Agenda 05/18/1999 S COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
Tuesday, May 18, 1999
9=00 a.m.
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF
THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL
LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE
DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER ~PUBLIC
PETITIONS".
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF
THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE
BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY
THE CHAIRWOMAN.
ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE
AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
1. INVOCATION
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. Authorization to submit to DCA proposed language
developed by Staff and the Ad Hoc comprehensive Plan
Standards Committee for remedial amendments in
response to findings of non-compliance of the County's
Growth Management Plan by DCA and the Division of
Administrative Hearings.
4. Adjourn.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS~ COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA
Tuesday, May 18, 1999 %
9:00 A.M.
Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners will meet in the
Board's Chambers on the Third Floor of the Administration Building (Building F) at the Collier
County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, to discuss the review and authorization of
proposed language developed by staff and the Ad Hoc Comprehensive Plan Standards
Committee for remedial amendments in response to findings of non-compliance of the County's
Growth Management Plan by the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs and the
Division of Administrative Hearings, at the above stated time and date.
Copies of the agenda for said meeting will be made available to the press and may be obtained at
the office of the County Administrator, same location, same period of time.
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings
pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, CHAIRWOMAN
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
By:/s/Maureen Kenyon
Deputy Clerk
Community Development & Environmental Services Division
Memorandum
To: The Board of County Commissioners
From: Vincent A. Cautero, AICP, C D & ES Administrator//~
Re: Additional ~formation for May 18, 1999 Board Meeting
Date: Wednesday, May 12, 1999
The Comprehensive Standards Ad Hoc Committee is scheduled to meet on Thursday and
Friday, May 13th and 14th, and tentatively on Monday, May 17th'. Therefore, in addition
to the information contained in the attached executive summary, it will be necessary for
staff to hand deliver additional information to the Board on Friday and Monday
afternoon, as well as on Tuesday morning at the Board meeting.
RECEIVED COUNTy ADMINISTRATORS OFFICE
M~.Y I R 1999
ACTION
FILE
cc: Bob Femandez, County Administrator
Sue Filson, BCC Administrative Assistant
· ~ Bob Mulhere, AICP, Planning¢Services Director
Bill Lorenz, P.E., Natural Resources Director
',~
~ I Agenaa item
A.GE.NDA IIRANSMtTTAL SLIP I ~11."2
Date Submitted: 5/13/99 Requested Agenda Date: 5/18/99
[] (4) Approval of Minutes [] (5) Presentations &Awards [] (6) Approval of Clerk's Report
[] (7) Public Petitions [] (SA) Community, Development [] (SB) PublicWorks
[] (8C) Public Services [] (SD) Support Services [] (BE) County Administrator
I[] (SF) EmerSenc,v Services [] (SG) Airport Authority [] (9) County Attorney
[] (10) BCC [](11A) Other Constitutional Officers [] (11B~ Public Comment
[] (12) Advertised Public HearinSs [] (13A) Board Zonin~ Appeals Adv. P.H. [] (13B) Other
[] (14) Staff Communications [] (15) BCC Communications [] (16) ConsentASenda
[] (17) SummaryA~enda
Requested by: ~ ~ Date: Reviewed by: Date:
Rob~.~re
Division Head: Date: County Administrator: Date:
Vincent A. Cautero Bob Femandez, County Admin.
Item Title: REVIEW AND AUTHORIZIZATION OF PROPOSED LANGUAGE DEVELOPED BY STAFF AND THE AD
HOC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STANDARDS COMMITTEE FOR REMEDIAL AMENDMENTS IIN RESPONSE TO
FINDINGS OF NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE COUNTY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN BY THE DMSION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
List of Documents Attached:
1. Executive Summary (required) 2. Judge Meale's Recommended Order
3. DCA Correspondence 4. Staff Draft Remedial Amendments of March 19, 1999
5. Comprehcnsive Plan Standard Ad Hoc Committee Recommendation 6. Draft Interim Policy for Rural Area
of May 10, 1999
7. Draft Amendments for Urban Area
EXECUTIVE SUMNIARY
REVIEW AND AUTHORIZATION OF PROPOSED LANGUAGE DEVELOPED BY
STAFF AND THE AD HOG COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STANDARDS COMMITTEE
FOR REMEDIAL AMENDMENTS IN RESPONSE TO FINDINGS OF NON-
COMPLIANCE OF THE COUNTY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN BY THE
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND THE
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS.
OBJECTIVE:
To provide the Board with the recommendations of the staff and the Comprehensive Plan
Standards Ad Hoc Committee for remedial amendments in response to findings of non-
compliance of the County' s Growth Management Plan by the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs and the Division of Administrative Hearings. Additionally staff is requesting
authorization from the Board to include the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan
Standards Ad Hoc Committee and the interim polices restricting development on certain lands in
the rural area in the County's proposed remedial amendments.
CONSIDERATIONS:
On May 11, 1999, the Board received a progress report from the Comprehensive Plan Standards
Ad Hoc Committee on its recommendations for revisions to the cjustering and natural resource
protections standards for the Growth Management Plan's proposed settlement agreement and
subsequent remedial amendments. At this meeting the Board requested that the Committee
continue its efforts to develop these standards and report back to the Board at a special meeting
to be held on May 18, 1999.
At the March 19, 1999 workshop on the proposed remedial amendments, the Board accepted a
proposal by a contingent of large property owners in the rural area of Collier County to conduct a
comprehensive and strategic analysis of the rural area. The cost of the study, estimated to be
approximately $500, 000, is to be boume by the contingent of property owners. It was estimated
by the consulting firm of Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc., representing this contingent of
rural property owners, that the comprehensive strategic plan for the rural area is expected to take
betxveen two and three years to complete.
The planning process will have four stages: data collection and analysis; land use research and
analysis; impact analysis of various land use scenarios; and plan amendment preparation and
review. At the March 19, 199 workshop, Shaw P. Stiller, Assistant General Counsel for DCA,
and Charles Gauthier, Growth Management Administrator, indicated that in order defer remedial
amendments in the rural area, the County should develop an interim policy limiting development
activities in this area during the time in which the strategic comprehensive plan for this area is
being developed. Attorney George Vamadoe, representing the contingent of rural property
owners, offered to draft an interim policy for Board consideration. The draft interim policy
prepared by Mr. Vamadoe is attached to this Executive Summary.
Staff has reviewed the draft interim polic~ and finds that it does provide for adequate safeguards
limiting development and protecting resources in this area during the ccyrr~rehensix,; ~tza~A ITEM
plan development period. Specifically, the policy calls for the development of an E~ sternoilier
County Properties Overlay Area (ECCPOA) and provides for the following limitati. ,ns:
MAY 18 1999
L
a. No additional residential development will be penrAtted, except farm
worker housing or housing directly related to support flaming operations;
b. No new golf courses will be allowed;
c. There will be no extension of public water or sewer service to the
ECCPOA for non-agricultural purposes; and
d. Agricultural activities shall be subject to permitting requirements of the
South Florida Water Management District and other regulatory authorities,
as currently required.
As structured, this policy would only apply to the areas that fall within the boundaries of the
Eastern Collier County Properties Overlay Area (map attached hereto). This does not include all
of the rural lands. There are several options for handling lands not including in the proposed
ECCPOA. The Board could direct staff to subject all lands in the rural area to the development
restrictions proposed for the ECCPOA during the rural lands strategic plan development period
(basically prohibiting residential and golf course development during the study period).
However, staff is of the opinion that the areas not included in the Overlay Area are remote rural
lands and there is little likelihood of these properties being used for any purpose other than
permitted agricultural uses during the study period.
The rural lands closest to the urban areas of Collier County, and thus most likely to be subject to
development pressure are covered by the restrictions contained in the interim policy. Other
lands in the rural area would remain subject to the policies set forth in the County's adopted plan,
or to any remedial amendments ultimately adopted. Upon completion of the strategic plan for
the rural area, all property owners will have an opportunity to review and comment on any
recommended plan changes.
Staff is currently preparing a detailed response to Judge Meale's recommended order and
requires direction from the Board as to what specific language for cjustering, preservation, and
natural resource protection standards shall be included in the County proposed remedial
amendments. This response must be received by the DCA by May 21, 1999. Staff is intending to
have this response delivered to the DCA on May 19, 1999 to allow an opportunity for DCA staff
to review the document.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact directly associated with this executive summary. If the Administration
commission directs the County to take remedial action, failure to complete that remedial action
within prescribed time flames may result in financial sanctions.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT:
Upon authorization form the Board, staff will transmit to the DCA the County's proposed
remedial amendments in response to Administrative Law Judge Meale's finding of non-
compliance. The DCA will present their recommendations to the Cabinet Aides on June 2, 1999.
The Governor and cabinet sitting as the Administration Commi'ss'tion will hear the matter on June
8 1999. Based upon the findings of the Administration Commission, amendments '~ the
' · · AGENO,,,
County's Growth Management Plan wfil be reqmred.
MAY 18 1999
pg.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board review the proposed remedial amendments developed by staff and by the
Comprehensive Plan Standards Ad Hoc Committee, and the interim policy for rural agricultural
lands, and formally direct staff to transmit these remedial amendments to the State of Florida
Department of Community Affairs.
~[ncent A. Cautero, AICP, Administrator
Community Development & Environmental Services
MAY 18 1S99
p~.
Judge Meale' s Recommended Order
AGENDA ITEM
No. ~
MAY 18 19~9
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY )
AFFAIRS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
and )
)
COLLIER COUNTY AUDUBON )
SOCIETY, INC., and FLORIDA )
WILDLIFE FEDERATION, )
)
Intervenors, ) Case No. 98-0324GM
vs. )
)
COLLIER COUNTY, )
Respondent, )
and
)
COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )
)
' Intery. enor. )
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Robert E. Meale, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of
Administrative Hearings, conducted the final hearing in Naples,
Florida, on May 4-8, 1998.
APP~_JhoJ~NCES
For Petitioner: Shaw P. Stiller
Colin M. Roopnarine
Assistant General Counsel
b~partment of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard AG~NOA~TFJ~
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 N~..
MAY
P~,.
For intervenors Collier County Audubon Society and
Florida Wildlife Federation:
Thomas W. Reese
2951 61st Avenue South
Saint Petersburg, Florida 33712
For Res~ondent: Marjorie M. Student
Rodney C. Wade
Assistant County Attorneys
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
For intervenor Collier County School Board:
Richard D. Yovanovich
Roetzel &Artdress
850 Park Shore Drive
Naples, Florida 34103
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue is whether the plan amendments adopted by
Ordinances 97-56, 97-59, 97-61, 97-63, 97-64, 97-66, and 97-67
are in compliance with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes,
and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
By petition dated January 14, 1998, Petitioner alleged that
Respondent amended its Growth Management Plan by adopting
Ordinances 97-56, 97-59, 97-61, 97-63, 97-64, 97-66, and 97-67.
The petition alleges that these plan amendments are not in
compliance with various provisions of Chapter 163, Part II,
Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.
The petition incorporates the Statement of Intent, which alleges
AGENOA ~IF3~
HAY 18 lg,q9
S
that the ordinances made unlawful amendments to four elements,
two subelements, the future land use map, and one master plan.
Issue 1. As for the Intergovernmental Coordination Element,
the Statement of Intent alleges that the ~lan allows' schools to
be located in all land uses, except jurisdictional wetlands,
which could encourage urban sprawl. Citing Section
163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, the Statement of Intent alleges
that the Plan, including Intergovernmental Coordination Element
Policy 1.2.6, lacks policies establishing guidelines or criteria
to ensure that schools are located proximate to residential
development, fails to identify which land uses may be
incompatible with schools, and fails to prohibit locating schools
on environmentally sensitive lands, such as unique native
habitats and habitats for endangered species.
For remedial action, the Statement of Intent recommends that
Respondent revise Ordinance 97-56 to establish guidelines or
criteria in Intergovernmental Coordination Element Policy 1.2.6
to ensure that schools are located proximate to residential
development, identify land uses that may be incompatible with
schools, and provide that schools should not be located on
environmentally sensitive lands.
IsSUe 2,. As for the Natural Groundwater Aqfuifer Recharge
Subelement, the Statement of Intent alleges that Respondent
AGENOA ITEM
~revised Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Subelem~ ~t ~ective
MAY 18 1S 9
1.2 to implement the "Ground Water Protection Ordinance" to
protect groundwater resources and acfuifer recharge areas. Citing
~ Rules 9J-5,003(86) and 9j-5,011(2)(b)5, Florida Administrative
Code, the Statement of Intent alleges that the objec6ive fails to
define the level of protection to be extended to groundwater
resources and aquifer recharge areas.
The Statement of Intent also alleges that Respondent revised
Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Subelement Policies 1.2.1
through 1.2.4 to provide that the "Ground Water Protection
Ordinance" would apply to existing and future development.
Citing Rules 9J-5.003(95) and 9J-5.011(2)(c)4, Florida
Administrative Code, the Statement of Intent alleges that these
policies are vague and fail to establish guidelines, standards,
-- or criteria for applying the ordinance to development for the
protection of the functions of groundwater recharge areas.
For remedial action, the Statement of Intent recommends that
Respondent amend Ordinance 97-59 to define a measurable aim,
intent, or effect for Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge
Subelement Objective 1.2 and to establish criteria in Natural
Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Subelement Policies 1.2.1 through
1.2.4 for applying the "Ground Water Protection Ordinance" to
development for the protection of the functions of groundwater
recharge areas.
AGENOA
18
Issue 3. As for the Drainage Subelement, the Statement of
Intent alleges that Respondent revised Drainage Subelement Policy
1.1.2 to provide that Respondent will implement the land
development code and authority delegated to it by the South
Florida Water Management District to ensure that pre- and post-
development discharge rates are monitored and adequate water
management capacity will be available to serve approved
developments. Citing Rules 9J-5.003(95) and 9J-5.011(2)(c)4,
F!crida Administrative Code, the Statement of Intent alleges that
Drainage Subelement Policy 1.1.2 fails to specify guidelines,
standards, or criteria for discharge rates and adequate water
management capacity and thus fails to protect natural drainage
features.
For remedial action, the Statement of Innent recommends that
Respcndent imend Ordinance 97-61 to establish guidelines or
criteria in Drainage Subelement Policy 1.1.2 for discharge rates
and adequate water management capacity and thus to protect
natural drainage features.
Issue 4. As for the Housing Element, the Statemen~ of
intent alleges that Respondent has not used the best available
data for determining farmworker housing needs. The Statement of
Intent alleges that the Shimberg Center at the University of
Florida has estimated a ~eficit of 2645 units of farmwo~
AGE. NDA ITEM
housing in Collier~County. The Statement of Intent all~
6 pg. ~ _
.... ~.~=~ l~ re]ecCeG ~hese data because they fail to account
for recent downturns in local agricultural operations, but
Respondent has failed to cite data to support its concerns.
Citing Rules 9J-5.005(2)(c), 9J-5.010(2)(b), 9J-5.010(3)(b)l, and
9J-5.010(3)(c)5, Florida Administrative Code, the Statement of
Intent alleges that the omission of the best available data
hinders the development of pertinent objectives and policies
concerning farmworker housing needs.
Citing Rule 9J-5.010(3)(c)5, Florida Administrative Code,
the Statement of Intent alleges that Ordinance 97-63 fails to
include policies providing guidelines or criteria for the
location of farmworker housing.
For remedial action, the Statement of Intent recommends that
Respondent amend Ordinance 97-63 to include the best available
data regarding the needs for farmworker housing and revise or add
any objectives or policies needed to address any deficiencies.
The Statement of Intent also recommends that Respondent amend
Ordinance 97-63 to add policies providing farmworker-housing
locaniona! guidelines and criteria, possibly including factors
such as proximity to places of work, transit services, and
hospitals.
Issue 5- As for the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, the
Statement of Intent alleges that Respondent replaced Golden Gate
Maszer Plan Policy 2.2.3, which had applied Chapter 28-n~.AGEN~AiTEM
7 18 J999
.,._/o
Florida Administrative Code, to all of South Golden Gate Estates,
with Golden Gate Master Plan Policy 2.1.4, which applies Chapter
28-25 only to the portion of South Golden Gate Estates that is
within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern. The
Statement of Intent alleges that Chapter 28-25 restricts site
alterations and construction of drainage facilities. Citing
Rules 9J-5.005(2) (a) , 9j-5.013(2) (c)3, 9J-5.013(2) (c)5,
9j-5.013(2) (c)6, 9J-5.013(2) (c}9, 9J-5.D13(3) (a) , and
9J-5.013 (3)(b) , Florida Administrative Code, the Statement of
Intent asserts that these changes are not supported by data and
analysis demonstrating that natural resources, such as wetlands,
native habitats, and listed species, will be adequately protected
within the part cf South Golden Gate Estates that is outside of
the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern.
For remedial action, the Statement of Intent recommends that
Resmondent amend Ordinance 97-64 to include data and analysis
evaluating existing resources, including wetlands, native
habitats, and listed species, within the South Golden Gate
Estates area; evaluate the level of protection that Plan policies
provide to these natural resources; and amend Golden Gate Master
Plan Policy 2.1.4 or add new policies to provide for the
protection of these resources consistent with the level of
protection given these resources by the provisions of b~nr~r
~ ~AGENOAITEM
28-25, Florida Administrative Code. ~' ~
MAY 18 1999
Issue 6. As for the Conservation and Coastal Management
Element, the Statement of Intent alleges that RespondenC revised
Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objectives 1.1 and
1.3 to authorize the Board of County Commissioners, in a process
described in Conservation Appendix D, to designate
environmentally sensitive areas as Natural Resource Protection
Areas. The County's failure to submit Appendix D to Petitioner
precluded a determination that the Natural Resource Protection
Areas program can effectively protect natural resources. Citing
Rules 9j-5.005(2)(a), 9J-5.012(3)(b), 9J-5.012(3)(c),
9J-5,013(2)(b)2-4, 9J-5.0!3(2)(c), and 9J-5.013(3), Florida
Administrative Code, the Statement of Intent asserts that data
and analysis do not support these changes concerning Natural
Resource Protection Areas.
For remedial action, the Statement of Intent recommends that
Respondent amend Ordinance 97-66 to include the necessa~¢ data
and analysis to describe the designation process for the Natural
Resource Protection Areas program and to demonstrate that the
program is viable and sufficient to protect the natural
resources.
Issue 7. The Statement of Intent alleges that Respondent
failed to submit Conservation and Coastal Management Element
Appendix E, which was to be an analysis and inventory of natural
A~A ITEM
disaster concerns, such as the number of persons reqfuir:.ng~ ~
9
evacuation, number of persons requiring public shelter, number of
available shelter spaces, evacuation routes, constraints on
evacuation, and evacuation times. Citing Rules 9j-5.005(2)(a),
9j-5.012(2) (e)l, 9J-5.012(3) (b) 7, and 9J-5.012(3) (c)4, Florida
Administrative Code, the Statement ~f Intent alleges that
Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objective 12.1, which
is to maintain or reduce hurricane evacuation times, and Policy
12.1.2, which is to promote the maintenance or reduction of
hurricane evacuation times through the regulation of land use
amendments, are no~ supported by data and analysis.
For remedial action, the Statement of Intent recommends that
Respondent amend Ordinance 97-66 to include an analysis and
inventory of natural disaster concerns, including the number of
persons requiring evacuation, number of persons requiring public
shelter, number cf available shelter spaces, evacuation routes,
constrainms on evacuation, and evacuation times.
Issue 8. Citing Rules 9J-5.003(19) and 9J-5.[0]12(3)(c)7,
Florida Administrative Code, the Statement of Intent alleges that
Respondent revised Conservation and Coastal Management Element
Policy 12.2.5 to deEine the Coastal High Hazard Area
inaccurately.
For remedial action, the Statement of Intent recommends that
Respondent amend Ordinan~ 97-66 to define the Coastal High
Hazard Area within Conservation and Coastal Management E1
MAY {8 {999
10
Y~liCy 12.2.5 as the Category 1 evacuation zone, as delineated in
the Regional Evacuation Study.
Issue 9. The Statement of Intent alleges that Respondent
revised Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objective 6.3
to clarify that transitional zone wetlands are defined by state
and federal permitting requirements. The Statement of Intent
alleges that the revised objective lacks a meaningful measure
because it requires only that a "portion" of these wetlands be
preserved in non-agricultural development. Citing Rules
9J-5.003(86) and 9J-5.012(3)(b)l, Florida Administrative Code,
the Statement of Intent alleges that Conservation and Coastal
Management Element Objective 6.3 thus does not protect the
wetlands.
For remedial action, the Statement of Intent recommends that
Respondent amend Ordinance 97-66 to define a measurable aim,
intent, or effect for Conservation and Coastal Management Element
Objective 6.3 for the protection of wetlands in non-agricultural
development.
Issue 10. The Statement of Intent alleges that Respondent
revised Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objective 7.3
to provide that Respondent shall continue to develop and
implement programs for the protection of wildlife, including
measures for the protection or relocation of listed species. The
Statement of Intent alleges that the objective is vague
AGEHOA/TEM
MAY 18 1999
concerning the level of protection for listed species. Citing
Rules 9J-5.003(86) and 9J-5.013(2)(b)4, Florida Administrative
Code, the Statement of Intent alleges that Conservation and
Coastal Management Element Objective 7.3 does not provide for the
protection of listed species.
For remedial action, the Statement of Intent recommends that
Respondent amend Ordinance 97-66 to define an aim, intent, or
effect for Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objective
7.3 that can be meaningfully measured for the protection of
listed species.
Issue 11. The Statement of Intent alleges that Respondent
revised Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objective
to require Respondent to implement the local storage-tank
compliance program to protect water quality. Citing Rules
9J-5.003(86) and 9J-5.013(2)(b)2, Florida Administrative Code,
the Statement of Intent alleges that Conservation and Coastal
Management Element Objective 9.4 is vague concerning the level of
protection for water quality and thus fails to protect
groundwater resources.
For remedial action, the Statement of Intent recommends that
Respondent amend Ordinance 97-66 to define an aim, intent, or
effect for Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objective
9.4 that can be meaningfully measured for the protection of
AGENOAITEM
aroundwater resources.
HAY 18 1999
!2
Issue 12. The Statement of Intent alleges that Respondant
revised Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objective 9.5
to require Respondent to implement the "Ground Water Protection
Ordinance" to regulate the use of septic tanks serving industrial
uses. Citing Rules 9J-5.003(86) and 9J-5.013(2)(b)2, Florida
Administrative Code, the Statement of Intent alleges that
Conservation and Coastal Management Objective 9.5 is vague
concerning the level of protection for water'quality and thus
fails to protect groundwater resources.
For remedial action, the Statement of Intent recommends that
Respondant amend Ordinance 97-66 to define an aim, intent, or
effect for Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objective
9.5 that can be meaningfully measured for the protection of
groundwater resources.
Issue 13. The Statement of Intent alleges that Respondant
revised Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objective
10.6 (the Statement of Intent erroneously refers to Objective
11.6) to require Respondant to implement the Coastal Barrier and
Beach System Management Program of the land development code by
conserving habitats, species, shoreline, and dunes within the
coastal zone. Citing Rules 9j-5.003(86), 9J-5.012(3)(b)l,
9J-5.013(2)(b)2, 9J-5.013(2)(b)3, and 9J-5.013(2)(b)4, Florida
Administrative Code, the Statement of Inten~ alleges that
~ AGENOAITEM '
Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objective 10.6 isN~ ~
MAY 18 1999
vague concerning the level of protection for coastal resources
and thus fails to protect coastal resources.
For remedial action, the Statement of Intent recommends that
Respondent amend Ordinance 97-66 to define a measurable aim,
intent, or effect for Conservation and Coastal Management Element
Objective 10.6 for the protection of coastal resources.
Issue 14. As for the Future Land Use Element and Future
Land_Use Map, the Statement of Intent alleges that Future Land
Use Element Policy 3.1.d and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge
Subelement Policies 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 provide only that Respondent
shall implement its "Ground Water Protection Ordinance" to
protect wellfields. Citing Rules 9J-5.003(95) and
9j-5.006(3)(c)6, the Statement of intent alleges that these
policies do not specify appropriate land uses'in wellfield
protection areas.
For remedial action, the S~atement of intent recommends that
Respcndent amend Ordinance 97-67 to provide guidelines or
criteria in Future Land Use Element Policy 3.1.d for the
application of the "Ground Water Protection Ordinance" tc land
use approvals and to identify land uses that are inappropriate
for the protection of wellfields.
Issue 15. The Statement of Intent alleges that Respondent
amended the Future Land Use Map to'~elineate the Coastal High
Hazard Arek~based on the CaEegory ! storm evacuation zone, ~s AGE. NI:)A}TE!~
~o
~,~L~ec my nne Emergency Management Director. The Statement
of Intent alleges that the best available data dictate that
Respondent delineate the Coastal High Hazard Area based on the
Category 1 storm evacuation zone, as determined by the Regional
Evacuation Study. The Statement of Intent alleges that the
Coastal High Hazard Area shown on the Future Land Use Map is
inconsistent with the Regional Evacuation Study, 1995 update,
because of the omission of part of the Copeland/Fakahatchee
evacuation zone. Citing Rules 9j-5.003(19) 9J-5.005(2)(c), and
9J-S.006(4)[b]6, the Statement of Intent objects to the omission
of the Copeland/Fakahatchee evacuation zone from the delineation
of the Coastal High Hazard Area on the Future Land Use Map.
For remedial action, the Statement of Intent recommends that
Respondent amend Ordinance 97-67 to delineate the Coastal High
Hazard Area on the Future Land Use Map to incorporate at least
the area defined by the Regional Evacuation Study as the Category
! evacuation zone.
Issue 16. As for the State comprehensive plan, the
Statement of Intent alleges that uncited provisions of
Respondenn's plan are inconsistent with the following provisions
oE the State comprehensive plan: Policies 8.2, 8.9, 8.10, 8.12,
9.4, 9.9, 10.1, 10.3, 10.7, and 26.7. The Statement of Intent
recommends that Respondent revise the plan amendments to achieve
AGENOA
consistency with the cited provisions of the State comprehensive
plan.
In their petition to intervene, Interrotors Collier County
Audubon Society, Inc., and Florida Wildlife Federation adopted
the i~sues raised by Petitioner Department of Community Affairs.
At the hearing, Intervenors dismissed their challenge of the
Golden Gate Master Plan (Issue 5).
By notice of hearing issued February 23, 1998, the
Administrative Law Judge set the case for final hearing on
May 4-8, 1998.
By orders dated March 4 and 11, 1998, respectively, the
Administrative Law Judge granted motions for leave to intervene
filed by Collier County Audubon Society, Inc., and Florida
wildlife Federation. In their motions, both interrotors
incorporated the issues, a!thcugh not the proposed remedies,
identified in Petitioner's Statement of Intent.
On April 8, 1998, Petitioner and Respondent Collier County
filed a Joint Motion for Continuance. The joint motion states
that the parties were trying to settle the case and needed more
time for negotiations. Although the joint motion cites Section
1E3.3184(10)(c), Florida Statutes, which requires a stay pending
'~ AGENOAITEM
a "mediation or other alternative dispute resolution," t le ~
MAY 18 1999
16
parties did not ask for a stay under the language of this statue.
By pleading filed April 10, 1998, Intervenors Collier County
Audubon Society, Inc., and Florida Wildlife Federation opposed
the continuance and requested an expedited hearing, pursuaBt to
Section 163.3189(3), Florida Statutes. By reply filed April 6,
1998, Respondent stated that further settlement discussions would
likely resolve some, but not all, of the issues.
By order entered April 21, 1998, but anhounced to the
parties on April 13, the Administrative Law Judge denied the
joint motion for continuance. The administrative law judge
granted the request for an expedited hearing.
The Collier County School Board filed a Petition to
Intervene cn April 20, 1998, and an Amended Petition to Intervene
on April 22, 1998. In the petitions, the Collier County School
Board sought to join Respondent in defending certain of the plan
amendments. The Administrative Law Judge granted the Amended
Petition to Intervene at the start of the hearing.
On April 27, 1998, Respondent filed a Motion for Formal
Mediation, pursuant to Section 163.3184(10(c), Florida Statutes.
Petitioner joined in this motion by response filed April 29,
1998. The Administrative Law Judge denied this motion at the
start of the hearing.
