less than minimum county wide standarL
as a conservati ve 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 P age
include accurate absorption rates, traffic capture rates and sales demographics, all of which have significant
effects on the outcome of the FlAM. [Mark Strain]
ECPO Comments [Appendix 0]: flAM was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on October 24,2007, as
the official model for review of DR!'s, and projects within the RLSA. Since the County has adopted FlAM, 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
FlAM for a specific project, the FlAM will be populated with the initial data projected for the project and subsequently
with the most current data available at the five year interval or phasing dates to reflect adjusted development plans
including sales prices, absorption rates, etc.
Policy 4.18 of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District ("RLSAO") and Section 4.08.07.L of the Collier
County LDC both require an SRA applicant to submit a FIAM as a part of the application for SRA approval, and each 5
years after approval. An annual fiscal analysis and review would not be appropriate as it would not account for the
dynamics of the land development process, the cyclical nature of the economy, nor would it account for the period of time
necessary for a community to reach a point in its growth where a stabilized balance of population, facilities and services
are reached. The LDC specifically requires that the project demonstrate fiscal neutrality every five years as noted below:
" Monitoring Requirement. To assure fiscal neutrality, the developer of the SRA shall submit to Collier
County a fiscal impact analysis report ("Report") every five (5) 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
"rom 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 0]: 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 flAM 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
'ontribution Agreement as providing for other sources of private contribution. Mr. Eidson stated that he feels the
,anguage 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
.---~~'_._---,,...-.....,,.,,..,." ""~-'- ..~,,"._~,,---..,,;-._.~,--~."-
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 FlAM 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 4.1
language. Mr. Al Reynolds stated that he feels the existing language is appropriate.
Staff Comments: This Policy language should be modified to ret1ect the language which is already included in LDC
Section, 4.08.07 K.L.2 and LDC Section 4.08.07 K.L.3 as copied below from the LDC. [Comprehensive Planning]
. LDC Section, 4.08.07 K. L. 2. ~ "Monitoring requirement, To assure fiscal neutrality, the developer of the SRA
shall submit to Collier County a fiscal impact analysis report ("Report") every five (5) years until the SRA is
ninety percent built out. The Report will provide a fiscal impact analysis of the project in accord with the
methodology outlined above."
. LDC Section, 4.08.07 K. L. 3. ~ "Imposition of Special Assessments. If the Report identifies a negative fiscal
impact of the project to a unit of local government referenced above, the landowner will accede to a special
assessment on his property to offset such a shortfall or in the alternati ve make a lump sum payment to the unit of
local government equal to the present value of the estimated shortfall for a period covering the previous phase (or
five year interval). The BCC may grant a waiver to accommodate affordable housing."
Committee September 30.2008 Action: The Committee voted 7-1 to leave Policy 4.18 unchanged. .
Public discussion on November 10, 2008 [Appendix R]: Tammie Nemecek explained the rationale for this language.
Judy Hushon stated that a CRD might provide such surplus revenues. Laurie McDonald asked if such surplus revenues
could be used for environmental purposes. Tammie Nemecek stated that the purpose of the revenues is to further
economic development. Brian Goguen stated, as chair elect of the EDC, that he supported this language.
Staff comments: none
Committee action on November 10. 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to recommend the additional language t,
Policy 4.18.
~~Jiq,.fi~~!. (recommended amendment)
E.i,@t\~~~,i.lAAl\icl*.r!la~if,9r,j~a!'Ii'!~~:'Of. !~d.iI!,C
S c.- ,",," '~'{""" '''''' ""iJJf""lif'o;," . "'uu "j;;eef'
Public Comments:
I. The conversion ratio used to create Stewardship Credits should have been reviewed and applied in a model as the
maximum seenario for development. The averages that were used understated the growth potential. Future
adjustments should be based on a maximum impact analysis to assure a conservative approach for taxpayers.
[Mark Strain]
ECPO Comments: See the memo to Tom Greenwood from WilsonMiller dated September 18,2008 [Appendix H].
Staff Comments: In the third line of Policy 4.19 the reference to Policy 4.19 needs to be conected 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.
154 I P age
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.
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 0]: 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.
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.
~'ublic 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
-'-~----~-'--y~"
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 developmet.
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 Standtidge 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 histOlic or cultural resource, then such must
be preserved per the LDC. Final language for this GMP amendment will be subject to fUlther 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 0]: Agreed.
