Agenda 06/08/2021 Item # 9C (Ordinance - RLSA Overlay of GMP)
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
June 8, 2021
Continue Item 9C to the July 13, 2021 BCC Meeting:
Recommendation to adopt the proposed amendments to the Rural
Lands Stewardship Area Overlay of the Collier County Growth
Management Plan (GMP), Ordinance 89-05, as amended, and to
transmit the amendments to the Florida Department of Economic
Opportunity (DEO) and other statutorily required agencies.
(Staff’s request)
Continue item 10A to the June 22, 2021 BCC Meeting: Recommendation for the Board to
consider adoption of a County Ordinance establishing Collier County as a Bill of Rights Sanctuary
County. (Commissioner McDaniel’s request)
Continue Item 10B to the July 13, 2021 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to direct the County
Manager to retain an outside consultant to review the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA)
Overlay Growth Management Plan, as amended, to estimate the total Stewardship Credits
available in the Overlay. (Commissioner Taylor’s request)
Move Item 16A15 to Item 11J: Recommendation to accept the Golden Gate Parkway Complete
Street Study and direct staff to pursue Concept 1. (Commissioner Saunders’ request)
Add on Item 11K: Update on the Great Wolf Lodge development agreement. (Commissioner
Saunders’ request)
Move Item 16C4 to Item 11L: Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the Chairman
of the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, to execute Agreements, Deeds, and
other documents required for the sale of Gulf American Corporation (GAC) Land Trust property
during the 2021 Calendar Year. (Commissioner McDaniel’s request)
Withdraw item 16D6: Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairperson to sign the
Fourth Amendment between Collier County and Prestige Home Centers, Inc. to extend the
agreement term and increase funding in the amount of $30,000 for the State Housing Initiatives
Partnership Demolition and/or Replacement of Manufactured Housing program. (Staff’s request)
Continue Item 16K1 to the June 22, 2021 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to take no further
action with respect to a public petition requesting that Collier County enact an ordinance to
protect firearm owners from federal or state government intrusion. (Commissioner McDaniel’s
request)
Time Certain Items:
Item 9A & 9B and companion items to be heard at 10:00am - Longwater and Belmar items with
companion items
6/8/2021 8:33 AM
06/08/2021
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to adopt the proposed amendments to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlay of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP), Ordinance 89-05, as amended,
and to transmit the amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and
other statutorily required agencies. (Adoption Hearing) PL20190002292
OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners (Board) to review and adopt the amendments to
the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay and approve their transmittal to the DEO and other statutorily
required agencies.
CONSIDERATIONS: On February 10, 2015, the Board directed staff to initiate “restudies” of four
GMP master plans: the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, the Immokalee Area Master Plan, the Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District, and the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA). The RLSA restudy formally began in
January 2018. As with all restudies, through a public outreach effort, staff focused on complementary land
uses, economic vitality, mobility and environmental sustainability.
In October 2019, the RLSA White Paper was presented to the Board for staff direction. The Board
directed staff to bring forward Growth Management Plan amendments for the Rural Lands Stewardship
Area Overlay, as prepared by the 5-year Review Committee and reinforced in the RLSA White Paper;
develop a regional water partnership to address regional water matters; and draft Land Development Code
amendments to address SRA characteristics.
The CCPC held its required Transmittal public hearing over three meetings on September 3, 2020,
September 17, 2020, and September 25, 2020. By vote of 5-1, the CCPC recommended approval for
transmittal of the GMP amendments for the RLSA Overlay without changes.
At its meeting on November 10, 2020, the Board voted 4-1 to approve and transmit to DEO the RLSA
Overlay amendments. No changes were directed by the Board.
On November 23, 2020, the RLSA Overlay GMP amendments were transmitted to DEO and statutorily
required agencies as approved. At the request of the Board, additional public comment material was
provided to DEO on December 11, 2020. In their response letter, DEO offered three comments to assist
the local government.
1. Update Statutory References from 163.3177(11), F.S. to 163.3248, F.S., and delete reference to
9J-5.
2. Affordable housing land reservation - The County should consider revising the amendment to
establish a meaningful and predictable definition of “proximal SRA.” In addition, the proposed
amendments allow the Board to consider other options proposed by the SRA applicant and
approved by the Board to address housing affordability and DEO suggests establishing
predictable guidelines and standards for the options.
3. Fiscal Impact Analysis - The County should consider revising Policy 4.18 to define the timeframe
of the cost/benefit fiscal impact analysis.
DEO’s letter and all other agency review responses are included as an attachment. Staff addressed each
comment with proposed revisions. These revisions were approved by the Planning Commission, along
with three landowner proposed changes related to Policies 3.13, 4.9 and 4.20.
Proposed revisions to the transmitted RLSA Overlay amendments:
9.C
Packet Pg. 242
06/08/2021
Proposed revisions to the transmitted RLSA Overlay amendments address DEO comments, internal
consistency, and clarifications. The added language is shown in double underline, the proposed deleted
language is shown in strike through. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed
revisions.
Corrections to Statutory References
Objective - 163.3177(11) 163.3248
Policy 1.16 - 163.3177(11) 163.3248
Policy 4.2 - 163.3177(11) 163.3248
Policy 4.6 - 163.3177(11) 163.3248
Policy 4.7 - 163.3177(11) 163.3248
Policy 4.20 163.3177(11) 163.3248
Revision to Affordable Housing Policy
Policy 4.7.5
To address the accommodation of Affordable Housing in a Town or Village, the SRA applicant shall
utilize one of the following options:
1) Affordable Housing Land Reservation
a) Reservation of one or more site(s) within the SRA or within a proximal SRA in the RLSAO with
densities and development standards that accommodate Affordable Housing residential uses at a
minimum density of 10 units per acre, for acquisition by either Collier County, a Community
Land Trust, a private developer or any other affordable housing provider.
b) The aggregate acreage of such site(s) shall be equal to or greater than 2.5% of the gross area of
the SRA.
c) The acreage of land reserved for Affordable Housing will be considered as a Public Benefit Use
and not require the consumption of Stewardship Credits but shall be included in the calculation of
total SRA acreage.
d) The County shall verify the site(s) is/are appropriate and approve the site(s) at time of SRA
approval, subject to standards to be established in the LDC.
e) Affordable Housing units shall be excluded from the Traffic Impact Statement or trip cap for the
SRA in which they are located.
2) Alternatives proposed by the SRA Applicant
a) While compliance with the Land Reservation described above shall be deemed to satisfy
affordable housing requirements, other options may be proposed by the SRA applicant and
approved by the Board of County Commissioners to address housing affordability issues in the
subject SRA.
3) The process and procedures to implement this policy, including a definition to be used to determine
“proximal SRA” and specific guidelines and standards in those instances in which alternative options
may be proposed, shall be set forth in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Zoning District.
Fiscal Impact Analysis
9.C
Packet Pg. 243
06/08/2021
Policy 4.18
The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the SRA
horizon year based on a public facilities impact assessment, as identified in LDC 4.08.07.K. The BCC
may grant exceptions to this Policy to accommodate affordable housing, as it deems appropriate.
Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other
special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the assessment shall consider th e following public
facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater
management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer
contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse
impacts to adopted levels of service standards…
Internal Consistency Revisions:
Policy 3.13:
Water Retention Areas (WRAs) as generally depicted on the Overlay Map have been permitted for this
purpose and will continue to function for surface water retention, detention, treatment and/or
conveyance, in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permits
applicable to each WRA. WRAs can also be permitted to provide such functions for new uses of land
allowed within the Overlay. WRAs may be incorporated into a SRA master plan to provide water
management functions for properties within such SRA, but are not required to be designated as a SRA in
such instances. However, if all or part of a the WRA provides stormwater quality treatment for a SRA,
the prorata acreage of the WRA used to meet the water quality treatment volume required per Section 4.2
of the SFWMD Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook Volume II shall be included in the
SRA credit calculation and the calculation of total SRA acreage. WRA boundaries are understood to be
approximate and are subject to refinement in accordance with SFWMD permitting.
Policy 4.7.1
Towns are the largest and most diverse form of SRA, with a full range of housing types and mix of uses.
Towns have urban level services and infrastructure that support development that is compact, mixed use,
human scale, and provides a balance of land uses to reduce automobile trips and increase livability.
Towns shall be not less than 1,000 greater than 1,500 acres and up to or more than 4,000 5,000 acres and
are comprised of several villages and/or neighborhoods that have individual identity and character.
Towns shall have a mixed-use town center that will serve as a focal point for community facilities and
support services. Towns shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including
an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Towns shall
include an internal mobility plan, which shall include a transfer station or park and ride area that is
appropriately located within the town to serve the connection point for internal and external public
transportation. Towns shall have at least one community park with a minimum size of 200 square feet per
dwelling unit in the Town, subject to Level of Service requirements.
Policy 4.9
An SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development in an
environmentally acceptable manner. The primary means of directing development away from wetlands
and critical habitat is the prohibition of locating SRAs in FSAs, HSAs and WRAs unless the WRA is
being used to provide water quality treatment volume as referenced in Policy 3.13, in which case the
WRA shall retain its WRA Overlay classification and be included in the SRA acreage total. for the SRA.
To further direct development away from wetlands and critical habitat, residential, commercial,
manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and community
service uses within a SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of
greater than 1.2. In addition, conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with
9.C
Packet Pg. 244
06/08/2021
the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on lands
that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. Infrastructure necessary to serve
permitted uses may be exempt from this restriction, provided that designs seek to minimize the extent of
impacts to any such areas. The Index value of greater than 1.2 represents those areas that have a high
natural resource value as measured pursuant to Policy 1.8. Less than 2% of potential SRA land achieves
an Index score of greater than 1.2.
RLSA Attachment C Revision:
Remove the change to Town column - Community Parks (200 358 SF/DU). Community Parks are subject
to Level of Service requirements as noted in Policy 4.7.1. The requirement should remain at 200 SF/DU.
Policy 4.20:
The acreage of a public benefit use shall not count toward the maximum acreage limits of an SRA, unless
such public benefit uses were approved as part of an SRA approved prior to [adoption date of this
Ordinance] in which case such public benefit uses shall continue to be excluded from the maximum
acreage limitation pursuant to the policy in effect at the time of approval. described in Policy 4.7. but
Public benefit uses shall not count toward the consumption of Stewardship Credits. For the purpose of
this Policy, public benefit uses include: affordable housing as defined in the LDC, public schools (preK-
12) and public or private post secondary institutions, including ancillary uses; community parks
exceeding the minimum acreage requirements of Attachment C, municipal golf courses; regional parks;
and governmental facilities excluding essential services as defined in the LDC. The location of public
schools shall be coordinated with the Collier County School Board, based on the interlocal agreement,
Section 163.3248 163.3177 F.S. and in a manner consistent with 235.193 F.S. Schools and related
ancillary uses shall be encouraged to locate in or proximate to Towns and Villages, and Hamlets subject to
applicable zoning and permitting requirements.
FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of the proposed GMP amendment process has been accounted for
within the approved budget for the Zoning Division.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: After Adoption, the DEO and other applicable
review agencies will have 30 days (from the date DEO determines the Adoption packages are complete)
to review the adopted Plan amendment and, should they believe the amendment is not “in compliance,”
file a challenge [appeal] to the presumed “in compliance” determination with the Florida Division of
Administrative hearings. Similarly, any affected party also has 30 days (from the date of Board
Adoption) in which to file a challenge. If a timely challenge is not filed by DEO or an affecte d party,
then the amendment will become effective.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment is authorized by,
and subject to the procedures established in, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, The Community
Planning Act, and by Collier County Resolution No. 12-234, as amended. The Board should consider the
following criteria in making its decision: “plan amendments shall be based on relevant and appropriate
data and an analysis by the local government that may include but not be limited to, surveys, studies,
community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the plan amendment. To
be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the
data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue.”
163.3177(1)(f), FS. In addition, s. 163.3177(6)(a)2, FS provides that FLUE plan amendments shall be
based on surveys, studies and data regarding the area, as applicable including:
a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth.
b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area.
c. The character of undeveloped land.
d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services.
9.C
Packet Pg. 245
06/08/2021
e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of
nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community.
f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations.
g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and
consistent with s. 333.02.
h. Th need to modify land uses and development patterns with antiquated subdivisions.
i. The discouragement of urban sprawl.
j. The need for job creation, capital investment and economic development that will strengthen
and diversify the community’s economy.
This item is approved as to form and legality. It requires an affirmative vote of four for approval because
this is an Adoption hearing of the GMP amendment. (HFAC)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: That
the CCPC forward petition PL20190002292 to the Board with a recommendation of approval to adopt the
RLSA amendments as revised.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The Collier
County Planning Commission held their required Adoption public hearing on May 6, 2021. The CCPC
recommended that the Board adopt the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay amendments
PL20190002292, with revisions as noted. (vote:5/1).
RECOMMENDATION: To adopt the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay amendments as included
in the draft Ordinance and transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and other
statutorily required agencies, as recommended by the CCPC.
Prepared by: Anita Jenkins, AICP, Director, Zoning Division
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (PDF)
2. 2.1. CCPC Staff Report RLSA Adoption rev (PDF)
3. 3. DEO and agency responses (PDF)
4. 4. Ltr from Barron Collier Policy 4.20 (PDF)
5. 4.1 ECPO Letter to Collier County concerning WRA Policies (PDF)
6. 5. Resolution 2020-211 (PDF)
7. 6. RLSA transmittal Ex Sum BCC 11-10-20 (PDF)
8. [Linked] RLSA transmittal CCPC Staff Report w Attachments (PDF)
9. legal ad - agenda ID 15865 (PDF)
9.C
Packet Pg. 246
06/08/2021
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 9.C
Doc ID: 15865
Item Summary: Recommendation to adopt the proposed amendments to the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area Overlay of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP), Ordinance 89 -05, as
amended, and to transmit the amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO)
and other statutorily required agencies. (Adoption Hearing) (PL20190002292)
Meeting Date: 06/08/2021
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Principal – Zoning
Name: Anita Jenkins
05/12/2021 2:26 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Planner, Principal – Zoning
Name: Anita Jenkins
05/12/2021 2:26 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Zoning Anita Jenkins Zoning Director Review Completed 05/12/2021 2:26 PM
Growth Management Department Jeanne Marcella Growth Management Department Completed 05/13/2021 8:30 AM
Growth Management Department James C French Growth Management Completed 05/13/2021 9:32 AM
Growth Management Department Trinity Scott Transportation Skipped 05/14/2021 4:19 PM
County Attorney's Office Heidi Ashton-Cicko Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Completed 05/26/2021 3:21 PM
County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 05/26/2021 3:33 PM
Office of Management and Budget Debra Windsor Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 05/26/2021 4:02 PM
Office of Management and Budget Laura Zautcke Additional Reviewer Completed 05/27/2021 11:40 AM
County Manager's Office Mark Isackson Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 06/02/2021 2:49 PM
Board of County Commissioners Geoffrey Willig Meeting Pending 06/08/2021 9:00 AM
9.C
Packet Pg. 247
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
COLLIER COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
Prepared by
Collier County Planning and Zoning Department
Comprehensive Planning Section
Prepared for
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Adopted October, 1997
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 1 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
II. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
*** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** ***
V. OVERLAYS AND SPECIAL FEATURES
*** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** ***
D. Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay
Goal:
To address the long-term needs of residents and property owners within the Immokalee Area
Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment by protecting
retaining agricultural activities, preventing the premature conversion of agricultural land to non-
agricultural uses, directing incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat, enabling
the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations, discouraging urban sprawl, and
encouraging development that implements employs creative land use planning techniques
through the use of established incentives.
Objective:
Create an incentive based land use overlay system, herein referred to as the Collier County Rural
Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, based on the principles of rural land stewardship as defined in
Chapter 163.3177(11)163.3248, F.S. The Policies that implement this Goal and Objective are set
forth below in groups relating to each aspect of the Goal. Group 1 policies describe the structure
and organization of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. Group 2 policies
relate to agriculture, Group 3 policies relate to natural resource protection, and Group 4 policies
relate to conversion of land to other uses and economic diversification. Group 5 are regulatory
policies that ensure that land that is not voluntarily included in the Overlay by its owners shall
nonetheless meet the minimum requirements of the Final Order pertaining to natural resource
protection.
Group 1 ‒ General purpose and structure of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship
Area Overlay
Policy 1.1:
To promote a dynamic balance of land uses in the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area
(RLSA) that collectively contributes to a viable agricultural industry, protects natural resources,
and enhances economic prosperity and diversification, Collier County hereby establishes the
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (Overlay). The Overlay was created through a
collaborative community- based planning process involving county residents, area property
owners, and representatives of community and governmental organizations under the direction
of a citizen oversight committee.
Policy 1.2:
The Overlay protects natural resources and retains viable agriculture by promoting compact rural
mixed-use development as an alternative to low-density single use development, and provides a
system of compensation to private property owners for the elimination of certain land uses in order
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 2 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
to protect natural resources and viable agriculture in exchange for transferable credits that can
be used to entitle such compact development. The strategies herein are based in part on the
principles of Florida’s Rural Lands Stewardship Act, Section 163.3248, Florida Statutes. The
Overlay includes innovative and incentive based tools, techniques and strategies that are not
dependent on a regulatory approach, but will complement existing local, regional, state and
federal regulatory programs.
Policy 1.3:
This Overlay to the Future Land Use Map is depicted on the Stewardship Overlay Map (Overlay
Map) and applies to rural designated lands located within the Immokalee Area Study boundary of
the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment referred to in the State of Florida
Administration Commission Final Order No. AC-99-002. The RLSA generally includes rural lands
in northeast Collier County lying north and east of Golden Gate Estates, north of the Florida
Panther National Wildlife Refuge and Big Cypress National Preserve, south of the Lee County
Line, and south and west of the Hendry County Line, and includes a total of approximately
195,846 185,935 acres, of which approximately 182,334 acres is privately owned. The Overlay
Map is an adopted overlay to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM).
Policy 1.4:
Except as provided in Group 5 Policies, there shall be no change to the underlying density and
intensity of permitted uses of land within the RLSA, as set forth in the Baseline Standards, as
defined in Policy 1.5, unless and until a property owner elects to utilize the provisions of the
Stewardship Credit System. It is the intent of the Overlay that a property owner will be
compensated for the voluntary stewardship and protection of important agricultural and natural
resources. Compensation to the property owner shall occur through one of the following
mechanisms: creation and transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition of conservation
easements, acquisition of less than fee interest in the land, or through other acquisition of land or
interest in land through a willing seller program.
Policy 1.5:
As referred to in these Overlay policies, Baseline Standards are the permitted uses, density,
intensity and other land development regulations assigned to land in the RLSA by the GMP
Growth Management Plan (GMP), Collier County Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and
Collier County Zoning Regulations in effect prior to the adoption of Interim Amendments and
Interim Development Provisions referenced in Final Order AC-99-002. The Baseline Standards
will remain in effect for all land not subject to the transfer or receipt of Stewardship Credits, except
as provided for in Group 5 Policies. No part of the Stewardship Credit System shall be imposed
upon a property owner without that owners owner’s consent.
Policy 1.6:
Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within the RLSA that are to be kept in
permanent agriculture, open space or conservation uses. These lands will be identified as
Stewardship Sending Areas or SSAs. All privately owned lands within the RLSA are a candidate
for designation as a SSA. Land becomes designated as a SSA upon petition by the property
owner seeking such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of
County Commissioners (BCC), which acknowledges the property owner’s request for such
designation and assigns Stewardship Credits or other compensation to the owner for such
designation. Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each
approved SSA. Designation as an SSA shall be administrative and shall not require an
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 3 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
amendment to the Growth Management Plan, but shall be retroactively incorporated into the
adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment process when it periodically occurs by
amendment as may be periodically initiated by the County, or sooner at the discretion of the Board
of County Commissioners. A Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall be developed
that identifies those allowable residential densities and other land uses which remain. Once land
is designated as a SSA and Credits or other compensation is granted to the owner, no increase
in density or additional uses unspecified in the Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall
be allowed on such property unless the SSA is terminated as provided in Policy 1.6.1.
Policy 1.6.1
Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, upon initial approval of a Stewardship
Sending Area (“SSA”), the Stewardship Easement shall be established for a term of five years
(“Conditional Period”) and shall be deemed a Conditional Stewardship Easement. The
Conditional Period may be extended for one additional year at the option of the owner by providing
written notice to the County prior to the expiration of the initial five-year period. All conditions and
restrictions of the Stewardship Easement related to maintaining the existing property conditions,
including all management obligations of the owner of the SSA lands, shall be in full force
throughout the Conditional Period. If at any time during the Conditional Period any of the following
events occur, then the Conditional Stewardship Easement shall become a Permanent
Stewardship Easement which shall be final, perpetual and non-revocable in accordance with the
terms set forth therein:
1. Stewardship Credits from the SSA have been assigned to entitle an approved
Stewardship Receiving Area (“SRA”), and the SRA has received all necessary final and
non-appealable development orders, permits, or other discretionary approvals necessary
to commence construction, including subdivision plat and site development plan
approval, but not building permits. If Stewardship Credits from the SSA have been
assigned to more than one SRA, then the receipt of all necessary governmental final and
non-appealable development orders, permits, or other discretionary approvals necessary
to commence construction of any SRA shall automatically cause the Conditional
Stewardship Easement to become a Permanent Stewardship Easement;
2. The owner of the SSA lands has sold or transferred any Stewardship Credits to another
person or entity, including a Stewardship Credit Trust as described in Policy 1.20, the
closing has occurred, and the owner has received the consideration due from such sale
or transfer, but not expressly excluding:
(a) a sale or transfer of the Stewardship Credits ancillary to the sale or transfer of the
underlying fee title to the land, or
(b) instances where a landowner establishes an SSA for a specific SRA, whether the
SRA is owned or developed by a separate or related entity, and the Stewardship
Credits are transferred as required by the Growth Management Plan or Land
Development Code for SRA approval; or
3. The owner of the SSA lands has received in exchange for the creation of the Stewardship
Easement Agreement other compensation from local, state, federal or private revenues
(collectively, the “Events”).
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 4 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
The LDC shall specify how, assuming a Notice of Termination (as hereafter described)
has not been recorded, the Conditional Stewardship Easement shall automatically convert
to a Permanent Stewardship Easement upon the earliest to occur of (a) any of the
foregoing Events during the Conditional Period, or (b) 180 days after the last day of the
Conditional Period, as and to the extent extended hereunder. In the event that none of the
foregoing events has occurred during the Conditional Period, then the owner of the SSA
lands may within 180 days after the last day of the Conditional Period terminate the
Conditional Stewardship Easement by recording a Notice of Termination. In addition, if a
challenge and/or appeal of a necessary development order, permit or other discretionary
approval is filed, the owner of the SSA lands may elect to extend the Conditional Period
until the challenge or appeal is finally resolved. If the challenge or appeal is not resolved
such that the construction may commence under terms acceptable to the owner of the
SSA lands, the owner of the SSA lands may within 180 days of the final disposition of the
challenge or appeal record a Notice of Termination. Upon the recording of such Notice of
Termination, the Stewardship Easement Agreement and corresponding Stewardship
Sending Area Credit Agreement shall expire and terminate, the Stewardship Credits
generated by the SSA shall cease to exist, the rights and obligations set forth in the
Stewardship Easement shall no longer constitute an encumbrance on the property, and
the SSA Memorandum shall be revised accordingly. The owner of the SSA lands shall
provide a copy of the Notice of Termination to the County.
In the event that the Stewardship Credits from an SSA have been used to obtain one or
more SRA approvals, but none of the foregoing events has occurred during the
Conditional Period, then the Notice of Termination shall also provide for termination of any
SRAs that have been assigned credits from the SSA, unless the SRA owner has obtained
sufficient Stewardship Credits from another source and such Stewardship Credits have
been applied to the SRA. In the event that a Notice of Termination does terminate an SRA,
the owner of the SRA lands shall join in the Notice of Termination.
In the event that a Conditional Stewardship Easement is terminated, all benefits, rights,
privileges, restrictions and obligations associated with the SSA shall be null and void, and
the land shall revert to its underlying zoning classification, free and clear of any
encumbrance from the Conditional Stewardship Easement and SSA Credit Agreement. If
requested by the owner of the SSA lands, Collier County and the other grantees under
the Stewardship Easement Agreement shall provide a written release and termination of
easement and credit agreements for recording in the public records within 15 days of
request from the owner of the SSA lands. Collier County shall update the overlay map to
reflect the termination of any SSA or SRA.
This policy shall be implemented in the LDC within 12 months after adoption hereof.
For SSAs approved prior to this Policy 1.6.1 being adopted but have not changed
ownership in whole or part since the creation of the SSA and have not transferred, sold
or utilized Credits generated from the SSA, the property owner may withdraw the SSA
designation provided an application for such withdrawal is implemented within 6 months
of the adoption of this Policy 1.6.1.
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 5 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
Policy 1.7:
The range of Stewardship Credit Values is hereby established using the specific methodology set
forth on the Stewardship Credit Worksheet (Worksheet), incorporated herein as Attachment A.
This methodology and related procedures for SSA designation will also be adopted as part of the
Stewardship Overlay District in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). Such
procedures shall include but not be limited to the following: (1) All Credit transfers shall be
recorded with the Collier County Clerk of Courts; (2) a covenant or perpetual restrictive easement
shall also be recorded for each SSA, shall run with the land and shall be in favor of Collier County,
and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and one of the following: Department of
Environmental Protection, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, South Florida
Water Management District, or a recognized statewide land trust; and (3) for each SSA, the
Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement will identify the specific land management measures
that will be undertaken and the party responsible for such measures.
Policy 1.8:
The natural resource value of land within the RLSA is measured by the Stewardship Natural
Resource Index (Index) set forth on the Worksheet. The Index established the relative natural
resource value by objectively measuring six different characteristics of land and assigning an
index factor based on each characteristic. The sum of these six factors is the index value for the
land. Both the characteristics used and the factors assigned thereto were established after review
and analysis of detailed information about the natural resource attributes of land within the RLSA
so that development could be directed away from important natural resources. The six
characteristics measured are: Stewardship Overlay Designation, Sending Area Proximity, Listed
Species Habitat, Soils/Surface Water, Restoration Potential, and Land Use/Land Cover.
Policy 1.9:
A Natural Resource Index Map Series (Index Map Series) indicates the Natural Resource
Stewardship Index value for all land within the RLSA. Credits from any lands designated as SSAs,
will be based upon the Natural Resource Index values in effect at the time of designation. Any
change in the Characteristics of land due to alteration of the land prior to the establishment of a
SSA that either increases or decreases any Index Factor will result in an adjustment of the factor
values and a corresponding adjustment in the credit value. The Index and the Index Map Series
are adopted as a part of the RLSA Overlay.
Policy 1.10:
In SSAs, the greater the number of uses eliminated from the property, and the higher the natural
resource value of the land, the higher the priority for protection, the greater the level of Credits
that are generated from such lands, and therefore the greater the incentive to participate in the
Stewardship Credit System and protect the natural resources of the land.
Policy 1.11:
The Land Use Matrix, Attachment B, lists uses and activities allowed under the A, Rural
Agricultural Zoning District within the Overlay. These uses are grouped together in one of eight
separate layers in the Matrix. Each layer is discrete and shall be removed sequentially and
cumulatively in the order presented in the Matrix, starting with the residential layer (layer one) and
ending with the conservation layer (layer eight). If a layer is removed, all uses and activities in
that layer are eliminated and are no longer available. Each layer is assigned a percentage of a
base credit in the Worksheet. The assigned percentage for each layer to be removed is added
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 6 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
together and then multiplied by the Index value on a per acre basis to arrive at a total Stewardship
Credit Value of the land being designated as a SSA.
Policy 1.12:
Credits can be transferred only to lands within the RLSA that meet the defined suitability criteria
and standards set forth in Group 4 Policies. Such lands shall be known as Stewardship Receiving
Areas or SRAs.
Policy 1.13:
The procedures for the establishment and transfer of Credits and SRA designation are set forth
herein and will also be adopted as a are part of athe Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning
Overlay District in the LDC (District) LDRs creating the District will be adopted within one (1) year
from the effective date of this Plan amendment.
Policy 1.14:
Stewardship Credits will be exchanged for additional residential or non-residential entitlements in
a SRA on a per acre basis, as described in Policy 4.18 4.19. Stewardship density and intensity
will thereafter differ from the Baseline Standards. The assignment or use of Stewardship Credits
shall not require a GMP Amendment.
Policy 1.15:
Land becomes designated as an SRA upon the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County
Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approving the petition by the property owner seeking such
designation. Any change in the residential density or non-residential intensity of land use on a
parcel of land located within a SRA shall be specified in the resolution reflecting the total number
of transferable Credits assigned to the parcel of land. Density and intensity within the RLSA or
within an SRA shall not be increased beyond the Baseline Standards except through the
provisions of the Stewardship Credit System, the Affordable Housing Density Bonus as
referenced in the Density Rating System of the FLUE, and the density and intensity blending
provision of the Immokalee Area Master Plan.
Policy 1.16:
Stewardship Receiving Areas will accommodate uses that utilize creative land use planning
techniques and Credits shall be used to facilitate the implementation of innovative and flexible
development strategies described in Section 163.3168(2)163.3248, Florida Statutes.
Policy 1.17:
Stewardship Credits may be transferred between different parcels or within a single parcel,
subject to compliance with all applicable provisions of these policies. Residential clustering shall
only occur within the RLSA through the use of the Stewardship Credit System, and other forms of
residential clustering shall not be permitted.
Policy 1.18:
A blend of Local, State, Federal and private revenues, such as but not limited to Florida Forever,
Federal and State conservation and stewardship programs, foundation grants, private
conservation organizations, local option taxes, general county revenues, and other monies can
augment the Stewardship program through the acquisition of conservation easements, Credits,
or land that is identified as the highest priority for natural resource protection, including, but is not
limited to, areas identified on the Overlay Map as Flow way Stewardship Areas (FSAs), Habitat
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 7 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
Stewardship Areas (HSAs), Water Retention Areas (WRAs) and land within the Big Cypress Area
of Critical State Concern (ACSC).
Policy 1.19:
All local land or easement acquisition programs that are intended to work within the RLSA Overlay
shall be based upon a willing participant/seller approach. It is not the intent of Collier County to
use eminent domain acquisition within this system.
Policy 1.20:
The County may elect to acquire Credits through a publicly funded program, using sources
identified in Policy 1.18. Should the County pursue this option, it shall establish a Stewardship
Credit Trust to receive and hold Credits until such time as they are sold, transferred or otherwise
used to implement uses within Stewardship Receiving Areas.
Policy 1.21:
The incentive based Stewardship Credit system relies on the projected demand for Credits As the
primary basis for permanent protection of flowways, habitats and water retention areas. The
County recognizes that there may be a lack of significant demand for Credits in the early years of
implementation, and also recognizes that a public benefit would be realized by the early
designation of SSAs. To address this issue and to promote the protection of natural resources,
the implementation of the Overlay will include an early entry bonus to encourage the voluntary
establishment of SSAs within the RLSA. The bonus shall be in the form of an additional one
Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as a HSA located outside of the ACSC and one-
half Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as HSA located inside the ACSC. The early
entry bonus shall be available for five years from the effective date of the adoption of the
Stewardship Credit System in the LDC. The early designation of SSAs, and resulting protection
of flowways, habitats, and Water retention areas does not require the establishment of SRAs or
otherwise require the early use of Credits, and Credits generated under the early entry bonus may
be used after the termination of the bonus period. The maximum number of Credits that can be
generated under the bonus is 27,000 Credits, and such Credits shall not be transferred into or
used within the ACSC.
Policy 1.22 1.21:
The RLSA Overlay was designed to be a long-term strategic plan. with a planning horizon Year of
2025. Many of the tools, techniques and strategies of the Overlay are new, Innovative, and
incentive based., and have yet to be tested in actual implementation. A Comprehensive review
of the Overlay shall be prepared for and reviewed by Collier County every seven (7) years
beginning [date of adoption of this Ordinance]. and the State land planning agency (presently, the
Department of Economic Opportunity) upon the five-year anniversary of the adoption of the
Stewardship District in the LDC. The purpose of the review shall be to assess the participation in
and effectiveness of the Overlay implementation in meeting the Goal, Objective and Policies set
forth herein. The specific measures of review shall be as follows:
1. The amount and location of land designated as FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and other SSAs.
2. The amount and location of land designated as SRAs.
3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated, assigned or held for future use.
4. A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at the time
of a Study and time of review.
5. The amount, location and type of land converted to non-agricultural use with and
without participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption.
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 8 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
6. The extent and use of funding provided by Collier County and other sources Local,
State, Federal and private revenues described in Policy 1.18.
7. The amount, location and type of restoration through participation in the Stewardship
Credit System since its adoption.
8. The potential for use of Credits in urban areas.
At the direction of the Board of County Commissioners, additional review measures may
be considered.
Policy 1.22
The total number of Stewardship Credit shall be capped at 404,000 to entitle no more than
45,000 acres of Stewardship Receiving Areas. Generating Stewardship Credits does not
presume approval of Stewardship Receiving Areas.
Group 2 – Policies to protect agricultural lands from premature conversion to other uses
and retain land for agricultural activities through the use of established incentives in order
to continue the viability of agricultural production through the Collier County Rural Lands
Stewardship Area Overlay.
Policy 2.1:
Agriculturale landowners will be provided with lands will be protected from premature conversion
to other uses by creating incentives that encourage the voluntary elimination of the property
owner’s right to convert agriculture land to non-agricultural uses in exchange for compensation
as described in Policiesy 1.4 and 2.2 and by the establishment of SRAs. as the form of compact
rural development in the RLSA Overlay. Analysis has shown that SRAs will allow the projected
population of the RLSA in the Horizon year of 2025 to be accommodated on approximately 10%
of the acreage otherwise required if such compact rural development were not allowed due to the
flexibility afforded to such development. The combination of stewardship incentives and land
efficient compact rural development will minimize two of the primary market factors that cause
premature conversion of agriculture.
Policy 2.2:
Agriculture lands protected through the use of Stewardship Credits shall be designated as
Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) as described in Policy 1.6. The protection measures for SSAs
are set forth in Policies 1.6, 1.7, 1.10 and 1.17. In addition to protecting agriculture activities in
SSAs within FSA, HSA, and WRA, as further described in Policies 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, additional
incentives are desired to retain agriculture within Open Lands as an alternative to conversion of
such lands to other uses, using Baseline Standards as described in Policy 1.5. Open Lands are
those lands not designated SSA, SRA, WRA, HSA, FSA, or public lands on the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area Overlay Map. Open Lands are those lands described in Policy 4.2. Therefore,
in lieu of using the Natural Resource Index on land designated Open Lands, these lands shall be
assigned two (2.0) Stewardship Credits per acre. All non-agriculture uses shall be removed from
Open Lands and the remaining uses are limited to agriculture Land Use Levels 5, 6 and 7 on the
Land Use Matrix. Each layer is discrete and shall be removed sequentially and cumulatively in
the order presented in the Matrix. If a layer is removed, all uses and activities in that layer are
eliminated and no longer available. SSA’s created under this Policy will be known as an
Agricultural SSA. Following approval of an Agricultural SSA, Collier County shall periodically
update the RLSA Zoning Overlay District Map to delineate the boundaries of the Agricultural SSA.
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 9 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
Policy 2.3:
Within one (1) year from the effective date of these amendments, Collier County will may establish
an Agriculture Advisory Council comprised of not less than five nor more than nine appointed
representatives of the agriculture industry, to advise the BCC on matters relating to Agriculture.
The Agriculture Advisory Council (AAC) will work to identify opportunities and prepare strategies
to enhance and promote the continuance, expansion and diversification of agriculture in Collier
County. The AAC will also identify barriers to the continuance, expansion and diversification of
the agricultural industry and will prepare recommendations to eliminate or minimize such barriers
in Collier County. The AAC will also assess whether exceptions from standards for business uses
related to agriculture should be allowed under an administrative permit process and make
recommendations to the BCC.
Policy 2.4:
The BCC will consider the recommendations of the AAC and facilitate the implementation of
strategies and recommendations identified by the ACC that are determined to be appropriate.
The BCC may adopt amendments to the LDC that implement policies that support agriculture
activities.
Policy 2.5:
Agriculture is an important aspect of Collier County’s quality of life and economic well-being.
Agricultural activities shall be protected from duplicative regulation as provided by the Florida
Right-to-Farm Act.
Policy 2.6:
Notwithstanding the special provisions of Policies 3.9 and 3.10, nothing herein or in the
implementing LDRs, shall restrict lawful agricultural activities on lands within the RLSA that have
not been placed into the Stewardship program.
Group 3 – Policies to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water
regime, as well as listed animal and plant species and their habitats by directing
incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat through the establishment of
Flow way Stewardship Areas, Habitat Stewardship Areas, and Water Retention Areas,
where lands are voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area program.
Policy 3.1:
Protection of water quality and quantity, and the maintenance of the natural water regime shall
occur through the establishment of Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs), as SSAs within the RLSA
Overlay. FSAs are delineated on the Overlay Map and contain approximately 31,100 30,869
acres. FSAs are primarily privately owned wetlands that are located within the Camp Keais Strand
and Okaloacoochee Slough. These lands form the primary wetland flowway systems in the RLSA.
The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect FSAs by the creation and transfer of
Credits, elimination of incompatible uses, and establishment of protection measures described in
Group 1 Policies. Not all lands within the delineated FSAs are comparable in terms of their natural
resource value; therefore the index shall be used to differentiate higher value from lower value
lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation. Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that
FSA lands score within a range of 0.7 to 2.4; approximately 96% score greater than 1.2 while 4%
score 1.2 or less. The average Index score of FSA land is 1.8.
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 10 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
Policy 3.2:
Listed animal and plant species and their habitats shall be protected through the establishment
of Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. HSAs are delineated
on the Overlay Map and contain approximately 40,000 39,991 acres. HSAs are privately owned
agricultural areas, which include both areas with natural characteristics that make them suitable
habitat for listed species and areas without these characteristics. These latter areas are included
because they are located contiguous to habitat to help form a continuum of landscape that can
augment habitat values. The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect HSAs by the
creation and transfer of Credits, resulting in the elimination of incompatible uses and the
establishment of protection measures described in Group 1 Policies. Not all lands within the
delineated HSAs are comparable in terms of their habitat value; therefore, the index shall be used
to differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation.
Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that HSA lands score within a range of 0.6 to 2.2. There
are approximately 13,800 15,156 acres of cleared agricultural fields located in HSAs. The
average Index score of HAS HSA designated lands is 1.3, however, the average index score of
the naturally vegetated areas within HSAs is 1.5.
Policy 3.3:
Further protection for surface water quality and quantity shall be through the establishment of
Water Retention Areas (WRAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. WRAs are delineated on the
Overlay Map and contain approximately 18,200 18,428 acres. WRAs are privately owned lands
that have been permitted by the South Florida Water Management District to function as
agricultural water retention areas. In many instances, these WRAs consist of native wetland or
upland vegetation; in other cases they are excavated water bodies or may contain exotic
vegetation. The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect WRAs by the creation and
transfer of Credits, elimination of incompatible uses, and establishment of protection measures
described in Group 1 Policies. Not all lands within the delineated WRAs are comparable in terms
of their natural resource value; therefore the index shall be used to differentiate higher value from
lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation. Analysis of the Index Map Series
shows that WRA lands score within a range of 0.6 to 2.4; approximately 74% score greater than
1.2 while 26% score 1.2 or less. The average Index score of WRA land is 1.5.
Policy 3.4:
Public and private conservation areas exist in the RLSA and serve to protect natural resources.
Corkscrew Marsh and Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest include approximately 13,500 acres.
Analysis shows that they score within an Index range of 0.0 to 2.2; with an average Index score
of 1.5. Because these existing public areas, and any private conservation areas, are already
protected, they are not delineated as SSAs and are not eligible to generate Credits, but do serve
an important role in meeting the Goal of the RLSA.
Policy 3.5:
Residential uses, General Conditional uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational
Uses (layers 1-4) as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in FSAs in exchange for compensation
to the property owner as described in Policy 3.8. Conditional use essential services and
governmental essential services, other than those necessary to serve permitted uses or for public
safety, shall only be allowed in FSAs with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or
less. Where practicable, directional-drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 11 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
areas shall be utilized for oil and gas extraction in FSAs in order to minimize impacts to native
habitats. Other layers may also be eliminated at the election of the property owner in exchange
for compensation. The elimination of the Earth Mining layer shall not preclude the excavation of
lakes or other water bodies if such use is an integral part of a restoration or mitigation program
within a FSA.
Policy 3.6:
Residential Land Uses listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in Habitat Stewardship Sending
Areas in exchange for compensation to the property owner as described in Policy 3.8. Other
layers may also be eliminated at the election of the property owner in exchange for compensation.
Policy 3.7:
General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses shall be
allowed only on HSA lands with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less.
Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, other than those
necessary to serve permitted uses or for public safety, shall only be allowed in HSAs with a Natural
Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less. Asphaltic and concrete batch making plants
are prohibited in all HSAs. Where practicable, directional-drilling techniques and/or previously
cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil and gas Extraction in HSAs in order to minimize
impacts to native habitats. In addition to the requirements imposed in the LDC for approval of a
Conditional Use, such uses will only be approved upon submittal of an EIS Environmental Data
which demonstrates that clearing of native vegetation has been minimized, the use will not
significantly and adversely impact listed species and their habitats and the use will not significantly
and adversely impact aquifers. As an alternative to the foregoing, the applicant may demonstrate
that such use is an integral part of an approved restoration or mitigation program. Golf Course
design, construction, and operation in any HSA shall comply with the best management practices
of Audubon International’s Gold Program Cooperative Sanctuary Program (ASCP) for Golf and
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Compliance with the following standards
shall be considered by Collier County as meeting the requirement for minimization of impact:
• Clearing of native vegetation shall not exceed 15% of the native vegetation on the
parcel.
• Areas previously cleared shall be used preferentially to native vegetated areas.
• Buffering to Conservation Land shall comply with Policy 4.13.
Policy 3.8:
Compensation to the property owner may occur through one or more of the following
mechanisms: creation and transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition of conservation
easements, acquisition of less than fee interest in the land, or through other acquisition of land or
interest in land through a willing seller program.
Policy 3.9:
1. Agriculture will continue to be a permitted use and its supporting activities will continue to
be permitted as conditional uses within FSAs and HSAs, pursuant to the Agriculture Group
classifications described in the Matrix. The Ag 1 group includes row crops, citrus, specialty
farms, horticulture, plant nurseries, improved pastures for grazing and ranching,
aquaculture and similar activities, including related agricultural support uses. In existing
Ag 1 areas within FSAs and HSAs, all such activities are permitted to continue, and may
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 12 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
convert from one type of Agriculture to another and expand to the limits allowed by
applicable permits. Once the Stewardship Credit System is utilized and an owner receives
compensation as previously described, no further expansion of Ag 1 will be allowed in
FSAs and HSAs beyond existing or permitted limits within property subject to a credit
transfer, except for incidental clearing as set forth in Paragraph 2 below.
2. In order to encourage viable Ag 1 activities, and to accommodate the ability to convert
from one Ag 1 use to another, incidental clearing is allowed to join existing Ag 1 areas,
square up existing farm fields, or provide access to or from other Ag 1 areas, provided that
the Ag 1 Land Use Layer has been retained on the areas to be incidentally cleared,
and the Natural Resource Index Value score has been adjusted to reflect the proposed
change in land cover. Incidental clearing is defined as clearing that meets the above
criteria and is limited to 1% of the area of the SSA. In the event said incidental clearing
impacts lands having a Natural Resource Index Value in excess of 1.2, appropriate
mitigation shall be provided.
Policy 3.10:
Ag 2 includes unimproved pastures for grazing and ranching, forestry and similar activities,
including related agricultural support uses. In existing Ag 2 areas within FSAs and HSAs, such
activities are permitted to continue, and may convert from one type of Agriculture to another and
expand to the limits allowed by applicable permits. Once the Stewardship Credit System is utilized
and an owner receives compensation as previously described, no further expansion of Ag 2 or
conversion of Ag 2 to Ag 1 will be allowed in FSAs or HSAs beyond existing or permitted limits
within property subject to a credit transfer.
Policy 3.11:
1. In certain locations there may be the opportunity for flow-way or habitat restoration.
Examples include, but are not limited to, locations where flow-ways have been
constricted or otherwise impeded by past activities, or where additional land is
needed to enhance wildlife corridors. Priority shall be given to restoration within
the Camp Keais Strand FSA or contiguous HSAs. Should a property owner be
willing to dedicate designate land for restoration activities within a FSA or HSA the
Camp Keais Strand FSA or contiguous HSAs, four one additional Stewardship
Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated. An additional two
Stewardship credits shall be assigned for each acre of land dedicated for
restoration activities within other FSAs and HSAs. The actual implementation of
restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive such credits and
the costs of restoration shall be borne by the governmental agency or private entity
undertaking the restoration. Should an owner also complete restoration
improvements, this shall be rewarded with four additional Credits for each acre of
restored land upon demonstration that the restoration met applicable success
criteria, as defined in the Land Development Code as determined by the permit
agency authorizing said restoration. The additional Credits shall be rewarded for either
caracara restoration at 2 Credits per acre, or for exotic control/burning at 5 Credits per
acres, or for flow way restoration at 5 Credits per acre, or for native habitat restoration at
7 Credits per acre. Within the area proposed for restoration, Land Use Layers 1-6 must
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 13 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
be removed. The specific process for assignment of additional restoration Credits shall be
included in the Stewardship District of the LDC.
2. In certain locations, as generally illustrated in the RLSA Overlay Map, there may be
opportunities to create, restore, and enhance a northern panther corridor connection and a
southern panther corridor connection. Should a property owner in a federally approved
corridor designate the required property for such corridor, 2 Stewardship Credits shall be
assigned for each acre of land so designated. Should an owner also complete panther
corridor restoration improvements, this shall be rewarded with four 8 additional Credits for
each acre of restored land upon demonstration that the restoration met applicable success
criteria as determined by the federal permit agency authorizing said restoration. Issuance
of the 8 restoration implementation credits may be phased to coincide with a phased
implementation process in accordance with the federal permit. The procedures shall be set
forth in the LDC
3. In order to address a significant loss in Southwest Florida of seasonal, shallow wetland
wading bird foraging habitat, restoration of these unique habitats will be incentivized in the
RLSAO. Designation of any area inside an FSA, HSA, or WRA for such seasonal wetland
restoration shall be rewarded with 2 additional Credits per acre. Should the landowner
successfully complete the restoration, an additional 8 Credits per acre shall be awarded
upon demonstration that the restoration met applicable success criteria as determined by
the permit agency authorizing said restoration.
4. Only one type of restoration shall be rewarded with these Credits for each acre designated
for restoration and in no case shall more than 10 Credits be awarded per acre.
This Policy does not preclude other forms of compensation for restoration which may be
addressed through public-private partnership agreement such as a developer contribution
agreement or stewardship agreement between the parties involved. Also not precluded are
various private and publicly funded restoration programs such as the federal Farm Bill
conservation programs. The specific process for assignment of additional restoration credits shall
be included in the Stewardship District of the LDC.
Policy 3.12:
Based on the data and analysis of the Study, FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and existing public/private
conservation land include the land appropriate and necessary to accomplish the Goal pertaining
to natural resource protection. To further direct other uses away from and to provide additional
incentive for the protection, enhancement and restoration of the Okaloacoochee Slough and
Camp Keais Strand, all land within 500 feet of the delineated FSAs that comprise the Slough or
Strand that is not otherwise included in a HSA or WRA shall receive the same natural index score
(0.6) that a HSA receives if such property is designated as a SSA and retains only agricultural,
recreational and/or conservation layers within the matrix.
Policy 3.13:
Water Retention Areas (WRAs) as generally depicted on the Overlay Map have been permitted
for this purpose and will continue to function for surface water retention, detention, treatment
and/or conveyance, in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)
permits applicable to each WRA. WRAs can also be permitted to provide such functions for new
uses of land allowed within the Overlay. WRAs may be incorporated into a SRA master plan to
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 14 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
provide water management functions for properties within such SRA, but are not required to be
designated as a SRA in such instances. However, if all or part of a WRA provides stormwater
quality treatment for a SRA, the prorata acreage of the WRA used to meet the water quality
treatment volume required per Section 4.2 of the SFWMD Environmental Resource Permit
Applicant’s Handbook Volume II shall be included in the SRA credit calculation and the calculation
of total SRA acreage. WRA boundaries are understood to be approximate and are subject to
refinement in accordance with SFWMD permitting.
Policy 3.14:
During permitting to serve new uses, additions and modifications to WRAs may be required or
desired, including but not limited to changes to control elevations, discharge rates, storm water
pre-treatment, grading, excavation or fill. Such additions and modifications shall be allowed
subject to review and approval by the SFWMD in accordance with best management practices.
Such additions and modifications to WRAs shall be designed to ensure that there is no net loss
of habitat function within the WRAs unless there is compensating mitigation or restoration in other
areas of the Overlay that will provide comparable habitat function. Compensating mitigation or
restoration for an impact to a WRA contiguous to the Camp Keais Strand or Okaloacoochee
Slough shall be provided within or contiguous to that Strand or Slough.
Policy 3.15
Any development on lands participating in the RLSA Overlay shall be compatible with surrounding
land uses. By [1 year of the date of adoption of the ordinance], LDC regulations shall be initiated
for outdoor lighting to protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy, and enhance safety
and security.
Group 4 ‒ Policies to enable conversion of rural lands to other uses in appropriate
locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes
creative land use planning techniques by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving
Areas.
Policy 4.1:
Collier County will encourage and facilitate uses that enable economic prosperity and
diversification of the economic base of the RLSA. Collier County will also encourage development
that utilizes creative land use planning techniques and facilitates a compact form of development
to accommodate population growth by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs).
Incentives to encourage and support the diversification and vitality of the rural economy such as
flexible development regulations, expedited permitting review, and targeted capital improvements
shall be incorporated into the LDC Stewardship District.
Policy 4.2:
All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible for
designation as a SRA, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been
designated as a Stewardship Sending Area. The exception, consistent with Policy 3.13, is when
a WRA provides stormwater quality treatment for an SRA, then the acreage of the WRA used for
stormwater quality treatment for the SRA shall be included in the SRA. Land proposed for SRA
designation shall meet the suitability criteria and other standards described in Group 4 Policies.
Due to the long-term vision of the RLSA Overlay, extending to a horizon year of 2025, and in
accordance with the guidelines established in Section 163.3168(2)163.3248, Florida Statutes, the
specific location, size and composition of each SRA cannot and need not be predetermined in the
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 15 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
GMP. In the RLSA Overlay, lands that are eligible to be designated as SRAs generally have
similar physical attributes as they consist predominately of agriculture lands which have been
cleared or otherwise altered for this purpose. Lands shown on the Overlay Map as eligible for
SRA designation include approximately 74,500 72,000 acres outside of the ACSC and
approximately 18,300 15,000 acres within the ACSC. Total SRA designation shall be a maximum
of 45,000 acres. Approximately 2% of these lands achieve an Index score greater than 1.2.
Because the Overlay requires SRAs to be compact, mixed-use and self sufficient in the
provision of services, facilities and infrastructure, traditional locational standards normally
applied to determine development suitability are not relevant or applicable to SRAs. Therefore
the process for designating a SRA follows the principles of the Rural Lands Stewardship Act as
further described procedures set forth herein and the adopted RLSA Zoning Overlay District.
Policy 4.3:
Land becomes designated as a SRA upon petition by a property owner to Collier County seeking
such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the BCC granting the designation. The
petition shall include a SRA master plan as described in Policy 4.5. The basis for approval shall
be a finding of consistency with the policies of the Overlay, including required suitability criteria
set forth herein, compliance with the LDC Stewardship District, and assurance that the applicant
has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement the SRA uses. The
County has adopted LDC amendments to establish the procedures and submittal requirements
for designation as a SRA, providing for consideration of impacts, including environmental and
public infrastructure impacts, and for public notice of and the opportunity for public participation
in any consideration by the BCC of such a designation.
Policy 4.4:
Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved SRA.
Such updates shall be incorporated into the adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based by
amendment process when it periodically initiated by the County occurs, or sooner at the discretion
of the Board of County Commissioners.
Policy 4.5:
To address the specifics of each SRA, a master plan of each SRA will be prepared and submitted
to Collier County as a part of the petition for designation as a SRA. The master plan will
demonstrate that the SRA complies with all applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC
Stewardship District and is designed so that incompatible land uses are directed away from
wetlands and critical habitat identified as FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map. The SRA Master
Plan shall comply with the County’s then-adopted MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP),
and Access Management procedures.
Each SRA master plan shall include a Management Plan with provisions for minimizing human
and wildlife interactions. Low intensity land uses (e.g. passive recreation areas, golf courses) and
vegetation preservation requirements, including agriculture, shall be used to establish buffer
areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated by human activities. Consideration
shall be given to the most current Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission guidelines and regulations
on techniques to reduce human wildlife conflict. The management plans shall also require the
dissemination of information to local residents, businesses and governmental services about the
presence of wildlife and practices that enable responsible coexistence with wildlife, while
minimizing opportunities for negative interaction, such as appropriate waste disposal practices.
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 16 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
Policy 4.6:
SRA characteristics shall be based upon innovative planning and development strategies
referenced in Section 163.3168(2)163.3248, Florida Statutes. These planning strategies and
techniques include urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations,
clustering and open space provisions, and mixed-use development that allow the conversion of
rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting environmentally sensitive areas,
maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and
providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services. The SRA shall also include
a mobility plan that includes vehicular, bicycle/pedestrian, public transit, internal circulators, and
other modes of travel/movement within and between SRAs and areas of outside development
and land uses. The mobility plan shall provide mobility strategies such as bus subsidies, route
sponsorship or other incentives which encourage the use of mass transit services. The
development of SRAs shall also consider the needs identified in the MPO Long Range
Transportation Needs Plan, and plan land uses to accommodate services that would increase
internal capture and reduce trip length and long-distance travel. Such development strategies are
recognized as methods of discouraging urban sprawl, encouraging alternative modes of
transportation, increasing internal capture and reducing vehicle miles traveled.
Policy 4.7:
There are four three specific forms of SRA permitted within the Overlay. These are Towns,
Villages, Hamlets, and Compact Rural Development (CRD). The Characteristics of Towns,
Villages, Hamlets, and CRD are set forth in Attachment C and are generally described in Policies
4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3 and 4.7.4. Collier County shall establish more sSpecific regulations,
guidelines and standards within the LDC Stewardship District to guide the design and
development of SRAs to include innovative planning and development strategies as set forth in
Section 163.3168(2)163.3248, Florida Statutes. The size and base density of each form shall be
consistent with the standards set forth on Attachment C. The maximum base residential density
as set forth in Attachment C may only be exceeded through the density blending process as set
forth in density and intensity blending provision of the Immokalee Area Master Plan or through
the affordable housing density bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of the Future
Land Use Element. The base residential density is calculated by dividing the total number of
residential units in a SRA by the overall area therein. The base residential density does not restrict
net residential density of parcels within a SRA. The location, size and density of each SRA will
be determined on an individual basis during the SRA designation review and approval process.
Policy 4.7.1:
Towns are the largest and most diverse form of SRA, with a full range of housing types and mix
of uses. Towns have urban level services and infrastructure that support development that is
compact, mixed use, human scale, and provides a balance of land uses to reduce automobile
trips and increase livability. Towns shall be not less than 1,000 greater than 1,500 acres and up
to or more than 4,000 5,000 acres and are comprised of several villages and/or neighborhoods
that have individual identity and character. Towns shall have a mixed-use town center that will
serve as a focal point for community facilities and support services. Towns shall be designed to
encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and
pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Towns shall include an internal mobility
plan, which shall include a transfer station or park and ride area that is appropriately located within
the town to serve the connection point for internal and external public transportation. Towns shall
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 17 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
have at least one community park with a minimum size of 200 square feet per dwelling unit in the
Town, subject to Level of Service requirements.
Towns shall also have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Towns shall include
both community and neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided described
in Policy 4.15 4.15.1. Towns may also include those compatible corporate office, research,
development companies, and light industrial uses such as those permitted in the Business Park
and Research and Technology Park Subdistricts of the FLUE and those included in Policy 4.7.4.
Towns shall be the preferred location for the full range of schools, and to the extent possible,
schools and parks shall be located abutting each other to allow for the sharing of recreational
facilities and as provided in Policies 4.15.2 and 4.15.3. Design criteria for Towns shall be are
included in the LDC Stewardship District. Towns shall not be located within the ACSC.
Policy 4.7.2:
Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses
appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be not less than 100
300 acres and up to or more than 1,000 acres inside the Area of Critical State Concern and up to
1,500 acres outside the Area of Critical State Concern. Villages are comprised of residential
neighborhoods and shall include a mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for the
community’s support services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian
and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all
residential neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within
neighborhoods. Villages shall include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as
provided in Policy 4.15. Appropriately scaled uses described in Policy 4.7.3 4.7.3 shall also be
permitted in Villages. Villages are an appropriate location for a full range of schools. To the extent
possible, schools and parks shall be located adjacent to each other to allow for the sharing of
recreational facilities. Design criteria for Villages shall be are included in the LDC Stewardship
District. Villages greater than 500 acres shall include an internal mobility plan which shall include
a transfer station or park and ride area that is appropriately located within the village to serve the
connection point for internal and external public transportation.
Policy 4.7.3:
Hamlets are small rural residential areas with primarily single-family housing and limited range of
convenience-oriented services. Hamlets shall be not less than 40 or more than 100 acres.
Hamlets will serve as a more compact alternative to traditional five-acre lot rural subdivisions
currently allowed in the baseline standards. Hamlets shall have a public green space for
neighborhoods. Hamlets include convenience retail uses, in a ratio as provided in Attachment C.
Hamlets may be an appropriate location for pre-K through elementary schools. Design criteria
for Hamlets shall be included in the LDC Stewardship District. To maintain a proportion of Hamlets
to Villages and Towns, not more than 5 Hamlets, in combination with CRDs of 100 acres or less,
may be approved as SRAs prior to the approval of a Village or Town, and thereafter not more than
5 additional Hamlets, in combination with CRDs of 100 acres or less, may be approved for each
subsequent Village or Town.
Policy 4.7.4 4.7.3:
Compact Rural Development (CRD) is a form of SRA that will provide flexibility with respect to the
mix of uses and design standards, but shall otherwise comply with the standards of a Hamlet or
Village. shall support and further Collier County’s valued attributes of agriculture, natural
resources and economic diversity. CRDs shall demonstrate a unique set of uses and support
services necessary to further these attributes within the RLSA. Primary CRD uses shall be those
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 18 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
associated with and needed to support research, education, convenience retail, tourism or
recreation. A CRD may include, but is not required to have permanent residential housing and
the services and facilities that support permanent residents. and the services that support
permanent residents. The number of residential units shall be equivalent with the demand
generated by the primary CRD use but shall not exceed the maximum of two units per gross acre.
A CRD shall be a maximum size of 300 acres. An example of a CRD is an ecotourism village that
would have a unique set of uses and support services different from a traditional residential
village. It would contain transient lodging facilities and services appropriate to eco-tourists, but
may not provide for the range of services that necessary to support permanent residents. Except
as described above, a CRD will conform to the characteristics of a Village or Hamlet as set forth
on Attachment C based on the size of the CRD. As residential units are not a required use, those
goods and services that support residents such as retail, office, civic, governmental and
institutional uses shall also not be required, however for any CRD that does include permanent
residential housing, the proportionate support services listed above shall be provided in
accordance with Attachment C. To maintain a proportion of CRDs of 100 acres or less to Villages
and Towns, not more than 5 CRDs of 100 acres or less, in combination with Hamlets, may be
approved as SRAs prior to the approval of a Village or Town, and thereafter not more than 5
additional CRDs of 100 acres or less, in combination with Hamlets, may be approved for each
subsequent Village or Town. To maintain a proportion of CRDs of 300 acres or less to Villages
and Towns, not more than 5 CRDs of 300 acres or less may be approved as SRAs prior to the
approval of a Village or Town, and thereafter not more than 5 additional CRDs of 300 acres or
less may be approved prior to each subsequent Village or Town. There shall be no more than
5 CRDs of more than 100 acres in size. The appropriateness of this limitation shall be reviewed
in 5 years pursuant to Policy 1.22.
Policy 4.7.4
Existing urban areas, Towns and Villages shall be the preferred location for business and industry
within the RLSA, to further promote economic sustainability and development, diversification and
job creation. The business and industry use allowed includes, but is not limited to, those as
defined as Florida Qualified Target Industries. The appropriate scale and compatibility of these
uses within a Town or Village will be addressed during SRA application process.
Policy 4.7.5
To address the accommodation of Affordable Housing in a Town or Village, the SRA applicant
shall utilize one of the following options:
1) Affordable Housing Land Reservation
a) Reservation of one or more site(s) within the SRA or within a proximal SRA in the RLSAO
with densities and development standards that accommodate Affordable Housing
residential uses at a minimum density of 10 units per acre, for acquisition by either Collier
County, a Community Land Trust, a private developer or any other affordable housing
provider.
b) The aggregate acreage of such site(s) shall be equal to or greater than 2.5% of the gross
area of the SRA.
c) The acreage of land reserved for Affordable Housing will be considered as a Public Benefit
Use and not require the consumption of Stewardship Credits but shall be included in the
calculation of total SRA acreage.
d) The County shall verify the site(s) is/are appropriate and approve the site(s) at time of
SRA approval, subject to standards to be established in the LDC.
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 19 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
e) Affordable Housing units shall be excluded from the Traffic Impact Statement or trip cap
for the SRA in which they are located.
2) Alternatives proposed by the SRA Applicant
a) While compliance with the Land Reservation described above shall be deemed to satisfy
affordable housing requirements, other options may be proposed by the SRA applicant
and approved by the Board of County Commissioners to address housing affordability
issues in the subject SRA.
3) The process and procedures to implement this policy, including a definition to be used to
determine “proximal SRA” and specific guidelines and standards in those instances in which
alternative options may be proposed, shall be set forth in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlay Zoning District.
Policy 4.8:
An SRA may be contiguous to a FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall
buffer such areas as described in Policy 4.13. A SRA may be contiguous to and served by a WRA
without requiring the WRA to be designated as a SRA in accordance with Policy 3.12 and 3.13.
Policy 4.9:
A SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development in an
environmentally acceptable manner. The primary means of directing development away from
wetlands and critical habitat is the prohibition of locating SRAs in FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs unless
the WRA is being used to provide water quality treatment volume as referenced in Policy 3.13, in
which case the WRA shall retain its WRA Overlay classification and be included in the SRA
acreage total. To further direct development away from wetlands and critical habitat, residential;
commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional,
civic and community service uses within a SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural
Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. In addition, conditional use essential services and
governmental essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses
and for public safety, shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of
greater than 1.2. Infrastructure necessary to serve permitted uses may be exempt from this
restriction, provided that designs seek to minimize the extent of impacts to any such areas. The
Index value of greater than 1.2 represents those areas that have a high natural resource value as
measured pursuant to Policy 1.8. Less than 2% of potential SRA land achieves an Index score
of greater than 1.2.
Policy 4.10:
Within the RLSA Overlay, open space, which by definition shall include public and private
conservation lands, underdeveloped areas of designated SSAs, agriculture, water retention and
management areas and recreation uses, will continue to be the dominant land use. Therefore,
open space adequate to serve the forecasted population and uses within the SRA is provided. To
ensure that SRA residents have such areas proximate to their homes, open space shall also
comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, or
Village., or those CRDs exceeding 100 acres. Lands within a SRA greater than one acre with
Index values of greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space except for the allowance of uses
described in Policy 4.9. As an incentive to encourage open space, such uses within a SRA,
located outside of the ACSC, exceeding the required thirty-five percent shall not be required to
consume Stewardship Credits.
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 20 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
Policy 4.11:
The perimeter of each SRA shall be designed to provide a transition from higher density and
intensity uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property. The edges
of SRAs shall be well defined and designed to be compatible with the character of adjoining
property. Techniques such as, but not limited to setbacks, landscape buffers, and recreation/open
space placement may be used for this purpose. Where existing agricultural activity adjoins a
SRA, the design of the SRA must take this activity into account to allow for the continuation of the
agricultural activity and to minimize any conflict between agriculture and SRA uses.
Policy 4.12:
Where a SRA adjoins a FSA, HSA, WRA or existing public or private conservation land delineated
on the Overlay Map, best management and planning practices shall be applied to minimize
adverse impacts to such lands. SRA design shall demonstrate that ground water table draw down
or diversion will not adversely impact the adjacent FSA, HSA, WRA or conservation land.
Detention and control elevations shall be established to protect such natural areas and be
consistent with surrounding land and project control elevations and water tables.
Policy 4.13:
Open space within or contiguous to a SRA shall be used to provide a buffer between the SRA and
any adjoining FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay
Map. Open space contiguous to or within 300 feet of the boundary of a FSA, HSA, or existing
public or private conservation land may include: natural preserves, lakes, golf courses provided
no fairways or other turf areas are allowed within the first 200 feet, passive recreational areas and
parks, required yard and set-back areas, and other natural or man-made open space. Along the
west boundary of the FSAs and HSAs that comprise Camp Keais Strand, i.e., the area south of
Immokalee Road, this open space buffer shall be 500 feet wide and shall preclude golf course
fairways and other turf areas within the first 300 feet.
Policy 4.14:
The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access
via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed
development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. At the time of SRA
approval, an SRA proposed to adjoin land designated as an SRA or lands designated as Open
Lands shall provide for the opportunity to provide direct vehicular and pedestrian connections
from said areas to the County’s arterial/collector roadway network as shown on the MPO’s LRTP
Needs Plan so as to reduce travel time and travel expenses, improve interconnectivity, inc rease
internal capture, and keep the use of county arterial roads to a minimum when traveling between
developments in the RLSA.
Public and private roads within an SRA shall be maintained by the SRA it serves. Signalized
intersections within or adjacent to an SRA that serves the SRA shall be maintained by the SRA it
serves. No SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s)
serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in accordance with the Collier County
Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA designation. A transportation
impact assessment meeting the requirements of Section 2.7.3 of the LDC, or its successor
regulation shall be prepared for each proposed SRA to provide the necessary data and analysis.
To the extent required to mitigate an SRA’s traffic impacts, actions may be taken to include, but
shall not be limited to, provisions for the construction and/or permitting of wildlife crossings,
environmental mitigation credits, right of way dedication(s), water management and/or fill material
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 21 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
which may be needed to expand the existing or proposed roadway network. Any such actions to
offset traffic impacts shall be memorialized in a developer contribution agreement. These actions
shall be considered within the area of significant influence of the project traffic on existing or
proposed roadways.
Policy 4.15.1:
SRAs are intended to be mixed use and shall be allowed the full range of uses permitted by the
Urban Designation of the FLUE, as modified by Policies 4.7, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3, 4.7.4 and
Attachment C. An appropriate mix of retail, office, recreational, civic, governmental, and
institutional uses will be available to serve the daily needs and community wide needs of residents
of the RLSA. Depending on the size, scale, and character of a SRA, such uses may be provided
either within the specific SRA, within other SRAs in the RLSA or within the Immokalee Urban Area
provided the capacity of those adjoining area’s facilities as described in Attachment C to be
utilized by the newly created SRA can demonstrate sufficient capacity exists for their desired uses
per the standards of Attachment C.. By example, each Village or Town shall provide for
neighborhood retail/office uses to serve its population as well as appropriate civic and institutional
uses, however, the combined population of several Villages and Hamlets may be required to
support community scaled retail or office uses in a nearby Town. Standards for the minimum
amount of non-residential uses in each category are set forth in Attachment C, and shall be also
included in the Stewardship LDC District.
Policy 4.15.2:
The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) may, as a condition of approval and adoption of an
SRA development, require that suitable areas for parks, schools, and other public facilities be set
aside, improved, and/or dedicated for public use. When the BCC requires such a set aside for
one or more public facilities, the set aside shall be subject to the same provisions of the LDC as
are applicable to public facility dedications required as a condition for PUD rezoning.
Policy 4.15.3:
Applicants for SRA designation shall coordinate with Collier County School Board staff to allow
planning to occur to accommodate any impacts to the public schools as a result of the SRA. As
a part of the SRA application, the following information shall be provided:
1. Number of residential units by type;
2. An estimate of the number of school-aged children for each type of school impacted
(elementary, middle, high school); and
3. The potential for locating a public educational facility or facilities within the SRA, and
the size of any sites that may be dedicated, or otherwise made available for a public
educational facility.
Policy 4.16:
A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or such
infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand. The level of infrastructure provided
will depend on the form of SRA development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC
requirements. The capacity of essential services and infrastructure necessary to serve the SRA
at build-out must be demonstrated during the SRA designation process. Infrastructure to be
analyzed includes but not limited to, transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water,
stormwater management, and solid waste. Transportation infrastructure is discussed in Policy
4.14. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities are required in
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 22 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
Towns, and Villages, and those CRDs exceeding one hundred (100) acres in size, and may be
required in CRDs that are one hundred (100) acres or less in size, depending upon the
permitted uses approved within the CRD. Centralized or decentralized community water and
wastewater utilities shall be constructed, owned, operated and maintained by a private utility
service, the developer, a Community Development District, the Immokalee Water Sewer Service
District, Collier County, or other governmental entity. Innovative alternative water and wastewater
treatment systems such as decentralized community treatment systems shall not be prohibited
by this Policy provided that they meet all applicable regulatory criteria. Individual potable water
supply wells and septic systems, limited to a maximum of 100 acres of any Town, Village or CRD
of 100 acres are permitted on an interim basis until services from a centralized/decentralized
community system are available. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems are
permitted in Hamlets and may be permitted in CRDs of 100 acres or less in size.
Policy 4.17:
The BCC will review and approve SRA designation applications in accordance with the provisions
of Policy 1.1.2 of the Capital Improvement Element of the GMP and public facilities pursuant to
Policy 1.1 of the Capital Improvement Element in addition to the following: jails, law enforcement,
emergency medical services, fire service, government buildings and libraries. for Category A
public facilities. Final local development orders will be approved within a SRA designated by the
BCC in accordance with the Concurrency Management System of the GMP and LDC in effect at
the time of final local development order approval.
Policy 4.18:
The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the
SRA horizon year based on a public facilities impact assessment, as identified in LDC 4.08.07.K.
The BCC may grant exceptions to this Policy to accommodate affordable housing, as it deems
appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development
Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the assessment shall
consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater,
irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools.
Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private
partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards.
In the event that an SRA development, generates surplus revenues to Collier County, Collier
County may choose to allocate a portion of such surplus revenues to ensure that sufficient
resources are available to allow Collier County to respond expeditiously to economic opportunities
and to compete effectively for high-value research, development and commercialization,
innovation, and alternative and renewable energy business projects.
Policy 4.19:
Eight (8) credits shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA, where such Credits
were created from a Stewardship Sending Area submitted for review or approved prior to (the
adoption date of this Ordinance). Ten Credits per acre shall be required for each acre of land
included in an SRA, where such Credits were created from any other Stewardship Sending Area.
except for open space in excess of the required thirty-five percent as described in Policy 4.10 or
for lLand that is designated for a public benefit use described in Policy 4.19 4.20 do not require
the use of Credits. In order to promote compact, mixed use development and provide the
necessary support facilities and services to residents of rural areas, the SRA designation entitles
a full range of uses, accessory uses and associated uses that provide a mix of services to and
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 23 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
are supportive to the residential population of a SRA, as provided for in Policies 4.7, 4.15 4.15.1
and Attachment C. Such uses shall be identified, located and quantified in the SRA master plan.
Policy 4.20:
The acreage of a public benefit use shall not count toward the maximum acreage limits of an
SRA, unless such public benefit uses were approved as part of an SRA approved prior to
[adoption date of this Ordinance] in which case such public benefit uses shall continue to be
excluded from the maximum acreage limitation pursuant to the policy in effect at the time of
approval. described in Policy 4.7. but Public benefit uses shall not count toward the consumption
of Stewardship Credits. For the purpose of this Policy, public benefit uses include: affordable
housing as defined in the LDC, public schools (preK-12) and public or private post secondary
institutions, including ancillary uses; community parks exceeding the minimum acreage
requirements of Attachment C, municipal golf courses; regional parks; and governmental facilities
excluding essential services as defined in the LDC. The location of public schools shall be
coordinated with the Collier County School Board, based on the interlocal agreement, Section
163.3248163.3177 F.S. and in a manner consistent with 235.193 F.S. Schools and related
ancillary uses shall be encouraged to locate in or proximate to Towns, and Villages , and Hamlets
subject to applicable zoning and permitting requirements.
Policy 4.21:
Lands within the ACSC that meet all SRA criteria shall also be restricted such that credits used to
entitle a SRA in the ACSC must be generated exclusively from SSAs within the ACSC. Further,
the only form of SRA allowed in the ACSC east of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be Hamlets
and CRDs of 100 acres or less and the only form of SRA allowed in the ACSC west of the
Okaloacoochee Slough shall be CRDs and Villages and CRDs of not more than 300 acres and
Hamlets. Provided, not more than 1,000 aces of SRA development in the form of Villages or
CRDs however, that two Villages or CRDs of not more than 500 acres each, exclusive of any
lakes created prior to the effective date of this amendment June 30, 2002 as a result of mining
operations, shall be allowed in areas that have a frontage on State Road 29 and that, as of the
effective date of these amendments, had been predominantly cleared as a result of Ag Group I or
Earth Mining or Processing Uses. This Policy is intended to assure that the RLSA Overlay is not
used to increase the development potential within the ACSC but instead is used to promote a
more compact form of development as an alternative to the Baseline Standards already allowed
within the ACSC. No policy of the RLSA Overlay shall take precedence over the Big Cypress
ACSC regulations and all regulations therein shall apply.
Policy 4.22
When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA through the SRA designation
process, the applicant in conjunction with the Florida Division of Historic Resources will assess
the historic or cultural significance and explore the educational and public awareness
opportunities regarding significant resources.
Policy 4.23
Any development on lands participating in the RLS Program shall be compatible with surrounding
land uses. Within one year of the effective date of this Policy LDC regulations shall be
implemented for outdoor lighting to protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy, and
enhance safety and security.
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 24 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
Group 5 ‒ Policies that protect water quality and quantity and the maintaining of the natural
water regime and protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats on land that is
not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area program.
Policy 5.1:
To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime in areas
mapped as FSAs and designated Restoration Areas as shown on the Overlay Map prior to the
time that they are designated as SSAs under the Stewardship Credit Program. Residential Uses,
General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses (layers 1-
4) as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in FSAs. Conditional use essential services and
governmental essential services, except those necessary to serve permitted uses or for public
safety, shall only not be allowed in FSAs. Infrastructure necessary to serve permitted uses may
be exempt from this restriction, provided that designs seek to minimize the extent of impacts to
any such areas. with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less. Where
practicable, directional-drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be
utilized for oil or gas extraction in FSAs in order to minimize impacts to native habitats. Asphaltic
and concrete batch making plants shall be prohibited in areas mapped as HSAs. The opportunity
to voluntarily participate in the Stewardship Credit Program, as well as the right to sell
conservation easements or a free or lesser interest in the land, shall constitute compensation for
the loss of these rights.
Policy 5.2:
To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime and to protect
listed animal and plant species and their habitats in areas mapped as FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs
on the Overlay Map that are within the ACSC, all ACSC regulatory standards shall apply, including
those that strictly limit non-agricultural clearing.
Policy 5.3:
To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime and to protect
listed animal and plant species and their habitats in areas mapped as FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs
on the Overlay Map that are not within the ACSC, if a property owner proposes
to utilize such land for a non-agricultural purpose under the Baseline Standards referenced in
Policy 1.5 and does not elect to use the Overlay, these Group 5 policies following regulations are
applicable, shall be incorporated into the LDC, and shall supersede any comparable existing
County regulations that would otherwise apply. These regulations shall only apply to non-
agricultural use of land prior to its inclusion in the Overlay system:
1. Site clearing and alteration shall be limited to 20% of the property and nonpermeable
surfaces shall not exceed 50% of any such area.
2. Except for roads and lakes, any nonpermeable surface greater than one acre shall provide
for release of surface water runoff, collected or uncollected, in a manner approximating
the natural surface water flow regime of the surrounding area.
3. Revegetation and landscaping of cleared areas shall be accomplished with predominantly
native species and planting of undesirable exotic species shall be prohibited.
4. An Environmental Impact Statement shall be prepared by the applicant and reviewed by
Collier County in accordance with County regulations.
5. Roads shall be designed to allow the passage of surface water flows through the use of
equalizer pipes, interceptor spreader systems or performance equivalent structures.
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 25 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
Policy 5.4:
Collier County will coordinate with appropriate State and Federal agencies concerning the
provision of wildlife crossings at locations determined to be appropriate. A map of these potential
crossing locations will be initiated by [12 months of the adoption of this Ordinance], updated
periodically, and shall be incorporated into community, cultural and historical, and transportation
planning for the RLSA, including all SRAs described in Group 4 Policies.
Policy 5.5:
For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, non-
agricultural development, excluding individual single family residences, shall be directed away
from the listed species and species of special local concern (SSLC), as defined by Florida Fish
and Wildlife Commission, and their habitats by complying with the following guidelines and
standards.
1. A wildlife survey shall be required for all parcels when listed species or SSLC are known
to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site or where listed species
or SSLC are utilizing directly observed on the site. The survey shall be conducted in
accordance with the requirements of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission (FFWCC) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidelines. The
County shall notify the FFWCC and USFWS of the existence of any listed species or SSLC
that may be discovered.
2. Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species or SSLC and for those protected
species identified below shall be submitted for County approval. A plan shall be required
for all projects where the wildlife survey indicates listed species or SSLC or the protected
species identified below are utilizing the site, or the site contains potential habitat for listed
species. These plans shall describe how the project directs incompatible land uses away
from listed species or SSLC and their habitats. Management plans for new preserves
shall also outline a public awareness program to educate residents about the on-site
preserve and the need to maintain habitat within the preserve for listed species and those
protected species identified below.
a. Management plans for new preserves shall incorporate proper techniques to
protect listed species, or SSLC and those protected species identified below, and
their habitats from the negative impacts of proposed development. The most
current and completed data and local, state, and federal guidelines and regulations
shall be utilized to prepare the required management plans. Open space and
vegetation preservation requirements shall be used to establish buffer areas
between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated by human activities.
Provisions such as fencing, walls, or other obstructions shall be provided to
minimize development impacts to the wildlife and to facilitate and encourage
wildlife to use wildlife corridors. Appropriate roadway crossings, underpasses and
signage shall be used where roads must cross wildlife corridors. Mitigation for
impacting listed species or SSLC habitat shall be considered in the management
plans, as appropriate.
i. Management guidelines contained in publications used by the FFWCC and
USFWS for technical assistance shall be used for developing required
management plans.
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 26 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
(XIII) ii. The County shall consider any other techniques recommended by the
USFWS and FFWCC, subject to the provision of paragraph 3 of this Policy.
(XIII) iii. When listed species or SSLC are utilizing a directly observed on site or
indicated by evidence, such as denning, foraging, or other indications, a
minimum of 40% of native vegetation on site shall be retained, with the exception
of clearing for agricultural purposes. The County shall also consider the
recommendation of other agencies, subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 of this
Policy.
b. Management plans shall include provisions for minimizing human and wildlife
interactions. Low intensity land uses (e.g. parks, passive recreation areas, golf
courses) and vegetation preservation requirements, including agriculture, shall be
used to establish buffer areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated
by human activities. Consideration shall be given to the most current Florida Fish
and Wildlife Commission guidelines and regulations on techniques to reduce
human wildlife conflict. The management plans shall also require the dissemination
of information to local residents, businesses and governmental services about the
presence of wildlife and practices (such as appropriate waste disposal methods)
that enable responsible coexistence with wildlife, while minimizing opportunities for
negative interaction, such as appropriate waste disposal practices.
c. The Management Plans shall contain a monitoring program for developments
greater than ten acres.
b. For parcels containing gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus), habitat
management plans are required and shall give priority to protecting the largest
most contiguous gopher tortoise habitat with the greatest number of active
burrows, and for providing a connection to off site adjacent gopher tortoise
preserves.
c. Habitat preservation plans for the Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens)
are required and shall provide for a maintenance program and specify appropriate
fire or mechanical protocols to maintain the natural scrub community.
d. For the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), habitat management plans are
required and shall establish protective zones around the eagle nest restricting
certain activities. The plans shall also address restricting certain types of activities
during the nest season.
e. For the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), habitat protection plans are
required and shall outline measures to avoid adverse impacts to active clusters
and to minimize impacts to foraging habitat. Where adverse effects cannot be
avoided, measures shall be taken to minimize on-site disturbance and compensate
or mitigate for impacts that remain.
f. In areas where the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) may be
present, management plans are required and shall require that garbage be placed
in bear-resistant containers where such containers are available and accepted for
use by Collier County, or containers stored in locations not easily accessible to
bears. The management plan shall also identify methods to inform local residents
of the concerns related to interaction between black bears and humans.
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 27 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
g. For projects located in Priority I or Priority II Panther Habitat areas, management
plans are required and shall discourage the destruction of undisturbed, native
habitats that are preferred by the Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi) by directing
intensive land uses to currently disturbed areas. Preferred habitats include pine
flatwoods and hardwood hammocks. In turn, these areas shall be buffered from
the most intense land uses of the project by using low intensity land uses (e.g.,
parks, passive recreational areas, golf courses). Gold courses within the Rural
Lands Area shall be designed and managed using standards found within this
Overlay. The management plans shall identify appropriate lighting controls for
these permitted uses and shall also address the opportunity to utilize prescribed
burning to maintain fire-adapted preserved vegetation communities and provide
browse for white-tailed deer.
h. The Management Plans shall contain a monitoring program for developments
greater than ten (10) acres.
3. The County shall, consistent with applicable policies of this Overlay, consider and
utilize recommendations and letters of technical assistance from the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission and recommendations from the US Fish and
Wildlife Service in issuing development orders on property containing utilized by listed
species or SSLC. It is recognized that these agency recommendations, on a case by
case basis, may change strengthen the requirements contained within these wildlife
protection policies and any such change shall be deemed consistent with the Growth
Management Plan. However, no reduction of the wildlife protection policies of Policy
5.5 will be considered as these shall constitute minimum standards for wildlife
protection.
Policy 5.6:
For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, Collier
County shall direct non-agricultural land uses away from high functioning wetlands by limiting
direct impacts within wetlands. A direct impact is hereby defined as the dredging or filling of a
wetland or adversely changing the hydroperiod of a wetland. This Policy shall be implemented
as follows:
1. There are two (2) major wetlands systems within the RLSA, Camp Keais Strand and
the Okaloacoochee Slough. These two systems have been mapped and are
designated as FSA’s. Policy 5.1 prohibits certain uses within the FSA’s, thus
preserving and protecting the wetlands functions within those wetland systems.
2. The other significant wetlands within the RLSA are WRA’s as described in Policy 3.3.
These areas are protected by existing SFWMD wetlands permits Environmental
Resource Permit for each area.
3. FSAs, HSAs and WRAs, as provided in Policy 5.3, and the ACSC have stringent site
clearing and alteration limitations, nonpermeable surface limitations, and requirements
addressing surface water flows which protect wetland functions within the wetlands in
those areas. Other wetlands within the RLSA are isolated or seasonal wetlands.
These wetlands will be protected based upon the wetland functionality assessment
described below, and the final permitting requirements of the South Florida Water
Management District.
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 28 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
a. The County shall apply the vegetation retention, open space and site preservation
requirements specified within this Overlay to preserve an appropriate amount of
native vegetation on site. Wetlands shall be preserved as part of this vegetation
requirement according to the following criteria:
i. The acreage requirements specified within this Overlay shall be met by
preserving wetlands with the highest wetland functionality scores. Wetland
functionality assessment scores shall be those described in paragraph b of this
Policy. The vegetative preservation requirements imposed by Policies 5.3 and
5.5 shall first be met through preservation of wetlands having a WRAP
functionality assessment score of 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation
Assessment Method score of 0.7, or greater. The County shall apply specific
criteria in the LDC to be used to determine those instances in which wetlands
with a WRAP functionality assessment score of 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland
Mitigation Assessment Method score of 0.7, or greater must be preserved in
excess of the preservation required by Policy 5.3.
ii. Wetlands and contiguous upland buffers that are used by listed species or
SSLC, or serving as corridors for the movement of listed species or SSLC, shall
be preserved on site. Wetland flowway functions through the project shall be
maintained.
iii. Proposed development shall demonstrate that ground water table drawdowns
or diversions will not adversely change the hydoperiod of preserved wetlands
on or offsite. Detention and control elevations shall be set to protect
surrounding wetlands and be consistent with surrounding land and project
control elevations and water tables. In order to meet these requirements,
projects shall be designed in accordance with Sections 10.2.2.4 of the
Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook Volume I, and Sections
3.11 and 3.12 of the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook
Volume II for use within the Geographic Limits of the South Florida Water
Management District (2014). Upland vegetative communities may be utilized
to meet the vegetative, open space and site preservation requirements of this
Overlay when the wetland functional assessment score is less than 0.65.
b. In order to assess the values and functions of wetlands at the time of project
review, applicants shall rate functionality of wetlands using the South Florida Water
Management District’s Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP), as
described in Technical Publication Reg-001, dated September 1997, and updated
August 1999 as amended, or the Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method,
identified as F.A.C. Chapter 62-345. The applicant shall submit to County staff
agency-accepted WRAP scores, or Uniform Wetlands Mitigation Assessment
scores. County staff shall review this functionality assessment as part of the
County’s EIS Environmental Data provisions and shall use the results to direct
incompatible land uses away from the highest functioning wetlands according to
the requirements found in paragraph 3 above.
c. All direct impacts shall be mitigated for pursuant to the requirements of paragraph
(f) of this Policy.
d. Single family residences shall follow the requirements contained within Policy 6.2.7
of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element.
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 29 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
e. The County shall separate preserved wetlands from other land uses with
appropriate buffering requirements. The County shall require a minimum 50-foot
vegetated upland buffer abutting a natural water body, and for other wetlands a
minimum 25-foot vegetated upland buffer abutting to the wetland. A structural
buffer may be used in conjunction with a vegetative buffer that would reduce the
vegetative buffer width by 50%. A structural buffer shall be required abutting
wetlands where direct impacts are alloweds. Wetland buffers shall conform to the
following standards:
i. The buffer shall be measured landward from the approved jurisdictional line.
ii. The buffer zone shall consist of preserved native vegetation. Where native
vegetation does not exist, native vegetation compatible with the existing soils
and expected hydrologic conditions shall be planted.
iii. The buffer shall be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as
defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council.
iv. The following land uses are considered to be compatible with wetland functions
and are allowed within the buffer:
(1) Passive recreational areas, boardwalks and recreational shelters;
(2) Pervious nature trails;
(3) Water management structures;
(4) Mitigation areas;
(5) Any other conservation and related open space activity or use which is
comparable in nature with the foregoing uses.
v. A structural buffer may consist of a stem-wall, berm, or vegetative hedge with
suitable fencing.
f. Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts to wetland in order to result in no net
loss of wetland functions.
Mitigation Requirements:
i. “No net loss of wetland functions” shall mean that the wetland functional score
of the proposed mitigation equals or exceeds the wetland functional score of
the impacted wetlands. Priority shall be given to mitigation within FSA’s and
HSA’s.
ii. Loss of storage or conveyance volume resulting from direct impacts to
wetlands shall be compensated for by providing an equal amount of storage
or conveyance capacity on site and within or abutting the impacted wetland.
iii. Protection shall be provided for preserved or created wetland or upland
vegetative communities offered as mitigation by placing a conservation
easement over the land in perpetuity, providing for initial exotic plant removal
(Class I invasive exotic plants defined by the Florida Exotic Plan Council) and
continuing exotic plant maintenance, or by appropriate ownership transfer to a
state or federal agency along with sufficient funding for perpetual management
activities.
iv. Exotics removal or maintenance may be considered acceptable mitigation.
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 30 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – BCC Adoption Draft
Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text.
v.iv. Prior to issuance of any final development order that authorizes site alteration,
the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with paragraphs (f) f. i, ii, and iii of
this Policy and SFWMD standards. If agency permits have not provided
mitigation consistent with this Policy, Collier County will require mitigation
exceeding that of the jurisdictional agencies.
g. Wetland preservation, buffer areas, and mitigation areas shall be identified or
platted as separate tracts. In the case of a Planned Unit Development (PUD),
these areas shall also be depicted on the PUD Master Plan. These areas shall be
maintained free from trash and debris and from Category I invasive exotic plants,
as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. Land uses allowed in these
areas shall be limited to those listed above (3.e.iv.) and shall not include any other
activities that are detrimental to drainage, flood, control, water conservation,
erosion control or fish and wildlife habitat conservation and preservation.
4. All landowners shall be encouraged to consider participating in any programs that
provide incentives, funding or other assistance in facilitating wetland and habitat
restoration on private lands including, but not limited to, federal farm bill agricultural
conservation programs, private or public grants, tax incentives, easements, and fee or
less than fee sale to conservation programs.
Policy 5.7
Any development not participating in the RLS Program shall be compatible with surrounding land
uses. Within one year of the effective date of this Policy, LDC regulations shall be implemented
for outdoor lighting to protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy, and enhance safety
and security.
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 31 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
I S
i I
V
a
g - g EEff
p
t—y
9 € " u 3 3 cam')
i
e f ' ; g5 ayv
o •
8 Y 8 M
P
o
N
d
11
J
Jul11 2
U
cm
x
8pp
J GV
81
E9
pap
Im
Io 14 3
akai 1 I 4d
Y 9 s88s8asa
M I I ., . 1
i8098msaa c
cn
cu
r,I x
N 'a y 8888888 w
IECice$@ 0
s U 3LLU n
N HI En
u
I U
w; 1 Est 2
O N 11 E,Eeg =v
L E2 RE. Z r ,n
o
r
Q)
g
g i g e o
22 g
6 E
a) y3_
gc)o'rG*
HIHHMUM_ 21
K
o 0 0 o C d C C IWO o 0 0 o
c c 1
y o 0000"lg-VT
9 It'oE
l8
e r
11
2 i
geg
1 2 2
v r b a E—,g
88 1
m I s 3ii 1 da
tAI18g$ 3 OEp1Zp32N
N
C S n =
l I1i S F3 Hiict,
Tx it Eel$U w
3 S i w a 8 Y 8 y A 3 2$ ,n55 z 12t1 .b 2 o 7 l§ cY 3 S i ]2A,2 3
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 32 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
cO
a
a) ' a)
c 'o c 7
Y
u c ova . `
n o o a U
p) J C (O O
w v C a..
N o E a `J V a) V m N Ti =--- 0 a
v aa) v 3 a u -0 C j
e K ca a m E % o a c J Q; v co
O m c .3 I' s co 0 a do
c
o ._
v -
c -- ch
m 7 E a
J
0 3 o ai 0 0 v a) N m E o w "-0-
v C i C E O fO - d f°
a
s u co
Z w
N N o 0 a
N
3 0 u u m
c O+
J sue+ O O
J v (InC fC0 v a Q a)C
m C a (O O f0 •" a
f` fO L 0 O7
c i 3 a ° 3 on a 3 d v CO° . z o w V U 2cu3 `0. Q m
ai d
7
N O
N
o 0 4 vi N a r0
O. v to a., 0 ^ , m 0
a. is a m
O '3,V
U
czE
O — C L a) -
C p
w cu 0 0 f6 w N np U f0 o
U
a
10 a a) 7 c U C > i N O v
0 C u 73
a
O
o a) OO
U
a f6 `1 '
J E f0
7 0 ) np a V v 0 ` pa O 0 _ y, o
bEp
v
C no
a y a
m E °0
to c o .0 c uo E
a > u ¢ uo
C O J J O C a] tO Q O 3 C 2 X b4
a aC I U ro o a a o c (o . w a Q
I
O. C L U
VI j v np C CO (n
OJ
o O
N
Y c
75. v oCO 3 Y - v
VI L a 2C.a C a)
J O
N O 0 Q J To O O Q U Y
UO4 H 0
U _> ''
L - O-u Y
tw
c
u m u u — o- —.' E u
no E FE, s E C. (p Y u a O.
Q a
OLLCCCCUNTJaa0- 0 C. C. Vl
0
V v
co
i
a
v n0 v I 'O
O O. C > L C a Y_ > o as
C
c
7 co `O N60 > O .0
O
c
cc N
C C Ofl. O E O no Oa L.'C
C U
V N N vET: f0S
C C C .+ C o -0
f0 .0 O f`
N
d " O O- -
70 7 j O d c
O v v a Jo U E O)E aa) " u v (o .
fa4 Y . a'
v ,
co
Q 5 o y d y E o O U v fO o ; .°c°
o `m
m 3 ` u '(` j o .v p) .
D >
n0 c
filtH
EaCy
0
11110W
c
iOOa5C $ fU
v Ya
C in oum
co —1w c
Qco la
a)
na U u g H
L
r ts y a.=
c a C.
a U o E
v
n-
c UuTccoUa+
a
C 2u
c
O j I- C (o
op p 0CU
U V o MO C —' a
U w C Y — v
CU
CC
7 -o v, ,n v) v
O
u o
c
a v 172
13 0 O c N J
10 N V no V C J
no 7 f`O N C O N u
C np toD u a to
C C v •C N U a 40 Q
dE C O C (cO y
cu 0 E n 0 O n)
a u r
U.,
0_
RI Ma) 4-' 77 -CV Q
u O O Q
w 0 I_ O_ < 0 u
a)aOU
mv
a= Y 0 m
c
ua)mc cr,Ec (n U 3 D'
2 N c
n c 5 O
0 j _ UE a
a.) U c 0t C.0 0
p 2 V G) v
C a) U C S = CT)
E c co E aaooy
Q., ` ro a
a
O io c• u4.a>
m
m m ° 3
ow oc a > "
UvmcvU
v
JuH
a °
N uVO `41
Vv
Oc N TVa 6 Lo a:, Nv foa, N CJC !
y Qc v
a
U _ o v
a
J
E vO a oy
O Z.
co O ' y v L a U O O
L _
c o v 0 v al u ` U C
U n U (6 N .o O U Q U V) O d no U V,
JOU 0
v ..,..--
in O
np 2 12 c o _ w o N
C to N tO O O Q O
c Q m
np ,
n
U - N
N C
Y C
N
v 00 O1C M
J a
d
0 O
V
a
7 N
O
c .O+ 2 G m O`
cc)
L ai L U Y (O c pi CD
a
g O
v (wE0 L d C (TO O E O •C
OoO
a-7 Jp C C
E
C
0 N v ro v
O 3 v _o N . c a) 0 , -c O
C C' O > v C O a) a a; a J E
O U >-- >-- j a Q
in 2 O 0 a` a 3 p_ 2 a ou uu a w a.a (0 N 0
D U C
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 33 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
coco
N N
m e cZ
Ctcoa•pN C Na N 0
ZNm j
N .
O w C
O a cna)a, C E — ° N
N' D mE ° u ° t pi_
o 2. u v a_y.Z (oc ° mw $a` E a` c
co
J y E d c m m 4 a a'ii g a,u, a,
U `C -o w E 3 .o v°i ToN Toan
o °
re d f°-oo m s uNi=
m
a>>3 `v, m coz o W O 0 a
e a a
0 c
N —
o0 oyc..
E
S
o
u m m o w`
o m
N0.O) CLL _ N EaNrONU
p. O NdN U O7p21
N N a
a
m O
0 N
w of 6c-2 C --0 g'ct C a
m'-2 o c
2_o= r c
t-- o , t mT . C
m o m ':(= 2-a-
N
p giu
a •
E
m a
C 3 ° ` 3N C 3 6
J Dm d I
3 E y 2-> a0NNla
WOa
C
2 m"Ti U
Q y a a,
a N
N
N._
7
0
y C > . O
Ol j N a C ` `p O aQ
a = 0 `2 n
C
O
a
U .UCD
C p al y p C O N O C
o 1ON m 0 a -Fa f o
oi. E m a-°t m
csi E a 3
a J LL W (0 O.E C d N £n
CO C m O,
a") m t E a)C g
OCUO _ O...s ° °
C U U C mE20EN2as8 °
c3,.3 -c a a N g Y C 2a 0 U a
d °- a
J
V ` J ; m eNa o-3 c1 c NCO
C < cu o, Q E '31 1oE 85 t c Z'a c°> »,.-,
aN'. E E
co d U w o,.E Q m 3 o °a 8 H a.8 C? m > i EW
0 N = w o w Ncot0cN0, N 1—
Q < co c -0 C d d
co
m« y & 2- -0—
U
IY J
26, m g w a m V
U
c E
0 ,
m r c r a
o 0 80 830
U r a C
s- C= 8-0=
D
a) W
E 29 s 0.
O a1OON .2 a
OO
U aa xc a
UNOa
OO)m N Q
v,E•m .
0
EEm
7C UC °2 Va
m
0) p
a c
c N a
a)
ur
t m o U:o
m v
O_ m U c 16 L o c 7 .a0 d E 0
c
0 a 5 c d E-8U 5- O 0,o U 1 U
fi U3,) O U COCNEUaa
0.U =
E U
O C a 2 O 2Io « E 'o > N E OJ22LmUNUUoUa_ (n
a
a o, 0 ( C5 U c y
N
A O U
c •= Z' 2 o f d 0 Q
9 N O N (a O, O
a N a)Q
N C N N n
8- ac
CC 3a ao o2a maaaig!2 Q p0C, T a) N L a 9 a, U a,
N aI
c E E
m m m o 2 2 aci> >.` a
of
g QJwT .2 O N O O 2 ).0•C j O C
y m m m a >[ D f, ° N E g o N
ON
J 65 E O o a a7° 3 K 0-8 88 m a a CD a coO
W
0
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 34 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
r
E
O >«
N
0
o o >
1D voE s c o E
E o' o
o Eaa
00
v3N
a ° y
it E
ca
w p - a w
o Y
EoaamE
avE
m11I!IIE !8wV c m6' mmN ; 1I1 E- Ne cmmEO «wo -z .a VE'vta07
E =
a
c = E faIn
v moEmuz _ — ,0o w 8 0
o LL v ry 0 im a I o a
vU mNm a oa
w
Q v,
V Z O
m
E a
p E o 0
c
oaEoE
v oE
v va NV o
oUcs
m N 3 Z. v - h
zE
c
a E- a a « E i
mE0wo
m
v w•,
E
xa v n T.. v E w
o 0^ oU - v .23 o „ wE o uvw
c v
r `
V ~
vOv Y n amuwa'
o
u
a
E
Ec3 v
o 0
E
c
E E
o
o
r -
ami
o m
N O. y a N, O L.
0
v
O
NY
41H !v
z
m y LLNa -
b O
o 3 a E Eo c wTC10p > w y g - py
hi
co ns
ECEE° c
c ° a
9
3
o £c
o c o fRE
H
N
w E ea raaNV ,_ E o a uQV0o _al
E
LI1 E 0 p - ry
3112 E a, tv YywNAww °L = p ^ Z u . a Ha o a a.
w
v .
UZ. W L. o m m .. O « os c V ° E vio vaa .5 jmgU ' o
a c = o LqvV Tv ` J
o c
a
Zav , a v v0
co 0 0. m
o 35 aE E c o w
v s c waw a
3 2 o 7. °. & i ow 2 . ` u i u 2' - w c y
N s0 17o \ w m a - L a
u um
p m u
v _
2
o
Y w E _ o
o
N
a o2>N " c i -W. ¢ u
EuwOoa
o
a
A u
z o ¢ o
a
a m ,
D a o E
E
a o
c c c «
E :'A
a E E. m o .
g. E TA 2 zg E o 79 0
o oErNap2'
v E 8 « o a c
v O0 2mo w ._ g o 0Y uuoNa
w « Esv a
a o
m
v rE " o va m w = a
2. V v
131
c
a3omNO « a ' t : - ,v =
x tv ` o Y c N v - c v v. a -
Fo a n E 1 = 0 3 a c o f u E
v>, = --
E, u
3
g
w
m a ao 3 ~
8 mw e Bo oa
a
w E c 'w g 3 v ac o u a 4
a ` •
z ,,vO , u
c o
v
az
v N o v vo "' 30 u o v 3 E03 i y
3 v O O a 4 c m r
L., m
u 2 H2mau
O 8 o 3 ° `
LL
av o _ ill 2'' >
m
3 a o - v .. Z' 43w
u a w '0 o a E
a w v w
v a
7. v E
v
u¢ ' a o
N W O
W 00 g
a+ a 2 H ,Y
m O O v a s O
m n o u 3 a u v 0wvO
U
a
in c
N
E i 3nomwav. a , at wO3
O o f p10 aTN
a ¢
N - - a o v 15 m c ;'c m LyomO
vE 0 3o F .
a v
a
r v,
c z toy 3 s 0 D
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 35 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Attachment C
Typical Characteristics Town*Village Hamlet
Size (Gross Acres)1,000-4,000 acres 1,500 - 5,000 acres 100-1,000 300-1,500 acres**40-100 acres**100 300 Acres or less**Greater Than 100 Acres**
Residential Units (DUs) per gross acre base
density 1-4 DUs per gross acre***1-4 DUs per gross acre***1/2 -2 DU per gross acre***1/2 -2 DU per gross acre***1-4 DUs per gross acre***
Residential Housing Styles Full range of single family and multi-family
housing types, styles, lot sizes
Diversity of single family and multi-
family housing types, styles, lot sizes Single Family and limited multi-family Single Family and limited multi-family****Single Family and limited multi-family
Retail & Office - .5 Retail & Office - .5 Retail & Office - .5 Retail & Office - .5 Retail & Office - .5
Civic/Governmental/Institution - .6 Civic/Governmental/Institution - .6 Civic/Governmental/Institution - .6 Civic/Governmental/Institution - .6 Civic/Governmental/Institution - .6
Manufacturing/Light Industrial - .45 Group Housing - .45 Group Housing - .45 Group Housing - .45 Group Housing - .45
Group Housing - .45 Transient Lodging - 26 upa net Transient Lodging - 26 upa net Transient Lodging - 26 upa net Transient Lodging - 26 upa net
Transient Lodging - 26 upa net
Goods and Services
Town Center with Community and
Neighborhood Goods and Services in
Town and Village Centers: Minimum 65
170 SF gross building area per DU;
Corporate Office, Manufacturing,
Research and Light Industrial
Village Center with Neighborhood
Goods and Services in Village Centers:
Minimum 25 53 SF gross building area
per DU
Convenience Goods and Services:
Minimum 10 SF gross building area per
DU
Convenience Goods and Services:
Minimum 10 SF gross building area per
DU; research, education,
toursim/recreation
Village Center with Neighborhood
Goods and Services in Village Centers:
Minimum 25 SF gross building area per
DU
Interim Well and Septic Interim Well and Septic Interim Well and Septic
Community Parks (200 SF/DU), subject to
Level of Service Requirments
Parks & Public Green Spaces w/n
Neighborhoods (minimum 1% of gross
acres)
Public Green Space for Neighborhoods
(minimum 1% of gross acres)
Public Green Space for Neighborhoods
(minimum 1% of gross acres)
Parks & Public Green Spaces w/n
Neighborhoods (minimum 1% of gross
acres)
Parks & Public Green Spaces w/n
Neighborhoods Active Recreation/Golf Courses Active Recreation/Golf Courses
Lakes Lakes
Active Recreation/Golf Courses Open Space Minimum 35% of SRA Open Space Minimum 35% of SRA
Lakes
Open Space Minimum 35% of SRA
Wide Range of Services - minimum 15 SF
of gross land area /DU
Moderate Range of Services -
minimum 10 SF/DU; Limited Services Limited Services Moderate Range of Services -
minimum 10 SF/DU
Full Range of Schools Full Range of Schools Pre-K through Elementary Schools Pre-K through Elementary Schools Pre-K through Elementary Schools
Auto - interconnected system of collector
and local roads; required connection to
collector or arterial
Auto - interconnected system of
collector and local roads; required
connection to collector or arterial
Auto - interconnected system of local
roads
Auto - interconnected system of local
roads
Auto - interconnected system of
collector and local roads; required
connection to collector or arterial
Interconnected sidewalk and pathway
system
Interconnected sidewalk and pathway
system Pedestrian Pathways Pedestrian Pathways Interconnected sidewalk and pathway
system
County Transit Access Station or Park and
Ride Facility Equestrian Trails Equestrian Trails Equestrian Trails Equestrian Trails
County Transit Access Station or Park
and Ride Facility County Transit Access County Transit Access
* - Towns are prohibited within the ACSC, per policy 4.7 of the Goals, Objectives, and Policies.
** - Villages, Hamlets, and Compact Rural Developments located within the ACSC shall be no greater than 10% of the total site size and are subject to Chapter 28-25, FAC.
*** - Density can be increased through the Affordable Housing Density Bonus or through the density blending provisions.
**** - Those CRDs that include single or multi-family residentail uses shall include proportionate support services.
Underlined Italizied uses are not required uses.
Text underlined is added, text in strikethrough is deleted.
Individual Well and Septic System;
Centralized or decentralized community
treatment system
Maximum Floor Area Ratio or Intensity
Collier County RLSA Overlay: Attachment C Proposed
Water and Wastewater
Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics
Compact Rural Development
Centralized or decentralized
community treatment systems
Transportation
Individual Well and Septic System;
Centralized or decentralized community
treatment system
Recreation and Open Spaces
Centralized or decentralized community
treatment system
Centralized or decentralized
community treatment systems
Civic, Governmental and Institutional
Services05/10/21BCC Adoption HearingPage 36 of 389.C.1Packet Pg. 286Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
EXHIBIT'A" P1201300026371 CPSP-20'3-11
COLLIER COUNTY RURAL&AGRICULTURAL AREA ASSESSMENT
STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY MAP
illa RI'
TCL OC EXT i l
LAKE RAFE tin `SJp
q CtDD„
IMAIOKALEE_ n lsr,
A2:11)IT OkaloaF.
Mw+ aaVV
P,
Stew.
1A1 c7
one ; ,.tor=.
1
Ille4
f ,
1 _
r rr.
Vin. .,H
614 /
i / C-
WRA
en I
1
y I AVE MAMA 1mi
f
sg,,,. _ s.._. SRA r
E
l
1v RA
51
5
I 1 x
i
rj
011 WELL RD T_ .
I
ser:',,,,--_:::::._,fn
y i -W ',
m
Cir
mr. \\—
L''
NJ / .
i
GOLDEN GATE BLVD 11
1
e,
ki
175
IIIMMINIPI
AMENDED-.ANUARY 22,2007
Ord.Ns.2057-18) legend
AMEVDEL-OCTOBER 14,Z005
Ord.N.200e-59) Jpvr. 8001.RalYwnik+n 2Vrre
AMENDED- 201lx 201
Ord.Nea.2011-21-28) I irNaler Retention Area(WRA) 101 Big Cypress Natioml Forest
lowway SlewmisIp Aron(ISA)n Area of Mica!Slab Concern
He1V311 Stnwar1at4 Ares(MSA) I J Stewards*Receiving Area(SRP)
PSEP0000 or 00/CM RAPPOG ste-nc I 0A 1
u.