On April 30, 1998, Elfra Madilus filed a Petition for Leave
AGENOAITEM
to intervene as Petitioner. In a telephone call in the rega~nce ~
MAY 18 1999
17
of the other parties, the Administrative Law Judge stated to the
attorney for Mr. Madilus the dates set aside for the final
hearing, but neither the attorney nor Mr. Madilus appeared at
anytime. By the end o~ the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge
denied the petition to intervene of Mr. Madilus.
At the hearing, Petitioner called five witnesses and offered
into evidence Exhibits 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, 35, 39 and 41.
Intervenors Collier County Audubon Society, inc., and Florida
Wildlife Federation called four witnesses and offered into
evidence Exhibits 1-8. Respondent called seven witnesses and
offered into evidence Exhibits 1-25. Intervenor Collier County
School Board called five witnesses and offered into evidence
Exhibits 1, 2, 5-10 and 14. All eTahibits were admitted.
The cour~ reporter filed the transcrip~ on July 10, 1998.
FINDINGS OF FACT
!. Backaround
1. On November 14, 1997, Respondent Collier County (the
County) adopted numerous amendments to its Growth Management Plan
(the Plan). The County adopted these Plan amendments (the Plan
Amendments) pursuant to its Evaluation and Appraisal Report
(EAR). By law, local governments must assess their comprehensive
plans every seven years and prepare an EAR.
2. On December 24, 1997, Petitioner Department of Community
pla~GENoA[Fa~
Affairs (DCA) published its Notice of Intent to find the
MAY
Z8
Amendments not in compliance with the criteria of Chapter 163,
Part II, Florida Statutes (Chapter 163), and Chapter 9J-5,
Florida Administrative Code (Chapter 9J-5). A detailed Statement
of Intent is attached to the Notice of intent.
3. The petition of DCA incorporates the Statement of
Intent. The petition of Intervenors Collier County Audubon
Society, Inc., and Florida Wildlife Federation (Intervenors) also
incorporates by reference the Statement of Intent. The petitions
ci. te 16 grounds for a detei~nination that the Plan Amendments are
not in compliance with Chapter 163 and Chapter 9J-5, although, at
hearing, Intervenors dropped Issue 5.
4. Intervenor Collier County School Board (School Board)
intervened to defend the Plan Amendments regarding the siting of
schools.
5. The parties stipulated to the standing of all of the
parties.
6. The Plan, as amended by the Plan Amendments (County
Exhibit 1), discloses repealed and added language by strikeouts
and underlines, respectively. All but two of the issues involve
amended Plan provisions. The two exceptions are the
Innergovernmen~a! Coordination Element (ICE) (Issue 1) and
Housing Element (Issue 4).
7. In Issue 1, DCA and Intervenors challenge ICE Policy
!.2.6 and its-~ffect of allowing schools to be sited anywh~[re ~ENDA~]~J~
Collier County. Although the County did no~ amend ICE Policy
1.2.6, it substantially amended another Plan provision with the
_ effect of relaxing restrictions on the siting of schools.
8. In issue 4, DCA and Interrotors challenge Plan
provisions governing farmworker housing as not supported by the
best available data and analysis. Although the County did not
amend these Plan provisions, Petitioner and Intervenors contend
that updated data and analysis demanded that the County d~ so.
II. Issue 1
9. ICE Policy 1.2.6 states:
The County shall continue to coordinate with
the Collier County School Board on the site
selection for new schools and the provision
of infrastructure, particularly roads, to
support existing and proposed school
facilities in accordance with the Znter!oca!
_ Agreement adopted in accordance with Chapter
163.3177 F.S. cn June 25, 1996.
10. Although unamended by the Plan Amendments, ICE Policy
1.2.6 is subject to challenge because of the effect of other ~
amendments on school siting.
1!. Plan Amendments in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE)
affect schoolssiting, but the effect of other Plan Amendments is
to restrict slightly school-siting s~andards.
12. For instance, prior to the Plan Amendments, the Plan
generally allowed schools in areas designated Agricultural/Rural.
As amended, FLUE II.g adds some restrictions to schools c~ ~AdEND~FFc~
use in areas designated Agricultural/Rural. This provision
reads:
Community facilities such as churches, crOUP
housinc uses, cemeteries, and schools which
shall be subject to the followin~ criteria:
* Site area and school size shall be
subject to the General Educational
Facilities Report submitted annual!v
by the Collier County School Board to
the Board of County Commissioners.
L The Site must comoly.with the State
Rec~uirements for Educational Facilities
adopted by th~ State Board of Education.
,The site shall be subiect to all
aDo!icable State or Federal Reculations.
13. The County made the identical change in permitting
schools in the Conservation designation. For the Urban
designation, the County repealed the identical former language,
but, in adding schools as a permitted use, did not include the
-- three bu!leted provisions quoted above.
14. However, a Plan Amendment to the SaniTary Sewer
Subelement (Sanita.~y Sewer) outweighs the slight restrictions
added in The Plan Amendments to the FLUE and results in a net
relaxation of the school-siting standards. In The Plan
Amendments, the County repealed Sanitary Sewer Subelement
(Sanita?f Sewer) Policy 1.1.6, which provided:
~'z ....... z ~, ~, , ...... c__,cria
= for .... Z" z
- MAY 1899
P~. ~
15. Prior to its repeal, Sanitary Sewer Policy 1.1.6
threatened the continued reliance on septic tanks, especially for
more intensive uses, such as schools. AlEhough reliance upon
septic tanks is not the School Board's preferred means of
disposing of sanitary sewage, the School Board has determined
that the use of septic tanks is economically feasible. At
present, septic tanks exclusively serve the sanitary sewer needs
of one public school, Big Cypress Elementary School, which is
located on Golden Gate Boulevard east of State Road 951 and is
artended by over 1000 students.
16. As long as Sanitary Sewer Policy 1.1.6 was in effect,
the School Distric~ was on notice that its ability to site
schools without regard to The availability of central sewer,
i~c!uding larger package plants, was in doubt. The repeal of
Sanitary Sewer Policy 1.1.6 eliminates that doubt and invites
school-siting decisions without regard tc Plan-imposed, cr at
!~ast -threatened, requirements of central sewer. As a result of
the Plan Amendments, ~he Plan effectively allows the School
District ~o site schools through the entire range of future land
use designations, including conservation areas.
17. In place of regulating school uses like o~her land
uses--i..e,, in the Plan--~he County instead has elected to '~.
AGENOA ITEM
MAY 18 1999
22
resolve school-siting issues through another means--.i-e., an
Interlocal Agreement, which is mentioned in Sanitary Sewer
Policy 1.2.6. However, the use of the Interlocal Agreement,
rather than the Plan, attenuates public participation, precludes
plan challenges by the public or DCA under Chapters 163 and 9j-5,
and fails to ensure that the two parties will site schools
consistent with the minimum criteria of Chapters 163 and 9J-5.
18. Withdrawing school-siting decisions from the
comprehensive planning process interferes with the ability of the
Plan to address the demand that schools will place upon public
facilities, such as traffic, sewer, water, solid waste, drainage,
and recreation.
19. As do the County and School Board in the Interlocal
Agreement, the Florida Department of Education likewise
recognizes the direct effects of school siting. Section 1.4(2)
of the State Requirements for Educational Facilities, 1997,
published by the Florida Department of Education, identifies
numerous factors that school boards should consider in siting
schools, including the compatibility of uses of adjacent
property, the capacity of roads, and the effect (on the
buildings) of siting in a floodplain.
20. As the floodplain can affect the school, so the school
can affect the floodplain, but the effects of schools on natural
and manmade resources receives little, if any, attention =~ ui a ^lF
State Requirements for Educational Facilities or the Interlocal
Agreement. When addressing public facilities, the educational
planning documents focus on the effects upon the users of the
school, such as the capacity of the roads to accommodate the
parents driving the'ir children to school or the location of the
school in an area safe from flooding.
21. Schools also have indirect effects on natural and
manmade resources, especially when a public school is sited in a
relatively undeveloped area. Induced sometimes by the
availability of relative inexpensive land and developer-provided
incentives, the construction of a public school exemplifies the
"if you build it, they will come" scenario. The construction of
a public school may compete with excess road capacity as a
deve!opment-attractor to-a relatively undeveloped area within a
larger area undergoing brisk population growth. Thus, school-
siting decisions may have large indirect effects on the natural
and manmade resources in an area, well in excess of the impact of
the school itself or the demand upon public facilities made by
its users·
22. DCA and !ntervenors have proved by a preponderance of
the evidence that, after consideration of the Plan Amendments
affecting the siting of schools, ICE Policy 1.2.6 is inconsistent
with the criterion of designating the future general
~ AGENDA ITEM
distribution, location, and extent of educational uses of and~
MAY 18
2~
23. By ignoring the issue of school-siting in the Plan, the
County has failed to address, in the planning process and in the
Plan, issues such as the proximity of schools to existing or
future residential development, the identification of land uses
incompatible with schools, and the prohibition of the siting of
schools in locations that fail to preserve environmentally
sensitive lands, such as floodplains, unique native habitats, or
habitats for listed species. By relaxing its school-siting
standards, the Plan fails to meet the pleaded minimum criteria of
land use planning and forfeits an opportunity to discourage urban
sprawl and encourage a comprehensive planning solution to the
challenges of population growth and the development and
redeve!opment of land.
III. Issue 2
24. As amended, Natural Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge
Subelement (Groundwater) Objective 1.2 replaces a promise to
adopt a groundwater protection ordinance by August 1, 1989, with
the following:
Implement the Collier County Ground Water
Protection Ordinance that includes:
reoulation Of land use activities County-wide
as well as within well field protection zones
surroundino identified public water supply
wellfields and i~en~ified sensitive recharoe
areaS; and CQUn~y-widQ ~.roUnd.wa~er cFuali~Y
criteria, to protect the County's ~.~ound
water resources as well as sensitive recharge
'a~reas. ' AGENDA ITEM
MAY iS leSS
25. Groundwater Policies 1.2.1 through 1.2.4 provide:
surface activiticz. Aoply action criteria
specified in the Collier County Ground Water
protection Ordinance to both existinc and
future reculated development accordinq
procedures specified in the Ordinance to
protect the County's qround water resources.
12 2 ~ ~ ........ ~ continue Apply
criteria for ~round water protection
Specified in enforcement procedures specified
in the Ordinance, to provide an appropriate
level of protection to sensitive recharge
areas.
activiticz. Apply the .criteria of those
sections of the Collier County Ground Water
Protection Ordinance than address: breachinc
of confinite units by improper well
constructioD, rock mininc an~ other
e~cavamions, blasting, and other similar
activities to ~rotect recharce of the
Surficial Acuifer System, to
planned/permitted future development.
...... ' ' ' ~"~icaticn
0 ......................... z .... C .... ~ ~t~C
..... ~ ImnlementatiQn of the Collier
County Ground Wa~er PrQ~eGtion Ordinance will
follow OrdinanGe ~rocedures, and other
in~'~a! Coun~y.~rQC¢~ures in a manner to
minimize duplication Qf ¢ffQr~ amQn~ County,.
m~LniciDal, and S~e a~encies.
26. DCA and interrotors have proved by a preponderance of
the evidence tha~ Groundwater Objective 1.2 does not supply a
AGENOASTEM
specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable nd~. ~
MAY 18 1999
2~
~rxs progress toward a goal. As presently formulated, this
objective is nothing but a promise of the implementation of a
land development regulation whose regulatory content or
performance criteria are omitted from the Plan. The objective
defers the establishment of regulatory content and performance
standards to the land development regulations. The objective
itself offers no protection to the groundwater resources or
aquifer recharge areas because the County has relegated this
crucial task to the land development regulations.
27. The deferral and re!egation of regulateD/content and
performance standards--required by Chapters 163 and 9J-5--to the
land development regulations gravely undermines the entire
comprehensive planning process for several reasons.
28. Through deferral and relegation, the County retains the
ability to amend or repeal the regulatory content and performance
standards without a Plan amendment, which means without the
public participation, agency review, and opportunity forI a
hearing that must accompany Plan amendments. Through deferra!
and relegation, the County insulates the regulatory content and
performance criteria that are required to be in the Plan from
determinations of consistency with the criteria of Chapters 163
and 9J-5 (including the crucial criteria of minimum content and
supporting data and analysis), the regional policy plan, and the
state comprehensive plan. '~ AG~AITEM
29. Deferral and relegation to land development regulations
do not insulate the provisions setting regulatory content and
performance criteria from a consistency determination with the
provisions of the Plan. HoweVer, the deferral and relegation
effectively limit substantially affected persons to challenging
the consistency of the land development regulations with the
Plan, although this may be a meaningless right if the Plan lacks
the required regulatory content and performance standards,
against which the land development regulations may be compared.
Also, because the comparison is between a land development
regulation and Plan provision, the result of a finding of any
inconsistency raises the likelihood of the elimination of the
land development regulation, rather than the Plan provision with
which it is in conflict, due to the relative ease of amendment or
repeal of land development regulations as opposed to Plan
provisions.
30. Lastly, through deferral and relegation, the County
insulates any regu!atory content and performance criteria from an
enforcement action, under Chapter 163, concerning development
orders that are inconsistent with Plan provisions. Although
other enforcement actions may be available for development orders
inconsistent with land development regulations, the Chapter 163
action provides the added safeguards of statutory intervention by
MAY 18 19g9
2e
the Florida Department of Legal Affairs and recognition of
relatively broad standing among private parties.
31. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of
the evidence that the four policies do not identify programs and
activities by which the County will achieve the planning goals or
objectives that the policies are supposed to serve. Like.
Groundwater Objective 1.2, Policies 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, and
1.2.4 improperly defer and relegate to the land development
regulations the identification of those programs and activities
that are required to be in the Plan. The policies are
impe~missibly vague because they rely on land development
regulations to identify the programs and activities necessary to
achieve goals and objectives, rather than identify in the Plan
the programs and activities, possibly leaving to the land
deve!opmenm regulations the task of providing an additional level
of detail for mhese programs and activities. For the reasons
smated in Paragraphs 26-30 above, the County has improperly
deferred and relegated to the land development regulations
descriptive material that must be contained in the Plan.
32. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of
the evidence that the Plan, including Groundwater Objective 1.2,
is inconsistent with the criterion of an objective protecting the
functions of natural groundwater recharge, and the Plan,
including Groundwater Policies 1.2.1 through 1.2.4, is
MAY 18 1 B9
inconsistent with the criterion of regulating land use and
development to protect the functions of natural groundwater
aquifer recharge areas.
IV. Issue 3
33. Drainage Subelement (Drainage) Policy 1.1.2 provides:
pl d ~-~
Cutlinc ~^-- to iIm ement proce ures ....
prcjcczs within the County's Land DeveloPment
Code and those procedures deleaated by South
Florida Water Manaaement District ~"-=-- =
~ ~ ........ ~ ............ to ensure that at
the time a development permit is issued, pro-
development versus OOSn develoDmenn discharce
rates are monitored to assure than adequate
water management facility capacity is
available or will be available when needed to
serve the development.
34. The flaws of the Drainage Policy 1.1.2 start with the
County's failure tc adopt, in the Plan, an enforceable level of
service (LOS) standard for drainage. Drainage Objective 1.2
provides ~ha~ the County shall "Af~ Mainnain adopted level of
service standards for basins and sub-basins idenmified in ~he
Water Management Master Plan." This master plan appears no be a
part of the land developmen~ regulations, not the Plan. For the
reasons stated in Paragraphs 26-30 above, this deferral and
relegation of a crucial and required provision of a Plan--i.e.,
setting a drainage LOS--undermine the Plan's approach ~o
drainage.
·
35. Dr i ~ge Policy 12 1 formerly provided ~hat the Cou~nny-~
a n~ . .
,
AGENOAITEM
would use the findings from a study to be conducted under .he
HAY 18 1 S9
30
master plan to "identify existing levels of service for all the
drainage basins and sub-basins." A parenthetical note states
that the County completed this task in May 1990.
36. New Drainage Policy 1.2.1.A provides, for "future
'private"' development, that the drainage LOS standards are the
"water quantity and quality standards" specified in various
ordinances that are not incorporated into the Plan. New Drainage
Policy 1.2.1.B assigns "existing 'private"' development and
"existing or future public drainage facilities" LOS standards
identified in the master plan. For such development, a table
assigns letters ~o various basins, but the meaning of the letter
is not explained in the Plan.
37. The net effect of this objective and policies is that
the Plan defers and relegates to the 'land development regulations
the crucial ~ask of setting comprehensive drainage LOS
s~andards--comprehensive in ~he components of drainage (e.~.,
hydroperiod, rate, quality, and basin) and comprehensive in the
scope of development (i.e., all private and public development
and redevelopment, including public development, not just "public
drainage facilities").
38. In the context of other Drainage provisions, Drainage
Policy !.1.2 is essentially useless. It defers and relegates to
the !and development regulations the regulatory content
(including se~ting a drainage LOS), pb~formance criteria, and
AGENOA ITEM ~
PZ. 2//"/ ~
!.
identification of programs and activities. On its face, given
the failure of the Plan to set a drainage LOS, Drainage Policy
1.1.2 promises nothing more than the monitoring of post-
development runoff.
39. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of
the evidence that the Drainage Policy 1.1.2 does not identify
programs and activities by which by which the County will achieve
the planning goals or objectives that the policy is supposed to
serve and that the Plan lacks a policy regulating land use and
development to protect the functions of natural drainage
features.
V. issue 4
1. This issue raises the question whether the County relied
on the best available data when preparing Plan provisions
concerning farmworker housing.
2. In their joint proposed recommended order, the County
and School Board offer proposed Plan amendments providing for the
collection of new farmworker housing data in 1998, the analysis
of the data in 1999, and the adoption of any necessary Plan
amendments in 2000. This is consistent with the tenor of the
testimony of their witnesses: the COtnnty wants more time to
conduct more studies to determine if faL~iworker housing needs may
have lessened somewhat.
AGENDA ITEM
HAY 18 1999
3. The data and analysis accompanying the revisions to the
Housing Element (Housing) include analysis of 1990 census data
done by the Shimberg Center at the University of Florida. Tables
showing the percentage in the unincorporated County of owners and
renters, respectively, paying more than 30 percent of their
income for housing reveal that, for persons witk annual incomes
of less than $10,000, the percentages are 76.1 and 95.9; for
persons with annual incomes of $10,000 to $19,999, the
percentages are 44.3 and 75.9; and for persons with incomes of
$20,000 to $34,999, the percentages are 32.3 and 31.4.
4. After reciting these data, the Housing data and analysis
state:
The previous tables indicate a strong need
for more affordable owner and rental
opportunities throughout the County. Very
low, low[,] and moderate income families who
pay more than 30 [percent] of their gross
monthly income on housing cost are considered
zo be "cost burdened" according to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
5. As a County witness testified, 85-90 percent of County
farmworkers reside in Immokalee. According to the County's own
data, 36.8 percent of the housing units in the Immokalee area are
substandard. The next highest area has 13.4 percent substandard
housing, and the next highest has 4.7 percent substandard
ho~eing. Of the 4507 units in the Immoka!ee area, 101 lack
33 p,,
plumbing, 74 lack kitchens, and 134 have more than 1.01 persons
per room (with some units appearing in more than one category).
6. After reciting these data, the Housing data and analysis
state:
As the housing stock continues to age, there
is a need to provide housing rehabilitation
programs for the very low to moderate income
rental and owner occupied households in order
to prevent continuing deterioration and
potential substandard housing conditions.
7. After displaying other data, the Housing data and
analysis report that various tables prepared by the Shimberg
Center
project a very large deficit of affordable,
renter occupied and owner occupied dwelling
units for the years 2000, 2005 and 2010.
Local estimates have not been calculated bum
efforts to address the estimated deficits are
identified in the Housing Element. According
tO the Shimberg Center data, there is a
county wide need for 4,973 affordable rental
units and 9,500 affordable owner occupied
units by 2000 for a total of 14,473
affordable housing units.
8. Responding to these data, the Housing data and analysis
state:
The City [Naples] established a goal of
encouraging the development of 500 affordable
housing units each year within the urban area
boundaries identified in a 1994 Interlocal
Agreement. Based upon County data collected
for this Interlocal Agreement's 500 unit
goal, the statistics indicate that 30
[percent] of all single family building
permits issued since July 1994 meet the AGENDA~TE~
Interlocal Agreement [' ] s affordable housing ~- ~
18 1999
34 pg. 31
criteria. Since the adoption of this
interlocal Agreement, an average of 600+
affordable housing units have been produced
countywide each year. Since the urban area
target of 500 unit[s] per year has been met,
it is recomraended that the target be
increased to 750 units countywide. A target
of 750 units countywide is realistiT based.
upon building permits and [certificates o~
occupancy] issued annually.
9. The tables contain a comprehensive projection of
affordable housing for all income ranges and are not limited to
persons with moderate or less annual incomes. Thus, for
unincorporated Collier County, one table discloses a deficit of
287 units by 2010 for persons making over $150,000 annually.
10. Addressing farmworker housing specifically, the Housing
data and analysis mention the County's 1994 Immokalee Housing
Study. Housing designated exclusively for farmworkers consists
0f privately owned migrant labor camps and Farm Worker Village,
which was built with the assistance of the Farmers Home
Administration and is owned and operated by the County. The
Housing data and analysis note that farmworkers "are also housed
in a variety of o~her housing that is usually substandard,
deteriorated or overcrowded."
tl. The Housing data and analysis report that farmworker
housing in the Immokalee area includes migrant labor camps and
shared housing. The Housing data and analysis note that there is
no fam~orker housing located on the farms in the Immokalee area.
i~,GEi'~AII"F.,M"'
HAY 18 1999
12. According to the Housing data and analysis, the 109
migrant camps in the County comprise 1987 units. The County owns
and operates 571 one- to four-bedroom units for rent at
affordable rates, but, at the time of the survey, there were 60
applications on the waiting list for these units.
13. The County also has 276 Section 8 certificates from the
Farmers Home Administration. Families paying more than 30
percent of their-income on housing are eligible for these
certificates, which are limited to housing expenses in rural
areas.
14. Surveying existing studies, the Housing data and
analysis concludes that 4.5 persons reside in each.farmworker
household. Restating projections from the County's 1994
Immokalee Housing Study, the Housing data and analysis report
that, in 2005, farmworker housing demand will consist of 10,711
permanent units and 3251 seasonal units for a total of 13,962
units.
15. For 1995, the Housing data and analysis calculate that
the 2961 available seasonal units could accommodate, at 4.5
persons per dwelling unit, 13,324 of the 33,134 seasonal
residents, leaving a shortfall of housing for nearly 20,000
seasonal residents or, at 4.5 persons per dwelling unit, 4402
units. However, this ana{ysis understates projected needs for
AGENDAITEM
farmworker housing because, without analysis, it uses for al!N~ ~
J8 1999
36 p~.3,_.._~___
future years the current estimate of 4.5 persons per dwelling
unit without considering whether greater availability of
affordable housing would reduce the number of persons per
dwelling unit.
16. The dispute begins to emerge when the Housing data and
analysis note the obvious difficulty of establishing accurate
farmworker population figures and conclude that the population
increases are relative to the amount of acreage in production at
the time of the population count. The County contends that
future farmworker housing demands are artificially high because
they do not reflect recent trends reducing agricultural
operations.
17. However, the County's contentions are unsupported by
data and analysis collected in accordance with a professionally
recognized methodology. To the contrary, the County elsewhere in
the Plan estimated that seasonal farmworker residents, who are
present in the Immokalee area during the winter months, would
increase by 25 percent after 1992 "to reflect the anticipated
expansion of the citrus industry." FLUE, page 57. The County
elsewhere relied on the projection of the South Florida Water
Management District that agricultural water demands will increase
by 46 percent from 1990 to 2010. Conservation, page 35.
18. According to the FLUE data and analysis, nearly'
AGENOAITEM
acres of land in the Immokalee area were devoted Eo agricu
- MAY
uses. This is only about 2.5 percent of the nearly 250,000 acres
in agricultural uses in the County and only about 0.4 percent of
the 1.3 million acres in the County.
19. The County's contention of declining needs for
farmworker housing repudiates the findings and conclusions of the
County's own 1994 Immokalee Housing Plan and the Shimberg
Center's more recent work. Rather than address these data and
analysis in preparing the Housing goals, objectives, and
policies, the County relied on speculation and conjecture that
farmworker housing needs may have declined, or may soon decline,
due to a perceived decline in agricultural operations.
20. No data indicate what agricultural operations have
declined or may decline or, more importantly, the effect of any
such decline on.the need for farmworker housing. The County did
not analyze even this conjecture and speculation from the
perspective of other relevant data and analysia, such as the
leveling off of a decline, in the mid-1990s, in tomato farming;
possibly offsetting trends in other labor-intensive farming;
possibly offsetting trends in labor-intensive farming around
Immokalee; and trends in Hendry County labor-intensive farming
and the impact of Hendry County farmworkers choosing to reside in
Immokalee.
21. The available data and analysis reveal ongoing
shortages in affordable housing of nearly 15,000 units by ~UUAGSNOA~YEM
For migrant farmworkers, the available data and analysis suggest
a shortage of nearly 4500 units in 1995. The data and analysis
suggest that other farmworker substandard housing units will be
lost to attrition. Except as it involves farmworker housing, the
County relied on a 25 percent increase in farmworkers after 1992
and a 46 percent increase in agricultural water demands from 1990
to 2010.
22. Ignoring the available data and analysis, the County
relied on vague concerns about a reduction in labor-intensive
agricultural operations in support of its development of
affordable housing strategies that do not focus on the unique and
pressing needs of farmworkers. The following Plan provisions
repeatedly fail to respond adequately to the quantitative and
qualitative housing needs of farmworkers.
23. Housing Objective 1 is to increase by only 500 units
annually the number of new affordable housing units for persons
earning a wider range of incomes than do farmworkers "to continue
to meet the housinc needs of all current and future ve_~-V.-low,.
low[,1 and moderate income residents of the County, includinq
those households with special needs such as rural and farmworker
housin~ in rural COllier COunty."
24. Failing to focus measurably the affordable-housing
effort on farmworker housing, Housing Policy 1.4 states:
AGEND A ITEM
Affordable housinq. will be distributed
e~uitabl~ throughout the County usin~
strategies which include, but are not limited
to, density bonus aqreements and imDact fee
waivers or deferrals. In addition,
affordable housina will be located where
adec~ate infrastructure a~d services are
available.
25. Housing Objective 2 is to create a nonprofit housing
development corporation by 2000, with representatives from
business, government, housing advocates, and the general
community, to assist the County in achieving the annual goal of
500 new units, as stated in Housing Objective 1.
26. Housing Policy 2.1 is to increase the supply of housing
for very low, low, and moderate income residents, including
farmworker housing, through the. use of existing programs, such as
low income housing tax credits, density bonuses, and impact fee
~aivers or deferrals.
27. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance cf
the evidence that the cited Housing objectives and policies are
not supported by the data and analysis. In preparing the revised
provisions of the Housing Element, the County relied on
speculation and anecdotal evidence of reductions in the numbers
of farmworkers, declining to address the professionally collected
data and analysis of that data, including the County's own data-
collection and -analysis.
AGE A TEM
MAY 18 (999
~O
28. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of
the evidence that the Plan lacks policies providing guidelines or
criteria for the location of farmworker housing. The data and
analysis reveal a crucial.need for such housing in the Immokalee
area, but the Plan, most notably Housing Policy 1.4, fails to
address these data and analysis by failing to focus affordable-
housing efforts for farmworkers where the need is greatest. The
Plan also fails to establish locational criteria or guidelines'to
assure that the farmworker housing best serves the needs of the
farmworkers.
Vi. Issue 5
29. Prior to these amendments, Golden Gate Area Master Plan
(Golden Gate) Policy 2.2.3 provided that the County would apply
the stricter of its special development standards or Chapter
28-25, Florida Administrative Code, to applications for
development within South Golden Gate Estates. However, these
amendments repealed Golden Gate Policy 2.2.3 and replaced it with
new Golden Gate Policy 2.1.4, which provides that the County will
apply Chapter 28-25, Florida Administrative Code, to applications
in "those Golden Gate Estates units located within the
Cvoress Ar~.~.of Critical State Concern."
