Loading...
Backup Documents 10/22/2019 Item #11LRural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Board of County Commissioners October 22, 2019 Update and Recommendations Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Board of County Commissioners October 22, 2019 Update and Recommendations Dedicated Community Engagement 3RLSA Voluntary Program •1999-2002: RLSA created through the 14-member Rural Lands Assessment Oversight Committee •2007-2009: 5 Year Review recommendations proposed by 11-member Review Committee: Ron Hamel Bill McDaniel Jim Howard Gary Eidson Neno Spagna Tammie Nemecek Tom Jones Dave Wolfley Brad Cornell Fred Thomas David Farmer •2018-2019: White Paper preparation following 12 public workshops Staff Recommendation Direct staff to: 1.Bring forward Growth Management Plan amendments for the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, as prepared by the 5-year Review Committee and presented in the RLSA White Paper; 2.Develop a regional water partnership; and 3.Draft Land Development Code amendments to address SRA characteristics as outlined by the 5-year Review Committee and the RLSA White Paper. Same as the recent Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Immokalee Area Master Plan 1.Public Workshops 2.Analysis 3.White Paper Preparation and Presentation 4.Request Board Direction to Prepare Amendments Restudy Process 4 •Plan amendments have been in perpetual limbo for over a decade, only due to lack of agreement on who should pay for them. •5-year review recommendations are prepared in underline/strikethrough form and ready for vetting through the public hearing process. •The majority of stakeholders, the Planning Commission and the Board achieved consensus on the 5-year review recommendations. •The majority of RLSA White Paper recommendations are included in the 5-year review amendments. •Additional RLSA White Paper recommendations accomplished with a partnership to address regional water matters and Land Development Code amendments. •The recommended amendments improve the RLSA Overlay. Staff Recommendation -Basis 5 Presentation Highlights 6 Overview 5 Year Review and RLSA White Paper Recommendations Process to Move Forward 7 Overview •1999-2002: Final Order and Adoption of RLSA Overlay •2007-2009: 5 Year Review Committee Recommendations •2018-2019: RLSA Public Workshops and RLSA White Paper RLSA Voluntary Program 8RLSA Voluntary Program RLSA Adoption Benefits Established a Long Range Plan to Incentivize the Objectives: •Preserve Natural Resources •Protect Agriculture •Improve the Pattern of Growth “The RLSA achieved something many thought impossible. It created an ongoing working relationship among environmentalists, landowners, community advocates and representatives.” Nancy Payton Florida Wildlife Federation 9RLSA Voluntary Program RLSA Today Benefits RLSA Plan has realized: •55,000 acres preserved at no cost to the public •5,000 Acre Town of Ave Maria •Ave Maria University •Arthrex manufacturing expansion •Two villages pending (two under discussion) •3,113 acres preservation pending 10 RLSA Future Benefits Proposed actions are intended to incentivize: •Protection of 134,000 acres •Flowways areas •(Camp Keais Strand and Okaloalcoochee Slough) •Habitat areas •Agriculture areas •Additional panther corridors •45,000 acres of towns and villages •Diversification of eastern Collier County economy RLSA Voluntary Program 5 Year Review Substantive Recommendations SSA easement conditions Incentives for agriculture protection Restoration activities Panther corridors SRA characteristics and application requirements Economic development, diversification and job creation Listed species management plans 11 12 Group 1 Policies General Purpose and Structure of the RLSA •Provide a conditional period of 5 years to use SSA Credits •All management obligations in place through conditional period •When SSA Credits are not used the property can revert back to the original ag zoning •Add the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to SSA easement agreement RLSA Voluntary Program -5 Year Review Recommendation 13 Group 2 Policies Retention of Agriculture •Incentivize retention of agriculture land with the use of Credits •Landowners voluntarily eliminate non-agriculture uses in exchange for Credits •Collier County may establish an Agriculture Advisory Council RLSA Voluntary Program -5 Year Review Recommendation 14 Group 3 Policies Protection of Natural Resources •Establishment Credits for a north and south panther corridor •Establish a tiered restoration system •Define specific number of Credits •Prioritize seasonal, shallow wetland wading bird foraging habitat •Clarify status of WRA •When used for water treatment for a SRA; the acreage shall be included in the SRA •Conditional Uses will require Environmental Impact Statement RLSA Voluntary Program -5 Year Review Recommendation 15 Group 4 Policies Development Characteristics •Establish a maximum SRA footprint of 45,000 acres •Revise the town and village max acreage •Town from 4,000 to 5,000 •Village from 1,000 to 1,500 •Eliminate hamlets (40-100 acres) •Redefine Compact Rural Developments uses to support •Agriculture •Natural resources •Economic diversity •Research/education •Tourism or recreation •Cap Credits at 404,000 •Recalibrate Credit ratio per SRA acre (from 8 to 10) RLSA Voluntary Program -5 Year Review Recommendation SRA Application Requirements •Include a management plan to minimize human and wildlife interactions •Include a mobility plan that considers all modes of transportation •Address SRA road connectivity, maintenance and mitigation •SRA Master Plan shall comply with the County Long Range Transportation Plan •Modify the size of Towns and Villages •Villages greater than 500 acres shall support transit •Public and private roads within an SRA shall be maintained by the SRA 16RLSA Voluntary Program -5 Year Review Recommendation 17 Group 5 Policies Lands not utilizing the RLSA •Develop a map of potential wildlife crossings •Direct non-agricultural development away from habitats of listed species and species of special local concern •Require management plans to minimize human and wildlife interactions •Address compatibility and outdoor lighting •Assess historic and cultural resources RLSA Voluntary Program -5 Year Review Recommendation 18 Companion Policy Transportation Element •Within 12 months of adoption the County shall initiate a county-wide plan for an eastern Collier County transportation network •The Long Range Transportation Plan prepares for the mobility of future population growth projected for eastern Collier County •Proposed development must comply with the county-wide transportation network plan RLSA Voluntary Program -5 Year Review Recommendation Proposed Credit Adjustments EEB Credits Base Credits Restoration Credits EEB Credits Restoration Credits Base CreditsAg Credits Panther Credits Proposed 19RLSA Voluntary Program -5 Year Review Recommendation Current Proposed Credit and Development Adjustments 20RLSA Voluntary Program -5 Year Review Recommendation Current Program SSA Credits: 460,000 +/- SRA Development: 72,834 +/-acres Proposed Program SSA Credits: 404,000 +/- SRA Development: 45,000 acres Results NRI SSA acres 91,700 Ag SSA acres 40,000 Panther Corridor 2,300 Total SSA acres 134,000 Credits Cap 404,000 SRA acres 45,000 Open acres 0 Total development acres cap 45,000 Public lands/misc. acres 16,000 Total acreage 195,000 NRI SSA 91,700 Ag SSA 40,000 PantherCorridor2,300 SRA 45,000 Public Land & Misc. 16,000 21RLSA Voluntary Program -5 Year Review Recommendation RLSA White Paper Recommendations 22 Water Resources Agriculture Protection Environmental Protection Towns, Villages and Other Development Water Resources 23 Collier County Water Management District Big Cypress Basin Board 189 Districts Establish a Regional Water Partnership To Address: •Discharge rates for basins •Filter marshes •Flowway management plans •Aquifer supply and quality RLSA Voluntary Program –White Paper Recommendations Agriculture Protection •Establish Credits for Agriculture Protection •Exclude any aquiculture operation from the agricultural credit system •Collier County may establish an Agricultural Advisory Committee at a time deemed appropriate by the BCC 24RLSA Voluntary Program –White Paper Recommendations Environmental Protection •Add a provision in the SSA approval process that allows a conditional approval for 5 years, with optional extensions •Establish a third grantee for enforcement of easements under SSA •Restructure restoration credits to tiered program •Cap Stewardship Credits and SRA Acreage •Reduce speed limits along collector and arterial roadways, particularly at night (address in Transportation Element Companion amendment) 25RLSA Voluntary Program –White Paper Recommendations Towns, Villages and Other Development Address SRA Characteristics in Overlay and Land Development Code Amendments: •SRA/SSA interface •Housing needs and density •Business location opportunities (included in Opportunity Naples 2014) •Village aggregation •Annual monitoring reports •Wildlife interface plans •Eliminate hamlets •Describe allowable uses in the Compact Rural Developments •Restrict SRA development in the ACSC •Require Mobility Plans as a component of an SRA Master Plan 26RLSA Voluntary Program –White Paper Recommendations Moving Forward Growth Management Plan Amendments Land Development Code Amendments 27 Timeline RLSA Overlay Amendments 28 Jan. 2020 Finalize RLSA Overlay Amendments (5 Year Review and White Paper) for Hearings Mar. 2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Apr. 2020 BCC Transmittal Hearing May 2020 DEO Review Aug. 2020 CCPC Adoption Hearing Oct. 2020 BCC Adoption Hearing Jan. 2020 Stakeholder meetings and draft LDC Amendments (5 Year Review and White Paper) June 2020 Development Services Advisory Committee Sep. 2020 Finalize LDC Amendments Dec. 2020 CCPC Hearing Feb. 2021 BCC Hearing GMP Amendments LDC Amendments RLSA Voluntary Program –Moving Forward 29 Staff Recommendation Direct staff to: •Bring forward Growth Management Plan amendments for the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, as prepared by the 5-year Review Committee and presented in the RLSA White Paper; •Develop a regional water partnership; and •Draft Land Development Code amendments to address SRA characteristics as outlined by the 5- year Review Committee and the RLSA White Paper. RLSA Voluntary Program CONSERVANCY OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Protecting Southwest Florida’s unique natural environment and quality of life…now and forever. Facebook.com/ConservancySWF Twitter.com/ConservancySWFL 1495 Smith Preserve Way Naples, FL 34102 239.262.0304 www.conservancy.org Conservancy’s position on the RLSA The 5-year review committee’s understanding of the existing program file:///I:/Policy%20Docu ments/GROWTH%20M ANAGEMENT/RLSA/Pr esentation%20- %205%20year%20revie w%20- %20Phase2ReportPrefa cePPT%20- %202009.pdf 5-Year Committee assumptions are outdated 226,411 vested and pending credits 31,130 SRA acres at 8 credits per acre (+10% public benefit) Using outdated assumptions will result in miscalculations m z C D00 3 a Co 111 o � CD c C Dnp zc = 00 T0- G CD r m r -H O = N D � K < o o 1 C7 Wz mz es lb. p 1 T cn --� _� a, DY z mzO D zm - � OPzp c Q r mZ oN - -Ti cin m 2 G) o �� v o o m � W ?s Ilk --L-, -n Dr 0 fml -I D 73 00 C.4 070D O n D - " z -41 CO z0 c- 0 73 _i D 0 0 r. Q. c = C -I _, co —, Q B ii T T m 00 • 0 -i liH N3m �' • m O 0 C cG� o c - O _1 Z 00 � cmn = .A o —I T -t _1 n D m cz) C1 n- cn OzQ' m � z E O � z —. T Ti � nmxio -4' n C5 -o 73 T opo c---- c N 12- I) '''' -- ..1;:. m o D mozzozp � v vD D -IoFzDm O I m c-(3 T m � ---I cfl > -0 z = n. m O > r -v O = v 3 O -- D mm T m _ V Z < z V) G) cn m -1 = � 0 O m = r m m z x T 0Z r * r OD -< -1m ■1 co -� = m - � m 2 = 0 T m m -. c) p m z 2 m D xa 73 o 0 z -i G) m CD -03 CD 3 cQ i 1 L o CD o U) CD , � t. n " CU -u = o m � o r° 3 M cnCD z ._.� mon ..,� N O mZ m v' mz ("`� z m � X � � - �-o -I 0 m 0 c m i) _ m- oo x7 m � D X O z m 0 2 z m r 0 m cn D m v O -0 - mzz ,cp CC z -n Z = -0< E.3 Z 0 C = zw a T CD _- 0c m � C. o m x � N .. ncDn v O. CD y o33 T X < U) a CU Fi X CI)m 73 o m o 0 1 1., m m7, '� -i- m 3 CD _1 o -v O m Z W C 2 O m P3 oc0 w 2 0 I-- oQ O oc z C', o Z E LIcoz o.� I � , O , WZ1 m mz ,v -1 K o n rrtO J- m oK Z o =ID D �rm O z _, Z D C p o _O m m m o cnD CD r co3r\-\n � O m � n oxi n mg3o G L m o * p oT C- m x, mo o = v' D m m - m = Z < z V) om > m m O n =0 O D � � 7 CN, r m m Z _ p r D o z r m -n 0 rN� , - m Z c ( 0 D 70 G k 73 Z CD CD ani 3ca co 1 1L z -� N CD 0 W � _ ( o 13) z c Ci D 0 Zc r, — D r < O 0 W m E -- o = 1 m z - m � z -. `q_ Z 0 mz D zn m � O --1 P • 1 0 -1 p cO Tmm -� oN D cZnm 2 0 � D zm m cW �7 T r0 T -Ia M E a m O a „ zoo ;,CQ zo-1 0o C > oo D m O cn m o Q -I o � T co CD o ado co = � O a � z •• 3 r- . m xio m a 3 e-h m r Uj Z m CD o -I 0Jo Oz ' m �. --I cn K X m -I 2 c3 —I XeN M Om p- D m r (no z °Da T T z E �O a0 70 0 �� C -1 O O r- W z o p o -n-i On cn oC7� Cr) O T O O D 0 z m D * m p D -< c D Fz > 73 0-10m 0 ( . fn W -I � mOm 0 ^�) D zm i c D :1 -(7:3mD cn O M mOD m D Z r 0mv om O Wm z m Z < fn 0 � m - /p 0 = 0 O m = r mm z 33 > DO r z I- xi oD "< -z � � _ = 0 m mm C7 r- m Cce. z 2 m� zi O 0 Z Z C(.-j-: m 2 /' n l it CD 73 O o m CD p = co C 03 0 a tTh �: CO C -< p CD i�Ji r Z c CC c) D G) Z 13 -1 0 m D r m � r -1O > T < x O m n c -I —i cmnD -1 � ; Z 0 zv) m _ z 0 O m D zm N E cno -I Pz r -13 -1 0 c o -_ r— m Z pc) -- �� --1 crri cn mm 2 G�1 a o Z c� r-- O m c w ^J _� n r D m -I D � TO -p --1 Z cn rd NDo v O O s -_Im g Dr . C'A 0 nD Z7 R 49 .0 z Z 0 C D m o D Si CD —4 0 xi —� p h, fl- 13 /�� 2 O C m 8 Q' a CIL m � � Cq rn cCDD —1 o p m oo D cn o A) 0o --ix ,-, 00D (n Do •N - r- m omD r 2 .9. O 0 Ccoo 1.11 —1 cnK ,'O m -1 � (t m m -1 nDmg, 7\ L, 2. 0 I- N0 O ZC° D \'d m [11z M0Si' z Q —• "Ti „ m 73 O p C') 2onDpc3 t mo •„...,z � Ny rvDo� DmO �o , m � m m , -1 N V) • � m O M o -13o = v � W 73 mo m m � Z m z in G� -n --I C7 = o O m = I— m m Z D z D o . i- �5 oD -< LI05 -< m 2 m0 70 mmxi cn 0 P m z 2 m O > D --1 _ � m zo 13 3 CCI 1 11 N CD = CD o W73 = o C -< o 5CD zcca CU c) D G) z p mom -I C7 CD m D � :fl . _ > o r- < 6 o ' c� com 5 -Iz O mz O zn F 0 z m E gO _ 0z • -I Q c 0 r• m z o N -- M --• —ml cci� m = oo c- z w C-- 0 zcm m co - D o O 00 c Wo > I- 03 " 0 1 -_im m > rm O � -n Z oF20 c > mo CO c --4m M 0 -t • � D oo coo N o Nio 03 _ w QD22 •• 3 . r m mD gort m „ co w - � cnm -I O-0 Q m r- O 7J xi C cG) o y ui m oo D n > m � v $. O W l j � Z E DDz �. D C) -1 � 2 m � 08 O 0w Zoo /j -1 On cnop' m O � Z m z m F- z D -+ p m O -- I m = m z = cD > m � zr M f/) c w D m r fC> m 0 * 0v xi � o J-• xi m � m m � �. mz V)cn � cn c' r` C) =o O m = c-. . mm m 33D ' r• D pz r �� C . rco = m xi 111 m o ` ' y' nm Ci) n r m z 2 m Fj oz C' m C7 N X Z M zoo CO i 1 CD CD Co CD -o 0 WX co L m c C 0 c� _ Q. co= o mCU oCD r m � r- --1 0 2 1. CD .0 - XI O n 0 ao m E _1 g m ccn --1 -� � � t Z O mM Z v zm M go -1 p 0 -1 0 c0 _ ✓ mz gN �. m oz 2 31 \ "� v D � m co cn o-nr m III zcn cn mid 00 C•4030 > O m r =gym Drm j o a > zo o CO " 1 z o C --rpm "D •V m O � m = o -<—1 —Ica Q n oo -n000 \\,. y cI ty 00 = cn o m> 72 ' - — r- 7, m - 0m > 3 - DT -S Kim �' ` o = =O � 0 ._ ZZ ,,, y --I cn K 73 m -1 �-\ IP � .l= 0 n c" mr o OzN... vOcn0 c° > .=m r Z M p �OZ N O or- zoo - m -4 on cn cn4" m oo Doan 4,) c"•• i z Z -omN. D * z D70c� 55 O C/) W -1 M mKco = - . D rnm m -I (= F. • � > . m F1_, O o > cn pcn D zmr %k m 8 * v O m Z 73 07 m 0 V) = G) O m = s 1 T m m Z 73 D oz r- *F I- o 1 o �- = m rn -< m 2 = 0 Po m mm cn n 0m z 2 m 0 a D M o0 z _ � m 2 / xi CD SD C n i 1L co N • co cD v CO E SU 0 D = -1 0 x D n Cfl = 0 m r 0 ,�. L� Q D 55K r- o_ F ....7. o, CD 0 corn 5 � m8 = • f 3 m ci m � 0O " ' N--Ii Cz � m nmc � Z O rcT,3z v -pmz 0 cn0 --1 meO r z > 0mm D 7J Z zo XI m � D d , j` D m m 0 z z -n r0 m cn > m 4 . O xi 00 W m - z loo BOO t) CAN //�D�� Z m Z = -< W -2, CO z0 C --Iz �n o' > CD 2 0c mow 0- m - n O X < m a Cl) CO m o-' r m 77 -Imz m -< ocno N o cD � O x 0 moon 1rl c -1 0 Cn /X c 0 I = J M -�, � n X z 0 - O r cnp O c' 02 m I z M D-co D �- o XW Z mzm O N —1 0-n 0 "n Doo .I .121, 7i m 08 Z 0 D D lv zoo '� D", I N Vi m � , moo ) �r I Dmm -1 D � .� n L.� • m A m O o m m m cn to p m D m 2 p m o * v v o0 - Ur 3 p = cmi� Drn m gym = -1-I m0 (n mo0ca D - O -I n = c0i O DDD r mm Z dor y oz r mor mmW I— Cm _ � c 5 x m z -I conn C) z 2 o D P3 CDCU CD n 1 1 L -a 3 `° CO `° CD o • -In 70 DC7 T 'fl m m O rr - Or ,�-rt,,- �, • rF > J r- ocom O CD C') mm - TP M.