Agenda 12/13/2011 Item #10G12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
n EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Request that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) provide direction on moving
forward with the proposed Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) amendments, as
appropriated within the 2011 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), adopted by the
BCC on January 31, 2011.
OBJECTIVE:
For the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to provide staff direction on the timing of
processing amendments to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. The RLSA amendments
were arrived upon by the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee (Committee) in its
"Five -Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program" report. This report was ,presented
and accepted in its entirety as a planning document by the BCC on April 21, 2009, including
recommendations of the Environmental Advisory Council, the Collier County Planning
Commission and the BCC. The Committee, representing a diversity of interest within the Eastem
Lands, was appointed by the,BCC on October 24, 2007 by Resolution 2007 -305A. Recognizing
the comprehensive planning effort, the adopted 2011 EAR addresses the RLSA Overlay (exhibit
"A "), as such; "Both Volumes of the Five Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program
have been provided on CD attached to the EAR adoption workbook and stands as the basis for
the County's comprehensive EAR evaluation of the RLSA Overlay. "
CONSIDERATIONS:
Policy 1.22 of the RLSA Overlay mandated the five year review of the RLSA program by both
Collier County and the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). This review was
completed through the Committee- prepared "Phase I- Technical Report" which the BCC accepted
and transmitted to the DCA in late May, 2008. Following the acceptance of the Technical
Report, the study transitioned to Phase II of the RLSA 5 -year review. During the second phase,
through a series of publicly advertised meetings, the Committee arrived upon potential
amendments to the RLSA - Overlay to further facilitate the overall arching goals of the optional
program, to balance property rights, environmental interest and agricultural preservation. -
The Committee presented the Report to the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) and Collier
County Planning Commission (CCPC) separately in public hearings beginning on January 28,
2009 and ending on March 10, 2009. Both the EAC and CCPC submitted individual
recommendations to the BCC relative to the Committee - recommended amendments to the RLSA
Overlay and the Transportation Element of the GMP. Based upon EAC and CCPC
recommendations, in March, 2009, the Committee made several modifications to its January,
2009 report to incorporate most of the EAC and CCPC recommendations. The Committee -
proposed amendments to the RLSA Overlay, as presented to the BCC on April 21, 2009 included
most of the comments and recommendations advanced to the BCC by the EAC and CCPC.
Minutes of the meeting have been provided within exhibit "B". Following a full day of public
testimony regarding the "Five -Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Report" the
following BCC action was taken:
• By a vote of 3 -2 the BCC accepted the "Five -Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship
Report" in its entirety as a planning document and authorized that it move forward as
Packet Page -762-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
proposed GMP, amendments in a "first in and first out" order in relation to previously filed
GMP amendment applications; incorporate the 404,000 credit cap and Stewardship
Receiving Area (SRA) 45,000 acre cap, provided backup data is developed to determine the
actual credit and acreage cap values; and provided there be placed in a new RLSA GMP
policy a statement to the effect that Credits do not provide vested rights to land owners and
mo excess credits are created.
• By a vote of 4-1, the BCC authorized proceeding into a special GMP Amendment Cycle
(GMPA) at the expense of the private sector in the order of: 2007/2008 , GMP Amendment
Cycle... f". Immokalee Area Master Plan (IAMP) ... 2" d, and RLSA... 3'd
Following the meeting, a number of discussions were held by staff with representatives of
Eastern County Property Owners (ECPO) to address the BCC's directive -that the amendments
proceed under private sector fimding. ECPO's position, as expressed. to the ' BCC during the
April 21' meeting, is that the RLSA overlay amendments are the result of a county initiated
process, intended to benefit the County and came from a County appointed Committee and,
therefore, the -costs of such' amendments should be borne by the County. It should be noted that
during the public testimony at the same BCC Hearing, the Administrator. of the former
Community Development Division informed the BCC that if the RSLA amendments weren't
directed to move forward at that time, then the County would have to initiate them as part of the
upcoming Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR).
On September 15, 2009 the BCC, at its regularly scheduled public hearing, by Resolution
dissolved the Committee and authorized the County to establish a contract with Carlton Fields to
determine the extent of data and analysis required to support the proposed RLSA amendments.
The intent -behind the Carlton- Fields data and analysis 'evaluation was to further define the
.amount of work required to package an amendment to support the requested RLSA amendments.
The RLSA data and analysis memorandum from Carlton Fields is attached as exhibit "C" to this
executive summary.
The overall conclusion of the memorandum was that some of the recommendations would
require the reformatting of the information available today, while other recommendations' will
require more analysis considering the implications of changes and demons impact to the
RLSA program. It should be noted that through HB7207, adopted in 2011, substantial changes
have been made to the requirements for GNP amendments and that the memorandum generated
by Carlton - Fields was crafted under a different regulatory environment.
As noted within. the adopted 2011 EAR, The RLSA amendments were to be initiated at the
conclusion of a "Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)" for the RLSA Overlay area. It was
anticipated that the outcome of the HCP and the specifics contained within the 14CP would have
an influence upon the composition and specifics of the RLSA and how development would move
forward within the regulatory environment. It was based upon that recognition that the County
indicated that at the conclusion of the HCP, the RLSA amendments would be scheduled.
Subsequently, the County has learned that the HCP process has stalled and that the effort would
be delayed for an indefinite period of time.
2
Packet Page -763-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
In September of this year, Stantec, the planning firm that assisted in the development of the
11-IN original RLSA Overlay and a party present to the RLSA 5 -year review process, offered to
provide the County with the RLSA amendment package, as accepted by the BCC at their April
21, 2009 Public Hearing, complete with the necessary data and analysis, if the County would
process the RLSA amendments as part of the overall EAR -based amendment process. The
tentative thought is to allow for the RLSA Amendments to move forward at the transmittal
hearing stage as a separate cycle, but then to be merged with the EAR based amendments at the
adoption stage. Included within this executive summary is exhibit "D ", which is a memo to the
County from Collier County Audubon, Defenders of Wildlife and Florida Wildlife Federation
requesting the RLSA- amendments be included within the EAR -based amendments.
With all of the above points as factors to consider, the two options for the BCC as identified by
staff are as follows:
• Direct staff to schedule the RLSA overlay amendments for inclusion with the EAR -based
amendment process; or
• Direct staff to initiate the RLSA amendments at the conclusion of the HCP for the
Eastern Lands, as indicated by the 2011 EAR.
Option 1: Direct that the RLSA amendments be included within the EAR -based
amendment cycle tentatively scheduled for adoption in October 2012.
As noted within this executive summary, the Adopted 2011 EAR Report identifies the
^ RSLA 5 -year review Phase I and Phase II reports as the evaluation and analysis of that
particular overlay for the purpose of satisfying the EAR requirements. As such the
amendments arrived upon by the RLSA 5 -year Review Committee, reviewed by the EAC
and the CCPC and accepted by the BCC to initiate the GMP amendment process, have
been recognized as the EAR -based amendments for the RLSA Overlay. Based upon this
recognition and the fact that the HCP has stalled, the BCC would direct staff to include
the RLSA amendments as part of the EAR -based amendments anticipated to be adopted
by the BCC in October of 2012.
Option 2: Indefinite delay of any future amendments.
As noted in the executive summary, in addition to recognizing Phase I and Phase II as
part of the adopted EAR, the report indicates that the RLSA - amendments would be
initiated at the conclusion of the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) currently in
development between US Fish and Wildlife, Eastern County Property Owners and the
local environmental organizations. Based upon this recognition, the BCC would direct
staff to postpone the RLSA amendments, as indicated by the EAR, until the completion
of the HCP for the Eastern Lands.