30. The stame tales limit site alterations to !0 percent of
the total site, limit impervious areas to 50 percent~of the site,
] AGEN~AITEM
and prohibit alteration of the natural flow of water. :he ~fect~
HAY 18 1'999
41
PC,
of the Plan Amendment is to remove these land use restrictions
from the part of the South Golden Gate Estates that is not in the
Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern.
31~ As reported in the Golden Gate data and analysis,
"hailed as the world's largest subdivision," the Golden Gates
Estates subdivision encompasses about 170 square miles or eight
percent of the County. Golden Gates Estates is located in
central Collier County. Partof Golden Gate Estates is located
east of Interstate 75, north of the point at which the interstate
turns east and heads toward Miami. South Golden Gate Estates is
located south of Interstate 75.
32. Gulf American sold 95 percent of the lots in Golden
Gate Estates by 1965. South Golden Gate Estates comprises around
17,000 parcels, including about 10,000 parcels under 2.25 acres.
Approximately 2000 people live in South Golden Gate Estates,
although the actual number may be higher due to unpe_~mitted
construction. About 8000 people live in the remainder of Golden
Gate Estates.
33. Totaling 94 square miles, South Golden Gate Estates is
surrounded by the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge to the
north, the Picayune Strand State Forest and Belle Meade (about
!E,000 acres on the CARL list for state acquisition) to the west,
the Cape Romano/Ten Thousand Islands Aquatic Preserve to the
AGF...NOAITEM
south, and Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve to the east. The.
MAY 18
~2
Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve is separated from Big Cypress
National Preserve to the east by State Road 29. Northwest of the
Cape Romano/Ten Thousand Islands Aquatic Preserve is Rookery Bay
Aquatic Preserve, which lies between Marco Island and Naples Bay.
34. Major public conservation lands in the County--all near
Golden Gate Estates--include Big Cypress National Preserve
(534,947 acres), Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve (65,524
acres), and Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge (24,300
acres). Major additions include another 100,000 acres added to
the Big Cypress National Preserve, but in the northeast part of
the County away from Golden Gate Estates, and 30,000 acres in
Golden Gate Estates (with nearly 12,000 acres already acquired).
A large portion, if not all, of South Golden Gate Estates is
proposed for state acquisition under the Save Our Everglades
program, but progress, until recently at least, has been slow.
35. The state has imposed the Big Cypress Area of Critical
State Concern over the entire County east of Golden Gate Estates,
as well as a large area south of South Golden Gate Estates. Most
of the Area of Critical State Concern encompasses publicly owned
land, but privately owned land is also within the Area of
Critical State Concern.
36. DCA contends that the data and analysis do not support
the Plan Amendments that are the subject of Issue 5. The effect
of the replacement of one policy with another policy is to relax
43
MAY
development restrictions in the part of Golden Gate Estates
outside of Areas of Critical State Concern.
37. The Drainage data and analysis describe the patterns of
surface water runoff characteristic of the County prior to
alteration of these natural drainage features. In general, there
is a nearly imperceptible ground slope in the County from a high
point near Immokalee in the north-northeast corner of the County
to the south and southwest to the Gulf of Mexico. Slopes as
little as 4 inches per mile are common east of State Road 29;
slopes of 12 inches per mile are typical to the west of State
Road 29. Prior to construction of artificial drainage
facilities, the runoff traveled slowly through long sloughs,
which are shallow but wide depressions, and extensive cypress
forests in its journey toward the estuaries and bays of the Gulf
of Mexico.
38. The natural rhythm between the wet season and the slow,
natural drainage left vast parts of the County, including what is
now Golden Gate Estates, seasonally inundated. The natural
drainage patterns attenuated the runoff, so as to permit the
upstream deposit of much of the sediments and nutrients borne by
the runoff prior to its entry into rivers and bays. The natural
drainage patterns also created native habitat for various plant
and l~ild!ife species seeking the periodic or permanent wetlands
' AGENDAITEM
hydrated by the runoff.
MAY {8 {999
39. The first major disturbance of this natural drainage
process came with road construction. Development of roads in the
County typically involved the excavation of a canal and the
application of the excavated material'into the road 5ase, so as
to raise the road surface above the surrounding water level.
State Road 29, which runs south from Immokalee to Everglades City
in the southeast corner of the County, was constructed in this
matter in 1926, as was U.S. Route 41 (Tamiami Trail) two years
later, reportedly in a transaction in which Baron Collier
constructed the road in return for a conveyance from the state of
what became Collier County.
40. The logging industry used the same process to construct
tramways for transporting cypress logs during the 1950s. The
extension of these early canals allowed the expansion of
agricultural and other uses of seasonally or permanently
inundated lands.
41. The Drainage data and analysis conclude their
description of this process as follows:
The above described method of "ditch and
drain" development in Collier County resulted
in a haphazard series of canals that had a
tendency to lower the water table and change
the flow patterns of the natural drainage
basins. In addition to canals, many dikes
were constructed around very large tracts of
land and th? water levels lowered by pumping
to create agricultural land. This AGENOAITEM
combination of development events impacted
large areas of wetland and began to
MAY 18
45
concentrate the flow of stormwater run-off
instead of allowing the traditional sheetflow
across the land.
42. In the area adjacent to Naples, developers had cut
canals in order to lower the water table and facilitate the
construction of housing. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Gulf
American Corporation took this practice to a new level in the
development and worldwide marketing of 173 square miles of land
and water that came to be known as Golden Gate Estates. Prior to
development, much of the area consisted of waterbodies several
feet deep through the wet season. In general, the area was flat
swamp lands featuring cypress forests, pine forest islands, and
wet and dry prairie.
43. In order to market Golden Gate Estates as a vacation
and retirement community, Gulf American undertook a vast drainage
project in an effort to eliminate from the landscape and
waterscape waterbodies several feet deep through the wet season
and flat swamp lands featuring cypress forests, pine forest
islands, and wet and dry prairie. Major components of this
effort were clearing 813 miles of paved and limerock roads and
dredging 183 miles of canals, which drain into the Gordon River,
Naples Bay, and Faka Union Bay.
44. The County approved the Golden Gate Estates subdivision
in early 1960, and, five years later, 90 percent of the land had
AGENOAITEM
been platted and sold in parcels of 1.25, 2.5, and 5 acres A~%. ~
HAY 18 J999
46
the Golden Gate data and analysis explain, the County rezoned the
area to low-density residential when it became apparent that it
could not provide essential facilities and services.
45. The artificial drainage facilities that replaced
natural drainage features and converted la~d from water
facilitated the urbanization of the County. Urbanization brought
large increases in impervious surface. Large increases in
impervious surface produced even more and faster runoff and a
decrease in percolation into the groundwater system. The effect
on the artificial drainage system was to overwhelm it during
major or serial storm events, resulting in flooding. Flooding
completed the cycle by resulting in additional artificial
drainage facilities.
46. The addition of more artificial drainage capacity
adversely affected natural resources in several respects. The
addition of more artificial drainage capacity accelerated the
rate at which canals transported stormwater into the Gulf, so as
to eliminate or reduce the duration of flooding. But the rushing
stormwater destabilized channels and reduced the opportunity for
natural filtration of sediments and nutrients. The bays and
estuaries into which the stormwater eventually runs thus received
increased loads of sediments from destabilized channels and
increased loads of sediments, nutrients, and pol!utants from
decreased filtration. Ni,GEND~A4
18 J999
47
47. Another effect of the addition of more artificial
drainage capacity was to lower the water table elevation at all
times, not just during the wet season. Thus, the canals
overdrained large areas, including Golden Gate Estates,-leaving
them especially vulnerable to fire during the dry season and
droughts during the wet season.
48. The Golden Gate data and analysis report that the
annual acreage consumed by fire increased eightfold after Golden
Gate Estates was drained so as to alter the hydroperiod and lower
the water table. The fires became more severe, eliminating the
organic (humus) part of soils and thus discouraging post-fire,
vegetative recolonization.
49. The replacement of natural drainage features with
artificial drainage facilities dramatically altered natural
hydroperiods and, in so doing, destroyed wetlands and wetlands
habitat, encouraged saltwater intrusion, and degraded estuaries
and eliminated marine habitat by altering the timing and amount
of freshwater infusions on which commercially harvested fin fish,
shellfish, and sport fish depend at some point in their life
cycle.
50. The effect of artificial drainage facilities on water
quality, water quantity, and hydroperiod adversely affected
recharge of the surficial aquifer, on which the County depends
for most of its drinking water. The surficial acuifer recei~ esN~ o7
MAY 18 1999
90 percent of its recharge from rain and surface flow with direct
infiltration from rainfall being the most important source of
recharge of the water table aquifer, according to the Groundwater
data and analysis.
51. As the Drainage data and analysis concede, artificial
drainage facilities have reduced aquifer recharge, which is often
best served during flood events when the drainage facilities are
overwhelmed. Additionally, as the Groundwater data and analysis
note, runoff-transported pollutants can enter the groundwater,
just as they can enter surface waters.
52. The Groundwater data and analysis state that protection
of natural groundwater recharge relies on land use restrictions
that ensure that land uses do not change the recharge process in
terms of timing, water quantity, or water quality.
53. The Groundwater data and analysis identify two factors
as affecting timing and water quantity: covering recharge areas
with impervious surfaces and overdraining recharge areas by
canals. In terms of water quality, the Groundwater data and
analysis warn of pol!utants introduced directly into the water
table aquifer by stormwater detention/retention facilities,
sewage treatment percolation ponds and absorption fields, and
septic systems.
54. Based on a formula developed by the Environmental
AGEI',IOAITEM
Protection Agency that considers, among other things, water ta~e ~
MAY 18 1999
elevation and soil permeability, the Groundwater data and
analysis warn that County groundwater is highly sensitive to
groundwater contamination. In particular, the Groundwater data
and analysis recommend the investigation of possible groundwater
contamination through the agricultural use of pesticides and
fertilizer and the residential use of septic tanks in the area of
the East Golden Gate Wellfield. The Groundwater data and
analysis recommend, among other things, land use controls around
wellfields, areas of high transmissivity, and major hydrological
flowways.
55. In light of the deleterious impacts of artificial
drainage facilities on water quality, water quantity, and aquifer
recharge, the Drainage data and analysis suggest thac the
drainage LOS standards address these three factors. The Drainage
data and analysis state that it is "essential" that the
stormwacer management standards concerning water qualicy provide
treatment levels "at least compatible with current sta~e
requirements. Drainage, page D-I-3. Regarding water quantity,
the Drainage data and analysis state that the standards must
provide adequate flood protection for developed areas and
sufficient water to maintain aquifers, wetlands, and estuarine
systems.
56. ~e Drainage data and analysis discuss the difficulties
AGENDA ITEM
the County experienced in trying to set a drainage LOS. N~ ~ -
HAY 18 1999
50
Historically inadequate systems compounded the problem.
Developments permitted prior to 1977, including all of Golden
Gate Estates, were designed only to protect against flooding in
the event of the ten-year storm, and these developments have an
inconsistent record in meeting even these relaxed jtandards. The
County required post-1977 development to meet the more demanding
standards of the 25-year, 3-day storm event, and these
developments have generally done so.
57. The Drainage data and analysis report that the County
hired consulting engineers in 1989 to prepare the Stormwater
Management Master Plan. Out of this work emerged LOS standards
using water quality as a function of the storm event, water
quantity, and the potential of the area to provide aquifer
recharge. However, neither the Plan nor even the Drainage data
and analysis disclose these drainage LOS standards.
58. The discussion of the drainage LOS standards does not
focus extensively on basin issues as to water .~uantity. Another
feature of a drainage LOS, the basin in which runoff is naturally
found is important because drastic alterations of basin may alter
the periodic, natural changes in salinity necessary to the health
of the receiving estuaries. Due to the flatness of the
topography, basins in the County naturally shift, depending on
the location of rainfall and amount of rainfall compared to the
capacity of the natural drainage features.
AGEN~A I]T,M
59. Roads that run along the barely perceptible ridge lines
defining a basin change the dynamic of location and amount of
rainfall compared to the capacity of the natural drainage
feature, so as possibly to change the basin receiving the
resulting runoff. Roads that cut across ridge lines have an
obvious effect on receiving basins. Canals have similar effects
on these basins.
60. Citing the results of the Stormwater Management Master
Plan, the Drainage data and analysis list the ten major basins in
the County. However, after listing these basins, the Drainage
data and analysis note:
At this time, an aggressive stormwater
management capital improvement project
construction is not proposed. The intent is
- to respond to the will of the local citizens
as they petition the Board of County
Commissioners to design and construct
stormwater management improvements through
the creation of taxing and/or assessment
districts·
61. The omission of the drainage LOS standards from the
Plan (and, although not strictly relevant, even from the data and
analysis) precludes an determination of the scope and effect of
the County's decision not to schedule stormwater improvements
until residents demand such public facilities. Nothing in the
Plan allows the informed reader to learn whether the County's
~undisclosed drainage LOS standards have adequately blended the
· ~
ec 1 e
objective cf natural-resource protection with the obj t v ofAG~NDA~TE~
MAY 18 1999
S2
flood control. Nothing in the Plan allows the informed reader to
learn of the extent to which the County must apply these
undisclosed drainage LOS standards to development, redevelopment,
and unchanged land uses (i.e., retrofitring).
62. The effect of the omission of drainage LOS standards
from the Plan is heightened by certain water-quality trends
during the ten-year period ending in 1989, coupled with the
County's reduction in water-quality monitoring during the ensuing
ten years.
63. Map LU-92 in the Conservation data and analysis
identifies 24 "estuarine bays" from the Lee County line south to
Everglades City. These bays include Clam Bay, which is just
.- north and west of the terminus of Pine Ridge Road; Doctors Bay,
which is immediately north of NaPles; Naples Bay, which is
immediately south cf Naples and receives water from the Gordon
River and Haldeman Creek; Rookery Bay, which is south of Naples
about midway between Naples and Marco Island and receives water
from Henderson Creek; and Faka Union Bay and Fakahatchee Bay,
which are roughly midway between Marco Island and Everglades
City.
64. According to the Consercation data and analysis, the
worst water quality reported by the Department of Environmental
Protection in a 1994 statewide assessment of water cuality was
AGENDAITEM
_ the estuarine porZion of the Gordon River, which violated ~at~. ~
HAY 18 1999
quality standards for conductivity and dissolved oxygen. Rated
as "threatened or moderately impaired" in this study, Naples Bay
violated water quality standards for conductivity. A portion of
the Henderson Creek Canal vioiated water quality standards for
conductivity and dissolved oxygen.
65. The Conservation data and analysis note that the County
assessed available data collected from 1979 through 1989 and
dete_nmined that, during this period, surface waters may have
experienced an increase in nutrients. Inland-water data indicate
that nutrient levels (nitrogen, phosphorus, or both) increased
from 1979 through 1989 in the Gordon River Extension, Henderson
Creek, Main Golden Gate Canal, and Faka Union Canal. Although
there are less estuarine nutrient data, the data for Clam Bay
reveal a steep increase in nitrogen and a slower increase in
phosphorus.
66. The sediments of numerous inland waterways contain
organcchlorine pesticides. Although polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons are not widespread in estuarine sediments, they were
detected among 80 percent of samples taken in Naples Bay in 1992.
Among inland sediments, they are very high in the Gordon River
Extension. Heavy metals are at very slightly elevated levels in
urbanized estuaries, which include Naples Bay.
67. The Golden Gate data and analysis predict "substantiai'~
population increases" for Golden Gate Estates. However, he ~
MAY 18 199
54 Pg-~'~ ,~, _
Golden Gate data and analysis indicate that only a 4 square-mile
area is served by central sewer; the same area is the only area
served by central water.
68. The Golden Gate data and analysis of the relevant
drainage faci'lities report that the drainage basin for Golden
Gate Estates is the 107 square-mile Golden Gate Basin and the
185.3 square-mile Faka Union Canal System Basin. The Faka Union
Canal System Basin discharges into the Faka Union Bay, and the
Golden Gate Basin appears to discharge into Naples Bay.
69. Given the role of drainage in preserving or restoring
the health of bays and estuaries, maintaining or improving
natural recharge of the aquifer on which the County depends for
its drinking water, and maintaining or restoring viable wetlands
habitat for a variety of terrestrial and marine wildlife and
plant life, and the historic exacerbation of flooding and fire by
pcor!y planned artificial drainage facilities, DCA has proved by
a preponderance of the evidence that the data and analysis do not
support the Plan amendments that repealed Golden Gate Policy
2.2.3 and replaced it with Golden Gate Policy 2.1.4, so as to
restrict the coverage of pre-existing restrictions on site
alterations that substantially impact the drainage of South
Golden Gate Estates.
VII. IsS~ ~
70. Conservation Objective 1.1 provides: AGENOAITEM
MAY 1
the County will -late
continue with the development and
implementation of a comprehensive
environmental management and conservation
program that will ensure that the natural
resources, including species of special
status, of Collier County are properly,
appropriately, and effectively identified,
managed, and protected. Species of special
status are defined as species listed in the
current "Official Lists of Endangered and
Potentially Endangered Fauna and Flora in
Florida," published by the Florida Game and
Fresh Water Fish Commission.
71. Conservation Policies 1 o 1.1 and 1.1.2 respectively
provide:
...... ~-~ ..... ~ ..... =-- Continue with
usina a Technical Advisory Committee to
advise and assist the County in the
activities involved in the development and
implementation of the County Environmental
Resources Management Program.
Gy ~ timc -~~ =~ ~ adcF~^~ ~=
thc_~c~,~ ...... ~- ................. ~ccZ!
intc ~ ~ ........ land dcvclc-mcnz
rc sour z c s pro t c c t i on and ,mana ~c. mcnt
72. Conservation Objective 1.3 provides:
n,, ~ ...... ~ ~ ~n~ c mDIc~
~: .-~ .......... o . ~ Continue with the
phased delineation, data gathering,
management guidelines and implementation of
the County Natural Resources Protection Areas
(NRPA) progra~ by implCmentina th~ Board-
aporoved oroc~"~e for nOminaUin~ potential
ar~$ fQr r~ViOw- The purpose of Natural ~GENDAI'FEM
Resources Protection Areas will be to protect N~
MAY 18
56
endangered or potentially endangered species
(as listed in current ,,Official Lists of
Endangered and Potentially Endangered Fauna
and Flora in Florida," published by the
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission)
and their habitats.
73. Conservation Policy 1.3.1 specifies the components of
the NRPA program. Specific requirements include identifying
NRPAs on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), establishing development
standards applicable within NRPAs to maintain functioning natural
resources and restore or mitigate natural resources within NRPAs
that are already degraded, identifying an N'RPA review process,
and deferring development within NRPAs through purchase, tax
incentives, and transfer of development rights.
74. Conservation Appendix D, which is part of the data and
analysis, is devoted to NaCura! Resource Protection Areas
(NRPAs). The issue is not what the Councy did or did not provide
DCA during the review and adoption process. This historical fact
is superseded by the opportunity presented to both sides to
present data and analysis at the de novo hearing.
75. Conservation Appendix D scares that the Board of County
Commissioners apprcved on March 1, 1994, a process for
identifying NRPAs and establishing management plans for NRPAs.
The process requires initial Board approval before the process
commences. ~
AG~NDA ~Y~
MAY 18 1999
57
_
76. Appendix D identifies 33 criteria to be considered in
designating NRPAs. Nearly all of the criteria involve
environmental factors. The criteria represent a comprehensive
range of environmental factors.
77. Appendix D notes that, on February 28, 1995, the Board
of County Commissioners approved Clam Bay as a NRPA and directed
staff to begin the preparation of a management plan for Clam Bay.
Clam Bay is a wetland area within an approved development of
regional impact.
78. Clam Bay was the site of a considerable mangrove die-
off in 1992 and 1995. County staff appear to believe that there
is a problem with flushing and possibly high water levels, as
well, so the County is seeking a penmit to dredge the pass.
HistOrically, Clam Pass was connected to Vanderbilt Pond to the
north, but land development severed this connection.
79. Clam Bay is the cniy NRPA that the Board cf County
Commissioners has designated. DCA contends that the data show
that the N'RPA process does not adequately protect wetlands,
wildlife, and wildlife habitat. Intervenors likewise argue that
the NRPA is ineffective, and the County's ineffectual
implementation of the NRPA program deprives Conservation
Objective 1.3 of support from the data and analysis.
80. The issue of whether these two objectives and three
AGENDAITEM
policies are supported by data and analysis re.~uires ~. ~
MAY 18 1999
58
consideration of their purpose and the efficacy of the programs
to be established t0 help attain these objectives and realize
their purpose. Conservation Objective 1.1, with its policies,
establishes the Environmental Resources Management Program, whose
purpose is to identify, manage, and protect "properly,
appropriately, and effectively" natural resources, including
species of special status. Conservation Objective 1.3, with its
policy, establishes the NRPA program, whose purpose is to protect
endangered or potentially endangered wildlife and plant life.
81. The broader scope of the Environmental Resources
Management Program is offset by its offer of only conditional
protection, as disclosed by the three quoted adverbs. The highly
conditional promise of Conservation Objective 1.1 means that this
objective and its policies do not require much in the way of
supporting data and analysis. For this reason, DCA and
!ntervencrs have failed to prove that Conservation Objective 1.1
and Policies 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 are not supported by data and
analysis.
82. The focus of Conservation Objective 1.3 and Policy
1.3.1 is narrower--!imited to endangered species and potentially
endangered species--and its promise of protection is
unconditional. A fair definition of potentially endangered
species is threatened species and species of special concern, so
this recouunended order shall use the phrase, "listed species." ~nrn
~ AGENDA
describe the species covered by Conservation Objective 1.3 and
Policy 1.3.1.
83. In determining the extent to which Conservation
Objective 1.3 and Policy 1.3.1 are supported by data and
analysis, it is necessary to consider the County's role in
providing habitat to listed species, any trends in wildlife
habitat and listed species, the treatment of listed species by
other Plan provisions, and the County's use of NRPAs.
84. In 1994, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission published Closina the GaDs in Florida's Wildlife
Habitat Conservation System (Closino the GaDs). This report
divides Florida into geographic regions; Southwest Florida
comprises Sarasota, Charlotte, Lee, Collier, Glades, and Hendry
counties. Closino the GaDs cites this region as "the most
important region in Florida" in terms of "maintaining several
wide-ranging species that make up an important component of
wildlife diversity in Florida .... " Closing the GaDs, page
173.
85. Most prominent in Southwest Florida are the only stable
panther population east of the Mississippi River; the only stable
black bear population south of Interstate 4; the greatest
populations of Audubon's crested caracara in the United States;
core populations of sandhill cranes, ~allow-tai! kites, and
AGENIDAITEM
burrawing owls; important faraging and nesting habitats fJc ~
MAY 1B
colonies of many species of wading birds; and favorable
-- conditions for several species of tropical plants that are rare
elsewhere in Florida.
86. Closinq the GaDs states that most of the County hosts
at least seven "focal species." "Focal species" are 40 species--
many of which are listed--selected for their role as indicators
of natural communities or requirement of large areas for habitat.
Closina the GaDs, page 8. Although most of this area is within
Big Cypress and other publicly owned lands, it extends through
Golden Gate Estates and into extreme west Collier County. A
land-cover map in C!osina the GaDs shows that the largest
contiguous area of cypress swamp occupies Golden Gate Estates.
.- 87. Another map depicts this area as a large area of
"sTrategic habitat" that runs to the north and northeast to link
with strategic habitat running through central Hendry County and
e,;entua!ly to the western half of Glades County. Closinc the
GaDs, page 172. "Strategic habitat" is intended 'to provide
habitat to species "lacking adequate representation in current
conservation areas." Closin~ the GaDs, page 7.
88. C!osin~ the Gaps divides Collier County into two
geographic areas for more detailed analysis. One area is north
of Golden Gate Estates, reaching the Lee County line. The other
area is west of Fakahatchee Strand and occupies South Golden Gate
AGENOAITF3~
-- Es~a~es and the remainder of Golden Gate Estates to the no 'the-
MAY 18 1999
61 pg.
89. The more northerly area consists of cypress swamp,
hardwood swamp, dry prairie, and pineland and "represents one of
the most important wildlife areas remaining in Florida." Closinq
the Gaos, page 174. This area includes Lake Trafford~ which is
the highest part of the County and the only area supplying
relatively high, natural aquifer recharge, and provides strategic
habitat for the Florida panther, Florida black bear, wood stork,
and American swallow-tailed kite.
90. The more southerly area provides strategic habitat for
the Florida panther, Florida black bear, red-cockaded woodpecker,
and several rare wading birds that nest elsewhere. South Golden
Gate Estates provides strategic habitat for the American swallow-
tailed kite, southern bald eagle, eastern indigo snake, and
several plant species. Central Golden Gate Estates provides
strategic habitat for the American swallow-tail kite, red-
cockaded woodpecker, gopher tortoise, eastern indigo snake, and
several plant species.
91. Both the northerly and southerly areas provide the
"largest contiguous blocks of high-quality habitat outside
of conservation areas" for Florida bears. C!osina the GaDs, page
52. The County hosts the largest black bears in Florida and one
of the largest groups of bears. Closina the GaDs asserts that
bear habitat in the County "appears to be of the potentially
AGENDA ITEM
18
greatest importance to black bears and many other rare species."
Closina the GaDs, page 62.
92. Coastal Collier County also provides strategic habitat
for numerous species, including the southern bald eagle, gopher
tortoise, loggerhead turtle, least tern, snowy plover, Florida
black bear (Rookery Bay), peregrine falcon (Rookery Bay and Cape
Romano), yellow-crowned night heron, brown pelican, Florida
burrowing owl, American oystercatcher, and Florida scrub lizard.
93. An aquatic mammal of prominence is the West Indian
manatee, which frequents the waters of the County. The greatest
number of citings throughout the year are in the Faka Union Canal
and around Marco Island. During the winter months, the animals
congregate in the Faka Union Canal.
94. Manatees are under considerable stress. According to
Conservation data and analysis, the number of manatee deaths in
the County was 71 in 1996, the last year for which data were
available. This was 25 percent of the total manatee deaths
recorded for the preceding 22 years and was five less than the
total for the preceding five years.
95. The other large mammal under stress is the Florida
panther. In 1993, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Department of Environmental
Pro~ectio~, and National Park Service published Florida PanTher
AGE. NDA ITEM
Habitat Preservation Plan: South Florida Populatioq (Panther
Plan).
96. The purpose of the Panther Plan is to identify actions
to assure the longlterm preservation of habitats than' are
essential for maintaining a self-sustaining population of
panthers in South Florida. Data indicate that a minimum self-
sustaining population in this area is 50 adult panthers.
97. The reproducing South Florida panther population
occupies only Collier, Dade, Hendry, and Lee Counties. Although
estimates vary, approximately 30-50 adult panthers probably
remain in the South Florida area. In 1990, an estimated 46
panthers (of all ages) roamed the Big Cypress basin. During the
study period of 1979 through 1991, 46.9 percent of panther deaths
were due to highway collisions, mostly along State Road 29 and
Old Alligator Alley {State Road 84), which are both in Collier
County.
98. Range demands of the panther are substantial. Males
panthers require 180-200 square miles ~ith minimal overlap with
other males. Females require 75-150 square miles and tolerate
overlapping territories with other females.
99. The vast area in public ownership represented by Big
Cypress Preserve and Everglades National Park offer lower-quality
habitat for the panthe~ which prefers drier land, as does the
bear, although it is less demanding than the panther in terms
MAY
habitat type. The northern 53 percent of the South Florida
panther range is ~n private ownership, but the higher soil
fertility and forested habitat characteristic of this land allow
it to accommodate over half of' the adult panthers, who are
healthier and more productive than their counterparts in the
southern portion of the South Florida range. Partly for these
reasons, the vast publicly owned lands can support only 9-22 of
the adult panthers in South Florida.
100. Publicly owned lands in the South Florida range are
probably at their limit in supporting panthers. The first two
recommendations of the Panther Plan are to develop "site-specific
habitat preservation plans" for land south of the Caloosahatchee
River, which comprises 75 percent of known panther range and
contains 39 of the 41 panthers studied between 1981 and 1991, and
for land north of the Ca!oosahatchee River, which offers superior
habitat that may in the future become more available for
sestlement by panthers.