1,01111.1 MN1All0EN I U MANN/11ANNMU MMU•t0ULA 110e Slew'arda Jp Sanding Area(00*)
DATE:0/2018 RLECCRAM5OM-2018060
Page ILL of,..fit, ,05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 37 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Proposed Draft
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY MAP
NORTH CORRIDOR GENERAL LOCATION 1
1,) Okaloac
hheeepSR84M14.NI
9
State Forest
O`
t r,
END
N
FS
A
A 9
SSA 7 WRA
LAKE TRAFFORD RD 'Li9 cn
r..it p SSA 5 M)
to
H lir
whi
V. 0
r Slough
cnoo
SSA15 A
z It WRA
RIVERGRASS i J y SOUTH CORRIDOR
VILLAGE OP
GENERAL LOCATION
SRA 7 for" I m
WRA
SSAU I'D WRA
A/0
HYDE PARK L o
400,
4\ 4.4
VILLAGE SRA t SSA 9
relitiii
r -'04. RA A AdO.,
iiirOILWELLRD t
w m ei
co 0 WRA
4.41 1A.V,` ,'efaMU
Q
w
w p-,.s il
w MO ' e
GOLDEN G• E BLVD r,ywry,
I 1-,It a1* t Big
Cypress
National
Forest
s
o ACSC
I ' Florida Panther
co National Wildlife Refuge
Oi—Ornill0
lay L75 Legend
Major Roads Stewardship Areas
AMENDED-JANUARY 25,2007 Q RLSA Program Area I I 500 Foot Restoration Area
Ord.No.2007-18
AMENDED-OCTOBER 14,2008 I MO
Stewardship Receiving Area(SRA)
Area of Critical State Concern Flowway Stewardship Area(FSA)
Ord.No.2008-59
AMENDED-SEPTEMBER 13,2011 6'
Habtdat Stewardship Area(HSA)
Water Retention Area(WRA)
Stewardship Sending Area(SSA)Ord.No.2011-26 Open
AMENDED-JUNE 13,2017 i
2 4
Public Lands u
Ord.No.2017-22 Miles Ar ` Panther Corridor
Mi8/03f£+2PpED-XXX,XXXX 6.'.-_:rt. rt•,!- He
Ord.No.XXX-XX
Note:The official designated titles of SSAs can be found within SSA Credit Agreements.
05/10/21 BCC Adoption Hearing Page 38 of 38
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: 2. RLSA Ordinance - 051121 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
‒ 1 ‒
PL20190002292
Staff Proposed Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION,
COMMUNITY PLANNING SECTION
HEARING DATE: April 1, 2021
RE: PETITION PL20190002292, STAFF-PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE RURAL LANDS
STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
[ADOPTION HEARING]
INTRODUCTION
The proposed Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendments to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area
(RLSA) Overlay, found in the attached Ordinance (Exhibit A), were presented to and reviewed by the
Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) at their Transmittal hearings in September 2020. The
CCPC recommended Transmittal Amendments were reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners
(Board) on November 10, 2020. The Board voted (4-1) to approve and transmit the amendments, with
no changes, to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and other statutorily required
agencies. In their response letter, DEO offered three comments to assist the local government. Staff’s
recommendations include revisions to the Transmitted amendments in harmony with DEO’s comments.
No other review agency had any objections, recommendations, or comments. These RLSA Overlay
amendments are presented to the CCPC for review and recommendation at its Adoption hearing, in its
capacity as the Land Planning Agency under Florida Statutes and in its capacity as the Environmental
Advisory Council.
BACKGROUND
The RLSA area includes important environmental and agricultural assets, most of which are on privately
held land. In 2002, the RLSA Overlay was adopted in response to a state mandated “Final Order”, which
directed the County to create a land-use plan to protect: prime agricultural areas, wetlands and upland
habitat, water quality and quantity, and listed species and their habitats. It also required addressing
development by encouraging creative land use planning techniques.
RLSA Overlay Policy 1.22 mandated a comprehensive review of the RLSA upon the five-year
anniversary of the adoption of the RLSA. The Board established the Rural Lands Stewardship Area 5-
Year Review Committee (5-Year Review Committee) to accomplish this directive. In February 2008, the
5-Year Review Committee transmitted the Phase I Technical Review Report to the Board which
contains a quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of the RLSA Overlay in meeting its prescribed
goal. The Phase I Report concluded that significant progress had been made in achieving the RLSA
Overlay goal.
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: 2.1. CCPC Staff Report RLSA Adoption rev (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
‒ 2 ‒
PL20190002292
Staff Proposed Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments
The Phase I Report provided the foundation for the 5-Year Review Committee’s Phase II Report. This
report provides a qualitative evaluation of ways the RLSA Overlay policies could be improved to more
effectively implement the RLSA’s overriding goal. As a result of exhaustive public input and expert
testimony, the 5-Year Review Committee unanimously approved proposed RLSA Overlay
amendments. The public proceedings embodied twenty-three [23] public meetings and thousands of
man hours of work expended by scores of interested parties.
Based upon the adopted RLSA Overlay and the RLSA 5-Year Review Committee’s recommended
Policies, it was found that voluntary participation in the RLSA could:
1. Achieve a balance of natural resource protection, agriculture and sustainable community
development.
2. Provide new and meaningful economic incentives for agriculture to remain as a viable
component of the economy of Collier County.
3. Increase the total area of lands expected to be placed into Stewardship Sending Areas.
4. Enable protection and restoration of critical natural resources on private land using a new tiered
system of incentives that do not require public dollars for acquisition or management.
5. Establish a maximum SRA development footprint, and maximum number of Credits.
6. Reduce the potential for conversion of open lands to non-RLSA baseline development (1 unit
per 5 acres).
7. Create new opportunities to site new businesses in proximity to places for employees to live.
8. Provide a land use framework for long-range transportation planning to serve eastern Collier
County.
In January 2018, the Board directed RLSA restudy was initiated by Collier County staff. As with all
restudies, staff focused on complementary land uses, economic vitality, mobility and environmental
sustainability through a public outreach effort.
The Board appointed an ad hoc advisory committee, the Growth Management Oversight Committee
(GMOC), to assist in directing the public engagement process of the RLSA. Unlike prior area restudies,
however, the Board directed that staff, rather than appointed committees, provide recommendations to
the Board covering each of the four restudy areas. The RLSA public outreach effort included twelve
(12) public workshops, and numerous meetings with stakeholders, many who provided valuable
independent analysis and expert opinions. The evaluation of community input received through the
restudy workshops, reinforces and validates the substantive amendments recommended by the 5-Year
Review Committee. The community continues to see value in amending the RLSA Overlay to improve
the program and achieve the overriding goal through established incentives.
In October 2019, the RLSA White Paper was presented to the Board for staff direction. The Board
directed staff to bring forward Growth Management Plan amendments for the Rural Lands Stewardship
Area Overlay, as prepared by the 5-year Review Committee and reinforced in the RLSA White Paper;
develop a regional water partnership to address regional water matters; and draft Land Development
Code amendments to address SRA characteristics.
As directed by the Board, the specific “Transmittal” amendments to the RLSA Overlay were presented
to the CCPC September 3, 2020, September 17, 2020, and September 25, 2020. The staff report
describing these amendments is attached and summarizes the substantive amendments presented to
the CCPC. By vote of 5-1, the CCPC recommended approval for transmittal of the GMP amendments
for the RLSA Overlay without changes.
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: 2.1. CCPC Staff Report RLSA Adoption rev (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
‒ 3 ‒
PL20190002292
Staff Proposed Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments
At its meeting on November 10, 2020, the Board voted 4-1 to approve and transmit to DEO the RLSA
Overlay amendments. No changes were directed by the Board.
The RLSA Overlay GMP amendments were transmitted as approved on November 23, 2020, to DEO.
At the request of the Board, additional public comment material was provided to DEO on December 11,
2020. In their response letter, DEO offered three comments to assist the local government.
1. Update Statutory References from 163.3177(11), F.S. to 163.3248, F.S., and delete reference
to 9J-5.
2. Affordable housing land reservation – The County should consider revising the amendment to
establish a meaningful and predictable definition of “proximal SRA.” In addition, the proposed
amendments allow the Board to consider other options proposed by the SRA applicant and
approved by the Board to address housing affordability and DEO suggests establishing
predictable guidelines and standards for the options.
3. Fiscal Impact Analysis – The County should consider revising Policy 4.18 to define the timeframe
of the cost/benefit fiscal impact analysis.
DEO’s letter and all other agency review responses are included as an attachment. Staff’s
recommendations address the DEO comments.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The County Attorney’s office reviewed the staff report on April 7, 2021.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Collier County Planning Commission, acting as the Land Planning Agency and the
Environmental Advisory Council, forward the proposed, and corrected to the current adopted version,
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Growth Management Plan amendments to the Board of County
Commissioners with a recommendation to adopt and transmit to the Florida Department of Economic
Opportunity, with the following text changes that respond to DEO comments, address internal
consistency, and maintain congruence with Level of Service requirements. Text deletions are shown in
double strike through and text additions in are shown in double underline:
DEO Response Revisions:
Corrections to Statutory References
Objective - 163.3177(11) 163.3248
Policy 1.16 - 163.3177(11) 163.3248
Policy 4.2 - 163.3177(11) 163.3248
Policy 4.6 - 163.3177(11) 163.3248
Policy 4.7 - 163.3177(11) 163.3248
Policy 4.20 163.3177(11) 163.3248
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: 2.1. CCPC Staff Report RLSA Adoption rev (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
‒ 4 ‒
PL20190002292
Staff Proposed Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments
Revision to Affordable Housing Policy
Policy 4.7.5
To address the accommodation of Affordable Housing in a Town or Village, the SRA applicant shall
utilize one of the following options:
1) Affordable Housing Land Reservation
a) Reservation of one or more site(s) within the SRA or within a proximal SRA in the RLSAO with
densities and development standards that accommodate Affordable Housing residential uses at
a minimum density of 10 units per acre, for acquisition by either Collier County, a Community
Land Trust, a private developer or any other affordable housing provider.
b) The aggregate acreage of such site(s) shall be equal to or greater than 2.5% of the gross area
of the SRA.
c) The acreage of land reserved for Affordable Housing will be considered as a Public Benefit Use
and not require the consumption of Stewardship Credits but shall be included in the calculation
of total SRA acreage.
d) The County shall verify the site(s) is/are appropriate and approve the site(s) at time of SRA
approval, subject to standards to be established in the LDC.
e) Affordable Housing units shall be excluded from the Traffic Impact Statement or trip cap for the
SRA in which they are located.
2) Alternatives proposed by the SRA Applicant
a) While compliance with the Land Reservation described above shall be deemed to satisfy
affordable housing requirements, other options may be proposed by the SRA applicant and
approved by the Board of County Commissioners to address housing affordability issues in the
subject SRA.
3) The process and procedures to implement this policy, including a definition to be used to determine
“proximal SRA” and specific guidelines and standards in those instances in which alternative options
may be proposed, shall be set forth in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Zoning District.
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Policy 4.18
The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the SRA
horizon year based on a public facilities impact assessment, as identified in LDC 4.08.07.K. The BCC
may grant exceptions to this Policy to accommodate affordable housing, as it deems appropriate.
Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other
special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the assessment shall consider the following public
facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater
management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer
contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse
impacts to adopted levels of service standards.
In the event that an SRA development, generates surplus revenues to Collier County, Collier County
may choose to allocate a portion of such surplus revenues to ensure that sufficient resources are
available to allow Collier County to respond expeditiously to economic opportunities and to compete
effectively for high-value research, development and commercialization, innovation, and alternative and
renewable energy business projects.
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: 2.1. CCPC Staff Report RLSA Adoption rev (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
‒ 5 ‒
PL20190002292
Staff Proposed Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments
Staff Internal Consistency Revision:
Policy 4.9
An SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development in an
environmentally acceptable manner. The primary means of directing development away from wetlands
and critical habitat is the prohibition of locating SRAs in FSAs, and HSAs, and WRAs unless the WRA
is being used to provide water quality treatment for the SRA, in which case the WRA acreage shall be
included in the SRA. To further direct development away from wetlands and critical habitat, residential,
commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and
community service uses within a SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index
value of greater than 1.2. In addition, conditional use essential services and governmental essential
services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not
be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. Infrastructure
necessary to serve permitted uses may be exempt from this restriction, provided that designs seek to
minimize the extent of impacts to any such areas. The Index value of greater than 1.2 represents those
areas that have a high natural resource value as measured pursuant to Policy 1.8. Less than 2% of
potential SRA land achieves an Index score of greater than 1.2.
Staff Level of Service Consistency Revision:
Policy 4.7.1
Towns are the largest and most diverse form of SRA, with a full range of housing types and mix of uses.
Towns have urban level services and infrastructure that support development that is compact, mixed
use, human scale, and provides a balance of land uses to reduce automobile trips and increase livability.
Towns shall be not less than 1,000 greater than 1,500 acres and up to or more than 4,000 5,000 acres
and are comprised of several villages and/or neighborhoods that have individual identity and character.
Towns shall have a mixed-use town center that will serve as a focal point for community facilities and
support services. Towns shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including
an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Towns shall
include an internal mobility plan, which shall include a transfer station or park and ride area that is
appropriately located within the town to serve the connection point for internal and external public
transportation. Towns shall have at least one community park with a minimum size of 200 square feet
per dwelling unit in the Town, subject to Level of Service requirements.
Towns shall also have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Towns shall include
both community and neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided described in
Policy 4.15 4.15.1. Towns may also include those compatible corporate office, research, development
companies, and light industrial uses such as those permitted in the Business Park and Research and
Technology Park Subdistricts of the FLUE and those included in Policy 4.7.4. Towns shall be the
preferred location for the full range of schools, and to the extent possible, schools and parks shall be
located abutting each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities and as provided in Policies
4.15.2 and 4.15.3. Design criteria for Towns shall be are included in the LDC Stewardship District.
Towns shall not be located within the ACSC.
Staff RLSA Attachment C Revision:
Remove the change to Town column - Community Parks (200 358 SF/DU). Community Parks are
subject to Level of Service requirements as noted in the additional language above in Policy 4.7.1. The
requirement should remain at 200 SF/DU.
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: 2.1. CCPC Staff Report RLSA Adoption rev (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
9.C.3
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: 3. DEO and agency responses (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
9.C.3
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: 3. DEO and agency responses (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
9.C.3
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: 3. DEO and agency responses (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
9.C.3
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: 3. DEO and agency responses (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
9.C.3
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: 3. DEO and agency responses (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
9.C.3
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: 3. DEO and agency responses (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
9.C.3
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: 3. DEO and agency responses (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
9.C.3
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: 3. DEO and agency responses (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
9.C.3
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: 3. DEO and agency responses (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
9.C.3
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: 3. DEO and agency responses (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
9.C.4Packet Pg. 304Attachment: 4. Ltr from Barron Collier Policy 4.20 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
9.C.4Packet Pg. 305Attachment: 4. Ltr from Barron Collier Policy 4.20 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Page 1 of 2
EASTERN COLLIER PROPERTY OWNERS
April 14, 2021
Thaddeus Cohen, Department Head
Anita Jenkins, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning
Ray Bellows, AICP, Zoning Manager
Collier County Growth Management Department
2800 Horseshoe Drive North
Naples, Florida 34104
Subject: Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO)- Growth
Management Plan Amendments (PL 20190002292) Clarification regarding Water
Retention Areas Policies 3.13 and 4.9.
It is ECPO’s understanding that policies 3.13, 3.14, 4.9, and 4.10 as proposed to be
amended are collectively intended to include the prorata WRA acreage in the calculation
of maximum allowed SRA acreage and Stewardship Credit consumption, when such
areas are used to meet required SRA stormwater quality treatment standards. ECPO
supports this change. We also understand that WRAs will retain their WRA Overlay
classification in such instances, as opposed to being designated as SRA. It is important
to clarify this latter point, as Policy 4.10 imposes specific criteria regarding SRA
designated lands which could conflict with Policies 3.13 and 3.14, and the implementing
Land Development Code provisions.
We therefore recommend that there be further clarifications to the RLSA Policies on this
matter by specifically stating that WRA lands retain their Overlay classification in such
instances. We also recommend that additional language to make it clear that this
amended policy applies only to that portion of the area of the WRA that is used to meet
the SFWMD regulatory requirements so as not to discourage the use of WRAs for
supplemental or enhanced water quality treatment.
Current RLSAO Policy 3.13 states: “WRAs may be incorporated into a SRA master plan to
provide water management functions for properties within such SRA but are not
required to be designated as a SRA in such instances.”. The County’s proposed
amendment to Policy 3.13 adds the following sentence: “However, if the WRA provides
stormwater quality treatment for a SRA, the acreage of the WRA used for stormwater
quality treatment for the SRA shall be included in the SRA credit calculation.” We
recommend that the additional sentence read:
“However, if all or part of a WRA provides stormwater quality treatment for
a SRA, the prorata acreage of the WRA used to meet the water quality
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: 4.1 ECPO Letter to Collier County concerning WRA Policies (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP
Page 2 of 2
treatment volume required per Section 4.2 of the SFWMD Environmental
Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook Volume II shall be included in the
SRA credit calculation and the calculation of total SRA acreage.”
For Policy 4.9, by including the additional language shown below in bold, it will clarify
that the WRA Overlay classification of the subject land does not change to SRA when
added to the total acreage calculation for the SRA.
“The primary means of directing development away from wetlands and critical
habitat is the prohibition of locating SRAs in FSAs, HSAs and WRAs unless the
WRA is being used to provide water quality treatment volume as referenced in
Policy 3.13, in which case the WRA shall retain its WRA Overlay classification
and b e included in the SRA acreage total.”
ECPO appreciates your consideration of these clarifications.
Respectfully yours,
Alan D. Reynolds
Alan D. Reynolds, FAICP
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
Representing Eastern Collier Property Owners
Cc: Collier County Planning Commission Members
Brad Cornell, Meredith Budd
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: 4.1 ECPO Letter to Collier County concerning WRA Policies (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP
RESOLUTION NO. 20-21 1
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN,
ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE RURAL
LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY RESTUDY AND
SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE RURAL LANDS
STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY OF THE FUTURE LAND USE
ELEMENT, TO CHANGE ACREAGES, STEWARDSHIP CREDITS,
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND PROGRAM
REQUIREMENTS; AND FURTHERMORE DIRECTING
TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY.
PL20190002292]
WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the
Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of
1985,was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier
County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local
governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to
amend adopted comprehensive plans; and
WHEREAS, Collier County staff has prepared amendments relating the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area Overlay of the Future Land Use Element Series; and
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2020, the Collier County Planning Commission
considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan pursuant to the authority
granted to it by Section 163.3174, F.S., and has recommended approval of said amendment to the
Board of County Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2020, the Board of County Commissioners at a public
hearing approved the transmittal of the proposed amendment to the state land planning agency in
accordance with Section 163.3184, F.S.; and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of Collier County's proposed Growth Management Plan
Amendment, various State agencies and the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) have
thirty (30) days to review the proposed amendments and DEO must transmit, in writing, to
Collier County its comments within said thirty (30) days pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and
19-EN5-00625/1555489/1]40
RLSA Overlay Restudy Words underlined are additions;Words struck through are deletions.
PL20190002292 are a break in text
7/31/20
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
WHEREAS, Collier County, upon receipt of the written comments from DEO must
adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment
within one hundred and eighty (180) days of such receipt pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and
WHEREAS, the DEO, within five (5) days of receipt of Collier County's adopted
Growth Management Plan Amendment, must notify the County of any deficiencies of the Plan
Amendment pursuant to Section 163.3184(3), F.S.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the proposed Growth Management
Plan Amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein, for the
purpose of transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity and other reviewing agencies
thereby initiating the required State evaluation of the Growth Management Plan Amendment
prior to final adoption.
THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote this /0
day of NDy -2020.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CRYSTAL K. KINZEU CLERK COLLIER UNTY, FLO DA
TN\ i+ +
BY:
est as to Chairmamky re( Burt L. Saunders, Chairman
signature only.
pproved as to form and legality:
01 ,1-46.4
Heidi Ashton-Cicko
Managing Assistant County Attorney
Attachment: Exhibit"A"—Text amendments and attachments
19-ENS-00625/1555489/1]40
RLSA Overlay Restudy Words underlined are additions; Words struckgh are deletions.
PL20190002292 are a break in text
7/31/20
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments—CCPC Transmittal Draft
Collier County Growth Management Plan
Future Land Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay
Prepared by
Collier County Growth Management Department
Community Planning Section
Prepared for
Collier County Board of County Commissioners
Adopted October 1997, as amended
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 1 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments—CCPC Transmittal Draft
II. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY Page 10]
GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
text break *** *** *** ***
V. OVERLAYS AND SPECIAL FEATURES Page 98]
A. Area of Critical State Concern
text break *** *** *** ***
B. North Belle Meade Overlay
text break *** *** *** ***
C. Natural Resource Protection Area Overlay
text break *** *** *** ***
D. Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Page 120]
Goal
Collier County seeks to address the long-term needs of residents and property owners within the
Immokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment.
Collier County's goal is to otect retain land for agricultural activities,
to direct incompatible uses away from
wetlands and upland habitat, to protect and restore habitat connectivity, to enable the conversion
of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations, to discourage urban sprawl, and to encourage
development that utilizes employs creative land use planning techniques through the use of
established incentives.
Objective
To meet the Goal described above, Collier County's objective is to create an incentive-based land use
overlay system, herein referred to as the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, based on
the principles of rural land stewardship as defined in Chapter 163.3177(11), F.S. The Policies that will
implement this Goal and Objective are set forth below in groups relating to each aspect of the Goal.
Group 1 policies describe the structure and organization of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship
Area Overlay. Group 2 policies relate to agriculture. Group 3 policies relate to natural resource protection
acid_ Group 4 policies relate to conversion of land to other uses and economic diversification. Group 5 are
regulatory policies that ensure that land that is not voluntarily included in the Overlay by its owners shall
nonetheless meet the minimum requirements of the Final Order pertaining to natural resource protection.
Group 1 - General purpose and structure of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlay
Policy 1.1
To promote a dynamic balance of land uses in the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area(RLSA)
that collectively contributes to a viable agricultural industry, protects natural resources, and enhances
economic prosperity and diversification, Collier County hereby establishes the Rural Lands Stewardship
Text underlined is added;text strikeh is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks(** *** **)denotes break in text.
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 2 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments—CCPC Transmittal Draft
Area Overlay (Overlay). The Overlay was created through a collaborative community:based planning
process involving county residents, area property owners, and representatives of community and
governmental organizations under the direction of a citizen oversight committee.
Policy 1.2
The Overlay protects natural resources and retains viable agriculture by promoting compact rural mixed-
use development as an alternative to low-density single use development, and provides a system of
compensation to private property owners for the elimination of certain land uses in order to protect natural
resources and viable agriculture in exchange for transferable credits that can be used to entitle such
compact development. The strategies herein are based in part on the principles of Florida's Rural Lands
Stewardship Act, Chapter 163.3177(11) F.S. The Overlay includes innovative and incentive-based tools,
techniques and strategies that are not dependent on a regulatory approach, but will complement existing
local, regional,state and federal regulatory programs.
Policy 1.3
This Overlay to the Future Land Use Map is depicted on the Stewardship Overlay Map (Overlay Map)
and applies to rural designated lands located within the Immokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier
County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment referred to in the State of Florida Administration
Commission Final Order No. AC-99-002. The RLSA generally includes rural lands in northeast Collier
County lying north and east of Golden Gate Estates, north of the Florida Panther National Wildlife
Refuge and Big Cypress National Preserve, south of the Lee County Line, and south and west of the
Hendry County Line,and includes a total of approximately 195,846 185,935 acres
182,331 acres is privately owned. The Overlay Map is an adopted overlay to the Future Land Use Map
FLUM).
Policy 1.4
Except as provided in Group 5 Policies,there shall be no change to the underlying density and intensity of
permitted uses of land within the RLSA, as set forth in the Baseline Standards, as defined in Policy 1.5,
unless and until a property owner elects to utilize the provisions of the Stewardship Credit System. It is
the intent of the Overlay that a property owner will be compensated for the voluntary stewardship and
protection of important agricultural and natural resources. Compensation to the property owner shall
occur through one of the following mechanisms: creation and transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition
of conservation easements, acquisition of less than fee interest in the land, or through other acquisition of
land or interest in land through a willing seller program.
Policy 1.5
As referred to in these Overlay policies, Baseline Standards are the permitted uses, density, intensity and
other land development regulations assigned to land in the RLSA by the GMP Growth Management Plan
GMP), Collier County Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and Collier County Zoning Regulations
in effect prior to the adoption of Interim Amendments and Interim Development Provisions referenced in
Final Order AC-99-002. The Baseline Standards will remain in effect for all land not subject to the
transfer or receipt of Stewardship Credits, except as provided for in Group 5 Policies. No part of the
Stewardship Credit System shall be imposed upon a property owner without that owners owner's consent.
Policy 1.6
Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within the RLSA that are to be kept in
permanent agriculture, open space or conservation uses. These lands will be identified as Stewardship
Text underlined is added;text strike-through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks(** *** **)denotes break in text.
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 3 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments—CCPC Transmittal Draft
Sending Areas or SSAs. All privately owned lands within the RLSA are a candidate for designation as a
SSA. Land becomes designated as a SSA upon petition by the property owner seeking such designation
and the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC), which
acknowledges the property owner's request for such designation and assigns Stewardship Credits or other
compensation to the owner for such designation. Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate
the boundaries of each approved SSA. Designation as an SSA shall be administrative and shall not
require an amendment to the Growth Management Plan, but shall be retroactively incorporated into the
adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment process when it periodically occurs
amendment as may be periodically initiated by the County. A Stewardship Sending Area Credit
Agreement shall be developed that identifies those allowable residential densities and other land uses
which remain. Once land is designated as a SSA and Credits or other compensation is granted to the
owner, no increase in density or additional uses unspecified in the Stewardship Sending Area Credit
Agreement shall be allowed on such property unless the SSA is terminated as provided in Policy 1.6.1
Policy 1.6.1 (recommended amendment)
Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, upon initial approval of a Stewardship Sending
Area ("SSA"), the Stewardship Easement shall be established for a term of five years ("Conditional
Period") and shall be deemed a Conditional Stewardship Easement. The Conditional Period may be
extended for one additional year at the option of the owner by providing written notice to the County prior
to the expiration of the initial five-year period. All conditions and restrictions of the Stewardship
Easement related to maintaining the existing property conditions, including all management obligations of
the owner of the SSA lands, shall be in full force throughout the Conditional Period. If at any time during
the Conditional Period any of the following events occur, then the Conditional Stewardship Easement
shall become a Permanent Stewardship Easement which shall be final, perpetual and non-revocable in
accordance with the terms set forth therein:
1. Stewardship Credits from the SSA have been assigned to entitle an approved Stewardship Receiving
Area("SRA"), and the SRA has received all necessary final and non-appealable development orders,
permits, or other discretionary approvals necessary to commence construction, including subdivision
plat and site development plan approval, but not building permits. If Stewardship Credits from the
SSA have been assigned to more than one SRA,then the receipt of all necessary governmental final
and non-appealable development orders, permits, or other discretionary approvals necessary to
commence construction of any SRA shall automatically cause the Conditional Stewardship
Easement to become a Permanent Stewardship Easement;
2. The owner of the SSA lands has sold or transferred any Stewardship Credits to another person or
entity, including a Stewardship Credit Trust as described in Policy 1.20, the closing has occurred,
and the owner has received the consideration due from such sale or transfer, but not expressly
excluding:
a) a sale or transfer of the Stewardship Credits ancillary to the sale or transfer of the underlying
fee title to the land, or
b) instances where a landowner establishes an SSA for a specific SRA,whether the SRA is owned
or developed by a separate or related entity, and the Stewardship Credits are transferred as
required by the Growth Management Plan or Land Development Code for SRA approval; or
Text underlined is added;text strikh is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks(** *** **)denotes break in text.
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 4 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments—CCPC Transmittal Draft
3. The owner of the SSA lands has received in exchange for the creation of the Stewardship Easement
Agreement other compensation from local, state, federal or private revenues (collectively, the
Events").
The LDC shall specify how, assuming a Notice of Termination (as hereafter described) has not been
recorded, the Conditional Stewardship Easement shall automatically convert to a Permanent
Stewardship Easement upon the earliest to occur of (a) any of the foregoing Events during the
Conditional Period, or (b) 180 days after the last day of the Conditional Period, as and to the extent
extended hereunder. In the event that none of the foregoing events has occurred during the
Conditional Period, then the owner of the SSA lands may within 180 days after the last day of the
Conditional Period terminate the Conditional Stewardship Easement by recording a Notice of
Termination. In addition, if a challenge and/or appeal of a necessary development order, permit or
other discretionary approval is filed, the owner of the SSA lands may elect to extend the Conditional
Period until the challenge or appeal is finally resolved. If the challenge or appeal is not resolved such
that the construction may commence under terms acceptable to the owner of the SSA lands,the owner
of the SSA lands may within 180 days of the final disposition of the challenge or appeal record a
Notice of Termination. Upon the recording of such Notice of Termination,the Stewardship Easement
Agreement and corresponding Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall expire and
terminate, the Stewardship Credits generated by the SSA shall cease to exist, the rights and
obligations set forth in the Stewardship Easement shall no longer constitute an encumbrance on the
property, and the SSA Memorandum shall be revised accordingly. The owner of the SSA lands shall
provide a copy of the Notice of Termination to the County.
In the event that the Stewardship Credits from an SSA have been used to obtain one or more SRA
approvals, but none of the foregoing events has occurred during the Conditional Period, then the
Notice of Termination shall also provide for termination of any SRAs that have been assigned credits
from the SSA, unless the SRA owner has obtained sufficient Stewardship Credits from another source
and such Stewardship Credits have been applied to the SRA. In the event that a Notice of Termination
does terminate an SRA,the owner of the SRA lands shall join in the Notice of Termination.
In the event that a Conditional Stewardship Easement is terminated, all benefits, rights, privileges,
restrictions and obligations associated with the SSA shall be null and void, and the land shall revert to
its underlying zoning classification, free and clear of any encumbrance from the Conditional
Stewardship Easement and SSA Credit Agreement. If requested by the owner of the SSA lands,
Collier County and the other grantees under the Stewardship Easement Agreement shall provide a
written release and termination of easement and credit agreements for recording in the public records
within 15 days of request from the owner of the SSA lands. Collier County shall update the overlay
map to reflect the termination of any SSA or SRA.
This policy shall be implemented in the LDC within 12 months after adoption hereof
For SSAs approved prior to this Policy 1.6.1 being adopted but have not changed ownership in whole
or part since the creation of the SSA and have not transferred, sold or utilized Credits generated
from the SSA, the property owner may withdraw the SSA designation provided an application for
such withdrawal is implemented within 6 months of the adoption of this Policy 1.6.1.
Text underlined is added;text strip is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks(** *** **)denotes break in text.
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 5 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments—CCPC Transmittal Draft
Policy 1.7
The range of Stewardship Credit Values is hereby established using the specific methodology set forth on
the Stewardship Credit Worksheet (Worksheet), incorporated herein as Attachment A. This methodology
and related procedures for SSA designation will also be adopted as part of the Stewardship Overlay
District in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). Such procedures shall include but fie not
be limited to the following: (1) All Credit transfers shall be recorded with the Collier County Clerk of
Courts; (2) a covenant or perpetual restrictive easement shall also be recorded for each SSA, shall run
with the land and shall be in favor of Collier County; and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission and one of the following: Department of Environmental Protection, Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services, South Florida Water Management District, or a recognized statewide
land trust; and (3) for each SSA, the Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement will identify the
specific land management measures that will be undertaken and the party responsible for such measures.
Policy 1.8
The natural resource value of land within the RLSA is measured by the Stewardship Natural Resource
Index (Index) set forth on the Worksheet. The Index established the relative natural resource value by
objectively measuring six different characteristics of land and assigning an index factor based on each
characteristic. The sum of these six factors is the index value for the land. Both the characteristics used
and the factors assigned thereto were established after review and analysis of detailed information about
the natural resource attributes of land within the RLSA so that development could be directed away from
important natural resources. The six characteristics measured are: Stewardship Overlay Designation,
Sending Area Proximity, Listed Species Habitat, Soils/Surface Water, Restoration Potential, and Land
Use/Land Cover.
Policy 1.9
A Natural Resource Index Map Series (Index Map Series) indicates the Natural Resource Stewardship
Index value for all land within the RLSA. Credits from any lands designated as SSAs, will be based upon
the Natural Resource Index values in effect at the time of designation. Any change in the Characteristics
of land due to alteration of the land prior to the establishment of a SSA that either increases or decreases
any Index Factor will result in an adjustment of the factor values and a corresponding adjustment in the
credit value. The Index and the Index Map Series are adopted as a part of the RLSA Overlay.
Policy 1.10
In SSAs, the greater the number of uses eliminated from the property, and the higher the natural resource
value of the land, the higher the priority for protection, the greater the level of Credits that are generated
from such lands, and therefore the greater the incentive to participate in the Stewardship Credit System
and protect the natural resources of the land.
Policy 1.11
The Land Use Matrix, Attachment B, lists uses and activities allowed under the A, Rural Agricultural
Zoning District within the Overlay. These uses are grouped together in one of eight separate layers in the
Matrix. Each layer is discrete and shall be removed sequentially and cumulatively in the order presented
in the Matrix, starting with the residential layer(layer one) and ending with the conservation layer(layer
eight). If a layer is removed, all uses and activities in that layer are eliminated and are no longer available.
Each layer is assigned a percentage of a base credit in the Worksheet. The assigned percentage for each
layer to be removed is added together and then multiplied by the Index value on a per acre basis to arrive
at a total Stewardship Credit Value of the land being designated as a SSA.
Text underlined is added;text stye-through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks(** *** **)denotes break in text.
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 6 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments—CCPC Transmittal Draft
Policy 1.12
Credits can be transferred only to lands within the RLSA that meet the defined suitability criteria and
standards set forth in Group 4 Policies. Such lands shall be known as Stewardship Receiving Areas or
SRAs.
Policy 1.13
The procedures for the establishment and transfer of Credits and SRA designation are set forth herein and
will also be adopted as a are part of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District in the
LDC (District). LDRs creating the District will be adopted within ono (1)year from the effective date of
this Plana n.lment
Policy 1.14
Stewardship Credits will be exchanged for additional residential or non-residential entitlements in an
SRA on a per acre basis, as described in Policy 4.18 4.19. Stewardship density and intensity will
thereafter differ from the Baseline Standards. The assignment or use of Stewardship Credits shall not
require a GMP Amendment.
Policy 1.15
Land becomes designated as an SRA upon the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of
County Commissioners (BCC) approving the petition by the property owner seeking such designation.
Any change in the residential density or non-residential intensity of land use on a parcel of land located
within a SRA shall be specified in the resolution reflecting the total number of transferable Credits
assigned to the parcel of land. Density and intensity within the RLSA or within an SRA shall not be
increased beyond the Baseline Standards except through the provisions of the Stewardship Credit System,
the Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of the
FLUE, and the density and intensity blending provision of the Immokalee Area Master Plan.
Policy 1.16
Stewardship Receiving Areas will accommodate uses that utilize creative land use planning techniques
and Credits shall be used to facilitate the implementation of innovative and flexible development
strategies described in Chapter 163.3177(11), F.S.
Policy 1.17
Stewardship Credits may be transferred between different parcels or within a single parcel, subject to
compliance with all applicable provisions of these policies. Residential clustering shall only occur within
the RLSA through the use of the Stewardship Credit System, and other forms of residential clustering
shall not be permitted.
Policy 1.18
A blend of Local, State, Federal and private revenues, such as but not limited to Florida Forever, Federal
and State conservation and stewardship programs, foundation grants, private conservation organizations,
local option taxes, general county revenues, and other monies can augment the Stewardship program
through the acquisition of conservation easements, Credits, or land that is identified as the highest priority
for natural resource protection, including, but is not limited to, areas identified on the Overlay Map as
Flow way Stewardship Areas (FSAs), Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), Water Retention Areas
WRAs)and land within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern(ACSC).
Text underlined is added;text strikgh is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks(** *** **)denotes break in text.
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 7 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments—CCPC Transmittal Draft
Policy 1.19
All local land or easement acquisition programs that are intended to work within the RLSA Overlay shall
be based upon a willing participant/seller approach. It is not the intent of Collier County to use eminent
domain acquisition within this system.
Policy 1.20
The County may elect to acquire Credits through a publicly funded program, using sources identified in
Policy 1.18. Should the County pursue this option, it shall establish a Stewardship Credit Trust to receive
and hold Credits until such time as they are sold, transferred or otherwise used to implement uses within
Stewardship Receiving Areas.
Policy 1
The incentive based Stewardship Credits term relies ., the
p ected dcmafa f.. Credits n s the
primary basis for permanent protection of agricultural lands, flowways, habitats and water retention areas.
The County recognizes that there may be a lack of significant demand for Credits in the arly years of
implementation, and also recognizes that a public benefit would be r alized by the early designation of
SSAs. To address this issue and to promote the protection of natural resources,the implementation of the
Overlay will include an early entry bonus to encourage the voluntary establishment of SSAs within the
RLSA. The bonus shall be in the form of an additional one Stewardship Credit per acre of land
designated as a HSA located outside of the ACSC and one half Stewardship Credit per acre of land
designated as HSA located inside the ACSC. The early entry bonus shall be available for five years from
the effective date of the adoption of the Stewardship Credit System in the LDC. The early designation of
SSAs, and resulting protection of flowways, habitats, and water retention areas does not require the
establishment of SRAs or otherwise require the early use of Credits, and Credits generated under the early
entry bonus may be used after the termination of the bonus period. The maximum number of Credits that
can be generated under the bonus is 27,000 Credits, and such Credits shall not be transferred into or used
within the ACSC.
Policy 1.21 3
The RLSA Overlay was designed to be a long-term strategic plan. with a planning horizon Year of 2025.
Many of the tools, techniques and strategies of the Overlay are new, innovative, and incentive based
have yet to be tested in actual implementation. A comprehensive review of the Overlay shall be prepared
for and reviewed by Collier County every seven (7) years beginning [date of adoption of this
Ordinance].and the Department of Community Affairs upon the five year anniversary of the adoption of
the Stewardship District in the LDC. as part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report process. The purpose
of the review shall be to assess the participation in and effectiveness of the Overlay implementation in
meeting the Goal, Objective and Policies set forth herein. The specific measures of review shall be as
follows:
1. The amount and location of land designated as FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and other SSAs.
2. The amount and location of land designated as SRAs.
3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated,assigned or held for future use.
4. A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at the time of a Study
and time of review.
5. The amount, location and type of land converted to non-agricultural use with and without
participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption.
Text underlined is added;text strikegh is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks(** *** **)denotes break in text.
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 8 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments—CCPC Transmittal Draft
6. The extent and use of funding provided by Collier County and other sources Local, State, Federal
and private revenues described in Policy 1.18.
7. The amount, location and type of restoration through participation in the Stewardship Credit
System since its adoption.
8. The potential for use of Credits in urban areas.
At the direction of the Board of County Commissioners, additional review measures may be considered.
Policy 1.22
The total number of Stewardship Credit shall be capped at 404,000 to entitle no more than 45,000 acres of
Stewardship Receiving Areas. Generating Stewardship Credits does not presume approval of Stewardship
Receiving Areas.
Group 2-Policies
To protect ltu al lands fF t^ oth^ a-nd retain land for
agricultural activities through the use of established incentives in order to continue the viability of
agricultural production through the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay.
Policy 2.1
Agricultural landowners will be provided with lands will be protected from premature conversion to
other uses by creating incentives that encourage the voluntary elimination of the property owner's right to
convert agriculture land to non-agricultural uses in exchange for compensation as described in Policies
1.4 and 2.2 and by the establishment of SRAs. as the form of compact rural development in the RLSA
Overlay. Analysis has shown that SRAs will allow the projected population of the RLSA in the Horizon
year of 2025 to be accommodated on approximately 10% of the acreage otherwise required if such
compact rural development were not allowed due to the flexibility afforded to such development. The
combination of stewardship incentives and land efficient compact rural development will minimize two of
the primary market factors that cause premature conversion of agriculture.
Policy 2.2
Agriculture lands protected through the use of Stewardship Credits shall be designated as Stewardship
Sending Areas (SSAs) as described in Policy 1.6. The protection measures for SSAs are set forth in
Policies 1.6, 1.7, 1.10, and 1.17. In addition to protecting agriculture activities in SSAs within FSA, HSA,
and WRA, as further described in Policies 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, additional incentives are desired to retain
agriculture within Open Lands as an alternative to conversion of such lands to other uses, using Baseline
Standards as described in Policy 1.5. Open Lands are those lands not designated SSA, SRA, WRA, HSA,
FSA, or public lands on the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Map. Open Lands are those lands
described in Policy 4.2. Therefore, in lieu of using the Natural Resource Index on land designated Open
Lands,these lands shall be assigned two (2.0) Stewardship Credits per acre outside of the Area of Critical
State Concern(ACSA), and two and sixth tenths(2.6)Credits per acre within the ACSC as established by
F.S. 380.055 as of March 3, 2009. All non-agriculture uses shall be removed from Open Lands and the
remaining uses are limited to agriculture Land Use Levels 5, 6 and 7 on the Land Use Matrix. Each layer
is discreet and shall be removed sequentially and cumulatively in the order presented in the Matrix. If a
layer is removed,all uses and activities in that layer are eliminated and no longer available. SSA's created
under this Policy will be known as an Agricultural SSA. Following approval of an Agricultural SSA,
Text underlined is added;text strike—through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks(** *** **)denotes break in text.
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 9 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments—CCPC Transmittal Draft
Collier County shall periodically update the RLSA Zoning Overlay District Map to delineate the
boundaries of the Agricultural SSA.
Policy 2.3
Within one (1) year from the effective datc of these amendments, Collier County will may establish an
Agriculture Advisory Council comprised of not less than five nor more than nine appointed
representatives of the agriculture industry, to advise the BCC on matters relating to Agriculture. The
Agriculture Advisory Council (AAC) will work to identify opportunities and prepare strategies to
enhance and promote the continuance, expansion and diversification of agriculture in Collier County. The
AAC will also identify barriers to the continuance, expansion and diversification of the agricultural
industry and will prepare recommendations to eliminate or minimize such barriers in Collier County. The
AAC will also assess whether exceptions from standards for business uses related to agriculture should be
Policy 2.4
The BCC will consider the recommendations of the AAC and facilitate the implementation of strategies
and recommendations identified by the ACC that are determined to be appropriate. The BCC may adopt
amendments to the LDC that implement policies that support agriculture activities.
Policy 2.5
Agriculture is an important aspect of Collier County's quality of life and economic well-being.
Agricultural activities shall be protected from duplicative regulation as provided by the Florida Right-to-
Farm Act.
Policy 2.6
Notwithstanding the special provisions of Policies 3.9 and 3.10, nothing herein or in the implementing
LDRs, shall restrict lawful agricultural activities on lands within the RLSA that have not been placed into
the Stewardship program.
Group 3—Policies to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime, as
well as listed animal and plant species and their habitats by directing incompatible uses away from
wetlands and upland habitat through the establishment of Flow way Stewardship Areas, Habitat
Stewardship Areas, and Water Retention Areas, where lands are voluntarily included in the Rural
Lands Stewardship Area program.
Policy 3.1
Protection of water quality and quantity, and the maintenance of the natural water regime shall occur
through the establishment of Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay.
FSAs are delineated on the Overlay Map and contain approximately 31,100 30,869 acres. FSAs are
primarily privately owned wetlands that are located within the Camp Keais Strand and Okaloacoochee
Slough. These lands form the primary wetland flowway systems in the RLSA. The Overlay provides an
incentive to permanently protect FSAs by the creation and transfer of Credits, elimination of incompatible
uses, and establishment of protection measures described in Group 1 Policies. Not all lands within the
delineated FSAs are comparable in terms of their natural resource value; therefore the index shall be used
to differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation. The
Text underlined is added;text strilie-thfeugh is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks(** *** **)denotes break in text.
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 10 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments—CCPC Transmittal Draft
Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that FSA lands score within a range of 0.7 to 2.4; approximately
96%score greater than 1.2 while 4%score 1.2 or less. The average Index score of FSA land is 1.8.
Policy 3.2
Listed animal and plant species and their habitats shall be protected through the establishment of Habitat
Stewardship Areas (HSAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. HSAs are delineated on the Overlay
Map and contain approximately 40,000 '15,782 39,991 acres. HSAs are privately owned agricultural
areas, which include both areas with natural characteristics that make them suitable habitat for listed
species, as well as awl areas without these characteristics. These latter areas are included because they
are located contiguous to habitat to help form a continuum of landscape that can augment habitat values.
The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect HSAs by the creation and transfer of Credits,
resulting in the elimination of incompatible uses and the establishment of protection measures described
in Group 1 Policies. Not all lands within the delineated HSAs are comparable in terms of their habitat
value; therefore the index shall be used to differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the
purpose of Overlay implementation. Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that HSA lands score within
a range of 0.6 to 2.2. There are approximately 13,800 15,156 acres of cleared agricultural fields located
in HSAs. The average Index score of HAS HSA designated lands is 1.3,however,the average index score
of the naturally vegetated areas within HSAs is 1.5.
Policy 3.3
Further protection for surface water quality and quantity shall be through the establishment of Water
Retention Areas (WRAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. WRAs are delineated on the Overlay Map
and contain approximately 18,200 18,428 acres. WRAs are privately owned lands that have been
permitted by the South Florida Water Management District to function as agricultural water retention
areas. In many instances, these WRAs consist of native wetland or upland vegetation; in other cases they
are excavated water bodies or may contain exotic vegetation. The Overlay provides an incentive to
permanently protect WRAs by the creation and transfer of Credits, elimination of incompatible uses, and
establishment of protection measures described in Group 1 Policies. Not all lands within the delineated
WRAs are comparable in terms of their natural resource value; therefore, the index shall be used to
differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation. Analysis of
the Index Map Series shows that WRA lands score within a range of 0.6 to 2.4; approximately 74%score
greater than 1.2 while 26%score 1.2 or less. The average Index score of WRA land is 1.5.
Policy 3.4
Public and private conservation areas exist in the RLSA and serve to protect natural resources. Corkscrew
Marsh and Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest include approximately 13,500 acres. Analysis shows that
they score within an Index range of 0.0 to 2.2; with an average Index score of 1.5. Because these existing
public areas, and any private conservation areas, are already protected, they are not delineated as SSAs
and are not eligible to generate Credits but do serve an important role in meeting the Goal of the RLSA.
Policy 3.5
Residential uses, General Conditional uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses
layers 1-4) as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in FSAs in exchange for compensation to the
property owner as described in Policy 3.7. Conditional use essential services and governmental essential
services, other than those necessary to serve permitted uses or for public safety, shall only be allowed in
FSAs with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less. Where practicable, directional
Text underlined is added;text strik gh is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks(** *** **)denotes break in text.
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 11 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments—CCPC Transmittal Draft
drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil and gas extraction
in FSAs in order to minimize impacts to native habitats. Other layers may also be eliminated at the
election of the property owner in exchange for compensation. The elimination of the Earth Mining layer
shall not preclude the excavation of lakes or other water bodies if such use is an integral part of a
restoration or mitigation program within an FSA.
Policy 3.6
Residential Land Uses listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in Habitat Stewardship Sending Areas in
exchange for compensation to the property owner as described in Policy 3.8. Other layers may also be
eliminated at the election of the property owner in exchange for compensation.
Policy 3.7(recommended amendment)
General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses shall be allowed
only on HSA lands with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less. Conditional use
essential services and governmental essential services, other than those necessary to serve permitted uses
or for public safety, shall only be allowed in HSAs with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of
1.2 or less. Asphaltic and concrete batch making plants are prohibited in all HSAs. Where practicable,
directional drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil and gas
extraction in HSAs in order to minimize impacts to native habitats. In addition to the requirements
imposed in the LDC for approval of a Conditional Use, such uses will only be approved upon submittal of
an EIS En iren ental Impact Statement (EIS) Environmental Data which demonstrates that clearing of
native vegetation has been minimized, the use will not significantly and adversely impact listed species
and their habitats and the use will not significantly and adversely impact aquifers. As an alternative to the
foregoing, the applicant may demonstrate that such use is an integral part of an approved restoration or
mitigation program. Golf Course design, construction, and operation in any HSA shall comply with the
best management practices of Audubon International's Gold Program Cooperative Sanctuary Program
ASCP) for Golf and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Compliance with the
following standards shall be considered by Collier County as meeting the requirement for minimization of
impact:
Clearing of native vegetation shall not exceed 15%of the native vegetation on the parcel.
Areas previously cleared shall be used preferentially to native vegetated areas.
Buffering to Conservation Land shall comply with Policy 4.13.
Policy 3.8
Compensation to the property owner may occur through one or more of the following mechanisms:
creation and transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition of conservation easements, acquisition of less
than fee interest in the land, or through other acquisition of land or interest in land through a willing seller
program.
Policy 3.9
1. Agriculture will continue to be a permitted use and its supporting activities will continue to be
permitted as conditional uses within FSAs and HSAs, pursuant to the Agriculture Group
classifications described in the Matrix. The Ag 1 group includes row crops, citrus, specialty farms,
horticulture, plant nurseries, improved pastures for grazing and ranching, aquaculture and similar
activities, including related agricultural support uses. In existing Ag 1 areas within FSAs and
HSAs, all such activities are permitted to continue, and may convert from one type of Agriculture
to another and expand to the limits allowed by applicable permits. Once the Stewardship Credit
Text underlined is added;text strikeis deleted.
Rows of Asterisks(** *** **)denotes break in text.
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 12 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20 190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments—CCPC Transmittal Draft
System is utilized and an owner receives compensation as previously described, no further
expansion of Ag 1 will be allowed in FSAs and HSAs beyond existing or permitted limits within
property subject to a credit transfer, except for incidental clearing as set forth in Paragraph 2
below.
2. In order to encourage viable Ag 1 activities, and to accommodate the ability to convert from one
Ag 1 use to another, incidental clearing is allowed to join existing Ag 1 areas, square up existing
farm fields, or provide access to or from other Ag 1 areas, provided that the Ag 1 Land Use Layer
has been retained on the areas to be incidentally cleared, and the Natural Resource Index Value
score has been adjusted to reflect the proposed change in land cover. Incidental clearing is
defined as clearing that meets the above criteria and is limited to 1% of the area of the SSA. In
the event said incidental clearing impacts lands having a Natural Resource Index Value in excess
of 1.2,appropriate mitigation shall be provided.
Policy 3.10
Ag 2 includes unimproved pastures for grazing and ranching, forestry and similar activities, including
related agricultural support uses. In existing Ag 2 areas within FSAs and HSAs, such activities are
permitted to continue, and may convert from one type of Agriculture to another and expand to the limits
allowed by applicable permits. Once the Stewardship Credit System is utilized and an owner receives
compensation as previously described, no further expansion of Ag 2 or conversion of Ag 2 to Ag 1 will
be allowed in FSAs or HSAs beyond existing or permitted limits within property subject to a credit
transfer.
Policy 3.11
1. In certain locations there may be the opportunity for flow-way or habitat restoration. Examples
include, but are not limited to, locations where flow-ways have been constricted or otherwise impeded
by past activities, or where additional land is needed to enhance wildlife corridors. Priority shall be
given to restoration within the Camp Keais Strand FSA or contiguous HSAs. Should a property owner
be willing to dedicate designate land for restoration activities within a FSA or HSA the Camp Keais
Strand FSA o,. contiguous HS n s four one additional Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each
acre of land so dedicated. An additional two Stewardship credits shall be assigned for each acre of land
dedicated for restoration activities within other FSAs and HSAs. The actual implementation of
restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive such Credit and the costs of
restoration shall be borne by the governmental agency or private entity undertaking the restoration.
Should an owner also complete restoration improvements, this shall be rewarded with few additional
Credits for each acre of restored land upon demonstration that the restoration met applicable success
criteria, as defined in the Land Development Code or as determined by the permit agency authorizing
said restoration. The additional Credits shall be rewarded for either caracara restoration at 2 Credits per
acre, or for exotic control/burning at 5 Credits per acres, or for flow way restoration at 5 Credits per
acre, or for native habitat restoration at 7 Credits per acre. Within the area proposed for restoration,
Land Use Layers 1-6 must be removed. The specific process for assignment of additional restoration
Credits shall be included in the Stewardship District of the LDC.
2. In certain locations, as generally illustrated in the RLSA Overlay Map, there may be opportunities to
create, restore, and enhance a northern panther corridor connection and a southern panther corridor
connection. Should a property owner in a federally approved corridor designate the required property
for such corridor, 2 Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so designated
Text underlined is added;text strip is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks(** *** **)denotes break in text.
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 13 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments—CCPC Transmittal Draft
dedicated. Should an owner also complete panther corridor restoration improvements, this shall be
rewarded with few 8 additional Credits for each acre of restored land upon demonstration that the
restoration met applicable success criteria as determined by the federal permit agency authorizing said
restoration. Issuance of the 8 restoration implementation credits may be phased to coincide with a
phased implementation process in accordance with the federal permit.The procedures shall be set forth
in the LDC
3. In order to address a significant loss in Southwest Florida of seasonal, shallow wetland wading bird
foraging habitat, restoration of these unique habitats will be incentivized in the RLSAO. Designation
of any area inside an FSA,HSA, or WRA for such seasonal wetland restoration shall be rewarded with
2 additional Credits per acre. Should the landowner successfully complete the restoration, an
additional 8 Credits per acre shall be awarded upon demonstration that the restoration met applicable
success criteria as determined by the permit agency authorizing said restoration.
4 Only one type of restoration shall be rewarded with these Credits for each acre designated for
restoration and in no case shall more than 10 Credits be awarded per acre.
This policy does not preclude other forms of compensation for restoration which may be addressed
through public-private partnership agreement such as a developer contribution agreement or
stewardship agreement between the parties involved. Also not precluded are various private and
publicly funded restoration programs such as the federal Farm Bill conservation programs. The
specific process for assignment of additional restoration credits shall be included in the Stewardship
District of the LDC.
Policy 3.12
Based on the data and analysis of the Study, FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and existing public/private
conservation land include the land appropriate and necessary to accomplish the Goal pertaining to natural
resource protection. To further direct other uses away from and to provide additional incentive for the
protection, enhancement and restoration of the Okaloacoochee Slough and Camp Keais Strand, all land
within 500 feet of the delineated FSAs that comprise the Slough or Strand that is not otherwise included
in a HSA or WRA shall receive the same natural index score (0.6)that a HSA receives if such property is
designated as a SSA and retains only agricultural, recreational and/or conservation layers within the
matrix.
Policy 3.13
Water Retention Areas (WRAs) as generally depicted on the Overlay Map have been permitted for this
purpose and will continue to function for surface water retention, detention,treatment and/or conveyance,
in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permits applicable to each
WRA. WRAs can also be permitted to provide such functions for new uses of land allowed within the
Overlay. WRAs may be incorporated into an SRA master plan to provide water management functions for
properties within such SRA,but are not required to be designated as a SRA in such instances. However, if
the WRA provides stormwater quality treatment for an SRA,the acreage of the WRA used for stormwater
quality treatment for the SRA shall be included in the SRA credit calculation. WRA boundaries are
understood to be approximate and are subject to refinement in accordance with SFWMD permitting.
Policy 3.14
During permitting to serve new uses, additions and modifications to WRAs may be required or desired,
including but not limited to changes to control elevations, discharge rates, storm water pre-treatment,
Text underlined is added;text strikeghh is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks(** *** **)denotes break in text.
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 14 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments—CCPC Transmittal Draft
grading, excavation or fill. Such additions and modifications shall be allowed subject to review and
approval by the SFWMD in accordance with best management practices. Such additions and
modifications to WRAs shall be designed to ensure that there is no net loss of habitat function within the
WRAs unless there is compensating mitigation or restoration in other areas of the Overlay that will
provide comparable habitat function. Compensating mitigation or restoration for an impact to a WRA
contiguous to the Camp Keais Strand or Okaloacoochee Slough shall be provided within or contiguous to
that Strand or Slough.
Policy 3.15
Any development on lands participating in the RLSA Overlay Program shall be compatible with
surrounding land uses. Within of the eff tive date o f this Policy By LI year of the date of
adoption of the ordinance], LDC regulations shall be initiated for outdoor lighting to protect the nighttime
environment, conserve energy, and enhance safety and security.
Group 4 - Policies to enable conversion of rural lands to other uses in appropriate locations, while
discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning
techniques by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas.
Policy 4.1
Collier County will encourage and facilitate uses that enable economic prosperity and diversification of
the economic base of the RLSA. Collier County will also encourage development that utilizes creative
land use planning techniques and facilitates a compact form of development to accommodate population
growth by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs). Incentives to encourage and
support the diversification and vitality of the rural economy such as flexible development regulations,
expedited permitting review, and targeted capital improvements shall be incorporated into the LDC
Stewardship District.
Policy 4.2
All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible for
designation as an SRA,except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been designated as a
Stewardship Sending Area. The exception, consistent with Policy 3.13, is when a WRA provides
stormwater quality treatment for an SRA, then the acreage of the WRA used for stormwater quality
treatment for the SRA shall be included in the SRA. Land proposed for SRA designation shall meet the
suitability criteria and other standards described in Group 4 Policies. Due to the long-term vision of the
RLSA Overlay,extending to a horizon year of 2025, and in accordance with the guidelines established in
Chapter 163.3177(11) F.S., the specific location, size and composition of each SRA cannot and need not
be predetermined in the GMP. In the RLSA Overlay, lands that are eligible to be designated as SRAs
generally have similar physical attributes as they consist predominately of agriculture lands which have
been cleared or otherwise altered for this purpose. Lands shown on the Overlay Map as eligible for SRA
designation include approximately 74300 72,000 acres outside of the ACSC and approximately 18 00
15,000 acres within the ACSC. Total SRA designation shall be a maximum of 45,000 acres.
Approximately 2% of these lands achieve an Index score greater than 1.2. Because the Overlay requires
SRAs to be compact, mixed-use and self sufficient in the provision of services, facilities and
infrastructure, traditional locational standards normally applied to determine development suitability are
not relevant or applicable to SRAs. Therefore the process for designating a SRA follows the principles of
the Rural Lands Stewardship Act as further described procedures set forth herein and the adopted RLSA
Zoning Overlay District.
Text underlined is added;text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks(** *** **)denotes break in text.
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 15 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments—CCPC Transmittal Draft
Policy 4.3
Land becomes designated as a SRA upon petition by a property owner to Collier County seeking such
designation and the adoption of a resolution by the BCC granting the designation. The petition shall
include a SRA master plan as described in Policy 4.5. The basis for approval shall be a finding of
consistency with the policies of the Overlay, including required suitability criteria set forth herein,
compliance with the LDC Stewardship District, and assurance that the applicant has acquired or will
acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement the SRA uses. Within one year from the effective
date of this amendment, Collier County shall adopt LDC amendments to establish the procedures and
submittal requirements for designation as a SRA, to include provisions for consideration of impacts,
including environmental and public infrastructure impacts, and ns f r publiic not ee of an'' the
opportunity for public participation in any consideration by the BCC of such a designation.
Policy 4.4
Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved SRA. Such
updates shall not require an amendment to the Growth Management Plan but shall be retroactively
incorporated into the adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment process when it
periodically initiated by the County,.occurs.
Policy 4.5(recommended amendment)
To address the specifics of each SRA, a master plan of each SRA will be prepared and submitted to
Collier County as a part of the petition for designation as a SRA. The master plan will demonstrate that
the SRA complies with all applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District and is
designed so that incompatible land uses are directed away from wetlands and critical habitat identified as
FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map. The SRA Master Plan shall comply with the County's then-adopted
MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the County Build Out Vision Plan as may be amended
and referenced in Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element,=and Access Management procedures.
Each SRA master plan shall include a Management Plan with provisions for minimizing human and
wildlife interactions. Low intensity land uses (e.g. passive recreation areas, golf courses) and vegetation
preservation requirements, including agriculture, shall be used to establish buffer areas between wildlife
habitat areas and areas dominated by human activities. Consideration shall be given to the most current
Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission guidelines and regulations on techniques to reduce human wildlife
conflict. The management plans shall also require the dissemination of information to local residents,
businesses and governmental services about the presence of wildlife and practices that enable responsible
coexistence with wildlife, while minimizing opportunities for negative interaction, such as appropriate
waste disposal practices.
Policy 4.6
SRA characteristics shall be based upon innovative planning and development strategies referenced in
Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. and 9J-5.006(5)(1). These planning strategies and techniques include urban
villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, clustering and open space provisions,
and mixed-use development that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while
protecting environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other
predominantly rural land uses, and providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and
services. The SRA shall also include a mobility plan that includes vehicular, bicycle/pedestrian, public
transit, internal circulators, and other modes of travel/movement within and between SRAs and areas of
Text underlined is added;text stra, gh is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks(** *** **)denotes break in text.
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 16 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments—CCPC Transmittal Draft
outside development and land uses. The mobility plan shall provide mobility strategies such as bus
subsidies, route sponsorship or other incentives which encourage the use of mass transit services. The
development of SRAs shall also consider the needs identified in the County Build Out Vision Plan MPO
Long Range Transportation Needs Plan, and plan land uses to accommodate services that would increase
internal capture and reduce trip length and long-distance travel. Such development strategies are
recognized as methods of discouraging urban sprawl, encouraging alternative modes of transportation,
increasing internal capture and reducing vehicle miles traveled.
Policy 4.7
There are few three specific forms of SRA permitted within the Overlay. These are Towns, Villages,
Hamlets, and Compact Rural Development(CRD). The Characteristics of Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and
CRD are set forth in Attachment C and are generally described in Policies 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3 and
4.7.1. Collier County shall establish more Specific regulations, guidelines and standards within the
LDC Stewardship District to guide the design and development of SRAs to include innovative planning
and development strategies as set forth in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. and 9J-5.006(5)(1). The size and
base density of each form shall be consistent with the standards set forth on Attachment C. The
maximum base residential density as set forth in Attachment C may only be exceeded through the density
blending process as set forth in density and intensity blending provision of the Immokalee Area Master
Plan or through the affordable-workforce housing density bonus as referenced in the Density Rating
System of the Future Land Use Element. The base residential density is calculated by dividing the total
number of residential units in a SRA by the overall area therein. The base residential density does not
restrict net residential density of parcels within a SRA. The location, size and density of each SRA will
be determined on an individual basis during the SRA designation review and approval process.
Policy 4.7.1
Towns are the largest and most diverse form of SRA, with a full range of housing types and mix of uses.
Towns have urban level services and infrastructure that support development that is compact, mixed use,
human scale, and provides a balance of land uses to reduce automobile trips and increase livability.
Towns shall be not less than 1,000 greater than 1,500 acres and up to or m fe than n nnn 5,000 acres and
are comprised of several villages and/or neighborhoods that have individual identity and character.
Towns shall have a mixed-use town center that will serve as a focal point for community facilities and
support services. Towns shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including
an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Towns shall
include an internal mobility plan, which shall include a transfer station or park and ride area that is
appropriately located within the town to serve the connection point for internal and external public
transportation. Towns shall have at least one community park with a minimum size of 200 square feet per
dwelling unit in the Town.
Towns shall also have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Towns shall include both
community and neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided described in Policy 41.15
4.15.1. Towns may also include those compatible corporate office, research, development companies,
and light industrial uses such as those permitted in the Business Park and Research and Technology Park
Subdistricts of the FLUE, and those included in Policy 4.7.4. Towns shall be the preferred location for
the full range of schools, and to the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located abutting each other
to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities and as provided in Policies 4.15.2 and 4.15.3. Design
criteria for Towns are shall—be included in the LDC Stewardship District. Towns shall not be located
within the ACSC.
Text underlined is added;text strikeis deleted.
Rows of Asterisks(** *** **)denotes break in text.
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 17 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20 190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments—CCPC Transmittal Draft
Policy 4.7.2 (recommended amendment)
Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses
appropriate to the scale and character o0f the particular village. Villages shall be not less than 440 300
acres, and up to or more than 1,000 acres inside the Area of Critical State Concern and up to not more
than 1,500 acres outside the Area of Critical State Concern. Villages are comprised of residential
neighborhoods and shall include a mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for the
community's support services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and
bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential
neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages shall
include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15. Appropriately
scaled uses described in Policy 1.7.4E 4.7.3 shall also be permitted in Villages. Villages are an appropriate
location for a full range of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located adjacent to
each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. Design criteria for Villages shall be are
included in the LDC Stewardship District. Villages greater than 500 acres shall include an internal
mobility plan which shall include a transfer station or park and ride area that is appropriately located
within the village to serve the connection point for internal and external public transportation.
Policy 4.7.3
convenience oriented services. Hamlets shall be not less than 40 or more than 100 acres. Hamlets will
cerve as a more compact alternative to traditional five acre lot rural subdivisions currently allowed in the
baseline standards. Hamlets shall have a public green space for neighborhoods. Hamlets include
convenience retail uses, in a ratio as provided in Attachment C. Hamlets may be an appropriate location
for pre K through elementary schools. Design criteria for Hamlets shall bo included in the LDC
Stewardship District. To maintain a proportion of Ha
Hamlets, in combination with CRDs of 100 acres or less, may be approved as SRAs prior to the approval
100 acres or less, may be approved for each subsequent Village or Town.
Policy 44 4.7.3
Compact Rural Development (CRD) is a form of SRA that will provide flexibility with respect to the
mix of uses and design standards but shall otherwise comply with the standards of a Hamlet or Village.
shall support and further Collier County's valued attributes of agriculture, natural resources and economic
diversity. CRDs shall demonstrate a unique set of uses and support services necessary to further these
attributes within the RLSA. Primary CRD uses shall be those associated with and needed to support
research, education, convenience retail,tourism or recreation. A CRD may include but is not required to
have permanent residential housing and the services and facilities that support permanent residents. and
the services that support permanent residents. The number of residential units shall be equivalent with the
demand generated by the primary CRD use but shall not exceed the maximum of two units per gross acre.
A CRD shall be a maximum size of 4.00 300 acres. An example of a CRD is an ecotourism village that
would have a unique set of uses and support services different from a traditional residential village. It
would contain transient lodging facilities and services appropriate to cco tourists, but may not provide for
the range of services that are necessary to support permanent residents. Except as described above, a CRD
will conform to the characteristics of a Village or Hamlet as set forth on Attachment C based on the size
of the CRD. As residential units arc not a required use, those goods and services that support resident,
Text underlined is added;text strik h is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks(** *** **)denotes break in text.
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 18 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments—CCPC Transmittal Draft
such as retail, office, civic, governmental and institutional uses shall also not be required, _ Hhowever1
for any CRD that does include permanent residential housing, the proportionate support services listed
above shall be provided in accordance with Attachment C. To maintain a proportion of CRDs of 100
acres or less to Villages and Towns, not more than 5 CRDs of 100 acres or less, in combination with
Hamlets, may be approved as SRAs prior to the approval of a Village or Town, and titer after nor more
than 5 additional CRDs of 100 acres or less, in combination with Hamlets, may be approved ofr each
subsequent Village or Town. To maintain a proportion of CRDs of-1-00 300 acres or less to Villages and
Towns,not more than 5 CRDs of-1-00 300 acres or less may be approved as SRAs prior to the approval of
a Village or Town, and thereafter not more than 5 additional CRDs of 400 300 acres or less may be
approved prior to each subsequent Village or Town. There shall be no more than 5 CRDs of more than
100 acres in size. The appropriateness of this limitation shall be reviewed in 5 years pursuant to Policy
1.22.
Policy 4.7.4
Existing urban areas, Towns and Villages shall be the preferred location for business and industry within
the RLSA, to further promote economic sustainability and development, diversification and job creation.
The business and industry use allowed includes, but is not limited to, those as defined as Florida
Qualified Target Industries. The appropriate scale and compatibility of these uses within a Town or
Village will be addressed during SRA application process.
Policy 4.7.5
To address the accommodation of Affordable Housing in a Town or Village, the SRA applicant shall
utilize one of the following options:
1) Affordable Housing Land Reservation
a) Reservation of one or more site(s)within the SRA or within a proximal SRA in the RLSAO with
densities and development standards that accommodate Affordable Housing residential uses at a
minimum density of 10 units per acre, for acquisition by either Collier County, a Community
Land Trust,a private developer or any other affordable housing provider.
b) The aggregate acreage of such site(s) shall be equal to or greater than 2.5% of the gross area of
the SRA.
c) The acreage of land reserved for Affordable Housing will be considered as a Public Benefit Use
and not require the consumption of Stewardship Credits but shall be included in the calculation of
total SRA acreage.
d) The County shall verify the site(s) is/are appropriate and approve the site(s) at time of SRA
approval, subject to standards to be established in the LDC.
e) Affordable Housing units shall be excluded from the Traffic Impact Statement or trip cap for the
SRA in which they are located.
2) Alternatives proposed by the SRA Applicant
a) While compliance with the Land Reservation described above shall be deemed to satisfy
affordable housing requirements, other options may be proposed by the SRA applicant and
approved by the Board of County Commissioners to address housing affordability issues in the
subject SRA.
3) The process and procedures to implement this policy shall be set forth in the Rural Lands Stewardship
Area Overlay Zoning District.
Text underlined is added;text strikgh is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks(** *** **)denotes break in text.
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 19 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments—CCPC Transmittal Draft
Policy 4.8
An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer
such areas as described in Policy 4.13. An SRA may be contiguous to and served by a WRA without
requiring the WRA to be designated as an SRA in accordance with Policy 3.12 and 3.13.
Policy 4.9(recommended amendment)
An SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development in an
environmentally acceptable manner. The primary means of directing development away from wetlands
and critical habitat is the prohibition of locating SRAs in FSAs;and HSAs, and WRA&. To further direct
development away from wetlands and critical habitat, residential, commercial, manufacturing/light
industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within a
SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. In
addition, conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the exception of
those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on lands that receive a
Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. Infrastructure necessary to serve permitted uses may be
exempt from this restriction, provided that designs seek to minimize the extent of impacts to any such
areas. The Index value of greater than 1.2 represents those areas that have a high natural resource value as
measured pursuant to Policy 1.8. Less than 2% of potential SRA land achieves an Index score of greater
than 1.2.
Policy 4.10(recommended amendment)
Within the RLSA Overlay, open space, which by definition shall include public and private conservation
lands, underdeveloped areas of designated SSAs, agriculture, water retention and management areas and
recreation uses, will continue to be the dominant land use. Therefore, open space adequate to serve the
forecasted population and uses within the SRA is provided. To ensure that SRA residents have such areas
proximate to their homes, open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross
acreage of an individual SRA Town; or Village. , or those CRDs exceeding 100 acres. Lands within a
SRA greater than one acre with Index values of greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space- except
for the allowance of uses described in Policy 4.9. As an incentive to encourage open space, such uses
within an SRA, located outside of the ACSC, exceeding the required thirty five percent shall not be
required to consume Stewardship Credits but shall be counted as part of the SRA acreage.
Policy 4.11
The perimeter of each SRA shall be designed to provide a transition from higher density and intensity
uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property. The edges of SRAs shall
be well defined and designed to be compatible with the character of adjoining property. Techniques such
as, but not limited to setbacks, landscape buffers, and recreation/open space placement may be used for
this purpose. Where existing agricultural activity adjoins an SRA, the design of the SRA must take this
activity into account to allow for the continuation of the agricultural activity and to minimize any conflict
between agriculture and SRA uses.
Policy 4.12
Where an SRA adjoins a FSA, HSA, WRA or existing public or private conservation land delineated on
the Overlay Map, best management and planning practices shall be applied to minimize adverse impacts
to such lands. SRA design shall demonstrate that ground water table draw down or diversion will not
adversely impact the adjacent FSA, HSA, WRA or conservation land. Detention and control elevations
Text underlined is added;text strik throuugh is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks(** *** **)denotes break in text.
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 20 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments—CCPC Transmittal Draft
shall be established to protect such natural areas and be consistent with surrounding land and project
control elevations and water tables.
Policy 4.13
Open space within or contiguous to a SRA shall be used to provide a buffer between the SRA and any
adjoining FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map.
Open space contiguous to or within 300 feet of the boundary of a FSA, HSA, or existing public or private
conservation land may include: natural preserves, lakes, golf courses provided no fairways or other turf
areas are allowed within the first 200 feet,passive recreational areas and parks,required yard and set-back
areas, and other natural or man-made open space. Along the west boundary of the FSAs and HSAs that
comprise Camp Keais Strand, i.e., the area south of Immokalee Road, this open space buffer shall be 500
feet wide and shall preclude golf course fairways and other turf areas within the first 300 feet.
Policy 4.14
The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road
provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in
accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. At the time of SRA approval, an SRA
proposed to adjoin land designated as an SRA or lands designated as Open Lands shall provide for the
opportunity to provide direct vehicular and pedestrian connections from said areas to the County's
arterial/collector roadway network as shown on the MPO's LRTP Needs Plan so as to reduce travel time
and travel expenses, improve interconnectivity, increase internal capture, and keep the use of county
arterial roads to a minimum when traveling between developments in the RLSA.
Public and private roads within an SRA shall be maintained by the SRA it serves. Signalized intersections
within or adjacent to an SRA that serves the SRA shall be maintained by the SRA it serves.No SRA shall
be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to
be adequate in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time
of SRA designation. A transportation impact assessment meeting the requirements of Section 2.7.3 of the
LDC, or its successor regulation shall be prepared for each proposed SRA to provide the necessary data
and analysis. To the extent required to mitigate an SRA's traffic impacts, actions may be taken to
include, but shall not be limited to, provisions for the construction and/or permitting of wildlife crossings,
environmental mitigation credits,right of way dedication(s), water management and/or fill material which
may be needed to expand the existing or proposed roadway network. Any such actions to offset traffic
impacts shall be memorialized in a developer contribution agreement. These actions shall be considered
within the area of significant influence of the project traffic on existing or proposed roadways.
Policy 4.15.1
SRAs are intended to be mixed use and shall be allowed the full range of uses permitted by the Urban
Designation of the FLUE, as modified by Policies 4.7, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3, 1.7.1 and Attachment C.
An appropriate mix of retail, office, recreational, civic, governmental, and institutional uses will be
available to serve the daily needs and community wide needs of residents of the RLSA. Depending on the
size, scale, and character of a SRA, such uses may be provided either within the specific SRA, within
other SRAs in the RLSA or within the Immokalee Urban Area provided the capacity of those adjoining
area's facilities as described in Attachment C to be utilized by the newly created SRA can demonstrate
sufficient capacity exists for their desired uses per the standards of Attachment C. By example, each
Village or Town shall provide for neighborhood retail/office uses to serve its population as well as
appropriate civic and institutional uses, however, the combined population of several Villages and
Text underlined is added;text tsrik,,, is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks(** *** **)denotes break in text.
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 21 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments—CCPC Transmittal Draft
Hamlets may be required to support community scaled retail or office uses in a nearby Town. Standards
for the minimum amount of non-residential uses in each category are set forth in Attachment C and shall
be also included in the Stewardship LDC District.
Policy 4.15.2
The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) may, as a condition of approval and adoption of an SRA
development, require that suitable areas for parks, schools, and other public facilities be set aside,
improved, and/or dedicated for public use. When the BCC requires such a set aside for one or more
public facilities, the set aside shall be subject to the same provisions of the LDC as are applicable to
public facility dedications required as a condition for PUD rezoning.
Policy 4.15.3
Applicants for SRA designation shall coordinate with Collier County School Board staff to allow
planning to occur to accommodate any impacts to the public schools as a result of the SRA. As a part of
the SRA application,the following information shall be provided:
1. Number of residential units by type;
2. An estimate of the number of school-aged children for each type of school
impacted(elementary,middle,high school);and
3. The potential for locating a public educational facility or facilities within the SRA,
and the size of any sites that may be dedicated, or otherwise made available
for a public educational facility.
Policy 4.16
An SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or such
infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand. The level of infrastructure provided will
depend on the form of SRA development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC requirements.
The capacity of essential services and infrastructure necessary to serve the SRA at build-out must be
demonstrated during the SRA designation process. Infrastructure to be analyzed includes, but not limited
ttotransportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, and solid waste.
Transportation infrastructure is discussed in Policy 4.14. Centralized or decentralized community water
and wastewater utilities are required in Towns and,—Villages, and those CRDs exceeding one hundred
100) acres in size, and may be required in CRDs that arc one hundred (100) acres or less in size,
depending upon the permitted uses approved within the CRD. Centralized or decentralized community
water and wastewater utilities shall be constructed, owned, operated and maintained by a private utility
service, the developer, a Community Development District, the Immokalee Water Sewer Service District,
Collier County, or other governmental entity. Innovative alternative water and wastewater treatment
systems such as decentralized community treatment systems shall not be prohibited by this policy
provided that they meet all applicable regulatory criteria. Individual potable water supply wells and septic
systems, limited to a maximum of 100 acres of any Town, Village or CRD of 100 acres are permitted on
an interim basis until services from a centralized/decentralized community system are available.
Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems arc permitted in Hamlets and may be permitted
in CRDs of 100 acres or less in size.
Policy 4.17
Text underlined is added;text st_ikh is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks(** *** **)denotes break in text.
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 22 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments-CCPC Transmittal Draft
The BCC will review and approve SRA designation applications in accordance with the provisions of
Policy 1.4-F2 of the Capital Improvement Element of the GMP and public facilities pursuant to Policy 1.1
of the Capital Improvement Element in addition to the following: jails, law enforcement, emergency
medical services, fire service, government buildings and libraries. for Category A public facilities. Final
local development orders will be approved within a SRA designated by the BCC in accordance with the
Concurrency Management System of the GMP and LDC in effect at the time of final local development
order approval.
Policy 4.18
The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon
year based on a cost/benefit fiscal impact analysis model acceptable to or as may be adopted by the
County. The BCC may grant exceptions to this policy to accommodate affordable-workforce housing, as
it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development
Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the analysis shall consider the
following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water,
stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing,
developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential
adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards.
In the event that An SRA development, including any related impacts to Collier County outside of those
directly generated by tho SRA, generates surplus revenues to Collier County,-and Collier County may
choose to allocate a portion of such surplus revenues to ensure that sufficient resources are available to
allow Collier County to respond expeditiously to economic opportunities and to compete effectively for
high-value research, development and commercialization, innovation, and alternative and renewable
energy business projects.
Policy 4.19
Eight Credits shall be required for each acre of land included in an SRA,where such Credits were created
from a Stewardship Sending Area deemed vested under the eight Credit ratio submitted for review or
approved prior to (the adoption date of this Ordinance). Ten Credits per acre shall be required for each
acre of land included in an SRA, where such Credits were created from any other Stewardship Sending
Area.except for open space in excess of the required thirty five percent as described in Policy 4.10 or for
Land that is designated for a public benefit use described in Policy 444 4.20 do not require use of Credits.
In order to promote compact, mixed use development and provide the necessary support facilities and
services to residents of rural areas, the SRA designation entitles a full range of uses, accessory uses and
associated uses that provide a mix of services to and are supportive to the residential population of a SRA,
as provided for in Policies 4.7, 43 4.15.1 and Attachment C. Such uses shall be identified, located and
quantified in the SRA master plan.
Policy 4.20
The acreage of open space exceeding thirty five percent and public benefit use shall net count toward the
maximum acreage limits of an SRA, described in Policy 1.7 but shall not count toward the consumption
of Stewardship Credits. For the purpose of this policy, public benefit uses include: affordable housing as
defined in the LDC, public schools (preK-12) and public or private post secondary institutions, including
ancillary uses; community parks exceeding the minimum acreage requirements of Attachment C,
municipal golf courses; regional parks; and governmental facilities excluding essential services as defined
in the LDC. The location of public schools shall be coordinated with the Collier County School Board,
Text underlined is added;text strikh is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks(** *** **)denotes break in text.
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 23 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments—CCPC Transmittal Draft
based on the interlocal agreement 163.3177 F.S. and in a manner consistent with 235.193 F.S. Schools
and related ancillary uses shall be encouraged to locate in or proximate to Towns; and Villages--and
Hamlets subject to applicable zoning and permitting requirements.
Policy 4.21
Lands within the ACSC that meet all SRA criteria shall also be restricted such that credits used to entitle a
SRA in the ACSC must be generated exclusively from SSAs within the ACSC. Further,the only form of
SRA allowed in the ACSC east of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be Hamlets and CRDs of 100 acres or
less and the only form of SRA allowed in the ACSC west of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be CRDs
and Villages awl-C s of not more than 300 acres and Hamlets. Provided;not more than 1,000 aces of
SRA development in the form of Villages or CRDs however,that CRDs or not more than 500 acres each,
exclusive of any lakes created prior to the effective date of this amendment June 30, 2002 as a result of
mining operations, shall be allowed in areas that have a frontage on State Road 29 and that, as of the
effective date of these amendments, had been predominantly cleared as a result of Ag Group I or Earth
Mining or Processing Uses. This policy is intended to assure that the RLSA Overlay is not used to
increase the development potential within the ACSC but instead is used to promote a more compact form
of development as an alternative to the Baseline Standards already allowed within the ACSC. No policy
of the RLSA Overlay shall take precedence over the Big Cypress ACSC regulations and all regulations
therein shall apply.
Policy 4.22
When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA through the SRA designation process,
the applicant in conjunction with the Florida Division of State and Historic Resources will assess the
historic or cultural significance and explore the educational and public awareness opportunities regarding
significant resources.
Policy 4.23
Any development on lands participating in the RLS Program shall be compatible with surrounding land
uses. Within one year of the effective date of this Policy LDC regulations shall be implemented for
outdoor lighting to protect the nighttime environment,conserve energy, and enhance safety and security.
Group 5- Policies that protect water quality and quantity and the maintaining of the natural water
regime and protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats on land that is not voluntarily
included in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area program.
Policy 5.1
To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime in areas mapped as
FSAs and designated Restoration Areas as shown on the Overlay Map, prior to the time that they are
designated as SSAs under the Stewardship Credit Program, Residential Uses, General Conditional Uses,
Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses (layers 1-4) as listed in the Matrix shall be
eliminated,in FSAs. Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, except those
necessary to serve permitted uses or for public safety, shall only not be allowed in FSAs. Infrastructure
necessary to serve permitted uses may be exempt from this restriction, provided that designs seek to
minimize the extent of impacts to any such areas.with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2
or less. Where practicable, directional-drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas
shall be utilized for oil or gas extraction in FSAs in order to minimize impacts to native habitats.
Asphaltic and concrete batch making plants shall be prohibited in areas mapped as HSAs. The
Text underlined is added;text strike-thfeugh is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks(** *** **)denotes break in text.
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 24 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments—CCPC Transmittal Draft
opportunity to voluntarily participate in the Stewardship Credit Program, as well as the right to sell
conservation easements or a free or lesser interest in the land, shall constitute compensation for the loss of
these rights.
Policy 5.2
To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime and to protect listed
animal and plant species and their habitats in areas mapped as FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs on the Overlay
Map that are within the ACSC, all ACSC regulatory standards shall apply, including those that strictly
limit non-agricultural clearing.
Policy 5.3
To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime and to protect listed
animal and plant species and their habitats in areas mapped as FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs on the Overlay
Map that are not within the ACSC, if a property owner proposes to utilize such land for a non-agricultural
purpose under the Baseline Standards referenced in Policy 1.5 and does not elect to use the Overlay,these
Group 5 policies followingfellewing—regul*iens—ar-e—wlieable7 shall be incorporated into the LDC, and shall
supersede any comparable existing County regulations that would otherwise apply. These regulations
shall only apply to non-agricultural use of land prior to its inclusion in the Overlay system.
Policy 5.4
Collier County will coordinate with appropriate State and Federal agencies concerning the provision of
wildlife crossings at locations determined to be appropriate. A map of these potential crossing locations
will be initiated by [12 months of the adoption of this Ordinance], updated periodically, and shall be
incorporated into community, cultural and historical, and transportation planning for the RLSA, including
all SRAs described in Group 4 Policies.
Policy 5.5
For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program non-
agricultural development, excluding individual single family residences, shall be directed away from the
listed species and species of special local concern (SSLC), as defined by Florida Fish and Wildlife
Commission, and their habitats by complying with the following guidelines and standards. A SSLC is
defined as species that have been delisted but for which there remain federal, state and/or local
tectio ndlo nt ple
if„ idel: s for the „tectio
1. A wildlife survey shall be required for all parcels when listed species or SSLC are known
to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site or where listed species or
SSLC are utilizing directly observed on the site. The survey shall be conducted in
accordance with the requirements of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission (FFWCC) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidelines. The
County shall notify the FFWCC and USFWS of the existence of any listed species or SSLC
that may be discovered.
2. Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species or SSLC shall be submitted for County
approval. A plan shall be required for all projects where the wildlife survey indicated listed
species or SSLC are utilizing the site, or the site is capable of supporting wildlife and can
be anticipated to be occupied by listed species or SSLC. These plans shall describe how the
project directs incompatible land uses away from listed species or SSLC and their
habitats.
Text underlined is added;text strike4hfeugh is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks(** *** **)denotes break in text.
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 25 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments—CCPC Transmittal Draft
a. Management plans shall incorporate proper techniques to protect listed species
or SSLC and their habitats from the negative impacts of proposed development.
The most current and completed data and local, state, and federal guidelines and
regulations shall be utilized to prepare the required management plans. Open
space and vegetation preservation requirements shall be used to establish buffer
areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated by human activities.
Provisions such as fencing, walls, or other obstructions shall be provided to
minimize development impacts to the wildlife and to facilitate and encourage
wildlife to use wildlife corridors. Appropriate roadway crossings, underpasses
and signage shall be used where roads must cross wildlife corridors. Mitigation
for impacting listed species or SSLC habitat shall be considered in the
management plans,as appropriate.
i. The following references shall be used, as appropriate, to prepare the
required management plans:
1 South Florida Multi Species Recovery Plan, USFWS, 1999.
2 Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast
Region, USFWS, 1987.
3. Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus
polyphemus) Populations found on Lands Slated for Largo Scale
Development in Florida, Technical—Report Ne. ^, Florida Gam nd
Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1987.
I Ecology and Development Related Habitat Requirements of the Florida
Scrub Jay (Apelocoma coerulescens), Technical Report No. 8, Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1991.
5. Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of the Southeastern American Kestrel
Falco Sparverius Paulus) on Large scale Development Sites in Florid'
Nongame Technical Report No. 13, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission, 1993.
i. 4 The County shall consider any other techniques recommended by the
USFWS and FFWCC, subject to the provision of paragraph 3 of this policy.
ii. in, When listed species or SSLC are utilizing a directly observed eta-site or
indicated by evidence, such as denning, foraging, or other indications, a
minimum of 40% of native vegetation on site shall be retained, with the
exception of clearing for agricultural purposes. The County shall also
consider the recommendation of other agencies, subject to the provisions of
paragraph 3 of this policy.
b. Management plans shall include provisions for minimizing human and wildlife
interactions. Low intensity land uses (e.g. parks, passive recreation areas, golf
courses) and vegetation preservation requirements, including agriculture, shall be
used to establish buffer areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated by
human activities. Consideration shall be given to the most current Florida Fish and
Wildlife Commission guidelines and regulations on techniques to reduce human
wildlife conflict. The management plans shall also require the dissemination of
information to local residents, businesses and governmental services about the
presence of wildlife and practices (such as appropriate waste disposal methods) that
enable responsible coexistence with wildlife, while minimizing opportunities for
negative interaction, such as appropriate waste disposal practices.
Text underlined is added;text stri'. h is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks(** *** **)denotes break in text.
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 26 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20 190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments-CCPC Transmittal Draft
c. The Management Plans shall contain a monitoring program for developments greater
than ten acres.
b. For parcels containing gopher tortoises (Gophcrus polyphemus), priority shall
be given to protecting the largest most contiguous gopher tortoise habitat with
the greatest number of active burrows, and for providing a connection to off
site adjacent gopher tortoise preserves.
c.Habitat preservation for the Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) shall
conform to the guidelines contained in Technical Report No. 8, Florida Game
and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1991. The required management plan shall
also provide for a maintenance program and specify an appropriate fire or
mechanical protocols to maintain the natural scrub community. The plan shall
also outline a public awareness program to educate residents about the on site
preserve and the need to maintain the scrub vegetation. These requirements
shall be consistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi Species Recovery Plan,
May 1999, subject to the provisions of paragraph(3)of this policy.
d.For the bald eagle(Haliacetus leucocephalus),the required habitat management
plans shall establish protective zones around the eagle nest restricting certain
activities. The plans shall also address restricting certain types of activities
during the nest season. These requirements shall be consistent with the UFW„e
South Florida Multi Species Recover Plan, May 1999, subject to the provisions
of paragraph(3)of this policy.
c.For the red cockaded woodpecker 1picoides borealis), the required habitat
protection plan shall outline measures to avoid adverse impacts to active
clusters and to minimize impacts to foraging habitat. Where adverse effects
can not be avoided, measures shall be taken to minimize on site disturbance
and compensate or mitigate for impacts that remain. These requirements shall
be consistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi Species Recovery Plan, May
1999, subject to the provision of paragraph 3)of this policy.
f. In areas where the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) may be
present, the management plans shall require that garbage be placed in b ar
proof containers, at one or more central locations. The management plan shall
also identify methods to inform local residents of the concerns related to
i-nter-asti-eii--hetweew-blaek-heafs-anel-liam-ansM-i4gat-i-en-fer-ini-paeting-habitat
suitable for black bear shall be considered in the management plan.
C is located Priority T Priority II Panther Hab tat the
management plan shall discourage the destruction of undisturbed, native
habitats that arc preferred by the Florida panther (Fclis concolor coryi) by
include pine flatwoods and hardwood hammocks. In turn, these areas shall be
buffered from the most intense land uses of the project by using low intensity
1 d / rL t: al olf s\ cola o
within the Rural Lands Area shall be designed and managed using standards
found within this Overlay. The management plans shall identify appropriate
lighting controls for these permitted uses and shall also address the opportunity
Text underlined is added;text stfike-t.hfeugh is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks(** *** **)denotes break in text.
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 27 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments—CCPC Transmittal Draft
communities and provide browse for white tailed deer. These Fequifements
shall be consistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi Species Recover Plan,
May 1999, subject to the provisions of paragraph(3)of this policy. The Multi
Species Recovery Plan (1999) shall constitute minimum wildlife protection
standards for the RLSAO.
h.The Management Plans shall contain a monitoring program for developments
greater than 10 acres.
3. The County shall, consistent with applicable policies of this Overlay, consider and utilize
recommendations and letters of technical assistance from the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission and recommendations from the US Fish and Wildlife Service in
issuing development orders on property containing utilized by listed species or SSLC. It is
recognized that these agency recommendations, on a case by case basis, may change
strengthen the requirements contained within these wildlife protection policies and any such
change shall be deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan. However, no
reduction of the wildlife protection policies of Policy 5.5 will be considered as these shall
constitute minimum standards for wildlife protection.
Policy 5.6
For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, Collier County
shall direct non-agricultural land uses away from high functioning wetlands by limiting direct impacts
within wetlands. A direct impact is hereby defined as the dredging or filling of a wetland or adversely
changing the hydroperiod of a wetland. This policy shall be implemented as follows:
1. There are two (2) major wetlands systems within the RLSA, Camp Keais Strand and the
Okaloacoochee Slough. These two systems have been mapped and are designated as
FSA's. Policy 5.1 prohibits certain uses within the FSA's, thus preserving and protecting
the wetlands functions within those wetland systems.
2. The other significant wetlands within the RLSA are WRA's as described in Policy
3.3.These areas are protected by existing SFWMD wetlands—permits Environmental
Resource Permit for each area.
3. FSAs, HSAs and WRAs, as provided in Policy 5.3, and the ACSC have stringent site
clearing and alteration limitations, nonpermeable surface limitations, and requirements
addressing surface water flows which protect wetland functions within the wetlands in
those areas. Other wetlands within the RLSA are isolated or seasonal wetlands. These
wetlands will be protected based upon the wetland functionality assessment described
below, and the final permitting requirements of the South Florida Water Management
District.
a. The County shall apply the vegetation retention, open space and site preservation
requirements specified within this Overlay to preserve an appropriate amount of
native vegetation on site. Wetlands shall be preserved as part of this vegetation
requirement according to the following criteria:
i. The acreage requirements specified within this Overlay shall be met by
preserving wetlands with the highest wetland functionality scores. Wetland
functionality assessment scores shall be those described in paragraph b of this
policy. The vegetative preservation requirements imposed by Policies 5.3 and
5.5 shall first be met through preservation of wetlands having a functionality
assessment score of 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method
Text underlined is added;text strike tthrough is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks(** *** **)denotes break in text.
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 28 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments—CCPC Transmittal Draft
score of 0.7, or greater. Within one year from the effective date of this
Amendment, the County shall develop specific criteria in the LDC to be used
to determine those instances in which wetlands with a WRAP functionality
assessment score of 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method
score of 0.7,or greater must be preserved in excess of the preservation required
by Policy 5.3.
ii. Wetlands and contiguous upland buffers that are utilized by listed species or
SSLC, or serving as corridors for the movement of listed species or SSLC,
shall be preserved on site. Wetland flowway functions through the project shall
be maintained.
iii. Proposed development shall demonstrate that ground water table drawdowns or
diversions will not adversely change the hydoperiod of preserved wetlands on
or offsite. Detention and control elevations shall be set to protect surrounding
wetlands and be consistent with surrounding land and project control elevations
and water tables. In order to meet these requirements, projects shall be
designed in accordance with Sections 4.2.2.4.3 6.11 and 6.12, of SFWMD's
Basis of Review, January 2001, as amended. Upland vegetative communities
may be utilized to meet the vegetative, open space and site preservation
requirements of this Overlay when the wetland functional assessment score is
less than 0.65.
b. In order to assess the values and functions of wetlands at the time of project review,
applicants shall rate functionality of wetlands using the South Florida Water
Management District's Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP), as described
in Technical Publication Reg-001, dated September 1997, and updated August 1999,
as amended, andor the Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method, identified
as F.A.C. Chapter 62-345. The applicant shall submit to County staff agency-
accepted WRAP scores, or Uniform Wetlands Mitigation Assessment scores. County
staff shall review this functionality assessment as part of the County's EIS
Environmental Data provisions and shall use the results to direct incompatible land
uses away from the highest functioning wetlands according to the requirements found
in paragraph 3 above.
c. All direct impacts shall be mitigated for pursuant to the requirements of paragraph(f)
of this policy.
d. Single family residences shall follow the requirements contained within Policy 6.2.7
of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element.
e. The County shall separate preserved wetlands from other land uses with appropriate
buffering requirements. The County shall require a minimum 50-foot vegetated
upland buffer abutting a natural water body, and for other wetlands a minimum 25-
foot vegetated upland buffer abutting the wetland. A structural buffer may be used in
conjunction with a vegetative buffer that would reduce the vegetative buffer width by
50%. A structural buffer shall be required abutting wetlands where direct impacts are
allowsed. Wetland buffers shall conform to the following standards:
i. The buffer shall be measured landward from the approved jurisdictional line.
ii. The buffer zone shall consist of preserved native vegetation. Where native
vegetation does not exist, native vegetation compatible with the existing soils and
expected hydrologic conditions shall be planted.
Text underlined is added;text strikestfike4hfeugh is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks(** *** **)denotes break in text.
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 29 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments—CCPC Transmittal Draft
iii. The buffer shall be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as
defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council.
iv. The following land uses are considered to be compatible with wetland functions and
are allowed within the buffer:
1) Passive recreational areas, boardwalks and recreational shelters;
2) Pervious nature trails;
3) Water management structures;
4) Mitigation areas;
5) Any other conservation and related open space activity or use which is
comparable in nature with the foregoing uses.
v. A structural buffer may consist of a stem-wall, berm, or vegetative hedge with
suitable fencing.
f. Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts to wetland in order to result in no net
loss of wetland functions.
Mitigation Requirements:
i. "No net loss of wetland functions"shall mean that the wetland functional score of
the proposed mitigation equals or exceeds the wetland functional score of the
impacted wetlands. Priority shall be given to mitigation within FSA's and HSA's.
ii. Loss of storage or conveyance volume resulting from direct impacts to wetlands
shall be compensated for by providing an equal amount of storage or conveyance
capacity on site and within or abutting the impacted wetland.
iii. Protection shall be provided for preserved or created wetland or upland vegetative
communities offered as mitigation by placing a conservation easement over the
land in perpetuity, providing for initial exotic plant removal (Class I invasive
exotic plants defined by the Florida Exotic Plan Council) and continuing exotic
plant maintenance, or by appropriate ownership transfer to a state or federal
agency along with sufficient funding for perpetual management activities.
iv. Exotics removal or maintenance may be considered acceptable mitigation for the
loss of wetlands or listed species habitat if those lands if those lands arc placed
under a perpetual conservation easement with perpetual maintenance
i-v v. Prior to issuance of any final development order that authorizes site alteration,
the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with paragraphs (f) i, ii, and iii of this
policy and SFWMD standards. If agency permits have not provided mitigation
consistent with this policy, Collier County will require mitigation exceeding that
of the jurisdictional agencies.
g. Wetland preservation, buffer areas, and mitigation areas shall be identified or platted
as separate tracts. In the case of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), these areas
shall also be depicted on the PUD Master Plan. These areas shall be maintained free
from trash and debris and from Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the
Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. Land uses allowed in these areas shall be limited
to those listed above (3.e.iv.) and shall not include any other activities that are
detrimental to drainage, flood, control, water conservation, erosion control or fish
and wildlife habitat conservation and preservation.
4. All landowners shall be encouraged to consider participating in any programs that provide
incentives, funding or other assistance in facilitating wetland and habitat restoration on
private lands including, but not limited to, federal farm bill agricultural conservation
Text underlined is added;text strike through is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks(** *** **)denotes break in text.
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 30 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292
Future Lands Use Element
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments—CCPC Transmittal Draft
programs, private or public grants,tax incentives, easements,and fee or less than fee sale to
conservation programs.
Policy 5.7
Any development on lands not participating in the RLS Program shall be compatible with surrounding
land uses. Within one year of the effective date of this Policy, LDC regulations shall be implemented for
outdoor lighting to protect the
nighttime environment, conserve energy, and enhance safety and security.
Text underlined is added;text st_ikh is deleted.
Rows of Asterisks(** *** **)denotes break in text.
08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 31 of 38
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
I S
i I
V
a g - g EEff
p
t—y
9 € " u 3 3 cam')
i
e f ' ; g5 ayv
o •
8 Y 8 M
P
o
N
d
11
J
Jul11 2
U
cm
x
8pp
J GV
81
E9
pap
Im
Io 14 3
akai 1 I 4d
Y 9 s88s8asa
M I I ., . 1
i8098msaa c
cn
cu
r,I x
N 'a y 8888888 w
IECice$@ 0
s U 3LLU n
N HI En
u
I U
w; 1 Est 2
O N 11 E,Eeg =v
L E2 RE. Z r ,n
o
r
Q)
g
g i g e o
22 g
6 E
a) y3_ gc)o'rG*
HIHHMUM_ 21
K o 0 0 o C d C C IWO o 0 0 o c c 1
y o 0000"lg-VT
9 It'oE
l8
e r
11
2 i
geg
1 2 2
v r b a E—,g
88 1
m I s 3ii 1 da
tAI18g$ 3 OEp1Zp32N
N
C S n =
l I1i S F3 Hiict,
Tx it Eel$U w
3 S i w a 8 Y 8 y A 3 2$ ,n55 z 12t1 .b 2 o 7 l§ cY 3 S i ]2A,2 3
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
cO
a
a) ' a)
c 'o c 7
Y
u c ova . `
n o o a U
p) J C (O O
w v C a..
N o E a `J V a) V m N Ti =--- 0 a
v aa) v 3 a u -0 C j
e K ca a m E % o a c J Q; v co
O m c .3 I' s co 0 a do
c
o ._
v -
c -- ch
m 7 E a
J
0 3 o ai 0 0 v a) N m E o w "-0-
v C i C E O fO - d f°
a
s u co
Z
w
N N o 0 a
N
3 0 u u m
c O+
J sue+ O O
J v (InC fC0 v a Q a)C
m C a (O O f0 •" a
f` fO L 0 O7
c i 3 a ° 3 on a 3 d v CO° . z o w V U 2cu3 `0. Q m
ai d
7
N O
N
o 0 4 vi N a r0
O. v to a., 0 ^ , m 0
a. is a m
O '3,V
U
czE
O — C L a) -
C p
w cu 0 0 f6 w N np U f0 o
U
a
10 a a) 7 c U C > i N O v
0 C u 73
a
O
o a) OO
U
a f6 `1 '
J E f0
7 0 ) np a V v 0 ` pa O 0 _ y, o
bEp
v
C no
a y a
m E °0
to c o .0 c uo E a > u ¢ uo
C O J J O C a] tO Q O 3 C 2 X b4
a aC I U ro o a a o c (o . w a Q
I
O. C L U
VI j v np C CO (n
OJ
o O
N
Y c
75. v oCO 3 Y - v
VI L a 2C.a C a)
J O
N O 0 Q J To O O Q U Y
UO4 H 0
U _> ''
L - O-u Y
tw
c
u m u u — o- —.' E u
no E FE, s E C. (p Y u a O.
Q a
OLLCCCCUNTJaa0- 0 C. C. Vl
0
V v
coi
a
v n0 v I 'O
O O. C > L C a Y_ > o as
C
c
7 co `O N60 > O .0
O
c
cc N C C Ofl. O E O no Oa L.'C
C U
V N N vET: f0S
C C C .+ C o -0 f0 .0 O f`
N
d " O O- -
70 7 j O d c O v v a Jo U E O)E aa) " u v (o .
fa4 Y . a'
v ,
co
Q 5 o y d y E o O U v fO o ; .°c°
o `m
m 3 ` u '(` j o .v p) .
D >
n0 c
filtH
EaCy
0
11110W
c
iOOa5C $ fU v Ya
C in oum
co —1w c
Qco la
a)
na U u g H
L
rts y a.=
c a C.
a U o E
v
n-
c UuTccoUa+
a
C 2uc
O j I- C (o op p 0CU
U V o MO C —' a
U w C Y — v
CU
CC
7 -o v, ,n v) v
O
u o
c
a v 172
13 0 O c N J
10 N V no V C J
no 7 f`O N C O N u
C np toD u a to
C C v •C N U a 40 Q
dE C O C (cO y
cu 0 E n 0 O n)
a u r
U.,
0_
RI Ma) 4-' 77 -CV Q
u O O Q
w 0 I_ O_ < 0 u
a)aOU
mv
a= Y 0 m
c
ua)mc cr,Ec (n U 3 D'
2 N c
n c 5 O
0 j _ UE a
a.) U c 0t C.0 0
p 2 V G) v
C a) U C S = CT)E c co E aaooy
Q., ` ro a
a
O io c• u4.a>
m
m m ° 3
ow oc a > "
UvmcvU
v
JuH
a °
N uVO `41
Vv
Oc N TVa 6 Lo a:, Nv foa, N CJC !
y Qc v
a
U _ o v
a
J
E vO a oy
O Z.
co O ' y v L a U O O
L _
c o v 0 v al u ` U C
U n U (6 N .o O U Q U V) O d no U V,
JOU 0
v ..,..--
in O
np 2 12 c o _ w o N
C to N tO O O Q O
c Q m np ,n U - N
N C
Y C
N
v 00 O1C M
J a
d
0 O
V
a
7 N
O
c .O+ 2 G m O`
cc)
L ai L U Y (O c pi CD
a
g O
v (wE0 L d C (TO O E O •C
OoO
a-7 Jp C C
E
C
0 N v ro v
O 3 v _o N . c a) 0 , -c O
C C' O > v C O a) a a; a J E
O U >-- >-- j a Q
in 2 O 0 a` a 3 p_ 2 a ou uu a w a.a (0 N 0
D U C
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
coco
N N
m e cZ
Ctcoa•pN C Na N 0
ZNm j
N .
O w C
O a cna)a, C E — ° N
N' D mE ° u ° t pi_
o 2. u v a_y.Z (oc ° mw $a` E a` c
co
J y E d c m m 4 a a'ii g a,u, a,
U `C -o w E 3 .o v°i ToN Toan
o °
re d f°-oo m s uNi=
m
a>>3 `v, m coz o W O 0 a
e a a
0 c
N —
o0 oyc..
E
S
o
u m m o w`
o m
N0.O) CLL _ N EaNrONU
p. O NdN U O7p21
N N a
a
m O
0 N
w of 6c-2 C --0 g'ct C a
m'-2 o c
2_o= r c
t-- o , t mT . C
m o m ':(= 2-a-
N
p giu
a •
E
m a
C 3 ° ` 3N C 3 6
J Dm d I
3 E y 2-> a0NNla
WOa
C
2 m"Ti U
Q y a a,
a N
N
N._
7
0
y C > . O
Ol j N a C ` `p O aQ
a = 0 `2 n C
O
a
U .UCD
C p al y p C O N O C
o 1ON m 0 a -Fa f o
oi. E m a-°t m
csi E a 3
a J LL W (0 O.E C d N £n
CO C m O,
a") m t E a)C g
OCUO _ O...s ° °
C U U C mE20EN2as8 °
c3,.3 -c a a N g Y C 2a 0 U a d °- a
J
V ` J ; m eNa o-3 c1 c NCO
C < cu o, Q E '31 1oE 85 t c Z'a c°> »,.-,
aN'. E E
co d U w o,.E Q m 3 o °a 8 H a.8 C? m > i EW
0 N = w o w Ncot0cN0, N 1—
Q < co c -0 C d d
co
m« y & 2- -0—
U
IY J
26, m g w a m V
U
c E
0 ,
m r c r a
o 0 80 830
U r a C
s- C= 8-0=
D
a) W
E 29 s 0.
O a1OON .2 a
OO
U aa xc a
UNOa
OO)m N Q
v,E•m .
0
EEm
7C UC °2 Va
m
0) p
a c
c N a
a)
ur
t m o U:o
m v
O_ m U c 16 L o c 7 .a0 d E 0
c
0 a 5 c d E-8U 5- O 0,o U 1 U
fi U3,) O U COCNEUaa
0.U =
E U
O C a 2 O 2Io « E 'o > N E OJ22LmUNUUoUa_ (n
a
a o, 0 ( C5 U c y
N
A O U
c •= Z' 2 o f d 0 Q
9 N O N (a O, O a N a)Q
N C N N n
8- ac
CC 3a ao o2a maaaig!2 Q p0C, T a) N L a 9 a, U a, N aI
c E E
m m m o 2 2 aci> >.` a
of
g QJwT .2 O N O O 2 ).0•C j O C
y m m m a >[ D f, ° N E g o N
ON
J 65 E O o a a7° 3 K 0-8 88 m a a CD a coO
W
0
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
r
E
O >«
N
0
o o >
1D voE s c o E
E o' o
o Eaa
00
v3N
a ° y
it E
ca
w p - a w
o Y
EoaamE
avE
m11I!IIE !8wV c m6' mmN ; 1I1 E- Ne cmmEO «wo -z .a VE'vta07
E =
a
c = E faIn
v moEmuz _ — ,0o w 8 0
o LL v ry 0 im a I o a
vU mNm a oa
w
Q v,
V Z O
m
E a
p E o 0
c
oaEoE
v oE
v va NV o
oUcs
m N 3 Z. v - h
zE
c
a E- a a « E i
mE0wo
m
v w•,
E
xa v n T.. v E w
o 0^ oU - v .23 o „ wE o uvw
c v
r `
V ~
vOv Y n amuwa'
o
u
a
E
Ec3 v
o 0
E
c
E E
o
o
r -
ami
o m
N O. y a N, O L.
0
v
O
NY
41H !v
z
m y LLNa -
b O
o 3 a E Eo c wTC10p > w y g - py
hi
co ns
ECEE° c
c ° a
9
3
o £c
o c o fRE
H
N
w E ea raaNV ,_ E o a uQV0o _al
E
LI1 E 0 p - ry
3112 E a, tv YywNAww °L = p ^
Z u . a Ha o a a.
w
v .