Staff's perspective is that the amendments to the RLSA serve a greater public purpose and were
arrived upon through a collaborative process to improve the overall effectiveness of the optional
3
Packet Page -764-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
RLSA Overlay. This greater public purpose includes greater RLSA growth management
coordination with the East of CR951 Horizon Study, the proposed amendments to the Immokalee ^
Area Master Plan, the Collier County Interactive Growth Model which projects timely land use
and capital infrastructure needs and the Master Mobility Plan which seeks to bring increase
efficiencies to mobility throughout the County in conjunction with population growth in these
specific areas east of CR951. In addition, the amendments will establish a new agricultural
stewardship credit to protect an additional 40,000 acres of land from residential development, and will
establish a definitive cap on the amount of Stewardship receiving Area development.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
There is no legal requirement that the Board proceed with the amendments at this time, unless
the Board finds that there is a need. The County Attorney's Office will assist staff with the
implementation of the BCC's direction. A majority vote is necessary for BCC action. — HFAC
FISCAL IMPACT:
There are currently funds budgeted in the proposed FY2011- FY2012 county budget for the
EAR -based Amendment Cycle.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT:
The RLSA - amendments have been arrived upon to bring a better balance to growth related
development in the Eastern Lands with attention to property rights, environmental interest and
agricultural preservation. The proposed amendments will bring greater effectiveness to
regulatory environment for the lands which transition to the federal and state conservation lands
of the interior. n
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the BCC take one of the following actions:
1. Direct that the amendments to the RLSA Overlay, as identified in the adopted 2011 EAR,
be scheduled for separate transmittal hearings and be included within the EAR -based
amendments cycle adoption hearing; or
2. Direct staff to initiate the RLSA amendments at the conclusion of the HCP for the
Eastern Lands, as indicated by the adopted 2011 EAR
Prepared by: Mike Bosi, AICP, Manager, Comprehensive Planning Department
Attachments: Exhibit "A" — adopted 2011 EAR -RLSA review section;
Exhibit "B" - 4 -21 -09 -BCC Public Hearing minutes;
Exhibit "C" - Carlton Fields RLSA memo to the BCC;
Exhibit "D" — Non - Governmental Organizations' (NGO) letter to the BCC
regarding the RLSA amendments
4
Packet Page -765-
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 10.G.
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
Item Summary: Request that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) provide direction
on moving forward with the proposed Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) amendments, as
appropriated within the 2011 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), adopted by the BCC on
January 31, 2011. (Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager, Growth Management
Division /Planning & Regulation)
Meeting Date: 12/13/2011
Prepared By
Name: BosiMichael
Title: Manager - Planning,Comprehensive Planning
10/26/2011 10:17:38 AM
Approved By
Name: LorenzWilliam
Title: Director - CDES Engineering Services,Comprehensive
Date: 11/10/2011 11:38:18 AM
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst, CDES
Date: 11/15/2011 10:14:44 AM
Name: MarcellaJeanne
Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning
Date: 11/15/2011 10:58:37 AM
Name: FederNorman
Title: Administrator - Growth Management Div,Transportati
Date: 11/15/2011 11:20:57 AM
Name: AshtonHeidi
Title: Section Chief/Land Use- Transportation,County Attor
Date: 11/22/2011 1:13:18 PM
101-�' Name: KlatzkowJeff
Packet Page -766-
Title: County Attorney,
Date: 11/28/20114:05:16 PM
Name: IsacksonMark
Title: Director -Corp Financial and Mgmt Svs,CMO
Date: 11 /29/20119:49:19 AM
Name: OchsLeo
Title: County Manager
Date: 11/29/20114:54:11 PM
Packet Page -767-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA (RLSA) OVERLAY SUB - DISTRICT
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay is the Future Land Use Element Sub - District which was adopted
in 2002 through Ordinance 02 -54, as a result of Final Order — ACC -99 -002.
ISSUE BACKGROUND
ACC -99 -002 was issued by the State due to the County's GW being found to lack regulatory protection for
environmentally sensitive property, not adequately discouraging urban sprawl and preventing the premature
conversion of agricultural land. The Final Order required the following modifications to the GNP to address the
issues within three specified areas:
1. Identify and propose measures to protect prime agricultural areas
2. Direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat in order to protect water quality and quantity
and maintain the natural water regime as well as to protect listed animal species and their habitats.
3. Assess the growth potential of the Area by assessing the potential conversion of rural lands to other uses, in
appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, directing incompatible land uses away from critical
habitat and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques including, but not
limited to, public and private schools, urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area -based
allocations, clustering and open space provisions and mixed use development.
Comprehensive Plan Implementation & Program Assessment
As noted the RLSA was established based on the principal of preserving environmentally sensitive lands,
^ discouraging urban sprawl, promoting mixed use, protecting listed species and their habitats, while respecting the
rights inherent to the property owners within the sub - district. The RLSA as expressed in the Future Land Use
Element contains one goal and one objective, which are furthered by 5 policy groups.
The goal of the RLSA is: Collier County seeks to address the long -term needs of residents and property owners
within the Immokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment. Collier
County's goal is to protect agricultural activities, to prevent the premature conversion of agricultural land to non-
agricultural uses, to direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat, to enable the conversion of
rural land to other uses in appropriate locations, to discourage urban sprawl, and to encourage development that
utilizes creative land use planning techniques.
The objective of the RLSA is: To meet the Goal described above, Collier County's objective is to create an incentive
based land use overlay system, herein referred to as the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, based
on the principles of rural land stewardship as defined in Chapter 163.3177(11), F. S. The Policies that will implement
this Goal and Objective are set forth below in groups relating to each aspect of the Goal. Group I policies describe
the structure and organization of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. Group 2 policies relate
to agriculture, Group 3 policies relate to natural resource protection, and Group 4 policies relate to conversion of
land to other uses and economic diversification. Group S are regulatory policies that ensure that land that is not
voluntarily included in the Overlay by its owners shall nonetheless meet the minimum requirements of the Final Order
pertaining to natural resource protection.
Of particular relevance to the EAR process is Policy 1.22 of the FLUE which reads:
The RLSA Overlay was designed to be a long -term strategic plan with a planning horizon Year of 2025. Marry of the
tools, techniques and strategies of the Overlay are new, Innovative, incentive based, and have yet to be tested in
actual implementation. A Comprehensive review of the Overlay shall be prepared for and reviewed .by Collier County
and the Department of Community Affairs upon the five-year anniversary of the adoption of the Stewardship District
in the LDC. The purpose of the review shall be to assess the participation in and effectiveness of the Overlay
Rural L__.,_ ``- -_'-` - "_ea (RLSA)
Packet Page -768-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
implementation in meeting the Goal, Objective and Policies set forth herein. The specific measures of review shall be
as follows:
1. The amount and location of land designated as FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and other SSAs. n
2. The amount and location of land designated as SRAs.
3, The number of Stewardship Credits generated, assigned or held for future use
4. A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at the time of a Study and time of review.
S. The amount, location and type of land converted to non - agricultural use with and without participation in the
Stewardship Credit System since its adoption.
6 The extent and use of funding provided by Collier County and other sources Local, State, Federal and private
revenues described in Policy 1.18.
7. The amount, location and type of restoration through participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its
adoption.
8. The potential for use of Credits in urban areas.
The 5 -year review was compiled by County Staff and evaluated by the 5 -Year Review Committee. A Committee
comprised of a diverse stake holder membership. The Technical review or Phase I was conducted according to the
below described schedule, with acceptance of the report on May 27, 2008 by the Collier Board of County
Commissioners and transmittal of the Phase I Technical Review to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) on
May 30, 2008.
The Phase I report concluded that significant progress has been made in achieving the RLSA goal and since the
conclusion of the Phase I report a number of approved SSA's have been processed within the system for a total of 16
SSA's comprising approximately 55, 956 acres. There has been no additional SRA acreage added to the system since
the time of the technical review, leaving a total of 5,027 acres designated SRA with 1,027 of that total dedicated to
public use benefit. The Phase I Report, which has been included electronically on CD as part of the 2011 EAR, stands
as the first prong within the County's RLSA overlay EAR assessment.
n
The two maps on the following pages illustrate the location of the SSA's within the RLSA Overlay, as well as the
underlying characteristics [Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSA), Habitat Stewardship Areas (HAS), Water Retention
Areas (WRA) and Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC)] of the area the SSA's cover.
Rural L Packet Page -769- ea (RLSA)
imTokalee
Au
4 2
a i
-
-
imTokalee
Au
w
El"
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
At the conclusion of the Phase I Report, the County initiated the Phase 11 process, which was an assessment of the
individual five group policies of the RLSA which concluded with the generation of the Phase -Two Report.
Within the development of the Phase Two report the Committee developed strategies to create incentives to encourage
rural landowners to voluntarily agree to:
• eliminate their right to convert agricultural land to non agricultural uses in exchange for
compensation;
• retain agriculture within Open Lands as an alternative to conversion of such lands using Baseline
Standards (and thereby reduce the size of the "development footprint" and the threat of urban sprawl
in the RLSA Overlay);
• create, restore and enhance panther corridor connections;
• restore flow ways and habitat through a credit generating system that considers cost; difficulty and
benefit value of each restoration type through a newly adopted tiered system;
• impose a cap of 45,000 SRA acres in the RLSA Overlay and recalibrate the credit system to ensure
the balance essential to the sustainability of a voluntary incentive based program which generates
significant public benefits without incurring public expenditures; and
• cooperate with Collier County in its creation of a plan for a county transportation network that meets
the adopted Level of Service through build out of the county and considers the location of public
services needed to accommodate the build out population.