101. Other Plan provisions address wildlife and wildlife
habitat. Conservation Policy 1.3.2 is to continue management
guidelines for wildlife and wildlife habitat, but the guidelines
are deferred and relegated to the land development regulations.
Moreover, a County witness conceded at the hearing that staff was
having difficult preparing these management guidelines.
AGENOAITEM
Conservation Objective 6.1 is to prepare development stand.arab-
MAY i 8 1999
for all important native habitats, but the Plan Amendments
extended the deadline for doing so another six years, until
June 1, 1998, and largely deferred and relegated to the land
development regulations.
102. However, Conservation Objective 6.1 incorporates
Policies 6.4.6 and 6.4.7 until the County prepares the
development standards. For new residential developments greater
than 2.5 acres in the Coastal Area or 20 acres in the coastal
urban area, Policy 6.4.6 re.cuires the retention of a minimum
percentage of viable, naturally functioning native habitat.
However, this policy is undermined by vagueness concerning
"Coastal Area," "coastal urban area," and "viable, naturally
functioning native habitat"; the emphasis on the preservation of
sample habitats, rather than contiguous wildlife habitat; and the
Ccunty's practice of allowing compliance with this requirement
through total landclearing following by replanting. For all new
development, Policy 6.4.7 addresses contiguous habitat, but only
by encouraging, not requiring, preservation, and without
specifying a minimum area to be preserved.
103. Conservation Policy 7.2 is to maintain the average
annual number of deaths of manatees from boat collisions at 3.2,
although this is a small fraction of the total annual manatee
deaths4
AGF__J',iDA ITEM
HAY 18 1999
p~. ~:~ ~
104. Conservation Policy 7.3.3 is to prepare management
guidelines in the land development regulations to inform
landowners of the proper ways to reduce disturbances to red-
cockaded woodpeckers, Florida panthers, other listed species,
eagle nests, and wood stork habitat. Pending the preparation of
these land development regulations, Conservation Policy 7.3.4 is
for the County to "evaluate and apply applicable recommendations"
of two governmental agencies regarding the protection of listed
species. Lastly, the County will designate unspecified portions
of known panther habitat as Areas of Environmental Concern on the
FLUM.
105. There is no explanation in the record why the County
has designated only Clam Pass as an NRPA. However, the record
does not support an inference that the NRPA program has had any
effect whatsoever in addressing the needs of wildlife and
habitat.
106. In 1993 and 1994, County staff recommended 10-12 areas
as NRPAs, including Belle Meade, Cap Key Strand (which runs from
Immokalee and Lake Trafford south to the Florida Panther National
Wildlife Refuge), and South Golden Gate Estates. These areas,
which the County declined to designate as NRPAs, provide
considerably more wildlife habitat and more wildlife habitat of
higher quality than does Clam Pass, whose designation seems to
AG~A ITEM"
reflect a reaction to mangrove dieoffs and possibly water
quantity, but not habitat or even water qfuality.
107. Considering the County's role in providing crucial
wildlife habitat to listed species, weak Plan provisions
concerning wildlife and wildlife habitat, and ineffective
utilization of the NRPA program (at least for the purpose of
protecting wildlife habitat), DCA and intervenors have proved by
a preponderance of the evidence that Conservation Objective 1.3
and Policy 1.3.1 are not support by data and analysis.
VIII. Issue 7
108. Conservation Objective 12.1 is:
Continue to ~e_ncourage the undertaking of
activities necessary to attain maintain
~ hurricane evacuation clearance time for
a Category 3 storm at a maximum of 28 hours
as defined by the 1987 1996 Southwest Florida
Regional Planning Council Hurricane Plan
Evacuation Study Update, and by 1999, 27.2
hours. Activities will include on-site
sheltering for mobile home developments,
increased shelter space, and maintenance of
ecrual or lower densities of the
~ .... ~ '"'~ .... ~'~'t~ ..... high
...... canc ......... l,l ..... Coastal
hazard area in the land use plan.
109. Conservation Policy 12.1.1 states:
Land use plan amendments in the Ca-tcgcrz- I
~ .... ~ ....... ~ .... ~" high
..................... =.~ zone Coastal
hazard area shall only be considered if such
increases in densities provide appropriate
mitigation to reduce the impacts of hurricane
evacuat on t mes ....... ~ ....
MAY18
68
110. Conservation Objective 12.1 is not to maintain or
reduce evacuation times; it is not even to encourage the
maintenance of evacuation times. Objective 12.1 merely
encourages activities that are necessary to maintain evacuation
times. Additionally, Conservation Objective 12.1 refers to the
misdefined Coastal High Hazard Area, as discussed in Issue 8.
111. These two flaws in Conservation Objective 12.1 mean
that this objective has not responded to the Conservation data
and analysis, including Conservation Appendix E, which discusses
hurricane evacuation times.
112. DC~ and intervenors have proved by a preponderance of
the evidence that Conservation Objective 12.1 and Policy 12.1.1
are not supported by data and analysis and Objective 12.1 is
i'nconsistenm with a criterion to maintain or reduce hurricane
evacuation times.
IX. Issues 8 and 15
113. Following amendment, Conservation Policy 12.2.5
defines the Coastal High Hazard Area as the area "lvina within
the Cateaor~ 1 Evacuation Zone as determined by the EmeraenCy
ManaGement Director." The County amended the FLUM to depict the
coastal high hazard area, as defined in Conservation Policy
12.2.5. -~
18
114. The "Category 1 Evacuation Zone as determined by the
Emergency Management Director" omits areas within the category 1
hurricane zone, as established in the 1996 Southwest Florida
Recional Planning Council Hurricane Evacuation' Study Update,
which is the regional hurricane evacuation study applicable to
the County.
115. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of
the evidence that Conservation Policy 12.2.5 and the conforming
FLUM amendment reflect a Coastal High Hazard Area that is not the
category 1 hurricane zone, as established by the regional
hurricane evacuation study applicable to the County.
X. Issue 9
116. Conservation Objective 6.3 states:
A portion of the viable, naturally
functioning transitional zone wetlands
defined bv State and Federal permittint
recuiremenEs shall be preserved in any new
non-agricultural development unless otherwise
mitigated through the DE~ State and the ACOE
pemitting process and approved by the
County.
117. Conservation Objective 6.3 does not state what portion
of the transitional zone wetlands shall be preserved, nor does it
define "viable, naturally functioning transitional zone
wetlands." Each of these concepts--viable, naturally
functioning, and transitional zone--recuires definition. There
is thus no way to evaluate the success of the policies under t~u~OAIr[~
MAY 18 1999
70
objective or that attainment of this objective marks progress
toward a stated goal.
118. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of
the evidence that Conservation Objective 6.3 is not a specific,
measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and marks
progress toward a goal.
XI. Issue 10
119. Conservation Objective 7.3 states:
~y Januarf ~ ~n~ The County shall continue
to. develop and implement programs for
protecting Eisheries and other animal
wildlife by including measures for protection
and/or re!ocation of endangered, threatened,
or species of soeciat concern of status.
120. The effect of the amendment of Conse!-vation Objective
7.3 is to remove the deadline by which the County was to develop
a'nd implement programs to protect wildlife, including listed
species. There is thus no way to evaluate the success of the
policies under this objective or that attainment of this
obj&ctive marks progress toward a stated goal.
121. DCA and intervenors have proved by a preponderance of
the evidence that Conservation Objective 7.3 is not a SPeCifiC,
measurable, inte.nmediate end that is achievable and marks
progress toward a goal.
XII. Issues 1!, !2, 13, an~ 14
z!. ~ 122. Conservation Objective 9.4 is:
MAY 1 B 1~
P~- % ~ ...
.... ~ ~ The County shall implement the
existina e local storage tank compliance
program to protect cround and surface water
cmality includina site inspections and
information transfer.
123. Conservation Objective 9.5 is:
~'~ ~ ...... ~ ~ ~°~ ~ The County shall
e~ implement gonstruction, oretreatment~
monitorino, and effluent. limit requirements
of the Collier County Ground Water Protection
~ Ordinance regulating the use of septic
tanks serving industrial and manufacturing
activities.
124. Conservation Objective 10.6 is:
~-~ ~ ....... ~ i~ tThe County shall continue
to implement the Coastal Barrier and ~each
System Management Program by conservina the
habitats, species, natural shoreline and dune
systems contained within the County coastal
ZOne.
125. FLUE Policy 3.1.d is:
~ .... ~¼~ shall be .ac
through ~ ~=~{~-~ ~ ~-~ .....
.... - prctcztzcn ordinance.
'-~ tab!ish ...... F
influence .... cc ~ .... ~
...... ~n = .... n~ ti Th d
~ ............ ~,~u an. e GrQ~n wa r
PrQ~ectiQn .OrdinanC~ ~hal! be implemented to
pro~ect exis~inc and future we!lfietds~
natural acruifer recharge ar~a~ and
~rOun~wa~er r~$QUrce$-~hrOuqh $~andards for
deve!opmen~ invo!visq khe use.
generation and disDosa! of..hezardcus waste AGENDAI]T-M
18 (999
72
stormwater manaqement, earthmining, petroleum
exploration, solid .waste and other related
aspects of land use and development within
the mapped wellfield protection zones.
126. Groundwatez Policies 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 are:
ae~ivitics. ApplT action czi~e~ia s~eci~ied
O~dlnaace to bo~ exis~inq and
zeoula~ed deYeloomea~ acco~dina ~o ozoceduzes
soeci~ied in the O~di~ance to o~o~ec~ ~e
Countv's ~ound wa~e~ ~esou~ces.
continue ADO!y criteria for cround water
protection specified in enforcement
procedures specified in the Ordinance to
provide an appropriate level of protection to
sensitive recharge areas.
127. Conservation Objective 9.4 promises the implementation
cf a storage tank program that is contained in the land
development regulations, which are not incorporated by reference
into the Plan. Because these land development regulations are
not themselves subject to the compliance determinations that are
the subject of this case, Conservation Objective 9.4 is not a
specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and
marks progress toward a goal. This deferral and relegation to
the land development regulations leaves no way of evaluating the
success of the policies under this objective or'~haE attainment
of this objective marks progress toward a stated goal. AGENOA~TE~
MAY
73
PZ.
128. The same deficiencies characterize Conservation
Objectives 9.5 and 10.6, FLUE Policy 3.1.3, and Groundwater
Policies 1.2.1 and 1.2.2, except that, for the policies, this
deferral and relegation to the land development regul'ations
leaves no way of identifying the way in which the County will
conduct programs and activities to achieve identified goals.
129. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of
the evidence that Conservation Objectives 9.4, 9.5, and 10.6, are
not specific, measurable, intermediate ends that are achievable
and mark progress toward a goal.
130. DCA and interrotors have proved by a preponderance of
the evidence that FLUE Policy 3.1.d and Groundwater Policies
1.2.1 and 1.2.2 do not identify the way in which the County will
conduct programs and activities to achieve identified goals.
XIIi. Issue 15
131. Section 187.201, Florida Statutes, sets out the State
comprehensive plan.
132. Section 187.201(8)(b)2 is to "[I]dentify and protect
the functions of water recharge areas and provide incentives for
their conservation."
133. In light of the provision of the State comprehensive
plan cited in the preceding paragraph, DCA and intervenors have
proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Plan
AGENOAIT~
provisions are inconsistent with the State comprehensive p]an,N~
74
construed as a whole: Groundwater Objective 1.2 and Policies
1.2.1-1.2.4 and FLUE Policy 3.1.d.
134. Section 187.201(8)(b)9 is to "[p]rotect aquifers from
depletion and contamination through appropriate regulatory
programs and through incentives."
135. In light of the provision of the State comprehensive
plan cited in the preceding paragraph, DCA and Intervenors have
proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Plan
provisions are inconsistent with the State comprehensive plan,
construed as a whole: Conservation Objective 9.5, Groundwater
Objective 1.2 and Policies 1.2.1-1.2.4, and FLUE Policy 3.1.d.
136. Section 187.201(8)(b)!0 is to "[p]rotect surface and
groundwater quality and quantity in the state."
137. In light of the provision of the State comprehensive
plan cited in the preceding paragraph, DCA and Intervenors have
proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Plan
provisions are inconsistent with the State comprehensive plan,
construed as'a whole: Conservation Objective 6.3, FLUE Policy
3.1.d, Groundwater Objective 1.2 and Policies 1.2.1-1.2.4,
Drainage Policy 1.1.2, and Golden Gate Policy 2.1.4.
138. Section !87.201(8){b)12 is to "[e]liminate the
discharge of inadequately treated wastewater and stormwater
rdnoff into the waters of the state."
AGENOA ITEM
139. In light of the provision of the State comprehensive
plan cited in the preceding paragraph, DCA and Intervenors have
proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Plan
provisions are inconsistent with the State comprehensive plan,
construed as a whole: Conservation Objective 9.5, FLUE Policy
3.1.d, Groundwater Policies 1.2.1 and 1.2.2, Drainage Policy
1.1.2, and Golden Gate Policy 2.1.4.
140. Section 187.201(9)(b)4 is to "[p]rotect coastal
resources, marine resources, and dune systems from the adverse
effects of development."
141. In light of the provision of the State comprehensive
plan cited in the preceding paragraph, DCA and Intervenors have
proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Plan
provisions are inconsistent with the State comprehensive plan,
construed as a whole: Conservation Objectives 6.3, 7.3, 9.4,
9.5, and 10.6 and Policy 12.2.5; FLUE Policy 3.1.d; Drainage
Policy 1.1.2; and Golden Gate Policy 2.1.4.
142. Section 187.201(9)(b)9 is to prohibit development that
disturbs coastal dune systems.
143. In light o~ the provision of the State comprehensive
plan cited in the preceding paragraph, DCA and Intervenors have
proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Plan
provisions are inconsistent ~ith t~j State comprehensive plan,
HAY 18
construed as a whole: Conservation Objective 10.6 and Policy
._ 12.2.5.
144. Section 187.201(10)(b)1 to "[c]onserve forests,
wetlands, fish, marine life, and wildlife t6 maintain'their
environmental, economic, aesthetic, and recreational values."
145. In light of the provision of the State comprehensive
plan cited in the preceding paragraph, DCA and Intervenors have
proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Plan
provisions are inconsistent with the State comprehensive plan,
construed as a whole: Conservation Objectives 1.3, 6.3, 7.3, and
9.5 and Policy 1.3.1; Drainage Policy 1.1.2; and Golden Gate
Policy 2.1.4.
_ 146. Section 187.20!(10)(b)3 is to "[p]rohibit the
destruction of endangered species and protect their habitats."
147. In light of the provision of the State comprehensive
plan cited in the preceding paragraph, DC~ and intervenors have
proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Plan
provisions are inconsistent with the State comprehensive plan,
construed as a whole: Conscreation Objectives 1.3, 6.3, 7.3,
9.5, and 10.6 and Policy 1.3.1; and Golden Gate Policy 2.1.4.
148. Section !87.201(10)(b)7 is to "[p]rotect and restore
the ecological functions of wetlands systems to ensure their
!ong-temn environmental, economic, and recreational value."
AGENDA I'TE.,M
149. In light of the provision of the State comprehensive
plan cited in the preceding paragraph,' DCA and Intervenors have
proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Plan
provisions are inconsistent with the State comprehensive plan,
construed as a whole: Conservation Objectives 6.3 and 9.5,
Drainage Policy 1.1.2, and Golden Gate Policy 2.1.4.
150. Section 187.201(26)(b)7 is to ensure the development
of local government comprehensive plans that implement and
reflect state goals and policies and that address issues of
particular concern to a region.
151. In light of the provision of the State comprehensive
plan cited in the preceding paragraph, DCA and Intervenors have
proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Plan
provisions are inconsistent with the State comprehensive plan,
construed as a whole: Conse_~-vation Objectives 1.3, 6.3, 7.3
10.6, and 12.1 and Policies 1.3.1, 12.i.1, and !2.2.5; Golden
Gate Policy 2.1.4; and ICE Policy 1.2.6.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
152. The Division of Administrative Hearings has
jurisdiction over the subject matter. Sections 120.57(1) and
163.3184(10), Florida Statutes. (All references to Sections are
to Florida Statutes. All references to Rules are to the Florida
Administrative Code.)
MAY
~....~ 1.
153. Section 163.3184(10) provides that, in cases in which
DCA has issued a notice of intent to find a plan or plan
amendment not in compliance, DCA bears the burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that the plan or plan amendment is
not in compliance, except that, on matters involving internal
inconsistency, that standard of proof is beyond fair debate.
154. Section 163.3184(10) authorizes the participation of
intervenors, as "affected persons" defined in Section
!63.3184(1)(a). By stipulation, all of the parties are affected
persons and have standing to participate in this case.
155. Section 163.3!84(1)(b) defines "in compliance" as:
consistent with the requirements of ss.
163.3177, 163.3178, and 163.3191, with the
state comprehensive plan, with the
appropriate strategic regional policy plan,
and with chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative
Code, where such rule is not inconsistent
with chapter 163, part II.
!56. Section !63.3177(i0)(a) provides:
The Legislature finds that in order for the
department to review local comprehensive
plans, it is necessary to define the te_nn
"consistency." Therefore, for the purlDose of
determining whether local comprehensive plans
are consistent with the state comprehensive
plan and the appropriate regional policy
plan, a local plan shall be consistent with
such plans if the local plan is "compatible
with" and "furthers" such plans. The te_mm
"compatible with" means that the local plan
is not in conflict with the state
comprehensive plan or appropriate regional
policy plan. The '~rm "furthers" means to
take action in the direction of realizing AGENDAITEM '
goals or policies of the state or regional
plan. For the purposes of determining
consi.stency of the local plan with the state
comprehensive plan or the appropriate
regional policy plan, the state or regional
plan shall be construed as a whole and no
specific goal'and policy shall be construed
or applied in isolation from the other goals
and policies in the plans.
157. Section 163.3177(8) provides in part:
All elements of the comprehensive plan,
whether mandatory or optional, shall be based
upon data appropriate to the element
involved.
158. Section 163.3177(10)(e) states in part:
It is the Legislature's intent that support
data or summaries thereof shall not be
subject to the compliance review process, but
the Legislature intends that goals and
policies be clearly based on appropriate
data.
159. Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a) provides in part:
All goals, objectives, policies, standards,
findings and conclusions within the
comprehensive plan and its support documents,
and within plan amendments and their support
documents, shall be based upon relevant and
appropriate data and the analyses applicable
to each element. 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.
160. For the reasons stated in the findings of fact, DCA
and Intervenors have proved that the Plan Amendments are
inconsistent with various criteria of Chapters 163 and 9~-5.AGENOA~TE~
80
RECOMMENDAT I ON
It is
RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final
order determining that the Plan Amendments are not in'compliance.
DONE AND ENTERED this day of March, 1999, in
Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
ROBERT E. ME3LLE
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings
The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Ta!lahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675 SLTNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847
www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the
Division of Administrative Hearings
this day of March, 1999.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Shaw P. Stiller
Col in M. Roopnarine
Assistant General Counsel
Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Ta!lahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Thomas W. Reese
2951 61st Avenue South
Saint Petersburg, Florida 33712
Marj orie M. Student
Rodhey C. Wade ~
Assistant County Attorneys
3201 Ease Tamiami Trail AGENDAITEM
NaPleS, Florida 34112 N~ ~
81 Pg-... F,/~
Richard D. Yovanovich
Roetzel & Andross
850 Park Shore Drive
Naples, Florida 34103
Donna Arduin, Secretary
Executive Office of the Governor
1601 Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
David Schwartz, Esquire
Executive Office of the Governor
209 Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15
days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions to
this recommended order must be filed with the agency that will
issue the final order in this case.
MAY f8
Order Granting 45 Day Extension &
DCA Letter Confirming Timeframes
AGF,.NOA ITEM
NO,
MAY 18 ISg9
194177,d,~25 CI:LI-EFY A'F['IDPj'q~"'Y 627 P02 ~mR 16 '99 14:18
'
STATE OF FLORIDA
ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF COMI~~ AFFAIRS,
Pztltion~,
COLLIER COUNTY AUDUBON SOCIETY,
INC., and FLORIDA WILDLIFE
~ERATION,
Intervenom, AC C,u~ No. ACC-99-002
DOAH Cas*No. 9g-0324GM
vs.
COT3;IF-P, COUNTY,
COLLrER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
Intervc~ar.
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOT~ON FOR EXTENSION OF _TIMe.
T__O ENTER FINAL ORDER
Th{-~ msR~ cam* en for consideration by the Adm~n{_~ntion Commisdon
(~Comm~sion") upon the ~eblt Molion for Exlension of Txme 1;o Enter Final Ordm: filed jointly
by Petition=r Departn'~nt of Cmmmunity Affairs, IL-stmademt Cotli~ County, a~l Int~rvenar
C~llie~ County Sch~ml Boater, on April 15, 1999. Th~ Joint Motion f~r Ek'~__-p~km oftim~ is
MAY 18 Z23
Pg-
194~.?"740225 CEU',ffY ~'FFORNEY F,27 P03 RPR ~.6 ' 99 ~4:18
DONE AND ORDERED this/(t~,J ofApx, il. 1~)9, in Tallaha.ss~. Florida.
· 1~
FELEDw~ththeCI~rkofth~Ad~i-i~tionCommi~authis dayof April. I999.
Clcrk,~'~
NAY 18 1999
1941'77,48225 COLI',ITY I~TT["]RNEY 627 P04 ~R 16 '99 3.4~ 3.5]
CEKTIFICATE OF 8EKVICE
I HEI~Y CEK'rlFY that a tru~ m~d carrier eapy ofth~ ~.~ing was delivcn:d to the following
persans by Uratmt Stat~ Mail or baatt;d~vm'y this/~e day or A.pril, 1999.
Honctrablc Job Butda Hanorabl= Kath~n~ Harris
Gavemot Scotty of Star~
The ~i~l ~e ~pi~l
Tall~ ~o~da 32399 T~~, Flod~ 1~99
Ho~ ~ ~ ~~le B~ N~n
~mp~H~
Honn~k ~b B~ ~n~ Tm ~1~
t ~itol ~ ~iml
Heno~le Bob ~~
Camio~ of ~c~ Gov~ Le~ Offi~
~e ~ml ~e ~iml, tm 209
T~s~, Flafi~ 32399 Tallnh~
D~~ of ~ ~ 2951 ~l~ Av~ Sou~
~5 ~~ O~ Bo~ St P~b~ F~ 13712
T~I~ac~ Flo~ 3~9~21~
S~w P. S~I~, ~m ~ ~~ ~~ C. ~ Esq~
~lh M. ~o~ ~mt G~ Cm[ ~~ ~ A~s
D~m of~~ ~ 3301 ~ T~ T~
2555 Sh~ O~ Bo~ N~, FIo~ 34112
T~I~e, ~o~& 3~9~2100
AGENOA ITEM
HAY 18
P;., ~ (fl
i94i77402~ C~Y RTTOF~ 627 PE15 ~u=R 16 '99 i4:
Richard D. YovanovWh, Esclui~
Rx~-tz~&Andr~ss
~50 l~ark Shnre Driv~
Napks, Florida 34103
no~,xA A~U~TS~-y '
Administration Commission
AGENQA ITEM
MAY 18 1999
,,,.. ?o
19427?48225 COUNTY RTT[]RNEY
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
"Helping Floridtans create safe, vibrant, sustainable communities"
lED BUSH STEVEN M~IBE~.,~
Governor
C~ ~" .L:,
Marjorie M. StudenT., Esq. April 29, 1999 ~ "~'
Assistant County Attorney for Collier County
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, FL 34112
Ke: Admln~stration Commission Revie~r of Recommended Order in Case No. ACC-99-002;
DOAH Case No. 98-0324GM
Dear Ms. Student:
The purpose of this letter is to review and con.fin the timefrnmcs before the
Administration Commission concerning the Kecommended Order in the Collier EAR-based
amendments case. As you'recall from our telephone conversation with Administration
Commission staff, the staff is not disposed to favorably consider a request for a further extension
of time.
90 days after issuance of the Recommended Order 6/17/99
Last Cabinet meeting before 6117 6/8/99
Cabinet Aides meeting 6/2/99
Distribution of Agtmda by Administration Commission staff 5/27/99
DCA Remedial Actions letter to the Commission; no later than 5/21/99
The Department would like to reach agreement with Collier County regarding the
appropriate remedial actions in the Administration Commission's final order. I realize that these
timeflames will be difficult for the County to meet. However, the Depaxtment must comply with
the due dates, and we intend to issue our letter describing proposed remedial actions no later than
May 21, 1999. Please keep these time reswictions in mlnd while our pl~nnlng staffs discuss the
potential remedial actions.
Sincerely,
a,~--e~ AGENDA ITEM
t Deputy General Counsel MAY
(850) 488-0410
q/
2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD · TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 3'Z39
I
Phone: (850) 488-8,166/Suncom 278-846fi FAX: (85a) 921-0781/5uncom 29 -078I
ln[ernot address; http:l/www.dca.state.fJ.us
J~LORIDA K[YS CP~N
Ar~,l at Ctir~c.ll S~lc Concern l: ~otd Oft.c~ Area ol Critic:ll SLite Concern ,rigid Cffit:~
2796 Over~sal Hll~.w3y, Suite 212 ZI)5 EI~ Main 5ueet, 5uile
/v~n, tho,% FLoeida 3:%Q50-,2227 Barlow, Florida 33~3C,4r, 41
Draft Remedial Amendments Proposed by Staff at
March 19, 1999 Workshop
HAY 18 1999
~,.. ¢~
COLLIER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (DCA NO. 97-1ER)
(ORDINANCES 97-56, 97-59, 97-61, 97~63, 97-64, 97-66 AND 97-67)
Stipulated Settlement Agreement
Draft 2/9/99
971ER-NOI-1101-(A)-(N) STATEMENT OF INTENT # I(A)I
Collier County and the Department of Community Affairs agree to the following language:
1. Amend the Intergovernmental Coordination Element Policy 1.2.6 to read as follows:
Policy 1.2.6:
The County shall continue to coordinate with the Collier County School Board on the site selection
for new schools and the provision of infrastructure, particularly roads, to support existing and
proposed school facilities in ccccrd3ncc ;vlt.h t,hc Lntcficcn~ Agrcc,mcnt c. dcptcd in ccccrdc.ncc '.vit,h
Add the following to the Urban Designated area permitted uses description section, Section I, b. 5:
Urban Designated Areas will accommodate the following uses:
b. Non-residential uses including:
5. Community facilities defined as public facilities and institutional uses which serve
the community at lar.qe, such as churches, group housing uses, cemeteries, and
schools and school facilities.
Add the following as a new paragraph to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, Section B.2 entitled "Estates
Designation":
Schools and school facilities shall be a permitted use in the Estates land use desiqnation
North of 1-75 and shall not be permitted in the Estates land use desiqnation South of 1-75.
Add the following to the first paragraph in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, Section B.3 entitled
"Agricultural/Rural Designation - Settlement Area District":
Schools and school facilities shall be a permitted use in the Agricultural/Rural Desiqnation
~ Settlement Area District.
971ER-NOI-1101-(A)-(N) STATEMENT OF INTENT #11 (A) (1) and (2):
Collier County and the Department of Community Affairs agree to the following language:
1. Amend the Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub-element by deleting Objective 1.2 and
Policies 1.2.1 through 1.2.5 and add a new Objective 1.2 and Policy 1.2.1 as follows:
usc ................ ; ................................. ~ ............................ ~ ........... public
CFCCO.
Annl .... +~ .... ;+~.; ..... ;.F,,~,..I !.~ +1.~ r"'~ll;~ r~ .... h, t-,_ ..... ,..1%Ai.-,+~r Dr~+~+inn n,-H;,- .... +~ both
AGENDA ITEM
HAY 18 1999
1
pg.
Anr~h, H-,~ ~r;l-~r;~ Art +;-,~ ~4';n~ ~C 4.~A t"~ll;~r t"~, .~4~ t~_rr',: smrl %)%1~+~r D~t,+~+;,-,m t"',rr, I;nmnr.~,
addross; brcnc,h!ng cf cc.n,fi,n~,ng u,n~ts by improper '.':c!! construction, rock mining and cthcr
OXCQVQt!ORS, ~ ....... u," .............................. v ............. u .................. H .....
Objective 1.2:
Ground water quality shall meet all applicable Federal and State water quali.ty standards.