� m � I SCC cn CO n _ ( m c�nmO ( Z OmczD _zm •E cn0 -I Z N ) y O � am -I m ICn O ^M D xi 0zm 0 z m 0 2 z T D c m CT) > n In. O -n -4 mzz 0 Z7 rO- W - _7 r0 E =+ rn g * 0ry - • D -� vi.i Z OT. -n Z = -< w z0C = zw D CD C "1 m0 C. m = O m n n 0- o O T CU W = w O T` -1m coN ci r mm 73 8mz O 0 PI' M � '- ov, o �D -1 ov O = zc O C mom ri QC W 200 C) ncxS m m -nom 73z0 m.. 0 r cno O 0Oz M z E D W D -§'a T -n -a c o � � m mz C1 z T K 1-- -I W �O o -1 On Cn Ow Dro n 2 z0- i0 D � cn Z m D > * m p Zoo cri) en r- 1 D C O -11 I co m _1 D 0 N r cn > 0 z7' TT-, 0 m m Cl)D0 x D m cn 0 ./ M o * 0 00T XI mO M c = � D m m m p = < z C/) c co -1 rn 0 Cn m 0 -II _ c) 0 0 D > I-- mm Z 73OIL' r- oz r mm ° mED - m_ O X m Z En n -< z 2 0 > P3 f 73 CDSD C n 1 11 -a 3 'A CC N CD " C CD C � = 0. CO 13) , U -0 = 0 71 m r0 rt r n r rtCD 0 wz n O m o ( — B _ K00 cD C M c_n -i =-I � On 0 z � m c-i� mp g E � o - Zz4 � 4 ' ) ' _ -i Of 2 � z � 0 zmm m Ozz r." -n ro m -1zm0 O C _ m xr OO W m -< r W r O s. =1m * � N Z71 = �Z -< k. C CO z O CD m p � co 0n � Q ) o .�. O pT m -J D CD j) c 0. coo = � O 1 X - m Cl) Q r" xmm XJ -Imz ci .A D O !'lF 0 73 x o m 0 oo g 2 C m = O p C7D 0 Z7 - r co O O (zj2 ;� 17 'iz M -i � z '- CJ '� � fl'I IT1mZN ro n^ = 0 o Cn Oro 9 ✓ V 0 _ mz D .< m C Zoo r- -1 N fn r -4 > -COo O v I m y m cn D 3 z 70 T m O o m Nm > mw �cn m -ID 61) 00 �oo mO= M o =cmn --I m 0 Cr) m W v -iD -0 > > O . r mm Z MoD . D pz r- OD m -n co - � m _ � n0 � l x m z "' z 2 o > Xi is' -a) a) m 111 -< ' CD 9 CO -< 0m U) . D Z c (C2 5 -12 v = o m o � r° �..E. (7 z � m wz ' Z O mz v Zm 0 cnO -/ p Cl 'fl c o ._>r mz O o N m oz 2 caw CI DZ m c W TI r 0 m - > O -0 �O Z ci M Or 0 O K --ID m > r- m D Z T m Z 0 0 TCO —I 0X c moo D �D M 7 o" M0 -< Q- Q Q. -n o cD 0 co M � m XI y. pX73 O zzcn m 0C 0 0 m OT O O c m � " c O D cn `U r- P z o � z '� 'T3 'i v m m o o �`l CI TO o � Z 808 —1 On cn O0g o D 0 X M 0K m z m D _ m O D � c to r- r- -Z-I D -IOm O '�I ccn XJmKcn ::4;\mm m aK --I m m , A O -I ( oX > Zr 11 r- 111 o __ v iI7 r v W m o Z7 -4 < 0 N G5 EZ m c75 -1 -1D ,' c� = 0 O m = r mm xD y az r * � XI o > -< -i Do r CC -1 = m -< m 2 70 m m2o cn 0 nm 2 2 � z D D Z --1 2 mz Z n 111 z 0 CD 3 C'CQ m vQ \c„ Cmoo \ m 7 > 2 C 0 o z �� = 0 m 0 , M CD '4� rm K r --1 O rt 3 0 em mT2 Z M z • mz mO D zCO___ g g0 -1 P O • z r mz O v ci X m-1 c�nz = � o .� D zmm m cw T Dr 0 m -I > r ---.- 0 --I -- >-..f -r-i m m > m zCQ Z zo camm y o CD --I � 0o 0 c cr T 2, m00 73 �i Q. bal D o� x m000 U)- c r- m m X 6 m D 3 = 0 0 0 ccm 4,n z ' ► o T n --� 0 ymc�i, .. n• Cn O z W r mz M0 > z , �. M � XDC) � -0 m 000 1 O o � z0 K 5 01 177° 710 N O ZmO m 2 D v,D FZ - Diom 0 U) r -i xi K K w : I °m° m m m -1 cD Cr- m x m O 0 > Cy) D PI X > zr in cn 0 m r- --mo 0 =0 � 0 X � 0m m m -< = < z U) 0cn . m -I C) m c O m = r m m Z %n D m 0 Z r - D "� --I co < m = = - O ' m mm c C') P m o n D M o2 z _ � m 73 Zcp co M n 1 iL 2 a CO N co CD 72 p w _ �l CD o 0- -co C w o S Q c D zz c� -v ,c — = o 73 2.m 0 � r° > rTI < 0 0=10 at ' 3 O CO m g = - = �. rn m � m � - 0 nz Z Oo z (- v _m zm0 g 20 -1 Pz "" -v -I O c 0 F:) m m ? -I oN ` F z0 ✓ oo m co en c -n D p m -I D Cl) O v -+ z xi OO wcoo > __im DOCm O 5 > xi R. ii CO Z � _{ W O z0 C Dmo D m rT1 = -VT m- O -I O O W D 70 N o IAA co _ �L7 O O 2 0 N 3 — r xi m O m D 3 CD r ZcD -I Ono O zZm i/1 = 3 O � C coo u, —I WK X m -I � I c --I = 00 ncnmo 0 r nO O ZOO > 0 m pz goDz ► 1 . -n T gXi X D n -i - c m m o 0 pW Z om -4 ;--z C mZmz � c N zK � v vDc R FZ > _10 ,_, �Vr -I xi n� O .... >I m •j mK -4 CD ^r D li ccnD Orn m OD m0 z - i W % r rm o * p cn0 �; a m = x m �-I �C..' xi O _ Z < z fm/) 0 '! m � , 2 0 = c O m = mm z '0D ` r r rn 0z r' .r D W - mm 2 = o { -1( x m mm (l -I c) cn C) rnz w ›. _ o 2 h- C> mz 0 ID n i 1 -a g cQ CD P. 2 CD cci v co _ CO n 73 _ -11 n I— o CD o co m O 'O wm KTc = J \ __ m z = oc�c„_ r" mz Z O z p zo�no -I ap .fJ � Om xi Dx ��cnG-3i m � --- M Op x zm � D •r N 4) /'--� m m G) z z T � 0 m � > 0 m -< z -� r0 W r O m � „ Z = -< �S c) CO z0 C -� zcn D CD 2 Oc m0 `'' Q o M � � � � � c COcr bar = cf) O -im ci _� r � m om0 0 CD m „ 71 Th --I cn m � 3 O c70 O moo° ;J m -1 ccn 0 7a p7 c o m OO oo n x z o V r cno O D 0 2 g m P z g D co D a - - ? ' C -a M -+ -in `"— 0 - -° c m = m ��. O c Z m z iv0 TI Or r W -Io C7 Cn O 1--- o 2 O00 D gcn 0 z Z � mz y * rr' p zc) C El cn � -zi > moo O CO00 m 74 = l/ I mm m D � .N cfl ym 0 Zp_ m � x O omc D. o7J D mgj07.7 M 0 * p OG) m r* "12 r = 73 c li cn r Dmm m Cnm = 'C Z < z Cn o W D T --I -m-I D V1 -0 O I 1 C7 = 0 O D D r mm Z � o � r-- > m oz r Koo -< m O cn o ) m a � cn 0 -< -,C z 2 G) D 73 -g • fir'" XJ Zrco z 0 'a 2 =' CO -< r- N 5t 2, CD ,-G 0 mFv M r > zo E rel I --i c0) m n _( — 1- m r --i 0 ._r CD a � < oo c 3 (') cz E =iz = M cn -t -� � D 9•v) 1 _ Z 0 mZ 0 zmr, (J 0 E g-,) 0 --I p_ z � -I p c0 `k, M m -zi -1 r It m oz = G7a1 (.--,v zm m c o v- I m zcDi) r, nxi 1 ' 00 G000O > - r w 0 -I K o 0 m - 7 Z r_ 7- - =n-CC Z z 0 C D m m D o CD - 073 _1 -10Or, 0. c -q m cn m • Q D O1p m 0000 Cn Cl) o co = w oD0z •• . r 73m om > 3 ork -I CD ‘10 TOT 0 -. `�" m f' a o K 0 CCG) No �� cn --1 cnn 0 X Fni -1 r, Ei _ Q m m -t en Dmo� -_ cn o z m mP m J Z NUM MI -I , -0 moon o SF Z CD Li O N —I On p4' _ =Io DOzm ( . my o � zv D - � f D rZ DP 4()\ • � 0 55 0 • cowX m u) = "O r > m .._iw > D o " >o � Ci) m r- o = x co X Di m m Z < z f/) G) cn - rn C7 m0 o mm 1 r Z P.D p z r xj oo = m - � m 2 = 0 \\ 70 m mm c„, 0 r0- m z = m 0 D 73 0 D z -I G) _ mz_ CDED i1L >1 -aartcQN `° co CD = �. n xi = n .3 = 0 m r o CD. I- -M z � r ocum o CD nwm m 0m m mO m z o m Z v0 Q m m � wG) o 11 Oz m m0D ,� V. v zom m ozz1 D -n 0 MI m� zm f =, m g * Wo ZT. -n Z = -< w —i c 73 c = Zw c = O C m m D D C- o m 7 � U) 1- ncn --1 Op T m - D cn a 0) r m cn O [TA 0 G !'*` -I o -0 O = z W N O K 0 C m r- -< -'a . 3 --I o, X ICo = O O 0 D C 73m O I- w 0 Q 0 GZ) Z o� m � z Booz ` �- —. —I � m Z 1 m 0 m N 1/4 O r 03 Z p o 2 =I 8 ::x ci, , m ozZ Kmz D m C z � ° IXmN o St I 11o cflmmDi GI D D m � 0 ,4,1k -{ CI' v 0 Z C M 0 p OG)73m 73 m ,' p 0 = Z < z N oomoD —I mow mo _A Z r m Q mmZ -721 0 I- pz -rG mOP D o y m m 0 C " --i 0 C") W -< � m 2 pCc 7) m z � conn C) z 2 c) D Xi -� CD In n lit a CO o3> 0 N 3 2 CD -< om D co 7J m co C zoc um= V--' -- 12) c) oz '0 — 7J r m� m -ro CD > 3K r < o o a C') Dom E -I - = m � � D S , Z Zm m 110 � O mD 2 0 "'„ o -1 � z I . -a —I O c0 r mz S.:2 is, m 2 0o mZ X mc_ (1) \--- o � ' � " ZN 10 0 c co o D_ rW " o - ` m D C m O c5D opo CO Z � m Z m —I 073 C Doo Q m 0 -� 12:- O- T Cn m- 0 cD -I 00 "I co D70 (/) 0 W = u, O > 0z y 3 r xim 716m > 2 .D � 73 azz -I cnK X m -a . g 71 T -n -in D m c�ii o I- 0) p O Z00D m rill E 0S2z �. x 0 C, —1 77 -:1 m � CIo TI O oW Z oo � m o � Z m z m r C z K O D - 2 046, cn r-- I 73 K O m r- my I71 Z � =T. C r c>nD r ccn __1 .. m m O OD Gc.7)m 0- = v � W - 1--' "G mo m xW V ' Z Z < Cl)V) ) '►- m -i - m- m O 70D M 0Z r �r- D D -< _1 co - m 2 = 0 73 m mx cn C) p m z 2 m 0 D0 D oo z m CD CD -c a1 1 CO ig C P. , 2 CD -< CD O e°-r, / v O CD D Cn CO 11) C1 71 _ = 0 m 1- O e-,. rim CD 0 r =-_,-m � r pmm o . Wm s. K � � m 2 m cn � _� coo -- Z O zcn m cci) mOc I 0 cmnz Omz cn0 —1 mG � r ■ m m -1 O m0 I' ,. - m Oz xi m0D f .. D Do m Ozz ._-- T1 r 0 m � z m _.__. a7 - W W 7o -G z • , r O o m -D Z = -WG ow CD --1 0 -4 = zw r Q =n =▪ Oc m m D D �, o = n ox � « . g- SU m �rri mci) Oc0 J\ a O x3J co mnW cu J, C 3 --1 ccn K 77 °7 c 0� 'r . = O O 0 D 2 M -n -3 2Jz0 , �. 0 - cnp O DOz r, g m z M D-co D c_ �'1■ -71 O o , Woo N —1 O n C 0 - -4. L 2 _, n � � coi, OK D mop {, ,/ N r- � --1ioo O 1. 71 m D .4 CO m m D p0 ,l m m m ' .4 � � com ' mu) 0 oz m 0 * co OO m O ro M o -1cn - D m m m Z < z Cl) ° W D `\ t-' mm Z or , mp z r m O I- oo -I-4c� W - � m = Occc-n m m z - -1 5 0 -< z2 LA xi a a 1 1 L -a 3 & CoQ m es = CD cnv • O a) LZ UM 'ri • D •— xi vc� m c� f .o mp m r_ o CD 0co m c K T ,0 CD iv.,m cz 74 goc- ) -, Z O mz v omg T) CD ...1 2n g v) ..z C7M� 0 rr- m z O c(n 7 M 20 m Z = 0 h _ ,. 7J \ �� M zm m O ZZ - n� 0 m � zm OO O x r- O l C =4m C ego CO O n D „ Z = COW-< W CD -I 077 -l-4 r= 0w Q = m 0 m P- 0w al -0 O. PDF . 1 0 0 -n •m -� D N o- .. a D mw O -4 -im (\ 0 fr'D r- m m o m Z C m 71 71 � ocn � ,� 3 -10 -0O :: O 33 CD O K 0 C 000 r— V3+ ""I rn oTo- C7 Xzo a O Q oG" zc� m p � cD, coz N �. "i m = z " VO � � Z moo O n -I 23 --I --1 o n cn > � i K cn mzZ0mz C1 CJ oo � z Z -I 8 0 11. W r- -I D moo 5- .l Fri' -74 1 m m o r, 94 � D m � g53-; o� (1 1._. � z O omni m o23 > rcn0 1N1.1 0 * v 00 0 'O �. 'D Or = 73 o -1C �' O = • m vm m gym = ,1 Z-1 mczi Cl) mo r mm Z aloe "1 (.� 7)rn OZ rG m � w D O w CC X 1 X Ill z -j =-I `' n J Z = O 73 n 1 1 L CD co -< C o= rrei CLr ca su 0 D Cl) --I 0 Z7 > 8 cD = o m � r DK r 00 03 m O m cZ r4.11 K23 = s -I .4 K o c-) T. C) zCn m CDmcc \ I Z O mz D pmz 0 cn O z _ \� ■ -u �' -1 oO m o \ • � Gm m ? zo --1mm = m - Dz o zm m 02z -nDc m �) > ° O -owm -< m0 z M =Im n iso Zs ca T Z = -< W z o C -1 2 v, D CD -i 0c --I I () o = = o � m 0DD rn x -n � -3 O. „ om >D � 73 � m v'• 0 I- m m -1-1 --I m 0 o — xr Ocn (�, CD rn m -n -G =zo `U 3 O K0 C c � � --1 cn K XI O o O 0 n Xom -4 z rt- O r � O O O Oz M z E II TTM Si m .51 n -1 mZ c O :3E0 Z rnoo -•.,n W -I -i C) o - 0 oK O z- o0 v con W _, x, mD � O 1 m -3 m O o N CD O 'G D m --1 D o n .� frim m O c m m m Imp > co_i > nz _ rn pp oom r- „m xi ,61 ---1 70 � m m cnm = J Z cz Cl) 0co > ._.i 0 Cl) mp mD C) 2G) 0 Do1- r- Z --i D 0m z r mp E 73 CI p 0 co -< � m =-I- I Oct m Z -I cn 0 z = 0 D z o -0 3 a cQ 1 1 L -.< r- CD F.D. CD -< 0co m C o-0 0 = -< o �� `� su r 2 C DM 5 0> -0 ^ h CD k -0 = o m 0 �rt L CD r mK r =, o D ;o < 0 C) cz E � Z = m cn -4 _� D -+ N Z m z 0 mz D zm N 0 m CDD ° ---I c zo r '� z 0 iv ^a Mwm '''lI = 08 `"' N 0 zz m m c_c C D m -1 J' -n xr oo w Wo > (�j r- co o -I K 1 n D _ Pa z RICO Z -nZ 0 =1 WI o m _ z 7J --I 0 � O. c c —+ —I W N n. g M xm CO m- 0 ,. cCDD a —1 00 -n coo N o �' OD = cn oDoz 5 3 Im � m omcr, D• m %D —I 0 -0 0 - U' rn c r o � 0 Cc0o '1 --i '� 2 I fV O 2 K 70 m � m oo_1 C) Dm � °� O cn O z co m mo Eoaz �. mn T ?E � aj ° (1- ) n o c• O 0 � z o -n � r. N ?<,= 0 , cn cn o m o � z - -Ip D - om z > -1 o V"- u) st m -J m0K = Etz - /'_) r > m -I (17)— T, .. m o 0 D I- CI) Mo '"WI D 1 r m o * D cn0 'O m p 70 - co a D m m m �• 'C Z < z Cn G) m -1 • CI mm 0 73D I— z mp z r D = ao m = = 0 --I m mm 0) C) rn- m z = m G) D D xi --I0 oz _ � m �^. TO: Collier County Board of Commissioners 1 1 L FROM: Judith Hushon, PH.D. /l L SUBJECT: Review of and Comments on RLSA White Paper ` DATE: Oct, 20 2019 I have followed the RLSA closely for a number of years and chaired the Phase 2 Review hearings for the Environmental Advisory Council to the BCC. I have participated in the review meetings and have submitted a number of comments. I think staff did a good job of covering the issues, but they did not go far enough in identifying solutions to some of the identified problems and inconsistencies in the existing(2002) RLSA Program. I am therefore recommending changes to the 2002 RLSA Overlay to the Board of County Commissioners(BCC). As you know,the goals of the Overlay are to prevent premature conversion of agricultural land, direct development away from listed species habitat and environmentally sensitive lands, and avoid sprawl. The RLSA Overlay does not accomplish these goals. The 2009 5-Year Review Committee recommendations to increase development acreage to 45,000 and add at least 106,000 credits to the Stewardship Credit System will make the situation worse. I strongly urge the County to bring the RLSA Overlay back in line with the intent of the 2002 goals. To this end, I am requesting the following changes to the Overlay. 1. Preserve Agricultural Land and Panther Corridors by Recalibrating Credits Within the Existing Stewardship Credit System. Do not Add Credits to the System as Recommended by 2009 the 5-Year Review Committee and the White Paper—this will Result in Even More Excess Credits and Development. The 5-year review recommendation to add 106,000 credits to the system will not fix the problems with the RLSA Overlay and instead will increase the excessive number of credits, which will ultimately lead to more development. Consider that from the beginning and through the 5-year review process,the amount of potential credits that could be earned has been considerably underestimated by Wilson Miller(now Stantec). At the time of adoption of the 2002 RLSA Overlay, the CCPC, Environmental Advisory Council (EAC), BCC, county staff and the public were all told that the Overlay would result in 16,800 acres of development based on 134,388 credits. However, at a 2003 CCPC hearing to implement the 2002 RLSA Overlay, there was discussion about the late addition of early entry bonus credits and restoration credits.Commissioner Mark Strain provided calculations showing a potential for 254,000 credits being earned. (May 1,2003 CCPC Tape 1A). Nancy Linnan, Collier County's outside counsel, responded that"nobody anticipates, including state agencies,those numbers...." Id. at 24:23. Then, at the start of the 5-year review process,Wilson Miller reported that the 2002 RLSA Overlay provides 315,000 potential credits,which could allow 43,300 acres of Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA)development. (Wilson Miller Memorandum to Tom Jones, 9-18-08.) It is likely that 315,000 is an underestimate because there are more credits than anticipated being earned from the restoration provisions. Wilson Miller's credit calculations are outdated. In 2008,Wilson Miller also estimated that the 5-Year Review Committee recommendation to add credits for agriculture stewardship and panther corridors would provide a total of 421,000 credits.'The CCPC and EAC were both concerned about creating excess credits if this recommendation was adopted. See April 9, 2009 BCC hearing on the 5-year review recommendations. The CCPC and many commenters recommended to the BCC that the total number of credits not be increased. During the April 2009 BCC hearing, Collier County Planning staff also expressed concern about creating surplus credits if the 5-Year Review Committee recommendations were accepted. Pg. 138-140. I WilsonMiller reduced this number to 404,000 credits based on assumptions which appear to no longer be accurate. The County should update the credit numbers. 1 1 L More credits mean more development, when many think the RLSA Overlay is already out of whack in allowing 43,300 acres of development for approximately 300,000 new residents. Instead of the 5-year review Committee recommendation to increase the number of credits,the County should consider revising the RLSA Overlay as follows: A. Recalibrate credits by transferring credits from restoration potential(R-1 credits)to preservation of agriculture and panther corridors,and increase the number of credits required per acre of SRA to 10 or more credits per acre. It is becoming clearer that too many credits are being awarded for just designating land for potential restoration. Landowners have obtained and will continue to obtain more and more R-1 credits, but acknowledge that for the most part they will not be restoring land. So far, more than 129,987 credits have been approved and 54,688 are pending, but less than 500 acres restored.The RLSA Overlay provisions are not working to get important environmentally sensitive land restored. Landowners are getting credits for designating land for potential restoration, but are electing not to restore the land to earn additional credits(R-2 credits). Eliminating R-1 credits may provide an incentive for landowners to do the restoration, as well as free up credits that can be awarded for preservation of agriculture and panther corridors. No credits for corridors should be awarded until a corridor is complete. R-1 credits are duplicative of base credits landowners already obtained for removing layers of use. They do not give up more rights for these additional credits. Most SSAs have layers removed down to agriculture. Take,for example, SSA #15(5259 acres). Collier Enterprises will receive 10,095 "base use" credits for removing 5 layers of land use on 4820 acres(keeping Ag 2 uses). Collier Enterprises will then get an additional 14,178 credits for designating 3545 acres of the 4820 acres as land that can be restored. Because Collier Enterprises gets credits for taking off most layers of land use, it is difficult to understand why it should also get so many additional credits just for designating a portion of the land for potential restoration. Credits should only be awarded upon restoration completion. B. County Commissioners that adopted the RLSA Overlay and RLSA landowners understood that the County has the Authority to change the Stewardship Credit System and RLSA Overlay rules. The County has the responsibility to review the RLSA Overlay and the authority to revise the RLSA Overlay as needed to keep the program in line with the original intent and the Final Order. Some RLSA landowners claim that the County cannot change the provisions of the RLSA Overlay unless the landowners agree to such changes. They are also quick to suggest changes without their consent could result in a Bert Harris claim. But the RLSA landowners do not automatically have "vested rights" in the provisions of the RLSA Overlay. CCPC and BCC hearing testimony make clear that County Commissioners understood they could change RLSA provisions, including revision of the credit system, if the program was not accomplishing its goals or otherwise not working as intended. May 1, 2003 CCPC hearing As previously noted,there was discussion about Mark Strain's calculation of a potential 254,000 credits being earned at a 2003 CCPC hearing to implement the 2002 RLSA Overlay. Upon further discussion of Commissioner Strain's numbers, Planning Commissioner Dwight Richardson expressed concern about the program growing out of bounds,or not working well if we double the population of Collier County. Nancy Linnan responded: "First of all, you can amend the comprehensive plan at any time assuming you do it during the twice a year state [cycles] so you have that ability to see it getting out of whack. You have a five-year period where there is a mandatory check with certain requirements that you have to look at. You also have your EARs where you are going to be doing it and it doesn't preclude you from asking at any point please bring us up to speed on where we are, give us an accounting on where we are on the credits. And so you will be seeing all of the SSAs coming in,you will be seeing all of the SRAs coming in, so you will have a pretty good idea of what is going on out there." (Tape 1A at 40:54.) 