The RLSA Committee also engaged the public and various interest groups in a rigorous assessment of each
and every RLSA Overlay policy to ensure internal consistency, thoughtful precision and careful scrutiny of the data,
analysis and justification for each of the proposed Policy amendments. The work product of the RLSA Committee for
its Phase H Report therefore actually consists of proposed GMP Policy amendments.
The RLSA Committee's Five Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program incorporates two
volumes. Volume I incorporates both the earlier Phase I Report and the Phase 11 Report. Volume I of the Report is
organized and respectfully submitted in the following sections:
• Phase I Report contains the County's qualitative evaluation of the Overlay and ways to more
effectively implement the RLSA Goal and Objectives.
• Phase 2 Report, Section 1 contains the RLSA Committee's recommended substantive policy
amendments.
• Phase 2 Report, Section 2 contains all of the RLSA Committee's recommended policy
amendments, whether substantive or insubstantial.
Phase 2 Report, Section 3 contains the supporting documentation for the amendments.
Phase 2 Report, Section 4 provides an account of public participation and comments,
committee deliberations, and committee action.
• Phase 2 Report, Section 5 contains the RLSA Committee's recommended new Policy 3.7 of
the Transportation Element of the GMP based on a proposal for a county transportation network
initiated by Collier County Transportation Planning.
p „r,, Packet Page - 772 -%—. 101 CAI
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
In summary, based upon the adopted RLSA Overlay and the RLSA Committee's recommended policies as
contained in Volume I of the Five Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program, the RLSA will:
n
1. Achieve a balance of natural resource protection, agriculture and sustainable community development at the
planning horizon year and at build -out.
2. Provide new and meaningful economic incentives for agriculture to remain as a viable component of the
economy of Collier County.
3. Increase the total area of lands expected to be placed into Stewardship Sending Areas from 92,000 acres to
134,300 acres.
4. Enable protection and restoration of critical natural resources on private land using incentives that do not
require public dollars for acquisition or management.
5. Align the RLSA program with the Florida Panther Protection Program's objectives.
6. Establish a maximum SRA development footprint of 45,000 acres -less than 1/4 of the total RLSA; or 15%
when open space within new communities is accounted for.
7. Reduce the potential for conversion of open lands to non -RLSA baseline development, thereby reducing
urban sprawl.
8. Accommodate forecasted population growth in a sustainable manner and ensure that supporting public
facilities, services, and infrastructure are provided.
9. Create new opportunities to site economic development driven new businesses in proximity to places for
employees to live.
10. Accommodate a long range interconnected transportation network plan that serves Eastern Collier County.
Volume II of the Five Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program includes all support information
including major documents, presentations, minutes, etc. considered by the Committee during the course of its twenty
three [23] public meetings. Both Volumes of the Five Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program have
been provided on CD attached to the EAR adoption workbook and stands as the basis for the County's n
cone rehensive EAR evaluation of the RLSA Overlay.
The following are the major substantive proposed amendments to the RLSAO advanced for consideration by the
Committee during its approximate 9 -month review of the RLSAO extending from April through December, 2008.
Although there are other recommended amendments to the RLSAO than those listed as follows, the remaining
amendments are considered to be minor, corrective in nature, and intended to cause the RLSAO policies to be better
harmonized with each other.
Policy 1.6.1 (new Policy)
The recommended new Policy 1.6.1 permits a five year "Conditional Period" for a Conditional Stewardship Easement
with a possible extension for one additional year.
Policy 1.7 (amendment)
The recommended amendment to Policy 1.7 provides that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
would be a grantee (along with Collier County) to future "perpetual restrictive easements" (Stewardship Easements)
rather than the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services which has been the grantee in past BCC -
approved RLSA Stewardship Easements.
Policy 1.22 (amendment)
Currently, Policy 1.22 language provides for RLSAO review, "upon the five year anniversary of the adoption of the
Stewardship District in the Land Development Code (LDC) ". The amendment proposes to have the review completed
as part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report process as required by Chapter 163 of the Florida State Statutes.
Rural L Packet Page -773—ea (RLSA)
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
n Group 2 (amendment)
The recommended amendment to the Group 2 language eliminates the language related to protection of agricultural
lands from premature conversion to other uses, and replaces this language with new language related to the retention
of land for agricultural production.
Policy 2.1 (amendment)
The recommended amendments to Policy 2.1 eliminate the language related to protection of agricultural lands from
premature conversion to other uses. Also included is the elimination of the language comparing acreage needed to
accommodate the projected population of the RLSA in the Horizon year of 2025 with the acreage required to
accommodate such projected population if the RLSAO were not utilized.
Policy 2.2 (amendment)
The recommended amendments to Policy 2.2 provide for additional Stewardship Credits to retain agriculture lands
within the RLSA.
Policy 3.11 (amendment)
The recommended amendments to Policy 3.11:
• eliminate the restoration priority language related to restoration work within the Camp Keis Strand Flowway
Stewardship Area (FSA) or contiguous Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs); provide language allowing for two
additional Stewardship Credits (rather than the 4 Credits now permitted) for restoration activities within a
FSA or HSA, regardless of location in the RLSA; elimination of the additional two Stewardship Credits for
each acre of land dedicated for restoration activities within other FSAs and HSAs; and provide additional
Credits for either caracara restoration at 2 Credits per acre, or for exotic control/burning at 4 Credits per acres,
or for flow way restoration at 4 Credits per acre, or for native habitat restoration at 6 Credits per acre. Within
the area proposed for restoration, Land Use Layers 1 -6 must be removed. The specific process for assignment
of additional restoration Credits shall be included in the Stewardship District of the LDC;
• provide for Stewardship Credits to incentivize the creation, restoration, and enhancement of a northern
panther corridor connection and a southern panther corridor connection by providing for 2 additional
Stewardship Credits for each acre of land so dedicated and, should the owner also effectively complete the
corridor restoration, an additional 8 Credits per acre would be awarded;
provide for Stewardship Credit incentives for restoration of shallow wetland wading bird foraging habitat
located in FSA, HSA, or Water Retention Area (WRA) at the rate of 2 additional Credits per acre and, upon
successful completion of the restoration, an additional 6 Credits per acre shall be awarded; and
• limit Credit incentives to only one type of restoration for each acre so designated for restoration
Policy 3.13 (amendment)
The recommended amendment to Policy 3.13 requires the acreage of a WRA, if such acreage provides for water
treatment and retention exclusively for a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA), to be included in the SRA acreage and
n would require the use of Stewardship Credits to enable the use of such an area for this purpose in a SRA.
Rural L Packet Page -774- *ea (RLSA)
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
Policy 41 (amendment)
This recommended amendment to Policy 4.2 corrects/updates acreage calculations within the RLSAO which are both
outside of and inside the Area of Critical State Concern and limits the amount of lands that can be designated as SRAs
to 45,000 acres. The separate Comprehensive Planning Department Staff SRA build -out projection and Wilson
Miller build -out projection of the maximum SRA acreage allowable under the existing RLSAO [if lWlo of property
owners participate using the existing Credit system] is 41,040 SRA acres and 43,312 SRA acres, respectively. This
SRA acreage does not include any development which may occur under the underlying zoning of Rural Agricultural -
A District and which would not be participating in the RLSAO.
Policy 4.5 (amendment)
This recommended amendment to Policy 4.5 provides for the SRA Master Plan to be consistent with the County's
Long Range Transportation Plan, the County Build Out Vision Plan referenced in recommended new Policy 3.7 of the
Transportation Element of the GMP, and Access Management procedures. The recommended amend to Policy 4.5
also includes a requirement for the provision of a Management Plan as part of the SRA Master Plan which includes
provisions for minimizing human and wildlife interactions between the SRA and surrounding undeveloped properties.
Policy 4.6 (amendment)
This recommended amendment to Policy 4.6 requires an SRA to include a mobility plan that includes consideration of
vehicular, bicycle/pedestrian, public transit, internal circulators, and other modes of travel/movement within and
between SRAs and areas of outside development and land uses.
Policy 4.7 (amendment)
This recommended amendment to Policy 4.7 eliminates Hamlets as a specific forms of SRA and reduces the number
of specific forms of SRAs from four to three in conjunction with the recommended deletion of Policy 4.7.3 language
related to Hamlets.
Policy 4.7.1 (amendment .... Towns)
This recommended amendment to Policy 4.7.1 increases the minimum size of a Town from 1,000 acres to 1,500 acres,
increases the maximum size from 4,000 acres to 5,000 acres, and provides for the requirement of an internal mobility
plan.