Preface to Group 5 Policies
Group 5 Policies set the framework for protection of water quality and quantity and maintaining the natural water regim
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 refened to by reference. Major Committee-recommended revisions
to Group 5 Policies include:
Policy 5.4 (amendment)
This recommended amendment to Policy 5.4 provides language to establish a map of potential wildlife crossing
within 12 months of the effective date of the GMP amendments to be used in evaluating community, cultural and
historical, and transportation planning for the RLSA, including all SRAs described in Group 4 Policies.
Policy 5.5 (amendment)
This recommended amendment to Policy 5.5:
. deletes certain outdated references relative to the preparation of management plans;
. provides requirement for preparation of a management plan for the purpose of minimizing human and wildlife
interactions between agricultural and non-agJicultural lands uses; and
. provides for a monitoring program for developments greater than 10 acres.
Policy 5.7 (new)
This new Policy 5.7 requires that any development on lands not participating in the RLS program to be compatible
with surrounding land uses and that outdoor lighting shall be reasonably managed to protect the nighttime
environment, conserve energy, and enhance safety and security.
Policy 5.8 (new)
This new Policy 5.8 provides that assessment of historic or cultural resources be done when such are identified in tho
RLSA, including the assessment of such resource's historic or cultural significance and the exploration of educational
and public awareness opportunities regarding such significant resources.
1561page
Group 5 - Policies that protect water quality and quantity and the maintaining of the natural water regime and
..,protect listed animal and plaut species and their habitats on land that is not voluntarily included in the Rural
mds Stewardship Area program. I
I
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 Dan'el Land who spoke with the RLS Committee, that species are very adept at utilizing and traversing
agriculture lands.
Committee deliberations on October 7. 2008 Mr. McDaniel moved and Mr. Cornell seconded to accept Mr. Cornell's
rewording of Policy 5.1 as provided to the Committee by Mr. Cornell this morning. Mr. Jones stated that he is opposed to
the language proposed as Policy 5.1 is not broken and does not need fixing. Mr. Cornell stated that this is a way to ensure
that development does not occur on the edge of the OK Slough and the Camp Keais Strand. Mr. Jones stated that the
County may be subjected itself to a taking of a property owner's rights and subject to litigation. Mr. Cornell stated that the
owner would receive compensation if he chose to participate in the RLSAO. The Committed discussed that would entail
a property owner losing rights to use that land and that setbacks in the LDC may be the way to handle this. Also, if a
'and owner loses rights to use his land through a government action a Bert Harris violation would likely occur and the
"::ounty could be subject to a lawsuit.
Staff Comments: none
157 I P age
'"'y-_.,~-,,-~".,-_..-...,-;--,~
_ ."H_',,'_~'~~_"'''''_''~''''''._ "',. _"...._.",..,_.._~_,._...__
Committee Aetion taken on October 7, 2008: The Committee unanimously voted to amend Policy 5.1 by changing tr
period to a comma after the word "program" in the third line by adding the words, "and designated Flowway buffe"
after "FSAs" in the second line and to change "only" to "not" in the second sentence.
,~Qf' '~l1l"!ltter ~egiJiie.~9;.t(l nro~t liSteit,aw.\{i;a~
,,"~'"'' "1",,,,i~ .,. ii' C'::"H",,"Ji. ....~~ t"..&~., ,,'~"~~.t1lif''''
'~ ..th~~TrrLtO:;~~~i~~tt;~"i~u..'tmi'. .
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.
Polkl 5.3
~.~
pr..
l>oli'cy}, .
I.:.D.G'll1fd..
stiah:OiM'
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.
Public Input:
I. 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 Hnshon]
158 I P age
ECPO Comments [Appendix P]: Panther deaths on Route 41 East are miles south of the RLSA, as are incidents on SR
... ~9 south of the Sunniland mines. The panther-vehicle collisions on CR 846 east of Immokalee were considered when
jesignating the FSA and HSA stewardship overlays in that area. SSA 3 and SSA 4 were later designated along that
segment of CR 846 specifically to provide opportunities for future panther crossings.
Committee deliberations on October 7, 2008. Mr. Thomas stated that he would to have the word "cultural" added to
the new sentence proposed by Mr. Cornell. Mr. McDaniel suggested eliminating the deadline of January, 2010 for the.
creation of the wildlife crossings map as that could be problematic. Mr. Eidson suggested making the date January, 2011.