UZ. W L. o m m .. O « os c V ° E vio vaa .5 jmgU ' o
a c = o LqvV Tv ` J
o c
a
Zav , a v v0
co 0 0. m
o 35 aE E c o w
v s c waw a
3 2 o 7. °. & i ow 2 . ` u i u 2' - w c y
N s0 17o \ w m a - L a
u um
p m u
v _
2
o
Y w E _ o
o
N
a o2>N " c i -W. ¢ u
EuwOoa
o
a
A u
z o ¢ o
a
a m ,
D a o E
E
a o
c c c «
E :'A
a E E. m o .
g. E TA 2 zg E o 79 0
o oErNap2'
v E 8 « o a c
v O0 2mo w ._ g o 0Y uuoNa
w « Esv a
a o
m
v rE " o va m w = a
2. V v
131
c
a3omNO « a ' t : - ,v =
x tv ` o Y c N v - c v v. a -
Fo a n E 1 = 0 3 a c o f u E
v>, = --
E, u
3
g
w
m a ao 3 ~
8 mw e Bo oa
a
w E c 'w g 3 v ac o u a 4
a ` •
z ,,vO , u
c o
v
az
v N o v vo "' 30 u o v 3 E03 i y
3 v O O a 4 c m r
L., m
u 2 H2mau
O 8 o 3 ° `
LL
av o _ ill 2'' >
m
3 a o -
v .. Z' 43w
u a w '0 o a E
a w v w
v a
7. v E
v
u¢ ' a o
N W O
W 00 g
a+ a 2 H ,Y
m O O v a s O
m n o u 3 a u v 0wvO
U
a
in c
N
E i 3nomwav. a , at wO3
O o f p10 aTN
a ¢
N - - a o v 15 m c ;'c m LyomO
vE 0 3o F .
a v
a
r v,
c z toy 3 s 0 D
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
M
i 1
mc
E u) 5 - La 0 o a v) c
c U o 0) h m
3
W m
N C co C _ n N Z O i, L N
O` a a)
N 0)) U .m y 0 01 2 N 0 F_ .
C1 N E c O O) O L C N G a) O n N o C
C
m m m= W o m
G ? m W C > DO U _ ` t0. y C c j H
g p Z 5 i o `c o o a' M 2 c4 CO c
LL .cOZ
U
m imp -°
m C S. c a
5ti O E
U U c a t1
to 0 a.Q
Q
LL
a
N
d N1 I d
c U 1-3CDs D
cociEm
c .a d
U U mto
U Q ` S
C Q N f0
as
13
N >. H
C c
0
C
c3
a.
Zc
c
en
Ti
E0odm4.c N >w a o a cm a mm w
i'
U O N N n0dNEO
r °
5_ v
O
L rn 9 i
V U c
w.
g
a.
5 o 0hoptt..•-0So yi« a~Q Q '2'
o m T o rnm.0
cE ' tl 0 mvo c U yUJoZ>a) a ootn E 3dti 5 a.a w .
H Ew d c ' N
cE m dE^ c a o d-- mc 08te '11 t rn w ae To ., o
o . UCmdrnco ) O c
m v "
13c o x E m
0o dw' ym
o 0_ N
4;o n mr 0 E _ '-8 555 o 0c)g.m ` 3n0
0)
mZ9-
m Fa 2 J NE a co aa Cl,o R m c
O
8. -,2 C $ 23av
HItY ' U gm il nd m
E - t 0o dW E, mp ,
jcE c o cdyTm
d
o
d_ EU c 8
U 0 2 Z 5 0 a c c F
U N y O
u) `o o c
LI oa=o
N tp .O O
C
7 c Q L N C N Y a N 0
m a ' Q
c m 2 §p C) E 0 3 8 F/S E o o t `m m L n
o 9 w c ' E c . E ci a U d
o m m DZ Q, d 0 mow °
o d E v) a 'coca ti c' o E p m oc `o d `8E
ui o o ? y v > °N2 a °- coil o 8 g :cQ 8 E § o . c 8-Q
m m- . " c . 0 E v °) .S N d U))
M to a co E m '
c co o u o coNEcHoc... Nh o E m-° °' 19.-__r- or o=8
0
r 0 S O to D. m m ° r
a 28 U E m
0,
y d' m O m ono` .EN m t y rn U cE o) w m ' d t 5 E 3Etn. Oc tFF
O ' O' O G Y p N r 6
J C C O p Y E 8 C a) a) O"O .
O g
tl b T. $roFarnn ' `g t2 0 3p 2g2 v 3 m m w ° v o90
c g.. -m E c -• d a ca w 0 o E a a'd v)
w m c
13 m O o p
E
N 4l N % G C O- d , O d C >,
O Z a) U p 0 C
O-
N ,
N O)o
p m lY p U N a)r> OL
aI -O.' N ..
d
d N Q 7 U O U m S J C COO) C ot} C C O y
N
C7 C Cn0 CLL O¢ N O j CO m0 11 N—
O a1 p y 0
mL > c ti orncN otY m E o o tr co 2 a acidUoOoE= aU
c0
HZr U
U
d ¢
n
3 = = o U 0 0-
U
E
ngoo .
N.o a d
n p S 3
U m' E.
d U to U a) Q m- Q
U O C C a' 05 0 C'N
a,
a) O
i g-y.-COC
a)
O
o
O)8d LU ov o
n a o m
0_ 0 c
3 a
m
m
c
0
t cn
o
N c m m NCrNad
U O c' 0 3 a
ca
O
m d O d o !p.ti N
c 'o o
c m a E c
n K, O
a < O x o cn 3 m E o d U N
o m CO LL
V o
1O oi
o w O
0 aci ac' E o f0 m Uo a' a c o d a W
E o d m 0 5 . p
N d C N OO a) 8 N N
CT) CC-o C 0 3 CC 0 cn i-
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
COLLIER COUNTY RURAL & AGRICULTURAL AREA ASSESSME t T
STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY MAP)
u
11"-
t. Y
r,SR82
31 z .A .144\4 MI' eir)
cob,
Z' ACSC
Afek r
Ai
LAKE TRAFFORD RD 2i9
i MB 1%
i'4. 41116_,* C"
11
tiltCO
a 1
1 r
r
RA
4)140
1,` 'imigersi.
SSA 1 r.
y,y ACSCxiAACSC
SSA 9` I
c
RA
rii VI a.11
rn i i i
z SSA
TiIO• O. N
m p WRA -. e 174;,7474!w74-
p
COUJi '`
t .
Ltiy U in 4
O
W{i7
w
w p
w
GOLDEN GATE BLVD
BIG
CYPRESS
rip)NATIONAL
FOREST
o ACSC
3 I
m
0
O .
i
Wp
1-75 1-75
Legend
ENDED-JANUARY 25,2007
N
Ord.No.2007-18) Major Roads Stewardship Areas
AMENDED-OCTOBER 14,2008 w t: Q RLSA Program AreaI(
Ord N0.2008-59) TTTCCG` 500 Foot Restoration Area
AMENDED-SEPTEMBER 13,2011 8 I= Area of Critical State Concern I.Flowway Stewardship Area(FSA)
Ord.No.2011-26) 0 1 2 l7A Stewardship Receiving Area(SRA)_
Habtitat Stewardship Area(HSA)
AMENDED-JUNE 13,2017 Water Retention Area(WRA)
Ord.No.2017-22) Miles ® Stewardship Sending Area(SSA)11111
08/03/2020 M;,,;. Transmittal Hearin
Open
Page 37 of 38BigCypressNationalForest
Illiill
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
Proposed Draft
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY MAP
NORTH CORRIDOR GENERAL LOCATION 1
1,) Okaloac
hheeepSR84M14.NI
9
State Forest
O`
t r,
END
N
FS
A
A 9
SSA 7 WRA
LAKE TRAFFORD RD 'Li9 cn
r..it p SSA 5 M)
to
H lir
whi
V. 0
r Slough
cnoo
SSA15 A
z It WRA
RIVERGRASS i J y SOUTH CORRIDOR
VILLAGE OP
GENERAL LOCATION
SRA 7 for" I m
WRA
SSAU I'D WRA
A/0
HYDE PARK L o
400,
4\ 4.4
VILLAGE SRA t SSA 9
relitiii
r -'04. RA A AdO.,
iiirOILWELLRD t
w m ei
co 0 WRA
4.41 1A.V,` ,'efaMU
Q
w
w p-,.s il
w MO ' e
GOLDEN G• E BLVD r,ywry,
I 1-,It a1* t Big
Cypress
National
Forest
s
o ACSC
I ' Florida Panther
co National Wildlife Refuge
Oi—Ornill0
lay L75 Legend
Major Roads Stewardship Areas
AMENDED-JANUARY 25,2007 Q RLSA Program Area I I 500 Foot Restoration Area
Ord.No.2007-18
AMENDED-OCTOBER 14,2008 I MO
Stewardship Receiving Area(SRA)
Area of Critical State Concern Flowway Stewardship Area(FSA)
Ord.No.2008-59
AMENDED-SEPTEMBER 13,2011 6'
Habtdat Stewardship Area(HSA)
Water Retention Area(WRA)
Stewardship Sending Area(SSA)Ord.No.2011-26 Open
AMENDED-JUNE 13,2017 i
2 4
Public Lands u
Ord.No.2017-22 Miles Ar ` Panther Corridor
Mi8/03f£+2PpED-XXX,XXXX 6.'.-_:rt. rt•,!- He
Ord.No.XXX-XX
Note:The official designated titles of SSAs can be found within SSA Credit Agreements.
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: 5. Resolution 2020-211 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to approve the proposed amendments to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlay of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) for transmittal to the Florida
Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and other agencies for review. [Transmittal Hearing]
OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners (Board) to review and consider approving the
proposed amendments to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay for transmittal to DEO and other
applicable agencies for review.
CONSIDERATIONS: On February 10, 2015, the Board directed staff to initiate “restudies” of four
GMP master plans: the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, the Immokalee Area Master Plan, the Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District, and the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA). The RLSA restudy formally began in
January 2018. As with all restudies, through a public outreach effort, staff focused on complementary land
uses, economic vitality, mobility and environmental sustainability.
The Board appointed an ad hoc advisory committee, the Growth Management Oversight Committee
(GMOC), which first convened in December 2015. The GMOC directed the public engagement process
of the restudies. Unlike prior area restudies, however, the Board directed that staff, rather than appointed
committees, provide GMP amendment recommendations to the Board covering each of the four areas.
The RLSA public outreach effort included twelve (12) public workshops, and numerous meetings with
stakeholders. The evaluation of community input received through the restudy workshops reinforced and
validated the substantive amendments recommended by the RLSA 5-Year Review Committee. The
community continues to see value in amending the RLSA Overlay to improve the program and achieve
the overriding goal through established incentives.
The RLSA restudy public outreach and staff assessment resulted in the RLSA White Paper. In October
2019, the RLSA White Paper was presented to the Board. The Board directed staff to bring forward GMP
amendments for the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, as prepared by the RLSA 5-year Review
Committee and reinforced in the RLSA White Paper; develop a regional water partnership to address
regional water matters; and draft Land Development Code amendments to address SRA characteristics.
The purpose of this agenda item is to bring forward the RLSA GMP amendments as directed by the
Board and found in the Resolution, Exhibit A.
In summary, the recommended RLSA Growth Management Plan amendments, with voluntary
participation, are intended to:
1. Protect 134,000 acres of:
a. Flowway areas - Camp Keais Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough,
b. Habitat areas, and
c. Agriculture areas
2. Protect additional corridors for panthers;
3. Establish a cap of 45,000 acres of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA);
4. Create opportunities to diversify the eastern Collier County economy;
Substantive Proposed Changes to the RLSA:
The proposed GMP amendments represent recommendations for substantive strategies to incentivize
more protection of agriculture and natural resources lands and limit the amount of SRA development. The
9.C.7
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: 6. RLSA transmittal Ex Sum BCC 11-10-20 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
policy amendments are intended to create incentives to encourage rural landowners to voluntarily agree
to:
• retain agriculture within Open Lands as an alternative to conversion to development;
• create, restore and enhance panther corridors;
• restore flow ways and habitat through a credit generating system that considers cost, difficulty and
benefit value of each restoration type through a tiered system;
• a cap of 45,000 SRA acres in the RLSA Overlay and recalibrate the credit system to ensure the
balance essential to the sustainability the program;
• provide for an SRA land set aside for future affordable housing; and
• increases the range of commercial goods and services within a Town or Village.
The 5-Year Review Committee Reports, the RLSA White Paper and Collier County Credit Analysis
provide supporting data and analysis and the status of the current and potential RLSA land use and
Stewardship Credits. With this basis, policy amendments most significant are:
• Policy 1.22 – establishes a cap of 45,000 SRA acres and 404,000 Stewardship Credits;
• Policy 2.2 – assigns Stewardship Credits for designating Agriculture Stewardship Sending Area
SSAs;
• Policy 3.11 – adjusts the Restoration Credits, creates a tiered restoration system and incentivizes
additional panther corridors;
• Policy 4.7.4 – adds location opportunities for Florida Qualified Target Industries; and
• Policy 4.10 – adjusts the Credit ratio from 8 to 10 SSA Credits per SRA acre.
Additional RLSA Overlay policy amendments focus on the development characteristics of SRAs
including:
• Policy 4.5 – adds a Human and Wildlife Conflict Management Plan to the SRA document;
• Policy 4.6 – adds a mobility plan for all modes of travel within and between SRA; including
transit transfer stations or park and ride facilities.
• Policy 4.7 – removes the Hamlet as a form of development;
• 4.7.5 – adds new provisions for affordable housing
• Policy 4.14 – adds provisions for SRA interconnections and traffic impact mitigation actions in
areas of significant influence; and
• RLSAO Attachment C – adjusts amount of goods and services and sizes of SRAs
The recommended amendments further the RLSA objectives to incentivize protection of natural resources
and agriculture lands, restoration of habitat and flowways, and planning for future growth and
opportunities to diversify the County’s eastern economy. The proposed amendments incentivize the
protection of approximately 134,000 acres, with growth directed to 45,000 acres.
Land Development Code amendments are needed to implement the recommended RLSA amendments.
During the Board’s April 2019 consideration of the RLSA White Paper, the Board directed staff to bring
back these proposed RLSA amendments and initiate the LDC amendments. The LDC initiative is in
progress.
GROWTH MANAGMENENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (GMOC) RECOMMENDATION
At its meeting on June 7, 2019, the GMOC found the RLSA public outreach process sufficient and
appropriate and the White Papers findings responsive to the goals of sufficiency, sustainability and
economic vitality. Motion approved 4 – 0, with 1 abstention.
9.C.7
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: 6. RLSA transmittal Ex Sum BCC 11-10-20 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC
reviewed and discussed the proposed RLSA amendments during three meetings, September 3, 2020,
September 17, 2020, and September 25, 2020. By vote of 4-1, the CCPC recommended the Board
approve the RLSA amendments for transmittal, without revision. Commissioner Fryer, the dissenting
vote, provided a Minority Report included in the attachments.
FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of the proposed GMP amendment process has been accounted for
within the approved budget for the Zoning Division. The initiation of LDC amendments falls within
current County staffing capacities and approved budget.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: Approval of the proposed amendment by the
Board for transmittal and its submission to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and other
statutorily required review agencies will commence the Department’s sixty (60) day review process and
ultimately return the amendment to the CCPC and the Board for Adoption hearings.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The Board should consider the following criteria in making its
decision: “plan amendments shall be based on relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local
government that may include but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and
other data available at the time of adoption of the plan amendment. To be based on data means to react to
it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular
subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue.” 163.3177(1)(f), FS. In addition,
s. 163.3177(6)(a)2, FS provides that FLUE plan amendments shall be based on surveys, studies and data
regarding the area, as applicable including:
a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth.
b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area.
c. The character of undeveloped land.
d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services.
e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of non -
conforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community.
f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations.
g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent
with s. 333.02.
h. The need to modify land uses and development patterns with antiquated subdivisions.
i. The discouragement of urban sprawl.
j. The need for job creation, capital investment and economic development that will strengthen and
diversify the community’s economy.
RECOMMENDATION: To approve the proposed Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay amendments
for transmittal to DEO and other agencies for review.
Prepared by: Anita Jenkins, AICP, Interim Director, Zoning Division
9.C.7
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: 6. RLSA transmittal Ex Sum BCC 11-10-20 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
9.C.9
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: legal ad - agenda ID 15865 (15865 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMP Amendments)
‒ 1 ‒
PL20190002292
Staff Proposed Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION,
COMMUNITY PLANNING SECTION
HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 3, 2020
RE: PETITION PL20190002292, STAFF-PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE RURAL LANDS
STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
[TRANSMITTAL HEARING]
INTRODUCTION
The proposed Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendments found in Attachment A to this report (and
Resolution, Exhibit A) are derived from years of public input and Plan refinements. These are presented
to the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), in its capacity as the County’s Land Planning
Agency under Florida Statutes and as the County’s Environmental Advisory Council (EAC), for
consideration at Transmittal stage public hearings. Staff requests the CCPC and EAC forward these
amendments to the Board of County Commissioners (Board) with a recommendation to transmit to the
Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO).
BACKGROUND
The RLSA area includes important environmental and agricultural assets, most of which are on privately
held land. In 2002, the RLSA Overlay was adopted in response to a state mandated “Final Order”, which
directed the County to create a land-use plan to protect: prime agricultural areas, wetlands and upland
habitat, water quality and quantity, and listed species and their habitats. It also required addressing
development by encouraging creative land use planning techniques.
RLSA Overlay Policy 1.22 mandated a comprehensive review of the RLSA upon the five-year
anniversary of the adoption of the RLSA. The Board established the Rural Lands Stewardship Area 5-
Year Review Committee (5-Year Review Committee) to accomplish this directive. In February 2008, the
5-Year Review Committee transmitted the Phase I Technical Review Report (Attachment A) to the
Board. The Phase I Report contains a quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of the RLSA Overlay
in meeting its prescribed goal. The Phase I Report concluded that significant progress had been made
in achieving the RLSA Overlay goal.
The Phase I Report provided the foundation for the 5-Year Review Committee’s Phase II Report
(Attachment B). This report provides a qualitative evaluation of ways the RLSA Overlay policies could
be improved to more effectively implement the RLSA’s overriding goal. As a result of exhaustive public
input and expert testimony, the 5-Year Review Committee unanimously approved the following
proposed amendment to the Goal for the RLSA Overlay:
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 1 of 518
‒ 2 ‒
PL20190002292
Staff Proposed Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments
“Collier County’s goal is to retain land for agricultural activities, to direct incompatible
uses away from wetlands and upland habitat, to protect and restore habitat connectivity,
to enable the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations, to
discourage urban sprawl, and to encourage development that employs creative land use
techniques through the use of established incentives.”
As the 5-Year Review Committee considered this reconstituted Goal in the context of existing GMP
Policies, the Committee engaged the public and various interest groups in a rigorous assessment of
each and every RLSA Overlay policy. The work product of the 5-Year Review Committee for its Phase
II Report therefore consists of proposed GMP Policy amendments (Attachment C). The public
proceedings embodied twenty-three [23] public meetings and thousands of man hours of work
expended by scores of interested parties.
Based upon the adopted RLSA Overlay and the RLSA 5-Year Review Committee’s recommended
Policies, it was found that voluntary participation in the RLSA could:
1. Achieve a balance of natural resource protection, agriculture and sustainable community
development.
2. Provide new and meaningful economic incentives for agriculture to remain as a viable
component of the economy of Collier County.
3. Increase the total area of lands expected to be placed into Stewardship Sending Areas.
4. Enable protection and restoration of critical natural resources on private land using a new tiered
system of incentives that do not require public dollars for acquisition or management.
5. Establish a maximum SRA development footprint, and maximum number of Credits.
6. Reduce the potential for conversion of open lands to non-RLSA baseline development (1 unit
per 5 acres).
7. Create new opportunities to site new businesses in proximity to places for employees to live.
8. Provide a land use framework for long-range transportation planning to serve eastern Collier
County.
The 5-Year Review Committee’s Report was presented to the Collier County Planning Commission
(CCPC) and Environmental Advisory County (EAC) during meetings held between January 28 and
March 10, 2009. Both the CCPC and the EAC made specific and general recommendations to the
Board regarding amendments to the RLSA Overlay. Those recommendations were forwarded to the
Board by inclusion in the Committee Report.
On April 21, 2009, the Board held a public meeting to review the recommendations of the 5-Year Review
Committee, the CCPC, the EAC, and to hear from the public. By a 3-2 vote, the Board accepted the
Committee Report as a planning document and directed that RLSA Overlay GMP amendments move
forward in a “first in and first out” order, and that the GMP amendments incorporate both a 404,000
Stewardship Credit cap and a Stewardship Receiving Area 45,000 acre cap, provided backup data is
developed to determine the actual cap values and provided there be placed in the RLSA Overlay a
statement to the effect that issuance of Stewardship Credits does not provide vested rights to land
owners and that no excess credits are created. A lack of agreement on who should pay for the GMP
amendment process, the County or the landowners, put these GMP amendments on the shelf.
In January 2018, the Board directed RLSA restudy was initiated by Collier County staff. As with all
restudies, staff focused on complementary land uses, economic vitality, mobility and environmental
sustainability through a public outreach effort.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 2 of 518
‒ 3 ‒
PL20190002292
Staff Proposed Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments
The Board appointed an ad hoc advisory committee, the Growth Management Oversight Committee
(GMOC), to assist in directing the public engagement process of the RLSA. Unlike prior area restudies,
however, the Board directed that staff, rather than appointed committees, provide recommendations to
the Board covering each of the four restudy areas. The RLSA public outreach effort included twelve
(12) public workshops, and numerous meetings with stakeholders, many who provided valuable
independent analysis and expert opinions. The evaluation of community input received through the
restudy workshops, reinforces and validates the substantive amendments recommended by the 5-Year
Review Committee. The community continues to see value in amending the RLSA Overlay to improve
the program and achieve the overriding goal through established incentives.
The RLSA restudy public outreach and staff assessment resulted in the RLSA White Paper (Attachment
D). The White Paper provides the framework for the restudy effort conducted by staff and serves as a
vehicle to further inform the Collier County Planning Commission and the public. The RLSA White Paper
results in recommendations for improving water resource planning, further protecting the environment,
conserving agriculture lands and addressing development characteristics.
Based upon the incentives of the adopted RLSA Overlay, the 5-Year Review and RLSA White Paper
recommendations, with voluntary participation in the program the RLSA could:
1. Protect 134,000 acres of:
a. Flowway areas (Camp Keais Strand and Okaloalcoochee Slough),
b. Habitat areas, and
c. Agriculture areas
2. Create additional preserves for panther corridors;
3. Establish a cap of 45,000 acres of towns and villages;
4. Create opportunities to diversify the eastern Collier County economy;
5. the characteristics of future development.
In October 2019, the RLSA White Paper was presented to the Board for staff direction. The Board
directed staff to bring forward Growth Management Plan amendments for the Rural Lands Stewardship
Area Overlay, as prepared by the 5-year Review Committee and reinforced in the RLSA White Paper;
develop a regional water partnership to address regional water matters; and draft Land Development
Code amendments to address SRA characteristics. The purpose of this petition is to bring forward the
RLSA Growth Management Plan amendments as directed by the Board.
Substantive Proposed Changes to the RLSA:
The proposed RLSA amendments represent recommendations of County staff, a team of over 15
multidisciplinary professionals. The recommendations include substantive strategies to incentivize more
protection of agriculture and natural resources and limit the amount of SRA development. The policy
amendments are intended to create incentives to encourage rural landowners to voluntarily agree to:
• retain agriculture within Open Lands as an alternative to conversion to development;
• create, restore and enhance panther corridor connections;
• restore flow ways and habitat through a credit generating system that considers cost, difficulty
and benefit value of each restoration type through a newly adopted tiered system;
• impose a cap of 45,000 SRA acres in the RLSA Overlay and recalibrate the credit system to
ensure the balance essential to the sustainability the program;
• provide for an SRA land set aside for future affordable housing; and
• increases the range of commercial goods and services within a Town or Village.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 3 of 518
‒ 4 ‒
PL20190002292
Staff Proposed Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments
The 5-Year Review Committee Reports, the RLSA White Paper and Collier County Credit Analysis
(Attachment E) provide supporting data and analysis and the status of the current and potential RLSA
land use and Stewardship Credits. The potential results of the amendments to incentivize the protection
of agriculture lands and limited SRA development can be graphically demonstrated in Figure 1, which
shows the current program without the incentive to protect agriculture and limit SRAs, versus the
proposed policy amendments providing greater incentives.
Figure 1
The RLSA Overlay policy amendments that are most significant in influencing the land use changes
are:
• Policy 1.22 – establishes a cap of 45,000 SRA acres and 404,000 Stewardship Credits;
• Policy 2.2 – assigns Stewardship Credits for designating Agriculture SSAs;
• Policy 3.11 – adjusts the Restoration Credits, creates a tiered restoration system and
incentivizes additional panther corridors; and
• Policy 4.10 – adjusts the Credit ratio from 8 to 10 SSA Credits per SRA acre.
Additional RLSA Overlay policy amendments focus on the development characteristics of SRAs. A
summary overview of these include:
• Policy 4.5 – adding to the SRA document, a Human and Wildlife Conflict Management Plan;
• Policy 4.6 – adding to the SRA document a mobility plan for all modes of travel within and
between SRAs; including transit transfer stations or park and ride facilities.
• Policy 4.7 – removing the Hamlet as a form of development;
37%
18%4%
29%
12%
Current RLSA in 2020
Natural Resources
Remaining
Naural Resources in SSA
Ag1 in SSA
Open
54%
22%
24%
Proposed RLSA
Natural Resources SSA
Agriculture SSA
SRAs
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 4 of 518
‒ 5 ‒
PL20190002292
Staff Proposed Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments
• Policy 4.7.4 – providing location opportunities for Florida Qualified Target Industries;
• 4.7.5 – adds provisions for affordable housing
• Policy 4.14 – provisions for SRA interconnections and traffic impact mitigation actions in areas
of significant influence; and
• RLSAO Attachment C – changes to amount of goods and services and sizes of SRAs
The changes to the range of goods and services are further discussed and supported by the RLSA
Commercial Memo (Attachment F), prepared by Metro Forecasting Models, LLC.
The progression of RLSA amendments can be found in A Summary of RLSA Amendments, Including
2009 EAC, CCPC, and Board Comments, and Stakeholder Comments and Staff Recommendations on
Proposed Amendments (Attachment G). This document was used by the team of staff members to draft
and evaluate each policy, and previous Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC), Planning
Commission and Board comments. Staff’s initial draft, dated March 9, 2019, was posted on the RLSA
website for public comment.
Through the public comment period, staff continued their evaluation of the amendments and as public
comments were received, added the comments to the document for the staff’s team review. In the draft
document, staff proposed affordable housing provisions for both the Village SRA and the Town SRA.
During the draft period, staff revised the affordable housing policy from a percentage with varied area
median incomes, to an acreage dedication-based format. The acreage approach aligns with the public
benefit use in the RLSA that is measured by acreage. The policy also provides an option for the Board
to address affordable housing in another manner if they choose to do so.
The draft policies were also revised with the deletion of draft 4.7.5. which addressed coordinating
infrastructure and providing for economic diversification within eastern Collier County and directed staff
to review proximate SRA applications in aggregate with standards that would apply to the aggregated
area. Through staff team discussion of the proposed policy and other policies, the team agreed that
planning and coordinating infrastructure is addressed in several adopted and recommended policies,
and through the SRA application review and developer agreements. Policy 4.14 provides for a holistic
review approach and proposes language that directs analysis within the area of significant influence of
the project traffic on existing or proposed roadways. Economic diversification is addressed in Policy
4.7.4 that allows for Florida Qualified Target Industries in both Towns and Villages, along with the
proposed amendments to increase the amount of good and services required for a Town or Village.
Also, Policy 4.15.1 has adopted provisions that provide for an overall mix of uses within the RLSA and
depending on size, scale and character of an SRA, such uses may be provided either within the specific
SRA, within other SRAs or within Immokalee, provided the new SRA can demonstrate sufficient
commercial capacity exists for the desired uses. Staff believes the adopted and recommended RLSA
policies provide Collier County the policy tools necessary to evaluate SRAs that are proximate. Staff
also notes that improvements are needed for the SRA review process and recommends the approach
to improve standards and application requirements is the upcoming Land Development Code
amendment process.
All staff recommended amendments are included in strikethrough and underline format in the attached
Resolution, Exhibit A.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 5 of 518
‒ 6 ‒
PL20190002292
Staff Proposed Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments
GROWTH MANAGMENENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (GMOC) RECOMMENDATION
At its meeting on June 7, 2019, the GMOC found the RLSA public outreach process sufficient and
appropriate and the White Papers findings responsive to the goals of sufficiency, sustainability and
economic vitality. Motion approved 4 – 0, with 1 abstention.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The Board should consider the following criteria in making its decision: “plan amendments shall be
based on relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include but
not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of
adoption of the plan amendment. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and
to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption
of the plan or plan amendment at issue.” 163.3177(1)(f), FS. In addition, s. 163.3177(6)(a)2, FS
provides that FLUE plan amendments shall be based on surveys, studies and data regarding the area,
as applicable including:
a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth.
b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area.
c. The character of undeveloped land.
d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services.
e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination
of non-conforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community.
f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military
installations.
g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and
consistent with s. 333.02.
h. The need to modify land uses and development patterns with antiquated subdivisions.
i. The discouragement of urban sprawl.
j. The need for job creation, capital investment and economic development that will
strengthen and diversify the community’s economy.
The County Attorney’s office reviewed the staff report on August 11, 2020.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Collier County Planning Commission, acting as the Land Planning Agency and the
Environmental Advisory Council, forward the proposed Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Growth
Management Plan amendments to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to
Transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity.
Attachments:
• Attachment A RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Phase I Technical Review Report
• Attachment B RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Phase II Report
• Attachment C RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Recommended GMP amendments
• Attachment D RLSA White Paper
• Attachment E Collier County Credit Analysis
• Attachment F RLSA Commercial Memo
• Attachment G A Summary of RLSA Amendments, Including 2009 EAC, CCPC, and Board
Comments, and Stakeholder Comments and Staff Recommendations on Proposed
Amendments
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 6 of 518
‒ 7 ‒
PL20190002292
Staff Proposed Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments
• Resolution with Exhibit A: Text and map changes
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 7 of 518
1 | P a g e
NOTE: THIS IS THE PHASE I-TECHNICAL REPORT COMPLETED BY THE RURAL LANDS
STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE DATED FEBRUARY, 2008.
In 2002 the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) was adopted into the
County’s growth management initiatives. Nowhere in Florida or the nation had this type of
landmark planning initiative taken place, and the implementation and outcome were uncertain.
Over the past three months, the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee has had the
opportunity to assess the achievements of the program during its first five years in operation.
The learning curve was steep, and a great deal of committee time and energy was spent on
becoming reacquainted with the complex mechanics of the program. I am glad to say the
committee was successful in absorbing the details of the program and evaluating the status to
date.
The report before you, provides a quantitative synopsis of how far along the program has come
in protecting environmentally valuable lands and establishing communities in the far eastern
lands of the county. This Phase I Technical Review is the first step in a comprehensive review
of the program. It lays the foundation to evaluate how the objectives and policies have resulted
in reaching the goals of the RLSA.
The Committee has worked very well together, and on Feb 5th, voted unanimously to forward
the Phase I Technical Review to the Environmental Advisory Council, the Collier County
Planning Commission, the Board of County Commissioners, and the Department of Community
Affairs.
Ron Hamel, Chairman
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 8 of 518
2 | P a g e
RRRRURAL URAL URAL URAL LLLLANDS ANDS ANDS ANDS SSSSTEWARDSHIP TEWARDSHIP TEWARDSHIP TEWARDSHIP AAAAREA REA REA REA FFFFIVEIVEIVEIVE----YYYYEAR EAR EAR EAR RRRREVIEWEVIEWEVIEWEVIEW
PPPPHASE HASE HASE HASE IIII –––– TTTTECHNICAL ECHNICAL ECHNICAL ECHNICAL RRRREVIEWEVIEWEVIEWEVIEW
This Phase I - Technical Review is a requirement of the Collier County Growth Management
Plan (GMP FLUE RLSA 1.22). The review is intended to provide an assessment of activity that
has occurred within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) over the past five years, 2003-
2008. It is the role of the committee to assist in determining whether the activity presented in the
review supports or does not support the goals of the Collier County RLSA, which is to:
- protect agricultural activities and to prevent the premature conversion of
agricultural land to non-agricultural uses
- direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat
- enable the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations
- discourage urban sprawl and to encourage development that utilizes creative land
use planning techniques
The Phase I review is intended to focus on the specific items detailed in Policy 1.22 (see below.)
An evaluation of the RLSA Group 1-5 policies will occur during the Phase II of the review
process.
The information presented in this report represents the current status of the RLSA program. The
intention of the program is to encourage the designation of Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA)
that private landowners voluntarily limit land-uses on through a Stewardship Easement in
exchange for Stewardship Credits that can be used to entitle Stewardship Receiving Areas
(SRA).
GMP FLUE 1.22: The RLSA Overlay was designed to be a long-term strategic plan with a
planning horizon Year of 2025. Many of the tools, techniques and strategies of the Overlay are
new, innovative, incentive based, and have yet to be tested in actual implementation. A
comprehensive review of the Overlay shall be prepared for and reviewed by Collier County and
the Department of Community Affairs upon the five-year anniversary of the adoption of the
Stewardship District in the LDC. The purpose of the review shall be to assess the participation
in and effectiveness of the RLSA program in meeting the Goal, Objective and Policies set forth
herein.
1. The amount and location of land designated as FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and other SSAs.
2. The amount and location of land designated as SRAs.
3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated, assigned or held for future use.
4. A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at the time
of a Study and time of review.
5. The amount, location and type of land converted to non-agricultural use with and
without participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption.
6. The extent and use of funding provided by Collier County and other sources
Local, State, Federal and private revenues described in Policy 1.18.
7. The amount, location and type of restoration through participation in the Stewardship
Credit System since its adoption.
8. The potential for use of Credits in urban areas.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 9 of 518
3 | P a g e
Definitions (LDC 4.08.01):
ACSC. Area of Critical State Concern
Agricultural Group 1 Uses (4.08.06 B4). Generally higher intensity agricultural uses including:
row crops, citrus, nurseries, and related support uses.
Agricultural Group 2 Uses (4.08.06 B4). Generally lower intensity agricultural uses including:
pasture, forestry, hunting cabins, cultural and recreational facilities, and related support uses.
Early Entry Bonus Credits (FLUE RLSA Policy 1.21). The bonus shall be in the form of an
additional one Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as a HSA located outside of the
ACSC and one-half Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as HSA located inside the
ACSC. The early entry bonus shall be available for five years from the effective date of the
adoption of the Stewardship Credit System in the LDC.
Fallow. Farmland that is not currently being farmed but has been in the past and could be in the
future.
FSA - Flow way Stewardship Area. Privately owned lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay
Map, which primarily include privately owned wetlands that are located within the Camp Keais
Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough. FSAs form the primary wetland flow way systems in the
RLSA District.
Future Land Use Map (FLUE). Two maps of Collier County are provided as exhibit 1 (2007
GMP FLUE RLSA submap) and exhibit 5 (2002 FLUE).
HSA - Habitat Stewardship Area. Privately owned lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay Map,
which include both areas with natural characteristics that make them suitable habitat for listed
species and areas without these characteristics. These latter areas are included because they
are located contiguous to habitat with natural characteristics, thus forming a continuum of
landscape that can augment habitat values.
Land Use Layer. Permitted and conditional land uses within the Baseline Standards that are of
a similar type or intensity and that are grouped together in the same column on the Land Use
Matrix. Layers are removed in order from higher to lower intensity and include: Residential
Land Uses, General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, Recreational Uses,
Agriculture - Group 1, Agriculture – Support Uses, Agriculture - Group 2.
Land Use Matrix (Matrix). The tabulation of the permitted and conditional land uses within the
Baseline Standards set forth in Section 4.08.06 B.4., with each Land Use Layer displayed as a
single column.
Natural Resource Index (Index). A measurement system that establishes the relative natural
resource value of each acre of land by objectively measuring six different characteristics of land
and assigning an index factor based on each characteristic. The sum of these six factors is the
Index value for the land. The six characteristics measured are: Stewardship Overlay
Delineation, Proximity to Sending Area (HSA, FSA, W RA), Listed Species Habitat, Soils/Surface
Water, Restoration Potential, and Land Use/Land Cover.
Open Lands. Areas outside the ACSC or HSA, FSA, or WRA with Natural Resource Index
values less than 1.2.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 10 of 518
4 | P a g e
Restoration Zone. Privately owned lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay Map that are located
within 500 feet of an FSA, but are not otherwise included in an HSA or WRA.
R1. (GMP RLSA Policy 3.1). Lands are designated by the property owner for restoration
activities. The actual implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner
to receive credits.
R2. Lands are designated and undertaken by the landowner for restoration activities. Credits
are assigned but not available for transfer until the restoration activities have met applicable
success criteria.
SRA - Stewardship Receiving Area. A designated area within the RLSA District that has been
approved for the development of a Hamlet, Village, Town or CRD and that requires the
consumption of Stewardship Credits.
SSA - Stewardship Sending Area. A designated area within the RLSA District that has been
approved for the generation of Stewardship Credits in exchange for the elimination of one or
more Land Use Layers.
Stewardship Credit (Credit). A transferable unit of measure generated by an SSA and
consumed by an SRA. Eight credits are transferred to an SRA in exchange for the development
of one acre of land as provided in Section 4.08.06 B.
Stewardship Credit System. A system that creates incentives to protect and preserve natural
resources and agricultural areas in exchange for the generating and use of credits to entitle
compact forms of rural development. The greater the value of the natural resources being
preserved and the higher the degree of preservation, the greater the number of credits that can
be generated. Credits are generated through the designation of SSAs and consumed through
the designation of SRAs.
WRA - Water Retention Area. Privately owned lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay Map,
that have been permitted by the SFWMD to function as agricultural water retention areas and
that provide surface water quality and other natural resource value.
1. Identify the amount of land designated as Flow way Stewardship Areas (FSA), Habitat
Stewardship Areas (HSA), Water Retention Areas (WRA), and other* Stewardship
Sending Areas (SSA).
*Other SSA lands include Open designated lands
Attached Map 1 shows an overview of the entire Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) with
lands designated as FSA, HSA, WRA and Open. Table 1-A provides a summary of the acreage
of each designation and the acres that have been protected through Stewardship Sending
Areas since the RLSA program inception (5-yrs). The 5-yr percentage column shows that of all
lands within the RLSA designations, a total of thirteen percent have been protected to date
within a SSA. Thirty percent of all FSA and HSA designated land has been protected to date.
The acreages in this report have been rounded to the nearest acre, except in Table 1D where
exact acreages are reported to the one-hundredth of an acre.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 11 of 518
5 | P a g e
Table 1-A
Summary of RLSA Designations within Sending Areas Approved
RLSA
Designation
Total RLSA
Acres SSA Acres Approved 5-yr Percentage
FSA 31,100 9,206 30%
HSA 40,000 12,283 31%
WRA 18,200 44 0.2%
Open 93,100 2,593 3%
Total 182,400 24,126 13%
Source: Recorded SSA Easement Agreements
Note- Acreages listed in this report have been rounded to the nearest acre, except in Table 1D
where exact acreages are reported to the one-hundredth of an acre. Margin of error may
be +/- 1%.
Table 1-B
Summary of RLSA Designations within Sending Areas Pending
RLSA
Designation Total Acres SSA Acres Pending 5-yr Percentage
FSA 31,100 10,619 34%
HSA 40,000 17,703 44%
WRA 18,200 3,034 17%
Open 93,100 474 < 1%
Total 182,400 31,830 17%
Source: SSAs under review and property owners
Table 1-C
Summary of RLSA Designations within Sending Areas Approved & Pending
RLSA
Designation Total Acres SSA Acres Approved &
Pending 5-yr Percentage
FSA 31,100 19,825 64%
HSA 40,000 29,986 75%
WRA 18,200 3,078 17%
Open 93,100 3,067 3%
Total 182,400 55,956 31%
Source: Recorded SSA Easement Agreements, SSAs under review, and property owners
A series of maps have been prepared to illustrate the location of the protected lands and their
designations.
• Map 1A illustrates the 19,825 acres of FSA within SSAs approved and pending;
• Map 1B illustrates the 29,986 acres of HSA within SSAs approved and pending;
• Map 1C illustrates the 3,078 acres of WRA within SSAs approved and pending;
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 12 of 518
6 | P a g e
• Map 1D illustrates the 3,067 acres of Open, including 500-foot restoration buffer zones,
within SSAs approved and pending; and
• Map 1E illustrates all 55,956 acres of all lands within SSAs approved and pending.
Note- all map acreages are rounded to the nearest acre, margin of error +/-1%.
To provide further information on the approved and pending Stewardship Sending Areas,
Table1-D provides detailed information for each SSA including acreage designation type and
land uses remaining as set forth in each recorded SSA easement agreement that has been
approved by the county.
Each SSA is subject to a perpetual restrictive easement (Stewardship Easement) that runs with
the land. The Stewardship Easements are required to be in favor of Collier County and one of
the following: Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services, SFWMD, or a recognized statewide land trust. The
Stewardship Easement sets forth the land uses that have been eliminated and which the SSA
property is prohibited from utilizing. The Stewardship Easement also sets forth the land uses
that remain on the SSA property, the specific land management measures that must be
undertaken, and the party responsible for implementing those measures.
Table 1-D shows Ag-1, which includes agricultural uses remain, including: row crops, citrus,
specialty farms, horticulture, plant nurseries, improved pastures for grazing, and similar
activities, including agricultural support uses. Ag-2 includes these agricultural activities remain,
including: unimproved pastures for grazing and ranching, forestry, and similar uses and related
support uses. In summary, the SSAs approved have protected 23,422.4 acres of agriculture
use. All other more intensive uses not otherwise indicated have been removed from the land.
Table 1-D
Each SSA Approved & Pending Acreage Type and Land Use Levels Remaining
SSA # Acreage
Type Acres Ag – 1 Ag - 2 Other Total Acres
SSA 1 FSA 146.58 146.58 146.58
SSA 2
FSA 653.65
704.14 704.14 HSA 50.49
SSA 3
FSA 509 1,078.64 2,116.91 3,195.54
HSA 2,686
SSA 3a HSA 248.9 220.6 n/a*
SSA 4 FSA 198.18 654.01 585.91 1,239.92 HSA 1,041.74
SSA 5
FSA 196.0
1,852.3 1,852.3 HSA 1,629.8
Open 26.5
SSA 5a FSA 1.7 651.3
Conservation n/a* HSA 649.6
SSA 6
FSA 4,926.2
2,712.7 7,198.4 9,911.1 HSA 4,984.9
SSA 7
FSA 399.6 985.4 985.4
HSA 486.5
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 13 of 518
7 | P a g e
SSA # Acreage
Type Acres Ag – 1 Ag - 2 Other Total Acres
Open 99.3
SSA 8
FSA 1,619.9
815.0 4,484.5 5,299.5 HSA 1,247.9
Open 2,432.0
SSA 9
Open 34.2
739.3 50.1
Earth Mining 789.4 FSA 556.5
WRA 43.5
HSA 155.2
Total Approved 24,123.88 5,260.35 19,034.04 701.40 24,123.88
SSA 10**
Application
Submitted
FSA 0
5,861
HSA 5,854
WRA 1
Open 6
SSA 11**
Application
Submitted
FSA 1,191
3,700
HSA 2,212
WRA 198
Open 99
SSA 12**
Pre-app meeting held
FSA 1,788
4,791 HSA 2,933
WRA 0
Open 70
SSA 13**
Pre-app meeting held
FSA 4,232
7,430 HSA 1,313
WRA 1,616
Open 269
SSA 14**
Application
Submitted
FSA 1,048
1,713 HSA 663
WRA 1
Open 0
SSA 15**
Pre-app meeting held
FSA 2,196
5,259 HSA 1,827
WRA 1,209
Open 27
SSA 16**
Pre-app meeting held
FSA 164
3,077 HSA 2,901
WRA 9
Open 3
Total Pending 31,830 n/a** n/a** n/a** 31,830
Total
Approved + Pending 55,953.88 55,953.88
Source: Recorded SSA Easement Agreements, Collier County SSA Land Characteristics Summary,
SSAs under review, and property owners
* SSAs 3A & 5A are amended applications to include restoration areas. Acreage is already
included in 3 & 5.
** SSAs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, & 16 have yet to be approved by the county and data is included
where available as informational only.
The FSA and HSA overlays were designed to incentivize protection of the major regional
flowways within the RLSA and the large landscape-scale mosaic of native habitats and
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 14 of 518
8 | P a g e
agricultural lands adjacent to the FSAs. These lands provide major hydrological and ecological
linkages within the region.
As depicted on Map 1E, of the 31,100 acres designated as FSA, 19,825 acres of FSA (64% of
total FSA) are protected via approved and pending SSA designations. Approved and pending
SSAs also account for 29,986 acres of HSA overlay areas (75% of total HSA).
Map 1F illustrates the existing and pending SSA lands protect from intensive development a
large extent of lands targeted for public acquisition by Florida Forever and its predecessor
programs. SSAs 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, and 15 protect the vast majority of Corkscrew Regional
Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) lands within the RLSA, which were first delineated in the
1970’s. SSAs 8 and 11 protect lands within the Collier County portion of the Devil’s Garden
Florida Forever project.
Additionally, SSAs 3, 4, and 5 were designated specifically to protect an important landscape
linkage for the Florida panther across CR 846, which has a high incidence of panther-vehicle
interactions. These designated SSAs will allow for the eventual establishment of fenced wildlife
crossings. SSAs 6, 10, and 12 comprise 20,000 acres along the southern portion of the RLSA,
protecting high-quality panther habitats that are directly adjacent to the Florida Panther National
Wildlife Refuge (FPNWR) and Big Cypress National Preserve (BCNP).
2. The amount and location of land designated as Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA).
As shown in Table 2-A, the Town of Ave Marie SRA approved by the county in 2002 contains
5,027 acres. Over 1,000 of the total acres are public benefit uses, including Ave Maria
University.
The proposed Town of Big Cypress is anticipated to be the second SRA proposed in the Collier
RLSA. The pre-application and DRI information list the town as 2,798 acres. The SRA
application is expected to be filed in the summer of 2008.
Table 2-A
SRA Acreage
SRA Designation Acres Public Benefit
Uses (Acres)
Town of Ave Maria SRA 4,000 1,027
Town of Big Cypress SRA* 2,798 pending
Total 6,798 1,027
*proposed
The attached Map 2 shows the location of the existing Town of Ave Maria SRA and the
proposed location of the Town of Big Cypress.
3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated, assigned or held for future use.
Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within the RLSA District from which
one or more Land Use Layers are removed and are designated as an SSA. All privately owned
lands within the RLSA are a candidate for designation as a SSA, however, lands having high
ecological vale, such as lands within an FSA or HSA, generate more credits per acre than the
“Open” designated lands. Stewardship Credits can only be generated through the approval of
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 15 of 518
9 | P a g e
Stewardship Sending Areas using the methodology for the calculation of Credits. The
methodology includes:
1) The Natural Resource Index Value of the land being designated as a SSA; and
2) The number of land use layers being eliminated.
There are also additional incentive Credits to encourage the voluntary designation of SSAs
within the RLSA District; such as early entry bonus Credits, slough/strand index upgrade (buffer
area Credits), and restoration (R1 and R-2) Credits.
Eight Credits are required for each acre of land included in a SRA, except for open space in
excess of the required thirty-five percent as described in Policy 4.10 or for land that is
designated for a public benefit use described in Policy 4.19.
A. STEWARDSHIP CREDITS ASSIGNED
As of December, 2007, there have been a total of 9 SSAs that have been approved;
totaling 24,126 acres. As shown in Table 3-A these 9 SSAs have been assigned a
total of 59,451.49 Stewardship Credits including Early Entry, R-1 and R-2 Credits.
However, the R-2 Credits that have been assigned are not available for utilization
and transfer until the restoration work has been successfully completed.
Table 3-A
Stewardship Credit Summary
SSA # Acres Total Credits Assigned R-2 Credits
1 146.58 263.6 0
2 704.14 1,268.1 0
3 3,195.54 4,675.3 0
3A* 0 606.6 0
4 1,239.92 1,676.7 0
5 1,852.3 2,938.3 0
5A* 0 1,504.9 0
6 9,911.1 25,525.1 4,286.4
7 985.4 5,870.1 1,835.9
8 5,299.5 7,876.1 299.6
9 789.4 7,246.6 2,765.5
TOTAL 24,123.88 59,451.49 9,187.4
Source: Recorded SSA Easement Agreements
* SSAs 3A & 5A are amended applications to designate restoration areas.
Acreage is already included in SSAs 3 & 5.
B. STEWARDSHIP CREDITS ASSIGNED OR HELD FOR FUTURE USE
As of December 11, 2007, the Town of Ave Maria (4,000 ac) is the only approved
Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) within the RLSA. The Town of Ave Maria utilized
28,658.4 Stewardship Credits generated from SSAs 1 through 6 (See Table 3-B).
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 16 of 518
10 | P a g e
Table 3-B
Summary of Credits Transferred and Utilized for the Town of Ave Maria
SSA # Acres Total Credits
Assigned
Credits
Transferred and
Utilized for Town
of Ave Maria
Credits Held for
Future Use (includes
R-2)
1 146.58 263.6 263.6 0
2 704.14 1,268.1 1,268.1 0
3* 3,195.54 4,675.2 4,675.3 0
4 1,239.92 1,676.7 1,676.7 0
5* 1,852.3 2,938.3 2,938.3 0
6 9,911.1 25,525.1 17,836.5 7,688.6
Source: Collier County data included in the Rural Land Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Land
Characteristics Summary and Recorded SSA Easement Agreements.
*SSAs 3A and 5A post dated the approval of Ave Maria SRA, therefore no Credits were
transferred and utilized for Ave Maria.
SSAs 6, 7, 8, and 9 have been approved and contain a total of 16,985.4 acres (See Table 3-C).
The total Credits assigned to these SSAs are 46,517.9. Of this total, 9,187.4 are R-2 Credits
and are not available for utilization and transfer until the restoration work has been successfully
completed. There are 28,681.4 total assigned Credits held for future use, including unused and
R-2 Credits.
Table 3-C
Summary of Approved Credits Held for Future Use
SSA # Acres Total Credits
Assigned and
not Utilized
R-2 Credits
Assigned
Credits Currently
Available for
Utilization
3A 0 606.6 0 606.6
5A 0 1,504.9 0 1,504.9
6 9,911.1 7,688.6 4,286.4 3,402.2
7 985.4 5,870.1 1,835.9 4,034.2
8 5,299.5 7,876.1 299.6 7,576.5
9 789.4 7,246.6 2,765.5 4,481.1
TOTAL 16,985.4 30,792.9 9,187.4 21,605.5
Source: Collier County data included in the Rural Land Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Land
Characteristics Summary and Recorded SSA Easement Agreements
Map 3 shows the location of each SSA and the associated Credits assigned to each.
4. A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at the time
of study and time of review.
Maps 4, 4A and 4B illustrate a comparison between the type of Agriculture that existed in 2002,
and the agriculture uses that exist in 2007. As shown on the maps there has been some
change in the agricultural land cover and Ave Maria now exists in place of the agriculture land
cover that existed there in 2002 (Map 4C).
Table 4-A below summarizes the type of agricultural uses in 2002 compared to the type of
agriculture uses in 2007. Additionally, conversions in agricultural land use within and without
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 17 of 518
11 | P a g e
the RLSA program are shown. The agricultural land cover categories include all FLUCCS 200-
level codes, and the FLUCCS 310, 329, and 330 rangeland codes. Free-range cattle grazing
within naturally vegetated communities accounts for approximately 65,000 acres, but are not
included in the 2002 or 2007 data. It should be noted that of the 65,000 free-range cattle
grazing acres, the approved SSAs have protected 15,690 acres of this agriculture use.
Table 4-A below summarizes agricultural uses in 2002 compared to the uses 2007 and shows
the relative percentage change of each.
Table 4-A
2002/2007 Agricultural Type Comparison
Agricultural Type
2002
ACRES
With
RLSA
Without
RLSA
New
Ag
2007
ACRES
%
CHANGE
Citrus 39,468 38,233 -3.13%
Fallow 7,974 8,799 10.35%
Pasture/Rangeland 17,863 16,129 -9.71%
Row Crop 27,542 25,035 -9.10%
Specialty 1,651 1,201 -27.26%
TOTAL 94,498 -0058 -480 +427 89,397±.01% -5.40%
Sources: 2002 and 2007 RLSA land cover/land use GIS data, RLSA Property
Owners, and aerial photo interpretation.
Table 4-B
2002 Ave Maria Agricultural Uses
Agricultural Type
2002
ACRES
Citrus 839
Fallow 177
Natural Wetlands and Uplands (Non Ag) 572
Pasture/Rangeland 429
Row Crop 2,562
Specialty 449
TOTAL 5,027±
5. The amount, location and type of land converted to non-agricultural use with, and
without participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption.
Conversion of Agricultural lands using the RLSA program-
Approximately 5,058 acres of land has been converted from agriculture to non-agriculture uses
since 2002. As shown on Table 5-A, Ave Maria accounts for 4,455 acres, conservation uses
within an SSA accounts for 553 acres, and 50 acres was converted to mining. Map 4 illustrates
the location of all Ag to Non-Ag land use conversions.
Conversion of Agricultural lands without using the RLSA program-
A total of 480 acres of land within the RLSA have been approved for conversion from
agricultural usage without using the RLSA program. Two areas totaling 233 acres received
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 18 of 518
12 | P a g e
Conditional Use approval from Collier County to convert from agricultural use to earth mining
and recreational activities. Land was purchased by Collier County and converted to
conservation containing 237 acres of agriculture. Two conditional use excavations are pending
and total 1,126.65 acres. In addition, there is 427 acres of new agriculture.
Table 5-A
2007 Land Converted to Non-agricultural Use
Ag Land Conversion
Without
RLSA
Program
With
RLSA
Program
Conditional Use for earth mining -210
Conditional Use for recreation -33
Starnes Property Conservation (not entirely zoned
ag) -237
Ave Maria -4,455
SSA Conservation -553
SSA mining -50
TOTAL ACRES -480
--
5,058058
New Agriculture +427
Sources: Conditional Use Approvals CU-02-AR-3537. CU-01-AR1225, Ave Maria
Stewardship Receiving Area Resolution, SSA 3A and 5A, SSA 9 and Collier County
Property Appraiser
Map 4 illustrates the location of all Ag to Non-Ag land use conversions.
6. The extent and use of funding provided by Collier County and other sources of Local,
State, Federal and private revenues described in Policy 1.18.
A total of 15 acres have been purchased in the RLSA by the South Florida Water Management
District (unknown amount). Conservation Collier purchased 367.7 acres. The total purchase
price of the property was $5.3 million, with a $300,000 contribution from the Corkscrew Regional
Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) Trust.
7. The amount, location and type of restoration through participation in the Stewardship
Credit System since its adoption.
Table 7-A documents the amount, location, and type of proposed restoration activities within
approved SSAs. To date, restoration activities have been initiated on SSAs 6, 8, and 9.
Two types of restoration credits are available within the RLSA program. Restoration 1 (R1)
lands are designated by the property owner for restoration activities. The actual implementation
of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive (R1) credits (GMP RLSA
Policy 3.11). Restoration 2 (R2) lands are designated and undertaken by the landowner for
restoration activities. Credits are assigned but not available for transfer until the restoration
activities have met applicable success criteria.
To the extent restoration is designated and is to be undertaken by the landowner, a Restoration
Program is attached to the Stewardship Easement as an exhibit. The Restoration Program
details the required restoration improvements, success criteria, and the additional land
management measures required after restoration occurs.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 19 of 518
13 | P a g e
The proposed restoration activities often require lengthy timeframes for the detailed restoration
design, data collection (e.g., water table data), obtaining of state and federal permits for
restoration, and/or multiple years of actual restoration work to achieve success criteria.
The types of restoration listed in Table7-A are described below:
Flowway: Restoration in areas that have been impeded or constricted by past activities
resulting in a functional increase in the Camp Keais or Okaloacochee flowways. May also
include areas where additional land is needed to enhance wildlife corridors.
Wading birds: Includes hydrologic restoration, and or exotic removal within drained areas or
excavation of shallow marsh in farm fields planted with native aquatic plants within foraging
distance of a rookery.
Other Listed species: Restoration, exotic removal, and or management of pasture areas to
support prairie species such as caracara, burrowing owls, and sand hill cranes. Could include
restoration or creation of habitat for any listed species documented to occur within the RLSA.
Large mammal corridor: Restoration or creation of "preferred" habitat adjacent to or
connecting with existing occupied habitat.
See Map 3A for the location of all areas designated for restoration.
Table 7-A
Amount and Types of Restoration in SSAs
Source: SSA applications
Location Restoration Type Acres
SSA 3A Wading Bird (R1) 248.9
SSA 5A Wading Bird (R1) 651.3
SSA 6
Flow way (R1, R2) 575.0
Other Listed Species (R1, R2) 619.2
Wading Bird (R1, R2) 24.8
SSA 7
Large Mammal Corridor (R1, R2) 331.9
Other Listed Species (R1, R2) 75.7
Wading Bird (R1, R2) 51.4
SSA 8 Wading Bird (R1, R2) 74.9
SSA 9
Flow way (R1, R2) 571.5
Large Mammal Corridor (R1, R2) 61.0
Wading Bird (R1, R2) 58.9
TOTAL 3344.5
Total R1 acres = 900±±±±
Total R2 acres = 2444.5±±±±
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 20 of 518
14 | P a g e
8. The potential for use of Credits in urban areas.
The RLSA Program as adopted does not allow for the use of Credits outside of the RLSA
Overlay Area, nor is there any existing method to use such Credits in the Urban designation of
the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). Such a change would require thorough
analysis and an amendment to the GMP and RLSA Overlay Area Goals, Objectives and
Policies.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 21 of 518
15 | P a g e
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 22 of 518
16 | P a g e
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 23 of 518
17 | P a g e
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 24 of 518
18 | P a g e
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 25 of 518
19 | P a g e
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 26 of 518
20 | P a g e
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 27 of 518
21 | P a g e
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 28 of 518
22 | P a g e
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 29 of 518
23 | P a g e
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 30 of 518
24 | P a g e
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 31 of 518
25 | P a g e
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 32 of 518
26 | P a g e
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 33 of 518
27 | P a g e
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 34 of 518
28 | P a g e
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 35 of 518
29 | P a g e
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 36 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 37 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 38 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 39 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 40 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 41 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 42 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 43 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 44 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 45 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 46 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 47 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 48 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 49 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 50 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 51 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 52 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 53 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 54 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 55 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 56 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 57 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 58 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 59 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 60 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 61 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 62 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 63 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 64 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 65 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 66 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 67 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 68 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 69 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 70 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 71 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 72 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 73 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 74 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 75 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 76 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 77 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 78 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 79 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 80 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 81 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 82 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 83 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 84 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 85 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 86 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 87 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 88 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 89 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 90 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 91 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 92 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 93 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 94 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 95 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 96 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 97 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 98 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 99 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 100 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 101 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 102 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 103 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 104 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 105 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 106 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 107 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 108 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 109 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 110 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 111 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 112 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 113 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 114 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 115 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 116 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 117 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 118 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 119 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 120 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 121 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 122 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 123 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 124 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 125 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 126 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 127 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 128 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 129 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 130 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 131 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 132 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 133 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 134 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 135 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 136 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 137 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 138 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 139 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 140 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 141 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 142 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 143 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 144 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 145 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 146 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 147 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 148 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 149 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 150 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 151 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 152 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 153 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 154 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 155 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 156 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 157 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 158 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 159 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 160 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 161 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 162 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 163 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 164 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 165 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 166 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 167 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 168 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 169 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 170 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 171 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 172 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 173 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 174 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 175 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 176 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 177 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 178 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 179 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 180 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 181 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 182 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 183 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 184 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 185 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 186 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 187 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 188 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 189 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 190 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 191 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 192 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 193 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 194 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 195 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 196 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 197 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 198 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 199 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 200 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 201 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 202 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 203 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 204 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 205 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 206 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 207 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 208 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 209 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 210 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 211 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 212 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 213 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 214 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 215 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 216 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 217 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 218 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 219 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 220 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 221 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 222 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 223 of 518
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 224 of 518
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Restudy
White Paper
Prepared by the Growth Management Department,
Community Planning Section Staff
May 21, 2019
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 225 of 518
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Restudy
White Paper
RLSA Restudy White Paper i
Table of Contents
Page
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………….……………i-iii
Definitions (LDC Section 4.08.01)……………………………………………………………………iv-v
Section A. Introduction……………………..…………………………………………………….………1
Section B. Data Update (Acreage and Credits)……………………….…..…..……….……..……..12
Section C. Water Resources……………………………………………….……………………….....25
Section D. Agricultural Protection……..………………………………….………………………….. 35
Section E. Environmental Protection……………….…………………….………………………….. 42
Section F. Towns Villages and Other Development………………...….………………………….. 63
Section G. Credit System………………...….…………………………………………………………77
Section H. Consistency with Other Planning Areas…………………………………………………83
List of Staff Recommendations………………………………………………………………………..85
Appendix A. Public Outreach – Meeting Summaries
List of Tables
Page
Table A-1: Major Bonus Credit Changes from Transmittal to Adoption…………………...………..7
Table B-1: Summary of Stewardship Designations within Approved Sending Areas
Rounded to nearest acre……………...………………….………………………..…………………..14
Table B-2: Summary of RLSA Designations within Sending Areas Pending………..……………14
Table B-3: SSAs and Land Use Levels Remaining……………………………………...………15-16
Table B-4: SRA Acreage………………………………..……………………………………...………16
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 226 of 518
RLSA Restudy White Paper ii
Page
Table B-5: SRA Acreage Pending*…………………..…………………………..…………...………18
Table B-6: Stewardship Credit Summary…..……………...…………….………………………...…19
Table B-7: Summary of Credits Transferred and Utilized for the Town of Ave Maria and Credits
Remaining for Future Use…..……………...……………………………………….…….……………20
Table B-8: Stewardship Sending Areas Pending in Application Status…..……………….………20
Table B-9: Stewardship Sending Areas with Amendments Pending…....……………...…………21
Table B-10: 2002/2012 Agricultural Type Comparison…..……………...…………….……………21
Table B-11: 2002 Ave Maria Agricultural Uses…..……………...…………………………..………22
Table B-12: Amount and Types of Restoration in SSAs…..……………...…………….………23-24
Table B-13: Restoration Acres Dedicated by Type (R-1)…………………………………...………24
Table E-1: Tiered Restoration Credits, 5-year Review………………...…………………...………50
Table F-1: CIGM Population Projections GMP Districts East of CR 951 Rounded to nearest
1,000 Est. Oct. 2018………………………………..……………………...…………………...………65
List of Figures
Page
Figure A-1: Stewardship Overlay Map…………………………………………..……………………..7
Figure B-1: RLSA Adoption Map……………………………..………………………………………..13
Figure B-2: Ave Maria TDR Transactions Credits…………………………………...………………17
Figure C-1: Adopted RLSA Overlay Features……..…………………………………………………26
Figure C-2: RLSA Elevations……………………………………………………..……………………27
Figure C-3: RLSA Surface Drainage……………………………………………………….…………27
Figure C-4: Collier County Hydrology………………….…………………………………….……….31
Figure D-1: 2012 FLUCCS Land Use – Agriculture Land………………………………..…..……..36
Figure D-2: Agriculture Economic Impact to Collier County……………………….……….………37
Figure D-3: Economic Considerations for Growers……………………………………….…………38
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 227 of 518
RLSA Restudy White Paper iii
Page
Figure E-1: RLSA Status Map, March 2019……………………………………………….…..……..44
Figure E-2: Proposed SSA 17 and SRAs…………………………………………………………….45
Figure E-3: HCP Exhibit Covered Activities……………………………………………………….....58
Figure E-4: HCP Exhibit Primary/Secondary Panther Habitat, SW Florida……………………….58
Figure E-5: HCP Exhibit Panther Telemetry Since 1981……………….………………….……….59
Figure E-6: Panther Collision Hotspots……………………………………………………………….61
Figure F-1: Town Transect…………………………………………………………………………..…66
Figure F-2: Vehicle/Panther Collisions…………………………………………….………………….75
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 228 of 518
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay White Paper
Definitions (LDC Section 4.08.01)
RLSA Restudy White Paper iv
ACSC. Area of Critical State Concern
Agricultural Group 1 Uses (4.08.06 B4). Generally higher intensity agricultural uses including:
row crops, citrus, nurseries, and related support uses.
Agricultural Group 2 Uses (4.08.06 B4). Generally lower intensity agricultural uses including:
pasture, forestry, hunting cabins, cultural and recreational facilities, and related support uses.
Early Entry Bonus Credits (FLUE RLSA Policy 1.21). The bonus shall be in the form of one
additional Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as SSA in an HSA located outside of
the ACSC and one-half Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as SSA in an HSA
located inside the ACSC. The early entry bonus expired for SSAs created after 2009.
Fallow. Farmland that is not currently being farmed but has been in the past and could be in the
future.
FSA - Flowway Stewardship Area. Lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay Map, which
primarily include privately owned wetlands that are located within the Camp Keais Strand and
Okaloacoochee Slough. FSAs form the primary wetland flow way systems in the RLSA District.
Future Land Use Map (FLUE). Map of the adopted and amended areas within the RLSA..
HSA - Habitat Stewardship Area. Lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay Map, which include
both areas with natural characteristics that make them suitable habitat for listed species and
areas without these characteristics. These latter areas are included because they are located
contiguous to habitat with natural characteristics, thus forming a continuum of landscape that
can augment habitat values.
Land Use Layer. Permitted and conditional land uses within the Baseline Standards that are of
similar type or intensity and that are grouped together in the same column on the Land Use
Matrix, “Attachment B”. Layers are removed in order from higher to lower intensity and include:
Residential Land Uses, General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses,
Recreational Uses, Agriculture - Group 1, Agriculture – Support Uses, Agriculture - Group 2,
Conservation.
Land Use Matrix (Matrix). The tabulation of the permitted and conditional land uses within the
Baseline Standards set forth in “Attachment B”, with each Land Use Layer displayed as a single
column.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 229 of 518
RLSA Restudy White Paper v
Natural Resource Index (Index). A measurement system that establishes the relative natural
resource value of each acre of land by objectively measuring six different characteristics of land
and assigning an index factor based on each characteristic. The sum of these six factors is the
Index value for the land. The six characteristics measured are: Stewardship Overlay
Delineation, Proximity to Sending Area (HSA, FSA, WRA), Listed Species Habitat, Soils/Surface
Water, Restoration Potential, and Land Use/Land Cover.
Open Lands. Areas in the HSA, FSA, WRA or 500’ restoration zone.
Restoration Zone. Privately owned lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay Map that are located
within 500 feet of an FSA, but are not otherwise included in an HSA or WRA.
R-1. (Policy 3.1). Lands are designated by the property owner for restoration activities. The
actual implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive
credits.
R-2. Lands are designated and undertaken by the landowner for restoration activities. Credits
are assigned but not available for transfer until the restoration activities have met applicable
success criteria.
SRA - Stewardship Receiving Area. A designated area within the RLSA District that has been
approved for development as a Hamlet, Village, Town or CRD and that requires the
consumption of Stewardship Credits.
SSA - Stewardship Sending Area. A designated area within the RLSA District that has been
approved for the generation of Stewardship Credits in exchange for the elimination of one or
more Land Use Layers.
Stewardship Credit (Credit). A transferable unit of measure generated by an SSA and
consumed by an SRA. Eight credits are transferred to an SRA in exchange for the development
of one acre of land as provided in Section 4.08.06 B.
Stewardship Credit System. A system that creates incentives to protect and preserve natural
resources and agricultural areas in exchange for the generating and use of credits to entitle
compact forms of rural development. The greater the value of the natural resources being
preserved and the higher the degree of preservation, the greater the number of credits that can
be generated. Credits are generated through the designation of SSAs and consumed through
the designation of SRAs.
WRA - Water Retention Area. Privately owned lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay Map,
that have been permitted by the SFWMD to function as agricultural water retention areas and
that provide surface water quality and other natural resource value.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 230 of 518
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay White Paper
A. Introduction
Restudy Background and Purpose
This White Paper provides a framework to address improvements to the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area, an overlay within the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management
Plan. The White Paper is an intermediate step in the RLSA restudy process, a process that
began in January 2018. The formal transmittal and adoption hearing processes will begin as
directed by the Board of County Commissioners (Board).
The RLSA restudy is one of four restudies focused on eastern Collier County, as directed by the
Board on February 10, 2015. Focus areas of all four restudies include complementary land
uses, transportation and mobility, environmental stewardship, and economic vitality. As
remarked by Board members, only 10% of County land remains available for new development.
This is the last chance to “get it right” in terms of development form. These restudies are
conducted with that perspective in mind.
The basic format of the introduction includes the history and status of the RLSA and the public
planning process. Following, staff will present data on RLSA activity updated to March 2019
(Section B). Sections C-G follow, providing staff analysis of program subject areas leading to
staff recommendations, and a list of sources. A full list of staff recommendations will conclude
the White Paper, prior to Appendix A.
We often refer to these as preliminary recommendations for a number of reasons. First, public
input was valuable in identifying areas for potential improvements, but not always accompanied
by solutions. Second, the Outreach phase uncovered significant differences in opinion on many
topics. Staff makes recommendations herein based on its view of data and analysis, fully
cognizant of the fact that other outcomes may be preferred by decision-makers, and aware that
further dialogue through the public hearing process may yield other solutions to the identified
areas for improvement.
As to the scope of the restudy, staff became aware through the course of public outreach that
the terminology of an “area restudy” could have been improved at the outset- perhaps as “area
update.” Many individuals assumed that the County could achieve a complete reformulation of
this study area without regard to the system currently in place. As will be discussed, the RLSA
Overlay Comprehensive Plan language, together with the LDC zoning overlay, provide certain
rights to landowners that cannot be simply discarded or ignored.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 231 of 518
History and Importance of the RLSA Overlay
The Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay is the Future Land Use Element Sub-
District which was adopted in 2002 through Ordinance 02-54, as a result of Final Order – ACC-
99-002. ACC-99-002 was issued by the State due to the County’s GMP being found to lack
regulatory protection for environmentally sensitive property, not adequately discouraging urban
sprawl and preventing the premature conversion of agricultural land. The Final Order required
the following modifications to the GMP to address the issues within three specified areas:
1. Identify and propose measures to protect prime agricultural areas
2. Direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat in order to protect
water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime as well as to protect
listed animal species and their habitats.
3. Assess the growth potential of the Area by assessing the potential conversion of rural
lands to other uses, in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, directing
incompatible land uses away from critical habitat and encouraging development that
utilizes creative land use planning techniques including, but not limited to, public and
private schools, urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based
allocations, clustering and open space provisions and mixed use development.
The RLSA Overlay, as expressed in the Future Land Use Element, contains one goal and one
objective, which are furthered by policy groups. This Overlay implemented the mandates of the
State’s Final Order.
The goal of the RLSA is: Collier County seeks to address the long-term needs of residents and
property owners within the Immokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and
Agricultural Area Assessment. Collier County’s goal is to protect agricultural activities, to
prevent the premature conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, to direct
incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat, to enable the conversion of rural
land to other uses in appropriate locations, to discourage urban sprawl, and to encourage
development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques.
The objective of the RLSA is: To meet the Goal described above, Collier County’s objective is to
create an incentive-based land use overlay system, herein referred to as the Collier County
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, based on the principles of rural land stewardship as
defined in Chapter 163.3177(11), F.S. The Policies that will implement this Goal and Objective
are set forth below in groups relating to each aspect of the Goal. Group 1 policies describe the
structure and organization of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. Group
2 policies relate to agriculture, Group 3 policies relate to natural resource protection, and Group
4 policies relate to conversion of land to other uses and economic diversification. Group 5 are
regulatory policies that ensure that land that is not voluntarily included in the Overlay by its
owners shall nonetheless meet the minimum requirements of the Final Order pertaining to
natural resource protection.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 232 of 518
To meet the requirements of the Final Order, the County appointed the Rural Lands
Assessment Area Oversight Committee. That committee was comprised of a wide variety of
business and civic leaders as well as environmental, agricultural and academic members. The
Committee was coordinated through the firm of Wilson Miller, an engineering and planning
consultant. The work was further supplemented by a Technical Advisory Committee made up of
state and federal subject matter experts.
The initial RLSA study established a methodology and set of parameters to test different
scenarios within the study area. These parameters included the use of the MPO 2025 projected
population, and the base density allowed at the time of the study, 1 unit per 5 acres. The study
methodology and findings within the Report concluded, “Zoning entitlement of 1 unit per 5 acres
determines the number of units currently allowed – 36,466. Using an average gross density for
compact rural development of 2.17 units per acre, only 16,805 acres would need to be set aside
for the buildout density in compact rural development. The credit calculation process results in
an exchange rate of 8 Sending Area credits per acre of Receiving Area land. The process yields
the assumed number of rural development acres that are eligible to become designated
Receiving Areas.
The Report also recommended additional credits for Restoration activities on a “case by case”
basis. There were no direct statements indicating how much these additional credits would
potentially expand the baseline-equivalent footprint of 16,805 acres. Given the recommended
basis for exchange, Sending to Receiving, at 8 credits per acre, it follows that bonus credits
would necessarily expand the development footprint beyond 16,805 acres at maximum program
participation.
The RLSA study was included in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment transmittal documents,
and the same population and density parameters were used to describe the plan structure in the
Transmittal Hearing staff report. The language in the proposed Growth Management Plan
amendment (GMPA) incorporating the new RLSA overlay did not specifically limit the
development footprint at build-out. In addition, the Plan language contained the
recommendation for a “case by case” bonus credit allocation for restoration activitie s, as well as
bonus credits for early entry Stewardship Sending Area designation.
The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), in their Objections, Recommendations
and Comments (ORC) report recommended changes to policy 1.21 and 3.11 to further defi ne
early entry bonus credits and restoration credits.
In response to the recommendation, the subject credits were further defined, resulting in a
change to the original credit system. Policy 1.21 reduced early entry bonus credits: from one
half credit per acre of FSA, HSA or WRA, to one credit per acre for HSA outside of ASCA, and
one-half credit per acre for HSA inside the ACSC. A maximum was added of 27,000 early entry
bonus credits. Policy 3.11 changed restoration credits. Originally described as “case by case,”
these were now quantified on a per acre basis as requested by DCA. Within Camp Keais Strand
FSA or HSA, 4 credits per acre were added for dedicated lands and 4 credits per acre for
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 233 of 518
completion as defined by a permitting agency. In all other areas, an additional 2 credits per acre
were added for dedication, and 4 credits per acre for completion as defined by a permitting
agency. Policy 3.12 changed the index score of lands within 500 feet of major sloughs from 0.5
to 0.6.
The table below summarizes the major bonus credit changes from transmittal to adoption.
Table A-1
Summary of Major Bonus Credit Changes from Transmittal to Adoption
Transmittal* Adoption**
Early entry bonus credits 42,382 27,000
Base credits 127,151 128,000
Restoration credits TBD on a case by case basis 160,000
Total credits 169,533 + restoration 315,000
*source RLSA Study, Appendix J, prepared by WilsonMiller, dated May 2002
**source WilsonMiller memo to Tom Greenwood, dated Dec 5, 2008
While the credits changed from the transmittal to the adoption versions as noted above
(estimate made in 2008) the calibration for 8 credits per acre of SRA remained unchanged. This
resulted in the potential for far greater SRA development acreage, as compared to SRA
acreage without bonus credit provisions. These modifications were supported by environmental
policy considerations, not the least of which was the encouragement of restoration activities at
the expense of the large landowners rather than taxpayers.
On December 10, 2002, DCA issued its Notice of Intent to find the RLSA GMPAs in compliance
with Chapter 163 and the Final Order.
The Five-Year Review
A policy within the existing RLSA Growth Management Plan includes the requirement to review
the Plan provisions upon the 5-year anniversary of its adoption. Like the original assessment
committee, this committee was made up of a broad base of business, civic, and environmental
leaders.
It was not until the 5-year Review that a thorough assessment of program credits was
undertaken, both existing (previously issued) and potential. At the same time, the Committee
believed that additional program elements, using the credit system, should be applied to better
protect agriculture, incentivize panther corridors, restructure the restoration credits and balance
the credit system overall.
In its assessment of existing and potential credits under the existing Plan, including Base
credits, Early Entry credits and Restoration credits, the Review Committee estimated that
315,000 credits could be earned at 100% participation. This equates to an SRA development
footprint of 39,375 acres. The Committee also recognized that credits are not required for
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 234 of 518
“public benefit” uses (schools, regional parks, and some governmental facilities). Based on an
estimate that 10% of land area within a Town or Village could be public benefit uses, the
footprint created through credits could, in fact, be 43,312 acres when public benefits are added.
The important substantive recommendations from the Committee were structured in a way that
required incentives in the form of additional credits. These included Agricultural Land credits
within the “Open” areas of the RLSA, in order to place up to 43,700 acres of non-SRA
(Town/Village, etc.) acres under agricultural easements, thus eliminating their potential
conversion into “5-acre ranchettes”, a baseline land use right under existing agricultural zoning.
Additional credits for Agricultural protection: 89,000 credits
Panther Corridor credits within the “Open” areas of the RLSA, to assure connectivity
contemplated by the Panther Protection Plan 23,000 credits
Restructuring the Restoration Credit system to better reflect value by type of restoration,
resulting in a small decrease in total potential (6,000 credit reduction)
The sum of all potential credits under the existing Plan and the recommended changes totaled
463,104 credits, enough to allow the possibility of 57,888 acres of SRA development at build -
out. In its recommendation to retain the bonus credits, and to extend bonus credit treatment for
these new recommendations, the Committee proposed the following provisions to contract the
development footprint outcome:
Permanently eliminate the potential for any extension of Early Entry bonus credits
Revise the restoration credit system
Increase the number of credits required per acre for development, from 8 to 10, derived
from future approved SSAs.
Institute a cap on development acres or on total credits
Thus, the total credits under the above recommendations would result in a reduction of the total
theoretical development footprint from 57,888 acres to 47,120 acres. Then applying a cap on
acres, the Committee recommended no greater than 45,000 acres of SRA footprint. The
Committee noted that the footprint includes both public benefit uses (10%) and open space
within each development (35%).
At the Public Hearing, Board of County Commissioners, April 21, 2009, there was considerable
debate as to whether a credit cap or an acreage cap would be the most effective limitation for
development. Otherwise, the public and stakeholders found substantial consensus with the
recommendations made. During that hearing, consensus was reached among stakeholders to
limit both acres (45,000) and credits (404,000) under the program. Consensus included Florida
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 235 of 518
Wildlife Federation, Audubon of Florida, Conservancy, the Eastern Collier Property Owners
group (ECPO) and the Board of County Commissioners.
Following consensus at that hearing, the Growth Management Plan was not later amended,
apparently due to some contention as to who should pay for the cost of the GMP amendments,
how the cost would be calculated, the fact that the economic downturn continued to appear
intractable, and other factors.
The work completed by the 5-year Review Committee was extensive. Approximately 28 public
meetings were held by the Committee in examining the many facets of the RLSA program.
Following that work, at least 5 public hearings were held before the Environmental Advisory
Committee (EAC) and the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), before the
recommendations were heard by the Board. The findings and recommendations of the 5-year
Review Committee should be respected and closely considered in the course of the current
restudy.
Today
Presently, the Growth Management Plan elements adopted in 2002 remain in place with little
alteration. The credits issued through the creation of the SSAs as of January 2018, total
129,987, equivalent to 16,987 acres of SRA development footprint. These credits were derived
from 15 approved SSAs, providing easements over 50,431 acres, primarily Habitat Stewardship
Areas (HSAs) (28,233 acres), Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs) (17,905 acres) and Water
Retention Areas (WRAs) (3,071 acres). The County’s Stewardship Sending Log can be found
at: https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/your-government/divisions-a-e/comprehensive-planning/rural-
land-stewardship-area-rlsa-overlay-program/towns-hamlets-rural-lands-stewardship-area-overl/-
fsiteid-1.
The approved SSA’s cover approximately 55% of the HSAs, FSAs, and WRAs, leaving 45% as
targeted environmental easement protection areas. Less than 1% of the Open areas are
protected by easement. Open areas not developed as Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs)
and not protected by easements remain under baseline agricultural zoning rules, allowing
agricultural uses, potential conditional uses, and residential development at 1 unit per 5 acres.
The RLSA Overlay, as adopted (and amended) in the County’s Comprehensive Plan, can be
seen in Figure A-1, below. The text of the current RLSA provisions in the Growth Management
Plan can be found at the following link, including Group 1 through 5 Policies, Attachment A-
Stewardship Credit Worksheet, Attachment B- Land Use Matrix and Attachment C- Stewardship
Area Characteristics:
https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/your-government/divisions-a-e/comprehensive-planning/rural-
land-stewardship-area-rlsa-overlay-program/-fsiteid-1.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 236 of 518
Figure A-1
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 237 of 518
As a final introductory note, it is important to consider the narrative that accompanied the
directives in the Final Order: “This assessment shall recognize the substantial advantages of
innovative approaches to development which may better serve to protect environmentally
sensitive areas, maintain the economic viability of predominantly agricultural and other
predominantly rural land uses, and provide for the cost-effective delivery of public facilities and
services”. To this end, the stewardship system does far more than transfer density from one
location to another. It pays for the protection of natural areas and listed species habitats that
necessarily require significant care and maintenance- in a word, “stewardship”. It has been
estimated that an endowment covering the ultimate obligations of this system would approach
$1 billion or more. Regardless of the methodology or final number, the benefit to the
environment and the public welfare of these perpetual commitments is enormous.
Public Planning Process
“I strongly favor smarter growth principles that will save tax dollars and natural resources
in eastern Collier County…”
- Citizen comment, February 2019
The public planning process elicited comments, both general and specific. General comments,
such as that above, reflect a broad consensus among citizens and stakeholders. As we look at
comments that are more specific in nature, we see a divergence in how we view smart growth
principles, how we measure public and private expenditures, and how we best protect the
natural resources, both agricultural and natural, in the RLSA area.
The public outreach effort began with an advertised public workshop on January 25, 2018,
followed by public workshops almost every month for over 1 year. In all, 12 workshops were
conducted, alternately at the North Collier Regional Park and the South County Library. Topics
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 238 of 518
progressed from an overview of perspectives and general structure of the Overlay to agriculture,
natural resources, infrastructure, water, development patterns, specific public areas of interest,
and finally consensus. Most workshops were captured on video (found at County main web
page, video archive, RLSA Restudy) and broadcast on Facebook live.
A compilation of Meeting Summaries can be found in Appendix A. Materials associated with
each public workshop, including agendas, presentation materials, and recordings can be found
on-line at the site below. This site also contains links to comment cards and correspondence to
staff: https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/your-government/divisions-s-z/zoning-division/community-
planning-section/rural-lands-stewardship-area-restudy/rural-lands-stewardship-area-restudy-
pub.
The public was urged to consult the resources and material gathered as important background
information for the RLSA restudy. Many participants were helpful in providing additional sources
for review at this location. The RLSA Restudy Library contains a section on program creation, a
section on the 5-year Review effort and a link to the current program status of approved SSAs
and SRAs with associated documents. It also contains a number of documents created since
2009 that further inform the restudy. It can be found at this location:
https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/your-government/divisions-s-z/zoning-division/community-
planning-section/rural-lands-stewardship-area-restudy/library-rural-lands-stewardship-area-res.
One important item that came up during the public Workshops involved the specific data sets
that were used to create the composite Natural Resource Index (NRI) scores for each acre
within the RLSA. The composite NRI scores were used to calibrate the stewardship credit
system, and Collier County retains these composite NRI scores. These composites are also
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 239 of 518
used as a foundation for County review of SSA and SRA applications that include updated NRI
scores.
The County was never provided with each sub-composite “factor” making the NRI composite
score for each acre. This data was not a part of the transmittal to the State as data and analysis.
This data is not needed today by the County for any discernable purpose. These factors were
developed by the firm of Wilson Miller, and later became the property of Stantec, a successor
corporation.
Two stakeholder groups requested the NRI factor data used in the 2002 program. Stantec
assisted the County in identifying the best available information in their archives, to provide to
the County. Ultimately, the County determined that it would not take possession of the data as it
was not used as data in support of its transmittal and it is not County data.
Staff is grateful to County citizens who took the time to contribute to these public dialogues.
Along the way, a diversity of opinions were shared and captured through various means,
including break-out group discussions, comment cards, and open questions and comments. At
the same time, staff acknowledges hurdles inherent in a year-long public discussion of a
complex program. The more casual observers, those who attended only a few of the workshops
tended to have difficulty understanding the material.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 240 of 518
During the final two workshops, the public was encouraged to find areas of agreement or
disagreement with many of the statements, concerns, or solutions mentioned in group
discussion, comment cards, or correspondence. As in previous sessions, Dr. Amanda Evans,
FGCU, a certified mediator provided leadership for group activities. These ideas or statements
were sorted into “affinity” groups by attendees and ultimately discussed to determine where
there was agreement, and where there was not. The results of this exercise appear at the
beginning of each substantive section of this White Paper following the data update section.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 241 of 518
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay White Paper
B. Data Update
Acreage and Credits
Program Acreage Calculations
This section updates some of the basic quantitative data associated with the RLSA program and
the status at the present time (as of March 2019). These calculations and formats are similar to
those provided in the 5-year Review, but include more recent data.
Early descriptions of the RLSA describe an area of 195,846 acres. This was the original study
area. However, when the RLSA was adopted, it excluded portions of state-owned lands, both in
the Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest and the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed
(CREW). The resulting Adopted RLSA totaled 185,935 acres.
The depiction below, Exhibit A-1, shows the location and acreage of the adopted RLSA overlay
areas, along with publicly owned land, at the present time. This map depicts areas designated as
FSA, HSA, WRA, 500’ Restoration Area and Open. The map also indicated that 7,067 acres are
in public ownership, resulting in 178,868 acres of privately held lands. Under current Plan
provisions, only private lands are eligible to participate in the Stewardship Credit program. Of the
7,067 acres of publicly-owned lands in the RLSA, 4,136 acres are located within designated
protection areas (FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and 500’ buffers).
[Intentionally left blank]
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 242 of 518
Figure B-1
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 243 of 518
Table B-1 provides a summary of the acreage of each designation and the acres that have been
protected through Stewardship Sending Areas since the RLSA program inception. The Approved
Percentage column shows the percentage protected within each RLSA stewardship protection
area type. A total of 50,431 acres have been protected to date through SSA designations,
although some remain “in escrow.” Accordingly, approximately 56 percent of all FSA, HSA, WRA,
and 500’ Restoration Areas (designated protection areas) have been protected in this way. Table
B-2 shows the number of acres of stewardship protection pending under existing SSA
applications.
Table B-1
Summary of Stewardship Designations within Approved Sending Areas
Rounded to nearest acre
RLSA
Designation
Total RLSA
Acres SSA Acres Approved Approved
Percentage
FSA 30,869 17,906 58%
HSA 39,991 28,883 72%
WRA 18,428 3,071 17%
500’ Restore 1,808 *
Open 94,839 570 1%
Designated
protection
areas 89,288 49,860 56%
Total 185,935 50,431 27%
Source: Collier County GIS, Recorded SSA Easement Agreements; SSA Land
Characteristics Summary
*500’ Restoration approved areas included in HSA % category
Table B-2
Summary of RLSA Designations within Sending Areas Pending
RLSA
Designation Total Acres SSA Acres Pending Percentage of
Designated Area
WRA 18,228 3,122 17%
Source: SSA # 17 application
Table B-3 shows the land use layers remaining under SSA designations: Ag-1, which includes
active agricultural uses remaining, including: row crops, citrus, specialty farms, horticulture, plant
nurseries, improved pastures for grazing, and similar activities; Ag-2, which includes passive
agricultural activities, including: unimproved pastures for grazing and ranching, forestry, and
similar uses and related support uses. In summary, the SSAs approved have protected 50,431
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 244 of 518
acres of agriculture use, primarily passive uses. All other more intensive land uses not otherwise
indicated have been removed from each of these SSA designated areas.
Table B-3
SSAs and Land Use Levels Remaining
SSA # Ag – 1 Ag - 2 Other Total
Acres
SSA 1 146.6 146.6
SSA 2 704.1 704.1
SSA 3 858.0 2,337.8 3,195.8
SSA 4 654.0 585.9 1,239.9
SSA 5 1,201.0 651.3
Conservation 1,852.3
SSA 6 2,712.7 7,198.4 9,911.1
SSA 7 985.4 985.4
SSA 8 WD WD WD
SSA 9 739.3 50.1
Earth Mining 789.4
SSA 10 4.1 5,864.6 5,868.7
SSA 11
3,663.9
35.1
Recreational
Uses
3,699.0
SSA 12 4,775.9 4,775.9
SSA 13 7,414.0 7,414.0
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 245 of 518
Table B-3 (Continued)
SSAs and Land Use Levels Remaining
SSA # Ag – 1 Ag - 2 Other Total
Acres
SSA 14 1713.5 1,713.5
SSA 15 5,259.0 5,259.0
SSA 16 2,876.2 2,876.2
Total 14,077.5 35,616.9 736.5 50,430.9
Source: Recorded SSA Easement Agreements, Collier County SSA Land
Characteristics Summary
Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA) Acreage.
As shown in Table B-4, the Town of Ave Maria SRA approved by the county in 2005 contains
5,027 acres. Over 1,000 of the total acres are public benefit uses, including Ave Maria University.
As of March 1, 2019, no other SRAs have been approved.
Eight Credits are required for each acre of land included in an SRA, except for open space in
excess of the required thirty-five percent as described in Policy 4.10 or for land that is designated
for a public benefit use described in Policy 4.20.
Table B-4
SRA Acreage
SRA Designation Acres
Public Benefit
Uses (Acres)
Total
Acreage
Planned
Gross
Density
Goods and
Services
per DU**
Town of Ave Maria SRA 4,000 1,027 5,027 2.19* 112 s.f.
Total 4,000 1,027 5,027
*Gross density is based on planned units within total acreage, excluding University
housing, ALF, hotel, etc.
** Includes retail, office and medical
Figure B-2 shows the location of the existing Town of Ave Maria, along with the SSAs created to
produce credits used to support the application. A total of 28,658 credits were used, representing
13,974 acres of preserved SSAs. Credits from SSAs 1-4 were used in full; 20,118 credits from
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 246 of 518
SSA 6 were redeemed for Ave Maria, leaving 2,832 credits as a remaining balance in SSA 6.
Thus, nearly 14,000 acres have been put under SSA easements to create a town of 4,000 acres,
net of public benefit uses.
Figure B-2
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 247 of 518
Additional Towns and Villages have been proposed in the last several years. An SRA
application under the name of Rural Lands West was submitted as a 4,090 acre Town but was
withdrawn in 2019. Applications appearing in Table B-5 below have been submitted and are
under staff review. Both are submitted as Villages.
Table B-5
SRA Acreage Pending*
SRA Designation Acres
Public
Benefit Uses
(Acres)
Total
Acreage
Planned
Gross
Density
Goods and
Services
per DU
Village of Hyde Park SRA 655 unk 2.75 25
Village of Rivergrass SRA 1,000 unk 2.5 32
Total 1,655
*Applications submitted as of March 1, 2019.
Stewardship Credits Generated, Assigned, and Held for Future Use.
Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within the RLSA District from which one
or more Land Use Layers are removed and are designated as an SSA. All privately owned lands
within the RLSA are a candidate for designation as an SSA. However, lands having high
ecological value, such as lands within an FSA, HSA, WRA or 500’ Restoration Area generate
more credits per acre than the “Open” designated lands. Stewardship Credits can only be
generated through the approval of Stewardship Sending Areas by the Board of County
Commissioners using the methodology for the calculation of Credits. The methodology includes:
1) The Natural Resource Index Value of the land being designated as a SSA; and
2) The number of land use layers being eliminated.
There are additional incentive credits to encourage the voluntary designation of SSAs within the
RLSA District, such as early entry bonus credits and restoration (R1 and R-2) credits.
Stewardship Credits Generated
As of March 1, 2019, a total of 16 SSAs have been approved; subsequently, one has been
withdrawn. Together, these total 50,431 acres. As shown in Table B-6, these SSAs have been
assigned a total of 129,987 Stewardship Credits, including Early Entry, R-1, and R-2 Credits.
Additional R-2 Credits can be earned upon the successful completion of restoration work by the
land owner. The maximum potential of R-2 credits within SSAs 1-16, in addition to the earned
credits listed below, is 41,731.1.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 248 of 518
Table B-6
Stewardship Credit Summary
SSA # Acres
Total
Credits
Generated
Base
Credits
Early
Entry
Credits
R-1
Credits
R-2
Credits
Earned
1 146.6 263.6 263.6 0 0 0
2 704.1 1,268.1 1,217.6 50.5 0 0
3 3,195.5 5,332.1 3,236.9 1597.4 497.8 0
4 1,239.9 1,676.7 1,155.8 520.9 0 0
5 1,852.3 4,573.5 2,195.5 814.9 1,563.1 0
6 9,911.1 22,949.1 13,393.3 3,559.0 4,286.4 1,710.4
7 985.4 4,034.2 1,711.8 486.5 1,835.9 0
8 (withdrawn)
9 789.4 4,481.0 1,560.2 155.2 2,765.6 0
10 5,868.7 26,943.8 9,232.5 3,838.9 13,872.4 0
11 3,699.0 8,504.8 4,432.9 1,396.7 2,675.2 0
12 4,775.9 14,780.6 8,956.8 1,458.0 4,365.8 0
13 7,414.0 20,916.1 12,999.3 1,317.6 6,599.2 0
14 1,713.5* 2,515.7 1,850.5 665.2 0 0
15 5,259.0* 7,261.8 5,434.9 1,826.9 0 0
16 2,876.2* 4,485.9 2,621.3 1,864.6 0 0
TOTAL 50,430.9 129,987.0 70,210.2** 19,552.3 38,461.4 1,710.4
Source: Recorded SSA Easement Agreements
* Amendment applications pending for R-1 and R-2 credits, increased credits shown
below
**Base Credits include credits for 500’ buffer areas, Policy 3.12
Stewardship Credits Assigned or Held for Future Use
As of March 1, 2019, the Town of Ave Maria is the only approved Stewardship Receiving Area
(SRA) within the RLSA. The Town of Ave Maria utilized 28,658.4 Stewardship Credits generated
from SSAs 1 through 4 and 6 (Table B-7). The balance remains available to the owners for future
SRA development.
[Intentionally left blank]
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 249 of 518
Table B-7
Summary of Credits Transferred and Utilized for the Town of Ave Maria and Credits
Remaining for Future Use
SSA # Acres Total Credits
Generated
Credits
Transferred and
Utilized for Town
of Ave Maria
Credits Held for
Future Use
1 146.6 263.6 263.6 0
2 704.1 1,268.1 1,268.1 0
3 3,195.5 4,675.2 5,332.1 0
4 1,239.9 1,676.7 1,676.7 0
5 1,852.3 4,573.5 0 4,573.5
6 9,911.1 22,949.1 20,117.5 2,831.6
7-16 33,381.1 96,216.0 0 96,216.0
TOTAL 50,430.9 129,987.0 28,658.0 101,329.0
Source: Collier County data included in the Rural Land Stewardship Sending Area (SSA)
Land Characteristics Summary and Recorded SSA Easement Agreements.
New Stewardship Sending Areas Pending in Application Status
As of March 1, 2019, only one additional Stewardship Sending Area is pending approval by the
Board, SSA #17. This is described below on Table B-8. In addition, three SSAs have applied for
amendments seeking approval for new designated restoration areas. These are shown in Table
B-9.
Table B-8
Stewardship Sending Areas Pending in Application Status
SSA # Acres Total Credit
Potential
Base
Credits
Early
Entry
Credits
R-1
Credits R-2
Credits
17 3,118.3 4,844.3 4,844.3 0 0 0
Stewardship Sending Area Amendments in Application Status
As of March 1, 2019, the County is in receipt of amendment applications for SSAs 14, 15 and 16.
These applications identify restoration opportunities, and thereby affect the base credit
calculations as well as the R-1 and R-2 potential values. Although the acreage of each SSA
remains unchanged, the applicants seek additional base credits due to the restoration potential
as a component of Natural Resource Index (NRI) scale, a component of base credit calculation.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 250 of 518
Table B-9
Stewardship Sending Areas with Amendments Pending
SSA # Acres
Additional
Base Credits
under App
R-1 Credits
under App
R-2 Credits
under App
(max potential)
14 1,713.5 1,485.8 4,945.2 4,945.2
15 5,259.0 4,660.4 14,178.4 14,178.4
16 2,876.2 1,642.9 1,269.2 2,538.4
Total SSA
Amendment
App. Credits
7,789.1
20,392.8
21,662.0
A Comparison of Agricultural Activity at RLSA Inception and 2012
Table B-10 below summarizes the type of agricultural uses in 2002 compared to the type of
agriculture uses in 2012. The agricultural land cover categories include all FLUCCS 200-level
codes, and the FLUCCS 310, 329, and 330 rangeland codes. The pasture/rangeland category is
perhaps misleading, because the movement of livestock among various grazing areas may create
anomalies in the land cover indicators. For this reason, the total agricultural land change of +8.5%
reflects a doubling of the acreage counted toward pasture and rangeland and may not be a good
indicator of overall agricultural activity change.
Table B-10
2002/2012 Agricultural Type Comparison
Agricultural Type
2002
ACRES
With
RLSA
Without
RLSA
New
Ag
2012
ACRES
%
CHANGE
Citrus 39,468 35,881 -9.1%
Fallow 7,974 4,262 -46.6%
Pasture/Rangeland 17,863 36,386 +104.0%
Row Crop 27,542 24,471 -11.2%
Specialty 1,651 1,552 -6.0%
TOTAL 94,498 -5,058 -480 +427 102,552 +8.5%
Sources: 2002 and 2012 RLSA land cover/land use FLUCCS data, SFWMD
Perhaps a better indication of the change in agricultural use is reflected in the reduction in citrus,
row crops, and specialty products. When comparing these active agricultural categories, there
has been a reduction in acreage from 68,661 to 61,904 or -9.8% over the 10-year period. Most of
this loss can be attributed to the conversion of agricultural land to the master planned community
(SRA) of Ave Maria, as noted in Table B-11. In addition, cyclical and regional shifts in production
and operations should be expected and may reflect a diversity of factors including international
trade, the national economy, and vectors such as citrus greening.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 251 of 518
Table B-11
2002 Ave Maria Agricultural Uses
Agricultural Type
2002
ACRES
Citrus 839
Fallow 177
Natural Wetlands and Uplands (Non Ag) 572
Pasture/Rangeland 429
Row Crop 2,562
Specialty 449
TOTAL 5,027±
The Amount and Type of Restoration Through Participation in the Stewardship Credit
System
Two types of restoration credits are available within the RLSA program under Policy 3.11.
Restoration 1 (R1) credits- for lands designated by the property owner for restoration activities
under certain conditions. The “actual implementation of restoration improvements is not required
for the owner to receive such credits…” The Policy also provides for Restoration 2 (R-2) credits-
for lands designated and undertaken by the landowner for restoration activities. Credits are
assigned but not available for transfer until the restoration activities have met applicable success
criteria.
To the extent restoration is designated and is to be undertaken by the landowner, a Restoration
Program is attached to the Stewardship Easement as an exhibit. The Restoration Program details
the required restoration improvements, success criteria, and the additional land management
measures required after restoration occurs.
The proposed restoration activities often require lengthy timeframes for the detailed restoration
design, data collection, state and federal permitting, and years of actual restoration work to
achieve success criteria.
The types of restoration listed in Table B-12 are described below:
Flowway: Restoration in areas that have been impeded or constricted by past activities resulting
in a functional decrease in the Camp Keais or Okaloacochee flowways.
Wading birds: Includes hydrologic restoration, and/or exotic removal within drained areas or
excavation of shallow marsh in farm fields planted with native aquatic plants within foraging
distance of a rookery.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 252 of 518
Listed species: Restoration, exotic removal, and or management of pasture areas to support
prairie species such as caracara, burrowing owls, and sand hill cranes. Could include restoration
or creation of habitat for any listed species documented to occur within the RLSA.
Large mammal corridor: Restoration or creation of "preferred" habitat adjacent to or connecting
with existing occupied habitat.
Table B-13 documents the amount, location, and type of proposed restoration activities within
approved SSAs. This table includes the proposed restoration in amendment applications for SSAs
14,15 and 16. To date, restoration activities have been completed only in SSA 6.
Table B-12
Amount and Types of Restoration in SSAs
Location Restoration Type Acres R-1 Credits R-2 Credits
(completed)
R-2 Credits
(potential)
SSA 3 Wading Bird 248.9 497.8 995.6
SSA 5 Wading Bird 651.3 1563.1 2605.2
SSA 6
Flowway 575.0
4286.4
1710.4
2576.0
Listed Species 619.2
Wading Bird 24.8
SSA 7
Large Mammal
Corridor 331.9
1835.9
1835.9
Listed Species 75.7
Wading Bird 51.4
SSA 9
Flowway 571.5
2765.6
2765.6
Large Mammal
Corridor 61.0
Wading Bird 58.9
SSA 10 Listed Species 1770.5
13872.4
13872.4
Caracara 1068.2
Wading Bird 317.7
Large Mammal
Corridor 311.7
SSA 11 Caracara 1337.6 2675.2 5350.4
SSA 12 Flowway 403.5
4365.8
8731.6 Flowway 1779.4
SSA 13 Large Mammal
Corridor 1622.4
6599.2
6599.2
Wading Bird 27.4
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 253 of 518
Table B-12 (Continued)
Amount and Types of Restoration in SSAs
Source: SSA recorded documents and applications
*Includes pending amendment applications as of 4/15/18
Table B-13
Restoration Acres Dedicated by Type (R-1)
Approved Proposed Total Percent
Of Total
Flowway 3,329 3,738 7,067 41%
Large
Mammal
Corridor
1,995 154 2,149 13%
Listed
Species
2,466 520 2,986 18%
Wading Bird 1,380 1,006 2,386 14%
Caracara 2,406 - 2,406 14%
TOTAL 11,576 5,418 16,994 100%
Location Restoration Type Acres R-1 Credits R-2 Credits
(completed)
R-2 Credits
(potential)
SSA 14* Flowway 1130.7
4945.2
4945.2
Wading Bird 90.5
Listed Species 15.1
SSA 15* Flowway 2606.5
14178.4
14178.4
Wading Bird 914.5
Listed Species 23.6
SSA 16* Large Mammal
Corridor 153.7
1269.2
2538.4 Listed Species 480.9
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 254 of 518
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay White Paper
C. Water Resources
The following points were discussed at Public Workshops on February 28 and March 28, 2019
(Appendix A: Public Outreach Meeting Summaries).
Consensus:
• Affirm conformance with Lower West Water Supply Plan
• SRA approvals should stop if water quality/quantity is negatively affected
• Advocate/Encourage filter marshes before any discharge into WRAs, where appropriate
• Redirect development outside important flowways and wetlands
• If a water retention area is used for an SRA it should count toward SRA acreage (does
not include downstream receiving bodies)
• Incentivize water storage on farm lands
• Water resources must be preserved
• Observe growth plan – runoff after development cannot exceed runoff before
development
• County should closely monitor water pollution and water levels (quality and quantity)
Non-consensus:
• Low impact development practices to manage stormwater run-off where appropriate
• Add provisions to protect water supply
• 3rd party study of cumulative impacts on water quality/quantity from 43,000 acres of
development
• Require more stringent water management in SRAs than SFWMD requirements
5 Year Review Recommendations
• If WRAs are used for primary water treatment, count acreage in SRA
Water issues represent a major part of the environmental analysis, including environmental
sustainability. Surface water management and aquifer health are the two most important
components of total water resource planning in the RLSA. Recognizing the importance of this
topic, a Water Resources Workshop was convened on September 27, 2018. The panel of
experts included Jerry Kurtz, P.E., Collier County Stormwater Section Manager; Brad Cook,
Section Leader, South Florida Water Management District; Steve Messner, Director, Water
Division, CCWSD; Kirk Martin, Senior Hydrologist, Water Science Associates.
Surface Water
Unlike manmade systems prevalent in the urban and Golden Gate Estates areas of the County,
the natural topography in the RLSA has historically accommodated the principal water flows to
the south. These natural flowways have been supplemented by permitted uses of water
retention areas (WRAs). Together, these systems have served the needs of the agricultural
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 255 of 518
uses in the RLSA. The map below (Figure C-1) depicts these areas as indicated by Flowway
Stewardship Areas (FSAs) and WRAs, first identified as such by the RuraI Lands Assessment
Area Oversight Committee. These Overlay features encourage development outside important
flowways and wetlands.
Figure C-1
Adopted RLSA Overlay Features
According to Mr. Kurtz, the County’s water management programs historically focused on
drainage improvements to increase areas of habitability and to maintain these areas with a
minimum of nuisance flooding. More recently, the focus has shifted to include watershed health
management. The County’s Stormwater Division actively manages the smaller canals, lakes,
and ditches, while the SFWMD actively manages the larger systems. This Division also
contributes to planning analysis during the rezoning process.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 256 of 518
The SFWMD continues to regulate stormwater discharge rates (0.15 cubic feet per second per
acre) so that new development does not impact downstream areas to any degree greater than
the pre-development scenario. However, the County has supplemented this regulation, having
identified 16 of 51 sub-basins that are now subject to County maximum peak discharge rates-
rates that are more stringent than SFWMD would otherwise allow. In large part, this is due to
areas within those sub-basins that were developed before the SFWMD standards applied. One
of the 16 restricted sub-basins falls within part of the RLSA. It is the Faka-Union Canal Basin
North with a rate of 0.09 CFS/acre.
Continue to study the need for maximum peak discharge rates for basins within the RLSA to
maintain water quality and quantity downstream.
The Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs) identified within the RLSA serve as receiving bodies
and conduits for surface water in the RLSA, generally moving from north to south. The flows
continue through the Panther National Wildlife Refuge, Big Cypress National Preserve,
Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park and ultimately, Ten Thousand Islands and the Gulf of
Mexico. This north to south flow becomes very evident in reviewing the topography shown in
Figure C-2, and the altered surface drainage pattern shown in Figure C-3 as published in the
HCP application.
Figures C-2 (left) and C-3 (right)
RLSA Elevations and Surface Drainage
As stated in the FDOT study entitled SR 29 Road and Canal Corridor Report, the
Okaloacootchee Slough (OK Slough) is among the largest and most regionally connected
natural flowways in the Big Cypress Basin. It is a vital lynchpin for achieving water resource
goals such as wetland preservation, water quality maintenance, and aquifer recharge. Much the
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 257 of 518
same can be said for the Camp Keais Strand. Agricultural operations currently use the FSAs as
receiving bodies for surface waters. These include the Camp Keais Strand toward the west and
the OK Slough toward the east within the RLSA.
Agricultural operations currently use the FSAs as receiving bodies for surface waters. These
include the Camp Keais Strand toward the west and the OK Slough toward the east within the
RLSA. These are supplemented by water retention areas (WRAs) permitted by the SFWMD as
primary treatment and detention areas for agricultural operations. These WRAs serve an
important purpose and should remain available, as permitted, for stormwater management. As a
point of consensus during the 5 year review, WRAs converted for SRA development use as
primary treatment areas should count toward SRA acreage.
Count WRAs as SRA acreage if used for primary water management.
Encourage filter marshes prior to offsite discharge or discharge into WRAs where appropriate.
Two observations can be made about the use of these natural flowway systems. First, they are
more effective in attenuating discharge as compared to ditch and canal systems found in many
parts of the County. Second, they require periodic maintenance since they are affected by
upstream activity over time. For the second reason, staff recommends Flowway Management
Plans as a required component of development (or continued agricultural operations) in the
RLSA.
Flowway Management Plans would be created through a public/private partnership and would
involve at least two major functions. One would be monitoring the health and changes over time,
including wetland health and water quality. The other function would be operational-
maintenance functions may be required from time to time, and these should require upstream
entities to contribute to needed maintenance activities. Examples would be natural lands
inspection and management when necessary, identifying and addressing any debris and
vegetation accumulation over time, which can affect the flowway’s capacity for normal overland
flow conveyance.