Policy 4.73 (deletion... Hamlets)
Policy 4.7.3 is recommended for deletion.
Policy 4.7.4 [now renumbered Policy 4.73 (amendment... Compact Rural Development)]
The recommended amendment to Policy 4.7.4 keeps the maximum size of a Compact Rural Development (CRD) at
100 acres while providing language supporting the location of research, education, tourism, recreation, and housing
within CRDs.
Policy 4.7.4 (new)
This new Policy 4.7.4 stresses that Towns and Villages are the preferred locations for business and industry in the
RLSA to further promote economic development, diversification, and job creation with a list of examples of permitted
Rural L, Packet Page - 775 -ea (RtSAI
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
uses such as environmental research, agricultural research, aviation and aerospace, health and life sciences, corporate
�-. headquarters, computer hardware, software and services, etc.
Policy 4.14 (amendment)
The recommended amendments to Policy 4.14 provide:
• language requiring a proposed new SRA, at the time of SRA approval, to provide for the opportunity to
provide direct vehicular and pedestrian connections to an adjoining SRA or adjoining lands designated as
Open;
• new language requiring that public or private roads and connecting signalized intersections within or adjacent
to an SRA be maintained by the primary town or community it serves; and
e new language providing for a variety of mitigation credits and offsets.
Policy 4.19 (amendment)
This recommended amendment to Policy 4.19 provides for:
• 8 Credits required for each acre of land included in a SRA where such Credits were created from a
Stewardship Credit Sending Area deemed vested under the 8 Credit ratio; and
• 10 Credits required for each acre of land included in a SRA where such Credits were created from any other
Stewardship Sending Area
' Policy 4.22 (new)
This new Policy 4.22 provides that assessment of historic or cultural resources be done when such are identified in the
RLSA through the SRA designation process, including the assessment of such resource's historic or cultural
significance and the exploration of educational and public awareness opportunities regarding such significant
resources.
Policy 5.4 (amendment)
This recommended amendment to Policy 5.4 provides language to establish a map of potential wildlife crossing within
12 months of the effective date of the GMT amendments to be used in evaluating community, cultural and historical,
and transportation planning for the RLSA, including all SRAs described in Group 4 Policies.
Policy 5.5 (amendment)
This recommended amendment to Policy 5.5:
• deletes certain outdated references relative to the preparation of management plans;
• provides requirement for preparation of a management plan for the purpose of minimizing human and wildlife
interactions between agricultural and non - agricultural lands uses; and
• provides for a monitoring program for developments greater than 10 acres.
Rural Ls Packet Page -776- ea (RLSAI
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
Policy 5.7 (new)
This new Policy 5.7 requires that any development on lands not participating in the RLS program be compatible with
surrounding land uses and that outdoor lighting shall be reasonably managed to protect the nighttime environment,
conserve energy, and enhance safety and security.
Policy 5.8 (new)
This new Policy 5.8 provides that assessment of historic or cultural resources be done when such are identified in the
RLSA, including the assessment of such resource's historic or cultural significance and the exploration of educational
and public awareness opportunities regarding such significant resources.
The above proposed amendments have not been scheduled by the County for an official amendment cycle of the GMT
as of the date of authoring the EAR. Since the acceptance of the Phase II report on April 22, 2009, there has been
another effort lead by U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the development of a "Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)" for the RLSA
Overlay area. It is anticipated that the outcome of the HCP and the specifics contained within the HCP will have a
influence upon the composition and specifics of the RLSA and how development will move forward within the
regulatory environment. Based upon that recognition, the County intends to wait to the conclusion of the HCP
process before scheduling any amendments to the RLSA Overlay.
Below are the Public Comments received related to the RLSA Overlay.
■ County should be studying impacts of RLSA potential development and their effect on Estates (i e. ground water,
drainage, long -term effects). Policy 31 of Future Land Use Element — Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay
• LRTP not showing specifics of RLSA. Informational
■ Increase developer credits during RLSA revisions. RLSA S -Year review amendments — Observational
• Credits for underground assets? (Mining) RLSA 5 -Year review amendments — Observational.
■ Panther overpasses and underpasses (do they work)? ProgrannnatfG
■ Define primary and secondary panther habitat. Programmatic.
■ No new high speed (5 36 mph) roads built in RLSA and Rural Fringe Sending Areas (low speed essential for
wildlife preservation) Observational
■ Proposed RLSA amendments in Collier County did not address any concerns from DCA (7 written concerns from
Tom Pelham). Observational
• RLSA and RFMUD need to be compatible with Golden Gate Master Plan. Observational
• RLSA has encouraged premature conversion of agriculture by
Only low quality agriculture has been protected
By using eminent domain to provide transportation corridors
Refusing to address DCA concerns
Using Section 189 Districts to bypass Florida's Growth Management Laws - ObservadonaL
Rural La Packet Page -777- a (RIBA)
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
Exhibit 1
Note: These are partial BCC Minutes of April 21, 2009 meeting —pages 175
through 187.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm just trying to contain
myself so I don't start talking again.
The motion is that we accept the committee's report and that
we move -- that I move to move it forward through the GMP
process incorporating the compromised changes associated with
caps on acreage and a cap on the credits. Did I leave anything
out?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What's that banging noise up here?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry? 404,000 for the
cap, recognizing that you have to develop justifying backup data
to submit it to the process and that we make it very clear in the
process, in the notice document, that this does not bestow any
vested rights on any landowner, okay, and that there will be no
excess credits created; is that right?
And now you agree with me about the vested rights issue?
You agree that this plan does not create vested rights for credits?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think we can put in our Comp. flan
that exact statement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that -- and that is also your
second, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't think we varied
from our original motion.
C14AIRMAN FIALA: No, no. I just wanted to make sure
everybody understands what we're doing.
And Joe, does that meet your needs?
MR. SCHMITT: Bullet number one, yes, ma'am.
Packet Page -778-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good So now we have
the motion as restated on the floor and the second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
CO1IIISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
COMNIISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'm opposed because I
am very emphatic about the credits of 315,000 until such time as
we empty the granary.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you for telling me
why you are opposed_ Would you like to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Everything else I agree.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- state yours as well?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I already did.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know it was a long time
ago.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's all right. I have a short
memory, too. It's written down someplace.
Okay. So now you're going to take this back --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am. Based on that, we've
accepted the report. So the second piece, is it the bard's desire
for staff to come back to you? We'll have to schedule a special
cycle for these -- this to be treated as a -- during a special GMP
cycle, and we'll come back to you in a formal executive summary
with dates proposed for that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And let me just clarify. Special
GMP cycle does not mean that it goes before anything else? It
2 �
Packet Page -779-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
still goes to the bottom of the barrel? It's just a special -- like an
individual cycle?
MR. SCHNIITT: I'll make this simple. We're going to try
and do the '07 transmittal, followed by the Immokalee transmittal,
followed by these GMP amendments transmittal, and then we
start the train again with adoption. So it will be sequential.
I'm going to try and fit that in. We're going to look at the
dates, look at availability, look at your calendar, and all the other
things will be placed on your shoulders. So -- and I could -- LDC
hearings, you still have the sign LDC. You have lots of other
things. We just need to look at all that. And we'll come back to
you with a date.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. I just wanted to make sure
this -- so that everybody is clear that a special cycle does not
mean it's a special one that goes before anything else. It still is in
line with everything else. It's just an individual cycle.
MR. SCH1VIITI': Unless you so direct it bumps one of the
two that's scheduled.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, no, no. We would never do
that, or let me say I would never do that, okay.
Okay. So let's see. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we bumping anybody
out from their submitting of their monies and documents for a
GMP amendment?
MR. SCHMITT: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So this is -- this is
-- this is not going to slow down that process whatsoever?
MR. SCHMITT: No, sir. The dates are shown right there
on the executive summary.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the -- we're going to
,� put Immokalee into the RLS (sic) amendments?
3 1
Packet Page -780-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
MR. SCHMITT: No, sir. It will be a separate cycle. We'll
deal with the '07/'08 cycle, Immokalee will be separate because
that's -- you're going to have your hands full with that, and then
we will -- we will special -- schedule another cycle to deal strictly
with the RLSA amendments.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the -- who's going to pay
for the cost of these amendments?
MR. SCHMITT: That's a good question. That's -- that was
one of the questions raised by Mr. Cohen as well that they -- in
your executive summary, I -- the five -year review was required
when you adopted the plan. There was no requirement to do a
follow -on amendment cycle so that that's -- that's for you to
direct.