2 1 1 L Dwight Richardson: "So we can change the rules at that time if it's not working?" Nancy Linnan: "Yes." April 9, 2009 Hearing on the 5-Year Review Committee recommendations. During the BCC hearing on 5-Year Review Committee recommendations,Tom Jones of Baron Collier testified "You have to remember, no one has been entitled to these credits. You have to go through an application process, it has to be vetted through staff, and staff has to recommend either approval or disapproval to the commission." Pg.40. That is, landowners do not have rights in credits until the Stewardship Sending Area (SSA)credits are approved. C. Revise the Overlay to cap both credits and acres. We now know that Eastern Collier Property Owners(ECPO)will be claiming more credits than estimated by Wilson Miller/Stantec as they submit their SSA and Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) applications. There are already 184,675 approved and pending credits,with a potential of 41,731 more credits being earned for restoration, bringing the total to 226,406. ECPO have just begun with SRAs for the 9 or so towns and villages they plan for the RLSA(See RLSA 2050 concept map)and there are many more credits that can be earned by setting aside sensitive environmental land in SSAs. It appears that ECPO could easily exceed the 315,000 credits provided under the 2002 RLSA Overlay. Hindsight shows us that credits should be capped as well as acreage. Let's not repeat past mistakes. If certain large RLSA landowners don't have Habitat Stewardship Areas(HSAs), Flowway Stewardship Areas(PSAs) or Water Retention Areas(WRAs) on their property,they will still be able to obtain credits by purchasing them from those landowners who have excess credits under the existing credit system. D. Recalibrate the credits required for development. The original adoption of 8 credits per acre of development was arrived at by dividing the number of credits expected to be generated (169,533) by the number of acres expected to be developed (16,800)to get a value of 8 credits per acre. With the total credits increasing to 315,000, if one divides that number by the number of acres projected (16,800)one gets 18.75 credits per acre that should be required for development. The 5-Year Review recommended 10 credits per acre. This has been a windfall for the developers and the number of required credits needs to be recalibrated. 2. Instead of Increasing the Acres for SRA Development as Recommended by the 5-Year Review Committee, Revise the RLSA Overlay to Reduce SRA Footprints and Require Compact Mixed-use Walkable Towns and Villages. Incorporate the Smart Growth Standards of the Collier County Community Character Plan so that Towns and Villages Feature Traditional Neighborhoods Rather than Sprawling Auto-dependent Golf-course Communities. In 2001,through a year-long public process,Collier County developed a Community Character Plan reflecting how Collier County citizens would like the community to grow. The County should require the Plan's standards to be incorporated into the RLSA Overlay. The RLSA Overlay is not consistent with this Plan, and also is not being implemented in a manner consistent with the Growth Management Policy's(GMP's)directive to create compact, mixed- use walkable towns and villages. Developers insist on continuing their past practices. Give County staff leverage to reject developers' proposals. The maximum density in towns and villages needs to be increased to 12-14 units/acre in the 1/4 acre surrounding a town/village center according to DPZ CoDESIGN LLC. The White Paper suggests a max of 6 units per acre which is too low. This increased density increases walkability and creates more community character and interaction. During the review sessions,the developer of Ave Maria said that he regretted that they did not include higher density units near to the town center. There should also be a variety of housing types within this close-in area including town houses and garden apartments with single family homes located further from the center. 3 1 1 L The main objective of the Community Character Plan is to do away with low-density,gated PUDs and cul-de-sac subdivisions which are everywhere in Collier County. Some of needed revisions to the RLSA Overlay include: (i) Require greater density for SRAs to achieve smaller footprints. This will reduce public infrastructure costs, help direct development away from critical wildlife habitat and preserve ag lands.z (ii) Require a detailed mobility plan to ensure walkability. (iii) Require the town/village center to be located well within the SRA. Make it clear that towns and villages should not span major roadways. Rivergrass proposed to have Oil Well Road going thru the middle of its SRA village. (iv) Require a network of interconnected streets, as opposed to cul-de-sacs typical of golf course communities. (v) Increase population density around town centers to increase mobility, walkability and sense of community. (vi) Limit the maximum distance between a mixed-use center and edge of the neighborhood. (vii) Require greater choice in housing options. (viii) Limit block perimeters to make towns/villages walkable. (ix) Limit size and number of golf courses. Why allow land essential for survival of panthers and necessary for agriculture to be converted to a 54-hole golf course, as is proposed for Rivergrass? Golf is on the decline. (x) Do not count golf courses as "open spaces"for SRAs. A golf course is not open space for everyone—just golfers. We are starting to see established gated communities shutting down golf courses and the developers wanting to convert the land to housing.There go the open spaces. "Most golf courses lose money and here in South Florida several have been converted to residential housing developments ...." See https://www.metrostudy.com/golf-communities-thing-past/ 3. Do not Increase SRA Development to 45,000 acres as Recommended by the 2009 5-Year Review Committee—this could Result in More than 64,000 Acres of RLSA Development, Increased Sprawl,and a Significant Economic Burden on Taxpayers and the County for Public Infrastructure. The recommendation to allow 45,000 acres of SRA development does not include the acreage for the 200 miles of new and expanded roads necessary to support such development. It also only includes a fraction of land needed for public infrastructure. According to CCPC Commissioner Mark Strain,towns in the RLSA use about 35%of the land for public infrastructure.This means that an additional 15,750 acres will be used for public infrastructure to support 45,000 acres of SRA development—land provided for"free"to the developer(i.e. no credits required). The 45,000-acre cap also does not include the approximately 4000 acres of sand mines in the RLSA—on land owned by the same corporations that are planning to develop the 45,000 acres. After the sand mines are used up,the land cannot be restored, and can really only be used for development. So, a 45,000 acre cap is closer to 64,000 acres of development in the RLSA. ECPO's 2050 RLSA concept map of nine proposed towns and villages combined with Wilson Miller's Conceptual Build- Out Roadway Network Map created to support 45,000 acres of SRA development show that extensive sprawl will result. Spreading 45,000 acres of development over 195,000 acres in the RLSA will require 200 miles of new and expanded 2 The current patterns of development in the RLSA by Ave Maria and as proposed by RLW show average densities of 2.18 dwelling units(du)and 2.44 du per acre. This is considerably lower average densities than communities in Collier County such as Pelican Bay, Vineyards,and Lely Resort,yet these were to be compact towns using innovative planning tools(GMP 4.6). 4 111 roads.These roads will cut through,fragment and isolate primary panther zone—land that has been determined by panther scientists to be essential to the long-term survival of the Florida panther. The proposed towns and villages are disconnected from existing and planned urban services such that extensive new infrastructure will be needed to support these rural towns. This will be costly for the County and taxpayers. Recently,Smart Growth of America (SMA) evaluated the fiscal impact of 45,000 acres of SRA development in the RLSA as proposed in ECPO's 2050 RLSA concept map and WilsonMiller's conceptual road network noted above. See"The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns–Rural Lands Stewardship Area, Collier County, Florida" by SMA(Sept. 2018). SMA identified ECPO's proposal as the "sprawl" scenario and found that over a 20-year period this scenario would lead to a negative net fiscal impact on the County of$3.3 billion (or$540 million per year)from costs associated with public infrastructure such as roads, schools and EMS. 4. Revise the RLSA Overlay to Protect our Water Quality,Shallow Wetlands and Regional Water Flow—the RLSA Overlay Does Not do This. According to SFWMD Executive Director at an Everglades Conference in January 2009 "Counties and municipalities are overly dependent on the SFWMD to preserve and protect their water supplies. You must be more proactive in creating explicit elements within your comprehensive and growth management plans. We can only use what you give us to make decisions. You must take control of your own futures." A. Revise the Overlay to require SRA applicants to determine and address the indirect and cumulative impacts of their proposed project on regional water flow and hydrology. The RLSA is situated in an area that is important for water storage (shallow wetlands) and water flow to and through numerous public lands. It is bordered by the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge (FPNWR)on the South, Big Cypress National Preserve and Okaloachoochee (OK) State Forest and Slough on the east, and Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed on the north and west. Water flows through the RLSA to Camp Keais Strand (CKS) and the OK Slough south into FPNWR, Picayune Strand State Forest and Fakahatchee Strand, and then to the Ten Thousand Islands. We are concerned about maintaining the natural hydrologic regime. The impact of replacing pervious farm fields with the proposed development needs to be determined. The impact of replacing farm fields that serve as floodplain storage and shallow wetlands during the rainy season with residential and commercial development, all of which will discharge to areas outside of project boundaries needs to be fully understood and addressed. For example, we've recently learned of concerns about Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary losing water more rapidly in the dry season and drying up a few months before rainy season begins. This trend could have a devastating impact on Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary and serves as a bell-weather for other areas in eastern Collier County that may also be drying up more rapidly than in the past. At the September 27, 2018 RLSA Restudy Workshop,Jerry Kurtz with the Collier County Storm Water Management Section acknowledged that the County is aware of the Corkscrew Swamp problem, but said that determining and addressing causes requires a multiagency approach. His responses made clear that there is no multi-agency approach in the works and that no agency is taking the lead on figuring out the problem. The White Paper calls for a Water Flowway Plan to be developed and this is needed because there are two of the most critical flowways in the county located within the RLSA. If water does not flow through this area at historic rates,there will be problems with ground water recharge,flooding, and draining of more northerly wetlands. B. Revise the Overlay to require use of filter marshes as a component of waste water treatment facilities and storm water management systems for SRAs,whenever possible,to address nutrient pollutants discharging from the SRAs. This RLSA Restudy provides an opportunity for the County to consider adding conditions that can help address nutrient pollution. Filter marshes as part of a storm water management system or a waste water treatment system can address nutrient pollution. Filter marshes have been successfully used elsewhere in the state as part of a storm water treatment 5 1 1 L system and as part of a waste water treatment system. This practice is particularly important for any discharges into CKS, which is already listed as an impaired waterbody for nutrients. There are federal grants available to help fund construction of filter marshes. See, e.g. Sweetwater Wetlands, Gainesville, Florida. Further, filter marshes create much needed wetland habitat for native wildlife, especially wading birds. With so much wildlife habitat being lost to development, we need to do what we can to provide some areas to sustain our wildlife. Our wading birds, shorebirds, ducks, raptors and migrating songbirds are important to tourists and residents alike. C. Revise the Overlay to state that use of WRAs as part of a storm water management system for a SRA should be avoided. WRAs are so designated because of their importance for water quality and quantity. During the 5-year review process, the EAC strongly recommended that use of WRAs as part of a storm water management system for SRAs should be avoided. Further, the EAC pointed out that allowing a portion of a WRA to be used by a SRA increases the amount of developable property but does not count as part of the acre cap, nor does it use credits. Growth Management Policy(GMP)4.9 provides that SRAs are prohibited from locating in FSAs, HSAs and WRAs. Yet, d Rivergrass Village proposes to use a WRA(SSA#17)for its storm water management system and recycling system— which could result in the WRA no longer providing the important functions of water storage, replenishment of aquifers and protection of shallow wetlands for listed birds. 