Flowway Management Plans might be further described to include:
1. Mapping limits of actual overland flow areas
2. Vegetation mapping
3. Annual water level gauging and monthly level recording throughout the year
4. Annual ground inspection of the flow path areas
5. Inspections following significant storm events
6. Estimation of flow quantities and rates
7. Controlled burns where appropriate as well as other accepted natural lands and/or
forestry management techniques
8. Vegetation harvesting
9. Mowing
10. Spraying herbicide
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 258 of 518
11. Exotic or invasive vegetation control
12. Silt build-up or shoaling removal
13. Downed tree removal
Require flowway management plans as part of the SRA approval process to supplement the
SSA maintenance functions in a more specific way and to provide a mechanism for flowway
management in the absence of established SSAs or to supplement SSA land management
activities.
Similarly, coordination with FDOT and SR 29 improvements should be addressed, so that
functionality of the OK Slough is maintained and areas needing hydration are properly hydrated.
This, in turn, affects wildlife habitat, area susceptibility to wildfires, and point discharge to the
coast. Support for a multi-disciplinary “SR 29 Comprehensive Water Resources Plan”, as
recommended by FDOT, should be considered.
Coordinate with FDOT and other state and local agencies on an SR 29 Comprehensive Water
Resources Plan aimed at restoring the health of the Okaloacoochee Slough.
Water Supply and Aquifer Health
The RLSA is largely served today by shallow wells drawing from the surficial aquifers, principally
for agricultural use. One major exception is the new Town of Ave Maria, which is served by a
centralized private water/sewer system. In addition to the Ave Maria utility, Immokalee also is
served by a centralized private utility. The service boundary of the Immokalee Water and Sewer
District extends beyond the Immokalee urban area, although a relatively small distribution
system currently extends into the RLSA. Otherwise, the Collier County Water Sewer District
(CCWSD) service area now extends to all areas within the RLSA not otherwise contained within
the two aforementioned private utility areas. The CCWSD plans to build a new Northeast Raw
Water Treatment Plant (NERWTP) and North East Water Reclamation Facility (NEWRF) to
serve the eastern areas of the County, including the RLSA, for future water, sewer and irrigation
service.
The County is responsible for the data, analysis, and report for the 10 Year Water Supply
Facilities Work Plan (10 Year Supply Plan) every five years. The latest 10 Year Supply Plan was
completed in February 2019 and likely adopted by the time of this White paper publication. The
10 Year Water Supply Plan is built upon the foundations of the Lower West Coast Supply Plan
(LWCSP), which looks out 20 years into the future. The current Plan extends to 2040. The
current LWCSP updates the demand projections for water use by public supply and private
systems, agriculture, irrigation, commercial, recreational, and other users.
Both plans conclude that there are sufficient water resources and facilities to accommodate
demand over the planning periods. Of note, domestic per capita demand has decreased
significantly over the past 20 years due to conservation practices, including increased use of
reclaimed water for irrigation, block rate structures, and flow efficient fixtures. These conclusions
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 259 of 518
are based on regional supply and demand and not tailored specifically to the RLSA. Moreover, it
is prudent to look beyond a 20 year horizon for the RLSA given the unique development pattern
there and the vital importance of water resource sustainability.
In 2002 when the RLSA was conceived, a Technical Memorandum was produced to address
groundwater Issues (CDM Missner ver. 9/2002). This study noted the primary concern for
attenuation and groundwater recharge: “Residential developments tend to have larger areas
with impermeable surfaces such as roads, housing, and parking areas. Directly connected
impervious surface areas can lead to increased runoff that does not enter the groundwater
system” (p. 4-1). However, the report explains that modern permitting standards require
stormwater management systems that restrict runoff to pre-development levels. Thus, provision
of appropriately designed water management systems allows area recharge characteristics to
be maintained even with an increase in impervious systems. With respect to consumption and
SRA development, the report concludes that the conversion of land from agricultural use to
residential and commercial development results in a net reduction in water use.
Concerns were raised during public outreach as to the accuracy of the net reduction in water
use from agriculture to development. Specifically, there were concerns that the studies looked at
permitted supply rather than actual use, and that the recharge characteristics of agricultural
irrigation were overlooked. To that end, a 2009 study by Johnson Engineering looks at water
consumption and recharge extending through a hypothetical “build-out” scenario. The study
reviewed the effects of water draw as well as evapotranspiration (ET) in comparing actual water
resource demand during a long-range planning horizon and considering the possibility of 45,000
acres of SRA development. This study concluded that the conversion of land from agriculture to
residential will result in a decrease in water use due to decreased ET. Additional assurance of
sustainability derives from the emergence of alternative water supply practices.
These findings were updated and confirmed by Kirk Martin, Senior Hydrogeologist, Water
Science Associates at a public workshop in 2018. Mr. Martin stated that water use reduces
significantly when agriculture converts to new communities. His research has indicated that
such conversion would reduce actual withdrawals 50-65%.
Continue to monitor aquifer supply and quality through existing federal, state and local
programs.
In a collaborative paper entitled “Water 2070”, the authors note that the overall increase in
population in the state of Florida will stress available water availability by 2070 unless additional
measures are undertaken. In its recommendations, it notes the importance of increasing supply
through alternative water supply programs and decreasing demand through conservation
efforts. “The single most effective strategy to reduce water demand in Florida is to significantly
reduce the amount of water used for landscape irrigation.” Among the other conservation
recommendations appearing in this statewide publication, nearly all have been adopted in
Collier County.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 260 of 518
The CCWSD has been at the forefront of these and other conservation efforts and continues its
progressive campaign into the future. Irrigation Quality (IQ) water supply has been a focus of
the CCWSD for many years. It is moving to dramatically increase the efficiency of the IQ system
through seasonal supplementation to extend total distribution and storage methods such as
Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) wells.
The CCWSD balances withdrawals from various aquifers to meet seasonal and total demand,
and in this way has been in the forefront of Florida utility systems. Withdrawals from the
Hawthorne (brackish) aquifers with reverse osmosis treatment has been a practice in Collier
County for over 20 years. The Figure C-4 below shows the relative locations of these aquifers.
Monitoring of supply and salinity occurs on an ongoing basis.
Figure C-4
Collier County Hydrology
Other conservation programs include low-flow fixture enforcement, stepped water use rates,
leak detection systems, asset management systems, irrigation restrictions, and education
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 261 of 518
including the promotion of Florida-Friendly landscaping practices. Both Ave Maria Utility
Company and the Immokalee Water Sewer District have moved in the same conservation
direction.
In 2015, the Board of County Commissioners accepted the “Integrated Water Resource
Management Strategy,” that seeks to integrate stormwater and utility planning and operations in
a holistic manner. Two slides, below, provide some insight into this strategy. One important goal
is the move toward a “net zero water footprint.”
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 262 of 518
During the public workshops, questions arose as to the potential impact of sea-level rise on
aquifer health. Currently, there is a great deal of study on this and other sea-level issues at the
national, state, and local level. According to the United States Geological Survey, drainage
canals, withdrawals, and other factors contribute to salt-water intrusion in Southwest Florida.
However, the USGS states that the existing monitoring network is insufficient to properly
evaluate the level of intrusion.
In contrast, Kirk Martin, Water Science Associates, states that there is no apparent movement
of saline water in Collier County at present. He cites the incidence of “connate water,” which is
brackish in nature but does not rise to the level of saline water, in areas within the Lower
Tamiami aquifer. Connate water is trapped water from ancient sea bed areas, that has not been
flushed out and is not attributable to salt water intrusion.
Additional recommendations were received by the public that would apply County-wide or in
areas beyond the RLSA, and so not made a part of the White Paper recommendations for the
RLSA. These include:
• Fertilizer Ordinance- review and enhance
• Florida friendly Landscaping- beyond education
• Irrigation Restrictions- review and enhance
• Climate change best practices following the reports from the collaborative efforts of the
County, FGCU, NOAA, etc.
Water Resources- List of Sources
SR 29 Road and Canal Corridor Report, 2019, Big Cypress National Preserve Draft Report [web
library]
Saltwater Intrusion in the Surficial Aquifer System, Big Cypress Basin, USGS, 2013 [web library]
Water 2070, UF, 1000 Friends, Dept. of Agriculture, 2013 [web library]
Ten Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, Collier County Water Sewer District, 2019 [web
library]
The Immokalee Area Study Stage II Tech Memorandum- Groundwater, CDM Messner, 2002
[web library]
Eastern Collier Water Resources Availability, Johnson Engineering, David Hoffman, P.G., 2009
[web library]
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 263 of 518
RLSA Public Workshop Summary, Water Resources, 9/27/18 [web workshop page]
Stormwater Management Staff
Stakeholder and community input
Five Year Review Recommendations [web library]
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 264 of 518
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay White Paper
D. Agricultural Protection
The following points were discussed at Public Workshops on February 28 and March 28, 2019
(Appendix A: Public Outreach Meeting Summaries).
Consensus:
• Create credits to keep Ag in open lands in perpetuity
• Ag Stewardship Credits: keep 5-year review recommendations
• Remove the word “premature” from description of agricultural conversion
• Support and incentivize the preservation of agriculture
Non-consensus:
• Agriculture should not be allowed in SSAs
• Ag 1 should not be expanded in SSAs, even if in escrow
Five Year Review Recommendations:
• Provide agricultural credits for use in open areas
From cattle ranching in the 19th Century to the rapid expansion of orange production in the
1960’s to further expansion of vegetable production in the 1980’s, agriculture has played an
important role in the economy of Collier County. South Florida is the only location in the U.S.
where certain crops can be grown during the winter months.
Agriculture remains a backbone of economic activity in Collier County, although development
has impacted its range. As noted the data update (Section B) in this report, the RLSA has lost
between 6,000 to 7,000 acres of citrus, row crop, and specialty crop production during the
period 2002 to 2012.
A look at the latest FLUCCS depiction (2012) of Agricultural activity in the RLSA is shown in
Figure D-1. This is the best available information reflecting current conditions. The acreage
used in support of these agricultural categories are provided.
[Intentionally left blank]
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 265 of 518
Figure D-1
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 266 of 518
Current conditions reflect an overall decrease in active agriculture between 2002 and 2012, as
noted in the “Data Update” section of this report. Citrus, row crop and specialty operations
contracted in the RLSA by over 6,000 acres. Development of the Town of Ave Maria would be
the major contributor of this factor. Otherwise, current data does not expose significant
reductions in active or passive activities.
A similar but more acute trend is noted by Dr. Fritz Roka, FGCU (formerly UF/IFAS), in looking
at County-wide agricultural losses. The area of total County active farm land has decreased
from 181,000 acres in 2002 to 124,000 acres in 2012, a decrease of 46%. Most of this loss has
been in the area west of CR 951, the County’s “urban area,” where gated communities have
displaced agricultural operations. Over the same period, Dr. Roka notes that the average value
of farm land has increased about 78%, reflecting development pressure.
In looking toward the future, one study predicted little change over the next 15 years. In its study
of freight movement, FDOT District 1 estimated the net impacts of development encroachment
on agricultural production in Southwest Florida Counties. While many coastal counties will see
significant out-migration of agricultural production, Collier will remain very stable (showing a
modest gain). This study does not go beyond 2035.
The economic importance of agriculture to the County can be seen on the Figure below, derived
from a UF/IFAS study, 2015. The positive economic impact of farming in Collier County exceeds
$4 billion annually. Along with economic significance, the importance of food security, local
sourcing and employment were all factors mentioned by the public.
Figure D-2
Agriculture: Economic Impact to Collier County
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 267 of 518
Another important consideration in agricultural retention is the profitability of each enterprise.
When Dr. Roka provided input to the 5 Year Review Committee in 2008, he identified the
following business threats: disease, regulations, water allocations, land values, knowledge, and
foreign competition. The same factors were mentioned again in 2018. Thanks to the work of
UF/IFAS, best management practices, and education reduce some of the threats. Nevertheless,
profitability remains a major obstacle to Collier agricultural viability, as demonstrated by grower
(pre-market) price volatility and break-even cost points for the 3 largest Collier commodities
(Figure D-3). Because of this volatility, bank financing is difficult, and owner financing becomes
necessary.
Figure D-3
Economic Considerations for Growers
During the 5-Year Review, Committee members noted that agricultural protection may have
fallen short in the balance between development, environmental preservation, and agricultural
protection within the RLSA. A 2007 study by FGCU noted that even if SW Florida agriculture
merely maintains the status quo in production, it could grow in relative importance as production
statewide continues to shrink.
The Review Committee considered exiting language in Group 2 policies, Policy 2.1, referring to
the protection of lands from premature conversion to other uses. The consensus and
recommendation from the Committee was to remove the word “premature” from the statement,
despite the fact that the word was used in the State’s “Final Order.” The apparent implication of
that adjective is that conversion is somehow inevitable at some point in time.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 268 of 518
The public, during a Workshop on the subject, also picked up on this word and were
substantially in favor of removing this from the goal and policy of protecting agriculture.
Remove the word “premature” from agriculture protection references in Policy Group 2.
In the RLSA public workshops, the public expressed strong support for agricultural preservation.
While economic support for agriculture is provided by the state through various programs, local
support may make the difference in maintaining agricultural viability locally. The public
brainstormed ideas for local support, including stewardship credits, County-funded purchase of
agricultural easements, County subsidies, and County tax incentives.
The 5-year Review Committee considered long term agricultural viability and the desirability of
achieving two goals: certainty of agricultural preservation and elimination of baseline residential
rights. For these reasons, the Committee supported stewardship credits in exchange for
agricultural easements. Where an easement is obtained, it runs with the land and permanently
extinguishes the underlying baseline rights, including 5-acre ranchettes and an array of
conditional uses.
Because the Stewardship credit system favored environmental values above all, the credits
associated with agricultural land in the open areas was comparatively low. These values were
perceived to be far to low to provide reasonable compensation for easements. Based on parallel
or average Natural Resource Index (NRI) scores in designated FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs, the
Committee proposed 2 credits per acre for agricultural easements (2.6 if located in ACSC).
Potential advantages of agriculture credits:
• Incentivizes permanent protection of agricultural operations in open areas
• Prevents the environmental degradation of low density “ranchette” development
Potential disadvantages of agricultural credits:
• Creates too many credits in the system, resulting in more SRA development area
• It won’t work- owners will not voluntarily accept this option
With respect to the second disadvantage, we heard from one owner at a public workshop who
predicted that the firm would never accept credits for a permanent easement, preferring to
always keep the baseline development options open if agriculture someday loses its viability.
On the other hand, another owner enthusiastically embraces the option, notable because it
would allow that owner the ability to derive credits and create SRA development on owned
parcels. In staff’s estimation, the possibility that this tool will not work, or will not work for all
owners, does not speak against its adoption. It is a tool that can be available to incentivize
permanent agricultural retention in some locations.
With respect to the concern over too many credits in the system, staff remains sensitive to this
point. Given the advantages conveyed, staff believes that credit values should be adjusted to
reflect this increase in supply while maintaining an appropriate balance between agricultural
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 269 of 518
credits and environmental stewardship credits. To the extent agricultural credits become
available, reductions in other credit allocations will be necessary.
The 5-year review estimated the value of agriculture credits by comparing these to
environmental area credit generation. Specifically, they looked at SSAs 1-9 to determine the
average credit per acre generated and associated this figure with the most important open
areas for agriculture preservation- those in the ACSC. This calculation resulted in 2.6 credits per
acre for agricultural preservation in the ACSC. The ACSC is most important for agricultural
preservation because of the desire to protect this fragile environment from other baseline zoning
uses. The non-ACSC open areas were proposed to have a 2.0 credits per acre, mirroring the
lesser base credits available even to environmental targets in non-ACSC areas. In both cases,
credits need to be sufficient to incentivize preservation under this voluntary system.
Given the input from agricultural land owners, staff believes that it is unlikely that most
agricultural property will voluntarily accept a permanent agricultural easement in return for
credits. The sentiment of “wait and see” was an opinion offered by some. In the credit
assessment section of this paper, an estimate of 50% utilization of the agricultural easement
was suggested, believing this to be a conservative estimate. If actual desired utilization of
agriculture easements exceeds this estimate, other preservation options can be considered.
Therefore, these credits should be capped at a 50% utilization rate.
Other preservation options include state programs such as the Rural and Family Lands
Protection Program, which has already purchased an easement in the RLSA covering 1,600
acres. Additional ideas were provided through public input, including the purchase of local
easements. Local easements can be time-limited, so that Collier County could purchase, say, a
10-year agricultural easement to help farmland preservation through difficult economic times.
These options are not likely to be initiated for many years, and probably decades.
Provide credits to owners in open areas at the rate of 2.6 credits per acre in the ACSC and 2.0
credits per acre in the non-ACSC open areas in return for permanent agricultural easements
allowing active or passive agriculture.
Create a cap for agricultural easement credits calculated at a 50% utilization rate.
Finally, one concept brought forward in the 5-year review and repeated in public workshops was
to exclude any aquiculture operation from the ability to obtain credits. As credits are an incentive
and not regulatory, this exclusion would not offend the Right to Farm Act. Staff agrees with this
exclusion.
Exclude any aquiculture operation from the agricultural credit system both at inception and
through easement language.
Policy 2.3 directs the County to establish, within one year of adoption (2003) an Agricultural
Advisory Committee (AAC) to advise the BCC on matters relating to agriculture. No such
advisory committee has been established to date. In conversations with various representatives
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 270 of 518
of agricultural interests, there did not appear to be a firm desire to create this body, although it
might be appropriate at some point in the future. Staff recommends that this provision remain as
a possibility, but not as a commitment.
Collier County may establish an Agricultural Advisory Committee at a time deemed appropriate
by the BCC.
Agriculture Protection- List of Sources
Economic Importance of Agriculture to Collier County and Southwest Florida, UF/IFAS, Dr, Fritz
Roka, 2018 [workshop #1]
Ag Business in Southwest FL: Present and Future, Lutgert College of Business, FGCU, 2007
[restudy library]
Agricultural Growth and Development in District One and the Impacts on Transportation and
Freight Logistics, FDOT, 2017 [restudy library]
Meeting Summary, RLSA public Workshop, 3/22/18
Five Year Review Recommendations, Group 2
Minutes of RLSA Review Committee, 3/4/08, 4/1/08 [restudy library]
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 271 of 518
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay White Paper
E. Environmental Protection
The following points were discussed at Public Workshops on February 28 and March 28, 2019
(Appendix A: Public Outreach Meeting Summaries).
Consensus:
• Provide NRI data used to create program prior to 2002 to County
• Include species of special local concern to wildlife protection efforts (County Wide)
• Create outdoor lighting standards (County Wide)
• Enhance regional water flow
• Allow conditional approvals of SSAs
Non-consensus:
• Align restoration credits along cost basis
• Required external wildlife crossings at certain locations, developer contributions
• Sustainable panther habitat must be preserved
• Make wildlife corridors 1 mile wide
• Create panther corridor creation credits
• Agriculture should not be allowed to increase in SSAs
• Zero development in primary panther habitat or adult breeding area
• Add primary panther area as panther present on Natural Resource Area scoring
• Don’t allow golf courses in HSAs
• Require 3rd party monitoring of restoration areas
• Easements should require more specific land management practices
• Limit extensions of SSA conditional approvals to 1 year
• SRAs should require 4 of 5 votes for BCC approval
• No conditional uses in HSAs if SSA created
5 Year Review Recommendations
• Allow SSA approval through conditional process- 5-year period plus 1-year extension
• Add additional state grantee to perpetual restrictive easements in SSAs
• Reduce restoration designation (R-1) credits to 2 per acre in all locations
• Structure restoration completion (R-2) credits according to difficulty and value
• Add credits for creation of wildlife corridors
• Limit restoration credits to one type per acre
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 272 of 518
Staff Analysis
Introduction
Environmental protection is one of three legs of the RLSA stool. The topic of water resources is
described separately but absolutely interwoven into the environmental preservation fabric. This
section will discuss the Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) in the context of creating
easements, restoration provisions, panther science, Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), wildlife
corridors and other environmental concerns,
Without a doubt, the environmental component of the RLSA stirs the most interest and passion
among many groups and individuals. Although disagreement on the ways and means of
environmental stewardship was evident from the beginning, all participants agreed with the
following goals, which can be considered a composite statement culled from many comment
cards, table exercises, and correspondence:
To achieve sustainable environmental value and balance, the RLSA overlay should
maintain functional flowways, wildlife habitats, wildlife connectivity, and quality agricultural land
and help assure the regional long-term viability of the Florida panther population.
Those of us who live in North Naples, the City of Naples or East Naples must come to terms
with the fact that our predecessors in title have displaced the Florida panther from its habitat as
recently as 50 years ago. We live in areas that were once the home of this magnificent animal,
yet few of us would voluntarily relocate to encourage its resettlement.
Like most environmental causes, we awaken to the damage well after it has occurred, and we
press for recompense in those areas that have not yet been affected to the same degree. This
is not only natural but in many ways, appropriate. We learn lessons from the past.
At the same time, areas less disturbed that support a greater variety of wildlife are often under
private ownership. While vast acreages of land in eastern Collier County are under state and
federal ownership, 96% of the RLSA is owned by private interests. There were no public
recommendations from the workshops advocating large scale public purchases within the
179,000 acres of private property in the RLSA.
Private ownership confers property rights. In the RLSA, there are at least two layers of private
property rights that must be considered in reaching an appropriate balance in regulatory action.
First, “baseline” rights include land use rights that existed prior to the adoption of the RLSA.
Those rights were generally derived from the agricultural zoning that was in effect prior to and
after 2002: one dwelling unit per 5 acres; agricultural uses and support uses; the ability to apply,
through the conditional use process, for various mining, social, institutional and recreational
uses.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 273 of 518
Second, the adoption of the RLSA conferred an optional/voluntary right to create SSAs, derive
credits, and use credits to build Towns, Villages, and smaller developments. These rights were
conferred by the County under requirements created by the State of Florida, and can be seen
as an agreement between State, County, and landowners within that sub-district. These were
memorialized in the GMP as well as in the LDC as a zoning overlay. This is not to say that the
2002 GMP and subsequent LDC cannot be improved, but rather that existing rights created in
2002 must be respected in the process.
An observation related to habitat and species protection might be noted. Much attention is paid
to panther protection, not only because it is endangered and considered an “umbrella” species,
but also because of its anthropomorphic and mammalian status. Insect and especially bee
species, meanwhile, are undergoing massive reductions in numbers and diversity across the
world. These were not mentioned by any participants. Keystone species, critical to the natural
habitat, will deserve a great deal of attention in the coming years. No doubt other species,
whether listed, keystone, umbrella or none of these deserve similar attention.
Figure E-1
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 274 of 518
In any event, the design of the RLSA program favors the preservation of the most
environmentally significant lands as of program creation in 2002. As can be seen on the RLSA
Status Map (Figure E-1), 15 SSAs have been created to date, resulting in approximately 50,000
acres of preserved area, shown cross-hatched in red. Preservation through the SSA process
covers about 55% of the targeted designation areas (HSAs, FSAs, WRAs). An additional SSA,
labeled as SSA 17, has been proposed (Figure E-2).
Figure E-2
Proposed SSA 17 and SRAs
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 275 of 518
The Voluntary Stewardship Process
Three aspects of creating Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) were discussed with the public.
These include the approval process at the Board level, the conditional approval option, and
grantees of the SSA easements.
Approval of SSAs by the Board of County Commissioners requires a simple majority (3 of 5
votes). Similar to the discussion of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) discussed in a later
section, some members of the public believed that a supermajority (4 of 5 votes) should be
required. Staff does not perceive any advantage to this proposal, since SSA creation is
generally fostered by the Board. To this end, staff also believes that clearer easement
protections should be secured, such as better guidelines for land management within the
recorded easements (discussed below).
Conditional approval is a concept that derived from the 5-year Review Committee. It is similar in
nature to the current “escrow” process that was adopted by Board policy. Its purpose is the
encouragement of SSA protection with some security to the owner to opt out, if conditions
change. The Committee recommended a shorter timeframe for this wait and see approach- 5
years plus an optional 1-year extension, compared to a more open-ended approach as used
under the escrow approach today. The public also felt strongly that Agricultural activities should
not be intensified during the conditional period, other than rotational or access uses.
Staff also observes that escrowed SSAs can be in effect for many years, avoiding program
changes such as those through a restudy of other plan update. Consideration should be given,
after legal review, to require escrowed SSAs to conform to any GMP or LDC plan changes while
these plans remain in escrow.
Add a provision in the SSA approval process that allows a conditional approval for 5 years, with
optional extensions; require under the terms of the instrument that no overall increase in
Agriculture 1 activities may occur during this period. Require a provision within conditional or
escrowed SSAs that any new RLSA master plan amendments arising during the
escrow/conditional period shall apply to the SSA.
Current requirements under the GMP and LDC require perpetual restrictive easements to run
with the land and remain perpetually enforceable by the County and one additional state
agency. Public opinion favored an additional easement grantee, and this was also
recommended in the 5-year review. The 5-year review Committee recommended that the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (FFWCC) serve as one of the necessary grantees.
Establish a third grantee for enforcement of easements under SSAs; one grantee will be the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (should they agree).
As pointed out by the Conservancy of SW Florida, there may be instances where proposed
development adjacent to areas under consideration for SSA application and approval may have
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 276 of 518
an effect on the Natural Resource Index (NRI) values of the SSA. In such circumstances, the
applicant should address the effect of the SRA proximity on NRI values in the adjacent SSA.
Require applicants to address the effect of potential SRA development on adjacent SSA values
when SSAs are proposed.
SSAs: Management, Maintenance and Restoration
Land management received considerable attention from the public and stakeholders during the
Workshop phase. Many people expressed concern with the lack of standards inherent in the
SSA designation process, and even more attention was paid to restoration credits, particularly
the number of credits issued for “designation” without requiring completion of any plan. The
recommendations in this section are preliminary recommendations, acknowledging the fact that
the transition from the public’s identification of the issue to finding and implementing the best
solution may still require more steps. Clearly, the goal of improving the restoration credit system
is to improve measurability, transparency, incentivization, and overall environmental quality in
result.
Foster further data and vetting of the land management and restoration recommendations prior
to Transmittal.
Land Management under SSA conservation easements
Within the SSA areas, there is an opportunity to apply for restoration credits along with the base
credits otherwise created on every acre of an SSA. Base credits are calculated under a number
of factors that make up the Natural Resource Index (NRI) values of the base credit system. NRI
values are multiplied by factors reflecting use reductions (land use layers) that are voluntarily
removed as part of the system. 100% of the NRI values would result from the removal of all land
use layers down to the Conservation layer. To date, most owners have opted to remove most,
but not all layers: Ag 2 uses are predominant, which allow owners to graze cattle. Removal of
uses to this layer provides credits equal to 90% of the NRI values. Ag 1 uses are retained to a
lesser extent, to allow the continuation (but not expansion) of active agriculture such as
vegetable and citrus crops. Credits for Ag 2 designation equal 60% of the NRI values.
To date, all other uses, such as residential, mineral and gas extraction and a wide variety of
conditional uses have been permanently removed from all but 90 acres of the 50,000 acres of
SSAs now in existence.
SSA credits are secured by easements that contain restrictions and land management
standards. Typical easement language in SSA instruments approved to date include the
following:
(a) “On those lands on which Agriculture Group 2 uses are the only remaining
agricultural uses, land management measures will be those customarily utilized in
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 277 of 518
ranching operations in Southwest Florida. These customary measures may include
brush clearing, mechanical brush control (“chopping”), prescribed burning, other
exotic and nuisance species control, fence construction and maintenance,
silvicultural management, and berm, ditch and road maintenance.”
(b) “On those lands on which land use layers 1-4 are eliminated [Ag-1 uses retained],
the measures above may be utilized. In addition, disking, irrigation, ditch, dike and
pumping construction and maintenance, mowing and other exotic and nuisance
species control measures, farm road construction, and maintenance, storage of
farming equipment, and other practices consistent with the restoration and land
management measures specified herein shall be utilized.”
(c) “For those areas designated for restoration activities, additional land management
measures will be required. The additional land management measures are set forth
in the Restoration Program.”
While easements of this nature need built-in flexibility, some specific maintenance standards for
the predominant Ag 2 uses may be appropriate. For example, exotic vegetation control may
invite a reasonable standard, such as “maintenance to assure no greater exotic vegetation
cover than existed at time of SSA application.” In this way, at least a minimum exotic
maintenance will be required as part of the SSA designation, thus reducing the need for
restoration activity in the future.
Add specific exotic vegetation control measures to the SSA agreement and easement and
require a maintenance standard that assures no greater infestation than that existing at time of
SSA designation.
Consider, through the LDC amendment process, any additional specific maintenance standards
that should be included in all future SSA agreements and easements.
Improving Standards for Restoration Credits (R-1 and R-2)
When the RLSA was adopted in 2002, there was a move to include additional credits for
restoration of certain areas that needed more than standard maintenance. Improvements to
constricted flowways and habitat corridors provided some of the rationale. The Land
Development Code is slightly more specific in identifying, along with wildlife corridors and
flowway widening, other recreated habitats for listed species and wading bird foraging areas at
appropriate locations.
At time of adoption, no one could have predicted exactly how many credits would be generated
by restoration activities. As an incentive, the plan provided credits for simply designating land for
restoration- known as R-1 credits- a status that would allow any public entity to enter the land
and perform the restoration work. Restoration completion credits, R-2 credits, would be
available to the owner after the owner or agent (not outside agency) completes the restoration
according to success criteria.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 278 of 518
The 5-year review Committee recommended some reform measures associated with restoration
credits: No more than 2 credits for R-1 designation (Camp Keais Strand currently allows 4) and
structure the R-2 credits to better reflect difficulty and importance.
As noted in the data summary, above, a large number of credits have derived from R -1
restoration designation. Only a small portion of that designated area has received R-2
restoration completion credits. This is not to say that restoration activities are n ot underway in
other locations.
The overall amount of earned and potential restoration credits seems to be out of balance with
the base credits in the program. As a percentage of approved SSAs, the earned restoration
credits are already at 55% of the base credits (38,461/70,210). This percentage does not reflect
the completion of most of the restoration work and would be much higher if successful
completion results.
The program allows amendments to SSAs for additional restoration. Thus, SSAs 14-16 have
submitted amendment applications for another 49,844 credits based on restoration potential and
completion. If we consider only the restoration designation (R-1) credits, those result in a figure
that is 95% of the SSA designation credits when looking at SSAs 1 through 16, without requiring
any actual completion. In other words, R-1 designation credits have doubled the credit
compensation to landowners who have created SSAs, without the necessity to complete the
restoration projects.
The result if restoration is successful in all designated and applied for SSAs, which we certainly
hope obtains, would be 116,838 credits or 166% of the base credits. If projected through the
remaining targeted stewardship designated areas at the same rate, we would add roughly
95,594 additional credits for restoration. Such a projection would result in a credit balance, as
between these two types, as follows:
• Base (SSA) credits 127,432
• R-1 and R-2 credits 212,432
Meanwhile, only 34% of the existing SSA acreage is proposed for restoration at this time. The
regulations do not prohibit owners from amending SSA applications at any time to earn
additional restoration credits in areas not previously identified for restoration.
In practice, applicants have sought R-1 designation for exotic vegetation removal on the basis of
listed species enhancement, rather than performing this maintenance function under the terms
of the SSA easement. As indicated in the recommendation above, at least a minimum exotic
maintenance standard should be included in all SSAs.
With respect to restoration credits, these can be modified to better reflect the importance,
difficulty, cost, and value of different restoration activities. The 5 year review recommended new
categories for restoration depending on type. The credit projections as a result of this
recommendation only reduced total restorations credits slightly.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 279 of 518
Table E-1
Tiered Restoration Credits, 5-year Review
Restoration Type Acres Credits Per
Acre
Restoration Credits
Panther Habitat 600 10 6,000
Caracara 2,750 4 11,000
Exotic
Control/Burning
2,750 6 16,500
Flowway 2,750 6 16,500
Native Habitat
Restoration
2,750 8 22,000
Total 11,600 N/A 72,000
Staff agrees with the 5-year Review recommendation to reduce credits for restoration
designation (R-1 credits) to 2 in most instances. However, staff proposes to address the
effectiveness of R-1 credits by awarding only one credit at time of R-1 approval, and only after a
restoration plan has been approved by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC) or other
appropriate state or local agency. The second R-1 credit would be awarded only after
successful completion of all restoration activities (R-2) as determined by the permitting agency.
In this way, completion of restoration becomes highly incentivized. Within each restoration
plans, as approved by the permitting agency, staff is in full support of ongoing maintenance
requirements included in such permits.
As suggested by Florida Wildlife Federation (FWF) and Audubon Western Everglades/Audubon
Florida (Audubon), the activities associated with R-2 restoration could be simplified and
structured to make the efforts more predictable and transparent. Other than wading bird habitat
creation/restoration and large mammal corridor creation/restoration, all other restoration
activities could be structured as follows:
• Hydrological restoration, approved by a permitting agency- 2 credits
• Flowway restoration- 2 credits for recontoured areas, 1 credit for flowway expansion
areas
• Planting- 2 credits
The specific requirements and need for these activities would be contained in the permit, and in
most acreages, only a portion of these total activities/credits would be appropriate. Through this
system, the labels of “Native Habitat Restoration” and “Panther Habitat Restoration” would be
replaced by activities that make those habitats viable.
FWF and Audubon would also support separate categories for large mammal corridors and
wading bird restoration. Each would be eligible for up to 10 credits per acre; 2 R-1 credits
following permit approval by an ERP agency, 2 R-1 credits following full completion of R-2
activities, 3 R-2 credits following completion of hydrological restoration and 3 R-2 credits
following planting. It is anticipated that a limited acreage within these categories would be
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 280 of 518
eligible for all 10 credits. It should also be noted that the total area of these special restoration
areas is estimated at approximately 1,500 acres- far smaller than the likely sum of other
restoration areas.
The 5-year Review approach and the FWF/Audubon approach should be further vetted with
permitting agencies and land management experts. Staff believes that it is critical to create
careful estimations of needed restoration activity throughout the RLSA private lands, and
through that work create a balanced credit system that does not generate excess credits. All
credits likely to be generated by restoration and all sources should not exceed the credits
needed for the allowable footprint of 45,000 acres.
Allow Restoration Area applications only once within any single SSA.
Restructure the timing of R-1 credits: only half of R-1 credits awarded at time of permit approval
through the ERP process (or County permit if no ERP required); the remaining “R-1” credit(s)
would be awarded only after the owner successfully completes all phases of R-2 restoration.
Engage an independent third party prior to Transmittal to study the needed restoration activity in
RLSA private lands so that needed restoration credits can be reasonably estimated and
structured; add specificity to restoration standards and objectivity to the acres claimed by
different restoration types; review with permitting agencies and land managers.
Structure restoration credits so that needed restoration is assured in return for the maximum
credit and acreage footprint of SRA development.
Cap Stewardship credits and SRA acres; provide separate caps for restoration credits and
agriculture credits.
Require third party approval and monitoring of Restoration Plans if no ERP permit process is
required. The County may use an agency consultation process or contract.
Require clear maintenance obligations through SRAs based on their volume discharge to the
flowway, thus assuring perpetual funding (fiscal neutrality) for downstream stormwater
management in Flowways.
Projections of credits can be found within Section G - Credit System.
Review of Panther Literature
Given its stature as an endangered species and an umbrella species, a great deal of attention
has been paid to the preservation of a viable panther population in South Florida. The RLSA
area comprises about 196,000 acres of the 2.27 million acres of its south Florida range. While
the RLSA promotes a land use plan that accommodates significant development, it is the
development itself that affords the possible protection of this species through the stewardship
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 281 of 518
credit system. The RLSA program aims to place half of its private acreage into stewardship
areas that would accommodate panther habitat and provide connectivity to other panther habitat
areas, with required maintenance standards paid by the private sector.
Because of its importance, a number of articles have been identified in public comments during
the restudies and can be found on the County website (link in introduction). A brief overview of
this literature is described below. Discussion of the ways and means to effect appropriate
species protection is located in the following section, “Relevance of the HCP process.”
How Much is Enough? Landscape-scale Conservation for the Florida Panther (2005), Kautz et
al., Biological Conservation, 130, 118-133.
This journal article was written by a consortium of individuals from state and wildlife agencies,
universities, and consulting groups. It seeks to identify high value regions of the south Florida
landscape important to long term Florida panther (panther) preservation; in particular, it seeks to
establish a baseline understanding of landscape types preferred by the panther using landcover
types and radio telemetry, resulting in the identification of Primary and Secondary zones.
The article concludes that:
• The Primary and Secondary zones as described and illustrated, in their current
condition, would support 80 to 94 panthers, a number that is likely to remain stable for
100 years, assuming loss of habitat, especially in the Primary zone is minimized;
• A comprehensive strategy for working with private landowners to protect, enhance and
restore panther habitat in all three zones (Primary, Secondary, and Dispersal) is
essential;
• Dispersal to areas outside of South Florida is possible for establishment of a breeding
population north of the Caloosahatchee River.
Florida Panther Recovery Plan, 3d rev. (2008), US Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Panther
Recovery Team and South Florida Ecological Services Office, Atlanta GA, 217pp.
This paper estimates that between the 1970’s and date of study, the panther population has
increased from 12-20 to 100-120 in number. It notes that panthers are wide-ranging, secretive
and occur at low densities; that habitat selection is related to prey availability; that dense
understory is important for feeding, resting and denning; that forested habitats are used in
combination with other habitat types in proportion to their availability.
The PRP sets forth strategies for recovery of the panther, including maintenance, restoration
and expansion of the panther population in South Florida; expansion into South-Central Florida,
reintroduction into at least two additional areas outside of South or South-Central Florida and
increased public awareness and education.
The goals of the PRP include an interim goal (to result in reclassification):
• Expansion in South and South-Central Florida beyond 80-100 adult panthers
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 282 of 518
• Two subpopulations established within the historic range
• Sufficient habitat to support all subpopulations for the long term.
The goals of the PRP also include a long-range goal (to result in de-listing):
• Establishment of three viable, self-supporting populations over 240 panthers each,
maintained for a minimum of 12 years each
• Sufficient habitat quality, quantity, and spatial configuration to support these populations
in the long-term.
Florida Panther Habitat Selection Analysis of Concurrent GPS and VHF Telemetry Data (2008),
Land et al., Journal of Wildlife Management, 72(3), 633-639.
This Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) team studied telemetry
points using two technologies, effectively reviewing not only daytime, but also nighttime habitat
preferences. Comparing the data, the team concluded that its limited sample size generally
supported similar preferred upland and wetland forested habitats during both night and day.
One observation was an increase in panther presence in open grasslands at night, suggesting
continued study to distinguish these results from possible study bias (location; false negatives).
The team concludes that its findings do not indicate any departure from the established habitat
assessment methodology employed by the USFWS.
Technical Review of the Florida Panther Protection Program Proposed for the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area of Collier County, Florida (2009) Florida Panther Protection Program
Technical Review Team, Final Report, 84pp.
Members of the Florida Panther Protection Program Technical Review Team (PRT) included
biologists from USFWS, FFWCC, consultants, UCF and Conservancy of SWF. They reviewed a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed in 2008 by eight major land-owners, Audubon of
Florida, Collier County Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife and Florida Wildlife Federation
(the Parties). The PRT recognized that the RLSA incentive-based program was designed to
protect land with the highest environmental resource value, but also allow for future
development. As a team, they agreed to review the details of the MOU to determine its new
effect on the existing program.
The purpose of the MOU was to approach the issue of panthers and their habitats in the context
of environmental resource permitting in the RLSA in a comprehensive way, distinguished from
the piecemeal approach more typical under Sections 7 and 10 of the U.S. Endangered Species
Act. The current breeding range of Florida panthers encompasses 2.27 million acres south of
the Caloosahatchee River, of which there is overlap in the 196,000 acres in the RLSA.
The MOU contained provisions that included:
• Provision of 25% more mitigation for impacts to the Panther Primary Zone
• Generation and use of panther credits on lands set aside as Stewardship Sending Areas
• Protection of agricultural lands through establishment of Agricultural Preservation Areas
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 283 of 518
• Establishment of a core transportation network to serve 45,000 acres of development
• Proposal to create two corridors intended to enhance landscape connectivity
• Creation of the Paul J. Marinelli Florida Panther Protection Fund
• With consensus of the PRT, the Parties would enter into binding agreement, undergo
formal consultation and develop a formal Consultation Agreement or its equivalent
The PRT concluded that the proposed plan, if incorporated in combination with the 5-year
Review recommendations, “would represent an enhancement of panther conservation over the
existing RLSA program.” At the same time, the PRT recognized that development within the
RLSA has the potential for loss of habitat, and that habitat loss does not aid in panther recovery.
Additional PRT findings:
• Additional protection of 39,000 acres of RLSA land should still leave room for 45,000
acres of development activity;
• Additional mitigation cost in Primary Panther habitat (125%) would only have an indirect
benefit of increasing the trust fund donations, but no meaningful impact given the source
of credits from SSAs
• Increase minimum width of north corridor to 1,200 ft.
• Trust funds should be used only for acquisition, restoration, wildlife crossings , and
monitoring
• Recommend no new interchange at I-75
• Acknowledge that the 45,000 acre development cap, including mining activities, is an
improvement to the 2002 Plan with no cap
Finally, an important connection was drawn between ownership interests and preservation: “The
PRT recognizes that new development is the driving force for achieving natural resources
conservation within the RLSA program” (p.4).
Landscape Analysis of Adult Florida Panther Habitat (2015), Frakes et al., PLoS ONE 10(7) 1-
18.
This paper utilizes radio telemetry data from 2004-2013 with land cover within a large South
Florida study area to predict the suitable habitat for adult breeding panthers. It examines the
characteristics of land type and uses within the study area, and finds the preferred habitat based
on forest and forest edge, hydrology, human settlement, and other factors. By examining the
use of land types in the context of existing land cover, the model predicts an area of suitable
breeding habitat for panthers over 3 years of age, and notes that 25% of this available breeding
habitat is in private ownership.
The study concludes, based on panther density derived from earlier studies, that:
• There is less available breeding habitat than previously thought
• The carrying capacity for panthers south of the Caloosahatchee is already at a maximum
• The maximum carrying capacity south of the Caloosahatchee is not sufficient to maintain
a genetically viable population
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 284 of 518
• Further reduction in viability would occur with any future reduction in primary panther
habitat
A Critical Review of Efforts to Protect Florida Panther Habitat on Private Lands (2015), Kreye
and Pienaar, Land Use Policy 48, 428-436.
This paper surveys many of the tools that have been employed in panther preservation. These
include traditional federal mitigation programs under the Endangered Species Act (Conservation
Banks, PHUs and Habitat Conservation Plans), Transfer of Development Rights programs, Safe
Harbor Agreements (SHA) and Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES).
SHAs are intended to provide assurance from regulatory approaches, useful mostly in areas of
expanding panther populations such as north of the Caloosahatchee. PES programs are more
useful as an additional tool in currently occupied areas such as private lands in Collier County.
PES programs provide monetary payments, federally funded, to private landowners for
conservation and management of panther habitat. They should be based on quality and quantity
of land preserved, and should compensate owners, typically ranchers, for costs of depredation
and land management. This is an incentive-based tool that can complement other tools for
preservation on private lands.
The authors conclude that no single program or policy will effectively achieve recovery.
Regulatory approaches typically result in permanent protection, but lack connectivity. (The
authors classify the RLSA credit system as regulatory.) Voluntary approaches are often of short
duration, but can achieve contiguity. Both regulatory and voluntary programs are needed in
support of the panther.
Tolerance of the Florida Panther in Exurban Southwest Florida (2018), Rodgers and Pienaar,
Journal of Wildlife Management 82 (4) 865-876.
As panthers continue to recolonize portions of their historic range, development continues to
grow in the same areas. This paper looks at the attitudes of the human population with regard to
panther-human conflicts.
The greatest conflict area in the recent past is in Golden Gate Estates. From 2004-2015, there
have been only 110 confirmed interactions, and most of these have involved domestic animals.
Only two (2) incidents were said to have involved threatening behavior by a panther directly
toward a human.
The authors state Florida residents are supportive of Panther conservation in principal, but
tolerance in areas where residents are experiencing negative interactions is essential for
panther conservation efforts. How can tolerance be improved?
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 285 of 518
Findings of interest:
• A high percentage of the population in Golden Gate Estates are aware of panther
presence and are highly tolerant, exceeding expectations
• There appears to be no correlation between tolerance and gender, education, income, or
ethnicity. Older residents, however, are less tolerant.
• Residents who experienced depredations of domestic animals or livestock are less
tolerant
• Residents who adequately secure pets and livestock in panther resistant pens are more
tolerant.
HCP relevance and discussion
As indicated by those who attended public workshops on the RLSA, the public is very interested
in the long-term viability of the Florida panther and other listed species. There is a clear need for
a plan that protects these species in a realistic way.
Collier County is not in a position to mediate the best science behind panther or listed species
studies as described above. County staff does not include subject-specific experts with Ph.D.s
or similar levels of subject matter competency. Rather, the County has traditionally relied on
federal and state environmental review permitting (ERP) processes in listed species regulation,
playing an enforcement role during the permitting process.
The health and long-term viability of panther and other listed species is the primary
responsibility of USFWS, USACOE, SFWMD, and FFWCC. Collier County’s RLSA program is
primarily a land use planning program, grounded in a balance between environmental goals,
agriculture, and economic development. Further, It recognizes that development can support
environmental goals through the transfer of credits representing land use rights and
responsibilities, but land use regulations does not substitute for the specific environmental
permitting requirements of state and federal agencies.
As a planning document, the RLSA provides a 95,000 acre area designated as “open,” where
Stewardship Receiving Areas can be located under County zoning. However, the ERP process
further refines the rules of development, and may deny, restrict, or approve with conditions
development in any location. The RLSA and the ERP review process are parallel approval
mechanisms. The most restrictive of either set of rules applies to any potential development.
The majority of land owners in the RLSA, the Eastern Collier Property Owners (ECPO),
submitted an ERP application document several years ago, known as Eastern Collier Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The HCP is a preferred process by ERP agencies
because it takes a cumulative, holistic analysis on a landscape scale, as distinguished from a
piecemeal approach. The HCP application here covers 18 listed species, most notably the
Florida panther. The HCP, because it covers the majority of the RLSA, can assure one of the
most noteworthy goals of panther preservation- the linkages between large panther habitat
areas.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 286 of 518
The HCP application is based on a prospective 50-year permit (ITP) covering the 152,000 acres
under the ECPO application. It will also inform and facilitate future regulatory actions by the US
Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). To receive an ITP, the applicants must provide a
conservation plan that avoids, minimizes, and mitigates harm to listed species and their
habitats. The HCP proposes measures to achieve these goals through ecological restoration,
wildlife crossings, land management, and research under a system that ensures funding and
continual monitoring.
The draft Environmental Impact Statement (draft EIS) issued by USFWS in 2018 recognized the
history and importance of the RLSA program, and that the proposed HCP is complementary to
its goals of conservation for wildlife, listed species, habitat, and agriculture. It recites that the
HCP was “built upon the original RLSP framework and selected recommendations from the
Florida Panther Protection Plan.” The RLSA and the HCP mutually reinforce each other with
environmental protections: the RLSA through design and local stewardship easements; the
HCP through permit conditions and additional easements, ensuring habitat protection in
perpetuity.
The draft EIS references a tremendous volume of research and literature, including many of the
publication mentioned in the previous section of this paper. Staff does not intend to mediate the
science or positions presented as part of the scoping or evaluation process. Rather, staff relies
on the determinations of the FWS in applying best available science in support of sustainability
for panther and seventeen other covered species. This is consistent with the County’s traditional
role in deferring to federal and state agencies in environmental permitting in general, and in
recognition of the greater level of expertise and resources at the federal level.
To be sure, Collier County has created its own standards for wildlife management plans in the
RLSA. Where lands are not voluntarily included in the RLSA program, wildlife management
plans are required for a number of listed species and subject to County approval. These reviews
often rely on technical assistance from a state or federal agency and defer to those agencies
with respect to state and federal environmental permitting requirements. As stated in the Collier
County Growth Management Plan (RLSA Policy 5.5 (3) and CCME Policy 7.1.4): “All
development shall comply with applicable federal and state permitting requirements regar ding
listed species.”
Ultimately, through a final biological opinion and incidental take permit, the Service must decide
whether to issue, issue with conditions, or deny the HCP application. The County supports the
professional judgment employed by the USFWS staff. USFWS takes primary responsibility for
enforcement of the federal Endangered Species Act.
In passing, staff notes two points captured from the final application for the HCP plan. First,
where preservation is ultimately determined to be appropriate, conservation easements will be
placed on the land to secure this preservation in perpetuity. A state agency, either FDEP or
FFWCC, will hold the easement. Importantly, the federal government through USFWS will hold
third party enforcement, further securing the obligations in parallel with County easements.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 287 of 518
A second point involves the HCP application and acreage. In its application, ECPO offers a
condensed area where “covered activities”, such as towns, villages mining of other conditional
uses could be located. Their analysis included the “primary and secondary” panther zones, a
more recent designation analysis as compared to the RLSA scoring process. The result is that
ECPO offers to put significant excess acres located in open areas under easement as well
(through ERP process), restricting uses to agricultural activities and accessory dwelling units no
greater than 1 per 50 acres, a huge benefit in reducing the impact of baseline development.
Several depictions from the HCP application illustrate important aspects of the RLSA area and a
better understanding of the HCP application:
Figure E-3 below shows areas of preserve and very low density (green hatch and cross-hatch),
areas of “covered activity” (yellow hatch) and acres not a part of this application process (non-
ECPO members). Figure E-4 below provides RLSA and the HCP area in the context of the
Primary and Secondary panther zones developed in 2008.
Figure E-3
HCP Exhibit- Covered Activities
Figure E-4
HCP Exhibit Primary/Secondary panther
Habitat, SW Florida
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 288 of 518
Figure E-5 below illustrates panther telemetry points over 3 decades.
Figure E-5: HCP Exhibit
Panther Telemetry Since 1981
Miscellaneous
Land use layers removed as part of the voluntary stewardship program generally run from more
intensive uses (residential and Conditional uses, layers 1-4) to less intensive agricultural and
conservation layers, layers 5-8). In the Flowway Stewardship Areas, participation in the program
requires the elimination of layers 1-4 at a minimum. However, in Habitat Stewardship Areas,
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 289 of 518
conditional uses (Layers 2-4) are allowed on lands with an NRI score of 1.2 or less. Public
comment questioned the rationale in treating HSAs differently that FSAs in this regard. Staff is
of like opinion and recommends treating these in like fashion.
In exchange for voluntary participation in the RLSA overlay system, land use layers 1-4 shall be
eliminated in HSAs, with the exception of governmental essential services
An issue discussed from time to time by the BCC is the suitability for County ownership of lands
within the RLSA, either through Conservation Collier or otherwise. This issue received little
attention by the public during this restudy process. Staff believes that there is some benefit to
County ownership, if deemed appropriate under broad public policy considerations, such as the
mission of Conservation Collier. One benefit would be the capture of stewardship credits by the
County and removing these from the potential expenditure within the RLSA. County purchase of
land (or credits) could accomplish one of two things: permanent retirement of the credits to
reduce overall development potential, or conversion of the stewardship credits for use in the
urban area under certain limited conditions.
One thought raised in this regard is the use of credits within the Immokalee urban area, such as
requiring the use of stewardship credits in the Low Residential subdistrict to allow for the highest
density, say the 3rd or 4th unit per acre. Unfortunately, use of credits within Immokalee would
increase the cost of development there, frustrating housing diversification, development, and
redevelopment. However, this can be considered if the Board feels that “Low Residential”
should remain lower than 4 units per acre, absent the purchase of credits.
Another thought is to allow the private purchase of credits, in the sole discretion of the Board,
for high density projects within the urban area that seek density above the current density rating
system. This would be highly discretionary at the Board level but would provide an additional
tool where high density is sought at appropriate locations. A Unit equivalency based on RLSA
SRA densities could be used.
Closer to the notion of extinguishing credits altogether, the County may wish to purchase land
without using credits in any fashion. This is a concept similar to state conservation programs
that have been in existence for some time. For example, the Rural and Family Lands Protection
Program has been utilized in the RLSA to create agricultural easements over land that will
permanently remove development rights. The County could also consider partnering with state
programs to accomplish similar outcomes.
Provide an avenue for County purchase of land or credits in the RLSA; create LDC standards
for discretionary approval of private entity purchase and use of credits for high density projects
in the Urban area; explore opportunities for County purchase of easements in coordination with
identified state programs.
Transportation issues will be discussed further under Towns and Villages, below. Of note in the
environmental discussion is a recommendation in that section to reduce speed limits on arterial
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 290 of 518
and collector roads, consistent with allowable FDOT parameters. Lower speed limits,
particularly at night, can provide a significant reduction in panther mortality. According to the
Naples Daily News, there have been at least 140 panthers killed by motor vehicles since 2014,
far outpacing any other mortality factor.
Environmental organizations have called for lower speed limits along with wildlife crossings to
curtail the high vehicle mortality rate. Wildlife crossings such as underpasses should be highly
effective, but overall reductions in vehicular speed may prove a potent protection for these
animals. Along with lower speed limits, traffic calming and enforcement measures would be
necessary.
Along with fencing and crossings, night time speed limit reductions may further reduce the
panther collision “hotspots” as identified in Figure E-6. The USFWS has established a
Transportation Sub-team to assist the Florida Panther Recovery Implementation Team in
protecting the Florida panther.
Figure E-6
Panther Collision Hotspots
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 291 of 518
Reduce speed limits along collector and arterial roadways, particularly at night.
Finally, the 5 year review Committee recommended new rural lighting standards to improve
environment, quality of life, and safety. These should be studied along with the further
development of improved lighting standards throughout the County, reflecting context and Dark
Skies principles, and implemented in the RLSA. Reduced and improved lighting has benefits for
both wildlife and human well-being.
Provide LDC regulations for outdoor lighting to protect the nighttime environment, conserve
energy, and enhance security and safety.
Environmental Protection- List of Sources
[See panther articles listed above]
USFWS Panther Recovery Implementation Home Page (2019) [web]
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Habitat Conservation Plan USFWS (2018) [restudy
library]
Habitat Conservation Plan updated, Stantec (2018) [restudy library]
RLSA Overlay Recommendations, League of Women Voters (2019) [restudy workshop page]
Critique and Recommendations, Conservancy SWF (2019) [restudy workshop page]
Restoration Credits and Suggested Policies, M Seef (2019) [restudy workshop page]
5-year Review Recommendations (2009) [restudy library]
Meeting Summaries (2018 to 2019) [appendix]
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 292 of 518
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay White Paper
F. Towns, Villages and Other Development
The following points were discussed at Public Workshops on February 28 and March 28, 2019
(Appendix A: Public Outreach Meeting Summaries).
Consensus Items
Consensus:
• SRAs should have Mobility Plans
• “Universal Design” should be available to buyers
• Plan for aging in Place
• Encourage shade trees, narrow streets, healthy community checklist (countywide)
• Housing should be diversified by type and price
• Encourage more compact development
• Encourage Florida-Friendly Landscapes (countywide)
• Encourage best practices for town core and town centers density
• CRDs should be more carefully defined
• Incorporate green building standards (countywide)
• Require Florida Green Building certification (county-wide)
Non-consensus:
• Hamlets should be eliminated
• Increase minimum densities
• Firm up phasing schedules for commercial components
• Require annual monitoring reports
• Require periodic measurements of internal capture
• Change size parameters: Villages to 1,500 acres; Towns to 5,000 acres
• Incentivize economic development for self-sufficiency
• Use ¼ mile standard for walkability
5 Year Review Recommendations
• Cap maximum acres and credits
• Create “build-out vision plan” (transportation network)
• Require wildlife management plans
• Require mobility plans, both internal and external
• Eliminate hamlets from allowable SRAs
• Change size parameters: Villages to 1,500 acres; Towns to 5,000 acres
• Define CRDs more effectively
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 293 of 518
• Require 10 credits per acre for SRAs from future SSAs
• Refine uses in ACSC
• Protect historical and cultural resources
• Create outdoor lighting standards
Staff Analysis
Introduction
Much like environmental issues, the public was highly interested in forms, requirements and
incentives related to SRA development- the use of stewardship credits to create Towns, Villages
and other forms that best represent “smart growth.” The public was well versed in many smart
growth goals and principles, including walkability and alternative transportation modes within
developments, efficiency in transportation costs outside of developments, self-sufficiency,
economic development, housing diversity and affordability, social opportunity and community
character.
When the Board initiated the eastern area restudies in 2016, one comment heard many times
was that, given the 10% of remaining area in Collier County available for future development,
this is the last chance the County has “to do it right.” There was and is a growing recognition
that the development pattern dominating the urban area of the county could have been better,
particularly with respect to transportation, housing, and other smart growth principles.
Opportunities for different community designs are quickly diminishing.
Many members of the public see the benefits of smart growth not only for life in the 2020’s, but
also for future generations. We have heard time and again that the largest cohort following the
baby-boom generation, the millennials, will prefer to live, work, and play in close proximity.
Meanwhile, the development community informs land owners that the “market” prefers an
automobile-centric, low density environment with certain upscale amenities. To the extent this
remains true for the next several years, the remaining development area gradually disappears.
The next generation will either adjust to these 20th century preferences, or existing housing
stock will move lower in relative value, and its infrastructure maintenance will increase in per
unit cost, if and when vacancy rates increase.
Certain members of the public have been quick to criticize the RLSA program as a “whitewash”
in favor of developers or a program that encourages “unrestrained growth.” In fact, it is neither.
The important issues in the RLSA, where the stewardship program was launched over 15 years
ago, revolve around the form of growth, the design of well-planned communities with character
and economic sustainability, allowing the physical space needed to create a smart growth
transect. Along with that opportunity comes the responsibility for land owners to assume
permanent maintenance of the 90,000 acres of natural area expected to be protected.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 294 of 518
The development that will occur over a long period of time in the RLSA will make the
preservation, restoration and long-term maintenance of natural areas possible, without
commensurate public expenditure. Rather than a drain on taxpayers, this aspect reflects a huge
win for taxpayers. Meanwhile, the public should continue to demand that in other respects,
development proves to be fiscally positive to the County over a reasonable period of time, and
that communities are sustainable in terms of environmental compatibility, water use,
transportation, goods and services, employment, housing and economic development.
The Collier Interactive Growth Model (CIGM) developed by Metro Forecasting Models predicts
future populations in various parts of the County based on subdistrict characteristics. This differs
from the County-wide population projections in methodology and detail. The CIGM estimates a
current population in the RLSA at roughly 5,000 persons. A majority of that population resides in
the Town of Ave Maria. By 2040, the population of Ave Maria will triple, and the population in
the RLSA is projected at approximately 47,000 people. For perspective, this compares with
about 76,000 people who will live in the Golden Gate Estates area east of Collier Blvd by 2040.
Table F-1
CIGM Population Projections
GMP Districts East of CR 951
Rounded to nearest 1,000
Est. Oct. 2018
CIGM 3
2017
CIGM 3
2040
CIGM 3
2070
CIGM 3
Build-out
RLSA
5,000 47,000 116,000 243,000
RFMUD 8,000 31,000 53,000 65,000
Immokalee 25,000 34,000 41,000 47,000
GG Rural and
OT
45,000 76,000 82,000 82,000
Totals
E of 951
83,000 188,000 292,000 437,000
Totals
W of 951
286,298 339,171 348,466 357,760
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 295 of 518
General Design, Towns and Villages
Over 15 years ago, Dover, Kohl & Partners prepared a
document for Collier County entitled Toward Better
Places, the Community Character Pan. The principles
of town development embodied in that document are
well known to many:
• Identifiable center and edge
• Walkable neighborhoods
• Proper building placement
• Special sites for civic uses
• Mixed uses and building types
• Integrated street network
• Diversity of housing types and price points
The Dover Kohl document provided a basis for support
among diverse perspectives. Developers can enjoy
lower land costs per unit when higher net densities are
achieved; more market flexibility is inherent in mixed
housing types within the same neighborhood.
Municipalities and taxpayers benefit from a more
balanced tax base and higher tax values per acre, as
well as lower overall infrastructure costs inherent in
transect design.
Similarly, the firm of Duany Plater-Zyberk (DPZ) has
long promoted walkable urbanism, complete
neighborhoods and smart codes that deconstruct older
notions of Euclidean zoning (separation of uses
requiring motor vehicles as predominant and
necessary), favoring a mix of uses that results in less
motor vehicle dependence. Smart codes reflect
context and transect zones just as Dover Kohl
described- higher density and mixed uses near the
town centers, lower density closer to edges.
An idealized rendering of a transect, inherent in these
new urbanism concepts, appears in Figure F-1. In
practice, there would be many variations depending on
context, local conditions, and community vision.
The Community Character Plan suggests neighborhoods with connectivity and walkability,
made possible through density increases near town core and town centers. A requirement for a
minimum density within a ¼ mile of these mixed-use areas should be established and required,
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 296 of 518
accounting for area-wide context and character. Given the sentiment to retain a continuum of
density or transect, from denser to semi-rural or open space at town edges, low density should
be expected in many town locations, bringing the gross density much lower than within walkable
neighborhood areas.
Doesn’t this ideal run contrary to compact growth? It is important to recognize the difference
between gross density (the entire Town or Village) and net density (such as would be
encouraged in and near Town Core and Town Centers). To achieve the vision of a transect,
density and intensity needs to diminish approaching the edges, particularly where SRAs border
important environmental resource areas, common throughout the RLSA. Moreover, the
requirement for 35% open space, not counting any single-family yard areas, contemplates a
larger overall town footprint while also encouraging a denser mixed use core and center.
The way in which population is accommodated and the design elements derived from smart
growth principles form the backdrop of recommendations related to SRAs. These
recommendations should serve and enhance livability, fiscal responsibility, and environmental
objectives while respecting property owner rights.
One of the recommendations of the 5-year Review Committee would alter the size parameters
of Villages and Towns. Specifically, the recommendation would allow Village development
beyond its 1,000 acre maximum to 1,500 acres, and would allow Towns to grow from 4,000
acres to 5,000 acres, inclusive of public benefit acres or excess open space.
In thinking about town size and design, consideration should be given to sustainable, compact
development and its relationship to economies of scale and critical mass. In an analysis by
Metro Forecasting, one might envision a minimum size rural village or town as one large enough
to support a grocery-anchored plaza, a mix of goods and services, park space large enough for
a range of recreational activities, emergency medical services, and an elementary school.
To achieve this mix, a population of between 14,000 and 18,000 residents would be required.
Based on expected persons per household and a gross density of 2.5 units per acre,
approximately 2,700 acres would serve this ideal vision. Larger development would garner even
more critical mass, since middle schools, high schools and a broader range of commercial, civic
and governmental services could be supported, in turn making the SRA more self-sufficient.
Of course, to the extent that residents of Golden Gate Estates become a part of the commercial
and cultural “shed,” the critical mass is more easily reached. The same can be said for smaller
Village development that is close geographically and well connected by collector roadways. And
SRAs need not follow the same patterns- communities geared toward seniors may not need to
accommodate schools but will need sufficient population to support retail, civic, and
entertainment options.
Density near the Town Core and Town Center provide the critical mass to allow trip capture,
shorter trips, community engagement, and healthier walkable community hubs. These factors
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 297 of 518
are generalized and could be considered met with two large Villages adjacent to each other,
each with a Center, or possibly sharing a Center/Core. In this configuration, it will be important
to consider the level of required services similar to Towns when measured in total.
Require minimum densities within a ¼ mile of a Town Center, Town Core or Village Center.
Based on the SmartCode v.9.2, those areas (center/core plus ¼ mile) should exceed 6 units per
acre, excluding acreage for civic uses.
Create an aggregation rule for Villages: if adjacent and under common or related ownership or
control and judged to be part of a unified plan of development, Town standards should apply if
aggregate size exceeds maximum village acreage.
Village sizes should not be increased to 1,500 acres unless additional commercial, civic and
governmental minimums are proposed; Town size increases to 5,000 acres should be allowed
only if, in the discretion of the Board, greater efficiency in service provisions and fiscal impacts
are demonstrated.
Another factor to consider is the required square footage in Towns and Villages for the provision
of commercial goods and services, parks, civic and governmental services. The requirements
enumerated in Attachment C in the RLSA GMP are less than half of the likely need as estimated
by Metro Forecasting, in both Villages and Towns. The restudy did not dive into the specificity of
needed retail, services, and parks with opportunity for public input and refinement. However, the
need for explicit timing of these provisions in the phasing of the entire SRA was mentioned
several times.
Likewise, the need for economic diversification and development was a theme brought out by
the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce and many public speakers, noting that it would
provide the kind of synergy to allow a well-balanced rural town environment, where people can
live, work and play in the same area. These opportunities take time and talent to identify and
deliver, but a reservation of space for corporate office, light manufacturing, or business park
would help the long-term sustainability of SRAs.
Propose greater minimum requirements for commercial, civic and governmental uses, and
specify the timing of these uses in the phasing of the residential portions of both Towns and
Villages, seeking further vetting on phasing requirements through an LDC process.
Propose a required acreage set-aside for corporate office, light Industrial or business park,
available for sale or lease for a specific number of years for economic development.
Allow corporate office, light industrial and manufacturing uses in Villages.
The current RLSA Overlay provides an exemption from the use of credits for “public benefit”
uses and excess open space. Public benefit uses are closely defined as public schools K-12,
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 298 of 518
public or private post-secondary institutions, excess (over required) acreage within community
parks and government facilities (excluding essential services).
Excess open space is not well defined, and consideration should be given to removing this
exemption from the use of credits. On paper, it may appear that open space beyond the
required 35% would be a benefit to people and the natural environment. In practice, it appears
that this reduction in “credit cost” is incentivizing poor land planning, including “sausage lakes”
with long cul de sacs, golf courses and the like. Open space should be carefully defin ed, and no
exemption should be given for excess open space.
Define open space more clearly, including the elimination of single family dwelling unit yards, to
reach the minimum required 35% open space; eliminate the credit exemption for excess open
space.
Wildlife and Flowway Management Plans
SSAs are allowable in Open Areas, which generally score lower on the Natural Resource Index
scale, yielding few stewardship credits. However, Open Areas are not devoid of environmental
and wildlife significance. SSAs will contain within them pockets of higher value wetlands or
uplands, preservation areas and wildlife corridors for various species. As described in the 5-year
Review, SRA Master Plans should contain Wildlife Management Plans, assuring that
incompatible uses are directed away from wetlands and critical habitat, that buffer areas are
created and maintained, and that human and animal conflicts are minimized through best
management practices and resident, business and governmental services share in the
dissemination of information. Although not considered previously, a similar requirement should
deal with wildfire protection through best management practices and public education. This has
traditionally been required in the form of a “Firewise” community designation.
Require Wildlife Management Plans as described in the 5-year Review and Wildfire
Management Plans within all SRAs.
As described in the Water Resources section, natural water management systems such as
flowways require periodic maintenance, since they are affected by upstream activity over time.
Flowway Management Plans would be created through a public/private partnership and would
involve at least two major functions. One would be monitoring the health and changes over time,
including wetland health and water quality. The other function would be operational-
maintenance functions as needed from time to time, and these should require upstream entities
to contribute to needed maintenance activities. Examples would be natural lands inspection and
management when necessary, identifying and addressing any debris and vegetation
accumulation over time, which can affect the flowway’s capacity for normal overland flow
conveyance.
Require Flowway Management Plans as part of the SRA approval process to supplement the
SSA maintenance functions in a more specific way and to provide a mechanism for flowway
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 299 of 518
management in the absence of established SSAs or to supplement SSA land management
activities.
Housing Affordability and Suitability
Affordable Housing has been a high priority topic in Collier County for the past several years.
This White Paper does not attempt to survey all possible aids or remedies within the RLSA, as
these in some ways parallel the needs of the entire County and should be considered in a
holistic way as the County continues to refine its approach to the topic. It has been staff’s
perspective throughout the restudy that most areas in the eastern lands would not be suitable
for affordable workforce solutions to problems arising in the urban area. That is primarily
because of the distance between the RLSA and the urban area. When one critical goal of
development in the RLSA is trip capture, and fewer vehicle miles traveled, the notion of
providing affordable workforce housing in the RLSA for an urban workforce runs counter to that
goal.
On the other hand, RLSA housing affordability is important for other reasons. These include
workforce housing for a workforce that will be needed in the developed areas of the RLSA.
There is also a need for affordability for retirees and elderly populations.
Prior to state-level reforms to the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) review process,
applicants were required to undergo a “Housing Analysis.” The benefits of the housing analysis
were the exposure to review of the prospective market for retirees, families, single individuals,
and second home buyers. More importantly, the Housing Analysis required a market study of
housing availability to accommodate the needs (by projected income levels) of all perso ns to be
employed within an SRA. Availability could be measured both on and off-site. Off-site
accommodation required an estimate of commuting length, time, and cost. A plan was required
to address any shortcomings.
As an example, the Town of Big Cypress, following its inventory and needs analysis, committed
to providing 500 moderate income units and 732 Low Income units under the Collier County
definitions. In return, they requested eligibility in trip count adjustments, impact fee deferral
program, and an infrastructure investment tax offset. Staff believes that the Housing Analysis
makes sense in the context of new towns and Villages in the RLSA.
In addition to that, housing affordable to the elderly should be provided. The smart growth goals
in the RLSA include a diversity of housing types for a diverse population. By requiring a mix of
smaller units at lower price points, close to Town/Village Centers or Cores, the needs of many
elderly people will be met, both in terms of cost and accessibility. Standards for market price
points for smaller units should be a feature of the Housing Analysis.
Require a Housing Analysis similar to the former DRI requirement to assure a wide range of
housing types and price points and to accommodate the needed workforce within the SRA.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 300 of 518
Based on the demographics of Collier County as a whole, it is believed that many home buyers
in the RLSA will be 50 years old or older. The Senior Advisory Ad Hoc Committee, in its final
report in April 2019, recommended Universal Design in the sale of homes County-wide. This
should be a required option, not mandating its selection by homebuyers. Universal design
allows later age-related home modifications at low cost, simply by accommodating certain
structural elements at time of first sale. Universal Design is embraced by the National
Association of Homebuilders and AARP and adds on average about $300.00 to the original
price point.
Require all homebuilders in the RLSA to offer a Universal Design option in the sale of new
homes.
Types of SRA Development
SRA types: Most public discussion revolved around Towns and Villages. The 5-year review
recommended elimination of a third type of SRA, the Hamlet. Hamlets may be created between
40 and 100 acres and would have a very limited convenience retail component. One of the
original rationales was that Hamlets would be a better alternative to 5-acre (baseline ag zoning)
ranchettes. There may be limited instances where property owners own small tracts within and
outside the higher value stewardship designated areas, so that credits could be transferred.
However, properties within the Open designation only would need a very high aggregation of
protected Open areas in order to create clustered residential development in place of 5 acre
ranchettes. This is an unlikely scenario. Moreover, no applications for Hamlets have been
submitted to date.
Eliminate the category of Hamlets as a form of SRA development; consider adding this category
at a later time if environmental, economic, and equity factors favor its creation in certain
locations.
Compact Rural Developments (CRDs) are the fourth type of allowable SRA in the RLSA. A
recommendation was made in the 5-year review to better define its purpose and extent. The
proposed language supported the County’s valued attributes of agriculture, natural resources,
and economic diversity, and land uses may include uses related to research, education,
convenience retail, tourism or recreation. The Review Committee also further limited the
maximum size to 100 acres. With the exception of convenience retail, staff is in agreement with
these further limitations to the original plan. Convenience retail, if allowed, should be defined as
an allowed use ancillary to the other listed uses.
Describe allowable uses in the Compact Rural Developments (CRDs) with greater clarity, allow
retail only as an ancillary use, and limit the size of any CRA to 100 acres.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 301 of 518
Fiscal Responsibility
Fiscal impacts and fiscal neutrality were concepts not well understood by the public during the
restudy. The GMP requires demonstrations of fiscal impacts and a projection of fiscal neutrality
at time of application for SRA development. These are critical to the determination of application
approval, and the County should continue to review these projections with clear eyes, requiring
supplemental information or third-party review where deemed appropriate.
Some commentary has been received that underscores the value, from a fiscal perspective, of
compact, as opposed to spread-out (sprawl) development. This is an obvious conclusion, but
the notions of compactness seem to be an important point of diversion in perceptions. One can
always show that 1,000 units placed on 100 acres provides a better fiscal outcome than 1,000
units placed on 400 acres. Infrastructure costs, in particular, will be far lower in the former
example. What matters is context, and the balance to be created by creating livable areas that
are marketable.
Marketability leads to a fiscal outcome that can be attained with some assurance. The outcome
not only assures fiscal neutrality with respect to infrastructure costs, but also affords the huge
costs associated with saving and maintaining very large wildlife and natural areas.
A review by Smart Growth America was submitted that provided the obvious tenant that
compactness is good. It was completely deficient in understanding the context of the RLSA, its
historical antecedents, or the important facts involved in community development in reaching its
financial conclusions. It did not consider impact fees, developer contribution agreements or
“proportionate fair share,” it provided no basis for the assumption that County growth will
“accelerate” in the future, and no apparent understanding of which roads are public and which
are paid by development/CDD. It also based a fiscal assessment for future ad valorem revenues
on a per capita basis, which is not acceptable in any form of fiscal modeling. Finally, it lacked
understanding between revenue from single family and multi-family development and offered a
significant mathematical error in the body of the material.
This review was unfortunate, because fiscal impact is extremely important. An economic
assessment is required by the GMP and LDC to address the fiscal impacts of transportation,
potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law
enforcement, emergency medical services, fire, and schools. The methodology must be pre-
approved by the County, and the modeling, assumptions, and calculations should be disclosed
and reviewed thoroughly.
All SRAs should be subjected to rigorous and disciplined fiscal examination. The fiscal analysis
should be reviewed by both the County and a third-party peer reviewer. A special assessment
should be imposed for any identified shortfall in any public service.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 302 of 518
Review SRA applications with careful attention to fiscal neutrality at a reasonable horizon date
and closely scrutinize calculations and methodologies to assure that SRAs become fiscally
positive by the horizon date or impose special assessments.
Require annual monitoring reports to gauge the status of all developer commitments associated
with the SRA and developer contribution agreements.
The Area of Critical State Concern
The Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) is a large area in eastern Collier County, with its
northern reaches comprising about 62,286 acres surrounding the OK Slough. The ACSC has
been a state designation going back to the 1970’s, recognizing the critical importance of surface
water protection in this area, with particular emphasis on protecting and/or recreating sheet flow.
The state still maintains a review function over all zoning and building permits to assure
compliance.
SRA development is required to use credits from such development solely from lands within the
ACSC. The 5-year Review further restricted Village and CRD development in the ACSC: SRA
development along State Road 29, may not exceed 1,000 acres in total, and the only SRA
development east of the OK Slough would be CRDs less than 100 acres.
Restrict SRA development in the ACSC by limiting the total development along SR 29 to 1,000
acres and allow only CRDs as a form of SRA development in lands east of the Okaloacoochee
Slough.
Transportation and Mobility
There is a close link between land use planning and transportation. The best arrangements of
land uses, placing residents close to goods, services, cultural location, and jobs, result in
mobility and infrastructure efficiency. Smart growth principles underscore this connection, and
this factor was an important aspect of the creation of the RLSA: providing innovative land use
practices while preserving environmental and agricultural assets. This connection also
underscores the importance of economic development and job creation in the RLSA and in the
Immokalee urban area.
The County’s Master Mobility Plan, accepted by the Board in 2002, provides guidance for
internal and external mobility with respect to eastern lands, including Towns and Villages. It
incorporates land use strategies, multi-modal transportation alternatives, wildlife crossings, and
roadways designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through connectivity. “Developments
outside of the built/urban environment must be self-sustaining, especially in terms of
employment and non-residential services to achieve the same vehicle miles traveled (VMT)-
reducing impact as development within the urban area… self-sufficient development will not
completely eliminate the need for inter or intra-county travel; however, self-sufficient
development will increase localized daily/routine travel”- thus reducing VMT and vehicle hours
traveled (VHT).
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 303 of 518
The 5-year Review recommended a Mobility Plan as a component of the SRA Master Plan. The
Mobility Plan would include “vehicular, bicycle/pedestrian, public transit, internal circulators, and
other modes of travel/movement within and between SRAs and other areas of outside
development and land use.” Strategies might include “bus subsidies, route sponsorship, or other
incentives which encourage the use of mass transit services.” Importantly, the mobility plan
would demonstrate “land uses to accommodate services that would increase internal capture
and reduce trip length and long-distance travel.”
Internal mobility planning should address FDOT’s “complete streets” program, including the
accessibility and safety characteristics, for pedestrian movement, bicycle travel, neighborhood
electric vehicles, and other motorized carriers. Safe street crossings and traff ic calming designs
should also be included. Separated pathways should be favored for some modes, depending on
context. Transit infrastructure, including bus shelters and transit cut-outs, should be required in
Town Core, Town Center and Village Center areas.
In terms of fiscal impact, the 5-year Review clarifies that all internal roads, both public and
private, should be built and maintained by the SRA that they serve.
External mobility should be demonstrated through connection points to adjacent or future SRAs
and other developments. These are best accommodated by having an internal network that is a
grid of local collector roads.
Require Mobility Plans as a component of an SRA Master Plan, with specific components as
identified in the LDC. Additional LDC components should include specification in the Master
Plan to provide depictions of local streets to demonstrate connectivity.
All roads internal to an SRA will be constructed and maintained by the SRA.
The Master Mobility Plan recommends that the County work with USFWS and FFWCC to
optimize the placement of wildlife crossings along County roads, to protect wildlife and allow
passage across arterial and collector roads. These should be financed, to the extent possible,
with road impact mitigation funding.
Speed Kills
In addition to wildlife crossings, consideration should be given to lowering speed limits on
collector and arterial roadways, consistent with FDOT standards for a minor arterial roadway
where listed species are well documented. Lower speed limits, particularly at night, can provide
a significant reduction in panther mortality. According to the Naples Daily News, there have
been at least 140 panthers killed by motor vehicles since 2014, far outpacing any other mortality
factor.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 304 of 518
Figure F-2
Vehicle/Panther Collisions
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 305 of 518
Environmental organizations have called for lower speed limits along with wildlife crossings to
curtail the high panther mortality rate. Wildlife crossings such as underpasses and fencing
should be highly effective, but overall reductions in vehicular speed may prove a potent
protection for these animals.
Lower speed limits have also been shown to reduce human fatalities and injuries and result in
fewer crashes overall. Health and safety of Collier residents and visitors are better protected by
slower speeds in rural areas. Along with lower speed limits, traffic calming and enforcement
measures would be necessary.
Lower speed limits also reinforce self-sufficiency in rural towns and villages. Longer travel times
between the rural areas of the County and the urban area create an incentive to provide more
needs, including goods, services, entertainment, civic uses, and employment within the same
geographic area. This is consistent with the smart growth philosophy.
Provide needed wildlife underpasses inside and outside of SRAs, and lower speed limits on
collector and arterial roadways for human safety and wildlife preservation.
Towns, Villages and Other Development- List of Sources
Master Mobility Plan, Final Report, Tindale-Oliver et al. (2012) [Comp Planning web page]
Toward Better Places, Community Character Plan for Collier County, Dover Kohl and Partners
(2002) [Comp Planning web page]
SmartCode v. 9.2, DPZ Codesign et.al., (2009) [web]
RLSA Recommendations to meet LOS, Metro Forecasting (2019) [restudy library]
Collier County Ideal Future Town Size, Metro Forecasting (2019) [restudy library]
Fiscal Implications of Development in RLSA, Smart Growth America (2018) [restudy workshop
page]
Universal Design in Homes, Center for Universal Design (2006) [restudy library]
RLSA Overlay Recommendations, League of Women Voters (2019) [restudy workshop page]
Critique and Recommendations, Conservancy SWF (2019) [restudy workshop page]
5-year Review Recommendations (2009) [restudy library]
Meeting Summaries (2018 to 2019)
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 306 of 518
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay White Paper
G. Credit System Analysis and Recommendations
This Credit System portion of the White paper is intended to (I) memorialize the estimations of
the current credit system as provided by the 5-year review Committee, (II) summarize the effect
of additional recommendations from that Committee, (III) update the estimations made in 2009
given the data on hand as of March 2019, and finally, (IV) to suggest a realignment of credits
under the general recommendations made in the Environmental Protection portion of this White
Paper and those stated below. This short introduction and the material under section IV should
be the most informative.
As discussed in the Environmental Protection section, the solution to better credit management
requires a third-party analysis of the potential restoration credits, including clear definitions of
different restoration types, and a quantitative analysis of acreages that would qualify under each
definition.
Staff’s intent in part IV is to find a credit balance that does not exceed the need for the desired or
anticipated SRA footprint. Both credits and acreages should be capped. In addition, following third
party analysis, each category should be capped: Base credits, restoration credits and Agricultural
credits, so that excess credit use in one category does diminish the intended results in another
category.
Accordingly, the following recommendations for the credit analysis follow:
Procure an independent analysis of the definitions and estimated acreages associated with a
revised Restoration program prior to Transmittal hearings, considering the 5-year Review “tiered
credit system” approach and alternatives, including the FWF/Audubon approach; the analysis
should be based on incentivization of restoration activities in all needed areas and a credit
calibration and cap so that will no more credits are produced than necessary for 45,000 acre SRA
footprint.
Provide the third-party analysis to stakeholders and public for further vetting prior to Transmittal
hearings.
Cap credits within the categories of base credits, restoration credits, and agricultural credits
separately.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 307 of 518
I: Background: Credits Under Current System Estimated by 5-year Review
The credit system put in place in 2002 is the credit system in effect today. It includes credits from
creating Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs), from creating and executing restoration projects
within the SSAs (R-1 and R-2 credits), and credits for early voluntary entry into the program (Early
Entry). The estimates of credits yielded under each credit type was estimated during the “5 -year
Review”, 2007-2009, since estimates would have been more speculative at the time of adoption.
The 5-year Review estimates of current plan provisions have been updated, below (Section III),
based on program information. The 5-year Review also recommended changes to the program,
and the estimated credits are shown in Section II. Staff recommendations and estimated credits
are shown in Section IV.
SSA creation credits:
These were calibrated to yield a development footprint to accommodate the former baseline
zoning sprawl potential of 1 unit per 5 acres, or 36,444 units spread throughout the RLSA. These
units could be accommodated through higher clustered density in rural developments (calculated
at 2.17 units per acre)
SRA acres: 16,000
Credits: 128,000
Restoration credits:
Restoration credits were created with broad support among landowner and environmental groups
between the Transmittal hearings and Adoption hearings in 2002. Other than those groups, it is
not likely that many members of the public were fully aware of this additional credit type. Two
types of credits were envisioned- “dedication credits” (R-1) and “completion credits” (R-2),
available in Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs) and 500’
Restoration Areas. R-1 credits can be earned at the rate of 4 credits per acre in the Camp Keais
Strand and 2 credits per acre in the Okaloacoochee Slough. Completion of restoration earns 4
credits per acre in both locations.
SRA acres: 20,000
Credits: 160,000
Early Entry Credits:
Although these credits expired in 2009, they were designed to reward early program participation
in the protection of lands designated HSA. This was a slight reduction from the earlier program
design, as requested by the FL Dept. of Community Affairs.
SRA acres: 3,375
Credits: 27,000
“Public benefit acres” Acres: 3,940
TOTAL, 2002 Plan Estimate in 2009 SRA Acres: 43,315
Credits: 315,000
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 308 of 518
Comment: Credits must be accumulated to entitle SRAs- Towns, Villages, etc. These require 8
credits per acre for development. “Public benefit” acres within SRAs that do not require credits,
but are estimated at 10% of each SRA. Remaining “baseline” development potential under
agricultural zoning (either agricultural uses or other baseline zoning development) was estimated
at 43,700 acres.
II: Five-year Review Recommended changes to Credit System (2007-2009)
As discussed throughout the White Paper, the 5-year Review provided an important analysis
based on significant public participation and agreement. With respect to credit calculations,
Section 3, Supporting Documentation of the Phase 2 Report, provided the following data:
• Estimated credits and development acres under the 2002 Plan based on track record
(above)
• Emphasized Agricultural protection and additional wildlife corridors in “Open” area
• Recalibrated Restoration credits as “tiered” system
• Addressed need to incentivize large mammal corridors
• All recommendations supported by Board, land owners, committee, environmental groups
at a Board hearing, April 21, 2009, as part of Final Report to Board
• Five-year Review recommendations were not adopted, due to the downturn in economy
and disagreement over the fee for the amendment process
• 45,000-acre maximum, below, is consistent with current application to USFWS for multi-
species habitat conservation plan (HCP), an environmental review permitting process
Base credits 128,000
Restoration credits 144,000
Early Entry Bonus 20,000
Agriculture credits 89,000
Panther/wildlife corridors: 23,000
Tentative total: 404,000
Modifications to reduce expanded development impact:
1. Slight reduction in Restoration credits
2. No further Early Entry credits
3. Recalibration in credit currency (new SSAs would require 10 credits for each acre of
SRA development)
Net effect on development: SRA acres: 47,120
Comment: Acreage calculation includes 10% increase to reflect “public benefit” acres
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 309 of 518
Additional restriction: Capped SRA acres: 45,000
Capped Credits: 404,000
Comment: Capped credits reflected 76% at 10 credits per SRA and 24% at 8 credits per SSA.
III: A Review of RLSA credits (Part I) based on Today’s Data
SSA Base Credits: Assuming all FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and 500’ Buffers (target areas) are included
in SSAs; calculations are based on approved SSAs 1-16 (#8 withdrawn) plus SSA amendment
applications (14-16):
SSA 1-16 acres: 50,431
SSA 1-16 credits: 77,999
Factor, credits per SSA acre: 1.55
All target area acres: 86,960
SSA base credits based on historic factor: 134,788
Comment: This Base Credit estimate is slightly higher than the 5-year Review estimate of 128,000
Base Credits. One explanation is that the amendments for restoration push the base calculations
up, as they are one factor in the NRI score for Base credits.
Early Entry (EE) Credits
All EE credits 19,552
Comment: EE credits expired in 2009
Restoration Credits
R-1 (Dedication)
SSA 1-16 credits (with amendments) 58,854
Target area acres 68,553
R-1 credits (extrapolation to all target acres) 80,207
Comment: The factor per gross acre is 1.17, based on all approved SSAs and 3 amendments
that remain pending. This figure is not a cap, in that approved SSAs 1-16 could still apply for
additional amendments for restoration dedication that would increase the total.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 310 of 518
R-2 (Completion)
Actual R-2 credits earned to date 1,710
Potential R-2 credits, 1-16 (with amendments) 63,393
Target area acres 68,553
R-2 credits extrapolation to all target acres 88,433
Comment: Like R-1 credits, this total is based on extrapolation and may be greater if a higher
percentage of SSA areas become restoration areas.
Potential Credits, Current RLSA Program 322,980
SRA Development Footprint (8 credits/acre) 40,373
Comment: Extrapolation of existing credits and acreages are 2.5% higher than the estimate made
in 2009. This estimate does not include changes proposed by 5-year Review Committee.
IV: RLSA Credits Based on White Paper Recommendations (rounded nearest 100)
Base SSA Credits:
Recalculated Base credits (Section III) 134,800
@ 8/SRA acre 78,000
@10/SRA acre 56,800
SRA Acres Attributable to Base Credits 15,500 acres
Early Entry Credits 19,600
SRA Acres Attributable to EE Credits @10 cr/acre) 2,500 acres
Agricultural Credits
NRPA “Open” areas, 15,278 acres*
(50% participation cap; 7,850 acres) @ 2.6 credits/acre 19,900
*Open acres reduced by SSAs (181) and Priddy Easement (1,617)
Non-NRPA Open areas, 74,443 acres
(50% participation cap; 14,300 acres) @ 2.0 credits/acre 28,600
(Open reduced by SRA 45,000; less 864 corridors; less SSA 389)
Total Agricultural Credits 48,500
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 311 of 518
SRA Acres Attributable to Ag Credits @ 10 cr/acre 6,100 acres
Public Benefit (PB) Acre Adjustment 2,300 acres
Comment: Public benefit acres are estimated at 5% on the basis that excess open space will no
longer be eligible for credit deduction.
SRA Acres: Base, EE, Ag, PB 26,400 acres
Restoration Credits 18,600 acres
Restoration credits should be calibrated to result in the total development footprint projected and
approved as part of the restudy. Further, they should be calibrated such that if the total anticipated
need for restoration throughout the RLSA private lands is fully realized, then credits to entitle the
full desired footprint will result, and no more.
Given the recommended credit allocation for Base, EE, Ag and PB above, the credits for
restoration, vested or future, should not result in SRA acreage that exceeds 18,600 acres if 45,000
acres is the desired SRA cap. As with all credit categories, credits and acres should be subject to
caps. Restoration credits should be calibrated to cover all needed restoration acres, including
appropriate large mammal corridors, resulting in credits yielding the desired acreage above.
To date, credits equivalent to 15,300 acres of development are vested at the current 8 credits per
acre standard, although more than half would require completion. Recalibration will be necessary
for future restoration area credits.
Comment: The existing SSAs (1-16) already cover 68% of areas where restoration credits are
possible (FSAs, HSA, and 500’ buffers). Within existing SSAs, 36% of these eligible land areas
are claimed as restoration areas. However, some of these existing SSAs have not applied for
restoration credits yet. Care should be taken to assure that credits are available for all areas
needing restoration, giving priority to large mammal corridors.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 312 of 518
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay White Paper
H. Consistency with Other Planning Areas
Following is a list of items that were discussed and considered during the RLSA restudy and
incorporated, directly or indirectly, into the Overlay or recommended revisions.
Immokalee:
1. Agricultural land use retention is critical to the continued support of the agricultural
sector within Immokalee. Processing and distribution operations depend on quality
agricultural land to grow cattle and produce. Jobs within Immokalee and field operations
in the RLSA are major employers.
2. Additional workplace opportunities will grow in the RLSA to the benefit of skilled workers
coming from Immokalee. These will emerge in the traditional building and service
sectors as Towns and Villages grow. In addition, the requirement for future business
park locations will provide an avenue to higher paying jobs following location of target
businesses to these pad-ready locations.
3. The RLSA required “housing analysis” will likely include Immokalee as a potential source
of housing options, keeping the vacancy rate at a minimum.
4. The emphasis of the Immokalee Regional Airport as a commercial catalyst will help
attract new target businesses to the RLSA (and Immokalee) area.
Golden Gate Estates:
1. Proximity of a large community living in the eastern portion of the Rural Estates will have
access to new locations for goods and services within new Towns and Villages in the
RLSA. This will provide a benefit to the transportation system by reducing vehicle miles
traveled, a benefit to the Estates residents by providing fewer vehicle hours travelled,
and a benefit to Town and Village development, lending support for goods and services
within those new communities by reaching critical mass earlier in time.
2. Estates residents will also benefit from job creation. Like Immokalee residents, they will
enjoy new employment opportunities in the traditional service sector (building and
resident services) and in the emerging new business locations in the RLSA that can
attract target or export industries.
3. It is important to note that Estates residents disfavored any upsizing of commercial
locations within the Estates, although the Immokalee curve at Randall Blvd. will likely
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 313 of 518
meet some of that need. Again, for estates residents in the eastern area of the Rural
estates, the RLSA Towns and Villages provide an important option.
Urban Collier County:
1. As recommended in this White Paper, the conversion of stewardship credits for use in
the urban area should be considered. This would provide a tool for the Board to consider
if development at a given location requests more density than is otherwise available
under the density rating system. Such use by an applicant with approval by the Board
should be discretionary.
2. The County may decide to procure additional lands within the RLSA as part of the
Conservation Collier mission for the recreational benefit of all County residents.
3. The County may wish to purchase land in the RLSA or stewardship credits and
ultimately retire those credits, thus reducing the available build-out footprint in the RLSA;
private firms including not-for profit organizations may wish to do the same.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 314 of 518
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay White Paper
List of Staff Recommendations
Water Resources
1. Continue to study the need for maximum peak discharge rates for basins within the RLSA
to maintain water quality and quantity downstream.
2. Count WRAs as SRA acreage if used for primary water management.
3. Encourage filter marshes prior to offsite discharge or discharge into WRAs where
appropriate.
4. Require flowway management plans as part of the SRA approval process to supplement
the SSA maintenance functions in a more specific way and to provide a mechanism for
flowway management in the absence of established SSAs or to supplement SSA land
management activities.
5. Coordinate with FDOT and other state and local agencies on an SR 29 Comprehensive
Water Resources Plan aimed at restoring the health of the Okaloacoochee Slough.
6. Continue to monitor aquifer supply and quality through existing federal, state, and local
programs.
Agricultural Protection
1. Remove the word “premature” from agriculture protection references in Policy Group.
2. Provide credits to owners in open areas at the rate of 2.6 credits per acre in the ACSC
and 2.0 credits per acre in the non-ACSC open areas in return for permanent agricultural
easements allowing active or passive agriculture.
3. Create a cap for agricultural easement credits calculated at a 50% utilization rate.
4. Exclude any aquiculture operation from the agricultural credit system both at inception and
through easement language.
5. Collier County may establish an Agricultural Advisory Committee at a time deemed
appropriate by the BCC.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 315 of 518
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.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 316 of 518
12. Cap Stewardship credits and SRA acres; provide separate caps for restoration credits and
agriculture credits.
13. Require third party approval and monitoring of Restoration Plans if no ERP permit process
is required. The County may use an agency consultation process or contract.
14. Require clear maintenance obligations through SRAs based on their volume discharge to
the flowway, thus assuring perpetual funding (fiscal neutrality) for downstream stormwater
management in Flowways.
15. In exchange for voluntary participation in the RLSA overlay system, land use layers 1-4
shall be eliminated in HSAs, with the exception of governmental essential services.
16. Provide an avenue for County purchase of land or credits in the RLSA; create LDC
standards for discretionary approval of private entity purchase and use of credits for high
density projects in the Urban area; explore opportunities for County purchase of
easements in coordination with identified state programs.
17. Reduce speed limits along collector and arterial roadways, particularly at night.
18. Provide LDC regulations for outdoor lighting to protect the nighttime environment,
conserve energy, and enhance security and safety.
Towns, Villages and Other Development
1. Require minimum densities within a ¼ mile of a Town Center, Town Core or Village
Center. Based on the SmartCode v.9.2, those areas (center/core plus ¼ mile) should
exceed 6 units per acre, excluding acreage for civic uses.
2. Create an aggregation rule for Villages: if adjacent and under common or related
ownership or control and judged to be part of a unified plan of development, Town
standards should apply if aggregate size exceeds maximum village acreage.
3. Village sizes should not be increased to 1,500 acres unless additional commercial, civic
and governmental minimums are proposed; Town size increases to 5,000 acres should
be allowed only if, in the discretion of the Board, greater efficiency in service provisions
and fiscal impacts are demonstrated.
4. Propose greater minimum requirements for commercial, civic and governmental uses, and
specify the timing of these uses in the phasing of the residential portions of both Towns
and Villages, seeking further vetting on phasing requirements through an LDC process.
5. Propose a required acreage set-aside for corporate office, light Industrial or business park,
available for sale or lease for a specific number of years for economic development.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 317 of 518
6. Allow corporate office, light industrial and manufacturing uses in Villages.
7. Define open space more clearly, including the elimination of single family dwelling unit
yards, to reach the minimum required 35% open space; eliminate the credit exemption for
excess open space.
8. Require Wildlife Management Plans as described in the 5-year Review and Wildfire
Management Plans within all SRAs.
9. Require Flowway Management Plans as part of the SRA approval process to supplement
the SSA maintenance functions in a more specific way and to provide a mechanism for
flowway management in the absence of established SSAs or to supplement SSA land
management activities.
10. Require a Housing Analysis similar to the former DRI requirement to assure a wide range
of housing types and price points and to accommodate the needed workforce within the
SRA.
11. Require all homebuilders in the RLSA to offer a Universal Design option in the sale of new
homes.
12. Eliminate the category of Hamlets as a form of SRA development; consider adding this
category at a later time if environmental, economic, and equity factors favor its creation in
certain locations.
13. Describe allowable uses in the Compact Rural Developments (CRDs) with greater clarity,
allow retail only as an ancillary use, and limit the size of any CRA to 100 acres.
14. Review SRA applications with careful attention to fiscal neutrality at a reasonable horizon
date and closely scrutinize calculations and methodologies to assure that SRAs become
fiscally positive by the horizon date or impose special assessments.
15. Require annual monitoring reports to gauge the status of all developer commitments
associated with the SRA and developer contribution agreements.
16. Restrict SRA development in the ACSC by limiting the total development along SR 29 to
1,000 acres and allow only CRDs as a form of SRA development in lands east of the
Okaloacoochee Slough.
17. Require Mobility Plans as a component of an SRA Master Plan, with specific components
as identified in the LDC. Additional LDC components should include specification in the
Master Plan to provide depictions of local streets to demonstrate connectivity.
18. All roads internal to an SRA will be constructed and maintained by the SRA.
19. Provide needed wildlife underpasses inside and outside of SRAs, and lower speed limits
on collector and arterial roadways for human safety and wildlife preservation.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 318 of 518
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.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 319 of 518
Appendix A
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Restudy
Public Outreach – Meeting Summaries
January 2018 – March 2019
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 320 of 518
Meeting Summary
RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting
Introduction, History and Perspectives
January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM, North Collier Regional Park, Exhibit Hall
I Introduction and Selected History
Kris Van Lengen, Community Planning Manager, opened with welcoming statements at
approximately 6:30 p.m. He advised that the meeting includes a series of presentations meant to
provide background information and perspectives on the Rural Land Stewardship Area (RSLA)
program and the Five Year Review. Mr. Van Lengen said there might be an opportunity for
speakers from the audience after the presentations, however time is limited because the meeting
room must be cleared at 9:00 p.m.
Mr. Van Lengen displayed the future meeting schedule and advised that future meetings will allow
time for speakers from the audience; he said the next meeting is planned to open with time for
public speakers, and each meeting thereafter will have time for speakers.
Mr. Van Lengen explained that the County has four restudies underway. The RLSA encompasses
an extensive area and there are many interests in the area. He displayed the link to the County
website (https://www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies) and advised that it contains a great deal of
information, with around 150 documents. The website is useful, and if anyone finds that
information could be added to the website, the County welcomes that information.
Mr. Van Lengen explained that the “1999 Final Order” spawned the RLSA program and the Rural
Fringe program. The program is for protection of agricultural activities, and protection from
unrestrained growth to protect wetlands, protected species, and wildlife habitat. The program
aims to direct growth to appropriate locations through creative land use planning techniques. The
program is a way to balance continued agricultural viability, environmental resource protection,
and long-term economic prosperity and diversification, including smart growth principles. These
are the three legs of the three-legged stool, and the program is about balancing the three
elements. In some cases, these elements reinforce each other, and in some cases, they don’t,
especially land use allocations. That’s been a point of contention, and it’s important to consider
all three and find balance.
Mr. Van Lengen said he was going to talk about a slice of history, but because there is such a lineup
of speakers that he’s going to be brief. Instead of going into detail on footprints and 16,800 acres
versus 45,000 acres, he said all slides will be available on the website, and a narrative report from
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 321 of 518
Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives
January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 2
staff will be on the website. He said that it’s important to start with consensus on the facts to
move toward consensus on solutions. Mr. Van Lengen stated anyone is invited to critique staff’s
narrative after it is published next week. He said the narrative covers the program history of
transmittal, adoption, assessment, base credits and bonus credits and how they were expanded.
He said there was a quote in the staff’s Executive Summary to the Board of County Commissioners
that was repeated at transmittal and adoption stages, and it was misleading about the estimated
16,800 acres (or 9% of the RLSA study area) for clustered development. That statement was taken
from the assessment out of context; it referred to base credits and not bonus credits. At that time,
the bonus credits were simply not quantified in the way they could be today.
Mr. Van Lengen stated the RLSA program was adopted in 2002, and an excellent Five Year Review
report was done but not adopted for a number of reasons. At this point, he said the original
habitat areas, flowway areas, and water retention areas are high value environmental areas that
are slated for protection. Almost an equal amount of 95,000 acres is open for development.
He explained that base credits yield around 16,000 acres of development. Early entry credits
translate to another 3,400 acres of development. He said there was no way at inception to
quantify restoration credits, quantification today relies on assumptions, and there is no cap on
restoration credits. New ideas from the Five Year Review, such as agriculture protection in the
open areas and panther corridors, were very important concepts that involved new credits, but
they were not adopted. It was realized that too large a footprint was possible, so the footprint
was reduced through different recommended strategies.
Mr. Van Lengen went on to discuss participation in Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs). He said of
90,000 acres, there are 50,000 acres protected under permanent Conservation Easements. The
majority of the easements relate to agriculture, and some are at the conservation level. The
easements are protective and require maintenance by the owner in perpetuity.
Mr. Van Lengen summarized that new towns of 9,000 acres include the 5,000-acre town of Ave
Maria and an application for a new town called Rural Lands West. The SSA credits earned so far
already entitle 16,000+ acres of development area, and at least 40% of the SSA areas are yet to be
protected. These remaining areas will yield credits as well, and all of this information will be part
of data and analysis during the Restudy.
Mr. Van Lengen said the evening’s scheduled speakers will provide various environmental, citizen,
landowner and agricultural perspectives. He said he hopes this is the beginning of an experience
considering views and facts on this complicated topic, and it needs to begin with facts and slowly
build to a consensus.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 322 of 518
Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives
January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 3
II Comments by Stakeholder Groups
1. Florida Wildlife Federation Nancy Payton, SW Florida Representative
(Maps were displayed.)
Ms. Payton introduced herself as the Southwest Florida Field Representative with the Florida
Wildlife Federation. She explained her background with the Federation since 1994 when their
Southwest Florida office was opened to address rural lands. She was the point person for the
Federation involved in the Final Order and the planning process through today. The Federation
and Audubon Society joined the State of Florida to challenge Collier County’s Growth Management
Plan and its failure to protect wetlands and wildlife habitat.
Ms. Payton displayed an old Future Land Use Map that showed the rural area was not “green” at
the time of the administrative challenge, which was an issue because of the significant wetlands
and wildlife habitat in eastern Collier County. She displayed a map she dubs the “Blood Map”
created by the 1000 Friends of Florida and University of Florida GeoPlan. The map shows the rural
area as if there was no Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. Baseline density would be one unit per
five acres with no protections, no clustering, just platted property and mining with little if any
consideration for wildlife needs. She explained that this is why there was a challenge and Final
Order for the County to generate a better plan.
She said that when the Final Order was issued, there were two major documents that were relied
upon regarding wildlife:
(1) A report by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, formerly the Game
Commission, called “Closing the Gaps.” Eastern Collier County was identified as the most
important wildlife area in Florida for wide ranging species (panther and black bear). She
cited the report’s reference to the low percentage of conservation lands in this part of the
state.
(2) A report by Frank Mazzotti with University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences (IFAS). He studied the Immokalee Rise and his study identified the need for
uplands to have healthy wetlands. The report is dated in the 1990s. Ms. Payton added that
uplands are important, and they get overlooked when dealing with conservation.
Ms. Payton displayed the 2002 Buildout map for the Rural Land Stewardship Area, which she said
shows the benefits of the RLSA program. She said that benefits include: more green area,
connections are protected (including Camp Keais Strand and Area of Critical State Concern,
connection to the Big Cypress National Preserve and the Slough, which helps move wildlife,
particularly the panther). She went on to describe benefits of the current program including
wildlife crossings. She described the crossing and bridge locations connecting private conservation
lands (SSAs) thanks to the cooperation of private owners. She said there are roughly 50,000 acres
that have been restored, privately maintained, and still on the tax roll.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 323 of 518
Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives
January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 4
Ms. Payton gave examples to illustrate why preserve lands are far too expensive for outright
purchase. She said Edison Farms in Lee County was just purchased for roughly $10,000 an acre.
The Triple H Ranch in North Belle Meade was recently appraised at $8,000 an acre. She calculated
that 50,000 acres at $9,000 per acre equals $450 million, and noted that Florida Forever can’t get
$100 million. She explained the RLSA allows for conservation to be done and maintained forever,
for the benefit of wildlife, on the tax rolls. She said the goal is to conserve 100,000 acres or more,
which would cost well over $1 billion if it had to be purchased.
Ms. Payton described that 14,000 acres of preserved land buffer the Panther Refuge, and about
4,500 acres buffer the Big Cypress. Privately restored and maintained conservation habitat along
Camp Keais Strand is ambitious and more supportive of wildlife than the boundaries determined
by Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW), which only covered the deepest flowways
and not upland buffers.
Ms. Payton asserted that the RLSA Program is a holistic approach for wildlife species that provides
incentives, not burdens, for hosting listed species. The more species on the land, the more credits
the land yields, and uplands get equal consideration.
Ms. Payton explained that a few other programs have come out of the RLSA Program. One is the
Florida Panther Protection Program, which is a partnership of organizations and owners working
cooperatively to enhance wildlife habitat. The $150 million Paul Marinelli Trust Fund is anticipated
for additional enhancements, including hopefully a wildlife institute for additional research in
support of the Stewardship Area and the habitat that is forever protected.
Ms. Payton displayed a map based on amendments proposed by the Five Year Review Committee.
She said it’s restricted to 45,000 of developable land. She reminded that if 43,000 acres are to
develop with credits, the balance would be for platted communities or mining. Agricultural credits
allow areas to be protected for agriculture. She referenced that Frank Mazzotti’s study
emphasized the importance of agricultural and natural lands together for wildlife. She pointed
out that the 45,000 acres of development includes public uses. Ave Maria University was not
included before in the development area, and the Five Year Review Committee recommended
including all uses in the development area.
She referenced the incentives for habitat links, coexistence plans, management plans, and dark
skies strategies. She said Florida Wildlife Federation supports the RLSA program and looks forward
to working together to make it a great program.
2. 1000 Friends of Florida Thomas Hawkins, Policy and Planning Director
Mr. Hawkins noted that the Florida Legislature is in Week Three of its session. He shared that he
has been with 1000 Friends of Florida for 18 months. He described that in 2014, 1000 Friends of
Florida reviewed the RLSA on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. Their report
recommended eight changes to the RLSA as it was originally created in 2002:
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 324 of 518
Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives
January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 5
• The first recommendation was to re-evaluate the RLSA credit system. Originally there was
a conception, as reflected in the Executive Summary to the Board of County
Commissioners for approval of the RLSA, that the credit system would allow around 16,000
acres of development. He said it’s now known based on the credits available, around
43,000 acres is for urban type development (2.5 units per acre) and another 43,000 acres
is for ranchette type development (one unit per five acres).
• The second recommendation was to restructure the RLSA to do more to protect rural
agricultural lands.
• The third recommendation was to consider panther habitat when identifying protected
lands.
• The fourth recommendation was to identify appropriate locations for new towns.
• The fifth recommendation was to address infrastructure costs, which Mr. Hawkins said he’ll
discuss further.
• The sixth recommendation was to limit infrastructure in the Big Cypress Area of Critical
State Concern.
• The seventh recommendation was to incorporate Immokalee in RLSA planning. He said an
integrated plan will be better in the long run.
• The eighth recommendation was to limit the extensions of stewardship agreements to one
year exemptions.
Mr. Hawkins reiterated a statement from the Executive Summary from the 2002 RLSA transmittal
hearing regarding the credit system. (For the text on the slide, refer to Mr. Hawkin’s PowerPoint
presentation that is part of the record of this meeting.)
Mr. Hawkins said it’s recommended to focus development in the secondary panther habitat and
not to encroach on primary habitat.
Mr. Hawkins moved his focus to the cost of infrastructure and displayed images from Alachua
County, Florida, produced by Joe Minicozzi of Urban 3, regarding ad valorem tax production
geographically. He explained that downtowns are more productive of tax revenue because they
are denser, create unique places, and more desirable due to sense of place. He said single family
housing is not productive of taxes compared to shopping centers or undeveloped land, especially
considering homestead exemptions.
Mr. Hawkins pointed out that development requires services, and the costs of services must be
paid somehow. Costs to provide service to development is a function of how development is
designed, and how much space is taken up. He referred to downtown areas, where development
is very close together, and the ratio of developed space to length of roads is much different from
suburban areas where it is more expensive to provide services to development. He gave the
example that a small three-acre downtown development has higher productivity and ability to
repay infrastructure cost than a suburban development. He said a thirty-acre development in the
suburbs costs $28,000 per unit for services compared to $15,000 per unit in a downtown area,
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 325 of 518
Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives
January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 6
and he summarized that the tax productivity is better for downtown style development compared
to suburban development.