I'll identify it in the budget as part of our budget preparation
if, in fact, you direct that it be absorbed -- we absorb the cost as
part of the -- in the county.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, when other people
come forward with a GMP amendment, they have to put money
up front to get that accomplished, and I don't see why we should
treat this any different than where a group of landowners want to
go forward with these GMP amendments. And I feel that in order
to address this, I think they need to come forward with the monies
that it's going to take to pay for staff s time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So did you have a motion on that or
something?
COMMSSIONER HALAS: I'll make a motion that we pay
-- that the outside people, the people involved in this Rural Land
Stewardship group, the landowners, step up to the plate and pay
their fair share to go through with the amendments.
Packet Page -781-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that as long as
you say that Bill McDaniels will pay for it if they don't.
CHAIRIAAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Halas and a second by Commissioner Henning.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMIVIISSIONER COYLE: Did I understand the phrase
their fair share in there somewhere?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I didn't hear that.
COMMSSIONER COYLE: Yeah, he said pay their fair
share. What is their fair share?
COMMISSIONER HALAS : They're going to pay just the
-- they're going to pay whatever's required that we ask other
people to come forward when they request a GMP amendment.
COMMSSIONER COYLE: Is that a fee, Joe?
MR. SCHIVIITT: Well, yes. There's a fee for a basic
amendment if you're going to come in as a private submittal. And
that fee, Randy, is what, 16,000? 16,500, that -- and then your
executive summary, we probably -- we estimate this will probably
run somewhere between -- and I turn the page here, 90,000.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Ninety -eight thousand or something
like that.
MR. SCHIVIITT: About $91,000 based on staff time and
everything involved.
COMN41SSIONER COYLE: Total? Or is that 90,000 in to
the fee that you charge?
MR- SCHIVIITT: No, that's ninety thousand total, not
counting the fee.
COMMSSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: I'm talking everything from legal
advertising, court reporter, cost of minutes, cost of printing,
everything involved.
5
Packet Page -782-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
Go ahead, Randy.
MR. COHEN: Just one other thing, and I think its probably
a necessary item as well, too. If we're going to properly analyze
the credits in relationship as to how they entitle acreage, we're
probably going to have to have an outside economic consultant
take a look at it, just as we did with the rural fringe, and that cost
will probably have to be added to it as well.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And: Quite frankly Pm with
Commissioner Halas on this all the way, because our budget is so
bad as it is, we can't -- you know, we -- we let staff go, and we
can't even build roads and things now, and we can't -- we can't
afford to do something like this.
And I think we would jeopardize the whole county by us
forwarding this. So unless we find a funding source for this, I
could not vote on moving that forward.
MR. COBEN: And the one other thing is, I think we'll '-N,
probably need to put a caveat on that that would be with my staff
remaining the same as well, too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not in the motion.
MR. SCHMITT: Nick wanted --
MR. COHEN: I just wanted to let you know.
MR. SCFMTT: Nick wanted to add the transportation
study involved as well, and Nick, this is only your staff time
involved?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. Nick Casalanguida with
transportation. We put in an. estimate in there just for staff time,
not to go through and run the analysis of that transportation study
done by WilsonMiller.
We are doing some analysis right now with our general, you
know, funding that we get annually. But to do a specific study of
what you're proposing, I'll have to put something together for Joe
6 1
Packet Page -783-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
to bring back to you and tell you what we would -- you know,
what it would take for us to do that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think the costs have
got to --
MR. SCH IITT: I would recommend that we, as staff,
come back to you during one of the upcoming BCC meetings,
identify the dates for the special cycle, which then you can vote
on, and we'll also identify costs.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMNIISSIONER HALAS: Good.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So would you like to repeat your
motion, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The motion is that the special
cycle for this RLSA program be paid for by the landowners that
are involved in this process.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And just to reiterating, it's
not taking anybody out of the hopper right now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's true, and this - is first in,
first out, right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No cutsies.
MR. VARNADOE: Commissioner Fiala, could I make just
one comment. I just want to set the record straight. The
landowners did not ask for a Growth Management Plan
amendment.
You appointed a committee, you asked them to male some
recommendations to you, they did. They're the ones that are
recommending the Growth Management Plan amendment, not the
landowners. So when you say that, its not our amendment,
Commissioner Halas. And I know that you don't want this to go
Packet Page -784-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
forward, but let's be fair about it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no.
MR. VARNADOE: We did not --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I want it to go forward,
George, but there's -- we don't have the money, okay.
MR. VARNADOE: We've taken --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So if you want this to go
forward, George, somebody's going to have to step up to the
plate, and the taxpayers aren't going to step up to the plate on this.
We just don't have the money.
MR VARNADOE: So why did we not think about this two
years ago when we appointed this committee?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I don't know, because
things could change.
CHAIRMAN FULA: We didn't have the problem two
years ago.
MR. VARNADOE: Well, the landowners are willing to
talk to your staff about participating, but this is not our
amendment, and I want that clearly on the record. That was your
committee that made this recommendation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, we don't even have to go
forward then as long as that's the case.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, no, no, no.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, let's vote on this with
the idea that this thing has still got to come back with Joe to be
able to give us a total in -depth story of what the cost is going to
be.
At that point in time, we can hear from everybody and his
brother, and if we have to, modify our decision if there's any
reason to do so.
8
Packet Page -785-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
CHAIRMAN ahead.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any other comments from
commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one quick one. That's
also something else that can be weighed out by the landowners at
that point in time, you know, whether that cost is justified against
waiting in the -- for a time off in the distant future.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion on the
floor and a second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a 4 -1 vote on that.
Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: And the third one you've already
discussed, so we're not bumping any other cycles.
9
Packet Page -786-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
Go ahead, Randy.
MR. COHEN: Commissioners, there's one other thing that I
think we need clarified This committee has done Phase I and its
done Phase H. Obviously we have other things that are still going
to be in the hopper for them to review or participate in.
The question really is is, is it your intent for this committee
to continue to meet at various times and stay in existence, or is it
-- are we at a point in time now that we're -- the report's moving
forward and it's going to be moved into a GNP amendment cycle,
do you want the committee to redissolve? And that's a
fundamental question as to how you view this committee and how
you want their involvement.
Obviously with amendments moving forward and the like,
you may want them to continue to be in existence and be an
active group as stakeholders, and that's your call.
CHAHUWAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? ^
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We asked them to provide
a report on any changes, and they have done that. They've done a
very good job on it. That is going to be a cost to continue that,
just like the east of lands study committee. That's going to
continue. There's a cost on to that.
At a certain point, even our president says, you know, he's
going to cut some of these out. We need to do the same thing.
We need to thank the committee formally through a letter by the
chair, and move on.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. If we continue with these
meetings, minutes, televising them, sometimes televising these
meetings. We could certainly sunset this committee but still have
stakeholders involved as it evolves through the -- through the
amendment process, and certainly there will be involvement from
the landowners, and most likely because of the authors of this --
10 1 - -
Packet Page -787-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
WilsonMiller when they developed the original plan, will
certainly be involved in this as well.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I understand where
Commissioner Henning's suggestion's coming from, and I'd like
to save money whenever possible; however, this committee has
been quite a resource that we have come to depend upon, and we
wouldn't be as far as we have been as far as bringing this plan
forward if it wasn't for them.
I would suggest that we have them meet one more time
when Mr. Schmitt gets the proposal together so that they can
critique it and offer us their final advice, and at that point in time
sunset them, because we're far from completed here. We have --
we have some stuff still in flux.
MR. SCHMITT: That's fair. When we come back with the
GMP amendment, we'll identify what -- the desires of the
committee in regards to whether they would like to continue or
sunset, and we'll bring that back as well.
CHAIRMAN FULA: Okay. All' in agreement? Do I see
some nods from my commissioners? Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Boy, that was turned
around. Geez.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Go ahead, comment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta said
about the executive summary, bringing it back on the next agenda
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I didn't say that and
get the committee's recommendations. What you said is get the
GMP amendments together and then --
MR. SCHMITT: No, sir. I'm coming back to you with an
executive summary to identify the dates for the special cycle --
11
Packet Page -788-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
COMNIISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. SCHMITT: -- along with the costs. What I heard
Commissioner Coletta say was also for the committee to meet one
more time to discuss what their future is.
COMIVIISSIONER COLETTA: When you have the
information together --
MR. SCHMITT: The information on the --
COMIVIISSIONER COLETTA: -- and you can come back
with your staff recommendations so that they can dovetail
everything that they learned into that to be able to bring us to a
final conclusion.
COMMISSIONER HAT'AS: When do you anticipate that
happen, to bring that back?
MR. SCI -I IITT: It would be --
COMMISSIONER F ALAS: The final conclusion.