5. Revise the Overlay to Provide the Panther Protection that was Intended. The RLSA Overlay does not protect the habitat which has been determined by the USFWS and panther experts to be essential for the survival of the endangered Florida panther—the panther primary zone. Indeed,the Overlay directs development into this critical habitat. Revise the RLSA Overlay to protect primary panther habitat by(A) updating the Natural Resource Index(NRI)to incorporate panther studies since 2005, (B) requiring each SRA acre to include such updated NRI values, (C) restricting new and expanded roads from crossing or fragmenting panther corridors and primary panther habitat, and (D) preventing SRAs from encircling,fragmenting or isolating SSA habitat, as discussed below. The 5-Year Review Committee recommendations do not address protection of primary panther zone at all, and several studies by panther experts based on telemetry data have been completed since the 2009 5-year review. The recommendation to add credits for preserving panther corridors is inadequate because the proposed %mile corridors are not sufficiently wide enough to facilitate panther movement. A. Require that the Natural Resource Index(NRI)and Stewardship Credit Worksheet be updated with the best available science—findings from studies and reports by Florida panther experts. The GMP specifies that the natural resource value of land within the RLSA is measured by the NRI. An important index comprising the NRI value is the Listed Species Habitat Indices,which is defined in the LDC as the habitat value of land based on "land cover identified as preferred or tolerated habitat for that [listed] species."Clearly this definition is outdated and not the appropriate basis for valuing panther habitat. Panther experts have identified the location of primary zone panther habitat in the RLSA.See Kautz, R, et al (2006), USFWS 2008 Florida Panther Recovery Plan, and the 2009 Report of the Scientific Panther Review Team. USFWS' 2008 Panther Recovery Plan states"The Primary zone supports the only breeding panther population. To prevent further loss of population viability, habitat conservation efforts should focus on maintaining the total available area, quality, and spatial extent of habitat with the Primary Zone." Pg. 89. In creating the NRI in 2000-2002, Wilson Miller made clear that the NRI values would need to be updated because the science on the Florida panther and its habitat was continuing to evolve. See the 2000 Immokalee Area Study in which Wilson Miller stated "The analysis involving panther habitat for the Study will be complemented by ongoing computer 6 1 1 L modeling of potential habitat and development of an updated panther recovery plan by interagency committees led by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service." The original NRI took data only from daytime locations for collared panthers and panther and bear kill locations. Subsequent research has shown that the panthers occupy their primary zone and all acres within this zone need to have their scores adjusted. The County needs to acquire the data layers and make these and other necessary adjustments to bring the layers into conformity with the latest science as was required by the RLSA Plan in 2002. The panther preferred territory is designated in the LDC by certain FLUCCS codes(310, 321,411,425,428,434, 617, 6172, 621, 6218, 6219, 624 and 630). Since that time the panther studies listed above have identified that panthers use farm fields, range land and citrus groves at night to forage. The following FLUCCS codes therefore need to be added to the LDC list(210-215, 221, 224, 261, 320, and 330)to define panther preferred habitat. During the 5-year Review, county environmental Staff submitted comments to the 5-Year Review Committee recommending revisions to the NRI values in order to better direct development away from listed species.3 The EAC made the 5-Year Review Committee aware of the ongoing panther studies and the need to update these indices, but nothing was done. Ideally, Primary Zone panther habitat designations should be used instead of the "preferred and tolerated"criteria in the Listed Species Habitat Indices. The credit worksheets should also be updated to incorporate the best available science on panthers. It is totally unclear whether the data layers used to create the NRI are available. When SRAs or SSAs are identified, experts have just been using observations to update the existing cell totals. It is essential that the county obtain and maintain all of the NRI data used in the calculations. B. Revise the Overlay to require SRA applications include updated NRI values for each SRA acre that incorporates the data and studies on the Florida panther that have been completed since 2005 While SRA applicants currently may be reviewing the NRI value for each acre of the proposed SRA to verify the value is 1.2 or less—they are not considering the panther studies completed since 2005,the USFWS Panther Recovery Plan, or the 2009 Report of the Scientific Technical Panther Review Team (PRT Report). They are not using the best available science in any"update" of SRA NRI values. For example, Collier Enterprises proposed 4100 acres of development for Rural Lands West, and three thousand acres of the 4100 acres were sited on primary zone panther habitat. If Collier Enterprises had taken the best available science into account, including the studies and reports noted above, a significant portion of the 4100 SRA acres would have scored greater than 1.2. The SSA application package requires much more rigorous documentation on NRI values for each acre compared to the SRA application package. Similarly, complete raster data for NRI values should be required for both SSAs and SRAs, including updating NRI values to incorporate best available science. C. Revise the Overlay to require minimization of new and expanded roads crossing, isolating or fragmenting wildlife corridors and primary panther habitat. The harm that will result from ECPOs' plan for sprawling development of 45,000 acres includes increased panther- vehicle collisions and fragmentation of panther habitat such that the changes will significantly impair essential behavior patterns of the panther. WilsonMiller's map of the road network necessary to support 45,000 acres of development shows miles of new and expanded 4 and 6 lane roads. See Figure 19 of the PRT Report. In 2018, Dr. Robert Frakes, a 3 Memorandum (April 24, 2008)from Laura Roys and Mac Hatcher, Senior Environmental Specialists for Collier County to Tom Greenwood, Principle Planer for Collier County. Memo provided to the 5-Year Review Committee by Ms. Roys. 7 ilL panther expert, did a quantitative analysis of the impacts to panther habitat that would result from this proposed road network. He concluded: "Free movement of panthers north and south is essential for panther recovery. Highways and roads block panther movement and are a major cause of panther mortality. Highway underpasses and fencing are only partly effective in allowing free movement of panthers from one area to another. An analysis of adult panther home ranges shows that,although some panthers do cross highways, most resident, adult panther home ranges adjacent to major highways are limited to one side or the other and do not cross, even if the highway is equipped with underpasses....These new roads, especially those running east and west, would impede panther movements and affect the size and shape of home ranges, potentially cutting some existing home ranges in two. Increased road kills will also occur."4 The 2008 USFWS Panther Recovery Plan echoes this conclusion: "In addition to a direct loss and fragmentation of habitat, constructing new and expanding existing highways may increase traffic volume and impede panther movement within and between frequently used habitat blocks throughout the landscape (Swanson et al. 2005). Increases in traffic volume, increasing size of highways(lanes), and habitat alterations adjacent to key road segments may limit the panther's ability to cross highways and may ultimately isolate some areas of panther habitat(Swan et al. 2005)." USFWS 2008 Panther Recovery Report at 39-40. ECPO own a majority of RLSA lands and have the ability to locate development so as to minimize the roads cutting through panther corridors and primary panther zone habitat, and to concentrate development so as to minimize the necessity for new roads or expanded roads. Yet, instead they propose a sprawling pattern of development. The GMP should be revised to require greater average SRA densities which will result in smaller footprints and to disallow new and expanded roads that transect wildlife corridors and primary zones panther habitat.See PRT Report recommendations at 51-62. D. Revise the Overlay to Designate Wildlife Corridors as HSAs. Listed animal and plant species and their habitats are protected through the establishment of Habitat Stewardship Areas. (GMP 3.2)Wildlife Corridors should also be protected by designation as HSAs. Such corridors should meet USFWS criteria for length, width and location. No credits should be awarded for Wildlife Corridors until a whole corridor has been legally designated. E. Revise the Overlay to make clear that Proposed SRAs cannot encircle,fragment or isolate SSA habitat. One of the primary purposes of the RLSA Overlay is to direct development away from environmentally sensitive areas-- important wildlife habitat and wetlands. (See RLSA Overlay Policies 1.4, 1.21,4.9,4.12.) Further, GMP 4.12 requires that SRAs which adjoin FSAs, HSAs, or WRAs to minimize adverse impacts to such lands. The RLSA Overlay does not accomplish these goals. For example,Collier Enterprises' proposed Rivergrass Village would have surrounded SSA#17, a WRA ranked with a high environmental value (NRI values between 1.7 and 2.6) and which contains the important Shaggy Cypress swamp area. Such proposal would greatly diminish the value of the area for wildlife (even completely excluding large mammals from the Shaggy Cypress area of SSA#17). Wildlife would be cut off from surrounding habitat; the SSA would be surrounded with houses, businesses, noise, lights, human activity,cars. Such fragmentation as proposed by Rivergrass Village's footprint will cause a steady degradation in diversity of species over time. Scientific studies show that species diversity spirals downward over time as less and less species will be able to survive being isolated from adjoining habitat. See The Sixth Extinction Chapter IX"Island on Dry land" by Elizabeth Kolbert. 4 Frakes, R.A. "Impacts to Panther Habitat from the Proposed Eastern Collier Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan: A Quantitative Analysis," (2018) at 8 1 1 L The County should revise the GMP to be clear that SRAs cannot fragment or encroach on SSAs, and SSAs must provide connected habitat.s 6. Tighten Restoration Requirements to Include Start Dates,Metrics to Measure Progress, Milestones,and a Requirement that Restoration Goals be Met before Credits are Awarded. Require Monitoring until Restoration has been Determined to be Successful and that the Restored Area be Placed under a Perpetual Conservation Easement. Neither the GMP nor the Land Development Code (LDC) have provisions concerning start dates for restoration, metrics by which success or restoration can be measured, requirements for milestones or a timeline, or a requirement that restoration goals be met before credits are awarded. As of 2008, ECPO planned restoration for 12,000 acres in SSAs 1- 13. Yet,as of 2018, less than 500 acres have been restored. Restoration needs to begin before site clearance and construction. Once site clearance begins, wildlife is immediately impacted. Take Collier Enterprises'SSA#15,which borders CKS and is to be partially restored as a panther corridor. A representative of Collier Enterprises told us that they would not start restoration until they had commitments from a significant number of builders and that restoration would take 10 years. The County needs to make sure restoration goals are met before awarding credits. Currently,the LDC provides for credits to be provided when success criteria are met; however, based on reviewing the SSA#15 restoration plan,just meeting the success criteria will not mean that restoration has been achieved or even that restoration will be achieved. For SSA#15,the restoration goals are restoration and protection of a regional wetland system,flow-way and wildlife habitat corridor(i.e. Camp Keais Strand). The success criteria are removal of two road grades and the pinch point farm road,and restoration of native habitat. Even when these criteria are met,that may not accomplish the restoration goals. The County should have a substantial role in setting the restoration goals and success criteria. The GMP and LDC restoration provisions should provide start dates, metrics by which success and restoration can be measured, timelines, assuring success criteria achieves restoration goals, and establishing appropriate restoration goals. The County or independent 3rd Party should evaluate progress and whether goals are being achieved. Finally, monitoring should be required until restoration has been achieved. SSA#15 provides monitoring for 5 years only. 7. Revise GMP 3.7 to Remove Use of HSAs for Golf Courses. Currently,the GMP allows golf courses to be put in HSAs. This is inconsistent with the Final Order and the RLSA Overlay which is to direct development away from environmentally sensitive lands. HSAs are environmentally sensitive lands because of their importance to listed species and other wildlife. Golf courses should not be allowed in HSAs—golf courses are not low intensity land uses, but involve activities related to landscaping and playing the course. In addition,golf courses are treated with heavy fertilizer and moderate use of pesticides. During the 5-year review process,the EAC raised this concern with GMP 3.7 and recommended that golf courses not be allowed in HSAs. 5 FL Stat 163.3168(5)(a) provides:"Criteria for the designation of receiving areas which shall,at a minimum, provide for the following:adequacy of suitable land to accommodate development so as to avoid conflict with significant environmentally sensitive areas, resources, and habitats;compatibility between and transition from higher density uses to lower intensity rural uses..." RLW did not provide for transition from residential and commercial areas and the important habitat in SSA#17;it did not avoid conflict with significant environmentally sensitive areas. 9 1 1 L 8. Revise the Overlay to Require that SRA Developments Show Fiscal Neutrality Every 5 years Until Build Out is Complete. Currently,SRA developers are required to be fiscally neutral only at build-out, which could be 30 years or more. In the meantime,the County(and taxpayers) cover costs of public infrastructure. The Overlay should be revised to require that fiscal neutrality be demonstrated every five years. The County needs to develop an infrastructure budget for complete buildout of the RLSA. The County relies on tax revenues from the rest of the County to pay for most of these expenses, with developers only reimbursing the county for part of the expenses as they sell units. If at any time the county lacks budgeted funds to provide infrastructure to an area at the time a permit is filed it should be put on a moratorium until the county can meet its obligations. These types of policy decisions need to be made now so they are available for use if and when they are needed. The County also has obligations to the rest of the county to maintain and improve existing infrastructure. There are repairs and new infrastructure required in already developed areas to accommodate increased traffic, sea level rise, flooding, emergency response times and other issues. These obligations should come ahead of new development in the eastern portions of the county as they already are affecting citizens in the county. The concept of a possible building moratorium if county funds are not available for infrastructure development should be explored. It is used elsewhere in this state (e.g. Hillsborough County)and country and has served a valuable purpose in controlling development and sprawl while maintaining the fiscal integrity of local regulatory bodies. 