Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Agenda 06/08/2021 Item # 9A (Resolution - Longwater Village SRA)
06/08/2021 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve with conditions A Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners designating 999.81 acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area zoning overlay district as a Stewardship Receiving Area, to be known as the Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area, which will allow development of a maximum of 2,600 residential dwelling units, of which a minimum of 10% will be multi -family dwelling units, 10% will be single family detached and 10% will be single family attached or villa; an aggregate minimum of 65,000 square feet and an aggregate maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood -scale commercial and office in the village center context zone and neighborhood commercial context zone; a minimum of 26,000 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses; senior housing including adult living facilities and continuing care retirement communities and limited to 300 units if located in the neighborhood general context zone; and 18.01 acres of amenity center site; all subject to a maximum pm peak hour trip cap; and approving the Stewardship Receiving Area credit agreement for Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area and establishing that 6697.76 stewardship credits are being utilized by the designation of the Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area. The subject property is located east of Desoto Boulevard, south of Oil Well Road, and west of the intersection of Oil Well Grade Road and Oil Well Road, in Sections 22, 23, 26, 27, 34, and 35, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (This is a Companion Item to 11A, 11B, 11C, 11D and 11E) [PL20190001836] OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (Board) review staffs findings and recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) regarding the above -referenced petition and render a decision regarding the petition; and ensure the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's interests are maintained. CONSIDERATIONS: The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District (RLSA) was developed in order to protect natural resource areas and agricultural lands. The RLSA encourages property owners to voluntarily protect environmentally valuable land as a public benefit. The mechanism to achieve the protection of environmentally valuable land is the designation of a Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) in exchange for Stewardship Credits, which are used to entitle the Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA). Longwater Village SRA requires 6,697.76 credits to entitle 837.22 acres of development. No credits are required for the 162.59 acres exceeding 35% of the open space required within the SRA. The Natural Resource Index Assessment documents the existing conditions and Natural Resource Index (NRI) scores within the proposed SRA for the Longwater Village SRA. It should be noted that the NRI scores demonstrate that the Longwater Village SRA meets the Suitability Criteria contained in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). Please see the Environmental Review Section of this Staff Report for further information. The Longwater Village SRA is one of four Village SRAs that have either been submitted to Collier County or have received an SRA designation. The other three SRA Villages located within the vicinity of Longwater Village SRA along the future Big Cypress Parkway are Hyde Park Village (PL20180000622) and Rivergrass Village SRA (PL20190000044) which have received SRA designation, and Bellmar Village (PL20190001837) which is also scheduled for hearings at this time. Packet Pg. 56 06/08/2021 The Longwater Village SRA is 999.81± acres and consists of two context zones which are required per the SRA Overlay regulations: Neighborhood General and mixed -use Village Center. The Village has access to and is located south of Oil Well Road and east of the proposed Big Cypress Parkway. The Village is separated into two pieces by the proposed SSA 17. The southern half has a 20.08± acre Village Center. The northern half has a 2.99± acre Neighborhood General Commercial Area. A lengthy perimeter lake system runs along 70-75% of the boundary of the Village. The lake system serves as part of the Village stormwater system and acts as a deterrent to wildlife. This SRA application for Longwater Village SRA will include approximately: • 2,600 residential dwelling units with a density of 2.6 units per acre (or 3.11 units per acre based upon 837.22 acres requiring Stewardship Credits and excluding open space acreage above 35%); • a minimum of 40 multi -family dwelling units located within the Village Center Context Zone; a minimum of 65,000 square feet and a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood scaled retail and office uses; • a minimum of 26,000 square feet of civic, governmental, and institutional uses. The Village will also have other uses such as three Amenity Centers, and Park Preserves, and Parks. The required minimum of 35% open space is 349.93± acres, and 51.26% open space or 512.52± acres have been provided. For further information, please see Attachment A -Proposed Longwater Village SRA Resolution. FISCAL IMPACT: Section 4.08.07 (L) of the LDC provides the requirements for the preparation and submittal of the Economic Assessment for a SRA. The Economic Assessment, at a minimum, is required to demonstrate fiscal neutrality for the development, as a whole, for the following units of government: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire, and school. In the event the Assessment identifies a negative fiscal impact of the project, options are available to address funding shortfalls. The Longwater Economic Assessment provides a fiscal snapshot that is projected to buildout. Based on these assumptions and making no predictions on changes, positive or negative, that may affect project revenue, the conclusion of fiscal neutrality is supported by the analysis. The analysis concludes adequate funding will be generated by the project to fund the capital and operating needs of the specified public facilities. Staff and the outside peer reviewers agree that the specified public facilities do not have projected deficiencies as a result of the demand created by the proposed development. Therefore, overall, the intent of the fiscal neutrality requirement has been satisfied. For further detailed information, please see Attachment 1-Staff Report Longwater Village. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed SRA and has found it consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. See Attachment B-FLUE Consistency Review. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard and continued Petition SRA-PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA from February 18, 2021, to March 4, 2021, to March 18, 2021, and to April 1, 2021 hearings. The CCPC voted 5-1 to approve this petition subject to staff s Conditions of Approval. CCPC Chairman Fryer voted denial of Longwater Village SRA for the following reasons: Packet Pg. 57 06/08/2021 Lack of fiscal neutrality: o The burden of proof has not been met. o The Persons Per Household (PPH) is inconsistent among petitions and should not be. This results in achieving fiscal neutrality at a lower cost to the developer. o PPH should not be a moving target. Lack of housing diversity: o When the Chairman asked the Agent to commit to 2.5% of the land to affordable housing, the answer was no. This will result in housing that is not diversified as it will be limited to moderate and gap levels of wealth. Lack of Smart Growth: o The GMP requires compliance with the intensity/density of LDC. o The Village Center is not located in the center of the Village. It is located on the edge. It is pedestrian -unfriendly as it is 2.5 miles from the furthest point. o The urban -rural continuum occurs in all directions, not just in one direction. Staff acknowledges the above reasons. However, staff has found the Village to be consistent with the GMP and LDC. For further information, please see Attachment A-1-CCPC Meeting Minutes. The agent has revised the SRA Document to comply with staff s Conditions of Approval. Those revisions include the following: 1. Within 90 days of the approval of the first development order (SDP or PPL), the applicant shall pay $622,000.00 to fulfill the fair share mitigation for operation impacts as supported by the August 4, 2020, Traffic Impact Statement. 2. The Developer shall be required to improve 18' Ave NE from the project entrance to Desoto Boulevard to a minimum two-lane undivided rural roadway consistent with FDOT Green Book construction standards. These improvements are not eligible for road impact fee credits. 3. The applicant acknowledges that the following are outside of the review for this petition. School sites A and B (56' Avenue N.E. and 2nd Avenue N.E.) have not been evaluated for transportation impacts as part of this petition. Evaluation of both sites will require standard TIS and operational review at the time of permitting. The operational review will require a determination of 56t' and 2' Avenue's ability to accommodate school operations and activities. Collier County Public School (CCPS), and not the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (CCBCC), shall be responsible for the roadway improvements necessary for both school sites. 4. Prior to issuance of the first SDP and/or PPL, a listed species management plan must be provided for review, with approval from FWCC and/or USFWS for management of the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) and all other listed species. 5. Longwater Village shall commit that at least 10% of the units (260 units) are sold at purchase prices near the Moderate and Gap affordability ranges (product types: Town Home, Villa 1, Coach, & Villa 2); or, as an alternative, land or units in (or proximal to), the SRA shall be reserved for the development of housing that is affordable. Land reserved for housing that is affordable shall be identified within 48 months of SRA approval and be equivalent to 2.5% of the gross acreage of the SRA. There is a Condition of Approval that will be met at the adoption of the Longwater Village SRA: 6. The Agreement to Provide Potable Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation Water Utility Services shall be adopted concurrently with the Longwater Village SRA Resolution. Packet Pg. 58 06/08/2021 Following the Collier County Planning Commission hearing for the Longwater Village SRA, the applicant requested to utilize Credits from SSA 15 (CLH & CDC SSA 15) instead of using credits from CLH & CDC SSA 17 to entitle Longwater Village SRA. CLH & CDC SSA 15 has enough credits available to entitle the Longwater Village SRA. For further information, please see Attachment A -Proposed Longwater SRA Village Resolution. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This petition requests the creation of the Longwater Village SRA. A Village is described in LDC Section 4.08.07.C.2 as: Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be not less than 100 acres or more than 1,000 acres. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed -use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages shall include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Section 4.08.07 J.1. Villages are an appropriate location for a full range of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located adjacent to each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. The Village form of rural land development is permitted within the ACSC subject to the limitations of Section 4.08.07 A.2. The burden falls upon the applicant to prove that the proposal is consistent with the above Village requirements and all of the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the Board of County Commissioners, should it consider denial, that such denial is not arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the amendment does not meet one or more of the listed criteria. Criteria for creation of SRA 1. Consider: Compatibility with adjacent land uses. 2. Consider: An SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development. 3. Consider: Residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic, and community service uses within an SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. 4. Consider: Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on land that receives a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2, regardless of the size of the land or parcel. 5. Consider: Lands or parcels that are greater than one acre and have an Index Value greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state. 6. Consider: Open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, Village, or those CRDs exceeding 100 acres. Gross acreage includes only that area of development within the SRA that requires the consumption of Stewardship Credits. 7. Consider: As an incentive to encourage open space, open space on lands within an SRA located outside of the ACSC that exceeds the required thirty-five percent retained open space shall not be required to consume Stewardship Credits. 8. Consider: An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in LDC Section 4.08.07 J.6. An SRA may be contiguous to or encompass a WRA. 9. Consider: The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. Packet Pg. 59 06/08/2021 10. Consider: Conformity of the proposed SRA with the goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP. 11. Consider: Suitability criteria described in Items 2 through 9 above [LDC Section 4.08.07 A.1.] and other standards of LDC Section 4.08.07. 12. Consider: SRA master plan compliance with all applicable policies of the RLSA District Regulations, and demonstration that incompatible land uses are directed away from FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and Conservation Lands. 13. Consider: Assurance that applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement SRA uses. 14. Consider: Impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts. The Board must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies, letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the BCC hearing as these items relate to these criteria. This item has been approved as to form and legality and requires a majority vote for Board approval. Should there be a dispute as to any of the deviations to the Code requested by the applicant, a vote of four is required. (HFAC) RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the CCPC motion to forward a recommendation of approval of Petition SRA-PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA, to the Board of County Commissioners subject to the approval of the companion Accela item 15688, Agreement to Provide Potable Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation Water Utility Services. Prepared by: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, Principal Planner, Zoning Division ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (PDF) 2. [Linked] Attachment A- Proposed Longwater Resolution - 041421A (PDF) 3. [Linked] Attachment A-1-CCPC Meeting Minutes 4- 1-21 -Pending Approval (PDF) 4. Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (PDF) 5. [Linked] Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (PDF) 6. Attachment C-Agreement to Provide Water Sewer and Irrigation - Revised CAO stamped 1-20- 21 (003) (PDF) 7. Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact Assessment 1-8-2021 - DPFG (PDF) 8. Attachment G-NIM Summary (6-25-2020) (PDF) 9. Attachment E-Peer Review Draft _08-12-20j (002) (PDF) 10. Affidavit of Sign Posting and Photos of Signs (5-3-2021) (PDF) 11. Longwater - Hybrid Virtual Quasi -Judicial Public Hearing Waivers 1-28-21 (PDF) 12. legal ad - agenda ID 15609 (PDF) 13. [Linked] Attachment H-Letters of Objection as of 4-12-21A (PDF) 14. [Linked] Attachment I -Application 1-28-21 (PDF) Packet Pg. 60 06/08/2021 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 9.A Doc ID: 16051 Item Summary: *** This item and companion items will be heard immediately following item 10A. This item was continued from the May 25, 2021 BCC meeting to the June 8, 2021 BCC meeting. *** This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve a Resolution designating 999.81 acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area zoning overlay district as a Stewardship Receiving Area, to be known as the Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area, which will allow development of a maximum of 2,600 residential dwelling units, of which a minimum of 10% will be multi -family dwelling units, 10% will be single family detached and 10% will be single family attached or villa; an aggregate minimum of 65,000 square feet and an aggregate maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood -scale commercial and office in the village center context zone and neighborhood commercial context zone; a minimum of 26,000 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses; senior housing including adult living facilities and continuing care retirement communities and limited to 300 units if located in the neighborhood general context zone; and 18.01 acres of amenity center site; all subject to a maximum pm peak hour trip cap; and approving the Stewardship Receiving Area credit agreement for Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area and establishing that 6697.76 stewardship credits are being utilized by the designation of the Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area. The subject property is located east of Desoto Boulevard, south of Oil Well Road and west of the intersection of Oil Well Grade Road and Oil Well Road, in Sections 22, 23, 26, 27, 34 And 35, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (This is a Companion Item to 11A, 11B, 11C, 11D and 11E) [PL20190001836] (Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, Principal Planner, Zoning Division) Meeting Date: 06/08/2021 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Principal — Zoning Name: Nancy Gundlach 05/26/2021 1:57 PM Submitted by: Title: Planner, Principal — Zoning Name: Anita Jenkins 05/26/2021 1:57 PM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Department Growth Management Department Growth Management Department Zoning Zoning Nancy Gundlach Growth Management Department Nancy Gundlach Growth Management Nancy Gundlach Transportation Nancy Gundlach Additional Reviewer Nancy Gundlach Zoning Director Review Skipped 05/26/2021 1:54 PM Skipped 05/26/2021 1:54 PM Skipped 05/26/2021 1:54 PM Skipped 05/26/2021 1:54 PM Skipped 05/26/2021 1:54 PM Packet Pg. 61 9.A 06/08/2021 Growth Management Department Growth Management Department Growth Management Department Zoning County Attorney's Office Office of Management and Budget County Attorney's Office Office of Management and Budget County Manager's Office Board of County Commissioners Nancy Gundlach Additional Reviewer Nancy Gundlach Additional Reviewer Nancy Gundlach Additional Reviewer Nancy Gundlach Additional Reviewer Nancy Gundlach Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Nancy Gundlach Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Nancy Gundlach Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Nancy Gundlach Additional Reviewer Geoffrey Willig Level 4 County Manager Review Geoffrey Willig Meeting Pending Skipped 05/26/2021 1:54 PM Skipped 05/26/2021 1:54 PM Skipped 05/26/2021 1:54 PM Skipped 05/26/2021 1:54 PM Skipped 05/26/2021 1:54 PM Skipped 05/26/2021 1:54 PM Skipped 05/26/2021 1:54 PM Skipped 05/26/2021 1:54 PM Completed 05/26/2021 5:54 PM 06/08/2021 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 62 9.A.1 coi ie' r County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION — ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 2021 SUBJECT: SRA-PL20190001836, LONGWATER VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA (SRA). COMPANION ITEM TO SRA- PL20190001837, BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, AND THE TOWN PLAN APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNERS/AGENTS: Applicant: Mr. Patrick L. Utter, Vice President Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. 2550 Goodlette Road North, Suite 100 Naples, FL 34103 Property Owners: Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC 2550 Goodlette Road North, Suite 100 Naples, FL 34103 Agents: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Hole Montes, Inc. Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 950 Encore Way 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34110 Naples, FL 34103 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 T LO 0 cD Page 1 of 30 Packet Pg. 63 9.A.1 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 0 N c� c� cc 0 C) r cv J a L CD E z 0 41 a CL CID ip CO 0 J LO 0 w Tmm Page 2 of 30 Packet Pg. 64 9.A.1 -_.- 25' TYPE (D) L.B.E. - --�OILWELLRD.---- ---- _LAND USE SUMMARY A 1 E O L ROAD- 10' U.E.— ENERALCONTEXTZONE O {� TION TO III I.,d-¢- I I Arc AG PE (D)USE. 3601. A PARK$ A 12.16 ��� 4 1 L, PARK PRESERVES w 9.52 �10' TYPE fA) / / Q LAKLS 264.72 L.B.E. 'fRENI V) LAKE ME. & MISC. OPEN AREA 110.46 ^f CENTER LL PERIMETER BUFFERS. 5.09 ; R -.. DENOTES FBA! HSA 1 O' UTILTY LASLMENT 1.05 300' & 500' SETBACKS ' NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL CONTEXTZONE TOTAL 879.73 ZONING - I� r 1 ) L.B.E. VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE A-MHO-RLSAO _ VILLAGE CENTER 2008.SSA, SRA OR PACWRA {A} L.B.E SRA BOUNDARY TOTAL 999.31 MISC. OPEN SPACE NOT ^ k O DENOTES FUTURE COUNTY ROAD RIGHT-0F�WAY NOT IN SRA. Ei .80UTHPARK AREA INCLUDES (4)10AcCELLS ABOVE 12NRI SSA-17 —' e WRA LAND USE SUMMARY ['[ SYMBOL DESCRIPTION ACRES LAKE TRACTS (Includes L.M.E.) 110.59 SSA15 ROAD R.O.W. (acl06s WRA) 2.47 BOUNDARY WRA AREA TOTAL 113.05 NOTES: 1. WRASR WRHIry SSA AND ISNOT INCLUDED IN THEESRA W THEN OARY. THE WRA AREA IS HOT INCLUDED IN THE OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS. 2- WHERE THE VILLAGE 15 ADJACENT TO AN SSA DR A �J PRESERVE, NO PERIMETER BUFFER IS REQUIRED, ExCEPTASMAY RF REQUIRED SY SOUTH FLORIDA 10-TYPE(A) B' WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PERMIT L.B.E. ZONING Li AG A-MHO-RLSVAO e 1 SEE SHEET 7 FOR MAIN SPINE i ROAD CROSS SECTION LU I ZONNG CD i A-MHO-RLSAQ SSA-17LL 25' TYPE fDJ L.B.L. ZONING .wNE 'a l 1 A-MHO-RLSAO I ` ' AG OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS —� OPEN LAND USE ACRES SPAPCE!i SPACE ACRES NEIGHBORH000 GENERAL 110.3t 201 62.08 NG COMMERCIAL AREA 2.99 10.00% 0.36 ROAD R.O.W. 146A1 15.00% 21.81 CENTECENTER R AMENITYCEHTERS 18.01' 30.00% 5.40 'PARKS 1,718 501 5.09 A1IMENI PARK PRESERVES 952 100.00% 9.52 ___ 6FNTER LAKES 264,72 100.00%, 264.72 i 10'TYPE 'I,7sh,"- - LAKE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT (A) L.B.E. (L.M.E.) &MISC. OPEN AREA 110,46 100.00% 110.46 ---_-- B` PERIMETER BUFFERS 5,09 100.00% 6.09 I 10'UTILITY EASEMENT 105. 100.00% 1.05 u VILLAGE CENTER _ 20LOSI 301 6A2 BCSD PROPERTY LINE TOTAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED - 512.52 PANTHER 55A-17 FENCE A, NRNIMU REQUIRED OPEN SPACE =35%(349.93 e.) PROMO OPEN SPACE- 51.26% ZOING C703 w O a @_ A-M NRLSAO \� P'SSA-17 AG R--I \` N W 11 ,l -POTENT L NATURE VIEWING P TFORMS THESE LANDS WHICH HAVE AN "^^ NRI SCORE GREATER THAN 1.2 ZONING WILL BE MAINTAINED IN A A-MHQ•RLSAO EPREDOMINATELY NATURAL STATE MISC. OPEN SPACE NOT SSA, SPA OR WRA ZONING ' A•MHO•RLSAO !B _ DkscLAInER_ �`A'TAP"'11111EN E MTUAL. INTERNAL ROADALIGNMENTSLAKESITINGAO CONFIGURATION OF DEVELOPMENT AREA5 ARE SUBJECTTO ® MODIFICATION WITHIN THE RLSA GUIDELINESAT TIME n xw Soo OF FINAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER. A(:NOLI COLLIER ENTERPRISES MANAGEMENT. INC. BAROER K LONG WATER VILLAGE SRDNDACE, WC. SRA SU9MlttAl PLANS •�+, ��� A v M1 EXHI(A) p 1° —"" MASTER PLAN COLOR 11s10e IP LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 0 to Page 3 of 30 Packet Pg. 65 9.A.1 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners designating 999.81± acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area zoning overlay district as a stewardship receiving area, to be known as the Longwater Village SRA. The subject SRA will allow development of a maximum of 2,600 residential dwelling units, of which a minimum of 10% will be multi -family dwelling units, 10% will be single-family detached, and 10% will be single-family attached or villa; a minimum of 65,000 square feet of neighborhood -scale commercial and office in the village center and a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood -scale commercial and office in the stewardship receiving area; a minimum of 26,000 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses; senior housing including adult living facilities and continuing care retirement communities and limited to 300 units if located in the neighborhood general context zone; and 18.01 acres of amenity center site; all subject to a maximum p.m. peak hour trip cap; and approving the stewardship receiving area credit agreement for Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area, and establishing that 6,697.76 stewardship credits are being utilized by the designation of the Longwater Village SRA. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 999.81± acres, is located east of Desoto Boulevard, south of Oil Well Road, and west of the intersection of Oil Well Grade Road and Oil Well Road, in Sections 22, 23, 26, 27, 34, and 35, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (See the Location Map on page 2 of this Staff Report.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District (RLSA) was developed in order to protect natural resource areas and agricultural lands. The RLSA encourages property owners to voluntarily protect environmentally valuable land as a public benefit. The mechanism to achieve the protection of environmentally valuable land is the designation of a Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) in exchange for Stewardship Credits, which are used to entitle the Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA). Longwater Village SRA requires 6,697.76 credits to entitle 837.22 acres of development. (Note: no credits are required for the 162.59 acres exceeding 35% of the open space required within the SRA.) The Natural Resource Index Assessment documents the existing conditions and Natural Resource Index (NRI) scores within the proposed SRA for the Longwater Village SRA. It should be noted that the NRI scores demonstrate that the Longwater Village SRA meets the Suitability Criteria contained in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). Please see the Environmental Review Section of this Staff Report for further information. The Longwater Village SRA is one of four SRAs that have either been submitted to Collier County or have received an SRA designation. The other three SRA Villages located within the vicinity of Longwater Village SRA along the future Big Cypress Parkway are Hyde Park Village (PL20180000622) and Rivergrass Village SRA (PL20190000044) which have received SRA LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 4 of 30 T u7 O W Packet Pg. 66 9.A.1 designation, and Bellmar Village (PL20190001837) which is also scheduled for hearings at this time. The Longwater Village SRA is 999.81± acres and consists of two context zones which are required per the SRA Overlay regulations: Neighborhood General and mixed -use Village Center. The Village has access to and is located south of Oil Well Road and east of the proposed Big Cypress Parkway. The Village is separated into two pieces by the proposed SSA 17. The southern half has a 20.08± acre Village Center. The northern half has a 2.99± acre Neighborhood General Commercial Area. A lengthy perimeter lake system runs along 70-75% of the boundary of the Village. The lake system serves as part of the Village stormwater system and acts as a deterrent to wildlife. This SRA application for Longwater Village SRA will include approximately: • 2,600 residential dwelling units with a density of 2.6 units per acre (or 3.11 units per acre based upon 837.22 acres requiring Stewardship Credits and excluding open space acreage above 35%); o a minimum of 40 multi -family dwelling units located within the Village Center Context Zone; • a minimum of 65,000 square feet and a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood scaled retail and office uses; • a minimum of 26,000 square feet of civic, governmental, and institutional uses. The Village will also have other uses such as three Amenity Centers, and Park Preserves, and N Parks. The required minimum of 35% open space is 349.93± acres, and 51.26% open space or r 512.52± acres has been provided. 0 For further information, please see Attachment A -Proposed SRA Resolution. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Undeveloped land and farmland with a zoning designation of Agriculture -Mobile Home Overlay -Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay -Barron Collier Investments/Banon Collier Partners -Stewardship Sending Area-9 (A-MHO-RLSAO-BCl/BCP-SSA-9), and a zoning designation of Agriculture -Mobile Home Overlay -Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (A-MHO-RLSAO), and then Rivergrass Village SRA, and Oil Well Road, a 4-lane divided Minor Arterial Roadway. East: Undeveloped land and farmland with a zoning designation of Agriculture -Mobile Home Overlay -Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay -Collier Land Holdings and Collier Development Corporation -Stewardship Sending Area-15 (A-MHO-RLSAO-CLH and CDC-SSA-15), and a zoning designation of A-MHO-RLSAO South: Undeveloped land with a zoning designation of A-MHO-RLSAO LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 5 of 30 Packet Pg. 67 9.A.1 West: Undeveloped land with a designation of A-MHO-RLSAO, Rivergrass Village SRA, and developed residential land with a zoning designation of Estates (E), and undeveloped land and farmland with a zoning designation of A-MHO-RLSAO AERIAL PHOTO LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 0 to Page 6 of 30 Packet Pg. 68 9.A.1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed SRA. The subject property is designated Agricultural/Rural (Agricultural/Rural Mixed Use District) and is within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO) as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Please see Attachment B- Consistency Review Memorandum. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition and recommends the following: Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: "The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, °r° conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) c affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with r' N consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve N any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in a the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the c current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service a Standard within the five-year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are c also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement c N reveals that any of the following occur: T a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to coo or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; T N b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or N exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and a c. For all other links, the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. r Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and a) submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on c all roadways. " 0 Staff finding: In evaluating the Longwater Village SRA, staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic W Impact Statement (TIS) dated August 4, 2020, for consistency using the applicable 2019 and 2020 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). Cnn According to the SRA document and noted above, the applicant is requesting a maximum of 2,600 a residential dwelling units, up to 80,000 square feet of retail/office uses, and 26,000 square feet of civic, governmental, and institutional uses. The TIS provided with the petition outlines a potential r development scenario for 1,503 single-family residential dwelling units, 1,097 multi -family a LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 7 of 30 Packet Pg. 69 9.A.1 dwelling units, up to 26,000 square feet of governmental and institutional uses, and 80,000 square feet of retail/office uses. Staff has evaluated the TIS and has found that the scenario presents an accurate trip generation calculation, reasonable trip distribution on the surrounding network, and reflects a reasonable development potential with the proposed SRA. The SRA document establishes the total trip cap commitment in Section VIII Developer Commitments, 8.3.A. Transportation, of a maximum of 2,078 two-way, unadjusted, average weekday PM peak hour trips. According to the TIS, the project impacts the following County roadways: Existing Roadway Conditions: Roadway/ Link 2019 P.M. Peak 2019 Projected 2020 2020 Location AUIR Hour Peak AUIR P.M. Peak AUIR AUIR Link # LOS Direction Remaining Hour/Peak LOS Remaining Service Capacity Direction Capacity Volume/Peak Project Direction Traffic' Oil Well Oil Well B 2,000/West 1,458 252/WB B 1,456 Road/ Grade to Ave Maria 121.2 Blvd Oil Well Desoto B 1,1002/West 558 252/WB B 556 Road/ Blvd to Oil Well 121.1 Grade Oil Well Everglades B 1,1002/West 526 238/WB B 518 Road/ Blvd to Desoto 120.0 Blvd Oil Well Immokalee C 2,000/East 808 300/EB C 633 Road/ Road to Everglades 119.0 Blvd Desoto Golden B 800/South 662 252/SB B 652 Boulevard/ Gate Blvd to Oil Well 138.0 Road Everglades Oil Well C 800/North 308 41/NB C 240 Blvd/ Road to LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 LOT_ 0 cD Page 8 of 30 Packet Pg. 70 9.A.1 136.0 Immokalee Road Everglades Golden C 800/North 339 126/NB C 324 Blvd/ Gate Blvd to Oil Well 135.0 Road Wilson Immokalee B 900/South 549 41/SB B 550 Blvd/ Road to Golden 118.0 Gate Blvd Randall Everglades C 900/East 248 126/EB C 235 Blvd/ Blvd to Desoto 133.0 Blvd Randall Immokalee D 9003&4/East 64 174/EB D 7 Blvd/ Road to Everglades 132.0 Blvd Vanderbilt Logan C 3,000/East 1,156 111/EB C 917 Beach Rd/ Blvd to Collier 112.0 Blvd Golden Collier D 2,300/East 570 111/EB D 390 Gate Blvd/ Blvd to Wilson 17.0 Blvd Golden Wilson C 2,300/East 1,016 174/EB C 845 Gate Blvd/ Blvd to 18th Street 123.0 NE/SE Golden 18th Street C 2,300/East 1,025 182/EB C 855 Gate Blvd/ NE/SE to Everglades 123.1 Blvd Golden Everglades B 1,010/East 778 245/EB B 773 Gate Blvd/ to Desoto Blvd 124.0 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 c 0 as a am c a 0 N LO 0 w T T N Iq N N tm CID CD 3 tm c 0 J 1` 0 Q. a� o: a c CD E U 2 r a Page 9 of 30 Packet Pg. 71 9.A.1 Immokalee Wilson D 3,3004/East 476 174/EB D 525 Road/ Blvd to Oil Well 45.0 Road Immokalee Collier D 3,3004/East 362 223/EB E 95 Road/ Blvd to Wilson 44.0 Blvd Immokalee Logan D 3,200/East 284 111/EB D 435 Road/ Blvd to Collier 43.2 Blvd Collier Golden C 3,000/North 1,071 111/NB C 925 Blvd/ Gate Blvd to Pine 31.1 Ridge Road Pine Ridge Logan C 2,400/East 853 56/EB C 782 Road/ Blvd to Collier 125.0 Blvd Source for P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic is August 4, 2020; Traffic Impact Statement provided by the petitioner. Z. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Direction Service Volume does not consider a committed improvement (Ave Maria Developer Agreement). The committed project will increase the service volume to 2,000. 3• A portion of this link is committed for widening; Immokalee Road to 8" Street; P.M. Peak Hour Peak Direction service volume will increase to 2,000. The remainder of the link's service volume will remain unchanged. 4. Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension is scheduled for construction within the Five -Year Capital Improvement Element and is anticipated to provide relief to the corridor. PM Peak Hour Peak Direction remaining capacity does not account for the expected diversion. For consistency purposes, the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan — Projects identified in years 3, 4 & 5 of the Schedule of Capital Improvements are considered for consistency when reviewing land use applications for compliance with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element. The following improvements are considered for consistency purposes: • Vanderbilt Beach Road — Collier Boulevard to 16th Street • Vanderbilt Beach Road — 16th Street to Everglades Boulevard • 16th Street Bridge connecting Golden Gate Boulevard to Randall Boulevard • Randall Boulevard — Immokalee Road to 81h Street NE LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 T LO 0 to Page 10 of 30 Packet Pg. 72 9.A.1 • Wilson Boulevard — Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee Road Based on this information, staff finds the application consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element. Policy 7.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: co "Collier County shall apply the standards and criteria of the Access Management Policy as d adopted by Resolution and as may be amended to ensure the protection of the arterial and a� collector system's capacity and integrity. " 3 Staff finding: The Longwater Village SRA is proposing access points on both Oil Well Road and c the future Big Cypress Parkway. Staff recommends approval of the proposed access points shown J on the master plan for this petition, however, nothing in this development order will vest the c� 00 developer to anything more than a right in/right out at those locations. Directional and full median g openings may be contemplated at the time of Site Development Plan (SDP) or Plat and Plan (PPL). a Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: N N a "The County shall require, wherever feasible, the interconnection of local streets between developments to facilitate convenient movement throughout the road network. The LDC shall 2 identify the circumstances and conditions that would require the interconnection of neighboring a developments and shall also develop standards and criteria for the safe interconnection of such local streets. " o N Staff finding: The Land Development Code requires the applicant to create an interconnected r street system designed to disperse and reduce the length of automobile trips (4.08.07.J.3.a.iii). The proposed Longwater Village SRA's Master Plan shows an interconnection to Rivergrass Village v that runs parallel to Oil Well Road. N Staff Recommendation- V ti Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP. Transportation Planning Staff recommends approval of this petition subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1. Within 90 days of the approval of the first development order (SDP or PPL), the applicant must pay $622,000.00 to fulfill the fair share mitigation for operation impacts as supported by the August 4, 2020, Traffic Impact Statement. 2. The Developer shall be required to improve 18th Avenue NE from the project entrance to Desoto Boulevard to minimum County standards as shown in Appendix B of the Land Development Code. These improvements are not eligible for road impact fee credits. 3. The applicant acknowledges the following are outside of the review for this petition. School sites A and B (56th Avenue N.E. and 2nd Avenue N.E.) have not been evaluated for transportation impacts as part of this request. Evaluation of both sites will require standard TIS and operational review at the time of permitting. The operational review LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 11 of 30 Packet Pg. 73 9.A.1 will require a determination of 56th and 2nd Avenue's ability to accommodate school operations and activities. However, it is noted in the commitment as stated, the Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) shall be responsible for the roadway improvements necessary for both school sites; not the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (CCBCC). Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) and FLUE related to Environmental Planning: Environmental Planning staff have found this project to be consistent with the CCME and FLUE. Pursuant to the Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element, preservation of listed species habitat and other native areas in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area is addressed by the creation of the required Stewardship Sending Areas. SSA 14 has been approved and SSA 17 must be approved for the petitioner to obtain credits for the development of the SRA. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this SRA petition and the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based. The listed criteria are noted explicitly in the LDC and require staff evaluation and comment. The criteria shall be used as the basis for a recommendation of approval or denial by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to the Board of Collier County Commissioners (BCC). Notwithstanding the above, staff reviewed the determinants for adequate findings to support the proposed SRA application as follows: Environmental Review: LDC Section 4.08.07.A.1.d requires that SRAs with lands greater than N one acre and a Natural Resource Index (NRI) value greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state. There are four acres within the o proposed SRA that yield an NRI score above 1.2; these acres are located in the southwestern portion of the village. The majority of land within the SRA boundary was cleared of native r vegetation and converted to row crops and improved pasture lands. Pursuant to the Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element, preservation of listed species habitat and other native N areas in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area is addressed by the creation of the required a� Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA). SSA 14 has been approved and SSA 17 must be approved for the petitioner to obtain credits for the development of the SRA. > Evaluation of Suitability Criteria in LDC section 4.08.07.A: • Residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within an SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2 (LDC Section 4.08.07.A.1.b). There are four acres having an NRI value greater than 1.2 and these lands have been designated as "park preserves;" therefore, residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, transient housing, institutional, civic, and community service uses will not be sited in these "park preserves" but may be sited on the remaining lands within the SRA. • Conditional use essential services and government essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on land that receives a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2, regardless of the size of the land or parcel LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 12 of 30 Packet Pg. 74 9.A.1 (LDC Section 4. 08.07.A. Lc). There are four acres having an NRI value greater than 1.2 and these lands have been designated as "park preserves;" therefore, conditional use and governmental essential services will not be sited on these "park preserves" but may be sited on the remaining lands within the SRA. • Lands or parcels that are greater than one acre and have an Index Value greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state (LDC Section 4.08.07.A. I. d). There are four acres having an NRI value greater than 1.2 and these lands have been designated as "park preserves" and will be retained in a natural vegetated state. • An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in LDC Section 4.08.07.J.6. An SRA may be contiguous to, or encompass, a WRA (LDC Section 4.08.07.A.1.g). The project does not encroach into an FSA or HSA; it is adjacent to WRA lands and provides the required buffers as indicated on the SRA Master Plan. SSA credits required for SRA Designation: Environmental Planning staff reviewed this petition in conjunction with Geographic Information System (GIS) staff who provided the following information regarding the generation of stewardship credits: The Stewardship credits for Longwater Village SRA are generated from SSAs 14 and 17. Both 6 SSAs are located on properties within and adjoining the Camp Keais Strand, a major flow way system connecting Corkscrew Marsh at its northern end and adjoining the Okaloacoochee Slough. o The credit calculation is based on the total acreage of Longwater Village, which is 999.81 acres. The minimum open space requirement is 349.93 acres; the applicant has proposed 512.52 acres of r open space. The total acreage that consumes credits is 837.22 acres. Therefore, Longwater Village requires 6,697.76 Stewardship Credits. N Of the six Natural Resources Index Factors on the Stewardship Credit Worksheet, only Land Use — Land Cover (FLUCFCS) and Listed Species Habitat are prone to change over time. In this SRA application, minor changes to the Land Use — Land Cover Classifications have occurred as a result of detailed onsite FLUCFCS mapping conducted in 2015. Minor changes have occurred to the Listed Species Habitat factor that affects index scoring for the SRA; as a result, four acres of land exceeded 1.2 within the SRA boundary. Longwater Village SRA credits are generated from Stewardship Sending Areas 14 and 17, which have 2,515.7 available credits and 4,519.5 potential credits, respectively. Site Description: The subject property consists of 999.81 acres of disturbed lands. The property is currently being used for agricultural activities, including row crops and improved pasture. The property includes widely scattered lands comprised of exotic vegetation, non -forested uplands, forested uplands, and forested wetlands. A FLUCFCS map detailing land use is contained in Exhibit 4 of the Natural Resource Index Assessment. The vegetated areas within the southern half of the SRA boundary LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 13 of 30 Packet Pg. 75 9.A.1 will be retained as "park preserves." Wetland mitigation for impacts to this area will be addressed through the South Florida Water Management District Environmental Resource Permitting process. Listed Species: The Longwater Village SRA project is located within the boundary of the previously proposed Rural Lands West project. Listed species surveys were conducted throughout the area in various years between 2007 and 2016. The surveys were conducted for wildlife species listed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as endangered, threatened or species of special concern and plants listed by Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS and USFWS as endangered, threatened, or commercially exploited. Eagles and their nests were also included as part of the wildlife surveys. Surveys conducted between 2007 and 2009 and 2014 through 2016 indicate the following species have been present within the Longwater Village SRA boundary: American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), tri-colored heron (Egretta tricolor), wood stork (Mycteria americana), Florida sandhill crane (Gnus canadensis pratensis), crested caracara (Caracara cheriway), Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus) and Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi). The current wildlife survey, conducted in 2019, revealed the following species were observed onsite: American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), Florida sandhill crane (Gnus canadensis a pratensis), wood stork (Mycteria americana), roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), tri-colored heron (Egretta tricolor), and Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi; c see Appendix I of the Listed Species Survey). There are four protected plants listed in the LDC as N "Less Rare Plants" that were identified within the project boundary: butterfly orchid (Encyclia LO tampensis), giant wild pine (Tillandisa utriculata), inflated wild pine (Tillandsia balbisiana) and stiff -leafed wild pine (Tillandsia fasciculata). Environmental Review recommends approval of this petition subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 4. Prior to issuance of the first SDP and/or PPL, a listed species management plan must be provided for review, with approval from FWCC and/or USFWS for management of the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) and all other listed species. 5. SSA 17 shall be approved prior to or as a companion item to the Longwater Village SRA. Public Utilities Review: The project lies within the regional potable water and northeast wastewater service areas of the Collier County Water -Sewer District (CCWSD). Water, wastewater, and irrigation quality (I.Q.) water services will be extended to the project through the neighboring Rivergrass Village SRA from the Northeast Utility Facilities (NEUF) site at 825 39t' Avenue NE (adjacent to the Collier County fairgrounds). The CCWSD has agreed to reimburse the developer for the cost of upsizing certain transmission mains within the Rivergrass Village SRA and to connect Longwater Village to Rivergrass Village, as needed for potable water, wastewater, and I.Q. water services to the Longwater Village SRA and as identified in Schedules LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 14 of 30 Packet Pg. 76 9.A.1 B and C of the Agreement to Provide Potable Water, Wastewater and Irrigation Water Utility Services (Utility Agreement). See Attachment C-Agreement to Provide Potable Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation Water Utility Services. As previously agreed, the CCWSD will extend transmission mains to a point of connection (POC) at the western boundary of the Rivergrass Village SRA, which coincides with the northeast corner of the adjacent Hyde Park Village SRA. The pipelines were designed to provide a minimum service pressure of 60 PSI at the POC. Additionally, the CCWSD will construct an interim 1.5 MGD wastewater treatment facility at the NEUF site to serve the project and other developments in the northeast service area. Utility services are scheduled to be provided to the Rivergrass POC by June 30, 2022. The developer will be responsible for the design, permitting, construction, and conveyance of utility system infrastructure internal to both SRAs pursuant to the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance (Ord. No. 2004-31, as amended). The developer has committed to conveying a minimum 5-acre utility site in the vicinity of the general services area to the CCWSD for the construction and operation of utility services. Residents and businesses will receive individually metered irrigation services and will pay standard I.Q. rates. Deviation 3 in subsection 7.5 of the SRA document allows for the I.Q. water distribution system to be conveyed to and maintained by Collier County, contrary to LDC 4.03.08 C. This same deviation was previously approved for the Rivergrass Village and Hyde Park Village SRAs. The Public Utilities Department recommends approval of this petition subject to the following LO Condition of Approval: 6. The Agreement to Provide Potable Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation Water Utility Services shall be adopted concurrently with the Longwater Village SRA Resolution Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) District Review: CCPS staff has reviewed the petition and has determined there is existing or planned capacity within the next five years at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. However, when the Longwater Village SRA is considered along with Bellmar Village SRA and Rivergrass Village SRA, they collectively result in the School District exceeding its estimated capacity. SRA Document Commitment 8.5 addresses this issue by requiring the developer will convey real property for a high school, a middle school, and an elementary school in exchange for impact fee credits. Please note at the time of SDP or PPL, the development will be reviewed to ensure there is capacity either within the concurrency service area the development is located in or in adjacent concurrency service areas. Architectural Review: Architectural staff has reviewed this petition and recommends approval. Landscape Review: Landscape staff has reviewed this petition and recommends approval. Fire Review: Fire staff has reviewed this petition and recommends approval. LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 15 of 30 Packet Pg. 77 9.A.1 Community and Human Services Review (Housing) Review: Housing staff has reviewed this petition and has found that the proposed SRA does not address housing affordability. LDC Section 4.08.07 requires that an SRA "offer a range of housing types and price levels to accommodate diverse ages and incomes." The SRA Document contains no details regarding price levels, ages, or incomes of the proposed units or residents of the SRA. The applicant must revise the SRA Document to include such details in order that staff may confirm the SRA is diverse in housing type, prices, ages, and incomes. Absent of such details in the SRA Document, staff proposes the following recommendation in order to ensure compliance with LDC 4.08.07 and the provision of diverse housing types, prices, ages, and incomes: Longwater Village shall commit at least 10% of the units (260 units) are be sold at purchase prices near the Moderate, and Gap affordability ranges (product types: Town Home, Villa 1, Coach, & Villa 2). Product Type Units Sales Value Suggested Affordability Commitment of Products 1, 2, 3, & 4 Percent of Product Income Level 1 Town Home 204 $250,000 48 24% Moderate 2 Villa 1 319 $260,000 74 23% Moderate 3 Coach 258 $280,000 62 24% Gap 4 Villa 2 316 $310,000 76 24% Gap 5 Single-family Product A 493 $365,000 0% Market Rate 6 Single-family Product B 402 $400,000 1 0% Market Rate 7 Single-family Product C 436 $430,000 0% Market Rate 8 Single-family Product D 172 $460,000 0% Market Rate Total 2600 260 10% This would ensure 10% of the units in the Longwater Village SRA will meet the LDC requirement to provide units and at a range of incomes and price levels. It is recommended that Longwater Village SRA also consider the donation of a residential parcel to the County, to an Affordable Housing Land Trust, or to a County's designee in order to address the housing needs of households at the Low and Very -Low income levels. A contribution to the Collier County Local Housing Trust Fund may also serve to mitigate for units unable to be made available on -site. Enacting the staff s recommended condition of approval would ensure compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07 J. 3. a. iv. to, "Offer a range of housing types and price levels to accommodate diverse ages and incomes." Housing staff recommends approval of this petition subject to the following Condition of Approval: LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 16 of 30 LOT_ 0 W Packet Pg. 78 9.A.1 7. Longwater Village shall commit at least 10% of the units (260 units) are sold at purchase prices near the Moderate and Gap affordability ranges (product types: Town Home, Villa 1, Coach, & Villa 2); or as an alternative, land or units in (or proximal to) the SRA shall be reserved for the development of housing that is affordable. Economic Assessment Review: Section 4.08.07 (L) of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) provides the requirements for the preparation and submittal of the Economic Assessment for a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA). The Economic Assessment, at a minimum, is required to demonstrate fiscal neutrality for the development, as a whole, for the following units of government: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire, and school. In the event the Assessment identifies a negative fiscal impact of the project, several options are identified to address the funding shortfalls, including impositions of special assessments, use of community development districts (CDD), Municipal Service Benefit Units (MSBU), Municipal Service Taxing Units (MSTU), etc. As detailed in the information above, the petitioner is requesting consideration for designating 999.81± acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District as an SRA, to be a known as the Longwater Village SRA (Longwater), allowing for the development of residential, c commercial, and civic/governmental/institutional land use components. Longwater submitted an :a Economic Assessment, prepared by Development Planning and Financial Group, Inc, (DPFG) in a accordance with the requirements of the LDC, which allows the use of an alternative fiscal impact c model, approved by Collier County. See Attachment D-Economic Assessment. DPFG measured c the fiscal neutrality at the horizon year (Year 10/2031 buildout) using a "marginal/average cost N hybrid methodology" to determine the project's impacts on capital and operating costs. DPFG o also incorporated the County's adopted impact fee methodology and rates, to estimate the demand and impact fee contributions related to the project. The assessment model is static and does not v T include the cost of future infrastructure financing or provide for positive or negative adjustments in costs, fees, tax rates, etc. but does assume a constant rate of development for the project. N DPFG conducted meetings with representatives from the various public facilities to capture information on both capital needs as well as operating impacts related to the proposed project. As part of this process, the need for new facility sites and other capital items, specifically related to the proposed project were also analyzed. An outside peer review (see Attachment E-Peer Review Draft) was conducted by Jacobs (formerly CH2M-Hill) to provide an independent, evaluation of the report. The Jacobs report concluded that the DPFG's analysis is reasonable and confirms the project's fiscal neutrality, as defined. Jacobs further stated that "the analysis is professionally prepared and thorough in its treatment of revenues and expenses, is accurate in its determination that the Longwater Village development would meet the County's requirements for Fiscal Neutrality." Both the DPFG and Jacobs reports rely on impact fee and other fiscal information that is adopted by Collier County as the basis for many of the underlying assumptions. The model that was used by DPFG was provided to Jacobs for the peer review and to Collier County for the staff analysis. While the model is locked, all cell information is visible, including formulas, and the data sources LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 17 of 30 Packet Pg. 79 9.A.1 are also presented for validation. DPFG has been available for discussions, questions, and/or concerns related to the model and its outputs. The following is a brief overview of the analysis by facility. Several of the categories were also reviewed individually and are included with the review comments for their respective facility. This is noted below. The project impact fee revenue assumed for this assessment is based on the adopted rates at the time of application, and as previously stated, does not include any projections for impact fee increases or decreases. Any staff comments that affect the anticipated impact fee revenue are provided below, otherwise, the assumptions are considered acceptable for the proposed types of residential and commercial land uses and square footages, for the purpose of this analysis. The analysis concludes that adequate revenue will be generated by the proposed project, through millage, fees, and other applicable funding sources to fund the attributable increase in operating costs, to the various facilities, generated by the development. The same approach used for the capital revenue, to note any comments or observations that may affect the anticipated revenue, is used for the information related to millage rates and other governmental revenue sources used for this analysis. Transportation — Fiscally Neutral. See Transportation Review Section of this Staff Report and Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: Based on staff s review of the Traffic Impact Statement, intersection analysis, and fair share a mitigation reports, a majority of the projected deficiencies at build -out exist both without and with the project. At build -out, the adopted level of service standard for roadway capacity would be c exceeded by the existing, committed, and vested trips, plus additional projected background trips N from sources other than the development project under review, with the exception of one LO roadway. For the roadways that would be deficient both without and with the project, per Florida Statute 163.3180, since the project is not causing the deficiency, the projected deficiency cannot be T cured by the development. For the one roadway segment identified in the TIS that is anticipated to exceed its level of service standard with the project traffic, Florida Statute 163.3180 provides the N basis for a capacity proportionate share calculation and also requires a credit for impact fees a� anticipated to be paid by the applicant. Therefore, if the capacity proportionate share estimate exceeded the amount of impact fees anticipated, the Developer would be required to remit the '> difference. However, in this instance, the Developer's anticipated impact fees will exceed the; capacity proportionate share for the adversely impacted roadway segment. Therefore, no 3 additional capacity proportionate share payment can be required. The applicant will be paying c impact fees for the proposed land uses to off -set their growth -related demand for infrastructure. J Based on a previously approved landowner contribution agreement, the applicant will also provide Q right-of-way and stormwater management area at pre-SRA values. They have also committed to the perpetual maintenance of the shared stormwater management system at their sole cost. The applicant has analyzed multiple intersections within the area of significant impact and will be Cn paying a proportionate share toward operational improvements necessary to accommodate the development. This operational proportionate share is included as a condition of approval for the E SRA. Law Enforcement— Fiscally Neutral. DPFG worked directly with Collier County Sheriffs Office representatives regarding any specific needs (land, etc.) that would be created by the LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 18 of 30 Packet Pg. 80 9.A.1 proposed development. The main demand generated by Longwater will be the cost to equip any new certified officers. Currently, there is not a need for a specific land site within the proposed development. However, a substation may be required in the future to serve this and other proposed developments in the area. As such, impact fees and other capital funding may be available to fund the equipment needed for any new certified officers as well as a portion of a substation and/or other capital items, as necessitated by growth in the future. This infrastructure category currently has an identified deficiency between the adopted and achieved level of service. However, the project is not causing the deficiency, nor can the calculated deficiency be cured by the development. As stated above, the applicant will be paying impact fees for the proposed land uses to off -set their growth -related demand for infrastructure. In order to clarify questions that arose from staff s review of this category, an alternate analysis was utilized to validate the finding of fiscal neutrality. DPFG, Jacobs, and staff all conclude that this category is fiscally neutral. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) — Fiscally Neutral. See Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: DPFG worked directly with Collier County Emergency Medical Services representatives regarding any specific needs (land, etc.) that would be created specifically by the proposed development. a EMS provided locations in the area that will service the proposed development, including the c acquisition of a new site for a co -located EMS station at DeSoto Blvd. and Golden Gate c Boulevard. This site is one of up to three that will utilize the One -Cent Infrastructure Surtax to N provide certain EMS capital construction needs. The use of these funds will allow impact fees T_, generated by Longwater and other surrounding communities and development to be utilized for capital equipment needs and other EMS capital priorities and projects. Therefore, currently, there T is not a need for a specific land site within this proposed development. s This infrastructure category currently has an identified deficiency between the adopted and achieved level of service. However, the project is not causing the deficiency, nor can the calculated deficiency be cured by the development. The applicant will be paying impact fees for the proposed land uses to off -set their growth -related demand for infrastructure. Regional Parks — Fiscally Neutral. The DPFG analysis for Regional Parks utilizes an adjusted achieved level of service, consistent with the methodology provided in the current, adopted Impact Fee Study. This calculation is provided to ensure that new development is not required to pay impact fees based on the inclusion of one-time or specialty facilities (Naples Zoo, Sports Tourism Park, etc.) and eliminates the likelihood of over -charging new development. There are no sites identified for a Regional Park within the boundaries of the proposed development. However, the estimated impact fees and other capital funding anticipated, related to the project, are reasonable and adequate related to the demand created by the Development and to establish fiscal neutrality related to Regional Parks. A minor funding shortfall was identified through the staff analysis; however, the amount is de minimis, totaling approximately the value of .15 acres, therefore, it does not change the finding of fiscal neutrality for this category. LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 19 of 30 Packet Pg. 81 9.A.1 The future Regional Parks Impact Fees paid related to this development will likely contribute to funding the construction of the Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park which is located in close proximity to the proposed project. Additionally, proceeds from the One -Cent Infrastructure Surtax were identified to provide funding for the Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park. Community Parks — Fiscally Neutral. There are no sites identified for a Community Park within the boundaries of the proposed development. However, the estimated impact fees and other capital funding anticipated, related to the project, are reasonable and adequate related to the demand created by the Development and to establish fiscal neutrality related to Community Parks. This category showed a slight surplus in funding generated by the analysis, which was confirmed by staff. Public Utilities (Water, Wastewater, Irrigation Water and Solid Waste) — Fiscally Neutral. See Public Utilities Review Section of this Staff Report and Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: DPFG collected information prepared for, and directed by, Collier County Public Utilities Department regarding the future needs of the project. The proposed development will be required to pay User Fees, Impact Fees, and Special Assessments (Solid Waste) which will provide funding for both capital and operating costs, as applicable, attributable to the project. Pending Board approval, utility services will be provided in accordance with the amended c' Interlocal Agreement that accompanies this petition, which must be adopted concurrently with or c prior to the SRA ordinance. This Agreement also includes provisions related to the pre -payment of N Water and Wastewater Impact Fees for the capacity equivalent of 350 ERC's each. The developer will LO be responsible for the design, permitting, construction, and conveyance of utility system infrastructure internal to the SRA pursuant to the Collier County Utilities Standards and T Procedures Ordinance (Ord. No. 2004-31, as amended). As provided in the review comments, Water, wastewater, and irrigation quality (I.Q.) water services will be extended to the project N through the neighboring Rivergrass Village SRA from the Northeast Utility Facilities (NEUF) site. a Stormwater Management — Fiscally Neutral. See Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: Collier County does not assess impact fees or other special assessments to fund the Stormwater Management Capital and Maintenance Programs. Funding for these areas is typically provided by a combination of funding appropriations from the General Fund (001) and the Unincorporated Area General Fund (111). The project water management system will be fully permitted through the South Florida Water Management District and Collier County. Collier County will have no responsibility for the capital construction or maintenance of the Longwater water management system serving the development. Staff will continue to work with the Developer in areas where the private and public stormwater management systems interact and the ongoing management of the flowway systems as they transition between private and public lands. LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 20 of 30 Packet Pg. 82 9.A.1 To the extent that Longwater constructs improvements to accept and treat Stormwater related to the public road network, that are also impact fee eligible, the Developer may receive Road Impact Fee Credits. Based on the above, the determination of fiscal neutrality is reasonable. North Collier Fire & Rescue District — Fiscally Neutral. See Fire Review Section of this Staff Report and Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: DPFG worked directly with North Collier Fire & Rescue District representatives regarding any specific needs (land, capital equipment, etc.) that would be created specifically by the proposed development. As provided by North Collier, this location is within the service boundary of a planned, co -located facility that is owned by the District. Therefore, there is not a need for a specific land site within this proposed development. The applicant will be paying impact fees for the proposed land uses to off -set their growth -related demand for infrastructure. The current operating millage for the fire district is estimated to adequately address the potential operational needs. Collier County Public Schools — Fiscally Neutral. See Collier County Public Schools District Review Section of this Staff Report and Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: DPFG worked directly with Collier County Public Schools representatives regarding any specific c needs (school sites, etc.) that would be created specifically by the proposed development. N Currently, there is existing or planned capacity, over a five-year period to serve the proposed LO development. However, when Longwater is considered along with other neighboring development, "they collectively result in the School District exceeding its estimated capacity. T Therefore, the SRA Document provides a commitment that the Developer will convey real N property for a high school, middle school, and elementary school in exchange for impact fee N credits. a) School capital costs are provided by a combination of funding sources including impact fees and a capital millage. The estimated revenue generated by the project through these funding sources, also considering any Developer Agreements/Interlocal Agreements related to impact fees, provides adequate funding for the future capital needs, attributable to growth, generated by the proposed development. The analysis also concludes that adequate revenue will be generated by the proposed project, through millage, to fund the attributable increase in operating costs generated by the development. While the exact future student population is unknown, the student generation rate used for the analysis is based on the adopted School Impact Fee Study and supports the determination of fiscal neutrality. Other Facilities — Fiscally Neutral. The DPFG report also provided analysis related to Correctional Facilities, Government Buildings, and Libraries. While these are not required elements of the Economic Assessment or the Public Facilities Impact Assessment, the same framework was used as that for the required facilities, the analysis is consistent with the impact fee methodology, and thus the determination of fiscal neutrality is reasonable. LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 21 of 30 Packet Pg. 83 9.A.1 As stated above, the Economic Assessment provides a fiscal snapshot that is projected to buildout. Based on these assumptions and making no predictions on changes, positive or negative, that may affect project revenue, the conclusion of fiscal neutrality is supported by the analysis. The analysis concludes adequate funding will be generated by the project to fund the capital and operating needs of the specified public facilities. The future use of any type of debt as a funding mechanism is evaluated on a facility by facility basis, including the business case for such borrowing, and will also be reviewed for the appropriateness of such costs, as applicable, for inclusion into applicable impact fee studies. Finally, the specified public facilities do not have projected deficiencies as a result of the demand created by the proposed development. Therefore, overall, the intent of the fiscal neutrality requirement has been satisfied. Zoning Services Review: The Longwater Village SRA Development Document sets forth the design standards for the Village. According to LDC Section 4.08.07C.2., "Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village... Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed -use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods..." As previously stated, the Village consists of two context zones, Neighborhood General and Village Center. The Neighborhood General context zone is approximately 979.73± acres and allows for residential �' development consisting of single-family and multi -family residential dwelling units. Senior/group c housing including but not limited to Adult Living Facilities (ALF), Independent Living Facilities N (ILF), and Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRC) are permissible. A 2.99-acre LO Neighborhood General Commercial Area is also allowed in the Neighborhood General context zone. The maximum zoned and actual building heights are 50 and 62 feet. The Village Center context zone is approximately 20.08± acres and is mixed -use, allowing for multi -family development, commercial, office, civic, governmental, and institutional uses. As previously stated, a minimum of 65,000 square feet and a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and a minimum of 26,000 square feet of civic, governmental, and institutional uses will be provided. The maximum zoned and actual building heights are 50 and 60 feet. The Village Center is located on the south side of the SRA along the future Big Cypress Parkway. A 2.99± acre Neighborhood General Commercial Area is located on the north side of the SRA along Oil Well Road. The Longwater Village SRA is a compact, suburban -style development similar to many of the Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) located in the Urban Area of Collier County. LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 22 of 30 Packet Pg. 84 9.A.1 DEVIATION DISCUSSION: The petitioner is seeking nine deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are directly extracted from SRA Document Section VII. Deviations. The petitioner's rationale and staff analysis/recommendation are outlined below. SRA Document Section 7.1. Neighborhood General Standards: Deviation # 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.f)iv), "Non-residential uses," which states "the maximum square footage per [non-residential] use shall be 3,000 square feet and per location shall be 15,000 square feet," to instead allow the Amenity Center sites and related uses to be a maximum of 30,000 square feet each. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: Community Centers will provide multiple amenities and uses for Village residents (and guests). This effectively reduces external trips. This also requires flexibility in size, in order to be sufficient to meet market demands. Note: This LDC Provision (and thus this deviation request) is unique to the RLSA Overlay. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends a APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the S petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC N Section 4.08.07.18(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development o strategies, as set forth in § § 163.3177 (11), F.S." to Deviation # 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.l.d.iii.e)ii), which states that in the case of "Multi -Family residential," "side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet and rear yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet for the primary structure..." to instead allow for a side yard setback of 0 or 5 feet and a rear yard setback of 15 feet for zero lot line and townhome development, as set forth in Table 1: Neighborhood General - Required Minimum Yards and Maximum Building Height. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The RLSA encourages a diversity of housing types. Allowing for Townhome and Villa type development in the Neighborhood General Context Zone promotes such diversity. To build such units effectively and efficiently they must be consistent with the design used in other similar developments where the market has responded favorably. There are many approved PUDs that allow for such setbacks for villas and townhomes. We have maintained the required minimum 10 foot side and 20 foot rear yard setbacks for traditional multi family product and this deviation is limited to the Villa Townhome product. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.18(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 23 of 30 Packet Pg. 85 9.A.1 Section 4.08.07.18(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in § § 163.3177 (11), F.S." SRA Document Section 7.2. Transportation Standards: Deviation # 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.07.J. Lb., "Figures 5, 6, and 7, Local Street Neighborhood General," which requires a 6-foot-wide planting area between the travel lane and the sidewalk, to instead allow for a 5-foot-wide planting area in the same location for local roads within the project in Neighborhood General. In such cases, either a root barrier or structural soil shall be utilized. If the option of structural soil is utilized, a minimum of 2 c.f. of structural soil per square feet of mature tree crown projection shall be provided. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: This is a minimal reduction and is required to ensure the necessary (LDC required) 23 feet, measured from the back of the sidewalk to the garage, to allow room to park a vehicle on the driveway without parking over the sidewalk. See Local Street Cross Section below. The substantive deviations from the LDC cross-section for a local road in a village are (1) the planting area between the sidewalk and travel lane is 5 feet versus 6 feet and the width of the travel lane is (11 verses 10 feet). Note: This local street cross-section is unique to the RLSA - SRA Village. R.O.W. R.O.W. - I I `I I eR•IMIu.I R.G.w 'i� AIL ....'�—�+—'� I I I I M N.I M N.I Y vLAREAG AVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE vARE0.G T .RR�PRGE�TGx BARRIERPRO—TIO° RERGa, IRRIGATIGN MAIN Ao•I"IxN .-VI—ER IMIN.1 so IRRIG0.TION NWIN N GR v IMIN I ^ *nave FONce mwxJ CUR66 CUTTER TYPIC0.L MATERIAL ITYPEd MArtNL ANY VARvI SRA LOCAL STREET R.O.W. SECTION *LGGATIONOFFGR EMAIN1111ROAowAYANoe sEreA�R I 020 B. LIxB—TI EOAN GnLI GEYNTIGN GN — N a a (Note: Please see SRA Resolution for enlargement of the above Section). Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.18(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 24 of 30 LOT_ O O TMM Packet Pg. 86 9.A.1 Section 4.08.07.18(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S." The RLSA cross -sections show a 6-foot wide planting strip whereas LDC section 4.08.07.J.3.ii.r. allows for a minimum of a 5-foot wide planting area between the sidewalk and curb provided there is root barrier or structural soil used. Structural soil in the amount of 2 cubic feet per square feet of mature tree crown projection is the industry standard for the recommended quantity of structural soil. Deviation # 4 seeks relief from A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.q), which requires that the amount of required parking in the Village Center "be demonstrated through a shared parking analysis submitted with an SRA designation application..." and be "determined utilizing the modal splits and parking demands for various uses recognized by ITE, ULI or other sources or studies..." to instead allow the parking demand analysis to be submitted at the time of initial Site Development Plan (SDP) or, at the discretion of the County Manager or designee, at the time of a subsequent SDP or SDP Amendment, in order to allow for a more comprehensive parking demand analysis based upon the mix of uses at the time of the initial SDP or subsequent SDP or SDP Amendment. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: Requiring this parking demand analysis at the time of SRA application makes no sense as the type and mix of uses in the Village Center is undetermined at the time of SRA application. This analysis should be conducted at the time of initial (or possibly subsequent) SDP for non- residential uses in the Village Center. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.18(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.18(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the N tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development N strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S." N SRA Document Section 7.3. Sign Standards: Deviation # 5 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5.a, "On -premises directional signs within residential districts," which requires on -premise directional signs to be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb, to instead allow a minimum setback of 5 feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb, limited to signs internal to the SRA only. This excludes signage along County owned roadways. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: This deviation will allow more flexibility for directional signage internal to the project. A unified design theme will be utilized for all signage throughout the community. All roads and drives will be privately owned and maintained. This deviation is typical of master planned residential developments in Collier County Note: This deviation is from a requirement that applies throughout the County (per Section 5.06.00 (Signs Regulations). Note that the deviation does not apply to such signs located along County Roads. LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 25 of 30 Packet Pg. 87 9.A.1 Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.18(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.18(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S." SRA Document Section 7.4. Landscape Standards: Deviation # 6 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C., Buffer Requirements, "Types of buffers," Table 2.4 Information, Footnote (3) which requires "Buffer areas between commercial outparcels located within a shopping center, Business Park, or similar commercial development may have a shared buffer 15 feet wide with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet", to instead allow a shared buffer 10 feet wide with each abutting property contributing 5 feet. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The combined 10 foot shared buffer will provide for sufficient separation and "breaking up" of parking areas within the Village Center. Note: This deviation is from a requirement that applies throughout the County and similar deviations have been granted. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends o APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.18(a), the N petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.18(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the o tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in § § 163.3177 (11), F.S." N SRA Document Section 7.5.Other Deviations: Deviation # 7 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04.G, "Parking Space Requirements," which requires 1 parking space per 100 square feet for recreation facilities (indoor) sports, exercise, fitness, aerobics, or health clubs to instead allow for parking for the Amenity Center sites to be calculated at 1 space per 200 square feet of indoor square footage, excluding kitchen or storage space. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The project will have a complete system of interconnected sidewalks, pathways, and bike lanes throughout, allowing residents to travel to the amenity center without using a car. Additionally, the centrally located Amenity Centers (both north and south) are restricted for use by only Village residents and guests and are not open to the general public. The 1 space per 100 square feet for these "community" amenity centers is excessive. Note: This deviation is from a requirement that applies throughout the County and similar deviations have been granted. LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 26 of 30 Packet Pg. 88 9.A.1 Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S." Deviation # 8 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.05.10.A.2. — "Location Criteria," which requires that "LSPA [littoral shelf planting areas] shall be concentrated in one location of the lake(s), preferably adjacent to a preserve area," to instead allow for required littoral shelf planting areas to be aggregated in certain specific development lakes, including the development lake and WRA system that runs along the eastern perimeter of the SRA. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: These areas will be designed to create, enhance, or restore wading bird/waterfowl habitat and foraging areas. They will be designed to recreate wetland function, maximize its habitat value and minimize maintenance efforts. They will enhance the survivability of the littoral area plant species, as there is a lower survivability rate in littoral planting areas along larger lakes subject to more variable water levels and wind and wave action, which negatively affects these littoral planting areas. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends c APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the N petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC T-, Section 4.08.07.18(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development T strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S." The concentration of littoral plantings in lakes and waters of the proposed project will meet the intent of the littoral planting requirement, which N is to improve water quality and provide habitat for a variety of aquatic species and birds. Therefore, it is reasonable to allow for some flexibility in the design and locations of the required littoral planting areas. Deviation # 9 seeks relief from A Deviation from LDC Section 4.03.08.C, "Potable Water System," which states "separate potable water and reuse waterlines... shall be provided ... by the applicant at no cost to Collier County for all subdivisions and developments" and "Reuse water lines, pumps, and other appurtenances will not be maintained by Collier County," to instead allow for such facilities and/or appurtenances to be conveyed to and maintained by Collier County. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: This Deviation was requested to be included in the SRA by Collier County Utilities in order to allow flexibility in terms of the provision and/or maintenance of such facilities and/or appurtenances (i.e., the provision and/or maintenance by Collier County). The Deviation is supported by Utilities staff. LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 27 of 30 Packet Pg. 89 9.A.1 Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.18(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.18(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S." NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM on June 25, 2020, at 5:30 p.m. at New Hope Conference Center, 7675 Davis Boulevard, Naples, Florida. Approximately two residents attended the NIM. For further information, please see Attachment G: NIM Summary. Staff has received one letter of objection. Please see Attachment H-Letter of Objection. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's office reviewed the staff report for Petition Number PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA on February 1, 2021. The following criteria apply to the creation of an SRA: 1. Consider: Compatibility with adjacent land uses. 2. Consider: An SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned N development. LO 0 W 3. Consider: Residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within an SRA shall T N not be sited on lands that receive a natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. N 4. Consider: Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on land that receives a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2, regardless of the size of the land or parcel. 5. Consider: Lands or parcels that are greater than one acre and have an Index Value greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state. 6. Consider: Open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, Village, or those CRDs exceeding 100 acres. Gross acreage includes only that area of development within the SRA that requires the consumption of Stewardship Credits. LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 28 of 30 Packet Pg. 90 9.A.1 7. Consider: As an incentive to encourage open space, open space on lands within an SRA located outside of the ACSC that exceeds the required thirty-five percent retained open space shall not be required to consume Stewardship Credits. 8. Consider: An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in LDC Section 4.08.07 J.6. An SRA may be contiguous to, or encompass a WRA. 9. Consider: The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. 10. Consider: Conformity of the proposed SRA with the goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP. 11. Consider: Suitability criteria described in Items 2 through 9 above [LDC Section 4.08.07 A.1.] and other standards of LDC Section 4.08.07. 12. Consider: SRA master plan compliance with all applicable policies of the RLSA District Regulations, and demonstration that incompatible land uses are directed away from FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and Conservation Lands. 13. Consider: Assurance that applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship M Credits to implement SRA uses. LO 0 W 14. Consider: Impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Collier County Planning Commission, acting as the local planning agency and the Environmental Advisory Council, forward Petition SRA-PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA, to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1. Within 90 days of the approval of the first development order (SDP or PPL), the applicant must pay $622,000.00 to fulfill the fair share mitigation for operation impacts as supported by the August 4, 2020, Traffic Impact Statement. 2. The Developer shall be required to improve 18th Avenue NE from the project entrance to Desoto Boulevard to minimum County standards as shown in Appendix B of the Land Development Code. These improvements are not eligible for road impact fee credits. 3. The applicant acknowledges the following are outside of the review for this petition. School sites A and B (56th Avenue N.E. and 2nd Avenue N.E.) have not been evaluated for transportation impacts as part of this request. Evaluation of both sites will require standard LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 29 of 30 Packet Pg. 91 9.A.1 TIS and operational review at the time of permitting. The operational review will require a determination of 56th and 2nd Avenue's ability to accommodate school operations and activities. However, it is noted in the commitment as stated the Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) shall be responsible for the roadway improvements necessary for both school sites; not the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (CCBCC). 4. Prior to issuance of the first SDP and/or PPL, a listed species management plan must be provided for review, with approval from FWCC and/or USFWS for management of the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) and all other listed species. 5. SSA 17 shall be approved prior to or as a companion item to the Longwater Village SRA. 6. The Agreement to Provide Potable Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation Water Utility Services shall be adopted concurrently with the Longwater Village SRA Resolution. 7. Longwater Village shall commit at least 10% of the units (260 units) are sold at purchase prices near the Moderate, and Gap affordability ranges (product types: Town Home, Villa 1, Coach, & Villa 2); or as an alternative, land or units in (or proximal to) the SRA shall be reserved for the development of housing that is affordable. A ttnohmantc Attachment A: Proposed SRA Resolution N Attachment B: Consistency Review Memorandum LO Attachment C: Agreement to Provide Potable Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation Water Utility Services Attachment D: Economic Assessment T N Attachment E: Peer Review Draft N Attachment F: Public Facilities Impact Assessment cm Attachment G: NIM Summary Attachment H: Letter of Objection 5 Attachment I: Application; LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 30 of 30 Packet Pg. 92 9.A.4 Coer Cou-n�ty GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION CONSISTENCY REVIEW MEMORANDUM To: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section From: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: August 20, 2020 Subject.- Future Land Use Element Consistency Review of Proposed Stewardship Receiving Area PETITION NUMBER: SRA PL20190001836 PETITION NAME: Longwater Village [REV: 1.4.21 REQUEST: This petition seeks to establish a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) known as Longwater Village on a ±999.8-acre site in accordance with provisions of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay as contained in the County's Growth Management Plan's Future Land Use Element and County's Land Development Code. The proposed SRA indicates 2,600 dwelling units, with no fewer than 260 multi- family dwelling units, from 65,000 to 80,000 sq. ft. of retail/office uses, and no less than 26,000 square feet of civic, government, and institutional uses. Dissimilar figures are provided in different SRA application materials — some providing the specificity necessary that is not provided elsewhere. By example, the SRA Economic Assessment used the following development assumptions: • total townhomes, duplexes, and single-family attached = 1,097 units • total single family < 4,000 sq. ft. = 1,503 units • non-residential 50,001—100,000 sq. ft = 65,000 sq. ft. of retail/office uses • neighborhood civic = 26,000 sq. ft. of civic, government and institutional uses The SRA Project Narrative & Statement of Compliance indicates that the minimum 35% Open Space requirement for the SRA (349.92 acres) will be met and exceeded. The SRA Project Narrative & Statement of Compliance indicates that the minimum 1% Parks & Community Green Space requirement for the SRA (10 acres) will be met. A commitment to provide a 2,500 sq. ft. children's playground is provided in the SRA document. The locations for the parks, totaling 12.6 acres, are shown on Master Plan. No areas are designated for public benefit use. LOCATION: The ±999-acre property comprises 2 geographic areas — north and south — arching from Oil Well Road to Desoto Boulevard, within Sections 22, 23, 26, 27 34, and 35, Township 48 South, Range 28 East. The Longwater Village north area lies immediately south of Oil Well Road (CR 858) at Oil Well Grade Road, and lies approximately 1,100 ft. east of the proposed Rivergrass Village south area. The Longwater north area bows southwest to connect (by roadway) with the south area. The larger, Longwater south area comprises an area up to approximately 900 ft. east of Desoto Boulevard North [also, adjacently -1- PL201 90001 836, LONGwATER SRA Packet Pg. 93 9.A.4 east of (the future) Big Cypress Parkway]. A portion of Golden Gate Estates is adjacent to the west of the Longwater south area. The proposed Rivergrass Village lies to the northwest and its south area lies from approximately 700 ft. to 1,800 ft. from the Longwater south area. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated Agricultural/Rural (Agricultural/Rural Mixed Use District) and is within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO) as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Owners of property within this FLUM designation may develop their property under the baseline conditions — agriculture and related uses, essential services, single-family residential at a maximum density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, parks and open space, earth mining, etc. — or choose to participate in the RLSAO. The RLSAO provides for the protection of valuable habitats by designation as a Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) where land -use layers are removed, which generates Stewardship Credits that can be used to entitle mixed -use developments known as Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) on lands appropriate for development. SRAs may vary in size and must contain a mixture of uses, as provided for in the RLSAO policies contained in the FLUE and the RLSA Zoning Overlay. RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA POLICIES AND PROVISIONS AND GENERAL OBSERVATIONS: The GMP, together with the LDC, are used in determining the consistency of the request. To determine consistency with the more -general Policies and provisions of the FLUE's RLSAO, the specific policies and provisions of the RLSA Zoning District Overlay Within the RLSAO, the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to urban villages, new towns and satellite communities is based on area -based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, mixed - use development, and other planning strategies and techniques, while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services. Specifically, the RLSAO allows development in the form of towns, villages, hamlets, and compact rural developments (CRD), subject to certain criteria and development parameters, as a Stewardship Receiving Area, and allows "public benefit uses" such as public schools and public or private post- secondary institutions, including ancillary uses; community parks exceeding the minimum acreages required, municipal golf courses; regional parks; and governmental facilities. This application proposes the Longwater development using the Rural Lands Stewardship Credit System, as provided for under RLSAO Policy 1.4 in the FLUE. The SRA application further proposes that Stewardship Credits, enabling this SRA to be developed as a Village, will be obtained from permanent restrictions on the use of environmentally sensitive land (from approved SSAs). The SRA procedures and standards are outlined in Section 4.08.07 of the LDC. Specifically, the SSAs to be used to enable the project to proceed as an SRA are subject to County review and approval at the SRA submittal stage. The SSA documents submitted for review include the Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) Credit Use and Reconciliation Application (dated 6/01/2020) for SSA 14 and 17. All SSAs must be approved and Stewardship Credits submitted before or concurrent with this SRA. -2- PL201 90001 836, LONGwATER SRA Packet Pg. 94 9.A.4 The relevant RLSAO Policies (Group 4 Policies) are listed below, followed by staff comments/analysis [in italics]. Group 4 — Policies to enable conversion of rural lands to other uses in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning U) techniques by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas. W Policy 4.1: W Collier County will encourage and facilitate uses that enable economic prosperity and diversification of 3 the economic base of the RLSA. Collier County will also encourage development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques and facilitates a compact form of development to accommodate � population growth by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs). Incentives to encourage M and support the diversification and vitality of the rural economy such as flexible development o regulations, expedited permitting review, and targeted capital improvements shall be incorporated into a the LDC Stewardship District. o N J [This application is for an SRA.] d , Policy 4.2: c ° All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible for a designation as a SRA, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been designated as a Stewardship Sending Area. Land proposed for SRA designation shall meet the suitability criteria c and other standards described in Group 4 Policies. Due to the long-term vision of the RLSA Overlay... N and in accordance with the guidelines [previously] established in Chapter 163.3177(11) F.S. [now: o 163.3248] the specific location, size and composition of each SRA cannot and need not be c� predetermined in the GMP In the RLSA Overlay, lands that are eligible to be designated as SRAs N generally have similar physical attributes as they consist predominately of agriculture lands which have C6 been cleared or otherwise altered for this purpose. Lands shown on the Overlay Map as eligible for E SRA designation include approximately 74,500 acres outside of the ACSC (and 18,300 acres within the a ACSC). Approximately 2% of these lands achieve an Index score greater than 1.2. Because the Overlay E requires SRAs to be compact, mixed -use and self-sufficient in the provision of services, facilities and infrastructure, traditional locational standards normally applied to determine development suitability 3 are not relevant or applicable to SRAs. Therefore the process for designating a SRA follows the principles 2 of the Rural Lands Stewardship Act as further described herein. [Land proposed for the SRA designation meets the suitability criteria and many of the other standards a described in RLSA Overlay Group 4 Policies. The subject site is designated on the RLSA Overlay Map as eligible for SRA designation ("Open").] v Policy 4.3: m Land becomes designated as a SRA upon petition by a property owner to Collier County seeking such E designation and the adoption of a resolution by the BCC granting the designation. The petition shall include a SRA master plan as described in Policy 4.5. The basis for approval shall be a finding of a consistency with the policies of the Overlay, including required suitability criteria set forth herein, c consistency with the intent of RLSA provisions in the LDC Stewardship District, and assurance that the as E applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement the SRA uses. The v r County has adopted LDC amendments to establish the procedures and submittal requirements for Q -3- PL201 90001 836, LONGwATER SRA Packet Pg. 95 9.A.4 designation as a SRA, providing for consideration of impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts, and for public notice of and the opportunity for public participation in any consideration by the BCC of such a designation. [The petitioner has submitted the required SRA application along with an SRA Master Plan as described in Policy 4.5. Consistency with the intent of RLSA provisions in the "LDC Stewardship District" (RLSA zoning overlay) is addressed later herein.] Policy 4.5: To address the specifics of each SRA, a master plan of each SRA will be prepared and submitted to Collier County as a part of the petition for designation as a SRA. The master plan will demonstrate that the SRA complies with all applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District and is designed so that incompatible land uses are directed away from wetlands and critical habitat identified as FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map. (The applicant has submitted a Master Plan with their petition intended to demonstrate the SRA complies with the applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District. Matters of compliance and non-compliance with applicable policies of the Overlay are addressed throughout this memo. Compliance with applicable policies of the LDC is reviewed and determined by the Zoning Services Section, Comprehensive Planning Section, and other sections and divisions of the Growth Management Department. Matters of non-compliance with the LDC Stewardship District may also be matters of noncompliance with this Overlay. l Policy 4.7: There are four specific forms of SRA permitted within the Overlay. These are Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and Compact Rural Development (CRD). The Characteristics of Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and CRD are set forth in [FLUE] Attachment C and are generally described in Policies 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3 and 4.7.4. Collier County shall establish more specific regulations, guidelines and standards within the LDC Stewardship District to guide the design and development of SRAs to include innovative planning and development strategies as set forth [previously] in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. [now: 163.3168] and 9J- 5.006(5)(1). The size and base density of each form shall be consistent with the standards set forth on [FLUE] Attachment C. The maximum base residential density as set forth in [FLUE] Attachment C may only be exceeded through the density blending process as set forth in density and intensity blending provision of the Immokalee Area Master Plan or through the affordable housing density bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element. The base residential density is calculated by dividing the total number of residential units in a SRA by the overall area therein. The base residential density does not restrict [the] net residential density of parcels within a SRA. The location, size and density of each SRA will be determined on an individual basis during the SRA designation review and approval process. This SRA must meet the Collier County RSLA Overlay Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics as identified for Villages in the table below. The table lists characteristic land uses and threshold requirements from the RLSA Overlay, [FLUE] Attachment C, followed by staff comments/analysis [in bold italics]. Underlined uses in the table are not required uses. -4- PL201 90001 836, LONGwATER SRA Packet Pg. 96 9.A.4 Size (Gross Acres) 100 —1,000 acres; [The SRA is ±999.8 acres total.] Residential Units (DUs) per gross 1 — 4 DUs per gross acre; [2,600 DU/ ±999.8 acres = ±2.60 DU/ac. acre base density proposed in the SRA.] Residential Housing Styles Diversity of single-family and multi -family housing types, styles, lot sizes; [The SRA includes up to 2,240 single-family, with no fewer than 260 multi -family dwelling units (2,600 DUs total).] Maximum Floor Area Ratio or Retail and Office — 0.5; [These uses are provided for in the mixed - Intensity use Village Center, Neighborhood General Goods & Services, and Amenity Centers context zones. FAR is not provided. Intensity is shown by proposed square footages below.] Civic/Governmental/Institution — 0.6; [These uses are provided for in the mixed -use Village Center. FAR is not provided. Intensity is shown by proposed square footages below.] Group Housing — 0.45; [not required — ALFs (Adult Living Facility) and CCRCs (Continuing Care Retirement Community) proposed. FAR is provided.] Transient Lodging— 26 units/ac. net; [not required — not proposed.] Goods and Services Village Center with Neighborhood Goods and Services in Village Centers — Minimum 25 sq. ft. gross building area per DU; [(2,600 DUs x25 sq. ft./DU) = 65,000 sq. ft. required. The SRA allows 65,000 to 80,000 sq. ft. of all commercial uses, with the minimum neighborhood -scale goods and services provided in Village Center, with additional goods & services in Neighborhood General Goods & Services, and Amenity Center areas.] Water and Wastewater Centralized or decentralized community treatment system; [Proposed service by County Public Utilities.] Interim Well and Septic; [not required — not proposed.] Recreation and Open Spaces Parks and Public Green Spaces within Neighborhoods (minimum 1% of gross acres); [9.98 acres are required (999.8 acres x 7%).] Active Recreation/Golf Courses; [not required —not provided.] Lakes; [provided, covering more than 264 acres.] Open Space — minimum 35% of SRA; [±350 acres of Recreation and Open Spaces required — ±572 acres provided.]*** Civic, Governmental and Moderate Range of Services — minimum of 10 sq. ft./DU; Institutional Services [26,000 sq. ft. required (2,600 DUs x 70 sq. ft./DU); 26,000 sq. ft. proposed.] Full Range of Schools; [not required — proposed off -site, in proximity.] as a, �a L r 3 0� c 0 J tD M O O 0 O rn N O N J a- c 0 r a� a a� c 0 N r a -5- PL201 90001 836, LONGwATER SRA Packet Pg. 97 9.A.4 Transportation Auto -interconnected system of collector and local roads; required connection to collector or arterial; [A number of residential 'pods' each connect to a spine road with a single intersection, while no "interconnected system of collector and local roads" is provided; the spine road connects to Oil Well Road (CR 858), a minor arterial road as classified in the Transportation Element, and the future north - south thoroughfare of Big Cypress Parkway. Interconnection with the Rivergrass development was agreed to be provided in the formal hearing of that SRA, and Longwater SRA materials have been revised to reflect these changes.] Interconnected sidewalk and pathway system; [required.] Equestrian Trails; [not required -not proposed.] County Transit Access; [not required - not proposed.] *** Note: "Open space" is defined specific to the RLSA in RLSA Policy 4.70, and with greater detail in LDC Section 4.08.01.X. - Open space includes active and passive recreational areas such as parks, playgrounds, ball fields, golf courses, lakes, waterways, lagoons, flood plains, nature trails, native vegetation preserves, landscape areas, public and private conservation lands, agricultural areas (not including structures), and water retention and management areas. Buildings shall not be counted as part of anyopen space calculation. Vehicular use surface areas of streets, alleys, driveways, and off-street parking and loading areas shall not be counted as part of anyopen space calculation. Policy 4.7.1 does not apply to this application. Policy 4.7.2: Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be not less than 100 acres or more than 1,000 acres. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed -use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages shall include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15. Villages are an appropriate location for a full range of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located adjacent to each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. Design criteria for Villages shall be included in the LDC Stewardship District. (This SRA is primarily a residential development providing for two (2) housing types (single- and multi- family), and senior housing facilities. This SRA allows a mix of uses - residential, recreational, civic/institutional, and commercial. The site comprises ±999.8 acres. Open space is provided throughout the SRA, and parks or public green spaces are provided within neighborhoods. The Village Center allows a mix of uses - multi -family dwelling units; a variety of commercial uses (minimum of 65,000 s. f. required); and, civic, institutional and governmental uses (minimum of 25,000 s.f. required). -6- PL201 90001 836, LorvGwATeR SRA Packet Pg. 98 9.A.4 Although the Longwater Economic Assessment indicates a mix of housing of 7,503 single-family detached residences, to 7,097 townhomes, duplexes, and single-family attached residences, creating a single-family to multi -family ratio of 58%:42%. However, staff notes there appears to be a disconnect between the a residential use, and non-residential use, mix assumptions in the Assessment contrasted with those which are required or committed to in the SRA Document. However, the proposed ratio committed to in the SRA �a Document is <-90%: >-10% as compared to the Countywide ratio of 50%:45% (remaining units are mobile homes, etc.). This results in a disconnect between the housing mix assumed vs. that which is r required/committed to. 3 Policy 4.8: An SRA may be contiguous to a FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in Policy 4.13. A SRA may be contiguous to and served by a WRA without requiring the WRA to be designated as a SRA in accordance with Policy 3.12 and 3.13. [The SRA is not contiguous to lands designated FSA or HSA but is contiguous to lands designated WRA. The project is served by contiguous WRA land uses (lakes and road rights -of -way) that are not designated SRA and not calculated as project open space.] Policy 4.9: A SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development in an environmentally acceptable manner. The primary means of directing development away from wetlands and critical habitat is the prohibition of locating SRAs in FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs. To further direct development away from wetlands and critical habitat, residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within a SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. In addition, conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. The Index value of greater than 1.2 represents those areas that have a high natural resource value as measured pursuant to Policy 1.8. Less than 2% of potential SRA land achieves an Index score of greater than 1.2. [Staff defers review and comment pertaining to the Natural Resource Index value within the SRA to specialists of the Environmental Planning Section of the County's Development Review Division.] Policy 4.10: Within the RLSA Overlay, open space, which by definition shall include public and private conservation lands, underdeveloped areas of designated SSAs, agriculture, water retention and management areas and recreation uses, will continue to be the dominant land use. Therefore, open space adequate to serve the forecasted population and uses within the SRA is provided. To ensure that SRA residents have such [open space] areas proximate to their homes, open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, Village, or those CRDs exceeding 100 acres. Lands within a SRA greater than one acre with Index values of greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space. As an incentive to encourage open space, such uses within a SRA, located outside of the ACSC, exceeding the required thirty-five percent shall not be required to consume Stewardship Credits. -7- PL201 90001 836, LONGwATER SRA Packet Pg. 99 9.A.4 Policy 4.11: The perimeter of each SRA shall be designed to provide a transition from higher density and intensity uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property. The edges of SRAs shall be well defined and designed to be compatible with the character of adjoining property. Techniques such as, but not limited to setbacks, landscape buffers, and recreation/open space placement may be used for this purpose. Where existing agricultural activity adjoins a SRA, the design of the SRA must take this activity into account to allow for the continuation of the agricultural activity and to minimize any conflict between agriculture and SRA uses. [Lakes, road rights -of -way, and perimeter buffers are located along the SRA perimeter except where abutting Oil Well Road, future Big Cypress Parkway road right-of-way, and land designated as "Open" that is not used within this SRA project. These adjacent "Open" areas are predisposed to development as road rights -of -way for interconnection between the two areas of the SRA and between neighboring SRAs (including one agreed upon with the Rivergross SRA since this SRA's initial submittal). Where neighboring or adjacent projects may develop, the density and intensity on each property may be somewhat the same or may be very different — and transitions must ensure the compatibility with the character of adjoining property. Comprehensive Planning staff defers the determination of compatibility with surrounding land uses to Zoning Services Section reviewers based on the totality of the project.] Policy 4.12: Where a SRA adjoins a FSA, HSA, WRA or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map, best management and planning practices shall be applied to minimize adverse impacts to such lands. SRA design shall demonstrate that ground water table draw down or diversion will not adversely impact the adjacent FSA, HSA, WRA or conservation land. Detention and control elevations shall be established to protect such natural areas and be consistent with surrounding land and project control elevations and water tables. [The subject site is located within land designated as "Open" on the RLSA Stewardship Map. The site does not adjoin HSA or conservation land but does adjoin FSA and WRA lands [abuts a WRA based on earlier statements]. Staff defers review and comment pertaining to these aspects of the SRA to specialists of the Environmental Planning Section of the County's Development Review Division regarding impacts upon groundwater, and the water detention and control elevations.] Policy 4.13: Open space within or contiguous to a SRA shall be used to provide a buffer between the SRA and any adjoining FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map. Open space contiguous to or within 300 feet of the boundary of a FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land may include: natural preserves, lakes, golf courses provided no fairways or other turf areas are allowed within the first 200 feet, passive recreational areas and parks, required yard and set- back areas, and other natural or man-made open space. Along the west boundary of the FSAs and HSAs that comprise Camp Keais Strand, i.e., the area south of Immokalee Road, this open space buffer shall be 500 feet wide and shall preclude golf course fairways and other turf areas within the first 300 feet. -8- PL201 90001 836, LONGwATER SRA Packet Pg. 100 9.A.4 [The SRA adjoins an FSA along its northeasterly boundary, south of Oil Well Road — but does not adjoin other FSAs, HSAs, or conservation lands.] Policy 4.14: The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. No SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA designation. A transportation impact assessment meeting the requirements of Section 2.7.3 of the LDC, or its successor regulation shall be prepared for each proposed SRA to provide the necessary data and analysis. [Access is to Oil Well Road, a minor arterial road as classified in the Transportation Element, and future Big Cypress Parkway. The Capacity analysis is deferred to Transportation Planning Section staff. Concurrency is determined at the time of subsequent development orders.] Policy 4.15.1: SRAs are intended to be mixed use and shall be allowed the full range of uses permitted by the Urban Designation of the FLUE, as modified by Policies 4.7, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.7.4 and [FLUE] Attachment C. An appropriate mix of retail, office, recreational, civic, governmental, and institutional uses will be available to serve the daily needs and community wide needs of residents of the RLSA. Depending on the size, scale, and character of a SRA, such uses may be provided either within the specific SRA, within other SRAs in the RLSA or within the Immokalee Urban Area. By example, each Village or CRD shall provide for neighborhood retail/office uses to serve its population as well as appropriate civic and institutional uses, however, the combined population of several Villages and Hamlets may be required to support community scaled retail or office uses in a nearby CRD. Standards for the minimum amount of non-residential uses in each category are set forth in [FLUE] Attachment C, and shall be also included in the Stewardship LDC District. [This SRA allows mixed uses — residential, civic/institutional, recreational, and commercial uses similar to those in the LDC's C-3, Commercial Intermediate, zoning district. While the SRA document allows for 65,000 to 80,000 sq. ft. of goods and services, the minimum neighborhood scaled goods and services are provided in the Village Center, with additional goods & services in Neighborhood General Goods & Services, and Amenity Center areas.] Policy 4.15.2: The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) may, as a condition of approval and adoption of an SRA development, require that suitable areas for parks, schools and other public facilities be set aside, improved, and/or dedicated for public use. When the BCC requires such a set aside for one or more public facilities, the set aside shall be subject to the same provisions of the LDC as are applicable to public facility dedications required as a condition for PUD rezoning. [Acreage exceeding the minimum acreage requirements is proposed for "public benefit use". Open space is provided in excess of that required.] -9- PL201 90001 836, LONGwATER SRA Packet Pg. 101 9.A.4 Policy 4.15.3: Applicants for SRA designation shall coordinate with Collier County School Board staff to allow planning to occur to accommodate any impacts to the public schools as a result of the SRA. As part of the SRA application, the following information shall be provided: 1. Number of residential units by type; 2. An estimate of the number of school -aged children for each type of school impacted (elementary, middle, high school); and, 3. The potential for locating a public educational facility or facilities within the SRA, and the size of any sites that may be dedicated, or otherwise made available for a public educational facility. (Project development is planned in a single phase. School sites are not set aside, improved, and/or dedicated for public use inside the development. Collier County Public Schools requested development commitments for two school sites in exchange for educational impact fee credits, located as follows: • An 88.3-acre site located north of the (proposed) "Rivergrass" SRA project, near 56t" Avenue NE. This site will be used as a dual -site for 2 schools: either high/middle, high/elementary, or middle elementary; and, • A 20.35-acre site located north of the (proposed) 'Bellmar" SRA project, near Golden Gate Boulevard East. This site will be used as an elementary school site. The RLSA encourages school facilities to be located within Villages and Towns (read, "within the specific SRA, within other SRAs in the RLSA or within the Immokalee Urban Area" per Pol. 4.15.1), and does not support the creation of new trips, or failure to consider reducing the length and number of trips - in accordance with FLUE and Transportation Element policies and provisions - to these facilities. The School Impact Analysis projects 632 new students to be generated from the 2,600 residences [4,478 permanent / 5,373 seasonal residents]. This overall student figure is allocated to the number of school - aged children for each type of school impacted (elementary: 287, middle: 739, high school: 205). Staff defers review and comment on the adequacy and accuracy of data submitted with this application to School District personnel.] Policy 4.16: A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or such infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand. The level of infrastructure provided will depend on the form of SRA development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC requirements. The capacity of infrastructure necessary to serve the SRA at build -out must be demonstrated during the SRA designation process. Infrastructure to be analyzed includes transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, and solid waste. Transportation infrastructure is discussed in Policy 4.14. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities are required in Towns, Villages, and those CRDs exceeding one hundred (100) acres in size, and may be required in CRDs that are one hundred (100) acres or less in size, depending upon the permitted uses approved within the CRD. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities shall be constructed, owned, operated and maintained by a private utility service, the developer, a Community Development District, the Immokalee Water Sewer Service District, Collier County, or other governmental entity. Innovative alternative water and wastewater treatment systems such as - 10- PL2O 1 90001 836, LONGwATER SRA Packet Pg. 102 9.A.4 decentralized community treatment systems shall not be prohibited by this Policy provided that they meet all applicable regulatory criteria. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems, limited to a maximum of 100 acres of any Town, Village or CRD of 100 acres are permitted on an interim basis until services from a centralized/decentralized community system are available. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems are permitted in Hamlets and may be permitted in CRDs of 100 acres or less in size. [The demand for potable water will be approximately 0.929 million gallons per day (average) and 7.208 million gallons per day (3-day maximum). Sanitary sewers must be designed to accommodate approximately 0.664 million gallons per day (average) and 0.995 million gallons per day (3-day maximum). Adequate infrastructure to develop the project is planned with centralized water supply facilities and wastewater collection and treatment services provided by Collier County. Collier County expanded its jurisdictional Water -Sewer District service area boundary in September 2078, encompassing this area (FKA Big Cypress). The Capital Improvements Element of the Growth Management Plan identifies the phased construction of a new regional water treatment plant ($82.5M) and a new water reclamation facility ($106M) at the Northeast Utility Facilities (NEUF) site to support this (and other) development.] Policy 4.17: The BCC will review and approve SRA designation applications in accordance with the provisions of Policy 1.1.2 [now Policy 1.2] of the Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of the GMP for Category A public facilities. Final local development orders will be approved within a SRA designated by the BCC in accordance with the Concurrency Management System of the GMP and LDC in effect at the time of local development order approval. [This project does not create a significant impact on the Countywide population as defined in Policy 7.7.2 of the CIE. Staff defers review and comment on concurrency management to the Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Division - for which review occurs at the time of subsequent development order.] Policy 4.18: The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year based on a public facilities impact assessment, as identified in LDC 4.08.07.K. The BCC may grant exceptions to this Policy to accommodate affordable housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the assessment shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards. [The applicant asserts the development will be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County in the analysis provided in the Economic Assessment Report. Staff defers to the Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Division involved in the review of the Economic Assessment. - 1 1 - PL201 90001 836, LONGwATER SRA Packet Pg. 103 9.A.4 This SRA project is just one of several similar proposals, with its application materials templated upon, other SRA or SRA applications.] Policy 4.19: Eight (8) credits shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA, except for open space in excess of the required thirty-five percent as described in Policy 4.10 or for land that is designated for a public benefit use described in Policy 4.19. In order to promote compact, mixed use development and provide the necessary support facilities and services to residents of rural areas, the SRA designation entitles a full range of uses, accessory uses and associated uses that provide a mix of services to and are supportive to the residential population of a SRA, as provided for in [FLUE] Policies 4.7, 4.15 and [FLUE] Attachment C. Such uses shall be identified, located and quantified in the SRA master plan. [The proposed SRA comprises ±999.8 acres; of those, ±838 acres require ±6,700 credits, and this 7:8 ratio is met. (see Policy 4.3 comments).] Policy 4.20: The acreage of a public benefit use shall not count toward the maximum acreage limits described in Policy 4.7. For the purpose of this Policy, public benefit uses include: public schools (preK-12) and public or private post -secondary institutions, including ancillary uses; community parks exceeding the minimum acreage requirements of [FLUE] Attachment C, municipal golf courses; regional parks; and governmental facilities excluding essential services as defined in the LDC. The location of public schools shall be coordinated with the Collier County School Board, based on the interlocal agreement, 163.3177 F.S. and in a manner consistent with 235.193 F.S. Schools and related ancillary uses shall be encouraged to locate in or proximate to Towns, Villages, and Hamlets subject to applicable zoning and permitting requirements. [No acreage exceeding the minimum acreage requirements is proposed for public benefit use". School sites are not set aside, improved, and/or dedicated for public use in the development. Collier County Public Schools requested development commitments for two school sites outside this, or other SRAs, in exchange for educational impact fee credits. By Policy 4.75.7, school facilities are more specifically encouraged to be located within Villages and Towns.] Policy 4.21 does not apply, as this site is not within the ACSC, Area of Critical State Concern. Review of select FLUE Policies (followed by staff analysis in [italics]): Policy 5.6 requires new development to be compatible with, and complementary to, surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code. [Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. The County recognizes Smart Growth policies and practices in its consideration of future land use arrangements and choice -making options. FLUE Objective 7 and Policies 7.1 through 7.4 promote Smart Growth policies for new development and redevelopment projects pertaining to access, interconnections, open space, and walkable communities. Objective 7: Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of the Collier County, where applicable, and as follows: - 12- PL201 90001 836, LONGWATER SRA Packet Pg. 104 9.A.4 Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. (This property fronts Oil Well Road (CR 858), classified as a minor arterial road in the Transportation Element. Connection to Oil Well Road is designed to meet at a single access point where a non -village like spine road intersects with Oil Well from the northerly portion of the project. This property also fronts the future N—S Big Cypress Parkway, classified as a future collector road in the Transportation Element. Connection to the future Big Cypress Parkway is designed to meet at a single access point where the spine road intersects with Big Cypress Parkway from the southerly portion of the project. Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. (Internal accesses are provided for the proposed development, including indirect accesses into the northerly and southerly residential areas from the non -village like spine road and indirect access into the residential area and Village Center tract. The project is proposed as a "Village". Design parameters for villages differ (from this Policy], and this project must meet the RSLA Overlay, Group 4 Policies specific to Stewardship Receiving Areas.] Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [This property (Longwatersouth area) fronts the future Big Cypress Parkway, classified as a future collector road in the Transportation Element. The proposed Rivergross SRA (south area) is located north and west of this project site. Interconnection between the two projects is provided.] Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [This SRA provides for different dwelling unit types and sizes, open space, and civic/institutional/government facilities. Sidewalks are provided alongside local streets that channel all vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and nonmotorized vehicles to the project's single (±3-mile long) spine road.] REVIEW OF SRA DOCUMENTS: • SRA Economic Assessment ■ Development Assumptions, Table 1, identifies a single, non-residential category providing 80,000 sq. ft. of retail space; however, this project is required to provide a minimum of 65,000 sq. ft. neighborhood -scale goods and services, which are not distinguished here from the 15,000 sq. ft. left for providing more -intense, community -scale goods and services. This table also identifies a non-residential category for the required 26,000 sq. ft. of civic, governmental and institutional services. - 13- PL201 90001 836, LONGwATER SRA Packet Pg. 105 9.A.4 CONCLUSIONS: General Observations on RLSAO Policies • RLSAO Policy 4.2 provides that, "land proposed for SRA designation shall meet the suitability criteria and other standards described in Group 4 Policies" and Policy 4.3 provides that, "the basis for approval shall be a finding of consistency with the policies of the Overlay". Where the proposed project is found to be consistent with these Policies of the Overlay, it may be supported for approval. • RLSAO Policy 4.2 further provides that, "the Overlay requires SRAs to be compact, mixed -use and self-sufficient..". Where the proposed project is found to be compact, mixed -use and self- sufficient, it may be supported for approval. • RLSAO Policy 4.7 provides that, "the size and base density of each form (of SRA) shall be consistent with the standards set forth on [FLUE] Attachment C" Where the size and base density of the proposed project is found to be consistent with the standards set forth on [FLUE] Attachment C, it may be supported for approval. • RLSAO Policy 4.7.2 provides that, "Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village," "shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods" and, "have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods" Where the proposed project is found to provide a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village, it may be supported for approval • RLSAO Policy 4.7.2 further provides that, "Villages... shall include a mixed -use village center to serve as the focal point for... support services and facilities", "include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses" and "are an appropriate location for... schools". Where the proposed project is found to provide a mixed -use village center serving as the focal point for support services and facilities, including neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, it may be supported for approval. • RLSAO Policy 4.10 provides that, "open space shall... comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA ...Village". Where the proposed project is found to be consistent with this Policy, it may be supported for approval. • RLSAO Policy 4.11 provides that, "the perimeter of each SRA shall be designed to provide a transition from higher density and intensity uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property" and that "the edges of SRAs shall be well defined and designed to be compatible with the character of adjoining property." Where the proposed project is found to provide perimeter land uses compatible with adjoining properties, it may be supported for approval. - 14- PL201 90001 836, LONGwATER SRA Packet Pg. 106 9.A.4 • RLSAO Policy 4.13 provides that, "open space within or contiguous to a SRA shall be used to provide a buffer between the SRA and any adjoining FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land". Where the proposed project is found to provide a buffer between the SRA and any adjoining FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation lands, it may be supported for approval. • RLSAO Policy 4.14 provides that, "no SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate... at the time of SRA designation" Where the proposed project is found to be served by collector or arterial road(s) providing adequate capacity at the time of SRA designation, it may be supported for approval. • RLSAO Policy 4.15.1 provides that, "SRAs are intended to be mixed use and shall be allowed the full range of uses permitted by... Policies 4.7 ...4.7.2 ...and ...Attachment C" and that, "each Village or CRD shall provide for neighborhood retail/office uses to serve its population as well as appropriate civic and institutional uses, however, the combined population of several Villages ...maybe required to support community scaled retail or office uses". Where the proposed project is found to provide a mixed -use Village Center including no less than 65,000 sq. ft. of neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, and no less than 26,000 sq. ft. of civic and institutional uses, it may be supported for approval. cc: Anita Jenkins, AICP, Interim Director, Zoning Division Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, Zoning Services Section G:\RLSA SSAs SRAs\STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREAS\Longwater Village SRA\ G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\RLSA SSAs SRAs\STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREAS\Longwater Village SRA\SRA-2019-1836 Con Rvws\PL19-1836 Longwater Con Rev memo_REV4.2 fnl.docx — 15— PL201 90001 836, LONGwATER SRA Packet Pg. 107 9.A.6 c 0 AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE a POTABLE WATER, WASTEWATERANDU2MGATION WATERLgUM SERVICES a, c 0 THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into this N day of , 2021 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting ex-officio as the Governing Board of the Collier County Water- coo Sewer District (hereinafter referred to as the "CCWSD"), the Board of Supervisors of the Big Cypress Stewardship District (hereinafter referred to as the "District"), CDC Land Investments, c LLC and Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Landowners"). RECITALS: WHEREAS, Section 163.01(4), Florida Statutes, the Florida interlocal Cooperation Act of 1969 (the "Act"), authorizes the joint exercise of any power, privilege or authority that the public agencies involved herein might exercise separately; and WHEREAS, the CCWSD and the District are public agencies within the meaning of the Act and desire to engage in the joint exercise of power that each might exercise separately; and WHEREAS, the CCWSD provides water, wastewater and irrigation water service (collectively known as "utility services"), in an economical and environmentally beneficial manner to much of the unincorporated area of Collier County; and WHEREAS, the District also has statutory authority to provide utility services within the District, but intends to authorize the CCWSD to provide utility services within certain designated areas of the District; and WHEREAS, the CCWSD's service boundaries encompass the District; and WHEREAS, the CCWSD shall incorporate certain designated lands and property within the District into CCWSD's service area to exclusively provide retail potable water, wastewater and irrigation water (including effluent irrigation water, when available) utility services in the same manner and pursuant to the same ordinances and policies as CCWSD currently provides service to all other customers located throughout the unincorporated service area of Collier County, Florida; and WHEREAS, the District acknowledges the CCWSD's right to offer utility services within the District and further authorizes the CCWSD to exclusively provide utility services inside a portion of the District's jurisdictional area known as Longwater Village; and WHEREAS, this Agreement is intended to reduce to writing the terms and conditions between the CCWSD, the District and the Landowners as to the exclusive provision of utility services by the CCWSD within the Longwater Village area of the District. NOW, THEREFORE, the CCWSD, the District and the Landowners agree as follows ('CAO Packet Pg. 108 9.A.6 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. o a� 2. The Landowners shall construct and pay for potable and irrigation quality water mains and a gravity sewers, force mains, wastewater pump stations and a community pump station S (collectively known as "wastewater facilities") within the Longwater Village development �o and convey such facilities to the CCWSD in the manner provided in the applicable CCWSD policies and County ordinances, including but not limited to Ordinance No. 2004- c 31, as amended, otherwise known as the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures to Ordinance (the "Utilities Standards Ordinance"), all of which as may be amended by the Board of County Commissioners from time to time. Upon final acceptance of facilities, o CCWSD shall be responsible for maintenance and operations of such accepted facilities. 3. The District shall construct potable water transmission mains, wastewater force mains and irrigation water transmission facilities at the Longwater Point of Connection (POC) between the Rivergrass Village and Longwater Village which shall be available to serve Longwater Village's demand in accordance with its development schedule as defined in Schedule A. The POC shall be as defined on Schedule B. 4. The District agrees to reimburse the Landowners for the cost of upsizing certain transmission mains identified in Schedule C within the Rivergrass Village so that sufficient flows are available to service the Longwater Village. 5. Per the Rivergrass Interlocal Agreement, the CCWSD agreed to provide the necessary potable/fire water design flows at a minimum pressure of 60 psi in the potable water system at the Rivergrass Point of Connection. The developers, through their design(s), will size their system(s) as required. 6. The CCWSD agrees to provide a wastewater system head value of 60 psi for the projected wastewater flows at the Rivergrass Point of Connection by June 30, 2022. 7. The CCWSD agrees to provide the necessary irrigation water design flows at a minimum pressure of 60 psi in the IQ water system at the Rivergrass Point of Connection by June 30, 2022. 8. The Landowners, successors and assigns shall construct potable water mains and wastewater force mains designed to Collier County standards within the Longwater Village of sufficient size up to and including 16" needed by the District to serve the Bellmar village. These mains will be located within the Longwater spine road or within other routes acceptable to the District and the wastewater force main will terminate at the intersection of the spine road and the future Big Cypress Parkway, while the 16" potable water main will terminate at the utility site and further agree to provide the IQ water distribution system basis of design for review and approval by the CCWSD. 9. The Landowners will require all developers in Longwater to install an internal residential IQ system to serve residential areas and the Village Center in accordance with the LDC to the Point of Connection. 2 Packet Pg. 109 9.A.6 10. The CCWSD will install IQ meters and manage and bill residents based on their IQ water consumption at the CCWSD Board approved IQ rates for the IQ service provided regardless of the CCWSD's water source(s). 11. The Landowners shall convey a minimum 5-acre utility site in the vicinity of the general services area suitable for the construction and operation of the facilities necessary to provide sufficient utility services. All lands shall be conveyed to the Collier County Water - Sewer District. The value of these lands shall be determined by two accredited Real Estate Appraisers, each party will secure their own accredited Real Estate Appraiser. The purchase price shall be based on the gross acreage market value of the land, to include any entitlements based upon an agreed date of value. The aforementioned date must be before SRA action, increased density or any other up zoning entitlements to the property. The final price per acre shall be equal to the average of the two independent appraisal reports. Section 11 of the Rivergrass Agreement, OR 5746, Pages 3307-3314, shall be deleted in its entirety. 12. The Landowners within Longwater Village agree to pre -pay water and wastewater impact fees to the CCWSD without expiration (the "prepayment"). Landowners shall reserve water capacity equivalent to 350 ERC's and wastewater capacity equivalent to 350 ERC's in advance. 13. The prepayment shall be due no later than thirty (30) days after Landowners' receipt and acceptance o£ a. An approved and non -appealable SRA for the Longwater Village development. b. All required and non -appealable permits from the South Florida Water Management District or any federal or state regulatory authorities. c. The prepayment shall be at the then current CCWSD Board approved rates for water and wastewater impact fees: The credit for water and wastewater impact fees identified herein shall be reduced by 50% of the prepayment per ERC for each residential unit on a building permit issued thereon until the development is either completed or the credits are exhausted or have been assigned as provided for in the Collier County Impact Fee Ordinance. The developer shall be responsible for any difference between the prepayment amount per ERC and the rate in effect at the time of building permit application submittal. d. The CCWSD agrees to reimburse the District for the cost of the POC as identified in item 3 and upsizing the transmission mains as identified in item 4 in an amount not to exceed $2,700,000 identified by Schedule C as signed and sealed by the District's Engineer of Record. e. The CCWSD shall reimburse the District in the amount identified in item 13(d) within 30 days of receipt of the Longwater Village's prepayment. 14. This Agreement shall remain in effect until terminated by the CCWSD, the District or the Landowners. Any party may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by providing written notice to the other parties prior to the date that either the CCWSD, the 0 as a a� c r_ 0 N LO 0 to M 0 0 Packet Pg. 110 9.A.6 District or the Landowners commit any affirmative act to construct or provide potable o water, wastewater or irrigation water utility service within the District, including but not r as limited to entering into an agreement hiring a contractor or a consultant to provide utility a construction -related services in furtherance of this Agreement. Any attempt to terminate c the Agreement once any party has incurred any expense in furtherance of fulfilling its N duties under the Agreement, without the express written consent of the other parties, shall be considered a nullity. Termination shall be effective one hundred eighty (180) days after c receipt of said written notice. This Agreement may be amended from time to time upon the to written consent of all parties. Any amendment to the Agreement must be in writing and must be executed with the same formalities as this original Agreement. o 15. NOTICES. All notices required under this Agreement shall be directed to the following offices: For the County: Office of the County Manager, 3335 East Tamiami Trail Suite 101 Naples, Florida 34112. For the District/Landowners: Patrick Utter, Collier Enterprises, Vice President of Real Estate and Club Operations, 999 Vanderbilt Beach Road, Suite 507, Naples, FL 34108. 16. INDEMNIFICATION. To the extent allowed by law, each party agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other, its officers, board members, council members, agents and employees from and against any and all fines, suits, claims, demands, penalties, liabilities, costs or expenses, losses, settlements, judgments and awards and actions of whatever kind or nature, including attorney's fees and costs (and costs and fees on appeal) and damages (including, but not limited to, actual and consequential damages) arising from any negligent, willful or wrongful misconduct, knowing misrepresentation or material breach of this Agreement by such party, its officers, board members, council members, agents or employees. The foregoing indemnification shall not constitute a waiver of the CCWSD or the District's sovereign immunity beyond the limits set forth in Florida Statutes, Section 768.28, nor shall the same be construed to constitute agreement by any party to indemnify another party for such other party's negligent, willful or intentional acts or omissions. 17. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original as against any party who signature appears thereon and all of which shall together constitute one and the same instrument. 18. Recording. This Agreement shall be recorded in the Public Records of Collier County. The County shall be responsible for recording the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year first written above. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Crystal Kinzel, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Clerk Penny Taylor, Chair 4 Packet Pg. 111 9.A.6 Approved legal suffi t i Jeffrey A. f�latzkow, ti� I ty Attorney 0 r a� a c 0 N LO O to O O Packet Pg. 112 9.A.6 ATTEST: ATTEST: ATTEST: vv�� RVI;e BIG CYPRESS STEWARDSHIP DISTRICT BY: fa' J-1 Y , Patrick L. tter, President CDC LAND INVESTMENTS, LLC BY: Patrick L. Utter, Vice President COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS, Ltd. BY: ` Patrick L. Utter, Vice President Packet Pg. 113 9.A.6 Q 0 ojg'o 0 0 n Loc C 0 «O N O'N,O - 1 F . w w N N m 0 N O V1 O 1/1 O v VO1 O O T N N N O h m ri O N 11 l0/1 S 1 O V�1 N N O 1O h � O � N m 0 0 O O O O O O N N O O h w v O N O N O N O h m �o vi o 0 � o voi g voi uoi N � aO I O lOit 1�11 N N O O O N T v01 t011 N N N 1/O1 N O O l0 N N N 1� O o S ✓1 N N •i V1 N IO O O O O O O N O Vl ✓1 N ei 'i O C i N y O � N L t�j C t\ T � MIT O v1 � .ni Ony N ^ rl VI v O vl N ^ p M o v vl NI O n ry IA O m m m O1 T a0 V1 V N Vl N V o W m N U w U 3 3 i Q N 3 m 0 Packet Pg. 114 9.A.6 Rivergrass POC 415L Ave. Transmission Mains 9/3/20 Schedule B — Point of Connection (POC) Longwater Connector Transmission Mains Longwater POC Upsized to support other villages Connector transmission mains ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CCWSD Transmission mains 0 r CD a c m 0 to Packet Pg. 115 Schedule C 9.A.6 n. J':.i r. GNOM BARBER & rBRUNDAGE, INC. I'rof.,,ionnl Engineers, Planners. So_-yon Q fandscapc Archirccrs Dlgllelyalgtred by Dankddc J. Arnim, Jr. ON: CNeDon*gdt J. oaswk�.�e+m r. AtNoo, Jr.•, 0-Dominick Amlco, L=Naples. S=Florida, C-US Del.: 2020.0922 15:00:04.04W RIVERGRASS & LONGWATER Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Pipe Upsizing and New Pipe Under Connector Road RIVERGRASS changes when LONGWATER goes online Potable Water Wastewater Irrigation Length Length Length Upsizing Pipe Cost Upsizing Pipe Cost Upsizing Pipe Cost Valve Cost Valve Cost Valve Cost 5,077 ft 1,946 ft 6,959 ft 8" to 12" ($74,124) 6" to 12" ($38,609) 4" to 6" ($18,441) ($8,400) ($3,120) ($3,000) 3,427 ft 4,117 ft 2,176 it 8" to 16" ($126,285) 10" to 16" ($127,956) 4" to 16" ($97,354) ($33,960) ($8,300) ($27,320 8,273 ft 6,319 ft 9,436 It 12" to 16" ($184,074) 12" to 16" ($140,598) 611 to 16" ($397,161) ($59,930) ($30,330) ($97,950) 5,623 ft 8"to 16" ($207,208) ($50,940) 7,961 ft 12" to 16" ($177,132) ($64,540) TOTALCOST Potable Water Wastewater Irrigation $486,773 $348,913 $1,141,047 Subtotal 1 $1,976,733 NEW PIPE ON CONNECTOR ROAD Potable Water Wastewater Irrigation Size Length Pipe Cost Valve Cost Size Length Pipe Cost Valve Cost Size Length Pipe Cost Valve Cost 16" 3,316 ft ($221,907) ($29,320) 12" 4,850 ft ($202,100) ($20,900) 16" 3,316 ft ($221,907) ($29,320) TOTALCOST Potable Water Wastewater Irrigation $251,227 $223,000 $251,227 Subtotal 1 $725,453 Grand Total $2,702,186 This Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (OPC) has been prepared by Agnoli, Barber, & Brundage, Inc. (ABB) at the request of owner or as a requirement of a governmental agency. ABB has based the unit costs of this OPC on previous work history with similar projects or on values provided by reputable contractors we have worked with. in accordance with F.A.C. 61G-1518.011, this is not a guarantee orwarranty expressed or Implied as to the construction cost that may be obtained by owner using competitive bidding. If such a guarantee is needed, it is recommended that owner procure the services of a professional cost estimator or obtain a binding bid from a contractor. y, 9/22/2020 Ah'fICO i G ENS N •�,\GE'NS4C'•.�� This Item has been electronically signed and sealed by Dominick J. Armco, Jr., PE. 0 No. 39382 m on 0v/22/2020. or a+ * * t * Printed copies of this doesmem are cat corider.d signed and sealed. Q STATE OF ) ems/ONA Immunnp t'� Packet Pg. 116 9.A.7 LONGWATER SRA PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT Mare. 0 2020 Revised January 8, 2021 Cnlid wactP A solid waste assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SRA Designation Application package. The assessment shall identify the means and methods for handling, transporting and disposal of all solid waste generated including but not limited to the collection, handling and disposal of recyclables and horticultural waste products. The applicant shall identify the location and remaining disposal capacity available at the disposal site. Collier County's contractor hauler, Waste Management Inc. of Florida, will collect solid waste a generated within Longwater. Recycled materials will be collected from curbside recycling containers through contract haulers. Residential recyclables and horticultural waste will be o collected at the curb on a weekly basis. Construction debris will be collected and processed by a "! local business specializing in the recycling of construction products. In 0 to Commercial and institutional facilities will utilize dumpster containers for the storage of garbage and rubbish. Recycling containers will be used to store recyclables in the commercial and a institutional areas. Solid waste collected within Longwater will be hauled to the Immokalee Solid o Waste Transfer Station and from there transported to Waste Management's Okeechobee Landfill. According to Waste Management the Okeechobee Landfill has adequate capacity for the next 25 N years. TIF for any reason it is necessary, the Collier County Naples landfill is available and according to the Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report, there is also capacity at this facility. Stormwater Management A stormwater management impact assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as a part of an SRA Designation Application Package. The stormwater management impact assessment shall, at a minimum, provide the following information: a. An exhibit showing the boundary of the proposed SRA including the following information: (1) The location of any WRA delineated within the SRA; No WRA areas are included within the village SRA area. (2) A generalized representation of the existing stormwater flow patterns across the site including the location(s) of discharge from the site to the downstream receiving waters. Page 1 of 7 HA2019\2019050\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 1-8-2021 - Longwater DPFG.docx Packet Pg. 117 9.A.7 The project's stormwater management system has received a Conceptual Approval permit from the SFWMD (#11-03949-P). The criteria used in the preparation of this plan was based on the predevelopment agricultural stormwater management system currently in place. Stormwater discharges from the lands in question are equal or less pre versus post on both a peak rate and total volume perspective. As such, the discharges mimic that of undeveloped lands. Therefore, in the event of a change to the agreement between Collier County and the Big Cypress Basin concerning the lands to the south of I-75, no impact on any downstream system above and beyond that of undeveloped land would be realized and thus there is no impact on County stormwater facilities caused by the development of this property above and beyond undeveloped land. Collier County currently maintains no onsite stormwater infrastructure and will not in the future. (3) The land uses of adjoining properties and, if applicable, the locations of stormwater discharge into the site of the proposed SRA from the adjoining properties. No adjacent properties drain through this site. b. A narrative component to the report including the following information: (1) The name of the receiving water or, if applicable, FSA or WRA to which the stormwater Ln discharge from the site will ultimately outfall, o The receiving water of the stormwater discharges from Longwater is the existing agricultural water a management system aka Water Retention Area (WRA), which ultimately discharges to the Merrit o Canal via Camp Keais Strand. (2) The peak allowable discharge rate (in cfs/acre) allowed for the SRA per Collier County Ordinance 90-10 or its successor regulation; The peak allowable discharge rate in Collier County applicable to this project based on ord. 90-10 is 0.15 cfs/acre. The proposed surface water management system will be based on the permitted agricultural system currently in place and operational. The peak discharge rate of 0.03 cfs/ac will be used to match that of the agricultural system in an effort to maintain the hydrological regime that has existed for many years on this site. The evaluation of offsite discharge rate shall be made at the outfalls of the agricultural system in accordance with the Conceptual Approval permit (11- 03949-P) issued by SFWMD for this and its surrounding applicant owned property. (3) If applicable, a description of the provisions to be made to accept stormwater flows from surrounding properties into, around, or through the constructed surface water management system of the proposed development; The flowways within this project are natural wetland systems. The capacity that exists prior to development will exist after development and will not be increased nor decreased. No surrounding properties currently flow through the SRA area of this project. The same predevelopment drainage basin boundaries will be maintained by the proposed design. Page 2 of 7 HA2019\2019050\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 1-8-2021 - Longwater DPFG.docx Packet Pg. 118 9.A.7 (4) The types of stormwater detention areas to be constructed as part of the surface water management system of the proposed development and water quality treatment to be provided prior to discharge of the runoff from the site, and Stormwater water quality treatment within this SRA will be predominantly accomplished by wet detention (lakes) located within the SRA and overlapping into the WRA areas as permitted by SFWMD. Commercial areas will also utilize dry detention pretreatment areas in accordance with SFWMD requirements. Discharges from the SRA water management system to natural WRA areas will occur only after water quality volumes have been achieved and will be by permitted control structures and facilities. Initial phases of development may pump stormwater after treatment consistent with the pre -development drainage of the land. The provided water quality treatment volume of this SRA will be in accordance with the approved SFWMD ERP, inclusive of an additional 50% of water quality to be provided in excess of the calculated base water quality volume for compliance with the interim watershed management plan. Water quantity treatment will occur in both the SRA sited lake system and the WRA areas in concert. (5) If a WRA has been incorporated into the stormwater management system of an SRA, the report shall demonstrate compliance with provisions of Section 4.08.04A.4.b. LO Several alterations to the A areas adjacent to the Village were proposed and approved by o WRA SFWMD with the Conceptual Approval Permit. Stormwater management/buffer lakes and their associated containment berms have been permitted in select locations in the existing WRA's. a These modifications were confined to areas of the WRA that exhibited heavy exotic infestation o and had little to no habitat function. All of these alterations have mitigation identified in the permit which will be made upon implementation of the impact. N The water management concept for Longwater involves the use of the existing agricultural water management system. The proposed system design will use permitted control elevations, discharge rates and discharge locations. The plan as proposed has received a Conceptual Approval Permit issued by SFWMD. All discharges to the WRA (wetland) areas from development will be made only after water quality volumes have been provided in the development area. Areas of the WRA will be excavated to form parts of the internal buffer lake system. Areas to be excavated are low quality exotic impacted areas and will be mitigated for through the SFWMD process. The only fill areas within WRA's will be berms associated with the surface water management system. which will be mitigated through the SFWMD process. No impacts are proposed to Camp Keais Strand by this project. Potable Water A potable water assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SRA Designation Application package. The assessment shall illustrate how the applicant will conform to either Florida Administrative Code for private and limited use water systems, or for Public Water Systems. In addition to the standard requirements of the analyses required above, the potable water assessment shall specifically consider, to the extent applicable, the disposal of waste products, if any, generated Page 3 of 7 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\l-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 1-8-2021 - Longwater DPFG.docx Packet Pg. 119 9.A.7 by the proposed treatment process. The applicant shall identify the sources of water proposed for potable water supply. The following table is a calculation of the Longwater potable water demands and wastewater generation with all factors and assumptions: Longwater Water and Wastewater Demands Wastewater Potable Water Wastewater to water conversion = 1.5 Residential 2,600 DU @ 200 gpd =7 520,000 gpd 2,600 DU @ 300 gpd = 780,000 gpd Commercial 80,000 sf @ 0.15 gpd = 12,000 gpd 80,000 sf @ 0.23 gpd = 18,000 avd Civic 26,000 sf @ 0.15 gpd = 3,900 gpd 26,000 sf 0.23 gpd = 5,850 gpd 535,900 gpd 803,850 gpd 535,900 gpd = 0.54 m d ADF 803,850 gpd = 0.80 m d ADF M3D Factor = 1.5 M3D Factor = 1.3 M3D Flow = 0.80 m d M3D Flow = 1.05 m d Potable water services for the Longwater project will be provided by the Collier County Water and Sewer District from existing and planned facilities per a Memorandum of Understanding that outlines commitments from Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC and the Big Cypress Stewardship District. The estimated potable water demand for residential development at the project is based on 300 gpd per D.U. (residential), and 2,600 residences. Potable water demand for commercial development is based on 23 gpd per 100 feet square or 0.23 gpd/sf. Using these assumptions, potable water demand for the Longwater development at buildout is projected to be approximately 0.8 MGD average daily demand and 1.05 MGD maximum 3-day demand. Irrigation Water The Longwater project site has a long history of permitted agricultural withdrawals from the Water Table and Lower Tamiami Aquifers that has not resulted in adverse impacts to natural environments. At build -out, the Longwater project will result in converting approximately 1,000 acres of agricultural land into a residential development. The agricultural water allocations currently permitted and used within the Longwater project area total approximately 3.37 MGD on an annual average basis and approximately 8.86 MGD on a maximum monthly basis. The transition of agricultural use to residential/commercial use will result in approximately 307 acres of landscaping and turf within the Longwater development requiring irrigation. The project irrigation demand for this amount of irrigated acreage as determined using the SFWMD Blaney- Criddle method are: Page 4 of 7 HA2019\2019050\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 1-8-2021 - Longwater DPFG.docx LO 0 to LL IL e Packet Pg. 120 9.A.7 • 1.18 MGD on an annual average basis • 1.71 MGD on a maximum monthly basis The proposed change in land use is anticipated to result in a significant net reduction of irrigation a, water usage at the site. The Longwater project will obtain a water use permit from the SFWMD J which will allow withdrawal from surface water and ground water sources onsite to meet irrigation demands. However, the developer is in discussions with the County to secure 100% of the 00 project's irrigation demands from reclaimed water. In addition, the developer is working with the c County to develop additional water resources onsite to meet public water supply needs throughout the County service area. If the County provides reclaimed water to meet all the project's irrigation o water demands, the SFWMD permit will only be used for 30-day back up supply in the event that N there is a disruption in reclaimed water supply. The onsite irrigation water supply system will a include stormwater lakes and wells. The lake system will be used to supply irrigation water for c the project and wells will be utilized to partially or fully resupply the withdrawal lakes. The proposed source aquifer for the wells is the Lower Tamiami Aquifer which is currently permitted a to meet the existing agricultural water demands on the project site. The lake withdrawals will c provide an efficient and low impact method for effectively harvesting available stormwater c supplies. Lake volume storage in the lake system as well as re -supply by groundwater from the N recharge wells will minimize potential impacts to surface and groundwater levels. The developer o would be responsible for all costs associated with the permitting, construction, and maintenance to of the irrigation system. c� Wastewater U- a o A wastewater assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SRA Designation Application package. The assessment shall illustrate how the applicant will conform to either Standards for Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems, contained in Florida Administrative Code for systems having a capacity not exceeding 10,000 gallons per day or for wastewater treatment systems having a capacity greater than 10,000 gallons per day. In addition to the standard requirements of the analyses required above, the wastewater assessment shall specifically consider, to the extent applicable, the disposal of waste products generated by the proposed treatment process. Wastewater services for the Longwater project will be provided by the Collier County Water and Sewer District from existing and planned facilities per a Memorandum of Understanding that outlines commitments from Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC and the Big Cypress Stewardship District. Anticipated wastewater generated by the development is based on a per capita daily volume of 200 gpd per D.U. for 2,600 residences. Wastewater demand for commercial development is based on 15 gpd per 100 feet square or 0.15 gpd/sf. This results in build out wastewater flows of 0.54 MGD on an average daily basis and 0.8 MGD on a maximum 3-day basis. Page 5 of 7 HA2019\2019050\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 1-8-2021 - Longwater DPFG.docx Packet Pg. 121 9.A.7 School Concurrence The projected enrollment of Longwater Village on the Collier County Public Schools is shown in the table below. The student generation rates in the 2015 School Impact Fee Update, the most recent data available, were used to calculate enrollment. Longwater Projected Public School Enrollment Projected Residential UnitTuoe Units SGR Students Total Condo, duplex, Single-Fami IVAttarhed 1,097 0.11 121 Tots l SFa � 4,000 Sq Ft 1.503 0.34 511 TotaI Residential 2,600 632 Source: Collier County School District, Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2019 According to the School District, there is existing or planned capacity within the next five years at L the elementary, middle and high school levels for each village individually. However, the proposed 5 Bellmar and Longwater Villages and the approved Rivergrass Village, collectively, result in the N School District exceeding its estimated capacity. As a result, the SRA includes a condition that addresses school sites (whereby the developer will convey real property for future school sites T_ o sufficient to accommodate a high school, middle school and an elementary school in exchange for to educational impact fee credits). u_ a At the time of site plan or plat, the development will be reviewed to ensure there is capacity either within the concurrency service area the development is located within or adjacent concurrency N service areas. 0 N EMS and Fire According to EMS management, Longwater Village will be primarily served by a new EMS facility planned for the corner of Desoto Blvd./Golden Gate Blvd East. The County acquired the site in January 2020. The Greater Naples Fire Rescue District will co -locate a fire facility at the site. EMS management anticipates the station will be placed in service in 2022. The cost of the new facility will be funded by the County's One -Cent Infrastructure surtax which was authorized in 2018. If additional EMS capacity is needed to serve Rivergrass SRA Village, and potentially Hyde Park SRA Village and Longwater SRA Village, EMS management anticipates leasing space for an additional vehicle at the new NCFR station planned for 22nd Avenue/Desoto Blvd N. Because NCFR is planning to maintain an apparatus at the new EMS station, the two entities may enter into a mutual cost -sharing arrangement. Longwater Village is located within the Big Corkscrew Island Service Delivery Area ("SDA") of the North Collier Fire & Rescue District ("Fire & Rescue District"). Based on discussions with Fire & Rescue District personnel, Longwater Village is within a mile of a planned fire facility which is already owned by the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District. Additionally, please see requested maps depicting the subject site and existing North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District and Collier County EMS stations, which illustrates travel routes from Page 6 of 7 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 1-8-2021 - Longwater DPFG.docx Packet Pg. 122 9.A.7 those locations to the subject site. Response time data, requested by staff, has been provided by North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District, and is included with this Report. Transportation Impacts See attached the attached Traffic Analysis for transportation impacts. Page 7 of 7 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\l-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 1-8-2021 - Longwater DPFG.docx LO 0 to U- a. e Packet Pg. 123 9.A.8 NIM Summary Longwater Village SRA (PL-20190001836) Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 5:30 PM New Hope Ministries, Lecture Hall — Room 211 7675 Davis Boulevard, Naples, Florida 34104 The NIM was held for the above referenced petition. The petition is described as follows: A petition to designate a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) within the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay District in the form of a Village consisting of 999.78± acres of land located in eastern Collier County. The SRA is to be known as Longwater Village. Longwater Village SRA is proposed to allow up to 2,600 dwelling units of which a minimum of 10% will be multi -family, a minimum of 10% will be single-family detached, and a minimum of 10% will be single-family attached or villas. Longwater Village will include a minimum of 65,000 square feet and a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and a minimum of 26,000 square feet, of civic, governmental and institutional uses. Note: This is a summary of the NIM. An audio recording is also provided. Attendees: On behalf of the Applicants: 5 Pat Utter, Senior Vice President of Real Estate, Collier Enterprises N Valerie Pike, Director of Real Estate, Collier Enterprises T Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, President, Hole Montes c Richard Yovanovich, Esq., Coleman Yovanovich Koester Norm Trebilcock, AICP, PE, Trebilcock & Associates County Staff: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section Two members of the public attended. Mr. Mulhere started the presentation by introducing himself, the other consultants, and County Staff. He went on to provide an overview of the project. Following the presentation there was approximately five minutes of questions from the public in attendance. Two questions were asked: (1) What is the approximate length of the proposed main spine road? (2) When will construction begin? Mr. Utter responded that the spine road is approximately three miles long, and he expects construction to begin in approximately 18 to 24 months. The meeting concluded at approximately 5:45 PM. GACDES Planning Services\Current\Gundlach\SRA (Stewardship Receiving Area)\Longwater Village SRA\DIIM Stuff\Longwater Village SRA NIM Summary (6-25-2020).doex Packet Pg. 124 9.A.9 MEMORANDUM Jacobs Collier County GMD - Peer Review of Longwater Village SRA Economic Assessment PREPARED FOR: Amy Patterson, Collier County Trinity Scott, Collier County James French, Collier County Kenneth Kovensky, Collier County Ian Barnwell, Collier County COPY To: Bill Gramer, Jacobs PREPARED BY: Dave Green, Jacobs Dennis Jackson, Jacobs Darren Betts, Jacobs Bethel Gashaw, Jacobs DATE: August 14, 2020 Introduction r Collier County, Florida (the County) Growth Management Division (GMD) engaged Jacobs Engineering LO m Group Inc. (Jacobs) to conduct a peer review of the "Longwater Village SRA Economic Assessment" (Report) prepared by Development Planning & Financing Group (DPFG) on behalf of Collier Enterprises c Management, Inc. (the Applicant or Developer). The initial version of this report was dated November 11, 2019. The version reviewed herein, was most recently revised August 6, 2020. The purpose of the N peer review was to assess: N • The reasonableness of the assumptions in the assessment. ao ci r • The consistency of the assessment with the underlying assumptions. C • The reasonableness of the anticipated future revenue from ad valorem taxes, impact fees, and other m sources for the appropriate forecast period; and reasonableness of expenditures (capital and > operating) for the appropriate forecast period. L • The consistency of the recommendations and findings with generally accepted governmental d a accounting and finance conventions, financial forecasting, impact -fee -setting practices, balanced w development concepts (growth pays for growth), and/or applicable County policies (such as the Collier County Land Development Code). z Our procedures in reviewing the Report included sample verification of significant calculations, testing of consistency among underlying assumptions, data and calculation methods, and reviewing the consistency of results with the County's current plans and forecasts. Jacobs did not replicate or develop an independent Fiscal Impact Analysis Model (FIAM), but peer -reviewed DPFG's alternative fiscal impact model and tested significant and sensitive variables. A record of our verification of sources and assumptions is provided in Appendix A. JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_051220J (002) Packet Pg. 125 9.A.9 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT In preparing this peer review Jacobs relied, in whole or in part, on data and information provided by the County and third parties, which has not been independently verified by Jacobs and which Jacobs has assumed to be accurate, complete, reliable, and current. Therefore, while Jacobs has utilized its best efforts in preparing the peer review and providing comments and recommendations to the County, Jacobs does not warrant or guarantee the conclusions set forth herein or in the DPFG Report or its fiscal impact model, which are dependent and/or based upon data, information, or statements supplied by the County or third parties. Qualifications and Consultant Team Jacobs is one of the largest and most diverse providers of technical, professional and construction services, including all aspects of architecture, engineering and construction, operations and maintenance, as well as specialty and strategic consulting. Our 55,000+ employees in 400+ locations around the world serve a broad range of companies and organizations, including industrial, commercial, and government clients across multiple markets and geographies. Jacobs' Business and Finance consulting group provides planning and financial consulting services for a range of public sector clients around the globe. Guided by strategic thinking and an interactive process, we help clients achieve their goals and objectives and prepare for future change. Our experience is comprehensive and diverse, with involvement in various aspects of planning — from the conceptual stages, to the technical, operational and financial elements. We rely on a relationship -based approach and value strong partnerships within the team. Relevant fiscal impact analysis work for key municipal and local government clients has included: r • Collier County, Florida — Peer Reviews of Fiscal Neutrality Analyses prepared for several proposed LO new developments in the County. Analysis involved independent review of analyses prepared by another consultant of the projected impacts of each of the proposed developments on the County, o School District, and Fire and Rescue Districts costs and revenues at the horizon year or buildout of 0 the proposed developments. C Palm Beach County, Florida — Comprehensive planning focused on the economics and land use elements of the County's comprehensive plan. The project required analysis of trends in population, employment, and land use patterns, to project land use needs by type of use for the next 25 years. The fiscal impact analysis required modeling county government revenues and expenditures to provide projections of the effect different economic growth scenarios would have on the County's budget. Jacobs also evaluated a proposed traffic performance standard to determine the impact the proposed standard would have on the County's economy. City of Phoenix, Arizona — Impact fees peer review for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements and development impact fee calculations following passage of Senate Bill 1525 (SB 1525) amending the impact fee section of the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS §9-463.05), which tightened the standards for demonstrating compliance with the State's impact fee law. • Broward County, Florida — Peer reviewer for the preparation of a fiscal impact analysis related to the construction of a new Florida Power and Light (FPL) Sunrise Energy Center. • Various Municipal and Local Government Clients — Providing peer review and preparation of fiscal impact analyses related to economic development options, impact fee studies, master planning, and infrastructure project development for utilities and general government services. JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_08 Packet Pg. 126 9.A.9 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SPA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT The Jacobs consultants responsible for this peer review are: • Bill Gramer, PE — Client Liaison • Dave Green — Senior Economist and Project Manager • Dennis Jackson, PE — QA/QC Reviewer • Darren Betts, MBA — Financial Analyst • Bethel Gashaw —Strategic Consulting Intern Legal Basis Collier County's Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) program "was established under the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Its objective is the creation of an incentive - based land use overlay system based on the principles of rural land stewardship found in Florida Statutes, Section 163.3177(11), including environmental preservation, agricultural preservation and smart growth development. Through the RLSA program, Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) can be approved for preservation a purposes, creating credits to entitle Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs), typically towns, villages, hamlets and compact rural developments (CRDs). The credit system is designed to incentivize o preservation of the most important environmental lands, including large, connected wetland systems N and significant habitat for listed species, by awarding higher credit values for high value preservation LO areas."1 0 co Pursuant to the GMP RLSA, Policy 4.18 states "the SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally N neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year [emphasis added] based on a cost/benefit fiscal o impact analysis model acceptable to or as may be adopted by the County. The Board of County o Commissioners (BCC) may grant exceptions to this policy to accommodate affordable -workforce N housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community 0 Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the analysis shall of r consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, o irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards." Further, the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), Section 4.08.07 defines the requirements for SRA Designation, which "is intended to encourage and facilitate uses that enable economic prosperity and diversification of the economic base of the RLSA District....]. One of several preconditions for the SRA designation is an economic assessment, per Section 4.08.07 L. of the LDC, as follows: SRA Economic Assessment. An Economic Assessment meeting the requirements of this Section shall be prepared and submitted as part of the SRA Designation Application Package. At a minimum, the analysis shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire, and schools. Development phasing and 1 https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/your-government/divisions-a-e/comprehensive-planning/rural-land-stewardship-area-rlsa-overlay-program JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_051220J (002) Packet Pg. 127 9.A.9 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT funding mechanisms shall address any adverse impacts to adopted minimum levels of service pursuant to Chapter 6 of the LDC. Demonstration of Fiscal Neutrality. Each SRA must demonstrate that its development, as a whole, [emphasis added] will be fiscally neutral or positive to the Collier County tax base. This demonstration will be made for each unit of government responsible for the services listed above, using one of the following methodologies: Collier County Fiscal Impact Model. The fiscal impact model officially adopted and maintained by Collier County. Alternative Fiscal Impact Model. If Collier County has not adopted a fiscal impact model as indicated above, the applicant may develop an alternative fiscal impact model using a methodology approved by Collier County. The BCC may grant exceptions to this policy of fiscal neutrality to accommodate affordable or workforce housing. DPFG was retained to prepare an economic assessment for Longwater Village SRA (Longwater) to demonstrate fiscal neutrality using an Alternative Fiscal Impact Model, as defined by the LDC Section 4.08.07 L.1.b. Although the fiscal impact requirements are specified in the LDC, there remains a considerable amount of flexibility in both the interpretation and application of the law. DPFG is required to measure fiscal neutrality at the project's horizon year or buildout. The timing of when buildout is expected to occur is not identified in the DPFG report. The neutrality assessment is simply evaluated for whenever that is achieved. The overall assessment is underpinned by this io fundamental assumption, and DPFG's analysis is consistent with this assumption throughout the r assessment. LO 0 W It is important to recognize that fiscal impact analysis is not a cash flow analysis, and therefore does not include a year -by -year examination of the County's sources and uses of funds over the N 0 development period. New development may or may not achieve fiscal neutrality in the early stages of new development. The County must make initial investments to accommodate growth — prior to a i compensatory public revenue stream from a new development to fund the necessary infrastructure c5 and services. This lag effect is inherent in any new development plan, but its annualized impacts are o0 beyond the scope of this peer review and are beyond the County's requirements for fiscal neutrality. Ql There are also inherent limitations of fiscal impact modeling. While we determined that DPFG's analysis largely fulfills the fiscal impact analysis requirement, the following caveats and shortcomings are noted: Fiscal impact modeling is static and not dynamic. It is a snapshot in time, and therefore known variables (e.g., the costs of construction, the state of the US economy, the pace and mix of the development plan, etc.) are assumed constant. As such, substantial changes to these variables could render the analysis obsolete. The cost of future financing may not be included in the analysis.2 This factor can add substantially to the overall costs of infrastructure development and thereby could negatively affect any findings of positive or neutral fiscal impacts should financing be employed by the County, the Fire Rescue District, or School District. The County or Districts may employ various funding and financing mechanisms to construct such facilities, which are unknown at this time. 2 We note that the cost of financing is included in the County's impact fees for schools and correctional facilities. JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_08 Packet Pg. 128 9.A.9 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SPA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Fiscal impact analysis assumes an average and/or marginal cost basis. Compensatory revenues whether in the form of impact fees or ad valorem, sales, or other taxes may over -recover (subject to economies of scale) or under -recover (subject to dis-economies of scale) actual costs for any given development. While fiscal impact analysis is intended to measure project -specific revenue and cost drivers, certain obligations are subject to the analyst's discretion. The County recognizes and has acknowledged that there is a possibility that the Longwater Village development plan will change, which introduces factors beyond the County's control, and beyond the constraints of fiscal impact analysis, generally. DPFG's methodology and assumptions are described in detail in the following sections. Methodology N 0 CN DPFG's approach to "the fiscal impact analysis of Longwater Village uses a marginal/average cost hybrid a methodology to determine the project's impact on capital and operating costs,"3 which is customary for fiscal analyses. A marginal approach is used to estimate ad valorem tax revenues. To estimate certain o marginal costs, DPFG applied the case study approach for the capital analyses of the: a • Sheriff Department a� • Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Department o N • North Collier Fire & Rescue District r LO 0 • School District The case study approach is based on the analyst's determination that other standard approaches have N material limitations, and as such a case study approach is a more appropriate application for the o particular use. o N DPFG's approach also included an analysis of the fiscal impacts to the Unincorporated Area General Fund Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU). 00 0 I Overall, Jacobs agrees with the marginal/average cost hybrid approach taken in this analysis, and the case study approach applied to the referenced departments. C Key Assumptions Jacobs was provided with DPFG's Report and their corresponding fiscal analysis Microsoft Excel model (filename: Longwater SRA EA 2020.05.24 VIEW ONLY.xlsx). DPFG also spent a significant amount of time answering Jacobs' questions, providing source documentation, and facilitating our understanding of their methodology and assumptions. Inflation All costs (whether historical or future) were adjusted to reflect a hybrid year 2019/2020 dollars. Inflation is typically excluded from fiscal neutrality analysis (constant dollar approach), which enables 3 DPFG Report, page 7 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_051220J (002) Packet Pg. 129 9.A.9 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT comparisons across years and across projects. At the time that the initial version of the economic assessment report was prepared, the County's FY 2020 budget was not available, thus the County's FY 2019 budget was used for the analysis. However, the Collier County Schools and North Collier Fire and Rescue District budgets for FY 2020 were available, and were used for the analysis. U) a) am Jacobs finds this use of Collier County's FY 2019 budget and FY 2020 budget for the Collier County 5 Schools and North Collier Fire and Rescue District to be reasonable given the information that was > L available at the time the initial report was prepared. Impact Fees CID Impact fee calculations utilized the County's Residential Impact Fee Schedule, effective February 8, 2018 � and Commercial Impact Fee Schedule, effective July 24, 2017. Impact fee updates are currently M underway for Transportation, Correctional Facilities, Parks and Recreation, and Schools."4 CID 0 Taxable Real Estate Values r To estimate potential tax revenues, DPFG based taxable values for residential (per unit) and non- C14 0 residential (per sq. ft.) land uses. Taxable values for residential units were applied as provided by the � Applicant. Eligible homestead exemptions were applied based on County averages. Taxable values for a non-residential uses were based on R.S. Means construction cost data and/or comparable properties c from the County appraiser's database. Land and Improvement Conversion Factor To calculate the market value per square foot for retail development, the applicable 2019 square foot o costs from R.S. Means were multiplied by a construction cost index of 84% to arrive at adjusted square N foot costs, which was then divided by a land and improvement conversion factor of 85%. Unlike � residential real estate, there is no rule -of -thumb for commercial properties. DPFG indicates this percentage has been applied in other economic assessment models they have prepared. Annual Absorption by Use o Not applicable. N Millage Rates T_ DPFG utilized current fiscal year (2019) millage (mil) rates as follows to determine annual ad valorem ao of (property) tax revenues for the forecast period for the County, MSTD, and Water Pollution Control. L • 3.5645 County General Fund 0 3 m • 0.8069 MSTD General Fund m • 0.0293 Water Pollution Control 6_, FY 2020 millage rates for Collier County Schools and the North Collier Fire and Rescue District were used m a Lu to determine annual ad valorem (property) tax revenues for the forecast period for the School District and Fire and Rescue District. • 5.083 Collier County Schools (operating and capital) • 3.750 North Collier Fire and Rescue District 4 DPFG Email RE: Collier Lakes Village EA — Model, dated February 5, 2019. JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_08 Packet Pg. 130 9.A.9 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SPA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Millage rates were held constant (i.e., flat). Per capita estimates for various state and other local revenues sources are also based on the County's 2019 General Fund budget. Direct Full Time Equivalent Jobs (FTEs) DPFG applied a 0.8897602 FTE Conversion Factor to Collier Countywide employment to derive countywide FTEs, based on its 2017 IMPLAN conversion assumptions. The purpose of this calculation is to convert total jobs to FTEs. Per DPFG Principal Lucy Gallo, a difference, if any, using 2019 source data would be immaterial. DPFG provided the industry detail in the Excel file "Collier County IMPLAN Conversion.xls" to support this assumption. Employment generation for commercial space factors apply per square foot of employment guidelines, .71 realizing that actual employment density may vary by specific project details. (6 0 • Retail: 400 square feet per employee o 0 0 The Longwater employment coefficient was based on the square foot per employee assumptions in the r 2016 Collier County EMS Impact Fee study, which was the most recent study available when the DPFG o Report was prepared. N J d Home -based employment was not specifically addressed. c 0 Longwater Population Growth Forecasts DPFG used residents per housing unit data published in the Collier Count Emergency Medical Services a p g p Y g Y � Impact Fee Update Study, dated October 10, 2016 to estimate residential seasonal population growth due to Longwater. The population per unit assumptions utilized were: o N • Multi -Family (Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached): 1.26 LO • Single Family Detached < 4,000 Sq Ft: 2.65 m • Single Family Detached > 4,000 Sq Ft: 2.97 c 0 Vacancy Rates o N Vacancy rates for determining occupied housing and commercial space assume a stabilized occupancy, c5 consistent with best practices.5 0 Overall, Jacobs agrees with DPFG's key assumptions described above. Structure of Funds For the purposes of fiscal impact analysis, three taxing authorities were evaluated: Collier County (through its General Fund), the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and the Collier County School District ("School District"). Each has separate taxing authority and the Collier County School Board levies its own taxes and receives part of its funding from the State of Florida. The DPFG Report tests the project's fiscal neutrality for County operating impacts, County capital impacts, Fire operating impacts, Fire capital impacts, Schools operating impacts, and Schools capital impacts. 5 Planners Estimating Guide: Projecting Land Use and Facility Needs by Arthur C. Nelson, FAICP, Planners Press, American Planning Association, 2004 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_051220J (002) Packet Pg. 131 9.A.9 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT General Fund The General Fund pays for those services benefiting residents and visitors of Collier County. These services include maintenance and operation of the various regional recreational facilities; governmental facilities; social services; animal services; libraries; transportation system and general administrative services. The largest source of revenue for the General Fund is Ad Valorem — or property tax revenue. Municipal Service Taxing Units exist in various locations and are intended to provide extra -ordinary services within a specific district funded by a separate ad valorem property tax. The water pollution control millage rate is also collected county -wide. North Collier Fire & Rescue District "Like all independent fire districts, most of the North Collier District's revenue is generated by property taxes. We do not charge a fee for providing fire protection services. Each year, the Collier County Property Appraiser establishes the taxable value for property located within the District. The Board of Fire Commissioners establishes the millage (or taxing) rate which, according to the District's Enabling Act, can be no higher than 1 mil, or $1.00 for every $1,000 of taxable value in the North Naples Service Delivery Area or no higher than 3.75, or $3.75 for every $1,000 of taxable value in the Big Corkscrew Island Service Delivery Area. As fire and rescue are labor intensive services, the majority of the District's expenses are personnel related. In order to sufficiently protect and serve the District's residents and the billions of dollars of property located within the District, it must maintain highly trained professional firefighters and paramedics and the necessary equipment to handle a myriad of emergency situations.116 Collier County School District School districts in Florida utilize a State mandated accounting method which separates revenues and 0 N expenses into specific funds. Each fund is earmarked for a specified purpose or activity and carries LO specific requirements, restrictions, or limitations. Accordingly, the School District maintains and reports m the following segregated major funds: general, debt service, capital projects, special revenue, and internal service. The General Fund covers the day to day operations of the School District and accounts c for the majority of operational expenses that are incurred. The Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) provides equalized per student funding for school districts. This concept guarantees that the N availability of educational programs and services will be substantially equal for all students, regardless of geography and/or local economic factors. Funding for the FEFP includes required local effort property taxes that districts must levy, state taxes, and some local discretionary tax mills recommended by the State. For FY20, federal sources provided 8.45% of the School District's total revenue, state sources provided 14.36%, and local sources provided 77.18% of the School District's total revenue.? Enterprise Funds Collier County maintains two different types of proprietary funds: enterprise and internal service. Enterprise funds report, with more detail, the same functions presented as business -type activities in the government -wide financial statements for water and sewer, solid waste disposal, emergency medical services, transit, and the airport authority. The Collier County Water and Sewer District Fund, the Solid Waste Disposal Fund, and the Emergency Medical Services Fund are tracked individually as 6 https://www.northcollierfire.com/finance/ 7 https://www.collierschools.com/cros/lib/FLO1903251/Centricity/domain/86/budget%20dept%20main%20page/Budget%205ummarV%2OPropo sed%20FY20.pdf JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_08 Packet Pg. 132 9.A.9 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SPA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT major funds. The County also maintains two other (non -major) enterprise funds: Airport Authority Fund and the Collier Area Transit Fund. "Table 8 and Appendix Table 16 of the DPFG Longwater Village SRA Economic Assessment reflect the impact of the annual general fund contributions to Fund 426 CAT Mass Transit and Fund 427 Transportation Disadvantaged, which are enterprise funds. There are no other impacts to consider with respect to transit enterprise funds in the Economic Assessment."8 Internal service funds are primarily maintained to allocate and accumulate costs internally for Collier County. The County uses internal service funds to account for health insurance, workers compensation insurance, property and casualty insurance, fleet operations, and information technology. Fiscal impacts on County enterprise funds were excluded from DPFG's analysis. Enterprise funds are inherently fiscally neutral because they are created for a specific purpose and intended to be self- supporting through user rates and fees. Jacobs finds DPFG's exclusion of enterprise funds to be an acceptable and reasonable approach. Fiscal Impacts o Recall that the fiscal impact analysis, at a minimum, "shall consider the following public facilities and a services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire, and schools," each of which is reviewed in the following sections. This peer review is presented in order of services listed in the LDC. i° r LO O County Operating Impacts Operating impacts are reflected in DPFG's analyses of both the General Fund and MSTU General Fund groupings. These analyses cover transportation, parks, law enforcement, EMS, correctional facilities, government buildings, and libraries. Based on the analysis, at buildout, Longwater's annual total general fund operating expenditures are projected at approximately $3,062,000 against revenues of approximately $3,987,000, resulting in a fiscal surplus of $925,000. Longwater's annual total MSTU operating expenditures are projected at approximately $490,000 against revenues of approximately $734,000, resulting in a fiscal surplus of $244,000. Transportation (Roads) Operating Impacts Transportation Services is a special revenue fund within the County's budget. This fund was established for the maintenance of roads and bridges countywide. The principal funding source for Transportation Services is a subsidy from the General Fund (for fiscal year 2019 the transfer from the General Fund amounted to $20.2 million out of Transportation Services' total funding of $24.3 million). Capital Impacts The County imposes road impact fees on new development to fund the construction of growth -related improvements. Consistent with impact fee statutory requirements, these fees place a fair share of the 8 DPFG Email Rivergrass Peer Review Response, dated August 6, 2019. JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_051220J (002) Packet Pg. 133 9.A.9 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT cost burden on new development for transportation -related expansions and improvements which are necessitated by such development. DPFG treats road impact from a perspective that the Developer will pay road impact fees according to the number of units (residential) or square footage (non-residential) in the development plan and the corresponding fee schedule established by the County. Using DPFG's approach, Longwater Village will generate approximately $17.7 million in Road Impact Fee revenues to the County, based on the development parameters and current road impact fee rate table. In accordance with the Collier County Transportation Planning Development Guidebook, mitigation improvements are considered acceptable if capacity is added that restores or improves the delay and volume/capacity ratio to the levels provided in the base scenario. DPFG reports that "the project share of cost has been based on the proportion of the project peak hour traffic contributed to the improvement location relative to the total new peak hour 2030 traffic volumes". The developer will pay for the intersection improvements via an additional cash contribution of $622,000. In addition, the developer will improve 18th Ave NE from the project entrance to Desoto Blvd at an estimated cost of $240,000. This later improvement is considered an on -site project improvement, and thus not included in the fiscal neutrality calculation. Jacobs finds DPFG's determination of fiscal neutrality for transportation (road) impacts to be reasonable. Potable Water and Wastewater The Longwater Village Developer Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) confirms that Collier County r LO Water -Sewer District (CCWSD) will supply both potable water and sewer service to Longwater. As the CCWSD is an enterprise fund, the costs to serve the Longwater development will be recovered per the terms of the MOU between Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC, and the Big c Cypress Stewardship District. It should be noted that there may be nuances in the fiscal neutrality determination for water and wastewater. For example, if existing pipe sizes are inadequate and need to be replaced, the extent of such rework could render the development fiscally deficient. However, Jacobs' review is not intended to analyze to that level of detail. Jacobs finds DPFG's determination of fiscal neutrality for potable water and wastewater public facilities and services to be reasonable. Irrigation Water The Longwater Village project will result in a conversion of approximately 1,000 acres from agricultural land into a residential development. The project will obtain a water use permit from the SFWMD, to allow onsite surface and ground water withdrawals. Because the "proposed change in land use is anticipated to result in a significant net reduction of irrigation water usage at the site,"10 and the developer aims to secure 100 percent of the project's irrigation demands from reclaimed water, Collier 9 DPFG Report, page 16 10 DPFG Report, Page 28 10 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_08 Packet Pg. 134 9.A.9 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SPA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT County is not expected to bear any responsibility for the cost associated with the Longwater Village irrigation system. Jacobs finds DPFG's determination of irrigation water as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. Stormwater Management "The project's stormwater management system has received a Conceptual Approval permit from the SFWMD (#11-03949-P). The criteria used in the preparation of this plan was based on the predevelopment agricultural stormwater management system currently in place. Stormwater discharges from the lands in question are equal or less pre versus post on both a peak rate and total volume perspective. As such, the discharges mimic that of undeveloped lands. Therefore, in the event of a change to the agreement between Collier County and the Big Cypress Basin concerning the lands to the south of 1-75, no impact on any downstream system above and beyond that of undeveloped land would be realized and thus there is no impact on County stormwater facilities caused by the development of this property above and beyond undeveloped land. Collier County currently bears no responsibility for or cost associated with the Longwater Village water management system; therefore the fiscal impact to Collier County is neutral."" The developer of Longwater will be responsible for all costs associated with the design, permitting, construction, and operation of the proposed stormwater improvements required to serve the D- Longwater development. Because the flowways within this project are natural wetland systems, the pre - development capacity will be the same as the post -development capacity. Considering that water quality treatment within the SRA is primarily accomplished using wet -detention (lakes) located within io the SRA and overlapping into the WRA areas, the draft DCA anticipates that discharges from the SRA o water management system to WRA areas will occur after water quality volumes have been achieved. The draft DCA reports that all discharges to the WRA from development will only occur after water quality volumes have been provided in the development area. Areas to be excavated of the WRA are c low quality exotic impact areas, and the only fill areas will be berms associated with the surface water management system. Jacobs finds DPFG's determination of fiscal neutrality for storm water management public facilities and services to be reasonable. Solid Waste Solid waste capital and operational costs are accounted for in the County's Solid Waste Fund, a self- supporting enterprise fund. Enterprise funds are inherently fiscally neutral because they are created for a specific purpose and intended to be self-supporting through user rates and fees. Again, enterprise funds were excluded from DPFG's analysis. Jacobs finds DPFG's determination of fiscal neutrality for solid waste facilities and services to be reasonable. 11 DPFG Report, Page 27 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_051220J (002) Packet Pg. 135 9.A.9 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Parks Per the County's 2018 AUIR, the current level of service (LOS) for all county -owned and maintained community and regional parks is a combined 3.22 acres per 1,000 residents. The County's LOS (per 1,000 residents) by type is compared to DPFG's assumptions, as follows: • Community parks: achieved 1.47 acres • Community Parks: adopted 1.20 acres • Regional Parks: achieved 1.68 acres • Regional Parks: adjusted achieved 1.82 acres • Regional Parks: adopted 2.70 acres It is noted that the DPFG value for Regional Parks achieved of 1.68 acres is based on application of 2019 Peak Seasonal Population to the 2015 adjusted achieved level of service. This compares to an achieved value of 1.82 acres that would be calculated assuming the 2015 Peak Seasonal Population to the 2015 adjusted achieved level of service. Adjusting the achieved level of service for regional parks to reflect 2015 Peak Seasonal Population affects the required number of acres for Regional Parks to 9.78 acres. Capital Impacts The County imposes separate impact fees for community and regional parks. Impact fee revenues of community parks were calculated to be $1,903,000 (plus other capital revenues of $31,000 for a total of $1,934,000) and regional parks were $5,400,000 (plus other capital revenues of $283,000 for a total of $5,683,000). r The cost of estimated acreage ($282,573 per acre) required to achieve the County LOS for community o parks forms the basis for capital impacts, which DPFG estimated at $1,822,000, leading to an estimated tO surplus of $112,000 for community parks. The cost of estimated acreage ($590,288 per acre) required to achieve the County LOS for regional parks forms the basis for capital impacts. While the adopted level of service for regional parks is 2.70 acres per 1,000 peak population, the adjusted achieved LOS of 1.82 acres was recommended by the County. With the recommended LOS and cost per acre, results in an estimated capital cost for regional parks of $5,772,000. The cost of the regional parks is in excess of the estimated impact fee and other capital revenues of $5,683,000 of the regional parks by $89,000. While there is a projected deficit for the regional parks, the forecast surplus for community parks offsets this, and results in the total regional and community parks capital impact to be a slightly positive $23,000. DPFG's assumption that regional park acreage costs will reflect average costs is a conservative assumption that increases the cost of inland acreage. If inland acreage costs less, on average, than the blended County average, then capital fiscal surplus for parks would be higher than DPFG's calculations. Based on the adjustment to the achieved LOS discussed above, Jacobs finds that parks will be fiscally neutral, as opposed to DPFG-s determination of parks as fiscally positive. Law Enforcement (Sheriff Department) Per the County's 2018 AUIR, the County's current achieved LOS for law enforcement is 1.77 officers per 1,000 peak population, and the adopted LOS is 1.84. The 2019 AUIR was adopted on November 12, 2019 12 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_08 Packet Pg. 136 9.A.9 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SPA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT and was not available during the preparation of the Longwater Village Economic Assessment. Jacobs reviewed the 2019 AUIR and confirmed that the LOS was unchanged. Capital Impacts The capital needs for law enforcement were established using the case study approach. The law enforcement impact fee is intended to recover the cost of capital construction and expansion of law enforcement related facilities and assets. DPFG estimated impact fee revenue to be $1,268,000 and other capital revenues at $230,000. Based on discussions between DPFG and law enforcement officials, law enforcement officials indicated that there is no need for a physical station is needed to service Longwater, at this time, but may be needed in the future. The County currently has a deficiency between the adopted versus achieved LOS for law enforcement infrastructure. This deficiency is not due to the proposed Longwater Development and cannot be resolved by this development. Capital costs are included to equip the required number of officers, amounting to a total of $1,008,000 The estimated revenues exceed the forecasted direct capital costs and result in a fiscal surplus in the amount of $490,000. This surplus will likely be expended on indirect capital costs and future law enforcement infrastructure needs. Therefore, the impact is neutral. Jacobs finds DPFG's determination of law enforcement as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. Emergency Medical Services o Capital Impacts N r The capital needs for EMS were established using the case study approach. DPFG projects capital o revenues of $310,000. According to EMS management, Longwater will be served by a new EMS facility tO planned for the corner of Desoto Blvd/Golden Gate Blvd East scheduled to open in 2022. The cost of the N new facility amounted to a total of $1,876,057, which was obtained from the 2019 AUIR. Longwater's c allocated share of the new facility is $181,000, which is less than the capital revenues the project will o generate. The remainder will likely be applied to the related capital costs. Therefore, the impact is `" N neutral. The cost of the new facility will be partially funded by the County's One -Cent Infrastructure surtax which was authorized in 2018.12 Jacobs finds DPFG's determination of emergency medical services as fiscally neutral to be reasonable Fire & Rescue Operating Impacts Because the current operating millage of the Big Corkscrew Island SDA is geared to much lower density development, Longwater is currently projected to generate significant operating surpluses. The current millage rate and the projected tax base of Longwater results in annual ad valorem revenues of $3,020,000. The annual operating expenses to serve Longwater's population, based on an average of the fire district's existing stations and population served, are $1,042,000. Thus, there is a projected operating fiscal surplus. 12 DPFG Report, page 19. JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_051220J (002) Packet Pg. 137 9.A.9 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Capital Impacts The capital needs for fire & rescue were established using the case study approach. Longwater will generate total capital revenues of $1,154,000 for the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, with matching levels of capital costs. Jacobs finds DPFG-s determination of fire & rescue as fiscally positive to be reasonable. Schools The analysis uses student generation rates (SGRs) as follows: • Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached: 0.11 • Single Family Detached: 0.34 The blended rate over these residential unit types is 0.225, which is comparable to similar blended or weighted SGRs used for other recent Florida developments. Operating Impacts Based on projections of school enrollment by type, as well as the operating revenue and cost impacts, the calculations estimating the fiscal impacts on the County School District indicate that Longwater is fiscally neutral. DPFG estimates ad valorem local millage revenues at buildout of $3,005,000, with matching levels of operating expenditures. Capital Impacts The capital needs for schools were established using the case study approach. The analysis uses the r LO current impact fee structure defined in the Collier County School Impact Fee Update Study, Final Report, dated July 23, 2015 to determine the appropriate application of the fees, and the revenues derived from fees. The fees are being phased -in in stages per Section 74-307 of the school impact fee ordinance. N There are no impact fees levied on non-residential units, as these units do not contribute students to 0 the school system. DPFG uses adopted residential impact fees as of February 8, 2018 as follows: o • Multi -Family and Single Family Attached: $2,844.19 • Single Family Detached: $8,789.54 Revenues to pay for growth related capital expenditures are derived not only from impact fees on residential -only units, but also a capital outlay millage of 1.50 mills on both residential and non- residential units. As a result, the mix of residential and non-residential development will have an impact on the determination of fiscal neutrality. In this case, the revenue from the Longwater development program results in a fiscal capital surplus. "According to the School District, at this time there is existing or planned capacity within the next five years at the elementary, middle and high school levels for each village individually. However, the proposed Bellmar and Longwater Villages and the approved Rivergrass Village, collectively, result in the School District exceeding its estimated capacity. Therefore, as the School District and the developer have discussed and been working towards having a Developer Contribution Agreement, whereby the developer would convey real property for future school sites (sufficient to accommodate a high school, middle school and an elementary school) in exchange for educational impact fee credits has been requested from the applicant. 1113 13 DPFG Report, page 31 14 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_08 Packet Pg. 138 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE BRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Capital School impact Improvement revenue/Expense Fee Revenue Tax* Total 5chaa, Capital revenues: School Impact Fee Revenue School Distri{t Capital Tax Revenue Total School Capital Revenues $16,331,000 $ 16,331,000 25,742,000 25,742,000 $16,331SM M,742fiM $ 42,073)DOD DirectSchool Capital Expenditures: New Schools $ 26,181,000 0 J New School Buses K-12 693,000 t Di rect School Capital Expenditures. $ 26,874)DOO 00 C)ther5chool Capital Expenditures: CD School Bus Replacemerrt Cast .$ 693,000 Dther Direct School and/or Systemwide Capital Expenditures 14.506,000 04 Total School Capital Expenditures $ L2.073,000 CD J a * Consistent with 25-Year Credit Period in COPS School Impact Fee Study- c 0 Cost per a- Fadldy Cast Students Student Total c School Facility Cast: o Elementary 287 $ 36,058 $ 10,365,000 N Middle 139 42,266 5,892,000 High 205 A8.381 9,924,000 Cost of New School FaciIiti=s 632 $ L1.e-26 $ 26.181.000 These estimates are conservative compared to the November 2019 F.S. 1013.64(b) statutory cost caps N c of Elementary $23,284, Middle $25,144, and High $32,661 per student station. 14 c N Jacobs finds DPFG's determination of schools as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. N Additional Public Services The following additional public services were evaluated by DPFG for fiscal neutrality: correctional facilities, government buildings, and libraries. Jacobs categorizes these service types as additional services because they are not required by the minimum requirements defined in the Collier County LDC. While these additional public services are not required elements of the economic assessment, DPFG did include them in their analysis. Correctional Facilities Capital Impacts The correctional facilities impact fee is intended to recover the cost of capital construction for jail facilities (both land and building) and related equipment. Impact fees are charged based on units for residential and square footage for non-residential. The County's current LOS was used to calculate the correctional facilities capital costs. DPFG applied the impact fee study coefficients for population and 14 DPFG Report, page 31. JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_051220J (002) Packet Pg. 139 9.A.9 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT employment to calculate functional population. This methodology considers demand from commercial land uses. Combined revenues from impact fees and other capital revenues amount to $1,148,000, with comparable capital outlays, resulting in a finding of fiscal neutrality. Government Buildings Capital Impacts The government buildings impact fee is intended to recover the cost of remaining non -enterprise County land, buildings, information technology assets, and vehicles. The impact fees are charged based on units for residential and square footage for non-residential. The County's current LOS was used to calculate the government buildings capital costs. DPFG applied the impact fee study coefficients for population and employment to calculate functional population. This methodology considers demand from commercial land uses. Based on the analysis, there is an estimated fiscal neutrality. DPFG estimates capital revenues of $2,060,000, with matching levels of indirect capital costs. Libraries Capital Impacts The libraries impact fee is intended to recover the cost of land, buildings, furnishings, and collection materials to serve the entire County. The impact fees are charged based on units for residential and square footage for non-residential. The County's adopted LOS, per the 2018 AUIR, was used to calculate the libraries capital costs. Jacobs reviewed the 2019 AUIR and confirmed that the LOS was unchanged. Based on the analysis, there is an estimated fiscal surplus of approximately $162,000. This surplus will be used to fund other library capital needs. Jacobs finds DPFG's determination of additional public services as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. r LO 0 co Conclusions and Recommendations N Through this independent analysis and peer review, Jacobs confirms the reasonableness of DPFG's analysis and in the project's fiscal neutrality, as defined. It is our opinion that the Applicant fulfilled the intent of the fiscal neutrality requirement and that the proposed Longwater development is fiscally neutral, as defined, for Longwater SRA for Collier County, the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and the Collier County School District. It is important to recognize that fiscal neutrality relies on accurate projections — often 20 years or more into the future. A significant deviation from the development plan will require an adjustment or new analysis to capture changes to this fiscal neutrality determination, which may involve, for example, adjusting the mix of uses or other mechanisms that will impact the future revenue and expense streams. In addition, fiscal impact analysis is only one step in the development program and the County - Developer relationship framework. This fiscal impact analysis will be supplemented and augmented by several MOUs and DCAs and/or interlocal agreements. Careful negotiation, execution, and administration of MOUs, DCAs and/or interlocal agreements is required to ensure that the County continues to achieve its fiscal neutrality objectives. Based upon DPFG's analysis and this peer review of that analysis, Jacobs concurs that Longwater Village SRA qualifies as fiscally neutral, as defined, with respect to County capital and operating impacts, subject to the approval of the companion Developer Contribution Agreement that is being negotiated between the Collier County School District and the Developer. The DPFG analysis, which in Jacobs' opinion is professionally prepared and thorough in its treatment of revenues and expenses, is accurate in its 16 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_08 Packet Pg. 140 9.A.9 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SPA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT determination that the Longwater Village development would meet the County's requirements for fiscal neutrality. r LO O t0 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_051220J (002) Packet Pg. 141 9.A.9 APPENDIX A Sources and Assumptions 0 IM c� L d 3 a� c 0 J CO Cl) O T O O O O T N O N J a c 0 a� a a� c 0 N a JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4 Packet Pg. 142 9.A.9 Collier county impact fee schedule (residential) Collier county impact fee schedule (commercial) Comm parks impact fees Regional parks impact fees Road impact fees EMS impact fees Govt blgds impact fees Library impact fees Law enforcement impact fees Jail impact fees Water impact fees Wastewater impact fees Collier county millage rates 2019 Collier County Permanent Population 2019 Collier County Peak Tourist Population FTE Conversion Factor Countywide Employment State Revenue Sharing Ad Valorem Taxes Trans to 325 Stormwater Capital Fund Average Taxable Value per unit Total Taxable Value General Fund Grouping Revenues and Sources Net Buildings and Land Value per Sq. Ft Total Equipment Cost Law enforcement level of service Adopted LOS Correctional facility impact fee LOS Correctional facility net asset cost Residents per housing unit Residential functional population coefficient Functional resident coefficient Proportionate allocation Net Impact Fee per Functional Resident (per Tindale Oliver) Adopted LOS Library Buildings Available Square Footage Total Owned Building and Land Value per SF Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident Regional Park Adopted LOS Community Park Adopted LOS Total Land & Facility cost per acre Functional Population Coefficient Total Land Value LOS (Square Feet per Functional Resident) Big Corkscrew Island SDA Millage Rate Fire Impact Fee Coefficients Total Facility cost per student based on adopted LOS Standard Student generation rates FY 2020 Millage Rates FY 2020 School FTE Enrollment Peak Seasonal Population (using unincorporated for community parks) Achieved LOS Share of Community Park Facilities Peak Seasonal Population (using countywide for regional parks) Regional Park Acres (achieved LOS) Collier Country Residential Impact Fees 2020 Collier County Commercial Impact Fees 2020 Impact fee schedule Impact fee schedule Impact fee schedule Impact fee schedule Impact fee schedule Impact fee schedule Impact fee schedule Impact fee schedule Impact fee schedule Impact fee schedule Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Adopted Budget Collier County 2018 AUIR Collier County CVB Profile- March 2019 I M PLAN Collier County 2016 EMS Impact fee update (table B-6) Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Adopted Budget Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Adopted Budget Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Adopted Budget Calculation Calculation Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Adopted Budget Law Enforcement Impact fee study Law Enforcement Impact fee study Collier County 2018 AUIR Collier County 2018 AUIR Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study EMS impact fee study Calculation Calculation Collier County 2018 AUIR Impact Fee Schedule Impact Fee Schedule Comm impact fee rev Regional parks impact fee rev Road Impact fee rev EMS Impact fee rev Govt blgs Impact fee rev Library impact fee rev Law Enforce Impact fee Rev Jail impact fee rev Water Impact fees Wastewater Impact Fees County Inputs County inputs County inputs County inputs County Inputs General Fund Rev Demand Units General Fund Rev Demand Units MSTU Exp Demand Units Residential Just+Taxable Value Residential Just+Taxable Value General Fund Grouping Matrix LAW Impact Cost per Res LAW inventory Prop Share Law Enforce Capital Prop Share CIF capital CF Impact cost per Res CIF Asset inventory EMS Pop & Employ EMS Pop & Employ EMS Funct Res Non-Resid Revised Prop Share EMS Capital EMS impact fee study EMS Impact Fee Schedule Library Impact fee study LIB Current LOS Collier County 2018 AUIR LIB Current LOS Library Impact fee study LIB Impact Cost Per Res Calculation LIB Net Impact Cost Collier County 2018 AUIR Prop Share Region Parks Capital Collier County 2018 AUIR Prop Share Comm Parks Capital Parks Impact Fee Study Parks Impact Per Res Government Buildings Impact study Prop Share Govt Blgs Government Buildings Impact Study Govt Impact Cost per Res Government Buildings Impact study GOV Impact Cost Per Res Resolution 19-022 Fire Operating and Capital Fire Impact Fee Study Fire Impact Fee Rev School Impact Fee Update Study Cost per Station School Impact Fee Update Study School inputs CCPS FY20 Final Budget Book School inputs CCPS FY20 Final Budget Book School inputs Collier County 2018 AUIR Prop Share Comm Parks Capital Collier County 2018 AUIR Prop Share Comm Parks Capital Collier County 2018 AUIR Prop Share Region Parks Capital Collier County 2018 AUIR Prop Share Region Parks Capital Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked IL Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked 1 Checked I Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4 Packet Pg. 143 9.A.10 SIGN POSTING INSTRUCTIONS (CHAPTER 8, COLLIER COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT) A zoning sign(s) must be posted by the petition of the petitioner's agent on the parcel for a minimum of fifteen (15) calendar days in advance of the first public hearing and said sign(s) must be maintained by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent through the Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Below are general guidelines for signs, however these guidelines should not be construed to supersede any requirements of the LDC. For specific sign requirements, please refer to the Administrative Code, Chapter 8 E. The sign(s) must be erected in full view of the public, not more than five (5) feet from the nearest street right-of-way or easement. The sign must be securely affixed by nails, staples, or other means to a wood frame or to a wood panel and then fastened securely to a post, or other structure. The sign may not be affixed to a tree or other foliage. The petitioner or the petitioner's agent must maintain the sign(s) in place, and readable condition until the requested action has been heard and a final decision rendered. If the sign(s) is destroyed, lost, or rendered unreadable, the petition or the petitioner's agent must replace the sign(s). NOTE: AFTER THE SIGN HAS BEEN POSTED, THIS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE SHOULD BE RETURNED NO LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST HEARING DATE TO THE ASSIGNED PLANNER. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY, PERSONALLY APPEARED ROBERT J. MULHERE, FAICP, WHO ON OATH SAYS THAT HE/SHE HAS POSTED PROPERTY NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 10.03.00 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON THE PARCEL COVERED IN PETITION NUMBER PL-20190001836. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT OR AGENT Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, President/CEO NAME (TYPED OR PRINTED) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER Hole Montes, Inc., 950 Encore Way STREET OR P.O. BOX Naples, FL 34110 CITY, STATE ZIP The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this 3rd day of May 2021, by means of -,k physical presence or online notarization, by Robert J. Mulhere, who is personally known to me \ or who has produced as identification and who did/did not take an oath. L s °�,'s STEPHANIEDFIorjda q� l()(A1J( 4^' Notary Public • SCommission # Signature of Notary Public My Comm. ExpireBonded through Nation�P�hCiU1 My Commission Expires: Printed Name of Notary Public (Stamp with serial number) LO 0 W Packet Pg. 144 0 •� �'Z �. ,` Are ' 4 Packet Pg. 145 .w L O M N Vi ' Q C3! W "� 4►y W uj Co M Cl) Q '� C � 4) cc Z Cn ©E C LP t3. ...�c� c..., + N .� CV N 0 . Cc N o m UJ CJ \ L Z W LIJ W-�,' oc N c allow F- X40cc4cj W 0 Cj LL. M W «.. © Ts o �j a; Mai N- C • LO 0 P Packet Pg. 146 9.A.10 I I LU v Q y ca M W Co � o z J r. J o N CC> I J ui =Q a Z J o � J qpmm �- O M �-+ LA. 0 E Co T C W L r � L L. • — Iwo FM Cn Cm tV Ln 0 CD Packet Pg. 147 9.A.11 Col e1r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercountvfl.gov 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Hybrid Virtual Quasi -Judicial Public Hearing Waiver Emergency/Executive Order 2020-04 Hearing of the Collier County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners For Petition Number(s): Longwater Village SRA PL-20190001836 Collier Enterprises Management Inc. Regarding the above subject petition number(s), (Name of Applicant) elects to proceed during the declared emergency with hybrid virtual public hearings of the Collier County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners, and waives the right to contest any procedural irregularity due to the hybrid virtual nature of the public hearing. Name: Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire r r�� Signature*: 1 ❑ Applicant ❑✓ Legal Counsel to Applicant Date: 1-25-2021 * This form must be signed by either the Applicant (if the applicant is a corporate entity, this must be an officer of the corporate entity) or the legal counsel to the Applicant. Packet Pg. 148 9.A.11 COAT County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercountyfl.gov 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Hybrid Virtual Quasi -Judicial Public Hearing Waiver For Petition Number(s): Emergency/Executive Order 2020-04 Hearing of the Collier County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners Longwater Village SRA PL-20190001836 CDC Land Investments, LLC Regarding the above subject petition number(s), & Collier Land Holdings Ltd(Name of Applicant) elects to proceed during the declared emergency with hybrid virtual public hearings of the Collier County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners, and waives the right to contest any procedural irregularity due to the hybrid virtual nature of the public hearing. Name: Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Signature*: El Applicant Applicant ❑✓ Legal Counsel to Applicant Date: 1-22-2021 * This form must be signed by either the Applicant (if the applicant is a corporate entity, this must be an officer of the corporate entity) or the legal counsel to the Applicant. Packet Pg. 149 l (-�l (' 09 9.A.12 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Board of County, Commissioners on May 25, 2021, in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room, Third Floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL, to consider the enactment of a County, Resolution. The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M. The title of the proposed Resolution is as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DESIGNATING= 999.81 ACRES WITHIN THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT AS' A STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA, TO BE KNOWN AS THE LONGWATER VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP$ RECEIVING AREA, WHICH WILL ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A MAXIMUM OF 2,600 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS, OF WHICH A MINIMUM OF 10% WILL BE MULTI -FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, 10% WILL BE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED AND 1.0% WILL BE SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED OR VILLA; AN AGGREGATE MINIMUM OF 65,000 SQUARE FEET AND AN AGGREGATE MAXIMUM OF 80,000 SQUARE FEET'OF NEIGHBORHOOD -SCALE COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE IN THE VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CONTEXT ZONE; A MINIMUM OF 26,000 SQUARE FEET OF CIVIC, GOVERNMENTAL AND INSTITUTIONAL USES; SENIOR HOUSING INCLUDING ADULT LIVING FACILITIES AND CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES AND LIMITED TO 300 UNITS IF LOCATED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL CONTEXT ZONE; AND 18.01 ACRES OF AMENITY CENTER` SITE; ALL SUBJECT TO A MAXIMUM PM PEAK HOUR TRIP CAP; AND APPROVING THE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT FOR LONGWATER VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA AND ESTABLISHING THAT 6697.76 STEWARDSHIP CREDITS ARE BEING UTILIZED BY THE DESIGNATION - OF THE LONGWATER VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED' EAST OF DESOTO BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF OIL WELL ROAD AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF OIL WELL GRADE ROAD AND OIL WELL ROAD, IN SECTIONS 22, 23, 26, 27, 34 AND 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL20190001836] .... ..... ............ .......3. ................a .«.I... .. .. 3 ..,..1.... ... .... _ N (, _. W o -- Oil Well RD Q- E wv' Rf .� _ .... : V ....... .. .. ... .. ..... . .... . ............. . ... .............._.__...._......'....... ..... ......... . . ... _____._-_ .... ..._. . Project Location Golden Gate BLVD E A copy of the proposed Resolution is on file with the Clerk to the Board and is available for inspection. All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. NOTE: All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County manager prior to' presentation of the agenda Rem to be addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to 3 minutes on any item., The selection of any individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. If recognized by' the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or organization may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the Board agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended, to be considered by the Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All materials used in presentations before the Board will become a permanent , part of the record. As part of an ongoing initiative to promote social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic, the public will., have the opportunity to provide public comments remotely, as well as in person, during this proceeding. Individuals who would like to participate remotely, should register any time after the agenda is posted on the: County website which is 6 days before the meeting through the link provided on the front page of the County website at www.colliercountyfl.gov. Individuals who register will receive an email in advance of the public hearing detailing 'how they can participate remotely in this meeting. For additional information about the meeting, please call Geoffrey Willig at 252-8369 or email to Geoffrey.Willic ecolliercount l aov. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the 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 based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding„ you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, locatecbat 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239)) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired arej available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS f COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PENNY TAYLOR, CHAIRMAN 3 CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER By: Ann Jennejohn Deputy Clerk ND-GCI0644361-Ot Packet Pg. 150 RESOLUTION NO.2021 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DESIGNATING 999.81 ACRES WITHIN THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT AS A STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA, TO BE KNOWN AS THE LONGWATER VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA, WHICH WILL ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A MAXIMUM OF 2,600 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS, OF WHICH A MINIMUM OF 10% WILL BE MULTI -FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, 10% WILL BE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED AND 10% WILL BE SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED OR VILLA; AN AGGREGATE MINIMUM OF 65,000 SQUARE FEET AND AN AGGREGATE MAXIMUM OF 80,000 SQUARE FEET OF NEIGHBORHOOD -SCALE COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE IN THE VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CONTEXT ZONE; A MINIMUM OF 26,000 SQUARE FEET OF CIVIC, GOVERNMENTAL AND INSTITUTIONAL USES; SENIOR HOUSING INCLUDING ADULT LIVING FACILITIES AND CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES AND LIMITED TO 300 UNITS IF LOCATED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL CONTEXT ZONE; AND 18.01 ACRES OF AMENITY CENTER SITE; ALL SUBJECT TO A MAXIMUM PM PEAK HOUR TRIP CAP; AND APPROVING THE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT FOR LONGWATER VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA AND ESTABLISHING THAT 6697.76 STEWARDSHIP CREDITS ARE BEING UTILIZED BY THE DESIGNATION OF THE LONGWATER VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF DESOTO BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF OIL WELL ROAD AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF OIL WELL GRADE ROAD AND OIL WELL ROAD, IN SECTIONS 22, 23, 26, 27, 34 AND 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL20190001836] WHEREAS, Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. ("Applicant") has applied for Stewardship Receiving Area designation pursuant to Section 4.08.07 of the Collier County Land [I 9-CPS-0 1956/1633841/11368 Longwater Village / PL20190001836 5/18/21 Page 1 of 3 Development Code ("LDC") for the village of Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area (herein referred to as "Longwater Village SRA"), which is nine hundred ninety-nine and eighty- one hundredths (999.81) acres in size; and WHEREAS, Collier County Staff and the Collier County Planning Commission have reviewed the SRA Designation Application ("Application"), along with all support documentation and information required by LDC Section 4.08.07, and determined that the application is consistent with the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District, and requirements of Section 4.08.07 of the LDC, specifically the suitability criteria of Section 4.08.07 of the LDC; and WHEREAS, Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC have demonstrated its ownership of the necessary Stewardship Sending Area ("SSA") Stewardship Credits to be utilized by the Longwater Village SRA by its approved SSA Credit and Easement Agreements; and WHEREAS, Applicant seeks to utilize 6697.76 Stewardship Credits generated from the Board's designation of CLH & CDC SSA 15, to entitle designation of the Longwater Village SRA, leaving 11,729.16 SSA 15 Stewardship Credits unused, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: 1. The Board hereby approves and designates as the Longwater Village SRA the nine hundred ninety-nine and eighty-one hundredths (999.81) acres described in the legal description attached as Exhibit "A", subject to the requirements of the Longwater Village SRA Development Document and the Longwater Village SRA Master Plan both attached hereto as Exhibit "B,> 2. The Board hereby approves the Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C", requiring Applicant and Owners to transfer and assign six thousand six hundred ninety-seven and seventy-six hundredths (6697,76) Stewardship Credits to Collier County. 3. The Board hereby approves the number of dwelling units, gross leaseable square footage of retail and office uses, and the other land uses described in the Longwater Village SRA Development Document and depicted on the Longwater Village SRA Master Plan. [I 9-CPS-0 1956/1633 841/11368 Longwater Village / PL20190001836 5/18/21 Page 2 of 3 THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED this day of 2021, after motion, second, and favorable vote. ATTEST: CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: ,-�01- Aq Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA an Penny Taylor, Chairman Attachments: Exhibit A — Legal Description Exhibit B — Longwater Village SRA Development Document and Exhibits Exhibit C — Stewardship Credit Agreement [I 9-CPS-0 1956/1633 841/1]368 Longwater Village / PL20190001836 5/18/21 Page 3 of 3 Exj,�it A 6 3DVd S moo 1Vld S M0081Y1d [L 11Nn ZL 11N0 S31V1S3 31V0 N30700 S31V1S3 31V0 N3aw i f i oa I pn I 1 .. 69 3DVd III S >006 1Vid ' LS 11N0 S31V153 3L V0 N30100 III III ii ' 9 I I �G N W II fA N II� m Y 41 n ° p ,o IIF M iv liw Ao Diu a w S o i i£� S� o 111 y G r /j o°O y I�i II m+ m N O m a a R NF III A -1 m m 5�--Z—L-- I I I ��aa 000a�� WE9EI E �aa � Noples, FL 341I« PK *$97-311 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LONGWATER SRA TRACT 1 ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF AFORESAID SECTION 23; THENCE S 89044'59" W ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23 A DISTANCE OF 770.02 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE S 00015'01" E A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 50.00 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23, SAID INTERSECTION ALSO BEING THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF OIL WELL ROAD (200' R.O.W.) AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE S 00015'01" E A DISTANCE OF 132.67 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 89044'59" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 105.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 45024'58" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 83.23 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 260.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34017'57" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 155.64 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 440.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09035'51" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 73.70 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 700.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25006'08" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 306.68 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 349.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 32028' 18" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 197.79 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1500.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 44043'03" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 1170.70 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 75037'38" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 395.98 FEET; THENCE S 58044'36" W A DISTANCE OF 390.72 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 69052'03" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 121.94 FEET; THENCE S 11007'28" E A DISTANCE OF 438.61 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET; PAGE 2OF10 THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 85028'03" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 596.68 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 200.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 50°30'49" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 176.33 FEET; THENCE S 23049'47" W A DISTANCE OF 390.51 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 36052'30" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 257.44 FEET; THENCE S 13002'43" E A DISTANCE OF 465.37 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 240.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 103055'42" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 435.33 FEET; THENCE N 89007'01" W A DISTANCE OF 1055.37 FEET; THENCE N 00047'57" W A DISTANCE OF 97.59 FEET; THENCE N 52033'15" W A DISTANCE OF 70.08 FEET; THENCE N 57028'41" W A DISTANCE OF 90.17 FEET; THENCE N 54029'18" W A DISTANCE OF 56.40 FEET; THENCE N 54052'27" W A DISTANCE OF 222.49 FEET; THENCE N 55041'14" W A DISTANCE OF 108.91 FEET; THENCE N 64037'19" W A DISTANCE OF 52.01 FEET; THENCE N 64031'02" W A DISTANCE OF 71.77 FEET; THENCE N 25028'58" E A DISTANCE OF 46.08 FEET; THENCE N 17041'24" E A DISTANCE OF 159.37 FEET; THENCE N 19024'48" E A DISTANCE OF 130.30 FEET; THENCE N 17041' l2" E A DISTANCE OF 152.31 FEET; THENCE N 19039'43" E A DISTANCE OF 163.63 FEET; THENCE N 16058'54" E A DISTANCE OF 115.30 FEET; THENCE N 19045'12" E A DISTANCE OF 95.09 FEET; THENCE N 18030'01" E A DISTANCE OF 108.19 FEET; THENCE N 07016'45" E A DISTANCE OF 105.99 FEET; THENCE N 07021'52" E A DISTANCE OF 1053.05 FEET; THENCE N 06059'59" E A DISTANCE OF 321.33 FEET; THENCE N 09015'09" E A DISTANCE OF 78.59 FEET; THENCE N 08005'25" E A DISTANCE OF 95.78 FEET; THENCE N 06017'00" E A DISTANCE OF 93.24 FEET; THENCE N 02027' 15" E A DISTANCE OF 72.03 FEET; THENCE N 02013' 12" W A DISTANCE OF 94.12 FEET; THENCE N 04052'08" W A DISTANCE OF 109.91 FEET; THENCE N 04016'40" W A DISTANCE OF 108.24 FEET; THENCE N 05059'47" W A DISTANCE OF 114.91 FEET; THENCE N 04038'07" W A DISTANCE OF 258.02 FEET; THENCE N 04052'41" W A DISTANCE OF 67.12 FEET; THENCE N 86056'23" W A DISTANCE OF 6.72 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 61034'15" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 260.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 62008'22" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 281.98 FEET; THENCE N 03035'48" W A DISTANCE OF 43.18 FEET; THENCE S 81 ° 12'45" W A DISTANCE OF 65.23 FEET; THENCE S 78047'29" W A DISTANCE OF 97.37 FEET; PAGE 3OF10 THENCE S 80053'38" W A DISTANCE OF 85.87 FEET; THENCE S 82051'24" W A DISTANCE OF 71.47 FEET; THENCE S 26022'26" W A DISTANCE OF 82.01 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 72006'35" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 145.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28018'25" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 71.64 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 43021'21" E AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 240.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34006'47" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 142.89 FEET; THENCE N 80045'27" E A DISTANCE OF 217.01 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 340.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 51027'13" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 305.33 FEET; THENCE N 01050'26" W A DISTANCE OF 102.10 FEET; THENCE S 88036'14" E A DISTANCE OF 412.53 FEET; THENCE S 88038'16" E A DISTANCE OF 496.61 FEET; THENCE N 00015'01" W A DISTANCE OF 885.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 50.00 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23, SAID INTERSECTION ALSO BEING THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF OIL WELL ROAD (200' R.O.W.); THENCE N 89044'59" E ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE A DISTANCE OF 1709.53 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. CONTAINING A TOTAL AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 217.18 ACRES. REFERENCE ABB DRAWING #12347-SD PAGE 4OF10 Noples, FL 341t: 239597-311 wwwASSIN +can+r W., a*'Ax x �xs R�„c«yxxro 26;t,64 '+€#'R, d+RC7 *.X LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LONGWATER SRA TRACT 2 ALL THAT PART OF SECTIONS 22, 23, 26, 27, 34 AND 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF AFORESAID SECTION 27; THENCE N 89044'09" E A DISTANCE OF 210.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 210.00 FEET EASTERLY FROM AND PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 27 AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE N 00015'51" W ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE A DISTANCE OF 556.73 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID PARALLEL LINE N 89044'09" E A DISTANCE OF 42.00 FEET; THENCE S 81 °09'45" E A DISTANCE OF 24.85 FEET; THENCE S 81 ° 12'57" E A DISTANCE OF 43.68 FEET; THENCE S 67050'53" E A DISTANCE OF 24.15 FEET; THENCE N 51 ° 13'46" E A DISTANCE OF 14.44 FEET; THENCE N 83034'26" E A DISTANCE OF 20.97 FEET; THENCE N 85047'56" E A DISTANCE OF 58.59 FEET; THENCE S 81025'21" E A DISTANCE OF 65.83 FEET; THENCE S 82024'10" E A DISTANCE OF 79.32 FEET; THENCE S 81049'19" E A DISTANCE OF 85.24 FEET; THENCE S 83007'42" E A DISTANCE OF 94.54 FEET; THENCE S 8302641" E A DISTANCE OF 106.68 FEET; THENCE S 85055'20" E A DISTANCE OF 176.04 FEET; THENCE S 87021'52" E A DISTANCE OF 151.35 FEET; THENCE S 83034'18" E A DISTANCE OF 108.51 FEET; THENCE S 87003'30" E A DISTANCE OF 191.80 FEET; THENCE S 89027'05" E A DISTANCE OF 171.39 FEET; THENCE S 87033'10" E A DISTANCE OF 126.34 FEET; THENCE S 88043'19" E A DISTANCE OF 98.64 FEET; THENCE S 86048'38" E A DISTANCE OF 96.80 FEET; THENCE S 89040'09" E A DISTANCE OF 130.03 FEET; THENCE S 87042'01" E A DISTANCE OF 124.74 FEET; THENCE S 87024'48" E A DISTANCE OF 107.14 FEET; THENCE S 87048'06" E A DISTANCE OF 127.16 FEET; THENCE S 88011'19" E A DISTANCE OF 153.59 FEET; THENCE N 89059'01" E A DISTANCE OF 59.76 FEET; THENCE N 02051'20" E A DISTANCE OF 51.25 FEET; THENCE N 03037'35" W A DISTANCE OF 40.26 FEET; THENCE N 07054'23" E A DISTANCE OF 75.33 FEET; THENCE N 10003'15" E A DISTANCE OF 64.18 FEET; THENCE N 11 ° 19'06" E A DISTANCE OF 80.02 FEET; PAGE 5OF10 THENCE N 10047'45" E A DISTANCE OF 79.50 FEET; THENCE N 09049'17" E A DISTANCE OF 94.43 FEET; THENCE N 10003'11" E A DISTANCE OF 127.62 FEET; THENCE N 09016'25" E A DISTANCE OF 110.89 FEET; THENCE N 10039'25" E A DISTANCE OF 144.00 FEET; THENCE N 08044'32" E A DISTANCE OF 112.11 FEET; THENCE N 10018'07" E A DISTANCE OF 145.41 FEET; THENCE N 10024'56" E A DISTANCE OF 170.23 FEET; THENCE N 09004'56" E A DISTANCE OF 101.38 FEET; THENCE N 10037'21" E A DISTANCE OF 181.28 FEET; THENCE N 09057'51" E A DISTANCE OF 121.94 FEET; THENCE N 09016'33" E A DISTANCE OF 159.76 FEET; THENCE N 08005'45" E A DISTANCE OF 73.91 FEET; THENCE N 12006'17" E A DISTANCE OF 47.98 FEET; THENCE N 07000'32" E A DISTANCE OF 96.94 FEET; THENCE N 12044'08" E A DISTANCE OF 48.22 FEET; THENCE N 29004'09" E A DISTANCE OF 51.97 FEET; THENCE N 56052'43" E A DISTANCE OF 32.67 FEET; THENCE S 79047'55" E A DISTANCE OF 110.65 FEET; THENCE S 79001'08" E A DISTANCE OF 91.37 FEET; THENCE S 78051'l6" E A DISTANCE OF 140.42 FEET; THENCE S 79029'47" E A DISTANCE OF 89.62 FEET; THENCE S 79026'32" E A DISTANCE OF 117.52 FEET; THENCE S 79045'16" E A DISTANCE OF 73.96 FEET; THENCE N 46057'48" E A DISTANCE OF 29.89 FEET; THENCE N 10052'29" E A DISTANCE OF 123.93 FEET; THENCE N 07032'25" E A DISTANCE OF 88.34 FEET; THENCE N 08007'07" E A DISTANCE OF 139.48 FEET; THENCE N 07054'40" E A DISTANCE OF 114.89 FEET; THENCE N 08049' 12" E A DISTANCE OF 128.22 FEET; THENCE N 10033'53" E A DISTANCE OF 99.66 FEET; THENCE N 08025'59" E A DISTANCE OF 62.05 FEET; THENCE N 26054'30" E A DISTANCE OF 49.71 FEET; THENCE N 62045'00" E A DISTANCE OF 42.18 FEET; THENCE S 89001'30" E A DISTANCE OF 98.14 FEET; THENCE S 88017'00" E A DISTANCE OF 127.41 FEET; THENCE S 89011'00" E A DISTANCE OF 106.29 FEET; THENCE S 89022'11" E A DISTANCE OF 181.67 FEET; THENCE S 89007'05" E A DISTANCE OF 73.95 FEET; THENCE N 89037'05" E A DISTANCE OF 158.00 FEET; THENCE N 01022'47" E A DISTANCE OF 56.60 FEET; THENCE N 01 005'56" E A DISTANCE OF 175.96 FEET; THENCE N 00058'55" E A DISTANCE OF 120.19 FEET; THENCE N 00057'09" E A DISTANCE OF 106.25 FEET; THENCE N 01025'58" E A DISTANCE OF 172.25 FEET; THENCE N 00059'37" E A DISTANCE OF 129.98 FEET; THENCE N 02013'52" E A DISTANCE OF 174.99 FEET; THENCE N 01 ° 13'07" E A DISTANCE OF 170.11 FEET; THENCE N 12023'44" E A DISTANCE OF 65.85 FEET; THENCE N 65007'26" E A DISTANCE OF 58.11 FEET; THENCE N 87035'09" E A DISTANCE OF 97.09 FEET; PAGE 6OF10 THENCE S 89003'01" E A DISTANCE OF 139.85 FEET; THENCE N 89008'08" E A DISTANCE OF 159.59 FEET; THENCE N 8905558" E A DISTANCE OF 184.84 FEET; THENCE S 89048'17" E A DISTANCE OF 242.95 FEET; THENCE S 89018'36" E A DISTANCE OF 127.18 FEET; THENCE N 88020'13" E A DISTANCE OF 150.51 FEET; THENCE S 89000'04" E A DISTANCE OF 160.58 FEET; THENCE N 88046'01" E A DISTANCE OF 151.90 FEET; THENCE S 79022'05" E A DISTANCE OF 52.74 FEET; THENCE S 38006'03" E A DISTANCE OF 57.21 FEET; THENCE S 01 °21'28" E A DISTANCE OF 145.54 FEET; THENCE S 00055'57" W A DISTANCE OF 150.31 FEET; THENCE S O1033'09" W A DISTANCE OF 207.79 FEET; THENCE S 01 °31'44" W A DISTANCE OF 141.52 FEET; THENCE S 01023' 16" W A DISTANCE OF 164.71 FEET; THENCE S 01000'09" W A DISTANCE OF 148.59 FEET; THENCE S 00045'36" W A DISTANCE OF 132.20 FEET; THENCE S 16036'47" E A DISTANCE OF 77.60 FEET; THENCE S 86036'24" E A DISTANCE OF 218.27 FEET; THENCE N 84038'32" E A DISTANCE OF 57.46 FEET; THENCE N 88029'19" E A DISTANCE OF 188.83 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 13014'14" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 142.04 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 38004'57" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 94.41 FEET; THENCE S 33028'54" E A DISTANCE OF 33.93 FEET; THENCE S 23045'58" E A DISTANCE OF 31.88 FEET; THENCE S 07059'32" E A DISTANCE OF 22.70 FEET; THENCE S 08009'03" W A DISTANCE OF 100.81 FEET; THENCE S 08057'38" W A DISTANCE OF 111.86 FEET; THENCE S 08049'05" W A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET; THENCE S 07059'07" W A DISTANCE OF 98.77 FEET; THENCE S 08051'00" W A DISTANCE OF 462.69 FEET; THENCE S 07042'34" W A DISTANCE OF 120.29 FEET; THENCE S 10003'37" W A DISTANCE OF 256.55 FEET; THENCE S 08003'15" W A DISTANCE OF 87.61 FEET; THENCE S 07057'36" W A DISTANCE OF 129.24 FEET; THENCE S 08050'57" W A DISTANCE OF 158.37 FEET; THENCE S 10016'55" W A DISTANCE OF 137.59 FEET; THENCE S 07003'24" W A DISTANCE OF 160.41 FEET; THENCE S 09024' 12" W A DISTANCE OF 179.42 FEET; THENCE S 06037'32" W A DISTANCE OF 158.52 FEET; THENCE S 09053'05" W A DISTANCE OF 158.01 FEET; THENCE S 21033'21" W A DISTANCE OF 55.08 FEET; THENCE S 82019'46" W A DISTANCE OF 77.36 FEET; THENCE N 89013'46" W A DISTANCE OF 151.12 FEET; THENCE N 89021'51" W A DISTANCE OF 108.57 FEET; THENCE N 85059'59" W A DISTANCE OF 198.45 FEET; THENCE S 15053'00" W A DISTANCE OF 96.05 FEET; THENCE S 07002' 17" W A DISTANCE OF 26.49 FEET; THENCE S 37020'43" W A DISTANCE OF 68.14 FEET; PAGE 7OF10 THENCE S 31023'33" W A DISTANCE OF 40.71 FEET; THENCE S 16020'58" W A DISTANCE OF 220.13 FEET; THENCE S 22059'53" W A DISTANCE OF 41.27 FEET; THENCE S 18029'23" W A DISTANCE OF 69.29 FEET; THENCE S 08048' 18" W A DISTANCE OF 56.10 FEET; THENCE S 10010'49" W A DISTANCE OF 65.97 FEET; THENCE S 05030'03" W A DISTANCE OF 45.04 FEET; THENCE S 06057' 16" W A DISTANCE OF 106.82 FEET; THENCE S 08043'39" W A DISTANCE OF 105.41 FEET; THENCE S 0805548" W A DISTANCE OF 91.41 FEET; THENCE S 24000'42" W A DISTANCE OF 77.21 FEET; THENCE S 09030'12" W A DISTANCE OF 55.93 FEET; THENCE S 08014'59" W A DISTANCE OF 126.14 FEET; THENCE S 08053'46" W A DISTANCE OF 119.38 FEET; THENCE S 08024'46" W A DISTANCE OF 145.38 FEET; THENCE S 08020'38" W A DISTANCE OF 216.11 FEET; THENCE S 08026'17" W A DISTANCE OF 152.97 FEET; THENCE S 08018'20" W A DISTANCE OF 131.25 FEET; THENCE S 04008'24" W A DISTANCE OF 228.36 FEET; THENCE S 03050'33" W A DISTANCE OF 214.51 FEET; THENCE S 04031'40" W A DISTANCE OF 180.53 FEET; THENCE S 04004'11" W A DISTANCE OF 292.07 FEET; THENCE S 04008'09" W A DISTANCE OF 211.01 FEET; THENCE S 04007'35" W A DISTANCE OF 350.99 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 143.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 88027' 15" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 220.77 FEET; THENCE N 87025'10" W A DISTANCE OF 263.63 FEET; THENCE S 56031'23" W A DISTANCE OF 414.66 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 57001'49" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 24.88 FEET; THENCE S 00030'26" E A DISTANCE OF 645.03 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 60047'29" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 26.53 FEET; THENCE S 61017'55" E A DISTANCE OF 999.19 FEET; THENCE S 75046'34" E A DISTANCE OF 12.50 FEET; THENCE N 89049'28" E A DISTANCE OF 334.67 FEET; THENCE S 20039'26" E A DISTANCE OF 334.38 FEET; THENCE S 39021'06" W A DISTANCE OF 979.22 FEET; THENCE N 34040'36" W A DISTANCE OF 115.45 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 52057'38" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 28.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 43056'52" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 21.48 FEET; THENCE S 89044'47" W A DISTANCE OF 204.14 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS N 00027'23" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 142.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 53045,39" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 133.24 FEET; PAGE 8OF10 THENCE N 36053'55" W A DISTANCE OF 134.23 FEET; THENCE N 40042'25" W A DISTANCE OF 39.74 FEET; THENCE N 36014'22" W A DISTANCE OF 229.41 FEET; THENCE N 36053'55" W A DISTANCE OF 663.78 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 77005'58" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 33.64 FEET; THENCE S 66000'07" W A DISTANCE OF 1347.27 FEET; THENCE S 60011'58" W A DISTANCE OF 35.81 FEET; THENCE N 31043'05" W A DISTANCE OF 38.54 FEET; THENCE N 36009'51" W A DISTANCE OF 40.59 FEET; THENCE N 20045'08" W A DISTANCE OF 21.76 FEET; THENCE N 29012'25" W A DISTANCE OF 26.75 FEET; THENCE N 21048'56" W A DISTANCE OF 51.21 FEET; THENCE N 32054' 14" W A DISTANCE OF 137.82 FEET; THENCE N 40035'17" W A DISTANCE OF 78.60 FEET; THENCE N 6802448" W A DISTANCE OF 37.30 FEET; THENCE N 53010'07" W A DISTANCE OF 32.15 FEET; THENCE N 21013'51" E A DISTANCE OF 40.37 FEET; THENCE N 22002'47" W A DISTANCE OF 44.59 FEET; THENCE N 07021'32" W A DISTANCE OF 56.07 FEET; THENCE N 06028'35" E A DISTANCE OF 66.40 FEET; THENCE N 09056'22" E A DISTANCE OF 69.15 FEET; THENCE N 03038'16" E A DISTANCE OF 51.88 FEET; THENCE N 07017'28" E A DISTANCE OF 82.16 FEET; THENCE N 06029'56" E A DISTANCE OF 74.86 FEET; THENCE N 06007'02" E A DISTANCE OF 85.01 FEET; THENCE N 03046'47" E A DISTANCE OF 82.82 FEET; THENCE N 05023'36" E A DISTANCE OF 74.88 FEET; THENCE N 02017'48" E A DISTANCE OF 105.33 FEET; THENCE N 01038'19" E A DISTANCE OF 59.59 FEET; THENCE N 00048'14" E A DISTANCE OF 50.18 FEET; THENCE N 02025'45" W A DISTANCE OF 70.13 FEET; THENCE N 00054'02" E A DISTANCE OF 73.67 FEET; THENCE N 00051'34" W A DISTANCE OF 54.76 FEET; THENCE N 15043'00" W A DISTANCE OF 48.82 FEET; THENCE N 13029'58" E A DISTANCE OF 47.07 FEET; THENCE N 00044'51" E A DISTANCE OF 55.85 FEET; THENCE N 10039' 19" E A DISTANCE OF 32.52 FEET; THENCE N 04007'17" E A DISTANCE OF 41.62 FEET; THENCE N 12035'16" E A DISTANCE OF 38.67 FEET; THENCE N 00020'34" W A DISTANCE OF 38.40 FEET; THENCE N 18005'31" E A DISTANCE OF 47.83 FEET; THENCE N 03058'33" W A DISTANCE OF 48.95 FEET; THENCE N 19051'27" E A DISTANCE OF 34.70 FEET; THENCE N 09034'39" E A DISTANCE OF 34.06 FEET; THENCE N 04050'50" W A DISTANCE OF 28.60 FEET; THENCE N 02058'56" W A DISTANCE OF 30.74 FEET; THENCE N 44025'19" W A DISTANCE OF 31.56 FEET; THENCE N 41 °39'56" W A DISTANCE OF 33.84 FEET; THENCE N 06002'21" E A DISTANCE OF 19.31 FEET; PAGE 9OF10 THENCE N 29015'43" W A DISTANCE OF 30.89 FEET; THENCE N 50020'45" W A DISTANCE OF 65.85 FEET; THENCE N 37039'56" W A DISTANCE OF 20.94 FEET; THENCE S 87018'03" W A DISTANCE OF 18.51 FEET; THENCE N 86053'50" W A DISTANCE OF 40.70 FEET; THENCE N 57038'19" W A DISTANCE OF 57.04 FEET; THENCE N 02052'44" E A DISTANCE OF 160.84 FEET; THENCE N 49042'21" W A DISTANCE OF 597.21 FEET; THENCE S 89037'33" W A DISTANCE OF 99.83 FEET; THENCE S 89055'08" W A DISTANCE OF 166.80 FEET; THENCE S 88018'59" W A DISTANCE OF 113.40 FEET; THENCE S 8005544" W A DISTANCE OF 95.52 FEET; THENCE S 79029'17" W A DISTANCE OF 110.57 FEET; THENCE S 76051'49" W A DISTANCE OF 41.22 FEET; THENCE S 80058'38" W A DISTANCE OF 97.67 FEET; THENCE S 79059'43" W A DISTANCE OF 718.60 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2600.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09006'00" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 412.95 FEET; THENCE S 00015'45" E A DISTANCE OF 12.29 FEET; THENCE S 89044'15" W A DISTANCE OF 35.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 210.00 FEET EASTERLY FROM AND PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 27; THENCE N 00015'45" W ALONG SAID PARALLEL A DISTANCE OF 2691.34 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. CONTAINING A TOTAL AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 782.63 ACRES. REFERENCE ABB DRAWING #12347-SD PAGE 10 OF 10 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. 2550 North Goodlette Road, Suite 100 Naples, FL 34103 The Lonswater Professional Consulting Team includes: Agnoli, Barber & Brundage (ABB) — Engineering Coleman Yovanovich & Koester — Legal Counsel Development Planning & Financing Group (DPFG) — Fiscal Analysis Hole Moores, Inc. — Planning and Permitting Passarella & Assoc., Inc. (PAI) — Environmental Permitting Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, Inc. —Transportation Water Science Associates — Water Permitting CCPC DA BCC DATE Exhibit B Page of00 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page OVERVIEWNILLAGE DESIGN IL SRA STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE/SUITABLITY CRITERIA III. REQUIRED PERIMETER BUFFERS IV. MINIMUM REQUIRED AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY AND INTENSITY V. CONTEXT ZONES 5 5.1 Neighborhood General 5 5.2 Village Center 8 VI. EXCAVATIONS 11 VIL DEVIATIONS 11 7.1 Deviations from Neighborhood General Standards 11 7.2 Transportation Standards 11 7.3 Signs Standards 11 7.4 Landscape Standards 12 7.5 Other Deviations 12 VIII OWNER/DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 12 8.1 Planning 12 8.2 Environmental 13 8.3 Transportation 13 8.4 Parks and Recreation 14 8.5 School 14 8.6 Other 15 EXHIBITS Exhibit A — Sheet 1: Exhibit A — Sheet 2: Exhibit A — Sheet 3: Exhibit A — Sheet 4: Exhibit A — Sheet 5: Exhibit A — Sheet 6: Exhibit A — Sheet 7: Exhibit B — Sheets 1-10: Exhibit C —Sheet 1: Exhibit D —Sheet 1: Exhibit E — Sheets 1-10: Exhibit F — Sheets 1-42: SRA Master Plan (Color) SRA Master Plan (Black & White) SRA Mobility Plan SRA Master Plan with Deviations SRA Master Plan with Deviation Description Typical Local Street Cross Section Main Spine Road Cross Section Sketches and Legal Descriptions Tracts 1 & 2 Legal Descriptions for School Sites A & B Location Map Property Ownership/Statement of Unified Ownership Natural Resource Index Assessment Page 2 of 16 Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (4-13-2021) Page J of I. OVERVIEW/VILLAGE DESIGN AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) is located in eastern Collier County in portions of Sections 22, 23, 26, 27, 34 and 35, Township 48 South, and Range 28 East. Longwater Village SRA ("Village") contains a total of 999.81 f acres. The Village is located south of Oil Well Road, west of the intersection of Oil Well Grade Road and Oil Well Road. The Village is bisected by proposed Stewardship Sending Area 17 (SSA 17). Lands to the north, south, and east of the southern section are zoned A -Agricultural and are proposed to be designated SSA 17 under the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay. To the west, a portion of the southern section of the Village abuts the proposed future Big Cypress Parkway right-of- way (ROW). The remainder of the lands to the west are zoned A -Agricultural and are proposed to be designated SSA 17. Lands to the south and west of the northern section of the Village are zoned A - Agricultural and are proposed to be designated SSA 17; lands to the east are zoned A -Agricultural and designated SSA 15. The northern section abuts Oil Well Road to the north. The land within both portions of the Village SPA have been in active agricultural production for many years. In accordance with the RLSA Overlay definition, the Village is primarily a residential community which includes a diversity of housing types and a maximum of 2,600 dwelling units. The Village includes a 20.08t acre mixed -use Village Center providing for the required neighborhood -scaled retail, office, civic, and community uses. The SRA is designed to encourage pedestrian/bicycle circulation via an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system including bike lands on the spine road, serving the entire Village and with an interconnected system of streets, dispersing and reducing both the number and length of vehicle trips. II. SRA STATEMENT OF SUITABILITY CRITERIA PER LDC SECTION 4.08.07, PARAGRAPHS A, B, and C AND RLSA OVERLAY ATTACHMENT C 1. The SRA contains 999.81 t acres. 2. The SRA includes 4 acres of lands with a Natural Resource Index (NRI) greater than 1.2, which will remain in a natural vegetated state. 3. The Village SRA does not include, nor is it adjacent to, any lands designated Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA) or Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA). The Village does not include lands designated Water Retention Area (W RA). Along the eastern boundary of the Village, there is a perimeter lake system, designed for stonnwater management purposes, and as a deterrent to wildlife. Portions of the lake system, outside of the Village boundary, are designated WRA. These lakes are within the boundaries of SSA 17 in various locations. 4. The SRA does not include any lands within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) Overlay. 5. The required minimum Open Space (35%) is 349.93 acres. The SRA master plan provides for 512.52t acres of Open Space (51.26t percent), 162.59 acres above the RLSA 35% requirement. 6. The SRA is designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods, including bike lanes on the spine road, with connecting pedestrian paths. 7. The SRA provides an interconnecting roadway with the Rivergmss SRA. 8. The SRA provides parks within and accessible by neighborhoods. 9. The SRA contains two Context Zones (as required for the Village form of SRA): Neighborhood General and mixed -use Village Center. 10. Within the Village Center Context Zone and the commercial area within the Neighborhood General Context Zone, the SRA shall provide the following: a minimum of 65,000 square feet Page 3 of 16 a Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (4-13-202 p Page L of and a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood scaled retail and office uses; a minimum of 26,000 square feet of civic, government, and institutional uses; and a minimum of 40 multifamily dwelling units will be within the Village Center Context Zone. 11. The SRA allows for up to 2,600 dwelling units (2.6 dwelling units per gross acre and 3.11 units per acre based on the 837.22 acres requiring Stewardship Credits and excluding open space acreage exceeding 350%). 12. In compliance with the requirement to provide a diversity of housing types within a Village, a minimum of 10% of units shall he multi -family, based upon the Land Development Code (LDC) definition of Multifamily Dwelling (a group of 3 or more dwelling units within a single building), a minimum of 10%of the units shall be single family detached, and a minimum of 10%of the units shall be single family attached or villas. 13. Approximately 39.71 acres of active and passive parks and community green space is provided, including approximatelyl8.01 acres of amenity center sites and approximately 21.70 acres of parks and park preserves, which exceeds the required minimum of I % of SRA gross acreage, (10 acres). 14. The SRA has direct access to Oil Well Road, which is classified as an arterial road. The SRA will also have direct access to the future Big Cypress Parkway, which will be designed as an arterial roadway. 15. The SRA is consistent with the standards set forth in the RLSA Overlay Attachment C, applicable to Villages. 16. The total acreage requiring stewardship credits is 837.22 acres (total SRA acreage excluding open space exceeding 35%) acres. At the required 8 Stewardship Credits per acre, 6,697.76 Stewardship Credits are required to entitle the SRA. 17. The Village will be served by the Collier County Water and Sewer District. 18. The proposed schedule of development within the Village SRA, is as follows: a. Anticipated timeframe for receipt of required jurisdictional agency permits (or permit modifications) and date of commencement of residential development: two years from approval of this SRA. b. Anticipated sequence of residential development: 250 units per year commencing after receipt of federal, state, and local permits. c. Anticipated timeframe for commencement of minimum required neighborhood retail and office uses: 8 years from date of approval of this SRA. d. Anticipated project completion date: twelve (12) years from date of approval of this SRA. DI. REQUIRED PERIMETER BUFFERS' Adjacent to Oil Well Road Minimum 25' wide Type D Buffer per LDC Section 4.06.02.C,4. All other Perimeter Buffers Adjacent to Preserve or SSA No Buffer Required (except as required by the South Florida Water Management District Adjacent to A —Agriculture Minimum 10' wide Type "A" buffer per LDC Section 4.06.02.C.1. Adjacent to future Big Cypress parkway (along SRA Western Minimum 25' wide Type "D" Buffer per LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4. Boundary). Table 1: Village Perimeter Buffer Requirements 'At the developer's discretion, a 10-foot-wide pathway may be located within required perimeter landscape buffers 25' or greater in width, provided the required plantings are located between the property line and the pathway. However, in such cases, the buffer width shall be increased by 5 feet above the minimum required width. A 104om-wide pathway may also be located within perimeter buffers that we less than 25' in width, however, in such cases, the buffer width shall be increased in width by 10 feel above the minimum required width. Page 4 of 16 Longwater Village SRA(PL20190001836) (4-13-2021) Page of IV. MINIMUM REQUIRED AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY AND INTENSITY The maximum total number of dwelling units in the Village shall not exceed 2,600 dwelling units. Multi -family dwelling units may be located within both the Village Center and the Neighborhood General Context Zones. The minimum required amount of neighborhood commercial development within the Village Center is 65,000 square feet and the maximum shall not exceed 80,000 square feet. A minimum of 26,000 square feet of civic, governmental, and institutional uses is required. V. CONTEXT ZONES The Village contains two distinct Context Zones: Neighborhood General and Village Center. 5.1 Neighborhood General Context Zone The Neighborhood General Context Zone includes approximately 979.73t acres of land. 5.1.1 Allowable Uses and Structures 5.1.1. A. Permitted Uses and Structures': 1) Single -Family dwelling units. 2) Multi -family dwelling units located within %mile of the Village Center or the commercial area of the Neighborhood General Context Zone, as depicted on the SRA Master Plan. 3) Senior/Group Housing, including but not limited to Adult Living Facilities(ALF), Independent Living Facilities (ILF), and Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRC), not to exceed 300 units in this SRA, subject to Florida statutes and the applicable provisions of LDC Section 5.05.04 - Group Housing, located within V2 mile of the Village Center or the Commercial area of the Neighborhood General Context Zone , as depicted on the SRA Master Plan. 4) Within the commercial areas of the Neighborhood General Context Zone depicted on the SRA Master Plan - any permitted use listed in Section 5.2.1.A. II. of this SRA Document. Such uses, if developed, may be counted towards meeting the required 65,000 minimum of neighborhood scaled retail and office uses or the required 26,000 square feet of civic, government, and institutional uses, as applicable, and is subject to the maximum allowed 80,000 square of neighborhood scaled retail and office uses. Such uses shall be subject to the development standards for Non -Residential and Mixed -Use Buildings set forth under Section 5.2.2.2.A., Table 2: Village Center - Required Minimum Yards Maximum Building Height. 5) Utility facilities for water/wastewater, subject to the applicable standards set forth in Section 5.05.12 of the LDC. 5.1.1. B. Accessory Uses and Structures 1) Typical accessory uses and structures incidental to residential development including walls, fences, gazebos, swimming pools, screen enclosures, utility buildings (subject to the applicable standards set forth in Section 5.05.12 of the LDC), chickee huts, air conditioning units, satellite antennas, and similar uses and structures. t Now Existing agricultural operations may continue on an interim basis until a Site Development Plan or Subdivision Plat, as the case may be, is approved for a particular parcel. Page 5 of 16 Longwater Village SRA (PL2019000I836) (413-2021) Page 5 of 12-Q.- 2) Model homes, sales centers and other temporary uses are permitted throughout Neighborhood General as provided for in LDC Section 5.04.00, and in this SRA Document. 3) Clubhouses and amenity centers for residents and guests, which may include clubhouses, fitness facilities, and typical recreational uses, including swimming pools, tennis courts, pickle ball courts, dog parks, and similar facilities. 4) Neighborhood recreation areas limited to a maximum of 2.0 acres and a maximum of 10,000 square feet of building area. Neighborhood recreation areas may include swimming pools, tennis courts, pickle ball courts, and similar neighborhood recreation facilities. 5) Passive parks, limited to landscaped or natural areas and may include hardscape pathways or seating areas, benches, shade structures such as gazebos or pavilions, docks, or piers. 6) Within the commercial area of the Neighborhood General Context Zone, uses accessory to commercial neighborhood scaled retail and office and civic, government, and institutional uses shall be as set forth in Section 5.2.13 of this SRA Document. Page 6 of 16 Longwater Village SRA(PL20190001836) (4-13-2021) Gd Page b of b 0 5.1.2. Neighborhood General Development and Design Standards G 1 T A Rwnuirwd Minimum Vardgl& Maximum Building Heights: SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY MULTI -FAMILY CLUBHOUSESIRECREATION FITNESS FACILTIES PER SNCLE DEVELOPMENT S.I.I. B. (3); STANDARDS SINGLE FAMILY ZERO LOT LINE ALF, ILF, CCRC& NEIGHBORHOOD FAMILY ATTACHED &TOWNHOME' OTHER MCREATIONAREASPER DETACHED &TWO- MULTI -FAMILY` FAMILY PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MIN. LOT AREA 5,000 S F. / 3,000 S.F. / 2,500 S.F./UNIT 20,000 S.F./LOT N/A UNIT UNIT MIN. LOT WIDTH 40' 30' 207UNIT 100, WA MIN. FLOOR 1.200 SF 1,200 S.F./ 1,200 S.F./UNIT 700 ST.AIMT' N/A AREA UNIT FLOOR AREA N/A N/A N/A 045 (only applies toRATIO ALF ILF CCRC)N/A MIN. FRONT 22• 22' 22' 20' 20' YARD' MEN. SIDE YARD' 5' 0OR 5' om5' to, 10, MIN. REAR YARD 10, 10, 15' 1 20' 10, MID' LAKE 20' 20, 20' 20' 20' SETBACK' MIN. DISTANCE 15' OR K SUM ofBH BETWEEN 10, 10, 10' for Structures 10' STRUCTURES Exceedin 35' BH MAX. BUILDING 35' 35' 35' 3.5 Stones NTE 50' 3.5 Stories NTE 50' HEIGHT -ZONED MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT- 42' 42' 42' 62' 62' ACTUAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES MIN. FRONT SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS YARD MIN. SIDE YARD SPS SPS SPS SPS 10, MIN. REAR YARD 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' MIN. LAKE 10, 10' 5' 5' S' SETBACK' MAX. HEIGHT ZONED& SPS SPS SPS 42' SPS ACTUAL Table 1: Neighborhood General - Required Minimum Yards Maximum Building Height S.P.S. =same as for principal stacuum NTE - not to exceed; S.F. = square felt; BH= building Might; NIA =not applicable FsatoORs 1. Setbacks from Park Preserves shall be as set forth in LDC Section 3.05.07.1-1.3. 2. Front yards shall be measured as follows: — If the parcel has frontage on two s[reen(comer lot), the haulage providing s6icnlsr access to the WR Shall be considered gle front yard. The setback along the other frontage shall be a minimum of 10'. - In no case shall the setback be less than 23 fat from the edge of an adjacent sidewalk, except in the rate of side -loaded garages where the garage is designed in such a way that a vehicle can be parked in the driveway without conflicting with, or encroaching upon, the adjacent sidewalk. 3. 5' minimum side setbacks for single-family attached, two-family, must be accompanied by mother 5' minimum side setback on adjoining lot to achieve minimum 10' separation. 4. The required 20' lake maintenance moment shall be Provided in a separate pime l tract and the setback for both principal and accessory structures may be reduced to 0% 5. Zero Lot Line and Townhouse Development means 3 or more attached units, typically one or 2 sMaes in height. 6. Other Multi -family means 3 or more units other than Zero Lot Line or Townhouse Development, typically more than 2 stories in height. 7. Minimum floor area is not applicable m ALF, ILF, or CCRC units. Minimum floor area per unit for rental apartments shall be 550 square feet Page 7 of 16 (>fy Longwater Village SRA(PL20190001836) (4-13-2021) Page-�- of d8 5.2 Village Center Context Zone The Village Center Context Zone includes 20.08t acres of land. 5.2.1. Allowable Uses and Structures The Village Center is mixed use in nature, requiring a minimum of 40 multi -family dwellings, a minimum of 65,000 square feet and maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood -scale commercial and office uses, and a minimum of 26,000 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses. A minimum of eight (8) retail or office establishments providing neighborhood -scale commercial and office uses shall be provided. 5.2.1.A. Permitted Uses I. Multi -Family Dwelling Units subject to the applicable development standards set forth in Paragraph 5.1.2.A, Table L; and, 11. The following neighborhood -scale commercial and office uses, and civic, governments], and institutional uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for within this section, are permitted by right, or as accessory uses within the Village Center. 1) Accounting and Bookkeeping services (8721). 2) Amusements and recreation services (7999 — limited to bicycle sales and rental). 3) Apparel and accessory stores (5611 - 5699). 4) Auto and home supply stores (5531). 5) Banks, credit unions and trusts (6011 - 6099). 6) Barber shops (7241, except for barber schools). 7) Beauty shops (7231, except for beauty schools). 8) Child day care services (9351). 9) Churches. 10) Civic, social and fraternal associations (8641). 11) Computer and computer software stores (5734). 12) Dry cleaning plants (7216, nonindustrial dry cleaning only). 13) Drug stores (5912). 14) Eating places (5812 only). All establishments engaged in the retail sale of alcoholic beverages for on -premise consumption are subject to locational requirements of section 5.05.01. 15) Engineering, Architectural and Surveying Services (8711-8713) 16) Essential services, subject to Section 2.01.03. 17) Federal and federally sponsored credit agencies (6111). 18) Food stores (groups 5411 - 5499). 19) Garment pressing, and agents for laundries and drycleaners (7212). 20) Gasoline service stations (5541, subject to LDC Section 5.05.05). 21) General merchandise stores (5331 - 5399). 22) Group care facilities (category I and II, except for homeless shelters); care units, except for homeless shelters; nursing homes; assisted living facilities pursuant to applicable Florida Statutes; and continuing care retirement communities pursuant to applicable Florida Statutes; all subject to Section 5.05.04 of the LDC. Page 8 of 16 Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (4-13-2021) page � of 8 23) Hardware stores (5251). 24) Health services, offices and clinics (801 l - 8049, 8071, 8082, 8092, and 8099). 25 Household appliance stores (5722). 26) Insurance carriers, agents and brokers (6311 - 6399, 6411). 27) Legal services (8111). 28) Libraries (823 1 ). 29) Mortgage bankers and loan correspondents (6162). 30) Paint stores (5231). 31) Passenger Car Rental (7514) 32) Physical fitness facilities (7991; 7911, except discotheques). 33) Public Safety Facilities and other governmental services including, but not limited to, fire, emergency management and law enforcement facilities, and public libraries (8231, 9221, 9222, 9224, 9229, 9111, 9121, 9131, 9199). 34) Real Estate (6531 - 6552). 35) Retail Nurseries, Lawn and Garden Supply Stores (5261). 36) Retail services - miscellaneous (5921 - 5963 except pawnshops and building materials, 5992-5999, except auction rooms, awning shops, gravestones, hot tubs, monuments, swimming pools, tombstones and whirlpool baths). 37) Elementary and Secondary Schools, Colleges, Universities, Professional Schools and Technical Institutes, public or private (8211, 8221-8222) 38) Tax return preparation services (7291). 39) Travel agencies (4724, no other transportation services). 40) United State Postal Service (4311, except major distribution center). 41) Veterinary services (0742, excluding outdoor kenneling). 42) Any other use which is comparable and compatible in nature with foregoing list of permitted uses, is considered to be a neighborhood scale commercial, office, or civic, governmental, or institutional uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Hearing Examiner, pursuant to the applicable procedures set forth in LDC Section 10.08.00. 5.2.1.B. Accessory Uses 1) Accessory uses to residential multi -family development subject to the applicable development standards set forth in Paragraph 5.1.2.A, Table 1. 2) Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the permitted neighborhood -scale commercial and office uses, and civic, governmental, and institutional uses above. 3) Parking structures detached or attached, not to exceed 35 feet in Actual height. Page 9 of 16 q Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (4-13-2021) Page � of X � 5.2.2. Village Center Development and Design Standards 5.2.2.A. Required Minimum Yards Setbacks and Maximum ALF, ILF, CCRC & DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MULTI -FAMILY NON-RESIDENTIAL AND ONLY MIXED -USE BUILDINGS' BUILDINGS PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MIN. LOT AREA MOW S.F. 10,000 S.F. MIN. LOT WIDTH 100, 100, MIN. FLOOR AREA 700 S.F. Per Unit' 800 S.F. for Commercial Units 700 S.F. for Residential Units MIN. SETBACK FROM OILWELL ROAD AND ENTRANCE ROAD' 20' 20' FRONT YARDS' 20' 0' or 20' MINIMUM SETBACK FROM A RESIDENTIAL TRACT 0' 20' MINIMUM SETBACK FROM A NONRESIDENTIAL TRACT 15, 5' MIN. LAKE SETBACK° 20' 20' MIN. PRESERVE SETBACK 25' 25' MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 15 Feet or'h Sum of BH, 15 Feet or Y Sum of BH, whichever whichever is greater is greater MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT - ZONED 4 Stories NTE 50' 4 Stories NTE 50' MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT -ACTUAL 60' 60' MAX FAR 0.45 (only applies to ALF. See footnote I. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES MIN. FRONT YARD (ALL) SPS SPS MIN. SETBACK FROM A RESIDENTIAL TRACT SPS SPS MIN. SETBACK FROM A NONRESIDENTIAL TRACT SPS SPS MIN. LAKE SETBACK° 20' 20' MIN. PRESERVE SETBACK 10, 10, MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 10, 10, MAX. HEIGHT - ZONED &ACTUAL 35' 35' i stole z: vutage Center - Required Minimum Yards Maximum Building Height Foouwtes. I. Retail and once uses are subject to a maximum FAR of0.5. Civic, goveromemal and institutional uses are subject m a maximum FAR of 0.6. 2. Tracts abutting the minimum required 25'wide landscape buffer (located in a separate platted vacs adjacent to Oil Well Road) shall provide a front yaM setback, measured from the abutting landscape buffer tract. Tracts staining the project continue road shall provide a front yard setback measured man the 10-foot landscape butter tract adjacent to the entry road. 3. Except w described in Woods 2 above, front yards for parcels abutting a sued or internal driveway shall be measured from the right-of-way line. 4. The required 20' lake maintenance easement shall be provided in a separate planed tract and the setback for both principal and accessory structures may be reduced to 0'. 5. The minimum near area is not applicable to ALF, ILF, or CCRC units. The minimum Floor aroa per unit for rental apartments shall be 550 square fed. S.P.S. =same m for principal structure; WE = not to exceed; S.F. =square feet; Bit =building height N/A =act applicable Page 10 of 16 Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (4-13-2021) Page � � of E VI. EXCAVATIONS The following criteria shall apply to excavations within the Longwater SRA: All excavation permit applications within the Longwater SRA and related Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) shall be reviewed as Development Excavation Permit applications. Within the boundary of the Longwater SRA and related SSA(s), fill material may be hauled from one construction site to another. Fill may be placed up to, but not within, the edge of all conservation easements, preserves, and Water Retention Area (WRA's). VIL DEVIATIONS 7.1 Neighborhood General Standards 1) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.f)iv), "Non-residential uses," which states "the maximum square footage per [non-residential] use shall be 3,000 square feet and per location shall be 15,000 square feet," to instead allow the Amenity Center sites and related uses to be a maximum of 30,000 square feet each. 2) A Deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.I.d.iii.e)ii), which states that in the case of"Multi- Family residential," "side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet and rear yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet for the primary structure..." to instead allow for a side yard setback of 0 or 5 feet and a rear yard setback of 15 feet for zero lot line and townhome development, as set forth in Table 1: Neighborhood General - Required Minimum Yards and Maximum Building Height, excluding County owned roadways. 7.2 Transportation Standards 1) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.1.b, "Figures 5, 6, and 7, Local Street Neighborhood General," which requires a 6-foot-wide planting area between the travel lane and the sidewalk, to instead allow for a 5-foot-wide planting area in the same location for local roads within the project in Neighborhood General. In such cases, either a root barrier or structural soil shall be utilized. If the option of structural soil is utilized, a minimum of 2 c.f of structural soil per square feet of mature tree crown projection shall be provided. 2) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.q), which requires that the amount of required parking in the Village Center "be demonstrated through a shared parking analysis submitted with an SRA designation application..." and be "determined utilizing the modal splits and parking demands for various uses recognized by ITE, IJLI or other sources or studies..." to instead allow the parking demand analysis to be submitted at the time of initial Site Development Plan (SDP) or, at the discretion of the County Manager or designee, at the time of a subsequent SDP or SDP Amendment, in order to allow for a more comprehensive parking demand analysis based upon the mix of uses at the time of the initial SDP or subsequent SDP or SDP Amendment. 7.3 Sign Standards 1) A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5.a, "On -premises directional signs within residential districts," which requires on -premise directional signs to be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb, to instead allow Page I of 16 Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (4-13-2021) Pave of� a minimum setback of 5 feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb, limited to signs internal to the SRA only. This excludes signage along County owned roadways. 7.4 Landscape Standards 1) A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.C., Buffer Requirements, "Types of buffers," Table 2.4 Information, Footnote (3) which requires "Buffer areas between commercial outparcels located within a shopping center, Business Park, or similar commercial development may have a shared buffer 15 feet wide with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet', to instead allow a shared buffer 10 feet wide with each abutting property contributing 5 feet. 7.5 Other Deviations l) A deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04.G, "Parking Space Requirements," which requires I parking space per 100 square feet for recreation facilities (indoor) sports, exercise, fitness, aerobics, or health clubs to instead allow for parking for the Amenity Center sites to be calculated at I space per 200 square feet of indoor square footage, excluding kitchen or storage space. 2) A deviation from LDC Section 3.05.10.A.2. — "Location Criteria," which requires that "LSPA [littoral shelf planting areas] shall be concentrated in one location of the lake(s), preferably adjacent to a preserve area," to instead allow for required littoral shelf planting areas to be aggregated in certain specific development lakes, including the development lake and W RA system that runs along the eastern perimeter of the SRA. 3) A Deviation from LDC Section 4.03.08.C, "Potable Water System," which states "separate potable water and reuse waterlines... shall be provided... by the applicant at no cost to Collier County for all subdivisions and developments" and "Reuse water lines, pumps, and other appurtenances will not be maintained by Collier County," to instead allow for such facilities and/or appurtenances to be conveyed to and maintained by Collier County. VDS. DEVELOPER/OWNER COMMITMENTS 8.1. Planning A. One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for monitoring of the SRA, as may be required by Collier County, and until no longer required by Collier County. The monitoring and report shall follow the same procedures and requirements set forth in LDC Section 10.02.02.17, PUD Monitoring Report requirements. This entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all commitments set forth in the SRA Document and in a separate Owner/Developer Agreement. At the time of this SRA approval, the Managing Entity is Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document, to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As the Owner/Developer sells off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to the County that includes, if applicable, an acknowledgement of the commitments required Page 12 of 16 Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (4-13-2021) Page Lm1�w by the SRA Document by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity will not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the County determines that the SRA Document commitments have been fulfilled, the Managing Entity shall no longer be responsible for the monitoring of this SRA. B. Issuance of a development permit by a County does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. C. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. D. Owner shall provide an annual SRA monitoring report, in a forth similar to a PUD monitoring report, identifying the number of residential units constructed by type within the SRA, and amount of retail, office, civic, government, and institution square footage constructed within the SRA. The Report shall also address whether or not or to what degree the Owner/Developer Commitments contained herein have been satisfied. 8.2. Environmental A. The Owner/Developer shall adhere to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Black Bear Management Plan, as applicable. The informational brochure created by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) and titled "A Guide to Living in Bear County" will be distributed to future homeowners and construction/maintenance personnel. Residents will be provided with information on how to secure their garbage containers to discourage bears from foraging in trash receptacles and the project will utilize bear -proof dumpsters in locations to be determined at the time of Site Development Plan (SDP) approval. B. Prior to issuance of the first SDP and/or PPL, a listed species management plan must be provided for review, with approval from FWCC and/or USFWS for management of the Florida Panther (Puma concolor coryi) and other listed species. C. The Longwater SRA shall utilize bearproof trash cans for both residential and commercial (nonresidential) development. D. The Longwater SRA shall utilize "Dark Sky" lighting design principles for both residential and commercial (nonresidential) development, subject to public safety design standards for public areas. 8.3. Transportation A. Intensity of uses under any development scenario for the SRA is limited to a maximum of 2,078 two-way, unadjusted, average weekday pm peak hour total trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. Page 13 of 16 Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (4-13-2021) Page 13 of B. The Owner shall convey an easement to Collier County, at no cost to County and free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, in a form acceptable to Collier County to accommodate a transit stop and shelter within the SRA at a location agreed to by the Collier County Public Transit Division Director. As part of the site improvements authorized by the initial Site Development Plan within the SRA, the Owner shall, at its sole expense, install the shelter and related site improvements for the transit stop, utilizing a design consistent with established CAT architectural standards or consistent with project architectural standards if agreed to by CAT and convey the easement. C. No more than 1,820 dwelling units will be issued certificates of occupancy until a minimum of 30,000 sq. ft. of the neighborhood retail and office uses and a minimum of 20 multi- family dwelling units have been developed in the Village Center and issued certificate(s) of occupancy. D. Within 90 days of approval of the first development order (SDP or PPL), the applicant shall pay $622,000.00 to fulfill the fair share mitigation for operational impacts, as supported by the August 4, 2020, Traffic Impact Statement. E. The Developer shall be required to improve I Ave NE from the project entrance to Desoto Boulevard to minimum two-lane undivided coral roadway consistent with FDOT Green Book construction standards. These improvements are not eligible for road impact fee credits. F. The applicant acknowledges that the following are outside of the review for this petition. School sites A and B (56d' Avenue N.E. and 2nd Avenue N.E.) have not been evaluated for transportation impacts as part of this petition. Evaluation of both sites will require standard TIS and operational review at the time of permitting. The operational review will require a determination of 5e and 2nd Avenue's ability to accommodate school operations and activities. Collier County Public School (CCPS), and not the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (CCBCC), shall be responsible for the roadway improvements necessary for both school sites. 8.4 Parks and Recreation A. The SRA shall include a minimum of one (1) children's playground that conforms to appropriate ASTM standards, which shall be a minimum of 2,500 square feet in size. The location of this playground shall be identified at the time of subdivision plat or SDP, as the case may be, for the development phase or area within which the playground is to be included. 8.5 Schools A. The Applicant shall reserve School Site A and School Site B (School Reservation), defined on Exhibit C for the District School Board of Collier County, Florida (District). Upon Approval and non -appealable SRAs for Longwater and Bellmar Villages, and all required and non -appealable permits from the South Florida Water Management District or any federal or state regulatory authorities, the District shall have up to two years to provide Page 14 of 16 Longwater Village SRA(PL20190001836) (4-13-2021) Pains I L/ of -29 written Notice to Applicant of its intent to purchase either or both of the parcels. After providing Notice, the District shall close on the parcel or parcels within 6 months of providing Notice to the Applicant. In accordance with Florida Statutes Section 1013.14(1)(b), the District will obtain two (2) appraisals for the School Site A and B from independent state certified appraisers, to establish the value of the School Sites. The appraisal date shall be the day prior to the Approval of the SRAs. The average appraised value of the two appraisals, not to exceed $23,000/acre, shall constitute the amount of credit available to the Applicant as a prepayment of Educational Impact Fees upon conveyance of the School sites to the District. With respect to the conveyance of real property, by the Applicant to the District, the School Reservation of School Site A and B to the District fully mitigates for the development's impact to the elementary, middle and high schools needed to serve Rivergrass, Longwater, and Belmar SRAs. The Applicant will use commercially reasonable efforts to include School Site B within Owners' conceptual ERP permits for Bellmar Village from the South Florida Water Management District and the Army Corp of Engineers. If Owners are successful in including School Site B within its conceptual permits for Bellmar Village, the District shall reimburse the Owners' for any Panther (or other species) mitigation required by such permits, upon actual payment and completion of the mitigation and Owners' written request to District, which reimbursement shall be calculated by Owners' on a proportionate share basis of the acreage of School Site B to the total acreage of the Bellmar Village project. The reimbursement amount shall be added to the value of the real property conveyed to the District and shall become part of the Educational Impact Fee credit issued to the Applicant/Owner. School Site A shall be used only for a public high school and/or middle school and School Site B shall be used only for a public elementary school, and not for any other purpose, which restrictions shall be deed restrictions attached to and incorporated in the conveyance deed. School Site A shall have direct and permanent access (in accordance with County Standards) to 56th Avenue NE, utilizing a non-exclusive access easement. School Site B shall have direct and permanent access (in accordance with County Standards) to 2nd Avenue NE, utilizing a non-exclusive access easement. The District shall be responsible for the construction of all access improvements from the edge of the public right-of-way into the School Sites. The District shall cause the School Sites' storm water management systems to be designed and permitted to provide the necessary onsite water management system including the quality and quantity of water storage required for the development of the School Sites. The discharge rates of the School Sites water management systems shall be consistent with the agricultural permitted rate of discharge at the time each water management system is constructed, in accordance with SFWMD Permit Number 11-00112- S for School Site A, and SFWMD Permit Number 11-01178-5 or the subsequent SFWMD development permit for School Site B. The offsite discharges of water from the School Sites to the agricultural water management area within the Shaggy Cypress Water Management District, as provided in the South Florida Water Management District Permit System Area shall be designed to provide for pump discharges and/or elevated discharge conditions within the Shaggy Cypress Water Management District. Applicant will convey a 10-foot wide underground utility easement over and across School Site B adjacent to the future Big Cypress Parkway to the Lee County Electric Cooperative. Page 15 of 16 Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (4-13-2021) Pane LOS 8.6 Other A. Street trees will be provided throughout the Village. Within the Village Center Context Zone, street trees shall be spaced forty feet (40') on center and within the Neighborhood General Context Zone, street trees shall be spaces 60 feet on center. Street trees shall have a minimum average mature canopy spread of twenty feet (20') or alternatively, for species with an average mature spread less than 20', street trees shall be spaced a distance equal to twice the average mature spread. B. Longwater Village shall commit that at least 10% of the units (260 units) are sold at purchase prices near the Moderate and Gap affordability ranges (product types: Town Home, Villa 1, Coach, & Villa 2); or, as an alternative, land or units in (or proximal to) the SRA shall be reserved for the development of housing that is affordable. Land reserved for housing that is affordable shall be identified within 48 months of SRA approval and be equivalent to 2.5% of the gross acreage of the SRA. Page 16 of 16 �j(r Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (4-13-2021) Page � � of D O PRESERVES M.E. & MISC. OPEN AREA NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL CONTEXT ZONE TOTAL DENOTES FUTURE COUNTY ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY NOT IN BRA. * SOUTH PARK AREA INCLUDES (4)1.0 Ac CELLS ABOVE 1.2 NFU Id 1. WRA LAND USE IS WITHIN SSA AND IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE BRA BOUNDARY. THE WRA AREA IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS. 2. WHERE THE VILLAGE IS ADJACENT TO AN SSA OR A PRESERVE, NO PERIMETER BUFFER IS REQUIRED, EXCEPT AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PERMIT ZONING z r A-MHO-RLSAO ZO F 200' R.O.W. N uJ�10' U.E. SSA-17L T25' TYPE (D) L.B.E. as m A. --_ 10'TYPE I A BCSD PROPERTY LINE a.e B SSA-17 ZONING rn A-MHO-RLSAO z o1� N W i THESE LANDS WHICH HAVE AN;.. —NEi NRI SCORE GREATER THAN 1.2 WILL BE MAINTAINED IN A PREDOMINATELY NATURAL STATE 91 " ZONING A-MHO-RLSAO N o ssa soo AGNOLI BARBER K .aBRUNDAGE, INC. Pmhr.iaad Engineers, Pl.ronm, Srwryors h I.JnJrcePe AsAmem a SSA-1, ROAD )N TO `T A _— OPEN SPACE SRA OR WRA ^\ q SSA-17 PANTHER FENCE iq` MINIMUREQUIRED OPEN SPACE=35%(349.93jPc.) PROVID P OPEN SPACE = 61.26% t B. SSA-17 4_ AG i i -POTENTIAL NATURE VIEWING PLATFORMS ZONING �l A-MHO-RLSAO 3� . MISC. OPEN SPACE NOT SSA SRA OR WRA This Master Plan in p tes the �B', 'Longmter Village SRA D,,Ll,pm,,t Document' as ffullyset forthh reln 4MDISCLAIMER: HE MASTER PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL. INTERNAL ROAD ALIGNMENTS, LAKE SITING AND CONFIGURATION OF DEVELOPMENT AREASARESUBJECTTO T ODIFICATION WITHIN THE RLSA GUIDELINES AT TIME OF FINAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER. YPE (D) LB.E.�25' TYPE Q1 N U_ 10' TYPE (A) L.B.E. B, SA-15 SSA15 BOUNDARY L.B.E. \ ZONING _.8. AG A.MHO-RLSAO 1 \-SEE SHEET 7 FOR MAIN SPINE ROAD CROSS SECTION ZONING A-MHO-RLSAO g\ AG OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS LAND USE ACRES OPEN SPACE % OPEN SPACE ACRES NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL 410.31 20.00% 82.06 NG COMMERCIAL AREA 2.88 10.00% 0.30 ROAD R.O.W. 14SA1 15.00% 21.81 AMENITY CENTERS 18.01 30.00% SAO PARKS 12.18 50.00% 6.09 PARK PRESERVES 9.52 100.00% 9.52 LAKES 294.72 100.00% 264.72 LAKE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT i(L.M.E. & MISC. OPEN AREA 11OA61 100.00% 110.46 PERIMETER BUFFERS 5.091 100.00% 5.09 10' UTILITY EASEMENT 1.051 100.00% 1.05 VILLAGE CENTER 20.081 TOTAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 30.00% 6.02 512.52 SRA SUBMITTAL GLANS 1233E 1.. 1 "' 7 Page of 1. COLLECTOR AND ENTRY ROADS SHALL INCLUDE I'WIDE BIKE LANES ON EACH SIDE. - l` 2. ALL ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAYS SHALL BE BY MIN. UNLESS 1 OTHERWISE NOTED. S. PROJECT SIDEWALKS WILL CONNECT TO FUTURE --� PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES INSTALLED DURING OIL WELL ROAD EXPANSION. A. AT THE DEVELOPER'S DISCRETION, A 10-FOOT WIDE PATHWAY MAY BE LOCATED WITHIN REQUIRED PERIMETER ZONING LANDSCAPE BUFFERS 2W OR GREATER IN WIDTH, PROVIDED A.MH"LGAO THE REQUIRED PLANTINGS ARE LOCATED BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE PATHWAY, HOWEVER, IN SUCH CASES, THE BUFFER WIDTH SHALL BE INCREASED IN WIDTH BY 6 FEET ABOVE THE MINIMUM REQUIRED WIDTH. A 10-FOOT WIDE PATHWAY MAY ALSO BE LOCATED WITHIN PERIMETER BUFFERS THAT ARE LESS THAN 2S IN WIDTH, l HOWEVER, IN SUCH CASES, THE BUFFER WIDTH SHALL BE INCREASED IN WIDTH BY 10 FEET ABOVE THE MINIMUM 125. REQUIRED WIDTH. S. THE 10PATHWAY SHALL ONLY BE A REQUIREMENT ON THE A MAIN SPINE ROAD _.... _. ZONING ANHO RLSAO ZONING AVMHORLSAO ZONING AIM.LSAO LABELS REFER TO RIGHT -OF VAY WIDTHS FOR ENTRY AND COLLECTOR ROADS, ALL OTHERS ARE N' MIN, SIDEWALKS TYPICAL) THROUGHOUT DEVELOPMENT lee — LEGEND - — SIDEWALKS/PATHS 10' MULT14SE PATH PANTHER FENCE AA— SECONDARY SIDEWALK AND WATE p MAIN INTERCONNECT LOCAT S �A SECONDARY SIDEWALK ZONING INTERCONNECTION LOCATIONS MHO-RLSAO F p nl ✓�fi ! POTENTIAL NATURE VIEWING PLATFORMS Y ZONING A-MHO-RLSAO ZONING AWHO-RLSAO N n� IIFYI DEVIATIONS: DEVIATIONS CONTINUED: NegrbaMmd General Standards TA Lantlseps Standards 1) AMoved. I..LDCtown. <.00S7.12AHINIuL'NommsYbnllal 1) A Ceviellon M1em LOC Sedan 4,0802,C., Buffer ReWlmmems, wnldi staes-ths lmvlmum soluble loodal perjnomseaidartiMl use 'Types of Wfrom- Teb% 2.4 Information, F...(31 when 1W. and be 3O00 square last end par ko4on atoll be 15,000 puen feel; 1• 'BuPm areae between dem aed wWrtrm located uiWn s shopping Instead allow lop among,Cent, was and relektl uses to be a maklmum of [enter. Suslness PaM. w gantlet mmmemul drvdapment may haw. M.000 square feel were Nered buffer 15 red word Win aeon sbuNrq proper, rondb tm, T5 feet, b Intraday. a shared buffer 10 Met Wee will, all ab+tanp 2) A.1stau Isom LOC Sr. 4.08.01J 611.)1) when Name cad In popady, Nwertmemp S fed. the case of'PNedr.P miry resHeMel;'sWe yard WbeMe sell bee revenues of 10 hear and roan wand sdb cam sae be a minimum of m feel for the primary saudem M lndeetl allow for a side pd Whack m 0 or 5Mt aM rear yntl s oared m 151M lw.. of It.. and lownh.—rievebpmmr, u set Ian In Table 1. NmOnnotlwod General - Rpulred Mln umen Yards and Minimum Building "el Crushed, County Owned Reetlweys. 73 T.-,.b.n Standards I A deviation Rom WC SeWon 4O8.01J.1 .'Figure 5, 8, and i, Lord Sae. Neighborhood Gended-wMM requHs. bknot-Wde pMWq was beMa.n In. Vewl lane and In. submit. Asooner .Now fin a Sfost-vie. paned area In Me some motion An loml ands within can p chat in NeghbaMwtl German. In such ..is enter. and beam of sachem am N.II be uhieed. If M. Whon of awcWmd son B uB ided. a minimum of wf. m awdur l son par muse wet amoere Tree arom pmlectlon shah tea prodded. 2) A dwlaFm Ran LOC Serum 4.0807.13.01 q), wean requires Mat the emoum of returned p rmad In the M11... Center'Mdnmonw.M Mmupn a"red puffing Ayala submitletl arm en SMdrsymtbn appentua ..'and be-commumal Merger Me modal sines and parking ..endsper wrome us.. amgmdel by M. uu ca .r snuroe. or .ides._ - to insteatl slow Me pmldng demand wlydae be wWarned at the firms .Initial She Oevelopnent Plan (SOP) or. adMe Mama ofMe County Manager or desi0ma, at tin thus, of a subsequent SOP m SDP Amendment, In adore allow for a prom mmpssna ema pot demand analysis Wed upon the me of use. at Me had m Me Inks SOP m subpqu.m SOP or SOP Amendment 7.3 Sin SMMaNa 1) AManifem Rom LDC Sedan S.M.D3.8.5.e,-O,,mmsm cloemonel merles will moldeael dishfil wMA requires ompamke gradient Wens W be set beck. minimum 0f 10 end from tin Mere lea roadway, pared sudxa or bank dMe•uN. W ImMd blow. m'nMum bidders a6feet Imm Me edge died marl prvetl wdw or bees: mop. surd, Amid M dpnslnMm.tont.sPAmN. Tnke.Ckdesslpnageele,CmntwovTed romd mys. 7.5 Otter Cevidbna 1) Ademo. tom LOC Seance 0.05OC.G,'PeMtp lines - Requirement,' which requires f phir, space par toe square lent he euee8on ladr.(iMam)sparls. eserdw, fie m. mrotr.®,.heats dubs M instead allow for paMng 1, the Amsnity Center arras M tad centered at 1 mama per 200 puere feet or Indoor square holders, mmW, Woman or sbrW spew. 2) AdsNellon f.. LOC Sedan IM.1OA2.--LocaOm Clear. well requires Met'LSPA Ordered shad dentq mass)shed be ntaed In ore Mellen of Me We) paleady adlaaem ee pre wserve area; a embed allow be awVed dam shelf pbn0oq areas. M Mmserdd In Pnam street dWmcpm•m wines, Including the daveopmem less end WRA amd m Met. Wong Me•adem pMmmer m Mairm. 3) A Contingent from LOC Sundon<.03,0B.C,'Plede Walter System; whop sloes nreperete gleam water and reuse watMMes...shall be paWtled by Meapptlmnt atnomsle Cdnm Camarlea hauai"Norm and dewbprdaW and 'Reuse water lines, pumps, and ether appudenanwswlll me be mdnumM I Cdlwr Counly.• 0Istead Wow be amh fmdl res andr s apWdmMnaee be mnwyed W and mdmeined by CeMr Count. Page ate of m I N � 19 0 i V 0 3 gape ;al)- - .E � § ` � y � & » �\ - : �[! ��R - .�* ®- } •,_XA F.XHTRTT A TO SRA DOCUMENT Fttge� of ■■■ur MMMOAGNOLI uu I 7400 Trail BHtl., Suite 200 Nople FL 34108 ■■■■■. PHI (239) 597.3111 :_:_::RARRER & www.ABBINC.com ■■■.■■Y ■■■■"' BRUNDAGE, IN( LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LONGWATER SRA TRACT I ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, FLANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF AFORESAID SECTION 23; THENCE S 89P W59" W ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23 A DISTANCE OF 770.02 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE S 00"15'Ol" E A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 50.00 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23, SAID INTERSECTION ALSO BEING THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF OIL WELL ROAD (200' RO.W.) AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE S 00*1 TOO" E A DISTANCE OF 132.67 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 89"44'59" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 105.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 45°24'58" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 83.23 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 260.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34.1757" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 155.64 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 440.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09-35-51" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 73.70 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 700.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25"O6'O8" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 306.68 FEET TO THE BEGINNPG OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 349.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 32*28'18" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 197.79 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1500.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 44"43'03" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 1170.70 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 75"37'38" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 395.99 FEET, THENCE S 58°4436" W A DISTANCE OF 390.72 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 69"52'03" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 121.94 FEET; THENCE S I100728" E A DISTANCE OF 438.61 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET; PAGE 2 OF 10 Page J�- of 6 b THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 85028'03" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 596.68 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 200.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 50030'49" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 176.33 FEET; THENCE S 2304947" W A DISTANCE OF 390.51 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 36°52'30" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 257.44 FEET; THENCE S 13002'43" E A DISTANCE OF 465.37 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 240.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10305542" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 435.33 FEET; THENCE N 89°07'O1" W A DISTANCE OF 1055.37 FEET; THENCE N 00047'57" W A DISTANCE OF 97.59 FEET; THENCE N 52°33'15" W A DISTANCE OF 70.08 FEET; THENCE N 57°2841" W A DISTANCE OF 90.17 FEET; THENCE N 54°29'18" W A DISTANCE OF 56.40 FEET; THENCE N 5405T27" W A DISTANCE OF 222.49 FEET; THENCE N 55*41'14" W A DISTANCE OF 108.91 FEET; THENCE N 64*37'19" W A DISTANCE OF 52.01 FEET; THENCE N 64°31'02" W A DISTANCE OF 71.77 FEET; THENCE N 25°28'58" E A DISTANCE OF 46.08 FEET; THENCE N 17°41'24" E A DISTANCE OF 159.37 FEET; THENCE N 19024'48" E A DISTANCE OF 130.30 FEET; THENCE N 17041'12" E A DISTANCE OF 152.31 FEET; THENCE N 19°3943" E A DISTANCE OF 163.63 FEET; THENCE N 16058'S4" E A DISTANCE OF 115.30 FEET; THENCE N 19045'12" E A DISTANCE OF 95.09 FEET; THENCE N 18°30'01" E A DISTANCE OF 108.19 FEET; THENCE N 07-1645" E A DISTANCE OF 105.99 FEET; THENCE N 07°21'52" E A DISTANCE OF 1053.05 FEET; THENCE N 06059'59" E A DISTANCE OF 321.33 FEET; THENCE N 09015'09" E A DISTANCE OF 78.59 FEET; THENCE N 08°05'25" E A DISTANCE OF 95.78 FEET; THENCE N 0601700" E A DISTANCE OF 93.24 FEET; THENCE N 02*27'15" E A DISTANCE OF 72.03 FEET; THENCE N 02-13'12" W A DISTANCE OF 94.12 FEET; THENCE N 04052'08" W A DISTANCE OF 109.91 FEET; THENCE N 04°1640" W A DISTANCE OF 108.24 FEET; THENCE N 05°5947" W A DISTANCE OF 114.91 FEET; THENCE N 04038'07" W A DISTANCE OF 258.02 FEET; THENCE N 04°52'41" W A DISTANCE OF 67.12 FEET; THENCE N 86-5623" W A DISTANCE OF 6.72 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 61o34'I5" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 260.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 62008'22" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 281,98 FEET; THENCE N 03o35'48" W A DISTANCE OF 43.18 FEET; THENCE S 8l°12'45" W A DISTANCE OF 65.23 FEET; THENCE S 78047'29" W A DISTANCE OF 97.37 FEET; PAGE 3 OF 10 ka;ea�of Fs THENCE S 80053'38" W A DISTANCE OF 85.87 FEET; THENCE S 82051'24" W A DISTANCE OF 71.47 FEET; THENCE S 26°22'26" W A DISTANCE OF 82.01 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 72-0635" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 145.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2801825" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 71.64 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 43.2F21" E AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 240.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34006'47" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 142.89 FEET; THENCE N 8004527" E A DISTANCE OF 217.01 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 340.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 51027'13" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 305.33 FEET; THENCE N 01050'26" W A DISTANCE OF 102.10 FEET; THENCE S 8803014" E A DISTANCE OF 412.53 FEET; THENCE S 88038'16" E A DISTANCE OF 496.61 FEET; THENCE N 00015'01" W A DISTANCE OF 885.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 50.00 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23, SAID INTERSECTION ALSO BEING THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF OIL WELL ROAD (200' R.O.W.); THENCE N 89044'59" E ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE A DISTANCE OF 1709.53 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. CONTAINING A TOTAL AREA OF APPROXMIATELY 217.18 ACRES. REFERENCE ABB DRAWING 412347-SD PAGE 4 OF 10 pageoa,f b ■....t 7400 T,.;l Wd., Suite 200 " PAGNOLI Nopim, FL 34108 .....� PM: (239) 597-3111 NU I ARBER &-,ABBINCcom touu111111111:116' ...."' RUNDAGE, IN( LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LONGWATER SRA TRACT 2 ALL THAT PART OF SECTIONS 22, 23, 26, 27, 34 AND 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF AFORESAID SECTION 27; THENCE N 89044'09" E A DISTANCE OF 210,00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 210.00 FEET EASTERLY FROM AND PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LENE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 27 AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE N 00°15'5 l" W ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE A DISTANCE OF 556.73 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID PARALLEL L R7 LINE N 89040W E A DISTANCE OF 42.00 FEET; THENCE S 81-09045" E A DISTANCE OF 24.85 FEET; THENCE S 81*IT57" E A DISTANCE OF 43.68 FEET; THENCE S 67050'53" E A DISTANCE OF 24.15 FEET; THENCE N 51°13'46" E A DISTANCE OF 14.44 FEET; THENCE N 83034'26" E A DISTANCE OF 20.97 FEET; THENCE N 85*4756" E A DISTANCE OF 58.59 FEET; THENCE S 81025'2I" E A DISTANCE OF 65.83 FEET; THENCE S llr24'10" E A DISTANCE OF 79.32 FEET; THENCE S 81-49*19" E A DISTANCE OF 85.24 FEET; THENCE S 8300742" E A DISTANCE OF 94.54 FEET; THENCE S 83026'4 P' E A DISTANCE OF 106.68 FEET; THENCE S 85055'20" E A DISTANCE OF 176.04 FEET; THENCE S 87021'52" E A DISTANCE OF 151.35 FEET; THENCE S 8303418" E A DISTANCE OF 108.51 FEET; THENCE S 87-03-30P E A DISTANCE OF 191.80 FEET, THENCE S 8902T05" E A DISTANCE OF 171.39 FEET; THENCE S 87033'10" E A DISTANCE OF 126.34 FEET; THENCE S 88043'19" E A DISTANCE OF 98.64 FEET; THENCE S 8604838" E A DISTANCE OF 96.80 FEET; THENCE S 89040'09" E A DISTANCE OF 130.03 FEET; THENCE S 8704TOl" E A DISTANCE OF 124.74 FEET; THENCE S 87024'48" E A DISTANCE OF 107.14 FEET; THENCE S 87048'06" E A DISTANCE OF 127.16 FEET; THENCE S 88-11-19" E A DISTANCE OF 153.59 FEET; THENCE N 89059'OV E A DISTANCE OF 59.76 FEET; THENCE N 02051'20" E A DISTANCE OF 51.25 FEET; THENCE N 03037'35" W A DISTANCE OF 40.26 FEET; THENCE N 07054'23" E A DISTANCE OF 75.33 FEET; THENCE N IOP03'l5" E A DISTANCE OF 64.18 FEET; THENCE N 11019'06" E A DISTANCE OF 80.02 FEET; PAGE 5OF 10 PBRe as of _ THENCE N 10°47'45" E A DISTANCE OF 79.50 FEET; THENCE N 09'49' 17" E A DISTANCE OF 94.43 FEET; THENCE N 10°03'11" E A DISTANCE OF 127.62 FEET; THENCE N 09' 16'25" E A DISTANCE OF 110.89 FEET; THENCE N 10°3925" E A DISTANCE OF 144.00 FEET; THENCE N 08"44'32" E A DISTANCE OF 112.11 FEET; THENCE N 10018'07" E A DISTANCE OF 145.41 FEET; THENCE N 10°24'56" E A DISTANCE OF 170.23 FEET; THENCE N 09°0106" E A DISTANCE OF 101.38 FEET; THENCE N 10°3721" E A DISTANCE OF 181.28 FEET; THENCE N 09°57'51" E A DISTANCE OF 121.94 FEET; THENCE N 09016'33" E A DISTANCE OF 159.76 FEET; THENCE N 08°0545" E A DISTANCE OF 73.91 FEET; THENCE N 1200617H E A DISTANCE OF 47.98 FEET; THENCE N 07°00'32" E A DISTANCE OF 96.94 FEET; THENCE N lr4N08" E A DISTANCE OF 48.22 FEET; THENCE N 29"04TT' E A DISTANCE OF 51.97 FEET; THENCE N 56°5T43" E A DISTANCE OF 32.67 FEET; THENCE S 79°47'55" E A DISTANCE OF 110.65 FEET; THENCE S 79"OP08" E A DISTANCE OF 91.37 FEET; THENCE S 78°5 F16" E A DISTANCE OF 140.42 FEET; THENCE S 7902947" E A DISTANCE OF 89.62 FEET; THENCE S 79*2632" E A DISTANCE OF 117.52 FEET; THENCE S 79°45'16" E A DISTANCE OF 73.96 FEET; THENCE N 46057'48" E A DISTANCE OF 29.89 FEET; THENCE N 10"5T29" E A DISTANCE OF 123.93 FEET; THENCE N 07°3225" E A DISTANCE OF 89.34 FEET; THENCE N 08007'07" E A DISTANCE OF 139.48 FEET; THENCE N 07°54'40" E A DISTANCE OF 114.89 FEET; THENCE N 08°49' 12" E A DISTANCE OF 128.22 FEET; THENCE N 10°33'53" E A DISTANCE OF 99.66 FEET; THENCE N 08°25'59" E A DISTANCE OF 62.05 FEET; THENCE N 26"54'30" E A DISTANCE OF 49.71 FEET; THENCE N 62045'00" E A DISTANCE OF 42.18 FEET; THENCE S 89°01'30" E A DISTANCE OF 98.14 FEET; THENCE S 88°17'00" E A DISTANCE OF 127.41 FEET; THENCE S 89*11'00" E A DISTANCE OF 106.29 FEET; THENCE S 89W 1 P E A DISTANCE OF 181.67 FEET; THENCE S 89"07'05" E A DISTANCE OF 73.95 FEET; THENCE N 8903705" E A DISTANCE OF 158.00 FEET; THENCE N 0102T47" E A DISTANCE OF 56.60 FEET; THENCE N 01°05'56" E A DISTANCE OF 175.96 FEET; THENCE N 00°58'55" E A DISTANCE OF 120.19 FEET; THENCE N 00"5TO9" E A DISTANCE OF 106.25 FEET; THENCE N 01°25'58" E A DISTANCE OF 172.25 FEET; THENCE N 00"59'37" E A DISTANCE OF 129.98 FEET; THENCE N 02°13'52" E A DISTANCE OF 174.99 FEET; THENCE N 01013'07" E A DISTANCE OF 170.11 FEET; THENCE N 12"2344" E A DISTANCE OF 65.85 FEET; THENCE N 65°OT26" E A DISTANCE OF 58.11 FEET; THENCE N 87°35'09" E A DISTANCE OF 97.09 FEET; PAGE 6 OF 10 Page oc i of THENCE S 89003'01" E A DISTANCE OF 139.85 FEET; THENCE N 89008'08" E A DISTANCE OF 159.59 FEET; THENCE N 89055'58" E A DISTANCE OF 184.84 FEET; THENCE S 89048'17" E A DISTANCE OF 242.95 FEET; THENCE S 89018'36" E A DISTANCE OF 127.18 FEET; THENCE N 8802913" E A DISTANCE OF 150.51 FEET; THENCE S 89000104" E A DISTANCE OF 160.58 FEET; THENCE N 88046'01" E A DISTANCE OF 151.90 FEET; THENCE S 79022'05" E A DISTANCE OF 52.74 FEET; THENCE S 38°06'03" E A DISTANCE OF 57.21 FEET; THENCE S 01*2128" E A DISTANCE OF 145.54 FEET; THENCE S 00055'57" W A DISTANCE OF 150.31 FEET; THENCE S 01033'09" W A DISTANCE OF 207.79 FEET; THENCE S 01'31'44" W A DISTANCE OF 141.52 FEET; THENCE S 01023'16" W A DISTANCE OF 164.71 FEET; THENCE S 01 *00'09" W A DISTANCE OF 148.59 FEET; THENCE S 00045'36" W A DISTANCE OF 132.20 FEET; THENCE S 1603647" E A DISTANCE OF 77.60 FEET; THENCE S 86036'24" E A DISTANCE OF 218.27 FEET; THENCE N 84038'32" E A DISTANCE OF 57.46 FEET; THENCE N 88029'19" E A DISTANCE OF 188.83 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 13014'14" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 142.04 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 38004'57" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 94.41 FEET; THENCE S 33028'54" E A DISTANCE OF 33.93 FEET; THENCE S 23045'58" E A DISTANCE OF 31.88 FEET; THENCE S 0705932" E A DISTANCE OF 22.70 FEET; THENCE S 08009'03" W A DISTANCE OF 100.81 FEET; THENCE S 08057'38" W A DISTANCE OF 111.86 FEET; THENCE S 08049'05" W A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET; THENCE S 07059'07" W A DISTANCE OF 98.77 FEET; THENCE S 08051'00" W A DISTANCE OF 462.69 FEET; THENCE S 0704T34" W A DISTANCE OF 120.29 FEET; THENCE S 10o03'37" W A DISTANCE OF 256.55 FEET; THENCE S 08003'15" W A DISTANCE OF 87.61 FEET; THENCE S 07057'36" W A DISTANCE OF 129.24 FEET; THENCE S 08050'57" W A DISTANCE OF 158.37 FEET; THENCE S 10016'55" W A DISTANCE OF 137.59 FEET; THENCE S 07003'24" W A DISTANCE OF 160.41 FEET; THENCE S 09024' 12" W A DISTANCE OF 179.42 FEET; THENCE S 06037'32" W A DISTANCE OF 158.52 FEET; THENCE S 09053'05" W A DISTANCE OF 158.01 FEET; THENCE S 21033'21" W A DISTANCE OF 55.08 FEET; THENCE S 82019'46" W A DISTANCE OF 77.36 FEET; THENCE N 89013'46" W A DISTANCE OF 151.12 FEET; THENCE N 89021'5 V W A DISTANCE OF 108.57 FEET; THENCE N 85059'59" W A DISTANCE OF 198.45 FEET; THENCE S 15053'00" W A DISTANCE OF 96.05 FEET; THENCE S 07002'17" W A DISTANCE OF 26.49 FEET; THENCE S 37*2943" W A DISTANCE OF 68.14 FEET; PAGE 7 OF 10 Page . 0 of 2G a THENCE S 31023'33" W A DISTANCE OF 40.71 FEET; THENCE S 16020'58" W A DISTANCE OF 220.13 FEET; THENCE S 22059'53" W A DISTANCE OF 41.27 FEET; THENCE S 18029'23" W A DISTANCE OF 69.29 FEET; THENCE S 08048'18" W A DISTANCE OF 56.10 FEET; THENCE S 10010'49" W A DISTANCE OF 65.97 FEET; THENCE S 05030'03" W A DISTANCE OF 45.04 FEET; THENCE S 06057'16" W A DISTANCE OF 106.82 FEET; THENCE S 08043'39" W A DISTANCE OF 105.41 FEET; THENCE S 08055'48" W A DISTANCE OF 91.41 FEET; THENCE S 24000'42" W A DISTANCE OF 77.21 FEET; THENCE S 0903VI2" W A DISTANCE OF 55.93 FEET; THENCE S 08014'59" W A DISTANCE OF 126.14 FEET; THENCE S 08053'46" W A DISTANCE OF 119.38 FEET; THENCE S 0802446" W A DISTANCE OF 145.38 FEET; THENCE S 08020'38" W A DISTANCE OF 216.11 FEET; THENCE S 08026'17" W A DISTANCE OF 152.97 FEET; THENCE S 08*18'20" W A DISTANCE OF 131.25 FEET; THENCE S O4008'24" W A DISTANCE OF 228.36 FEET; THENCE S 03*50133" W A DISTANCE OF 214.51 FEET; THENCE S 04031'40" W A DISTANCE OF 180.53 FEET; THENCE S 04004'11" W A DISTANCE OF 292.07 FEET; THENCE S O4008'09" W A DISTANCE OF 211.01 FEET; THENCE S O4007'35" W A DISTANCE OF 350.99 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 143.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 88027'15" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 220.77 FEET; THENCE N 87025'10" W A DISTANCE OF 263.63 FEET; THENCE S 56031'23" W A DISTANCE OF 414.66 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 57°01'49" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 24.88 FEET; THENCE S 0003V26" E A DISTANCE OF 645.03 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL. ANGLE OF 60P47-29" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 26.53 FEET; THENCE S 61017'55" E A DISTANCE OF 999.19 FEET; THENCE S 7504634" E A DISTANCE OF 12.50 FEET; THENCE N 8904928" E A DISTANCE OF 334.67 FEET; THENCE S 2003926" E A DISTANCE OF 334.38 FEET; THENCE S 39021'06" W A DISTANCE OF 979.22 FEET; THENCE N 34040'36" W A DISTANCE OF 115.45 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 52-57-38" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 28.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 4305652" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 21.48 FEET; THENCE S 8904447" W A DISTANCE OF 204.14 FEET TO THIN BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS N 00027'23" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 142.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 53045'39" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 133.24 FEET; PAGE 8 OF 10 P11Q4 Of O U THENCE N 36°53'55" W A DISTANCE OF 134.23 FEET; THENCE N 40°4225" W A DISTANCE OF 39.74 FEET; THENCE N 36° 14'22" W A DISTANCE OF 229.41 FEET; THENCE N 36°53'55" W A DISTANCE OF 663.78 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 77°05'58" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 33.64 FEET; THENCE S 66°00'07" W A DISTANCE OF 1347.27 FEET; THENCE S 60°I 1'58" W A DISTANCE OF 35.81 FEET; THENCE N 31 °43'05" W A DISTANCE OF 38.54 FEET; THENCE N 36°09'51" W A DISTANCE OF 40.59 FEET; THENCE N 20045'08" W A DISTANCE OF 21.76 FEET; THENCE N 290IT25" W A DISTANCE OF 26.75 FEET; THENCE N 21°48'56" W A DISTANCE OF 51.21 FEET; THENCE N 32°54' 14" W A DISTANCE OF 137.82 FEET; THENCE N 40035'17" W A DISTANCE OF 78.60 FEET; THENCE N 68024'48" W A DISTANCE OF 37.30 FEET; THENCE N 53°10'07" W A DISTANCE OF 32.15 FEET; THENCE N 21013'51" E A DISTANCE OF 40.37 FEET; THENCE N 22002'47" W A DISTANCE OF 44.59 FEET; THENCE N 07021'32" W A DISTANCE OF 56.07 FEET; THENCE N 06°28'35" E A DISTANCE OF 66.40 FEET; THENCE N 09°56'22" E A DISTANCE OF 69.15 FEET; THENCE N 03'38'16" E A DISTANCE OF 51.88 FEET; THENCE N 07°1T28" E A DISTANCE OF 82.16 FEET; THENCE N 06°29'56" E A DISTANCE OF 74.86 FEET; THENCE N 06°07'02" E A DISTANCE OF 85.01 FEET; THENCE N 03°4647" E A DISTANCE OF 82.82 FEET; THENCE N 05°23'36" E A DISTANCE OF 74.88 FEET; THENCE N 02°1748" E A DISTANCE OF 105.33 FEET; THENCE N W38'19" E A DISTANCE OF 59.59 FEET; THENCE N 00048' 14" E A DISTANCE OF 50.18 FEET; THENCE N 02025'45" W A DISTANCE OF 70.13 FEET; THENCE N 00°54'02" E A DISTANCE OF 73.67 FEET; THENCE N 00°51'34" W A DISTANCE OF 54.76 FEET; THENCE N 15°43'00" W A DISTANCE OF 48.82 FEET; THENCE N 13°29'58" E A DISTANCE OF 47.07 FEET; THENCE N 00°44'5 V E A DISTANCE OF 55.85 FEET; THENCE N 10'39'19" E A DISTANCE OF 32.52 FEET; THENCE N 04°0717" E A DISTANCE OF 41.62 FEET; THENCE N 12°35' 16" E A DISTANCE OF 38.67 FEET; THENCE N 00"20'34" W A DISTANCE OF 38,40 FEET; THENCE N 18"05'3 V E A DISTANCE OF 47.83 FEET; THENCE N 03°58'33" W A DISTANCE OF 48.95 FEET; THENCE N 19-51'27" E A DISTANCE OF 34.70 FEET; THENCE N 09°3419" E A DISTANCE OF 34.06 FEET; THENCE N 04°5950" W A DISTANCE OF 28.60 FEET; THENCE N 02*5956" W A DISTANCE OF 30.74 FEET; THENCE N 44*25'19" W A DISTANCE OF 31.56 FEET; THENCE N 41°3956" W A DISTANCE OF 33.84 FEET; THENCE N 06*0721" E A DISTANCE OF 19.31 FEET; PAGE 9 OF 10 Page 3gof Rb THENCE N 29015'43" W A DISTANCE OF 30.89 FEET; THENCE N 50020'45" W A DISTANCE OF 65.85 FEET; THENCE N 37°39'56" W A DISTANCE OF 20.94 FEET; THENCE S 87018'03" W A DISTANCE OF 18.51 FEET; THENCE N 86053'50" W A DISTANCE OF 40.70 FEET; THENCE N 57038'19" W A DISTANCE OF 57.04 FEET; THENCE N 02°5244" E A DISTANCE OF 160.84 FEET; THENCE N 49°42'21" W A DISTANCE OF 597.21 FEET; THENCE S 899733" W A DISTANCE OF 99.83 FEET; THENCE S 89°55'08" W A DISTANCE OF 166.80 FEET; THENCE S 88°18'59" W A DISTANCE OF 113.40 FEET; THENCE S 80°5544" W A DISTANCE OF 95.52 FEET; THENCE S 79°29'17" W A DISTANCE OF 110.57 FEET; THENCE S 76°51'49" W A DISTANCE OF 41.22 FEET; THENCE S 80'58'38" W A DISTANCE OF 97.67 FEET; THENCE S 79'59'43" W A DISTANCE OF 718.60 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2600.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09-0600" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 412.95 FEET; THENCE S 00°1545" E A DISTANCE OF 12.29 FEET; THENCE S 89044'15" W A DISTANCE OF 35.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 210.00 FEET EASTERLY FROM AND PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 27; THENCE N 00°1545" W ALONG SAID PARALLEL A DISTANCE OF 2691.34 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. CONTAINING A TOTAL AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 782.63 ACRES. REFERENCE ABB DRAWING #12347-SD PAGE 10 OF 10 Pape 33 of A EXHIBIT C TO SRA DOCUMENT School Site A LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR NORTH SCHOOL SITE ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 3;THENCE N 89034'07" E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 3 A DISTANCE OF 856,52 FEET;THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE S 00025'53" E A DISTANCE OF 40.98 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED, SAID POINT OF BEGINNING HAVING A NORTHING COORDINATE VALUE OF 728725.75 AND AN EASTING COORDINATE VALUE OF 488670.65 BASED ON THE FLORIDA STATE PLANE EAST ZONE, 83/90 ADJUSTMENT; THENCE N 89°35'07" E A DISTANCE OF 1718.88 FEET; THENCE S 25°50'57" E A DISTANCE OF 1968.06 FEET; THENCE N 90o00'00" W A DISTANCE OF 757.89 FEET; THENCE S 85o23'28" W A DISTANCE OF 472.60 FEET; THENCE N 88007'20" W A DISTANCE OF 1260.03 FEET; THENCE N 71'49'13" W A DISTANCE OF 77.47 FEET; THENCE N 44031' 1 I" W A DISTANCE OF 52.66 FEET; THENCE N 24-I 1'19" W A DISTANCE OF 44.76 FEET; THENCE N 08o43'43" W A DISTANCE OF 29.46 FEET; THENCE N 02036'05" W A DISTANCE OF 530.00 FEET; THENCEN 14026'23" E A DISTANCE OF 69.98 FEET; THENCE N 37o52'22" E A DISTANCE OF 42.57 FEET; THENCE N 44045'04" E A DISTANCE OF 62.56 FEET; THENCE N 37053' 15" SA DISTANCE OF 15.92 FEET; THENCEN 09o00'32" EA DISTANCE OF 11.83 FEET; THENCE N 00*06'35" W A DISTANCE OF 453.60 FEET; THENCE N 19°25'06" W A DISTANCE OF 13.09 FEET; THENCE N 59o53'41" W A DISTANCE OF 33.08 FEET; THENCE N 00o26'12" E A DISTANCE OF 441.69 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. CONTAINING A TOTAL AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 88.31 ACRES. REF. ABB DWG# 12444-SD School Site B LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR SOUTH SCHOOL SITE ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 3;THENCE N 13054'05" W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 3 A DISTANCE OF 2049.80 FEET;THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST LINE N 76°05'55" E A DISTANCE OF 210,47 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS N 75"02'51" E AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2800.00 FEET AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED, SAID POINT OF BEGINNING HAVING A NORTHING COORDINATE VALUE OF 690207.13 AND AN FASTING COORDINATE VALUE OF 489805.83 BASED ON THE FLORIDA STATE PLANE EAST ZONE, 83/90 ADJUSTMENT; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 0Io03'04" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 51.37 FEET; THENCE N 13054'05" W A DISTANCE OF 538.79 FEET; THENCE N 13o53'49" W A DISTANCE OF 560.43 FEET; THENCE N 76*06'11" E A DISTANCE OF 981.28 FEET; THENCE S 15022'35" E A DISTANCE OF 393.70 FEET; THENCE S 12o44'47" E A DISTANCE OF 154.92 FEET; THENCE S 15012'49" E A DISTANCE OF 159.10 FEET; THENCE S 15033'46" E A DISTANCE OF 241.41 FEET; THENCE S 09050'32" E A DISTANCE OF 169.78 FEET; THENCE S 12054'26" E A DISTANCE OF 140.03 FEET; THENCE S 20027'43" W A DISTANCE OF 41,00 FEET; THENCE S 66o58'09" W A DISTANCE OF 32.13 FEET; THENCE S 83°46'58" W A DISTANCE OF 132.59 FEET; THENCE S 83047'24" W A DISTANCE OF 132,37 FEET; THENCE S 86031'48" W A DISTANCE OF 155.77 FEET; THENCE S 84046'57" W A DISTANCE OF 129.69 FEET; THENCE S 86034'27" W A DISTANCE OF 147.14 FEET; THENCE S 85006' 14" W A DISTANCE OF 134.31 FEET; THENCE S 84o20'38" W A DISTANCE OF 108.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. CONTAINING A TOTAL AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 2T93 ACRES. REF. ASS DWG# 12442-SD Page I of I Pnee� of �c, Q Exhibit D to SRA Document Imm950 Encore Way EXHIBIT D Naples, FL 34110 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA HOLE MONTES „ , E.oa. Phone: (239) 254-2000 LOCATION MAP Page Vx!�Oia EXHIBIT E TO SRA DOCUMENT COVENANT OF UNIFIED CONTROL The undersigned do hereby swear or affirm that we are the fee simple titleholders and owners of record of property commonly known as LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA (PL-20190001836) (Folio k •00225400003 00225440005 00225560008, 00225600007, 00225980005 & 00225920004) and legal described in Exhibit A attached hereto. The property described herein is the subject of an application for the Longwater Village SEA. We hereby designate PATRICK L. UTTER, legal representative thereof, as the legal representatives of the property and as such, these individuals ae authorized to legally bind all owners of the property in the course of seeking the necessary approvals to develop. This authority includes, but is not limited to, the hiring and authorization of agents to assist in the preparation of applications, plans, surveys, and studies necessary to obtain zoning approval on the site. These representatives will remain the only entity to authorize development activity on the property until such time as a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to Collier County. The undersigned recognizes the following and will be guided accordingly in the pursuit of development of the project: I . The property will be developed and used in conformity with the approved master plan including all conditions placed on the development and all commitments agreed to by the applicant in connection with the SPA document. 2. The legal representative identified herein is responsible for compliance with all terms, conditions, safeguards, and stipulations made at that time of approval of the master plan, even if the property is subsequently sold in whole or in part, unless and until a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to and recorded by Collier County. 3. A departure from the provisions of the approved plans or a failure to comply with any requirements, conditions, or safeguards provided for in the SRA process will constitute a violation of the Land Development Code. 4. All terms and conditions of the Longwater Village SRA approval will be incorporated into covenants and restrictions which run with the land so as to provide notice to subsequent owners that all development activity within the Longwater Village SPA development must be consistent with those terms and conditions, 5. So long as this covenant is in force, Collier County can, upon the discovery of noncompliance with the tarns, safeguards, and conditions of the Longwater Village SRA development, seek equitable relief as necessary to compel compliance. The County will not issue permits, certificates, or licenses to occupy or use any part of the Longwater Village SRA and the County may stop ongoing construction activit a til t e project is brought into compliance with all terms, conditions and /j fegu its of the n,vt Village SPA. PaMck L. Utter, vice President CDC Land Investments, LLC By: CDC Land Investments, Inc., its manager Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. By Collier Enterprises, Inc., its general manager STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by means of u physical presence or o online notarization this (� day of U'crugzt ,2020, by PATRICKL UTTER, VICE PRESIDENT Such person(s) Notary Public must chock applicable box: m Are personally known to me r Has produced a current driver's license Valerie L Pike o Has produced as identification 4CanmisabnMHH aEiad n Commbalon Explree oB-0Pt03d 1 p BonJBJ TbovgM1Cynanorary Notary Signaluro: U- � Florka-Nol- Pualla Page, of 2S O ammo®! 7400 Trail Blvd., 50a 200 uaev■ GNOU ou Noples, FL 3410E iYrtl�b PH: (239) 597-3111 r■"'" ■■u■s ARBFR & www.naslNc�e..: uusu wRUNDAGE, INC. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LONGWATER SRA TRACT 1 ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF AFORESAID SECTION 23; THENCE S 89044'59" W ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23 A DISTANCE OF 770.02 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE S 00015'01" E A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 50.00 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23, SAID INTERSECTION ALSO BEING THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF OIL WELL ROAD (200' R.O.W.) AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE S 00*1 Y01" E A DISTANCE OF 132.67 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 89-44-59" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 105.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 45024,581, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 83.23 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 260.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34-17-57" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 155.64 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 440.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09035'51" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 73.70 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 700.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25006'08" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 306.68 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 349,00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 32028'I8" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 197.79 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1500.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 44043'03" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 1170.70 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 75037-38" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 395.98 FEET; THENCE S 58044'36" W A DISTANCE OF 390.72 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 69052'03" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 121.94 FEET; THENCE S 11'0728" E A DISTANCE OF 438.61 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET; PAGE 2 OF 10 Page of THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 85o28'03" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 596.68 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 200.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5090149" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 176.33 FEET; THENCE S 23049'47" W A DISTANCE OF 390.51 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 36°52'30" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 257.44 FEET; THENCE S 13°02'43" E A DISTANCE OF 465.37 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 240.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 103°55'42" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 435.33 FEET; THENCE N 89°07'01" W A DISTANCE OF 1055.37 FEET; THENCE N 00°47'57" W A DISTANCE OF 97.59 FEET; THENCE N 52°33' 15" W A DISTANCE OF 70.08 FEET; THENCE N 57'28'41" W A DISTANCE OF 90.17 FEET; _ THENCE N 54°29' 18" W A DISTANCE OF 56.40 FEET; THENCE 54°52'27" W A DISTANCE OF 222.49 FEET; THENCE N 55°4114" W A DISTANCE OF 108.91 FEET; THENCE N 64*37'19" W A DISTANCE OF 52.01 FEET; THENCE N 64*31'02" W A DISTANCE OF 71.77 FEET; THENCE N 25°28'58" E A DISTANCE OF 46.08 FEET; THENCE N 1741'24" E A DISTANCE OF 159.37 FEET; THENCE N 19°24'48" E A DISTANCE OF 130.30 FEET; THENCE N 17'41'12" E A DISTANCE OF 152.31 FEET; THENCE N 19'39'43" E A DISTANCE OF 163.63 FEET; THENCE N 16°58'54" E A DISTANCE OF 115.30 FEET; THENCE N 19045' 12" E A DISTANCE OF 95.09 FEET; THENCE N I8°30'01" E A DISTANCE OF 108.19 FEET; THENCE N 07*16'45" E A DISTANCE OF 105.99 FEET; THENCE N 07*21'52" E A DISTANCE OF 1053.05 FEET; THENCE N 06°59'59" E A DISTANCE OF 321.33 FEET; THENCE N 09° 15'09" E A DISTANCE OF 78.59 FEET; THENCE N 08°O5'25" E A DISTANCE OF 95.78 FEET; THENCE N 06°17'00" E A DISTANCE OF 9324 FEET; THENCE N 02'27'15" E A DISTANCE OF 72.03 FEET; THENCE N 02°I Tl2" W A DISTANCE OF 94.12 FEET; THENCE N 04o52'08" W A DISTANCE OF 109.91 FEET; THENCE N 04°16'40" W A DISTANCE OF 108.24 FEET; THENCE N 05°59'47" W A DISTANCE OF 114.91 FEET; THENCE N 04°38'07" W A DISTANCE OF 258.02 FEET; THENCE N 04°52'41" W A DISTANCE OF 67.12 FEET; THENCE N 86°56'23" W A DISTANCE OF 6.72 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 61°34'15" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 260.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 62°08'22" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 281.98 FEET; THENCE N 03°35'48" W A DISTANCE OF 43.18 FEET; THENCE S 81°12'45" W A DISTANCE OF 65.23 FEET; THENCE S 78°47'29" W A DISTANCE OF 97.37 FEET; PAGE 3 OF 30 Page31 of THENCE S 80°53'38" W A DISTANCE OF 85.87 FEET; THENCE S 82*51'24" W A DISTANCE OF 71.47 FEET; THENCE S 26°22'26" W A DISTANCE OF 82.01 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 72°06'35" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 145.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2898'25" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 71.64 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 43°21'21" E AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 240.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34°06'47" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 142.89 FEET; THENCE N 80°45'27" E A DISTANCE OF 217.01 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 340.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 51-2713" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 305.33 FEET; THENCE N 01 °50'26" W A DISTANCE OF 102.10 FEET; THENCE S 88"3614" E A DISTANCE OF 412.53 FEET; THENCE S 88*38'16" E A DISTANCE OF 496.61 FEET; THENCE N 00*15'01" W A DISTANCE OF 885.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 50.00 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23, SAID INTERSECTION ALSO BEING THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF OIL WELL ROAD (200' R.O. W.); THENCE N 89°44'59" E ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE A DISTANCE OF 1709.53 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. CONTAINING A TOTAL AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 217.18 ACRES. REFERENCE ABB DRAWING 412347-SD PAGE 4 OF 30 Pa>:e,of ruor rrur 7400 Trail Blvd., Sulfa 200 oor GNOLI Naples, FL 34106 rrrrr "BARBER PH: (239) 597.3111 rrrfrr irrrrr SC www.ABBINC.cam eruu� 1011 H C RUNDAGE, INC. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LONGWATER SRA TRACT 2 ALL THAT PART OF SECTIONS 22, 23, 26, 27, 34 AND 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF AFORESAID SECTION 27; THENCE N 89044'09" E A DISTANCE OF 210.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 210.00 FEET EASTERLY FROM AND PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 27 AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE N 0095'51" W ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE A DISTANCE OF 556.73 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID PARALLEL LINE N 89044'09" E A DISTANCE OF 42.00 FEET; THENCE S 81 o09'45" E A DISTANCE OF 24.85 FEET; THENCE S 81°l2'57" E A DISTANCE OF 43.68 FEET; THENCE S 67050'53" E A DISTANCE OF 24.15 FEET; THENCE N 51013'46" E A DISTANCE OF 14.44 FEET; THENCE N 83034'26" E A DISTANCE OF 20.97 FEET; THENCE N 85047'56" E A DISTANCE OF 58.59 FEET; THENCE S 81 "25'21" E A DISTANCE OF 65.83 FEET; THENCE S 82"24' 10" E A DISTANCE OF 79.32 FEET; THENCE S 81049' 19" E A DISTANCE OF 85.24 FEET; THENCE S 83007'42" E A DISTANCE OF 94.54 FEET; THENCE S 83"26'41" E A DISTANCE OF 106.68 FEET; THENCE S 85055'20" E A DISTANCE OF 176.04 FEET; THENCE S 8702l'52" E A DISTANCE OF 151.35 FEET; THENCE S 83'34'18" E A DISTANCE OF 108.51 FEET; THENCE S 87"03'30" E A DISTANCE OF 191.80 FEET; THENCE S 89°27'05" E A DISTANCE OF 171.39 FEET; THENCE S 87033'10" E A DISTANCE OF 126.34 FEET; THENCE S 88°43'19" E A DISTANCE OF 98.64 FEET; THENCE S 86048'38" E A DISTANCE OF 96.80 FEET; THENCE S 89040'09" E A DISTANCE OF 130.03 FEET; THENCE S 87042'01" E A DISTANCE OF 124.74 FEET; THENCE S 87024'48" E A DISTANCE OF 107.14 FEET; THENCE S 87048'06" E A DISTANCE OF 127.16 FEET; THENCE S 88'11'19" E A DISTANCE OF 153.59 FEET; THENCE N 89059'01" E A DISTANCE OF 59.76 FEET; THENCE N 02051'20" E A DISTANCE OF 51.25 FEET; THENCE N 0303T35" W A DISTANCE OF 40.26 FEET; THENCE N 07o54'23" E A DISTANCE OF 75.33 FEET; THENCE N 10003'15" E A DISTANCE OF 64.18 FEET; THENCE N 1VI 9'06 " E A DISTANCE OF 80.02 FEET; PAGE 5 OF 10 PageID of THENCE N 10°4745" E A DISTANCE OF 79.50 FEET; THENCE N 09'49' 17" E A DISTANCE OF 94.43 FEET; THENCE N 10'03'11" E A DISTANCE OF 127.62 FEET; THENCE N 09° 16'25" E A DISTANCE OF 110.89 FEET; THENCE N 10'39'25" E A DISTANCE OF 144.00 FEET; THENCE N 08°44'32" E A DISTANCE OF 112.11 FEET; THENCE N 1 O° 18'07" E A DISTANCE OF 145.41 FEET; THENCE N 10*24'56" E A DISTANCE OF 170.23 FEET; THENCE N 09oO4'56" E A DISTANCE OF 10 1.3 8 FEET; THENCE N 109T21" E A DISTANCE OF IS 1.28 FEET; THENCE N 09°57'51" E A DISTANCE OF 121.94 FEET; THENCE N 09°16'33" E A DISTANCE OF 159.76 FEET; THENCE N 08005'45" E A DISTANCE OF 73.91 FEET; THENCE N 12*06' 17" E A DISTANCE OF 47.98 FEET; THENCE N 07°00'32" E A DISTANCE OF 96.94 FEET; THENCE N 12°44'08" E A DISTANCE OF 48.22 FEET; THENCE N 29°04'09" E A DISTANCE OF 51.97 FEET; THENCE N 56°52'43" E A DISTANCE OF 32.67 FEET; THENCE S 79'47'55" E A DISTANCE OF 110.65 FEET; THENCE S 79°O1'08" E A DISTANCE OF 91.37 FEET; THENCE S 78*51'l6" E A DISTANCE OF 140.42 FEET; THENCE S 79°29'47" E A DISTANCE OF 89.62 FEET; THENCE S 79°26'32" E A DISTANCE OF 117.52 FEET; THENCE S 79`45' 16" E A DISTANCE OF 73.96 FEET; THENCE N 46"57'48" E A DISTANCE OF 29.89 FEET; THENCE N 10'52'29" E A DISTANCE OF 123,93 FEET; THENCE N 0792'25" E A DISTANCE OF 88.34 FEET; THENCE N 08°07'07" E A DISTANCE OF 139.48 FEET; THENCE N 07°54'40" E A DISTANCE OF 114.89 FEET; THENCE N 08"49' 12" E A DISTANCE OF 128.22 FEET; THENCE N 10'33'53" E A DISTANCE OF 99.66 FEET; THENCE N 08°25'59" E A DISTANCE OF 62.05 FEET; THENCE N 26°54'30" E A DISTANCE OF 49.71 FEET; THENCE N 62°45'00" E A DISTANCE OF 42.18 FEET; THENCE S 89°01'30" E A DISTANCE OF 98.14 FEET; THENCE S 88° 17'00" E A DISTANCE OF 127.41 FEET; THENCE S 89*11'00" E A DISTANCE OF 106.29 FEET; THENCE S 89'22'11" E A DISTANCE OF 181.67 FEET; THENCE S 89°07'05" E A DISTANCE OF 73.95 FEET; THENCE N 89°37'05" E A DISTANCE OF 158.00 FEET; THENCE N 01°22'47" E A DISTANCE OF 56.60 FEET; THENCE N Ol °05'S6" E A DISTANCE OF 175.96 FEET; THENCE N W58'55" E A DISTANCE OF 120.19 FEET; THENCE N 00"57'09" E A DISTANCE OF 106.25 FEET; THENCE N Ol °25'58" E A DISTANCE OF 172.25 FEET; THENCE N 00°59'37" E A DISTANCE OF 129.98 FEET; THENCE N 02'13'52" E A DISTANCE OF 174.99 FEET; THENCE N 01°l3'07" E A DISTANCE OF 170.11 FEET; THENCE N 12°23'44" E A DISTANCE OF 65.85 FEET; THENCE N 65°07'26" E A DISTANCE OF 58.11 FEET; THENCE N 87°35'09" E A DISTANCE OF 97.09 FEET; PAGE 6OF 10 Pn;e Lti Of-? THENCE S 89°03'01" E A DISTANCE OF 139.85 FEET; THENCE N 89°08'08" E A DISTANCE OF 159.59 FEET; THENCE N 89°55'58" E A DISTANCE OF 184.84 FEET; THENCE S 89'48'17" E A DISTANCE OF 242.95 FEET; THENCE S 89°18'36" E A DISTANCE OF 127.18 FEET; THENCE N 88°20'13" E A DISTANCE OF 150.51 FEET; THENCE S 89°00'04" E A DISTANCE OF 160.58 FEET; THENCE N 88°46'01 " E A DISTANCE OF 151.90 FEET; THENCE S 79°22'05" E A DISTANCE OF 52.74 FEET; THENCE S 38°06'03" E A DISTANCE OF 57.21 FEET; THENCE S 01 *21'28" E A DISTANCE OF 145.54 FEET; THENCE S 00°55'57" W A DISTANCE OF 150.31 FEET; THENCE S 01°33'09" W A DISTANCE OF 207.79 FEET; THENCE S 01-31'44" W A DISTANCE OF 141.52 FEET; THENCE S 01°23'16" W A DISTANCE OF 164.71 FEET; THENCE S 01"00'09" W A DISTANCE OF 148.59 FEET; THENCE S 00°45'36" W A DISTANCE OF 132.20 FEET; THENCE S 169647" E A DISTANCE OF 77.60 FEET; THENCE S 869624" E A DISTANCE OF 218.27 FEET; THENCE N 84038'32" E A DISTANCE OF 57.46 FEET; THENCE N 88°29'19" E A DISTANCE OF 188.83 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 13*14,14" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 142.04 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 38°04'57" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 94.41 FEET; THENCE S 33°28'54" E A DISTANCE OF 33.93 FEET; THENCE S 23°45'58" E A DISTANCE OF 31.88 FEET; THENCE S 07°59'32" E A DISTANCE OF 22.70 FEET; THENCE S 08°09'03" W A DISTANCE OF 100.81 FEET; THENCE S 08°57'38" W A DISTANCE OF 111.86 FEET; THENCE S 08°49'05" W A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET; THENCE S 07°59'07" W A DISTANCE OF 98.77 FEET; THENCE S 08*5 MO" W A DISTANCE OF 462.69 FEET; THENCE S 07042'34" W A DISTANCE OF 120.29 FEET; THENCE S 10"03'37" W A DISTANCE OF 256.55 FEET; THENCE S 08*03' 15" W A DISTANCE OF 87.61 FEET; THENCE S 07'57'36" W A DISTANCE OF 129.24 FEET; THENCE S 08050'57" W A DISTANCE OF 158.37 FEET; THENCE S 10°16'55" W A DISTANCE OF 137.59 FEET; THENCE S 07°03'24" W A DISTANCE OF 160.41 FEET; THENCE S 09°24'12" W A DISTANCE OF 179.42 FEET; THENCE S 06°37'32" W A DISTANCE OF 158.52 FEET; THENCE S 09053'05" W A DISTANCE OF 158.01 FEET; THENCE S 21033'21" W A DISTANCE OF 55.08 FEET; THENCE S 82019'46" W A DISTANCE OF 77.36 FEET; THENCE N 89°13'46" W A DISTANCE OF 151.12 FEET; THENCE N 89°2 P51" W A DISTANCE OF 108.57 FEET; THENCE N 85°59'59" W A DISTANCE OF 198.45 FEET; THENCE S 15053'00" W A DISTANCE OF 96,05 FEET; THENCE S 07"02' 17" W A DISTANCE OF 26.49 FEET; THENCE S 37°20'43" W A DISTANCE OF 68.14 FEET; PAGE 7 OF 30 Page La f 0 (2 THENCE S 31 °23'33" W A DISTANCE OF 40,71 FEET; THENCE S 16°20'58" W A DISTANCE OF 220,13 FEET; THENCE S 22°59'53" W A DISTANCE OF 41.27 FEET; THENCE S 18°29'23" W A DISTANCE OF 69.29 FEET; THENCE S 08'48'18" W A DISTANCE OF 56.10 FEET; - THENCE S 10°10'49" W A DISTANCE OF 65.97 FEET; T14ENCE S 05°30'03" W A DISTANCE OF 45.04 FEET; THENCE S 06°57'16" W A DISTANCE OF 106,82 FEET; THENCE S 08°43'39" W A DISTANCE OF 105.41 FEET; THENCE S 08'55'48" W A DISTANCE OF 91.41 FEET; THENCE S 24°00'42" W A DISTANCE OF 77.21 FEET; THENCE S 09*30' 12" W A DISTANCE OF 55.93 FEET; THENCE S 08°14'59" W A DISTANCE OF 126,14 FEET; THENCE S 08°53'46" W A DISTANCE OF 119.38 FEET; THENCE S O8'24'46" W A DISTANCE OF 145.38 FEET; THENCE S 08°20'38" W A DISTANCE OF 216.11 FEET; THENCE S 08*26'17" W A DISTANCE OF 152.97 FEET; THENCE S 08°18'20" W A DISTANCE OF 131,25 FEET; THENCE S 04°08'24" W A DISTANCE OF 228.36 FEET; THENCE S 03'50'33" W A DISTANCE OF 214.51 FEET; THENCE S 04*31'40" W A DISTANCE OF 180.53 FEET; THENCE S 04*04'11" W A DISTANCE OF 292.07 FEET; THENCE S 04°08'09" W A DISTANCE OF 211.01 FEET; THENCE S 04°07'35" W A DISTANCE OF 350.99 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 143..00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 88.27, 15, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 220.77 FEET; THENCE N 87'25' 10" W A DISTANCE OF 263.63 FEET; THENCE S 56°31'23" W A DISTANCE OF 414.66 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 57°Ol'49" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 24.88 FEET; THENCE S 00°30'26" E A DISTANCE OF 645,03 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 60-47'29" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 26.53 FEET; THENCE S 61°17'55" E A DISTANCE OF 999,19 FEET; THENCE S 75°46'34" E A DISTANCE OF 12.50 FEET; THENCE N 89°49'28" E A DISTANCE OF 334.67 FEET; THENCE S 20°39'26" E A DISTANCE OF 334.38 FEET; THENCE S 39°21'06" W A DISTANCE OF 979.22 FEET; THENCE N 34°40'36" W A DISTANCE OF 115.45 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 52-57-38" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 28.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 43°56'52" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 21.48 FEET; THENCE S 89°44'47" W A DISTANCE OF 204.14 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS N 00°27'23" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 142.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 53-45,39" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 133.24 FEET; PAGE 8OF 10 Page -qa of _u THENCE N 36"53'55" W A DISTANCE OF 134.23 FEET; THENCE N 40042'25" W A DISTANCE OF 39.74 FEET; THENCE N 36014'22" W A DISTANCE OF 229.41 FEET; THENCE N 36053'55" W A DISTANCE OF 663.78 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 77'05'58" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 33.64 FEET; THENCE S 66000'07" W A DISTANCE OF 1347.27 FEET; THENCE S 60'11'58" W A DISTANCE OF 35.81 FEET; THENCE N 31043'05" W A DISTANCE OF 38.54 FEET; THENCE N 36009'51" W A DISTANCE OF 40.59 FEET; THENCE N 20045'08" W A DISTANCE OF 21.76 FEET; THENCE N 29*12'25" W A DISTANCE OF 26.75 FEET; THENCE N 21"48'56" W A DISTANCE OF 51.21 FEET; THENCE N 32054'14" W A DISTANCE OF 137.82 FEET; THENCE N 40035' 17" W A DISTANCE OF 78.60 FEET; THENCE N 68024'48" W A DISTANCE OF 37.30 FEET; THENCE N 53*10*07" W A DISTANCE OF 32.15 FEET; THENCE N 21013'51" E A DISTANCE OF 40.37 FEET; THENCE N 22002'47" W A DISTANCE OF 44.59 FEET; THENCE N 0702132" W A DISTANCE OF 56.07 FEET; THENCE N 06028'35" E A DISTANCE OF 66.40 FEET; THENCE N 09056'22" E A DISTANCE OF 69.15 FEET; THENCE N 03'38'16" E A DISTANCE OF 51.88 FEET; THENCE N 07' 17'28" E A DISTANCE OF 82.16 FEET; THENCE N 06029'56" E A DISTANCE OF 74.86 FEET; THENCE N 06007'02" E A DISTANCE OF 85.01 FEET; THENCE N 03046'47" E A DISTANCE OF 82.82 FEET; THENCE N 05023'36" E A DISTANCE OF 74.88 FEET; THENCE N 02'1748" E A DISTANCE OF 105.33 FEET; THENCE N 01038' 19" E A DISTANCE OF 59.59 FEET; THENCE N 00048'14" E A DISTANCE OF 50.18 FEET; THENCE N 02"25'45" W A DISTANCE OF 70.13 FEET; THENCE N 00"54'02" E A DISTANCE OF 73.67 FEET; THENCE N 00051'34" W A DISTANCE OF 54.76 FEET; THENCE N 15043'00" W A DISTANCE OF 48.82 FEET; THENCE N 13029'58" E A DISTANCE OF 47.07 FEET; THENCE N 00044'51" E A DISTANCE OF 55.85 FEET; THENCE N 10039'l9" E A DISTANCE OF 32.52 FEET; THENCE N 04007' 17" E A DISTANCE OF 41.62 FEET; THENCE N 12035'I6" E A DISTANCE OF 38.67 FEET; THENCE N 00'20'34" W A DISTANCE OF 38.40 FEET; THENCE N 18-05'31" E A DISTANCE OF 47.83 FEET; THENCE N 03058'33" W A DISTANCE OF 48.95 FEET; THENCE N 19-51'27" E A DISTANCE OF 34.70 FEET; THENCE N 09034'39" E A DISTANCE OF 34.06 FEET; THENCE N 04050'50" W A DISTANCE OF 28.60 FEET; THENCE N 02"58'56" W A DISTANCE OF 30.74 FEET; THENCE N 44025' 19" W A DISTANCE OF 31.56 FEET; THENCE N 41039'56" W A DISTANCE OF 33.84 FEET; THENCE N 06002'21" E A DISTANCE OF 19.31 FEET; PAGE 9 OF 30 39ye�WPo THENCE N 29015'43" W A DISTANCE OF 30.89 FEET; THENCE N 50020'45" W A DISTANCE OF 65.85 FEET; THENCE N 37039'56" W A DISTANCE OF 20.94 FEET; THENCE S 87'1 STY W A DISTANCE OF 18.51 FEET; THENCE N 86053'50" W A DISTANCE OF 40.70 FEET; THENCE N 57038'19" W A DISTANCE OF 57.04 FEET; THENCE N 02052'44" E A DISTANCE OF 160.84 FEET; THENCE N 4904T21" W A DISTANCE OF 597.21 FEET; THENCE S 8903733" W A DISTANCE OF 99.83 FEET; THENCE S 89055'08" W A DISTANCE OF 166.80 FEET; THENCE S 88'18'59" W A DISTANCE OF 113.40 FEET; THENCE S 80055'44" W A DISTANCE OF 95.52 FEET; THENCE S 79029'17" W A DISTANCE OF 110.57 FEET; THENCE S 76051'49" W A DISTANCE OF 41.22 FEET; THENCE S 80058'38" W A DISTANCE OF 97.67 FEET; THENCE S 79059'43" W A DISTANCE OF 718.60 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2600.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09'06'00" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 412.95 FEET; THENCE S 0001545" E A DISTANCE OF 12.29 FEET; THENCE S 89044'15" W A DISTANCE OF 35.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 210.00 FEET EASTERLY FROM AND PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 27; THENCE N 00015'45" W ALONG SAID PARALLEL A DISTANCE OF 2691.34 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. CONTAINING A TOTAL AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 782.63 ACRES. REFERENCE ABB DRAWING #12347-SD PAGE 10 OF 10 LLi Page! J of EXHIBIT F TO SPA DOCUMENT LONGWATER SRA NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX ASSESSMENT Revised May 2020 Prepared For: Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. 2550 Goodlette Road North, Suite 100 Naples, Florida 34103 (239)261-4455 Prepared By: Passarella & Associates, Inc. 13620 Metropolis Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 (239) 274-0067 Project No. 05CEM1481 Page of00 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Paee 2.0 NRI Assessment Methodology & Damsets......................................................................... I 2.1 Stewardship Overlay Designation...........................................................................3 2.2 Proximity............................................. .................................................................... 3 2.3 Listed Species Habitat.............................................. ............................................... 3 2.4 Soils/Surface Water................................................................................................4 2.5 Restoration Potential...............................................................................................4 2.6 Land Use/Land Cover.............................................................................................4 3.0 NRI Assessment..................................................................................................................4 3.1 Stewardship Overlay Designation...........................................................................4 3.2 Proximity .................................................................................................................5 3.3 Listed Species Habitat.............................................................................................5 3.4 Soils/Surface Water................................................................................................5 3.5 Restoration Potential...............................................................................................5 3.6 Land Use/Land Cover.............................................................................................5 3.7 Final Assessment Result.........................................................................................6 4.0 NRI Results Summary i Page of130 LIST OF TABLES PaRe Table 1. Spatial Datasets Used in the Longwater NRI Assessment Model.........................2 Page Tp of LIST OF EXHIBITS Page Exhibit 1. Project Location Map ................... ........................................................... .......... .El-1 Exhibit 2. Aerial with Boundary ............................... .......... ............................................. ...E2-1 I Exhibit 3. Aerial with Stewardship Overlay Exhibit 4. Aerial with SFWMD FLUCFCS and Wetlands Map........................................E4-1 Exhibit 5. Documented Listed Species Locations (2007-2009, 2014-2016, and 2019 Surveys)......................................................E5-1 Exhibit 6. Soils Exhibit 7. Stewardship Overlay Designation......................................................................E7-I Exhibit S. Proximity Index Exhibit 9. Listed Species Habitat Index n• Exhibit 10. Soils/Surface Water Index ......................... ...................................................... E10-I Exhibit 11. Land Use/Land Cover 1-1 Exhibit 12. Final NRI Assessment......................................................................................E12-1 Exhibit 13. SRA Natural Resource Index Values...............................................................E13-1 Pave -n- of LO INTRODUCTION This Natural Resource Index (NRI) Assessment Report (Assessment) documents the environmental conditions and NRI scores within Longwater SRA (Project) and demonstrates that Longwater meets the Suitability Criteria contained in Section 4.08.07.A.1 of the adopted Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) amendments. This Assessment is submitted in support of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay District Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) Designation Application on behalf of Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. This Assessment is consistent with the requirements of the RLSA Zoning Overlay District, Collier County LDC, Section 4.08.00. This NRI Assessment includes the following: • Identification of the acreage of agriculture and non -agriculture lands, by type, included within the SPA. • A summary of the refined and updated data incorporated into the Longwater NRI model. • A summary analysis and verification of the NRI scores. • Identification of the acreage of lands, by type, within the SRA that have an NRI value greater than 1.2. • An analysis of how the Longwater NRI scores compare to those in the original Baseline model. • Demonstrates compliance with the Suitability Criteria contained in Section 4.08.07.A. 1, This SPA Designation Application involves the designation of 999.8t acres as the Longwater SRA located in Sections 22, 23, 26, 27, 34, and 35; Township 48 South; Range 28 East; Collier County (Exhibit 1). The location and extent of Longwater is indicated on Exhibit 2. Longwater is located within lands designated as "Open' on the adopted RLSA Stewardship Map and does not encroach into any Flow -Way Stewardship Area (FSA), Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA) lands, or Water Retention Area (WRA) as illustrated in Exhibit 3. Longwater is not within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). The subject property is currently dedicated to agricultural activities (i.e., row crops and improved pasture) and includes widely scattered lands comprised of exotic vegetation (i.e, Brazilian pepper (Schmus terebimhifolia), non -forested uplands, forested uplands, and forested wetlands), all of which exhibit a high degree of disturbance. The acreage of agriculture and non -agriculture Ind uses on the Project site are depicted in Exhibit 4. Listed species data from state and federal wildlife agencies indicate occurrences of Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) telemetry points within the SPA boundary. 2.0 NRI ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY & DATASETS The NRI Assessment is a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis where resource values are calculated for every acre in the study area using a raster model. The raster model uses one - acre grid cells that receive a score value based on each of the six NRI Factors as defined in Page Sb of section 4.08.01 of the LDC. Baseline NRI values were assigned during the original Collier County RLSA Assessment Study to establish the Baseline conditions. This NRI Assessment includes documentation that refines the NRI Factors from the original study using updated data. Of the six NRI Factors on the Stewardship Credit Worksheet, two factors (i.e., Land Use -Land Cover and Listed Species Habitat) are the most prone to change over time or require mapping refinements. However, in preparing the assessment. Passarella & Associates, Inc. (PAI) obtained updated datasets, where available, to be included in the model. Table 1 depicts the datasets used for each of the NRI Factors and indicates where data bas been updated from the Baseline model. Table 1. Spatial Datasets Used in the Longwater NRI Assessment Model Natural Resource Model Input GIS Dataset Source Dater Index Factors Stewardship Overlay Collier County Collier County Collier County 2015 Stewardship Areas Stewardship Areas Designation Collier County Collier County Collier County* 2015 Stewardship Areas Stewardship Areas Proximity Conservation Collier Collier County 2019 Preserve Land Florida Managed FNAI 2019 Areas Florida Panther FWCC 2019 Telemetry Wading Bird FWCC 2019 Documented Listed Species Rookeries Listed Species Listed Species & Habitat Species Specific PAI 2019 Survey Results Habitat Type FLUCFCS PAI 2015 Soils/Surface Soils Soils for Lee, Collier USDA -NAGS 1990 Water and Hendry Counties Restoration Potential Page_of V-9 Table 1. (Continued Natural Resource Model Input GIS Dataset Source Date' Index Factors Land Use/Land Cover Land Cover FLUCFCS PAI 2015 FLUCFCS -Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System FNAI-Florida Natural Areas Inventory FWCC -Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission USDA -MRCS - United States Deparnnent of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service *WRA boundaries around the perimeter of the Project were revised per permitted wetland boundaries and agricultural reservoirs (see Section 2.1) 'Years in bold indicate updated dataset 2.1 Stewardship Overlay Designation As pan of the establishment of the RLSA, the stewardship overlay was established to designate land with the RLSA as FSA, HSA, WRA, or Open. To refine this layer, WRA boundaries taken from the Collier County Stewardship Overlay Map were updated by digitizing South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permit boundaries on aerial photography base at scales suitable for comprehensive planning. Detailed analysis of these areas was conducted on the ground, using actual surveyed wetland and permit boundaries. Using this actual groundtmthed data, the Stewardship Overlay digitized WRA boundaries were refined. The Longwater SPA boundary was created so that no FSA, HSA, or WRA areas were included. Exhibit 3 illustrates the refined Stewardship Overlay within the SRA boundary. 2.2 Proximity The Proximity Index Factor also utilizes the Collier County Stewardship Areas. The same refined dataset used for the Stewardship Overlay Designation Index Factor was used for the Proximity Index. In addition, the Conservation Collier and Florida Managed Areas datasets were used to determine the proximity of private or public preserve land. 2.3 Listed Species Habitat The Listed Species Habitat Index values are based on the intersection of documented listed species observations and land cover that is identified as preferred or tolerated by that species. The Baseline model used Land Use -Land Cover mapping from the Stage 1 Report. While this mapping was generally accurate at the regional/planning scale, gcoundtmthing by PAI in 2015 revealed some positional and classification errors which are rectified in this application. The updated Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) mapping for the Longwater SRA is presented in Exhibit 4, Page 5a of� The Documented Listed Species datasets were updated to include the current listed species occurrence data, and Florida panther telemetry was obtained from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission website. In addition, the results of multiple listed species and species specific surveys conducted by PAI in 2007 through 2009, 2014 through 2016, and 2019 were incorporated. A map of the updated listed species occurrences, listed species records, and Florida panther telemetry points is provided as Exhibit S. 2.4 Soits/Surface Water The U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Services (USDA- NRCS) soils map for Longwater is provided in Exhibit 6. This dataset had not changed since the Baseline model. 2.5 Restoration Potential Restoration Potential is one of the six NRI factors in an NRI Assessment. However, this index factor is assigned only during an SSA designation process if appropriate and was not assessed in the Baseline model. As this application and NRI Assessment is for an SPA, this NRI Factor was not incorporated into the Longwater NRI Assessment. 2.6 Land Use/Land Cover As mentioned in Section 2.3, the updated FLUCFCS mapping conducted by PAI was utilized for the landcover dataset in the Longwater NRI Assessment. 3.0 NRI ASSESSMENT The following section summarizes the results of the Longwater NRI Assessment and analyzes how the results of this assessment compare to that of the Baseline assessment results from the Collier County RLSA Assessment Study. It is worth noting that while the Longwater NRI Assessment was conducted for the proposed SRA boundary, the Baseline assessment was conducted for the entire RLSA area. While some of the NRI Factor results for Longwater are different from the Baseline due to updated datasets, some minor differences are due to the difference in scope between the two assessments. 3.1 Stewardship Overlay Designation In the assessment for Longwater, there are no Inds designated as FSA, HSA, WRA, or ACSC. Therefore, the entire SRA boundary received a score of 0 for this NRI Factor (Exhibit 7A). This matches the majority of the scoring for this area in the Baseline assessment with a few cells around the perimeter receiving a score of 0.6 for WRA (Exhibit 7B). As mentioned in Section 2.1, the WRA boundaries were refined for the Longwater assessment using SFWMD permitted boundaries; this adjustment accounts for the difference between the Longwater and Baseline assessments. Page 53 of 3.2 Proximity For the Proximity Index, the Longwater SRA boundary is within 300 feet of an FSA and HSA along portions of the northeastern boundary. Cells that were within the 300 foot distance from the FSA and HSA scored 0.3; the remainder of the SRA scored 0 (Exhibit 8A). These scores are also supported by the Baseline assessment (Exhibit 8B). 3.3 Listed Species Habitat The Listed Species Habitat Index for Longwater scored between 0 and 0.8 (Exhibit 9A). The mess which scored 0.4 had observations of listed species within habitats that are considered preferred or tolerated for that species. Areas that scored 0.8 had both panther telemetry in preferred or tolerated habitat and other fisted species within their preferred or tolerated habitat In the Baseline assessment, "other listed species" were not documented within preferred or tolerated habitat within the SRA boundary (Exhibit 9B). In the Baseline assessment, a few cells around the perimeter of the boundary scored 0.5 for panther occupied habitat. Due to the nature of the roster model and scope of the Baseline assessment, these cells are capturing habitat types and panther telemetry outside of the SRA boundary. 3.4 Soils/Surface Water For the Soils/Surface Water Index Factor, the Longwater assessment received scores ranging from 0 for non-hydric soils, to 0.3 for sand depression soils (Exhibit IOA). This scoring is supported by the Baseline assessment (Exhibit IOB). 3.5 Restoration Potential This index factor is assigned only during an SSA designation process if appropriate and was not assessed in the Baseline model. As this application and NRI Assessment is for an SRA, this NRI Factor was not incorporated into the Longwater NRI Assessment. 3.6 Land Use/Land Cover In the Land Use/Land Cover Index Factor, the Longwater assessment received scores of 0 to 0.4, as it contains FLUCFCS Code Groups 4 through 1 (Exhibit 11A). The majority of the Baseline assessment matches the assessment for Longwater (Exhibit IIB). Differences between the two assessments are due to the use of updated and groundtmthed FLUCFCS mapping conducted by PAI in 2015. 3.7 Final Assessment The final model result is calculated by summing the raster cells for each of the NRI Factors. The Longwater assessment demonstrates that a minimal amount of land within the SRA boundary carries an NRI value greater than 1.2, with scores ranging from 0 to 1.5 (Exhibit 12.A). The lands receiving a score greater than 12 we limited to the moment Page a of wetland habitat surrounded by an agricultural field in the southern portion of the site. The majority of the Baseline model cells are in agreement with the Longwater assessment (Exhibit 12B). Areas where scoring in the Longwater assessment diverges from the Baseline assessment are primarily due to refinement of the model to include updated FLUCFCS mapping and refinement of WRAs to permitted and groundtrnthed boundaries. The Longwater NRI Assessment scores are presented graphically in Exhibit 12A and in table format in Exhibit 13. 4.0 The NRI Assessment for the proposed Longwater SRA has been prepared with updated and refined datasets to reflect current conditions of the site. Comparisons between the updated assessment for Longwater and the Baseline assessment indicate that the incorporation of updated and refined datmets have not had a drastic change to the overall assessment scoring. Many of the index factors are still in agreement with the Baseline condition. The changes are primarily limited to the perimeter of the SRA boundary and the southern portion of the site where additional listed species were recorded in the Longwater assessment. This NRI Assessment for the Longwater SRA indicates that there is one remnant wetland within the boundary that scores above a 1.2. This area will be retained as open space in the Longwater Village development plan and will be maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state in accordance with the Suitability Criteria contained in Section 4.08.07 A.1. of the LDC. Pages6of OD EXHIBIT 1 PROJECT LOCATION MAP Page 5(o Of� S123IAIA7im4., 35 1WP 48 S, RNG 28E EXHIBIT 2 AERIAL WITH BOUNDARY Page Sgor W Page of _s EXHIBIT 3 AERIAL WITH STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY Page (go Of PageILLof Page ke!�of'-�j EXHIBIT 4 AERIAL WITH SFWMD FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS MAP Page La of o NYY' ONY' NYY e4Y. YI YV RAM RPY' n- EXHIBIT 4. AERIAL WITH SFWMD FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS MAW LONGWATER 1 LE4Ex0 WfiLYA3 ®6EW1O (u.al ec0 Sf'M901NFfl wRf6CE W41ER9 ® v� wmEno vrtnaro uN ... Px11. WERE..'ED 1MofJ1 w LED CWXT Mli/BM M.-SM OMICD WITx 4 RIDNT MR 0E OEID-1- Iele. PROPERTY e00ND41Y RR 44N0.1, BMIFA. BRIANR4E.IK. ORRWIN6 Ne.l[3]SRGOSixY eauwnr.oasm.o.R o4Tee feewEar. tam. WE WNO PEN D. INC. p1YYIN4 1bJDDb. M.IMExEE, TO RMEJIWOl.4a DEifD JLEf 1E.EW1. PLKE. LINES E Y.Tw E— M1m0' fEP1LL ENDT6. A4 LO10.046 NPRONM4TE0. R WIS PER RL(WDR 1M0141..-AA EDMS CLE ICLTNN 6Y41EM 7L6EC6) Omor INq. PASSARELLA & SSOCIATESE Pane -� 1-- of U EXHIBIT 5 DOCUMENTED LISTED SPECIES LOCATIONS (2007-2009, 2014-2016, AND 2019 SURVEYS) Page of� FE 1 f— PROJECT LOCATION EXHIBIT 5. DOCUMENTED LASTED SPECIES LOCATIONS (2007.2009, 2014. 2016, AND 2019 SURVEYS) IONUWATER F.L LEGENp LaxawATER E 2010 FWCC PANDWR TRTRY .�AaL� TFa CRCA#ua NEST 207 - MOO LMTW SPECAl SD Y I I • Ak PPRmW Alt10AT • FPS FOR" PANTNOR • SACR, FOR. SA u C"-, • IBM, Ul.t BLVE He— * TCHE, Tm<awmto H" • MST. WWO STM \ �M[ES SMVIYytI •, FPS, FONDA PARTNRR • UK. UT%t BL@ HWR • SACR. FORM SANOHIu CRANE TCHE, TR<OOWD HERUE = ( • CRCA, CKSTED CAMCAPA RMT ^• M190 4Kt Ea °LRVEY i Aq AHPAKAN ALLWAIOR • FPS,P ORI. PANTHER • IBM, LITTLE llDl HR. ROSP, R.ATC SF.. e SACR, FLMIOA SWNNLL C... TCHE, TM -COLORED HERNI a ENCTPM. Bum-10 O"D • AP, ANMIC. luuaATOR TILSAL MUTED WILD-PW a TILFAS, STIFF-LE.M NW-PNR TILUTR, GMT Wa PNE mllNxk 2019 • AA, MMICM ALLWATOR SE" c LBH, LllM B HORN MSP, ROf M SFa LL • SACR. FLONOA SANDKI- CRANE TCHE. TRi Ptb HERM • MST. Wa STNN PASSARELLA & SSOCIATES9 PageloG of EXHIBIT 6 SOILS MAP Page (0-7-of 19 EXHIBIT 7 STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY DESIGNATION INDEX Page Lft OI� Pa$eQ of� pBwC q I OT O J PROXIMITY INDEX Page of"--O-U pne�7 � - V- EMU LISTED SPECIES HABITAT INDEX Page ofl]11 Page 71oi� EXHIBIT 10 SOILS/SURFACE WATER INDEX Page � 01 - 00 Page so emu.& EXHIBIT 11 LAND USEILAND COVER INDEX Page S of c�% Page l3 of EXHIBIT 12 FINAL NRI ASSESMENT Page � of �ff Page (J W UI ILL EXHIBIT 13 SRA NATURAL. RESOURCE INDEX VALUES Page !7 1 or ff LONGWATER SRA NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX VALUES NRI Value Percent of Total SRA Acreage Open Total Acres Total SPA Acres 0.0 1.4% 13.9 13.9 0.1 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.2 38.5% 385.4 385.4 0.3 0.1% LO 2.0 0.4 36.8% 367.5 367.5 0.5 1.90/a 19.9 18.9 0.6 20.4°/a 204.1 204.1 0.7 0.3% 3.0 3.0 0.8 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0% 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.00/0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.1% 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.0% 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0% 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.1% 11 LO 1.5 0.3% 3.0 3.0 Totals 100.0% 999.8 999.8 Totals NRI>1.2 0.4% 4.0 4.0 Eli-1 Page of -QLD. Exhibit C STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT SSA 15 THIS STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as the ("Agreement") is made and entered into this day of , 2021, by and between COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "County" whose mailing address is the Harmon Turner Building, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida 34112, Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. hereinafter referred to as "Applicant" whose mailing address is 999 Vanderbilt Beach Road, Suite 507, Naples, FL 34108, and Collier Land Holdings, Ltd., a Florida limited Partnership and CDC Land Investments, LLC., a Florida limited liability company, hereinafter collectively referred to as "Owner", whose mailing addresses are 999 Vanderbilt Beach Road, Suite 507, Naples, FL 34108, for the purpose of designating the number of "Stewardship Sending Area" (SSA) Credits consumed in the designation of Longwater Village as a Stewardship Receiving Area and the source of those SSA credits pursuant to Section 4.08.07.C.I I of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). RECITALS 1. Applicant has applied for SRA designation for Longwater Village and said SRA is approximately 999.81 acres in size. 2. The County has reviewed the SRA Designation Application, along with al] support documentation and information required by Section 4.08.07 of the LDC and determined that SRA designation for the Longwater Village is appropriate. 3. The County, Applicant and Owner have reached agreement on the number of Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Credits required to be utilized for such designation. 4. The County, Applicant and Owner agree that this SRA Credit Agreement is in compliance with and fully meets the requirements of the Collier County Growth Management Plan and LDC. Longwater SRA Cmdit Agreement -SSA 15(M 5-12-2021),doc Page I ajL NOW THEREFORE inconsideration of the above premises and the expenditure of credits and authorizations granted hereby and other good and valuable consideration, the. receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. Applicant and Owner are hereby utilizing and transferring 6,697.76 Stewardship Credits (Credits) which shall be applied to the SRA land described in Exhibit "A" in order to carry out the plan of development on the 999.81 acres proposed in the Longwater Village Development Document and summarized hereinafter. 2. Exhibit "A" is the legal description of the 999.81 acres that constitute the Longwater Village SRA. 3. Attached hereto is Exhibit `B" the Longwater Village Master Plan which depicts the land uses within the SRA. Also attached as Exhibit "C" is the Longwater Village Land Use Summary which identifies the number of residential dwelling units, gross leasable square footage of retail and office uses, and the other land uses depicted on the Longwater Village Master Plan. 4. Pursuant to Section 4.08.07.13.2 of the LDC, the designation of a SRA requires eight Stewardship Credits to be transferred to an SRA in exchange for the development of one acre of land within Longwater Village. Applicant and Owner are transferring enough credits to allow development on 837.22 acres, since 162.59 acres of excess open space does not consume Credits. Once credits are transferred, they may not be recaptured by Applicant and Owner. 5. Applicant and Owner will be utilizing credits generated from Stewardship Sending Area 15 in the amount of 6,697.76 Credits. 6. Pursuant to Resolution No. , the County has approved Longwater Village as an SRA consisting of 999.81 acres and has approved the Longwater Village Master Plan and Development Document. 7. Applicant and Owner acknowledge that development of SRA land may not commence until a SRA Credit Agreement Memorandum is recorded with the Collier County Clerk of Courts. 8. This Agreement may only be amended by written agreement of all the parties hereto. L ngw ter SM Credit Agreement- SSA 15 (rev 5-12-2021),docx Page Z of 1(0 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers or representatives and their official seals hereto affixed the day and year first written above. Attest: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LE , Deputy Clerk Penny Taylor, Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: By: Assistant County Attorney W ES : (Signature) gKte;,rs k..etr� (Print full name) (Signature) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER COLLIER ENTERPRISES MANAGEMENT, INC. By: l 2. Printed Name: PAiYGiCK Title: SENice��c,E PR.eSt�eNT The foregoing Stewardship Receiving Area Credo Agreement was executed before me this NIPday of MP4 2021, by me s of ,/ physical presence or online notarization, by QATWUc Ly11eC, as $L.ewt Qr�na' f Collier Enterprises Management, Inc., who is personally known to me _� or who ^Ihas pro�duuccedas identification. Valatla LPike vim^' i -(? i CommiNkmila 32134 No Public Commission Expires 09.17-2024 Y ��y��� t� ♦ Bonded Through - Cynanmary Print Name Qkkef F i.-.t'IYE Florida - Notary Pu011c (SEAL) Certificate No.3 7-\3q My Commissioner Expires &—U -tcx)}y 1,ongwoter SfrA Credit Agreement- SSA 15 (rev 5-12-2021).docx La�t,3 1k WITNESS: ()�'c a_ (Signature) vP, (Print full name) (Signature) (Print full name WITNESS: f 1 0 -(�) _" (Signature) (Print full name) (Signature) (Print full name) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS, LTD, A Florida limited liability limited partnership By: Collier Enterprises, Inc. a Florida C /P�ratigll, it's Gene, al er By: Printed Name: l-. Q.. Title: �ic.E PacSioFx3�' CDC LAND INVESTMENTS, LLC, A Florida limited liability company By: /U h - a* Printed Name: L. Title: gjc.F. Po45locNr' The foregoing Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement was executed before me this kr—day of CUM 2021, by means of tK physical presence or online notarization, by FA"kr. LUaea.. , as of Collier Enterprises, Inc., General Partner of Collier Land Holdings, Ltd., who is personally known to me ✓ or who has produced as identification. \ n Valerie L Pike NotaryaPuxblic COMMIES nR HH 32134 y Commission Expires08.17-2024 Print Name_ V{Fuatar Bonded Thm gh-cYnanulery Florida Public Certificate No. V}1i • 3 2� 3 4 My Commissioner Expires G.fK 1lr }O)sF L.9g t'SR Credit Agreement -SSA 15(rev5-12-2021).do. Page � of 16 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement was executed before me Us (3%day of Mho , 2021, by means of ✓ physical presence or online notarization, by Pmair L- Uyyot. , as Vcc*?nutugk of CDC Land Investments, LLC, who is personally known to me / or who has produced as identification. YP Mbellj f �� i 32134 camB-1] 2024 No Public > Boynanotery ' I e Public print Name. VA+rze:�L.�ure (SEAL) CertificateNo. 1}t} 3Z13`A My Commissioner Expires li }.4 6 na ater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 15 (rev 5-12-2021).dom Page S of /� SPA CREDIT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LONGWATER SPA TRACT 1 ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF AFORESAID SECTION 23; THENCE S 89044'59" W ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23 A DISTANCE OF 770.02 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE S 00015'01" E A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 50.00 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23, SAID INTERSECTION ALSO BEING THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF OIL WELL ROAD (200' R.O.W.) AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE S 00015'01" E A DISTANCE OF 132.67 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 89044'59" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 105.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 45024'58" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 83.23 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 260.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34017'57" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 155.64 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 440.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09035'51" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 73.70 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 700.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25006'08" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 306.68 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 349.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3202818" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 197.79 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1500.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 44043'03" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 1170.70 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 75037'38" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 395.98 FEET; THENCE S 58044'36" W A DISTANCE OF 390.72 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 69052'03"AN ARC DISTANCE OF 121.94 FEET; THENCE S 11007'28" E A DISTANCE OF 438.61 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET; 1,ongwazer SRA Credit Agreement -SSA 15 (rev 5-12-2021).doex 6 Page � Of � THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 85028'03" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 596.68 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 200.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 50030'49" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 176.33 FEET; THENCE S 23049'47" W A DISTANCE OF 390.51 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 36052'30" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 257.44 FEET; THENCE S 13002'43" E A DISTANCE OF 465.37 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 240.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 103055'42" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 435.33 FEET; THENCE N 89007'01" W A DISTANCE OF 1055.37 FEET; THENCE N 00047'57" W A DISTANCE OF 97.59 FEET; THENCE N 52033'15" W A DISTANCE OF 70.08 FEET; THENCE N 57028'41" W A DISTANCE OF 90.17 FEET; THENCE N 54'29'18" W A DISTANCE OF 56.40 FEET; THENCE N 54052'27" W A DISTANCE OF 222.49 FEET; THENCE N 55041'14" W A DISTANCE OF 108.91 FEET; THENCE N 64037'19" W A DISTANCE OF 52.01 FEET; THENCE N 64031'02" W A DISTANCE OF 71.77 FEET; THENCE N 25028'58" E A DISTANCE OF 46.08 FEET; THENCE N 17041'24" E A DISTANCE OF 159.37 FEET; THENCE N 1902448" E A DISTANCE OF 130.30 FEET; THENCE N 17041' 12" E A DISTANCE OF 15231 FEET; THENCE N 19039'43" E A DISTANCE OF 163.63 FEET; THENCE N 16058'54" E A DISTANCE OF 115.30 FEET; THENCE N 19045'12" E A DISTANCE OF 95.09 FEET; THENCE N 18030'01" E A DISTANCE OF 108.19 FEET; THENCE N 07016'45" E A DISTANCE OF 105.99 FEET; THENCE N 07021'52" E A DISTANCE OF 1053.05 FEET; THENCE N 06059'59" E A DISTANCE OF 321.33 FEET; THENCE N 09015'09" E A DISTANCE OF 78.59 FEET; THENCE N 08005'25" E A DISTANCE OF 95.78 FEET; THENCE N 06017'00" E A DISTANCE OF 93.24 FEET; THENCE N 02027'15" E A DISTANCE OF 72.03 FEET; THENCE N 02013'12" W A DISTANCE OF 94.12 FEET; THENCE N 04052'08" W A DISTANCE OF 109.91 FEET; THENCE N 0401640" W A DISTANCE OF 108.24 FEET; THENCE N 05059'47" W A DISTANCE OF 114.91 FEET; THENCE N 04038'07" W A DISTANCE OF 258.02 FEET; THENCE N 04052'41" W A DISTANCE OF 67.12 FEET; THENCE N 86056'23" W A DISTANCE OF 6.72 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 61034'15" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 260.00 FEET; Long to SKA Credit Agreement - SSA 15(rev 5-12-2021).do0x Page 7 of 1 -- THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 62008'22" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 281.98 FEET; THENCE N 03035'48" W A DISTANCE OF 43.18 FEET; THENCE S 81012'45" W A DISTANCE OF 65.23 FEET; THENCE S 78047'29" W A DISTANCE OF 97.37 FEET; THENCE S 80053'38" W A DISTANCE OF 85.87 FEET; THENCE S 82051'24" W A DISTANCE OF 71.47 FEET; THENCE S 26022'26" W A DISTANCE OF 82.01 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 72n06'35" WAND HAVING A RADIUS OF 145.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28018'25" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 71.64 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 43021'21" E AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 240.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34006'47" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 142.89 FEET; THENCE N 80045'27" E A DISTANCE OF 217.01 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 340.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 51027'13" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 305.33 FEET; THENCE N 01050'26" W A DISTANCE OF 102.10 FEET; THENCE S 88036'14" E A DISTANCE OF 412.53 FEET; THENCE S 88038'16" E A DISTANCE OF 496.61 FEET; THENCE N 00015'01" W A DISTANCE OF 885.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 50.00 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23, SAID INTERSECTION ALSO BEING THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF OIL WELL ROAD (200' R.O.W.); THENCE N 89044'59" E ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE A DISTANCE OF 1709.53 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. CONTAINING A TOTAL AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 217.18 ACRES. REFERENCE.ABB DRAWING #12347-SD L agwWel SR CPAAgreement-SSA 15(m 5-12-2021).dw Py/ age // Of LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LONGWATER SRA TRACT 2 ALL THAT PART OF SECTIONS 22, 23, 26, 27, 34 AND 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF AFORESAID SECTION 27; THENCE N 89044'09" E A DISTANCE OF 210.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 210.00 FEET EASTERLY FROM AND PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 27 AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE N 00015'51" W ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE A DISTANCE OF 556.73 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID PARALLEL LINE N 89044'09" E A DISTANCE OF 42.00 FEET; THENCE S 81009'45" E A DISTANCE OF 24.85 FEET; THENCE S 81012'57" E A DISTANCE OF 43.68 FEET; THENCE S 67050'53" E A DISTANCE OF 24.15 FEET; THENCE N 51013'46" E A DISTANCE OF 14.44 FEET; THENCE N 83034'26" E A DISTANCE OF 20.97 FEET; THENCE N 85047'56" E A DISTANCE OF 58.59 FEET; THENCE S 81025'21" E A DISTANCE OF 65.83 FEET; THENCE S 82024'10" E A DISTANCE OF 79.32 FEET; THENCE S 81049'19" E A DISTANCE OF 85.24 FEET; THENCE S 83007'42" E A DISTANCE OF 94.54 FEET; THENCE S 83026'41" E A DISTANCE OF 106.68 FEET; THENCE S 85055'20" E A DISTANCE OF 176.04 FEET; THENCE S 87021'52" E A DISTANCE OF 151.35 FEET; THENCE S 83034'18" E A DISTANCE OF 108.51 FEET; THENCE S 87003'30" E A DISTANCE OF 191.80 FEET; THENCE S 89027'05" E A DISTANCE OF 171.39 FEET; THENCE S 87033'10" E A DISTANCE OF 126.34 FEET; THENCE S 88043'19" E A DISTANCE OF 98.64 FEET; THENCE S 86048'38" E A DISTANCE OF 96.80 FEET; THENCE S 89040'09" E A DISTANCE OF 130.03 FEET; THENCE S 87042'01" E A DISTANCE OF 124.74 FEET; THENCE S 87024'48" E A DISTANCE OF 107.14 FEET; THENCE S 87048'06" E A DISTANCE OF 127.16 FEET; THENCE S 88011'19" E A DISTANCE OF 153.59 FEET; THENCE N 89059'01" E A DISTANCE OF 59.76 FEET; THENCE N 02051'20" E A DISTANCE OF 51.25 FEET; THENCE N 03037'35" W A DISTANCE OF 40.26 FEET; THENCE N 0705423" E A DISTANCE OF 75.33 FEET; THENCE N 10003' 15" E A DISTANCE OF 64.18 FEET; THENCE N 11019'06" E A DISTANCE OF 80.02 FEET; THENCE N 10047'45" E A DISTANCE OF 79.50 FEET; THENCE N 09049'17" E A DISTANCE OF 94.43 FEET; THENCE N 10003'11" E A DISTANCE OF 127.62 FEET; I ngwwcr SRACmdit Agreement -SSA 15(mv 5-12-2021).docx j Page of /�, THENCE N 09016'25" E A DISTANCE OF 110.89 FEET; THENCE N 10039'25" E A DISTANCE OF 144.00 FEET; THENCE N 08044'32" E A DISTANCE OF 112.11 FEET; THENCE N 10018'07" E A DISTANCE OF 145.41 FEET; THENCE N 10024'56" E A DISTANCE OF 170.23 FEET; THENCE N 09004'56" E A DISTANCE OF 10 1.3 8 FEET; THENCE N 10037'21" E A DISTANCE OF 181.28 FEET; THENCE N 09057'51" E A DISTANCE OF 121.94 FEET; THENCE N 0901633" E A DISTANCE OF 159.76 FEET; THENCE N 08005'45" E A DISTANCE OF 73.91 FEET; THENCE N 1200617" E A DISTANCE OF 47.98 FEET; THENCE N 07000'32" E A DISTANCE OF 96.94 FEET; THENCE N 12044'08" E A DISTANCE OF 48.22 FEET; THENCE N 29004'09" E A DISTANCE OF 51.97 FEET; THENCE N 5605243" E A DISTANCE OF 32.67 FEET; THENCE S 7904755" E A. DISTANCE OF 110.65 FEET; THENCE S 79001'08" E A DISTANCE OF 91.37 FEET; THENCE S 78051'l6" E A DISTANCE OF 140.42 FEET; THENCE S 79029'47" E A DISTANCE OF 89.62 FEET; THENCE S 79026'32" E A DISTANCE OF 117.52 FEET; THENCE S 79045'16" E A DISTANCE OF 73.96 FEET; THENCE N 46057'48" E A DISTANCE OF 29.89 FEET; THENCE N 10052'29" E A DISTANCE OF 123.93 FEET; THENCE N 07032'25" E A DISTANCE OF 88.34 FEET; THENCE N 08007'07" E A DISTANCE OF 139.48 FEET; THENCE N 07054'40" E A DISTANCE OF 114.89 FEET; THENCE N 08049'12" E A DISTANCE OF 128.22 FEET; THENCE N 10033'53" E A DISTANCE OF 99.66 FEET; THENCE N 08025'59" E A DISTANCE OF 62.05 FEET; THENCE N 26054'30" E A DISTANCE OF 49.71 FEET; THENCE N 62045'00" E A DISTANCE OF 42.18 FEET; THENCE S 89001'30" E A DISTANCE OF 98.14 FEET; THENCE S 88017'00" E A DISTANCE OF 127.41 FEET; THENCE S 89011'00" E A DISTANCE OF 106.29 FEET; THENCE S 89022'11" E A DISTANCE OF 181.67 FEET; THENCE S 89007'05" E A DISTANCE OF 73.95 FEET; THENCE N 89037'05" E A DISTANCE OF 158.00 FEET; THENCE N 01022'47" E A DISTANCE OF 56.60 FEET; THENCE N 01005'56" E A DISTANCE OF 175.96 FEET; THENCE N 00058'55" E A DISTANCE OF 120.19 FEET; THENCE N 00057'09" E A DISTANCE OF 106.25 FEET; THENCE N 01025'58" E A DISTANCE OF 172.25 FEET; THENCE N 00059'37" E A DISTANCE OF 129.98 FEET; THENCE N 02013'52" E A DISTANCE OF 174.99 FEET; THENCE N 01013'07" E A DISTANCE OF 170.11 FEET; THENCE N 12023'44" E A DISTANCE OF 65.85 FEET; THENCE N 65007'26" E A DISTANCE OF 58.11 FEET; Ungwatcr SRA CreditAgreement - SSA tS(rev 5-12-2021).docx page to of+ THENCE N 87035'09" E A DISTANCE OF 97.09 FEET; THENCE S 89003'01 " E A DISTANCE OF 139.85 FEET; THENCE N 89008'08" E A DISTANCE OF 159.59 FEET; THENCE N 89055'58" E A DISTANCE OF 184.84 FEET; THENCE S 89048'17" E A DISTANCE OF 242.95 FEET; THENCE S 89018'36" E A DISTANCE OF 127.18 FEET; THENCE N 88020'13" E A DISTANCE OF 150.51 FEET; THENCE S 89000'04" E A DISTANCE OF 160.58 FEET; THENCE N 88046'01" E A DISTANCE OF 151.90 FEET; THENCE S 79022'05" E A DISTANCE OF 52.74 FEET; THENCE S 38006'03" E A DISTANCE OF 57.21 FEET; THENCE S 01021'28" E A DISTANCE OF 145.54 FEET; THENCE S 00055'57" W A DISTANCE OF 150.31 FEET; THENCE S 01033'09" W A DISTANCE OF 207.79 FEET; THENCE S 01031'44" W A DISTANCE OF 141.52 FEET; THENCE S 01023'16" W A DISTANCE OF 164.71 FEET; THENCE S 01000'09" W A DISTANCE OF 148.59 FEET; THENCE S 00045'36" W A DISTANCE OF 132.20 FEET; THENCE S 16036'47" E A DISTANCE OF 77.60 FEET; THENCE S 86036'24" E A DISTANCE OF 218.27 FEET; THENCE N 84038'32" E A DISTANCE OF 57.46 FEET; THENCE N 88029' 19" E A DISTANCE OF 188.83 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 13014'14" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 142.04 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 38004'57" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 94.41 FEET; THENCE S 33028'54" E A DISTANCE OF 33.93 FEET; THENCE S 23045'58" E A DISTANCE OF 31.88 FEET; THENCE S 07059'32" E A DISTANCE OF 22.70 FEET; THENCE S 08009'03" W A DISTANCE OF 100.81 FEET; THENCE S 08057'38" W A DISTANCE OF 111.86 FEET; THENCE S 08049'05" W A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET; THENCE S 07059'07" W A DISTANCE OF 98.77 FEET; THENCE S 08051'00" W A DISTANCE OF 462.69 FEET; THENCE S 07042'34" W A DISTANCE OF 120.29 FEET; THENCE S 10003'37" W ADISTANCE OF 256.55 FEET; THENCE S 08003'15" W A DISTANCE OF 87.61 FEET; THENCE S 07057'36" W A DISTANCE OF 129.24 FEET; THENCE S 08050'57" W A DISTANCE OF 158.37 FEET; THENCE S 10016'55" W A DISTANCE OF 137.59 FEET; THENCE S 07003'24" W A DISTANCE OF 160.41 FEET; THENCE S 09024'12" W A DISTANCE OF 179.42 FEET; THENCE S 06037'32" W A DISTANCE OF 158.52 FEET; THENCE S 09053'05" W A DISTANCE OF 158.01 FEET; THENCE S 21033'21" W A DISTANCE OF 55.08 FEET; THENCE S 82019'46" W A DISTANCE OF 77.36 FEET; THENCE N 89013'46" W A DISTANCE OF 151.12 FEET; Ungwata SR Credit Agmement - SSA 15(rev 5-12-2021),do '28P,Y 11 OF 1 THENCE N 89021'51" W A DISTANCE OF 108.57 FEET; THENCE N 85059'59" W A DISTANCE OF 198.45 FEET; THENCE S 15053'00" W A DISTANCE OF 96.05 FEET; THENCE S 07002'17" W A DISTANCE OF 26.49 FEET; THENCE S 37020'43" W A DISTANCE OF 68.14 FEET; THENCE S 31023'33" W A DISTANCE OF 40.71 FEET; THENCE S 16020'58" W A DISTANCE OF 220.13 FEET; THENCE S 22059'53" W A DISTANCE OF 41.27 FEET;. THENCE S 18029'23" W A DISTANCE OF 69.29 FEET; THENCE S 08048'18" W A DISTANCE OF 56.10 FEET;. THENCE S 10010'49" W A DISTANCE OF 65.97 FEET; THENCE S 05030'03" W A DISTANCE OF 45.04 FEET; THENCE S 06057'16" W A DISTANCE OF 106.82 FEET; THENCE S 08043'39" W A DISTANCE OF 105.41 FEET; THENCE S 08055'48" W A DISTANCE OF 91.41 FEET; THENCE S 24000'42" W A DISTANCE OF 77.21 FEET; THENCE S 09030'12" W A DISTANCE OF 55.93 FEET; THENCE S 08014'59" W A DISTANCE OF 126.14 FEET; THENCE S 08053'46" W A DISTANCE OF 119.38 FEET; THENCE S 0802446" W A DISTANCE OF 145.38 FEET; THENCE S 08020'38" W A DISTANCE OF 216.11 FEET; THENCE S 08026'17" W A DISTANCE OF 152.97 FEET; THENCE S 08'18'20" W A DISTANCE OF 131.25 FEET; THENCE S O4008'24" W A DISTANCE OF 228.36 FEET; THENCE S 03050'33" W A DISTANCE OF 214.51 FEET; THENCE S 04031'40" W A DISTANCE OF 180.53 FEET; THENCE S 04004' 11 " W A DISTANCE OF 292.07 FEET; THENCE S O4008'09" W A DISTANCE OF 211.01 FEET; THENCE S O4007'35" W A DISTANCE OF 350.99 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 143.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 8802715" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 220.77 FEET; THENCE N 87025'10" W A DISTANCE OF 263.63 FEET; THENCE S 56031'23" W A DISTANCE OF 414.66 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 57001'49" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 24.88 FEET; THENCE S 00030'26" E A DISTANCE OF 645.03 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 60047'29" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 26.53 FEET; THENCE S 61017'55" E A DISTANCE OF 999.19 FEET; THENCE S 75046'34" E A DISTANCE OF 12.50 FEET; THENCE N 89049'28" E A DISTANCE OF 334.67 FEET; THENCE S 20039'26" E A DISTANCE OF 334.38 FEET; THENCE S 39021'06" W A DISTANCE OF 979.22 FEET; Longwater SM Credit Agreement - SSA 15 (rev 5-12-2021).docx )Page [ I-- Of (4 THENCE N 34040'36" W A DISTANCE OF 115.45 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 52057'38" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 28.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 43056'52" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 21.48 FEET; THENCE S 8904447" W A DISTANCE OF 204.14 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS N 0002723" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 142.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 53045'39" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 133.24 FEET; THENCE N 36053'55" W A DISTANCE OF 134.23 FEET; THENCE N 4004225" W A DISTANCE OF 39.74 FEET; THENCE N 36014'22" W A DISTANCE OF 229.41 FEET; THENCE N 36053'55" W A DISTANCE OF 663.78 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 77005'58" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 33.64 FEET; THENCE S 66000'07" W A DISTANCE OF 1347.27 FEET; THENCE S 6001 F58" W A DISTANCE OF 35.81 FEET; THENCE N 31043'05" W A DISTANCE OF 38.54 FEET; THENCE N 36009'51" W A DISTANCE OF 40.59 FEET; THENCE N 20045'08" W A DISTANCE OF 21.76 FEET; THENCE N 29012'25" W A DISTANCE OF 26.75 FEET; THENCE N 21048'56" W A DISTANCE OF 51.21 FEET; THENCE N 32054'14" W A DISTANCE OF 137.82 FEET; THENCE N 40035'17" W A DISTANCE OF 78.60 FEET; THENCE N 68024'48" W A DISTANCE OF 37.30 FEET; THENCE N 53010'07" W A DISTANCE OF 32.15 FEET; THENCE N 21013'51" E A DISTANCE OF 40.37 FEET; THENCE N 22002'47" W A DISTANCE OF 44.59 FEET; THENCE N 0702 F32" W A DISTANCE OF 56.07 FEET; THENCE N 06028'35" E A DISTANCE OF 66.40 FEET; THENCE N 09056'22" E A DISTANCE OF 69.15 FEET; THENCE N 03038'16" E A DISTANCE OF 51.88 FEET; THENCE N 07017'28" E A DISTANCE OF 82.16 FEET; THENCE N 06029'56" E A DISTANCE OF 74.86 FEET; THENCE N 06007'02" E A DISTANCE OF 85.01 FEET; THENCE N 0304647" E A DISTANCE OF 82.82 FEET; THENCE N 05023'36" E A DISTANCE OF 74.88 FEET; THENCE N 02017'48" E A DISTANCE OF 105.33 FEET; THENCE N 01038'19" E A DISTANCE OF 59.59 FEET; THENCE N 00048'14" E A DISTANCE OF 50.18 FEET; THENCE N 0202545" W A DISTANCE OF 70.13 FEET; THENCE N 00054'02" E A DISTANCE OF 73.67 FEET; THENCE N 00051'34" W A DISTANCE OF 54.76 FEET; THENCE N 15043'00" W A DISTANCE OF 48.82 FEET; THENCE N 13029'58" E A DISTANCE OF 47.07 FEET; Loagwater SRA Credit Ag mmt-SSA 15(rev 5-12-2021).d= page I3 of 16 THENCE N 00044'51" E A DISTANCE OF 55.85 FEET; THENCE N 10039'19" E A DISTANCE OF 32.52 FEET; THENCE N 04007' 17" E A DISTANCE OF 41.62 FEET; THENCE N 1203516" E A DISTANCE OF 38.67 FEET; THENCE N 00020'34" W A DISTANCE OF 38.40 FEET; THENCE N 1800551" E A DISTANCE OF 47.83 FEET; THENCE N 03058'33" W A DISTANCE OF 48.95 FEET; THENCE N 19051'27" E A DISTANCE OF 34.70 FEET; THENCE N 09034'39" E A DISTANCE OF 34.06 FEET; THENCE N 04050'50" W A DISTANCE OF 28.60 FEET; THENCE N 02058'56" W A DISTANCE OF 30.74 FEET; THENCE N 44025' 19" W A DISTANCE OF 31.56 FEET;. THENCE N 41039'56" WA DISTANCE OF 33.84 FEET; THENCE N 06002'21" E A DISTANCE OF 19.31 FEET; THENCE N 29015'43" W A DISTANCE OF 30.89 FEET; THENCE N 50020'45" W A DISTANCE OF 65.85 FEET; THENCE N 37039'56" W A DISTANCE OF 20.94 FEET; THENCE S 87018'03" W A DISTANCE OF 18.51 FEET; THENCE N 86053'50" W A DISTANCE OF 40.70 FEET; THENCE N 57038'19" W A DISTANCE OF 57.04 FEET; THENCE N 0205244" E A DISTANCE OF 160.84 FEET; THENCE N 49042'21" W A DISTANCE OF 597.21 FEET; THENCE S 89037'33" W A DISTANCE OF 99.83 FEET; THENCE S 89055'08" W A DISTANCE OF 166.80 FEET; THENCE S 88018'59" W A DISTANCE OF 113.40 FEET; THENCE S 80055'44" W A DISTANCE OF 95.52 FEET; THENCE S 79029'17" W A DISTANCE OF 110.57 FEET; THENCE S 76051'49" W A DISTANCE OF 41.22 FEET; THENCE S 80058'38" W A DISTANCE OF 97.67 FEET; THENCE S 7905943" W A DISTANCE OF 718.60 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2600.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09006'00" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 412.95 FEET; THENCE S 00015'45" E A DISTANCE OF 12.29 FEET; THENCE S 89044'15" W A DISTANCE OF 35.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 210.00 FEET EASTERLY FROM AND PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 27; THENCE N 0001545" W ALONG SAID PARALLEL A DISTANCE OF 2691.34 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. CONTAINING A TOTAL AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 782.63 ACRES. REFERENCE A13B DRAWING #12347-SD f ngwWrSRACreditAgreement-SSA15(rev5-12-2021).docx Page 11of SPA CREDIT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT RBe1 ___ ___ _ _ _ ____ Ca'TYPEIOI LflF. MIYPEry1LBL - LOIgW1lERVLIAOESPRL<HOJSE SJRggRY q RMOI tO JE 1lMNBJRN000LE LL NRXiSONC _., i0\ AG Ya� 6WI0aL 9'/'1V 41 EfY4A1N000 E � � ; WMNIMOV CVIMFA 3 ` � n wusearEs . leg A+a riFNl (�-/y awn _ LNE. I �l eJv[e {.3r. IL u Lla T N vo-aaoa aizenam \ -: �' VILLAGE a cwnYnaala V.OE CEXTE LPEN SPACE IMi `/ / NI LO un. ��e.srawwu� MNI /BG.6RAC0.WR.i F� WRA LMN USF 8UMMAPY / ,SSA 17 REk .RaN N J. SSA-I5 �(\ �\ t✓i� uN AAG awlxon"u.L BEEWEET7FOR WINBPNE ROAOCR0485ECiKK1 a4E IDaRAAY. Hai lau.c SSA 17®. zrxve lm Lae � .,SSA-17 AG ORASAAAE qGJ.. _ACRES° LM V6 6PLCCY N RCNNaORIIOW YFMF1Yl Mail AA3 Y I I Wi ]LN AA m�a aME ®Ia1LeE �wilux> �EEAmI ' w �B CNT A. ig RCEO LNE lViaLORX6I.LCE IW PN NER ,B, SSA 17 _ ��irrF{{ EaxLE Q�w _.... .wZCAPP°LaRYYN ®SSA-17, 2ReeN�...a 1 1 ®AG T EIANCS WNCN PoIEN/i1tOLHpNRE VIEYINRRATFOIIW NU SCtlrt VRF.TER I ECNPW WILL-IMNTR N M.INOPIJRO PREOpIXRTELYNaTIMLSD.TE i�l i,NO.ryENaPLCEHOTaM,SMMWRI. s� WW AMNRIeaO ®SSA-17 . 6ORgwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 15 (.5-12-2021).docx Rage of 16 SRA CREDIT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT "C" Land Use Summary Use Density or Intensity Residential Up to 2,600 DwellingUnits Neighborhood Commercial Min. 65,000 and Max. 80,000 square feet Civic, Governmental, Institutional Min. 26,000 square feet • Longwater Village SRA contains 999.8It acres. • Longwater Village contains approximately 39.71 acres of active and passive parks and community green space, exceeding the requirement to provide at least I percent of the Village gross acreage (10 acres, rounded), in the form of Parks & community Green Space. • Longwater Village includes 4 acres of lands with a natural Resource Index greater than 1.2. • Longwater Village provides 512.52f acres of open spaces (51.26t percent) of Open Space, 162.59 acres above the RLSA 35% requirement for Open Space. • Total acreage requiring stewardship credits is 837.22 acres (total Village acreage excluding open space exceeding 35% and public use acreage). • At required 8 Stewardship Credits per acre, 6,697.76 Stewardship Credits are required. • Longwater Village SRA does not include lands within ACSC Overlay. • Longwater Village SRA does not include, nor is it adjacent to, lands designated Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA), Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA). • Longwater Village does not include any lands designated Water Retention Area (WRA). Longwater SR Credit Agreement - SSA 15 (rev 5-12-2021).doa Page P Of -L6-_ April 1, 2021 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida April 1, 2021 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Edwin Fryer, Chairman 4 Karen Homiak, Vice Chair Karl Fry Joe Schmitt Paul Shea Robert L. Klucik, Jr. (participating remotely) Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative \: Christopher T. Vernon ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Page 1 of 109 April 1, 2021 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the April 1st, 2021, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Will everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison, and the proceedings continued as follows:) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Will the secretary please call the roll. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Eastman? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm here. Chairman Fryer? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Vernon? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Klucik? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Well, we need to vote, then, on Mr. Klucik. I wasn't aware that he would be calling in remotely. Mr. Vernon has an excused absence, so the record will show that that's excused. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Yes, Mr. Vernon has an excused absence, and Mr. Klucik did send an email. And I apologize if it didn't get forwarded to you that he's -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: No harm done. We will take the action that we usually take. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion that he attend virtually. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Welcome, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of six. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Secretary. Addenda to the agenda. First of all, I note that we have six advertised public hearings on Page 2 of 109 April 1, 2021 our agenda today, and staff is recommending that we continue four of them to the April 15 meeting. First thing I'd like to do, respectfully, of course, is to ask staff in the future that when this material is written up before the Planning Commission meeting in question, it's probably more accurate to say that staff is recommending continuance of this item to whatever date rather than this item is continued, because that action doesn't happen until the Planning Commission acts on it. So I think just -- you know, barring extraordinary situations, we will, obviously, follow staffs recommendation. MR. BELLOWS: Understood, and we'll -- MR. KLATZKOW: I think technically you're correct, but doing it this way, people don't show up. So when we tell people that it's being continued, they won't show up here for the hearing. If we wait until the hearing to tell people it's going to be continued, they may have made a wasted trip. That's the reason it's done this way. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, I mean, that makes sense and it's -- as you observed, County Attorney, it's not exactly correct, but it has a practical argument in its favor, so without objection, we'll continue to what we're doing. (Mr. Eastman is now present in the boardroom.) MR. KLATZKOW: And what I would recommend is that Ray get with you prior to the meeting to go over the potential continuations so at least, you know, you have the input as to whether or not it should be continued. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, I'll point out that our school board representative, Mr. Tom Eastman, has arrived. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Welcome, Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Then Item 4 of at least, perhaps, an earlier draft of the agenda had NC Square's FLUE amendment as an item to be continued. I understand that there may be a later draft of that agenda that's out there that does not have NC Squared on there but, of course, we completed NC Squared at our meeting of the 18th and unanimously voted three times, the GMPA, the MPUD, and the EAC so, of course, that does not need to be continued. But there -- so my question to Mr. Bellows is, is that it seems to me that one of the items that probably needs to be continued that was not mentioned was this companion -- it really wasn't a companion, but they're two similar applications from BCHD 1 Partners, one of them having to do with the Fourth Street Northeast and then another one. Did those both need to be continued today? MR. BELLOWS: The agenda items that I have are Agenda Items No. 3, which is the Randall Boulevard Growth Management Plan amendment. That is PL20190002355. That is to be continued to April 15th. Then we have another Growth Management Plan amendment. This one is -- deals with the property that Shy Wolf is going off of Wilson that, and is PL20190002353. That is also being continued to April 15th. Then we have a Rural Lands Stewardship overlay Growth Management Plan amendment, that's PL20190002292, being continued to the 15th as well. And then last item is Item No. 6 on the agenda, and that's PL20200002234, and that's another Growth Management Plan amendment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And there actually is yet another item being continued, and that's the town aggregation matter. And that, I think, is proposed to be continued to our May 6th meeting. Isn't that correct? MR. BELLOWS: Let's see. This item -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yep. Page 3 of 109 April 1, 2021 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And it's my understanding that -- first of all, I guess, two things. First of all, that the town aggregation matter being continued will be first on the agenda of May 6th, correct? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, if that's the wish of the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. And that's -- well, that's what we decided, I think, last time -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- that it would be heard first. And, second, am I correct that the Board of County Commissioners will not be hearing this town aggregation issue until later in May? MR. BELLOWS: I'd like to seek clarification. I'm not 100 percent sure on that. We can have that by the end of the meeting, though. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Because it -- I mean, continuing this to a time before the Board of County Commissioners meeting is our objective. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And as long as it's fixed at the late May meeting for the BCC, this will work fine. MR. BELLOWS: I just won't have an answer at this point. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, let me know if there's any change to that because we want to, I think, revisit this. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. Go ahead, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So that's on our agenda as an information meeting, not as a -- we're not actually taking action on it; is that correct? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Not necessarily, Commissioner. That will be a decision for us to make. It's been proposed as an information item, and it may remain as an information item, but I certainly think that the public should be heard at that time, and public input will be solicited in the same manner as would be solicited for an application or a rezone on a GMPA. And if we decide that we want to take some action, that's within our purview and prerogative. If we decide not to, that's the same. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So then what -- as a Planning Commission, what sort of action could we take on something that hasn't been presented before us as a -- as a petitioner as an action item? So if someone comes to us to present information that another body is doing and that we're -- and that it's premature for us to take action on under -- procedurally, obviously, we can, sua sponte, on our own, our own accord, our Board can do what we think we can do as long as it's legal, you know, and authorized. What is it that you're thinking that we can do? What is -- what is under our, you know, authority to do on that action when it's presented? What's the realm? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. It would be recommendatory only to the Board of County Commissioners. The way I see it, it would follow a presentation by staff and comments by the public, if any, and discussion and questions and comments from up here, and at that point, if the Planning Commission believes it's appropriate to take action, the Planning Commission would take action. If not, the Planning Commission wouldn't take action. But it's -- I wouldn't say it's premature, because this is really going to be our last clear chance to hear it, the town aggregation matter. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I thought, Mr. Chairman, that in our prior discussion of this, that -- and this is where -- you know, I'm not saying I know, but this is what I thought I heard, you know, in our discussions is that the commissioners are going to -- you know, are Page 4 of 109 April 1, 2021 planning to enter into an agreement. They would be doing that, and then once that agreement has been entered into, it would cycle through the Planning Commission process, and then we would actually hear it and then make a recommendation. I'm just trying to figure out --that's why I say it's premature, because it's -- when the county commissioners decide to take action on something and they haven't invited our -- you know, our input, and it's not procedurally, you know, normal that we would hear it, I'm just trying to figure out what our procedure is. And if we're -- you know -- and how does it get noticed? Would it be properly noticed for us to vote on something that impacts, you know, something that someone who will be a petitioner is doing? Do they have a -- if we're going to hear from the public and we're going to take action on it, you know, is there some notice requirement as well? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, first of all, there's nothing -- there is no normal procedure associated with what is proposed. This is completely new and different. And if one wants to characterize it as unusual, which I believe it is, the main thing that's unusual about it is that the Board of County Commissioners would later be asked to approve these villages independently and then reconsider them as a town. And here's, from my perspective, the reason why it's very important for us to have a say on this before the Board of County Commissioners is asked to vote on it, is that in its present form, or at least the form that I'm familiar with -- maybe there -- maybe it's changed and there are further drafts, but what I've seen changes fundamentally the basic RLSA rules that we and the Board of County Commissioners would be asked to apply in vetting the town proposal which might come to us 12 months from now. And so if we don't want to be heard on those fundamental RLSA rules, if we don't think that's necessary for us in respect of our role as the -- as the principle planning agency for this county, then we don't need to do it. But in my personal opinion, since those fundamental rules are being asked to be changed in a significant way, it is incumbent upon us in the exercise of our responsibilities as the Planning Commission of this county to at least be heard on it. And after we hear from the applicant, from staff, and from the public, if we, for whatever reason, decide in our infinite wisdom that we don't want to take a vote on it, that's the proper time for us to decide we don't want to take a vote on it. But for now, it is premature to try to foreclose how we're going to react to something that we haven't heard yet. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, right. And what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to make sure, procedurally, I understand what we're doing. And I guess I'd ask the County Attorney to weigh in and explain, you know, what he thinks is the appropriate method for us to hear this and possibly take action on it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: County Attorney. MR. KLATZKOW: It's going to be listed on your agenda; that takes care of the notice issue. My understanding is that staff will be making a presentation to the Board explaining what the developer agreement is. The Board will have the opportunity to question staff about that. If the Board wishes to make a recommendation, they can make a recommendation. If the Board wishes not to do that, the Board can do that. You're the local planning agency, so you're hearing this, and you'll take whatever action you deem appropriate. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any further questions, Commissioner Klucik? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. Thank you. I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman, I do have an update. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Please go ahead. MR. BELLOWS: The presentation on March [sic] 6th will be before the item goes to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN FRYER: May 6th? Page 5 of 109 April 1, 2021 MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Will be before the presentation to the Board and discussion of that item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We don't know how much before? MR. BELLOWS: Well, it will follow the -- be on the same agenda with the villages when they're presented to the Board. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay. All right. Thanks. Thanks for giving us that information. And that, for my purposes, is suitable. Anybody else have anything to say on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: So we've got, I think, six items to be continued, five of them -- well, maybe -- well, five to the 15th and the sixth to May 6th; is that -- am I counting correctly, Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: Four will go to the April 15th, and the last one under new business, that is going to May 6th. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to ask you to just identify them by number again so that we make a clear record. MR. BELLOWS: So agenda items 9A3, 9A4, 9A5, and 9A6 are going to April -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Excuse me. I'm sorry. Since there are two versions of the agenda out there, will you identify them by PL number. MR. BELLOWS: Sure. PL No. 20190002355, PL20190002353, PL20190002292, and PL202000002234 are all going to the April 15th Planning Commission meeting. And then under new business, that's No. 11 on the agenda, that is going to the May 6th. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good. Thank you. Is there a motion to that effect for those continuances, please? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor of those continuances to those dates, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. It passes unanimously. Planning Commission absences -- Oh, Mr. Bellows, you don't have further agenda changes, I take it? MR. BELLOWS: No other changes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is April 15, 2021. I know that Commissioner Schmitt will be absent on that date. Does anyone else know if he or she will not be able to be in attendance at that time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Approval of minutes. We have before us action on our meeting of March 4, 2021. Are there any corrections, changes, or additions to those minutes? Page 6 of 109 April 1, 2021 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I actually have one. A speaker at that meeting, at the March 4 meeting, desires to change our record in order to reflect that she misspoke on a particular matter. Staff inserted a handwritten attachment at the end of these minutes. Now, we can give full effect to the speaker's desire to correct her statement without correcting our official record of what was actually said. To that end, I would entertain two motions. First to approve the March 4 minutes without the handwritten attachment. And if that passes, I would then entertain a motion to accept the speaker's correction of her statement, and that action will become a part of the official minutes of today's meeting, and in that way we preserve the integrity of our March 4 minutes as an accurate portrayal of what the speaker actually said, and we also at the same time allow her to make her retraction on our official records. So is there a motion to approve the March 4 minutes as submitted without the handwritten? COMMISSIONER FRY: So moved. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. I CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do you wish to be heard on this? MR. YOVANOVICH: If you don't mind. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: Does that have to do with the village that was discussed? CHAIRMAN FRYER: It has to do with the Wildlife Foundation, and I'm going to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Did it have to do with the hearing that was on the rural village that was Rural Lands Stewardship village, the Longwater Village petition? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, I don't believe so. MR. YOVANOVICH: If it did, I just -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, that wasn't before us. This was during public comment. I'll identify it in a moment. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I was just hoping you'd read it into the record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I will. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's all I'm asking. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we approve those March 4 minutes with the deletion of the handwritten attachment. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Now I'd like to have a motion to acknowledge that the speaker, this is a Mrs. Forkan, has retracted her March 4 statement about the Florida Wildlife Foundation receiving money from Collier Enterprises. Is there a motion to that effect? COMMISSIONER FRY: So moved. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Are we just leaving the attachment, her letter? Page 7 of 109 April 1, 2021 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we can't leave it on March 4 because it didn't happen on March 4, but we're making it official by dealing with her -- I mean, she wants a retraction. I want to give her a retraction. We're going to do it -- I'm proposing we're going to do it attached to these minutes. We can't rewrite what happened and what was said at the last meeting. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right, I wouldn't want to. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I mean, what was said was said. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Exactly. COMMISSIONER FRY: She's going on the record to retract her statement that the Florida Wildlife Foundation received funding from the applicant, so I guess the question is whether we allow that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Did you want to be heard on this, Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: I did. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: That actually was during the hearing. It was the Longwater Village petition, so I'm asking you -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I thought you were talking about the RLSA matter. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no. It was -- I asked if it had to do with the Longwater Village. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't think you said that, but it doesn't matter. What do you want -- what do you want to say? MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to make sure -- I just want to make sure it's clearly on the record for the Longwater Village petition that she now wants to change her testimony. That's all I want on the record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, it's already been done. Thank you. Any further discussion on this second motion? Yes, Commissioner Schmitt. 404 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I believe we did, or did we not? I think I saw an email come in to that effect with the revised statement, so that's what you're posting? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And this is -- yeah. She wants to retract, and I want to facilitate that retraction. It was a statement made on the previous minutes. We can't change the minutes, but we can have the retraction reflected in these minutes, which is what this motion is all about. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would just like to, you know, commend Ms. Forkan for -- you know, for wanting to clarify something that I believe, you know, is saying that she said in error or she misspoke, and I think that's -- it pretty important. Obviously it was said, and I think it's good, you know, that she gets a chance to go ahead and -- I don't want to say apologize, but we recognize that there was something said that she now realizes came out wrong or was incorrect. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. Thank you, Commissioner. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. Page 8 of 109 April 1, 2021 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Motion carries unanimously. BCC report and recaps, Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On March 23rd, the Board of County Commissioners heard the Growth Management Plan amendment for the Immokalee Road Rural Village. That was -- that's a zoning overlay, or an overlay. That is -- that was approved 5-0 by the Board. Then the amendment for Ave Maria, the SRA amendment, was approved 4-1 by the Board with Commissioner Taylor opposed. Then on the summary agenda, the Board approved the Golden Gate PUD amendment that was -- the one that was increasing the intensity of the sports complex by adding 10,000 square feet for medical office and its companion DOA amendment. That was approved on their summary agenda. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bellows. Chairman's report, none today. Consent agenda, none today. ***Public hearings, advertised, the first one, first matter, is a continuation of PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA. All persons wishing to testify in this matter, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ex parte disclosures from the Planning Commission beginning with Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: Extensive communications and meetings with the developer regarding the negotiation of a developer commitment for future school sites in exchange for impact fees. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Staff materials, county emails. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. The only new things for me are more publicly available materials as well as communications with staff and members of the public. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing new for me. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My additions since the last time we brought this up, I did speak to Mr. Yovanovich, and I did talk to staff about specific issues regarding the petitions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Klucik? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Subsequent to our last meeting and the disclosures then, I would add that I had further discussion with staff and with members of the public, and I also spoke with Commissioner McDaniel. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. All right. I believe we left off before staff was able to complete its report. So that's where we'll pick up. And I see Ms. Patterson, so the Chair recognizes Ms. Patterson. MS. PATTERSON: Good morning. Amy Patterson, for the record. I'm the director of Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management. We're going to talk today about the economic assessment and fiscal neutrality. In a little while I'm going to be joined by Joe Bellone who's going to dive into some of the utilities issues relevant to this conversation. I'm going to go a little off of my presentation here for a minute. Just some observations as we have been moving through this process regarding impact fees and the economic assessment and Page 9 of 109 April 1, 2021 fiscal neutrality. This is really not an impact fee discussion. Now, impact fees are a large part of this analysis, but this isn't a question about how we administer our impact fee program or what the appropriate levels of impact fees are. That's a policy decision by the Board. Another thing that I want to quickly cover is, as the County Attorney alluded to in his comments at the prior meeting, impact fees are not adopted at 100 percent because legally they can't be. All of these impact fees -- and I'm going to limit my comments specifically to the general governmental side of the house. Utilities impact fees are a little bit different, and Joe and I are going to talk about that as we get further into this. But there are a series of credits and other offsets that are required to be considered as part of an impact fee because you have to, in all cases, avoid double charging new development. You can't require them to pay for more than their fair share. So there's no suggestion that these impacts fees can pay for 100 percent of growth. They never can. They never have on the general governmental side of the house, as it would be unfair and illegal. This is an analysis of demand created by new development and the funding sources that are available and paid by the new development to meet that demand to achieve neutrality. That also occurs on the operating side of the house. So I have some specific comments as to some of the presentations. I'm going to hold those and go through this more generally, but before we move into the presentation, I just want to talk about Ave Maria a little bit. So there's been a whole lot of conversation about Ave Maria, which is really -- I find interesting. I've been involved with Ave Maria pretty much from the start in different roles. But just kind of to put some awareness to this, Ave Maria did go through a fiscal -- an economic assessment and fiscal neutrality review as part of their town. They were required partway -- five years in then to do a five-year review. Now, that's not required under the current scenario, but that was something required of them. And, interestingly enough, when that was going on, Ave Maria endured extensive criticism about their rate of production, that they weren't meeting their schedules. Well, coincidentally, we were also in a global recession at that time, so this is an example of why this horizon period is incredibly important, because these short-term changes don't necessarily mean that a project's not viable or that it won't ultimately meet those fiscal neutrality requirements, but it just means that we have to be nibble enough to allow that development occur with the rises and falls of the economy. So we heard things like, roads were built specifically for the development, that this was a bad deal for the taxpayers, Ave Maria and the Ave Maria developer agreement, when, in fact, that developer agreement was structured to benefit both the county and Ave Maria as development agreements do. So I actually appeared in front of this board and the Board of County Commissioners to discuss the deal points of the Ave Maria DCA and to explain why it wasn't a bad deal. Fast forward, today we are looking at Ave Maria as an example of good planning, and sort of it's being compared against these petitions. I find it interesting --I jotted down --it's funny. I don't bring a lot of notes, but I have this piece of paper from when I have driving in my car about Ave Maria as I was thinking about it and how it's an evolving situation which -- which it should be. But things in Ave Maria have continued to evolve. They've put an innovation zone in place. That didn't happen right away. They have entered into economic development agreements with major employers, and there's a major job center out there creating jobs, and now we're in the process of looking at internal capture again in Ave Maria. So I guess the point of my comments is, is this is an evolution. This is something that is intended to -- we are intended to look at over a long period of time. And this -- these two petitions Page 10 of 109 April 1, 2021 that we're looking at now, Longwater and Bellmar, we're taking that same approach. So with that, I'm going to go into my presentation. We're going to talk at a high level about what we did and how we did it, and then we can drill down into the details, if that's the pleasure of the Planning Commission. I just got myself back to the beginning. Technical difficulties. I'll just go through the slides to get to where I need to be. Just bear with me one second. Sorry. I got myself started over. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No problem. MS. PATTERSON: This is why they shouldn't let me run this podium. They had it all teed up for me, and I messed it up. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Very good. Thank you for your presentation. MS. PATTERSON: I'm done. Okay. See you later. I just wanted to give everybody a review of what we've done before. MS. GUNDLACH: Amy, I think it's Slide 82. MS. PATTERSON: Okay. Well, I'd have to be able to actually, like, get there, too. I think I'm almost there. Sorry, I'll go faster. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Don't worry. We're doing fine. Take your time. MS. PATTERSON: Here we are. Yay. Okay. So economic assessment and fiscal neutrality. We're going to talk about how we pay for growth through the -- and this is a couple of different breakdowns in this presentation. We'll talk about the economic assessment process, about fiscal neutrality, how we conduct the staff review, and then we'll move on to specifically the water/sewer district. So as everyone knows, the economic assessment is required by the Land Development Code. It's used to demonstrate fiscal neutrality and/or identify deficiencies. It is intended to show that new development is not going to burden existing taxpayers. Currently, it is using a static model. This methodology must be accepted by the county. So the applicant and their consultant will bring this methodology forward to be reviewed by the county before we ever get started in this process. It's looked at and either accepted or denied by the county. So in this case, the methodology being used for these villages was accepted by the county. It is an interactive process. This is something I think we haven't touched on enough. When the consultant on behalf of the applicant is looking at doing this analysis, they aren't just doing it in a vacuum. They're meeting with facility managers, they're talking to them about their current and future needs. They're really doing in-depth analysis and conversations with the people that know our infrastructure the very best. That may be EMS, transportation, public utilities. The list is long. And that is -- it is a -- it is a very detailed process. Another important fact is that this relies on adopted data. So this is data that's been accepted by the county by way of our AUIR and CIE, by way of our impact fee studies, by way of the budget. So this is not data that they're going and getting from someplace other than us. Anything outside of that generally relies on adopted national datasets which we also rely on. Again, this is all vetted by the staff as we move through this process. And we're taking an additional step with this by hiring an outside peer reviewer. That's putting a third set of eyes on what's going on. So not only do you have your staff looking at this assessment, but we have an outside financial reviewer looking at it as well. So let's drop down to fiscal neutrality. So it's required to demonstrate that the development is fiscally neutral or positive to the tax base. The framework and assumptions should be consistent with county fiscal policy, meaning they don't have the authority to go and assume that there's going to be different revenue types that don't exist or to say that the impact fee rates are going to be at a different level than they are or that there will be millage rate changes. This is all Page 11 of 109 April 1, 2021 based on our existing framework. So it integrates analysis of funding sources as well as level of service. I think this is another thing that we maybe haven't explained well enough. This isn't just us figuring out how much money is going to be paid. It's figuring out what the demand created is and if those funding sources are adequate to address that demand, and that's by way of your adopted levels of service through the AUIR and CIE. So there's not just a straight fiscal -- straight-line analysis done to calculate the money. There's a population -driven in some cases -- depending on which facility we're talking about, but there are level -of -service analysis that run first to then be able to look at how that layers in with the money, with the fiscal analysis. It provides strategies to address deficiencies created specifically by proposed developments. So should we find that there is a deficiency created by the development that's specific to the development -- and we'll talk about that in a second -- there are specific ways that that can be addressed either by contributions of cash, land. There's all different types of strategies to cure. Now, that does not mean that a developer is required to cure an existing deficiency. So if we're walking into this analysis with a deficiency in a facility, what we have to determine is if that development is going to make it worse or if it will stay appreciably the same, and that is where our starting place is on deficiencies. It's very important to understand that difference. We can never ask development to cure a deficiency without there being other steps that have to be taken. Should they choose to provide something to help us work towards a deficiency, then there's a whole system of credits then that have to be implemented. So there's always that check and balance to ensure that we're not double charging or overcharging new development. So we hear a lot "growth pays for growth." And, again, I like to tack on something else. Growth pays for growth to the extent allowed by law. We cannot require growth to pay for more than its fair share. So when you'll hear people talk about -- even a presentation that was made at Commissioner Taylor's town hall, the attempt was to explain that we're charging developers and new people into the market for their bite of capacity and the cost of that to the extent that the law permits minus any other offsets or credits that we have to provide. For example, the newly adopted infrastructure sales tax, everywhere where those dollars are being used for the same purpose as impact fees, there's a credit that has to be calculated into those fees. It's simply a basket of funding sources that create that balance to be able to provide the infrastructure. So developers cannot be required to pay impact fees above and beyond the costs reasonably attributable to the demand that they create. It seems pretty simple; we can't overcharge. So -- and those limiting factors -- I've touched on a few of these. There's credits and offsets. I just gave you an example. The infrastructure sales tax, grants, sometimes if they're -- you know, they're long term. We also have General Fund credits, gas tax; depending on the facility will depend on the types of credits that are looked at. Some impact fees have a lot of credits that have to be factored in. Some have less. But, again, it gets to the point that an impact fee -- keeping utilities out of this. The general governmental side, these impact fees are adopted at what we call the maximum legal limit. That doesn't mean it's 100 percent fee. It simply means that's the most that's allowed to be charged. Some other limiting factors, that's supplemental funding sources. We discussed the infrastructure sales tax. Policy decisions. This is not something that happens often here, but from time to time your elected officials may choose to adopt fees at a rate that's lower than what the maximum legal limit is. That's a policy decision by the Board with the understanding that that differential will be made up by another funding source. Level of service factors in. So if we have -- in the cases where we're exceeding level of Page 12 of 109 April 1, 2021 service, that has to be factored into the impact fee calculation. Again, to avoid that double charge. There is a prohibition on exactions. Trinity touched on this in her presentation. We can't just go tell a developer they have to give us something and say, we're not giving you anything for it. There are impact fee credits that are required for all of those types of dedications or contributions. And then the amount of growth is the primary limiter on impact fees. If you have no growth, you have no impact fees. So it was really interesting during the recession when you had jurisdictions that were limiting their impact fee for programs where they weren't collecting any of the impact fees anyway. It is truly the most self-limiting funding source that we have, because if you don't have people building, you don't have impact fees. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Patterson, pardon me for interrupting, but just on behalf of the court reporter, I'd ask you to slowdown just a little bit. You have all the time you need. MS. PATTERSON: Absolutely. Sorry. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. That's all right. MS. PATTERSON: You -all have seen this slide before, but we're going to talk just a little bit about population. There was maybe a misconception about how things will work in the RLSA and the potential for a massive funding shortfall. So we've run these numbers against ideas of persons per household -- we're going to talk about this in a minute. Persons per household versus persons -per -housing unit. So based on Planning Commission discussions, we've run some numbers to look at some of the assumptions made in that Smart Growth America 2018 study to look at what are we really looking at as revenue shortfalls out in the RLSA. Even with the persons per household number and even with a very, very conservative calculation of impact fees, there is no suggestion that at our current -- at our current adopted funding levels, which we anticipate will increase in the future based on growth, that the infrastructure is not going to be paid for to the extent that impact fees are permissible to be used. So I just wanted to touch on that. We need to talk about the persons per household versus persons -per -housing unit, and we're going to get into that in just a second on this neutrality review. So what goes into the review of an economic assessment and a finding of fiscal neutrality. So, first of all, there has to be a detailed review of the funding sources and calculations. The person doing the review has to know what they're looking at and what it means and be able to follow those calculations through to ensure the accuracy. There's to be knowledge of the application and calculation of level -of -service standards. This is not -- you know, this is not easy stuff, but that application of the level -of -service to the population then generates a need, and how that need is paid for then becomes the financial piece of this. So there's a calculation that's done for every single category being reviewed to look at it against the adopted level -of -service standard. Again, an understanding of existing level -of -service deficiencies. So how -- what are we allowed to do versus what are we not allowed to do because of existing deficiencies. Knowledge of the difference between exactions, contributions, and other financial tools available to fund infrastructure. We've talked about that. Knowing what you can and can't do as far as requests from the developer. You have to understand case law, statutes, and other limiting factors on your funding sources. And population projections and datasets, this is where we have to know what we're looking at, because each thing is different, and a simple move where you mix datasets can mean disaster for the review of your economic assessment. You cannot swap datasets. Just the change -- and we'll talk about in a minute -- between persons -per -housing unit and persons per household can greatly change the way that calculation turns out. Impact fee methodology, and then planning versus construction. We're going to get into Page 13 of 109 April 1, 2021 that a little bit more when we get into utilities and why it appears that what's going on out with the utility expansion seems to not make sense perhaps on the face but, in fact, as part of a much larger plan that's extremely well thought out both the planning side and then as it transitions into construction. So let's talk about some common misconceptions or mistakes when we're here talking about the funding of capital infrastructure and why this is confusing. So often we'll find that we want to apply a straight-line fiscal analysis to an engineering issue on how plants or infrastructure are planned and constructed, including phasing. This is very specific, this point, to the analysis done -- the outside analysis done on the utility expansion and the assumption that all of the capacity was going to be consumed by just a few developments. And, in fact, that is one phase of multi -- a multi -phased construction project to provide a lot of capacity to a very large area in a regional system. So that's where you're taking a very small window and assuming that's all there is. That 5 MGD and 4 MGD water and wastewater is just the first phase and so, yes, that will serve the first people in, but that's not the end. They're not going to consume all the capacity and then we say, well, I guess we made a mistake, and now we've got to go build another plant. That's not what's happening out there, and Joe's going to talk about that a little bit. Overestimation of costs attributable to new development. Again, this is back to what are the reasonable costs? Not what we want it to be; not what we think it would be if it was nice if we could charge them for everything that we feel's appropriate, but actually that legal amount that can be attributable to new development. Overestimation of population projections by not considering vacancies, seasonal population, and other factors. So we've heard the MPO numbers thrown around a lot, but what Trinity touched on and what I'll say again is, if you take the number from the MPO, what's not being acknowledged in the outside analysis is that there's factors that are then applied to the numbers being used in the MPO to essentially bring us back to accommodate those vacancies and other factors, the transient nature of some types of development. So all of those factors come in, ultimately. So there's more than one way this can be done. It can be done using a persons -per - housing unit type of number with factors or, when we get to -- or persons per household or the persons -per -housing unit where the factors are already included. And in the end, when we're done factoring and considering all of those different inputs, we should end up reasonably in the same place, which is something that you probably haven't heard before but we'll tell you. As an example, if we were to take the persons per household number, the one -- the higher number and we were to apply it to Collier County today, it would say that we have over 500,000 people living in Collier County right now. We know that's not true. So there's where the factors come in. So you could -- you could apply that calculation, and then you could factor it down, and you would end up with your population base that, as we know, is accurate. So there's not a right or a wrong way. It's simply understanding what your dataset means and then being able to use it appropriately. That's where we say, is that you're skewing the population numbers by mixing the persons -per -housing unit or the other types, or mixing datasets creates confusion in this analysis. It is very clear when we're talking about this analysis what datasets we're using and that those datasets are carried out through the entire calculation. And then utilizing data for a purpose other than its intended use or basis for collection. Again, you can't pull a dataset from someplace and pop it into a calculation and then say, see, look, this causes trouble. We have to understand what was the intended use, what are all the factors considered in that dataset, and is it appropriate for use in this calculation? Okay. A few more things to be considered specifically before we get to Joe is that decisions on utility boundary expansions and service areas and private utilities are all business Page 14 of 109 April 1, 2021 decisions of the utility. They've been vetted up through the Board of County Commissioners, and there are methodical and sound reasoning behind why we decide to build utilities or why we don't. And so this is a long-standing practice. As you've seen, the utility has acquired various private utilities as well as now have embarked on this expansion that's been truly underway in the planning sense since the early 2000s. Considerations on this is the cost to acquire and retrofit private utilities in the future versus the cost to expand the utility to accommodate future and -- current and future growth. So, again, that's the business decision of the utility. Do we want to allow people to build private utilities to know that ultimately at some point those will become an asset to the utility and ours to retrofit and to bring into service, or does it make business sense to expand the utility to serve both current and future residents? We have talked about that exactions are not authorized under Florida law without equal credit being granted. There's a specific reference there about a point of contact -- or point of connection and pipe upsizing that we can't place onto the developer but is a way that we can negotiate. So that's not an impact fee issue without the use of credits. Collier County has 12 individual impact fees that are regularly updated, so they're on a cycle. We probably have the most updated impact fees in the state of Florida, if not in the country. Our update schedule is aggressive, and even in our current state where we're holding on because of an affordable housing study that's being conducted before we update any of our fees, even the 2016 EMS study that's been kicked around a little bit is still a very updated fee in comparison to some of the other impact fee programs in the state and in the country. Utilities impact fees were just updated in 2020 and will continue to be updated on a regular schedule in accordance with our local and state requirements so that we can accurately reflect the growth eligible cost throughout the utility. The utility is a closed system, and it makes this impact fee a little bit different than all of the other ones. Joe will talk some more about this. But it doesn't have other funding sources that come in. It's a forward -looking fee. That means that there is the best ability to capture the cost of growth that is legally allowed to be charged to new development in the utilities impact fees. Most of our other impact fees have a backward look, which does create somewhat of a lag, but utilities in the closed system and utilities with the forward -looking impact fee does an excellent job at capturing the cost to provide that service. There have been multiple inconsistencies that have been identified in some of the outside analysis. We do have point by point in detail on those. I'm not sure that that's the, you know, desire of this commission to go through those specifically, but if you have questions, we are more than happy to address them. Most importantly, this is generating a perception that certain developments will have a negative impact on the tax base which is not supported by the economic assessment, the staff analysis, or the outside peer review. And we welcome the opportunity to answer your questions. At this point we're going to turn it over to Mr. Bellone, and then he and I will be available to answer your specific questions at the end. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can we do questions on what she said, or do we have to wait? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do you mind if we ask? MS. PATTERSON: I don't mind, no. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So you referred to vacant. What is -- does that mean a property that's not sold, or a property that has been sold but they're up north for the season? What I worry about is we seem to be using the vacant -- I mean, the infrastructure costs are related to the facility. Whether somebody's in it or not, the costs are the same. So I get confused when you say "vacant." I mean, how do you count vacant into the capital assessment portion of it? Page 15 of 109 April 1, 2021 MS. PATTERSON: So that's actually a really great point, because impact fees are assessed on units whether they are vacant or occupied. Actually, it's -- that's a really -- that's a really interesting point. COMMISSIONER SHEA: What's the point of the discussion on population? MS. PATTERSON: The point of -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Other than the number that you put in the newspaper and say, these houses are going to generate so many people if everything's done on a building unit? MS. PATTERSON: Right. So for population, what -- really where that factors in is into level of service. And not to say that it doesn't translate then, ultimately, into the impact fee calculation, but when we're using the number as the multiplier for the -- so say it's -- for parks it's acres per thousand population. You have to understand the nature of that population number which is then calculated by the level -of -service standard, and then there's a value assigned to come up with that cost. We're trying to be very consistent in the way that that population is approached through our impact fees -- that was the decision that was made in this methodology -- and then translate that all the way through our analysis in the review of the level -of -service standard and then, ultimately, to the cost that's assigned for that bite of infrastructure for these developments. This could be done either way. It doesn't -- this is the thing is that the -- the focus on persons -per -housing unit versus persons per household is simply, for ease of application, we have used the -- and acceptable standards as far as the impact fees go doing this calculation. But we've run these numbers differently using the persons per household, figuring out the factor, and then applying it to the level of service, and we end up in the same place. Why we're standing up here telling you that we understand it looks funny when you have a lower number and a higher number, but there's mathematical reasons for that that make sense and have a basis and are carried through those calculations. If we want in the future to do that differently because of the appearance of it or the comfort level with it, we're going to do the same thing. We're going to apply some additional factors, and we're going to end up in the same place. COMMISSIONER SHEA: One other --this is just to help me as you go forward. You referred several times to another funding source. We can apply up to the legal limit, which doesn't necessarily mean that you're recovering all your costs, and then you go another funding source. Is that another funding source that isn't something that's taking away from the existing population? MS. PATTERSON: Correct, because it's another funding source that's paid by the new development. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. So it's related to the developers paying it? MS. PATTERSON: It's related to the people that will ultimately pay it. So, for example, Trinity talked a lot about gas tax and impact fees, the two primary funding sources for transportation improvements. Impact fees will pay for a portion up to their maximum legal limit. Gas taxes also come in to pay certain things. Sometimes they're dual funding sources. Sometimes they're singular fund sources. All of that is -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: You might want to clarify that for people like me -- MS. PATTERSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- that say it's funding sources related and provided by the new net development, not by the existing taxpayers. MS. PATTERSON: Right. When I made my comment about not -- this not being -- we focused a lot on impact fees through this whole conversation, which I love, right? I love impact fees. That's really good. But, you know -- you know, but there are -- this is not just about -- about impact fees. This is about looking at the new development and the demand that's going to be created and all of the ways it's going to be paid for. The reason this is done is to ensure all the ways they're going to pay for this infrastructure Page 16 of 109 April 1, 2021 and services does not burden the taxpayers. But there's already the assumption in our fiscal model and in our current situation that says we expect people to pay these things. We pay taxes. The new development's going to pay taxes. We pay gas tax. The new development's going to pay gas tax. Where the trouble would occur is if there was some sort deficiency where the funding sources wouldn't cover; that the demand that was generated by the new development was so high that all of your basket of funding sources couldn't satisfy it, and that's when there's provisions that say, okay, if there's a deficiency identified, you have to address it this way or this way or this way. So it's pretty balanced. But, again, it's not just about what impact fees we generate, because what if we didn't have impact fees? All this stuffs going to get paid for somehow, and that new development's going to contribute. Are they contributing enough? That's the question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry? COMMISSIONER FRY: Amy, I just want to try to bring this all together for my simple mind, I guess. So growth can pay for growth, but impact fees on their own do not pay for growth. As you've said, you can't charge enough to pay for growth, but there are other funding sources which Commissioner Shea is asking about. So what I'm looking for is just a concise list. You mentioned impact fees, gas taxes, and then other taxes. I'm assuming that you're talking about property tax that we pay for schools and just our property taxes. So you factor that in. For the people that will move into the development, they're going to be paying taxes. That all goes into this basket of funding sources that ultimately is what allows us to reach fiscal neutrality. Is that an accurate statement? MS. PATTERSON: That's accurate, absolutely. And sometimes we get new funding sources, and we have to figure -- so that infrastructure sales tax. Then we had to figure out not only how that went into the basket but how it affected the other things in the basket. Do we have to provide credits? Does it offset one? Does it replace one? These are all financial policies of the Board. And there's no right answer. Every jurisdiction does it a little bit differently. Some places have franchise fees, some places have tolls, and they put them in the basket, and they figure out what they do with them. They have purposes for growth, and then they have purposes for our everyday operations and the things that the government has to do to keep people safe and to keep the government running. COMMISSIONER FRY: And I think the other half of the equation is that you've got fixed infrastructure costs, and you have variable infrastructure costs, and you have to blend the two. Commissioner Shea was talking about infrastructure, and you seem to be talking about consumption, meaning if people are not living here, if they're up north, they're not using the park, they're not driving on the road. You know, they're not using water and sewage, those kinds of things. So you've got the basic cost to pay for the infrastructure that's permanent and then the variable cost of maintaining it. So that's all part of this complex calculation that you use for fiscal neutrality. MS. PATTERSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have some questions, unless another planning commissioner does before I go. First of all, Ms. Patterson, at the beginning you said we can't require a developer to pay more than its fair share of the costs of -- cost resulting from the development. I certainly agree with that. My question is is that may we, though, require the developer pay its fair share? Page 17 of 109 April 1, 2021 MS. PATTERSON: When I say "fair share," so let's make sure that we're just talking about me using the term "fair share" generally and not for the -- any term of art for transportation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm not talking about transportation. MS. PATTERSON: Okay, good; perfect. I just --you know, Trinity will be very upset with me if I jump into the fair share. So we do. That's the whole purpose of this analysis is to consider all of the ways that we are going to pay for the things that are needed to support that new development. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So it's perfectly legitimate if not really required on our part for us to require the developer to pay its fair share. No more, no less. MS. PATTERSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Good; good. You mentioned Ave Maria rather extensively in your presentation, which I found informative and appreciate that. I'd like to look at some other developments as well and ask for your take on this, and it has to do with occupants, individual residential occupants; whether we call them persons per household, persons -per -housing unit. And I've been schooled now, and I believe I understand the difference between the two. Certainly, the most recent numbers that I believe are credible and are entitled to be relied upon by disinterested parties would be the census and BEBR, which is the Bureau of Economic and Business Research out of the University of Florida, the MPO 2045 study, and then -- of course, that's our own Metropolitan Planning Organization, then our own AUIR. The persons per household number that they use comes in approximately an average of, let's say, 2.45. Now, to me that is a -- and I accept your argument, staffs argument that that's just a beginning point; that you got to -- you've got to put factors into that, and I get that, and I appreciate it, and I agree with it. But I think the issue is, is we have to be able to provable evidence, if you will, or credible evidence that the persons -per -housing unit reduction is a fair reduction to persons per household; that it's a calculated fair reduction based upon assumptions that can be debated perhaps based upon mathematical calculations, observations, various other things that consultants and experts use in determining estimates, and that's really all they are. So I looked -- I looked back and actually forward, a couple of matters that we've heard and matters that are on our agenda, one of which we continued today to the 15th, and the base points here is this particular development is arguing in the case of attached or multifamily dwelling units -- villas or multifamily dwelling units persons -per -housing unit, 1.05. That's repeated many times in the analysis. So let's take, again, that the concept is valid; that the persons per household of 2.45 should be reduced by some number in order to capture things like vacancies, and I -- correct me if I'm wrong, but were you also implying that it needs to capture potential additive factors like seasonal population or just the potential subtractors? MS. PATTERSON: No. I think that all the factors have to be considered. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Okay, good. I agree with that. So to get from 2.45 down to 1.05 in the case of attached multifamily villas -- multifamily and villas, I'm wanting to hear some evidence about, you know, how those calculations were arrived at. And I note that other experts in other matters -- again, we talked about Ave Maria for comparison. Let's take a look at the Barron Collier's Immokalee Road Estates commercial subdistrict that we heard two weeks ago. In their case, they -- this was heavily tilted toward commercial development. And, of course, in the case of commercial development, you would expect an advocate to want to argue for more persons per household because that means more people to consume the commercial supply output. Page 18 of 109 April 1, 2021 And in that case, indeed, the firm of ESRI -- this is the Immokalee Road Estates commercial district we've already heard. They came in at 2.76 PPH, and I don't know if that was -- if that was to take a count of vacancies in seasonal or not, but that's what they argued that we should rely upon when we try to assess whether there is sufficient demand for these greater commercial uses. So that's a pretty high number, 2.76. Then we look at the Immokalee Road Fourth Street Northeast mixed -use district which was continued from today to April 15. They've got a consultant, REEI. And if I understand that development correctly, it's, I think, more of an evenly balanced split between commercial and residential. And so what they're arguing for PPH -- again, I don't know whether there is PPH or HU, but they're arguing to us that the proper number is 2.29. So it strikes me that maybe they're a little bit closer to reality, but I don't know. What I've got is three different quite variable PPH numbers. And when you put that in the context of the burden of proof, are we to sit up here and have this developer prove to us that the proper PPH in this case for the detached and multifamily is -- attached, rather, and multifamily is 1.05 and then another expert comes in and says it's 2.76 and another one comes in and says it's 2.29, are we supposed to put blinders on and just assume that, you know, we haven't heard any of these other numbers before? MR. KLATZKOW: Let me just -- one, I don't know where you're getting -- you're going to, and I don't know why it's relevant. From staffs perspective, the numbers that we're generating, Amy, I mean, we have Tindale Oliver coming up with numbers, and we use those numbers to generate our impact fees. Those are vetted and approved by the Board. MS. PATTERSON: Correct. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know how you change the numbers after that. It is just -- it's the foundation to all the planning that the county's doing. Now, development to development, obviously, it's going to change and, oh, by the way, over the years they change. You get a new development; they're flush with kids. Kids get older, they leave the household; it's now more of a senior community. I bought a house someplace like that. I mean, once upon a time, it was just nothing but kids running around. And now it's different. So even communities change over time. But we have as a foundation to everything we do here, okay, certain studies, and those studies have been approved by the Board of County Commissioners. And I really don't know what you're getting at after that. If you want to attack our own studies and attack our own impact fees, I don't know what the profit is at the end of the day. I mean, we have to pick a number. We rely on outside consultants to give us that number, and we base our planning off of that number. And if you're going to say, well, the number's wrong and you've been doing planning wrong for the last 20 years, I don't know what to tell you, but I can't unscramble that egg at this point in time. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: County Attorney? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me respond first, and then you may say something. What I'm getting at is in the concept -- in the context of us determining whether a burden of proof is met, we've got right now three developments that have been in front of us, are in front of us now, or are coming in front of us that have wide variations in persons per household. And what I'm asking for is some kind of proof that the number that reduces from the 2.45 average that these other studies that I think are disinterested and credible, I'd like to hear why we get down to 1.05 in this case, and when we come to the other ones I'm going to ask why we get down to 2.29 and it's -- I know about the 2.76. And we -- when we voted on that, we made accommodations which I Page 19 of 109 April 1, 2021 think were to deal with the fact that that seemed a high number. At least that's what my vote was all about. MS. PATTERSON: So if I can correct the number, though, on that 1.05, that's permanent population. So that just brings a whole 'nother level of confusion into this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I agree. MS. PATTERSON: But that's not -- that's not the numbers being used for this analysis. So they do have a split between -- and I don't have the numbers in front of me. There was a split between single-family and multifamily that's used by the DPFG analysis that's tied back to the specific population work that was done under the EMS study in 2016. Now, there was a 1.05 number that was moved around in some of the information that was released in some of the analysis, and this is -- this is back to my comments of how confusing this is. And as soon as we start to swap in and out numbers, it erodes the entire analysis, or it gives that discomfort because now we're looking at this dataset and this dataset and against this dataset. I would say I wouldn't compare a commercial justification against the village because there's different purposes for their analysis. That would be my first comment. Second is that we would -- I didn't review those petitions, so I would have to look at them and look at whether or not -- how or if they factored them and what would be appropriate. The other thing I didn't discuss that runs behind the scenes here to get to the commercial side and how that works into this is there's a functional population analysis that is essentially a review of what people are where, when. So that brings the commercial into the calculation as well. We run those functional population calculations in parallel to all of this other analysis just to be sure that the analysis provided by the applicant can be verified by us, by the county, based on all of our data and all of our knowledge. But to Jeffs point, these are the adopted impact fee studies. They have been reviewed by not only the industry but outside counsel and have been adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. MR. KLATZKOW: But it's more than that. We've been using Tindale Oliver for how many years? AAL MS. PATTERSON: Probably 30 years -- MR. KLATZKOW: So we have a history as to what their numbers are, and we have a history as to how accurate those numbers are. MS. PATTERSON: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: And so for 30 years they've been giving us numbers which we feel to be accurate. MS. PATTERSON: Correct. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know what else to say. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik and then Mr. Eastman. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What I would suggest then is -- you know, obviously, we're planning commissioners. We're the Planning Commission. And, you know, we've been asked to weigh in on -- you know, on everything that's planning -- you know, that our planning staff does. We're basically supposed to be supervising that and making recommendations, and I agree with that. And if there's a -- you know, we can vote on a particular petition and we can vote yea or nay, however, you know, people decide, and we can go ahead and process our vote with, you know, I think that the county has been using the wrong standards and continues to use the wrong standards, and they should change. And then the commissioners can decide, you know, if they want to go ahead and take action and change the standards. But we have standards, and I don't understand why we're going to invest time at this point, during a petition, to try to discount the standards, to undermine them, undermine our staff, Page 20 of 109 April 1, 2021 undermine the work of the County Commissioners themselves in their adoption of these standards, and 30 years of history, and I don't understand why we would be, during this petition, taking that on. I think that's a thing for us to consider. I don't think during this petition that it's a good thing to take on, because I don't think it's fair to the petitioner. I don't think it's -- you know, to all of a sudden say, well, we know we have a standard but you don't -- and we changed it. We didn't tell anybody, but we're going to change it now or we want to change it now. And that's -- I just don't think that it's appropriate at this point to belabor the concerns that you have, because I think that's just changing the system, but what's before us is not the system. What's before us is the petition. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. We're going to have -- we're going to hear from Mr. Eastman and then Commissioner Shea, then Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, Mr. Fryer, would you care to respond to that? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I will. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I'd also like to hear, you know, from any other Commissioners who'd like to respond to that or weigh in. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'll respond to it. I'm calling the roll right now, and we'll get back to me. Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: I've worked with Amy and others at the county with this impact fee situation for years, and Tindale Oliver is like the gold standard not only for the state, but I believe they go nationally. From the school district's perspective, we're called to give actual data to determine the cost per student station, and then we use projections to determine what the development will create in terms of demand for student stations. So I'm really confident in these numbers, and there has to be a legal nexus and a legally defensible analysis that goes on before they're leveled. And from our perspective at the school district, we're very confident in the numbers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You said there's 12 impact fees from -- how much of that is based on population and how much --and just impact fees? I realize the usage is something different, but on the impact fee side, are we just beating a dead horse on the impact fees not being that population sensitive? I don't know. MS. PATTERSON: So population's a factor in all of the impact fees. The extent to which it is is the question. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MS. PATTERSON: So it's a -- and, again, it's -- this isn't really an impact fee conversation. This is a level -of -service conversation. We're talking about the multiplier times the level -of -service to get to the demand. MR. KLATZKOW: So parks is how many people per? MS. PATTERSON: It's one acre per thousand population for -- MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. And for EMS we do? MS. PATTERSON: EMS has three levels of service. MR. KLATZKOW: So as you -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: So they are population -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. KLATZKOW: This is population based, yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That was a question. I'm not looking -- the other question, I would say, if we have a standard, why is Commissioner Fryer pointing out three different numbers? Page 21 of 109 April 1, 2021 If we have a standard, why aren't they all the same? MS. PATTERSON: The purpose -- the number that's used is based on the application and the purpose by which they're trying to achieve an outcome. We're not dictating how those applicants -- there's rules. I'm sure as to -- and, again, I didn't review these petitions. There's rules as to how they have to produce these assessments or what have you. But in this case this -- for the villages; let's stay with that for a second because, again, we're mixing apples and oranges by pulling in commercial assessments and other things outside of the RLSA. What they have to do for what they're doing is those rules, and what we're doing here are these rules. These rules say, we have to do an economic -- the applicant has to do an economic assessment, and by way of that economic assessment, they have to prove their fiscal neutrality or that fiscally positive, or they have to cure. So they have to come to the county, and they say, well -- applicant says, this is how I want to prove it. And the county -- because we don't have an adopted model, meaning a financial model that we plug the information into. We had one in the past. We do not have one now. So it's the applicant's right to come forward and say, here's how I want to go about doing my economic assessment. We sit down, and we say, that makes sense to us and you may use that, or we could say, no, that doesn't make sense to us; you need to change that. And we would come to an agreement, and they would proceed with the economic assessment. That's what's happening here. By way of the methodology that we accepted, we are now relying -- we, the applicant, and we, the county, together as we, are now relying on the underlying financial data that they are using to run this assessment. That's the impact fee studies. That's the AUIR. That's our budget. All of that. But those are all board -adopted documents and board -adopted information that is now the backbone of this assessment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before I call on you, Commissioner Schmitt, I just want to say one thing, if I may, please, sir, and that is, if I understood correctly, Ms. Patterson, you said that in these other matters the estimate for persons per household depends upon the purpose for which it has been offered. Did you not say that? MS. PATTERSON: I should not -- I should kick that to Ray, really, because, again, I've had zero involvement in any other type of review or assessment that you're referring to. So how they go about it, what data they're allowed to use, that all falls under the purview of the planning group, and they would be the appropriate ones to answer that question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That's fair. And Ray can certainly weigh in. But my point is this; that whether this is a developer that is highly leveraged on the commercial uses side or highly leveraged on the residential uses side shouldn't matter when it comes to persons per household. That factor -- and, you know, if you want to start with a number and then reduce it or change it to deal with other factors, that's fine. I'm all about that. But I'd like to hear some proof. And the fact that it's been going on for 30 years and it, therefore, should be accepted personally doesn't get me very far, even if you had to come in here, you know, each time 30 years and offer some proof why in this case 1.05 persons -per -housing unit is the proper number for attached and multiple family, I'd like to hear that. I just think it's a matter of proof. MS. PATTERSON: Again, I have to reiterate that, first of all, all of these units and all of this commercial in these villages are going to pay impact fees. So this conversation is very -- it is integral to this analysis and how we arrived here, but in the end no one's getting a free ride. They're going to pay their adopted impact fees and probably at a much higher level than is even contemplated in this analysis. Because, again, this analysis is so conservative it assumes no increase in impact fees over the entire duration of this development. That is highly unlikely. Even in a scenario where you go into some sort of recessionary period, there's a recovery, and those impact fees will continue on. There's -- unless we're preempted by the legislature or as a Page 22 of 109 April 1, 2021 policy decision made by the Board of County Commissioners to eliminate the impact fee program, that funding source is in place and will be there. If anything -- I have to state again, if anything, the financials in this analysis are understated. So even with these population conversations, even with all of that, this is extremely conservative on the fiscal side. And, again, we could replace the persons -per -housing unit to a persons per household, and we could factor, and we're going to end up exactly in the same place where we are. And the 1.05 is not the number being used in the analysis. Again, that's a permanent population number that was used in an outside analysis and pulled into this calculation by way of others' opinions of how this works. So to continue to refer to the 1.05, it's not a number that exists in the -- in Lucy's DPFG analysis, the applicant's analysis, 1.05 is not a number in there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I respectfully disagree with you, but the document will speak for itself. But Commissioner Schmitt, then Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I just want to reiterate what Tom said about Tindale Oliver. You know, impact fees --I'll go back to my time in the county. Impact fees are always a major significant emotional event. They have been in this county for at least 30 -- 25 to 30 years. They're thoroughly vetted. They go through Development Services Advisory Committee who thoroughly reviews. Typically it will go through the finance committees and then through the Planning Commission just from an understanding, but to the Board of County Commissioners. I don't understand, other than we're going to debate the number of persons per household, where we're going, because we're -- after 30 years we're now criticizing impact fees. Our impact fees are the highest in the state, and I don't understand where we're going with this line of questioning. I really am confused. Because are we going to -- and then are we debating now persons per household? Is there an issue there; is that what you're driving at? Because I'm just trying to get clarity on what it is we're trying to -- are we debating the fact that the impact -- or the financial analysis that was provided is flawed or the staff s analysis is flawed? I don't know. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Should I answer your question? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. My concern is this, that -- for a number of factors. EMS is one. Law enforcement. Sheriff is another. The more people you have in an area, in this case a village, the more there's going to be a draw upon infrastructure operating type services. And to try to identify, you know, whether it's going to be fiscally neutral or not -- I'm not talking about impact fees. I'm talking about fiscal neutrality and fair share, however you might get to it. So if the difference -- if 1.05 is less than half of the number used, approximation or an average of these other outside studies that are more current than the EMS number, to me it means that you're going to have twice as many people consuming these services, which is bound to increase the cost. That's -- that's the point I'm trying to make. MR. EASTMAN: Chair? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, thanks. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Again, I'm -- thanks, Amy. You're very helpful, and it sounds like we're ganging up on you, but we're not. I'm trying to gather knowledge, because this is a constant issue at every board meeting, and every time you speak I get a little more knowledge. But you just said something about impact fees, that they -- they pay them at the time the house is sold. MS. PATTERSON: CO. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So is that impact fee -- if the house is sold seven years later from when the development was approved, they're paying the impact fees of seven years later or Page 23 of 109 April 1, 2021 the impact fees of when the development was approved? MS. PATTERSON: That's a super -- that's a great question. So impact fee rates are established -- the impact rates that are going to be assessed on a building permit are established at building permit application. There is no lock -in for a development being approved and saying, okay, now everything's going to pay this rate. It is at the time of application for building permit, and those fees are actually paid at certificate of occupancy. And I do -- I can provide some clarification again on this 1.05 if anybody's interested as to how that -- where this confusion's coming from being the permanent population number. But if we're good on that -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: It sounds like you're saying it's not really used anywheres in any of your calculations. MS. PATTERSON: It's only used as the basis of permanent population, which is then factored up for seasonal. So it's not the number that's driving anything that we're doing in this assessment. And also, understand that persons per household, we need to talk about the fact that in this analysis it's split between residential types. So there's a different number for multifamily than there is for single-family. The single-family number is higher. But there are permanent population numbers that are then factored to be able to make sure we're getting that seasonal piece in. And so the higher numbers are what are all woven through this calculation, not the lower number. The 1.05 is only the starting point to which it's factored up to use on the number. Now, that number is still different than the persons per household. No one is arguing that. That's an even higher number. But, again, then we have to talk about -- so we talk about factoring up, and we talk about factoring down. So depending on how you're using -- and this is back to depending on how you're using the number depends on then how it's woven through the calculation. But I have to keep saying that this 1.05, I understand that appears to be a very alarming number compared to a much higher persons per housing -- person per household number. Number one, they're two different datasets but, secondly, that number is a permanent population number that is not the basis of this assessment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The DPFG study refers to it either explicitly or implicitly. MS. PATTERSON: I have it here. I can put it on the visualizer so you can see -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, it's 47 pages. MS. PATTERSON: Yeah. No, but this is a page that's -- so you can see the 1.05, and then the factor and the number that actually drives the population in the Longwater assessment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Put whatever you want on, of course, but my point is this: That when looking at EMS and looking at law enforcement, DPFG made assumptions based -- well, they made a calculation based upon the 1.05 and how many people are going to be living there. MS. PATTERSON: But they based -- no, they did not make an assumption based on the 1.05. The 1.05 is the permanent population that has to be factored in order to get to the number that appears in the calculation that then, ultimately, identifies the infrastructure cost. And also, speaking specifically about law enforcement and EMS, those facility managers were involved in all of these conversations with DPFG to talk about their needs both on the operating side as well as on the capital side to identify potential needs, sites, equipment, all of those things. So they were intimately involved in these discussions to ensure that if they needed a site for an EMS station, if they needed a growth ambulance, that could be accommodated. It doesn't mean that necessarily the development would have to bear that full burden, but it was part of the conversation to figure out how to make those infrastructure accommodations by the people that know it the best. Our facility managers know this infrastructure the best. They know Page 24 of 109 April 1, 2021 where their pain points are. They know where their response times need improvement. They know where they're going to need infrastructure in the future; that's why they're involved. That's why they're involved in the conversation. This isn't just me doing calculations on apiece of paper and saying, well, the math works. This is a real-time discussion with the people that have to operate these systems. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Since she's up, can I just ask three follow-up questions before your break? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, you may. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. You actually answered most of my questions with your last few statements, but I just want to get clear on the record, the county staff did, in fact, approve the methodology that was utilized by Lucy Gallo, correct? MS. PATTERSON: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that is required under the Land Development Code that the county approve the methodology? MS. PATTERSON: That's correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: And has this methodology been used for other villages? MS. PATTERSON: Yes. It was used for Hyde Park, and it was used for Rivergrass, and it's being used for other ones that are under review. MR. YOVANOVICH: And the County Commission, in fact, approved those villages with this methodology, correct? MS. PATTERSON: That's correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, I want to get clear on the record, is it your professional expert opinion that as a whole Longwater Village will be fiscally neutral or positive to the Collier County tax base? MS. PATTERSON: Yes, by the horizon year, as required by the rules. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. It's 10:23 -- 10:24. Let's take a 15-minute break or a 16-minute break to quarter of 11:00, please. Stand in recess. COMMISSIONER FRY: 10:40. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Did I do my math wrong? 10:40. Until 10:40. We're in recess until 10:40. (A brief recess was had from 10:23 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, let's return to session, please. It's 10:40. MR. BELLONE: Good morning. For the record, I'm Joe Bellone, the utilities finance director for the Public Utilities Department. My first, really, go -round in front of this commission. Other than Commissioner Schmitt, most of you don't know me. I've been in the finance area for about 45 years. A major in economics from NYC and an MBA from Suffolk University in Boston. I've been in finance my entire career; Fortune 100 companies like General Electric in the'70s and'80s, and Staples before coming to Collier County, and I've worked in various financial positions within -- coming to Public Utilities in 2003, and I've been the finance director since 2012. So today, following Amy's presentation, I want to kind of put on the record three topics I want to cover today. First is really the legislative intent that the Florida Legislature had in establishing the water/sewer district. I think it's important to understand that in this context. We'll talk a little bit about the capacity expansion timeline for this expansion, and then move to the northeast capacity plan specifically, because serving this area in the northeast is fiscally feasible. We don't serve in areas where it is not physically feasible, and a great example of that is Golden Gate Estates; just not physically feasible. Page 25 of 109 April 1, 2021 But first let's talk about -- do a brief review of the legislative intent that the state legislature had in forming the water/sewer district. The words say to protect the public water supply and prevent the proliferation of package treatment plants, and it's very easy for us to understand because other developers have done so without adhering to Collier County Water/Sewer District utilities standards. And Amy referred to utilities that the utility acquired recently, Orangetree and Golden Gate, the Golden Gate Utility System, which did not meet our standards and have their own sets of issues for us. All of this legislative intent really is the driving force behind the Board's decision to expand the water/sewer district service area into and include the RLSA. It's been mentioned that perhaps we should charge different rates, but the special act forbids the water/sewer district from charging different rates to customers. And as we all know, the Board sets all these rates at publicly advertised hearings; that would be all users rates and impact fee rates. So I think what we want to take away from this is that the water/sewer district really is not -- people use the word "county" and the "water/sewer district" interchangeably, but the water/sewer district is not the county. The Board serves as ex officio of the governing board of the water/sewer district and, therefore, has those powers. A little bit about the expansion timeline. You'll see from this chart that this started a while back. It's been in the Utilities plans for almost 20 years. The Utility purchased the northeast utility side in 2003 so that it could site both a regional water treatment plant and a wastewater reclamation facility on the same place. There are some economies to being able to do that. The interconnectivity with the rest of the regional utility system reached substantial completion back in 2008 with the construction of the water and wastewater transmission mains along Immokalee Road while that road was being widened. So capacity expansion was anticipated to begin prior to 2010, but based on the slowdown of development activity, it was put on hold and went into hibernation due to the Great Recession, as Amy referred to, but following the end of that recession, the water/sewer district reactivated its capacity expansion plans as envisioned back in the early 2000s. So all of this activity was approved by the Board of County Commissioners at advertised public hearings, and I don't recall any opposition to any of the expansion at that point. More recently now, in the last two or three years, further expansion activity was approved by the Board. Again, advertised public hearings. Back in 2010 the water/sewer district presented an impact fee rate study that reduced water and sewer impact fees by approximately 30 percent because those expansion expenditures moved out of the planning timeline horizon, but then back in, as Amy mentioned, 2020, the new water and sewer impact fee rate study increased those water and sewer impact fees by about 27.2 percent overall to accommodate the anticipated expansion expenditures. I think it's also important to note that impact fees in this -- anywhere on the system can be paid and used anywhere in the system. So Minto gets a CO in the Isles of Collier Preserve, those impact fees can be used to expand Golden Gate system, the northeast system, anywhere else. A little bit about the northeast service area expansion. With regards to that in particular -- and this is really important when this comes to the bond rating agencies. These kinds of issues are really important. A growing utility ensures a steady future stream of user fee revenues that will use -- that will be used to rehabilitate aging infrastructure anywhere in the system, and most likely that's going to incur -- that's going to occur in the older western urban service area. So a growing utility has that benefit and, in fact, the water/sewer district back in 2016 was awarded a triple A bond rating by Fitch. Amy -- I think Amy mentioned that impact fee studies are updated regularly. It's at least once every three years, but we do it more often if that becomes necessary. We don't charge different developments different fees, nor can we charge a substantial portion of the initial Page 26 of 109 April 1, 2021 expansion costs, which are always the highest, to the developments that are first in. I think we've heard in some testimony that Longwater and Bellmar at buildout consumes a substantial portion of the northeast plant capacity when, in fact, those plants are being constructed in phases; Amy referred to that. Three phases, actually. The first phase is a 4 MGD wastewater plant and 5 MGD water plant. And we'll get a little bit into that in the -- in one of the next slides. This just gives you an idea of the service area. And we will serve those areas that are fiscally feasible. As I mentioned, we won't serve areas that are not fiscally feasible. Finally, I think it's important to kind of put on the record -- I did this, again, in my simple finance mind. I'm not an engineer. It tries to demonstrate the Longwater capacity buildout units and adjust that to the anticipated phased capacity of the potable water and wastewater reclamation facilities from Phase 1 to Phase 3. At the very top you'll see average daily flow. That is what the plants expect to receive on any average given day, and those are really consumer driven. We don't -- the utility doesn't set that up. We look at history. We look at the flows day to day, and these are calculated from history. The max three-day, as I think was referred to in some of the -- some of the studies, it really is a -- it's a historical extreme event. It's occurred in the past. It may occur, it may not occur in the future. But it's driven by Mother Nature, not by consumer behavior or consumer demand. The Corollo (phonetic) design engineer's Technical Memorandum No. 1 recommended that we build capacity in phases, and the timing of those really is based on development and demand. At buildout, as you can see from this slide, the water plant will have the ability to produce 15 million gallons a day, and the wastewater reclamation facility will have a 12-million-gallon-per-day capacity at buildout. So what this chart does, at least for me, and I hope for those who are looking at it, is if you look at the average daily flow, let's say for water, 9.29 -- and these are the engineering estimates of demand that we're using for our phasing, at Phase 1 that will consume 18.6. And that daily flow, by the way, is residential and commercial combined. Phase 1, a little over 18 percent of the capacity. By the time you get to an MGD, that will be 9.3 percent of the capacity, and Phase 3 it reduces to 6.2 percent of the capacity. If we look at the building -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is plant capacity based on the average daily flow or the maximum three-day flow? MR. BELLOWS: We will have to -- Florida Department of Environmental Protection requires that we have capacity to meet the demand at max daily flow -- at max three-day so that -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: So when you're calculating the percentages, you have a 5 MGD plant. Am I looking at the .9 or 1.2 as the contribution for Longwater? MR. BELLONE: You're looking at the .9 -- .929. COMMISSIONER SHEA: The average daily. MR. BELLONE: The average daily. That's what we expect these -- this particular development to use every day. It's the requirement by the DEP that we're required as a utility to have sufficient capacity should we have this particular historical event. COMMISSIONER SHEA: No. I was just questioning on the design capacity. Some states tell you design capacity is based on some kind of a peak and some are based on average daily. So I wanted to understand your numbers. MR. BELLONE: And in engineering speak, there are -- and Eric can actually address that if you ever get to that. But, yeah, we do use peaks. We do use peaks to do that. So what this really says is if I look at the residential units of 2,600 for Longwater, at the current impact fee rate -- and Amy said those can change as the Board of County Commissioners deems. But at today's rate, that would generate close to $8.8 million in revenue, and if I apply that Page 27 of 109 April 1, 2021 6.2 percent capacity use to the costs of the northeast utility for water only, approximately $142 million, the buildout share, fair share would be about 8.8 million. So they're really, really close. On the wastewater side, I did exactly the same thing and generated the residential revenue only of 8.6 million, and the buildout share of 5.5 percent or roughly 7.8 million. So it looks like they are paying their fair share of at least this capacity expansion at buildout. And so with that, I'll answer any questions you may have, or we can move to Nancy for any further information. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Joe, I'm sure you're familiar -- or are you -- I'm going to ask the question. Are you familiar with the paper that I received in February? I think it's dated February I8th, 2021, analysis of Longwater and Bellmar wastewater persons per household and traffic impacts. In that paper provided by the Conservancy, there was -- there are several figures, most of which were provided by, I believe, their consultant. Have you gone through that paper and -- MR. BELLONE: I have these. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. BELLONE: I have; most of them. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And from the data and the funding, can I get an overall assessment of your evaluation or at least assessment of the facts that were presented in that paper? And I'm not going to go through and ask for each one but, basically, they conclude that it's not paying for -- Longwater and Bellmar are not paying for its fair share and, therefore, the costs are being passed off to the county. So what is your position? MR. BELLONE: A couple of things, you know, Mr. Schmitt, that we really have to look at is, this regional utility is going to serve multiple developments. So if you look at it for just Longwater or just Bellmar --it's going to serve Hyde Park. It's going to serve Rivergrass. It's going to serve any other RLSA developments coming in line. It's going to serve Immokalee Road Rural Village. And, in fact, it can serve anything as far west -- as far west as Twin Eagles and any development along Immokalee Road. So I think point number one is to look at -- to look at that -- the cost of that utility, the cost of those -- expansion on that site to serve just those -- those developments will not alone and in themselves pay for that, which is why we are -- we're building this in phases. So my assessment of this is that if you look at this as a microcosm, you can't do that with a regional utility. In fact, think about it. The regional utility system today without the northeast is serving water to the northeast. It's serving everything that is along Immokalee Road and everything to the east of Immokalee Road where it turns north. It's doing Valencia Lakes, Valencia Golf and Country Club. So anything that's out there is already being served by a regional system. This is just additional capacity to support that demand for -- from a regional system. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Now, the decision to expand the water/wastewater, what do you call it, area was made by the Board of County Commissioners, correct? MR. BELLONE: Yes, it was, back in 2018. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 2018. But planning was long before that. MR. BELLONE: Planning started -- you remember Jim DeLony? Planning started back in the early 2000s. A matter of fact, it came to a crisis head on Easter weekend of 2000 when we had to dial back demand because we had no capacity. And at that point it was pretty evident that we needed capacity. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So if, in fact, Longwater and Bellmar or any other rural villages were not planned and, which they could do, build one unit per five acres, the thought was still to provide water/sewer to any type of development out there, at least my recollection, to Page 28 of 109 April 1, 2021 preclude any homes going out there having to build septic. It was basically to expand the water/sewer district to provide a service; is that correct? MR. BELLONE: That is, Joe. And again, I think the Board's decision is rooted in the special act which says we want to prevent that sort of situation like we have in Golden Gate City right now is you've got drinking water wells coincidentally sited next to septic systems. It's just not acceptable. And they did not want to see that as you moved further out into the rest of the county. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's my recollection. My last question: I know the media -- several of the media here in the county ran with the numbers that were given to them by the Conservancy. Had anybody in the media contacted you to discuss that information that was given by the Conservancy of all the data to basically support their position that it -- that the development should not go forward? Did anybody contact you -- or I'm going to ask Amy as well. Did anybody contact the staff in regards to any of the information given to get another side of the story, to get the staffs assessment, or was that strictly just information that went out? And I'm going to use the word "one-sided information." MR. BELLONE: The short answer to that is no. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Nobody contacted you? MR. BELLONE: I didn't see it until I actually got an email from Amy saying, here, you really need to look at this. The longer answer is some of that information -- and they have a lot of cites in their report of where the information came from, and when you're planning in a utility, things change from time to time. They may have pulled a lot of information from the AUIR, but from a utility perspective, that is a concurrency document; it's not a planning document for the utility. So a lot of the cites in that, which are AUIR, are the result of -- some of it's in the 2019 AUIR. And as you know, a utility is pretty quick in adapting to current business conditions. So the answer is no. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Did the consultant contact you -- MR. BELLONE: No, sir. w COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- to discuss any of the analysis that they had done? MR. BELLONE: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. MR. BELLONE: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So they basically did the analysis without conferring with -- Amy, could I ask you the same question? Because this is detailed in your analysis as well. Had anybody contacted you in any of the information that was presented in past meetings either by the consultant or the media that seemed to pretty much run with the story and created this sense that the taxpayer is on the hook for everything that's going to happen out there? MS. PATTERSON: Nobody. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Nobody. MS. PATTERSON: Nobody contacted me. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's interesting. MS. PATTERSON: We do have -- as I testified earlier, we do have multiple bullet points detailing where we view the flaws in the analysis from that information, but we only did that once it was provided to us. So we have not spoken -- I have not spoken to any media or consultants about it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: None of them followed up at all? MS. PATTERSON: No, uh-uh. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'm not going to bore the rest of the Commission here, but I would certainly -- could you send me your analysis? Because I'm very interested in the -- your position based on this paper. Page 29 of 109 April 1, 2021 MS. PATTERSON: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. MS. PATTERSON: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just something that a speaker said I want to clarify. The county was planning to provide public water and sewer service to five -acre lots out in the RLSA area as a backup? MR. BELLONE: They were planning to build additional regional capacity on this site. At that point -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Serve five -acre lots and put a collection and distribution system in for five -acre lots? MR. BELLONE: Five -acre lots? No. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's what you just said --Joe just said. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, it would be one unit per five acres. It doesn't mean it would be a five -acre lot, but the development that currently could take place out there is one unit per five acres. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. So you'd have to have this sprawl collection and distribution system. You weren't actually thinking of doing that financially, were you? MR. BELLONE: No. And, again, I mentioned that the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You still cluster at one unit per five acres. It's still one -unit -per -five -acre development out there. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's what I'm saying is it's still usually not economically feasible at one unit per five acres. That's all I'm wondering. MR. BELLONE: Yeah. You know, I look at, again, in my -- again, in my simple mind, I think about it as the more people you put on an airplane, the greater the revenue for that particular flight. The more connection we can have per mile of pipe, the more fiscally feasible it becomes for the utility to provide that service. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. BELLONE: That's a great example of why we don't serve Golden Gate Estates. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Why don't we serve -- that was my next question: Is there a plan to -- MR. BELLONE: No. The East of 951 Study that was done years ago -- I mean, Mr. Schmitt may remember that -- said it would cost in excess of $100,000 per connection to provide service in Golden Gate Estates, and at that point it was -- became really moot that -- MR. KLATZKOW: The Estates aren't clustered. They're pre -platted lots. So everything is all around. What Commissioner Schmitt was trying to say was that they would cluster the developments and so at least you'd just have the one pipe going there. The Estates, the pipes are going to have to go everywhere. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So am I to understand that we have a written report/scientific analysis from the Conservancy, and you have prepared some bullets, I would say, countering the assessment they have made, but those have not been made available to us as of this point? My question really, Amy, is if in absence of those specific bullets -- I understand it's probably a lot of scientific data -- can you summarize for us where the fault lied in their analysis just at a high level. MS. PATTERSON: Sure. So we -- we tried to capture the spirit of these bullet points in our PowerPoints to give you the flavor of where we feel some of the weaknesses are. But, specifically, as Joe referred to, I think the first place where the analysis perhaps took a wrong turn Page 30 of 109 April 1, 2021 was the fundamental lack of understanding that this is a multi -phased utility expansion. And with that, if you only look at the first phase and the costs attributable and say that is all, then, attributable to these few developments, that's where there is an issue, because the in -ground infrastructure to support a larger utility expansion is costs that are going to be spread amongst many, many, many users. But if you try to say, but all that cost we're just going to place onto, say, these several villages, the cost goes way up when, in fact, it should spread amongst a more -- a more regional system. That's the first problem. So you took a 4 and 5 MGD first phase and all of the costs that are going to support future phases and say, that's all attributable to a couple of developments. COMMISSIONER FRY: So not to interrupt you, but I can see how if it was 25 percent of Phase 1 but only 8 or 9 percent of the buildout -- MS. PATTERSON: Right. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- if you applied 25 percent of the cost to the total cost, that would be way higher -- MS. PATTERSON: Uh-huh, right. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- than a fair -share calculation of 8 or 9 percent. MS. PATTERSON: That's right. So that's what Joe did in that slide that he showed you kind of where he was laying out the costs to show that you have to look at the bigger picture. And this is where we say that it's an understanding not only of the Capital Project Planning process but also the capital construction. Understanding why we do what we do and how we do it and how we've thought this out and how we're going to bring the service online methodically to serve. MR. KLATZKOW: And just for clarification because, you know, the staff has an opinion, Conservancy has an opinion. We have a triple A bonding rating from Fitch & Moody's. That includes the expansion. So the people that are giving us 100-million-plus dollars have reviewed this, and they like what they see. COMMISSIONER FRY: They have reviewed the financial contributions of the developer? MR. KLATZKOW: They have reviewed the expansion, our current customer base, everything, all right, and we're triple A bonded, all right. So if the Planning Commission has any concern whether or not this is a good idea, this expansion, I am telling you Wall Street says this is a great idea. MS. PATTERSON: I'm happy to share our information with any of the planning commissioners that are interested. Again, this is detailed information that didn't make sense to add into a higher level presentation, but I'm happy to provide these. If that's something that's of interest to any of you, I'm happy to send you them, and you can have a look. Joe and I worked on these bullet points together. COMMISSIONER FRY: I mean, I think we're looking at making a decision today, so I don't know that there's the time for us to adequately review that -- MS. PATTERSON: Understood. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- but my assessment after this is, you know, we have to rely on staff to a degree. I guess we have to decide to what extent we can rely on staff. And so I sit up here, and I look for just evidence that -- you have trained professionals on staff that know how to look at these things. Joe, your background in finance; obviously, a finance guy. And, Amy, you've made a very concise statement. So I -- you know, I think in the -- with the lack of evidence otherwise that there is a severe deficiency in how staff has reviewed these or the methodology that's been used or we've deviated from something that's been approved by the County Commission, then I tend to, you know, support staff in your analysis on these things in the absence of evidence otherwise. So I don't see that evidence currently. Page 31 of 109 April 1, 2021 MS. PATTERSON: Understood. The Capital Project Planning process is very difficult, and these topics are difficult, level of service. None of it is easy, and it can be very, very easy to have data issues or to send something in a different direction simply by rearranging the data. We try to be very careful with that and very consistent to ensure that that integrity remains through our analysis and that we're not just shopping for an answer. COMMISSIONER FRY: Now, we do have a couple of engineers on the Board, and we have a plethora of attorneys, so they may feel more qualified to reengineer these things on the fly than I do, but thank you. MS. PATTERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Amy, I --I don't know if it's you or Joe, but I just want to, for the record -- in the presentation that was given to us back in February, Slide 13 said, total cost to provide water to Longwater and Bellmar, 35,475,000; is that correct? MS. PATTERSON: No. Again, that's the problem with the -- there was a misunderstanding about the phasing. So they've basically -- under that analysis, first in pays most. That's essentially what they're -- what's happening there, because of not acknowledging that there were future phases of capacity expansion where that underlying infrastructure's going to support it, you have to spread the costs across a larger group versus trying to press it all into that first phase. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Then the second piece of that said wastewater would be 43,460,000. MS. PATTERSON: Same problem. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: For a total of 78,935,000. And then they talk about the impact fees, and then they slide down, county deficit to provide Longwater Village and Bellmar water/wastewater, $43,111,400. MS. PATTERSON: And that's back to Joe's slide. I'll let him come up, but this is why -- that's the purpose of that analysis he did was to show that this is only one piece of a much larger expansion and, therefore, the way that you analyze it has to take that into consideration. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I guess to be kind, though the numbers may have some validity, they're looking through a different lens, so to speak, or is it just basically -- it's like statistics. You know, what do you want me to say, and what do you want the statistic to come out, and I'll give you the answer. MS. PATTERSON: They did not recognize the total picture of the utility expansion nor how it was planned or how it will be constructed and, therefore, how that impacts the cost. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. And the costs are across the entire utility, not just focused on Longwater and Bellmar? MR. BELLONE: Yes. And you've heard me say regional plants, and that's why I keep using that word is because this is interconnected, and water will flow where water will flow. So when I turn my tap on in East Naples, I could be drinking water from anywhere in the regional system. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. BELLONE: So the fact that it's interconnected and the fact that flows can go anywhere, it's just -- it just happens to be in the northeast because we have the land, and it's economically good to have two plants coexist in one site. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. Well, I guess it's just a matter of, we were given this information, and it's somewhat disingenuous from the standpoint of that it was not run through the staff for validity. It was just basically information. And I know I read this. And you -- I sent staff an email saying I would like point -by -point analysis. Of course, that was back in February. So, all right. Thank you. Page 32 of 109 April 1, 2021 MR. BELLONE: Sure. Thanks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ms. Patterson, I have a few questions for you. First of all, for what it's worth, I am satisfied with the presentation of staff on potable water and wastewater. I understand the concept of an investment being made, and I have no reason to challenge, no ability to challenge your projection that, in the long run, it will pay for itself. And so that -- that is not an issue on the table for me. But I'll tell you what remains a big issue on the table for me, and it gets back to persons per household. And I want to ask you some questions about what DPFG found, and Mr. Yovanovich can cross-examine or bring Ms. Gallo back when his turn comes. But I want to raise some questions and find out what staffs take on this is. And I'm looking at -- on Page 36 of 77 of the DPFG. There's an Appendix Table 2, Page 36, and it lays out an assumption about persons per household but then finds its way into several other calculations of fiscal neutrality the DPFG -- that DPFG made. And the assumptions here are, first of all, total condo, duplex, single-family attached permanent population of 1.05 PPH, then total single-family dwelling of greater than 4,000 square feet, 2.21 persons per household. My first question -- and I've got a series to go from this. My first question is, do you accept those numbers? MS. PATTERSON: For permanent population? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MS. PATTERSON: Well, if they're in the report, I accept they're in the report, but I'm not -- I'll wait till your questions to qualify that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. But they -- they're saying permanent population per unit, 1.05 and 2.21. And I was just wondering if that's something that you --that staff concurs with. MS. PATTERSON: Permanent pop -- it's a baseline permanent population number. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Permanent population per unit. MS. PATTERSON: Yep. /& CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's -- staff concurs? MS. PATTERSON: I concur it's in the report. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Thank you. Then it's indicated on Appendix Table 3 that there would -- out of the 2,600 units being constructed, only 1,097 would be total condo, duplex, single-family attached, and a full 1,503 would be single-family detached greater than 4,000 square feet. Did you rely in any respect upon those proportions of the total 2,600? MS. PATTERSON: It is less than 4,000 square feet, if I'm reading the -- I'm bad with that, but -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're right. It is, you're right. Of course. MS. PATTERSON: That would be the standard size home. Typically, in Collier County, we don't get -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, my mistake. Okay. Thank you. So they come up with, based upon those calculations, a peak seasonal population of 5,373. MS. PATTERSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: A permanent population of 4,477. MS. PATTERSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. In this number, 5,373, which computes to less than 2 persons per household, when you figure it against 2,600, something less, if use the 4,477, I've done that, and it's 1.72, and it's higher than that if you use the 5,373, of course, but it still doesn't come up to two persons per household. Do you agree with me so far? MS. PATTERSON: No, I don't because you're, again, splitting between multifamily. So Page 33 of 109 April 1, 2021 they've distributed the units into the categories that they believe will be what's constructed as of now, and then they've assigned -- they've used those population numbers to then calculate the population out. So mixing them, blending them, trying to get to an average still is not the purpose of this calculation, because we're assigning, then, values to these for the impact fee calculations in order to calculate what the impacts of these are as well as the revenue implications. So you can average them, but it doesn't -- it's not meaningful. We're running these population numbers based on those two categories, those two populations with the seasonal factor on it to get to the 5,373, which then is multiplied by the level of service in most of the categories, keeping transportation and utilities out of this. But parks, EMS, law enforcement, general governmental, we take the 5,373 times the level -of -service standard to then come up with a demand created by the facility, and then they do the mathematics behind it to figure out the financials. CHAIRMAN FRYER: There's no way, though, that you -- that you can get to anything approaching two persons her household, though, is there? MS. PATTERSON: Well, you're approaching more -- you're over two persons per household in single-family, and you're below two persons per household in multifamily. It's a unit -type issue. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So let's say roughly two. Two persons per household? MS. PATTERSON: But I guess I'm not understanding the nature of your question because, again, this is demand specific. So when we're -- when we're looking -- so -- and I hate to keep gravitating back to the impact fees, but there's a difference between single -- the demand created by single-family and the demand created by multifamily. So, again, we're blending a level -of -service issue with a financial issue with a factor issue with a population issue and trying to say this doesn't make sense because it doesn't come out to this number when, in fact, each thing needs to be looked at individually for its appropriateness. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm not sure whether that answered my question, but let me state it again; try to. If you've got 2,600 housing units and DPFG says that's going to generate 5,373 occupants -- 5,373 occupants -- then they take that number and they determine fiscal neutrality --I'm not talking about impact fees. I'm just talking about fiscal neutrality --in the case of libraries, parks, EMS, and the Sheriff -- and you see these calculations on Pages 17 and then 20 through 23 of their study -- there is -- there is no evidence that I have seen that this is based upon a plausible or correct persons per household. And even if it's been done this way for 30 years, this matter is before us today and now, and I'd like to see the evidence how this -- how this is pulled out. MS. PATTERSON: So I have to respectfully disagree, because this is based on an adopted impact fee study that was set forth specifically to address the population. This is the approach that was used on the persons -per -housing unit, which is based on national datasets, as well as the requirement for these numbers to have localized factors per statute. So all of this is embedded. And I understand we're not talking impact fees but, unfortunately, these numbers are embedded in an impact fee study that are now being pulled out and being used for this purpose because they're the best available and most consistent numbers to be used for this purpose. And I've run these numbers differently. I've run them with -- when Chairman Strain was on the Board, we ran them with his numbers. We've run them every which way. I ran a functional population calculation. I've run them I can't even tell you how many different ways looking at this analysis. Each of us approached it differently, the peer reviewer, the staff, and DPFG, and have all arrived at the same conclusion. Page 34 of 109 April 1, 2021 CHAIRMAN FRYER: That may well be, but I remain unpersuaded by the evidence that has been presented. MS. PATTERSON: I understand. MR. KLATZKOW: But there's no evidence to the contrary. And what we're telling you is that this man plans schools and, based on our approach, their planning systems has been spot on, and we've been planning parks and fire stations and everything else, and the same system for 30 years, we've been spot on with it. And to say now that, well, I don't believe the numbers, that's fine, but there's nothing to the contrary. There's just nothing to the contrary here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Except the other two developments that I mentioned. MR. KLATZKOW: But these developers are going to develop the same way as every other development. I mean, I just don't know what else to tell you. It's not even like somebody's taking Ave Maria and saying, well, Ave Maria's very different from everybody else; therefore, these shall be substantially similar to Ave Maria. It's just these numbers have been working for 30 years, year in year out like a clock, tick, tock, tick, tock. We've been planning with them for 30 years, and we haven't had any hiccups. If we had hiccups over it, we would have adjusted the numbers. And to suddenly say that, you know, these developments are different, that's fine, Commissioner, but there's nothing to support that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It seems to me that there ought to be some scientific way of identifying how many persons per household or housing unit there are. MR. KLATZKOW: But science is theory -- science you take a theory, and then you test that theory time and time again, and our theory are these numbers, and we've been testing them year after year after year for over 30 years, and it works. So if you're asking for science, that's your science. The theory are the numbers, and 30 years of data and analysis shows that these numbers are accurate. I just don't know what else to say. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll wait my turn. MR. EASTMAN: Along with millions and millions and millions of dollars collected and no legal adverse ramifications. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else want to comment on this or ask questions? Ms. Patterson, I'm -- finished with mine. correct? Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just a couple, and then probably one for Joe. I just want to reemphasize: The same methodology was utilized for Hyde Park Village, MS. PATTERSON: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's a Rural Lands Stewardship Area village, correct? MS. PATTERSON: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: The same -- and that was approved by the Board? MS. PATTERSON: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: The methodology was approved by the Board of County Commissioners? MS. PATTERSON: Yes. The village was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. MR. YOVANOVICH: Same question for Rivergrass. It's a Rural Lands Stewardship Area village, correct? MS. PATTERSON: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: And you reviewed both of those analyses? MS. PATTERSON: I did. Page 35 of 109 April 1, 2021 MR. YOVANOVICH: So the two most recent villages that have gone through the process -- and I believe they were approved in -- the pandemic's got me a little off -- I think 2020 was for both of them. MS. PATTERSON: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: So that's about a year ago. MS. PATTERSON: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: This methodology was approved by the Board of County Commissioners about a year ago? MS. PATTERSON: Those villages were approved by the Board of County Commissioners about a year ago, including the economic assessment and the fiscal neutrality finding. MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, for Mr. Bellone, I saw it on the screen in one of your slides, but I'm not sure you mentioned it in your testimony. My understanding is that you don't equate ratepayers with the tax base, correct? MR. BELLONE: Absolutely correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: So taxpayers -- the tax base is in no way affected by the utilities being provided to Longwater Village, correct? MR. BELLONE: No. The utility has two sources and two sources of income only. It's user fees and impact fees. We have never ever had an infusion of funds from the general fund for taxpayers money. MR. YOVANOVICH: So just to bring it down to a little bit more personal level, I live in the Pine Ridge division. Collier County does not serve most of the Pine Ridge subdivision with water and sewer, correct? MR. BELLOWS: Correct, uh-huh. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not going to see anything on my tax bill asking me to subsidize the water and sewer service that's being provided to the residents of Longwater, correct? MR. KLATZKOW: That would be unlawful. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: So the tax base is in no way affected. MR. BELLOWS: No, absolutely not. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, I simply am asking for a checkpoint. Where are we at in the staffs presentation? I have no questions for Amy or Joe. Is there more, because I -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Gundlach. COMMISSIONER FRY: --have some questions. I'm just not sure at the proper point to interject them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The chair will recognize Ms. Gundlach. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm a principal planner with the Zoning Division, and it's my pleasure this morning, Commissioners, to wrap up our presentation. And I'm going to be recapping our recommendations of approval, and if you have additional questions it would be our pleasure to answer them. So here we go. All right. The first recommendation of approval that we presented to you was a housing -- an affordable housing commitment and, if you'd like, I can read through them again. Longwater Village shall commit that at least 10 percent of the units, that's 260 units, are sold at purchase prices near the moderate and gap affordability ranges, and these product types Page 36 of 109 April 1, 2021 include town home, Villa 1, coach and Villa 2 or, as alternative, land or units in or proximal to the SRAs shall be reserved for the development of housing that is affordable. Land reserved for housing that is affordable shall be identified within 48 months of SRA approval and be equivalent to 2.5 percent of the gross acreage of the SRA. CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I ask a question or two on these points? With respect to the 10 percent, and as we discussed in our staff meeting last Tuesday, it's -- Mr. Giblin, it's frequently referred to alongside the parenthetical of 260 units, but it won't be 260 units unless there's full buildout, correct? MS. GUNDLACH: I have Cormac Giblin here. He's our subject matter expert for affordable housing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. GIBLIN: Sure. For the record, Cormac Giblin, planning manager, Development Review Services. Yes, the recommendation is that it be a percentage base. So, obviously, if they were to build less than the maximum of 2,600 units, they would build 10 percent of whatever they actually build as affordable. CHAIRMAN FRYER: As between the two options that staff is recommending, do you have a professional preference or a professional opinion over which would be the better option for Collier County? MR. GIBLIN: They both are very good options for the county. Option A where -- you're speaking Option A would be the developer including the units on their own. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm saying the 10 percent or the 2.5 percent. Those are the two options; 10 percent of the total units or 2.5 percent of the gross acreage. MR. GIBLIN: Correct. So Option A would be the developer on their own include 10 percent of their overall units as affordable units. Option B is in lieu of doing that, they set aside 2.5 percent of the gross acreage, and someone else comes in and builds those. They both have advantages for the county. I can't say if one is better than the other. They both get you to the same place. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I must have misunderstood, then, on Tuesday. I thought you had said that you thought that the 2.5 percent was a better option. MR. GIBLIN: I think on Tuesday your question was which one would allow us to target lower incomes rather than the gap and moderate, and, obviously, if they set aside the land instead of providing gap and moderate units, then it would be up to the developer of those units to target whatever incomes they choose to. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do you think that the county's objectives with respect to affordable housing will be adequately served by targeting only moderate and gap affordability versus low and very low as well? MR. GIBLIN: We have affordability gaps along the entire income spectrum going from homeless up to the gap income. So to put any one development in charge of solving all of the affordable housing problems with the county probably puts an undue burden on any one development, so that's why we have a multitude of programs that come in and attack the problem from different ways. So, for example, if this development serves those -- because there is need, as I said, across the entire income spectrum. So they would be providing a portion of the need while other developments would provide for another portion of that need. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. With respect to the -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: On that point, the issue is is let the petitioner/developer of Page 37 of 109 April 1, 2021 this project decide, and they're going to do 10 percent of their build to moderate. The alternative is 2-and-a-half percent set aside, and we really don't know who's going to do it, right? That's what we're talking about? It's going to be some -- some unknown builder is going to build these at some point in the future on 2.5 percent acres to do it? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I was going to pursue that next, but you certainly can, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. So the issue is is what do we know about who might be doing that you know, what would be their incentives be? Is there any increased likelihood that it would be somebody targeting, you know, the low income? You know, because, you know, I agree, especially -- I have seven children and, you know, they're reaching the age now where they're -- you know, they're needing housing, and they actually like this area. And, you know, I just see right now, particularly with the spike in -- you know, in housing prices -- even in Ave Maria we have a huge spike recently -- that, you know, I start to worry about, you know, who can live here. It's a beautiful place to live. You've got communities, families here. And so I'm just trying to figure out, is -- would the 2.5 percent get us, you know, some lower -- any guarantee of that, or is it just some hope that maybe someone will target the even lower incomes? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Giblin. MR. GIBLIN: I think there's a higher likelihood that in the 2.5 percent option that the developer that comes in may target lower incomes than moderate or gap. When we look at putting together an affordable housing project or deal, the missing ingredient usually is always the land, and that's what this proposal gets us. It gets us the land. It sets it aside. It sets it aside at a predetermined rate and, more importantly, perhaps, a predetermined location. And you -all are well aware that when we talk about affordable housing petitions, it's usually the location that is a deal breaker, particularly for the neighbors, the community, the surrounding area. And this proposal would set up a professional affordable housing developer with a predetermined site that is ready to go to build their product that they build around the state and around the nation, and they do that -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You're talking about the 2-and-a-half percent version? MR. GIBLIN: Correct. And they do that by bringing in funding sources, attractive loan programs, grants at the state and federal level specifically targeted towards that level of housing. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. And then if you -- if you're going in that direction, then, we have these two options. As this -- can the petitioner put in as two options, or is this something that you're recommending as staff we ought to consider these two proposals? I'm sorry. I just don't have that information handy. I've looked at a lot of this stuff, but I just don't recall what the proposal is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If I'm not mistaken, the developer has agreed to this. MR. GIBLIN: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And so, when we put it forward, is it -- it's going to be either/or -- you know, that's what the petitioner can claim is it's going to be either/or, and then the developer can decide as they move down the road? MR. GIBLIN: Yes. They will either include 10 percent of their units as affordable housing, or they will set aside the 2.5 percent of the gross area as a housing location. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Now, when you say "set aside," that would be basically selling the land to the county? MR. GIBLIN: Not necessarily the county; to -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: But they'd sell the land to somebody? MR. GIBLIN: Correct. Page 38 of 109 April 1, 2021 CHAIRMAN FRYER: I see. And so if the -- if the county were the purchaser of the land, would the county, then, be expecting to recoup from the developer of the affordable housing? MR. GIBLIN: That would be up to the Board of County Commissioners. The county sometimes has purchased land. For example, the Golden Gate Golf Course, the county purchased that land. The County Commission has decided to include an affordable housing development on that site and is essentially donating the land to help the affordability of those units. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And the purchase price for the 2.5 percent, has that been established? MR. GIBLIN: It would be the same as the purchase price for transportation right-of-way, the predetermined price. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That 22,500? MR. GIBLIN: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Cormac, one piggyback question on all of this is that obviously the staff came up with this, and you think that either one is a win for the county. I have noticed over time that when affordable housing comes up, it is most often targeted to moderate and gap, the higher income levels within that spectrum. If Option 1 is the one that is pursued ultimately on this project, how much of a strain does that put? It seems like we're kind of kicking the can down the road for the lower incomes within that spectrum. Do you foresee that creating more of a challenge down the road for the lower incomes in the range if Option 1 is ultimately pursued? MR. GIBLIN: I don't see that if Option 1 is taken that it makes it worse for the lower incomes. I think, as I mentioned earlier, there is need across the entire income spectrum. There are specific entities, non-profit entities, for -profit entities programs that target the need across the entire spectrum. If Option 1 is taken and there are 260 gap and moderate units included within the village itself, I think that would be a great win for Collier County. Let's not forget, the reason we have targets towards moderate and gap income units is there that are needs there for our semiprofessional or dual -income service -industry type households. You know, the teacher and sheriffs deputy that live together, they are in that moderate and gap income range. So it doesn't necessarily make it worse -- any worse for those at the low end. This gives us flexibility, and that's, again, one of the tenets of the RLSA program is innovation and flexibility. This brings that to the table. One thing I did forget to mention in my opening remarks here was that this mirrors the proposed RLSA amendments that are going to be coming forward later this summer, and through the White Paper restudy -- study group, this proposal is what is included in that as a proposal. COMMISSIONER FRY: Two -and -a -half years ago when I joined this board, affordable housing was never written into the developments. It came up in an 1 lth-hour discussion, ad hoc in this board, and then also at the County Commission, and now they seem to be -- it seems to be a formal component of each application. Has your -- I guess, your optimism that we can address and solve our affording housing issues, has that grown over time with the evolution of how affordable housing is being treated? MR. GIBLIN: I think that it has. And if you remember about four years ago, the County Commission adopted the Community Housing Plan which really brought the issue front and center and created a holistic plan to attack the issue from many different aspects: Planning and zoning, grants, other issues. And by having that cohesive list of community -accepted recommendations and now that those -- now a few years later as we see those become implemented throughout the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code and then into -- eventually into the Page 39 of 109 April 1, 2021 development level, that's why we're seeing a lot more activity on this. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Other questions or comments on No. 1? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sorry, Ms. Gundlach. Let's go to No. 2. MS. GUNDLACH: Prior to the issuance of the first SDP and/or PPL, a listed species management plan must be provided for review with approval from FWCC and/or USFWS for management of the Florida panther. Okay. Puma concolor coryi and all other listed species. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anyone want to ask questions or make comments about this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: No one has lit up their deliberator, so I take it that's the case. So let's go to No. 3. MS. GUNDLACH: SSA 17 shall be approved prior to or as a companion item to the Longwater Village SRA. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any questions or comments on that one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have one. And I don't have the notes that I would need in front of me to ask this with the precision that I wish I could, but you've got SRA 17. Is that the total source for Longwater? MS. GUNDLACH: It is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: SSA, I mean. MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Was 14 not in there as well? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Fourteen and 17. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, that's what I thought. MS. GUNDLACH: Let me bring up the subject -matter expert. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Fourteen is in there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Here comes the subject -matter expert. MS. COOK: Good morning, Commissioners, Jaime Cook, principal environmental specialist with the Development Review Division. SSAs 14 and 17 are being utilized to generate credits for Longwater. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. My question is: With respect to both of those SSAs, how many additional villages could be constructed based upon those credits over and above Longwater and Bellmar? MS. COOK: Right now, as SSA 14 is approved with 2,515 credits and SSA 17 has approximately 4,500 credits, after Longwater utilizes their credits, there's going to be a little less than 400 credits left between those SSAs. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I see. So there will be no more villages that could be constructed from 14 and 17 if these two are -- MS. COOK: Not as they are currently approved, not as 14's currently approved, and 17 is pending. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. That's interesting. Thank you. Anybody else have questions on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, please proceed, Ms. Gundlach. MS. GUNDLACH: The agreement to provide potable water, wastewater, and irrigation water utility services shall be adopted concurrently with the Longwater Village SRA resolution. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any questions or comments on this one? Page 40 of 109 April 1, 2021 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Apparently not. MS. GUNDLACH: Within 90 days of the approval of the first development order, SDP, or PPL, the applicant must pay $622,000 to fulfill their fair -share mitigation for operational impacts as supported by the applicant's Traffic Impact Statement. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Now, am I correct that this focuses on intersections only? MS. GUNDLACH: I'm going to invite up Trinity Scott or Mike Sawyer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, transportation planning manager. And Karl exited just as I was making my entrance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: He can hear you. MS. SCOTT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: There's a speaker in there. MS. SCOTT: For the record, yes -- VOW&- COMMISSIONER FRY: Do it again. MS. SCOTT: He came back. Yes, for intersection improvements. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Only? MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. a Anybody else have a question on this? \ COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, I'm wondering, while -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I still --it sounds like I'm jumping back on the agenda, but we never hit an item again where we could talk about transportation neutrality. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You may. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And that's still a question for me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You may talk about it right now if you wish. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Oh, okay. I was trying to assimilate all the notes and understand how you do your review. And correct me if I'm wrong, if you have a deficient section of highway, you analyze Longwater, and you can't penalize -- I'm saying Longwater in this case because that's who we're looking at. You can't penalize them because the road is deficient, so you charge them impact fees, but there's no real fair -share -- MS. SCOTT: So the -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- calculation other than intersections maybe? MS. SCOTT: The -- no. We calculated a proportionate fair share based upon the state guidelines. State guidelines require that if a roadway is going to be deficient based on background traffic, that that cannot be included into the proportionate fair share for traffic calculations. The applicant is required to pay the higher of either their calculated proportionate share for capacity improvements or their impact fees, whichever is higher. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So -- and you do that for each, in this case the three developments that are -- not Hyde Park, but the three Collier -- CEM developments individually? MS. SCOTT: We calculated it -- based on my presentation, we calculated it cumulatively as well as individually. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And when you did the cumulative, it was -- MS. SCOTT: Less than the amount of impact fees that we anticipate that they would pay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I thought you said that. I just wanted to hear it again. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions on this point? If not, next one. MS. GUNDLACH: The developer shall be required to improve 18th Avenue Northeast Page 41 of 109 April 1, 2021 from the project entrance to DeSoto Boulevard to a minimum two-lane undivided rural roadway consistent with the Florida Green Book Constructions Standards. These improvements are not eligible for road impact fee credits. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Questions or comments on that one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please continue. MS. GUNDLACH: School sites have not been evaluated for transportation impacts as part of this request. Evaluation of the sites will require standard Traffic Impact Statement and operational review at the time of the school board review. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please continue. MS. GUNDLACH: It is noted in the commitment that the Collier County Public Schools shall be responsible for the roadway improvements necessary for both school sites. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I guess I have a question for Mr. Eastman on that one. Of what would that consist? MR. EASTMAN: It would consist of building a road to our school sites and connecting it to a public right-of-way. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And then maintaining that road? MR. EASTMAN: That would all be negotiated. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So -- MR. EASTMAN: For example, currently we're building a -- we have plans to build a new high school, and we made an interlocal agreement which is approved by the school board and the Board of County Commissioners related to the extension of Veterans Memorial Boulevard to that school site. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Please continue. MS. GUNDLACH: And that concludes our presentation, and it would be our pleasure to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Anybody have any further questions or comments? Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Nancy, my concerns on this development are pretty similar to Rivergrass, and it goes back to the purpose of the RLSA, and the execution of that within these villages and the town plan all together and future villages. As I understand, the RLSA had objectives and then it had development standards, and early in staffs presentation you mentioned that you have reviewed and the village meets all the minimum requirements. These are number of units. It was commercial space, civic space, percentage of this, percentage of that, those types of things. And I -- you know, I think it's obvious that they have met those numbers. So my questions really have to do with the objectives of the RLSA, and I'd like to just ask you one by one these and then you give me your assessment of whether the village meets these objectives. And I'm not sure who the appropriate person or people are to answer these questions. But I think it's fundamental, and I think this has evolved in my mind partly from understanding, and I think we need to clarify the difference in role between the staff and us sitting up here as the Planning Commission. Your job is, as I understand it, to review the details of the GMP and the LDC and to make sure these developments meet those -- dot the I's and cross the T's of those. Ours is a larger role -- and I'm trying to bring in the whole board into this, because I think this is pivotal in not only this village but all the rest of the RLSA which can affect our county for 40, 50, 60, 80 years in how we build out this county. So our job is as the essentially planning responsible -- board responsible for planning of Page 42 of 109 April 1, 2021 this county. I feel like we've got a great responsibility here that these -- every one of these developments meets the vision of the RLSA. Now, as I understand the objectives, the planners of this, we're looking for a different style of development on the east than we have in the urban area. And so I'm going to ask you just about a few of these objectives. And I guess if these are not relevant, then I need to know that, but these are things that are weighing on my mind. Is this a compact development? And I think that depends partly on how you define compact development. But would you define this as a compact development? MS. GUNDLACH: I would. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Why? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yeah, why? What is a compact development and how does this meet those? MR. BELLOWS: Well, for the record, Ray Bellows. The staff report indicates staff s position on all of these items, and we have found it consistent with the purpose and intent of the district. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. But I'm responsible for casting at least my own vote. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And the Planning Commission can come to a different conclusion than staff, and we'll note that in the executive summary that's presented to the Board; that the Planning Commission has this opinion of whether it's consistent or not. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I'm asking for a concise summary from staff in terms of how this development meets these objectives, so that's what I'm specifically asking for, a verbal presentation for the benefit of ourselves and everybody that's out here. So, I guess, how does this --and I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm just asking for your response. How does this meet the definition of a compact development? MR. BELLOWS: Again, for the record, Ray Bellows. The RLSA is -- the overlay is basically part of a compact development of agriculture. The agricultural zoning district is one dwelling unit per five acres, so by the creation of this zoning overlay, you compact that into these rural villages. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But that was always the intent. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And that's -- that was the intent. And so now answer the question, with that idea of you've compacted it, you densified it. But now how do you make it compact within itself, is what you're asking? COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, I think that it's a matter of interpretation. You can say that by focusing the development on a smaller piece of land rather than spreading it out, it is a compact development, and I believe that's what you were saying? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And that's the purpose and intent of the RLSA that's being accomplished through that process. COMMISSIONER FRY: So by that definition anything that's proposed as a village or a town where they are, you know, conglomerating a large number of units in a smaller area is compact. So I'm going to move on. CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I, if I may, so that we don't have to -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Because that was exactly the question I was going to ask, too, and we can perhaps dispose of this, and I'll go right back to you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I just want to be sure that I'm in possession of the facts. Is it the case that there are about three -and -a -half miles distance from the so-called village center to the Page 43 of 109 April 1, 2021 northeastern portions of the village? MS. GUNDLACH: I'd have to double-check that for you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Would you -- MS. GUNDLACH: Just a moment. I'm going to bring up the staff presentation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. GUNDLACH: And I'm going to invite Comprehensive Planning to come up and participate in this. James Sabo. MR. SABO: Hi, everybody. COMMISSIONER SHEA: He's like Superman coming out of the telephone booth. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that Trinity? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Sabo. MR. SABO: For the record, James Sabo, Comprehensive Planning manager. We'd have to scale this out, but if your question is, Commissioner, whether the village center, in terms of distance from the northwest corner of the development, is that essentially what your question is? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I believe I was asking about the northeast corner. MR. SABO: Oh pardon me. Northeast. Yeah. So if you give me a few minutes, I can scale that out for you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. And, generally speaking, what I'd like to hear is staffs interpretation of such concepts as walkability, pedestrian friendliness, bikeability, and the like. Given the -- what I would have to characterize as a serpentine shape of this long, thin development, how does that square with compactness? I realize it's contiguous, but it's -- again, relying on plain understanding, plain meaning of words, when I look at that, it's hard for me to come to the conclusion it could reasonably be interpreted as compact. COMMISSIONER SHEA: While they're doing that, can I ask her a question? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, of course. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Are these gated? Is this going to be gated at the two entrances to the spine road? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think the answer is yes, but if I'm wrong -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Do you know where the gate is proposed? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, let's have Mr. Yovanovich fill that in, if he can. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I -- since you have me up here, do you mind if I also address the bikeability since -- and those other issues? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I'd really rather you do that during rebuttal, if you don't mind. We've asked you a question. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it's related to the gates because, yes, there are gates. There are two gates. COMMISSIONER SHEA: One at each entrance? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. But there is interconnection of the project itself to the village center that you don't have to go out on the roadway system. I just want to make sure that's also on -- neither does the public have to go through our gates to get to the -- so people in Golden Gate Estates, so I wanted to address that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's fair enough. Thank you. That's fair. MR. YOVANOVICH: I have more to say on -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I know. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- bikeability, but I'll let Mr. Mulhere deal with that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You'll have all kinds of time for that. I'm sorry. Commissioner Fry, you had the floor. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, I'm waiting to hear what is about to happen. Page 44 of 109 April 1, 2021 MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I ask her a question about compactness at the right time, or do you want me to do that -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'd really rather you wait until -- I mean, you're going to have the floor, and you'll have command of the proceedings more or less during rebuttal. COMMISSIONER FRY: Are you researching the answer of the distance, Commissioner Fryer's -- Let me lay out my -- I guess, my fundamental underlying question is that I read the objectives to mean that they wanted a different type of development in the east part of the county. Innovative design, interconnected, bicycle and pedestrian friendly. To me that means something different than gated PUDs like we have on every corner in the urban area. I look at -- are we looking for Grey Oaks and Saturnia Lake, a proliferation of those type developments in the east, or are we looking for something closer to what the Town of Rural Lands West represented, what the Town of Ave Maria represents, where there are multiple ways in and out, the public can actually travel through to take traffic off the main thoroughfares? I look at this as a large 1,000-acre gated PUD that's cul-de-sac centric. So the question is, is that interconnected? Does interconnection mean they can drive from inside their development to the village center without hitting a main road, or does interconnected mean there are multiple ways in and out, and you can travel through this to keep some traffic off of main roads? MR. SABO: Commissioner, the -- we reviewed this project against the standards in the code, so it does meet the standards. I understand your comments and I understand your question. Walkable is -- it is walkable based on its design. It does meet the standard for a village center. Village center is at the edge of this development, obviously, but there is not a locational requirement for the village center to be at the center such that, you know, everybody is in a certain distance from the village center. So it does -- it does meet these standards. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It sounds like you meet the quantitative standards, but you don't have any ability to really look at the subjective standards like Commissioner Fryer's talking about. A COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, I think that is the difference between our roles is that you are bound, I think, by the objective, quantifiable standards, and we are -- we are not. We are -- we are challenged with the subjective valuation of these projects. So this is where -- and I'm bringing this up because I know that Mr. Yovanovich will address it in his rebuttal, but these are the kind of concerns. My -- another question is: When it comes to interconnectedness, my view of interconnectedness would not be a gated community where you -- where you have this beautiful spine road -- I think of the Vineyards. The Vineyards is not a RLSA village. It's a -- it's basically a gated PUD, but they have this spine road that runs through one edge of it. It's open to the public. People bike and walk. If you want to talk about bicycle and pedestrian friendly, it's bicycle and pedestrian friendly not only to the residents who live there but also residents that live near there that want to take advantage of it. You have this spine road through Longwater that connects Oil Well Road and the future Big Cypress Parkway. I cannot see myself being supportive of that being gated. I see that as a -- something that ought to be open to the public, travel -able by the public. Fiddler's Creek came up at one point where they have gates but anybody can drive up to the gate and they'll just check you. But nobody knows that you can actually drive around in Fiddler's Creek because there's a gate there. So why would we not want this to be a spine road that is a great interconnection between these two major roads, take some traffic off, has a bike path along it? Why not have something like the Vineyards where they can have gated PUDs off to the side, you know, off of the spine road, multiple entrances? That, to me, is interconnected. So I guess you're looking at the Page 45 of 109 April 1, 2021 quantifiable standards but not so much subjective assessment of what interconnected means, right? MR. SABO: Our task -- MR. KLATZKOW: Hold on, James. Your role is to oversee the Comprehensive Plan. They're interpreting it a certain way. You're saying that's not how I see it, okay. So what you can do is make a proposal to the Board of County Commissioners, for example, there should not be any gated communities here; that it does not meet the intent of the Comp Plan. You can make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that by compactness we mean something other than this, okay. Staff is operating on the current Land Development Code, and the current Comp Plan is -- their interpreting it. But your role as a local planning agency for Collier County is to oversee the Comp Plan, and if you don't think it's being implemented appropriately, then you've got the ability to just ask that it be clarified through the LDC. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Jeff. And I don't want to appear to be putting staff on the spot or back in the corner. I have great respect for how you -- everything you guys do. It's more me trying to make sense of the methodology used to evaluate this in terms of the objectives of it, not only dotting the I's and crossing the T's. So I'm hoping to learn something from this. That's why I'm asking these questions. MR. SABO: I understand. So the code allows a mix of uses; this village has a mix of uses. The code allows cul-de-sacs; this village has cul-de-sacs. The code allows gates; the village has gates. So we -- as Mr. Klatzkow mentioned, the code says what it says, and if they meet the code requirements, then it is consistent in our eyes. We have to review to the code. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm looking at, you know, the question, you know, that was presented, and I think it's a good one. And I'm not sure that I understand or if it was offered, but do you have the actual written -down meaning of "compact" and the -- can you give us a reference? When you're saying, oh, this is compact or you're saying, you know, this is walkable, what does that mean? How is -- are those even -- as a resident in Ave Maria, I had concerns about what was happening in my community. And I wanted -- you know, in my thought was that Ave Maria's SRA -- and that's not what we're evaluating right now. Ave Maria's SRA had brochure language in it, and the brochure language was very vague and very enticing, compelling. And what happened is, in my view, the brochure -- is someone overtalking me? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I'm going to have to ask staff to please refrain from speaking because it's a distraction. Sorry. Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Sure. Yes. So what I thought was that, you know, it was more or less we had adopted -- the county adopted brochure language into the SRA for Ave Maria, which then, you know, makes it very hard for anyone who's trying to figure out what it actually requires. And so in this regard, I'm not really looking at the SRA. I'm looking at the RLSA requirement or other version -- other portions of the LDC that actually -- the Commission has to comply with. What are the things that we're asking you? You know, as commissioners we're asking you, why is it compact? Why is it walkable? Where are those definitions? And are they in a format where we can give an objective evaluation? Are there criteria, or is it, you know, something else? I think that's part of our problem. MR. SABO: Commissioner, is that question to me, James Sabo? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, yes, it's to you. It's also to whoever in the planning staff might be able to answer it. I actually think -- I want to see in black and white what is -- Page 46 of 109 April 1, 2021 MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, Zoning manager. I think what you're requesting, we can pull up those definitions and provide them at some point during this meeting; however, you know, our staff reports do go into great detail and the presentation of how these criteria are responded to. But if you're just wanting to see the definitions again, we can work on that and get it so it can be displayed on the teleprompter. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. And I do -- certainly, as I've been working with you, I've certainly come to have a lot of respect for your staff, and I certainly don't mean to indicate that you didn't do this analysis. I'm just saying that it's still not clear tome. Obviously, we have so many pages and pages and pages, you know, that come before us, and to the extent I haven't -- you know, I haven't remembered where you did that, I apologize. But, yeah, I think that would help us. Maybe, Mr. Chairman, after we break for lunch, we could see that -- I'm not sure what your plan is on that, but... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that's a good question to be raised. It's 11:59. Let's try to -- how would people feel about going to 12:30 before lunch? Anybody object to that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then we will go till 12:30 for our lunch. And then I, too, would like to see any definitions that could be brought forward with respect to compactness. So I'd ask staff if they could do that over lunch. COMMISSIONER FRY: And innovative design. That's another policy. I guess my question is, what is innovative? What aspect of this development are -- represent innovative design? MR. SABO: Well, I can answer that, Commissioner Fry. The RLSA itself, according to Florida Statute 163, is an innovative approach. So the state statute says using an RLSA is an innovative approach. So we have an RLSA. It was presented to us. It meets the standards in that -- in that code. So by that definition, it is innovative. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's going way up the food chain. That's not the -- the intent was that the village design would be innovative, not the -- I mean, the RSLA [sic] is already fixed. You're grasping at straws, I'm feeling. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, again, the village wouldn't be allowed unless we had the RLSA. So the RLSA is the framework, but the village is the substantive result of that. COMMISSIONER SHEA: The intent -- and I don't know this for a fact, but I bet if I read it, the innovative part is in relation to the design of the village, not the RLSA program. The villages shall be innovative. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. COMMISSIONER SHEA: No? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Not correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Wow. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's the question. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's part of the interpretation, and that's -- when people throw words around, smart growth, innovative design, those are all terms of art. And also the Community Character Plan, those kind of things where a lot of information and words are being used, but the innovative design was the actual implementation of the RLSA to preclude urban sprawl and to prevent the one -unit -per -five -acre growth that could be allowed or is allowed currently right now as exists in that part of the county. COMMISSIONER FRY: So staffs view is that by nature of the fact that it's a village within the RLSA program is the -- is the measure for innovative design, not at the village level like Paul's asking and I'm inquiring about? MR. SABO: That is correct. And I mean no disrespect when I say this, but the statute Page 47 of 109 April 1, 2021 says what it says. They're -- it is at a high level and, yes, an RLSA is an innovative approach to the land use. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I don't question that, but I'd love to see in writing where it says the village isn't supposed to be innovative. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I happen to agree with your concern, and I think that -- I think if you look at the statutes and the ordinances, innovation is required in the design of a village. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can I -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm going to -- I think Bob Mulhere could probably clarify this. Bob was unfortunate. He's the unfortunate one who was here and part of the organization that actually created the language. And, Bob, you have that language, do you not? I don't know if you have -- MR. MULHERE: May I? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Please, go ahead. MR. MULHERE: I actually have a whole rebuttal, but I'll just -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Focus on -- MR. MULHERE: I'll just on do a piece on this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: So -- actually, I think Mr. Sabo is 100 percent correct. This is a highly innovative program by state statute and adopted, and then there are standards in the LDC to be consistent with the GMP policies. Those standards, if you follow them, you meet that definition, without question. Now, I'll just read from -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You're right. So that was my thought is we have a -- we have the RLSA program which has been deemed, if it is followed, then whatever -- whatever results from, if you comply with it, will be innovative. And so the standard for innovation is built into whatever other standards the RLSA had. So when we say a village is -- is or is not innovative, the issue is, it will be innovative pursuant to the legal definition of the brochure definition that maybe all of us, you know, conjure up in our head. It is compliant. That's -- and I think that's what I'm hearing from staff. MR.MULHERE: So I just wanted to add, this is the LDC. This is Section 4.08.07, the SRA designation. Section C is entitled, forms of development -- forms of developments. SRA -- and it reads as follows: SRA developments are a compact form of development. It doesn't say may be. It doesn't say should be. It doesn't say will be. It says they are. That is a legislative decision that's already been made. They are compact. Now, I can go on, but let me go catch my breath. MR. BELLOWS: And I'd just like to add for the record, we're not rehearing the SRA district, and I don't want us to stray from the purpose of hearing this village and how it meets the criteria. We outlined in the staff report in our presentation how we think it meets the criteria. I don't want to go down a philosophical course of what is the SRA intent or the Rural Lands Stewardship Area. We're not changing that with this petition. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to ask Mr. Sabo to return to the microphone for a moment. There's a question pending about 3.5 miles from the village center to the northeast corner. Have you got a number on that? MR. SABO: For the record, James Sabo, Comp Planning manager. I was actually busy answering your other question, so I need a little more time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That's fine. Page 48 of 109 April 1, 2021 MR. BELLOWS: And just if I may also, there is no locational criteria in the Land Development Code about the location of village centers. So it's not like we can compare it to language in the LDC that it has to be a certain location. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, it's just the plain meaning of the word "center," that's all. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, exactly. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. With respect to 4.08.07 of the LDC, they do say --the word "innovative" may not be used but, certainly, there is a requirement with respect to design: The villages have to include a mixed -use village center, that it has to be compact, pedestrian friendly, and that it has to be progressive rural -to -urban continuum. Those are requirements. Now, to me they are the equivalent of innovation, but we don't need to go there if we don't want to. So I'll be interested in hearing the answer about the 3.5 miles. And while we're waiting for that, let me make a point about the progressive rural -to -urban continuum, which is required not only in 4.08.07 but also the FLUE Policy 4.11. It says that villages shall be developed in a progressive rural -to -urban continuum with the greatest density, intensity, and diversity occurring within the village center to the least density, intensity, and diversity occurring within the neighborhood edge. Now, I think that comes pretty close to requiring the village center to be in the geographical center. And, for instance, if you have the village center that is directly abutting the edge such as it would be with respect to the west side along Big Cypress Parkway, you can't -- there's no room for a continuum of higher density, lower density, because you're abutting the edge itself. So I don't see how 4.08.07 with respect to the continuum has been met and would like to know staffs point of view on that. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I would just say on that, you know, I don't think this requires FDOT [sic], you know. This -- and this is someone who's lived in -- you know, in a community that's, you know, underneath the type of, you know, requirement in the RLSA in Ave Maria, and I had all these concerns as a resident and -- you know, watching things happen around me, and I did sort of think the colloquial idea or the informal idea that would be natural. When we think center, we think that it's in the middle of concentric circle, you know. I mean, that's a reasonable first impression. But I have come to see that that's not really what is required, even if that's what it seems like when you first read it, because I realize now that things that are located conveniently and make things walkable and practical, you know, they might be on the edge rather than the center. And they've reworked things, they've moved things from, you know, some areas to others within Ave Maria, as -- you know, as things changed and they realized there were patterns, you know, that were developing or that there were -- you know, there might be a more beneficial way to use the land and where the centers are. So having a center on the edge, I mean, we've held out Ave Maria as an example, as a good example. I think even you have, Mr. Chairman. And Ave Maria definitely has centers. We have town centers on the edge, on the geographical edge of Ave Maria. And so I would just say that I think that sort of -- I'm not sure you're going to criticize Ave Maria now (inaudible) saying that it's not really complying. You know, I think we can use that as an example where having it on the edge actually works and does comply. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, in the case of Ave Maria, there are multiple village centers, and I think it's an easier argument to make that they -- that they comply certainly with the substance of and the intention of the ordinances in the statutes. But when you've just got one Page 49 of 109 April 1, 2021 village center and you've got this requirement of progressive rural -to -urban continuum running from the village center to the neighborhood edge and you've got the village center, the only one on this development right there on the edge, how do you fulfill that progressive continuum requirement? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, you go from -- you go from dense to less dense. And if you do that, you have a continuum, whether -- you don't necessarily have to go less dense, more dense, really dense, less dense, really, really less dense. You know, I mean, you don't have to have a hump, you know, of density. I mean, I understand what you're saying. Logically that would be a -- that would certainly be a way to think about it but, as we all know, you know, legislation, slash, you know, code actually has legal interpretation that's really important, you know, often far more than a logical or a, you know, first -glance -impression interpretation of what it is. And that's why --I'm just saying that because I had all of these same concerns as a resident who is very involved in the community, and I've come to accept that, you know, that center, town center, village center doesn't mean it's, you know, it's in the middle of a -- you know, that you have radial -- you know, less and less dense in a radial fashion. MR. EASTMAN: You have the continuum going in three directions instead of four. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, Robb, since you're a resident of Ave Maria, I have a question for you, which I think is relevant to my concerns here. How would you feel if Ave Maria, which is about 4,000 acres, I believe, when you compare that to Rivergrass, Longwater, and Bellmar, and then this backing into this town plan -- you're at 3,500 acres, I think, not too different a size. How would you feel if Ave Maria was three large gated communities and a strip center of village center instead of what you have now? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, no, no. What we have now is we actually do -- we have Del Webb, which is gated -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- in Ave Maria, and we have a new community, this National Golf Course, which is going to be gated, but it's going to have these same kind of gates where they're there just as a -- you know, anyone can enter, but it will be gated. That's my understanding. And we do have an area along Ave Maria Boulevard that sort of has a -- you know, I don't know how -- a strip mall. But it's very nice. That's where the new firehouse is and that's, you know, where -- it's sort of centrally located but it's -- you know, we also have Arthrex on the very edge, and that's where the hospital supposedly will be and some other commercial will be. And then we have -- on the far edge, as you head towards Immokalee, we have an area where there's going to be some more commercial. And then we have the town center, of course, which is where the beautiful church is and everything, and that's really centrally located. And the campus is, you know, on -- opposite on the other side of the street. What I would say is, it's a very different vision what's going on in Longwater. Ave Maria is very unique. 1, having experienced, you know, my community, I have gotten used to the idea that, you know -- technically, if you look at the plan for Ave Maria, the SRA, we would have -- we would have -- in my neighborhood, we would have a shop. In my little -- you know, you could have a shop. That's really how it's all described. That would be the ideal walkability innovation. There would be a little corner store or a little bookstore right next to my house. Well, that's never going to happen. No one does it that Page 50 of 109 April 1, 2021 way. You know, I kind of envisioned maybe it was going to be different like that, but that maybe is innovation that we can't expect right now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik, may I ask you a question, sir? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I've been to Ave Maria maybe half a dozen times. So, you know, I'm going to rely on you to correct me if I'm wrong. But it's my recollection that although there may be multiple villages, there's sort of a main village center, and it's pretty much -- you know, it runs around like a circle; does it not? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, there's different -- there's different developments. Right in the center you have a big church, but it's kind of the landmark. And then you have, you know, some -- the building I'm sitting in right now. You have condominiums, and then one of the buildings is an office building. You have a bank and a Publix. And then, yes, if you go down one street, you have a development, and at the end of that street you actually are going to -- you have two developments now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And if you go in another direction, you'll encounter a development, and if you go in another direction. So it radiates on three sides, and then on the opposite side of the main boulevard and the church is the campus. But, yes, I mean, we have -- we definitely have something that's more like you would think. You have a very concentrated, dense core where there's condominiums and the church and shopping, commercial, and then you do radiate out to the neighborhoods where you have the single-family homes. COMMISSIONER FRY: And are there multiple ways in and out as you can navigate around Ave Maria? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh, yeah -- yes, there's a lot of -- a lot of interconnectivity. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just for the record -- and, of course, I was again -- I go back to my days in the staff. I was around when the first was conceived, and I can -- even the vision that Tom Monahan had. But it's clear Ave Maria is different, because part of Ave Maria, the whole concept was a town, but it was also a university, and the university, as you drive into the main drag -- as was just stated, you have the town center, but right across the street is the university. It's a public campus. It's a private school, but it's a public campus. And it is accessible to the public to come in and go to the town center, go to the cathedral, and go to the campus. It is, frankly, different. It's -- COMMISSIONER FRY: But, Joe, they proposed -- and, listen, I mean, I had a meeting with the developer a long time -- months ago -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- and the first thing we looked at was the town that they had proposed of Rural Lands West. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: Which sat a lot on the same space as Rivergrass, Longwater, and Bellmar. They found a way in that town design to have more of a city central. They had an interconnected network of roads. They had, you know, just more along the lines of what we're asking about in terms of the objectives of the RLSA. Why is that not possible with multiple villages and then back into a town versus just three gated PUDs and a strip center commercial? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think that question would have to go to the County Manager's because they drove a stake in the heart of the entire process, and that's all I'm going to say about that. So you'd have to defer that to the County Manager's Office. Page 51 of 109 April 1, 2021 CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's provocative. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. That's exactly right. I mean, so there's a long history there. And the fact of the matter is now it's coming in with villages instead of one town, which is what it should have been, but it's not, and we're dealing with a village now. That's all -- COMMISSIONER FRY: The question is what the village should be. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Sabo? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would say, Mr. Chairman, the question is what the village -- whether the village complied as proposed -- complies, you know, with the standard, not what we think it should be, because there's a lot of things I think, you know, should happen, but, you know, it's not up to me even as a commissioner to impose that. I do think we have some say as to whether or not, you know, we feel that it's in compliance or that it's -- whether it's in compliance technically, you know, whether it's -- credentially we think that it's something that is a direction that it's good to go in. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If my memory serves, there is no definition in either the statute or the ordinance that either requires the village center to be in the center or says that it doesn't have to be in the village center. I'm just relying on the plain meaning of the word "center." Mr. Sabo? MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, James Sabo, for the record. The distance -- we calculated out the distance from the village center for Longwater to the northeast portion. It's about two -and -a -half miles back out to Oil Well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much. Commissioner Schmitt, or were you finished? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm done. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, sorry. Anyone else have questions or comments at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Gundlach, do you have anything further? MS. GUNDLACH: I don't have anything further. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Where is Mr. Yovanovich? Oh, there he is. MR. YOVANOVICH: I was hiding in the back. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Do you want to start now, or should we take our -- with rebuttal, or should we take our lunch now and come back in an hour? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, in fear of having Terri upset with me, I think we should take a break, have lunch. Let us organize our rebuttal based upon the questions you've just asked. We already had that in the rebuttal. But I do want to, before we leave, say that it's important that we don't cherrypick different portions of the Land Development Code when we're making broad statements like the village center has to be in the center because the word "center" is in the word. We're going to go through that and explain to you exactly what the definitions are, and the definitions are what you have to apply. So I will leave it with that as we take our break. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would just like to reply to Mr. Yovanovich simply that -- and I know he wasn't the one that created the Ave Maria RLSA, but what I would say is, when you put brochure language in things and other provisions -- and I know that's my derogatory term -- in these things that become code and you sell them that way, it makes your job, then -- someone in your position, it makes it a lot more difficult, because we do have a reasonable expectation to just look at the words and -- you know, and reach a normal conclusion, and I think that's -- right now we're just experiencing the downside of getting things passed by using, you Page 52 of 109 April 1, 2021 know, persuasive language that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No. Mr. Klucik, I agree, but we spent a whole lot of time comparing a town to a village. And we're not a town application; we're a village application. And you may want it to be a town, you may want it to function like a town, but you have to apply the village criteria right now to these applications. So it was frustrating to me -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I certainly agree with you on that. MR. YOVANOVICH: It was frustrating to me to sit here and have all these questions asked about, how would you like this village to be like the Town of Ave Maria? I don't think that's the right criteria. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I would say -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll get into that in our rebuttal. COMMISSIONER FRY: It's not an accurate representation of the questions. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it came across with a whole lot of, how would you feel if the Town of Ave Maria was designed like this? And I took it as you were comparing our village to the Town of Ave Maria, and if that's not what you intended, Mr. Fry, I apologize. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, we can clarify it during the rebuttal. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Common characteristic of towns and villages is that they both need to have a village center. MR. MULHERE: A town center in the village. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, the center. MR. YOVANOVICH: And as staff pointed out, they're context zones. They're not locations. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. It's 12:22. Mr. Yovanovich, do you need a little more than an hour, or do you want to go to 1:30? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't need an hour. We probably can do it in 30 minutes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we're not going to do that. All right. Well, we'll -- what's the -- COMMISSIONER FRY: We can take a short -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Short? Okay. Then we will come back at 12:20 -- excuse me, 1:20. So that will be 55 minutes from now. We're in recess until 1:20. (A luncheon recess was had from 12:22 p.m. to 1:20 p.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, let's return to session. MR. KLATZKOW: Have you got a quorum? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm sorry? MR. KLATZKOW: Have you got a quorum? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Noted that we do not have a quorum. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: What if -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll remain in recess and turn the mic back off. (A brief recess was had from 1:20 p.m. to 1:23 p.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, let's return. We now have a quorum. And I believe it's time for the applicant's rebuttal. Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: If it is okay with the Planning Commission, I'd like to do this in two phases. I'd like to give some general comments, have Bob come up and address some planning concepts. If you're going to bring other speakers up to ask them questions, I'd like to hold my final comments until all the public or staff comments are made so they don't have to come back up again and ask for permission to provide some additional comments, if that is acceptable to the Planning Page 53 of 109 April 1, 2021 Commission. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Without objection, it's acceptable. MR. YOVANOVICH: All right. I want to -- I want to -- it's been a while since we were here. We spoke to you about a month ago. We did a two-hour presentation, and since then there have been much longer presentations than our initial presentation. But I just want to go back over a few basic concepts, and then I'm going to have Bob come up here and get into some more detailed comments regarding some of your planning -related comments and questions. First of all, the Growth Management Plan, the provisions that apply in the Future Land Use Element are the Rural Lands Stewardship District provisions within the Growth Management Plan. You had some testimony for Mr. Minicozzi about walkability and other concepts that are not within that section of the Future Land Use Element. He went to these general provisions in the Growth Management Plan where words like "shall encourage" were used by the Growth Management Plan. That language does not apply to the future land -use designation for Rural Lands Stewardship districts -- for Rural Lands Stewardship districts. So you have to look at the specific language -- and Bob will get this in a little bit greater detail -- when you're talking about the concept of pedestrians, and it's specifically addressed in Section 4.7.2 -- Policy 4.7.2 of your Growth Management Plan where it says, villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. That's the standard you have to meet under the Growth Management Plan, and that very same language was incorporated into the Land Development Code. And Bob will show you on the master plan how all of your streets have sidewalks, our main spine road has a pathway system, and how the cul-de-sacs in the residential neighborhoods actually connect to the main spine road. We went through all that. But I want to put that in the context of how we address the Comprehensive Plan requirements regarding pedestrians and bicycles. We do address that. 1,106, Where Mr. Minicozzi came up with his quarter -mile walkability standard, I don't know. It's not in your Comp Plan. It's not in your Land Development Code. Bob will address that in greater detail. Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types. I think that's been addressed through the conversations with Cormac. We are primarily a residential community. The village center is not required to be in the center. What a village center is is where it serves as the focal point for the community's support services and facilities. So that -- what does that mean? It means that's where we put the retail, and we put specific uses in one location to serve as the focal point. It doesn't say it has to be the red dot on the dart board to be the bull's eye. That's a fallacy. It doesn't exist anywhere in this code. Nancy and others have addressed that. I don't know where the concept came that it was never intended that you would have PUDs out in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area. I don't know where that concept came from, because it certainly isn't in the Comprehensive Plan or the Land Development Code. And I'm sure you're all aware that PUDs are, in fact, innovative zoning. Why are they innovative zoning? Because they allow a mixture of different residential types. What we basically have is PUDs with additional requirements. That's what your code says. The additional requirements are that we have a mixed -use village center, because we have to provide retail, office, and civic as part of the development needs to occur. You have very specific design standards as far as block lengths and all of those other criteria that are in 4.08.07 of the Land Development Code. That's how you measure innovation. That's how you measure compactness. That's how Page 54 of 109 April 1, 2021 you measure whether we comply with the Land Development Code. Bob's going to take you through all of that in greater detail. But I think we have to get back to the framework and I think some misconceptions that we were never supposed to have PUDs out east. In fact, you were supposed to have PUDs with additional planning criteria attached to those because you wanted to discourage people from traveling back west to get these services. So I don't know where this criteria of we're not allowed to have urban -like development in the eastern lands. I will stop here in a second, but I think what -- I think your staff did an excellent job in their presentations from planning to environmental to diversity of housing to transportation and to fiscal neutrality. We're not going to spend a lot of time on that or any time on fiscal neutrality, transportation, in our rebuttal, but we're available to answer any questions you may have regarding those. But I want Bob to come up and talk about the very important planning concepts that were raised on the break, and if you have any other questions, we're happy to answer them. I do want to make sure we're clear that you can't apply town concepts to a village. They're totally different. You'll have an opportunity, hopefully, to look at a town plan in the future, but right now you have to apply the village criteria, and those criteria are very defined in your Land Development Code. And based upon the competent substantial evidence in the record so far, I believe we have proven we meet each one of those criteria, but I'll bring Bob up here to go back over a few of the concepts, and then we'll -- if you're going to bring up people from the public, great. If not, then I'll come back and give you the rest of my comments. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. With apologies to the applicant, I had intended to have a brief discussion about how our day is going to unfold. Let us, if you don't mind, have that right now and see what our expectations are, our limitations, if any, about how we're going to go forward. We've got another matter scheduled. The question is whether we will get to it. And I -- having spoken with Ms. Jenkins, she and I agree that we -- that if there's sufficient time to start a new matter, that we need to start a new matter, but the question is is how much is sufficient time. So what is the -- what is the will of the Planning Commission how late we should or could go to today? Commissioner Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, regarding the second commission [sic], we've already heard from the public related to both petitions, and I thought when we first did that, that that was pretty much -- almost all the presentations and most of what we heard from the public covered both villages. So are we going to open -- the question is again, are we going to open the door for public comment for Bellmar, which is pretty much what we already heard for Longwater? The second point is, if not, then I think, because most of what we heard is -- I think would be repetitive, but I think from a -- statutorily -- and maybe that's the County Attorney, but we may have to allow for public opinion because it is a separately advertised item. But I believe it would go -- it would tend to, I believe, go much quicker than what this one is because almost everything we're dealing with now is related to both petitions. And I think we could probably get to the point where we could vote on the second one -- and I'm willing to stay as long as we need to and vote on both of them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: County Attorney? MR. KLATZKOW: It's like deja vu all over again. I mean, technically, Mr. Schmitt's right, these are two separately advertised proceedings. I would ask if anybody would insist on speaking for Bellmar; otherwise -- and if they want to, that's their prerogative. But good God, we heard this in Rivergrass, and we heard this in Long -- and now we're going to just hear it in Bellmar. But it is their prerogative if they wish to speak. I would note that -- to the Chair, though, that it doesn't have to be half-hour presentations. I mean, you know, five minutes would be typical. Page 55 of 109 April 1, 2021 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me hear from some other planning commissioners, and then I'll hear from you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I agree with Joe. I'd like to try and get through both of them and I think, for the same reasons, we might be able to do it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Me, too. COMMISSIONER FRY: There's a chance I might have to leave at 3:00, but I certainly believe that we should move forward as much as possible. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. MR. YOVANOVICH: We had anticipated -- if I may give input. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, please do. MR. YOVANOVICH: Was -- it was very clear to me that the Conservancy, League of Women Voters, and the other speakers addressed both petitions. In fact, I believe the Chairman said you would let -- that their experts didn't need to come back. And all I asked was let them put on the record the specifics to Bellmar versus Longwater. And we indulged with their being able to make extended presentations on both. I think they've had their opportunity. They certainly can incorporate into the record -- and I'd ask you -- Mr. Chairman, you said you agreed, we'll just bring forward that the testimony that was specific to those items, bring them forward. We anticipate doing a much more scaled -back presentation. We don't need two hours. We're going to go -- you know, we're going to hit the highlights, because you heard a lot of the history of the RLSA program. I don't know how long staffs presentation's going to be. But I'm -- I think that we should at this point stay, if we can, as long as you need to get Bellmar done. If you want to have public speakers, well, then let's just stay longer to hear the public speakers, and let's just get it done, and then that way you can come back on the 6th and hear the town -- the informational meeting -- informational item regarding the town. But I think it's fair to us to have this done and, frankly, fair to the other petitions that are getting bumped to the 15th to not have to get bumped again to May 6th. So that's what we would like to see happen, and we certainly can stay as long as you need to stay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: County Attorney, are you wanting to speak? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I'm just saying, keeping in mind that staff may have needs, like, I don't know, childcare, what have you. So 5:00 is fine. After that you might want to ask staff if it's okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I have a proposal here. See what people think. First of all, it sounds as though there would be no objection to our incorporating all of the public testimony from Longwater into Bellmar without having to repeat it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. We do have some people here today who are representative of groups and possibly individuals, and I would encourage them not to be repetitive if that can be avoided, but I would also want them to feel like they're having their say and, particularly, if new matters come through, perhaps more time would be spent on a new topic. But I -- having -- apparently there is no objection, then, to incorporating the full public part of the transcript into Bellmar. And so with that, I would just ask the members of the public and the representatives of the groups to keep that in mind and be mindful of the fact that we remember all those things but, certainly, if there's something you want to emphasize or something new you want to say, we'll hear it. Does anybody object to that approach? MR. YOVANOVICH: I do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You do? I thought it was your idea. Page 56 of 109 April 1, 2021 MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I object to the idea that they get to comeback up, because they were given quite a bit of freedom in addressing Bellmar concerns in the Longwater presentation, and that was, I believe, as an accommodation to them so they wouldn't have to come here twice. I don't object to incorporating it into the record. I object to them getting a second bite at the apple. MR. KLATZKOW: Rich, I'm already in litigation over Rivergrass. I have no intention of being in litigation over your other villages. If I could avoid the litigation by having somebody spend 15 minutes, I will do so. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't mind 15 minutes, but I don't want another seven hours. MR. KLATZKOW: But it's not yours to mind. The public has a right to speak. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. Anything else from the Planning Commission on our agenda going forward, how we propose it? And 5:00 sounds like the right time for me as well. All right. Mr. Mulhere, sorry to have interrupted. MR. MULHERE: That's all right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Mr. Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I will be leaving shortly before 5:00 due to it being Holy Thursday. So I'll be leaving for mass at 5:00. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, sir. Thank you for telling us. And just let us know when that happens. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere here on behalf of the applicant. I wanted to just provide some comments specifically -- for the most part specifically related to Minicozzi's presentation at -- I don't know, it seems like several months ago, but at our last hearing, which I do recall specifically that there was a request that he be permitted to speak both on Longwater and Bellmar, and he did address both in his presentation. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yup. MR. MULHERE: So let me go to the visualizer. MR. YOVANOVICH: I was supposed to click the zoom button, and I forgot to. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. I think I want this. There we go. So we've said this before, but I just want to reiterate -- and Rich indicated the same thing -- there are very specific requirements in the RLSA, both very specific goals, objectives, and policies that are specific to the RLSA, specific to towns and villages, and then a whole section in the LDC that provides for 25 pages of standards and specific -- and including very specific design standards. I looked up the PUD section in the LDC while Rich was speaking, and it clearly says PUDs are innovative and imaginary -- and use imagination and use innovation. And typically in a mixed -use type of project but not necessarily. You have just commercial PUDs. You have industrial PUDs. You do have mixed -use PUDs. But in the urban area, there is no requirement based on a formula of 25 square feet per dwelling unit in any PUD to provide neighborhood commercial to serve the residents of that PUD. There isn't any requirement in a PUD in the urban area to provide 10 square feet of civic, institutional, and governmental uses to serve the residents and the surrounding area of that PUD. And I could go on. My point is there are very specific requirements in an SRA that differ between a town and Page 57 of 109 April 1, 2021 a village but very specific requirements. This is not just another PUD shifted out into the urban area. This is what I hear. This is some sort of reinventing history. These are different. SRAs are different. The standards are different. They're very different. They're very specific, and that's clear. There are actually two sections of the code that deal specifically with those standards. I'm not going to spend a lot of time. I'm not going to go over all those standards, but I would like to, at least for the record, cite those sections. Under 4.08.07.G, entitled -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would just ask Mr. Mulhere, if you could, since you've talked about, you know, a wide gap difference, if you could just list maybe three concrete examples -- MR. MULHERE: Sure. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- where you see -- I think that's what you're -- you're talking about -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- or it seems like that's where you're headed, but it would be helpful. MR. MULHERE: Yes. And the first example I did mention, which is significant, which is the absolute requirement using a formula. This doesn't exist anywhere else for neighborhood commercial uses to be located within a village center. That doesn't exist in any PUD -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right, and I appreciate that very much. That was a very, very good point that it isn't just a PUD, and I appreciate that. MR. MULHERE: That's one. I will go over some other ones, Commissioner Klucik, as well as I go through this. The 4.08.07.G entitled "master plan" has Section 1, master plan requirements, and it lists those requirements. It's very specific. If your master plan has those requirements, you meet those requirements. And then His entitled "development document." And Paragraph 2 of H tells you what the development document shall identify, locate, and quantify. And that's got about 25 or 26 different specific requirements. I raise those issues because it was alleged by Mr. Minicozzi that there were certain things that were not properly included or properly addressed in the master plan, and I'll go over those specifically. But not only did we include them but, look, the staff reviewed it and agrees that we included them. So I can go over each one of those, but I don't think that's an effective use of your time. So, you know, this is just an overview here. You have this checklist. It's very, very simple. A village is between 100 and 1,000 acres. MR. BELLOWS: Zoom in or out? MR. MULHERE: You can zoom in a little bit to this area right in here. That's all right. I can move it, because I think that's more or less what I want to show. Maybe if I could just get this to move a little bit. There we go. So what's zoomed in there, just to orient you, this is the stewardship overlay map, and the pink area is what's referred to as open. I think you've all heard this. And the open areas are areas that may be developed if you can acquire stewardship credits at eight units per acre with some exceptions -- eight credits per acre, soon to be 10 under the new amendments proposed, but eight now -- you can entitle a village, a town, or a compact mixed -use development, so -- or rural development. So if you look right here, that's Hyde Park, that square that kind of juts out. And if you look right here, this is Oil Well. So right here moving north and south is Rivergrass, and then Page 58 of 109 April 1, 2021 Longwater is right here, and Bellmar is down here. And if you look at that map, you can see that the geometry of what we proposed in the Longwater SRA runs very close to the boundaries that are shown on this exhibit as open lands. Same for Rivergrass. Same for Bellmar. There are these WRAs that surround the property. And the reason I bring that to your attention is it's not so simple as to just say, well, just make it square because someone feels like that's a more appropriate geometry for that SRA. And, again, because one point of the SRA is 2.5 miles to the north of the village center, it may be less walkable than something that's right at the village center, but that's really the choice of the buyer. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Your point, sir, is that the preserve areas, the Water Retention Areas, the WRAs, make it so that you can just have this radiating concept of dense to less dense? MR. MULHERE: Well, that's correct. But also you can't -- your boundaries are somewhat dictated by those because you can't affect those. You're not developing those WRAs. So you just can't go in. There you're limited to the -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, it seems to me what -- it seems to me that as a practical matter, looking at the map, it's unreasonable to think you could actually even accomplish it. If it was your stated goal, it would be very difficult to accomplish it. MR. MULHERE: It would be. It would be, yes, I agree. So I just wanted to point that out. Hopefully this -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, I will ask for permission in the future. I apologize. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: So anyway, I just --the point of this slide was that there's a --there's a whole range of requirements. Again, you know, just using the size of a village real quickly, 100 to 1,000 acres. You know, I looked at an exercise because I heard this concept of, you know, that this village is too far north and south and it's not as walkable as it could be. You know, I did a square, a thousand -acre square with the village directly in the center, and based on what I prepared, 73 percent of the units were further than a quarter mile from the village center; 73 percent. So you do the best with what you have, and the requirement Rich read doesn't talk about a quarter mile, doesn't talk about a directness factor, any of the things that Mr. Minicozzi suggested. Those may be great standards, but if the county wanted to adopt those standards, they would have adopted them, or they may at some point. They don't apply now. This is your Future Land Use Map for Collier County. And I put that up here just to show you that the yellow area is the urban area, and in the urban area -- why is this thing not on? Does anybody know? In case I wanted to use my skills here. I don't know. Maybe Troy can come and assist us. So the yellow is the urban area, and that's where you've heard this reference of this is just an urban area PUD out in the eastern part, which it isn't, not by any stretch of the imagination. But, again, in that yellow -- and the red squares that you see are activity centers where the higher intensity uses are directed to the intersection of arterial roadways for a reason, and then you have the yellow area where you would have most of your PUDs. I don't know how many PUDs there are; more than 400. An awful lot of people seem to be pretty happy living in these terrible urban PUDs. And, again, we've gone a lot further than that in the SRA because of their location in the rural area. You forget, you know, you're preserving somewhere between four and five times the land you're impacting by entitling an SRA. It's not anywhere near the same as an urban PUD. Also, I don't know if you've seen these recent advertisements by the Conservancy, which at least suggests that the approval of these SRAs will result in something akin to East Coasting the West Coast -- or West Coasting -- yeah, East Coasting the West Coast. Page 59 of 109 April 1, 2021 The exhibit on your visualizer was not prepared by me but was prepared by the former chairman of the Planning Commission, Mark Strain, I think about two years ago. So let's talk about the facts as opposed to some crazy insinuations that aren't even factual. The total county size is 1.475 million acres. It's the largest land mass county in the state. Palm Beach County is larger but has a significant portion of Lake Okeechobee in it. At the time this was prepared, there was 77.44 percent of Collier County in conservation and preservation. That's all that green; light and dark green. There was 13.36 percent of the county entitled, zoned, developed, entitled lands, and 9.2 percent undeveloped. So I don't think there's another county in the state of Florida besides maybe Monroe which has a significantly large Area of Critical State Concern. It's really just developed on the smaller islands. I don't think there's another county in the state that has -- is approaching 80 percent of its land mass in conservation and preservation. So let's put things in perspective. This puts things in perspective. This is why we won't ever be like Miami. And that number, that 77.5 percent is only going to increase as you increase the amount of Stewardship Sending Areas that are approved to entitle these Stewardship Receiving Areas, just as the program was intended to work; exactly as the program was intended to work. Mr. Minicozzi talked about walkability, and I mentioned that he had a directness -- look, I mean, I looked at his credentials, and he's very well educated and probably very well experienced. I don't know if he's been working on the RLSA for over 20 years as I have, and I'm not sure if he understood what was actually required or what wasn't. And these are objective standards. They're not subjective standards, the ones that we're talking about. These are subjective standards: Directness, proximity to schools. There is no proximity requirement. The developer is required to enter into a discussion with the school board and presumably make an agreement with the school board, which he's done. I don't think you can have every elementary school within a quarter mile of every single dwelling unit. You'd have to have about 13 elementary schools, and the same for middle schools and high schools. I'm sorry. Did you want to say something? A& MR. EASTMAN: You're correct. MR. MULHERE: There's no economy or no efficiency, and it doesn't make any sense. Sure, it's great if you can get a home that's within walking distance to an elementary school, but you're still going to have to transport some students to those. So the standard is very, very clear: Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation. How? How do we do that? We do that by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. If you look at the exhibit on your visualizer, these yellow circles here are pedestrian connections. So you have the spine road that runs this way and connects into Rivergrass right here, and these -- all of these yellow circles are pedestrian connections to various elements and to this spine road which serves as a linear -- a linear park with bike lanes and sidewalks. And so then the yellow circles are roadway [sic] connections to future Big Cypress, to Rivergrass here, to Oil Well here, and to the village center here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Bob, none of those are showing up on our screen, so... MR. MULHERE: They're not showing up? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You're pointing at things, but -- MR. MULHERE: But do you see yellow circles? You don't have any -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, we see yellow circles. MR. MULHERE: Okay. All right. I gotcha. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I know you were pointing on the screen. MR. MULHERE: Pedestrian connections. I thought that's what I said. MR. BELLOWS: You said roadway, but that's all right. Page 60 of 109 April 1, 2021 MR. MULHERE: The red are roadway connections. The yellow are pedestrian connections. So if I said something else, I apologize. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You did. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Thank you. That's three people. Anybody else? Okay. So the next slide these are -- this is not required, but it goes towards connectivity and walkability. And these are half -mile concentric circles. And you can see that there is a destination in either the village center, an amenity, a park. Every single unit is within a half a mile. Now, that's not a standard, neither is a quarter mile. But we think that's a reasonable demonstration of connectivity and pedestrian -friendly design. Mr. Minicozzi talked about block perimeter and somehow made the conclusion that if we made the lakes smaller, the blocks could be smaller and that the block -- that the lakes are uses and that they were somehow restricted. And the lakes on the land -use table in the RLSA fall under open space. They're not a use that's measured by intensity or density, obviously, and they're not restricted as to size. And if you have a block length that exceeds the maximum of 3,500 foot of perimeter, if there's a lake and other elements within that block, you are allowed to exceed that perimeter. The staff reviewed this. We're consistent with the requirements. I've already talked about school boards. I wanted to just reiterate Rich's point on the village center. The LDC says that villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed -use village center to serve as the focal point of the community's support services and facilities. It's not inferring that it has to be geographically in the center of the project. It's not stating that. It's not inferring it. In fact, this term "focal point" means the center of interest and activity. By having your commercial, your civic, and all of those, the majority of them located within your village center, it becomes the focal point. And as far as the continuum of higher density and intensity to lower density and intensity, it's not required to meet that, that you put the village center in the center. As was indicated, the village center abuts a future six -lane arterial roadway, future Big Cypress, and a four -lane arterial roadway, Oil Well, and beyond that is Golden Gate Estates. So there's no requirement to have a continuum from a six -lane arterial roadway or four -lane arterial roadway. You're certainly required to do that from that village center in every other direction where you are moving with development, residential development. And we achieve that. We require that the multifamily be developed within a half mile of the village center or the other commercial -- three -acre commercial node on Oil Well. So there is a continuum from most intense and dense to intense and dense. There was also a comment about, that we used the wrong cross-section and that it -- by having 11-foot-wide local travel lanes, we were diminishing the safety for pedestrians or the walkable nature. To the contrary, the LDC allows an applicant to request deviations in 4.08.07.H.1 and, more specifically, under the right-of-way section, typical cross -sections, which are provided by the county, it says that the transportation services may approve additional cross -sections as needed to meet the design objectives. Deviations from cross -sections may be requested in the SRA document, or an amendment to the SRA document. So we asked for a deviation, the staff reviewed it, they concurred it was appropriate, and they approved it. Very consistent with the requirements. And I've already talked about the lake size. I really didn't quite understand what he was getting at. This is a -- on the screen is an excerpt right from the -- right here, from the land -use table, and under recreation and open space you can see that lakes are right there. You know, you have a minimum 35 percent of an SRA that must be in the form of open space, and to incentivize additional open space beyond that -- and we do in Longwater provide Page 61 of 109 April 1, 2021 significant open space beyond the 35 percent. And this is another -- Mr. Klucik, another example of something that doesn't happen in the urban area PUDs is you don't have to entitle those with stewardship credits, and you don't have this open -space requirement that -- you can reach the minimum, but once you go above the minimum, you're not required to provide additional stewardship credits. So that's an incentive to enhance and increase open space which, by the way, does result in a more compact development. Let me see if I had anything else here. I think that covers my rebuttal on Mr. Minicozzi. I'll just ask Rich if he felt like I --no. Okay. Thank you very much. Unless you have any questions... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any questions for Mr. Mulhere? COMMISSIONER FRY: One question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Bob, do you have the verbiage from the objectives and policies of the RLSA regarding interconnectedness? MR. MULHERE: It reads exactly the same way, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: In the RLSA program? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's just -- there is no requirement for interconnectedness. It's only with the pedestrian. The interconnectedness provisions are in the general FLUE element, but we do have interconnectedness, if you'll recall -- Bob. MR. MULHERE: I'll bring that up. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, real quick. We do have -- if you remember, we have interconnection between -- I didn't mean to touch the button but -- I mean the screen. This interconnection right here is the interconnection between Rivergrass Village and Longwater Village, because we wanted to avoid having people from Longwater Village having to get onto Oil Well Road to get over to the village center at Rivergrass where it's anticipated you'll have the grocery store. So we do have interconnectedness in our plan, but those general provisions about interconnectedness are in the smart growth policies that are not within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area standards. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So in your -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We meet it, although we're not required to. We have interconnectedness with our village, with Rivergrass Village. COMMISSIONER FRY: So no requirement for interconnectedness of a village or town, for that matter, with surrounding roads, ability to be able to -- multiple ways in and out as we defined as -- as had been explained to me in the urban areas in terms of a criteria for all new developments to be interconnected so that we don't have our traffic only on main roads. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And I -- going back, originally the Collier County Long -Range Transportation Plan had Randall going east through these areas and connecting to Oil Well Road. The county went through the restudy and decided that it preferred to have Big Cypress Parkway and eliminated that continued connection. They preferred to have traffic deal with -- if they wanted to go south, go to the intersection of the future Big Cypress Parkway, go south, and then onto Randall. So the county's transportation plan was changed to address that situation. So the traffic circulated -- never was intended that there would be a bypass road through, you know, Longwater Village to avoid going to that intersection of the future Big Cypress Parkway. And, in fact, we gave additional right-of-way so Big Cypress Parkway could be six-laned, or we set aside additional right-of-way so Big Cypress Parkway could be in a bigger footprint to address traffic circulation out east. Page 62 of 109 April 1, 2021 COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Bob, did you want to -- MR. MULHERE: I did just want to add -- and just keep in mind, again, look at this exhibit here. There's really no -- there's no opportunity -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Other than the spine road. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, there's no opportunity here for interconnect. There is nothing to the east. There's no roads -- COMMISSIONER FRY: The spine road is the -- MR. MULHERE: There's no roads. And there's WRAs and SSAs and agricultural activity to the east. Now, over here you do have the Estates but, as Rich just described, there was an alternative plan for that. So there is the ability for these folks to get to -- and that's why it is here -- to the village center or to this commercial tract up here. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think the spine road is what I look at as being the major opportunity for interconnection between Oil Well and Big Cypress. So my question is: The term PUD, does it, by definition, mean gated PUD? MR. YOVANOVICH: PUDs can be in any form. They can be gated. They can be ungated. Historically in Collier County, people like gates. That's why we have the commercial outside of the gates so people who don't live within the community will have access to the commercial. There is nothing in the Land Development Code that prohibits villages from being gated. If there was a requirement that they not be gated or that there would be a requirement that they had to have a public connecting road, it would have been in those provisions. The reason I know that is in the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District villages, which you'll hear in greater detail for Immokalee Rural Village, it does have that requirement. It requires a public access road through a Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District village. So if that requirement had been intended for a Rural Lands Stewardship Area village, it would have been in the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ray, I guess on behalf of staff, so there is no requirement in the RLSA -- I guess my question is staffs interpretation of the term "interconnected" with relation to villages and towns in the RLSA, is there a vision that there are -- it's not a purely closed -off gated community; there are connections through the village or the town? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. If I understand the question, you're saying, are the villages required to interconnect to other villages, or are you saying within the village? COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm saying, as I understand, I mean, one of the goals of Collier County's traffic policy is to get away from everything being closed to traffic and forcing all the traffic to always be on our main roads, and that that was part of the vision of the RLSA was that as they look forward for developments now is for interconnectedness where people have more than one way in and out, people can have multiple ways to get from Point A to Point B, not just on the main roads. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. There -- the Land Development Code and the SRA provisions of the code don't require -- or don't regulate or prohibit gated communities. There is -- the interconnecting type language is not requiring us to hook up these villages to other villages, and I think that's one of the reasons, I think, the town, if that does come about, that will provide more linkages to these villages. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm sure Trinity could address that, because we -- I'm sure if there was a requirement that we can't be gated -- COMMISSIONER FRY: If only she could come in now. MR. YOVANOVICH: If she comes bolting through. COMMISSIONER FRY: If only Trinity could come in now. MR. YOVANOVICH: Here she comes. Someone lock that door. Page 63 of 109 April 1, 2021 MS. SCOTT: You're asking easy questions. COMMISSIONER FRY: It really --Trinity, really, it's just in general, I'm trying to decide how to look at this from a standpoint of what interconnected means and to what extent it is a requirement. I'm looking at that spine road wondering why it has to be closed off to public travel, because it would be a great pressure relief valve for Oil Well Road and Big Cypress and a great public benefit -- it's a linear park, as they describe it -- to have it publicly accessible. And I -- frankly, in my interpretation of the objectives of the RLSA, that is what I would -- that's what my vision of meeting the objectives would look like. MS. SCOTT: Well, I'm going to defer to our Comprehensive Planning staff and our staff and Planning and Zoning staff, but to my knowledge there's nothing in the Land Development Code or the Comprehensive Plan that would require that that not be gated. And I see Ray is going to -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. That's what I thought I said earlier, but that's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: It is, but -- yeah, so you're saying this meets any definition of interconnectedness? MR. KLATZKOW: You're talking two different things, okay. The first issue is, do we have any requirement that you can't be gated? No, we've got gates all over this community. It's worse than a medieval town. The core issue is interconnectivity, okay. If we were to require interconnectivity then, obviously, there couldn't be any gates blocking it. At that point in time, you're talking about a county road there, and I'm presuming this is going to be a private road. And you're talking about as a condition of approval that that be a county road and open to the public. Now, you can make that as part of your recommendation. I'm sure the applicant will jump up and down and yell and do other things. But if you believe interconnectivity's a necessary, then you can make a recommendation that it -- for the approval that that road be open to the public. But it will be -- A& MR. BELLOWS: In addition, if I may, you could look at interconnectivity as a term as a way of measuring block parameters within the village, too. That's one way you're interconnecting various areas within an SRA boundary, by having those areas connected, those context zones connected by the local roads. MR. YOVANOVICH: And if I just -- I want to make sure you -- and I probably said this, but right here (indicating), that's the interconnection between the villages. Rivergrass Village and Longwater Village are interconnected. You will not have to go onto a county road to -- if you live in Longwater to get to the Publix that will be on the corner of Oil Well Road and the future Big Cypress. So we are interconnected, and we are meeting the goal of keeping the villages interconnected to stop using the county roads to go to services. That was a primary issue we had with Rivergrass and ultimately worked through that. That interconnection point is not an inexpensive connection point, and it also is going to include a crossing underneath that road for -- I think it's a panther crossing. So that's going to -- that's included. If you'll go back to our original presentation, there's a panther crossing there, there's another one here, and another one -- I forget exactly where on Oil Well Road, but we have three of them as part of this commitment we've made -- is Meredith still and -- Meredith Budd and Brad Cornell. We've made those commitments. So there's interconnectivity between the villages. There's also interconnectivity within the village. So I think we've met the definition of interconnectivity even with there being gates. And, again, they changed -- we changed -- the Comprehensive -- I'm sorry. The Long -Range Transportation Plan was changed to eliminate what was an extension of Randall to Page 64 of 109 April 1, 2021 this new configuration of the future Big Cypress Parkway. COMMISSIONER FRY: I may be guilty of a misinterpretation of what I've looked at or my understanding of Ave Maria as a town. I understand these are villages, okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER FRY: So just bear with me at this point. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm with you. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm trying to work through this issue where there are a number of public streets that interconnect where you can get from here to there going multiple different directions on roads that are publicly accessible. In looking at what I thought was the master plan for Rural Lands West which, as I understand, is no longer around, am I -- there is an interconnected network of internal roads -- the town center is in the middle, by the way, of that, the town core is in the center, and there is a -- there are loops and interconnected -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You're talking about Ave Maria now? COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm talking about Rural Lands West, the town, which is basically on a lot of the same land. But am I incorrect that a lot of those roads were actually publicly accessible, or was that all gated off so that you really could only travel on the main roads even in the town concept? MR. YOVANOVICH: The answer was, is Rural Lands West was gated off. We did have -- we did have a town core that was -- and town center up at, basically, the corner of Oil Well and what is now Big Cypress Parkway. That was accessible to the general community as well as our community, but the residential neighborhoods and the main spine roads to those -- serving those were, in fact, gated off. COMMISSIONER FRY: So it really wasn't that different? MR. YOVANOVICH: Not that different from what we're proposing today. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm looking at that plan now and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And but there's -- obviously, it was a million square feet of additional retail and office, but it was still a gated community. COMMISSIONER FRY: So the vision for -- even for Rural Lands West, was never that it was public roads going through neighborhoods with smaller gated communities on the sides. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: It was large gated PUDs even back in the day. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, with the much larger town core or town center concepts. COMMISSIONER FRY: Right. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions or comments? Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Karl, I'm just concerned about this interchange of the term PUD. A PUD is a Planned Unit Development. It's a specific zoning designation, and we sort of are using it as almost like gated community designs. A PUD can be -- as Mr. Yovanovich noted, could be a commercial center. We use PUDs basically for nothing more than to exceed or to amend the current code to allow for specific design standards for that designated area. So it's sort of mixing apples and oranges. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, I understand the concept. And my point really had to do with the fact that you have a spine road that would be an excellent public interconnection and a great pressure relief valve, which I thought was part of our traffic vision for the county, and that I wanted to explore the possibility. I'm getting from you, Rich, that having that as a public road is really not in the -- it's not in the vision of the developer. It's not something that you would -- that you would consider. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's a -- that's a fair statement. And in fairness, you -- I know a lot of communities that have these types of cut -through roads that either became gated Page 65 of 109 April 1, 2021 afterwards -- Foxfire, Countryside, those were cut -through roads -- that people realized that really made life miserable for those communities. And I know some other communities that, you know, don't want interconnection to occur in their community either because they don't want people who don't live in that area to be using that road as a bypass road. So I think you have the best of all the worlds in this scenario because you have the interconnection between the villages, and now you have the ability to build Big Cypress Parkway somewhat -- sometime in the future to address circulation issues for people further east to both someday go north, someday go south to find their way west if they need to and not have to rely totally on Oil Well Road. COMMISSIONER FRY: This has been very educational. I do understand what a PUD is. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know you do. COMMISSIONER FRY: But the -- I think what I was maybe suffering from is a misconception that it was really an active part of the RLSA vision that there be public -- an interconnection. I mean, like, Ave Maria has a lot of public roads in it. It has some gate communities, but there's a lot of different public roads you can travel around, a network of public roads, and I thought that was part of the RLSA vision. I don't know -- I mean, what I'm hearing and what Jeff has said is that we can propose anything and it's got to fly through the County Commission, of course, and -- but there isn't a lot of justification. There's not a mandate in the plan for that to be a public road. I'd like to see it a public road -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- because as an alternative example, I'll cite the Vineyards. That spine road is a fantastic public service not only for traffic if you don't want to get on 75, but also for biking -- biking and walking along the big sidewalk that goes across -- goes next to it. There's a park similar to how you'll have a park in the middle of this, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: But we won't -- there's differences. Now, Vineyards has a community park within the community. COMMISSIONER FRY: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: It also has a law school within the community. I don't think -- I can't remember if you can get to the elementary school from the spine road or not. COMMISSIONER FRY: You can. There's a back -- MR. YOVANOVICH: There are a lot of other things that are within the Vineyards -- yeah, the hospital. COMMISSIONER FRY: There's commercial at the other end. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. But those are -- that's different than -- that's different than where we are today. And, look, where you live, you've got -- you don't want people going up and down Oakes Boulevard as the bypass road. I mean -- COMMISSIONER FRY: We welcome them. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, well, not really. You know and I know that, so -- but, you know -- and, you know, it doesn't always -- there's not a destination really other than for our own village people to come to our commercial. Things may change a little bit with the town plan when it comes forward, but right now the villages are not at the same scale of having a hospital, having a school, having a park, community park. You know, it's a different -- it's a different scale. COMMISSIONER FRY: Points well taken. I mean, I also just point to what the County Attorney said that we do have, over time, the ability to mold this program into I'll just say maybe a more progressive version because I -- my opinion is, after reading about the RLSA, I was excited about a different version of development than what we have in the urban areas with just gated PUDs and major roads, and I'm hearing that's really not the vision. I'm disappointed to hear that. Page 66 of 109 April 1, 2021 MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, there's -- I don't think it's -- I don't think it's as bad as you're stating it. Remember, the original vision of the rural area was one unit per five acres, okay, and that's where the battle started in the late 1990s about was -- and we had a community called Twin Eagles that found a way to develop at one unit per five acres, and that's when people said, Vineyards is -- I'm sorry. Twin Eagles is one unit per five acres. You go look at a plat. Look at those lots. COMMISSIONER FRY: I was there the other day. Big lots. MR. YOVANOVICH: You have -- yeah, the huge lots with huge -- COMMISSIONER FRY: They're not five acres. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, they are. They have golf course easements all over them. When you go look at that plat, there was a way to get around the one -unit -per -five -acre concept, and we said, hold on. We don't want that. So we came up with this program that said, how do we respect people's private property rights at one unit per five acre to develop and come up with a program where the environment can get protected and we cannot use 13,000 acres to support 2,600 homes. So the program became what you have right now -- this is part of my close -- a program that is going to be -- the compactness and the innovation -- and I know there was kind of a visceral groan when staff said, the program's the innovation. It really was the innovation to scale down and force the development on the less sensitive areas and to have these development standards that look a lot like a PUD. It's not a PUD, but it looks a lot like a PUD when you look at the development standards. And that was intentional because you want the -- you didn't want these big five -acre ranchettes out east, and that's how we came up with this program. So we're not that far off from the vision. You know, Ave Maria is a great community. I'm sure Mr. Klucik loves it. But not every community should be Ave Maria. There should be diversity of community types. And so I think the program is being implemented; slower than people had hoped. MR. KLATZKOW: And if I can shortcut this. I just asked Trinity. She doesn't want the road. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. We could have cut a lot of time out. MR. KLATZKOW: I thought it was a great idea, between you and me, but the expert says she doesn't want it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, there she is. MS. SCOTT: If I could go a little bit further into that. In my presentation, I talked about the Alternative 2-plus, which was the network that the Board adopted. The Board adopted that network. One of our study areas was actually something that was similar to this roadway which would take Randall Boulevard all the way out and connect it up to Oil Well Road, and that was not the option that was chosen by the Board of County Commissioners. So that was -- part of our Alternative 2-plus, we came up with a larger network within the area. We are trying to maintain a majority of the roadways within rural Golden Gate Estates as four -lane roadways and have opted for a possible six -lane Big Cypress Parkway in the future. So that was -- that alignment, give or take a little, was studied in-depth by county staff. COMMISSIONER FRY: Trinity, if the RLSA resulted in a string of more villages that are similar to these three and hopefully an occasional town, that would be perfectly acceptable to you in terms of traffic if they were just gated PUDs and traffic was really only on the main roads with an interconnection between the villages and that type of thing? That would be -- that would fulfill the county's traffic vision? MS. SCOTT: What I would say is we will look at each on their own merits as they come forward. There may be other reasons why they can't interconnect. This particular village is surrounded by a WRA which has extensive permitting requirements to be able to connect those Page 67 of 109 April 1, 2021 villages. So it's a balance, and we would look at each on their own individual merits as they come forward. COMMISSIONER FRY: I will let it go at that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't have anything further subject to public speakers or -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I have a couple of things I'd like to ask of you, sir. When staff made its presentation, they identified I don't know if it was eight or nine conditions of approval. Are they all acceptable to you? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. We had agreed to them at the first meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Now, with respect to the affordable housing where there's an Option A and an Option B, would the applicant agree to utilize Option B which is the 2.5 percent gross acreage? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we would prefer to have the option. That's basically what's being proposed in the revisions to the RLSA program. We may choose to do it within the project, or we may choose to do the 2.5 acres [sic]. So we would prefer to keep both options on the table. We agreed to that condition, and I think that, you know, we'll obviously be having discussions with staff as we move forward. CHAIRMAN FRYER: My strong preference would be that Option B, 2.5 percent, because it would create an opportunity for not just moderate and gap but also low and very low to get really more diversity of income ranges and housing types. But I take it you're unwilling to make that commitment? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not willing to commit to it today. I mean, you'll -- there -- I think there'll be further discussions about that. Right now we've got to look at the villages on their own. We're committing to your proposed changes to the RL -- GMP provisions to the RLSA to either do it on site or do it off site. We're committing to those conditions even though we don't technically have to under the current provisions. So we'd like to have those -- that flexibility. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ned, I want to -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: --just ask one question about the town plan which, of course, is not part of this, but it is potentially a very positive thing where we back into having the allocation of lands and uses from a town. So just for everybody's benefit, just quickly summarize the process by which that will become part of this equation, the town plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, not to steal Mr. Cohen's thunder, but briefly -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Cliffs notes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Cliffs notes version is assuming the two villages get approved, we would come back within 12 months and bring forward -- submit a town plan, and then it would go through the normal review process, and you guys will review and be able to raise any issues or questions you have regarding that town plan, with the town. COMMISSIONER FRY: The commitment is that you will within 12 months -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- come back. It may not be the exact one we're seeing now -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. That's the -- COMMISSIONER FRY: -- but it will bring it up to standards of all the town ratios and uses? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. It's important to have that on the record. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's important that you know that you're not being -- Page 68 of 109 April 1, 2021 COMMISSIONER FRY: Played. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- shut out of the process for reviewing the town. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I want to emphasize that, because I think that's a key point, that whatever this town aggregation plan is going to come forward with, it's going to have all the requirements that would have applied to a town had we started off with one; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. The new version of your requirements, not your old version, because, remember, your old version by -- the answer to your question is is that there are certain things that don't apply to towns today but we are committing to do. One of them is the affordable housing. Our town plan agrees to the affordable housing, okay. So what I'm saying -- I don't want you to say what you would get today, because you're actually getting more than you would get today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay? I mean, we've assumed certain RLSA provisions are going to get adopted. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And assuming that they do because they're going to be coming back for adoption, that the aggregation -- the town aggregation plan will fulfill all of the requirements as if you had started off with a town under the new RLSA rules under both the -- under both the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code? MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to make sure we're clear on two things. The town plan has absolutely nothing to do with what we're doing right now. So I'm nervous about getting into that level of detail. I'm happy -- if you want to talk about that item, we can talk about that item in greater detail on May 6th. And I think it's in fairness to Mr. Cohen. It's his item. Staff should tell you -- tell you those answers. But you've read your staff report already, the informational item, and I think it's a very, very good concept that will be brought forward in greater detail on May 6th. I don't -- there's no -- I don't want -- I don't want there -- I think we're getting -- we're mixing too many different topics of discussion by focusing right now on the town plan. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well -- but you mentioned the report that we have in front of us, and the hearing, of course, on that has been continued to the 5th. My read of the proposed agreement, at that time, and the plan itself would be a substantial relaxation of several requirements in the RLSA and the LDC. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're misreading it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So you're -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You are totally misreading that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, come back to me here now. Wait a minute. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're totally misreading it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So, therefore, the -- what will be brought forward will be in compliance and will not be a relaxation of any of the requirements for a town under the new RLSA if it's adopted? MR. YOVANOVICH: We are not asking you to relax any of the current town standards, and we are -- let's leave it at that. I don't know where you got the idea that we were somehow asking to be exempted from the town standards as they're finding their way through the process. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, just my reading of the proposed -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, how about we go off-line, and then you call me, like we always talk. If we -- why don't you call me and say, Rich, this language says this, this is what's making me nervous, and we can talk through that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I -- this is -- this has been helpful. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: I believe one of the things that you're offering in the town plan is to utilize 10 credits per acre instead of eight as is required currently; isn't that accurate? Page 69 of 109 April 1, 2021 MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: So it's actually a bit of a bonus in that area. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're -- I'm telling you -- COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm trying to help you, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: You are. I don't want to mix apples and oranges. I'm telling you that what we -- Mr. Cohen has done a phenomenal job of working to come up with a plan that is a win -win. And I don't know where -- I don't know where we got this perception that somehow we were somehow not meeting code. COMMISSIONER FRY: No, I asked the question because we're voting on villages where, to be honest with you, the prospect of a town plan is a factor to me. I can't speak for others. But the fact that we can back into some of the benefits of the town and the additional services is a benefit to me. So you have solidified that you've made the commitment to come back with a plan that will meet the town requirement for all three villages combined within a year, and that's what -- that's what I'm -- MR. MULHERE: If we get approved. COMMISSIONER FRY: A simple "yes" will do, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you know, I wish a simple answer -- it's never that simple. Let's -- can we just wait until May 6th, and we can get into the finer points of what acreage is going to be considered the town; how we address traffic. I think you'll be pleased. COMMISSIONER FRY: I will accept that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anything else from Planning Commission for the applicant or, for that matter, for staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Now, it's been mentioned public comment, and I'd like to test this out on the Planning Commission and find out what our desire is. A lot of people in organizations have had a chance to speak already. I'd like to just know if there's anybody here or on the phone who has not yet spoken. AAL MR. YOVANOVICH: Hold on. We -- Commissioner Fryer, you closed that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, what were you talking about when you said -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I was talking about for Bellmar. For Bellmar, I didn't want Bellmar to be people getting up who already spoke on Bellmar speaking again. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood. MR. YOVANOVICH: I never advocated opening up this public hearing again. If I gave that impression, I apologize. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You did give the impression, and that's why I was going to poll the Planning Commission, but I understand your point now. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay, okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. So anything further from anyone? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Are we closing the public hearing? CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's already closed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: For deliberation then? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. I'd like to -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- make a statement. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please do. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You know, I'm just going to kind of speak from the heart on this, because it's been a difficult issue. We started this trek over six weeks ago. We heard opinions from numerous public speakers, numerous points and concerns to consider in our Page 70 of 109 April 1, 2021 deliberation. And I want to thank the staff, the League of Women Voters, the Conservancy, the Florida Wildlife Federation, the National Audubon -- and the National Audubon Society for their input in detailed preservations. Clearly, there are -- each of these organizations are passionate in their views and in their conclusions. That said, we are not here today to establish new rules or to apply new rules to the RLSA. My position is that I'm compelled to follow both the GMP and the LDC, and I believe that's what we're compelled to do. In review, Longwater -- and I'm going to just cite both since both were brought up by the public. Longwater, we're preserving 4,800 acres from -- in SSA 14 and 17. In Bellmar, we're preserving 2,200 acres from SSA 18. 1 just want to continue. During the public comment, I repeatedly heard references to 2006 scientific article titled, "How much is enough?" by Ran Kautz. That's K-a-a-t-z. He was an author. Then him and several authors wrote the article. Those giving testimony cited why Primary Panther Habitat should be protected. Not doing so certainly, in their position, would lead to the panthers' extinction. But I do, I question those touting the article and ask that they read the entire article in its entirety and take a good look at Google Earth in Eastern Collier County. The open lands cited as Primary Panther Habitat by several of the petitioners -- or several of the public comments, most of which are farmlands in uplands, and those 20 years ago were designated as SRAs. And what does an SRA mean? Stewardship Receiving Area. I sort of heard the public statements seem to conflict -- or conflate Primary Panther Habitat with the SRA and being one and the same. And I've heard different testimony saying about Primary Panther Habitat in open lands is probably the least desirable. So there's that question. But I do note that the article that was cited used 1995 aerial photography and -- but it was published in 2006, and the author used the same land stat that the staff used back in '99 and 2000 to develop and identify the areas in both the RLSA and the RMFMUD [sic]. Since the data 1981 to 2001 was used, again, compiled before the RLSA was even adopted. So there's a debate on the whole issue of the panther and the panther protection. But the RLSA was definitely developed with that in mind. The article concludes with the plea that was -- always seemed to be overlooked, that the author stated an ambitious comprehensive strategy for working with private landowners -- and I stress private landowners -- to protect, enhance, and restore panther habitat with primary dispersal and secondary zones is essential. That's what the RLSA does. The strategy was to protect panther habitat. The dispersal zone solely -- dispersal zone, as I understand, is solely in Hendry, but I'm not an expert. The RLSA was developed in two years of meetings and hearings to develop the program. Yes, there were concerned groups that did not get all they wanted, but the program was formulated on compromises that resulted at the time in a win -win for all parties. Three hundred square miles of the county; 193,000 acres; 182,000 acres of private property. So approximately 94 percent of the RLSA is private property. I heard from speakers. I've gotten emails saying that we have to protect this land, but it's not county land. It's private property. Certainly -- any of the agencies that want to protect this land certainly have the right and the privilege, and if they can raise the funds, they can certainly attempt to buy the land and put it in preservation. I'm faced with the alternative, and that is to apply the rules and regulations. Ninety-three thousand acres total SSAs was identified and preserving over 55,000 acres at no cost to the taxpayer. The goals of the county were to protect agricultural activities to prevent premature Page 71 of 109 April 1, 2021 conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural uses, to direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat, to enable the conservation of rural land to other uses and appropriate locations, and to discourage urban sprawl. I believe that the rules that were created -- and we debated the RLSA, but this, as staff has come in and stated clearly, and they've concluded, that this petition meets all of those requirements. I still cannot question that it does not. I just want to highlight as well that this development still has to undergo federal permitting. I believe it's almost five years now they've been under a study from a Habitat Conservation Plan, an HCP, that you all -- so you all know and understand is being worked through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and it is a very laborious process. They still have to go under reviews for Section 404 and Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and are still entitled -- or required to follow the Endangered Species Act. So there's no waiver of any of these requirements based on this approval. Clearly, I'm in favor of clean water and clear air, as we all are, but there are strict review processes through the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and for the South Florida Water Management District. Each have a specific area. And, again, Section 404, there's a debate on the -- whether that should be with the U.S. Corps of Engineers or with the State. That decision is made. It's being debated. But the fact of the matter is, they still have to comply with the federal law, and that's the Clean Water Act and Section 404 of the water -quality certification through the South Florida Water Management District. And I'll lastly -- because I received email on this as well. And this was a while ago, but we all received a letter from the Department of Interior. And there was several news articles citing how the Department of Interior asked for a pause of this program. This request was not -- this request was on letterhead from the Department of Interior, but it was from the refuge manager of the Florida Panther Wildlife Preserve, and it was not from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and it was not staffed through either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife or through the Department of Interior. I believe that in my almost 30 years in the federal government U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as a commander of the U.S. Corps of Engineers in Savannah, if that kind of letter ever went out of my organization, I'd probably be discussing that with the employee, because they took quite umbrage to the fact of representing a federal agency with no authority to do so. U.S. Fish and Wildlife has been involved in this program since its inception. Since we were -- we, the county, were told to do this in the late '90s to comply with the Governor's order, and I believe that the program that was developed was in full concert and coordination with all the federal agencies. So, again, that was a lot of media about that, and I think it was, sadly, misinformation that was promoted that really was a disservice both to the service and to the Department of Interior. So with that -- those are my positions. I'm going to recommend approval subject to the staff as proposed. I would only ask one thing of the petitioner, that between now and when they meet with the Board of County Commissioners, that they do confer with the Florida Wildlife Federation in regards to the size of the panther crossing where they interconnect to make sure that that panther crossing will be sized to allow for adequate passing of panthers between the two areas. I have no idea what that requires as far as how large or what kind of panther crossing that should be. But I would recommend that they discuss that and possibly both the petitioner and the Florida Wildlife Federation, as we heard from Brad, basically look at that and maybe can reach an agreeable conclusion. So with that, I yield to my fellow commissioners. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anyone else wish to make a statement at this time? I'm going to make one as well, but I want to wait. Page 72 of 109 April 1, 2021 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, I'm going to -- I'd make one. I think it's -- I came here kind of with a feeling, being on the fence. Some of my concerns were what we were trying to stimulate in terms of what the development looks like. We've talked about compactness that -- I was challenged with the fiscal neutrality, some of those -- it's a very complex topic, and it probably can't be simplified as it has been in some cases. I was very pleased with the presentations that addressed a lot of those issues that I've had. And, quite frankly, the most compelling -- and I saw this before Mr. Mulhere showed this, basically, what else could you do with that -- you can't meet a lot of what we -- me probably believe this village should look like because the geography constrains it. And I see, in looking at it from that perspective, that's a pretty good effort at trying to follow the rules in what we're trying to do with the RLSA. So from my standpoint, I went from probably leaning the other way to leaning, as Joe would say, for the project. (Jeff Klatzkow left the boardroom and is absent for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, I came in believing that I was not going to be able to vote for this, and it really resolved -- revolved mostly around my vision of what interconnected means and what I thought it meant within the RLSA. I have to say, you know, I don't know how many of us grew up in gated PUDs here, but I grew up in a town where we had none. I'm profoundly disappointed, I think, in just what I'm hearing here is the future of Collier County is going to be just a continuation of gated PUDs like we have here in the urban area, and I thought that the eastern county would be different. So if we have the opportunity to take a bite at the apple in amending the vision of this, I really would like to see more. You know, what's wrong with a neighborhood every now and then? And so the only observation I would make -- or the main observation I would make has to do with the environmental groups out there. And, I mean, I have great respect for all of them that presented. You have the Florida Wildlife Federation and Audubon, who seem to have come in with, I'll say, a stance of it preserves land, which is good. It's preserving the right land. I thought the NRI discussion was compelling in terms of, well, why this land, because there certainly is panther telemetry on this farmland. But when you look at it compared to the lands that had a higher NRI score and therefore are in the SSAs, it seems to me to be as good -- in an imperfect world, the best place that you can build. I think the NRI system seems to make sense and had been well thought out and that we're picking the least harmful places to build, so I kind of thought that point was well made. But you've got -- and then you also -- FWF and Audubon seem to report that you've had negotiations with the applicant, who I have great respect, and I would point out that they spent millions of dollars to come forward with a town plan previously. And while I brought it up repeatedly, because I still have heartache that it didn't go through, I think they've demonstrated a dedication to the quality of Collier County, and so nothing I've -- no comments I've made in any way impugn the -- you know, my thought about the respect for the developer. But the Conservancy and League of Women Voters have taken a different approach, and this is where I find the kind of the major conflict in my mind is everybody seems to have the same objective in mind, but you've got the Conservancy, which I think -- and League of Women Voters asking for more of a redo, more studies, and this is just all -- you know, it just needs to be started from the beginning. I haven't heard a lot of traction. I haven't heard that gain a lot of traction. It seems to be a bit of a zero -sum game. And I know when I first got involved with my neighborhood 15, 17 years ago a lot of my neighbors had -- came in with a -- zero -sum game meaning there's a winner and there's a loser, and there's no in between. And it just occurred tome back then that, at least in Page 73 of 109 April 1, 2021 terms of our neighborhood, there were battles -- when you do that, you either -- you either win or you lose, and you lose 100 percent or you win 100 percent, and we just took a different tact which was when we thought we could stop something, we stopped it. If we didn't feel we could, we just negotiated the best we could, and that seems to be the approach that Florida Wildlife and Audubon have taken, but Conservancy has drawn a harder stance. I sure would love -- because you guys are all united, I think, in concern for Collier County and preservation of wildlife and the panther and all that. I don't think anybody disagrees, but you've gotten really radically different approaches to how to get there. And so that's confusing for us up here. I think it somewhat -- in some ways when you've got two groups that seem to be united on the same mission and they are totally, for the most part, satisfied with something, and then you have other groups that seem to have the same mission but are totally against it, one dilutes the other. I mean, it's impossible for us to, like, weigh both and choose both sides. So it sure would be nice if the environmental groups came in in lockstep. I mean, it would just be -- and I think -- and you also would be more effective as a negotiator with applicants as well. So that's a sidenote, and it may or may not ever happen. But I certainly respect all the groups, and everybody's invested a lot in this, so it's an honor just to be part of the conversation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Karl, I'd just make a comment. And I bypassed, because I wanted to say Meredith as well, Meredith Budd, because it was her recommendation as well for the crossing, so I wanted to make sure. But to answer your question about my recollection when this came to the county 20 years -- and I'm talking, again, about the rules, and we went -- we, as a panel, had already gone through the restudy, there was agreement in unison. There was some disagreement, but it was sort of a win -win. Both the Conservancy, League of Women Voters, the Wildlife Federation, and Audubon all, in some way, were -- there was losses and there were gains. But the fact -- the issue here was, they are resulting in lands that will be preserved, private lands that will be preserved, and this is not public land. And we've heard -- and I've gotten mails. You have to protect the land, but it's not our land. It's private land. And this program was voluntary, and it was recognized that not everybody would get everything. But the fact is, there's a significant amount of land that's going to be put into preservation. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think you said a mouthful, Joe, when you said we're not here to change the rules. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: We have to apply the rules that are in place now and the standards that are in place and the scientific basis for evaluating the lands. And so I think that's fundamental. If there are things that need to be changed, they need to be changed, but it isn't going to happen here in the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. Well, I -- my three colleagues, I really appreciate what you said, and I generally agree, and I -- you know, I too, you know, don't like it when -- you know, when I see people on the same -- you know, wanting -- I think everybody wants to conserve the environment, you know, to help the panther, to protect wildlife, you know, to do our best. And my understanding was always -- and I still believe it's true -- that the RLSA program, it's an attempt to ensure that's not a zero -sum game, and that's the program we have. And that now is the law, so to speak. Those are the rules that -- you know, that we're here to evaluate this application under. I don't think any applications are perfect. This one seems to meet the -- you Page 74 of 109 April 1, 2021 know, the requirements, and so that's why I don't think I have a choice but to vote to approve it. What I would say is throughout all this process -- and I know, you know, our chairman has -- you know, clearly wants to include this in the discussion, and I totally understand why. It's so unfortunate that, you know, this -- that we're not looking, you know, at a town; that this -- you know, this was parceled up, and everybody realizes that, I think. And I think we're -- you know, there's some commitment to try to move beyond that. But what I can say is, to the concern that was expressed, I grew up on 30 acres, the end -- you know, the last school bus stop on a dirt road, you know, and the road was closed in the winter. You know, that's how I grew up. And, you know, I had all kinds of animals, you know, not all at the same time, but, you know, I grew up on a farm. So I love -- you know, I love nature, and I certainly didn't even know what a PUD or a gated community was until I moved to Ave Maria. And I live here and I love it, you know. And the only reason I bring it up, it's come up, it's in the RLSA. It's a (unintelligible). It's a town. And I hope that -- you know, that we see that there's a huge benefit, you know, to having a town and that that works out, because when we put impediments, you know, to making something that's more comprehensive, which is, you know, apparently what happened, you know, with Rural Lands West, then we don't get something like Ave Maria where most of it is not gated, and it is -- it is a community. You know, the feel that I think you were indicating, you know, about it being a town and, you know -- and a neighborhood. That's what I love about Ave Maria. It is a neighborhood, and it's particularly because its RLSA program, you know, guided or kind of, what do I want to say, funneled or, you know, helped the developer realize that that was a really good way to use this land. And I will just say one more thing that -- because my friends tell me I can be loquacious, so I realize I've got to wrap it up. But I agree that the -- you know, the more we can, you know, work together and try to make it clear what these things mean, you know, these terms mean -- there was a lot of confusion -- the better we can be, and maybe that's one of the things that we can look at is trying to clarify some of these definitions down the road when we look at the RLSA program. COMMISSIONER FRY: Robb, it's Karl Fry. Just a quick question for you. You live -- there are lots of different communities within Ave Maria. I think you helped me put a hand on what I was struggling for was the sense of identity, like you're part of something bigger, and so I see people in Longwater being -- feeling like they're part of Longwater, just like somebody in Grey Oaks or another gated PUD feels like they're part of that, but they're not necessarily part of something bigger, Naples in general. But do the people that are in the different communities within Ave Maria all feel like they have an identity as far as being part of Ave Maria? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, I think really nice because people do belong to their neighborhood, but then people also feel like they belong to a town or the community, and that is one of the very special aspects of Ave Maria is if you go out there, you know, there's a place where -- you know, there is a town center in the way that you would think about it without looking at a legal definition. There's a place in the center of town where people come and socialize and gather, and there's a sense that, yes, I might belong, you know, to Maple Ridge or Hampton Village or whatever, but I actually feel a kinship as somebody who lives in Ave Maria with all the other people who may live in other neighborhoods. And that's definitely -- that's, you know, something that maybe will benefit if we turn this into -- you know, if eventually these villages become a town, that can be one of the things that's fostered is that sense of, you know, identity, you know, to a larger, you know, community. I know it sounds corny. It's -- you know, I talked about brochure language and now I'm, you know, talking about brochure language, you know, as if I'm an advocate of it. It's not that Page 75 of 109 April 1, 2021 I -- you know, it's that I love, you know, the brochure language. Like everybody else, I'd like to see that become a reality. And, you know -- and when -- you know, when there's impediments to that, you know, it's frustrating. And, obviously, some of the things I've been frustrated with. Like everything, you know, Ave Maria's not perfect, but it's a great place, and, you know -- and there's so much that's good, and part of that is because of this larger town. So I'm just hopeful that -- I went on and on. My main point is I'm voting for this, and I'm hoping that eventually that, you know, that this town -concept conversion does go through, because I just think there are so many benefits to it. So that's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. Well, there's a motion on the floor, and I'm going to second it. MR. EASTMAN: Nice. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I agree with everything Joe said. I've got all my little notes here. But he's pretty much said it all. For me, it's important to remember this is a voluntary program with private landowners working with all these other agencies and working everything out. This has been going on for a long time. For me it's important that land is preserved and, in this case, it's almost 1,000 -- about 1,000 acres is going to be developed with about 4,800 acres in preservation and, to me, that's huge. Whatever it takes to get there, I think we've gotten there so far. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Six thousand acres counting both. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: COMMISSIONER SCHMITT COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But I'm just talking about this one. Yeah, 4,800. Yeah. That's huge to me. That's it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I've got some comments to make. But what I'm going to ask for your indulgence on is my need for a restroom break, so -- and probably the court reporter's, possibly, as well. Maybe others. So it's 2:58. We'll be back at 10 after 3:00, and I'll make my comments and we'll have a vote. In recess. (A brief recess was had from 2:58 p.m. to 3:09 p.m., and Tom Eastman left the boardroom and is absent for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, let's return, please. I'm going to make some comments about Longwater, but first I want to offer at least my perception of history that differs somewhat than had been mentioned along the way, first of all, in a question that Commissioner Fry asked about what the original rules were back in 2002 with respect to how much acreage could be developed and then also Commissioner Schmitt has provided us with some very useful insight as to the early days. I have looked at the historical materials rather carefully, and I come to a different point of view than perhaps others, and I'd like to explain that to you. In 2002 the RLSA overlay was adopted. Throughout the two -and -a -half -year public process leading up to the adoption of the program, the public was told that the maximum development potential for SRAs, including towns, villages, hamlets, compact rural developments, was 16,800 acres or 9 percent of the total area. The rest of the lands, or 91 percent, would be set aside as conservation and agriculture. Now, after the program was adopted and during the first review, which I believe took place between 2007 and 2009, it became very clear -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Could you just repeat that, just because I want to make sure I have the numbers right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sure. That leading up to the BCC's adoption, it was the understanding of at least some of the constituents and associations who were participating in that Page 76 of 109 April 1, 2021 discussion that 16,800 acres, or 9 percent of the total area, would be developable, and the rest would be set aside as conservation and agriculture. So after the program was adopted and during the period of time between 2007 and 2009, I believe, it became clear that the program actually had much greater capacity for development than 16,800 acres, and during that review it was discovered that the program created capacity for developing approximately 43,300 acres, which was about a 250 percent greater capacity for SRA development than at least had been represented in 2002. Now, we ask ourselves, what happened? How did we get to that place? Well, according to the records as I reviewed them, and including minutes of the Planning Commission back then, only a few days prior to the adoption of the plan policies 1.21 and 3.11 were amended, increasing the number of stewardship credits in the system. The workshops and the RLSA committee meetings had ended, so the public and most individuals involved in the making of the RLSA program were not aware that these policies had been added nor had they been informed of the extent to which they would increase the capacity of the program. In fact, Mark Strain, planning commissioner at the time, asked during the Collier County Planning Commission's RLSA adoption hearing on October 17 of 2002 whether or not the added policies had been publicly disclosed. Now, keep in mind the Planning Commission adoption hearing was just five days before the RLSA program was actually adopted. Then Mr. Strain asked, and I quote, anybody that can answer this is fine with me. The policies and this whole process that you are presenting to us today, did that go back to the committee, and has the committee approved all of this? Has it had all the public input in that regard? And the county's outside legal counsel, a lady by the name of Martie Tumbler [sic], replied, quote, no. In fact, that was the same. That didn't happen in the fringe either. Um, there was some discussion. We wish we had the time to do that. I mean, as you are all, I'm sure, very well aware, we were under a very quick block in order to comply with the final order here. In a perfect world, it would have been nice to do that, but we had to deal with the constraints that we got. And so it was really -- closed quote. And so it was really not until 2008 that the Winston [sic] Miller firm, I believe, the landowners' consultants, who had been in charge of creating the program for Collier County, provided these calculations that showed a vast increase in the potential for developable acreage, far greater, I think, than any of the interest groups or constituencies or associations who had been part of the planning process had anticipated. So I think that that's a worthwhile perspective from which to view where we are today. It's not as though organizations like the Conservancy or the League of Women Voters were going along with something and now have changed their mind. They went along with something that appeared to them to be one thing, and it turned out as a result of an 1 lth-hour change that was not publicly vetted to be another thing. So having said that, I'm now going to turn to my comments that are specific to Longwater Village. Bear with me one second here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, before you do, can I ask a question on your comment? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I -- no argument. I agree, and I recall vividly what happened, but we are -- we are where we are, and I hate to use that term, but the rules -- that argument came up during the restudy, and we wanted the restudy -- we, being Collier County -- 10 years ago, and we just didn't get it till just recently. So I'm -- your point is correct, but the rules are the rules. That's -- so I can't -- I can't take a ball -peen hammer and kind of pound something Page 77 of 109 April 1, 2021 we wish we would have done around something that the Board has already codified. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're correct, Commissioner Schmitt, and the only reason I brought this up is because you had brought it up. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I'm glad you did, because we appreciate your personal recollections. They're very valuable to us. And also Commissioner Fry had asked a question about, is it the case that what was approved back in 2002 is still the very same thing? And Mr. Yovanovich said, yes, it was. Well, that may be technically true, but I thought it was important to set this record straight. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, that's good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Okay. As you, perhaps, would expect, from the comments I've made, my vote today will be to recommend disapproval of the Longwater SRA petition in its present form, and my reasons are somewhat numerous but, for the sake of brevity and clarity, I'm going to limit my comments to just three subjects: Fiscal neutrality, housing diversity, and smart growth. Fiscal neutrality. Our county law, and specifically 4.18 of our Growth Management Plan's FLUE as well as Section 4.08.07 of the LDC, both require that the applicant approve fiscal neutrality at buildout. Its burden of proof is by competent substantial evidence. Our ordinances also require that such burden of proof must be met at the time the application is submitted, which means now. Now, this application, in my opinion, has failed to meet that burden of proof with respect to fiscal neutrality. Now, with respect to the difference between persons per household and persons -per - housing unit -- I'm not sure that would have been the best terminology to use but, nonetheless, I accept and understand the distinction that staff has drawn, and I also believe that it is important to start with a persons -per -household number and then edit it or alter it based upon provable factors such as vacancies, such as in -season peaks. That's -- those are relevant factors that should be taken into account when we look at the actual number of people who are going to be demanding these infrastructure services. However, someone needed to come forward and demonstrate that these numbers which have been reduced for vacancy and possibly increased for peak season, those numbers have a basis in fact, and I did not hear that. Instead, I heard references to, well, there's an organization out here that's been doing it for 30 years. Well, you know, time is important; I get that. But here we are sitting listening to the evidence on this particular matter, and I believe we're entitled to have the proof brought forward that the significant reduction from the average of 2.45 persons per household that is roughly the average of the U.S. Census and BEBR and MPO 2045 and our own AUIR, that the reductions -- the reduction in those numbers is somehow grounded in provable fact, and that's what I did not hear. What, instead, we heard is that for many years a lower number has been used and, therefore, it should be accepted as evidence in this matter. And, of course, the EMS number that was used by DPFG is not only rather elderly at this point, but it's also based on the entirety of the county, the whole county, including both more and less affluent areas. Longwater, if approved, would be a gated, newly -constructed village. I find it hard to believe that the vacancy numbers that are being offered for us to accept and rely upon are accurate for this newly -constructed gated community. In fact, I don't believe that burden of proof has been met. And why is it important to be met? Because the persons per household, the lower it is, the lower the fiscal impact will be and, therefore, it's easier to achieve fiscal neutrality. Another word about PPH. As I pointed out at our March 18 meeting, to me, at least, it's interesting that when paid advocates such as those that supported the Barron Collier Immokalee Road Estates Commercial Subdistrict that was at our hearing two weeks ago used a much higher Page 78 of 109 April 1, 2021 PPH number. Now, those experts wanted to justify allowing for more commercial uses, and using a higher PPH, of course, reduces or -- excuse me -- produces a picture of greater demand for commercial uses. Now, in its work for that developer, the firm of ESRI actually projected a PPH of 2.76 for the very same or almost the same area of Eastern Collier County. Then look at the expert analysis that we're going to be offered in April 15 or whenever the Immokalee Road Fourth Street Northeast Mixed -Use District comes before us. In that case, and I'm referring to Table 22 of their expert's analysis, in the year 2020 for roughly the same segment of Eastern Collier County, they're projecting 2.29 persons per household. And so the advocates of commercial uses argue for higher PPH, and those of primarily residential uses argue for lower ones. Advocates of roughly even mix come to somewhere in between. Different experts out there are trying to meet their applicant's burden of proving sufficient demand for commercial uses on the one hand and fiscal neutrality for residential uses on the other, but they're arguing using way different estimates of persons per household. And this shouldn't be a moving target. Persons per household should be what it is. Now, there may be small variations depending upon how the experts calculate it, but residential persons per household in a particular area roughly 300 miles of Eastern -- square miles of Eastern Collier County, we should be a lot closer to agreement than ranging between 2.76 and right around 2, because those differences which have been argued and advanced on the high side for commercial and on the low side for residential fiscal neutrality, leave us at a point where we're being asked to divine what the real number is, and that's not our role. Our role is to have an accurate number proven to us by competent substantial evidence. So I think I want to thank Ms. Sue Faulkner of staff at our last meeting because she acknowledged my observation that these numbers seem to come from consultants who are arguing commercial, the numbers are higher; residential, the numbers are lower; and maybe evenly divided between commercial and residential. The PPH that we're being asked to accept is somewhere in between. So I want to keep in mind two overriding facts on this. First, whether a developer is building mostly commercial, mostly residential, or somewhere in between, that should have no effect on residential occupancy, how many persons per household there are in this segment of Eastern Collier County. That number for any particular point in time should be roughly a constant. It is what it is, and we don't have competent substantial evidence as to what that number is in this case. The second overriding fact is that each applicant before us must prove all aspects of its case by competent substantial evidence. Again, as I said, it's not our job to try to divine the correct PPH number. The applicant has the burden of proof. We need to hear evidence. We need to take away from that evidence a level of confidence that we can rely on when we cast our vote. So what is the result of undercounting PPH? You're going to see under -- you're going to see lower levels of -- excuse me -- higher levels of cost and lower levels of financing coverage for fire, EMS, law enforcement, roadway infrastructure, and schools, just to name a few. Those are variables that all depend upon persons per household. The more people you have, the more individuals that are going to be in a neighborhood who are demanding those services. Therefore, it's going to be harder to hit a target of fiscal neutrality. So I'm concerned, and I have been concerned since day one, on behalf of the taxpayers of this county. And I'm going to speak out for them, and I'm going to continue to speak out for them, and I do not believe that the proof has been adequate that they will not end up subsidizing to some degree or another this development. Now, turning to housing diversity. Again, our county laws, the FLUE Policy 4.7.2 and Section 4.08.07 of the LDC, require that the SRA offer a range of housing types and price levels to Page 79 of 109 April 1, 2021 accommodate diverse age and incomes. Now, I'm glad that staff and the applicant were able to reach an accord that offered Options A and B, the 10 percent occupancy -- 10 percent housing units or the 2.5 percent of the gross acreage. But I asked the applicant if they would agree to the 2.5 percent this afternoon, and they said they could not. They wanted to keep their option open and, therefore, it's quite possible that this particular array of affordable housing would be limited to people in moderate and gap levels of wealth, and so I don't think that that adequately fulfills the obligation to offer a range of housing diversity. So I would have been able to remove this objection from my three if we could have gotten an agreement at 2.5 percent gross acreage, but we weren't able to get there. Now, smart growth. And I realize we've all spent a great deal of time trying to decide what smart growth means and we all, perhaps, have different interpretations of it. I have my view, and it has to do, I think, with a number of factors, including innovative design. And as I look at 4.08.07 and the Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element, the Group 4 policies require fulfillment of certain standards that many experts call smart growth. The Growth Management Plan requires compliance with the density and intensity provisions of the LDC. So what is smart growth? Well, let me quote three provisions from 4.08.07 to provide three examples that are relevant to this application. First of all, villages should include a mixed -use district village center to serve as a focal point for the community support services and facilities. And, as I mentioned, in this application, the village center is nowhere near the center of the village. Instead, it is spotted down at the extreme southwest corner of the village along the big -- the future Big Cypress Parkway to be part of a long strip mall composed of its sibling so-called village centers, all designed primarily to attract customers from drive -by traffic. Second, villages shall be designed in a compact, pedestrian -friendly form. In this application, there is approximately 2.5 miles of distance from the so-called village center to the northeastern portion of the village. Hardly what I would call walking distance, hardly compact as required by FLUE 4.2 and FLUE 1.2. More accurately described, in my opinion at least, as long and serpentine. Pedestrian unfriendly. Three, villages shall be developed in a progressive rural -to -urban continuum with the greatest density, intensity, and diversity occurring within the village center to the least density, intensity, and diversity occurring within the neighborhood edge. Aside from the plain meaning of the word "center," I submit to you that the requirement of progressive continuum -- and it doesn't say in just three directions or just one direction. I think the clear indication is in all directions that there needs to be a progressive continuum going from the greatest to the least density and intensity and diversity, and you don't find that here when the village center, so-called center, actually physically butts up to the neighborhood edge. It's just not there. So that pretty much concludes the remarks I wanted to make. There are additional factors that I think could have been made, but you may not think that my report was brief, but it could have been considerably longer, but I think I've gone on long enough. The only thing I would do at this point is to ask respectfully that staff include the reasons for my vote verbatim in the BCC agenda packet, and I think since the other Planning Commissioners have all taken the time to articulate their reasons, they should also be included verbatim in the BCC agenda packet. And with that, I will call for any further discussion. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing none, there's a -- it's been moved, I think, by Commissioner Schmitt; is that correct? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And seconded by the Vice Chair. Do you want to restate your Page 80 of 109 April 1, 2021 motion, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My recommendation was to approve the petition as proposed subject to the amendments, and I can't recall any of them, really. Subject to the conditions that were cited by the staff. I don't believe there are any amendments. And the only thing I asked was between now and the Board of County Commissioners that they work with the Wildlife Federation and I believe it was Audubon Society, but it was more the Florida Wildlife Federation, Meredith Budd, in regards to the crossing. There was an issue about the size of the crossing. I have no idea of the specifics on that, but that may be some accommodation that could be made. But that was not a stipulation. It was more of a request between now and when they meet with the Board. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Commissioner Schmitt. Commissioner Klucik, are you still with us, sir? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I am. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Good. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Those opposed? Nay. It passes 6-1. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: 5-1. MR. YOVANOVICH: 5-1. CHAIRMAN FRYER: 5-1. Excuse me. Thank you. All right. ***All right. The second and final matter to come before us is PL20190001837, the Bellmar Village SRA. All persons wishing to testify in this matter, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ex parte disclosures from the Planning Commission. And is Commissioner [sic] Eastman still here? If not, start with Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials. (Commissioner Fry left the boardroom and is absent for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And Commissioner Fry has to leave at this point, so thank you, sir. For my part, publicly available materials, communications with staff, communications with the applicant and with members of the public. Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, sorry. I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Utter. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Mulhere, and I think that was probably almost six weeks ago when we talked both projects, it may have been. I would -- it had to have been that long. I haven't talked to anyone since regarding this -- the specifics on this project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Klucik? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. I have nothing to disclose other than the same things as before, the staff. Page 81 of 109 April 1, 2021 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Now, we'll begin with the applicant's presentation. Mr. Yovanovich, you may proceed. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to -- thank you. For the record, Rich Yovanovich. It's the same team that we had at Longwater, so I'm not going to introduce everybody. What we're going to do is have primarily Bob Mulhere give the planning perspective, have our environmental consultant give a brief summary. You've all been provided an education on how you calculate the different scores for the environmental. Norm Trebilcock's here to address any transportation questions you may have. We're going to rely mainly on the documents that are a part of the record to support by competent substantial evidence that we have, in fact, met the burden as evidenced by your staff recommending approval. And I would just want to note for the record that competent substantial evidence is testimony from people who have particular levels of expertise to provide that level of testimony. By way of example, Amy Patterson and Joe Bellone and Lucy Gallo have the requisite expertise to support their fiscal analysis. And you are the judge, and as the judge you are to listen to that competent substantial evidence, and unless there's contrary competent substantial evidence, you are to accept that in determining a fact that requires expertise. Like transportation, fiscal neutrality, planning, those all require levels of expertise. It's not based on your feelings or your opinions when making a determination. The Bellmar PUD -- I'm sorry -- SRA is on your screen. Mr. Mulhere will go into greater detail. Bellmar, like Longwater, is not an easy piece of property. It's not a perfect square. It requires certain development standards that are in our SRA document. It's a little under 1,000 acres. We're using SSA 15 to entitle it. Similar to Longwater, Bellmar has a commitment to 10 percent of the units being multifamily, 10 percent of the units being single-family attached, and 10 percent of the units being single-family detached which, in fact, is diversity of product types and housing types. We meet the requirements for commercial and civic, and you've seen a similar slide to Longwater. We are in agreement with all of staffs recommendations for approval for this project, and they are in -- they will be incorporated into the SRA document, which includes the similar affordable housing commitment that was in Longwater. With that, I'll turn it over to Bob. We're available to answer any questions even though we're doing a more abbreviated presentation. If you have any questions regarding any of the submittal documents, we're happy to answer them. And with that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. So Bob Mulhere, for the record. I think Rich indicated the size; just under 1,000 acres. There aren't any -- unlike Longwater, there aren't any acreage -- there isn't any acreage within Bellmar that scores higher than a 1.2 on the Natural Resource Index. There are no -- zero acres of ACSC lands. Those really occur further east in the RLSA and south. There aren't any FSA or HSA acres, and there are no acres designated WRA within the SRA. To the north, east, and south, the lands are zoned ag with a mobile home overlay, and also SSA 15 -- proposed SSA 15 designation. To the west, again, the property abuts the future Big Cypress Parkway. And all of the lands, again, within the proposed Bellmar Village SRA have been in active agricultural productions for years, for many years, and you can see that the shape of this parcel does mirror the -- in this area the open area on the pink map that I showed you previously. And so you can see that, you know, this -- this follows that kind of shape. Page 82 of 109 April 1, 2021 As you know by now, there are a minimum of two context zones required for an SRA, and you could do three, but you're only required to do two. Those two are both neighborhood general and village center. Villages are primarily residential communities. This one is. The request is for a maximum of 2,750 dwelling units, 2.7 units per acre, a minimum of 275 of the units will be multifamily, three units or more per building, and a minimum of 40 units will be within the village context center zone, which is required to be mixed use. All of the multifamily is required to be within one-half mile of the village center, which is a requirement that we agreed to in order to ensure a continuum of intensity and density from the most intense and dense to least intense and dense. We do have a variety of housing styles. A minimum of 10 percent single-family detached, 10 percent single-family attached, and 10 percent multifamily, which is defined as three or more attached dwelling units. The village center is required to be the focal point of the community's goods and services, and using the formula that's required, we would be required and are required to have a minimum of 68,750 square feet and a maximum -- we're asking for a maximum of 85,000 square feet of neighborhood scaled retail and office uses. It gives us a range, but we meet the minimum. Same thing with civic. At 10 square feet per dwelling unit, we're required to have 27,500. The village center is located right here. And I guess I would say that it's -- you should all be very familiar with the term "shopping center." We have many shopping centers in urban Collier County, none of which, also using the term "center," are required to be in the center of whatever development they're built in. They're all built on the edge on the external roadway system, and those are shopping centers. Master utilities will be served by Collier County Water and Sewer. We are required to provide 35 percent open space, which on this just under 1,000 acres translates to 349.91 acres. We're providing 506.9. That's actually 50.7 percent in open space. And, again, as I said previously, the more open space you provide, the more that goes to a compact form of development. A We are required to provide a minimum, every village is, of 1 percent in the form of parks. We're providing minimum of 13.45 acres, including some 3.44 acres of existing wetlands. Let's see. We have the -- use the same concept of an innovative lake system around the perimeter both as a stormwater function but also as an impediment to wildlife for entering into the village. We have a trip cap of 2,189 weekday p.m. peak hour total two-way trips. We've submitted a fiscal neutrality analysis. It's been deemed to be fiscally neutral by both Collier County staff and by a third -party consultant, and we do have a trigger, a condition that we build 30,000 square feet and a minimum of 20 multifamily dwelling units prior to being able to be issued a certificate of occupancy for the 1,926th certificate of occupancy. We've mentioned to you previously that SRAs are innovative by their very nature, by the very unique style of development within the SRA and what's required, and they are, but there are a number of other unique innovative elements that are included in this, so in addition to compliance with the requirements, which results in innovation, this is a compact development when compared to the nearly 14,000 acres of land that would have to be developed under the baseline standards. And providing goods and services not only for the residents but for the remaining neighborhood in Eastern Collier County that right now doesn't have a place to go for goods and services in this neighborhood or for civic uses or for institutional uses or for employment opportunities. We have a spine road that has bike lanes on both sides and a 10-foot multi -use pathway on one side, and that is right here. We have located the highest intensity and density within a half a mile of the village center and then, as we move out to the edges, it is a reduced density. There's a system of neighborhood parks in addition to the linear park system along the Page 83 of 109 April 1, 2021 spine road. There is a system of neighborhood parks. We will be providing education to residents regarding living with wildlife and potential use of prescribed burns on nearby conservation lands. This will be significantly reduced water use when compared to the agricultural consumption of water. Providing central water and sewer as -- and a customer base for water and sewer as was discussed earlier for Collier County Utilities. And this village is designed to encourage bicycle circulation with an interconnected street and bike path system on the spine road and a network of sidewalks on all of the roads. The spine road has a 10-foot multiuse path on one side and a 6-foot sidewalk on the other side. So, again, it does function as something rather unique in terms of providing access to interests along the way but also for exercise and recreation. All the amenity centers are accessed from the spine road, which are here and here. This exhibit is similar to the one I showed you before for Longwater, which shows the attractions and -- such as the park and amenity center or a commercial area, and then provides a concentric circle to show that really all the units within Bellmar are located within a half -mile walking distance of some attraction. And so it really is very walkable. Its design is a little bit more geometric than the other villages. This is the -- a summary table on the SSA credits, SSA 15, which is 5,253 acres, which has a total of 20,653 credits, and then the credits consumed is in the table below, which is right here for Bellmar and Rivergrass, and the total is 12,940. So this map shows you both the Collier Enterprises SSAs along with the villages and then the other SSAs and identifies this significant flowway. There are two very significant flowways in Eastern Collier that are at the heart of the RLSA program. One is the Okaloacoochee Slough, and the other one is this one, the Camp Keais Strand, which you can see is right here. And so SSA preserves 5,253 acres at no cost to taxpayers. If you want to compare that to Conservation Collier -- and this is by no means a knock on Conservation Collier, but it's fair to compare the 104 million spent on 4,400 acres of taxpayers' money for conservation purposes. This enhanced preservation and wildlife corridor is far more effective than the checkerboard type of preservation that you get under the baseline standards, which is very detrimental to the benefits of having a connected wildlife corridor and system. About 800 -- in addition. Now, this is in addition, about $870,000 in funding was generated to protect panthers and enhance wildlife through the Marinelli Fund, which is a voluntary fund created by Paul Marinelli, which Collier Enterprises participates in. And we already mentioned the other two, the preservation of the flowway and reduction of water. I'm not going to spend time on this because you're very familiar with this chart. It's just the list of the basic requirements in the village, and you can see the green checkmarks. I'd use one of Rich's lines and say, will you take my word for it? We comply with all of those standards. This is just a copy of the interlocal agreement with Collier County Water and Sewer District. Did somebody have a question? No, okay. And a commitment, which you can see here shown in blue, to convey another 2.3 miles of right-of-way along the future Big Cypress Parkway, which I'll just show it to you. It's a little bit -- maybe a little bit hard to see, but right here. With that, I'm going to ask Passarella to briefly -- I think briefly go through the NRI. I tried to be as brief as I could. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anyone want to ask Mr. Mulhere a question before he -- we'll have another chance to do so. MS. SAMBORSKI: Hello. Heather Samborski, senior ecologist with Passarella & Associates. And do you need me to spell my last name? Okay. All right. So I'm going to try and go over this as briefly as possible. It's a very similar Page 84 of 109 April 1, 2021 presentation to what we did for Longwater. So rather than rehash a lot of the details all over again, I'll try and keep it brief. So within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, we have areas designated as flowway stewardship areas, or FSA; Habitat Stewardship Area, HSA; Water Retention Area, or WRA. And these are the most environmentally sensitive and higher ecological values. And in addition to that, we have areas designated as open, which are shown as beige on this map, and those are the areas where Stewardship Receiving Areas or are meant to occur whereas the FSA, HSA, and WRA areas are intended for SSAs. And both SRAs and SSA applications requires an NRI Assessment, or Natural Resource Index assessment, be provided in support of that application. So the NRI Assessment is a Geographic Information System analysis in which one -acre grid cells are laid over the entire study area with each of the six Natural Resource Index factors being assessed for each of the one -acre grid cells. So for Bellmar we provided an updated Natural Resource Index assessment that further refines the NRI values that were assigned during the original Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area assessment study. This slide here is the stewardship credit worksheet. And you'll see the area in the green box outlines the rubric, if you will, for the NRI Assessment in each of the Natural Resource Index factors. The first is the stewardship overlay designation. The data source that is used for this layer of the model is the Collier County stewardship areas. Each one -acre cell is assessed to determine if it contains an FSA, HSA, WRA, or area of critical concern. For Bellmar, none of the SRA contains these areas; therefore, it received -- the entire area received a score of 0. Again, for this presentation I've included a one -acre example cell to demonstrate how the final model score is calculated. The next index factor is the proximity indices. This also uses the Collier County stewardship areas as the data source for the model. This considers if the one -acre cells are enclosed by an FSA, HSA, WRAs or if they are within 300 feet of an FSA or HSA or a public or private preserve land. For Bellmar, the majority of the site is not enclosed by an FSA, HSA, or a WRA or within 300 feet, receiving a score of 0. The exception being along the eastern boundary there are some cells you can see in the dark blue color here on the image that are within the 300 feet of an FSA or HSA, and those areas received a score of .3. The next is the listed species habitat index factor. There are several data sources used for this. This includes a habitat mapping, in this case FLUCFCS mapping, which is Florida Land Use Cover Forms and Classification System mapping. That was updated by Passarella. We did ground truth site visits to update the mapping back in 2019. We also conducted listed species surveys of the area. These were done in 2007 originally and then updated again in March and April of 2019. These surveys have been reviewed by county staff, FWC, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, we've incorporated results from species -specific surveys that have been conducted on the property, including surveys for the Southeastern American kestrel, Everglades mink, crested caracara, and Red -cockaded woodpecker. We also incorporate documented occurrences of listed species as reported by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and this includes panther telemetry data. For the scoring, we look at each of the one -acre cells and determine if it includes panther -occupied habitat including another listed species in which it would receive a score of .8; if it is only panther -occupied habitat, it receives a SCORE of .5; and occupied habitat by another Page 85 of 109 April 1, 2021 listed species receives a score of .4. One -acre cells with none of these conditions receives a score of 0. It's important to note that the LDC states that index values are based on the documentation of occupied habitat as established by the intersect of documented and verifiable observations of listed species with land cover identified as preferred or tolerated for that species. Again, this means that the observation of listed species alone is not significant to generate a score. It needs to also be within habitat types that have been considered preferred or tolerated. And the LDC has specific FLUCFCS codes that they have identified as preferred or tolerated for panthers. Those are included here on this slide. So for Bellmar, the majority of this site did receive a score of 0. That's mostly due to the fact that the majority of the site is row crops and not considered preferred or tolerated for the majority of species. There are some areas on the southern portion of the site and a couple in that isolated wetland on the northeast portion of the site that did receive a score of .4 in that southern area. That's a pasture land that had an observation of crested caracara, and the wetland area in the northeast included observations of listed plant species. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to ask Commissioner Schmitt to ask his question. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll wait till she's done. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You'll wait. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a question when she's done. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I need to ask Troy Miller to bring in the charger, please, for the deliberator. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because she may get to my question. So it has to do with listed species. But I'll wait -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Please continue. MS. SAMBORSKI: Okay. The next index factor is soils and surface water. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, before then, you're going to get into soil and surface water, I'll ask my listed species question. MS. SAMBORSKI: Sure. Yeah, sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm citing a letter we received -- all of the commissioners received from the Conservancy, and it was dated February 16th. And in that letter it notes that 100 percent of the Bellmar site is in the proposed critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat. I clearly understand the requirements. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife has an area identified. I believe this is in the area of concern for the Florida bonneted bat. Did you have any sightings or any concerns or identify issues with the Florida bonneted bat for the listed species? MS. SAMBORSKI: There are surveys that are conducted on the site, acoustic surveys to document whether or not those bats are present. We have conducted those surveys. We do have some recorded acoustic calls within the range. All that will be submitted and provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and will be part of our coordination with them. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That will be part of your permit process? MS. SAMBORSKI: Correct, yep. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The only other question, I believe this area is part of the comprehensive -- MS. SAMBORSKI: HCP? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- plan, the HCP that U.S. Fish and Wildlife is putting together for the entire area of South Florida, which will encompass this area. So it will not involve a separate HCP for you, but it will be part of the entire plan. Is that correct? I thought -- probably almost two years ago I thought the service started on an HCP specifically for the Florida bonneted bat. Page 86 of 109 April 1, 2021 MS. SAMBORSKI: I don't know about specifically for the Florida bonneted bat, but this site is within the eastern -- the boundary of the Eastern Collier HCP. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So you'll deal with that at permitting process? MS. SAMBORSKI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. MS. SAMBORSKI: Yep. Okay. For soils and surface water, the data source we used is from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service, their soil data. And it -- the scoring looks at the values assigned based upon soil types classified using the natural soils landscape position or NSLP categories, and those are open -water and muck depression soils, sand -depression soils, flat or transitional soils, and non-hydric soils. So within Bellmar, we do have a mix of sand -depression soils, flats transitional soils, and it says on here flatwood soils, which would be a non-hydric soil type. So we have a mix of scores ranging from 0 to .3, and in our one -acre cell has a score of 0. The next is restoration potential, and restoration potential is assigned during the SSA designation process, and as -- since this is for an SRA, the restoration potential was not further assessed. And the final layer in the Natural Resource Index factor is the land -use land cover indices. Again, this used FLUCFCS mapping that was updated by Passarella in 2019. Our FLUCFCS mapping has been reviewed in the field by county staff and is also reviewed by the Water Management District and the Army Corps of Engineers. At this point this application's actually with the DEP, so it will be reviewed by them as well. There is a range of groups for the scoring. Group 1 generally consists of native wetlands; Group 2 includes native uplands; Group 3 is agricultural codes; and Group 4 is other. Again, the LDC has specific codes that they've included within each of these groups. I've included those on the slide. So any of the FLUCCS codes that were not specifically identified within a certain group within the LDC is included in Group 4, the "other" category. So the majority of the Bellmar site received a score of .2. These areas are FLUCFCS code 214 for row crops. And we do have a pasture area to the south of that. That did receive a score of 0, as the FLUCFCS code for this area is 210, which was not designated in one of Groups 1, 2, or 3 under the LDC. We do have a couple areas that did receive a score of .4 where there are some remnant wetlands located within the SRA boundary. So the final NRI score is determined by summing the scores for each of the six Natural Resource Index factors. In the case of the one -acre example cell that's been carried through the presentation, the only Natural Resource Index factor that generated a score in this example was under the land -use land cover index in which it received a score of .2, so the final calculation for that cell is .2. And the majority of the site has a Natural Resource Index value between 0 and .7. There are a few areas that received a score of .8 and 1.1 but, as you can see, none of the SRA boundary lands include lands with a score above 1.2. And here's that information in a table format as well. And that concludes my presentation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I have a question, unless somebody else wants to go first. The SSA 18, which is right in the center of Bellmar, it has a vehicular crossing and then something called a potential boardwalk. In your judgment, would either of these or them together in the aggregate impair or impede in any respect whatsoever the sending lands' ability to host species? MS. SAMBORSKL No. The way that this wetland is already configured with farm Page 87 of 109 April 1, 2021 fields around it, that already is having an impact on listed -- on species as it is. This area also has a high amount of exotic plant species in there as well. So those wetlands located within the center are already of a degraded quality currently. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. What percentage would you think, roughly, is agricultural in that center sliver? MS. SAMBORSKI: In this center wetland, none of that is. That's entirely wetland, and there's some upland habitats within there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So is it fair to say that there are going to be panthers in there? MS. SAMBORSKI: It's possible that there could be, but this would not be an area that I would anticipate panthers using heavily due to its small size and the presence of -- the strong presence of exotics in there would -- also I would anticipate would present a barrier as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other protected species that would have greater likelihood of wanting to be there? MS. SAMBORSKI: There are listed plants. t *4%* CHAIRMAN FRYER: Species. MS. SAMBORSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Animal species. MS. SAMBORSKI: Okay. There is also -- I'm assuming what you might be alluding to is one of the letters that mentions that there was a caracara nest within this -- within this area in SSA 18. So nesting bird species are always a possibility. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I see. Okay. Thank you. MS. SAMBORSKI: Yep. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anybody else have questions or comments for this witness? If not, thank you. MR. MULHERE: So we're going to go to Lucy's part of the presentation -- or Norm. Okay. MS. GALLO: Bob, I'm on whenever you need me. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Let me see if I can find -- here we go. MR. YOVANOVICH: I was wrong. Glad I didn't say "trust me." MR. MULHERE: So I think, Lucy, you must be after Norm. So Norm's coming up now. MR. TREBILCOCK: Good afternoon. Norman Trebilcock, professional engineer, certified planner. We prepared the traffic analysis for the project. And I'll look to review that as quickly as I can, okay. The traffic study was done consistent with the prior Longwater in terms of following Collier County standards for the analysis using ITE trip generation for the trip generation for the project, AUIR work product, and background information from county sources as well consistently. In terms of looking at the land uses, we looked at the single-family, multifamily. When we look at the multifamily, it does include attached villas, apartments, townhomes, and condominiums from a traffic analysis standpoint. So we look at it from that perspective in terms of for trip generation. That's how it's characterized. From that, in our traffic analysis, we look at the various uses, internal capture, pass -by traffic, and we come up with a net external traffic, which becomes a trip cap number that you can see in the lower right-hand corner, and that becomes a trip cap for the project based on the development parameters that are estimated for the project. In terms of the trip distribution, we worked with staff in part of the methodology on the trip distribution. We did have some comments on some additional western segments which we did add to look, and those were not of significance, and we provided that information to staff as well to Page 88 of 109 April 1, 2021 verify. And then it turns into our trip p.m. peak hour, and that's really what gets analyzed in the link analysis that we do as part of the traffic study. Really, when we -- so when we look at the traffic impacts, the project is a significant trip generator for many of the segments in the area. There's some that will fail in background and then some that we would call we adversely impact, so we did look at those segments that we adversely impact, and that's what we've evaluated here in the buildout horizon of 2034 for the project, and that's Randall Boulevard from Everglades to DeSoto, Vanderbilt Beach Road from Logan to Collier, Golden Gate Boulevard from Everglades to DeSoto. And so the total project fair share of construction improvement is 3.9 million in terms of our proportionate share. And impacts fees that will be collected from the project is $18.8 million for that. So the project is also subject to concurrency as plats and Site Development Plans are approved. So we relook at that to make sure that the project is concurrent. This is a consistency review is what we've done here at this point. In terms of access points for the project, two main access points would be the northern -- as Bob had mentioned, it was kind of a horseshoe shape design for the roadwork within the project, but we connect to Golden Gate Boulevard at the northern section, and then down at the south is Sixth Avenue Southeast there as well. And we follow the Collier County Access Management Plans for that. We did an operational analysis, did actual counts at numerous intersections, and we evaluated it at various conditions. You know, the conditions at the time when we collected the data was in 2019, and we looked in the future at the buildout conditions without the project, with some improvement in place without the project, and then non -project improvements in place, and then improvements that we need to make in terms of getting -- operationally things still work well as well. So in that, in future improvements there's some committed improvements at intersections. And then in terms of for our project in the future, we would look at us improving a number of intersections as well. And for our fair share that we analyze for the number of intersections that we need to improve is $2.9 million of improvements that we would need to make, and that is what we need to do is what we call a fair -share mitigation. We would have to pay that to make those improvements there. Now, in addition, we're responsible for 100 percent of any project improvements as we connect to the road network as well. As was mentioned a bit earlier, a key part of what we're looking at is the county's board adoption of the two -plus future network, and this project will help implement that vision that the Board has in terms of making provisions for Big Cypress Parkway. And, again, planning for the future, as you see, our project -- this Bellmar in terms of what it would help accommodate is the accommodation of about 3.1 miles of the future Big Cypress Parkway and that really, again, establishes a continuance section of Big Cypress Parkway from the southern end of our project, really, all the way up to Immokalee Road, a distance of about 13 miles. And so in your own perspective, if you think about it, Livingston Road is about 12 miles in Collier County from Radio Road to the county line. So this is a significant arterial collector roadway segment that we're providing right-of-way of 200-foot of width for in addition to accommodate the future water management for this road segment as well. So in conclusion, in the project, the -- we are a significant traffic generator for the roadway network at this location. We looked at the AUIR data. We looked at future improvement of roadways in the area as well and evaluated our impacts. We've established a trip cap for the project, and that's established as part of the project documents. Page 89 of 109 April 1, 2021 We propose fair -share intersection improvements with mitigation at the value of $2.9 million, also accommodating future Big Cypress Parkway. This part is also -- the prior landowner agreement was accommodating portions of Oil Well Road, Immokalee Road, and those were at no cost to the county. And then, again, we'll provide additional information for the project as COs are actually approved for the project of -- estimated at 18.8 million at current impact fee levels. So with that, that's just a summary of the transportation, and I'll turn things over to Lucy for the financial aspect, unless you have questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: There may be a question or two. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything for Mr. Trebilcock? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have one. We've talked about this before. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that when you -- when you look at traffic volumes in relation to uses, you follow the ITE guidelines rather than persons per household; is that correct? MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Somehow, are persons per household subsumed or built into the ITE numbers? Because it seems to me, logically, that you really have to know how many people are going to be residing in a household before you can determine how much traffic to be expected. MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, the ITE, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, is a national standard for traffic trip generation in the United States, and so we look at those land uses. And so baked in there is likely a persons per household for certain uses. So that's why we do, to your point, look at defined different uses; that a single-family residence is different than a multifamily. And so I would anticipate that being the case; however, it's strictly based on per units is how traffic analysis is done and not on persons per household. We look at what we call the land -use code for Institute of Transportation's trip generation. Same with the commercial; we'll use a shopping center which, again, is a national standard that we'll use. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'd be interested in knowing what exactly those assumptions were made by ITE when they assigned volume additurs to adjacent roads, but I'm guessing you don't have that in your -- MR. TREBILCOCK: It's based on -- again, it's based on the land use. It's a single-family land use. There's a dataset of empirical data that we use for trip generation. So it's based on the single-family land uses and its trip generation characteristics that then gets converted, because we'll have a large dataset that will then be converted into an equation to help predict what that trip generation is for a.m., p.m., and then daily volumes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So let's take a multifamily dwelling unit of some kind. Is there a chart or a table that would show what assumptions had been made with respect to how many people dwelled in that particular dwelling unit? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, there again, from the -- there's data samples that ITE uses for various land uses that they have and that then are put together to establish what the trip generation characteristics are of that land use. So in the case of, like, multifamily, it's a certain amount of stories of the multifamily. So there will be a number of data points that are used for that analysis, and then we just -- we use that information for the trip generation characteristics. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And so that information is on a national scale rather than localized in any respect? MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct, correct; yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anybody else have questions for Mr. Trebilcock? (No response.) Page 90 of 109 April 1, 2021 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: All right, Lucy. We're up. MS. GALLO: Okie-doke. Good afternoon. Lucy Gallo. I'm a principal with Development Planning and Financing Group. I prepared the economic assessment for Bellmar. And I can't see the slides, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's the LDC section, Lucy. MS. GALLO: Okay. So just reviewing the requirements in the LDC section regarding the fact that Bellmar used an alternative fiscal model that was approved by the county. Next slide, please. The economic assessment approach, both collaborative and transparent, county -approved methodology, rigorous third -party peer review was performed by the county's consultant. Next slide, please. The economic assessment conclusions that the required categories were either neutral or fiscally positive, so the project as a whole is in compliance. Next slide, please. Presented this slide for Longwater as well just to remind everyone that Chief Eloy Ricardo and Chief Tabatha Butcher are very closely involved in all the economic assessments. We will have a new EMS station that will serve Bellmar that is being fully funded by the new one -cent surtax, so that they were actually in a very unusual situation of having impact fee revenues generated by Bellmar can serve other needs because the station itself is being funded by surtax funds and that the North Collier Fire will be serving Bellmar at a collocated facility at the new EMS station. So the only other thing I wanted to touch on briefly, again, to continue this discussion about population projections. My Longwater presentation included a whole series of slides detailing the population calculations used by Tindale Oliver and impact fee studies that rely on population. Just keep in mind that the county's highest impact fees, transportation, schools, and utilities, don't rely on the transportation factors. The road impact fee relies on trips; the school impact fee, as Mr. Eastman described, relies on school district specific geo coded student data; and water and wastewater utility fees rely on usage. So going back to the population factors that Tindale Oliver used -- again, all of this was detailed in the Longwater slides -- Tindale Oliver uses the American Community Survey to derive the Collier County specific population and housing unit counts according to residential product type and to calculate persons -per -housing unit. The American Community Survey is a demographic survey program conducted annually by the U.S. Census. Tindale Oliver then applies the county's seasonality factor to convert the American Community Survey permanent population per housing unit factors to peak seasonal population per housing unit factors. And keep in mind that future impact fee studies will capture any changes in seasonality and other vacancy -related factors and any changes associated with expanding or contracting household size. Impact fees are likely to be updated several times over the buildout of the villages, and the fees will be enacted at rates enacted at the date of permit. As Amy Patterson indicated in her testimony, all capital costs are based on peak population except for water, wastewater, transportation, and schools, which use different factors. There are a handful of miscellaneous operating revenue and expenditures that use permanent population. For example, the county's portion of state -shared revenues is based on permanent population because revenue projections would be overstated if a peak -population factor was used, as the state distribution formula is based on a proportionate permanent population. So I just wanted to go on record that the credible source that is the most common source Page 91 of 109 April 1, 2021 used by impact fee consultants, again, as used by Tindale Oliver, and their methodology is used by not only Tindale but other impact fee consultants across the country. So I'd be happy to answer any questions, but just wanted to repeat some of what was already on record in the Longwater presentation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. No one is signaling a desire to speak. I'd like to try to find a way not to have to prolong this. I spent a considerable amount of time with this witness at Longwater, and although the numbers are slightly different here, the concepts, I believe, are the same, and my conclusions and my objections are also the same, even with the different numbers. Would it be acceptable to the applicant if we incorporated those previous comments, the Longwater comments, into Bellmar so that I don't need to go through that again? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anybody else have questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you. That's it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just real briefly, as part of Longwater, we had also agreed to -- I think Bob touched on this -- use bear -proof trash cans, use Dark Sky lighting criteria for residential and commercial uses. When we come back later with the town conversion, we will increase the credits used from eight to 10 per acre. And then we had talked about the panther corridor with regard to Longwater. But I also wanted to put on the record that we have drafted and will have residents sign a notice of prescriptive burnings, burns that will occur not only within the adjacent SSAs but also at the panther refuge. And with that, I already mentioned we agree with all the staff conditions. And your staff found the project consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. We believe we have met our burden by providing competent substantial evidence on every one of the criteria within the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan, and we are requesting that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Bellmar Village SRA to the Board of County Commissioners. With that, we will make ourselves available for questions you may have or if you're going to go to public or if you're going to go to staff. I'm not sure what your process is going to be. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anybody else have -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a quick question. There's no interconnectability between Bellmar and Longwater like there was between -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- Longwater and Rivergrass? It looks like it's impossible to do -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I could put the pink map back up for you, but you've got it; there's no ability to interconnect. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have a few that I'd like to ask. First of all, there's a reference to, I think it's called a potential boardwalk. You know what I'm referring to, Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me get my master plan out. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. See where it says "potential boardwalk"? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll circle it for you, just to show Bob he's not the only one. Although that's not the beautiful Bob Mulhere work. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So my question, first of all, is with respect to the roadway that's to the east of there going over SSA 18, is that -- is that a certainty? That's going to be done for sure? Page 92 of 109 April 1, 2021 MR. YOVANOVICH: The one on the east? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Then the boardwalk on the west, is that a certainty or not? MR. YOVANOVICH: We're planning on doing that for pedestrians, but, you know, are we guaranteed we're going to do it? We've got to permit it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So that's a commitment you'd make? MR. YOVANOVICH: That we're trying to permit it? Absolutely, subject to permitting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, you don't have the permit yet? MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't have the permit yet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. But subject to permitting, you'd commit to do it? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Let's see what else I have. MR. YOVANOVICH: Will that make me fiscally neutral? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm sorry? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So with respect to affordable housing -- and I know at the beginning of Longwater you made a commitment to accept the staff request of having 10 percent or 2.5 percent. Is that --do those numbers still apply here? Is that partof the commitment you're making? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, we had -- I had mentioned that one of, like, the very first commitments. We had agreed to those commitments. And Cormac's out in the hall, I think. But remember, we added within 48 months we would identify which way we're going to go. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Okay. On uses, permitted uses, you have -- and I found this on Pages 1239 to 1240,1 believe that was in the March 18 agenda packet. But Permitted Use No. 21 is general merchandise stores 5331 through 5399. MR. YOVANOVICH: Did you bring your SIC code book? CHAIRMAN FRYER: One of the uses in 5399 -- and I'm always concerned about these ones ending in 99 because it's -- they get very vague and general. One of them is salvage stores. Is that something that you feel the need to have? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sure we can add "except for salvage stores." CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Then under Permitted Use No. 24, health services, offices and clinics, you have 8011, 8049, 8071, 8082, 8092, and 8099. My question is, with respect to 8099, the following uses are covered under 8099 and would be permitted if they weren't excepted: Blood donor stations, plasmapheresis centers, and sperm banks. Would you be willing to have those prohibited? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: We can still have blood drives, right? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I mean -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's exactly the question that -- the concern is if you're drawing blood, there's a potential for a class of people who need the money from drawing the blood if it's paid. If it's volunteer, that's different. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I mean, this was the village center. We'll give blood donor, but I mean, I would hate to think that we couldn't coordinate with Naples Community Hospital to have their blood mobile out there to have people donate blood. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Donate is fine. I just want to be sure that it's not a paid operation for either blood or plasmapheresis. Page 93 of 109 April 1, 2021 MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Then in village center development and design standards --and this I found on Page 1240 of 1450 of the 18 March agenda packet. And I'm just spotting this so that it can be corrected when this goes to the Board of County Commissioners. In this -- in this 5.2.2.A village center development and design standards, you've got two Footnote 4s, and I think the second Footnote 4 referring to the lake setback is really Footnote 5, so that's, I think, just a typo that needs to be corrected. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. In the table itself -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- the footnote? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. You've got -- okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And on -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I think it's actually Footnote No. 3. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, it's -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll coordinate that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. I don't have a problem with the concept -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- or content, I just -- you know, so that we don't have two Footnote 4s. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then on Page 1246, again, of the March 18, in Section 8.6, these were developer commitments, and this one appeared under "other." And it says, street trees will be provided throughout the village, and I was hoping that we could say street trees will be provided on every street throughout the village. Would you object to that language being added? MR. YOVANOVICH: On every street? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You'd add that? MR. MULHERE: Well, it says within the village center context shown street trees shall be spaced 40 feet. Within the neighborhood general zone, street trees shall be spaced 60 feet. So it's really required by that language, but if you need further clarification -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'd like further clarification. I'd like it to say on every street. And this came up, really, I think in Ave Maria. I think my last point here is -- has to do with Section 8.3 of the developer commitments, which was transportation, subsection C of that. And I'm not sure why it is under transportation rather than other, but it says no more than 1,925 dwelling units will be issued certificates of occupancy until a minimum of 30,000 square feet of the neighborhood retail and office uses and a minimum of 20 multifamily dwelling units have been developed in the village center and issued certificates of occupancy. My question is, how were those numbers arrived at? MR. YOVANOVICH: We coordinated with your staff as to what they thought would be an appropriate number of units for -- to be in place before we would start seeing certain benefits from transportation and internal capture and making sure that it was an appropriate number of units that would remain for future development to better phase in the commercial obligation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So this was not something that you requested; this was something that staff requested? MR. MULHERE: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Those are all the questions that I have. Page 94 of 109 April 1, 2021 MR. YOVANOVICH: All righty. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Did you -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The footnotes -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Regarding the street trees. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Unfortunately, I was distracted, and I just wanted to --so your concern was the -- have them on every street, and I'm trying to figure out, what was the response of Mr. Yovanovich or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We said yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: They're going to put that in on every street. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Here's what I will say is in Ave Maria we've actually had the plans went in with the right number of street trees showing up on the plan -- and then -- I realize it's far removed from, you know, what you're doing today, Mr. Yovanovich, but I do have the floor, and it is related to planning. And the trees, half the trees just didn't go up, and now the HOA is having to deal with the fact that half the trees aren't there. I know it seems like it's, like, you know, just one of many number of things, but it's actually very important to the character and nature of neighborhoods where people live. And I am bringing it up because I can clang that bell, and I'm clanging it. And, you know, in Ave Maria, we've had a big problem with the street trees actually appearing as they should. I hope we won't have that in Bellmar. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik, it was your comments when we were talking last about Ave Maria that brought me to the belief that we needed to add the words "on every street." I think that fixes it, and the applicant has agreed to it. Are you satisfied that that fixes it, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, because it's a provision in the SRA in particular to Ave Maria that creates an exception, and so that exception would not -- would not seem to apply here unless -- you know, unless what's being proposed actually will have that language in it for the exception. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. No one else has signaled, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I just -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: Ms. Homiak pointed out to me when I was talking to her that in the development table for the Naples neighborhood general, there's also a footnote error where under the minimum floor area for ALFs we need to correct the reference there to No. 7. I think that was -- I need to get that on the record, too, because the minimum floor area for ALFs is less. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. There's a couple of sevens in the wrong place. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So that will be corrected -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, we'll correct that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- before it goes on to the Board? Any other questions or comments for the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, sir, do you have anything further? Page 95 of 109 April 1, 2021 MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I'll just wait to see what we do next. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Next, we're going to hear from staff, unless it be -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I think you did public last time and then staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, let's talk about that. We've got people who've been sitting here all day, and it does seem fair that we should let the public go first before we hear from staff, but what's the wish of the -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's fine. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That seems to be the wish of the Planning Commission. So we'll go to the public now and hear from them. MR. YOVANOVICH: How are you -- did we ever resolve how we're going to do that? If you spoke earlier, are you getting to speak again? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, these are two different matters, and I think the County Attorney was pretty clear on that, that we need to treat them separately. All right. So what do we have by way of people in person, Mr. Youngblood, and people who are on the phone? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, I have four speakers here in person. Online I have six. Our first speaker is going to be April Olson. April has a partner online, Norman Marshall, who I will make a panelist. Norman, I believe, is not going to speak; rather just be available for any rebuttal comments. I do have a list of folks who have yielded -- or, I'm sorry, ceded their time to April. If those individuals are present with us, just raise your hand to be acknowledged by -- I have Charlotte Mackin -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: She's right there. MS. NYCHLEMOE: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Ric Phillips. MR. PHILLIPS: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Nancy Anthony. Kelly McNab. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't think I saw Nancy Anthony. MS. OLSON: Can I make a request anyway? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. OLSON: There were --I just wondered if it was possible if I made my comments either -- after some of the other speakers because I don't -- we're ending at 5:00, right? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MS. OLSON: Okay. Because after some of the speakers, the next go -round, because there was a -- maybe about three hours of testimony rebutting what the Conservancy said, and we'd like to have an opportunity because for Bellmar, as it applies to Bellmar, to be able to respond to those issues, and so if we could speak a little bit later. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Without objection from the Planning Commission, yes. MS. OLSON: Okay. Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You bet. So who is the next speaker? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is Judith Hushon. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Hushon. And I believe she's going to be speaking on behalf of the League of Women Voters. Correct me, though, if I'm wrong, ma'am. MS. HUSHON: Yes, that's correct. Congratulations for hanging in there. It was a long day. Page 96 of 109 April 1, 2021 As you know, Bellmar is one of three developments located within the Old Cypress Stewardship District. This is only one of two privately owned special stewardship districts in Collier County authorized by the State of Florida. The other one's the Ave Maria Stewardship District. Big Cypress Stewardship District Act has distinct purposes and requirements. It's to provide the landowner, Collier Enterprise, with the ability to fund basic infrastructure and services required for the developments within the district through, for example, the issuance of revenue bonds to be repaid solely by the land and property owners in the district or, two, to ensure that Collier County and its general taxpayers are not burdened with the infrastructure costs and services of those private developments. These are actual statements that are in that act that sets that up. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Gentlemen in the back, please. Sorry. MS. HUSHON: Okay. As was required of Barron Collier in the development of Ave Maria Stewardship District, Collier Enterprises should also pay for all infrastructure within its Big Cypress Stewardship District without expecting one cent from Collier County or its taxpayers. When Barron Collier developed Ave Maria, it independently arranged for funding, maintenance, and operation of all infrastructure improvements including public roadways, water, and wastewater facilities, parks, schools, et cetera, at an estimated cost of over 650 million through the issuance of revenue bonds which did not in any way impact Collier County or its general taxpayers. In fact, the only aspect of the development of Ave Maria which impacted Collier County taxpayers and for which the county's impact fee methodology was employed was in connection with the widening of a regional road, Oil Well Road. The cost to the county was 20 million for which, over the past 20 years, Ave Maria Stewardship District has repaid 7- through impact fees payable to the county as homes were occupied within Ave Maria. The landowner infrastructure funding requirement that applied to the Ave Maria Stewardship District and, frankly, to all other privately owned and managed stewardship districts in the state of Florida should also apply to Collier Enterprises and its development Bellmar, as well as its developments within the Big Cypress Stewardship District. In 2004, Big Cypress sought and was granted permission at its sole cost and expense to install and oversee infrastructure for water, wastewater, stormwater within its borders, in addition to other functions. And until August of 2018, plans were underway to install wells, et cetera. Then as a result of negotiations between Collier Enterprises and the Collier County Water and Sewer District, things changed, and the county expanded its service territory into the rural undeveloped areas of the county to construct the approximately $76 million northeast utility facility required to serve the new customer growth in these proposed new villages and some other villages in the area. We need to keep things in focus. Ave Maria also has a state -approved stewardship district. The landowners, at their sole cost and expense, installed wells, treatment plants, piping, internal roads, et cetera, and they financed it by floating 651 million in bonds. Neither Collier Enterprises nor the Commissioners have a right to ignore the requirement of state law and burden the county and its taxpayers with Collier Enterprises' infrastructure funding obligations within the boundaries of its own stewardship district. We are letting Collier Enterprises off the hook. They should have similar debt obligations. The county is relying on impact fees to pay back county's utility investments. Mark Isackson stated at a February 24th public meeting that impact fees do not and are not intended to pay for growth. The General Fund must loan the impact fee fund hundreds of millions to cover the impact fee fund debt. This is especially true for development in rural areas, not for landfill. For the northeast utility facility, for example, 66 percent of the water will go to the three Collier Enterprises villages, but the amount paid in impact fees falls short of costs by about Page 97 of 109 April 1, 2021 43 million. There are other expenses associated with piping from the NUF to the developments, which the developer is not picking up. The county's impact fee formulas are not and were never intended to be applied to rural areas where there is no existing infrastructure. The county should not be relying on impact fees to cover development in areas without some existing infrastructure. These are three de novo communities. Lucy Gallo, whom you just heard from, the creator of Collier Enterprises' own economic impact assessment for Bellmar, was part of an impact fee assessment team in Sarasota County that concluded impact fees do not cover development in rural areas and that two different types of impact fee calculations are required when determining the true impact of a development in urban infill versus rural areas. The Growth Management Plan Section 4.08.07.L.2, states that: If a negative fiscal impact to the project to a unit of local government is identified, the landowner will exceed [sic] to a special assessment on his property to offset such a shortfall or, in the alternative, make a lump sum payment to the unit of local government equal to the present value of the estimated shortfall. The rules of the county are clear and state that when there's a shortfall, the developer is responsible for paying the difference. In this case, the Collier County Planning Commission should request the Board of County Commissioners to request this payment. You should also request the BCC to require a more open and verifiable model for calculating fiscal neutrality with separate options for infill and rural development. In other words, we should have two options. The rural has no -- has very little existing infrastructure. When you're doing -- the impact fee methodology, you take -- you look at what infrastructure you have and then you go ahead and decide what more you need to add. Well, in this case, it's kind of all of it. In addition to the impact fees not covering development, the impact fee calculations are biased to the low side for population and transportation, which benefits the developer. This all means that a developer's contribution of less than 180 million is required in addition to the impact fees for these developments. This is 60 million for Bellmar; 60 million. This developer's contribution needs to be calculated and assessed before construction and must consider the NUF and the fact that development is not fiscally neutral. Taxpayers should not be required to cover this. What's happening -- going to happen right now is that the charges for the NUF will be paid by that whole water and sewer district, people who live there. And it comes to about $6,000 per person. That's a lot. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. First I'm going to have Commissioner Schmitt and then Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? I'm sorry I have to interrupt. I'm going to be departing now. I just wanted to let you know. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Commissioner. And thanks for your service. Commissioner Schmitt, did you want to go now? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, Judy, of course this is all debatable now because of what you heard today from Amy, and I -- and, again, from Joe Bellone. I'm sort of confused. MS. HUSHON: Well, I have some other concerns, too, because the model is the Tindale Oliver model, right? It's a model that has formulas and equations in it, and the county is given a set of blanks to fill in with data to put into the model -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MS. HUSHON: -- which is Amy's job. Tindale Oliver then runs the model. And all that Jacobs does is to say, if I have that list of numbers and the model ran this, yeah, it came out with the right answer. That's Jacobs' job. So, I mean, I'm trying to lay the jobs out. Our problem is garbage in and garbage out. Page 98 of 109 April 1, 2021 We have a problem in our model with it taking too low numbers, and we're feeding them too low numbers. They are not realistic. We should be using numbers that are verifiable and legal. The law in the state of Florida says that you should be using a population number that checked and verified and is local if you have one. Local, we do have, because of the MTO. When we did the MTO, we used what are called TAZs, and they calculate for small areas. The population in this area on the MTO map is 3.0 to 3.75, not 1.05. Even if you round up 1.05, you don't get anywhere near. We're cut off by half. So we should be using the legal number. We're making a mistake as a county in not using that number in our calculations. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. But, again, that's -- you're debating an issue that is really at the Board of County Commissioners level. MS. HUSHON: I am, but what I'm asking is that you bring it to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let me ask you another question. You make a statement, the county impact -- well, before that we talked about the water/sewer district, and Joe made it -- Joe Bellone made it very clear, the water/sewer district has one rate for the entire district. MS. HUSHON: Yep. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We don't -- as you well know, there's impact fees -- MS. HUSHON: No, I understand that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- for transportation. There's area. MS. HUSHON: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But water is countywide. MS. HUSHON: But if you look at the AUIR and you look at the debts that were incurred for building the NUF -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MS. HUSHON: -- when you go to the AUIR and other similar documents, you can see how much is shortfall from the impact statements. When they -- the fiscal neutrality isn't there. When they are paying their impact fees, there's a number lined. It says it costs this much, impact fee is paying this much, and here's the delta. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MS. HUSHON: Well, that delta gets made up from the general revenue somehow. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Is -- MS. HUSHON: And that's what we're not -- that's what we are not recouping right now. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You make another statement, then. The county impact fee formulas are not and were never intended to be applied to rural areas. MS. HUSHON: Right. You know, when we develop -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Where does that statement come from? I mean, that's a statement, but is it fact or is that your opinion? MS. HUSHON: Well, Tindale Oliver -- Tindale Oliver -- well, it's partially my opinion, but it's partially also based on the testimony that was given in Sarasota. When you have these kinds of fees -- and we've been using the same basic structure of computations for, what, 20 years. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: At least 25 years. MS. HUSHON: When we first starting use it, we're talking about developments like Grey Oaks. We're talking about developments that are closer in where there is a fire station or -- maybe we need another one, but okay, fine. But there is a hospital. We could get somebody to a hospital. All of these things are not there in a rural situation. When we adopted those methodologies as a county, we didn't have the RLSA. We didn't even -- you know, the RLSA was kind of pie in the sky. I mean, 2002, okay? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But it was still identified as development at one unit per five acres, and it was still identified for growth. Page 99 of 109 April 1, 2021 MS. HUSHON: One unit per five acres, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MS. HUSHON: You know, and it was a ranchette-type development or something. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Sure. MS. HUSHON: But we were not looking at giving them as much infrastructure as it's required for a village or a town. A village or a town, by its very nature and by the density of population, has a lot more requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So last question then. On impact fees, I mean, we go through the dual rational nexus, and the whole process of validating through the cost of any of the improvements whatever we're looking at, libraries, parks, roads, whatever, and -- but you're categorically -- your statement is what we're doing now is totally inadequate and not appropriate. MS. HUSHON: For rural areas. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: For rural areas. Even though -- even though the Board has already extended and approved the expansion of the water/sewer district? MS. HUSHON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS. HUSHON: Yep. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I respect your opinion, but I have to -- MS. HUSHON: I'm asking you -all to carry this up a level -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. MS. HUSHON: -- to raise it with the BCC the fact that we're -- you know, these discussions we're having are pointing to the fact that we really need to do this. We also need to be having a way of -- we also need to be basing it on reasonable population numbers. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So I said it was the last, but one more. What you're asking for, then, is okay, these are -- let's put all new rules in place now? You want us to develop new rules? MS. HUSHON: For new developments. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The applicant has already gone through everything and applied based on the current rules, but now you're saying wipe the slate clean and let's start all over again with new rules. MS. HUSHON: There's a methodology that I read you, and it's at the bottom of the papers you were handed -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS. HUSHON: -- that one can do a calculation, and the county can do that calculation, and it can say that you've come up short. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS. HUSHON: And you can ask the developer to put money in the pot to make it -- to make the county whole. So there is a way out of it. What I'm saying is that in the future there will be more villages. You know that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MS. HUSHON: We were looking at 10 at one point in the RLSA. I don't know what we're looking at now. But we ought to be coming up with a better way of doing it, and Sarasota faced the same problem, and they decided that they needed two methodologies depending on whether it was rural or infill. So that's what I'm bringing up. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Did you wish to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, just a couple questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I'm going to ask counsel, though, to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll make it quick. Page 100 of 109 April 1, 2021 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Not only make it quick, but I don't want this to turn into a cross-examination of an expert paid advocate. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, then I'm fine if you disregard the entirety of what she said, because she gave statements, and she's not qualified to make the statements. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, then. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Were you -- you would agree that the county staff reviewed the economic assessment and determined that no monies were due for any deficits, correct? MS. HUSHON: Using their calculation methodology and their low population number. MR. YOVANOVICH: Using the county -- MS. HUSHON: I can make any equation come out the way I want to if I put the numbers in to make it come out that way. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to make sure I've got this clear. Are you accusing county staff of using inappropriate numbers to review the -- MS. HUSHON: Correct. N MR. YOVANOVICH: -- Bellmar -- MS. HUSHON: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're accusing county staff of using incorrect numbers? THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. I can't -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I'm going to ask both speakers to not walk on top of the other speaker. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. MS. HUSHON: Sorry. THE COURT REPORTER: Can you ask that last question again. MR. YOVANOVICH: My last question is, so you're accusing staff of using the incorrect numbers in doing their job? MS. HUSHON: And I said yes, they, by law, are supposed to be using the most accurate local number, which they are not doing. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I've known you a long time, but I don't think you're a lawyer, correct? MS. HUSHON: No. I'm a scientist, however. I know how to read numbers. I know how to read tables. I know how to read laws. I do know how to read laws, actually. I've done a lot of environmental law. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you an economist? MS. HUSHON: On occasion I have been an economist. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Are you a trained economist? MS. HUSHON: Not a trained economist. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. MS. HUSHON: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: Did you write that letter, or did somebody else write the letter? MS. HUSHON: I wrote this letter. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. Unless there are any other questions. Apparently not. Thank you, Ms. Hushon. MS. HUSHON: Thank you -all. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So we're coming up on 5:00. What's the -- what is the preference for this Commission? 1, honestly, don't think we're going to get through all of this today. We haven't even heard from staff yet. I'm willing to go somewhat beyond 5:00, but not much. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm good. Stay. Page 101 of 109 April 1, 2021 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is there a chance we can get through the individual speakers and maybe hold off, say, April who might be a little longer, until the beginning of the next? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we can try. Shall we see how we are going till 5:15 and reassess? Okay. Next speaker, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is Gary Kluckhuhn. My apologies if I mispronounced that. Gary, are you with us? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Apparently not. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: No Gary. Our next in -person is Meredith Budd. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Budd. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: And Meredith will be our last in -person speaker until we get to the online speakers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Budd, I take it you're representing FWF, whatever the official -- MS. BUDD: Yes, that's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Thank you. MS. BUDD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Meredith Budd on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation. This village footprint for Bellmar is located only a mile north of the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. This is a 20 -- nearly 27,000 acres Conservation Collier area, and the Federation has consistently expressed to the applicant, to the federal agencies, and to the county, for that matter, that this SRA designation is really not the best spot for development as compared to the other villages we've seen come through in the RLSA, both approved and pending. But this concern was also noted throughout the creation of the RLSA program, and it was largely due to this concern and other concerns through Camp Keais Strand, lack of upland buffers through that area and, of course, the proximity to the refuge here that between -- and those buffers are between receiving areas and natural areas. And so it is because of that that HSAs were actually added into the program, and that includes those farm fields that you see in brown on the map up on your screen. That was added to help increase the buffer between the SRA footprint and the panther refuge and, of course, again those buffers -- additional buffers were added in Camp Keais Strand with the same intent, and that was throughout the RLSA process. It is not ideal. This location is not ideal, and, quite frankly, it's not preferred from the Federation's perspective, but it is a part of the RLSA program, and the Federation is in support of the RLSA program as it effectuates landscape -scale conservation for our county and for the region. So as a part of the program, Bellmar will be entitled through SSA 18. As I understand it, SSA 18 is still in process of getting approved. So in the documentation right now through the county portal it looks like it's not being entitled by SSA 18, but I have received commitments from the applicant that SSA 18 is being used, in fact, to entitle this development. That is setting aside 2,200 acres as, Commissioner Schmitt, you mentioned earlier, in preservation. That's west of Camp Keais Strand and north of the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. This SSA is removing residential, general, conditional, earth mining, recreational, Ag 1 and Ag 2 uses from nearly 2,000 acres. The remaining 200 acres will retain some additional land uses, but those most intense land uses will be removed. Through negotiations between the Federation, Audubon, and Defenders of Wildlife and the applicant, we have come to agreement on some additional measures that the applicant would be willing to do in order to ease some of our concerns in terms of wildlife conflict and compatibility Page 102 of 109 April 1, 2021 with that neighboring Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and also through conversations that you had seen publicly between the refuge staff and their concerns with this village in terms of burning and management. That has also been addressed, as far as I understand it. The applicant has agreed to incorporate smoke easements that will be a part of closing documents for the sale of homes and any sort of development in the village, and this, of course, came from major concerns from that neighboring conservation area, the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, that will help ensure that their burning management can proceed. It also helps ensure that the burning management that would be done on any adjacent conservation lands that includes other Stewardship Sending Areas can be maintained and done properly. The other measures that have been committed include Dark Skies. So the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge is going through the process currently to become an international Dark Sky. And so the applicant has committed to being compatible and implementing Dark Skies in this village to be compatible with their neighbor. Another commitment, which we've mentioned in the other village application, is the bear -proof trash cans. So bear -proof trash cans is not an obligation. It is not a requirement here in Collier County, and the applicant has committed to implementing bear -proof trash cans throughout the residential and commercial areas of this village and, from what I understand, if the town concept does move forward, it would be throughout the entire town that this applicant would be proposing. And with that, I thank you for your time and your service. It's a very long day. So thank you so much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Meredith, one question. Of course, you stated not the most desirable, but it is ag land. It is zoned for many of the activities you had already listed. So in conclusion, you're in support of it with reservation, of course, being the location, but you're in support of the overall proposal based on the give and take -- the benefits versus the impact? MS. BUDD: Based on the environmental benefit of getting the 2,200 acres of SSA 18, which is located south of this village, as I mentioned, it's just to the west of Camp Keais Strand and to the north of the refuge, I think that provides a lot of value, so yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're speaking on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation? MS. BUDD: That is correct, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a quick question. I don't know -- you're probably -- I don't know if you're the right one to answer it, but you say that they've committed to a series of things. Where does that get documented? Where does that enter the documentation process, all these commitments? CHAIRMAN FRYER: That would be for us to request in an ordinance by way of a motion. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So what Meredith is saying, those three or four items that they've agreed to, we need to make sure is in whatever we vote on? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I believe they're already in there. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: They'll be part of our SRA document. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They'll be part of the SRA document. Page 103 of 109 April 1, 2021 COMMISSIONER SHEA: So they'll get documented there, okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I have a question. You said, to quote, this is not the best spot for an SRA, not ideal, not preferred, and then you mentioned three concessions; smoke easements, Dark Skies, bear -proof trash cans. Does that -- does that make this a better spot? Does it make it ideal? Does it make it preferred? MS. BUDD: No, and you also -- if I can add, I also included the addition of those HSAs that were done as a part of the program creation because of concern raised by environmental groups with a lack of buffering between the SRA footprint and the adjacent conservation land. So that was another, you know, concession done through the process of creating the RLSA. Again, this is not an area that we deem to be as appropriate as when we were looking at Longwater earlier last month and even when Rivergrass was here or even Hyde Park; for that matter, any village in the RLSA. But, again, this is part of the program, and the Federation is supportive of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program for the environmental benefits that it will effectuate. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So if you were to rate under the category of desirability, I guess, Rivergrass and Hyde Park and Longwater and Bellmar, Bellmar would be No. 4? MS. BUDD: That is correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Are you finished? MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I ask her one question? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: But you would agree that Bellmar is 100 percent consistent with the RLSA program? MS. BUDD: Correct, which is why I mentioned that we are supportive of the program, and it is part of the program. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. Thank you. h, MS. BUDD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Next speaker, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: We move to our online speakers. Our first one is going to be Lynn Martin followed by Bradley Cornell. Lynn, you may unmute yourself. Are you with us, Lynn? MS. MARTIN: Yes, I am. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please proceed. Ma'am, are you representing a group or speaking as an individual? MS. MARTIN: I'm speaking as an individual. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. You have three minutes, please. MS. MARTIN: Thank you. Thank you, Commissioners. In looking at the economic assessment for Bellmar, I question whether this development will actually be fiscally neutral. Like Rivergrass and Longwater, the SRA application shows a commitment of 90 percent single-family homes and 10 percent multifamily while the economic assessment shows 58 percent single-family and 42 percent multifamily. As we discussed, the multifamily assumes 1.05 permanent residents, and single-family assumes 2.21 permanent residents. If the applicant instead builds 90 percent single-family instead of the 58 percent in the economic assessment, there will be over 1,000 additional permanent residents. The persons per household is inconsistent with the Collier County average as has been discussed. And as Ms. Hushon mentioned, the Florida impact fee statute requires the use of the Page 104 of 109 April 1, 2021 most recent and localized data which is the Long -Range Transportation Plan which uses TAZ data of between 3.0 and 3.75. So even with a 40 percent vacancy rate, which had been used by Lucy Gallo, the numbers don't work. By assuming a greater percentage of multifamily homes and not using recent and localized data, the total number of residents and the number of children is undercounted in the economic assessment. Six hundred sixty-nine students in a community of 2,750 homes doesn't make sense, and this understatement impacts all the costs of providing services required to support the community; water, wastewater, schools, law enforcement, traffic, etcetera. With more people than planned using the infrastructure, additional costs will be incurred to add infrastructure to maintain the required county level of service. The village will use more of a capacity of the new water and wastewater treatment plant than projected, and the level of service for water and wastewater was already lowered by the county in 2020 to provide capacity for more growth. Will it decline again? The county level of service for regional parks is 2.70 acres per thousand peak population. Staff has already allowed Bellmar an adjustment to this mandated level of service and reduced it to 1.82 acres per thousand people for Bellmar. Additionally, population -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thirty minutes, ma'am -- excuse me -- 30 seconds. MS. MARTIN: Thank you. The economic assessment must use the most recent localized population data to make sure the developer is paying their fair share of the costs. With a discrepancy in population, Bellmar will not be able to achieve fiscal neutrality. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Ms. Martin. Next speaker, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: All right. Bradley Cornell has left us, so we are going to move on to Susan Calkins. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Calkins, are you there? MS. CALKINS: Yes, I am. ,A CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please proceed. Are you speaking as an individual? MS. CALKINS: Yes, I am; yes, I am. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Please complete your comments in three minutes. MS. CALKINS: I will. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. CALKINS: I'd like to just note that listening to these proceedings, I've been rather concerned with what I hear as a tendency to conflate a village with a whole RLSA program. Bellmar is just one of many village developments which can be built in the 185,000-acre RLSA region, but it should be built only if it adheres to RLSA overlay policies, and if it does not, it should be denied. I don't -- to deny Bellmar is not to deny or disparage or disagree with the RLSA program. To deny Bellmar is not to say that there will be no lands preserved. It just means the village is not consistent with RLSA policies. And it's county staffs responsibility to assess whether a proposed development is consistent. I found it quite interesting that in the 2020 staffs consistency assessment, they state the Bellmar Village SRA does not fully meet the intent of the policies in the RLSAO pertaining to innovative design, compactness, housing diversity, mix of uses, et cetera, and it goes on to say -- and these are quotes -- in staffs view, this SRA is, with some exceptions, a suburban development plan typical of that in the coastal urban area placed in the RLSA and is contrary to what is intended in the RLSAO. So I find it really disturbing that that statement has disappeared from the latest staff consistency report while nothing substantive has really changed in that. Page 105 of 109 April 1, 2021 And there is Policy 1.16 which notes that each SRA is to be innovative. Just being located within the RLSA overlay does not make the development innovative nor walkable or anything else and, I add, it certainly doesn't make it protective of wildlife. The fact that this village is located less than a mile -and -a -half -- I actually think it's a mile and a quarter -- from the Florida National Wildlife Panther Refuge is, alone, enough to make this village inconsistent with the RLSA. I'm not sure why the county feels compelled to approve the Bellmar project, and I hope that you do not feel compelled to approve it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. One more time, would you please state your name. I didn't get it at first. MS. CALKINS: Yes, I'm sorry. Susan Calkins. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Calkins. Thank you very much, Ms. Calkins. MS. CALKINS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. The next speaker, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is Gaylene Vasaturo, followed by -- Matthew Schwartz will be our final speaker on this topic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Before we start with the next speaker, then, it seems to me that there's no way we're going to finish this this afternoon, at least within a reasonable time frame. So what I'm suggesting is is that we hear from the remaining speakers, and then we will recess and try to -- finish it up on the 15th of April, without objection. Mrs. Vasaturo? MS. VASATURO: Yes, I'm here. Good afternoon, Gaylene Vasaturo for myself as an individual. How can Bellmar be considered fiscally neutral when it fails to provide a transportation network to support the proposed development? The county and taxpayers will be paying for the needed new and expand roads. For example, Big Cypress Parkway is a required transportation facility for Bellmar, Longwater, and Rivergrass. That's essentially what the Deputy County Manager said in a 2018 letter to Collier Enterprises. These three villages will consume 86 percent of Big Cypress Parkway, according to the Conservancy's transportation expert, Mr. Marshall. Further, the applicant's Traffic Impact Statement relies on a significant amount of internal capture among the villages to show less of an impact on county roads. The parkway will connect these villages and is essential for this internal capture. Despite all this, Collier Enterprises is shifting the entire cost of this major roadway to the county. In 2018, Collier Enterprise paid for an amendment to the 2040 Long -Range Transportation Plan to add Big Cypress Parkway as a needed roadway. Shortly after that, the county entered a developer's agreement with Collier Enterprises to acquire the right-of-way for the parkway in return for impact fee credits. By placing Big Cypress Parkway on the Long -Range Transportation Plan, Collier Enterprises got the county to take complete responsibility for the road. So Bellmar is not paying any of the costs for this major road that will serve its residents. Besides Big Cypress Parkway, the Traffic Impact Statement shows that Bellmar traffic will significantly impact many roadways projected to be deficient and cause some roads to become deficient. Again, the applicant will not pay any portion of the costs for addressing the deficiencies; the county will pay. Impact fees, well, county staff has acknowledged that impact fees do not cover the costs of infrastructure, and that's even more true here because the impact fee methodology being used is not appropriate for rural areas where there is no infrastructure. Ask Lucy Gallo about that. Beyond that, Collier Enterprises will get a substantial amount of impact fee credits for conveying the Page 106 of 109 April 1, 2021 right-of-way to the -- for Big Cypress Parkway to the county. Collier Enterprises could get enough credits to almost eliminate the road impact fees they're supposed to be paying for these three villages. As a result, the county may have to take on substantial debt for the parkway and other road segments that will be deficient with Bellmar's traffic. Taxpayers pay a service this debt and also to address shortfalls in the impact fee fund. Who is protecting the taxpayers here? That's my question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. VASATURO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Ms. Vasaturo. Next speaker. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our final speaker on this topic will be Matthew Schwartz. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Schwartz, are you on, sir? MR. SCHWARTZ: I believe I'm on. Can you hear me? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. You have three minutes. MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay, great. Well, first of all, I am representing an organization. I am the director of the South Florida Wildlands Association. I will try to finish up in three minutes, but if I go a little bit longer, I would like an extra minute or so. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You may have that. MR. SCHWARTZ: Thank you so much, and I'm also representing an organization that has a petition out which has gotten 160,000 signers. Now, that petition relates to the underlying Habitat Conservation Plan that includes Bellmar, Longwater, et cetera. It basically allows 45,000 acres of development in the area we're discussing. I agree with some of the speakers who spoke before me who really singled out Bellmar in a number of ways. And I think that the consultant who spoke could have provided a bigger area, a bigger view of the Bellmar development to show its context in a network of public lands. I was criticized at one point speaking to this commission saying, well, when I opposed the project -- and I do oppose this development, and I'll talk about that in a minute, saying, well, I wasn't considering all the years of work that went into the creation of the RLSA and various projects that have gone on putting in panther crossings, et cetera. But I think what the Planning Commission/County Commission's really not considering in these discussions are the decades of work that went into assembling the constellation of public lands that protect the Florida panther, that protect all the wildlife in this area, and I was really kind of surprised to hear that they actually have acoustic evidence of Florida bonneted bats foraging on this area, at least foraging, possibly nesting or roosting. But when you look at this project, I'm not sure Collier County -- I think it hasn't ever approved such a dense development adjacent -- you know, essentially adjacent to such an important wildlife area like the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. But this area also connects to the Picayune Strand, to the Fakahatchee, to the Big Cypress National Preserve, especially when we talk about the panthers. It's one population of panthers in Southwest Florida moving through the area. And it goes back to Big Cypress was founded in'74, the refuge in'89, the Fakahatchee in '74. So we're talking decades and decades of hard work by federal/state agencies and citizens to create this constellation, and now we're plunking dense development in the middle of it. Not only could she have shown the public lands surrounding this area but also the telemetry of panthers. Now, the telemetry only represents a small percentage of the panthers that are actually collared in any given year. There are many, many more panthers that are not collared, and that shows up when we have a panther road kill. Most of the panthers that are killed are un-collared. So most of the panthers out there are un-collared. This area is teeming with panther telemetry. All the green areas surrounding Bellmar are filled with panther telemetry, and there's no disconnect between those green areas and the panther Page 107 of 109 April 1, 2021 refuge. When you look at the area as a whole, completely erroneous, completely uninhabited. So one issue that you folks should be discussing, it's not only the impacts to listed wildlife, federal wildlife, but listed -- but impacts to the residents. There's no way -- and I know that area is dense, not only in Florida panthers but also in Florida black bears. There's no way you're not going to have Florida black bears crawling through -- I mean, basically moving regularly through the Bellmar development. Barbecues, garbage, bird feeders, everything is going to bring the bears in. Are all these bears going to become nuisance bears and the panthers that are coming through the area feeding on Fido and Fefe? And that's going to happen. These things are going to happen. Bears are known to attack people. They're out -- if they're out looking for food, somebody's walking their dog, it happens. It's happened before. It could happen here. You guys have some responsibility to talk about that issue and how to prevent it. It's not just living with bears. It's got to be --really, it should be separation. I don't want to take up too much of your time, but obviously this is your -- this is the county deliberations. This is the Planning Commission of the county. This is still sitting -- the Habitat Conservation Plan is still sitting with the Fish and Wildlife Service. It's been sitting there -- I think they were taking public comment in 2018. It went back long before that. So it's been with the Fish and Wildlife Service for years. There's a new sheriff in town in terms of who runs that department. Ed Holland has replaced David Bernhardt, former oil lobbyist, who is running the Department of Interior. President Biden, when he came in -- a week after he came in he signed a directive on best -- using best available science. Best available science is that you don't develop the primary habitat. And I need to say something about what the primary habitat is. It's a mosaic of habitats. It's not just the forested areas where panther telemetry shows up when they fly their planes over during the day and panthers are at rest. It's the entire habitat. The panther sub team which created the primary habitat discussed, should we draw a line and draw the primary habitat just around the forested area? No. They included the agricultural lands. And this area is very much in the primary habitat. It's going to impact the refuge. It's going to impact all of these public lands, the listed species, and the residents. And it's a recipe for disaster. I like what some of the people said today that, you know, without even -- we don't have to destroy the RLSA to excerpt this particular development. What we're talking right now, what you guys are going to vote for and say, this is not appropriate. You're not going to vote on it today, but you'll vote on it -- and say this one is too much. It's just too much development next to habitat that's just too important. So I'll leave the comments there, and I appreciate you guys listening to us. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Schwartz. I'm assuming, and correct me if I'm wrong, that there's no old business, new business, or public comment not related to a matter on our agenda today. And so without objection, we're adjourned. Page 108 of 109 April 1, 2021 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:25 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION EDWIN FRYER, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on , as presented or as corrected r 0� TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 109 of 109 Orange County, CA Denver, CO Austin, TX Sacramento, CA Dallas, TX Tampa, FL Phoenix, AZ Orlando, FL Boise, ID Las Vegas, NV Research Triangle, NC Longwater Village SRA Economic Assessment Collier County Collier County Schools North Collier Fire & Rescue Initial Submission: November 11, 2019 Revised: Added 15,000 sq March 11, 2020 ft. Commercial Roads Emergency Medical Services Water and Wastewater Revised: May 24, 2020 Roads - Narrative Only Revised: August 6, 2020 Roads — Fair Share Mitigation Revised: January 8, 2021 Water and Wastewater — Narrative Only Schools — Narrative Only F�A�l D P F G DEVELOPMENT PLANNING & FINANCING GROUP. INC. LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................................4 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 6 METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................................. 6 MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS.................................................................................................................... 8 Development Assumptions......................................................................................................... 8 Revenue Assumptions................................................................................................................. 9 Sales, Just, and Taxable Values................................................................................................ 9 PropertyTaxes....................................................................................................................... 10 Expenditure Assumptions......................................................................................................... 10 COLLIER COUNTY FISCAL IMPACTS............................................................................................... 10 Collier County Operating Impacts............................................................................................. 10 Collier County Operating Revenue Projections......................................................................... 11 Collier County Operating Expenditure Projections................................................................... 12 Collier County Capital Impacts.................................................................................................. 13 Collier County Capital Impacts by Department..................................................................... 13 NORTH COLLIER FIRE & RESCUE DISTRICT.................................................................................... 29 North Collier Fire & Rescue Capital Impacts............................................................................. 29 North Collier Fire & Rescue Annual Operating Impacts............................................................ 30 COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOLS FISCAL IMPACT................................................................................. 30 Collier County Schools Capital Impacts..................................................................................... 30 Collier County Schools Operating Impacts................................................................................ 33 APPENDIX...................................................................................................................................... 35 GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS.................................................................................................. 51 2 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 1: Longwater Development Program................................................................................... 8 Table 2: Longwater Residential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values ................................................... 9 Table 3: Longwater Nonresidential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values ............................................. 9 Table 4: Longwater County Tax Base at Buildout........................................................................ 10 Table 5: Collier County Millage Rates.......................................................................................... 10 Table 6: Longwater Operating Annual Net Impact at Buildout................................................... 11 Table 7: Longwater Annual Operating Revenue Projections....................................................... 11 Table 8: Longwater Annual Operating Expenditure Projections ................................................. 12 Table 9: Longwater Impact Fee Revenue for Collier County ....................................................... 14 Table 10: Longwater Law Enforcement Capital Impacts............................................................. 17 Table 11: Longwater Law Enforcement Level of Service............................................................. 17 Table 12: Longwater Law Enforcement Equipment Cost per Certified Police Officer ................. 18 Table 13: Longwater Correctional Facilities................................................................................. 18 Table 14: Longwater Correctional Facilities Capital Cost............................................................. 18 Table 15: Longwater Correctional Facilities Indexed Cost per Resident ..................................... 19 Table 16: Longwater Allocation of New EMS Station Cost.......................................................... 20 Table 17: Longwater EMS Capital Impact.................................................................................... 20 Table 18: Longwater Regional Parks Capital Impacts.................................................................. 21 Table 19: Longwater Regional Parks Level of Service.................................................................. 21 Table 20: Longwater Regional Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre ........................................... 21 Table 21: Longwater Community Parks Capital Impacts............................................................. 22 Table 22: Longwater Community Parks Level of Service............................................................. 22 Table 23: Longwater Community Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre ...................................... 22 Table 24: Longwater Libraries Capital Impacts............................................................................ 23 Table 25: Longwater Library Facilities Level of Service............................................................... 23 Table 26: Longwater General Government Capital Impacts....................................................... 24 Table 27: Longwater General Government Capital Cost............................................................. 24 Table 28: Longwater North Collier Fire & Rescue District Capital Impacts ................................. 29 Table 29: Longwater Fire & Rescue District Functional Population ............................................ 29 Table 30: Longwater North Collier Fire & Rescue Impact Fee Revenues .................................... 30 Table 31: Longwater Big Corkscrew Island SDA Annual Operating Impacts at Buildout............. 30 Table 32: Longwater Projected Public School Enrollment........................................................... 31 Table 33: Longwater Projected Enrollment by School Type ........................................................ 31 Table 34: Longwater School Capital Costs................................................................................... 32 Table 35: Longwater School Impact Fee Revenue....................................................................... 32 Table 36: Longwater School Net Capital Impacts —Total Cash Flow Approach .......................... 32 Table 37: Longwater Local Ad Valorem School Operating Taxes at Buildout .............................. 34 3 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. is proposing the establishment of a Stewardship Receiving Area ("SRA") on a site less than 1,000 acres in site in eastern Collier County. The proposed SRA, Longwater Village ("Longwater" or "Village"), is east of Desoto Boulevard and south of Oil Well Road. In accordance with the Rural Lands Stewardship Area ("RLSA") Overlay definition of a Village, Longwater is primarily a residential community which includes a diversity of housing types and a maximum of 2,600 dwelling units. The Village concept plan includes 80,000 square feet of commercial uses and 26,000 square feet of neighborhood civic space. The proposed Longwater Village is strategically located within a mile of a planned fire facility which is owned by the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District. As reflected in the table below, Longwater Village will generate substantial tax and impact fee revenues for Collier County, the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and Collier County Schools. The results are presented at the project's buildout, as required by LDC. Summary Table 1: Longwater Village Fiscal Highlights SRA Fiscal HiRhliRhts Collier County: Longwater SRA Ad Valorem Tax Base Longwater SRA Net Annual Fiscal Benefit Longwater SRA Total Annual Operating Revenues Longwater SRA Total Annual Operating Expenditures Longwater SRA Total Annual Net Operating Surplus North Collier Fire and Rescue District: Longwater SRA Annual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues* Longwater SRA Total Annual Operating Expenditures Longwater SRA Total Annual Net Operating Surplus Collier County Schools: Longwater SRA Ad Valorem Tax Base At Buildout At Buildout Countywide MSTU $ 805,353,000 $ 805,353,000 Countywide MSTU $ 3,987,000 $ 734,000 3,062,000 490,000 $ 925,000 $ 244,000 Fire District $ 3,020,000 1,042,000 $ 1,978,000 School District $ 838,655,000 Longwater SRA Net Fiscal Benefit: Annual Operating** Total Capital Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Revenues $ 3,005,000 $ 42,073,000 Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Expenditures 3,005,000 42,073,000 Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Surplus $ - $ - Longwater SRA Annual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues: Collier County Collier County MSTU North Collier Fire & Rescue Collier County Schools - Ad Valorem Operating Collier County Schools - Capital Improvement Total Longwater SRA Annual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues At Buildout $ 2,871,000 650,000 3,020,000 3,005,000 1,258,000 $ 10,804,000 4 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Impact Fee Revenue ImpactFee Fair Share and Fair Share Impact Fee Revenue: Revenue Mitigation Mitigation Community Parks $ 1,903,000 $ $ 1,903,000 Regional Parks 5,400,000 5,400,000 Roads 17,737,000 622,000 18,359,000 EMS 303,000 - 303,000 Government Bu i l dings 1,993,000 1,993,000 Libraries 680,000 680,000 Law Enforcement 1,268,000 1,268,000 Jail 1,088,000 1,088,000 Water - Residential Only 6,662,000 6,662,000 Wastewater -Residential Only 7,023,000 - 7,023,000 Total Collier County Impact Fees $ 44,057,000 $ 622,000 $ 44,679,000 Col I i er Cou nty School s $ 16,331,000 $ $ 16,331,000 North Collier Fire & Rescue 1,432,000 1,432,000 Total Impact Fee Revenue $ 61,820,000 $ 622,000 $ 62,442,000 *Based on FY 2020 operating millage for the North Collier Fire & Rescue District and the FY 2020 millage rates for the Collier School District. ** The Florida Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through statewide equalization formulas. Source: DPFG, 2020 As demonstrated in this report, DPFG concludes that the proposed Longwater Village is fiscally positive for the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and fiscally neutral, as defined, for Collier County and the Collier County School District. Summary Table 2: Longwater Net Fiscal Impact Conclusions per Taxing Authority Jurisdiction Net Fiscal Jurisdiction Net Fiscal Collier County Annual Operations: General Funds Grouping MSTU Capital: Regional and Community Parks Roads EMS Government Buildings Libraries Law Enforcement Jail Collier County Annual Operations and Capital: Positive Water Positive Wastewater Capital and Operations: Positive Solid Waste Neutral Stormwater Neutral North Collier Fire & Rescue District Neutral Annual Operations Positive Capital Neutral Collier County Schools Neutral Annual Operations* Capital * The Florida Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through statewide equalization formulas. Source: DPFG, 2020 Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Positive Positive Neutral Neutral 5 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT INTRODUCTION An Economic Assessment is required as part of the Stewardship Receiving Area ("SRA") Designation Application Package, and each SRA must demonstrate that its development, as a whole, will be fiscally neutral or positive to the County tax base at buildout. At a minimum, the Economic Assessment shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire, and schools. In accordance with the RLSA Overlay definition of a Village, Longwater is primarily a residential community and includes a diversity of housing types and a maximum of 2,600 dwelling units. The proposed Village Center provides for the required neighborhood -scaled retail, office, civic, and community uses. The SRA is designed to encourage pedestrian/bicycle circulation via an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving the entire Village and with an interconnected system of streets, dispersing and reducing both the number and length of vehicle trips. Development Planning & Financing Group, Inc. ("DPFG") was retained to prepare an Economic Assessment for the Longwater Village SRA. This report provides complete and transparent support for the methodology, assumptions, and calculations applied to demonstrate fiscal neutrality for the Longwater Village SRA for Collier County ("County"), the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and the Collier County School District ("School District"). METHODOLOGY The Government Finance Officers Association ("GFOA")1 outlines the most common methods for estimating service costs in fiscal impact analysis as: average cost, marginal cost, comparisons to other governments and econometric modeling. In many cases, fiscal impact analysis uses a combination of these methods to generate a projection. • Average Cost is the easiest and most common method and assumes the current cost of serving residents and businesses will equal the cost of serving the new development. The average cost method provides a rough estimate of both direct and indirect costs associated with development. However, this method does not account for demographic change, existing excess capacity or potential economies of scale in service delivery. Methods of calculating average cost include per capita costs, service standard costs and proportional valuation costs. • Marginal Cost uses site -specific information to determine services costs for a new development. A case study approach is typically necessary to gather detailed information about the existing capacity within public services and infrastructure to accommodate ' Michael J. Mucha, "An Introduction to Fiscal Impact Analysis for Development Projects," (white paper, Government Finance Officers Association, 2007), www.gfoa.org A LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT growth from a development project. This method assumes that information about local service levels and capacity is more accurate than standards based on average data • Comparable Governments incorporate the experience by similar governments with comparable development projects. Studying other governments before and after specific projects can provide useful information in determining additional costs and the increase in costs over a long period of time. • Econometric Modeling uses complex econometric models and is best used for estimating impacts from large projects that create many indirect effects on the existing community such as a utility plant or an entertainment center. The fiscal impact analysis of Longwater Village uses a marginal/average cost hybrid methodology to determine the project's impact on capital and operating costs. Personnel and operating costs were projected on a variable, or incremental basis, as were expenditures for certain capital improvements. Revenues, such as property taxes, were projected on a marginal basis whereas revenues attributable to growth were reflected on an average basis. Allocation bases include Permanent Population, Peak Seasonal Population, Peak Seasonal Population and Employment, and Peak Seasonal and Tourist Population and Employment. Persons per housing unit by product type and square feet per employee for the nonresidential land uses were obtained from the County's 2016 Emergency Medical Services Impact Fee Update, the most recently published source (see Appendix).' The analysis includes the following general funds:' (001) General Fund, (003) Emergency Disaster, (007) Economic Development, (011) Clerk of Circuit Court, (040) Sheriff, (060) Property Appraiser, (070) Tax Collector, and (080) Supervisor of Elections. A reconciliation of these funds to the County's budget documents is provided in the Appendix. The analysis also includes (111) Unincorporated Area General Fund MSTU, the North Collier Fire Control & Rescue District, and the Collier County School District. The FY 2019 budget4 of the County and the FY 2020 budgets for the North Collier Fire Department and the School District form the basis for the service levels and revenue and cost assumptions. This "snapshot" approach does not attempt to speculate about how services, costs, revenues and other factors will change over time. Instead, it evaluates the fiscal impact to the County as it currently conducts business under the present budget. The impacts of self-supporting funds (e.g. enterprise funds) were not included in this analysis as is typical in fiscal impact analysis. Utility rates and capacity fees are established through ' Impact fee updates for Parks and Recreation, Correctional Facilities, Transportation, and Schools are currently underway. 3 Collier County considers this listing of general funds as the "General Fund Grouping." 4 The County's FY 2020 full budget document was not available when this report was prepared. The document is typically published in January. The FY 2020 millage rate did not change from the rate adopted for FY 2019. 7 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT independent studies. Public utilities generally benefit from economies of scale (i.e. more customers) since rate structures are dependent upon recovering fixed infrastructure costs. Based on pre -Application discussions with County staff, the County accepts the methodology described in this report and applied in previous Economic Assessment reports prepared by DPFG. In particular, the County accepts the preparation of the analysis at the year of buildout (or horizon year) under a snapshot approach which reflects the intended land uses of the project as a whole. In addition, there are no monitoring requirements with respect to the fiscal impact of an SRA Village. MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS Major assumptions supporting the Longwater Village Economic Assessment are summarized in this section. The financial model and assumptions are provided in the Appendix. Balance Carryforwards were excluded from allocation to avoid overstatement of revenues. Interfund transfers were analyzed in depth and their classifications in the model were carefully reviewed. Revenue and costs are projected in constant 2019 dollars, with no adjustment for future inflation. The use of a constant dollar approach in fiscal impact analysis produces annual and buildout results that are readily comparable and understandable. Results have been rounded to the nearest one thousand dollars ($1,000). Development Assumptions Table 1 presents the Longwater Village development program which was used to estimate the operating and capital impacts of the project. Table 1: Lonewater Develonment Proeram Land Use by Impact Fee Category Units Residential Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft Total Residential 11097 1,503 2,600 Non -Residential Sq Ft Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft Neigborhood Civic Grand Total Non -Residential (sf) 80,000 26,000 106,000 Source: Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2020 N. LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Revenue Assumptions Sales, Just, and Taxable Values Estimates of sales, just, and taxable values for the residential units are shown in Table 2. The sales values of the residential product types were provided by the Applicant. The eligible homestead percentage per residential product type used in computing the taxable value per unit was based on Collier County (unincorporated) averages published by the Shimberg Center for Housing Studies at the University of Florida. Table 2: Longwater Residential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values Product Type Units Sales Value per Unit Just Value per Unit TaxableVaIue per Unit Town Home Villa 1 Coach Villa 2 Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached 204 1 $ 250,000 $ 235,000 $ 219,500 319 $ 260,000 $ 244,400 $ 228,900 258 $ 280,000 $ 263,200 $ 247,700 316 $ 310,000 $ 291,400 $ 275,900 1,097 $ 277,247 $ 260,612 $ 245,112 SFD Product <4,000 scl ft SFD Product B <4,000 scl ft SFD Product C <4,000 scl ft SFD Product C <4,000 scl ft Total SFD <4,000 Scl Ft Total Single -Family Detached 493 1 $ 365,000 $ 343,100 $ 310,100 402 $ 400,000 $ 376,000 $ 343,000 436 $ 430,000 $ 404,200 $ 371,200 172 $ 460,000 $ 432,400 $ 399,400 1,503 $ 404,088 $ 379,843 $ 346,843 1,503 $ 404,088 $ 379,843 $ 346,843 Total Residential 2,600 Source: Collier Enterprises, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2019 Table 3 reflects the estimates of sales, just', and taxable values for the nonresidential land uses. Sales values were based on construction cost per square foot estimates from R.S. Means, "Square Foot Costs," 4Oth Edition, 2019 and also considered values from the County Property Appraiser's database. Table 3: Lonewater Nonresidential Sales. Just. and Taxable Values Average Sales Value Just Value Taxable Non -Residential Scl Ft per Scl Ft per Scl Ft Value Retail 50,001- 100,000 Scl Ft 80,000 $ 189.50 $ 189.50 $ 189.50 Source: RS Means, Collier County Property Appraiser, DPFG, 2020 At buildout, the real property tax base generated for the County is estimated to exceed $805.4 million as reflected in Table 4. ' In determining just value, reasonable fees and costs of purchase (for example, commissions) are excluded. 4 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 4: Longwater Countv Tax Base at Buildout Units or Taxable Value Land Use Sa Ft oer Unit/SF At Buildout Residential Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft Total Residential Non -Residential Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft Total Non -Residential Total Tax Base Source: Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2020 Property Taxes 1,097 $ 245,112 $ 268,888,000 1,503 $ 346,843 521,305,000 2,600 $ 790,193,000 80,000 $ 189.50 15,160,000 80,000 $ 15,160,000 $ 805,353,000 Table 5 reflects the millage rate assumptions for Collier County used in the analysis. Table 5: Collier County Millage Rates 3.5645 County General Fund 0.8069 MSTD General Fund 0.0293 Water Pollution Control Source: Collier County, 2019 Expenditure Assumptions A detailed evaluation of expenditures by the General Funds Group and the MSTU General Fund was performed to determine which were variable (i.e. assumed to fluctuate with growth) or fixed (i.e. not impacted by growth) in nature. For equitable matching of revenues and expenses, certain adjustments were made to account for funding sources from other funds. The primary demand bases in the average cost/revenue calculations were new population and employment for the County and new students for the School District. COLLIER COUNTY FISCAL IMPACTS Collier County Operating Impacts Table 6 presents the annual net operating fiscal impact of Longwater Village at buildout. Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to County's Operating Impacts. 10 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 6: Longwater Operating Annual Net Impact at Buildout At Buildout Net Operating Impact Countywide MSTU Longwater SRA Total Annual Operating Revenues $ 3,987,000 $ 734,000 Longwater SRA Total Annual Operating Expenditures 3,062,000 490,000 Longwater SRA Total Annual Operating Surplus $ 925,000 $ 244,000 Source: DPFG, 2020 Collier County Operating Revenue Projections Projected County annual operating revenues at buildout are summarized in Table 7. Longwater Village is projected to generate annual operating revenues of $4.0 million for the County's General Funds and $734,000 for the MSTU General Fund. Table 7: Longwater Annual Operating Revenue Projections GENERAL FUND GROUPING REVENUES At Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes $ 2,871,000 Licenses & Permits 2,000 Inter -Governmental Revenues 7,000 State Revenue Sharing - Growth Portion 119,000 State Sales Tax 488,000 Charges for Services 346,000 Fines & Forfeitures 5,000 Miscellaneous Revenues 2,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous 10,000 Indirect Service Charge 70,000 Transfers from Constitutional Officers 59,000 Reimburse from Other Departments 8,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Revenues $ 3,987,000 MSTU GENERAL FUND REVENUES At Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes $ 650,000 Licenses & Permits 4,000 Charges for Services 30,000 Fines & Forfeitures 2,000 Miscellaneous Revenues 2,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous 1,000 Communication Services Tax 45,000 Reimburse from Other Departments - Total MSTU Annual Operating Revenues $ 734,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 11 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Collier County Operating Expenditure Projections Projected County annual operating expenditures at buildout are presented in Table 8. Longwater Village is expected to generate annual General Funds service demand of $3.1 million and $490,000 of MSTU General Fund service demand. The Appendix contains a detailed breakdown of operating costs by line item category. Table 8: Longwater Annual Operating Expenditure Projections GENERAL FUND GROUPING EXPENDITURES At Buildout Board of County Commissioners $ 30,000 County Attorney 13,000 Property Appraiser 71,000 Supervisor of Elections 24,000 Clerk of Courts 49,000 Sheriff 1,674,000 Tax Collector 129,000 Administrative Services 3,000 Human Resources 10,000 Procurement Services 9,000 Bureau of Emergency Services 29,000 Planning 1,000 Circuit & County Court Judges 1,000 Public Defender 4,000 State Attorney 5,000 Guardian Ad Litem Program - County Manager Operations 6,000 Office of Management & Budget 6,000 Public Services Administration 2,000 Domestic Animal Services 41,000 Community and Human Services 45,000 Library 98,000 Parks & Recreation 120,000 Public Health 4,000 Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement 2,000 Facilities Management 146,000 Transfer to 101 Transp Op Fund 179,000 Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap 76,000 Transfer to 426 CAT Mass Transit 23,000 Transfer to 427 Transp Disadvantaged 31,000 Transfer to 490 EMS Fund 158,000 Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies 73,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Expenditures $ 3,062,000 12 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT MSTU GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES At Buildout Board of County Commissioners $ 17,000 Communications & Customer Relations Division 15,000 Growth Management Administration 6,000 Planning 18,000 Regulation 53,000 Maintenance 95,000 Bureau of Emergency Services 1,000 Project Management - Community and Human Services 2,000 Parks & Recreation 182,000 Transfer to 306 Parks Capital Fund 36,000 Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Cap 42,000 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 23,000 Total MSTU Annual Operating Expenditures $ 490,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 Collier County Capital Impacts Collier County Capital Impacts by Department Methodologies upon which the County's impact fees are based generally use the consumption or existing inventory replacement approach rather than an improvements -driven approach. For example, the County's Parks impact fee is calculated by dividing the existing inventory of park facilities, including land at current replacement value, by the existing population or relevant demand base. This methodology does not consider the timetable over which the existing facilities were acquired, available capacity within existing facilities, or long-range capital improvement plans with timetables for delivery of new facilities. Impact fee methodologies are typically designed to generate the maximum amount of impact fees a jurisdiction can legally assess. Impact fee calculations include a credit component to recognize future revenue streams which will be used to fund capital expansion and certain debt service payments. The credit component prevents new development from being charged twice for the same facility. The analyses of the General Funds and the MSTU General Fund account for these credits by recognizing capital outlays and applicable transfers (e.g. subsidized capital acquisition and capital fund debt service) as expenditures. This approach is very conservative because the associated expenditures include growth and non -growth related capital outlays and capital fund subsidies. In comparison, the credit component of the impact fee calculation is limited to certain growth -related capital outlays and capital fund subsidies. Impact fee updates for Transportation, Correctional Facilities, and Parks and Recreation were adopted in 2015, and the corresponding adopted rates have been indexed. EMS, Government Buildings, Libraries, and Law Enforcement impact fee studies were updated in 2016, and the associated rates were adopted in 2017. Impact fee updates for Parks and Recreation, Correctional 13 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Facilities, Transportation, and Schools are currently underway. Over buildout, new development will be charged impact fees at rates enacted by the County at that time. The capital needs of Longwater Village were discussed with the Sheriff, EMS, the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and the School District. The capital analysis for these services was prepared in accordance with their input. For the remaining service departments, when the achieved level of service ("LOS") for a particular public facility currently exceeds the adopted LOS, then the adopted LOS was applied in calculating demand to (1) recognize existing capacity and (2) avoid overstating demand. When the achieved LOS for a particular facility was less than the adopted LOS, then the achieved LOS was used when calculating demand to avoid charging new development for a higher LOS than provided to existing development. Data from the 2018 Audit Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities ("AUIR"), the most recent source available, was generally used to calculate the achieved LOS.6 Other inputs were obtained from the relevant impact fee studies. Projected impact fee collections for Parks, Transportation, EMS, Government Buildings, Libraries, Law Enforcement, Jails, and Water and Wastewater are reflected in Table 9. Impact fee revenues for the North Collier Fire & Rescue District and the School District are presented in subsequent sections of this report. The County's impact fee schedule is included in the Appendix. Table 9: Longwater Impact Fee Revenue for Collier County Impact Fee Type Total Fees Community Parks $ 1,903,000 Regional Parks 5,400,000 Roads 17,737,000 EMS 303,000 Government Buildings 1,993,000 Libraries 680,000 Law Enforcement 1,268,000 Jail 1,088,000 Water - residential only 6,662,000 Wastewater - residential only 7,023,000 Total Collier County Impact Fees $ 44,057,000 Collier County Schools 16,331,000 North Collier Fire & Rescue 1,432,000 Total Impact Fees $ 61,820,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 6 DPFG reviewed the draft 2019 AUIR and noted overall consistency with the 2018 AUIR level of service standards and available inventory except for Regional Parks. A corresponding adjustment was made in the Regional Parks analysis based on County Staff recommendations. 14 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Collier County Road Capital Impacts The Longwater Village SRA is a proposed mixed -use development in eastern Collier County located east of Desoto Boulevard and south of Oil Well Road (CR 858). The landowner is responsible to pay an appropriate fee required by the County's Road Impact Fee Ordinance as building permits are issued for the proposed project. Road impact fees are estimated at $17.7 million and significantly exceed the Concurrency Fair -Share estimate of $700,000 as shown in the "Preliminary Concurrency Fair -Share — August 2020" document prepared by Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA. Proposed internal roads, driveways, internal alleys, internal sidewalks/pathways and interconnections to adjacent developments are site related improvements and are not subject to impact fee credits. In addition, the landowner is required to provide appropriate turn lanes at project entrances as required at the time of site development approval. These improvements are considered site related. It is noted that if turn lane improvements require the use of County's Right -of -Way ("ROW") or easements, compensating ROW along the development frontage may need to be provided without cost to Collier County as a consequence of such improvement. Operational impacts of the development project traffic are mitigated for those intersections failing to achieve acceptable performance characteristics. Consistent with the information illustrated in the adopted Collier County Traffic Impact Study guidelines, mitigation improvements are considered acceptable if capacity is added that restores or improves the delay and v/c (volume/capacity) ratio to the levels provided in the base scenario. Base scenario is defined as the analysis of existing traffic plus background traffic for the estimated build -out year on the E + C (existing plus committed) significantly impacted roadway network. As illustrated in the Traffic Impact Statement associated with the zoning application for the subject development, Synchro 10 software was used to perform intersection Level of Service ("LOS") analysis at specific locations. Based on the results of the Synchro intersection analyses, the following geometric improvements may be necessary to address project related level of service deficiencies: • Oil Well Road and DeSoto Blvd intersection — signalization • Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd intersection — signalization • 18th Ave NE and DeSoto Blvd intersection — signalization; add southbound left -turn lane on DeSoto Blvd 15 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Fair share percentage determination illustrates traffic impacts in the AM and PM peak periods. The project share of cost has been based on the proportion of the project peak hour traffic contributed to the improvement location relative to the total new peak hour 2030 traffic volumes. A cash contribution of $622,000 will be paid for the intersection improvements. Furthermore, the landowner will improve 18th Ave NE from the project entrance to DeSoto Blvd at an estimated cost of $240,000. This onsite project improvement is in addition to the costs outlined in Figure 1. Contribution requirements for transportation related impacts are summarized in the Cost Allocation Table reflected in the "Fair -Share Mitigation Operational Impacts" report prepared by Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA. The landowner contribution of $622,000 will be paid in addition to the road impact fees of $17.7 million for a total of $18.4 million in transportation - related payments. Figure 1: Longwater Fair -Share Mitigation for Operational Impacts Cost Allocation Table Oil Well Rd and Desoto Blvd 400.0 34.4%/ 137.6 Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd 400.0 16.1%/ 64.4 18`1, Ave NE and DeSoto Blvd 600.0 70.0% 420.0 Tota 1 1,400.0 44.4% / 622.0 Mitigation Contribution towards items 1 & 2 & 3 622.0 100.0%/ 622.0 Source: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA, 2020 Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect of Road capital impacts. Collier County Law Enforcement Capital Impacts The Law Enforcement impact fee includes the capital construction and expansion of police service related to land facilities, and capital equipment required to support police service demand created by new growth. Facilities and equipment consist primarily of centralized and support buildings, patrol cars and other equipment. Fees are assessed at the recommended level. Revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating the Law Enforcement facilities and equipment are provided in the General Funds Operating Impacts section. Direct capital impacts on Law Enforcement are presented in Table 10. Based on discussions with the Sheriff's Office, capital demands from Longwater Village include the cost to equip certified 16 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT officers. At this time, there is not the need for a specific land site within Longwater Village for a substation; however, there may be need in the future for a work station to serve development in the area. As shown below, impact fees are adequate to fund Longwater Village's proportionate share. Table 10: Longwater Law Enforcement Capital Impacts Longwater SRA Funded Law Enforcement Facilities Law Enforcement Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue $ 1,268,000 Other Capital Revenues* 230,000 Total Capital Revenues $ 1,498,000 Direct Capital Costs: Law Enforcement Equipment Cost Equipment Value per Certified Police Officer $ 106,000 Certified Police Officers at Achieved LOS 9.5 Law Enforcement Equipment Cost $ 1,008,000 Total Law Enforcement Direct Capital Costs $ 1,008,000 Law Enforcement Capital Revenues in Excess of Direct Capital Costs $ 490,000 Law Enforcement Indirect Capital Costs: Law Enforcement Direct Capital Surplus $ 490,000 Land and Building Cost per Sq Ft $ 219 Additional Law Enforcement Facility Sq Ft Funded 2,238 Law Enforcement Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ - Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 The County's achieved LOS for Law Enforcement is 1.77 officers per 1,000 peak population; whereas, the adopted LOS is 1.84. As such, the achieved LOS was used to estimate the number of certified police officers needed to serve Longwater Village. Table 11: Longwater Law Enforcement Level of Service LOS Share Law Enforcement Facilities Peak Seasonal Population 5,373 Achieved LOS (Officers per 1,000 Peak Residents) 1.77 Funded Facilities and Equipmentfor Certified Police Officers 9.5 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 The $219 per square foot value of the satellite office in Table 10 was obtained from the 2016 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Update. The equipment value per certified police officer is calculated in Table 12. 17 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 12: Longwater Law Enforcement Equipment Cost per Certified Police Officer Item Amount Equi lament I nventory Val ue $ 70,020,524 Number of Certified Police Officers 660 Equipment Value per Officer $ 106,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Collier County Correctional Facilities Capital Impacts The Correctional Facilities impact fee includes jail facilities (land and building) and equipment. Fees are assessed at the recommended level. Revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating correctional facilities and equipment are provided in the General Funds Operating Impacts section. Correctional Facilities capital impacts are presented in Table 13. Table 13: Longwater Correctional Facilities Longwater SRA Funded Share Jail Facilities Correctional Facilities Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue $ 1,088,000 Other Capital Revenues* 60,000 Total Capital Revenues $ 1,148,000 Capital Cost (Land, Building, Vehicles, and Equipment) - Indexed $ 1,148,000 Correctional Facilities Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ *Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis. Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 The capital cost for correctional facilities is calculated below. Table 14: Longwater Correctional Facilities Capital Cost Functional Population Units/ Functional Land Use Coefficient Square Feet Population Single Family Detached Less than 4,000 sq ft 1.81 1,503 2,719 Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached 0.94 1,097 1,031 Retail 50,001 to 100,000 sfgla 2.46 80,000 197 Total Functional Population 3,947 2018 Indexed Capital Cost per Functional Population $ 290.98 Total Capital Cost $ 1,148,000 Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 5,563 2018 Indexed Capital Cost per Peak Population $ 206.36 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 The indexed capital cost per bed is calculated in Table 15. 18 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 15: Longwater Correctional Facilities Indexed Cost per Resident Description Figure Net Asset Value - I ndexed $ 111,592,344 Number of Beds 1,304 Net Asset Value per Bed $ 85,577 Current LOS (Beds per 1,000 Functional Residents) 3.40 Asset Value per Functional Resident $ 290.98 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Collier County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Capital Impacts According to EMS management, Longwater Village will be primarily served by a new EMS facility planned for the corner of Desoto Blvd./Golden Gate Blvd East. The County acquired the site in January 2020. The Greater Naples Fire Rescue District will co -locate a fire facility at the site. EMS management anticipates the station will be placed in service in 2022. The cost of the new facility will be funded by the County's One -Cent Infrastructure surtax which was authorized in 2018. If additional EMS capacity is needed to serve Rivergrass SRA Village, and potentially Hyde Park SRA Village and Longwater SRA Village, EMS management anticipates leasing space for an additional vehicle at the new NCFR station planned for 22nd Avenue/Desoto Blvd N. Because NCFR is planning to maintain an apparatus at the new EMS station, the two entities may enter into a mutual cost -sharing arrangement. The EMS level of service in the County's AUIR is approximately 1 unit (vehicle, equipment, station space) per 16,400 population; however, in addition to this metric, EMS also relies on demand factors such as response time and call volume to site new facilities. Call volume is affected by demographics in the service area. For example, nearly 70 percent of the County's ambulance fee collections are from Medicare and Medicaid patients. Table 16 compares calculates the net allocable cost of the new EMS station to Longwater Village using a peak seasonal resident population approach. ' As described in the 2019 AUIR, the County currently leases 14 EMS stations. For 10 of the 14 leased stations, no rent is paid but rather a shared monthly utility charged is assessed. Annual lease payments for EMS facilities are considered in the County operating impact section of this report. W1 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 16: Longwater Allocation of New EMS Station Cost Allocation of New EMS Station Proportionate Allocation 2019 AUIR Cost of Shared Station: Facility $ 1,325,000 Equipment 551,057 Total Capital Cost of Shared Station $ 1,876,057 Less One -Cent Infrastructure Surtax Funding (1,325,000) Net Allocable Cost $ 551,057 Demand Base 16,400 Per Capita Cost $ 33.60 Longwater Village Peak Resident Population 5,373 EMS New Station Cost Allocable to Longwater Village $ 181,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 Table 17 compares the allocable cost of the new station to projected impact fees for Longwater Village. Table 17: Longwater EMS Capital Impact Longwater Village EMS Capital EMS Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue $ 303,000 Other Capital Revenues* 7,000 Total Capital Revenues $ 310,000 EMS New Station Cost Allocable to Longwater Village $ 181,000 Net Capital Revenues Available for EMS Growth - Related Capital Needs 129,000 EMS Total Capital Cost $ 310,000 *Included in the Collier County General Funds net fiscal impact buildout analysis. Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 Longwater Regional Parks Capital Impacts The County imposes separate impact fees for community and regional parks. Revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating the County's Parks facilities are provided in the General Funds and MSTU Operating Impacts section. Regional Park capital impacts are presented in Table 18. 20 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 18: Longwater Regional Parks Capital Impacts Longwater SRA Funded Regional Park Facilities Regional Park Capital Revenues Impact Fee Revenue Other Capital Revenues* Total Capital Revenues Regional Park Indirect Capital Costs Indexed Land & Facility Cost per Acre Regional Park Acres at Achieved LOS Longwater SRA Funded Regional Park Acres $ 5,400,000 283,000 $ 5,683,000 $ 590,288 9.78 $ 5,772,000 Regional Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ (89,000) Community Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs 112,000 Total Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ 23,000 *Included in the Collier County General Funds and MSTU expenditures analysis Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 The County's adopted LOS for Regional Parks is 2.70 acres per 1,000 peak population. County Staff recommended the application of an adjusted achieved LOS of 1.82 acres per 1,000 peak population for purposes of this analysis. Table 19: Longwater Regional Parks Level of Service LOS Sha re of Regiona I Pa rk Faci I ities Regional Park Achieved LOS per County Staff 1.82 Longwater SRA Peak Seasonal Population 5,373 Longwater SRA Community Park Acreage 9.78 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 The indexed capital cost per Regional Park acre is calculated in Table 20. Table 20: Longwater Regional Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre Component Regional Park Land Purchase Cost per Acre $ 450,000 Landscaping, Site Preparation, and Irrigation Cost, per acre 40,000 Total Land Cost per Acre $ 490,000 Facility & Equipment Cost per Acre 43,634 Total Land & Facility Cost per Acre $ 533,634 2018 Index 1.106 2018 Indexed Cost per Acre $ 590,288 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Longwater Community Parks Capital Impacts Community Parks capital impacts are presented in Table 21. 21 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 21: Longwater Community Parks Capital Impacts Longwater SRA Funded Community Park Facilities Community Park Capital Revenues Impact Fee Revenue $ 1,903,000 Other Capital Revenues* 31,000 Total Capital Revenues $ 1,934,000 Community Park Indirect Capital Costs Indexed Land & Facility Cost per Acre Community Park Acres at Adopted LOS Longwater SRA Funded Community Park Acres $ 282,573 6.45 $ 1,822,000 Community Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ 112,000 Regional Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs (89,000) Total Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ 23,000 Source: Collier County, Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2019 The County's adopted LOS for Community Parks is 1.20 acres per 1,000 peak population, and the achieved LOS is 1.47 acres. As such, the adopted LOS was used to estimate the number of Community Park acres needed to serve Longwater Village. Table 22: Longwater Community Parks Level of Service LOS Share of Community Park Facilities Community Park Adopted LOS 1.20 Longwater SRA Peak Seasonal Population 5,373 Longwater SRA Community Park Acreage 6.45 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 The indexed capital cost per Community Park acre is calculated in Table 23. Table 23: Longwater Community Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre Community Component Park Land Purchase Cost per Acre $ 107,000 Landscaping, Site Preparation, and Irrigation Cost, per acre 10,000 Total Land Cost per Acre $ 117,000 Facility & Equipment Cost per Acre 148,328 Total Land & Facility Cost per Acre $ 265,328 2018 Index 1.065 2018 Indexed Cost per Acre $ 282,573 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Longwater Libraries Impacts Libraries impact fees include land, building, furnishings, and collection materials to serve the entire County. Fees are assessed at the recommended level. Revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating the County's Libraries facilities are provided in the General Funds Operating Impacts section. 22 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Libraries capital impacts are presented in Table 24. The calculated surplus will be used to fund other Library capital needs. Table 24: Longwater Libraries Capital Impacts Longwater SRA Funded Library Facilities Library Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue $ 680,000 Other Capital Revenues* 100,000 Total Capital Revenue $ 780,000 Library Capital Costs: Library Facility Cost LibrarySq Ft at Achieved LOS 1,687 Library Facility Cost per Scl Ft $ 243.20 Library Facility Cost $ 410,000 Library Materials/Collections Unit Cost per Capita $ 38.62 Peak Seasonal Population 5,373 Tota I Items $ 208,000 Total Library Capital Costs $ 618,000 Li bra ryCapitaI Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ 162,0 *Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis. Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 The County's adopted LOS for Library facilities is 0.33 square feet per 1,000 peak population; whereas, the achieved LOS is 0.31 square feet for owned facilities. As such, the achieved LOS was used to estimate the library square footage needed to serve Longwater Village. Table 25: Longwater Library Facilities Level of Service LOS Share of Library Facilities Peak Seasonal Population 5,373 Scl Ft per Peak Seasonal Resident atAchieved LOS 0.31 Library Scl Ft (Achieved LOS) 1,687 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 The library square foot value of $243, and the unit cost per capita value of $39 were obtained from the 2016 Library Impact Fee Update. Government Buildings Capital Impacts Government buildings impact fees include remaining non -enterprise County land, buildings, information technology and vehicles. Fees are assessed at the recommended level. Revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating the County's General Government facilities are provided in the General Funds Operating Impacts section. General Government capital impacts are presented in Table 26. 23 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 26: Longwater General Government Capital Impacts Longwater SRA Funded Government Buildings Government Building Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue $ 1,993,000 Revenue Credits* 67,000 Total Capital Revenue $ 2,060,000 Government Building Capital Costs: Government Building Indirect Capital Costs: $ 2,060,000 Government Building Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ *Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis. Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 General government capital costs are calculated in Table 27. Table 27: Longwater General Government Capital Cost Land Use Functional Population Coefficient Units/ Square Feet Functional Population Single Family Detached Less than 4,000 sq ft 1.81 1,503 2,722 Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached 0.86 1,097 945 Retail 50,001 to 100,000 sfgla 2.46 80,000 197 Total Functional Population 3,864 Capital Cost per Functional Population $ 533.72 Total Proportionate Capital Cost $ 21060,000 Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 5,563 Capital Cost per Peak Population $ 370.30 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to County Capital Impacts. Water and Wastewater The following table is a calculation of the Longwater Village potable water demands and wastewater generation with all factors and assumptions: 24 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Fieure 2: Lonewater Water and Wastewater Demands Longwater Water and Wastewater Demands Wastewater Potable Water Wastewater to water conversion = 1.5 Residential 2,600 DU @ 200 gpd = 520,000 gpd 2,600 DU @ 300 gpd = 780,000 gpd Commercial 80,000 sf @ 0.15 gpd = 12,000 gpd 80,000 sf @ 0.23 gpd = 18,000 gpd Civic 26,000 sf @ 0.15 gpd = 3,900 gpd 26,000 sf @ 0.23 gpd = 5,850 gpd 535,900 gpd 803,850 gpd 535,900 gpd = 0.54 mgd ADF 803,850 gpd = 0.80 mgd AN M3D Factor = 1.5 M3D Factor = 1.3 M3D Flow = 0.80 mgd M3D Flow = 1.05 mgd Source: Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc., Hole Montes, 2020 Potable water services for the Longwater Village project will be provided by the Collier County Water and Sewer District from existing and planned facilities per a proposed Interlocal Agreement that outlines commitments from Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC and the Big Cypress Stewardship District. The estimated potable water demand for residential development at the project is based on 300 gpd per D.U. (residential), and 2,600 residences. Potable water demand for commercial development is based on 23 gpd per 100 feet square or 0.23 gpd/sf. Using these assumptions, potable water demand for the Longwater Village development at buildout is projected to be approximately 0.8 MGD average daily demand and 1.05 MGD maximum 3-day demand. Wastewater services for the Longwater Village project will be provided by the Collier County Water and Sewer District from existing and planned facilities per a proposed Interlocal Agreement that outlines commitments from Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC and the Big Cypress Stewardship District. Anticipated wastewater generated by the development is based on a per capita daily volume of 200 gpd per D.U. for 2,600 residences. Wastewater demand for commercial development is based on 15 gpd per 100 feet square or 0.15 gpd/sf. This results in build out wastewater flows of 0.54 MGD on an average daily basis and 0.8 MGD on a maximum 3-day basis. Refer to the proposed Interlocal Agreement for a description of the commitments, including the prepayment of a portion of water and wastewater impact fees. Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to Collier County's Water and Wastewater capital and operating impacts. 25 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Stormwater Management The project's stormwater management system has received a Conceptual Approval permit from the SFWMD (#11-03949-P). The criteria used in the preparation of this plan was based on the predevelopment agricultural stormwater management system currently in place. Stormwater discharges from the lands in question are equal or less pre versus post on both a peak rate and total volume perspective. As such, the discharges mimic that of undeveloped lands. Therefore, in the event of a change to the agreement between Collier County and the Big Cypress Basin concerning the lands to the south of 1-75, no impact on any downstream system above and beyond that of undeveloped land would be realized and thus there is no impact on County stormwater facilities caused by the development of this property above and beyond undeveloped land. Collier County currently maintains no onsite stormwater infrastructure and will not in the future. The receiving water of the stormwater discharges from Longwater Village is the existing agricultural water management system aka Water Retention Area ("WRA"), which ultimately discharges to the Merrit Canal via Camp Keais Strand. No WRA areas are included within the village SRA area. The peak allowable discharge rate in Collier County applicable to this project based on ord. 90- 10 is 0.15 cfs/acre. The proposed surface water management system will be based on the permitted agricultural system currently in place and operational. The peak discharge rate of 0.03 cfs/ac will be used to match that of the agricultural system in an effort to maintain the hydrological regime that has existed for many years on this site. The evaluation of offsite discharge rate shall be made at the outfalls of the agricultural system in accordance with the Conceptual Approval permit (11-03949-P) issued by SFWMD for this and its surrounding applicant owned property. The flowways within this project are natural wetland systems. The capacity that exists prior to development will exist after development and will not be increased nor decreased. No surrounding properties currently flow through the SRA area of this project. The same predevelopment drainage basin boundaries will be maintained by the proposed design. Stormwater water quality treatment within this SRA will be predominantly accomplished by wet detention (lakes) located within the SRA and overlapping into the WRA areas as permitted by SFWMD. Commercial areas will also utilize dry detention pretreatment areas in accordance with SFWMD requirements. Discharges from the SRA water management system to natural WRA areas will occur only after water quality volumes have been achieved and will be by permitted control structures and facilities. Initial phases of development may pump stormwater after treatment consistent with the pre -development drainage of the land. The provided water quality treatment volume of this SRA will be in accordance with the approved SFWMD ERP, inclusive of an additional 50 percent of water quality to be provided in excess of the calculated base water 26 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT quality volume for compliance with the interim watershed management plan. Water quantity treatment will occur in both the SRA sited lake system and the WRA areas in concert. Several alterations to the WRA areas adjacent to the Village were proposed and approved by SFWMD with the Conceptual Approval Permit. Stormwater management/buffer lakes and their associated containment berms have been permitted in select locations in the existing WRA's. These modifications were confined to areas of the WRA that exhibited heavy exotic infestation and had little to no habitat function. All of these alterations have mitigation identified in the permit which will be made upon implementation of the impact. The water management concept for Longwater Village involves the use of the existing agricultural water management system. The proposed system design will use permitted control elevations, discharge rates and discharge locations. The plan as proposed has received a Conceptual Approval Permit issued by SFWMD. All discharges to the WRA (wetland) areas from development will be made only after water quality volumes have been provided in the development area. Areas of the WRA will be excavated to form parts of the internal buffer lake system. Areas to be excavated are low quality exotic impacted areas and will be mitigated for through the SFWMD process. The only fill areas within WRA's will be berms associated with the surface water management system. which will be mitigated through the SFWMD process. No impacts are proposed to Camp Keais Strand by this project. Collier County will bear no responsibility for or cost associated with the Longwater Village water management system; therefore, the fiscal impact to Collier County is neutral. Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect of Stormwater Management capital and operating impacts. Irrigation Water The Longwater Village project site has a long history of permitted agricultural withdrawals from the Water Table and Lower Tamiami Aquifers that has not resulted in adverse impacts to natural environments. At build -out, the Longwater Village project will result in converting approximately 1,000 acres of agricultural land into a residential development. The agricultural water allocations currently permitted and used within the Longwater Village project area total approximately 3.37 MGD on an annual average basis and approximately 8.86 MGD on a maximum monthly basis. The transition of agricultural use to residential/commercial use will result in approximately 307 acres of landscaping and turf within the Longwater Village development requiring irrigation. The project irrigation demand for this amount of irrigated acreage as determined using the SFWMD Blaney-Criddle method are: • 1.18 MGD on an annual average basis • 1.71 MGD on a maximum monthly basis 27 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT The proposed change in land use is anticipated to result in a significant net reduction of irrigation water usage at the site. The Longwater Village project will obtain a water use permit from the SFWMD which will allow withdrawal from surface water and ground water sources onsite to meet irrigation demands. However, the developer is in discussions with the County to secure 100 percent of the project's irrigation demands from reclaimed water. In addition, the developer is working with the County to develop additional water resources onsite to meet public water supply needs throughout the County service area. If the County provides reclaimed water to meet all the project's irrigation water demands, the SFWMD permit will only be used for 30-day back up supply in the event that there is a disruption in reclaimed water supply. The onsite irrigation water supply system will include stormwater lakes and wells. The lake system will be used to supply irrigation water for the project and wells will be utilized to partially or fully resupply the withdrawal lakes. The proposed source aquifer for the wells is the Lower Tamiami Aquifer which is currently permitted to meet the existing agricultural water demands on the project site. The lake withdrawals will provide an efficient and low impact method for effectively harvesting available stormwater supplies. Lake volume storage in the lake system as well as re- supply by groundwater from the recharge wells will minimize potential impacts to surface and groundwater levels. The developer would be responsible for all costs associated with the permitting, construction, and maintenance of the irrigation system. Collier County will bear no responsibility for or cost associated with the Longwater Village irrigation system, therefore the fiscal impact to Collier County is neutral. Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect of Irrigation Water capital and operating impacts. Solid Waste Collier County's contractor hauler, Waste Management Inc. of Florida ("WMIF"), will collect solid waste generated within Longwater Village. Recycled materials will be collected from curbside recycling containers through contract haulers. Residential recyclables and horticultural waste will be collected at the curb on a weekly basis. Construction debris will be collected and processed by a local business specializing in the recycling of construction products. Commercial and institutional facilities will utilize dumpster containers for the storage of garbage and rubbish. Recycling containers will be used to store recyclables in the commercial and institutional areas. Solid waste collected within Longwater Village will be hauled to the Immokalee Solid Waste Transfer Station and from there transported to WMIF's Okeechobee Landfill. According to WMIF, the Okeechobee Landfill has adequate capacity for the next 25 years. Alternatively, the Collier County Naples landfill also has capacity according to the Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report. Revenues and expenses of the solid waste operations described above are accounted for in the County's Solid Waste Fund, a self-supporting enterprise fund. 28 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to Collier County's Landfill. NORTH COLLIER FIRE & RESCUE DISTRICT North Collier Fire & Rescue Capital Impacts Longwater Village is located within the Big Corkscrew Island Service Delivery Area ("SDA") of the North Collier Fire & Rescue District ("Fire & Rescue District"). Based on discussions with Fire & Rescue District personnel, Longwater Village is within a mile of a planned fire facility which is already owned by the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District. Table 28: Longwater North Collier Fire & Rescue District Capital Impacts Capital Impact at Buildout Capital Impact: Fire District Capital Revenues Impact Fee Revenue Other Capital Revenue Total Capital Revenue Fire District Capital Cost Capital Cost per Functional Resident (Indexed) Functional Population Total Capital Cost $ 1,432,000 82,000 $ 1,514,000 $ 407 3,721 $ 1,514,000 Fire District Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ Source: North Collier Fire & Rescue District, DPFG, 2020 Capital costs are estimated in Table 29. Table 29: Longwater Fire & Rescue District Functional Population Functional Population Units/ Functional Land Use Coefficient Square Feet Population Single Family Detached <4,000 sq ft 1.71 1,503 2,570 Multi -Family 0.87 1,097 954 Retail 100,000 gsf or less 2.46 80,000 197 Total Functional Population 3,721 Source: North Collier Fire & Rescue District, DPFG, 2020 Projected impact fee revenues are presented in Table 30 and total $1.4 million. 29 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 30: Longwater North Collier Fire & Rescue Impact Fee Revenues Impact Fee Category Units or Scl Ft Fire Impact Fee Total Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached 1,097 $ 334.82 $ 367,000 Total SFD < 4,000 Scl Ft 1,503 $ 658.09 989,000 Retail 50,001- 100,000 Scl Ft 80,000 $ 0.9485 76,000 Total Fire Impact Fees $ 1,432,000 Source: North Collier Fire & Rescue District, DPFG, 2020 North Collier Fire & Rescue Annual Operating Impacts Because the current operating millage of the Big Corkscrew Island SDA is geared to much lower density development, Longwater Village is currently projected to generate significant operating surpluses. Annual operating revenues and expenditures are reflected in Table 31. Table 31: Longwater Big Corkscrew Island SDA Annual Operating Impacts at Buildout Annual Operating Impact at Buildout Annual Operating Impact: Longwater SRA Ad Valorem Tax Base $ 805,353,000 Big Corkscrew Island SDA Millage Rate 3.75 Annual Ad Valorem Revenues $ 3,020,000 $ 3,020,000 Annual Expenditures: 2019-20 North Collier Fire Budget: Personnel and Operating Expenses $ 37,774,581 Debt Service 565,627 Capital 2,889,975 Total Expenditures $ 41,230,183 North Collier Fire District Functional Population 147,405 Operating Cost per Functional Resident $ 280 Longwater SRA Functional Population 3,721 Annual Operating Cost $ 1,042,000 $ 1,042,000 Annual Operating Surplus $ 1,978,000 Source: North Collier Fire & Rescue District, DPFG, 2020 Longwater Village is deemed fiscally positive with respect to the North Collier Fire & Rescue Control District. COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOLS FISCAL IMPACT Collier County Schools Capital Impacts The projected enrollment of Longwater Village on the Collier County Public Schools ("CCPS") is shown in Table 32. The student generation rates in the 2015 School Impact Fee Update, the most recent data available, were used to calculate enrollment. 30 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 32: Longwater Projected Public School Enrollment Projected Residential Unit Type Units SGR Students Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached 1,097 0.11 121 Total SFD <4,000 Sq Ft 1,503 0.34 511 Total Residential 2,600 632 Source: Collier County School District, Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2019 Projected enrollment by type of school is shown in Table 33. Table 33: Longwater Projected Enrollment by School Type Projected School Type Students Percent El ementa ry 287 45.48% Middle 139 22.06% High 205 32.46% Total 632 100.00% Source: Collier County School District, Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2019 According to the School District, at this time there is existing or planned capacity within the next five years at the elementary, middle and high school levels for each village individually. However, the proposed Bellmar and Longwater Villages and the approved Rivergrass Village, collectively, result in the School District exceeding its estimated capacity. A stipulation to the proposed Development Order requires the developer to convey real property for two school sites (Site A shall be used only for a public high school and/or middle school and Site B shall be used only for a public elementary school) in exchange for educational impact fee credits. The proposed stipulation states, "With respect to the conveyance of real property, by the Applicant to the District, the School Reservation of School Site A and B to the District fully mitigates for the development's impact to the elementary, middle and high schools needed to serve Rivergrass, Longwater, and Belmar SRAs." At the time of site plan or plat, the development will be reviewed to ensure there is capacity either within the concurrency service area the development is located within or adjacent concurrency service areas. The capital costs of the Longwater students are presented in Table 34 and are based on the 2015 School Impact Fee Update which includes a capitalized interest component. These estimates are conservative compared to the November 2019 F.S. 1013.64(b) statutory cost caps of Elementary $23,284, Middle $25,144, and High $32,661 per student station. 31 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 34: Longwater School Capital Costs Cost per Fa ci I i ty Costs Students Student Total School Facility Cost: Elementary 287 $ 36,058 $ 10,365,000 Middle 139 42,266 5,892,000 High 205 48,381 9,924,000 Cost of New School Facilities 632 $ 41,426 $ 26,181,000 Transportation and Ancillary Costs - Initial: Transportation 632 $ 1,097 693,000 Anxillary Facility 632 $ 1,206 762,000 Total Transportation/Ancillary 632 $ 2,303 1,455,000 Total Capital Costs $ 43,728 $ 27,636,000 Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2019 School impact fee revenue is shown in Table 35. Table 35: Longwater School Impact Fee Revenue Units or School Impact Fee Category SclFt ImpactFee Total Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached 1,097 $ 2,844.19 $ 3,120,000 Total SFD <4,000 Scl Ft 1,503 $ 8,789.54 13,211,000 Total School Impact Fees $16,331,000 Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2019 As seen in Table 36, capital revenues consist primarily of ad valorem taxes (1.5 mills) and impact fees. The capital impact of Longwater Village is favorable as 42 percent of the housing units are expected to generate only 0.11 students per household. Table 36: Longwater School Net Capital Impacts —Total Cash Flow Approach Capital School Impact Improvement Revenue/Expense Fee Revenue Tax* Total School Capital Revenues: School Impact Fee Revenue $ 16,331,000 $ 16,331,000 School District Capital Tax Revenue 25,742,000 25,742,000 Total School Capital Revenues $ 16,331,000 $ 25,742,000 $ 42,073,000 Direct School Capital Expenditures: New Schools $ 26,181,000 New School Buses K-12 693,000 Direct School Capital Expenditures: $ 26,874,000 Other School Capital Expenditures: School Bus Replacement Cost $ 693,000 Other Direct School and/or Systemwide Capital Expenditures 14,506,000 Total School Capital Expenditures $ 42,073,000 * Consistent with 25-Year Credit Period in CCPS School Impact Fee Study. Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2020 32 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Collier County Schools Operating Impacts The Florida Legislature establishes the school operating millage based on the General Appropriations Act. Legislative committees meet to debate continuing and new initiatives in education and set a budget based on these results within the General Appropriations Act. The State budget determines the Required Local Effort Millage ("RLE") for each school district. The RLE is the amount of funding that each district provides annually towards the cost of the Florida Education Finance Program ("FEFP"). The aggregate RLE for all school districts is prescribed by the Legislature as a specific line item in the annual General Appropriations Act. The Commissioner of Education is also authorized to adjust the millage rate to make sure no school district's RLE exceeds 90 percent of that district's total FEFP entitlement. The Legislature establishes a per student funding amount which is based upon the local authorities taxing of both the RLE and the 0.748 discretionary tax millage. According to the School District, the school tax millage for Collier County is much lower than the statewide average and typically ranks within the three lowest out of all Florida school districts. A comparison of the School District's millage history is shown in Figure 3. Figure 3: Collier County School District Tax Roll and Millage History Tax Roll History (In Billions) 110.00 100.00 90.00 597.91 80.00 588-57 592.40 $86-16 70.00 $72-04 $74-45 60.00 567-94 50.00 $53-49 560-27 SGD.71 S63A5 40.00 30.00 09-10 14-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-24 At.] LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT School District Millage History 6.000 5.699 5-527 5.576 5-690 5580 5 4B0 5-239 5-245 5.122 5-049 5.083 5.000 4.000 3.451 3-279 3.328 3-4-42 3332 3-232 2-991 2-997 2.894 2-821 2.835 3.0000 2.000 2-248 2248 2-24B 2-248 2.248 2-248 2.248 2-248 2.228 2-228 2248 1.000 0.000 i 99-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 Required 'ire Law Source: Collier County School District, 2019 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 Discretionary Millage—W—Total MiIlage Because the Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through a series of statewide equalization formulas, most fiscal analysts do not attempt to model school operating impacts. An estimate of local ad valorem school operating revenues is shown in Table 37. Table 37: Longwater Local Ad Valorem School Operating Taxes at Buildout Operating School District ODeratine Results Millage At Buildout Ad Valorem Local Millage - Residential 3.583 $ 2,951,000 Ad Valorem Local Millage - Non Residential 3.583 54,000 Ad Valorem Local Millage Revenues $ 3,005,000 Ad Valorem Local Millage Operating Expenditures $ 3,005,000 Ad Valorem Local Millage Net Revenues $ - Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2020 Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral respect to the Collier County School District. 34 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT APPENDIX Appendix Table 1: Collier County Base Assumptions COLLIER COUNTY STUDY PERIOD FY 2019 County Budget Year COLLIER COUNTYWIDE POPULATION 376,086 2019 County Permanent Population - Collier County 2018 AUIR 1.20 Seasonal Population Coefficient - CollierCounty 451,303 2019 County Peak Seaonal Population - Collier County 2018 AUIR 75,217 2019 County Peak Seasonal Population COLLIER COUNTYWIDE EMPLOYMENT 196,065 Coll ier County 2016 EMS Impact Fee Update 0.8897602 FTE Conversion Factor - IMPLAN 174,451 Collier County Employment COLLIER COUNTY PEAK TOURIST POPULATION 243,100 Collier County CVB Profile- March 2019 7,842 Peak Daily Tourists COLLIER COUNTYWIDE POPULATION AND JOBS 550,537 County Permanent Population and Jobs 625,754 County Peak Seasonal Population and Jobs 633,596 County Peak Seasonal Population, Tourists, and Jobs COLLIER UNINCORPORATED COUNTY POPULATION 333,831 2019 Unincorporated County Permanent Population - Collier County 2018 AUIR 1.21 Seasonal Unincorporated Population Coefficient -Collier County 404,945 2019 Unincorporated County Peak Seaonal Population - Collier County 2018 AUIR 71,114 2019 Unincorporated County Peak Seasonal Population COLLIER COUNTY UNINCORPORATED EMPLOYMENT 154,851 Allocation based on Collier County 2016 EMS Impact Fee Update COLLIER COUNTY UNINCORPORATED POPULATION AND JOBS 488,682 County Permanent Population and Jobs 559,796 County Peak Seasonal Population and Jobs COLLIER COUNTY MILLAGE RATES 3.5645 County General Fund 0.8069 MSTD General Fund 0.0293 Water Pollution Control COLLIER COUNTY % HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION Shimberg Center for Housing Studies - 2018 Final Tax Roll Year 66%1 Single Family 31% Condominium $ 50,000 County Homestead Exemption $ 25,000 School Homestead Exemption Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 35 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 2: Longwater Resident Population and Seasonal Population Coefficients Peak Permanent Seasonal Population Seasonal Persons Land Use by Impact Fee Category Per Unit Index Per Unit Residential (Units) 1.05 1.20 1.26 Total Condo, Dupex, Single -Family Attached 2.21 1.20 2.65 Total SFD <4,000 Sq Ft Source: Collier Enterprises, Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Aooendix Table 3: Lonewater Population and Emolovment Estimates Land Use by Impact Fee Category Units Peak Seasonal Persons Per Unit Peak Seasonal Population Permanent Population Per Unit Permanent Population Residential Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft Total Residential 1,097 1.26 1,383 1.05 1,152 1,503 2.65 3,990 2.21 3,325 2,600 5,373 4,477 Non -Residential Sq Ft Employment Coefficient Occup % Employees Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft Total Non -Residential 80,000 2.50 95% 190 80,000 190 Neigborhood Civic Grand Total Non -Residential (sf) 26,000 106,000 190 Source: Collier Enterprises, Collier County, DPFG, 2020 Appendix Table 4: Longwater Population and Employment Summary Cumulative Population and Employment At Buildout Permanent Population 4,477 Permanent Population and Jobs 4,667 Residential Seasonal Population 5,373 Residential Seasonal Population and Tourists 5,373 Employment 190 Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 5,563 Residential Seasonal Population, Tourists, and Employment 5,563 Source: Collier Enterprises, Inc., Collier County, DPFG, 2020 Appendix Table 5: Longwater Public School Enrollment Students Total Residential Population Units per Unit Students Total Condo, Dupex, Single -Family Attached 1,097 0.11 118 Tota I SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,503 0.34 514 Annual Total 2,600 632 Cumulative Total Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2019 36 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 4ppendix Table 6: Longwater County Tax Base Land Use Residential Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft Total Residential Non -Residential Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft Total Non -Residential Total Tax Base Units or Taxable Value Sq Ft per Unit/SF At Buildout 1,097 $ 245,112 $ 268,888,000 1,503 $ 346,843 521,305,000 2,600 $ 790,193,000 80,000 $ 189.50 15,160,000 80,000 $ 15,160,000 $ 805,353,000 Source: Collier Enterprises, Collier County, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2020 Appendix Table 7: Longwater School District Tax Base Units or Taxable Value Land Use Sq Ft per Unit/SF At Buildout Residential Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached 1,097 $ 252,862 $ 277,390,000 Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,503 $ 363,343 546,105,000 Total Residential 2,600 $ 823,495,000 Non -Residential Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 80,000 $ 189.50 15,160,000 Total Non -Residential 80,000 $ 15,160,000 Total Tax Base $ 838,655,000 Source: Collier Enterprises, Collier County, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2020 37 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT ndix Table 8: FY 2019 Collier Countv General Funds Budget Summaries Inter- Fed Payment GENERAL FUND GROUPING Ad Valorem Licenses & Governmental State Revenue in Lieu of Charges for Fines & Miscellaneous Interest/ Indirect REVENUES AND SOURCES Taxes Permits Revenues Sharing State Sales Tax Taxes Services Forfeitures Revenues Miscellaneous Service Charge Carry Forward 001 General Fund $314,823,600 $ 229,200 $ 453,500 $ 11,000,000 $ 41,000,000 $ 1,250,000 $ 14,214,100 $ 392,500 $ 208,100 $ 910,000 $ 8,254,500 $ 41,381,100 002 Impact Fee Deferral Program - - - - - - - - - - - 20,200 003 Emergency Relief - - - - - - - - - - 2,300 285,100 007 Economic Development - - 400,000 - - - - - - 18,600 - 1,334,200 011 Clerk of Circuit Court - - - - - - 3,214,600 - - 36,000 - - 040 Sheriff - - - - - - - - - - - - 060 Property Appraiser - - - - - - - - - - - - 070 Tax Col lector - - - - - - 23,377,700 - - 233,500 - - 080 Supervisor of Elections Total General Fund Grouping Revenues $314,823,600 $ 229,200 $ 853,500 $ 11,000,000 $ 41,000,000 $ 1,250,000 $ 40,806,400 $ 392,500 $ 208,100 $ 1,198,100 $ 8,256,800 $ 43,020,600 Transfers from Transfers from Reimbursefrom GENERAL FUND GROUPING Communication Special General Fund Constitutional Repay IRMA Other REVENUES AND SOURCES Services Tax Assessments (001) Officers Other Transfers Loan Departments Total Less Restricted Total 001 General Fund $ 6,600,000 $ 1,815,000 $ 11,700,000 $ 863,000 $ 455,094,600 $ (19,191,900) $ 435,902,700 002 Impact Fee Deferral Program - - 20,200 - 20,200 003 Emergency Relief - - 287,400 (200) 287,200 007 Economic Development 1,752,800 (21,000) 1,731,800 011 Clerk of Circuit Court 7,367,000 10,617,600 (159,200) 10,458,400 040 Sheriff 187,203,400 - 187,203,400 187,203,400 060 Property Appraiser 6,951,000 846,100 7,797,100 7,797,100 070 Tax Collector - - 23,611,200 23,611,200 080 Supervisor of Elections - - 3,893,000 - - - - 3,893,000 - 3,893,000 Total General Fund Grouping Revenues $ $ $ 205,414,400 $ 6,600,000 $ 2,661,100 $ 11,700,000 $ 863,000 $ 690,277,300 $ (19,372,300) $ 670,905,000 Fund # General Fund Description Total Budget 001 General Fund $ 435,902,700 002 Utility Impact Fee Deferral Program 20,200 003 Emergency Disaster 287,200 007 Economic Development 1,731,800 011 Clerk of Circuit Court 10,458,400 040 Sheriff 187,203,400 060 Property Appraiser 7,797,100 070 Tax Collector 23,611,200 080 Supervisor of Elections 3,893,000 Total General Fund Groupings $ 670,905,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 38 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 9: FY 2019 Collier County General Funds Revenue Demand Units General Fund Grouping Revenue Category Budget Demand Base Multiplier Base Demand $ Per Demand Unit Ad Valorem Taxes Licenses & Permits Inter -Governmental Revenues State Revenue Sharing - Fixed Portion State Revenue Sharing -Growth Portion State Sales Tax Fed Payment in Lieu of Taxes Charges for Services Fines & Forfeitures Miscellaneous Revenues Interest/ Miscellaneous Indirect Service Charge Carry Forward Transfers from General Fund (001) Transfers from Constitutional Officers Other Transfers Repay IRMA Loan Reimburse from Other Departments Total $ 314,823,600 CUMULATIVE AV 1.00 N/A N/A 229,200 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 $ 0.42 853,500 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 $ 1.55 1,042,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A 9,958,000 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 $ 26.48 41,000,000 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 $ 109.02 1,250,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A 40,806,400 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 $ 74.12 392,500 PEAKPOP 1.00 451,303 $ 0.87 208,100 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 $ 0.38 1,198,100 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 $ 2.18 8,256,800 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 $ 15.00 43,020,600 FIXED 1.00 - N/A 205,414,400 FIXED 1.00 - N/A 6,600,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 $ 10.55 2,661,100 FIXED 1.00 - N/A 11,700,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A 863,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 $ 1.38 $ 690,277,300 $ 241.95 Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2019 Appendix Table 10: FY 2019 Collier County MSTU Revenue Demand Units General Fund Grouping Revenue Category Budget Demand Base Multiplier Base Demand $ Per Demand Unit Ad Valorem Taxes Licenses & Permits Charges for Services Fines & Forfeitures Miscellaneous Revenues Interest/ Miscellaneous Carry Forward Communication Services Tax Special Assessments Transfers from General Fund (001) Transfers from Constitutional Officers Other Transfers Reimbursefrom Other Departments Total $ 44,228,900 CUMULATIVE AV 1.00 N/A N/A 452,300 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 488,682 $ 0.93 3,136,200 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 488,682 $ 6.42 237,000 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 488,682 $ 0.48 231,400 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 $ 0.41 120,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 $ 0.21 6,982,900 FIXED 1.00 - N/A 4,500,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 $ 8.04 33,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A 916,600 FIXED 1.00 N/A 200,000 FIXED 1.00 N/A 563,700 FIXED 1.00 N/A 21,500 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 $ 0.04 $ 61,623,500 $ 16.53 Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2019 al LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 11: Longwater General Funds Revenue at Buildout GENERAL FUND GROUPING $ Per REVENUES Demand Base Demand At Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes CUMULATIVE AV $ 3.5645 $ 2,871,000 Licenses & Permits PERMPOP&JOBS $ 0.42 2,000 Inter -Governmental Revenues PERMPOP&JOBS $ 1.55 7,000 State Revenue Sharing - Growth Portion PERMPOP $ 26.48 119,000 State Sales Tax PERMPOP $ 109.02 488,000 Charges for Services PERMPOP&JOBS $ 74.12 346,000 Fines & Forfeitures PEAKPOP $ 0.87 5,000 Miscellaneous Revenues PERMPOP&JOBS $ 0.38 2,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous PERMPOP&JOBS $ 2.18 10,000 Indirect Service Charge PERMPOP&JOBS $ 15.00 70,000 Transfers from Constitutional Officers PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 10.55 59,000 Reimburse from Other Departments PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 1.38 8,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Revenues $ 241.95 $ 3,987,000 Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2020 Appendix Table 12: Longwater MSTU Revenue at Buildout MSTU GENERAL FUND $ Per REVENUES Demand Base Demand At Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes CUMULATIVE AV $ 0.8069 $ 650,000 Licenses & Permits PERMPOP&JOBS $ 0.93 4,000 Charges for Services PERMPOP&JOBS $ 6.42 30,000 Fines & Forfeitures PERMPOP&JOBS $ 0.48 2,000 Miscellaneous Revenues PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 0.41 2,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 0.21 1,000 Communication Services Tax PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 8.04 45,000 Reimburse from Other Departments PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 0.04 - Total MSTU Annual Operating Revenues $ 16.53 $ 734,000 Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2020 40 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT ix Table 13: FY 2019 Collier Countv General Funds Expenditure Budeet Summaries Transfers to Transfers to GENERAL FUND GROUPING Personal Operating Grants and Advance/ Indirect Cost Constitutional General Fund Other EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES Services Services Capital Outlay Aid Remittances Repay Reimbursement Officers (001) Transfers Reserves 001 General Fund $ 34,711,900 $ 36,937,400 $ 420,500 $ 3,624,600 $ 6,572,800 $ 445,000 $ $ 221,211,500 $ 87,497,800 $ 44,481,200 002 Impact Fee Deferral Program - - - - - - - 20,200 - - 003 Emergency Rel i ef 50,000 - - 237,200 007 Economic Development 211,000 - 389,000 4,100 1,127,700 011 Clerk of Circuit Court 8,607,800 1,721,100 129,500 - - - 040 Sheriff 152,433,800 26,926,900 7,842,700 060 Property Appraiser 6,045,100 1,727,000 25,000 070 Tax Collector 11,783,800 2,743,200 424,300 080 Supervisor of Elections 2,351,800 1,493,200 48,000 - - - - - - Total General Fund Grouping Expenditures $215,934,200 $ 71,809,800 $ 8,890,000 $ 3,624,600 $ 6,961,800 $ 445,000 $ 4,100 $221,211,500 $ 20,200 $ 87,497,800 $ 45,846,100 Personal Services Operating Services Restricted for Distribution of Capital Outlay GENERAL FUND GROUPING Unfunded Excess Fees to Grants and Aid EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES Requests Govt Agencies Total Remittances 001 General Fund $ 435,902,700 $ 82,267,200 002 Impact Fee Deferral Program 20,200 - 003 Emergency Rel i ef 287,200 50,000 007 Economic Development 1,731,800 604,100 011 Clerk of Circuit Court 10,458,400 10,458,400 040 Sheriff 187,203,400 187,203,400 060 Property Appraiser 7,797,100 7,797,100 070 Tax Collector 8,659,900 23,611,200 14,951,300 080 Supervisor of Elections 3,893,000 3,893,000 Total General Fund Grouping Expenditures $ $ 8,659,900 $ 670,905,000 $ 307,224,500 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 41 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 14: FY 2019 Collier County Expenditure Budget Summaries Fund # General Fund Description Total Budget 001 General Fund $ 435,902,700 002 Uti I i ty I mpa ct Fee Deferra I Progra m 20,200 003 Emergency Disaster 287,200 007 Economic Development 1,731,800 011 Clerk of Circuit Court 10,458,400 040 Sheriff 187,203,400 060 Property Appraiser 7,797,100 070 Tax Collector 23,611,200 080 Supervisor of Elections 3,893,000 Total General Fund Groupings $ 670,905,000 Fund Type Operating Budget General Fund Groupings $ 307,224,500 Special Revenue Funds 156,082,600 Capital Funds - Enterprise Funds 42,987,300 Internal Service Funds 91,365,600 Trust and Agency Funds 23,900 Transfers and Reserves 153,874,700 Total Operating Services, Excluding Public Utilities $ 751,558,600 Division/Agency Operating Budget Board of County Commissioners $ 17,523,000 Constitutional Officers 243,879,300 Administrative Services 196,578,300 Growth Management 114,566,200 Court Related Agencies 5,554,000 Ma nagement Offices 51,819,600 Public Services 104,222,300 Public Utilities - Facilities Management 17,415,900 Total Operating Services, Excluding Public Utilities $ 751,558,600 Public Utilities 2 88,142,800 Total Operating Budget $ 989,701,400 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 42 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 15: FY 2019 Collier County Appropriations by Program Budget Summaries Trust a nd General Funds Special Revenue Capital Funds Enterprise Internal Service Agency Funds Transfers and Division Groupi ng Total Funds Total Total Funds Total Funds Total Total Reserves Total Board of County Commissioners $ 10,974,700 $ 3,539,800 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 14,514,500 County Attorney 2,815,500 193,000 - - - - - 3,008,500 Property Appraiser 7,977,000 - - - - - - 7,977,000 Supervisor of Elections 3,959,600 - - - - - - 3,959,600 Clerk of Courts 10,960,500 - - - - - - 10,960,500 Sheriff 190,708,300 3,053,000 - - - - 3,385,500 197,146,800 Tax Collector 15,175,500 - - - - - 8,659,900 23,835,400 Administrative Services 667,300 - - - - - - 667,300 Dori Slosberg Driver Education - 121,400 - - - - 115,000 236,400 Fleet Management - - - - 9,308,700 - 696,600 10,005,300 Motor Pool Capital Recovery Program - - - 2,452,300 5,485,500 - 11,562,300 19,500,100 Human Resources 2,173,400 - - - - - - 2,173,400 Information Technology - 1,221,900 - - 9,509,200 - 1,380,700 12,111,800 Procurement Services 2,016,700 - - - - - - 2,016,700 Risk Management - - - - 67,062,200 - 40,610,500 107,672,700 Communications& Customer Relations Division - 1,467,800 - - - - - 1,467,800 Administrative Services Grants - 34,500 - - - - - 34,500 Bureau of Emergency Services 3,313,800 75,000 - - - - 237,200 3,626,000 Emergency Medical Services EMS - - - 31,084,400 - - 3,562,600 34,647,000 Fire Districts - 2,101,500 - - - - 317,800 2,419,300 Growth Management Administration - 15,329,900 - - - - - 15,329,900 Planning 107,300 3,477,800 - - - - - 3,585,100 Regulation - 26,514,000 - - - - 1,911,400 28,425,400 Maintenance - 21,158,800 - - - - 872,700 22,031,500 Improvement Districts and MSTU - 2,086,700 - - - - 36,300 2,123,000 Operations - 9,329,900 - - - - 140,700 9,470,600 Project Management - 5,805,000 - - - - 93,800 5,898,800 Airport - - - 3,815,900 - - 737,700 4,553,600 Reserves and Transfers - - - - - - 23,148,300 23,148,300 Court Administration - 2,968,700 - - - - 235,200 3,203,900 Circuit&County Court Judges 65,900 - - - - - - 65,900 Public Defender 308,400 - - - - - - 308,400 State Attorney 407,400 - - - - - - 407,400 Gua rdian Ad Litem Program 4,600 - - - - - - 4,600 Court Related Technology - 1,068,500 - - - - 495,300 1,563,800 County Manager Operations 1,392,000 - - - - - - 1,392,000 Corporate Complianceand Performance lmpr. 664,200 - - - - - - 664,200 Office of Management&Budget 1,367,900 1,310,600 - - - - 442,400 3,120,900 Tourist Development Council - 12,291,400 - - - - 5,588,400 17,879,800 Amateur Sports Compl ex - 2,194,900 r - - - - - 2,194,900 Pelican Bay Services - 4,930,300 - - - - 2,708,600 7,638,900 Business and Economic Development 2,063,500 - - - - - 3,164,500 5,228,000 Ave Maria Innovation Zone - 1,000 - - - - 204,800 205,800 Bays hore CRA - 7,394,300 - - - - 3,534,600 10,928,900 Immokalee CRA - 1,216,600 - - - - 1,349,600 2,566,200 Public Services Administration 297,400 - - - - - - 297,400 Operations and Veteran Services 1,083,900 - - - - - - 1,083,900 Domestic Animal Services 3,441,700 90,500 - - - - 313,000 3,845,200 Community and Human Services 7,557,300 1,171,900 - - - - 1,409,100 10,138,300 U bra ry 8,216,500 270,800 - - - - 21,200 8,508,500 Museum - 2,217,400 - - - - 280,500 2,497,900 Parks & Recreation 10,050,300 17,141,500 - - - 23,900 34,585,900 61,801,600 University Extension Service 775,900 68,200 - - - - 22,100 866,200 Public Health 1,861,000 - - - - - - 1,861,000 Public Transitand Neighborhood Enhancement 359,000 - - 5,634,700 - - 480,800 6,474,500 Improvement Districts and MSTU - 6,185,300 - - - - 662,500 6,847,800 Facilities Management 16,458,000 50,700 - - - - 907,200 17,415,900 Total $ 307,224,500 $ 156,082,600 $ - $ 42,987,300 $ 91,365,600 $ 23,900 $ 153,874,700 $ 751,558,600 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Groupi ng Tota I Less Remittances $ 5,080,100 2,815,500 7,977,000 3,959,600 10,960,500 190,708,300 15,175,500 667,300 2,173,400 2,016,700 3,291,000 107,300 65,900 308,400 407,400 4,600 1,392,000 664,200 1,367,900 1,019,100 297,400 1,083,900 3,441,700 7,557,300 8,216,500 10,050,300 775,900 1,861,000 359,000 16,458,000 43 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT ix Table 16: FY 2019 Collier Countv General Funds Expenditure Demand Units $ Per Department Budget Demand Base Multiplier Base Demand Demand Board of County Commissioners $ 5,080,100 PERMPOP 0.50 376,086 $ 6.75 County Attorney 2,815,500 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 $ 2.25 Property Appraiser 7,977,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 $ 12.75 Supervisor of Elections 3,959,600 PERMPOP 0.50 376,086 $ 5.26 Clerk of Courts 10,960,500 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 $ 8.76 Sheriff 190,708,300 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 633,596 $ 300.99 Tax Collector 15,175,500 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 $ 27.56 Admi nistrative Services 667,300 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 $ 0.53 Human Resources 2,173,400 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 $ 1.74 Procurement Services 2,016,700 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 $ 1.61 Bureau of Emergency Services 3,291,000 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 633,596 $ 5.19 Planning 107,300 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 $ 0.17 Circuit & County Court Judges 65,900 PEAKPOP 1.00 451,303 $ 0.15 Public Defender 308,400 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 $ 0.82 State Attorney 407,400 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 $ 1.08 Guardian Ad Litem Program 4,600 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 $ 0.01 County Manager Operations 1,392,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 $ 1.11 Corporate Compliance and Performancelmpr. 664,200 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Office of Management & Budget 1,367,900 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 $ 1.09 Business and Economic Development 1,019,100 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Public Services Administration 297,400 PERMPOP 0.50 376,086 $ 0.40 Operations and Veteran Services 1,083,900 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Domesti c Ani ma I Servi ces 3,441,700 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 $ 9.15 Community and Human Services 7,557,300 PERMPOP 0.50 376,086 $ 10.05 Library 8,216,500 PEAKPOP 1.00 451,303 $ 18.21 Parks & Recreation 10,050,300 PEAKPOP 1.00 451,303 $ 22.27 University Extension Service 775,900 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Public Health 1,861,000 PERMPOP 0.20 376,086 $ 0.99 Public Transitand Neighborhood Enhancement 359,000 PERMPOP 0.50 376,086 $ 0.48 Facilities Management 16,458,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 $ 26.30 General Funds Grouping Totals Less Remittances $ 300,262,700 Remittances 6,961,800 FIXED 1.00 - N/A General Funds Grouping Totals Plus Remittances $ 307,224,500 Transfer to 101 Transp Op Fund 20,154,300 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 $ 32.21 Transfer to 103 Stormwater Utility 1,474,300 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 111 Unincorp Gen I'd 916,600 FIXED 1.00 N/A Transfer to 298 Sp Ob Bond 2,775,900 FIXED 1.00 N/A Transfer to 299 Debt Service Fund 703,500 FIXED 1.00 N/A Transfer to 301 Capital Projects 15,335,700 FIXED 1.00 N/A Transfer to 306 Parks Ad Valorem Cap Fund 1,100,000 FIXED 1.00 N/A Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap 8,555,800 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 $ 13.67 Transfer to 314 Musuem Cap 200,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 325 Stormwater Cap Fund 2,500,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 426 CAT Mass Transit 1,952,900 PEAKPOP 1.00 451,303 $ 4.33 Transfer to 427 Transp Disadvantaged 2,604,700 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 $ 6.93 Transfer to 490 EMS Fund 18,018,600 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 633,596 $ 28.44 Transfer to 506 IT Capital 430,600 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 523 Motor Pool Capital 110,000 FIXED 1.00 N/A Transfer to 652 Legal Aid 147,700 FIXED 1.00 N/A Transfer to 681 Court Services 2,012,400 FIXED 1.00 N/A Transfers to General Fund (001) 20,200 FIXED 1.00 N/A Other Tra nsfers 8,504,800 FIXED 1.00 N/A Advance/Repayments 445,000 FIXED 1.00 N/A Transfers to Constitutional Officers 221,211,500 FIXED 1.00 N/A Reserves 45,846,100 FIXED 1.00 N/A Distributions in Excess of Fees to GovtAgencies 8,659,900 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 $ 15.73 Total $ 670,905,000 1 1.00 $ 566.99 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 44 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 17: FY 2019 Collier County MSTU Expenditure Demand Units $ Per Department Budget Demand Base Multiplier Base Demand Demand Board of County Commissioners 1,237,900 PERMPOP 0.50 333,831 $ 3.71 Communications & Customer Relations Division 1,467,800 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 559,796 $ 2.62 Growth Management Administration 556,100 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 $ 0.99 Planning 1,804,700 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 $ 3.22 Regulation 5,333,600 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 $ 9.53 Maintenance 9,531,300 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 $ 17.03 Bureau of Emergency Services 75,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 $ 0.13 Project Management - PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 $ - PelicanBayServices 150,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A ImmokaIee CRA 212,500 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Community and Human Services 113,100 PERMPOP 0.50 333,831 $ 0.34 Parks & Recreation 13,729,100 PEAKPOP 1.00 404,945 $ 33.90 Transfer to 306 Parks Capital Fund 2,750,000 PEAKPOP 1.00 404,945 $ 6.79 Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Cap 4,250,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 $ 7.59 Transfer to 325 Stormwater Cap Fund 3,000,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Improvement Districts and MSTU 334,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Indirect Cost Reimbursement 2,301,900 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 $ 4.11 Remittances 500,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfers 8,383,000 FIXED 1.00 N/A Advances 262,400 FIXED 1.00 N/A Reserves 2,982,300 FIXED 1.00 N/A Total $ 58,974,700 1.00 $ 89.97 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 45 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 18: Longwater General Funds Expenditures at Buildout GENERAL FUND GROUPING EXPENDITURES Demand Base $ Per Demand At Buildout Board of County Commissioners PERMPOP $ 6.75 $ 30,000 County Attorney PEAKPOP&JOBS 2.25 13,000 Property Appraiser PEAKPOP&JOBS 12.75 71,000 Supervisor of Elections PERMPOP 5.26 24,000 Clerk of Courts PEAKPOP&JOBS 8.76 49,000 Sheriff PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 300.99 1,674,000 Tax Collector PERMPOP&JOBS 27.56 129,000 Administrative Services PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.53 3,000 Human Resources PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.74 10,000 Procurement Services PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.61 9,000 Bureau of Emergency Services PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 5.19 29,000 Planning PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.17 1,000 Circuit & County Court Judges PEAKPOP 0.15 1,000 Public Defender PERMPOP 0.82 4,000 State Attorney PERMPOP 1.08 5,000 Guardian Ad Litem Program PERMPOP 0.01 - County Manager Operations PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.11 6,000 Office of Management & Budget PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.09 6,000 Public Services Administration PERMPOP 0.40 2,000 Domestic Animal Services PERMPOP 9.15 41,000 Community and Human Services PERMPOP 10.05 45,000 Library PEAKPOP 18.21 98,000 Parks & Recreation PEAKPOP 22.27 120,000 Public Health PERMPOP 0.99 4,000 Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement PERMPOP 0.48 2,000 Facilities Management PEAKPOP&JOBS 26.30 146,000 Transfer to 101 Transp Op Fund PEAKPOP&JOBS 32.21 179,000 Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap PEAKPOP&JOBS 13.67 76,000 Transfer to 426 CAT Mass Transit PEAKPOP 4.33 23,000 Transfer to 427 Transp Disadvantaged PERMPOP 6.93 31,000 Transfer to 490 EMS Fund PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 28.44 158,000 Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies PERMPOP&JOBS 15.73 73,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Expenditures $ 566.99 $ 3,062,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 46 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 19: Longwater MSTU Expenditures at Buildout MSTU GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES Demand Base $ Per Demand At Buildout Board of County Commissioners PERMPOP $ 3.71 $ 17,000 Communications & Customer Relations Division PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 2.62 15,000 Growth Management Administration PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 0.99 6,000 Planning PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 3.22 18,000 Regulation PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 9.53 53,000 Maintenance PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 17.03 95,000 Bureau of Emergency Services PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 0.13 1,000 Project Management PEAKPOP&JOBS $ - - Community and Human Services PERMPOP $ 0.34 2,000 Parks & Recreation PEAKPOP $ 33.90 182,000 Transfer to 306 Parks Capital Fund PEAKPOP $ 6.79 36,000 Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Cap PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 7.59 42,000 Indirect Cost Reimbursement PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 4.11 23,000 Total MSTU Annual Operating Expenditures 89.97 $ 490,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 47 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 20: Collier County Impact Fee Schedule Demand Community Regional Government Land Use Unit Parks Parks Roads EMS Schools Buildings Total Condo, Dupex,Single-FamilyAttached Unit $ 455.20 $ 1,230.24 $ 4,844.91 $ 67.50 $ 2,844.19 $ 443.94 Single Family Detached <4,000 Sq Ft Living Unit $ 933.83 $ 2,694.32 $ 7,443.99 $ 142.07 $ 8,789.54 $ 934.34 Reta i 150,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft Sq Ft $ - $ - $ 15.42477 $ 0.19230 $ - $ 1.27547 Demand Law Land Use Unit Libraries Enforcement Jail Water Wastewater Total Total Condo, Dupex,Single-FamilyAttached Unit $ 159.78 $ 296.56 $ 259.25 $ 2,562.00 $ 2,701.00 $ 15,864.57 Single Family Detached <4,000 Sq Ft Living Unit $ 336.05 $ 586.95 $ 499.19 $ 2,562.00 $ 2,701.00 $ 27,623.28 Reta i 1 50,001- 100,000 Sq Ft Sq Ft $ - $ 0.76499 $ 0.67846 $ - $ - $ 18.34 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 48 LONGWATER VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT nclix Table 21: Longwater Impact Fee Revenues Demand Demand Community Regional Government Land Use Units Unit Parks Parks Roads EMS Schools Buildings Total Condo, Du pex, Si ngl e-Fa mi ly Atta ched 1,097 Unit $ 499,000 $ 1,350,000 $ 5,315,000 $ 74,000 $ 3,120,000 $ 487,000 Total SFD <4,000 Sq Ft 1,503 Unit 1,404,000 4,050,000 11,188,000 214,000 13,211,000 1,404,000 Retail 50,001 - 100,0 00 Sq Ft 65,000 Sq Ft - - 1,003,000 12,000 - 83,000 Total $ 1,903,000 $ 5,400,000 $ 17,506,000 $ 300,000 $ 16,331,000 $ 1,974,000 Total of BuiIdout Schedules 903,000 $ 5,400,000 $ 17,506,000 $ 300,000 $ 16,331,000 $ 1,974,000 Water Wastewater Demand Demand Law Residential Residential Land Use Units Unit Libraries Enforcement Jail Only Only Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached 1,097 Unit $ 175,000 $ 325,000 $ 284,000 $ 2,811,000 $ 2,963,000 Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,503 Unit 505,000 882,000 750,000 3,851,000 4,060,000 Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 80,000 Sq Ft - 61,000 54,000 - - Total $ 680,000 $ 1,268,000 $ 1,088,000 $ 6,662,000 $ 7,023,000 Total of Buildout Schedules $ 680,000 $ 1,268,000 $ 1,088,000 $ 6,662,000 $ 7,023,000 Source: Collier County, Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2020 LONGWATER VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 22: Collier County School District Base Assumptions STUDENT GENERATION RATES - 2015 IMPACT FEE UPDATE 0.34 Single Family 0.11 Multi Family and Single Family Attached 0.28 Mobile Home FY 2020 SCHOOL FTE ENROLLMENT 18,948 Elementary 10,162 Middle 13,524 High 962 Alternate Schools No reference in budget Workforce Programs 3,253 Charter Schools 606 To Balance to Budgeted FTE 47.455 Total SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 2015 IMPACT FEE UDPATE 49% Elementary 23% Middle 28% High 100% Tota I FY 2020 MILLAGE RATES 2.835 Required Local Effort 0.748 Discretionary - Addiitional Millage 3.583 Total General Fund Millage 1.500 Capital Improvement Millage 5.083 Total Millage 2.835 Required by State Law 2.248 Total Discretionary Local 5.083 Total Millage Source: Collier County School District, DPFG 2019 LONGWATER VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the data contained in this report are accurate as of the date of this study; however, factors exist that are outside the control of DPFG and that may affect the estimates and/or projections noted herein. This study is based on estimates, assumptions and other information developed by DPFG from its independent research effort, general knowledge of the industry, and information provided by and consultations with the client and the client's representatives. No responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in reporting by the client, the client's agent and representatives, or any other data source used in preparing or presenting this study. This report is based on information that was current as of November 2019 (except for the sections identified as being updated in March 2020, May 2020, August 6, 2020, and January 8, 2021), and DPFG has not undertaken any update of its research effort since such date. Because future events and circumstances, many of which are not known as of the date of this study, may affect the estimates contained therein, no warranty or representation is made by DPFG that any of the projected values or results contained in this study will actually be achieved. Possession of this study does not carry with it the right of publication thereof or to use the name of DPFG in any manner without first obtaining the prior written consent of DPFG. No abstracting, excerpting or summarization of this study may be made without first obtaining the prior written consent of DPFG. This report is not to be used in conjunction with any public or private offering of securities, debt, equity, or other similar purpose where it may be relied upon to any degree by any person other than the client, nor is any third party entitled to rely upon this report, without first obtaining the prior written consent of DPFG. This study may not be used for purposes other than that for which it is prepared or for which prior written consent has first been obtained from DPFG. Any changes made to the study, or any use of the study not specifically prescribed under agreement between the parties or otherwise expressly approved by DPFG, shall be at the sole risk of the party making such changes or adopting such use. This study is qualified in its entirety by, and should be considered in light of, these limitations, conditions and considerations. CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida - OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Protecting Southwest Florida's unique natural environment and quality of fife ... now and forever. August 13, 2020 Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner Matthew McLean, Director, Development Review Kirsten Wilkie, Environmental Services Manager Jamie Cook, Principal Environmental Specialist James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner Michael Sawyer, Principal Planner Cormac Giblin, Housing Operations and Grant Development Manager Collier County Growth Management Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Longwater Village SRA #PL20190001836 & SSA17 #PL20160000295 Dear Ms. Gundlach, Mr. Schmidt, Mr. McLean, Ms. Wilkie, Ms. Cook, Mr. Sabo, Mr. Sawyer, and Mr. Giblin: On behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida (Conservancy) and over 7,000 supporting families, we are writing this letter to express our strong objection to the proposed Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) for the following reasons, addressed in this order: I. Collier Enterprises' villages must be held to town standards. II. Longwater Village would destroy panther habitat, not only within the SRA, but also within the "preserves". III. The project is a typical suburban -style development, not innovative planning. Based on your reviews of the application, there appears to be some alignment between the concerns we are raising in our letter and those raised by County staff, in your review of the project. In addition to those concerns, there are other concerns that we would like to draw your attention to, not yet addressed in your review. We very much appreciate your consideration of the issues raised in our letter. It is our hope that you will recommend denial of the project based on these concerns. I. Collier Enterprises' villages must be held to town standards. A. The applicant's three villages equate to a town: Conservancy of Southwest Florida has been awarded Charity Navigator's prestigious 4-Star top rating for good governance, sound fiscal management and commitment to accountability and transparency. Charity Navigator is America's largest and most respected independent evaluator of charities. 1495 Smith Preserve Way I Naples, Florida 34102 1 239.262,0304 1 Fax 239.262,0672 1 www.conservancy.org All three of the applicant's contiguous villages (Rivergrass, Longwater, and Bellmar) have essentially the same build - out date' and, when aggregated, the three villages fall within the acreage parameters of a town. Policy 4.7.1 states, "Towns shall not be less than 1,000 acres or more than 4,000 acres and are comprised of several villages and/or neighborhoods that have individual identity and character. " Rivergrass, Longwater, and Bellmar equate to three thousand acres and have an estimated build -out population of 13,482 permanent residents and 7,850 homes,2 which would be considered a larger town under the RLSA program. It is undeniable; the total population, traffic impacts, infrastructure, goods and service needs of the three villages are town - sized and must be treated as such. The applicant seems to acknowledge that they are planning for a town, as they provided the County with an unofficial master plan of the three villages on one unified plan, which they call "The Villages of Big Cypress Stewardship District" (Figure 1). Their unofficial new town master plan includes essentially the same designs as provided in the three village SRA applications. This consolidated plan Conservancy of Southwest Florida 2 Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application Figure 1: Collier Enterprises' unofficial town plan. was never formally submitted as an SRA town application, nor has it been revealed in a public hearing. Policy 4.2 affirms that "SRAs [are] to be compact, mixed -use and self-sufficient in the provision of services, facilities, and infrastructure," which is important so that Collier County's existing urban communities are not overwhelmed by increased traffic congestion and demands from RLSA residents who are compelled to travel west to find work and to obtain daily essential goods and services. Table 1 provides a few examples of how the applicant is short-changing Collier County taxpayers by planning for separate villages in lieu of a more self- supporting town. As an example, Collier County's Land Development Code (LDC) requires a minimum of 65 ' SRA application documents for all three village state that anticipated build -out is 12 years from date of approval. Since Rivergrass was approved in 2020, this would place Rivergrass' build -out at approximately 2032. Longwater's and Bellmar's build -out would be 2032-2033, if they are approved in 2020 or 2021). 2 Rivergrass Economic Assessment September 3, 2019 states permanent population of 4,269; Longwater Economic Assessment May 24, 2020 states permanent population of 4,477; Bellmar Economic Assessment March 12, 2020 states permanent population of 4,736. Rivergrass will provide 2,500 homes, Longwater 2,600 homes, and Bellmar 2,750 homes. Conservancy of Southwest Florida 3 Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application sf gross building area per dwelling unit for goods and services for a town.' Therefore, a town with 7,850 homes, the same number of homes offered by the applicant's contiguous villages, must provide a minimum of 510,250 square feet for goods and services. Instead, the applicant proposes a minimum 196,250 sf for goods and services for the three villages, which is far less than half of the commercial square footage required of a town. Under the same policy, a minimum of 117,500 sf of civic/governmental/institutional would be required of a town with 7,850 homes. Instead, the applicant offers a minimum of 78,500 sf for the three villages, which is 67% of what is required of a town with the same number of homes. Also, the applicant provides about 263,000 sf less space (or 6 acres less) for community parks than is required of a town, but claim they are exceeding village requirements by providing additional acreage for preserves and amenity centers within two of their village plans.' As example, in Longwater's Submittal 4 response letter, staff asks the applicant to depict parks within neighborhoods on the Master Plan. The applicant responds by showing segments of the master plan where parks and "park preserves" are located.' The "park preserves" consist of 9.52 acres. However, according to LDC4.08.07.A. Ld,6 preserves with an NRI score over 1.2 must be left in a natural state, so preserve acreage cannot be counted toward active public park space. Furthermore, the SRA applications are unclear as to whether the amenity centers would be free and open to the public and, thus, the acreage should not be counted toward park space. Tablei of i to the total amenities provided is, Rivergrass, Longwater, and Bellmar Villages. Town Requirements for 7,850 Rivergrass + Bellmar + Longwater dwelling units Villages commit to provide the following: (7,850 combined dwelling units _ 1,000 to 4,000 acres 2,997 acres _1 Full range of housing required Max 90% single family/ Min 10% multi -family (7,065 SF /785 MF)7 3 context zones required 2 context zones provided 510,250 sf min required 196,250 sf min provided' (LDC requires min 65 sf per DU) (265,000 sf max provided) 117,500 sf min required 78,500 sf min provided' (LDC requires min 15 sf per DU) 1 11 of I F&A 1,570,000 sf min required 1,306,364 sf of "Parks and community (LDC requires 200 sf per DU) green space" provided (29.99 acres)10 s Collier County LDC 4.08.07.J.1 4 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement SSA14 & SSA17 p. 16/16 states, "Longwater Village contains approximately 39.71 acres of active and passive parks and community green space, exceeding the requirement to provide at least 1 percent of the Village gross acreage, (10 acres, rounded) in the form of Parks and Community Green Space." Longwater's master plan shows: 18.01 acres for amenity centers, 12.18 acres for parks, and 9.52 acres for park preserves, totaling 39.71 acres. ' Submittal 4, Response letter dated June 1, 2020. p. 3 6 LDC 4.08.07.A. Ld states "Lands or parcels that are greater than one acre and have an Index Value greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominately vegetated state." LDC 4.08.07.J.6 provides similar language. ' Dwelling units: Rivergrass = 2,500; Longwater; = 2,600; Bellmar-=2,750) Each SRA commits to up to a max of 90% single family homes (7,065) and a minimum of 10% multi -family homes 785). (Information was derived from most recent SRA documents as of 7-12-20 and Rivergrass Resolution 2020-24) ' Commercial provided by Rivergrass = 62,500 sf min to 100,000 sf max; Longwater = 65,000 min sf to 80,000 max sf, Bellmar = 68,750 min sf to 85,000 sf max. (Information was derived from most recent SRA documents as of 7-12-20 and Rivergrass Resolution 2020-24) ' Civic, Government and Institutional provided: Rivergrass = 25,000 sf; Longwater = 26,000 sf; Bellmar = 27,500 sf. (Information was derived from most recent SRA documents as of 7-12-20 and Rivergrass Resolution 2020-24) 10 Parks and Community Green Space: Rivergrass = 9.98 acres; Longwater = 12.18 acres; Bellmar = 7.83acres. Note: (hi addition, Longwater and Bellmar will provide 9.52 acres and 3.44 acres respectively of "park preserves;" however, the acreage cannot count toward public parks. LDC 4.08.07.J.6 states, "Parcels of one (1) acre or more, with a Natural Resource Index rating greater than 1.2, must be preserved as open space and maintained in a Conservancy of Southwest Florida 4 Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application Lastly, Table 1 shows that towns require a full range of housing types (Policy 4.7.1). If the applicant's plans are approved, housing within all three villages could consist of 90% single-family homes, which is not only indicative of sprawl, but it is far from providing a full range of housing or even a diversity of housing types as is required of villages under Policy 4.7.2. In sum, the submission of three adjacent villages -- as well as Collier Enterprises' recent unofficial acknowledgment that these three villages constitute a unified development plan -- raises important questions including whether the effect of segregating a town into three villages will result in fewer obligations on the developer than intended by the Growth Management Plan and whether the citizens of Collier County will be forced to fund additional infrastructure needs. The bottom line is that Longwater (as well as the other purported villages) should be withdrawn and resubmitted as a Town in order to ensure that the applicant provides the goods and services, housing, design elements, and infrastructure needed for a self-sufficient SRA. B. Steps taken toward an aggregate review: The Conservancy appreciates that certain staff have taken a bold and appropriate stance in an attempt to hold the applicant accountable for aggregate impacts from all three developments, pertaining to fiscal neutrality, concurrency management, and traffic. As example, in a February 11, 2020 Consistency Review Memorandum for Longwater Village, staff stated: "Comprehensive Planning staff also ask that the departments and agencies involved directly with the Concurrency Management give consideration to the cumulative effects or demands of these SRA, rather than considering each only individually. "11 Further down on the same page is a similar statement: "Comprehensive planning staff also ask that the County staff involved in the review of the Economic Assessment give consideration to the cumulative effects or demands of these SRAs, rather than considering each only individually. " Unfortunately, for unknown reasons, both of these statements were redacted in later versions of the Consistency Review Memo. As another example, the transportation reviewer persisted in efforts to receive a cumulative review of traffic impacts on Collier County's road network from all the approved and pending RLSA's villages. Previously, the applicant's consultant evaluated Longwater's traffic in a vacuum. In other words, the project's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) failed to include background traffic from the applicant's other two villages, Rivergrass (approved) and Bellmar (pending approval). Nor did the assessment consider background traffic from Hyde Park, a recently approved village by a different applicant. In the April 15, 2020 Review Comment Letter, transportation review staff stated:12 "The TIS does not include any discussion/explanation as to how the cumulative impacts of the four proposed developments' (Longwater Village, Bellmar Village, Rivegrass Village and Hyde Park Village) traffic on the Collier County roadway network were analyzed. " predominately naturally vegetated state. " Master Plans for all three SRAs provide acreage for Amenity Centers; however, it is unclear whether the applicant intends to offer the amenity centers to all of the public without a cost. Until then, the acreage should not be counted toward community park space. (Information was derived from most recent SRA documents as of 7-12-20 and Rivergrass Resolution 2020-24). ' � Collier County staff Longwater Consistency Review Memorandum Februay 11, 2020, p. 13/20 12 Collier County Review Comment Letter for Longwater. April 15, 2020. p. 4. Conservancy of Southwest Florida 5 Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application In the same paragraph, county transportation review staff explained why a cumulative analysis is important: (highlights added for emphasis) "The total am and pm peak hour peak direction trips estimated for Longwater Village, Bellmar Village, and Rivergrass Village are approximately 3,600 trips per hour and 3,750 trips per hour. This is proximately 76% of the total a.m. and p.m. peak hour peak direction trips previously estimated for the build -out year (2040) of Rural Lands West. When the a.m. and p.m. peak hour peak direction trips associated with Hyde Park Village are also included, the total a.m. and p.m. peak hour peak direction trips estimated for all four developments are approximately 4,550 and 4,800 trips per hour. Given the close proximity of these four proposed developments and the relatively limited roadway network in the surrounding area, it seems very likely that the cumulative impact of all this traffic will result in level of service deficiencies for multiple roadway segments and intersections. " Ultimately, staff succeeded in procuring a cumulative analysis from the applicant's traffic consultant, which demonstrated that Collier County transportation reviewers were justified in their concerns. When Longwater's traffic impacts from the March 9, 2020 TIS are compared to the "Accumulation Traffic Analysis" from May 29, 2020 it is evident that many more roads would fail when background traffic from the applicant's other two developments is considered. Longwater's March 9, 2020 TIS states the following:13 "As such, the following roadway segments are adversely impacted by the project's traffic: - Randall Blvd from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd" When the estimated background traffic from Bellmar and Rivergrass Village were included in Longwater's "Accumulation Traffic Impacts Analysis," several additional roadway segments were shown to be adversely impacted by the Longwater project. The updated TIS from May 29, 2020 states: "As such, the following roadway segments are adversely impacted by the project's traffic: — Oil Well Rd from Immokalee Rd to Everglades Blvd — Randall Blvd from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd — Golden Gate Blvd from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd —Immokalee Rd from Logan Blvd to Collier Blvd —Immokalee Rd from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd ,14 Without staff s insistence that the applicant consider background traffic from Rivergrass and Bellmar, it would appear that Longwater's traffic would have a detrimental effect on only one roadway segment, when in reality five road segments would be adversely impacted by the project. Still, it is unclear whether the developer will be required to provide mitigation for all five roadway segments or for just one roadway segment, and if not the developer, then who will be on the hook to pay for these infrastructure upgrades? C. Pressure to approve the villages as a package deal: Although the villages are being reviewed as three separate stand-alone applications, the landowner -developer negotiated a deal with Collier County that ties approvals of all three villages together, essentially in a packaged deal. This deal places Collier County Board of County Commissioners up against a wall, where the " Trebilock Planning Engineering. Traffic Impact Statement Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area. Section 1 — Impacts to Roadway Network — Road Segment Analysis. March 9, 2020, p. 24/77. 14 Trebilock Planning Engineering. Traffic Impact Statement Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area. Section 2 — Intersection Analyses. May 29, 2020, p. 13/352. Conservancy of Southwest Florida 6 Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application Commissioners either approve the pending village applications for Longwater and Bellmar or enforce eminent domain to obtain the right of way for Big Cypress Parkway (BCP). The deal, between the county and Collier Enterprises, was made in the "Rivergrass Village Landowner Agreement," which provides the following stipulations, among other provisions:15 (highlights added for emphasis) "8. If the Longwater Village SRA is approved the Big Cypress Parkway right of way from Randall Blvd. to Vanderbilt Beach Road, depicted in Exhibit D, will be sold to the County under the same terms as paragraph 5 above. " "10. If the Bellmar Village SRA is approved the Big Cypress Parkway right of way from Vanderbilt Beach Road to 61h Street SE, depicted in Exhibit E, and the Big Cypress Parkway right of way north of Rivergrass to Immokalee Road, depicted in Exhibit F, will be sold to the County under the same terms as paragraph 5 above. " "12. For a period of five (5) years from the effective date of this Agreement, Landowner agrees to reserve the right of way and provide the water management system referenced in paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 for purchase by the County unless: (1) the Longwater Village is denied by Collier County, (2) the Bellmar Village is denied by Collier County or (3) Collier County elects not to acquire the right of way. During the 5-year reservation period, if Landowner withdraws either the Long -water or Bellmar applications, the County will have the right to purchase the reserved right of way and drainage easements. " The Executive Summary for Rivergrass' Landowner Agreement asserts that if Collier County Commissioners vote to deny Longwater and Bellmar Villages, the county must resort to condemnation. Here is what is stated: (highlights added for emphasis) "Staff's position has been consistent in requesting that the reservation of the complete right of way should not expire nor should it be conditioned on approval of other developments in the future. These conditions represent the limits of where the developer was willing to commit to at this time. While staff is recommending approval, it is important to note that failure to approve the future SRAs, Longwater and Bellmar, would negate the reservation and force condemnation should the County wish to proceed with the construction of Big Cypress Parkway. ,16 It is no secret; the County does wish to proceed with the construction of Big Cypress Parkway project. In 2018, the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization Board (MPO) approved an amendment, which was paid for by Collier Enterprises, to add the $111 million roadway project to the Collier MPO's taxpayer -funded Needs Plan." So why would the same commission members, who voted to place BCP on the Needs Plan, do anything other than approve the villages since their approvals are tied to getting the roadway that they want? Especially, since no elected official wants to be in a position where a vote for denial of Longwater or Bellmar equates to a forced condemnation of private property. 5 Landowner Agreement Rivergrass Village approved by Board of County Commissioners January 28, 2020. BCC Agenda item 11.C. 6 Board of County Commissioner Agenda January 28, 2020. Executive Summary, Landowner Agreement for Rivergrass Village. (January 28, 2020) Agenda Item I LC, packet page 1032 " Cost of right of way, environmental mitigation and construction of 2-Lane road within 4 land ROW is approximately $111 million. Collier MPO 240 LRTP Amendment Adoption Report (May 25, 2018). Table 5- Costs of LRTP Amendment Needs Projects, p. 10. Conservancy of Southwest Florida 7 Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application Regardless of ties with BCP, it is the Conservancy's hope that staff base their recommendation for Longwater and Bellmar solely on the merits of the project. A recommendation of approval shall be granted only if the project clearly meets all policies and objectives of the GMP and the LDC. II. Longwater Village would destroy panther habitat, not only within the SRA, but also within the "preserves." A. The applicant chose a site that would destroy over 1,000 acres of primary panther habitat. Leading panther scientists, as established in the best available science Kautz et al. 2006, consider Primary Zone panther habitat "just enough space to support a population that is barely viable demographically as long the habitat base remains stable."" The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in their Florida Panther Recovery Plan characterizes Primary Zone lands as crucial for the panther's continued survival and recovery.19 Considering these facts, one would think that a village, or any SRA for that matter, would be prohibited within Primary Zone habitat of the endangered Florida panther. In direct conflict of the science, the 1,000-acre site that Collier Enterprises has chosen for Longwater Village is entirely within Primary Zone panther habitat, shown in pink in Figure 2. Figure 2e Longwater Village wrthm Primary Zone panther • Legend • • • Florida Panther Telemetry • ® Longwater Village .