Policy 1.2.1
Land development standards for protection of the CountV's qround water supplies are provided in
Policy 3.1.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Manaqement Element.
971ER-NOI-1101-(A)-(N) STATEMENT OF INTENT #111 (A) (1)
Collier County and the Department of Community Affairs agree to the following language:
1. Amend Policy 1.1.2 of the Drainage Sub-Element to read as follows:
Policy 1,1,2
Implement procedures within the County's Land Development Code (Section 3.2.8.4.22) and
those procedures delegated by the South Florida Water Management District pursuant to Florida
Statutes chapter 373, and chapter 17-40 and title 40-E, Florida Administrative Code,
to ensure that at the time a development .... ~ order is issued, pre-development versus post
development discharge rates are monitored to assure that adequate water management
facility capacity is available or will be available when needed to serve the development.
f"'~ irr~n~ t4~,~l~m~n+ tli~r~n r~+~ ~ ~ll~,l~rl ~, t~lli~r r"'r-,~ ,nh,/",~-t~in~m,,-n Q~ 4 f"t ~ the
':srious st,?,r. m'.':atcr, .manago. mont basins '.v!t.hin Cc[[icr County are as
Off-site discharge contributed by a development is limited to amounts which will not cause
adverse off-site impacts that may include but are not limited to ~oodinq and over draina.qe.
These amounts may be ace determined by the following: (most restrictive applies)
Historic pre-development discharges;
a.) Amounts determined in previous South Florida Water Management District permit actions;
b.) Amounts specified in South Florida Water Management District criteria (Basis of Review
Appendix 2);
c.) Amounts based on system capacity for selected County primary outfall canals, unless special
engineering studies are provided by a Registered Professional Engineer, shall be as follows:
MAY 18 1999
2
Canal Allowable Run-off Design Freq./Dur.
Airport Road North Sub-Basin 0.04 cfs/acre 25 year/3 day
(North of Vanderbilt Beach Road)
Airport Road South Sub-Basin 0.06 cfs/acre 25 year/3 day
(South of Vanderbilt Beach Road)
Cocohatchee Canal Basin 0.04 cfs/acre 25 year/3 day
LelV Canal Basin 0.06 cfs/acre 25 year/3 day
e.) In all other areas of the County off-site discharge shall not be in excess of 0.15 cfs/acre.
................. ycnr .......... .4 .....~ .....
2. Add the following as a new Appendix II and renumber the subsequent Appendices
accordingly to the Drainage Sub-element (Attachment 1 )
971ER-NOI-1101 -(A)-(N) STATEMENT OF INTENT #IV (A)(4) and (2)
Collier County and the Department of Community Affairs agree to the following language:
1. Add the following new Objective and Policies to the Housing Element:
*.Obiective 8:
To ensure an adecluate supply of farmworker housinq in Collier County an evaluation of future
needs for farmworker housinq will be completed and the Plan amended as appropriate.
COUNTY POLICIES
*Policy 8.1:
In 1999, Collier County will evaluate the data from the miqrant farmworker study conducted by the
University of Florida, the Florida State Department of Labor and the Southwest Florida Reqional
Planning Council, An examination of the farmworker housinq conditions and demand proiections
for future housinq needs will be completed.
*Policy 8.2:
By 2000, Collier County will amend the Growth Manaqement Plan, as necessary, based upon
these studies, to ensure an adequate supply of farmworker housinq, which meet the Iocational
quidelines as identified in the Future Land Use Element and the Immokalee Master Plan. The
County shall also consider and amend the Growth Manaqement Plan in accordance with this
study, if and to the extent necessary, to insure that farm worker housinq may be sited in locations
proximate to transit, health care, employment, and shoppinq opportunities.
*Policy 8.3:
Collier County will utilize the State Housinq Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) program, Low Income
Housinq Tax Credits, HOME Funds, and other State, Federal and private funds for the provision
of farmworker housincl.
Asterisked (*) policies are only adopted by the jurisdiction listed directly above the p~l~cy
County Only.
971ER-NOI-1101 -(A)-(N) STATEMENT OF INTENT #V (A)(1)
Collier County and the Department of Community Affairs agree to the following language: AGEIt:)A ITEM
1. Amend the Golden Gate Area Master Plan to add Policy 2.2.3 and to delete Objective 2.3 and
Policies 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 and add Policy 2.2.3.
Policy 2.2.3
Southern ~Golden Gate Estates, south of 1-75. as depicted on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map,
shall be deSiqnated on the Future Land Use Map as part of the Picayune Strand State Forest with
permitted uses identified in the Conservation Desiqnation, Natural Resource Protection Area/Public
Ownership District.
t"li~;~l,;,,~ rl ")
'- P~' ......... 2 ........... US:,",g
2. Amend the Future Land Use Element, Consedation Designation to add Southern Golden
Gate Estates as pa~ of the Picayune Strand State Forest as follows:
A. Natural Resource Protection Area/Public Ownership District
These Natural Resource Protection Areas are owned, primarily, by the public, although private in-holdings
and privately owned consedation areas do exist. The boundaries of these Natural Resource Protection
Areas/Public Ownership are expected to Ccnscn/at~on Designation may pericd~cc~b' change in the future
....... ~ .......... ~-~" as additional lands are purchased by the County, State, Federal Government,
and their respective a~encies and boards. As additional lands are purchased the County shall amend its
future land use map series to include these additional lands within the NRPA's and to assiqn a density of
one dwellinq unit per fo~ acres to all such lands. This Dccignsti~n District.includes such the following
areas:
· Everglades National Park
· Big Cypress National Prese~e
·Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
Fakahatchee Strand State Prese~e,
· Collier-Seminole State Park
· Rooke~ Bay
· 10,000 Islands National Estuarine Research Rescue
· Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Recreation Area
· Corkscrew Swamp Sanctua~ (privately owned).
· Corkscew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) Trust
· Clam Bay
· Picayune Strand State Forest
MAY 18 1999
4
..,m ....... ~4-,,~ ,~;,,~,~ .~;a~;~a ~ .... ~ ..... * ~ ~' '+ .... ncn mg~donticl usoc. Only ;the following
uses may be arc permitted in this District Dcgi~nct!cn:
a.On all lands not in private ownership as of Janua~ 1, 1999, residential ~;~ ~;"' dwelling units,
~d ~;,~ ~ ....... ~.~ ~ u~,~ u~ ~;.~ ~ .... , ..... ;~'~ at a maximum density of one
dwelling unit per fiv: fo~V gross acres:, or On all lands that are in private ownership as of Janua~
1, 1999, the fottowinfi densities shall apply:
1. Within the Biq Cypress National Prese~e and Addition one dwelling unit per 3 gross
parcel ~ .... ;"~+~ ~n h~a~;~ within thc ~.~ ~ ....
2. Within the Picavune Strand State Forest, excluding Southern Golden Gate
Estates, one dwelling unit per 5 qross acres,
3. Within Southern Golden Gate Estates, one dwellin~ unit for 2 ~ acres or less if
the lot is a leqal non-conforminq lot of record.
4. Within any Natural Resource Protection Area/Public Ownership, any leqal non-
conforminq lot of record less than 40 ~ross acres in size may be developed at its
non-conformino density.
b. Dormitories, duplexes and other staff housing, as may be provided in conjunction with consolation
uses at a maximum densiW of 12 units per qross acre; ~* ~ a~-~;"' in ..... d ....... ;+~ that
Staff housing in conjunction with safety se~ice facilities and essential se~ices, at a density in
accordance with the Land Development Code;
' ' ~.G Essential se~ices~ defined ~n ~ ~ ~a m .... ~ ..... ' Cede; as se~ices desiqned and operated to
provide water, s~we.(~ ~s~. telephone, electrical transmission and distribution lines, cable television
or communications lines, water pumpin~ stations. sewage lift station and emergency power
structures to the oeneral public;
~.~. Parks. open space and recreational uses and camps;
State Ecard cf E~ucation.
~ I. Commercial uses accesso~ to other permitted uses, such as restaurant accesso~ to operation of a
Park or Prese~e;
~. Safety se~ice facilities;
~ at+:,+ ....~ ....... :~+~ facilities;
,. vu,,~ ~,:~ ~v,,,,,:u.,,u~.,~,:
~b. Agriculturea3 uses: such as: farming: ranching: forestS: bee-keeping-; and,
e.]. Oil extraction and related activities limited to those required to suppo~ the extraction
and transDo~ Drocessing,
971ER-NOI-1101-(A)-(N) STATEMENT OF INTENT ~VI (A)(2)
Collier County an~ the Depa~ment of Community Affairs agree to the fo~owing language:
1. Include "Appendix E - Hurricane and Disaster Planning" in the Suppo~ Document of the Consedation and
Coastal Management Element (Attachment 2) AG~A I~
MAY 18 1999
5
971ER-NOI-1101 -(A)-(N) STATEMENT OF INTENT #VI (A)(3)
Collier County and the Department of Community Affairs agree to the following language:
1. Amend Policy 12.2.5 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element to read as follows
and the Future Land Use Map to depict the coastal high-hazard area:
Policy 12.2.5:
The coastal high-hazard area is that area lying within the Category 1 evacuation zone as
~*~""';'-"='~ ~"' ""^ = ......... "" ........ + Director as defined in the Southwest Florida Reqional
.............. ~ .......... ~ ....· .......u ........
Evacuation Study (Update 1996).
971ER-NOI-1101 -(A)-(N) STATEMENT OF INTENT #VI(A)(6) and VI(A)(7)
Collier County and the Department of Community Affairs agree to the following language:
1. Within the Conservation and Coastai Management Elen'tent, add a new objective 3.1 to ac;cjr..-.;ss
ground water quaff:,/. New policy 3.! .1 will address Objective 9 4 anc i:s policies. Rev!se
Obiective 9.5 and :OijCy 9.5.1 [o be incorporated into a ne;v psilc,:., 3.! .2 F-:enumber the remaining
Objective 3.3 and subsequent policies accordingly:
GOAL 3:
THE COUNTY SHALL PROTECT THE COUNTY'S GROUND WATER RESOURCES
TO ENSURE THE HIGHEST WATER QUALITY PRACTICAL.
OBJECTIVE 3.1:
Ground water quality shall meet all applicable Federal and State water quality standards.
Policy 3.1.1
Wellhead protection areas identified on the Future Land Use Map Series shah be protected as
follows:
1. Wellhead protection areas shall consist of four/4) Wellfield Risk Manaqement Zones defined
as follows:
a) W-1 is the land area surroundinq the identified potable water wellfield wellheads and
extends to the five percent qround water capture zone boundary line (which approximates
the one year qround water travel time to the wellfield').
b) W-2 is the land area between the W-1 boundary line and the ten percent qround water
capture zone boundary line (which approximates the two year ground water travel time to
the potable water wellfield).
c) W-3 is the land area between the W~2 boundary line and the twenty-five percent qround
water capture zone boundary line (which approximates the five year qround water travel
time to the potable water wellfield).,
d) W-4 is the land area between the W-3 boundary line and the 100 percent qround water
capture zone boundary line (which approximates the twenty year qround water travel time
to the potable water wellfield).
2. The followinq restrictions and prohibitions upon selected activities and land uses shall apply
within the potable water wellfield protection zones:
a} Future solid waste disposal facilities are prohibited in zones W-l, W-2, W-3 and W-4.
b) Future solid waste transfer stations shall be prohibited in zones W-l, W-2, and Wo3.
c) Future solid waste storaqe, collection and recyclin.q facilities storinq hazardous products
and hazardous wastes shall be prohibited from zones W-l, W-2, and W~3.
d) Existing and future non-residential use, handling, storaqe, generation. transport,
or processina of hazardous products in quantities that exceed 250 qallons for liquids or 1,000
pounds of solids are subiect to the following restrictions within zones W-l, W-2, and Wo3:
A~A ITEM
NO. ~
MAY 18 1999
(1) Provide for absorption of not less than the equivalent volume of the product or provide
secondary_ containment of at least 110 percent of the larqest container.
(2) Liquid hazardous products in tanks qreater than 250 ga!lons shall be stored in secondary
containment which has a volume of at least 110 percent of the larqest container plus the
displacement of that and any other tank (s) within the containment area.
e) Existinq and future non-residential facilities qeneratinq hazardous wastes accumulatinq
more than 220 pounds per month or 110 qallons at any point in time ~hall:
(1) Provide for absorption of not less than the equivalent volume of the waste or provide
secondary containment of at least 110 percent of the larqest container.
(2) Liquid hazardous wastes in tanks c~reater than 250 qallons shall be stored in
secondary containment which has a volume of at least 110 percent of the lar.qest
container plus the displacement of that and any other tank (s) within the containment
area.
f') Future domestic wastewater treatment plants shall be prohibited within zone W-1.
q) Future industrial wastewater treatment plants which are subiect to pretreatment
standards or effluent limits for toxic pollutants as promulgated in 40 CFR Part 401.15 as
the rule existed as of January 1, 1999, are permitted in W-l, W-2, W-3, and W-4, subject
to establishment of industrial pretreatment proqrams as noted in 40 CFR part 135 as the
rule existed as of January 1, 1999 and monitoring of infiuent/effluent and qroundwater.
h} Future land disposal systems are allowed to apply treated effluent within zone Wol
subject to the followinq restrictions:
{1 ) Systems appMn~ more than 2,500 acres per day shall meet hiqh level disinfection
standards identified in 62-610.460 FAC as the rule existed as of January 1, 1999, and
(2) State monitorinq requirements shall be followed.
i) Future on-site disposal systems requirinq a soil absorption area fireater than 1,000
square feet are allowed to discharqe in zone W-1 subiect to the followinq restrictions:
(1) State construction standards shall be followed,
(2) Wastewater shall be distributed onto the infiltration surface by means of an automatic
dosinq device and a low-pressure lateral distribution system.
(3) The desiqn shall be certified by a reqistered enqineer to be capable of pr.ovidinq a 24
inch separation from the bottom of the drainfield to the wet seasonal hiqh water table
when operatinq at desiqn flow.
~e~...v~..v~ ~.~. a..~ ~./v~t~J ~,,~,, ,,,,~..~.,,~,.~ ~v,,~,~,~,, i~,~.~.,,~.~h ,.~,,t~,e,,gt
..... i~,;.~ .~, ...... ~ ~+;~ +~b ..... ;.. ;~,~, .~..;~e ~,~ ..... ~*' ";~ ~t!cs. Policy
.~ ....... u ........... y ................. u ............................... u
9.5.!: ~,-,,~l .... + 3 too,'';~''';"'' ~ ..... " ..... ~;+ ........ +~'0 +~'~* d!s"oso of
.... r- ................. ~ prcgrgm .......... H .......· u ...............
· '~'-* ..... -~ in *~' ....... '~ .... +-- On-site sewa.qe disposal systems servinq existing
industrial uses and subiect to the thresholds in d) and e) above within wellfield zones W-l,
W-2, and W-3 shall be subjected to the followinq restrictions:
(1) reportinq to the County of all hazardous products stored or used,
(2) implementinq a qround water monitorinq system, and
(3) meetinq all construction and operatinq standards contained in 64E-10, F.A.C. as the
rule existed as of January 1, 1999,
k) Land application of Class A domestic residuals shall be allowed in zone W-1. Land
application of Class B domestic residuals in zone W-1 shall require a wellfield Conditional
Use Permit. Land application of domestic residuals within zones W-l, W-2, and W-3 shall
also conform to the following restrictions:
('1)Metal concentrations shall not exceed the limits set forth in 62-640
F.A.C., as the rule existed as of January 1, 1999;
(2) The total rate of domestic residuals shall not exceed the nitroqen uptake of the
vec,/etation upon which the residuals are applied;
AGENDA ITEM
No. p~1
MAY 18 1999
7
(3} If domestic residuals are applied to a site that is receivinq reclaimed water, the
nitro.qen uptake calculation shall include the combined effect from both the residual
and reclaimed water; and
(4) The residuals application zone shall meet the setbacks as specified in 62-640, F.A.C.,
as the rule existed as of January 1, 1999.~,
Excavation and mininq activities are allowed within all wellfield zones subiect to the
application of best manaqement practices for handlinq vehicle fuel, hydraulic fluids,
lubricants and related materials that will divert stormwater runoff from material processinq
and vehicle maintenance and storage areas away from mininq excavation areas.
m) Petroleum exploration and production facilities shall be permitted subfect to the followinq
restrictions:
{1 ) Expansion ofexistinq petroleum exploration or production facilities shall be prohibited
in zones W-1 and W-2.
(2) Existinq petroleum exploration and production facilities shall be allowed subiect to
primary and secondary containment system of all drillinq and production related fluids
in zones W-1 and W-2.
{3) The sitinq of future petroleum exploration and production facilities in zones W-l, W-2,
W-3 and W-4 shall require the approval of a Wellfield Conditional Use.
{4) Future petroleum exploration shall be prohibited from directional drillinq throuqh any
potable water aquifer within the vertical proiection of the map boundaries of W-l, W-2,
W-3 and W-4.
3. The Board of County Commissioners may grant a conditional use subiect to the following
criteria:
a) Special or unusual circumstances exist which are peculiar to the padicular development
which are different than any other requlated development; or
b) Adequate technoloqy exists which will isolate the development from the Surficial and
Intermediate Aquifer Systems; or
c) Site-specific hydro-.qeolo.qic data provides reasonable assurances that the existinq water
quality data in Surficial and Intermediate Aquifer Systems will not be deqraded as a result
of the development.
d) In qrantinq the Wellfield Conditional Use Permit, the BOard may prescribe any conditions
and safe quards which it deems necessary to protect the existinq well{s), future identified
well{s) or future potable water supply resources.
et The Board, after public hearing, may find that certain existinq or proposed public or quasi-
public reoulated development is exempted and may issue a Wellfield Conditional Use
Permit upon findinq that::
(1) The public benefit to be realized by the prop ,ose or existinq requlated development
outweighs the purpose of this Policy;
(2) The proposed or existing development cannot, for economic or scientific reasons, be
relocated elsewhere;
{3) The scope of any Wellfield Conditional Use Permit qranted under this Section shall be
narrow to avoid deroqation of the purpose of this Policy and the Board may impose
special conditions of approval to ensure implementation of the intent of the same.
4. All facilities shall meet the minimum state sitinq requirements as identified in 62-521,
F.A.C., as the rule existed as of January 1, 1999.
Policy 3.1.2
. ,:
~r~, .~4
The County shall implement the existing local storage tank compliance program tc prctcct ~ ......
~..~ ~, ,,-F .......+ ......";+" ;"~' "~;"~ -;+~; .....+; .....'~ ;"~ ....+;~" + ....~"- based on the
~,,u ~u,,u~ ,-~,v, H~,,,,,T ,,.~,u~,,,
followinq guidelines:
MAY 18
8
P~,li,~4.~4.FThe County shall implement provisions of the contract with the Department
of Environmental Protection under the Super Act provisions in order to avoid any duplication of
effort.
!:~31i~2q)~-~FThe County shall concentrate on storage tank installation, inspection, and
contractor certification and oversight of maintenance and monitoring of petroleum contamination
sites. The Cou~y shall assess the need for secondary containment of storage tank and fine
systems especially in areas close to potable water wellfields.
· ."
,,,v,~,,,~, ~w~ ,,~..,,,,,v~ ~.
971 ER-NOI-1101 -(A)-{N) STATEMENT OF INTENT ~I(A) (1), VI(A)(I), VI(A)(4), VI(A)(5}, VI(A)(6) and
w(A)(8)
Collier County and the Department of Community Affairs agree to the following language:
1. Amend Future Land Use Policies to add a new district Rural Fringe - Mixed Use and
subdistricts of Noah Belle Meade and PUD Neighborhood Village Center; amend and
rename the Agricultural/Rural - Mixed Use District; add ~o new districts under the
Consedation Designation Natural Resource Protection Area/Public Ownership and Natural
Resource Protection Area/Private Ownership and provide description sections for each
district and subdistrict. Delete the Area of Environmental Concern Overlay.
! AY 18
9 pg./tC) /
Policy 1.2
THE AGRICULTURAURURAL Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and
Subdistricts for:
A. RURAL FRINGE - MIXED USE DISTRICT
1. North Belle Meade Subdistrict
.2. PUD Neiqhborhood Villaqe Center Subdistrict
B.~ A. AGRICULTURALARURAL-- MIXED USE DISTRICT
1. Rural Commercial Subdistrict
C. B, RURAL - INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
D. G-: RURAL - SE'T'FLEMENT AREA DISTRICT
Policy 1.4
The CONSERVATION Future Land Use Designation shall include a two Future Land Use Districts for:
A. NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION ARENPUBLIC OWNERSHIP DISTRICT
B. NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION ARENPRIVATE OWNERSHIP DISTRICT
Policy 1.5
Overlays and special features shall include:
A. AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN OVERLAY
~. ^Dc^e n= =,.,N,,On,,,.XC,.,'r^, r.n,,tr'cD,,a OVERLAY
C. B..__= AIRPORT NOISE AREA OVERLAY
II. AGRICULTURAL/RURAL DESIGNATION
The Agricultural/Rural Land Use Designation is for those areas that are remote from the existing
development pattern, lack public facilities and services, are environmentally sensitive or are in agricultural
production. Urbanization is not promoted, therefore most allowable land uses are of low intensity in an
effort to maintain and promote the rural character of these lands. The obiectives of cjusterinq residential
units and the preservation of natural areas are to maintain the land's rural character by preserving.large
contiquous natural areas; to restore impacted sites to natural areas as these site are converted from
aqricultural uses to other uses; and to preserve interconnected wetland systems and wildlife corridors and
to discourage urban sprawl.
A. Rural Frinqe-Mixed Use District
Only q:the following uses arc may be permitted in this District:
a. Agricultural uses such as farming, ranching, forestry, bee-keeping;
b. Residential uses at a maximum density of one dwelling unit on each five acre tract, except for legal
non-conforming lots of record;
c. Habitat preservation uses;
d. Parks, open space and recreational uses, golf courses;
e. Essential services--a-s defined !n "'~ ' ~'~ r-, .... ~ ..... . r-^,~ as services desiqned and operated to
provide water, sewer, qas, telephone. electric/h/, cable television o.r communications to the qeneral
public. -
f. Safety service facilities and governmental facilities;
g. Community facilities defined as public facilities and institutional uses which serve the community at
large, such as, churches, group housing uses, cemeteries; and schools and school facilities
provided that the property_ shall have reasonable access to an existinq arterial or collector road or to
such roadways which are included in the County's current Capital Improvement Element. '.";hich
Ccmmlss!onerc.
__ T~.~ e;,~ must .... ' .....
= T,hc s~tc s,h3]] be subjcct tc hi! :pp!)ccb~c Stntc or ....... rcgubt!ons.h.Commun!cct!cn .......... ,,, ..........
AGENDA ~,M
10
i. Migrant labor housing in conjunction with aqricultural uses at a maximum density of 12 units per
~ acre subject to the development standards for farm labor housinq as provided in the Land
Development Code;
j. Earth mining, oil extraction and related processing;
k. An aAsphalt plant shall reduire-as a Conditional Use ns dcfincd !n thc Lnnd Dcvc!cpmc,~t Ccdc
..... ~,~.~ .. ..~ .. .... ~.~l+ ~. and shall at a minimum be subject to the following criteria: is
..... +~ compatibility with surrounding land uses; is not located within a County, State or Federal
jurisdictional wetland area and any required buffer zones; ~ not located within 1,000 feet of a Florida
State Park; is not located within the Area of Critical State Concern as depicted on the Future Land
Use Map; end, is not located within 1,000 feet of a natural rese~ation~ and is not located within
1,000 feet of a Natural Resource Protection area.
I. Commercial uses accesso~ to other permitted uses, such as restaurant accesso~ to golf course or
retail sales of produce accesso~ to farming, so long as restrictions or limitations are imposed to
insure the commercial use functions as an accesso~, subordinate use. Such restrictions or
limitations ~uld include limiting the size and/or location of the commercial use and/or limiting
access to the commercial use;
m. Commercial uses, within the R'~rc] Ccmmcrcjc~ Subdlstrjct, PUD Neiahborhood Village Center
Subdistrict based upon criteria of the Subdistrict;
n. Industrial uses within the Rural - Industrial District;
o. Travel trailer recreational vehicle parks, provided the following criteria are met:
1. The maximum densi~ is 12 units per acre; CORS!StORt ""~ *~ ~ ~"~ m .... ~ ..... + ..................... ~ ............
2. The site has direct principal access to a road classified as an a~erial in the Tra~c Circulation
Element, direct principal access defined as a driveway and/or roadway connection to the a~erial
road, with no access points from inteNening prope~ies; and,
3. The use will be compatible with surrounding land uses.
1. Noah Belle MeGale Subdistrict
Only the following uses may be permitted in this Subdistrict:
~ a Residential dwelling units at a maximum density of one dwellinq unit per
five qross acres, except for leqal non-conformin~ lots of record less than 5
acres in size,
b. Dormitories, duplexes and other staff housinq, as may be provided in
conjunction with consedation uses at a maximum density of 12 units per
acre,
c. Essential seNices defined as seaices designed and operated to provide
water, sewer, qas, telephone, electrical transmission and distribution lines,
cable television or communications lines, water pumpinR stations, seWaRe lift
station and ememency power structures to the ~eneral public;
d. Parks, Open space and recreational uses and camps;
e. Commercial uses accesso~ to other permitted uses, such as restaurant
accesso~ to operation of a Park or Prese~e;
f. Safe~ seNice facilities;
~. Aqricultural uses such as farminq, ranchinq, forestS., bee-keeping; and,
h. Oil extraction and related activities limited to those required to suppo~ the
extraction and transDo~ process.
2. PUD Neiqhborhood Village Center Subdistrict
The ourpose of this subdistrict is to allow for small scale retail, o~ces and seaice
facilities to seNe the daily needs of the residents of a PUD in the Rural Frinqe Mixed
Use District. The acreGee eliqible for Neiqhborhood Villaqe Center uses shall be sized
in proaction to the number of units to be seNed, but in no event shall the acreage
exceed 15 acres. The Neiqhborhood VillaGe Center uses may be combined with
recreational facilities and other amenities of the PUD and shall be conveniently
located to sere the PUD. The Villaqe Center shall not have independent access a A~A 8 '
18 1999
11
.,.3
.,
any roadway external to the PUD and shall be integrated into the PUD. Phasinq
of construction of the Neiqhborhood Villaqe Center shall be controlled so that it
occurs concurrent with the residential units. The Planned Unit Development district
of the Land Development Code shall be amended within one (1/year to provide
standards and principles requlatinq access, location or nte.qration within the PUD of
the Villaqe Center, allowed pses and sguare footaqe and/or acreage thresholds.
The maximum floor area ratio for commercial development shall be .45.
B. Aqricultural - Mixed Use District
The purpose of this District is to protect and encourage agricultural activities, conserve and preserve
environmentally sensitive areas, provide for low density residential development, and other uses identified
under the Agricultural/Rural Designation. These areas generally lack public facilities and services.
Urbanization is not promoted, therefore most allowable land uses are of low intensity in an effort to
maintain and promote the rural character of these lands. Rcs~dcn, tL3~ uscs crc c!!c';;cd cs fcHows:
USES, '''~ Q ,4~;+,, ~R ..... "~ ....... ;+~, +~,~ ~ ~,~ n ....I ..... ~ t',^~,.,.
e. ='-'~'-"' m~'~- .haL:sing !n ..... a ....... ;+;" t,hc Fnr, .m ~ '-~'~- .u,c'..'s!n.g provision ~n *~'~ ' "~'~ n ....~ .....+
Cede;
Only the followinq uses may be permitted in this District:
a. Aqricultural uses such as farminq, ranchinq, forestry, bee-keepinq;
b. Residential uses at a maximum density of one dwellinq unit for each 20 acre tract, except for leqal
- non-conforminq lots of record;
c. Habitat preservation uses;
d. Parks, open space and recreational uses, qolf courses;
e. Essential services defined as services desiqned and operated to provide water, sewer, gas,
telephone, electricity, cable television or communications to the fieneral public;
f. Safety service facilities and qovernmental facilities;
q. Community facilities defined as public facilities and institutional uses which serve the community at
large, such as, churches, group housing, cemeteries; and schools and school facilities provided that
the property shall have reasonable access to an existinq arterial or collector road or to such
roadways which are included in the County's current Capital Improvement Element;
h. Miarant labor housinq in coniunction with aqricultural uses at a maximum density of 12 units per
acre, subiect to the development standards for farm labor housinq as provided in the Land
Development Code;
i. Eadh mininq, oil extraction and activities limited those required to support the extraction and
transport process;
An asphalt plant shall require the approval of a Conditional Use and shall at a minimum be subiect
to the followinq criteria: compatibility with surrounding land uses; is not located within a County,
State or Federal jurisdictional wetland area and any required buffer zones; is not located within
1,000 feet of a Florida State Park; is not located within the Area of Critical State Concern as
depicted on the Future Land Use Map; is not located within 1 ,O00 feet of a natural reservation; and
is not located within 1,000 feet of a Natural Resource Protection area.