10 IIL I 1 L Comments 10-22-19 BCC — White Paper Recommendations For the record, my name is April Olson. I'm here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida and our over 7,000 supporting families. We believe that the decisions you make regarding the RLSA are one of the most important decisions ever made by this board. Since the current program proposes over 43,000 acres worth of development and would nearly double the existing population of Collier County, the County must ensure that the RLSA adequately protects natural resources and tax payer dollars. And because generations far into the future will inherit these communities, it must be a community planning effort. After a lengthy 2 year public restudy process involving many of Collier County's concerned citizens and other stakeholders, including significant staff time and work paid for outside consultants, staff have now apparently decided to change the focus of their recommendations from the May, 2019 White Paper to the now decade-old 5-year recommendations. There are many issues with this approach. First, the 5-year recommendations were never part of the community-based RLSA workshops that occurred in 2018-19. Second, the community has been given less than a week to respond to these changes for this hearing. Third, reports by Dr. Robert Frakes and Dr. Reed Noss, experts in their fields, demonstrated that 45,000 acres' worth of development in the RLSA would be extremely detrimental to most of the 19 listed species that occur in the RLSA, especially the endangered Florida panther. Fourth, the overwhelming majority of those who attended the workshops over the past few years have stated they want a reduction in RLSA development, not an increase, which the 5-year recommendations propose — look at the feedback tracker on the County's RLSA webpage and see what the community is saying. Finally, Joe Mincozzi from Urban 3, a nationally-renowned urban planner, has demonstrated to you that the large receiving areas and low densities proposed for the current RLSA program would provide significantly lower tax returns to the county when compared to truly walkable communities like downtown Naples. Nevertheless, the 5-year recommendations that staff now propose to include would further increase the size of villages and towns making them less compact, 11•10 • thus providing an even lower taxable value per acre for Collier County. Staff has never determined if the county can afford this. While the May 2019 white paper recommendations were not perfect and still did not address the fundamental flaws of the program we appreciated that Mr. Van Lengen listened and considered public input. He included recommendations based on considerable deliberation and discussion and added language with some teeth, language that clearly obligated developers to comply with the new recommendations. He did so by adding the word "require" to his recommendations. If you remember at the March 5, 2019 BCC workshop on Future Growth and Development there was a lengthy discussion regarding the difficulty of staff to hold developers accountable to the LDC and GMP due to a lack of strong language. It was discussed at the workshop that it was better to use the word "require" than to "encourage." So it was surprising to see that staff in their recent edits to the white paper removed the word "Require" in at least 6 of the recommendations. Why in the world would staff remove the language that clearly obligates developers adhere to the recommendations? The recent changes to the white paper raises other questions. First (Show slide) Slide 21 of Mr. Cohen's presentation shows that if the 5-year recommendations are implemented then up to 45,000 acres could be developed as SRAs and "Zero" acres would be left as Open areas. (Show RLSA Map). We also know that Eastern Collier Property Owners, referred to as ECPO, has applied for a federal mega-permit to develop 45,000 acres of the RLSA. There are over 20,000 acres of additional lands that are owned by other landowners, not ECPO. Nearly all of those 20,000 acres are located within the open areas, including Hyde Park, which is currently under review as a village. What happens if the landowners of those other 20,000 acres later decide to develop their land? Is the county going to forbid the other landowners from developing their lands because of the 45,000 acre cap? Question 2: Staff is now recommending a county-wide plan for an eastern Collier County transportation network. (Show WM road map). If the road network is similar to what the landowners proposed during the 5-year review the costs for 11L this roadway network would be over $7.8 billion. Are you aware that the landowners in their federal permit application have stated that FDOT and the MPO are responsible for mitigation costs, not the landowners? (Show statement) The mitigation costs could be in the hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars, but who knows, as the county hasn't yet determined those costs. My last question is when will the county provide the missing NRI data for the RLSA program? The NRI data is important for not only for determing the areas more suited for development, but the data is also important for determining how many Stewardship credits landowners can earn, which are the currency of the program. At the Rivergrass Village hearing the updated NRI data was provided after staff wrote their report on the project. At that point it was too late. We hope you require the county to accept and make public the original data for the NRI program before any more SSA and SRA applications come forward. Thank you (VS121)easy dlyspJeMals spue-leans:96406) !mil;Ha-6lOZ DOB 0l VS121 :luewgoeuy v o i 1 L J "_ta \ Y gg i Y to . . l -- . _., ak 'r ER. a , a .., „...... intritEi_- le... .41 si", b 1 --7V ilk ,. •• ' r _ 01 1 , 410111 r * L 1. Lv ROM.. 0 Qo re 0 N....". N o U) 1-6 No u°6 0 Q.* CLJdicri a- Q O N o C O Z co 13 C N E E O O o o C O o o O o 0 o o rn o c o 0 0 0 cu cc O N a to In .O In o f d- ^' C a) .5 QJ CC L co >- ad6 6V � tklo V V C6 ad t. II c ct o o © E- > W `D d ct ^° C L1.. o U O Z da a Q J cc R 28 E ..... -----T-----444-° 1--- R 29 E I R 30 E 1 1 L 7 , ,.• ll •,.. , il 1,..1.-- 11 -4.1411-t•t I . County Line Rd County Line Rd ,, 1. licmtav :". - •,'"e 't •Ileiail I LIN ._ 4 - — '. _ 1' -r*11111 • .2,42 ; 0-11——1—l— ,---- 11111 —"1"7"--" r11"51 r i -- • ?\ oorw, d lt,7 --j s I..' 1!--, I . 1---'0( ,-,. g ----.4,82 I .1`1:1- 44 w 11 11/ 1 's' kg- -, It • 2 ___ PA -----. . L 410111P1111' .1 - 5 '' '• 1..101 1 1 liAt('',---k • eV •4116 -------___ftt? . t .. I j_ 11-13:-_-,.. P5'14i-r: • ,0:2•C"'''‘'',.'. -;;,„. .; . ,_ Pt •-. ". 1 ...II/ .: 't44''441,;14 1 i• . , 1 8 ' ,1' • • 414 •4...- (,., i 4,- .74.± it.' ) ' I ' :•• , ' : • t. '-- ' 4 4 ' I ,3 .•,..,0 Cr /;fra-.31111'./1 '-'.'• -1_ ME 1•41.t...,1.1s. 1.-.^er4n.c.r. ,... .. .. .•.., •Figir,e1Ii„ort-".wil?roir„ir, ' -- .. ., •ir. ,,,,s, . .4 _ .4 .,, •--, 1 i,. w•-••ir:g-,),,,,, , .,,, :,,,-9*,„..4,1! -_-',1, '..\7,v,.t'. c; ,,, f,,_ - ..., '-- . '..„-.it,''' • 0 r 1 ,f I qe_ •'; s 0 •••',1,...\ .- ' - • Alt v4... ,.. .,,,...,,, , ]?v v.. I ....._ - .. .4,,,,,. ,1 , ,,...: ,,,. t, . . .. ._ -:-/7),%—akal.'. ,'•''., ,."-', ' •1 CR :1:6aAj; 7: 4^,ca , ' ''' I; ' '•••;- ; s••-ii , • ' l • • ..".< . a 4.&.-3.4‘,4114 •-E. .1'1,7 A-..: •ww'NA <4. . , / -4.... ,• - m , i 4,-'°6-''4 I:: • 4•1E ,,,0 r : 1, ..,. Somas CI.. ,-. ... -... , 13'' ......irl • • — , - 1 1 r.P4 AhL. , • Ammokalee . lemoludee EM Inumkoloo Ext ' , ' '- ' I --.. ii ,.. , EMI i<SO: - , 5 s-.''. '.'", -1.•"'kr. 4,, -'3)^"r,-, e,. . ...,,`'-,:" • . 4c,, . ---- -It .."gcl'it"•. ' .-1 / ' ; . '. ' ' , 4, • gi 1 , ' ' i'g'' 417d A. f...1 ?Pg,t1 • , - " - • . :V,: ' f, anto :, :q*4* n I • 1' 1 A ...„ \ e . ho, 1 ta . • • 2 r- . /Z ..' kiod•.•,/ ./..-5, 9:, ill tr, i a • ..1.1 - • ,, .. or 4 -. • i• -r--", - •0,:--1_t - ,- . _ • yr • ,r, , ,- /,,,/ T .2 F4 .„ al w II Rd Oil Well Rd 011 Well . e 911 Well -*'•1:., 4'/ 48 ?_,,,,. 6 I II ' ' 4140 •Z At .i. S 1.. ' -- •:7714_ t dit-,..,'.. ' :• - ',it ,' Randall Blvd el cS:illigr d''' -.' , ''•'-'i' ''''T Ilk Nallr,6*. _ ; , / _ . , Sk P,• e, * ' 10.0c.—".. ,.' 4 . - r i._ 1 . . •=1. _ ,A ,-/- --- - 1 - .-,. •//,-, . : - , •,/,x'•, 1 , i'''''''''''- - ' *"` • ,,,-5.?-i.--4-',i-41?-10-€'_-'''-' -'2,---r.„ - r , ..,.• ' - - ';,. Geld.Gale Blvd : ,, 7. - The Illustrated road network which supports , ,T, 45,000 acres of potential development In i 2 : the RLSA Is for modeling purposes only. _ i Actual road segments and alignments may [ —,-. • — ,k1f, . ; - differ than as shown on the map. 50 .': . 1 4 Number el law ; 0............. ' - 4,....... , - • . , H- - =-J _= :S 0.........., • i -.', WilsOnlifillerF i . . . - ..% 1-1 1 wftwww.Inc ,.........,...„,...............„..m.. eme...........,................ — -<-.=-----ej=-- =— --{,---- =- ----0"f---------,,--•- • ... ... .* nit ., CONCFPTUAt.BUI1 D-OUT ROADWAY NETWORK , I SII RN 1.111111K feeliNfl / BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1 1 I Collier County October 22,2019 Good morning. My name is Neville Williams and I'm speaking as a private citizen. I got involved in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area and Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District re-study process two years ago because I believed this was a chance for the public to have a say about the direction of growth in this County. I have lived in three counties where local governments successfully managed their growth.In one, using a strong Transferrable Development Rights program coupled with a TDR bank,they were able to save a third of the county as an agricultural reserve. In the second,a city purchased a wide swath of land creating a preservation greenbelt that stopped urban sprawl. In a third,where I was involved,we made peace with a giant developer that wanted to build a tourist village nearby that threatened our town.The town and the developer,after initial hostility, finally worked together for a solution that was a win-win for everyone. How did the three counties save themselves from massive sprawl and runaway development? They had the necessary tools in the form of strong zoning ordinances and master plans that put the government in charge. In each case,developers had to follow the wishes of the county,not the other way around. Developers were required,not"encouraged",to follow explicit planning rules. Everything you need regarding necessary tools,zoning regs,and land use codes were clearly outlined, in detail, in the"Toward Better Places Community Character Plan"prepared for the county nearly 20 years ago.But they were never adopted.There is little in the White Paper hadn't already been proposed back then. The White Paper before you is an excellent piece of work with many fine recommendations and cogent analyses—surprisingly,the two planners largely responsible for guiding the re-study process and preparing this paper resigned and left the county so they are not here to defend their years'of work. 1 • 1 1 L However,some things are missing from the Paper,such as plans for a workable TDR program and bank,and incentivizing new urbanism instead of sprawling single-family,gated and car-centric communities, ideas for which the public expressed strong support at the workshops. While all this planning talk was going on,a developer cynically applied for approval of a new village in the RLSA that,as one member of the Planning Commission said last week, "makes a mockery" of good planning and innovative design,and is far from meeting the goals and plans for the rural lands.It's just business-as-usual. The County's boards and agencies do not have the rules or regulations on the books necessary to enforce or shape sustainable,smart-growth, compact design, as embodied in the RLSA and Rural Fringe plans. You can fix this by urging county management and planning staff to prepare effective plan amendments to the GMP and the LDC. But this will take time,so before the Eastern landowners come back with applications for 6 or 7 more towns and villages, it may be necessary to impose a"time out"or moratorium on any new project approvals.Hillsborough County is currently considering a moratorium on new development. There is no evidence that 330,000 Collier residents want to entrust the future of the County's health,coastal waters,traffic,pollution,wildlife and livability to a small group that want to build tens of thousands of homes 35 miles from the coast. There are plenty of opportunities for residential and commercial infill within Greater Naples itself. This would reduce sprawl,create jobs,save taxpayers from the cost of more roads,and expand the tax base --while accommodating new visitors and residents. Planning staff need direction from you--elected to represent the public,not special interests--to truly create a"better place." Thank you. 2 1 1 L Board of Commissioners Collier County October 22,2019 Comments by Patricia Forkan League of Women Voters, Collier County Our League's goal has always been to strengthen the RLSA to better achieve its original stewardship objectives: preservation of agricultural lands; protection of wetlands and upland habitats for our water resources and listed species; and avoiding sprawl through creative land use planning techniques, while guarding against the detrimental effects of rampant overdevelopment. If we fail to do these things, Naples and Collier County will no longer be "the Paradise Coast" and one of the most desirable places to live in the U.S. We were gratified to see a number our concerns addressed in the May 2019 White Paper, however, some of those recommendations have now been deleted or weakened. For example, words like "require" have been deleted —this should not stand as we know from experience that "encourage" or "recommend"does not cut it. The League is seeking your assurance that revisions to the RLSA overlay will among other things: (1) support the preservation of Ag land and adequate wildlife/ panther corridors (2) recalibrate stewardship credits in order to get more important environmentally sensitive land restored, and to guard against the loss of critical wildlife habitat. (3) require compact mixed use walkable towns and villages, while offering alternatives to business as usual, which is the auto-centric gated community. (4) insure that future developments will not add to the nutrient discharge problem currently polluting our estuaries and coastlines. 1 1 L 5) conform to the Collier County Community Character Plan . 6) reduce financial risks to citizens by by requiring SRAs to show fiscal neutrality prior to buildout. We recognize this will take time. Unfortunately, in the meantime, development patterns will be set, restoration credits will be awarded ,often inappropriately, and land critical for wildlife corridors may be unavailable. Although at present we have only one town in the RLSA,Ave Maria, our first RLSA "village" —Rivergrass Village— is now before the Planning Commission and applications are in process for four more villages. In fact, the speed at which new "villages" are now being proposed suggests a rush to avoid the impending changes to the RLSA. Before inappropriate development patterns within the RLSA get solidified, The League asks you to direct staff to put a "hold" on accepting all further applications for towns and villages until the current RLSA revisions can be finalized and used for review of future applications. It is critical we get the RLSA program right. Certainly we can afford a "time out" until revisions are instituted. Indeed, our quality of life now and in the future depends upon it. And, needless to say, the protection of our water quality and water quantity are of utmost concern to residents. * The recent Planning Commission's all-day reviews of Rivergrass Village, located within the RLSA, clearly demonstrated why the RLSA needs revision. Although the applicant claimed they were meeting all LDC requirements, it was obvious the intent of the RLSA will not be achieved. One hundred percent of the public comments before the P.C. last week were against approval of this project. Several Planning Commissioners indicated they did not have the necessary regulatory tools or guidance from the BCC for them to require changes in the applicant's proposal beyond what was already in the code. 1 1 L Hence the importance of taking time NOW to at the very least implement the recommendations in the initial White Paper. In the meantime, we implore you to adopt a moratorium and not accept any further applications for future towns and villages in the RLSA. Thank you for your time * Schultze Family Foundation Community Assessment—notes the environment was the focus of an expert panel and 3,705 resident participants surveyed said they are concerned about "loss of habitat, on higher land and in the wetlands to development " O +. N 0 0 0 oil /-`, U N C U -- C COTo )I ..9 � U �- } V Qc co Uf > o QU L � � N L •� N O — • } 4) H � c� � � � VCN OOON > a6 0C:Cd � I- V � v� � � -1cN (1) C O D -o o U 2 'Q N a c o 0 cE O D (N a) r O .Q a) 0 C O 1111 0 CO ill w 0 O t C U a O C m =o CO Q Cr N U 5' LO U � C c .E O Q N OO ■� 0 U - U N C 0 W C n 1/l'a' o 30 p � O z 4) N U o 0) v, O C C Li pai o > 0 ((i') -0 ■— J U O a O x 0 .� U O g .E 30 � _ ,_ 0 o 7) (a-)) ( 1 -0 O4- N o o U E �, � 6 � 1O O , 2 Q () 4) 4) V CD •= O N = 0020 - a) O O . UO 0 c0o � � 0 a UQ � 0o w � g20000 U) a C s- CO L p O O a J O •V/ .� Q � .- - VO _ �o Q � � , coo ° �� ° DCIV oc500 >LLJ 1- _0 0 Z (/} I— l it GoUkr Gouvity Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Restudy White Paper Prepared by the Growth Management Department, Community Planning Section Staff May 21, 2019 1 1 L Coiter County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay White Paper List of Staff Recommendations Water Resources 1. Continue to study the need for maximum peak discharge rates for basins within the RLSA to maintain water quality and quantity downstream. 2. Count WRAs as SRA acreage if used for primary water management. 3. Encourage filter marshes prior to offsite discharge or discharge into WRAs where appropriate. 4. Require flowway management plans as part of the SRA approval process to supplement the SSA maintenance functions in a more specific way and to provide a mechanism for flowway management in the absence of established SSAs or to supplement SSA land management activities. 5. Coordinate with FDOT and other state and local agencies on an SR 29 Comprehensive Water Resources Plan aimed at restoring the health of the OK Slough. 6. Continue to monitor aquifer supply and quality through existing federal, state and local programs. Agricultural Protection 1. Remove the word "premature"from agriculture protection references in Policy Group. 