- • Longwater Village Lake T—Ii, C- y • SS4_17 Doundary_062219 C pantherfincus_area • • ZONE • w .� Q PrimelY Q- • • • • OSecondary V • llfl_I�J� Mi es .. � • ®.01615 0.3 0445 0.6 �� • rt • er �.� C N y CONSERVANCY c c o = _ • • � Panlher FpcAAr tTapeillAom V.S. Fsh and Wlldo_ service of Southwest Florida OUP�Vri LkkO WILDLIFE FUTURE. Pantlfer TelemelQ sFppef if froll Iontla Fs�18 YVih�hfe do rise Natian CommrsSTon '- C Longwatsr ill no SSA 1TQApeffies7r Collier �P upt The Primary Zone consists of several different Date Ra90M land cover types, including agricultural lands that exist within the proposed Longwater Village site. Agricultural lands contain important natural landscape connections that support panther home ranges, panther reproduction, dispersal movements, and availability of large prey.20 Furthermore, Primary Zone habitat, including those consisting of agriculture, helps to support the only breeding population of panthers. Anyone who claims that the Longwater site is not important to panthers 8 Kautz, et al. (2006) How much is enough? Landscape —scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation 130, p. 129 9 US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008. "Florida Panther Recovery Plan, 3' Revision." 20 Kautz, et al. (2006) How much is enough? Landscape scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation 130, p. 118-133 and Cominskey et al (2002). Panthers and Forests in South Florida an Ecological Perspective. Conservation Ecology Vol 6, No. 1 Conservancy of Southwest Florida 8 Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application because the lands contain agricultural lands is in direct opposition to what best available science and the Panther Recovery Plan states. Plans by Collier Enterprises to replace 1,000-acres of Primary Zone panther habitat with development not only defies principles of environmental stewardship, but it violates the very goal of the RLSA. The RLSA goal states that "incompatible uses," such as SRA village development, must be directed away from upland habitat. Clearly, the opposite is occurring with Longwater Village, as the applicant plans on directing development directly within listed species habitat. B. The project would destroy 110 additional acres of Primary Zone and Adult Breeding Habitat within the "preserve." Destruction of Primary Zone and Adult Breeding habitat is not limited to just the SRA site; the project would also destroy panther habitat within the adjacent pending Stewardship Sending Area (SSA17), which would become a preserve upon approval. This proposed Stewardship Sending Area (SSA17) is a Water Retention Area (WRA) consisting of 3,113 acres of an ecologically important wetland system, called Shaggy Cypress. SSA17 (Figure 2) provides habitat for 12 listed species21, including primary habitat for the Florida panther. Longwater's Master Plan shows that stormwater Lake Tracts (all 110.63 acres) would be excavated within SSA17 (Figure 2). Even though WRAs are identified by the RLSA program, along with FSAs and HSAs, as lands with "the highest priority for natural resource protection,"22 ironically excavation within WRAs is allowed. LDC 4.08.06.A.4.b, states: "During permitting to serve new uses within an SRA, additions and modifications to WRAs may be required, including but not limited to changes to control elevations, discharge rates, storm water pre-treatment, grading, excavation or fill. Such additions and modifications shall be allowed subject to review and approval by the SFWMD in accordance with best management practices. However, the same policy also states that there shall be no net loss of habitat function, unless the applicant provides mitigation or restoration. LDC 4.08.06.A.4.b continues: (highlights added) "Such additions and modifications to WRAs shall be designed to ensure that there is no net loss of habitat function within the WRAs unless there is compensating mitigation or restoration in other areas of the RLSA District that will provide comparable habitat function. Compensating mitigation or restoration for an impact to a WRA contiguous to the Camp Keais Strand or Okaloacoochee Slough shall be provided within or contiguous to that Strand or Slough. " Figure 2 shows that all of SSA17, including the location of the proposed lake tracts, fall within the Primary Zone, depicted in pink. Obviously, excavation of those lands for lake tracts would destroy primary panther habitat resulting in a net loss of habitat function (and loss of spatial extent of habitat) for the endangered Florida panther. In addition to a reduction in Primary Zone habitat, panther breeding habitat would also be demolished. The Conservancy hired Dr. Robert Frakes, a leading panther scientist, to assess any loss of Adult Breeding panther habitat from the construction of the applicant's villages, including Longwater Village. The authors of the Frakes et al. (2015) study23 describe the critical nature of maintaining Adult Breeding Habitat for the panther: 21 Passarella and Associates. Stewardship Sending Area 17 NRI Assessment Listed Species Occurrence Map (July 2018). 22 Collier County Future Land Use Element, RLSA Overlay Policy 1.18 2' Frakes RA, Belden RC, Wood BE, James FE (2015). Landscape Analysis of Adult Florida Panther Habitat. PloS ONE 10(7): e0133044. doi: 10.1371 /j ournal.pone.0133 044 Conservancy of Southwest Florida 9 Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application "Because there is less panther habitat remaining than previously thought, we recommend that all remaining breeding habitat in south Florida should be maintained, and the current panther range should be expanded into south-central Florida. 1124 Dr. Robert Frakes, the leading author of the study, provided the Conservancy with a map showing the location of where significant loss in function of Adult Breeding Figure 3: Loss of Adult Breeding Panther habitat 1 from development. 1 1 1 1 Lo a Impacts to AdultlBreeding Panther Habitat Loss in P Value L. 102 F1 0.21 - 0.3 0.31 -0.4 1 �D.41 -D.5 I � [] 0s1-0s 1 0_61 -0_7 1 1 � 0.71 - 0s5 1 1 ®tillage Boundaries 1 1 - Lakes 1 T..., RLSA_Boundary It i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Source: Dr. Robert Frakes i Nalonal Geographic, Esh, DeLorme, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA M 11. NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp.1 Habitat is predicted if the villages were to move forward. According to Frakes et al. 2015 model, lands with a value of 0.338 or higher are considered Adult Breeding Habitat. If direct or indirect impacts occur and the value of the lands become less than 0.338, they lose their function for adult breeding panthers. Figure 3 shows the loss of Adult Breeding Habitat value from the proposals, with the shaded yellow, orange, and red areas showing the worst impacts to Adult Breeding Habitat. Not only do the SRA sites result in a significant and devastating loss of Adult Breeding Habitat, but nearly all of the lake tracts (shown in blue) within the Water Retention Areas of Longwater and Bellmar 25would also result in habitat function loss. Undoubtedly, Longwater and Bellmar projects would not comply with the standard under LDC 4.08.06.A.4.b, that states, "shall be no net loss of habitat function." What about the other stipulation that says "unless the applicant provides mitigation or restoration"? According to the application materials for SSA17, no restoration activities are planned.26 Also, the Conservancy is unaware of any mitigation provided by the applicant to compensate for the loss of panther habitat destruction specific to the lake tracts within SSA17. In fact, SSA17 lands are considered "preserves" under Collier Enterprises' application for a federal incidental take permit with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Collier Enterprises, along with 11 other landowners formed Eastern Collier Property Owner, LLC (ECPO), where they jointly applied for a federal incidental take permit to develop 45,000 acres of RLSA lands. Their development plan states that "preserves" are offered as mitigation for destruction of nearly 20,000 acres27 of Primary Zone panther habitat. Within their HCP Land Designations plan for their federal permit, the 24Ibid. P. 1 2s Bellmar Village Master Concept Plan (June 3, 2020) shows that there would be 120.16 acres of lakes tracts within the WRA. 26 We also confirmed with county environmental staff via email May 22, 2020 that no restoration is proposed for SSA17. It appears, based on applicant's maps of SSA17, that Bellmar's lake tracts would be located outside of SSA17, unlike Longwater's lake tracts. However, Bellmar's MCP depicts that the project is located adjacent to the proposed SSA18. Because the application for SSA18 has not yet been submitted to Collier County it is not possible to determine if the lake tracts fall within SSA18 or whether restoration is proposed. 27 Stantec Consulting, Inc. (2018, August). "Eastern Collier Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, prepared for Eastern Collier Property Owners." p. 88. Conservancy of Southwest Florida 10 Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application Longwater Village SRA site is considered a "Covered" activity, whereas, SSA17 is depicted as a "Preserve." Their HCP states that "under the Plan, the primary mitigation for the covered activities includes the phased perpetual preservation of 107,000 acres of diverse habitats, and the maintenance of these preservation lands in perpetuity."28 How, then, can the project be consistent with 4.O8.O6.A.4.b if the applicant plans to destroy habitat within the very preserve lands they are using as mitigation? The answer is simple: the project is not consistent with LDC 4.08.O6.A.4.b because there would be a loss of habitat function without restoration or mitigation for those impacts. C. Applicant proposes to destroy mammal corridor, while seeking credit for mammal corridor restoration: Figure 2 provides the location of panther telemetry points. The map demonstrates that not only do panthers traverse the proposed SRA site, but they also regularly travel within the surrounding preserves (SSA17 and SSA15). The preserves are part of the larger Camp Keais Strand wildlife corridor. Wildlife corridors, by definition, are continuous and connecting swaths of natural lands and habitat where mammals can travel unimpeded by development and roads. The RLSA program grants Restoration Potential Credit for lands within Stewardship Sending Areas that have the "potential" to restore large mammal corridors.29 Credit is also given for other restoration purposes, such as the potential to restore wading bird habitat. Figure 4 shows, in purple, an area where the applicant has applied for Restoration Potential Credit for large mammal corridor restoration, and wading bird habitat restoration, in blue.30 If SSA17 is approved by the county, the applicant would receive Restoration Potential Credit over 626 acres of lands for having the "potential" to restore a large mammal corridor and additional credit for the potential to restore 114 acres of land for wading bird habitat.31 What is surprising is that the landowner can earn Restoration Potential Credit even though zero restoration work will be performed, which is the case with SSA17. Regardless, our primary concern for this application is that Longwater's development plan would destroy the existing wildlife corridor in two ways: Mammal access to the preserves would be deterred for two reasons: First, the applicant plans to build a perimeter stormwater lake system, which would block access to the mammal corridor within the preserve. The applicant's SRA document states (highlights added): "Within SSAs 15 and 17, along the eastern boundary of the Village there is a perimeter lake system, designed for stormwater purposes, and as a deterrent to wildlife. ,32 In addition, the surrounding development of Longwater Village would deter mammals from using the preserves within SSA15 and SSA17 due to traffic, lights, and noise. 28Ibid, p. ii. 29 Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Stewardship Credit Worksheet. so Passarella and Associates. SSA17 Aerial with Restoration Potential Index Value Map, Exhibit 3-8. (posted July 16, 2020) 31 Passarella and Associates. Natural Resource Index Assessment Stewardship Sending Area 17. Revised January 2020. p. 4 of 4. 12 Submittal 4 —Longwater Village SRA Development Document, p. 3. Conservancy of Southwest Florida 11 Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application 2. The applicant's plan would fragment the wildlife corridor. Figure 5 is of the project's Master Concept Plan (MCP), which shows where the proposed spine road would bisect the existing large mammal corridor within SSA17. Each neighborhood, or development pod, within Longwater's master plan, must exit and enter off of the spine road to travel to the Village Center, Big Cypress Parkway, and Oil Well Road. Vehicular traffic on the village spine road would be heavy and continuous. The applicant's current Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District plans shows only a 4x6 wildlife crossing at this area, which is meant only to accommodate small wildlife species. The applicant does not propose a large mammal crossing at this location because their fencing plans and lake design specifically intend to keep large mammals outside of these preserve areas. The county should seek clarity from the applicant about these plans, as their submittals for their wetland permits seem to be inconsistent with their request to receive large mammal corridor restoration potential credits for an area that has specifically been designed to preclude access by these type of species. Additionally, if panthers do gain access to this area by swimming the moat or climbing the fencing, the 4x6 size of the crossing would likely be too small for panthers or other large mammals to dependably utilize to gain safe passage under the roadway. OlLyygLLR4,.-_-_— Figure 5: Longwater Village SRA Master Concept Plan 3flD' D.Other options: r(.., NEIGHBORA GENERAL GOODS dSERMCES 292 ROM R.O145.62 AMENITY S 16.01 `., PARKS • f2.1B PARK PR8 ! 0.52 LIKES 264.83 G] LWE M E. OPEN AREA 110.00 PERIMETERS 4.53 Tff ENT 0.T1Q GENERAL CQNTEXTZQNE TOTAL S78_eeAGE CENTER COHTE7LT ZONE 20.32TOTAL 889_i9 RIVERGRASS VI LLAaE ate. In this section of �f�L �r a the letter, we r0' W IOE YYPE explained to you AL DENOTES FSA I HSA 100' & 540' SETBACKS how plans for ZONING _ Longwater Village A-MHD-RLSAO 0' TYPE f �. would impact MISC. OPEN SPACE NOT i' OoexoTEa PUTI.eacauxrr RawrtwRTaP.warnoTlNaRA. SSA, SRA OR WRA ;,' ' _;, �'• habitat of an • aIXRR PAIXA.A.ILID a(111.1A, 6EL1_1 ADMI!12NRl J� -17 jl I. 5SA endangered species WRA LAND USE SUMMARY C SYMBOL PESGRIPTgM ACRES Ii IS ~S -.15 LAKE TRACTS Jndidw L.M_E.) 110.63 ; +� and an existing ROAD R.O.W. II— WRA) 2,T5 r�_-_�— I j �BOU A WRAREA YOTAL 112.78� !I 1� BOVN'I mammal corridor. C WRALANGtlsLIawlTINaSAANDlaWmTiWLuhce However, Collier NTIE8RAAONNCAR MIRA AREA E NOT_ OT - '1 TJLUJ IN 1HE OPEN SPAGf LALGU WNS , 11 E. WRERE THE YILL40EIEAWACENTTOANESA ORA Enterprises has PREEP'TAS NO PERIMETERED DY SOI REOII NC _— \ E%CEPT RS NRYBE REGYIRE�BY SOIIiHRgtlQ4 WAiERMANAEEMENT13I8TRICT PERMIT LB.E. other options to ._,.. 1 LON I ,r.•. AG A-MHO-R Ao build in a way that Where spine road _ ]SEF SHEET? FOR MAINSP E is less impactful to p ROAD CROSS SECTION listed species a bisects mammal ;I I --�' habitat. The W corridor I; �+ Perimeter lakes landowner - developer could build truly sustainable communities on lands outside of the Primary Zone and Adult Breeding panther habitat, while continuing to farm their lands within the Primary Zone. If Collier Enterprises' property outside of Primary Zone panther habitat is limited, then they could partner with other landowners who own lands outside of essential habitat areas, but are within the Overlay's "Open" areas. They also have an option of selling Stewardship Credits from SSA14, SSA15, and SSA17 to other landowners who are in need of stewardship credits for increasing SRA acreage. RIVERGRASS VI LLAaE ate. In this section of �f�L �r a the letter, we r0' W IOE YYPE explained to you AL DENOTES FSA I HSA 100' & 540' SETBACKS how plans for ZONING _ Longwater Village A-MHD-RLSAO 0' TYPE f �. would impact MISC. OPEN SPACE NOT i' OoexoTEa PUTI.eacauxrr RawrtwRTaP.warnoTlNaRA. SSA, SRA OR WRA ;,' ' _;, �'• habitat of an • aIXRR PAIXA.A.ILID a(111.1A, 6EL1_1 ADMI!12NRl J� -17 jl I. 5SA endangered species WRA LAND USE SUMMARY C SYMBOL PESGRIPTgM ACRES Ii IS ~S -.15 LAKE TRACTS Jndidw L.M_E.) 110.63 ; +� and an existing ROAD R.O.W. II— WRA) 2,T5 r�_-_�— I j �BOU A WRAREA YOTAL 112.78� !I 1� BOVN'I mammal corridor. C WRALANGtlsLIawlTINaSAANDlaWmTiWLuhce However, Collier NTIE8RAAONNCAR MIRA AREA E NOT_ OT - '1 TJLUJ IN 1HE OPEN SPAGf LALGU WNS , 11 E. WRERE THE YILL40EIEAWACENTTOANESA ORA Enterprises has PREEP'TAS NO PERIMETERED DY SOI REOII NC _— \ E%CEPT RS NRYBE REGYIRE�BY SOIIiHRgtlQ4 WAiERMANAEEMENT13I8TRICT PERMIT LB.E. other options to ._,.. 1 LON I ,r.•. AG A-MHO-R Ao build in a way that Where spine road _ ]SEF SHEET? FOR MAINSP E is less impactful to p ROAD CROSS SECTION listed species a bisects mammal ;I I --�' habitat. The W corridor I; �+ Perimeter lakes landowner - developer could build truly sustainable communities on lands outside of the Primary Zone and Adult Breeding panther habitat, while continuing to farm their lands within the Primary Zone. If Collier Enterprises' property outside of Primary Zone panther habitat is limited, then they could partner with other landowners who own lands outside of essential habitat areas, but are within the Overlay's "Open" areas. They also have an option of selling Stewardship Credits from SSA14, SSA15, and SSA17 to other landowners who are in need of stewardship credits for increasing SRA acreage. OoexoTEa PUTI.eacauxrr RawrtwRTaP.warnoTlNaRA. SSA, SRA OR WRA ;,' ' _;, �'• habitat of an • aIXRR PAIXA.A.ILID a(111.1A, 6EL1_1 ADMI!12NRl J� -17 jl I. 5SA endangered species WRA LAND USE SUMMARY C SYMBOL PESGRIPTgM ACRES Ii IS ~S -.15 LAKE TRACTS Jndidw L.M_E.) 110.63 ; +� and an existing ROAD R.O.W. II— WRA) 2,T5 r�_-_�— I j �BOU A WRAREA YOTAL 112.78� !I 1� BOVN'I mammal corridor. C WRALANGtlsLIawlTINaSAANDlaWmTiWLuhce However, Collier NTIE8RAAONNCAR MIRA AREA E NOT_ OT - '1 TJLUJ IN 1HE OPEN SPAGf LALGU WNS , 11 E. WRERE THE YILL40EIEAWACENTTOANESA ORA Enterprises has PREEP'TAS NO PERIMETERED DY SOI REOII NC _— \ E%CEPT RS NRYBE REGYIRE�BY SOIIiHRgtlQ4 WAiERMANAEEMENT13I8TRICT PERMIT LB.E. other options to ._,.. 1 LON I ,r.•. AG A-MHO-R Ao build in a way that Where spine road _ ]SEF SHEET? FOR MAINSP E is less impactful to p ROAD CROSS SECTION listed species a bisects mammal ;I I --�' habitat. The W corridor I; �+ Perimeter lakes landowner - developer could build truly sustainable communities on lands outside of the Primary Zone and Adult Breeding panther habitat, while continuing to farm their lands within the Primary Zone. If Collier Enterprises' property outside of Primary Zone panther habitat is limited, then they could partner with other landowners who own lands outside of essential habitat areas, but are within the Overlay's "Open" areas. They also have an option of selling Stewardship Credits from SSA14, SSA15, and SSA17 to other landowners who are in need of stewardship credits for increasing SRA acreage. Conservancy of Southwest Florida 12 Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application III. The project is a typical suburban -style development, not innovative planning. A. Longwater's Village "Center" is on the edge, not the center: RLSA Policy 4.7.2 states, "Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed -use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and facilities." Longwater's Village Center is clearly not the focal point of the community as it is located nowhere near the center. Instead the Village "Center" is located on the extreme western edge of the property, alongside the future taxpayer -funded Big Cypress Parkway. The applicant is placing the commercial "center" along a future county road to take advantage of drive -by -traffic, instead of designing the village to provide its residents with walkable access to goods and services, as is required by the Overlay. This is not innovative planning, as the RLSA requires, this is quintessential suburban -style development. B. Where is the continuum?: LDC 4.08.07.3.a.v states that the village must be "developed in a progressive rural to urban continuum with the greatest density, intensity, and diversity occurring within the village center, to the least density, intensity, and diversity occurring within the Neighborhood Edge. " In addition, Policy 4.11 states, "The perimeter of each SRA shall be designed to provide a transition from higher density and intensity uses within the RLSA to lower density and intensity on adjoining property. " The plan is inconsistent with these two policies for two reasons: 1. Because the developer has placed the mixed -use village "center" along the far western edge of the property, along a spine road and a future county road, no development is planned on two sides of the Village Center. If no development is planned on two sides of the Village Center, then how can a transition or continuum of density and intensity be achieved? Obviously, a continuum or transition on those two sides of the village center are not possible, therefore, the plan does not reach consistency with the Overlay. 2. Up to 90% of the 2,600 homes are single-family spread throughout the Neighborhood General Context Zone. Although the applicant agrees to place 40 multi -family units within the Village Center and some within a'/2 mile walk to the center, this does not constitute a progressive continuum of residential density. C. The plan provides minimal walkability: Placing the mixed -use Village's "Center" along the edge of the community creates conditions where most residents must drive to get to the Village Center to obtain goods and services. Collier County's Community Character Plan recommends as the optimum distance for creating a walkable neighborhood a 1/4 mile radius from the mixed -use center to the neighborhoods.33 However, most neighborhoods in Longwater MCP are located over a %2 mile from the Village "Center" and many neighborhoods are located over two miles from the center. This is not acceptable, as the majority of the homes should be within walking distance to the mixed -use center. The plan is inconsistent with the following policies which require a walkable SRA: - LDC 4.08.07.J.3.a.ii: "Villages shall be designed in a compact, pedestrian friendly form. " - LDC 4.08.07.J.3.b.i: "The transportation network shall provide for a high level of mobility for all residents through a design that respects the pedestrian and accommodates the automobile. " 11 Dover, Kohl & Partners (2001, April). "Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida." p. 2.8 Conservancy of Southwest Florida 13 Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application Smart Growth Policy 7.4: "The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities ... " D. The project lacks connections: Instead of providing a street grid system with multiple routes to the Village Center, Longwater's plan provides a "non -village like spine road' "' running through the middle of the elongated project. Each development pod would dump neighborhood traffic onto the 3-mile long spine road, which provides access to the Village Center to the south or Oil Well Road to the north. Because the Village "Center" is on the edge and because the plan provides a spine road instead of a street grid system, the Village Center provides only two pedestrian connections to only one of Longwater's neighborhoods, or development pods (Figure 6). All other neighborhoods must access the spine road to get to the commercial center. As a comparison, the Town of Ave Maria provides nine or ten connections to the Town Center from the surrounding neighborhoods and the campus, which creates multiple routes for the pedestrians, bicyclists, or vehicles (Figure 7). Figure 6: Applicant's plan showing only two pedestrian connections to Village Center. �a,o r�A tirF 1A1 Figure 7: Pedestrian connections to Town Center in Ave Maria. The lack of interconnections within Longwater Village from the Village Center and to adjoining neighborhoods is inconsistent with several policies, including the following: - LDC 4.08.07.J.3.a.ii (Village Design Criteria): "Create an interconnected street system designed to disperse and reduce the length of automobile trips. " - RLSA Policy 4.7.2: "Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed -use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. " - LDC 4.08.07.J. La (Village Characteristics Table B. Transportation. Required Uses): `Auto - interconnected system of collector and local roads; " 34 Staff commented in the July 8, 2020 Consistency Review Memorandum that "Internal accesses are provided for the proposed development, including indirect accesses in to the northerly and southerly residential areas from the non -village like spine road and indirect access into the residential area and Village Center tract. " p. 13 Conservancy of Southwest Florida 14 Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application LDC 4.08.07.J.3.b (Transportation Network) states, "The transportation network shall be designed in an interconnected system of streets, sidewalks, and pathways. " Smart Growth Policy 7.3, states, " `All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. E. Longwater Village lacks housing diversity and affordability: A plan consisting 90% of single-family homes is not only a prime characteristic of sprawl, but it would be detrimental for the future of eastern Collier County. A village plan lacking in a variety of housing types, sizes, and prices ranges, would force those employed within Longwater's Village Center to seek suitable and affordable housing elsewhere in the county. Because the Overlay requires villages to be self-sufficient, every village and town must provide housing for all ages, diverse family -types, and income brackets. This ensures that essential personnel, such as fire and EMS workers, teachers, nurses, and utility workers, are able to work and live in eastern Collier County. The Conservancy supports staff s statement: "diversity is achieved in allowing different configurations among single-family detached and attached, and two-family dwellings, zero lot line, town home, and other multi family dwellings. "35 We, also, fully support staff s recommendation to require a housing needs analysis to "estimate the affordable housing demand generated by Longwater Village, as well as a plan to address the supply of those units " or staff s recommendation to require a minimum commitment of affordable housing.36 As stated in staff s housing review, the applicant has not reached consistency with the following policy: - LDC 4.08.07.J.3.a.iv (Village Design Criteria): "Offer a range of housing types and price levels to accommodate diverse ages and incomes. " In addition to 4.08.07.3.a.iv, Longwater Village SRA fails to conform to these other policies pertaining to housing diversity: - Policy 4.7.2: "Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mixes of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. " - LDC 4.08.0l.UU: "Villages area form of SRA and are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. " - LDC 4.08.07.C.2: "Villages. Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. - Attachment C: Stewardship Receiving Characteristics for a village: Requires `Diversity ofsinglefamily and multi family housing types, styles, and lots. " - Smart Growth Policy 7.4: "The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. " ss Collier County Longwater Village SRA Consistency Review Memorandum, February 11, 2020. p. 7. se Collier County. Longwater Village CHS Staff Review, April 13, 2020. Community and Human Services Division. Conservancy of Southwest Florida 15 Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application Conclusion The Conservancy of Southwest Florida urges you to recommend denial of the SRA Application for Longwater Village as the project contradicts the fundamental goal of the RLSA Overlay to protect listed species habitat and to prevent urban sprawl. The proposed location of the development, which is entirely within habitat for the endangered Florida panther, flies in the face of responsible environmental and rural land stewardship. Moreover, the design of the project defies basic smart growth design principles which are a fundamental element of the overlay. We urge you to require the applicant go back to the drawing board to drastically modify the development footprint outside of Primary Zone panther habitat, re -apply under town standards, and design the project to uphold the principles of the Overlay. If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss these matters further, you may reach us at (239) 262-0304. Sincerely, April Olson Senior Environmental Planning Specialist (239) 262-0304, ext. 250 AprilO@Conservancy.org CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE, Protecting Southwest Florida's unique natural environment and quality of life ... now and forever. Analysis of Longwater and Bellmar's Water -Wastewater, Person's Per Household, and Traffic Impacts A. WHAT WILL THE COUNTY PAY TO EXPAND POTABLE WATER AND WASTEWATER TONE COLLIER COUNTY? (SLIDE 11) • $82.5 million for additional potable water capacity (NE facility), which will provide treatment for 5 MGD (millions gallons per day).' • $106 million for the new NE wastewater treatment facility which will add treatment capacity for 4 MGD (millions gallons per day).' • Total = $188,500,000 B. WHAT ARE THE MAX POTABLE WATER DEMANDS FROM LONGWATER AND BELLMAR? (SLIDE 12) • 1.05 MGD for Longwater MGD and 1.11 MGD for Bellmar s (Maximum daily 3-day potable water demand) • Longwater's demand for water is 21% of the plant's total capacity. (1.05 MGD/ 5 MGD) • Bellmar's demand for water is 22.2% of the plant's total capacity (1.11 MGD/5 MGD) • Thus, the total potable water demand from Longwater and Bellmar at build -out = 2.16 MGD or 43% of the total new capacity. (2.16 MGD/5 MGD plant's water capacity = 43%) C. WHAT ARE THE MAX WASTEWATER DEMANDS FROM LONGWATER AND BELLMAR? (SLIDE 12) • .80 MGD for Longwater and .85 MGD for Bellmar.' (Maximum daily 3-day wastewater demand) • Longwater's demand for wastewater is 20% of the plant's total capacity. (.80MGD/4 MGD) • Bellmar's demand for wastewater is 21.25% of the plant's total capacity (.85 MGD/4 MGD) • Thus, the total wastewater demand from Longwater and Bellmar at build -out =1.65 MGD or 41.25% of total new capacity. (1.65 MGD/4 MGD added wastewater capacity = 41.25%) D. WHAT ARE THE MAX WATER AND WASTEWATER DEMANDS FROM THE APPLICANT'S THREE VILLAGES? (SLIDE 12) 1 Costs for the new water -water water facility were found in the August 20, 2020 Longwater Consistency Review Memorandum. Staff states on p. 11 "The Capital Improvements Element of the Growth Management Plan identifies the phased construction a new regional water treatment plant ($82.5M) and a new water reclamation facility ($106M) at the Northeast Utility Facilities (NEUF) site to support this (and other) development." 2019 Collier County Annual Update and Inventory Report/Capital Improvement Element Schedule Update on Public Facilities provides MGD capacity - p. 66 and p. 98. z Collier County 2019 Annual Update and Inventory Report/Capital Improvement Element Schedule Update on Public Facilities. p. 98. 3 Sources: Longwater SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessment, March 9, 2020, p. 4 and 6; Bellmar SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessment, Revised January 8, 2021, p. 4 and 6. Note: This includes the potable water demand for residential, commercial, and civic uses. ° Sources: Longwater SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessment, March 9, 2020, p. 4 and 6; Bellmar SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessment, Revised January 8, 2021, p. 4 and 6. Note: This includes the potable water demand for residential, commercial, and civic uses. Analysis of Longwater and Bellmar Fiscal Impacts I CONSERVANCY OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA • 1.05 MGD for Longwater MGD; 1.11 MGD for Bellmar; 1.19 MGD for Rivergrass s (Maximum daily 3-day potable water demand) = 3.35 MGD Thus, the total potable wastewater demand from Longwater and Bellmar at build -out = 3.35 MGD or 67% of the total new capacity. (3.35 MGD/5 MGD plant's water capacity = 67%) • .80 MGD for Longwater; .85 MGD for Bellmar; .98 MGD for Rivergrass' (Maximum daily 3-day wastewater demand) = 2.63MGD Thus, the total wastewater demand from Rivergrass, Longwater and Bellmar at build -out = 2.63 MGD or 65.75% of total new capacity. (2.63 MGD/4 MGD added wastewater capacity = 65.75%) E. WHAT ARE THE COUNTY'S COSTS TO PROVIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER TO LONGWATER AND BELLMAR? (SLIDE 13) Water • Since, Longwater's demand for potable water is 21% of the total capacity added (1.05 MGD/5MGD = 21%); the County's cost to provide potable water to Longwater equates to $17,325,000 ($82.5 million x 21%) • Since Bellmar's demand for potable water is 22% of the total capacity added (1.11 MGD/5MGD = 22%), the County's cost to provide potable water to Bellmar equates to $18,150,000 ($82.5 million x 22%) • Total costs to provide potable water to Longwater and Bellmar = $35,475,000 Wastewater • Since Longwaters's demand for wastewater treatment is 20% of the total capacity added (.8 MGD/4MGD = 20%), the County's cost to provide wastewater treatment to Longwater equates to $21,200,000 ($106 million x 20%) • Since Bellmar's demand for wastewater treatment is 21% of the total capacity added (.85 MGD/4 MGD = 21.25%), the County's cost to provide wastewater treatment to Bellmar equates to $22,260,000 ($106 million x 21%) • Total costs to provide wastewater to Longwater and Bellmar = $43,460,000 F. WHAT ARE THE COMBINED COSTS TO PROVIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER TO LONGWATER AND BELLMAR FOR WATER/SEWER? (SLIDE 14) $35,475,000 (Costs to provide potable water to Longwater and Bellmar + $43,460,000 (Costs to provide wastewater to Longwater and Bellmar) _ $78,935,000 5 Sources: Rivergrass SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessment August 22, 2019, p. 4; Longwater SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessment, March 9, 2020, p. 4 and 6; Bellmar SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessment, Revised January 8, 2021, p. 4 and 6. Note: This includes the potable water demand for residential, commercial, and civic uses. 6 Sources: Rivergrass SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessment August 22, 2019, p. 4; Longwater SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessment, March 9, 2020, p. 4 and 6; Bellmar SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessment, Revised January 8, 2021, p. 4 and 6. Note: This includes the potable water demand for residential, commercial, and civic uses. G. WHAT IS THE TOTAL IMPACT FEE REVENUE FROM LONGWATER AND BELLMAR FOR WATER/SEWER?' (SLIDE 15) Water Impact Fees: = Number of Units X $3,382 per ERC (Equivalent Residential Connection)! • WATER IMPACT FEES TO BE PAID PER VILLAGE: Longwater = $8,793,200 (2,600 x 3,382) Bellmar = $9,300,500 (2,750 x 3,382) • Thus, the total water impact fees to be paid by Longwater and Bellmar = $18,093,700 Wastewater Impact Fees = Number of units X $3,314 per ERC (Equivalent Residential Connection)9 • WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES TO BE PAID PER VILLAGE: Longwater: $8,616,400 (2,600 x 3,314) Bellmar = $9,113,500 (2,750 x 3,314) • Thus, the total impact fees to be paid by Longwater and Bellmar = $17,729,900 H. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COUNTY'S COSTS AND IMPACT FEE REVENUE? (SLIDE 15 & 16): WATER Costs to provide Potable Water to Longwater/Bellmar Impact Fee Revenue from Longwater/Bellmar WASTEWATER Costs to provide Wastewater to Longwater/Bellmar Impact Fee Revenue from Longwater/Bellmar $ 35,475,000 - $ 18,093,700 $ 17,381,300 deficit $ 43,460,000 - $ 17,729,900 $ 25,730,100 deficit County's deficit to provide Longwater Village and Bellmar Village Water and Wastewater: $43,111,400 ' Note: We used the same method to calculate impact fees as provided in DPFG's economic assessments for each village, which is the number of residential units multiplied by the impact fee for either water or sewer. Also, DPFG'S assessments only included impact fee revenues from residential, not commercial, so we follow their same method. However, we utilized the most current impact fee rates from the County's March 30, 2020 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Schedule, while DPFG based their calculations on outdated impact fee rates, which are substantially lower. It is our understanding that when impact fees are due, the County will collect the impact fees based on the current rate. Because we utilized current impact fee rates, our calculations will show a greater total amount to be paid for by the developer than DPFG provides in their economic assessment. It is also important to note that if the builders choose to build units under 1,501 square feet, the County will collect less revenue for impact fees. Therefore, the impact fee revenue to the County could be even lower than we provided. 8 The economic assessments for Longwater and Bellmar utilize outdated impact fees. This report uses the updated impact fee data provided by Collier County here: https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=89644 9 The economic assessments for Longwater and Bellmar utilize outdated impact fees. This report uses the updated impact fee data provided by Collier County here: https://www.colliercountVfl.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=89644 I. THE COLLIER MPO'S 2045 LRTP PROVIDES MORE RECENT DATA THAN DPFG USED IN THEIR ECONOMIC ANALYSES FOR THE VILLAGES. HOW DOES POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR LONGWATER AND BELMAR CHANGE IF WE USE THE MPO'S DATA? (SLIDES 34-35) Page 22 of the MPO's 2045 LRTP Technical Compendium10 provides an estimate of the "average household size" for the areas where Longwater and Bellmar will be located. Average household size can be equated to DPFG's "persons per unit." Page 18 of the MPO's LRTP Technical Compendium explains that their analysis of "Average Household Size" is for permanent population. Therefore, we will compare this to permanent population within DPFG's economic assessments for Longwater and Bellmar. Since the LRTP provides only an average household size and does not differentiate between the number of people per single-family homes and the number of people per multi -family homes, like is found in DPFG's assessments, we applied DPFG's same assumptions of the number of multi -family" homes and the number of single-family homes to be built within each village to the MPO's 2045 data. This made for a more accurate comparison of permanent population estimates. LONGWATER COMPARISON: The map on page 22 of the LRTP's Technical Compendium shows that the average household size within Longwater's location would be between 2.01 and 2.50 persons per household (PPH) for a permanent population. When taken as an average of 2.26 PPH, this can be compared to DPFG'S12 person's per unit of 1.05 for multi -family homes and 2.21 for single family homes for Longwater. LONGWATER CALCULATION: Average PPH of 2.26 x 1,097 Multi -family homes = 2,479.22 + Average PPH of 2.26 X 1,503 Single-family homes = 3,396.78 = 5,876.0 total permanent population for Longwater) BELLMAR COMPARISON: Although the LRTP map on p 22 of the Technical Compendium does not cover the exact location of Bellmar, the colored area on the map aligns closely with the location of Bellmar. The colored development area is shown just slightly south of Bellmar's actual location, mostly in an area where Stewardship Receiving Areas cannot be built per the RLSA's rules. Nevertheless, the only parcel that could be developed south of Longwater would be Bellmar's site. Thus, we can assume that the LRTP's estimate of 2.51 to 3 person's per household (unit) applies to Bellmar. When taken as an average of 2.76 PPH, this can be compared to DPFG'S13 person's per unit of 1.05 for multi -family homes and 2.21 for single family homes for Bellmar. BELLMAR CALCULATION: Average PPH of 2.76 x 11160 Multi -family homes = 3,201.6 + Average PPH of 2.76 X 1,590 Single-family homes = 4,388.4 = 7,590 total permanent population for Bellmar). • If the 2045 LRTP's average of 2.26 PPH for Longwater and 2.76 PPH for Bellmar is applied the same number of MF and SF homes within DPFG's assessments we get a combined population of 13,466. 11 Collier MPO Technical Compendium https://www.colliermpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Collier2O45LRTP TechnicalCompendium12- 2-20.pdf p. 22 11 DPFG defines Multi -Family homes as condo, duplex and single-family attached. Collier County's LDC does not consider single-family attached homes to be multi -family, however, for purposes of comparison we will use DPFG's definition of multi -family. 12 DPFG (Development Planning Finance Group) Longwater Village SRA Economic Assessment. Revised August 6, 2020, Appendix Table 2 p. 36 11 DPFG (Development Planning Finance Group) Bellmar Village SRA Economic Assessment. Revised November 12, 2020, Appendix Table 2 p. 36. COMPARISON OF LRTP TO DPFG's PERMANENT POPULATION ESTIMATES: • The total permanent population for the two villages using LRTP's data = 13,466 (5,876 Longwater +7,590 Bellmar = 13,466) • The total permanent population for the two villages from DFPG's assessments = 9,240 (4,477 for Longwater + 4,763 for Bellmar = 9,240) • 13,466 LRTP's estimate - 9,240 DPFG's estimate = 4,226 • THUS, when compared to recent MPO data, DPFG underestimates permanent population of Longwater and Bellmar by 4,226 people J. THE 2020 AUIR USED THE AVERAGE PERSON PERHOUSEHOLD SIZE OF 2.5 TO DETERMINE WATER AND WASTEWATER LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD.14 HOW DOES POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR LONGWATER AND BELMAR CHANGE IF WE USE THAT DATA INSTEAD OF WHAT DPFG USES IN THEIR ECONOMIC ASSESSMENTS? (SLIDE 35) LONGWATER CALCULATION: Average PPH of 2.5 x 1,097 Multi -family homes = 2,742.5 + Average PPH of 2.5 X 1,503 Single- family homes = 3,757.5 = 6,500.00 total permanent population for Longwater) BELLMAR CALCULATION: Average PPH of 2.5 x 1,160 Multi -family homes = 2,900 + Average PPH of 2.5 X 1,590 Single- family homes = 3,975 = 6,875 total permanent population for Bellmar). • Thus, if the 2020 AUIR'S average PPH of 2.5 is applied the same number of MF and SF homes within DPFG's Longwater and Bellmar assessment we get a combined permanent population of 13,375. K. CEM's ECONOMIC ASSESSMENTS FOR LONGWATER AND BELLMAR PROJECT THEY WILL BUILD $ 1.713 WORTH OF PROPERTY, $2.5 BILLION WHEN YOU INCLUDE RIVERGRASSls. (SLIDE 47) Longwater's Total Tax Base = 805,353,000 Bellmar's Total Tax Base = 906,775,000 Rivergrass' Total Tax Base = 753,560,000 + TOTAL TAX BASE _ $2,465,685,000 14 Collier County Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities Category "A". P. 43 and Footnote (1) on page 64 shows that the county used an average of 2.5 persons per household to estimate Level of Service Standard for water and wastewater. is DPFG (Development Planning Finance Group) Longwater Village SRA Economic Assessment. Revised August 6, 2020, Appendix Table 4 p. 10; DPFG (Development Planning Finance Group) Bellmar Village SRA Economic Assessment. Revised November 12, 2020, Appendix Table 4 p. 10; DPFG (Development Planning Finance Group) Rivergrass Village SRA Economic Assessment. Revised September 3, 2019, Appendix Table 4 p. 11 Arnold&Porter VIA EMAIL Collier County Planning Commission 3299 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34112 Brian D. Israel +1 202.942.6546 Direct Brian.Israel@arnoldporter.com February 17, 2021 Re: Longwater & Bellmar Village SRA Applications Dear Collier County Planning Commissioners, This letter is sent on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Inc. (Conservancy) and relates to the pending applications by Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. (CEM) related to the Longwater and Bellmar Villages. As you are aware, CEM applied to designate three areas of property in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) as Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) Villages to be called Rivergrass Village, Longwater Village, and Bellmar Village. The Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC or the Board) approved the designation of the Rivergrass Village SRA and that approval is currently being challenged in litigation. The Longwater Village and Bellmar Village SRA designations will soon come under consideration by the Planning Commission and the BCC. As set forth below and in other submissions by the Conservancy, the Planning Commission and the BCC should understand that approval of these SRA Villages will cost the citizens of Collier County tens of millions of dollars (if not more) and will further exacerbate the already dire traffic congestion throughout the County. There is no plan in place to resolve multiple massive adverse impacts the proposed CEM villages will have on the existing population of the County and, thus, approval would be illegal pursuant to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, among other applicable laws. We submit below our preliminary analysis of some of the most glaring inconsistencies with applicable requirements. Based upon these deficiencies, we urge the Commission to require CEM to meet all legal obligations related to RLSA development or, in the alternative, to recommend rejection of the Longwater and Bellmar proposals. IArnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave, NW I Washington, DC 20001-3743 1 www.arnoldporter.com February 17, 2021 Page 2 I. COUNTY LAW REQUIRES THAT "GROWTH PAY FOR GROWTH" AND THAT COLLIER COUNTY TAXPAYERS NOT BE FORCED TO SUBSIDIZE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT IN RURAL COLLIER COUNTY As you are aware, the RLSA is a protected area with more stringent development constraints than the rest of the County at large. For example, pursuant to the Growth Management Plan (GMP), a development in the RLSA cannot be approved unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed development "will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year." GMP Future Land Use Element (FLUE) RLSA Overlay (RLSAO) Policy 4.18. This requirement means that an applicant must show that the tax revenues and impact fees that will be generated by the development will be greater than, or equal to, the cost to the County created by the influx of people and need for services the development will create. As another example, proposed developments in the RLSA "shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or such infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand," and "[t]he capacity of infrastructure necessary to serve the [proposed development] at buildout must be demonstrated during the... designation process." FLUE RLSAO Policy 4.16. This concept —that adequate infrastructure must be available concurrent with demand, called "concurrency"is not unique to the RLSA. What is unusual is that, in the RLSA, prospective concurrency must be demonstrated "during the SRA designation process," not just at later stages in the permitting process. The timing of this requirement is important because it ensures that the County does not approve new growth unless and until the County has a plan to accommodate the additional strain on County infrastructure that will result from expanding development into these rural areas. Of particular importance for the CEM developments is that this proactive demonstration of concurrency must be made with respect to transportation infrastructure. Specifically, "[n]o SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA designation." FLUE RLSAO Policy 4.14. Thus, the County is not permitted to approve new developments that would exacerbate already congested transportation infrastructure. Rather, the County is required to first correct any transportation infrastructure deficiencies before it can allow RLSA development that would make congestion even worse. This is an important protection that ensures the County can maintain functionality of its infrastructure for existing citizens, and February 17, 2021 Page 3 not force them to subsidize a new development by having to experience longer commutes, reduced productivity, and a reduced overall quality of life. As discussed below, Longwater and Bellmar will result in epic violations of both the fiscal neutrality and transportation requirements applicable to RLSA development approvals. For example: • First, the County has agreed to build new water and wastewater plants to service these developments, but CEM has not agreed to pay its fair share of these new facilities. As set forth below, approval of Longwater and Bellmar will result in a deficit of over $43 million to the Collier County Water Sewer District. When Rivergrass is included, the deficit increases to over $72 million, a financial burden that will be unfairly borne by all District rate payers throughout Collier County. • Second, there are critical traffic congestion problems in the eastern part of Collier County that these developments will significantly exacerbate. The County has no plan to fix these problems, and County staff has taken the position, inexplicably, that CEM should be allowed to exacerbate these significant traffic impacts with no constraints. • Finally, CEM's analyses of all traffic impacts resulting from these developments are significantly understated. CEM's analysis of traffic from each of the three developments ignores that there will be additional traffic created by the other two CEM SRA developments. This approach masks the real magnitude of congestion created by these proposed projects. II. COUNTY RESIDENTS WILL SUBSIDIZE TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS (OR MORE) IN UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED TO SUPPORT CEM's DEVELOPMENTS In order to understand the enormity of the impacts created by CEM's proposed projects (and the enormity of the responsibility the County has in getting this right), it is important to understand just how massive these developments will be. CEM's Economic Assessments for the three Villages forecasts that they will constitute nearly $2.5 billion worth of property and consume almost 3,000 acres of currently undeveloped land (roughly one-third the size of the entire City of Naples). In order to support such massive growth, new infrastructure must be built from scratch to provide utility service to this area. February 17, 2021 Page 4 For reasons that remain unclear, the County has agreed to finance the cost of a brand new potable water plant, a brand new wastewater treatment plant, and an interim wastewater treatment plant to service these developments. The total cost of the County investment in just the new plant facilities, not including the interim plant, is estimated at $216.5 million. In return, the County has required no special compensation from CEM. Rather, CEM will only pay impact fees at the exact same rates as any other development in the County. The result is that the rest of the County —specifically, tens of thousands of taxpayers who reside in the Collier County Water Sewer District —are subsidizing the investment needed to service Rivergrass, Longwater, and Bellmar. This is not fiscal neutrality and is not legally permissible under the GMP. A. The Necessary Infrastructure Investment According to the Public Facilities Impact Assessments, Longwater will have a maximum 3-day demand of 0.80 million gallons per day (MGD) for wastewater and 1.05 MGD for potable water.' Bellmar will have a maximum 3-day demand of 0.85 MGD for wastewater and 1.11 MGD for potable water. Rivergrass will have a maximum 3-day demand of 0.98 MGD for wastewater and 1.19 MGD for potable water.2 The combined peak demand for these developments, which must be available in order for the Board to approve, is 2.63 MGD for wastewater and 3.35 MGD for potable water. This service could have been provided through a new CEM-financed facility similar to that the developer of Ave Maria built to satisfy the demand created there. Indeed, the Big Cypress Stewardship District, which encompasses Longwater, Bellmar, and Rivergrass, was specifically created in 2004 to allow issuance of bonds so developments therein could self -finance the necessary infrastructure. 2004 Fla. Laws Ch. 2004-423, HB 923. Instead, in 2018 (after CEM development applications were already pending), the County approved expansion of the Collier County Water Sewer District to encompass the Big Cypress Stewardship District and in 2019, authorized the building of new potable water and wastewater plants to support these developments. Memorandum of Understanding By and Among the Collier County Water -Sewer District, the Big Cypress Stewardship 1 The appropriate metric for determining the required infrastructure is peak demand, not average demand. See GMP Wastewater Treatment Sub -Element Policy 2.2: "In order to ensure these [level of service] standards are maintained, methodologies for determining available capacity and demand shall incorporate appropriate peak demand coefficients for each facility and for the type of development proposed." 2 Since the Rivergrass demand was calculated, the County level of service for water and wastewater has decreased. See Collier Cnty., Fiscal Year 2019 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study for Collier County Water -Sewer District at 10 (Sept. 12, 2019) (recommending a downward adjustment in the level of service from 225 MGD to 200 MGD per equivalent residential unit for wastewater and from 325 MGD to 300 MGD per equivalent residential unit for potable water). February 17, 2021 Page 5 District, Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC (2019); Collier Cnty., 2019 Annual Update & Inventory Report/Capital Improvement Element Schedule Update on Public Facilities (Nov. 12, 2019) ("2019 AUIR"). As a result of this arrangement, CEM is no longer required to build (and finance) its own plants to support the developments. B. These Water and Wastewater Costs Far Outweigh Revenues to Be Generated From the Developments The cost of these new water and wastewater facilities are as follows: • Wastewater: The new Northeast Water Reclamation Facility (NEWRF) will be "online" by 2026 and will provide a treatment capacity of 4 MGD. Collier Cnty., Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities 2020: Category "A " Facilities at 76 ("2020 AUIR"). The estimated cost of this facility is $106 million. Longwater Consistency Review Memo at 11 (Aug. 20, 2020). These costs will be entirely debt financed with $157 million in new wastewater project -related bonds anticipated to be issued by 2030. 2020 AUIR at 84-85. Notably, the wastewater treatment systems budget already shows that the County is paying between $6 million and $11 million a year to service pre-existing debt unrelated to the NEWRF. Id. This project will significantly increase the County's debt obligations in this category. In addition, "to facilitate [earlier] development in the northeast region of the county," the interim wastewater treatment plant was anticipated to be built between 2019 and 2021, will provide a treatment capacity of 1.5 MGD, and was estimated to cost $28 million. Id. at 76. • Potable Water: The new potable water plant, called the "Northeast Regional Water Treatment Plant" or "NERWTP" will be constructed between 2024 and 2027 and will provide a new treatment capacity of 5 MGD. 2019 AUIR at 66. The estimated cost of this facility is $82.5 million. Longwater Consistency Review Memo at 11 (Aug. 20, 2020). It appears these costs will be or have been entirely debt financed. $76 million in new bonds were issued in 2019 related to this project. Collier Cnty, Fla. Bd. of Cnty., Fiscal Year 2020-21 Adopted Budget at pdf p. 745. In addition, $103 million in new water -related bonds are anticipated to be issued by 2030. 2020 AUIR at 60-61. Notably, the potable water systems budget already shows that the County is paying $6 million to $11 million a year to service pre-existing debt unrelated to the NERWTP. Id. This project February 17, 2021 Page 6 has and/or will significantly increase the County's debt obligations in this category. Longwater and Belmar will consume more than 40% of the capacity of these new facilities, and the three CEM-proposed developments (Rivergrass, Longwater, and Bellmar) will consume approximately two-thirds: Wastewater Demand Potable Water Demand 4 MGD New Plant 5 MGD New Plant If these developments had been planned to be fiscally neutral, as required in the GMP, then because they will consume 66% of the new capacity created, they would compensate for approximately 66% of the cost of building this new capacity. This means that the County should be collecting at least $70 million from CEM to compensate for the wastewater demand created (this would cover just the cost of the new plant and does not include the cost of the interim plant or the cost of new transmission lines) and at least $55 million from CEM to compensate for the potable water demand created (again, this does not include transmission costs). This is a total of more than $125 million. Yet, the County has required CEM to pay nothing more than the impact fees required of every development in unincorporated Collier County. Those impact fees are calculated at a standard rate, based on the number of "equivalent residential units" or February 17, 2021 Page 7 "ERCs" in the development. Collier Cnty., Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Rate Schedule (Mar. 30, 2020).3 RESIDENTIAL - INDIVIDUALLY METERED Water Impact Wastewater Living Space (SQ.FT.) ERC Fac for Basis of Fee Meter Size Fee Impact Fee TO 4.999 1 Per ERC $3,382 $3.314 314' (AND NO MORE THAN 4 TOILETS) (fixed at 1 ERC) 5,00OR MORE Varies [minimum value Per ERC ERC value x $3.382 Vanes {Reference (OR MOREE THAN 4 TOILETS) of 1 } [based ❑n ADF [minimum value $3.314 Meter Size Nate] Formula)$3,382 Meter Size Note Meter size determined by the total fixture value connected to the meter and applying applicable provision in the current edition of the Florida Plumbing Code. Reference the Meter Suing Form. ERC with ADF Formula When ADF is in Gallons Per Minute (GPM) then use the formula [(ADF-30)I30I+1 For these CEM developments, each housing unit is 1 ERC, and the impact fee calculations are as follows: Number of Total Wastewater Total Water Total Units Impact Fee Impact Fee Longwater 2,600 $8,616,400 $8,793,200 $17,409,600 Bellmar 2,750 $9,113,500 $9,300,500 $18,414,000 Rivergrass 2,500 $8,285,000 $8,455,000 $16,737,000 Total 7,850 $26,014,900 $26,548,700 $52,563,600 In sum, CEM will pay approximately $26 million in wastewater impact fees, despite creating at least $70 million in wastewater costs to the County. CEM will pay approximately $26 million in water impact fees, despite creating at least $55 million in water costs to the County. This is not fiscal neutrality. Rather, in these categories alone, CEM's three developments will create a fiscal deficit of more than $72 million dollars. Moreover, the County's own Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study explicitly acknowledges that the cost of providing service to residents in the area serviced by the new plants is significantly higher than the cost of providing service to residents in the area 3 Available at https://www.colliercogMfl.gov/home/sho"ublisheddocument?id=89644. February 17, 2021 Page 8 serviced by existing plants. The study calculated that for wastewater, the "Rate per ERCs Unit Associated with Existing Facilities" is $1,868.73, and the "Rate per ERCs Units Associated with Additional Facilities" is $6,834.98. Collier Cnty., Fiscal Year 2019 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study for Collier County Water -Sewer District at pdf p. 47 (Sept. 12, 2019).4 In other words, providing new wastewater service to CEM's developments is 3.65 times more expensive than providing new wastewater service to a development within the existing service area of the Collier County Water Sewer District. Despite this fact, the impact fee study, which forms the basis for the impact fee rates CEM will pay, takes a weighted average of these rates, adds a transmission cost, and arrives at the final wastewater impact fee value of $3,314 per ERC unit. Thus, other developments in Collier County will be subsidizing the cost of infrastructure provided to support the CEM developments. If the County cannot collect sufficient impact fees to cover the cost of the debt it is issuing to build the new plants, it will have to find another way to pay to service the debt —likely by increasing rates for all users, lowering (again) the existing level of service, and/or seeking a bail out from other Collier County government funds. According to the Collier County Public Utilities Department: "Regular rate adjustments are necessary to ensure the rates generate the right amount of revenue and cash flow to provide reliable and sustainable services. Rates must keep up with the increasing cost of operations, including increases in the costs of electricity, raw materials like fuel and chemicals, insurance and labor, and changing regulatory requirements. Rates must also maintain bond covenants, including debt service coverage, and provide funds for emergencies." Collier Cnty. Pub. Utils. Dep't, Water/Wastewater Rates Effective October 1, 2020 (Oct. 2020) (emphasis added).' For fiscal year 2021, rates in the Collier County Water Sewer District were increased by 2.9% for all users. Presumably, rates will need to be increased even more once the debt incurred to service CEM's developments becomes due. Id. Rates are the same for all users within the Collier County Water Sewer District. Id. Thus, any necessary rate increases will be borne not just by Longwater, Bellmar, and Rivergrass, but by all users in the Collier County Water Sewer District. 'Available at https://www.colliercogMfl.,jzov/home/sho"ublisheddocument?id=91124. 'Available at https://www.colliercogMfl.jzov/home/sho"ublisheddocument?id=95171. February 17, 2021 Page 9 III. THE CEM DEVELOPMENTS WILL ILLEGALLY EXACERBATE TRANSPORTATION INADEQUACIES Collier County has adopted transportation concurrency into its GMP. See FLUE RLSAO Policy 4.14; GMP Capital Improvement Element. Therefore, Collier County must ensure that its transportation facilities (i.e., roadways) continue to meet their adopted level of service standards with new development. For RLSA developments, the GMP takes this even a step further and explicitly requires that "[n]o SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial roads(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System." FLUE RLSAO Policy 4.14; see also 4.16 ("The capacity of [transportation] infrastructure necessary to serve the SRA at buildout must be demonstrated during the SRA designation process.").6 Therefore, an RLSA development application cannot be approved unless it is demonstrated that the Collier County transportation network will meet its adopted level of service standards at the project's buildout year. Despite this very clear rule, County staff appear to have entirely overlooked the fact that Longwater and Bellmar (and Rivergrass before them) are predicted to significantly impact roadways that are already projected to be deficient. The Longwater traffic impact statement (TIS) even admits that Longwater will add significant traffic to three road segments that will already be deficient (meaning there are more cars than the County level of service allows) by the buildout year: On Randall Boulevard from Everglades Boulevard to 81h Street NE, the roadway will have the capacity to accommodate 900 peak direction, peak hour trips. In 2030, even before any Longwater trips are added, the County predicts there will be 1,008 peak direction, peak hour trips on the roadway (108 more than its capacity allows). Longwater will add an additional 174 peak direction, peak hour trips (19.3% of the roadway's total capacity). See Longwater TIS, Sec. 1 at 21 (Aug. 4, 2020). On Immokalee Road from Oil Well Road to Randall Boulevard, the roadway will have capacity to accommodate 3,300 peak direction, peak hour trips. In 2030, even before any Longwater trips are added, the County predicts there will b See also Land Development Code (LDC) 6.02.01(D)(12) ("Transportation Concurrency Management System means a `real time' concurrency system that tracks and allocates the available roadway capacity on a continuous basis with quarterly status reports to the Board. Trips generated from proposed developments will be added to the trips approved to date and the existing background traffic counts to determine if there is available capacity for each new development to be approved, in whole or part, as proposed development plans are submitted.") (emphasis added). February 17, 2021 Page 10 be 3,788 peak direction, peak hour trips on the roadway (488 more than its capacity allows). Longwater will add an additional 174 peak direction, peak hour trips (5.3% of the roadway's total capacity). See id. at 22. • On Immokalee Road from Randall Boulevard to Wilson Boulevard, the roadway will have capacity to accommodate 3,300 peak direction, peak hour trips. In 2030, even before any Longwater trips are added, the County predicts there will be 3,788 peak direction, peak hour trips on the roadway (488 more than its capacity allows). Longwater will add an additional 285 peak direction, peak hour trips (8.6% of the roadway's total capacity). See id. at 22. In addition to these significant impacts to already deficient road segments, Longwater is predicted to cause Randall Boulevard from DeSoto Boulevard to Everglades Boulevard to become deficient. Because Longwater is causing this projected deficiency, the County required CEM to provide some mitigation of traffic impacts on Randall Boulevard from DeSoto Boulevard to Everglades Boulevard. But the County is entirely ignoring the Longwater impacts to the already deficient roadways listed above. The County has articulated no plan to correct the predicted deficiencies, and CEM is not paying any mitigation for its impact to these road segments, despite significantly exacerbating the existing inadequacies. This is not what is intended by traffic concurrency and is prohibited by the GMP provisions applicable within the RLSA. The same is true of Bellmar—while the County is requiring CEM to mitigate where the development is causing a roadway to become deficient, there are multiple roadway segments that are predicted to be deficient in 2034 (Bellmar's buildout year) where Bellmar will add significant additional traffic to the road segment, further exacerbating the problem. Again, the County has seemingly ignored these impacts. The County appears to believe that the Florida Concurrency Statute prohibits it from enforcing traffic concurrency in this scenario —that is, where there is a background deficiency. But that is a misreading of the statute and contrary to applicable case law on the topic. An existing deficiency does not excuse a developer from paying fully for the demand it will place on public facilities. Pursuant to the statute, "[w]hen an applicant contributes or constructs its proportionate share pursuant to this paragraph, a local government may not require payment or construction of transportation facilities whose costs would be greater than a development's proportionate share of the improvements necessary to mitigate the development's impacts." § 163.3180(5)(h)(2), Fla. Stat. This has apparently been read by Collier County to mean that it should ignore any exacerbation of existing deficiencies caused by new developments. But this strained reading ignores that, as a precondition to the prohibition on charging developers to correct background February 17, 2021 Page 11 deficiencies, the developer must first contribute its "proportionate share of the improvements necessary to mitigate the development's impacts." In other words, the County can require a developer to mitigate the new trips it is adding to the deficient road segment; it just cannot require the developer to mitigate trips for which its development is not responsible. Furthermore, nothing in the Florida Concurrency Statute prohibits the County from denying a development application (like those for Longwater and Bellmar) that would impact deficient roadways. See, e.g., D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Peyton, No. 16-2005-CA- 001569, 2005 WL 6320241 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Oct. 25, 2005) (affirming mayor's veto of development order because it failed to comply with the transportation concurrency requirement that the transportation facilities be adequate to serve the proposed development); Mann v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 830 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), review denied, 844 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 2003) (finding that county had statutory authority to deny development requests based on the timing/adequate facility requirements of its Comprehensive Plan). Thus, the GMP's requirement that an SRA development cannot be approved unless there is adequate transportation infrastructure to support the development is fully enforceable and, in this case, requires a denial of the development applications. IV. CEM'S ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS SIGNIFICANTLY UNDERSTATES THE PROBLEM Finally, the CEM traffic impact statements for these developments materially understate the traffic impacts resulting from these developments. The traffic impacts from all three CEM developments (Rivergrass, Longwater, and Bellmar) should be analyzed collectively because they will be accessing many of the same roadways, and their cumulative impacts may be greater than the combination of each individual development's impacts. At the very least, because Rivergrass has already been approved by the Board (in violation of Collier County law), the Longwater and Bellmar traffic impact statements must include Rivergrass traffic in the background traffic assumptions.$ They fail to meet this County Staff did request that CEM perform a cumulative analysis of traffic impacts. However, CEM has only committed to mitigate traffic impacts identified in the individual traffic impact statements. a See, e.g., Collier County TIS Guidelines at 10 ("The TIS will consider all vested development on the significantly impacted links and intersections."), hops://www.colliercounlyfl.gov/home/shoMublisheddocument?id=93575; Fla. Dep't of Cmty. Affs., Transportation Concurrency Best Practices Guide at 62 (Sept. 2007) ("For concurrency purposes, the existing volume typically means the peak hour volume during peak season. The background traffic volume includes Previously approved development trips and any additional growth in traffic volume typically February 17, 2021 Page 12 bare minimum requirement. They fail to reflect the reality of what will happen to the affected roads if they are approved. For example, the capacity on Golden Gate Boulevard from Collier Boulevard to Wilson Boulevard is 2,300 peak direction, peak hour trips. The Rivergrass TIS predicts that Rivergrass traffic will result in 2,275 peak hour, peak direction trips (106 Rivergrass trips + 2,169 background trips). Rivergrass TIS, Sec. 1 at 21 (Aug. 9, 2019). The Longwater TIS predicts Longwater will contribute an additional 111 peak hour, peak direction trips to this roadway. Longwater TIS, Sec. 1 at 22 (Aug. 4, 2020). Thus, if the Rivergrass trips had been included in background for purposes of the Longwater TIS, it would have resulted in a conclusion that the I I I Longwater trips on this segment result in the roadway becoming deficient (2,275 + III = 2,386 > 2,300). Instead, because the Longwater TIS improperly ignored Rivergrass traffic, it concluded Longwater does not result in a deficiency on Golden Gate Boulevard from Collier Boulevard to Wilson Boulevard and thus, no mitigation was proposed for this road segment. So what will happen on Golden Gate Boulevard from Collier Boulevard to Wilson Boulevard if these developments are approved as is? The roadway will become deficient. Because CEM will not be paying to correct the deficiency, and the Florida Concurrency Statute prevents the County from charging new developments with the cost of correcting background deficiencies (deficiencies caused by prior developments), the County itself will have to finance improvements to increase capacity and correct the deficiency on this roadway. Furthermore, if the County continues to incorrectly read the law as discussed above, new developments will be allowed to exacerbate the deficiency on the roadway without consequence. This is not traffic concurrency and is not fiscal neutrality. experienced in the area beyond the approved trips.") (emphasis added), https://www.research ate e.net/profile/Pei_SungtLin/publication/282652008_Transportation_Concurrency_ Best Practices Guide/links/5615f2bd08ae4ce3cc65749d/Transportation-Concurrency-Best-Practices- Guide.pdf?oriein=publication_detail. See also, LDC 6.02.02(A)(1) ("If the County Manager or designee determines that a site development plan or plat application when reviewed cumulatively with projects submitted within the last 6 months from the same master project or development does not meet the transportation concurrency requirements or is contrary to the purpose and intent of this section, as stated above, he may withhold approval of said development order application until adequate capacity is available or require the application submittals to be reviewed cumulatively and subsequent impacts to be distributed and accounted for within the same impact boundary of the master project or development."). February 17, 2021 Page 13 V. CONCLUSION The County should require CEM to fully comply with Collier County law related to its proposed developments. As stated by the United States Supreme Court in an important Florida case, Koontz v. St. Johns River Management District, 570 U.S. 595, 605 (2013), "[i]nsisting that landowners internalize the negative externalities of their conduct is a hallmark of responsible land -use policy." In light of the extraordinary failures identified above, the Planning Commission should require the County planning staff to explain --with precision and objectivity —how Longwater and Bellmar meet the legal obligations for RLSA development, including fiscal neutrality and traffic mitigation. If necessary, the County should retain additional third - party experts to further audit the project proponent's representations. Second, the Planning Commission should require CEM to resubmit their development proposals in a legally -compliant manner. At bottom, the task is not that complicated. CEM simply needs to ensure that the costs of their proposed $2. S billion dollar project will not be borne by the taxpayers of Collier County. CEM should be required to pay for the necessary infrastructure associated with its developments (including water, wastewater, road maintenance, traffic mitigation and other public services), and their refusal to do so should not be acceptable to the Planning Commission or the County. Finally, if neither the County staff nor the property owner are willing to comply with County law, the Planning Commission should (a) recommend denial of Longwater and Bellmar as SRA Villages, and (b) create a clear record of its rationale for purposes of informing the citizens of Collier County as well as any future legal proceedings. Sincerely, Brian D. Israel Lauren Daniel cc: Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney GundlachNancy From. FryerEdwin Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 3:54 PM To: JenkinsAnita Subject. One of two From: Gaylene Vasaturo <gaylenevasaturo@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 3@13 PM To: FryerEdwin; KarlFry; HomiakKarens SheaPaul; SchmittJoseph; Cc: Patricia Forkan VernonChristopher; KlucikRobert Subject: LWVCC Environmental Committee Letter re: Longwater/Bellmar FXTERRiAL EIVlAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. .EAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS ai- �.JLLIER JNTY Collier County Planning Commissioners: Chairman Edwin Fryer, Paul Shea, Karen Homiak, Christopher Vernon, Karl Fry, Joseph Schmitt, Robert Klucik Re: Feb. 18, 2020 hearing on Longwater and Bellmar Villages Dear Planning Commissioners: We recently learned that a proposed Town Agreement to add 515 acres to Longwater Village to create the Longwater Town Stewardship Receiving Area will be included in the CCPC agenda packet for Longwater and Bellmar— ust for informational ur oses. The CCPC is not being asked to make any recommendations on this proposal. Collier Enterprises plans to ask the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to approve this Town Agreement on the same day the BCC considers the Longwater and Bellmar Village applications. This approach circumvents the normal public process. By including the Town Agreement in the CCPC agenda packet, Collier Enterprises is, in effect, asking the Planning Commissioners to recommend approval of Longwater and Bellmar Villages with an assumption that Collier Enterprises will create a town. But Collier Enterprises has not submitted a town application nor provided supporting information and data, and there has been no staff analysis of the Town proposal. What the Town Agreement proposes is extremely inconsistent with the RLSA Overlay. The Agreement also contains conditions, such as requiring the County to pay completely for a Community Park and restrictions such as what can be considered for the economic assessment and traffic impact analysis. This Agreement would shift many costs of the town to the County. We expect that the Planning Commission will review Longwater and Bellmar Village applications on their own merit for consistency with RLSA Overlay. Collier Enterprises is hoping you will be influenced by the Town Agreement. Please do not be swayed. This Agreement makes no promises. The 515 acres added by the Town Agreement will be primarily a commercial area ("town core") spread out along Big Cypress Parkway and Oil Well Road. However, the Town Agreement states that "There shall be no timing conditions placed on the development of the Town Core which will be developed based on market conditions." Timing on building a commercial area is key to self-sufficiency, yet Collier Enterprises may not build the proposed town core for 50 years, or maybe market conditions will never support such a proposal. Finally, if the Applicant and the County are to proceed with the Town Agreement, then the Applicant should first come forward with a formal Town SRA application, so that plans to aggregate the Villages into a town can be fully vetted and reviewed by the Planning Commission and the public. Thank you for considering these matters. Sincerely, The League of Women Voters Collier County, Environmental Committee Patricia Forkan Charlotte Nycklemoe Susan Calkins Judy Hushon Lynn Martin Loralee LaBoeuf Bonnie Michaels Alison Wescott z 111 February 15, 2020 To: Collier County Planning Commission Chairman Edwin Fryer Karl Fry Karen Homiak Paul Shea Christopher Vernon Joseph Schmitt Robert Klucik Re: Longwater and Bellmar Villages Dear Planning Commissioners: The following comments on Longwater and Bellmar Villages are submitted on behalf of the League of Women Voters Collier County Environmental Committee: 1. Don't be swayed by the proposed Town Agreement in your agenda packet. The Applicant has not submitted a town application along with the required supporting information and there is no staff analysis. The Town Agreement makes no promises, but if approved would set a damaging precedent for future applicants to ignore RLSA Program requirements and shift many costs of a Town to the County. The Applicant hopes to influence your decision on Longwater and Bellmar by including a proposed Town Agreement in the agenda packet. But Collier Enterprises has not submitted a town application along with supporting information and data, and there has been no staff analysis of the Town Agreement. What the Town Agreement proposes is extremely inconsistent with the RLSA Overlay. The Agreement also contains conditions such as requiring the County to pay for the Community Park land at $22,500 per acre, pay permit fees and mitigation, reduce impact fees, and includes restrictions on what can be considered for the Town economic assessment and traffic impact analysis. In effect, the Agreement shifts many costs of the Town to the County. We expect that the Planning Commission will review Longwater and Bellmar Village applications on their own merit for consistency with RLSA Overlay. We ask that you not be influenced by this Town Agreement which makes no promises. The 515 acres added by the Town Agreement will be primarily a commercial area ("town core") spread out along Big Cypress Parkway and Oil Well Road. However, the Town Agreement states that "There shall be no timing conditions placed on the development of the Town Core which will be developed based on market conditions." Timing on building a commercial area is key to self-sufficiency, yet Collier Enterprises may not build the proposed town core for 50 years, or maybe market conditions will never support such a proposal. 2. Longwater and Bellmar Villages, along with Rivergrass Village, are atown—the Villages of Big Cypress Stewardship District. The Longwater and Bellmar Applications should be reviewed for consistency with the RLSA Overlay as a town. Longwater, Bellmar and Rivergrass Villages, neighboring villages owned by the same landowner and scheduled to be built in roughly the same time frame, are really a town and should be required to meet the requirements of a town. The goods and services, corporate offices, light industrial, school, community park shown in the Longwater Town Concept Map should have been provided within the Longwater and Bellmar Villages. By seeking approval of the villages individually, Collier Enterprises is trying to avoid infrastructure costs such as the roadway costs necessary to serve the three Villages, e.g. Big Cypress Parkway, and expanded roads and intersections to address the adverse impacts of the cumulative traffic from these villages. The County can and should require Longwater and Bellmar to meet the RLSA town criteria. GMP 4.7.1 states that "Towns shall not be less than 1000 acres or more than 4000 acres and are comprised of several villages and/or neighborhoods. Allowing Collier Enterprises to avoid the infrastructure costs and RLSA requirements of a town through this Town Agreement maneuver is also unfair to the other RLSA landowner, Barron Collier, who followed the RLSA Overlay requirements for the Town of Ave Maria. 3. Longwater and Bellmar are not fiscally neutral because the Applicant does not mitigate the cumulative adverse traffic impacts of Rivergrass, Longwater and Bellmar to ten roadway segments. In Collier County, new residential developments must fully account for the traffic impacts associated with proposed development to ensure that traffic congestion is not exacerbated by new growth. RLSA Overlay Policy 4.18 requires the project to be fiscally neutral to the County for public facilities and services, including transportation. Policy 4.14 states "No SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in accordance with Collier county Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA designation." The cumulative impact of traffic from Rivergrass, Longwater and Bellmar will be severe, yet the County is not requiring the Applicant to mitigate the cumulative adverse impacts from these villages. For Longwater and Bellmar, the Applicant seeks to have the traffic impact of each Village considered in a vacuum. The TIS for Longwater shows one roadway adversely impacted by 2 Longwater traffic. The TIS for Bellmar shows two additional roadways adversely impacted by Bellmar traffic. The County Staff persisted in asking Collier Enterprises to provide a discussion of the cumulative impacts of Longwater, Bellmar, Rivergrass and Hyde Park Villages. See April 15, 2020 Review Comment Letter at page 4. According to the County transportation reviewer "Given the close proximity of these four proposed developments and the relatively limited roadway network in the surrounding area, it seems very likely that the cumulative impact of all this traffic will result in level of service deficiencies for multiple roadway segments and intersections." When the Applicant finally provided an analysis of adverse roadway impacts of Rivergrass, Longwater and Bellmar, ten roadway segments in addition to the three roadway segments mentioned above were determined to be adversely impacted.' These roadway segments were on Oil Well Road, Randall Road, Vanderbilt Beach Road, Golden Gate Blvd., Immokalee Road and Desoto Blvd —all collector or arterial roads. The Applicant's TIS for Longwater and Bellmar show that the capacity of these collector and arterial roadways will not be adequate when the cumulative village traffic is considered. These roadways will have to be improved because the combined traffic of these three villages will cause the roadways to exceed the LOS. The three Villages have been planned together in close proximity to one another; they have about the same build out date, and have gone thru the SRA application process in short succession of one after the other. Their traffic combined results in these adverse roadway impacts. To be considered fiscally neutral, the Applicant must address the adverse impacts of their project. However, the County Staff is not requiring the Applicant to mitigate the ten additional adversely impacted road segments that result from the cumulative impact of traffic. 4. Longwater and Bellmar do not provide a transportation network adequate to support Lilt: proposed development. Big Cypress Parkway is a required facility for Longwater, Bellmar and Rivergrass, but Collier Enterprises is shifting the entire cost of this major roadway to the County. Under the RLSA Overlay Policy 4.14, an Applicant's SRA application cannot be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial roads serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in accordance with the County's Concurrency Management System. Big Cypress Parkway is a necessary collector road for the Villages of Big Cypress. For Rural Lands West (RLW), the County stated "[t]he SRA is responsible for providing roadways that connect and serve the various development pods. Your own traffic study identifies a significant amount of internal capture within the SRA. In basic terms, the Big Cypress Parkway is a required facility 1 These ten roadway segments are: Oil Well Rd from Immokalee Rod to Everglades Blvd., Golden Gate Blvd. from Collier Blvd. to Wilson Blvd., Immokalee Road from Logan Blvd. to Collier Blvd., Immokalee Road from Collier Blvd. to Wilson Blvd., Desoto Blvd. from Randall Blvd. to 18th Ave NE, Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Wilson Blvd. to Logan Blvd., Golden Gate Blvd. from Wilson Blvd. To 16th St NE, Golden Gate Blvd from 161h St NE to Everglades Blvd., Golden Gate Blvd. from Everglades Blvd. to Desoto Blvd., Vanderbilt Beach Road from Wilson Blvd. to Collier Blvd. Longwater May 29, 2020 TIS Section 2 page 13; Bellmar Aug. 2020 TIS Section 2 pg. 13-14. 3 for RLW." Nov. 11 2018 Letter from Deputy County Manager to Collier Enterprises. Splitting RLW into three Villages does not change the reality that Big Cypress Parkway is a required facility for Rivergrass, Longwater and Bellmar. Without Big Cypress Parkway, Longwater, which is a peninsula surrounded by a water retention area and farmland, has only one access and exit to a collector road, Oil Well Road. The Applicant's representative stated that its villages do not need Big Cypress Parkway —that's why they argue they don't have to pay anything towards its construction. With over 19,000 new residents' in Rivergrass, Longwater and Bellmar combined plus Ave Maria's growing number of residents, Oil Well road is clearly going to be jam packed during rush hours. Plus, Oil Well Road is a freight distribution route. Oil Well Road alone does not provide adequate collector road capacity for the traffic from these three Villages. In other actions, the Applicant relies on Big Cypress Parkway. For example, in the Longwater Village Traffic Impact Statement the Applicant argues that internal capture of traffic will be increased and trip length shortened because of four new mixed use communities proposed in Jose proximity to each other. "Based on extensive shopping, employment and soci clal recreation opportunities provided by these developments, it is anticipated that many of the external trips generated by Longwater SRA will be absorbed within these projects." Big Cypress Parkway will be the connecter road for these Villages. Without Big Cypress Parkway, travel between these villages would be a traffic nightmare. The Applicant also treats the three Villages as one project in the Rivergrass Developer Agreement. This Agreement conditions the sale of the Right of Way (ROW) for Big Cypress Parkway on approval of all three villages. Instead of paying anything for Bid Cypress Parkway, the Applicant will receive a substantial amount of impact fee credits for providing the Right of Way (ROW) for BiJ Cypress Parkway to the County. Collier Enterprises is not paying for any part of Big Cypress Parkway —instead it is selling the ROW for the road to the County. The amendment to the 2040 LRTP that included the three segments of Big Cypress Parkway estimated the total cost of building just the 5.1 miles of the Rivergrass segment as $73,151,150, Collier enterprises will receive about $15 million in road impact fee credits just for the Rivergrass 5.1 mile -segment of Big Cypress Parkway. These impact fee credits will reduce the amount of impact fees paid by the Applicant that otherwise would be used for major road projects that are needed to serve development in this area such as Randall Boulevard widening and the Vanderbilt beach extension. ' Longwater will have 2600 homes, Rivergrass 2500 homes and Bellmar 2750 homes for a total 7850 homes. Using BEBR medium range population growth for Collier County, there is 2.5 pers per household or 19,625 new residents. Thiss is conservative. In 2045 LRTP, Jacobs Engineering projected 3 to 3.75 person per household for this speciffi9c areas of the RLSA. Note that the Applicant's analysis for Longwater is based on just 1.67 PPH. C� The developer should be paying for ROW and construction for at least a portion of Big Cypress Parkway —as Big Cypress Parkway is necessary to support its three Villages. 5. Longwater and Bellmar Villages will not be fiscally neutral because their impact fees will reimburse the County for only a portion of the New North East Water and Wastewater facility which must be built to serve the three new villages. According to the RLSA Overlay, growth must pay for growth. The Comprehensive Planning Staff asked "that County staff involved in the review of the Economic Assessment give consideration to the cumulative effects or demands of these SRAs rather than considering each only individually." See, Staff Consistency Review Memo for Longwater Feb. 11, 2020 at pg. 13. The Developer should be paying for the infrastructure to support the cumulative demand from Longwater, Bellmar and Rivergrass Villages. However, the County Staff involved in review of the Economic Assessment did not address this matter. The addition of approximately 19,000 new residents in this area of the RLSA will require a new North East Water and Wastewater facility. The impact fees paid by the developers will reimburse the County for only a portion of the cost. The remainder will be satisfied by reducing the level of service for water and wasterwater countywide, which reduces the water flow to your home, and increasing fees approximately $500 per household. 6. The Applicant has not demonstrated that its proposed mitigation for Longwater's adverse traffic impact on a segment of Randall Road will restore or maintain the Level of Service (LOS) on this adversely impacted roadway. According to 8-4-2020 TIS section 1 for Longwater, the project's traffic will adversely impact the Randall Blvd, segment from Everglades Blvd. to eSoto Blvd. Pg. 24. Under Transportation Policy 5.1 and the Capital Improvement Policy 1.2(B) the applicant developer must stipulate to specific mitigation measures to restore or maintain the LOS on identified deficient road segments. The applicant must show that its proposed traffic mitigation will offset the actual impacts created by the development. Here, for mitigation, Collier Enterprises only proposes "to pay the appropriate Collier County Road impact fees as building permits are issued for the project." TIS Section pg 26 (8-4-20). Collier Enterprises has not provided specific mitigation measures for this deficient roadway segment nor demonstrated that impact fees will go towards mitigating any of the significant impacts to this deficient roadway segment. In fact, impact fees are not "specific mitigation." While road im pact mpact fee do vary by the type of residential unit being built (i.e. single family home v. condos), the fees are exactly the same for all locations within the County. Impact fees are assessed the same no matter if the project has significant or no impacts to the transportation network. There is no requirement that road impact fees collected from a development go 5 towards mitigating the impacts created by the relevant development. Collier Enterprises must provide specific mitigation for the deficient Randall Road segment.' 7. County Staff did not consider Longwater consistent with the RLSA Overlay and the Land Development Code (LDC) in many respects, but withdrew its comments without obtaining changes to address the objections it raised. County Staff raised issues with Longwater Village in its February 11, 2020 Consistency Review Memorandum. One of the general conclusions was that "The Longwater Village does not fully meet other requirements of, and does not reflect the innovative planning tools applied by the RLSAO pertaining to design, compactness, housing diversity, walkability, mix of uses, use density/intensity, continuum or gradient, etc. In staff's view this SRA is, with some exceptions, a suburban development plan typical of that in the coastal urban area placed in the RLSA and is contrary to what is intended in the RLSAO." The comment continues: "there are no known natural resource constraints that preclude a more compact form of development, designed with a majority of dwelling units proximate to the Village Center, the Village Center located in the interior rather than on the edge, commitment to provide some number of residential units in the Village Center, a grid street system, commitment to provide some amount of affordable housing, etc." At Pg. 19. This comment as well as the other general conclusions were removed from a later version of the Staff Consistency Review document. See, 4-13-20 Consistency Review Memorandum. Specific comments from the Feb. 11th 2020 review are as follows: A. Longwater's design is inconsistent with the Overlay's direction for SRAs to be compact, mixed -use, walkable. If Longwater was "redesigned in a more compact manner, centrally relocating the Village Center, placing more residential development closer to the relocated Village Center, then walkability could be significantly increased." Pg. 15. B. Longwater does not provide a Village Center to serve as a focal point for the community. As County Staff noted: While the "so-called" Village Center allows a mix of uses, "Due to its location (at the frontage abutting future Big Cypress Parkway), the proposed location of commercial uses cannot be considered as a Village Center." Pg. 7 C. Longwater does not provide any parks or green spaces within the neighborhoods contrary to the requirement of Policy 4.7.2 and LDC...."no parks or public green spaces are provided within neighborhoods." Consistency Memorandum Pg. 7. D. Longwater's designation of certain "open areas" are questionable —the open areas include road right of ways and land designated as "open" that is not used within the Longwater project. According to County staff "These adjacent `open' areas are predisposed to development as road rights -of -way for interconnection between the two areas of the SRA 3 See the depositions of Mr. Trebilcock and M. Sawyer and the affidavit Mr. Daniel filed in the ongoing Conservancy of SW Florida v. Collier County and Collier Enterprises on 11/25/2020. rim and between neighboring SRAs (including one agreed upon with the Rivergrass SRA since this SRA's initial submittal.)" Pg. 9. E. Longwater does not meet the requirement for an appropriate mix of retail, office, civic, governmental and institutional uses to serve daily needs and community wide needs of residents contrary to GMP 4.15.1. According to County staff "No provisions are in place to ensure the minimum neighborhood scaled goods and services are provided in the "Village Center.... `Thresholds/ or triggers, are needed to ensure the minimum amount of neighborhood scale goods and services is being/is developed before another phase... may be developed. Nor are provisions in place to ensure the minimum civic/institutional services are provided." Pg. 11 F. "The SRA Master Plan needs to be revised to show an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system as well as an interconnected system of collector and local roads reflecting its continuum or gradient of density and intensity." Pg 19 GMP 4.11 and LDC 4.08.07.J.3.a.v. 8. Longwater and Bellmar will be built on 2000 acres of habitat essential to the long-term survival of the Florida Panther. Bellmar in particular will be very damaging for Florida Panthers because it will be situated near the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. This results from the Applicant's incorrect Natural Resource Index (NRI) scoring for panthers. The County has a responsibility to protect the Florida panther which makes its home in Collier County. The recent delegation of the Clean Water Act 404 permitting program to Florida DEP jeopardizes Endangered Species Act protections for panthers. The Eastern Collier Property Owners could decide to withdraw from the USFWS process on its Habitat Conservation Plan for the RLSA, and instead seek a wetlands destruction permit from FL DEP, whose program will not protect panthers from development projects. The County should make sure Applicants meet the intent of the RLSA Program to direct development away from listed species and their habitat. Studies by Florida panther experts have been completed since the 2002 adoption of the RLSA Overlay and implementing Land Development Code (LDC). These studies clearly identify the area on which Longwater and Bellmar will be built as primary panther zone, an area essential to the long-term survival of the panther. See Scientific Panther Review Team (PRT) 2009 Report at 37, and R. Kautz, "How Much is enough? Landscape -scale Conservation for the Florida Panther" (2006), and USFWS 2008 Panther Recovery Plan (conservation effort should focus on maintaining the total area of the primary zone "to prevent further loss of population viability"). Pg. 89. Recent studies by Dr. Frakes have identified much of the proposed sites for these villages as panther breeding areas.4 4 Frakes, RA., Belden RC, Wood, BE, James FE (2015) Landscape Analysis of Adult Florida Panther Habitat. PIoS ONE10(7): e0133044. 7 A. The Applicant's NRI scores for panthers are inaccurate because the Applicant only considers one year out of many years of panther telemetry data and discards telemetry reports of panthers on Longwater and Bellmar from the one year of data it did use. A SRA Applicant must update the NRI scores in its application for a SRA. To score for panthers the Applicant looked at two things: whether (1) panthers were observed on the land, and (2) the land is "preferred or tolerated" habitat for the panther based on the FLUCFCS (land cover) codes in LDC 4.08.01Q. According to LDC 4.08.01Q "Listed Species Habitat Index", "Index values are based on documentation of occupied habitat as established by the intersect of documented and verifiable observations of listed species with land cover identified as preferred or tolerated habitat for that species. Land mapped, using FLUCFCS, as 310, 321, 411, 425, 428, 434, 617, 61721 6211 6218, 6219, 624 and 630 is deemed to be preferred or tolerated habitat for panther for purpose of assigning a value for these indices." For Bellmar and Longwater the Applicant's consultant conducted surveys for observations of panthers on its property. These surveys were performed during daylight hours. The Applicant also used one year (2019) of Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC) VHF telemetry data. All VHF telemetry data, including the 2019 data, are also recorded during daylight hours by aerial tracking of panthers. However, panthers are active mostly at night. There are also GPS telemetry data recorded 2005-2009 of radio -collared panthers that includes nocturnal recordings of panthers. Most of these collared panthers transmit data during the nighttime. See the figure below showing FWC telemetry data 1981- 2020 for Longwater, Bellmar, SSA 17 and SSA 18. Note the brown dots show the GPS telemetry data. n sue. CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. _egend o Panther Telemetry GPS 2005-2( • Panther Telemetry 1981 - 2020 SSA 18 n SSA 17 n Bellmar Lonawater E I' I I I I I I S L. SF ° � o O 0 0 0 ° i • • �i 0 0 0 4A ° O O • 80 4 •• C) Q C 6 �° ° ° qv • • 0 * O O • p \ I (,� °O O O 80 ° O°0 �• 00 ; JJJ 00 ° U00� 00 0 00 0 p 0`,0 �e 0 - o ° o co 9p p 0 0 W9, 0. -0 c O° jO.O ° O A ° • °�° • o C�-O 0 OHO co o O o ° ,I pp �0 0 • o8 00 0 0 o O� p p0 O°^ o pc CCD 0 ° 1co 0 0 U I, O • • O° 0 O 1 M w Q 0p O +• pp p °OM&I 1 d ° H 0 O • • OON (3 o °> • of o • ° i oc • • • • so db •moo �U 0 0 0 �lni �grsit of So nt ai C r, .�n ° �� • •G�i�in, I�SGS,ME6�f��t'� w o ° no 1 0" _ o 2/10/2021 0 You can see the entire area where Longwater and Bellmar will be built is heavily used by panthers. Since Bellmar and Longwater are sited on what are currently fields of row crops, one would not expect panthers to be roaming row crop fields during the day, which accounts for less reported telemetry occurrences within the SRA boundaries. The Applicant did not consider any %J the many other years of panther telemetry data above — which show many additional occurrences of panthers on Bellmar and Longwater. Further, of the 2019 telemetry data used, the Applicant discarded all data showing panthers along the perimeter of Longwater and Bellmar as "not within the SRA boundaries." The Applicant also did not include panther telemetry occurrences based on the 2019 FWC data within both Longwater and Bellmar because the particular acre(s) were not identified by a FLUCFCS code in the LDC provision discussed below. The Applicant should have included all telemetry data in its NRI assessment, particularly the GPS telemetry data to obtain a correct NRI score for panthers. A. But even if the Applicant had used all the telemetry data, it's NRI scoring for panthers would have been inaccurate because the Applicant did not use the best available data in determining preferred habitat of panthers. In updating the NRI scores for Longwater and Bellmar, the applicant did not correctly identify the preferred habitat for panthers. Even if panthers are observed or reported within the boundaries of the SRA, if the FLUCFCS code is not specified in LDC 4.08.01Q, the Applicant discarded the panther sighting. In its NRI assessments, although there were panthers reported on Bellmar, the Applicant scored zero acres for panthers on Bellmar because the land within this SRA does not contain the FLUCFCS codes above. For Longwater, the Applicant scored two small areas for panthers (approx. 4 acres total) based on FLUCFCS codes, and carved out these two small areas in the middle of the residental areas of the Village. While LDC 4.08.01Q "deems" the land codes listed above to be preferred panther habitat, it does not limit or require the use of only those FLUCFCS codes. Further, this provision is 20 years old; it includes land cover types that were believed to be the preferred and tolerated panther habitat in 2002. Scientists now deem additional land cover types as habitats utilized by the Florida panther (See the panther studies referenced above.) We now know that agricultural lands are important areas for panthers; they support panther home ranges, breeding, dispersal and large prey. In 2008 Collier County Environmental Staff pointed this out to the 5-year review Committee saying "What is considered to be habitat utilized by the Florida Panther has changed since 2002...The USFWS habitat types include marsh, pasture, row crops, orchards, and exotic plants that are not included in the current RLSA description. Utilization of the descriptive habitat types for listed species solves the issues of incomplete FLUCFCS lists and minor interpretation differences." The Applicant should follow County environmental staff's recommendation to update the NRI scoring for panthers based on descriptive habitat types as described by USFWS. 10 The LDC provision on listed species preferred habitat must be applied in accordance with the goals of the RLSA Overlay to direct development away from listed species and their habitat. That means in updating NRI scores 17 years after adoption of LDC 4.08.01Q, Applicants must apply the best available data in determining preferred panther habitat. ECPO's consultant, AI Reynolds of Stantec, acknowledged to County Staff in 2011 the Applicant's duty to update NRI scores with the best available data at the time of application for a SRA. More specifically he said: "One of the basic principles of the RLSA is that there will always be more recent and more site -specific data available as the program is implemented, and this is best addressed at the time a property owner and the county evaluated a specific application for a SSA or SRA, or when a property owner uses their baseline uses. This is all spelled out in detail in the GMP and LDC. As such there is no need to continuously amend the GMP Overlay Map. Similarly, panther information is always in a state of flux, as new telemetry is generated and new studies are performed."5 The Applicant's failure to consider all the telemetry data and the panther studies, which represent the best available science, resulted in an inaccurate scoring for panthers. The Applicant is building a panther fence around parts of both villages and a moat or lake around other parts to keep panthers away from residents. This certainly shows that the Applicant knows something about panthers traveling in and through this area, even if the Applicant doesn't acknowledge this in its application documents. Do you think it makes sense to put people and their pets in the middle of critically important panther habitat and near the panther refuge? 9. Longwater will result in the degradation of ahigh-quality Water Retention Area (WRA). It will also destroy over 100 acres of this WRA to construct its storm water management system and lake tracts. Longwater will be situated in the middle of a high value WRA, which is Stewardship Sending Area #17. Together with Rivergrass Village, the two villages will mostly surround the WRA with development. Further, a new road will be constructed through this WRA to serve Longwater Village, fragmenting the WRA into two sections. Surrounding and fragmenting the WRA is contrary to the goal of the RLSA to direct incompatible uses away from listed species and their habitat. This particular WRA contains an ecologically important wetland system, called Shaggy Cypress, which is habitat for 12 listed species, including the panther. The figure above shows the importance of this WRA for panthers. A substantial majority of the NRI scores for this WRA are above 2.0. GMP 1.8 makes clear that the NRI scoring is for the purpose of directing 5 Email between AI Reynolds, Stantec and Michelle Mosca, Collier County, Nov. 30, 2011. "Data and Analysis requirements for the RLSA 5-year Review." 11 development away from important natural resources. Longwater will cut off panthers completely from the northern section of SSA #17 and the roads, houses, lights and noise from Longwater and Bellmar will drive panthers away from the area. Longwater and Bellmar Villages will greatly diminish the value of this WRA for other wildlife. The fragmentation and isolation of SSA #17 from adjoining habitat will cause a steady degradation in diversity of species over time. Scientific studies show that species diversity spirals downward over time as less and less species will be able to survive being isolated from adjoining habitat.6 Yet, the Applicant will obtain Stewardship credits for this area while greatly diminishing its value. Applicants should not be permitted to surround or fragment the high value WRA. Otherwise, the County is ignoring the RLSA goals and the NRI assessed values for this WRA. Sincerely, League of Women Voters Collier County Environmental Committee Patricia Forkan Charlotte Nycklemoe Susan Calkins Judy Hushon Lynn Martin Bonnie Michaels Loralee LeBoeuf Alison Wescott Gaylene Vasaturo 6 See The Sixth Extinction Chapter IX "Island on Dry land" by Elizabeth Kolbert. 12 GundlachNan From: BellowsRay Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 7:26 AM To: GundlachNancy; SaboJames Subject: FW: Please forward this email to the Planning Commission These Village are on Thursday February 18 Agenda FYI teary Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Zoning Division - Zoning Services Section Growth Management Department Telephone: 239.252.2463; Fax: 239,252.6350 Ap Co er County Exceeding expectations, every day/ Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at https://goo.gl/eXjvgT. From: Rae Ann Burton <raburton@embargmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 12:51 PM To: BellowsRay <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Re: Please forward this email to the Planning Commission These Village are on Thursday February 18 Agenda EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. _ p{ margin:l0px 0; padding:0; }table{ border-collapse:collapse; } hi,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6{ display:block; margin:0; padding:0; } img,a img{ border:0; height:auto; outline:none; text-decoration:none; }body,#bodyTable,#bodyCell{ height:100%; margin:0; padding:0; width:100%l } .mcnPreviewText{ display:none !important; } #outlook a{ padding:0; } img{ -ms-interpolation-mode@bicubic; } table{ mso-table-lspace:Opt; mso-table-rspace:Opt; } .ReadMsgBody{ width:100%; } .ExternalClass{ width,100%; } p,a,li,td,blockquote{ mso-line-height-rule:exactly; } a[href^=tel],a[href^=sms]{ color:inherit; cursor:defaults text-decoration:none; } p,a,li,td,body,table,blockquote{ -ms- text-size-adjust:100%,-webkit-text-size-adjust:100%; } .ExternalClass,,ExternalClass p,.ExternalClass td,.ExternalClass div,.ExternalClass span,.ExternalClass font{ line-height:100%; } a[x-apple-data-detectors]{ color:inherit !important; text- decoration:none !important; font-size:inherit !important; font-family:inherit !important; font-weight:inherit !important; line-height:inherit !important; } AemplateContainer{ max-width:600px !important; } a.mcnButton{ display:block; } .mcnImage,.mcnRetinaImage{ vertical-align:bottom; } .mcnTextContent{ word-break:break-word; } .mcnTextContent img{ height:auto !important; } .mcnDividerBlock{ table-layout:fixed !important; } body,#bodyTable{ background - color:#FAFAFA; } #bodyCell{ border4op:0; } h1{ color:#202020; font-family:Helvetica; font-size:26px; font- style:normal; font-weight:bold; line-height:125%; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:left; } h2{ color:#202020; font- family:Helvetica; font-size:22px; font-style:normal ; font-weight:bold ; line-height:125%; letter-spacing:normal, text- align:left; } h3{ color:#202020; font-family:Helvetica; font-size:20px; font-style:normal; font -weights bold; line- height:125%; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:lefts } h4{ color:#202020; font-family:Helveticas font-size§18px; font- style:normal; font-weight:bold; line-height:125%; letter -spacing :normal; text-align:left; } #templatePreheader{ background-color:#FAFAFA; background-image:none ; background-repeat:no- repeat ; background-position:center ; background -size covers border-top:0; border-bottom:0; padding4op:9px; padding-bottom:9px; } #templatePreheader .mcnTextContent,#template Preheader .mcnTextContent p{ color:#656565; font-family:Helvetica; font-size:l2px; line- heights 150%; text-align:left; } #templatePreheader .mcnTextContent a,#templatePreheader .mcnTextContent p a{ color:#656565; font -weight: normal; text -decoration: underlines } #templateHeader{ background-color:#FFFFFF; background-image:none, background- repeat :no -repeat; background -position: center; background -size :covers border- top:0; border-bottom:0; padding-top:9px; padding-bottom:0; } #templateHeader .mcnTextContent,#templateHeader .mcnTextContent p{ color:#202020; font-family:Helvetica; font-size:l6pxs line-height:150%; text-align:left; } #templateHeader .mcnTextContent a,#templateHeader .mcnTextContent p a{ color:#007C89; font -weights normal; text- decoration :underline; } #templateBody{ background-color:#FFFFFF; background-image:none; background-repeat:no- repeat; background- position :center; background-size:cover; border4op:01 border- bottom a On padding-top:9px; padding- bottom:9px; } #templateBody .mcnTextContent,#template Body .mcnTextContent p{ color:#202020; font- family:Helvetica; font-size:l6px; line-heightm150%; text-alignJefts } #templateBody .mcnTextContent a,#templateBody .mcnTextContent p a{ color:#007C89; font -weights normal; text -decoration :underline; } #templateFooter{ background- color:#FAFAFA; background-image:none; background-repeat:no-repeat; background-position:centers background- size:cover; border4op:0; border-bottom:0; padding4op:9px; padding-bottom:9px; } #templateFooter .mcnTextContent,#template Foote r .mcnTextContent p{ color:#656565; font-family:Helvetica; font-size:l2px; line- height:150%; text -align :center; } #templateFooter .mcnTextContent a,#templateFooter .mcnTextContent p a{ color:#656565; font -weights normal; text -decoration: underlines } @media only screen and (min-width:768px){ .templateContainer{ widthm600px !important; } } @media only screen and (max -width: 480px){ body,table,td,p,a,li,blockquote{-webkit-text-size-adjust:none !important; } } @media only screen and (max -width: 480px){ body{ width@100% !important; min-width:100% !important; } } @media only screen and (max -width: 480px){ .mcnRetinaImage{ max-width:100% !important; } } @media only screen and (max -width: 480px){ .mcnImage{ width:100% !important; } } @media only screen and (max -width: 480px){ .mcnCartContainer,.mcnCaptionTopContent,.mcnRecContentContainer,.mcnCaptionBottomContent,.mcnTextContentConta finer,.mcnBoxedTextContentContainer,.mcnImageGroupContentContainer,.mcnCaptionLeftTextContentContainer,.mcnCapti on Rig htTextContentContainer,.mcnCaptionLeftImageContentContainer,.mcnCaptionRig htImageContentContainer,.mcnIma geCardLeftTextContentContainer,.mcnImageCardRig htTextContentContainer,.mcnImageCardLeftImageContentContainer,. mcnImageCardRig htImageContentContainer{ max-width:100% !important; width:100% !important; } } @media only screen and (max -width: 480px){ .mcnBoxedTextContentContainer{ min-width:100% !important; } } @media only screen and (max -width: 480px){ .mcnImageGroupContent{ padding:9px !important; } } @media only screen and (max -width: 480px){ .mcnCaptionLeftContentOuter . mcnTextContent, .mcnCaptionRig htContentOuter .mcnTextContent{ padding- top:9px !important; } } @media only screen and (max -width: 480px){ .mcnImageCardTopImageContent,.mcnCaptionBottomContent:last-child .mcnCaptionBottomImageContent,.mcnCaptionBlockInner .mcnCaptionTopContent:last-child .mcnTextContent{ padding- top:l8px !important; } } @media only screen a{.mcnImageCardBottomImageContent{ padding-bottom:9px !important; } } @media only screen and (max -width: 480px){ .mcnImageGroupBlockInner{ padding4op:0 !important; padding- bottom:0 !important; } } @media only screen and (max -width: 480px){ .mcnImageGroupBlockOuter{ padding-top:9px !important; padding-bottom:9px !important; } } @media only screen and (max -width: 480px){ mcnTextContent,.mcnBoxedTextContentColumn{ padding-right:18px !important; padding-left:18px !important; } } @media only screen and (max -width: 480px){.mcnImageCardLeftImageContent,.mcnImageCardRig htImageContent{ padding-right:l8px !important; padding-bottom:0 !important; padding-left%18px !important; } } @media only screen and (max -width: 480px){ .mcpreview-image-uploader{ display:none !important; width:100% !important; } } @media only screen and (max -width: 480px){ hi{ font-size:22px !important; line-height:125% !important; } } @media only screen and (max -width: 480px){ h2{ font-size:20px !important; line-height:125% !important; } } @media only screen and (max - width: 480px){ h3{ font-size:18px !important; line-height:125% !important; } } @media only screen and (max -width: 480px){ h4{ font-size:l6px !important; line-height:150% !important; } } @media only screen and (max -width: 480px){ .mcnBoxedTextContentContainer .mcnTextContent,.mcnBoxedTextContentContainer .mcnTextContent p{ font-size:l4px !important; line-height:150% !important; } } @media only screen and (max -width: 480px){ #templatePreheader{ display:block !important; } } @media only screen and (max -width: 480px){ #templatePreheader . mcnTextContent, #templatePreheader .mcnTextContent p{ font-size:l4px !important; line-height:150% !important; } } @media only screen and (max -width: 480px){ #templateHeader .mcnTextContent,#templateHeader .mcnTextContent p{ font-size:l6px !important; line-height:150% !important; } } @media only screen and (max -width: 480px){ #templateBody .mcnTextContent, #template Body .mcnTextContent p{ font-size:l6px !important; line-height:150% !important; } } @media only screen and (max -width: 480px){ #templateFooter .mcnTextContent,#templateFooter .mcnTextContent p{ font-size:l4px !important; line-height.150% !important; } } Question on New Business on Thursday's agenda 11.A - how can there be a vote on combining Longwater, Bellmar to Rivergrass when they have yet to be approved? Is it because those villages are already a done deal? From: "raburton" <raburton@embargmail.com> To: "Ray Bellows" <RayBellows@colliergov.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 120044/12 PM Subject: Please forward this email to the Planning Commission These Village are on Thursday February 18 Agenda This was sent by Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association and holds the views of many of the Rural Golden Gate Estate Homeowners. We realize that growth will come, BUT sir it must Benefit all concerns, especially the environment -the wetlands and woods- that provide habitat for waterfowl and wildlife, the endangered panther is threatened with loss of habitat or massive congested developments adjacent to the preserves. We already have human contact and farm animals and pet losses due to the loss of wildlife habitat causing the animal, bears, coyotes, and panthers to invade more into residential and farm areas. These Villages must not be combined it is a recreation of the pulled Rural Land West Development -pulled by the Developer because of Town Costs and restrictions. They developed the villages because there is less cost to the developer more on Taxpayers and less restrictions. These villages Rivergrass (which has a major freight road running thru it leaving some residents without any amenities unless they cross the highway), Longwater and Bellmar combined into an SRA is in the same area at the Town of Rural Lands West. It is a cheap way for the Developers to get their "Town" without paying their share of the infrastructure or services needed for these villages. The impact fees will not cover the cost leaving the balance to the taxpayers to pay this, for that which only the Villages have access. The Estates water aquifer is endangered by the restructuring of the land causing stormwater flow to be diverted with possible flooding to adjacent properties. The only need for more housing in the area is to satisfy the developers -there are already many developments that are built and being built that are still empty along IIII okalee closer to Naples. These developments purposed in the Estates are not priced in the range for the Blue collar worker or retired people. Example Retirement Center over 55 housing starts at $400,000, this is yet finished right on Immokalee Road within miles of Collier Blvd. Subject: Fwd: MUST READ ARTICLE: 2020 1029 NDN GUEST ARTICLE Eastern Collier developers must heed policy, Pay for infrastructure Plus 3 developments of Collier Enterprise combining into one where Rural Lands West originally was planned. This is what the developers plan to do in Rural Golden Gate Estates -destroying the environment for Wildlife, endangering panthers last habitat and disrupting the lives of those that chose a rural way of life. Please bring this to the attention of the public. Thank you. Rae Ann Burton 2530 31 st Ave NE Naples, FL raburtoni mail.com PH 239-352-7147 3 Developer wants taxpayers to pay for two new sprawling villages in primary panther habitat Written by April Olson Senior Environmental Planning Specialist The Conservancy of South West Florida Collier Enterprises is planning for two more villages in primary panther habitat, and they want us to pay for some of it. How can this happen, you ask? Well, it can and will happen if the Collier County Board of County Commissioners approves two new 1,000-acre villages, Longwater and Bellmar, within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA). In addition to causing devastating impacts to the endangered panther's last remaining habitat, the developer proposes to pass on to the County many of the costs necessary for providing the new villages with the required infrastructure and services. How does this affect all of us? Collier County taxpayers and residents will be stuck footing the bill for Collier Enterprises' economic shortfall, which will be in the tens of millions of dollars, or perhaps more. What can be done? The public has an opportunity to voice their opinion on plans for both Longwater Village and Bellmar Village. The hearing for Longwater is scheduled to begin Thursday, Feb. 18 at the Collier County Planning Commission meeting. Bellmar's hearing will be on March 4. If you are able, please participate in both hearings. If you can only make it for one of these dates, please do so. Thank you in advance for your participation. You may choose to participate virtually or in person. Instructions are found HERE. How will Longwater and Bellmar impact us financiallye Growth is supposed to pay for growth in Collier County. This means that the costs associated with new development should be paid for by the developer and not passed on to existing residents and taxpayers. However, this is not the case with Longwater and Bellmar. Here are a few of the many reasons why: (1) Collier Enterprises has plans to add the villages to the Collier County Water Sewer District (CCWSD), but the impact fees to be paid by the developer would cover only a small fraction of the costs necessary for providing water and sewer service to residents of the new villages. The deficit is over $43 million. Who will end up paying for this? (2) Because the projects are not designed according to the RLSA's rules, traffic from the 11,000+ new residents will pour out of Longwater and Bellmar and head west towards Naples to seek out goods, services, entertainment and employment opportunities that the villages will not provide. The additional traffic will not only exacerbate the county's existing traffic congestion issues, but the developer's plans show that they are not paying their fair share for the traffic impacts that the villages will cause or for their part in making failing roads even worse. We all may pick up the tab through higher taxes when the County is forced to make improvements to the failing road network, or perhaps other priorities will go unfunded. (3) The costs to provide Longwater and Bellmar Villages with fire and emergency medical services (EMS), sheriff protection, and schools and bussing are all underestimated in the developer's economic assessments provided to the County. Yet again, the deficiency in impact fees for those services will be passed on to the County, that is — all of us. (4) As soon as Longwater and Bellmar Villages are approved, the developer may conglomerate the villages, along with Rivergrass Village, to create an even larger Town. Collier Enterprises and Collier County are currently negotiating terms of a Town Agreement with hopes that it would be signed by the Board of County Commissioners at the same time Longwater and Bellmar are approved. What is extremely troubling is that this agreement would bypass the normal public process that requires the developer to submit a formal application for a Town. In a nutshell, what this 5 means is that there are fewer opportunities for the public to have a voice in creating the Town plan and there would be no opportunity for the Planning Commission to review and comment on the Town Agreement before it is signed. Even worse, based upon Cl draft of the Town Agreement, many of the developer's supposed "commitments" are completely discretionary, meaning they can and will have no legal obligation to implement key aspects of their Town proposal. Please do not miss your opportunity to provide your input on the way Collier County grows. If we do nothing, soon we will all feel the effects on our wallet, in our daily commute, when we visit our favorite places, and, tragically, the panther will lose an essential piece of their home. Click here to find out how you can take action. 0 From: "Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association" <estates-areavoice@embargmail.com> To: "raburton" <raburton@embargmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 M26:41 AM Subject: MUST READ ARTICLE: 2020 1029 NDN GUEST ARTICLE Eastern Collier developers must heed policy, Pay for infrastructure View this email in your browser 0 Eastern Collier developers must heed policy, Pay for infrastructure By Judith M. Hushon and Lynn S. Martin Guest columnists to the Naples Daily News 29 October 2020 In eastern Collier's Rural Lands Stewardship Area {RLSA), a group of landowners is intent on building multiple residential developments. Providing the infrastructure, however, is the responsibility of the County and will cost Collier citizens a bundle in taxes now and in the future. The RLSA, consisting of 145,000 acres in Eastern Collier County, was created in 2000 by Florida statute as a zoning overlay to incentivize landowners to preserve environmentally sensitive areas while building innovative communities. The state requires communities to be fiscally neutral to the County. This means developers are required to pay the cost of the infrastructure needed to serve developments so no burden is placed on County taxpayers for this growth. "Growth must pay for growth" Ave Maria was the first town built in the RLSA in 2004. This developer formed a Stewardship District that paid for potable water, wastewater, and storm water treatment and other infrastructure. These facilities were financed by revenue bonds issued by the stewardship district, not the Collier County taxpayers. Now, four new villages (Hyde Park, Rivergrass, Longwater, and Belmar) are proposed. In 2004 these landowners formed the Big Cypress Stewardship District, to manage the building of infrastructure, similar to Ave Maria. BUT — in 2018, the County relieved these developers of the need to build potable water and wastewater treatment facilities. Instead the County is undertaking the construction of the North East Utilities Facility (NEUF) to supply potable water and wastewater treatment to these new developments. This is a windfall for the developers. The developers will only be required to pay pact fees" when a home is sold. The County is paying for the NEUF in two ways. First, they have lowered the level of service to the County, which means they will provide less water per household than they did previously. As the population increases, the County's water production/treatment capacity will not need to increase as rapidly. Secondly, the County intends to issue over $180 Million in bonds during the next five years (including $73.4M for potable water and $114M for wastewater). Impact fees, expected to be collected at build -out, will offset only a portion of the bond debt service. The gap will be paid through higher annual water fees and taxes levied on County citizens. As a result, County residents will be responsible for at least $200 Million in water and sewer infrastructure costs for these 4 communities, an obligation that rightly should be the responsibility of the developers. By statute, developers must provide an economic analysis of fiscal neutrality for the project. However, calculations presented by the developers at these new village hearings have underestimated the number of individuals per household. The developers assume the new villages will have 2.51 residents per household reduced further by part-time occupancy. The 2045 LRTP prepared for FDOT uses an average estimate of 3.38 residents per RLSA household, which compares to Golden Gate at 3.75. With approximately 24,000 dwelling units planned in the four villages, the developers estimate 54,000 total new residents but, based on the FDOT estimates, actual build out will probably generate over 80,000 residents. As a result, the County will need to construct additional infrastructure at additional cost to taxpayers. This underestimation of population will impact other infrastructure requirements for these villages and shift additional financial burden to Collier county taxpayers. "Growth is not paying for growth." We must demand that the Collier County Commissioners serve the citizens better and not just the developers. The Commissioners must demand that these landowners pay their fair share!! Judith M. Hushon, Ph.D. and Lynn S. Martin are members of the Environmental Affairs Committee of the Collier County League of Women Voters. 0 0 Copyrighf ©2021 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES AREA CIVIC ASSOCIATION, Ail rigl�fs reserved. You are receiving this email because you selected io be allowed to be contacted by email. Ow, mailinvj aw9dUless is: GOLDEN GA I E ESTATES AP.EA CIVIC ASSOCIATION 0 Copyrighf ©2021 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES AREA CIVIC ASSOCIATION, Ail rigl�fs reserved. You are receiving this email because you selected io be allowed to be contacted by email. Ow, mailinvj aw9dUless is: GOLDEN GA I E ESTATES AP.EA CIVIC ASSOCIATION 0 PO Box 990596 Naples, FL 34116-6002 Add us to Your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. u Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 10 CONSERVANCY l� of Southwest Florida Winn, OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Protecting Southwest Florida's unique natural environment and quality of life ... now and forever. CONSERVANCY OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA SOCIAL LINK: ADDRESS: Facebook.com/ConservancySWF 1495 Smith Preserve Way Twitter.com/ConservancySWFL Naples, FL34102 239.262.0304 www.conservancy.org f Other issues we will addr gWdier ana 6eiimar viiiag Issues addressed in our comment letter: resig'ns arm inconsist -with G-IWP/LDC Projecti�'&Wff'��'"�f`�e� RLSA foal: incompatible zy uses are dk—ectea toward__Ied s, ecies s H55e55rMenIL yr riscaiiy neutral Water and wa��"� ater mitigation habit - TOWN AGREEMENT: Is this an admission that the villages are not self-sufficient and are bad for Collier County 0 0 Each SRA MUST demonstrate that concurrency will be achieved at approval and must be fiscally neutral irrespective of Town Agreement. Timing is Key, but the Town Agreement gives empty promises: "There shall be no timing conditions placed on the timing of the development of the Town Core which will be developed based on market conditions." CONSERVANCY Of Southwest Florida ,M OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Longwater and Bellmar Villages must be Fiscally Neutral COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT Prepared by ColliarCou my Planning and 7aning ❑epagrnant Comprahansivs Planning Section Prepared for COLLIERCOUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Adopted October, 1997 CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida IM'ST. 0UR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. RLSA Overlay Policy 4.18 "The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year based on a public facilities impact assessment": Longwater and Bellmar Villages must be Fiscally Neutral RLSA Overlay Policy 4.18 'At a minimum, the assessment shall II consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools': CONSERVANCY Of Southwest Florida "111010- OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Who paid for the Town of Ave Maria's Water and Sewer systems? Photo Credit: My Sky Aerials - YouTube L714 CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. On September 11, 2018, as Agenda Item 17.F, the Board adopted a resolution expanding the CCWSD"s service area to coincide with the unincorporated area permitted by Chapter 2003-353, Laws of Florida." 2019 AU I R, p. 63 Collier County Water -Sewer District Current and Future Potable Water Service Areas (2019 AUIR) R 25 S R 26 5 R 27 S I R 28 S R 29 S U) 0 ®@ Immokalee Water ■won ®oano©®aam o®®Nunn ®®®m®®n Milan ONE 0 �0®EI®m®NL ®®0®® ®WIN: "on m®®®�® ®©0!1 0"� I®@� nm0■0 100NF1 imam 0®L'--- man MangumI i� Big Cypress Cityof Naples R30S Legend Regional Water Service Area Served by Others Excluded From CCWSD by Special Act Stewardship District Jurisdictional Boundary A o 1 5 10 Miles Figure PW-1 a 4 j s SteWardshipil e un( aray p - Av 4 -rW A 'n- CONSERVANCY R25S of Southwest Florida N 10- OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. 0 1 3 -�A New Northeast Service Area (NESA) treatment facilities for water and v H wastewater designed to serve: • Rivergrass Village • Longwater Village • Bellmar Village • IRRV Village • Hyde Park Village • Hogan Island Village (cancelled) Current and Future Wastewater Service Areas R26S R27S R28S R29S 5 8 10 6 Miles PA Legend North Collier Wastewater Service Area South Collier Wastewater Service Area Golden Gate Wastewater Service Area Northeast Wastewater Service Area Orange Tree Wastewater Service Area Future Wastewater Service Area — Sewer Connection Area Served by Others © Excluded From CCWSD by Special Act 0 District Boundary g4-mw' " City of Naples R30S x . Immokalee Water & Sewer District LI I I ILL 6 I s Ave Maria (2020 AUIR) in r "WHEREAS, the District [BCSD] also has statutory ft[rREENIEIIT TO PRO V11)E. A F�RwAmYwATmINDIRIzI( [-ft)N ATmL=)Authority p Y to provide utility - I'HiS TNTERLOC_AI. A0 R#;.FMENT ("Agrzernrm") is made end c: Services within certain day or __, 2021 by and between the Board of Cuwli Col 11er County. Florida, acting ex-offimio as the Goveming Board of the C Sewer Disvlrn (hereinafter referred to as ihn -CCWSD-), flit' aoal,d of Sul designated areas of the Cypress Stewardship Disuict (hereinafter referred w as the " District" ), CD( LLC and Collier land llio]dings, Ltd- (licrcinaf[er referred to a� "E andownti District" -*Y, REC:I'f'ALS: 'WHEREAS, Sect;ari 163.01(4), Florida Staturos, the Florida into 4rsl Cooperation Act 4 or] 969(thc"Act"),authori-res the join[ exerciscofanypower,privilvgco Ihrnritythat the public agcmics involvedbereintnightexercise soparatclyt and ►NHEREAS, the C:CWSI? and the District arc public tgenci ithin the meaning of the Act and desire to engage in the joint exercise of pow�ar tha# cash mi exercise �ep�ri3t.l>; �� itWHEREAS the District acknowledges the CCWSD's right to offer utility services within the District and further authorizes the CCWSD to WHEREAS, the CCWSD provides water, was#ewate and irrigation water scrvi" (collextive]yknown as"utility services"), in an i!wnomical and romncntally beneficial manner In much nr the unincorporated area of Collier County: and WHEREAS, the Distrir,t also has statutory authority to provide utility services within zhe District, but intends to uutttud= [he C.CWSU to provide utility services within certain designated areas of the District: and W I I h:R V.Ati, the CCWSD's service boundaries encompass the 131striM and Will-:Rl-''AS, the CCWSD shall incorpuratx certain dcsignated ]bracts and propeirty within the District into CCWSD's strviev area to exclusively provide retail potable water, wastewater and irrigation water (including effluent irrigation wa#vr, wficn availablr} utility services in the same manner and pursuant to the same ordinance and policies as CCWSD currently provides service to all other cuslomcrs ;ocatnd thrtwughuul the unittcOrpt,rated service ones Of' Collier County, Florida; and A WHEREAS, the District acknowledges the CC W SQ's right to offer utility scrvicrs within the District: and Cuurthcr authorizes the CCWSD 14 exclusively provide utility services inside a portion of the District's jurisdictional area renown as Longwater Village; and W14FIDVAC th;r Anrnr—m is rntr A-1 rr, —,A.- 1n ,.)r;rinR tk,- rPrrt9a anei ri,nrliiinnc exclusively provide utility services inside a portion of the District's jurisidictional area known as Longwater Village." F -I ■ . 0 41 CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida Me- OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Ali =a.. -•--� $188.5 million* - Costs for new Water and Wastewater treatment plant • Water = $82.5 million Adds treatment capacity for 5 MGD • Wastewater = $106 Million Adds treatment capacity for 4 MGD Sources: Costs for the new water -water water facility were found in the August 20, 2020 Longwater Consistency Review Memorandum. Staff states on p. 11 "The Capital Improvements Element of the Growth Management Plan identifies the phased construction a new regional water treatment plant ($82.5M) and a new water reclamation facility ($106M) at the Northeast Utility Facilities (NEUF) site to support this (and other) development." 2019 Collier County Annual Update and Inventory Report/Capital Improvement Element Schedule Update on Public Facilities provides MGD capacity - p. 66 and p. 98. Max Daily Water and Wastewater Demand for Longwater and Bellmar Potable Water Sources: Rivergrass, Longwater, and Bellmar's SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessments. Note: This includes the potable water and wastewater demand for residential, commercial, and civic uses. Collier County 2020 AUIR/Capital Improvement Element Schedule Update on Public Facilities. Wastewater CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida 10,M OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. What are the costs to provide Water and Sewer to Longwater and Bellmar? Cost of New Plant' New Capacity' Max Daily 3-Day demand Longwater-Bellmar Demand Longwater-Bellmar Share $82.5M $106M $188.5M 5 MGD 2.16 MGD 43% $35.47 M 'August 20, 2020 Longwater Consistency Review Memorandum. 2 Longwater and Bellmar Public Facilities Impact Assessments. CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida UUn VVHI CPS, LHIVU, VVILULIrC, rU I unE. 4 MGD 1.65 MGD 41% $43.46 M What are the COMBINED CO Longwater and Bellmar? Cost of New Plant New Capacity' Longwater-Bellmar Demand Longwater-Bellmar Share CONSERVANCY of Southwest id da M OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. ST- to provide $82.5M 5 MGD 43.2% $35.47 M $10 Water and Sewer to 4 MGD 41% $43.46 M $78.9M Does the impact fee revenue cover the CountV"s costs to provide water and wastewater to Longwater-Belimar? Longwater-Bellmar Share Longwater-Bellmar Impact Fee Revenue' Def icit WATER',WASTE- TOTAL WATER $35.47M $18. 1 M $17.38M $43.46M $17.7M $25.73M 'Calculated using 2,600 housing units (Longwater) and 2,750 (Bellmar) under 2020 Impact Fee Rates. "Impact fee revenue will be even lower should the developer choose to build homes under 1,501 square feet. Calculations are provided in document called" Analysis of fiscal impact Longwater- Bellmaf CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida �,M OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. What is the COMBINED DEFICIT to the County to provide water and wastewater to Longwater and Bellmar? Longwater-Bellmar Share Longwater-Bellmar Impact Fee Revenue' Deficit WATER WASTE- TOTAL - ]! WATER $35.47M $18.1M $17.38M $43.46M $17.7M $25.73M W 'Calculated using 2,600 housing units (Longwater) and 2,750 (Bellmar) under 2020 Irri CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida qm_. f1IIR VUATFR I ONn \A/H nl IFF FIITIIRF $78.9 $35.8M $43ol M Deficit - NOT FISCALLY NEUTRAL But wait — there's more! CCWSD WILL REIMBURSE FUNDS TO BCSD: • $2.7 Million for constructing Longwater's water mains, wastewater mains and irrigation facilities at Point of Connection (POC) • Plus, cost of 5-acre utility site \d. a prepaymen s e a a en curren water and wastewater impact fees: The credit for water and wastewater impact fees identified herein shall be reduced by 50% of the prepayment per ERC for each • Be I I m a is reimbursement? residential unit on a building permit issued thereon until the development is either completed or the credits are exhausted or have been assigned as provided for in the Collier County Impact Fee Ordinance. The developer shall he responsible for any difference between the prepayment amount per ERC and the rate in effect at the time of building permit application submittal. The CCWSD agrees to reimburse the or the cost of the FOC as identified in item 3 and upsizing the transmission mains as identified in item 4 in an amount not to exceed $2,700,000 identified by Schedule C as signed and sealed by the District's Engmeer�Record. e. The CCWSD shall reimburse the District in the amount identified in item 13(d) within 30 days of receipt of the Longwater Village's prepayment. CONSERVANCY 14. This Agreement shall remain in effect until terminated by the CCWSD, the District or the Landowners. Any party may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by of Southwest Florida Providing written notice to the other parties prior to the date that either the CCWSD, the ��__ mIR WATER I ANn IA/H nl IFF RITIIRF 3 IT DOESN'T END THERE .... . $Millions for an interim water and sewer plant 4. New Treatment Capacity is the additional treatment capacity in million gallons per day (MGD) placed into service by the start of the fiscal year through plant constructiorJexpansion- Timing and capacity are tentative and may be adjusted with updates in development forecasts and adoption of developer agreements: Fiscal New Treatment Oom ost Estimates Year Capacity $8M interim WTP, age taints and associated pipelines at the NEUF site to 021 1.5 MD a in the northeast region of the county, outside the Oran etree and orange Blossom ono s, a inrnn inrou $108M Northeast Water Reclamation Facility (NEFtF) at the Northeast Utility Facilities 030 4 MOD NEUF) site to sustain sewer service to customers in the new villages proposed in the Northeast Wastewater Service Area, beginning in FY 2026, to be online la FY 030 The interim WTP at the NEUF site will be decommissioned once the 4 MAD NERF 031 _,I .5 MD is operational_ E uipment taken oftline will be repurposed or sold. CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida �,M OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. 2020 AU I R p. 48 & 76 $28 million for an interim plant CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida M OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Who will pay for this? ➢ $43.1M shortfall in impact fees + ➢ Reimbursements $2.7M + Bellmar?? ➢ Costs for Interim plant? Longwater and Bellmar NOT FISCALLY NEUTRAL R25S F_ Collier County Water -Sewer District Current and Future Potable Water Service Areas (2019 AUIR) R26S R275 I R28S R29S �Y Big Cypress NMI R30S -tea® @�MAN: ®®®110 cn a amm City of Naples � o °� N 4 Figure PW-1 Existing users are not supposed to pay for capital costs considered growth -related PURPOSE OF WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES The purpose of impact fees is to recover the pro-rata share of allocated capital costs that are considered as growth -related from new customers connecting to the System or from existing customers that are requesting an increase in the reserved water and 1 or wastewater capacity associated with increased development on their property. To the extent that new population growth and associated development impose identifiable added capital costs to municipal services, capital funding practices to include the assignment of such costs to those residents or system users responsible for those costs rather than to the existing population base is reasonable and provides for the proper match of initial capital investment to the capacity being reserved. Generally, this practice has been labeled as "growth paying its own way" without existing user crest ur ens. The application a impact ees to inance capital infrastructure allocated to such new capacity requests is very common in Florida and the country and has been used as a source of contributed capital by the District for many years. *Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study p. 2 co*er County M� FISCAL YEAR 2019 WATER AND WASTEWATER IMP CT FEE TUD FOR COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT September 12, 2019 CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida ��,M OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Who paid for the Town of Ave Maria's Water and Wastewater systems? Photo Credit: My Sky Aerials - YouTube CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Potable Water Potable Water; a potable water assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SRA designation Application package. The assessment shall illustrate how the applicant will conform to either FA Chapter 64E 6, for private and limited use water systems, or FAC Chapter 62-555 for Public Water Systems. In addition to the standard requirements of the analyses required above, the potable water assessment shall specifically consider, to the extent applicable, the disposal of waste products, if any, generated by the proposed treatment process. The applicant shall identify the sources of water proposed for potable water supply. Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP, a private utility will construct, operate and maintain the potable water system. This system includes the water supply, treatment, storage and distribution system. Water will be supplied by ground water wells. This raw water will be softened to remove hardness and disinfected to kill water -borne bacteria. Treated water will be stored in above -ground concrete storage tanks until it is pumped into the potable water distribution system. Answer: Ave Maria Utility Company Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP, a private utility will construct, operate and maintain a municipal quality advanced secondary wastewater treatment plant to service Ave Maria. This facility will be designed and permitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in accordance with Chapter 62 -6 00- Domestic Wastewater Facilities, F.A.C. Wastewater will be treated to produce irrigation quality reclaimed water for disposal. This water will be stored in storage ponds until required. A projection of anticipated Source: Town of Ave Maria Impact Assessment Report, p. 3 and 6. 1 wastewater generation is contained in the table below. CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Was Ave Maria Fiscally Neutral for Water and Sewer - - n--�r -4 Longwater and Bellmar must also be be fiscally neutral. The applicant must be held accountable to pay their fair share of construction costs for water and sewer. Something else to consider, How long will capacity from the new facility last? Added Water Treatment Capacity - 5 MGD Collier County Water -Sewer District Current and Future Wastewater Service Areas R25S I R26S N A o 1 3 5 R 27S 8 10 � Miles Legend North Collier Wastewater Service Area South Collier Wastewater Service Area Golden Gate Wastewater Service Area Northeast Wastewater Service Area Orange Tree Wastewater Service Area Future Wastewater Service Area Sewer Connection Area Served by Others 0 Excluded From CCWSD by Special Act Q District Boundary 9i.�-mu0®0©®■■ Longwater Village 1.05 MGD Bellmar Village 1.11 MGD Rivergrass Village 1.19 MGD IRRV Village 1.94 MGD Hyde Park Village .44 MGD Total 5.73 MGD (Exceeds Added Capacity) 110 �ww IonO ® ®o■ NEI 210010111111 Longwater I® Village Bellmar Village .85 MGD I� lows wr= -- 1 Ire®®■ ®■��:�� , , Village Im■®Rivergrass Village .98 MGD ®W®®®::®� Hyde Park Village .34 MGD ®� �®■®01®®I ®901011mmmi Total 4.57 MGD (Exceeds .. - . Capacity) Sources: Rivergrass, Longwater and Bellmar's SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessments — latest versions (Maximum daily 3-day potable water and waste water demand). Immokalee Road Rural Village Public Facilities Report Exhibit V.E.1 (Peak demand). Data for Hyde Park provided by Collier County Public Utilities Department staff on January 29, 2021., but based on average MGD, not max daily 3-day capacity which would be higher. How does longwater and Bellmar attempt to circumvent the GMPs requirement for fiscal neutrality of water -wastewater impactsZongwaterVIllageSIRA Economic Assessment "The impacts of self-supporting funds (e.g. enterprise funds) were not included in this analysis as is typical in fiscal impact analysis. Utility rates and capacity fees are established through independent studies. Public utilities generally benefit from economies of scale (i.e. more customers) since rate structures are dependent upon recovering fixed infrastructure costs." cA Sources: Longwater Village SRA Economic Assessment, DPFG, August 6, 2020, p 7-8; Bellmar Imo', Co Five .. u &,Ilm, TX Orlond , FL Village SRA Economic Assessment, DPFG, January 8, 2021, p. 7-8 5eranmkk CA ac'w.1D 4aIha. TX Las Vegas, NV Tom, FL R-smarA T*iangle, NC CoIFier County Collier County Schools North Collier Fire & Rescue initial Submission: November 11, 2D2L9 REMSed: March 11, 21320 Added 15,G}0sq- ft. Cnmmereial Roads Errrer@erwy Medial ser,rices Water andL 3stEYa1M-.f ReAsed: may24, 2020 Roads- Narrddye Only Re,rised. August 6, 2020 Reads — Fair Share Mrtip6m DPFG YI -h51 wi r- •'.Y1MI'3 & +INANC-NG ON4Ja INC 5W $43.1 Million — Deficit for providing Water CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. �.. and Wastewater to Longwater and Bellmar • Who is going to pay for the new NE Utility Facility expansion? • Where is the $coming from? • Who will pay back the bonds they are issuing? • Why grant CEM lucrative development rights without requiring them to pay their fair share? r ism. _ i dt j 1 1 RT Or . y F ti T PAW - } •� - i 1 Awl- - dir I Y. J�••►�t�• r���ior f !11 Int�i r 1 Longwater and Bellmar's Economic Assessments underestimate population. More People = Higher costa-- for services ERVANCY ,west Florida iND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. I CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida Ift. OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Longwater Village proposes to be a hotspot for Collier County's singles! Appendix Table 3: Longwater Population and Employment Estimates Pea k Land Use by Impact Fee Category Residential Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached Total SFD r 4,000 Sq Ft Total Residential Units Seasonal Persons Per Unit Peak Seasonal Population Permanen Population Per Unit Permanent Population 1,097 1.26 1,383 1,05 1,152 1,503 2.65 3,990 2.21 3,325 2,600 5,373 ji 4,477 Longwater Economic Assessment, August 6, 2020. p. 36 CONSERVANCY S th t Fl ' d of ou weo on a M10- OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Bellmar's Economic Assessment provides Appendix Table B: Bellmar Population and Employment Estimates Bellmar Economic Assessment, August 6, Permanent Population Per Unit: 1.05 and (MF) 2.21 (SF) Longwater's Economic Assessment: "Persons per housing unit by product type and square feet per employee for the nonresidential land uses were obtained from the County's 2016 Emergency Medical Services Impact Fee Update, the most recent source" DPFG p. 7 CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida IS- OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Qrongn C�n.I yr, CA L}rlrre.•, 0 �4roenu , +lf Avilii-, D Orlando, FL Sar.rwtmkk CA Go'60. Ili L',elhs. TX Lns Agar, M! To-m, FL R-mmarA Tingle, NC Longwater Village SRA Economic Assessment Collier County Collier County Schools North Collier Fire & Rescue nitial submission: NowenrAer 11, an!; Rerised: March 11, zozi2 Added 15,030sq. ft. Wmxwfdai Roads anerg wyMedical5ennces V, Mw and Waztewater Revised- May 24,2412D AAadS- Narrati.e Onhy Revised: AUZUA6,202G Roads - Fair Share Mitlgatb n DPFG -r VY .'�.Mh 41 Y a .v 1. i .—. -. ..•�, �. , Co I I Ref County Emergency Medir-al Services rn pact FE! E! Upd-a tE! St u Final Report Coder C.,Pcumty AnwWwfay- "wry .29M Hmeshae 00m AL FL.M04 p?�. t2a9a 252183 92 Ddwtpbr,M ZDJG „rhd21w LDOOAshlo' 110ff_ 57nda 4DD Taff4oq Ft 3-:TmM OL reEV ZMafffiZftv M3a U&ZHE Where did the 2016 EMS Impact fee Study get their data to determine persons per housing unit? "This analysis utilized national data from the 2011 American Housing Survey (AHS) and data from the 2013 American Community Survey (ACS)"" (p. B-3) CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida M OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. WE FOUND A MORE F'dAl� RECENT SOURCE: DtV��DPFG 1 PR 1.05 Persons per MF /2.21 Persons per SF Which document shows more persons per household?CeoiL-i ... ,O ,-r Ceouvtty Description 21119 M er Plan t! pdate I 1 2.2 — aced Population Model . 6 persons per house h�ld — B EB R � . perso — . :Cemn . � � persons per h �usch�l� — � l � - � 1 � U.S. Census Projections cctior�s CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida ,M OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Source: Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study for Collier County Water Sewer District, September 12, 2019, p. 9 Most recent source for Persons Per housing Unit: Collier MPO 2045 Long Range Transportation December 2020 • Data from 2017 CIGM & 2018-2019 BEER CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida IftM OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. P. 8 (footnote 1) of 2015 LRTP Technical Compendium shows data for BEBR is from 2018-2019 and CIGM data from 2017. TECHNICAL COMPENDIUM DECEMBER 2020 ob a Average household size for Permanent population= 2.01 to 2.50 (Longwater) / 2.51 to 3.00 (Bellmar) it i JIi11m1ie�a l "Population estimates and forecasts in travel models count the number of permanent residents in a manner similar to the U.S. Census Bureau. Seasonal residents are not included in the population totals;" p. 18 M Average Household Size in 2045 1.00 to 2.00 p6mona 2 01 to 2.50 psr4one 2 51 to 3.00 persons - 3 01 to 3.75 perauni 3 T4 pers[ans and aGnvr Major roads mile Collier County boundary = Gulf of Memos Source: Collier MPO 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan, Technical Cok peridi m, p. 22. Th document fur r explains: "the dwelling units they tabulated, but are identified as 'vacant' along with divellings that are vocan r other reaso s such as being up for e for rent." py seasona►i Let's compare .. . DPFG's Estimate CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Estimate using MPO's 2045 LRTP data Longwater 41477 Longwater 51876 Bellmar 41763 Bellmar 7,590 Total 9, 240 Tota I 13,466 Both villages use: 1.05 PPU for MF and 2.21 for SF Average 2.26 PU for Longwater and 2.76 for Bellmar Econ. Assessments underestimate Permanent Population by 4,226 *Excludes seasonal population and employment, which will increase total population. Calculations using LRTP data are based on same number of MF and SF homes provided in Longwater and Bellmar's economic assessments. Data from 2045 LRTP Technical Compendium p. 18 and 22. Calculation sheet showing work to be provided to Board. Now let's compare using 2020 AUIR data .. . DPFG Combined Longwater-Bellmar Populations: CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida Me- OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. 2020 AUIR: (2.5 average PPH used to estimate LOS for water and wastewater) 9,240 Combined Permanent Population vs. 13,375 combined population M 11,056 Combined Peak Seasonal Population (based on 2.5 PPH and same # of MF & SF homes; AUIR does not state if 2.5 PPH is based on permanent or seasonal population) No matter how you look at it, DPFG underestimates population. Sources: P. 43 and Footnote (1) on page 64 of 2020 AUIR shows that the county used an average of 2.5 persons per household to estimate Level of Service Standard for water and wastewater; Residential Seasonal Population Estimates found on p. 36 of Longwater Village SRA Economic Assessment, Revised August 6, 2020 and p. 39 of Bellmar Village SRA Economic Assessment, Revised November 12, 2020. Longwater's seasonal population provided is 5,373/ Bellmar 5,683. The Seasonal populations in DPFGs combined economic assessments of 5,373 for Longwater and 5,83 for Bellmar = 11,056. Calculations are based on same number of MF and SF homes provided in Longwater and Bellmar's economic assessments. A FISCA o account � ese service ERVANCY west Florida �, ND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. r J LLY N''ORAL: f 4 or , so 226 1% -"'. Tj nu LONGWATER-BELLMAR NOT Economic Assessments fail t more folks who will need th r COWER COuny am i Longwater and Bellmar Villages must be Fiscally Neutral Ab RLSA Overlay Policy 4.18 "The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County ..... At a minimum, the assessment shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools." RLSA Overlay Policy 4.14: "The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. No SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector ur arena► rvaa(sj servIny one .3rsH ►s aernunsLraLea w ive aaequMe 1" uccuiuunce with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA am designation." • r - IW - 3 Traffic impacts: Vacuum approach vs. cumulative approach 0 Longwater and Bellmaf s traffic impacts when When background traffic from applicant s reviewed individually: other villages are added: Randall Blvd from Everglades Blvd to DeSoto Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Collier Blvd to Logan Blvd Golden Gate Blvd from Everglades Blvd to DeSoto Blvd Randall Blvd from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd Vanderbilt Beach Road from Collier Blvd to Logan Blvd Golden Gate Blvd from Everglades Blvd to DeSoto Blvd Oil Well Rd from Immokalee Rd to Everglades Blvd DeSoto Blvd from Randall Blvd to 18t" Ave NE Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Wilson Blvd to Collier Blvd Golden Gate Blvd from Wilson Blvd to 16t" St NE Golden Gate Blvd from 16t" St NE to Everglades Blvd Golden Gate Blvd from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd. Immokalee Rd from Logan Blvd to Collier Blvd Immokalee Rd from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd. Source: Bellmar Village SRA — TIS — Section 2, Intersection Analysis, August 2020, p. 14. Submittal 5 -Traffic Impact Statement Bellmar SRA Section 1— Impacts to Roadway Network, Road Segment Analysis, 8/19/20 p. 24; Traffic Impact Statement Longwater SRA. Section 1— Impacts to Roadway Network — Road Segment Analysis, 8/4/2020, p.24; Traffic Impact Statement Longwater SRA Section 2 — Intersection Analyses. May 29, 2020, p. 13/352. Traffic impacts: Vacuum approach vs. cumulative approach r Longwa er and Bellmaf Mffiffic"imTts pawhen When Cc"geroundraffic from app scant s other 'viewed individually; Randall Blvd from Everglades Blvd to DeSoto Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Collier Blvd to Logan Golden Gate Blvd from Everglades Blvd to DeSoto Blvd villages are added: Randall Blvd from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd Vanderbilt Beach Road from Collier Blvd to Logan Blvd Golden Gate Blvd from Everglades Blvd to DeSoto Blvd Oil Well Rd from Immokalee Rd to Everglades Blvd DeSoto Blvd from Randall Blvd to 18t" Ave NE Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Wilson Blvd to Collier Blvd Golden Gate Blvd from Wilson Blvd to 16t" St NE Golden Gate from Collier to Wilson Blvd. Applicant purports to be paying for these Golden Gate Blvd from 16t" St NE to Everglades Blvd impacts Immokalee Rd from Logan Blvd to Collier Blvd Immokalee Rd from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd. _NE�P"ERVANCY of Southwest Florida 11101W IRUR WATER, LAND, W E, FUT 'E. ,� 6 Traffic impacts: Vacuum approach vs. cumulative approach _ongw� and Bellm��a is impacts w en 11Mr Wh� bac cgroun raff c from app i�nt s other 'viewed individually: Randall Blvd from Everglades Blvd to DeSoto Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Collier Blvd to Logan Golden Gate Blvd from Everglades Blvd to DeSoto Blvd Applicant is not paying for these impacts villages are added: Randall Blvd from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd Vanderbilt Beach Road from Collier Blvd to Logan Blvd Golden Gate Blvd from Everglades Blvd to DeSoto Blvd Oil Well Rd from Immokalee Rd to Everglades Blvd DeSoto Blvd from Randall Blvd to 18t" Ave NE Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Wilson Blvd to Collier Blvd Golden Gate Blvd from Wilson Blvd to 16t" St NE Golden Gate from Collier to Wilson Blvd. Golden Gate Blvd from 16t" St NE to Everglades Blvd Immokalee Rd from Logan Blvd to Collier Blvd Immokalee Rd from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd. UON3ERVAN Y Southwest Florida IMAf UR WATER, LAND, W E, FUT 'E. .- . Longwater and Bellmar Villages are N, Fiscally Neutral for impacts to transportation facilities 1 'ONSERVANCY f Southwest Florida OUR WATE&,D, WItDtIFE, FUTURE. -' .._- How else can a project appear to have on the County's roadway network? MMIF.�� � - s � • B 4-0 04 111: crl Y-A MIdIlle and Audubon ErrvifbruXrehii)i Corkscrew Swam; Area Sanclu�iry-DMWNE N I'F:. EAw ' B0rka Springs CREW f cim P'L'rl S1F:ifkd Bird Rookel ti'��lmfl NL.r',h Nd13'et SI LI less of an impact TwinEjgl@!'Sales i DUONer Infnrmarinn C:� 4 at M fVor#h Nfaples `' s „ t k? I T--"- % Map data 04R 1 c{oc . ;NEG. ONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida 10- OUR WATER; LAND, W1L-7LLJFE, FUTURE. .J :M1" RIVERGRASS' TIS ANALYZES TRIP DISTRIBUTION TO '-:: - `. - `s PR�J ECT TRIP LM STRIBUTI��i BY PERCENTAGE 5% AND ANALYZES TRAFFIC ON IMMOKALEE AND Illusuated ps haundaresare s h Y VANDERBILT TO 1-75 AND LIVINGSTON. P:or avlaAl iayout fLftr to &fe pt LS`xF pw! 4. LE ME M E N MEMO A Its O 1'�7. RE3 is YQ7i 3n�aU+w ':r :. €'d Sfr'f■ OM �'4 �O*i �rJ"ti * lid$ i � ft p�¢ �Ek� RES 1`_+� a cry 1 WOO 5% � S% 11 } - i RES 1% [RES 6% • R€S Su. RES ES 5 E3 Sri '�• FkK 5'L OM i� 892157E RES to% Ina C-� 1 � � � � � � � � � i � � ■ � i Is it Is iF i* G7N 5S M ES S$ 3 yUs Es � +1 E$ i�6 RES i Sy4 RCS y SSG RES 10% { R cS 1 rPl. r tc�.,r4 erg• ES '1'L t RES 5'6 :. 'moo gle i �trl N.- t CONSERVANCY Submittal 3 Rivergrass TIS Section 1, 8-5-19 —Project Trip Distribution by Percentage of Southwest Moiida IMINIT. OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION WHY DOES LONGWATER'S TRIP DISTRIBUTION END AT 10% AND WHY DOES IT NOT ANALYZE TRAFFIC ON v r-I; cf NT�%_?E IMMOKALEE ROAD AND VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD core 2U°i. Illustrated project boundaries are whcma;ic only RES 20% Fw actual Iayoct rOer to TO 1-75 OR LI V I N G STO N ? 0% 0°m J y RES 1D9 R EtS�1 V'r6� RES 5°i, r fi imo+den GJOe GUM 5°h <,� Ines is% • . ■ r rt�a+M ■ coin 10% . cam 0% 9 C lA 5°�6 com 5"ti CD6+1 3°n, COLA 10' 1! RES 10° RES 15`h RES IC% * RES 10"b r.ki,Eup1u SON m+d 0 RES 25% � r V-1winao-an Cow.*:Pr > " 3, C61721 *f # i CoM 6% � _ RES 7D lip r LOFJGWATER WESMIr RES 5 ~ �4h COM bu% C76 RES 60% 1�4/1 r + COM 5°fu Ce3M 20"J° RE `J96 FiI<GI15 S 5'io RES '.3° RES 20°lo- 5 ■ r RES 10% CCt#II 2C7°ti pkir : IN IN w w :w a w wi w rr w R ES 21794 uh,re vend*rMit Buah Rrr Estvrut, T� i w w f� CgM106 i COM14F RES 1576 RES 10% COM 5+16 RE5 5�6 COM5r6 RES 2P`% r e I�I �..�} tRES 10°L COM 57 COM 10e10 COM 15% RES 10°� RES is% RES 20% pNi st,� 46rh 9t w T 0� I P r+ Q r+ M. Cr C C 7 Cr M P] M 3 as M CONSERVANCY Map data C2019 Google, INS' � of Southwest Florida Submittal 5-Longwater TIS —Section 1; 8-5-20 Project Trip Distribution by Percentage w4w T. OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. 4 C. (STIR QJFCT TRIP DISTRIBUTION BY PERCENTAGE ikrs ted pmpd acundanesare 5c-.L-mahc only -v amal Uayvit reertD the Rid nia-st r ai WHY DOES BELLMAR'S TRIP DISTRIBUTION END AT 10% AND WHY DOES IT NOT ANALYZE TRAFFIC ON IMMOKALEE ROAD AND VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD TO 1-75 OR LIVINGSTON? CQM 15 CAM 3DSi, a �iJov 11�' RES � rca1n R> 3 111�6 RES 5% IREF. 10% h . id .a.■ Nf RES1DY, _ 1_— — —_ — :— — �— RE + OM % a � R¢r. to% ■ i IRE-5 14`t F � [ 0M d5% RES rAu"Yoh a.■a,# � ' 4----> OM 2ft% lfLES 2G!6 on on i OM 16k C� RES i5� � R1 04L y ■ RES 1(10% M 555a r S% '.♦■iiy■■rk�5 iL RES 1[ C�71-- RS'_ 104'C t .. , d� )k } - I. _< r RES gn + ■ M d0'6 r-um 34`5 17 @5 SOY. ■ ■ RES #0% RES 45a: 1!1<S 44'6 ■ ES 309E RES i'i I # r, r ■ ■ RE5 10`'a ,eu,s� rye BElL1AJ4R 1E �k mser RES 5� 4dll 5°f. Go gle Map data (�D2019 Google, INEGI Submittal 5-Longwater TIS —Section 1; 8-5-20 Project Trip Distribution by Percentage CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida 'S.. OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. ar— Economic Assessments for Longwater and Bellmar estimate the appli cant will build over $1.7 billion worth of property (Nearly $2.5 billion including Rivergrass) "-—� �21�,01 RdLV 0 MID 0.. W TE T - tZ %raw. IFE, The County is getting this We need to be here %�MT, lqmrl ft-W Let's Summarize the issues with Longwater and Belimar ➢ Entire projects in habitat of endangered species . . 0 0 ➢ Designs do not conform to GMP and LDC ➢ $43.1+ Million deficit to Collier County for providing water - wastewater ➢ No mitigation for impacts to 8 road segments (and none for roads that are already impacted) ➢ Underestimation of populations = underestimation of costs for services CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida Protecting Southwest Florida's unique natural environment and quality of life ... now and forever. �,. OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. www.conservancy.org f facebook.com/ConservancySWF (239) 262-0304 twitter.com/ConservancySWFL ADDRESS 1495 Smith Preserve Way — Naples, FL 34134 United States Department of the Interior F, AE�"CE � FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Southwest Florida Gulf Coast Refuge Complex Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge 12085 State Road 29S. Immokalee, Florida 34142 PH:239-657-8001 FAX:239-657-8002 March 1, 2021 Collier County Planning Commission 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: PL20190001836 and PL20190001837, Longwater and Bellmar Village SRA Resolutions respectively Dear Collier County Planning Commissioners, The Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge (FPNWR) is 26,609 acres adjacent to the Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) and approximately 1.25 miles southwest of the proposed Bellmar Village. Administered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the FPNWR was established in 1989 to assist in the recovery of endangered species such as the Florida Panther. FPNWR staff have worked cooperatively with the applicants and other landowners within the RLSA for many years to assist in habitat management activities across the FPNWR's boundary lines, and more generally, in discussions on how to keep landscape connectivity for far ranging species like the Florida panther and black bear. Both of the villages of Longwater and Bellmar are currently under federal review for a more comprehensive planning approach in the Eastern Collier Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (ECMSHCP), which would lead to the protection of 106,000 acres within the RLSA. It is preferable to delay permitting individual developments in the ECMSHCP development area until the Environmental Impact Statement and Endangered Species Act Section 10 review for the ECMSHCP is completed. In addition, the County should complete the adoption of the RLSA 5 year review amendments prior to approving developments within the RLSA so that the County's development permit and RLSA requirements are not contradictory to the mitigation requirements proposed by the ECMSHCP. Separate and apart from the Service's work considering the ECMSHCP, the Service has concerns about the proximity of these developments to the FPNWR that the planning commission should address with the applicant prior to approval of Longwater and Bellmar villages. First, the future development within the RLSA, including both Longwater and Bellmar, will encroach upon several current conservation areas such as the FPNWR. These conservation lands are intensely managed using prescribed burning to manage the fire -adapted ecosystems for the benefit of wildlife and to reduce high fuel loads, the latter of which contributes to more catastrophic harmful wildfires. The Stewardship Sending Areas within the RLSA and adjacent to the proposed developments include fire -adapted habitats that will need to be managed with silvicultural activities such as prescribed fire and exotic invasive plant control. This encroachment toward conservation lands can complicate the appropriate management of the FPNWR. For instance, the refuge's southern boundary is 1-75, and eastern boundary is State Road 29. As such, we often have to burn habitats on the refuge with a prevailing southerly or easterly wind direction. These prescriptions are in place to mitigate risk of serious traffic accidents on those major roads, and cannot be changed, leaving the locations for high -density residential and commercial developments in the RLSA directly in the path of our current smoke management protocols. On some prescribed burns, we will not have the ability to redirect smoke away from the location of these future developments. We recommend that all existing and future landowners and leaseholders (e.g., residents, businesses, health care providers, and homeowner associations) within the RLSA sign an acknowledgement notice within their deed or lease agreement that recognizes and accepts the use of prescribed fire to manage the adjacent habitats on both public and private conservation lands. We believe this indemnification is necessary for fire managers to be held harmless for any adverse impacts from the inconveniences of smoke produced by prescribed fires, and to ensure that this critically important management tool is not further limited by new developments. The Florida Forest Service's Prescribed Fire in Florida Strategic Plan 2013-2020 identified two objectives to facilitate this action: 4-2 states: "Introduce Smoke Disclosure Language in deed transfers and homeowner association agreements with county planning," 4-3 states: "Develop a smoke easement template." There are a few examples of these Indemnifications being used in other states. I look forward to working with the Planning Commission, Collier County Commissioners and the Florida Forest Service to construct the appropriate language for such an instrument prior to any further development of the RLSA. Secondly, the application does not address the need for hydrologic restoration of the adjacent Camp Keais Strand Flowway Stewardship Area. Hydrological restoration of the Camp Keais Strand was identified as a unique functional group within Southwest Florida Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan, which the County and Service both participated in. During this effort, members of local and state agencies, NGOs, and the Federal government made every effort to take a holistic approach to hydrological restoration. We implore the County and other regulatory authorities to require the applicants to include wetland restoration activities identified within the Southwest Florida Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan, especially those within the Camp Keais Strand functional group. Hydrologic restoration of the Camp Keais Strand is clearly a component of the RLSA Stewardship Sending Areas, and is critically important for downstream conservation lands such as the FPNWR. Currently two farm fields restrict the flowway to a few culverts in a span of 100 yards, whereas restoring these farm fields back to wetlands would result in a nearly 1 mile wide flowway immediately adjacent to the proposed Longwater development. The applicant's original plans for the Town of Rural Lands West included restoring these approximately 935 acres of farmland in the middle of the Camp Keais Strand Stewardship flowway in SSA15, to benefit the hydrology of downstream conservation lands. This wetland restoration was not included in the plans for Rivergrass Village, Longwater Village or Belmar Village, and we believe that it should, as this type of wetland restoration was clearly the intent when the RLSA was established. If properly implemented, Camp Keais Strand hydrological restoration activities could ultimately benefit one of the most biodiverse forested wetlands in the state of Florida (i.e., Fakahatchee Strand), as well as the Picayune Strand. In conclusion, we believe the planning commission should take a pause in considering developments within the RLSA on an individual project approach, and implement a more comprehensive planning approach. By incorporating our recommendations, we believe that they will: 1) Minimize impacts to one of the most important land management tools in the state of Florida (i.e., fire); 2) Protect important habitats; 3) Provide for critically important wetland restoration within hydrologic flowways such as Camp Keais Strand; 4) Improve the quality and quantity of water entering the FPNWR; and 5) Address the landscape connectivity needs of wildlife such as the Florida panther and black bear. Sincerely, Kevin Godsea Refuge Manager Southwest Florida Gulf Coast Refuges Cc: Ray Bellows, Planning Commission Liaison Nancy Gundlach, Principle Planner Corby Schimidt, Principle Planner Matthew McLean, Director, Development Review Kirsten Wilkie, Environmental Services Manager Jamie Cook, Principal Environmental Specialist James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner Michael Sawyer, Principal Planner Florida Wildlife Federation Since 1936 Dear Chair Fryer and Commissioners, Meredith Budd I Regional Policy Director 4851 Tamiami Trail N., Suite 255 Office: 239-302-1767 Naples, FL 34103 Cell: 239-508-8917 AFFILIATED WITH THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION March 2, 2021 I respectfully submit the following comments on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation (Feder- ation) regarding the proposed villages and town concept in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) being presented before the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) on March 4, 2021. The Florida panther is a wide-ranging species across Southwest Florida. Public lands (i.e., state and/or federally owned) are insufficient to support a growing panther population, and biologists have long recognized that large private landowners in this region are, therefore, vital in protect- ing not only the Florida panther, but other native wildlife. As habitat shrinks due to increasing development, the panther's ability to find prey, mates and suitable denning sites has declined. Loss of habitat contributes to the two greatest causes of panther death: aggression between panthers and collisions with motor vehicles. Collier County is not immune to population growth. Of the rural lands surrounding Immokalee, over 90% is privately owned. The Federation recognizes and understands that these landown- ers have vested rights for potential development across this region. Since growth and develop- ment will continue in Southwest Florida, the future of this charismatic cat is dependent upon land -use decisions made today. This is precisely why the Federation is supportive of the RLSA program. Golden Gate Estates vs. RLSA Before Golden Gate Estates (Estates) was built out to what it is today, it was actually predomi- nately wetlands. In fact, this region very much resembled the natural areas that are delineated within the RLSA. However, private landowners in the Estates are legally allowed to proceed with low -density single family development; this is the same as the underlying zoning of the RLSA. Despite a national policy of `no net loss' of wetlands, permits do not achieve `no net loss,' and so, this region is continually being drained and built out in this sprawling growth pattern. In fact, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Lee and Collier Counties have lost over 30,000 acres of wetlands since 1996. There is also an expectation that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) will, in fact, provide all necessary protections for imperiled species within the RLSA and elsewhere. However, there are actually gaps between federal ESA enforcement and county land -use decisions. In fact, most local governments will defer to agencies with regards to species protections even if agencies aren't effectively enforcing these protections. Similar to the above case regarding wetland de- struction in the Estates, there has been a complete lack of ESA enforcement throughout the Es- tates as well. It is evident that even with federal regulations in place, there has been a gross loss of wetlands and functional wildlife habitat in Collier County. Therefore, Collier County can- not solely rely on federal regulations to protect our natural resources. This is why the RLSA overlay is so critical; this overlay ensures natural resource protection and wildlife move- ment by setting aside the most environmentally sensitive areas in exchange for compact devel- opment to be located in areas of little environmental value. The RLSA was set in place to pre- vent the sprawling growth pattern seen in the Estates from happening further east and the rec- ommended amendments recently transmitted to the State will work to better improve the pro- gram. Primary Panther Habitat is not always Functioning Panther Habitat There has been much discussion about the RLSA and `primary panther habitat.' This is refer- ring to Kautz et al.'s scientific article titled `How Much is Enough: Landscape -Scale Conserva- tion for the Florida panther' which established the widely used model for primary, secondary and dispersal zone habitat.' The concluding section (5) of this paper outlines the need for functional panther habitat, and unfortunately, often times, this part of the article is not referenced. Kautz et al. notes that panther use of an area as a home range, breeding access, resting and denning sites, stalking cover, dispersal routes, transient ranges of non-resident males, and support for prey base are all critical aspects of a functioning landscape for panthers. This is an acknowl- edgment that highly impacted areas, like intensively farmed fields, do not meet the needs for panthers despite being designated as `primary panther habitat' in the model. Therefore, not all `primary panther habitat' is serving as functional habitat for panthers. Also, there is value and importance of Secondary and Dispersal zones as well that are seldom men- tioned by RLSA opponents (note: dispersal zone habitat is located in Hendry county). The USFWS Panther Recovery Plane notes that secondary habitat includes `high intensity agri culture' and that '[r]estoration would need to occur to allow this area to contribute meaningfully to panther recovery.' (pg.89-90). Therefore, agricultural lands in the RLSA, even if they are designated as `primary panther habitat,' have the characteristics of secondary zone habitat that would require restoration to 'contribute meaningfully to panther recovery'. This does not mean that these farm fields do not have value to panthers and other wildlife; they do. In fact, the value of agricultural lands to the landscape is precisely why the Federation has been enthusiastically supportive of the RLSA amendments to include agricultural preservation. However, the RLSA program is only able to preserve large swaths of connected habitat if landowners are able to develop in an area of less environmental value. Cleared farm fields have less environmental value than a forested natural area. And, even if cleared farm fields are designated as `primary panther habitat' through the Kautz et al. model, they are simply not functioning as panther habitat, and without restoration, they are not serving the intent of primary zone habitat as described by Kautz et al. 'Kautz R, Kawula R, Hoctor T, Comiskey J, Jansen D, Jennings D, Kasbohm J, Mazzzotti F, McBride R, Richardson L, Root K (2006) How much is enough? Landscape -scale conservation for the Florida panther. https://www.collier- countyfl.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=79862 2 https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Panther%20Recovery%20Plan.pdf In fact, Kautz et al. states that a `comprehensive strategy for working with private landowners to protect, enhance, and restore panther habitat within the Primary, Dispersal, and Secondary Zones is essential.' This is exactly what the RLSA does. Without programs like the RLSA to help protect the privately held lands in this region, recovery of the species is limited and highly challenged. Longwater Village The Longwater Village footprint is entirely located within impacted farm fields. In exchange for the development impact of this nearly 1000 acre village, the applicant is preserving over 4,800 acres of land that are a part of Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA) 14 and 17. The northern portion of Camp Keais Strand is located within the boundaries of SSA 14. The State of Florida has long targeted the lands that encompass SSA 14 as essential lands remaining in the Florida Forever Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) project. SSA 14 along with CREW will help to conserve connections between existing conser- vation areas, provide habitat and movement corridors for wildlife, and protect the flows of water that flows to the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, Fakahatchee Strand, and other natur- al areas to the south of the RLSA. SSA 17 is comprised of primarily Shaggy Cypress Swamp north of Oil Well Road, east of Golden Gate Estates, and just west of Camp Keais Strand, which is a critical flow -way. This will give added levels of protections to valuable habitat for endangered species such as Florida panther and wood stork, and will ultimately provide additional long-term conservation benefits to the region. The proposed Longwater Village is located entirely on impacted farm fields, which is certainly a more appropriate location for development in the RLSA than any natural area. Even so, the Federation remained concerned about potential wildlife movement issues through Camp Keais Strand posed by the proposed village. Understanding these concerns, the applicant has worked with the Federation, as well as other conservation colleagues, to address the is- sue. Since working with the applicant, the Federation has seen plans to widen the corri- dor (by minimizing lake size) and provide three (3) wildlife crossings (one on Oil Well Road and one on each of the internal roads of the proposed village). We have expressed some concerns, still, over the specifics of the proposed wildlife crossing dimensions and look forward to continued discussions through planning phases to ensure crossing size is appropriate for panther use. However, the overall connectivity being achieved through this proposed modification is greatly appreciated. While the proposed modifications to the master plan are not a part of the packet before the CCPC, the Federation understands that this will be presented by the applicant for staff to incorporate. The proposed modification to the master plan will help wildlife move safely through this preserved region and is a re- sult of productive conversations between the applicant and conservation organizations, including the Federation. The Federation wants to acknowledge the applicants willingness to discuss these habitat connectivity concerns and looks forward to the modified master plan being presented to the CCPC on 3/4/2021. Bellmar Village The proposed Bellmar Village is located just a little more than a mile north of the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge (FPNWR). Given it's proximity to the nearly 27,000 acre FPNWR, the Federation has consistently noted that the location of this specific SRA in the RLSA is not as appropriate for development as others, like the SRAs associated with Rivergrass and Longwater Villages. The Federation has noted these concerns over this development location with the ap- plicant as well as with the US Fish and Wildlife Service that is reviewing the federal ESA permit for the applicant. Bellmar Village's proximity to the FPNWR will inevitably lead to human - wildlife conflict and complicate efforts to manage the refuge. Management of the FPNWR largely relies on prescribed burning. This management method is used for the benefit of wildlife as well as reducing the likelihood of catastrophic wild fires for the region. Not only is the FPNWR managed with prescribed burning, but the surrounding SSAs that are taken down to the conservation land use layer will also likely need to employ prescribed burning to ensure proper management. Understanding the need to continue this critical management method both on the FPNWR as well as any surrounding private conserva- tion lands, the applicant should be required to notify all future Bellmar Village inhabitants (both commercial and residential) of the prescribed burning use on the adjacent lands to the Village. This notice should relinquish any liability to the FPNWR for its continued use of prescribed burning. This notice along with collaboration between the applicant and the FPNWR will ensure that this critical management tool can continue to be used for the re- gion. Bellmar Village will be entitled by SSA 18, even though the application that is currently being reviewed does not reflect this since SSA 18 is still being reviewed by County staff. The appli- cant has indicated that once SSA 18 is completed, this will be the source of credits to en- title Bellmar Village. SSA 18 totals over 2200 acres just west of Camp Keais Strand and the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. This SSA will remove residential uses, general conditional uses, earth mining and processing uses, recreational uses, and Agriculture Group 1 and Agriculture Support uses from nearly 2,000 acres. The remaining acres associated with SSA 18 will retain additional uses, but still ensures that the most intense land uses will no longer be allowed across the remaining 200 acres. The Need for SRAs for SSAs It is important to note that even thought there are lands that have either long been designated as SSAs or SSAs that are currently under review, the protection of these SSAs are not solidified until the credits generated from any SSA designation or completed restoration are used to enti- tle development. Until that time, every SSA agreement is in `escrow' and can be revoked at any time. This means that there is no guaranteed protection of any of the above SSAs until credits are consumed by development. Longwater Village would consume credits from SSA 14 and 17. Credits generated from SSA 18 will be used to entitle Bellmar Village. Without the entitlements to both Longwater and Bellmar Village, there will be no mechanism to ensure preservation of these lands. Town Concept The Federation was supportive of the town of Rural Lands West (RLW). The proposed town concept is reminiscent of RLW and it will certainly allow for a more diverse form of development to occur in the RLSA as opposed to the individual village proposals. From an environmental perspective, the town of RLW provided immense benefit to the landscape: RLW would have permanently preserved 12,000 acres of land and would have restored over 900 acres of farm fields in the middle of Camp Kaies Strand, which is a critical flow -way. In addition, the town of RLW did not include the land proposed to be Bellmar Village, which as noted above, is an area that is exceedingly close to the FPNWR. RLW is not being considered anymore, since much of the land associated with this previous town proposal is no longer owned by the applicant. When it comes to trying to balance devel- opment with preservation of our natural resources, its always best to look at the whole picture — this can better achieve landscape -scale conservation and connectivity. It is disappointing that the County and the applicant could not have been in agreement to move forward with the previ- ously proposed town of RLW. However, the proposed villages combined with the proposed Town Concept still presents extensive preservation across the landscape. In addition, the applicant has agreed to entitle all three villages and town uses under the proposed 10 credit per acre entitlement ratio as opposed to the required 8 credit per acre entitlement ratio. This is an act of good faith that will help to ensure more preservation and restoration is actu- ally achieved on the landscape. In addition to the above mentioned commitments to widen corridors and implement wildlife crossings in Longwater village and the use of the 10 credit per acre entitlement ratio, the applicant has also committed to requiring bear proof trash cans for all residen- tial and commercial development within the town as well as compliance with In- ternational Dark Skies in Bellmar Village to be compatible with the FPNWR. The Federation has worked with the applicant regarding many of our concerns, and we ac- knowledge appreciation for the applicant's willingness to make these commitments to enhance the landscape and limit human -wildlife conflict in the region. Thank you for consideration of my comments. Best, 'l�mta*Wd' Meredith Budd Regional Policy Director Florida Wildlife Federation cc: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner Jamie Cook, Principal Environmental Specialist Bob Mulhere, FAICP CONSERVANCY &j7 69- of Southwest Florida OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Protecting Southwest Florida's unique natural environment and quality of life ... now and forever. Longwater and Bellmar Village - Myths vs. Reality Dear Collier County Planning Commissioners: Since 2019, Collier County has received four village SRA applications, including Longwater and Bellmar. This is a lot of applications in a short period of time; however, the recent village applications are just the tip of the iceberg of what is being proposed for the RLSA. If the 5-Year Review recommendations are adopted, according to staff, 45,000 acres of SRA development would be allowed. After accounting for the total acres of pending, approved, and litigated SRAs, there would still be over 36,000 acres available for SRA development. These remaining acres could result in thirty-six more 1,000-acre villages in the RLSA, should developers choose to build all remaining SRAs as villages. If the villages are considerably less than 1,000 acres (a village can be a small as 100 acres) then there could be substantially more than thirty-six. This is why it is crucial to ensure that Longwater and Bellmar and all other proposed SRA projects are planned according to the RLSA rules. We trust that you will seriously consider and review all information that the Conservancy is providing to you. When we review and comment on SRA applications, our goal is to ensure that all SRA projects conform to the policies of the ii and LDC. This document is provided to you to dispel a few of the many myths surrounding Longwater and Bellmar Village SRAs, so that you can base your decision on the facts. MYTHS PERTAINING TRAFFIC ISSUES AND TRANSPORATION FISCAL NEUTRALITY MYTH: Longwater and Bellmar Villages will not cause significant traffic issues on Collier County's roadways. REALITY: Longwater and Bellmar Villages will result in severe traffic issues for Collier County. Based on an analysis of the applicant's Traffic Impact Statements (TIS) for Rivergrass, Longwater, and Bellmar, our nationally recognized traffic expert, Norman Conservancy of Southwest Florida has been awarded Charity Navigator's prestigious 4-Star top rating for good governance, sound fiscal management and commitment to accountability and transparency. Charity Navigator is America's largest and most respected independent evaluator of charities. 1495 Smith Preserve Way I Naples, Florida 34102 1 239.262.0304 1 Fax 239.262.0672 1 www.conservancy.org Marshall stated that "[t]he cumulative impacts of all three villages would be severe - especially in the western part of the County." However, Collier County did not require the applicant to pay mitigation for cumulative impacts. Mr. Marshall also stated that the villages will result in "Projected Severe Immokalee Road Traffic Congestion [which] is an Avoidable Train Wreck." In addition to our expert, Collier County staff stated that the villages will be significant traffic generators. In the April 15, 2020 Review Comment letter, transportation review staff stated, "Given the close proximity of these four proposed developments and the relatively limited roadway network in the surrounding area, it seems very likely that the cumulative impact of all this traffic will result in level of service deficiencies for multiple roadway segments and intersections." MYTH: The County cannot deny a village application (SRA) if the development is projected to impact a roadway that will be deficient even without the SRA's traffic. REALITY: The GMP and RLSA rules clearly state that an SRA must be denied if the transportation network is inadequate to serve it. The reality is that there are numerous roadway segments that will exceed LOS without Longwater and Bellmar. Staff stated at the March 4th hearing that they are not collecting mitigation for those impacts to those roadways. Regardless of this decision, the SRAs must be denied. The following policies explain why: Policy 4.14: "No SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of the SRA designation." RLSA Policy 4.16: 'A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or such infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand." "The capacity of infrastructure necessary to serve the SRA at build -out must be demonstrated during the SRA designation process." Transportation Element Policy SA: "The County Commission ... shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment.. .or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient... or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Page 2 of 16 Standard within the SyearAUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved." LDC 4.08.07.K.1.c: "No SRA shall be approved unless the transportation impact assessment required by this Section has demonstrated through data and analysis that the capacity of County/State collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA to be adequate to serve the intended SRA uses in accordance with Chapter 6 of the LDC in effect at the time of SRA designation." MYTH: The Florida Concurrency Statute prevents the County from denying the development on the basis that it will access deficient roadway segments. REALITY: The Florida Concurrency Statute only prevents the County from conditioning approval of the development on a developer commitment to mitigate background roadway deficiencies; it is well accepted that the County's remedy in this scenario is to deny the development application. The Florida Concurrency Statute states that: "If any road is determined to be transportation deficient without the project traffic under review, the costs of correcting that deficiency shall be removed from the project's proportionate -share calculation and the necessary transportation improvements to correct that deficiency shall be considered to be in place for purposes of the proportionate -share calculation." Fl. St. § 163.3180(5)(h)2.b. According to the Florida Association of County Attorneys, (Collier County Attorney Jeffrey Klatzkow serves as a board member for this organization) in this scenario, a County is permitted to deny the development application for failure to meet concurrency standards.' For a SRA application in the Collier County RLSA, the GMP goes one step further and actually requires the County to deny an application where it is statutorily prohibited from requiring the developer to mitigate the transportation deficiencies on road segments the development will access. See RLSAO Policy 4.14 ("No SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of the SRA designation."). 1 See FACA Growth Management Committee's Response to Pasco County's Questions Relating to the Transportation Concurrency Provisions at p. 7 (Mar. 2, 2012), available at htip://faca.fl-counties.com/sites/default/files/2018- ] 1 /Transportation%20Concurrency%20After%20HB%207207%20Presentation.pdf (":"even if a local government retains transportation concurrency ... and even if an applicant is willing to satisfy the requirements of Section 163.3180(5)(h)3., the local government can still deny a DRI, rezoning, or other land use development permit request pursuant to Section 163.3180(5)(h)3.d. based on general level of service, timing and/or adequate public facility requirements. [... ] Not only can the local government do so, the local government must do so if the proposed application would be inconsistent with the required level of service or adequate public facility standards set forth in the Comprehensive Plan's transportations policies.") (emphasis added). Page 3 of 16 MYTH: Staffs recommendations comply with the GMP provisions related to traffic. REALITY: Surprisingly, despite the prohibition against approving projects located in areas with failing roads, staff is still recommending approval of both villages and without requiring mitigation for those roadways. The applicant's own documents show that Bellmar and Longwater will add traffic to seven road segments that are predicted to fail or exceed LOS before Bellmar and Longwater's traffic impacts are added. Tables 6A and 6B of Bellmar's August 6, 2020 TIS and Longwater's August 4, 2020 TIS provide a list of the following road segments that will fail even without Bellmar and Longwater's traffic: Everglades Blvd - South of Golden Gate Blvd Randall Blvd - Everglades Blvd to 8th St NE Golden Gate Blvd - from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd Immokalee Road - Wilson Blvd to Collier Blvd Collier Blvd - Immokalee Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road Immokalee Road - Oil Well Road to Randall Blvd Immokalee Road - Randall Blvd to Wilson Blvd MYTH: Collier County is requiring the applicant to pay mitigation for cumulative traffic impacts created by the applicant's three villages (Rivergrass, Longwater, and Bellmar). REALITY: This is not the case. The County is passing the costs for cumulative impacts onto Collier County taxpayers rather than requiring the developer to pay for traffic impacts caused by background traffic from the applicant's other villages. Although Collier County staff requested that the applicant prepare a cumulative traffic analysis,2 which ultimately revealed that eight additional road segments will fail due to background traffic from the applicant's three villages, staff is choosing to ignore the results of the cumulative analysis. Thus, the costs necessary to fix those eight road segments will instead be passed on to the taxpayer. The following are road segments adversely impacted by the applicant's three villages3, for which the applicant has not agreed to pay any mitigation, nor has the County required them to do so: ' Collier County Growth Management Division. Bellmar Consistency Review Memorandum. May 27, 2020, p. 11 and Collier County Review Comment Letter for Longwater. April 15, 2020. p. 4. ' Sources: Bellmar Village SRA — TIS — Section 2, Intersection Analysis, August 2020, p. 14. Submittal 5 -Traffic Impact Statement Bellmar SRA Section 1 — Impacts to Roadway Network, Road Segment Analysis, 8/19/20 p. 24; Traffic Impact Statement Longwater SRA. Section 1— Impacts to Roadway Network — Road Segment Analysis, 8/4/2020, p.24; Traffic Impact Statement Longwater SRA Section 2 — Intersection Analyses. May 29, 2020, p. 13/352. Page 4of16 Oil Well Rd from Immokalee Rd to Everglades Blvd DeSoto Blvd from Randall Blvd to 18th Ave NE Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Wilson Blvd to Collier Blvd Golden Gate Blvd from Wilson Blvd to 16th St NE Golden Gate from Collier to Wilson Blvd. Golden Gate Blvd from 16th St NE to Everglades Blvd Immokalee Rd from Logan Blvd to Collier Blvd Immokalee Rd from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd. MYTH: Longwater and Bellmar are fiscally neutral with respect to the transportation demand for improvements created by the projects. REALITY: The Conservancy's expert, Norman Marshall, provided testimony that there will be a severe economic shortfall created by Longwater and Bellmar, because the transportation impact fees to be collected by the applicant is approximately $92.2 million less than the costs to provide needed road improvements caused by the projects' demand. The following policies require that SRAs are fiscally neutral at buildout, including for transportation impacts: RLSA Policy 4.18 states: "The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year based on a public facilities impact assessment, as identified in LDC4.08.07.K... 'Ata minimum, the assessmentshall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools." LDC 4.08.07.K states: "SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessments. Impact assessments are intended to identify methods to be utilized to meet the SRA generated impacts on public facilities and to evaluate the self-sufficiency of the proposed SRA with respect to these public facilities." LDC 4.08.07.E states: 'An Economic Assessment meeting the requirements of this Section shall be prepared and submitted as part of the SRA Designation Application Package. At a minimum, the analysis shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water..." LDC 4.08.071.1, states, "Demonstration of Fiscal Neutrality. Each SRA must demonstrate that its development, as a whole, will be fiscally neutral or positive to the Collier County tax base." Page 5 of 16 In the applicant's economic assessment, the applicant did not demonstrate, as required, how the applicant will make up for the $92.2 million shortfall in impact fees compared to demand. MYTH: Revenue from gas tax and grants will help to ensure the fiscal neutrality of Longwater and Bellmar. REALITY: It was suggested by staff at the March 4, 2021 Longwater hearing that gas taxes and grant funding would recoup some of the loss of funds that are not covered by Longwater and Bellmar's impact fees. However, since gas taxes are part of the Collier County tax base those funds cannot be legally applied toward Longwater and Bellmar's fiscal neutrality requirement. LDC 4.08.071.1 requires "each SRA must demonstrate that its development, as a whole, will be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County tax base." Furthermore, a demonstration that the County budget is balanced is not the same as demonstrating that the development will pay for itself as required by the GMP. Rather, the fact that gas taxes and grants are required to supplement impact fees shows that even with impact fees, the County must supplement the transportation budget with other tax - generated funds. If gas taxes and grants were not necessary to subsidize these developments, those funds could instead be used for other important purposes and/or taxes paid by Collier County residents could be reduced. MYTH: Big Cypress Parkway does not function as a primary road for Collier Enterprises' three villages. REALITY: Our traffic expert states, "The proposed Big Cypress Parkway will primarily function as a development road for the three villages rather than serving as a regional roadway - with 86% of the vehicle miles traveled originating and/or ending in one of the three villages. In addition, contrary to Collier Enterprises statements at the March 4, 2021 hearing for Longwater, Collier Enterprises is relying on Big Cypress Parkway for purposes of mitigating traffic from these developments. If Big Cypress Parkway is not built, there will be even more traffic on the existing roadways, requiring even more mitigation. MYTH: The developer will pay for roads internal to Longwater and Bellmar. REALITY: Shockingly, it remains unclear who will pay for the roads internal to the villages. Will it be the developer or Collier County taxpayers? At the Longwater hearing on March 4, 2021, the applicant's attorney admitted that even though both projects Page 6 of 16 will be gated, there are no commitments for the developer to pay for the internal roads. Here is what he said when questioned about the issue: Mr. Yovanovich: "I don't think we've decided yet how we are going to fund the roads so I can't answeryou right now what will be bond funded or what will be developer funded at this time." This is shocking because roads represent a significant capital cost that must be taken into account in the developer's fiscal neutrality assessment. If the County is expected to pay for the internal roads, the costs of this must also be deducted from the road impact fees the developer will pay (resulting in an even further deficit on top of the $92.2 million Mr. Marshall estimates). In addition, road maintenance is extremely expensive and if the County is expected to maintain the internal roads in these developments, a shortfall will result to the County road maintenance funds. MYTH PERTAINING FISCAL NEUTRALITY FOR WATER AND WASTERWATER SERVICE MYTH: It is acceptable to pass on much of the costs to build the new Northeast Service Area water -wastewater facility to existing users within the Collier County Water Sewer District (CCWSD). REALITY: The Conservancy's nationally known expert from Urban 3, Joe Minicozzi, determined that Longwater and Bellmar will create a deficit greater than $45 million for their share of the demand for water and wastewater; thereby ensuring both projects will not meet the RLSA's requirement for fiscal neutrality (Policy 4.18). We are concerned that the County has plans to pass along costs to existing users or ratepayers within the CCWSD so that the District can fill the gap in the massive economic shortfall caused by the villages. However, Policy 4.18 clearly states that SRAs must be "planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year". Furthermore, according to the County, existing water -sewer users within CCWSD are not supposed to pay for the costs of growth, this should be covered by impact fees. User rates are the same across the CCWSD, so if rates increase it would impact all users, not just those in the jurisdiction of the new plants. This paragraph from page 2 of the Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study for Collier County Water -Sewer District explains that the system is set up to ensure that new customers will pay costs associated with increased capital costs for water and sewer (aka new facilities) and not existing users. Page 7 of 16 "PURPOSE OF WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES The purpose of impact fees is to recover the pro-rata share of the allocated capital costs that are considered as growth -relatedfrom new customers connecting to the System or from existing customers that are requesting an increase in the reserved water and/ or wastewater capacity associated with increased development on their property. To the extent that new population growth and associated development impose identifiable added capital costs to municipal services, capital funding practices to include the assignment of such costs to those residents or system users responsible for those costs rather than to the existing population base is reasonable and provides for the proper match of initial capital investment to the capacity being reserved. Generally, this practice has been labeled as growth paying its own way' without existing user cost burdens. The application of impacts fees to finance capital infrastructure allocated to such new capacity requests is very common in Florida and the country and has been used as a source of contributed capital by the District for manyyears." (Emphasis added) MYTH PERTAINING DESIGN AND CONSISTENCY MYTH: All of staff concerns pertaining to Longwater and Bellmar's designs and consistency with the RLSA Overlay have been addressed. REALITY: In earlier reviews of the Longwater and Bellmar applications, Collier County planning staff provided strong statements expressing concern regarding the villages' designs and consistency with the GMP and LDC, including statements that the projects did not meet the policies and intent of the RLSA. Because the projects' plans and Master Plans have been modified only minimally since the first draft and many of staffs concerns have not been resolved, it is perplexing why staff is now recommending approval of the projects. We would like to know why staff is recommending approval when it is clear that the villages were not redesigned to satisfy their earlier concerns. Below are several examples of very telling statements from staff s Consistency Review Memorandums: Staff comments on Bellmar: "The Bellmar Village SRA still does not fully meet the intent of the policies in the RLSAO pertaining to innovative design, compactness, housing diversity, walkability, mix of uses, use density/intensity continuum orgradient, interconnectedness, etc. In staffs view, this SRA is, with some exceptions, a suburban development plan typical of that in the coastal urban area placed in the RLSA and is contrary to what is intended Page 8 of 16 in the RLSAO. This is especially so, if the village continues to be proposed to be gated. Staff highly recommends reconsidering gating this village. "4 Very little has changed in Bellmar's plans since this statement was made; furthermore, the applicant did not provide greater housing diversity, and Bellmar is still proposed to be gated. "Comprehensive Planning Staff also ask that Transportation Planning Section give consideration to the cumulative effects of demands of these SRAs, rather than considering each one individually."S Although the applicant completed a cumulative analysis, transportation staff failed to consider the effects of cumulative traffic demand which showed many roadways would fail. Furthermore, staff is not requiring the applicant to pay for the costs associated with the road segments that will fail due to the villages cumulative traffic impacts. While it is useful to have the cumulative impacts analysis, there is no benefit to county residents from this analysis unless the County requires the developer to address the impacts predicted in that analysis; it is an empty exercise. The requirements for mitigation of traffic impacts for the villages should be updated to address the eight additional road segments found to be adversely impacted by the villages' traffic in the cumulative analysis and any additional intersections adversely impacted by the applicant's three villages.6 "Walkability can be significantly increased by locating more people (higher density residential properties) in closer proximity to goods and services."7 A mere 40 units or 1.5% of the SRAs 2,750 units are proposed within the Village Center. "If the Village Center were more centrally located, it would facilitate a more compact development pattern, a use intensity/density gradient or continuum from the Village Center to the SRA edge, and a more walkable community."8 The location of Bellmar's Village Center has not changed. Staffs comments on Longwater "The Longwater Village SRA does not fully meet other requirements of, and does not reflect the innovative planning tools applied by, the RLSAO pertaining to design, compactness, housing diversity, walkability, mix of uses, use density/intensity continuum orgradient, etc. In staffs view this SRA is, with some exceptions, a ° Collier County Growth Management Division. Bellmar Consistency Review Memorandum. May 27, 2020, p. 11. 'Ibid, p. 7 6 Bellmar Village SRA — TIS — Section 2, Intersection Analysis, August 2020, p. 14. Submittal 5 -Traffic Impact and Traffic Impact Statement Longwater SRA Section 2 — Intersection Analyses. May 29, 2020, p. 13-14/352. Ibid, p. 11. $ Collier County Growth Management Division. Bellmar Consistency Review Memorandum. May 27, 2020„ p. 6 Page 9 of 16 suburban development plan typical of that in the coastal urban area placed in the RLSA and is contrary to what is intended in the RLSAO. This is green field development - the site is former agricultural fields; there are no known natural resource constraints that preclude a more compact form of development, designed with a majority of dwelling units proximate to the Village Center, the Village Center located in the interior rather than on the edge, commitment to provide some amount of affordable housing, etc "9 Very little has changed in Longwater's plans since this statement was made. Furthermore, the applicant did not provide greater housing diversity, the majority of housing units are still not proximate to the Village Center, and Longwater's Village Center is still located on the edge. "The modest density proposed, however, does not provide the compactness [nor the fiscal strength] that projects designed with densities nearer the maximum -allowed density, exhibit."10 Very little has changed in Longwater's plans since this statement was made. "Where the proposed project is not found to provide a mixed -use village center serving as the focal point for support services and facilities, including neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, it is without support for approval. "11 The location of Longwater's Village Center has not changed, it is still on the edge and is not the focal point. "RLSAO Policy 4.2 further provides that, "the Overlay requires SRAs to be compact, mixed -use and self-sufficient..." Where the proposed project is not found to be compact, mixed -use and self-sufficient, it is without support for approval. "12 Very little has changed in Longwater's plans since this statement was made. "The SRA Document single-family and multi family residential unit figures need to be revised to more -accurately represent Economic Assessment figures and be nearer the Countywide ratio."13 This did not occur, as both the first and the final SRA documents for Longwater show that only 10% of the homes must be multi -family, while the rest will be single-family attached or detached. v Collier County Growth Management Division. Longwater Consistency Review Memo, February 11, 2020. p. 19 O Ibid, p. 19 " Ibid, p. 18 2 Collier County Growth Management Division. Longwater Consistency Review Memo, February 11, 2020 p. 17 3Ibid. p. 19 Page 10 of 16 "The SRA Master Plan needs to be revised to show an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system as well as an interconnected system of collector and local roads reflecting its continuum orgradient of density and intensity."14 Nothing has been modified to reflect a continuum of gradient of density and intensity. "The so-called 'Village Center' allows a mix of uses - multi family dwelling units; a variety of commercial uses (minimum of 65,000 sf. required); and, civic, institutional and governmental uses (minimum of 25,000 sf. required). Due to its location (at the frontage abutting future Big Cypress Parkway), the proposed location of the commercial uses cannot be considered as a Village Center."ls The location of Longwater's Village Center has not changed. "However, staff notes there appears to be a disconnect between the residential use, and non-residential use, mix assumptions in the (Economicl Assessment contrasted with those which are required or committed to in the SRA Document. However, the proposed ratio committed to in the SRA document is <90%:>10% as compared to the Countywide ratio of 50%:45% (remaining units are mobile homes, etc.) This results in a disconnect between the housing mix assumed vs. that which is required/committed to. Staff would prefer to see a more meaningful mix, reconciling the SRA Document figures to more -accurately represent Economic Assessment figures and nearer Countywide ratio.]"16 This did not occur, as both the first and the final SRA documents for Longwater show that only 10% of the homes must be multi -family, while the rest will be single-family attached or detached. "Comprehensive Planning staff ask that Transportation Planning Section give consideration to the cumulative effects or demands of these SRAs, rather than considering each only individually."17 Although the applicant completed a cumulative analysis, transportation staff failed to consider the effects of cumulative traffic demand which showed many roadways would fail. Furthermore, staff is not requiring the applicant to pay for the costs associated with the road segments that will fail due to the villages cumulative traffic impacts. While it is useful to have the cumulative impacts analysis, there is no benefit to county residents from this analysis unless the County requires the developer to address the impacts predicted in that analysis; it is an empty exercise. The requirements for mitigation of traffic impacts for the 4 Collier County Growth Management Division. Longwater Consistency Review Memo, February 11, 2020. p. 19 5 Collier County Growth Management Division. Longwater Consistency Review Memo, February 11, 2020. p. 7 16lbid, p.7 17 Collier County Growth Management Division. Longwater Consistency Review Memo, February 11, 2020, p. 10 Page 11 of 16 villages should be updated to address the eight additional road segments found to be adversely impacted by the villages' traffic in the cumulative analysis and any additional intersections adversely impacted by the applicant's three villages.18 "Comprehensive Planning staff also ask that the County staff involved in the review of the Economic Assessment give consideration to the cumulative effects or demands of these SRAs, rather than considering each only individually."19 We are unaware of a cumulative economic assessment. "However, if the conventionally -designed suburban project were redesigned in a more compact manner, centrally relocating the 'Village Center' placing more residential development closer to the relocated 'Village Center; then walkability could be significantly increased."20 The location of Longwater's Village Center has not changed. "Exhibit A, SRA Master Plan, depicts, and other SRA materials provide for, a location for commercial uses (at the frontage abutting future Big Cypress Parkway) that cannot be considered as a Village Center. Revise the overall design of the project. "21 The location of Longwater's Village Center has not changed. PANTHER SCIENCE MYTH MYTH: Agricultural lands within the Primary Zone are not important to the panther's recovery and survival. REALITY: Agricultural lands do function as essential panther habitat and should not be intensified to urban.2? A team of eleven leading panther scientists, Kautz et al. 2006, consider Primary Zone panther habitat a "matrix of natural and disturbed cover types, provid[ing] just enough space to support a population that is barely viable demographically as long the habitat base remains stable."23 The US Fish and Wildlife Service in their Florida " Bellmar Village SRA — TIS — Section 2, Intersection Analysis, August 2020, p. 14. Submittal 5 -Traffic Impact and Traffic Impact Statement Longwater SRA Section 2 — Intersection Analyses. May 29, 2020, p. 13-14/352. 1 Jbid, p. 13 20 Ibid, p. 15 21 Collier County Growth Management Division. Longwater Consistency Review Memo, February 11, 2020. p. 16 22 Kautz et al. (2006). How much is enough? Landscape -scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation 130, p. 131. "Loss of function or carrying capacity within the Primary Zone may be affected by: (1) reduction or degradation of the habitat base, (2) reduction in the areal extent of the Primary Zone, (3) increasing landscape fragmentation, and (4) land use intensification (e.g. moving along a gradient from natural conditions to pasture, to cropland, to urban)." 23 Kautz, et al. (2006) How much is enough? Landscape —scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation 130, p. 129 Page 12 of 16 Panther Recovery Plan24 established Kautz et al. (2006)25 as best available science for prioritizing protections of the Florida panther. The Panther Recovery Plan states: "To prevent further loss of population viability, habitat conservation efforts should focus on maintaining the total available area, quality, and spatial extent of habitat within the Primary Zone.26 The Florida Panther Recovery Plan acknowledges that 7.6% of the Primary Zone, as delineated by the Kautz et al. (2006) study, are agricultural lands.27 Approximately half of the 93,000 acres of the RLSA's Open areas lie within Primary Zone panther habitat.28 A very unfortunate misinterpretation of the Kautz el al. (2006) study was provided to the Planning Commission at the March 4th Longwater hearing, by a representative of the Florida Wildlife Federation (FWF). The representative argues that agricultural lands within the Primary Zone are not considered "functional panther habitat." To support her inaccurate statement, she pointed to the following paragraph from the Concluding Section 5 of the Kautz et al., (2006) study, which reads as follows: "Critical aspects of a functioning landscape for panthers include use by panthers for home ranges, breeding access, resting and denning sites, stalking cover, dispersal routes, transient ranges of non-resident males, support for prey and natural areas that buffer against indirect impacts associated with adjacent urban and industrial uses."29 Following the reading of the above Kautz et al statement, the FWF representative stated that this is "an acknowledgement in that article that highly impacted areas like mines or intensively farmed fields do not really meet the needs for panthers despite being designated as primary panther habitat." This clearly is a misinterpretation of the Kautz et al. paragraph. Nowhere in the study's quote do the panther scientists claim that agricultural lands do not provide functional panther habitat. Below are statements from Kautz et al. that refute Florida Wildlife Federation's claims. These statements demonstrate the importance of including agricultural lands within the Primary Zone: 24 US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008. "Florida Panther Recovery Plan, 3`d Revision." 25 Kautz, et al. (2006) How much is enough? Landscape —scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation 130, p. 118-133 26 US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008. "Florida Panther Recovery Plan, 3`d Revision." 27 US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008. "Florida Panther Recovery Plan, 3`d Revision." p. 27-28. 28 GIS data layers show that 53% of "Open" areas are within the Primary Zone panther habitat. Data retrieved December 5, 2018. 29 Kautz, et al. (2006) How much is enough? Landscape —scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation 130, p. 131 Page 13 of 16 "Moreover, other natural and non -urban disturbed land cover types between forest patches served as landscape connections that accommodate panther home ranges and dispersal movements, and they contributed to the support of prey species. "30 "Additionally, a more heterogeneous landscape characterized by an interspersion of forest and non forest patches may be more favorable to the production of prey species including white-tailed deer (Odocoileus viriginianus) and wild hogs (Sus scrofa), or perhaps prey ambush success isgreater under such conditions."31 "The model accounts for spatial error in the telemetry data by allowing for inclusion of other natural or disturbed cover types inclose proximity to forest patches. This model was needed as a basis for delineating boundaries around a landscape that links together the most important components of panther habitat with intervening cover types (e.g. agricultural and pasture lands) present in the landscape."32 The other statement that the FWF representative uses to support her organization's claim that agricultural lands do not provide functional habitat is the following statement from page 89-90 of the USFWS's Florida Panther Recovery Plan33: "The Secondary Zone consists of lands that have the potential to support an expanding population. However, these lands contain lower quality habitat comprised of high intensity agriculture, a patchwork of residential subdivisions, and golf course communities. Restoration would need to occur in order to allow this area to contribute meaningfully to panther recovery." While the FWF representative acknowledged that farm fields do "have value for panthers and other wildlife," she also claimed that "cleared farm fields do have a less environmental value than a forested natural area and even if the cleared farm field are designated as primary panther habitat through the Kautz model they're simply not functioning as panther habitat and without restoration they are not serving the intent of the primary zone as described by Kautz." This claim by FWF is wildly inaccurate and not supported by the Kautz et al study, as shown in the study's quotes provided above. We also note for the record that the agricultural fields at issue for these projects have been cleared and farmed for more than 40 years. When Kautz and his associates classified cleared agricultural lands as Primary Zone, it was not a mistake and there has not been a change of use on these lands since that study. 30 Kautz, et al. (2006) How much is enough? Landscape —scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation 130, p. 122. 31 Kautz, et al. (2006) How much is enough? Landscape —scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation 130, p. 128. 32 Kautz, et al. (2006) How much is enough? Landscape —scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation 130, p. 122. 33 US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008. "Florida Panther Recovery Plan, 3`d Revision." p. 89-90. Page 14 of 16 Furthermore, it is inaccurate to assume that just because parts of the Secondary Zone consist of agricultural lands that need to be restored to contribute to panther recovery, that agricultural lands within the Primary Zone are not functional as panther habitat. There are farm fields that are within the Secondary Zone and farm fields that were specifically delineated within the Primary Zone. The following are statements from Kautz et al. (2006) which refute FWF's assertion that agricultural lands within the Primary Zone must be restored in order to provide habitat for the panther: "The Primary Zone is the most important of the three zones identified in this project because preservation of these lands will contribute most to the long-term persistence of the Florida panther in the wild."34 "Thus, it appears that the Primary Zone, a large landscape consisting of a matrix of natural and disturbed cover types, provides just enough space to support a population that is barely viable demographically as long as the habitat base remains stable... The Primary Zone takes on additional significance in that it supports the only known breeding panther population, a population that should be viewed as the essential foundation for one of three self-sustaining populations needed for the recovery of the species. "35 Below is a map showing the Primary Zone area in pink. GIS shape files were provide through the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Nearly all lands within Longwater and Bellmar are agricultural lands, but they are also within Primary Zone panther habitat. It is our responsibility to follow the science for panther survival and recovery, not to undermine or second guess the clear meaning of this best available science. 34 Kautz, et al. (2006) How much is enough? Landscape —scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation 130, p. 129. 35 Ibid. Page 15 of 16 Collier County Planning Commission 3/4/2021 Hearing: Longwater and Bellmar SRA Villages Norm Marshal SmartMobility, Inc. Preliminary Cost Allocation $125 Million Not Covered (2019 $) Randall Blvd Oil Well Rd VBR Ext to 16th St NE VBR Ext to Everglades VBR Exp to Big Cypress Big Cypress Parkway (Oil Well Rd to VBR Ext only) Everglades Blvd 5 intersections Total allocated cost Approved mitigation fees Impact fees (preliminary) Not covered $ 2.8 $ 8.2 $ 6.2 $ 34.4 $ 51.6 $ 12.7 $ 3.2 $ 1.7 $ 19.3 $ 36.8 $ 7.4 $ 16.2 $ 16.4 $ 81.0 $ 121.0 $ 0.3 $ 5.6 $ 5.9 $ 18.2 $ 30.0 $ 9.3 $ 9.3 $ 9.3 $ 9.3 $ 37.3 $ 8.2 $ 16.5 $ 16.5 $ - $ 41.2 $ 6.0 $ 4.5 $ 5.6 $ 105.9 $ 122.0 $ 4.3 $ 4.3 $ 4.3 $ 72.7 $ 85.5 $ 51.0 $ 67.8 $ 65.9 $ 340.8 $ 525.4 $ 0.2 $ 0.6 $ 2.2 $ 18.0 $ 18.7 $ 19.8 $ 56.5 $ 32.9 $ 48.4 $ 43.8 $ 125.1 Impact Fees Are Not Covering the Costs of Roadway Expansion • From collieronecenttax.com: • Why aren't impact fees being used for the identified transportation projects? • Impact fees are being used but the collection of these fees is not keeping pace with the need. • The current impact fee collections are not keeping pace with the need and do not cover the cost of these roadway projects which have an approximate total shortfall of $114M. It would take 9.5 years to cover this shortfall with impact fee collections, assuming no new projects. Impact Fees Particularly Underestimate Costs of Serving Longwater and Bellmar • Fee formula assumes average trip length of 5.88 miles but average RLSA trip is considerably longer • Fee formula assumes 40% of travel will be on state roads and Interstates but much less of RLSA travel will be on these roads • Combination of these two factors makes cost of providing service to RLSA roughly twice the average Collier County conditions used to set the fees Impact Fees Never Cover 100% of the Cost Example: Randall Blvd Between 8t" St NE and Everglades Blvd 1400 Traffic volume growing slowly 1300 Long -Range Transportation Plan fu 1200 (LRTP) calls for widening from 2 1100 Trend lanes to 4 lanes Q capacity 2030-2035 at cost Of $51.57 million in O Y 1000 2019 $ Q 900 E30C 2016 2022 2028 2034 Impact Fees Never Cover 100% of the Cost Example: Randall Blvd Between 8t" St NE and Everglades Blvd U 1X111181 1300 1200 c 0 U 4J Y 1100 a� Q 0 Y 1000 M Q M E:19191 2016 2034 • Traffic volume growing slowly • Long -Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) calls for widening from 2 mn+ Rivergrass lanes to 4 lanes Trend 2030-2035 at cost Of Capacity $51.57 million in 2019 $ • Adding traffic from Traffic Impact Statements Impact Fees Never Cover 100% of the Cost Example: Randall Blvd Between 8t" St NE and Everglades Blvd U 0E11181 1300 1200 c 0 U N Y 1100 v Q D 0 Y 1000 v 900 - 800 2016 2022 2028 2034 • Traffic volume growing slowly • Long -Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) calls for some+Longwater widening from 2 mmmw+ Rivergrass lanes to 4 lanes Trend 2030-2035 at cost Of Capacity $51.57 million in 2019 $ • Adding traffic from Traffic Impact Statements Impact Fees Never Cover 100% of the Cost Example: Randall Blvd Between 8t" St NE and Everglades Blvd U 1X111181 1300 1200 c 0 U 4J Y 1100 Q 0 Y 1000 M a� Q M E:19191 2016 2028 2034 • Traffic volume growing slowly • Long -Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) calls for mom+Bellmar widening from 2 am�+ Longwater lanes to 4 lanes mom+ Rivergrass 2030-2035 at cost Of Trend $51.57 million in Capacity 2019 $ • Adding traffic from Traffic Impact Statements Calculating Proportionate Share (called "Fair Share" in Collier County Guidelines) • Florida Concurrency Statute: "The proportionate - share contribution shall be calculated based upon the number of trips from the proposed development expected to reach roadways during the peak hour from the stage or phase being approved, divided by the change in the peak hour maximum service volume ...:' Randall Blvd Between 81" St NE and Everglades Blvd 3 Villages Proportionate Share Would Cover Only 1/3 of Cost Rivergrass 60 5% $ 2.8 Longwater 174 16% $ 8.2 Bellmar 132 12% $ 6.2 County 67% $ 34.4 Applicant Lowballs the Costs Lowball Strategy 1 Lowball Strategy 2 Lowball Strategy 3 Assume capacity will be exceeded with or without project Assume capacity will be constructed with or without project Do the calculation wrong No responsibility No responsibility Underestimate impact and assert this is covered by impact fees Collier Enterprises Should Pay 100% of Cost of Big Cypress Parkway • letter from Deputy County Manager to Collier Enterprises dated November 1, 2018 states: • "... Your own traffic study identifies a significant amount of internal capture within the SRA. In basic terms, the Big Cypress Parkway is a required facility for RLW. Historically, other large developments have built four lane collector roadways and then conveyed them at no cost to the County for maintenance. These developments are still under construction today; such as the Vineyards, Pelican Bay, and Lely. Vineyards Boulevard, Pelican Bay Boulevard, Grand Lely Drive and Lely Cultural Parkway are all four -lane roadways built by the developers and conveyed to the County at no charge with the landscaping maintained by the HOA/CDD..." Operations and Maintenance Not Covered by Impact Fees 2020 Collier County Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities (AUIR): "As the system expands, there is a growing need to focus on attention on the condition of existing facilities and the demand for Operations and Maintenance (O&M) funding... Historical funding for O&M has not addressed industry standards for anticipated life -cycles which are 6 to 8 years for urban roadways and 12 to 15 years for rural roadways... Complicating this issue is the reliance on impact fees as directed by our "growth pays for growth" policy which can only be used to add additional capacity or new lane miles to the system." Projected Severe Immokalee Road Traffic Congestion is an Avoidable Train Wreck • 2020 AU I R forecasts deficiencies when growth is added • Livingston Rd to 1-75 2028 • 1-75 to Logan Blvd 2025 • Logan Blvd to Collier Blvd 2027 • Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd 2021 • Wilson Blvd to Oil Well Rd 2028 • LRTP includes some intersection improvements but not enough to address these deficiencies • Very expensive to increase capacity on 6 and 8-lane arterials • Best practice to prevent the deficiencies Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan • The County Commission ... shall not approve any petition or application that ... significantly impacts a roadway segment ... that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the 5 year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved:' (p. 14) Preliminary Cost Allocation $125 Million Not Covered (2019 $) Randall Blvd Oil Well Rd VBR Ext to 16th St NE VBR Ext to Everglades VBR Exp to Big Cypress Big Cypress Parkway (Oil Well Rd to VBR Ext only) Everglades Blvd 5 intersections Total allocated cost Approved mitigation fees Impact fees (preliminary) Not covered $ 2.8 $ 8.2 $ 6.2 $ 34.4 $ 51.6 $ 12.7 $ 3.2 $ 1.7 $ 19.3 $ 36.8 $ 7.4 $ 16.2 $ 16.4 $ 81.0 $ 121.0 $ 0.3 $ 5.6 $ 5.9 $ 18.2 $ 30.0 $ 9.3 $ 9.3 $ 9.3 $ 9.3 $ 37.3 $ 8.2 $ 16.5 $ 16.5 $ - $ 41.2 $ 6.0 $ 4.5 $ 5.6 $ 105.9 $ 122.0 $ 4.3 $ 4.3 $ 4.3 $ 72.7 $ 85.5 $ 51.0 $ 67.8 $ 65.9 $ 340.8 $ 525.4 $ 0.2 $ 0.6 $ 2.2 $ 18.0 $ 18.7 $ 19.8 $ 56.5 $ 32.9 $ 48.4 $ 43.8 $ 125.1 Collier County Planning Commission 3/4/2021 Hearing: Longwater and Bellmar SRA Villages Norm Marshal SmartMobility, Inc. March 11, 2021 Collier County Planning Commission Dear Commissioners: smart 0 mobility Thank you for listening to my presentation regarding Longwater and Bellmar on March 41". I am writing to summarize two of the most important points I made at the hearing and to ensure my comments are entered into the record for both developments: 1) Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element and RLSAO Policy 4.14 of the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan require that the Longwater and Bellmar applications be denied. Policy 5.1 states: The County Commission ... shall not approve any petition or application that ... significantly impacts a roadway segment ... that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the 5 year AU1R planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. Policy 4.14 states: No SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA designation. The Longwater and Bellmar applications were based on the 2019 AUIR. In the 2019 AUIR, three segments of Immokalee Road are shown as deficient in 2024 (i.e. within 5 years). The segments are: • Logan Boulevard to Collier Boulevard, • Collier Boulevard to Wilson Boulevard, and • Wilson Boulevard to Oil Well Road. The 2020 AUIR shows the Immokalee Road segment from Collier Boulevard to Wilson Boulevard as deficient in 2021—this year. It will be very difficult and expensive to address traffic growth on Immokalee Road. Collier County approved a new 2045 Long -Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) in December 2020. This LRTP modeling process included analyzing a series of 6 roadway alternatives to solve as many future congestion problems as possible. As shown in the figure below, Immokalee Road is the primary Collier County road east of 1-75 where the LRTP was unable to adequately address future congestion. Longwater and Bellmar should be denied because they cause significant traffic impacts to deficient Immokalee Road. DRAFT— privileged and confidential Figure 1 Collier County LRTP Network Deficiency Plot (from LRTP Figure A-9) 4 -- =- Key: Red extremely deficient (V/C > 1.15), Orange deficient (V/C 1.0 to 1.15) and Yellow barely adequate L Fr 1 (V/C 0.9 to 1.0). The blue highlights in the figure show planned MPO road expansion projects which are generally designed to serve development as discussed below. 