Mr. Hawkins urged review of walkability and density as development occurs in the RLSA, stating
that higher density development is more desirable and incurs less public liability for costs in the
long term. He concluded that building better communities and environmental conservation are
mutually beneficial goals.
3. Conservancy of Southwest Florida Nicole Johnson, Director, Environmental Policy
Ms. Johnson described her tenure with The Conservancy since 1997, and that she was involved in
the RLSA program since 1999. She said her presentation will focus on why the RLSA is important
to all in coastal and eastern Collier County, what’s been learned over the past 16 years, and the
Conservancy’s recommendations for moving forward together.
Ms. Johnson referenced the intent of the Final Order to protect agriculture, natural resources and
habitats and allowing for Smart Growth development and avoiding sprawl. She said it all came
together in the RLSA Overlay map, and the RLSA precludes residential development in flowway
areas and habitat areas and allows intensification in certain areas.
Ms. Johnson reiterated the intent per staff’s Executive Summary to the Board of County
Commissioners from the 2002 adoption hearing. She quoted:
“It is believed that the adoption and implementation of the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area Overlay will not result in an increase to the total number of
allowable dwelling units or population in the Eastern Lands area, but rather result
in a re‐allocation of the density and population allowed under the pre‐Final Order
conditions from a land‐consuming checkerboard pattern into compact, mixed‐use
development.” - Collier County Board of County Commission Adoption Hearing
Executive Summary. Oct. 22, 2002.
Ms. Johnson said the whole intent was to remove the one unit per five acre development pattern
and consolidate it into development areas. She said 16,800 acres and no ranchettes was the intent
of the program. During the Five Year Review she said it was learned that there is capacity for 230%
more new towns in the RLSA. Another 43,700 acres of ranchettes means 87,000 acres of towns
and ranchette sprawl has resulted. She said there is a vast difference between 16,800 acres of
compact development versus 87,000 acres of sprawl.
Ms. Johnson said The Conservancy’s recommendation is to reevaluate the RLSA based on the
original intent. She said the RLSA program is complex with different layers and valuations, and the
currency in the RLSA is a stewardship credit. She said in order to balance credits for the system to
work, the RLSA requires eight stewardship credits to equate to 1 acre of development. She added
that eight credits per acre is the balance for having the right amount of development and not
having too much development.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 326 of 518
Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives
January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 7
Ms. Johnson said the system ended up with more credits than anticipated. Credits were added
for restoration, which needs to be re-evaluated in the 2018 review, because credit is given not
only for restoration, but for saying that the land can be restored by a third party. Ms. Johnson said
this can be fixed by recalibrating the credits, meaning the 137,000 credits thought to be in the
system could be factored by 2.3 times to equal the anticipated amount of development acre age,
so that greater than eight credits still equals one acre of development.
Ms. Johnson said that The Conservancy concludes that 87,000 acres of new towns and ranchettes
constitutes sprawl. She quoted:
“The large 93,000 acre area eligible for designation of receiving areas, which also
allows the conversion of land uses to the underlying low‐density uses, is the exact
opposite of a plan to direct growth to the most suitable areas.” - Dept. of
Community Affairs Rural Land Stewardship Area Program 2007 Annual Report to
the Legislature
She said The Conservancy recommends, as it did during the Five Year Review, that these areas
where intensification is allowed be re-evaluated based on latest science, economic conditions and
the original intent of the program.
Regarding best available science, Ms. Johnson explained the RLSA was based on year 2000 science,
and now 2018 is best available science. She gave an example of the area critical for the panther
that could be more valuable and provide for protection of agriculture. She referenced a map
prepared as part of the Five Year Review showing 45,000 acres of development area and
highlighted the lines indicating expanded or new roads. The cost in 2010 was calculated by the
Conservancy to be $2.1 billion, some of which will be borne by taxpayers, which she said was
learned from the Oil Well Road expansion. She said the costs to be borne by taxpayers, developers
and new residents needs to be updated and evaluated.
Ms. Johnson said public participation has been a hallmark in the past for the RLSA program, and
the Conservancy appreciates it being a part of the 2018 Restudy. She encouraged people to get
involved and stay involved.
She ended by saying it’s rare to have a chance to reevaluate a program like this. It’s an opportunity
to look at what went right or wrong in 2002, and what’s been learned since the Five Year Review.
She said there is nothing binding us to the Five Year Review recommendations. She reiterated The
Conservancy’s recommendations as the “five R’s”: reassess, recalibrate, revise the overlay,
recalculate cost of infrastructure to taxpayers, and remember participation by all stakeholders is
critical.
4. Audubon of the Western Everglades Brad Cornell, Southwest Florida Policy Associate
Mr. Cornell explained the organization’s name was Collier County Audubon when they
collaborated with other agencies and the State on the original RLSA related litigation against the
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 327 of 518
Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives
January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 8
County. He said it’s important to think about the whole community and getting things done in the
big picture. He said when things are going the wrong direction, it’s important to raise a hand.
Mr. Cornell was on the Five Year Review Committee, and he recalled that there was a lot of
concern the RLSA program might not work, because no such program had been done before in
the State of Florida. The Five Year Review was meant to evaluate whether the program’s intent
was accomplished. He explained the Five Year Review Committee spent two years, and he showed
that they wrote three volumes of material and pointed out that this Restudy is not new. He said
the recommendations of the Five Year Review Committee had a great deal of public input and
participation, and the Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendments that were recommended
are still prudent today. He said the end for this Restudy is to look at the GMP amendments, tweak
and update and adopt them, adding that almost all of 1000 Friends of Florida’s questions are
answered in the GMP amendments.
Mr. Cornell gave highlights of the Five Year Review Committee’s Technical Review (Phase 1
Report). Almost 55,000 acres of stewardship sending easements had already been put in place,
which is a lot of land and high quality habitat, which he said was a success. He said the 5,000 acres
of Receiving Areas including Ave Maria was a success too. He said landowners did participate and
saw value in this program. He described the current SSA acreage is 50,600 acres because one SSA
was removed unfortunately, and new town of Rural Lands West is pending.
Mr. Cornell explained that an issue identified in the Five Year Review was that the leftover land
constituting 43,000 acres of open land could become like the Estates or ranchettes. He said that’s
sprawl, and another incentive is needed to prevent it.
Mr. Cornell showed a map of Camp Keais Strand, noting how it is almost entirely protected, which
is a success.
Mr. Cornell discussed why the 43,300 acres of land is proposed for development. He said there is
a need to calibrate credits, but what counts is the map in the end. The owners of almost 195,000
acres of land need to have access to equal benefits, otherwise the program does not work. He said
43,300 acres of equitably distributed development potential relates to 134,000 acres or 92,000
acres of benefit.
Mr. Cornell discussed the 17,000 acres of primary panther habitat and the conservative
assumption that all of it would be destroyed, when in fact the permitting requirements for
avoidance and minimization result in landowners developing least valuable habitat first. He said
the impacts to primary panther habitat could be zero; it is offset by the mitigation credits.
Mr. Cornell displayed the adopted RLSA credit system and pointed out the restoration credits. He
said it is not known how many credits restoration will yield and stressed that restoration is
desirable.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 328 of 518
Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives
January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 9
Mr. Cornell pointed out important outcomes from the Five Year Review:
• Capping development at 45,000 acres.
• Recalibrating and prioritizing restoration by types of restoration, referring to wordstork,
wetlands, and panther.
• Regarding the 43,000 acres with potential for one dwelling unit per five acres, he suggests
agricultural easements. He stressed this is still not in the RLSA program, and this is what
his organization is looking for.
• 45,000 acres for development is a lot, but it is over fifty years.
• The value of farm fields is that they provide two to three times as much panther habitat.
Mr. Cornell elaborated on the Florida Panther Protection Program, and said the Five Year Review
was based on this. He said it’s a commitment between four leading conservation groups in 2008
and eight major landowners, and this was done in parallel to the Five Year Review and identified
ways to improve rural land stewardship beyond the Five Year Review. Mr. Cornell advised that the
$150 million Marinelli fund is explained on floridapantherprotection.com, and that the program
was reviewed by six panther experts, and their assessments agreed it’s positive and good for the
panther.
5. Collier Citizens Council Charlette Roman
Growth Management Committee Neville Williams
Ms. Roman explained she is not representing Marco Island or the Marco Island City Council. She
is representing the Collier Citizens Council, which is a coalition of leaders that represent citizens’
views on local and state policy. The Collier Citizens Council Growth Management Committee has
been a part of the Restudy process since its beginning almost two years ago. She expressed
appreciation for Growth Management staff for their professional efforts.
Ms. Roman said the focus of her presentation is on smart growth. Smart growth includes walkable
communities, sustainability, compact new urbanism, green building standards, and eliminating
gated communities with no connectivity due to car-centric design. She also shared the following
principles of sustainable communities: connected, compact, complete, complex, convivial,
conserving, and cost-effective. She said sustainable communities reinforce compact communities,
making for livable and desirable places where people want to live.
Ms. Roman displayed images of Seaside, Florida as an example of new urbanism. She explained
Seaside is walkable with green space and a town center. She also showed images of Kentlands in
Gaithersburg, Maryland as another example of a success story, and said it shows effective
environmental and urban design in a larger region, with central parks and green space. She
showed images of Fifth Avenue South in Downtown Naples as another example.
Neville Williams explained he is not an expert, just a citizen. He lived in Kentlands, Maryland which
was designed by Duany Plater Zyberg (DPZ), the original authors of smart growth. He said they
planned in cooperation with the City, the County, landowners, and multiple developers. Mr.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 329 of 518
Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives
January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 10
Williams suggested inviting DPZ for a couple of days to advise on how different communities have
devised smart growth plans, zoning regulations and laws.
Mr. Williams referred to Babcock Ranch as an example of smart growth. He said without smart
growth in planning, the County will be in big trouble, referencing an excerpt from the December
issue of Florida Weekly about impacts of development pressures in Southwest Florida. Mr.
Williams said he has lived in three counties under pressure from developers and is just an observer.
He said each county had agricultural land and open space, and quality of life was accomplished
through transferrable development rights (TDRs).
Mr. Williams said Collier’s TDR program is stalled, and the stewardship program is complicated.
He said Collier County has a first-rate Growth Management Department, but it needs to be given
the tools to achieve the vision derived from these workshops, noting that the Board of County
Commissioners has yet to approve recommendations from the Five Year Review.
Mr. Williams said if the public doesn’t act, there will be 300,000 new residents spread across the
Rural Fringe and the eastern lands and a nightmare of runaway sprawl. Four votes of the County
Commission will determine the County’s future, so public involvement is important. (It was
acknowledged at this point of Mr. Williams’ presentation that Commissioner McDaniel and
Commissioner Taylor were in the audience.)
Mr. Williams said Rural Lands West will be a test and stressed that the roads can’t take any more
traffic, so he advised members of the public to let public officials know what they want. He
concluded that instituting progressive smart growth planning may be biggest political challenge
the County has faced. He said he knows it can be done, and he advised the audience to speak up
and get involved.
6. Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Al Reynolds, Regional VP
Mr. Reynolds acknowledged the turnout for the meeting. He said he has been a land use planner
in Naples and Collier County for forty years and is a planning consultant to eastern Collier property
owners. He gave thanks to Nancy Payton and Brad Cornell for getting the ball rolling to challenge
the County Comprehensive Plan, because otherwise the County would not have such a good Rural
Land Stewardship program.
Mr. Reynolds explained that the stewardship program is incentive-based planning, not regulatory,
and private owners choose to participate. He said that incentives encourage owners to do things
that help owners and help the public. He further stated the stewardship program also balances
needs and opportunities for resource protection, conservation, agriculture, restoration,
promoting sustainable growth and economic diversification.
Mr. Reynolds listed guiding principles of the RLSA:
• The program is data driven, and credits are based on science that can be updated over
time.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 330 of 518
Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives
January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 11
• Participation is voluntary, and the same rights exist today that existed twenty years ago
before this program; the overlay is a choice while protecting underlying rights.
• There are limited public dollars. The stewardship program relies on private ownership
and management of conservation as another tool in the toolbox.
• Economics of growth drive the ability to conserve land. The credit system monetizes
development rights to allow for preservation without costing public dollars.
Mr. Reynolds pointed out the Collier County program is a model for others throughout the state,
and the program is award-winning. He explained around 80% of the eastern land is controlled by
private owners, who are good stewards by either preserving or using the land for agriculture, and
they’ve been cooperating for twenty years to make sure the program succeeds. He referred to
the credit system and pointed out that the more valuable land is for environmental purposes, the
more credit it generates. Landowners get more credit for protecting more environmentally
sensitive land. By giving more credit for protecting high value environmental land, he said this
makes sure the most important land is protected first. He highlighted that 50,000 acres of the
most critical habitat has already been protected.
Mr. Reynold advised that any development at a density other than one unit per five acres requires
use of the RLSA program. He also stated that all the estimated development acreages are
assuming 100% participation by all private property owners in eastern Collier County.
Mr. Reynolds gave an example of scoring stewardship credits which can be sold or used for
development. He explained that over 50,000 acres have been protected, and most of this was
done in the first five years of the program. He said the target for protected lands in 2025 was
89,300 acres, and the vision for 2050 is 134,000 acres.
Mr. Reynolds suggested that the RLSA program is one of the five most successful transfer of
development rights (TDR) programs in the United States. He pointed out the two public
conservation programs in Southwest Florida are Conservation Collier and Lee County Conservation
2020, and they are both funded with tax dollars and are both successful. He said the
incentivization of private conservation is a good way to contribute to successful outcomes. He said
Conservation Collier has $144 million in economic benefit annually per the Southwest Florida
Regional Planning Council formula for quantifying conservation in terms of ecosystem service
value (or “TEV” value) to monetize public benefit value. He said the Rural Land Stewardship
program has incurred zero cost and has $1 billion of economic benefit for the 53,000 acres
preserved. He suggests a balance of programs including public acquisition and incentivized private
conservation.
Mr. Reynolds also spoke on behalf of Barron Collier Companies. He explained they have owned
65,000 acres, approximately one-third of the RLSA area, since the 1920s. He said they developed
Ave Maria and protected 17,000 acres by creating the first SSA, and conservation and active
agriculture was included in the sending area. He said Barron Collier Companies are retaining
ranching along with conservation, and they enabled panther crossings at no public cost.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 331 of 518
Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives
January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 12
Mr. Reynolds said Ave Maria is the fastest growing master planned new town in Southwest Florida,
and infrastructure inside the town was put in place by the private owner at no cost to the County.
He said Ave Maria has brought diversity and investment to eastern Collier County, which is part of
the RLSA balance for economic diversity and prosperity. He also said the $200 million university
with 1,100 students couldn’t have happened without the RLSA program. He added that Arthrex
built a 400,000-square foot facility in Ave Maria employing 1,600 people, helping meet the goal of
the program to bring economic development to Collier County.
7. Collier Enterprises Christian Spilker, Vice President Land Management
Mr. Reynolds spoke on behalf of Collier Enterprises, stating that they own approximately 44,000
acres. Their Rural Lands West proposal has been in process for approximately three years, with
around 18 months left to go. He said Rural Lands West will be a complete town with a 4,000-acre
development footprint, and 1,400 acres are open space. He pointed out the development
footprints must have 35% open space. He said the project represents a tax base of $2.8 billion
and will generate $260 million in impact fees.
Mr. Reynolds said the Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) constitute regional scale habitat,
providing a complete connection from Corkscrew Marsh to the Panther Refuge through Camp
Keais Strand. He said this completes the conservation vision for land that is worth $80-120 million
but won’t cost tax payers a dime.
8. Barron Collier Companies Tom Jones, VP, Government Affairs
Mr. Jones said Barron Collier Companies is the largest property owner in eastern Collier County.
He referred to other presenters’ references to the timeframe of 1999, and he said it’s important
to consider events before 1999. He said the challenge to the Growth Management Plan was then
assumed by participants in the process to be resolved by downzoning all property east of Golden
Gate Estates so that land allowed with a density of one unit per five acres would be downzoned
to densities of one unit per twenty or forty acres. He said landowners of eastern Collier County
had no idea there was a settlement agreement by interest groups with the State of Florida.
Mr. Jones described how Barron Collier Companies is a multigenerational company that has been
good stewards for decades, and there has never been a shortage of other people deciding what
to do with Barron Collier Companies’ property. Rather than pursuing a lawsuit, Barron Collier
Companies worked with consultant Al Reynolds to take a step back and set a direction for what
landowners could do with their property. He said the Governor and Cabinet and landowners
agreed to a three-year moratorium to study how development could proceed while protecting
resources and maintaining the agricultural base. After three years, all parties agreed the RLSA
program is a good program. He pointed out that Rural Lands West will be the second town; Ave
Maria was the first.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 332 of 518
Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives
January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 13
Mr. Jones said the outcome of the 2008 Five Year Review was worthwhile, and the map got more
“green.” He recommended that the outcomes of the work done in 2008 should be considered,
and he supports moving forward with the recommendations of the Five Year Review.
9. Consolidated Citrus LP Mitch Hutchcraft, VP, Real Estate
Mr. Hutchcraft stated that Consolidated Citrus is a landowner within the RLSA. The parent
company of Consolidated Citrus is King Ranch, which has a legacy of agricultural innovation and
stewardship and is one of the largest citrus producers in the United States. The company is proud
of its operations and land management practices and its history of cooperating with
environmental partners to achieve regional goals.
Mr. Hutchcraft said connected open spaces and wildlife areas are critical. He said the RLSA will
provide long term environmental benefits, and the benefits are maximized when agriculture is a
valued part of the regional landscape. He also said that incentives to protect natural resources
and economically viable agriculture are critical to achieving regional goals. King Ranch and
Consolidated Citrus are supportive of the RLSA program, and their corporate interest is to remain
in agriculture as long as it is economically viable, which could be five to fifty years. As adopted,
the current program does not provide incentives or assurance for agricultural use, which leads to
these lands to be unprotected and ultimately developable as low density residential.
As part of the Five Year Review, Mr. Hutchcraft supported updating incentives for retaining long-
term agriculture. He said this must be done in a way that ensures equity for all landowners
regardless of size or number of credits. He stressed that all parties agreed with the need for
incentives to retain agriculture, and that incentives to retain agriculture would assure less open
land conversion to one dwelling per five acres. He added that incentives to retain agriculture also
provides an opportunity for agriculture to transition and buffer between natural areas and
developed areas. He also said incentives for retaining agricultural lands ensure credits are in the
system for developing later, and this warrants recalibrating the credit system.
Mr. Hutchcraft supports the Five Year Review recommendations to further the intent of the RLSA
program, consistent with recommendations of DCA and the Five Year Review Committee. He
encouraged putting weight on the Five Year Review Committee’s work and recommendations to
recognize the value and importance of agriculture retention credits, and to provide equity for all
to participate in the program in a meaningful way.
10. UF/IFAS-Southwest Florida Research & Education Center Dr. Fritz Roka, Food and Resource Economics
Dr. Roka began his presentation on the Economic Importance of Agriculture to Collier County and
Southwest Florida by stating that agricultural activities should be valued. He displayed Agriculture
Census data indicating agricultural land has decreased in Collier County over fifteen years, but the
number of farms has increased, indicating diversity. He said the value of land is $1.8 to 2 million
per farming activity, which is an increase in value per acre.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 333 of 518
Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives
January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 14
Dr. Roka disagreed that there was no value in eastern Collier County before Arthrex. He
highlighted the following statistics on the economic conditions for the area:
• $2.6 billion in direct sales in mining, recreation, agriculture, which produces $4 billion in
economic impact
• For every dollar of taxes in agricultural areas, it costs the government thirty cents in
services. This is a surplus of value for agricultural areas.
• The total economic impact correlates to 49,000 jobs generated from agriculture and
natural resources.
• In the Southwest Florida five county area, farm value is over $1.3 billion.
Dr. Roka explained there are high risks in agriculture. Hurricane Irma devastated citrus groves, but
there is still optimism. He explained that significant dollars are spent to produce and harvest
agricultural crops, and break-even financials are precarious. He said the agriculture industry has
done a phenomenal job of coping with various challenges and bouncing back with help from a
diversity of products and producers.
Dr. Roka said it’s important to recognize that agriculture is a business, and there needs to be a
reasonable rate of return for the business. He said that enhancing the value of agriculture through
public policy is going to help keep the industry going. He urged that benefits to the agriculture
community can be beneficial to other aspirations of the RLSA program.
Dr. Roka shared thoughts about agriculture being considered adversarial in Southwest Florida; it’s
considered detrimental to the environment. In fact, he said there is synergy between agricultural
and environmental interests. He said it is good to enhance and extract environmental benefits
from agricultural land with a reasonable rate of return for the landowner. He added that there is
opportunity for wildlife habitat, however ranchers need compensation for calves that have been
food for panthers.
Dr. Roka mentioned best labor practices and that the Coalition of Immokalee Workers has done a
lot for the industry. He said that social justice is happening in Immokalee, yet no value is going to
growers in exchange for the good labor practices they perform. He said this is an opportunity to
market the good practices and return value to the growers.
11. Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce Michael Dalby, President and CEO
Mr. Dalby said the mission of the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce is to make Collier County
the best place to live, play and work in the United States. His focus is on economic prosperity and
his plea is to reserve space in the RLSA for primary employers. He explained how employers are
important to the community and displayed a list of various companies that are primary employers,
which provide high paid high skill jobs and are primary economic drivers.
Mr. Dalby identified there are challenges and opportunities in eastern Collier County. He identified
the challenge of population growth, and the continued need for jobs. He said he seeks to find
companies that will bring high wage jobs to the region. Another challenge he identified is that the
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 334 of 518
Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives
January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 15
top five occupations from 2016 to 2024 are lower wage service jobs. He also identified that
primary employers need talented employees with proper skill sets, which makes workforce
training important. Yet another challenge he identified is commercial real estate availability and
limitations on primary employer space, Class A office space, business parks, and technology parks.
Mr. Dalby displayed a map showing primary employer locations scattered around Collier County
and pointed out that there are no strong geographic clusters. He said eastern Collier County allows
spaces to plan for a business park or tech park. He shared that Lee County has a tech park, and
letters have been sent to attract Collier County businesses to the 135-acre clustered tech park for
high wage and high skilled job opportunities in conjunction with Florida Gulf Coast University. He
said this is something that could be accomplished in Collier County. He described opportunities in
the eastern lands for two such parks, including one operated by Collier County. He stressed he is
not suggesting recruitment. He envisions growth of small businesses that are in Collier County
now.
Mr. Dalby concluded that the plea of the Chamber of Commerce is to include space for primary
employers in the RLSA to provide for economic opportunity and living wage jobs.
12. League of Women Voters Charlotte Nycklemoe, Co-President
Ms. Nycklemoe spoke without digital aids. She said growth management is priority issue for the
League of Women Voters. She said the group has a long commitment to smart growth and
protecting environmentally sensitive lands. She also said they support development that supports
its own impact and support government action that results in sustainability for this generation and
future generations.
Ms. Nycklemoe said all members of the Collier County community are affected by what happens
in the RLSA. She expressed concern that not all members of the community are aware of the
workshop meeting schedule and urged the County to reach out in many forums and venues to
inform citizens about the RLSA and related decisions. She asked that the County move the next
four workshops from 4:00 p.m. to later in the evening for working people to attend.
Ms. Nycklemoe agreed that re-evaluating the RLSA program using County staff is vital to success
and may provide an unbiased approach. She stated that in 2002 the RLSA program was adopted
to protect agricultural land, direct incompatible uses away from wildlife and listed species, and to
allow appropriate development while avoiding sprawl. She said the original RLSA established that
only 9% or 16,800 acres would be developed, and the rest would remain in agriculture and
conservation. She said the Restudy should consider Environmental Advisory Council
recommendations generated during the Five Year Review, most importantly the issue of credits
that exceeded the original RLSA program, because she said the proliferation of credits or
incentives would contradict the integrity of the 2002 program.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 335 of 518
Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives
January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 16
She expressed concern of water supply impacts to the Lower Hawthorne aquifer. She referenced
a 2016 report by the University of Florida, the Florida Department of Agriculture and 1000 Friends
of Florida titled the “Water 2070 Report,” which examined water availability and needs of people,
agriculture, and the environment. She said much has changed since the original RLSA was adopted
and the Five Year Review was published. She referenced three studies by panther experts that
identify areas in the RLSA that are essential for the survival of the panther. She referenced new
water studies including the 2016 Water 2070 Report. She said the new information and other
changes like climate change, increased traffic, and population growth need to be factored into a
new proposal.
Following Ms. Nycklemoe’s conclusion, Kris Van Lengen apologized that no time remained for
speakers from the audience because the room must be cleared before 9:00 p.m. He said the next
meeting will be at 4:00 p.m. in the same room, four weeks from today. He said anyone who had
submitted a speaker slip will get priority to speak at the next meeting, and the time limit for
speaking will be extended. In response to an audience question about changing the start time of
the next meeting, Mr. Van Lengen said the Oversight Committee will be polled to determine
whether to change the start time.
The meeting concluded at approximately 8:45 p.m.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 336 of 518
Meeting Summary
RLSA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting
General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA
February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM, North Collier Regional Park, Exhibit Hall
Kris Van Lengen opened the meeting at 4:15. He appreciated those in attendance and said the
County will continue working on getting more people to attend the meetings going forward.
(Note: The meeting room was arranged with ten roundtables, each identified by a different color.
Each attendee was assigned randomly to a table, forming groups at each roundtable.)
Mr. Van Lengen acknowledged Johnson Engineering team members for helping with the logistics
of this RLSA Restudy meeting and the meetings going forward, including Laura, Ashlynn, Josh and
Marina. Mr. Van Lengen introduced Amanda Evans, a professor at FGCU with broad experience
including facilitation.
Dr. Evans described her role to facilitate dialogue. She explained her background is in mediation
and facilitation. She has also taken students to Tallahassee every session for nineteen years to
work with legislators on policy issues. She said she’s also a native Floridian but does not own land
in Collier County, does not live in Collier County, and does not have interests in the RLSA Restudy
process. Therefore, she is a neutral party, and she is not emotionally involved in the process. She
is only involved to get the conversation going. She described how the study process involves
gathering data, and as a researcher, she sees the data and outcomes being derived from the
participants. During the evening, questions or comments or feedback will be welcomed. She
agreed with comments from attendees that working groups could be combined to make them
more robust.
Mr. Van Lengen conveyed that Dr. Evans’ experience is extensive, with very interesting research
projects she has conducted. He then described the agenda. He announced there will first be time
for speakers who had submitted speaker slips at the January RLSA Restudy meeting. Their names
will be called in order and they will be given the time they need to speak. Mr. Van Lengen said he
will then give an overview of the RLSA process, including how the program works. He said he’ll
give a quick tour of website to identify pages to help with finding material online. Then the
meeting will move into group exercises meant to review Group 1 policies which are the basic
purposes of the RLSA. He said the group exercises will be somewhat experimental, and a couple
of policies will be assigned for the groups to discuss.
Mr. Van Lengen called the public speakers’ names as follow:
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 337 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting – General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA
February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 2
Gaylene Vasaturo
Ms. Vasaturo explained that there are several topics that are important to the decision making on
changes to the RLSA program. She said some additional topics should be included as topics of
workshops, including:
1. Water resources – Impacts of new development to water resources must be discussed. She
said the Growth Management Plan should be revised to include explicit policies to protect water
resources considering all those living downstream from the proposed RLSA development. She said
Rural Lands provide water storage and groundwater recharge that is important to our water
quality, water supplies and flood protection.
2. Natural resources index (NRI) – She said the County should discuss Group 1 Policies 1.8 and 1.9
concerning the NRI. This was developed by Wilson Miller in 2000 and should be revised to
consider new information from two panther studies and the 2008 panther recovery plan. She said
the 2002 NRI assigned a low resource value to agricultural lands and disturbed lands which affects
the number of credits for those lands and affects what lands are determined to be preserved. She
said Wilson Miller noted in 2000 that panther use of agricultural land was not well understood and
acknowledged the science would continue to evolve. She said in Willson Miller’s 2002 study, they
referenced ongoing computer modeling of potential habitat and the updated Panther Recovery
Plan by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. She said we now have the 2008 Panther Recovery Plan
and two other studies by panther experts. She said we now know that the active agricultural fields
and open areas in some cases are highly valuable to panthers. Portions have been identified as
primary panther habitat, and all studies and reports agree that primary panther habitat must be
preserved for long term survival of the panther. She said revision to the NRI should be discussed.
3. Infrastructure – She said workshops should include discussion of infrastructure. She asked what
will be required to meet Level of Service requirements for roads, schools, wastewater treatment
plants, and water plants? She asked what will infrastructure cost, and who will pay? She said the
costs will impact all Collier County residents, and it should be discussed in workshops, so all can
participate.
Michael Seef
Mr. Seef asked about transportation issues and associated costs, and who will pay these?
He said population is an issue that drives the plan. Population projections have been twice the
actual population increases. He said from 2015 to the present, the population increase was 35%
lower than anticipated, so population has not been growing as fast as people thought it would.
Since population drives decisions, the population growth needs to be right and worked out early
in the process, not as an afterthought. He said realistic projections are needed. The bureau that
provides long range projections (BEBR) is a usual source for population figures. He said we also
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 338 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting – General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA
February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 3
need to understand how many households will be formed, considering 2.1 or 2.2 people per
household. He said we need to make sure 20% or so of seasonal people are accounted for. He
said population should be addressed early in the study, not as an afterthought. Density issues also
relate to population. He questioned how dense the new towns will be, Rural Lands West and Ave
Maria, for example? He questioned if there will be more sprawl like the current Naples metro area
repeated in the Rural Lands? He said demand is demand, but part of the RLSA will be a denser
population.
Mr. Seef said the County’s CGI model can determine roads and transportation, which was a
weakness in the earlier work because there aren’t accurate costs identified for transportation.
The County’s urban area will end up paying through fees or taxes for the new proposed
infrastructure for the new proposed towns. He is hoping the CGI model will give guidance on
infrastructure and costs.
Bonnie Michaels
Ms. Michaels said the information shared at the meetings is important, and not enough people
are attending. She said there are not enough people in attendance representing the whole
population. She asked about recording of the meeting, and Mr. Van Lengen responded there is
an audio recording. She said it is really important to have a recording, because she would like to
refer back and listen to the meeting. People who can’t attend should be able to have the frame
of reference. She said Mr. Van Lengen’s presentation should be online so people have a chance
to learn from it.
Dr. Judith Hushon
Dr. Hushon described that she chaired the Environmental Advisory Council for Collier County
during the last review (Five Year Review). She said she participated in hearings and attended all
the pre-sessions. She grew familiar at the end of the whole process. She highlighted her desire
to discuss whether the RLSA plan is working. She specified that the question relates to the 2002
plan, and asked whether it is working. She suggested that there are ways that it is working and
ways it is not working, and the ways that it’s not working need to be looked at.
She said agricultural land usage has decreased over 30% since 2002. The purpose of the RLSA plan
was to encourage smart development while ensuring agricultural lands remained and were
protected and that incompatible uses were directed away from wetlands and uplands to protect
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 339 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting – General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA
February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 4
water resources and wildlife. She reiterated that agricultural lands have declined. Areas were
identified that were environmentally sensitive, yielding credits from 15 sending areas, allowing
28,233 acres of development that is registered. She said development was only to occur on 16,800
acres according to the original plan. One town has been built on 5,000 acres that can be doubled,
with several others being planned. She said 4,000 acres are in phase one of Rural Lands West,
which can be doubled. She said Alico has 778 acres, Hogan Mine has 1,200 acres, and this all adds
to over 19,000 acres already planned or beginning to be planned.
Dr. Hushon said there is a total of about 95,000 acres not in conservation areas in the eastern
lands. She said the panther protection team has published results and defined primary and
secondary habitats to be set aside for foraging or breeding. She said this needs to be accounted
for in the RLSA plan. She said setting aside the primary panther habitat still allows 40,000 acres
for building and allows corridors.
She said the 2009 review (Five Year Review) was run by the landowners, which was the main
reason it failed. Taxpayers need a voice, because their dollars pay for infrastructure and their
future water needs must be met. Taxpayers must also endure traffic congestion and shortened
resources if funds are diverted eastward.
Dr. Hushon referenced that other counties have adopted different approaches for agriculture and
groundwater recharge. Charlotte and Lee Counties set aside eastern lands where development is
prohibited. She said in Collier, you can presumably build anywhere except in the Area of Critical
State Concern along the Everglades. She said each of the eight landowners wants to build a town,
and she asked whether they really have this right.
She said we need to look at how to do smart development and how to do development that pays
for infrastructure that goes into it. She said infrastructure is exceedingly expensive, which was
learned due to Oil Well Road. She said Oil Well Road went in for Ave Maria, and the County paid
for it, noting that it was supposed to be paid for by impact fees, by they were not paid. She said
taxpayers paid for it, sacrificing other projects. She said we need to make sure we’re not doing
things that don’t make sense as development moves forward.
Dr. Hushon said other counties in the country have concurrency, and Collier County does not have
concurrency. She said concurrency means development is not allowed to be built until the
infrastructure is in place. She said we want to build smart, and don’t want to jeopardize the future
of Collier County.
Scott Boyd was called as the final speaker. He was not present.
Mr. Van Lengen thanked participants for comments and explained this is a long process, and this
is the beginning of the outreach process. He said there will be a lot of meetings and opportunities
to speak about different topics because there are many policies involved. Mr. Van Lengen noted
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 340 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting – General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA
February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 5
that his presentation is a basic run through of how the RLSA program works, and that an expanded
version of the presentation is available on the website.
Mr. Van Lengen mentioned the RLSA program history, starting with the 1999 Final Order by the
state saying the County was not doing enough to protect natural resources. The RLSA plan began
in 2000 and wrapped up with the 2002 Board of County Commissioners’ adoption of the RLSA
overlay. In 2004 the town of Ave Maria was approved. In 2006 the Big Cypress Stewardship Area
was approved in terms of the Community Development District (CDD). In 2007 the Five Year
Review began, which was required by the original legislation. The Five Year Review wrapped up in
2009 with a report to Board, and none of recommendations were adopted for a number of
reasons. The Five Year Review involved a lot of important study, data and analysis from that period
which is important to use and update for this project. He said in 2015, the Rural Lands West
application was submitted for a new Stewardship Receiving Area west of Ave Maria, and this still
in staff review, not at the public hearing process yet.
Mr. Van Lengen explained that the Restudy is an effort to find what works and doesn’t work, and
how well the program works and is balanced. Balance between agricultural viability,
environmental protection, and responsible growth is the key so the economic prosperity of the
region can be enhanced. Sometimes these things work together and sometimes they don’t, and
the tradeoffs need to be considered when reviewing policies.
Mr. Van Lengen highlighted the RLSA overlay map adopted as part of the Future Land Use Element
of the Growth Management. The map shows the original plan provided the most important
environmental assets to be protected – blue areas are flow way stewardship areas, green areas
are habitat stewardship areas, and light blue areas are water retention areas, which are all
important environmentally. White areas are called open areas, which are important for
agriculture, and where towns villages and hamlets can be built.
Mr. Van Lengen said the private ownership occupies 186,000 acres. Environmental protection
targets are at 91,000 acres. Open areas are slightly more than half (roughly 95,000 acres), which
are areas where towns and villages can be built.
Mr. Van Lengen explained that credits are the currency of the program. Stewardship credits can
be derived from high value areas. The value of areas as higher or lower can be debated. The
application process allows an applicant to recalibrate the values. The values are Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) based. Credits are sold to developers or builders for rooftops after
removal from habitat or stewardship areas.
Mr. Van Lengen described the stewardship credit worksheet, which can be perplexing to most
people because it looks complicated. He said the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) process
involves trading dwelling units from one place to another. The RLSA program is a more
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 341 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting – General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA
February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 6
complicated two-step process. He noted the worksheet will be on the County website and is
provided on a display board in the meeting room.
He described the various elements that create the Natural Resource Index (NRI), including soil,
groundcover, habitat values, and water resource values. He described a typical score of 1 to 3
when all elements are tallied together on an acre by acre basis. The second part of the worksheet
is the land use layers. The owner decides how many layers to remove from a property. L ayers
removed from the property give a multiplier, with a maximum multiplier of 1 if all layers including
conservation are removed. Most sending areas have been submitted with layers removed down
to Agriculture 1 or 2. He explained the first layer constitutes the removal of residential dwelling
units, yielding a 0.2 multiplier. The more layers removed, the more credits an owner gets. Other
layers include conditional uses, mining, active agricultural (versus passive grazing).
Mr. Van Lengen gave an example of a 500-acre parcel with an average NRI score of 1.8, which is a
relatively good score. He described the removal of layers down to grazing for cattle. The formula
for the owner to determine stewardship credits would be the multiplier x 1.8 x 500 acres, yielding
810 stewardship credits. The stewardship credits are divided by 8 to determine the number of
acres that could be developed. Early entry bonuses and restoration bonuses are another factor in
the equation. He noted this worksheet and presentation explaining the credit formula is online.
Mr. Van Lengen described Ave Maria as an example. The developers of Ave Maria set aside 16,000
acres of sending areas in easements, mostly habitat areas along the Camp Keais Strand and the
Okaloacoochee (OK) Slough. To get the stewardship credits, the easements require the owners or
designees to maintain the areas in perpetuity in agricultural use or in conservation. This is done
with no cost to the taxpayer.
Mr. Van Lengen gave an example of a challenge in establishing protection and maintenance of
high quality habitat areas in perpetuity. The North Belle Meade area in the Rural Fringe District
has high environmental importance but is vulnerable to development because there are no
easements provided for. The idea of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Transfer of Development Rights
(TDR) program was to convey ownership of sending lands to a government agency. The County
sought out agencies to take ownership of the lands, but no agency was willing and there is a lot of
reluctance by the County to take ownership because it’s costly to restore and maintain long term.
The 3,000 acres is estimated to cost $12 million for establishing and maintaining the lands in
conservation over a five year period. Apply similar costs to 90,000 acres, and the costs are quite
large. He summarized that the RLSA program accomplishes the removal of the development rights
afforded by the Agricultural zoning from sensitive lands, and moves those rights to areas using
smart growth principles (which will be reviewed during the Restudy) and in the process yields a
no-cost benefit of having the sending areas being protected in perpetuity by the owners under
easements.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 342 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting – General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA
February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 7
Mr. Van Lengen said today’s conditions reveal that out of 91,000 acres of highest value areas to
be protected, 50,000 acres are protected (some of which are conditionally approved). To protect
the remaining areas, more credits are assumed to be forthcoming.
In open areas, Mr. Van Lengen explained, conservation is still allowed, and easements are allowed
for agriculture, but the NRI values are low so there is no incentive, thus less than 1% of those lands
are currently protected. Mr. Van Lengen said the County will not be allowing the entirety of the
95,000 acres of open land to be developed with SRA development. The open areas outside of
SRAs are vulnerable to underlying zoning, which is Agricultural zoning with development rights of
1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. This was a big concern during the Five Year Review and a big concern
of staff. He said the resulting development pattern would be sprawl, and the County wants to
protect open areas that won’t be SRA development from such a result.
As an aside, Mr. Van Lengen pointed out that a large initiative of the County’s restudy effort is the
Immokalee Area Master Plan Restudy that just began. He said this is important because so much
social equity can be achieved through redevelopment, and there is a lot of synergy between the
RLSA areas and Immokalee. Complimentary land uses are a major theme to be aware of. He
explained that if agriculture is healthy in the Rural Lands, it’s healthy for Immokalee’s people and
economy. Immokalee is considered a possible hub of industrial and high-tech companies. There
are problems with low income housing and a lack of working family housing to the extent there
are no homes available for $100-200,000 suitable for younger workers. The idea of enticing
businesses to locate in Immokalee means that the affordability and diversity of housing can be
addressed in the RLSA. Rules for hamlets close to or bordering Immokalee is an idea to achieve
this synergy. Mr. Van Lengen challenged the audience to think of ways to achieve this synergy
between the future of Immokalee and the RLSA.
Mr. Van Lengen highlighted the Restudy process. The current stage is public workshops. Six public
workshops were originally scheduled, however Policy groups 3 and 4 will take two sessions each.
The question of infrastructure and fiscal impact will be a separate session. The polici es of Group
1 and the credit system will have to be revisited at the end of the process. After workshops, the
recommendations will be compiled and revisited with the public. A white paper will be taken to
the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to explain the ideas, pros and cons. Then the BCC
decides either to revisit items or to move forward to the public hearing process, which takes nine
months with public hearings at the Collier County Planning Commission, the BCC, back to the
Planning Commission, and back to the BCC. There will be lots of opportunities to weigh in and
work on making the program a better program, which is the goal of the Restudy.
Mr. Van Lengen showed how information is on the County website. He provided the email address
rlsarestudy@colliergov.net and confirmed that written comments can be submitted, and they will
be addressed.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 343 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting – General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA
February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 8
Mr. Van Lengen showed the Colliergov.net/GMPrestudies webpage. He showed the link to the
Rural Land Stewardship Area page. He showed the Workshops link which has dates, times, and
meeting documents. He said the Growth Management Oversight Committee meeting will be next
Thursday at 3:00 p.m., where workshop start times and a greater number of meetings will be
discussed. He said the fourth Thursday of the month will be used for workshops, and it’s possible
to skip summer.
He made it known that attendance at the Oversight Committee meeting is welcomed at 2800
North Horseshoe Drive.
He showed where RLSA Restudy meeting documents can be found online, including agendas,
summaries, and PowerPoints. Meeting audio will also be posted.
Mr. Van Lengen described the RLSA Library link. He said 150 different documents are available
and encouraged the public to send documents to include in the online Library.
Mr. Van Lengen pointed out the Collier County staff memo entitled “RLSA Footprint.” He said the
memo details the factual background on the RLSA footprint, including discussion of the original
intent and factual history. He welcomed all to read and send comments, criticisms, additions, and
factual challenges. He emphasized the word study means to gather the facts and then come to
conclusions, and noted the Library will include the PowerPoint that expounds upon today’s
presentation.
Mr. Van Lengen explained the purpose of arranging today’s meeting in table group format is to
work together and report out what the group finds important about the Group 1 policies. He said
it’s an experiment that allows for us to learn and improve the next time. He said the County will
post the Group 2 polices online in advance of the Group 2 policy workshop, allowing participants
to tell the County in advance which policies should be considered for discussion during the next
meeting.
Mr. Van Lengen summarized the Group 1 policies (printouts of the Group 1 policies were provided
to all attendees). Mr. Van Lengen said the NRI should be addressed at the end of the Restudy
Workshops because values and credits will be reviewed along the way.
Mr. Van Lengen explained there are two policies identified by the County for working group
discussions during today’s workshop. Policy 1.7 relates to Stewardship Sending Area (SSA)
easements. Mr. Van Lengen referenced the requirement for easements to obtain a SSA. He said
during the Five Year Review, it was recommended to include Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission in addition to Collier County and a state agency or land trust as grantees. The
question to consider is whether it helps to have more than one grantee or enforcing party for the
required easements, and whether easements are the adequate mechanism for the protection of
resources.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 344 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting – General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA
February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 9
Dr. Evans explained the group format is meant to get as many voices heard as possible. The groups
may have commonalities or divergent opinions. The forms provided for gathering group input is
divided to identify items for which the group has consensus, and actions items that are agreed
upon; and to identify non-consensus items and the barriers to group agreement. The purpose is
to gather data through the restudy process to reveal the thinking of the people who care most.
There is space on the forms provided to the work groups for adding comments or questions that
need to be probed further for discussion at future meetings. Dr. Evans advised that somebody in
each group is needed as a scribe to take notes, and somebody is needed as a speaker to report
the group’s outcomes.
The meeting attendees convened in working group discussions.
The following outcomes were presented by the groups regarding Policy 1.7:
Red and Purple group
• Consensus: Three grantees should be required: county, state, and land trust or
regional/state/national environmental non-profit.
• Non-consensus: There was not consensus on whether easements should be recorded at
time of entering them, not held in escrow.
• Action item: Amend the plan to provide for the three grantees.
Blue and Brown group
• Consensus: Limit growth and sprawl. Two grantees should be required: county and at
least one other grantee, preferably an environmental group. Easements must be in
perpetuity.
• Non-consensus: There was not consensus on easements being sufficient or not for
preservation. Selling of the development rights yielded from an easement still results in
sprawl. An easement is a transfer of development rights. If the county purchases the
easements, then the property owner should not be transferring any development rights.
• Barriers to consensus: If a property owner got a tax credit for easements instead of
transferring development rights, there was concern the owner’s tax credit would not be
enough to compensate for the development rights. Possibility of the County buying the
easements to conserve the land and avoid the area becoming Fort Lauderdale or Miami in
20 years.
Grey and Pink group
• Consensus: Update NRI science, e.g. panther data and shallow wetland science.
Easements in appropriate areas are appropriate mechanisms to permanently protect high
value environmental lands, as well as transfer title to County or state is also adequate. An
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 345 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting – General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA
February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 10
additional entity for a total of three to monitor and enforce the easement is needed to
ensure the easement is not going to terminate.
• Barriers to consensus: Not enough time for such a complex issue. The formulas and ratios
should change as science updates (panther and shallow wetlands). Easements depend on
credits. Credit system is arbitrary, so those values should be discussed. The topic of
easements is not a good starting point for discussion.
Green and White group
• This is a diverse group, and they could not answer the questions. There’s a difference in
knowledge of easements among the group. Those with easements were trying to explain
to the group. Adequacy to protect depends on the terms of the easement. Is the easement
enforceable? None of the information needed was provided. The group sat and looked at
an easement, which was helpful, but it’s hard to answer the question. They understand
RLSA easements are similar but customized. More information was needed for members
of this group to complete the exercise.
Dr. Evans then announced the next policy will be discussed by the working groups. Mr. Van Lengen
explained Policy 1.15 relates to the action by the Board of County Commissioners to approve or
deny a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) through a resolution by a simple majority vote (3 of 5
commissioners) versus an ordinance by a supermajority vote (4 of 5 commissioners). Mr. Van
Lengen explained that the RLSA Overlay itself is a zoning action that required a supermajority vote
because it determined the types of development and densities and intensities allowed in the RLSA
area. After that zoning action, the implementation or consideration of an SRA is by resolution.
Florida Statutes indicates that SRAs should be done by resolution. On the other hand, Mr. Van
Lengen pointed out that SRAs are a lot like Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) around the County,
which are zoning actions that are subject to approval by a supermajority vote.
Mr. Van Lengen explained this issue of the simple majority versus super majority voting
requirement went to nonbinding arbitration in 2010 because the County felt the similarity to the
PUD process correlated to a supermajority vote being appropriate for SRAs. The Arbitrator’s
finding was that a resolution approved by simple majority vote was sufficient for SRA approvals.
Mr. Van Lengen noted that given the provisions of Florida Statutes, it may or may not be possible
to impose a supermajority requirement for SRA approval. He pointed out that all answers derived
during workshops will require another layer of scrutiny by lawyers at the end.
Mr. Van Lengen posed the questions to the working groups: should SRAs require simple or super
majority approval by the Board of County Commissioners? Are there other alternatives to ensure
responsible development? Are the Florida Statutes informative?
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 346 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting – General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA
February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 11
An audience member asked if there are criteria for SRA approval that the BCC will consider, like
the criteria that applies to a PUD? Mr. Van Lengen replied the SRA process itself is like a PUD, and
there are requirements including a master plan and supporting data.
The question was asked, what criteria is used as the basis for approval? Mr. Van Lengen replied
that it is like a PUD – a lot of data and information is submitted and reviewed by staff, then staff
makes recommendations that are considered by the Planning Commission and the BCC.
An audience member said it would be helpful if the County will post the Arbitrator’s decision and
the relevant State Statute on the website. Mr. Van Lengen said the staff will do so.
The meeting attendees convened in working group discussions.
Amanda announced there is a form for attendees to identify personal views of the purpose of the
Restudy.
Group Presenters on Policy 1.15
Grey and Pink
• Non-consensus: Could not reach consensus on whether three or four commissioners
should be required to approve an SRA. All but one in the group felt it was vital to have
four. The rationale for three commissioners was to incentivize landowners and that the
program is “prescreened” via the overlay that identified the best areas for development.
• Barrier to consensus: Disagreement on whether Ave Maria is a success.
Purple
• Consensus: Super majority should be required for all approvals.
• Barriers to consensus: Not enough knowledge base to ensure alternatives that result in
responsible development.
Red
• Non-consensus: Could not reach consensus on simple majority versus super majority.
• Barriers to consensus: Loss of DRI requirement is an issue.
Blue and Brown
• Consensus: The County should be consistent with State Statute, and the simple majority
should remain.
• Non-consensus: Could not reach consensus on whether there is responsible growth. If the
County would buy credits and not have development rights transferred, the problem
would be solved. Need for adequate water, panther habitat issues, and infrastructure
issues translate to non-responsible growth.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 347 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting – General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA
February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 12
Green and White
• Non-consensus: Half of group felt supermajority requirement would lead to lawsuit.
Half felt if the project impacts the entire county, it should be supermajority.
Dr. Evans asked for completion of the forms for attendees to identify personal views of the
purpose of the Restudy. She asked the participants to give feedback on the work group format of
the meetings or any other comments to rlsarestudy@colliergov.net.
Mr. Van Lengen said the next meeting is on the meeting schedule for 4:00 p.m. on March 22, but
this might change. He advised that the website is the best place to look to keep apprised of the
meeting schedule.
The meeting ended at 6:10 p.m.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 348 of 518
Meeting Summary
RLSA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting
Protection of Agricultural Lands
March 22, 2018, 6:00-8:00 PM, North Collier Regional Park, Exhibit Hall
I Introduction
Kris Van Lengen opened the meeting at 6:15. He welcomed those in attendance and the meeting
will be composed of some good speakers and involvement by attendees to give feedback about
agriculture, its importance and the ways to incentivize it.
(Note: The meeting room was arranged with roundtables, each identified by a different color. Each
attendee was assigned randomly to a table, forming groups at each roundtable.)
Mr. Van Lengen presented the agenda, beginning with opening comments by Dr. Amanda Evans
who will provide and her perceptions from the last meeting. Mr. Van Lengen will then go over
housekeeping items, followed by Dallas Townsend, a member of the Florida Agriculture Hall of
Fame, who will provide history of agriculture in Southwest Florida. Dr. Calvin Arnold, Director of
the Southwest Research and Education Department of the University of Florida Institute of Food
and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) will then discuss business, technology and environmental aspects
of agriculture and IFAS’s role. Mr. Van Lengen will then return to speak about the five-year review
and the recommended changes in relation to agriculture, which were never adopted. Those
recommendations are some of several ideas that may be considered to incentivize agriculture. The
agenda also includes a landowner perspective, and other landowners will have an opportunity to
share their perspectives. Finally, the working session will focus on incentives of agriculture
according to the points that are important to the audience.
Mr. Van Lengen went over the restudy process, reminding the audience that this is a long process,
and we are at the beginning of the process with public workshops to gather public input which will
last most of 2018. After public workshops, the staff will gather recommendations and present
them back to the public for comments. The staff will put the public comments and staff
recommendations into a white paper, which will be reviewed by the Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC), who will determine if enough public outreach has been done. Then they
can authorize a more formal public hearing process that involves the Planning Commission and
the BOCC for two rounds of public hearings. He noted this process is a long haul from start to
finish.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 349 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting – Protection of Agricultural Lands
March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 2
Mr. Van Lengen provided a new schedule, noting the new schedule is on a flyer provided at the
sign-in table. He said the Oversight Committee provided for a lengthier schedule for workshops
based on public suggestions. Additional workshops have been added for certain topics,
particularly infrastructure costs and water resources will be addressed in separate workshops in
August and September. After the final workshops on Group 4 and 5 policies regarding the built
environment, meetings will be scheduled for wrap-up and discussion of recommendations.
Workshop dates may change at the Oversight Committee’s next meeting in June. In case there
are schedule changes, Mr. Van Lengen encouraged everyone to visit the website
(www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies) and the associated workshop page for the latest meeting
information.
Mr. Van Lengen highlighted communication efforts, noting that the County hears the public’s
interest in getting more people participating. He said the County’s typical public notice process
has been used, including the County website, email distributions to the press and others, Naples
Daily News guest editorial, and the County Facebook page with announcements of topics and
meeting schedule. On top of these methods, the County has directly contacted 180 Civic
Associations and Homeowner Associations with flyers, however that outreach has not yielded too
many participants. Florida Weekly was included in advertising efforts, and flyers were also
included in County Commissioners’ newsletters that are communicated to constituents.
Mr. Van Lengen explained this meeting is also being filmed and will become a part of the Restudy
library and part of the County’s video-on-demand series. Video-on-demand allows the
proceedings to be viewed at the public’s convenience, and the video of the workshops going
forward will be accessible on the County’s main webpage. He noted the audio from the first
meeting was not good quality; the audio from the second meeting came out well and is posted on
the County Restudy webpage. Mr. Van Lengen thanked the County Video staff and the County
Manager’s office for providing the video support services for the workshop. He said Facebook Live
will allow this workshop and future workshops to be streamed live allowing the public to interact
with comments and questions. Mr. Van Lengen mentioned a staff member will be dedicated to
gather those comments and respond accordingly as time allows during future meetings.
Mr. Van Lengen highlighted that there will always be comment cards available at each workshop
to allow feedback, which will be logged and part of the permanent record. He said the email
address (RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov) is also a tool for providing feedback, and emails will be
part of the permanent record.
Dr. Amanda Evans reminded the audience that this is an ongoing study. She stressed the
importance of feedback from the public, noting the actions taken in response to feedback received
thus far, including the video service which allows people who are north during the summer to stay
involved. She described the importance of quantitative data based on facts and qualitative data
that adds a well-rounded picture of issues. She said her perception is that these workshops are
an important part of the qualitative data collection, because the community’s input helps put the
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 350 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting – Protection of Agricultural Lands
March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 3
“meat on the bones” of the study. She reiterated the numerous ways for providing input, including
the website. She said that all the input being written down and provided during workshops is
being captured and reviewed to inform the next meeting. For example, during group discussion
sessions of the last workshop, the feedback was that not enough information was provided for
participants to weigh in on certain subjects. In response, the agenda has been changed at this
workshop to include presentations to provide more information up front, allowing the group
sessions to be informed with more substantive background information. Dr. Evans reminded
participants that comments will be captured on the worksheets at each table. The worksheets
allow for capturing issues that the group agrees on, issues that the group does not agree on, and
other comments can be also provided on the form. She also reiterated that comment cards are
at the back of the room for anyone who is not comfortable making comments at their table or for
anyone who has to leave early. She said Facebook Live will also afford an opportunity for
comments.
Mr. Van Lengen said one feedback item from participants was that the prior workshops got too
specific too soon without enough background information. Today’s topic of agriculture allows the
opportunity for broad questions and discussion without getting into specific policies. In the future
Mr. Van Lengen anticipates the opportunity for the audience to identify the policy issues to
discuss.
Mr. Van Lengen introduced Dallas Townsend, who formerly worked for IFAS and is now a celebrity.
Mr. Van Lengen acknowledged the participation of IFAS, and noted the success of their recent
agricultural tour.
II History of Agriculture in SW Florida
Speaker: Dallas Townsend, Florida Agriculture Hall of Fame
Mr. Townsend said there is a lot to cover in a short time, like Smokey and the Bandit. He will
present the high points of agriculture in Collier County. Mr. Townsend served in Collier County as
a Livestock Agent from 1965-79 and is familiar with Collier County. Agriculture is a big industry in
Collier County. The cattle, citrus and vegetable industries generated $247 million in gross sales in
2015. The economists at the Research Center in Immokalee determined a direct and indirect
impact of over $435 million in 2014.
Collier is the largest county in Southwest Florida, but comparatively has a lower percentage of the
County in agricultural land because so much of the county is owned by the government. Nearly
one million acres is owned by the government in the Fakahatchee Preserve, Big Cypress Preserve,
Panther Habitat Preserve, and other areas.
Collier County has around 11,600 head of cattle, 73,350 acres pasture, over 29,000 acres of citrus,
and 13,700 acres of vegetables, however some are double crops so there are close to 25,000 acres
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 351 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting – Protection of Agricultural Lands
March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 4
of vegetables produced in the county. These major commodities utilize over 116,000 acres which
does not include wetlands that are within an agricultural operation, nor does it include nursery,
timber, sod or other agriculture uses.
Mr. Townsend provided a brief history of Collier County starting with 1822. Hendry and Collier
County were separated from Lee County in 1923. He presented a 1922 map depicting Lee County
as the largest county in Florida and east of the Mississippi River. He said 12,600 people were living
in Lee County at that time.
Cattle was the first major agricultural industry in Southwest Florida. Cattlemen were in the area
before 1840, and in 1840 there were 30,000 cattle shipped to Cuba from Punta Rassa. During the
Civil War this area provided around 50,000 cattle to the confederate army. Around the 1900s, no
law required cattle to be fenced. Florida was an open-range state. Brands and ear marks identified
ownership of cattle at round ups. Mr. Townsend showed an example of an old brand registration
page.
Due to the Texas Fever Tick, the state and federal government mandated a cattle dipping program
in 1923. Over 3,000 dipping vats were built in the State of Florida. Cattle had to be dipped in
pesticide to kill the ticks every fourteen days, which was expensive. The cattle dipping program
put small farmers out of business. In 1946 the tick problem was eradicated, and the cattle dipping
program ended. Mr. Townsend displayed the Jerome dipping vat on an aerial photograph from
1940, noting the dipping vat is still there.
Mr. Townsend explained that screwworms became a problem for the cattle industry in the 1930s.
The female screwworms laid eggs on the umbilical cord of calf and at flesh upon birth, killing the
calf. Research showed that female screwworms mated once and died. Mass produced sterile
male screwworms eradicated the problem during a two-year program from 1957-1959.
Mr. Townsend presented maps of Collier County showing the geographic coverage of the cattle
industry in 1923-1996. He said that cattle reached 40 cents per pound in the 1940s. In 1949
Florida passed the “no fence law” so Florida was no longer an open range state, and major freezes
in 1951 and in the winter of 1957 and 1958 killed thousands of cattle. In 1952, cattle prices
crashed to 10 cents per pound because the quarantine in Mexico was lifted, allowing millions of
heads of cattle to come across the border in eight months. By 1973, the price of cattle raised to
80 cents per pound, and two years later prices dropped to 15 cents per pound. He summarized
that the cattle industry has had its ups and downs.
Mr. Townsend said that several freezes between 1977 and 1989 caused the citrus and vegetable
industries to expand, reducing the land available for the cattle industry. This results in around
11,000 head of cattle now compared to 40,000 in 1975.
The timber industry was short-lived for about 28 years between approximately 1928 through
1956. Pine and cypress timber was harvested by large companies. The town of Copeland was
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 352 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting – Protection of Agricultural Lands
March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 5
created by a timber company. Mr. Townsend showed a map of Copeland in 1953, depicting the
railroad trams used to transport harvested cypress timber through the Fakahatchee swamp. The
tram road is located where Alligator Alley is today. It takes a long time for cypress trees to grow
enough in size for harvesting, which led to the end of the timber industry in the 1950s, with the
exception of some mulch and some pulpwood.
Mr. Townsend said the vegetable industry started in 1873 in Everglades City. Sugar cane and
pineapple was grown in Everglades City and Marco Island. During that time vegetables had to be
grown on the coast or river because of the lack of interior roads. In 1921, the railroad made its
way to Immokalee. In 1928, the Tamiami Trail was completed, and State Road 29 reached
Everglades City spurring commercial operations. In 1929, tomato farming also began in Ochopee.
He showed maps of farm fields around Ochopee, Monroe Station, Copeland, and Deep Lake in
1940. He said farmers used Ochopee prairies with little clearing and mules. Soils were naturally
warm, there were very few frosts, and vegetables (mostly tomatoes) were grown mostly in the
spring due to the wet weather. There was no irrigation or water control. Weeds and diseases
made production nomadic. Between 1928 and 1955, there were over 35,000 acres in the area of
Ochopee, Monroe Station and State Road 29 being farmed. Very little evidence of that can be
seen today.
Before World War II the soils in the pine and palmetto woods areas were highly acidic with a ph
of 4.5 or less. However, research showed that adding limestone or high calcium lime to the soil
could raise the ph and allow vegetables to grow. There was a massive use of this type of terrain
for farming after World War II.
In 1949, Collier County created the Extension Service. In 1955, the Collier Development
Corporation and Atlantic Land Improvement Company donated 320 acres for the research center
that is in Immokalee, now known as the Southwest Florida Agriculture Research Center, which Dr.
Calvin Arnold now directs.
Mr. Townsend explained in the early 1960s, pine and palmetto flatwoods were abundant but they
were rocky, not accessible, poorly shaped, and clearing cost was expensive. Soil fumigation and
mulch culture had to be developed in the 1960s.
Between 1940 and 1979, roughly 175,000 acres of palm and palmetto woods was cleared by the
vegetable industry of Collier County. Most was cleared before 1970. The vegetable acreage has
remained stable in the last ten years, with around 25,000 acres of vegetable farming remaining
(with actual production land area of 13,000 to 15,000 acres).
Mr. Townsend said that citrus is another large industry that arrived in Florida early. Prior to the
freezes of December 1894 and February 1895, Marion County, Florida was the center of citrus
farming. Citrus groves had been planted along the Caloosahatchee River and at Orange River in
Fort Myers, and they survived these freezes. Shortly after 1900, a 200-acre grapefruit grove was
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 353 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting – Protection of Agricultural Lands
March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 6
planted at Deep Lake Hammock north of Everglades City. Fruit was hauled by ox cart to the Barron
River and shipped by barge to Fort Myers for packaging and shipment to market. Mr. Townsend
showed a 1940 aerial photograph depicting the grapefruit trees that remained at that time,
however the trees are not evident today.
Mr. Townsend displayed a 1922 map that showed the Deep Lake Railroad that hauled grapefruit
to Everglades City. Before 1914, a grove was planted in Immokalee, part of which still exists as
part of the Roberts Ranch property.
Citrus was historically planted on elevated hammock land or pine ridges. Research showed that
citrus could grow on flatwoods soils, and a few small groves were planted on flatwood soils in
Immokalee in the early 1960s. Citrus expansion began with the freeze of 1962. The Collier
Company and Turner Corporation each planted around 1,000 acres near Immokalee in late 1960s.
Major freezes of 1977, 1981, 1983, and 1989 prompted large expansion of citrus acreage in
southwest Florida. In 1960 there was very little citrus, and the peak year for citrus was 2000 with
35,000 acres of citrus groves. There has been a reduction since then due to canker and citrus
greening disease.
Mr. Townsend said the agriculture industry has been significantly impacted by major purchases of
land by the government. The federal and state government purchased over 910,500 acres of land
in Collier County for the Big Cypress Preserve and panther habitat in the 1970s and 80s, which
adds up to approximately 71% of the county. At the time the land was mostly swamp.
By 1994 the Big Cypress Preserve and Fakahatchee Strand had been purchased. In 2003 the
government started purchasing good agricultural production land in Hendry County. Government
purchase of good agricultural land has taken a toll on the agricultural industry.
Mr. Townsend summarized that it was the agricultural industry in Southwest Florida that made
this area habitable. This area is the only place in the continental United States where the vegetable
crops grown here can be grown in the winter.
Mr. Townsend stated that government regulations are often imposed on farmers with little
scientific basis. Environmental concerns have been impactful to the agriculture industry including
water supply, water quality, wildlife habitat preservation, and free trade agreements such as
NAFTA. He noted that this particular agreement nearly put all small vegetable farmers out of
business. There were 60 tomato growers in Immokalee, and now it would be hard to count seven
tomato growers.
Mr. Townsend said food safety regulations have become a serious issue. Consumers want very
clean, wholesome foods so a farmer must hire a third party to confirm sanitary conditions in the
field. If a wild animal fecal sample is found it becomes a problem. These are expensive issues that
drive the exporting of our food production to other countries. Several years ago the United States
became a net importer of food. Less than 1% of imported food is inspected, and quality and food
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 354 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting – Protection of Agricultural Lands
March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 7
safety is no longer under our control. The last ten years has seen an increase of serious illness due
to imported foods.
III Business, Technology and Environmental Factors in Agriculture
Speaker: Dr. Calvin Arnold, UF/IFAS Southwest Florida Director
Dr. Calvin Arnold said he is a fifth generation Floridian. His family still operates a cow-calf
operation in Okeechobee.
Dr. Arnold said the University of Florida has a role in southwest Florida and Collier County
agriculture. Like Florida Gulf Coast University, he said University of Florida is here and prepared
to assist in the restudy process in any way possible. Fritz Roka has been participating and was not
able attend today.
Dr. Arnold introduced the new natural resource economist, Dr. Tara Wayde, who is involved in
research of the interface between commercial agriculture and natural resources. Dr. Arnold
acknowledged that Dr. Mike Martin, President of Florida Gulf Coast University, is a great resource
and has a lot of knowledge about the agriculture industry.
Dr. Arnold said he is talking about the IFAS Center because many people have probably not visited
the center or did not know it was in Immokalee. The IFAS Center is strategically located in the
middle of Southwest Florida amidst the agricultural lands being discussed. The University of
Florida IFAS has been committed to agriculture for over 70 years. Collier Development
Corporation donated 160 acres and Alico donated 160 acres, comprising the 320 acres at the IFAS
research and education center operating today.
The IFAS Center was officially established in 1986 as research and education center, however the
presence goes back to the 1950s. Today there are over 80 employees with an annual operating
budget of $11 million per year that is comprised of state funds, contracts and grants. The center
is located one mile north of Immokalee on Highway 29.
Dr. Arnold shared the mission statement: “Generating new technologies to help agriculture
industry be profitable and successful.” For agriculture to be sustainable, not only must it be
profitable, but it also must maintain a compatible interface with the natural environment. A lot of
IFAS research is focused on the interface with natural resources.
The bulk of the Center’s research is focused on citrus and vegetable commodities. A lot of different
vegetables are grown in this area, with tomatoes and green peppers being the largest contributors.
The citrus industry has gone through hard times for the last 10-15 years with constant urban
encroachment and disease such as canker and citrus greening. While canker is a serious issue,
citrus greening is a larger problem because citrus greening will kill the tree. Hurricanes have added
to the plight, making it difficult to be profitable in the citrus industry.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 355 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting – Protection of Agricultural Lands
March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 8
Dr. Arnold shared the resources of the Center, including 13 research/extension program faculty
members who specialize in topics related to the environment and agriculture. The staff works to
reduce pesticides applied to crops and increase biological control. The Precision Agriculture
Engineer has a primary objective to improve efficiency and reduce the cost of agricultural
production, which helps incentivize the industry. The focus is on natural protection as well, with
efficiency of spray applications, etc.
Dr. Arnold said there are currently five County Extension faculty in Collier County. Matt Krug is a
new state specialized agent in food safety, which is a big issue for vegetable growers and citrus
growers. Regulations needs to be sensible and logical.
There is a groundbreaking ceremony in Immokalee next Wednesday from 10:00 – 2:00 for the new
culinary accelerator at the Immokalee Airport. Matt Krug, Food Safety Specialist, will be managing
food quality assessment lab for the accelerator. This will serve the entrepreneurs looking to
commercialize food products, such as sauces.
Dr. Arnold said development of best management practices (BMPs) is important to IFAS. The BMP
program for all agricultural industries statewide is under the direction of a faculty member in
Immokalee, Dr. Kelly Morgan.
Dr. Arnold said Dr. Wade started conducting research to better understand the economics of
BMPs. Asking farmers to carry out practices must be economical for the farmer, otherwise it is
not a realistic BMP.
Dr. Arnold explained that water farming is storage of water on agricultural lands. Florida has about
55 inches of rainfall per year. That rainfall needs to be stored because it pollutes estuaries. Storing
fresh water inland helps the public collectively. Payment for Environmental Services (PES) is
storing rainfall inland. If landowners are expected to store water on their farmland then it’s
realistic they should be paid for it. This program involves dispersed waters, not large reservoirs.
It makes the owner’s land wetter, increases the water level which creates less land for cattle and
decreases vegetable and citrus production, which all equates to lost income. Compensation is
based on per acre-foot of land for the loss of agriculture production. Dr. Arnold suggested that
the RLSA Study group should look at and consider the option of water farming and the PES
program.
Dr. Arnold said the IFAS Water Resource Engineer Dr. Sanjay Shukla is a foremost researcher in
water storage. Currently there are around seven or eight landowners involved in PES. Dr. Shukla
has been working on delineating the watershed around Lake Trafford and has discovered some
discrepancies. Improvements are being made in the watershed.
Dr. Arnold referenced biological control of pests is important. He estimated that 90% of all citrus
in Florida has a micro sprinkler system. A lot of water conservation is achieved through micro
sprinklers rather than flooding the entire field, which in turn provides frost protection. Frost
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 356 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting – Protection of Agricultural Lands
March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 9
protection is provided through heat effusion. First water is sprayed over the trees before the
freeze event, creating ice on the tree. Water continues to be sprayed until the ice melts off the
entire tree. The conversion of water to ice releases heat to save trees if the water is turned on
early before a freeze.
Dr. Arnold’s closing remarks focused on the value of retaining agriculture. He reminded that the
majority of natural areas are already owned by the government, and there is not much agricultural
land left. Whatever is proposed, it needs to be economically feasible for the agricultural
landowner. Water is the common denominator and is really important to agricultural landowners.
Cutting water supplies for agricultural operations will not be sustainable. Regulations are needed
in society, but they need to be moderate and realistic for agriculture. Regulations have skewed to
the unrealistic zone and balance is needed for agriculture to be economically viable.
An audience member asked the question, “What is the source of funding for IFAS?” Mr. Arnold
responded that state funds, federal funds, and grants support the Center, and reiterated that IFAS
is an agency of the University of Florida, which is an agency of the state of Florida. He said of the
base budget is about 40% coming from higher education funding from the state of Florida to UF
passed through to IFAS. Faculty has worked hard preparing grant proposals and contract
proposals. Federal grants come from the United States Department of Agriculture and Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Funds also come from private companies.
Money from a private company must be compatible with the mission of the center. Approximately
60% of funding comes from private contracts and grants.
Another audience member asked, “In relation to water storage on farm lands, is the water then
used for irrigation in dry season?” Dr. Arnold responded that normally the water would not be
pumped back and used for irrigation. Depending on the design of the individual system, it is
possible. He reiterated it not a big reservoir. He said it is also worth mentioning phytoremediation.
Plants are used to improve the quality of water. The Water Management District tries to
accomplish this through stormwater treatment areas, and agriculture does a lot of
phytoremediation, or cleaning of the water, in addition to storage.
The final question asked by the audience was, “Is IFAS undertaking specific studies within the
RLSA?” Dr. Arnold responded that the BMP research is conducted in the agricultural production
fields. Ron Hamil added that a wildlife study was conducted, and Dr. Arnold said Dr. Frank Mazzotti
is the UF wildlife specialist whose research team documented wildlife in the agricultural
production areas in the late 1980s. Research was also done by Dr. Marty Main on the Florida
panther in conjunction with agriculture.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 357 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting – Protection of Agricultural Lands
March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 10
IV Open Lands: Agriculture, SRAs and Baseline Zoning
Speaker: Kris Van Lengen, Collier County
Mr. Van Lengen noted that Mr. Paul Meador will have time to speak as a landowner about the
future of agriculture, and time will be given for other landowners to share their perspectives. Mr.
Van Lengen gave an overview, stating the 2008 Five Year Review findings were that the RLSA
program lacked incentives to support agriculture. He presented a map of current agricultural
activities (2012), which was also on display at the back of the room. Mr. Van Lengen noted the
activities mapping should be updated, and he welcomed input on any aspect of data that can be
updated. He clarified it is difficult to quantify grazing areas, but citrus and row crops are easier to
quantify.
Mr. Van Lengen said the Overlay Map is the basis for the RLSA overlay and credit system. The
colored areas are high value areas on the Overlay Map. More credits get derived from higher
environmental quality areas than what is derived from Open Areas. A lot of active agriculture
takes place in the Open Areas, so there is competition for land. The majority of high value areas
are protected with easements, and the credits derived are being used to build towns and villages.
In Open Areas, less than 1% of lands are protected. This is a problem that the Five Year Review
Committee reviewed and sought to better protect agriculture in Open Areas. In 2009 the
recommendations focused on agriculture being an appropriate use in Open Areas. He noted the
acreage for Towns, Village and Hamlets is an important topic that will not be covered today and
will be covered at a future time. He said agriculture is the most appropriate use for Open Area
lands outside of Towns, Villages and Hamlets. Incentivizing agriculture in those areas does not
necessarily require easements. Incentivization can be through creation of other incentives or
revising the underlying Agricultural zoning.
The existing Agricultural zoning allows agricultural use or residential use in five-acre ranchettes.
Five-acre ranchettes are a concern. In an economic down cycle, a landowner might sell to a
developer and subdivisions can be created. Ranchettes are not good for water or natural habitat
and are very expensive in terms of infrastructure.
During the Five-Year Review, it was reviewed how the credit system works. Mr. Van Lengen gave
an example of how 135 credits can be derived from a Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA), and 40
credits can be derived from an Open Area, which is not enough incentive for the Open Areas. It
was recommended during the Five Year Review to substitute two credits per acre for the Natural
Resource Index (NRI) to encourage retention of agriculture. The advantages include permanent
preservation of agricultural land and prevention of subdivisions that degrade the environment.
Disadvantages include more credits in the system and more development. The Five Year Review
Committee suggested changing the use of the credits in the development areas and requiring that
more credits be used. Then the system can be balanced and not create very much more
Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) development. Mr. Van Lengen said this idea was never acted
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 358 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting – Protection of Agricultural Lands
March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 11
upon by the BCC, but it’s worth considering whether the credit system should incentivize
agricultural lands as one method to protect agriculture.
Mr. Van Lengen introduced Paul Meador and advised that any other owner or operator in the
agricultural business is welcome to share comments and discuss incentives that makes sense to
them.
V Landowner Perspectives: Past and Long Term Outlook
Speaker: Paul Meador, Local Grower
Paul Meador is a fourth generation grower from Florida. His family has farmed in the Lake Apopka
area from the late 1800s until the 1977 timeframe. After 1997, his relatives started exploring
other areas to farm and in 1983 or 1984 purchased farming land in the Southwest Florida area.
Mr. Meador highlighted that all land is not good for agriculture. Collier County had some of the
best vegetable land in the world, but it no longer exists because it’s been developed. Farmers
cannot sell their land for a premium and move somewhere else. Immokalee is special for the
ability to grow winter fruits and vegetables; it cannot be replaced. As an example, Homestead is
not the fruit and vegetable growing area it used to be. After the growth of that area following
Hurricane Andrew, farming is nearly non-existent in that area today.
Mr. Meador said having agriculture in proximity to residential and commercial development
doesn’t always work. Agriculture requires intense hours, heavy equipment, traffic, and
employment, and is not always growth friendly. Residential area next to farms are not always
compatible. For example, the loud noise of spraying late at night is not compatible with residential
uses. The Meador family came to Collier County assuming the area would be rural forever, and
they now have Ave Maria nearby. He said aerial spraying is not the ideal set of circumstances for
everyone involved.
Mr. Meador said agriculture has all the risks of any business, plus mother nature, and this includes
global competition. Agriculture in Florida is under attack since NAFTA was passed. The industry’s
main competitor is Mexico due to low wages and almost nonexistent food safety oversight. Pests
and disease from all over the world impact the citrus industry. There were 900,000 acres a decade
ago, and half that acreage today. He mentioned that Hurricanes Irma and Wilma add to how risky
the business has become.
Mr. Meador said in the past a farmer could grow crops, suffer through a few bad years, but still
make a living. In today’s global market, dollars don’t add up like they used to. To start a simple
tomato or pepper crop, an investment of $10,000 per acre is necessary. Banks will not finance
this type of endeavor, so personal capital is required.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 359 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting – Protection of Agricultural Lands
March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 12
Mr. Meador said his family owns approximately 2,000 acres on Camp Keais Road and some near
Corkscew Swamp Sanctuary with a small cow-calf operation and some vegetables, but mainly
citrus.
Mr. Meador said at some point Collier County will have a limited amount of developable land, and
he asked what value will credits have at that time? He also asked what are options to liquidate
land if it is tainted or burdened with a credit system that may or may not be workable in the future?
Mr. Meador added to the water farming discussion to say that water farming allows recharge of
the aquifer. All of his properties have an engineered reservoir system to clean water and recharge
the aquifer. The system produces cleaner water and is an accomplishment.
Mr. Meador is concerned about the influence of County and public policy on the value of his land
now and in the future through the credit system. He wants to farm as many years as reasonable
or feasible. If competition, risks, and misfortunes continue, it becomes desirable to go a different
direction.
Mr. Van Lengen offered the opportunity for other landowners or operators to comments, but no
others spoke.
VI Working Session: Ideas to Incentivize Agriculture
Speaker: Dr. Amanda Evans, FGCU
Dr. Evans reiterated that feedback from the prior workshop was that more information is needed
before beginning the discussion group session, therefore more information has been presented
this evening. She said three questions are provided for group discussions:
Question 1: The RLSA program promotes natural resources, agriculture and smart growth.
On a scale of 1-10 (10 = extremely important), how important is agriculture within
Collier County? Assume that you will be asked to rank natural resources and smart
growth on the same scale, in future workshops. What are the reasons for your group’s
ranking?
Question 2: Is the Group 2 Goal statement still valid, or does it need to change? (see
Group 2 Policies sheet)
Question 3: Brainstorm ideas to make agricultural stewardship work. Some options to
discuss and expand upon based on your thoughts:
• Private stewardship through transfer of development rights (stewardship credits)
• Public stewardship through County purchase of easements restricting land use to
agriculture
• Public stewardship through County-funded subsidies for agricultural operations
• Other
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 360 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting – Protection of Agricultural Lands
March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 13
Dr. Evans asked the groups to designate a scribe to record the areas where the group reached
consensus and where the group was not able to reach a consensus. Those comments will be
captured to help identify themes that emerge in these discussions.
She said the point of the exercise is the dialogue and discussion of divergent opinions.
The meeting attendees convened in working group discussions.
Dr. Evans reconvened, and the group representatives reported on their discussions as follows:
Yellow/Green/Red Group
The Yellow/Green/Red Group reached consensus that the importance of agriculture ranks as a 10.
In Collier County, conservation of agriculture is important for sustainability. The economic impacts
of undeveloped lands, conservation of water, and minimal infrastructure are the main reasons
why it is a 10.
A consensus was reached that the Group 2 goal statement needs to be changed. This group agreed
to strike-through the word “premature” in the Group 2 goal, noting there are no other incentives
to protect and preserve lands in the program goal.
An action item identified by the Group was: “Where does this actual conversion happen?” There
is a policy need for protection and smart planning to prevent urban sprawl. Include details in the
plan to incentivize agricultural land owners to keep their land.
This Group wants to consider tax benefits, cash incentives or credit incentives to preserve lands
long term and create a generally higher value for the land.
There were no barriers to consensus for this group.
Blue/White Group
The Blue/White Group agreed that the importance of agriculture ranks as a 10. The Group
reached a consensus that the goal statement is valid, except the word “premature” should be
removed. The Group agreed that agricultural land should be protected from conversion.
All ideas weren’t crystallized in this Group, however, it was agreed to establish an agriculture
advisory council (per policy 2.3) or establish a roundtable with broad-based multisector
membership to advise the BCC on how to save agriculture. Mr. Meador should participate in that
advisory board. The BCC should learn from the group of landowners, researchers and other
related experts.
The Group felt the County should prioritize where infrastructure improvements should be to
enable concentrated development in the RLSA at a higher density, noting that compact
development will leave more land for agriculture. Ave Maria and Rural Lands West do not appear
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 361 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting – Protection of Agricultural Lands
March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 14
compact. The Group indicated that the County could shape the RLSA by determining
infrastructure where development will be concentrated.
Purple Group
The Purple Group reached a consensus that agriculture is a 9 or 10. The Group is concerned that
adding more credits to a system awash in credits is not a solution to the density problem. The
density problem must be solved first before determining the value of credits. Commissioners
have the responsibility to decide where roads will go, and not determine infrastructure after towns
are proposed. Commissioners should prioritize where schools, roads, and fire departments should
go.
Pink Group
The Pink Group unanimously agreed that agriculture is a 10. It intertwines with two other qualities
completely.
This Group also agrees that the goals in the Group 2 policies are valid. This Group also had a
problem with the word “premature” for many reasons.
The Pink Group was also unanimous about incentivizing agriculture, but reached no solutions or
answers to the issue.
Grey Group
The Grey Group also agreed that agriculture is a 10.
The goal statement should be changed to revise “premature conversion.” The Group agreed that
the policies should preserve and protect agricultural lands from other uses.
The barriers to consensus were: 1) Who will pay for credits and how much? and 2) Are citizens
willing to pay for credits or pay for the land?
VIII Next Meeting and Adjourn
Dr. Evans reiterated that comments are important. She referenced the schedule of upcoming
meetings, noting there will not be meetings in June in July. She said if anyone cannot make it to
meetings, the videos will be available, and Facebook Live from the Collier County Facebook page
will allow participation. The meeting ended around 8:20 p.m.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 362 of 518
Meeting Summary
RLSA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting
Protecting Natural Resources
April 26, 2018, 6:00-8:00 PM, North Collier Regional Park, Exhibit Hall
I Introduction
Speaker: Mr. Kris Van Lengen, Collier County
Mr. Van Lengen went over the restudy process and stated that we are at the beginning of the
process with public workshops to gather public input. This public input phase will last most of 2018
and likely into early 2019. He stated the County is looking to gather input and share facts and
information in an efficient way. Once these monthly workshops are completed the County will
circle back to readdress important issues like credits. The County staff will then make
recommendations and present those recommendations to the public before bringing the
recommended changes before the Board of County Commissioners in the form of a white paper
to get their permission to move forward with a more formal proposal to the Planning Commission
and the Board of County Commissioners. To amend the Growth Management Plan it takes two
visits to each of those venues. This is the beginning a long process and everyone’s participation is
appreciated.
Mr. Van Lengen advised that May 24th is the next meeting at 6:00 p.m. The meeting focus will be
environmental issues again, focusing on panther and listed species. David Schindle, a Florida
panther expert from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is expected to speak. Mr. Schindle will be
available for questions. Mr. Van Lengen invited the audience to provide input on other topics they
would like to discuss during the May 24th workshop.
Workshops will resume in August at a new location and the topic of discussion will be
infrastructure, who pays for it, and initial impacts. Water resources, aquifer health, stormwater
health, quality, and quantity, and other water resource issues will be discussed in September. The
topic in October and November is sustainable development, Group 4 Policies, SRA receiving areas
including towns and villages, and non-SRA types of development that was discussed during the
agricultural presentation. Mr. Van Lengen suggested that there will be opportunities for
agriculture in open lands, which should be incentivized. He reminded that if the economy
changes, landowners still have base underlying zoning rights.
Mr. Van Lengen described improvements in communication and outreach to get people in the
door for workshops. The use of electronic messaging signage was a new addition for this meeting,
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 363 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources
April 26, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 2
and by a show of hands the audience indicated that the message board was successful in
encouraging attendance. Facebook Live is active for this workshop, affording those who travel a
way to tune in. Mr. Van Lengen invited the audience to comment and ask questions on Facebook.
He added that the public workshops are video recorded and accessible online, and a written
summary and PowerPoints are available on the RSLA website. Writing or emailing to the RLSA
email address is another way to comment. Every meeting also has comment cards available, and
a record of comments from group discussions is maintained.
Mr. Van Lengen described that the agriculture workshop (Group 2 Policies) revealed that retaining
agriculture within Collier County, not nearby, is a high priority. Every group rated the importance
of agriculture at least a 9 or 10 out of 10. Each group also identified that “premature” conversion
verbiage should be removed from the goal statement. Overall, the workshop participants
suggested that reduction in agriculture is undesired. Mr. Van Lengen summarized that incentives
for agriculture were suggested at the workshop, including cash incentives from the local
government, tax abatement, short term easements, and creating an agriculture advisory board to
evaluate agriculture incentives.
Mr. Van Lengen highlighted the library on the RLSA website and described how data sources have
been suggested, including Closing the Gaps in Florida Wildlife Habitat Conservation System (1994),
Fragmentation of Pine Flatwood and Marsh Communities (1997), 1000 Friends of Florida 2070
Water Report (2016), Technical Review – Florida Panther Protection Program (2009), and Florida
Panther Recovery Program (2008). He explained that public comments also included references
to “two other studies by panther experts” and a reference to “shallow wetland science.” Mr. Van
Lengen asked for the audience’s insight and assistance to gather those resources.
II Protection of Natural Resources – Group 3 Policies
Speaker: Mr. Kris Van Lengen, Collier County
Mr. Van Lengen introduced the Group 3 Policies and stated that each policy in Group 3 would be
discussed with more time spent on the important issues. He gave background information,
including the genesis of the Rural Fringe and RLSA dating back to the 1999 Final Order that resulted
from a lawsuit brought by environmental groups against the County. The result was the State
required the County to devise a plan to protect agriculture activities and protect from unrestrained
growth including protection of wetlands, protected species and wildlife habitat. There was also
an intent to direct growth to appropriate locations through creative land use and planning
techniques. The RLSA plan adopted in 2002 was the result, which has changed very little in
subsequent years.
The program balances agriculture viability, environmental resource protection, and long-term
economic prosperity goals. Mr. Van Lengen invited the audience to evaluate those goals, consider
if they are being met, and identify areas for improvement.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 364 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources
April 26, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 3
Mr. Van Lengen read the Group 3 goal statement:
“(Policies to) protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water
regime, as well as listed animal and plant species and their habitats by directing
incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat through the
establishment of Flowway Stewardship Areas, Habitat Stewardship Areas, and
Water Retention Areas, where lands are voluntarily included in the Rural lands
Stewardship Area program.”
Mr. Van Lengen noted that this is a voluntary program and landowners are not required to
participate.
The Overlay Map was presented depicting the flowways in blue, which are actually wetlands, and
which are very important to protect. The green areas are habitat stewardship areas (HSAs) where
uplands have high value for listed species. Water retention areas (WRAs) are helpful for the water
management regime; these are also important areas to protect.
Mr. Van Lengen presented the Overlay Map Acreages. He advised the reason for two sets of
numbers conveyed as acreages is because 195,000 acres is inclusive of publicly owned land and
182,000 acres accounts for privately owned land. The Habitat Stewardship Areas constitute the
largest stewardship area, followed by the Flowway Stewardship Areas, and then Water Retention
Areas and buffers. Open areas include approximately 95,000 acres. The Open Areas are the only
areas where Stewardship Receiving Areas such as towns, villages and hamlets can be built.
However, the locations where development may occur in Open Areas is not specified.
Mr. Van Lengen displayed a map of Public Lands and described that they include the
Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest and the Corkscrew area which is owned by the Water
Management District. Since the adoption of the Plan, Pepper Ranch Preserve and Caracara
Preserve have been added to public lands through Conservation Collier purchases. There are also
other areas of preservation under public ownership that need to be inventoried to ensure they
are not counted as generators of credits in the long term.
Mr. Van Lengen highlighted the rules of engagement, which he noted relates somewhat to
questions from the public that were received by his office earlier in the day. In Flowway
Stewardship Areas in order to get credit you must remove the first four layers of land uses, and
Mr. Van Lengen referred to the Stewardship Credit worksheet, noting it is difficult to understand.
The natural resource index (NRI) values, which is the sum of a number of indicators of the land
masses under consideration to get credits to put them under a conservation of some kind, or at
least down to an agricultural use, including passive agriculture or cattle grazing. The NRI values are
an accumulation of indices that indicate habitat value, soil value, water presence, vegetation
value, proximity to like areas and potential for restoration. Mr. Van Lengen went on to explain the
multiplier and how you can get a score from 0 to 3.4, and only a portion of that score is based on
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 365 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources
April 26, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 4
how many land uses you remove. The incentivized program involves more credits generated for
the removal of more land uses.
Mr. Van Lengen received the question: Why allow uses in Habitat Stewardship Areas that are not
allowed in Flowway Steward Areas, such as recreation, mining, conditional uses such as churches,
day care, and essential services? Mr. Van Lengen did not know the answer and suggested there
should be a review of the past data and then an answer can be brought back.
An audience member asked: Who decides the values of the credit system ranging from 0 to 3.4?
Mr. Van Lengen said Wilson Miller was the consultant who designed the credit rating
system and he was unsure if any sub-consultants worked on it as well.
Bruce Johnson from Stantec (formerly with Wilson Miller), responded to the question first by
recognizing Brad Cornell and Nicole Johnson in the room whom were also involved with the credit
rating system. Mr. Johnson went on to explain that Wilson Miller was hired by property owners,
but the process was directed by County staff because the County was subject to the administrative
order. The County pulled together stakeholders including property owners and environmental
groups and had a series of public meetings. The intent was providing for economic development,
the continuation of agriculture, and protection of natural resources. At the time it was deliberated
that there must be a way of inventorying and categorizing. The method or overarching objective
was to identify the areas to protect and create an incentive to protect them. The NRI scoring
system was created as an objective tool. The land use characteristics, such as soils, were identified
from USDA Natural Resources soils map. Land use cover was created on aerials and refined
through the public review process. The scoring was a consensus approach among the consultant,
property owners, environmental groups, County staff, independent observers, and members of
the public.
Nicole Johnson then stated that all data layers were from year 2000 best available science. She
also stated the Conservancy would like to see mapping updated with best available science. Dr.
Evans reiterated that this restudy process is intended to make those updates. Mr. Van Lengen
confirmed that the intent is to update the Plan, and it will be a consensus issue on how and when
the updating would occur and he defers to scientific experts. Dr. Evans, noting that speaks as an
outsider, requested that if the audience is drawing opinions or perceptions from updated science
or studies that they provide that information via email, link or disclosure of the most updated
source. She said any studies that are being referenced should be shared with the County.
Mr. Johnson stated that initial data was circa 2002 at the time of adoption. Each Stewardship
Sending Area uses the best available science as of the current date. In other words, if a landowner
applies today, they have to use today’s panther telemetry and land cover data. It’s important to
update for purposes of calculating credit generation. Applying for a Stewardship Sending Area or
a Stewardship Receiving Area uses current science.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 366 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources
April 26, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 5
Mr. Van Lengen said it’s important to update the entire overlay area because of the credit
implications.
An audience member asked: For the NRI figure of 1.2, how was it arrived at, and what percentage
of Habitat Stewardship Areas score 1.2 and below? Those values are shown in Group 3 Policies
for FSA and WRA and not HSAs.
Mr. Van Lengen responded that the County is going to find that data and put it on the RLSA
website.
Mr. Van Lengen described Policy 3.8 which deals with compensation to landowners other than the
creation of transfer of stewardship credits. Landowners can avail themselves with acquisition of
conservation easements, acquisition of less than a fee interest (such as leasehold), and other
willing buyer/seller programs. These opportunities have always existed, but are probably
mentioned because people need to know it is a voluntary program. There are other opportunities
to create conservation land without using the credit program.
Agricultural uses are referenced in Policies 3.9 and 3.10. When stewardship sending area is Active
Agricultural (Ag 1) such as row crops and orchards, you can’t increase or change other than minor
squaring and access issues. Likewise, when credits are derived from a Passive Agriculture (Ag 2)
SSA, you can’t go back to Ag 1 and create areas of row crops, etc.
A member of the audience asked: At what point can you not go back and expand Ag 1 in an SSA;
it is not clear in the policy. Is it when the SSA is first approved?
Mr. Van Lengen responded that it was intended that when Ag 1 is first approved, it’s really
the approval process. Since that time, there has been another layer of process and some
of these SSAs are now in escrow. He said the question of what happens once in escrow
should be considered in this Restudy.
The audience member clarified her question, stating: Once the SSA is approved initially, there’s a
long process of deciding whether to restore and there are pending amendments. Credits are
awarded at all different times, so specifically at what date does the limit on expanding Ag 1 area
apply? And for Ag 2, the policy says you can’t go back to Ag 1 after the credits are awarded, but
specifically what credits are we talking about because there are credits for all different things and
they are awarded at different times?
Mr. Van Lengen said only base credits are being discussed here, and not restoration credits.
This only applies to base credits.
The audience member asked: Are base credits awarded at the time the SSA is approved and the
land use layer is specified to be removed?
Mr. Van Lengen responded credits are awarded at the time the easement document is
recorded.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 367 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources
April 26, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 6
The audience member asked: Is the easement document recorded at the time the SSA is
approved?
Mr. Van Lengen responded that it is true for SSAs #1 through #9. For SSAs #10 and after
the answer is maybe. Some of those were put into escrow, which means they are not
recorded, and it is up to the landowner to wait and see whether they want to pull out or
not.
The audience member asked about pending amendments to approved SSAs #14, 15, and 16.
Mr. Van Lengen advised that the amendments relate to restoration, which is a different
issue.
The audience member asked: Is an easement established already on SSAs #14, 15, and 16?
Mr. Van Lengen responded that he wasn’t sure, but indicated those easements are in
escrow. They could change, but the applicant would have to come back with new
paperwork because the calculations would change.
The audience member asked: What policy allows escrow?
Mr. Van Lengen responded that the Board of County Commission policy allowed escrow.
Mr. Van Lengen described Policy 3.11 related to Restoration. This provides additional credits, it is
not the transfer of base credits from those areas designated as HSAs. This is a different type of
credit called restoration credits. These provide a really good service, which is restoration and long-
term maintenance by landowners in perpetuity with no public expense. Looking at the costs, such
as mitigation of $4,000 to $5,000 per acre, or Conservation Collier costs of $20,000 per acre or
$10,000 per acre in an endowment for perpetual maintenance and restoration. If these costs are
multiplied by 1,000 acres, it equates to $10 million. That money comes from landowners deriving
the credits, and not the public funds, which is positive.
Functions of restoration include functional enhancement of flowways (which may be widening of
flowways), widening and enhancement of wildlife corridors, enhancement of listed species
habitat, and creation or enhancement of wading bird habitat and creation or enhancement of
Caracara habitat. These are presented to the County as a separate application form. The process
requires an ecological expert to provide the information, it’s reviewed by County staff, GIS staff
reviews for boundaries, and then County environmental staff does a field visit to verify conditions
stated in the expert report. Mr. Van Lengen noted there is no third party review built into the
system.
Nicole Johnson mentioned that restoration credits are for restoration, but some restoration
credits are tied to not actually doing anything.
Mr. Van Lengen recognized that comment and said it will be discussed and not slip
between the cracks.
An audience member asked: Once approved, do people go out to monitor how the land has been
restored?
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 368 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources
April 26, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 7
Mr. Van Lengen responded that there are two types of credits, R-1 and R-2. One is for
dedication of restoration, and one is for performance of restoration. For dedication there
are field visits to verify field conditions.
Mr. Van Lengen clarified that the discussion this evening is focused in the colored areas of the
map. In the white areas of the map, the 5 year review committee recommended restoration
credtis or creation credits for panther corridors in the open areas. Mr. Van Lengen pointed to the
locations which panther experts recommended as critical areas. He said this will be further
discussed next month.
Mr. Van Lengen reiterated the two types of Restoration Credits are R-1 and R-2 credits. The R-1
credits are fordedication of land for restoration activities, but implementation of improvements is
not required. Just for dedicating land for restoration, there are four credits in the Camp Keais
Strand and two credits in the Okaloacoochee Slough. These areas were considered as needing
more protection because of proximity to the Area of Critical State Concern overlay.
For restoration, once local, state, or federal permitting agency success criteria are met, which is
typically five years out, the applicant gets the other four credits per acre. Then there is a perpetual
maintenance requirement for those improvements.
Mr. Van Lengen gave a summary of lands proposed for R-1 restoration and displayed a slide with
acreages, showing 11,576 acres approved and 5,418 acres proposed, totaling 16,994 acres for
restoration of flowways, large mammal corridor, listed species, wading bird and Caracara habitat.
Mr. Van Lengen explained that 55% of all potential SSA areas are designated, or approximately
50,000 acres. Almost 1/3 of areas within SSAs are designated with R-1 restoration dedication
status. Restoration Completion (R-2) acres is 428 acres. So, 2.5% of all acres dedicated for
restoration have been restored, which means the County has been advised, credits have been
awarded after five years, and the success criteria is met. County does not know why the delay for
restoration efforts, but it could be related to cash flow or that the credits are needed at a later
time. There was originally more interest by state agencies to buy or acquire land fifteen years ago
when this program was initiated. The R-1 credit does include an easement for performing
restoration and maintenance activities. The 5-year review committee recommended a schedule
of those restoration maintenance credits that were tiered based on complexity and cost. The
proposal is in the RLSA library. This is something to look at and could be pursued, or the R-1 / R-2
system could be looked at in a whole new way altogether.
Mr. Van Lengen gave the example of SSA #3, which was created in 2005. The land was a 250-acre
old farm field and pasture that could be rehabilitated and made suitable for wading bird habitat.
Due to soil types and hydrology nearby, wading bird habitat could be created with varied
elevations, ditch and swale contouring, and the property would be maintained in perpetuity. The
applicant received the dedication credits, but has not applied for restoration credits. The reason
why is unknown to the County staff, but it’s presumed that nothing has been done.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 369 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources
April 26, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 8
Mr. Van Lengen described Policy 3.12 related to flowway buffers, which states Natural Resource
Index (NRI) values in open lands within 500 feet of flowways get increased NRI values.
Policies 3.13 and 3.14 relate to water retention areas (WRAs). These areas can be used for
development purposes. The acreages used for stormwater treatment does not need to be
included in the hamlet or village areas, and landowners do not need credits to include those water
retention areas within the functional area within a town or village. He advised this topic can be
discussed further if the audience wishes. The 5-year review suggested that acreage should count
toward villages.
Mr. Van Lengen concluded the quick run-through of policies and opened the audience to questions
and the group exercise. He pointed out the worksheets and questions provided on the tables and
offered to add more questions, such as WRA question or the HSA question in terms of allowing
fewer than four layers to be removed.
Dr. Evans mentioned that questions were created for each group to discuss and then record the
areas of consensus and areas of non-consensus. With divergent opinions on land use, Dr. Evans
encouraged people to talk to each other to find the good ideas through conversation. Feedback
forms can be found at the tables and there will be other opportunities to give feedback as well.
Dr. Evans invited groups to reorganize as needed and allowed a forty-minute timeframe for group
discussion before providing feedback.
III Working Session: Importance of Preservation and Restoration of FSAs, HSAs and WRAs
Dr. Evan invited each group to choose a spokesperson and present areas they were able to reach
consensus and areas in which they were not able to reach a consensus.
Question 1
On a scale of 1-10 (10 being the highest), please rank the importance of preserving the
following target areas:
Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs)
Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs)
Water Retention Areas (WRAs)
Question 2
(a) On a scale of 1-10 (10 being the highest), please rank the importance of restoration
work within FSAs and HSAs.
(b) Given your understanding of restoration credits within the existing Overlay, what, if
anything, would you change?
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 370 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources
April 26, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 9
(c) Please identify any additional information that would help in your assessment, such as
costs or standards.
Question 3: Please discuss and report on any other Group 3 Policy that your team feels is
important to update.
Brown Group
The Brown Group reached a consensus for question 1 that HSAs, FSAs and WRAs are a 10. It’s
important to handle the development, protect the habitat, water flow and natural system and do
it appropriately because WRAs are important. For instance, Rural Lands West will have WRAs and
surround them with development, and it is important for the County to have a way to protect the
habitats and water retention.
The Brown Group reached a consensus that restoration is a 10. Only 2.5% acres have been
restored and something needs to be done to get more restoration accomplished. The LDC should
be tightened up to require successful outcomes of restoration through metrics and parameters to
show progress toward achieving results, such as the water flowing, wildlife returning and the
presence of wading birds. The Brown Group also agreed that the model used for the restoration
and all SSAs needs to be reevaluated and changed because the underlying assumptions have
changed in last 18 years. The Brown Group also suggested to reevaluate the underlying credits,
incorporate best available science, and a ratio of R-1 to R-2 should be reconsidered. Perhaps the
R-1 credit is too high and should not be equal to the R-2 credit. Restoration Credits are out of
balance. The Brown Group had no areas of non-consensus.
Orange Group
The Orange Group essentially agrees with the Brown Group, although they did not get too
detailed. The group does not understand credits, incentives, or the market. HSAs, FSAs, and WRAs
were all rated 10. The Orange Group wanted clear boundaries to maintain function of habitats
and waterways. Isolated pockets of restoration are ineffective. The Orange Group suggested to
not issue credits until restoration is complete. That might create a challenge relative to the market
and valuation, but again there was a lack of market understanding amongst the group.
Grey Group
The Grey Group representative stated it was an agreeable group. Consensus items included that
all FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs should be ranked high. Specifically, FSAs and HSAs were ranked 10, but
WRAs were ranked 9 because they are manipulated with dikes around them, but still were
considered valuable. The Grey Group suggested consideration of restoring WRAs.
The Grey Group found the restoration credit process to be unpredictable. Everyone wants
everything to be restored, but what is the implication? The Grey Group also suggested adding the
5-year review recommendations on wildlife corridors and connection areas.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 371 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources
April 26, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 10
Action items identified included updating mapping techniques. Consider adding Critical Lands and
Waters Identification Project (CLIP) data, which is state data, to map SSAs. Consider public
restoration, such as Florida Forever, Amendment 1, or public tax dollar funded restoration.
Black Group
The Black Group had similar opinions as to the other groups. The group representative identified
that they are a laypersons group of ordinary taxpayers.
Consensus was reached that FSAs and HSAs rank 10, but WRAs should be ranked 8.5 to 9.5 if they
are manmade.
The biggest concern of this group is that the credit system is inordinately complex and maybe
complex intentionally to be manipulated to benefit the group using it. It’s so complex, it seems
like funny money being generated to achieve predetermined goals. The group is not sure how to
influence the process, but these citizens feel left out of the process.
This group had a very strong agreement on their suggested action item to completely revamp the
credit system to be more clear, straightforward and honest. Using the updated science is
important. The group also suggested possibly using a nationally recognized system.
Purple Group
The Purple Group reached consensus similar to other the groups. There was a consensus that
FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs rank 10.
The Purple Group found a need to reevaluate the whole credit system. The current system usurps
the original intention of RSLA with an incredible number of credits being created.
In terms of restoration, the group suggested to close the gap between R-1 and R-2. Very few lands
have actually been restored. A time limit could be established for restoration to take place.
Credits awarded before action taken is questionable. The Purple Group questioned criteria for
restoration and determining how much needs to be restored in an area designated for restoration.
Blue Group
The Blue Group had a strong consensus that the group does not know a lot about the credit
system. The group agrees with others that FSAs, HSAs and WRAs are important and rank 10.
Protection is important and essential, but who’s going to pay for it? The credit system is an
optional market, and no money is changing hands. Until a money market exists and there is a
value, it’s a lost point.
The Blue Group expressed that there should be oversight and timetable for the credits to be
awarded, not necessarily before the work is done. There should be accountability involved with
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 372 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources
April 26, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 11
an explanation for the restoration activity benefits. Look at land being lost to both conservation
and development because it’s no longer available for agriculture.
IV Next Meeting and Adjourn
Dr. Evans thanked everyone for their participation. She said that all the comments and feedback
would be recorded and available. She invited the audience to provide feedback through comment
cards and email if there the audience had items there were not able to discuss today or thought
about later.
Dr. Evans gave a reminder for next month’s meeting scheduled for May 24 at the same venue
(North Collier Regional Park, Exhibit Hall) and mentioned that a panther expert will be speaking.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 373 of 518
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 1
Meeting Summary
RLSA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting
Protecting Natural Resources – Part 2
Emphasis on Panther and Listed Species
May 24, 2018, 6:00-8:00 PM, North Collier Regional Park, Exhibit Hall
I Introduction
Speaker: Mr. Kris Van Lengen, Collier County
Kris Van Lengen, Collier County Planning and Zoning, opened the meeting at 6:10. He said the
program will be different tonight because the working session will be sooner in the meeting to
discuss thoughts about panthers and listed species. Mr. Van Lengen gave a brief introduction and
welcomed Mr. David Shindle, Florida panther coordinator with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), and Dr. Robert Frakes, formerly with USFWS. He stated that questions for presenters
can be fielded either during or after the presentations.
Mr. Van Lengen displayed the timeline for the Restudy process, stating this is the beginning of the
process with workshop meetings scheduled through 2018, followed by Board of County
Commissioners review followed by a public hearing process to the extent there is consensus on
the recommended changes.
The next workshop meeting will be at a new location, at the South County Library (the address will
be posted on the RLSA website). The topic of the August workshop will be Infrastructure and Fiscal
Impact. For those who can’t attend there is Facebook Live and Videos on Demand for remote
attendance. The next meeting will bring in Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), impact
fee staff, people from the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and the Utilities Department
staff to talk about how infrastructure works, how it gets extended to new towns and villages, and
fiscal impacts.
Water Resources will be discussed in September, along with water quality, water quantity and the
estuary health issues. Then discussion of sustainable development and the built environment
(Policy Groups 4 and 5) will happen later in the year. Future meetings will be directed by the
Growth Management Oversight Committee and ultimately the Board of County Commissioners. It
is anticipated that the credit system will be trued-up and discussed at every single angle at that
time, and facilitation and consensus building among stakeholders will be underway in order to
make recommendations.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 374 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2)
May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 2
Facebook Live and video on demand is available for those up north or on vacation. Workshop
summaries are available on the website. Workshop feedback is documented in the Feedback
Tracker on the website, which captures all comments so far without attribution.
Mr. Van Lengen highlighted the outcomes of the last meeting. He said the last workshop revealed
many 10s (i.e., high scores) in the importance of maintaining the integrity of the restoration
sending areas, and the retaining and restoration of the habitat and flowway stewardship areas.
Mr. Van Lengen highlighted comments received on the restoration program including: a rebalance
of the restoration (R-1 and R-2) credit system, consider credits for water retention areas as part
of the restoration program, base success criteria for restoration not only on water flow or exotic
removal but also on desired wildlife outcomes, seek state and federal funding or grants, and create
a timetable for restoration completion.
Mr. Van Lengen said the additions to the RLSA library are appreciated. He referenced the following
literature that has been added: “How much is enough?”; Landscape-scale conservation for the
Florida panther, R. Kautz et.al. (2006); Landscape analysis of adult Florida panther habitat, R.
Frakes et.al. (2015); and Florida panthers v. Collier County, U.S. District Court (2012).
Mr. Van Lengen gave a reminder that the Rural Lands Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) known as
Rural Lands West is scheduled for a neighborhood information meeting on June 4 at 5:30.
Dr. Amanda Evans explained that the subject of panther habitat has come up frequently in recent
months, so the group discussion session allows for discussion of the main comments and concerns
of attendees. This helps make the best use of the speakers’ time because they will hear what the
attendees’ concerns are and can address them in their presentations. Dr. Evans thanked the
audience for rearranging seating to better distribute group size and diversity.
After a group discussion, the following comments were provided by representatives of each
working group:
Blue Group
A primary concern is to preserve primary panther zone habitat. The group wants to identify where
the primary and secondary areas of panther habitat are located. Preservation of sufficient and
viable panther corridors for north and south movement is also a concern for the group.
The Blue Group is concerned about development currently planned in primary panther habitat.
The Natural Resource Index (NRI) does not take into account the best available science. NRI
science is based on 2002 data and needs to incorporate 2006 and 2015 studies.
This group asked three questions including: 1) Is there a commitment to panther recovery issues;
2) Are there enough wildlife crossings now and planned for the future; and 3) Will panthers survive
the development in the rural lands stewardship area?
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 375 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2)
May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 3
Wildlife crossings should be an important part of the environmental permitting process. Panthers
being killed on the roads is a major issue. Wildlife crossings are not the only solution, other things
can be done.
The Blue Group members want to know if there are pathways panthers have traditionally followed
over the years. The permitting process should ensure that wildlife crossings are established,
restored, and can be scientifically viable for the panthers and their paths. How wide must the
panther corridor be to be viable for the panther, especially in the Rural Lands West development?
Grey Group
The Grey Group stated concerns about preserving habitat in Southwest Florida and Collier County
with an emphasis on creating preserved lands that are contiguous and reducing fragmentation.