2. Provide credits to owners in open areas at the rate of 2.6 credits per acre in the ACSC and 2.0 credits per acre in the non-ACSC open areas in return for permanent agricultural easements allowing active or passive agriculture. 3. Create a cap for agricultural easement credits calculated at a 50% utilization rate. 4. Exclude any aquiculture operation from the agricultural credit system both at inception and through easement language. 5. Collier County may establish an Agricultural Advisory Committee at a time deemed appropriate by the BCC. RLSA Restudy White Paper 85 of 89 1 1 L. Environmental Protection 1. To achieve sustainable environmental value and balance, the RLSA overlay should maintain functional flow ways, wildlife habitats, wildlife connectivity, and quality agricultural land and help assure the regional long-term viability of the Florida panther population. 2. Add a provision in the SSA approval process that allows a conditional approval for 5 years, with optional extensions;require under the terms of the instrument that no overall increase in Agriculture 1 activities may occur during this period. Require a provision within conditional or escrowed SSAs that any new RLSA master plan amendments arising during the escrow/conditional period shall apply to the SSA. 3. Establish a third grantee for enforcement of easements under SSAs; one grantee will be the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (should they agree). 4. Require applicants to address the effect of potential SRA development on adjacent SSA values when SSAs are proposed. 5. Foster further data and vetting of the land management and restoration recommendations prior to Transmittal. 6. Add specific exotic vegetation control measures to the SSA agreement and easement and require a maintenance standard that assures no greater infestation than that existing at time of SSA designation. 7. Consider, through the LDC amendment process, any additional specific maintenance standards that should be included in all future SSA agreements and easements. 8. Allow Restoration area applications only once within any single SSA. 9. Restructure the timing of R-1 credits: only half of R-1 credits awarded at time of permit approval through the ERP process (or County permit if no ERP required); the remaining "R-1"credit(s) would be awarded only after the owner successfully completes all phases of R-2 restoration. 10. Engage an independent third party prior to Transmittal to study the needed restoration activity in RLSA private lands so that needed restoration credits can be reasonably estimated and structured; add specificity to restoration standards and objectivity to the acres claimed by different restoration types; review with permitting agencies and land managers. 11. Structure restoration credits so that needed restoration is assured in return for the maximum credit and acreage footprint of SRA development. RLSA Restudy White Paper 86 of 89 1 1 L 12. Cap Stewardship credits and SRA acres;provide separate caps for restoration credits and agriculture credits. 13. Require third party approval and monitoring of Restoration Plans if no ERP permit process is required. The County may use an agency consultation process or contract. 14. Require clear maintenance obligations through SRAs based on their volume discharge to the flowway, thus assuring perpetual funding(fiscal neutrality) for downstream stormwater management in Flowways. 15. In exchange for voluntary participation in the RLSA overlay system, land use layers 1-4 shall be eliminated in HSAs, with the exception of governmental essential services. 16. Provide an avenue for County purchase of land or credits in the RLSA; create LDC standards for discretionary approval of private entity purchase and use of credits for high density projects in the Urban area; explore opportunities for County purchase of easements in coordination with identified state programs. 17. Reduce speed limits along collector and arterial roadways, particularly at night. 18. Provide LDC regulations for outdoor lighting to protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy and enhance security and safety. Towns, Villages and Other Development 1. Require minimum densities within %mile of a Town Center, Town Core or Village Center. Based on the SmartCode v.9.2, those areas (center/core plus % mile) should exceed 6 units per acre, excluding acreage for civic uses. 2. Create an aggregation rule for Villages: if adjacent and under common or related ownership or control and judged to be part of a unified plan of development, Town standards should apply if aggregate size exceeds maximum village acreage. 3. Village sizes should not be increased to 1,500 acres unless additional commercial, civic and governmental minimums are proposed; Town size increases to 5,000 acres should be allowed only if, in the discretion of the Board, greater efficiency in service provisions and fiscal impacts are demonstrated. 4. Propose greater minimum requirements for commercial, civic and governmental uses, and specify the timing of these uses in the phasing of the residential portions of both Towns and Villages, seeking further vetting on phasing requirements through an LDC process. 5. Propose a required acreage set-aside for corporate office, light Industrial or business park, available for sale or lease for a specific number of years for economic development. RLSA Restudy White Paper 87 of 89 1 1 L 6. Allow corporate office, light industrial and manufacturing uses in Villages. 7. Define open space more clearly, including o he en space; ion of eliminate single e credit exemption for family dwelling unit yards, to reach the minimum required 35% p excess open space. 8. Require Wildlife Management Plans as described in the 5-year Review and Wildfire Management Plans within all SRAs. 9. Require Flowway Management Plans as part of the SRA approval process to supplement the SSA maintenance functions in a more established SSA orc way and �oovide a supplement SSAmland flowwayfor management in the absence of management activities. 10. Require a Housing Analysis similarand to a�com rmerDRI requirement to assure a wide ate the needed workforce within t�e of housing types and price points SRA. 11. Require all homebuilders in the RLSA to offer a Universal Design option in the sale of new homes. opment; considr ding 12. Eliminate the category of Hamlets as feconomicand equityorm of SA l factors favorets cdreationhis in category at a later time if environmental, certain locations. 13. Describe allowable uses in the Compact 1Rm t the Developments enny CRA(CRDs) witto 100h gee.ter clarity, allow retail only as an ancillary use, and 14. Review SRA applications with careful attention to fiscal neutrality at a reasonable horizon date and closely scrutinize calculations and methodologies to assure that SRAs become fiscally positive by the horizon date or impose special assessments. 15. Require annual monitoring reports to gauge the status of all developer commitments associated with the SRA and developer contribution agreements. to 16. Restrict SRA development in the ACSC by limiting SRA development mn enIatndsneasg Rof9he 1,000 acres and allow only CRDs as a form of Okaloacoochee Slough. 17. Require Mobility Plans as a component of an SRA Master Plan, with specific components as identified in the LDC. Additional LDC components should include specification in the Master Plan to provide depictions of local streets to demonstrate connectivity. 18. All roads internal to an SRA will be constructed and maintained by the SRA. 19. Provide needed wildlife underpasses inside and outside of SRAs, and lower speed limits on collector and arterial roadways for human safety and wildlife preservation. 88 of 89 RLSA Restudy White Paper 1 1 L Credit System 1. Procure an independent analysis of the definitions and estimated acreages associated with a revised Restoration program prior to Transmittal hearings, considering the 5-year Review "tiered credit system" approach and alternatives, including the FWF/Audubon approach; the analysis should be based on incentivization of restoration activities in all needed areas and a credit calibration and cap so that will no more credits are produced than necessary for 45,000 acre SRA footprint. 2. Provide the third-party analysis to stakeholders and public for further vetting prior to Transmittal hearings. 3. Cap credits within the categories of base credits, restoration credits and agricultural credits separately. 89 of 89 RLSA Restudy White Paper TO: Collier County Board of Commissioners 1 1 L FROM: Judith Hushon, PH.D. SUBJECT: Review of and Comments on RLSA White Paper DATE: Oct, 20 2019 I have followed the RLSA closely for a number of years and chaired the Phase 2 Review hearings for the Environmental Advisory Council to the BCC. I have participated in the review meetings and have submitted a number of comments. I think staff did a good job of covering the issues, but they did not go far enough in identifying solutions to some of the identified problems and inconsistencies in the existing(2002) RLSA Program. I am therefore recommending changes to the 2002 RLSA Overlay to the Board of County Commissioners(BCC). As you know,the goals of the Overlay are to prevent premature conversion of agricultural land, direct development away from listed species habitat and environmentally sensitive lands, and avoid sprawl. The RLSA Overlay does not accomplish these goals. The 2009 5-Year Review Committee recommendations to increase development acreage to 45,000 and add at least 106,000 credits to the Stewardship Credit System will make the situation worse. I strongly urge the County to bring the RLSA Overlay back in line with the intent of the 2002 goals. To this end, I am requesting the following changes to the Overlay. 1. Preserve Agricultural Land and Panther Corridors by Recalibrating Credits Within the Existing Stewardship Credit System. Do not Add Credits to the System as Recommended by 2009 the 5-Year Review Committee and the White Paper—this will Result in Even More Excess Credits and Development. The 5-year review recommendation to add 106,000 credits to the system will not fix the problems with the RLSA Overlay and instead will increase the excessive number of credits, which will ultimately lead to more development. Consider that from the beginning and through the 5-year review process,the amount of potential credits that could be earned has been considerably underestimated by Wilson Miller(now Stantec). At the time of adoption of the 2002 RLSA Overlay,the CCPC, Environmental Advisory Council (EAC), BCC,county staff and the public were all told that the Overlay would result in 16,800 acres of development based on 134,388 credits. However, at a 2003 CCPC hearing to implement the 2002 RLSA Overlay,there was discussion about the late addition of early entry bonus credits and restoration credits. Commissioner Mark Strain provided calculations showing a potential for 254,000 credits being earned. (May 1,2003 CCPC Tape 1A). Nancy Linnan, Collier County's outside counsel, responded that"nobody anticipates, including state agencies, those numbers...." Id. at 24:23. Then, at the start of the 5-year review process, Wilson Miller reported that the 2002 RLSA Overlay provides 315,000 potential credits,which could allow 43,300 acres of Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) development. (Wilson Miller Memorandum to Tom Jones, 9-18-08.) It is likely that 315,000 is an underestimate because there are more credits than anticipated being earned from the restoration provisions. Wilson Miller's credit calculations are outdated. In 2008, Wilson Miller also estimated that the 5-Year Review Committee recommendation to add credits for agriculture stewardship and panther corridors would provide a total of 421,000 credits.'The CCPC and EAC were both concerned about creating excess credits if this recommendation was adopted. See April 9, 2009 BCC hearing on the 5-year review recommendations. The CCPC and many commenters recommended to the BCC that the total number of credits not be increased. During the April 2009 BCC hearing, Collier County Planning staff also expressed concern about creating surplus credits if the 5-Year Review Committee recommendations were accepted. Pg. 138-140. WilsonMiller reduced this number to 404,000 credits based on assumptions which appear to no longer be accurate. The County should update the credit numbers. 11 �_ 1 1 L More credits mean more development, when many think the RLSA Overlay is already out of whack in allowing 43,300 acres of development for approximately 300,000 new residents. Instead of the 5-year review Committee recommendation to increase the number of credits,the County should consider revising the RLSA Overlay as follows: A. Recalibrate credits by transferring credits from restoration potential(R-1 credits)to preservation of agriculture and panther corridors,and increase the number of credits required per acre of SRA to 10 or more credits per acre. It is becoming clearer that too many credits are being awarded for just designating land for potential restoration. Landowners have obtained and will continue to obtain more and more R-1 credits, but acknowledge that for the most part they will not be restoring land. So far, more than 129,987 credits have been approved and 54,688 are pending, but less than 500 acres restored.The RLSA Overlay provisions are not working to get important environmentally sensitive land restored. Landowners are getting credits for designating land for potential restoration, but are electing not to restore the land to earn additional credits(R-2 credits). Eliminating R-1 credits may provide an incentive for landowners to do the restoration,as well as free up credits that can be awarded for preservation of agriculture and panther corridors. No credits for corridors should be awarded until a corridor is complete. R-1 credits are duplicative of base credits landowners already obtained for removing layers of use. They do not give up more rights for these additional credits. Most SSAs have layers removed down to agriculture. Take, for example, SSA #15(5259 acres). Collier Enterprises will receive 10,095 "base use" credits for removing 5 layers of land use on 4820 acres(keeping Ag 2 uses). Collier Enterprises will then get an additional 14,178 credits for designating 3545 acres of the 4820 acres as land that can be restored. Because Collier Enterprises gets credits for taking off most layers of land use, it is difficult to understand why it should also get so many additional credits just for designating a portion of the land for potential restoration.Credits should only be awarded upon restoration completion. B. County Commissioners that adopted the RLSA Overlay and RLSA landowners understood that the County has the Authority to change the Stewardship Credit System and RLSA Overlay rules. The County has the responsibility to review the RLSA Overlay and the authority to revise the RLSA Overlay as needed to keep the program in line with the original intent and the Final Order. Some RLSA landowners claim that the County cannot change the provisions of the RLSA Overlay unless the landowners agree to such changes. They are also quick to suggest changes without their consent could result in a Bert Harris claim. But the RLSA landowners do not automatically have "vested rights" in the provisions of the RLSA Overlay. CCPC and BCC hearing testimony make clear that County Commissioners understood they could change RLSA provisions, including revision of the credit system, if the program was not accomplishing its goals or otherwise not working as intended. May 1, 2003 CCPC hearing As previously noted,there was discussion about Mark Strain's calculation of a potential 254,000 credits being earned at a 2003 CCPC hearing to implement the 2002 RLSA Overlay. Upon further discussion of Commissioner Strain's numbers, Planning Commissioner Dwight Richardson expressed concern about the program growing out of bounds, or not working well if we double the population of Collier County. Nancy Linnan responded: "First of all,you can amend the comprehensive plan at any time assuming you do it during the twice a year state [cycles] so you have that ability to see it getting out of whack. You have a five-year period where there is a mandatory check with certain requirements that you have to look at. You also have your EARs where you are going to be doing it and it doesn't preclude you from asking at any point please bring us up to speed on where we are, give us an accounting on where we are on the credits. And so you will be seeing all of the SSAs coming in,you will be seeing all of the SRAs coming in, so you will have a pretty good idea of what is going on out there." (Tape 1A at 40:54.) 2 Dwight Richardson: "So we can change the rules at that time if it's not working?" 