Laura Roys asked who is going to prepare the map and which study is it based upon. Mr. Cornell stated that the map to be
used is that prepared for the Eastern Collier County Panther Study as the basis for crossing needs and for future used for
site development plans, stewardship receiving areas, the MPO, etc. He stated that the map is essentially done. Elizabeth
Fleming stated that the word "identified" would be better because the study has already identified such crossings. Nancy
Payton gave a brief history of the development of the Panther Study.
Staff Comments: none
Committee Deliberations: see preceding discussions
Committee Action taken on October 7. 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to amend Policy 5.4 as outlined
above.
Committee deliberations on October 14, 2008. Brad Cornell stated that he would like the Committee to consider
adding additional language to Policy 5.4 which was acted upon during the October 7 meeting. He asked the Committee to
add the following language at the end of the last sentence of Policy 5.4: ", including all SRAs described in Group 4
Policies."
Committee action taken on October 14: The Committee voted unanimously to add the words at the end of the last
sentence of Policy 5.4: ", including all SRAs described in Group 4 Policies" so that Policy 5.4 now reads as shown above.
. '';';'';:.ntiiYiifr. X""A- o' -.
Jll'!_"."'11l~"S-' .
)6Iiij'~ :dJ~;aW4'
cO:' "-1' _ '.c_, ~.;;;
-, ~'~--'
,
p-'"!,
;_\:,_'~';"~~~'-- ,O"'.,,-:'k"
~"""'_'" ''',__~_ ",0
159 I P age
~:;:'~~II~:~llWGl._.~e~l\f$!~.l;l'8j.'\Ytti.i9~
._._._--_.,-_....."..--.......~-....;.-,...._~._,,-_..
--_.""~~"...;~---"'~ "-" -- ---.-.--
1601Page
2,.~...i1ilIi'~~'jIl@1l!;~~~aj)lirdli.,~\i.1l_~'.~;.~~,($:til"""'~ilk.~
ii.
Public Comments:
Committee deliberations on October 14, 2008: Tom Jones stated that he has a problem with inclusion of the additional
language in Policv 5.5. para!!faph 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
interaction. It would require provision of information about wildlife to people. Gary Eidson stated that this discussion
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 ofPolicv 5.5, paragraph 3 would be more appropriate.
Staff Comments: none
Committee Deliberations: see discussion above.
Committee Action on October 14. 2008: 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 14.2008: The Committee voted, 7-1, to amend Policy 5.5, paragraph 3 to include the
~" changes proposed in the last two sentences.
:ommittee Action of October 14. 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to amend the word "containing" to
'utilized by".
1611Page
, .-...._.~_._~..-~. ,'-..---" .- --"-'.~--~--''''-'---'~'''''''''~'-'-'-'---''
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 I of Policy 5.5. Elizabeth Fleming agree"
that other listed species should be cited so that the wording is more inclusive. Brad Cornell and Nancy Payton both agret
with Mr. Wolfley and Ms. Fleming.
Committee Action on October 28. 2008 on paral!raDh 1 of Policv 5.5: The Committee voted unanimously to accept the
language amendments for paragraph I of Policy 5.5 as shown above.
Committee Action on October 28. 2008 on par3l!raph 2 of Policv 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 Dar3l!raph 2 of Policv 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 par3l!raph 2 of Policv 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 par3l!raph 2 of Policv 5.5. subsection c: The Committee voted
unanimously to approve the language as shown in subsection c of Policy 5.5.
Committee Action on October 28. 2008 on deletion of existinl! paral!raphs 2b throul!h 2h of Policv 5.5: The
Committee voted unanimously to delete this existing language.
Committee Action on October 28, 2008 on amendinl! the lanl!ual!e of paral!raph 30f Policv 5.5: The Committee
voted unanimously to delete this existing language.¯
162 I P age
163lPage
;~~(;:ii~~'1in!,~;~liQii\!i~4$;~S{d~~~,~
"<~~djj9~_~~~~ti:ilit~;:~, ....c f1,iJu~iii\J1S,,_.lIfe
'L~ _l#!!~i~~llIiW''' ~~I's~e""
. ." ,'" '. - ...., ,.. ,,,,'{#q .... ... ..'"