Commercial uses accesso_ry to other permitted uses, such as restaurant accessory to qolf course or
retail sales of produce accessory to farmina, so Ionq as restrictions or limitations are imposed to
insure the commercial use functions as an accesson/, subordinate use. Such restrictions or
limitations include limitinq the size and/or location of the commercial use and/or limitinc access to
the commercial use;
AGENOA [TE.M
MAY 18 1999
12
m. Commercial uses, within the Rural Commercial Subdistrict, based upon criteria of the Subdistrict;
n. Industrial uses within the Rural - Industrial District;
1. Rural Commercial Subdistrict
Within the Agricultural/Rural ~ Mixed Use District, commercial development, up to a maximum of 200
acres, may be allowed providing the following standards for intensity of use are met:
a. The project, or that portion of a larger project which is devoted to commercial development,
is 2.5 acres or less in size and the maximum floor area ratio for commercial development shall
be .45;
b. The project, or that portion of a larger project which is devoted to commercial development, is
no closer than 5 miles, measured by radial distance, from the nearest developed commercial
area, zoned commercial area or designated Mixed Use Activity Center;
c. The proposed uses are those permitted in the C-1, C-2 and C-3 Zoning Districts of the Land
Development Code;
d. The project is located on an arterial or collector roadway as identified in the Traffic Circulation
Element; and
e. The project is buffered from adjacent properties.
B. Rural - Industrial District
The Rural - Industrial District, which encompasses approximately 600 acres of existing industrial areas
outside of Urban designated areas, is intended, and shall be reserved, for industrial type uses. Besides
basic Industrial uses, limited commercial uses are permitted. Retail commercial uses are prohibited,
except as accessory to Industrial uses. The C-5 Commercial Zoning District on the perimeter of lands
designated Rural - Industrial District, as of October 1997, shall be deemed consistent with this Land Use
District. All industrial areas shall have direct access to a road classified as an arterial or collector in the
Traffic Circulation Element, or access may be provided via a local road that does not service a
predominately residential area. No industrial land uses shall be permitted in the Area of Critical State
Concern. For the purposes of interpreting this District, oil and gas exploration, drilling, and production
shall not be deemed to be industrial land uses and shall continue to be regulated by all applicable federal,
state, and local laws. Intensities of use shall be those related to:
a. Manufacturing;
b. Processing;
c. Storage and warehousing;
d. Wholesating;
e. Distribution;
f. Other basic industrial uses as described in the Industrial Zoning District in
the Land Development Code;
g. Support commercial uses, such as child care centers and restaurants.
IV. CONSERVATION DESIGNATION
The overall purpose of the Conservation Designation is to conserve and maintain the natural resources of
Collier County and their associated environmental, recreational and economic benefits. All native habitats
possess ecological and physical characteristics that justify attempts to maintain these important natural
resources. Barrier Islands, coastal bays and wetlands deserve particular attention because of their
ecological value and their sensitivity to perturbation. It is because of this that all proposals for
development in the Conservation Designation must be subject to rigorous review to ensure that the
impacts of the development do not destroy or unacceptably degrade the inherent functional values. The
Conservation Designation is intended to protect certain vital natural resource areas of the County.
A. Natural Resource Protection Area/Public Ownership District
These Natural Resource Protection Areas are owned, primarily, by the public, although private in-holdings
and privately owned conservation areas do exist. The boundaries of these Natural Resource Protection
Areas/Public Ownership are expected to Ccnscr-.'nt!cn Des~gn~tlcn may pcrlcd!cn!!y change in the future
~, ~, ...... crc .... as additional lands are purchased by the County, State, Federal Government,
AGENDA ITEM
and their respective aqencies and boards. As additional lands are purchased the County shall amend its
future land use map series to include these additional lands within the NRPA's and to assi.qn a density of
one dwellin.q unit per forty acres to all such lands. This Dcsignnt!en District includes c'dch the followin.q
areas:
· Everglades National Park
· Big Cypress National Preserve
· Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
· Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve,
· Collier-Seminole State Park
· Rookery Bay
· 10,000 Islands National Estuarine Research Reserve
· DelnoFWiggins Pass State Recreation Area
· Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary (privately owned).
· Corkscew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) Trust
· Clam Bay
· Picayune Strand State Forest
e~,~.~.H,- ~,.. ,~ ....I .....+ !r. +~-~ n .......+;~. n~.;~.~+; .....~ ....'~ !r. *"^ t- ........; ....'~ Coastal
,.,i. ....... ,~.~ n~;.~.~ .~,-;,~,.+;~ ,~ .... ~ ..... + "-'~ f' '+ .......... ;'~-"~ ..... Only ~-the following
uses may be ore permitted in this District Designation:
a. On all lands not in private ownership as of January 1. 1999, residential Single famil" dwelling units,
and ~^""~ ~' ....... ._~ ~h~ ~.~,.~ u.,,...~ -7~...,. n .... ~ ..... ~+~ at a maximum density of one
dwelling unit per five forty gross acres= ~ or On all lands that are in private ownership as of January
1, 1999. the followinq densities shall apply:
1. Within the Biq Cypress National Preserve and Addition one dwelling unit per 3 gross
2. Within the Picayune Strand State Forest, excludin.q Southern Golden Gate
Estates, one dweHinq unit per 5 qross ac. res,
3. Within Southern Golden Gate Estates, one dwellincl unit for 2 % acres or less if
the lot is a leqal non-conforminq lot of record.
4. Within any Natural Resource Protection Area/Public Ownership. any leqal non-
conforminq lot of record less than 40 qross acres in size may be developed at its
non-conforming density.
b. Dormitories. duplexes and other staff housing, as may be provided in conjunction with conservation
uses at a maximum density of 19 units per qross acre;, nt a density != =cccrd=.nce :v~t.~ that
Staff housing in conjunction with safety service facilities and essential services, at a density in
accordance with the Land Development Code;
g.ct. Essential services-as defined in '~'~ ~ ~"'~ r-, .... ~ ..... ~ Code; as services desiqned and operated to
provide water, sewer, .qas, telephone, electrical transmission and distribution lines, cable television
or communications lines, water pumpin~ stations, sewaqe lift station and emerqency power
structures to the qeneral public;
h.e_~ Parks, open space and recreational uses and camps;
sub;cot ~ *~'~ ;~, ....;-~ criteria:
AGENDA ITEM
No...
NAY 18
14
~tc
F L commerciai uses accesso~ to other permitted uses, such as restaurant accesso~ to operation of a
Park or Presage;
~, Safety se~ice facilities;
~b. AgricultuFeal uses. such as, farming, ranching, forestS, bee-keepinq-; and,
ej. Oil extraction and related activities limited to those required to suppo~ the extraction
and transpo~ processing,
B. Natural Resource Protection Areas/Private Ownership District
These Natural Resource Protection Areas are privately owned. The boundaries of this District include
laFOe, interconnected wetland systems and are identified as follows:
· CREW acquisition areas
Camp Kaeis Strand
OkaloacDochee Slouqh
Only the followinq uses may be permitted in this District:
a. Residential dwellinq units at a maximum densi~ of one dwellinq unit per foMy ~ross acres, except
for leqal non-confoFminq lots of record less than 40 acres in size,
b. Dormitories, duplexes and other staff housinq, as may be provided in conjunction with consedation
uses at a maximum density of 12 units per acre,
c. Essential se~ices defined as se~ices designed and operated to provide water, sewer, ~as,
telephone, electrical transmission and distribution lines, cable television or communications lines,
water pumping stations, sewage lift station and emeFqency power structures to the ~eneFal public~
d. Parks, open space and recreational uses and camps;
e. Commercial uses accesso~ to other permitted uses, such as restaurant accesso~ to operation of a
Park or Presage;
f. Safety se~ice facilities;
AgricUltUral uses such as farminq, ranchinq, fOreStS, bee-keepinq;; and,
h. Oil extraction and Fetated activities limited to those required to suppoM the
extraction and transpoM process.
V. OVERLAYS AND SPECIAL FEATURES
A. Area of Critical State Concern Overlay
The Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC} was established by the 1974 Florida Legislature.
The CritiCal Area is displayed on the Future Land Use Map as an overlay area. The Critical Area
encompasses lands designated Consedation, Agricultural/Rural, Estates and Urban (Po~ of the Islands,
Plantation Island and Copeland). Chokoloskee is excluded from the Big Cypress Area of Critical State
Concern. Schools and school facilities shall not be permitted in the Area of Critical State Concern. All
Development Orders within the CritiCal Area shall comply with Chapter 28-25, Florida Administrative Code,
"Bounda~ and Regulations for the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern". Those regulations include
the following:
AGENOA ITEM
No,. C2
MAY 18 1889
15
pg., /(9 7
B. Arc=s Of E=v!rs~mc=t=! Concern
......... ~ .......................................... ~ ............ ~ ...............................
~. Airpo~ Noise Area Overlay
FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES
Future Land Use Map
Mixed Use & Interchange Activity Centers
Prope~ies Consistent by Policy (5.9,5.10,5.11 )
Collier County Wetlands 1994195 SFWMD
Wellhead Protection Areas
2. Amend Policies 1.2.2, 1.5.1, 1.5.2 of the Potable Water Sub-Element and replace the existing
Map PW-1 with a new map of the County Water and Sewer Se~ice District bounda~ (Map
PW-1 attached).
Policy 1.2.2:
Consistent with the urban gro~h policies of the Future Land Use Element of this Plan, provision of central
potable water se~ice by the Coun~ is limited to the se~ice areas shown in this Plan and to areas where
the County has legal commitments to provide facilities and se~ices identified on Map PW-1 as of the date
of adoption of this Plan.
Policy 1.5.1
Discourage urban sprawl by pcrm~tti~ I~mifing central potable water se~ice systems by the County cnly ~n
~ n~,~ ~ ,,h~ ~ .... ~ ~ =' '* .... ~ ~ ~ ~ =~ .... ~ ~ ~ ~- to the serfice areas shown in
this Plan and in areas where the County has legal commitments to provide facilities or se~ices outside the
Urban Areas identified on Map PW-1 as of the date of adoption of this Plan.
Policy 1.5.2
The County will discourage urban sprawl and the proliferation of private sector and/or package potable
water treatment systems by limitinq private systems to the Rural Frinqe-Mixed Use District and within the
se~ice district as identified on Map PW-1, in coniunction with cjusterinq criteria required in Obiective 64
and subsequent policies of the Consedation and Coastal Mana~emenl Element. Those projects which
meet the requirements for a private packaqe sewage treatment plant over 100,000 gallons per day may
also be permitted to provide a private potable water treatment ~ystem. thrcuGh thc dcvclcpmcnt ordcr
........ ~ ~-~cos~ tc ~nsurc msx!mum utW1zat~cn ~ +~ ~'~ .... ~ ~ .... ~ -ubllc fcc!lltlcs. School and
school facilities will be permitted to have private potable water systems for their sinqle purpose facility. No
existing private sector or potable water treatment systems will be permitted to add customers unless all
Levels of Se~ice standards are met, and operations are in conformance with all DER B permits. Within
the Aqricultural - Mixed Use District private wells will be permitted.
3. Amend policies 1.1.2, 1.1.4, 1.5.1 and 1.5.2 of the Sanita~ Sewer Sub-Element and provide a
new map of the Water/Sewer Se~ice District bounda~ (Map SS-2 attached).
Policy 1.1.2
Consistent with the urban gro~h policies of the Future Land Use Element of this Plan, provision of central
sanita~ sewer se~ice by the ~ounty is limited to the se~ice areas shown in this Plan and to ar~s where
the County has legal commitments to provide facilities and se~ices identified on Map SS-2 as of the date
of adoption of this Plan.
A~A ~
NAY 18 1999
16
Policy 1.1.4
Within the desiqnated Urban Area of this Plan, Per-FF~ the development of package sewage treatment
plant systems ,-,.i ......F,;. ~F.~ r-,~;~.~ I~.~.~,., ^ ....~ ..~ c~,~. shall be permitted only in areas where
County wastewater services-is not currently available, and allow only on an interim basis until County
service is available. Allow individual septic systems~;:!th!n thc "' .... *,, only when connection to an existing
central system is not readily accessible to render service and nctc thnt where septic system are allowed,
and future County sewer services becomes available, said septic systems will be required to connect to
the County regional system in accordance with County ordinances and Section 381.00655, Florida
Statutes.
Policy 1.5.1
Discourage urban sprawl by pcrmltt!ng limiting central sanitary sewer service cystores by the County on!y
in ~'^ Dcsi p. ctod; ;-~'~"' ^ ....f ~'~ =' '; ....; ~"'~; ;~ =; ....; ''f "';~ =;~" to the service areas shown in
g
this Plan and in areas where the County has legal commitments to provide facilities or services outside the
Urban Areas identified on Map SS~2 as of the date of adoption of this Plan.
Policy 1.5.2
The County will discourage urban sprawl and the proliferation of private sector and/or package sanitary
sewer treatment systems by limitinq private system to the Rural Frinqe Mixed Use District and the service
district as identified on Map SS-2, in confunction with cjusterinq criteria required in Objective 64 and
subsequent aolicies of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. No private sanitary sewer
packaqe plant treatment system may be permitted under 100,000 qallons per day capacity. Schools and
school facilities may be permitted to provide smaller private package plants for their sinqle purpose facility.
pL:bfic facilitics. No existing private sector or potable water treatment systems will be permitted to add
customers unless all Levels of Service standards are met, and operations are in conformance with all DER-
P permits. Within the Aqricultural/Rural Mixed Use District septic tanks will be permitted.
971ER-NOI-1101 -(A)-(N) STATEMENT OF INTENT #VI(A)(I )
1. Delete Objective 1.3 and 6.1 together with their attendant policies in the Conservation and
Coastal Management Element and replace with a new Objective 6.1 to address the NRPAs.
(The new Objective 6.4 addresses the intent of the existing Objective 6.1 .)
· ·
.... ~' .............. ~ ,' ,~ .............................................u ...... ~ .......permit
pLJrg,hasc (basc~ or, pubfi: rcfercnda :pprcv!ng ar, d f',J'ndL~g p'J'rchasos). Other opt!or: AGEII:)A ITEM
MAY 18 1999
17
Pg.
.......... u .................... ~ay .... u ....
~ ...... , OF
~.~ ......... programs ~'
.................... ~ .....~ .........................; ............... ~ ...................pa~ of
Land DcvaWpmant Coda No. gl 102,
, ~,,~ ~. ·. ,.
, ,~x ....:~.~ ....+~: k~,.; .....N xsfis .....k k~k.~ ....~h ,,;~,;~ ~, x ....r .....+ and
.... ,~.~ ~.~ .~,~ .....~ hammocks.
AGENGA ITT:.M
-- No,
HAY
18
p,. //o
OBJECTIVE 6.1:
Natural Resource Protection Areas shall be mapped as districts of the Conservation Desiqnation
on the Future Land Use Map in order to protect wetlands, native veqetative communities and
endanqered and threatened wildlife by preventinq the fragmentation of larae natural systems.
This obiective shall be made measurable by implementinq the following policies.
Policy 8.1.1
Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPAs) are areas within Collier County that the County has
desiqnated as environmentaliV sensitive based upon one or more of the followinq criteria:
· havinq larqe connected wetland systems,
· providing critical habitat to a number of listed species,
· providing connections to other preserved and protected areas, and
not being excessively fragmented by current transportation systems and residential
development patterns unless an active acquisition and restoration plan addresses these
impacts.
Policy 8.1.2
Based upon the application of the above criterial Collier County has determined that the followinq
areas qualify as NRPAs:
· Big Cypress National Preserve and Addition
· Camp Kaeis Strand
· Clam Bay
· Collier-Seminole State Park
· Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary
· CREW
· Deinor Wiqqins Pass State Recreation Area
· Everqlades National Preserve and Addition
· Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
· Fakahachee Strand State Preserve
· Okaloacoochee Slouqh
· Picarune Strand State Forest
· Rookery Bay
· Ten Thousand Islands National Estuarine Research Reserve
AGEI'I3A ITE.!d
1,4AY 18 I999
19 p,._///_
Policy 6.1.3.
Incompatible land uses shall be directed away from NRPAs in order to protect lar.qe areas of
connected wetland systems and associated critical habitats for listed species. The Future Land
Use Element provides a listinq of allowable uses and residential densities that have been selected
to protect these environmentally sensitive areas and their associated wetlands and wildlife
habitats.
Policy 6.1.4.
The functions of these areas are also protected by the application of cjusterino criteria found in
Policy 6.4.2 and wildlife protection criteria found in Policy 7.1.1 h. In addition to these criteria,
stormwater management systems discharqin.q in a NRPA shall provide one-half inch of dry
retention pretreatment.
Policy 6.1.5.
Non-aqricultural development within 1,000 feet of an NRPA boundary shall meet the followinq
criteria in order to reduce the impact of the development on NRPAs and natural reservations:
1. The project shall be located as far from the NRPA boundary as possible.
2. Required open space shall be used to buffer the NRPA from the most intense uses of the
project.
3. The proiect shall demonstrate protection for listed species in proximity to. the project within the
NRPA. Where applicable, provision shall be made to accommodate the movement of wildlife
throuqh the proiect to the NRPA.
4. Stormwater manaqement systems discharqin.q to the NRPA shall be desioned to provide at
least one half inch of dry detention or retention pretreatment.
Policy 6.1.6.
Within one year from the effective date of these policies the County shall adopt Land
Development Requlations to implement the NRPA protection standards.
2. Renumber Objective 6.7 and its policies to Objective 6.2 and modify Policy 6.2.2.
Policy e,.7.2 6.2.2.
The County shall continue to meet periodically with the appropriate counties to discuss upcoming
land development projects that would lave an impact on ecological communities in the Counties.
3. Renumber Objec:ive 6.8 ar'~d i[s 12olicies to 6.3, 6.3.1 and 6.3,2
971ER-NOI-1101 -(A)-(N) STATEMENT OF INTENT #VI(A)(4)
1. Delete Objectives 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 and their respective policies and replace with the new
Objectives 6.3 and 6.4 and their respective policies.
·:
· "~'~ ~"~" ~ '"~ ~"~h''~'~ "~ '~ ~" "~'~ "~'~'~"2 '~"v"v""l'1;:f ""~""'~ ~"~ "~"
^SS, Arrm
-- No, C,
MAY 18
20 Pl-/
~Hv,~k,~,,~ ~,,,~ ~ ,,,~,,~:::1~,,,~,,. H,~.,~v~ ~ ,,,.,,,,,,~v .,~ v,,vv~ v,, .,v ..~.~,,~v.
resources:
- AGENOA ITEM
NAY 18 1999
21
MAY 18 1999
22
p~.//'~'
23
P.. //~
Policy 6.3.!
Wetlands identified by the 1994-95 SFWMD land use and cover inventory are mapped on the
Future Land Use Map series. All wetlands, as verified by jurisdictional field delineation at the time
of project permittinq, are designated as environmentally sensitive areas and shall be protected by
policies contained within this objective.
Policy 6.3.2.
Wetlands shall be defined pursuant to the Section 373.019 Florida Statutes and Section 373.421
Florida Statutes as the law exists as of January 1, 1999.
Policy 6.3.3.
Marine wetlands are defined as areas with a water reqime determined primarily by tides and
where the dominant veqetation is salt tolerant plant species.
Policy 6.3.4.
Larqe, interconnected marine and freshwater wetland systems supportinq many listed species
and located in areas that have not been subiected to ne,qafive impacts are considered to have
hiqh environmental value and are classified by the County as priority wetlands. Protection of
these systems is accomplished by the criteria found within the identified Natural Resource
Protection Areas ('Objective 6.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Manaqement Element) and
standards for Bi.q Cypress Area of Critical State Concern in the Future Land Use Element.
Policy 6.3.5
Incompatible Land Uses are directed away from wetlands by the followinq mechanisms:
1. Natural Resource Protection Areas identify those wetland systems that have a value high
enouqh to justify residential densities as low as 1 unit per 40 acres. Densities for these
systems and the prohibitions of other non-residential land uses are identified in the Future
Land Use Element;
2. Residential densities are limited to I unit per 20 acres in the Agricultural/Rural areas of Collier
County;
3.Asphalt Plants shall not be located in wetlands ('Reference Future Land Use Element);
4.Cjusterinq non-a.qricultural land uses away from wetlands is required in all of Collier County;
5. Development shall first avoid wetland impacts and then minimize impacts when they are
unavoidable.
Policy 6.3.6
Marine wetlands shall also be protected through the followinq mechanisms:
1. New and expanded wet slip marinas and multi-family facilities shall not exceed densities of 18
boat slips for every 100 feet of shoreline.
2. The following priority rankinq for sitinq of shoreline development and the resultant destruction
or disturbance of native veqetative communities for water dependent/water related land uses
shall apply (Reference Conservation and Coastal Manaqement Element Policy 10.1 .4):
a. , areas presently developed,
b. disturbed uplands,
c. disturbed freshwater wetlands,
d, disturbed marine wetlands,
e, unaltered uplands,
f. unaltered freshwater wetlands,
g. unaltered marine wetlands.
3. Manqrove alterations shall conform to applicable FDEP standards.
',~
AGEI~A ITEM
No. ,~
MAY {8 1999
24
Policy 6.3.7.
Where appropriate, freshwater wetlands shall be incorporated into stormwater management plans
in order to restore and enhance the historic hydroperiod and ensure the continuity of natural flow
ways.
Policy 6.3.8.
Proposed develoP;merit o;~ parcels containinq wetlands shall direct land uses away from wetlands
by cjusterino the development to maintain the lamest contiquous wetland area practicable and to
preserve the pre-development hydroperiod. This policy shall be implemented throuqh the
application of federal and state wetland permittinq proqrams where the applicant shall first avoid
wetland impacts and then minimize impacts when they are unavoidable. This policy is not
intended to duplicate any federal or state wetlands permittinq program,
Policy 6.3.9.
Where oroiects have unavoidable adverse impacts to wetlands, mitigation shall be required in
order to ensure that the proiect does not result in a net loss of wetland functions. A no-net loss of
wetland functions is presumed to occur for projects receivinq federal and state permits and havinq
an overall mitiqation ratio of not less than 1 acre mitiqated for 1 acre impacted. Removal of
invasive exotics veqetation shall not be considered as part of the overall mitiqation ratio.
Guidelines for mitiqation are as follows:
1. All mitiqation shall occur in Collier County. Mitiqation for development in Coastal area
wetlands shall occur in the Coastal area. For mitiqation of freshwater wetlands outside of the
Coastal area, first consideration should be qiven to mitioation on site, followed by mitigation in
the adjacent contiquous area, followed by mitiqation in the same watershed, followed by
mitiaation in adiacent watersheds.
2. For proiects that require wetland mitigation an entity shall be desiqnated responsible to
monitor the compliance of the mitigation stipulation.
Policy 6.3.10.
All non-aaricultural development projects and individual sinpie family residential buildinq permits in
Southern Golden Gate Estates and the Area of Critical State Concern impactinq wetlands shall
obtain the appropriate federal and state permits before Collier County issues its final approval of
t.he proiect~
Policy 6.3.11.
Collier County shall inform applicants for individual sinqle family buildinq permits which are not
part of a development project receiving a wetlands permit, such as North Golden Gate Estates,
that federal and state wetland permits may be required prior to construction and shall notify the
applicable federal and state agencies of sinqle family building permits applications in these areas.
Policy 6.3.12.
These POliCieS shall not be construed to prevent timberinq operations so Ionq as timbering
operations utilize best manaqement practices to minimize the effects on the wetlands.
Policy 6.3.13.
Credits toward the Park and Recreational impact Fee shall be given for any upland conservation
buffer oreserved on site for passive recreation uses and serves to protect a wetland. The credit
shall be set on a per acre preserve basis. A conservation easement or other permanent
dedication shall be created for any buffer for which an impact fee credit is given.
OBJECTIVE 6.4
Development as specified in Policies 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 shall cjuster its'i~pacts on site in order to
preserve native veqetative communities and protect wildlife I~abitat.
HAY 18 1999
25
Policy 6.4.!:
Within the Urban Desiqnated Area the percentage of native vegetation and natural areas
preserved on site shall be as follows unless the development occurs within the Area of Critical
State concern where the standards referenced in the Future Land Use Element apply:
Coastal Hiah Hazard Area Non-Coastal Hiqh Hazard Area
Residential and < than 2.5 ac. 10% < than 5 ac. 10%
Mixed Use Equal to or > than 2.5 ac. 25% 5 and 20 ac. 15%
Development Equal to or > than 20 ac. 25%
Golf Course 15% 15%
Development
Commercial and < than 5 ac. 10% < than 5 ac. 10%
Industrial Equal to or > than 5 ac. 15% Equal to or > than 5 ac. 15%
Development
Within the Urban desiqnated area, the followinq criteria apply to the above preservation
requirements:
a. The preservation requirements are calculated on the amount of naturally functioning native
veqetation found on-site. Veqetative communities havinq less than 90% invasive exotics
shall be defined as naturally functioninq since these exotics can be removed to provide the
vegetative community with a sufficient deqree of functionality for the purpose of these criteria.
b. The preservation of the native veqetation shall include both the understory and the ground
cover emphasizinq the largest contiguous area possible.
c. The preservation of different contiguous habitats is encouraged. When several different
· - native plant communities exist on site, the development plans will reasonably attempt to
preserve examples of all of them if possible.
d. Where a proiect has included open space, recreational amentries, or preserved wetlands that
meet or exceed the minimum open space criteria of Collier County, this policy shall not be
construed to require a larqer percentaqe of open space set aside to meet the native
vegetation requirements.
e. Exceptions, by means of mitiqation in the form of increased landscape requirements, shall be
granted for parcels which can not reasonably accommodate both the preservation area and
the proposed activity. Where native preservation requirements are not accommodated, the
landscape plan shall re-create a native plant community in all three strata (ground covers,
shrubs and trees), utilizinq larqer plant materials so as to more quickly re-create the lost
mature ve.qetation.
f. Previously cleared parcels, void of native vegetation, shall be exempt from this requirement.
q. This policy shall not be interpreted to allow development in wetlands, should the wetlands
alone constitute more than the portion of the site required to be preserved.
Policy 6.4.2
Within the A.qricultural/Rural and Conservation Desiqnation residential developments; golf course
developments; mixed use developments; commercial development and industrial developments
shall set aside 25% of the total site area as natural areas for projects less than 40 acres and 50%
of the total site area as natural areas for projects equal to or greater than 40 acres. Within the
Agricultural/Rural and Conservation Desiqnations, the following criteria apply to the above
preservation requirements:
a. The preservation requirements'for the preservation and restoration of natural areas are
calculated on the qross acreage of the proiect .site, less the non-littoral zone area of any
existinq man-made waterbody. ' N~.GEND~rEM
HAY 18 1999
26
b. The purpose of these preservation requirements in the Aqricultural/Rural and Conservation
desiqnated areas is to set aside the required portion of the site to preserve existinq native
veqetative communities and/or to restore the required portion of the site to support the
establishment of native veqetative communities. Natural areas therefore can be comprised
· (1) Existinq native veqetative communities;
(2) Enhanced or restored wetlands and uplands, includinq areas that are currently disturbed
and can be re-colonized with future native veqetation; and
(3). Littoral zones of man-made water bodies, includinq canals and stormwater ponds that
support wetland veqetation.