2) RLSAO Policy 4.18 of the Future Land Use Element and Section 4.08.07.E of the Land Development Code requires that the Longwater and Bellmar applications be denied. Policy 4.18 states: The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year. Section 4.08.07.E states: Each SRA must demonstrate that its development, as a whole, will be fiscally neutral or positive to the Collier County tax base. It is often stated in Collier County that "growth pays for growth" but growth generally does not pay for related road capacity. This was illustrated clearly in the messaging for the recent Collier County sales tax vote: Why aren't impact fees being used for the identified transportation projects? • Impact fees are being used but the collection of these fees is not keeping pace with the need. • The current impact fee collections are not keeping pace with the need and do not cover the cost of these roadway projects, which have an approximate total shortfall of $114M. It would take 9.5 years to cover this shortfall with impact fee collections, assuming no new projects. (collieronecenttax.com). Developers pay impact fees based on average travel per residence in Collier County today. This impact fee schedule is based on Collier County as whole, and therefore underestimates the costs of serving Longwater and Bellmar by roughly a factor of 2 because: • the impact fee schedule is based on an average trip length of 5.88 miles and the average Longwater and Bellmar trip will be considerably longer given the isolated locations, and 2 DRAFT- privileged and confidential • the impact fee formula assumes that 40% of the travel will be on state and Interstate roads, and a much smaller fraction of Longwater and Bellmar travel will be on these roads. Furthermore, impact fees will never cover the entire cost of roadway expansion because they are only intended to pay for the portion used by development. For example, if a road must be expanded from 2 lanes to 4 lanes to serve development, but the development technically only uses half of the added capacity, the County must pay for the other half. Ultimately, the fact that growth does not pay for growth is obscured by the County's planning process which starts by assuming that development will occur. For example, the County plans a road expansion to serve a future development. Then, when development is proposed, the developer argues that the road expansion was planned anyway, and therefore it does not need to pay for any portion of the expansion. This is documented in the Collier County 2040 LRTP Amendment Adoption Report (approved May 25, 2018) which states: The Collier MPO has begun an analysis in order to consider amending the transportation needs resulting from a reallocation of population and employment growth within the limits of the proposed Rural Lands West Stewardship Receiving Area. (p. 1). This general approach of planning road expansion based on developers' planned future projects is continued into the recently adopted 2045 LRTP. As shown in Figure 2, the LRTP roadway expansion plan is predicated on the development of Rivergrass and Longwater. Notably, however, Bellmar was not included. If Bellmar had been included, the LRTP would have shown deficiencies on Desoto Boulevard or included full funding for the Big Cypress Parkway instead of the partial funding included. Figure 2: Dwelling Unit Growth Areas (from LRTP Figure 2-4) DRAFT— privileged and confidential Alarmingly, I estimate that the impact fees for the Longwater and Bellmar Villages are approximately $92.2 million less than the true cost of the Villages' proportionate share in 2019 dollars. (The construction costs and collected impact fees both will be greater in nominal dollars in the future, but these factors offset each other.) Preliminary Cost Allocation (2019 $) Randall Blvd $ 2.8 $ 8.2 $ 6.2 $ 34.4 $ 51.6 Oil Well Rd $ 12.7 $ 3.2 $ 1.7 $ 19.3 $ 36.8 VBR Ext to 16th St NE $ 7.4 $ 16.2 $ 16.4 $ 81.0 $ 121.0 VBR Ext to Everglades $ 0.3 $ 5.6 $ 5.9 $ 18.2 $ 30.0 VBR Exp to Big Cypress $ 9.3 $ 9.3 $ 9.3 $ 9.3 $ 37.3 Big Cypress Parkway (Oil Well Rd to VBR Ext only) $ 8.2 $ 16.5 $ 16.5 $ - $ 41.2 Everglades Blvd $ 6.0 $ 4.5 $ 5.6 $ 105.9 $ 122.0 5 intersections $ 4.3 $ 4.3 $ 4.3 $ 72.7 $ 85.5 Total allocated cost $ 51.0 $ 67.8 $ 65.9 $ 340.8 $ 525.4 Approved mitigation fees $ 0.2 $ 0.6 $ 2.2 Impact fees (preliminary) $ 18.0 $ 18.7 $ 19.8 $ 56.5 Not covered $ 32.9 $ 48.4 $ 43.8 $ 125.1 Longwater and Bellmar should be denied because transportation impact fees would be grossly inadequate to pay for the roadway capacity required to serve them, and Collier County residents would need to make up the difference. Sincerely Norman L. Marshall 4 DRAFT- privileged and confidential CONSERVANCY l� of Southwest Florida Winn, OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Protecting Southwest Florida's unique natural environment and quality of life ... now and forever. CONSERVANCY OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA SOCIAL LINK: ADDRESS: Facebook.com/ConservancySWF 1495 Smith Preserve Way Twitter.com/ConservancySWFL Naples, FL34102 239.262.0304 www.conservancy.org f Other issues we will addr gWdier ana 6eiimar viiiag Issues addressed in our comment letter: resig'ns arm inconsist -with G-IWP/LDC Projecti�'&Wff'��'"�f`�e� RLSA foal: incompatible zy uses are dk—ectea toward__Ied s, ecies s H55e55rMenIL yr riscaiiy neutral Water and wa��"� ater mitigation habit - TOWN AGREEMENT: Is this an admission that the villages are not self-sufficient and are bad for Collier County 0 0 Each SRA MUST demonstrate that concurrency will be achieved at approval and must be fiscally neutral irrespective of Town Agreement. Timing is Key, but the Town Agreement gives empty promises: "There shall be no timing conditions placed on the timing of the development of the Town Core which will be developed based on market conditions." CONSERVANCY Of Southwest Florida ,M OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Longwater and Bellmar Villages must be Fiscally Neutral COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT Prepared by ColliarCou my Planning and 7aning ❑epagrnant Comprahansivs Planning Section Prepared for COLLIERCOUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Adopted October, 1997 CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida IM'ST. 0UR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. RLSA Overlay Policy 4.18 "The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year based on a public facilities impact assessment": Longwater and Bellmar Villages must be Fiscally Neutral RLSA Overlay Policy 4.18 'At a minimum, the assessment shall II consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools': CONSERVANCY Of Southwest Florida "111010- OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Who paid for the Town of Ave Maria's Water and Sewer systems? Photo Credit: My Sky Aerials - YouTube L714 CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. On September 11, 2018, as Agenda Item 17.F, the Board adopted a resolution expanding the CCWSD"s service area to coincide with the unincorporated area permitted by Chapter 2003-353, Laws of Florida." 2019 AU I R, p. 63 Collier County Water -Sewer District Current and Future Potable Water Service Areas (2019 AUIR) R 25 S R 26 5 R 27 S I R 28 S R 29 S U) 0 ®@ Immokalee Water ■won ®oano©®aam o®®Nunn ®®®m®®n Milan ONE 0 �0®EI®m®NL ®®0®® ®WIN: "on m®®®�® ®©0!1 0"� I®@� nm0■0 100NF1 imam 0®L'--- man MangumI i� Big Cypress Cityof Naples R30S Legend Regional Water Service Area Served by Others Excluded From CCWSD by Special Act Stewardship District Jurisdictional Boundary A o 1 5 10 Miles Figure PW-1 a 4 j s SteWardshipil e un( aray p - Av 4 -rW A 'n- CONSERVANCY R25S of Southwest Florida N 10- OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. 0 1 3 -�A New Northeast Service Area (NESA) treatment facilities for water and v H wastewater designed to serve: • Rivergrass Village • Longwater Village • Bellmar Village • IRRV Village • Hyde Park Village • Hogan Island Village (cancelled) Current and Future Wastewater Service Areas R26S R27S R28S R29S 5 8 10 6 Miles PA Legend North Collier Wastewater Service Area South Collier Wastewater Service Area Golden Gate Wastewater Service Area Northeast Wastewater Service Area Orange Tree Wastewater Service Area Future Wastewater Service Area — Sewer Connection Area Served by Others © Excluded From CCWSD by Special Act 0 District Boundary g4-mw' " City of Naples R30S x . Immokalee Water & Sewer District LI I I ILL 6 I s Ave Maria (2020 AUIR) in r "WHEREAS, the District [BCSD] also has statutory ft[rREENIEIIT TO PRO V11)E. A F�RwAmYwATmINDIRIzI( [-ft)N ATmL=)Authority p Y to provide utility - I'HiS TNTERLOC_AI. A0 R#;.FMENT ("Agrzernrm") is made end c: Services within certain day or __, 2021 by and between the Board of Cuwli Col 11er County. Florida, acting ex-offimio as the Goveming Board of the C Sewer Disvlrn (hereinafter referred to as ihn -CCWSD-), flit' aoal,d of Sul designated areas of the Cypress Stewardship Disuict (hereinafter referred w as the " District" ), CD( LLC and Collier land llio]dings, Ltd- (licrcinaf[er referred to a� "E andownti District" -*Y, REC:I'f'ALS: 'WHEREAS, Sect;ari 163.01(4), Florida Staturos, the Florida into 4rsl Cooperation Act 4 or] 969(thc"Act"),authori-res the join[ exerciscofanypower,privilvgco Ihrnritythat the public agcmics involvedbereintnightexercise soparatclyt and ►NHEREAS, the C:CWSI? and the District arc public tgenci ithin the meaning of the Act and desire to engage in the joint exercise of pow�ar tha# cash mi exercise �ep�ri3t.l>; �� itWHEREAS the District acknowledges the CCWSD's right to offer utility services within the District and further authorizes the CCWSD to WHEREAS, the CCWSD provides water, was#ewate and irrigation water scrvi" (collextive]yknown as"utility services"), in an i!wnomical and romncntally beneficial manner In much nr the unincorporated area of Collier County: and WHEREAS, the Distrir,t also has statutory authority to provide utility services within zhe District, but intends to uutttud= [he C.CWSU to provide utility services within certain designated areas of the District: and W I I h:R V.Ati, the CCWSD's service boundaries encompass the 131striM and Will-:Rl-''AS, the CCWSD shall incorpuratx certain dcsignated ]bracts and propeirty within the District into CCWSD's strviev area to exclusively provide retail potable water, wastewater and irrigation water (including effluent irrigation wa#vr, wficn availablr} utility services in the same manner and pursuant to the same ordinance and policies as CCWSD currently provides service to all other cuslomcrs ;ocatnd thrtwughuul the unittcOrpt,rated service ones Of' Collier County, Florida; and A WHEREAS, the District acknowledges the CC W SQ's right to offer utility scrvicrs within the District: and Cuurthcr authorizes the CCWSD 14 exclusively provide utility services inside a portion of the District's jurisdictional area renown as Longwater Village; and W14FIDVAC th;r Anrnr—m is rntr A-1 rr, —,A.- 1n ,.)r;rinR tk,- rPrrt9a anei ri,nrliiinnc exclusively provide utility services inside a portion of the District's jurisidictional area known as Longwater Village." F -I ■ . 0 41 CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida Me- OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Ali =a.. -•--� $188.5 million* - Costs for new Water and Wastewater treatment plant • Water = $82.5 million Adds treatment capacity for 5 MGD • Wastewater = $106 Million Adds treatment capacity for 4 MGD Sources: Costs for the new water -water water facility were found in the August 20, 2020 Longwater Consistency Review Memorandum. Staff states on p. 11 "The Capital Improvements Element of the Growth Management Plan identifies the phased construction a new regional water treatment plant ($82.5M) and a new water reclamation facility ($106M) at the Northeast Utility Facilities (NEUF) site to support this (and other) development." 2019 Collier County Annual Update and Inventory Report/Capital Improvement Element Schedule Update on Public Facilities provides MGD capacity - p. 66 and p. 98. Max Daily Water and Wastewater Demand for Longwater and Bellmar Potable Water Sources: Rivergrass, Longwater, and Bellmar's SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessments. Note: This includes the potable water and wastewater demand for residential, commercial, and civic uses. Collier County 2020 AUIR/Capital Improvement Element Schedule Update on Public Facilities. Wastewater CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida 10,M OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. What are the costs to provide Water and Sewer to Longwater and Bellmar? Cost of New Plant' New Capacity' Max Daily 3-Day demand Longwater-Bellmar Demand Longwater-Bellmar Share $82.5M $106M $188.5M 5 MGD 2.16 MGD 43% $35.47 M 'August 20, 2020 Longwater Consistency Review Memorandum. 2 Longwater and Bellmar Public Facilities Impact Assessments. CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida UUn VVHI CPS, LHIVU, VVILULIrC, rU I unE. 4 MGD 1.65 MGD 41% $43.46 M What are the COMBINED CO Longwater and Bellmar? Cost of New Plant New Capacity' Longwater-Bellmar Demand Longwater-Bellmar Share CONSERVANCY of Southwest id da M OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. ST- to provide $82.5M 5 MGD 43.2% $35.47 M $10 Water and Sewer to 4 MGD 41% $43.46 M $78.9M Does the impact fee revenue cover the CountV"s costs to provide water and wastewater to Longwater-Belimar? Longwater-Bellmar Share Longwater-Bellmar Impact Fee Revenue' Def icit WATER',WASTE- TOTAL WATER $35.47M $18. 1 M $17.38M $43.46M $17.7M $25.73M 'Calculated using 2,600 housing units (Longwater) and 2,750 (Bellmar) under 2020 Impact Fee Rates. "Impact fee revenue will be even lower should the developer choose to build homes under 1,501 square feet. Calculations are provided in document called" Analysis of fiscal impact Longwater- Bellmaf CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida �,M OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. What is the COMBINED DEFICIT to the County to provide water and wastewater to Longwater and Bellmar? Longwater-Bellmar Share Longwater-Bellmar Impact Fee Revenue' Deficit WATER WASTE- TOTAL - ]! WATER $35.47M $18.1M $17.38M $43.46M $17.7M $25.73M W 'Calculated using 2,600 housing units (Longwater) and 2,750 (Bellmar) under 2020 Irri CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida qm_. f1IIR VUATFR I ONn \A/H nl IFF FIITIIRF $78.9 $35.8M $43ol M Deficit - NOT FISCALLY NEUTRAL But wait — there's more! CCWSD WILL REIMBURSE FUNDS TO BCSD: • $2.7 Million for constructing Longwater's water mains, wastewater mains and irrigation facilities at Point of Connection (POC) • Plus, cost of 5-acre utility site \d. a prepaymen s e a a en curren water and wastewater impact fees: The credit for water and wastewater impact fees identified herein shall be reduced by 50% of the prepayment per ERC for each • Be I I m a is reimbursement? residential unit on a building permit issued thereon until the development is either completed or the credits are exhausted or have been assigned as provided for in the Collier County Impact Fee Ordinance. The developer shall he responsible for any difference between the prepayment amount per ERC and the rate in effect at the time of building permit application submittal. The CCWSD agrees to reimburse the or the cost of the FOC as identified in item 3 and upsizing the transmission mains as identified in item 4 in an amount not to exceed $2,700,000 identified by Schedule C as signed and sealed by the District's Engmeer�Record. e. The CCWSD shall reimburse the District in the amount identified in item 13(d) within 30 days of receipt of the Longwater Village's prepayment. CONSERVANCY 14. This Agreement shall remain in effect until terminated by the CCWSD, the District or the Landowners. Any party may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by of Southwest Florida Providing written notice to the other parties prior to the date that either the CCWSD, the ��__ mIR WATER I ANn IA/H nl IFF RITIIRF 3 IT DOESN'T END THERE .... . $Millions for an interim water and sewer plant 4. New Treatment Capacity is the additional treatment capacity in million gallons per day (MGD) placed into service by the start of the fiscal year through plant constructiorJexpansion- Timing and capacity are tentative and may be adjusted with updates in development forecasts and adoption of developer agreements: Fiscal New Treatment Oom ost Estimates Year Capacity $8M interim WTP, age taints and associated pipelines at the NEUF site to 021 1.5 MD a in the northeast region of the county, outside the Oran etree and orange Blossom ono s, a inrnn inrou $108M Northeast Water Reclamation Facility (NEFtF) at the Northeast Utility Facilities 030 4 MOD NEUF) site to sustain sewer service to customers in the new villages proposed in the Northeast Wastewater Service Area, beginning in FY 2026, to be online la FY 030 The interim WTP at the NEUF site will be decommissioned once the 4 MAD NERF 031 _,I .5 MD is operational_ E uipment taken oftline will be repurposed or sold. CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida �,M OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. 2020 AU I R p. 48 & 76 $28 million for an interim plant CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida M OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Who will pay for this? ➢ $43.1M shortfall in impact fees + ➢ Reimbursements $2.7M + Bellmar?? ➢ Costs for Interim plant? Longwater and Bellmar NOT FISCALLY NEUTRAL R25S F_ Collier County Water -Sewer District Current and Future Potable Water Service Areas (2019 AUIR) R26S R275 I R28S R29S �Y Big Cypress NMI R30S -tea® @�MAN: ®®®110 cn a amm City of Naples � o °� N 4 Figure PW-1 Existing users are not supposed to pay for capital costs considered growth -related PURPOSE OF WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES The purpose of impact fees is to recover the pro-rata share of allocated capital costs that are considered as growth -related from new customers connecting to the System or from existing customers that are requesting an increase in the reserved water and 1 or wastewater capacity associated with increased development on their property. To the extent that new population growth and associated development impose identifiable added capital costs to municipal services, capital funding practices to include the assignment of such costs to those residents or system users responsible for those costs rather than to the existing population base is reasonable and provides for the proper match of initial capital investment to the capacity being reserved. Generally, this practice has been labeled as "growth paying its own way" without existing user crest ur ens. The application a impact ees to inance capital infrastructure allocated to such new capacity requests is very common in Florida and the country and has been used as a source of contributed capital by the District for many years. *Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study p. 2 co*er County M� FISCAL YEAR 2019 WATER AND WASTEWATER IMP CT FEE TUD FOR COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT September 12, 2019 CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida ��,M OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Who paid for the Town of Ave Maria's Water and Wastewater systems? Photo Credit: My Sky Aerials - YouTube CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Potable Water Potable Water; a potable water assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SRA designation Application package. The assessment shall illustrate how the applicant will conform to either FA Chapter 64E 6, for private and limited use water systems, or FAC Chapter 62-555 for Public Water Systems. In addition to the standard requirements of the analyses required above, the potable water assessment shall specifically consider, to the extent applicable, the disposal of waste products, if any, generated by the proposed treatment process. The applicant shall identify the sources of water proposed for potable water supply. Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP, a private utility will construct, operate and maintain the potable water system. This system includes the water supply, treatment, storage and distribution system. Water will be supplied by ground water wells. This raw water will be softened to remove hardness and disinfected to kill water -borne bacteria. Treated water will be stored in above -ground concrete storage tanks until it is pumped into the potable water distribution system. Answer: Ave Maria Utility Company Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP, a private utility will construct, operate and maintain a municipal quality advanced secondary wastewater treatment plant to service Ave Maria. This facility will be designed and permitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in accordance with Chapter 62 -6 00- Domestic Wastewater Facilities, F.A.C. Wastewater will be treated to produce irrigation quality reclaimed water for disposal. This water will be stored in storage ponds until required. A projection of anticipated Source: Town of Ave Maria Impact Assessment Report, p. 3 and 6. 1 wastewater generation is contained in the table below. CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Was Ave Maria Fiscally Neutral for Water and Sewer - - n--�r -4 Longwater and Bellmar must also be be fiscally neutral. The applicant must be held accountable to pay their fair share of construction costs for water and sewer. Something else to consider, How long will capacity from the new facility last? Added Water Treatment Capacity - 5 MGD Collier County Water -Sewer District Current and Future Wastewater Service Areas R25S I R26S N A o 1 3 5 R 27S 8 10 � Miles Legend North Collier Wastewater Service Area South Collier Wastewater Service Area Golden Gate Wastewater Service Area Northeast Wastewater Service Area Orange Tree Wastewater Service Area Future Wastewater Service Area Sewer Connection Area Served by Others 0 Excluded From CCWSD by Special Act Q District Boundary 9i.�-mu0®0©®■■ Longwater Village 1.05 MGD Bellmar Village 1.11 MGD Rivergrass Village 1.19 MGD IRRV Village 1.94 MGD Hyde Park Village .44 MGD Total 5.73 MGD (Exceeds Added Capacity) 110 �ww IonO ® ®o■ NEI 210010111111 Longwater I® Village Bellmar Village .85 MGD I� lows wr= -- 1 Ire®®■ ®■��:�� , , Village Im■®Rivergrass Village .98 MGD ®W®®®::®� Hyde Park Village .34 MGD ®� �®■®01®®I ®901011mmmi Total 4.57 MGD (Exceeds .. - . Capacity) Sources: Rivergrass, Longwater and Bellmar's SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessments — latest versions (Maximum daily 3-day potable water and waste water demand). Immokalee Road Rural Village Public Facilities Report Exhibit V.E.1 (Peak demand). Data for Hyde Park provided by Collier County Public Utilities Department staff on January 29, 2021., but based on average MGD, not max daily 3-day capacity which would be higher. How does longwater and Bellmar attempt to circumvent the GMPs requirement for fiscal neutrality of water -wastewater impactsZongwaterVIllageSIRA Economic Assessment "The impacts of self-supporting funds (e.g. enterprise funds) were not included in this analysis as is typical in fiscal impact analysis. Utility rates and capacity fees are established through independent studies. Public utilities generally benefit from economies of scale (i.e. more customers) since rate structures are dependent upon recovering fixed infrastructure costs." cA Sources: Longwater Village SRA Economic Assessment, DPFG, August 6, 2020, p 7-8; Bellmar Imo', Co Five .. u &,Ilm, TX Orlond , FL Village SRA Economic Assessment, DPFG, January 8, 2021, p. 7-8 5eranmkk CA ac'w.1D 4aIha. TX Las Vegas, NV Tom, FL R-smarA T*iangle, NC CoIFier County Collier County Schools North Collier Fire & Rescue initial Submission: November 11, 2D2L9 REMSed: March 11, 21320 Added 15,G}0sq- ft. Cnmmereial Roads Errrer@erwy Medial ser,rices Water andL 3stEYa1M-.f ReAsed: may24, 2020 Roads- Narrddye Only Re,rised. August 6, 2020 Reads — Fair Share Mrtip6m DPFG YI -h51 wi r- •'.Y1MI'3 & +INANC-NG ON4Ja INC 5W $43.1 Million — Deficit for providing Water CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. �.. and Wastewater to Longwater and Bellmar • Who is going to pay for the new NE Utility Facility expansion? • Where is the $coming from? • Who will pay back the bonds they are issuing? • Why grant CEM lucrative development rights without requiring them to pay their fair share? r ism. _ i dt j 1 1 RT Or . y F ti T PAW - } •� - i 1 Awl- - dir I Y. J�••►�t�• r���ior f !11 Int�i r 1 Longwater and Bellmar's Economic Assessments underestimate population. More People = Higher costa-- for services ERVANCY ,west Florida iND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. I CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida Ift. OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Longwater Village proposes to be a hotspot for Collier County's singles! Appendix Table 3: Longwater Population and Employment Estimates Pea k Land Use by Impact Fee Category Residential Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached Total SFD r 4,000 Sq Ft Total Residential Units Seasonal Persons Per Unit Peak Seasonal Population Permanen Population Per Unit Permanent Population 1,097 1.26 1,383 1,05 1,152 1,503 2.65 3,990 2.21 3,325 2,600 5,373 ji 4,477 Longwater Economic Assessment, August 6, 2020. p. 36 CONSERVANCY S th t Fl ' d of ou weo on a M10- OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Bellmar's Economic Assessment provides Appendix Table B: Bellmar Population and Employment Estimates Bellmar Economic Assessment, August 6, Permanent Population Per Unit: 1.05 and (MF) 2.21 (SF) Longwater's Economic Assessment: "Persons per housing unit by product type and square feet per employee for the nonresidential land uses were obtained from the County's 2016 Emergency Medical Services Impact Fee Update, the most recent source" DPFG p. 7 CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida IS- OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Qrongn C�n.I yr, CA L}rlrre.•, 0 �4roenu , +lf Avilii-, D Orlando, FL Sar.rwtmkk CA Go'60. Ili L',elhs. TX Lns Agar, M! To-m, FL R-mmarA Tingle, NC Longwater Village SRA Economic Assessment Collier County Collier County Schools North Collier Fire & Rescue nitial submission: NowenrAer 11, an!; Rerised: March 11, zozi2 Added 15,030sq. ft. Wmxwfdai Roads anerg wyMedical5ennces V, Mw and Waztewater Revised- May 24,2412D AAadS- Narrati.e Onhy Revised: AUZUA6,202G Roads - Fair Share Mitlgatb n DPFG -r VY .'�.Mh 41 Y a .v 1. i .—. -. ..•�, �. , Co I I Ref County Emergency Medir-al Services rn pact FE! E! Upd-a tE! St u Final Report Coder C.,Pcumty AnwWwfay- "wry .29M Hmeshae 00m AL FL.M04 p?�. t2a9a 252183 92 Ddwtpbr,M ZDJG „rhd21w LDOOAshlo' 110ff_ 57nda 4DD Taff4oq Ft 3-:TmM OL reEV ZMafffiZftv M3a U&ZHE Where did the 2016 EMS Impact fee Study get their data to determine persons per housing unit? "This analysis utilized national data from the 2011 American Housing Survey (AHS) and data from the 2013 American Community Survey (ACS)"" (p. B-3) CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida M OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. WE FOUND A MORE F'dAl� RECENT SOURCE: DtV��DPFG 1 PR 1.05 Persons per MF /2.21 Persons per SF Which document shows more persons per household?CeoiL-i ... ,O ,-r Ceouvtty Description 21119 M er Plan t! pdate I 1 2.2 — aced Population Model . 6 persons per house h�ld — B EB R � . perso — . :Cemn . � � persons per h �usch�l� — � l � - � 1 � U.S. Census Projections cctior�s CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida ,M OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Source: Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study for Collier County Water Sewer District, September 12, 2019, p. 9 Most recent source for Persons Per housing Unit: Collier MPO 2045 Long Range Transportation December 2020 • Data from 2017 CIGM & 2018-2019 BEER CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida IftM OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. P. 8 (footnote 1) of 2015 LRTP Technical Compendium shows data for BEBR is from 2018-2019 and CIGM data from 2017. TECHNICAL COMPENDIUM DECEMBER 2020 ob a Average household size for Permanent population= 2.01 to 2.50 (Longwater) / 2.51 to 3.00 (Bellmar) it i JIi11m1ie�a l "Population estimates and forecasts in travel models count the number of permanent residents in a manner similar to the U.S. Census Bureau. Seasonal residents are not included in the population totals;" p. 18 M Average Household Size in 2045 1.00 to 2.00 p6mona 2 01 to 2.50 psr4one 2 51 to 3.00 persons - 3 01 to 3.75 perauni 3 T4 pers[ans and aGnvr Major roads mile Collier County boundary = Gulf of Memos Source: Collier MPO 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan, Technical Cok peridi m, p. 22. Th document fur r explains: "the dwelling units they tabulated, but are identified as 'vacant' along with divellings that are vocan r other reaso s such as being up for e for rent." py seasona►i Let's compare .. . DPFG's Estimate CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Estimate using MPO's 2045 LRTP data Longwater 41477 Longwater 51876 Bellmar 41763 Bellmar 7,590 Total 9, 240 Tota I 13,466 Both villages use: 1.05 PPU for MF and 2.21 for SF Average 2.26 PU for Longwater and 2.76 for Bellmar Econ. Assessments underestimate Permanent Population by 4,226 *Excludes seasonal population and employment, which will increase total population. Calculations using LRTP data are based on same number of MF and SF homes provided in Longwater and Bellmar's economic assessments. Data from 2045 LRTP Technical Compendium p. 18 and 22. Calculation sheet showing work to be provided to Board. Now let's compare using 2020 AUIR data .. . DPFG Combined Longwater-Bellmar Populations: CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida Me- OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. 2020 AUIR: (2.5 average PPH used to estimate LOS for water and wastewater) 9,240 Combined Permanent Population vs. 13,375 combined population M 11,056 Combined Peak Seasonal Population (based on 2.5 PPH and same # of MF & SF homes; AUIR does not state if 2.5 PPH is based on permanent or seasonal population) No matter how you look at it, DPFG underestimates population. Sources: P. 43 and Footnote (1) on page 64 of 2020 AUIR shows that the county used an average of 2.5 persons per household to estimate Level of Service Standard for water and wastewater; Residential Seasonal Population Estimates found on p. 36 of Longwater Village SRA Economic Assessment, Revised August 6, 2020 and p. 39 of Bellmar Village SRA Economic Assessment, Revised November 12, 2020. Longwater's seasonal population provided is 5,373/ Bellmar 5,683. The Seasonal populations in DPFGs combined economic assessments of 5,373 for Longwater and 5,83 for Bellmar = 11,056. Calculations are based on same number of MF and SF homes provided in Longwater and Bellmar's economic assessments. A FISCA o account � ese service ERVANCY west Florida �, ND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. r J LLY N''ORAL: f 4 or , so 226 1% -"'. Tj nu LONGWATER-BELLMAR NOT Economic Assessments fail t more folks who will need th r COWER COuny am i Longwater and Bellmar Villages must be Fiscally Neutral Ab RLSA Overlay Policy 4.18 "The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County ..... At a minimum, the assessment shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools." RLSA Overlay Policy 4.14: "The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. No SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector ur arena► rvaa(sj servIny one .3rsH ►s aernunsLraLea w ive aaequMe 1" uccuiuunce with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA am designation." • r - IW - 3 Traffic impacts: Vacuum approach vs. cumulative approach 0 Longwater and Bellmaf s traffic impacts when When background traffic from applicant s reviewed individually: other villages are added: Randall Blvd from Everglades Blvd to DeSoto Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Collier Blvd to Logan Blvd Golden Gate Blvd from Everglades Blvd to DeSoto Blvd Randall Blvd from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd Vanderbilt Beach Road from Collier Blvd to Logan Blvd Golden Gate Blvd from Everglades Blvd to DeSoto Blvd Oil Well Rd from Immokalee Rd to Everglades Blvd DeSoto Blvd from Randall Blvd to 18t" Ave NE Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Wilson Blvd to Collier Blvd Golden Gate Blvd from Wilson Blvd to 16t" St NE Golden Gate Blvd from 16t" St NE to Everglades Blvd Golden Gate Blvd from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd. Immokalee Rd from Logan Blvd to Collier Blvd Immokalee Rd from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd. Source: Bellmar Village SRA — TIS — Section 2, Intersection Analysis, August 2020, p. 14. Submittal 5 -Traffic Impact Statement Bellmar SRA Section 1— Impacts to Roadway Network, Road Segment Analysis, 8/19/20 p. 24; Traffic Impact Statement Longwater SRA. Section 1— Impacts to Roadway Network — Road Segment Analysis, 8/4/2020, p.24; Traffic Impact Statement Longwater SRA Section 2 — Intersection Analyses. May 29, 2020, p. 13/352. Traffic impacts: Vacuum approach vs. cumulative approach r Longwa er and Bellmaf Mffiffic"imTts pawhen When Cc"geroundraffic from app scant s other 'viewed individually; Randall Blvd from Everglades Blvd to DeSoto Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Collier Blvd to Logan Golden Gate Blvd from Everglades Blvd to DeSoto Blvd villages are added: Randall Blvd from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd Vanderbilt Beach Road from Collier Blvd to Logan Blvd Golden Gate Blvd from Everglades Blvd to DeSoto Blvd Oil Well Rd from Immokalee Rd to Everglades Blvd DeSoto Blvd from Randall Blvd to 18t" Ave NE Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Wilson Blvd to Collier Blvd Golden Gate Blvd from Wilson Blvd to 16t" St NE Golden Gate from Collier to Wilson Blvd. Applicant purports to be paying for these Golden Gate Blvd from 16t" St NE to Everglades Blvd impacts Immokalee Rd from Logan Blvd to Collier Blvd Immokalee Rd from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd. _NE�P"ERVANCY of Southwest Florida 11101W IRUR WATER, LAND, W E, FUT 'E. ,� 6 Traffic impacts: Vacuum approach vs. cumulative approach _ongw� and Bellm��a is impacts w en 11Mr Wh� bac cgroun raff c from app i�nt s other 'viewed individually: Randall Blvd from Everglades Blvd to DeSoto Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Collier Blvd to Logan Golden Gate Blvd from Everglades Blvd to DeSoto Blvd Applicant is not paying for these impacts villages are added: Randall Blvd from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd Vanderbilt Beach Road from Collier Blvd to Logan Blvd Golden Gate Blvd from Everglades Blvd to DeSoto Blvd Oil Well Rd from Immokalee Rd to Everglades Blvd DeSoto Blvd from Randall Blvd to 18t" Ave NE Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Wilson Blvd to Collier Blvd Golden Gate Blvd from Wilson Blvd to 16t" St NE Golden Gate from Collier to Wilson Blvd. Golden Gate Blvd from 16t" St NE to Everglades Blvd Immokalee Rd from Logan Blvd to Collier Blvd Immokalee Rd from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd. UON3ERVAN Y Southwest Florida IMAf UR WATER, LAND, W E, FUT 'E. .- . Longwater and Bellmar Villages are N, Fiscally Neutral for impacts to transportation facilities 1 'ONSERVANCY f Southwest Florida OUR WATE&,D, WItDtIFE, FUTURE. -' .._- How else can a project appear to have on the County's roadway network? MMIF.�� � - s � • B 4-0 04 111: crl Y-A MIdIlle and Audubon ErrvifbruXrehii)i Corkscrew Swam; Area Sanclu�iry-DMWNE N I'F:. EAw ' B0rka Springs CREW f cim P'L'rl S1F:ifkd Bird Rookel ti'��lmfl NL.r',h Nd13'et SI LI less of an impact TwinEjgl@!'Sales i DUONer Infnrmarinn C:� 4 at M fVor#h Nfaples `' s „ t k? I T--"- % Map data 04R 1 c{oc . ;NEG. ONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida 10- OUR WATER; LAND, W1L-7LLJFE, FUTURE. .J :M1" RIVERGRASS' TIS ANALYZES TRIP DISTRIBUTION TO '-:: - `. - `s PR�J ECT TRIP LM STRIBUTI��i BY PERCENTAGE 5% AND ANALYZES TRAFFIC ON IMMOKALEE AND Illusuated ps haundaresare s h Y VANDERBILT TO 1-75 AND LIVINGSTON. P:or avlaAl iayout fLftr to &fe pt LS`xF pw! 4. LE ME M E N MEMO A Its O 1'�7. RE3 is YQ7i 3n�aU+w ':r :. €'d Sfr'f■ OM �'4 �O*i �rJ"ti * lid$ i � ft p�¢ �Ek� RES 1`_+� a cry 1 WOO 5% � S% 11 } - i RES 1% [RES 6% • R€S Su. RES ES 5 E3 Sri '�• FkK 5'L OM i� 892157E RES to% Ina C-� 1 � � � � � � � � � i � � ■ � i Is it Is iF i* G7N 5S M ES S$ 3 yUs Es � +1 E$ i�6 RES i Sy4 RCS y SSG RES 10% { R cS 1 rPl. r tc�.,r4 erg• ES '1'L t RES 5'6 :. 'moo gle i �trl N.- t CONSERVANCY Submittal 3 Rivergrass TIS Section 1, 8-5-19 —Project Trip Distribution by Percentage of Southwest Moiida IMINIT. OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION WHY DOES LONGWATER'S TRIP DISTRIBUTION END AT 10% AND WHY DOES IT NOT ANALYZE TRAFFIC ON v r-I; cf NT�%_?E IMMOKALEE ROAD AND VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD core 2U°i. Illustrated project boundaries are whcma;ic only RES 20% Fw actual Iayoct rOer to TO 1-75 OR LI V I N G STO N ? 0% 0°m J y RES 1D9 R EtS�1 V'r6� RES 5°i, r fi imo+den GJOe GUM 5°h <,� Ines is% • . ■ r rt�a+M ■ coin 10% . cam 0% 9 C lA 5°�6 com 5"ti CD6+1 3°n, COLA 10' 1! RES 10° RES 15`h RES IC% * RES 10"b r.ki,Eup1u SON m+d 0 RES 25% � r V-1winao-an Cow.*:Pr > " 3, C61721 *f # i CoM 6% � _ RES 7D lip r LOFJGWATER WESMIr RES 5 ~ �4h COM bu% C76 RES 60% 1�4/1 r + COM 5°fu Ce3M 20"J° RE `J96 FiI<GI15 S 5'io RES '.3° RES 20°lo- 5 ■ r RES 10% CCt#II 2C7°ti pkir : IN IN w w :w a w wi w rr w R ES 21794 uh,re vend*rMit Buah Rrr Estvrut, T� i w w f� CgM106 i COM14F RES 1576 RES 10% COM 5+16 RE5 5�6 COM5r6 RES 2P`% r e I�I �..�} tRES 10°L COM 57 COM 10e10 COM 15% RES 10°� RES is% RES 20% pNi st,� 46rh 9t w T 0� I P r+ Q r+ M. Cr C C 7 Cr M P] M 3 as M CONSERVANCY Map data C2019 Google, INS' � of Southwest Florida Submittal 5-Longwater TIS —Section 1; 8-5-20 Project Trip Distribution by Percentage w4w T. OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. 4 C. (STIR QJFCT TRIP DISTRIBUTION BY PERCENTAGE ikrs ted pmpd acundanesare 5c-.L-mahc only -v amal Uayvit reertD the Rid nia-st r ai WHY DOES BELLMAR'S TRIP DISTRIBUTION END AT 10% AND WHY DOES IT NOT ANALYZE TRAFFIC ON IMMOKALEE ROAD AND VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD TO 1-75 OR LIVINGSTON? CQM 15 CAM 3DSi, a �iJov 11�' RES � rca1n R> 3 111�6 RES 5% IREF. 10% h . id .a.■ Nf RES1DY, _ 1_— — —_ — :— — �— RE + OM % a � R¢r. to% ■ i IRE-5 14`t F � [ 0M d5% RES rAu"Yoh a.■a,# � ' 4----> OM 2ft% lfLES 2G!6 on on i OM 16k C� RES i5� � R1 04L y ■ RES 1(10% M 555a r S% '.♦■iiy■■rk�5 iL RES 1[ C�71-- RS'_ 104'C t .. , d� )k } - I. _< r RES gn + ■ M d0'6 r-um 34`5 17 @5 SOY. ■ ■ RES #0% RES 45a: 1!1<S 44'6 ■ ES 309E RES i'i I # r, r ■ ■ RE5 10`'a ,eu,s� rye BElL1AJ4R 1E �k mser RES 5� 4dll 5°f. Go gle Map data (�D2019 Google, INEGI Submittal 5-Longwater TIS —Section 1; 8-5-20 Project Trip Distribution by Percentage CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida 'S.. OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. ar— Economic Assessments for Longwater and Bellmar estimate the appli cant will build over $1.7 billion worth of property (Nearly $2.5 billion including Rivergrass) "-—� �21�,01 RdLV 0 MID 0.. W TE T - tZ %raw. IFE, The County is getting this We need to be here %�MT, lqmrl ft-W Let's Summarize the issues with Longwater and Belimar ➢ Entire projects in habitat of endangered species . . 0 0 ➢ Designs do not conform to GMP and LDC ➢ $43.1+ Million deficit to Collier County for providing water - wastewater ➢ No mitigation for impacts to 8 road segments (and none for roads that are already impacted) ➢ Underestimation of populations = underestimation of costs for services CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida Protecting Southwest Florida's unique natural environment and quality of life ... now and forever. �,. OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. www.conservancy.org f facebook.com/ConservancySWF (239) 262-0304 twitter.com/ConservancySWFL ADDRESS 1495 Smith Preserve Way — Naples, FL 34134 The Big Picture: Why Does this Matter: The scale of the decision and totality of planning. URBAN Page 2 IL j. 1� Rivergrass i I i i As = i i ., r 1 .'ui • 1 WPs ha -t�r iv ■� { �C Bellmar a Wpdgm=201ma9ery 02020, Landsa:i Copernws.V—Tehnalogim. U.S. GeobgimWSwm I Tams of Use I Report a map erco !!+T J -W rinn Rii•�i af - IL J .. slnylUn'C-6 i`Coiintry Ci L c= e r Neapolitan Way y �' H d.}+i iLrT,erE3 I 1 lr,y Club ri C,°r L. rI Nup+�les4irport =Slit; A :. • d'.'� • t'.� �.'j j��' ���'�� Fore .07 — 'a 'c J�`!. y The JHame De'p ,el 4-`4 L�ri4 f 5S'yr•llf11 if Maples Beach :• lie" .. � �, . ry A E r A S, T: P•L ESy '. ¢ yyy •' L WIR B '[I i258a f m "4 "'•3 •'p� r• - A - Y � i "•�� - �'��,� Napias�Lakes Count. 'I Nan[esr • a rleo`nak� Hn R: llv.nakc H�rr:ck NJ~ LeIym Gordon Pass. _ Google J-W f�inn Rii•�i a�f - Rr IL If J .. asIrig iUn'C- � 6 �' ° �:•�`CoiintryCii c .. �.r Neapolitan Way + - H iernere, _'; r,y d:; Gull _7IJfi... ri e[yr ;P:.t:• Jgi.nlr iil.r,^ ':is LowderrT, lk P r `, Nap+�ie,livrport •ic M r, •�r� ��iP'1�:.`.i�:=?'�5:, �-�{-�.Lr _ I„�Hd �a �� `f x1,V 4j% ' 5q_ Ali CmM1ii1'An-'.a;.'�i� .? - •� ... ii'i .j� [C' ,.o. 7� E r, _ ''� •##w:u�,^'��i:ti.'_�WIJ�`!. ,- r:F 'CLJ�t: ',�C:La�.ti •„� � �`� H�, g s:,:....: fir..:..:' ,, „ ,,..�:. y `7he:H��am��e� -❑epot `°.. Maples Beach —- :, lie" • ` s' ' t•'r � . , � L� �.� I EAST NAP, LESy '. _I ¢ y •' LWIR�B '[I ��258a f� m"4 "''�3 •'p� r�• '' � A���. ! t Y � i ••�� _ ��'��,� Napias�Lakes Count., 'IS Naniesi 1, •�. Bota 1i�ai T � :Ileo`nikeHxre kvn�, R:AIc•:nakc H�rr:ck NJ~ Garden Le l yAs4 t Bell�..�a, Gordon Pass _ �7� Naniac Manor:... .�� ... ... Economic Impact: Fiscal Neutrality: Analyzing the fees against infrastructure cost. URBAN3 Fiscal Neutrality Collier County Land Development Code Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element Group 4 - Policies to enable conversion of rural lands to other uses in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas. Policy 4.18: The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year based on a public facilities impact assessment, as identified in LDC 4.08.07.K. The BCC may grant exceptions to this Policy to accommodate affordable housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the assessment shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards. URBAN3 Page 7 Categories: Wastewater40 : Not Fiscally Neutral URBAN3 Bellmar Residential Wastewater Capital Shortfall Source: DPFG Bellmar Village Economic Assessment. 11/12/20. Page 28. 3 ' Impact Fee Type Total Fees Community Parks $ 2,013,000 Regional Parks 5,711,000 Roads 10,767,000 EMS 320,000 Government nuild Engs 2,109,000 Lbrarles 719,000 Law Enlotcenrent 1,342,000 jai! 1,153,000 I wastewater - residential only 7A28,0110 Collier County Schools 17,274A00 North, ColEier Fire&Rescue 1,S15,00e TotaElmpa. Fees $ 65,397,000 smn,@_ roumr�,.rv. ovFe, torn Source: DPFG Bellmar Village Economic Assessment. 11/12/20. Page 15. URBANS Figure 2: Bellmar Water and Wastewater Demands Bellmar Water and Wastewater Demands Wastewater Potable Water Wastewater to water conversion — 1.5 Residential 4 0 2,750 DU @ 200 pd = 550,000 d ,750 DU @ 300 gpd = 825,000 gpd Commercial 1 85,000 sf @ 0.15 gpd = 12,750 gpd 85,000 sf @ 0.23 gpd = 19,125 gpd Civic 27,500 sf @ 0.15 gpd = 4,125 gpd 27,500 sf @ 0.23 gpd = 6,188 gpd 566,875 gpd 850,313 glod 566,875 gpd - 0.57 mgd ADF 1 850,313 gpd - 0.85 mgd ADF M3D Factor - 1.5 1 M3D Factor - 1.3 M3D Flow - 0.85 mgd I M3D Flow - 1.11 mgd source: Agnoli, Bar er & Brundage, Inc., Hole Mantes, 2020 Bellmar consumption. (0.55MGD = 0.83MGD Max) Impact Fee _ $7.43M (-$1.7M Difference) Capacity Cost Impact Fee niry meeunem syz[ems sM1all nor M proM1id'ktl 4f mis Pdky p,wa� mzet Ml applicade,egNamyoilena. mtlaiauai pmabie.ace,zuppymallsantl sePGr syst 2 �m mvmd,00 ar,e: nl anrBp.n, v�llagen, caoor,00 xree are pe,miPea nn ani reshom arenudizeNmcm[ralizetlrommunily %uenareawilaCle. Intl ntlua' p suphy wei4 aN ttp,K sysaemsare pe nktlin laamle,sa,a m%Mperm'mM in�aaoad (rM hrmnelorpomde xm1, wiX Ce opprovmaky 09MmiNion 1.v permr(a aoge) a+ a iz69 mwm 9dm+z W e% a-tl% mosunum) Sademy zexers muss M eesgmd m armunomk waaammdr QPSA mun„ gagons ce, mr mwmgel om ows m;a;p., gwam p<r my e-e% A� �' in(rmrrueure ro eeverop me wgerz is pmn,ree ,nor renemliaee wore. soppy bexties and er rdkrrion ane rrro,menr se,.+res pondzd by Cdlir Caunry Cdxer Count' uparded its Jwudiaiand wam Sewe,gsmrrzernreuea 6ouMary»SepkmMr2plQ ercpmppssrg ehsaea (FNA ,.. agm+d nprm m<pam<nr wkX aersw pm p,m<.p,e„<mnm,mn waxn mds+n d m< Mortheou Uixy Earixdes Malnsik rosuppm ma laneaMrl eeebynen[I ore SPA aevg 1— applirauons in accpNarce x.M tle Ponsions d e] limes Pdi%t a Poore Capital Impmuemen, nerved (CIF) drM dezGMP Mr ckegorY Apudv g - M the BCC in ne Conclu,rerceY[Managemen[ Syskpm of me GMPaa,tl LOC in eXea a[ me nme d al e�m�en�,pmer appmal. lmevmA*eoez n« rreok a s�gn�rrconr imPpn on rM <wny,;.xvpnwrpn as eer eeN aairy riz dme Esmnmk,a,e,;a.pmrpmm<dpnmmnmenymp,mgeme�,rorM cpPedvgaanpnnvy, xnpmt hex am Progrom momgemen, Omua+- b, wh�rn renew orrus or Me nme o/ su0zeguau eewr,w„mrnm,j Pdnys,e The SM rA11 M pknnetl antl tlagretl ro M fivaly neutral or posi,ive w ColYar County a[ me ,uonyear bxM ona W blelxiitiesimpattavessment x �aemmea in LOCd.OB.O].K the BCC may grant euception to k aXormde M1wrsi,g, a i, deems napp e v-V -h m community Geuelopmml sdttx and d e, >�w�d�.l,w�e ,a�de.0 minimem, me aaaeaamem eMll <pnaim,malwlp..ire pe�ir x nalmdadom , ma,uge,rvmt sd e. apa,kx 1. enbmemen atiy d puirApmare w,ace,d,ipa maadepreaa am pden,ial 'ae :Avxu Pit ea ieKl: m reMCe aumkaa. Rxe opd,rnnraasenz meenerc;vmmr,.wMFualynm lo.wdm<roePnxrewnyma,eormyw PusTMAd u rM Eremnir Azseszmed Fqm. Smadym m me eopMPnyxr Pb,ming, hrparfezP pndAmgmm rmnpgenenl oi„:o, rown.e;n rM,<,+emdmeErp,m,drAmeaamenr Source: Collier County Longwater FLUE Consistency Review Memo. 4/20/20 Page 11. The Capital Improvements Element of the Growth Mana ement Plan identifies the phased construction of a new regional water treatment plant ($82.5M) ant n a new water reclamation facility ($106M) t the Northeast Utility Facilities (NEUF) site to support this and other) development.] $21.9M $OM $61M $11M $17M $22M Comparable cost $106M for 4MGD* service = $26.5M/MGD * Source: Collier County 2019 AUIR. Page 98 of 171 Longwater Residential Wastewater Capital Shortfall Source: DPFG Longwater Village Economic Assessment. 11 A 1120. Page 25. 3 e9: Longwater Impact Fee Revenue for Collier County Impact Fee Type Total Fees mmumty Parks $ 1,903,000 Regional Parks 5,400,000 Roads 17,737,000 EMS 303,000 Government Buildings 1,9%,wo Libraries 681)'000 Law Enforcement 1,268,000 Jail 1,088,o00 only V.. 7,023,00 Totes Collier county Impact Fees 49,057,000 Collier County Schools 16,331,000 North Collier Fire & ReSale 1,432,000 Total Impact Fees $ 611820.Dw spar_ epner cdppry, ❑pro, mza Source: DPFG Longwater Village Economic Assessment. 11A1/20. Page 14. URBANS Livrran 7. 1 nnmaealea ,a/a.va ana 1111ae1evavhna nnmanrle Longwater Water and Wastewater Demands Wastewater Potable Water Wastewater to water conversion -- 1.5 Residential 2,600 DU @ 200 gpd — 520,000 gpd 2,600 DU @ 300 gpd = 780,000 gpd Commercial 80,000 sf @ 0.15 gpd — 12,000 gpd 80,000 sf @ 0.23 gpd — 18,000 gpd Civic 26,000 sf @ 0.15 gpd — 3,900 god 26,000 sf @ 0.23 gpd — 5,850 gpd 535,900 gpd 803,850 gpd 535,900 gpd — 0.54 mgd ADF 803,850 gpd — 0.80 mgd AD M3D Factor — 1.5 M313 Factor — 1.3 M3D Flow — 0.80 mgd 3D Flow — 1.05 mgd source: s gnon,lnaroer a nrunaage, ma., mole rvlonces, cucu \ Consumption Discrepancy = 195,000 gpd difference. Consumption. (0.52MGD = 0.78MGD Max) Impact Fee _ $7.023M (-$1.6M Difference) Capacity Cost Impact Fee unity areaonem synems sM1all n« m eoM1id'mtl df mis vdky prwtletl maa day aia�liCade regularogcdena. inai.iaeai v«alr<wacereuvwrwaleand revnr anlema, limnea 2 amdtoo arrodanr town,v,llaseo, cxoortoo a«e: are v<rminea on an inrenm oa,i: n hanasmtrarittd/decmtralizetlrommunity syuenareawilabk.in ua'poudewaler _p we Nsepric sysaemsarepermitkdin daminsarMmryd!perm'nced in�(Aosol lOOatresor rmenhaand pomde wam wiN de mypxrrwreH p. m - gotlom per my (awoge)wMa mtixon 9aWm per e% ()-e% moximum) Sadtmy texen' musr nz easN^etl ro o«m -.y 0 appaam«dY Q61H mJAin gaxws cer my lavaogel am 0995 mdlan gax«w p« my my um) / n� wrernbmrmon a mrrepr � me�gm rc planned »;m redmliaa wmr awpN ryrM'rm as pm,:me q edx« epp�y caw« epwy exppne<e in J,xudirriand Wakrsewerq'snirrserWre d,<ned,m«yinsepemne. a,erc«MasdM ehiswea (FKA ,a. reym,« xm« v<«mem pkm nazxw dm p mw water anpmmron r -sn masw er nr< dortMvu Uixyrod4des Mfr/F):ire rosuppot ma lane«herl dereba+an[I p.<IM dmiy.eon aPP1.1 ne m aecamaxe w;m da vro i:iope d i z Inow vdiq t a otlne eapeal Impmremenr Bement Ion dales eMv far exegoq A pule tl q me acc m ne c=r Managemma snr:�o me cMpaam toc gnene<I al me tim<d al eeloprenroroa approval. rm¢p,gxraog n« a:iynidran nne <a,ny,;.xaapwrp as eer aein p«iyuz ddle oE. smry,fe/ers rew mdrwgem � dvrgenrvdnnvq, Import rmx am Progrom Imrwgemznr Omnon [ulorx nirn reviewe«run or Merdxa o/ su0seaume eeveropnmra-derl Nr.q 4.1S ne Stu rill W P—W antl tlag-,i to ix fi-a neutral or positive to CA., Cwnry at me zmyzar bash ma W defxidesimpattassessment x �aemirwa in CBCd.tl8.0].K 1M1e BCC may grant exmaun ro Ue Polity ro xrommomk aXordade nwrsirg, a it deems app nniques mat mry promote fiva nmbaliy vxn m communiy Beveldpmm specW dindrn,sNll OemmuragM. Naminimum the xsessmem gWlmnsidxmefdlowarg paEtie x " napadadap w mBadon w,me amrmxamr ma,ag,arent wla zneawnx lax mfncmenfi amp ssnodxa cexopmnn gfti n de«loce, co - mnigari.1 one omer pudiUgrvare panrersdps stall atlmesanylamual adverse imfaru loadovka keels m:eMCe namkrax rme opgimnr aarem Me devnpvmml will a BualH nanml «pasd.< ro ealx« ewny;n me awn pnsNN w me Emnwnir Aaessme« Fgan sed/de/ers m th Copird Ngxt flwminp, hrymx req one <,oyam Monayanenl oiaipn ;nndaa;n the re.*w d M<Er«mmir.,:reaamem fThe demand for potable water will be approximately 0.929 million gallons per day (average) and 7.208 million gallons per desy (3-day maximum). Sanitary sewers must be designed to accommodate anproximately 0.664 million aallons Der day (average) and 0.995 million aallons Der day (3-dav The Capital Improvements Element of the Growth Management Plan identifies the phased construction of a new regional water treatment plant ($82.5M) an a new water reclamation facility ($106M) t the Northeast Utility Facilities (NEUF) site to support this Tnd other) development.] !2.2M $OM $6M $12M $18M $24M Source: Collier County LongwatEf FLUE Consistency Review Memo. 4/20/20 Page 11. Comparable cost $106M for 4MGD* service = $26.5M/MGD * Source: Collier County 2019 AUIR. Page 98 of 171 Categories: Waten Not Fiscally Neutral URBAN3 Bellmar Residential Potable Water Capital Shortfall Source: DPFG Bellmar Village Economic Assessment. 11/12/20. Page 28. 3 ' hie 9: aellarwr lmpBR Fee Revenue for calf rcounry Impaq Fee Type Fatal Fees Community Parks $ 2,013,000 Regional Parks 5,711,000 Roads 18,767,000 EMS 320,000 Government Buildings 2,109,000 Li6rarles 719,000 law Enlorcement 1,342,000 jai! 1,153,CM water -resi entia only 7, 016,006 Wastewater- residential only 7,428,ODD Tota€Colller{ounty Impact Fees $ 46,608,000 Collier County Schools 17,274,000 North, Collier Fire & Rescue 1,515,000 TotaElmpan Fees $ 65,397,000 sent,@_ rop�aa,.rv. opre. tens Source: DPFG Bellmar Village Economic Assessment. 11/12/20. Page 15. URBANS Figure 2: Bellmar Water and Wastewater Demands Bellmar Water and Wastewater Demands Wastewater Potable Water Wastewater to water conversion — 1.5 Residential 2,750 DU @ 200 d = 5%,000 gpd 2,710 DU @ 300 gpd = 825,000 gpd Commercial 85,000 sf @ 0.15 gpd = 12,750 gpd 85,000 sf I @ 0.23 gpd = 19,125 gpd Civic 27,500 sf @ 0.15 gpd 4,125 gpd 27500 sf @ 0.23 gpd 6,188 gpd 566875 d 850,313 giod 566,875 gpd - 0.57 mgd ADF 850,313 gpd - 0.85 mgd ADF M3D Factor - 1.5 M3D Factor - 1.3 M3D Flow - 0.85 mgd M3D Flow - 1.11 mgd Source: Agnelli, Barber & Brundage, Inc., Hole Mantes, 2020 Bellmar consumption. (0.83MGD = 1.07 MGD Max) Impact Fee _ $7.05M (-$2.3M Difference) Capacity Cost Impact Fee 2. _ unity oeapnem sya[ems shall nm M woM1ib'mtl by Nls Pdiry pmraetl Nat try Ml applicade,egNamry<,ilena. In ual pmable watxzupwywNlsana sep[i<%stems.limnM mdllro a[ o, cpoorllux aaiPea oa mMas n helm aredrelizeNaaecmtral ietl�pmmubrty %nemareawilade. In ua'npotadewaur wppywellsaN ttp,ic systems are permipN in damlxsa,a mry M permlme in�aaosd Ilpxresor pomdewmwiN ix opwovmarey 9otlo+s per mY(aao9Aanea moron 9^ponz W e% a-tl% mosunum) Sadtmy sexers musr M eesgmtl m paammpmre apwai Y a6 mJtin ppnons per mY ravemgel Pm r- mtllbn l,— px my n.mY amt A�,r i„6�r,,,e�a m ee<ewr me wgaa a pm�„ee »;m re„eonae womr :�roy fonurie, as <. <dxmw, ate rrm,m<ar a<rei«, wo.ia<a M edxx epaay edx<. catty <,oPame m Jwutliaiand wamSewer q'snin service area bauMary N SepremMr 2aIQ expmppsg Nis tea (FKA m crown. ,.. npm+d »>aw aeoaa..la wawa Ixersw elm o ad. wo,e,,.mam,ma waxn niawn d N< dwrh<ou Uixy Eaaxpes MEI/F)sire rosupport Na lanedherl eeebwaea[I kliq 4- ore SPA aevpret- appPtauons in xcatlarce w.N tle Ponsions d ]limes Pdi%t a otme Cawtal Npmuemem Elemen[ (CIE) dtM GMP Mr cxegorr A pudic ne d.O.W. mae9-1 M hBCC Cuero„xMamS,— oe in GIP - LX in 1— a[ Ne nme d al emea�, ore_ append. (adevme<reoe: ad m<m<a eiyaimoa, impact o., rM <wary,;.xpoPwroa ae e<r <eN aaiy riz dNe E. smnmre,,.eriewamrammemoa mara,.eaymo,mgeme�,mrM caPi,dvwaanaaavy, NM,od het, am Pmpmm momgemen, O,vuan - b, —1 renew arun or Me nme w subMl— aawan+>Mrxm,] rl SMm TheaM willMp.a bl.tlagretlroMfixaly neutralhpositivewColYar Countya[Ne ,uonyear bxMpn a Wblelxiitiesimpattavemnentx�aemNea in LOCd.OB.O].K 1. BCCmay grant euception to u aaormde M1wrsing, a it accent app ee bdiry pxM1 m community Gerelopmmt psNnx and d e, e��,a�de.0 miaimam, me aaaeaemem eMll <pmim,melwlpwiap pblia x IK1aop. , maaaa<,apm.:ol aaRpans. <pml«mea asa ce pdiw,ware w,tae,a,ipa Na�aaereaa a<r Pa,-ea,ial ae.ea. inpacts mamp M le els of se,Hce namlartls (rM apdirm,aoemm nM enerc;pmma wiuM Famlyam IwpaaNr<roeon<reway Na,<paayw porYNuaM Erly Assessmed Fqm. SmatlymmNe eowMPnyxa Pb,ming, hrymrrhe; patAmpmm Mwoppaem oi„:o, romiee;a rM a.;ewaN<e<oapa,iea::e„m<ar Source: Collier County Longwater FLUE Consistency Review Memo. 4/20/20 Page 11. The Capital Improvements Element of the Growth Management Plan identifies the phased construction of a new regional water treatment plan ($82.5M) and a new water reclamation facility ($706M) at the Northeast utility Facilities (Nl site qb support this (and other) development.] $17e7M $OM $5M $9M $14M $18M Comparable cost $82.5M for 5MGD* service = $16.5M/MGD * Source: Collier County 2019 AUIR. Page 66 of 171 Longwater Residential Potable Water Capital Shortfall Source: DPFG Longwater Village Economic Assessment. 11/11120. Page 25. O.'m Longwater Impact Fee Revenue for Collier Courfiy ImpactFeeTypeTotalFees urnty Parks $ 1,903,000 Regional Parks 5,400,OW Road, 17,737,000 EMS 303,000 0--tit Buildings 1,9%,000 Libmr— 680,000 Law Enforcement 1,268,000 Jail S,OSB,Ono rlYaMer - reside on 6 662 000 Wastewater - residential only 7,023,000 Total Collier County Impact Fees $ 44,057,000 Collier County Schools 16,331,000 North Collier Fire & Rescue 1, 432,OOd Total Impact Fees $ 61,820.Dw Soue�_ CnIGer County, ❑PFG, 201n Source: DPFG Longwater Village Economic Assessment. 11A1/20. Page 14. URBAN3 Longwater Water and Wastewater Demands Wastewater Potable Water Wastewater to water conversion — 1.5 Residential 2,600 DU @ 200 gpd — 520,000 gpd ,600 DU @ 300 gpd = 780,000 gpd Commercial 80,000 sf @ 0.15 gpd — 12,000 gpd 80,000 sf @ 0.23 gpd — 18,000 gpd Civic 26,000 sf @ 0.15 gpd — 3,900 god 26,000 sf @ 0.23 gpd — 5,850 gpd 535,900 gpd 803,850 gpd 535,900 gpd — 0.54 mgd ADF 803,850 gpd — 0.80 mgd ADF M3D Factor — 1.5 = M3D Flow — 0.80 mgd M3D Flow = 1.05 m d source: wgnoll, naroer at urunaage, inc., note monies, eueu Consumption Discrepancy. Longwater consumption.=125,150 gpd difference. (0.78MGD = 1.01 MGD Max) 1The demand Impact Fee _ $6.662 M (-$2.1 M Difference) Capacity Cost Impact Fee maximum). 2. unity areapnem syatems sM1all n« be eoM1id'tetl df Nis vdky prwa� aia�liCade reg„larogcdena.m eai p«roi<.acereevwradl:and repot ar:r am d tro arro d am *�+�. v�roage o, cpo ortoB a«e: are v<rminea on an i n hanasmtrNittd/decmtralizetlrommunity syuenareawilabk.in ua'p ,PP,: am seer¢sysaermare cermip<d in damlersam maf ue cemfdkd in�rAosol lrne hraand w pom«e xam w de mwa 1Yp.sa,milliongotlmspermy(mange)"— mtiL'on ,aeons per doy 0-1, moxi - —.y texen' must ne deg . ro o««mnoNk apaoam«dy a66e mJAv, saYws per e y 1pvaogel o,N ass5 million g 10— p« dry 0-E Y „m) neegwe inbmrrottare ro eaamp N rc plan awpN ryrM'rm as pm,:aegedu«epPny cower eo,my eppneed in ),xewi�ma« wor.se.era�rl,;r,:en;red,<neo,m«yinsmromn<.zma dlr«„pp.argmi:nreolrla r.. reym,« ndo. voxmem plum ixersw pm p mw ,aaler anpmmron r -sn masw er nr< reortnevu Uitiy Eau4des Mfr/F):ire rosupport Ne lane«herl dereba+an[I P.<IM designation aPP1.1— m xrpmmre — da vroddons d i z Inow vdiq t a otme capital Impmremem dement (oe dtla Gfdv far exegogn Pude tl q me acc m ne cm��r�e,ker rdanagemmt snr:�o me cMPaam toc gnene<r at me time d al eelopne,n oMaxproval. !m¢prgxraog n« asignifiran one <a,ny:.xaapwro as eer aeNp«iyuz time aE. smryee/as ten mdrwgem � wvrgenrvannvq, Import Feex aM Progrom IMrwgemznr Omnon [ulorx nirn reviewe«run or Merdxa o/ su0sea,a« eeveropnmra-derl N iq 4.1S ne SM rill W pYmetl antl tlag-,i to ix fi—It, neutral or positive m CORer Cwnry at Ne zmyzar bxM ma W defxidesimpattassessment x �demified in LOCd.ge.g].K 1M1e BCC may grant exmaun ro Ue Polity m xrommodak aXordade nwrsirg, a it deems app nniques mat mry promote fiva r,mnaliry vxn m communiy oevelppmm spxW dinnrn,sNll OemmuragM. Naminimum the xsessmem gWlmnsidx Nefdloxarg paEiet x " napmwan w Nmgadon .atm, mamxamr management wlq ase.awrex lax mbreelrcnl. zM ssnods a Mopmmt gfti s de.Noce, co - mnigari.1 ,, omv pudiUgruare panrersdps stall atltlresany pdmualaMerse impxu roadovka keels m:emee namkrax /me opgvantoasens xrdeenapmml,.weeFsrolHne«.olwporim<roedkrewny;n Mep� pnsNN N d,e Emnwnir Aaeasme« Fgan sed/de/ers m rM Copiml Ngxt flwming, hrym:t Fes one <mg�am .aonogoant oiaipn ;nndaa;n the re.*a d da Erarmmir.,:reaamem hle water will be approximately 0.929 million gallons per day (average) and 1.208 ay (3-day maximum). Sanitary sewers must be designed to accommodate million gallons per day (average) and 0.995 million gallons per day (3-day The Capital Improvements Element of the Growth Management Plan identifies the phased construction of a new regional water treatment plant ($82.SM) and a new water reclamation facility ($706M) at the Northeast utility Facilities (NEUF) site to Fjpport this (and other) development.] $16.7M $OM $4M $91M $13M $17M Source: Collier County Longwater FLUE Consistency Review Memo. 4/20/20 Page 11. Comparable cost $82.5M for 5MGD* service = $16.5M/MGD * Source: Collier County 2019 AUIR. Page 66 of 171 Total Wastewater System Capacity - Consumption - Cost 4MGD Max Facility Consumption Remainder of wastewater capacity for the entire district including, but not limited to, the Village Centers for all three villages, as well as their Civic use demands, and any other project in the district. Though the full impacts are not known, because not all increments of development has been submitted; what has been submitted for Rivergrass, Bellmar, and Longwater will consume 65% of the capacity of the proposed $106M NEWRF wastewater facility. Meanwhile, Impact fees only account for 25% of the facility cost. URBAN3 Rivergrass Residential 40 Rivergrass Golf Bellmar Residential Longwater Residential Remainder Source: DPFG Reports for all three projects Collier County 2019 AUIR. Page 98 of 171. Total Wastewater System Capacity - Consumption - Cost 4MGD Max Facility Consumption Remainder of wastewater capacity for the entire district including, but not limited to, the Village Centers for all three villages, as well as their Civic use demands, and any other project in the district. Though the full impacts are not known, because not all increments of development has been submitted; what has been submitted for Rivergrass, Bellmar, and Longwater will consume 65% of the capacity of the proposed $106M NEWRF wastewater facility. Meanwhile, Impact fees only account for 25% of the facility cost. Impact Fees Contributed Total Anticipated Cost = $106M FY24-27 Contribution Rivergrass Residential 40 Rivergrass Golf Bellmar Residential Longwater Residential Remainder URBAN 3 Source: DPFG Reports for all three projects Collier County 2019 AUIR. Page 98 of 171. Remainder of sewer capacity for the entire district including, but not limited to, the Village Centers for all three villages, as well as their Civic use demands, and any other project in the area. The proposed villages are consuming about three quarters of the system, yet the impact fees account for about one quarter of the facility cost. Longwater Residential Bellmar Residential Rivergrass Golf Rivergrass Residential u Total Wastewater System Capacity - Consumption - Cost 4 MGD Facility Consumption Max Flow $120.0 $30.0 $0.0 0 U Cost Impact Fees Paid Facility Cost URBAN 3 Source: DPFG Reports for all three projects Collier County 2019 AUIR. Page 98 of 171. Total Water System Capacity - Consumption - Cost 5 MGD Max Facility Consumption Remainder of water capacity for the entire district including, but not limited to, the Village Centers for all three villages, as well as their Civic use demands, and any other project in the district. 65% Consumption Though the full impacts are not known, because not all increments of development has been submitted; what has been submitted for Rivergrass, Bellmar, and Longwater will consume 65% of the capacity of the proposed $82.5M NERWTP water facility. Meanwhile, Impact fees only account for 32% of the facility cost. URBAN3 Rivergrass Residential Rivergrass Golf Bellmar Residential Longwater Residential Remainder Source: DPFG Reports for all three projects Collier County 2019 AUIR. Page 66 of 171. Total Water System Capacity - Consumption - Cost 5 MGD Max Facility Consumption Remainder of water capacity for the entire district including, but not limited to, the Village Centers for all three villages, as well as their Civic use demands, and any other project in the district. 65% Consumption Though the full impacts are not known, because not all increments of development has been submitted; what has been submitted for Rivergrass, Bellmar, and Longwater will consume 65% of the capacity of the proposed $82.5M NERWTP water facility. Meanwhile, Impact fees only account for 32% of the facility cost. URBAN3 Impact Fees Contributed Total Anticipated Cost = $82.5M FY24-27 "°' contribution 40 Rivergrass Residential 10 Rivergrass Golf 40 Bellmar Residential IS Longwater Residential Remainder Source: DPFG Reports for all three projects Collier County 2019 AUIR. Page 66 of 171. Remainder of water capacity for the entire district including, but not limited to, the Village Centers for all three villages, as well as their Civic use demands, and any other project in the area. Longwater Residential Bellmar Residential Rivergrass Golf Rivergrass Residential u Total Water System Capacity - Consumption - Cost 5 MGD Facility Consumption Max Flow I M $67.5 0 $45.0 $22.5 $0.0 U $82.5M FY24-27 Cost Impact Fees Paid Facility Cost URBAN Source: DPFG Reports for all three projects Collier County 2019 AUIR. Page 66 of 171. Categories: Additional Cost: Not Fiscally Neutral Nor Self -Sufficient URBAN3 Rivergrass POC 41" Ave. Transmission Mains Schedule B — Point of Connection (POC) Longwater Connector Transmission Mains Added Cost to Collier Ratepayers 4. The District awrees to reimburse the Landowners for the cost of upsizing certain transmission mains identified in Schedule C within the Rivergrass Village so that sufficient flows are available to service the Longwater Village. $725,453 connector road pipe $1,976,733 upcharge for Rivergrass upsizing Collier County is agreeing to pick up the cost of upsizing the pipes to bring Longwater online in item #4 of the interlocal upsized to support other villages agreement (b.). The interlocal itemizes the potential cost in Connector transmission mains CC:SDTransmisslonmains Schedule C. (a.) for infrastructure improvements. The cost of this infrastructure is estimated at $2,702,186, but could be more. URBAN3 Source: Longwater Interlocal Agreement, Page 2, & Schedule C RWERGIE rnaageswhen IORGWRIERgoesonlbe Potable Wafer Irrlgaibn Upslnng AVI, _Castup,1,1.8 Valve COR length Plpe Cos[ Vane Cost psz PI Lost Valve Cost [a ]2 5,0"It (SJa,1Ee) Sap00 6"tp lz• 1,9afitt ($311.—) 53120 a In E. 6,959h (5R,an1) g'10 16• h 151zr.,zas) 533960 io] ($t2J 956) to l6 6h 159],3sa) Sn6 bt ,2]3tt (S1e4.OJq $59,930 z m] —19h ,I (S140,59e) 530,330 xa tfi 9,436It ((9.9. 59]50 623 tt 5509 0 12- m 9611 IS177,1321 IOTAI PabtRe Water $ae6,JJ3 $'Aecv]3 StMdaOw] t—.,33 PE ON CONNECTOR ROAD P-PI,, Water w.n.—EA 1Mg nan sae teagm Ne wat sae length n50 sae te�g�n 6 3.316h 1121,1111 hR 1112.11' 6 $2215oJ) Po[.61. w.tv Irr� a $251,23J 5223,0W $251,221 $]SSp53 Added Cost to Collier Ratepayers $1,976,733 upcharge for Rivergrass upsizing $725,453 connector road pipe $2,702,186 total upsizing upcharge Collier County is agreeing to pick up the cost of upsizing the pipes to bring Longwater online in item #4 of the interlocal agreement (b.). The interlocal itemizes the potential cost in Schedule C. (a.) for infrastructure improvements. The cost of this infrastructure is estimated at $2,702,186, but could be more. URBAN3 Source: Longwater Interlocal Agreement, Page 2, & Schedule C Fiscal Neutrality Collier County Land Development Code Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element Group 4 - Policies to enable conversion of rural lands to other uses in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas. Policy 4.18: The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year based on a public facilities impact assessment, as identified in LDC 4.08.07.K. The BCC may grant exceptions to this Policy to accommodate affordable housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the assessment shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards. URBAN3 $67.5 $45.0 0 0 U $22.5 Upsizing Longwater Residential Bellmar Residential Rivergrass $0.0 Total Deficit for Wastewater and Water - $23M upsizing reimbursement - $21.6M Longwater deficit - $21.1 M Bellmar deficit - $18AM Rivergrass deficit The total infrastructure deficit for water and wastewater is estimated to exceed $63.8M, but could be more. URBAN Deficit Source: DPFG Reports for all three projects Collier County 2019 AUIR. Longwater Interlocal Failure of Fiscal Neutrality for Water + Wastewater: Longwater and Belimar create a $4'. URBAN M deficit. Innovation: Des*i n Issues: Not Fiscqaly Neutral URBAN3 Innovation: Integrated Mix of Uses: Increasing project diversity by a mix of uses. URBAN Assuming that the commercial 30 development is built, Bellmar submittal is complicated by the lack of definition on the plans. The Jobs:Population Ratio as submitted is a little more than 5% of the County's Goal, and in contradiction to RLSA Policies 1.1 & 4.1. 20 The extreme deficit in jobs:residential balance demonstrates the lack of mixed - use, but also ensures that more trips will be externalized as residents seek employment and commercial needs. m Collier County's 2080 Forecast Use Bellmar Population to Jobs Balance Ratio If Bellmar matched the -\ Jobs: Residential ratio forecast, it'd need 19 jobs to balance 31.9 residents. 19 jobs 1.7 Residents 32 Residents for RLSA Area** 1 'ob Forecast** Bellmar Jobs to Population Jobs to Population U R BAN 3 1:1.7 Ratio 1:32 Ratio * Planning Commission Consistency Review Memo ** Mobility Master Plan - Section 2, page 2-34 Assuming that the commercial 30 development is built, Longwater submittal is complicated by the lack of definition on the plans. The Jobs:Population Ratio as submitted is about 6% of the County's Goal, and in contradiction to RLSA Policies 1.1 & 4.1. 20 The extreme deficit in jobs:residential balance demonstrates the lack of mixed - use, but also ensures that more trips will be externalized as residents seek employment and commercial needs. N Collier County's 2080 Forecast Use Longwater Population to Jobs Balance Ratio 27 Residents for RLSA Area** 1 . URBAN3 If Longwater matched the Jobs: Residential ratio forecast, it'd need 16 jobs to balance 27 residents. _16 lobs_ _ 1.7 Residents A _ J_ Forecast** Jobs to Population 1:1.7 Ratio Longwater Jobs to —Population * Planning Commission Consistency Review Memo 1:27 Ratio ** Mobility Master Plan - Section 2, page 2-34 Total Collier Developments' Population to Jobs Balance Ratio 30 Assuming that the commercial development is built on all Collier submissions, the Jobs:Population Ratio as submitted is a little more than 6% of the County's Goal, and in contradiction to RLSA Policies 1.1 &4.1. The extreme deficit in 20 jobs:residential balance demonstrates the lack of mixed - use, but also ensures that more trips will be externalized as residents seek employment and commercial needs. IN Collier County's 2080 Forecast Use for RLSA Area** URBAN3 If Proposed Collier developments matched the Jobs: Residential ratio forecast, it'd need 16 jobs to balance 28 residents. _ _ 16 jobs_ 1.7 Residents 1 A --1- Forecast** Jobs to Population 1:1.7 Ratio 28 Residents Gross Villages * Planning Commission Consistency Review Memo Jobs to Population "Mobility Master Plan -Section 2, page 2-34 1: 28 Ratio Innovation: Walkab*ll*ltye. The design discourages walkability by design. URBAN3 Village Center Distance Walkable Less than 1/4 mile Between 1/4 mile and 1 mile Over 1 mile Rivergrass 1.9 Miles - 0 0.25 0.5 1 Mile Not Walkable I I I I I ise is the furthest walk to Village ;ommercial, if there is a sidewalk in ypress corridor. Longwater 2.1 Miles Bellmar 2.0 Miles URBAN3 Village Center Walkability Walkable Less than 1/4 mile Between 1/4 mile and 1 mile Over 1 mile Rivergrass 5% 36% 59% Not Walkable 0 0.25 0.5 1 Mile I I I I I Longwater 10% 38% 60% Bellmar MY L11 IN OEM 01 Citations: 1) Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach. Institute of Transportation Engineers (2010). 2) Pedestrian- and Transit -Friendly Design, Ewing, R. (1996) Prepared for FDOT 3) Step It Up! The Surgeon General's Call to Action to Promote Walking and Walkable Communities (2015) U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General Village Center Directness Index Directness is determined by a 'straight path' measurement. This map demonstrates that a great deal of the land area has an opportunity to be more walkable, but the design and layout actually works counter a walkability objective. Direct Less than 1.5 Between 1.5 and 5 Over 5 Rivergrass Indirect 0 0.25 0.5 1 Mile URBAN3 Longwater Bellmar Citations: 1) Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach. Institute of Transportation Engineers (2010). 2) Pedestrian- and Transit -Friendly Design, Ewing, R. (1996) Prepared for FDOT 3) Step It Up! The Surgeon General's Call to Action to Promote Walking and Walkable Communities (2015) U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General Elementary School WalkabiliA - Walkable Less than 1/4 mile Between 1/4 mile and 1 mile Over 1 mile Rivergrass LJ 100% Potential School Location 7 0 0.25 0.5 1 Mile Not Walkable I I I I I Longwater 100% Bellmar 15% WA Citations: 1) Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach. Institute of Transportation Engineers (2010). 2) Pedestrian- and Transit -Friendly Design, Ewing, R. (1996) Prepared for FDOT 3) Step It Up! The Surgeon General's Call to Action to Promote Walking and Walkable Communities (2015) U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General Amenity Center Walkability Walkable Less than 1/4 mile Between 1/4 mile and 1 mile Over 1 mile Rivergrass 6% 111-5% 7 0 0.25 0.5 1 Mile Not Walkable I I I I I URBAN3 Longwater 8% Bellmar 10% Citations: 1) Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach. Institute of Transportation Engineers (2010). 2) Pedestrian- and Transit -Friendly Design, Ewing, R. (1996) Prepared for FDOT 3) Step It Up! The Surgeon General's Call to Action to Promote Walking and Walkable Communities (2015) U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General Block Perimeter Walkable Under 1,140 ft Between 1,140 - 5,280 ft Over 5,280 ft Rivergrass Pr lb- 82% 0 0.25 0.5 1 Mile Not Walkable I I I I I L11 IN OEM 1' 1 Longwater 100% Bellmar 3% 7 97% Citations: 1) Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach. Institute of Transportation Engineers (2010). 2) Pedestrian- and Transit -Friendly Design, Ewing, R. (1996) Prepared for FDOT 3) Step It Up! The Surgeon General's Call to Action to Promote Walking and Walkable Communities (2015) U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General Page 37 Innovation: Block Scale and Structure. Non-residential Uses Distort Block Size. URBAN3 Walkability is Key to Innovation Collier County Land Development Code 4-08-07J.2.d.iii. Neighborhood General: Neighborhood General is predominately residential with a mix of single and multi -family housing. Neighborhood scale goods and services, schools, parks and open space diversify the neighborhoods. The interconnected street pattern is maintained through the Neighborhood General to disperse traffic. Sidewalks and streetscape support the pedestrian environment. The following design criteria shall apply within Neighborhood General: 4-08-07C212d. i i i.f)i) Non-residential uses shall adhere to the following: All such uses shall be located at intersection corners or street bends and shall not be permitted at mid -block locations; 4-08-07C2J.2d.iii.f)iii) The minimum distance between non-residential uses shall be 1,000 feet, as measured along the street frontage at the right-of-way line; 4-08-07C2J.2d.i i i.f)iv) The maximum square footage per use shall be 3,000 square feet and per location shall be 15,000 square feet; 4-08-07C212d. i i i.f)v) The use shall have a minimum lot area of not less than the size of the smallest adjacent lot. The red box has a 15,000 sq. ft. area (123' x 123'). The blue box has a 3,000 sq. ft. area. (55' x 55') 173' x 173') Walkability is Key to Innovation Collier County Land Development Code 4-08-07J.2.d.iii. Neighborhood General: Neighborhood General is predominately residential with a mix of single and multi -family housing. Neighborhood scale goods and services, schools, parks and open space diversify the neighborhoods. The interconnected street pattern is maintained through the Neighborhood General to disperse traffic. Sidewalks and streetscape support the pedestrian environment. The following design criteria shall apply within Neighborhood General: 4-08-07C2J.2d. i i i.f)i) Non-residential uses shall adhere to the following: All such uses shall be located at intersection corners or street bends and shall not be permitted at mid -block locations; 4-08-07C2J.2d.iii.f)iii) The minimum distance between non-residential uses shall be 1,000 feet, as measured along the street frontage at the right-of-way line; 4-08-07C2J.2d.i i i.f)iv) The maximum square footage per use shall be 3,000 square feet and per location shall be 15,000 square feet; 4-08-07C2J.2d. i i i.f)v) The use shall have a minimum lot area of not less than the size of the smallest adjacent lot. The red box has a 15,000 sq. ft. area (123' x 123'). The blue box has a 3,000 sq. ft. area. (55' x 55') IlatclnvRNvvP cENarAI.cvNreacr znxE ante aPnax - lEI(3H13- C£NEPkL �4iONP.O.W. 0GSNERAI CCAn,]EACIA�AISE.4 . ACPea 2% P� EPP— WtP 4E ANISC OPPN APEn pR]noNuE10-RAL Cp'1F-xT xVE.LADE Zj�]j 2UM CCENTER.;ZTeENren none ��agrtn Nwtaad lxaien W>bM P¢wln4ee]a rvp 2= 11,- .11S4G w zw a.0 w. �cc'uE 5SA-17. % w'rrr�tol �d.E hEmma ,e9ULA.E. BCBD PROPERTY LIA". SIB i zara � B ayNouA6: r ut� THEME ""I WHIM HAVE AIN ^-^"i nEL MCpRE LAREATERTHAN t,; WILL BE MANTAINEO M A PRE0011111111 NA1 �Nf B h i4NH�f NTsIAAO RS TYPE {Nj L.N.E. _ mo PEw •i Q LL F:. DENOTES FSAf NSA T� a e]sAct[9 - amxv INGsAv 'ia•rrP= - MIS(;. OPEN SPACE NOT IAI Lem / "A. s" Ox wPA ,if. Sad_ aASSA-17 * . IbNIH 6�,AG g�E 3,47ET T FOR MAIN SPINE cRass secTron !The applicant seeks a deviation fo the 2GerN� AJAxO-RLSAO Amenity Centers to be 30,000 sq.ft. in area. SSA-17 ` AG 173' x 173') LAANER3 ==21 _ Iff fA . AN— -•�unc¢crritEn EEn- zom� �si.00a. SSA-17 y ` iI ± AG r-POTEYTWL HATi1RE VIEWING PuIrPORMS ZONING AiAHOFL50.0 ' NI9C IOPfN SPACE Npr 95A, SRA OR WRA r ....- Innovation Collier County Land Development Code SRA Designation LDC 4.08.07J.1.a.: 1. SRA Characteristics. Characteristics for SRAs designated within the RLSA District have been established in the Goals, Objectives, and Policies, of the RLSA Overlay. All SRAs designated pursuant to this Section shall be consistent with the characteristics identified on the Collier County RLSA Overlay SRA Characteristics Chart and the design criteria set forth in 2. through 6. below. a. SRA Characteristics Chart consists of the following Tables: A - Town, B - Village, C - Hamlet, D.1 - Compact Rural Development: 100 Gross Acres or Less, and D.2 - Compact Rural Development: Greater than 100 Gross Acres. TABLE B. Village Typical Characteristics Village Size (Ciro SS Acres] 100-1,000 acres (Villages within the ACSC are subject to location and size limitations per LDC section 4.08.07.A.Z. and are subject to Chapter 26-25, FAC.J Residential Units (DUs) per gross acre base density 1-4 DUs per gross acre (Density can be increased beyond the case density through the affordable workforce housing density bonus or through the density blending provision, per RLSA policy 4.7 in the FLUE of the GMP.) Required Uses Uses Ado wed But Not Required Residential Housing Styles Diversity of single family and multi -family housing types, styles, lot sizes Maximum Floor Area Ratio or Intensity Retail & Office - .5 Group Housing-.45 CivlUGovernmentalllnstltutlon-.6 Transient Lodging -26 upa net Goods and Services Village Center with Neighborhood Goods and Services in Village Centers: Minimum 25 SFgrass building area per DU water and wastewater Centralized or decentralized community treatment system erim well and septic Recreation and Open Space Parks & Public Green Spaces Win Neighborhoods um l%afgross acres} Active Recreation/Golf Courses Lakes open space Minimum 35% of SRA U RBAN3 Like 'Retail, Office, Parks, Greens, etc.; Lakes are a non-residential "use". Walkable Block Perimeter Under 1,140 ft Between 1,140 - 5,280 ft Over 5,280 ft Rivergrasos 18 /o - 0 0.25 0.5 1 Mile Not Walkable I-1 I I I Longwater 100% Bellmar 3% 4 1 97% Citations: 1) Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach. Institute of Transportation Engineers (2010). 2) Pedestrian- and Transit -Friendly Design, Ewing, R. (1996) Prepared for FDOT 3) Step It Up! The Surgeon General's Call to Action to Promote Walking and Walkable Communities (2015) U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General .= Innovation Collier County Land Development Code SRA Designation LDC 4.08.07J.1.a.: 1. SRA Characteristics. Characteristics for SRAs designated within the RLSA District have been established in the Goals, Objectives, and Policies, of the RLSA Overlay. All SRAs designated pursuant to this Section shall be consistent with the characteristics identified on the Collier County RLSA Overlay SRA Characteristics Chart and the design criteria set forth in 2. through 6. below. a. SRA Characteristics Chart consists of the following Tables: A - Town, B - Village, C - Hamlet, D.1 - Compact Rural Development: 100 Gross Acres or Less, and D.2 - Compact Rural Development: Greater than 100 Gross Acres. TABLE B. Village Typical Characteristics Village Size (Gr05$ AUES] 100-1,000 acres (Villages within the ACSC are subject to location and size limitations per LDC section 4.08.07.A.Z. and are subject to Chapter 26-25, FAC.J Residential Units (DUi per gross acre base density 1-4 DUs per gross acre (Density can be increased beyond the case density through the affordable workforce housing density bonus or through the density blending provision, per RLSA policy 4.7 in the FLUE of the GMP.) Required Uses U—Add —d But Not Required Residential Housing Styles Dlversity of single family and multi -family housing types, styles, lot sizes Maximum Floor Area Ratio or lntertsity Retail&Office-.5 Group Housing -.45 01 CivlUGovernmentalllnstltutlon-.6 Transient Lodging -26 upa net Goods and Services Village Center with Neighborhood Goads and Services in Village Centers: Minimum 25 SFgross building area per DU water and wastewater Centralized or decentralized community treatment system Interim well and septic Recreation and Open Space Parks & Public Green Spaces win Neighborhoods -(minimum 7%nfgross acres) Active Recreation/Golf Courses Lakes open space Minimum 35% of SRA U RBAN3 Also, "retail" AND "office" is required, yet only 'commercial' is identified in the description. None of the uses are quantified and Innovation: Inadequate Street Sections: Inadequate street section and design compromises walkability. URBAN Bellmar Deviation 46, Longwater Deviation #3 R.O.W. as M•.1 I SRA LOCAI STREET R.O.W. nu.bwo. crass::,,.,: Street surface is 2'-0" wider than allowable for Neighborhood General Districts. URBAN Collier County Land Development Code 4.08.07j1 SRA Designation: Village Streets: `e ' � .� at�L �---�:_� .�+ •tint �� - .�_� .� 48-(MIN.)wi4f•T•"T,�. 5' (MIN.) ql i�1 t�� tt- 8•f 5' fi�IM1L) SIOEVOP P G TR AI LMIE TRAVEL UNE P SIOEWALK I I � I - I •"rrr�\ .., ••�nM..� (LOC,"-L STPEET) hJEIGHBOPHC1GD EDGE ^^° FICUPE 9 !CTION w-•� Fig. 9. Local S reet N-Ts, 20' road surface LA12 Wider lane surface area than allowable, and clearly defined for "N not the "Neighbor ood General" districts. Removes a required sidewalk on one side of the street (to be determined). CURB t GUTTER ' [TYPE ANO MATEROL MY %%") ood Edge", Though the applicant uses the incorrect Street Section (#9) for the Neighborhood General District, it is significantly altered. The proposed landscape area between the sidewalk and the curb is 5'-0", not the 8'-0" (minimum) as required*; which represents a 37% reduction of required area. * Staff misinterpreted the graphic. Bellmar Deviation 46, Longwater Deviation #3 R.O.W. Collier County Land Development Code 4.08.07jl SRA Designation: Village Streets: R.O.W. " ''`><r ' le R. `'J jt4' • .•.b;t 48' (MIN.) ^'�-�i4 ;Vs. Y1• I a 5- (MIN.) SIC£Yl.� P C iAPhf1 l}riE TR4'1EL L'NE P Ll1Ra t GIITIE3E [TYPE dN0 6NdEROL . e.xnex.xo,ccrp. MAY W'Ktl ..,-I�nr--. (LOC,"L STREET) hJEIGHBORHQt7D EDGE ^^° FICURE 9 !CTTON ^�'•� Fig. 9. Local S reet n_1s. 20' road surface Wider lane surfacel area than allowable, and clearly defined for "N ighborhood Edge", not the "Neiahborhood General" districts. Street surface is 2'-0" wider I Removes a required than allowable for sidewalk on one side of the Neighborhood General street (to be determined). Districts. Deviation # 6 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.07.J. Lb(6), "Figures 5, 6, and 7, Local Street Neighborhood General," which requires a 6-foot-wide planting area between the travel lane and the sidewalk, to instead allow for a 5-foot-wide planting area in the same location for local roads within the project in Neighborhood General. In such cases, either a root barrier or structural soil shall be utilized. If the option of structural soil is utilized, a minimum of two af of structural soil per square feet of mature tree crown projection shall be provided. Justification: This is a minimal reduction and is required to ensure the necessary (LDC required) 23 feet, measured from the back of the sidewalk to the garage, to allow roam to park a vehicle on the driveway without parking over the sidewalk See Local Street Cross Section below. The substantive e om t e is area between cross-section ors local road in a Village are (1) theel URBAN sidens travel the sidewalk and travel lane is five. feet verses six feet and the width of [he travel lane is (11 verses 10 lane feel). Note: 'Phis local street cross section is unique to the BLSA - SRA Village. Though the applicant uses the incorrect Street Section (#9) for the Neighborhood General District, it is significantly altered. The proposed landscape area between the sidewalk and the curb is 5'-0", not the 8'-0" (minimum) as required*; which represents a 37% reduction of required area. * Staff misinterpreted the graphic. REQUIRED illage Core/Center Fig. 1. Local Street 20' travel, 8' & 8' parallel parking 16' Sidewalks, both sides of street Fig. 2. Local Street 26' travel, angled parking both sides 16' Sidewalks, both sides of street Fig. 3. Alley 21' paved travel surface Fig. 4. Local Street 20' paved travel surface URBAN3 REQUIRED Neighborhood General Fig. 5. Local Street 20' travel, 8' parallel parking (one side) 5' Sidewalks, both sides of street Fig. 6. Local Street 20' travel 5' Sidewalks, both sides of street . JIB, v M _u Fig. 7. Local Street 20' travel, 8' & 8' parallel parking 5' Sidewalks, both sides of street pie oaH" nGUK .R. Fig. 8. Local Street 10' travel, 8' parallel parking 5' Sidewalks, one side. Retaining, wall other. n5 i Fig. 10. Alley Profile 10' travel, 10' Utility, both sides Neiahborhood Edae Fig. 9. Local Street 22' travel Used 5' Sidewalks, both sides of street .� AT �e•w S e � � 0.ocu srvE EDGE rvcicNeoaH000 Fig. 11. Collector Street 22' travel 12' Multi -use Pathway ,aT dibl Fig. 12. Collector Street 22' travel 5' Sidewalks, both sides. 4' Bike Lanes, both sides. clia I Sao` a't =-��- Bellmar Deviation #6, Lon water Deviation #3 FLOYD li j Fig. 15. Collector Street 22' travel 12' Multi -use Pathway Fig. 16. Collector Street 22' travel 6' Sidewalks, both sides. 5' Bike Lanes, both sides r r Fig. 13. Collector Street Fig. 17. Collector Street 22' travel A pair of 22' travel 12' Multi -use Pathway 12' Multi -use Pathway 7� i r �7 Fig. 14. Collector Street Fig. 18. Collector Street 22' travel A pair of 22' travel 5' Sidewalks, both sides. 5' Bike Lanes, both sides. 6' Sidewalks, both sides. 5' Bike Lanes, both sides. pzt Innovation: Master Plan is Inadequate: Drawings fail to meet submission requirements. URBAN Master Plan Requirement SRA Master Plan The Belhnar SRA Master Plan is consistent with the recPtirements of Section 4.08.07.G. Collier County Land Development Code 4-08-07G Master Plan: To address the specifics of each SRA, a master plan of each SRA will be prepared and submitted to Collier County as a part of the petition for designation as an SRA. The master plan will demonstrate that the SRA complies with all applicable GMP policies and the RLSA District and is designed so that incompatible land uses are directed away from lands identified as FSAs, HSAa, WRAs, and Conservation Lands on the RLSA Overlay Map. 1. Master Plan Requirements. A master plan shall accompany an SRA Designation Application to address the specifics of each SRA. The master plan shall demonstrate that the SRA is designed so that incompatible land uses are directed way from lands identified as FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and Conservation Lands on the RSLA Overlay Map. The plan shall be designed by an urban plannerwho possesses an AICP certification, togetherwith at least one ofthe following: a. A professional engineer (PE.) with expertise in the area of civil engineering licensed by the State of Florida; Is. A qualified environmental consultant per Chapter 10 ofthe LDC; or c. A practicing architect licensed by the State of Florida. 2. Master Plan Content. At a minimum, the master plan shall include the following elements: a. The title of the project and name of the developer, Is. Scale, date, north arrow, c. Location map that identifies the relationship ofthe SRAto the entire RLSA District, including other designated SRAs; d. Boundaries ofthe subject property, all existing rpadways within and adjacent to the site, watercourses, easements, section lines, and other important physical features within and adjoining the proposed development: e. Identification of all proposed tracts or increments within the SRA such as, but not limited to: residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, conservation/ preservation, lakes and/or other water management facilities, the location and function of all areas proposed for dedication or to be reserved for community and/or public use. and areas proposed for recreational uses including golf courses and related facilities; f. Identification, location and quantification of all wetland preservation, buffer areas, and open space areas; g. The location and size (as appropriate) of all proposed drainage, water, sewer, and other utility provisions; h. The location of all Proposed major internal rights of way and pedestrian access ways: i. Typical cross sections for all arterial, collector, and local streets, public or private, within the proposed SRA; j. Identification of any WRAs that are contiguous to or incorporated within the boundaries of the SRA; and k. Documentation or attestation of professional credentials of individuals preparing the master plan. U RBAN3 There are several requirements that cannot be measured or quantified, because they are not presented on the plan. Connected pedestrian networks, yet they are not drawn or represented. The increments of Residential and their location are not identified (c.), nor are the locations of uses, streets or dedicated civic spaces in the Village Center (a.).There appears to be several types of streets, yet only the connector street is submitted in the plans. The playground is identified in the text, but not in plan. Without being on the plan, it's walkability and accessibility cannot be determined. The several connections Westward (b.) are also missing as well as the location of the Big Cypress Parkway, which is critical in determining connectivity cost. Finally, the plan only includes three drawn cross sections of roadway, yet at least four are represented (d.) on the drawing, and the drawing represents a right-of-way that is wider than submitted cross sections in what appears to be at least 70'-0" wide. All of the sections presented are for the loop road, but not the Village Center roads, and not for the Neighborhood General roads. Master Plan Requirements Adjacent and nearby infrastructure is not adequately represented on the drawings as required in the minimum requirements of Master Plan submittal (a.). The East West road beds to the west of the site are not drawn as they exist and to their extents. The conveyance canal (b.) is being used as a barrier to Big Cypress Parkway as well as Bellmar, rather than being incorporated into Bellmar as a feature and encourage interconnection into 2nd Avenue SE (c.) and 4th Avenue SE (d.). URBAN DENOTES CONVEYANCE CHANNEL RELOCATION OF . EXISTING REQUIRED FOR FUTURE BIG CYPRESS PARKWAY R.O.W. SSA 1 E POTENTIAL BOARDWP Master Plan Requirements SRA Master Plan The Belltnar SRA Master Plan is cansistent with the requirements of Section 4.08.07.G. Collier County Land Development Code 4-08-07G Master Plan: To address the specifics of each SRA, a master plan of each SRA will be prepared and submitted to Collier County as a part of the petition for designation as an SRA. The master plan will demonstrate that the SRA complies with all applicable GMP policies and the RLSA District and is designed so that incompatible land uses are directed away from lands identified as FSAs, HSAa, WRAs, and Conservation Lands on the RLSA Overlay Map. 1. Master Plan Requirements. A master plan shall accompany an SRA Designation Application to address the specifics of each SRA. The master plan shall demonstrate that the SRA is designed so that incompatible land uses are directed away from lands identified as FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and Conservation Lands on the RSLA Overlay Map. The plan shall be designed by an urban planner who possesses an AICP certification, together with at least one ofthe following: a. A professional engineer (PE.) with expertise in the area of civil engineering licensed by the State of Florida; Is. A qualified environmental consultant per Chapter 10 ofthe LDC; or c. A practicing architect licensed by the State of Florida. 2. Master Plan Content. At a minimum, the master plan shall include the following elements: a. The title of the project and name of the developer, Is. Scale, date, north arrow, c. Location map that identifies the relationship ofthe SRAto the entire RLSA District, including other designated SRAs; d. Boundaries ofthe subject property, all existing roadways with n and adjacent to the site, watercourses, easements, section lines, and other important physical feature within and adjoining the proposed development: e. Identification of all proposed tracts or increments within the SRA such as, but not limited to: residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, conservation/ preservation, lakes and/or otherwater management facilities, the location and function of all areas proposed for dedication or to be reserved for community and/or public use. and areas proposed for recreational uses including golf courses and related facilities; f. Identification, location and quantification of all wetland preservation, buffer areas, and open space areas; g. The location and size (as appropriate) of all proposed drainage, water, sewer, and other utility provisions; h. The location of all Proposed major internal rights of way and pedestrian access ways: i. Typical cross sections for all arterial, collector, and local streets, public or private, within the proposed SRA; j. Identification of any WRAs that are contiguous to or incorporated within the boundaries of the SRA; and k. Documentation or attestation of professional credentials of individuals preparing the master plan. U RBAN3 -Pu mk�eatEs • "Bm C o' nne Inl g tl aF re oxx°oYYsx.«ucbx—asemrnc ••w sr�e°� y' There are several requirements that cannot be o q�-,",„,� measured or quantified, because they are not "'°"m" m` s 4,5sA-s7 YaN LAR�YmEE-6 `YMIIARY'j -� f`SSA-1' presented on the plan. Connected pedestrian networks, yet they are not drawn or represented. EZt- Al The increments of Residential and their location are1.°aE Al not identified (c.), nor are the locations of uses, ` '` f..AG streets or dedicated civic spaces in the Village Center a..There appears to be several types of ( ) pp Yp W SSA-17.— streets, yet only the connector street is submitted in the plans. The playground is identified in the text but not in plan. Without being on the plan, its n ' ; � r? s5a-1-7' walkability and accessibility cannot be determined.I� The several connections Westward (b.) are also a. -• j.�°°°° °.r,',_ u o`, missing as well as the location of the Big Cypress Parkway, which is critical in determining connectivity cost. Finally, the plan only includes one drawn cross section of roadway, yet at least four are represented -aC8 pgpeE",YIW£ (d.) on the drawing, and the drawing represents a L SSA-17 E"=EE°• ;„;moo s moo= SSA-17''� right-of-way that is wider than submitted cross 1� � AG ° E ni "A sections in what appears to be at least 70'-0" wide. wj rYE—naiYa,a,". - ;, E "REV1-6 °"Ya pp ruawnea�AreRrnA",x ✓ zaR"p All of the sections presented are for the loop road, �"""�°"E°"° ni rasvA�eco oxwan vaECCYYArciv "erUaa9eiE but not the Village Center roads, and not for the b. Neighborhood General roads. ..'� r�"r.",�aar°Y•atYR,"r.Y° �a....,.... Innovation: Drawin� Scale: Renderingst le misre resents scale of impact. Y p URBAN -=. Master Plan Requirements The area as undefined "Village Center" (a.) is a large area, yet undefined. URBAN3 Collier County Land Development Code 4.08.01: UU: Village. Villages are a form of SRA and are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed - use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and facilities. VV: Village center. A defining Context Zone within a Village that is intended to provide a wide ranqe of uses including daily goods and services, culture and entertainment, and residential uses. Source: http://mapmerizenmikav a.com/ Scale Comparisons Graphics from dimensions.com Boxer Samoyed 28.5"-33" 24.5"-30" 72-84 cm 62-76 cm <-- 30"-35" 1 76-89 cm � <-- 28.5"-35.5" 1 72-90 cm Scale Comparisons Graphics from dimensions.com Great Dane Chihuahua AAII 48" 1122 cm 6„_9.. S.T-13" 15-23 22-�3 cm QM <— 4.5"-15" —) 24-38 cm Scale Comparisons Graphics from dimensions.com Great Dane < 48' 1122 - Chihuahua 6„_9.. S.T-13" 15-23 22-�3 cm QM <— 4.5"-15" —) 24-38 cm 11 'd ukasz rl yi;' OF Gordy . i Apartments No Airpi - aa!IAWNIF k{ n.z a trohAxe cmtrol nv R.E DE V E L O PM E N;f/ �� f` '€ %�•- IJ -.! A a S ,I CVS '�R EA Sih �Av Sh pp,g EJ's Bayfroni Cafe ? f� }�� `O Naples Flo Ida' A oy y t Naples waiedro t shops V � P� irls I Y Camb P k - ' � " OI ve Ga den Ital • 4, .lHOP - r yi >T In" Y ��.+e• V, wT`jQ r R ..iE� 1 t. I I �� 1 r1 �L Y i�ei M- Ad e 1 G Ifs@'. (^' ♦Tf e Boatha b �'-'• t G, Naplea B ydr FD E 1 rY r L s ownn o. Naples.�p. J, _I• y - 1 EI fo �YSBaha a C{:. r xd ) r? testa antLB _ ytonC @ rr,,y % I \9• B 5 p - ke1. as tch Access - .,ezi �- 1 1 ... � R O V/A1L H'P. RIB10 R -'- C�I n a6L I TG ful Bural k-,111 ":•6 (Id Builtlers Int r ,. •! EPscoP 4Ch � t 1 s, r :'Y♦ S f f y Page 57 � TmI y ,Ideas •� 6 +h-Nanda Blvd \ � r- V � �r � Iv s BeacliTi golf .' - rl ,. - .. • -.I •�Irn Its �j--.. Ti _ _. s Y1 • • Naples Airpo H ,k R.ED EV ELOPMErI A`R EA IA g ITfi -1f/ r ZI V tl •Tn #1 I 1p � / �P '-• y H'ater(rorit Shoes glii V • + Yt l �.I. PIt k rl4.�601 ye Ga den Ital a •kHOP r d Sit , � 'T et � 4 � � - r P,r w .••T L �... , ♦ i � i� l r l''„ nr ? c Ic _♦Tr Bbmnn - i '+ �I>.•�,.�ItJUI0. o NavlusB Y�I � i �5 1 L EI men 7o Y;Baha f•jI+y- q _7111r1t a Restau a t �Ba St -t _ e ♦ ±5 'f ayton C e r s Bravo 3dparmarke�c �y Beach Access � - � • � r 7 L R OWA P I:4 I: f' �j C in t- Fl , f _ t- >Trrjl 2° t� gyp. 9jj� i I w• AQUMba- a' ii,acef,l Burial:`• kal G (Id Builders Inc dy by t Ep'sdop ik Ch Y f. {:r of Page 58 I Q o11 ntl-- m J m S S ( (ZZ" anda Blve hmi I �� i � • //f !Ili � ` . , . �� wIV BeacliTi r1 olf Elan - — _ Ti_ 7, r 1 Ily •. � �IINII II c:'R �R E'D—ELOPME'I � .[Iif: 11MAIREA !�f Stl 1Av. 0, Sh pp y, �E:1 -Bayf 1!C rr% o rda „R i- ,..r �� ' a11� ^iP41s a w le t1 snopB '-F: - ... s t puliveOWN I GBid'en Iral an•, ,,,,��LL R 01,YJAlL H.P. R%O R.. br io ti i F' e �,_ .. .. I I �..In,•rs Inc r -:l„ ' r lyby it t i EP P JOn +7 Y 1. Page 59 1h1 Nt _ - hYJ =.a a IgIYO � J 7 Naples Airport- n :! % Y. I } : 1,.�•.' Lq1�TI'�•' I I %f.:•rlir' Tin City• " ■ N:a les Waterfront Shops.' " dip A _ . yrsmnuc5�. - ','� . 'irSz -•�, �::'�lic•+ r L f+�?CuRphier � 1 ` r •err A e `'�': � obi T� t. � �• "� `� x 1 �' �••• FM GiatlCS,BNd� — ©owntown Maples., .: s 3 `� ' h 'r„'rx�` Gollier,Cty 4 I Naples Beach v'" Government';Ceriter•=b _ ®"..� ROYAC+�H'ASR;BOR j r yr E1AS I N•APL•ES - `1 rAgUAL^AB E I' �HnR Ci 44 __r• 4 S. r` Si •Ili 'V` - Rend :p, R.T RO�AL •iV :�. '� 'Naples.... . rG Like 162 _ 'S,n yi• BO12fZica.---:. -S .� .� ti Ga�d'en Master Plan Requirements © Collier County Naples FL o The area as undefined "Village Center" (a.) is about four downtown blocks in downtown URBAN Naples. The 5th Avenue commercial core of downtown Naples from 4th to 8th is noted (b.) Source: http://mapmerizer.mikavaa.com/ END Back Deck Innovation: Creative Planning Techniques Mixed -Uses, Diversity of Uses, and balance of Uses URBAN Source: Collier County Toward Better Places Document to Collier Gnarly Ca m munlly Character Plan GREAT NEIGHBORHOODS WHAT ALUMS A GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD? Portions of Old Naples were mentioned frequendy during public par- ticipation events as good examples of neighborhoods in Collier County. These were often contrasted with gated PUDs and cul-de-sus subdivi- sions that proliferate in Collier today. The difference between these two development approaches is subtle when viewed through regulato- ry eyes, but profound in the three-dimensional results. There is no single litmus test for neighborhood quality; neighborhoods of suong character are treated through a varietyof techniques. The most sucoessftd neighborhoods generally exhibit design conventions that are absent in conventional sprawl. These include: a legible center and Edge to the neighborhood, an iategrated network of walkable strel an overall size to the neighborhood suitable for walking, buildings set close enough in the streets in spatially define the streets as public spares, and opportunities for shopping and workplecea close L. home. Developing and redeveloping settlements based upon a model of traditional neighborhood design principles is the first step towards great neighborhoods. These design standards and conventions have withstand the ill of time. Discussed in mare detail below, these ideas help create ltvability, a sense of community and uldmareiy com- munity rhatactcc Edge Park The Edge areas have the leaal acUviry and are smgla hmlly—,kmhel In chamcmr Win a luwe 6-aftf than me dher areas. and may even Induce mansion-s-d hous- larg. Ida Edges am Id.nllfled by a dsdmd change such as a I-nal feahrre Lke an—, III or jm.—y. m. man-matle f-lu. such aa. tnorougmam. Thee. I— pmWde a physlW dIhl mat Inane a psy&c ghat be undary, giving cad neighborhood Identity The General areas are .bad use In Iundion but are primarlly ma ldenlial In chera, ter. Th.. In rei-re of sImI.I.mily homed rows—li, aV.rt—ht,. a A'liva-wane' unhs for small buslnessee_ The ganeml area's; usually are largest area or a bell hood. The Il areas are places whore a greater range of uses is expenod and imm - aged. nay [area post ofllces, I.Ior le& small nalghbemood retail, Ilve-wdlt apace& antl places of worship are braked here_ The Comer Is typically mom spdlally mnv pact and is mere Ilkdy m have soma attached "I'll MuI&army breldings In me Canter are well•suaetl to acoommoeal. a mix d uses. such as apartments or officsa above shops. Lofts, Ibelwmt combinations, and buildings designdl hr charging EdgeACY, t � Single Family Detached Single Family Attached Mixed -Use c.r lty Deslga Manual 1 1 2.7 These nelgh cod zones a based on lhe'ba—r tound h fl o i.exkon of In New llrbaNsm realetl by Uuany. Plater-Zyberk a Compary fmgmae d the Urbanism is pmmding are use d the imnsacl mrg im membc mafandard'ea sr�talnable develop men[ pa[I Gmal helghbmh tlr have a wltle cross racoon d es thal va In Intensity from ter b edge. The center of a neigh- borhood Is u aly developed Ina wd-uss manner with more macro use khan III general an do. area Thls dsI'rrate gradient rrmom—rue ¢dime pCo1 eery as wdl ass variety of ` usng an c c, ralopgons. li r4'"-u _ F e.e a�a m � over time am appropriate for the Center. Schools, post oRices, Ibrahim, small mdA, higher imm—y maldenrral, and her deedna— help eempda. the caner. ca The carder is wIl walking that . d this surm e undindma g, phiy restd.r l areas. Cannes General. antl Edge am zones wllhin a nelghbomwod and do not always rarer Is Well spatial locaion within a neighbeth..d The C.—does not neoessadly hay. m occur' me gaomeNe eemer of a neighborhood. In many Insmntms, Ina Ideal mail Inumor wdll orryr at We wnvergence of tun neighborhoods, on mdr pedphery h this se, the gecenr lc center of a neighborhood can be occuplad by a less Intense sd of use& perhaps a comer slow, or clWc use. When a large mtall ceder occurs at the paripndy of a neighborhood. between Nm neighbomocds, on a major Irk—lihfam, this is Moral . as the Core Area. The Cwe areas am me denseaf In a nelghbmhood, ocwpletl M InstiWllonal, i lral- aes& and remise uses. The chareder of the cons la care urban than me confer and Is almost always st—d by two m mom n.lghborloods and actors on a major thor- oughfam. The Cde Is usually within walkhg d1,ble f—ral resideriat areas. Center Common URBAN3 Village Center is 'moated' from Neighborhood General, rather than integrated by design. / I � Edge Park Source: Collier County Toward Better Places '�—A Longwater Village enter Detail 7 GAE �j 1 This box has a WHAT 1J _ 2,500' Perimeter Portions dcipatio CENTER These w 'ions th I I I two dew— ry eyes r Me A There is 1 of st<ong UPTYPE most su I fl - zre else /{ -t {A? L.9.E. /C III to l Streets, bttildings t "� �'«' as publie 4-08-07 SRA Designation close a model 4-08-07C2J.3d.ii(g) Village Center Block to—& Perimeter: 2,500 feet max haven. Ideas hel -unity URBAN3 aetivlfy and are sbgle-famify romdentlal in eh.—.r and may swan Indude manslon-slzad hous- tlfisd by a daI [hang. such as a natural II nmatle i Wm such as a thomughfam. al change oral forme a peychebgical boundary, glvng sa in luncbm but are pdmadly maldential In champ fam'ty homes ruwhouses, apart,—lL&.-d'IkvenverN' general —a is usuaay the largest area of a iera a greater range of uses is expecled and encmar- r ales, small nalghborI retail. tive-wont spaces. Whem. Th. Cenror Is lypleaity morn spatially come me artache0 buildings. Multistory building. In the madam a mir or uses, such as apartments or offices mbinabons. and bulldfnps designed For changing g.U�t.. .-,✓ Single Family Detached Single Family Attached Communlly Oesldn Manual u over time am appropriate for the Cente, schools, post effoss, llbmilm, small mtlA, higher intensity maleanrtal, and her destinatiery help comprise Iha cener. The caller is wOla ualklag diaranoe d the sumoundng- pdmadly residential areas Center, General, and Edge am zones within a neighborhood and do not always mler to Wall spac2t Icoat— within a neighborhood. The Cenmr does not netxsaadiy ha- m occur at me gaom.Wc same, of a n.lghborhood. In may Instances, the Ideal mail leraaon wIl orryr at me convergence of tun nsighbomonds, m their periphery 1, this case, the C—Irlc center of a nalghb.ft.ol cart be occupied by a less Intense set of use& perhaps a comer slow, or[Isis usewhen a large rotall canter occurs at We pariphasy of a rrolghborl-d. lb— Nm neighborhoods, on a orator mh ghfam, this ie.-d m ae the Core Ama. The Core areas are me densest In a nelghbadrnod, oc Ad M Instilutlonal busl- nass anti service uses. The charade, of the coro la nwe urban than the center all s almost always sh_' by two or mom nelghbomocds and occurs on a major dror- oughfam. The Core Is usually within eelkhg dishnee ofseveral residential areas. Mixed -Use IM These neigh pod zones a based on the •bansecr found In the Ledeb Nfh New lhb-V_ reeled by Dusny. Plater-Zyberk & cl,nm y Cmgrese of H. urbanism is pmmding lire use nr me Tmnsacl on for mamba m slanoardea srwtalnable develop. men[ p t Great nalghborlr ds have a wide cross section of es that va In Intensity from ter b edge. The center of a nelgh- barhood Is u aly developed In a IxacI use manner with more nos use khan the general an rig. area This deI'rrate gredlerrt rrwom ca nor, edge pC des nary es—M ass variety of usng an c c, rat coons. Center Common URBAN3 Village Center is 'moated' from Neighborhood General, rather than integrated by design. Edge Park �nm stub Source: Collier County Toward Better Places Docum t Bellmar Village Center Detail .....�. GRE Z • WHAT 3� JU AGE CEhTTE portions dcipatio These w &ions the two,i: �h U.E ry eyes, 25' TYPE (D) There is � ' L.B.E� of s tong most su are able This box has a wedge to Iatreets 2,500' buildings Perimeter as public Close t a modcl 4-08-07 SRA Designation tOWaida ham vvi 4-08-07C2J.3d.ii(g) Village Center Block ideas hel Perimeter: 2,500 feet max ° rM SIX rnI c Al IN no] FRI I —it,, and are angls.famgy reaidenhel In charwcmr . and may n Mdude mansion -seed houe- uned by disrina chanevege suds as a —ral feature or .man-matle feature such as a tnoroI, fam. tlenge That forms a psytliofngiral bountlary givmg se in kuncdort but are primarily reald-Cal In ch— family homes, mwM--, apartments,-d'live-wane' general area is usually lira largest area of a nalghber- e a greater range of uses I. a "-d! and encour- rlas, small nerghborhood retail, Ilve-work spaces, b here_ The Caner Is typically mom spatially mnF mors attached balhdinj _ MI bald"' In are ocha a an. of uses. such as aparhnems 0'or— mbinaaons, and buildings designed for changing t' Edge - Single Family Detached Single Family Attached Community Deslan Manual over time am appropriate for the Cener. Schools, post effess, libraries, small roeA, higher inenstty maldenrral, antl her d.finatierx help comprise the ceh., The caller is wllhh wafkIng tliar . d the aurmunding, primarily resttlentlal areas Center, General, and Edge am es within a neighborhood and do not always refer to Ihelr spadat location within a neighborhood. The Caner does not necessarily hate e occur al me gaomeWc cemar of a nalghborhoad. In many Instances, the Ideal retail leraaon w1l orryr at the wnrergence of tun naighborlrwda, on their periphery IIIthis oe, the geomerrlc center of a nelghbortrcod can be occupied by a less Intense set of uses perhaps a Donner slam, or civic use. When a large (tall canter otters at the periphery of a neighborhood, between Nm naighborhoctls, oa a malor thoreughfaro, this is 1.1—d a as the Cora Ama. The Cwe areas am the densest In a nelghbarhood, =Ad M InsaWtlonal, busi- ness antl service uses. The charader f the coro Is nxxe urban than Iha caner all a almost ahvays siraretl by two a mom neighborhoods all actors on a major dror- oLghr a—. The Cee Is usuaiiy within walking tllshnce of several resid rAial areas. Mixed -Use M These neigh ootl zones a based on ee'bansed' euntl InIha Lexdooe of th New llraaNsm reared by 13—y. Plaer-Zyberk S.Company fmgreae o7 H.Urbanism is pmmetlng the use of the Tmnsacl orhg i�memba a slandaM¢e sr�tainabla develop marl pall Greet helghbortr ds have a wide cross secaon of es that va In Interrelty fmm ter b edge. The center of a nelgh- barhood Is u aly devaloped In a IKod! use manner veth more inlerao use khan the general an dig. area This dslkam gradient om rrranee edge 1p—'des as nary —M ase vmlely of Iwusing an c c, rat cpgcns. Center Common URBAN3 J� oo u Block size and road sections have been deviated in the Village Center, but this was not included. Village Center Detail L'ILLAIGL ' CENTS l'� 25' TYPE (D) L.B.E. This box has a 2,500' Perimeter 4-08-07 SRA Designation , 4-08-07C2J.3d.ii(g) Village Center Block Perimeter: 2,500 feet max ° rM SOW URBAN3 SR.A Document Seetion 7.1. Vifiaec Center -Standards: Deviation #1 seeks relief from I.I]C Section 4_[1S_U7.7.3.dii.p}ii} :'General Parking CriGaia,' which states "Ibe majority of parking spaces shall be provided off -shied in the rear of buildings aiiow parxrng to rim or r uuoingc m rue vmage c,emer, when such parr:ng is ru suppon or a shopping center which mchrdes a grocery store. A Type 'D' buffer per LDC at bme cfpeme Hag will be required when narking is adiaceot to or abutting a road. JusWficatiou: The Village Center.fr' opts on future Big Cypress Parkway and u separafedf om future Big Cypress Parkway by a 25 foot wide Type D Buffer. To be viable in the market place the linage center commercial uses need to be both accessible and convenient to motorists from future Big Cj press Parkway_ This may warmntpar king in what may be determined to be a front yard: however; with a 25 font wide Type D buffer along fatereBfg Cypress Parkway, such Parking will be adequafeiy screened from avow. WrOtoat direct access (and expasure) to and fmm.futurr Big C] press Parkway, the commercial enterprises will not be viable in the marketplace. The request is to eliminate the restriction on the amount of parking that may be located within any yard. Note: This LDC Provision (and thus this deviation request) is upugve to the RtSA Operlay. Staff Audi sk and Reronrnrerldation.. Zoni�p and Development Review staff reconruends APPROVAL of this deviation- finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.3.8(2)_ the petitioner has demonstrated that 'Ike deviations are consistent with the RI SA taweday" and LDC tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of irmovative planning and development strategies, as set froth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F_S." Deviation # 2 seeks relief hour LDC Section 4.08.47.7.3.d.ii.q)l which requires that the majority of uaikinff be located in the rear of buildin s and prohibits parkiing in the front of buildings except on street padang within the fight -of -way to instead allow parking in the frnmt, side and rear yards, when such parking is in support of a shopping center which mchudes a grocery store. A Type `D' buffer per LDC at time of permitting will be required when parking is adiacent to or abutting a road. Note: This Just'firadon. This deviation is requested to allow parking in front, side, or rear yards in the l tillage Center in order provide for maximum design flexibility far what will be a relatively small amount of commercial uses providing nafghborhood goods and services. Also see Jushricalion for iU, above. Convenience and easy access are crikeal for achieving market viability far the nonresidential uses in the Village center; partrculadyfor thepass by tra c which is absolutely necessary far the viability of the commercial elements. Design flexibility is also necessary. ,Staff' Anah-sir and Reronrnierrdation. Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, Rnding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.3.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consisted with the RLSA Orver y and LDC tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set froth in && 163.3177 (11}_ F_S.' Another Grocery, same deviation as Rivergrass How is this "innovative"? There are no streets drawn in the Village Center, nor has the proper street sections been submitted, so how could this warrant a deviation? How is this "innovative"? URBAN3 Village Center is 'moated' from Neighborhood General, rather than integrated by design. Bellma Village Center Detail A. ILLAGE y CEhT7IE O' U.E 25' TYPE (D) LB.E, This box has a 2,500' Perimeter 4-08-07 SRA Designation , III ON any, 210 Both Rivergrass and Bellmar seek the same grocery store deviation. This doesn't include the commercial properties that the applicant controls between Longwater and Bellmar. The total population projected for all three projects is 17,171 peak population. The two grocery stores would equal a value of 8.59 grocery stores/1,000 residents, this is 50 times the average countywide. USDA Economic Research Service U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Home Data Products , Fdad Environment Atlas . Go to the Atlas Go to the Atlas clkk on —P for county-speciflc INormalion Tr per, [lick end hNd wNI, moving pointer About ERS Careers at ERS GAQs Contact Us httpsl/v.w,x.ers.usda.gov/data-products food-environment-atlas/go-to-the-atlas/ Proposed groceries are 50X County Average. URBAN3 Interconnections Big CYres Parkway Lack of Nort�-South Connectivity. URBAN3 Missing North -South Connector JFigure 4-11. 2045 Needs Plan Roadway Projects Map 5 0■ F 4A4'll All- It C1sC2 � n 19mP COLLIER COUNTY 1� 6 7nnl d nxnco A Co—r MPO 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan Big Cypress Parkway does show up in the MPO LRTP Plan, but only achieves a score of 70 URBAN3 and greater in the priority ranking, which pushes the project well past the horizon year. Projects' Location IL '0�kal� N,o 3 � s2 ARNiR H E gun: y C7 ca �nl'v y © aioP�re t U5 H� 0pr y i9 rpm HlRfwav } Ralb.adnvad 4-39 T 1,1-6.2045 Needs plan List of Roadway projects I-- W M.PIO Needs Rankiry P.p. From I Type of PmjeR Desari00n B.f,d Rd. ERed— The Loral Way CMGs eBMdN Uway Ca q ne Rob IFPWnaablem FR II]msl 3 41 B ld Rd. A41(SRBB) ail F� Rmlemake Hammock Facension Roadway G c NewTwodRoad 4 .gable EO Foururez 3 12 By CA.- Pkwy. G. BNa. Goldin Gace Blvd. BaGpaal tlry NewTwoAa.e Road IFapanaablem FwrEamzl 4 M Bid Cypress Pk- Gam Bka. VaMeNllc Bexb—d Fat P..dway C_ft N.ne Road (,—d:... Pour Unesl s NR gwess vkM. VandeNlk Beads Rd. Fam.sk. onwa Ra. Roativny Gw.Y Ne4bl —ne Road IFape.eablem FRNr laree) 6 @ Nn cypress—y. oil Well Rd. mmOkale.Rd. Rwd— GaCM Road IFapanaabPlem Four lamsl @ Gmp leak Rtl. PopemM Paul Bkd. OII Wal RO. Rwi7 Gptlly Wtlenfrom TwOm Faurmnea GmD Regis M. m0k R. Rd. Popelabn Pout tivd. Roadway .D Ry Wtlm from TwOm Faurlanes 9 Glll.11-1 1) Gelds. Gem m- Gnl Green BMa. R-d- UWdty Wtlenfmm Fourao5la lane of__ Glller—(CR 93f) (npaMmm.n1-11 me/Gllkr COonty R—a GwcM ..Roaa Fyerylmez aNa. Rana.. Nyd xmnef on wen Ro,a Roadwa Gw.v wtlmfom Twom FGur Gnes ]2 35 Evelglaaez BNtl. Va—dit Bea. Rd. E#enzkn Randall Blvd. Raatlway GWcM Wtlen (rein Twom Faurmnn Collier MP02045 Long Honge Tmnsp—ion PId, 4-30 Ch0pmr42045Needd Plop Missing North -South Connector a, Table ES-7. Collier MPO 2045 LRTP Cost Feasible Plan Projects — Partially Funded Projects IFY2026—FY2045) Draft 11/12/2020 (in millions $) Pbn Perlotl L tmj: Ras Pend li Beyond the Horizon Year Plan Perind 3o I Ran T W 4t TotalP Jed T Rmtling Rlev cpR zbxl-zs T LYn151rwn Gmde[R DPsnd POC m19$ YDE PPEENG RANI CT PREm6 0.OW 61 PPEENG ROW 6T pAR11R11Y FLNOm ptc1dip 5 1 —field Rd [mewl Thelixds Way Oo, Gate BIW N q-24ane Road 63731 $11AO (6D1291 (E�antlahem0. 5 Blg Cypress PYwy VandnblltBrecM1 `1 W`Rtl New 24ane Roatl $3731 1 -- 1 Rtl , (Erfl dhble m0. •- -s0 BTZU Wt 5m67 !a,4 bets, did• Frsa 7e -— aersay- •$I&- -- -- - - - •- -- - RegBiree omltWkalee Rtl Planning5mtly] 33 dttle feugue RtlErt SR 82 esRlm St Y-24ane Road s4 ".75 41A Ronda Il BlW 111—i Imsakalm Rd ElldmaUlnrasecdon mm (bDinTl Imprweurast oygpa: 55 9R 04 Mavis BEvd] Ar"nPulling Rtl nm Barbar,Rl Widen From 4-lanes m Ela na $4026 G28 Vandwbl l t ReacM1 Rd ExL E.gog des Alyd OigCypress Pkwy New24ane 1 $4112 (EVPandabl. to 4 69 Evngladas Bl vd DII W91 Rd/CR Imm IBe Rtl Widen 2m 41,B— 672.73 853 74 ImRCW-Rd jCR 8461 - - Wllson&vd Major lnterscdon Impeovaurast W1 93 Isrmok —Rtl 13. Ar If dy North of 47tla 11—NE W.—from 2-Iarle, $9 T9 NOIIOW BIWE m0.lanes 94 Ruml milage&W 1,,1ee Rd Imm IEe Rtl 11-44aneA-ff 623A1 98 Vandsbl It Beach Rd Ji—m nRd Minor lnmrsedon $2150 ImprcvemaR 302 tlb4119R 9G](Tamlami Vandabllt RrecM1 Maf or lnUrzecdon $2,GQ Trail El Rd Imprcve 103 tl54119R W] ITaMami Plne RidgEkd Major lnmrseclion 5250 Trail El Impmuenlatk 164 054119R W) lTaMami Wden Gale Pkvw Majorlmersation Trail El [446451.1] ImprovBn iiiii1mP—IN Fs Jd for COR9LN[tloN _PRE-ENGm Wdes PD&E aOdD 4111 �INl4lNL QaY C091 _Rlgh-f—ay _CRhS /NO YO£ —1, Collier MPO 2045 tong Range Transportation Mon URBAN3 E5-32 In addition to a low ranking (b.), 'engineering' isn't even expected to begin until 2036-2045 (a.). mmom■ m-®--® ®-®--® NONE N ®-®--® WEENNE b. 6. 2045 Needs Plan List of Roadway Projects Neils ap ID Pankiry Proles From To Type PP.p.. Desoipdpn B.I.. Rd. E—i.. —mr. way CMGate B..N away Capacity Rwd IGwntlable tP Lour lanes) 3 41 Benfkk Rd U511 (BR9o1 TaMami Trail Fl Rmlemake Nammork Fmension Roadway G c New Tw .B.1 4 ndabletoieurUws If 1 1 3 12 B y Cypress Pkwy. rem Nd. Gate Goltlm ate Blvd. Roadway Uwdty NrwTbl—FeRead IFgwndabletp FwrUwsl 1 � 1 4 M Big Cypress K". GaWen Gate BNd. V eNllt —1, Rwtl Exl. Roadway CapacM NewTuoUneRwtl IEawntlabletp Pour Unesl 1 1 • G71 Big Cyp Bn Pkx VandeNlk Beads Rd. Fumsbn 011WeIRd. Roadway GpUly NewTwmnane". IEgpandablel—Uwsl 1 1 1 1 6 Bx By Cypress Pkwy. oil Well Rd. mm I.Rd. Reatlway EawcM Road IFawndableU lourUwsl 1 1 e - - - - - R - - - - - - - Gmp Keals Rtl. - - - - - - PowloM Paul BNtl. - - - - - - - OII Wa1 Rd bMa GwcRy - WRmfrom Twea Pour Una UmD Reels Rd mo 1. Rd. Pape lehn Paul Rvd. URewiy.cla WNm from Twpm FaurUnex 9 Gllln BNd.(OR B51) Ge Goa MRln G., G. &d. Roadway Uwdly Wtlenhom iourUSlB Una 10 C0.951 Fatmsbn -WrB (CR"I) U/Ullkr County Roadwey GwcM ne Roatl EWrylades BNtl. RaMell BFud Sou.af 011 Well Roatl Rwdway Uwtlry WRm from Twom Faur Unea —derbih Bea. Rd. )2 35 EW�glatles BNtl. Este Collier MPO 2N5 Lon0 Range Tmnspodarlan Plan Bantle))Blvd. 4-30 Paad— .-By Wkm lmm TwoU Pour Unm C p1er42045Needs Plan Source: Collier County 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (Adopted 12/2020) Missing North -South Connector Nee, A suu[xx izie �: Lr o 9waEiND.NOPOEiexLLCpxaExrIDxerOTA[ ._• �me no �• �.i`'/, /14 ryes nwEECENiER aAp ' • aRn eauxwRrrmx Nan � xSPAt✓•=r+Or' 0 oeu Nryxgµnr w+aew+.orwrxo+ PAEOR WRA ! V 'E :N�i EOP�5SA 17� vmAuxouEeEUNNAEv �� �Ea i � o�wc � � � ocPasa sEcr�oN SSA-17/� C� J/J Roe 1 �f � xcrvPE EoIEs.E. SSA-17:' AG E. �E M_ .. 1. - DWPER—WE PA -E EN EEN SSA17 A""ePoe 6eeQ_ n..-- �W,oa�x.f yr. r �` SSA-17\� r HAG � rxEEE urNervnrtAi neRt nnr, Pare NA levnN rPoanis cP�d .- xwawEE—TERrNAN 1.2 wEu aE NaNrwNen lxa � AaNno+rESAo ' iPRECONN0.rPyv NeruReL EaerE -MI SPACEN� DR WRp A=REseo SSA-17 ' URBAN3 Without Big Cypress Parkway, both projects suffer from network connectivity and interconnections. Longwater (1.) only makes one (a.) out of three possible westward connections, or about 30% connectivity. Bellmar (2.) has two (b), but has four opportunities, or about 50% connectivity. Additionally, the design uses a canal to become a further impediment to two points of connection. Source: Collier County 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (Adopted 12/2020) END June 2018 Just the Facts: The Process from Final Order to Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay and the Magnitude of Development Anticipated This white paper is intended to provide supplemental information on how the RLSA came to be. Collier County staff has put together a white paper, which contains documentation of how the RLSA was created. However, the Conservancy believes that additional historical context is needed to provide the complete picture. We regularly hear comments about the public "misunderstanding" or being "misinformed" about the original intent of the RLSA when adopted in 2002. From the Conservancy's perspective, we do not believe the public misunderstands the RLSA. Instead, they see clearly that the planning concept which ultimately came to be known as the RLSA is a very different program than what it was marketed as during its creation and journey to adoption into the Comprehensive Plan, especially with regard to the magnitude of development anticipated within the overlay. The below information contains just the facts, not the Conservancy's position or analysis of the program. From this and other information that is readily available in the public record, the Conservancy urges all interested parties to research and come to their own conclusion about how much development was anticipated when the RLSA was "sold" to the County and the public. Such information is absolutely critical as we move forward to review this program. Leading Up to the Final Order Nov. 1997 — Collier County adopts new Comprehensive Plan amendments Dec. 1997 — Department of Community Affairs finds amendments "Not In Compliance" May 1998 — Administrative Law Judge hears the case Feb. 1999 — County makes public the terms of Settlement in the case March 1999 — WilsonMiller, on behalf of their clients the Eastern Collier Property Owners (ECPO), offers a Rural Assessment to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) — the BCC is supportive of the concept, to be paid for by the landowners June 1999 —Governor and Cabinet issue the Final Order (Above information from BCC Workshop Agenda Packet 9-26-2001 p. 13) Final Order AC-99-002 Issued by Governor and Cabinet Directed Collier County to conduct a Rural and Agricultural Assessment to: 1. Protect prime agricultural lands 2. Direct incompatible uses away from wetland and upland habitat, in order to protect water resources and listed species 3. Create mechanisms to allow for appropriate conversion of ag lands to other uses while avoiding sprawl (AC-99-002) The Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment The County divided the areas to be addressed in the Final Order. The Immokalee Study Area, now known as the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA), contained approximately 195,000 acres. The Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District (RFMUD) contained approximately 73,000 acres. One of the major stated concerns motivating these planning efforts was to create an avenue that would avoid an ultimate build -out in the rural areas at the baseline zoning of 1 unit per 5 acres (commonly referred to as ranchettes). Interestingly, the data gathered during the process did not find that there the Immokalee Study Area was threatened by land use conversion or intensification to residential: "The Immokalee Study Area has experienced minimal changes since 1985. There has been no significant agricultural land converted to non- agricultural uses, population growth has been minimal, and urban growth pressures have had no impact on the land. Only 3% of the land area has been converted from natural vegetation to agriculture since 1985. The vast majority of the area is used for agricultural purposes, ranging from row crop production and citrus cultivation to cattle grazing. An analysis of parcel size shows that the entire study area contains only 138 parcels of 40 acres of less. This indicates that subdivision of land or conversion to urban use in not occurring." (BCC Agenda Packet, 6-12-02, packet p. 51.) However, everyone agreed a long-term planning solution to disincentivize ranchettes was important. The Immokalee Study Area The BCC created the Rural Lands Oversight Committee in October 1999, and their first meeting was in November 1999. (BCC 9-26-01 Workshop Packet pdf p. 52) The Conservancy served on the Committee. During the course of their existence, the Committee met 33 times at advertised public meetings. (October 11, 2002 County Memo contained in the CCPC adoption hearing packet, CCPC Item 7.1, p.2) While WilsonMiller first went public with their offer to do the work on behalf of the Eastern Collier Property Owners in March 1999 (BCC Workshop Agenda Packet 9-26- 2001 p. 13), it was not until January 2000 that the BCC, with the unanimous support of the Committee, voted to endorse the WilsonMiller Scope of Services (BCC Agenda Packet 1-11-00). Such action was not without controversy. However, the BCC and public were assured by Alan Reynolds of WilsonMiller that all parts on their work would be in the public process. (per Alan Reynolds 1-11-00 BCC transcripts p. 94-95) The WilsonMiller/ECPO Scope of Services Stage 1: Collection of data Stage 2: Design alternative development scenarios Stage 3: Testing alternatives Stage 4: Draft Comp Plan Amendment (BCC Executive Summary from 1-11-00, item 8(A)6 for full scope) The Process The Final Order required the Rural and Agricultural Assessment to be a very public process. According to the WilsonMiller Stage 1 Report: "The professional consulting team was led by WilsonMiller, Inc, and included certified planners, ecologists, biologists, GIS experts, economists, agricultural experts, civil engineers, landscape architects, water resource specialists and transportation planners. The Collier county staff served as process facilitators, coordinated public input and provided technical support. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) consisted of nine state and federal agencies coordinated by the Department of Community Affairs and provided periodic reviews and comments on technical work and study processes. Experts from a variety of fields were invited to provide testimony and input during the study process." "The BCC established the Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee (Committee) with a diversified membership representing all aspects of the community including business, agricultural, environmental, and civic interests." (Both above quotes from BCC Agenda Packet, 6-12-02, p. 44.) Immokalee Study Area Stage 1 Report The first step taken by WilsonMiller was to collection data. This was done in conjunction with Committee meetings, open to the public and with public participation as a hallmark. Data included: • Land cover/land use • Listed species • Water resources • Traffic GIS mapping done Used best available science for the year 2000 (Immokalee Study Area Stage 1 Report. Created by WilsonMiller. 2000. Appendix E.) However, the study acknowledged: "The analyses involving panther habitat for the Study will be complemented by ongoing computer modeling of potential habitat and development of an updated panther recovery plan by interagency committees led by the US Fish and Wildlife Service." (Immokalee Study Area Stage 1 Report. 2000. WilsonMiller. P. 14.) The Stage 1 Report was subject to review by the Committee, the public, all interested parties and the TAC. (Immokalee Study Area Stage 1 Report. 2000. WilsonMiller. P.1) The WilsonMiller/ECPO Stage 1 Report was presented to the BCC in Sept. 2001. (BCC Workshop Agenda Packet 9-26-2001 p. 13) Report and Recommendations of the Collier County Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee for the Immokalee Area Study Subsequent to the BCC presentation of the Stage 1 Report, WilsonMiller, ECPO, the Committee and the public continued the process by building on the data compiled and testing various planning tools and scenarios. These efforts culminated in the WilsonMiller May 2002 Report and Recommendations of the Collier County Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee for the Immokalee Area Study. This report contains a variety of valuable information regarding how the RLSA was created. However, for the purposes on this White Paper, we are focusing on what was stated regarding the magnitude of development capacity contained in the RLSA overlay. The following excerpts are taken from this report, and were the basis upon which the Conservancy, as a member of the Committee, assessed the suitability of the RLSA to meet the intent of the Final Order. The report states: "Using the current zoning entitlement of 1 dwelling per 5-acres on A - Agriculture zoned land as a control total, the maximum number of dwelling units that could be constructed on the 182,331 acres of privately held land would be 36,466 dwelling units. Using an average gross density for compact rural development of 2.17 dwelling units per gross acre, consistent with the Rural Development Characteristics guidelines discussed previously, only 16,805 acres would need to be set aside for the buildout density in compact rural development as opposed to accommodating that same number of units on 182,331 acres of 5-acre home sites. The remaining step in the calculation process involves eliminating the credits for the number of acres to be used as Receiving Lands (16,805 X .15 credits per acre = 2,521 credits). The net result is 134,388 credits generated for the rural compact development of 16,805 acres, resulting in an exchange rate of 8.0 Sending Area credits per acre of Receiving Area land." (Report and Recommendations of the Collier County Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee for the Immokalee Area Study page 40. Created by WilsonMiller. 2002. Also contained in the BCC Transmittal Hearing Agenda Packet, June 12, 2002, p.78 — highlights added) "The results revealed that the incentive -based stewardship program fulfills all Final Order objectives. Approximately 85,000 acres of the 182,300 acres of privately held lands are delineated as Flow Way, Habitat and Water Retention Stewardship Areas. Approximately 21,000 acres of ACSC land are able to generate credits as SSAs and retain current agriculture activities, and approximately 60,000 acres of non-ACSC land can also retain its agriculture designation. Approximately 16,800 acres are required for compact rural development. In contract, the Baseline Reference with interim NRPAs conserved approximately 40,900 acres and, except for lands in the ACSC, offered little or no protection for the 141,400 acres of agriculture lands that could otherwise be subject to conversion to non -agriculture uses." (Report and Recommendations of the Collier County Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee for the Immokalee Area Study page 41. Created by WilsonMiller. 2002. Also contained in the BCC Transmittal Hearing Agenda Packet, June 12, 2002, p. 79 — highlights added) As a member of the Committee, this information was key to the Conservancy's vote in support of moving the RLSA concept forward to the transmittal process. BCC Transmittal Hearing On June 12, 2002, the BCC held their transmittal hearing. The agenda packet and backup information for the BCC was extensive, but the staff's Executive Summary is the document that boils down, synthesizes and summarizes the intent of the RLSA amendment. Regarding the capacity for development, the below excerpts are important. "Although there are 115,300+- acres of potential SRAs (Private lands less FSAs and HSAs), it is estimated that the "8 credit requirement" will set aside approximately 16,800 acres, or 9% of the Study Area, for clustered development." (Collier County Board of County Commission Transmittal Hearing Executive Summary page 3. June 12, 2002. — highlights added) "It is believed that the adoption and implementation of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area will not result in an increase to the total number of allowable dwelling units or population in the Eastern Lands area, but rather result in a re -allocation of the density and population allowed under the baseline standards (pre -Final Order conditions) from a land - consuming checkerboard pattern into compact, clustered development. However, not unlike the Rural Fringe amendments, the potential certainly exists for an increased amount of commercial development and other non- residential development in the allowed compact, mixed -use developments (towns, hamlets, villages)." (Collier County Board of County Commission Transmittal Hearing Executive Summary page 5. June 12, 2002. — highlights added) An economic analysis of the RLSA's impacts was completed by Fishkind & Associates, Inc. dated May 15, 2002, and included in the BCC backup materials for the June 12, 2002 Transmittal Hearing. The report looked at the fiscal impact between baseline (1 per 5) and stewardship (utilizing the RLSA). This analysis was limited to review of a subsection of the RLSA for the horizon year of 2025. While this report cannot be used to determine the full fiscal impact of the entire RLSA, one the assumptions used for the 2025 subarea analysis is key. According to Fishkind both the Baseline and Stewardship options were assumed to "accommodate the same population." (Collier County Board of County Commission Transmittal Hearing, June 12, 2002, p. 149 — highlights added) Such an assumption appears to support the fact that the RLSA was intended to consolidate the exiting baseline population in a more compact footprint. The RLSA was approved for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report Between transmittal and adoption of the RLSA amendment, DCA and other agencies reviewed and commented on the RLSA. What these agencies believed the capacity of development could be within the RLSA overlay can be understood by reading their feedback to DCA regarding the overlay. Southwest Florida Reaional Plannina Council According to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (RPC), in a letter to DCA dated August 8, 2002, the RPC found the RLSA to be consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. "SWFRPC staff review find that the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan of Collier County are consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan, August 1995." This review is based on information provided by the County. (Letter from Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council RE; Collier County/DCA 02- R2, date 8-8-02, from David Y. Burr, Interim Executive Director to Ray Eubanks, Planning Manager at DCA, Attachment II, p.9) "Although there are 115,300+- acres of potential SRAs (Private lands less FSAs and HSAs), it is estimated that the "8 credit requirement" will set aside approximately 16,800 acres, or 9% of the Study Area, for clustered development." (Letter from Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council RE; Collier County/DCA 02- R2, date 8-8-02, from David Y. Burr, Interim Executive Director to Ray Eubanks, Planning Manager at DCA, Attachment II, p. 3 — highlights added) "The County staff believes that the adoption and implementation of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area will not result in an increase to the total number of allowable dwelling units or population in the Eastern Lands area, but rather result in a re -allocation of the density and population allowed under the baseline standards (pre -Final Order conditions) from a land -consuming checkerboard pattern into compact, clustered development. However, not unlike the Rural Fringe amendments, the potential certainly exists for an increased amount of commercial development and other non-residential development in the allowed compact, mixed -use developments (towns, hamlets, villages)." (Letter from Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council RE; Collier County/DCA 02- R2, date 8-8-02, from David Y. Burr, Interim Executive Director to Ray Eubanks, Planning Manager at DCA, Attachment II, p.5 and 6 — highlights added) South Florida Water Manaaement District According to an August 7, 2002 internal memo, which was submitted to the DCA as part of the ORC process, the South Florida Water Management District concluded, "The amendments appear to have no detrimental effect on water supply issues." (Memo from Akin Owosina, P.E., Sr. Supervising Hydrologist, Ft. Myers Service Center, SFWMD, to Bonnie Kranzer, PhD., AICP, Lead Planner, Water Supply Planning & Development Division, SFWMD. Subject, Water Supply Issue Review of Comprehensive Plan Amendments for Collier County, Eastern (Rural) Lands Growth Management Plan Amendments (Agricultural Assessment Area (Collier Co, 02-2)), hand corrected to 02-R2. Dated 8-7-02, p.2) However, the District based its review of the RLSA's impact on the information provided by the County, thus they were operating under the assumption that, "It is believes that the adoption and implementation of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area overlay will not result in an increase to the total number of allowable dwelling units or population in the Eastern Lands Area, but rather result in a re -allocation of the density and population allowed under the baseline standards (pre -Final Order conditions) from a land - consuming checkerboard pattern into compact, clustered development. However, not unlike the Rural Fringe amendments, the potential certainly exists for an increased amount of commercial development and other non- residential development in the allowed compact, mixed -use developments (towns, hamlets, villages)." (Memo from Akin Owosina, P.E., Sr. Supervising Hydrologist, Ft. Myers Service Center, SFWMD, to Bonnie Kranzer, PhD., AICP, Lead Planner, Water Supply Planning & Development Division, SFWMD. Subject, Water Supply Issue Review of Comprehensive Plan Amendments for Collier County, Eastern (Rural) Lands Growth Management Plan Amendments (Agricultural Assessment Area (Collier Co, 02-2)), hand corrected to 02-R2. Dated 8-7-02, p.2 — highlights added) DCA compiled their feedback and that of the other agencies into the ORC Report, issued September 16, 2002. The following DCA Objections, and the WilsonMiller/Collier County responses, are relevant to this White Paper. DCA Objection — Vagueness "Policy 1.21 does not provide meaningful guidance regarding the early bonus credit that will be offered in order to jumpstart the program. Policy 3.11 allows additional credits to be awarded for restoration "on a case -by - case basis," but provides not standards for this bonus in the comprehensive plan." Wilson Miller/County Response: "Policy 1.21 has been revised to provide clear standards. A maximum And: number of bonus Credits has been identified." "Policy 3.11 has been revised to provide a specific number of Credits for restoration land dedication and restoration implementation." This is the point where the Conservancy has been told the capacity of the program increased by approximately 230%, based on the addition of credits into these 2 policies that could generate 3 times as many credits as the program initially allowed. Notwithstanding this fact, note below how WilsonMiller/Collier County addresses the following DCA Objection. DCA Objection: "The proposed amendment does not include specific guidelines and criteria to ensure that development in the Stewardship Receiving Areas will discourage urban sprawl and present the premature conversion of agricultural land." DCA Recommendation: "Revise the relevant policies to provide adequate guidelines, standards and criteria within the comprehensive plan that will clearly define the form of the Towns, Villages and Hamlets to ensure a cohesive, balanced development that will produce a viable community." WilsonMiller/County Analysis: "The primary features of the RLSA Overlay that discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl are summarized below," and include the following: And: "The population to be accommodated under the Overlay is the same population projected by Collier County for the RLSA prior to the amendment. The premise of the RLSA study has been consistent since its outset with respect to its reliance on previously projected population data. The form of compact rural development established as a result of the Overlay reduces the potential for sprawl by allowing that population to be accommodated on a development footprint that is approximately 90% less than required without the Overlay." "At full implementation, approximately 90% of the entire RLSA will be open space." (The above information and quotes were taken from the ORC Response. Response to DCA's Objections, Recommendation, and Comments Report for Collier County Comprehensive Plan Amendment 02-R2. According to the footer, the document appears to originate from "1018102 — 113190 Ver. 02!-MPerry" from Wilson/Willer. Additional input appears to have come from Collier County. As included in the BCC Agenda Packet, 10-22-18 pp. 35 — 57 — highlights added) Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) and Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) Adoption Hearings On October 16, 2002, the EAC held their adoption hearing for the RLSA amendment. On October 17, 2002, the CCPC held their adoption hearing. What information was provided to these recommending advisory boards within the County staff's October 11, 2002 memo regarding the RLSA? "Although there are 93,000 +- acres of potential SRAs (private land less FSAs and HSAs), it is estimated that the "8 credit requirement" will set aside approximately 16,800 acres, or 9% of the Study Area, for clustered development." (October 11, 2002 County Memo contained in the CCPC adoption hearing packet, as contained in the 10-11-02 BCC Agenda Packet p.24 — highlights added) "It is believed that the adoption and implementation of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay will not result in an increase to the total number of allowable dwelling units or population in the Eastern Lands area, but rather result in a re -allocation of the density and population allowed under the pre -Final Order conditions from a land -consuming checkerboard pattern into compact, mixed -use developments. The potential exists for an increased amount of commercial development — and other non- residential development in the allowed compact, mixed -use developments — beyond that presently permitted in the Agricultural/Rural designation." (October 11, 2002 County Memo contained in the CCPC adoption hearing packet, as contained in the 10-11-02 BCC Agenda Packet p.27 — highlights added) BCC Adoption Hearing Excerpts from the Executive Summary: "Although there are 93,000 +- acres of potential SRAs (private land less FSAs and HSAs), it is estimated that the "8 credit requirement" will set aside approximately 16,800 acres, or 9% of the Study Area, for clustered development." (BCC Executive Summary 10-22-18 Adoption Hearing, p. 3 — highlights added) And: "It is believed that the adoption and implementation of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay will not result in an increase to the total number of allowable dwelling units or population in the Eastern Lands area, but rather result in a re -allocation of the density and population allowed under the pre -Final Order conditions from a land -consuming checkerboard pattern into compact, mixed -use developments. The potential exists for an increased amount of commercial development — and other non- residential development in the allowed compact, mixed -use developments — beyond that presently permitted in the Agricultural/Rural designation." (BCC Executive Summary 10-22-18 Adoption Hearing, p. 5 — highlights added) However, it is important to remember that the RLSA is, for the most part, a voluntary program. Therefore, except in the Flowway Stewardship Areas and Habitat Stewardship Areas, 1 per 5 ranchettes are still allowed, in addition to towns, villages, hamlets and CRDs. (See RLSA Group 1-5 policies) Post -Adoption It is interesting also to note that post -adoption, the "public" face of the RLSA was still be touted as consistent with the documentation provided during the journey from Final Order to adoption. In a June 19, 2003 press release from Barron Collier Companies regarding Ave Maria, the media piece states: "Ultimately, the Rural Lands Stewardship Program could protect 90% of uplands and wetlands and 80% of all agricultural resources in the study area, while requiring approximately 10% of the development footprint allowed through conventional 5-acre zoning." (Barron Collier Companies press release titled First Lands Set Aside in Rural Stewardship Program, with Tom Jones as the contact) Conclusion Throughout the study and planning process that resulted in the RLSA, WilsonMiller and Collier County staff provided written statements, again and again at every decision making point, that the RLSA would not increase the population beyond what could occur under the baseline 1 per 5 zoning. An extensive review of the BCC Agenda Packets, transcripts and relevant public documents made available prior to the 2002 adoption has failed to unearth any statement that the RLSA had the capacity for the extensive amount of development now anticipated. So, what was the intent of the RLSA regarding future development capacity? We leave that question for you to decide. GundlachNancy From: CCPC Remote Participation Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 9:42 AM To: GundlachNancy; SaboJames Cc: FrantzJeremy Subject: Public Comment - FW: Longwater Village SRA and Bellmar Village SRA Importance: High From: Kathie Gilginas <kgilginas@comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2021 11:15 PM To: ThomasClarkeVEN <Thomas.Clarke@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Longwater Village SRA and Bellmar Village SRA Importance: High EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Planning Committee, 9bty husbandand"myseoc"wish to make it known that we are against developing Longwater Vi4e SM andBellmar Vi4e SERA. Our taoces wouCclgo up to heCp funcCtFiese projects. Wedo not Have the infrastructure to support these projects the 2�iey wouCd Futve a severe negative impact on e areas. lJnder 1=lorida L.aw, e-mail addresses are public records. Ir you do not want your email address released in response to a public records request, do not send 2lecfironic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 GundlachNa From: Sent. To. Cc: Subject. Anis Khalil <anis@defactoinc.com> Wednesday, March 17, 2021 5:34 PM ThomasClarkeVEN; GundlachNancy; SaboJames FrantzJeremy; YoungbloodAndraw RE: Public Comment re: Longwater and BE llamr Villages from Anis Khalil EXTERNAL EM AIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Thank you both Much appreciated Best, Anis Khalil � Agency Director Cie fa�ta� 325 West 38th Street, Suite 1703 New York, NY 10018 212.627.4700 to view portfolios go to www.defactoinc.com follow us on Instaram e-mail message (including ation. It is any attachments The preceding ) contains information that maybe confidented toi be conveyed only to thethe attorney -client or other applicable privileges, or may constitute non-public inform designatednotify, ot► the sender by replying to this designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not an intended recipient of thisdissemination.* distributfon, or reproduction of this message and then delete all copies of it from your computer system. Any use, message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. From: ThomasClarkeVEN <Thomas.Clarke@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 5:26 PM To: GundlachNancy <Nancy.Gundlach@colliercountyfl.gov>; SaboJames <James.Sabo@colliebloodtycogliercountyfl.gov>; Cc: FrantzJeremy <Jeremy.Frantz@colliercountyfl.gov>; YoungbloodAndrew <Andrew.Young @ Anis Khalil <anis@defactoinc.com> Subject: Public Comment re: Longwater and Bellamr Villages from Anis Khalil Nancy, James, Pleas e include the email below from Anis Khalil into the Public Record for both Longwater and Bellmar SRA's. Thank You, Operations Coordinator -Zoning Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-2526 Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http•//bit ly/CollierZonin00 �Ul[ier CmeoHHtV i From: Anis Khalil <anIS defactoinc.com,> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 5*02 PM ,Thomas.Clarke(- To: ThomasClarkeVEN Subject: Longwater and Bellamr Villages EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an exte rnal source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Hello Thomas Please enter this in the public record regarding the above: d to development in the RLSA , and especially of Longwater and Bellmar I am completely and adamantly oppose any Villages ddeveloped areas and not encroach on any Wilderness left in the Collier County needs to build in M4III areas and already County. im act fees that do not fully cover the actual growth created by developers Another issues is the low and inadequate p This cannot stand. Anis Khalil 182 Sunset Cay Naples FL 34114 Anis Khalil � Agency Director fact+�P 325 West 38th Street, Suite 1703 New York, NY 10018 212,62704700 to view portfolios go to www•defactoinc.com follow us on Inst otected by The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains information that maybe confidential, may be eed only to the other applicable privileges, or may constitute non-public informations leis leaser notify the ed to be sender by replying to this attorney client or o pp designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not an intended recipient Any o ethis isssemination, distribution, or reproduction of this g message and then delete all copies °f itfrom not authorized and maybe unlawful. message by unintended recipients i e public records. If you do not want your e-mail address releasedhone or n writing. to a Under Florida Law) e-mail addresses are request, this entity. Instead, contact this office by toep public records req , do not send electronic mail to 2 r_ianellachNanc From: Sent. To. Cc: Subject: Attachments: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: FYI BellowsRay Friday, February 26, 2021 5:36 PM SaboJames; GundlachNancy LynchDiane Material regarding the Collier County Planning Commission on March 4t FW petition_signatures.pdf Follow up Flagged Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Zoning Division - Zoning Services ae etction Growth Management Department ep Telephone: 239.25202463; Fax: 239.25286350 Coe-r County Exceeding expectations, every day! are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at htt s: oo. I eX'v T. Tell us how we g From: Matthew Schwartz <matthew@southfloridawild.org> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 5:26 PM To: BellowsRay <Ray.B ellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; SaboJames <James.Sabo@collierc fluntoy/flogov>; ner colliercountyfl.gov; CohenThaddeus <Thaddeus.Cohen@ olnie rfl gov> g susan.faulk @ thomas.clark@colliercountyfl.gov; DeaneConnie <Connie.Dea mmisosilonron March 4th Subject: Re: Material regarding the Collier County Planning Co EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an exter nal source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking linkso external source EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. I have included a PDF of the petition signers which can be shared with the planning commission along with petition the text. The total number of signers is 160,679 as of February 26, 2021. Regards, Matthew On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 4:47 PM Matthew Schwartz < mattheWCa�^��thflOrldaWlld.Or�> wrote: 1 of a Greetings. I will be registering to speak during the meeting, but I also wanted the commission to be awareTake Permit petition that opposes the "Eas tern Collier Property Owners, LLC Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Incidental Beach. Over " e Ian and permit are currently under consideration by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife e (ITP). The p 160,000 individuals have signed the petition. ier Since Longwater and Belmar Villages would be included in the HCP and ITP, we are providing the petition to the the llfull County Planning Commission for the commission's consideration on whether or not to transomi�the prly dw°ndling Florida r Count Commission. Given the importance of the county s decision on twould obviously want both the planning Collie Y panther primary habitat in Collier County, the 160,000+signers of this petition r sentiments. commission and the full commission to be aware of thei The text of the petition is attached in PDF format. The petition and signers can also be viewed online here: Thank you and best regards, Matthew Schwartz Executive Director South Florida Wildlands Association P.O. Box 30211 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33303 954.993.5351 (cell) Matthew Schwartz Executive Director South Florida Wildlands Association P.O. Box 30211 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33303 954.993.5351 (cell) rds. If ou do not want your e-mail address released in response to a Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public reco Y public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in wri i g change.org Recipient: Letter: South Flor ida Wildlands Association U.S. Fish and W ildlife Service, Larry Williams, David Shindle, David Dell, Ken Warren, Ryan Zinke Greetings, 5 000 acres of Florida Panther habitat may be lost forever! 4, Name Matthew Schwartz Sarah Wagner -Dallas Kimberly Hall Emily Doubleday Patricia Antrican BRYANT SMITH beth thompson Sheri Felipe Alex Rask linda miles Lissette Lopez Oscar Bird Terri Fazzari Lea Ann Lewis Ceallagh Donnachaidh Michael Bittner Jennifer Bayles Sarah Smith Chrisiopher Sullivan Geraldine Green Date Location 2018-11-29 L. Lauderdale, FL 2018-11-29 Cape Coral, FL Palm Beach Gardens, FL 2018-11-29 2018-11-29 Southington, CT 2018-11-29 Hollywood, FL 2018-11-29 HUDSON, FL 2018-11-29 Lakeland, FL West Palm Beach, FL 2018-11-29 2018-11-29 Newalbin, IA 2018-11.29 tallahassee, FL 2018-11-29 Miami, FL 2018-11-29 Roswell, GA 2018-11-29 Jupiter, FL 2018-11-29 Sebastian, FL 2018-11-29 Palm Bay, FL 2018-11-29 Myakka City, FL 2018-11-29 Naples, FL West Palm Beach, FL 2018-11-29 2018-11-29 Naples, FL 2018-11-29 Renton, WA Name Location Date Tiffany Kyle New Smyrna Beach, FL 201 &11-29 Crissa Chappell Brooklyn, NY 2018-11-29 Nick Oliver Deerfield beach, FL 2018-11-29 Michael Turco Gainesville, DC 2018-11-29 Joe Rosolek Ocala, FL 2018-11-29 Sheryl Singer GCS, FL 2018-11-29 Nancy Lamson Palm City, FL 2018-11-29 David Thatcher Boynton Beach, FL 2018-11-29 Randall Osceola Clewiston, FL 2018-11-29 Walter Weiss douglasville, GA 2018-11-29 debra kossmann i2018-11-29 slamorada, FL Collin Fridley Reedsville, WV 201 &11-29 Linda S. Jacobson Lehigh Acres, FL 2018-11-29 Ron Bates Concord, US 201 &11-29 Susan Starks Berea, OH 2018-11-29 Jessica swafford Tampa, FL 2018-11-29 Thom Stewart Green cove springs, FL 2018-11-29 Lisa Zelnick West Melbourne, FL 2018-11-29 Todd Dripps Palm City, FL 2018-11-29 kimberly matson Boca Raton, FL 2018-11-29 William Lodato Pembroke Pines, FL 2018-11-29 Lill Ryburn Tampa, FL 201 &11-29 Heidi LaQuadra Carol Gwynwilliams Ann Grimes Claudia Lanigan Vicki Hobson Julie Bechko dames Adams Todd Townsend Richard Caward Merrylynn Brabant bosh Windrow Wendy Rosen douglas Jones L) Travers Lorna Smith Davila Gayle Garton Robert Gutierrez Susan Malone Rick McGinty Christine Davies Julie Braswell Harry Ferguson Date Location 2018-11-29 Bonita Springs, FL 201 & 11-29 Walnutport, PA 201 & 11-29 Ocala, FL 201 & 11-29 Hobe Sound, FL 2018-11-29 Titusville, FL 201 &11.29 Santa Fe, NM Fort Lauder dale, FL 201 &11-29 2018-11-29 Lake Worth, FL 201 & 11-29 Hollywood, FL 201 & 11-29 Pensacola, FL 201 & 11-29 Smyrna, US 201 &11.29 Hollywood, FL 2018-11-29 Sarasota, FL 201 &11 �29 Cape Coral, FL 201 & 11-29 Addison, PA 201 & 11-29 Pembroke Pines, FL 201 & 11-29 Fort Myers, FL 201 &11-29 Tampa, FL 2018-11-29 Englewood, FL 201 &11-29 Miami, FL 201 & 11-29 Leesburg, FL 201 & 11-29 Hialeah, FL Name Location Date Joan Philip Fayetteville, AR 2018-11-29 Barbara Brooks Port Charlotte, FL 2018-11-29 , CT 2018-11-29 Alexander Eriksen Redding, MARCELA ZURITA PLANTATION, FL 2018-11-29 Joel DeA ngelis elis Temple Terrace, FL 2018-11-29 Eileen Agnew Lehigh Acres, FL 201 &11-29 Jay BOLES Fort Walton Beach, FL 201 &11-29 Dolores Rios Melrose Park, IL 201 &11-29 Ta for Tampa, FL 2018-11-29 Lindsay y valerie lauretta Streamwood, IL 2018-11-29 J Miami, FL 2018-11-29 esse Kennon 201 &11-29 Mary Jackson Miami, FL Beverly Hills, FL 2018-11-29 Hildegard Collins y Elana Gratz Oakland Park, FL 201 &11-29 ' dutcher Stroudsburg, US 2018-11-29 Sadie Na les, FL 2018-11-29 Gladys Delgadillo p Ben Sacks Columbia, MD 201&11-29 tracy marinello Hawthorne, FL 201811-29 Robert Van Eck Miami, FL 2018-11-29 Thor Gunnlaugsson Sanibel, FL 2018-11-29 Audrey Addison Portland, OR 2018-11-29 Nancy O'Keefe Schererville, IN 2018-11-29 Name Location Date 2018-11-29 Paris Martin Stone ridge, NY val ruby Stuart, FL 201 &11-29 Susana Munoz Madrid, Spain 2018-11-29 Kelly McNab Naples, FL 2018-11-29 Cathy graner Sainte -Tulle, France 2018-11-29 Nicole Dyck Mechelen, Belgium 2018-11-29 Donna War Budd Lake, US 2018-11-29 michael tanguay Naples, FL 2018-11-29 Sue Cone Hessle, England, UK 201 &11-29 Yolanda sehultes Wittenbach, Switzerland 201811-29 e Prada Martin Spain 2018-11-29 Ma JosBarcelona, Spa Leslie Vanlessen Lanaken, Belgium 201 &11-29 Fabienne Stoudmann Oulens-Echallens, Switzerland 201 &11-29 Melissa Kennedy Fort Myers, FL 2018-11-29 Maria Van Geel Zdroisko, Poland 201&11-29 Leah Stables St. Augustine, FL 2018-11-29 Tiziana Dordoni via xx settembre 11 Corsico milano, Italy 2018-11-29 Jeffrey Wiener New York, NY 2018-11-29 Melanie Appleby Hickling, England, UK 201&11-29 Artem M Smolensk, Russia 2018-11-29 Jo Lopez Como, CO 2018-11-29 Tom Rooze Schalkholz, Germany 2018-11 �29 Name Location Date Maria Ianc Zaragoza, Spain 201 &11-29 Stadtmueller Petra Erlensee, Germany 2018-11-29 Gayle Irmen Greenville, NC 2018-11-29 ' 2018-11-29 octavia indra Cluj, Romania fill phipps Blackwood, UK 2018-11-29 Kiska Austin 2018-11-29 Deerfield Beach, FL Steve Lamarre Warwick, RI 2018-11-29 Eva Maria Genovese Muttenz, Switzerland 2018-11-29 229 M Kaplan Miami, FL 018-11- Ana Gruber Wolfratshausen, Germany 2018-11-29 K 2018-11-29 Christopher Evans Shobdon, England, U angelika+ thomas wegner Germany 2018-11-29 Hanneke Mol Poortviiet, NE 201 &11-29 ued gala, En land, UK 2018-11-29 linda cambridhe Q g y g Christine Singh Germany 2018-11-29 LIEGE, Bel ium 2018-11-29 SILVESTRE BEATRICE g Aria Barnes Calapan, Philippines 2018-11-29 jocelyne lapointe Terrebonne, CA 2018-11-29 Judith E Scott O Brien, FL 201&11-29 Albany, OR 2018-11-29 Nicholas Martens y Brigitte Ebner Vienna, Austria 2018-11-29 K Dubler Saint Augustine, FL 201 &11-29 Name Location Date Christel Birke Kamen, Germany 201&11-29 Leinbur ,Germany 2018-11-29 Marianne Freiberg g Rose Monahan Sarasota, FL 2018-11-29 Julie Houghton Stockport, UK 2018-11-29 Antoinette Gonzales California 201811-29 Thoma s Puleo Jacksonville Beach, FL 2018-11-29 laetitia faivre-duboz Saint-nicolas-de-port, France 2018-11-29 nip -11-29 Terry Bowen Davenport, FL 2 Jon Sairs East Calais, VT 201 &11-29 Andreas Thiel Munich, Germany 2018-11-29 la oldblum ramat gan, Israel 2018-11-29 rephaeg Lisa Wilder Greenbrier, AR 201 &11-29 da AGordon Sanford, FL 2018-11-29 Ilia" kathle en bartlett west melbourne, FL 201 &11-29 Diana Moore Belton, TX 2018-11-29 kim Horton Deltona, FL 2018-11-29 Shari Linger Sun City Center, FL 2018-11-29 Weber&It; Alexandra 87452 Altusriedc, Germany 201811-29 b Weisberg Lehigh Acres, FL 2018-11-29 Jaco Laura Soule Granby, CT 201811-29 Kathleen Perkins Englewood, FL 201811-29 Esther Kem erle Berg, Austria 2018-11-29 Name Location it: Julie Buechner Bradenton, FL 2018-11-29 margaret Nev eu Bourg des comptes, France 201 &11-29 2018-11-29 laborgrupo armer teufel Dieter Nurnberg, Germany Reger Djamila grouci Paris, France 2018-11-29 Ellen Iskes Haarlem, Netherlands 2018-11-29 Taylor Miller Naples, FL 2018-11-29 elfriede altenhofer Ka2018-11-29 rnten, Austria Rosi Zang Aschaffenburg, Germany 201 &11-29 Jeremy Bleec h Miami2018-11-29 , FL Tessa Haywar d King's Sutton, England, UK 2018-11-29 Frank Dima Pompano Beach, FL 201 &11-29 Leigh Buckner Ft. Lauderdale, FL 2018-11-29 Jocelyne Peiffer Sourbrodt, Belgium 2018-11-29 Dianna Morris Miami, FL 2018-11-29 Cynthia Henley Houston, TX 2018-11-29 Wilma Van B randwij'k Vlaardingen, Netherlands 201 &11-29 Alexandra G AUDRY Lighthouse Point, FL 201&11-29 Irene Nawo-Eichner Hamburg, Germany 201 &11-29 Brian Diaz Hialeah, FL 2018-11-29 veronique C harvet Lyon, France 2018-11-29 Rachel Wells Milton Keynes, UK 2018-11-29 Name Location Date Pame la Carlson Kent, WA 201 &11-29 Y Joanne MALLINGER New Plymouth, New Zealand 2018-11-29 Alexis Foxx Brooksville, FL 201 &11-29 Ava6ta6ia MwPu EYOZMOZ, Greece 2018-11-29 Thomas SharpOrlando, FL 2018-11-29 Belgium 2018-11-29 simone maes g Praesens Absens Diever, Netherlands 2018-11-29 Peter J. PerryCape Coral, FL 201 &11-29 Silja Alter Wegling, Germany 201 &11-29 Nancy Oliver Los Angeles, CA 201 &11-29 Simo n Adams Worcester, UK 201 &11-29 ' Sunde Odda, Norway 2018-11-29 ai Lla eill London, UK 2018-11-29 Jo R y Glory is Stachol Tamarac, FL 201 &11-29 Dany Coclin France 2018-11-29 Largo, FL 2018-11-29 Melina Taylor g Laurel Kish Saint Petersburg, FL 201 &11-29 Guillermo Romero Satelite, Mexico 2018-11-29 rr Allen Naples, FL 2018-11-29 Jey lane Bartlett Woodham Ferrers, UK 201 &11-29 karen drain Portland, OR 201 &11-29 Cheryl Weaver Chatham, England, UK 2018-11-29 GundlachNancy From: GundlachNancy Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 7:50 AM To: 'Christopher Vernon'; FryerEdwin; HomiakKaren; 'Joe Schmitt'; 'Robert Klucik'; 'Thomas Eastman' Cc: BellowsRay Subject: FW: Public comment FW: Stop Longwater & Bellmar From: MKR <wdrmkr1506@�mail.com> Sent. Monday, March 01, 20214:07 PM To: ThomasClarkeVEN <Thomas.Clarke@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Stop Longwater & Bellmar EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source opening attachments or clicking links. 'Joseph Schmitt'; KarlFry; 'Paul Shea'; Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when To whom it may concern, My name is Michele Range and reside in Collier County. III unable to attend the hearing but would like to voice my opinion, Im 100 percent against the Longwater & Bellmar developmentsl Many of my neighbors are also apposed to the developments but are unable to attend or voice their opinion. If they were purposing to build the developments that would possibly extinct the last breed Labrador Retriever dog there would be outrage, well Im outraged that they are threatening to extinct the Florida panther. NO TO Longwater and NO TO Bellmar! ! ! Sincerely, Michele Range Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Arnold&Porter April 8, 2021 VIA EMAIL Collier County Planning Commission 3299 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34112 Brian D. Israel +1 202.942.6546 Direct Brian.Israel@arnoldporter.com Re: Fiscal Neutrality With Respect to Longwater and Bellmar SRA Applications Dear Collier County Planning Commissioners, This letter is sent on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Inc. (Conservancy) and relates to the pending applications by Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. (CEM) related to the Longwater and Bellmar Villages. We understand that the Planning Commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval of the Longwater Village application, that the Planning Commission has yet to make a recommendation on Bellmar Village application, and that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners has yet to approve either Village. As neither has been approved to date, we ask that this letter be entered into the record for both the Longwater and Bellmar Village applications. As you are aware, on February 17, 2021, we submitted a letter on behalf of the Conservancy detailing why Longwater and Bellmar fail to meet the requirement that proposed developments "will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year," per GMP Future Land Use Element (FLUE) RLSA Overlay (RLSAO) Policy 4.18. A similar analysis was presented by Conservancy expert Joe Minicozzi at the March 18, 2021 Planning Commission hearing and in various other materials submitted by the Conservancy. The County, for the first time, responded to the Conservancy's fiscal neutrality analysis during the April 1, 2021 Planning Commission Hearing and presented an entirely new, previously undisclosed analysis of fiscal neutrality with respect to the water and wastewater categories. The Planning Commission then voted to recommend approval of Longwater Village, refusing to allow further public comment or response to the novel analysis prior to the vote. In the process, one Commissioner suggested that in light of the lack of evidence showing staff s analysis was wrong, he was inclined to trust staff. But the IArnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave, NW I Washington, DC 20001-3743 1 www.arnoldporter.com April 8, 2021 Page 2 public, including the Conservancy, had no opportunity to respond to the staff analysis in question. We take this opportunity to do so. On April 1, 2021, Joe Bellone, head of Operations Support for the Collier County Public Utilities Department, presented a new analysis of fiscal neutrality summarized in the following slide: Northeast Service Area — Longwater Example Avg Daly Flaw Mal 3 nov Phan@ I Prose 2 Phase 3 Guild 0u1 units 1600 I N£UF Ca_sfs: FY19 ;FY21 FY25 FY30+ BtAldaul Fait Share 0.929 1.200 5.0 10.0 15.0 Longwater Village Example Wafer % Capacity U11"Nd Am Mv 16.6% 24.2% 9.3% 12.1% 6.2% 8.1% WCdWFQG $mc = $3.382 XM900 $34,590,000 327.400.000 $4.500.00D $75,000,000 waslewor 0.664 0.995 % Capaclty Utifrred MVd A 4.0 16.6% 24.9% &0 &3% 12.4% 12.0 &5% 1s.3% WW Fgg Revue 3&314 A614k400 $15,161.000 i20.400.000 3105,60U.000 $0 =141.1� In the analysis, Mr. Bellone shows that there are three phases to the NEUF expansion. Phase 1 involves construction of a 5 million gallon per day ("MGD") water plant and a 4 MGD wastewater plant. According to Mr. Bellone, there is, however, a plan to expand these plants in two future phases such that at full build -out, the water plant is expected to provide 15 MGD of capacity, and the wastewater plant is expected to provide 12 MGD of capacity. Mr. Bellone then allocated the percentage of this capacity that will be consumed by Longwater, concluding that, on an average day, Longwater will consume 6.2% of the full water facility capacity at build -out and 5.5% of the full wastewater facility capacity at April 8, 2021 Page 3 build -out. These percentages were multiplied by the total anticipated cost to build all three phases of the facilities. Mr. Bellone then concluded -- in error as explained below -- that Longwater's demand equates to approximately $8.7 million for the water facility and $7.8 million for the wastewater facility. These amounts are less than the anticipated impact fees Longwater will pay ($8.7 million for water and $8.6 million for wastewater), leading Mr. Bellone to conclude the project is fiscally neutral. But this analysis contains a fundamental flaw that is documented on Mr. Bellone's own slide. As Mr. Bellone admitted during the April 1, 2021 hearing, the Collier County Water and Sewer District is required by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to have the ability to meet maximum capacity. See also F.A.C. § 62-555.320(6) ("The total capacity of all water source and treatment facilities connected to a water system shall at least equal the water system's design maximum -day water demand..."). In other words, the size of the new water and wastewater facilities must be driven by maximum flow, not average flow, and the Water Sewer District's costs will correspond to max 3-day flow of all the developments served, not average daily flow. Thus, Longwater will be responsible for 8.1 % of the full build -out capacity of the water facility, not 6.2%. Similarly, Longwater should be held responsible for 8.3% of the wastewater facility capacity, not 5.5%. When the correct, statutorily prescribed demand figures from Mr. Bellone's slide are used, it results in a finding that Longwater's demand equates to $11.4 million for the water facility and $11.7 million for the wastewater facility. Longwater's impact fees are unchanged at $8.7 million for water and $8.6 million for wastewater. Therefore, even using Mr. Bellone's methodology and assumptions, Longwater results in a $5.8 million deficit to the Collier County Water and Sewer District. This is not fiscal neutrality. Following the April 1, 2021 presentation, the Conservancy requested that Mr. Bellone provide the financial data upon which he based his analysis. The document provided in response to that request is attached. However, the Conservancy is unable to determine how these data support the information in Mr. Bellone's slide above. The values in the provided chart do not match the values provided in the slide. Furthermore, despite a follow-up request, to date the Conservancy has been unable to determine the source of the financial data provided in the attached and why it differs so significantly from the data provided in the AUIRs and other County documents upon which the Conservancy's initial analysis relied. Of particular note is that the Mr. Bellone's financial analysis diverges significantly from financial representations made to the public by the County in the 2020 AUIR, published to the County website in January of this year. Mr. Bellone's slide represents that April 8, 2021 Page 4 $141,161,000 is the cost necessary to build all 3 phases of the wastewater treatment plant (a total capacity of 12 MGD). But in the 2020 AUIR, the County represents that $114,000,000 is the cost to build just the 4 MGD, phase 1, wastewater plant. The following chart is published on page 98 of the 2020 AUIR: Fiscal New Treatment Comments and Cost Estimates Year Capacity $28M interim WWTP, storage tanks and associated pipelines at the NEUF site to 2021 1.5 MGD facilitate development in the northeast region of the county, outside the Orangetree and Orange Blossom Ranch PUDs, beginning in FY 2019 through FY 2021 $114M Northeast Water Reclamation Facility {NEWRF} at the Northeast Utility Facilities 2026 4 MGD site to sustain sewer service to customers in the new developments proposed in the Northeast Service Area, outside the Orangetree and Orange Blossom Ranch PUDs, beginning in FY 2022, to be online by FY 2026 The interim WWTP at the NEUF site will be decommissioned once the 4 MGD NEWRF 2026 -1.5 MGD is operational. Equipment taken offline will be repurposed or sold. The remaining $28,000,000 (for a total of $142,000,000 - very close to the $141,161,000 in costs Mr. Bellone attributes to all 3 phases) is attributed in the AUIR not to building an additional 8 MGD in capacity at the new plant, but rather to build an "interim [wastewater treatment plant) ... to facilitate new development in the northeast region of the County." This interim plant will come online in FY2019 through FY2021 and is necessary to facilitate development scheduled to occur before the 4 MGD plant comes online in 2026 (i.e. to serve Longwater and Bellmar as they begin building now). So, this points to an important open question: Is the approximately $142 million in costs an estimate to build 4 MGD in capacity (plus an interim plant to allow development before the 4 MGD plant can be built) as represented by the County in the recently published 2020 AUIR? Or is the approximately $142 million in costs an estimate to build 12 MGD in capacity as Mr. Bellone represented to the Planning Commission in his presentation? The answer to this question is necessary to determine the actual costs that should be attributable to Longwater and Bellmar. If, as Mr. Bellone suggests, these costs are an estimate to build 12 MGD in capacity, then Longwater's share, as discussed above, is $11.7 million. But if, as represented in the AUIR, $114 million is the cost to build a 4 MGD plant, Longwater's share increases to $28 million plus its share of the cost to build the $28 million interim plant to support the development until the 4 MGD facility can be completed. Finally, it is important that the Planning Commission understand the diligence undertaken by the Conservancy in its initial analysis. Every effort has been made to find the best County and Applicant -created sources to compare the demand created by these developments to the costs to the County associated with meeting that demand. As summarized in our letter of February 17, 2021, based on publicly available information April 8, 2021 Page 5 (which Mr. Bellone agreed was well -cited), the Conservancy and its experts concluded that Longwater and Bellmar will result in a deficit of over $43 million to the Collier County Water and Sewer District. The primary documents relied upon to draw that conclusion were: 1. The Longwater and Bellmar Public Facilities Impact Assessments (prepared by the Applicant); 2. Collier County staff reports regarding Longwater and Bellmar; 3. The 2019 and 2020 Collier County Annual Update and Inventory Report (the most recently adopted County summaries of assets and planned improvements to infrastructure in the County); 4. The Collier County Fiscal Year 2020-21 Adopted Budget; and 5. The Collier County 2019 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study (the most recently adopted study which forms the basis for the current water and wastewater impact fee rates). In addition, the Conservancy reviewed, among other things: • Publicly available materials submitted to the Board of County Commissioners in connection with approval of the expansion of the Collier County Water Sewer District to serve the area that includes Longwater and Bellmar; • All documents publicly available on the Collier County Water and Sewer District website; and • Responses to public records requests related to Rivergrass, Longwater and Bellmar Villages that included County staff emails and analysis, including reviews conducted by staff with respect to public utilities and fiscal neutrality, among other things. In light of the analysis above and the Conservancy's prior submissions, it remains clear that both Longwater and Bellmar are not fiscally neutral and the Conservancy stands by its prior conclusions. Each of these developments will cost taxpayer millions of dollars. Thus, pursuant to Policy 4.18 of the RLSAO, the Longwater and Bellmar SRA applications must be denied. April 8, 2021 Page 6 Sincerely, Brian D. Israel Lauren Daniel cc: Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Location Segment 1 Entrance Road (39th Avenue NE) .- User Impact Full Cost (Design, Construction, OH & - User Impact User Profit and Contingency) a Impact Total User Impact $4,216,000 $527,000 $527,000 $0 $527,000 $4,743,000 $5,270,000 Segment 2 Park Site -Through Park $14,508,000 $1,170,312 $501,952 $0 $501,952 $15,678,312 $16,180,264 Segment 3 Plant $7,440,000 $954,800 $0 $0 $0 $8,394,800 $8,394,800 1,984,000 $5,580,000 $9,641,000 0 $7,564,000 0 $19,189,000 $5,580,000 $24,769,000 Segment 4 (41st Avenue NE) Rural Lands West & Hyde Park Village $2,867,500 $2,867,500 $2,867,500 $0 $2,867,500 $5,735,000 $8,602,500 Segment 5 846 Land Trust Hogan Island Village $1,100,500 $1,100,500 $1,100,500 $0 $1,100,500 $2,201,000 $3,301,500 $3,410,000 $3,410,000 $3,410,000 $0 $3,410,000 $6,820,000 $10,230,000 Total Near -Term Costs $1,984,000 $39,122,000 $9,641,000 $10,030,112 $15,970,952 $0 $27,595,952 $49,152,112 $76,748,064 Funding Timeline: Last updated 12/29/20 PROGRAM ELEMENT FY2021Q3 FY2021Q4 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 Future 2030s J - A -S O-N-D GOLDEN GATE CITY: Golden Gate Central WRF 4 mgd expansion $70,000,000 Water Transmission Mains $18,000,000 NORTHEAST REGIONAL UTILITY: Wells and raw water transmission mains in developer easements (Orange Blossom Ranch and/or Immokalee Road Rural Village). $9 240,000 Construct Two Deep Injection Wells $22,000,000 Design 4 mgd NEUF NECWRF technology and process updates $4,500,000 Construct NEUF Water and WW transmission mains thru BCIRP Phase II $3,850,000 Design Water and WW transmission mains and water storage tank on Longwater utility site. $708,333 Construct Water and WW transmission mains and water storage tank on Longwater utility site. $7,791,667 Construct NEUF NECWRF remaining assets $105,270,000 Design NEUF NECRWTP technology and process updates $4,500,000 Construct NEUF NECRWTP remaining assets $75,020,000 Design additional Water and WW transmission mains to serve additional proposed RLSA developments (Future Randall looping). $1,333,333 Construct additional Water and WW transmission mains to serve additional proposed RLSA developments ( Future Randall looping). $14,666,667 Total $13,090,000 $708,333 $122,291,667 $0 $0 $109,770,000 $1,333,333 $0 $14,666,667 $75,020,000 Impact Fees 1 $13,090,0001 $708,3331 $122,291,667 $0 $0 $109,770,000 $1,333,3331 $0 $14,666,667 $75,020,000 FY21-22 Tranche 1 $136,090,000 Northeast $48,090,000 GG City $88,000,000 FY25-26 FY28-30+ Tranche 2 $111,103,333 Northeast $111,103,333 GG City $0 Tranche 3 $89,686,667 Northeast $89,686,667 GG City $0 (Timing subject to Public Utilities Master Plan to be completed in FY21) Copier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 Pre -Application Meeting Notes Petition Type: __ SRA Date and Time: Wednesday 8/28/2019 9 : 00 AM Assigned Planner: James Sabo Engineering Manager (for PPL's and FP's): Project information wommi Project Name: Longwater Village SRA (SRA) PL#; 20190001836 00225440005,00225880005 A-MHO-RLSAO Property ID #: 00225600007 Current Zoning: Project Address: 5 8 3 0 Oil We 11 Rc�ity; Naples State: F L Zip; 3 412 0 Applicant: Robert J.Mulhere,FAICP, Vice President Hole Montes, Inc. Robert J.Mulhere,FAICP, Vice esident Hole Montes, Inc. Agent Name: done. Agent/Firm Address: 950 Encore Way City: Naples State: FL Zip: 34110 Property Owner: Collier Land Holdings, Ltd.-00225600007, 00225440005 CDC Land Investments, LLC - 0022588005 Please provide the following, if applicable: ii. iv. Total Acreage: 1000 approx. Proposed # of Residential Units: 2 6 0 0 Proposed Commercial Square Footage: 65,000 Plus 25,000 Civic, Gov't Inst. or Amendments, indicate the original pe Ftition number: v. If there is an Ordinance or Resolution associated with this project, please indicate the vi type and number: If the project is within a Plat, provide the name and AR#/PL#: Updated 6/12/2019 Page � 1 of 7 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net r County too 16� Z- wwwo"""ftlt*- Slop 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE Meeting Notes NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 As of 10/16f 2017 all Zoning applications have revised applications, and your associated Application is included in your notes; additionally a *new Property Ownership Disclosure Form is required for all applications. A copy of this new form is included in your pre-app Note — link is https://www.colliergov.net/Home/ShowDocument7id=75093. j G 1 (_.% �' � f� 17� 1/ `1• •� i /�`�F� 4 17f4-7� �, � i`�—x- f J. If Site is within the City of Naples Water Service Area please send to Maples Utilities and Planning Departments. Then, if the petition is submitted, we are to send it (by email) to the four persons below in their Utilities and Planning Depts. -along with a request that they send us a letter or email of no objection" to the petition. Bob Middleton Rllliddleton(anaolesaov.com Allyson Holland AMHolland(d naplesgov.com Robin Singer RSineer(cDnaplesgov.com Erica Martin emartin naplesgov.com Disclaimer: Information provided by staff to applicant during the Pre -Application Meeting is based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant of issues that could arise during the process. The Administrative Code and LDC dictates fhe regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required data for an application may not fully outline what is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide all required data. Updated 6/12/2019 Page � 2 of 7 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.coI1iergov.net BEllma(� *(1w Vi E CC4091 5 /V1Ap A,jd Cj4t(,v (a.i•ti County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (23 )) 252-2400 Meeting Notes ;dIE N�U rAL E3VU ICE a L' L��iEd �OPr,F� t,j.� Nr���r�l QESOUJC� TNdE�c _lf�luE E DrOv1 dE upPor���c, poc� a�,-4S �ronn 3104E A&id redQr4 L Ac►,Ar Lec., It AVA, I Ab I e . .SEE Ch EcL l �S �".�rov� dE I;x I I�-S For pR,��t.2 , geNn��-�'e� �r4-f Er i Other required documentation for submittal (not listed on application): Disclaimer: Information provided by staff to applicant during the Pre -Application Meeting is based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant of issues that could arise during the process. The Administrative Code and LDC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required data for an application may not fully outline what is needed, it is the applicant's responsibility to provide all required data. Updated 6/12/2019 Page � a'of 7 SRA Designation Sufficiency Checklist (Environmental) 1. Provide the following Natural Resource Index Assessment and Support Documentation On (LDC 4.08.07.D..) 4): a. Calculations that quantify the number of acres by index values, the level of conservation being offered, and the resulting number of credits being generated. b. The acreage of agricultural and non-agricultural lands by type being preserved c. The acreage of all lands by type within the proposed SRA that have an index value greater than 1.2 d. All lands designated as SRA within the ACSC. NRI assessment 2. Provide acreage calcs. for lands being put into an SRA, including WRAs within the SRA boundary. (LDC 4.08.07.D.4.b) 3. Provide a Natural Resource Index map of the area being designated as a SRA. (LDC 4.08.07.D.4.e) NRI map 4. Provide a RLSA Overlay map and aerial delineating the location boundaries of the area being designated as a SRA. (LDC 4.08.07.13.4.c-d) location map 5. Provide a FLUCFCS map on an aerial photograph delineating the area being designated as SRA. (LDC 4.08.07.D.4.f) FLUCCS map 6. Provide a listed species occurrence map delineating the area being designated as SRA. (LDC 4.08.07.D.4.g) 7. Provide a soils map delineating the area being designated as SRA. (LDC 4.08.07.D.4.h) 8. Provide documentation to support a proposed change to the related Natural Resource Index Value of the site. (LDC 4.08.07.D.4.i) NRIV change 9. Provide the SRA Master Plan identifying all conservation/preservation lands and wetland preservation and buffer areas. Provide documentation of professional credentials of environmental consultant involved with its preparation. (LDC 4.08.07.D.5) 10. Provide the SRA Development Document. (LDC 4.08.07.D.6) Collier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliereov.net Meeting Notes 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE MAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 Other required documentation for submittal (not listed on application): a .Q -tT> � �n �? etc L F�a AAf c 454Z�4 1 a 15L, c �/����, Tt Disclaimer. Information provided by staff to applicant during the Pre -Application Meeting is based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant of issues that could arise during the process. The Administrative Code and LDC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required data for an application may not fully outline what is needed. It is the applicants responsibility to provide all required data. Updated 6/12/2019 Page � ,4 of 7 ClarkeThomas From: FeyEric Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 5:43 PM To. ClarkeThomas; OrthRichard Cc: SaboJames; MartinezGilbert; SmithCamden Subject: RE: Bellmar Village SRA and Longwater Village SRA- Meeting Notes Thomas, Public Utilities staff met separately with the applicant and engineer last Wednesday afternoon to discuss these two villages. So, I do not need to include any notes for the pre-app. i Respectfully, Eric Fey, P.E. ` Principal Project Manager r County Public Utilities Engineering &Project Management Division Continuous Improvement 3339 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303, Naples, Florida 34112-53b1 Phone: 239.252.1037 Cell: 239.572.0043 "HOW ARE WE DOING?" Please click here for our Customer Service Survey From: ClarkeThomas <Thomas.Clarke@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Wednesday, August 281 2019 5:24 PM To: OrthRichard <Richard.Orth@colliercountyfl.gov>; FeyEric <Eric.Fey@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: SaboJames <James.Sabo@colliercountyfl.gov>; MartinezGilbert <Gilbert.Martinez@colliercountyfl.gov>; SmithCamden <Camden.Smith@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Bellmar Village SRA and Longwater Village SRA- Meeting Notes Hi Rich, and Eric, Do you guys have any Pre-App Meeting Notes you would like to submit for the Zoning Pre-App meeting we had today for these 2 Do If so let me know, I would like to include with the other notes to the Agent, (Bob Where) Bellmar Village SRA - PL20190001837 Longwater Village SRA -- PL20190001836 Respectfully, Operations Coordinator -Zoning Division 1 S� 1 Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.collier ov.net Meeting Notes 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NA ILES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 /�d�.I�rt3S 1tLS� !sw-+vp �f �D ��`GI,Gl SPIti � _��Gi• L�.r-G !�1'air�t7�'+�i�R� � �t� �-��r� �s /=� v� t�'il.�'�s ? .1 � 7 . if a-s �-npli ��.61� . -- �w�•.� yt,�,.�.1� �iQhA-9fA U R CUM ru Q 00S A-'iT/ eo %4_A 4�D &. S'Tne_...w Other required documentation for submittal (not listed on application): Disclaimer: Information provided by staff to applicant during the Pre -Application Meeting is based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant of issues that could arise during the process. The Administrative Code and LDC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required data for an application may not fully outline what is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide all required data. Updated 6/12/2019 i� Page � Hof 7 From: OrthRichard Sent. Thursday, August 29, 2019 9:37 AM To: ClarkeThomas Subject: RE: Bellmar Village SRA and Longwater Village SRA- Meeting Notes Please include this comment for both projects. Please provide a basic stormwater management plan for the proposed PUD, include any related District permit numbers or pre -application meetings. From: ClarkeThomas <Thomas.Clarke@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 5:24 PM To: OrthRichard <Richard.Orth@colliercountyfl.gov>; FeyEric <Eric.Fey@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: SaboJames <James.Sabo@colliercountyfl.gov>, MartinezGilbert <Gilbert.Martinez@colliercountyfl.gov>; SmithCamden <Camden.Smith@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Bellmar Village SRA and Longwater Village SRA- Meeting Notes Hi Rich, and Eric, Do you guys have any Pre-App Meeting Notes you would like to submit for the Zoning Pre-App meeting we had today for these 2 SRA's? If so let me know, I would like to include with the other notes to the Agent, (Bob Mulhere) Bellmar Village SRA — PL20190001837 Longwater Village SRA — PL20190001836 Respectfully, Operations Coordinator - Zaning Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-2526 NOTE: New Email Address as of 12/09/2077: thomas.clarke(s colliercountyfl gov Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bit.ly/CollierZoning. Co Yer Canty Exceeding Expectations Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net car Meeting Notes rcv; %. l . y 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 SA�t -►/�•Q_✓� �� (1 i%G\LDC.r Gl �C-� r - C�S��S � �^ ran �" • � l� �, � � , c,�. 2 G- "�' 1 G..�1 �. � ' �� y �n r- �= I' (, � C /t/► icc G Other required documentation for submittal (not listed on application): Disclaimer: Information provided by staff to applicant during the Pre -Application Meeting is based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant of issues that could arise during the process. The Administrative Code and LDC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required data for an application may not fully outline what is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide all required data. Updated 6/12/2019 Page I 5 of 7 , WIZ SRA Monitoring "One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for SRA monitoring until close- out of the SRA, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all SRA commitments until close-out of the SRA. At the time of this SRA approval, the Managing Entity is the [Insert Company Name Here]. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the SRA by the new owner and the new ' owners agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the SRA is closed -out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of SRA commitments." Collier County AMP COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net f`owo 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NA )LES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 Pre -Application Meeting Sign -In Sheet PL# 20190001836 Collier County Contact Information: Name Review Discipline Phone Email David Anthony Environmental Review 252-2497 david.anthony@colliercountyfl.gov L Claudine Auclair GMD Operations and Regulatory Management 252-5887 claudine.auclair@colliercountyfl.gov Sally Ashkar Assistant County Attorney 252-8842 sally.ashkar@colliercountyfl.gov Steve Baluch Transportation Planning 252-2361 stephen.baluch@colliercountyfl.gov l� Ray Bellows Zoning, Planning Manager 252-2463 raymond.bellows@colliercountyfl.gov Laurie Beard PUD Monitoring 252-5782 laurie.beard@colliercountyfl.gov Craig Brown Environmental Specialist 252-2548 craig.brown@col liercountyfLgov Alexandra Casanova Operations Coordinator 252-2658 Alexandra.casanova@col IiercountyfLgov Heidi Ashton Cicko Managing Asst, County Attorney 252-8773 heidi.ashton@colliercountyfl.gov Thomas Clarke Operations Coordinator 252-2584 thomas.clarke@colliercountyfl.gov Jamie Cook Prin. Environmental Specialist 252-6290 Jaime.cook@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Eric Fey, P.E. Utility Planning 252-1037 eric.fey@colliercountyfl.gov Tim Finn, AICP Zoning Division 252-4312 timothy.finn@colliercountyfl.gov d Sue Faulkner Comprehensive Planning 252-5715 sue.faulkner@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Paula Fleishman Impact Fee Administration 252-2924 paula.fleishman@colliercountyfl.gov L James French Growth Management Deputy Department Head 252-5717 james.french@colliercountyfl.gov L Michael Gibbons Structural/Residential Plan Review 252-2426 michael.gibbons@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Storm Gewirtz, P.E. Engineering Stormwater 252-2434 storm.gewirtz@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA Zoning Division 252-2484 nancy.gundlach@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Shar Hingson Greater Naples Fire District 774-2800 shingson@gnfire.org ❑ John Houldsworth Engineering Subdivision 252-5757 john.houldsworth@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Alicia Humphries Right -Of -Way Permitting 252-2326 alicia.humphries@colliercountyfl.gov ^l Erin Josephitis Environmental Specialist, Senior 252-2915 erin.josephitis@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Marcia Kendall Comprehensive Planning 252-2387 marcia.kendall@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ John Kelly Zoning Senior Planner 252-5719 john.kelly@colliercountyfl.gov Diane Lynch Operations Analyst 252-8243 diane.lynch@colliercountyfl.gov Gil Martinez Zoning Principal Planner 252-4211 gilbert.martinez@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Thomas Mastroberto Greater Naples Fire 252-7348 thomas.mastroberto@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Jack McKenna, P.E. Engineering Services 252-2911 jack.mckenna@colliercountyfl.gov Updated 6/12/2019 Page 1 6 of 7 County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NA )LES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 Matt McLean, P.E. LI Michele Mosca, AICP E Annis Moxam IX Richard Orth ❑ Brandy Otero ❑ Brandi Pollard �J Todd Riggall Development Review Director Capital Project Planning Addressing Stormwater Planning Transit Utility Impact fees North Collier Fire 252-8279 252-2466 252-5519 252-5092 252-5859 252-6237 597-9227 matthew.mclean@colliercountyfl.gov michele.mosca@colliercountyfl.gov annis.moxam@colliercountyfl.gov rchard.orth@col IiercountyfLgov brandy.otero@colliercountyfl.gov bra ndi.pollard @colliercountyfLgov triggall@northcollierfire.com Development Review ❑ Brett Rosenblum, P.E. Principal Project Manager 252-2905 brett.rosenblum@colliercountyfl.gov James Sabo, AICP Zoning Principal Planner 252-2708 james.sabo@colliergo.net Michael Sawyer Transportation Planning 252-2926 michael.sawyer@colliercountyfl.gov Corby Schmidt, AICP Comprehensive Planning 252-2944 corby.schmidt@coiliercountyfl.gov Chris Scott, AICP Development Review - Zoning 252-2460 chris.scott@colliercountyfl.gov .i Linda Simmons North Collier Fire 252-2311 Linda.Simmons@colliercountyfl.gov Peter Shawinsky Architectural Review 252-8523 peter.shawinsky@colliercountyfl.gov Camden Smith Zoning Operations Manager 2524042 camden.smith@colliercountyfl.gov F-1 Mark Strain Hearing Examiner/CCPC 252-4446 mark.strain@colliercountyfl.gov Mark Templeton Landscape Review 252-2475 mark.templeton@colliercountyfl.gov Jessica Velasco Zoning Division Operations 252-2584 jessica.velasco@colliercountyfl.gov -' Jon Walsh, P.E. Building Review 252-2962 jonathan.walsh@colliercountyfl.gov Comprehensive Planning l David Weeks, AICP Future Land Use Consistency 252-2306 david.weeks@colliercountyfl.gov ICI Kirsten Wilkie Environmental Review Manager 252-5518 kirsten.wilkie@colliercountyfl.gov 11 Christine Willoughby Development Review - Zoning 252-5748 christine.willoughby@colliercountyfl.gov Daniel Zunzunegui North Collier Fire 252-2310 Daniel.Zunzunegui@colliercountyfl.gov Additional Attendee Contact Information: Name Representing Phone Email , \ i� �' l i , < L-,► to Sc�l�l �sti,�, c.:�14t'1����nLc'_ ,4136 Si7 -3//1 C9 rw.e a (e a 66 a/ 17 C cam �J A b J 1)' 1 U C 1 v y �1 f �.C�� - �c'� Loa c.ucY.I-ALLopFG ,C0UNA UA- L F,ftAf Pkke C� y3Y.kuyg V��ILE@Cvu.�EnFvTe ��scs .C•� Updated 6/12/2019 Page 1 7 of 7 Applicant/Agent may also send site K Y Ht plans or conceptual plans for -- review in advance if desired. w ` Growth Management Department Zoning Division PL20190001837 - Bellmar SRA - PRE-APP INFO Assigned Ops Staff: Thomas Clarke Camden Smith, (Ops Staff) STAFF FORM FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PRE -APPLICATION MEETING INFORMATION • Name and Number of who submitted pre-app request Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Vice President Hole Montes, Inc. 239-254-2000 bobmulhere (EDhmeng.com • Agent to list for PL# Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Vice President Hole Mantes, Inc. • Owner of property (all owners for all parcels) Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. (Parcel #: 00354520003) Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. (Parcel #: 00354560005) Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. (Parcel #: 00354840000) Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. (Parcel #: 00354880002) • Confirm Purpose of Pre-App: (Rezone, etc.) SRA Pre -Application Meeting • Please list the density request of the project if applicable and number of homes/units/offices/doc!<s (any that apply): The Bellmar Village SRA which will be approximately 1,000 acres in size and located in portions of Sections 2, 3, 10, 11, Township 49S, Range 28E. It will consist of a maximum of 2,750 dwelling units, and 85,000 square feet of retail and office uses and 27,500 square feet of civic, governmental, and institutional uses. • Details about Project: SRA — is this a phased development and if so what schedule is being proposed? Is the proposal for a specific Tract or addition of a Tract/Use? Phasing schedule to be determined. REQUIRED Supplemental Information provided by: Name: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP Title: Vice President/Hole Montes, Inc. Email: bobmulhere@hmeng.com Phone. 239-254-2000 Cancellation/Reschedule Requests: Contact Danny Condomina-Client Services Supervisor danny.condomina@colliercountyfl Phone: 239-252-68���~= Created April S, 2017 tion: K:\CDES Planning Services\Current\Zoning Staff Information Zor�ng Divi�on • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive •Naples, Florida 34104.23�-252-2400 • uvu�w.colliergov.net CoLLier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND REGULATION 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252=2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net SECTION I NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX /I "SESSMENT (LDC 4.08.07.D.3.) 1. Submit an Assessment that documents the Natural Resource Index Value Scores. The Assessment is to include an analysis that quantifies the number of acres by Index Values. The Assessment shall include the following: a. Identify all lands within the proposed SRA that have an Index Value greater than 1.2. b. Verify that the Index Value scores assigned during the RLSA Study are still valid through recent aerial photography, satellite imagery, agency -approved mapping, or other documentation, as verified by field inspections. c. If the Index Value scores assigned during the RLSA Study are no longer valid the applicant shall document the current Index Value of the land. d. Quantify by type the acreage of agrieultural lands being converted. e. Quantify by type the acreage of non- agricultural acreage being converted. f. Quantify by type the acreage of all lands within the proposed SRA that have an Index Value greater than i .2. g. Quantify by type the acreage of all lands being designated as an SRA within the ACSC, if any. h. Demonstrate compliance with the Suitability Criteria contained in Section 4.08.07.A.1. SECTION II NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX ASSESSMENT SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION (LDC 4.08.07.D.4.) 1. Documentation to support the Natural Resource Index Assessment shall be provided for each SRA being designated a. Legal description, including sketch or survey. b. Acreage calculations of lands being put into the SRA, including acreage calculations of WRAs (if any) within the SRA boundary but not included in the SRA designation. c. RLSA Overlay Map delineating the area of the RLSA District being designated as an SRA. d. Aerial photograph delineating the area being designated as an SRA. e. Natural Resource Index Map of the area being designated as an SRA. f. FLUCCS maps) delineating the area being designated as an SRA. February i 1, 2019 Cor`County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND REGULATION 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net g, Listed species maps) delineating the area being designated as an SRA. h. Soils maps) delineating the area being designated as an SRA. i. Documentation to support a change in the related Natural Resource Index Value(s), if appropriate. SECTION III OTHER REQUIRED DOCUMENTS 1. Submit a SRA Master Plan consistent with the requirements of Seetion 4.08.07.G. 2. Submit a SRA Development Document consistent with the requirements of Section 4.08.07.H. 3. Submit a Public Facilities Impact Assessment Report addressing the requirements of Section 4.08.07.K. 4. Submit an Economic Assessmen# Report addressing the requirements of Section 4.08.07.L. 5. School Concurrency — if the proposed project includes a residential component, you are required to contact the School District of Collier County at 239-377-0267 to discuss school concurrency requirements. (Download the School Impact Analysis Application from the website) SECTION IV STEWARDSHIP CREDIT USE AND RECONCILIATION APPLICATION (LDC 4.08.07.D.9) 1. The legal description of, or descriptive reference to, the SRA to which the Stewardship Credits are being transferred. 2. Total number of acres within the proposed SRA and the total number of acres of the proposed SRA within the ACSC (if any). 3. Number of acres within the SRA designated "public use" that do not require the redemption of Stewardship Credits in order to be entitled (does not consume credits). 4. Number of acres of "excess" open spaces within the SRA that do not require the consumption of credits. 5. Number of acres of WRAs inside the SRA boundary but not included in the SRA designation. 6. Number of acres within the SRA that consume credits. 7. The number of Stewardship Credits being transferred to (consumed by) the SRA and documentation that the applicant has acquired or has a contractual right to acquire those Stewardship Credits, 8. The number of acres to which credits are to be transferred (consumed) multiplied by 8 Credits/ acre equals the number of Credits to be transferred (consumed). February 11, 2019 Co ley County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND REGULATION 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net 9. A descriptive reference to one or more approved or pending SSA Designation Applications from which the Stewardship Credits are being obtained. Submit copies of SSA Stewardship Credit Agreement and related documentation, including: a. SSA Application Number b. Pending companion SRA Application Number c. SSA Designation Resolution (or Resolution Number) d. SSA Credit Agreement (Stewardship Agreement) e. Stewardship Credits Database Report 10. A descriptive reference to any previously approved Stewardship Credit Use and Reconciliation Applications that pertain to the referenced SSA(s) from which the Stewardship Credits are being obtained. I1. A summary table in a form provided by Collier County that identifies the exchange of all Stewardship Credits that involve the SRA and all of the associated SSAs from which the Stewardship Credits are being obtained. I_1 RELIEVING A EDIT • (LDC 4.08.07.D.1 1.b) 1. The applicant for designation of an SRA shall enter into an SRA Credit Agreement with the County for each SRA. 2. The SRA Credit Agreement shall contain: a. The number of SSA credits applied to the SRA land in order to carry out the plan of development on the acreage proposed in the SRA Development Documents. b. The legal description of the SRA land and number of acres. c. The SRA Master Plan, which must include the Following: i. Identify the land uses ii. Identifying the number of residential dwelling units iii. Gross leaseable area of retail square footage We Gross leaseable office square footage v. All other land uses depicted on the master plan. 3. Description of the SSA credits that are needed to entitle the SRA land and the anticipated source of said credits. 4. Acknowledgement from the applicant that development of SRA land may not commence until the applicant has recorded a SRA Credit Agreement Memorandum with the Collier County Clerk of Courts; and 5. The applicant's commitment, if any, regarding conservation or any other restriction on development on any lands within the SRA including wetlands, as may be depicted on the SRA Master Plan for special treatment. February 11, 2019 cU ley County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NApLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 Please complete the following and email to GMD Addressing@colliergov,net or fax to the Operations Division at 239-252-5724 or submit In person to the Addressing Section at the above address. Form must be signed by Addressing aersonnei prior to are -application meeting, Please allow 3 days for Processing. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold type are required. FOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED. Forms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Section, PETITION TYPE (indicate type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition type) ❑ BL (Blasting Permit) ❑ SDP (Site Development Plan) ❑ BD (Boat Dock Extension) ❑ SDPA (SDP Amendment) ElCarnival/Circus Permit ❑ SDP) (Insubstantial Change to SDP) ❑ CU (Conditional Use) ❑ SIP (Site Improvement Plan) ❑ EXP (Excavation Permit) ❑ SIPI (Insubstantial Change to SIP) ❑ FP (Final Plat ❑ SNR (Street Name Change) ❑ LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) ❑ SNC (Street Name Change — Unplatted) ❑ PNC (Project Name Change) ❑ TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) ❑ PPL (Plans & Plat Review) ❑ VA (Variance) ❑ PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) ❑ VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) ❑ PUD Rezone ❑ VRSFP (Vegetation Removal & Site F111 Permit) ❑ RZ (Standard Rezone) Mu OTHER SRA LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description may be attached) Sections 22, 23, 26, 27, 34, 35, Township 48S, Range 28E FOLIO (Property ID) NUMBER(s) of above (attach to, orassociate with, legal description if more than one) Folio #s: 00225400003, 00225440005, 00225560008, 00225600007, 00225880005, 00225920004 STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, if already assigned) • LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of project/site in relation to nearest public road right- of-way . SURVEY (copy -needed only for unplatted properties) CURRENT PROJECT NAME (If applicable) PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (if applicable) Longwater Village SRA PROPOSED STREET NAMES (if applicable) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for existing protects/sifes only) SDP - or AR or PL # Rev. 6/9/2017 Page 1 of 2 • • COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.collier�ov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if application; indicate whether proposed or existing) Please Return Approved Checklist By: 0 Emaii ❑ Fax ❑ Personally picked up Applicant Name: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, VP/Stephanie Karol, Permitting Coordinator Phone: 239-254-2018 Email/Fax: ahaniekarol@hm .com Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Division. FOR STAFF USE ONLY Folio Number 225400003 Folio Number 225440005 Folio Number 225560008 Folio Number 225600007 Folio Number 225880005 Folio Number 225920004 Approved by: c�.��r:�ita ate: 2-25-2020 Updated by: Date: IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED Rev. 6/9/2017 Page 2 of 2 AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZP►TION POR PETITION NUMBERS(S) LONGWATERVILLAGESRA(PL-20199001836) I � PATRICI< L. UTTER applleable) of CDC LAND INVESTMENTS, INC., MANAGE under oath, that I am the (choose one) owne (print name), as VICE PRESIDENT LLC ' (title, If (company, If applicable), swear or affirm 4purchaserF1and that, 1, I have full authority to secure the approvals) requested and to Impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code, 2. All answers to the questions In this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true, 3, 1 have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. 5. Weil authorize COLLIER ENTERPRISES MANAGNIENT, INC. to act as our/my representative In any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above. and as Vice President of Collier Enterprises, Inc., General Partner of Collier Land *Notes, Holdings, Ltd. o If the applicant is a corporation, then It is usually executed by the Corp. Ares. or v. pres. If the applicant is a Limited Llabliity Company (L.L.C,) or Llmlted Company (L,C.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's "Managing Member." o If the applicant Is a partnership, then typically a pa►fnercan sign on behalf of the partnership. If the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the "general partner" of the named partnership, If the applicant Is a trust, then they must Include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee': • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership, Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts stated l� It are true. � � / Palrlck L. Utter, Vlce Pres, Signature CDC Land Investments, LLC By: CDC Land Investments, Inc„ its manager Collier Land Holdings, Ltd, SATE ie FEnter i es, Inc,, its general manager COUNTY OF COLLIER Thep foregoing �Y1tic-ic. y % cic t?rt�,� STAMPISEAL 1JoJ• 12701; Date instrument 1. was sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me on �JtIJ.�Z,'7blet (date) by 1.. V�-'�. (name of person providing oath ar affirmation), as COCm who Ispersonally known to me erwh"as-ial:edueed- Valerie L. Pike Notary Public - Slate of f-lorida Commission 11GG 22100 Expires 08117/2020 CP\08-COA-001151155 RCV 3/24/14 Signature of Notary Pu is AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) LONGWATERVILLAGESRA(PL-20180001D38) I� PATRiCI<L. UTTER (print name), aS VICE PRESIDENT (title, if applicable) of CDC LAND INVESTMENTS, INC., MANAGER OF CDC LAND INVESTMENTS, LLC' (company, If applicable), swear or affirm under oath, that I am the (choose one) owner0 applicantFcontract purchaserFJand that: 1. I have full authority to secure the approvals) requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code, 2. All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true, 3, 1 have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application, and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions Imposed by the approved action. t 5. Well authorize ROBERT J. MULHERE, FAICP & RICHARD D. YOVAPiVICH, ESQUIRE to act as our/my representative In any matters regarding this petition Including I through 2 above. and as Vice President of Collier Enterprises, Inc., General Partner of Collier Land 'Notes: Holdings, Ltd. a If the applicant is a corporation, then It is usually executed by the core, pros, or v. pres. • If the applicant Is a Limited Liability Company (L.L.C.) or Limited Company (L.C.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's "Managing Member" • if the applicant Is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • If the applicant Is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be Identified as the "general partner" of the named partnership, • If the applicant Is a trust, then they must Include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee". • In each Instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., Individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penalties of perjury I declare that i have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the fop#s stated,in it are true. � ,r Patrick L. Utter, Vfce Pres, Signature ' CDC Land znveetments, LLC By: CDC Land Investments, Inc„ its manager Collier Land Holdings, Ltd, SI Collier Enter 1 ATE OF FLORIUAses, Inc . , its general manager COUNTY OF COLLIER Date T e foregoing instrument was sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me on Nam, �Z, ���(date) by t ►c_ . li (name of person providing oath or affirmation), as Vakc. Coe, fs ersonally {mown to me owv�e-baS pMducArl c�v /f,fp"P a P8n\ STAM PIS E AL CP108-COA-00115\155 RCV 3/24f14 Signature of Notary Public C©LLIER COUNTY GOVCRMIViENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net _; Coey County 28U0 NC)RTM I�ORSESHOE DRIVE MAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 vv )601EI TY C &RSHIP DISCLOSURE FOR RA This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest: Name and Address % of Ownership b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: c. Name and Address % of Ownership If the property is in the name of a percentage of interest: Address % of Ownership Name and TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the Created 9/28/2017 Page 1 of 3 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net G f. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE MAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners: Name and Address % of Ownership Collier Land Holdings, LTD 87.95% Collier_Enterprise5, Inc. — 2.00°% Miles C. Collier-41.167% Barron G. Collier 11- 41.167% Miles C. Collier.& Barron G. Collier, 11, Co Trustees of Inglis U. Collier* Trust, dated November 20, 1998—16.666% CDC Land Investments, LLC 12.05% Miles C. Collier — 16.667% Barron G. Collier 11 as Trustee of the Barron G. Collier II Revocable Trust, dated May 30, 2000—16.667% Mites C. Collier and Barron G. Collier as Co -Trustees of Inglis U. Collier Revocable Trust, dated November 20, 1998—16.666% CDC Land Investments, LLC— 50% Date of Contract: If any contingency clause or confiracfi terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or of ficers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust: Name and Address Date subject property acquired ❑ Leased: Term of lease years jmonths If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 Co �oier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMCNT 2£i00 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Date of option: Date option terminates: , or Anticipated closing date: ',6��`�iGa�;;`� l�,,I��rG��:C�`i•ba �V�f�9�R'�6=a1�� 9�9i��E�v�fis�a�!'9�i�� Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form. Any change in ownership whether individually or with a Trustee, Company or other interest -holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition's final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Departent ATTNI Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 ent/Owner Signature Agent/Owner Name (please print) Date Created 9/28/2017 Page 3 of 3 ^4c, rs y Cof heir County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND REGULATION 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLIES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252=2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 wrww.colliergov.net STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA (SRA) DESIGNATION APPLICATION The following documents the necessary items, exhibits and agreements for the Stewardship Receiving Area Designation Application. SUBMITTAL PACKAGE Submit the Application to: Growth Management Department Attn: Operations & Regulatory 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples Florida 34104 Phone (239) 252-2400 / Fax (239) 643-6968 The Applicant shall submit one copy of the application or may submit electronically for verification of completeness. The application package shall also contain completed copies of the appropriate form(s) as provided herein. The Applicant is responsible for providing additional copies for public hearings and for County records, once the application is finalized. REQUIRED FEES Application Fee: $7,000.00 plus $25.00 per acre Comprehensive Plan Consistency Review $2,250.00 FIAM (Fiscal Impact Analysis) $4,000.00 BCC Legal Advertising $500 :CPC Legal Advertising $1,125 Transportation Fees —refer to pre -application meeting notes School Concurrency Review Fees, if required. Mitigation Fees, if applicable, to be determined by the School District in coordination with the County Refer to pre -application meeting notes for additional required fees. / Please make check payable to: Board of County Commissioners APPLICATION REVIEW SCHEDULE (LDC 4.08.07.E.) The application review schedule is as follows: / Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the SRA Application, the applicant will be notified in writing that the application is complete and sufficient for review. If required, the applicant shall submit additional information. / Within twenty (20) working days of receipt of the additional information the applicant will be notified if the application is complete. / Staff review and written comments shall be submitted to the applicant sixty (60) days after sufficiency has been determined. / Staff shall provide a written report containing their findings and recommendations of approval, approval with conditions or denial within ninety (90) days after sufficiency is determined. / EAC hearing per LDC 4.08.07 F.l .a. The CCPC shall hold an advertised public hearing on the proposed application and agreement. The notice of this hearing shall be given ten (10) days prior to the meeting date. / The BCC shall hold an advertised public hearing on the proposed application and agreement. The notice of this hearing shall be given ten (10) days prior to the meeting date. AMENDMENTS Collier County shall consider an amendment to an approved SRA in the same manner as designated in this application. February 11, 2019 �T Cofer County 1. -. \'_ �• \. - � :.-7 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND REGULATION PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME DATE PROCESSED 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE MAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA (SRA) APPLICATION To be completed by staff APPLICANT INFORMATION Name of Property Owner(s): Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. &CDC Land Investments, LLC Name of Applicant if different than owner: Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. Address: 2550 Goodlette Rd., N., Ste. 100 City: Naples State: FL Telephone: 2394344015 Cell: N/A E-Mail Address: PUtter@collierenterprises.com Fax: N/A Al zIP: 3 Agent: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, VP Firm: Hole Montes, Inc. Address: 950 Encore Way city: Naples state: FL ZIP: 34110 T:239-254-2000 Cell: N/A Fax elephone EWall Address: bobmulhere@hmeng.com PROPERTY INFORMATION You must include the Couniy's Property Ownership Disclosure Form with this application in order for it to be considered complete. This form is located at: https:,(f www.collieraov.net/Home/ShowDocument?id=75093. Sections: 22, 23, 26, 27, 34, 35 Section/Township/Range: 48S /28E Zoning: A-MHO-RLSAO General Location and Cross Streets: See below Folio Numbers: 00225400003,00225440005300225560008,00225600007,00225880005 & 00225920004 General Location and Cross Streets: East of Desoto Blvd., South of Oil Well Road, East of the intersection of Oil Well Grade Road & Oil Well Road Total Area of Project: 999.78± acres N/A List any previously approved or pending petition numbers affecting the property. Name of Agent: Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq Firm: Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. Address: 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, FL 34103 Phone/Fax:239-435-3535,239-435-1218 Email:ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com February 11, 2019 Co Mf w Y County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND REGULATION 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net ADJACENT ZONING/LAND USE Zoning Land Use N A-MHO-RLSAO SSA 17, Oil Well Road S A-MHO-RLSAO Ag, WRA E A-MHO-RLSAO SSA 17, Ag W A-MHO-RLSAO Future Big Cypress Parkway, then AG, SSA 17 LIST OF CONSULTANTS Name: Hole Montes, Inc. Phone: 239-254-2000 Name: Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, PA Phone: 239435-3535 Name: Passarella and Associates Phone: 239-274-0067 Name• Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Phone* 239-566-9551 Name: Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc. Phone: 239-597-3111 Mailing Address: Mailing Address: Mailing Address: Mailing Address: Mailing Address: 950 Encore Way, Naples, FL 34110 4001 Tamiami Tr. N., Naples, FL 34103 13620 Metropolis Ave., Fort Myers, FL 33912 2800 Davis Blvd, Suite 200, Naples, FL 34104 7400 Trail Blvd., #200, Naples, FL 34108 DPFG -Development Planning &Financing Group, Inc., 250 International Pkwy., #280, Lake Mary, FL 32746 (321-263-0132) Water Science Assoc., 13620 Metropolis Ave., #$110, Fort Myers, FL 33912 (239-204-5300) Applicant is responsible for providing finalized copies as required for public hearing. 1 hereby submit and certify the application to be complete and accurate. Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, VP Printed Name of Agent Sigriature of Agent Date February 11, 2019 Coye-r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND REGULATION 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLIES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net SECTION I NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX ASSESSMENT (LDC 4.08.07.D.3.) 1. Submit an Assessment that documents the Natural Resource Index Value Scores. The Assessment is to include an analysis that quantifies the number of acres by Index Values. The Assessment shall include the following: a. Identify all lands within the proposed SRA that have an Index Value greater than 1.2. b. Verify that the Index Value scores assigned during the RLSA Study are still valid through recent aerial photography, satellite imagery, agency -approved mapping, or other documentation, as verified by field inspections. c. If the Index Value scores assigned during the RLSA Study are no longer valid the applicant shall document the current Index Value of the land. d. Quantify by type the acreage of agricultural lands being converted. e. Quantify by type the acreage ofagricultural acreage being converted. f. Quantify by type the acreage of all lands within the proposed SRA that have an Index Value greater than 1.2. g. Quantify by type the acreage of all lands being designated as an SRA within the ACSC, if any. h. Demonstrate compliance with the Suitability Criteria contained in Section 4.08.07.A.1. SECTION II NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX JrAS0r..:)06V11CrU 1 SUPPORT DOCUM i'AiION (L®C 4.08.07.D.4.) 1. Documentation to support the Natural Resource Index Assessment shall be provided for each SRA being designated a. Legal description, including sketch or survey. b. Acreage calculations of lands being put into the SRA, including acreage calculations of WRAs (if any) within the SRA boundary but not included in the SRA designation. c. RLSA Overlay Map delineating the area of the RLSA District being designated as an SRA. d. Aerial photograph delineating the area being designated as an SRA. e. Natural Resource Index Map of the area being designated as an SRA. f. FLUCCS maps) delineating the area being designated as an SRA. February 11, 2019 Coear County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND REGULATION 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net g. Listed species maps) delineating the area being designated as an SRA. h. Soils maps) delineating the area being designated as an SRA. i. Documentation to support a change in the related Natural Resource Index Value(s), if appropriate. •11 OTHER REQUIRED DOCUNIENTS 1. Submit a SRA Master Plan consistent with the requirements of Section 4.08.07.G. 2. Submit a SRA Development Document consistent with the requirements of Section 4.08.07.H. 3. Submit a Public Facilities Impact Assessment Report addressing the requirements of Section 4.08.07. K. 4. Submit an Economic Assessment Report addressing the requirements of Section 4.08.07.L. 5. School Concurrency �. if the proposed project includes a residential component, you are required TO contact the School District of Collier County at 239-377-0267 to discuss school concurrency requirements. (Download the School Impact Analysis Application from the website) SECTION IV STEWARDSHIP CREDIT USE AND RECONCILIATION APPLICATION (LDC 4.08.07.D.9) 1. The legal description of, or descriptive reference to, the SRA to which the Stewardship Credits are being transferred. 2. Total number of acres within the proposed SRA and the total number of acres of the proposed SRA within the ACSC (if any). 3. Number of acres within the SRA designated "public use" that do not require the redemption of Stewardship Credits in order to be entitled (does not consume credits). 4. Number of acres of "excess" open spaces within the SRA that do not require the consumption of credits. 5. Number of acres of WRAs inside the SRA boundary but not included in the SRA designation. 6. Number of acres within the SRA that consume credits. 7. The number of Stewardship Credits being transferred to (consumed by) the SRA and documentation that the applicant has acquired or has a contractual right to acquire those Stewardship Credits. 8. The number of acres to which credits are to be transferred (consumed) multiplied by 8 Credits/ acre equals the number of Credits to be transferred (consumed). Febi•uaiy 11, 2019 co County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND REGULATION 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net 9. A descriptive reference to one or more approved or pending S5A Designation Applications from which the Stewardship Credits are being obtained. Submit copies of SSA Stewardship Credit Agreement and related documentation, including: a. SSA Application Number b. Pending companion SRA Application Number c. SSA Designation Resolution (or Resolution Number) d. SSA Credit Agreement (Stewardship Agreement) e. Stewardship Credits Database Report 10. A descriptive reference to any previously approved Stewardship Credit lJse and Reconciliation Applications that pertain to the referenced SSA(s) from which the Stewardship Credits are being obtained. 11. A summary table in a form provided by Collier County that identifies the exchange of all Stewardship Credits that involve the SRA and all of the associated SSAs from which the Stewardship Credits are being obtained. STEWARDSHIP RELIEVING AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT (LDC 4.08.07.D.11.b) 1. The applicant for designation of an SRA shall enter into an SRA Credit Agreement with the County for each SRA. 2. The SRA Credit Agreement shall contain: a. The number of SSA credits applied to the SRA land in order to carry out the plan of development on the acreage proposed in the SRA Development Documents. b. The legal description of the SRA land and number of acres. c. The SRA Master Plan, which must include the following: i. Identify the land uses ii. Identifying the number of residential dwelling units iii. Gross leaseable area of retail square footage iv. Gross leaseable office square footage v. All other land uses depicted on the master plan. 3. Description of the SSA credits that are needed to entitle the SRA land and the anticipated source of said credits. 4i. Acknowledgement from the applicant that development of SRA land may not commence until the applicant has recorded a SRA Credit Agreement Memorandum with the Collier County Cleric of Courts; and 5. The applicant's commitment, if any, regarding conservation or any other restriction on development on any lands within the SRA including wetlands, as may be depicted on the SRA Master Plan for special treatment. I'ebruary 11, 2019 AFFIDAVIT bF AUTHORISATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) LONGWATERVILIAGESRA(PL-201©0001836) I� PATRICI<L.UTTER (print name), as appllcable) of CDC LAND INVESTMENTS, INC., MANAGER under oath, that I am the (choose one) owner VICE PRESIDENT (title, if LLc (company, if nilplicablM swear or affirm �ntraat purchaser" and that: 1. I have full authority to secure the approvals) requested and to Impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced properly as a result of any action approved by the County In accordance with this application and the Land Development Code, 2. All answers to the questions In this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. I have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions Imposed by the approved action. 5. Well authorize COLLIER ENTERPRISES MANAGMENT, INC, to act as our/my representative in any matters regarding this petitlon Including 1 through 2 above. and as Vice President of Collier Enterprises, Inc„ General Partner of Collier Land *Notes: Holdings, Ltd. o If the applicant Is a corporation, then It Is usually executed by the core. Ares, or v. pres. • If the applicant Is a Limited Liability Company (L.L.C.) or Limited Company (L.C.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's "Managing Member." o If the applicant Is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. ® If the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the "general partner" of the named partnership. If the applicant Is a trust, then they must Include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee". • in each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership, Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts Stated to It are true. � � / Pairlck L. Utter, Vlce Pres, Signature CDC Land Investments, LLC By: CDC Land Investments, Inc., ite manager Collier Land Holdings, Ltd, SATE ie FLORIEnter i ee, Inc,, its general manager COUNTY OF COLLIER k10j. l27p10, � Date e foregoing Instrument was sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me on �nJ.12,?� (C11 (date) by Qq-fYL�.'c.,�c, �.. I�TT�c-•-L. (name of person providing oath or affirmation), as Eck t?aQ cto CW, LArm who Is pprsonally known to me or whe-tias-redueed STAM PIS EAL it"� � ��Valerie L. Pike 1 "Notary Public - Stale of f=lorida Commission UGG 22100 �FF\1-JExpirBs 08/17/2020 CP108-COA-001151155 RCV 3/24/t4 Signature of Notary Pu is AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMDERS(S) LONGWATERVILLAGESRA(PL-20190001030) I� PATRICI<L. UTTER (print name), as . applicable) of CDC LAND INVESTMENTS, INC., MANAGER OF CDC LAND INVES under oath, that I am the (choose one) owner0 applicant VICE PRESIDENT (title, If LLc (company, If a Ilcable)swear or affirm, ontract purchaser ffand that: 1. I have full authority to secure the approvals) requested and to Impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County In accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2. All answers to the questions In this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3, 1 have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions Imposed by the approved action. 