MR. SCFMT -r: I'm thinking of the dates, the May 12th
meeting. It may be the second meeting in May, the BCC meeting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right. And then we can
sunset it after that.
MR. SCHIVIITT: Whatever your direction is. I heard
Commissioner Henning say --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a
motion that we sunset the RLS (sic) Committee and direct the
chairman to write a letter, of appreciation for their time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You mean sunset them today, or
what do you mean?
COMMIISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I think we have to
do that formally on an agenda.
MR. SCHMITT: I would have to look at the ordinance. I
don't recall -- I can't recall if there was an official sunsetting date.
I'm looking at Jeff. I have to look at --
12 1 -
Packet Page -789-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
MR. KLATZKOW: How about when Joe comes with his
executive summary we can take care of the issue at that point in
time --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- one way or the other.
COMIMIISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So in other words,
leave it open. I just, that last bit of information, I'd love the
feedback from that committee. I see what you're saying. Give us
a choice that we can work with, then I have no problem with that.
And I assume that they probably want to get on with the rest of
their lives, but don't relax too long. We're going to recycle you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now, you've made the
motion. Is that a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no. I didn`t second
Well, the motion that Commissioner Henning made didn't quite
represent what I'm looking for. His was just to sunset it now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you like to restate your
motion, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You said you're going to
bring it back -- we're going to bring it back up on the agenda?
MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Schmitt's bringing it back on the
executive summary on this entire matter. This could be one of the
issues he brings up as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine.
MR. SCHIVIITT: We extended this committee --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I remove my motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. SCHIVIITT: -- once, and I'm not aware of the dates, so
we'll bring it back.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good. So now
everybody's set? May I have a motion to --
13 I
Packet Page -790-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
CARLTON FIELDS
MEMORANDUM
To: Collier Board of County Commissioners
From: Darrin F. Taylor, AICP
Nancy G. Linnan
Date: March 1, 2010
Re: Analysis of Data Analysis requirements to support RLSA Review Committee
recommended comprehensive plan amendments
Carlton Fields was retained by Collier County on November 19, 2009 to determine what data
and analysis would be needed to support the proposed comprehensive plan amendments
previously presented to the Board of County Commissioners (Board) for enhancements to the
Collier County Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA). This memorandum includes our
recommendations including the process used to derive these recommendations.
BACKGROUND
In 2002 Collier County adopted amendments to its comprehensive plan to establish the Rural
Land Stewardship area (RLSA) on approximately 195,000 acres in eastern Collier County. The
RLSA is a strategy created to protect the natural resources within this portion of the County while
incentivizing compact rural mixed use development patterns. This voluntary program establishes
a value for protected resources through a credit system. Credits, once assigned or transferred,
allow for more intense development than what current baseline development amounts permit, but
concentrates that growth rather than encouraging a sprawling development pattern as permitted
on the current future land use map (FLUM). Obtaining credits is the only way for a land owner to
increase the development potential on property within the RLSA.
Collier County's program was the first of its kind in Florida and was heralded by the State and
many planning organizations when it was established. Its implementation included a requirement
to evaluate the program after 5 years to determine its success and to recommend changes.
RLSA Review Committee
The RLSA Review Committee was established in 2007 to evaluate the program. The Committee,
composed of various County stakeholders, including landowners, community activists, planners
and environmental groups, held 23 public meetings and, under its charge, conducted a
comprehensive analysis of the program. The result was a, significant number of proposed n
16069703.3
Packet Page -791-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
comprehensive plan amendments to address issues raised in their review. These amendments and
supporting documentation were submitted for review and comment before the Collier County
Planning Commission (CCPC), Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) and the Board of County
Commissioners. The County Commission ultimately determined the following:
To accept the report;
2) For the amendment to proceed in a special amendment cycle at the expense of
the private sector;
3) For the RLSA review committee to be dissolved; and
4) To hire an outside consultant to determine what data and analysis requirements
are needed to support the amendments and to report back to the Commission.
The purpose of this memo is to address Commission Action #4, and is a report on the data and
analysis requirements to support the RLSA amendments. No formal amendments have been filed
or considered for transmittal to the DCA at this time.
Carlton Fields received copies of the amendments recommended by the RLSA committee. After
reviewing these amendments, they were compared against the data and analysis requirements
within s.163, F.S. and Rule 9J -5, F.A.C. A summary of the plan amendments recommended by
the RLSA review committee are included below.
Summary of Proposed Amendments
The Committee recommended comprehensive changes to the current RLSA provisions in the
comprehensive plan. These amendments include the following:
• Modifying the calculation of credits as follows:
o Addition of 89,000 credits for the protection of agricultural lands
o Addition of an estimated 23,000 credits for establishing panther corridor
connections
o Reduction of an estimated 16,000 credits by implementing tiered
restoration of lands
o A recalibration of required credits for an acre of Stewardship Receiving
Area (SRA) land from 8 credits to 10 credits per acre for future SRAs
• The combination of increases and decreases described above results in the
addition of approximately 89,000 credits available to the RLSA and the addition
of approximately 1,688 acres to the maximum footprint of the SRA according to
the RLSA review committee's Phase II analysis and estimates
2
16069703.3
Packet Page -792-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
• The capping of SRA acres at 45,000 acres
The deletion of policy language to ensure the program does not result in the
premature conversion of agricultural lands
• The deletion of Hamlets as a land use and the expansion of the maximum size of
Towns and Villages
DATA AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS
The state's planning requirements for supporting data and analysis for comprehensive plan
amendments are found in s.163.3177 and Rule 9J-5. The DCA analyzes all plan amendments
against these requirements. They include general standards that apply to all amendments (both
text and map amendments) and specific requirements that may or may not be relevant for a
particular plan amendment. The basic data and analysis requirements that impact all
amendments are specified in Rule 9J- 5.005(2), F.A.C. Below is a brief description of these
requirements, focusing on the more relevant requirements for this analysis:
General Requirements
1) All amendments and any support documents must be based upon relevant and appropriate
data analysis.
2) Data utilized must be collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner.
3) Data must be taken from professionally accepted existing sources. Original data collection
can also be used but the data must be gathered and applied in a professionally accepted
manner.
4) Data relied upon must be the best available data. If a more recent analysis or study is
available, then that analysis must be considered.
5) For population projections, the plan must be based on resident and seasonal population
estimates and projections. If the projections utilize the state accepted sources (BEER), then
the mid range must be used unless approved by the DCA. If an estimate is prepared by
the local government, then the population projections, estimates and methodologies must
be approved by the DCA in advance.
Land Use Analysis requirements
In addition to the general data and analysis requirements just mentioned, there are land use
analysis requirements that must be included when any changes are being made to the future land
use map. The analysis must demonstrate the proposed change is supported by the following:
1) Public Facility Analysis — An analysis ensuring that adequate public facilities will be
available to serve any proposed development in the first 5 years and facilities are planned
to be in place to address long term impacts over the planning timeframe. This analysis
3
16069703.3 Packet Page -793-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
should be completed for all public facilities including transportation, water, sewer, water
supply, public schools, parks and recreation.
2) Suitability Analysis — An analysis to ensure that areas proposed for development are
suitable for the development proposed. This typically includes an analysis of whether
environmental resources are present and will be impacted by the proposed change.
3) Needs Analysis — An analysis to demonstrate that there is a need for additional
development (at maximum buildout on the County's FLUM) in the planning timeframe
based upon a comparison of the land uses currently allocated on the future land use map
and the population projections anticipated during the planning timeframe.
4) Urban Sprawl Analysis — An analysis to demonstrate that the proposed development does
not result in a sprawling land use pattern. Rule 9J -5 includes 13 indicators of urban sprawl
and requires an evaluation of land uses, conditions and development controls to determine
whether the amendment is anticipated to result in urban sprawl.
5) Chapter 2008 -91, Laws of Florida (HB 697) — With the adoption of HB 697, the DCA has
been applying the principles contained in the bill in its review of land use amendments.
This includes a consideration of the impacts of the amendment on energy. Strategies
recommended include minimizing automobile usage (vehicle miles traveled), maintaining a
balance between jobs and housing to shorten length of automobile trips, discouraging
^ urban sprawl and decreasing green house gas emissions.
REVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS COMPARED TO DATA AND ANALYIS
REQUIREMENTS
Carlton Fields reviewed the amendments prepared by the RLSA Review Committee. As part of our
review, we met with staff from Collier County, DCA and Al Reynolds of Wilson Miller in order to
better understand the program and the work of the Committee. Our review has resulted in five
general recommendations and other more specific recommendations in the body of the document.
These recommendations are explained in more detail below.