1 1 L Nancy Linnan: "Yes." April 9, 2009 Hearing on the 5-Year Review Committee recommendations. During the BCC hearing on 5-Year Review Committee recommendations,Tom Jones of Baron Collier testified "You have to remember, no one has been entitled to these credits. You have to go through an application process, it has to be vetted through staff, and staff has to recommend either approval or disapproval to the commission." Pg.40. That is, landowners do not have rights in credits until the Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) credits are approved. C. Revise the Overlay to cap both credits and acres. We now know that Eastern Collier Property Owners(ECPO)will be claiming more credits than estimated by Wilson Miller/Stantec as they submit their SSA and Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA)applications. There are already 184,675 approved and pending credits, with a potential of 41,731 more credits being earned for restoration, bringing the total to 226,406. ECPO have just begun with SRAs for the 9 or so towns and villages they plan for the RLSA(See RLSA 2050 concept map)and there are many more credits that can be earned by setting aside sensitive environmental land in SSAs. It appears that ECPO could easily exceed the 315,000 credits provided under the 2002 RLSA Overlay. Hindsight shows us that credits should be capped as well as acreage. Let's not repeat past mistakes. If certain large RLSA landowners don't have Habitat Stewardship Areas(HSAs), Flowway Stewardship Areas(FSAs) or Water Retention Areas(WRAs)on their property,they will still be able to obtain credits by purchasing them from those landowners who have excess credits under the existing credit system. D. Recalibrate the credits required for development. The original adoption of 8 credits per acre of development was arrived at by dividing the number of credits expected to be generated (169,533) by the number of acres expected to be developed (16,800)to get a value of 8 credits per acre. With the total credits increasing to 315,000, if one divides that number by the number of acres projected (16,800)one gets 18.75 credits per acre that should be required for development. The 5-Year Review recommended 10 credits per acre. This has been a windfall for the developers and the number of required credits needs to be recalibrated. 2. Instead of Increasing the Acres for SRA Development as Recommended by the 5-Year Review Committee, Revise the RLSA Overlay to Reduce SRA Footprints and Require Compact Mixed-use Walkable Towns and Villages. Incorporate the Smart Growth Standards of the Collier County Community Character Plan so that Towns and Villages Feature Traditional Neighborhoods Rather than Sprawling Auto-dependent Golf-course Communities. In 2001,through a year-long public process, Collier County developed a Community Character Plan reflecting how Collier County citizens would like the community to grow. The County should require the Plan's standards to be incorporated into the RLSA Overlay. The RLSA Overlay is not consistent with this Plan, and also is not being implemented in a manner consistent with the Growth Management Policy's(GMP's)directive to create compact, mixed- use walkable towns and villages. Developers insist on continuing their past practices. Give County staff leverage to reject developers' proposals. The maximum density in towns and villages needs to be increased to 12-14 units/acre in the%acre surrounding a town/village center according to DPZ CoDESIGN LLC. The White Paper suggests a max of 6 units per acre which is too low. This increased density increases walkability and creates more community character and interaction. During the review sessions,the developer of Ave Maria said that he regretted that they did not include higher density units near to the town center. There should also be a variety of housing types within this close-in area including town houses and garden apartments with single family homes located further from the center. 3 11L The main objective of the Community Character Plan is to do away with low-density, gated PUDs and cul-de-sac subdivisions which are everywhere in Collier County.Some of needed revisions to the RLSA Overlay include: (i) Require greater density for SRAs to achieve smaller footprints. This will reduce public infrastructure costs, help direct development away from critical wildlife habitat and preserve ag lands.2 (ii) Require a detailed mobility plan to ensure walkability. (iii) Require the town/village center to be located well within the SRA. Make it clear that towns and villages should not span major roadways. Rivergrass proposed to have Oil Well Road going thru the middle of its SRA village. (iv) Require a network of interconnected streets, as opposed to cul-de-sacs typical of golf course communities. (v) Increase population density around town centers to increase mobility,walkability and sense of community. (vi) Limit the maximum distance between a mixed-use center and edge of the neighborhood. (vii) Require greater choice in housing options. (viii) Limit block perimeters to make towns/villages walkable. (ix) Limit size and number of golf courses. Why allow land essential for survival of panthers and necessary for agriculture to be converted to a 54-hole golf course, as is proposed for Rivergrass? Golf is on the decline. (x) Do not count golf courses as "open spaces"for SRAs. A golf course is not open space for everyone—just golfers. We are starting to see established gated communities shutting down golf courses and the developers wanting to convert the land to housing.There go the open spaces. "Most golf courses lose money and here in South Florida several have been converted to residential housing developments ...." See https://www.metrostudy.com/golf-communities-thing-past/ 3. Do not Increase SRA Development to 45,000 acres as Recommended by the 2009 5-Year Review Committee—this could Result in More than 64,000 Acres of RLSA Development, Increased Sprawl,and a Significant Economic Burden on Taxpayers and the County for Public Infrastructure. The recommendation to allow 45,000 acres of SRA development does not include the acreage for the 200 miles of new and expanded roads necessary to support such development. It also only includes a fraction of land needed for public infrastructure. According to CCPC Commissioner Mark Strain,towns in the RLSA use about 35%of the land for public infrastructure.This means that an additional 15,750 acres will be used for public infrastructure to support 45,000 acres of SRA development—land provided for"free"to the developer(i.e. no credits required). The 45,000-acre cap also does not include the approximately 4000 acres of sand mines in the RLSA—on land owned by the same corporations that are planning to develop the 45,000 acres. After the sand mines are used up,the land cannot be restored, and can really only be used for development. So, a 45,000 acre cap is closer to 64,000 acres of development in the RLSA. ECPO's 2050 RLSA concept map of nine proposed towns and villages combined with Wilson Miller's Conceptual Build- Out Roadway Network Map created to support 45,000 acres of SRA development show that extensive sprawl will result. Spreading 45,000 acres of development over 195,000 acres in the RLSA will require 200 miles of new and expanded 2 The current patterns of development in the RLSA by Ave Maria and as proposed by RLW show average densities of 2.18 dwelling units(du)and 2.44 du per acre. This is considerably lower average densities than communities in Collier County such as Pelican Bay, Vineyards,and Lely Resort,yet these were to be compact towns using innovative planning tools(GMP 4.6). 4 1 1 L roads.These roads will cut through,fragment and isolate primary panther zone—land that has been determined by panther scientists to be essential to the long-term survival of the Florida panther. The proposed towns and villages are disconnected from existing and planned urban services such that extensive new infrastructure will be needed to support these rural towns. This will be costly for the County and taxpayers. Recently,Smart Growth of America (SMA)evaluated the fiscal impact of 45,000 acres of SRA development in the RLSA as proposed in ECPO's 2050 RLSA concept map and WilsonMiller's conceptual road network noted above. See "The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns–Rural Lands Stewardship Area, Collier County, Florida" by SMA (Sept. 2018). SMA identified ECPO's proposal as the "sprawl" scenario and found that over a 20-year period this scenario would lead to a negative net fiscal impact on the County of$3.3 billion (or$540 million per year)from costs associated with public infrastructure such as roads, schools and EMS. 4. Revise the RLSA Overlay to Protect our Water Quality,Shallow Wetlands and Regional Water Flow—the RLSA Overlay Does Not do This. According to SFWMD Executive Director at an Everglades Conference in January 2009 "Counties and municipalities are overly dependent on the SFWMD to preserve and protect their water supplies. You must be more proactive in creating explicit elements within your comprehensive and growth management plans. We can only use what you give us to make decisions. You must take control of your own futures." A. Revise the Overlay to require SRA applicants to determine and address the indirect and cumulative impacts of their proposed project on regional water flow and hydrology. The RLSA is situated in an area that is important for water storage (shallow wetlands)and water flow to and through numerous public lands. It is bordered by the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge (FPNWR) on the South, Big Cypress National Preserve and Okaloachoochee (OK) State Forest and Slough on the east, and Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed on the north and west. Water flows through the RLSA to Camp Keais Strand (CKS)and the OK Slough south into FPNWR, Picayune Strand State Forest and Fakahatchee Strand, and then to the Ten Thousand Islands. We are concerned about maintaining the natural hydrologic regime. The impact of replacing pervious farm fields with the proposed development needs to be determined. The impact of replacing farm fields that serve as floodplain storage and shallow wetlands during the rainy season with residential and commercial development, all of which will discharge to areas outside of project boundaries needs to be fully understood and addressed. For example, we've recently learned of concerns about Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary losing water more rapidly in the dry season and drying up a few months before rainy season begins. This trend could have a devastating impact on Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary and serves as a bell-weather for other areas in eastern Collier County that may also be drying up more rapidly than in the past. At the September 27, 2018 RLSA Restudy Workshop,Jerry Kurtz with the Collier County Storm Water Management Section acknowledged that the County is aware of the Corkscrew Swamp problem, but said that determining and addressing causes requires a multiagency approach. His responses made clear that there is no multi-agency approach in the works and that no agency is taking the lead on figuring out the problem. The White Paper calls for a Water Flowway Plan to be developed and this is needed because there are two of the most critical flowways in the county located within the RLSA. If water does not flow through this area at historic rates,there will be problems with ground water recharge, flooding, and draining of more northerly wetlands. B. Revise the Overlay to require use of filter marshes as a component of waste water treatment facilities and storm water management systems for SRAs,whenever possible,to address nutrient pollutants discharging from the SRAs. This RLSA Restudy provides an opportunity for the County to consider adding conditions that can help address nutrient pollution. Filter marshes as part of a storm water management system or a waste water treatment system can address nutrient pollution. Filter marshes have been successfully used elsewhere in the state as part of a storm water treatment 5 1 1 L system and as part of a waste water treatment system. This practice is particularly important for any discharges into CKS,which is already listed as an impaired waterbody for nutrients. There are federal grants available to help fund construction of filter marshes. See, e.g. Sweetwater Wetlands, Gainesville, Florida. Further,filter marshes create much needed wetland habitat for native wildlife, especially wading birds. With so much wildlife habitat being lost to development, we need to do what we can to provide some areas to sustain our wildlife. Our wading birds, shorebirds, ducks, raptors and migrating songbirds are important to tourists and residents alike. C. Revise the Overlay to state that use of WRAs as part of a storm water management system for a SRA should be avoided. WRAs are so designated because of their importance for water quality and quantity. During the 5-year review process, the EAC strongly recommended that use of WRAs as part of a storm water management system for SRAs should be avoided. Further,the EAC pointed out that allowing a portion of a WRA to be used by a SRA increases the amount of developable property but does not count as part of the acre cap, nor does it use credits. Growth Management Policy(GMP)4.9 provides that SRAs are prohibited from locating in FSAs, HSAs and WRAs. Yet, d Rivergrass Village proposes to use a WRA(SSA#17)for its storm water management system and recycling system— which could result in the WRA no longer providing the important functions of water storage, replenishment of aquifers and protection of shallow wetlands for listed birds. 5. Revise the Overlay to Provide the Panther Protection that was Intended. The RLSA Overlay does not protect the habitat which has been determined by the USFWS and panther experts to be essential for the survival of the endangered Florida panther—the panther primary zone. Indeed,the Overlay directs development into this critical habitat. Revise the RLSA Overlay to protect primary panther habitat by(A) updating the Natural Resource Index(NRI)to incorporate panther studies since 2005, (B) requiring each SRA acre to include such updated NRI values, (C) restricting new and expanded roads from crossing or fragmenting panther corridors and primary panther habitat, and (D) preventing SRAs from encircling, fragmenting or isolating SSA habitat, as discussed below. The 5-Year Review Committee recommendations do not address protection of primary panther zone at all, and several studies by panther experts based on telemetry data have been completed since the 2009 5-year review. The recommendation to add credits for preserving panther corridors is inadequate because the proposed 1/4 mile corridors are not sufficiently wide enough to facilitate panther movement. A. Require that the Natural Resource Index(NRI)and Stewardship Credit Worksheet be updated with the best available science—findings from studies and reports by Florida panther experts. The GMP specifies that the natural resource value of land within the RLSA is measured by the NRI. An important index comprising the NRI value is the Listed Species Habitat Indices,which is defined in the LDC as the habitat value of land based on "land cover identified as preferred or tolerated habitat for that[listed] species."Clearly this definition is outdated and not the appropriate basis for valuing panther habitat. Panther experts have identified the location of primary zone panther habitat in the RLSA.See Kautz, R, et al (2006), USFWS 2008 Florida Panther Recovery Plan, and the 2009 Report of the Scientific Panther Review Team. USFWS' 2008 Panther Recovery Plan states"The Primary zone supports the only breeding panther population. To prevent further loss of population viability, habitat conservation efforts should focus on maintaining the total available area, quality, and spatial extent of habitat with the Primary Zone." Pg. 89. In creating the NRI in 2000-2002,Wilson Miller made clear that the NRI values would need to be updated because the science on the Florida panther and its habitat was continuing to evolve. See the 2000 Immokalee Area Study in which Wilson Miller stated "The analysis involving panther habitat for the Study will be complemented by ongoing computer 6 1 1 L modeling of potential habitat and development of an updated panther recovery plan by interagency committees led by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service." The original NRI took data only from daytime locations for collared panthers and panther and bear kill locations. Subsequent research has shown that the panthers occupy their primary zone and