till~1li!(~~p~~~:~,sl,~{1l~.",,~.I*~~~
- .,,--"_.,'---_.""-.,,""-,"'.......~.~~,./....~..-
Public Comments:
] . The actual ability to develop in the RLSA under the standard zoning did not include an analysis of what amount
of non-jurisdictional lands could actually be permitted. This produced a false sense of urgency to protect
environmentally sensitive land that in reality may never have been allowed to be improved. Even as 5 or 10 acre
home sites, the ability to infringe upon wetlands is limited. [Mark Strain]
ECPO Comments [Appendix P]: An analysis of the specific jurisdictional wetland permitting conditions of the entire
300 square mile RLS was not within the scope of the Rural Land Study, nor is such an analysis required for
comprehensive planning. Further, as the RLSA is an optional overlay, it is an alternative to development under the
existing zoning, not a replaeement.
The standard zoning of the entire RLSA is Agriculture. Under this zoning, a wide range of land uses are permitted by right
or conditional use that can have impacts to jurisdictional areas, including the full range of agricultural activities,
farmworker housing, commercial excavations, and residential development. Under the standard zoning, land ownership
can be subdivided and fragmented in ways that compromise wetland and habitat connectivity. Once this occurs, it is very
expensive and difficult to reassemble land into manageable systems (Southern Golden Gate Estates). The RLSA creates
incentives for more sustainable and environmentally sound patterns of protection and development on a landscape basis.
In addition, many environmentally sensitive lands within the RLSA are not jurisdictional wetlands, yet provide important
habitat for Florida panther, Florida black bear, Big Cypress fox squirrel, and other listed species. Large areas of non-
jurisdictional land are included in Habitat Stewardship Areas, particularly where these occur in proximity to native
vegetated areas or flowways.
The "sense of urgency" for protecting environmentally sensitive lands pre-dates the RLSA, and in fact was a key catalyst
that led to the establishment of the Final Order, the Rural Lands Study, and the resulting RLSA program. The Florida
Forever program (and its predecessors) targeted the CREW lands (Camp Keais Strand) and the Okaloacoochee Slough
long before the creation of the RLSA. Various state and federal analyses projected strong development pressures on
wetlands within the RLSA before the RLSA program was created. The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration program
predicates much of its land acquisition strategy on potential wetland losses and landscape-scale fragmentation.
Staff Comments: minor corrections [Comprehensive Planning] CWTentlY 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 FSAIHSA. Policy 5.6 [Environmental Staff]
164lpage
- '::ommittee Action on October 28, 2008: The Committee voted, 8-1, to accept the proposed new language in Policy 5.6,
>ection 3, subsection f iv.
Committee Action on October 28. 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to leave the language in existing subsection
3fiv 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 Deeember 18, 2008: The Committee following input from Brad Cornell, other members of the
Committee, and the public voted unanimously to modify the first line of Policy 5.6, paragraph 3, subparagraph a,
subparagraph ii to read as follows: "ii. Wetlands and contiguous upland buffers that are.. .".
-in
" ':'Ur
-. "!":~iU~'---~t'-"";i:..,';~~i':,
s
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
~ommittee Deliberations: see October 28 public discussion
Committee Action taken on October 28, 2008: The Committee by a vote of 8-] voted to add new Policy 5.7 as outlined
above.
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.
165lPage
.. ---~~'-,-'-~-,",>,......_,-,,--
'liRANS~A.QBEt~MEN:.u :.
. ~WP()Jl;Iev~.7
.l<<>J.\t:l'lH\f~AGEMEN:r PL~
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 becaose of other
recommended amendments to certain Group 4 Policies.
ortation Element Policy]
--- - - "',-c,-;<,,-_.;,-_;>1';;'
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 langoage 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.
166lPage
~ m -l ..
;;:0I0Z
..~~ 0
= ~ ""
("Imom
Il)~""cn
"0 - ~"-l
0-<< 0
_mftl -I
NOE )I>
~'"'" ~ 01 ,...
gill &I. en
00",
n ~ ;0
,0.>
~~ =
-.~
!II ... III
....0.
0'"
0"
00>
~ i::
~n
"',
0.
-0.
0-'
"'!i
...,
...
'"
'"
'"
Co
'"
..
0>
'"
..
Co
#;
'"
'"
'"
Co
~
~
~
..
N
o
o
..
-~
n '"
o
~
~
o'
~
!!!.
"
~ 0
~O
300
.....0
?-~o
,,0.
n
'"
...,
0>
::t
'"
~
...