Issue #1 — Identify the purpose and need for each amendment as determined by the RLSA
committee
Impacted Policies: All policies
All of the proposed amendments are based upon the significant work conducted by the RLSA
review committee including the numerous hours of public testimony, support material and
technical reports. However, in the materials presented for our review, the relationship is not clear
between the Committee review and the proposed amendment. This is mostly due to the amount of
material that has been generated to date. While the information is available, in some cases it is
difficult to determine why the change is proposed. For this reason, it is recommended that a
concise explanation is inserted for each revision that includes an explanation of the problem that
was identified by the review committee during its review and the reason this particular
4
16069703.3 Packet Page -794-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
amendment language was selected as a solution. This format would clearly and concisely
present the supporting analysis for each change proposed and should include a cross reference to
the supporting documentation where more information can be found.
Recommendation: Format report to provide a concise explanation for each
change including the problem raised by the RLSA committee and the reason for
the amendment language selected.
Issue #2 — Use Best Available Data to support proposed amendments
Impacted Policies: All policies
For all data used to support this proposed amendment the studies must be the most up- to-date
version available at the time the amendment is adopted by the Commission. Any relevant
analysis that has been conducted since the Report was finalized should also be used as
supporting documentation. For example, the Phase I Report was based upon general assumptions
on the demand for panther crossings. Since that time, we have been advised amore recent study
has been completed. This latter study should be considered as part of the supporting
documentation for this plan amendment unless the County determines that it is not the most up-to-
date information or is not relevant. Other examples could include any new transportation or
population studies that may have been or will be created by the time the Board of County
Commissioners adopts the amendments.
Recommendation: Use the best available data to support the proposed
amendments.
Issue #3 — Include a Comprehensive Land Use Analysis to support any changes to increase the
amount of credits in the program and to increase the size of the SRA
Impacted Policies: Policies 2.2 and 3.11
The proposed amendment provides for increases in the credits generated for the protection of
panther connection corridors anc
However, the tiering of restoration
in credits generated. The comh
additional 89,000 credits to the
urban development in the RLSA E
reduction in baseline development.
the protection of agricultural lands from urban conversion.
efforts and expiring of early entry credits results in a decrease
nation of these changes to the credit system results in an
)verall program which would presumably result in additional
Dundary. Any SRA acreage increase would also result in a
S.163.3177(6)(a), F.S. and Rule 9J- 5.006(2), F.A.C. require that all changes to the future land
use map must be supported by a comprehensive land use analysis that considers the suitability of
the land for development, the need for the change and the ability of the local government to
provide urban services (transportation, water, sewer, parks and recreation and schools). The
amendment must also be supported by an analysis demonstrating whether the land use change
would encourage or discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. This analysis must be based
upon the maximum development potential permitted under the future land use map. This
5
16069703.3 Packet Page -795-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
theoretical maximum development potential almost always can never actually be reached on the
ground due to many factors including infrastructure requirements, market demands, environmental
features and other on -site constraints but is still required to be provided.
For the public facilities analysis, the impact of the amendment must be determined for two
planning periods. The first period is the first five years to determine if there are adequate facilities
in place to serve the amendment. This period must be supported by an analysis demonstrating
the financial feasibility of the amendment pursuant to S.163.3177. The second period includes
the remainder of the planning timeframe where the local government must show how it intends to
provide the services needed beyond the first five years. This period does not require a
demonstration of financial feasibility.
The analysis must also be based on the difference between the amount of development permitted
on the future land use map today versus the proposed change. For example, if the property
under consideration is currently designated for 1 unit per acre and the proposed change is to
increase to ,4 units per acre, then the analysis must demonstrate the need and ability to service the
additional 3 units per acre.
RLSA Analysis and Assumptions
Below is the framework for a land use analysis based on the assumptions made in the
Committee's Phase I report and is based on the maximum potential increase of SRA lands. This
example analysis does not consider all factors that could change these assumptions such as:
The impact of the recalibration of SRA acreage on the program from 8 credits to
10 credits per acre for future SRAs
The Phase I report was based upon the credit potential generated based on
historical use of the program and may not reflect the maximum potential credit
generation under the program
The current program does not have a cap on potential SRA acreage
All of these factors could modify the amount of credits available under the program today or the
potential change in credits generated under the amendment. The supporting analysis for this plan
amendment will need to make clear assumptions on all of these issues as well as provide
supporting data and analysis for each assumption made.
Based on the assumptions in the RLSA review committee's Phase I Report, there could be an
increase of 1,688 acres within the SRA as identified in Table 1 below.
6
16069703.3
Packet Page -796-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
Table 1: Impact of Proposed Amendment on
Collier County Future Land Use Map*
Potential Credits Available Under Proposed Program
404,000 credits
Potential Credits Available Under Current Program
315,000 credits
Additional Credits Available
89,000 credits
Maximum increase of SRA lands due to proposed cap of 45,000 acres
1,688 acres
• labie 1 is based upon assumptions made in Section III of Phase I Report from the RLSA committee. Report assumed
that current program could result in SRA footprint of 43,312 acres
This increase of SRA acres, if all developed under the Town land use category which permits a
maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre, could result in an additional 6,752 dwelling units. This
analysis is summarized in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Potential Maximum Residential Unit Increase in SRA
Maximum SRA Acre Increase due to Proposed Change
1,688 acres
Maximum Residential Units permitted in RLSA (4 du /acre)
6,752 units
The 6,752 units is a theoretical maximum increase in the residential development potential for the
SRA. However, this does not consider all of the land uses required under the comprehensive plan
for the Town land use. The comprehensive plan requires a mixed use development pattern
meaning the other uses needed to create a Town such as the shopping, employment, civic,
institutional and recreational uses must also be provided. Thus, to determine the development
potential of the Town, it must be clarified how much residential and non - residential is allowed at
the maximum development potential for each acre of land. This must be included in the
supporting analysis. To provide the required supporting analysis, the County will need to make
assumptions based on how the program has been implemented to date to determine the maximum
development potential of the SRA lands.
Off -Set of Residential Units
In order to create the additional 1,688 acres of SRA land there must be a reduction or off -set of
residential development potential on the County's Future Land Use Map. Under Section III of the
Phase I Report, it is assumed that under the current program 43,700 acres of lands remain
available for development under the baseline residential density of 1 unit per five acres. Thus, if
the maximum development potential of these lands are totaled then these lands would permit 11—IN
8,740 units on the Future Land Use Map today.
7
16069703.3 Packet Page -797-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
Under the ro osed changes to the
p P g program including the addition of agricultural credits, the
program at 100% voluntary participation would eliminate the 43,700 acres of baseline
development. Thus, 8,740 units of baseline development would be eliminated on the Future land
Use Map.
Comparing the maximum development potential of baseline development at 8,740 units to the
maximum residential development potential of the SRA at 6,752 units, the proposed change
could result in a decrease of 1,988 units on the County's Future land Use Map. Additionally, the
remaining 6,752 units within the SRA would be clustered in a compact development pattern. This
calculation is summarized in Table 3 below.
Table 3: Net Potential Residential Unit Increase in RLSA
FMEaximumRA Acre Increase due to Proposed Change
1,688 acres
Maximum Residential Units permitted in SRA 14 du /acre)
6,752 units
Maximum Baseline Development Acre Decrease due to Proposed Change
43,700 acres
Maximum Baseline Residential Unit Decrease
8,740 units
Net Residential Unit Change to RLSA /County Future Land Use Map
- 1,988 units
General Assumptions Used in Phase 1 Report
All the calculations in this memorandum are based upon the assumptions in the Phase I Report.
The current adopted program has no caps in place and the calculations were based upon
assumptions under how the program has been operated to date. If it can be justified in the
analysis that the current program could reasonably result in more SRA acreage than the assumed
43,312 acres, then the impact of this amendment would be even less. If it can reasonably be
demonstrated that the current program could create 45,000 acres of SRA then there may
arguably be no impact from the establishment of panther corridor and agriculture protection
credits.
The comparison between the amount of SRA acreage that can be generated under the existing
program as compared to the amended program and the difference in residential and non-
residential development potential will heavily determine what analysis will be needed to support
the change. Historically, the DCA has determined that an amendment is based upon the
increment of change proposed in the amendment. If the amendment results in no increase in
impact, then the DCA has determined that no needs or public facility analysis is required.
8
16069703.3 Packet Page -798-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
Additional SRA Acres Not Known
One challenge in conducting the comprehensive land use analysis is that the exact location of the
additional SRA acres is not depicted. Under the program, all open lands are potential SRA acres.