Natural areas shall not include areas such as the non-littoral zones of constructed lakes, the
actively manaqed portion of golf courses such as the fairways, qreens and rouqh, tennis
courts and other active recreational areas, mowed common areas and other areas that are
planted with tuff qrass or non-native species.
c. Selection of the areas that comprise the preservation requirement shall reflect the followinq
criteria in descendinq order of priority:
(1) Wetland flowways throuqh the project shall be maintained;
(2) Natural areas, especially preserved wetlands, shall be interconnected within the site and
to other wetland areas or wildlife corridors off-site;
(3) Weftand and upland areas known to be utilized by. listed species or serve as corridors for
the movement of wildlife shall be preserved and protected in order to facilitate the
movement of wildlife throuqh the site;
(4) Upland habitat shall be part of the preservation requirement when wetlands alone do not
constitute all of the requirement. Upland habitats have the followinq descendinq order of
priority:
{a) Any upland habitat that serves as a buffer to a wetland area.
(b) Xeric Scrub,
(c) Dune and .Strand, Hardwood Hammocks,
- (d) Dry Prairie, Pine Flatwoods,..and
(e) All other upland habitats.
d. The destruction of any naturally functioninq native vegetation found on-site shall be
compensated for by the purchase of lands within or adjacent to an identified NRPA at a ratio
of 2:1. Veqetative communities havinq less than 90% invasive exotics shall be defined as
naturally functioninq since these exotics can be removed to provide the veqetative community
with a sufficient deqree of functionality for the .purpose of these criteria.
e. Where the percentaqe of naturally functioninq native vefietation for a site is initially less than
the preservation requirement, the stated requirement can be obtained by (1) creation of
wetland or upland areas on site, (2) purchase of lands within or adiacent to an identified
NRPA on a 1:1 basis or (3) a combination of (1) or
f. Preserved natural areas shall be connected throuqhout the proiect area and be connected to
off site natural areas to the qreatest extent possible,
fi. A minimum veqetated buffer area of 200 feet shall be provided for all structures from the
nearest external roadway. This buffer area shall contain at least 80% native veqetation.
Natural areas can be used for this buffer requirement.
h. Passive uses such as nature trails are allowed in the natural areas.
i. All lands to be maintained as natural areas within the proiect or purchased as off site
mitiqation, shall be protected by a permanent conservation easement, prohibitinq further
development, and settin~ other standards safequardinq the site's special resources from
0e. gative chanqeS.
AGENDA ITEM
MAY 18 1999
27
PF.,o
j. A manaqement plan shall be submitted to identify actions that must be taken throuqh the life
of the proiect to ensure that the natural areas will function as oroaosed. The plan shall
address exotic control and treatment, fire manaqement, and maintenance of facilities that
provide protection to listed species.
k. The criteria contained in Policy 7.1 .l h shall also apply.
I. Earth minin.q shall require the approval of a conditional use. Ao~3roval of the; ~
conditional shall include a requirement that 50% of the total proiect area be set
aside as a natural area should the earth mininq conditional use be converted to a
land use specified in Policy 6.4.2.
m Golf Courses shall adhere to the set aside requirements contained in 6.4.2. The
standards found in 6.4.2a through 6.4.2k shall be used in the desiOn of the qolf course
lay-out in order to protect siqnificant portions of native veqetation and wildlife habitat.
Landscapin,q plans shall require at least 75% of the trees and 50% of the shrubs to be
native Floridion species with at least 75% of these trees and shrubs to be drouoht-
tolerant species. Golf Courses shall also be desiqned to incorporate those Best
Manaqement Practices recommended in the publication, Best Manaqement Practices
for Golf Course Maintenance Departments, FDEP, May 1995.
Policy 6.4,3.
Agriculture shall be exempt from the above preservation requirements contained in Policy 6.4.1
and 6.4.2 provided that any new clearinq of land for aqriculture shall not be converted to
non-agricultural development for at least ten years. For any such conversions in less than ten
years, the requirements of 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 shall be applied to the site at the time of the
conversion. Within the Urban Designated Areas, the percentaqe of naturally functionin,q native
Vegetation preserved shall be calculated on the amount of veqetation occurrinq at the time of the
aqricultural clearinq, and if found to be deficient, a native plant community shall be restored as
outlined in 6.4.1 e. Within the Aqricultural/Rural and Conservation desiqnated areas, the required
amount of natural areas shall be those specified in 6.4.2 and any naturally functioninq native
veqetation destroyed at the time of agricultural clearinq shall be compensated for by..th.e
requirements addressed in 6.4.2 d. The clearinq of aqricultural land shall be permitted after all
applicable federal and state permits are obtained.
Policy 6.4.4.
Non-aqricultural developments shall submit and implement plans for invasive exotic olant removal
and Ionq-term control.
Policy 6.4.5.
In the event that the County adopts an open space recreational system. consideration should be
given to incorporating the linkage and protection obiectives of the retained habitat.
971 ER-NOI-1101 -(A)-(N) STATEMENT OF INTENT #VI(A)(5)
1. Delete Objective 7.3 and its policies and replace with a new Objective 7.1 and renumber Objective
7.1 and 7.2 and subsequent policies to Objectives 7.2 and 7.3:
.;
cr spccios cf ~, .....................
AGENDA I]TzJv~
MAY 18 1999
28
pg. /,:::::p C)
AGENDA ITEM
OBJECTIVE 7.1 No.. ,~
MAY 18 1999
29 ,,~./,~/_
The County shall protect fisheries and other animal wildlife and their habitat by includinq
measures within development orders for protection and/or relocation of endanqered, threatened,
o..r species of special concern or status. This obiective shall be made measurable by implementinq
the following policies.
Policy 7.1.1
Non-aqricultural de~/elol~ment, excludinq individual single family residences shall comply with the
followinq guidelines and standards:
a. Habitat and manaqement plans for species of special status shall be submitted for County
approval and shall comply with current federal, state and local policies.
b. USFWS quidelines addressinq habitat manaclement for the bald eaqle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) and the woodstork (Mycteria americana) shall be used for protectinq these
species and incorporated into required manaqement plans.
c. The developer shall be responsible for a conservation and manaqement plan for the red-
cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) and the Florida panther (Fells concolorcoryz~.
d. Proiects within 300 feet of the MHW line shall minimize outdoor liqhtinq to that necessary for
security and safety in order to protect Ioqqerhead (Caretta careHa) and other listed sea turtles
that nest alonq Collier County beaches.
e. In order to protect the West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus) and its habitat, new and
expanded wet slip marinas and multi-family facilities shall not exceed densities of 18 boat
slips for every 100 feet of shoreline. Densities shall be less than this maximum based on
water depths, impact to marine habitats, and manatee concentrations.
f. Guidelines for the protection of the gopher tortoise (Gopherus po!yphemus) shall follow those
contained in Policy 7.1.5.
q. Guidelines contained within Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Technical
Reports 8 and 13 shall be used to protect the habitats of the Florida scrub iaY (Aphelocoma
coerulescens coerulescens) and south eastern American kestrel (Falco sparverius palus),
respectively,
h. Proiects located within the Aqricultural/Rural Desiqnation and Conservation Desiqnation shall
cjuster development away from natural areas subiect to the criteria contained in 6.4.2 in order
to protect wildlife habitat and wildlife corridors. These projects are also required to provide the
followinq:
(1) Utilize the open space requirements to maintain buffer areas between important wildlife
habitats areas and areas dominated by human activities.
(2) Facilitate wildlife movement along natural trails by preservinq appropriate areas and by
utilizinq fencinq and walls that encouraqe wildlife to use natural corridors.
(3) Locate roads away from identified and potential natural travel corridors used by wildlife.
(4} Provide elevated road crossinqs when a road must cross an identified travel corridor used
by any listed species.
(5) Utilize appropriate roadway crossinq and siqnage when it is unavoidable for roadways to
cross wildlife trails.
(6) Provide for the appropriate use of fences, walls or other obstructions to encouraqe wildlife
to use natural corridors or to separate wildlife corridors from areas of human activity.
(7) Where bears are present, provide a system where .qarbage can be placed in bear-proof
containers, preferably at a central location.
Policy 7.1.2.
A species survey to include at a minimum, species of special status that are known to inhabit
bioloqical communities similar to those existinq on site or the site is within habitat areas identified
in the "Closinq the Gaps in Florida's Wildlife Habitat Conservation System, 1994 report shall be
required for developments greater than 10 acres aS part of the County's Environmental Impact
Statement review process and shall be conducted in accordjnlse with the requirements of the
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. The County shail notify the Florida Game and
Fresh Water Fish Commission of the existence of any. species with special status that may be
discovered. AGeIDA ITEM
HAY 18 1999
30
Policy 7.1 '3"-
By accreditin.q Natural Resource staff as code enforcement officers, the County shall continue to
enforce its existinq Sea Turtle Protection standards which provides standards for shieldinq
outdoor liqhtinq, protectinq nests from surroundinq Construct on activities, and relocating nests.
Policy 7.1.4.
The County shall continue to update the quide for homeowners and builders which explains the
need for protecting sea turtles and how this can be accomplished.
Policy 7.1.5.
The County's policy is to protect qopher tortoise burrows wherever they are found. It is
recoqnized, however, that there will be unavoidable conflicts which will require relocation of
burrows. The suitability of alternate sites should be evaluated as to:
a. physical suitability of the site,
b. Ionq-term protection,
c. conflicts with other manaqement objectives for the land, and
d. costs of relocation.
Policy 7.1.6.
The County will support the efforts of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Panther Recovery Plan
by desiqnatin.q Priority I Habitat as areas that qualify for a transfer or purchase of development
riqhts.
Policy 7.1.7
The County will continue to periodically review and revise its existinq codes providing for
appropriate prohibitions and restrictions on the commercial possession, use, and harvestinq of
undesirable exotic species.
97ER-NOI-1101-(A)-(N) STATEMENT OF INTENT #VI(A)(8)
Collier County and the Department of Community Affairs agree to the following language:
1. Modify Objective 10.6 and its policies as follows:
OBJECTIVE 10.6:
The County shall ccnt!n~c to im~!cmcnt *~ r-~+-,, c~-,,~; .... H ~-,,-~, ~,,~+~ ~ ........ +
~ ...... ~"' conserveia9 the habitats, species, natural shoreline and dune systems contained
within the County coastal zone.
Policy 10.6.1
In addition to those applicable policies supportinq Obiectives 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, and 10.5,
development within the CountV's .coastal zone shall also meet the followinq criteria:
a. Densities on undeveloped coastal barriers shall not exceed 1 structure per 5 acres of fastland.
Undeveloped coastal barrier units include the Wiq~ins Pass Unit FL-65P, Clam Pass Unit
64P, KeVwaydin Island Unit P-16, Tiqertail Unit FI-63-P, and Cape Romano Unit P-15.
b. Site alterations shall be concentrated in disturbed habitats thus avoiding undisturbed pristine
habitats (Reference Policy 10.1.4).
c. Beachfront developments shall restore dune veqetation.
d. Projects on coastal barriers shall be landscaped with native Southern FIoridian species.
e. Boathouses, boat shelters and dock facilities shall be located and aliqned to stay at least 10
feet from any existinq seagrass beds except where a continuous bed of seaqrass exists off of
the shore of the property, in which case facility heiqhts shall be at least 3.5 feet NVGD,
terminal platforms shall be less than 160 square feet and access docks shall not exceed a
width of foLrr J4) fee. t.
f. In addition to the marina sitinq criteria specified in Policy 10.1.6, boat slip densities shall
conform to the requirements in Policy 7.3.1e. AG~A ITTr. r.r.M
MAY 18 19 9
31
.q. For development proiects where an EIS is required, an analysis shall demonstrate that the
proiect will remain fully functional for its intended use after a six-inch rise in sea level.
h. Wetlands shall be protected by the criteria contained in all other applicable policies.
Policy 10.6.~..2_2:
Thc prcgr2,m !nc!udcs The requirements of Polic~. 10.6.1 identifies the m,?,,~cgc,m,,c,'-,t, guidelines
and performance standards prcpcrcd for the undeveloped coastal barriers and estuaries
contained within the previous coastal barrier and estuarine NRPA (Policy 1.3.2). These standards
therefore satisf'V the requirements of that previous policy.
Policy 10.6.63:
Collier County supports federal and state agency efforts to deny permits and establish a
permanent moratorium on the offshore oil and gas exploration and drilling along the west
coast of Rorida, and to the extent allowed by iaw, shall take appropriate actions to
oppose any offshore oil and gas exploration and drilling projects
971ER-NOI-1101 -(A)-(N) STATEMENT OF INTENT #VII(A)(1 ) and (2)
Collier County and the Department of Community Affairs agree to the following language:
1. Amend Policy 3.1 .d of the Future Land Use Element to read as follows:
Policy 3.1
d. Th., ~,,,, .-.~ .... ,~. ~.~,~,;.-,,, r,..~: ...... ~.~,, ~.~ ;,-,.~,~..,~.,~H, .... '~" ~;~'; .... '~ future
so!id wcstc ~'~ ^"' .... "'*"'~ ..... +' ~ '~'~ Use ~.,-4 ,.4 .... , ..... + ,.,;+~,;,, ..~ me,,~cd
Identified potable water wellfields are depicted on the Future Land Use Map Series as
wellhead protection areas. Policy 3.1.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Manaqement
Element specifies prohibitions and restrictions on land uses in order to protect these
identified wellfields.
2. Delete pages 40-51 of the Future Land Use Support Document which include Wellhead Protection
Areas and add to the Future Land Use Map Series of the Future Land Use Element. (See
attached Wellhead Protection Areas)
3. Amend the Future Land Use Map to show the Coastal High Hazard Area as defined by the
.Regional Evacuation Study; amend Map 12 (attached)in the Future Land Use Support DoSLlment
showing the revised Coastal High Hazard Area.
4. All amendments as described heroin are included in the Future Land Use Map attach
AGENOA ITEM
AGENDA ITEM
33 NAY 18 1999
ATTACHMENT 1
Appendix II
Drainage Sub-element
COLLIER COUNTY DRAINAGE BASIN DISCHARGE RATES
In 1989 and 1990, durinq the final development of the d'~Hier County Stormwater Manaqement
Master Plan, an ad hoc committee was formed under the direction of the Water Manaqement
Department (now named the Stormwater Mana.aement Department}. The volunteer members of
the ad hoc committee consisted of County staff and representatives from several of the local
en.aineerinq consultin,q firms involved in the daily development of stormwater manaqement plans.
The purpose of the ad hoc committee was to develop a consensus on establishin.q drainaqe basi.n
averaqe discharoe rates and maximum post-development discharge rates for new developments
while considerinq the followinq obiectives:
a} utilize information and recommendations from existing enqin.eer. inq studies when. available,
b} consider the existinq capacities and conditions of the stormwater management canal systems,
c) consider the impacts to the environment,
consider the potential physical and economic impacts on existing and future public and private
development activity,
One of the first areas of the County evaluated by the ad hoc committee was the .qe0qraphic reqion
known as Water Manaoement District No. 6 which is located in the southeastern portion of the
urban area. The Big Cypress Basin funded a study of the area in 1985 by the consulting firm of
Wilson, Miller, Barton .and Peek, Inc. Their conclusions, in a report titled "Master Plan Update for
Water Manaqement District No. 6", identified the typical rate of discharqe from undeveloped areas
as 0.12 cubic feet per second per acre (cfs/acre) for the reqion studied. The typical rate of
discharqe from developed areas was hiqher and varied with the size of the area. The Study's
recommendations included many channel and drainaqe structure improvements which were
based upon a basin averaqe discharqe rate of 0.12 cfs/acre. In order to achieve the averaqe
discharqe rate of 0.12 cfs/acre, the County had been unofficially requirinq new developments to
restrict their discharqe rates to 0.06 cfs/acre to offset the impact from older existinq
developments. This restriction was based upon the fact that approximately half of the land area
within the Lety Main and Lely Branch Canal Sub-basins was currently undeveloped. These two
sub-basins formed the heart of the Water Manaqement District No. 6 study area where future
public water manaoement improvements were proposed. The ad hoc committee evaluated this
restrictive discharqe rate and aqreed that it was necessary to officially establish a maximum post-
development discharqe rate of 0.06 cfs/acre for all areas discharqinq into the Lely Main Canal,
which includes the Lely Branch Canal.
The next area of the County evaluated by the ad hoc committee was the northern portion of the
urbanized area served by the Cocohatchee River Canal. This reqion was studied by the
consultinq firm of Gee and Jenson Enqineers, Architects, and Planners, Inc. in 1981. One of the
recommendations of their report was that a maximum post-development discharge rate for any
new development within the basin study area should be established as 24.6 CFS/square mile
which equates to 0.04 cfs/acre. The ad hoc committee evaluated this recommendation in relation
to development activities that had occurred subsequent to 1981 and determined that the 0.04
cfs/acre discharqe rate would still be valid for all areas discharqing into the Cocohatchee River
Canal.
For the remaininq portions of the County, the ad hoc committee spent considerable time and effort
in arrivinq at a consensus. For the existinq Airport Road Canal South Sub-basin, the de~ision was
made to recommend a maximum post-development discharqe rate of 0.06 cfs/acre based upon
the strong similarity of conditions to the Main LelV Canal Basin. The Airport Road Canal
a fairly restricted canal with little possibility of enlarqement. The basin was approximatel~ half AGENDA ITEM
developed for residential or commercial purposes with sizable aqricultural tracts that WOLd sot~ln. ,
NAY 18 1999
34
be facinq redevelopment. It was aqreed that a restrictive discharqe rate of 0.06 cfs/acre would
help the basin approach an overall averaqe of approximately 0. 15 cfs/acre which was
mana.qeable for the existinq canal capacity...
All other areas of the County were identified as reasonably similar to undeveloped lands within
both the Water Ma. naqement District No. 6 and Cocohatchee River Basins. Utilizinq the previous
studies it was finally aqreed that an averaqe discharqed rate of approximately 0.1 to 0.3 cfs/acre
would be derived if a detailed analysis were performed for the entire area. Subsequent
consensus buildinq discussions arrived at a final ad hoc committee recommended maximum post:
development discharqe rate of 0.15 cfs/acre for all portions of the County not specifically identified
as havinq more restrictive discharqe rates. The ad hoc committee also developed provisions for
variances from these discharqe rates based upon site specific enqineerinq studies to confirm
historical pre-development discharqe rates. Subsequent usaqe of these variance provisions has
proven to be very minimal in number and area affected.
On January 23, 1990 the Collier County Board of County Commissioners accepted the
recommendations of the ad hoc committee and established them as official requlatory policy. by
placinq them in Ordinance No. 90-10, which ordinance was then incorporated into the Drainaqe
Sub-element Support Document of the County Comprehensive Plan.
AQENI:]A ITEM
N~,
NAY 18
~5
P~o /a
Comprehensive Plan Standard Ad Hoc
Committee's Recommendations as of May
10, 1999.
^G,~'~D,', rrF. M
~AY 18 19S9
Potable Water Sub-Element
Policy 1.5.1
Discourage urban sprawl by permitting limiting central potable water service systems by the
County only in the Designated Urban Area of the Future Land Use Element of this Plan to the
service areas shown in this Plan and in areas where the County has legal commitments to provide
facilities or services outside the Urban Areas identified on Map PW-1 as of the date of adoption
of this Plan.
Policy 1.5.2
The County will encourage cjustering and discourage urban sprawl and the proliferation of
private sector and/or package potable water treatment systems by limiting private systems to the
Rural Fringe-Mixed Use District and within the service district as identified on Map PW 1, in
conjunction with cjustering alternative criteria required in Objective 6.4 and subsequent policies
of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. Those projects which meet the
requirements for a private package sewage treatment plant ever ' nn n~r, ,.~n .... '~-, may also
.... , ....~ ....... per ,_,~
be permitted to provide a private potable water treatment system through the development order
approval process to insure maximum utilization of the existing and planned public facilities.
School and school facilities will be permitted to have private potable water systems for their
single purpose facility. No existing private sector or potable water treatment systems will be
permitted to add customers unless all Levels of Service standards are met, and operations are in
conformance with all DE~ P permits. Within the Agricultural - Mixed Use District private wells
will be permitted.
Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element
Policy 1.5.1
Discourage urban sprawl by limiting central sanitary sewer service by the County to the service
areas shown in this Plan and in areas where the County has legal commitments to provide
facilities or services outside the Urban Areas identified on Map SS-2 as of the date of adoption of
this Plan.
Policy 1.5.2
The County will encourage cjustering and discourage urban sprawl and the proliferation of ]
private sector and/or package sanitary sewer treatment systems by limiting private system to the
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District and the service district as identified on Map SS 2, in
conjunction with cjustering alternative criteria required in Objective 6.4 and subsequent policies ~
of the Conservation and CoasSal Management Element. No private sanitary sewer package plant
treatment system may be perm{tted under 100,000 gallons per day capacity in the Rural Fringe
MAY 1B 1999
~1 I-~N-PLN--O Pg.
school facilities may be permitted to provide smaller private package plants for their single
purpose facility. No existing private sector or potable water treatmerit systems will be lYe.rmitted
to add customers unless all Levels of Service standards are met, and operations are in
conformance with all DEg: P permits. Within the Agricultural/Rural Mixed Use District septic
tanks will be permitted.
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
II. AGRICULTURAL/RURAL DESIGNATION
The Agricultural/Rural Land Use Designation is for those areas that are remote from the existing
development pattern, lack public facilities and services, are more environmentally sensitive or
are in agricultural production. Urbanization is not promoted, therefore most allowable land uses
are of low intensity in an effort to maintain and promote the rural character of these lands. The
objectives of cjustering residential units and the preservation of natural areas are to maintain the
land's rural character by preserving large contiguous natural areas; to restore impacted sites to
natural areas as these sites are converted from agricultural uses to other uses; and to preserve
interconnected wetland systems and wildlife corridors and to discourage urban sprawl. New
development containin~ residential, commerci,'d or active recreational uses is encouraged 1o
" cjuster development impacls and to be developed in the form of a Planned Unit Development
(PUD), and/or utilize the cjustered development ahemalive in accordance with Policy 6.4.2 of
the Conser,,'ation and Coastal ManaEement Element.
All new projects in the A~ricultural/Rural and the Conservation Land Use Designations
containin~ residential. commercial or active recreational uses shall be subject to the applicable
provisions of Policy 6.4.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element; however,
Policy 6.4.2 shall not be applied to any projects or land uses for which a County development
order as issued prior to the effective date of Policy 6.4.2.
A. Rural Fringe-Mixed Use District
The purpose of this district is to accommodate low density residential development, agricultural
activities and open space uses. Areas designated as Rural Fringe are genera!ly located
immediately abutting the Urban Designated areas or are west of Estates Desikmated areas which
permit hi~her densities, or are located in areas where central utilities are planned. The Rural
Fringe-Mixed Use District is intended to provide a transition fi'om the CountV's Urban and
Estates desi~-nated lands to those desig-nated as A_m-icultural-Mixed Use. Where a single project
includes both Urban and Rural Fringe designated lands, densi_ty from the Urban lands may be
shifted to the Rural FrinEe lands in order to preserve native vegetation on the Urban lands,
provided that the overall density allowable on the combined lands is not exceeded.
MAY 18 19B9
~/IO/gg-SB 115 Vet 0~'-%VARNOLD
............
o~o,,.~s-eLs--o pg.
Only the following uses may be permitted in this District:
a. Agricultural uses such as fanning, ranching, forestry, bee-keeping, nurseries;
b. Residential uses at a maximum density of one dwelling unit on each five acre tract,
except for legal non-conforming lots of record and dwellings within a proiect opting to
utilize the cjustered development alternative, suhiect to Policy 6.4.2 of the Conservation
and Coastal management Element.
c. Habitat preservation uses;
d. Parks, open space and recreational uses, recreation camps, instructional schools, golf
courses.
e. Essential services defined as services designed and operated to provide water, sewer, gas,
telephone, electricity, cable television or communications to the general public.
f. Safety service facilities and governmental facilities;
g. Community facilities defined as public facilities and institutional uses which serve the
community at large, such as, churches, group housing uses, cemeteries; and schools and
school facilities provided that the property shall have reasonable access to an existing
arterial or collector road or to such roadways which are included in the County's current
Capital Improvement Element.
i. Migrant labor housing in conjunction with agricultural uses at a maximum density of 12
units per acre subject to the development standards for farm labor housing as provided in
"' the Land Development Code;
j. Earth mining, oil extraction and related processing;
k. An asphalt plant shall require a Conditional use and shall at a minimum be subject to the
following criteria: ~ompatibility with surrounding land uses; is not located
within a County, State or Federal jurisdictional wetland area and any required buffer
zones; is not located within 1,000 feet of a Florida State Park; is not located within the
Area of Critical State Concern as depicted on the Future Land Use Map; n.,~ is not
located within 1000 feet of a natural reservation; and is not located within 1,000 feet of a
Natural Resource Protection area.
1. Commercial uses accessory to other permitted uses, such as restaurant accessory to golf
course or retail sales of produce accessory to farming, so long as restrictions or
limitations are imposed to insure the commercial use functions as an accessory,
subordinate use. Such restrictions or limitations could include limiting the size and/or
location of the commercial use and/or limiting access to the commercial use;
m. Commercial uses within the D .... ~ P .......:n ~ ~,,~,,~;~,,-;~, PUD Neighborhood Village
Center Subdistrict based upon criteria of the Subdistrict;
n. Industrial uses within the Rural - Industrial District;
o. Travel trailer recreational vehicle parks, provided the following criteria are met;
1. The maximum density is 12 units per acre; consistent '::ilk tb, e Lana
2. The site has direct principal access to a road classified as an arterial in the
Traffic Circulation Element, direct principal access defined a .,~ d, i,~ rr~ "
MAY 18 1929
5II0,n~9-58115 Vet 03e-~'ARNOLD
and/or roadway connection to the arterial road, with no access points from
~n. tervening properties; and,
3. The use will be compatible with surrounding land uses.
IL. All other uses permitted by right or as conditional uses in the Rural Am'icultural Zoning
District prior to the effective date of this Growth Management Plan amendment.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element
Policy 6.4.2
For new proiects exceedin~ fifty (50) acres in size and containing resi..dential, commercial or
active recreational uses located ~,:within the Agricultural/Rural and Conservation Designation
which do not utilize the cjustered development alternative. such prOiects shall be required to
retain as natural areas fifty percent (50%) of the total project site.
For new projects exceedin~ fifty (50) acres in size and containing residential. commercial or
acti~:e recreation uses which ont to utilize the cjustered development alternative within the
A~zricultural/Rural and Conservation DesiEnation. developments shall be required to retain as
natural areas, forty_ percent (40%) of the naturally functionint~ native vegetation forrod on-site,
not to exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total project site acreage. This retention of naturally
functioning native vegetation requirement is encouraE.ed to be met on-site: however, ~vhere the
intended development cannot achieve this requirement onesire, this requirement may be met
through on-site restoration/enhancement or off-site land reservation in a recomfized public or
private lands acquisition program or miti~zation bmlk at a 1.5:1 ratio. However. in no case shall
less than twenty five percent (25%) of the naturally functioning native vegetation be retained on-
site and the on-sile natural areas requirement be less than 25% of the tolal project site.
,,~1 ;~1,,~+~;,,1 ~Intr~7^__~.,~ M,~I1 ~, ,,~;..4., ")CO/ ~,cM-,n +,~f,,1 ~;+^ ,,. .... ,~ ~,,+,,,.~1 -,~,,,,~ r~ ,~,-~;~,-,f~-
,~ .... ~ ......... u,,h;,, ,I.~ ~ ,..4~,,~ ....... ~ ~D .... ~ .... ~ r, ......... ; .... h~; ..... ;~ the following
criteria apply to the above f3~ natural areas requirements:
a. The preservation requirements for the preservation and restoration of natural areas are
caJcuIated on the gross acreage of the project site, less the non-littoral zone area of
any existing man-made waterbody,.or as a percentage of the naturally fi. tnctioTtin~
native veEetation existin,~ oil-site.
b. The purpose of these T~sef-~aW~ natural areas requirements in the Agricultural/Rural
and Conservation designated areas is to set aside the required portion of the site to
preserve existing native vegetative cornrnunities and/or to restore the required portion
of the site to support the establishment of native vegetative communities. Natural
areas therefore can be comprised of:
( 1 ) Existing native vegetative communities; AGENDA ITEM
MAY 18
0001 I -00 N- p LN - ~0 i
(2) Enhanced or restored wetlands and uplands, including areas that are currently
disturbed and can be re-colonized with future native vegetation; and
(3) Littoral zones of any man-made water bodies, including canals and stormwater
ponds that support wetland vegetation.