"
..
..
..
'"
'"
Q
#;
:..
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
:..
'"
g:
;.,
..
'"
N
'"
Q
'"
o
'"
'"
'"
~
'"
o
'"
'"
'"
'"
~
'"
t;
~
~
<D
'"
'"
::.:
t;
'"
;.,
'"
'"
'"
...
:..
Ii;
'"
~
io
~
;.,
~
'"
~
:..
~
'"
'"
...,
'"
io
~
'"
"
'"
...,
'"
'"
~
o
..
~
~
~
o
o
..
-~
n '"
o
~
0.
"
o'
~
!!!.
'"
0,
...,
0>
'"
'"
0,
...,
0>
'"
'"
'"
...,
'"
'"
'"
...,
'"
:..
0>
W
'"
.'"
...,
o
o
'"
0>
:..
w
6
'"
'"
~
w
0>
0>
..
'"
..
..
0>
'"
'"
..
..
0>
'"
'"
o
...,
N
"1
0,
'"
o
....
:J:
..
o
o
o
5'0
a:Q.
::i' = (")
(Q 91 r
pi r:I:
....=
-~
0.0.
'"
N
'"
"'
6
'"
N
'"
"'
6
'"
N
'"
"'
6
.'"
"'
0>
in
0,
'"
0>
'"
'"
'"
'"
w
'"
'"
'..
~
"'
0>
'"
0>
"'
...,
N
"1
0,
~
~
~
..
N
o
o
..
-~
n ...
o
~
~
o'
~
!!!.
:;
,-
en
:;
w
'"
6
..
0>
'"
'"
0>
'"
'"
'"
00
V'
C
'"
'"
'"
(J'
'"
~
to
:..
'"
in
to
:..
'"
~
a
'"
!!!.
= ~
."...
."
<3
<
.
0.
'"
o
;i;
o
."
!il
,
a
'"
!!!.
= ~
.,,'"
."
<3
<
.
0.
en
<
~
2.
;;
~
0.
,.,
=
~.
'<
'i
I::
~
a
'"
!!!.
= ~
.,,0
."
<3
<
.
0.
~
,;-
o
..
.
.
g '"
no
i-
.. o.
" 0
..
w
'"
"'
"'
'"
w
'"
'"
w
'"
w
'"
0>
W
'"
w
'"
w
w
...,
'"
w
w
...,
'"
"1
'"
"'
'"
0,
'"
~
'"
"'
...,
...,
"'
0>
...,
..
..
w
'"
'"
w
"'
'"
:..
'"
'"
...,
to
'"
o
'"
...
g:
..
0>
1.n
o
..
'"
0>
1.n
'"
..
'"
'"
;;
~<D
,g
'"
6
'"
I jS e~
N CID ......!~N en
I t~
'"
o
ijj
o
..
n~~i~
'" ~. ~ ~ i w'"
!~"'--a~
...,
0>
"'
..
...,
w
"'
...,
w
"'
g:
:..
0>
"1
..
'"
"1
..
'"
8:
in
g;
N
...
w
in
~
'"
in
'"
'"
'"
0>
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
c..,
'"
to
'"
'"
c..,
0>
to
'"
..
..
0>
6
..
..
"1
6
'"
N
"'
"'
to
"1
'"
6
..
~
to
'"
N
"'
"'
in
...,
..
'"
...,
..
'"
to
N
"'
"'
in
~
"'
'"
N
..
...,
'"
'"
..
~
'"
'"
:;
'"
'"
"'
'"
0>
0>
'"
w
'"
..
"'
0>
'"
"'
"'
'"
...,
1.n
...,
'"
in
...,
1.n
...,
0>
in
'"
"'
0>
'"
..
"'
0>
'"
..
"'
0>
to
..
..
to
"'
o
..
'"
"'
o
w
"'
"'
'"
..
s::
'"
"'
"'
w
'"
'"
...,
t
...,
to
0>
in
0,
W
to
"'
0,
w
'"
'"
..
'"
~
'"
..
'"
w
..
'"
o
J",
g 0
nO.
iO
....
~
"'
"1
'"
~
'"
:..
....,
"'
0>
..
"'
"1
:..
'"
:;
'"
'"
:;
'"
'"
N
0>
o
'"
...
<0
'"
0>
'"
...