5. Well authorize ROBERT J. MULHERE, FAICP s RICHARD D. YOVAOICH, ESQUIRE to act as our/my representative in any matters regarding this petition Including 1 through 2 above. and as vice President of Collier Enterprises, Inc., General Partner of Collier Land *Notes: Holdings, Ltd. If the applicant Is a corporation, men It !s usually executed by the corp, pres. or v. pres. If the applicant Is a Limited Liability Company (L.L.C.) or Limited Company (L,C.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's "Managing Member." If the applicant Is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. If the applicant Is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the "general partner" of the named partnership. a If the applicant Is a trust, then they must Include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee". In each Instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the faQts stated,in it are true. ,, ,� Patrick L. Ulter, Vlce Pres, signature CDC Land Investmento, LLC By: CDC Land Investments, Inc„ its manager Coyllier Land Holdiengs, Ltd, S I ACollier TE OF FLORI Enter isea, Inc., its general manager COUNTY OF COLLIER Date T e foregoing instrument was sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me on N�12, ���(date) by 1.9 l� (name of person provng oath or affirmation), as QrLet;oenk— COC t ho 1, personally known to me o�GAias produced STAMPiSEAL Signature of Notary Public CP108-COA-001151155 RL�V 3/24(Id i I 396819 O , 4178 Pie IZ38 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COURTY, FL 02/02/2007 at 039#29PR DWIGRT 8, BROCK, CLERK He FEE 44,00 DOCV170 $70 ' COPIES 5100 Retn, GOULETTE COLEW 87 AL 4001 TAKIAKI TR H #300 MAPLES FL 34103 SPECIAL 'WARRANTY DEED THIS SPECIAL WA,It]2ANTY DEED, made on the 23`a day of December, 2006, by and between CDC LAND INVESTMENTS, INC., a Florida corporation, formerly known as Collier Development Corporation, a Florida corporation, as to an undivided '/2 interest; ICES C. COLLIER, as to an undivided 1/60' interest; BARRON G. COLLIER II, as Trustee of the Barron G. Collier It Declaration of Trust dated the 10' day of June, 1982, ascended --a cl restated and now known as the Barron G. Collier H RevocableTrust dated May oMIA , o awn 'v' l d 1/6W interest; and MILES C. COLLIER and BARRON G. COLLIER, II, a rJeof the Inglirs� . i .' er Indenture of Trust dated the 21" day of May, 1980, as amended �a d� estated and now Iwo It a the Inglis U. Collier Trust dated November 20,1998, as to an un ividriintekqst,`�'whos ost o cell dress is 3003 Tamianu Trail North, y Naples, FL 34103 (hereinafte coil ctia err d o as antor" an CDC LAND INVESTMENTS LLC, a Florida limited liabili c mp�, �. e frc 's 3 03 Tamiam1 Trail North, Naples, FL 34103 (hereinafter referre to rani ee' ). W re is : er t e to ms Grantor and Grantee shall be construed as singular or plural a# c nt r it s. 1 ..ft 3 ��q WITNESSETH that rantor, for and in c_do uc ide }ati the sum of TEN AND 00/100 of i DOLLARS ($10.00) and other g valuable considera 0 % t in hand paid by Grantee, the receipt i whereof is hereby acknowledged, ha . a bed, bargained and solod� o t said Grantee and Grantee's heirs and assigns forever, the following describ n `situ 1y n e ngin Collier County, State of Florida, to Wit* t�Coll See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein. Subject to: (a) ad valorem real property taxes for the year 2007 and subsequent years; (b) zoning, building code and other use restrictions imposed by governmental authority; (c) i outstanding oil, gas and mineral interests of record, if any, and (d) restrictions, reservations, and easements common to the area, if any. Grantor warrants that neither Miles C. Collier, Barron G. Collier II nor Inglis U. I Collier, nor any of their respective spouses nor any other of their respective family members reside on the property described herein or adjacent thereto and the property does not therefore constitute homestead property. TOGETHER with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. Special Warranty Deed to CDC Land Investments, LLC Collier County, Florida Page No. 1 of 5 OR � 4178 PG ; AND the Grantor hereby covenants with the Grantee that the Grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that the Grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey this land; that the Grantor hereby fully warrants the title to the land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons by through or under Grantor but against no others. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed, and delivered Grantor: in the presence of (as to Doth): Witn Print fitness #2 Print Name: (Corporate Seal) STATE OF FLORIDA , COUNTY OF COLLIER CDC LAND INVESTMENTS, INC., a Florida porration, formerly known as Collier Bv: t Corporation, a Florida 0 Cl The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this �_� y of ��.+u,c,z,r c.� ,� ,= by brae y-'�' T} , r nor �0 , as President of CDC LAND INVESTMMNTS, INC., a Florida corporation, formerly known as Collier Development Corporation, a Florida corporation, on behalf of the corporation. 14tam T Wood is personally known to me. ( SEAL) Df8()iZAH A BitOWN ����,Y, comrtw� two34�972 Extras �a�snoae Bondsd thru (800)4324254 Rxida Notary Assn., Inc urrruurruuuurr.uurrrur..nw�ruL Notary Public Print Name: Commission Expires: R Special Warranty Deed to CDC Land Investments, LLC Collier County, Florida Page No. 2 of 5 Signed, sealed, and delivered in the presence of (as to both): Wi #1 )ri/tl ame.7n rp KOV(LH Witness #2 Print Name: t �'�'�'` i 1 i0 v►n' STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing rostrum C. COLLIER, individually a of May,1980, as amended an 2051998. Miles C. Collier w . (SEAL) i� Grantor: MII.,ES C. COLLIER, individually and as Trustee of the Inglis U. Collier Indenture of Trust dated the 21" day of May,1980, as amended and restated and now known as the Inglis U. Collier Trust dated November 20, 1998 aS ra d of December, 2006, by MILES den re of Truste dated the 21" day . Collier Trust dated November ���Pr' nt Namelic �V�h 1A� Commission Expires: Special Warranty Deed to CDC Land Investments, LLC Collier County, Florida Page No. 3 of 5 Signed, sealed, and delivered in the presence of (as to b: aWMIF 14" Witne s " Print)4ahie,t72OSEPH 57 7 ZW)eeviCq Witness #2 Print Name: Ol Ltq '7'kP-N S' STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instru �fi�' BARR4N G. C�LLiER II, a day of June, 1982, as amends Trust dated May 30, 2000 and a 4ay,1980, as amended and resta 1998. Barron G. Collier H who is p (SEAL) PREPARED BY: Kevin G. Coleman, Esq. Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103 Grantor: BARRON G. Ct�LLIER II, as Trustee of the Barron G. Collier II Declaration of Trust dated the 14" day of June, 1982, as amended and restated and now known as the Barron G. Collier II Revocable Trust dated May 30, 2000, and as Trustee of the Inglis U. Collier Indenture of Trust dated the 21't day of May, 1980 as amended and restated and now known a i, ils U. Collier Trust dated November :ee of the Barron i� restated and nowt tee of the Inglis U. . ,ow known as ;i 2 day of December, 2006, by e' "ration of Trust dated the 14tn t arron G. Collier H Revocable tore of Trust dated the 21" day of . Collier Trust dated November 20, Notary Public Print Name; I"i Commission Expires; Special Warranty Deed to CDC Land Investments, LLC Collier County, Florida Page No, 4 of 5 f i i Exhibit "A" Legal Description Collier County, Florida Property The West % of Section 1, Township 49 south, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida, (00354480101); and The South 176 acres of Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida, (00354920001); and The West 520 acres of Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida, (00222920104), and The West 520 acres of Section Florida, (00222480107); and All of Section 13, tess the S Section 13, and less the EA Township 48 South, RaVge All of Section 14, To shi way as described in O icia Florida, (0022300000 All of Section 15, Towrii way as described in Offici\ Florida, (00223040009); a 1, Township 4$ South, Range 28 East, Collier County, s 4 and less the 6Q acres of the N 1 8 South, Range 28 ��ords Book 154, ] All of Section 34 Township (OOZ25880005). ��}��et of the Southwest'/4 of said fierl '/a of said Section 13, all in (22960009); and ', e t � �' out 50 feet for road right of Sib 1•e R cords of Collier County, ;s t � �So th 50 feet for road right of l Records of Collier County, East, Collier County, Florida, Special Warranty Deed to CDC Land Investments, LLC Collier County, Florida Page No, 5 of 5 Articles of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation of 152227 (Document number of corporation (if known) d :� �►�'• 0 Pursuant tv the provisions of section ti07.100ti, Florida Statutes, this .1�'lorida Profrt Corporation adopts the following amendment(s) to its Articles of Incorporation, Ct3C t,and Investments, Inc, (Must contain the word "corporation," "company," or "incorporated" or the abbreviaton "Corp,,' "Inc.," or "Co.") (A professiorW corporation must contain the word "chartered", "professional association," or the abbreviation T.A ") 994LMM WS ADOPTEDw (O y &=GE)dicate Article Numbers) Jt nd/or Article Titles) being amender deleted: If an amendment provides for exchange, reclassification, or cancellation of issued shares, provisions for implementing the amendment if not contained in the amendment itself (if not applicable, indicate MIA) i+t1A (continued) t OR: 3787 PG: 0948 *** Y The date of each amendment(s) adoption% February 28, 2005 Ef%ctive date if apnlirable: FebtiQrY 280 4L NO (no more than 90 days aft amendment file date) :i ! tIJ The amendments) wasfwere approved by the shareholders. The number of votes cast for the amendment(s) by the shareholders was/were sufficient for approval. Cl The amendmeni{s} was/were approved by the shareholders through voting groups, lie following statement must be separately provided for each voting group entitled to vote separately on the amendment(s): "The number of votes cast for the amondment{s) was/were sufficient for approval by(voting 9MUP) O The amondment(s) was/were adopted by the board of directors without shareholder action and shareholder action was not required, Q The amendments) way shareholder action was Signed this day of Signature CBY � incorporator - if in the iary by ti�at fiduciary} kTE�IG .1�"EE: S35 without shaz�eholdcr action and I JUN IS PH 2, 05: �71-111 PRE '. M�•.. _ DEED, NT « _ �• • • 4THIS INDENTURE a.- Z :ti •� r� : ��: :. .o: of RECORDEp day of April, he .County o£ corporation, whose' Federal Tax Identification Number and whose poet office address is 3003 T6miami Trail Florida' 33940, 'Grantee: ' 1990, between Collier; State CON a Florida Ls:'' 59-0581693;' North, Naples, .�'WZTNESSETH: That said Grantor, for•'and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10:00) and.•'other good and valuable Consideration to said Grantor in hand paid key said.Grantee,l the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed in fee simple to the said Grantee the following described land,v situated, lying and being.in Collier County; Florida, to -wit:' •AN UNDIVIDED ONE-HALF 1/2. INTERBST I2d TFii; PROPERTY LISTBD AND � DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A", ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HBREOT+ . b SUBJECT TO .taxes for the year 1990 and subsequent. years and conditions; limitations, restrictions, easements and reservations of record:' ALSO SU&'TNCT TO the resezvation •of oil, gas contained in Partition• Deed dated September September 20, 1980, in O.R. Book 884.i Pages Public Records of Collier -'County. Florida. Tax Folio Number: AS :6 A` _ This conveyance is•m interest" of the . G an and improvements nd appurtenances an al estates, reversio s, rights thereto be tG ��Grantar'r a context requires. ZN WITNESS seal •the day ,and PROPERTY IS antes" are . used f Signed, sealed and deliv •STATE OIL' . FLORZDA ' COUNTY OF COLT.,IER 0 Grantor has her�e'd t t,,, above written,/� es,Ll and 'mineral. 'rights 12, 1980, recorded ' 1436-1466, of the r EAD , PROPERTY . rights, title, and M ;:- ldings, structures, M hereditamentsI and titles', interests, garian and littoral ar or plural, as ,se Grantor's hand"and x. fi "im, rof �'i { Z HER>BY• CERTIFY that on this day before me, an officer• - duly qual'i>�ied to take acknowledgements, personally appeared•ZSABEL COLLIER , READ, to me known to be the persons) described in and who executed the foregoing•'instrument and acknowledged before me that she exeauted the [ same. WITNESS my hard and official sea in the County and State '19as't•.a aforesaid this �..-"day of f�J'4 _ , 1990. '; �` =' ...r off V This Instrument Prepared By:pop �� BURZYNSKZ.LAW OFFICE, P.A. ' 'j 335 Fifth Avenue South NOTARY PUBLIC {SEA!-: Naples, Florida 33440 My Commission E pires: \real\CDC2 . pkg NOTARY -PUBLIC, STATE OF FLORIDA. File No. DB90"�089 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES; AUG. zo, 1993. 60N000 THAV NOTARY PUDWO UN0CRWRITG"1i) BURZYNSKI I,AW UFCia P.A. 335 Fifth Avenue South ! Naples, Florida 33940 1 11 OR; 3787 PG; 0945 *** M CERTIFICATE OF AMENDENT ` TO CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OF _ Collier Enterprises, [.td. Co111er Ltd. ikp. (lnactt name cuntr►tly on file with Ftorids of Stnte) Pursuant to the provisions of section G20,109, Florida Statutes, this Florida linlitCd partnership, whose certificate was filed with the Florida Dept. of State on December 22, 1998 , adopts the following certifteate of amendment to its c ertifleate oflimited partnership. FIRST; Arnatdmcnt{s); (indicate article "1. The name of the limited 04; SF�COIYD: This otcdficate of amendment shall be 'I'RIRb: Signaturo(s) Signature of eumnt general partner: Co By er deletal) fl s:-a- be &olller-U- ndf oldings, Ltd." tli :t:m� of its filing with the Florida3epaitinent o �•� . a . c.._ Q a . ld 6te,# : C7 enterprises, Inc,, a Florida co�pction Robert D. Coxina� Vice President Signattero(s) of new general p�artner(s), if applicable; a 2702584 OR; 2733 P o$ 0951 CGRGRG to Cr?ICIARCOR�c`fCL6RR C%�?�,.4 3 ?t 10/17!2000 at 02:42PR GWIGHT B. BRCCK, LURK Uw t by: EBf FS3 40 . ��� William K. Q'Neilt, FNuire Su' • . Buckinghame Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP 5551 Rklsewoml Give Suite 201 Rat �}iAR�V cAi,uV,}i Naples, Fkxids 34108 %P40 3R 03VaLO? 144r u RAPLIS Pt, ?4103 lima r .. E.it`'i �j ihose post office .dress is: 3003 Tarniam =ithesawi i 1 n RM. It rights of record in the nunerals, oil. gas and other hydrocarbon substances in and rsuch real i'oi forthpon GRANTORS (or GRANTORS' predecessors in interest) 10 ursuant to the instruments set vto otherLq and now the real property or interests therein heretofore riveyed by them to parties than the GRANTORS pursuant to lie instrurnents set forth a_1 +.o 4 i e-1 1 Schedule i JR; �733 PG� a95G The subject property is not the homestead of the GRANTORS, nor is it contiguous to the homestead of the GRANTORS nor to any homestead of the spouses of the GRANTORS. Subjtct to casements, restrictions and reservations of record, and real estate taxes for calendar year 2000 and all subsequent years• Together with all the tenements, hcreditaments, and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise j appertaining. GRANTORS do hereby warrant that GRANTORS have full tight and authority to convey tht rights deseiibed herein, that such rights are free of any encumbrances, and that GRANTORS will defend such rights against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever, GRANTORS acknowledge that they have held title to the real property conveyed hereby as agents on behalf of, and are transtemng as agents for, Collier EtlterptySeS, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership. SWbjvGt rl property conveyed he pis in the same read property wh�eh ilas been t contributed to the GAcii r 41ir a predecessor thereto pursuant to the revtous- P y 721 of theTnt'lPRovenue Code. provtstans of Svctton f The subject real property s �11 hc71d��G�h;Al'pE-�" part rsh� property in accordance with the provisions of Florida S tut §.6 8 '1'hc transfer of title under fib in t en r purs t t0 teat certain Tel,hn ical Assistance Advisement Number 0013 -da ted embe 0, ' ' from the State Of Florida C Department of Revenue. )C'i 1. The GRANTORS named herei ready do not eaC6 I Zvi ally warrant that they hold title to ' . GRANTORS collective) warrant any particular parcel of real propeCo eycdlerek6 d � y that thcy hold title, to the exclusion o tiiri!s,A VNa}i-6 such real property conveyed hereby. This document may be executed in counterparts. -2- OR: 2733 PG; 0953 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GRANTORS have hereunto set GRANTORS' hands and seals the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: A7 Witness C ISabci Coll= Rand Pnnt N"rA44ml BoWw: ,.r/4"v.�aJ�- Gk) = V!5r, %= - Wi�css #2 ' Pint fJamr/Addm" pelowlob 1, WIN wit �' ' .individually• - .. . ♦.Tmstee Ta I Lc ►. .. OR: 2733 PG: 09 4 Miles C. Collier, as Co -Trustee M&*4 31MI NIFTWX Witness #2 riot H,dAddnn Below, m Barron G. Collier I1, as Co -Trustee Witness #2 i STATE OF 1 C(o� OR ; COt1NTY OF _ rrI ' t t , "I'he foregoing who has produced 2733 PG; Oa55 instrument was acknow1ouged before me �h�s ..1. - aay oc 0 )0 by Isabel Collier Read L I who is personally known to me or [� as identification, STATE OF C01,JNTY OF 0-I1 l The foregoing instrument was 2000 by Miles C. Collier [ ✓ ] who i — Notuy�Du�cSt t� My canm.� xpic" tfiOft U0 ru Sen1co tn3urw= y,W WIMP `trsct Ok STATE OF 4 0 COUNTY OF '�.. . Nn TARY UBL� i ( Gt r �I 1'ypcd or pnntrd numc of pot,ry (COMMISSION l XPIRES4 Mary S ThiaUe k *my commas)OA CC AMWa V Expires May 12, Mi fore me this �� day of D�to�� .me or or Lj who has produced �.,.s identification. Y f Nntary ' ON EXPIRES; The foregoing instrument was acknawlodged before me this � day of �G�t? __• 2000 by Barron G, CoWer 119 Individually and/or as Trustee � rJ who is personally known to me or [.] who has produced as identification. • «.. fU N1�'• i! l:Orri{AIljl, flC. :iC _::111(Sti -5- N Typed or printed name o! Natiry MY COMMISSION EXPIRES; ���5'��pU3 OR: 2733 PG: 0956 s'rATE OF f A ri` COUNTY OF a 01(W The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I LF day of LA -Tow., 2000 by Miles C. Collier, as Co -Trustee L. ] who is personally known to me or [j who has produced as identification, tnaVM�1 t� gun i r n+� Notuy rMIG, Stag of flotilla my comm, e*tat Apt. 26. M r mm No. CCUMt" 1004 U413 !Nu SCM�3 in_ �u Gomwyl Inc, COUNTY OF o t ! t e Tha foregoing instru 2Wo by Barron G. Collier hay. produced My cam Otslci�d thru�y ;k,:�. �tiar.z�u_�M 14i 11 �'00 9:�b l�M l�ehd KAOAWAWO Y PtJBLI NOTAR�r � _ tb�orQ L iyptd of printed mine of Notary M i COMMISSION EXPIRES' �jlasi�d3 Trustee [� who No: CCf2id4r �i.o. raelurt moaminc. N Wally known to me or LJ who as identification. �C�urfvt�..,oJ e of Notary SiON EXPIRES: I l jrb jdw3 Sch.. OR (C'ollier County LAND DEEDS IN) 2i33 PG: 0957 Isabel Collier Read, Miles C, Collicr, Barron (1, Collicr 11, individually and/or as Tntsic;c and Miles C. Collier and Barron G. Collier II, as CouTrustees, hold title to undividcd 50%, 16 2/39r41 16 2/3%, and 16 2/3% interests, respectively, in the real property heretofore conveyed to them or their predecessors in interest) pursuant to and described in the following instruments: VV V ICIAL RECORDS ROOK � AND PAGE, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ORD 884 PAGE 1436* ++• ORi3 884 PAGE: 1499* ORB 949 PAGE 341 � ORB 987 PAGE 1171t *** ORB 996 PAGE 66* '�•• ORB 1015 PAGE 1382*'** ~� ORB 1166 PAGE 1879* ORB 1223 PAGE 1624* ORB 1270 PAGE 955* ORB 127LP GE 938' 144TPRCE `oRB 1788 PAGE 109NI ..?060 PAGE 2383• T o i r�3 AfHFW74* oW-a9)AcEJ * 4 E 8 4 9A 141 SO Ir _ 0 :14914 4 A -E 328S !! * LESS AND 1;XCEPT any and a1�C in and under the real property, which I .�of record in and to the miner as and other hydrocarbon substances ! �-c expressly not inc�e �f� j�ylconveyance, CTW �+ LESS AND EXCEPT' the following do Section 22, Township 41 South, Range 28 i✓ast; LESS AND EXCEPT the Southerly titZy (SO) feet thereat'. Scctio» 34, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Section 13, td, and 15 Township 4$ South, Range 2S East; LESS AND EXC&PT the Southerly Fifty (SO) fret thereof, Sectian 7 , 8 Township 49 South, Range 29 East; SUBJECT TO right of ingress and egress in favor of the United States of America, as captained in that Purchase of Lands, datad Octot�r 31, 1988, recorded in December 2 t, 198�3, in ORD 1402, page 1773. The West �/: of Section 9, Townshir 49, Range 29 East. All cecordin� rtFereaces are to the Public Records of Collicr County, Florida. All the foregoing lands ly0ng in Collier County. Flo0da less and cxceal the real property interests heretofore conveyed by them (Ur their predecessors in interest) pursuant to the following instruments; �Sli��ulc ••A2v:' (Collicr County LAND DEEDS OU"I) Gi` ` 2733 PG: 0958 OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK AND PAGE, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ORB 1146 PAGE 1761 ORB 1166 PAGF 1898* ORB 1201 PAGE 15074 ORB 1201 PAGE 1519• ORB 1214 PAGE 1492* _ ORB 1270 PAGE 898* ORB 1270 PAGE 9064 ORB 1270 PAGE 964* ORS 1305 PAGE. 348* ORB 1312 PAGE 2228* OR13 1376 PAGE 1800* ORB 1442 PAGE 1496" ORB 1949�RAG . 2341 * RB 1540 PAGE 192 9RB. l 4_0 PAGE 1933' „§., RAr. 1 5 14 R 128 E"1y103 'n 4'8 - � 1187 ORB 1902 PAG 22* ORU 2060 PAG1✓' ORB 2148 PAGE 40 * R1 2153 PAGE 1 Wb _oyot 1T ORB 2239 PAGE 162* on 2249 PAGE IS78$ ORB 2249 PAGE 1781 ORB 2262 PAGE 2074* ORB 2262 PAGE 2083* ORB 2267 PAGE_845* OR.B 2492 PAGE 3045* ORB 2482 PAGE 30W ORB 2482 PAGE_3070*� nRB 2482 PAGE 3093* ORB 2482 PAGE 3089* ORB 2482 PAGE 3095* ORB 2494 PAGE 506* ORB 2494 PAGE 514* ORB 2496 PAGE 656* ORB 2599 PAGE 3199* + Less and except any and all rights of record in and to the minerals, ail, gas and other hydracarbun substanrrs in and under the real property, which rights arc cxpressly not included in this conveyance, OR: 2133 PG. 09�9 Schedule " I3" (Collier County OGM) Isabel Collier Read, Miles C. Collier, Barron G. Collier NO individually and/or as Trustee and Miles C. Collier and Barron G. Collier I1, as C'o- Trustces, hold title to undivided 25%, 8 1/3%, 8 1/3%, and 8 1/3% interests, respectivcly, in the oil, gas and mineral rights, titles, interests, powers and privileges heretoforc conveyed to them (or their predecessors to interest) Pursuant to and dcscribcd in the following instnuments: • • : •' O • � PAGE, • ' •t OF Co • FLORIDA i • * • O O Y /, TAI 120114 . . the oiler � ' � 1S�laa WU .S�2SMum gam d n�fal rlhts, titles, interests, powers and privileges heretofore conveyed by them (or their predecessors in interest) pursuant to the following instruments; OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK AND PAGE, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA _ ORB 1146 PAGE 1761 ORB 1540 PAGE 1923 ORB 1540 PAGE 1928 ORB 1902 PAGE 922 ORB 2249 PAGE 1781 ORB 2599 PAGE 3199 Sc1116UUM "C" Co111cr County Tax LD, Numbers 11i.!:11i,1, 11.0116 11�1 :Ili• 00222880008 1��;..•�111 1 �i 11 11/*I .111. 11 •/11• it 111. its! 00225600007 00225960006 1 ! i il1 11. ill I 00231600004 1i 1l1 00231680008 !I IM I• LLLLL 11 ' 11r1 11 i. 11, 1/ 1 107 1 i + 1 ;l 11�1 �, 1 ! i ► t11 1i •1 11/. _._.,. i i. 001402000031//1• +1 .1.1.11i 1 /1 li •-1 1111 'i ,�1' 1/164111 11 111• �.ti � IaIE 6 000959 000937 0074 7 183 W2 FED 22 PH a 26 OR BOOK PAGE CMUER TY RECORDED TRUSTEE DEED DC I THIS DEED is made this December 21 , 1981, among INT ISABEL COLLIER READ and WILLIAM W. PROUT, as Trustees under the Trust created for the benefit of Inglis U. Collier under Subdivision B of paragraph Third of the Will of Miles Collier, deceased (probated in the County's Judge Court for Collier to County, Florida, in Probate Order Book 3, page 132, joined by INGLIS U. COLLIER, individually,,hereinafter collectively referred to as "Grantors," and MILES C. COLLIER and, BARRON G COLLIER, II, ,as Trustees, by virtue of the Trust Indenture known'' as the Inglis U. Collier Trust dated May 21, 1980, whose post of® Tice address is 300304N6rsa»>in?i,p'Nples, Florida 33940, hereinafter refer/Vd;s"ranteest.'. � �,f'y In an§i'' fir) trie sum of $10.00 and oth r c�j2�o and valuable considerati o s sell, and c nv Exhibit "A' at on the Gra tee to sell, o ��� dispose o �th and all right all buildings; tenements, he dwpa `� �rYid•;� Grantors/+hereby gran bargain, ey' in ee �sl le t Grantee the la ds d scribed in t he rA+rtb tiv�n ) tan ,, ere y confer �th powr Jnd)au rif o t, conserve, and and rHor o�:hqrw4se nds . This conveyanc��'*i s ma tle, and interest of_., ttos ures, and improvement e � with any to any and ith all r w and appurten�Z�,��'��,a,�t�i all rights, powers, privilege;ts,�0ors^tates, reversions, mot nders easements una`riittoral rights thereto remaa.. belonging or in any wise appertaining. Inglis U. Collier joins in the making of this deed in order to convey any interest he may have in the Lands. Further, he joins to approve, ratify, and consent to any and all actions, leases, conveyances or encumberances with respect to the Lands made or done prior to the date of this deed by any or all of Isabel Collier Read, William W. Prout, Miles C. Collier, and Barron G. Collier, II, acting as trustees. 71ti8 instrument was prepared by RFCORn �'':� �'T'_t;t�� TQ; JAMES M. F,EEO OF H�� L��°' POST f��r`u :;t � ?� 3300 Exchange tvatio^Fi 6nrk 61dg. Tampa, Florida 33602 a {I frGQ%qS9 BOOK 0038 PAGE It is the intent of the parties hereto that all lands in the State of Florida owned by Isabel Collier Read and William W. Prout, as trustees £or Inglis U. Collier, be conveyed by this The parties to this deed further agree that either Miles C. Collier, as Trustee of said trust, ar Harron G. Collier, II, as Trustee of said trust, acting alone may protect, conserve, sell, lease, encumber, or otherwise manage and dispose of all or any part of the Lands and no party need to inquire as to the authority of either trustee to take such action. This conveyance is subject to taxes for the year 198I and subsequent years, all matters of record, and matters which an accurate survey or personals ecfl-b?i�v uld disclose. IN WITNES��h'ereto have executed .� �.. d this agreement �£&Bi:�ze"`the dae set £ortYiw.A*Vq.. el C d 11 er Read as rustee JLI Willa Pr t, asus ee Ingli^� ,�,li r, dually 114 STATE OF FLORIDA �`y,'' ''ma's'^ ^OUNTY OF COLLIER ''"�-�..."' �- �'"M• T�e foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this December1 1081, by Isabel. Collier Read, as Trustee, J Notary Publix (AFFIX NOTARIAL SEAL) My Commission Expires: Received $_-s--y�- Gecumentary Florida pax Collier County, Williorn J. Reagan, p.C. by jw • �fza n/� ROTARY PU4tiC STATE OF AOIUdA AT [,Vt(;F MY COMMISSIONExp1pfs Sgq i 19$, ior��p rr+au �RAt 1N5 . �kvOERwR1 rfJts , ,`»�!urrt►tNr,p� alter*� a : �a4Ta,"Ry• i -0009ss 000939 STATE OF F1AORII3A COUNTY OF (70LLIER PAGE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this December 21 1981, by William W. Prout, as Trustee, NOtar PUbliC � ���►r""""��4 (AFFIX NOTARIAL SEAL) y `'Q� 0* �•:;: �t�•� My Commission Expires: vpA% r 4 pOTA4v ; NU%Nttr PUetK SLATE pF DA AT l� s • �J°i STATE of f r tam MY COMMISS10" ExyMS WT I LAN s L K�o Twu, c u era, eItGr'�e: COUNTY OF ��. N 1•lot P,,The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before tnm�+itilli'� 14", by Inglis U. Collier, individually. Notary Public WFIX NOTARIAL SEAL) .� 4.. My Commission Expires* yApo �27, 19/,m:ruOct. 14'7� 60003 -de 11/20/81 A t - 3 - - 3 - UUUUbu + • - _ ExhibiQ' A BOOK All recording references are to the public records of Collier County, Florida, unless otherwise stated. All the fallowing lands lying an Collier County, Florida: All of the SE 1/4 of Section 11, Township 46 Sor�th, Range 29 East, lying East of the ACL Railroad right-of-way, •All of 5ectian 13, Township 46 South, Range 29 East. All of Section 14, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, lying East of the ACL Railroad right-of-way. All of Section 23, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, lying East of the ACL Railroad right-of-way; subject to Florida Power $ Light Co, easement recorded in O.R. Book 441, Page 698. All of Section 24, Township 46 South, Range 29 East; subject to Florida Power Light Co. easement recorded in O.R. Book 441, Page 698. , All of Section 2S, T SW 1J4 of the SW 1/It All of Section ,•- �l�iF nge 24 East, less the 46 South; ^R�n�e�� All of Sect'Ans � ' III nd'18, Township 46 South, Ra All of Sections 19 3v;j20, Towns'hi ��1�6�� ouch, subject t 1 Fio ida Power`� Ligh Co. ea ement r $ook 441,7Pager b$,•.�.ss ��� g�- The West East; su O.R. Boo All of Se subject t Book 441, 23 ect 4 1 A11 of Secti�gr� .n NE 1/4 of the of the SE 1/4 red oi�'�e �tio`� o �Florikdaower L Pa e &H. 1 .1 29 and 30. Township` da Power $ Light Co, 98. A11 of Sections 1 Co ea em Sout , Ra seine t, '1Township 46 South, lYar� , of the SE 1/4 of the h 1;1/4 1/4 of the NE 1/4 ter �� �.ftII nd4_o�i:.7�'d ast, less the ng 30 East,* nge 0 East; ,card d in O.R. h, ange 30 t r corded in 0 East; ed in O.R. �, less the nd the East 1/2 Range za East. All of Section 22, Toh-nsh�.g,�,���r; ange 28 East; subject to 5.R. $46 right-af-way recorded in O.R. Book 31, Page 241. All of Section 23, Township 47 South, Range 28 East; subject to S.R. 846 right-of-way recorded in O.R, Book 31, Page 241. All of Sections 24 and 25, Township 47 South, Range 28 East; subject to S.R. 84fi right-of-way recorded in O.R. Book 31, Page 241. All of Section 26, Township 47 South, Range 28 East; subject to S.R. 846 right-of-way recorded in O.R. Book 31, Page 241. All of Section 27, Township 47 South, Range 23 East; subject to S.R. 846 right-of-way recorded in O.R. Book 31, Page 241. All of Section 28, Township 47 South, Range 28 East, lying East of County Road; subject to S.F. 846 right-of-way recrded in O.R. Book 43, Page 271 and 0.}Z. Book al, Page 241. All of Sections 34 and 35, Township 47 South, Range 2$ East, fl00959 000941 OR BOOK PAGE z of 8 All of Section 19, Township 47 South, Range 29 East; subject to S,R.846 right-of-way recorded in O.R. Book 31, Page 241. A11 of Section 2S,Township 47 South, Range 29 East, , All of Section 6, Township 47 South, Range 30 East; subject to S:R. $46 right-of-way recorded in O.R. Book 13, Page 349. All of Sections 14 and 17, Township 47 South, Range 30 East. All of Section 20, Township 47 South, Range 30 East; subject to Lee County Electric Co-op easement recorded in O.R. Book 7560 Page 863. All of Sections 21 and 22, Township 47 South, Range 30 East. All of Section 23, Township 47 South, Range :�0 East, excepting ail, gas, and minerals in the North 1/2 of the Southwest 114 reserved by prior owners in Deed Book 22, Page 131. A11 of Sections 24 and 25,��oa��ship."�47 South, Range .i0 East, less the East 200 feetv�vth"er 41:., All of Sections,m 2 2 ,.),� c4 � zs qv %vw outh, Range 30 ITT All of Sect't�n f,•Township 47 South, Rangy 30 E t, less ACL right-of-w y; su-ject,�tg,,,,S.R. 29 right-of-wa rec tTded in D.B. 9, Page 43 ; an su�bject t&.,L:ee�,�,�un Electr c Co op easement recorded n 0. BdiIc,�3�, Pagre 85 & . All of S Ftio3; east, less ACL right -of way; su o S. 9 ht o h�y}e ord d in D.B. 9, Page 36; nd subl ct to Le o nty� E ; c c a-o easement recorded in R. Book�t35 ag5 All of S A1I of Sec �� 32, Township 47 South; right-af-w .., _,� bject to S.R. 29 rig.l� 9, Page 43�J& subject to Lee Count recorded in Q•., pok 353, Page 858, All of Sections` ��� All of the North 1/2 30 East. �ange�30 s less ACL ed in A.B. op easement f u� ',ange 1 1'hip 47 South, Range The North I59S feet of Section 36, Township 47 South, Range 30 • East, lying West of S.R. 840A. All of Sections 2, 3, 10 and 11, Township 48 South, Range 28 East. All of Sections 13, 14 and 15, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, less the South 50 feet. All of Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, less the Aiorth 50 feet. A11-of Section 23,, Tawrzship 48-South, Range 28 East, less the North 50'feet; and subject to Florida "Power $ Light"Co. easement recorded in O.R. Book 625, Page 678. All of Section 24, Township 48'South, Range 28 East, less the North 50 feet. All of Sections 25, 26, 27 34, 35 and 36, Township 48 South,' Range 28 East. 000��2 PAGE A portion of Section 2, Township 48 South, Range 30 East, described as follows: Begin at the SIV corner of Section 2, run thence North along the West boundary line 1,505 feet, thence Southeasterly to a point on the Southern boundary line 1,505 feet East of the SW corner, thence West along the Southern boundary,line 1,505 feet to the point of beginning. A11 of Section 3, Township 48 South, Range 30 East. All of Section 5, Township 48 South, Flange 30 East, less ACL right-of-way; subject to S.R. 29 right-of"u ay recorded in O.R. Book 9, Page 436, and subject to Lee County Electric Co-op easement recorded in O.R. Book 353, Page 858. A11 of Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 30 East. All of Section 7, Township 48 South, Range 30 East. A11 of the East 1/2 of Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 30 East. All of Section 11 A11 of 5ectio s East 200 fee` in O.R. Boa ' 21; recorded i O.R�� recorded it O.F . All of Se ti of S.R. 40; Company, rec Lee County E All 01 S All of Se tic South 176 All of Sect AlI of Sectio IS -,� •-ka nship 4$ South, Rof for S.R. 840-A rige 319; subject to S .gage 511; and sub j k=A228, wns dedf izi: R chic C o uth B ok�i2 9 r cod d 11, Township 49 Sout Township 49 South, arli 27, Township 49 30 East. 0•�,�ast, less the =1�ra9�, recorded 0 r1�ht-of-way �t to easement gel 28 ast,�lying North C� 1 � Refining n easement to 109 f age 1253. Ra�r`ge 28 East. less the ge 28 East. A11 of Sections �'4,-••�35• �_•�`�9� S,,atith, Range 28 East, lying North of S. R;"'•$„4• ��` All of Sections 7, 87 9, 10;"3`3; "T4;�15, 16, 17, and 1.8, Township 49 South, Range 29 East. A11 of Section 19, Township 49 South, Range 29 East, except the oil, gas and mineral rights in the SE 1/4, reserved by prior owner, recorded in O.R. Book 301, Page 550. A11 of the North 1/2 of Section 20, Township 49 South, Range 29 East, except the oil, gas and mineral rights reserved by prior owner, recorded in O.R. Book 501, Page 550. 4 oaooS9 , 000a�� QR BOOK PAGE4 of a All of the East 1/2, NW 1/4 and East 1,747 feet of the SIV 1/4 of Section 21, Township 49 South,�Range 29 East, except the oil, gas and mineral rights of the East 1,747 feet of the SW 1/4 reserved by prior owner, recorded in O.R. Book 301, Page SSO. All of Sections 22, 23, and 24. Township 49 South, Range 29 East . A11 of Section 25, Township 49 South, Range 29 East, except the oil, gas and mineral rights reserved by prior owner, recorded in O.R. Book 301, Page 550. A11 of Section 36, Township 49 South, Range 29 East. Allof Section 17, Township 49 South, Range 30 East, Less the ACL right-of-way, and less lands described in Deed Book 16, Page 60; subject to S.R. 29 right-of-way recorded in D.B. 99 Page 226; and subject to Lee County Electric Co-op easement recorded in O.R. Book 353, Page 858. All of Section 18, Tow ahi�z� 9u.ur;wange 30 East, less the ACL right-of-way; s�irb a -t�. 2 ?t h z of -way recorded in D.B. 9, Page 227 r4nd s 3.�t--scar 1 lectric Co-op easement record.e Book 353 Pa• g,. A11 of Section �.�'I'ownship 49 South, Rang'c�'�0 E st, less ACL right-o -way• subject to Lee County Eledl ric o-op easement r cord d n �:i2.." ook '353, .4 a 858. 144 All of Se tion�s 20 andTn ip 49 outh, Rage 0 East, less ACL righ -.�° w Xq East l/2cf ,!t d '�/4 g bey s, and t L right- of-way; su 3'e t to Lee County Elect: c Co- ea e n recorded4 Book 353, Page 858.' All kLXWI#r4 17 ` .f � ��• s tf A All of Sections 1, 2, 3, 13, 14, 15, 211 22, 23, 24, 251 26, o 27 and 28, Township 49 South, Range 32 East. M o All of Sections 9, 10, 11 and 12, Township 49 South, Range 32 O tit East; subject CO to pipeline right-of-way recorded in O.R. Book 181, Page 81. All o£ Sections 33, 34, 35 and 36, Township 49 South, Rangc 32 East, lying North of S.R. 84. All of Sections 17, 18, 19 and 30, Township 49 South, Range 33 East. The West 460 acres of Section 20, East. All of the West 1/2 of Section 31, East, lying North of S.R. 84. Township 49 South, Range 33 Towns hip 49 South, Range 33 Ali of Sections 1 and 3, Township 49 Soutli, Range 34 East. All of Section 5, Township 49 South, Range 34 East, lying East of the center line of L-28 Interceptor Canal; subject to pipeline right- of-way recorded in U.R. Book ,.U.13-R-page8l, and subject to an easement recorded in O.Rr A ckhr-23 ;-ivag6�l i5. All of Section 9, >i+- s}�a� a5�zt}r;�- a�.ge lying I�'orth and East of the cente'fni� L-28 Intercep 4� Cam' subject to pipeline right-d i� �F corded in O.F.. Booker 1 ,p ge 81; easement recorded in 0.A.��� k` 238, page 165; and leas *e ded in O.R. Book 646, pa 66. All of 5ectYon 1Y, Td5lqp 49 SoutR+`an a 34 Ea t; s bject to pipeline r' ht-c'f-way recoied All of Sec ion �3a1��s. iTI 5 u a 3�t . All of Section S Town hi 4 S u h IRa gee 4 fast su ject to the ease me r edfi0. R.� Bokj 2 .+ , page 16 All of Sec ans 3, Township 49 South, .ange 3 Eas Jett to the easement rebr e in O.R. Book 238, pag- . 165. , A11 of Secti,r} 5, Township 49 South, Ro• 3 E pubject to the easement dc,or d in O.R. Book 238, a e 16, � All of Section , T4 hip 49 South, Range.4j'E All of Section 35,aii•� Scau.z Bast, 1}�inS North o f State Road 84 ; sub�*t�c'�selrr `t.ar�ce in O.R. Book 238 , p age 165. All of Sections 1, 3, 1a and 6, Township 50 South, Range S3 East, lying South of S.R. 84. All of Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, Township SO South, Range :i3 East. All of. the West 1/2 of Section ', Township 50 South, Range 34 East. •000959 OR BOOK 0000�5 PAGE 6 of 8 The East 21310 £eet of the South 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Section 20, Township SO South, Range 30 East. All o.f Section 29, Township.50 South., Range 30 East, lying East of S.R. 29. A11 of Section 32, Township50 South, Range 30 East, lying East of S.R. 29, less the North 1/2 of the North 1/2 of the North 1/2 of the SW 1/4 and the North 1/2 of the SE 1/4 and the North 1/2 of the North 1/2 of the North 1/2 of the South 1/2 of the SE 1/4 thereof. All of Section 5, Township 51 South,' Range 30 East, lying East fro to of S.R. 29. All that part of Section East, - All of Section 8, described in O.R. easement for S.9 All of Secti .A11 of Secti lying East o All of Secti 17 7,.,�•ToAe.�,�h, Range 30 East lying 14 fro ,..1 South, Range. 3�' s less lands Page 27; and su�'$`g,�ct right -•of -way orded in D.B. 8, Page'Ir 4,. ip "S•1\Lquth, RaTLger 30 Eat t . s 1� and 19, 51 Sough, Rang A 30 fast, All of the W �� %�2 k0/1, to�hip 5 � Su East, and th rbp_'Ae`1/ the lying West o A46L right-of-way; and subs cot to Lee Co-op easemen T rded in O.R. Book 353 image 858 All of Section 41 ownship 51 South, Ran 30 E of ACL right-o wa �, xcept that part of t�h North 1/2 of the ;� 1/'4., Tying West of ACL rig subject to Lee Co t �b�tric Co-op easemep - o Book 353, Page 858. i q Moo t. ge 30 tion 30 Electric `�I,�ing iYest " ay; and ed in O.R. All of Section 6, Townsh'`�`5e�'�S�it,� a'�,dT'��East, lying West of ACL right-o£-way; and subj e ,Le,-•.�•y Electric Co-op easement recorded in Q.R. Bonk 353, Page 858, All of the West 1/2 and the NE 1/4 of Section 1, Township 52 South, Range 30 East, less ACL right-of-way, and less lands described in D.B. 7, Page 156; D.B. 9, Page 515; D.B. 10, Page 552; D.B. 51 Page 352; D.B. 21, Page 73; and D.B. 21, Page 75; subject to S.R. 29 right-of-way recorded in D.B. 8, Page 123, and Copeland East right -of --way recorded in O.R. Book 32, Pages 504 and 505% and subject to Lee County Electric Co-op easement recorded in O.R. Book 353, Page 858. a� •.'� Q00959 OOd9�6 OR 800K PACE 7 of 8 All of Sections 7 and 8, Township 52 South, Range 27 East, lying East of S.R. 92. A11 of Section 17, Township 52 South, Range 27 East. All of Section 18, Township 52 South, Range 27 East, lying East of S.R. 92, less Government Lot #14. All of Section 19, Township 52 South, Range 27 East, less Government Lot 12W .. '. ..A1�. of Sections 20, 2l, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 33; Township 52 South, Range 27 East. All of Section S, Township'52 South, Range 28 East, lying South and West of U.S. 41. All of Section 7, Township 52 South, Range 28 East. All of Section 8, Township S2 South, Range 28 East; subject to U.S. 41 right-of-way recorded in O.R. Book 21,Page 226. Ail of the West 1j2 of Section ,9,�•,�Township 52 South, Range 28 East, lying South O,; �UaS` 41 ., „ - t �. All of Sections 1 �, �and2 0 r. y j.. {C ��� 2 South, 28 East.Range All of the ;V 'stCI Of Sections 21 and 28,SNT6wns p 52 South, Range 28 Ea. All of Se iion� 29,95.Q,,, 32 and 3 "�v ship 52 Sout Range 28 East. All of • tffe We 28 East•. � All of t 28 East, I.o�!f /8 obi 3 1� 4a to, ' S t or�,p 3 All of SeTownship S3 South, All of Sec 04 5.\Township 53 South, West 163.5 r �. A11 of Section 23, andt� Ea;st if, 52 South, Range 29 East.�'`�-� whs`hip'AS,jSbuth,l Range �mship53�so�t��#� ange �nge 8 R KgL(e 8 tis / less the i . °° ection 34, Township All of Sections 22 and Z7, Township 52 South, Range 29 East; subject to U.S. 41 right-of-way recorded in O.R. Book 21, Page 226. '. Lands lying in The hioorings Unit N4, Block 4, as recorded in • Plat Book 3, Page 102, described as: (I) An undivided 1/2 interest in Lot 2, less the East 1161 feet thereof; subject to Florida Power & Light Co. easement recorded in O.R. Book 487, Page 954; and (2) Lot 3; subject to Florida Power $ Light Co. easement recorded in O.R. Book 587, Page 954; and subject to easement to City of Naples.recorded in O.R. Book 218, Page 31S. 9 000959 000 r OR BOOK PAGE 8 of 8 All recording references are to the public records of Hendry County, Florida, unless otherwise stated, All -the following lands lying in Hendry County, Florida; All of Sections 34, 35, and 36, Township 46 South, Range 31 East, less the South lo0 feet, and less lands described in • O.R. Book 47, Page 160; subject to Agreement recorded in O;R.' Book 61, Page 324. All of Sections 31, 32 and 33, Township 46 South, Range 32 East, less lands described in O.R. Book 2, Page 66, and less lands described in O.R. Book 47, Page 160; and subject to Agreement recorded in 0. R. Book 61, Page 324a and subject to an oil, gas,* and mineral right reservations recorded in Deed Book 24, page 212, and Deed Book 24,.page 213. All of Section 1 and the East 1/2 of Section 2, Township 47 South';`• Range 31 East, subject to drainage easement to the State of Florida recorded in O.R. Book 2, Pag.e-�T�tT:' 4 All of Sections 7, lZ�14k� lam. 29; the North 1/2 og'�30 all o t'a 2 33 and 34• and the West 5/8 •t h*" t 1/2 of Section i; 1 .yin Township 47 South, Range E s All of Section 4 adC5; �Wrrsliip 48 South, Rang 31 Est A11 of Sectio•. Range 32 Eas s 5 �`,- 6, `1:3 , .. may. 2 9 ,.,._-� 0 an Towns�,ip 4�' South, J' it i ld41 Recap:^-1 �^.'. Vcrififf WILD% 1• " COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND REGULATION PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME COMPANION SRA # DATE PROCESSED PLANNER APPLICANT: Patrick Utter, Vice President FIRM: Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. County ZA 2$00 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252=2400 FAX (239) 252=6358 www.colliergov.net For Staff Use ADDRESS: 2550 Goodlette Road North, Suite 100, Naples, FL 34103 PHONE: 239-434-4015 FAX: N/A CELL: N/A E-MAIL ADDRESS: PUtter@collierenterprises.com LAND OWNER: Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. &CDC Land Investments, LLC ADDRESS: 2550 Goodlette Road North, Suite 100, Naples, FL 34103 PHONE: 239434-4015 FAX: N/A CELL: N/A E-MAIL ADDRESS: PUtter@collieientei•prises.com I hereby submit and certify the application to be complete and accurate. Signature of Agenf COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND REGULATION PROJECT NAME: Longwater Village SRA County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net The legal description of, or descriptive reference to, the SRA to which the Stewardship Credits are being transferred: See attached legal description. Total number of acres within the proposed SRA: 999. 81± Number of acres of the proposed SRA within the ACSC (if any): 0 Number of acres within the SRA designafied "public use" thafi do not require the redemption of Stewardship Credits in order to be entitled (does not consume credits): 0 Number of acres of "excess" open spaces within the SRA that do not require the consumption of credits: 162. 5 9 Number of acres of WRAs inside the SRA boundary but not included in the SRA designation: 0 Number of acres within the SRA that consume credits: 8 37 . 2 2 Number of Stewardship Credits being transferred (consumed by) to the SRA (8 credits per acre of SRAj: 6, 697.76 16 Attach documentation that the applicant has acquired or has the contractual right to acquire those Stewardship Credits. Provide a descriptive reference to one or more approved or pending SSA Designation Applications from which the Stewardship Credits are being obtained: Attach copies of SSA Stewardship Credit Agreement and related documentation, including: ► SSA Application Number(s): 14, 17, / Pending Companion SSA Application Number(s): , ► SSA Designation Resolution or Resolution Number(sj: 2 017 -18 9, 2 02 0-pending) , SSA Stewardship Credit Agreement(sj ► Stewardship Credits Database Report '"" COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND REGULATION C;Ounty 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252m2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net Provide a descriptive reference to any previously approved stewardship Credit Use and Reconciliation Applications that pertain to the referenced SSA(s) from which the Stewardship Credits are being obtained: N/A Complete the following summary table fihat identifies the exchange of all Stewardship Credits that involve the SRA and all of the associated SSAs from which the Stewardship Credits are being Credits from SSA Credits from SSA Credits from SSA Total Credits No. 14 No. 17 No. Total SSA Credits Originally Approved 2, 515.7 41844 . 3 7, 360. 00 Credits Previously Transferred to Other SRA(s) 0 0 0 Credits Being Transferred to This SRA 21 515970 41182. 06 6, 697 . 76 Balance of SSA Credits Remaining 0 662 .24 662 . 24 RESOLUTION NO, 2017-18 4 A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING RESOLUTION NO, 2008-331, RELATING TO THE STEWARDSHIP SENDING AREA WITH A DESIGNATION AS "CLH, SSA 14"; APPROVING THE EXTENSION OF CERTAIN DATES TO NOVEMBER 18, 2020 IN THE STEWARDSHIP SENDING AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT AND THE ESCROW AGREEMENT FOR CLH SSA 144 WHEREAS, on November 18, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-331, the Board of County Commissioners created a Stewardship Sending Area with a designation of "CLH SSA 14" and entered into a Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement, a Stewardship Easement Agreement and an Escrow Agreement with. Collier Land Holdings, Ltd,; and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2013, by Resolution No, 2013-1�9, the Board of County Commissioners approved the extension of certain dates to November 18, 2014 in the Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement and the Escrow Agreement for CLH SSA 14; and WHEREAS, on September 23, 2014, by Resolution No. 2014-1.$6, the Board of County Commissioners approved the extension of certain dates to November 18, 2017 in the Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement and Escrow Agreement for CLH SSA 14; and WHEREAS, Collier Land I-IoIdings, Ltd,, represented by Richard Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yavanovich & I{nester, PA, has requested an extension to certain time frames to November 18, 2020 in the Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement for CLH SSA 14 and the Escrow Agreement for CLH SSA 14; and. WHEREAS, the Board of County Conunissioners agrees to the requested extensions. NOW, TI-iEREp'4R.FJ, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that; . 1. The third amendment to the Stewardship Credit Agreement for CLI-I SSA 14, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, is hereby approved, j 2. The third amendment to the Escrow Agreement for CLH. SSA 14, attached hereto as Exhibit 2, is hereby approved, [17-CMP-00985/1362146/2]53 1 of 2 SSA 914 8/31/17 J i i This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote, this Its day of )20170 A to As 16 tit. `4A • IVI*at&r 0 BOARD F TY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST":"' '�`''�tl. DW T , BRO' I opf COLLIE 0 TY, FLORID :. t ,� a .r� t+>i y i, >. BY: MIAMI Ag�s`f19 1t :;lerk PENNY LOR, C ai an si na�q� or�h�, ;;V `= R as to fot�n and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicho 4' Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments; Exhibit I — Third Amendment to Stewardship Credit Agreement for CLH SSA 14 Exhibit 2 — Third Amendment to Escrow Agreement for CLH SSA. 14 [17•CMP•00985/1362146/2�53 SSA H14 8/31/17 E a (Ci,�i SSA ld) TFiia T`�iIRI) AIVIEI�I'DMENT TO STEWARDSI~iiP 3EiV'DING AREA CRElDiT AGREEMENT hereinafter referred to as the "Amendment") is made and entered into this (041` day of C c �o� ice, 2017, by and between COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "County" whose mailing address is the Harmon Turner Building, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida 34112, and Collier Land Holdings, Ltd., a Florida Limited Partnership ("CLH") hereinafter individually and jointly referred to as "Owner", whose mailing addresses are 2550 Goodlette Road North, Suite 100, Naples, Florida 34103, for the purpose of extending certain dates. W>`iEREAS, Owner submitted, and the County reviewed, a SSA Designation Application filed with the County on May 27, 2008 for the CLH SSA 14 land, and WT-�EI�EAS, the County and Owner entered into a Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement ("CDC SSA 14") on November 18, 2008 ("Agreement"); and W��EREAS, on September 10, 2413, the County approved an amendment to the Agreement to extend certain dates by one (1) year; and WHEREAS, on September 23, 20I4, the County approved the Second Amendment to Agreement, which Second Amendment extended the date by which the SSA 14 stewardship credits must be exchanged for development of the Town of Rural Lands West SRA to November 18, 2017 ("Deadline"), and WHEREAS. due to the complexity of the regulatory regime and the multiple governmental and quasi -governmental actors involved in such approvals, the parties desire to extend the Deadline, as more particularly set forth herein. NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the above premises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and in further consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows; 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference, 2, Any reference in the Agreement to the "Town of Big Cypress" shall be replaced with the foltawing reference; "Town of Rural Lands West SRA". Wards unde I are added and wards �#aetE-t#�eug# me deleted (8/28/2017) 3. Paragraph B of the Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement (CLH• SSA l4) is amended to read as follows, Restriction on Land Use Amendments. Upon designation of the land described in Exhibit "A" as an SSA, the Owner shall not seek or request, and the County shall not grant nor approve, any increase in the density or any additional uses beyond those specified in this Agreement. Six hundred sixty five and two tenths (665.2) acres of the lands subject to this Agreement are within a Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA) and one thousand forty eight and two tenths (1,045,2) acres of the lands subject to this Agreement are within a Flow Way Stewardship Area (FSA) and one tenth (0.1) acres of Water Retention Area (WRA) depicted on the RLSA Overlay Map, officially entitled "Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment Stewardship Overlay Map". Upon designation of these lands as an SSA, the Owner shall neither seek nor request, and the County shall not in violation of Sections 4.08,06 A,2, and 3., thereafter grant or approve. any expansion or conversion of agricultural land uses. Notwithstanding any condition herein to the contrary, this Agreement and the Stewardship easement shall terminate on 1AXIWVX&LLJW& -AV, 41 November 1 S, 2020 unless the CLH SSA 14 Stewardship Credits have been exchanged for the Tewn Town of Rural Lands West SRA • and the Town of Rural Lands Writ SRA has received all necessary final and non -appealable local, state and federal permits other than a plat, site development plan or building permit necessary to commence construction of the Town. All affirmative obligations and negative covenants contained in this Agreement and the Stewardship Easement shall be null and void upon such termination without further action from the parties hereto, Upon Such termination the land shall revert to its underlying zoning classification as of the date of this Agreement, free and clear of any encumbrance from the Stewardship Easement. If requested by the Owner, Collier County shall provide a written release and termination of this Agreement and the Stewardship easement for recording in the public records within fifteen (15) days of the request from the owner. Collier County shall update the overlay map to reflect the termination of CLH SSA 14 or any SRA. 2, Except as amended herein, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. {Remainder of Page Intentienally Left Blank} i iIN iYLTPM33 VVi3EHEUV, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized officers or representatives and their official seals hereto affixed the day and year first written above, Y* It tip it TT to DWO1 HT �,. % Cy � 1 ;Clerk ,�; 7: ',. ley � . r �� ; • it jatuto;�nl. APPROVED as to Form and Legal sufficiency: sy: Penny ilk J , Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney SYgrrutures continue on the,�ollowtngpages, Words ndcri.liue era added and words sttc-#�+rough arc deleted (�/28/Z017) I I WITNESS: (Signature) (Print full name) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS, LTD. a Florida Limited Partnership By; Collier Enterprises, Inc, a Florida Corporation, it's Clenergl P rtn r Printed Name; � Title: The foregoing Amendment to Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement was executed before me this (,�" - day of -car &2g= , , 2017, by YNTU � 1-,1� as ��� �a,►or- of Collier Enterprises, Inc,, the general partner of Collier Land Holdings, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, said person being personally know to me *e*- �. S1C ire .ntlfi .atinn�_ �4W"C Notary Pub` tic kQ Name; Valerie t_. Pike Nolery Public • State at Florida CommissloMt GG 22100 Sxpires 08/17/2020 � ,� , � ;�• � � � 1' i 1' � t i 1 ,i�r�' 1°i: �'�► ��f* ice! r+� , �! This THIRD AMENDMENT TO ESCROW AC%REEMENT ("Amendment") is .made as of the � 'day of �')( r j# n)z L 12017 by and between Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida ("County"), Collier Land Holdings, Ltd,, a Florida limited partnership ("CLIP'} and COLEMAN, YOVANOVICH & KOESTER, P.A., (the "Escrow Agent, The County, CLH, and Escrow Agent are collectively referred to herein as the "Parties RECITALS V(l1�ItEAS, Collier County, CLH and Escrow Agent's Successor entered into an Escrow Agreement on November 18, 2008, as subsequently amended, pertaining to the Stewardship Sending Aaea designated as CLH SSA 14 ("Escrow Agreement"); and + TtEAS, on September 10, 2013 the County approved the First Amendment to the Escrow Agreement to extend certain dates by one (1) year; and �I�L'CRE�.S, and on September 23, 2014, the County approved the Second Amendment to Escrow Agreement, which Second Amendment extended the date by which CLH. must deliver certain approvals to Escrow Agent to November 18, 2017 ("Deadline"); and W i1ERiA.S, due to the complexity of the regulatory regime and the multiple governmental and quasi -governmental actors involved in such approvals, the Parties desire to extend the Deadline, as more particularly set forth herein. AGREEMENTS NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acirnowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. 2, Any reference in the Escrow Agreement to the "Town of Big Cypress" shall be replaced with the following reference; "Town of Rural Lands West SRA", 3, The Escrow Agent shall deliver the original Documents to the County for recording in the public records of Collier County upon presentment of the following by CLH: THIRD AMENDMENT TO SSA 14 ESCROW AGREEMENT (AUGUST 28, 2017) a, An approved SRA For the ��e€-�g-Gyp�ss Tow�,of Rural Lands West S A which requires the exchange of Stewardship Credits from CLH SSA 14 for the additional residential and nonresidential entitlements; and U, All necessary final and non appealable development orders, permits, or other discretionary approvals necessary to construct the �g-C sa Tgyvn of Rur _ Y ands West SRA consistent with the provisions of Section 4.08.07 of the Collier County Land Development Code, and in the event the approvals referenced above are not delivered to the Escrow Agent ou or before Nevoniber-- 8 November 18. 2020, this Escrow Agreement shall terminate and the original Documents shall be returned to CLH. If a challenge and/or appeal of a necessary development order, permit or other discretionary approval are filed, CLH and County may elect to extend the Escrow Agreement by written agreement until the challenge or appeal is finally resolved, If the challenge or appeal is not resolved such that the construction may commence under terms acceptable to CLH, CLH may within 180 days of the final disposition of the challenge or appeal terminate this Escrow Agreement, 4. Except as amended herein, the Escrow Agreement dated November 18, 2008 remains in full force and affect, 5, Executed counter -part copies of the original of this document shall be treated as if the originals were so executed and shall bind the executing panty and shall have the same force and effect as the original. Execution of this Agreement by facsimile shall be treated as an original, {Remainder of Page Intentionally Lefi Blank} THIRD AMENDMENT TO SSA l4 ESCROW AC3REEMENT (AUf3UST 2$201 i) IN iNIT'h1ESS 'V'V7H�ERE�F', the paxties hereto have executed this Amendment Escrow Agreement by their duly authorized officers or representatives and their official seals hereto affixed the day and year first written above. ATTEST: tt`C�C , Y� OLERK OFt to Po Y• 408 `�D A.S; T0,.SV6RM AND LEGADm*&QFFYCI99 NCY: By: TS EOAIZD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Pen Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Signatures contluue on the following pages. TH[RD AMENDMENT TO SSA 14 ESCROW AGREEMENT (AUt3UST 28, 2017) I WITNESS: (Priiin11t full name} 1--�---• G (Signature) (Print full name) STATE OF FLORTDA COUNTY OF CvLIaIER r lersonally known to me Valerie t_, Pike Notary Publlc • Stale of Flarida'i CommissiontiaG 22100 Expires 08/1712020 By; Riahatd D. Yovanovich, Esq. Its0o J •.�, Qr� •dt�4 Date: cML 1 % \ COLLIER LAND PiOLD1NGS, LTD, a Florida Limited Partnership By: Collier Enterprises, Inc, a Florida Corporation, it's General Partner, By; � Printed N Title: z Notary P`u lic Certificate No, �� 2-�� oQ My Commission expires: 19 # �I* �oZo THIRD AMENDMENT TO SSA t4 ESCROW AGREEMENT (AUGUST 282017) Longwater Village SRA Project Narrative & Statement of Compliance Revised 8-10-2020 The proposal is to establish a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) in the form of a Village. Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) is located in eastern Collier County in portions of Sections portions of Sections 22, 23, 26, 27, 34 and 35, Township 48 South, and Range 28 East, Township 48 South, and Range 28 East. Longwater Village SRA ("Village") contains a total of 999.81± acres. The Village is located south of Oil Well Road, west of the intersection of Oil Well Grade Road and Oil Well Road. The Village is bisected by Stewardship Sending Area 17 (SSA 17). Lands to the north, south, and east of the southern section are zoned A -Agricultural and are proposed to be designated SSA 17 under the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay. To the west, a portion of the southern section of the Village abuts the proposed future Big Cypress Parkway right -of --way (ROW). The remainder of the lands to the west are zoned A -Agricultural and are proposed to be designated SSA 17. Lands to the south and west of the northern section of the Village are zoned A -Agricultural and are proposed to be designated SSA 17; lands to the east are zoned A -Agricultural and designated SSA 15. The northern section abuts Oil Well Road to the north. The land within both portions of the Village has been in active agricultural production for many years. In accordance with the RLSA Overlay definition, the Village is primarily a residential community which includes a diversity of housing types and a maximum of 2,600 dwelling units. The Village includes a 20.08± acre mixed -use Village Center providing for the required neighborhood -scaled retail, office, civic, and community uses. The SRA is designed to encourage pedestrian/bicycle circulation via an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving the entire Village and with an interconnected system of streets, dispersing and reducing both the number and length of vehicle trips. The main spine road includes a 10' multi -use pathway on one side and a 6' sidewalk on the other, as well as 4' on -street bike lanes. Along the edges of this right -of --way, shade trees will be installed with benches located along the corridor in various locations, creating a linear park which is accessible from residential neighborhoods, connecting these neighborhoods to amenity sites and to the Village Center. Compliance with RLSAO SRA Village Design Criteria The SRA Master Plan lays out the design and development intent for this Village. Longwater Village contains two Context Zones: Neighborhood General (which is 979.73± acres in size) and Village Center (which is 20.08± acres in size). The SRA Document and Master plan also provide for the following perimeter buffers: • 25-foot wide Type D buffer adjacent to Oil Well Road; • 25400t wide Type D buffer adjacent to future Big Cypress Parkway ROW; • 1046ot wide Type A buffer adjacent to A Agricultural Zoned lands perimeter, except adjacent to an SSA or designated preserve, where no landscape buffer is required; and • No landscape buffer required adjacent to Preserve or SSA. Page 1 of 30 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\3rd Resubmittal\Longwater SRA Narrative (rev 8-10-2020).docx 25' TYPE (D) L.B.E. 25' TYPE (D) L.B.E. — — - -- - -- — OIL WELL RD$ - LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA LAND USE SUMMARY A 2 A NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL CONTEXT ZONE SYMBOL DESCRIPTION NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL GENERAL COMMERCIAL AREA ACRES 410.31 2,99 �R I Not ROAD ROAD R.O.W. 145,41 A AMENITY CENTERS PARKS * PARK PRESERVES * 18.01— 1.2.18 9.52 ©11 LAKES 264.72 © LAKE M.E. & MISC. OPEN AREA PERIMETER BUFFERS 10' UTILITY EASEMENT 110,46 5.09 1.05 /� DEI 300' NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL CONTEXT ZONE TOTAL 979.73 VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE VILLAGE CENTER 20.08 SRA BOUNDARY TOTAL 999,81 MISC. O DENOTES FUTURE COUNTY ROAD RIGHT-0E-WAY NOT IN $RA `SSA' S *• SOUTH PARK AREA INCLUDES (4) 7.0 Ae CELLS ABOVE 12 NRI WRA LAND USE SUMMARY DESCRIPTION LAKE TRACTS (Includes L.M.E.) ROAD R.O.W. (across WRA) WWRAAREATOTAL mll NOTES: 1. WRA LAND USE IS WITHIN SSA AND IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE SRA BOUNDARY. THE WRA AREA I$ NOT INCLUDED IN THE OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS, 2 WHERE THE VILLAGE IS ADJACENT TO AN SSA OR A PRESERVE, NO PERIMETER BUFFER IS REQUIRED, EXCEPT AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PERMIT ZONING ri on A-MHO-RLSAO ZO H I 200' R.O.W. " W . / �10' u E SSA-17 %'8 f ,. fom25'TYPE (0) L.B.E. jor iLLl '! I VILLACE CENTER I CENTER 'I T £ " OrTYPE © (A) L,B.E, r I .: a i; A t 8 �BCSD PROPERTY LINE ', SSA-17 un.a�. re ZONING I A-MHO-RLSAO THESE LANDS WHICH E AN � NRI SCORE GREATER THAN 1.2 WILL BE MAINTAINED IN A PREDOMINATELY NATURAL STATE V I 0 2S0 SW ZONING A-MHO•RLSAO GKULI :1REER Ll• BRurcDAce, rvc. Ihokabnal I r-.Ls�rq r4nnuay5nrtc7ar. K Ianda-ape Arpinm 1' TYPE (Aj L.B.E. DOTESFSAlHSA 5D0' SETBACKS ZONING A-MHO-RLSAO PEN SPACE NOT RA OR WRA Ic a i r 11 + ITIji COMM j I AG 300'1i I J 1 (A) L.B.E. I A� �/ "SSA-15 r` �'-SSA15 I BOUNDARY 31 /B\ TYPE (A) \ � L.B.E. \� ZONING AB AG A.MHO-RLSAO \` SEE SHEET 7 FOR MAIN SPINE ROAD CROSS SECTION Ir IN, r� �4 / ZONING A -MHO R SAO obw ., SSA-17-' AG tit rj OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS EN OPEN LAND USE ACRES SPACE•b SPACE ACRES 'NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL 410,31 20,00% 82.06 /f NG COMMERCIAL O ME CIALAREA 145.41 15.00% 20930 - --- J/ I, AMENITY CENTERS 18.01 50.00% 5.40 �. PARKS 12.18 50.00°5 6.09 —`.PARK PRESERVES 9,52 100.000A 9.52 LAKES 264.72 100.00% 264.72 1 1 `.J KE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT M.E.) &MISC. OPEN AREA 110.46 100.00% 1 RIMETER BUFFERS 6.09 100.00% VILLAGE CENTER 20.08 30.00% � --- -------- TOTAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 51 '--PANTHER FENCE /A MINIMUIh REQUIRED OPEN SPACE=359: (349.93�t.} PROVIDEP OPEN SPACE = 51.26% \SSA-17 I \ AG � ,' POTENTIAL NATURE VIEWING PLATFORMS I ZONING I A-MHO•RLSAO ,—MISC.OPEN SPACE NOT SSA, SRA OR WRA � I � I I 'I I DISCLAIMER: THE MASTER PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL INTERNAL ROAD ALIGNMENTS. LAKE SITING AND CONFIGURATION OF DEVELOPMENT AREAS ARE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION WITHIN THE RLSA GUIDELINES AT TIME OF FINAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER, Page 2 of 30 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\3rd Resubmittal\Longwater SRA Narrative (rev 8-10-2020).docx SRA SUBMfTFAL PLANS ro/n �nrx SRA design criteria: • The SRA contains 999.81acres. • The SRA includes 4 acres of lands with a Natural Resource Index (NRI) greater than 1.2., which will be maintained in a natural vegetative state." • The Village SRA does not include, nor is it adjacent to, any lands designated Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA) or Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA). The Village does not include any lands designated Water Retention Area (WRA). Along the eastern boundary of the Village, there is perimeter lake system, designed for stormwater management purposes, and as a deterrent to wildlife. Portions of that lake system, outside of the Village boundary, are designated WRA and portions of some lakes are within SSA 17. • The SRA does not include any lands within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) Overlay. The required minimum Open Space (35%) is 349.93 acres. The SRA master plan provides for 512.52± acres of Open Space (51.26± percent), 162.59 acres above the RLSA 3 5 % requirement. • The SRA is designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. The SRA provides an interconnecting roadway with the Rivergrass SRA. • The SRA provides parks within and accessible by neighborhoods. • The SRA contains two Context Zones (as required for the Village form of SRA): Neighborhood General and mixed -use Village Center. • Within the Village Center Context Zone, the SRA provides for the following: a minimum of 65,000 square feet and a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood scaled retail and office uses; a minimum of 26,000 square feet of civic, government, and institutional uses; and a minimum of 40 multifamily dwelling units. • The SRA allows for up to 2,600 dwelling units (2.6 dwelling units per gross acre and 3.11 units per acre based upon the 837.22 acres requiring Stewardship Credits (excluding open space acreage above 35%). • In compliance with the requirement to provide a diversity of housing types within a Village, a minimum of 10% of the units shall be multi -family units based upon the Land Development Code (LDC) definition of Multifamily Dwelling (a group of 3 or more dwelling units within a single building), a minimum of 10% of the units shall be single family detached, and a minimum of 10% of the units shall be single family attached or villas. • Approximately 39.71 acres of active and passive parks and community green space is provided, including approximately 18.01 acres of amenity center sites and approximately 21.70 acres of parks and park preserves, exceeding the required minimum of 1 percent of the SRA gross acreage, (10 acres, rounded). • The SRA has direct access to Oil Well Road, which is classified as an arterial road. The SRA will also have direct access to the future Big Cypress Parkway, which will be designed as an arterial roadway. • The SRA is consistent with the standards set forth in the RLSA Overlay Attachment C, applicable to Villages. • The total acreage requiring stewardship credits is 837.22 acres (total SRA acreage excluding open space exceeding 35%) acres. At the required 8 Stewardship Credits per acre, 6,697.76 Stewardship Credits are required to entitle the SRA. • The Village will be served by the Collier County Water and Sewer District. Page 3 of 30 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\3rd Resubinittal\Longwater SRA Narrative (rev 8-10-2020).docx Natural Resource Index Assessment The required Natural Resource Index Assessment (detailed environmental data and analysis) was prepared by Passarella and Associates. Please refer to the Environmental Assessment Report provided in Sections I and II. In summary, the subject property has been significantly impacted through long term agricultural operations. Under the RLSA Overlay, the property is eligible to be designated as an SRA. All lands within the Village scoring greater than 1.2 on the Natural Resource Index will be maintained in a naturally vegetated state. The subject property does not include any designated Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSA) or Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSA), or Water Retention Area (WRA). The Village does not include any lands within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). SRA Master Plan The Longwater SRA Master Plan is consistent with the requirements of Section 4.08.07.G. SRA. Development Document The SRA Development Document is consistent with the requirements of Section 4.08.07.H. Public Facilities Impact Assessment (LDC Section 4.08.07.K.) Transportation: See TIS. Sewer and Water: See Public Facilities Report. Public Schools: See Public Facilities Report. Economic Assessment (per LDC Section Please see Fiscal Analysis included with this submittal. Additional GMP Consistency &LDC Compliance Evaluation Background: The Final Order (AC-99-002) was issued by the Administration Commission (Governor and Cabinet) on June 22, 1999. The Final Order required the County to conduct "The Collier County Rural and Agricultural Assessment" (Assessment). The Assessment was required to identify the means to accomplish following: Page 4 of 30 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\3rd Resubmittal\Longwater SRA Narrative (rev 8-10-2020).docx mama should prevent the premature conversion of agricultural lands to other .t r � ♦ ♦i / t : i # a if : i+# # • t .tI • t.'; .# f • •...i • • i � +.f t 4 i ..If # S a'i ff � t f # .ii ' `j to i • di i ' # i i �t #.. # i.,• i. # • i * t-• wi # ## ..+ 1 :t t # rural 1=6 to other Uses, In A"Wimiste locations, while discouraging uri= t # ► +. • { f # ..r.r • • ai critical habitat # s +�+#. i 6 •,# f t.+. i #i## i • M -°: # land plan # techniques Inctudhmg., but on limited to, publie and private f s• #: villages, new rovMons and mixed use davelopmeaL The Assessment $hall rccOgwze the ubstantial advantages of umovative approaches to development vduch may erve to protect environnumtally sensitive areas, maintain the, econornic viability o J agricultural and other predominantly nail land uses, and provide for the cost� fficient delivery of public aeand The County bifurcated the Assessment area into two major geographic areas, then referred to as the Rural Fringe Area and the Immokalee Area Study. After completion of the Immokalee Area Study, the County amended the GMP to adopt the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay (covering the +/4 95,000 acres within the Immokalee Study Area), followed by LDC amendment to implement the GMP RLSA Goals, Objectives, and Policies. The various state agencies with jurisdictional Oversight approved these amendments, finding that the RLSA Overlay GOPs address the Final Order requirements related to the Assessment, including: • Providing measures to protect and prevent premature conversion of "prime agricultural" lands ... ; • Providing measures to direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat in order to protect water quality and quantity...' • Assessing the growth potential of the Area by assessing potential conversions of rural lands to other uses in appropriate locations, while discourage urban sprawl, directing incompatible 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. Collier County GMP (related to the RLSA): The GMP (through the RLSA Goals, Objectives, and Policies) is structured into five (5) Groups, as follows: Group 1 —General purpose and structure of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. Page 5 of 30 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\3rd Resubmittal\I,ongwater SRA Narrative (rev 8-10-2020).docx Policy l.l: To promote a dynamic balance of land uses in the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) that collectively contribute to a viable agricultural industry, protect natural resources,, and enhance economic prosperity and diversification, Collier County hereby establishes the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (Overlay). The Overlay was created through a collaborative community -based planning process involving county residents, area property owners, and representatives of community and governmental organizations under the direction of a citizen oversight committee. Compliance Analysis: An SRA specific compliance analysis is not required for this Policy. Policy 1.2: The Overlay protects natural resources and retains viable agriculture by promoting compact rural mixed -use development as an alternative to low -density single use development, and provides a system of compensation to private property owners for the elimination of certain land uses in order to protect natural resources and viable agriculture in exchange for transferable credits that can be used to entitle such compact development. The strategies herein are based in part on the principles of Florida's Rural Lands Stewardship Act, Section 163.3248, Florida Statutes. The Overlay includes innovative and incentive based tools, techniques and strategies that are not dependent on a regulatory approach, but will complement existing local, regional, state and federal regulatory programs. Compliance Analysis: Longwater SRA, by design, protects natural resources and retains viable agriculture by promoting compact rural mixed -use development as an alternative to existing zoning for low -density single-family development. This is accomplished by: using Stewardship Credits to entitle the SRA (and thereby protecting natural resources and promoting the retention of viable agriculture and by providing a mix of uses and dwelling unit type, including single-family and various forms of multi -family. Policy 1.2 states: "The Overlay includes innovative and incentive -based tools, techniques and strategies that are not dependent on a regulatory approach, but will complement existing local, regional, state and federal regulatory programs. " Policy 1.3: This Overlay to the Future Land Use Map is depicted on the Stewardship Overlay Map (Overlay Map) and applies to rural designated lands located within the Immokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment referred to in the State of Florida Administration Commission Final Order No. AC-99-002. The RLSA generally includes rural lands in northeast Collier County lying north and east of Golden Gate Estates, north of the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and Big Cypress National Preserve, south of the Lee County Line, and south and west of the Hendry County Line, and includes a total of approximately 195,846 acres, of which approximately 182,334 acres is privately owned. The Overlay Map is° an adopted overlay to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Compliance Analysis: An SRA specific compliance analysis is not required for this Policy. Policy 1.4: Except as provided in Group 5 Policies, there shall be no change to the underlying density and intensity of permitted uses of land within the RLSA, as set forth in the Baseline Standards, as defined in Policy 1.5, unless and until a property owner elects to utilize the provisions Page 6 of 30 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\3rd Resubmittal\Longwater SRA Narrative (rev 8-10-2020).docx of the Stewardship Credit System. It is the intent of the Overlay that a property owner will be compensated for the voluntary stewardship and protection of important agricultural and natural resources. Compensation to the property owner shall occur through one of the following mechanisms: creation and transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition of conservation easements, acquisition of less than fee interest in the land, or through other acquisition of land or interest in land through a willing seller program. Compliance Analysis: The Longwater SRA complies with this Policy. Policy 1.5: As referred to in these Overlay policies, Baseline Standards are the permitted uses, density, intensity and other land development regulations assigned to land in the RLSA by the GMP, Collier County Land Development Regulations and Collier County Zoning Regulations in effect prior to the adoption of Interim Amendments and Interim Development Provisions referenced in Final Order AC-99-002. The Baseline Standards will remain in effect for all land not subject to the transfer or receipt of Stewardship Credits, except as provided for in Group 5 Policies. No part of the Stewardship Credit System shall be imposed upon a property owner without that owner's consent. Compliance Analysis: An SRA specific compliance analysis is not required for this Policy. Policy 1.6: Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within the RLSA that are to be kept in permanent agriculture, open space or conservation uses. These lands will be identified as Stewardship Sending Areas or SSAs. All privately owned lands within the RLSA are a candidate for designation as a SSA. Land becomes designated as a SSA upon petition by the property owner seeking such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC), which acknowledges the property owner's request for such designation and assigns Stewardship Credits or other compensation to the owner for such designation. Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved SSA. Designation as an SSA shall be administrative and shall not require an amendment to the Growth Management Plan, but shall be retroactively incorporated into the adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment process when it periodically occurs, or sooner at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. A Stewardship Agreement shall be developed that identifies those allowable residential densities and other land uses which remain. Once land is designated as a SSA and Credits or other compensation is granted to the owner, no increase in density or additional uses unspecified in the Stewardship Agreement shall be allowed on such property. Compliance Analysis: The Policy addresses Stewardship Credits and related matters. Longwater SRA proposes to use the required number of SSA credits, from approved SSA(s), consistent with established procedures and requirements. Policy 1.7: The range of Stewardship Credit Values is hereby established using the specific methodology set forth on the Stewardship Credit Worksheet (Worksheet), incorporated herein as Attachment A. This methodology and related procedures for SSA designation will also be adopted as part of the Stewardship Overlay District in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). Such procedures shall include but no be limited to the following: (1) All Credit transfers shall be recorded with the Collier County Clerk of Courts; (2) a covenant or perpetual restrictive easement shall also be recorded for each SSA, shall run with the land and shall be in favor of Collier County, Page 7 of 30 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\3rd Resubmittal\Longwater SRA Narrative (rev 8-10-2020).docx Department of Environmental Protection, Departiem of Agriculture and Consumer Services, South Florida Water Management District, or a recognized statewide land trust; and (3) for each SSA, the Stewardship Agreement will identify the specific land management measures that will be undertaken and the party responsible for such measures. Compliance Analysis: The Policy addresses Stewardship Credits and related matters. Longwater SRA proposes to use the required number of Stewardship Credits, from approved SSA(s), consistent with established procedures and requirements. Policy 1.8: The natural resource value of land within the RLSA is measured by the Stewardship Natural Resource Index (Index) set forth on the Worksheet. The Index established the relative natural resource value by objectively measuring six different characteristics of land and assigning an index factor based on each characteristic. The sum of these six factors is the index value for the land. Both the characteristics used and the factors assigned thereto were established after review and analysis of detailed information about the natural resource attributes of land within the RLSA so that development could be directed away from important natural resources. The six characteristics measured are: Stewardship Overlay Designation, Sending Area Proximity, Listed Species Habitat, Soils/Surface Water, Restoration Potential, and Land Use/Land Cover, Compliance Analysis: The Longwater SRA complies with this Policy. Policy 1.9: A Natural Resource Index Map Series (Index Map Series) indicates the Natural Resource Stewardship Index value for all land within the RLSA. Credits from any lands designated as SSAs, will be based upon the Natural Resource Index values in effect at the time of designation. Any change in the Characteristics of land due to alteration of the land prior to the establishment of a SSA that either increases or decreases any Index Factor will result in an adjustment of the factor val-Lies and a corresponding adjustment in the credit value. The Index and the Index Map Series are adopted as a part of the RLSA Overlay. Compliance Analysis: The NRI Scoring for the proposed Longwater SRA has been provided, consistent with this Policy. Policy 1.10: In SSAs, the greater the number of uses eliminated from the property, and the higher the natural resource value of the land, the higher the priority for protection, the greater the level of Credits that are generated from such lands, and therefore the greater the incentive to participate in the Stewardship Credit System and protect the natural resources of the land. Compliance Analysis: The Policy addresses Stewardship Credit values (for SSA lands). Longwater SRA proposes to use the required number of Stewardship Credits, from approved SSA(s), consistent with established procedures and requirements. Policy 1.11: The Land Use Matrix, Attachment B, lists uses and activities allowed under the A, Rural Agricultural Zoning District within the Overlay. These uses are grouped together in one of eight separate layers in the Matrix. Each layer is discrete and shall be removed sequentially and cumulatively in the order presented in the Matrix, starting with the residential layer (layer one) and ending with the conservation layer (layer eight). If a layer is removed, all uses and activities in that layer are eliminated and are no longer available. Each layer is assigned a percentage of a Page 8 of 30 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\3rd Resubmittal\Longwater SRA Narrative (rev 8-10-2020).docx base credit in the Worksheet. The assigned percentage for each layer to be removed is added ft together and then multiplied by the Index value on a per acre basis to arrive at a total Stewardship Credit Value of the land being designated as a SSA. Compliance Analysis: The Policy addresses Stewardship Credit values (for SSA lands) and removal of uses to generate Stewardship Credits. Longwater SRA proposes to use the required number of Stewardship Credits, from approved SSA(s), consistent with established procedures and requirements. Policy 1.12: Credits can be transferred only to lands suitability criteria and standards set forth in Group 4 Stewardship Receiving Areas or SRAs. within the RLSA that meet the defined Policies. Such lands shall be known as Compliance Analysis: Longwater SRA proposes to use the required number of Stewardship Credits, from approved SSA(s). Policy 1.13: The procedures for the establishment and transfer of Credits and SRA designation are set forth herein and will also be adopted as a part of a Stewardship District in the LDC (District) LDRs creating the District will be adopted within one (1) year from the effective date of this Plan amendment. (VII) Policy 1.14: Stewardship Credits will be exchanged for additional residential or non-residential entitlements in a SRA on a per acre basis, as described in Policy 4.18. Stewardship density and intensity will thereafter differ from the Baseline Standards. The assignment or use of Stewardship Credits shall not require a GMP Amendment. Compliance Analysis: The Longwater SRA complies with this Policy. Policy 1.15: Land becomes designated as an SRA upon the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC} approving the petition by the property owner seeking such designation. Any change in the residential density or non-residential intensity of land use on a parcel of land located within a SRA shall be specified in the resolution reflecting the total number of transferable Credits assigned to the parcel of land. Density and intensity within the RLSA or within an SRA shall not be increased beyond the Baseline Standards except through the provisions of the Stewardship Credit System, the Affordable -workforce Housing Density Bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of the FLUE, and the density and intensity blending provision of the Immokalee Area Master Plan. Compliance Analysis: The proposed Longwater SRA is consistent with this Policy. Policy 1.16: Stewardship Receiving Areas will accommodate uses that utilize creative land use planning techniques and Credits shall be used to facilitate the implementation of innovative and flexible development strategies described in Section 163.3168(2), Florida Statutes. Compliance Analysis: The Longwater Village SRA employs creative, innovative, and flexible development strategies and techniques. Policy 1.17: Stewardship Credits may be transferred between different parcels or within a single parcel, subject to compliance with all applicable provisions of these policies. Residential clustering Page 9 of 30 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\3rd Resubmittal\L,ongwater SRA Narrative (rev 8-10-2020}.docx shall only occur within the RLSA through the use of the Stewardship Credit System, and other forms of residential clustering shall not be permitted. Compliance Analysis: The Longwat'Le r SRA complies with this Policy. Policy 1.18: A blend of Local, State, Federal and private revenues, such as but not limited to Florida Forever, Federal and State conservation and stewardship programs, foundation grants, private conservation organizations, local option taxes, general county revenues, and other monies can augment the Stewardship program through the acquisition of conservation easements, Credits, or land that is identified as the highest priority for natural resource protection, including, but is not limited to, areas identified on the Overlay Map as Flow way Stewardship Areas (FSAs), Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), Water Retention Areas (WRAs) and land within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). Compliance Analysis: The Policy does not relate to a specific SRA application. Policy 1.19: All local land or easement acquisition programs that are intended to work within the RLSA Overlay shall be based upon a willing participant/seller approach. It is not the intent of Collier County to use eminent domain acquisition within this system. Compliance Analysis: The Longwater SRA complies with this policy, via a Landowner Agreement and other agreements, which the Countys need and methods and timing to address them. Policy 1.20: The County may elect to acquire Credits through a publicly funded program, using sources identified in Policy 1.18. Should the County pursue this option, it shall establish a Stewardship Credit Trust to receive and hold Credits until such time as they are sold, transferred or otherwise used to implement uses within Stewardship Receiving Areas, Compliance Analysis: No analysis required as this Policy does not address or apply to a specific SRA application. Policy 1.21: The incentive based Stewardship Credit system relies on the projected demand for Credits As the primary basis for permanent protection of flowways, habitats and water retention areas. The County recognizes that there may be a lack of significant demand for Credits in the early years of implementation, and also recognizes that a public benefit would be realized by the early designation of SSAs. To address this issue and to promote the protection of natural resources, the implementation of the Overlay will include an early entry bonus to encourage the voluntary establishment of SSAs within the RLSA. The bonus shall be in the form of an additional one Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as a HSA located outside of the ACSC and one- half Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as HSA located inside the ACSC. The early entry bonus shall be available for five years from the effective date of the adoption of the Stewardship Credit System in the LDC. The early designation of SSAs, and resulting protection of flowways, habitats, and Water retention areas does not require the establishment of SRAs or otherwise require the early use of Credits, and Credits generated under the early entry bonus may be used after the termination of the bonus period. The maximum number of Credits that can be Page 10 of 30 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\3rd Resubniittal\Longwater SRA Narrative (rev 8-10-2020).docx generated under the bonus is 2 / 000 Credits, and such Credits shall not be transferred into or used within the ACSC. Compliance Analysis: The Longwater SRA complies with this process, procedures, allowances and limitations related to the use of Stewardship Credits to entitle the prosed Village Policy, and by using such Credits, further the RLSA goals and objectives for protection of environmentally significant lands. Policy 1.22: The RLSA Overlay was designed to be a long-term strategic plan with a planning horizon Year of 2025. Many of the tools, techniques and strategies of the Overlay are new, Innovative, incentive based, and have yet to be tested in actual implementation. A Comprehensive review of the Overlay shall be prepared for and reviewed by Collier County and the State land planning agency (presently, the Department of Economic Opportunity) upon the five-year anniversary of the adoption of the Stewardship District in the LDC. The purpose of the review shall be to assess the participation in and effectiveness of the Overlay implementation in meeting the Goal, Objective and Policies set forth herein. The specific measures of review shall be as follows: 1. The amount and location of land designated as FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and other SSAs. 2. The amount and location of land designated as SRAs. 3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated, assigned or held for future use. 4. A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at the time of a Study and time of review. 5. The amount, location and type of land converted to non-agricultural use with and without participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption. 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. Compliance Analysis: The Longwater CID complies with this Policy. Group 2 —Policies to protect agricultural lands from premature conversion to other uses and continue the viability of agricultural production through the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. Policy 2.1: Agriculture lands will be protected from premature conversion to other uses by creating incentives that encourage the voluntary elimination of the property owner's right to convert agriculture land to non-agricultural uses in exchange for compensation as described in Policy 1.4 and by the establishment of SRAs as the form of compact rural development in the RLSA Overlay. Analysis has shown that SRAs will allow the projected population of the RLSA in the Horizon year of 2025 to be accommodated on approximately 10% of the acreage otherwise required if such compact rural development were not allowed due to the flexibility afforded to such development. The combination of stewardship incentives and land efficient compact rural development will minimize two of the primary market factors that cause premature conversion of agriculture. Page 11 of 30 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\3rd Resubmittal\Longwater SRA Narrative (rev 8-10-2020).docx Compliance Analysis: The Longwater Village SRA furthers this Policy by consuming Stewardship Credits from SSA lands and retaining agricultural uses on portions of the SSA land. Policy 2.2: Agriculture lands protected through the use of Stewardship Credits shall be designated as Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) as described in Policy 1.6. The protection measures for SSAs are set forth in Policies 1.6, 1.7 and 1.17. Compliance Analysis: The SSA's are established in a separate process (from establishment of an SRA). However, the SSA(s) proposed to be used to entitle Longwater SRA will retain agricultural uses on portions of the SSA lands. Policy 2.3: Within one (1) year from the effective date of these amendments, Collier County will establish an Agriculture Advisory Council comprised of not less than five nor more than nine appointed representatives of the agriculture industry, to advise the BCC on matters relating to Agriculture. The Agriculture Advisory Council (AAC) will work to identify opportunities and prepare strategies to enhance and promote the continuance, expansion and diversification of agriculture in Collier County. The AAC will also identify barriers to the continuance, expansion and diversification of the agricultural industry and will prepare recommendations to eliminate or minimize such barriers in Collier County. The AAC will also assess whether exceptions from standards for business uses related to agriculture should be allowed under an administrative permit process and make recommendations to the BCC. Compliance Analysis: No Analysis specific to Longwater SRA required. Policy 2.4: The BCC well consider the recommendations of the AAC and facilitate the implementation of strategies and recommendations identified by the ACC that are determined to be appropriate. The BCC may adopt amendments to the LDC that implement policies that support agriculture activities. Compliance Analysis: No Analysis specific to Longwater SRA required. Policy 2.5: Agriculture is an important aspect of Collier County's quality of life and economic well-being. Agricultural activities shall be protected from duplicative regulation as provided by the Florida Right -to -Farm Act. Compliance Analysis: No Analysis specific to Longwater SRA required. Policy 2.6: Notwithstanding the special provisions of Policies 3.9 and 3.10, nothing herein or in the implementing LDRs, shall restrict lawful agricultural activities on lands within the RLSA that have not been placed into the Stewardship program. Compliance Analysis: No Analysis specific to Longwater• SRA required. Group 3 —Policies to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime, as well as listed animal and plant species and their habitats by directing incompatible Page 12 of 30 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\3rd Resubmittal\I.ongivater SRA Narrative (rev 8-10-2020).docx uses away from wetlands and upland habitat through the establishment of Flow way Stewardship Areas, Habitat Stewardship Areas, and Water Retention Areas, where lands are voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area program. Policy 3.1: Protection of water quality and quantity, and the maintenance of the natural water regime shall occur through the establishment of Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. FSAs are delineated on the Overlay Map and contain approximately 31,100 acres. FSAs are primarily privately owned wetlands that are located within the Camp Keais Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough. These lands form the primary wetland Fowway systems in the RLSA. The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect FSAs by the creation and transfer of Credits, elimination of incompatible uses, and establishment of protection measures described in Group 1 Policies. Not all lands within the delineated FSAs are comparable in terms of their natural resource value; therefore, the index shall be used to differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation. Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that FSA lands score within a range of 0.7 to 2.4; approximately 96% score greater than 1.2 while 4% score 1.2 or less. The average Index score of FSA land is 1.8. Compliance Analysis: The Longwater Village SRA furthers this Policy by consuming Stewardship Credits from SSA lands. Policy 3.2: Listed animal and plant species and their habitats shall be protected. through the establishment of Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. HSAs are delineated on the Overlay Map and contain approximately 40,000 acres. HSAs are privately owned agricultural areas, which include both areas with natural characteristics that make them suitable habitat for listed species and areas without these characteristics. These latter areas are included because they are located contiguous to habitat to help form a continuum of landscape that can augment habitat values. The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect HSAs by the creation and transfer of Credits, resulting in the elimination of incompatible uses and the establishment of protection measures described in Group 1 Policies. Not all lands within the delineated HSAs are comparable in terms of their habitat value; therefore, the index shall be used to differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation. Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that HSA lands score within a range of 0.6 to 2.2. There are approximately 13,800 acres of cleared agricultural fields located in HSAs. The average Index score of HSA designated lands is 1.3, however, the average index score of the naturally vegetated areas within HSAs is 1.5. Compliance Analysis: The Longwater SRA complies with this Policy. Policy 3.3: Further protection for surface water quality and quantity shall be through the establishment of Water Retention Areas (V�RAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. WRAs are delineated on the Overlay Map and contain approximately 18,200 acres. WRAs are privately owned lands that have been permitted by the South Florida Water Management District to function as agricultural water retention areas. In many instances, these WRAs consist of native wetland or upland vegetation; in other cases, they are excavated water bodies or may contain exotic vegetation. The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect WRAs by the creation and transfer of Credits, elimination of incompatible uses, and establishment of protection measures Page 13 of 30 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\3rd Resubmittal\Longwater SRA Narrative (rev 8-10-2020).docx described in Group 1 Policies. Not all lands within the delineated WRAs are comparable in terms of their natural resource value; therefore, the index shall be used to differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation. Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that WRA lands score within a range of 0.6 to 2.4; approximately 74% score greater than 1.2 while 26% score 1.2 or less. The average Index score of WRA land is 1.5. Compliance Analysis: The Longwater SR.A complies with this Policy. Policy 3.4: Public and private conservation areas exist in the RLSA and. serve to protect natural resources. Corkscrew Marsh and Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest include approximately 13, 500 acres. Analysis shows that they score within an Index range of 0.0 to 2.2; with an average Index score of 1.5. Because these existing public areas, and any private conservation areas, are already protected, they are not delineated as SSAs and are not eligible to generate Credits but do serve an important role in meeting the Goal of the RLSA. Compliance Analysis: No Analysis specific to Longwater SRA required. Policy 3.5: Residential uses, General Conditional uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses (layers 1-4) as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in FSAs in exchange for compensation to the property owner as described in Policy 3.8. Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, other than those necessary to serve permitted uses or for public safety, shall only be allowed in FSAs with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less. Where practicable, directional -drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil and gas extraction in FSAs in order to minimize impacts to native habitats. Other layers may also be eliminated at the election of the property owner in exchange for compensation. The elimination of the Earth Mining layer shall not preclude the excavation of lakes or other water bodies if such use is an integral part of a restoration or mitigation program within an FSA. Compliance Analysis: No Analysis specific to Longwater• CID required. Policy 3.6: Residential Land Uses listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in Habitat Stewardship Sending Areas in exchange for compensation to the property owner as described in Policy 3.8. Other layers may also be eliminated at the election of the property owner in exchange for compensation. Compliance Analysis: No Analysis specific to Longwater SRA required. Policy 3.7: General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses shall be allowed only on HSA lands with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less. Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, other than those necessary to serve permitted uses or for public safety, shall only be allowed in HSAs with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less. Asphaltic and concrete batch making plants are prohibited in all HSAs. Where practicable, directional -drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil and gas Extraction in HSAs in order to minimize impacts to native habitats. In addition to the requirements imposed in the LDC for approval of a Page 14 of 30 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\3rd Resubmittal\Longwater SRA Narrative (rev 8-10-2020).docx Conditional Use, such uses will only be approved upon submittal of an EIS which demonstrates that clearing of native vegetation has been minimized, the use will not significantly and adversely impact listed species and their habitats and the use will not significantly and adversely impact aquifers. As an alternative to the foregoing, the applicant may demonstrate that such use is an integral part of an approved restoration or mitigation program. Golf Course design, construction, and operation in any HSA shall comply with the best management practices of Audubon International's Gold Program and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Compliance with the following standards shall be considered by Collier County as meeting the requirement for minimization of impact: • Clearing of native vegetation shall not exceed 15% of the native vegetation on the parcel. • Areas previously cleared shall be used preferentially to native vegetated areas. • Buffering to Conservation Land shall comply with Policy 4.13. (VII) Compliance Analysis: No Analysis specific to Longwater SRA required, Policy 3.8: Compensation to the property owner may occur through one or more of the following mechanisms: creation and transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition of conservation easements, acquisition of less than fee interest in the land, or through other acquisition of land or interest in land through a willing seller program. Compliance Analysis: No Analysis specific to Longwater SRA required. Policy 3.9: 1. Agriculture will continue to be a permitted use and its supporting activities will continue to be permitted as conditional uses within FSAs and HSAs, pursuant to the Agriculture Group classifications described in the Matrix. The Ag 1 group includes row crops, citrus, specialty farms, horticulture, plant nurseries, improved pastures for grazing and ranching, aquaculture and similar activities, including related agricultural support uses. In existing Ag 1 areas within FSAs and HSAs, all such activities are permitted to continue, and may convert from one type of Agriculture to another and expand to the limits allowed by applicable permits. Once the Stewardship Credit System is utilized and an owner receives compensation as previously described, no further expansion of Ag 1 will be allowed in FSAs and HSAs beyond existing or permitted limits within property subject to a credit transfer, except for incidental clearing as set forth in Paragraph 2 below. 2. In order to encourage viable Ag 1 activities, and to accommodate the ability to convert from one Ag 1 use to another, incidental clearing is allowed to join existing Ag 1 areas, square up existing farm fields, or provide access to or from other Ag 1 areas, provided that the Ag 1 Land Use Layer has been retained on the areas to be incidentally cleared, and the Natural Resource Index Value score has been adjusted to reflect the proposed change in land cover. Incidental clearing is defined as clearing that meets the above criteria and is limited to 1% of the area of the SSA. In the event said incidental clearing impacts lands having a Natural Resource Index Value in excess of 1.2, appropriate mitigation shall be provided. Compliance Analysis: No Analysis specific to Longwater SRA required. Page 15 of 30 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\3rd Resubmittal\Longwater SRANairative (rev 8-10-2020).docx Policy 3.10: Ag 2 includes unimproved pastures for grazing and ranching, forestry and similar activities, including related agricultural support uses. In existing Ag 2 areas within FSAs and HSAs, such activities are permitted to continue, and may convert from one type of Agriculture to another and expand to the limits allowed by applicable permits. Once the Stewardship Credit System is utilized and an owner receives compensation as previously described, no further expansion of Ag 2 or conversion of Ag 2 to Ag 1 will be allowed in FSAs or HSAs beyond existing or permitted limits within property subject to a credit transfer. Compliance Analysis; No Analysis specific to Longwater SR.A required. Policy 3.11: Iri certain locations there inay be the opportunity for flow -way or habitat restoration. Examples include, but are not limited to, locations where flow -ways have been constricted or otherwise impeded by past activities, or where additional land is needed to enhance wildlife corridors. Priority shall be given to restoration within the Camp Keais Strand FSA or contiguous HSAs. Should a property owner be willing to dedicate land for restoration activities within the Camp Keais Strand FSA or contiguous HSAs, four additional Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated. An additional two Stewardship credits shall be assigned for each acre of land dedicated for restoration activities within other FSAs and HSAs. The actual implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive such credits and the costs of restoration shall be borne by the governmental agency or private entity undertaking the restoration. Should an owner also complete restoration improvements, this shall be rewarded with four additional Credits for each acre of restored land upon demonstration that the restoration met applicable success criteria as determined by the permit agency authorizing said restoration. This Policy does not preclude other forms of compensation for restoration which may be addressed through public -private partnership agreement such as a developer contribution agreement or stewardship agreement between the parties involved. The specific process for assignment of additional restoration credits shall be included in the Stewardship District of the LDC. Compliance Analysis: No Analysis specific to Longwater SRA required. Policy 3.12: Based on the data and analysis of the Study, FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and existing public/private conservation land include the land appropriate and necessary to accomplish the Goal pertaining to natural resource protection. To further direct other uses away from and to provide additional incentive for the protection, enhancement and restoration of the Okaloacoochee Slough and Camp Keais Strand, all land within 500 feet of the delineated FSAs that comprise the Slough or Strand that is not otherwise included in a HSA or WRA shall receive the same natural index score (0.6) that a HSA receives if such property is designated as a SSA and retains only agricultural, recreational and/or conservation layers within the matrix. Compliance Analysis: No Analysis specific to Longwater SRA required. Page 16 of 30 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\3rd Resubmittal\Lougwater SRA Narrative (rev 8-10-2020).docx Policy 3.13: Water Retention Areas (WRAs) as generally depicted on the Overlay Map have been permitted for this purpose and will continue to function for surface water retention, detention, treatment and/or conveyance, in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permits applicable to each WRA. WRAs can also be permitted to provide such functions for new uses of land allowed within the Overlay.' s may be incorporated into a SRA master plan to provide water management functions for properties within such SRA, but are not required to be designated as a SRA in such instances. VVRA boundaries are understood to be approximate and are subject to refinement in accordance with SFWMD permitting. Policy 3.14: During permitting to serve new uses, additions and modifications to WRAs may be required or desired, including but not limited to changes to control elevations, discharge rates, storm water pre-treatment, grading, excavation or fill. Such additions and modifications shall be allowed subject to review and approval by the SFWMD in accordance with best management practices. Such additions and modifications to WRAs shall be designed to ensure that there is no net loss of habitat function within the WRAs unless there is compensating mitigation or restoration in other areas of the Overlay that will provide comparable habitat function. Compensating mitigation or restoration for an impact to a WRA contiguous to the Camp Keais Strand or Okaloacoochee Slough shall be provided within or contiguous to that Strand or Slough. Compliance Analysis: The Longwater SRA complies with these Policies. Group 4 —Group 4 —Policies to enable conversion of rural lands to other uses in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas, Policy 4.1: Collier County will encourage and facilitate uses that enable economic prosperity and diversification of the economic base of the RLSA. Collier County will also encourage development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques and facilitates a compact form of development to accommodate population growth by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs). Incentives to encourage and support the diversification and vitality of the rural economy such as flexible development regulations, expedited permitting review, and targeted capital improvements shall be incorporated into the LDC Stewardship District. Compliance Analysis: The Longwater Village SRA utilizes creative land use planning techniques (as herein described) and facilitates a compact form of development and, in part, accommodates population growth in Collier County. Policy 4.2: All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible for designation as a SRA, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been designated as a Stewardship Sending Area. Land proposed for SRA designation shall meet the suitability criteria and other standards described in Group 4 Policies. Due to the long-term vision of the RLSA Overlay, extending to a horizon year of 2025, and in accordance with the guidelines established in Section 163.3168(2), Florida Statutes, the specific location, size and Page 17 of 30 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\3rd Resubmittal\Longwater SRA Narrative (rev 8-10-2020).docx composition of each SRA cannot and need not be predetermined in the GMP. In the RLSA Overlay, lands that are eligible to be designated as SRAs generally have similar physical attributes as they consist predominately of agriculture lands which have been cleared or otherwise altered for this purpose. Lands shown on the Overlay Map as eligible for SRA designation include approximately 74,500 acres outside of the ACSC and 18,300 acres within the ACSC. Approximately 2% of these lands achieve an Index score greater than 1.2. Because the Overlay requires SRAs to be compact, mixed -use and self sufficient in the provision of services, facilities and infrastructure, traditional locational standards normally applied to determine development suitability are not relevant or applicable to SRAs. Therefore, the process for designating a SRA follows the principles of the Rural Lands Stewardship Act as further described herein. Compliance Analysis: Longwater SRA complies with this policy. Policy 4.3: Land. becomes designated as a SRA upon petition by a property owner to Collier County seeking such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the BCC granting the designation. The petition shall include a SRA master plan as described in Policy 4.5. The basis for approval shall be a finding of consistency with the policies of the Overlay, including required suitability criteria set forth herein, compliance with the LDC Stewardship District, and assurance that the applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement the SRA uses. The County has adopted LDC amendments to establish the procedures and submittal requirements for designation as a SRA, providing for consideration of impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts, and for public notice of and the opportunity for public participation in any consideration by the BCC of such a designation. Compliance Analysis: As Policy 4.3 states, "The basis for approval shall be a finding of consistency with the policies of the Overlay, including required suitability criteria set forth herein, compliance with the LDC Stewardship District, and assurance that the applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement the SRA uses. The County has adopted LDC amendments to establish the procedures and submittal requirements for designation as a SRA, providing for consideration of impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts, and for public notice of and the opportunity for public participation in any consideration by the BCC of such a designation. The Longwater Village SRA is consistent with all applicable polices in the Overlay and meets or exceeds all applicable LDC requirements. Policy 4.4: Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved SRA. Such updates shall be incorporated into the adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment process when it periodically occurs, or sooner at the discretion of the Board of County Cominissioners. Compliance Analysis; No Analysis specific to Longwater SRA required. This is a County responsibility. Policy 4.5: To address the specifics of each SRA, a master plan of each SRA will be prepared and submitted to Collier County as a part of the petition for designation as a SRA. The master plan Page 18 of 30 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\3rd Resubmittal\Longwater SRANarrative (rev 8-10-2020).docx will demonstrate that the SRA complies with all applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District and is designed so that incompatible land uses are directed away from wetlands and critical habitat identified as FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map. Compliance Analysis: The Longwater Village SRA Master Plan demonstrates compliance with all applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District and is designed so that incompatible land uses are directed away from wetlands and critical habitat identified as FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map, Policy 4.6: SRA characteristics shall be based upon innovative planning and development strategies referenced in Section 163.3168(2), Florida Statutes. These planning strategies and techniques include urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area -based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, and mixed -use development that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services. Such development strategies are recognized as methods of discouraging urban sprawl. Compliance Analysis: The Longwater Village SRA complies with (meets or exceeds) the innovative characteristics established for a Village in the RLSA Overlay. Policy 4.7: There are four specific forms of SRA permitted within the Overlay. These are Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and Compact Rural Development (CRD). The Characteristics of Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and CRD are set forth in Attachment C and are generally described in Policies 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3 and 4.7.4. Collier County shall establish more specific regulations, guidelines and standards within the LDC Stewardship District to guide the design and development of SRAs to include innovative planning and development strategies as set forth in Section 163.3168(2), Florida Statutes. The size and base density of each form shall be consistent with the standards set forth on Attachment C. The maximum base residential density as set forth in Attachment C may only be exceeded through the density blending process as set forth in density and intensity blending provision of the Immokalee Area Master Plan or through the affordable workforce housing density bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element. The base residential density is calculated by dividing the total number of residential units in a SRA by the overall area therein. The base residential density does not restrict net residential density of parcels within a SRA. The location, size and density of each SRA will be determined on an individual basis durig the SRA designation review and approval process. Compliance Analysis: No Analysis specific to Longwater SRA required. The specifics of the proposed Village SRA are under review by the County relative to compliance with the applicable LDC provisions. Policy 4.7.1: Towns are the largest and most diverse form of SRA, with a full range of housing types and mix of uses. Towns have urban level services and infrastructure that support development that is compact, mixed use, human scale, and provides a balance of land uses to reduce automobile trips and increase livability. Towns shall be not less than 1,000 acres or more than 4,000 acres and are comprised of several villages and/or neighborhoods that have individual Page 19 of 30 H:\2019\2419050\SRA\3rd Resubmittal\Longwater SRA Narrative (rev 8-10-2020).docx identity and character. Towns shall have a mixed -use town center that will serve as a focal point for community facilities and support services. Towns shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Towns shall have at least one community park with a minimum size of 200 square feet per dwelling unit in the Town. Towns shall also have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Towns shall inchtde both community and neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15. Towns may also include those compatible corporate office and light industrial uses as those permitted in the Business Park and Research and Technology Park Subdistricts of the FLUE. Towns shall be the preferred location for the full range of schools, and to the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located abutting each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. Design criteria for Towns shall be included in the LDC Stewardship District. Towns shall not be located within the ACSC. Compliance Analysis: Not applicable to Longwater Village SRA. Policy 4.7.2: Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be not less than 100 acres or more than 1,000 acres. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed -use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages shall include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15. Villages are an appropriate location for a full range of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located adjacent to each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. Design criteria for Villages shall be included in the LDC Stewardship Distri Dct. Compliance Analysis: The Longwater Village SRA complies with {meets or exceeds) the innovative characteristics established for a Village in the RLSA Overlay. Policy 4.7.3: Hamlets are small rural residential areas with primarily single-family housing and limited range ofconvenience-oriented services. Hamlets shall be not less than 40 or more than 100 acres. Hamlets will serve as a more compact alternative to traditional five -acre lot rural subdivisions currently allowed in the baseline standards. Hamlets shall have a public green space for neighborhoods. Hamlets include convenience retail uses, in a ratio as provided in Attachment C. Hamlets may be an appropriate location for pre-K through elementary schools. Design criteria for Hamlets shall be included in the LDC Stewardship District. To maintain a proportion of Hamlets to Villages and Towns, not more than 5 Hamlets, in combination with CRDs of 100 acres or less, may be approved as SRAs prior to the approval of a Village or Town, and thereafter not more than 5 additional Hamlets, in combination with CRDs of 100 acres or less, may be approved for each subsequent Village or Town. Compliance Analysis: No Analysis specific to Longwater Village SRA required. Page 20 of 30 H:\2019\2419050\SRA\3rd Resubmittal\Longwater SRA Narrative (rev 8-10-2020).docx Policy 4,1.4: Compact Rural Development (CRD) is a form of SRA that will provide flexibility with respect to the mix of uses and design standards but shall otherwise comply with the standards A a Hamlet or Village. A CRD may include but is not required to have permanent residential housing and the services and facilities that support permanent residents. An example of a CRD is an ecotourism village that would have a unique set of uses and support services different from a traditional residential village. It would contain transient lodging facilities and services appropriate to eco-tourists but may not provide for the range of services that necessary to support permanent residents. Except as described above, a CRD will conform to the characteristics of a Village or Hamlet as set forth on Attachment C based on the size of the CRD. As residential units are not a required use, those goods and services that support residents such as retail, office, civic, governmental and institutional uses shall also not be required, however for any CRD that does include permanent residential housing, the proportionate support services listed above shall be provided in accordance with Attachment C. To maintain a proportion of CRDs of 100 acres or less to Villages and Towns, not more than 5 CRDs of 100 acres or less, in combination with Hamlets, may be approved as SRAs prior to the approval of a Village or Town, and thereafter not more than 5 additional CRDs of 100 acres or less, in combination with Hamlets, may be approved for each subsequent Village or Town. There shall be no more than 5 CRDs of more than 100 acres in size. The appropriateness of this limitation shall be reviewed in 5 years pursuant to Policy 1.22. Compliance Analysis: No Analysis specific to Longwater SRA required. Policy 4.8: An SRA may be contiguous to a FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in Policy 4.13. A SRA may be contiguous to and served by a WRA without requiring the WRA to be designated as a SRA in accordance with Policy 3.12 and 3.13. Compliance Analysis: Longwater Village SRA complies with this Policy. Policy 4.9: A SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development in an environmentally acceptable manner. The primary means of directing development away from wetlands and critical habitat is the prohibition of locating SRAs in FSAs, HSAs, and W1ZAs. To further direct development away from wetlands and critical habitat, residential; commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within a SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. In addition, conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. The Index value of greater than 1.2 represents those areas that have a high natural resource value as measured pursuant to Policy 1.8. Less than 2% of potential SRA land achieves an Index score of greater than 1.2. Compliance Analysis: Longwater Village SRA complies with this Policy. Policy 4.10: Within the RLSA Overlay, open space, which by definition shall include public and private conservation lands, underdeveloped areas of designated SSAs, agriculture, water retention and management areas and recreation uses, will continue to be the dominant land use. Therefore, Page 21 of 30 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\3rd Resubmittal\Longwater SRA Narrative (rev 8-10-2020).docx open space adequate to serve the forecasted population and uses within the SRA is provided. To ensure that SRA residents have such areas proximate to their homes, open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, Village, or those CRDs exceeding 100 acres. Lands within a SRA greater than one acre with Index values of greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space. As an incentive to encourage open space, such uses within a SRA, located outside of the ACSC, exceeding the required thirty-five percent shall not be required to consume Stewardship Credits. Compliance Analysis: Longwater Village SRA complies with this Policy, providing +/51% of open space, significantly exceeding the 35% minimum requirement. Policy 4.11: The perimeter of each SRA shall be designed to provide a transition from higher density and intensity uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property. The edges of SRAs shall be well defined and designed to be compatible with the character of adjoining property. Techniques such as, but not limited to setbacks, landscape buffers, and recreation/open space placement may be used for this purpose. Where existing agricultural activity adjoins a SRA, the design of the SRA must take this activity into account to allow for the continuation of the agricultural activity and to minimize any conflict between agriculture and SRA uses. Compliance Analysis: Longwater Village SRA complies with this Policy. Multi -family is required to be located within the mixed -use Village Center or within 1/2 mile of the Village Center Boundary, Policy 4.12: Where a SRA adjoins a FSA, HSA, WRA or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map, best management and planning practices shall be applied to minimize adverse impacts to such lands. SRA design shall demonstrate that ground water table draw down or diversion will not adversely impact the adjacent FSA, HSA, WRA or conservation land. Detention and control elevations shall be established to protect such natural areas and be consistent with surrounding land and project control elevations and water tables. Compliance Analysis: The Longwater Village SRA complies with this Policy. The Village is not adjacent to HSA or FSA designated land and does not include any FSA, HSA, VVRA lands within the SRA boundary. There will be no adverse impact from the SRA on FSA, HSA, or WRA lands. Policy 4.13: Open space within or contiguous to a SRA shall be used to provide a buffer between the SRA and any adjoining FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map. Open space contiguous to or within 300 feet of the boundary of a FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land may include: natural preserves, lakes, golf courses provided no fairways or other turf areas are allowed within the first 200 feet, passive recreational areas and parks, required yard and set -back areas, and other natural or manmade open space. Along the west boundary of the FSAs and HSAs that comprise Camp Keais Strand, i.e., the area south of Immokalee Road, this open space buffer shall be 500 feet wide and shall preclude golf course fairways and other turf areas within the first 300 feet. Page 22 of 30 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\3rd Resubmittal\Lougwater SRA NaiTative (rev 8-10-2020).docx Compliance Analysis: The Longwater Village SRk complies with this Policy. The Village is not adjacent to FSA or HSA designated lands and is appropriately buffered to avoid any adverse impacts to nearby FSA lands. Policy 4.14: The SRA .must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. No SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA designation. A transportation impact assessment meeting the requirements of Section 2.7.3 of the LDC, or its successor regulation shall be prepared for each proposed SRA to provide the necessary data and analysis. Compliance Analysis: The Longwater Village SRA has direct access to Oil Well Road (and Future Big Cypress Parkway) and meets the requirements of the County's Concurrency Management System, Policy 4.15.1: SRAs are intended to be mixed use and shall be allowed the full range of uses permitted by the Urban Designation of the FLUE, as modified by Policies 4.7, 4.7.11 4.7.25 4.7.3, 4.7.4 and Attachment C. An appropriate mix of retail, office, recreational, civic, governmental, and institutional uses will be available to serve the daily needs and community wide needs of residents of the RLSA. Depending on the size, scale, and character of a SRA, such uses may be provided either within the specific SRA, within other SRAs in the RLSA or within the Immokalee Urban Area. By example, each Village or Town shall provide for neighborhood retaiUoffice uses to serve its population as well as appropriate civic and institutional uses, however, the combined population of several Villages and Hamlets may be required to support community scaled retail or office uses in a nearby Town. Standards for the minimum amount of non-residential uses in each category are set forth in Attachment C and shall be also included in the Stewardship LDC District. Compliance Analysis: The Longwater Village SRA meets or exceeds the requirements of Attachment "C" and provides for an appropriate mix of retail, office, recreational, civic, governmental, and institutional uses will be available to serve the daily needs and community wide needs of residents and surrounding lands. Policy 4.15.2: The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) may, as a condition of approval and adoption of an SRA development, require that suitable areas for parks, schools, and other public facilities be set aside, improved, and/or dedicated for public use. When the BCC requires such a set aside for one or more public facilities, the set aside shall be subject to the same provisions of the LDC as are applicable to public facility dedications required as a condition for PUD rezoning. Compliance Analysis: The need for any such public facilities will be determined as part of the SRA Designation review process. Policy 4.15.3: Applicants for SRA designation shall coordinate with Collier County School Board staff to allow planning to occur to accommodate any impacts to the public schools as a result of the SRA. As a part of the SRA application, the following information shall be provided: Page 23 of 30 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\3rd Resubmittal\Longwater SRA Narrative (rev 8-10-2020).docx 1. Number of residential units by type; 2. An estimate of the number of school -aged children for each type of school impacted (elementary, middle, high school); and 3. The potential for locating a public educational facility or facilities within the SRA, and the size of any sites that may be dedicated, or otherwise made available for a public educational facility. Compliance Analysis: These matters are addressed as part of the SRA review process and may, as agreed to, be included in the Landowner Contribution Agreement. Policy 4.16: A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or such infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand. The level of infrastructure provided will depend on the form of SRA development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC requirements. The capacity of infrastructure necessary to serve the SRA at buildout must be demonstrated during the SRA designation process. Infrastructure to be analyzed includes transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, and solid waste. Transportation infrastructure is discussed in Policy 4.14. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities are required in Towns, Villages, and those CRDs exceeding one hundred (100) acres in size, and may be required in CRI)s that are one hundred (100) acres or less in size, depending upon the permitted uses approved within the CRD. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities shall be constructed, owned, operated and maintained by a private utility service, the developer, a Community Development District, the Immokalee Water Sewer Service District, Collier County, or other governmental entity. Innovative alternative water and wastewater treatment systems such as decentralized community treatment systems shall not be prohibited by this Policy provided that they meet all applicable regulatory criteria. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems, limited to a maximum of 100 acres of any Town, Village or CRD of 100 acres are permitted on an interim basis until services from a centralized/decentralized community system are available. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems are permitted in Hamlets d may be permitted in CRDs of 100 acres or less in si anze. Compliance Analysis:. These matters are addressed as part of the SRA review process and as necessary, will be addressed an interlocal agreement between the Big Cypress Stewardship District and the Collier County Water -Sewer District. Policy 4.17: The BCC will review and approve SRA designation applications in accordance with the provisions of Policy 1.1.2 of the Capital Improvement Element of the GMP for Category A public facilities. Final local development orders will be approved within a SRA designated by the BCC in accordance with the Concurrency Management System of the GMP and LDC in effect at the time of final local development order approval. Compliance Analysis: The necessary supporting information to evaluate the impacts on Category A public facilities is provided with application. Page 24 of 30 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\3rd Resubrnittal\Longwater SRA NaiY•ative (rev 8-10-2020).docx Policy 4,18: The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year based on a public facilities impact assessment, as identified in LDC 4.08.07.K. The BCC may grant exceptions to this Policy to accommodate affordable workforce housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the assessment shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards. Compliance Analysis: The Longwater Village Economic Analysis demonstrates Fiscal Neutrality. Policy 4.19: Eight (8) credits shall be required. for each acre of land included in a SRA, except for open space in excess of the required thirty-five percent as described in Policy 4.10 or for land that is designated for a public benefit use described in Policy 4.19. In order to promote compact, mixed use development and provide the necessary support facilities and services to residents of rural areas, the SRA designation entitles a full range of uses, accessory uses and associated uses that provide a mix of services to and are supportive to the residential population of a SRA, as provided for in Policies 4.7, 4.15 and Attachment C. Such uses shall be identified, located and quantified in the SRA master plan. Compliance Analysis: These uses are located and quantified in the SRA master plan. Policy 4.20: The acreage of a public benefit use shall not count toward the maximum acreage limits described in Policy 4.1. For the purpose of this Policy, public benefit uses include. public schools (preK42) and public or private post secondary institutions, including ancillary uses; community parks exceeding the iimmum acreage requirements of Attachment C, municipal golf courses; regional parks; and governmental facilities excluding essential services as defined in the LDC. The location of public schools shall be coordinated with the Collier County School Board, based on the interlocal agreement, 163.3177 F.S. and in a manner consistent with 235.193 F.S. Schools and related ancillary uses shall be encouraged to locate in or proximate to Towns, Villages, and Hamlets subject to applicable zoning and permitting requirements. Compliance Analysis: Longwater Village SRA complies with this Policy. We have coordinated with the Collier County School District. There is a draft purchase agreement for school sites, which will be finalized and executed prior to final BCC hearing for this SRA. Policy 4.21: Lands within the ACSC that meet all SRA criteria shall also be restricted such that credits used to entitle a SRA in the ACSC must be generated exclusively from SSAs within the ACSC. Further, the only form of SRA allowed in the ACSC east of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be Hamlets and CRDs of 100 acres or less and the only form of SRA allowed in the ACSC west of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be Villages and CRDs of not more than 300 acres and Hamlets. Provided, however, that two Villages or CRDs of not more than 500 acres each, exclusive of any lakes created prior to the effective date of this amendment as a result of mining operations, Page 25 of 30 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\3rd ResubmittaliLongwater SRA NaiY•ative (rev 8-10-2020).docx shall be allowed in areas that have a frontage on State Road 29 and that, as of the effective date of these amendments, had been predominantly cleared as a result of Ag Group I or Earth Mining or Processing Uses. This Policy is intended to assure that the RLSA Overlay is not used to increase the development potential within the ACSC but instead is used to promote a more compact form of development as an alternative to the Baseline Standards already allowed within the ACSC. No policy of the RLSA Overlay shall take precedence over the Big Cypress ACSC regulations and all regulations therein shall apply. Compliance Analysis: No Analysis specific to Longwater SRA required. Group 5 —Policies that protect water quality and quantity and the maintaining of the natural water regime and protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats on land that is not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area program. Policy 5.1: To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime in areas mapped as FSAs on the Overlay Map prior to the time that they are designated as SSAs under the Stewardship Credit Program. Residential Uses, General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses (layers 14) as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in FSAs. Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, except those necessary to serve permitted uses or for public safety, shall only be allowed in FSAs with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less. Where practicable, directional -drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil or gas extraction in FSAs in order to minimize impacts to native habitats. Asphaltic and concrete batch making plants shall be prohibited in areas mapped as HSAs. The opportunity to voluntarily participate in the Stewardship Credit Program, as well as the right to sell conservation easements or a free or lesser interest in the land, shall constitute compensation for the loss of these rights. Compliance Analysis: No Analysis specific to Longwater SRA required. Policy 5.2: To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime and to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats in areas mapped as FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs on the Overlay Map that are within the ACSC, all ACSC regulatory standards shall apply, including those that strictly limit non-agricultural clearing. Compliance Analysis: Na Analysis specific to Longwater SRA required. Policy 5.3: To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime and to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats in areas mapped as FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs on the Overlay Map that are not within the ACSC, if a property owner proposes to utilize such land for a non-agricultural purpose under the Baseline Standards referenced in Policy 1.5 and does not elect to use the Overlay, the following regulations are applicable, shall be incorporated into the LDC, and shall supersede any comparable existing County regulations that would otherwise apply. These regulations shall only apply to non-agricultural use of land prior to its inclusion in the Overlay system: 1. Site clearing and alteration shall be limited to 20% of the property and nonpermeable surfaces shall not exceed 50% of any such area. Page 26 of 30 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\3rd Resubmittal\Longwater SRA Narrative (rev 8-10-2020).docx 2. Except for roads and lakes, any nonpermeable surface greater than one acre shall provide for release of surface water runoff, collected or uncollected, in a manner approximating the natural surface water flow regime of the surrounding area. 3. Revegetation and landscaping of cleared areas shall be accomplished with predominantly native species and planting of undesirable exotic species shall be prohibited. 4. An Environmental Impact Statement shall be prepared by the applicant and reviewed by Collier County in accordance with County regulations. 5. Roads shall be designed to allow the passage of surface water flows through the use of equalizer pipes, interceptor spreader systems or performance equivalent structures. Compliance Analysis: This Policy does not apply to the proposed Longwater SRA. Policy 5.4: Collier County will coordinate with appropriate State and Federal agencies concerning the provision of wildlife crossings at locations determined to be appropriate. Compliance Analysis: Not applicable to Longwater SRA (this is an obligation applicable to Collier County). Collier County LDC (related to SRA Designation): The LDC (Section 4.08.07) states: "SRA designation is intended to encourage and facilitate uses that enable economic prosperity and diversification of the economic base of the RLSA District, and encourage development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques and facilitates a compact form of development...: 4.08.07 includes the following innovative planning techniques for various type of SRA developments, including Villages, through requirements, allowances, and incentives: Suitability Criteria. The following suitability criteria are established to ensure cnncistencv with the Goals_ Obiectives_ and Policies of the RLSA Overlay. (Underline added for emphasis.] a. An SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development b. Residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within an SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. c. Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on land that receives a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2, regardless of the size of the land or parcel. d. Lands or parcels that are greater than one acre and have an Index Value greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state. Page 27 of 30 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\3rd Resubmittal\Longwater SRA Narrative (rev 8-10-2020).docx e. Open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, Village, or those CRDs exceeding 100 acres. Gross acreage includes only that area of development within the SRA that requires the consumption of Stewardship Credits. f. As an incentive to encourage open space, open space on lands within an SRA located outside of the ACSC that exceeds the required thirty-five percent retained open space shall not be required to consume Stewardship Credits. g. An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in Section 4.08.07.J.6. An SRA may be contiguous to or encompass a WRA. h. The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. Longwater Village complies with all the above suitability criteria. A.2. SRAs in the Area of Critical States Concern (ACSC) are limited. to Hamlet's and CRDs. Longwater Village is not located within the ACSC. B. Establishment and Transfer of Credits Longwater Village has provided evidence of having sufficient number of Credits to entitle the SRA, consistent with the County's requirements. C. Forms of SRA developments. 2. Villages Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the village. Villages shall be not less than 100 acres or more than 1,000 acres. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed -use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages shall include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Section 4.080070 J.1. Longwater Village complies with the above (and with all other specific requirements and standards in the LDC as they relate to a Village). As to requested deviations from the LDC standards, those that remain in the SRA document have been amended to comply with staff comments. Page 28 of 30 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\3rd Resubuiittal\I,ongwater SRA Narrative (rev 8-10-2020).docx Conclusion: Adherence to the applicable LDC requirements and limitations ensures compliance with the Group 4 Policies in the GMP and ensures that an SRA utilizes creative and innovative land use planning techniques. These creative and innovative land use planning techniques are embedded within the RLSA program. Accordingly, it is our position that an application for SRA designation which demonstrates compliance with the requirements in the LDC established for SRA designation, both generally and specifically as they relate to a particular form of SRA, must then be deemed to be consistent with the GMP. The LDC requirements implement the GMP Goals, Objectives, and Policies. The LDC requirements are highly detailed and specific in terms of requirements for each form of SRA. In addition to meeting or exceeding the requirements set fo�th in the LDC for the Village form of SRA, Longwater Village SRA incorporates a number of innovative elements, including: • Providing interconnection between Longwater and Rivergrass SRAs; • A design that provides multi -modal interconnectivity throughout the Village, including sidewalks, pathways, bike lanes; • Including pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to the spine road in multiple locations, and designing the spine road (see cross-section below) with a 10' multi -use path on one side and a 6' sidewalk on the other side, and 4' on -street bike lands on both sides. The spine road is designed to be multi -functional, to be utilized by motorists, but also by cyclists and pedestrians (in a liner parklike fashion); 1250' FLOW* 33.d' 33.G i � dFs 4.5 4b Q4.QF. 20%2Eh4.0% Zq°k 4 t Y } WATER MAIN 14A't �' 5A' ti4 14.St 17.5 iGA' MAIN SPINE ROAD 125' R.O.W. DIVIDED 2 LANE DESIGN }} *THESE DIMENSIONS MAY VARY TO ENABLE MEANDERING OF PATHS 3 WALKWAYS AND/OR INCREASE I DECREASE MEDIAN WIDTH FORCE MAIN IRRIGATION MAIN ** MAY SUBSTITUTE (2)A V TRAVEL LANES TO CREATE 4 LANE DIVIDED SECTION. • Utilizing the RLSA Special District provisions to allow for good and services, at a neighborhood scale, in proximity to Oil Well Road; • The Village Center is accessible to residents in the surrounding area, which will effectively reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled by providing access closer to Neighborhood Goods and Services; • Reduced Density along neighborhood edge — all multi -family will be within 1/2 mile of Village Center boundary; • Providing neighborhood parks (exceeding the LDC required minimum amount) and miles of pedestrian friendly sidewalks, boardwalks, and pathways, Page 29 of 30 H:\2019\2419050\SRA\3rd Resubmittal\Lougwater SRA Narrative (rev 8-10-2020).docx • Providing 51% open space, exceeding the required 3570 minimum by 16% (162 acres); • Utilizing a perimeter water buffer to discourage wildlife from entering residential areas; • Providing education/information for residents regarding living with wildlife and the potential for prescribed burns for conservation land management; and • Reduced Water Use, The Growth Management Plan provides the following Goal and Objective for the RLSA: Goal: To address the long-term needs of residents and property owners within the Immol�alee Area Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment by protecting agricultural activities, preventing the premature conversion of agricultural land to non- agricultural uses, directing incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat, enabling the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations, discouraging urban sprawl, and encouragin development that implements creative land use planningtques. [Underline added for emphasis.] Objective: Create an incentive -based land use overlay system, herein referred to as the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, based on the principles of rural land stewardship as defined in Chapter 163.3177(11), F.S. The Policies that 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 ?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. [Underline added for emphasis.] LDC Section 4.08.07A.1. states that the Suitability Criteria are "established to ensure consistency with the Goals, Objectives, and Polices of the RLSA Overlay". Compliance with the very detailed and specific requirements contained in the LDC, both generally as they apply to an SRA and specifically as they apply to a particular form of SRA, ensures consistency with the GMP Goals, Objectives, and Polices of the RLSA Overlay, Page 30 of 30 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\3rd Resubmittal\Lor�gwater SRA Narrative (rev 8-10-2020).docx LONGWATrift VILLAGE SRA DEVIATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS REVISED 641 2020 7.1. Neighborhood General Standards: Note: LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii requires that Neighborhood General design standards in a Village be the same as those required in a Town for a Neighborhood General Context Zone. Therefore, the following deviations are requested from Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii. a) through i) on the basis of how such standards apply to Neighborhood Center in a Village. 1) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.f)iv), "Non-residential uses," which states "the maximum square footage per [non-residential] use shall be 3,000 square feet and per location shall be 15,000 square feet," to instead allow the Amenity Center sites and related uses to be a maximum of 30,000 square feet each. Justification: Community Centers, will provide multiple amenities and uses for Village residents (and guests). This effectively reduces external trips. This also requires flexibility in size, in order to be sufficient to meet market demands. Note: This LDC Provision (and thus this deviation request) is unique to the RLSA Overlay. 2) A Deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07J.d.iii.e)ii), which states that in the case of "Multi -Family residential," "side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet and rear yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet for the primary structure..." to instead allow for a side yard setback of 0 or 5 feet and a rear yard setback of 15 feet for zero lot line and townhome development, as set forth in Table 1: Neighborhood General - Required Minimum Yards and Maximum Building Height. Justification: The RLSA encourages a diversity of housing types. Allowing for Townhome and Villa type development in the Neighborhood General Context Zone promotes such diversity. To build such units effectively and efficiently they must be consistent with design used in other similar developments where the market has responded favorably. There are many approved PUDs that allow for such setbacks for villas and townhomes. We have maintained the required minimum 10 foot side and 20 foot rear yard setbacks for traditional multifamily product and this deviation is limited to the Villa Townhome product. Note: This is a deviation that has routinely been granted for projects in the Urban area, when requested. 7.2 Transportation Standards 1) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.1.b(6), "Figures 5, b, and 7, Local Street Neighborhood General," which requires a 6-foot-wide planting area between the travel lane and the sidewalk, to instead allow for a 546ot-wide planting area in the same location for local roads within the project in Neighborhood General. In such cases, H:\2019\2019050\sRA\2nd Resubmittal\Longwater sRA Deviations &Justifications (6-1-2020).docx Page 1 of 4 either a root barrier or structural soil shall be utilize(J. If the option of structural soil is utilized, a minimum of 2 c.f. of structural soil per square feet of mature tree crown projection shall be provided. Justification: This IS a minimal reduction and is required to ensure the necessary (LDC required) 23 feet, measured from the back of the sidewalk to the garage, to aHow room to park a vehicle on the driveway without parking over the sidewalk. See Local Street Cross Section below. The substantive deviations from the LDC cross-section for a local road in a village are (1) the planting area between the sidewalk and travel lane is 5 feet verses 6 feet and the width of the travel lane is (11 verses 10 feet). Note: This local street cross section is unique to the RLSA - SRA Village. � J MIN.1 PLANTING 10' rl a (t (.:! r * h = —rl PLANTING (MIN.) TRAVELEL LAN! 2.0' AREA SIDEWALK III TREES REQUIRE ROOT /\\\` •'�\\/• i ," \\ /\\ ..\\/� 1 BARRIER PROTECTION .\ :/ \ /I �/ POTABLE WATER OR d.D' (IAIN.) I 3.0' (MIN.) IRRIGATION MAIN CRAV TY SEWER 00'T3.04IMIN.) * RDPE FORCE MAIN CURB b CUTTER TYPICAL BOTH SIDES (TYPE A MATERIAL MAY VARY) SRA LOCAL STREET R.O.W. SECTION *LOCATION OF FORCE MAIN WITHIN ROADWAY AND 7'eETBACR NI:A FROM R.O.bY. LINE APPROVED AS UTILITY DEVUTION ON ttIHDa� ®O1+IN3020 BY PUBIIC UTILITIES I.w:' i POTABLE WATER OP IRRIGATION MAIN - iRl fl�tRITA!itANf fiW iYf (A) IYP. LOCLL f )PfFI CNOSf ftclrtlN 2) A deviation from LDC Section 4.0$.07.J.3.d.ii.q), which requires that the amount of required parking in the Village Center "be demonstrated through a shared parking analysis submitted with an SRA designation application..." and be "determined utilizing the modal splits and parking demands for various uses recognized by ITE, ULI or other sources or studies..." to instead allow the parking demand analysis to be submitted at the time of initial Site Development Plan (SDP) or, at the discretion of the County Manager or designee, at the time of a subsequent SDP or SDP Amendment, in order to allow for a more comprehensive parking demand analysis based upon the mix of uses at the time of the initial SDP or subsequent SDP or SDP Amendment. Justification: Requiring this parking demand analysis at the time of SRA application makes no sense as the type and mix of uses in the Village Center is undetermined at the time of SRA application. This analysis should be conducted at the time of initial (or possibly subsequent) SDP for non-residential uses in the Village Center, H:\2019\2019050\SRA\2nd Resubmittal\Longwater SRA Deviations &Justifications (6-I-2020).docx Page 2 of 4 7.3 Sign Standards 1) A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.0215.5.a, "On -premises directional signs within residential districts," which requires on -premise directional signs to be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb, to instead allow a minimum setback of 5 feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb, limited to signs internal to the SRA only. This excludes signage along County owned roadways. Justification: This deviation will allow more flexibility for directional signage internal to the project. A unified design theme will be utilized for all signage throughout the community. All roads and drives will be privately owned and maintained. This deviation is typical of master -planned residential developments in Collier County Note: This deviation is from a requirement that applies throughout the County (per the Section 5.06.00 (Signs Regulations). Note that the deviation does not apply to such signs located along County Roads. 7.4 Landscape Standards 1) A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.C., Buffer Requirements, "Types of buffers," Table 2.4 Information, Footnote (3) which requires "Buffer areas between commercial outparcels located within a shopping center, Business Park, or similar commercial development may have a shared buffer 15 feet wide with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet", to instead allow a shared buffer 10 feet wide with each abutting property contributing 5 feet. Justification: The combined 10-foot shared buffer will provide for sufficient separation and "breaking up" of parking areas within the Village Center. Note: This deviation is from a requirement that applies throughout the County and similar deviations have been granted. 7.5 Other Deviations 1) A deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04.G, "Parking Space Requirements," which requires 1 parking. space per 100 square feet for recreation facilities (indoor) sports, exercise, fitness, aerobics, or health clubs to instead allow for parking for the Amenity Center sites to be calculated at 1 space per 200 square feet of indoor square footage, excluding kitchen or storage space. Justification: The project will have a complete system of interconnected sidewalks, pathways, and bike lanes throughout, allowing residents to travel to the amenity center without using a car. Additionally, the centrally located Amenity Centers (both north and south) are restricted for use by only Village residents and guests and are not open to the general public. The l space per 100 square feet for these "community" amenity centers is excessive. Note: This deviation is from a requirement that applies throughout the County and similar deviations have been granted. H:\2019\2019050\sRA\2nd Resubmittal\Longwater sRA Deviations &Justifications (6-1-2020).docx Page 3 of 4 2) A deviation from LDC Section 3.05.10.A.2. — "Location Criteria," which requires that "LSPA [littoral shelf planting areas] shall be concentrated in one location of the lake(s), preferably adjacent to a preserve area," to instead allow for required littoral shelf planting areas to be aggregated in certain specific development lakes, including the development lake and WRA system that runs along the eastern perimeter of the SRA. Justification: These areas will be designed to create, enhance or restore wading bird/waterfowl habitat and foraging areas. They will be designed to recreate wetland function, maximize its habitat value and minimize maintenance efforts. They will enhance survivability of the littoral area plant species, as there is a lower survivability rate in littoral planting areas along larger lakes subject to more variable water levels and wind and wave action, which negatively affects these littoral planting areas. Note: This deviation is from a requirement that applies throughout the County. 3) A Deviation from LDC Section 4.03.08.C, "Potable Water System," which states "separate potable water and reuse waterlines... shall be provided ... by the applicant at no cost to Collier County for all subdivisions and developments" and "Reuse water lines, pumps, and other appurtenances will not be maintained by Collier County," to instead allow for such facilities and/or appurtenances to be conveyed to and maintained by Collier County. Justification: This Deviation was requested to be included in the SRA by Collier County Utilities in order to allow flexibility in terms of the provision and/or maintenance of such facilities and/or appurtenances (i.e., the provision and/or maintenance by Collier County). The Deviation is supported by Utilities staff. H:\2019\2019050\sRA\2nd Resubmittal\Longwater sRA Deviations &Justifications (6-1-2020).docx Page 4 of 4 LONGWATER SRA PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT I Revised January 8, 2021 Solid Waste A solid waste assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as pant of an SRA Designation Application package. The assessment shall identify the means and methods for handling, transporting and disposal of all solid waste generated including but not limited to the collection, handling and disposal of recyclables and horticultural waste products. The applicant shall identify the location and remaining disposal capacity available at the disposal site. Collier County's contractor hauler, Waste Management Inc. of Florida, will collect solid waste generated within Longwater. Recycled materials will be collected from curbside recycling containers through contract haulers. Residential recyclables and horticultural waste will be collected at the curb on a weekly basis. Construction debris will be collected and processed by a local business specializing in the recycling of construction products. Commercial and institutional facilities will utilize dumpster containers for the storage of garbage and rubbish. Recycling containers will be used to store recyclables in the commercial and institutional areas. Solid waste collected within Longwater will be hauled to the Immokalee Solid Waste Transfer Station and from there transported to Waste Management's Okeechobee Landfill. According to Waste Management the Okeechobee Landfill has adequate capacity for the next 25 years. TIF for any reason it is necessary, the Collier County Naples landfill is available and according to the Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report, there is also capacity at this facility. Stormwater Management A stormwater management impact assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as a part of an SRA Designution Application Package. The stormwater management impact assessment shall, at a minimum, provide the following information$ a. An exhibit showing the boundary of the proposed SRA including the following information: (1) The locution of any WRA delineated within the SRA; No WRA areas are included within the village SRA area. (2) A generalized representation of the existing stoi'•mwater .flow patterns across the site including the locations) of discharge from the site to the downstream receiving waters. Page 1 of 7 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 1-8-2021 -Longwater DPFG.docx The project's stormwater management system has received a Conceptual Approval permit from the SFWMD (#11-03949-P). The criteria used in the preparation of this plan was based on the predevelopment agricultural stormwater management system currently in place. Stormwater discharges from the lands in question are equal or less pre versus post on both a peals rate and total volume perspective. As such, the discharges mimic that of undeveloped lands. Therefore, in the event of a change to the agreement between Collier County and the Big Cypress Basin concerning the lands to the south of I-75, no impact on any downstream system above and beyond that of undeveloped land would be realized and thus there is no impact on County stormwater facilities caused by the development of this property above and beyond undeveloped land. Collier County currently maintains no onsite stormwater infrastructure and will not in the future. (3) The land uses of adjoining properties and, if applicable, the locations of stormwater discharge into the site of the proposed SRA from the adjoining properties. No adjacent properties drain through this site. b. A narrative component to the report including the following information: (1) The name of the receiving water or, if applicable, FSA or WRA to which the stormwater discharge from the site will ultimately outfall; The receiving water of the stormwater discharges from Longwater is the existing agricultural water management system alca Water Retention Area (WRA), which ultimately discharges to the Merrit Canal via Camp Keais Strand. (2) The peak allowable discharge rate (in cfs/acre) allowed for the SRA per Collier County Ordinance 90-10 or its successor regulation; The peak allowable discharge rate in Collier County applicable to this project based on ord. 90-10 is 0.15 cfs/acre. The proposed surface water management system will be based on the permitted agricultural system currently in place and operational. The peak discharge rate of 0.03 cfs/ac will be used to match that of the agricultural system in an effort to maintain the hydrological regime that has existed for many years on this site. The evaluation of offsite discharge rate shall be made at the outfalls of the agricultural system in accordance with the Conceptual Approval permit (11- 03949-P) issued by SFWMD for this and its surrounding applicant owned property. (3) If applicable, a description of the provisions to be made to accept stormwater flows from surrounding properties into, around, or through the constructed surface water management system of the proposed development; The flowways within this project are natural wetland systems. The capacity that exists prior to development will exist after development and will not be increased nor decreased. No surrounding properties currently flow through the SRA area of this project. The same predevelopment drainage basin boundaries will be maintained by the proposed design. Page 2 of 7 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 1-8-2021 - Longwater DPFG.docx (4) The types of stormwater detention areas to be constructed as part of the surface water management system of the proposed development and water quality treatment to be provided prior to discharge of the runoff from the site; and stormwater water quality treatment within this SRA will be predominantly accomplished by wet detention (lakes) located within the SRA and overlapping into the WRA areas as permitted by SFWMD. Commercial areas will also utilize dry detention pretreatment areas in accordance with SFWMD requirements. Discharges from the SRA water management system to natural WRA areas will occur only after water quality volumes have been achieved and will be by permitted control structures and facilities. Initial phases of development may pump stormwater after treatment consistent with the pre -development drainage of the land. The provided water quality treatment volume of this SRA will be in accordance with the approved SFWMD ERP, inclusive of an additional 50% of water quality to be provided in excess of the calculated base water quality volume for compliance with the interim watershed management plan. Water quantity treatment will occur in both the SRA sited lake system and the WRA areas in concert. (S) If a WRA has been incorporated into the stormwater management syste»� of an SRA, the report shall demonstrate compliance with provisions of Section 4.08, 04A.4.b. Several alterations to the WRA areas adjacent to the Village were proposed and approved by SFWMD with the Conceptual Approval Permit. Stormwater management/buffer lakes and their associated containment berms have been permitted in select locations in the existing WRA's. These modifications were confined to areas of the WRA that exhibited heavy exotic infestation and had little to no habitat function. All of these alterations have mitigation identified in the permit which will be made upon implementation of the impact. The water management concept for Longwater involves the use of the existing agricultural water management system. The proposed system design will use permitted control elevations, discharge rates and discharge locations. The plan as proposed has received a Conceptual Approval Permit issued by SFWMD. All discharges to the WRA (wetland) areas from development will be made only after water quality volumes have been provided in the development area. Areas of the WRA will be excavated to form parts of the internal buffer lake system. Areas to be excavated are low quality exotic impacted areas and will be mitigated for through the SFWMD process. The only fill areas within WRA's will be berms associated with the surface water management system. which will be mitigated through the SFWMD process. No impacts are proposed to Camp Keais Strand by this project. Potable Water A potable water assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SRA Designation Application package. The assessment shall illustrate how the applicant will conform to either Florida Administrative Code for private and limited use water systems, or for Public Water Systems. In addition to the standard requi strements of the analyses required above, the potable water assessment shall specifically consider, to the extent applicable, the disposal of waste products, if any, generated Page 3 of 7 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 1-8-2021 -Longwater DPFG.docx by the proposed treatment process. The applicant shall identify the sources of water proposed for potable water supply. The following table is a calculation %J the Longwater potable water demands and wastewater generation with all factors and assumptions, Longwater Water and Wastewater Demands Prastewater Potable Water Wastewater to water conversion = 1.5 Residential 21600 DU a 200 gpd = 520,000 gpd 25600 DU a 300 gpd = 780,000 gpd Commercial 803000 sf F aw 0.15 gpd = 125000 god 80,000 sf a 0.23 gpd = 18,000 god Civic 26,000 sf (� 0.15 d = 3,900 d 26,000 sf a 0.23 d = 5,850 d 535,900 gpd 803,850 gpd 535,900 gpd = 0.54 m d ADF 803,850 gpd = 0.80 m d ADF M3D Factor = L5 M3D Factor = 1.3 M3D Flow = 0.80 m d M3D Flow = 1.05 m d Potable water services for the Longwater project will be provided by the Collier County Water and Sewer District from existing and planned facilities per a Memorandum of Understanding that outlines commitments from Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC and the Big Cypress Stewardship District. The estimated potable water demand for residential development at the project is based on 300 gpd per D.U. (residential), and 2,600 residences. Potable water demand for commercial development is based on 23 gpd per 100 feet square or 0.23 gpd/sf. Using these assumptions, potable water demand for the Longwater development at buildout is projected to be approximately 0.8 MGD average daily demand and 1.05 MGD maximum 3-day demand. Irrigation Water The Longwater project site has a long history of permitted agricultural withdrawals from the Water Table and Lower Tamiami Aquifers that has not resulted in adverse impacts to natural environments. At build -out, the Longwater project will result in converting approximately 1,000 acres of agricultural land into a residential development. The agricultural water allocations currently permitted and used within the Longwater project area total approximately 3.37 MGD on an annual average basis and approximately 8.86 MGD on a maximum monthly basis. The transition of agricultural use to residential/commercial use will result in approximately 307 acres of landscaping and turf within the Longwater development requiring irrigation. The project irrigation demand for this amount of irrigated acreage as determined using the SFWMD Blaney- Criddle method are: Page 4 of 7 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 1-8-2021 -Longwater DPFG.doca • 1.18 MGD on an annual average basis • 1.71 MGD on a maximum monthly basis The proposed change in land use is anticipated to result in a significant net reduction of irrigation water usage at the site. The Longwater project will obtain a water use permit from the SFWMD which will allow withdrawal from surface water and ground water sources onsite to meet irrigation demands. However, the developer is in discussions with the County to secure 100% of the project's irrigation demands from reclaimed water. In addition, the developer is working with the County to develop additional water resources onsite to meet public water supply needs throughout the County service area. If the County provides reclaimed water to meet all the project's irrigation water demands, the SFWMD permit will only be used for 30-day back up supply in the event that there is a disruption in reclaimed water supply. The onsite irrigation water supply system will include stormwater lakes and wells. The lake system will be used to supply irrigation water for the project and wells will be utilized to partially or fully resupply the withdrawal lakes. The proposed source aquifer for the wells is the Lower Tamiami Aquifer which is currently permitted to meet the existing agricultural water demands on the project site. The lake withdrawals will provide an efficient and low impact method for effectively harvesting available stormwater supplies. Lake volume storage in the lake system as well as re -supply by groundwater from the recharge wells will minimize potential impacts to surface and groundwater levels. The developer would be responsible for all costs associated with the permitting, construction, and maintenance of the irrigation system. Wastewater A wastewater assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SIN Designation Application package. The assessment shall illustrate how the applicant will conform to either Standards for Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems, contained in Florida Administrative Code for systems having a capacity not exceeding 10,000 gallons per day or for wastewater treatment systems having a capacity greater than 10,000 gallons per day. In addition to the standard requirements of the analyses required above, the wastewater assessment shall specifically consider, to the extent applicable, the disposal of waste products generated by the proposed treatment process. Wastewater services for the Longwater project will be provided by the Collier County Water and Sewer District from existing and planned facilities per a Memorandum of Understanding that outlines commitments from Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC and the Big Cypress Stewardship District. Anticipated wastewater generated by the development is based on a per capita daily volume of 200 gpd per D.U. for 2,600 residences. Wastewater demand for commercial development is based on 15 gpd per 100 feet square or 0.15 gpd/sf. This results in build out wastewater flows of 0.54 MGD on an average daily basis and 0.8 MGD on a maximum 3-day basis. Page 5 of 7 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 1-8-2021 -Longwater DPFG.docx School Concurrency The projected enrollment of Longwater Village on the Collier County Public Schools is shown in the table below. The student generation rates in the 2015 School Impact Fee Update, the most recent data available, were used to calculate enrollment. Taa ( C�ri�io, Dupl ��., Si rr�.l e-Fa r�ri I F �,ttache� 1��7 �.11 121 Tota I SFD < 4,,IJ00 Sq Ft 1503 0.34 511 Total Residential 2�6� Source: Collier County School District, Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2019 According to the School District, there is existing or planned capacity within the next five years at the elementary, middle and high school levels for each village individually. However, the proposed Bellmar and Longwater Villages and the approved Rivergrass Village, collectively, result in the School District exceeding its estimated capacity. As a result, the SRA includes a condition that addresses school sites (whereby the developer will convey real property for future school sites sufficient to accommodate a high school, middle school and an elementary school in exchange for educational impact fee credits). At the time of site plan or plat, the development will be reviewed to ensure there is capacity either within the concurrency service area the development is located within or adjacent concurrency service areas. EMS and Fire According to EMS management, Longwater Village will be primarily served by a new EMS facility planned for the corner of Desoto Blvd./Golden Gate Blvd East. The County acquired the site in January 2020. The Greater Naples Fire Rescue District will co4ocate a fire facility at the site. EMS management anticipates the station will be placed in service in 2022, The cost of the new facility will be funded by the County's One -Cent Infrastructure surtax which was authorized in 2018. If additional EMS capacity is needed to serve Rivergrass SRA Village, and potentially Hyde Park SRA Village and Longwater SRA Village, EMS management anticipates leasing space for an additional vehicle at the new NCFR station planned for 22nd Avenue/Desoto Blvd N. Because NCFR is planning to maintain an apparatus at the new EMS station, the two entities may enter into a mutual cost -sharing arrangement. Longwater Village is located within the Big Corkscrew Island Service Delivery Area ("SDA") of the North Collier Fire & Rescue District ("Fire &Rescue District"). Based on discussions with Fire & Rescue District personnel, Longwater Village is within a mile of a planned fire facility which is already owned by the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District. Additionally, please see requested leaps depicting the subject site and existing North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District and Collier County EMS stations, which illustrates travel routes from Page 6 of 7 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 1-8-2021 -Longwater DPFG.docx those locations to the subject site. Response time data, requested by staff, has been provided by North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District, and is included with thi Ns Report. Transportation Impacts See attached the attached Traffic Analysis for transportation impacts. Page 7 of 7 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 1-8-2021 - Longwater DPFG.docx P6011COCK plannin9•en9ineerin9 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area Section 1-Impacts to Roadway Network -Road Segment Analysis Prepared for: Collier Enterprises 2550 North Goodlette Road, Suite 100 Naples, FL 34103 Phone: 2394344015 Collier County, Florida 8/4/2020 Prepared bv: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-56&9551 Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz Collier County Transportation Methodology Fee* — $500.00 Fee Collier County Transportation Review Fee* —Major Study — $1,500.00 Fee Notecollected at time of first submittal i ongwater Stewardship Receiving Area — "S — Section .1 — August 1020 Statement of Certification I certify that this Traffic Impact Statement has been prepared by me or under my immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Transportation Engineering. This item has been electronically signed and sealed by Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, PE, State of Florida license 47116, using a SHA-1 authentication code. Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed, and the SHA-1 authentication code must be verified on any electronic copies. Z: No 47116 '.01 * • * •'A' r S�•' STATE OF •� ` r O•.• 40 • T� O R \ O 4ie; ������ Digitally signed by Norman Trebilcock DN: c=US, st=Florida, 1=Naples, o=Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA, cn=Norman Trebilcock, email=ntrebilcock@trebil 00' Norman J. Trebilcock, Al P.E. FL Registration No. 47116 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Company Cert. of Auth. No. 27796 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA � = 12 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1— August 2020 Table of Contents ProjectDescription.......................................................................................................................................4 TripGeneration.............................................................................................................................................6 Trip Distribution and Assignment. 4 a 0 a a 4 a a 0 0 a I & a 8 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 a I # 9 2 & 0 a 0 6 4 0 4 0 4 0 a 4 0 # a a 0 a 4 1 9 a 0 0 a a a a 4 a a 0 0 & I a 0 0 a a a a a a 0 a a a a 6 0 0 a 0 0 a a 0 0 4 a 0 4 a a a a a 6 a a 064 00440 7 Background Traffic. a 0 a a 0 0 a 0 0 a a a * 4 a a 4 a 0 a a a a a a a a a & 0 0 a a I I & a a 6 a 6 & a a a a 0 a 0 a 4 6 a 0 0 4 0 a 0 0 4 a 6 a 4 4 * a a a 0 0 a a a * a 4 4 13 Existing and Future Roadway Network..... 60 a a of so a ate so a a 1 44 0 a a a 0 0 6 a a 1 4 0 a 4 0 # 9 1 0 a 4 a 6 0 * 0 a 4 4 a 4 0 & 0 a 6 * & a a 4 0 * 0 a a a 4 a a a 0 a 6 0 0 6 0 0 * A a 4 0 4 a a 0 a a a a a & cocoa 16 Additional Considerations.......................................................................................................................17 Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network -Link Analysis.......................................................................... 20 Roadway Network — Non -peak direction analysis. 4 0 a I a 0 a 0 6 4 0 a 6 d a a 4 0 0 4 a a a a a a a a 0 a a a 9 0 a a 0 a 4 23 Site Access — Access Management Considerations. 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 # 4 9 0 0 0 0 6 a 6 0 a a 6 a d 4 # 0 a 0 4 a a a a a a a a a 0 a & * 0 6 0 0 4 9 0 a & 9 0 a 9 0 0 a 0 a 0 4 0 4 4 0 a a 6 0 a a a 4 4 0 4 0 0 6 a a 025 Impacts to Agricultural Products Transport................................................................................................ 25 Improvement Analysis. 0 a a 9 4 a 0 a a & a a 4 6 0 0 * 0 0 a 0 0 4 * a 0 & 0 a 26 Mitigationof Impact................................................................................................................................... 26 Appendices Appendix A: Project Conceptual Site Plan................................................................................................. 27 Appendix Be Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting)................................................................. 29 Appendix Cc ITE Trip Generation Calculations........................................................................................... 38 Appendix D: Rural Lands West SRA —Traffic Memorandum June 26, 2018 (Excerpts) .............................55 Appendix E: Traffic Growth Rates — Historic Peak Hour, Peak Direction Volumes .................................... 61 Appendix F: Collier County 2019 AUIR Attachment F (Transportation Planning Database Table)............ 63 Appendix G: Collier County FY20 — FY24 Five Year Work Program/CIE..................................................... 68 Appendix H: Collier 2040 LRTP Table 6-1 and Table 6-2............................................................................ 71 Appendix I: Collier County 2019 AUIR —Attachment H.............................................................................76 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 13 LongwaterStewardship Receiving Area — H3 —Section 1 —August 2020 Proj ect Description The Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) is a proposed mixed use development in eastern Collier County located east of Desoto Boulevard and south of Oil Well Road (CR 858). The subject project is less than 1,000 acres in size. Refer to Figure 1—Project Location Map and Appendix A: Project Conceptual Site Plan. Figure 1—Project Location Map PROJECT LOCATION` Note' - Illustrated project boundaries are schematic only. For actual layout refer to the proposed master plan. ,.� [._al commit it ■ 139vdd liar O•A Napk4 • ■ Q • • u, 1 ♦ �■■ a■■ i • LONGWATER . � u ■ r1' V . ., tar v■ to r• to to tta to on to do 1 ' 1 ' unxa Vmdrrbllt 8aach Rd Exdnslon 1 ' a . t 1 , Google Map data ©2019 Google, INEGI 1 rni l - _�� The purpose of this report is to document the transportation impacts associated with the proposed development. The Traffic Impact Statement consists of two reports: - Section 1—Impacts to Roadway Network —Road Segment Analysis - Section 2 —Intersection Analyses An initial methodology meeting was held with the Collier County Transportation Planning staff on September 9, 2019 with minutes revised on September 26, 2019. A second methodology meeting took place on December 31, 2019 and the meeting minutes were revised on January 7, 2020 — refer to Appendix Be Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting). Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P �,, . ,- 14 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1 — August 2020 Trip Generation Consistent with the adopted Collier County Traffic Impact Study (TIS) GUldellnes and Procedures, traffic generated by a site shall be estimated using the latest ITE Trip Generation publication or other rates as requested and/or approved by the County. The software program OTISS (Online Traffic Impact Study Software, most recent version) is used to calculate the trip generation associated with this project. The ITE rates and equations are used for the trip generation calculations, as applicable. The ITE trip generation calculation worksheets and applicable land use descriptions are provided in Appendix C: ITE Project Trip Generation Calculations. The internal capture accounts for a reduction in external traffic because of the interaction between the multiple land uses in a site. In agreement with ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, the internal trip capture is estimated using the NCHRP (National Cooperative Highway Research Program) Report 684 (Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed -Use Developments) — NCHRP 8-51 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool. One of the ITE premises in estimating the internal capture traffic illustrates that the number of trips from a land use within a mixed -use development to another land use within the same development (an internal trip) is a function of the size of the "receiving" land use and the number of trips it attracts, as well as the size of the "originating" land use and the number of trips it sends. The number of trips between a particular pair of internal land uses is limited to the smaller of these two values (ITE procedure of balancing internal trips in a mixed -use development). As ITE internal capture data for the daily time period is not available, the daily internal capture is conservatively assumed identical with the ITE AM peak hour internal capture rate. The resulting internal capture rates for the weekday traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour are 3%, 3% and 8%, respectively. As illustrated in the Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures, the overall internal capture rate should be reasonable and should not exceed 20% %J the total project trips. Internal capture rates higher than 20% shall be adequately substantiated and approved by the County staff. The pass -by trips account for traffic that is already on the external roadway network and stops at the project on the way to a primary trip destination. It should be noted that the driveway volumes are not reduced as a result of the pass -by reduction, only the traffic added to the surrounding streets and intersections. As such, pass -by trips are not deducted for operational turn lane analysis (all external traffic is accounted for). Based on the information illustrated in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, pass -by capture rate for LUC 820 —Shopping Center is 34% for PM peak hour traffic. Per Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures, the pass -by capture for Shopping Centers (LUC 820) should not exceed 25% for the peak hour traffic and the daily capture rate should be assumed to be 10% lower than the peak hour capture rate. Consistent with a conservative approach, this analysis calculates pass -by trip percentages for LUC 820 — Shopping Center, as follows: AM/PM peak hour rates at 25% and the daily capture rates at 15%. Per FDOT's (Florida Department of Transportation) Site Impact Handbook (Section 2.4.4) the number of pass -by trips should not exceed 10% of the adjacent street traffic. The FDOT presents this factor as a measure of reasonableness and illustrates that it is a rule -of -thumb and not a statistically studied factor. Although the projected pass -by traffic exceeds the 10% criterion, this report considers the proposed pass- Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 6 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — T1S — Section a — August 2020 by capture reasonable due to the lack of commercial opportunities in the vicinity of project and potential future traffic growth at this location. The estimated IE weekday trip generation summary associated with the proposed build -out conditions is illustrated in Table 2. Table 2 Project Specific Trip Generation —Build-out Conditions —Average Weekday Volume Single Family Detache Multifamily Housing Office Park Shopping Center LZ External Traffic Pass�by Traffic Net External Tra ic Link Analys* In agreement with the Collier County TIS guidelines, significantly impacted roadways are identified based on the proposed project highest peak hour trip generation (net external traffic) and consistent with the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. Based on the information contained in Collier County 2019 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), the peak hour for the adjacent roadway network is PM peak hour. The estimated net increase in external trips by the proposed development at buildout condition is 2,078 PM peak hour two-way trips. Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip generation is based on the notion that people travel to or from a particular land use and that the amount and type of activity at the location uniquely determines the amount, type and mode of that travel. In technical terms, a trip has an origin and a destination. As such, the major factors to consider in estimating the orientation of the off -site development generated traffic include the distribution of potential trip origins and destinations within the proposed development's influence area and the relative efficiencies (in terms of travel times) on the various approach routes to the site. Drivers normally choose the fastest, not necessarily the most direct route, to and from a traffic generator. This is particularly true when drivers are very familiar with likely travel conditions (as project residents or employees commuting to the site every day would be) and when alternatives routes are available. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 7 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — TlS — Section 1— August 2020 At the level of traffic distribution, residential land uses are traffic generators. Non-residential land uses are considered trip attractors (trips to work, shopping centers, offices, school etc.). Peak hour traffic patterns for residential land uses reflect the dominance of the work trip purpose. In addition, residential land uses generate school, personal business and recreational trips. The commercial trip distribution reflects work related trips as well as travel generated by customers from neighboring residential communities. It is noted that there are 4 proposed mixed use communities in the close proximity to each other: Rivergrass Village, Longwater Village, Bellmar Village and Hyde Park Village. Based on the extensive shopping, employment and social recreation opportunities provided by these developments located in a relatively rural area, a shift in travel patterns in the area is expected to occur. More specifically, many of the longer distance trips being made by the residents of Golden Gate Estates, Ave Maria and other areas ofi eastern Collier County will now be satisfied within these developments. The proposed villages in the area are expected to increase traffic volumes due to the new traffic generators (residential land uses). However, due to the new traffic attractors such as civic, retail, office and recreational uses, it is anticipated that many of the external trips generated by Golden Gate Estates and Ave Maria will be absorbed within these projects. As such, it is projected that some segments within the influence area will experience a decrease in total traffic volumes. The balancing of land uses in eastern Collier County will balance trip distribution, reduce trip lengths and will shift the area of travel patterns. The net external traffic generated by the proposed project is assigned to the adjacent roadways using the knowledge of the area, engineering judgement and traffic patterns established within the latest methodology meeting. The trip assignment process establishes the directional project -related traffic volumes along the roadway segments within the study area. The site -generated trip distribution is shown in Table 3A and Table 3B and it is graphically depicted in Figure 2A and Figure 2B. The peak direction associated with the peak hour for the analyzed roadway segments is taken from the currently adopted Annual Update &Inventory Report (AUIR). Peak hour traffic direction associated with the future Vanderbilt Beach Road extension are illustrated consistent with the data provided in Appendix D: Rural Lands West SRA —Traffic Memorandum June 26, 2018 (Excerpts). Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P � g e I $ Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area —17S — Section 1 — August 2020 Table 3A Proposed Development — Traffic Distribution for r Peak NOur Roadway Link Oil Well Rd Collier County Link No. 121.2 Roadway Link Location Oil Well Grade Rd to Ave Maria Blvd Distribution of Project Traffic Com 20%, Res 20% PM Peak Hour Project VolumeM Enter WB — 252 Exit EB -164 Oil Well Rd 121.1 Project to Oil Well Grade Rd Com 20%; Res 20% WB — 252 EB —164 Oil Well Rd 121.1 DeSoto Blvd to Project Com 20%; Res 20% EB — 252 WB -164 Oil Well Rd 120.0 Everglades Blvd to DeSoto Blvd Com 25%; Res 30% EB — 371 WB — 238 Oil Well Rd 119.0 Immokalee Rd to Everglades Blvd Com 15%e, Res 25% EB - 300 WB —190 DeSoto Blvd 138.0 Oil Well Rd to Randal Blvd Com 10%; Res 10% SB —126 NB— 82 DeSoto Blvd 138.0 Randal Blvd to 18th Ave NE Com 20%; Res 20% SB— 252 NB —164 DeSoto Blvd 138.0 18th Ave NE to Golden Gate Blvd Com 20%, Res 20% NB — 252 SB —164 Everglades Blvd 136.0 Immokalee Rd to Oil Well Rd Com 5%; Res 5% SB — 63 NB — 41 Everglades Blvd 135.0 Oil Well Rd to Randall Blvd Com 5% NB— 8 SB— 7 Everglades Blvd 135.0 Randal Blvd to 18th Ave NE Com 5%, Res 5% SB — 63 NB— 41 Everglades Blvd 135.0 18th Ave NE to VBR Com 10%, Res 10% NB —126 SB— 82 Everglades Blvd 135.0 VBR to Golden Gate Blvd Com S% SB — 7 NB— 8 16=h St NE (2) N/A 18th Ave NE to VBR Res 5% NB — 56 SB — 33 Wilson Blvd 118.0 South of Immokalee Rd Com 5%; Res 5% NB- 63 SB — 41 Randall Blvd 133.0 DeSoto Blvd to Everglades Blvd Com 10%, Res 10% EB —126 WB — 82 Randall Blvd 132.0 Everglades Blvd to 81h St NE Com 5%, Res 15% EB —174 WB —108 Randall Blvd 132.0 8th St NE to Immokalee Rd Com 5%, Res 15% EB —174 WB —108 18th Ave NE (2) N/A Blvd to Everglades Blvd Com 20%; Res 20% EB — 252 WB —164 18th Ave NE (2) N/A FDeSoto Everglades Blvd to 16th St NE Com 5* Res 5% EB — 63 WB — 41 Vanderbilt Beach Road (VBR) (2) .N/A Everglades Blvd to 16th St NE Com 10%; Res 10% EB-126 WB — 82 VBR (2) N/A 16th St NE to 8th St NE Com 10%, Res 15% EB-182 WB —115 VBR (2) N/A 81h St NE to Wilson Blvd Com 10%, Res 15% EB-182 WB —115 VBR (2) N/A Wilson Blvd to Collier Blvd Com 5%; Res 20% EB— 230 WB — 142 VBR 112.0 Collier Blvd to Logan Blvd Res 10% EB-111 WB — 67 Note(s): (1) Peak hour, peak direction traffic volumes are underlined and bold to be used in Roadway Link Level of Service calculations; (2) Peak direction per Rural Lands West SRA—Traf#ic Memorandum dated June 26, 2018 — refer to Appendix D. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA �' � � e l 9 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — "S — Section 1— August 2020 Proposed Development —Traffic Distribution for PM Peak Hour Roadway Link Golden Gate Blvd Collier County Link No. 17.0 Roadway Link Location Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd Distribution s Project Traffic Res 10% PM Peak Hour Project Volume {s) Enter EB —111 Exit WB — 67 Golden Gate Blvd 123.0 Wilson Blvd to 16th St NE Corn 5%; Res 15% EB —174 WB —108 Golden Gate Blvd 123.1 16th St NE to Everglades Blvd Corn 10%; Res 15% EB —182 WB —115 Golden Gate Blvd 124.0 Everglades Blvd to DeSoto Blvd Com 15%; Res 20% EB - 245 WB -157 Immokalee Rd 46.0 North of Oil Well Rd Corn 5% WB— 7 EB— 8 Immokalee Rd 45.0 Oil Well Rd to Randall Blvd Corn 5%; Res 15% EB -174 WB —108 Immokalee Rd 45.0 Randall Blvd to Wilson Blvd Corn 5%; Res 25% EB — 285 WB —175 Immokalee Rd 44.0 Wilson Blvd to Collier Blvd Res 20% EB - 223 WB —134 Immokalee Rd 43.2 Collier Blvd to Logan Blvd Res 10% EB —111 WB — 67 Collier Blvd 30.1 Immokalee Rd to VBR Res 5% NB- 56 SB - 33 Collier Blvd 30.2 VBR to Golden Gate Blvd Res 5% NB— 56 SB — 33 Collier Blvd 31.1 Golden Gate Blvd to Pine Ridge Rd Res 10% NB -111 SB - 67 Pine Ridge Rd 125.0 Collier Blvd to Logan Blvd Res 5% EB — 56 WB — 33 Note(s): (1) Peak hour, peak direction traffic volumes are underlined and bold to be used in Roadway Link bevel of Service calculations. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page ) 10 LongwaterStewardship Receiving Area— H,3—Section 1—Augustzuzu Figure 2A — Project Distribution by Percentage 0 0 0 0 N N Ow U 0� 0 0 to O N M ULLJ � H nw W w wop a o� � O T N Ow U � O U H OW �7o WE C ® G E z of w a W b c K U i L m 1 m °' 1 -e 0 ul 0 S' u W 0 0 0 0 0 N O n N ,+ d C p,U C t5ry� Pale �11 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — "5 — Section 1 — August 2020 Figure 2B — Project Distribution by PM Peal% Hour �.�jh NtD Nfh ON W m m z En E�' r1� F—> m Co Z CO � m m > I y 9 W N M a L 1 m m 1 Z 0 HI H r mm 1 Z to L m m Z fn H N W } W 1 � �, 1 m � O L -, m t_ j W N ' Co � N m tto I CO W Z En � V i1 O m W O : Q j O U (2 2 U U) m o W y o V Cf) N � -0 O ly C U a)'0 O a)O @ N O O[� > O L Z E m F t p o U 1 c � � m N o mm z� H f� r tD � � m W N O t In N (j� m W 10 00 zti �j ImSD � tD r M � u Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P age � 12 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — "S — Section 1— August 2020 Background Traffic Average background traffic growth rates are estimated for the segments of the roadway network in the study area using the Collier County Transportation Planning Staff guidance of a minimum 2% growth rate, or the historical growth rate from peak hour peak direction volume (estimated from 2008 through 2019), whichever is greater. Traffic growth rate calculations and historic peak hour, peak direction traffic volumes are depicted in Appendix E. Another way to derive the background traffic is to use the 2019 AUIR volume plus the trip bank volume. The higher of the two determinations is to be used in the Roadway Link Level of Service analysis. Collier County 2019 AUIR Attachment F —Transportation Planning Database Table is provided in Appendix F. Table 4A and Table 4B illustrate the application of projected growth rates to generate the projected background (without project) peak hour peak direction traffic volume for the transportation planning horizon year 2030. Future 2030 background traffic volume (without project traffic) for the future Vanderbilt Beach Road extension is determined by interpolation using background traffic data provided for the years 2027 and 2034 as illustrated in Appendix D: Rural Lands West SRA — Traffic Memorandum June 26, 2018 (Excerpts). The peak hour peak direction traffic for the subject segments at 2030 traffic conditions without project are calculated as follow: - 16t" St NE -18t" Ave NE to VBR — SB — 335 + [(414-335)/7]x3 = 369 its Ave NE — Desoto Blvd to Everglades Blvd — EB — 34 + [(44-34)/7]x3 = 39 18t" Ave NE —Everglades Blvd to 16t" St NE — EB — 29 + [(42-29)/7]x3 = 35 VBR—Everglades Blvd to 16t" St NE (segment is not illustrated in Rural Lands West report) — EB- 80% volume depicted for VBR from 16t" St NE to 8t" St NE - 0.8 x 389 = 312 VBR -16t" St NE to 8t" St NE — EB — 347 + [(445 - 347)/7] x 3 = 389 VBR — 8t" St NE to Wilson Blvd— EB — 444 + [(593 - 444)/7] x 3 = 508 VBR — Wilson Blvd to Collier Blvd — EB — 723 + [(824 - 723)/7] x 3 = 767 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 113 Long water Stewardship Receiving Area - "S - Section 1- August 2020 Table 4A Background Traffic without Project (2019 - 2030) 2019 AUIR 2030 Pk Hr, Pk Dir 2030 Pk Hr, Pk cc Pk Hr, Pk Dir Traffic Background Dir Background Roadway AUIR Roadway Link Background Annual Growth Traffic Volume Trip Traffic Volume Link Link Location Traffic Growth Factor w/out Project Bank w/out Project ID # Volume Rate (%/yr)tll (trips/hr) (trips/hr) Trip Oil Well Grade Rd (trips/hr) Growth Factor (2) Bank(3) Oil Well Rd 121.2 390 4.00% 1.5395 601 152 542 to Ave Maria Blvd Project to Oil Well Oil Well Rd 121.1 390 4.00% 1.5395 601 152 542 Grade Rd Oil Well Rd 121.1 DeSoto Blvd to 390 4.00% 1.5395 601 152 542 Project Everglades Blvd to Oil Well Rd 120.0 390 IN% 1.2434 485 184 574 DeSoto Blvd Oil Well Rd 119.0 Immokalee Rd to 840 4.00% 1.5395 1,294 352 1,192 Everglades Blvd DeSoto Blvd 138.0 Oil Well Rd to 130 2.00% 1.2434 162 8 138 Randal Blvd DeSoto Blvd 138.0 Randal Blvd to 130 2.00% 1.2434 162 8 138 18" Ave NE DeSoto Blvd 138.0 18th Ave NE to 130 IN 1.2434 162 8 138 Golden Gate Blvd Immokalee Rd Everglades Blvd 136.0 490 2.12 1.2596 618 2 492 to Oil Well Rd Oil Well Rd to Everglades Blvd 135.0 410 2.00% 1.2434 510 51 461 Randall Blvd Randal Blvd to Everglades Blvd 135.0 th 410 2.00% 1.2434 510 51 461 18 Ave NE ve N E to 18t" Ave Everglades Blvd 135.0 ' 410 2.00% 1.2434 510 51 461 VBR to Golden Everglades Blvd 135.0 410 2.00% 1.2434 510 51 461 Gate Blvd 18t" Ave NE to 16th St NE (4) NSA N/A N/A N/A 369 N/A N/A VBR Wilson Blvd 118.0 South of 350 2.00% 1.2434 436 1 351 Immokalee Rd Randall Blvd 133.0 DeSoto Blvd to 652 IN% 1.2434 811 0 652 Everglades Blvd Everglades Blvd to Randall Blvd 132.0 810 IN% 1.2434 1,008 26 836 8t" St NE Randall Blvd 132.0 gtn St NE to 810 2.00% 1.2434 11008 26 836 Immokalee Rd Note(s): (1) Historical growth rate or 2%minimum - referto Appendix E. (2) Growth Factor= (1+Annual Growth Rate)11. 2030 Projected Volume= 2019 AUIR Volume x Growth Factor. (3) 2030 Projected Volume= 2019 AUIR Volume +Trip Bank; (4) Per traffic data illustrated in Rural Lands West SRA -Traffic Memorandum dated June 26, 2018, Attachment A-1-Appendix D. The projected 2030 Peak Hour -Peak Direction Background Traffic is the greater of the Growth Factor or Trip Bank calculation, which is underlined and bold as applicable. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 114 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — US — Section 1— August 2020 Background Traffic without Project (201.9 - 2030) 2019 AUIR 2030 Pk Hr, Pk Dir 2030 Pk Hr, Pk CC Pk Hr, Pk Dir Traffic Background Dir Background Annual Roadway AUIR Roadway Link Background Growth Traffic Volume Trip Traffic Volume Link Link Location Traffic Growth Factor w/out Project Bank w/out Project ID # Volume Rate (%/yr)t1I (trips/hr) (trips/hr) Trip (trips/hr) Growth Factor(2) Bankt3l 18t" Ave NE (4) N/A Desoto Blvd to - N/A N/A N/A 39 N/A N/A Everglades Blvd — 18t" Ave NE (4) N/A Everglades Blvd to N/A N/A N/A 35 N/A N/A glad St NE VBR (4I N/A Everglades Blvd to '16t" N/A N/A N/A 312 N/A N/A St VBR (4) N/A 16t" St NE to 8t" St NE N/A N/A N/A 389 N/A N/A VBR (4I N/A 8t" St NE to Wilson N/A N/A N/A 508 N/A N/A Blvd VBR (4) N/A Wilson Blvd to Collier N/A N/A N/A 767 N/A N/A Blvd Collier. Blvd to Logan VBR 112.0 11640 o 4.00/ 15395 2,525 204 11844 Blvd Golden Gate Collier Blvd to Wilson 17 0 11730 2.00% 1.2434 2,152 0 11730 Blvd Blvd Golden Gate Wilson Blvd to 16th St ...Blvd 123.0 11270 2.00% 1.2434 1,580 14 11284 NE Golden Gate 16t" St NE to 123.1 11270 2.00% 1.2434 1,580 5 11275 Blvd Everglades Blvd Golden Gate Everglades Blvd to 124.0 232 0 2.00/ 1.2434 289 0 232 Blvd DeSoto Blvd Immokalee Rd 46.0 North of Oil Well Rd 460 4.00% 1.5395 709 152 612 Oil Well Rd to Randall Immokalee Rd 45.0 21460 4.00% 1.5395 3,788 364 2,824 Blvd Immokalee Rd 45.0 Randall Blvd to 21460 4.00% 1.5395 31788 364 21824 Wilson Blvd Wilson Blvd to Collier Immokalee Rd 44.0 21050 3.52% 1.4631 3,000 888 21938 Blvd Collier Blvd to Logan Immokalee Rd 43.2 11930 2.97% 1.3798 21664 986 2,916 Blvd Collier Blvd 30.1 Immokalee Rd to VBR 11850 4.00% 1.5395 2,849 547 2,397 VBR to Golden Gate Collier Blvd 30.2 11260 2.00% 1.2434 19567 102 11362 Blvd Golden Gate Blvd to Collier Blvd 31.1 11850 2.00% 1.2434 2,301 79 1,929 Pine Ridge Rd Collier Blvd to Logan Pine Ridge Rd 125.0 11540 2.00% 1.2434 10915 7 11547 Blvd Note(s): (1) Historical growth rate or 2%minimum — referto Appendix E. (2) Growth Factor = (1+Annual Growth Rate)il. 2030 Projected Volume= 2019 AUIR Volume x Growth Factor. (3) 2030 Projected Volume= 2019 AUIR Volume +Trip Bank; (4) Per traffic data illustrated in Rural Lands West SRA —Traffic Memorandum dated tune 26, 2018, Attachment A-1—Appendix D. The projected 2030 Peak Hour —Peak Direction Background Traffic is the greater of the Growth Factor or Trip Bank calculation, which is underlined and bold as applicable. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 15 Long water Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1 —August 2020 Existing and Future Roadway Network The existingtraffic conditions forthe roadway segments under study are extracted from the Collier County 2019 AUIR and reflect peak hour, peak direction traffic service volumes, adopted level of service and number of lanes. Consistent with the Collier County's TIS Guidelines, projected future roadway conditions are based on the current Collier County 5-Year Work Program. Roadway improvements that are currently under construction or are scheduled to be constructed within the five-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or Capital Improvement Program (CIP) are considered to be committed improvements. The adopted FY2020— FY2024 Five Year Work Program/CIE for Collier County is illustrated in Appendix G. FY20— FY24 Year Work Program/CIE With potential impact to study network, the document depicts the following committed road improvements: — Vanderbilt Beach Rd Extension from Collier Blvd to 16th St NE —expand from 0 & 2 lanes to build 3 lanes of a 6 lane ultimate section from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd, and 2 lanes from Wilson Blvd to 16th St NE. Per coordination with County staff, this improvement will end at Everglades Blvd and it is analyzed as a Vane section (2-lane divided section) from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd and 2dane undivided section from Wilson Blvd to Everglades Blvd. — Construction of 2 new bridges: 16th St NE, 47th Ave NE — Randall/Immokalee Rd Intersection — At grade intersection improvements to include 4-lane widening of Randall Blvd, from lmmokalee Rd to 8t" St NE. Collier 2040 LRTP — Highway Cost Feasible Plan The adopted Collier County's 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) December 2015 as amended September 9, 2016 and October 14, 2016, has identified the Highway Cost Feasible Plan, with pertinent improvements illustrated as follow. a) Highway Improvements Completed 2021-2025 — Vanderbilt Beach Rd Extension from Collier Blvd to 8th St NE (Everglades Blvd per County staff input) — as reflected in the FY19 —FY23 Year Work Program/CIE Bridge Program Funds — as reflected in the FY19 — FY23 Year Work Program/CIE Randall/Immokalee Rd Intersection — as reflected in the FY19 — FY23 Year Work Program/CIE b) Highway Improvements Completed 2026-2030 — Oil Well Rd (CR858) —widening from 2-lane to 4-lane roadway from Everglades Blvd to Oil Well Grade Rd. As coordinated with County staff, the 4-laning ofi this roadway segment is included as a committed roadway improvement for the purposes of this traffic analysis. Collier 2040 LRTP Table 64 Highway Cost Feasible Plan —Highway Improvements: Completed 2021— 2025 and Table 6-2 Highway Cost Feasible Plan —Highway Improvements: Completed 2026 — 2030 are illustrated in Appendix H. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 116 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — 16— Section l — August 2020 Additional Considerations 1. The Collier County one -cent sales tax was approved by voters on November, 2018. As illustrated in the official webpage, a portion of the proceeds will be allocated to the Collier County identified infrastructure projects such as: Airport Road, Pine Ridge at Livingston, Triangle Boulevard, Randall Boulevard, and Vanderbilt Beach Road. 2. Recommendations of the Randall Blvd and Oil Well Rd Corridor Study were approved at the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting held on 5-1449 (Item 11C). In addition, the BCC also approved the provisions of the study results to the Collier MPO for consideration in the 2045 LRTP update. There is currently no funding allocated for any future phases of this project in the current County budget or in the current 5 year AUIR, and the cost of the Recommended Alternative (Alternative 2+) is approximately $81 million. The Board will have the opportunity to approve individual project designs and allocate funding through the annual budget process and adoption of the annual CIP; however, the timing of all this is unknown. Although currently unfunded, the viable corridor alternative was approved as follows: — Oil Well Rd — 6LD —from Oil Well Grade to Everglades Bivd Everglades Blvd — 4LD — from Oil Well Rd to Randall Blvd Randall Blvd — 4LD — East of Everglades Blvd to future Big Cypress Pkwy — Randall Blvd — 6LD — West of Everglades Blvd to Immokalee Rd. 3. The Oil Well Rd segment from Oil Well Grade Rd to Ave Maria Blvd is constructed as a 6-lane divided facility. Currently, roadway markings allow traffic to access only 4 lanes along this segment. As directed by County staff, this segment will remain a 4-lane divided roadway under future traffic conditions. The existing and future roadway conditions are illustrated in Table SA and Table SB. Based on our review of the current peak hour, peak direction traffic volumes for the analyzed roadway segments (Table 4A and Table 4B) and consistent with the information depicted in the 2019 AUIR Update Deficiencies Report (Collier County 2019 AUIR — Attachment F), the analyzed roadway links are not projected to exceed the adopted LOS standard under existing background traffic conditions. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA p � g � 117 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — "S — Section 1 — August 2020 Table 5A Existing and Future Roadway Conditions CC 2019 Pk Dir, 2030 Pk Dir, AUIR Roadway Link 2019 2019 Pk Hr 2030 2030 Pk Hr Roadway Link Link Location Roadway Standard Capacity Roadway Standard Capacity ID # Condition 4D LOS D Volume 21000 (WB) Condition 4D LOS D Volume 21000 (WB) Oil Well Rd 121.2 Oil Well Grade Rd to Ave Maria Blvd Oil Well Rd 121.1 Project to Oil 2U D 11100 (WB) 4D D 21000 (WB) Well Grade Rd Oil Well Rd 121.1 Desoto Blvd to 2U D 11100 (WB) 4D D 2,000 (WB) Project Oil Well Rd 120*0 Everglades Blvd 2U D 1,100 (WB) 4D D 2,000 (WB) to DeSoto Blvd Oil Well Rd 119.0 Immokalee Rd to 4D D 21000 (EB) 4D D 21000 (EB) Everglades Blvd DeSoto Blvd 138,0 Oil Well Rd toRandal 2U D 800 (SB) 2U D 800 (SB) Blvd DeSoto Blvd 138.0 Randal Blvd to 2U D 800 (SB) 2U D 800 (SB) 18' Ave NE DeSoto Blvd 138.0 18t" Ave NE to 2U D 800 (SB) 2U D 800 (SB) Golden Gate Blvd Everglades 136.0 Immokalee Rd to 2U D 800 (NB) 2U D 800 (NB) Blvd Oil Well Rd Everglades 135.0 Oil Well Rd to 2U D 800 (NB) 2U D 800 (NB)Blvd Randall Blvd Everglades 135.0 Randal Blvd to 2U D 800 (NB) 2U D 800 (NB) Blvd 18' Ave NE Everglades 135.0 18t" Ave NE to D 800 (NB) 2U D 800 (NB) Blvd VBR2U Everglades 135.0 VBR to Golden 2U D 800 (NB) 2U D 800 (NB) Blvd Gate Blvd 16th St NE(l) N/A 18t" Ave NE toVBR 2U D 900 (SB) 2U D 900 (SB) Wilson Blvd 118.0 South of 2U D 900 (SB) 2U D 900 (SB) Immokalee Rd Randall Blvd 133.0 DeSoto Blvd to 2U D 900 (EB) 2U D 900 (EB) Everglades Blvd Randall Blvd 132.0 Everglades Blvd 2U D 900 (EB) 2U D 900 (EB) to 8t" St NE Randall Blvd 132.0 NE to St t" 8th Stmok 2U D 900 (EB) 4D D 2,000 (EB) 1ee Rd Note(s): 2U = 2-lane undivided roadway; 4D, 61), 8D =4-lane, 6-lane, 8-lane divided roadway, respectively; LOS =Level of Service. (1) Per traffic data illustrated in Rural Lands West SRA —Traffic Memorandum dated June 26, 2018, Attachment A-1 — Appendix D. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 18 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1— August 2020 Existing and Future Roadway Conditions CC 2019 Pk Dir, 2030 Pk Dir, AUIR Roadway Link 2019 2019 Pk His2030 2030 Pk His Link Link ID Location Roadway Standard Capacity Roadway Standard Capacity # Condition 2U LOS D Volume 800 (EB) Condition 2U LOS D Volume 800 (EB) 18th Ave NE(l) N/A Desoto Blvd toEverglades Blvd 18th Ave NE(1) N/A Everglades Blvd 2U D 800 (EB) 2U D 800 (EB) ( to 16th St NE VBR(1) N/A Everglades Blvd N/A N/A N/A 2U D 1,100 (EB) to 16th St VBR(1) N/A 16th St NE to 8th N/A N/A N/A 2U D 1,100 (EB) St NE VBR(1) N/A 8th St NE to N/A N/A N/A 2U D 1,100 (EB) Wilson Blvd VBR(') N/A Wilson Blvd to N/A N/A N/A 2D D 1,200 (EB) Collier Blvd VBR 112.0 Collier Blvd to 6D E 3,000 (EB) 6D E 31000 (EB) Logan Blvd Golden Gate 17�0 Collier Blvd to 4D D 2,300 (EB) 4D D 21300 (EB) Blvd Wilson Blvd Golden Gate 123.0 Wilson Blvd to 4U D 2,300 (EB) 4U D 21300 (EB) Blvd 16th St NE Golden Gate 123.1 16th St NE to 4D D 21300 (EB) 4D D 21300 (EB) Blvd Everglades Blvd Golden Gate 124.0 Everglades Blvd 2U D 11010 (EB) 2U D 11010 (EB) Blvd to DeSoto Blvd Immokalee Rd 46.0 North offOil Well 2U D 900 (EB) 2U D 900 (EB) Rd Immokalee Rd 45.0 Oil Well Rd to 6D E 31300 (EB) 6D E 31300 (EB) Randall Blvd Immokalee Rd 45.0 Randall Blvd to 6D E 31300 (EB) 6D E 31300 (EB) Wilson Blvd Immokalee Rd 44.0 Wilson Blvd to 6D E 31300 (EB) 6D E 31300 (EB) Collier Blvd Immokalee Rd 43.2 Collier Blvd to 6D E 31200 (EB) 6D E 31200 (EB) Logan Blvd Collier Blvd 30.1 Immokalee Rd toVBR 6D E 3,000 (NB) 6D E 3,000 (NB) Collier Blvd 30.2 VBR to Golden 6D E 31000 (SB) 6D E 31000 (SB) Gate Blvd Golden Gate Collier Blvd 31.1 Blvd to Pine 6D D 31000 (NB) 6D D 31000 (NB) Ridge Rd Pine Ridge Rd 125.0 Collier Blvd to 4D D 21400 (EB) 4D D 21400 (EB) Logan Blvd Note(s): 2U = 2-lane undivided roadway; 4D, 6D, 8D =4-lane, 6-lane, 8-lane divided roadway, respectively; LOS = Level of Service. (1) Per traffic data illustrated in Rural Lands West SRA —Traffic Memorandum dated June 26, 2018, Attachment A-1— Appendix D. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 19 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — M —Section I —August 2020 Proj ect Impacts to Area Roadway NetworK=Link Analysis The Collier County Transportation Planning Services developed Level of Service (LOS) volumes for the roadway links impacted by the project, which are evaluated to determine the project impacts to the area roadway network in the future horizon year 2030. The Collier County Transportation Planning Services guidelines have determined that a project will be considered to have a significant and adverse impact if both the percentage volume capacity exceeds 2% of the capacity for the link directly accessed by the project and for the link adjacent to the link directly accessed by the project, 3% for other subsequent links and if the roadway is projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard. Tables 6A and 6B illustrate the LOS traffic impacts of the project to the area roadway network. As illustrated in the 2019 AUIR — Attachment H (Projected Collier County Deficient Roads FY 2019 — FY 2029), the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension will relieve congestion on Immokalee Rd. and Golden Gate Blvd. The Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension project is scheduled for construction in Fiscal Year (FY) 2021. In addition, Collier County has funded the construction of 2 bridges located south of Vanderbilt Beach Rd Extension: at 8tn St NE (completed) and at 16t" St NE (construction scheduled to be completed by the FY 2021). These improvements will provide for additional north/south interconnection options between Randall Blvd and Vanderbilt Beach Rd Extension/Golden Gate Blvd which will reduce traffic demands on the Randall Blvd area. The Collier County 2019 AUIR — Attachment H is attached in Appendix I. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA � � � � 120 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — HS — Section 1— August 2020 Roadway Link Level of Service ijLOS) — With Project in the Year 2030 '•.• f • cc 2030 Peak 2030Vol Peak exceeded exceeded Roadway AUIR Roadway Link Dir, Peak Dir, Peak Hr Capacity Peak Hr without i with Link Link Location Hr •. •. • 1oj (Project• •. A••-•Yes/No •il - Grade ` • Oil Well Rd off to Ave Maria : • • _ • • • - • Oil Well ' • If1 : :• •'. • • Grade ` • Oil Well Rd f - • • : • + to 21000 (WB) Project Oil Well 1 f EverIII !I - .•- •v• • ff1 D' • • : • Immokalee ` • to Oil Well `• 1 111 fi •� i', • • Everglades Blvd i Oil Well Rd to • :'� • • Randal : • DeSoto Blvd Kandal 61vd to 18th Ave NE V, E to DeSoto Blvd Golden Gate Blvd Everglades Immokalee Rd to Blvd Oil Well' • EvergladesOil Well`• to Blvd Randall • Blvd to Off 4 Ave NE Everglades AveRandal NE to : • . r • VBR to Golden : f - : • I IIII Ave■ to •. r South• � Wilson• : 1 • 1 1 : Ilf. . ' • • Immokalee ' • Randall Blvd DeSoto Blvd to Everglades : • Randall BlvdEverglades • L� • 8th St NE Randall• 1 : NE to Ifi : : • • Immokalee' • Note(s): *Refer to Table 3 from this report. **2030 Projected Volume= 2030 background (refer to Table 4) +Project Volume added. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 21 Long water Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section l —August 2020 Roadway Link Level of Service I —With Project I" the Year 2030 RoadwaMin LOS Min LOS 2030 Peak •cc 2030 •-Vol .-. .-. •... I •... 1 •- 1 Peak Hr Dir, Peak Hr Capacity Link Location Hr CapacityLink • - .. • • • I 1 ' • • : • to Volume A.•-.Yes • . . - Everglades f: • 18th Ave NE , • Everglades Blvd to •'h St ■ • th St NE to NE t : • Wilson Blvd to Collier: • Collier Blvd to Logan : • i Goldens 121300 I Blvd to : I t • Blvd Wilson Blvd Golden Gate 121300 Wilson Blvd to I I .' • • Blvd th 16 St NE Golden GatBlv1. • 11 • • • .•- • Golden Gate I I Everglades: • to 1 1 : I I I '• • • Blvd D' • • : • Imm• -- North of Oil Well ... •• 's ImmokaleeI 1 II Oil Well•� to 311300 : I •' • Randall : • • I 131300 • Blvd to Randall • •Wilson: • Immokalee• : • • ' • • : • Immokalee Collier : • to 'I• Logan: • • . 1 t s s 31000 ' i • ' • • Collier • 1 :' to Goldenl 111 •1� ', • • Gate Blvd • • Golden - Blvd 111 : I • • to Pine Ridge ' • II Note(s): *Refer to Table 3 from this report. **2030 Projected Volume= 2030 background (refer to Table 4) +Project Volume added. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 22 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1— August 2020 Roadway Network - Non -peak direction analysis Roadway segment analysis illustrated in Table 6A and Table 6B depicts the traffic condition in which the peak hour peak direction of the project traffic volume is the same as the peak hour peak direction of the background traffic volume (as illustrated in 2019 AUIR). Based on our review of the project traffic distribution/assignmenfi illustrated in Table 3A and Table 3B, it is noted that there are roadway segments for which the peak hour peak direction of the project traffic volume is not the same as the peak hour peak direction of the background traffic volume. A peak hour non -peak traffic impact analysis is performed based on peak hour peak direction traffic volumes illustrated in Tables 4A and 4B and directional factor D associated with applicable segments as depicted in Appendix D: Rural Lands West SRA — Traffic Memorandum June 26, 2018 (Excerpts). Directional factor D associated with the future horizon year 2030 is calculated by interpolating between 2027 and 2034 values documented in Appendix D. The peak hour non -peak direction traffic for the subject segments at 2030 traffic conditions without project are calculated as follow: — Oil Well Rd Link # 121.1— Desoto Blvd to Project Access - D (2027) = 0.589, D (2034) = 0.581, D (2030) = 0.586; EB - 601/0.586 — 601= 425 — Oil Well Rd Link # 120.0 —Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd - D (2027) = 0.589, D (2034) = 0.581, D (2030) = 0.586; EB - 574/04586 — 574 = 406 Desoto Blvd Link # 138.0 —18th Ave NE to Golden Gate Blvd - D (2027) = 0.577, D (2034) = 0.576, D (2030) = 0.5771 NB-162/0.577 —162 = 119 — Everglades Blvd Link # 136.0 — Immokalee Rd to Oil Well Rd - D (2027) = 0.625, D (2034) = 0.5981 D (2030) = 0.6131 SB-618/0.613-618=390 Everglades Blvd Link # 135.0 — Randall Blvd to 18t" Ave NE - D (2027) = 0.535, D (2034) = 0.535, D (2030) = 0.5351 SB - 510/0.535 — 510 = 443 — 16t" St NE Link # N/A —18th Ave NEW VBR - D (2027) = 0.574, D (2034) = 0.574, D (2030) = 0.574; NB - 369/0.574 — 369 = 274 Wilson Blvd Link # 118.0 — South of Immokalee Rd - D (2027) = 0.535, D (2034) = 0.535, D (2030) = 0.535; NB - 436/0.535 — 436 = 379 Collier Blvd Link # 30.2 — VBR to Golden Gate Blvd - D (2027) = 0.577, D (2034) = 0.576, D (2030) _ 0.577; NB—1,567/0.577 —1,567 = 1,149 Projected traffic impacts in reference to the peak hour non -peak direction on subject roadway segments are illustrated in Table 6C. Based on the information illustrated in Table 6A, Table 6B and Table 6C most of the analyzed roadway segments are significantly impacted by the project. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 123 tongwater Stewardship Receiving Area - HS — Section 1— August 2020 Roadway Link LOS — Background Traffic Non -Peak Direction — With Project in the Year 2030 % Vol Min LOS Min LOS CC 2030 Project Vol 2030 Vol 2030 Vol Capacity exceeded exceeded Roadway AUIR Roadway Link Service Non -Peak Background Non -Peak Impact without with Link Link Location Volume Dir, Peak Nan -Peak Dir, Peak Hr by Project? Project? ID # Hr* Dir, Peak Hr w/Project** Project Yes/No Yes/No Desoto Blvd to EB — 252 425 677 12.6% No No Oil Well Rd 121.1 Project21000 Everglades Oil Well Rd 120.0 Blvd to DeSoto 21000 EB — 371 406 777 18.6% No No Blvd 18th Ave NE to DeSoto 138,0 Golden Gate 800 N B - 252 119 371 31.5% No No Blvd Blvd Everglades 136 0 Immokalee Rd Soo SB — 63 390 453 7.9% No No Blvd to Oil Well Rd Everglades 135.0 Randal Blvd to 800 SB — 63 443 506 7.9% No No Blvd 18t" Ave NE 16th St NE N/A 18t" A/vBeRNE to 900 N B — 56 274 330 6.2% No No Wilson 118.0 South of 900 N B — 63 379 442 7.0% No No Blvd Immokalee Rd Collier Blvd 30.2 VBR to Golden 31000 N B — 56 11149 11205 1.9% No No Gate Blvd Note(s): *Refer to Table 3 from this report. ** 2030 Projected Volume= 2030 background +Project Volume added. The following impacted roadways are projected to exceed the adopted LOS standard under future 2030 background traffic conditions without project's traffic: — Randall Blvd from 8t" St NE to Everglades Blvd — Immokalee Rd from Wilson Blvd to Randall Blvd Immokalee Rd from Randall Blvd to Oil Well Rd The following impacted roadways are projected to exceed the adopted LOS standard under future 2030 background traffic conditions with project's traffic: — Randall Blvd from 8t" St NE to Everglades Blvd — Randall Blvd from Everglades Blvd to DeSoto Blvd Immokalee Rd from Wilson Blvd to Randall Blvd Immokalee Rd from Randall Blvd to Oil Well Rd As such, the following roadway segments are adversely impacted by the project's traffic: — Randall Blvd from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 124 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS - Section l -August 2020 Site Access - Access Management Considerations The project proposes one access connection along Oil Well Road and one direct access connection on 18tn Avenue NE. Refer to the proposed SRA's Master Plan (Appendix A). In addition, subject project will have provisions to accommodate the future Big Cypress Parkway as depicted on the project site plan. Big Cypress Parkway is a future roadway facility the project is accommodating and does not have an access classification. Preliminary consideration is Class 3 for the segment south of Oil Well Road (projected 4/6 lane facility) and Class 5 for the segment north of Oil Well Road (projected 2/4 lane facility). The Oil Well Road segment from Desoto Boulevard to Oil Well Grade Road (Collier County 2019 AUIR ID #121.1) is the roadway facility accessed directly by the project. As illustrated in the Collier County Capital Improvement Element — Transportation Element Map TR-3.0 (Federal Functional Classification/Urban Boundaries — Collier County), Oil Well Road section from Immokalee Rd to SR 29 is designated a minor arterial. The Oil Well Road from DeSoto Boulevard to Oil Well Grade Road is currently a 2-lane undivided facility with a 55mph posted speed in the vicinity of proposed project. Access management is the design of access between roadways and land development. It promotes the efficient and safe movement of people and goods by reducing conflicts on the roadway system. The latest adopted Access Management Policy for Collier County is depicted in Resolution No. 13-257. Consistent with a future Class 3 designation, the established access management criteria are as follow: 660 feet connection spacing; 660 feet directional median opening, 1,320 feet full median opening; and 2,640 feet (0.5 mi) signal spacing. Based on our review of the proposed Conceptual Master Plan, the proposed access points meet or exceed connection spacing standards for Class 3 roadways. In addition, median opening spacing standards were evaluated for a potential future divided typical section on Oil Well Road and future Big Cypress Parkway with the following recommendations: — Access on Oil Well Road — a full median opening is allowed provided that a future directional median opening is proposed at OII Well Road and Oil Well Grade Road Intersection. — Direct access at 181h Avenue NE and Big Cypress Parkway intersection — a full median opening is allowed at this location. Impacts to Agricultural Products Transport Agriculture is the number two industry in Florida behind tourism. With population growth, the urban site development is expected to encroach upon existing agricultural land. This will cause a shift in the land use and influence property decisions for the producers of agricultural goods. This shift in production location will result in a reconfiguration of transportation and freight logistics for agricultural products. Collier County is part of the FDOT District One, which represents 12 counties in Southwestern Florida. The FDOT District One conducted a study to analyze the impact of agricultural development on the transportation network forthe 2017-2035 period ("Agricultural Growth and Development in District One and the Impacts to Transportation and Freight Logistics — FDOT District One 2017"). This report concluded that encroachment is anticipated to have a small impact on total volume of agricultural goods produced in District One due to internal shifts within the District One counties. In addition, the report illustrates that Collier County is anticipated to be the recipient of some shifted Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 125 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area - US — Section I —August 2020 agricultural production from other counties, but its truck volumes are primarily anticlpated to decrease slightly due to a net reduction in agricultural production as a result of urban growth in the county. The project's site related improvements (access turn lanes) will accommodate efficient operations of agricultural related transportation. Improvement Analysis Based on the results illustrated within this traffic analysis, the proposed project is a significant traffic generator for the roadway network at this location. The following analyzed roadway segments are projected to exceed the adopted LOS standard for 2030 future background traffic conditions without project's traffic: Randall Blvd from 8th St NE to Everglades Blvd, Immokalee Rd from Wilson Blvd to Randall Blvd and Immokalee Rd from Randall Blvd to Oil Well Rd. In addition, it was determined that Randall Blvd, segment from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd, is adversely impacted by the project's traffic. There is adequate and sufficient roadway capacity on all other analyzed roadway segments to accommodate the proposed development. A detailed evaluation of applicable access points will be performed at the time of site development permitting/platting to determine traffic operational requirements, as more accurate parameters will be made available. The maximum total daily trip generation for the proposed SRA development shall not exceed 2,078 two- way PM peak hour net new trips based on the land use codes in the ITE Trip Generation Manual in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. Mitigation of Impact The landowner proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fees as building permits are issued for the project, as applicable. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page l 26 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — T!S — Section 1 — August 2020 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 27 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1— August 2020 --- --- OIL WELL RD: -- •-- --- --- --- --- �_ LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA LAND USE SUMMARY * SOUTH PARK AREA INCLUDES (4) 1.0 Ac CELLS ABOVE 12 NRt �mlT.irr�� 2. 1. W RA LAND USE 13 VlITHIN SSA AND IS tdOT INCLUDED IN THE SRA BOUNDARY. 7HE WRA AREA IS NOT INCLUDED IN Tf1E OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS. 2. WHERE THE VILLAGE IS ADJACENT TO AN SSA OR A PRESERVE, NO PERIMETER BUFFER IS REQUIRED, EXCEPT AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PERMIT w � � A-iIAHO•RLSAO � AR z F i 200' R,O.W. W�10'U,E. SSA / s 26' TYPE (D) L.B.E. PROPERTY LINE � SSA-17 o� THESE LANDS WHICH HAVE AN NRI SCORE GREATER THAN 1.2 WILL BE MAINTAINED IN A PREDOMINATELY NATURAL STATE ZONING A•MHO-RLSAO o zw xw eAGNOLl 2 LANE LOCAL ROAD CONNECTION TO RIVERGRASS VILLAGE 10 WIDE TYPE;,t`�/''� A' L.B.E. DENOTES FSA J HSA 300' & 500' SETBACKS ZONING A-MHO•RLSAO L� SSA47 AG 10' TYPE'A' L.B.E. � AG F (4 � ssa-17' AG OPEN SPI LAND USE NEIGHBORHOOD GENE% NG GOODS & SERVICES ROAD R.O.W. — AMENITYCENTERS _ PARKS PARK PRESERVES LAKES LAKE MAINTENANCE EA: ACRESI OPEN SPACE C71[7CI] 1 TOTAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED � i PANTHER FENCE MINIMUM REQUIRED OPEN SPACE = 35X (3d9.92 Ae.j A� PROVIDED OPEN SPACE = 51.23% t`I SSA-17 �, AG -POTENTIAL NATURE VIEWING PLATFORMS ZONING A-MHO-RLSAO IJARBER & 5 ry '...... � ; BRU\DAC,F 1\C., f5.d++ a.+ilap tR�a�m,'.1 f,. q.r Ail h�u, t+ 6.1 DISCLAIMER: THE MASTER PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL. INTERNAL ROAD '.. ALIGNMENTS LAKE SITING AND CONFIGURATION OF bEVELOPMEMAREA3ARE SUBJECT TQ MODIFICATION WITHIN THE RLSA GUIbELINE3 AT TIME OF FlNAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER. SRA SUBMITTAL PLANS EXHIBIT (A) " STER PLAN BLACK b WMITE � ww 2 T Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a � � � 28 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1 — August 2p20 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 29 Long water Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 1— August 2020 INITIAL MEETING CHECILLIST Suggestion: Use this Appendix as a workslreet to ensure that no vnportant elements are overlooked. Cross out the items that do not apply, or N/A (not applicable). Date: September 9, 2019; Follow up December 31, 2019 Time: 10.00 AM Minutes Revised: September 26. 20196, January 7. 2020 Location: Gl�iD Horseshoe Square Sonrth Conference Room, 2685 Horseshoe Drive S, Naples, FL 34104 People Attending (December 31, 20191: Name, Organization, and Telephone Numbers 1) Michael Sawyer, Collier County Transportation Plarmuig 2) Greg Root, AIM Engineering 3) Norman Trebilcock, TCS 4) Patrick Utter, Collier Enterprises 5) Ciprian Malaescu. TCS Study Preparers Preparer's Name and Title: Norman Trebilcock. AICP PE Organization: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Address & Telephone Number: 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200. Napes. FL 34104. ph 239-566-9551 Revlewerts): Reviewer's Name &Title: ltr�ichael Sawyer, Project Manager Collier County ranspor•tation Planning Department Organization & Telephone Number: 239-252-2926 Applicant• Applicant's Name: Collier Enterprises Address: 2550 North Goodlette Road, Suite 100, Naples, F134103 Telephone Number: 2394344015 Proposed Development: Name: Lon�vvater SRA Location: South of Oil Well Road LCR 8581 and east of Desoto Blvd, in Collier County (referto Figure 11 Land Use Type: Residential Retail and Civic Governmental and Institutional Services ITE Code #: LUC 210 220 750 and 820 Page 1 of 8 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a � e � 30 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1 — August 2020 Description: Proposed proiect will develop the following facilities: 1,503 dwelling units (du) single-family, 1,097 du multi-family/apartments, 26,000 square feet (sf) of civic, govertunental and institutional uses and 80,000 sf of retail. Figure 1—Project Location Map �G PROJECT LOCATIOtr ',.5_'a'ed (YOC& t CC�Ja-' e scteZa c vly fcr a 0: 21 Ull eter to the oropc d rr er ptan o — — � — — — — — — — —af • �a: •+.area d ado 40 I i.man m am aw�•� fvcn •• E r+ Go gi 9 Own riwiw e9(170 f:nrvdEf INFRI I mi... ZOtlltl Existing: Allowed Comprehensive plan recommendation: No change. Requested: SRA approval for new development FindillQs of the Preliminary Study: Shidv type: Since estimated net extennal AIyI or PIy1 proiect traffic is greater than 100 two-way peak hour trips, this study qualifies for a Major TIS — siginiftcant roadway and/or operational impacts. Study Tvpe: (if not net increase, operational study) Small Scale TIS ❑ Minor TIS ❑ Major TIS Proposed TIS will incllide trip getleratiotl, traffic distribution and assi�unetnts, significance test (based on 2%/2%/3%criterion). Page 2 of 8 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a � e (31 tongwater Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1— August 2020 The TIS will uiclude a section oirtlining and describuug how distribtrtion was deterniirued. In addition, the Riture Big Cypress Parkway is not included in the estimated traffic distribution. 