This group suggested creation of buffers around habitats and planning for compatible land uses in
proximity to habitats.
Multiple corridors should link major habitats instead of one main corridor. The group members
questioned the adequate width of corridors and asked if corridors should be virgin or if other
buildings and structures would be allowed in corridors?
Specific questions for the speakers include: 1) What are the specific parameters for corridors and
human activities nearby; 2) What will motivate USFWS and other agencies to mitigate for habitat
destruction; and 3) What is the difference between primary and secondary habitat?
The Grey Group presented two topics to address during public outreach and education including:
1) how to live with panthers relating to livestock and pets; and 2) how to react when encountering
a panther?
The group stated that with eighteen listed species including birds and reptiles, wetland
preservation should be a major consideration in the rural lands area.
Yellow group
The Yellow Group presented four topics of importance to the group including: preserving habitat,
connectivity, road mortality, and human/wildlife interaction in Southwest Florida. Because Collier
County is a core area for panther habitat, there are preservation issues in light of development
and growth. The same four issues above pertain to specifically to Collier County.
During the permitting process, avoidance and minimization of panther impacts should be a
priority. In addition to roadway underpasses, signage, fencing and onsite mitigation efforts are
needed as protection measures.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 376 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2)
May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 4
Roadway design in the RLSA should consider other and smaller listed species besides the Florida
panther.
Purple Group
The Purple Group identified their top three concerns related to the panther in Southwest Florida
as: 1) connectivity, maintaining corridors, and increasing genetic diversity; 2) protection of
appropriate habitat to support the species; and 3) advancing science, investigating predator-prey
ratios, and preventing interactions with humans such as those involving starving cougars out west.
Issues relating to the Florida panther in Collier County include that the open lands designation
should be revisited in relation to appropriate areas for development. Increase the amount of
panther collars to increase data sets for analysis of habitat use and population levels as habitat
changes over time so it can be adaptively managed.
The environmental permitting process should consider avoiding impacts through creating less
towns and more density. The best biological data should be used during the environmental review
process. Also, the environmental permitting process should be enforced, specifically regarding
cumulative impacts.
Management and enforcement of invasive species management will subsequently support native
habitat and wildlife.
Brown Group
The Brown Group’s top concerns for the Florida panther include: preserving habitat, mortality,
corridors, and genetic diversity. Primary and secondary panther habitat areas need to be
recalibrated over time. These areas were defined over ten years ago and should be updated.
Collier County should expand the use of panther corridor crossings. Primary panther habitat
should be off limits to development. Panther habitat should connect with the stewardship areas
and corridors. Set the lands aside and dedicate that land so it cannot be developed. Collier County
needs improved Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) linkages. What are the optimal solutions to the
interface of development and wildlife?
The Brown Group further stated that protection of panthers aids in the protection of a large
number of other listed species, with the exception of the Eastern indigo snake and Florida black
bear.
The Brown Group advocated for following the USFWS Department of Interior recommendations
on the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) by determining areas for wildlife crossings first and then
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 377 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2)
May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 5
using a planning approach to locate towns accordingly. This approach is supportive of panthers
and might extend the panther’s life.
The Brown Group members asked when should Collier County reevaluate the primary and
secondary habitats, and stated that development planned in primary panther habitat is at odds
with the best science available.
Black Group
The Black Group identified these three main concerns: preserving panther habitat, decreasing
road mortality, and providing education for new residents.
The Black Group presented questions for the speakers including: 1) How many panthers are
typically radio tracked; 2) where are the panthers most concentrated; 3) What pathways do
panthers use most often; 4) How do wildfires impact panthers; 5) How do they return to the area
after wildfires; 6) Are new developments required to adopt infrastructure that addresses panther
safety; 7) What is the most effective infrastructure at keeping panthers safe (fences, underpasses,
signage, corridors); 8) Has there been any discussion or ideas on the interface between
development and the remaining natural area and what makes a good buffer between those two
areas; and 9) What are the best ways to create new preserves in the RLSA whether it be federal,
state or local ownership?
Mr. Van Lengen introduced the presenters, noting they will do their best to address questions.
Presentations have been prepared by the experts and the areas of concern presented from each
group will be emphasized. The first speaker is David Shindle, a Florida Panther Coordinator with
the USFWS. Mr. Shindle has 24 years of research experience involving cat species in New Mexico
and Texas. He moved to Florida in 1998 and became the lead field biologist for panther research
and monitoring associated with the Florida panther. Mr. Shindle has worked for the Conservancy
and is a certified wildlife biologist.
Speaker: Mr. David Shindle, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Shindle said he used to capture cats, and now he herds cats. He is able to touch on most
questions that were asked. Mr. Shindle gave a quick overview of past and present panther
recovery because perspective is important. He will talk about challenges and threats to the
panther population any time development or conservation occurs. He will give a quick overview
of the USFWS processes in place and what is being worked on.
Mr. Shindle gave perspective that the Florida panther has the widest distribution of any mammal
in the western hemisphere. The range formerly spanned across the United States. They need large
prey, large spaces, and the minimal human intrusion possible. The primary prey for the Florida
panther is deer and hogs.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 378 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2)
May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 6
The question of taxonomy is a hot topic. Panther is a listed sub-species by the USFWS under the
Endangered Species Act. The sub-species classification is based on earlier classifications and a low
number of specimens (approximately 17), including skull morphology, pelt color, and things like
that. New genetic science supports recent recolonization of the puma in North America. It may
not be a sub-species classification under that analysis incorporating genetics. There is a proposal
for a single North American sub-species. More recent work by a group of experts (Cat
Classification Task Force) involved systematically looking at all cats even further and a revision is
proposed for a single North American/Central American/South American puma. How the USFWS
will address a new classification will be reviewed later in the presentation.
Historically, many large carnivores were subject to exportation by Europeans. The panther’s prey
was heavily exported including 250,000 pounds of deer hide from Pensacola and Mobile in 1771.
Even with only a few panthers in existence, in 1968 the Florida panther was still considered a
detriment to livestock.
In the early 1970’s experts didn’t know if panthers were still in Florida, but 10 individuals were
surveyed south of Lake Okeechobee by the World Wildlife Federation (WWF). The Florida
legislature named the panther as state animal in 1982.
The future of the Florida panthers was not looking good and showing signs of inbreeding and
depression with only 20-30 animals in the 1980s. In 1995, cats were brought from Texas to
enhance genetic diversity and it was a successful project. The panther population has been
increasing with an upward trend. The project resulted in a healthier population and healthier
animals, both genetically and physically. Mr. Shindle displayed a telemetry location map
differentiating locations of male and female panthers which indicates geography of the well-
studied panther population.
Mr. Shindle said a lot of the habitat questions can be answered by the next presenter. A lot of
information is known on preferred panther habitat. Different models are based on different
parameters and cohorts of the panther populations. He displayed a map depicting the Primary,
Secondary and Dispersal Zones for panther habitat. He noted that panthers are really resilient
animals. They use a wide variety of habitat types, and agriculture lands are important for panthers.
The USFWS is figuring out how to use the best available science. Additional sources of data are
also considered. Females and kittens show up outside of the Zones and although it’s not ideal
habitat, it does show where connectivity areas are where transient animals are supported.
Private lands, including working ranch lands, south and north of the river, provide excellent
panther habitat. Balancing ranch property rights for owners who provide the habitat and finding
a way to compensate for the panther impacts is a challenge. Being smart about the growth of
Florida is important, and it’s the undercurrent of all these workshops.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 379 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2)
May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 7
The Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is a hot topic and has impacts to the RLSA overlay and eastern
Collier County. Bruce Johnson with Stantec can answer questions about the HCP. The USFWS role
is to draft the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Chuck Kelso is the lead biologist on that
project. You can contact Chuck or check the website for updates on the EIS. Questions on the
HCP, which is a landowner plan, can be directed to Bruce.
Mr. Shindle noted that a lot of questions were asked about how to live with panthers. The
increasing panther population trend tracks accordingly with the frequency of road kills. The
frequency of road kills is not the best way to count panther population, but is an indicator of an
expanding population. Expansion of the breeding range is illustrated by the expanding range of
female road kills over time. Mr. Shindle noted it is surprising that the Golden Gate Estates area
supports breeding female cats and their kittens. Vehicular mortality threats for panthers can be
ameliorated and mitigated with wildlife crossings and innovative tactics. Mr. Shindle displayed a
map depicting current wildlife crossings in place, with many south of the river along I-75. For
example, modifications under an existing bridge along Alligator Alley, along with fencing, helps
create wildlife crossing opportunities that are useful for panthers.
Challenges of future recovery and growth management include habitat loss and population
growth. The 2070 human population projections are extreme, and it shows the challenges for
Floridians in the future. Moving north will be tough for panthers, so keeping the landscape
permeable is important.
In reference to grizzly bears but still applicable to panthers, Chris Servheen said “…habitat is more
than just space on the ground. It’s the level of human acceptance that exists for them.”
Large carnivores should be part of any planning process when people are being placed in close
proximity to large carnivores. How will people and large carnivores coexist? Workshops are
presented about “living with panthers” and it’s all about “living with people” in hopes that
panthers will figure things out. If you build in panther habitat then expect to see panthers.
How the puma operates out west is no different, and there is a lot to learn from innovative
approaches to puma management and interactions. Florida’s approach is unique because the
Florida panther is a listed sub-species under the Endangered Species Act.
Mr. Shindle explained that panthers have been documented to eat wildlife and pets. Panthers
have not attacked people in Florida, however these cats have killed and injured people on the west
coast. A lot of agency efforts are driven to make sure humans can coexist with the animals and be
proactive.
An Interagency Florida Panther Response Plan is in place as a guide for how to respond to
interactions, categorization of sitings, encounters, threats, or attacks. Categorization of human-
panther interactions is in the eye of the beholder based on experience, but the Florida Panther
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 380 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2)
May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 8
Interagency Response Plan does define interactions as sighting, encounter, incident, threat and
attack.
Mr. Shindle displayed a map showing panther depredations in the Golden Gate Estates area,
indicating a clear collision course of panthers and people. Many other occurrences are reported
by private ranch owners that choose to report cat depredations more than others. The map does
not display all depredations, and it’s becoming more important to focus in the exurban zones.
Typical or basic fencing does not detour panthers. Securing pets and animals in predator-resistant
enclosures is important. Defenders of Wildlife and the Conservancy of Southwest Florida
contribute time, money and effort to reduce panther-human conflict through programs such as
the Pen Building Assistance Program.
Innovative approaches are working. For example, Mark Danaher uses a Shepard that responds
when carnivores come outside his fence.
The big issue in eastern Collier County is impacts on cattle ranches. Young calves are often prey
for panthers. How panthers hunt, catch and kill their prey is a challenge for ranchers. When
panthers catch their prey they hide it from scavengers and other predators, making it difficult for
ranchers to document their losses. One example in the presentation depicts the path a panther
dragged a calf across a pasture, road, fence, and ditch for 350 meters under dense cover. Efforts
are underway to help with this problem. The current program relies on finding the animal to verify
the loss was due to a panther, and finding the lost animal is difficult. USFWS is working with the
Farm Service Agency (FSA) to pay a percentage of loss, but it is not going too well. The program
was designed to compensate for the loss for a listed species. In the past, ranchers would take care
of the problem on their own. An incentive is needed to provide for the loss in a different way.
Mr. Shindle showed example photographs of panther sightings and encounters in Corkscrew
Swamp and Port Royal. He explained that not all panthers can be relocated. If a panther exhibits
threatening behavior to a human, the cat cannot remain in the wild. For example, FP243, a
panther in Farmworkers Village south of Immokalee frequently came out in the middle of the day
and was taking cats and dogs. The panther was not showing threatening behavior, but it was not
the behaviors people want to see. FP243 was relocated south to Big Cypress. He moved far south
and settled in Big Cypress Seminole Indian village. He continued exhibiting similar behavior, going
to people’s homes and removing cats and dogs from people’s front yards. That specific panther is
now part of a zoo. Physical habitat is not the only factor; people must consider how to live with
these animals with less space and more people.
Mr. Shindle summarized that social intolerance is a common theme for large carnivore recovery
driven by the previously mentioned threats. Some panthers are found dead with multiple gunshot
wounds. The Naples Zoo does an excellent job of educating the public on coexistence and the
challenges of living with panthers, as well as opportunities for large carnivore restoration.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 381 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2)
May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 9
Mr. Shindle explained that the Florida Panther Recovery Plan has the same goal as most recovery
plans: to achieve long term viability so the species doesn’t need to be listed as a threatened or
endangered. Achieving that goal is a challenge, but several measures are used including having
three viable self-sustaining populations of at least 240 individuals established for a minimum of
twelve years. More populations are needed outside of south Florida. The panther issues
addressed in south Florida also need to be handled in north Florida and elsewhere. South Florida
needs to improve on living with panthers, management, smart growth, setting aside habitat, and
compensating private landowners who provide habitat.
The Florida Panther Recovery Implementation Team includes members that represent private land
owners, sportsmen, ranchers, conservation NGOs, and federal agency representatives. The team
also formed sub-teams with experts in various areas such as vehicular mortality, inventory and
monitoring and recovery criteria. Vehicle mortality is always a hot topic.
The transportation sub-team is a group of experts that look at better ways to design wildlife
crossings, where they should go, and they put data together that provides guidance so the USFWS
can make good recommendations and consultation. This sub-team has identified roadway hot
spots based on the number of roadway kill locations. When a crossing or fencing is implemented,
the hot spots are cooled down or resolved.
Mr. Shindle referenced questions on how to count panthers. Existing recovery criteria proves to
be challenging messaging because the Florida panther is hard to count, especially with any
statistical precision. How do you know when you get to the recovery goal when the panthers are
hard to count? Camera grids and spatial models are better ways to count panthers. The USFWS
staff hope to get to the point of not needing to collar animals because they would rather do it less
invasively. One of the published statistically-defensible range-wide population estimates by Dave
Onorato is based on roadkills of panthers with radio collars and looks at collective information to
estimate the number of panthers. The Recovery Criteria sub-team also estimates populations by
looking at adult female survival or other measures to verify there is a viable population of panthers.
Another priority of the Florida Panther Recovery Implementation Team Work is making panther
recovery compatible with ranchers and sportsmen by looking at incentive programs. When setting
aside land for conservation and recreational access, sportsmen are an important stakeholder
group. Mr. Shindle recalled earlier issues with access in the Big Cypress Preserve. Private owners,
sportsmen or advocates may disagree, but there is a shared purpose. Finding the shared purpose
is key. Sportsmen prefer large contiguous areas to recreate. A healthy deer population is a
common goal for sportsmen and panther recovery. Working ranchlands are supportive of the
common goal of panther recovery.
A five-year status review of listed species is required as part of the Endangered Species Act. The
status review looks at the present state of the population, threats, and conservation efforts. At
the end of the review, the USFWS makes recommendations about the classification status of the
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 382 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2)
May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 10
panther (endangered, threaten, or delist). Delisting could be due to recovery or new information
on taxonomy. The assessment is underway now. The science behind the five-year review is the
Species Status Assessment (SSA), which looks at the species needs, current status of the
population, threats, and conservation measures in place, and then projects into the future looking
for scenarios to obtain a viable population. The goal is to meet objectives of resiliency, redundancy
and representation. These documents inform all USFWS decision documents. The SSA will inform
the five-year review that is being worked on now, and part of the SSA will assess best available
science on the topic of taxonomy with considerations for morphological analyses and more recent
genetic analyses. The SSA does not provide a recommendation, but provides all information on
the best available science on this topic. Mr. Shindle said a petition to delist the panther based on
taxonomic error is a likely outcome.
Range expansion and panther recovery is occurring naturally. Female panthers are documented
along the Caloosahatchee River. The river is not a barrier, it may be an impediment but panthers
do swim. Females don’t disperse far from their mothers. A wildlife crossing was put in on State
Road 80 and easements were secured to help facilitate crossing. Females are north of the river
for the first time since 1973. Two female panthers are at Babcock Ranch, and one female has had
two litters. It’s encouraging natural range expansion. Other panthers have been documented at
Platt Branch. Range expansion is occurring naturally and it’s very encouraging. Cats have also
gone outside of Florida. The book Heart of a Lion by William Stolzenburg is about a cat that
traveled to Connecticut. Males can disperse a significant distance. Cougars have been
documented in Tennessee.
There is a lot of support for the panther, which can be seen by the support in this room, Uno Ale
brewery, the Florida Panthers hockey team conservation night and Protect the Panther license
plates. Mr. Shindle concluded that globally, exurban areas are where the panther needs to be.
Mr. Van Lengen thanked Mr. Shindle for the abundance of information. He said it’s important to
move to the next speaker and then have time for questions, and if more time is needed the
meeting can extend longer. He introduced Dr. Robert Frakes who has a PhD in eco-toxology and
was the Maine state taxologist for seven years. Dr. Frakes was a wildlife biologist with the USFWS
for 22 years starting in 1992. He worked with several listed species including the Florida panther,
keydeer, snail kite, and peregrine falcon. He helped developed the original panther habitat
assessment methodology panther tool in the early 2000s and more recently developed a new
panther habitat model intended to provide better scientific basis for panther conservation
decisions. Like Mr. Shindle, Dr. Frakes has also participated in many peer reviewed publications.
Speaker: Dr. Robert Frakes, (formerly) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serivce
Dr. Frakes stated that the questions raised from the attendees were excellent. Some will be
answered by the model, David can answer some of the questions, and some questions cannot be
answered because no one knows the answers.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 383 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2)
May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 11
Dr. Frakes explained that the model being presented, PLOS One, was published in 2015 and the
report is available online. The model is at the PLOS website for anyone wanting more details.
The Species Distribution Model (SDM) is specifically for the Florida panther in south Florida. The
model cannot be used elsewhere as it is unique to this area’s characteristics. The model is a
random forest model which is a powerful statistical classifier used in a lot of applications outside
of the USFWS. The model uses presence/absence design based on telemetry points to identify
areas where panthers are present or absent. The model then analyzes the landscape
characteristics in those areas to make predictions. The landscape scale model uses a resolution of
one square kilometer which is a little over 200 acres. The scale is appropriate considering the large
range of panthers.
There were fifteen explanatory variables in the model including land cover types, forest edge,
human population density, road density, dry season water depth and wet season water depth.
The model predicts the probability of presence in each grid cell.
Dr. Frakes said the model can be used for evaluating the impacts of proposed developments. The
model can be used for prioritizing areas for panther conservation when acquiring land, putting an
easement on the land or evaluate the best area for conservation. Another application for the
model is identifying areas for possible panther reintroductions. A statewide model is in
development to quantify panther habitat throughout Florida based on model results to help
identify suitable places for the panther to be relocated. The model can be used to evaluate
impacts by sea level rise and changes in hydrology.
The study areas extends to a ten-mile buffer around the panther primary zone. The study area
was divided into one square kilometer grid cells, so there are 16,600+ grid cells in the area. The
presence and absence part of the model is based on telemetry data from 2004-2013. The date
range was chosen based on the available landscape data. Only adult panther data was used;
transients, juveniles or subadults were not included. There are 25,000 telemetry points
representing 87 panthers comprised of 55 females and 32 males.
Dr. Frakes showed a map of the ten land cover variables showing that the study area is two-thirds
wetlands, which is unusual for cougar habitat. The model gives priority to wetlands because it
better helps identify where the panthers are. Each cell in the study areas has a value for each of
the land cover types. This data goes into a spreadsheet for the model to analyze. Other variables
include forest edge, hydrology, human population density (from the 2010 Census) and road
density. Most of the study area is uninhabited, but there are some higher density areas.
Dr. Frakes showed what the model output looks like. The model predicts probability of presence
in each grid cell as a number ranging from 0 to 1 broken up into five intervals. He showed a map
depicting the probability of presence from low to high. Using this output and a cutoff threshold,
a map is generated to depict the remaining adult panther habitat in south Florida. The model
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 384 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2)
May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 12
prediction matches up fairly well with a majority the primary zone. Some of the primary zone is
not good panther breeding habitat, such as water conservation areas, Shark River Slough and
Everglades National Park. The secondary zone contains very little panther habitat, but is still useful
for transient panthers, connectivity to other areas and potentially for restoration. However, very
little breeding habitat is available in the secondary zone.
Dr. Frakes explained that the software gives an estimate of variable importance based on accuracy
and Gini index. Variable importance is highest for wetland forest per the model. The second
highest variable importance was human population density, which helps conclude that panthers
like forests and don’t like to be near people. Dr. Frakes said it was surprising to see how important
human population density is for determining panther population location. Forest edge was the
next variable of importance, followed by hydrology variables. All fifteen variables were maintained
in the model to retain accuracy.
Sensitivity analysis of the individual variables indicates the effect of each variable on the model’s
output. Dr. Frakes illustrated how population density was and important variable, showing that
there is a dramatic drop or 20% reduction in panther presence probability as people are added to
a grid cell. An increase in wetland forest increases the probability of panther presence.
Dr. Frakes presented a graph displaying the average probability of presence in Florida panther
home ranges. The graph showing home range values of 87 panthers that were in the study. No
panther home range had an average P value below 0.4, and about half the panthers had a P value
above 0.8. This data is important in selecting habitats for panther reintroduction or protection.
Good panther habitat is any area that scores a high probability value.
Dr. Frakes presented the summary of the model results. Over 5,500 square kilometers of breeding
habitat was identified in south Florida, which is significantly less than previously estimated. The
USFWS panther tool called Panther Habitat Assessment Methodology is based on how much
panther habitat remains in south Florida. The tool assumes much more habitat exists, which needs
to be changed. Dr. Frakes’ model supports the current Primary Zone except for the three
previously mentioned areas (water conservation areas, Shark River Slough and “witch’s finger”).
The Secondary Zone contains very little adult panther habitat, only 3.8% of the total. The most
important factor to determine panther presence is forest cover, human population density,
amount of forest edge and water depth. Panther home ranges have a probability of presence
value of 0.4 to 1.0, with a median of 0.8.
Dr. Frakes said his report lists recommendations, and the most important conservation
recommendation is protecting the remaining breeding habitat. Movement corridors also need to
be protected. This was recommended in 2006 by Randy Kautz. Dr. Frakes said he is making the
recommendation using density figures from literature indicating there may not be enough
breeding habitat in south Florida to maintain a viable healthy population of panthers in the long
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 385 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2)
May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 13
term. He said we need to protect the remaining breeding habitat because all future panthers will
come from the existing habitat.
Dr. Frakes said the next recommendation is to revise or replace current Panther Habitat
Assessment Methodology (“panther tool”). The tool assumes more habitat is remaining than what
is available. The tool assumes that the Secondary Zone is two-thirds as valuable as the Primary
Zone, and assumes another zone is one-third as valuable as the Primary Zone. Dr. Frakes argued
that the Secondary Zone is not nearly two-thirds as valuable as the Primary Zone. When those
numbers are calculated, there is an inflation in the amount of panther habitat available and an
underestimate of the compensation needed. The calculation inflation and underestimation has
been going on for years and needs to be investigated.
The third recommendation directly from the Recovery Plan is to establish additional panther
populations north of the Caloosahatchee River. Dr. Frakes is working on a statewide model to
identify good locations to establish additional panther populations north of the river.
Dr. Frakes ran a model focused on the RLSA and surrounding areas. The model predicted habitat
values showing good panther habitat is left in the RSLA boundary. Dispersal corridors are seen on
the model that link to CREW, which is marginal, and another dispersal corridor toward OK Slough.
GPS data from Dave Onorato shows almost a perfect match with the predicted panther habitat
from the model. About 97% of the GPS points fell within the predicted panther habitat areas
estimated from the model. The best way to check model accuracy is to use data from outside the
model.
Dr. Frakes ended his presentation and invited the audience to ask questions. Amber Brooks with
the Conservancy of Southwest Florida asked about a timeline for the SSA and HCP because those
efforts would be relevant to the County’s process. Mr. Shindle said the EIS and HCP is in process.
Everything in the Service is on an accelerated schedule, including the EIS. The SSA and completion
of the five-year review recommendations are anticipated generally in summer of 2019, which is a
general idea of the timeline and can’t be guaranteed. The SSA will go out to peer review which
adds a bit of time. The SSA is the body of the background of the five-year review and
recommendations.
An attendee said the model and GPS points show a clear indication of the panthers and where
they are located, and asked if this data is being incorporated in the process for decision makers to
consider? Mr. Van Lengen responded that the restudy is to gather information, and all information
will be considered regarding new standards and incentives. The map will definitely be part of the
package.
Mr. Van Lengen asked about prey-based studies, noting that there are different prey species in
the east zone, and will the different prey base raise a concern in the future? Mr. Shindle
responded prey density and availability is a big issue. Prey availability is a component of panther
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 386 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2)
May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net
Page 14
habitat. The big decline of deer population in the southern areas of Big Cypress National Preserve
south of U.S. 41 is likely due to hydrology, water releases, and the increasing native (panther) and
non-native (Burmese python) large predator population. Availability of prey is a social issue
because people assume the issue is caused by the panther. Habitat improvement and burning can
help ameliorate prey decline. Mr. Shindle added that the University of Georgia and FWC is
conducting a south Florida deer study to examine deer dynamics in south Florida across three
study areas to find better ways to monitor the deer, and to look at factors affecting deer
survivability including impacts of the panther.
Brad Cornell asked about the issue with compensation to ranchers for depredation. Is the problem
that ranchers are not interested in the program or funding sources? Mr. Shindle replied that the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida will compensate for calf losses. The issue isn’t funding, but
rather the roadblock is the design of the system that requires verification of loss, verification it
was due to a panther, and basis of the losses on a percentage criterion. Changes are required to
the farm bill and down. The rules are tough and can change. It is required to establish a beginning
inventory based on pregnancy checks which is costly, the inventory at time of sale, and then
calculation of loss. In the past veterinary checks was an acceptable measure of inventory. Three
applications were denied this year because the veterinary pregnancy verification method is no
longer acceptable. This drives frustration and the program doesn’t work for ranchers. Ranchers
must provide so much documentation and then the payment is only 75% of the loss. It’s necessary
to design a new program. A collaborative approach might work similar to the coexistence councils.
For example, the Mexican wolf livestock coexistence council is a group of stakeholders including
agencies, NGOs and ranchers. They use funds from the Livestock Demonstration Project Fund
allocated by Congress. The council makes their own rules and pays out based on the criteria they
set. The new budget has language for the wolf livestock demonstration project legislation
including the option to evaluate this program for the panther. This program involves collaborating
with the state, which is not a problem.
Mr. Shindle added that the FSA Livestock Indemnity Program will always be available. The issue of
the panthers snatching money from the ranchers’ pockets needs to be addressed. Mr. Shindle
advocates for building rancher receptivity. Ranchers north of the river are watching what is
happening in south Florida with the lack of compensation and incentives.
An attendee mentioned water recharge, noting the panther preserve is already in an impaired
watershed. There is so much development in the priority panther habitat. The information
presented by Dr. Frakes suggests there is far less priority panther habitat than originally estimated.
Issues with ranchers, development pushing panthers to ranches, and development creating less
food sources is a recipe for disaster. The situation looks very grim.
Mr. Van Lengen ended the meeting at 8:15. He thanked everyone for their participation and
invited attendees back for the next meeting at the South Library.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 387 of 518
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 1
Meeting Summary
RLSA Restudy
Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts
August 23, 2018, 6:00-8:00 PM, South Regional Library
I Introduction
Speaker: Mr. Kris Van Lengen, Collier County
Kris Van Lengen, Collier County Planning and Zoning, welcomed attendees and opened the
meeting at 6:10. He described that comment cards are distributed to ask attendees about their
concerns about infrastructure. He asked for it to be filled out tonight or at home because it is
good to have the feedback.
Mr. Van Lengen highlighted the items on the agenda, starting with Long Range Transportation
Planning Concepts, noting that these topics are important to Group 4 polices, urban villages and
design factors. He said Ann McLaughlin, MPO Executive Director, will talk about how the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) conducts business, long range transportation planning,
the evolution of costs and revenues (specifically technology and the status of eastern Collier
County).
Keith Robbins, the District Freight Coordinator for Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
District 1, was next on the agenda to provide perspective on agriculture and freight distribution
on the roadways.
Mr. Van Lengen advised that Joe Bellone, Director of Operations for Collier County Utilities, will
share the vision and strategy for water, wastewater and irrigation as populations move east. He
noted that water sources would be addressed at the next meeting, but distribution was the subject
for today.
Mr. Van Lengen added that Tindale Oliver was present to tie together the concepts of
infrastructure costs to the public and the best way to grow with fiscal neutrality. He said that
questions and answers will be addressed at the end of the meeting because it will be more efficient
to move through the speakers’ presentations and then have Q&A at the end of the session.
Mr. Van Lengen explained that this is the beginning of the restudy process with workshops
throughout the fall, and there are plenty of opportunities to be involved. The upcoming
workshops will be in the South Regional Library. Water Resources will be discussed in September,
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 388 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts
August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 2
and discussion topics will include surface water, basin rules, quality, quantity, Water Resource
Areas (WRAs), aquifer health, potable water sources, and salt water intrusion.
Built environment will be discussed in October and November with an interactive approach similar
to the format in previous meetings. Those two workshops will consider design components and
process implications associated with Group 4 policies. Mr. Van Lengen added that a meeting with
the Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC) meeting will be two weeks from today.
This committee provides guidance on public interaction and will advise how to structure meetings
after November, at which point it will become important to reach consensus and review Group 1
policies that tie all the elements of the RLSA program together.
Mr. Van Lengen advised that Facebook Live is one way to participate in these meetings. Video
archives are available on the County main website, and workshop summaries and PowerPoint
presentations are available on the restudy website.
Mr. Van Lengen noted that workshop attendance has been steady, and the County appreciates
public input. Comment cards and emails have been captured in a feedback tracker by date. There
has been a request to have emails in a discrete folder with attribution. Mr. Van Lengen asked
attendees about their comfort level with posting emails online, and the consensus was that emails
can be posted online with the email address redacted.
Mr. Van Lengen introduced Anne McLaughlin, MPO Executive Director with 35 years of experience
in her field, noting she has served in her current capacity at the MPO since 2016.
II Presentations
Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization
Speaker: Mrs. Anne McLaughlin, MPO Executive Director
Ms. McLaughlin said the MPO coordinates closely with the Growth Management Department
(GMD), even though the MPO is a separate entity. Transportation and land use are closely linked
together. Ms. McLaughlin highlighted the MPO’s transportation planning process governed by the
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and
the Federal Transportation Administration (FTA). Continuing, cooperative and comprehensive, the
3-C’s, are key words for the MPO. These words take on meaning during the 4-year review process.
The MPO is data driven and must address federal and state performance measures. Ms.
McLaughlin acknowledged Penny Taylor as an MPO Board member in the room.
Ms. McLaughlin described the make-up of the MPO as the County Commissioners and city
representatives, noting that they address regional planning. She described the three major
documents produced by the MPO including the Unified Planning Work Program that sets goals
and budgets, the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) has a 20-year planning horizon, and the
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 389 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts
August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 3
Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) has a 5-year horizon. The LRTP must be updated and
adopted every 5 years. The short-term outcome of the LRTP is the TIP, or 5-year spending plan.
This is required for state and federal money to be used locally.
Plans are based on future growth, the current system, and future transportation needs. The LTRP
is constrained by revenues and must reflect financially feasible projects. A list of needed projects
is narrowed to a list of financially feasible projects. Now the MPO has a 2040 LRTP in place, which
can be found online. As early as January, the 2045 Plan update should begin, which must be
adopted by December 11, 2020.
Ms. McLaughlin explained that there are certain “givens” for MPO LRTP updates including BEBR
population projections for Collier County. The population of roughly 360,000 in 2017 is projected
to be 520,000 in 2045, reflecting an increase of 160,000 people over a 20-year timeframe.
FDOT revenue projections are $776 million. The money is not guaranteed but is simply a planning
figure. This is the primary source of funding for new capacity that serves new growth.
Statewide trends per FDOT include increasing population, increasing vehicle miles traveled (VMT),
increasing congestion, decreasing transit ridership, increasing fatalities, and increasing serious
injuries.
FDOT plans for the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) and for freight are givens. The SIS cost
feasible 2029-2045 funded items include: 1) State Road 29 right-of-way, and 2) preliminary
engineering and managed lanes study on I-75.
Ms. McLaughlin described assumptions about the future. The growing technology of automated,
connected, electric, and shared use vehicles (ACES) will have major impact on transportation
planning, affecting capacity, the existing road system, safety, equity, access, and land use. FDOT
indicates there is an unprecedented amount of change between now and 2045. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) funded sea level rise study is underway showing
vulnerable infrastructure including transportation.
Scenario testing is needed considering the impact of the ACES technology based on FDOT
guidance, land use alternatives, higher density mixed use, bus rapid transit corridors, and transit-
oriented developments. Efficiencies in the delivery of infrastructure is important. Additional
items that haven’t been extensively looked at, but should be, include travel demand management
and alternatives to grade separated intersections.
Ms. McLaughlin posed the question, where is the majority of the growth heading? She said that
eastern Collier County will see the majority of growth because it is where big land parcels are
located that allow larger mixed-use projects, as opposed to smaller infill parcels in other parts of
the County.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 390 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts
August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 4
Ms. McLaughlin the posed the question, where do we start? She said it begins with the current
Cost Feasible Plan of the 2040 LRTP. An LRTP Amendment added back into the 2040 LTRP several
projects including the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension to 16th Street NE and funding for the
Randall Boulevard/Oil Well Road corridor study. Ms. McLaughlin added that the difference
between needs and fundable projects is a huge gap. The huge gap is everywhere between
perceived and forecasted need and the ability to fund. Modeling the cost feasible LRTP helps
determine the best ways to make decisions about where improvements should be.
Ms. McLaughlin stated that the TIP is updated every year. The Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan is
anticipated for adoption in the fall, and the transit development plan is also a factor. She
reiterated that land use planning and vision are important considerations driving the
transportation plan.
Ms. McLaughlin described that the County Interactive Growth Model (CIGM) and FDOT District 1
Regional Transportation Demand Model (D1-RTDM) are closely integrated. The growth model
allocates population, employment and other factors according to transportation analysis zones
that directly feed into the Transportation Demand Model (D1-RTDM).
The MPO advisor network is made up of several volunteer committees including the Technical
Advisory Committee, Citizen Advisory Committee, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee,
Congestion Management Committee and Advisor Network. The MPO has an email Listserve and
Ms. McLaughlin provided guidance to sign up for the advisor network. She also mentioned that
summits and symposiums will be upcoming as part of the development of the 2045 LRTP.
Agriculture Shifts and Transportation Impacts
Speaker: Mr. Keith Robbins, District Freight Coordinator, FDOT District 1
Mr. Van Lengen introduced Keith Robbins, the District Freight Coordinator for FDOT District 1. Mr.
Robbins has served 20 years as a US Army Officer and four years with FDOT.
Mr. Robbins said his presentation will focus on the Agricultural Shifts in Southwest Florida report
by FDOT District 1. Mr. Robbins said he came to Florida four years ago and did not have an
agricultural background, and he has found it interesting what a big industry agriculture is in Florida.
He gave an overview that his presentation will include the changing face of freight vehicles, FDOT’s
role with freight mobility and agribusiness, and a report overview.
Mr. Robbins explained that rural infrastructure was built for smaller rail, ship and air vehicles.
Today’s freight vehicles are much larger, and infrastructure has not kept pace with this change.
About four years ago, FDOT reached out to the agriculture industry, which is the #2 industry in the
state, asking how FDOT could support their role in sustaining the economy in Florida. FDOT sought
to identify improvements needed for the industry to address their concerns, such as areas of weak
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 391 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts
August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 5
infrastructure, for instance substandard turning radii. Mr. Robbins stated there is nothing in the
agriculture industry that cannot be sourced elsewhere if produce cannot get to the consumer.
The twelve counties of District 1 were assessed to determine truck trips. Almost 500,000 truck
trips were generated by harvesting in one year in District 1. Growth in coastal counties is
continuing and is pushing east, where the corporate agricultural production land is located. As
growth continues east, agricultural operations must move and the FDOT looked at the impact of
that move. Mr. Robbins explained that the study included the assumption that the agriculture
shift is not a 1:1 ratio. The shift may include a change of crop or change of size of agricultural land
area. Mr. Robbins said the report is available online at www.freightmovesflorida.com, noting that
it is not a definitive or authoritative document. The report is for planning purposes only.
Based on the shift of agricultural production from coastal counties to inland counties, Mr. Robbins
said that shifts for Collier County will be from eastern Collier to further east in the County, which
is already occurring.
Mr. Robbins summarized that production in the District will not have significant change, but
change may be more significant on a county-by-county basis. Major corridors of agricultural truck
traffic, such as U.S. 27, State Road 70 and State Road 80, will increase in agricultural truck traffic.
Mapping of 2020 and 2035 truck volumes reveals large numbers of trucks will be on some roads
in 2035. The numbers anticipated for production traffic does not include traffic relating to an
increase in workers, commuters, or supplies needed to sustain agricultural operations.
Coastal counties are projected to lose 8-49% of their agricultural truck volume. The inland
counties are expected to grow 8-10% in agriculture truck volume. The anticipated growth in truck
volumes is more than 57,000. Towns like LaBelle, Moore Haven and Immokalee will become or
are existing agricultural hubs. Immokalee is expected to flourish. Bridge restrictions, such as
weight, number of axles, and truck length will impact freight movement patterns and agricultural
shifts. Two-lane roads with deep ditches and swales are difficult for freight drivers to navigate.
These roads were not built to sustain the current volume and weight of the freight traffic.
Inland state and county roads have potential to become SIS corridors. The shift corresponds to
smaller rural roads becoming major roads to accommodate large numbers of trucks. Mr. Robbins
explained that these findings can be incorporated in the District 1 transportation model.
Mr. Robbins said another finding is that freight movements are switching from northern counties
to southern counties. Polk County will remain a major generator of agriculture. The traffic seen
today on U.S. 17 will shift to U.S. 27. More agricultural hubs will develop, specifically in Hendry
and Glades County. Collier and Okeechobee hubs will connect major facilities as freight movement
flow changes. Small towns will have more packing centers and distribution centers that are
located closer to the agricultural operations.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 392 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts
August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 6
Mr. Robbins explained that the Caloosahatchee River is a barrier to the citrus industry because the
U.S. 27 bridge is the only bridge able to support heavier trucks. Trucks weighing over 80,000
pounds must use the U.S. 27 bridge, which can be nearly a 60-mile detour. Bridge replacement
projects for the Wilson Piggot Bridge (State Road 31) in Fort Myers and State Road 29 Bridge in
LaBelle are scheduled far out, but they are planned to be upgraded, and bridge upgrade plans
have been advanced by two years.
Mr. Robbins concluded by stating that his work product is a Southwest Florida study by
transportation specialists, not agricultural economists. The study intention was for planning
purposes, and it does not account for traffic or growth shifts from the east coast coming to the
west.
Water and Wastewater Utilities Going East
Speaker: Mr. Joe Bellone, Director of Financial Operations, Collier County Utilities Department
Mr. Van Lengel introduced Mr. Joe Bellone. Mr. Bellone joined Collier County Public Utilities in
2003, serving in different management positions up until his current role as Director of Financial
Operations.
Mr. Bellone said he will speak briefly about who supplies water to eastern Collier County and the
County’s vision and strategy to provide economically feasible service. The Board is scheduled to
consider a resolution to serve the eastern area to serve four future developments on September
11, 2018. Rural Lands West, Collier Lakes, and Immokalee Rural Road Village have requested
service from Collier County. Providing utility services in these areas prevents proliferation of
package treatment plants.
The engineering required to move wastewater is substantial. Mr. Bellone showed a map depicting
where properties and distribution lines are planned by the Utilities Department. The County
purchased approximately 200 acres of land in the early 2000’s intended to be used as a
wastewater treatment plant and produced water treatment plant. The map he displayed showed
the Trust lands and the current 16-inch force main that extends east to the Rural Lands West area.
He identified that an interim wastewater treatment facility and deep injection site will be built on
the land to serve through 2024. The facility will initially have capacity for 4 MGD and will eventually
expand to 12 MGD through 2029. Mr. Bellone described the growth needs for constructing
facilities and capacity through future decades.
The next map he displayed was the regional water model. He described how the existing 36-inch
water main serving Orange Tree and Twin Eagles will be extended, and a 6 million-gallon storage
facility will be built. All water through 2028 will come from the regional facilities in the southern
and northern part of the County. He explained that there is current capacity of 200 MGD which is
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 393 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts
August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 7
adequate to meet demands through 2020. A 52 MGD capacity will be adequate through 2028.
Pumping will serve lands to the east, and a water treatment plant will be needed in the late 2020s.
Mr. Bellone advised that the Collier County Water and Sewer District (CCWSD) provides raw
materials including wells, mains, treatment facilities, transmission mains, and collection force
mains. Developers provide service lines within a community, and improvements such as lift
stations, valves, and hydrants. All internal lines, valves and lift stations must meet Collier County
utility standards including new rules for storm resiliency. Once the infrastructure is built, the
developers’ assets are conveyed to the Water and Sewer District to own and operate.
Mr. Bellone explained that user fees pay for service, operating and maintenance, non-growth debt
service, repair and interim production facilities. Impact fees fund anything related to growth
including transmission mains, growth-related debt service, and capacity expansion in plants.
Collier County is working with new developments in the northeast to advance a portion of their
impact fees.
Fiscal Impacts of Infrastructure from Growth
Speakers: Ms. Nilgun Kamp and Steve Tindale, Tindale Oliver
Kris introduced Nilgun Kamp and Steve Tindale of Tindale Oliver. Collectively they have 66 years
of experience in transportation planning, long range planning, impact fees, community
development, and budgeting.
Ms. Kamp said the first step in fiscal neutrality is to understand the demand and cost of
infrastructure compared to tax revenues. This is a focus on the numbers and quantitative
variables, not sustainability or environmental impacts. The purpose of comparing potential
developments is to understand the impact on the community over the short term and long term.
National research provides lessons learned and best practices. Some of the lessons learned
include that models are not perfect and do not capture everything. It’s important to be accurate
with data and provide reasonable assumptions upfront. Ms. Kamp added that fiscal models
exclude other important factors.
Revenue must be considered over the life cycle of development, and allocation is important. It is
not the sales point, but rather the people participating. For example, it is not the gas station
development, but rather the people purchasing from the gas station that generate revenue.
Drivers of revenue are income and wages. Growing communities tend to generate more taxes.
Transportation and schools are the highest capital costs, constituting 70-85% of infrastructure
costs. The cost of transportation is very expensive. The highest operating costs include public
safety and schools. Public safety, such as police and fire support, are the majority of this cost.
Schools have their own separate funding. The operating costs must be accurately assumed. These
are the types of costs looked at for capital funding.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 394 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts
August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 8
Ms. Kamp pointed out that demand changes over time and is different for new development in
contrast to the average for the entire county. New development typically generates more
students and traffic. The cost differential is driven by geography, such as urban versus rural, and
persons per household. In Collier County the coastal areas have older and fewer people. Inland
Collier County is younger with more families, requiring different facilities.
Ms. Kamp said that some of the issues revealed in this research effort included area variations,
density, mix of use, design of compatible uses next to each other, market rate of growth, balance
of mix in the market, and inflation rates that examine revenues and costs.
It is important to understand a communities’ characteristics and framework before evaluating. Ms.
Kamp displayed a graph representing population growth of Florida and Collier County from 1975
and projected through 2045. In earlier years the growth of Collier County was higher at 5.4%,
because the base population was lower. As the base population gets higher, the growth rate is
more moderate.
Ms. Kamp gave an Orlando example, pointing out the difference in absolute growth and the
growth rate. Population data from three areas of Orlando were compared. Plan Area 1 had the
highest base population of 211,600 with a projected growth of 35,000 people which is about a .5%
annual growth rate. This area has the interstate and infrastructure to support growth. The low
annual growth rate of 1.68% in Plan Area 2 can be accommodated. Plan Area 3, the medical area,
anticipates a population increase of 40,000 people. The annual growth rate is 4.06% because the
base population is low at 17,900 people. This area does not have supporting infrastructure or
facilities, creating a great impact, which will affect the actual growth rate versus absolute growth.
The growth in the medical area is a higher rate and more challenging to accommodate.
Ms. Kamp displayed age range distribution for Collier County, noting it has a denser population of
residents age 60 and older than the overall Florida average. The student generation rate is lower
for older counties like Collier County. The age range distribution determines the facilities needed
in an area, thus Collier County doesn’t need to build as many schools.
Ms. Kamp displayed income per capita and wages per job in Florida and Collier County. Collier
County ranked 1 out of 67 counties for income per capita. Income is high in Collier County, but
wages are not as strong because Collier County is lacking in commercial mix.
The Collier County tax base is 90% residential properties, and 8% is non-residential. This is likely
because Collier County has a lot of valuable waterfront residential area and less commercial
opportunity for jobs. Most counties have a tax base of 80% residential and 20% non-residential.
Urban counties like Orange County are 60% residential and 40% non-residential.
Ms. Kamp noted that property tax value per capita is healthy, and it’s important to keep up that
value. The sales tax per capita is productive but losing some ground over time. Income drives
revenue, and education drives income. Collier is high in educational attainment and high in
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 395 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts
August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 9
income. This translates to high taxable value per capita. The community should aim to keep the
productivity up and pursue productive types of development with a mix of residential and
nonresidential uses, parks, open space, interconnected with pedestrian. Well designed
development tends to be more valuable.
Ms. Kamp said that fiscal neutrality considers growth rate versus absolute growth, marginal costs
versus average cost, productivity and level of revenues generated, required level of service, and
quality of life and cost/benefit over time. Urban development is able to use existing infrastructure
and reduces cost compared to outlying areas that require more facilities.
Ms. Kamp highlighted the key characteristics to reduce development costs, reduce environmental
impacts and enhance revenues. These include destination accessibility, design, diversity, distance
to transit, and density (the 5D’s).
Ms. Kamp displayed a typical example of a less dense area with a high cost of infrastructure at the
beginning of development, and then the cost decreased over time. She explained that the public
revenue stream is low at the beginning of development and increases as the community builds
out. She added that developer contributions are also a factor, giving a design example of 6 square
miles with a density of 2 dwelling units per acre. This community would need the following support
facilities: 1/3 fire station, ½ elementary school, 1/10 middle school, 1/10 high school, and it would
not trigger transit service minimum threshold levels. However, doubling the project density and
design to 4 dwelling units per acre in the same 6 square miles affords more: 1 fire station, 2
elementary schools, ½ middle school, ½ high school, and it meets minimum transit service density
thresholds. Once again, if you double to 8 units per acre then the development can afford and
support more facilities.
Ms. Kamp explained that sharing facilities can reduce costs, such as designing public school
playgrounds as parks during after-school hours. Fire station locations are critical to response
times. Compact development makes facilities more efficient, and the operating and maintenance
costs can decrease over time. Public expenditures increase for operating costs as facilities get
older. If taxes grow, they could outpace the costs.
Ms. Kamp concluded that Collier County has a high income and high tax value. The waterfront
development is healthy, but developing inland is a challenge. Rural lands should be developed
productively due to the limited initial infrastructure and density. She noted that earlier years of
development will have a higher cost, and the right type of development will generate significant
revenues over the long-term.
III Questions for Presenters
Dr. Amanda Evans, facilitator, FGCU
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 396 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts
August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 10
Presenters convened in the front of the room for questions and answers, and Dr. Evans facilitated
questions from the audience.
An audience member said we have talked about RLSA in a theoretical sense, but let us shift to
talking about the RLSA in a practical sense. It is time to understand how the costs will be paid. For
instance, there are two state roads in the rural lands, State Road 29 and State Road 82. Will federal
and state funding be only for federal and state roads? Will new roads be county roads? How will
those be funded? How does the gas tax work?
Ms. McLaughlin said State Road 29 and State Road 82 are on their way with primary funding by
the state FDOT. Not all phases are funded yet, but it’s moving along with positive expectations
from FDOT. The interplay of available of federal, state, county and impact fee funding is
complicated off the state system.
Mr. Bosi said generally Rural Lands West gets evaluated by each of the infrastructure providers.
At the beginning of a project everyone gets a seat at the table and the applicant presents their
plan. Transportation models are used to model the demand associated with the project. All
development associated with Rural Lands West will be subject to impact fees to address costs of
new roads. They also identify all road segments impacted beyond the local area. The
proportionate share of needed improvements must be paid through impact fees. A Developer
Contribution Agreement is drafted and the developer fronts money to the County to start a
project, and they are paid back with impact fee credits. Utilities, Parks and Transportation use this
model.
Steve Tindale, the County’s impact fee consultant, said impact fees cannot pay for prior
investment, but rather must be proportional and reasonable. Impact fee credits are for right-of-
way but not for other types of projects. Location, timing and sequence of a project are all a factor.
The audience member asked for more information about the money that developers “front” for
improvements and Category A facilities. Mr. Bosi said that is part of the Developer Contribution
Agreements (DCAs), which the public will be able to weigh in on during the Stewardship Receiving
Area (SRA) public hearing process. The audience member asked if there is a formula, standard or
criteria for the DCAs. Mr. Bosi said a proportionate share ratio is used. Mr. Tindale said the money
that is paid up front by developers is considered a credit toward impact fees at time that b uilding
permits are pulled.
The audience member asked about the written criteria for impact fees that are considered
reasonable and proportional. Mr. Tindale said there is case law. The audience member asked who
decides what is proportional and reasonable? Mr. Tindale replied that most of impact fees were
once associated with utility companies. The utility companies were requiring big chunks of money
to upgrade utility systems. Judges ruled that you can’t take care of existing problems, but the fee
must be proportional. The audience member asked how “reasonable” is determined. Mr. Tindale
said impact fee studies are performed to calculate what is a reasonable fee without overcharging,
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 397 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts
August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 11
and then the County Commissioners adopt the calculated fee at 100%. Collier County has
consistently adopted the recommended impact fee at 100% because the County believes that
growth should pay for growth. Tindale Oliver has calculated impact fees for the last 25 years.
Tindale Oliver only reviews water and sewer fees. Utility rates are calculated by other firms. About
two-thirds of the parks, fire, schools, roads, and administrative building impact fees were
calculated by Tindale Oliver over the last 25 years.
The audience member asked how Tindale Oliver calculates impact fees. Ms. Kamp said the legally
accepted impact fee formula looks at the cost of providing service, how the county is funding
infrastructure through taxes, and the balance is the amount that needs to be funded by new
growth. The cost is distributed among different land uses. Mr. Tindale said measuring demand
and costs is part of the process. The County’s numbers are compared to statewide numbers.
An audience member, Brad Cornell, asked about Ms. Kamp’s slide depicting the high cost of
starting development and then mentioned Policy 4.18 that says all rural lands development must
be fiscally neutral or positive. Mr. Bosi said the fiscal neutrality or positive outcome is required at
the completion of the development. From a land use perspective, a single-family home uses $1.20
of every dollar generated in taxes, commercial consumes 65-75 cents on the dollar, industrial uses
30-40 cents. Residential land use is costly. Mr. Bosi said land use budgeting is required in the rural
lands with a minimum commercial mix, noting that a top-heavy residential land use pattern at
build out is undesirable. A balanced land use pattern including job-creating commercial and
industrial uses is preferred. He noted that Rural Lands West proposes 10,000 dwelling units and
two million square feet of nonresidential, which will be a better revenue mix over time and should
result in a higher internal capture. The premise of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area is for towns
to be self-sustaining. Ave Maria was viewed as a bad deal in the first few years due to the poor
economy combined with the higher initial costs at the start of a project. But projects with the
right land use mix start to have positive or neutral fiscal outcomes toward the end. The land use
mix is important to have the balance to be self-sustaining.
An audience member asked if Ave Maria is at that point now? Mr. Bosi said the code requires
them to update their fiscal neutrality analysis. They are well on the road to fiscal neutrality.
Arthrex medical manufacturing and associated businesses are improving the equation. The
internal trip capture has improved since the first five years. Groceries, restaurants, and
entertainment are contributing to more internal capture. Ave Maria is reaching maturity and the
economies of scale and diversity is forthcoming.
A Facebook Live question was recited about impact fees, specifically, is it correct to say that a
developer pays for the development and conveys it over to the County, and then homeowners
pay impact fees that pay back the developer? Mr. Bosi said financial obligations with the original
developer are typically required to be resolved before turnover to the Homeowners Association.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 398 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts
August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 12
An audience member asked if agriculture is moving east and north? Mr. Robbins responded that
agriculture is moving east and south within FDOT District 1. The audience member asked, “What
do you attribute that to?” Mr. Robbins said the eastern shift is due to residential and commercial
growth pushing agriculture east. The north to south move within the district (for example, Polk
County agriculture moving south) is due to similar development growth and partially because of
land, temperature and better suited land in the south for citrus crops. The audience member said
that it is concerning about the availability of food and losing food growing areas, noting that
California is suffering wildfires, and Florida is a food basket for the country.
The audience member asked what is going to happen when the population shifts from 300,000 to
700,000+ people? Are seasonal factors considered in transportation planning? Mr. Bosi
responded that the Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) associated with the Capital
Improvement Element is updated annually to assess population growth and what is needed to
serve population growth. Developments are required to provide infrastructure needed to satisfy
populations moving forward. The Capital Improvement Element is directly tied to concurrency.
The County puts a 25% mark up on population to address seasonal influx, and water and sewer
puts a higher safeguard mark up because seasonal visitors do tax the system. Waiting for a parking
spot is an inconvenience, but needing water to flush your toilet is of primary importance.
Ms. McLaughlin said the population figures are from BEBR. The travel demand model does have
a seasonal factor built into it. A specific corridor may be studied, and counts may be taken during
high season. The audience member asked if the population coming from the east to the beaches
are taken into consideration. Ms. McLaughlin said the current plan and projection is for 160,000
people over a 20+ year timeframe. The complexity of the question is hard to answer in a quick Q
& A period. The County is trying to build more complete communities in the east that are intended
to capture more internal traffic.
An audience member stated that smart growth and new urbanism is supported, but developers
are not catching on or developing in this manner. Developers are creating gated communities,
with no support services nearby and everyone has to drive everywhere. A concern of new
development in the eastern lands is that it should be contained in new urbanism style
development.
An audience member asked out of the total infrastructure costs, what percentage is paid by
Developer Contribution Agreements (DCAs)? Mr. Tindale said location, size and rate of
development determine the negotiation. The County’s intent is to take these revenues and apply
them based on the location, size and rate of development.
The audience member asked, what if developer doesn’t perform? What if the model doesn’t work
or if the County has tied up money and someone else wants to come in or the developer wants to
renegotiate? Mr. Tindale said if the situation is risky, the money is required to be paid up front by
the developer.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 399 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts
August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 13
The audience member said the biggest concern is roads and schools, stating that the County is
putting up money for roads and schools. When the curve is not at the right angle, do you
renegotiate? Does the developer not pay everything back? How does it work in this County? Ms.
Patterson with Collier County explained that the DCA is not one-sided. The developer either gives
the County money, donates land or builds something. There are parameters and restrictions on
how DCAs can be done and what projects can be included.
An audience member said there are a number of developments that would like to come on line in
the next 10-year period, and asked if the County has a budget for putting in infrastructure. If so,
does the county tell the developer to wait? Mr. Bellone said that utilities are different because
they are not funded by taxes; user fees fund utilities. If the developer hasn’t developed yet, there
are no customers. The audience member said that is not the answer to her question. Her question
is: does the County make developers wait based on the County’s infrastructure budget? She
knows that concurrency is in place, but money is finite. Mr. Bosi said concurrency measures the
capacity in the system. If a developer wants to move forward now and there is not enough
revenue to pay for it, the developer would be asked to pay their proportionate share upfront to
move forward now and be credited later.
An audience member asked Mr. Robbins about agriculture shifting from coastal urban areas to
rural areas, noting that his study was based on a regional area, and inquired about Mr. Robbins’
data of where agriculture will go in eastern Collier County by 2035? Mr. Robbins said projections
were not based on a parcel by parcel analysis, just a land use pattern and trends of where shifts
would go to the closest available area. Mr. Bosi said two restudies of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use
(RFMU) area and the RLSA are addressing the topic of credits to incentivize permanent agricultural
production. He said three scales were considered in the original adoption, including property
rights, environmental protection and agriculture protection. A suggested amendment from the
RLSA 5-Year Review was creating an agriculture credit system to provide for long term viability of
agriculture in the eastern lands, noting that most people do not realize the significant economic
impact that agriculture has on the County. Mr. Robbins said the shift is not just happening within
the district, but some of the shift is happening from the east coast to the west coast. An example
of this shift is the new farms near the Seminole Reservation.
The audience member said the reason she is asking the question is because landowners are saying
that agricultural production is becoming less viable. Mr. Robbins said some of the land is not
viable, and sometimes the crop is not supportable. The study represents an overall trend of land
use patterns.
Mr. Van Lengen voiced appreciation for the audience’s input and noted the time remaining for the
meeting allowed for a few more questions. He added that the County can better identify the
population numbers more clearly. The population for the Golden Gate Estates area is projected
to double in population from 45,000-50,000 to 90,000 people by 2040. In contrast, the Rural
Lands is projected to be 40,000-47,000 people by 2040. The congestion on the roads currently is
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 400 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts
August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 14
primarily from Golden Gate Estates. People are concerned about traffic from the growth in Rural
Lands, but growth will not be coming in a concentrated wave like a freight train.
An audience member made a personal observation. She inquired with moving companies and
learned that a lot of people are moving north out of Collier County. She noted that the County
anticipates growth of about 6,000 people per year and asked if the growth projections consider
outmigration? Mr. Van Lengen said yes, growth projections do factor outmigration.
An audience member said agriculture lands are diminishing rapidly in the County. If you are going
to develop land, is it a lot easier or cheaper to develop agriculture land? Mr. Bosi said the open
lands or agriculture lands are considered the most prime for compact urban development, and
that is why an agriculture credit is suggested. Overall the allocation of agricultural land is
protected within SSAs. The SSAs create credits based on a formula that considers acreage, the
Natural Resource Index score, and land use layers. Most SSAs are brought down to AG-1 (active
agriculture activity) or AG-2 (passive pasture activity). The program does try to perpetuate
agriculture in the future because we know it is a presence we need in the County.
An audience member asked from the RLSA initial adoption until the 2009 Restudy, what was the
acreage loss in agriculture, and what is that number in 2018? Mr. Bosi recognized that there has
been significant loss in agriculture. There are macroeconomic issues impacting farming. The
farming production from South and Central America and international markets have undercut the
ability for some farmers to have a profitable and successful operation. He said there are some
factors beyond what we can influence locally, but we can try to make the best regulatory
framework possible. Farmers need to be profitable to sustain their business here. Farmers are
looking at new strategies to fill the gaps, such as growing specialty products.
Mr. Van Lengen asked the audience for any remaining questions and then thanked the panel for
their participation. He reminded the audience of the next meeting on September 27, 2018. The
meeting concluded at approximately 8:15 p.m.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 401 of 518
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Meeting Summary
RLSA Restudy
Water Resources
September 27, 2018, 6:00-8:00 PM, South Regional Library
8065 Lely Cultural Parkway, Naples, 34113
I Introduction
Speaker: Mr. Kris Van Lengen, Collier County
Mr. Van Lengen, Collier County Planning and Zoning, welcomed attendees and opened the
meeting at 6:05. He described that comment cards are provided and asked attendees to fill in
their concerns and comments at the start of the meeting, noting that this will be requested again
at the end of the meeting.
Mr. Van Lengen introduced the panel of professionals with the overview that Jerry Kurtz will talk
about watershed issues, basin rules, storm and surface water, where the surface water goes and
how long it takes to get there, and the County’s role. Brad Cook, Section Leader at South Florida
Water Management District (SFWMD) will give a regional perspective on water supply planning
and permitting through the SFWMD, and the water uses that occur agriculturally and domestically.
Steve Messner, Collier County Public Utilities Department, will talk about how water gets from
well to faucets and the impacts associated for the Collier County Water and Sewer District as
services move east. Kirk Martin, Hydrologist, will discuss how all of these concepts come together,
permitted use versus actual use, and an overview of the entire water cycle.
Mr. Van Lengen reviewed the meeting schedule and noted that the presentations at the August
and September meetings have a focus on facts related to infrastructure, fiscal impact and water
resources. The intent of these meetings has been to provide information that will apply to future
meetings and discussions. October and November meetings will be more interactive with topics
of sustainable development, what the building environment should look like, lessons learned,
Group 4 policies, and Group 5 policies for baseline development in the form of 5-acre ranchettes
if time permits. Future meeting content will include the review of Rural Lands policies that the
Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC) and Board of County Commissioners (BCC)
conducted previously. The credit system from Group 1 policies and consensus building will be part
of future meetings. Public comments, the 5-year review recommendations and responses from
advisory boards will be reviewed as the workshop series wraps up. He noted that January and
February may not be the last two meetings, because it may take longer to work through the
consensus building phase.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 402 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Water Resources
September 27, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 2
Mr. Van Lengen highlighted that Facebook Live is available for communication during this session,
and that Dr. Amanda Evans will facilitate the Q&A portion of this session. Presenters will give their
presentations followed by time for questions. Video archives of these sessions are available at
colliercountyfl.gov. The RLSA workshop website has summaries and the PowerPoint presentations
available, and Mr. Van Lengen noted that all participant feedback and emails are appreciated.
He then introduced Mr. Jerry Kurtz with a brief biography outlining that Mr. Kurtz is an engineer
and has been with Collier County for 20 years.
II Presentations
Speaker: Mr. Jerry Kurtz, P.E., Collier County Stormwater Management Section
Mr. Kurtz began his presentation describing the importance of stewardship of water and land and
people that make up a watershed. Mr. Kurtz gave an overview of his discussion topics, which
include stormwater management rules, basins and each basin’s flow, the rural land flowways, and
rural land water retention areas (WRAs).
The County’s stormwater management program once focused on drainage improvement and now
focuses on watershed health management. It’s about managing the resource, not just nuisance
flooding. Mr. Kurtz’s group in the Growth Management Department in the Capital Management
group helps keep the County systems up to date and functioning while planning, building, and
designing capital improvement projects for the County.
Mr. Kurtz explained the SFWMD manages the larger water systems, and Collier County manages
smaller water managements systems such as lakes, canals and ditches. The Big Cypress Basin is
managed by both SFWMD and Collier County. Mr. Kurtz’s group provides long range and short
range planning and maintenance, area master plans and implementation of the watershed
management plan, which was finalized in 2011. As funding and resources become available,
improvements will be done on the basis of that plan. Staff also reviews rezoning at a high level,
considering regional waterflow issues as well as impacts to canal systems and structures. He noted
that stormwater management rules of the SFWMD apply in Collier County, and using these rules
is good for efficiency and consistency.
Mr. Kurtz displayed a map of the stormwater basins, also called sub-watersheds, identifying there
are 22 basins on the map, and there are 51 total basins in the County. In 1990 the County assessed
water running off the land, and the rate of release (or discharge) became controlled. In this case,
the local County rules supplement the SFWMD rules. The County restricts the discharge rate by
ordinance, and the County has added areas to these restrictions over the years. The watershed
scale planning effort showed that 16 more sub-basin areas need to be controlled with a discharge
rate. These rates apply to all new development. Relative to rural lands, most of the area is
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 403 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Water Resources
September 27, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 3
unrestricted, or the base discharge rate of 0.15 cubic feet per second per acre applies. The rates
could be reduced by as much as half in the urban area.
Mr. Kurtz said that canals and ditches are more predominate in the urban area compared to the
rural area. He displayed a map showing the natural flowways in the rural lands. The Flowway
Stewardship Areas (FSAs) will function like canals, meaning the water will be guided to these areas
as receiving waterways. As development occurs, the flowways will be studied. The flowways will
deliver water to the sensitive receiving areas to the south, the Panther Refuge, Big Cypress
Preserve, Ten Thousand Islands, and ultimately the Gulf of Mexico. Mr. Kurtz stressed that this is
an entirely different scheme compared to the urban area, adding that the resulting regional flow
patterns and water quality must be studied over time to help better understand and manage
conditions in the future.
Mr. Kurtz explained that the Camp Keais Strand and the Okaloacoochee Slough are currently used
for water management, and as long as this is acceptable and working, then this condition should
be kept the same or improved as needed as land uses change. As more information is gathered,
the County can adapt and adjust to new needs. Mr. Kurtz has recently heard from a property
owner about water building up in the northern part of the Rural Lands Area, which may have
resulted from changing water flow through the Okaloacoochee Slough during the rainy season.
Mr. Kurtz added that he believes the flowways should have management plans.
Mr. Kurtz said the Water Retention Areas (WRAs) are great features, noting they are designated
for current and future water management functions. Water could be guided through them to flow
toward sensitive receiving waters. This is the current condition for the most part and is successful.
In contrast, the urban environment has natural features that were impacted many years ago, and
the situation for the rural lands is better because the watershed approach to water management
can incorporate natural features and systems.
Mr. Kurtz described that agriculture operations were historically accustomed to pumping water
into massive retention areas, and he participated in some monitoring about 25 years ago and saw
how much water can be managed. He concluded that these are good areas to use for water
management today and into the future.
Speaker: Mr. Brad Cook, South Florida Water Management District
Mr. Van Lengen introduced Brad Cook with a brief biography. Mr. Cook joined the South Florida
Water Management District (SFWMD) in 2012 and has 25 years of environmental and water
resources management experience.
Mr. Cook introduced his two main topics: water resource planning (water supply planning that
the District conducts and the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan) and water use and
consumptive use permitting. Water resource planning is determining if there is enough supply to
meet the demand. He explained that the SFWMD has five regional areas, including the Lower
West Coast, for which water needs are assessed over a 20-year planning horizon. The timeframe
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 404 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Water Resources
September 27, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 4
for the recently completed 2017 plan is through 2040. The plan evaluates strategies and sources
to meet future water demands and is updated every five years.
Mr. Cook displayed a general hydrogeologic cross section of water sources in the area. The water
table and Lower Tamiami aquifer are called the surficial aquifer system. Sandstone and Mid-
Hawthorne are intermediate aquifer systems. The deepest aquifer typically tapped for water
supply is the Floridan aquifer system.
Mr. Cook displayed a chart showing the use of each aquifer system. Every five years when the
Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan is updated, the demand projections are updated for six
different types of water use including public supply, domestic and small public supply, agriculture
irrigation, industrial/commercial/institutional, recreational/landscape irrigation, and power
generation. Agriculture has the highest demand of water supply.
Mr. Cook explained that the population growth projections have been slightly reducing over the
past ten years. As population increases, the demand is increasing at a lower rate due to
conservation measures, reduced per capita demand and use of reclaimed water. Conservation
measures are through Block rate structures, efficient fixtures, and irrigation restrictions. Reuse
water is also known as reclaimed or irrigation quality (IQ) water. Reuse water can also be used in
place of other sources, such as potable water. Reduction in per capita demand has been noted
since 2000. Currently in the Lower West Coast area, around 80 million gallons per day (MGD) is
reused for irrigation of residential lots, golf courses, parks, and other green space.
The 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan concluded that 2040 demands can be met by the
proper management, conservation and implementation of additional water supply projects.
Future demands through 2040 can be met through implementation of projects identified in the
plan. Mr. Cook noted that the SFWMD website provides extensive information, and the plan,
which is about 400 pages in total, can be found at sfwmd.gov/lwcplan.
Consumptive use permitting is based on Florida water law, which gives SFWMD the exclusive
authority to regulate consumptive use of water. There are no property rights to water. Users
must obtain a water use permit to have a water right, and permits must be renewed. The water
use permitting rules are found in Florida Statutes Chapter 373 and Rule 40E-2 of the Florida
Administrative Code (FAC), and the Water Use Applicant’s Handbook is a supplement to the rules
and regulations.
Mr. Cook explained the permitting process beginning with the application for a water use permit,
which is subject to a “three-pronged test.” The water use request should be reasonable, beneficial
and consistent with public interest. Common water use permitting is for public water supply,
mining, industrial, and irrigation. Private single-family homes, fire protection, and reclaimed water
are exempt from consumptive use permitting.
Permit types are based on the amount of water needed for a particular purpose, or the allocation.
The Noticed General Permit is for the smallest allocation, and permits are issued for twenty years.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 405 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Water Resources
September 27, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 5
There are three tiers of Individual Permits, which can require reporting. These are issued for five
years for new uses to evaluate if there are issues with the permit, and up to twenty years for
renewals.
Mr. Cook explained that the SFWMD evaluates water use permits by determining how much water
is needed for a particular project. The Blaney-Criddle spreadsheets have several input parameters
used to calculate water demand for irrigation permits. While public water supply is based on
population and per capita use, other types of uses are based on project specific calculations. An
applicant must provide a site map with pumping facilities, details on the well, proof of legal control,
reclaimed water availability and water use accounting for projects over 100,000 MGD and an
application processing fee. For projects with proposed uses over 3 million gallons per month, an
impact analysis must include analysis of existing users, availability, and other factors. Mr. Cook
elaborated on the methods of performing the water resource availability analysis, describing how
the Maximum Developable Limit (MDL) is evaluated. The top of the aquifer and historical water
levels are determined. MDL monitoring is performed on an ongoing basis, especially in dry season
when water levels are at their lowest. He referenced that United States Geological Survey (USGS)
hydrographs show water levels since 1976 for some wells.
Mr. Cook explained how modeling is done to assess drawdown, and he displayed an exhibit based
on aquifer hydraulic parameters and pumpage rates. Mr. Cook explained how saline water
intrusion or migration is assessed. Wetlands are evaluated to ensure water use won’t affect the
hydroperiod or affect water levels in wetlands. Some permits can include conditions for water
level monitoring. Soil and groundwater contamination are also evaluated during water use
permitting review.
The water use permit outlines the allocation with annual and maximum monthly allocations,
duration of the permit, facilities, and permit conditions like monitoring or other restrictions. Mr.
Cook concluded by sharing that the website sfwmd.gov contains a lot of related information.
Speaker: Mr. Steve Messner, Collier County Public Utilities Department
Mr. Van Lengen introduced Steve Messner, Director of Collier County Public Utilities Department,
noting Mr. Messner’s impressive understanding of the logistics and current system in Collier
County.
Mr. Messner provided an overview and stated Collier County provides potable water services to
73,400 service connections. Collier County has two water treatment plants, four water storage
and re-pumping stations and three wellfields.
Collier County water treatment plants have 140 full time employees with an annual budget of
nearly $30 million and capital budget of nearly $43 million. The service area is 240 square miles.
There are over 800 miles of water main in Collier County. Nine billion gallons of water is
distributed or 24.5 million gallons per day (MGD). The highest day demand this year was 32.9
MGD. The treatment capacity is 52 MGD so there is room to grow.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 406 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Water Resources
September 27, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 6
Mr. Messner explained that raw water sources include fresh water from the Tamiami aquifer,
which the County accesses with 36 wells located 60-110 feet below the ground with 30 MGD
capacity in that wellfield. The brackish water is sourced from the Hawthorn Aquifer zone 1 and
lower zone with 65 wells located 300-900 feet below the ground with 60 MGD capacity. Mr.
Messner pointed out that brackish water is not seawater.
Mr. Messner displayed a map showing the two water treatment plants in Collier County referred
to as the North Plant and the South Plant. The North County Water Treatment Plant was
constructed in 1993 with 12 MGD using fresh water and a membrane softening water treatment
process. The North Plant was expanded by 8 MGD in 1999 with reverse osmosis treatment, and
average production is 12 MGD for this facility. Mr. Messner explained the treatment processes,
noting there are two different treatment processes under one roof, making the treatment plant
“hybrid.”
The South County Water Treatment Plant located on County Road 951 was constructed in 1984
with 4 MGD with a conventional treatment process or lime softening process. The plant was
expanded to 12 MGD in 1998. In 2004 the plant expanded again, adding 8 MGD with reverse
osmosis treatment. In 2009 the reverse osmosis treatment process added 12 MGD for a total 32
MGD. Average production in fiscal year 2018 was 12.5 MGD. The plants are targeted to produce
a 50/50 split, keeping the water fresher and maintaining compliance. Mr. Messner explained the
plant’s treatment process, noting it is also a hybrid plant.
Conservation methods include the use of irrigation quality (IQ) water. Five billion gallons of IQ
water is used for irrigation annually for golf courses parks, some residential communities and
roadway medians. This represents 90% of water used in Collier County, and Mr. Messner noted
that IQ water can also be used for potable water.
Speaker: Mr. Kirk Martin, Water Science Associates
Mr. Van Lengen introduced Kirk Martin, Senior Hydrologist with Water Science Associates. Mr.
Martin consults for the Rural Lands West project, and he has been a consultant for the Collier
Water and Sewer District for many years.
Mr. Martin’s discussion topics included improved water resource management in rural lands,
existing systems, and saltwater intrusion. He began by explaining how the Collier County Water
and Sewer District is a progressive public water, wastewater and irrigation water utility. The
County is a leader with early adoption of reuse, desalination, and aquifer storage and recovery
(ASR). The County’s integrated resource management is innovative. The County’s system is 1/3
fresh, 1/3 brackish, 1/3 reuse. He explained the differences in saline, brackish and fresh water.
He explained the water table and the Tamiami Aquifer, which is very productive in Collier County.
With 52 MGD installed capacity and 30 MGD in use, there is capacity available in the system.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 407 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Water Resources
September 27, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 7
Mr. Martin said the future Northeast Water Treatment Plant is planned for a brackish water
source. Collier County capped the use of fresh water as brackish and reuse water sources
increased. He noted that brackish water comes at a more expensive cost.
The IQ system consists of reclaimed plus supplemental groundwater. This accommodates the dry
seasonal needs. Currently over 95% of the water used is going to reclaimed reuse. He described
how there is a north and south facility currently and a planned facility in the northeast.
The IQ system reduces competition for limited resources, reduces demands on the potable
system, removes surface water quality impacts, and provides aquifer recharge every day,
particularly providing aquifer recharge near the coast which helps keep saltwater at bay. The IQ
source is brackish or inland, providing advantages to the coastal developed area.
On the topic of saline water, Mr. Martin said saline water is considered water with over 10,000
chlorides. The SFWMD map is wrong in that the City of Naples wellfield is fresh water, not salt.
Mr. Martin displayed a second map that he said is also inaccurately labeling salt water. Mr. Martin
displayed a third map showing topography from sea level to 12 feet above sea level, indicating
where the coastal ridge and lower lying areas are in the County.
On the topic of connate water, Mr. Martin said this is water that was entrapped in the ground and
did not get flushed out. He said 120 thousand years ago, the Collier County area sea water was
25 feet higher than it is today. Mr. Martin explained the dynamics of hydraulic entrapment of
connate water. He explained that a modeling effort is underway for wellhead protection in Collier
County showing net recharge up or down among the water table and the aquifers.
Mr. Martin said that most water considered saline in the Lower Tamiami aquifer is not saline but
very mildly brackish (approximately 300-500 mg/l chloride). Saline water in the Lower Tamiami
aquifer is not intruded, but trapped connate water from the last high sea level stand.
He went on to say there is no apparent movement of saline water in Collier County. Use of the
connate water is actually good for the resource, and sea level rise is not projected to increase
saline water intrusion. Groundwater and sea level are on a continuum. As sea level rises, the
entire system will rise. A model is being developed for Palm Beach County, revealing the issue
with sea level rise is not saline intrusion, but rather flooding.
Mr. Martin said the RLSA provides owner incentives for preservation, restoration, connectivity of
wetlands, flowways, and wildlife habitat. Water use reduces significantly when agriculture
converts to new communities. Mr. Martin described the Rural Lands West project and the
components of the 4,000-acre new town. He pointed out the historical agricultural water use
compared to the planned demands. He displayed that water levels vary between 10-15 feet in the
aquifers, and there has been no decline in the aquifer over several years.
Mr. Martin described the plans for utility services in northeast Collier County. He pointed out four
projects that equate to 7 or 8 MGD of potable water demands, noting there is a lot of capacity in
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 408 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Water Resources
September 27, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 8
existing County facilities, and there will eventually be a permeant plant in the northeast part of
the County.
Mr. Martin explained that conversion of agriculture acreage will significantly reduce current water
demand. Collier County will provide potable water and wastewater services to Rural Lands West.
Rural Lands West will meet reduced irrigation demands from onsite wells, and it will provide
additional fresh water to the County system.
Mr. Martin summarized that Collier County has a long and highly respected history of prudent and
progressive water resource management. The County provides an area-appropriate mix of fresh
groundwater, brackish groundwater and reclaimed water to meet total water demands.
Conversion of RLSA lands in eastern Collier County provides a new opportunity for improved water
supply management. Development of proven sustainable freshwater supplies in the RLSA for
public utility use will provide flexibility in County water sources, reduce concentration and impacts
of freshwater withdrawals, reduce reliance on expensive and high maintenance brackish sources,
expand opportunities for provision of critical IQ water supplies, and provide new resources for
coastal aquifer recharge.
III Questions and Comments
Dr. Amanda Evans, Facilitator, FGCU
Mr. Van Lengen called the presenters to the front table to allow the audience to ask questions.
He explained Rural Lands West is an application that is already under review, and it makes sense
to discuss aspects of the Rural Lands West project for illuminating questions.
Dr. Amanda Evans said Facebook Live questions are welcomed.
Brad Cornell asked if the County or the SFWMD is doing any modeling on a regional basis to
demonstrate water resource or wetland impacts? Do we have enough monitoring wells? Mr.
Martin said the permitting process is rigorous and a regional perspective is important. Large
wetland areas are in beautiful shape and the resources are proven. Mr. Cook said the SFWMD is
doing some Lower West Coast modeling that takes into account the entire service area. In
reference to the monitoring wells question, he said the District is looking at the Maximum
Developable Limit (MDL), however there is restriction in the number and location of monitoring
wells. He concluded that the SWFMD would always like to have more data.
An audience member asked Mr. Martin if converting agricultural land to residential is a good thing,
then why keep agricultural land? Mr. Martin said there is push back by the agricultural industry
on conversion of agricultural land. The agriculture industry has changed a lot over the last 20 years
to minimize fertilizer and water use. The Rural Lands West project is one particular project in
which the conditions will be better after development. He is not suggesting that residential use is
better than an agricultural use, but it is just different.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 409 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Water Resources
September 27, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 9
An audience member asked Mr. Martin, if Rural Lands West develops the optional 50-hole golf
course, is there an analysis for the water withdraws for the golf course irrigation? Mr. Martin said
the original plan did not have the golf course, and the result of adding an 18 or 36-hole golf course
holes offsets houses, and it was not a significant change.
An audience member asked when you compare Rural Lands West agriculture withdraws are you
looking at actual use or permitted use in the water use studies? Mr. Martin said both; 30 MGD
permitted and the use has been historically that much.
An audience member stated that the history of water use is intriguing, but the addition of 300,000
people will have implications and much of the problems along the coast are due to runoff. Can
the County take another 300,000 people? Mr. Martin said the volumes, rates and points of outfall
will be exactly the same. There is room for more storage and more controlled discharge in the
rural lands. Mr. Kurtz said the impact will be less in the rural lands. Impacts are generated in the
urban area and the County is always playing catch up with the runoff since areas built before
regulations were in place in the 1970s and 1980s. Mr. Kurtz said there are lessons learned from
the urban area and it’s exciting to use the natural lands in the rural areas by doing proper water
management at no expense to the natural lands.
An audience member asked a question about the two flowways and Camp Keais Strand. With
Rural Lands West to the west and Ave Maria on the east, is there a flowway management plan for
Camp Keais Strand? Mr. Kurtz said he does not know, and Rural Lands West is still under review.
Mr. Kurtz said he thinks there should be a flowway management plan because the flow should be
monitored at a minimum and managed if needed. He does not know if there will be a management
plan in the future. Mr. Kurtz doesn’t have first-hand knowledge if there have been management
plans in the past, but doing land use changes should involve County, state and federal
consideration of how the flowways are managed. Tidal receiving waters don’t have a management
program or policy, but now downstream receiving waters need a water management plan. The
first phase of a management program would be annual inspection, but there are a lot of areas
without any type of inspection.
The audience member voiced concerned that Corkscrew Swamp is draining more rapidly and
losing water, and considering the new development, the lakes can draw water faster and cause
Corkscrew Swamp to drain sooner. Mr. Kurtz said it’s a common concern. Flood protection level
of service has to be balanced with resource protection so there is no over-draining. Stormwater
used to be considered a nuisance, and it is now an important resource and will someday become
a drinking water source. The question of the Corkscrew Swamp draining involves a regional
approach to water management. Assessing the flow in the watershed is a concept that water
managers deal with every day.
An audience member commented about retaining agriculture and asked if water reduction is a
benefit to wildlife habitat and connectivity? Second, on Mr. Kurtz’ reference to a management
plan, the audience member suggested that this can be an initiative that the County goes forward
with by creating and implementing management plans. She had a question for Mr. Martin on how
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 410 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Water Resources
September 27, 2018, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 10
Rural Lands West will provide additional fresh water? Mr. Martin said the reduction in agricultural
water use will provide fresh water to Collier County, not to the system.
Mr. Van Lengen asked for an explanation of the costs for production of water. Mr. Messner said
of the three water treatment options (lime softening, membrane filtration, and reverse osmosis
of brackish water), reverse osmosis is the most costly. It takes power to drive the pumps to make
the reverse osmosis work. The lower the water quality, the higher the cost of treating the water.
Technologies are getting better but there is additional cost for treating brackish water supply.
An audience member commented that solar panels should be included on these plants. She asked
if development is allowed on the County’s 51 stormwater basins? Mr. Kurtz said yes, the basins
cover the whole County. The audience member asked when someone wants to develop in the
basin, do they have to do certain things? Mr. Kurtz said the maximum discharge rate determines
how the designer designs the project. This applies to remaining parcels that are yet to be
developed, and the resulting water management system is more robust and the runoff is released
at a reduced rate. This controls adverse impact on the existing system, so the burden goes on the
parcels yet to be developed to do a more robust water management system. Low impact
development forces treating the runoff on the site to relieve the burden of conveying the water
rapidly off the property.
The audience member asked if the County will require more pervious systems? Mr. Kurtz said that
is a growing trend and mentioned that the upcoming sports center and Rural Lands West projects
should be considered relative to perviousness.
An audience member referenced that farmers are upset about retaining water south of the lake
and asked how did farmers determine they would convert their land? Mr. Kurtz said the decisions
by property owners are based on their own reasons.
An audience member asked how to access the projects being referenced in the eastern lands? Mr.
Martin said Oil Well Road, just east of Golden Gate Estates. The audience member asked if
Vanderbilt Road is going out that way? Mr. Van Lengen said access is off Oil Well Road just past
the Estates. The audience member asked if the developer is going to pay for the road? Mr. Van
Lengen said that is a topic for another workshop.
IV Adjourn
Mr. Van Lengen thanked everyone for their participation and encouraged the audience to
complete the comment cards. The meeting ended at 8:05.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 411 of 518
www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Meeting Summary
RLSA Restudy Public Workshop
Sustainable Development
October 25, 2018, 6:00-8:00 PM, South Regional Library
8065 Lely Cultural Parkway, Naples, 34113
I Introduction
Speaker: Mr. Kris Van Lengen, Collier County
Mr. Van Lengen, Collier County Community Planning Manager, opened the meeting at
approximately 6:05 p.m. stating that the discussion will be about the built environment. He
explained that the presentations will be in sections, allowing for questions and answers before each
presenter. Sustainability, smart development and some of the Group 4 policies will be the main
concepts. Then the audience will be asked what they would like to discuss at the next meeting. Mr.
David Weeks will present and discuss population concepts. Mrs. Laura DeJohn will discuss growth
patterns and how development has occurred in Southwest Florida. Mr. Van Lengen will discuss
selected provisions of Group 4 and Group 5 policies. Finally, Dr. Amanda Evans will facilitate the
group discussion.
Mr. Van Lengen explained that the next meeting on November 29th will further explore sustainable
development. David Genson representing Barron Collier will discuss successes, challenges, and
lessons learned in developing Ave Maria. The Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC)
meets next on December 6th and the Committee will be discussing the direction for future meetings
that will be aimed at building consensus on any proposed policy changes. The public is encouraged
to participate at the GMOC meeting. The first meeting in 2019 will include revisiting Group 1 policies
and consensus building.
Mr. Van Lengen highlighted opportunities for participation, noting that Facebook Like is available for
anyone not able to attend meetings in person. Past meeting archives including workshop
summaries, PowerPoint presentations and videos can be accessed at
www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies. Feedback can be emailed to
RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov. Comment cards are collected at the end of the meeting and are
appreciated.
II Population Concepts
Speaker: Mr. David Weeks, Collier County Comprehensive Planning Manager
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 412 of 518
www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Mr. Weeks introduced statutory requirements that apply to every county in Florida, including the
requirement for a growth management plan (GMP). The County must have population projections
and estimates, both permanent and seasonal. The County is required to use the state’s population
figures unless otherwise approved by the state to use an alternative methodology. Collier County
uses the medium range projections provided by the state. When the GMP was adopted in 1989,
population growth was explosive, and the high range of population growth projections were used.
Growth eventually slowed down, and the mid-range projections are now used. Collier County
determines land needed for future growth that far exceeds a 10-year period. Mr. Weeks explained
that the latest population estimates available are for 2017. For the Rural Lands Stewardship Area
(RLSA) the population for 2017 is 5,000 people and the projected 2040 population is 47,000. The
population is concentrated in Ave Maria or small communities north of Immokalee along State Road
29, State Road 82, and in small farms south of Immokalee. The population difference anticipated
between 2017 and 2040 equals an average increase of 1,800 people per year over the 23-year
timespan.
Historical growth for Collier County dates back to the 1930 census, with fewer than 3,000 people.
Over time, there have been explosive ten-year periods of growth ranging from 65% to 126%
increases in population. From 2010 to 2018, there was a 16% change and growth is now tapering
off. Mr. Weeks summarized that population projections and estimates in 2018, 2013, and 2008
portray a rather steady growth rate for Collier County.
Collier County’s permanent population projection methodology is from the published estimates and
5-year increment projections received from the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and
Business Research (BEBR). The County uses census ratios in small geographic areas known as Traffic
Analysis Zones (TAZs) that consider dwelling units and permanent population, divided to identify the
ratio of persons per household, and then certificates of occupancy are monitored each year for
determining annual population growth in the TAZ. This gets aggregated based on geographic area
and then officials arrives at population estimates. The estimates are published in April, and then
converted in October considering the County’s fiscal year cycle.
Mr. Weeks said that Collier County’s peak season population is 20% more than the October
permanent population. The 2018 projected population is 442,420, which reflects a 74,000 person
increase due to season. Some areas of the county experience greater seasonal influx than others.
Areas such as Immokalee have seasonal influx due to migrant laborers and trucking industry
employees associated with agriculture activity in and around Immokalee.
The concept “build it and they will come” is a spin-off from the movie Field of Dreams. In reality,
before development occurs, the developer considers demographics, the national, local and regional
economy, infrastructure capacity (available water, wastewater, roads, fire and police protection),
regulatory changes that could impact the success of the development, and competition. Other
considerations include events like red tide that could impact decisions by people who might relocate
to this area. Unless causes of issues are addressed, the issues can deter development. Mr. Weeks
explained that regulatory matters also impact development, such as County land use allowances
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 413 of 518
www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
including the RLSA program, state and federal permitting, and subsequent County approvals and
development of the infrastructure and building permits, before vertical construction can begin.
To wrap up the topic of development absorption, Mr. Weeks explained that when a project gets
approved it may be a year or several years before necessary permits are obtained to allow
construction of infrastructure and buildings. When a project is approved, it doesn’t mean
immediately it will be developed or that there is demand for the development. Some PUDs have
obtained approval and sat dormant for 10-12 years. For example, Lely Resort at US 41 & Collier
Boulevard was approved in 1985 with 10,150 dwelling units; today the residential units are about
halfway built out and the commercial components are about halfway built out. The developer
estimated a 40-year absorption, which would conclude in 5-7 years from now.
Mr. Weeks said that experience shows the larger the project is, the less likely it is that the approved
number of dwelling units will be actually built. Lely Resort might be built out as far as the land is
considered at 6,500 dwelling units although it has approval now for 8,946 units. The theoretical
approval is what is approved, and the actual buildout is what is actually built. While it might be
feasible in the future to redevelop or replace existing development with new or higher density
development, it is typical for larger projects not to build all units they are authorized to build.
Remaining units are called ghost units by the County. Ave Maria was approved in 2004 with 11,000
dwelling units. These projects take time even after the permitting is obtained. Rural Lands West
will take decades to build.
Mr. Weeks then opened discussion and questions from the audience. An audience member asked
how many units have been built in Ave Maria? Mr. Weeks said there is a regulatory glitch. Ave
Maria is not required to submit an annual report to the County. Annual reports are required for
Planned Unit Developments (PUDs). Ave Maria was a Development of Regional Impact (DRI), but
the Florida legislature did away with DRIs a few years ago. The audience member asked if
communities in the RLSA will have to submit an annual report? Mr. Weeks said no, RLSA
communities will not submit an annual report, and that is something the County should fix. An
audience member asked if a Development Order (DO) count is available? Mr. Weeks said the County
could get a DO count, but it is not prepared for the meeting tonight. Mr. Van Lengen said he would
obtain the requested Ave Maria information and post on the website.
III Growth Patterns
Speaker: Mrs. Laura DeJohn, Director of Planning and Landscape Architecture,
Johnson Engineering, Inc.
Mrs. DeJohn introduced herself and indicated she has been working on behalf of Collier County in
support of the RLSA public workshops. She said that she will present a high level review of the Group
4 policies, and quoted that the Group 4 policy objective is to enable conversion of rural lands to
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 414 of 518
www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
other uses in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development
that utilizes creative land use planning techniques by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving
Areas (SRAs). To gain perspective about growth patterns and community development, look nearby
to downtown Naples and the early mid-1900s large-scale platting of Golden Gate Estates. From a
planning perspective these developments were not sensitive to nature because the homogenous
grid did not accommodate any existing land or water features.
The outcomes of historic Collier County land development plans can be seen in Collier County today.
She depicted piecemeal land development examples such as two-acre Estates lots and PUD
communities that have been pieced together across the County’s landscape over time. Developers
can anticipate the type of people that want to move and live here and can design land to
accommodate these people.
She pointed out an example of development proposed to fill in where very limited space is left to
develop. The piecemeal development pattern is being perpetuated, and is also seen moving further
east into Lee County along Corkscrew Road. Residential development projects displayed along
Corkscrew Road illustrate how a large scale outcome results from several individual projects being
approved over time, based on their own individual merits. These developments aggregate to form
a 6,000-acre area where 6,000 single-family homes will be built, with no consideration for
commercial uses or services.
Relating this information back to the study areas, the RLSA was originally agricultural land subdivided
into 5-acre tracts where individual homesites would be allowed across the landscape. What came
about from the RLSA program was an effort to do something better. If you want to do something to
protect rural lands, it should be well planned, creative and not piecemealed. Geographically the
RLSA is a very large area that will not be built in a short amount of time. There are multiple private
interests involved in the RLSA, family legacies, land values and property rights that need to be
protected. Public interests include ecological values in this area, fiscal impacts of growth and
community sustainability.
Mrs. DeJohn explained that the design with nature concept is a fundamental planning theory. The
evolution of Babcock Ranch is an example of designing with nature. This community evaluated and
identified the most valuable land areas, displayed as green areas on the map, and then determined
the areas for development as seen in the gray areas on the map. The footprint for developable areas
is based on protecting the most valuable areas. This concept was the same foundation for RLSA.
High quality environmental areas were the areas set aside for protection first, then the remaining
areas are available for property owners to use as allowed per their property rights, such as
agriculture or other types of development. As described previously, individual owners doing what
they want with their property results in piecemeal development. The RLSA approach is a much more
difficult formula than the piecemeal approach. The RLSA requires more intense collaboration with
property owners to plan smarter growth.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 415 of 518
www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Mrs. DeJohn queried, do RLSA strategies accomplish this balance as described? Is the development
being done sustainably? Are green development goals met? Are sustainable design standards
implemented? Are smart growth and compact walkable communities available? Sustainability is
making sure that development meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs. Sustainability also protects the environment, including
maintenance of agriculture, and upholds the rights of property owners. Mrs. DeJohn cited the
American Planning Association Policy Guide on Smart Growth that this approach to growth and
planning can not only deliver dynamic attractive communities with greater choices for consumers
but can be a powerful tool for farmland, open space and habitat preservation.
Policy 4.6 includes these sustainably concepts, including protecting the environment, maintaining
agriculture and being cost-efficient. Mrs. DeJohn said the Restudy effort is an evaluation of whether
there are better methods to accomplish the objectives. As a member of the Development Services
Advisory Committee (DSAC), she said efforts are underway to explore green development options
through the Florida Green Building Coalition. This is an example of how Collier County is continually
looking into sustainable development concepts.
An audience member said it was useful to see the history and the development overtime which were
not of best practice. He said we are now looking at projects in this area which are huge in scale, and
asked if designing or thinking of things so large in scale is the appropriate thing to do? Mrs. DeJohn
said the alternative to large scale planning is the piecemeal style. She said we have to ask what is
the best way for Collier County to move forward with growth because growth will continue. Large
scale planning is a thoughtful approach. Piecemeal development is a less thoughtful approach. The
audience member agreed, but still thinks Rural Lands West is too large of an area for planning. He
worries that communities and their needs are evolving, so it does not seem logical forecast for
something so large.
Another audience member said it seems the proposed development concepts are aspirational, but
are you actually working with developers to achieve these ideas? Mrs. DeJohn said she is not a
consultant for developers in the County’s rural areas. However, other consultants have the same
information and follow the same program and the goals outlined in the GMP. The purpose of this
Restudy is to make sure the RLSA goals are being met. Do the current goals outlined in Policy 4.6
protect our natural environment, maintain economic viability of agriculture and discourage sprawl?
If not, the purpose of this Restudy is to look for improvements and alternatives to meet the outlined
goals.
Another audience member recommended to provide the following information to DSAC. She said
we should look at how we can force higher density planning and mixed-use development planning
to actually get walkable and bikeable towns. That didn’t happen in Ava Maria and it’s a random
sprawl town. She said in Ave Maria you cannot get everywhere with a baby carriage. A better idea
is to plan a community with one or multiple town centers with the right amenities and density
highest at the town center, then density should reduce as it goes out. The audience member
stressed the need to rework the rules to maintain high density in town centers. She said in terms of
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 416 of 518
www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
planning communities, one of the problems is developers build giant golf communities here, and we
need to do more community planning like Mercato. The audience member said we need shops,
churches, restaurants, daycares, and things communities need to thrive located where people can
access within the community so residents do not have to leave their community. Ava Maria
residents must drive so far to reach a food store. Mrs. DeJohn appreciated the thoughtful comments
and indicated that density is not going to be a matter fully addressed by the DSAC. She also indicated
that Mr. Van Lengen will discuss density and requirements next, which may help address her ideas.
Another audience member asked where does stormwater runoff go and where are detention ponds
located? What happens to the water? Mrs. DeJohn said we had a great presentation last month
from the County Stormwater Manager, Jerry Kurtz, and he described historical methods to channel
water off of properties through canals efficiently, but how the RLSA is different because of lessons
learned. In the RLSA, there are areas that allow for continuing the natural stormwater drainage
patterns of the area.
IV Selected Development Provisions
Speaker: Mr. Kris Van Lengen, Collier County
Mr. Van Lengen said the Group 4 policies are broad with 28 policies and topics that include program
goals, location, compatibility, credits and infrastructure. He noted that comments cards are on the
tablles, and he encouraged participants to suggest policies to discuss at the next meeting. He
referred to the paperwork that was provided on the audience tables outlining Group 4 policies. Also
provided was highlighted material reflecting the five year review recommendations. He encouraged
the audience to review all of the material, and indicated the highlighted goals and others are equally
important. Group 4 policies include location of SRAs, method of approval, administration, master
plan requirements, goal statements, compatibility, transportation requirements, SRA components,
public facilities, coordination with the School District, infrastructure, fiscal neutrality, credit
requirements, public benefit uses, Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) special provisions, historical
resources, and lighting.
Mr. Van Lengen summarized that the Group 4 policies as they exist today, the recommendations
from the five year review committee, and Attachment C are the printouts provided on the tables.
Mr. Van Lengen said his presentation will focus on the forms of development referenced in
Policy 4.7, and that Attachment C shows the level of goods and services required for towns, villages,
hamlets and Compact Rural Developments (CRDs). He said the Congress of New Urbanism was a
source for determining sizes of required goods and services, and a more recent tool is the (Collier
Interactive Growth Model (CIGM). He noted that Ave Maria and Rural Lands West provide more
goods and services than the minimums required.
Mr. Van Lengen highlighted that towns are defined as areas 1,000 to 4,000 acres, villages are 100 to
1,000 acres, hamlets are 40 to 100 acres, and CRDs need to be better defined. Some elements, such
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 417 of 518
www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
as public schools and parks, are not counted toward the acreage in towns and villages. Benefits of
compact and mixed-use development provide a diversity of housing, housing affordability, internal
mobility, external mobility, scaling for goods and services, economic development, community
character and fiscal benefits to local government and taxpayers.
Towns, as described in Policy 4.7.1, provide an urban community level of goods and services, human
scale, balance of land uses, mixed-use town center, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, parks, full range
of schools, and corporate offices. The Land Development Code has provisions and detailed
requirements to regulate development. Collier County welcomes suggestions for improvements.
He clarified that towns cannot be located in Areas for Critical State Concern (ACSC).
He said that Land Development Code Section 4.08.07 more specifically provides for transects from
core to edge. Architectural standards, landscape, streetscape, lighting, building heights, setbacks,
parking and environmental standards are also provided in the Land Development Code.
The five year review provided ideas for improvement on Policy 4.7.1 including the requirement for
a more formalized “Mobility Plan” to address transit, park and ride facilities, and increasing the town
size range to be 1,500 to 5,000 acres. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy has suggested to
add a housing analysis requirement to address workforce accommodation in the towns and villages
so they are more self-sufficient.
Villages are smaller than towns with a lower threshold for goods, services and parks. Villages still
require a village center focal point, interconnected sidewalks, parks or public green space, and are
an appropriate location for schools. The five year review provided ideas for improvement in village
criteria, including an increase in the size range to 100 to 1,500 acres, requiring a mobility plan similar
to towns, and allowing corporate office and light industrial as an option in villages.
In the discussion of hamlets, Mr. Van Lengen said that these could be eliminated. An example in the
vicinity of Brantley Boulevard was shown. The structure for hamlets is similar to the piecemeal
growth pattern. Mr. Van Lengen said he thinks hamlets should be eliminated but is open to
discussion on why they should be kept.
Compact Rural Developments (CRDs) support concepts like eco-tourism and accommodate transient
lodging facilities. Mr. Van Lengen said that uses in CRDs need to be better defined. The CRD
designation is generally a catch-all to accommodate different uses in the future. An audience
member said a concern is trailer communities. Mr. Van Lengen agreed that it is important to look
at the definition of CRDs more closely.
The requirement for goods and services is at different levels for towns, villages and other forms of
development ranging from 10 to 65 square feet of gross building area per dwelling unit. The idea is
to have dynamic levels of activity within the towns and villages. The mix of uses formula requires
residential development to be supported with goods and services and employment and civic uses
that in turn contribute to mobility, efficiency and character.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 418 of 518
www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Mr. Van Lengen pointed out that Group 4 policies are about SRAs, which is where development goes
if and landowner opts into the RLSA program. Group 5 policies are for landowners outside of SRAs
who do not choose to own, buy or spend stewardship credits. Underlying zoning is still in effect,
and Group 5 policies provide tightened restrictions and requirements when landowners develop
without invoking RLSA Overlay. Mr. Van Lengen noted that the policies are structured such that an
owner cannot petition the Board of County Commissioners for development of a gated community
unless they go through the stewardship program and develop according to the criteria applicable to
SRAs.
When not developing through an SRA, various uses are allowed within the baseline zoning of
Agriculture including farming, mining, recreation, cemeteries and other conditional uses.
Residential uses are allowed at a density of one unit per five acres under Agricultural zoning.
Mr. Van Lengen summarized that Group 5 policies impose strict environmental rules and restrictions
for development, including that site clearing and nonpermeable surfaces are restricted and an
Environmental Impact Statement is required. Property within the ASCS is subject to even tighter
restrictions. Wildlife surveys and habitat management plans are also required for non-residential
development.
V Group Input
Mr. Van Lengen initiated the question for the audience to discuss: Do Towns, Villages, Hamlets and
Compact Rural Developments provide the right pattern of development within the RLSA? If not,
what changes would you recommend?
Dr. Amanda Evans said comments on Facebook Live will be included in the feedback tracker and
encouraged the audience to continue participating. Dr. Evan reminded the audience that all
comments are recorded in the feedback tracker.
An audience member asked if any information is available on the number of people needed to
support specific uses, like a gas station, hospital, or grocery store. Mr. Van Lengen said the CIGM
models what is needed in terms of goods and services to support certain uses. Developers know
that projects like Ava Maria need a Publix and that it will not be profitable for a while, but that need
must be fulfilled. Roughly 12,000 people are needed to support such a use.
Dr. Evans followed up linking this discussion to the group question, guiding the audience to provide
a consensus on what policies work and which need improvement. Dr. Evans encouraged the
audience to provide suggestions for improvement, noting that it is difficult to make
recommendations without specific suggestions for improvement. Understanding that some people
are not comfortable speaking within the group, she mentioned the comment cards provided on the
table for written feedback.
Dr. Evans pointed out to the Facebook Live audience that this meeting is not about the Rural Lands
West project, and is about the Rural Lands Stewardship Area restudy. While the public’s comments
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 419 of 518
www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
on the Rural Lands West project are important, she said they are not applicable for the restudy effort
being discussed at this meeting.
After the audience work session, the feedback of the work groups was presented, starting with the
Purple Group. The Purple Group reached a consensus that villages and towns make sense, and
hamlets and CRDs do not make sense. Action items included: requiring rules for high density at
town centers and cores, with variable density moving outward; offer incentives to get more open
land; certain essential services are needed before occupancy; and stronger zoning laws are needed
to fill in gaps, such as rules on pervious surfaces. The Purple Group supported variable affordable
housing options and green building standards. This group wanted to see developers that are
experienced in town center development. Finally, the Purple Group expressed concern and wants
the Board of County Commissioners to hear the recommendations presented and pass them.
The Yellow Group reached consensus that hamlets do not make sense and require too much
supporting infrastructure and services. The AARP self-sustaining livable community model was
recommended for villages. The group said a provision should be provided for wildlife to travel and
use their natural habitat without crossing streets and major highways. Questions included: what
demographic is anticipated and what services do they need? Are they transient, seasonal, elderly,
or aging in place?
The Green Group reached consensus on requiring a ¼-mile radius for walkability for all
neighborhoods with amenities at the center. Mobility efficiency should be considered, and cars may
not even be needed. Minimize automobile centricity. Government support should be provided for
amenities. Streamline the process to make sure people have what they need. Increase minimum
densities and increase clustered development. The separation between SRAs should be defined so
they are not sprawling together and rather so that they have edges. Amenities must be put in
developments even if the services must be subsidized, and maybe tax dollars can be provided to
support the town center at the beginning stages of development.
The Pink Group had consensus items including: staging permitting so that not all developments are
constructed at once; do not permit new developments until current residential projects reach a
defined level of development buildout; and the developer should be on the hook for infrastructure
during all the years of buildout. The group inquired will this zoning overlay bring new urbanism or
more sprawl? Will the overlay bring the green space desired? Who is the target audience? Consider
development placement relative to HSAs and other sensitive areas. The groups recommended
action items include: restudy the credit methodology and the RLSA worksheet to take into account
best available science for panthers and other habitat; the ¼-mile average walkability radius is
important; green space and smart growth patterns are desired.
The Blue Group reached consensus that: SRA policies should include requirements for new
urbanism principles to encourage compact and walkable towns; towns that are six miles long with
golf courses should be held to requirements that make them compact and walkable; adopt more
criteria to guide the development of towns, villages and hamlets; require architectural standards for
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 420 of 518
www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
towns and villages; the minimum density should be increased to encourage walkability; landowners
should not earn credits for impacting habitat in WRAs or primary panther habitat; the master
mobility plans should be more detailed in SRAs to show interconnected street networks; SRAs should
not be built in primary panther habitat; and the best available science needs to be used.
Dr. Evans said reoccurring topics, such as panthers and other protected species, will be revisited in
future meetings. Mr. Van Lengen said the wrap up discussion of Group 1 Policies will cover the credit
system and panther habitat scoring and that the County needs to consider a third-party opinion on
the best available science on future panther viability.
VI Adjourn
Dr. Evans said the comments and discussion has been very valuable and encouraged additional
comments to be provided by email or on comment cards. The meeting ended at approximately 8:10
p.m.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 421 of 518
www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 1
Meeting Summary
RLSA Restudy Public Workshop
Discouraging Sprawl and Encouraging Responsible Development
November 29, 2018, 6:00-8:00 PM, South Regional Library
8065 Lely Cultural Parkway, Naples, 34113
I Introduction
Speaker: Mr. Kris Van Lengen, Collier County
Mr. Van Lengen opened the meeting and welcomed the audience at 6:10, making note of an
accident on US 41 that might cause delay in attendees arriving. He welcomed newcomers to the
meeting and invited them to contact him if they have any questions or want more background
information.
He outlined the evening’s agenda, which will include his introduction, followed by an explanation of
case studies of new towns and villages by Laura DeJohn, and a presentation of lessons learned at
Ave Maria by David Genson. Questions will be welcomed after each speaker, and an opportunity
for discussion at the end of the meeting will allow for more input if time permits.
Mr. Van Lengen explained that the County audio/video staff could not attend this evening, and audio
of the meeting will be available on the County website. Summaries and PowerPoint presentations
can be found on the website also. He added that the RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov email
address can be used for sending comments, and comment cards can be filled out and returned
during the meeting as well.
In January the venue will change to North Collier Regional Park, however space is not available
January 24 and is available January 31. The date of January 31 is also a conflicting time for the
audio/video staff. Mr. Van Lengen advised that the Growth Management Oversight Committee
mentioned they would like to see a meeting held in Immokalee or Ave Maria, and he asked if a night
meeting in Immokalee or Ave Maria is favorable. An audience member commented that previously
meetings in the eastern part of the County were held in the morning. By a show of hands, about
half of the audience was in favor of an evening meeting in Immokalee or Ave Maria and about half
the audience was opposed.
Mr. Van Lengen described that the February and March workshops will be consensus building
meetings held at North Collier Regional Park. The consensus building process will be reviewed with
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 422 of 518
www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 2
the Growth Management Oversight Committee, and feedback is welcomed from the audience
members.
Mr. Van Lengen said that feedback from the October workshop was great. He mentioned the
following items that were suggested by the audience members at the last workshop: density and
sustainable town centers, minimum density requirements, ¼-mile radius walking distances per
neighborhood, tax incentives for earlier commercial phasing, requiring wildlife crossings where
appropriate, separation between towns and villages, addressing decreased habitat value of
Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) adjacent to towns, not approving too many projects in close
timeframes, attracting visionary developers, and considering emergency evacuation planning.
Mr. Van Lengen highlighted questions from the October workshop. The first question was about the
Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). Mr. Van Lengen explained the base zoning in the Rural Lands
area is agricultural zoning, which allows certain conditional uses such as mining, recreation, and
schools. Residential development is allowed at one unit per five acres. He explained that the ACSC
covers 750,000 acres, and roughly 60,000 acres of the RLSA is in the ACSC. The rules for the ACSC
restrict uses and limit site alteration to 10% for any kind of development. The maximum density is
one unit per five acres. The State of Florida must review any zoning change, regulation change or
building permit. The State review is a double protection to make sure rules are followed.
The second question from the October workshop was about population. Mr. Van Lengen said
approximately 1,600 certificates of occupancy have been issued in Ave Maria out of the maximum
of 11,000 units allowed within the project. This maximum does not include assisted living or
dormitory units.