<0
~
"'
w
W
"'
w
W
w
1.n
~
6
..
N
0>
0>
..
'"
1.n
...,
0>
6
:;
o
..
'"
'"
<0
..
"'
'"
p
...,
in
'"
'"
~
'"
>
E
c:
'"
n1
0"
aS~
~!
....
!"
~
i:
f
i '"
r
~
"
'"
'"
;.,
~
'"
o
~
Co
~
'"
~
Co
'"
g:
;.,
'"
g:
;.,
~
"
~
;.,
-
If
;.,
'"
!
N
'"
'"
'"
'"
;.;
'"
'"
..
~
...
..
~
~
...
:..
...
!!l
'"
'"
...
u.
...,
...
'"
!
is'"
!
l..
nO
i
!
0;
"2
~
0;
"2
~
'"
"2
w
'"
'"
w
::;
::,.
1!
"'
~
...,
'"
8:
w
'"
W
to
'"
'"
W
to
'"
0,
'"
'"
15
'"
to
'"
W
'"
to
'"
W
'"
'"
'"
i5
"'
'"
6
'"
'0
"'
0>
'"
0>
in
.'"
'"
w
..
"1
..
~
'"
<0
w
0>
'"
'"
<0
w
0>
W
~
S ...
~
h
iO
....
~
N
w
"'
'"
'"
\:
6
g;
'"
'"
N
w
"'
'"
N
w
"'
'"
"'
0>
'"
6
~
:..
g;
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
...,
0>
:..
'"
...,
0>
:..
>
E
c:
en
n1
0-
,,,,is
OS~
~8
....~
!"
;.,
..
...
>
h
~O
i' "
~
t:
'"
'"
'"
..
i::
Co
'"
'"
...
...,
io
;>'
;Z
'"
io
'"
;.;
'"
'"
~
..
o
Co
w
Q
;:;;
'"
...
'"
...
..
..
~
u.
'"
...,
..
t
...,
io
'"
'"
...
!::
~
s...
!
h
f!;l
~
"
'"
o
':!
'"
'"
o
'"
'"
"'
to
in
0>
o
6
w
'"
'"
in
0>
"'
..
0>
"'
'"
Ii;
...,
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
8:
'"
z;'"
i 0
nO.
~O
i"
~
'"
"'
'"
in
'"
...,
0>
'"
!"
0>
<0
_w
"'
to
'"
'"
"'
'"
in
0>
o
6
w
'"
'"
in
,.,
0>
...,
in
\1J
...,
'"
..
'"
...,
'"
w
..
'"
...,
'"
w
'"
:<c:
.:!'i
.. =
~i
II..
ei'~
~li!. m.....J,i$
Iiit.... ~ lS
.!l.g
0..
~
;;
J "'I
g 0
n ;i; .....
iO
....
~
...,
~
;""
o
~ ~
'"
~...
1:0
...,
~
~~a
0>
...,
'"
..
...
-1lO0
~ICP'~
en ,...
'"
'"
w
:..
~a
la
I~
~.....",
ijr~
i
;"
~.~
m:
~.
;.....:1:
.'"
>-
g:
..
~'i
lil'z
~
...,
0>
~Il
Iii
I:~ ~
~iJl~
I!~
I!f
g:
in
N
0>
0>
:..
I.! f
~I!~
n
~~.I !
",i
N
0>
0>
in
~
, .....=<
>
!!l
c:
..
o
>z
""0
~-l
m
<.....
>
Z
c:
>
;0
-<
'"
-~>
",0
0;0
Om
...,,,,
;j;o
m
,.,
....
m
o
""
""
:J:
m
:J:
15
:J:
m
'"
""
....
m
<
m
....
o
,.,
>
z
o
c:
en
m
..
m
;0
;E:
:j
m
o
c:
z
o
m
;0
:i!
m
;0
c:
~
....
>
z
o
en
""
m
~
;0
o
'"
:J:
'0
~
en
m
;E:
m
Z
""
:;g
a:
-'~
':1""
"_""C- .
'~;'-
~->'-'
11 ;;(Ii
Ix
i'::-{~1~,
W'.
["
... ','
!!!
I';
n,
i
if
'11
..
il.
j
I
ci:
i
a(: ,~,
I: ;,;;~UI
R:';j'
.:/'."'i.",'
I: .<.,
~""I'
.
:ii;~':: .
.!:.'.....' -
-<