all acres within this zone need to have their scores adjusted. The County needs to acquire the data layers and make these and other necessary adjustments to bring the layers into conformity with the latest science as was required by the RLSA Plan in 2002. The panther preferred territory is designated in the LDC by certain FLUCCS codes(310, 321,411,425,428,434, 617, 6172, 621, 6218, 6219, 624 and 630). Since that time the panther studies listed above have identified that panthers use farm fields, range land and citrus groves at night to forage. The following FLUCCS codes therefore need to be added to the LDC list(210-215, 221, 224, 261, 320, and 330)to define panther preferred habitat. During the 5-year Review, county environmental Staff submitted comments to the 5-Year Review Committee recommending revisions to the NRI values in order to better direct development away from listed species.3 The EAC made the 5-Year Review Committee aware of the ongoing panther studies and the need to update these indices, but nothing was done. Ideally, Primary Zone panther habitat designations should be used instead of the "preferred and tolerated"criteria in the Listed Species Habitat Indices. The credit worksheets should also be updated to incorporate the best available science on panthers. It is totally unclear whether the data layers used to create the NRI are available. When SRAs or SSAs are identified, experts have just been using observations to update the existing cell totals. It is essential that the county obtain and maintain all of the NRI data used in the calculations. B. Revise the Overlay to require SRA applications include updated NRI values for each SRA acre that incorporates the data and studies on the Florida panther that have been completed since 2005 While SRA applicants currently may be reviewing the NRI value for each acre of the proposed SRA to verify the value is 1.2 or less—they are not considering the panther studies completed since 2005,the USFWS Panther Recovery Plan, or the 2009 Report of the Scientific Technical Panther Review Team (PRT Report). They are not using the best available science in any"update" of SRA NRI values. For example, Collier Enterprises proposed 4100 acres of development for Rural Lands West, and three thousand acres of the 4100 acres were sited on primary zone panther habitat. If Collier Enterprises had taken the best available science into account, including the studies and reports noted above, a significant portion of the 4100 SRA acres would have scored greater than 1.2. The SSA application package requires much more rigorous documentation on NRI values for each acre compared to the SRA application package. Similarly, complete raster data for NRI values should be required for both SSAs and SRAs, including updating NRI values to incorporate best available science. C. Revise the Overlay to require minimization of new and expanded roads crossing,isolating or fragmenting wildlife corridors and primary panther habitat. The harm that will result from ECPOs' plan for sprawling development of 45,000 acres includes increased panther- vehicle collisions and fragmentation of panther habitat such that the changes will significantly impair essential behavior patterns of the panther. WilsonMiller's map of the road network necessary to support 45,000 acres of development shows miles of new and expanded 4 and 6 lane roads. See Figure 19 of the PRT Report. In 2018, Dr. Robert Frakes, a 3 Memorandum (April 24, 2008) from Laura Roys and Mac Hatcher, Senior Environmental Specialists for Collier County to Tom Greenwood, Principle Planer for Collier County. Memo provided to the 5-Year Review Committee by Ms. Roys. 7 1 1 L panther expert, did a quantitative analysis of the impacts to panther habitat that would result from this proposed road network. He concluded: "Free movement of panthers north and south is essential for panther recovery. Highways and roads block panther movement and are a major cause of panther mortality. Highway underpasses and fencing are only partly effective in allowing free movement of panthers from one area to another. An analysis of adult panther home ranges shows that, although some panthers do cross highways, most resident, adult panther home ranges adjacent to major highways are limited to one side or the other and do not cross, even if the highway is equipped with underpasses....These new roads, especially those running east and west, would impede panther movements and affect the size and shape of home ranges, potentially cutting some existing home ranges in two. Increased road kills will also occur.i4 The 2008 USFWS Panther Recovery Plan echoes this conclusion: "In addition to a direct loss and fragmentation of habitat, constructing new and expanding existing highways may increase traffic volume and impede panther movement within and between frequently used habitat blocks throughout the landscape (Swanson et al. 2005). Increases in traffic volume, increasing size of highways(lanes), and habitat alterations adjacent to key road segments may limit the panther's ability to cross highways and may ultimately isolate some areas of panther habitat(Swan et al. 2005)." USFWS 2008 Panther Recovery Report at 39-40. ECPO own a majority of RLSA lands and have the ability to locate development so as to minimize the roads cutting through panther corridors and primary panther zone habitat, and to concentrate development so as to minimize the necessity for new roads or expanded roads. Yet, instead they propose a sprawling pattern of development. The GMP should be revised to require greater average SRA densities which will result in smaller footprints and to disallow new and expanded roads that transect wildlife corridors and primary zones panther habitat.See PRT Report recommendations at 51-62. D. Revise the Overlay to Designate Wildlife Corridors as HSAs. Listed animal and plant species and their habitats are protected through the establishment of Habitat Stewardship Areas. (GMP 3.2)Wildlife Corridors should also be protected by designation as HSAs. Such corridors should meet USFWS criteria for length, width and location. No credits should be awarded for Wildlife Corridors until a whole corridor has been legally designated. E. Revise the Overlay to make clear that Proposed SRAs cannot encircle,fragment or isolate SSA habitat. One of the primary purposes of the RLSA Overlay is to direct development away from environmentally sensitive areas-- important wildlife habitat and wetlands. (See RLSA Overlay Policies 1.4, 1.21,4.9,4.12.) Further, GMP 4.12 requires that SRAs which adjoin FSAs, HSAs,or WRAs to minimize adverse impacts to such lands. The RLSA Overlay does not accomplish these goals. For example,Collier Enterprises' proposed Rivergrass Village would have surrounded SSA#17, a WRA ranked with a high environmental value (NRI values between 1.7 and 2.6)and which contains the important Shaggy Cypress swamp area. Such proposal would greatly diminish the value of the area for wildlife (even completely excluding large mammals from the Shaggy Cypress area of SSA#17). Wildlife would be cut off from surrounding habitat;the SSA would be surrounded with houses, businesses, noise, lights, human activity,cars. Such fragmentation as proposed by Rivergrass Village's footprint will cause a steady degradation in diversity of species over time. Scientific studies show that species diversity spirals downward over time as less and less species will be able to survive being isolated from adjoining habitat. See The Sixth Extinction Chapter IX"Island on Dry land" by Elizabeth Kolbert. 4 Frakes, R.A. "Impacts to Panther Habitat from the Proposed Eastern Collier Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan: A Quantitative Analysis," (2018) at 8 11L • The County should revise the GMP to be clear that SRAs cannot fragment or encroach on SSAs, and SSAs must provide connected habitat.5 6. Tighten Restoration Requirements to Include Start Dates, Metrics to Measure Progress, Milestones,and a Requirement that Restoration Goals be Met before Credits are Awarded. Require Monitoring until Restoration has been Determined to be Successful and that the Restored Area be Placed under a Perpetual Conservation Easement. Neither the GMP nor the Land Development Code (LDC) have provisions concerning start dates for restoration, metrics by which success or restoration can be measured, requirements for milestones or a timeline,or a requirement that restoration goals be met before credits are awarded. As of 2008, ECPO planned restoration for 12,000 acres in SSAs 1- 13. Yet, as of 2018, less than 500 acres have been restored. Restoration needs to begin before site clearance and construction. Once site clearance begins,wildlife is immediately impacted. Take Collier Enterprises'SSA#15,which borders CKS and is to be partially restored as a panther corridor. A representative of Collier Enterprises told us that they would not start restoration until they had commitments from a significant number of builders and that restoration would take 10 years. The County needs to make sure restoration goals are met before awarding credits. Currently,the LDC provides for credits to be provided when success criteria are met; however, based on reviewing the SSA#15 restoration plan,just meeting the success criteria will not mean that restoration has been achieved or even that restoration will be achieved. For SSA#15,the restoration goals are restoration and protection of a regional wetland system,flow-way and wildlife habitat corridor(i.e.Camp Keais Strand). The success criteria are removal of two road grades and the pinch point farm road,and restoration of native habitat. Even when these criteria are met,that may not accomplish the restoration goals. The County should have a substantial role in setting the restoration goals and success criteria. The GMP and LDC restoration provisions should provide start dates, metrics by which success and restoration can be measured,timelines, assuring success criteria achieves restoration goals, and establishing appropriate restoration goals. The County or independent 3`d Party should evaluate progress and whether goals are being achieved. Finally, monitoring should be required until restoration has been achieved. SSA#15 provides monitoring for 5 years only. 7. Revise GMP 3.7 to Remove Use of HSAs for Golf Courses. Currently,the GMP allows golf courses to be put in HSAs. This is inconsistent with the Final Order and the RLSA Overlay which is to direct development away from environmentally sensitive lands. HSAs are environmentally sensitive lands because of their importance to listed species and other wildlife. Golf courses should not be allowed in HSAs—golf courses are not low intensity land uses, but involve activities related to landscaping and playing the course. In addition,golf courses are treated with heavy fertilizer and moderate use of pesticides. During the 5-year review process,the EAC raised this concern with GMP 3.7 and recommended that golf courses not be allowed in HSAs. 5 FL Stat 163.3168(5)(a) provides:"Criteria for the designation of receiving areas which shall, at a minimum, provide for the following:adequacy of suitable land to accommodate development so as to avoid conflict with significant environmentally sensitive areas, resources, and habitats;compatibility between and transition from higher density uses to lower intensity rural uses..." RLW did not provide for transition from residential and commercial areas and the important habitat in SSA#17;it did not avoid conflict with significant environmentally sensitive areas. 9 1 1 L 8. Revise the Overlay to Require that SRA Developments Show Fiscal Neutrality Every 5 years Until Build Out is Complete. Currently,SRA developers are required to be fiscally neutral only at build-out, which could be 30 years or more. In the meantime,the County(and taxpayers)cover costs of public infrastructure. The Overlay should be revised to require that fiscal neutrality be demonstrated every five years. The County needs to develop an infrastructure budget for complete buildout of the RLSA. The County relies on tax revenues from the rest of the County to pay for most of these expenses,with developers only reimbursing the county for part of the expenses as they sell units. If at any time the county lacks budgeted funds to provide infrastructure to an area at the time a permit is filed it should be put on a moratorium until the county can meet its obligations. These types of policy decisions need to be made now so they are available for use if and when they are needed. The County also has obligations to the rest of the county to maintain and improve existing infrastructure. There are repairs and new infrastructure required in already developed areas to accommodate increased traffic, sea level rise, flooding, emergency response times and other issues. These obligations should come ahead of new development in the eastern portions of the county as they already are affecting citizens in the county. The concept of a possible building moratorium if county funds are not available for infrastructure development should be explored. It is used elsewhere in this state (e.g. Hillsborough County)and country and has served a valuable purpose in controlling development and sprawl while maintaining the fiscal integrity of local regulatory bodies. 10 1 1 L EASTERN COLLIER MULTIPLE SPECIES HCP August 2018 • Providing a sustainable mix of residential,commercial, retail,office, civic,and recreational land uses where these non-residential components minimize the need for residents to leave the development for basic needs (maintaining a high internal capture rate),thereby minimizing travel on the regional transportation network; and • In the case of earth mining, establishing perimeter berms to separate the mine areas from adjacent preservation areas (if preservation areas are present adjacent to the mine), and limiting the offsite transport of mining products to daylight hours. While the Plan (Figure 2-1)achieves avoidance through the designation of large interconnected panther habitat preservation areas,and the direction of Covered Activities toward the more intensively farmed portions of the HCP Area,the strategies listed above serve to refine avoidance and minimization of impacts at project-level scales.The combined application of these strategies serves to avoid and minimize direct and indirect impacts to panthers, and to separate Covered Activities from the Preservation/Plan-Wide Activities areas. 4.4.1.3 Transportation Network and Wildlife Crossings As noted above,the HCP Area does not include the existing roadway network,and avoidance and minimization of environmental impacts resulting from improvements to the transportation network are the responsibility of FDOT and the MPO,together with State and Federal environmental regulatory agencies (section 4.3.2).The Plan is expected to provide a source of funding and the necessary land preservation that will help avoid and minimize transportation-related impacts to panthers, however. The Marinelli Fund is expected to supplement the HCP and other Florida panther recovery efforts through a variety of conservation actions,which include the location and construction of wildlife crossings and associated fencing for panthers (FPPP 2008).Thus, by providing the necessary land preservation (perpetual conservation easements) where wildlife crossings may be located,the Plan will facilitate minimization and mitigation of traffic impacts to panthers,even though the existing transportation network is not included as part of the Covered Activities. 4.4.1.4 Best Management Practices The ITPs will provide incidental take coverage for Covered Activities that are under the direct control of the permittees, including the aspects of residential/commercial development and earth mining within the permittees' control (see section 2.3). Activities occurring within the HCP Area that are conducted or controlled by third parties after the project construction and/or earth mining activities have concluded are beyond the scope of the Plan and are not covered by the ITPs. However,the landowner-applicants are committed to promoting and encouraging the use of panther-related BMPs in the post-development phase in accordance with the FWC publication, "A guide to living with Florida panthers" (FWC; unknown date).These BMPs include the following guidelines: 1\ L Stantec 110 J L '1y o CSW � � u .11.1 'Z Z 'L rri O O fl J 'a cD hr4 y , 0 -62) E •1.� W DQE O a 1/41E 00 )� .) >Z Q= E ( �° 3Or L.) O o v c°� w N ic i MI t4 5 ...'o :' C) .-a -8 c'''s u at ,-. = — cy, cA CI r4S .447...t"'"•• (I) E O Q) •.. 0 c •- 4 C� � ;gEEEE � a) '= o 4. C� co ¢ i 0 Ham ,, c � 0 .t-, I '^ cam Z _Icac °' \ cn� ct CL) ' Li > o� CD Eo0 . 0 c4 y C4c� � 0 Z It 1 x s •;,:s :4 c) • :