The County must provide some supporting analysis demonstrating where development would most
likely occur in order to determine the ability to provide services.
Need
If the County determines this amendment results in an increase in development potential in the
RLSA, then the amendment must be supported with an analysis demonstrating that there is a need
for the amount of additional development proposed within the planning timeframe which is 2025.
This analysis would include consideration of the development pressures in the area, the
availability of land approved for development on the Future Land Use Map to address the
demand. The DCA typically requires the analysis be Countywide unless the comprehensive plan
includes an analysis of the need for development based upon smaller sectors within the local
government. This type of analysis has received strict scrutiny from the DCA over the past two to
three years especially with the lack of development occurring within the State and the amount of
development already approved.
Recommendation: Amend the report to include a comprehensive land use
analysis which includes an analysis on the suitability of land for development,
need, availability of public facilities and urban sprawl based upon the additional
SRA lands created through this amendment.
Issue #4 — Provide supporting data and analysis to demonstrate program will not result in a
premature conversion of agricultural lands
Impacted Policy: Goal, Group 2 Summary and Policy 2.1
The amendment proposes to delete provisions that seek to restrict the premature conversion of
agricultural lands. Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(g)4., F.A.0 establishes the premature conversion of
agriculture as an indicator of urban sprawl. Thus, the deletion of this provision will result in strict
scrutiny from the DCA and does not remove the Rule requirement to prohibit premature
conversion.
If the amendment is needed, then an analysis should be included demonstrating why the
amendment will not result in a premature conversion of agriculture. This would include an
explanation of the timing of proposed development, of why the development is needed within the
planning timeframe and is thus not premature but rather a timely conversion of agricultural land
needed to meet the planning needs of the County through 2025.
9
16069703.3 Packet Page -799-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
�-.
Recommendation: Include an analysis that demonstrates that the amendment
will not result in the premature conversion of agricultural lands.
Issue #5 - Provide data and analysis to demonstrate consistency with Energy Bill requirements
HB 697
Impacted Policy 4.6
Policy 4.6 addresses the innovative planning goals of the RLSA program and is being amended to
add mobility planning to address the short term and long term needs of the RLSA area to
encourage other modes of transportation than the automobile. As part of this policy the
requirements contained in Chapter 2008 -91, laws of Florida (HB 697) should be included and
an analysis of how these issues would be addressed such as by'reducing vehicle miles traveled,
decreasing green house gas emissions or encouraging a jobs to housing balance
Recommendation: Include supporting data and analysis to demonstrate
consistency with HB 697 requirements.
SUMMARY OF MEETING WITH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (DCA)
As part of drafting this memo, staff from Carlton Fields and the County met with Mike McDaniel,
Bureau Chief of Local Planning, and Brenda Winningham and Scott Rogers with DCA to discuss
what data and analysis would be needed to support this amendment. The DCA provided the
following general direction:
The amendment should result in the placement of panther corridor crossings in the
most appropriate locations to meet the goals intended.
2. The amendment should demonstrate that agricultural lands will be protected in the
long term. The program should have the least impact on the viability of
agriculture, minimize incompatibilities, and discourage the carving up or
bifurcation of viable agricultural lands.
3. The amendment must be supported by an analysis demonstrating there is a need
for additional SRA lands.
A. The supporting analysis needs to demonstrate that these revisions make it much
more likely for the program to achieve its goals and not dilute the value of the
program as it exists today.
CONCLUSION
Based upon our review, we have identified a series of recommendations that are needed to
support the proposed amendments. Some of these recommendations will simply require the
reformatting of the information available today and a better summary of the work of the
Committee about why recommendations were made. Other recommendations will require more
analysis considering the implications of changes and demonstrating how those changes will
10
16069703.3 Packet Page -800-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
impact the RLSA program. For the comprehensive land use analysis, staff will need to make some
assumptions on the amount of SRA lands that can be generated under the current program and
the expected impact of the proposed changes. The analysis will need to consider all of the
anticipated impacts of any proposed increase on the future land use map especially the need for
additional development and the ability to provide services by the County.
Finally, the DCA has already stated concerns with the County's RLSA program. The County in its
development of supporting data and analysis should consider those concerns and attempt to
provide answers in terms of how the amendments strengthen the program and improve upon its
shortcomings.
cc: Leo Ochs, County Manager
Nick Casolanguida, CDES, Administrator
Jeff Klatzkow, County Attorney
Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager
11
16069703.3 Packet Page -801-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
Audubon of Florida
Collier County Audubon Society
Defenders of Wildlife
Florida Wildlife Federation
October 25, 2010
Michael Bosi, AICP
Comprehensive Planning Manager
Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
RE: Collier County 2011 Evaluation and Appraisal Report and
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay
Dear Mr. Bosi:
Our four organizations are writing to explain why the Rural Lands Stewardship
Area Review Committee's complete report including EAR -based Rural Lands
Stewardship Area Overlay amendments must be included in Collier County's 2011
Evaluation and Appraisal Report.
For over a year, the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee and
county staff conducted an evaluation of Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. The
Committee assessed every policy and received extensive public input including
comments from the above listed organizations. Brad Cornell, Collier County Audubon
Society, was a member of the Review Committee.
The result was a detailed, unanimous report with recommended amendments.
Collier County Commissioners accepted the report and directed staff to proceed.
hqp : / /www.collier2ov.net/Index.aox ?pate =2596
Review Committee's Report is the Evaluation
Collier County's Evaluation and Appraisal Report List of Major Issues includes
the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay and states the "EAR will include an
evaluation of the effectiveness of the Comprehensive Plan in achieving the plan
objectives and policies associated with the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay."
hap: / /www. colliergov. net / modules /ShowDocument.aspx ?documentid =28100
Packet Page -802-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
2
The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee along with staff conducted
the "evaluation of the effectiveness of the ... Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay"
referenced in the List of Major Issues.
Therefore, the 2011 Evaluation and Appraisal Report and the subsequent EAR -
based amendments must include the Review Committee's recommended Rural Lands
Stewardship Area Overlay amendments as accepted by the commissioners.
Planning versus Regulation
Collier staff are delaying action on the entire suite of Review Committee
amendments and only including several selective amendments to the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area Overlay. The reason cited is the need to wait until finalization of the
Eastern Collier County Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
Collier County's duty to protect wildlife habitat and to plan for development is
not relieved by the existence of a federal, state, or regional regulatory program.
The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay is distinct and different from the
Eastern Collier County Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan which is implemented
under U.S. Endangered Species Act regulations.
The Florida Growth Management Act and the Department of Community Affairs
rules distinguish between planning (Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay) and �.
regulations (federal Habitat Conservation Plan). See Section 163.3184(6)(c), Fla. Stat.;
DCA Rule 9J- 5.013(3).
Planning addresses both the protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat and the suitability
and compatibility of authorized density and intensity. Regulations including federal
Habitat Conservation Plans do not authorize land use density or intensity.
Adhering to Letter of Understanding
In accepting Collier County's List of Major Issues, the Department of Community
Affairs wrote that they are "confident that the EAR will contain a comprehensive
assessment and evaluation of the effectiveness of the County's Comprehensive Plan in
achieving the goals related to the major issues, as well as identifying the necessary EAR -
based amendments for achieving those goals."
http: / /www. collier2ov. net / modules /ShowDocument. Wx ?documentid =28099
Collier County will violate the Department the Community Affairs' Letter of
Understanding as well as Florida statutes if the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review
Committee's complete report and recommendations, as approved by the Collier County,
are not included in the 2011 Evaluation and Appraisal Report and EAR -based
amendments.
Packet Page -803-
12/13/2011 Item 10.G.
If Collier County does not include the proposed Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Review Committee's full report with all recommended amendments as accepted by
Collier County commissioners in the 2011 Evaluation and Appraisal Report, our
organizations will submit it to the Department of Community Affairs. In addition, we
will request that the Department of Community Affairs require Collier County to include
the Review Committee's entire report and all recommended amendments in the 2011
Evaluation and Appraisal Report and EAR -based amendments.
Sincerely,
Brad Cornell
Big Cypress Policy Associate
Audubon of Florida
Collier Audubon Society
239 - 280 -6278
bcornellncolliegaudubon.org
Laurie Macdonald
Florida Director
Defenders of Wildlife
727 - 823 -3888
LMacdonald(& defenders. orjz
Nancy A. Payton
Southwest Florida Field Representative
Florida Wildlife Federation
239 - 784 -5119
nancypayton(a, fonline.org
cc: Charlie Gauthier, Florida Department of Community Affairs
Mike McDaniel, Florida Department of Community Affairs
Thomas W. Reese, Esq.
Packet Page -804-