The rate of growth was also a question at the October workshop. Mr. Van Lengen displayed figures
from the Collier Interactive Growth Model (CIGM) showing population growth in five-year
increments. The data revealed approximately 47,000 people are projected in 2040. By 2070 when
the Habitat Conservation Plan expires, the area will be halfway to buildout. Golden Gate Estates
currently has 45,000 people and is anticipated to be 90% built out by 2040. That number is a concern
for traffic, which illuminates the need for places for work, shop and play.
Another question Mr. Van Lengen addressed was about the cost burden of RLSA development.
Displaying slides from the Tindale Oliver presentation from the August workshop, Mr. Van Lengen
explained that when a new development begins, the total cost for infrastructure is greater than the
revenue generated by impact fees and ad valorem taxes. Public subsidy and developer subsidy are
greater than revenues at the beginning of the project. At a certain point in time, the revenue starts
to exceed the expenditures. He said that the RLSA program requires that fiscal neutrality must be
demonstrated at the time of development application for approval by the Board of County
Commissioners.
Mr. Van Lengen referenced a final question from the October workshop about the market for towns
and villages, and he said Mr. Genson’s presentation will address this.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 423 of 518
www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 3
An audience member asked about revenue neutrality or positive revenue, which can usually only be
achieved through industrial or commercial development, because residential property cannot
usually generate enough to cover the cost of services. Mr. Van Lengen agreed that that non-
residential development is an important part of the fiscal neutrality equation and planning process.
An audience member said that it would be nice to show Ave Maria’s actual fiscal data for today’s
conditions and projected future conditions. Mr. Van Lengen said the conditions of Ave Maria were
discussed at the June 26th BOCC meeting as item 11B (around the 4:46 mark on the meeting video)
and encouraged the audience to listen to the tape. Mr. Van Lengen said he cannot answer where
the balance of reaching fiscal positivity is for Ave Maria.
Commissioner Taylor asked how to plan for fiscal neutrality if the financial details are not known.
Ave Maria has been there for ten years and it would be important to know if the fiscal goals are
being met. The Tindale Oliver presentation is so subjective, and there are so many variables that
cannot be controlled. Mr. Van Lengen said it is important to know the answer, and the experts must
be relied upon at the time of application. It’s the Board’s duty to make sure the models do work
out. In the past, the Fiscal Impact Analysis Model (FIAM) was jettisoned because it was assumed to
be subject to manipulation.
An audience member asked if the timeline of fiscal input and output has been prepared or provided
for Ave Maria, and how much has the County and the developer contributed by year, and the
payback? Mr. Van Lengen said it was a great suggestion to find out more information on Ave Maria.
An audience member asked since this meeting is not filmed, whether the PowerPoint slides will be
available online, and if the meeting is being taped. Mr. Van Lengen said yes, the presentations and
the audio of the meeting will be posted on the County website.
An audience member said many states including northern Virginia have been through this, and it
would be helpful to see the fiscal neutrality data from those other communities. Mr. Van Lengen
asserted that Tindale Oliver does such studies, and such information was presented at the August
23, 2018 RLSA workshop. He added that another consultant, Urban3, is scheduled to perform a
return on investment analysis for Collier County in 2019. An audience member commended the
County for bringing Urban 3 onboard to provide a return on investment analysis.
An audience member said Smart Growth America does work on fiscal neutrality all over the country.
As to build out periods, the audience member noted that Rural Lands West proposes a 20-year build
out period and questioned if 20 years should be used as the fiscal neutrality timeline for Rural Lands
West. An audience member from the town of Columbia, Maryland said that community started
developing in 1965 and was near build-out but had not reached build-out in the 2000s. She
concluded that large urban developments do not get built out, for example, Reston is still not built
out, and the timeframe for buildout will likely be longer than 20 years.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 424 of 518
www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 4
II Survey of Sustainable New Towns
Speaker: Mrs. Laura DeJohn, Director of Planning and Landscape Architecture,
Johnson Engineering, Inc.
Ms. DeJohn gave an overview that she’ll present case studies focused on development standards as
defined in the RLSA program and as they are being developed in actual towns and villages. She
noted that comparing and learning from other communities is helpful, and she asked the audience
to write down standards that they like and dislike during the presentation to compile suggestions
and feedback. Mrs. DeJohn presented five different town examples, based on the RLSA definition
of a town per the Attachment C handout provided to the meeting attendees at each table.
She noted that towns are the largest development type allowed in the RLSA, and the first example
of a town to be reviewed was Ave Maria in Collier County. The RLSA town size criterion is 1,000 to
4,000 acres, and Ave Maria is at the top of the size range with 4,000 acres excluding public benefit
acres. The allowable residential unit range for RLSA towns is 1,000 to 16,000 units, and Ave Maria
is approved for 11,000 units. The density range allowed for RLSA towns is 1 to 4 dwellings units per
acre, and Ave Maria is permitted with 2.75 dwelling units per gross acre.
An audience member asked how the density figure was calculated. Ms. DeJohn said it was calculated
by dividing 11,000 units by 4,000 acres. She noted that some areas of the project will have clustered
development with a higher density, and other areas will be large open areas. The density is
calculated according to the project’s gross acreage. Standards are not in place to mandate higher
densities or minimum densities near town centers.
Ave Maria was approved for non-residential development including: 600,000 square feet of retail;
510,000 square feet of office; and 600,000 square feet of business/employment. The RLSA town
criterion for open space is 35% of the entire project, and Ave Maria provides 45% of the project as
open space.
RLSA towns are to include a full range of housing types, and Ave Maria includes single and multi-
family housing types. The minimum goods and services ratio (restaurants, shops, etc.) for an RLSA
town is 65 square feet per dwelling, and Ave Maria has nearly double with 112 square feet per
dwelling. The minimum park ratio for an RLSA town is 200 square feet per dwelling, and the
proposed community parks for Ave Maria provide 294 square feet per dwelling. Civic and
institutional type buildings must be provided with at least 15 square feet per dwelling in an RLSA
town. Ave Maria exceeds this standard with 367 square feet per dwelling, attributable to the
university, church, government buildings, and school sites. Water and wastewater services must
be centralized for RLSA towns, and this is achieved at Ave Maria through its own private utility
provider. Transportation requirements for RLSA towns include connectivity, an interconnected
sidewalk system, and connection to transit, which are all addressed by the Ave Maria plan.
Mrs. DeJohn said she will highlight four more towns, followed by a side-by-side comparison of the
communities.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 425 of 518
www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 5
She explained the next example is Rural Lands West, which is proposed but not yet approved by the
Collier County Commissioners. The size of this project is at the high end of the allowable range with
3,964 acres excluding any public benefit areas. Similar to Ave Maria, 10,000 units are proposed
which equates to a density of 2.51 dwelling units per gross acre. Proposed non-residential
development includes: 800,000 square feet of retail; 450,000 square feet of office; 250,000 square
feet of business/employment; 132,000 square feet of hotel; and 250,000 square feet of medical
office and hospital. The minimum 35% open space for RLSA towns is proposed to be met in Rural
Lands West.
The standard full range of housing types is also proposed to be met in Rural Lands West, with one-
third of the housing units proposed to be multifamily and two-thirds proposed to be single family.
Rural Lands West proposes more than doubling the minimum goods and services ratio for RLSA
towns with 138 square feet per dwelling proposed. Parks are proposed to be more than double the
RLSA town standard with 518 square feet proposed per dwelling. The civic and institutional
provision is proposed to be met with 21 square feet per dwelling for civic uses plus 106 acres for
public school sites.
An audience member asked if golf courses were considered parks. Ms. DeJohn said that golf courses
are counted towards open space, but are not counted as parks.
The water and wastewater systems will be centralized according to the Rural Lands West application,
and transportation systems are generally proposed to meet RLSA criteria, however transit service is
still to be determined.
Ms. DeJohn introduced the third example, Babcock Ranch, noting it is in Charlotte County. She
said that development is underway following initial approval in 2007. The expected build out date
is 2045. This project is 13,631 acres and therefore much larger than the standard town size for
Collier County. The project contains areas designated as villages, hamlets, and a town center.
Preservation areas like those classified as Habitat Stewardship Areas or Flowway Stewardship
Areas in the RLSA are located inside the Babcock Ranch community in the form of greenways.
Roughly 6,500 acres of greenways are within the 13,631-acre Babcock Ranch project boundary.
Nearly 18,000 units are proposed at Babcock Ranch. Given the open spaces and preserves within
the project boundary, the gross density is brought down to 1.31 dwelling units per gross acre.
Density is allowed to be up to 24 dwelling units per net acre in the town center and up to 16
dwelling units per net acre in villages and hamlets. Non-residential development is proposed to
include: 1.4 million square feet of retail; 3.5 million square feet of office; 650,000 square feet of
industrial; 360,000 square feet of hotel; 177 hospital beds; and 418 assisted living units. The
minimum open space to be provided at Babcock Ranch is similar to the RLSA town standard at
35%.
The full range of housing types proposed in the community include accessory dwellings, such as
garage apartments and guest houses, which are important for providing more housing choices.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 426 of 518
www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 6
There is a commitment that 10% of units will be affordable or workforce attainable, and
satisfaction of this commitment is addressed through the developer performing and submitting a
housing analysis.
The minimum goods and services ratio for RLSA towns is 65 square feet per dwelling, and Babcock
Ranch is permitted for 294 square feet per dwelling. Parks are proposed in the form of community
parks, mini-parks, neighborhood parks and community/regional parks at three times the Collier
County standard of 200 square feet per dwelling.
Ms. DeJohn pointed out that Babcock Ranch is a Development of Regional Impact (DRI). DRI’s are
subject to a regulatory process through which specific developer commitments are determined.
Substantial detail is provided for civic and institutional uses in the DRI approval, such as the
number and size of school sites, educational service centers, law and fire rescue buildings, sheriff
substation site, EMS vehicles, and library contributions. These contributions are eligible for
reimbursement of impact fees. Civic uses do not count toward the maximum allowable non-
residential development.
For Babcock Ranch, central water and wastewater must be provided at time of Certificate of
Occupancy. Transportation requirements are defined in detail within the DRI approval, and an
internal capture goal of 55% to 70% is identified in the traffic analysis. An elaborate trail system
of sidewalks and on- and off-road multiuse paths is provided, and an internal autonomous vehicle
program is being pursued by the Babcock Ranch developer.
Additional commitments for the Babcock Ranch development that are not addressed in RLSA town
criteria include: pattern books to establish development standards at each phase of development,
low flow fixtures, one zero energy model home, and compliance with Florida Green Building
Collation or equivalent standards.
The Babcock Ranch Community pattern book is aspirational in nature, and it conveys to the
regulatory agencies, the county and to the public what is envisioned for the community. A pattern
book is pictorial including diagrams, development standards, and examples of how the
development is intended to look and feel.
Ms. DeJohn provided a series of the Florida Green Building Coalition standards, noting that
achieving compliance with the standards is based on a scoring system. For full review of all the
standards and program criteria, Ms. DeJohn referred the audience to the organization’s website
FloridaGreenBuilding.org. She summarized the program criteria, noting the environmental
protection category contains the most standards. Circulation is a separate category with ten
standards for measurement and scoring. The Utilities category has nine standards including green
power, irrigation standards and a conservation approach to utilities provision. Amenities is
another category that addresses features such as golf courses, landscaping, and community
gardens. The category of Covenants and Deed Restrictions has standards to help engage
homeowners in maintenance of the green aspects of their homes and community. The category
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 427 of 518
www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 7
of Education addresses the need for education through provision of materials or educational staff
members within the community.
An audience member asked if compliance with Florida Green Building Coalition standards is
required. Ms. DeJohn affirmed that compliance with Florida Green Building Collation Certification
or equivalent standards is a condition of the Babcock Ranch DRI approval. Another audience
member asked how all this information relates to sustainability. Mrs. DeJohn said that having a
development that complies with Florida Green Building Coalition standards is a way to be closer
to achieving the objective of sustainability, which is to see that resources are protected in a way
that future generations are ensured to have the resources they need.
Another audience member asked if the County Commissioners or the final report from these
restudy workshops would recommend to include green standards because it would be a
progressive move. Ms. DeJohn replied that the audience input and feedback help to drive
recommendations. Dr. Amanda Evans said that these workshops are structured to provide
information and get audience input, collect feedback, and ultimately use it to arrive at a
meaningful outcome for the RLSA Restudy.
Another audience member requested a show of hands by those whom agree that the County
should require compliance with green development standards, and a majority of audience
members raised their hands.
Mrs. DeJohn introduced the fourth town of Haile Village Plantation in northern Florida near
Gainesville, noting that the community was approved in 1992 and comprises 1,700 acres with
approval for 2,700 units. The gross density is 1.6 dwelling units per gross acre, however
townhomes are allowed at a density of up to 16 dwelling units per acres. The town is approved
for 160,000 square feet of retail and office space, which manifests in 48 different businesses.
The community’s open space is increased because it includes 54 golf holes. A takeaway from this
exercise is that marketing drives perception on what is good new urbanism planning practice. New
urbanism makes up a limited part of this larger golf course community. But having been developed
for over 20 years and having seen success, it is worth comparing how this community has
developed against the RLSA towns criteria.
Haile Village Plantation has a variety of housing types including live-work units, accessory
dwellings, and units within a 50-acre mixed use village center. There is no calculation provided for
the square footage of community parks; a village green anchors the village center. The civic and
institutional components of this development are limited, with a 3,200-square foot town hall
owned and operated by the developer as a for-profit event space. Space is also provided for a
post office, sheriff’s office and homeowners association office.
Ms. DeJohn said she did not find water and wastewater utility information, but it can be assumed
that public utilities are available given the site’s close proximity to Gainesville. The transportation
system is characterized by narrow streets to promote slower traffic and walkable conditions. The
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 428 of 518
www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 8
developer has measured internal capture, finding that 23% of single-family home trips are
captured internally. There is also a system of alleys and lanes with an emphasis on pedestrian
passageways from neighborhoods to the village center.
Ms. DeJohn presented Abacoa as the final town example. Located in Jupiter, Florida, Abacoa
started developing in 1995 and is anticipated to build out soon. Measuring 2,055 acres, Abacoa
is roughly half the size of Ave Maria and of the proposed Rural Lands West project. Abacoa was
originally approved through the DRI process, with 6,325 units permitted and density range of a
minimum of 3 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of 16 dwelling units per acre in the urban
residential areas. The allowable non-residential development includes: 1.75 million square feet
of workplace; 841,000 square feet of retail; 217,720 square feet of office; 130 hotel rooms; a 4,009
seat movie theater; and the 7,500 seat Roger Dean Baseball Stadium.
The open space in Abacoa is just under 25%, and this includes golf course area. Common use areas
are required at a rate of 3%, or minimum of three acres, per neighborhood, and a minimum one-
acre public square is required per neighborhood. This form-based approach helps achieve the
desired outcome of visible and accessible green space versus the unpredictable outcome of
applying a general acreage threshold.
A full range of housing types is provided in Abacoa; a minimum of 10% of all units must be
multifamily. The RLSA town criteria of 65 square feet of retail and office per dwelling is exceeded
with 167 square feet per dwelling. Additionally, Abacoa has 277 square feet of workplace per
dwelling.
A community parks ratio could not be calculated, nor could the civic and institutional square
footage, however institutional assets include the Florida Atlantic University Honors Campus and
other school sites. Abacoa has centralized water and wastewater systems, and transportation
connections are provided given the community’s adjacency to Interstate 95 and other main roads,
along with a system of connecting sidewalks and paths. A Tri Rail station is also proposed.
Ms. DeJohn summarized the towns with a display of the attributes of each example compared to
the RLSA town criteria. She noted the presentation will be online for those that want to study or
compare in depth at a later time.
She then focused on RLSA criteria for villages. Villages are a smaller in size than towns, and there
are currently no villages in the RLSA. The first example she presented was Habersham in South
Carolina. The RLSA standard for village size is 100 to 1,000 acres, and Habersham is 266 acres with
950 dwelling units, which yields a density of 3.6 dwelling units per gross acre. Non-residential
development includes 77,895 square feet of retail, restaurant and office space. The minimum
open space is 27%. A full range of housing types and parks are provided. The ratio of goods and
services provided per dwelling units exceeds the RLSA village standard by nearly three times.
Neighborhoods in RLSA villages must have a minimum of 1% of gross acreage in parks and public
green space. Habersham requires parks and public green space in the forms of: parks and squares
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 429 of 518
www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 9
in the neighborhood center, parks and playgrounds in neighborhood general areas, and parkways
in the neighborhood edges. Civic and institutional space is also required in the neighborhood
center and encouraged adjacent to forests or wetlands at the neighborhood edges. Habersham
has a centralized water and sewer system, and the transportation system is characterized by
narrow streets, on street parking, and walking trails.
The second village example was I’On, also in South Carolina. This community is 243 acres with 750
dwelling units, and a density of 3.1 dwelling units per gross area. Non-residential development
includes 30,000 square feet of retail and office space. Open space acreage data was not available;
open space is provided in natural open areas, a wetlands corridor and creek, lakes and recreational
facilities, and pocket parks.
I’On has a range of housing types including dwellings as small as 950 square feet and as large as
6,000 square feet, which provides flexible and affordable housing options. The square footage of
goods and services provided exceeds the RLSA village standard of 25 square feet per dwelling, and
the village center includes a mixed use main street and a central square. Eight sites are reserved
within the community for civic and institutional buildings such as community meeting hall, school
and church sites.
I’On is a suburban infill site with available central utilities. Streets are narrow, and the “marshwalk”
is a trail that provides connections through the community’s natural areas.
Baldwin Park in Orlando, Florida was presented as the third example village. The site is 776 acres
and approved for 3,500 dwelling units. The density of 4.5 dwelling units per gross acre exceeds
the maximum density for RLSA villages of 4 dwelling units per acre. Baldwin Park is approved for
200,000 square feet of retail, one million square feet of office, and a 54-acre mixed-use village
center. Ample open space is provided with 250 acres of lakes and 200 acres of parks and green
space.
Baldwin Park’s variety of housing types includes a range of units including some within a vertical
mixed-use context. This community has a high ratio of goods and services with 343 square feet of
retail and office per dwelling. No data was available for civic and institutional uses. Baldwin Park
was formerly the Orlando Naval Training Center, and utilities are centralized. The transportation
system is characterized by a grid network and an extensive trail system.
Ms. DeJohn summarized with a side-by-side table comparing the three example villages, which
can be viewed in the PowerPoint presentation available on the County’s website.
Ms. DeJohn concluded with a series of take-aways learned from the examples. She said the Collier
County standards are quantified, formula driven and measurable as provided in Attachment C.
The outcomes from the example communities reveal there are aspects of placemaking that are
not formula driven but rather are more qualitative and subjective, such as the placement and form
of green space in the community.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 430 of 518
www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 10
Ms. DeJohn reviewed some potential options for adjustments to improve RLSA town and village
criteria. The RLSA density standards may be adjusted to require concentrated densities in core
areas such as town or village centers. The RLSA housing type standards may be adjusted to require
housing market analyses or to establish minimum thresholds for multifamily housing or affordable
housing if a mix of housing types is desired. Locational standards could be added for non-
residential development based on a critical radius in proximity to housing for a more walkable and
bikeable environment. The minimum goods and services per dwelling could be increased based
on the evidence of the case studies.
An audience member asked if imposing certain standards would cause developers to stop building
gated communities. Ms. DeJohn said that Mr. Genson can address this question based on market
conditions during his presentation. She added that she has not seen standards such as increased
density or connectivity requirements result in fewer gated community projects. The gated
community phenomenon exists because history has proven that these are a community type
where homebuyers choose to buy homes.
Another audience member said the examples provided have low density, yet are somehow
walkable. She suggested shrinking the size of the towns and increasing density.
Another audience member agreed with higher densities concentrated at town centers and
gradually reduced densities at ¼, ½, and ¾ mile radius distances, because this would make towns
more walkable.
Another audience member asked whether the example communities have been successful. Ms.
DeJohn said the examples were considered successful case studies from organizations such as the
Urban Land Institute, American Planning Association and the Congress for New Urbanism. She
said success is measured relative to the community, its context and the people living in the
community. This is a good question to ask, but there is no scoring system to determine success
and no single model that can be replicated with any guarantee of success.
Another audience member asked why the Seaside community was not presented? Ms. DeJohn
said she did not present Seaside or Celebration because they are unique projects that were not
developed organically, and she purposefully researched examples that would be relevant to the
type of development that goes on in Collier County.
Ms. DeJohn said another take-away is the concept of adjusting RLSA standards to add locational
criteria for green space. Also, an impact fee reimbursement for developer-funded civic,
government or institutional facilities such as schools or an EMS station is a tool to get those
facilitates established. She said that mobility standards can be improved by adding a requirement
for multimodal analysis that considers bicycle and pedestrian paths between residential and non-
residential areas, an off-road greenway/trail system, and other non-auto oriented transportation
modes. She added that Pattern Books can be implemented to improve the review and approval
process and provide more opportunity for innovative designs. Another option is to add a
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 431 of 518
www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 11
requirement for compliance with Florida Green Building Coalition Certification or equivalent
standards. Finally, she said imposing a system for monitoring performance and annual or biennial
reporting would help ensure that standards are implemented and maintained.
III Ave Maria Lessons Learned
Speaker: Mr. David Genson, Senior Vice President and Director of Development
Barron Collier Companies
Mr. Genson said he has been involved with the Ave Maria project since 2002. He explained that
his presentation will cover how the project started and the current conditions, and he’ll address
some of the questions that were brought up during the evening. Ave Maria is entitled as a 4,000-
acre town, with approval for: 11,000 homes; 1.2 million square feet of office and retail; 600,000
square feet of light industrial; and a 6,000-student university. The population is estimated to be
30,000 people at buildout. Mr. Genson said Ave Maria is considered a self-sustaining town with a
private water and sewer utility system, four privately developed parks, and 15 miles of privately
developed roadways. The roads within Ave Maria are privately owned and maintained. He said
by the end of 2018, roughly 2,000 homes will have been purchased, and those homes amount to
$44 million in impact fees paid to Collier County.
Mr. Genson gave the site’s history beginning in April 2005 when the Ave Maria lands were farm
fields. In 2009, development was underway and the current population is 6,000 people. Home
prices range from $200,000 to $450,000 with an average price of $320,000. The homebuilding
trend equates to an average of three hundred homes constructed per year. Mr. Genson cited that
Ave Maria has been ranked as the #1 selling community in Southwest Florida for four years. Also,
this community has been ranked as one of the Top 40 Selling Master Planned Communities in the
United States for the past three years.
Mr. Genson described the progress of the community as of 2017, including development of
Coquina at Maple Ridge which is a denser neighborhood at approximately six units per acre. He
described how Publix was an important business to establish early for residents, and showed
images of the town center. He explained how Arthrex has been a major impact with 400,000
square feet of building area supporting 1,500 employees. He said that several hundred of those
employees have purchased homes in Ave Maria, resulting in short commutes for employees. The
Park of Commerce now has a gas station and medical office buildings in place, and the university
will have the largest incoming freshman class ever in the coming year.
Mr. Genson described the range of neighborhood types within Ave Maria, including estate homes,
condominiums, and neighborhoods that are oriented toward families, active adults, and the
workforce. The market for Ave Maria is not just a single demographic; it serves everyone including
retirees, young families, and active adults. Amenities include parks, water parks, softball fields,
and soccer fields that constitute a $17 million investment by the developer. A fitness center and
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 432 of 518
www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 12
other amenities are also provided. Tours are offered to the general public for exploring wildlife in
preserved lands around Ave Maria.
Mr. Genson addressed topics raised during the meeting. Regarding mixed use development, he
described how Ave Maria has 70 units above retail ground floors in the town center, and this
development type has been problematic. The idea of residential units over commercial ground
floors seems appealing, but in reality people do not want to live above establishments that
generate odor and noise. Based on experience with the mixed use development form in Ave
Maria, Mr. Genson said it is not desirable to most people in the general marketplace, and it has
not been very successful. He said new urbanism concepts with front porches and alleys are nice,
but they are not working in Ave Maria because that form of development is too expensive. Enticing
people to travel 20 miles from Naples to live in Ave Maria cannot be successful if the costs to live
there are too high.
Mr. Genson explained that Ave Maria offers housing that is affordable. Many buyers are coming
from Lee County, and roughly half of buyers are from the east coast because the commute to work
along I-75 is easier than the experience of commuting on the east coast. Ave Maria is a more
convenient, safe and affordable place for this commuting population.
Mr. Genson gave an overview that Barron Collier Companies has 80,000 acres in the rural lands of
Collier County. The town of Ave Maria constitutes 4,000 acres and 1,000 additional acres are
public benefit area. In order to develop Ave Maria, roughly 16,000 acres of stewardship sending
areas (SSAs) were dedicated at no cost to the County or the taxpayer. The terms of the easement
on the SSAs ensure that nothing can be built or developed on those lands. This balance of
environmental protection in exchange for development of communities is what makes the Rural
Stewardship Lands Area program a success for the whole County.
Mr. Genson addressed the notion that higher densities should be concentrated to promote the
idea of a walkable community. At Ave Maria, there are 300 to 400 homes within ¼-mile of the
town center. He said the higher densities are not feasible everywhere because the development
pattern becomes too costly and overbearing. He said neighborhood centers outside the town
center provide some degree of convenient access to services.
An audience member asked if any of the neighborhood centers have been built with retail uses.
Mr. Genson affirmed that the Del Webb community clubhouse includes restaurant space that is
open to the public.
On the topic of buildout, Mr. Genson said that a 20-year horizon is not realistic. At the rate of 300
homes per year, it would take roughly 30 years to build the remaining units in Ave Maria.
On the topic of fiscal neutrality, Mr. Genson said that Oil Well Road is always mentioned as a
negative issue. He gave an explanation on the history of Oil Well Road, noting it was a two-lane
congested road prior to development of Ave Maria. He said the widening of the road was needed
for many years regardless of the addition of Ave Maria. He said Oil Well Road did cost the County
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 433 of 518
www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 13
money upfront. The original developer contribution agreement contemplated that all the impact
fees of Commission District 5, including Golden Gate Estates and Ave Maria, were supposed to
fund Oil Well Road. In 2012 the County Manager said that many other projects are in need of the
District’s impact fee funds, therefore it was limited so that only Ave Maria impact fees became the
funding source for Oil Well Road improvements.
Mr. Genson highlighted that utilities infrastructure at Ave Maria is private and not County funded.
Community parks are private, yet community park impact fees are paid to Collier County. He
emphasized that the developer has not made money on Ave Maria. At one point, Ave Maria was
costing the developer $30,000 per day to subsidize.
On the topic of green development standards, Mr. Genson was in favor of incorporating such
standards in the RLSA program. He mentioned that some people express concern about impacts
of Ave Maria on the water table, and he explained that the prior use as farm fields consumed
greater amounts of water than the permitted level of water use for Ave Maria.
Mr. Genson supported that the County should examine Ave Maria to help formulate ideas during
the restudy process, noting that examples of what does and does not work can be gathered from
experience at Ave Maria. He concluded that Ave Maria is a long term project, and the developer
will continue for many years to see the project through.
An audience member asked if a small gas station, basic food store, and drug store should have
been established in the community earlier. Mr. Genson said the community started in 2007 and
the Publix and gas station opened in 2009. The recession impacted the community, evidenced by
the fact that the gas station closed and only 30 homes were sold in 2009.
The audience member said that Reston, Virginia started with a successful town center. The
developer did not collect rent from the grocery store vendor for the first five years, and the store
provided an important service to the community for those years. Mr. Genson said Barron Collier
Companies also subsidizes the Ave Maria town center, noting the commercial lease rate of $5 per
square foot versus $40 per square foot in other areas of the County during the recession. The
developer still helps tenants with subsidies during the summer months.
An audience member asked if it was a good business decision to build in eastern Collier County,
and will Rural Lands West have the same problems? Mr. Genson clarified that Rural Lands West
is proposed by Collier Enterprises which is a different entity from Barron Collier Companies. He
said that people will continue to move to Collier County and the growth should be accommodated
through developments that embody sustainable, smart growth principles. This restudy is about
determining how to develop correctly and with foresight.
Mr. Van Lengen asked Mr. Genson to clarify his statements about mixed use development. Mr.
Genson clarified that vertical mixed use has not been successful, but horizontal mixed use with
housing, retail and employment opportunities in proximity to one another is good for balance
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 434 of 518
www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 14
within the community, and it supports a healthy internal capture rate to reduce vehicle miles
travelled.
An audience member asked about Mercato as an example of vertical mixed use development,
noting that affordability is key to securing residents for a vertical mixed use project. She suggested
that marketing to the right population and providing units at densities that make them affordable
would be a more successful model. Mr. Genson said increasing density is the best way to help
make units more affordable, especially in coastal Collier County. He said leaders are starting to
recognize and understand this issue. He cited examples of an apartment building developed with
a density of 100 units per acre in St. Petersburg, and another development with a density of 75
units per acre in Sarasota, noting that these examples are aesthetically pleasing additions to those
communities.
An audience member asked if it would it be more economical if the vertical mixed use building
was taller, making units more affordable? Mr. Genson said the Oratory is what drove the
proportions and building heights in Ave Maria’s town center. He affirmed that buildings with more
stories help make the units more affordable.
An audience member asked why apartment buildings are not in place where parking lots currently
exist near the Oratory? Mr. Genson said there are townhouses planned in the vicinity of the
referenced parking lots. He added that bicycles and golf carts are the popular transportation
method when Mass is held at the Oratory.
Commissioner Talyor complimented Barron Collier Companies for how they resolved the
controversy over the Jackson Labs project. She said that the efforts taken to bring Arthrex to the
Ave Maria community speaks to Barron Collier Companies’ business acumen. Mr. Genson
acknowledged the significance of the efforts to secure Arthrex as part of the community.
IV Adjourn
Mr. Van Lengen said that the County will be interested in working with Barron Collier Companies
to further understand the fiscal aspects of development in the RLSA. He welcomed the audience
members to return and participate at the next meeting in January, noting that the meeting date
and location will be posted online once confirmed.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 435 of 518
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Meeting Summary
RLSA Restudy Public Workshop
Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies
January 31, 2019, North Collier Regional Park, Exhibit Hall
15000 Livingston Rd., Naples, 34109
I Introduction
Speaker: Kris Van Lengen, Collier County
Mr. Van Lengen, Collier County Community Planning Manager, opened the meeting at
approximately 6:10 p.m. and gave appreciation to the audience for attending. He offered assistance
as needed to access information on the Collier County website.
He explained the meeting is a revisit of Group 1 Policies, and that audience members also provided
some suggestions on topics to cover at the meeting, which have been incorporated in the agenda.
These added topics address policies on the credit system and easements related to Stewardship
Sending Areas (SSAs). He highlighted that Policies 3.11 and 3.13 were requested for discussion, and
they address restoration and water retention areas. He noted that listening to the audience is the
goal of the evening, and that the final item on the agenda is for Dr. Amanda Evans to talk about the
process for consensus building meetings going forward.
Mr. Van Lengen described that the County’s RLSA webpage has a library and summaries from past
meetings. He noted the audio/video team is not present, so Facebook Live and video are not
available this evening. The audio/video team will be available at the next meetings. He pointed out
that group discussions and comment cards provide opportunities to be heard, and that participation
is encouraged.
For next steps, Mr. Van Lengen said the upcoming February 28 and March 28 meetings will be
consensus building sessions. Collier County staff is charged with completing a white paper, and
staff’s white paper will convey the public input gathered through the workshop series. The white
paper will be publicly available in the timeframe of early May, and the public may provide written
feedback to the paper. The feedback provided will be added to the packet that goes to the Board
of County Commissioners. Staff recommendations and the public feedback will be presented to the
County Commissioners, at which time the Board may vote to advance to policy amendments which
will be then subject to the transmittal public hearing process, followed by State review, followed by
adoption public hearings; or the board may vote for the staff to perform more data collection and
analysis.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 436 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies
January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 2
II. Policy 1.6 – 1.9 (SSA Approval, Environmental Assurances, and NRI Values)
Mr. Van Lengen began revisiting Group 1 policies with Policy 1.6 regarding SSA approval. He
explained that property owners petition the Board for approval, and beginning with SSA #10 the
Board allowed escrow agreements in five year periods, eligible for renewal for five year periods. The
5 Year Review Recommendations were for SSA approval to be conditional subject to expiration in
five years if credits were not used or sold, or if the owner canceled. Use or sale of credits in any
amount was proposed to lock in the SSA designation, meaning that the credit agreement and the
easement agreement get recorded and are in full force and effect. The 5 Year Review
Recommendation was similar to Board policy since SSA #10.
Mr. Van Lengen described that Policy 1.7 relates to environmental assurances, or the ensuring that
SSA commitments are fulfilled. He said that consensus was observed in earlier workshops that more
than one easement holder should be required. Currently the regulation allows for the County or
other agency to be the easement holder, and the 5 Year Review Recommendation was to require
three agencies as easement holders.
Mr. Van Lengen read an example of an easement agreement from a standard SSA agreement,
highlighting that land management measures will be those customary measures of ranching in
Southwest Florida. He referenced that Johnson Engineering has researched a list of Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for a variety of land and agricultural management techniques, and
the list with links will be available on the RLSA Restudy library webpage.
Audience member Meredith Budd asked about the intent of the BMP list. Mr. Van Lengen said the
potential for using BMPs is open to the audience’s recommendations.
Mr. Van Lengen described Policy 1.8 and 1.9 regarding Natural Resource Index (NRI) Values. He said
the applicant submits updated or adjusted values at time of application, and County staff reviews
and verifies the values. He displayed all the layers that make up the NRI values, noting the overlay
designations of Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA), Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA), Water Retention
Area (WRA), or open areas which were adopted in 2002; and the proximity index within 300 feet of
certain overlay designations. He said that these two factors can be accessed from Collier County
because they are part of the Collier County Geographic Information System (GIS) at this time.
Species scoring is primarily related to panther habitat, but other listed species are also included. He
said the standard is based on a prior standard used by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) called preferred and tolerated habitat. That standard was based on the land use and land
cover index that is part of the USFWS matrix and an overlay of the indication of wildlife appearing at
particular sites. Wilson Miller refined this using District data and telemetry points based on
preferred and tolerated land covers, and this is open source information. He described that soils
and surface water data is from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which is also
open source information. He said restoration potential and the land use/land cover index is an open
source from the South Florida Water Management District. He said that some people want all the
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 437 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies
January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 3
data that went into the NRI scoring, and the County has a composite number for each acre, and the
subdata would need to be re-created.
Mr. Van Lengen asked the audience for feedback on two discussion questions:
1. What ideas do you have concerning natural resource factors that measure the value of
conservation?
2. Do you agree with the land management standards for SSAs?
An audience member asked about the index, particularly the listed species habitat index, which
starts with panther habitat including preferred and tolerated habitat. Is the landowner valuing the
score? Mr. Van Lengen said a qualified biologist consultant would value the score for the landowner.
She asked how each acre is determined if there has been value assigned based on the Wilson Miller
score? Mr. Van Lengen said he is not sure if scores are updated with new telemetry the same way
that others have been updated.
When asked who does the updating, Mr. Van Lengen said the consultant for the landowner provides
all the background information, and the County reviews and does ground truthing and aerial
reconnaissance. When asked if the County knows the original scores for panther habitat, Mr. Van
Lengen said he is not sure.
The audience member said the main question has been about the NRI values done in 2000-2002
with the understating it would be updated with completion of more panther studies. Has each acre
been updated based on newer studies? Does the County get information on updated panther data?
Mr. Van Lengen said there has not been a move to recalibrate scores based on primary and
secondary habitat; the scoring is still based on USFWS preferred and tolerated panther habitat.
When asked if Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) are evaluated in the same manner, Mr. Van
Lengen said the SRAs are evaluated through a different process, and they are subject to the
Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) process.
Dr. Evans suggested that it is wise to spend more time understanding this topic if the audience is still
unclear. Discussion ensued about the standards set in 2002, and the concern that new research has
become available and the scoring of acreage has not been updated. Audience member concern was
that old data should be reassessed. Dr. Evans summarized the question and asked if the scoring is
updated, or can it be updated?
Audience member Al Reynolds said he is a planning consultant who originally put together the
methodology and the scoring system with assigned values. The data was the best available at the
time. When an applicant seeks to establish an SSA, the applicant would find the current and best
available data and apply the methodology of the scoring system. In 2002, the panther telemetry
available was used to set a starting point from 2002. Any scoring today would reflect the most
current data, which is more accurate and voluminous. The new data showing more current panther
telemetry helps define panther habitat for scoring purposes.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 438 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies
January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 4
Audience member concern was raised apart from the SSAs, because the open area can be
developed, and the open areas of primarily farm lands are essential habitat for survival of the
panther. Concern was that SRAs develop in open areas, and there is no requirement to look at NRI
scores for open areas to see if they need to be updated. Mr. Reynolds said that is not correct; an
SRA application requires scoring all land in the SRA using the same methodology used to score the
SSA. He said that every acre in the SRA is scored the same way a score is applied to an SSA. If the
SRA reaches a certain threshold, it has to be set aside for protection within the SRA. The most
current data available must be used to determine if an area within the SRA must be set aside for
protection.
Audience member April Olson said approximately half the acres in open lands are in primary panther
habitat and adult breeding habitat. She stated that 2006 science used by the USFWS for the Panther
Recovery Plan is an example of data, and sites like Rural Lands West have about ¾ of the site in
primary panther habitat, yet the site scores under 1.2, or not environmentally sensitive. Therefore,
she concluded, SRA lands are not be updated with the best available science. Mr. Reynolds said he
respectfully disagreed stating the comprehensive planning level of the scoring system has
successfully been used for nineteen years. He said the system is a tool that does not take the place
of the Endangered Species Act or a permitting process.
Ms. Olson said the listed species habitat data is from 2000, and Mr. Reynolds responded that primary
panther habitat is not a part of the scoring system. Ms. Olson suggested that it should be a part of
the system because it is best available science, and Mr. Reynolds responded that the system was
adopted and is used as a planning tool, noting that new data indicating listed species occupy habitat
does get scored as habitat. He added that the innovative aspect is that this encourages owners to
manage the land well, citing that an owner of SSA land is incentivized to manage land well to get a
higher NRI score.
Ms. Olson said the use of primary habitat as a scoring measure would allow owners to earn credits
on those lands and be compensated. Mr. Reynolds responded that the system is not designed in
that way, noting that there are different opinions on whether primary panther habitat is the latest
greatest science. Ms. Olson said the County program should be consistent with the USFWS method.
An audience member asked when an application is submitted, is the environmental rating of the
land updated, and is the information available to the public? Mr. Van Lengen said the information
can be made available to the public. The County’s environmental group and GIS group work together
on the review effort, and any work product can be made available.
An audience member said that SRAs might not all be properly classified. He asked should a serious
wildlife area even be in a SRA? Mr. Van Lengen said such a philosophical question has to be
reconciled with practicality. He said this planning tool is subject to information and opinions offered
by the public. He said suggestions to make changes are welcome, and declarative statements with
recommendations are most useful in the progress of this Restudy.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 439 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies
January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 5
Meredith Budd commented that the notion is being raised that areas within the SRA can be pulled
for generating credits. For example, 45,000 acres will increase to over 50,000 acres. She said she
does not believe it is the intent to pull out SRA areas that are sensitive and give credit. Mr. Van
Lengen said that is correct, and the idea is a hypothetical, not necessarily a recommendation.
An audience member said the NRI index has been used for nearly twenty years, and asked from an
adaptive management standpoint, has the measurement tool been evaluated as to if its working or
not working, and how it may be improved in the future? Mr. Van Lengen said there have not been
any formal studies, however public feedback helps contribute to a sense of how well it is working.
The audience member asked if the threshold of a 1.2 score has been verified as being the right
threshold? Mr. Van Lengen said such a recommendation is a good one to take to the Board to see
if they want to evaluate that measurement.
An audience member said she spent years at the World Bank, and it is customary to do evaluations
every five years. Mr. Van Lengen said the 5 Year Review was an exhaustive effort, and the Restudy
that is underway constitutes another review. He suggested looking at the 5 Year Review effort
outcome, and comment on whether more needs to be reviewed.
An audience member said the County claims all the data is available, however he has been informed
that the data resides in the hands of the original consultants that were hired by the landowners.
Mr. Van Lengen said both statements are true, and explained that the original data created as part
of the system resides with Wilson Miller, which was purchased by Stantec, and they are still looking
for it. Mr. Van Lengen said the data is open source, and it can be recreated by anybody. The
audience member suggested the original data may be manipulated by landowners who have a
vested interest and said it seems strange the County would not have the data. The audience
member asked if it is publicly available? Another audience member said that data can be compiled
from various sources, and it can be obtained by Googling.
Dr. Evans interjected to address the concerns being debated between audience members about the
data and its availability, and she summarized that the NRI scoring system is a tool that has data
inputted, and that data gets updated when it is inputted.
Mr. Reynolds said the agencies have data that is the most current. The data from 2002 was a starting
point for a map, and anyone can find the public sources for all the data available online and come
up with a score. He said anybody can create an index map with today’s data using the NRI scoring
tool.
Dr. Evans said the credibility of the data sources is a question, and there seems to be suspicion
among some audience members. Mr. Reynolds acknowledged there are concerns about whether
the system is transparent, and the County website has a report with all the sources of data, and
scoring can be derived using data from 2002.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 440 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies
January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 6
An audience member asked if landowners come in with a score for the SSAs and SRAs at the time
that the landowner seeks to do an application; is each acre scored by the landowner’s consultant?
Mr. Reynolds replied yes, at the time of application, a biologist generates a map that scores the
lands, and puts the data on a disk and gives it to the County for review and quality assurance. He
said every acre in an SSA approved today has a disk with the data submitted to the County.
Ms. Olson said the Conservancy has done a lot of research, and she said the County wasn’t given all
the data in 2002. She said there is information that Mr. Reynolds is not sharing. She said that every
acre of land was given a score in 2002. She said based on the score given in 2002, anything over 1.3
is considered environmentally sensitive and under 1.3 is considered not environmentally sensitive.
She said the data from 2002 should be shared with the public because it’s the starting point. She
said this is the information that Mr. Reynolds says can be changed, but she would like to know where
the original scores come from.
Mr. Reynolds explained the scoring to get to 1.2 is done the exact same way. Ms. Olson said
technology and science has changed, and the 2002 data should be available for analysis. Mr.
Reynolds said the map is a tool to look at.
Ms. Olson said data should be available to the public to know the starting point and how it was
derived. Mr. Reynolds summarized that all the data was given to the County, and the old records
are being collected in an attempt to recreate the 2002 map. He said everything shown on the x-ray
map that had a score of 1.2 in 2002 is subject to the processing of a current application requiring
rescoring with current data. Because there seemed to be confusion about whether the scoring is all
based on data that only Wilson Miller has, Dr. Evans offered that the scoring system is the tool, but
the data behind the tool is updated.
Ms. Olson said the updating for an SRA or SSA application starts with a base number in order to
generate new scoring. She said the tool and the data itself is a concern. Dr. Evans asked what
information is needed to resolve the concern, and Ms. Olson said the baseline data from the 2002
data needs to be publicly available.
Mr. Reynolds explained that until a private property owner comes to the County seeking SSA or SRA
approval, nothing has changed on the property. The system is used when an applicant asks to be
designated SSA or SRA. The applicant must submit current data at the time of submittal to score it
according to the system. For instance, he said, if the Conservancy bought 100 acres and wanted to
conserve the land, they would gather biological data, score it, and the County would review and
assign credits, and the land would be put into conservation.
Dr. Fritz Roka of the Florida Gulf Coast University Agribusiness Center added to the conversation,
acknowledging there is confusion about methodology and data. He said he did not believe that the
old data is of value today. If there are panthers are in a certain area today, then the score would be
different than twenty years ago. He suggested having a workshop to work through a scoring exercise
to help illuminate that there is no secret to the methodology or the data. Mr. Van Lengen said the
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 441 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies
January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 7
workshop is possible by either the County or a private group, because the scoring is based on publicly
available information.
An audience member asked when a biologist does the assessment, does the County have a trusted
list of approved biologists who can do the rating? Mr. Van Lengen said a qualified biologist with
certain credentials provides the scoring in the application. Mr. Van Lengen said the audience could
suggest and make a declarative statement if they think a third-party reviewer should be involved in
reviews of the submittals.
An audience member said that computers are used to do these exercises, and asked why is there no
evidence that the material we are working with is updated? As an example, the audience member
said Rural Lands West would not be allowed to develop as the applicant requests in panther habitat.
She asked why the material does not indicate where can you build, where can you not build, and
how many acres can you build on? Information developed since 2002 should dictate less areas
suitable for development, not more.
Ms. Budd offered that she thinks the audience concerns over original data is really a desire to
reevaluate where open lands, SSA and SRA boundaries are designated. She asked how much does
preferred or tolerated panther habitat with no other resource value score? Mr. Van Lengen said the
score is 0.5 for just panther habitat with no other listed species. She said that explains how a score
could not rise to the threshold for protection. She said in 2009 experts reviewed the RLSA and
opined on the 5 Year Review and found it is better for the panther than the current system; they
provided additional recommendations to make it even better as well. She added that panther
biologists may be needed to do another technical review.
An audience member asked if it possible to update the indices? Mr. Van Lengen said it is a difficult
question to answer, and there are legal implications. The beauty of the 5 Year Review was that there
were several parties working together. If the Board wants to proceed, and the landowners do not
agree, the legal experts need to weigh in.
An audience member asked if the xray map reflects scores from the NRI worksheet? Mr. Van Lengen
said the map’s colors represent HSAs, FSAs, WRAs, and the intensity of color represents the number
of points. Mr. Van Lengen said the threshold of 1.2 was derived to identify where preservation
should occur within an SRA.
An audience member said there are more panther incidents in Golden Gate Estates since buildings
have been developed in the area. She suggested that the Fish and Wildlife Agency should investigate
because there have been many pet kills. She urged protection of the panther, or people will get
hurt. Mr. Van Lengen responded that there is a panther recovery implementation team headed by
USFWS with others from universities who are constantly studying the issue. He said the differences
may be related to the pace of growth within Golden Gate Estates as opposed to outside of Golden
Gate Estates. The initiative to build in the RLSA has only been realized in one town, Ave Maria.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 442 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies
January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 8
The audience member reiterated that panther habitat is being lost. Mr. Van Lengen said literature
indicates the incidence of human panther interaction has been slightly on the increase in Golden
Gate over the past decade. Dr. Roka said in terms of data, there has been an increase in number of
panthers in 22 years from thirty panthers to over 300 panthers. The audience member said the
panthers are peaking in houses and endangering children.
III. Policy 3.11 (Restoration)
Mr. Van Lengen summarized Policy 3.11 by explaining that the purposes of restoration include:
functional enhancement of flowways, widening and enhancement of wildlife corridors,
enhancement of listed species habitat, and creation of wading bird habitat. He explained that the
process includes evaluation by wildlife professionals, review by County environmental staff, and
monitoring by County staff and possibly other permitting agencies.
Mr. Van Lengen advised that some SSAs have restoration within them, and some do not. The R-1
credits are for dedication of restoration and do not require any activity other than dedicating the
area. Four credits per acre are granted in Camp Keais Strand, and two credits per acre are granted
for the OK Slough on the east side in the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). The R-2 credits are
for completion of the restoration, and success criteria must be met. Four credits per acre are
granted if the owner completes the restoration.
Recommendations from the April 2018 workshop included: recalibrate the credits granted, consider
stricter mandate for completion before credits are given, consider stricter success criteria, and
monitor and verify for restoration success. Mr. Van Lengen said the 5 Year Review
recommendations included reducing the R-1 dedication credits to two credits per acre. He said a
cost-centric idea was used for the R-2 credits. For example, restoration for caracara was proposed
at two credits per acre, exotic control/burring was proposed at four credits per acre, flowway
restoration was proposed at four credits per acre, native habitat restoration was proposed at six
credits, panther corridor creation was proposed at eight credits, and shallow wading bird habitat
was six credits. Mr. Van Lengen then asked the audience for ideas with respect to environmental
restoration within the RLSA program.
Ms. Olson alluded to the 5 Year Review recommendation adding more credits to the system. Mr.
Van Lengen clarified that the 5 Year Review recommendation would add less credits to the system.
Ms. Olson said that all the credits that landowners are receiving are for the potential for restoration,
and only 200-400 acres have actually been restored. If the owners are gaining credits for removing
land use layers, and then also getting credits for the potential for restoration, the landowner is
double dipping. Mr. Van Lengen agreed, and said the R-1 credits ensure there is no intensification
of use on the property, and there is a slightly elevated maintenance requirement. He confirmed
that a vast majority of credits granted are for potential restoration without having the restoration
completed.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 443 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies
January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 9
Ms. Budd agreed with the concern about credits for potential restoration. She asked who can do
the restoration other than the property owner, given the restrictions of private property rights? She
suggested the R-2 restoration credit will only be sought and restoration will only be performed when
additional credits are needed.
An audience member said that Rural Lands West removed four or five layers of use, kept Ag-2 on a
small portion, and got 10,000 credits for use removal. An additional 14,000 credits were granted
for the potential for restoration. She said it seems excessive to get more credits in that fashion. She
expressed concern that Group 3 policies only reference restoration credits; the Growth
Management Plan (GMP) and the Land Development Code (LDC) do not provide direction on the
actual restoration. Some of the restoration plans do not have a start date, and no metrics for
progress, milestones or timelines. Instead the LDC says when success criteria are met, then the
credits are awarded. She described an example of SSA 15, where the goal was to restore the flow
way and wildlife habitat corridor in the Camp Keais Strand area. Success criteria included removal
of two road grates and a pinch point farm road and restoration of native habitat. She said nothing
mandated that the flowway gets restored. She said the GMP needs stricter guidance for restoration,
including start dates because once construction begins, the habitat is impacted. She said SSA 15 is
in an important corridor for panther habitat, and Collier Enterprises was not going to start
restoration until they had a certain number of committed developers, and restoration would take
ten years. She said that restoration needs to start at the beginning of construction or sooner
because the wildlife will be impacted.
Mr. Van Lengen responded that timing of the restoration in relation to development and tying the
success criteria to the goals are both good comments.
An audience member said there is a need for monitored review points of the restorations, and
credits should not be granted until complete, which could take three years or longer. He said
hydrology, herbaceous area, and shallow wetland restoration for wood storks can take a long time.
He said giving the credits up front makes no sense, and we need to monitor and determine the final
results. Mr. Van Lengen said the restoration plan contains success criteria, and it typically takes five
years to determine if criteria are met. He agreed that granting credits upon designation of areas for
future restoration is an issue. The audience member said nothing is done in return for the incentives.
Mr. Van Lengen said when the R-2 process begins, there is monitoring and success criteria in place.
However, R-1 credits are awarded for restoration dedication, and R-2 credits are awarded for doing
the restoration. The audience member said granting of the credits is the issue, because there are
about 16,000 restoration available credits, making it is the single largest source of credits in the
system, and it has the loosest standards.
IV. Policy 3.13 (Water Retention Areas)
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 444 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies
January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 10
Mr. Van Lengen summarized Policy 3.13 stating water retention areas (WRAs) were originally subject
to South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permits and eligible to be used for water
management in new towns and villages. They are not required to be designated as part of towns
and villages. The 5 Year Review recommended they consume credits and become part of the SRA.
An audience member said the WRAs were important to water retention and water quality. The
policy currently allows the WRAs to be used for stormwater management systems. The
Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) and Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC)
commented that WRAs should not be used for stormwater management systems, and she hopes
the county leaders will consider that. If WRAs are going to be used for water management systems,
then she recommended considering a requirement for filter marshes as part of the treatment
systems. She added that Camp Keais Strand is impaired for nutrients, and Rural Lands West
proposed using the WRA for stormwater management, with discharge into Camp Keais Strand. She
summarized that filter marshes have been used successfully around the state to reduce nutrients ,
and more information can be provided if desired.
Mr. Van Lengen acknowledged water management, pretreatment and a flowway management plan
as recommended by the County stormwater staff are important to support water quality and
quantity.
Ms. Olson said some WRAs have high ecological significance such a Shaggy Cypress Preserve. When
that is surrounded by development, the habitat value is reduced for the panther. She said
landowners should not receive credits for SSAs when development chokes off a preserve, noting the
habitat functionality would be reduced significantly by development in those areas.
An audience member said maybe someone from the County environmental department could speak
to the group to help give confidence that restoration is being done well. He suggested it would be
nice to have an ecologist, USFWS and/or SFWMD representative speak on restoration practices.
V. Consensus Building and Conclusion
Dr. Evans said she will be working on the consensus building process. The issue of consensus building
is not an ideal, it is a process, and this group will not reach consensus on every issue. What is helpful
in the process are the type of comments on the Policy 3.11 slide presented earlier which are
statements of recommendations such as: recalibrate the credits granted, stricter mandate for
completion before credits are given, stricter success criteria and monitor/verify restoration success.
Dr. Evans said she is hearing mistrust of past data and processes and concerns about transparency
on whether what is said is being done is being done. She reiterated that the group’s input will go
into a white paper that will go to the County Commissioners, and tangible recommendations are
most useful.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 445 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies
January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 11
She pointed out that the members of the County’s team are keeping records. She noted that
recordings and meeting notes document all the meetings. Collection of the public comments are
captured by tape recorders, desktop discussion worksheets, Facebook comments, and emails have
all been collected and recorded for the past year. The collected data will be used and collapsed into
topics. The intent is to take lots of data and capture in a way that is agreeable to the people making
the statements, to be sure that the ideas are being captured properly.
At the next meeting sticky notes will help align comments. The tracking of comments has been
done, and the input will be organized. The process will be interactive. Something specific can be
prepared for future meetings, such as tangible recommendations; otherwise the year has been
futile. The County staff wants recommendations to take to the County Commissioners. She advised
that if there is mistrust, get the message clear so there can be actions taken. At the end of this
process there will be topics of agreement, and other areas may not reach consensus. These non-
consensus items will be captured, and barriers will be identified for non-consensus items. Dr. Evans
noted that two County Commissioners were present (Commission McDaniel and Commissioner
Taylor), to which Commissioner McDaniel responded that he would not be offering comment or
feedback given the provisions of the Sunshine Law. Dr. Evans acknowledged that the Commissioners
must observe the Sunshine Law and be quiet observers, and she reiterated that a County
Commissioner would want clean and concise recommendations.
An audience member said he understands the audience does the work and then a white paper goes
to the Commissioners. He thanked the two Commissioners for being present at the workshop, and
said he is inclined to go directly to his Commissioner with recommendations rather than going to all
the public work sessions for his input to be collected by staff, and then into a white paper that will
then go to the Commissioners. Dr. Evans affirmed that a voter should be speaking to his or her
Commissioner, but the point of this activity is to get public input on the Restudy of the RLSA. He
asked if the Commissioners will make the final decision on the Restudy of the RLSA? Dr. Evans said
the actions being taken through the workshops is to bring together a group with divergent opinions,
so that the group can work together to identify points what can be agreed with a strong voice.
The audience member asked if Nick Penniman will continue as the Growth Management Oversight
Committee (GMOC) chairman? Mr. Van Lengen said that he is not sure at this time. The Oversight
Committee looks at all four Restudies to verify the Restudies are coordinated and that there is
sufficient public outreach.
An audience member asked if the white paper will go to the CCPC? Mr. Van Lengen said it does not.
The public hearing process for GMP Amendments includes the CCPC sitting as the CCPC and EAC,
then to the Board, and then it goes around again.
Ms. Olson said a concrete recommendation is that she wants the 2002 underlying data on which the
program is based.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 446 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies
January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 12
Dr. Evans said the more precise the recommendations, the better. She said while some topics can
become polarized, there have been many conversations throughout the year of workshops where
many people were on the same page. Trust has been an underlying issue. The next two meetings
are important for tightening up thoughts and recommendations and consensus building. The many
pages of data collected from all the workshops will be organized to pull out specific
recommendations.
An audience member asked if additions can be made to the feedback tracking? Dr. Evans said any
changes can be brought forward by email or contacting the County staff, but feedback will not be
redacted. She said when consensus is not reached, it will be identified and the barriers to reaching
consensus are important because they could represent a whole policy issue.
An audience member said several attendees were in attendance, and they would like to endorse the
paper from the Conservancy. Dr. Evans said that is fine.
An audience member said the issue of the data could be clarified if the original data was available
and compared with how the data is now classified. It would help clarify the changes as someone
tries to assess how the system is working. The original data and the new data would be helpful for
understanding what has happened at the site. Dr. Evans said this is a helpful recommendation to
assess the efficacy of the program. Dr. Evans said we are all living on land that was developed poorly,
and it’s important to resolve the best way to continue how development occurs.
An audience member said that Rural Lands West can be reviewed as a good study of the original
data and updated data for comparison.
Mr. Van Lengen said the next meeting is February 28th and closed the meeting at 8:05 p.m.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 447 of 518
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Meeting Summary
RLSA Restudy Public Meeting
Consensus Workshop
February 28, 2019, North Collier Regional Park, Exhibit Hall
15000 Livingston Rd., Naples, 34109
I Opening Remarks
Speaker: Kris Van Lengen, Collier County
Mr. Van Lengen, Collier County Community Planning Manager, opened the meeting at
approximately 6:10 p.m. and gave appreciation to the audience for attending, noting especially
those who attended and provided comments during the yearlong workshop series.
He explained the meeting will be a consensus building exercise led by Dr. Amanda Evans.
From a timing standpoint, Mr. Van Lengen explained that the County staff’s white paper will be
drafted and in May it will be distributed to the workshop participant email list for public review
before moving on to the public hearing phase. The public hearing phase will likely begin in
September.
II Affinity Mapping
Speaker: Dr. Amanda Evans, Facilitator, Florida Gulf Coast University
Dr. Evans explained that the RLSA Restudy Workshops have been held monthly since January 2018.
The Restudy process has involved the collection of data and comments. She said all the comments
collected from the public is considered qualitative data. These qualitative data, or perceptions, have
been organized and tracked. This includes all emails, comments from roundtables, and written
comments.
Dr. Evans said the exercise of affinity mapping helps identify ideas that are agreed upon, and those
ideas that aren’t. All comments collected during the workshops and the public’s correspondence to
date have been gathered and collapsed onto sticky notes for use during the affinity mapping
exercise. The exercise allows audience members to expand or comment on what ideas have been
gathered.
Dr. Evans said the affinity mapping exercise may require a second meeting to finish, and the results
will be the affinity diagram, which will be the basis for the public opinion portion of the County staff’s
white paper. The ideas that the audience agrees are important will get conveyed in the white paper.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 448 of 518
Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Consensus Workshop
February 28, 2019, 6:00 PM
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 2
Items that are not agreed upon will be identified as potentially needing additional research or
feedback.
Audience members were instructed to place each sticky note containing a comment on the
appropriate board arranged in the front of the room with the headings: Water, Agriculture,
Taxpayer Impact, Towns & Villages, Credits & Scoring, Environmental Protection, Land Management,
and Other. Dr. Evans affirmed that new categories and comments are allowed to be added during
the exercise.
The meeting proceeded in an interactive fashion with audience members participating in the affixing
of sticky notes on the topic boards. Then Dr. Evans led discussion on each of the comments
associated with the topics of Water, Agriculture, Taxpayer Impact, and some of the comments
associated with Towns & Villages. Dr. Evans identified by polling the audience whether a comment
was supported by all audience members; if so, it was considered a consensus item and would be
identified in staff’s white paper as such. If a comment could not be supported or agreed to by all
audience members, the comment was considered to be a non consensus item, which meant the
comment would be identified in staff’s white paper as a public comment needing further study or
discussion or deliberation.
At the close of the meeting around 8:10 p.m., Mr. Van Lengen said the next meeting will be at the
same time and place on March 28th.
[Photos were taken at the close of the meeting of the comments adhered to the boards.]
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 449 of 518
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 1
Meeting Summary
RLSA Restudy Public Meeting
Consensus Workshop
March 28, 2019, North Collier Regional Park, Exhibit Hall
15000 Livingston Rd., Naples, 34109
I Opening Remarks
Speaker: Kris Van Lengen, Collier County
Mr. Van Lengen, Collier County Community Planning Manager, opened the meeting at
approximately 6:05 p.m. He stated that the agenda begins with a presentation from the Eastern
Collier Property Owners group (ECPO), who represent the majority of landowners in the eastern
Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA). He explained that Mitch Hutchcraft will present for ECPO and
there will be time for a few questions, followed by Dr. Evans continued affinity diagramming. For
any item where consensus cannot be reached, the item is still important. Such items constitute
areas that need to be explored because of difference of opinion.
Mr. Van Lengen explained that after the public engagement workshops, staff will generate an
analysis based on public comments, owner comments, and professional input which is planned to
be ready for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners in June.
Mr. Van Lengen noted that 170 people are on the email distribution list, and fifteen emails did not
transmit. Mr. Van Lengen asked the audience to please provide email addresses on the sign in sheets
if they did not receive an email on Monday.
Mr. Van Lengen gave an update that Collier County staff is getting the data that underlies the Natural
Resource Index (NRI) scores. Staff has the composite scores. Stantec has worked to provide the
data, and the legal staff is working on how to provide the information publicly.
An audience member asked about the data for stewardship credits generally, and the data for
restoration credits. Mr. Van Lengen said the NRI value score includes restoration potential. The
stewardship credits and restoration credit information is resolved later in the process and is not part
of this data set.
II Eastern Collier Land Owners Perspective
Speaker: Mitch Hutchcraft, President, King Ranch
Mr. Hutchcraft said it seemed some people haven’t had the benefit of working on this project from
the very beginning, and that he wants to give an overview of the regulatory framework that makes
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 450 of 518
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 2
the RLSA program what it is. He suggested that all interested parties should have the same context
for conversations moving forward.
Mr. Hutchcraft asserted that the RLSA program is a big picture tool that is innovative and incentive-
based. It is a planning program to protect habitat, protect land for agriculture, and promote
sustainable growth and economic diversification in the rural areas. A statutory legislative framework
establishes these parameters.
Mr. Hutchcraft described that the effort started in 1999. After discussions with the County, State,
Governor and Cabinet, the RLSA program was adopted in 2002. He said that the County’s original
approach was to take away property rights, and the landowners opposed that. The Governor and
Cabinet said to come up with a better approach, and the program implemented in 2002 received
broad support including non-governmental organizations such as the Florida Wildlife Federation,
Collier Audubon, and The Conservancy. It is based on data and analysis including land use, wildlife,
wetlands, which drives how the program gets implemented. He said it is incentive based and market
oriented to protect owner interests and public interests through stewardship. The program has
unique Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code (LDC) requirements.
Mr. Hutchcraft described that the RLSA program is voluntary, and the landowners can participate or
not participate. If not participating, the base property rights are vested with landowners. Through
the RLSA program incentives encourage clustering development into a smaller footprint with greater
densities and intensities. The benefit to the public is larger preserves, concentration of open space
and habitat connectivity. In order to get participation in the program early, early entry bonuses and
private restoration credits were made available. It’s now an award-winning program.
Mr. Hutchcraft referred to Florida Statutes indicating that the RLSA program is a tool that furthers
broad principles of rural sustainability, including restoration and maintenance of agriculture,
identification and protection of ecosystems and habitats, and diversification of the economy
through expansion and new employment opportunities. He said that the intent is not just for setting
aside the rural lands forever, but rather for maintaining the viability of agriculture in the economy.
He summarized that Florida Statutes recognize protection of private property rights in rural areas,
and the statutes were modified to reference Collier County’s RLSA program and to recognize the
program as compliant.
Mr. Hutchcraft displayed a map of the RLSA showing several property owners, all having different
interests and having the choice to opt in or out of the program. The program was designed to create
credits, allowing two landowners to work together to achieve a better big picture outcome. He said
that if all owners don’t participate, then the outcome is diminished. If all landowners participate,
the result is maximum preservation and protection of agriculture going forward.
Mr. Hutchcraft posed the question, why was the program set up the way that it is? Before the RLSA
program, if a property owner had wetlands or habitat, this was a devaluing effect. The public desired
preservation and protection of water resources and habitat, while the landowners want to protect
property rights and values. Mr. Hutchcraft argued that the program aligns the interests of the public
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 451 of 518
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 3
and the landowner. If the public wants more wetlands or wildlife conservation, the owner is credited
for that either through value of the land or through a different currency such as density offered in
the RLSA program. The incentives are structured to align private property rights and property values
with the interests of the public. Mr. Hutchcraft explained that another option is public acquisition.
The County, State or Water Management District could provide money for public land acquisition,
however money and resources to acquire land for public acquisition is diminishing. The protection
of land without a cost to taxpayers is achieved through the use of development rights as currency
for landowners to preserve habitat or cluster density.
Mr. Hutchcraft said the regulatory framework involves how the credits are calculated. The most
environmentally sensitive areas with wetlands or wildlife habitat generate the highest scores and
value, and those credits can be used to develop on lower value lands. Mr. Hutchcraft displayed a
sample calculation indicating how different levels of property rights can be removed to gain credits.
Mr. Hutchcraft displayed a map to show the effect of land use regulations before the RLSA program
to portray how base rights could allow development to occur on what is currently open space,
tomato fields, pasture, wetlands, etc. By implementing the RLSA program, including the 5-year
review recommendations, the likely outcome was displayed on a map showing that more land gets
preserved or maintained for agriculture. He highlighted that the financial ramifications include no
costs to the public for land acquisition or maintenance.
Mr. Hutchcraft said since 2002, 180,000 acres of private land has been rezoned to limit the land’s
development potential to a clustered pattern. He noted that most landowners in the RLSA are large
landowners, and since 2002, no land has been subdivided into five-acre lots. He said the benefit of
the program is less rural sprawl, noting that total conservation land has grown to 50,000 acres which
will be perpetually preserved and maintained at no cost to the public.
Mr. Hutchcraft added that some well-planned development has occurred. He said for every one acre
developed, six to eight acres get set aside for preservation. He stressed that landowners are making
long-term decisions in reliance on the program, and when the 5-year review was performed and
recommendations were proposed, those recommendations were supported at the time.
In reference to the 50,000 areas preserved through the RLSA program, Mr. Hutchcraft said it is
anticipated that 134,000 acres will be ultimately preserved at no cost to the public. He described
that the Ave Maria development of about 5,000 acres, with additional proposed development
totaling 7,300 acres, has resulted in 50,000 acres of preserved lands, noting that these preserves
provide for flowways, wildlife and habitat.
Mr. Hutchcraft displayed calculations of the costs associated with preserved lands. He said that the
Conservation Collier program has preserved 4,000 acres with an average cost of over $25,000 per
acre, and that Jim Beever of the Regional Planning Council identifies economic value to the public as
$144 million annually. He said the Lee County 2020 program saved 30,000 acres with an average
cost of $12,000 per acre. The RLSA program has already preserved almost 51,000 acres at zero
acquisition costs. With zero acquisition cost and zero maintenance cost, he said the value to the
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 452 of 518
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 4
public of preserved RLSA lands is about $1 billion annually. Considering the potential of 130,000
acres of preserve, the numbers become staggering. He added that all the preserved land stays on
the tax rolls, albeit that the values do go down.
Mr. Hutchcraft said the 5-year review effort was a result of original Comprehensive Plan policy to
review the program and determine if it could work better. It was a robust process involving a
committee appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. Significant consensus was reached
on a few key components. The County Commissioners ultimately accepted the Committee’s report
but did not adopt it.
Mr. Hutchcraft summarized key recommendations from the 5-year review, including:
1. Better incentives for protection of agricultural land.
2. Better focus on land preservation for panther corridors that are more functional with
incentivization.
3. Cap on the number of credits and number of receiving acres. Create a maximum development
footprint of 45,000 acres.
4. Add credits for panther corridors and agriculture.
5. Restoration credits should be capped.
Mr. Hutchcraft reported that the projections for the program today are: 92,000 acres of
Stewardship Sending Area (SSA), 43,000 acres of Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA), and 43,800 acres
not participating and still developing at the base density. By adopting the 5-year review
recommendations, he said that credits are recalibrated to account for agriculture credits, and there
would be more agricultural use of the 43,800 acres that would not have participated previously.
Mr. Hutchraft described that questions have been raised about economic impact assessments. He
said the Collier County LDC requires a review of economic impact of Stewardship Receiving Areas
(SRAs) each time an application is submitted. Rules are established for the evaluation. He said that
the Smart Growth America study does not follow the rules established by Collier County, and said if
the study cannot be validated, it cannot be considered a valid study. He argued that credit should
be given to the landowners’ studies that comply with the rules.
He concluded by noting that the landowners wanted to reach out and provide perspective, and that
ECPO supports the adopted plan and supports the 5-year review recommendations. He offered that
the program aligns private and public interests, provides positive outcomes, maintains agriculture,
and provides diversity in the economy. He reiterated that for nearly two decades, landowners have
acted on reliance on the program, stating that the program is law and landowners feel strongly about
maintaining the program, and they continue making decisions in reliance on the program.
Mr. Hutchcraft said that ECPO does not find it appropriate to consider additional changes until the
5-year review recommendations are done, and that now is time to move forward with the
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 453 of 518
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 5
recommendations. Afterwards, he said landowners will continue to work with the community to
move forward.
An audience member asked why the BOCC did not adopt the 5-year recommendations. Mike Bosi,
Collier County Planning and Zoning Director, said the cost to do the 5-year review recommendations
could not be funded by the BOCC due to the recession.
April Olson of The Conservancy said she has been involved in the RLSA program for twenty years,
and she wants to set the record straight. She said The Conservancy was in support of the RLSA
program in 2002, but there was an understanding that it yielded 16,800 acres of development and
an estimated build-out population of 87,000 people. She said that tens of thousands of credits were
put into the program just days before the program was adopted, and it was never disclosed to the
public. Instead of 16,000 acres, she said 45,000 acres, or 250% more development, is proposed.
She said this was not revealed until the 5-year review in 2008. She said that the program as
understood by The Conservancy in 2002 is not the program we have today. She appealed for
comments identifying flaws or inconsistencies found in the Smart Growth America report. She
stated that The Conservancy opposes the 5-year review, noting it was conducted ten years ago and
is outdated. She said the 2008 Wilson Miller calculations of the credits are still wrong, and now
more lands are eligible for restoration.
Dr. Evans offered that there is disagreement on this issue, and it is a fact that some topics will not
achieve consensus. She acknowledged that property owners and The Conservancy have different
perspectives, which can be explored further. Any issue identified as a non-consensus item can be
captured as such and will not go away.
Another audience member expressed confusion from the presentation. She said the presentation
should have been at the beginning of the workshop series and not at the last meeting. She
summarized that she heard the landowners don’t want any changes and don’t plan to adhere to any
changes. She noted here impression that nothing was in place until the Commissioners adopt the
plan. She questioned what the point is of a 5-year review if nothing happens.
Dr. Evans said the effort underway is a restudy; it is another effort to refine the program. The
audience member asked what the point is if there is not consensus? Dr. Evans said the last 14
months have provided clarification of the policies. Areas of consensus are visible and non-consensus
areas are visible. This process makes it clear where everyone is on the same page. Where they are
not in agreement, those issues can be identified and presented to the BOCC as topics needing
further discussion or exploration.
An audience member asked if development rights are currently four units per acre, noting that other
cities do not allow development in wetlands. He added that he is concerned that no land is set aside
for surface water. Dr. Evans said he can offer a recommendation based on this concern, and it can
be determined if consensus is reached for the recommendation during the affinity mapping exercise.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 454 of 518
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov
Page 6
An audience member asked if wetlands are developable lands. Mr. Van Legnen said wetlands are
very expensive and not easy to develop, noting it is not impossible to develop wetlands. He advised
that permits are needed, and there is a mitigation cost. The designated Stewardship Sending Areas
help toward preservation of wetlands and habitat.
An audience member said there is no resolution on the number of credits, noting there are about
240,000 credits and about 58,000 credits are for restoration. The definition for restoration is not
well defined in the LDC.
An audience member said that the statement presented declaring the acres set aside in the RLSA
program cost the public nothing is not true. The cost of infrastructure is roughly in the $90 million
range for the road network, and there is additional cost for schools, fire stations, etc. She stressed
that there is a big cost to the public.
III Affinity Mapping, continued from February 28, 2019
Dr. Amanda Evans, Facilitator, Florida Gulf Coast University
Dr. Evans initiated the affinity mapping exercise for the topics of Towns & Villages, Land
Management, Credits & Scoring, Environmental Protection, State Requirements and Other
recommendations that did not align with the grouped topics. (Topics mapped at the February 28th
Workshop included Water, Agriculture, Taxpayer Impact, and some comments associated with
Towns & Villages). Dr. Evans identified by polling the audience whether a comment was supported
by all audience members; if so, it was considered a consensus item and would be identified in staff’s
white paper as such. If a comment could not be supported or agreed to by all audience members,
the comment was considered to be a non-consensus item, which meant the comment would be
identified in staff’s white paper as a public comment needing further study, discussion or
deliberation.
At the close of the meeting around 8:10 p.m., Mr. Van Lengen asked for attendees to include their
email addresses on sign in sheets so they will receive correspondence sent to the distribution email
list group.
[Photos were taken at the close of the meeting of the comments adhered to the boards.]
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 455 of 518
COLLIER COUNTY 2020
STEWARDSHIP CREDIT
ANALYSIS
Collier County Growth Management Department
August 2020
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 456 of 518
1
08/06/2020
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay 2020 Credit Analysis
I. Introduction
The Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSA) was adopted in 2002. One of the primary objectives of
the RLSA is to protect natural resources. An innovative planning tool was created through a “hallmark”
public process guided by a Rural Lands Study Committee (Committee) appointed by the Board of County
Commissioners. The development of the RLSA was based on underlying natural resource data, vetted
through 32 Committee meetings between 1999 and 2001. The RLSA data was organized in the adopted
Stewardship Natural Resource Index (NRI) model. This NRI model reflects Collier County’s first integrated
GIS land use and environmental database. The data and associated natural resource values were agreed to
through the RLSA Committee process and adoption by the Board. The NRI model values are illustrated in
Map 1. The darker the blue, the higher the natural resource value. The NRI scores, along with the RLSA
policies, reflect the value of protecting these lands. The RLSA provides a plan to incentivize the desired
outcomes of natural resource protection, agriculture land retention, and sustainable development.
Map 1
Natural resource
protection and agriculture
protection are incentivized
through the Stewardship
Credit system. Property
owners who agree to
protect lands by
designation of
Stewardship Sending Area
easements are rewarded
with Stewardship Credits
that can be used for
development.
This analysis evaluates
how the RLSA
Stewardship Credits have
performed in the first
twenty years under current
policy and projects how
they may perform through
full implementation. The
adopted plan is then
compared to the proposed
policy changes.
The RLSA 5-Year Review
Committee Report, 2007,
and the RLSA White
Paper, 2019 include
substantive analysis of the
RLSA program. The
findings of these reports
are utilized in this analysis
for comparison.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 457 of 518
2
08/06/2020
Consistent with the framework of the RLSA to incentivize what is valued using the Stewardship Credit
system, the RLSA 5-Year Review Committee’s Report and the White Paper focused on recommended
policy amendments to strengthen the incentives for:
• agriculture land retention,
• additional panther corridors, and
• a tiered restoration system.
The recommended amendments require a
reanalysis of the Stewardship Credit
system and rebalancing of the
Stewardship Credits to align with the
recommended maximum 45,000-acre
development footprint.
Collier County’s staff analysis provides
an updated analysis based on the RLSA
implementation to date. Figure 1
provides a simple illustration of the
implementation of the RLSA. The
majority of lands within the RLSA are
valued natural resources and agriculture
lands. To date, the RLSA has protected
approximately 56% of the lands
incentivized for preservation. A small
percentage of land shown in orange are
SSAs that maintains active agriculture
uses. The Stewardship Credits generated
from these SSAs total 197,287. These
Credits may entitle SRAs of up to 27,127
acres. The approved and potential SRA
acreage shown in yellow includes over
6,000 acres attributed to the Town of Ave Maria, and Rivergrass Village. A large percentage of the RLSA
remains in the “Open” designation. The Open designation is where the RLSA directs SRA development.
Recommended policy amendments incentivize this “Open” land to be retained in Agriculture SSAs as an
alternative to future development.
II. Stewardship Credit System Analysis
To date, the RLSA has been implemented with the approval of SSAs 1-16, Ave Maria SRA and Rivergrass
Village SRA. Others SSAs and SRAs are under review and pending. Map 2: Proposed RLSA Overlay Map
shows the location of SSAs 1-16. These SSAs total approximately 50,425 acres and have generated 197,287
Stewardship Credits which can be used for approved and potential development of 27,127 SRA acres,
including 10% public benefit uses that do not require consumption of Credits. This SRA potential equals
60% of the proposed 45,000-acre SRA cap.
37%
18%4%
29%
12%
Figure 1: RLSA Ovrelay in 2020
Natural Resources Remaining
Naural Resources in SSA
Ag1 in SSA
Open
SRA Approved and Potential
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 458 of 518
3
08/06/2020
Map 2:
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 459 of 518
4
08/06/2020
1. Credits Generated Under the Adopted RLSA Credit System
The Stewardship Credit System analysis considers the generation of Credits under the currently adopted
RLSA Overlay. The adopted RLSA policies allow SSA Credit generation through three types of Credits:
A. Base Credits
B. Restoration Credits
C. Early Entry Bonus Credits
Stewardship Credits have been generated through all three available types. As shown in Figure 2, the
greatest number have been generated by Restoration Credits.
A. Adopted Base Credits
Base Credits are the Credits generated by use of Policy 1.8. They are created from lands designated on
the Overlay Map as Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSA), Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSA), Water
Retention Areas (WRA) and Open. Base Credits are determined through the NRI model values and the
land use layers property owners voluntarily remove. The NRI model data is updated at the time an SSA
is submitted for review and approval. SSAs 1-16 generated approximately 72,902 Base Credits, mostly
from lands designated HSAs and FSAs as shown on Figure 3.
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
Base Restoration Early EntryCredits Figure 2: Type of Approved Stewardship Credits
0.0
5,000.0
10,000.0
15,000.0
20,000.0
25,000.0
30,000.0
FSA HSA WRA OpenAcresFigure 3: Lands Designated SSA
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 460 of 518
5
08/06/2020
To estimate the future potential Base Credits, the data within the Stewardship NRI model is analyzed.
Map 3:
The analysis evaluates the
potential remaining Base
Credits for HSA, FSA and
WRA lands. These
remaining lands are
illustrated on Map 3,
shown in blue or green
without the red hatch, and
total approximately 40,080
acres. All Credit analysis
must involve assumptions
of what land use layers a
property owner is willing
to remove. The 5-Year
Review Committee’s
Report, and this staff
analysis share the
assumption that all FSAs,
HSAs and WRAs become
designated SSAs with land
use layers removed down
to Agriculture uses, such as
the more intensive row
crops or citrus (Ag 1
layer), or more passive
agriculture uses such as
pastures (Ag 2 layer).
The 5-Year Committee
Report found the actual
SSA Base Credits
generated from SSAs 1-13,
were approximately 15%
greater than the
Stewardship NRI model
projections due to the
inclusion of more site specific data, such as listed species surveys which have enabled a greater level of
accuracy in calculating NRI values. The Committee Report estimated a total of 128,000 Base Credits.
Staff evaluated the Stewardship NRI model data, removing all approved SSA and SRA lands, along with
public lands and found approximately 40,080 acres remain designated HSA, FSA and WRA. These lands
have potential to be designated SSAs and generate Base Credits. With the assumption the land use layers
are removed down to the agriculture use, it was estimated that there is potential for 144,803 future Base
Credits. Table 1 shows a comparison between the two analysis.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 461 of 518
6
08/06/2020
Table 1: Adopted RLSA Base Credit Estimates
Base Credits
5-Year Review Report
Estimates
2020 Analysis
Estimates
Approved in SSAs 1-13 60,319
Approved in SSAs 1-16 72,903
Estimated Future Base Credits 67,681 71,900
Total 128,000 144,803
Based on the findings of both the 5-Year Committee Report and staff analysis, a reasonable average
estimate to use for the purpose is this analysis is 136,000 future Base Credits.
There are no recommended policy amendments that affect the Base Credits. The Base Credit analysis is
important in considering the potential total Stewardship Credits.
B. Adopted Restoration Credits
Restoration Credits are generated by application of Policy 3.11. Restoration Credits are dependent on site
specific conditions, detailed evaluations and restoration planning and permitting by each property owner,
as well as successful implementation. For these reasons many different assumptions can be made to estimate
the total number of Restorations Credits. This analysis utilizes restoration data within SSAs to date, and a
reasonable assumption for potential future Restoration Credits.
The 5-Year Committee Report assumed for SSAs 1-13, approximately 29% of the total SSA acreage was
proposed for restoration. The Report assumed the same percentage applies to the 40,000 acres that may
initiate future restoration and found that 11,600 additional acres may be restored. The projected additional
restoration credits generated under the current system would be approximately 78,000 credits
Staff’s review of the restoration approved for SSAs 1-16 found consistency with the 5-Year Review
Committee. Approximately 29% of the total SSA acreage is proposed for restoration. Restoration Credits
per Policy 3.11 prioritize the restoration of Camp Keais Strand providing for a total of 8 potential
Restoration Credits per acre. Areas outside of Camp Keais Strand are eligible for a total of 6 potential
Restoration Credits.
For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that 29% of the remaining HSA and FSA may utilize
restoration activities. To date, WRAs have not been proposed for restoration activities and are assumed to
continue the use of water management for agriculture activities. With this assumption, staff rounds the
estimate of future restoration to 13,570 acres. Under the current program these restoration acres could
generate a rounded estimate of 48,700 future Restoration Credits. Table 2 provides a comparison of the 5-
Year Review Report analysis and staff’s 2020 analysis.
Table 2: Adopted RLSA Restoration Credit Estimates
5-Year
Review
Restoration
Acres
5-Year
Review
Restoration
Credits
2020 Analysis
Restoration
Acres
2020 Analysis
Restoration
Credits
Restoration in SSAs 1-13 12,000 82,000
Restoration in SSAs 1-16 14,439 104,510
Future restoration 40,000 78,000 13,570 48,700
Total 62,000 160,000 27,400 153,210
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 462 of 518
7
08/06/2020
Based on the findings of both the 5-Year Committee Report and staff analysis 156,600 future Restoration
Credits is a reasonable average estimate.
C. Adopted Early Entry Bonus Credits
RLSA Policy 1.21 provides for a maximum of 27,000 Early Entry Bonus Credits. These Credits were
available until January 31, 2009. Prior to the expiration of these Credits, the RLSA produced a total of
19,472 Early Entry Bonus Credits.
Adopted RLSA Total Potential Credits
The RLSA Stewardship Credits generated from Base Credits, Restoration Credits and Early Entry Bonus
Credits were estimated by both the 5-Year Review Committee Report and through staff analysis of the
proposed policy amendments. Each analysis found very slightly different totals based on the data that was
provided within the implementation of the program. Table 3 shows the total Credits estimated from both
analyses.
Table 3: Adopted RLSA Potential Total Credits
5-Year Review
Estimates
2020 Analysis
Estimates
Base Credits 128,000 136,000
Restoration Credits 160,000 156,000
Early Entry Bonus Credits 27,000 19,472
Total 315,000 311,472
Based on the adopted RLSA Stewardship Credit system, the 5-Year Committee Report, and staff analysis,
an average estimate of 313,000 total potential Stewardship Credits is used for the purposes of this
analysis.
2. Recommended Policy Amendments to the Credit System
The Committee’s recommended amendments include three significant changes to the Stewardship Credit
system. These changes are viewed as adjustments to further balance the goal of the RLSA. The application
and calculation methodology of the Base Credits described in the adopted program do not change. The
Early Entry Bonus Credits have expired and no longer apply. The proposed amendments to the Stewardship
Credit System incentivize the outcomes with the following types of Credits:
A. Base Credits
B. Agriculture Credits
C. Panther Corridor Credits
D. Tiered Restoration Credits
A. Base Credits There are no recommended policy amendments that affect the Base Credits. Table
3 above shows the total estimated Base Credits.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 463 of 518
8
08/06/2020
B. Agriculture Credits
(Recommended Policy 2.2)
Agriculture Credits are proposed to
incentivize the retention of agriculture lands
within the RLSA “Open” designation shown
on the Proposed RLSA Overlay Map. The
Open designation is generally in agriculture
uses and where future development may
occur.
With the Policy 2.2 recommended
amendment, property owners agreeing to
eliminate non-agricultural land uses from
Open lands would be eligible for 2.6
Stewardship Credits per acre within the
Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC), and
2.0 Credits per acre on Open lands outside
of the ACSC. This Agriculture Credit offers
an incentive for property owners to consider
an alternative to developing Open lands.
The 5-Year Committee Report estimates
15,000 acres designated within the ACSC at
2.6 Credits per acre, and 25,000 acres of
Agriculture outside of the ACSC at 2.0
credits per acre Therefore, the 5-Year
Committee Report estimates the change to
Policy 2.2 may result in 89,000 total
Agriculture Credits.
Staff’s analysis considers the Open area
remaining after discounting the areas of
approved SSAs, the proposed panther
corridors, and public lands within Open, and assumes a 45,000 SRA cap. The results of staff’s analysis are
consistent with the 5-Year Review Report and found approximately 15,000 acres of Open within the ACSC
and approximately 25,000 acres of Open outside of the ACSC may be utilized as Ag SSA. With these
assumptions a total is found of approximately 89,000 Agriculture Credits.
Incentivizing the protection of agriculture land, both outside the ACSC and within the ACSC, can be viewed
as equally important. Offering Agriculture Stewardship Credits at the same rate of 2.0 Credits per acre
would both incentivize the protection of the land and reduce the overall total Credits within the RLSA.
Using the assumption of 2.0 Credits for 40,000 acres of agriculture land, the total potential is 80,0000
Agriculture Credits.
Table 4: Recommended Future Agriculture Estimated Credits
5-Year Review Credit
Estimates
2020 Analysis Credit
Estimates
Ag SSA in ACSC 39,000 30,000
Ag SSA not in ACSC 50,000 50,000
Total 89,000 80,000
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 464 of 518
9
08/06/2020
C. Panther Corridor Credits (Policy 3.10)
Panther Corridor Credits are intended to further incentivize the protection of lands for panther. These
Credits could be achieved by property owners agreeing to designate land and construct improvements to
implement a north and south Panther Corridor as shown with red arrows on the Proposed Overlay Map.
These corridors are assumed to require the use of both Open Lands and WRAs. The Committee Report
estimated approximately 1,300 acres of Open land and 1,000 acres of WRA land in the north and south
corridors for a total of 2,300 acres. These proposed Credit System offers 10 Credits per acre, or a total of
23,000 Panther Corridor Credits.
Staff notes that proposed Policy 3.10, paragraph 2, as drafted in the Committee Report, includes a
requirement for these Corridors to be federally approved and issuance of Credits would coincide with a
phased implementation in accordance with a federal permit. For these reasons, for the purpose of estimating
Credits, staff is using the assumptions found in the Committee’s report and estimates a total of 23,000
Panther Corridor Credits.
D. Tiered Restoration Credit Estimates (Recommended Amendment Policy 3.10)
The proposed tiered restoration system is a substantial modification to the adopted restoration credit system.
The purpose of the amendment is to better define the type and relative value of restoration. For this estimate,
the Committee Report assumed that 11,600 acres within future SSAs would be suitable for restoration
activities as previously described, with 600 acres dedicated for panther habitat restoration, and the
remaining 11,000 acres split equally between the four other restoration types (caracara, exotic removal /
burning, flow way, and native habitat restoration). The Committee Report estimates 11,600 acres for
potential restoration activities resulting in 72,000 Stewardship Credits.
The staff analysis included a reviewed the restoration activities within the first twenty years of the program
presented in SSAs 1-16. As described under the adopted RLSA analysis, approximately 29% of the total
SSA lands have been found suitable for restoration. The restoration plans show 41% were for flow way
restoration, while others were nearly equally represented between the other restoration activities, from 14%-
18%. The staff analysis used the total acreages of approved restoration and assumed the same percentages
for the remaining HSA and FSA acres organized under the new tiered restoration activities. Table 5 shows
the comparison of the 5-Year Report Estimates and the 2020.
Table 5: Recommended RLSA Tiered Restoration Estimated Credits
Restoration
Type
Credits
per Acre
5-Year
Report
Estimated
Acres
5-Year
Tiered
Restoration
Credits
Credits
per Acre
2020
Analysis
Estimated
Acres
2020 Analysis
Tiered
Restoration
Credits
Panther Habitat 10 600 6,000 10 600 6,000
Native Habitat
Rest. 8 2,750 22,000 8 2,440 19,520
Exotic
Control/Burning 6 2,750 16,500 6 1,765 10,590
Flow Way 6 2,750 16,500 6 5,565 33,390
Caracara 4 2,750 11,000 3 1,900 5,700
Seasonal
wetland 3
Not
included
Not
included 4 1,900 7,600
Total 11,600 72,000 13,570 82,800
The White Paper included an additional change to the restoration credit system by recommending 1
Restoration Credit (rather than the adopted 4 Credits or the 5-Year Report proposed 2 Credits) be given at
the time of restoration dedication. All remaining credits would be awarded following successful restoration
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 465 of 518
10
08/06/2020
implementation. This recommendation affects the RLSA process, but not the total estimated Restoration
Credits.
The total estimated Restoration Credits with implementation of the proposed tiered system for future SSAs
are shown in Table 6.
Table 6: Recommended RLSA Estimated Restoration Credits
Restoration
5-Year Restoration
Credits
2020 Analysis Restoration
Credits
Awarded Restoration Credits (R1) 28,000 53,333
Restoration Credits Pending
Implementation (R2) 54,000 53,476
Estimated Future Restoration
Credits 72,000 82,800
Total 154,000 189,609
Restoration estimates are subject to substantial variation based on site specific analysis for restoration
suitability, decisions made by the property owner as to appropriate restoration, approval by the County and
permitting agencies and successful restoration implementation. For the purpose of this analysis, a rounded
total estimate is 170,000 Restoration Credits
Potential Total Credits
Upon evaluation and analysis of the three recommended policy amendments affecting the Stewardship
Credit system staff found a reasonable comparison to the 5-Year Committee Report. Table 7 shows the
estimated total potential Stewardship Credits under the recommended policy amendments.
Table 7: Recommended RLSA Estimated Potential Stewardship Credits
Credit Type
5-Year Report
Credit Estimate
2020 Analysis Rounded
Credit Estimate
Base Credits 128,000 136,000
Restoration Credits 154,000 170,000
Early Entry Bonus Credits 27,000 19,472
Agriculture Credits 89,000 80,000
Panther Corridor Credits 23,000 23,000
Total 421,000 428,472
If the three recommended policy amendments are adopted without further substantive changes, the RLSA
Overlay, with 100% landowner participation with similar assumptions, a reasonable average estimate is
425,000 Stewardship Credits.
3. Adjustments to Meet the 45,000-Acre SRA Cap
The 5-Year Review Committee Report recommended a cap of 45,000 SRA acres in the RLSA. When the
Report was presented the Board, the Board concurred with the cap and directed staff to bring back GMP
amendments with the 45,000-acre SRA cap, and a cap on Stewardship Credits of 404,000, providing backup
data is developed to determine actual cap values. To achieve this objective, adjustments are necessary so
that the RLSA Overlay Credit System will produce sufficient Credits to achieve the objectives of natural
resource protection, agriculture land retention and 45,000 SRA acres. The Board directed staff to balance
the RLSA without leaving a substantial number of excess Credits. This can be achieved by changing the
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 466 of 518
11
08/06/2020
SRA Credit Ratio found in Policy 4.19. The current SRA Credit Ratio requires 8 Stewardship Credits for
each acre of SRA development, with exception for public benefit and excess open space acres which are
not required to consume Credits under the adopted RLSA.
The adopted RLSA Overlay is estimated to produce approximately 313,000 Stewardship Credits. With the
adopted SRA Credit Ratio of 8 Credits per acre and assuming 10% of development as public benefit use
and not consuming Credits, it is estimated that approximately 43,450 SRA acres may be developed and the
remaining 46,931 acres would continue in agriculture and be subject to potential future development.
Table 8. Adopted RLSA Estimated Credits and SRA Acres
Stewardship Credit Total SSA approved and in escrow 197,288
SRA Acre potential @ 8 Credits per acre including 10% public benefit acres 27,127
Projected Remaining Future Credits 118,712
Potential Future SRA Acres @ 8 Credits per acre including 10% public benefit acres 16,323
Total Potential SRA Acres 43,450
Remaining agriculture acres subject to potential future development 46,931
With the recommended amendments, Stewardship Credits were added to incentivize the objectives of the
RLSA program. Adjustments were made to further incentivize agriculture land retention and additional
panther corridors. These Credit adjustments increase the potential total Stewardship Credits from
approximately 316,000 to approximately 425,000.
As previously discussed, 197,288 Stewardship Credits have been approved and may entitle up to 27,127
acres of SRA including 10% public benefit uses. To balance the projected additional Stewardship Credits
(227,712) and remaining 17,873 SRA acres to achieve a total of 45,000 SRA acres, without excess Credits,
the SRA Credit Ratio would change from 8 Credits per acre to 13 Credits per acre. Table 9 shows the
potential Stewardship Credits and SRA acreage based on these assumptions achieving no excess Credits.
Table 9. Proposed RLSA Estimated Credits and SRA Acres
Stewardship Credit Total SSA approved and in escrow 197,288
SRA Acre potential @ 8 Credits per acre including 10% public benefit acres 27,127
Recommended Policy Amendments Future Credits 227,712
Remaining SRA to equal 45,000 acres includes 10% public benefit acres 17,873
SRA Credit Ratio (Remaining Credits/Remaining SRA, less 10% public benefit acres) 13
Total Potential SRA 45,000
Remaining agriculture land subject to potential future development 0
Conclusions
The RLSA program is successfully meeting the objective to protect natural resources. In the first twenty
years of the program, 50,425 acres have been protected within SSA agreements. That is 56% of the overall
goal of protecting HSA, FSA and WRA lands. These SSAs have generated Stewardship Credits to entitle
approximately 27,127 acres, including public benefit uses.
The Board directed staff to evaluate the Stewardship Credit system with the recommended policy
amendments and to balance the potential Credits with a total of 45,000 SRA acres. Staff’s analysis finds
that the additional Agriculture Stewardship Credits and the Panther Corridor Stewardship Credits further
the overall goal of the RLSA. The Agriculture Stewardship Credits will address the need to incentivize the
retention of agriculture in the Open designation and provides an alternative to future development.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 467 of 518
12
08/06/2020
The recommended policy amendments result in larger total projected Stewardship Credits, from
approximately 316,000 estimated under the adopted RLSA, to approximately 425,000 estimated in the
recommended RLSA policies. The proposed Board direction to cap the Stewardship Credits at 404,000 and
45,000 SRA acres, with an SRA Credit Ratio of 10 Stewardship Credits per SRA acres, would result in the
potential for approximately 20,000 excess Credits, which is about .04% of the total. Therefore, the Credit
system does not create an unreasonable amount of excess Credits with a cap of 404,000 Credits.
As illustrated in Figure 4, the recommended RLSA policies are intended to incentivize a greater amount of
protection of agriculture lands and natural resources while limiting future development.
Figure 4
37%
18%4%
29%
12%
Current RLSA in 2020
Natural Resources Remaining
Naural Resources in SSA
Ag1 in SSA
Open
SRA Approved and Potential
54%
22%
24%
Proposed RLSA
Natural Resources SSA
Agriculture SSA
SRAs
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 468 of 518
Members of the American Planning Association and American Institute of Certified Planners
To: Anita Jenkins, AICP. Interim Director, Collier County Growth Management Division
From: David Farmer, PE, AICP. Chief Executive Officer, Metro Forecasting Models
Date: August 19, 2020
Re: Supplemental Data and Analysis Supporting the Amendment of Attachment C
Introduction/ Factor Methodology
To explain the commercial demand methodology used in the 2017 Collier Interactive Growth
Model (2017 CIGM), the detailed research applied to produce the commercial factors is
described in this memorandum. The memorandum is solely focused on commercial factors
applied to the Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA).
Demand for new commercial services is a function of population growth. Demand is forecasted
on a square foot per capita basis, then assigned as potential future Neighborhood, Community,
and Regional shopping centers where appropriate. The remaining commercial demand is then
allocated using the available supply of vacant commercial land and referred to as “Commercial
Other”. For the purposes of amending Attachment C, the commercial demand per person factors
were converted to commercial square feet per dwelling unit (Sqft/DU).
The approach used to forecast commercial demand is described in the following order:
Research Aggregate Commercial Demand Supply per Person
Comparative Analysis of Places in Florida
Commercial Building Area Allocation (shopping centers, essential services, healthcare,
employment centers, etc.)
Conversion of CIGM Commercial Demand in Sqft per Person to per Unit
Commercial Land Area Allocation
The 2017 CIGM recommended the average aggregate commercial demand per dwelling unit for
the RLSA towns and villages is 135 Sqft/DU, and is broken down as follows:
Towns have an average demand of 170 Sqft/DU.
Villages have an average demand of about 53 Sqft/DU.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 469 of 518
2 | P a g e
Research on Aggregate Commercial Supply per Person
The basis for forecasting the commercial demand of future residents was a detailed analysis of
the average commercial building area per person. Based on 2017 property appraiser data, Collier
County had 40 million square feet of commercial (retail and office) building area serving
373,795 residents. In aggregate, Collier County had an average of 107 square feet of commercial
building area per capita. The City of Naples, which provides a significant portion of commercial
services for Collier County, had 391 square feet of commercial space per person.
Comparative Analysis of Places in Florida
The following table demonstrates a comparison between Collier County and similar counties in
the state of Florida in terms of commercial building area per resident (sqft/person).
Comparative Analysis of Similar Places in Florida. Source: Metro Forecasting Models, 2017.
The table above shows the results of our research ranging from 76 square feet per person to 123
square feet per person. The average of the counties in the table is 103 square feet per person.
Collier County’s supply being 107 sqft per person is marginally higher than the average.
Commercial Building Area Allocation
There are many commercial and nonresidential land uses necessary to sustain a given population.
The estimated buildout population of the RLSA is approximately two-thirds of Collier County’s
population in 2017. Many neighborhood and community shopping centers will be necessary to
serve future residents. Additionally, towns and some villages will need office and business parks
to provide employment opportunities in the RLSA. Hospitals, medical office, restaurants, banks,
and entertainment venues will also be needed. These land uses are not only necessary to meet the
demand of RLSA residents, but also to enhance internal capture and minimize unnecessary trips
to coastal Collier County. If the RLSA does not allocate enough commercial land area to serve
their future residents, many more lane-miles of roads will be required to meet their needs and
demands.
The RLSA is envisioned as a series of mixed-use developments, largely self-sustaining. In
support of these land-use policies, “Attachment C” provides required minimum for the
commercial space needed to meet the demands of residents near their homes.
FLORIDA COUNTIES COMMERCIAL SQFT PER PERSON
Place Comm Sqft Population Sqft/Person
Collier County 40,032,444 373,795 107
Lee County 71,009,266 785,592 90
Manatee County 27,746,187 364,171 76
Sarasota County 50,139,740 407,718 123
Seminole County 55,178,628 454,442 121
Martin County 15,813,086 161,170 98
Average 103
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 470 of 518
3 | P a g e
Collier County’s aggregate commercial demand is 107 square feet per person. Recognizing the
unique and regional commercial uses located in the coastal urban area, the average square foot
per person demand was projected with adjustments for specific commercial uses. The RLSA is
envisioned to have less demand for tourism and hospitality than Collier’s coastal areas while
adding opportunities for economic diversification. Analysis of the Collier County commercial
building allocation found 58% of uses consist of professional/medical office, mixed-use
development and shopping centers. Applying 58% to 107 square feet per person provides an
average value of 62 square feet of commercial building area per person. This suggested
minimum is proposed within the RLSA boundaries to minimize transportation impacts and
provide a high quality of life for future residents.
The RLSA, as understood in 2017, will be a
mixture of towns and villages. The towns are
anticipated to provide contiguous commercially
zoned tracts allowing larger retail and office
developments while villages will tend to have
smaller commercial areas. Since towns are
envisioned to be two to four times larger than
villages, it makes them ideal to support larger
employment and commercial centers. Most
villages will not have the critical population mass
needed to support larger commercial or
employment centers. The market potential of a
village is not sufficient to support all the needs
demanded by those residents. The red arrows in
the graphic to the right depict how village
residents may travel to the towns for certain goods
and services.
With 62 square feet per person being a suggested
minimum for the RLSA, the recommended
allocation of commercial building area for towns is
76 square feet per resident (31 sqft/person less
than Collier County’s aggregate demand), and 24
square feet per resident in villages. The following
section will convert the demand per person values to
demand housing unit.
Conversion of Sqft per Person to Sqft per Housing Unit
The aggregate commercial demand in Collier County can be converted to a demand per housing
unit as follows based on data from the Property Appraiser:
Aggregate Commercial Building Area = 40 million square feet
2017 Housing Units = 219,000 units
Commercial Demand (sf) per Housing Unit = 40,000,000/219,000 = 183 sf per unit
Source: Attachment B 5-year review Phase II
page78 of 159 (red arrows added by MFM)
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 471 of 518
4 | P a g e
Future towns and villages are estimated to have approximately 2.5 people per household and an
average vacancy rate of 10%. This means, on average, there will be 2.25 residents per housing
unit. Applying the recommended minimum commercial building area per person to future town
and village housing units in the RLSA is as follows:
Towns: 76 square feet per person x 2.25 persons/unit ≈ 170 sf/unit
Villages: 24 square feet per person x 2.25 persons/unit ≈ 53 sf/unit
The CIGM estimated housing unit buildout potential for towns is 78,108 units. The estimated
housing unit buildout potential for villages is 30,950 units. The rounded minimum weighted
average of across the entire RLSA is 135 square feet of commercial building area per housing
unit.
Commercial Land Area Allocation
The recommended building area per unit
allocations can be used to estimate the amount of
commercially zoned land necessary for future
towns and villages in the RLSA. Based on our
research in suburban Collier County,
approximately 8,500 square feet of commercial
building area can be developed per acre. This
value can vary depending upon how water
management and environmental preservation are
accommodated by the developer. For example,
the Galleria commercial portion of Pelican
Marsh (shown in the picture to the right) has
over 9,300 square feet of commercial building
area per acre.
Assuming 8,500 square feet will be the average commercial building area developed per acre in
the RLSA, commercial land use factors can be established. Applying the recommended
minimum commercial building area per housing unit with the commercial land use factor
provides the following:
Commercial Acres for Towns per 1,000 units:
170sf/unit x 1,000 units ÷ 8,500sf/acre = 20.0 acres
Commercial Acres for Villages per 1,000 units:
53sf/unit x 1,000 units ÷ 8,500sf/acre = 6.2 acres
Conclusion
Proper allocation of commercial and other land uses is critical to success of the RLSA and
maximizing internal capture to serve these future residents needs. The suggested minimum
allocations will enhance the land use mix and provide strategic locations near the future
populations that will minimize unnecessary trips to coastal Collier County.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 472 of 518
Collier County Growth Management Department
A SUMMARY OF RLSA AMENDMENTS
INCLUDING 2009 EAC, CCPC, AND BOARD COMMENTS ON 5-YEAR REVIEW AMENDMENTS, AND
STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 473 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
1
Staff working document 08/06/2020
DRAFT RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY AMENDMENTS
Introduction
In 2009, by a 3-2 vote, the Board accepted the Rural Lands Stewardship Area 5-Year Review Committee
Report as a planning document and directed the recommended Growth Management Plan (GMP)
amendments move forward with changes. The Board voted to 1) incorporate both a 404,000 Stewardship
Credit cap and a Stewardship Receiving Area 45,000 acre cap, provided backup data is developed to
determine the actual cap values, 2) add a statement to the effect that issuance of Stewardship Credits does
not provide vested rights to land owners, and 3) that no excess credits are created. Due to lack of funding,
the GMP amendments did not move forward.
On October 22, 2019, the Board directed staff to bring forward GMP amendments within the 5-Year
Review Committee Report and the RLSA White Paper. The following proposed amendments are those
included in the 5-Year Review Committee Report (Report) and White Paper. The text with single
underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-
Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are
staff’s recommendations from the RLSA White Paper, October 2019.
Proposed Amendments to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO)
Goal (recommended amendment)
Collier County seeks to address the long-term needs of residents and property owners within the
Immokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment.
Collier County’s goal is to protect retain land for agricultural activities, to prevent the premature
conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, to direct incompatible uses away from
wetlands and upland habitat, to protect and restore habitat connectivity, to enable the conversion
of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations, to discourage urban sprawl, and to encourage
development that utilizes employs creative land use planning techniques. through the use of
established incentives.
Staff Comments: The 5-Year Review Committee Report (Committee Report) recommendations further
express the goal of retaining agricultural lands. This is implemented through related RLSA policy
amendments. When the Committee Report was presented to the Collier County Planning Commission
(CCPC), the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board had no objections.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment.
Nick Penniman Comments: The original language, reviewed and emphasized by the then existing state
Department of Community Affairs (DCA) was “…to prevent the premature conversion of agricultural
land to non-agricultural uses,….” There was much discussion, in writing back and forth between DCA
and Collier County (CC), about this clause. (See letter from Thomas Pelham, Secretary, Department of
Community Affairs to James Mudd, Collier County Manager dated May 8, 2008). Striking this language
severely weakens the county’s commitment to agriculture. Retain the original language.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 474 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
2
Staff working document 08/06/2020
Objective (recommended amendment)
To meet the Goal described above, Collier County’s objective is to create an incentive-based land use
overlay system, herein referred to as the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, based on
the principles of rural land stewardship as defined in Chapter 163.3177(11), F.S. The Policies that will
implement this Goal and Objective are set forth below in groups relating to each aspect of the Goal.
Group 1 policies describe the structure and organization of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship
Area Overlay. Group 2 policies relate to agriculture. Group 3 policies relate to natural resource protection,
and. Group 4 policies relate to conversion of land to other uses and economic diversification. Group 5 are
regulatory policies that ensure that land that is not voluntarily included in the Overlay by its owners shall
nonetheless meet the minimum requirements of the Final Order pertaining to natural resource protection.
Staff Comments: This Committee Report recommended amendment is grammatical without substantive
change. When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this
amendment. The Board had no objections.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment.
Group 1 - General purpose and structure of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlay
Policy 1.1 (recommended amendment)
To promote a dynamic balance of land uses in the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA)
that collectively contributes to a viable agricultural industry, protects natural resources, and enhances
economic prosperity and diversification, Collier County hereby establishes the Rural Lands Stewardship
Area Overlay (Overlay). The Overlay was created through a collaborative community-based planning
process involving county residents, area property owners, and representatives of community and
governmental organizations under the direction of a citizen oversight committee.
Staff Comments: This Committee Report recommended amendment is grammatical without substantive
change. When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this
amendment. The Board had no objections.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment.
Policy 1.2
The Overlay protects natural resources and retains viable agriculture by promoting compact rural mixed-
use development as an alternative to low-density single use development, and provides a system of
compensation to private property owners for the elimination of certain land uses in order to protect natural
resources and viable agriculture in exchange for transferable credits that can be used to entitle such
compact development. The strategies herein are based in part on the principles of Florida’s Rural Lands
Stewardship Act, Chapter 163.3177(11) F.S. The Overlay includes innovative and incentive-based tools,
techniques and strategies that are not dependent on a regulatory approach, but will complement existing
local, regional, state and federal regulatory programs.
Policy 1.3 (recommended amendment)
This Overlay to the Future Land Use Map is depicted on the Stewardship Overlay Map (Overlay Map)
and applies to rural designated lands located within the Immokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier
County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment referred to in the State of Florida Administration
Commission Final Order No. AC-99-002. The RLSA generally includes rural lands in northeast Collier
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 475 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
3
Staff working document 08/06/2020
County lying north and east of Golden Gate Estates, north of the Florida Panther National Wildlife
Refuge and Big Cypress National Preserve, south of the Lee County Line, and south and west of the
Hendry County Line, and includes a total of approximately 195,846 185,935 acres, of which
approximately 182,334 acres is privately owned. The Overlay Map is an adopted overlay to the Future
Land Use Map (FLUM).