Natural areas shall not include areas such as the non-littoral zones of constructed
lakes, the actively managed portion of golf courses such as the fairways;and greens
and f-e~4~, tennis courts and other active recreational areas, mowed common areas
and other areas that are planted with turf grass or non-native species.
c. Selection of the areas that comprise the preservation requirement shall to the greatest
extent possible, reflect the following criteria in descending order of priority:
(1) Wetland flowways through the project shall be maintained;
(2) Natural areas, especially preserved wetlands, shall be interconnected within the
site and to other wetland areas or wildlife corridors off-site;
(3) Wetland and upland areas known to be utilized by listed species ~
(4) Upland habitat shall be part of the preservation requirement when wetlands alone
do not constitute all of the requirement. Upland habitats have the following
descending order of priority:
(a) Any upland habitat that serves as a buffer to a wetland area.
(b) Xeric Scrub,
(c) Dune and Strand, Hardwood Hammocks,
(d) Dry Prairie, Pine Flatwoods, and
(e) All other upland habitats.
a ratio cr2:l. The foIlowin~ standards shall be used in calculating the amount of
naturally functionin~ native vegetation where invasive exotics exist on-site in the
canopy or shrub stratum.
MAY 18 IBg
5/10/99-58115 Vet 03e-WARNOLD /~ ~,~
% Invasive % of Area ~ounted
Exotic Vegetation as native vegetation
0% - 49% 100%
50% - 74% 50%
75%- 100% 0%
e. Where the percentage of naturally functioning native vegetation for a site is initially
less than the preservation requirement, retention of the existin~ naturally functioning
native ve,2etation on site. m~d use of 100% native vegetation in all reouired landscape
plm~tin~ areas up to twenty-five percent (25%) of the total project area, shall satisfy
the othenvise required natural areas requirement. the stated cc~uircmcnt
'-t CLIP, ,.-,.,
· ,,;+h; ...... |; ..... , ~. .... ;,l~,,,;f;,~,4/'k_TDD A ^, Z~ I 'l u,.,.,,,~ ,.,,
f. Preserved natural areas shah be connected throughout the project area and be
connected to off site natural areas to the greatest extent possible.
g. A minimum vegetated buffer area of 200 feet shall be provided for all structures from
the nearest external County or State Collector or arterial roadway. This buffer area
shall contain at least 80% native vegetation. Natural areas can be used for this buffer
requirement·
h. Passive uses such as nature trails are allowed in the natural areas.
i. All lands to be maintained as natural areas within the project or purchased as off site
mitigation, shall be protected by a permanent conservation easement, prohibiting
further development, and setting other standards safeguarding the site's special
resources from negative changes.
j. A management plan shall be submitted to identify actions that must be taken through
the life of the project to ensure that the natural areas will function as proposed. The
plan shall address exotic control and treatment, fire management, and maintenance of
facilities that provide protection to listed species.
k. The criteria contained in Policy 7.1 .1h shall also apply.
1. Earth mining shall require the approval of a conditional use or Planned Unit
Development (PUD) rezoning. Approval of the conditional use or PUD rezoning
shall include a requirement that the applicable nattu'al areas requirements shall be met
throutzh retention or restoration. ~"' ^c,~, ........~ ·
.................. project area
c, si-~e as :: :mtura! area should the earth mining csn~itiom~l use be converted to a
non-a~ricuhural land use specified in Policy 6·4.2.
m. Golf Courses. whether fi'ee standin~ or part of a residential nroject. shall adhere to
the set cv.;idc cjustered development alternative requirements contained in 6.4.2.
The standards found in 6.4.2a through 6.4.2k shall be used in the design of the golf
course lay-out in order to protect significant portions of native vegetation and
MAY 18 1999
5110.'99,58115 V~f 03?-',VARNOLD
............... 134
wildlife habitat. Landscaping plans shall require at least 75% of the trees and 50%
of the shrubs to be native Floridian species with ~I least 75% of these trees and
shrubs to be drought- tolerant species. Golf Courses shall also be designed to
incorporate those Best Management Practices recommended in the publication, Best
Management Practices for Golf Course Maintenance Departments, FDEP, May
1995_.
AGENOA ITEM
No. ~
5/10/99-58115 Vet 0]!3VARNOLD
O0011-00N-PLN-,O
,,..
Draft Interim Policy for Eastern Collier
Properties Overlay Area
AGENDA ITEM
No,.
MAY 18 1999
Pr../
YounG, v~ Ass~.Nx~-~, & V~RN~O~, R A.
A~O~N~G AT ~w
R~p~Y To:
~ ,c~ H. Cox Naples Po~ OFr~C= Eox 1833
A~
DAVID P. HQPSTE~ER' T~H~E. FLORb 3E30E-I833
C, ~URENCE KEESEY TELEPHONE (E50) 222:-72~
KENZA VAN ~SENOERP TELECOPlER (8~01 561,6834
sco.oc L v~.~oc ', May 6, 1999
RoY C. YOUNG SUNTRU~ EUI~ING
801 ~UN~
DAVID B, [RWmN N~LE5.
0r COUNSEL TELEPHONE (9~I] 597-~814
TELECO~mER (941) 597-IO60
~]ofie S~den~
Assis~nt Co~
CoIIier Coun~ Government Complex
3301 E~t T~i~i Trail
~apies, Hodda 34112
~: 1ntec~m ~oHcies {or E~t~ Collier Coun~ ~rope~jes Area
De= Madorie:
Pursuit to your request, I am enclosing the proposed Interim Policies for ~e E~te~ Collier CounW
Propeaies. I had previously provided you wi~ ~e interim policies in n~tive fo~, but at ~e request of
DCA, we have redra~ed this into an Objectives and Policy (Grog M~agement PIa) focal
Also at your direction, I am providing a copy directly to Bill Lorenz ad Bob Mulhere. If av of ~e
recipien~ have ay questions or concerns reg~ding ~e draR language, plese do not hesitate to cDnmct me.
Sincerely yore,
Geo~~~
GLV/jtb
Enclos~e ~ rated
cc: Eme~ Co~ Esq.
Mak Moron
AI~ Re~o lds
aECEIV
BiU bre~
Bob Mulhere
MAY 0
" F:~A~Wp~~Student0305~.~d NATUraL
MAY 18 1999
PROPOSED COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PLAN AMENDMENT - INTERIM POLICIES
FUTLrR,ELA,NDUSE ELEMENT
II Implementation StrateL, v, Goals, Obiectives and Policies ,
NEW OBJECTIVE 7 AND POLICIES
OB/ECTIVE 7. In order to properly facilitate the creation of a comprehensive and strategic
plan for the privately-owned lands comprising the Eastern Collier County
Properties,~ CECCP) which will implement and ensure protection of important
natural resources, respect private property fights, and properly man~e the
growth potential of the ECCP area, an Eastern Collier County Properties
Overlay Area CECCPOA) shall be created for a limited time period, to be
implemented as follows:
Policy 7.1.:
The Eastern Collier County Properties Overlay Area (ECCPOA) is desiFnated on those lands
comprising the ECCP depicted on Map __ The ECCPOA shall remain in effect for a period of
three (3) years or until Growth Management Plan Amendments arc adopted addressing the ECCP,
whichever occurs sooner (the "Study and Planning Period").
Policy 7.2.:
During the Study and Planning Period, accurate data collection, including current uses and
identification ofnaturaI resources, integrated with a strategic and comprehensive planning process,
will be undertaken for the ECCP by qualified consultants at the owners' expense. The data
collection process will include inventory of the existing land uses, resource mapping, collection of
relevant data and analysis of the natural resources, i.q. cluding critical habitat, using GIS mapping
techniques, aerial photography and ground Irathing. The planning process will include analyses of
the road network, utility service needs evaluation, market and long range needs forecast, water
resources, various land use scenm'ios and compatibility evaluation.
t :Fhe Eastern Collier County Properties, consisting of approximately 165,000 acres, are all within the
Agricultural/Rural Designnation of Collier County and ar~ loc~__ed east of Goldma Gate Estates, sun'ounding
Immokalee and north of public preserve lands such as the Big Cypre~ Preserve and the Florida Panther Wildlife
Refuge, and are depicted on Map. incorporated by reference herein, N~GFJ~TEM
MAY 1tt 1999
P~./3 g
Policy 7.3.:
During the Planning and Study Period, proposed GrowthManagement Plan amendments for
the ECCPOA shall be prepared for consideration by the Board to implement and ensure protection
of important natural resources, maintain and enhance the economic viability of the agricultural
coma'rmnity and appropriate land uses, respect private property rights, provial,= for delivery of public
facilities and services when and where needed and appropriate. The proposed ~mendments will
assess the growth pqtendal of the ECCPOA by assessing the potential conversion of rural lands to
other uses, in approp'riate location.s, while discouraging urban sprawl, directing incompatible lani:I
uses away from critical habitat and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planing
techniques including, but not limited to, urban villages, new towns, satellite cornmtmities, area-based
allocations, cjustering and open space provisions and mixed use development.
Policy 7.4.:
Prior to the adoption of Growth Management Plan Amendments for, or the expiration of, the
ECCPOA as set forth above, the following land use restrictions shall apply to 'the ECCP depicted
on Map __
a. No additional residential development will be permitted, except farm worker housing
or housing directly related to support of farming operations.
b. No new golf courses will be allowed.
c. There will be no extension of public water or sewer service to the ECCP for non°
agricultural purposes.
d. Agricultural activities shall be subject to permitting requirements of the South
Florida Water Management District and other regulatory authorities, as currently
required.
Policy 7.5.:
The strategic and comprehensive planning prdcess for the ECCPOA shall have four r. nges:
data collection and analysis; land use research and analysis; impact analysis of various lamd use
scenarios; and plan amendment preparation and review. The process will be guided by an appointed
committee to consist of __ persons, headed by the member of the Board of County
Commissioners in whose district the ECCP are located, with public meetings to be held at the
be~nnlng and end of each stage of the process. The Plan Amendments will be reviewed as provided
by Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes.
F:~'s~_AN'A\WplB~poscd Grovah MSlnt Plan Am~dmenr, wpd
AGaN ^rr'm
MAY 18 1999
· " o cS ! ii ~ ii
~ &~l----- --
....
MAY 18 1999
p~._/z,/O
Draft Amendments for Urban Area
Density Reduction
HAY 18 1999
~./~/
Attachment 1
PROPOSED LANGUAGE TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
Urban Area Density Reductions
DENSITY RATING SYSTEM
This Density Rating System is only applicable to areas designated Urban, Urban ~ Mixed
Use District, as identified on the Future Land Use Map, exclusive of the Urban
Residential Fringe Subdistrict, and exclusive of Urban areas encompassed by the
Immokalee Area Master Plan, Golden Gate Area Master Plan, and Marco Island Master
Plan. The Density Rating System is applicable to the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict
to the extent that the residential density cap of 4 dwelling units per acre is not exceeded,
except for the density bonus for Affordable Housing and Transfer of Development
Rights. This Density Rating System only applies to residential dwelling units. Within the
applicable Urban Designated Areas, a base density of 4 residential dwelling units per
gross acre is permitted, though not an entitlement. This base level of density may be
adjusted depending upon the characteristics of the project as identified under a. Density
Bonuses, b. Density Reduction, and c. Density Conditions.
a. Density Bonuses
Consistency with the following characteristics may add to the base density.
Density bonuses are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting
the criteria for each bonus provision and compatibility with surrounding properties, as
well as the criteria in the Land Development Code. All new residential zoning shall be
consistent with the Density Rating System, except as provided in policies 5.9, 5.10 and
5.11 of the Future Land Use Element.
......... ~- ........... ~ ......may bo
2= 1. Proximity to Mixed Use Activity Center or Interchanqe Activity Center
If the project is within one mile of a Mixed Use Activity Center or Interchange Activity
Center and located within a residential density band, ,3 2 residential units per gross acre
may be added. The density band around a Mixed Use Activity Center or Interchange
Activity Center shall be measured by the radial distance from the center of the
intersection around which the Mixed Use Activity Center or Interchange Activity Center
is situated. If 50% or more of a project is within the density band, the additional density
applies to the gross acreage of the entire project. Density bands are designated on the
Future Land Use Map and shall not apply within the Estates Designation or for
properties within the Traffic Congestion Area.
AGENDA ITEM
,~. 2. Affordable Housinq
HAY 18 1999
To encourage the provision of affordable housing within the Urban Designated Area, a
maximum of up to 8 residential units per gross acre may be added to the base density if
the project meets the definitions and requirements of the Affordable Housing Density
Bonus Ordinance (Section 2.7.7 of the Land Development Code, Ordinance ~91-102,
adopted October 30, 1991 ). In the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistri.c.t, Affordable Housing
projects must provide ap. propriate mitigation consistent with Policy 13.1.2 of the
Conservation and Coastal Management Element.
4=. 3, Residential In-fill
To encourage residential in-fill in areas with existing development, 3 residential dwelling
units per gross acre may be added if the following cdteda are met:
(a) The project is 10 acres or less in size;
(b) At time of development, the project will be served by central public water and
sewer,
(c) The project is compatible with surrounding land uses;
(d) The property in question has no common site development plan with adjacent
property;
(O There is no common ownership with any adjacent parcels; and
(g) The parcel in question was not created to take advantage of the in-fill residential
density bonus and was created pdor to the adoption of this provision in the
Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989.
,~. 4, Roadway Access
I,~ +~, .... ;,-,,-+ h-,,- ~;,-,-,,-.+ .., ....~ +"' "> C."."T'..C."C ""+""';"~ Or ,-.,.ll,-,,-+,-,,-.-,-,--,H~. ,-,t- ;,-~,.,.+;r,,.,.I
T~-,~,,- r-; ...."'+;""' =I ....~ 1 residential dwelling unit per gross acre may be :dd,?,d~
n,,,,~-;+, ....'~;+'- ~'-"'--'~ cn ~' '~ .......'~ ..........;, ,,~, awarded if the developer commits to
construct a portion of the a roadway that will function as an arterial or collector (as
determined by the County Transportation Department) or the road is scheduled for
completion during the first five years of the Capital Improvements Plan.
5, Travel Demand Management Techniques
To encourage the maximum utilization of the transportation network, those properties
zoned acJdcultural and 50 acres or qreater in size as of January 1, 1999 that have a
base density of 2 units per qross acre may add one additional unit per qross acre
provided the fofiowinq travel demand manaqement techniques are included in the
p..roiect:
Mixed Use Developments
· Provide a mixture of uses, internally accessible within the development including:
residential land uses, personal service commercial, employment opportunities, home
occupations, schools, parks and recreational uses, churches and institutional uses.
Interconnection
· Increase number of connections to the arterial or collector system, consistent with
the Access Control Policy, based on the number of dwellinq units in a proiecL
· Provide public access throuah proiects which connect with arterial or collector road
network.
· Provide vehicular interconnection from commercial proiects t~residential proiects:
· Provide for shared access between projects.
· Provide for frontaqe roads or bypass roads around an intersection.
AGENDA ITEM
,
· Construction of a new collector or arterial which connects to other collector or arterial
roadways.
Bikepaths/sidewalks
· Construction or payment in lieu for an identified pathway in the Comprehensive
Pathway Plan.
· Require a Pathway Plan within the development as part of the rezoninq criteria.
6. Transfer of Development Rights
To encourage preservation/conservation of natural resources and aDdcultural
preservation.., density transfers are permitted from properties within the Agricultural-
Mixed Use District and the Natural Resource Protection AreaoPdvate Ownership to
properties zoned aqdcultural and 50 acres in size as of January 1, 1999.
density shall not be transferred into the Coastal Management Area from outside the
Coastal Management Area. Lands lying seaward of the Coastal Management
Boundary, identified on the Future Land Use Map, are within the Coastal Management
Area. Density may be increased above and beyond the density otherwise allowed by
the Density Rating System in ccccrdnncc for agricultural properties 50 acres or qreater
in size as of January 1, 1999, that have a base density of 2 units per acre with the
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Section 2.2.24.11 of the Land Development
Code adoptcd by Ordlnnncc '~'~ 102, ""' n,-,,.,~,,-,, '~n ~ao~ -,,- cmcndcd. This section
of the Land Development Code will be amended within one year in order to be
consistent with the requirements of this section of the Future Land Use Element.
b. Density Reduction
Consistency with the following characteristic would subtract density:
1. Traffic Congestion Area
If the project is within the Traffic Congestion Area, an area identified as subject to long
range traffic congestion, 1 dwelling unit per gross acre would be subtracted. The Traffic
Congestion Boundary is shown on the Future Land Use Map and consists of the
western coastal Urban Designated Area seaward of a boundary marked by Airport-
Pulling Road (including an extension north to the Lee County boundary), Davis
Boulevard, County Barn Road, and Rattlesnake Hammock Road consistent with the
Mixed Use Activity Center's residential density band located at the southwest quadrant
of the intersection of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and County Road 951 (including an
extension to the east). Properties adjacent to the Traffic Congestion Area shall be
considered part of the Traffic Congestion Area if their only access is to a road forming
the boundary of the Area; however, if that property also has an access point to a road
not forming the boundary of the Traffic Congestion Area it will not be subject to the
density reduction.
2. Base density of 2 units per acre
For properties 50 acres or greater in size and zoned agricultural as of January 1, 1999;
and property previously zoned that has not commenced construction pursuant to section
2.7.3.4 and 2.7.2.12.3 of the Land Development Code as the Code existed as of
January 1, 1999; the base density shall be 2 units per gross acre. The base density
Ray be increased based on the followinq: one unit per qross acre may be added if the
project is desiqned to meet the standards identified under the travel demand ,
management techniques. An additional unit per gross acre may be added the pl~,~ ~TEX4
meets the requirements under the Transfer of Development Riqhts Provisio~ or q~aer
MAY 18 19S9
mitiqation standards that may be developed and adopted into the Land Development
Code.
c. Density Conditions:
The following density condition applies to all properties subject to the Density Rating
System.
1. Maximum Density
The maximum permitted density shall not exceed 16 residential dwelling units per gross
acre within the Urban designated area.. "' .... , ...~ .... ,,;-.;.... +~..-. -r .... ~:.-,.- ...~
B. Urban Gommercial District
This District is intended to accommodate almost all new commercial zoning; a variety of
residential uses, including higher densities for properties not located within the Urban
Coastal Fringe or Urban Residential Fringe Subdistricts; and a variety of non-residential
uses.
1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict
...For residential development, if a project is within the boundaries of the a Mixed
Use Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fdnge Subdistrict or
Urban coastal Fringe Subdistrict, up to -I-6 1__2 residential units per gross acre may
be permitted. This density may be distributed throughout the project, including any
portion located outside of the boundary of the Mixed Use Activity Center.
AGEND&ITEM
No.
HAY 18 19S9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
APPROVAL OF RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND BUDGETING
REGARDING THE SHERIFF'S BUDGET APPEAL.
OBJECTIVE: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the Collier
County response to the Governor's Office of Planning and Budgeting
regarding the Sheriff's budget appeal.
CONSIDERATIONS: The Governor's Office of Planning and Budgeting
originally requested that the respective parties to the Sheriff's
budget appeal submit requested internal budget data and external
staffing levels and law enforcement data relative to other Florida
Counties by April 30, 1999. An extension for the information was
granted by the Governor's Office of Planning and Budgeting until May
21, 1999.
The County was requested to provide budgetary data for the
Constitutional Officers and for the Board of County Commissioners in a
summary format prepared by the Governor's Office of Budgeting and
Planning. Data includes FY 97 actuals, FY 98 appropriations, and FY 99
appropriations, for the agencies identified above in the General Fund
and All Funds categories. Explanations of major budget variances were
also provided in the response.
' ~ May 6, 1999 the Governor's Office of Planning and Budgeting further
~equested that each party to the budget appeal provide a memorandum of
law on the issue of the Sheriff's reserve for contingencies as provided
for in Section 30.49, Florida Statutes. Due to the late date of this
request, the County Attorney's Office is currently preparing the
memorandum of law, which will be incorporated into the Board of County
Commissioners' final submittal.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Board of County Commissioners:
1) approve the Collier County response to the Governor's Office of
Planning and Budgeting regarding the Sheriff's budget appeal; and
2) authorize the Chairwoman to execute the document.
M~.~7i~yTi, OMB Director
Approved by: ~ ~ez DATE:~'/~
Robert' F. Fern , County Administrator
3301 East Tamiami Trail · Naples, Florida 34112-4977
John C. Norris (941) 774-8097 · Fax (941) 774-3602
Distdct 1
James D. Carter, Ph.D.
District 2
Timothy J. Constantine
Distdct 3
Pamela S. Mac'Kie
District 4
Barbara B. Berry
Distdct 5
May 18, 999
Ms. Donna Arduin, Director
Office of Planning and Budgeting
Executive Office of the Governor
The Capitol Building, Room 1601
Tallahass ee, Florida 32399-0001
RE: Collier County Sheriffs Appeal - Requested Budget Data and
Memorandum of Law Regarding Reserves
Dear Ms. Arduin:
In response to your letter of April 12, 1999 enclosed is the budgetary data (FY 97 actuals, FY 98
appropriations, and FY 99 appropriations) for the Constitutional Officers and the Board of
County Commissioners in the summary format requested. Budget data is provided for the
General Fund and All Funds categories.
In your follow-up letter of May 6, 1999 it was further requested that a memorandum of law
related to the Sheriffs reserve issue also be included in the Collier County Budget Appeal
response. The requested memorandum of law is also included in this submittal.
All Funds Category
Within the All Funds category, budget data (FY 97 actuals, FY 98 appropriations, and FY 99
appropriations) is provided for the Constitutional Officers and the Board of County
Commissioners in the summary format requested. Budget data for the Constitutional Officers
represents the total operating budget of each respective Constitutional Officer, inclusive of Board
paid expenses such as insurance and utilities, which are directly attributable to each
Constitutional Officer's operation.
As discussed with Chris Snow of the Governor's Office of Planning and Budgeting, the All
Funds category includes data for all principal Collier County operating funds, while excluding
special service taxing districts, grant funds, debt service funds, capital project funds, self-
insurance funds, and trust funds. Further, data provided in the All Funds category excludes
budgeted reserves in order to provide a true comparison to actual FY 97 expenditures.
Explanations of major budget variances are also provided.
Explanations of Sheriff's Variances - All Funds Category
Line Department Fiscal Year Explanation
2. Sheriff FY 99 The variance between the Sheriffs FY 99 requested
budget $64,233,700 and the $57,809,500 budget approved by the Board of County
Commissioners is $6,424,200 as identified in the spreadsheet below:
BUDGET RESOLUTION
CHANGES TO THE FY 99 TENTATIVE BUDGET
FUND: SHERIFF (040)
FY 99 FY 99
Requested Changes Amended Budget
Appropriation Unit Budget Increase (Decrease) Budget Change
Law Enforcement* 43,507,100 (2,929,100) 40,578,000 -6.7%
Detention/Corrections 14,883,000 (461,500) 14,421,500 -3.1%
Judicial (Bailiffs) 1,251,900 (51,500) 1,200,400 -4.1%
Reserves 2,982,100 (2,982,100) 0 -100.0%
BCC Paid 1,609,600 0 1,609,600 0.0%
Total Appropriations 64,233,700 (6,424,200) 57,809,500 -10.0%
*$800,000 in funding from Marco Island restored in January 1999 changing the % budget change
column to (8.8%).
The breakdown of this variance from the initial budget request is as follows:
Reserves - $2,982,100 Reduction
Pursuant to the Board's adopted budget policy, contingency reserves for Constitutional Officer
funds would be appropriated in the General Fund. This reduced the Sheriffs initial request by
$2,982,100. This policy was consistently applied to all of the Constitutional Officers. For
example, the Supervisor of Elections requested a reserve be appropriated within her individual
fund, but due to policy considerations this reserve was instead included in the General Fund
reserve for contingencies.
Funds are available in the General Fund reserve to meet the contingency requirements of all
General Fund budgets including the Sheriff.
AGENDA ITEM
No.
HAY 18 1999
Attrition - $1~887~000 Reduction
Pursuant to the Board's adopted budget policy, a 4% attrition level was assumed in the FY 99
budget. This policy recognizes that there will not be full employment during the entire fiscal
year. This reduced the Sheriffs request by $1,887,000 as follows: Law Enforcement -
$1,411,300; Corrections - $428,000; and Judicial - $47,700.
This policy was applied consistently to all budget requests and has been in place for a number of
years.
State Retirement Rates - $131~900 Reduction.
An adjustment was made to the Sheriffs budget request to reflect the reduction in state
retirement program rates. This reduced the Sheriffs request by $131,900 as follows: Law
Enforcement- $94,600; Corrections - $33,500; and Judicial - $3,800.
Phase in of New Positions - $370j00 Reduction.
During the budget workshops, the Board requested that the Sheriffs new positions be phased-in
during FY 99. This reduced the Sheriffs Law Enforcement request by $370,000. In addition,
there was a $100 rounding adjustment made to the new funding requested.
- Marco Island Road Patrols - $1,053J00 Reduction.
Prior to fiscal year 1999, Marco Island residents provided funding for the Sheriffs Office, in
part, through the Unincorporated Area General Fund millage. By virtue of the Marco Island
incorporation, the ability to tax Marco Island residents through the Unincorporated Area millage
was eliminated, requiring a fundamental change in the mechanism for funding the Sheriff. In
early transition discussions, it was established that the City of Marco Island desired to maintain
the existing level of service provided by the Sheriff. It was therefore understood, since the
adoption of the Board's budget policy in March, that there would be a contractual arrangement
between the Sheriffs Office and the City of Marco Island. As no contractual agreement was
reached with the City of Marco Island prior to the adoption of the FY 99 budget in September,
the Board of County Commissioners reduced the Sheriffs Law Enforcement budget by
$1,053,100.
Note: A settlement agreement with the City of Marco Island was reached in January, 1999
and provided $800,000 in funding for Sheriff's road patrols in the City of Marco Island.
The Sheriff's adopted budget was amended to reflect the receipt of this $800,000 payment.
AGENDA ITEM
No. 3
MAY 18 1999
pg. z/
Explanations of Other Major Variances - All Funds Category
Line Department Fiscal Year Explanation
1. Clerk of Courts FY 98 Funded five additional positions, a personal
computer replacement program, and a reallocation of costs previously budgeted in Courts.
5. Elections FY 98 Funded purchase of replacement voting machines
and computer equipment, a voter list maintenance program required by Florida Statutes, costs of
special elections, i.e., City of Marco Island, and printing of ballot cards for three elections.
39. Public Health FY 99 Funded $196,100 for immunization of children, to
provide adult primary health care, and to expand clinic operations for treatment of sexually
transmitted diseases.
40 Medical Examiner FY 99 Increase in operating expenses due to relocation to a
new larger facility.
44. Housing (HUI) FY 98 Funding for a new $250,00 economic development
program.
General Fund Category
Within the General Fund category, budget data (FY 97 actuals, FY 98 appropriations, and FY 99
appropriations) is provided for the Constitutional Officers and the Board of County
Commissioners in the summary format requested. Budget data for the Constitutional Officers
represents the General Fund operating support of each respective Constitutional Officer,
inclusive of Board paid expenses such as insurance and utilities, which are directly attributable to
each Constitutional Officer's operation.
Summary
It is the position of the Board of County Commissioners that the funding allocated to the Sheriff
for fiscal year 1999 is sufficient for the continuation of a responsible level of law enforcement in
Collier County. We are looking forward to the hearing in Tallahassee to present the County's
position relative to this matter.
Sincerely,
Pamela S. Mac'Kie, Chairwoman
Board of County Commissioners
Collier County, Florida A~ENDA ITEM
No. 3
cc: Board of County Commissioners bl/~,Y ] 8 |99~]
Don Hunter, Sheriff
Robert F. Fernandez, County Administrator Pg-- $"
David C. Weigel, County Attorney '
~GEN 3A ITEM
'
' MAY 8 1999
p~
,.I::
AGEI IDA ITEM
,,.
MAY 18 I~E
AGENDA ITEM
NAY 18 1999
Pg.__