Staff Comments: Staff’s recommended amendments update the total acreage within the current adopted
Overlay boundary. The original Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment study area included analysis of
Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary and the Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest public lands. The adopted
RLSA Overlay Map does not include these public lands.
ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments.
Policy 1.4
Except as provided in Group 5 Policies, there shall be no change to the underlying density and intensity of
permitted uses of land within the RLSA, as set forth in the Baseline Standards, as defined in Policy 1.5,
unless and until a property owner elects to utilize the provisions of the Stewardship Credit System. It is
the intent of the Overlay that a property owner will be compensated for the voluntary stewardship and
protection of important agricultural and natural resources. Compensation to the property owner shall
occur through one of the following mechanisms: creation and transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition
of conservation easements, acquisition of less than fee interest in the land, or through other acquisition of
land or interest in land through a willing seller program.
Policy 1.5 (recommended amendment)
As referred to in these Overlay policies, Baseline Standards are the permitted uses, density, intensity and
other land development regulations assigned to land in the RLSA by the GMP Growth Management Plan
(GMP), Collier County Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and Collier County Zoning Regulations
in effect prior to the adoption of Interim Amendments and Interim Development Provisions referenced in
Final Order AC-99-002. The Baseline Standards will remain in effect for all land not subject to the
transfer or receipt of Stewardship Credits, except as provided for in Group 5 Policies. No part of the
Stewardship Credit System shall be imposed upon a property owner without that owners owner’s consent.
Staff Comments: This Committee recommended amendment is grammatical without substantive change.
When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The
Board had no objections.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment.
Policy 1.6 (recommended amendment)
Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within the RLSA that are to be kept in
permanent agriculture, open space or conservation uses. These lands will be identified as Stewardship
Sending Areas or SSAs. All privately owned lands within the RLSA are a candidate for designation as a
SSA. Land becomes designated as a SSA upon petition by the property owner seeking such designation
and the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC), which
acknowledges the property owner’s request for such designation and assigns Stewardship Credits or other
compensation to the owner for such designation. Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate
the boundaries of each approved SSA. Designation as an SSA shall be administrative and shall not
require an amendment to the Growth Management Plan, but shall be retroactively incorporated into the
adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment process when it periodically occurs by
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 476 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
4
Staff working document 08/06/2020
amendment as may be periodically initiated by the County. A Stewardship Sending Area Credit
Agreement shall be developed that identifies those allowable residential densities and other land uses
which remain. Once land is designated as a SSA and Credits or other compensation is granted to the
owner, no increase in density or additional uses unspecified in the Stewardship Sending Area Credit
Agreement shall be allowed on such property unless the SSA is terminated as provided in Policy 1.6.1
Staff Comments: The Committee recommended amendment is for policy reference and consistency. When
the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board
had no objections.
Staff recommended amendments update the policy to remove the obsolete EAR process and establishes a
new process the County will use to amend the Overlay Map following approval of an SSA.
ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments.
Nick Penniman Comments: Shifting from “…during the EAR based amendment process when it
periodically occurs…” to “by amendment as may be periodically initiated by the county…” makes the
designation of new SSAs a political, rather than a planning, exercise. While the EAR process is a shell of
its former manifestation, it did involve public input. This change shuts out public involvement to a great
extent.
Policy 1.6.1 (recommended amendment)
Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, upon initial approval of a Stewardship Sending
Area (“SSA”), the Stewardship Easement shall be established for a term of five years (“Conditional
Period”) and shall be deemed a Conditional Stewardship Easement. The Conditional Period may be
extended for one additional year at the option of the owner by providing written notice to the County prior
to the expiration of the initial five-year period. All conditions and restrictions of the Stewardship
Easement related to maintaining the existing property conditions, including all management obligations of
the owner of the SSA lands, shall be in full force throughout the Conditional Period. If at any time during
the Conditional Period any of the following events occur, then the Conditional Stewardship Easement
shall become a Permanent Stewardship Easement which shall be final, perpetual and non -revocable in
accordance with the terms set forth therein:
1. Stewardship Credits from the SSA have been assigned to entitle an approved Stewardship Receiving
Area (“SRA”), and the SRA has received all necessary final and non-appealable development orders,
permits, or other discretionary approvals necessary to commence construction, including subdivision
plat and site development plan approval, but not building permits. If Stewardship Credits from the
SSA have been assigned to more than one SRA, then the receipt of all necessary governmental final
and non-appealable development orders, permits, or other discretionary approvals necessary to
commence construction of any SRA shall automatically cause the Conditional Stewardship
Easement to become a Permanent Stewardship Easement;
2. The owner of the SSA lands has sold or transferred any Stewardship Credits to another person or
entity, including a Stewardship Credit Trust as described in Policy 1.20, the closing has occurred,
and the owner has received the consideration due from such sale or transfer, but not expressly
excluding:
(a) a sale or transfer of the Stewardship Credits ancillary to the sale or transfer of the underlying
fee title to the land, or
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 477 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
5
Staff working document 08/06/2020
(b) instances where a landowner establishes an SSA for a specific SRA, whether the SRA is owned
or developed by a separate or related entity, and the Stewardship Credits are transferred as
required by the Growth Management Plan or Land Development Code for SRA approval; or
3. The owner of the SSA lands has received in exchange for the creation of the Stewardship Easement
Agreement other compensation from local, state, federal or private revenues (collectively, the
“Events”).
The LDC shall specify how, assuming a Notice of Termination (as hereafter described) has not been
recorded, the Conditional Stewardship Easement shall automatically convert to a Permanent
Stewardship Easement upon the earliest to occur of (a) any of the foregoing Events during the
Conditional Period, or (b) 180 days after the last day of the Conditional Period, as and to the extent
extended hereunder. In the event that none of the foregoing events has occurred during the
Conditional Period, then the owner of the SSA lands may within 180 days after the last day of the
Conditional Period terminate the Conditional Stewardship Easement by recording a Notice of
Termination. In addition, if a challenge and/or appeal of a necessary development order, permit or
other discretionary approval is filed, the owner of the SSA lands may elect to extend the Conditional
Period until the challenge or appeal is finally resolved. If the challenge or appeal is not resolved such
that the construction may commence under terms acceptable to the owner of the SSA lands, the owner
of the SSA lands may within 180 days of the final disposition of the challenge or appeal record a
Notice of Termination. Upon the recording of such Notice of Termination, the Stewardship Easement
Agreement and corresponding Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall expire and
terminate, the Stewardship Credits generated by the SSA shall cease to exist, the rights and
obligations set forth in the Stewardship Easement shall no longer constitute an encumbrance on the
property, and the SSA Memorandum shall be revised accordingly. The owner of the SSA lands shall
provide a copy of the Notice of Termination to the County.
In the event that the Stewardship Credits from an SSA have been used to obtain one or more SRA
approvals, but none of the foregoing events has occurred during the Conditional Period, then the
Notice of Termination shall also provide for termination of any SRAs that have been assigned credits
from the SSA, unless the SRA owner has obtained sufficient Stewardship Credits from another source
and such Stewardship Credits have been applied to the SRA. In the event that a Notice of Termination
does terminate an SRA, the owner of the SRA lands shall join in the Notice of Termination.
In the event that a Conditional Stewardship Easement is terminated, all benefits, rights, privileges,
restrictions and obligations associated with the SSA shall be null and void, and the land shall revert to
its underlying zoning classification, free and clear of any encumbrance from the Conditional
Stewardship Easement and SSA Credit Agreement. If requested by the owner of the SSA lands,
Collier County and the other grantees under the Stewardship Easement Agreement shall provide a
written release and termination of easement and credit agreements for recording in the public records
within 15 days of request from the owner of the SSA lands. Collier County shall update the overlay
map to reflect the termination of any SSA or SRA.
This policy shall be implemented in the LDC within 12 months after adoption hereof.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 478 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
6
Staff working document 08/06/2020
For SSAs approved prior to this Policy 1.6.1 being adopted but have not changed ownership in whole
or part since the creation of the SSA and have not transferred, sold or utilized Credits generated
from the SSA, the property owner may withdraw the SSA designation provided an application for
such withdrawal is implemented within 6 months of the adoption of this Policy 1.6.1.
Staff Comments: This Committee recommendation allows for a five-year “Conditional Period”, with an
opportunity for one additional year, during which time the Stewardship Easement is a “Conditional
Stewardship Easement.” The Conditional Stewardship Easement is held in escrow by an escrow agent,
acting on behalf of the SSA applicant, and is not recorded into public records as a permanent
Stewardship Easement until such time that any of the three events cited in Policy 1.6.1 occurs. This new
policy will allow owners to opt out of the RLSAO if no market exist for the use of Stewardship Credits.
When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC recommended to add the last sentence
to this new policy. The Board had no objections.
By Board Resolutions, the practice of allowing an SSA to be held in escrow has been on-going since 2008.
Currently, SSA 10 and 12-16 are held in escrow.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment.
Policy 1.7 (recommended amendment)
The range of Stewardship Credit Values is hereby established using the specific methodology set forth on
the Stewardship Credit Worksheet (Worksheet), incorporated herein as Attachment A. This methodology
and related procedures for SSA designation will also be adopted as part of the Stewardship Overlay
District in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). Such procedures shall include but no not
be limited to the following: (1) All Credit transfers shall be recorded with the Collier County Clerk of
Courts; (2) a covenant or perpetual restrictive easement shall also be recorded for each SSA, shall run
with the land and shall be in favor of Collier County, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission and one of the following: Department of Environmental Protection, Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services, South Florida Water Management District, or a recognized statewide
land trust; and (3) for each SSA, the Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement will identify the
specific land management measures that will be undertaken and the party responsible for such measures.
Staff Comments: The Committee recommendation adds the FFWCC to future Stewardship Easement
Agreements. When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this
amendment. The Board had no objections.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment.
Policy 1.8
The natural resource value of land within the RLSA is measured by the Stewardship Natural Resource
Index (Index) set forth on the Worksheet. The Index established the relative natural resource value by
objectively measuring six different characteristics of land and assigning an in dex factor based on each
characteristic. The sum of these six factors is the index value for the land. Both the characteristics used
and the factors assigned thereto were established after review and analysis of detailed information about
the natural resource attributes of land within the RLSA so that development could be directed away from
important natural resources. The six characteristics measured are: Stewardship Overlay Designation,
Sending Area Proximity, Listed Species Habitat, Soils/Surface Water, Restoration Potential, and Land
Use/Land Cover.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 479 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
7
Staff working document 08/06/2020
Policy 1.9
A Natural Resource Index Map Series (Index Map Series) indicates the Natural Resource Stewardship
Index value for all land within the RLSA. Credits from any lands designated as SSAs, will be based upon
the Natural Resource Index values in effect at the time of designation. Any change in the Characteristics
of land due to alteration of the land prior to the establishment of a SSA that either increases or decreases
any Index Factor will result in an adjustment of the factor values and a corresponding adjustment in the
credit value. The Index and the Index Map Series are adopted as a part of the RLSA Overlay.
Policy 1.10
In SSAs, the greater the number of uses eliminated from the property, and the higher the natural resource
value of the land, the higher the priority for protection, the greater the level of Credits that are generated
from such lands, and therefore the greater the incentive to participate in the Stewardship Credit System
and protect the natural resources of the land.
Policy 1.11
The Land Use Matrix, Attachment B, lists uses and activities allowed under the A, Rural Agricultural
Zoning District within the Overlay. These uses are grouped together in one of eight separate layers in the
Matrix. Each layer is discrete and shall be removed sequentially and cumulatively in the order presented
in the Matrix, starting with the residential layer (layer one) and ending with the conservation layer (layer
eight). If a layer is removed, all uses and activities in that layer are eliminated and are no longer available.
Each layer is assigned a percentage of a base credit in the Worksheet. The assigned percentage for each
layer to be removed is added together and then multiplied by the Index value on a per acre basis to arrive
at a total Stewardship Credit Value of the land being designated as a SSA.
Policy 1.12
Credits can be transferred only to lands within the RLSA that meet the defined suitability criteria and
standards set forth in Group 4 Policies. Such lands shall be known as Stewardship Receiving Areas or
SRAs.
Policy 1.13 (recommended amendment)
The procedures for the establishment and transfer of Credits and SRA designation are set forth herein and
will also be adopted as a are part of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District in the
LDC (District). LDRs creating the District will be adopted within one (1) year from the effective date of
this Plan amendment.
Staff Comments: Staff’s amendment recommendation is an update to reflect the accomplishment of the
policy direction with the adoption of LDC Section 4.08.00 – Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning
Overlay District Standards and Procedures.
ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments.
Policy 1.14 (recommended amendment)
Stewardship Credits will be exchanged for additional residential or non-residential entitlements in an
SRA on a per acre basis, as described in Policy 4.18 4.19. Stewardship density and intensity will
thereafter differ from the Baseline Standards. The assignment or use of Stewardship Credits shall not
require a GMP Amendment.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 480 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
8
Staff working document 08/06/2020
Staff Comments: This Committee amendment corrects a Policy reference without any substantive change.
When the Committee presented their recommendations the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The
Board had no objections.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment.
Policy 1.15
Land becomes designated as an SRA upon the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of
County Commissioners (BCC) approving the petition by the property owner seeking such designation.
Any change in the residential density or non-residential intensity of land use on a parcel of land located
within a SRA shall be specified in the resolution reflecting the total number of transferable Credits
assigned to the parcel of land. Density and intensity within the RLSA or within an SRA shall not be
increased beyond the Baseline Standards except through the provisions of the Stewardship Credit System,
the Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of the
FLUE, and the density and intensity blending provision of the Immokalee Area Master Plan.
Policy 1.16
Stewardship Receiving Areas will accommodate uses that utilize creative land use planning techniques
and Credits shall be used to facilitate the implementation of innovative and flexible development
strategies described in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. and 9J-5.006(5)(l).
Policy 1.17
Stewardship Credits may be transferred between different parcels or within a single parcel, subject to
compliance with all applicable provisions of these policies. Residential clustering shall only occur within
the RLSA through the use of the Stewardship Credit System, and other forms of residential clustering
shall not be permitted.
Policy 1.18
A blend of Local, State, Federal and private revenues, such as but not limited to Florida Forever, Federal
and State conservation and stewardship programs, foundation grants, private conservation organizations,
local option taxes, general county revenues, and other monies can augment the Stewardship program
through the acquisition of conservation easements, Credits, or land that is identified as the highest priority
for natural resource protection, including, but is not limited to, areas identified on the Overlay Map as
Flow way Stewardship Areas (FSAs), Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), Water Retention Areas
(WRAs) and land within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC).
Policy 1.19
All local land or easement acquisition programs that are intended to work within the RLSA Overlay shall
be based upon a willing participant/seller approach. It is not the intent of Collier County to use eminent
domain acquisition within this system.
Policy 1.20
The County may elect to acquire Credits through a publicly funded program, using sources identified in
Policy 1.18. Should the County pursue this option, it shall establish a Stewardship Credit Trust to receive
and hold Credits until such time as they are sold, transferred or otherwise used to implemen t uses within
Stewardship Receiving Areas.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 481 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
9
Staff working document 08/06/2020
Policy 1.21 (recommended amendment)
The incentive based Stewardship Credit system relies on the projected demand for Credits As as the
primary basis for permanent protection of agricultural lands, flowways, habitats and water retention areas.
The County recognizes that there may be a lack of significant demand for Credits in the early years of
implementation, and also recognizes that a public benefit would be realized by the early designation of
SSAs. To address this issue and to promote the protection of natural resources, the implementation of the
Overlay will include an early entry bonus to encourage the voluntary establishment of SSAs within the
RLSA. The bonus shall be in the form of an additional one Stewardship Credit per acre of land
designated as a HSA located outside of the ACSC and one-half Stewardship Credit per acre of land
designated as HSA located inside the ACSC. The early entry bonus shall be available for five years from
the effective date of the adoption of the Stewardship Credit System in the LDC. The early designation of
SSAs, and resulting protection of flowways, habitats, and water retention areas does not require the
establishment of SRAs or otherwise require the early use of Credits, and Credits generated under the early
entry bonus may be used after the termination of the bonus period. The maximum number of Credits that
can be generated under the bonus is 27,000 Credits, and such Credits shall not be transferred into or used
within the ACSC.
Staff Comment: Staff’s recommendation is to delete this policy. The time for Early Entry Bonus Credits
lapsed in 2009 and no action has been taken to extend the timeframe.
The RLSA Overlay capped the Bonus Credits at 27,000. Within the five-year timeframe the Bonus Credits
were available, 19,471.5 were approved with SSA Credit Agreement Resolutions for SSAs 1-16.
ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments.
Policy 1.21 1.22 (recommended amendment)
The RLSA Overlay was designed to be a long-term strategic plan. with a planning horizon Year of 2025.
Many of the tools, techniques and strategies of the Overlay are new, innovative, and incentive based, and
have yet to be tested in actual implementation. A comprehensive review of the Overlay shall be prepared
for and reviewed by Collier County every seven (7) years beginning [date of adoption of this
Ordinance].and the Department of Community Affairs upon the five-year anniversary of the adoption of
the Stewardship District in the LDC. as part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report process. The purpose
of the review shall be to assess the participation in and effectiveness of the Overlay implementation in
meeting the Goal, Objective and Policies set forth herein. The specific measures of review shall be as
follows:
1. The amount and location of land designated as FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and other SSAs.
2. The amount and location of land designated as SRAs.
3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated, assigned or held for future use.
4. A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at the time of a Study
and time of review.
5. The amount, location and type of land converted to non-agricultural use with and without
participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption.
6. The extent and use of funding provided by Collier County and other sources Local, State, Federal
and private revenues described in Policy 1.18.
7. The amount, location and type of restoration through participation in the Stewardship Credit
System since its adoption.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 482 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
10
Staff working document 08/06/2020
8. The potential for use of Credits in urban areas.
Staff Comments: Staff’s recommended amendments update the policy and the Overlay review process and
timeline.
ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments. For consistency with Chapter
163.3248 (8) (b), Florida Statutes, number “8. The potential for use of Credits in urban areas” should be
deleted.
Nick Penniman Comments: There is no reason to stretch out the review period to seven years from the
current five years. It deprives the public of the right to be involved by two years.
Policy 1.22 (recommended amendment)
The total number of Stewardship Credit shall be capped at 430,000 404,000 to entitle no more than
45,000 acres of Stewardship Receiving Areas. Generating Stewardship Credits does not vest development
rights presume approval of Stewardship Receiving Areas.
Staff Comments: Staff’s recommendation incorporates the 2009 Board’s direction for a Stewardship
Credit cap and a Stewardship Receiving Area cap. In the Board’s recommendation, the Board asked for
backup data to determine the actual cap values, and that no excess credits are created.
Attachment 1, Collier County 2020 Credit Analysis, shows the recommended policy amendments result in
larger total projected Stewardship Credits, from approximately 316,000 projected under the adopted
RLSA, to approximately 425,000 projected in the recommended RLSA. The projected excess Credits of a
rounded 20,000 Credits represents approximately .04% of the total Credits. Therefore, the Credit system
does not create an unreasonable amount of excess Credits with a cap of 404,000 Credits.
To maintain the balance of 45,000 SRA acres without substantial excess Credits, the Stewardship Credit
Ratio (Policy 4.19) is recommended to change from 8 Credits per SRA acre to 10 Credits per SRA acre.
These changes and the assumptions herein, result in a balance program that incentivizes the protection of
natural resources and agriculture land, and limits the future development to 45,000 SRA acres.
ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed recommendations with a 404,000 Credit cap
and further adjustments to Ag Credits and Public Benefit acres described below. The language regarding
Credit vesting needs further details, including language that states that all SSAs approved or submitted
and under review by Collier County prior to the adoption of the amendments will retain an 8 Credit ratio
for each SRA acre requiring Credits.
Judith Hushon, Ph.D. Comments: The proposal to change from 8 credits to 14 credits per SRA
acre is not sufficient. The original adoption of 8 credits per acre of development was arrived at
by dividing the number of credits expected to be generated (134,388) by the number of acres
expected to be developed (16,805) to get a value of 8 credits per acre. With the total credits
increasing to 430,000, if one divides that number by the number of acres projected (16,800) one
gets 25 credits per acre that should be required for development. This has been a windfall for
the developers and the number of required credits needs to be recalibrated. The difference is in
the number of acres to be developed. In 2002 the GMP said this was 16,805. Now in your staff
comments you are claiming this to be 45,000 acres. (Wilson Miller in 2008 said it would be
43,312 acres.) It would not be 45,000 acres if more credits were required per acre.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 483 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
11
Staff working document 08/06/2020
Nick Penniman Comments: I think to institutionalize the credits in a system that is already
flawed is a mistake, and an admission that the Wilson-Miller system is faulty. For example, the
system, as originally presented to the BCC set the build-out of the county at 16,800 acres.
Restoration credits, when calculated, blew the roof off the credits.
Group 2 - Policies (recommended amendment)
To protect agricultural lands from premature conversion to other uses and retain land for
agricultural activities through the use of established incentives in order to continue the viability of
agricultural production through the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay.
Staff Comments: This Committee amendment is to emphasize the retention of agricultural lands and
activities through proposed incentives stated in Policy 2.2. When the Committee presented their
recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board had no objections.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment.
Nick Penniman Comments: The original language, reviewed and emphasized by the then existing state
Department of Community Affairs (DCA) was “…to prevent the premature conversion of agricultural
land to non-agricultural uses,….” There was much discussion, in writing back and forth between DCA
and Collier County (CC), about this clause. (See letter from Thomas Pelham, Secretary, Department of
Community Affairs to James Mudd, Collier County Manager dated May 8, 2008). Striking this language
severely weakens the county’s commitment to agriculture. Retain the original language.
Policy 2.1 (recommended amendment)
Agricultural landowners will be provided with lands will be protected from premature conversion to
other uses by creating incentives that encourage the voluntary elimination of the property owner’s right to
convert agriculture land to non-agricultural uses in exchange for compensation as described in Policies
1.4 and 2.2 and by the establishment of SRAs. as the form of compact rural development in the RLSA
Overlay. Analysis has shown that SRAs will allow the projected population of the RLSA in the Horizon
year of 2025 to be accommodated on approximately 10% of the acreage otherwise required if such
compact rural development were not allowed due to the flexibility afforded to such development. The
combination of stewardship incentives and land efficient compact rural development will minimize two of
the primary market factors that cause premature conversion of agriculture.
Staff Comments: This Committee amendment implements the objective of the retention of agricultural
lands and activities through proposed incentives which are stated in Policy 2.2. When the Committee
presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board had no
objections.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment.
Nick Penniman Comments: The original language, reviewed and emphasized by the then existing state
Department of Community Affairs (DCA) was “…to prevent the premature conversion of agricultural
land to non-agricultural uses,….” There was much discussion, in writing back and forth between DCA
and Collier County (CC), about this clause. (See letter from Thomas Pelham, Secretary, Department of
Community Affairs to James Mudd, Collier County Manager dated May 8, 2008). Striking this language
severely weakens the county’s commitment to agriculture. Retain the original language.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 484 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
12
Staff working document 08/06/2020
Policy 2.2 (recommended amendment)
Agriculture lands protected through the use of Stewardship Credits shall be designated as Stewardship
Sending Areas (SSAs) as described in Policy 1.6. The protection measures for SSAs are set forth in
Policies 1.6, 1.7, 1.10, and 1.17. In addition to protecting agriculture activities in SSAs within FSA, HSA,
and WRA, as further described in Policies 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, additional incentives are desired to retain
agriculture within Open Lands as an alternative to conversion of such lands using Baseline Standards as
described in Policy 1.5. Open Lands are those lands not designated SSA, SRA, WRA, HSA, FSA, or
public lands on the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Map. Open Lands are those lands described
in Policy 4.2. Therefore, in lieu of using the Natural Resource Index on land designated Open, the se lands
shall be assigned two (2.0) Stewardship Credits per acre outside of the Area of Critical State Concern
(ACSA), and two and sixth tenths (2.6) Credits per acre within the ACSC as established by F.S. 380.055
as of March 3, 2009. All non-agriculture uses shall be removed and the remaining uses are limited to
agriculture Land Use Levels 5, 6 and 7 on the Land Use Matrix. Each layer is discreet and shall be
removed sequentially and cumulatively in the order presented in the Matrix. If a layer is removed, all
uses and activities in that layer are eliminated and no longer available. Following approval of an
Agricultural SSA, Collier County shall periodically update the RLSA Zoning Overlay District Map to
delineate the boundaries of the Agricultural SSA.
Staff Comments: This Committee amendment establishes Credits to incentivize protection of agricultural
lands. These Agriculture Stewardship Credits are expected to be generated from the lands designated
Open on the Overlay Map. The Committee’s analysis shown in Attachment 1 estimates a total of 89,000
Agriculture Credits. The proposed amendment incorporates the CCPC recommendations. The Board had
no objections.
The Collier County 2020 Stewardship Credit Analysis also assumed 45,000 acres of SRA and found that
approximately 40,000 Open acres could be available for designation as Agriculture Stewardship Areas.
The Policy and the Credit Analysis shows an adjustment to the Agriculture Credits to 2 per acre for both
lands inside and outside of the ACSC. This reduces the total to 80,000.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment with the Agriculture Credit estimates as a guide to the
overall recommended Credit cap to achieve the goal. This amendment and the voluntary participation of
landowners would further the goal of retaining agricultural lands with Stewardship Easements and
reduce the potential conversion of the lands to 1 unit per 5 acres.
ECPO Comments: recommends the Agricultural Credits be awarded at a consistent rate of 2 Credits per
acre within and outside of the ACSC, for a total estimate of 80,000 Credits.
Policy 2.3 (recommended amendment)
Within one (1) year from the effective date of these amendments, Collier County will may establish an
Agriculture Advisory Council comprised of not less than five nor more than nine appointed
representatives of the agriculture industry, to advise the BCC on matters relating to Agriculture. The
Agriculture Advisory Council (AAC) will work to identify opportunities and prepare strategies to
enhance and promote the continuance, expansion and diversification of agriculture in Collier County. The
AAC will also identify barriers to the continuance, expansion and diversificati on of the agricultural
industry and will prepare recommendations to eliminate or minimize such barriers in Collier County. The
AAC will also assess whether exceptions from standards for business uses related to agriculture should be
allowed under an administrative permit process and make recommendations to the BCC.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 485 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
13
Staff working document 08/06/2020
Staff Comments: The Committee recommended the complete deletion of this Policy. When the Committee
presented their recommendations, the CCPC recommended to retain the Policy and add the last sentence.
The Committee agreed to retain the policy with the amendments shown. The Board had no objections.
Staff’s recommendation removes the timeline requirement for the Board to accomplish this Policy due to
the Committee’s amendment changing the Policy language for from “will” to “may.”
Nick Penniman Comments: The word “will” is an imperative; the word “may” is conditional. Staff
comment here is misleading.
ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments.
Policy 2.4
The BCC will consider the recommendations of the AAC and facilitate the implementation of strategies
and recommendations identified by the ACC that are determined to be appropriate. The BCC may adopt
amendments to the LDC that implement policies that support agriculture activities.
Policy 2.5
Agriculture is an important aspect of Collier County’s quality of life and economic well-being.
Agricultural activities shall be protected from duplicative regulation as provided by the Florida Right -to-
Farm Act.
Policy 2.6
Notwithstanding the special provisions of Policies 3.9 and 3.10, nothing herein or in the implementing
LDRs, shall restrict lawful agricultural activities on lands within the RLSA that have not been placed into
the Stewardship program.
Group 3 – Policies to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime, as
well as listed animal and plant species and their habitats by directing incompatible uses away from
wetlands and upland habitat through the establishment of Flow way Stewardship Areas, Habitat
Stewardship Areas, and Water Retention Areas, where lands are voluntarily included in the Rural
Lands Stewardship Area program.
Policy 3.1 (recommended amendment)
Protection of water quality and quantity, and the maintenance of the natural water regime shall occur
through the establishment of Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay.
FSAs are delineated on the Overlay Map and contain approximately 31,100 30,869 acres. FSAs are
primarily privately owned wetlands that are located within the Camp Keais Strand and Okaloacoochee
Slough. These lands form the primary wetland flowway systems in the RLSA. The Overlay provides an
incentive to permanently protect FSAs by the creation and transfer of Credits, elimination of incompatible
uses, and establishment of protection measures described in Group 1 Policies. Not all lands within the
delineated FSAs are comparable in terms of their natural resource value; therefore the index shall be used
to differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation. The
Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that FSA lands score within a range of 0.7 to 2.4; approximately
96% score greater than 1.2 while 4% score 1.2 or less. The average Index score of FSA land is 1.8.
Staff Comments: Staff’s recommendation reflects an update to the FSA acreage associated with the
current adopted Overlay Map.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 486 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
14
Staff working document 08/06/2020
ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments.
Policy 3.2 (recommended amendment)
Listed animal and plant species and their habitats shall be protected through the establishment of Habitat
Stewardship Areas (HSAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. HSAs are delineated on the Overlay
Map and contain approximately 40,000 45,782 39,991 acres. HSAs are privately owned agricultural
areas, which include both areas with natural characteristics that make them suitable habitat for listed
species, as well as and areas without these characteristics. These latter areas are included because they
are located contiguous to habitat to help form a continuum of landscape that can augment habitat values.
The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect HSAs by the creation and transfer of Credits,
resulting in the elimination of incompatible uses and the establishment of protection measures described
in Group 1 Policies. Not all lands within the delineated HSAs are comparable in terms of their habitat
value; therefore the index shall be used to differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the
purpose of Overlay implementation. Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that HSA lands score within
a range of 0.6 to 2.2. There are approximately 13,800 15,156 acres of cleared agricultural fields located
in HSAs. The average Index score of HAS HSA designated lands is 1.3, however, the average index score
of the naturally vegetated areas within HSAs is 1.5.
Staff Comments: The Committee recommendation included numerical grammatical changes. When the
Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board had
no objections.
Staff’s recommendation reflects an update to the HSA acres associated with the adopted Overlay Map.
ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments.
Policy 3.3 (recommended amendment)
Further protection for surface water quality and quantity shall be through the establishment of Water
Retention Areas (WRAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. WRAs are delineated on the Overlay Map
and contain approximately 18,200 18,428 acres. WRAs are privately owned lands that have been
permitted by the South Florida Water Management District to function as agricultural water retenti on
areas. In many instances, these WRAs consist of native wetland or upland vegetation; in other cases they
are excavated water bodies or may contain exotic vegetation. The Overlay provides an incentive to
permanently protect WRAs by the creation and transfer of Credits, elimination of incompatible uses, and
establishment of protection measures described in Group 1 Policies. Not all lands within the delineated
WRAs are comparable in terms of their natural resource value; therefore, the index shall be used to
differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation . Analysis of
the Index Map Series shows that WRA lands score within a range of 0.6 to 2.4; approximately 74% score
greater than 1.2 while 26% score 1.2 or less. The average Index score of WRA land is 1.5.
Staff Comments: Staff’s recommendation reflects an update to the WRA acreage associated with the
current adopted Overlay Map.
ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments.
Policy 3.4 (recommended amendment)
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 487 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
15
Staff working document 08/06/2020
Public and private conservation areas exist in the RLSA and serve to protect natural resources. Corkscrew
Marsh and Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest include approximately 13,500 acres. Analysis shows that
they score within an Index range of 0.0 to 2.2; with an average Index score of 1.5. Because these existing
public areas, and any private conservation areas, are already protected, they are not delineated as SSAs
and are not eligible to generate Credits, but do serve an important role in meeting the Goal of the RLSA.
Staff Comments: Staff’s recommendation is to delete this policy. Corkscrew Marsh and Okaloacoochee
Slough State Forest are not within the adopted RLSA Overlay boundary.
ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments.
Policy 3.5 3.4 (recommended amendment)
Residential uses, General Conditional uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses
(layers 1-4) as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in FSAs in exchange for compensation to the
property owner as described in Policy 3.8 3.7. Conditional use essential services and governmental
essential services, other than those necessary to serve permitted uses or for public safety , shall only be
allowed in FSAs with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 1 .2 or less. Where practicable,
directional drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil and gas
extraction in FSAs in order to minimize impacts to native habitats. Other layers may also be eliminated at
the election of the property owner in exchange for compensation. The elimination of the Earth Mining
layer shall not preclude the excavation of lakes or other water bodies if such use is an integral part of a
restoration or mitigation program within an FSA.
Staff Comments: Staff’s recommendation updates a Policy reference.
ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments.
Policy 3.6 3.5 (recommended amendment)
Residential Land Uses listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in Habitat Stewardship Sending Areas in
exchange for compensation to the property owner as described in Policy 3.8 3.7. Other layers may also
be eliminated at the election of the property owner in exchange for compensation.
Staff Comments: Staff’s recommendation updates a Policy reference.
ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments.
Judith Hushon, Ph.D. Comments: The number of credits required to indicate that a property needs to be
updated to include primary and secondary panther habitat, whether or not panthers are actually observed
on site because we now know that this is preferred and tolerated habitat. At a m inimum, all primary
panther territory should be assigned a score of 0.6 and secondary habitat should be assigned a score of
0.4. Additionally, the cutoff value for the NRI (now at 1.2) is arbitrary and does not protect listed
species. This cutoff should be lowered to 0.8 which would be more protective. This would still allow
development of large portions of the RLSA. Alternatively, it could state that all development shall be
directed away from the primary zone and all open areas in the primary zone shall become habitat
stewardship areas (HSAs).
Policy 3.7 3.6 (recommended amendment)
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 488 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
16
Staff working document 08/06/2020
General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses shall be allowed
only on HSA lands with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less. Conditional use
essential services and governmental essential services, other than those necessary to serve permitted uses
or for public safety, shall only be allowed in HSAs with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of
1.2 or less. Asphaltic and concrete batch making plants are prohibited in all HSAs. Where practicable,
directional drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil and gas
extraction in HSAs in order to minimize impacts to native habitats. In addition to the requirements
imposed in the LDC for approval of a Conditional Use, such uses will only be approved upon submittal of
an EIS Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Environmental Data which demonstrates that clearing of
native vegetation has been minimized, the use will not significantly and adversely impact listed species
and their habitats and the use will not significantly and adversely impact aquifers. As an alternative to the
foregoing, the applicant may demonstrate that such use is an integral part of an approved restoration or
mitigation program. Golf Course design, construction, and operation in any HSA shall comply with the
best management practices of Audubon International’s Gold Program Cooperative Sanctuary Program
(ASCP) for Golf. and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Compliance with the
following standards shall be considered by Collier County as meeting the requirement for minimization of
impact:
• Clearing of native vegetation shall not exceed 15% of the native vegetation on the parcel.
• Areas previously cleared shall be used preferentially to native vegetated areas.
• Buffering to Conservation Land shall comply with Policy 4.13.
Staff Comments: The Committee amendment clarifies text and there is no substantive change this policy.
When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The
Board had no objections.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment with the correct reference to “Environmental Data.” This
reference is consistent with the corresponding Land Development Code requirements. Staff’s
recommended amendment also updates the reference to Audubon’s program for best management
practices for golf.
ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments.
Nick Penniman Comment: To replace the EIS with some vague document titled “Environmental Data”
eases the strict requirements set forth in EIS procedures. It also renders historical comparisons
meaningless as to format. There is no description set forth of the content or structure of this
“Environmental Data” document.
Policy 3.8 3.7
Compensation to the property owner may occur through one or more of the following mechanisms:
creation and transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition of conservation easements, acquisition of less
than fee interest in the land, or through other acquisition of land or interest in land through a willing seller
program.
Policy 3.9 3.8(recommended amendment)
1. Agriculture will continue to be a permitted use and its supporting activities will continue to be
permitted as conditional uses within FSAs and HSAs, pursuant to the Agriculture Group
classifications described in the Matrix. The Ag 1 group includes row crops, citrus, specialty farms,
horticulture, plant nurseries, improved pastures for grazing and ranching, aquaculture and similar
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 489 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
17
Staff working document 08/06/2020
activities, including related agricultural support uses. In existing Ag 1 areas within FSAs and
HSAs, all such activities are permitted to continue, and may convert from one type of Agriculture
to another and expand to the limits allowed by applicable permits. Once the Stewardship Credit
System is utilized and an owner receives compensation as previously described, no further
expansion of Ag 1 will be allowed in FSAs and HSAs beyond existing or permitted limits within
property subject to a credit transfer, except for incidental clearing as set forth in Paragraph 2
below.
2. In order to encourage viable Ag 1 activities, and to accommodate the ability to convert from one
Ag 1 use to another, incidental clearing is allowed to join existing Ag 1 areas, square up existing
farm fields, or provide access to or from other Ag 1 areas, provided that the Ag 1 Land Use Layer
has been retained on the areas to be incidentally cleared, and the Natural Resource Index Value
score has been adjusted to reflect the proposed change in land cover. Incidental clearing is
defined as clearing that meets the above criteria and is limited to 1% of the area of the SSA. In
the event said incidental clearing impacts lands having a Natural Resource Index Value in excess
of 1.2, appropriate mitigation shall be provided.
Staff Comments: This Committee amendment eliminates aquaculture from Ag 1 group activities. When
the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board
had no objections.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment.
Policy 3.10 3.9
Ag 2 includes unimproved pastures for grazing and ranching, forestry and similar activities, including
related agricultural support uses. In existing Ag 2 areas within FSAs and HSAs, such activities are
permitted to continue, and may convert from one type of Agriculture to another and expand to the limits
allowed by applicable permits. Once the Stewardship Credit System is utilized and an owner receives
compensation as previously described, no further expansion of Ag 2 or conversion of Ag 2 to Ag 1 will
be allowed in FSAs or HSAs beyond existing or permitted limits within property subject to a credit
transfer.
Policy 3.11 3.10 (recommended amendment)
1. In certain locations there may be the opportunity for flow-way or habitat restoration. Examples
include, but are not limited to, locations where flow-ways have been constricted or otherwise impeded
by past activities, or where additional land is needed to enhance wildlife corridors. Priority shall be
given to restoration within the Camp Keais Strand FSA or contiguous HSAs. Should a property owner
be willing to dedicate land for restoration activities within a FSA or HSA the Camp Keais Strand FSA
or contiguous HSAs, four two one additional Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of
land so dedicated. An additional two Stewardship credits shall be assigned for each acre of land
dedicated for restoration activities within other FSAs and HSAs. The actual implementation of
restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive such Credit and the costs of
restoration shall be borne by the governmental agency or private entity undertaking the restoration.
Should an owner also complete restoration improvements, this shall be rewarded with four additional
Credits for each acre of restored land upon demonstration that the restoration met applicable success
criteria as determined by the permit agency authorizing said restoration. The additional Credits shall be
rewarded for either caracara restoration at 2 3 Credits per acre, or for exotic control/burning at 4 5
Credits per acres, or for flow way restoration at 4 5 Credits per acre, or for native habitat restoration at
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 490 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
18
Staff working document 08/06/2020
6 7 Credits per acre. Within the area proposed for restoration, Land Use Layers 1-6 must be removed.
The specific process for assignment of additional restoration Credits shall be included in the
Stewardship District of the LDC.
2. In certain locations, as generally illustrated in the RLSA Overlay Map, there may be opportunities to
create, restore, and enhance a northern panther corridor connection and a southern panther corridor
connection. Should a property owner in a federally approved corridor designate the required property
for such corridor, 1 2 Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated.
Issuance of the 8 9 restoration implementation credits may be phased to coincide with a phased
implementation process in accordance with the federal permit . The procedures shall be set forth in the
LDC
3. In order to address a significant loss in Southwest Florida of seasonal, shallow wetland wading bird
foraging habitat, restoration of these unique habitats will be incentivized in the RLSAO. Dedication of
any area inside an FSA, HSA, or WRA for such seasonal wetland restoration shall be rewarded with 1
2 3 additional Credits per acre. Should the landowner successfully complete the restoration, an
additional 6 7 Credits per acre shall be awarded.
4. Only one type of restoration shall be rewarded with these Credits for each acre designated for
restoration and in no case shall more than 10 Credits be awarded per acre.
This policy does not preclude other forms of compensation for restoration which may be addressed
through public-private partnership agreement such as a developer contribution agreement or
stewardship agreement between the parties involved. Also not precluded are various private and
publicly funded restoration programs such as the federal Farm Bill conservation programs. The
specific process for assignment of additional restoration credits shall be included in the Stewardship
District of the LDC.
Staff Comments: The 5-Year Committee Report recommended amendments are substantive in defining
and restructuring Restoration Credits. When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC
recommend the second and third sentence found in paragraph 2. The Committee included these changes
in the recommendations to the Board. The Board had no objections.
The RLSA White Paper recommended restructuring the timing of award of Restoration Credits so that
one Credit, rather than the 5-Year Review Committee Report recommended two Credits, are awarded at
the time of restoration dedication. All remaining Credits would be awarded following the successful
completion of the restoration activity.
The Collier County 2020 Credit Analysis, Attachment 1, shows the potential total Restoration Credits
under the proposed tiered system results in approximately 170,000 Stewardship Credits. This total
includes the Restoration Credits generated in approved and escrowed SSAs.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment, with the restoration Credit estimates as a guide to the
overall recommended Credit cap to achieve the goal.
Brad Cornell Comments: Suggests adjusting the restoration values for carcara from 3 to 2 Credits and
the wading bird from 2 to 3 Credits.
ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments with a change to 3.10.2
correcting the implementation credits from 9 to 8 credits, so the total Panther Corridor Credit is 10.
ECPO recommends that the estimated Restoration Credits should be 144,000 total R1 and R2 Credits,
consistent with the 5 Year review.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 491 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
19
Staff working document 08/06/2020
Judith Hushon Ph.D Comments: There is no justification for increasing restoration credits for each
species and activity. This is one of the reasons that restoration credits are rising. Credits should only be
awarded after restoration is complete, otherwise it does not benefit the ecosystem. This means that only
R2 credits should be awarded. To date only slightly over 600 acres have been restored though credits
have been claimed for over 30,000 acres – this is egregious. Also, in this section, corridor credits should
not be allocated until a corridor is completely committed as a partial corridor has no value to the
protected species. (Awarding of restoration credits is explained in the Stewardship Credit Worksheet)
Michael Seef Comments: The County should provide oversight for independent 3rd party experienced in
long term planning and execution and subsequent issuing of credits.
Eliminate R-1 “dedication” restoration credits. This avoids double dipping”. It also is in concert with the
assignment of base credits for SSA easements which already incentivize the retention of up to 6
environmental benefits. These are most often reduced to 4 benefits and enabling Ag.
Assure control of independent proper planning and execution timing to receive R-2 credits.
Place a cap on maximum credits separating for restoration credits, base credits, and Ag credits.
Nick Penniman Comments: This adds credits to an already flawed system. I think to institutionalize the
credits in a system that is already flawed is a mistake, and an admission that the Wilson-Miller system is
faulty. For example, the system, as originally presented to the BCC set the build-out of the county at
16,800 acres. Restoration credits, when calculated, blew the roof off the credits.
Policy 3.12 3.11
Based on the data and analysis of the Study, FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and existing public/private
conservation land include the land appropriate and necessary to accomplish the Goal pertaining to natural
resource protection. To further direct other uses away from and to provide additional incentive for the
protection, enhancement and restoration of the Okaloacoochee Slough and Camp Keais Strand, all land
within 500 feet of the delineated FSAs that comprise the Slough or Strand that is not otherwise included
in a HSA or WRA shall receive the same natural index score (0.6) that a HSA receives if such property is
designated as a SSA and retains only agricultural, recreational and/or conservation layers within the
matrix.
Policy 3.13 3.12 (recommended amendment)
Water Retention Areas (WRAs) as generally depicted on the Overlay Map have been permitted for this
purpose and will continue to function for surface water retention, detention, treatment and/or conveyance,
in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permits applicable to each
WRA. WRAs can also be permitted to provide such functions for new uses of land allowed within the
Overlay. WRAs may be incorporated into a SRA master plan to provide water management functions for
properties within such SRA, but are not required to be designated as a SRA in such instances. However, if
the WRA provides stormwater quality treatment and retention for an SRA, the acreage of the WRA used
as primary for stormwater quality treatment for water management for the SRA shall be included in the
SRA credit calculations. WRA boundaries are understood to be approximate and are subject to refinement
in accordance with SFWMD permitting.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 492 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
20
Staff working document 08/06/2020
Staff Comments: During the Committee presentation, the CCPC recommended the proposed amendment
requires the acreage of WRAs used as primary treatment for water management for the SRA be included
in the acreage calculations for the SRA. The Board had no objections.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment with revisions to the language for consistency with
stormwater quality treatment permitting.
ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments. Suggests to revise the added
sentence to read as follows: However, if the WRA provides water quality treatment for an SRA, the
acreage of the WRA used for water quality treatment for the SRA shall be included in the SRA credit
calculation.
Judith Hushon Ph.D. Comments: WRAs should not be used to provide water treatment and
retention for a SRA. They are being preserved because of their high scores and their
environmental value. If they are used they should definitely be included in the SRA acreage
calculations and the entire body of WRA bordering the proposed development should be
included, not just a small region along the edge. Pollutants from the SRA will disperse through
the entire WRA.
Nick Penniman Comments: Under no circumstances should a WRA be used for “…water
treatment and retention for a SRA…” Period.
Policy 3.14 3.13
During permitting to serve new uses, additions and modifications to WRAs may be required or desired,
including but not limited to changes to control elevations, discharge rates, storm water pre -treatment,
grading, excavation or fill. Such additions and modifications shall be allowed subject to review and
approval by the SFWMD in accordance with best management practices. Such additions and
modifications to WRAs shall be designed to ensure that there is no net loss of habitat function within the
WRAs unless there is compensating mitigation or restoration in other areas of the Overlay that will
provide comparable habitat function. Compensating mitigation or restoration for an impact to a WRA
contiguous to the Camp Keais Strand or Okaloacoochee Slough shall be provided within or contiguous to
that Strand or Slough.
Policy 3.15 3.14 (recommended amendment)
Any development on lands participating in the RLSA Overlay Program shall be compatible with
surrounding land uses. Within one year of the effective date of this Policy By [1 year of the date of
adoption of the ordinance], LDC regulations shall be implemented for outdoor lighting to protect the
nighttime environment, conserve energy, and enhance safety and security.
Staff Comments: The Committee recommendation is intended to address light pollution in the rural area.
The CCPC recommendations are included in the proposed amendment.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment with changes noted for policy consistency.
ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 493 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
21
Staff working document 08/06/2020
Group 4 - Policies to enable conversion of rural lands to other uses in appropriate locations, while
discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning
techniques by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas.
Policy 4.1
Collier County will encourage and facilitate uses that enable economic prosperity and diversification of
the economic base of the RLSA. Collier County will also encourage development that utilizes creative
land use planning techniques and facilitates a compact form of development to accommodate population
growth by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs). Incentives to encourage and
support the diversification and vitality of the rural economy such as flexible development regulations,
expedited permitting review, and targeted capital improvements shall be incorporated into the LDC
Stewardship District.
Policy 4.2 (recommended amendment)
All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible for
designation as an SRA, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been designated as a
Stewardship Sending Area. The exception, consistent with Policy 3.12, is when a WRA provides
stormwater quality treatment for a SRA, then the acreage of the WRA shall be included in the SRA. Land
proposed for SRA designation shall meet the suitability criteria and other standards described in Group 4
Policies. Due to the long-term vision of the RLSA Overlay, extending to a horizon year of 2025, and in
accordance with the guidelines established in Chapter 163.3177(11) F.S., the specific location, size and
composition of each SRA cannot and need not be predetermined in the GMP. In the RLSA Overlay,
lands that are eligible to be designated as SRAs generally have similar physical attributes as they consist
predominately of agriculture lands which have been cleared or otherwise altered for this purpose. Lands
shown on the Overlay Map as eligible for SRA designation include approximately 74,500 72,000 acres
outside of the ACSC and approximately 18,300 15,000 acres within the ACSC. Total SRA designation
shall be a maximum of 45,000 acres. Approximately 2% of these lands achieve an Index score greater
than 1.2. Because the Overlay requires SRAs to be compact, mixed-use and self sufficient in the
provision of services, facilities and infrastructure, traditional locational standards normally applied to
determine development suitability are not relevant or applicable to SRAs. Therefore the process for
designating a SRA follows the principles of the Rural Lands Stewardship Act as further described
procedures set forth herein and the adopted RLSA Zoning Overlay District.
Staff Comments: The Committee recommendations update Open lands acreage and provide for a 45,000
acre SRA cap. The CCPC recommendation was “Total SRA designation shall be from a maximum
creation of 315,000 Stewardship Credits.” The Committee’s Report to the Board included the policy as
proposed with the 45,000 acre SRA cap. The Board concurred with the 45,000 acre cap and provided
direction to include a SRA cap in the GMP amendments.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment with removal of the reference to the horizon year, and for
consistency purposes, the addition of the language referencing WRA acreage within an SRA.
ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments. Suggests to revise the added
sentence to read as follows: The exception, consistent with Policy 3.12, is when a WRA provides water
quality treatment for a SRA, then the acreage of the WRA used for water quality treatment for the SRA
shall be included in the SRA
Nick Penniman Comments: Under no circumstances should a WRA be used for “…water treatment and
retention for a SRA…” Period.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 494 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
22
Staff working document 08/06/2020
Policy 4.3 (recommended amendment)
Land becomes designated as a SRA upon petition by a property owner to Collier County seeking such
designation and the adoption of a resolution by the BCC granting the designation. The petition shall
include a SRA master plan as described in Policy 4.5. The basis for approval shall be a finding of
consistency with the policies of the Overlay, including required suitability criteria set forth herein,
compliance with the LDC Stewardship District, and assurance that the applicant has acquired or will
acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement the SRA uses. Within one year from the effective
date of this amendment, Collier County shall adopt LDC amendments to establish the procedures and
submittal requirements for designation as a SRA, to include provisions for consideration of im pacts,
including environmental and public infrastructure impacts, and provisions for public notice of and the
opportunity for public participation in any consideration by the BCC of such a designation.
Staff Comments: The 5-Year Review Committee’s recommended deletion reflects the policy direction to
adopt implementing LDC provisions has been accomplished. When the Committee presented their
recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board had no objections.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment.
Policy 4.4 (recommended amendment)
Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved SRA. Such
updates shall not require an amendment to the Growth Management Plan but shall be retroactively
incorporated into the adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based by amendment process when it
periodically initiated by the County. occurs.
Staff Comments: Staff recommends deleting reference to the obsolete EAR process and replace it with a
County initiated process.
ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments.
Policy 4.5 (recommended amendment)
To address the specifics of each SRA, a master plan of each SRA will be prepared and submitted to
Collier County as a part of the petition for designation as a SRA. The master plan will demonstrate that
the SRA complies with all applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District and is
designed so that incompatible land uses are directed away from wetlands and critical habitat identified as
FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map. The SRA Master Plan shall comply with the County’s then-adopted
MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the County Build Out Vision Plan as may be amended
and referenced in Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element, and Access Management procedures.
Each SRA master plan shall include a Management Plan with provisions for minimizing human and
wildlife interactions. Low intensity land uses (e.g. passive recreation areas, golf courses) and vegetation
preservation requirements, including agriculture, shall be used to establish buffer areas between wildlife
habitat areas and areas dominated by human activities. Consideration shall be given to the most current
guidelines and regulations on techniques to reduce human wildlife conflict. The management plans s hall
also require the dissemination of information to local residents, businesses and governmental services
about the presence of wildlife and practices that enable responsible coexistence with wildlife, while
minimizing opportunities for negative interaction, such as appropriate waste disposal practices.
Staff Comments: The Committee recommendations address SRA Master Plan compliance with Collier
County transportation plans and requires management plans to address human and wildlife conflicts.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 495 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
23
Staff working document 08/06/2020
When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The
Board had no objections.
Staff recommends approving the amendment with the replacement of the “EAR” process with a County
initiated process, and deletion of the reference to “the County Build Out Vision Plan as may be amended
and referenced in Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element.” Staff’s recommendation is to rely on the
MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan and process, not to fund and maintain the development of
another process for transportation planning in eastern Collier County. Staff’s objection to the reference
for a County Build Out Vision Plan doesn’t preclude the Board from additional focus on transportation
planning for SRAs. The Board may request this effort at any time they find appropriate.
ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments.
Policy 4.6 (recommended amendment)
SRA characteristics shall be based upon innovative planning and development strategies referenced in
Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. and 9J-5.006(5)(l). These planning strategies and techniques include urban
villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, clustering and open space provisions,
and mixed-use development that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while
protecting environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other
predominantly rural land uses, and providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and
services. The SRA shall also include a mobility plan that includes vehicular, bicycle/pedestrian, public
transit, internal circulators, and other modes of travel/movement within and between SRAs and areas of
outside development and land uses. The mobility plan shall provide mobility strategies such as bus
subsidies, route sponsorship or other incentives which encourage the use of mass transit services. The
development of SRAs shall also consider the needs identified in the County Build Out Vision Plan MPO
Long Range Transportation Needs Plan, and plan land uses to accommodate services that would increase
internal capture and reduce trip length and long-distance travel. Such development strategies are
recognized as methods of discouraging urban sprawl, encouraging alternative modes of transportation,
increasing internal capture and reducing vehicle miles traveled.
Staff Comments: This Committee amendment will require mobility plans with future SRA application. The
amendment includes the CCPC recommendations. The Board had no objections.
Staff recommends approving the amendment with the deletion of the reference to the “County Build Out
Vision Plan. Staff’s recommendation is to rely on the MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan and
process, not to fund and maintain the development of another process for transportation planning in
eastern Collier County. Staff’s objection to the reference for a County Build Out Vision Plan doesn’t
preclude the Board from additional focus on transportation planning for SRAs. The Board may request
this effort at any time they find appropriate.
ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments.
Policy 4.7 (recommended amendment)
There are four three specific forms of SRA permitted within the Overlay. These are Towns, Villages,
Hamlets, and Compact Rural Development (CRD). The Characteristics of Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and
CRD are set forth in Attachment C and are generally described in Policies 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3 and
4.7.4. Collier County shall establish more s Specific regulations, guidelines and standards within the
LDC Stewardship District to guide the design and development of SRAs to include innovative planning
and development strategies as set forth in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. and 9J-5.006(5)(l). The size and
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 496 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
24
Staff working document 08/06/2020
base density of each form shall be consistent with the standards set forth on Attachment C. The
maximum base residential density as set forth in Attachment C may only be exceeded through the density
blending process as set forth in density and intensity blending provision of the Immokalee Area Master
Plan or through the affordable-workforce housing density bonus as referenced in the Density Rating
System of the Future Land Use Element. The base residential density is calculated by dividing the total
number of residential units in a SRA by the overall area therein. The base residential density does not
restrict net residential density of parcels within a SRA. The location, size and density of each SRA will
be determined on an individual basis during the SRA designation review and approval process.
Staff Comments: The Committee’s recommended amendments to this Policy eliminate Hamlets as a form
of development. When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this
amendment. The Board had no objections.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment.
Policy 4.7.1 (recommended amendment)
Towns are the largest and most diverse form of SRA, with a full range of housing types and mix of uses.
Towns have urban level services and infrastructure that support development that is compact, mixed use,
human scale, and provides a balance of land uses to reduce automobile trips and increase livability.
Towns shall be not less than 1,000 greater than 1,500 acres and up to or more than 4,000 5,000 acres and
are comprised of several villages and/or neighborhoods that have individual identity and character.
Towns shall have a mixed-use town center that will serve as a focal point for community facilities and
support services. Towns shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including
an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Towns shall
include an internal mobility plan, which shall include a transfer station or park and ride area that is
appropriately located within the town to serve the connection point for internal and external publi c
transportation. Towns shall have at least one community park with a minimum size of 200 square feet per
dwelling unit in the Town.
A full range of housing shall include Affordable Housing, as defined in the LDC, needed to support the
mix of uses and employee income levels based on the jobs created in the Town. A minimum of fifteen
percent (15%) of the residential units included in a Town shall be Affordable Housing, with at least 50%
of the affordable units provided at less than 80% of Area Median Income. The provision of Affordable
Housing shall be considered a Public Benefit use and therefore shall not require the consumption of
Stewardship Credits for the acreage required to support the affordable housing neighborhood according to
the following schedule: Very-low and Low Income units = 100% reduction, Moderate Income units =
50% reduction, Gap Income units = 25% reduction. A housing analysis shall be submitted at the time of
application. (Policy 4. 7.6 replaces the deleted provisions)
Towns shall also have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Towns shall include both
community and neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided described in Policy 4.15
4.15.1. Towns may also include those compatible corporate office, research, development companies,
and light industrial uses such as those permitted in the Business Park and Research and Technology Park
Subdistricts of the FLUE, and those included in Policy 4.7.4. Towns shall be the preferred location for
the full range of schools, and to the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located abutting each other
to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities and as provided in Policies 4.15.2 and 4.15.3. Design
criteria for Towns are shall be included in the LDC Stewardship District. Towns shall not be located
within the ACSC.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 497 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
25
Staff working document 08/06/2020
Staff Comments: The Committee’s recommendations increase the minimum size of Towns to greater than
1,500 acres and not more than 5,000 acres. Data submitted to the Committee indicated that a small
grocery store would need a minimum of about 3,500 dwelling units or approximately 8,000 persons to
support such a store. Thus, the current minimum size of 1,000 acres would not, in itself, support a small
grocery store. The CCPC recommendations are included in the amendment. The Board had no
objections.
Staff’s recommendation is to include provisions for affordable housing. A further incentive for the
provision of Affordable Housing is the recommendation that affordable units be offered relief from the
consumption of Stewardship Credits as a public benefit use. Staff does not object to the recommended
change in size of towns. Staff recommends the amendments to Policy 4.7.1 and the adoption of Policy
4.7.5 to address affordable housing in the RLSA Overlay.
Staff also recommends amendments related to Towns as shown in RLSA Overlay Attachment C,
Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics. The proposed amendments are based on the Collier
Interactive Growth Model (CIGM) which is used to align our future projections for growth management,
including land use, long range transportation and utilities planning. The CIGM findings determined the
current required amount of goods and services, and recreation and parks fall well below the County’s
existing level of service. Therefore, proposed amendments increase the required goods and services from
65 SF per dwelling unit to 170 SF per dwelling unit. The parks requirement is increased from 200 SF per
dwelling unit to 358 SF per dwelling unit. The civic use requirement is clarified to be land area rather
than building area.
ECPO Comments: ECPO does not support the staff recommended amendment as it represents substantive
changes not considered or recommended during the 5-Year Review process.
Judith Hushon, Ph.D. Comments: The changes proposed here to include a full range of housing types and
affordable housing are positive and should be adopted. Collier badly needs worker housing and these
new villages and towns are a logical choice.
Nick Penniman Comments: To move the Town acreage up from 1,000 acres to 1,500 acres is, in my
opinion, a way to kill off the possibility of affordable housing in RLSA developments. You can see, in the
proposed Rivergrass development, set for 997 acres as a Village, that a developer can avoid a number of
public amenities by staying a tad shy of the current threshold acreage for a Town.
Policy 4.7.2 (recommended amendment)
Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses
appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be greater not less than 100
300 acres and up to or more than 1,000 acres inside the Area of Critical State Concern and up to not more
than 1,500 acres outside the Area of Critical State Concern. Villages are comprised of residential
neighborhoods and shall include a mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for the
community’s support services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and
bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential
neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Vil lages shall
include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15. Appropriately
scaled uses described in Policy 4.7.4 4.7.3 shall also be permitted in Villages. Villages are an appropriate
location for a full range of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located adjacent to
each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. Design criteria for Villages shall be are
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 498 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
26
Staff working document 08/06/2020
included in the LDC Stewardship District. Villages greater than 500 acres shall include an internal
mobility plan which shall include a transfer station or park and ride area that is appropriately located
within the village to serve the connection point for internal and external public transportation.
Diversity of housing shall include Affordable Housing, as defined in the LDC, needed to support the mix
of uses and employee incomes based on the jobs created in the Village. A minimum of fifteen percent
(15%) of the residential units included in a Village shall be Affordable Housing, with at least 50% of the
affordable units provided at less than 80% of Area Median Income. The provision of Affordable Housing
shall be considered a Public Benefit use and therefore shall not require the consumption of Stewardship
Credits for the acreage required to support the affordable housing neighborhood according to the
following schedule: Very-low and Low Income units = 100% reduction, Moderate Income units = 50%
reduction, Gap Income units = 25% reduction. A housing analysis shall be submitted at the time of
application. (Policy 4.7.6 replaces this policy)
Staff Comments: This amendment retains the 1,000 acre limit for villages within the ACSC, while
increasing the village acreage limit to 1,500 acres for areas outside the ACSC, with the Committee citing
the need to have a minimum size compact urban development to support a gro cery store. When the
Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board had
no objections.
Staff’s recommendation is to include provisions for affordable housing. A further incentive for the
provision of Affordable Housing is the recommendation that affordable units be offered relief from the
consumption of Stewardship Credits as a public benefit use. Staff does not object to the recommended
change in size of villages. Staff recommends the amendments to Policy 4.7.2 and the adoption of Policy
4.7.6 to address affordable housing in the RLSA Overlay.
Staff also recommends amendments related to Towns as shown in RLSA Overlay Attachment C,
Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics. The proposed amendments are based on the Collier
Interactive Growth Model (CIGM) which is used to align our future projections for growth management,
including land use, long range transportation and utilities planning. The CIGM findings determined the
current required amount of goods and services fall well below the County’s existing level of service.
Therefore, proposed amendments increase the required goods and services from 25 SF per dwelling unit
to 53 SF per dwelling unit.
ECPO Comments: ECPO does not support the staff recommended amendment as it represents substantive
changes not considered or recommended during the 5-Year Review process. Also need to address the
increase of minimum size of Village and the gap between 100 acre CRD and 300 acre Village.
Judith Hushon, Ph.D. Comments: No villages should be built within the ACSC. This is against the State
policy for setting aside this land. It was initially decided that only CRD’s could be permitted in this area
and that these should be closely examined and their size, location and impact limited.
The increasing of required goods and services space for Villages is needed. These inhabitants will be
located miles from services and will need to have them provided locally. This will also cut down on miles
traveled and increase local capture.
Nick Penniman Comments: To describe the allowable acreage limits of Villages within the ACSC is a
tacit admission that development should occur within the ACSC. Wrong. It should be prohibited. It is the
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 499 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
27
Staff working document 08/06/2020
water recharge area via the Okaloacoochee Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA). The county should not
permit development in the ACSC.
Policy 4.7.3 (recommended amendment)
Hamlets are small rural residential areas with primarily single -family housing and limited range of
convenience-oriented services. Hamlets shall be not less than 40 or more than 100 acres. Hamlets will
serve as a more compact alternative to traditional five-acre lot rural subdivisions currently allowed in the
baseline standards. Hamlets shall have a public green space for neighborhoods. Hamlets include
convenience retail uses, in a ratio as provided in Attachment C. Hamlets may be an appropriate location
for pre-K through elementary schools. Design criteria for Hamlets shall be included in the LDC
Stewardship District. To maintain a proportion of Hamlets to Villages and Towns, not more than 5
Hamlets, in combination with CRDs of 100 acres or less, may be approved as SRAs prior to the approval
of a Village or Town, and thereafter not more than 5 additional Hamlets, in combination with CRDs of
100 acres or less, may be approved for each subsequent Village or Town.
Staff Comments: The Committee recommended deleting the provisions for a Hamlet determining the
Hamlet not sufficient to be able to function as self-sustaining urban development. When the Committee
presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board had no
objections.
Staff recommends approval of this amendment.
Policy 4.7.4 4.7.3 (recommended amendment)
Compact Rural Development (CRD) is a form of SRA that will provide flexibility with respect to the
mix of uses and design standards, but shall otherwise comply with the standards of a Hamlet or Village.
shall support and further Collier County’s valued attributes of agriculture, natural resources and economic
diversity. CRDs shall demonstrate a unique set of uses and support services necessary to further these
attributes within the RLSA. Primary CRD uses shall be those associated with and needed to support
research, education, convenience retail, tourism or recreation. A CRD may include but is not required to
have permanent residential housing. and the services and facilities that support permanent residents. and
the services that support permanent residents. The number of residential units shall be equivalent with the
demand generated by the primary CRD use but shall not exceed the maximum of two units per gross acre.
A CRD shall be a maximum size of 100 300 acres. An example of a CRD is an ecotourism village that
would have a unique set of uses and support services different from a traditional residential village. It
would contain transient lodging facilities and services appropriate to eco-tourists, but may not provide for
the range of services that are necessary to support permanent residents. Except as described above, a CRD
will conform to the characteristics of a Village or Hamlet as set forth on Attachment C based on the size
of the CRD. As residential units are not a required use, those goods and services that support residents
such as retail, office, civic, governmental and institutional uses shall also not be required, . Hhowever,
for any CRD that does include permanent residential housing, the proportionate support services listed
above shall be provided in accordance with Attachment C. To maintain a proportion of CRDs of 100
acres or less to Villages and Towns, not more than 5 CRDs of 100 acres or less, in combination with
Hamlets, may be approved as SRAs prior to the approval of a Village or Town, and thereafter nor more
than 5 additional CRDs of 100 acres or less, in combination with Hamlets, may be approved ofr each
subsequent Village or Town. To maintain a proportion of CRDs of 100 300 acres or less to Villages and
Towns, not more than 5 CRDs of 100 300 acres or less may be approved as SRAs prior to the approval of
a Village or Town, and thereafter not more than 5 additional CRDs of 100 300 acres or less may be
approved prior to each subsequent Village or Town. There shall be no more than 5 CRDs of more than
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 500 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
28
Staff working document 08/06/2020
100 acres in size. The appropriateness of this limitation shall be reviewed in 5 years pursuant to Policy
1.22.
Staff Comments: The Committee recommendation would allow greater flexibility with respect to housing
in CRDs and provide greater emphasis upon CRDs involving research, education, convenience retail,
tourism or recreation. The CCPC recommendations are included in the proposed amendment. The BCC
had no objections.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment with the revision to the maximum size of a CRD.
ECPO Comments: The gap needs to be addressed between 100 acre maximum CRD and the increase
minimum 300 acre Village.
Policy 4.7.4 (recommended amendment)
Existing urban areas, Towns and Villages shall be the preferred location for business and industry within
the RLSA, to further promote economic sustainability and development, diversification and job creation.
The business and industry use allowed include those as defined as Florida Qualified Target Industries.
The appropriate scale and compatibility of these uses within a Town or Village will be addressed during
SRA application process.
Staff Comments: The Committee’s recommended policy is intended to acknowledge the need to diversify
the economy in eastern Collier County. The CCPC recommendations are included in this amendment.
The Board had no objections.
Staff’s recommendation provides clarity to “business and industry” uses by adding the reference to
Florida Qualified Target Industries.
ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments with the addition “but are not
limited to” after the word “include.”
Judith Hushon, Ph.D. Comments: CRDs should only be allowed in areas well separated from one
another. There should not be a realignment provision because the reasons for this should not be
permitted.
Policy 4.7.5
For the purposes of coordinating infrastructure and providing for economic diversification within eastern
Collier County, two or more Villages or CRDs under common or related ownership that are physically
proximate and share infrastructure shall be aggregated. When aggregated, the County shall review the
application by the SRA standards (Town, Village or CRD) applicable to the total size of the aggregated
development.
Staff Comments: The intent of coordinating infrastructure and public facilities between SRAs is
addressed in Policy 4.6, 4.14 and 4.17, through the SRA application process, and developer agreements
with Collier County. Providing for economic diversification is addressed in policy 4.7.4 and the proposed
increase in required square footage for goods and services. Policy 4.7.6 provides provisions for
affordable housing distribution with the RLSA. Also, Policy 4.15.1 provides SRAs may demonstrate
residents’ needs can be met within other SRAs or within the Immokalee Urban Area. All these policies
together provide Collier County the tools necessary to evaluate SRAs that are proximate.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 501 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
29
Staff working document 08/06/2020
Staff finds the other Policy amendments recommended herein meet the intent of coordinating
infrastructure and promoting economic diversification between SRAs. Staff recommends the approach to
improve SRA standards and application requirements is the upcoming Land Development Code
amendment process.
ECPO Comments: ECPO does not support the amendment as it represents substantive changes not
considered or recommended during the 5-Year Review process.
Policy 4.7.5
To address the accommodation of Affordable Housing in a Town or Village, the SRA applicant shall
utilize one of the following options:
1) Affordable Housing Land Reservation
a) Reservation of one or more site(s) within the SRA or within a proximal SRA in the RLSAO with
densities and development standards that accommodate Affordable Housing residential uses at a
minimum density of 10 units per acre, for acquisition by either Collier County, a Community
Land Trust, a private developer or any other affordable housing provider.
b) The aggregate acreage of such site(s) shall be equal to or greater than 2.5% of the gross area of
the SRA.
c) The acreage of land reserved for Affordable Housing will be considered as a Public Benefit Use
and not require the consumption of Stewardship Credits but shall be included in the calculation of
total SRA acreage.
d) The County shall verify the site(s) is/are appropriate and approve the site(s) at time of SRA
approval, subject to standards to be established in the LDC.
e) Affordable Housing units shall be excluded from the Traffic Impact Statement or trip cap for the
SRA in which they are located.
2) Alternatives proposed by the SRA Applicant
a) While compliance with the Land Reservation described above shall be deemed to satisfy
affordable housing requirements, other options may be proposed by the SRA applicant and
approved by the Board of County Commissioners to address housing affordability issues in the
subject SRA.
3) The process and procedures to implement this policy shall be set forth in the Rural Lands Stewardship
Area Overlay Zoning District.
Staff Comments: the proposed Policy replaces the draft language in Policy 4.7.1 and 4.7.2. Staff
recommends approval of the proposed Policy.
ECPO agrees with the proposed Policy.
Policy 4.8
An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer
such areas as described in Policy 4.13. An SRA may be contiguous to and served by a WRA without
requiring the WRA to be designated as an SRA in accordance with Policy 3.12 and 3.13.
Policy 4.9 (recommended amendment)
An SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development in an
environmentally acceptable manner. The primary means of directing development away from wetlands
and critical habitat is the prohibition of locating SRAs in FSAs, and HSAs, and WRAs. To further direct
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 502 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
30
Staff working document 08/06/2020
development away from wetlands and critical habitat, residential, commercial, manufacturing/light
industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within a
SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. In
addition, conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the exception of
those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on lands that receive a
Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. Infrastructure necessary to serve permitted uses may be
exempt from this restriction, provided that designs seek to minimize the extent of impacts to any such
areas. The Index value of greater than 1.2 represents those areas that have a high natural resource value as
measured pursuant to Policy 1.8. Less than 2% of potential SRA land achieves an Ind ex score of greater
than 1.2.
Staff Comments: The Committee’s recommendation is for policy consistency and to allow infrastructure
to be exempt on lands that have a Natural Resource Index value greater than 1.2. When the Committee
presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board had no
objections.
Staff recommends approval of this amendment.
Policy 4.10 (recommended amendment)
Within the RLSA Overlay, open space, which by definition shall include public and private conservation
lands, underdeveloped areas of designated SSAs, agriculture, water retention and management areas and
recreation uses, will continue to be the dominant land use. Therefore, open space adequate to serve the
forecasted population and uses within the SRA is provided. To ensure that SRA residents have such areas
proximate to their homes, open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross
acreage of an individual SRA Town, or Village. , or those CRDs exceeding 100 acres. Lands within a
SRA greater than one acre with Index values of greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space . except
for the allowance of uses described in Policy 4.9. As an incentive to encourage open space, such uses
within an SRA, located outside of the ACSC, exceeding the required thirty-five percent shall not be
required to consume Stewardship Credits but shall be counted as part of the SRA acreage.
Staff Comments: The Committee’s proposed amendments are for policy consistency reference to Policy
4.9 with respect to the CRD area limit. The CCPC recommendations are included in this amendment.
The Board had no objections.
Staff recommends approval of this amendment, with the elimination of the incentive for open space over
35 percent. This incentive rewards sprawling design by exempting the use of Credits for open space
exceeding 35 percent. Open space is defined in the RLSA LDC to include “non-usable” open space
related to infrastructure such as landscape areas including right-of-way, parking lot buffers, and water
management areas. Incentivizing non-usable open space over 35% conflicts with the RLSA intent of
incentivizing compact design.
ECPO Comments: does not support the staff recommended amendment as it represents substantive
changes not considered or recommended during the 5-Year Review process.
Judith Hushon, Ph.D. Comments: A requirement for open space beyond that potentially provided by
lawns and sports facilities should be included. The inclusion of parks and play areas greatly improves
the quality of life for the residents.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 503 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
31
Staff working document 08/06/2020
Policy 4.11
The perimeter of each SRA shall be designed to provide a transition from higher density and intensity
uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property. The edges of SRAs shall
be well defined and designed to be compatible with the character of adjoining property. Techniques such
as, but not limited to setbacks, landscape buffers, and recreation/open space placement may be used for
this purpose. Where existing agricultural activity adjoins an SRA, the design of the SRA must take this
activity into account to allow for the continuation of the agricultural activity and to minimize any conflict
between agriculture and SRA uses.
Policy 4.12
Where an SRA adjoins a FSA, HSA, WRA or existing public or private conservation land delineat ed on
the Overlay Map, best management and planning practices shall be applied to minimize adverse impacts
to such lands. SRA design shall demonstrate that ground water table draw down or diversion will not
adversely impact the adjacent FSA, HSA, WRA or conservation land. Detention and control elevations
shall be established to protect such natural areas and be consistent with surrounding land and project
control elevations and water tables.
Judith Hushon, Ph.D. Comments: WRAs should not be used to provide water treatment and retention for
a SRA. They are being preserved because of their high scores and their environmental value. If they are
used they should definitely be included in the SRA acreage calculations and the entire body of WRA
bordering the proposed development should be included, not just a small region along the edge.
Pollutants from the SRA will disperse through the entire WRA.
Policy 4.13
Open space within or contiguous to a SRA shall be used to provide a buffer between the SRA and any
adjoining FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map .
Open space contiguous to or within 300 feet of the boundary of a FSA, HSA, or existing public or private
conservation land may include: natural preserves, lakes, golf courses provided no fairways or other turf
areas are allowed within the first 200 feet, passive recreational areas and parks, required yard and set-back
areas, and other natural or man-made open space. Along the west boundary of the FSAs and HSAs that
comprise Camp Keais Strand, i.e., the area south of Immokalee Road, this open space buffer shall be 500
feet wide and shall preclude golf course fairways and other turf areas within the first 300 feet.
Policy 4.14 (recommended amendment)
The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road
provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in
accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. At the time of SRA approval, an SRA
proposed to adjoin land designated as an SRA or lands designated as Open shall provide for the
opportunity to provide direct vehicular and pedestrian connections from said areas to the County’s
arterial/collector roadway network as shown on the County Build Out Vision Plan the MPO’s LRTP
Needs Plan so as to reduce travel time and travel expenses, improve interconnectivity, increase internal
capture, and keep the use of county arterial roads to a minimum when traveling between developments in
the RLSA.
Public and private roads within an SRA shall be maintained by the SRA it serves. Signalized intersections
within or adjacent to an SRA that serves the SRA shall be maintained by the SRA it serves. No SRA shall
be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to
be adequate in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time
of SRA designation. A transportation impact assessment meeting the requirements of Section 2.7.3 of the
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 504 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
32
Staff working document 08/06/2020
LDC, or its successor regulation shall be prepared for each proposed SRA to provide the necessary data
and analysis. To the extent required to mitigate an SRA’s traffic impacts, actions may be taken to
include, but shall not be limited to, provisions for the construction and/or permitting of wildlife crossings,
environmental mitigation credits, right of way dedication(s), water management and/or fill material which
may be needed to expand the existing or proposed roadway network. Any such actions to offset traffic
impacts shall be memorialized in a developer contribution agreement. These actions shall be considered
within the area of significant influence of the project traffic on existing or proposed roadways.
Staff Comments: The Committee recommendations establishes another transportation planning process
for the County. The CCPC recommendations are included in this amendment. The Board had no
objections.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment with the elimination of the requirement for the County to
develop, fund and manage a County Build Out Vision Plan. Staff’s recommendation is to rely on the
MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan and process, not to fund and maintain the development of
another process for transportation planning in eastern Collier County. Staff’s recommendation to delete
the reference to a County Build Out Vision Plan does not preclude the Board from additional focus on
transportation planning for SRAs. The Board may request this effort at any time they find appropriate.
ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments.
Nick Penniman Comments: The MPO LRTP extends out to 2050. Roads have driven development for 150
years in Florida. The more appropriate sequence would be for development to be included in the long-
range planning process at a more granular level than the general designations of Sending, Receiving and
Neutral Areas currently in use.
Policy 4.15.1 (recommended amendment)
SRAs are intended to be mixed use and shall be allowed the full range of uses permitted by the Urban
Designation of the FLUE, as modified by Policies 4.7, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3, 4.7.4 and Attachment C.
An appropriate mix of retail, office, recreational, civic, governmental, and institutional uses will be
available to serve the daily needs and community wide needs of residents of the RLSA. Depending on the
size, scale, and character of a SRA, such uses may be provided either within the specific SRA, within
other SRAs in the RLSA or within the Immokalee Urban Area provided the capacity of those adjoining
area’s facilities as described in Attachment C to be utilized by the newly created SRA can demonstrate
sufficient capacity exists for their desired uses per the standards of Attachment C. By example, each
Village or Town shall provide for neighborhood retail/office uses to serve its population as well as
appropriate civic and institutional uses, however, the combined population of several Villages and
Hamlets may be required to support community scaled retail or office uses in a nearby Town. Standards
for the minimum amount of non-residential uses in each category are set forth in Attachment C and shall
be also included in the Stewardship LDC District.
Staff Comments: The Committee’s recommended amendments provide for goods and services to be
provided in adjoining towns or villages. Analysis would be required with an SRA application to
demonstrate sufficient capacity exists. The CCPC recommendations are included in this amendment. The
Board had no objections.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 505 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
33
Staff working document 08/06/2020
Policy 4.15.2
The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) may, as a condition of approval and adoption of an SRA
development, require that suitable areas for parks, schools, and other public facilities be set aside,
improved, and/or dedicated for public use. When the BCC requires such a set aside for one or more
public facilities, the set aside shall be subject to the same provisions of the LDC as are applicable to
public facility dedications required as a condition for PUD rezoning.
Policy 4.15.3
Applicants for SRA designation shall coordinate with Collier County School Board staff to allow
planning to occur to accommodate any impacts to the public schools as a result of the SRA. As a part of
the SRA application, the following information shall be provided:
1. Number of residential units by type;
2. An estimate of the number of school-aged children for each type of school
impacted (elementary, middle, high school); and
3. The potential for locating a public educational facility or facilities within the SRA,
and the size of any sites that may be dedicated, or otherwise made available
for a public educational facility.
Policy 4.16
An SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or such
infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand. The level of infrastructure provided will
depend on the form of SRA development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC requirements.
The capacity of essential services and infrastructure necessary to serve the SRA at build-out must be
demonstrated during the SRA designation process. Infrastructure to be analyzed includes, but not limited
to, transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater manageme nt, and solid waste.
Transportation infrastructure is discussed in Policy 4.14. Centralized or decentralized community water
and wastewater utilities are required in Towns and, Villages, and those CRDs exceeding one hundred
(100) acres in size, and may be required in CRDs that are one hundred (100) acres or less in size,
depending upon the permitted uses approved within the CRD. Centralized or decentralized community
water and wastewater utilities shall be constructed, owned, operated and maintained by a private utility
service, the developer, a Community Development District, the Immokalee Water Sewer Service District,
Collier County, or other governmental entity. Innovative alternative water and wastewater treatment
systems such as decentralized community treatment systems shall not be prohibited by this policy
provided that they meet all applicable regulatory criteria. Individual potable water supply wells and septic
systems, limited to a maximum of 100 acres of any Town, Village or CRD of 100 acres are permitted on
an interim basis until services from a centralized/decentralized community system are available.
Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems are permitted in Hamlets and may be permitted
in CRDs of 100 acres or less in size.
Staff Comments: The Committee’s recommendation provides for policy consistency. The CCPC
recommendations are included in this amendment. The Board had no objections.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 506 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
34
Staff working document 08/06/2020
Policy 4.17
The BCC will review and approve SRA designation applications in accordance with the provisions of
Policy 1.1.2 of the Capital Improvement Element of the GMP and public facilities pursuant to Policy 1.1
of the Capital Improvement Element in addition to the following: jails, law enforcement, emergency
medical services, fire service, government buildings and libraries. for Category A public facilities. Final
local development orders will be approved within a SRA designated by the BCC in accordance with the
Concurrency Management System of the GMP and LDC in effect at the time of final local development
order approval.
Staff Comments: The Committee recommendation provide additional linkage to public facilities policies
contained in the Capital Improvement Element of the GMP. The CCPC recommendations are included in
this amendment. The Board had no objections.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment.
Policy 4.18
The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon
year based on a cost/benefit fiscal impact analysis model acceptable to or as may be adopted by the
County. The BCC may grant exceptions to this policy to accommodate affordable-workforce housing, as
it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development
Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the analysis shall consider the
following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water,
stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing,
developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential
adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards.
In the event that an SRA development, including any related impacts to Collier County outside of those
directly generated by the SRA, generates surplus revenues to Collier County, and Collier County may
choose to allocate a portion of such surplus revenues to ensure that sufficient resources are available to
allow Collier County to respond expeditiously to economic opportunities and to compete effectively for
high-value research, development and commercialization, innovation, and alternative and renewable
energy business projects.
Staff Comments: The Committee’s recommendation provides for the use of surplus SRA revenues for the
use for economic development. The Committee included the CCPC recommendations into their Report
with the exception of, “including any related impacts to Collier County outside of those directly
generated by the SRA.” The Board had no objections.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment.
Policy 4.19
Eight Credits shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA, where such Credits were created
from a Stewardship Sending Area deemed vested under the eight Credit ratio approved prior to (the
adoption date of this Ordinance). Ten (10) Thirteen (13) Credits per acre shall be required for each acre of
land included in an SRA, where such Credits were created from any other Stewardship Sending Area.
except for o Open space in excess of the required thirty-five percent as described in Policy 4.10 or for
Land that is designated for a public benefit use described in Policy 4.19 4.20 do not require use of Credits.
In order to promote compact, mixed use development and provide the necessary support facilities and
services to residents of rural areas, the SRA designation entitles a full range of uses, accessory uses and
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 507 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
35
Staff working document 08/06/2020
associated uses that provide a mix of services to and are supportive to the residential population of a SRA,
as provided for in Policies 4.7, 4.15 4.15.1 and Attachment C. Such uses shall be identified, located and
quantified in the SRA master plan.
Staff Comments: The Committee recommended an increase from 8 Credits to 10 Credits in order to
balance the Credit system where the system provides for additional incentives to retain agricultural land,
protect the panther, and further incentivize restoration activities. The CCPC concurred with these
amendments. The Board had no objections.
The RLSA Credit Analysis, Attachment 1, shows the number of Stewardship Credits approved at the ratio
of 10 Credits per SRA acre, along with the additional Stewardship Credits added by these recommended
policies, create an excess of approximately 20,000 Credits. Staff recommends recalibrating the
Stewardship Credit system to 10 Credits to achieve the desired outcome of balancing the Overlay with
natural resource protection, agriculture retention and a total of 45,000 acres of development.
Staff also recommends removing the incentive for excess open space within SRA development. This
incentive has been replaced with an incentive for affordable housing.
ECPO Comments: ECPO does not support the staff recommended amendment as it represents substantive
changes not considered or recommended during the 5-Year Review process. Suggests 10 Credits per SRA
acre ratio.
Michael Seef Comments: Consider more than the current 8 credits per SRA (Stewardship Receiving Area)
to 10, 12, 15 or more to accord with SRA’s design for compact housing, density, transportation, and
natural resources. Thus achieving overall a better balance between agriculture, conservation and
development.
Policy 4.20
The acreage of open space exceeding thirty five percent and public benefit use shall not count toward the
maximum acreage limits described in Policy 4.7 but shall not count toward the consumption of
Stewardship Credits. For the purpose of this policy, public benefit uses include: affordable housing as
defined in the LDC, public schools (preK-12) and public or private post secondary institutions, including
ancillary uses; community parks exceeding the minimum acreage requirements of Attachment C,
municipal golf courses; regional parks; and governmental facilities excluding essential services as defined
in the LDC. The location of public schools shall be coordinated with the Collier County School Board,
based on the interlocal agreement 163.3177 F.S. and in a manner consistent with 235.193 F.S. Schools
and related ancillary uses shall be encouraged to locate in or proximate to Towns, and Villages, and
Hamlets subject to applicable zoning and permitting requirements.
Staff Comments: The Committee recommendations exempt excess open space and public benefit uses from
the consumption of Stewardship Credits. The amendment includes the CCPC recommendations. The
Board had no objections.
Staff recommends approval of this amendment, with the elimination of the incentive for open space over
35 percent. This incentive rewards sprawling design by exempting the use of Credits for open space
exceeding 35 percent. Open space is defined in the RLSA LDC to include “non-usable” open space
related to infrastructure such as landscape areas including right-of-way, parking lot buffers, and water
management areas. Incentivizing non-usable open space over 35% conflicts with the RLSA intent of
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 508 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
36
Staff working document 08/06/2020
incentivizing compact design. Staff recommends replacing the open space incentive with an incentive for
affordable housing.
ECPO Comments: ECPO does not support the staff recommended amendment as it represents substantive
changes not considered or recommended during the 5-Year Review process.
Judith Hushon, Ph.D. Comments: It is hard to see that public benefit acreage should not count toward the
total acreage of a development. Credits should be required for this land. Both affordable housing and
open space should be required.
Nick Penniman Comments: I do not believe affordable housing should be included as a “public benefit.”
First, it would not be accessible to the public. Second, affordable housing is so important that it should be
dealt with as a stand-alone issue in the GMP, with specific goals depending upon the size of the
development, and not as an afterthought by adding it in as a “public benefit.”
Policy 4.21
Lands within the ACSC that meet all SRA criteria shall also be restricted such that credits used to entitle a
SRA in the ACSC must be generated exclusively from SSAs within the ACSC. Further, the only form of
SRA allowed in the ACSC east of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be Hamlets and CRDs of 100 acres or
less and the only form of SRA allowed in the ACSC west of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be CRDs
and Villages and CRDs of not more than 300 acres and Hamlets. Provided, not more than 1,000 aces of
SRA development in the form of Villages or CRDs however, that CRDs or not more than 500 acres each,
exclusive of any lakes created prior to the effective date of this amendment June 30, 2002 as a result of
mining operations, shall be allowed in areas that have a frontage on State Road 29 and that, as of the
effective date of these amendments, had been predominantly cleared as a result of Ag Group I or Earth
Mining or Processing Uses. This policy is intended to assure that the RLSA Overlay is not used to
increase the development potential within the ACSC but instead is used to promote a more compact form
of development as an alternative to the Baseline Standards already allowed within the ACSC. No policy
of the RLSA Overlay shall take precedence over the Big Cypress ACSC regulations and all regulations
therein shall apply.
Staff Comments: This Committee recommendations remove the allowance for a Hamlet in the ACSC and
add provisions for a Village. The amendment includes the CCPC recommendations. The Board had no
objections.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment.
Nick Penniman Comments: Under no circumstances should a WRA be used for “…water treatment and
retention for a SRA…” Period.
Policy 4.22 (recommended amendment)
When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA through the SRA designation process,
the applicant in conjunction with the Florida Division of State and Historic Resources will assess the
historic or cultural significance and explore the educational and public awareness opportunities regarding
significant resources.
Staff Comments: This Committee recommendation address a process to assess historic resources if
discovered during SRA planning. When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC
concurred with this amendment. The Board had no objections.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 509 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
37
Staff working document 08/06/2020
Staff recommends approval of the amendment with the correction to the reference for the Florida
Division of Historic Resources.
ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments.
Policy 4.23 (recommended amendment)
Any development on lands participating in the RLS Program shall be compatible with surrounding land
uses. Within one year of the effective date of this Policy LDC regulations shall be implemented for
outdoor lighting using standards modeled from the Dark Sky (www.darksky.org) program to protect the
nighttime environment, conserve energy, and enhance safety and security.
Staff Comments: The Committee recommendations are intended to address outdoor lighting. The
Committee’s Report included the CCPC recommendation with the exceptions of, “using standards
modeled from the Dark Sky (www.darksky.org) program.” The Board had no objections.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment.
Group 5 - Policies that protect water quality and quantity and the maintaining of the natural water
regime and protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats on land that is not voluntarily
included in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area program.
Policy 5.1 (recommended amendment)
To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime in areas mapped as
FSAs and designated Restoration Zones on the Overlay Map prior to the time that they are designated as
SSAs under the Stewardship Credit Program . , Residential Uses, General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining
and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses (layers 1-4) as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated. in
FSAs. Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, except those necessary to
serve permitted uses or for public safety, shall only not be allowed in FSAs. Infrastructure necessary to
serve permitted uses may be exempt from this restriction, provided that designs seek to minimize the
extent of impacts to any such areas. with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less.
Where practicable, directional-drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be
utilized for oil or gas extraction in FSAs in order to minimize impacts to native habitats. Asphaltic and
concrete batch making plants shall be prohibited in areas mapped as HSAs. The opportunity to voluntarily
participate in the Stewardship Credit Program, as well as the right to sell conservation easements or a free
or lesser interest in the land, shall constitute compensation for the loss of these rights.
Staff Comments/Support/Data and Analysis: The Committee recommendation is for policy consistency.
The amendment includes the CCPC recommendations. The Board had no objections.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment.
Policy 5.2
To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime and to protect listed
animal and plant species and their habitats in areas mapped as FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs on the Overlay
Map that are within the ACSC, all ACSC regulatory standards shall apply, including those that strictly
limit non-agricultural clearing.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 510 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
38
Staff working document 08/06/2020
Policy 5.3 (recommended amendment)
To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime and to protect listed
animal and plant species and their habitats in areas mapped as FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs on the Overlay
Map that are not within the ACSC, if a property owner proposes to utilize such land for a non-agricultural
purpose under the Baseline Standards referenced in Policy 1.5 and does not elect to use the Overlay, these
Group 5 policies following regulations are applicable, shall be incorporated into the LDC, and shall
supersede any comparable existing County regulations that would otherwise apply. These regulations
shall only apply to non-agricultural use of land prior to its inclusion in the Overlay system.
Staff Comments: The Committee accepted the above revised text recommended by the CCPC. The Board
had no objections.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment.
Policy 5.4
Collier County will coordinate with appropriate State and Federal agencies concerning the provision of
wildlife crossings at locations determined to be appropriate. A map of these potential crossing locations
will be developed by [12 months of the adoption of this Ordinance] within 12 months of the effective date
of the Growth Management Plan Amendment and shall be incorporated into community, cultural and
historical, and transportation planning for the RLSA, including all SRAs described in Group 4 Policies.
Staff Comments: The Committee included in the Report the revised text recommended by the CCPC. The
Board had no objections.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment with changes made for policy consistency.
Policy 5.5
For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program non-
agricultural development, excluding individual single family residences, shall be directed away from the
listed species and species of special local concern (SSLC) and their habitats by complying with the
following guidelines and standards. A SSLC is defined as species that have been delisted but for which
there remain federal, state and/or local protections and/or management plans specifying guidelines for
their protection.
1. A wildlife survey shall be required for all parcels when listed species or SSLC are known to
inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site or where listed species or
SSLC are utilizing directly observed on the site. The survey shall be conducted in
accordance with the requirements of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission (FFWCC) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidelines. The
County shall notify the FFWCC and USFWS of the existence of any listed species or SSLC
that may be discovered.
2. Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species or SSLC shall be submitted for County
approval. A plan shall be required for all projects where the wildlife survey indicated listed
species or SSLC are utilizing the site, or the site is capable of supporting wildlife and can
be anticipated to be occupied by listed species or SSLC. These plans shall describe how the
project directs incompatible land uses away from listed species or SSLC and their
habitats.
a. Management plans shall incorporate proper techniques to protect listed species
or SSLC and their habitats from the negative impacts of proposed development.
The most current and completed data and local, state, and federal guidelines and
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 511 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
39
Staff working document 08/06/2020
regulations shall be utilized to prepare the required management plans. Open
space and vegetation preservation requirements shall be used to establish buffer
areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated by human activities.
Provisions such as fencing, walls, or other obstructions shall be provided to
minimize development impacts to the wildlife and to facilitate and encourage
wildlife to use wildlife corridors. Appropriate roadway crossings, underpasses
and signage shall be used where roads must cross wildlife corridors. Mitigation
for impacting listed species or SSLC habitat shall be considered in the
management plans, as appropriate.
i. The following references shall be used, as appropriate, to prepare the
required management plans:
1 South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, USFWS, 1999.
2 Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast
Region, USFWS, 1987.
3. Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus
polyphemus) Populations found on Lands Slated for Large Scale
Development in Florida, Technical Report No. 4, Florida Game and
Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1987.
4 Ecology and Development-Related Habitat Requirements of the Florida
Scrub Jay (Apelocoma coerulescens), Technical Report No. 8, Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1991.
5. Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of the Southeastern American Kestrel
(Falco Sparverius Paulus) on Large-scale Development Sites in Florida,
Nongame Technical Report No. 13, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission, 1993.
i. ii. The County shall consider any other techniques recommended by the
USFWS and FFWCC, subject to the provision of paragraph 3 of this policy.
ii. iii. When listed species or SSLC are utilizing a directly observed on site or
indicated by evidence, such as denning, foraging, or other indications, a
minimum of 40% of native vegetation on site shall be retained, with the
exception of clearing for agricultural purposes. The County shall also
consider the recommendation of other agencies, subject to the provisions of
paragraph 3 of this policy.
b. Management plans shall include provisions for minimizing human and wildlife
interactions. Low intensity land uses (e.g. parks, passive recreation areas, golf
courses) and vegetation preservation requirements, including agriculture, shall be
used to establish buffer areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated by
human activities. Consideration shall be given to the most current guidelines and
regulations on techniques to reduce human wildlife conflict. The management plans
shall also require the dissemination of information to local residents, businesses and
governmental services about the presence of wildlife and practices (such as
appropriate waste disposal methods) that enable responsible coexistence with
wildlife, while minimizing opportunities for negative interaction, such as appropriate
waste disposal practices.
c. The Management Plans shall contain a monitoring program for developments greater
than ten acres.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 512 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
40
Staff working document 08/06/2020
b. For parcels containing gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus), priority shall
be given to protecting the largest most contiguous gopher tortoise habitat with
the greatest number of active burrows, and for providing a connection to off
site adjacent gopher tortoise preserves.
c.Habitat preservation for the Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) shall
conform to the guidelines contained in Technical Report No. 8, Florida Game
and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1991. The required management plan shall
also provide for a maintenance program and specify an appropriate fire or
mechanical protocols to maintain the natural scrub community. The plan shall
also outline a public awareness program to educate residents about the on-site
preserve and the need to maintain the scrub vegetation. These requirements
shall be consistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan,
May 1999, subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) of this policy.
d.For the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), the required habitat management
plans shall establish protective zones around the eagle nest restricting certain
activities. The plans shall also address restricting certain types of activities
during the nest season. These requirements shall be consistent with the UFWS
South Florida Multi-Species Recover Plan, May 1999, subject to the provisions
of paragraph (3) of this policy.
e.For the red-cockaded woodpecker Ipicoides borealis), the required habitat
protection plan shall outline measures to avoid adverse impacts to active
clusters and to minimize impacts to foraging habitat. Where adverse effects
can not be avoided, measures shall be taken to minimize on-site disturbance
and compensate or mitigate for impacts that remain. These requirements shall
be consistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, May
1999, subject to the provision of paragraph 3) of this policy.
f. In areas where the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) may be
present, the management plans shall require that garbage be placed in bear-
proof containers, at one or more central locations. The management plan shall
also identify methods to inform local residents of the concerns related to
interaction between black bears and humans. Mitigation for impacting habitat
suitable for black bear shall be considered in the management plan.
g.For projects located in Priority I or Priority II Panther Habitat areas, the
management plan shall discourage the destruction of undisturbed, native
habitats that are preferred by the Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi) by
directing intensive land uses to currently disturbed areas. Preferred habitats
include pine flatwoods and hardwood hammocks. In turn, these areas shall be
buffered from the most intense land uses of the project by using low intensity
land uses (e.g., parks, passive recreational areas, golf courses). Gold courses
within the Rural Lands Area shall be designed and managed using standards
found within this Overlay. The management plans shall identify appropriate
lighting controls for these permitted uses and shall also address the opportunity
to utilize prescribed burning to maintain fire-adapted preserved vegetation
communities and provide browse for white-tailed deer. These requirements
shall be consistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recover Plan,
May 1999, subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) of this policy. The Multi-
Species Recovery Plan (1999) shall constitute minimum wildlife protection
standards for the RLSAO.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 513 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
41
Staff working document 08/06/2020
h.The Management Plans shall contain a monitoring program for developments
greater than 10 acres.
3.The County shall, consistent with applicable policies of this Overlay, consider and utilize
recommendations and letters of technical assistance from the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission and recommendations from the US Fish and Wildlife Service in
issuing development orders on property containing utilized by listed species or SSLC. It is
recognized that these agency recommendations, on a case by case basis, may change
strengthen the requirements contained within these wildlife protection policies and any such
change shall be deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan. However, no
reduction of the wildlife protection policies of Policy 5.5 will be considered as these shall
constitute minimum standards for wildlife protection.
Staff Comments/Support/Data and Analysis: The Committee include the CCPC recommendations
regarding this new Policy, with the exception of the last sentence of the first paragraph, “A SSLC is
defined as species that have been delisted but for which there remain federal, state and/or local
protections and/or management plans specifying guidelines for their protection.” The Board had no
objections.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment.
Policy 5.6
For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, Collier County
shall direct non-agricultural land uses away from high functioning wetlands by limiting direct impacts
within wetlands. A direct impact is hereby defined as the dredging or filling of a wetland or adversely
changing the hydroperiod of a wetland. This policy shall be implemented as follows:
1. There are two (2) major wetlands systems within the RLSA, Camp Keais Strand and the
Okaloacoochee Slough. These two systems have been mapped and are d esignated as
FSA’s. Policy 5.1 prohibits certain uses within the FSA’s, thus preserving and protecting
the wetlands functions within those wetland systems.
2. The other significant wetlands within the RLSA are WRA’s as described in Policy
3.3.These areas are protected by existing SFWMD wetlands permits Environmental
Resource Permit for each area.
3. FSAs, HSAs and WRAs, as provided in Policy 5.3, and the ACSC have stringent site
clearing and alteration limitations, nonpermeable surface limitations, and requirements
addressing surface water flows which protect wetland functions within the wetlands in
those areas. Other wetlands within the RLSA are isolated or seasonal wetlands. These
wetlands will be protected based upon the wetland functionality assessment described
below, and the final permitting requirements of the South Florida Water Management
District.
a. The County shall apply the vegetation retention, open space and site preservation
requirements specified within this Overlay to preserve an appropriate amount of
native vegetation on site. Wetlands shall be preserved as part of this vegetation
requirement according to the following criteria:
i. The acreage requirements specified within this Overlay shall be met by
preserving wetlands with the highest wetland functionality scores. Wetland
functionality assessment scores shall be those described in paragraph b of this
policy. The vegetative preservation requirements imposed by Policies 5.3 and
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 514 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
42
Staff working document 08/06/2020
5.5 shall first be met through preservation of wetlands having a functionality
assessment score of 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method
score of 0.7, or greater. Within one year from the effective date of this
Amendment, the County shall develop specific criteria in the LDC to be used
to determine those instances in which wetlands with a WRAP functionality
assessment score of 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method
score of 0.7, or greater must be preserved in excess of the preservation required
by Policy 5.3.
ii. Wetlands and contiguous upland buffers that are utilized by listed species or
SSLC, or serving as corridors for the movement of listed species or SSLC,
shall be preserved on site. Wetland flowway functions through the project shall
be maintained.
iii. Proposed development shall demonstrate that ground water table drawdowns or
diversions will not adversely change the hydoperiod of preserved wetlands on
or offsite. Detention and control elevations shall be set to protect surrounding
wetlands and be consistent with surrounding land and project control elevations
and water tables. In order to meet these requirements, projects shall be
designed in accordance with Sections 4.2.2.4., 6.11 and 6.12, of SFWMD’s
Basis of Review, January 2001, as amended. Upland vegetative communities
may be utilized to meet the vegetative, open space and site preservation
requirements of this Overlay when the wetland functional assessment score is
less than 0.65.
b. In order to assess the values and functions of wetlands at the time of project review,
applicants shall rate functionality of wetlands using the South Florida Water
Management District’s Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP), as described
in Technical Publication Reg-001, dated September 1997, and updated August 1999,
as amended, andor the Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method, identified
as F.A.C. Chapter 62-345. The applicant shall submit to County staff agency-
accepted WRAP scores, or Uniform Wetlands Mitigation Assessment scores. County
staff shall review this functionality assessment as part of the County’s EIS
Environmental Data provisions and shall use the results to direct incompatible land
uses away from the highest functioning wetlands according to the requirements found
in paragraph 3 above.
c. All direct impacts shall be mitigated for pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (f)
of this policy.
d. Single family residences shall follow the requirements contained within Policy 6.2.7
of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element.
e. The County shall separate preserved wetlands from other land uses with appropriate
buffering requirements. The County shall require a minimum 50-foot vegetated
upland buffer abutting a natural water body, and for other wetlands a minimum 25 -
foot vegetated upland buffer abutting the wetland. A structural buffer may be used in
conjunction with a vegetative buffer that would reduce the vegetative buffer width by
50%. A structural buffer shall be required abutting wetlands where direct impacts are
allowsed. Wetland buffers shall conform to the following standards:
i. The buffer shall be measured landward from the approved jurisdictional line.
ii. The buffer zone shall consist of preserved native vegetation. Where native
vegetation does not exist, native vegetation compatible with the existing soils and
expected hydrologic conditions shall be planted.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 515 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
43
Staff working document 08/06/2020
iii. The buffer shall be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as
defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council.
iv. The following land uses are considered to be compatible with wetland functions and
are allowed within the buffer:
(1) Passive recreational areas, boardwalks and recreational shelters;
(2) Pervious nature trails;
(3) Water management structures;
(4) Mitigation areas;
(5) Any other conservation and related open space activity or use which is
comparable in nature with the foregoing uses.
v. A structural buffer may consist of a stem-wall, berm, or vegetative hedge with
suitable fencing.
f. Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts to wetland in order to result in no net
loss of wetland functions.
Mitigation Requirements:
i. “No net loss of wetland functions” shall mean that the wetland functional score of
the proposed mitigation equals or exceeds the wetland functional score of the
impacted wetlands. Priority shall be given to mitigation within FSA’s and HSA’s.
ii. Loss of storage or conveyance volume resulting from direct impacts to wetlands
shall be compensated for by providing an equal amount of storage or conveyance
capacity on site and within or abutting the impacted wetland.
iii. Protection shall be provided for preserved or created wetland or upland vegetative
communities offered as mitigation by placing a conservation easement over the
land in perpetuity, providing for initial exotic plant removal (Class I invasive
exotic plants defined by the Florida Exotic Plan Council) and continuing exotic
plant maintenance, or by appropriate ownership transfer to a state or federal
agency along with sufficient funding for perpetual management activities.
iv. Exotics removal or maintenance may be considered acceptable mitigation for the
loss of wetlands or listed species habitat if those lands if those lands are placed
under a perpetual conservation easement with perpetual maintenance
requirements.
iv v. Prior to issuance of any final development order that authorizes site alteration,
the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with paragraphs (f) i, ii, and iii of this
policy and SFWMD standards. If agency permits have not provided mitigation
consistent with this policy, Collier County will require mitigation exceeding that
of the jurisdictional agencies.
g. Wetland preservation, buffer areas, and mitigation areas shall be identified or platted
as separate tracts. In the case of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), these areas
shall also be depicted on the PUD Master Plan. These areas shall be maintained free
from trash and debris and from Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the
Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. Land uses allowed in these areas shall be limited
to those listed above (3.e.iv.) and shall not include any other activities that are
detrimental to drainage, flood, control, water conservation, erosion control or fish
and wildlife habitat conservation and preservation.
4. All landowners shall be encouraged to consider participating in any programs that provide
incentives, funding or other assistance in facilitating wetland and habitat restoration on
private lands including, but not limited to, federal farm bill agricultural conserva tion
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 516 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
44
Staff working document 08/06/2020
programs, private or public grants, tax incentives, easements, and fee or less than fee sale to
conservation programs.
Staff Comments: The Committee accepted the CCPC recommendations regarding this new Policy, with
the exceptions of the text struck through in paragraph 3.f.iv.”..for the loss of wetlands or listed species
habitat if those lands if those lands are placed under a perpetual conservation easement with perpetual
maintenance requirements.” The Board had no objections.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment.
Nick Penniman Comments: To remove the requirement to place restored lands in a permanent
conservation easement is an appropriate solution and should be retained in the GMP amendments.
Policy 5.7
Any development on lands not participating in the RLS Program shall be compatible with surrounding
land uses. Within one year of the effective date of this Policy, LDC regulations shall be implemented for
outdoor lighting using standards modeled from the Dark Sky (www.darksky.org) program to protect the
nighttime environment, conserve energy, and enhance safety and security.
Staff Comments: The Committee accepted the CCPC recommendations regarding this new Policy, with
the exception of using standards modeled from the Dark Sky (www.darksky.org) program. The Board
had no objections.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 517 of 518
Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009,
RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s
recommendations.
45
Staff working document 08/06/2020
Proposed Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element
Policy 3.7
Within 12 months after adoption of this policy, the county shall develop a plan for a transportation
network that has been shown to meet the adopted Level of Service (LOS) through the build out of the
county (the “County Build Out Vision Plan”). The build out network shown on the County Build Out
Vision Plan shall define the existing roadways that need to be improved, all proposed roadways, and the
facility type and lane needs. The County Build Out Vision Plan shall be adopted by the MPO, serve as a
guide to future updates of the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), and be reviewed no less than
annually and amended as needed by the MPO to reflect changed circumstances which occur from time to
time. The County Build Out Vision Plan adoption and review shall include a review of land uses within
the County and shall include consideration of the location of public services needed to accommodate the
build out population. These services shall include but are not limited to government offices, jails, court
houses, landfills, maintenance facilities or any other facility that might otherwise require long distance
travel.
Staff Comments: The Committee’s recommendation proposes a new Policy 3.7 of the Transportation
Element as referenced in RLSA Policy 4.5. The CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board had no
objections.
Staff recommends deletion of this Policy to “Within 12 months after adoption of this policy, the county
shall develop a plan for a transportation network that has been shown to meet the adopted Level of
Service (LOS) through the build out of the county (the “County Build Out Vision Plan”). The build out
network shown on the County Build Out Vision Plan shall define the existing roadways that need to be
improved, all proposed roadways, and the facility type and lane needs. The County Build Out Vision Plan
shall be adopted by the MPO, serve as a guide to future updates of the Long Range Transportation Plan
(LRTP), and be reviewed no less than annually and amended as needed by the MPO to reflect changed
circumstances which occur from time to time. The County Build Out Vision Plan adoption and review
shall include a review of land uses within the County and shall include consideration of the location of
public services needed to accommodate the build out population. These services shall include but are not
limited to government offices, jails, court houses, landfills, maintenance facilities or any other facility
that might otherwise require long distance travel.”
The MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan and process serve this purpose. Furthermore, it is not
appropriate for County GMP policy to direct the actions of other agencies, such as “…the County Build
Out Vision Plan shall be adopted by the MPO.” The Vision Plan also has the intent of locating public
services needed to accommodate the build out population. For the purposes of these proposed
amendments, staff suggests Immokalee, which is centrally located to the RLSA, provides many of the
public services needed and has potential for long term future growth. Services specific to the needs of an
SRA should be considered and provided for during the time of SRA application.
ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments.
Nick Penniman Comments: The MPO LRTP extends out to 2050. Roads have driven development for 150
years in Florida. The more appropriate sequence would be for development to be included in the long-
range planning process at a more granular level than the general designations of Sending, Receiving and
Neutral Areas currently in use.
Board Transmittal Hearing 11/10/2020 Page 518 of 518