111J VG11G1 C1LLV11 - JGl llli 111 VG11G1G1L1V11 lYlQtltiAt 1V liillu Vll 111.i 111J vG11L+1 caL1Vu Handbook, 3` Edition Tlue TIS will provide existing LOS and document the impact the proposed development will have on designated arterial and collector roads. Roadway segment analysis — the analyzed segments will reflect the locations of the proposed project access points. lr addition, the highest directional volume condition will be analyzed for all roadway segments. Roadway concurrence analysis — based on estimated net external PM traffic. The TIS shall be consistent with Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures. Tlie TIS will provide hyo sectiorus: Section 1 —Traffic Impacts to Area Roadway Network, and Section 2 — Intersection Analyses. The TIS — Section 1 will be submitted ahead of the Section 2. Operational AM and PM peak hour intersection analyses for the followiru� locations: 1. Oil Well Rd and Desoto Blvd; 2. Oil Well Rd and Everglades Blvd, 7. Iuunokalee Rd and Oil Well Rd; 8. Irnmokalee Rd and Randall Blvd. An assessment of the Level of Service (LOS) and volume to capacity ratio (V/C) analyses of the subiect intersections will be conducted using Syriclu-o 10 soSware. Intersection Configurations The existing intersection lane corrfiguuratiorrs are depicted in this report. based on existing field observations. Future 2030 intersection configurations are illustrated consistent with the adopted FY20 — FY24 Five Year Work Program/CIE for Collier County as follow: Randall m Blvd/Imokalee Rd Intersection — At grade intersection improvements to uiclude 41ane widening of Randall Blvd, from Inunokalee Rd to 8th St (FDOT Build Alteniative Phase 1 — Triple Lefts) In addition, consistent with Collier 2040 LRTP — Highway Cost Feasible Plan Highway Improvements Completed 2026-2030 and based on coordination with County staff, the 4 lariing of Oil Well Rd from Everglades Blvd to Oil Well Grade Rd is included as a committed roadwav improvement for the purposes of this traffic analvsis. Intersection Traffic Parameters Existing intersection trafl lc volumes will be reflected as follow: Oil Well Rd and Desoto Blvd —TMC collected on Wed, 04-17-19 for Rivergrass SRA Oil Well Rd and Everglades Blvd — TMC collected on Wed, 0417-19 for River mass SRA Randall Blvd and DeSoto Blvd — new traffic counts will be provided Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd — new traffic counts will be provided Page 3 of 8 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a � e � 32 Long water Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1— August 2020 18th Ave NE and Desoto Blvd — rue�v traffic counts will be provided 1 M Ave NE and Everglades Blvd — new traffic counts will be provided Inunokalee Rd and Oil Well Rd — TMC collected on Wed. 04-17-19 for Rivergrass SRA Inunokalee Rd and Randall Blvd — TMC collected on Wed, 04-17-19 for Rivergrass SRA Traffic count. volumes collected are adjusted for peak season conditions by using the peak season conversion factor (PSCF) as illustrated in MOT Peak Season Factor Category Report. Future (2030) intersection traffic volumes will Ue reflected as follow: - Immokalee Rd/Randall Blvd intersection — by interpolating between the 2025 and 2035 peA hour volumes documented in the "hurnokalee Rd at Randall Bhrd Intersection PD&E Studv Final Project Try iic Report dated February 2019. - the other analyzed intersections will reflect a 2.6% growth for all movements consistent with Rivergrass SRA application and "hnrnokalee Rd at Randall Blvd Intersection PD&E Studv Final Project Traffic Report dated February 2019. Signal Timings — To support the signalized intersection analyses, the existitg programmed signal timings will be provided by Collier County Transportation staff as �plicable. Peak Hour Truck (PHTI percentage —The existing peak hour intersection analyses will reflect the existing counted PHT percentages counted as part of the peak hour turning movement counts. Consistent with the intersection analyses performed for Rivergrass SRA. a 5% value is utilized for the percent heavy vehicle in all 2030 peak hour intersection analvses. Peak Hour Factor (PHF) —The intersection turning movement counts will provide PHF value for each uitersectiori which is utilized for the existing and future traffic conditions in the intersection analyses. Study Area• Boundaries: East. of Desoto Blvd Additional intersections to be analyzed: As presented in this report Build Out Year: 2030; Plamimg Horizon Year: 2030 Analysis Time Period(s): PM Pk Hr — Concurrency; AM -PM Pk Hr — Operational Future Off -Site Developments: N/A Source of Trip Generation Rates: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10�' Edition. ITE Trip `d Generation Handbook 3Edition Page 4 of 8 Trebiicock Consulting Solutions, PA P a � e 133 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1 —August 2020 Reductions nn Trip Generation Rates; None: N/A Pass -by trips: Per ITE guidelines, 25% maximum for Retail use. Internal trips: Per ITE and Collier County guidelines. Transit use: N/A Other: N/A Horizon fear Roadway Nehvork bnprovements: 2030 Metlnodoloisy & Asswnptions: Non -site traffic estimates: Collier County traffic counts and 2019 AUIR Site -trip generation: OTISS — ITE 10 th Edition Trip distribution method: Engineer's Estimate - refer to Figure 2 Key factors in determining the traffic distribution: 20% of the traffic will likely go east towards attractors located in the hnimokalee area or Ave Maria. In addition, SR 29 provides opportunities to travel to the east coast via I-75. 4 new mixed use communities are proposed in the close proximity to each other: Rivergrass Village, Longwater Village, Bellmar Village and Hyde Park Village. Based on the extensive shopping, employment and social recreation opportunities provided by these developments, it is anticipated that many of the external trips generated by Longwater SRA will be absorbed within these projects. Likewise, due to the new traffic attractors such as civic, retail, office and recreational uses proposed within Longwater SRN, it is anticipated that some of the external trips generated by Golden Gate Estates and Ave Maria will be attracted by Longwater SRA. The proposed trip distribution illustrates that many of the longer distance trips being made by the residents of Golden Gate Estates, Ave Maria and other areas of eastern Collier County will now be satisfied within these new proposed developments. - The balancing of land uses in eastern Collier County will balance trip distribution, reduce trip lengths and will shift the area of travel patterns. Traffic absorptions are proposed at the school area generally located at the northeast corner of Immokalee Rd /Oil Well Rd 'intersection, commercial facilities located along Collier Blvd and at specific intersections such as Innnnokalee Rd/Randall Blvd or Immokalee Rd/Collier Blvd intersections. Traffic distribution was revised per staff coordination. Traffic assigrunnent method: Project trip generations with background rg, owth Traffic growth rate: Historical growth rate or 2% mirnunum (cornenrrrencv arnalvsis) Turing movements: Intersection Turning Movement Counts Page 5 of 8 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a � e � 34 Long water Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1 — August 2020 Tigure 2 —Project Trip Distribution b3� Percentage {. C � a 1 U C it w 1 r 5 Y� a g 1 N [ W C HM* 'Oh) V I Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P age � 35 Long water Stewardship Receiving Area — 113 — Section 1— August 2020 Special Features: (from preliminary study or prior experience) Accidents locations: N/A Sight distance: N/A Queuing: N/A Access location & configuration: N/A Traffic control: MUTCD Signal system location & progression needs: N/A Can -site parking needs: N/A Data Sources: CC 2019 AUIR: CC Traffic Counts Base maps: N/A Prior study reports: N/A Access policy and jurisdiction: N/A Review process: N/A Requirements: N/A Miscellaneous: N/A Small Scale Shady — No Fee Iviinor Study" $750.00 Major Study - $1,500600 X Methodology Fee $500 X Includes 0 intersections Additional Intersections - $SOOAO each All fees will be agreed to during tit Methodology meeting and must be paid to Transportation prior to oursign-off on t1:e application. SIGNATURIJS N�ryu.Llw T►-eb�l,cocle, Study Preparer—Norman Trebilcock Reviewers) Applicant Page 7 of 8 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 36 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — H.5 — Section l —August 2020 Collier County Traffic Impact Study Review Fee Schedule Fees will be paid incrementally as the development proceeds: Methodology Review, Analysis Review, and Sufficiency Reviews. Fees for additional meetings or other optional services are also provided below. Methodology Review - $500 Fee Methodology Review includes review of a submitted methodology statement, including review of submitted trip generation estimate(s), distribution, assignment, and review of a "Small Scale Study" determination, written approval/comments on a proposed methodology statement, and written confirmation of a re -submitted, amended methodology statement and one meeting in Collier County, if needed. Upon approval of the methodology review, the applicant may submit the study. The review includes: a concurrency determination, site access inspection and confirmation of the study compliance with trip generation, distribution and maximum tlueshold compliance. "Minor Study Review" - $750 Fee (Includes one sufiiciency review) Review of the submitted traffic analysis includes: optional field visit to site, confirmation of trip generation, distribution, and assignment, concurrency determination, confirmation of committed improvements, review of traffic volume data collected/assembled, review of off -site improvements within the right -of --way, review of site access and circulation, and preparation and review of "sufficiency" comments/questions. "Manor Study Review" - $1 500 Fee (Includes two intersection analysis and two sufficiency reviews Review of the submitted traffic analysis includes: field visit to site, confirmation of trip generation, special trip generation and/or trip length study, distribution and assignment, coneurrency determination, confirmation of committed improvements, review of traffic volume data collected/assembled, review of traffic growth analysis, review of off -site roadway operations and capacity analysis, review of site access and circulation, neighborhood traffic intrusion issues, any necessary improvement proposals and associated cost estimates, and preparation and review of up to two rounds of "sufficiency" comments/questions and/or recommended conditions of approval. "Additional intersection Review" - $500 Fee The review of additional intersections shall include tine same parameters as outlined in the `Major Study Review" and shall apply to each intersection above the first rivo intersections included in the "Major Study Review" «AAriitinnoi Cnf'r'ir10nih7 Raviamc" _ Additional sufficiency reviews beyond those initially included in the appropriate study shall require the additional Fee prior to the completion of the review. Page 8 of 8 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 37 longwater Stewara5ri Receiving Area — T1S — Section i — August 2020 1 i : 1 � �►a�M Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 38 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area - HS - Section 1- August 2020 ITE Trip Generation Manual -10th Edition - Applicable Land use Descriptions Land Use: 210 Single -Family Detached Housing Description Single-family detached housing includes all single-family detached homes on individual lots. A typical site surveyed is a suburban subdivision. Additional Data The number of vehicles and residents had a high correlation with average weekday vehicle trip ends. The use of these variables was limited, however, because the number of vehicles and residents was often difficult to obtain or predict. The number of dwelling units was generally used as the independent variable of choice because it was usually readily available, easy to project, and had a high correlation with average weekday vehicle trip ends. This land use included data from a wide variety of units with different sizes, price ranges, locations, and ages. Consequently, there was a wide variation in trips generated within this category. Other factors, such as geographic location and type of adjacent and nearby development, may also have had an effect on the site trip generation. Single-family detached units had the highest trip generation rate per dwelling unit of all residential uses because they were the largest units in size and had more residents and more vehicles per unit than other residential land uses; they were generally located farther away from shopping centers, employment areas, and other trip attractors than other residential land uses; and they generally had fewer alternative modes of transportation available because they were typically not as concentrated as other residential land uses. Time -of -day distribution data for this land use are presented in Appendix A. For the six general urban/suburban sites with data, the overall highest vehicle volumes during the AM and PM on a weekday were counted between 7:15 and 8.15 a.m. and 4:00 and 5:00 p.m., respectively. For the two sites with Saturday data, the overall highest vehicle volume was counted between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. For the one site with Sunday data, the overall highest vehicle volume was counted between 10:15 and 11:15 a.m. The sites were surveyed in the 1980s, the 1990s, the 2000s, and the 2010s in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia. Source Numbers 100, 105, 114, 126, 157, 167, 177, 197, 207, 211, 217, 267, 275, 293, 300, 319, 320, 356, 357, 367, 384, 387, 407, 435, 522, 550, 552, 579, 598, 601, 603, 614, 637, 711, 716, 720, 728, 735, 868, 903, 925, 936 �� Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition •Volume 2: Data •Residential (Land Uses 200-299) 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 39 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 1— August 2020 Land Use: 220 Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) Description Low-rise multifamily housing includes apartments, townhouses, and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have one or two levels (floors). Multifamily housing (mid -rise) (Land Use 221), multifamily housing (high-rise) (Land Use 222), and off -campus student apartment (Land Use 225) are related land uses. Additional Data In prior editions of Trip Generation Manual, the low-rise multifamily housing sites were further divided into rental and condominium categories. An investigation of vehicle trip data found no clear differences in trip making patterns between the rental and condominium sites within the ITE database. As more data are compiled for future editions, this land use classification can be reinvestigated. For the three sites for which both the number of residents and the number of occupied dwelling units were available, there were an average of 2.72 residents per occupied dwelling unit. For the two sites for which the numbers of both total dwelling units and occupied dwelling units were available, an average of 96.2 percent of the total dwelling units were occupied. This land use included data from a wide variety of units with different sizes, price ranges, locations, and ages. Consequently, there was a wide variation in trips generated within this category. Other factors, such as geographic location and type of adjacent and nearby development, may also have had an effect on the site trip generation. Time -of -day distribution data for this land use are presented in Appendix A. For the 10 general urbanlsuburban sites with data, the overall highest vehicle volumes during the AM and PM on a weekday were counted between 7:15 and 8:15 a.m. and 4:45 and 5:45 p.m., respectively. For the one site with Saturday data, the overall highest vehicle volume was counted between 9:45 and 10:45 a.m. For the one site with Sunday data, the overall highest vehicle volume was counted between 11:45 a.m. and 12:45 p.m. For the one dense multi -use urban site with 24-hour count data, the overall highest vehicle volumes during the AM and PM on a weekday were counted between 700 and 800and 6:15 and 7:15 p.M., respectively. For the three sites for which data were provided for both occupied dwelling units and residents, there was an average of 2.72 residents per occupied dwelling unit. The average numbers of person trips per vehicle trip at the five general urban/suburban sites at which both person trip and vehicle trip data were collected were as follows: • 1.13 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, one hour between 7 and 9 a.m. • 1.21 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, one hour between 4 and 6 p.m. �� Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition •Volume 2: Data •Residential (Land Uses 200-299) 29 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 40 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS - Section 1- August 2020 The sites were surveyed in the 1980s, the 1990s, the 2000s, and the 2010s in British Columbia (CAN), California, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ontario, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington. It is expected that the number of bedrooms and number of residents are likely correlated to the number of trips generated by a residential site. Many of the studies included in this land use did not indicate the total number of bedrooms. To assist in the future analysis of this land use, it is important that this information be collected and included in trip generation data submissions. Source Numbers 168, 187, 188, 204, 211, 300, 305, 306, 319, 320, 321, 357, 390, 412, 418, 525, 530, 571, 579, 583, 864, 868, 869, 870, 896, 903, 918, 946, 947, 948, 951 30 Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition •Volume 2: Data •Residential (Land Uses 200-299) e Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a � e � 41 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1 — August 2020 Land Use: 750 Office Park Description An office park is usually a suburban subdivision or planned unit development containing general office buildings and support services, such as banks, restaurants, and service stations, arranged in a park- or campus -like atmosphere. General office building (Land Use 710), corporate headquarters building (Land Use 714), single tenant office building (Land Use 715), research and development center (Land Use 760), and business park (Land Use 770) are related uses. Additional Data The sites were surveyed in the 1980s, the 1990s, the 2000s, and the 2010s in Alberta (CAN), Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. Source Numbers 160, 161, 184, 185, 253, 300, 301, 356, 550, 618, 912, 972, 973 232 Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition •Volume 2: Data •Office (Land Uses 700-799) ____.......... Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA i' � � � � 42 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS - Section I -August 2020 Description A shopping center is an integrated group of commercial establishments that is planned, developed, owned, and managed as a unit. Ashopping center's composition is related to its market area in terms of size, location, and type of store. A shopping center also provides on -site parking facilities sufficient to serve its own parking demands. Factory outlet center (Land Use 823) is a related use. Additional Data Shopping centers, including neighborhood centers, community centers, regional centers, and super regional centers, were surveyed for this land use. Some of these centers contained non -merchandising facilities, such as office buildings, movie theaters, restaurants, post offices, banks, health clubs, and recreational facilities (for example, ice skating rinks or indoor miniature golf courses). Many shopping centers, in addifiion to the integrated unit of shops in one building or enclosed around a mall, include outparcels (peripheral buildings or pads located on the perimeter of the center adjacent to the streets and major access points). These buildings are typically drive-in banks, retail stores, restaurants, or small offices. Although the data herein do not indicate which of the centers studied included peripheral buildings, it can be assumed that some of the data show their effect. The vehicle trips generated at a shopping center are based upon the total GLA of the center. In cases of smaller centers without an enclosed mall or peripheral buildings, the GLA could be the same as the gross floor area of the building. Time -of -day distribution data for this land use are presented in Appendix A. For the 10 general urban/ suburban sites with data, the overall highest vehicle volumes during the AM and PM on a weekday were counted between 11:45 a.m. and 12:45 p.m. and 12:15 and 1:15 p.m., respectively. The average numbers of person trips per vehicle trip at the 27 general urban/suburban sites at which both person trip and vehicle trip data were collected were as follows: • 1.31 during Weekday, AM Peak Hour of Generator • 1.43 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, one hour between 4 and 6 p.m. • 1.46 during Weekday, PM Peak Hour of Generator The sites were surveyed in the 1980s, the 1990s, the 2000s, and the 2010s in Alberta (CAN), British Columbia (CAN), California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Source Numbers 105, 110, 154, 156, 159, 186, 190, 198, 199, 202, 204, 211, 213, 239, 251, 259, 260, 269, 294, 295, 299, 300, 301, 304, 305, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 314, 315, 316, 317, 319, 358, 365, 376, 385, 390, 400, 404, 414, 420, 423, 428, 437, 440, 442, 444, 446, 507, 562, 580, 598, 629, 658, 702, 715, 728, 868, 870, 871, 880, 899, 908, 912, 915, 926, 936, 944, 946, 960, 961, 962, 973, 974, 978 Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition •Volume 2: Data •Retail (Land Uses 800-899) 137 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a � e � 43 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1 — August 2020 ITE Trip Generation Manual —10Edition Trip Generation Calculations Project Information Longwater - Proposed - ITE Project Name: R1 No: Date: 1/ 12/2020 Trip Generation Manual, Edition. 10th Ed Land Use Size '' Daily AM Peak PM `Peak F6291 Exit Entry Exit Entry Exit 210 - Single4amily Detached Housing (General Urban/Suburban) 1503 Dwelling Units 6291 268 804 863 507 Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal 126 67 5 9 47 16 Pass -by 0 0 0 0 0 0 Non -pass -by 6165 6224 263 795 816 491 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) (General Urban/Suburban) 1097 Dwelling Units 4126 4126 107 357 314 184 Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal 83 43 2 4 17 7 Pass -by 0 0 0 0 0 0 Non -pass -by 4043 4083 105 353 297 177 750 - Office Park (General Urban/Suburban) 26 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA 202 201 33 4 2 26 Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal 14 56 2 1 2 6 Pass -by 0 0 0 0 0 0 Non -pass -by 188 145 31 3 0 20 820 "Shopping Center (General Urban/Suburban) 801000 Sq.' Ft. GLA 2583 2583 1191 73 221 240 Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal 160 217 13 8 27 64 Pass -by 363 355 26 17 48 45 Non -pass -by 2060 2011 80 48 146 131 Total 13202 13201 527 1238 1400 957 Total Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Internal 383 383 22 22 93 93 Total Pass -by 363 355 26 17 48 45 Total Non -pass -by 12456 12463 479 1199 1259 819 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 44 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — TlS — Section 1 —August 2020 Analysis Name Project Name : Date: State/Province: Country: Analyst's Name: PERIOD SETTING Daily Longwater - Proposed - ITE R1 1 /12/2020 li[ •71 City: Postal Code: Client Name: Edition: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed Land Use Independent Size Time Period Method Entry Exit Total Variable 210 - Single -Family Dwelling Units 1503 Weekday Best Fit (LOG) 6291 6291 12582 Detached Housing Ln(T) = 0.92Ln(X) 50% 50% (General +2.71 Urban/Suburban) 220 - Multifamily Dwelling Units -1097((' Weekday Best Fit (LIN) 4126 4126 8252 Housing (Low -Rise) T = 7.56 (X)+40.86 50% 50% (General Urban/Suburban) 750 - Office Park 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA 26(0) Weekday Best Fit (LOG) 202 201 403 (General Ln(T) = 0.89Ln(X) +3.1 50% 50% Urban/Suburban) 820 - Shopping Center 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA 80 Weekday Best Fit (LOG) 2583 2583 5166 (General Ln(T) = 0.68Ln(X) 50% 50% Urban/Suburban) +5.57 (0) indicates size out of range. TPAFFIr REDUCTIONS Land Use Entry Reduction Adjusted Entry Exit Reduction Adjusted Exit 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing 0 % 6291 0 % 6291 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) 0 % 4126 0 % 4126 750 - Office Park 0 % 202 0 % 201 820 - Shopping Center 0 % 2583 0 % 2583 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing Exit 6291 Demand Exit: 0 % (0) Entry 6291 Demand Entry: 0 % (0) 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing INTERNAL TRIPS Balanced: 0 Balanced: 0 220 -Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) Demand Entry: 0 % (0) Entry 4126 Demand Exit: 0 % (0) Exit 4126 750 -Office Park Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a � e � 45 Long water Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1— August 2020 Exit 6291 Demand Exit: 2 % (126) Balanced: Demand Entry: 2 °lo (4) Entry 202 4 Entry 6291 Demand Entry: 0 % (0) Balanced: Demand Exit: 1 % (2) Exit 201 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing 820 - Shopping Center Exit 6291 Demand Exit: 1 % (63) Bala6nced: Demand Entry: 12 % (310) Entry 2583 Entry 6291 Demand Entry: 2 % (126) Balanced: al nc d: Demand Exit: 10 % (258) Exit 2583 26 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) 750 - Office Park Exit 4126 Demand Exit: 2 % (83) 2 Balanced: Demand Entry: 1 % (2) Entry 202 Entry 4126 Demand Entry: 0 % (0) Balanced: Demand Exit: 0 % (0) Exit 201 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) 820 - Shopping Center Exit 4126 Demand Exit: 1 % (41) Balanced' Demand Entry: 5 % (129) Entry 2583 Entry 4126 Demand Entry: 2 % (83) BalaBnced: Demand Exit: 4 % (103) Exit 2583 750 - Office Park 820 - Shopping Center Exit 201 Demand Exit: 28 % (56) Balanced: Demand Entry: 32 % (827) Entry 2583 Entry 202 Demand Entry: 4 % (8) Balanced* " Demand Exit: 29 % (749) Exit 2583 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing Internal Trips _ 220 - 1 750 - Office 820 - _ Total E Total Trips , Multifamily Park Shopping I External Trips { Housing (Low• Center Rise) Ent 6291 (100m ry °lo) € 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 126 (2%) 126 (2%) 6165 (98%) Exit 6291 (100°l0) 0 (Q%) 4 (0%) 63 (1%) 67 (1%) 6224 (99%) Total 112582 100% 0 0% 4 0% 189 2% 193 2% ' 12389 98% 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) Internal Trips le, le- 210 - Singleo 750 - Office i 820 - Total Total Trips Family = Park Shopping External Trips f Detached Center } Housing ell,. _ __ .... _.... w_._ . __. e_._..._ .. _ _ Entry 4126 (100%) 0 (0°l0) 0 (0%) 83 (2%) 83 (2%) 4043 (98%) Exit 4126 (100%) a 0 (0%) y 2 (0%) 41 (1%) 43 (1%) 4083 (99%) Total 8252 (100%) 10 (0%) 2 (0%) 124 (2%) 126 (2%) 8126 (98%) 750 - Office Park Internal Trips r 210 Single '220 - 820 - Total € External Trips Total Trips Family Multifamily Shopping p Detached Housing (Low- Center I Housing Rise) Entry 11202 (100%) 4 (2%) 2 (1%) 8 (4%) 14 (7%) 1188 (93%) Exit t 201 (100%) G 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 56 (28%) 56 (28%) 145 (72%) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a � e � 46 longwoter Stewardship Receiving Area — tiS — Section i — August 2020 820 -Shopping Center Internal Trips { s 210 - Single- 220 - 750 - Office Total Total Trips Family Multifamily Park External Trips Detached Housing (Low- j i I Housing Rise) r Entry 12583 (100%) 63 (2%) j 41 (2%) 56 (2%) 160 (6%) 2423 (94%) Exit 2583 (100%) 126 (5%) 83 (3%) 8 (0%) 217 (8%) 1 2366 (92%) Totai 15166 (100°%) 189 (4%) 1 124 (2%) 64 (1%) 1377 (7%) ' 4789 (93%) Land Use 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) 750 - Office Park 820 - Shopping Center External Trips Pass-by°lo 12389 0 8126 0 333 0 4789 15 Pass -by Trips ,Nop�pass-by 0 12389 0 8126 0 333 718 4071 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 47 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — TlS — Section 1 — August 2020 Analysis Name Project Name Date: State/Province: Country: Analyst's Name. Land Use 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing (General Urban/Suburban) 220 -Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) (General Urban/Suburban) 750 -Office Park (General Urban/Suburban) 820 -Shopping Center (General Urban/Suburban) PERIOD SETTING AM Peak Hour Longwater - Proposed - ITE R1 1 /12/202.0 Independent Variable Dwelling Units Dwelling Units 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA No. City: ZiplPostal Code: Client Name: Edition: Size Time Period Method 1503 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA 80 (0) indicates size out of range. (1) indicates small sample size, use carefully. Land Use 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing 220 -Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) 750 - Office Park 820 - Shopping Center Weekday, Peak Best Fit (LIN) Hour of Adjacent T = 0.71 (X)+4.8 Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Weekday, Peak Best Fit (LOG) Hour of Adjacent Ln(T) = 0.95Ln(X) Street Traffic, 4--0.51 One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Weekday, Peak Average Hour of Adjacent 1.44 Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Weekday, Peak Best Fit (LIN) Hour of Adjacent T = 0.5 (X)+151.78 Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. TRAFFIC REDUCTIONS Entry Reduction 0% 0% 0% 0% Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed Entry Exit Total 268 804 1072 25% 75% 107 357 464 23% 77% 119 73 192 62% 38% Adjusted Entry Exit Reduction Adjusted Exit 268 107 33 119 INTERNAL TRIPS 804 357 4 73 i Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g_ e � 48 tongwater Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 1— August 2020 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) Exit 804 Demand Exit: 0 % (0) Bala 0 ed: Demand Entry: 0 % (0) Entry 107 Entry 268 Demand Entry: 0 % (0) Balanced: Demand Exit: 0 % (0) Exit 357 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing 750 - Office Park Exit 804 Demand Exit: 2 % (16) Balanced* Demand Entry: 2 % (1) Entry 33 Entry 268 Demand Entry: 0 % (0) Balanced. Demand Exit: 1 % (0) Exit 4 210 -Singie-Family Detached Housing 820 -Shopping Center Exit 804 Demand Exit: 1 % (8) BalanBced: Demand Entry: 12 % (14) Entry 119 Entry 268 Demand Entry: 2 % (5) Balanced: Demand Exit: 10 % (7) Exit 73 220 -Multifamily Housing {Low -Rise) Exit 357 Demand Fait: 2 % (7) Entry 107 Demand Entry: 0 °!o (0} 220 - Multifamily Housing {Low -Rise) Exit 357 Demand Exit: 1 % (4) Entry 107 Demand Entry: 2 % (2) 750 - Office Park It 4 Demand Exit: 28 % (1) Entry 33 Demand Entry: 4 % (1) Demand Entry: 1 % (0) Demand Exit: 0 % (0) 750 -Office Park Entry 33 820 -Shopping Center Demand Entry: 5 % (6) Entry 119 Demand Exit: 4 % (3) Exit 73 820 -Shopping Center Demand Entry: 32 % (38) Entry 119 Demand Exit: 29 % (21) Exit 73 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing Internal Tnps __ lif 220 - Multifamily ` 750 - Office Park = 820 - Total Total Trips Y External Trips Housing (Lovirm Shopping Rise) Center EntryExit ' $04 (100%) , 0 (0 /o) :. 0 (0 lo) � $ (2°l0) 15 (2%) 263 (98°l0) 268 0 0 0 ( ) ° ° (1 %) 9 (1 %) 795 (99%) Total 11072 (100%) 10 (0%) 1 (0°l0) 13 (1%) 14 (1%) 1058 (99%) 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) Internal Trips 210 - Single- 750 - Office Park i 820 - Total External Trips Total Trips Family ' Shopping p Detached Center Housing Entry 107 (100%) 10 (0%) 0 (0°Io) 2 (2%) 2 (2%) 105 (98%) Exit 1 357 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (1%) 4 (1%) j 353 (99%) Total 1464 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (1%) 6 (1%) 458 (99%) 750.Office Park Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 49 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1— August 2020 Total Trips Internal Trips External Trips 210 - Single- 220 - Multifamily 1 820 - ; Total Family I Housing (Low- Shopping Detached 1 Rise) ; Center Housing Entry 33 (100%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) _ 1 (3%) — 1 2 (6%) 31 (94%) Exit 4 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 1 (25%) 13 (75%) Total 37 (100%) = 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 2 (5%) { 3 (8%) 34 (92%) 820 - Shopping Center 'Internal Trips 210 -Single 220 Multifamily ; 750 - Office = Total Total Trips Family Housing (Low- Park External Trips { Detached £ Rise) i Housing I Entry 119 (100%) 8 (7%) 4 (3%) 1 (1%) 13 (11%) [ 106 (89%) Exit 73 (100%) 5 (7%) ' 2 (3%) C 1 (1%) 8 (11%) 65 (89°Io) Total 192 (100%) g 13 (7%) r 6 (3%) ' 2 (1 %) 21 (11 °lo) 171 (89%) # EXTERNAL ERNA TRIPS Land Use External Trips Pass -by% Pass -by Trips Non -pass -by Trips 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing 1058 0 0 1058 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) 458 0 0 458 750 - Office Park 34 0 0 34 820 -Shopping Center 171 25 43 128 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e � 50 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — TlS — Section 1 —August 2020 Analysis Name Project Name: Date: State/Province: Country: Analyst's Name: Land Use 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing (General Urban/Suburban) 220 -Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) (General Urban/Suburban) 750 -Office Park (General Urban/Suburban) 820 -Shopping Center (General Urban/Suburban) PERIOD SETTING PM Peak Hour Longwater - Proposed - ITE R1 1/12/2020 Independent Variable Dwelling Units Dwelling Units 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA No. City: Postal Code: Client Name: Edition: Size Time Period Method 1503 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA 80 (0} indicates size out of range. (1) indicates small sample size, use carefully. Land Use 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing 220 -Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) 750 - Office Park 820 - Shopping Center Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed Entry Exit Total Weekday, Peak Best Fit (LOG) 863 507 1370 Hour of Adjacent Ln(T) = 0.96Ln(X) +0.2 Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Weekday, Peak Best Fit (LOG) 314 184 498 Hour of Adjacent Ln(T) = 0.89Ln(X) 63% 37% Street Traffic, +-0.02 One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Weekday, Peak Average 20) 260) 280) Hour of Adjacent 1.07 7% 93% Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Weekday, Peak Best Fit (LOG) 221 240 461 Hour of Adjacent Ln(T) = 0.74Ln(X) 48% 52% Street Traffic, +2.89 One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. TRAFFIC REDUCTIONS Entry Adjusted Entry Exit Reduction Adjusted Exit Reduction 0 % 863 0 % 507 0% 314 0% 184 0% 2 0% 26 0 % 221 0% 240 INTERNAL TRIPS Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a � e J 51 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — "S — Section 1— August 2020 210 -Singie-Family Detached Housing Exit 607 Demand Exit: 0 % (0) Entry 863 Demand Entry: 0 % (0) Balanced: 0 Balanced: 0 220 -Multifamily Housing {Low -Rise) Demand Entry: 0 % (0) Entry 314 Demand Exit: 0 % (0) 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing 750 -Office Park Exit 507 Demand Exit: 4 % (20) Balanced. Demand Entry: 42 % (1) Entry 2 Entry 863 Demand Entry: 4 % (35) Balanced: Demand Exit: 2 % (1) Exit 26 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing 820 - Shopping Center Exit 507 Demand Exit: 42 % (213) Balanced: Demand Entry: 7 % (15) Entry 221 Entry 863 Demand Entry: 46 % (397) Balanced. Demand Exit: 19 % (46) Exit 240 46 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) 750 - Office Park Exit 184 Demand Exit: 4 % (7) 0 Balanced: Demand Entry: 15 % (0) Entry 2 Entry 314 Demand Entry: 4 % (13) 0 Balanced: Demand Exit: 0 % (0) Exit 26 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) At 184 Demand Exit: 42 % (77) Entry 314 Demand Entry: 46 % (144) Balanced: 7 Balanced: 17 820 -Shopping Center Demand Entry: 3 % (7) Entry 221 Demand Exit: 7 °lo (17) Exit 240 750 -Office Park 820 -Shopping Center Exit 26 Demand Exit: 20 % (5) Balanced: Demand Entry: 8 % (18) Entry 221 Entry 2 Demand Entry: 31 % (1) Balanced: Demand Exit: 2 % (5) Exit 240 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing 3 Internal Trips Total Trips 220 - Multifamily 750 - Office Park 820 - Total External Trips Housing (Low I Shopping Rise) Center Entry 863 (100%) = 0 (0%) 1 (0%) 146 (5%) 47 (5%) 816 (95%) Exit i 507 100 /0 0 0 /0 1 0 /o i 15 3% 16 3% 491 97% { °) (%) (°) { 1 r ( ) ( ) Total 1370 (100%) 0 (0%) 2 (0%) 161 (4%) 63 (5%) 1307 (95%) 220 -Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) Internal Trips f 210 - Single- { Total Trips (Family ( `Detached i Housing Entry 314 (100°%) i 0 (0%) Exit 1 184 (100%) 10 (0%) Total 1 498 (100%) g 0 (0%) 7 50 -Office Park 750 -Office Park � 820 - Total Shopping ;External Trips Center 0 (0%) s 17 (5%) 117 (5%) 297 (95%) 0 (0 %) 7 (4%) 7 (4%) 177 (96%) 0 (0%) 124 (5%) 24 (5%) 474 (95%) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a � e � 52 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1— August 2u20 E Total Trips I Internal Trips External Trips 1 210 - Single- 220 - Multifamily 820 - r Total Family Housing (Low- 'Shopping 3 Detached Rise) Center ( Housing Entry 112 (100%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 1 2 (100%) 0 (0%) Exit 26 (100%) 1 (4%) 0 (0%) 5 (19%) 1 6 (23%) 120 (77%) Total 2$ (t00%) 2 (7%) 0 (0%) 6 (21%) 1 8 (29%) j 20 (71%) 820 - Shopping Center Internal Trips 1210 - Single- 220 w Multifamily 750 - Office ' Total i Total Trips i Family Housing (Low- Park External Trips I Detached Rise) Housing Entry 221 (100%) If15 (7%) 7 (3°Io) 5 (2%) 1 27 (12%) i 194 (88%) Exit 1240 (100%) 46 (19%) s 17 (7%) 1 (0%) 64 (27%) 176 (73%) Total 461 (100°l0) 161 (13%) 24 (5%) 6 (1 Flo) 91 (20%) ! 370 (80%) EXTERNAL TRIPS Land Use External Trips Pass-by°fo Pass -by Trips Non -pass -by Trips 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing 1307 0 0 1307 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) 474 0 0 474 750 - Office Park 20 0 0 20 820 - Shopping Center 370 025 93 277 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a � e � 53 Long water Stewardship Receiving Area —115 — Section 1 — August 2020 PM PEAK HOUR - NET EXTERNAL {NON -PASS -BY} RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL COMBINED % Entry Exit TOTAL % Entry Exit TOTAL TOTAL Longwater Buildout 100 1,113 668 11781 100 146 151 297 2,078 60% 60 668 401 1,069 60 88 91 179 1,248 50% 50 557 334 891 50 73 76 149 11040 40% 40 445 267 712 40 58 60 118 830 35% 35 390 234 624 35 51 53 104 728 30% 30 334 200 534 30 44 45 89 623 25% 25 278 167 445 25 37 38 75 520 20% 20 223 134 357 20 29 30 59 416 15% 15 167 100 267 15 22 23 45 312 10% 10 111 67 178 10 15 15 30 208 5% 5 56 33 89 5 7 8 15 1 44 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 54 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section I — August ZOZO Rural Lands West SRA -Traffic Memorandum June 26, 2018 (Excerpts) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P � g e � 55 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 1 —August 2020 ATTACHMENT A-1 RURAL LANDS WEST SRA UPSDATED SEGMENT ANALYSIS EXHIBITS UPDATED PROJECT TRAFFIC APPENDICES DUNE 26, 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P � � e � 56 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — "S — Section 2 —August 2020 CmJ 0 � 0 0 m 0 N 0 0 O 0 0 v 0 l 0 O T T M O m M O O h O m O O O O O o G 0 m 0 0 0 6 0 0 � 0 F 0 N 0 0 0 b 0 F• 0 O S � � .� •• N < a°Qi F 6 � 0 � 6 O 0 0 •-• 0 N 0 •• 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 6 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O G O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v �p F •Fc'• �— M1 � v b J a M M1 G M1� YY1' n1 � t`I N �y �� 9 v m V m — Q �` � V N m O O^ N `1 � aaAA Q ,� cfiG� G t� � Yf � � � — � � � M1 •� � rFil S �i °�` }� N N N � v V. � � N � �t 6� � � � � � Yi �p •�+ F oT, vl b � C�i v�tt tN-- QN� p�� kmpB,x. O� r�l C 6 C C L C C W W W W vJ ) y Z Z Z Z y y W N z Z Z W W w W W Wx W W W W W W W W w W w W W 7. .Z i. F� c � Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P age 157 Long water Stewardship Receiving Area — Wo — Section 1 — August 2020 � r r o o$F 0C4 o d d 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o d 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 SioNrwNCI O { O M C{ `0 N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E E �pi� N O�r�t4N +121'Wil 4 X3 F N g^ Kl fx p R u Y� g Fx �` h 14 g 94$ 4 v vlHIld W 3T 3n 3m 3T w W w w w h . to to n z z co �p W w W cl m to to .. fn cI Lr. pz >z Oz� O0� �Wj Nw 61 N Q ^}r.. n PJ }j •O A Q N oo O. M N N N LJLVV R N y Im !` N^ No Y� V QRv F O �O NO �D C� Cl -+ N N^ O ^ N to 6� nl .C-I cl 0 $ O O 6 S O a 6 a O �v S 0. Q ELT v g��� O� fI O� O i}S 0 0 0 0 Z 0 OV O O O O O O O o O O 0 O-1 61010 O O O O0 0. O 0. O O O OQ Orn � o v 8 F' cvo fo r !2 o@ R aci fn ^n ti m o Y3 G e (vro 23 YM1 fiO SOo fiO ^wO �Oo aOo 6ao t^ aOo wO eOo O O G. O O O O O O O O O O O O O G O O O O 6 O J 0 0 0 0 0 � Fern fR� 9 M9�8 o � fJd 71 g�F � v C• �O O J M O N OK N N m .N. N -Nit � W yWy ai 1 J m 'c f W ❑ 6i Z O O 7C — :° >8 tJyKK ❑ to a'S ... W v "I .7 yKK 8 ❑ W W to L t u 9 v K » �1 AD w to G d` o S N 1 p 'a cn a m 6 w �1 y ego 5 6 cu ❑ u G3 [ x, z .� _ z w 0 too a O O O O O ❑ Qa ❑a❑a% O CO to CO Wn W jJ00 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 J✓ aa; a; a a a a w w w a d eJ d d d o 0 a 2w a a a [ W W�] w w O z6K O vi oy4 pZ{ CI m 1 rn N a� a� 1 a� rn N rn N a� N s N cn to y co MA bi 010l a1 v >>PA 9 w 3 SSE O G O O O O uai tti r'} oSo P7 a6 I cod oG No Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P age � 58 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1 — August 2020 t� ^ � CI V O � N y1 w� � V ~ `��'. q h t om V a O � > <.1 n O O t- N h Y1 Y1 0� b •�• N `0 N � V t�l M CI S t�l N � to t+� � T (+, UY.� h a N tryJ p pO� a pV� 4 8� F N s� � •o N O O O OOOOOCGOGOOCOOOOOGOOOO LS Yi N •�o � f;� y i'; b cN� N v � QQ� ''QQ ... k O 0 0 ^+ O O C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �p O: Q� �. X `� 0 YMOY�� ... pM .pp-. •D � m O, � ttom�'� CO! M1 M p� C�FCt w CCO.. < D A tV NrnN ..• v �'1 cNty1 fVO,O �p t� krl* eoeJJ t.) `� �] tT T �i M �i N � I3 .. .°O-• _OMp N .pp. N •Oo N � M C� a� N N Ci ttVy N ccVV •a [C011 M1 .9i ti � N b jtV' V 4 N •Opu N °° N mm A o �• N N N CO 1� nQ� aYYd11 t�t�� (�(YY tV O b .. O� � •O N � � .M1p v O� O .O J. h 0 Q. YN� W g M1 � N V N� �Qj N epO •O � YM1� (Y O� M ��`j1 M M1 T C�1 tV � � tO� KI M1S �+1 .V M Q� � R � �. t� N :y� N v, N 3 Ot pp� N� •O F .-. F p •FO N fl C C C C C C W W w w y y Z t� Z Z f.. Z y y v) N Z <^ Z Z Z al W W W W W W r W W W W W W W W W W W W W Z Z Z Z Z N W w W W W W Z 0 0 o V d --• ti -� o M d .D d o 0 O o d � o 0 0 M1 0 od 0 ap 0 aD o d o d o o d N o N d N d o d d o o d d o 0 0 0 0 0 o d � d 6. d o 0 � 0 � 0 o d ^ d ^ d ^' o ^' d d F F O O M N M M N N •� � ^0 M1 ,.., M N N N �� b O � N (M'1 Y. t� M OI to •L+ V M F 6 M1 .V-. M � p� O O •� O O M N M M O) V o 0 0 _ N v3 Yy N 0 N_ 0 v 0 v 0 ego 0 ei o 0 � 0 `� 0 e 0 e 0 .� 0 � 0 v 0 »_ 0 N 0 .o 0 •o 0 v� 0 � 0 "� 0 `.; 0 � 0Q "� 0 v 0P v� 0 w r $ e 8 e 8 v 8 �a 2', � $ 0 •o 8 o� N c N o 0� � 0 .� 0 "� 0 0 0 � 0 N 0 r• 0 � o N e g �`�, O O -N' � v �sf� �l '(f�TT .� � '�'• � `ice' Oe� ci off' t= � � 'Y�' in �i �M � te�o �v � " •�)i t i5 f:�7 t`Q�.� chi^ •ZN. t= � � � .^., ` � m .M1.. a kS e �Uj ph a �i � fi^ t9i b" c'1 Si w m �i �o � w m � � �i d m w as z ao � M1w w m w Z �o � � Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P age � 59 Long water Stewardship Receiving Area — "S — Section 1 — August 2020 r >o= r �i O g O w O H O � O �_ O � O � O N O oo S o O 0 .a1. � 0 .Np FI O �i O �T 0 .�ii 0 � 0 i 0 � O 6♦ O � O � O � O � o �S 0 N 0 a 0 � 0 VJ 0 d 0 e O O N O o O .V-. O �S G O 0o .'i 0 o 0 o o V` o g o o o 0 o o .4^. o n o 0 0 0 F 8 � O � 0'3 �y 8♦ 3. � a � � $ Z� a 3'i $ 8 � 3 i� agi � N N � � $ g 8 i� 3 X� $ a`i � a 8. ? & m s o 4 n xt i 4711 M �J v�i b N N a = v M �5 h Q m 1� P `� cJ N r H m ,�N. b N .�1 m Vr Xi cI E E E I I E I E 16 1 E IFE 0 0 0 — 0 N 0 Y�1 0 � 0 b 0 ^J 0 b 0 6♦ 0 h 0 o^O 0 N 0 N„� 0 0 O V 0 Y o M 0 0 W 0 h 0 N 0 ♦�1 0 N 0 `o 0 `o o C N~ C, 0 vNi 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 Y�i 0 Y~i 0 vNi o N C N O YNl C Lo i .♦a .Yf-.kQo,00m w S !'. .$ v a N s .-. e e W e o h d — n w N N 0000q'000m� .S-. v CJ to IJ e Y.i .9, O e F a oo �o 10 vy C! C1 1&^ 0 3 0 d 0 o 0 3 0 8 0,6 0 o d o 0 0 0 iPoodl 0 0 0 0O 0. 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 9 0 S, 0 $♦ 0 ♦, o I o I o I o �hqq 8 0 �hqq 8 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 YS 0 0 N F N Ory 01 e.O. �O T� �y IN^ a i t• � �COy i1S !a~�o N ;I O O U N E� VJ 00 ^ v♦ �h m_ m ,n ^ e�0i N y �Q vO1 �. a W N h }YS � `♦8 'O� Q♦ b z Opp ty� e0 0�� 1t�� z O z O ft:�. W O t.N,. W O O z OS z O 1b. W O z O z O z O tG 6 !M�� z O 1^ z O O3 O z� O O z O !C-I z O 00 C; U O t O z O SJ O Z. N O tam� <0 010111010 FF_'... z !^��' 00 tte0-- z O tW�� z O z 6 H z� O O z Op f(�i W O tO�J W OyJ to ^ 11 4� ... �` S � N h N a i .-. ! � ... N N N N� 0000�a v N Cot .M+� W a.� — O O. N a N O C P �{ S"M^n�ve� a�=Q�QG°°�s�^j3� �tiS6�p� NoRT� v � T� a°�e0p O♦ N aop?m�yCCe1rn S N N O. i� y pF?a%IoO a a Mp a a a a a a a z V S Wo�a� ?'� t "" b gl b Wz ni � vi 'A wA� ��^, q4 b v &i E a z x F= on � "� ti Q z m'+' y03 oO to S Y R' m a�� Ly' N Q � w b > o b 4 g w tl o v e b y look 6 a a w w aoa d �a w ama� acOot F V `a v'G 3 e W m 1�' Saad N 2 �� .! 'pea 'a uG J♦ a N = ood Y g Z Q G Y b 9 w 3 O A 6 p V pg Vi �a Ap O 9 a ay O 8 as C'`+ Sr 3 a a wz gp 5 O0 w " 1 > _4 °�a 5 °� w g7 > oa -- y}a i pp a 00 [q�(q]pp a 0 o mma y� W E, oN NNNM> s aa >>> a>> ri Fos 0 0 A °0 d�0d' mi — 0 p 0 N - N'oop N 4PooCI N o 0 Ci 0 N 0N i� ONN M 0 «n b e3 eb a6 a4 0 — 0 0 01 0 0 °o 0 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Long water Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1 — August 20Z0 A�Dendix E: Traffic Growth Rates -Historic Peak Hour, Peak Direction Volumes Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 61 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — "S — Section 1— August 2020 O d O O h f•i 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O N O N K fV fV Cj N N N N M N N N fj 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O fi 0 0 cJ O_ 0 0 M �, Y'1 ^ M K h d N 00 T M �O M r', M N. 1 N �, 'so V K K ^•• N N M O N f T h N K v', � h N N N T :A �. C T T T N N O T O T v N O N T W V' E s. G C! E PE x trA tp K �+ ~ U a U L y ►. y pp X L A C L r J; a U n �c w cx F S 0 0 >` N (0 7 A lL O II E O C C9 c 02 vi con cc ci Aj % CAI Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a � e � 62 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1 — August 2020 Collier County 2019 AUIR Attachment F (Transportation Planning Database Table) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA F a g � � 63 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1 — August 2020 j� �� CI f1 N N N N N N N N N ft N N 1 y CCL $ ye C y GCu} O N P Q uU a aU UMU u UaUm nmarriu wnU UU e m 0 UU UmOgUU`an0 Min u 0cl r ►.�0y alu `JU Pm Vm H YUtam N V O fU�nn tqq f yea + •:J .p�pD, N W f`�� T� ./p�p� S V .�t, `¢G. O4 vM�tn.1, O O > N �bTt �"��pp1• f- qNq v O �W�pp INInn ���pp ���pp V• F pGp m F f VC�1 b w (NV po n h �V�pp V��/�I 11P��, pGp 1Pt�rI qOq N vni F 10 r b vri vOi H V W N OG 00 P h O. 00 `O 00 'O �O N W 00 00 h u^ °/ �ppp +'.{' ��pD �o �O'P t�1 --Yof Gp pM To ivy, to��pn MCn�or reel vp�pGp �pOp� �e ♦o oo$8pM eo s 91P� pvp�np �+$nPOD t OpppN CN��p nnpvp 10J0 P .-. o a �♦p pppa Epp �p 10+� �p Cl f�p1 �p Epp Epp Epp 8 tq- fpV pnp ppp 10�0 P b F.,00 N Ot P m .O m p. Q� C~0; H H V ^ VV e N^ f .D : O O r.. O N O .O RR W N 1. pp O M n r. O ttl w n 0 0 0 O_ O h 0 IP-- f- OO v� pp 11.. c� C1 S! O M O O pp °$ ♦♦ O P to f N tr v .T.. tr{• tnn w1 Q ^ s` C CI y 0000 O O N C1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W O O O O O O O R O h t~n b n< ^1 0 0 0 OM 0 0 �i P p 6 N^ N ^ F pS f•1 H T r ^ T f+ T 00 .O P f� T 00 N V R O_ p, Cw v^ fY N h b W W F .-. ^ ^� y T W g^ ` .T-. a �.py ppp F O �p N > p .�pp T �Gp ppp �y eTY pp m v �i t� �p n n O� p a f1 O� p o0 m vOi `O .1 P. v h0 q N �f N h' Ci `O 00 'O `O f 1• W 00 v�i 00 N l�•I N N rn b w L Y ID N _ n W O O N O .O O N O M. +l N_ O _T : n O O O O O' OD �O N n O O t+ T r f p 00G pp p= f•1 e f1 N M <Q'l C1 1.1 .�.. ims nr�= nAP Mn7.. pC 3C =Mt vN, v� ollmrv^�nm r T to ��- bo .Ii �i_SlQ o ?. G G O mq Cole Cno ^ vNN O�ovBl h ro Y U e J O Q pp pp O O O O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O C O O O O O J O 44Wh O O T 0 0 g M N N K [ y1 III -•� ?. h h N el r V ^j F'j v P V 'R..,H L L - .0 ry N �y 8��y�e&=lS�ox$$ QQ Q OMccen^0'bl0pyp�l(opV8'oORS g g 908es^d$oo��X$b'225'np$v9�$�a g q Q g g g $ P Y q B €i N N N `^ M M .+ fl ^^^^ N N N f l f •1 .+ N 1 E _ e N .+ ^ f IN 1'1 �+ C N L ; 1. eon Col pp 1p� pop pop �+ 4 p fV Q�y pR QQp C, ppq ppp N QQp fl ppp ppp S ell M �Qp pp 8 (� 1+ pp ppp 8 ppp ppo Cl 1� ( coo � Olpb N 00 h„ Ml�A �D O t�l eAO H b O42 �O 10 O M b N N L �O 1Y C• F VI P l. fi N N ^ ^ ^ fff...111 .� ^ f•1 ■ a la t�,1 F L a p; HnSSg& 87F,7i3�25,Hn,25 SHHgRSH dbM gH.�F f4HHH�HH BHHHH g? E ffi$ t( ! E $'o fi ff tf ^$ggg�, N $ dt a a e 5 Y;lj ae a XxXxzXOWWZOiwwmww�w wwwwwzzxzXwzzvlxzzyzzXzzz zzw3� w La w w p O C 9 a w w m m w w a Q a a A w g q q w w q w w w w w a q w w w w a a w w g a n w w w w w n a a q a w w w w w w w q ^ J 9 G 9 VI pp,� P ♦ OO ffll M M v+ l N N M v1 O P W III P 00 00 n p `Zi O„ O M e� O pp q O y� O O. y� 4� 00 O� N p� K In N� L 'O CI t� G 1. o �f. h C� O n O C- N h N n N 1 N 09 n. �D $ N 1 �O P^ f O �p N T 1� rO O M 'O H ID In •O h $1 �D H Y. Vi V� .fi �G .M1 V. N Y� ��00 N .D .D Y� M �O OOL Vl ID Y. �O V1 't p0 U � � h h N V1 V1 Yl Vf .O N � VI y� r' n�gagnnqaananqaaaqnnnap�aqqana�qana �aogggqnaaa�q�a�°��a - ,� ���m5��t��r��$c�gvfi "M$z "�r��$d�$-'��a u "m'c���^ �� $'�•���� C g i3�r8i�o� e� B :.e b $ ��e�_! " " a °aj pTgg s g m �> a a e 3.a3 n a E 8 ci u >otia�C� s5c�wc3h3a3�Hlu i$n�u°�»Osoc7ac��33�»n 3i u'3 y •4p72 ��pg9�yi�6E��� ��� �'oi�gp� � �� a�•g�.Fe���.�.2�2 $�ia���z� � 3 � �0����_-2�ygri ��� g An a � � � � � C�C 9 � �j ♦ T 6 Y np 95 9_Q 9 5p 9 � h eI� T T i _� Ni p y O 6 G 9a yg O Q •gg qa �. � A ! w". ji . iY {F a 5 q a $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ E C OLC OCda'� dm O V Chi V > g gi3_�p3 �a{ qa ,� :o VU •5 �E 9 E E o�§� A 9 4 E ] S U U& S S S S S S S U a U U 3 U U U=- � U U C$7 u « HIM °U g� zu� pi NOUN y u U U U UUU �G„��fat'd°��°a�°�'tE°a°�°�urju U Uv+ NNN Vl UUUUUU UU u r n i�ET Q I mQ� g g mm I I I I F E F F S g ES ...A Ol,,w N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M7 H 0 0 0+ N O t1 ^ N -+ N O O O �bfpl 0 0 0 0 Cf W+ �N'�' .+ f1 <Oe �O�pp O{ OR N O O O O f F p^p C Q H N N C+ C N N A 1 C n M M n H f T< a 4 Y< T rn M tNn to M tin 1 1 • 1 1/• 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P age � 64 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — "S — Section 1— August 2020 o � l I 1� o CO �R� O. Ulm C.:�;•. fC SU�C t ;.rt Lf,G C (C„�C I i I € a.� { a c ,s �.c o�cv�, cl �a �.+��i.r;�ar3 c. �avr�a �� rf-.r ,� c�: �r.cftr�f _fc (,. i , a, �..o � `° � o{ta of�'+ica a° ta� `a�i .�i' x r„n a �o ..-.�_• fie r r a , — +i^ n I (� ¢'t,+ csc rxi u oat E,i. x€'x .o� o;...:, � .•_, g€ t r t Tv', t i € ��, a`o o c o a o•-a atx o�oQ oic o = o .- ,, ,j I ' ' r+_€ � c a Q- iY r IC O O t1 1y vry bff , lS. O O ; O O v � � Nik aG � erE C -. Df O O€r e a + o {b fC L} �h A G !fi tv, 8 �s � ^ L t J M ?'• O h h- C�� �O d —1—�.rr o � r o o a}a a at r t t•` o O — tf i � rj zj o r- r xsr. a; .•..r_ a o o x3 o vj ,1 r < �:` v� o 7�'� I : £m r f �o� ^j �v, �!O �[� � ��, a{o. � cfa o Q O � �a, a3�4o o Q3o o o o v, o o aiuf t+. ti SN �, it+�^ 4r {O Q O aoa�'�m O C 0 0 0 O'Q Q , O C Q O Q QQ a O O �O 4 Q� O O O Q O fc" c.^ �tC+ � 036 � OE�Ia O€ � �� ...:. -ter r c 40 a.�� iN ^ir+ wGcn x.z�z rn��zzfu snzr, �t wuuww }:331��3zz:l nzzzLi'=»crSw n:�rz w.a ,, wlwwu. zyF€<z�:c w( t4 C' C ..,�C C C�C C t S.� d w x}o ^'z,'- a '. �Sr o � � An,v.�^ M,k � v,� r, r j F C kCA wCIE a a n V -oor Cto .r5 G a q F i. h C i CA U r G cCA q row =�ato I CACA q c E to N c ato q m�sto q �< cCA �a q �1CA t o F M C z a E Oro c � x s $ ?rl a u �Cr O H N k A rsL' U C q o p VA tl CA a x c r r Hry7 s to I � 9 s O i a m s C E CA o Q H O i `= �T a to 0 E c n $ a f W O G Y t IM f c a a UCC ' A Q q a i 3 0 a Ind �u yt CD A jCA Co z TI it Ep TA 1 t�to s Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a � e � 65 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — US — Section 1 —August zuzu 0 U A U V A U m m m m u u C U U U U m m m m S � H e�Yi.N11�'t�.VpO� T ? f8l V IP�1 yU� b r '� •O Tp N .G a •r'1 ��p ~p Kp V O V O r + YNI �a H Vl ��N� �� oW1 TIT v iN�mbnTT:n��� 40 H — v 0 0— f O 00 � R r V� eon�TRcbv N oOw.- o00 oN oma�r Aar fl— noPo a r r or �ooaQo o 0 0 o ae L e o O q � a h o d .i � � e O h O H el� f1 � • < � � $ 0�., fl t r f fi J of E .q oc a i� r; Y y c�orooTa„PPOPob oa 8='"�ga0000^o a $$a�3Ta�Ne� .wln sn'r f YOT+ao"o �vo^ia8i�„�� b O r � 00 ri � O S N g 3'j g o 0 QC�ve��yy ^ m /^ N Q bi Y P m g:a0y CQ N + m P 1FL� N O u ^ ri + ID e P F C y H C L — ^z P r m E H e +� v U G� P a. p qC N�FM^Ce P 6 Y � O fO F1� x ac E ,a C " ° cY a L b C z n a U o o o r ;Ur e u r 0 E s a _ o` IW7}i N E S js O � y> E 5 c 8 r 5 3 & s c as qaA w e S c fj Jj � N�c u` Ett e la }3 A G A ein t e F a 9 �e 2 N pp U P N LL O M � 4 L C N L N L Y o ° q o = nb uwigL� 0 0 o o E ° YZ o N A A noa =m° o n o r 0 G r Wk you c n � o Lis E�=p ",cc > C O _ L S n v � V do ° o j n u � e ° N qtj j L ae Y N 0«O O C e q o a O � O � A O 6 IT Wit, Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P age � 66 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area - "S - Section 1- August 2020 a O / t�=1'aa U C�!U{U G4U W oa as . �U�x U4a�U Ulu x .TZ4 R-+ C _, N j] CJ� �i' M �—• O �G O V^ O �.. N M JS vt 0 VS � CN AT '�C V1 M U V'1 I n ,111 At n V ; 104 .f ON N ::N � P� V'�i U`; M '7 N I N 1'^ •-• (" p N ' 5 tz ['� (^ 'tt' Vr 6't 00 00 i Vr ND M V ; Vy �fi N In V"i CA V f C j h Ira L? ^+ MA O M 00 �'t N V' 00 I �O Gti 00 4^ 00 04` V t!` OG M f et' 00 <S a0 N (M + O I M r 00 �O h 00 It � ' r O C! In s V1 N t` Vl ti V^, E vp i �o O N M �A AAA N i --r v'; 00 V; tr ; O O 00 � (N M M �C x N E.� C � AAA 5 IRA tz U ( l Ci } O n N^ Q7 i N TY N r! N N A7 Y� N r` N N N 00 i�7 Mni 'V' N M N , AAA At V i CN r` At �r 00 r' M '? 1 f* 3 Vl c Cv M oama' `�' �'^ C, t� M > M 4` flt n a0 ! 4 00 M Vl In VS N N N tr C 00 i Vr '7 V' %MW MA r N U �> o Vr'�OC�N N et N N MMI "It (V) 0c 00 O v V1 V , 00 In ` V'i .-. r. Ct oc M A-. N O C r Ai 0 m m m rA In y 00 = Vl CJe M O 'tY'i^t +D M 04 M M:M NN �fiOCj� AT AzY AAA AmoAmo AAA IrmA AMA owI G G "" 4 C�OFO O O O G�G!OO C C OG GGO OiC�O O G C x a O CIC O G G O;C C C G G.G.0 G C G OHO C O G .�� ,y, �"{. ¢v C M{ 0 j O O C44 M M C1 O G\ G �-. G M M G Q C.� i C` 00 00 00 N� �`N N N E C1( f{f > C (� o � I IWO rm 00 c. °z o �'t� o.�;a aca o'o0o!no00oaooao > C �r kr; i cq C O wr qtf N I N Vl { ,-�I = ¢ ' 04 Mv V ; f� t^^ { C'� 00 V1 G1 t.^v rA V'1 C M I V1 k C 1•• V� 6c tiav�+n .OIn vC,v tiC� f v �aoa000ka��oL;aCa�c���aa �y �t At NC %0 Z V <a tO N Tt N N E Tr et {� N AT N O IN N N N I C C ^ANA Vi "z% 'C 1 ^O t .- > > `a c`s a E tiI AM > �. 4Li > .,» > . AAA Ams E" ( t xi v i > ii' G > > AWAW ( C>jAm" > ; a ." a 3 v u G ea a x o a oc Aft"v av-� a u° o{v}°x�ad :^. H{ dt `"'7'..^� ,i,.riN �: .� t^J"4 "'S vit/J O f E G. C (R+ G G > � _ > 04 > u 0 > �U 3(�I�aU3c,�Uwcc¢-Iw�Ulw;^eWAS { I G AAO t. > > fk/ J t > > >AAA AAA J ^� ! i vAAA t- ts3 3 c~s QtI C C L. �. C ^s �, cs > > I G V > r 'vAAA of a>i a' 0.� ter. w .��`'wo uExE�C��. C .''.. AAA ru CA AAA AAA AM AAA PC 0 vmw .� c G`? O cOVA n �:� Civ) ❑G C ar AA A oft" WAR AAA OVA v €>v U31J.°a =Z c C!J3°-=c � °`sueC14u I I e i { (I u ,v x i w A A= w 7 C PS f h i ^J } a s cs A3 izIcz u a 6 r�,�k> C4' >' a O! G. > > .a u cob MIAA v ,x r x[x n r > {YT 11� P7 G , N Q ❑ G { �' E! Amm C. O AAA rA A: El �U4UU�Ec>c000.�caU��,�x�xw�u a rcG Efo E >>a r� v) In In R 00 C\ C++ 00 00100 00 � 00 00 � x.�' tY+ ; � x U Ulu U U U CA)' U C,U U U u; I N •fir jAAA A'O AMA �!OfG AAA �n yrj �I AC Ct O N`N N N C CJIM M M M M AAA Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA � � � e � 67 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — T!S — Section 1 — August 2020 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA �' � � � � 68 Longwoter Stewardship Receiving Area - ".S-.Sect ion 1 - August 2020 Project 6016° 60201 66066 60147 60190 60215 60212 60212.1 TBD 60228� 60145 60211 60198 60199 60200 60219 60129 65061 60144 33524 70167 69057 60065 60232 TBD TBD 60229 TBD TBD TBD 60016 33524 60148 60214 60225 60226 60227 60231 60230 60213 60132 60192 TBD 60233 TOE, TOO TBD Several 61001 60040 68056 50154 60208 Attachment D 20206 Year Work Program (Dollars shown in Thousands) Proj ed UPDATE Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area - "S -Sect ion 1 -.August 2020 Operations InpraremeidsPrograms 66066 Bridge Repairstinprovenents 10,014 2,59n Z500 61500 6,500 6,000 24,000 60130 WalliBarrier Replacement 793 500 250 250 250 250 1,500 60131 Road Resuifacing11V101 51637 6,000 6,500 69000 6,000 11,590 36,000 60128 LimerockRoad Cower sion111 11017 100 100 60077 Striping arxi Marking 985 Boo 800 800 000 950 41150 60172 Traffic Ops UrxjrafesEnitancemeits Z029 400 700 700 700 700 3,200 60189 LED Replacement Program 11110 350 350 60183 Sion R trorelectnrtty Relitiremant 27 60118 Countywide Patlnvays!S{dewalks Non PIL iLAP 1,865 250 350 300 750 750 Z400 69081 Pathwaysrsidewalks Bike Lanes MainUEnlian 24 60031 Asset MOtrt 523 450 10t1 100 100 100 050 60146 TMC Relocation Find 310 11122 60197 RM Facility Fund 310 750 500 500 500 500 500 Z500 69331-339 District 1,23,446 Sidewalk PIL 402 60191 Lap Design Phase 112 - SttbtotalOperations hnprovemeitstPraTrams 27,210 12-rfit 11,7Uti 15,160 MWIl 2R750 75,850 60066 Congestion Mont Fare 918 60085 TIS Review 365 250 S 250 S 250 S 250 S 250 S 19250 60088 PUD Monitoring 165 60109 Piautdny Constnttirx3 443 500 S 500 S 500 S 500 S 500 S Z500 60163 Traffic Studies 635 30n 300 300 300 300 11500 60171 Milli Project 00 Advance.RepaV to 325 STW 14,450 Impact FeeRefutxls 1,370 250 250 250 250 250 1,250 Debt Service Payntetts 13,326 13,262 13,134 13,131 13,136 13,576 66,239 Total Ftnding Request All Funds 131.ti13 it.rx1l 1771540 tOL�64 t7,001 M011 511,373 REVENUES Sales Tax 9,127 86,407 26,973 31,650 29,535 183,692 Impact Fees Reroute 18,130 15,000 15,500 15,500 15,500 15,500 77,000 COA Revenue Gas Tax Revenue 22,975 23,000 242000 24,000 241000 24,000 11(i,000 GrantsReOnntrtrsements' 1989J 11500 47934 4,928 11,362 D C N itt edo cal 62014 1, 000 1,000 Transfer 001 to 310 R556 9,399 9,556 99556 99556 %556 47,613 Transfer 111 to 310 4,250 4,00U 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 18,000 Interest Gas Tax -impact Fees 500 11381 1,000 13000 1,000 1,000 5,381 Carry Forward 313-310.Impact Fees 129,093 479576 47,576 Pote tial Debt FunditngfUnfinded Needs 26,000 723 5,545 32,268 E)gteclei FEMA Reinnbtrsemait 0,500 R500 RemmeReserve 5% 1,919 20 2,02 $0 20 1Q019 Tota{ SYear Re4eimes 185,399 11RO54 177,372 03,432 83,904 M611 5119373 GFossStrplus"Shoruall 47,576 311467 (168) (18,122) (13,177) ct Ke r� A= AiN Constriction / S = Slimly / D =Design fd =Mitigation ! C = Constntdion i R =ROW LS = Landscape J L = LRigation i 1 = Inspection Ah1 = Access Mgmt i LP = SIB Loan Repaymertt Proje FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 llir lbih St Bridge 4,934 iortVBRto lnsuk 1,500 4,928 0 1,500 4,934 4,928 0 im = See separate stppientettal nta{ts The 5-cent Local Option Fuel Tax is earmarked towards debt service, bridges, aril irtersedion improvernerts. Sales Tax Proieds: 60168 Vanderbilt Beadt Exl 60201 Pirte Ridge Rd (Livingston Intersection hip) 66066 11 Bridge Repiaceinents 60147 InmlWRaudail Rd Intersection TBD Airport Rd VBR to brink Rd 60215 Triangle BNtltPrice St 60212 New Golden Gate Bridges (11) 4 Ah Street Bridge TBD 16th Street Bridge TBD Sidewalks Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a � e � 70 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —.Section 1 — August 2020 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a � e � 71 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — "S —Section 1— August 2020 Table 6-1 � Highway Cost Feasible Plan —Highway Improvements Completed: 2021-2025 1 Airport Pulling Rd 2 Collier Blvd/ CR 951 3 Golden Gate Parkway Q Immokalee Rd 5 Pine Ridge Rd b Randall Blvd at Immokalee Rd 7 SR29 8 US41 at Goodlette Rd 9 Vanderbilt Beach Road Ext 10 I-75 at Collier Blvd' Not Bridge Program Shovm on Funds Map Not shown on CMS/ITS Funds Map Not Pathway Program Shown on Funds Map Vanderbilt Beach Rd Golden bate Canal 4-Lane Roadway to 6 Lanes with Sidewalk, Bike Lanes, and Curb Immokalee Rd & Gutter (Includes milling and resurfacing of) Green Blvd 4-Lane Roadway to 6 Lanes with Sidewalk, Bike Lanes, and Curb & Gutter (Includes milling and resurfacing ) At I.75 htterdiange At k75 Diterchange At 1.75 lnterdiange Immokalee Rd 8th St North of SR 82 Collier Blvd Collier/Hendry Line Sth St • Add Lanes ■ New Roadway ■ Intersection Improverr�ent g Interchange Urhrovernent Bridges, CMS/ITS, cu)d Pathway (New} 2-Lane Ramp Intersection Traffic Signalization Intersection Traffic Signalization At -Grade Intersection Improvement includes 4 lane from Immokalee Rd to Sth St (future fly-over/interchange) z Lane Roadway to 4 Lanes with Outside Shoulder Paved {Includes milling and resurfacing of existing pavement) Intersection Improvements (add Turn lane) Expand from 0 & 2 lanes to build 3 lanes of a 6 lane ultimate from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd, 2 lanes from Wilson to 8th St Interchange — Single Point Urban Note: Figures are in Millions of Dollars `Source: FDOT District One Draft Tentative Work Progran; Fiscal Years 20I7-2021 We Plan so that Ton-larrow's Horizon is as Inspirational as I oday's $30.00 $5.00 $59.96 Cost Feasible I G-3 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1— August 2020 Table 64 1 Highway Cost Feasible Plan — Highway Improvements Completed: 2021-2025 (continued) 1 AirpoiY Pulling Rd $1.22 2 Collier Blvd/ CR $3.66 951 3 Golden Gate S0 5n Parkway 4 Immokalee Rd 5 Pine Ridge Rd $O.RO 6 Randall Blvd at Immokalee Rd 7 SR 29 8 US41 at Goodlette $0.37 Rd 9 Vanderbilt Beach Road Ext 10 1-75 at Collier Blvd Not Bridge Program Shown on Funds Map Not Shovm on CMS/ITS Funds Map Not Pathway Program Shown on Funds Map $6.35 $3s.10 $254 $4.00 56.35 ss.08 $12.66 $76.15 $55,87 $4.66 $9.32 $9.32 ■ Pre -Engineering fPF1 ■Right -of -Way (ROIN) s Construction (CST) Note: Figures are in Millions of Dollars �C/e F'iar� so that Tarr�orrow's Horizon is as inspiratianal as Today's $190 $185 $180 $175 $170 o $165 $160 $155 $7.57 County 6 CIA $3.13 CIA$4.00 CIA$7,15 CIA$5.08 CIA $10.02 SIS $2.91 OA $89,01 County $55.87 SIS $4,66 TMA $9.32 TMA $9.32 TMA Present Day Year of Costs Expenditure (PDC) (YOE) Cost Feasible 16-4 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 73 LOng water Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1 — August 2020 Table 6-2 � Highway Cost Feasible Plan _Highway Improvements: Completed 2426-2030 1 Immokalee Rd Camp Keais Rd Carver St 2-Lane Roadway to 4 Lanes with Sidewalk, Bike Lane, and Curb & 525.04 Gutter (Includes milling and resurfacing) 2 Oil Well Rd/ CR Everglades Oil Well 2-Lane Roadway to 4 Lanes with Outside Shoulder Paved $20.00 858 Blvd Grade Rd (Includes milling and resurfacing) 3 Old 41 Rd US 41/ Lee/Collier 2-Lane Roadway to 4 Lanes with Sidewalk, Bike Lane, and Curb & Si J.n3 Tamiami Trail County Line Gutter (Includes milling and resurfacing) 4 Collier Blvd/ SR South of North of 4-Lane Roadway to 6 Lanes with Sidewalk, Bike Lanes, and Curb $13.35 951 Manatee Rd Tower Rd & Gutter (Includes milling and resurfacing) Vanderbilt Beach Airport Rd US 41/ 4-Lane Roadway to 6 Lanes with Sidewalk, Bike Lanes, and Curb $4.00 5 Rd Tamiami Trail & Gutter (Includes milling and resurfacing) Veterans US 41/ 2-Lane Undivided Roadway with Sidewalk, Bike Lane and Curb & 6 Memorial Blvd Livingston Rd Tamiami Trail Gutter $8.00 Not Bridge Program Shown on $4.66 Map Funds Not Shown on CMS/ITS Funds $9.32 Map Not Pathway Program Shown an Funds $932 Map Add Lanes �New Roadway Bridges, CMS/ITS, and Pathway Note: Figures are ire Mitlior,s of Dollars We Plan so that Tornorrow's Horizon is as Inspirational as Today's ■ County TMA Cost Feasible (6-7 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 74 Long water Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1 —August 2020 Table 6-2 � Highway Cost Feasible Plan —Highway Improvements: Completed 202b-2030 (continued) 2 Oil Well ftd/ CR 858 3 Old Al Rd 4 Collier Blvd/ SR 951 5 Vanderbilt Beach Rd 6 Veterans Memorial Blvd Not Bridge Program Shawn on Map Funds Not Shown on CMS/ITS Funds Map Not Pathway Sttarm on .Nap Program Funds 52.02 $1.95 51.08 53,10 $30.00 $22.55 $20.C3 $6.00 $12.00 $4.GE $9.32 $9.32 $200 ■Pre -Engineering fPF1 �. $100 ■Right -of -Way (ROW) � $50 ■Construction (CST) m PJote: Figures are in A�iifiians of Dollars '�"Je Flan so that Tan�orro��v's Horizon rs 3s Inspirational as Today's 565.81 County $30.00 County $25,27 OA $22.05 OA $9.1U County $15.03 County $4.6G TMA 59.32 TNtA $9.32 TNV,. Present Day Year Of Costs Expenditure (PDC) (YOE) Cost Feasible � G-B Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page (75 Longwater Stewarashiq Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — August zuzu Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 76 LongwaterStewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 1 —August 2020 ez us a. es fi K2N m> m`dU o mv' ? 6` 00 UN 2$Q Q O �' Oa $IV3N dwvo a a ppN i0 m W N m U �� w a ro- c3f v R f� , in Ago v cc �o� m urS3��md. w z v m o=��gyv`�Q o 13"g 0: 0 r662 a HHE Qo Q Qao W O N I Q =LHP0_ Y anieoibs a M�� &� si0 < E a v� A�oi� CNab 1 m M LLs m c) o 3 �= p `'o m` m d �nv i sY Z E U p E fm O �E m 1 m�SLL �0 5 a a,vm"H}N Q Q�19(� m � 02 Jm Q Up r2 O ^qcp Q m�p Z 00U in- [7 Q U U ZW 5 W o n Q U h m LL U mL aif N oIlAk LL$ V DN w CIO �(O 1 I N ULL O V m Q m Z > dccI� s� m�� m0 >. > v O E N� m S (N 42OQQ 30 n Q- E`C mn Fw- ..a .. o 0OO�i ZEE Z^ v inV CO O Z c„ 92F maK m O..= v� �S 4 W Q� ~Sf7U�j4i umU m °= m Z QU O a0UN6 > uUy p 0 W j Wm J U - gW d W 2 GA14 a3111 311103 3 c..4 W WQ Iwo g I�i O ZL vm �aagg4� ¢YNN sy�'LLi.'W� QA'16. _V 1/$ ' o I.w.1� �/Uj 6 u t� o ' £ o3F o m �sLL �M Z N N o st i s[-I p, y= o s -� O 4 a a m Q 5 �pgt N N -- u1 -JO O r W > e O - _ O tL on Q o m �aa Yi d oaai m m >o �� M_ A� yS o o 2 � a± O B� LLLL W Q'- - O to m O m m E rn Q bS > > as HN B oo`J o p cm e m �o lal iwvinvi m o N mN> m >zc p cr0&� aoi a3 -- �m s bo > M W � 0 E� > 2 p is E Q $ +O p� �v8C 7� 3 m C �rypQ Q N N }N ~ 0 Q l9 L� m m m Q O W � O WmLL rjOU vN� UN�VryMco N mm��LL 00t U>% GNU d Q E;+oc x m 0 aNH �.. .. k LL ..p. m.y? 0 j �-l5`Y ? > N N N4 �CL ° N &SQ IL mU � �`t w Uj m mm� U v �N a$ u r o >Q M m >oZo 9 0)w o o > t a rd jp3o�0 2 0 W DNS ma, g'E o 'c v 0 c' LU U5F5 v �� -p E 15 0) mve O OFMF O `WvE€ai1L " a m U p . 0 Q m a GULF g °� — G waooLm 0Q� a w 0. a r- Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 77 PeUIICOCK Is planAinp•enpineeriop 97AIIIN 11 &= Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area Section 2 -Intersection Analyses Prepared for: Collier Enterprises 2550 North Goodlette Road, Suite 100 Naples, FL 34103 Phone: 239-4344015 Collier Coun Collier County, Florida 8/14/2020 Prepared by: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 28 )0 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-566-9551 Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz Transportation Methodolo�y Fee* — $500.00 Fee Collier County Transportation Review Fee* —Major Study — Note — *collected at time of first submittal 500.00 F Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Statement of Certification I certify that this Traffic Impact Statement has been prepared by me or under my immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Transportation Engineering. This item has been electronically signed and sealed by Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, PE, State of Florida license 47116, using aSHA-1 authentication code. Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed, and the SHA-1 authentication code must be verified on any electronic copies. ��`��`�,�! TRF6j���i :�`OQ�`P��G E iv S� �C�O�: �Z: No 47116 :�: - *; �� .. ' � � STATE OF ��/ ` � ,� � ,,'����`SS'� O R 1,0 �����. ���� �0 N A� E ���. �%��� Digitally signed by Norman Trebilcock DN: c=US, st=Florida,l=Naples, o=Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA, cn=Norman Trebilcock, email=ntrebilcock@trebilcock. biz Date: 2020.08.18 14:05:08 -04'00' Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, P.E. FL Registration No. 47116 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Company Cert. of Auth. No. 27796 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 12 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Table of Contents Description.................................................................................................................................................... 4 IntersectionConfigurations..........................................................................................................................4 IntersectionTraffic Volumes......................................................................................................................... 5 IntersectionCapacity Analyses..................................................................................................................... 6 SynchroAnalyses Results..........................................................................................................................7 IntersectionImprovements.......................................................................................................................... 9 Current Traffic Conditions —without project............................................................................................ 9 Future Traffic Conditions (Existing Geometry +Committed Improvements) —without project .............. 9 Future Traffic Conditions with non -project related improvements —without project ............................ 9 Future Traffic Conditions with non -project related improvements in place —with project .................... 9 Future Traffic Conditions with additional project related improvements in place —with project.........10 Improvement Analysis and Mitigation........................................................................................................10 AccumulationTraffic Impacts...................................................................................................:.................10 Appendices Appendix A: Intersection Commited Improvements................................................................................15 Appendix B: Raw Intersection Turning Movement Counts.......................................................................17 Appendix C: Projected Traffic at Subject Intersections............................................................................. 34 Appendix D: Existing Programmed Signal Timings.....................................................................................57 Appendix E: 2018 Annual Vehicle Classification Report, Site 4187.........................................................178 Appendix F: Intersection Analyses —Synchro Reports.............................................................................180 Appendix G: Development Accumulation —Trip Generation................................................................. 267 Appendix H: Development Accumulation —Roadway Segments Capacity Analysis ............................... 279 Appendix I: Development Accumulation —Traffic Projections and Synchro Reports .............................. 282 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA page ( 3 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Description Intersection capacity analyses are performed for specific intersections as coordinated with County staff. The following intersections are analyzed for AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions: - Oil Well Rd and Desoto Blvd - Oil Well Rd and Everglades Blvd - Randall Blvd and Desoto Blvd - Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd - 18t" Ave NE and Desoto Blvd - 18t" Ave NE and Everglades Blvd - Immokalee Rd and Oil Well Rd - Immokalee Rd and Randall Blvd Intersection capacity analyses are evaluated based on the following scenarios: - Existing Conditions - Future 2030 Conditions without project - Future 2030 Conditions without project —with committed improvements in place, as applicable - Future 2030 Conditions without project —with non -project related improvements in place, as applicable (for deficient intersections only) - Future 2030 Conditions with non -project improvements in place, as applicable —with project - Future 2030 Conditions with project —with additional project related improvements in place , as ,•• .� - Intersection Configurations The existing intersection lane configurations are depicted in this report based on field observations. Future geometric intersection configurations reflect existing conditions or committed intersection improvements, as applicable. Intersection improvements that are currently under construction or are scheduled to be constructed within the 5-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or Capital Improvement Program (CIP) are considered to be committed improvements. Per adopted FY2020 — FY2024 Five Year Work Program/CIE for Collier County, the following intersection improvements are considered committed improvements: - Immokalee Rd and Randall Blvd Intersection — At grade intersection improvements to include 4- lane widening of Randall Blvd, from Immokalee Rd to 8t" St (FDOT Build Alternative Phase 1 — Triple Lefts — refer to Appendix A) In addition, consistent with Collier 2040 LRTP —Highway Cost Feasible Plan Highway Improvements Completed 2026-2030 and based on coordination with County staff, the 4-laning of Oil Well Rd from Everglades Blvd to Oil Well Grade Rd is included as a committed roadway improvement for the purposes of this traffic analysis. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page ( 4 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 As illustrated in Collier County Construction Standards Handbook (Resolution 2016-136), Section III A — Separate Turn Lane Requirements, turn lanes are required and must be constructed whenever the following conditions exist on multi -lane divided roadways: - when new median openings are permitted, they shall always include left -turn lanes - right -turn lanes shall always be provided. Based on the above considerations, the intersection of Oil Well Rd and Desoto Blvd is projected to permit a median opening and will provide, at a minimum, a westbound left -turn lane and an eastbound right - turn lane as committed improvements for 2030 future traffic conditions. Based on access management median restrictions on Oil Well Rd, a full median opening is allowed at Oil Well Rd and Big Cypress Pkwy intersection provided that a future directional median opening is proposed at Desoto Boulevard and Oil Well Road Intersection. As requested by County staff, the Oil Well Rd and Desoto Blvd intersection analysis provides a full median opening configuration for year 2030 geometry. Intersection Traffic Volumes To support the traffic analysis, intersection turning movement counts were conducted for the Rivergrass Village zoning application on Wednesday April 17, 2019, at the following intersections: Oil Well Rd and Desoto Blvd, Oil Well Rd and Everglades Blvd, Immokalee Rd and Oil Well Rd and Immokalee Rd and Randall Blvd. AM and PM peak period turning movement data were collected in 15-minute intervals from 7-9 AM, In addition, AM and PM peak hour traffic counts were collected on Thursday January 9, 2020 for the intersections Randall Blvd and Desoto Blvd, Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd, 18t" Ave NE and Desoto Blvd, and 18t" Ave NE and Everglades Blvd. A summary of the intersection turning movement counts is provided in Appendix B: Raw Intersection Turning Movement Counts. Traffic count volumes collected are adjusted for peak season conditions by using the peak season conversion factor (PSCF) as illustrated in FDOT 2018 Peak Season Factor Category Report (refer to Appendix C). Forecasted traffic generated by the project (net new external trips) is assigned to the subject intersections generally consistent with the project trip distribution and assignment (refer to Longwater Village SRA — TIS —Section 1—Trip Distribution and Assignment). Intersection traffic projections are shown in Appendix C. The future 2030 AM and PM peak hour background traffic volumes for Immokalee Rd and Randall Blvd intersection are calculated by interpolating between the 2025 and 2035 peak hour volumes documented in the "Immokalee Rd at Randall Blvd Intersection PD&E Study Final Project Traffic Report dated February 2019. The 2025 and 2035 peak hour intersection volumes are depicted in Appendix C. -- Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 15 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Intersection Capacity Analyses An assessment of the Level of Service (LOS) and volume to capacity ratio analysis of the subject intersections are conducted using Synchro 10 program. This software has the capability of utilizing the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (HCM 2010) and HCM 2000 methodologies to analyze signalized and unsignalized intersections. In addition, Synchro implements the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) 2003 method for determining intersection capacity. This method compares the current volume to the intersection's ultimate capacity. The HCM control delay is used as the basis for determining LOS, ranging from LOS A to LOS F using the delay ranges for signalized intersections. For two-way stop -controlled intersections, the LOS is defined in terms of the average control delay for each minor -street movement (or shared movement) as well as major -street left -turns. According to HCM, the level of service criterion for intersections is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 Level of Service for Intersections Based on HCM guidelines, the general description of each LOS is as follows: LOS A —free flow; LOS B — stable flow with slight delays, LOS C —stable flow with acceptable delays, LOS D —approaching unstable flow with tolerable delay and unfavorable progression, LOSE —unstable flow with intolerable delay and poor progression to all movements, and LOS F —forced flow (congested and queues fail to clear) and poor progression to all movements. The LOS for each approach or the overall intersection is determined solely by the control delay. In addition, if the volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio for a lane group exceeds 1.0, LOS F is assigned to the individual lane group. The volume to capacity ratio (V/C), also referred to as degree of saturation, represents the sufficiency of an intersection to accommodate the vehicular demand. A V/C ratio less than 0.85 generally indicates that adequate capacity is available and vehicles are not expected to experience significant queues and delays. As the V/C ratio approaches 1.0, traffic flow may become unstable, and delay and queuing conditions may Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA page 16 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 occur. Once the demand exceeds the capacity (a V/C ratio greater than 1.0), traffic flow is unstable and excessive delay and queuing is expected. Under these conditions vehicles may require more than one signal cycle to pass through the intersection (known as cycle failure). For design purposes, a V/C ratio between 0.85 and 0.95 is generally utilized for the peak hour of the horizon year. As such, each intersection movement is analyzed to ensure that the threshold value of V/C failure (1.0) is not exceeded. Signal Timings — To support the signalized intersection analyses, the existing programmed signal timings (Max Time Timing Sheet) were provided by Collier County Transportation staff. For details refer to Appendix D. Percent Heavy Vehicle —The HCS 2010 percent heavy vehicle is assumed the Design Hour Truck (DHT) — the percent of trucks expected to use the roadway segment during the design hour of the design year. Design Hour Truck is determined as half of T24 (annual 24-hour percentage of trucks). The intersection analyses for the current existing conditions reflect counted peak hour truck percentages as illustrated in the peak hour turning movement counts (refer to Appendix B ). Based on the review of the FDOT 2018 Annual Vehicle Classification Report, Site 4187 —Oil Well Rd east of Everglades Blvd, the 24-hour truck and bus percentage (24T&B) is 9.48% and the design hour truck (DHT) is 4.74%. Subject report is provided in Appendix E: 2018 Annual Vehicle Classification Report, Site 4187. As such, a 5% value is utilized for the percent heavy vehicle in all 2030 peak hour intersection analyses. Peak Hour Factor (PHF) —PHF is the ratio of the hourly volume to the peak 15-minute flow rate for that hour. As illustrated in Appendix B, the raw intersection turning movement counts provide the existing PHF value for each intersection. PHF value associated with future 2030 traffic conditions is considered as follow: - Oil Well Rd and Desoto Blvd intersection - Oil Well Rd and Everglades Blvd intersection - Randall Blvd and Desoto Blvd intersection - Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd intersection - 18t" Ave NE and Desoto Blvd intersection - 18t" Ave NE and Everglades Blvd intersection - Immokalee Rd and Randall Blvd intersection - Immokalee Rd and Randall Blvd intersection —PHF = 0.93 for AM and 0.93 for PM —PHF=0.93forAM and0.95forPM —PHF = 0.93 for AM and 0.93 for PM — PHF = 0.95 for AM and 0.95 for PM —PHF = 0.93 for AM and 0.93 for PM —PHF = 0.93 for AM and 0.93 for PM —PHF = 0.95 for AM and 0.96 for PM —PHF = 0.97 for AM and 0.97 for PM Synchro Analyses Results -.-. The results of the Synchro intersection analyses for AM and PM peak hour conditions are summarized in Table 1A and 1B. Synchro intersection worksheets are provided in Appendix F: Intersection Analyses — Synchro Reports. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 17 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —August 2020 Intersection Improvements In agreement with Florida statute, the developer is not responsible to address transportation deficiencies which occur regardless of the project's traffic. Intersection improvements needed to address transportation deficiencies are recommended based on the Synchro analyses results illustrated in Table 1A and Table 113. The improvements needed to restore subject intersections to a minimum acceptable LOS include the addition of geometric improvements such as turn or through lanes. The improvements proposed in this report are intended to address the minimum LOS requirement for a specific deficiency and are not intended to optimize intersection performance. Current Traffic Conditions -without project The analyzed intersections are not projected to exceed the adopted LOS standard. Future Traffic Conditions (Existing Geometry +Committed Improvements, as aunlicablel� without project For the purposes of this report, the following committed intersection improvements are considered: - Oil Well Rd and Desoto Blvd intersection - 4-lane widening to include a westbound left -turn lane and an eastbound right -turn lane Randall Blvd/Immokalee Rd Intersection - at grade intersection improvements to include 4dane widening of Randall Blvd, from Immokalee Rd to 81h St (FDOT Build Alternative Phase 1 - Triple Lefts) The following impacted intersections are projected to exceed the adopted LOS standard under future 2030 traffic conditions without project's traffic: - Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd intersection Future Traffic Conditions with non -project related improvements -without project This analysis assumes that beyond committed improvement, turn lane additions and/or other improvements needed to correct transportation deficiencies without the project would be in place prior to the addition of project's traffic. Intersection improvements needed to address 2030 transportation deficiencies without the project: - Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd intersection -add eastbound right -turn lane on Randall Blvd; southbound right -turn lane and northbound left -turn lane on Everglades Blvd Future Traffic Conditions with non -project related improvements in place - with project The following impacted intersections are projected to exceed the adopted LOS standard under future 2030 traffic conditions with project and non -project related improvements in place (as applicable). - Oil Well Rd and Desoto Blvd intersection - Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd intersection 18L Ave NE and Desoto Blvd intersection Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page ( 9 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —August 2020 Future Traffic Conditions with additional project related improvements in place - with project The recommended improvements needed to address project related level of service deficiencies are summarized below: Oil Well Rd and Desoto Blvd intersection —signalization Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd intersection — signalization 18t" Ave NE and Desoto Blvd intersection — signalization; add southbound leftAurn lane on Desoto Blvd Improvement Analysis and Mitigation This report presents proposed project related improvements needed to restore subject intersections to a minimum acceptable LOS. A detailed evaluation of applicable access points will be performed at the time of site development permitting/platting to determine traffic operational requirements, as more accurate parameters will be made available. The developer is not responsible for correcting preexisting deficiencies. Once preexisting deficiencies are corrected, the developer is responsible for project related mitigation requirements. The developer is responsible for site related improvements and proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road impact fees and applicable proportionate fair share contributions. Accumulation Traffic Impacts Although, we are not aware of a legal requirement to provide an analysis incorporating the traffic impacts oI other villages that are being reviewed or have been approved by the County, we have updated the operational analysis to analyze the impacts of Rivergrass Village, Longwater Village and Bellmar Village being approved and developed in accordance with the anticipated build out dates of those Villages. Please refer to the updated analysis herein. The developer proposes to develop 3 new mixed use communities in close proximity to each other: Rivergrass Village, Longwater Village and Bellmar Village. These developments are generally located north and south of Oil Well Rd and east of Desoto Blvd. The purpose of this analysis is to document the transportation impacts associated with the subject developments. Trite Generation Consistent with the adopted Collier County Traffic Impact Study Guidelines and Procedures, traffic generated by a site is estimated using the latest Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation publication or other rates as requested and/or approved by the County. For the purposes of this analysis, the accumulated trip generation is based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition and information published in "Trip Internalization in Multi -Use Developments", dated April 2014 — report prepared for Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) by the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) at the University of South Florida. Trip generation calculations are provided in Appendix G: Development Accumulation —Trip Generation. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page (10 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —August 2020 Raw unadjusted trip generation — The ITE average rates or fitted curve equations are used as applicable to calculate the raw unadjusted trip generation for the overall development. The software program OTISS (Online Traffic Impact Study Software, most recent version) is used to support this evaluation. Internal Capture -The internal capture accounts for a reduction in external traffic because of the interaction between the multiple land uses in a site. For the purposes of this analysis, the internal trip capture is estimated using the balanced internal trips procedure as illustrated in ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. The application of the internal capture concept in trip generation is performed through ITE internal trip capture rates, which are defined as a percentage reduction that can be applied to the trip generation estimates for individual land uses to account for trips internal to the site. This method considerers some useful characteristics of the site such as size and land use type. However, the ITE method does not provide geographic -specific data or site specific travel patterns. Due to the unique circumstances of the land use -mix and to the geographic location of the three developments, a higher internalization of traffic is proposed. As illustrated in the adopted Collier County Traffic Impact Study Guidelines and Procedures, the overall internal capture rate should be reasonable and should not exceed 20% of the total project trips. Internal capture rates higher than 20% shall be adequately substantiated and approved by the County staff. The proposed internal capture rates for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour traffic are 11% and 15.5%, respectively. Key factors considered in determining the internal capture for the overall development: 1. ITE Internal Capture Limitations -The current internal trip capture rates in use by ITE reflect mixed -use developments with an overall area of up to roughly 300 acres (ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition — Section 6.2). In agreement with data illustrated in the CUTR report, the concept of internal trip capture evolves to "community capture" for larger developments. 2. CUTR Report Traffic Data - The CUTR Report illustrates bi-directional internal trip capture rates for large mixed -use developments based on FDOT District 2 Study. As such, the commercial — residential traffic internalization for 4 studied sites vary from 60% to 75%. (CUTR — Trip Internalization in Multi -Use Developments — April 2014 Final report — Sec. 2.4 FDOT District 2 Study — Table 2-1, pg. 8). The term community capture applies in general to self-contained larger communities. As an example the Town of Ave Maria (TAM) is a mixed -use community, planned using the principals of walkability and self-sufficiency and it is approximately 5,027 acres in size. The traffic capture rate (two-way volume) for the TAM is 62% for PM peak hour traffic, as illustrated in Ave Maria Application for Development Approval — Part IV Transportation Resource Impacts — Question 21 Transportation. Based on the unique site specific characteristics illustrated for the proposed Villages, a 20% internal capture in the PM peak hour period is considered reasonable for the purposes of this analysis. 3. The proposed developments are located in close proximity to each other. In addition traffic connectivity is provided between Rivergrass Village and Longwater Village. Based on the extensive shopping, employment and social recreation opportunities provided by these developments, it is anticipated that many of the external trips generated will be absorbed within these projects. The large size of the developments and their locations far from alternative shopping and work opportunities are conducive to a higher degree of internal orientation. 4. Travel Patterns — As illustrated in CUTR report (Internal Trip Capture and Community Capture, pg. 6) regional travel demand models (such as FSUTMS — Florida Standard Urban Transportation Modeling Structure) for large developments have shown that internal trip capture rates vary considerably based on the density of surrounding developments. Based on these models, the Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 111 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —August 2020 highest internal capture rates were obtained in rural areas. The rural type characteristics of these projects recommend a higher traffic internal capture when compared to what might be calculated under standard ITE established procedures. Pass - by Capture -The pass -by trips account for traffic that is already on the external roadway network and stops at the project on the way to a primary trip destination. It should be noted that the driveway volumes are not reduced as a result of the pass -by reduction, only the traffic added to the surrounding streets and intersections. As such, pass -by trips are not deducted for operational site access turn lane analysis (all external traffic is accounted for). Based on the information illustrated in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, pass -by capture for LUC 820 — Shopping Center is 34% for PM peak hour traffic. Per Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures, the pass -by capture for Shopping Centers (LUC 820) should not exceed 25% for the peak hour traffic. Consistent with a conservative approach, this analysis calculates pass -by trip percentages for LUC 820 — Shopping Center as 25% for the AM and PM peak hour traffic periods. Per FDOT's (Florida Department of Transportation) Site Impact Handbook (Section 2.4.4) the number of pass -by trips should not exceed 10% of the adjacent street traffic. The projected pass -by traffic does not exceed the 10% criterion. 2030 Planning Horizon Traffic Reductions for Rivergrass Village -The Rivergrass Village project was approved at the Collier County Commission meeting on January 28th, 2020. Average background traffic growth rates are estimated for the segments of the roadway network in the study area using the Collier County Transportation Planning Staff guidance of a minimum 27o growth rate, or the historical growth rate from peak hour peak direction volume (estimated from 2008 through 2019), whichever is greater. The Oil Well Road segment from Desoto Blvd to Oil Well Grade Rd (Collier County 2019 AUIR ID #121.1) is the roadway facility accessed directly by the Rivergrass project. A 4% annual traffic growth rate was projected for this roadway segment based on historical traffic trends. This growth rate was applied to the existing 2019 traffic volumes to develop future traffic volumes for the year 2030. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that a portion of the traffic generated by the Rivergrass Village project is accounted for as part of the estimated background traffic growth. This reduction is calculated as 50% of the projected growth rate associated with the Oil Well Road segment from Desoto Blvd to Oil Well Grade, 2030 Planning Horizon Traffic Reductions for Bellmar Village The developer is committed to construct no more than 60% of the Bellmar Village project by the year 2030. As such, a 40% traffic reduction was provided for this development. 2030 Accumulation Trip Generation The estimated net increase in external traffic generated by the proposed developments at the year 2030 traffic condition is 4,350 PM peak hour two-way trips. For more details refer to Appendix G: Development Accumulation — Trip Generation. Roadway Segments - LOS Impacts Traffic capacity impacts are evaluated for the proposed villages in reference to the PM peak hour period. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 112 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —August 2020 Based on the LOS analysis presented in the TIS Section 1 associated with Longwater Village, there are roadway segments for which the peak hour peak direction of the project traffic volume is not the same as the peak hour peak direction of the background traffic volume. This analysis captures both peak and non - peak directions on the subject roadway segments. Traffic impact calculations for the analyzed roadway segments are presented in Appendix H: Development Accumulation — Roadway Segments Capacity Analysis. The following impacted roadways are projected to exceed the adopted LOS standard under future 2030 background traffic conditions without project's traffic: — Randall Blvd from 8th St NE to Everglades Blvd — Immokalee Rd from Wilson Blvd to Randall Blvd Immokalee Rd from Randall Blvd to Oil Well Rd The following impacted roadways are projected to exceed the adopted LOS standard under future 2030 background traffic conditions with project's traffic: — Oil Well Rd from Immokalee Rd to Everglades Blvd Randall Blvd from 8th St NE to Everglades Blvd — Randall Blvd from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd — Golden Gate Blvd from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd Golden Gate Blvd from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd Immokalee Rd from Logan Blvd to Collier Blvd — Immokalee Rd from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd Immokalee Rd from Wilson Blvd to Randall Blvd Immokalee Rd from Randall Blvd to Oil Well Rd As such, the following roadway segments are adversely impacted by the project's traffic: — Oil Well Rd from Immokalee Rd to Everglades Blvd Randall Blvd from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd Golden Gate Blvd from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd Golden Gate Blvd from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd — Immokalee Rd from Logan Blvd to Collier Blvd — Immokalee Rd from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd Intersections — lairityr Analyses and Improvements Traffic operational impacts at subject intersections are evaluated for the proposed villages in reference to the AM and PM peak hour periods. Intersection traffic projections and Synchro analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix I: Development Accumulation —Traffic Projections and Synchro Reports. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 113 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —August 2020 Project related improvements needed to restore subject intersections to a minimum acceptable LOS are summarized below. Oil Well Rd and Desoto Blvd intersection — signalization; Randall Blvd and Desoto Blvd intersection — signalization; - Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd intersection — signalization; - 18t" Ave NE and Desoto Blvd intersection —signalization; add southbound left -turn lane on Desoto Blvd Immokalee Rd and Oil Well Rd intersection — add northbound right -turn lane on Immokalee Rd. Traffic Mitigation for Accumulated Impacts The developer is responsible for site related improvements at project accesses and proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road impact fees and applicable proportionate fair share contributions. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 114 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Intersection Committed Improvements Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 15 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 ♦ra X �Y� �� r,» � ,� • Immokalee Rd &Randall Blvd Intersection —Phase 1—Triple Lefts - -" 1 '�1Y►� � J �- �_. �,. f�, f+ e+�, � _� �� �a Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 16 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Raw Intersection Turning Movement Counts Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 17 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Type Qi peak: k�nur Gel+Sg reprrtad; lott�rs�cti+7n Peak hateChc�d far' daterman-np. peak hour: To1�1 Entr�rlr't5 Wob.:mP 1�3�ATlt�lV: Desoto Glad 5 — C3il well �d �.li Jt�a r?f: 1��o55U3 [:ITY,l���i� tol�Ger, gL I�,��E;1�'etf, Air 1.7' ��t14� �'f5ak-l-R4Wr: �:�� l�lpliF - �:� �lvl ri ,� �� til • � r'e�F� 15-11JIin. 745 AM -� 8:i}0 AIrJI 4 + �; ,; h it Il .� � �, � . a 4 1 W!q I �R � 1 � �9 t � �l S.t �i q � _ �� � �' rt � � 1��4 �l i� `1 � � 7�a.5 � �, t r i i �` i+ q i[II 7 j it 5J6 HT t4f rr ,, +� 4/P�� } 4� } ���� L•� � lil ( ;.ii i ri (1 ir7'r Lh'Ir`4i__. ; t4Afi1�l,;t•tlrlC� c! n r+ Q � � � � � r+ � � a .�. 41 � � u 1 i 4' � !i 14 1,4 # � Ivt K'� d � 1. J � � �Ei R f �'� ! �r� ��� r,;, fu+ • i5•Min fount ��'� B �' S Qesata 131vEi 5 ©r71MeI1 Rd di Well Rd F'eric�d - tNE�r#hty�utu� �t,�,kttk�ut�d� -- __- F�xttrvufld W�Stb�iatr'><d -- fiatal IIc7r.�r1Y flaflirurir4� At E��t Thr� Fti ht U I ��fk i�4Fu Ri t U t�+ft ihtu R� ht. U t��t Thru ki ht _ U 8 49 C� U lil ?:Ck'SAP.i 1� t� 2� ❑ Q � Q �-� Q �4 �� 0 lt�� 10 U i4 f1 U G C1 G 0 3� 9 0 S!r �I U 0 i�$I ��3a�M [ l i? Z"r 41 U D t1 4? ❑ 35 5 I] 13 f3 r, U 18�1 y:4�AM 10 b Z4 i! u d II r3 It 1fJ0 � u 11 ?1 to h 2Y'1 ��:1 _ ,B' ANt � 0 i8 � Q a 0 G � 64 8 D l t� E ! � 4. 1 1 }e� _ _ B:9t}A�M a �: �2 0 0 �.1 fl l." n -0C� u .s �u r} � 1t1� �� R:�ti ��.< ,# �, �lr_, n !i � ti, r,� ��� 5Q � ii � ��7 ,� Ll i�� 5�� ���;rk t5-lVI3n IVdrthhound Sa�ihtroun�i fastl�aun�d We5t6�aund FI��-atas Total left Ti�nr Right U l.elt Thtu 'Right U Leh Thru Flight iJ !e!t Thtu Right U n n Q +� n �nrl R 4= s,s ?�4 � �;� 901; .�.I �irleiGl��+ 5u :� � t6 �, I Davy rrurx o tl a a u n u 3fi n► s �a �i �z �'�d�si+lar4s 0 u u a u g4cyctes it Cl t? rt n n u u � �, cl �� 0 Railroad Lira nd BugrS L l'f ��,in�:r���� f��port �+xn�r�t�d �n �/��l�ua� 9:1� r4r�1 $�t,IH,Ck' t��udlll�� t:nunh;, IIt: �;liEtl}�,�fty'.:�y1 tl�a:1'lly,hilltl�..itrl� I-R� �-`.��"•ll- �71? Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page �18 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Type of peak hour being t`eported: Intersection Peak �U1ett�od tar d�eterrrlinln� peak hour_ Tcit-al ±Entern�'��nturne i_�7�TI�t�; C�esrrto Bind 5 — C}II'UV�11 did t�C li�� N, 149�SSQ4 �ITY,��Af�.; �alfl�r, FI_ ���F; Idit�d, Apr 1T �Ul� N��k-Haar: +�:� NM — S:OiD R'AA ;, � o � • + ��k 15-Mil; 4;�A PM — �1:�5 RM � • t� Ij u 0 tl 0 r * r! � � � `'^ t� ♦ � � r � ..x. {f• s 1I l � i 7b t T,7 L u rn At! +J 9 L{l �N +fit � � 4 ` � �� �"�' #� �r� � � r-J IJ4 !!� �" i � i i �} 4 (I II:II,c -, L �r:�rrl ,I JI (.`=' t7 � � � � L - n � t ' rt i _ RT — _ — _ � � I � tl Q � � �. � '� � F 17 U � � ��". ar � 4 � # 4 � t • i � � +L F� � • r.+� s(. ran.. �. tea � r rr .r � r � '4 r "!�i ir:4 � t �..,5-Mln Court �esnto �I+r�i 5 [h�sato �Jvd S Ufl Welt Fact t?il We113 Nd >PnNoti Narthhou�d SQuthbcwnci Eastbound �IylesEbount� tryt.;t Il�aurly� Trl�l:, 8e�nnirt� At ttatlt Tftru Fii tt iJ [.,rlt �� R' ht U Left iirru iii ht: IJ 1-eft Thou Pir;hl U �i�t� p�hn � fl as n � q t1 � v 5� � A a.s Ra n n T t�? d'15 Ph�1 � � 19 t) � � q C) p i5 {� n 75 T� t7 (1 S:� 4.J�.� RI4+. 7 ;? 13 � D 0 b 0 0 � � 6 n �tl K� � tJ I3� k.a + Ph1 �� to 7 t 0 0 r3 p tl 0 aA $ ti ��" 63 � 0 275 1b{1 .� a :, ,:� o � e u u o� tz 1, is V[I U u t �..� j,1;T 5 c�:� Pr+r� '+: i5 PM b � 1& tl tJ U U �1 [t � B 0 �� ! tl ❑ U I �� � 14;,1 5: 3d� PIS 7 {l 18 0 0 U t► �;t rJ Ap 6 {3 �3 ti3 � 0 � �� ; �;:, � 5:�45 PNI � t] �� CI q t7 tl � U ;9 [� !� 1r �a n� � ; � � i,,;t=. Pe�k75-Min IY�atthtwund 5ouihbourtd Eastbound -- - ��G�r 3 it�utlrttl — I F'louvrat+�.s �. _...�______-- -- _-- --- - -- - -- tfil`I _ Thtt1 k I, I I � � I t _ TttiU iRi �Nt II I:�t.l� L�f1 Tliril RiPrht t) Ittt mho Ril,ht �1 A i V'�e.�i c es 18 U �_ r� U � G � tl 4f: I I : �,;+ 356 � I.' .Nlt Neavy Trucks 4 t� ie' it 4 tl tl Tfi A G 2rl (} hll P�d�+trlQrn p 4 a 4t ti picytl�4 q a � o � � a n t� n k � Itt►llr�sdd Stop ed �usi*s �nr„r,+k trl's litric�rt p,�rll�ryri�d un 4,Ir�9f'C11� 9:1{, �,hll 5t;11i��E C�t�t11i1.y��tltei�h�, lL{ IFllth'lr�.�,���r� �.¢It.��li.p�c�.lr+ts.nc•tl I•�7�� �AG� �?1? Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page �19 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 aypa_ of �ea6 ho►rr he�n� r�pd�rted; tr�trrs�t�� Peak Metitt�d for det�m�inmg peak hour Takaf ILnk�r4tig YQlum� l�?�,A�IC7hl; EVer�gla�es �lacl � -- t�il'WeN Rd (�C 1C►H I�- ��1��55f}1 �fTY,/�T�TF: Caili�r' FL ID1�T�: We•da Air' 17 2�}19 �� : �; Peek-H�ur: ?:ISO �,M 13:{l� ACa� ins tea + �► Peak 15-Min' 7:45 AM -- 8:17�9.��r1 � �sr, tin � rl. i�h tfi r � 4 �+ � V 77F * [ Q� i � �7 � 7 +� ._ ; `� +r Ted +► +► r � y � IJ$ 3� �Ir 7 *t7 5 �, ��, ��ality +aun�� � t�i i3+1T,�ti TI GAT t?��t'r.� �. r]AF�LW�-� '" u u a G �! t t1 r' '� � !� 1 { � fl U 1 X` � 'r 1 � 11 fl �1 r �--- ! t -zt �- kY4 � .i � ,�. �-i •� .+ i �. f J 1� a � .! '1. _� .��� ��� �1�, Fl4 1�-Mfn Count E+rtrgla�ies Bird � Ede []� WI'e Rd �If We I Rd I�eriad fy��tl'cl�utjrrd! t4�t4�t�nd! ���fb�t�nd W+L�ib�und' �--�-^� -iatai N�urlp lir�$iprifng Its ..-. � _ L+rR• 7hr�1 ttl hot 4t - -_ _�. ���t 1`hru Rf tl � ii lth Tt�rtt R� s �.r. t� Y tilt ih�r� hi -� t� Totals _ _ _ _ _ _ — _ . l; 2yy 3 ?y- Q tf]t 37d�6 i f'f+ 7;1� �YRr ►'}fA [1 3 � �i { ll 5b V l 2Y L y �P t7 U r p �$ Q ��1 L1 �b r•3�7 ��•1 �4 31 h � x 7k} 15 t 2� i-1 tr 7 �7 3 0 2d5 7 :]5 Alyl 2i .�.' � ❑ � 13 41 41 �Q �] a � 3 7'� � 0 �18 i.2�i5 L�:L'G,A��,1 lB �! i � i j� ��� 1 22 _ _ �E _ i _ _ i _ '�'� b U :?� 11�3 R;1�,�M ]2 2� � 1 1� 3i �5 0 �� +W x 0 5 �C+ A q ?.3a lt?7+� R.aC?AM ]! 7iF � ] �Q +�E. +]d � �1 Ib a 0 A dD ❑ q ]37 106E 6:d� �141 17 1� d ❑ 3 >.�! 1 ❑ 25 5.3 3❑ Lt � 3� ] 0 t]i ��3 Peak i5�l�lliri jvgrthkrnc�nct 5t�uthtr�iuncl �raint�rrai ��',it�t�t'id .�Qial Flatnrrat�s LpCt Thru Right U k�eft Tfuu RgR1tE t_t Left lhtu fiighi U heft Thru Right LI _ All tlrhi�it�� R4 1DH �fi U �" t�? ]6� � '?�" �ii4 lti � � cif' 7�1i$ ZCI Ci i ? ►I�xvy Trolls 12 ?4 � ,� lG L[ � . a (i ❑ d A I � _' t�f+ci�rlelYS U 0 q U �. 8%i�Ct�e3 Q It U � � U I,I � i j 1} U (� (� 1 tiallrnatt 5to �d au.cs t �r�fr�e�trf�, N sport g�ne-rated o� A�29fZ01� 9;:16 {4M St�UPCE' �Iualit+� Cox�nts, �L� fhttp:/f�+�t+W�vuaiiCy�oUni:S nPt] �-877-5,B0-��12 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page �20 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 %ype of pzak hour heirg repart�d_ Intersett4on Peak Metfin�d far deterrnlniri� Teak k>,aur: Total Entering Val�me �.11C��1: �uergl�l�es Biv� N -- �7i1 b'V�II �d _ _ +�� ��� �; �4��550� �I1Yj�IrATE, ��Slrtit'r, FL r���tF: �ed� ��r 17 �(?1� ,�, ,� I�+eak-H�ur. 4:Cht1 t�� _ 5:00 RM i:� ,,,,� • r f~'��� 15-I�+lirt: �:+�� f'tVt — S.Q� �'M � s� �� It � �_ t� s:; r t�tS J i. 2.t t d!/ ' t + ilk J i. 3 t w� 9"�1 � >:5 Z E d5 s '+3�i { .:� • ~�� 1 6 �i5 s [,B � � +k '� t � Sii !i7 1(1 � _ 13 W� �� 1� r �a�.ity �un�� I�� ,:� � �, I � ' � i.�i t�1�14'r.K t;:�t�x.11 !fIIF.��; r. u u j n � �� � cl .. � r � r i, � a e J' f- p j1 �� r �� + -- � � (th r� -t � � r _ _ , , rw+ rl, l!i•A�I'r� C ►�r�t IN��B�ac(bec blwd Id f.v�e'r�tad� 4t1v�1 � 4iil W�I� ttd Rlt lnlell Ftd Perio� t�acthhaund Sautht�ounri Easitiound 1Alesil�ound Totat Mnurl�r i�tat!a 13e�nni>ng At l�Ft �, ht LI LeN Thru ii�. ht 11 Left Thru R' ht U left Thnu Ri t LJ t1Cl pAK ZL! 3$ 2 ? ZI 1? U J I � � 13 65 � 4 331 @:I PM I2 3i 1 � ! 17 7 t5 ?Id yl; 9 D ll FrA 6 IS 3iZ 4;311 PM $ �� 5 (� ? � 1 67 � 7+} i� i U tl �: its � 7(19 4�P� i� It >I �� ��� :1 cA t: �t 31 �G � tI � if c� �n; t?_,� _ 3�Ix]t�AA �(I 36 � _ +3 _ A __ �l 1� +'? !I3 ISP li � 1+1 3fi �t r� 31h 1���� .i 15 RM 9 �3 F 0 I t7 B 4 � 71 t4 0 Lt 63 �� t;! 3t}� lea: �,,� PM 1 � 27 � 3 :4 33 �'� � �14 � D 5 A� 4 di �81 1�f14 5'45PM f� �5 q I I �� !t �::+ �? 7� ? If 5 4� J G '93 1795 Peak �5--tv'lin Nvrth�i�u�tl 5c���ihhr��nr� - C,�str�unc� 44►���,tbQunt� F t�o,rrrares _ C rtt rE�r4t ('t+Bht tiJ 1 rdt tF�r�y R+E�ht a f' _ � nit thru (tight t t t.et1 7#1ru iikght u t-r'13t :�. 11�E' ICt�'s 't'sCti U,},4 i i.l •yip �b �al� �1 i?�: I!•: �Li .I �1�1 L1w lN- i� 71�'�r Nnevy Trucik: � �� t F; a7 ,,• l � i� fit, � 0 .c F. n 111� Fed�jJrl�n9 i? 0 11 0 [] Bl�yr�3 � 0 �� �:�� n ❑ a n t7 IJ n i? o liallroad Stop d fuses �. 'i�!rtir.��f�� t�,ltp�art. r±,mt*rated �n 4j39,r?G�19 � 9r, �I:'I t�1UiiCE'r��i��lity��unt5, �_lC jFtttp�;",',,�,ti4��.q�.�alily'r_r.�lJfd.:���r,; 1 �;7;Y,il i<'_'I? Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 21 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T/S —Section 2 —August 2020 Hype tll peak hour 6e�n� reported.; Inte�s�tkran Ptak M�thr�d For deterrnitlrnl; peek hour: �dt�l Erlierinb volUmr� �OCAit[7N �eSoto Blvd --Randall Blvd qc ��B N: 15�15�7�1 C.I1Y�+511111r; �c�lli�r, �� UAl �: thu, Darr 9 �020 �, r� peak�l-Ic�ut: 7:�Q ►AM - S:AO AA�I t,,� � � a ,w Peak 1�-Mini T_�S AM B:C1Q Ai��l � � 4 7� � 1.8 751 n L�Jt.z� � I! a I :l:8#192��� tg+tl iizil p t r rr � l �I�r U i '- •� U 7+ 13t1 I 3y g-1 LS � .117n! r� �t1 � � l � �©tJ il'�S t5,3 y 1a,T� rµp,r I,y'r��i. � >,ti.r�,ti �: !IiICi �l t! b � a! � 4 *�• � n 1 t n �� t� i � ♦ 11 C� 1 r u ---- � � r P 1 G f Y Iv H �y':"� i Y t�'+1 r. . t4ti1 µrh. � ,� � . +.kl. � � � � + �, .� �,. i ; � t' _ � � r � # r � � z' . a �fiN 1� r1-(1111fY (.#J4t1t Ik`rUka� Iil��cl [1e5tr,iti R:t►ui:ill t�lvd Randall [itv�! _. Period tanrtirh�undl Southh�undy (Easthavnd� VJestlwundl T©taN ��ls 8ek+innin� �1t L[�ft "fFwu Ai .tit U R' Leit Thru Ri ,ht kJ R' felt 1tsrU Ri hi U R' it�(`E 11rtu Ri ,hi Ll t{* r:❑❑ �r,n �a a� ❑ fl ❑ i �� tp � 0 6 ❑ i :� a ❑ a o ❑ ❑ s3 :!:15 A�,A .5 �4 1 � U [} 12 f U U � U 1 i} U 1 L u i} ❑ $7 r•�UAM x3 �� p i5 A t► i� t3 A sti � jl a n l] �� t► i1 n ;� T;dS AM :5 2A o � n � �.� t.� a 4 ;,� r; 13 t+ n it � +� � 4 iti� 3ii1 &,OLI Ali �3 I'll Ci i� U 43 12 l� 0 E3 "r t1 1-t �, it ll d �• 4 li �_� 343 8:15 AArt 4 i6 G � 0 t1 �.� 7 0 a Q ❑ P. ti fl p t! U � rl �3 3U� �I�O AhA h 1� � � I_I �} �� � f! if t � U � '� 11 a � � L} U 6J �"_Iii g;�;5 #�M i a 1� � Fi Ci t? 17. � U � .t ki � �,� ri t] Q � 4t U ti5 � �;� Peak 15-Min Nt�rthib��nd 5e�ithbnurrd Ea.tbt3u�r1 Wegitaound Flowrate� tcfT Tiller RJ�hd L1 !t' left iitru u�ht 11 ia•_- Lr:ft lhru �iigh[ U iC' ta#;�I C�ft '►htu Ftlg>ht t! It' A'I'��r"r�t�r: tdi I13 rl D CI •� 9� ��' !`• •';� di.� % 57 fr i, Q f} p Q d af}.� Nervy Tr�t�:lis ., H I? ra I� U LU � � :fi ! � 0 � Cid Russ Ped�ttr�ttrs a n c� o ❑ 9lcysles u i! ❑ o fJ u u � � fl u ❑ �C�tCrs Repori g�r►erated o�, .1,1 l �,� ?�� 0 i, t � s tv1 �CrUR�C�: d]a,r�lity Ctiunt�., lLC {k1Yp`I'i'�u+ftw t��raiiiy,u+unt5.nek� i�877.16C1 �.i 12 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page �22 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 l yip �F �e,3k hr►ur being re�,rta�: Int�t�se-�:tt�r, e��eak �+�ethot! t��r d�terrnirnng �.,r,�k Irf�ur: Tctai Er,teric�g 5lglun^f l(JG1r]t71�1: t}+�5�oto I�lVd -- F?arlcii�Nl Blv�t C.xf�. i�.18 �i: 1�1574Cr7 �ITYJ�TATE; Collier, Fl. RATS; �hu,.fan � 2Q;?iJ i:�t ��� Rcak-Hour: 4:(iU PAA — 5:�1I1 PM� 7h ,l3 n� • • Pe�ic 15-Min: 4:04 FM — 4�1� PM � • _ � •� n 171 �� o .� � �. .� � Q u � rim � � u •,�� �, 4t} it b 13a !G7 r� �+ 417x 1�i ,! 1*Y ����1�� ���� k�� E 75 f l�� iLi ; ? �a�? Q7�• ��Wihhlnlfi iL `r 5 ri ,+ F i ���-+, t • +f L� 1 i C� � � F i I � it i + tub t�;r� � � � 1 � hIA4 # � i+4� ! i � �, ►�iA � � .. r1�.i. * `, � .4 � ; i! 't a '� i P �{�d M1�'� i � R* ^ fret}+ t5- an urrt cl+��r,ct� Hlvc! �Sat� t�hrdl R•�ncl,rll Drvti f�.ryrlc�;ill k1♦ �ourty r'it Na�ffjbound} S+ar}thi�aund Easthaund 4M1lestt>"ound Total ratals Eie�inni�tg At lc�t shrru - ht U R' teR Ttun, R- ht U R= ILefc Thru R' ha fJ R• left 7'hru Ri hi l! Rt C:Dn Ptv1 t3 2G a �+ Q D 3'� IL U a i3 a TF o �r !! o +7 � 0 71� - �1�]1Pf�1 11 :`i li h _ U u- 2cj-_. 12 . U _ -.� _ ;fl Q� =-� U 1� � r} C r�- a _ �� a:3raurv� r �a tr n a r, :1 =, a n zt� t� :+��� n � ti n 1, % n �� �:+�SPh+t 1�_' ]t-i n �+ c Q �� � n 4 1a +] �1 n a A n a �� a B: �5� S;Op P�1 t+ lh G � �� G ?4 ? f1 t� ti6 0 2.3 n <7 {1 �4 D �� C �1 ?��ib 5;15 Ph1 6 �6 a D 0 A z� 7 A A as t� k a n it 0 la 4 U D � 334 s:3u PM � lr � tti � 0 �� d � � z> a �>: u e � 1 � � � � 357 5:�05 Ph1 �' 3{1 D 0 0 0 15� ti 0 �5 ��► 0 19 0 f) 0 0 0 {} 0 TI 3�� Peak 15-Min Narihbnutrd Sauthbaund E�stbntmd Vl�est>S+Cvurutl Itaw�rates lilt Thrtt Righ�l. tl -- R* _ rt�t��, f�ft �rtut i�gh4 lli it` lrfr Thtt1 Rlghfi � R� i��f� Thn1 Rlsh� I,i >�` All Vehicles �:? 1�4 D ii �I 132 44 tt �7 5t i� r; li it c:� f} f1 if .i�::. 1�uy Tr4r:4:. � : � � U +� s � e 11 1 J a �-� f} �.' Buses I'etleftrians Q {� G � � !+ E�'>;1tG�ttf i r l� fi i � Q f r rl C+ r1 i + . � � + 5Cou3�r3 i.ran+rrrr"��+r� Rr�F�t,rr ItG•n�rtli,►li 4n 1/t���4?� 1: I.. �Sta1 'sC}I.I:ti f' ('Er:r..ilik� �[�+iritw, ! I C(ltll'?���'H'V�'.h+.q+.r,llll+�;:+runiti.ru�i1 1-R?7•°�i{fi•7; 1I Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 23 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Type �1 peak. hour bhi�� reported: Inter3ertian beak AAethQd IQr d�t�rminir�� beak hayr� Total E�1!��ring b'vli�r�+e LOCATION: Etrergladrz� Bled -- Randall 81v� -- QC JOB #. �5I�7403 C1'tll��'�.'tE; Cr�l�i�>r, �l I�A1r�: Thu, lar� � ���CF 3,� L�; Psak-�-Icxur: ?;�[� Iarv1 �:c2t� h� ��. ,�a f � s Peak 1� Allirl: 7:�t�,�M 2:15 �4hr! + ! l5ti ast 5 z! t� t � 5�r . ell � � '� �., : r; sA � ll11 .f 4 � *� is l4 • a ♦ Lb il'7 .�� 235 r� � � . � La h � P 'A ♦ :F 7Cf� # li is $:� L't2 S� �43�3d2 ��41 II+�+ ��.11 ,+^ ,�� lLr � +�1A. il'��ki 1'�h�4 h'i i � JP�il�fi!i�li;r,::u - G G U '� F y �� 0 1 �" t} _ ____ ti. � r � Ct fi i ► � � J to s a y � � � � !I i '� t r '! f 1 i 1` ,� t 1' +WA P��� + y fl' =HTC�- T5-M�n Count Everg a _ B y Ew3~r�;iades i31vs1 f�andall vd Randall >�i'vcl Period Narth�°and SQuthb°u�d i=asthourtd 1YestbaurMi Tatai !i°urfp t��li Begi�nia� At Lest Thru Ri ht U R` left Thna iii ht LI it* Leit Thru Ri ht i! H' Loft Thru ki it U Ri �i � � tJ •� 1- 7 �� � �A,i �� 34 ? D c+ =+1 3y C� ll 16 a �� . ...�? i5 r,�'.1 +�7 �� �� d 4+ 7.. 5U d4 L���a 1t3 t 13 1 �YL: � p u�_ �,�.ahi � �� a r� i;+ 0 ?� 16 �+ 0 'tt 5 3l tf n � ,�� � 0 U 2l1 i:d5 �4AA �9 2 � Z 0 C� � 28 ?f D ❑ 1�= 20 Z7 0 Q I 36 i D Q Z5+1 1tliY1 8 v� �h�i C�� ?b � U � � �f �� �� Q 1� ]$ 2a3 Ll � Q i43 +t p � 27� q�}ii �I� Ah1 �8 �� 5 0 t5 0 2 i 27 {} 0 1 r IC+ 14 4 ❑ 3 23 ] 0 t} 298 430 $_�{}.AM 48 15 d q �! f �6 2$ (� tl 13 15 18 U b 1 i:l 3 tI U I85 $J�i rl•45 Ai41 �7 �5 � A +G 7 3k t � f+ it C; R 19 0 it ? ]2 p n t? 1 �7 81 Peak 1�4-h�lin U�It,bt>Iund St�t�ihlanan� EaslLbt+t�n� 1+t��rr�r# iatai! -- - -_ Flowrate5 -- - eft ihru -- - litiaht U li* Leis Thru i4ight U iC"_ left fhtu night. L1 Fi* � TFw iEight iJ R r;l+�rhir,l�� 1af� ICE, IS ij 17 A 7�"+� t;�6 CI i; is9 7� do !� Q its 1� �} 4 it �;tP1i k�a+ryr Trudy 2A 7+1 f� a �U a d d :� D A U Etus�s Prdcitrians 4 d} u 0 ', � �ky�� �) D. � lln .0 D U is n tl � ; � Scooter Ci�m+T��i�,: Ret�ORt�eneratedOn l�lSr'2��U1-1� P114 S�1�tRCE: tlualitYC�UrvYS. L1Clhtta�:f;�'tA'MJ;V,�U3�ICyr,�i1�Y_..ft_LI r � L'�?l �%i!-t�{ i Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 24 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 '!PY of P~��: ftc,w• trelr�g repc�r�ed: Inte���t�an peak i r, ii t1,t IUf'J- baur�rlad�e� glvt� -- R�nct�IP Blvd �=ITY/STATE": Cc�lGrtir, FL 7 '7r 4 � ,� i 4 uW L .► � t i,W tkYq ti t � � �� � � n, � i�� _-- _. __ +tilrtl��ri fr.r tie�erml�ln , � pia k hour: Toksi �n#erlrtig V��urxr� Q� J�� I'rf: 15'157�1�.��� fi�ATE: Ti1t1,1�ti � �Q2G �ea1c-!'tour: 4:UCi Ph,�1 = �:� F�fVI P�i7ak 15�N9iin; A:�S �'M -� 4.3t7 i�f1t1 uaLit�r ��u�t� �w,.l'a .n 441 frl��y'E�, r�.�L�rrtdst;rti�rJa� 5 9 5 1'L.' � r 7d >3' is ,� � L !:_ �. 91 J il. 44A � 71: yp • u� i r �-� . n5 -► + r 3�E 12� 11�7 ♦ rr l�3 U i �, u � � � � � t� .r t � n n � � �'I '#� a �. � .: n � � � � � u n ii o �� r�'n �� rwr+ � � . , , :. s� � *� • +� i''dA ii3.Iif�i: l s-iuii . GAtrrlfi � V�'fLrla7uC� glv[� � vr� �,auc-s aa�vu ���I W��� .a1Ty �,+sa �.,.,,, �,..., pu�� (Northtxaund} {5c��rthbcsundj jE�stlaaurrd� {Wes#b�aur�di Totai il�ourl� Be�jnningAE Lr�ti Thru Ria�hk U R' MrFt Thr� R.ir:ht U R; Left ihru Ripht U k�' irtc Thru R��ht ii p+ Totals a:� i-M ?s 4? b d c � �! s: u � �s a�� +3 r:;' u a �� +� a u r ��, d'�4P�.d l� ifr 5 � f? 3 31 IR d it 31 37 aA b � 4 id 1 � n ?4;� 4_�l5 irbl 1 i 3C� ] i}. (1 3 ?S ZU d U d5 3i1 5fi L� L} 3 �. � 4 d 23 r 1 rid t _;�.`� PA'1 ; �� :7 2 U U 2 2'i� 1$ � �:� �� � 1 '�r (} �ti i 4 p 0 Q s �;=: iL'4J1 S�i5 PM ?i� �� is � ❑ 3 3� 26 q � �� �� B� � �! � i� 1 ti 0 �G4 9R,R S:�S plVl �3 � � � 0 f3 �� 151 d {] i6 Air 55 � U i 1+� � d u s�6i f�QLit ,:j1T� ISM 25 37 d o1 Ci ? ;it 1'_� � � d5 18 56 {1 i! 1 11 1 tl l7 �5B its?3 Leak 15-Min �Ir}rthbaumd �.o�thLiounrt Eastl2ouncJ 1N'esthnund T�L�i i�lawra[� l.�it TFtty nylht tt ii* Li�FI T+,ri, aiktrt u li` L�(t Thr� RlBttt U �} lrs�t TFr+u Ftlptrt U �� N�f ���h.°cles 3C�? ir+K ��i U �"' a -- �Y — Li �1 U e5i:� 160 1 �' tii '"' i5 U� ie ri r,1 L116 Nra�'y Tns�kti ti7 ?4 � Il ii $ F <C� ?� "� � 1: t t fi ausr�. t'edestna�s ti ::' U d <r? Bicyrles >;s q :p �� t� t? t� rl c� t:, � 0 1 _�rr,n�,��, Aep�rt �,er+erat�d vn 1l15%�t]�Q 1:I2 PM 5C�t1R�E- �uaiit�,r E'�a�,nt�. LLB{�ktp;�!'elru+rv�,c����Eir'vcr�:�n;s,nut� 1-Ri7.58{}��21F Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 25 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Tvae aF tweak hour bain� reQ4�d:lntersect+an Peak Met#�nd iar determining peax hrsur, Total E�r[erin� 4'alume L+aCATIOt�J. D�soic� 81wci - • lSt#t Avg �� Qt ]CAB �fi: 151�74C�5 CI7Y�5TA7E; Cr�ili�r, FL U�TE: i'hu,lan � �02rJ P��k-���s < �:4� htV� — �:�� 11�+1 u� �� a + R�ak �.S-Mirl; $:i�f A�V1-- #t:i� A1tr1 � + � 74 � la3 t�i 6s.7 ,E � �, � J i 4 iil • id ,II 4 U � 1 l3 � T1 j ,n. {, it * ll7[I i s � � Q� 17 .t � a m �T * �t 1 f it w � 65 M 43 � t~ �7 • �z '► i � -► t � �1 � �i 3E 13A t� �� ,� duality founts ,'�x Cd+� r+i th�,r G�1�ti'ES Ctihli�cJrw� � 10 � o a � � ♦ �` � U 1 � F d ti +� �' d �y �� � 4 � � � M ��4 r � + �_r__i � � I ' _ � I �, r ti r r `� ♦ t �1�F t{u� � � u• sn�+ 15-tam Cunt aesaGa r;h.�d Ues�tu ©1 i�th Ati�e NE iSth Ave M'E � 1cui ty F'eri�d Nattht�r�s�lirl _ . _..._ _ ._--...�� Sc�utht�riurtdj ------ r;r���iht�u�rd -- �— -- .—_- ------� Vilestiicrtaui� _._ � Tidal Tutti15 Eregtn;rslr��llt ,._.._.�.�____.1 L�Ft thru Hl�ht u ri+ left {hnl t�' ht• 11 R' Lest Ihru ra; hE U I;* Left lhru Id hs u tt'" �,' Il I� tl �:r 6� 7''tlfl�,l�i 1 3� !{ F► ti tl 2I � �S 0 � 1y 7 U is 7:1� qht � 5�1 � tl C� 0 i5 5 +7 G �'.� ?1 1 0 {j �.l ll r� Q �:a 7� ?:3U iiM1 1� 32 Q 0 4 tJ lti 5 0 ] � ❑ q :a 0 0 ❑ D �} FO 7-a3 a� �o � t► � � � �� 1] c.� � a t� 1] r� c, �► D a � � �� �y� �A�A141 �S �3 0 U L� Z i6 i� � tJ lil L� ?? ❑ 0 r� [I ❑ O +U �5u ��1 ] Itr ;j t] (} rLg 7� 6 _ ,� tl ; t ,� G _t� D 0 _�1� _ �D 3t31 $-3Q aM 15 :� F7 � 4 Q Is t� ;� n A 1 ? 0 0 0 i t? 4 � 77 �(i8 k_A� 4fv1 $ �Q i1 I� 4',� U T? (, �� � 1_� 11 tii $ 11 �i � LI !I {I � ti'1 ��� Ptak 15-PAitt Sc+uthbc��rr�_d �R. �. Eastbound W�1.t�u�d �_� Tf.�k.li _.�; !� thtru Ici�ht � h} Mew#aces ��=_Plvcthbvurtd lt�#t �t� �Ig�►t t� t;* _ __ 1 eFt ihrt� p�ghe U 1�t TFt�`U Fti�ht: U �i} All V'ntr�r.irs. !�� i11C� d n « g k;s a. n I:� ao R s� t! A q 0 n n G ->•d� lir.�v�/ Tru(:k.y A I3 �'� 8 0 8 A ❑ C � Q ❑ aA fj�13E5 f'e3,�5s�i,rit n r, t� [� t+ a:�yda� �? ❑ �� o U a �� u o � ¢ n ❑ scooters E'W77rne�;'ts: ReFtrt stnerata� can ]/15r�L1�Q 1.12�Ph# SQtlRCE Ru�ll� �8uht5, t_�r_ Intt�: f/www.qualny�ount�.neti 1-�.�.,-�r��ztit Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page �26 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 1,� ;.�• � •I �:,•.+4 hq�xr he;l!�� r+-fin: ^,� ,f �+�� ; i•,.:�,..r�:,n pc+,jl� M1c+tlirrr! 1ui r!«trnminina peak hour; ir�f,�l Ehtrrin� �r�l�:+,•,+• L�CA1Ic7N: �r'sakd �Iwri -- 1�tit �kv�e NE C.>+C� �C1E� tl: 15157��ir� �IT'vF�`STATE: Collier, FL UAT�: ihu, Jan 9 �fa20 :aa � �'e�k-I-IatMr. 4�Ai� t'NI — 5:t?(} F'hA �i;.a �ij + � ,► peek 15-A+IIn:4�Ot� PM — A::ES PM � • r 31 d+ L � r i y� t l�l � l 17 � t+ —AI I (1,3iR � d +� I {i�Fr_ I + 1 y'l9fl � f ,.+ a+ 11 6j s .t] 7 1-~' J' 1 �r 5 7'� i !75 1 � !e' ti s �6 i � * � , ; r � � � �,� t�� u tbA �� 1U1 ����� } `� ��41� � 1 r�1 } 1 !.� i r r t rry +�q;., i�.i� rwr•.rti i-c:+r�rnn+nrr�r�. `l u u •� i `- ++ � •` rd � �- � 6 +u � • f: [I � � % !. 'i i A =- � n n 4 � t{rn h4?� � �. t �� � - _ - 1 � f � � � w'�� ____ _ - - -- ��� • 15-hAin Caw nk �� �I'� fles�uin tjFud 1€ith eve h1E ESth Au�e �tE period ��e)U11fy�ii.�U�_ ._ (E.�te,ll�chiri�t� _.__. _ �1Arh�tltoll�ilp _ tnt�lt �3 l�lY �eglnnlrtg 1'dt _��o�tFtbAufitl left -thru _ Rl�ht U .. F1* 1.t"ft lhru !il ht U !t" , I.e!# _ f �ir� til ttt l! ii' Lf:Ft 11�ru itl *i'�t 6J+ Ik` ti 4 0 � 1�! 3 � g Q 3� EI I$ U A fl PNI 33 A � fl- __ d'Z5 hA 1 I� D Q 3 I [I 3 �— *1 1 C} 0 Gt �? a-?t{r PM 5 #� fl U 0 0 3? d tl i1 3 1 d G 0 tf A t1 fl it +ia �i:45 PM Z � d D IJ ti 31 � 0 Q � 2 � tl tl A {� 1 ❑ fl � ���I :�:aaPhl 1 i3 4` t a a 33 fs ❑ ❑ is fl I d {] d �+ ❑ a ti f•,7 .'.;;� sus a�i � � � u a a �a 3 t� fl � � � R � a � ❑ u � r3 �: �:3{i PM � !9 � n i! a �; 7 ra ❑ 3 A 7 A (� 0 � t1 0 � f.� �; r, 5:�4 f?M ? ZI fl D D o .s 5 a D z � 5 4 � a Q Q fl U t� P�oak f5-(vlln Nrxthboun�d 5ou2hb+outrd Eastboulnd Vltestf�d f�inwr3t� _ I++#i_ 17r1AI Rrg,�11 l! R" - ��;i,`I t+�ft ihr't! Right tl R• l�Fl t11ru fitght l,ifi R* f:�lt TI'It'ta �tlgFtt U R• AA 1trt��filt s �? 1;�? tit i' n ,., , lr 3f• c A � is 1i7 A fl A is A a :'+ 5'� Nt�uy Tr u[ks d di7 C+ �:: 1� D Ia D �C €i fl t7 F:h DusG4 �1�Ycles tl fl U t'� U f7 u u U f5 Wti i i Srnntcr� f?!�*rr�+c+� rf �, Ide��ort seneratH+� �,r, 1; 1 � � ?I]2L+ !.!2 ("Pr1 Sr�UI,�_L: t�u,�l�h; r_•�urtits, tt� Ih�tp'.,�f+k���w.qualltVi=nunt3 nit) 1-ti,r,'.._�..,;. L:: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page �27 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 T�c�e �f aEak hoar b�irr� repork�tl;; Incis►SQctl+l�n Fea4 iUl�thc�d far cJetermin�ng peak hart: Trk�i! �rtteii�a wplume 1.4�ATi[�(V; Ev�rgi�c#�s �IWd -- ag�M Avg 1WF ��:lq� �; 15�5i4t�7 CITY%STAT>E; Co11+�r, FL LATC:'€Mtt,.lan � 2r���=i :� �,� F'���i~• F is+trF: � :30 AM -- 8,3f) A.hA �, � • E �e�ak 15-1Nin:. �3.i=11� �thfl — 5;15 t�M1lh + s r, »� u f + � � • � +ti i• 6 1 t. tl2 a � lfi3 + 16,i .i f., t19 i i • 47 � 7 1t � 1<�i .� � L4 . U 1 �' j5 � � ' � � r '� ■ r 13 1F�r � LLl 143 t.k ��� ��� i �f� `q, ���, r�� µ + � �1 I�I�}�a fti+4i c.r�KrKr.!�rlt�+.��;+�+)�Ir`. 0 d � � � * ~ '' � �� it � � _ ! �1 �I � �] .= U �► it 1 # +� -- � # r � � u r� � � i ; �. f � � � f .t 4. � '�! � ��'l t f�`'k. `` � � �� � r i � i I 1 r -�.. ht?A �i�^ • � n* •arty( I�-M► Cent Pet��rJ t�ergia��� (M+arth6ound] tilt'¢ l:vergl�tle� (��uthh+�und) 131Md I$ttl Aye r1C IEastba�und igtlh W�tb�iund� Aye Nt Tu=�I ToS _ nni� At Left Thru Ri t t1 R}_ left Tfiru Ri tit Ll R* belt Thru Fli ht U R'. L+�ft 7itru_ Ri hl U ik' 1� 5� t i} D C+ L C D .� fi 3 1 +� ] 1�0 7:iiDAM 3 �+ tS D r'�I� �h1 1 +1 � k3 �? '� 1'? �1 � 3 r'� U :� ! � t} 1 lf� ii t �? i�' I�: ] 7.3[t A�uT 3 �? .l3 rti � �a aft A fi � � S �� # .t 6 � 1 � � I � a��sAM 4g 2a a o as a� t, � ❑ ] t; �� R n 3p � ll !� ]G Z�6 �tf B LrAI1r1 � AS -,• G lb �L� a8 I i+ u i t �, G ? 4F 7 �2 i} Z�, r,�t+ G�47 3•.i;, Ah1 � 3G 7� G _ IH 19 3�7 ! C+ D ! � Q 4'� 1 �3 1 ] �d ii l �dD 9.i5 jU �h,i i 2�8 21 to I{� lb �1 1 r„ti U � � U r�� 1 .1 ,' � �;� ld I dd 3l4 R;4 � .y141 5 � tTa 3 ii i s 1 � 4Z Cr t7 d 1 � 1]• l? •! 3'� 7 t l ,a 9 I4R R7T Pt�k 15 �,+1in -- -- t�crrthbaund _ St1uKhEk�unrl - Ct+�SkJycr��r�d - - IAfusl�t►urwi T'atal F6awrates Left Ihiu Ri�ltt U R` left That RigfitC U R` Left Thar Right U �[* :Left Thru Right U ii` � �� 8 � s lr,.: �e 14s o �a I��z A �;e 1Giex �� taD ]sD a �a 13�i 19� 4 � n fig3vytruelc� 1Z '36 U U :£A [1 d tl 0 ��� 4 0 9 Buses. Pet€Mirian4 n i] n 0 ti! eicytt�5 D u U n is 0 i� n Q u 0 � �' �roocer< �4; i75�llr� �i'. Report genera[=d q,n 1;'lti: �U�� 1;1< �'��+1 ��'lUfir'E. ��uaiity r_ou�-�ts. t.Lr= Ihttp,rr�+,+'1e4ti+.q+��li[��'[cunts.rlet; 1-U77.5��i-��L Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page �28 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T/S —Section 2 —August 2020 TYPE of p�e;>k hour• bl?Ir� rl'pot-ted: Ir`te�sectlan P�aii t4lethad for d�t���n+ping peak hour � 1�7ta� Enteal�R U'u'�um�- l.l'}��IIIt�C1l; Ev�r�i�des Hlvd -- 1�th �A�e fdE R� I[?I� II; 1�1�,��QB CIT11%ST,�7E; Co��ier, FL [iAT€; Thaj. Jean � �Qil'1 �a 7n R�eaft-Hour. 4:17� Pivl -• 5.r7a P� � �a + � + la��k 15-Min. �.DO sahll — 4:15 f�M + + � � � nt� �s �.� + � � + � �1a� 13 + ERR • tq �� � u � a Ali � r, L'�B ';1 � 3t Y �--7d M' Tr S .F 3.? i - # Lt7 f Wit• -- __ � � r �► � � �i, l.i to V �� 1 `� ���u� 4�J til �] ��r�, i�t�t�ilRtuES�:�1"�r�ttt,�ln[5 n a �' n � � ,-� i � � � .i � n � r t{�1i, f,t'A .► � 4 � y' + 4 r J t • �* .t t hv'S� rt -- t 1�116 � 1 � �44 ,r �`� + h1�h r _ -� � � -� r r �l�y, (� � � ' 11' � hTG.� 15-#�+1cn Cn�unt Ewer lades Blvd Ev�erglad�es Dl�rd l8th �lve ME 28th Are NE F�erl�d Iy�,rlhlxQu►t�i 5r_u,thbr�und f�t�tkrUunt) Wc�t�tcnd fatal Totals EL,ytlnrtiicagAt I.c�di ihru tii f>'► t1 Fl* licit TNru tti�Filt t!__(i _ Irh Tl,ru Fii�i►t ?ft±ru_Rl�ht_ _U R* ,U .__R+,.z _.loft .�lrnn � �! o a � n� a i e a u �� Q �u i� aa❑ +t'1 i F'►vt ,'. �1� 7 �; 7 4 5rJ � i1 1t 4 1 � U y ¢? 4 F) 1� 15R 4:�❑ l'M 4 =17 3 � 1 N 58 ? 4 !J 1 5 1 0 4 5 3 5 4 t7 147 t'M � d8 9 U 3 � �6 1 !i D 1 � a 0 , `_'+ •1 U � � 1ta8 T�2 SAD Rt�l 6 45 11 � 6 �8 52 0 0 2 S 3 C S 7 3 i � 4 1tiF 60r❑ 5:15 FI41 � �$ 5 [3 ? � I G U 1 Z � � J ?3 � 1Z C+ � 1$b f7U 5•�I PM7 r� 5� 1�� � +] 10 53 ? � � � A 1 4 5 c 1 1 i} 10 1ti t•$f 5:45 Pit ; 4 � � ❑ � 11 5$ � �-� � 1 �� tt � i � � siG c� � 183 r Cat Peak LS�MIrr Nc�ril,bc�,tntct StawAthk�e7uctril t,SR�i�.und llilc�3dl?U,.,rt�i -- - total ���� teft Fhru f�igi,t It it} loft Thru Right L! R` Left Thru Rlgf►t U R* tef•t Thru Bight tt !�" Alf Vrt�di:lr.: a::s 31G ?E U Ii; 3A ?.ia +! D it 4 � lii i� ❑ ?2p AQ 11;�3 D 4A l�75ts `l�34y 1 rUCI� � fd U {} �a U U U � 3ti !3 it 1� BUSpS Pr��1t�i ins tl n n e ti� adepcles t, a a n n ❑ �� ❑ �� ❑ � ❑ � �itOQt?f5 Cra,lro,�afs. Report�etne-at�dan Tf1:�,r201L1i:l�P.to1 SGII�kF'E �?ualit�rCc�u��ts,LLE(http.,+fwww_q�:;alii��;c>Jnts.net;, 1-i �-5,'�'.fi-2�1? Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 29 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Twoe of peak hair heine reaorte�. Entersection Peak Method for 8eterrn,in►ng beak hoar_ Totai Entering Valu.me L�CA�t1t3N� frrim+�k�lec� Rd •- Oil �lilell iRd QC 1{�t3 #: 149f}5505 ��>t`1If�iATE: Colll+�r, Fl �A1i;:1Ned, Apr � 7 ?A�'� i � �IITp),�/i� r. /ry11L� i�{.,,�1 1�57J�tF*JI�Y�{A,p l�,rl�ii�,l F ? �C .ii.0 • 1�-M11'I �S{�'r1 iS 1 �.!'�6[1��{, ,q'� f ��� f�lY, - iY�V�J /-�+Y1 � � C Est � �� 9l1 4 �' � i * 4. ,, � � ��� I I � ., tl •t � G I r `F f- If :: -r 4#5 II �! i1 S i fl:i • N 7 ---- ---- 1 9 '- � � � 1; i_� � I it StE p l „.� Ir:.. ii 1� 4y1T�ih1•�,Tf�kIY>:;+'1-��-i+,11 �'.!�TiF�� � rl 11 ��� � i M � � � { �F M � i � L. t�.l � �� � � � � � � ] 'i .''.,µe f II r� � � t t.+ �1 l � 1— +tE h�• eyy .► i 4 � ; '� : 1 F. . 1 � L � f i� �r � I I � -i �- � 1 � F n � r � i �' �. � } + 15-Ml�n �at�nt immo&aiee Rd immokaGee Rd Qil 1Neli Rd aiE VIreN Rd li�uriy Period Ptflrthhoa,nd �outhhs�urxi Easti:�au�d] iNest#�ound i'otal Totals TSe�innin$,11t left Thru RE tk l! Lett Thnt Fri ht U L,eh Tf><ru Ri ,ht U Left TTtru Re ht U 7x� �lA'1 a LI 65 fl 2❑ l75 t! ❑ a U 0 i3 3ia � E� 5 64E 7: j 5 AM 0 i.a R2 � alp � � 1 it 17 r � � �? t=18 G � 5 62� ?-�+Ah,� a Q3 9+� cl 1n 1�5 ❑ a a o tS +� .[6 a 7 ! 5fi3 r.a� AM n � iu� o �� i�b u n �� _ � __ _ a - � s� a 6 s bi� �.ta� 8 u1 r1h�1 a 7� fs7 fl 1�' l.�? ❑ ❑ Cr it £3 ��� "1�1� � 1 563 : s6�7 �i::15 d,M � �5 f;7 tJ 11 13+5 0 � +1 � 0 �� ?�l i;+ 4 511 „�,, s::a►?r5M a �3 �� a �� ��� a a ❑ a a �❑ t� �+ 7 i a�3 _ _cF. R �i 5 ah�t � 45 �1 � 11 $'� tt 0 u o � b 1 }�i �� �1 a �++.! i �tit5 Peak 25-a9irr �Vrxtht,�caunti �authk>�if3ruf EaStbci�ind I�i:�stht�u�! t f-fawratQs _ Leh ihru Right U Left llttu -Right t! _ left m� - P�+t U LeFt _ thru itlgh+t U n.._I .�11 +lel�Icles � 336 4�8 ❑ 1aEs 53� ti a � 0 0 0 1{]38 0 id 3I 2d'�� heavy Trucks {► �Z ,'.$ 16 2� �,• r'! � b t'� � +s 18,s P�[�lriuns n t� 0 ❑ tl 4�icycles L� 0 tl C� �� G; +�� �} ,ti t! U (f CI i�,ii:�ad 5: d �t�se5 tr?q?PrJc'17�': ReTJn!t ��nerJked Cln � Z3{2019 ?-lh R.h9 547U1i4•l:, l.�Ualfty'4.�[+tlr*t5, 9-U_ inr,tp','��t+l'ti1'>,k',[j+l��le,�CQII+�[a n4Td 1 "�r/ StY��11iL Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 30 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Tyr+ .'.I E1rdk ivJ►+r bnht,� I�i)nrl.,,�,a. I,.I�. �.�v .i+ '. � i ?.�t+.�rhr.+c7 tG+ d�`t@+`htFhit?�,� park h�]U4- � c7tSl Lt�tR+ti►Kg Vti�utrlU L��t �� I tEi7f�i; arnrrjtxk�l�a Rd — �iil 'y'��ell ka� _... - -- �� 1t)8 >�; ] �9Q550� CtlTY{Si�1TF: ColNet, FL aG►1F; W�d� Apt 1� �01� __ __. w��k-H+�ur: 4;�1�� 1'M — �;�1� ptlli a l5 �� ��� * r Peak 15-Hirt: A:�S PM — S:OQ P11A � e .� « y ,� � 4 �» Lea �a o..,� ..:, pry. fey ;tA �r}� Ll l6f bl�� ��� V �Y i.l t� duality C�un�� � ►, 1 LI r � �� +- ll II II I v I� a � Cam`? ,_ , � � �' r � � � r +� o '' � � � hi%� � _� « �,. ai i 4 r � _ +r � 4 � �... � � fiA h y � (si► .� r !►1 � r, � i � r hl.. 19ti ]S-M►n L:a�nt Immokalee tid Imm+okalee Rd Otil iNeIF tid ail iNell Rd tl�'�U��' perlefd Nexnhh�Ume� S'r�u,�it�snund Eas�tbau�rod W+�bou�►d 1`atall ��� ieft 7�y� Ri ht U Lett ltrro Ri hi U Left lhru RI ht U LE�t Thrtt RI ht 1J 6eglnnl�t; ht tl.`d0 i�rVt Q 3 r l €74 Q 1Q �6 Q Q � C �} Q T_:,9 Q Ld 1 3S �1:i� Ph1 a 2?� 6ri U Fi I1.� 0 a ��� U 4? r, .4j U ti� �+ 377 4'?;l [fl 'r 5�9p ��q, tC� T7�#ni 17 [7 4h� a�Ai r � �_?7 fP.�h� 4t a^� i- i5� LI �SY] is 1�a /0� U �U p� [J7 V i /C�' l,' � V /C� l: ♦1 f��l �{11 Vi � Ili 1?��. 's:OCiFtY` 0 3F2 'JEQ 0 1� 78 Lr' Q U Q U +�' _35 0 ? '.� ��= ���� 5:15 PM U 222 t� CI 11 �i� � i t is Ij �} 11� Cl .1 t} ��� �� d+4 r:3S] Ph? fJ i35 �i'S Q ?a it77 tt Q +' Q a +� tU:; Q ] 3 �e""� 2342 i:d4 F�t,'1 II Q�' 1}[� fi � ill 11 �. ll 11 t: 4�i l� � 1 =�•i�. '2i+1 F'>4,yk tr,�IVSIrF t+�nrthhn�ryd -- ��uuthhuu�,cl E�srl�ound' '�f�!sn� - — Tc�ta�l }�aw+at+�-. Left_ Thru R�rt U LeFr TIIE"1] Ri ht U Ldt l�r� Riprt�t U �t Thru R' � F•r.,eVy Tribtks � � 2A A-0 S� p fl U 0 ]S Q +� 1�4 F'c�e5trla •: d D R� d 4 t�y>Jt'� a a o �� a a u _ o o c a o Fl�llrt�atl 5m�p d �'r.l,+arrlrhr ,. Fi��p[rt ganerated ❑n 't;'�Jt�Gi,�i cy�1+; �frt ��.,I+rfr� l•: f�uailh; r_c+un[s, LCi� �;!'�t'�p r.r���w'�'�'.{iLlcllil'jLllUfltS.t'tE'tl I-ij' �.�-`yY111-c'2!�' Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page �31 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Tq_�N et peak hour tlring reported_ In�eraectlon i'ealr LO�J4,Ti(3fd: frnrnc+�C�E:ee Rd -- nth St NEJRandalN 8 CIIYf5��t1�: �,>�tii�l, �l Method fur de�rmlrnlr� peak hour; Total Entering iladUme �� ioa;TM. i�aso��a� l�A'�;1f'It�d. Apr �7 ��19 �+��,k-Hour. l��Q AM — 8:(�Q 143+v1 Peak 15-Min: 7�5 A(N i:.�� AI'� .� �ualit C��n�� j�_yr.i Ih�'1' �tl'dF4) r I+rIh11Y,U11F�. a,t � � � a 47 53 �+ � � a.�n� ti4�1•�a G . y.� . w p tt +� u � � sty * A.4 1 i +` +., � aQ + t a9 0 o r, II � f � a . �1 �• ,. O � !� r l� j�!1� s fl y `� E r Ii ? u n „- '�t�fi�`� � � (i�. n * i'4ir. .� �a' r � 1� r �, fn Cotlstt �rrniruharcr rug ner•nvrc,wc� ■5u �iur us r.ynar:...rr�i ..,�.., -..,. � . �,..sr....��....... Ate eriad �lorttt5aundi Souihaourrd tastt�aurtd) Wc►stb�,unri Total Beginning Ai wit Thru RE ht• ll leii; Tinru 4ti �ht U Leif Thrt1 R' tit LI Left. Tftn� Ri ,ht !� 7 _DQ AM Q 1 9 5 1 I 5{?� D b Z :537 i 4 0 "�J 7�i�.Ahp S_ l7l __ �7 1 _ I� _ �7t? R D 1 D Q 0 1� � � n _ 7t43AA� � �,� 6� % 2� d17 �l ;i rl D i is �a R �6 Q ��i+ 37'a4 $'Q[I �q r� I .]3 u? �::� �: 7 �i 11 I � � rl G {1 ? N � 41 l y it �+R. 37r,�? S:1�AihA 1' la{ r.2 �� tE 3;� t� i� ] D Ci � �7 t7 5 D �� 3532 f���OAM i} l.�li �1 is 15 �?4 iI ;� it C� G {7 i6? U id p 7i11 33i7 s:�� n� � Ada ,t� a 4z �z�. ❑ ,�j t D i � xa� u .lD. D s� a�a� i'eak 1.5-Min Nn�thaun�l Southbntind �ntl�nuns>r 4Ve5slboumd -- - --� -.t . ��,- Cut�tl Fbowrates 1r-Ft ihr�► Edgh� 11 left Irrru Right 4� L�rvr ihru tight U teft rhry fifpht u � I Vtehit��'; 1 Irg2 Z 6 4 SD ]a-�t7 C� 4 � G 0 0 992 � �.''i i� sS72 ltw�yrTr:r .� �� $4 1? A f� tl d Q (� d} 4'.'� 1�� p[-ems!::�,,' Q ❑ 0 4? D Elti.��-1r„ (t p �! ;� r.r G CI i1 (1 �S CJ A�IIr�iJ -� ��r�rn,'rtr+ :.,.;:err �:�rr-�r.�`�d on CQunts,. LL� �http;,r�ww Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page �32 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Type of beak hour hemp repcxt�ci. tntersncticn i'eak Method frfr aleteiminir� peak hour: To4a1 Entering Volume LQCATli7hJ; (mmc�kal�c Rd -- 4th 5t ME Randall Blvd QC �tiB #. '1��05��8 CIT'��ST�rC: �c�lliet, FL DATE. UVed, Apr 17 2r719 PrW�i�-H�aur.'i�t�� l'I'�9 — G;4�tf P'M Peale rS�Mi:rt: 5:�� PM -� 6:Qi7 PII� �ruali t-�,r ��urrt.� �z.1rA ,'"rWe7 0 ut�l►M'h�Iv � „� � i ♦ # a s� s3 •� aF � G � C ,i L 0--� ?ti R t � � • � bw U1 �'d!••s; 9 � !r [� !i2 �.T • � a� �� U t� n .+ s +- Y � � � 4 � U � �. � �� � �� � G� •� r o �� 1 � ri 3.� � � f r _ D C �� r � t /yA r9h J # 4 J + �" r 1 r� rl�i L5-Min Count Immokalee lift imr•,nkaieQ Rn ncn 3r �vf/�anoau �snrn acn aL nefnanoau a�� P�fod Northl�uu�►d �outhLrousyd L'asthtsuru! W�stB�und Total !�� Beginrrir� At Left Thru Ri t U 'Left Thru Ri ht U Lefx ik►ru Ri ht U Left ihr►� Ri ht U a:aD are � ��� i�a a �a a�.� i 1 4 [t ��' �s 1Q5 1 a � 93I A:15 i�t!+I 0 359 163 {� 3 b ? 35 1 f� � 0 �`, ii f i? Q 1 � U 90i �:3D Frvt 3 356 1%Q D ➢7 l44 C! ? d U 'v� G 93 D ?D � R47 �1:�5 t�fvl 5 •il7 162 1 ! ?11 1 ii t`' 1 ��� % $d to fi tt 932 3Fi11 5;p0 PM 1 442 LB5 Q 21 i$7 �a D 1 D J ti 89 Q in D nl'3 359s 5:15 f•'t�i 1 ,lti� 1� 1 tl l� 15�t rj 0 ti U � t? $7 3 0 �lpN "sEt►+l z�:3D CMl 1 Si5 15; 0 i Z•�l? cr D 0 0 I l} 9= ❑ ti D A9� 365-6 4:ug W 1 3 �t�i �i�1 1 i� 1�'1 i � 1 4 b Q e� L 7 tl ��� ;f�13 f�i�:ak f 2 fain �,Ip�rtslu:uricl SaillFlt�qu.hf� f.i5Ei�iu9nrid Wf�st�oeu�ri rota) Flnwr,-rtNs Leftt Thsu R�tht � _ Le€t Thru Right ! � t.�ft Thr� Right U te#t Tnnu kipht LI hll �,rilltl�'; RaA �76 -i _ till a2t~ d t;; - ,1 •_� U _ �� � z, �.� .�� V ���{r NedY�' Trucks 0 56 .A D 2C� 11 ii •�� D � Q � 1�78 t'ede5triar�i u n �' u Gl�ytt�a a a n ❑ n � ,� �; t� � e n ❑ Rail�aac! 4 dN(lil G'"i 4. Reparr. �ener�teci on �:16 AnA 5�i rRCE: C;�u�Gt�E C���unts, Ll.0 i1-tp.,',r�e�l�ati+�•.uu�;ltty�ount3:n�tt 1-8?a_y�+f1.??:•r Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 33 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Appendix C: Projected Traffic at Subj ect Intersections Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 34 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �U1� �E�u; 5!;`A�+�i:d r.�i�"It':�;w :�'�'r.TG�,S�:.��'s` c?F�+:{KT - b:£E�r��,T T`fPt~: Lai�TR_I�T =P�T�r��t��': IJ�(_l� I:'r=rLL1C�F; ��i�t�`1.'Y•"t31�1�t. W8�'E'_ t ,� ri #' 1 * �:I 1 �J "1? '1 r 1'7 * 1 .t `i '�r� raA`?`E 'lf "i 1 � �, _ _ G�,fG�•, _ _ _ i � i 1 � .. �. I � � ? � ��f G fi � Ma '' t�rr�i'l.i :I=. ^� J Lu if lj� � `vim �� ! I L 7 f � V� �.a 1� � 1' _ � I I _'i .�.1 ( ..' �_ _ _I � rJ it �� ,r � 1_I .� �' i� i 'a � �I .r. r � �� i i"i i:_MrZ�����i?i � � 1�v�1% d�� C,=>L� �1ff����=41�t 11Z1 !�'�_� � 1 f' r. J' 1' i V� _ � 2:��'�:+. /.�� ids � ^ i'li�+�`�:1�i� i � �! �. n �r 2 �� �. � _�.r �F t1 fi � i P� 1 1 _ {� �1 I_I, U- 1_� � l� r3 n _ B� fl , .Et�i (1 , �t L� �'? . n �>n 1=1 y r.i , 1 ��.' • 1 �. , .1 r 1 f `V� t+ L7,'+ 11,:?' n ,a '� , I.1 �+ `� II,>'�� I1,�e1 II,,,a . '�� Y i���,. .: � ��_!li�c rat i7_! 1.,�'s 11 i _ �LIl�•. 11�. � �"ill'= lip ,`-, ,„�.� I I '- � 1 � d t i. . ' I � . . i ' - d' I�i _ _; I 1 1 I. i l _ . , �:1_I ��� 11.Y, ' t �' , ; i,r �, I I ' !_I t i � I_� � �- �. Ij�i ��.1��1+fit, i I `� .i � :� I� ��i� 1 �w Ct� l z�l�:u7 - � �.'� � �-.:' ; ' i I 1 �. I , � ryry 1 I �� �� � 1 i �:_ I� �� ;i � ,.11l�. � f�i 1 � 1J (I l 1 �� �'�-.�':'�Jj - r�' � 'L-1�.�s 't�,ir'�11' zlrl ►1 ., � i1 l . C11 �.t14 1=tiC ��" 1. tl C-� 1<lr � � rr 1, rl � 1, C►J . Cr � 1, [1�.., 1 T I�,Y' 1 , CI � . n� �I � p �' I . n.= 1,1r�� 1:11 1 .7. 1:1 I.1.�J 1 . C� � 1TCr 1: C►� �. { G �. . �.fic� �I , .� _i tl , 97 �� u� �,5u r7 , �� 5 �. �A �, 91 (J . �� (I_�� t , Z,Z(� 1,1:{ 1,l �«� 1 � Y ..:' 1 �a�� 1 �'q1 lti1 1. _ Ct �, �.`� 1.1� 1,1�► i.i1 1�7:w 1 , :� r,, 1,�1 1q `= .L ,..; 1 � `' l,�t� .._ �� �.. �:. Y i� 1 .1a T � � ,�� �-, 1 . �;� S.s� �. � i� fs 1_f�� 1, �'a�. 7., t?6 =�(7 1 . 4;i �+ � 3.r�rJF'L Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 35 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Oil Well Rd &Desoto Blvd Intersection Pr�j��# �i r�ffi� Percent�.c�� ABM-PfUf P� � r Oil Well Rd 1�hr�0ugh �� + i4 = �� �i�ht + 37 � �� i + 1 � �i = '1 � $ �r�t� r Tf�fi�� � 5 t_, E�cit Tra�i� (�5�j Commer��al+I��sid�ntilal ���t �=1 Q°fa + R-1 O�p1t ��+ ���_ ��O:p �`�� + �7 = 82) DeSato Bivd T�trr�i��h G-1 ��1� + �.—�OQ��a �� + 2�� = ���� (�� � 1 �4 = t ��� SR�D Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 36 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 � � , 1� ! L � t . � 1 � �,� _ .,_ pp L��i' ' fi+1�TP�t' E;k� 'E�6�i�T T�i3T�c F�t� T�T+T�oll ��= �1�#� T) ;fly 1r� � ,i 1� 1a+�4 1� �a��� �� �._ �.�� ,lay'', .�� �:�'�n 2.� �' �T� l��aL#�-U� � l� 11 �I 11 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 37 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 � i � � � � s i i r � � a � ° i �P� � #' # �� 1� N�ItJ#� Ft1TUlR �� '�4'lizi�+li� [� >E.� S�T�i� C+1+�I�t�J C� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 38 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T/S —Section 2 —August 2020 Oil Well Rd & Everglades Blvd Intersection Pro�eet Traffic AM -PM Pk Hr Everglades Blvd Left [Q� C� / s+�e-z� �7+56-63 �� To '�----� � f � hi~ � �-- fill rou��i C--1 ��/� + R -� 5 fa fro ��� � Leh � ��� �O� �� + �, a �� —�. inter 7r�f�i� ��� exit 'TI�Iffi'I� �25�0} � �Qn�mer�Pal+Res�enti�l iRi�ht I��S��o -� �-�7�'r��. ��= Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 39 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 iL1Rh�11V f�P1�U�tNfGi�it' �E�itt [� � �titl Ph! �_O�i ��k �`�'i€147�1$�C� E�R�i.� ��It S�s�.t'�'1'F� t7 '��#�-�1P��°r �°� �,��� ���. 1.�� i.t��t �.�� 1.47� 1.r��i �.�a1 1�'r, i.�=� l.�i� l.:s. 1.�� l:tla% :�a.�@ACtt�3i�F��1�pLLtP��� �B 2� 3"� ��� �55� 22t� �? fill l� S� � �� �22 � ��3 �'T��1:€�iTi�l�����C���LUE�1 � i� �1 !� �t�t� �� ui� �� � z� a �� �I Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page (40 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 21720 Randall Blvd &Desoto Blvd Intersection Project Traffic Percentage a n � A�(�1-P�ll Pk H r __ __ Through 11 +3�=4� 1�. + ��1 = 1�t� Riga^, �,,;n,-::II � �- I'J�,'a + R-1 J�ird F,an���ll �I',� � � 1 Rar�a� Ftvd R�:�d�li woe 1�+�11=12� Enier Traffic ����� EJ�it Tra�f�c ����'1 Loft C-1 ����o + R-10°io �� - 11 � - 120� r `��, T hr Through ��.-10°l'0 + R-1 �°ra t:�� + 11� = 1�CJ� ('1 � �" ��' _ $mil Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 41 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 ������ t�4a�t�tEtrt7� Ci3�1 , p�T� - �?A�� = Q1�S9-.Y19 CfJUi�e'[5A�'�-ji�lNitE - 7�0. _.9i�ti fix} o �'. � sa �� ����� ���I���P11 %:ate"I }'�It�ist §�..I1 H ������ (���I'�f������, T1i�t1 �'1�ff T�Td�3. _ RI4'al4T �'i�i'�1. LE�fi � (ti F{�'6�L !� �}�L� �. T�►1',�1 ��#�� r E�. 1 � G� � i D � � �� l "�" �� �; trr 7 � 1 s�t �.�? �`�� �:.�7,� I��.T�il �, �,a:�:� ��i�� �sa� �1t ! E��€`� �.€th, � Lax ! '? t.u�ac �,C1ti .'its i��i�t���i�:iL��tt'��6 IE �. t� �.� � 3�. ! �i �s �� 117 __ w y �V B�t� _5d537.�NM tf $i 'a ��.. �;l ��� � '. iEi Is:� J. 3.1 t�� G�€"� l�,i��. 1.�� �,.� :E..i�u '�1xt�i�����i li�?5:. �9E`Y.I��t��4.�'+.��I�. �' to i� y�, u ¢i `3� 4 �L'i 4: ��` 41L �i to �� EC�1��i =�tr.5{3T4} I�l`�[AA,CV j�At�Li�LL�LI ���iL�q�I��` (t�y}y����t R ^L��p��4y�r[> Al�i�-ryL`-����F2�'. g� 1.��ai P7�pp��Vqq {Y�1�g�� " ! Cpl�W1`L�y'� ei pCSF'f�i}g9€#1�,.�y �9 �1PJ .... � {�{yyk.. �. rei FL4�f r�k �a��;LL Li�L���4�� '�' �ESo�' L�L�r.��C ��� E�%E;��rs ��,5��">iJ$Ja �� t�i +iC�n�L:"s� L1 PiltTt�tLf.� L i�� fi'IhsT TC��AL F'F' �Hii.� � i� T�'7Ai. 1� il�i�4� ��CI�?' ��Te0.� L ��J Rl�i�iT `�t�'�- F��?'�' ��.3is L1��r+� �_�'.�� ta.i 1_�.f�i 1:Ufc �.I:+G, � 1_Q� i,r]� 1.�� i., �af�i �.. Zi���i�t��vF�Q41F�Q��dQL�Pfd�E {k � S�} � A Q �i i2T � �� �� i6. 3�'J 3i�t.���fi�F� f+�1� �."�:'.:f�'> �' e,k'y ?,E>' �.[�'+� �' <=i�, a sr'4: � � `, �►��;� �;�Cr`'� �}F�; '".r?Tis �' C�UILt3-+�.1 11".I �:�� I i�.� 1Ci 1tJ �i:� $ $C6 ;1i�+. l,tj. �L�. �W� it�LI5 �1�� '�' g�. '.� � R �. �'3 l�� �. ��� �'�3 �M� �.C7 E�� G[ �J ����r 1r�t�tl��� ��'�Il�t�5 �.{ �� � � �a � as i�� t� �f� r� �z�, s� �� #:� � Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 42 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Randall Blvd & Everglades Blvd Intersection Project Traffic Percentage and AM -PM Pk Hr Through �-5% + R-� 0°fo �+3�=43 7+ ��� _ ��8 R,ind�ll �I„+I Right �C-0°�o + R-5°lo I,O+ �18= �8 ��0 + 58 = 58 Enter Traffic �50 Ex it T raffic �250} �F: � .k�Us :'��Nst �..'r. hrough -�% + R-0°lo +0=6 +p=7 Left �0+57=57} �d + 33 = 33} -� Through m C-�°�a + R-� 0°l0 (3 + �I �I 5 = � � 8} �8+�7=7�} itu�i II Bivtl Itundall �wd ilandull blvtit Randal) Olvd Through �8+p=3} (8+0=8} U�} �� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 43 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —August 2020 Tunivir Y94"WitIz :01JNT DATA - DATE -01•i19-ZQD WEAK RDIJR'-7,0 AM-&V,4UOM AM PEAK 44OUA #1nURE TRAffIC 5T r3 laCt EA5ffz4jN Ej LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL L[G$ THRU RtGHT 10VAL LEFT TI4911 RIGHT 713TAL LM J04R 1 JHGHT TOTAL td _= 7 15£ 9 172 t 83 1115 la` 136 11.1: 21jr 115 1-2 132 0SCF i Rsa ElATAI :s 1416 1116 1 . 0?6 1 I 106 I D6 3 T6 tn6 1,06 2020BACK4ROUNDVOLUME -it Tfib 10 184 14 31 1I 1To 1,06 21g 1�x 13 3 �iR OW I I R AT Yf T?5 rV f4jt�0. 1F ID ID 1u 14 10 10 10 13 10 Da 1 d031CI1111tQ i5 2L 25111 13 ? 1E 17 t IACAEt1 `iLlltl€ M n livi a 11F 0 413 18 61 0 n t zS57 `a D F 2030 BACKGROUND + PROJECT T 1 3il 11 3 71 SiR. #1 132 319 R 21-7 115 44D 139 161 T11�1� �E4 G`t���d Et�A EIVT9 tl'�tERsC�ItE1td fr C1JER1sLOC� �L�dl1 il#!'�il� f�IN��LL E1Li111 mWtrt DATA bAtt s I11 � to �011-kt DATA 1Itw11n 4 4.00 PM , 6>1I0 PM YEAK HOLIA , 4.IiEi PM a 5,011 FM Ti ll.I1E113L €III` F)ftRrLAVt5OWLEVARC "15T1' l! E EASTBOUND S 0 LOT)+BG uToo NORTHBOUND LEFT TOTAL LEFT THRU TOTALrLE37 THRU ROW TOTAL L€FT THRII RIGS TOTALail lPa i t [TEHRUAIGIfT t 1 122 ES FRIIG5KWT 117 -J� 27.E 1n4 14T 12 I" L (:wl r IIAYAI 1,.4E 1:46 IJIG IPri t 1. 5 1, i3ri 1, W, 1 nE two 1E0E- 1.pr IBACKGROUND VOLUME, 13 111 30 1E0 119 JAA 214 467 14 IV$ 101 231 11T ISO 1-5 714 + RGIN'TI+1Lrq.TE 20(14, 16% 1!a lu W 2*Lt`n 11% 10 2.i>�� �46,4 ;j. % .1 t, & �.1,tt ic1; .r i%, 1F1 VEARS TO BLILC1 GUT" fit 2i030BACKGROUND 101 la 111 167' 1117 227 fi.11 1!:`E,161 1 3�� L� i �55 ]4��H194 FBI+ JfCT 109NINE V LUWst 0 % TS' a 1115 5k5 l7d r0 1 1030 11ACRGRO TND f PROJECT a 22i 178 Et a t 31 167 Jos 13- Has Is i69 131 3 S 7 02 � 7 'J- 11 1 "1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page (44 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T/S —Section 2 —August 2020 18t" Ave NE &Desoto Blvd Intersection Project Traffic AM -PM Pk H� 18th Avenue NE Thrr�ugi� �� + 7� a �� ���0� ��mr��r�F�i+���i�i�n#i�l Desoto Blvd �� �i�y' R rJ� `/�' ���V�,l� � 1 1`LV��u � � � 74 = �� To ��� + 1 �� � ��4j Ti�rau�h (3C� + � 34 = � �� � Lei# �-20��/� + F�-����� (�0 + 1;34 = � �4� fight �-���'/� + R-�O��� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 45 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T/S —Section 2 —August 2020 �'l�t�1�� t�at�t��#4 tti 5C't�3P1 > � iQ �1�tt�1 �N�� Bi�4 4'�C1�163� �€dUMT t�T#�-t�,�,T-�1-��-�Z� E'E�,k� U� u 7_qa � �Ta �41t� q''ii f`�+' yy*���((kg��+l{M�dJIBR�4tTU3�Efl..A�F� J #b�n �Vlv1Y 4'14n '�7 �€��t� hc?►�1 ��� +��'��i��1��#�1� ( t-t��k���#1F��} �+l#tF�f��i1�'��} t��l�l�#t`�J#.si��:7 LEFT �NL# ��� [ 1t� N�► 1� T ��� Nti! R►�t,N�` �;�. l.CFt NFU ��tC ��. S'.�LF �, a3 ii�.*5 {.y�ry �#. 1.��� B:S:��A 5�# � A,:4+�3 ��f. � �.9'�: �,§.-.e, #„�s� ..1 R!ifJ' �;'4 k ,§L7 Zth�i�+C� Ut�It�t1/�3L1l�alE � �E � 3�1 �� ��.� +� 3 1i �� 3� 1 , w. � __. � _ _ __ _ _. �� _ . _ �_ _._ _.__�__ . __ _ ____ _ __ _. _� �. _ _ � __ v _ � _ __ . _ __ �?�Efi""1�1�t#�t����LI.tP�?E� �'' �a�7 +�i ��;.� 0 �� ' �� �� �3�u � i� Jig Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page (46 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 18t" Ave NE & Everglades Blvd Intersection Project Traffic AM�PN� P� Hr 0� 18th Avenue NE Enter Traffic 125d Exit Traffic (250) ��mm�r�iaf+Reside ntia! ___ �VQf(,�IBc)@S BIVd F�i���# �1+37=�� 1� �- 11 � - ��� Tt�r�ugh +w8+�3�41y L+�ft �� + 1 � 5 � 1 �0) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 47 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 r,�ra�E���at� - �� �5 �tv� ��rt� ����� ���rou� r�E c�ur� �A� � t€ , �,�o`�h� h"B PC�I � FU�U� t FIB �T�I�r1�l�L�k' � F`��I�iA�C� i��"�L�I�:Si'��iC�! '�'a`E�UF�i� Ed�,a�� tP�C� ��r�.�1't�E�.�i. �t�G� f�aTt�6�:+�t�[+ Fl ##Ei i�T ��r��, �� �� ��� � �,��' tH�� I��#� fi�E LEt �H� ��f ��t�� tal�#�J'�VVTii F�,7[ 7,h��. '�; �.�'�'�, � r°;�, M t>`' �,�`:r�� a ir�� �"�!;?� � �i�;d: � is': �' l�F � `f�i� T 61.c'I�i1-���!? ��' lI� 14d �� �� �� 1� ��d �l �Mi ��� � a.',�� �.��{{��' `E}�i�@Q' �`�� ��1 �.�:3 ? �a �i1 .�ti� � � �i� � a.!� - gs �$is: ��.'' �� �'� �1 PI?�1�§:'1 Tl.(1#1�1i� "��tMr��4� 1?+�' �� �tJ T=1� i� ��1 � �� 2� � r1 ��1 �� [t �1:� fl.�_ ��3�t P 4��� � FR4�E�[ 3ti�3 99 �� �f� i0 Fi3 i � �� 2LI�i � �� � � ��a 5 � � � � t � � � :e � k i 1 ��'Et1c` [s�� �'�L�,[�E'� �§�3LrLEV;�'�CL�' �'�'€�r3�-�z�(I� ci��aBr_t�lP�� �rt�?I���t�CJ t��t�l'ii�l�;-t1�3 'FF�RI� RI��iT '�TA� LEA �`Wltt! �»� ���� � �li�t� i� Tt�'f fit, EEC "�H4� Rl T�i'�51� ����tTivil�� ;� � � �t$'� r t� �� �� �� �C ��1 �� 7'.�1 �� 7� �:Si F �.��31;� Cir��T";i l.s: �t�t� � �i 1 � �tEl 1,�r; 1,�n 3x�F� t =�a �.�� �.i� Iwo �� ��4�i��1�1�i� E�il'� �2 39 75 �� � �4 �3 �� t� � � ��� � �@6 3 474'ikJ 74F�6i 1'+P3.�E i..iF�' �.K}�� i _L�`.�9 �.�6:"A '. �.r:J�h'". �..��:, i..T.l �.�� �..`9 �_'L`��Y; L.°F. �. Ci�."yaf �'E,Eij� � �����`$���� �ti� C7 ��i 1�i �! �t� �i>a ��r�' �CI �i� �.� !�1 i�kt �r+k�1�48RbJ i.f��i. ��#, �i� ��� �. 9� � 7m ,'�t �.�� ��, �3k� �it. ��!.+f 'f �=��1.. .�.� i-6i��LL1 �L.�i }I•3'�i �.i 6�$�id4'�At C;..3 17.ez sl :# �.+} ��i9+�.. 4� T�'e.2 hP. 59 �1� �J �. &1.3. S1 k� ��.i.. 3. ��?. �I�S+ Pe4CI+9I�k44Jt pI�C.11 Eli ��� � ��la ��` �,I �� �� � ��1� 31I 3 � � ��a � �i�2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 48 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 mmokalee Rd &Oil Well Rd Intersection �rc�j�ct Tr�ffi� A�1f --P !'� � k H t G�ir������r�i�6-�-F���id���ti�l Lift �-5°��-�R=g��� ��+�}=6 +�_� Immakalee Rd T❑ � Right C�5°��+RlO°�� ���gl�� (�+�_�� �— Lift ��+ 100= �O�} �i! Vw►�11 Fed Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 49 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 lr��crr�r�-��ts� 1E� �� A�i� l�tl 4Ai€Ll:RCr �.� _ -. -¢- - �M LEFT �i�%F!� T%T�1 �� TP9(r�U X�+�,g! �� ��6!'�` TE}'f�l 4 ���.� L°�AL�I�iB.fil9.f iR 4/�u�6'{� $�4tT€... ,�it9 �� � �. �� Ft��d� �►'1C�fi��E�1 1PI€E�E AJ - l i.�� �� �1�1� �I� i1�tE�.l. f �� L}p►�'A�-TI'�11E - �_i�� Phi - �.�lii'R bf �i�U - QwS Ff�1- 5,4� P'C�+'E ���t�T�1�u �u� � �t� �� ��� ��� ��� �j 1.� �'r�� ��i�+l.� ��T�,� 1_C31� L 1_�� J,i14 �� L.0 �C�3€} �dI��CGt�Li�l111�+ P�?IL�T' � � 4� �, w a Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 50 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —August 2020 Immokalee Rd & Randall Blvd Intersection Project Traffic AM -PM Pk Mr Eater Traffic MW Exit Traffic (250) �ammerciaI+Residentia! Th rautgh Fi-10% (115) �❑ 67) N J111�► � Lift (3 + 172 175) , - (8 + 100 = 108) Ri�lht +55=61 7-�167=14 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 51 tongwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 pE�6� ��� �11T�1� ��� �: 14�,:.: �xTLFL �k:.b ��f't lt' �tR°1,Yl�d.Si Hl i'�, if'..2,Ng„{.. 4��4�`�rkt�P�i�� ��i ��r�� �?t.li �r"��1� �1��`��:a�� EEF[' �iifi4! P � L€1*T RM�iii` iDi�,E. i��i ��t� �''` ��,L �T �� �# T£71�i �F1`:�;�1:�'!� �.€ �, � � � is I',i�.� 1 i �.+� �� l.r:$� 61�� j �� �.�1�: ��.� �C� � �9 ��N713 � �i i, Ilia ,9i9 � � , 243t1�i�i �p�ClE� � ' � �. � �� �,�� ��. � �£�1a �� a��£! �in��� . �r� �icWp��a�r�t���w��s are c�i��l�t�d t��+ � ��rc����-� ��'°�!'-r� �ttt�'�Y��� �t��� ����1� ���M�� �s 1a.��:�€� � �k � � �t �ui� als�i }n�r���tic�n ��a �,: �s s�c1 �1�r�r�� ��11!�. F�P���� ���� 2 � �r�t ��r� ii.►. �� �,i l��Sii2g.�yygb! L'f141'. M�� #�1# �g� ply g��r y�g L� �1'Y96i34�i,E� °���J�y,ttTl- .4���Fi �1:9�+ $i�6�Y� Ltl/p4��d{{y1�7�p��+iw��}t.��'*9�6p1pAPgt����"("�akllppkq� �{..APig",`� �"� � i ilJ;�d�' L�,S" F�[iq��l¢� �`J:.i� � # �,�s����' ���`a �C� 1�1 � � !� ��Ip�1 t`A� ' �T i� '"�9��L�'° �+��t �= � �E�Hi� t+�L �� 9 1 ��i+�, �i11�� ��+diC� �#� �� �� �' �l � � +, �� l Leif f' t�� �'�!� �,=�'� ����:� �<��� r�+,�d� �u� tag � � u� a_r��i �.ra,� ����� �U�: � � �. �.r� i.,a.� � �G� �R�e�.. .. 1P '�. GB! :8(E� � .t {� � � � .P ifE i ��T� ib+ 3�kRF f.u75� ��tl ®M�.R4i. Ve316.1� �1�ffism rig A���... �37� ". � A�.� '. �`i �fJ iT 1..�F;[ L. ��-�4 � �f.i �X, 2d�y. a���Ci�'. r����a=�:� ��,��a�l�ar:�a���tur� � � � u � � �� � �r �� are ��� ��- ���r` ?Ci? ccrut�tj�l t�.il�"Ic ��iUl��. ��� �,,�Ittllt��ci c,y I�r�e�°�tr��a��� E4�+t=�=1��rr ��1�� ��� ��t=�=�*r ��c!s��t�'� ,1°� Ile�cr����� I �� :�� ��rr��li',,rl !n��r�t„n :��� �7���F�r � ��lar�r°� its; �i�,�� ��� n��l �i� i�, ����a �, Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 52 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T/S —Section 2 —August 2020 Immokalee Rd at Randall Blvd Intersection — PD&E Study (Feb 2019) —Excerpts -Peak Hour Volumes �'R <+� lmm�kal�� Rd.l .�t R.n�sl:�tl >l}I���, I'T��i� %'e�c 20:�� .� ��� hraj��t'Tral=fir Repart I��.-�k Haur U�Sigri �f11�l�ia.�i�-i•�Z•Ul Hnur 4�+�lurn�� iL'crllier C�nunfg Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 53 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — August 2020 L' j, as fit Ali 1,143 and L4� it A_ the �Jsnnri Tr�n %tiyl tau SiY R.ltIWlCY5 r_ 411 t ,r i75 Alt T o Y 77 39 p� Ranrst 3it:i 1FA1 ii4 &M 14 4 131 GIP T� q O ■ c LL 1: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 54 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T/S —Section 2 —August 2020 3+4"+ +Ot11l+l�ll �d 2aru Su r� #� �' s�rr�pti Tt�e Rgi1+ �� 01 d!Q Zy I � .� �Jl'll>i !; F=rltilWif�VS 18E tlda !'+ � �� L' ��� la � 11d ?* GS � � #y��F � 9 G � ��i t rra vs � �k7 F42 � 4 � 2 v . 47 �� q � `c � � � �, � ;� LL �� +- 1# H�1�� I�ninT►I+,�1,��► liai.) .-� it.ti�dall l�l� y1. iil loll: ��l��� T����� r��}1�� F E' A9 P+14,;+�353f�ft. I r2�-Ol C.�lli�rr Lou�f}� 1''�ar �4�� +'�A�1 Hour V'ofu�t�� Fiyu►E:1�Q ri tr ���„ Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 55 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 u4 "'� �a� {rr— to►� Od IMau�{d �►1 I� �� Im��rc�[h tle�► I;E�1..� tl 1�. �nd�11 Islv��, I'��I: �}rnl��rt Tr�Ff�� r���,�� t��llitr �c►w1t}� �senar Tree ia�tl. RJ�IW�C45 }�ey�s ly aao� Year ��t,�a P�4 I'��-�k Hv�r [)�si�rt [f-IQur a n: :IIri a� it�nw 61��:1 F? � Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 56 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2— August 2020 Au�endix D: Existing Programmed Signal Timings Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 57 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Oil Well Rd & Everelades Blvd Intersection �,+Iaa�iime 8a�i� GQiaf�lt Tmme �h��� Cut�rttr�»ynp{r .� �.y,t,-t�l,.. t,�.,„ .. - � ., �� =_foe 3!. _..���,- � ��. FiTr_a RF:rw� P�:+t �++� �sn�+. rttr_? fend t}arf �-5 f:'?rll� litn wclil t +a+ Ucf.t �urfifTaria�� Slr�tu' ! Irk U htf;c:E<f 0 - 4Y_f Spy t +wuln f'r! rk blsab•r i�-� Fla><h fT<q ED ��hnr191rri 0 F+ed ftryyn a 'fk Flasnrina Cfl 5'sttR.Sr�• �tl t�y S�jrj!!p jrTte!,� I`YT --- ��E SnY��r Errtav Flrr ar:! , 1 E.►, �,1yil► Ct�hro Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 58 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 I a -? 24 25 :'B 3'111 -�� �P -1l 3.r, �.1 '? 3335 '_,G '- 44 �'1��-_• 71 � 41'e+k 71me ❑ 0 0 C, D C, 1] 1] I' p :, _1 i1 i1 0 D C acar Time a fi a 1'• 0 i; rJ it 11 r1 ;, !, l ;! 11 b[f1 t +fii alY ran C4eea Cl Q n Q n 4 0 Da ;: , j III Cl r; 1j !) 1, 1 i 11 i, s iJ v' v U _, ij q 0 n p 0 �1 r, 12FEE ►j i? Pw5rpr 11 i, 1 t 141e1xz [! - rl n C - Ij - r1 l i rl n 4} ;I I" C Mtst 3 0 n Cl G C ra 0 [ 0 ii - Q Q ri i:; G Yet Cnmge 3 3 ' 3 3 3 3 ? 3 3 '1 i 3 Red Ow q f1 1 Qi q 11 11 U ILI 0 0 ,J a`f 0 0 111 D IN Red ReVert 0 Q i t G 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Q a a 0 CI 0 0 h1wci !!t,ual 0 0 0 C C 0 a a 0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 D ❑ 0 0 li W1 Tint 0 1'D D C, 0 0 0 (I n 0 Q V 1) tlrr-a B4 (jGGIIC, R 0 U 0 0 1 i Ll 1:1 0 Ira Cars B4 Ra6t,.e 0 0 n D r) 0 U 1 i El r_ p t3 i tj U 0 11 I; Is Time To f3aduee Q 0 U - iv1 C1 Q 17 q 11 n n 0 Q Q Q 0 n p C, Rieduol' BY0 CI 11 rl (} D 0 0I II iJ 1t ( 1,i' CI 11 0 ;' L Min CpP li, it 0 r1 i, 1-1 Can Mr1ar Llrrlil 0!.! -U- t, 0 t� 0 0 ,j n n 11 Dyrt i4`sax steµ 0 D 0 LI D It 13 ❑ Q r1 D 11 l 7 i 1 (1 1) Dcl syerl Crerw Cf Q 0 El G 0 0 0 13 0 b 0 I n 0 a Cl C; D Delft Fed Cl i1 11 0 0 I'll a a ❑ n IJ IJ ? 1 I'M Cl 0 0 its , is A,It'Aialh ii n 111 D t} [1 U U ❑ - , -- Ali Ptd = 0 rl r., D Q C, d 0 0 D ❑ 0 0 +7 A 4 t! rJ C Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 59 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 60 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 61 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 .. Na�,e ,t ,� '..� j ►IUIe __ 9 'I U) Naie � �] 1���tI I� � Trall GRN 7rn� Y�L Trei RED y1fl ► Re.� s+h i 1Nn1 � >=Ved Ct �`�! � T � In<_-lilded Fj16Sf Akv7fal Pf1#,sery C)ef2�r FrA�h nrSettpflons I Off 0 U �! � $ d U tt G4F - vR �7 � G 7 ?� 4 G 0 G�f -� Ott n n 4 ,i 0 0 4n ,� f_1IT ll U IJ v ,7 , i C� 0 O'i :, �n r( p n f� +J � I n � C� ��tt _, +�5ff �y U fl r. �1 , i I � i � �Jff �� ran �] �5 � 0 � �1 I� i� [�ti -- �,�� �;,t� � i n �7 r ;; � ,, i� r� CNf 1� cl(i 9 Ll i i 'f �l C� O u1C C�ft rl n V �i !� C� I� t717! i+t �_5�. �] � Ci r � �] D L� �311' - -- 7$ �iR � 0 4 C �l rJ D U _ � 1b' �h _ t1 01 0 d !j `1 D a C?if i� t�R 0 4( IQ 0 �? £1 0 0 t}tf �5 r?R __ rl n o � �1 [J h [� Ott �A � �i� � � t7 �] IJ r1 4 C� Q lrli ;�'1 C}R �i it 11 !j R rl I� [� [�1t - _ __ �,rr �] q 4 i; � � Q D ��� n __ C31f _ ri U t1 .'', .i �1 L� U _ t]tj yi 4(t �.i tJ 0 � �7 �] 0 f� IJ�Tt _ '�•'� C�(t �I 0 Q al r3 � 4 t�$I' _ �? �;m 9 U n - � �J G C� G1t UI� - --- .- — � it ii •� •f it G Ci i;,'ft - - 4if' �� Q Q 1. li �] n � ��11 -- — - 3+7 4h _ �7 4 � 0 �] t7 0 i � rat 31 Oli rl i1 0 � +� d i:, �_� i�� --- ;i� t11f rl f_i ❑ $ R1 � it I ii I i:'t Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 62 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Trebilcocl< Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 63 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 t� �� urauunt:� 1 J P�ri:l �'D>�S�c r � n.3.d.b 8.5.8,5,7.E i L' 1� si 'i J 'a � �, ! E, �+nuoncs 17 �if�� ��155!!5 �, 5 N 5 �� �i r r ,� t .� t t, ^5 '� H Suau•ncel% ainq r-r.��+c 1 �. ; a 3 ,ti.fJ '� [,5 a 8.?,U ..j a _� fi q 9 1:,' 11 iZ 13 1� 1� 18 Snque�rfCe i9 Rlllq rf'�951t5 I 7 ,� +� «� 7 5 ,e ,� ,` 1� �A lg 16 1� 1 is Sawahrs 15� prop t�nscas 6,5,�.8.Fb 1 ;J l7 t� �il It I'_ 13 is 19 f +: 9e�unncaig Rin¢ Fl�a�., l 5 6 I '� 1 �9 it �I z i� 1� 15 15 �9}:R1'�:•'iT� f�fnG i�?3c-� i. i I �? 1� 1_ 1�- 1 �1 1 �� 1E �aauanca 2t! F?111Q F�'135R'S t ____. F E 7 4 1 �? i� 1 1 �, 14 I �� 1 k+ Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 64 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 VghFcle Gelgcixm narame#era [JEt L'A s Gr!I Do ArtlR+anei .^_el rMr ;iwC\h _ khnan U_m4ap !xlwe d t„uuur Ord PJ� .'SEW" Mai I'mmlice )=rilrJC ,otb'r, Felod time Dust, �. vn ff if 0 0 7 Cr 0 • a p 0 a o s?QI a - -__ a a a 3 G 0 0 e a a C4 1 3 L' J Q ' to 100 Q G ] U C+ 0 0 0 a n 0 a ] 0 a Sa Q n U n 0 G 3 0 C �_ r+ C' a B 13 a Q a a a Q Il 4 :1 b a 0 G 'S 0 C 0 J U C — 9 0 U 9 t1 +sa Q P n p 0 o Q130 r• G 0 Q G a 0 G 3 0 G ii G a 0 G 3 3 G :4 U Cl 7 G 7 0 G } 0 C iL` II r' 'J U 0 Q U 1 U 8 J U 0 a U 3 u �7 Q CL D 0 0 6 U d 0 Q ^►B Q 4 i G p a Q a 0 p ACI Q C' A p l fa G 7 a V 7� B 0 ] G 0 Q G ] 0 C 13 Q 0 J G 43 0 G 3 0 C If Ij $p U i' � p >� u p •J 'i f 37 B 0 a Q U a Q a ] C- 38 n 0 0 n a 0 C 39 a G a G a o G P3 0 C 40 U Cl 0 U +] 0 U 3 C d: U 13 t7 C d_ G 0 q 0 9 CO G ] 0 C det fI G {I 0 it 6 p 0) f d•l rl 4 ,� p Fi G• � 7 4 47 B 0 0 p 7 a ad6 M310 Q G il G 0a Q C dt U 0 ,J U 0 0 0w U e J U a V G C V G 0 v U 0 a U 0 13 D r= n n l a U a rl f 11 r d a 0 4 0 0C C3 tno 066 G CG 7 G57 a G L it a a 7 U C Q l 7 C U C RJ U ] r n Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 65 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 66 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 � � ..� � _ � �I � L fl it �� I# ] 17. f1 �J _. �� r i i $� a � �_ _ � �x6 li � � i! "fl it �! (l � �1 � iS 1 � � _ ii tl.,. _ � � . �_ .. ii u Q —� �� � c� � � _ ;_ - 8 ti � � 0 �I ii1 � 4�' 4 __ 1 r� t� �3 � � �<, ii _ __ �. _ 3� __ U _ � C it _- i 35 __ G � � G R �f9 �3 � tT' Yi' �! Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 67 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 fit}©�'d��i�rt P'�t'��et��' ,��ert�ai � �t� � �,��xtut�r � � �-�� a F� �� � :.�r�r� P��r � a� ttt�ll �; ��tt�st �i°'�y rk�1� e'er ��i�em __ 1=1u�r>t<n� �ij _ �$3 ��$�� n� �r l�� F�tti a�g �1t��� 1 �+iTI � �'�%�3� .��.�[ h��►F €2e��.`r l�t�x � �[n ter �1i _ __- _ - _ v i � �t +� 1 1 � ' �1`�r' I��r�I � � t Ty � � � � i ��r � ,.Irtl 1 �� �]. �! � � � __ C;'3re�r� fir°� Irtl�.�� � � � �t w� L � i t �-�-rccR � It�it 1 i 't�! t� � � � lip 1 �-rtr, �� �r��it � � i 1 t7 i� � � � 9 ��f`�41? � lr�11� t s t �! c.! _ L� 0 _ �� 1 _ Ra Ir�rtit � y � � �7 i� � � �� 1 �'���€ 4. 1iri�ii�# 1 �: 1 _. _._. - r3 �3' r;� C+ '3� 1 �x ��; #� Ir���t i � 1 r �� � ti f� ra !� �� n � frtlk t � � �7 Q� � � ti �� i i"r� � �' ,!rtlt: i °� 1. :. ��j tj rl St' �► !`! 4,1 firr;�r� 1r�ilt� 1 � 1' � r� ' *„i �=��ar� Mr#pit y � � � � ,� fl IS � r� ���r p Ir�►� 1 � ti ra � ra G1 � _ errs _'� Irs�tit � � � :�a J f �� Assn � frrtll�� 1 � ^� -3t" � y� �`! i► �Yixi�l? a ltttill'x I � � '}. �� r� 47 r� ct � 4 � Iriir_ t 1 �� o � � � ' cr � ���1� t= �ttl� i � i �v � �� �r �'} �a b3 Y�11 #%�a:ll"Ills" 1 1 t � r i� ri � r:l _ � ; F� 'Y�il � ltirrii i � t, , Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 68 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �r rj ►: a� �� °fie€Ism° �ril� � 1 `. �1 � � �i � _ 'J Y��I��° # ' #ilhii i � t �,,;, � � ti � G 4l w�'�i1 fie"` Ir��it 1 � � � r ii � � ' �l r �1��° ' >a��� Irer�lt � � 1 fj [i it G ,, � �etl+ i � lrihlt� 1 � 1 .��.'7 { � �.�° 1.1 1.� C� ietic' '... irxz}I � '� A ;. � �? ti � � �3' �t'�tl�� ' �: ![iliit: 1 � � �1 � i� I� t� �1 'f`��I Pia lr'�Ylt`< 1 � 1 � 4� � i3 � Cl � . 'Yl��� a �rt�lfb 1 � 1' F� � � tl � y �! < jr�'li�+ � � t�� � �� _ � � �� "�r�lc�, y,�?� Ir��l�� __ 1 i , � i1 '� fi �i_ �� '`f�l' ' �,'I�gtt�ll � 1 y1 V F.E Ld SI I �.1iA S�"3 !i3"���4#�i i � �! 17 i� � � i ��� C�td� � t '� i '' � �� ! �s` 1 �i�n fadlnx�; f � is r�� — � -�- aj t! L� �� 'fn�t�t�� h� It��1it i � 1 �� � � �a � � �'�� s��� �r�nit � , i '� � � Ct �! L� � �t�1 � inrliL 1 � 1 �� �J �=I 3� 1) CE �1 1F��i, �R �iel1l��` � � �� � �, i� t �� Y'G!I � irYhi t � �s, �� �� �� �� a �� �e�l $� fir � � � � �3 la, �i i� ' �i '�"��1�, In��it 9 � t �� r� � t7 � �3 �Isr�' Inuit 7 � i ; $� � � ?� � �1 �! 'I`r�l�t�' lt�iiG � � � I � i� it �+ Rd t2 "teli ;� in�il � � _. _ . ii Q I3 t7 Y�II� F�:lr��ri 1 '� I ��7 ;� ii �1 � � �!`�;���' �� �?rti1CT I � �...,. .:. _... __. �_ ..__ _ ..,_.. w _.�_. _ .. . _ ._. _._ _ _ v.. _ ,_ � _.... °` 9 i I� � � ��il ��; 1tiit I � I �� rl 7 #� Cl _ �7 '�e�l � � lrchl � � �" �7 � � �? � � ��€i' AID Ir�iEa � � F� �� � � Y`°�Il�a�r � Irlt 3 7 _ �� � u Y�81 � Intr�t� � � t �7 EF C� E� r� �`I�'' � If��li�' I � � - % � t'ell�,� ' ' Into � � 1 t r� ci � rl Y�€a , ' � irtll- � � �€ �7 r7 L � � �7 �"�,i�� � lr�iit 1 � ` � �3 � � r� � "Y��l�x • licit`' 1 " � �i �a �`I� � Ir=1 � � i i t.�� i7 +7 � 1 rah +� tl �I ; � Y��II �'�* irnll��� I � i �� i}ly 47 !¢� Ipl� i.l �y ��`"+t3�gy� �` '# �{ p� RL4 52 rp� ig SA.... �.... 6J 1�87 �t�� f�!"e�nit�r��{ �� 1�=11 t.!4� � q� { } Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page (69 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 1r�`9. � � � � G fl �F'�tl� �" frr�iCr: � � 1 i � f r; � � ����Ic�.. fr�� fr�rlt. 7 � � 1 �� �i rt � cl � ��si�*� ° � li�lir; � � 11� el r� ii _ � _ � �J �`t�l+�+� #C� Ir=fiiEi�° 1 � 1 19� �d %�' � fi 1 Y04I� k � f i�4� 1 � 11w tl _�3 It. li l w� . 'f�i � f��"il 1 � i r: 1 �� it y� �" C �� r.1 Fail ��r fraiilf� � 1 � ' 1 � �1 � 1� a �j, �'rli j�ni 1 1 . 1 L3 4 r� ii � CR � �'e4x �, trtlt � � t i � � ra t . < �� cl : �i �s �� 1itli' 1 � 1 1 � t� � ij � ,� i'Hllc Ir'�IL`s f 1 t i��g i� J 11 u �i � 'r�lfr 1r�t � � 1?�� �? � � rl �1 �r`�it Ir11C� � i r,�� ��� :;jilt � �� �i f-� 1 lr�� i�Ei i�hi 1'�9�acie �Ft T , . ' i3k-i �i� i�9s �� � � � �� � �� � v � u its � t��l� �. Ira"t � .� � !Ei= i� F � � �' � � X� � _ __ fi.�tt� _ fits �� _ � _ � � �_ �� ra _ t� i � i iY t�: _. _ _ _ �� �� t � 1� �i ��� - -fiat ^�fd ��y� �, - t�'�a��f is'�t 1 ? _ [t� ! .lam ,� �'�+� .Ys tit �7 ►' � � �. f�� � _ t�:ne�_ Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 70 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �3�y �ryry �� V tt 1"4�. 41�:C IY'.'�5•.. .�yy y_. �J. ,. ... � ...__ _..... .,. .. .._ _.. _ ... _. _. ��� �� � r� r v� P�# R�" Fri Tire* ra�i� � � '� �. _ _ � } � t .� �a P � o Ws � ►� _� _ _ t�xr� , � o ���i� x� t �� � F ��_ �� � - `�� o P. � � a ���� A� � �� � F Pik Tine ttilaei i � F"—= � �-� 1 ,a � t#t� � � t;#t Y t �, 6 0 � fir � �1 �' 4 t� 1�i � __ _ �" �yi� , {o� {�;� (� ?yam; �� (pig��J�. g ��,.+ ij �� � � >°s' ��.' :^fit. �y-�. [t ti� +4 _ t+n'� ��xi +mow Pt? i �-rr� `` f�1c�i� � t,rn , � __. � � � �e� � �: t t��, � � it � � � F�sXI ter � � i � � t „ i 1 �� Pin �� s t �� �i fay i� �t ���.�t�s ��.�' �+ PH taxi F�� FF� Tyr= P��o�' is 1dJ� �+ �; #��t __ _ _ _ __ z� �3 ,� ��t � � � t Ti "F `�1 _@�,�� � � � rr> SJ ��� a� �� 1%€ Ve7 ��! + r., _ ...._ gg �j � _. �..... �:.... �r ll�r� •�` Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �� t �'. !a r"E4�,: � 1� ___ ...._... k` _ .. lF�E TitrtE FBI Pt=1 �_ , � __ 'c �7 £� ., �� It t; `� � r.�� �§� � r pity � �yi,�It� 1 �1 r.Rtt� 7'� �!'� ��'I R i(d'S�a. ryd°v !! �..... .. � � ..... {('4�� _.._ ..._►die .... ._.. ... �S :S �T'"+1�1�i+ 'i. �t�. .T fi r'ggS+v41 it �Y3..il4' �; ['a�� yy E4f 1�3 � __�d�l� i i ' �l i�, �� ':� r F=� � � r: 1�' � � '� r� � � �� r� �,� `1 � � !?Fi Per' Ohl ; F4� Tit ra�srl 1 r .ems _.. aa .,.. �� __ � ,. _. ....._ .. _._. r��'= ... x '. _. _... �' .�I P ll �� Ftfi.€te, �' t� , i�. � Y °4 1 ' �' 1 �"" ii r _5. � F�. '�Sr �I _ rfiC. �r r� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page �72 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 5 �7 t� �, t.�a� � � �'� _ � � t##1�+ i � �J.. t� � tit+ u � �; � i� tt 1 � 1 � f�- 1 �; � t4�� -try ra t� 1 � to _ _ _ _ __ __ Time t?Fi Fal hfi�ct� FFt s'?�� PW �H h1s�rJ� fi � �� _ � _ � Fs�a�� i� t�s � ?� t" � _. � � f� F�€ F CI - t��di� T' b� ���st1 i _.� � fits+ � � ���li� _ 9 tl i'� �7 �+� � 1$ � � ate �� � �� t� � #� � _. �� �! Ise � �rEa d 1� :=�sr� ('��3? ' �'i� 2`*� G�s�=� tit F� Ti�� T��i �;N ' f�t+� Psi fi` aa� 3�H t��crJ r fi r,� F�sr*s i �� �' :7 `_ � � __ _ � � _ � . � t�� '` � � � _ ��,:ne . � �3 Parr �� �� 1?� ::mod ��� '' ��� � � iwF �I� Ttn� Sri F�-1 Ps1�.f� � � FI�I ��� F�i:+�1e � � ��,xt � � �I P�t�, �a� � 1� i �� � t��n� �� ►� � � � d ter 1 � ,# �� t� � t >, �5 � t��ne _ _ 1� �1 i�csn� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 73 £ong*ot rV »§e S e+a d 5/p ae GWpg /� Q - 2\ - S c »n 2 - /Ugu !20 O 2� � � � d.� ��� >\(�� }.. . .t £ \ . � �d\\�`2 ��3^ 4~ s � $ 2 7� ¥ � » .m J}� 2 p & 1is y 9\ ���t� . . . :%� \�� � v ml� ..� �>!� yy� .. \.§m.. 7. °� �\ � J §.���.... ..... \ � :2 � ¢- � � \\ ................ . . . . . . . » £?\ & \ C \� § » 4 � ,� 2\� . . i. . Tqb|� ckConsd§naS6uton\ Pa P a R e |74 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 75 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 C€�'� Ott 11i �et.ltli ', t� � �+� frry � t '�:[?, ��..: �i� � �� �� � ��1::. -?� �f ��.. :gal ��-��,�.. .. n Ian"' �'`I$i`i i't i�SCttiC�7 .� .� to �a C�' �� �� �f� l:�j �1 ":�� �'� a'� �� �*� :�?� �� �€5 i _ �+ +y �rlcs�tiE� 'f^r.� . �fiL'�e Lip � [�r �° �"'� � _ *� �� '1�s` �1 �1 -ice i-- �� n� z '�"r` fi :'�»+ .iC! =�� L���-F1�`t: i� �sfi�� 9�litl� �.i� S�y�tafr� L`�3y� T P€tl'€- �11� r+� �1�a�v "yF5 �i � la'�5�5 ` I►ir�€"' 4ti1� r`Fi ���" aye r�l4�;��. Gi3Y�'� tLr€ � - _. ��'� C�1 � � � � �v' fir€ a t��r ;�r« � L"tt�� �I 1 �' ' i✓� �}� ern { � � r, � �n !-?€r ��r�. ��I =gin �+��� � ��. art :5� 1� � Sri ��1 U� Nc�� ��. -rt ,:, 3',S � 7.J fit,°'€ ` :. �1. � !� L7.. #.� 1 it �- 1��5 I'IC�r9 'Y � :.'�_I"{i�'i �+5�� '�i� �� 7��'p rla _.l Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 76 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T1S —Section 2 —August 2020 ���� ���� ��i �0�� am�� ���� ���� �r�a�a� a�� o��� ���� ���� ��� ��i ���ri t�PiS ,....,rm:.�a.wwr .. t�43f1. ���. .�� Fit�ttlf�a ey y �s �r:l tern � a 1 �" � � ,1 P-r� � r, F�r� �� �. i��� � _ � ��.+� _,_ __ � i�uLr� r P,a�N�i-^ i' is FGvroC�r3 7J �9� .. 4 S�lb_ ^j 4„�. _ __' - _ �I� ��� III � � . �I�I !, liu��� '! �!�x ��a s' F u�c-i ma's ���1�m �d ':� F��I�re� �� ��_ i�iY"i � s -- — — - 3pp�±±' 77yy �F��{{tr—rsi _ _ _. _ ... ._. _.. _ ._. i Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 77 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �� ��lt�fi � �� r�$ P�+3tt'� '� =a14�r �t �* - tie tt �t;llft 3�i �� Iv�,rse ��i��-n .`ter. i� 1�� ��lt R�cYe:� .,.r �l4C"i4, �"�' ' 'ar ►its �- �'Stte�rs �� I " F�exie fit[[ � ' w �1 Fr{�l�E� ?f� �It (� '�J ' E� tart t alt`r� �1 ' =x P��� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page (78 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 r� i�r� I•'�r���t> �-� r�c� � �: � � a, � � �� �q i�q� ,�g�� ��y�� ��ICIafi� 13 i3 � � i3 �� t`! IFI aFl `� 1:'�:: '��� �� fJ �1 �`� dirt 4��61h � 7�_ � ��_ _ �� �� . � ..,�� T3eitY Fi !� � ' � � �� � r� ���� fii 1t� r� � Ea .._ � _ _. .��`v��R�l3 i4t i�, i,� a."ii; C� l.� �V. l�� Lam: iF*r — t��,�-,e��te� �i�sat i� 5S �.: � "�rer�al*aexl �. � :� , Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 79 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 F�2 h1W d TZ;2 ir'2 BIU 5 Tsez n" _I E*IU !<lr Mono Muse xIn mono �111�t1t�i�E �16+�Ik;t7[ T Phlzft' totit I Phase vtxlljzff Pig e Fed 2 i o PIMP Cruet i r �+ra r� � Cry i Fitt ��t�i None fi 12 phaw Fed 9 Kali 1:Nme 1' Nor 1 Norl s �`�IK ran i ink ' `I~ rs Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 80 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 •—•- � y � ��� .. u E � � �-i ��aa�i ��rr��r�1 ��:� r����s Eire 1 fit �c`p �t� � � �.. �rj� � p � �t� �. . iri � R�ri � In �h Ft� �t� �ir� �n ` PIS �l �i�► Ran 1�17 u � �s i � t5 t 1 iY � � . � � it ? L7 �t L � �+ � � � � i =J � f� � i� � � � � � �! $1 9 � � �! 4 � � i3 � d 4 t� 4 a ��' 7 C� � 4� 3 7 0 � � 7 0 ? � � '�' � tl � i7 � r � � � � � Q t2 ' �� 1�I � �� 0 �� �G� +3 �1 r� �� .� i� ?� ' !f �' ii 1i �_ fi 1� it 1 G ii i� t? `i3 t 1� � -1� t� �3 C '�� � �?'� ffi- 13 4d � �� r �� � '� C'1 ��- �� �d C� �d 4" �� `5 [� 15 15 � 1� �+ �� L �S ii �� �� 1§ � Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 81 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 � ����i��€i�l� ::��'�� �r�i �i�a � �s�� � �II� �i 1 �P-�il�'3r ��� 1 ��'i O�rl� �i_ i� sera#� 9 tl; ��i� i�z7 �_ i"i t� �1 �� t �a � � �+ �;" �� T st :5 .. li _._._ ... _� _ '� �'a �� ij _..... _ � �} �1 _ �.'� . ,._. _ . _._..._, ._. _... _ n_-- u C� €�2� �* �` � �I ?' a3 i�� d C �� �� '��� T'� r,=< �1 # __ __ �� � ��`a ��� �° L � '�5 �� �� _ fi� + _ t _ � t � �5L a�� L� � t -� �3 r�; �r � ►� �s �� ��, �a i +� #�a �� �� Iva � �--, a7 �� � r � � � �� �� � 0 1 Ala � r_� �t: � ��+ !� � "fin: � i�,� i3[ f= La ( t I� `��# �� 1� Q >� � � �� �. to �a �5 �nn Y�S � " �'�n ��.t �d 4} ��a �IJ' f .�y! i%: 4n• g� .q _yy ��; _ .. � � _ -yam � '}��:s � L�Ay ".�}� ��g4L'� ��si.�' �yy�i LC 1.:": iY.�p. ��: 13 dda 31 W' � 4 L fl %� �' � i+ 3 L Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 82 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 ��� �,� �� �a c� G== u -� tl 'E � �, I� r � �� � �,� c< � r� t y�7. �l ��« 3S^{^{ V IpJ t� ,� �,7 @7 4 �zi7 pp4�'. li' !.� My Y�. ��-� �� - r, r� � �� � tea � � e �i � r r� � rst� r� �4 #�;��. '� ��° ail i,� C� #+ _ __ 3a7 � ?�i" ��e C �� � 1 � r1 t� �P.� _ _ �: C� C� �� {� � i t�ta �3 ! [t � �� � � � a E � �� t� � �� i �� t� � (� � �� � . 0 1� err � fi C� 1*� Pa�7 dl i4 v � �� i �.. �.� � K7 i.P i� �Ly��.i� v�y.��� p�� .�&� L� � lei z i`� L+ (,� i _ __ . �� �7 �� � � � ii 1 a� ��� � ! � �"�� $ 3� �i � f P� ±� �� �, r, t� c� � �i �� � c� i� � t � �€ � � =� �:_ � is i �fi �; � �� �r� � � � 3 ��E � 2� �f s� r �i '� ��� �� � � � i �ry� � , � � �t 3� ��{ {s +� e� i3,'13 d� �ja� �1 ,6 ��� �� g�14 4BF� ��y pry L+d SpA. 3y ii�5 t� �t6� Ury! L� i(ci §�1 rV Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page (83 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T/S —Section 2 —August 2020 ��� u ��� � r � u � 1a�� � � �r� n t c °f - __. - ------ - its � "tea a �4 !� t� E� 1 i i t � � � � 4�;� �� �� r.� � �i:� �T � � _�. _w,__ . ____�_� _.. _ ___ 11 �r � � � � � �' C� � 1 � t� 3��a ��7q y y��a ��i�#, ���' S FJ �� a k^..�'�e. Vy �y 9� �Agt ��sC � 1I #,r+� �.t5�� �L�� 1 W,-s! ��s � R� kt� 'aryl Y y�ry 4 � ai.� S �4yA y� pks 1� � ���y ���3yy G Q 'C;g ��� � s� � � u �) t i�r� � i� � � [i t j�� Cl. 1 �` t�' �j f '1:'� t7 �� � t7 1 � fiw 1�'� �' i� �� � � � 1;�9 it i � � ,`1 � i` �+ I: C i� s� ti+ � i s -- �� � ��x _ c i�t � �� � ta�M �� ��� � � c� �� � l�� n �� � � t� r+ # ��r� � _ —��� �� ____ u _ � _ _ ct � ._v � _ -1� ,� �1� �c� �+ _ l� +� i _ _ 1�� ,� 4�� � � t� n � f �� �� i�3 � pia t� C t5 i ��� Ott � � � 1s� � i� �a� r �f ,� � i�� �J' ' #�i � n r� f 1 c� *�� � � �# �� t° ....� �3 V F S�� h� py�5y p���L^P y� j �i tJ 7 e� � �.l 43 L C! 15 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 84 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T/S —Section 2 —August 2020 ��, s� �� ���; � r a � 1 s� f�a � � �� �'� i _ -- __ 11 17 $ � a u tj 11 (� # �� f� � #�� �i !� �� iJ �� 1i� f3 #�� � �� � to i � Via] r� #�� � �7 � L� 1 s 1 �€� � �; t;� i 17� � �� � �j �? � t fit: J ��� �` �7 t� r i75 � i�� � o � �i 9�r 1�!� it #� �7 G Ct �e �� � t� t� � � i_`i Bs � i� '��'i� � C`� C2 $ �4 � _. ��� �i'$ i7' � Cl:_ �� _. 1a�4 � � � u E+ T 1� +� ��`� c �? �5 �gj .t €1!^, Ery� ,�y 4�*�-�s yip v� i £'i � �4i� l��1 fy� �pJ .������ ¢Sqi �lpi l y��! i:.+ t.,:t 1..�.. ,sty! �{���'- 1�5 � -��� aJ t� � 1 ,1 �; �� ��i� C� G� i� r� �� r� � �« t� f 1 � �a i �t t t' �= 1� � — t�3*� �L _�_ L _ � __�� u�� ti' �5� �G � �� L' �1 11' k� �� tr 3 �.� 4 �a�'s ��� � �� t5 1' __ Ii i� � � � r"1 i C� _ t �, �� R i�3� � � � �' �C!� � ��� �� 1� Li � #�'� �t?� � t�� �L� �J L� � i � r� � [� ii �€ ��_� N� s�s� �� �l � 1 xis �] ?tom � �� �+ �� �° cr i5 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page (85 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T/S — Section 2 —August 2020 C 21 s7 Ct' i 2 i 16, 50 0 15 r 1 1 1 ; a r 1° 225 0 16, E§ 0 C, Ci 21 0 Tel try a r 11 15 0129 �. t n 1? t a t T5 235 0 15�, 15 1 11 t5 2LV 0 UN is 2M i W 2 P 242 I ee!-60 0 1 2431 0 4 6 0 0 1 gs p0 N5 0 k 6 l p�#'-0 24a 0 IGI fS& e L± Q 1 253 +1 �J i}5 p:dt SJ A y #. EI1 JI , :0 1) 0 !, CJ tJ : 0 a 6 % 15 _. to I OC E43 " 300 Z40 C#t60 1 !3[=r1 A None Norm ED WO :1411 Ncrie DO 100 1) f;4 W. 100 �40 114 alone W _< % 240 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 86 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 TG 04mrt C !' Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page (87 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 18t" Ave NE & Everglades Blvd Intersection Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 88 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 ��� � .. �s� � t �» t-� @° ;r " � � 1� i� �� t� f� 1rr �� � ��� �r _ , ,.�� , ���€�r Til�l� � R"� C� is +J � � it ?� c? Cr % � �f' 1� (�. � �� �"�[ i�:.. �� rJ 1.� fil ', �l 4J �- �� - �) C`1 � ': .fin NY•1 !_I r„1 �$; �'1 �5��r„ � � � w' � i�i � �i �� � �' �' l � [I �Jl�:�,� � 1� � �� r� tl £`� L :f �� !1 �'_ L� i1 1� ` L'� t �_ ��.{{i � � �1'' `?1 G �� it i� � 1:� � C� �. � . �yRe���se„,a�ryy 1+i IY��.CAS � t9 S �1 �P ��„„ !a" � �. � gigg ix.:.. #'� �..... ri p* .^i „. ,. � �E: t F�Is:: rF,t1Y � t Cr C� C +] CI �7 tl � �� �� �� t� {� i3 E1 3' � sil';tt� A ��1�� � u Y L� � I�s � �1 L1 � � e7 � �a � � ►� � �# �'a� � F%t�JC� � �J � C� � 6� � L! � �� �� !� � �: Q � � �ltk�F""���� #"� #'r C � �t 1� rl is �! �� f? C� �:+ tl` � �� , _ _�d��-Ir,� }' G it k 1� :. C _ Li '' I:i J � ?S � [� i. � _ Cl : _�1 __C! ..�•. Ci ,.: Pdt1 r��G �I � � [+ �7 r_i U r �i ' � �i C� ' � rJ � � �€ �� [�� Pit �.r�t i��. �} C+ �} �� ', � �J C «� �i 17 f� Ca � [� `,� 'a ���xs �4 �1 Il '�! L° � Q � 1' � i� � LI r� G � L�r�l5'�ci i�i+ r ' [1 � r� rJ iJ r7 �? 7 Cr � � � �� � � �J }ram �•Ir �� �: n �� r� � a �} i� 1'� t:T c� 1"1 c� r � c,� ��n r �fi If f� � � � r ?� �� E� r� G � � C� � #� %try L.^t �"' � i f1 � �� t` � Il �k G !`� i� C! � CI � � 1'r� a= %"1 cu -'1;� �$' �'� ��. �� ��s+� �� w`ty 'K'3 � �� eai Ica ��;' . °e��U; �It»It L' � � � rJ i' �� �1 1! Ei` � � � i7 I't �1 � Cl i� tj ���'3f�1T7� 7s Ib �p [� �1 !� ei r! i7 :�> �,� ,�1 � C� ;� il` I;i � �s �:! �ltat'r'�t i� Il # S1 Li 1'� €„1 C! E� �s 'i tl t� Ir l;k Cl � �} �� {r5 ��ei'rF � fl 1� [i i1 €�' ` ii � � � r! [+ � � � +� ��sr,� � � �( t"� �� C� �� � �� Ll �`� f1 I� ` � d.d _ � _ _ ___ _ _ fi���* Irl��r t� �� �� �1 � �:� �t � r� ,¢ r' _ r., �_ � � � i� i �Ir11�' �� �fl�� L� � � f_i � Ct �7 �! Q �• _� � C+ � i7 rl �7 �.3 �`ar� � �e�1 �� #,� �! � Ca 3 fl [t 4 i� it C1 r? C �1� � s �! � _ w'1 }��cF.tc� Via' fP � 1� U C� �1 �? �t2 �' �� �1 i�, Cd r� it D ',r ���� t� �} ►� {� r3 .. � �� � �� � �+ L� �' � CI L� #� Cry � ,.�t r � [� � �� n � � t, � � n, r� �� �;, Y� ��tt �'� �� �4 rr �j �4i f;. t1 t� C3 C' t: t� Ct�i�� ��er � � t� � � � � +� � s� �� i� t �� �' � ` Cr � �i" �� to �{ ►t CI �� �i t� " �i ?� n8 �! %� i� 4� ft �T 1:� � rt �� i���1 �Ir � � >� � ' C! ra £� �;t � fl � � �+ r� n � � Csceer, �1 �t � �1 it � '� i� €� Ci la C� 1� ' r.i �& Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 89 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 90 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Ft,£�'i�n�s# fir := rater tri tips Served Rinses Ph% Mir 7 C VP Ncs'r alk'_ f F 4 tts tJd t 91 aaAe Nat an 2 iFl t{C9i14" k� �� �i tea _ ?awe Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA page � 91 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 tics �! �� ��� � � �� �� _ _. _ _ _ Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 92 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 e��� �nf������t �u�rt�� ���»�� i d_i _. � _... e, �� �' �a '�ik ink F���s:s 1 ?.�.�.� � �FF �.�,�_� � L�. �.... .._ F4` i i i 5 .. ..... ��� 7 .fir. li�..Sf R^.. ___ _ �' �_ �� �� �� 2 ®.� i ®�,. ��� .®�'� ®■ Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 93 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 qun�tc� i �ifil � ��til$la; � � zS.d,t� �. t.s ti�t�I,3� g �� r#� 4� i Fi �d _ _ ty ��; ��u c� --'fit[... ��i9�'�... �3 � �4� �,. p� 6J �i i! �.. `� �.. q 4 P � � ... _.... �'�a" a �nciQ '{�M15q j �41�35}:� S t �,tt.�} � �: r dc ssyy -e __ _ � ... g�� L* i� d.��..�� �� #� i� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 94 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 '��h�1� ���+��n i��r�m�r� `��t F#at� �rl ``�� r�, Alt' [?44a� d l.4 r#Ptts'Y �� Ln�ti�� ?7t�� �e:�;�nn __ � _ r� � � r� ' � �i � r � _ G .. 7 _ _. 9? � G t}' � 4 � Cs �# � � � � � � C. i € ti � 3 � � � � � e, �f ii � i 1 4 � :3 4� li � x CI i Sl c �' i7 � � �' :,��' � to �i � t�- �# � � � �1 7 i3 i� � -�- _ u �c � __. � _ _ _ _ _ � �i f _. _. 6 ___ � � �: v �� �i t+�� iyt � � " II � � Ge �. "k � �� 13 � �� '13. ,� � L' F3 V .:. rS � ei �.. r.E � u E' ,,� � E� � �J_ fl G.. � _ h� � � 1 D � t� 11 �., �3 i _� �y� d! � S' `.2 � e� �... 6�.. iq� �3ya.. pp �. � �y p>: �ry +'1 �..j: �. � *mot 4,:: .±ACC, �'p�y. Ohl �� �� � �i �3 � & Ia �' � � � f 0 � J [;' �� ; �; C# i ® � LS 0 � � G � � L �_ � it t� C: [} ,� �� G` [d �3 31 ii [I � iT � �! [. e9d �f C+ � � l i� I� � �� �' �f a � � � � � � a � c° �� � � � � ��- � � n � � � � �a c �� � �,r � �ry ry� p���yy y�yt fit+ �i N t': � � �� it � dt Lrrt. yL.f pL��...... '. *T'i ��ty 4s 41 i+ +a� 4��-'. 4y.:rr 1.} 1���,:: __. _� c � . a_ � n � e a � � c= _� � � � � � c c� � � c �FFa'' �..... � � L' �pp�.:. t� p� ����.yy mil. 4& �� .y���. 3a � � �: L: '..� rr L.... Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 195 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �� t1 r� � TI �] O L � �, C _. tTr�► 1i � �1 � �1 r, 0 7 � � __ °. 's; ._..____ _... � a; p t? fl y �reisc��r 1 � 9 S � � � ins 1i i� a� a� �S _ .1$_. ��' i� � a+d� idnK�a�r �_ _ _ �__ __ _ _ __ � __� __ __ __ _ � .. _ _ n _ _, - _ , _.- _. fi , �� �c� s�7 _ �ua+ra �'�? inet� x'�"77�N L�'rt�s G�1 3i�! into e�7 �a� '' �u��e �' _' T�r�t� 6��t�" a1 �� � . �, 4�. #� d7 #S #Daft �i 32 d3 3;I � �6 �i �� 6 ,� �"�� $�kt4tiflt _ _ - � _ _ ,Y, � l�sk r'� iQr:�r swif �►!b ��! TdCt�i �ar��4d� 1 4# 4� � #`� q ��' '�� E79 Y{t �'1 i2 �7�3�a�6tr ��n�1 �� 'r Cs:`�3flt ..... �i j�c� #�r�l �#� finch cry *s+�sA �u�u� ��l � @n�i ��. �'�I��te�r� ��te�rs �'°°+�sM �� ; �-! t�r��ar� r+��:1 %h.[ #Ile! � �=t Frw��e firer �`,�-+ 3 3 � `t� � �i �3 6 � g Q � � f3 I! �° it li _ �i i _ i_ q - � _ _ Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page (96 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �� � u a 4 ii �, U iJ a �. . <. � rl: r� �r n �:� r� � a `� p � _�. � ._ �. �� u � u � n (t tt � � � � 41 �_ 9 It 1 �. U � it I �i L9 C� ...-- C� � � f4 �� � U L U �_ �n � � � a �a � _. _. � � , _ � �� � �� � 3� . , _ .�i _ � � � � � __ {f 95 �... _ � C . _ � .. Q ... �9 Ca � � Cl .. Ei Q C' iS Ci it g � Cl F� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P � � e � 97 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page (gg Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 99 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 ��' �J �� 1� �a � E� 'i'�tl 0= Ilftifi�s 1 � ; i lit ,j t1 �i �a �� Y'e11 4 1nt�iL � � � � � � � � t1 I7 �7 i`�i` ` ��' I��till_ � § i 1 � f9 C� 1' � it it ��lit �: Ir9i�k '� � � i�r !a +� � � � �� a Iris 1' � 1 n 1 i � � � ti 'f4€lr � Irtit � � 1 1 r'�i �:! _ � �� w:I �'�alrt�r ?� Jr��T1ta� � . � � _.. 11� tl �� �t _ ti _ r!� r� "Y`�<ir: t '"' I��iiEd�' t t t 9 r� to � �� �� ��st :� Ir�tit � � � �: j � t �i l 1 � `�'e€ice; ' �atriL 9 � 1 , 1 '.'� � tJ tl � �1 Ir�tit�� `I � i z_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _. 1 � � L� � �! +� Yl x 1r�it 1 9 1 ,� __ _.__ _ �- - � _ ��m 4 �'� +�f � � _ i+� i ,_ tea �i � X Fz� � � � t�J�' 1 .tee � �' ht tn� � � �� � <:_ _ _ _ _ _ 1� 4 ter � f � __ � 1 tin e � �s _ t �� � _ t � � �r � tcr�tc� �� � _ ��� �� �I try, pia i"i P�:�� 1t�` �I' Fete. �i� Ti�rtr Fri I�F-t F�lrxin ��#'m 1"�r�:� �1� �1� N�t� t n h i �r F���� .�. �7 �", Fae � �? F tom; �; �} Fit* � t�:�t�. Fir �� Fib it P �� F� Via; P�: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 100 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 "3rJ �ti t� i� � Pi�.'xl�- �j D Fi�3i1� li - � _ -- . _ �� �� Fie i'� �s hire i � t� t t i �' �3 t� fr� ti t� 15 �T ti ;. �m� �'F� F'N C�ir�� �Fi ��'i`s� �H t�H i�it,�4 i � �� � � . I�,�n� ` _ - _ — - _ � �? t � t� ;, 7` '� i�°,�i� � � �t� tatse �. �7 _Fs�:aa� �r� t iw� _ a i�� i1 � �� ��, i i Ft�r' y �� � i�r� i? �t F�n� i� i F ' � 1 i7 hi.t l�� 1 �t� 1, '�� � - ftt� i� ` �J # i� �1� 1115E t�Fl �'�'I trei�jt� RF i`i�,' h1 �h-I F�I��, � �3 try � F€-�1�+ _� _ __ _ w__ _ _ _ ___. a � t.x�� � � t�� _ _ _ _. �: � t1 �a. � � t� q. �1 � _ F, �� i l t3 i� �� Fitt � i `� �� P%;it;. �� � t��se I � Fi��t �� ;�� _ ts� 1 _ tine - sf� �� �`�1 �4i Mrs ��i I? iir�t� � ��i t���� pit; -ra �fi �i�� Fdf �1 Fie � � � �: i J ►�� � � �� t � � ftli �� r � �� � �! 1� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page (101 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 ��� � �� �� �� � ►� ��� �� �� t� �� U �.�� �� . � : t 7 Pqt�' ��' � � ®��. F���. �'�t 1�l! Fi fa"1�tl�' i a9 t;:� — �; F � t�'s � tit � � ��� __ _ f� i:� �. Fri t � t��t 11S �I fii Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 102 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 1 �;'� P� iit�t� Phl FBI ____ _ ._ P�91�` �' `' � Pin � �` � � t� � �? _ t �, � �� � � �" t� t t� � r�i PH r` Time - - F�a�= � �� w � �� ���� ,� � r�. � i � �,�� �� � �� �� �� r:�n t ��� �� t; �� � ► t �N ��t' �H �� �t� tr � _ -tom �,. t ,� � _ - �' tr t��. _ �i �t �;n � �31i� its �t 1��at 11 �,� #+��te i� � t � � ' ��� 1 � '� t�z-�nr I a 7 1� 1 � � c�� :.i� �.� � �t`�i, i��� � �I�t �h# h9�� � t�� __ ? � �� W -- -_ F� .� ' � t� �. �i _ !r. �I' t�,�ai�' Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page (103 long±nt r m)Oge S e±a d 5/p Re GWng /r o - p» - S c►!on 2 - /u u !20 O ��b� �f��#°� :Ba���` \�� �\� ^ � /�.. .� � . .. . ,��}d£� . .y« ¢ \ }2\ � / \ a 2� 2 ��..7 \ \: ��..... ... .. \�2� 3� � .: < � .. .... . . . .. \ .... .. . .. . ; ... _. .. � . � : d \� J � \� d° � � \ �� �. .�� w.: : : T ebi ockEonsubnRsdu§on% Pa P age |IO4 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �� ��il�''f� `"�� cif ��� � t ¢�ti1 �tc�'iih 'rxl 'i���' �� t�i'dU�� �� P�1�'i' a � *y ems. ..�v .� .� � �.'�! '�� S1� n ��� � '}a '. � e�* ;�: ', :-�i �1 �..., � �: !s :.. ,rt. '^. ;fit: »�-+ �... C?��' Fslr � i ?7�CT�7i7'1 1�-YJ��' L.. sy C�A�t F=1a � �v� 11a _ ;h S►� '��ae `a � art �$�°,�� �� � P,,��h e ss y, t _ �y _ m, y { -`. � i� � �pp .i 7 � � � I' ��.: 'r-y q�g, al Y�y i� yTS '} � #�... ��y �� �Lp�-, ayl i� �eF.X i7.".L'. `; � � sue`.' �..� B'� �� � '�F ,7 L" ��:. �J r:��r L. ?� � c�¢ � �L �"yj' ^�" `�� �ylilr � �"ems z at �'���ek , ' s � � i �l � � t � ; t T is T � t � �, � ;� 3 �? ifr � y �� �� �d 1,`a la Cluti Fii s�1�Uc _._ __ _ v. ___ _ __ _ _ �.� __ _ _� __—_ Gi�� Fi�.*� � ��cr�Ut �:ic+r��l» items _G° s �f "��� f's�f F �'� __ _ __ �r9tit� oI'�'��r.� � �sty�+�r G+� ra(k CY Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 105 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Guy Finn 1 ";��'tt h��ixr �� ��t 1 � [) � � ; � �� $ �'� i�� � '�� � �t 5 s7 ..+��r 4-�'r�r lIr� d��I � '� t � �._ _. ,� r _____ �� �� r, a� r��� a� i�°� ��ra � �" Rl �_ � � _ � ._rs e� _ t� c �'�� €ten 1 r�i �1 � �� �� 3 `� sJ 1�1 ' � �� v `t� rrr� !-:mac '-rr, z`G � '� _� _ � , .._ � - � � � __ � t� � 7 � � , ��, ��ten H � �,�:t �€ �r v� � �, -- i ��� �..J:� %n � }� °'�X!l �� din oaf Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 106 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 i r1 � �� _- - i :�r '� � � � �? � !� f� �� � 1=tom � :__ __ �_ __ ��®' �..._ 0� a��rm�r�r ��e�■ ��� ia�� 0��� �� ��� ���� a�� ���� ���� ,���.;nt�� ��; �s� C�n�i��rs ��1 �,�iL-�r�t ? � � 1 � 3 � 5 ? � l P;r� i _. :i . }F{���L��t� +�i I 7 TIIbn'..�IS 7 .. g _ 9S.I ... {�, .., _ 0l�q�T4 �1 _.._ _ .. ...._ �� ���� ���� ��o� a��� a�a� ���� m ���� ��o� a�a� ���� �A ��� ���� asa��� a�0� ��r�� �� ��e�' ���� ���� m�o� '"— c} -� t�, �+ �� _� ��_ �# tr r 1... tv FI��+ i t'� 1 �a t1c3 ��er.� "E � �� .'� tiR �' �� _�. - `� i 1 �a �4 Lea 1�1�� ���� ru��r�r�rr, I��'' s��■ew�� �a�� ���� ���� d�tl��i� � .�. e� f u�t�°��� �.i� Sllik7"�t: � a .� � -� �� 3 i s 4 ��; __ _ _ r-. � _. _.. %Ya'tikiil sS I�-�B_F��' A�1 i teat; Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 107 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 108 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �� � � �' i�lh �� �; 3 � ra �p �� Mtn rc ;� 1� '1�` 1 r, t.� �a � iraLti .'ram, � 1st � 5 � `� Cr�:� rll �� iu iCa 71'x �1 CI ��f• �:.. ` [ sr"�li �i1-� � ail 'ie �� �._ C.t �`2 t`� Er�� Yei1+ �t. .+Is �f � spa �� � �� ���-k �r�l� ?`lei � � �� � �a �f �� 'E - � - -_ 1f=1 ?::�v�l Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 109 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 110 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 r�c��t �s�t�tr°�at Pt���� �t�u � r�, � ��� r� � t Gr . In #� Ffin �In Fh Ran �In� t�h C�17� Ptt Icr� P4� ��n� �h � L� ri Z � � r� � �'� � n �; � __ 1y� � �I ,�_y .9i y +7 � y�. __ 'i} __ __ yi i�� _ _ ki.. __ � �� �9qN. q .«cc '�.^F � S9 fP � "4'�a ^. �y �s' ,dry .. L� 2/7 �. 30 � ^Cqqi -. � is 3yy{: _... � -y.���� �. � �«t (��� A p� 4� .T �4qe ��zz y�.�� #i � 5I' T �7 f� 8 � 1 #yy[� �t�ryl "1{{�qql �qq,, 'l l{t � "ECi 9p il+ fd � �It .i p��� 1l � 1� '�3y. �.Y ��+, '� 9�t � s qt ,#�� i�S. s��� ��q � � i6 1� � �!� � � �; � u � � �r� ,� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 111 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 -;� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 112 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �; U i a'� I�� t� L L'a � �¢� �� f �i 4 4'M# E�4' �_ ��.}3 �y'} {1..7 LS�� �d ' 4 �I A �? i.' �.,, �� _ _ �j � .. _.. .p f}���� ({ �} �il -7 g�pp��� '� SS a {�4f Ali+ 11 � p��3 1,4 �,�. ��s �3 r � � C3:; �� ; � fia � �� � �i� _._ � �i i �i _ {� 7 t�* i� I�' l:+ 1 `ell �� ��� �i$ a- [3 �_ �� __ :�1 �J '�5� �� ��' C � t __ t� � �� f�i� #�, �"� �i 7: f� ��'� �s� �`' [i �r �� � �� ��x ci � �►� � �� ��' % a� c� s iii � f�� � �? r! t`i 1-s G �1 's � � i3 i� r„3 3 �� � t� t� i:+ [1 i P,f � 4�i� �i_s � Q € I�c' �i ��i� � {�' 17 ��'� �1 �a � t S r � n � � � � r� e, .oaf' , � - t � � �; � _ i�^ _ �� j 1 �i �+6 �' � u '� S �z # � t� tf L"r r�i 1: __ __ �t � _ $fit± i� �`^:, C) #�i _ �} i�i"� i.'ig� � '� � '„,! q ? �'1 � Lilt '�� 1� �7 � � r,� dd b J #�S i4j �l �� �� x�� fit; a �� �! � �f �i t� +� t °� i r�3 !� 1�5 � tea seta � � t �� � �� 1 u:� � � �, � s� �_ [� is Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page (113 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 ;1�� � t�� �° �� � �i �t __ ���a �� � �.r � � r� � . __ — -- . iii �� � �t� i� �� ra �� 11� n ��,� �� � � r� t�R �7�1:� �� � i� � 15 11 �11���rg� �� era i �� �J I�Jry �'9 4 Lg A� �L' �{ J {4 �lqi� �LyF 11� i� 1� � �; i� �`+ G t 11� `� ��� @� i7 r _r� 't _ _ 1;� i� t� �} c �a � t� ���� � �j. �A �f i� t� �{ __ 1 � �a� �� r7 `C+ � 'fa +� 1,�� �i;= � C G� f�i i:�ii �J 1 �� G� lv! a is 1 � '=�a ,� �l [� 1 t� � � [t F i�t � �� �z tt �� 1 � �$$ � :icyy� r� � 1' +�� 3J ��..... E �.�1 ¢ f.EI�+ ��� ,�7yy L �.� � ry � {� - 1:!�; n 1�� � ��� � rl i� � w 13� � ��� � u � G � �3 � � � �� ti� �� � lA� � �� � s5 ►� u 14� r ��� �^� +� to t 1 �� 0 -�� � �1 � %? ti ;> �� � ���� �: � to cr t5 - 11 �� � ��a � ,� 1 !^:� c ��EJ �y *:i ��yy� � � � �� rat E.S ��� V k�3 �.�tt� ��;.^1{ �. nni (Wryy 1��1 1j � � � � Q C� C� 1�;� � -€� �a �J �:° t� #5 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 114 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 ��;� a.� �� �,}, � � a � 1�� ��► #,,ww sr� � r� to i �M� !� ?�i � �1 1? Ira ��l �' � � �t i � �.� �5 � tj 4� __ - � f3 � +�3�% €� �' �1 { �� 1�`� t] ��� �t� �J �' � � `I i � i S�+g isi'� � � fi �Yy 1i� � �� � � �i f.5 i s� i fi� � 9 M� i� € 1 1 �J �� $ �_�� � L+ � 2 �s3 r� �� f'e � C� U a�� ,�r r� tr t�� �� n "i�� � t� � � �s [r j ij $�3� �i 4J �' G �' 1 �r9 � "ifs � �+ L � C? 4 �1 y �a �3 � � � � i� t� �? t '��1�f Lg""7 � �3 �i? ��� :� 1 t7 `�i � 25� �) t� i i � �� � � t� � r� � _ �� - ids Gt'� �i �° � �� _ _. � �7 � �'i "� � �1 I`� C# ��� � ._ � -- _ i�� Sty`. it �� �t � ?d!� � ��� Stiff � L`� �`� �� �� �C� �,� La e� i'�a z�3 _ �l ��� �i'' � � f_� #� ,���r �� �� t� � C� � �� . �G� t� t �i � �1� t {„� �� t 5 :r�`a � t� i t�t� �J �° f� �t�� 3� i�* �f � � � j; � T�'�� � �+ t� t� •.� ��i � "�€i � 'Litt i} d:� [� $ `� '�� � i_M 1 +?i 1 �7 �9� � ''�S� � ! 42 t� z�a � }J �' � t ''i13 e_ll ��� i ?pia ;�, s1 17 I;i ��� ��j5 � F�t� �� j� �� �� �� �'�� � ���A 4"�it '"y �y l+ �� _. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 9� d� �s� �34 c� t�� C+ �t �'�n? �t �� � � �� to �{.�,, _ . ____._.� _ _ ____u. „_ _ _ ._ �._.._ �. :?�� �� t5"� ��� C� � �t t ��� � ��� �s� �� f i z`�3 t? tea � � � t ,. _._ ��3 � t�3� �,� � � � �� ��� '� �� � fit? it �3 1" i _ _ '�, ?' Rl �h� Ear �J C �i 1 z ��� `� M G t 7 :4?l Q 2* E$9� 1� [i �� p��� ti ��e � CI [� I� t�� _ _. _ �5f � i� � �3 Li �� 11 _ �x"�tt yyyy �='ryy __; y'_� _ _ _ _ _ r ��� ,i F`s�H ��.: � %�li �itel� t�1�iYiti �'��i�a,1 CdS:Si�t1,�F- �+ �i�'i fit,; � �,�� ?�3� 1 ��_ �� �1�� �' � _ ��.Ci Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 116 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 #rFJ �L 1�[.#[�7 1�� ��R� i�Q�r��, .. �W�. �a �;t '.. _. �. �3 1� 3� �� a, i i�! �� �� �� sf �� �'� �� �� �� a °.� 'k� �� �, a� �� �� i �� �� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 117 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Immokalee Rd &Oil Well Rd Intersection �� ���� t��t� ��ni�� �t���t ���t � , _.. ����;L� ^}.::, sw .�.,. ate::. .. ..._ ... {{_�}}����t �,.���Yyy i"�. ��''�S�.i � 9..3 H t 'IE !'k tC, ._�{ei F���`l Eri^�'��5�i�, 1 �_ �...,t ._ .ems d �� �ii iB" Aim �e�rr � � � t" � �� F� i{11�° [Ft' F#s�tt i�i�.;, E:3 Y��i Flit F?�, �9 f��Er€e �tr�4� F�e����N�' � '�tczt#IF�Fi�3�P ii. ���4' � Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 118 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T/S —Section 2 —August 2020 ��� � <: ,���r 7i��°a� t` � �€ �� C� ='� i� i� . � � s� �i �, i�� �3 � Ci Li r�i *, a � �1 dl t� �:� �.b i;i �i !� s',i ' �.1 � � 1"� t3 1i C;i '��: �1 _ �. ;; ��. i 1 � s;f� '� � �=r ' its 3� it � �1 �.� �� i`� i it �� ' t� ��-Mi t3' � � ` �# � �� to � t� �3 �� fir. � a,= � ,�� ' r� I � i`1i1�-zc3 l� Ci � i� � i� if. � __. � � G � � � � � � 1'�ia� ,i7�f�� � ra Ci � r� � !� Q €� ;[ �� � to � � t� � ___ _. _ _ _ ilne"������� � 4 E u : C � ct �,I � :€ �t r� 4, � �1 �t i� ;.�. t�i�y=+� � ��� L� �i �1 i`i i_i 9i r� �� � L`t f� � G, !� �I a� . _ � � ,.. . Ida � �1 �'" � �� � �� 2€! �� 3� a.§ �� �� 31 �? �;� �!� �� C1'=ia'� ia'� %� _ �g y� t� � i:" i1 _ � �" �# � D ri iy t7 �5 t7 t� try i� � �€ CN C� � ,� ' tt c� �1 [� r, [� ra � x _i i� �i r r� ' �' s� n n :, s8 � � t5 f� � � S �:*-� �r � � it G �i tl i3 � ��€ �� �+ Ci �° it +� , Li ���i �r�er r� � +� �4 �� i1 fi r� �r � �j C� it �3: � rJ �i F�ia� r�ttr 1;� ia' �f t Gl r� �j [! 4 �'< ui< G1 C! t;. i! P� C� ;� e �I��1�a�,�sr�:� 4.} i1 �t r5 #, t7 +� 4� �r �.t; �i r� � #: � r� � -� #� r r�t�.IC� �� � � i l #'a i`� �'1 Li 1�1 ii+ �„4 � �' � t'i. !,� Li � '': �4 ��� r�.:. :... y,: � rl - � Ml v:. �.. aj [1 rt i`" � 1� �3 '�, i �r�M txt to + �! !�g r� � fi '; t� �� r`� � � {� ' �+ step t� � � �! L � � !.I � � �"€ � � �'i '; �. Ll t� ri �7 ��a��d i� �� gt r� Ci r� E� h � � i'# ti is � �� r1 3� r� 4� - . � ; � � ;� [� �; �� it � it � � � i� � �I � 3 3"�� �It 1$: i$ �! �M CJ � J � _ fl �' � �.! i3 t.3 �; � �i !1 L1 � Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 119 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 t�•e Grter. '' .. D D � _ _ � fl _ � 1 � � is U it q ii [! '� t'rfi Giearanc;' :-, r :; n n I ,.' I_'_ fl - ! � � � � 1., c� n 0 rl �! n A�ddFt!0$1'.;Ir.��r li I; ;{ C C� I �a �i !:1 r; 7� i I� l•i ;;. �7 �r �l '1 n pfh3s� E�ntfnn's PL•asws ? 3 •! l ? _ 'd t'1 1 *. 1'_ * 3 1.,4 15 t � : �_� 1'a �'= �. - �uM F#��I� EMI .�� � - � - - _ fitda Fie5t1 lint � �' - - -- - �Jon a�'.[�J61n�� I i''iQl f?L'1��3tCt� 1! -_ - - - - t,�n Lock Mom X ?� ''' �`: ''; C IAn'J�ah RecpU � �'+ t��x b'�t� R���i,l' I _ - F3a�� Rer�tl - l �� �h Reecti Srrn {�! Cr _� - - Re�'d1�'<. N � .�t:t Fhssgs �1 2� Z7 ��i :5 �E ai � � 34 3t 3� 33 3� 35 :B 3� 3,4 ,ry 1C =71P.kiG _ - -- ..... __-__. .. --- Alltv9 F3351i lJil. A►,�4 �135t1 ;sit - '!Wt!!1 ;4CC�J81ltl 'i � _ �1� Act�+ated 11 kcrn Lack hAern - - _ -- - - N�n�eh Re�:�ll P _. -- MaK 11�11 Re��l. - - _ _ _ . Red Recall �r,rl 1�`Qh t�rcatl Cull En.lry - _I'1`� FAG' 1'}fS a Act R'r,.�.t'N�k - - - -- - - - - - Cc�:i 5�:1'_ic� & hrlriitenn�l Ph:�ea t]nifnn� - - �'h95� 3 4 �� F �i I�1 - 1' I;; :•1 1!� I1�, If 9r� I.ry ;;1 r�;d rt� f�+.lrang +�� �p�r-nib �— F�� Cv Red �`Ond� R4�erire f, � Ysl Min {3vQrirs �� I s�ao E€artup r�tt i .�dv 14"nm flastler _ _ (•iCa Fed �i U CAI! _ �'f!ci •ter 4','�i3 __ r Fl�9h Eilil G4+tl __ na'�fk �t �a �n �� Flnsh EYiI C'erI -- - y - -_ __ - - - ---- Fl&9h E�a11 �8Y ��i 4'$h K@frill) ____ —_ �a,'�retdele RtcsrN 1=c�z f�esar Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 120 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 121 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �r� 4�e_ !C��fl�tl� s Mail �� T� �'�s i��� "�3��i �d '�L �Y iYix:4YtrJ�r� Ft� h"Y��i F'fi���� �,��� °��L REI? � ��ii �' � G�i��r'' F"�.tz.:���t�t�i+7��� �� r� � � � � `J C� 3 �#fi � __ __ _ Ott' r� � �� � �� �'� C r_ � � � � � �� � r� f3� �� Pori°' t� ti � ii ' ± �� 2� ��` �i it �i �3 �7 � � w' '�' _ ��t ___. __ u_� _ '�' +� �i �>• �3 �� is �< #�' _ _ _ . _ ., 31 - ��� - - - - - � r� _ J � ��_ Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 122 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 u�t� �ni��� . 'apt pU��� 1 ���7�tn�� g ��s�� � � <� �, �r �a.�„..f !� - �� e �# �� t� �� �� �� �� T[ u�r: �_ � _ .-- RFn4 ������s� � � � ��,L %.,: �� �q� �r �i,� �;.��y �iJ �. ..,. �i�� �$i �s�=5 a, __ '' �, �� �� �t a� #� �_ . __ s __ _.- — — - __ �■—I ��'' �� "-- ��g �� '�� `�. C�,��.�'.I" - --- � c T _. � �'� 1t i� #� �� 1� 16 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 123 long+ot r gloZ ge S e±a d 5Zp R c �y ng /r O - 2\ - S clop 2 - aUgu f20 O \��\..�#�<y\ ?�y. 2... %� . . \:\ \� � � � \ %�$ \ � 2 )��\ » \\ \. \ ;..��....... � G ? . ..........� � :� ............. 2� � � \ §»\� ; 2« 2» � � g 2� . �� � §� . . � . . �� / \ ` . /. d \«©. ° \ � +� \� »� � 6 «° . §�� \ � »� \� \sd\� \ \ #«2. < ® \ � ��b \ � \.� \d������ ...... » .�.. . \ m » � < A,\�. � \\±\ / � \� \� .� ��� 2:....... . }a \ . »\�y....... Tr blc ck ConsdgnR Sd u bn\ Pa P a E e | 1/4 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T/S —Section 2 —August 2020 ��h�1� �e��e�n ��r�r��€ �.�4 r�pa:..,���)iiI }�s(d�{��sn�i h �:Y�s�u`� P���a ��ac - �?�l�d l��yw�,NN �.M4# � fi4't� Lrr'4'1 �e,..Aq ! 't }may �!?� �.y k� ,y {.r�p�fYf �,-*U i. v. si��iT {.�Nla� i'54��} S. bii�4e�'S E��� �q J.� lt�+�'�.V �i� p"if � _� ICi � �' �' a1 t'i rt � � 41 iI c".i �� �r aJ aaFF .._._ _ _._.. t� _._�}. p�� _ nn _ ... ,� __ ._ __. .. __ _ _v. ._ ,.._ �. � r .._ � _.. _.. � __._ .._ it � t3 Q . .� .,__. ___ ..._ _. �� � C _ _. ........�_. �._ _. � � __�a � _ __ E3� L��ii _ _ El e } L� �4� YP�;; {{yi i! � LX Q rG== .e Yd tY° � ti � � n �_ u � �'� _. -_ _..�..._.� �.. .._ .�. ti. _. .___ .._, _ _ _ ......�.._� ____. ._._.._ _� _ _ w ._._... __.�__. _ ___,_ �_ ._ � ._._., ._ _. _... r r Yi _ � _ � � - �' g ;�' 0 � �� �} �i i� j? Ri it [� � � C � _ n � c�< � �� � �, �� a �� Gt b �i 37 �i f� II � ij �` [� � ii � � � � � Li n �_�y_p ::++�_ ryry ,,++qy p � u � N� � � n �` � c ,, [I � f '� � � Ca" {f � �' Li 'j � C i� �, G � p � r� li ?� � C' ,i 0 �� � � � � � {7 C. a,, � � � _ ii � � � i! � �� � � �, � ,� r_. � � i� C 1! '� Ci i:+; �i ; � � � .fix �. � "m1 C�.., t4:._. � � �,;::: :`� �1 �, a� : �r � �Fk x� n � � n � � � � �� � �r z� o � �< � � � c, ara u � � � a r � �� c � � t� G � � � � a :� i c �� rs �� �a �� r� -5 � .a ,� � � �. � �: �6 Cr � � �I � G t � €l �' . � n � � *� C.' � %1 Ci C'_ _ _... _. ^� t`i � � �l 4"J � �I � `� _�� ._..._. _..._, _ _ � , __._. ._ .-...�_.__ _ _ ... ._,. � .._...r. _ �,.,�... .� .�_w.___.. ..__..._._ _..._... _._.... _ _ _...._ .. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 125 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 C� L � � J � t3 � � C �:t �t �s J it r7 �+ L � __ � �` CPT � � � t-J i3 IY �_._ `a C_ �1 if _ it � � _ � �` _ is C� it � r� fi �� tl Cs cad � t! ss i� ;�, c= E�, __ _._ __ __ �_ __. � _ _ _-- _.__ _ _ _. _.. t' �1 [_. _ � _ � � � L �` � �_ �r��i lof� i►er�. t_ _ _. _ � __ .� _ W � _ — _ _—. _ _ __ .._,_ -___ . _..,_ _ _._ . 4'n iic#sar Vic+=��nc� 1; Seri __ �, �� �c� t � _ _ _ _ . Tra;�tta C�tY i`� ��:. 23 �'�# nr9 :�,' ��� ?➢ :1iI 3� 17 Y,1 3A .35 �6 �i ��. ��. � 'w�ll�ii4'b s�ti -.. _ '. - -. _ ._.. _ _ cii��nt �! ��� c �,uau T�s�'e(tr�iti �zs� ���s#.ar ��c�neg� '� �'1ttM.+ Lek �� ? tart ram) iiii�Iia Gttl Teat#i�tia t::t*i��s� t 4� �� �5 0� 4s3 U9 ii! }' tl���,,�t�1�:41�� F°en� '�C�t �'�tt+��af i'�cu��:aftcp ��4rrra i��i, ii,�i ��#�# � ��a �:uau Gail n�ta P��:��ta�t� d3e1����t� ;�� Fora � �s�nFa� atc �., f1 �'�► �it�s^� 1 �r : rcra� �sra• 4.a��p � i � �, � {I 31 � t� I1 0 i 1T_ 2 �f � � {l s� G� � II a �s � � � � �j 23 - � � Q p � � � � � Z� � i+ C� J � b , _ _ �� i� !] iJ fit+ �# [7 ii fl � Q __� L it L4 _ ��3 � � L4 tJ r� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 126 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 � � _„ � u _ u 8 iT 3� � � � <�i iE CI � fl #? tt' a 1 U � t3 41 17 *� � � � �. �� it n_ �q _ tI _ _ ie ii _ __ ��yy. __ FF.. _ _.._ y.... L+ 1.! a8yy LA _ ...�y .1e :�� �� v, � � � --9 _ - �--= �g �i G � ii �7 '�� �_ t4' � _ .4 __ �r c`_3 f) �3' �� � _._ C+ � � fl �d C� It [1 �� Er �.: Ct'_ � �9 � Si; Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page �127 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 128 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 129 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �� „1 i3 Yr 3� f2 ��il t Irti� 1 1 1 y 1�� � �] ii � 67 '{'ail -_ ".li�ai� ! � 1 ii�� %1 r _ �! Cl _ �j i��li a 1r��it� � i _ � 1i�� t7 1 ii �a �� �1 Y"e41ia:�' �� Iiy�i11` 1 � 1 i 1 rj ,� p i�� � � "YiM��° Int�ita i 1 i iJ �� r_� iJ '��t1 Ir�i� _ � � 1 '' 1 1� !) � i� Cr Pl 'i`�#I�' ems" �i'+�`tlk`e � , � f �l�, � !� ���» � fr�t�t�r 1 � i i 1$ 1l �� ri � it lf�,i � ., , I�xfilF � � i'�� �� �� � � �'e�i lrs�ait i I i � i� ii r Cl �! i`�� �+� lr�t 1 _ _. '� 1 �� �3 - � � f _ � �J °ft�€dam; � ii71t- i i t ' . 1� �1 �i � tI u �3 '�'e€isrt� ' � !��"rC r 1 � 1 12�� � �I � �� � ��€1 �s If�11t�� � � ����� �y 2 lire- �t-i H ��9�aie �#� T �H �H �A �5 P � � t' ;. � rt�� ts� ? i€ t�E� F; � t� li � r � k" � tit i� �� � terns,_ 1 �.� t �� i� 351.E �� z� t�'1l�' �� l� � � �� - r� f � g yy +� t/ �,,yy �y � .�� � � � � t�1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page (130 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �a ��} i3 ti�ii4` � t ,� � I��atr 1� "� Y� �'� �� � r" �� i� �t� �I�� �ii ' �1� -� �t iss ;� i} ' I+p �§i�7� '4 �' t Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page (131 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 a�`gy 1 �. l.a.r5��yy y�.� gg �!.��{ ... � ':SJ 1*�:. Firs_ � � � M� � t t�� i� t� P��SiI#4 ?�'�' � � y�« 1� i °� �� ;� r. �� � t,r �� � F� � � t�-�ta � � h':� �_ � Fs�_ _ 1 � � ��t `.. �1� �'� y-,� y�yr f C2 ��ib..*u IAI..... k g i ��. /y,Y �y �1 � !FF'S��� �J{{.. �,anbi.. 8��...... l�.:..... ['�"� i'f'7 T`ST R �ppEI [5��' �' _.. `` �, �.. � � � a } � ter �, ' ter€ �t t�- 1i� .� �r� � � � �' ja' �� P�; "�� ��# fi' 1�. � i�r 1 �i ��� � � t�r� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 132 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 A %] ts�-. � h� � � r„'�,��r �l t�l� P fJ fit�_� s3 IVY" t� �i t' r� � �3 1 p�+ ;; s �� _. __ _ __ . __ r �� n _ � � �� � __ � � __. ��S r1 t� 1 t€��i ��? Timc P4-f PE-1 h�1c�e F� ;� PH *-Fi h1rs1� 1 0 �� t �1 I���w � � �� �. � � t� � _1�1� �� �� �t � 1 t�€x'E 1 1 i n � .a a� i i� ts�a x �� � Fig. 1� �i t��r� :: �tk� �J � ^ � 1 �t i� �t 1� �� t��14 �a� �� �T � Tl�rt� t� � t�1� Pt� fi� �F# t�1J� ____ __ _ _ _ � _ _. . v t � �� i �: t�� ����� 7 t� n t . � � � �� s ,� � - ►i� s � �1 _ �� �i Tite�e F�i PF�I. ���� Fps', I'±�' �I=i �i1 �e� `" r r7 t ff �s.�'ylj� �G� t� tie ��� �s tt� rw i� �1 f�� 1 � fi �3 %� }.he is si h��,� ��S �t t��n� 1� �L %� ,;5 _ - _ Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 133 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 ,' x � �� t >�. '� I .��. ..® rar.� s� 'f �i t..[. s.�. =£ �� �.. �,.:�,_. .. ..._...,...a.,� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 134 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �e�1� Ci�rFi� � �its�, ��r�sr __ _ ,� 9i�fii$ 'Y�R � c'�i4'���€ Ca�y'� � its +� �� t3 �'`i 1� ice' �S� �1 �� a3 'd `��,, �� �i , � 3ti 57 ` 1� r�S'��r ['y� pit ��� [? " tit �ia�r �i � �:et,�slis i�F �#" fix if��€ �I ��+ �� � P � x - _� to Ca - a. _ i� 1E �� ;: �1 �. 2�, -?� �' ?� �".� ?� :"`+^ s� s - - - — �ltt� n'is� :�i �� l�a�� 1st Cyn � F#err �!'��cr�t1» i�rtit� � ��� ��r�s �� �� _ �+��� tip _ F �;� � � � i'� T F ;� � � � � �, �� � � � �i� `1' �� �� `tA tea '�� Q�`•�tt1 � :, Cl�±119 irfii9~ cA ��"� � �ai',�drek ' � �w'1�4 .� F 't'� �` .i � � � '�'� T F ' �� � � � �,- �'t � its f' � �� �,i ie ��i Ci�� FI�,� �i ', usGh�.t(ir�l � F�' °�",�� � p' . _ .__ � � ��' ::�{{► .�i jp �!:i �� �, pia . �r �`� �� ��7 -"�9 - Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 135 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 i���; t�t�� � ., ,air yir tetra. ��;� �� � < ? � rr rt3 a �� n ,' i� � . ;� i C1c�� Fi��t 1 ��n {_ r ��r�. �t � � - -�y � � r �t �t �� 1���" F�, � �1 � _���� �� - cam. �. c== � }� �sn � ;� �_ _ �� _ _ ? � �_ Q rj:. � �� �� L� imp' '�T� � , � _ -�� � � ___ _ � _ __ � � 1 L �'� (i� f CI �� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page (136 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 ����I ���� ���iir{i e��� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� �r i `,. �. '�. �� ���� ;� { ''. _ _ -._'� °®' iris � ��� ����ti � _ f�' � Pi"� ��� ti � ^P� _-- _,- �5 F�Lr's -. i ��� , �d �'^ E 'I ���� 0�0� ��� ��� ��� a�a� �■��� ��� ���� ����i ���� ����' ��0� ��0� 0��� ���� ���r �lltlr�s _��� � � u�r_�- _ '? 5 �''ll�t4'i �'� ';� �u���iri �A _ ��� � _ �, __ ._��' r'�a��� �.3W W _ _ �i� �.. .$1 T+��t'�+. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 137 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 ��s altn -� � _ �i� F��� a� alt-rj � ' �i F�t7p+L' 3� �t#t�E�'1f 3� ''�� i�drie 9� ��t ��� ' �� t�cr�r ��t�€�� ?+� '; �� ' F=tie ��L��n � ' �� tTr3i� _. Ott �`� t���r€e y �-��� r � _ :, < .-� _ .�,Q.� ,.,� � .,� >m � �� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 138 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T1S —Section 2 —August 2020 �'r�er� �� P��� �rr�r� t � � � ti Ct��i � i? '�nrtp � G � ,� ;� p':: 'ii� b��'�M5�� rl e� �r §..A lc�. �t �� 3,.� 4'-7Y��St f _ _ �S '. X .t Y � #.l a: ;`''�ii.. }`��r`�r� T��cY ��-'rew � �? f� C5 �� k��ra �t �c� .i �Cr C= t� " G �� � bra) � {,�- >'�r .�; �"' ''� �'�, Trek �°'�14 ?� ' 2E t� �� �� �� t: ��� tit` '?Fa fir; � �� ��? ? �9���v�'�1a Z 1sf�a� i:is� �' �t#a�i -� gr-�.. 1'-5,����: � L e� 'T :a r;r _ g%��lr—���L�+_�p *ter �p� y f-1�.�1A ����� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 139 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 i �t 1�1t� = �h��� 4d�tsi=—_'� : �' 1�' t'xe ��,"� `i � l Ltd � t�€.r r+ �� f� � � 3:�� i�� �ILi � �it68sc �.��t�l� � t � ��f ___ -- - T;se �'� �i�.a � �-�tiS�� `�.�ttir_a � 1� t� ;. t,� ��ii'7� `j �°dell I`°:_ i� _ t> -; � �.. ���rtrt�l �J ei �' !'la:� ��1 Ala ''�clt�� �-lea�s'�t ��� ���:� ���1��'('��C►Id'� L=s z�Lin.3=h}hame�.�lt=�sl i i� 1'nl� , '• alCe?I i::tt�t;try€ 'f' #�R �6+ 2�t �t '� z's i�' i5 �i� � - t?9 :?_ �� �� t��� '�� alf � ��� t�t�r� � ���tt !r�l����C Intl- �'�r�lisr� �.. �`� �'tr, � In#rnr �c�� : irk J L� llk T, 1. _ isl�4�1i+�� r'`t � R€d - �ic�lty� �+n e�iF � art #�# __ _.._ _ _ 3 �l �t � � c,i� t rl,�, ?i+1ti � ixiit=iri `��i � �r� �3i��st � '�1+�; ��f, [f 'd�' �► � t {1#� �i��`1 ` �i �� �I� �±iE 1 I ant � �' pry t .'•?�i �.�#'� �' 1 ., r�i� r�� ' . n Mini %Jis '�a§ ��I =��s� ?im ►%tip. �� la, � �; tlil�y t #�� �l�i1c a� N � �> ,. �� �� �,� � 1 �7' s+rt �`=: �� � � � __ Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 140 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 r���� ����r�1 ���� �r� Grua 1 �r � ��p a �r� � �a�x E �t� � #� � fits � . _ . _. ire !�� Ran _ . �I��J _ _ : Rh fi►� #� din ,�fi �� Plt iil�� P ti�ri PIS u i is ' i � � i3 � � 1 i� � L �w � � � � � � r � r� � i �� � �' � u � if � � a �� � � � �; � � __ � Q � _ i� � � � �a � � � � 4' , z� � � [� � � S t� 5 � � a G, � � -� � } � 3 . � 7 � � 7' ` Qi 7 � � ,� ii 1� ' �a 11, � 1i %± �1 1� �i i � i'�' �1' �� � i� � i�# 1� td �� �1� n a �;, i�t � Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 141 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 __ Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 142 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 143 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 144 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 ��� � � ��� � i� � -� j ? ��� c n r� r i- 1 �� � �' � ���r r� t� � � _. i +a t� � ��_ jai r� r 1 1t� �a �6�� � �� C � � 1�� �! _ t� � � � Ci f � �� � -� � � �� t.� t 1 f� �i _ #� �S� ,j' � �� __ �—�— � �� � �r � r �+ 't _ _ �;§ � i�� �C� __ � _ �� a i 17:+ r t� �r n r r_� � -�� � "� �,% � �� Ct fi 1,� � _ ��;� �� _ __ �i � __ r r 1 � it � � �� r� [ � t 1 �� �� f�L c� L� G "� J �� �� ��� r t� �7 ��� :� a� r� � 18; � t 5�� % � % C� i x 1 r� #� � � � ! � � �i ,� �3 �.� % T� � 4 1�� +� �� � �3 � ra � i * �? � � � s� ,7 r r� t a� �� � �� a _- -� s� �� �,� a� �� t� t 1.�� +� t� �t1 �t t` cr j `yy33ryry � _ _i3 �s ___ [t _ t s — ti 4.,�J 4t g�� � p L"kti � �4 � 4 ��gg p�g 2�. +yl� �y ��3 dryl�� ��y lnl ytry,�tT. �Cs� t� �� � �7 �• t� 1 a _. _ _ _ �. _ _ _ ��� l� t�j� � j �i � �3 'u�i'� F3�: � 1� [f '�1�aa � t� �� '� R'.t § �Ii 4�yy �� �J '�."t.4 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 145 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 t� �� � ''i"a ,'-�4".{�(`� � �.� ��f� �� �C�'1�i#ISI �fiG't.�-. �����al�;t�z:. +� �a� �,� � �i�L� =�� �'�P�.. ,I1.... # rl.7�,'� a�l� �4 wi{�1� � w� L�Cr� �ii �C�s�� 7 � ���, �� dr_�1r�, i#�, � 3r3�� oar Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 146 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �,y� �l��v � �' � �v�� ��ra Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 147 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Immokalee Rd &Randall Blvd Intersection ear, ,.� E ,,�t'�. r 5,., l� � �� a�;.., s.su.? 1*,'� f�c�ias � .ems „� M � � f��l i 1� =�� rt�9 ! s. L1nRt R� t�r�sa �i _, Flee ... � i���.�,�t� i �t�+ad�� T4iste RF�+t�tt # � ��Ta ' z'ni� �m[esit'r�i�#." i fti FJ a Frey' �;p €�C:Etia'A�'�tr�a i='rt#�r�t�i�. �. �I[3ailil�fY�d�Y 5�: ��i���j -r Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 148 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 +�s_ � s � �, � � °�� �� �� �� ��; �� #� it � :,n 1!? s �#�r iir�t� � �t �s it � �� � � � � �� �� � � � � � �,7'r`�' �4'4 # !i �# #� 3i �1 %t � ii d'r �.! C� #`� �� �# i! ' r;! � ski tin �-r�t; _! � = " __ _. , _ _ . <; i���# i'I��i ;.?' �,� � � �' s.� t# 'f: !3 fit, r r G � � � , _ - _ . �� � � � � �' t.� � st._ - _ _ €iI�'t� � F';'�.'r.#�3Cr � �� Ci Cr � J #� � t� t! G � �i !i �# � �1#s �3i #��� r,, , i'� r,� %f � i� � r1 ' C# i; ## �� t� C3 is L" !� r..t �� � C�yn tax 2 � ` � #� Ci Ca �i ; £l i� �3 �..1 G _ L`! L5 �j. !� � � E�I�y� ref, G '� � f� L� €� C► tJ c� §� U; �, � � � �' 't'�' � i� �? �i !� Ci 11 Ct � �� � �� C# (� #;. t.4 b �: � Dili �� �Ir r � �J r� �# !� n �� � ra �� �t � ! �� �S��t° TT�I� #: #� t# t1 tt #:t �� �# � .� �I r� � #� �i C1 C? � � �, ___ . -- -_ w __ _ - _. � __ _ _ _ _ _ __ � __ _ _ _, y_ � _ _ _, .Lf #d�6��..k! �a : i$.. � � ICJ � ',�.' t� �� �1 �� �'' i� lk � �' �#r�#��`��zctr,� � s� Ct � #� !`1 � �i �` �3 �# l+ ra � �a t1 3 �', :1 r (1�11 ��# � Tit �+, �,� � #:� ' , �" � {�, :� '" � �r {:� !3 xi �i %art Fd�� �e� i! � � t� � r3 �7 f � � � f' �: � d� % ,x� ��1���� t� [5 %# �# ri Ct it €� �1 �# r� r e'� r# it ti R7 : i2 �t Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 149 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 f'ry ��ar�r�r t� e r� � r.� r �� n ,. �� r� i� �-� � r� �� �' Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 150 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 151 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 3� t{�� U � �d +1rne U r7 3L] l�a1C _ �1 _ +] dtl f�tn� G '7 Q��� g hall GRP! Tta;� �t�L Tr¢1 RED 4+� tt' t Per" �.'.It 1 '►"!nl � i��d C� I DEl:yy Fr$yh £rSCtlptl4118 {,l �' � In�ldclrtJ Fl+c.�` Rk'x?lFe1 PlibStrS t 4ff a � �] � et � t+ t f [:�F � can +� o o � � � a n r+► 3 �R n n b ;t 4t +) n D G7t d rDri if 0 +) S � �] G G �� i +�R +7 0 0 L+ 4 �7 G +! I f31T 15 OR �1 �+ it � tj r) U l� �'1it 5 L�R �] a t] u R �i f+ i� '�N- -� _ 1Q C_5R it Q Il 0 iF f I� I G r'9 '� C)tt tl rL r� s; it: �i t� I � [7tF ti� nR - _ _._- fl +l G � IT ,] _ [} --. i + t�fj - �7 tf 4 C �] '] ' C� C+ r3R -t� ��JR _- --- - __ �3 t_�rt U n +� C �i „ n a �7tr 1g t'!0 t7 r7 tJ U t] r] G U C11 �t 4�rt [t (t � � �F �I f+ f+ L7fi �� �lrt rt � I n - �t ,, f, r~, rf1= _, 91 �;+t� _tJ � i U L� d �7 i � i � +��f _ _ Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 152 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �us�� 1 ��►�1��� r�sr,� �n���� � .b _d �� �1 �� �� �J �� _ . u��� 5 Fl���g ���:��+� �,�,�:�.�,t _� �: }; � ra �� �� �� �� _ .__ ._ __ � �, i6 H� �� �� �� 0�' 0� ���n F�i�� � 'T 1.�.�,?� �. �f E z _� �� 1i i 1� 1� _ �� _ _ � f} Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 153 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T1S —Section 2 —August 2020 r�isgt�ce 13 �?'���1 �t����� __ _ _. __ "' �. �.�,�,7,L f� i� �� :� _ �� _ .... �� 4 �j �� �■ i�r,� �n...�s� �° q, �� �s �� ,. �� �� �� f�tr � �� e� 1 [� t� �i 1� .� �{ �� 1� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 154 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �h1� �t�cian ��r�tn�#�e ��! ���1 �.�sn�� �i�h ��s�u� P#�+ Mang � Flud �� ��al �� !� : F'taa i�s+la� F�*�~� L�rt ch�nr� 1��a�nr.� ,;,�,��x�, tMme i���t_: °nn __ � ie _ 9 ii � r,� {1 # � G � it � G 14 _� 6 �+ v � ___ — 5 � �3 i3 _ .�9 � G _ _ 6 _ _ — �J � - C' - — � � �, __ � � � � e i n � __ j CI L� n - - _. � �t [� �J_ !� L� -_ _. #�i _ . ._.� p��� _._ — _ -- i� Ca � i1 l � ' t'f e� t� (': `' ��. � _�F- � n � � a �� � � � ___ _ _ n � � a _ __ � c� c' �� � v � � � � �' � c= �� � �{ �� � ri �:�� u °a � c ��� ►e^�� �a p��� '. tt p„ 4Pn, #3 �c�f TAW eY� %�fe I}i J 5.'... iLL�... iryni:. ,�� �.. Jq b! t�' 6p��.,.. 4`r.. +�� q l.� t4^ �l^:. p�Y9. yq� EIlI �� ).� �7 r� �` �# +� i� .. �';i Lt ga. � fl a`l � � eJ R�! f`>; � �d f! � � i'� �+ sl t"< tx �' . Q % � A 7 fs CE � C' [t �'` �� � i it t� �� }�_ ` � 4? �1 U ? �' i1 ��: C� � � �J �° if fi � G li 3 r� 3? � 3�; �t � n +� C; C � �? C � � � � c� G �' � s� C' , �� 11 �# � � #�. if r� �� �ry� id [3 LL � � L 4S F2 u .J � C. ��.. �. Gry� Sryry� � ;'� 4� � �'2. pip,.... ��y'�q tI �% � 11 l� ti 3 � C� y �+� vu. .. _ _.... ��. �ry� _... _ ___ I}.:�d�� ___ 5�_. &I �_, .yq _ .... ,_.. iq� _�.(�._ ��l{ ,_ ._ _. �_ _d4_._.. � TM' � ...� ......_ _.. .__.., __. ..... ��y� {its p� y���.. 6C ,. � _/�� _ ... ,..... ,ry}g 3! .. __ nn L � U __._ �y... li _ ... CS � r .,..... _.. _. .� ._.._ l3 n ,......� � � L L" V :d 4 Y� V �: C� � ti D + C7 � ii, 7 t�{ G �II r, f��§ +nn�:. � !l Cry:. ��'}} k. is y'�-- Oe �I p�h .... U '..1 I. L '� � S Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 155 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 R'.� �st%�t c F����c�n i��t��E�� ��� :��� r. ��b i+'L$ i�±ri - i'i!!$t�^Iti& of :-v � ,7 � � � �_ �t � � � �J _n a a � � ti,_ � _ _ _ _ ��e������E�:t��t� ��1 �f9n�� ��+ Ft�¢¢f�nrt� �ra�€a�ppt-.a�i 41 .. _ � ...... ��ee�1 � At. U . _. Y 3 � � L Y '� �3 � � � fl �. �+3 !� � � s� ri Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 156 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 � � to �� " a a � � �— � �r u � a �. �n � � � � _ �� � � �z r � f� a `3 a _ � �. #I _ C p -- _ �� tl' 3i Ik 1 �! �; � � �; _ _. �� t _. if C# � � �A �_, � R tl i� as � � u u � �n c �� � _ _ � u rs n t� �� �, ca � � , ��� �6. [i �,. ��,�. it ..__. . ppqq u, _...._. �. _ _._... 35 6_ C� � � __ � �� � C� t�' tl I ;a � � �' F5 � � d, Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 157 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �'�t#���� ��� l��s t= �IrM FBI ��I� �tf,�: 1 ��tfi : ��T1 "s �i< u�r�s � �tei �'� 1?la� � �!n F��� i 1 �� i� � i 1 �r� #AST 1�r��iG � t i ;s � �3 ' �� � 1 n ' :. Ir�iit 1 � 1 t s ��rs � a � � �-�r� Irlt## � � Q ;� ik +�, �" � art I��tib 1 F � �J t� i ��r n , ir�� 1 � 1 � E, � � t _ ��►� �� Ir��r�F� _ � � � i� r,1 t'i n f4 ct i �t�$fi �, (fEfiilL 1 � 9 �„ � {� L� � i men . ir�ti � �' 1 ti it � ii t� i �` ��i* 1it311k� �I s i v_ �� i� -.. r� _ _ _ . � � � ___ 1 _ — �-rn _ � _ Ir�tit __ "i _.. '� 1 �J � � � � i? i �i IntiiL � � � , �� r7 � � � i� t ��� t Irr�til�� t �'�' � r� � €� � Imo! _, 1 �� � � �i t� �,�` _ �, � I��1► 7 � 1 ".�7 t3 �1 it � .'��� 1 _ tea! o IriE� � � �_ :�� t� rj t'� � ' [t ier��t� ��=�� Irlts � � 'a� � �� fl � � 4�; r��yt � Ir�(t'� I � i �� �� �r fl �J Gt,��� � jrmC � � �' ?� � � 9 � %i � c-r� � ir��it i � � � � � ;; �-r r . I�h�t l � �df 4J 4� � C3 !� :'� Wit! II'lii�E= l 1 �� t� �� r r' Intt�t 1 � _ � _ �� � �3 r � - � - �� � ° Ir+�ii � � � 1 :�a � �� r+ +� �i r�a�n: �� iril< 1 _ � � _� _ � _ �1 � . �-�*r� - l Ir�i 4 � . G� �i r ��; + �' � F Irgi�i+� �1 9 :�� � � s� � u � iel� ' � Ire�ait�` 1 � � Q II � h �1 �"It _ � It'�hltr" 1 � 9 �.� tl � _ �;I � -fin , � Mr��it �t � t �� � t� � � E� �r���� Ir�IL i � 1 �t � tl #i �# "fib � If*�il1" f � j ��� � �J c� �i � 't�€ice ', lit i � `I �{�� F� ���7ryry � I{���i(t � it ('� � ��777 zd. pTl 3� y�� k3 �Cy� 'zR tE {Yy�dgl�€y+�.` !:'�31!PTM ■. i�s��: Arid?t! i k � {i a �� [� d! it � r� '��t1 �� Iri�til` 7 _ � i"' �� �� r� �i r� rl 'i���i . � ir�r7it'� 1 � � � �1 �a �. �i veil Ir�tit � � 1 , Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 158 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 e �. c r� ►: r �i �� .��il irit � � � '' ;;�� ,� k� , ri � ' r� `f'r�13 � � Ir�ril � � � �+3 rJ � E! �i U � ��� Irr�rt � � 1' �� 7 �1 �7 � � � '�cl � Ir�it` � � 7 _ _ _ _ _ _ �; � � � n � � i��;l�,� it«hf � 1 �� � �� � �� 'r'�tl lr��l 1 1 a� � � � �� ' �t �tl�r� 6r`a lt'�llt'; �' � 1 ;may � _�a ii u n � ��,� �� ln�ir t , � � �! (.� � � �.QT� ,r fir{.. � # �. i� �� �fi� � � � . r� _ Y���i 11�:� Ir��t�t,� � � �� ri, r3 tt �� � _1F+�,I lrs�iltt 1 � t C� 3 �3 �€ Ll a �t 'Y'C81 ItYtni 1 1 � � 1; i ��°�o� rK9a� °t � 1 w - r� -- � _ -- _ r� _- �� _:::_ 1 ____ _ '�P __ f�i�:s � _ � _� � _. � �a e� l cl ��n #� lr�sr � � _ x � _ �� � lr [� � fi��i�� #�: ir�iL 1 1 t r� rl %! r� ' �7 � 1i�it � 1 ` r� +� � lrr �a , � Y�tl+� � irl � r � . a� �J � i� C;i � ���1+ � 1ntltl: 1 � � �� rl �i �� r� r� ��I �° ` �� lr�il� i � t �� t� �7 �; �"r a �� ��€l�n� $� �r,�it � � 1 Erb r� i 9 �� � � ��t1�. 1n��iE � i �1 +� � it � Y�il�� :l�;�it i � f E� � r1 a� 0 u tl �€# IrrCltl- __ 7 ! i �� � � � � �i � Yr?l�** lftdii � � � } t1 3� � i°1 � in�+it�� 1 I� � �� � � Q �3 Ll -1'e111c 1� F Irr��t� '� lrrr�tt+ 1 1 � � 1 v __ __ —__ _.. � _ _._�_ _. k��` � �� 11' � �t ��len� t�x.Ir�rll: t � � � � r� � r1 r�_ �*e� _� lrl — � � — — — _ — +� �� t! Q CC r3 "Y# � Ir��ii 1 � i - - -- _ r� � � 13 � '�'�Il I��rlt-r � .' � 1 al �"1 �? it C? �7 �� �' .. _� It`iG� � � 1 $7 �7 � � � � � �'eil� 4 ' lilt. 1 r�ry �{{ � r�9 �{{]"p14ryT. ,3 IF � � �9 .: ��� 'i� �r�� 3 }d €j. p�� � y�ry� ti:R �..A l��F14d� }q(1�gj �� IrYI �l I*i4 1 � a t iL. r� � � � C� . r� '1'rt'il "} Ircnll�° '1 1 i 7 L3 fa i 1 r 5"��I r � lrrkllt, � � � 1 c� � r j �` � t5 t, ��ii+, Ir�1�r�� � � I Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 159 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 "; 1 � t� � c; �a r3 �"�Jl��= �; lr��il ! � 1 Irk � �t tt r� � �t 'r'�a# 6�� #n�#i°. t � � ; 11�i r`� � �; � � Yeti �° In)tiL�x 1 � j 11t tt � � - i1 Q .: r3 `fit# �� Ir'��ilt� _. � � � - i � ; �'+ � �, � � ' ��' Y�9# ` - #ram#t�� # � 1 1 i� i� �J _ I7 �- � - � '1t`e�1�, # Ir�it _ � � i - ;: i r� t `fQ#1 11f'iil�� 1 � 1 . 1 t � i� t7 � ti � r7 ��ri � It�iit � � � 1i3 4 +� � � � � f�� F #,.� #r11t � � 1 ^' 1� t� � r �a u �� '�'�##ate ' � (r�rR : ,# � ��]��� P '¢ 1-5 ;�: t,c �; � �;, to � � --- C� � _ __ �. _ - - � F��� __ --- �'. 7 t��+ __ �i � r�� � � �` � �� ;� t`..�s 1� n its — - - �3 � � t►�: 1� �i tiai �� Fib i*` �'{ �;;. � �� tt� 1�a � �� �1�� �tf phi ' ��r.�i� �`I�', � � �� #�N C�ir�e y Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 160 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 A�1 P9-f �!� Titn� _ h1u�e 1 � t� � �. Iti�: ;i�tt ikti�tl� # yy __� �. _. ..... ._ IYd'45.$.... !� V '�i,� '� `�1 !�-. �� �f �� ��. � � �:. '4� � �� � � Pts� 9�i rJ Its �I� Til�i� Ft�l Rpi .' �e M1 � �,f p�'Yr��'. ��� :ci ;�� �i�2�' �a ,� +fir �fi ,r a�� 1 u � � i = � F� ��_ �� r�� 1 � �� tt� 1 � _ __ __ .w_._. t � � � �! 1 �� � _� � P4-I ter �k� F#� i ��� _ Pclorle 1 � _ � _ . �, ,� " _�" �'14# _.. �) fps � Pn� _jfi. � 1 �t _ a5�`{1� �$ lY #♦,its 1� � t� i� F�s�as .'�[� 1' �� ��I �} €t PF-1 ?�i-1 __.. _.. _ F�ii�� '� 5ppl �$�t�: L 3! s� y�, 'pF� '�€ i Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 161 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 I� Tiin� 1;44 P4.1 tgtr�i� ,_ �� _. � t �� � � 1 � t� � � �� �i� u M�� } � .�. � ,..,, a ��� � t �� F+`r4 4�d-I �� Tilkle �a'I�i+ l� � � r� 4'%4� � � r � X.�: . 6, i � �d � i=' U 4`5t1 � � �� � 5� � P�d.�1i�S_ 4 i E4 ('a '� � � � � � t� tt 4' � � 1��� �: �s' 4�� �' F, __ try ��.� Per �1=4 4=4=4 FFl T'rt� Fr1or3� � n __ Per 11 �� F,n 1 � %� f;� i �' � _ �� l � tt Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 162 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �}� TI4�� F��-1 I��1 t�1u' 9 !� _._ _..n ! � �? 9 "M �; � t, s, � l;e: �5 � " � L' FW P�f F� r4� Titct� � to t, t��t! ,r'� •-�� # t1 � tA'}E „yiry � r ', `3S..i �� j�igv' i �.. t � r"+'•�t PN i��t �N �i� �`�r�' _dr1e � � ����� � h �� V _ R«��� s� �� � t�€+ � �1 � i�` � �?�, I � ��Y 1I t �� ' ��� � � 1 � ?� � � 1� ���i� Ltd ��.� H it �1-i ' 1�7�+j� ��� ' ��r — — �i Tf �#+ R�. Ills"*' ��.: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 163 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T1S —Section 2 —August 2020 F�rrlci 9 •3 � � � � �' � i� �"1 i� 1� � 1� '°iC; �C',�'t+�1 i __. _ _ __ _ _ 1 _�..w___. . __ _� �. _, a I, ®: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 164 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �0 �'� � L''�sCri��ii; R�AriF rt� `��a� 'a�r�, r,f �i��r�t � �r. � �� � jat%: � � �. � � '� �`.� LY '� :� sa '��+ -j a $�. :.k 'k� j�a lid,. .�..+. .y`.:. ®i.��® �® fit; k1Eit Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 165 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �J�� 1�� i s.�r i�-'�tr f+�r�. Rat � �� � � '� i"I �a3 3 �� � � ; �3 �ic�yr FIB 6 ii � b! ii� G� �J- t�a�� (-ice i Fi � L! _ � �a C+ ���;`; �r _ � _.�'..3 _.. �� i f .... ,� _ _ 1 t� �� ��r '-tin � y'[ x� $ `� 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page (166 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 d��i'. ����i a��� ���� ���� ��r�r� H.�liCjFI3 �431:a:. � `�x�r�� i�1t�i�ll� . . 4`l ii�tt �a � ,v. i �* +� 9� k:i � P�7� 3 r x ___w_ _. - _ _ _. � F�Lr� �, F � - - - ��� ��� ���� ��a� ���� ���� ��a �e�� ��a� �� ���� ���� ���� ���� ��a ���� ��a� ���� S �. sk ¢� Lpe' FI i%i Ls] y�� ,�t.� � �t�{' _ �. Aypa yye*^ *� A (��� �iqq8 1 4 :i3 }igg� G7. 1 e��v,� �i��tt � �o �'_ a ,��. t t "� yd � �. i :;� ��.xt�m �. ��, FaXt��'i �} �S fi�� 3�- ��� F�..i�m 3 � ._ �i Plr Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 167 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 m��l���■t��■ r��r��rr�����u �ii�ii��i����i�iiiii ��ii�iiis�iii' ��iiiiiiii�i�ii �i������n��� ��u������o�l �vr����r�.��r��r i����w����' ��n������ni �����E��s�n�� ��n■�������� �ra����tr��i�u� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 168 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 1�r�er�t +�� ����tri�i � � � � � �.r� sa � � � rr� � �� is� aF,�t1 r� 1� i� 5� R� �x � �,,�li�#i"�,z�i I� jai 1I',+ �i � �rY a� -. _. TC�'(�EIi t� � -- — x�.� �� � cis � ���'- lrit��'�.�� I1I � ski '7� �� - �� 1��l�a`€ L�, t*,'r :�u �I��n FIB ��el =r �c� G[i�u�at�c _� -- ' ! _. �� � di of �� _ _ l � _ Il ___ _. _ _.. I��� $� �_. i-� �� _� �� ._ __ ���'' Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 169 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �J �' � I� �A 7Y �° S� t�1i,P��1 >� s�1�.1 C ya-.��'i�^. i+14 .. � �i�� � ' �� � PJ � ���� �t� �Jt �h�r�ti�i �t��tfUt'��o ��•h.�t �iti T��t +. � � � � Rlt���'��hl '�'tte�� Ohl~�� � � - � �h���'��hi;.� t�I� _ �' �tt��x� u�h� t+ �� ��� � ir�t�4i4i' � � �� .,a. � ��� 1 i �;� ' 1 � � f� �� r r-i4► �� �'ini�rz€ � � ;� ?� �� � � �S� 1 � 1� 1;� � ��a 1F �*c� Y����; ±,iFe�I �� Yi �� � , -- . _. .� � ►t:��tu�r r ' i��i` �� F� �iti � e'er' �l� ��t� _ ._ � __ F►rrs ��r ��-".t e . �:.. rnl�.�i�Y �'� k'.1�'i ���i �3 �;�1 car L`f �. t��:i: `(iLt, r �}� �i�� 1 it .�„�L"i�1[� �:i '�i� •,"�f� �=+91r. ! J� rfi �' ice' �f� ��C) !tR I4'C�C?L� �", �� �,� F��� � � ����� �� �:i r�� 1� ����i#�i� 9� C��i�° sib tas TMrn �- �� In��ai i�s�!�tr.� `��1�5 � `a'Vl� 7�5 ,1��i+t �Sn , f`i� �' �tl '� '� nn ' fi �� cnt Y�' A_ __ _r�� t �'{'3 �i. i Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 170 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TlS —Section 2 —August 2020 ���� ���� ��� P��I` ��t��t�1 �'�t��� !'�� ['3r� 1 fat � � ��p � t�t� � � 'Sri � � � �'t� � _ _ i�r �� Fin t�l� Phi � #� din �� Pt� �t� ._. �" t��n PIS � �� � �! � r� � � � � �� -� � r a � �� a �� � � c� � �� � +� � � � �+ ' S % � � Li � �' �i � � � ___. _ _ _. _�� �. � 4I �"v � ,: {� it i� �Ly'. yL� p"'K'` ¢aid �y7 ��y ��Sy }'� t0 _ c� �� �� fi�1 � 1� ti tt� �� �r� � � � �a '�'� � 1f �i i-1 r i t� i1 � 14 1 � 11 �3 � 1� L� '1� �� �� �2 r� �?` r,� �� � 9� � '�� � 13 tx 't� � "1� � �� � � �S' �9 '�3 ; �� t� 74 r� 1 � 1.� ii �d �� �� tt � � �� �5 �i 15 � �� !� 1� �- �� � i� � � � � �� �C '� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 171 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — August 2020 Tom+ late C,:,. 'r ff �2.. -b � (� D "psi. t3 $ a , 60 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 172 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —August 2020 J € 1 fi 60 0 160 55 G fY [i 13 1 - a t rN T5r, Tila ?�` �{ �t [ 0 1 fps n rI r� T 0 161 11D r a h 70 Q to 1 Ell, , D t 7 0 60 0r 0 1 5!4 r`i i if, 1' Cr i 11 f6# Pvc,, A3 t 14 i i rrff i tl' e6 all (0 t U 0 1 G € 1) C L1 tt T __..._ ._. .. gip. _ _} .. .t 6 B yS Ps. .}�y T61 Ark Ii A C) 15 99 iJ} t3C G yj 1 1 bb C� F *✓ i? 0 lei 60 P (4 15 P fj EA 13 P> t ` i CI S `l 16 x>[' re P ! 960 #? �J Lx 0 If t5 1' 0 1 t 1 13 U 0tit F15; D 00 161 BID o � D 104 1 G SD Q % i s Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page (173 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —August 2020 0 POSE U �{ }tail 13 V# 0 1 79 11 r3 161 8V 0 0 C' 15 '11L 1 t 60 l L 0 to lie o 17 ti a, 60 0 fi 11a 151 rr r T5 G 0 f6 1 L� 161 dfN a b 0 t5 1 161 127 t 161 AD r3 CrM11 25 1)1 1 riID1�129 a 1 a 0 1 1all 0 161 E*rj u r D 15 33 r3 la4 e6fo G 0 0 15 ri tr'1 t 41 C 1� (1 tet1 137 0C + Ci 13 14 n 1 revil 0 (1 r 141 0 1 &0 a tt 0 t5 142 0 161 Ja De a 13 0 1 { 15 144 i 145 0 15t BCr u G 0 15 1444 _ 0 107 l+ t 5 147 Q M 6D 4 0 15 19 T= eD 0 f, C, € 152 0 151 fr a 0 D 15 15:1 0 ak 0 t 15a o tat 61 0 D 1) t5 157 ri 3cs16D 0 0 Cf t5 I 1 sa a 161 zo a J� v � Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 174 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T/S — Section 2 —August 2020 164 i W ew q 165 0 -15t so 0 0 G 15 1 1>r > r, r 1. R. 1 S a45g ED o 0 15 175 jl 45l b04 43 P n $:fir 1CL1 b L ti i 151 6 1 15 163 Tel >&D 0 1) C 1 a 1 i] VIA 60 r. x 6D 0 D 1 169 b1c, U 0 0 15 193 0 1 1 fiM Cyr 14 M 1B1 a 60 F45 1 101 0 t a ` 61 Eve Li .0 0 1 i 60 0 P 0 15 1 17 151 OD 0 b % 15 1_99 - tai _ 60 _ 0 CO0 - 1A _ % r� 15 4 60 0 b ) 15 n1 161 60 0 1. 0 t5 02} 1?t #' IN 01 ti 15 205 0 164611 4 r ' 1 ' 210 a 15t ZkD 0 ID n i5 2 tail ' S. 1 21:2 a 163 610 0 Dr, 15 214 U 1a1 Is Q b 0 15 215 a t51 ED a 0 0 45 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 175 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 ?` l 0 16 + 50 0 C_ G 15 d1 tv $i a t t 1i Tait 0 15 ?ZJT L Mt 6V 0 0 D 15 22 1 18 I'd 13 C 0 t 22 0 1al B5 a tJ C 22('�sa 225 0 Tel eri 0 0 ru 15 232 0 164 61% 17 f} 0 t5 2.+�*zi t_ ] I r! r} t5 2"47 0 t 1 HO 13 P 0 # 2NJ 9 4 rI l W3 0 Il t„1 t t (.} D t'. V41 0 &1 t4 242 0 61r VG a 15 D 1 243 0 e be 0 Q t} 15 z45 9 J613 13 2491 (1 jel Ktp i Ct aft' 5 C1 t i:1 f 2 491 0 I-1 96 b i� t n53 a let i 0 per 0 t y t + 161 M A !# D t5 252 r3 Tel 6 0 6 0 15 i? IF,t tot) 9 i G f15 2541 ti. f6 3L 0 C L+ i * Acre 200 e#o 1 E0 t o :4 4 AWe 62 1 206 NO 14fie Fi! 0 G �lc�lr 1 tetra 2�}7 7 Mxw so D None FmO 1 2(1:1C _413 2fl cocr rill: ` 1 113c' � Acne 0,isrw Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 176 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T1S — Section 2 —August 2020 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 177 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Appendix E: Z018 Annual Vehicle Classification Report, Site 4187 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 178 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 91 r;J � ILI W t9 pi G- � .�1 � n �j . 1 � EEE*** ,� LCF"j �q� L`k] }I� +r��lA �� �� �-7 � } /a +; 1]r1 VI Vj 1 k r lfi � 1iJ �1 +IP ap i'- � t[1 r1 �I} .r ►'� F � >3� �1= Y 1 j'- !� sfr �-ti w. sL• �C i• t'1 G7 It1 � rl � G1 m ti {F, SIR ►I IFiI Tv+c'7r+Ci S�a•��IL �i#i-�f�s'dra :.,t ���►►� .�i•uu� �.IMli i►1rin+ �I li r� a � !� s] t71 E-1 a� La Ei E/ tl; � � RI t- ' f E, � -�+I : �. � c+a gm�p.r+ �a..�:a r r� • SA rd 1•.i ea ri � i r i +•i fid hr 4•J rl ha rl rl ea � �F �G �� �+ 1 � D CQ N ..,� a •� Ir r0 r'- !# *T.� � O c >3 ar C t. 1 t'R bfi aJ r! +e+ f'1 ci in l►'t 47•.'#1,-a 3. ►�. �,1 �+ � 1 �i tj L1:13t* � �*;�M-+UIv►InVtSTvG47fQG+CS !�# i+J1^ At .a�Itlt?4ltH�.'��`dG'.: I >aPf :.. H s. / 1 • / a / 1 . t . -• I i I e � CIF • 1 j . 1 * 1 . i F + — r } • 6 • V *••i� �? f `.r ¢t 17 1+/ r j -� r4 C+ L'Y +C► S.7 �7 rii Gr th [ 1 F -� ;1 Q C i`,J l�t1, �! Q � G Cj Cl � L 1 L7 �1r:'� Ll � � � (Ft E� t-I tl! ++rr �J � ��=1 � � rct ���+ /. 11 1 � y�r � � Ifl tR G in V1 G Y�! ('d � Ci C1 O f�1 C � � UI a�-F � L�1 i+r M19'�1 rl r Y`- �p rri .tI N 1 N f7 �-� Cr Cs 1 C] a•/ [j Isj � 7j f � 1 N r f i'� 4 /^/ 1r11- 1 QI �i � i. ��j� i� i� AP Qi tL7 7'd "' { 1 r3 � � rrl Y i •-t fi! ri r ` J"• '+. C1 �-1 � Gi r•+ r) *J' 1 L71t1 �� � � + V' � F 1� r � st w � I � 1 -� _+ ►� �� -; � � 1 n I+C � � fIrW` i..k �R �� }� � � 1❑ r� C1 � +S �I � � rG flt r/r � � 1 �•1 � !-� tF �l � ki 1►/ � + r` p,t !:- iI►'s��L in 69 E+ H LDS �i iQ �t-r•"l {iJ � 1•a Li ai (e t � �j {J L.! � � ITI ��� cr r >i , -� � � 1 1 0 ctl�..; f �FiY;url r�� kl[Ndl 1'dirl 2 - ti d lei 1� . ,.. 1 1 1 i-1 t 1 kJ � � � .� jR ' F�+ Y W S ? i, i� f�u � L G t � Its '.L rsr r• r: d H H ,i ��. � r.7 '�"' i:s � ♦r i-t l.s ii .� fllH►►1►Li�>�1i� � � JatrJrr�t����� � f*, ate., � r� � :�r! �����l�: �� i >� u I. �r� � � �-. �� ra �j s+ a, .;r � to r r +,L lit >� z~ � +L �+, I-r �, � � Cu � .. 1 IYl j� a t.i � .:��, ,J �- !t! 6J �s .� U :.• ri � !ri W lai !s1 kl; W '.Z F � v� :� �{ �{ � .tG LI /�•1 r- R �i Il! .�.{3 ••,• -� t� t-7 f-1.-+ r- „� �c �i .,/ *Uj o 1: 1. �f �a�rt ��NG� �- �i Flt*! C3S7� �4��*���k:t�,�'�+° � r` arl F, � tt p � ,` .I 1 I rl' _�+ i• S � 717 vJ td H .i�P, w „q, 1 1 ! f f 1 f I � !-i � 0�, 1* � � �-1 � i •� fri cw 4') ■e r� te1 � v-s � % � 17 a tr; � � L1 t4 al rY 1� .r 44� rl r-, ►ti s� � y � r�l w r1 fS 1 U eC7 !� � .� r� trr ->a ur 14 r• +rs �► C) .� r� r•,, •v u ; � E• r-+ [� ►*1 �r u� � r- � m c• *i rl Ih ,r +n I 1 rar /, 1r o�a,ryt�$444rs•...-.,-►..�,- riy- t�+��sti•�t•�t7rl�-,*-rtlliHr-! � + 1 G'i G7 t!{ L`1 l,Ya �`? � C:1 4 UJ E71 ;4 US '� s � 117 � Zt'. t'i rl� L► �tR up try try g9 C7 Ifa GI fMi9 �tSF-+� r r.:Ju! r v c^ t-tJ� 4 Nt<��3o. ?ern � Lto, s{.'�� LIl_tLl;_?'LI�Li �!��.1r iL.i� Ir•s! :'I �fl'! �t.J.��.������ � .� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 179 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Intersection Analyses - Synchro Reports Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page (180 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Desoto Blvd & Oil Well Rd Intersection HAM �C�11] T1NSC 1 _ DoSoto Blvd & Oil Well Rd r Lane �,er�g:ttatian� �'a � � Tratc Vol, V" 292 25 61 267 4t 113 F:IIi1�e't�d, � h1h 6492 r5 61 e167 41 113 nti«rting Peds. #Ihr 0 0 0 0 0 a :po oallird Free Fri; Fran Free Snip 5,0P RT CtonMited torte Wne Nere. tcnage L"glih VM to MG(mQ sj17Ape # 0 - - 0 0 - ra�dts.% D 0 0 Task HDW Fge* 94 84 64 64 84 Heaq Vahidou5 % U 3g 16 6 a 6 ry18101'�':I,�Ioe tlajnrl h♦8ja-t M;I'1dr1 - Cartirtirt.j F;:•;o; 'o 11 .W ti r � 3t.? Stage t 33 Stage 2 46044 iiucd H" 4 6 48 6 G' rlfical 1lduwy-stg 1 5Q Vbcd Hcmy Stg 2 - - - - 548 FaI, �� ,tP FI4IVq 2,344 5; 2 3.354 Rail Dap-•i MemiNer - - I t08 - 333 6 stago 1 - - - 691 - .. Stage 621 . f'Ialmyxi LyFr kc� - Mov cop-s Wnetavwr - - 1108 - 06 07 is WB H�u1 �nitd I?d�y, "r D 1.6 1G HGY LOS ►� Mlrrr Lar+dlblor My rut tiEil n 1 E$T EBR 1"1Bi YrT i �paclty �u�ah'h) °,tU - - 1106 - Htem Lang wto Ratlo v �Zp IA* w CM CmIrnf Delay (s) 16 &IS 0 Hcm Lane Los C - A A tip imh v Re gwhj 16 a.2 GeS�• E�4d - Ot V1'�ll Rd - 2'�}t �,�'ut I�i`I1-3�i�D�+� i3a5��na Synct��a 10 R�cit Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1181 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —August 2020 1: DeLSot r) Blvd Oil 4Ve I File# DUU4 IniafVub Ixl IIit Dd.34P. ,110C�:I1 31 L one + �nrjy3tltdli[q-U 1`raffle Vd t WO Futl.tre Vol Vahlh Col�f�cslhg Fete, fi�hr 36tl '.' 80 Q _� 81 �35 5�i i5Q ��n ti.'�nh'd t=tsc� Fr�� RT Ct��at+l�nd Vah ut lbulan Stetage # � tilde t Wk Hour Faces Hsavy Ivehidur 4 f�IYnt Flow 24lr 9 - u - N 33 9� � 93 93 5 :� 5 3 5 a17 37 97 W SD 4 y om 1Bs YM11u�' iea�eri 1e�r2 hhnarl Cora ich ng rl� All 0 0 454 G 2Lt t 417 Sine f - - - 30,-i - C 4.2 - 5 9 7 �:nlic i I�ttvy 8tq 1 - . P+jg Cap•1 Maneuver 10 2 326 7V4 COW & - - W4 - P1aGwan tOocked, % MOv Cep-1 vanewei 0220ra!1 fJlrr., CaF"P ManamEr 624 - S-ta?o 7 f311 �Lr Eii wa NB- HC�t �:ut�rd_I��tuly, � �_. J,�i �•" � _ LfjS E�lu.ar Lanior hlvmt 'f EBT t:BR Wk. WE1i HCM Lane Vir Rako 01412 r 11"0 - NC4 CorArd Delay {s} t5:9 - - 8i FR�N+ La ne LCIS C A HCm CPA IWIEI Q(veh) 1.9 063 tala5�y:a f�a.a - �3t' 41ra� fttt - 24�u Ahat �:�r�nit�d - na 4'j b5' 1�'2�:} �s�me Synurirn 1Q R�porl Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1182 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 tl`.Iur��x:iitJn r I +cjI s�'v►,r 2I I �t�11n: Vnl, v�INh C:4trltcpr� Fes, #!h� Sign Ga��a �i' Cf�ann�ta� St+�g� L�en�ln VHh 1>i +�e�d.a� 41rv�� Pe�tc Ho41t F��lot t�AV,'M taaw a'INlirx� A�a1�r I Id�1oI� _ . (�1tIGE3 Filter - - 4.2 - {�'ii 1C3 Yi[�lPj G iq �J.� `r-dlra+�u'up Hdriy � t5 a.�5 3.�i �aF �ap-1 M��u►+�r - - s�� �7� Tit! 1�iCM Cap• t IJlett�tnt�' 950 206 7�t1 ���� >�_ we ray► - - �:h+ ronfrr� Saar � � , � 130 t��br La��thi�c� Myml hIE3Ln1 EL�i' *6� '�'BL VVE�? Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1183 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lanes, Volt.lmes, Timings 1 : Desoto Blvd &, Oil Well Rd 07=2020 Lane Group EBT EBR U11BL UUBT NBL FJBR Lane Configurations tt r '� tt y Traffic Volume (vph) 484 77 84 592 176 150 Future Volume (vph) 484 77 84 592 176 150 Ideal Flow ephpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (It) 240 340 236 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 0 0 Taper Length fit) 50 0 Lane Util, Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.938 It Protected 0.950 0.974 Satd. Flow (prot) 3438 1538 1719 3438 1653 0 FIt Permitted 0.950 0.974 Satd. Flow (perm) 3438 1538 1719 3438 1053 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 83 50 Link Speed (mph) 55 55 45 Link Distance (t) 1083 949 621 Travel Time (s) 13A 11.8 9.4 Peak Hour Factor OM0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy+ Vehicles (1%) 6% 6% 5% 5% 6% 6% �dj. Flow tirph) 620 83 90 637 188 101 Shared Lane Traffic (a/6) Lane Group Flow (vph) 620 83 90 637 349 0 Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 6 Detector Phase 6 6 5 2 4 Switch Phase blinirnurri Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 hdinimum Split (s) 23.5 23.5 10.5 23.5 23.5 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 21.0 56.0 44.0 Total Split (°/0) 35.0% 35.0% 2100% W0% 44.0% Maximum Green (s) 29.5 29 6 15.5 50.5 38.5 fellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 AJI-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 LeadiLag Lag Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Ekension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3A Recall Mode Min Min None Min None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk 11.0 11 A 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (Abr) 10 0 0 0 A.ct Effct Green (s) 16.0 16.0 9.2 27.1 17.0 ctuated giC Ratio 0.28 0 n 0.16 0.43 0.30 vlc Ratio 0.53 0.17 0.32 0.39 0.66 Control Delay 21.6 6.5 29.2 10:1 22 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 UeSoto Bled -Oil UVell al - 2034 Ahd Corn miffed w Fj Improved 07!s0l2020 Baseline S+lnchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1 184 Longwoter Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Tirnings 1 : Desoto Blvd &, Oil Well Rd Lane Group EET Total Delay 21.6 LOS C Approach Delay 19.6 A{cproach LOS E O,ueue Length G th �Tt) W Queue Length 95th (R) 164 Internal Link Dist (fit) 100.s Turn Bay Length (t) Ease Capacity (Uph) 2016 Starvation Cap R,edurtn 0 Spillback Cap R.eductn 0 Storage Cap Reduetn 0 Reduced We Ratio 0.26 Intersection Surr)marw Area Type: Other Cycle Lsngth:10U Actuated Cycle Length:56.5 PJatural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vk Ratio: 0.66 Intersection Signal Delay: 172 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.7% Analysis Period (min)15 EEP. 6.6 A 0 31 Splits and Phases: 1: Desoto Blvd &Gi02 l Well Rci Uii B L 29.G C 340 529 0 0 0 0.17 2941 0 0 0 0.22 NEL 22.E C 22.E C 88 20� 541 2s5 1178 a a a hJER Intersection LOS: E ICU Level of S errric e A U?f30f2020 Desoto Elul -Oil Ulrell R1- 2G3p A,M Corn rnitted w Fj Improved U?!sOf202U Easeline Synrhro 1 U Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page �185 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — August 2020 rinmr�a�:ltoa� tl PI D143,r, fLI'Vet, 2.7 me�ni the f=H�, �NdL WET faairre W; vstrlh 49 3B 99 32:; Xdfclltsg Pe&i NAr 0 a 0 0 sign Gontrd Free Free Free Tree l TI Ch�nn�lF�ed - l�idDa - None Stexcige LPnglh Veh to Me" 51erw. # 4 - - 0 :ta(le, % 0 0 t as Hatt Foolar 03 93 93 93 lenvy ,venidm, `~�b 8 12 0 6 1ylyrnt Row 246 41 tQ6 347 � bntlidir. Roo X, 0 0 287 0 826 OX Siegel - - - - 267 Stage 2 - - - 559 - i,rrti�� 4,18 6 A5 6.29 ritiCd HOny Sig 5,45 d H&y Sig 2 5.45 �ollcwlup H[t a L.2'f 4354, 3 ?� I lot Cap-1 Manewer - - 1741 338 756 - tage - - - - 567 - atorm Caix, etl. fi - ALoy GsPO I Maneuver 1211 302 755 +Ax G3P 2 Ma l Yuver 3CI Stage 7 71 - �hi rWonirri Crm)ay ��3�L,:l�yIw�1r►��� �M I �i. NI Lang L �k: miftl Wile QW111 ;24t 62 0 tti A `'��_'v�t:'.:Y F•`J�1�t1- `;� I Va',�,I � d - ;'1111 Nfd ���� 1:S'rLit�1 F.�sk:hr Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 186 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 HCM 201u T►JBG 1; DoSoto Blvd Oil Well Rd �fl1�1rS4�t'11DQ r.I 'DEIay 5[IV r11: 2,9 LNnaC:?r5�ur�5c�nr� ��► Toft W ve" 304 Owe Vol ya" 3PJ4 Cbnkbng ,N* a Sign �Mrd Frye F� 'i Clamiellaed Storage Lengli Veh to w yc� �=fide, R44 Feo Hatt Fatlot -teavy Venidmowu 4ivt1�! Flow a1 t ? 444 t) 9 ti Mane 240 L J L b '1 55 142 4`31r, Ili 11�1or�Mtr>Ex t�fa(nr1 _ rh�itx�'_ 1al�atxl . dichrBO*AP G 0 382 Q 642 FA 327 : ;Gae 2 - 515 C al H66yt - - 4.2 - 69 7 Qffical Hilmi S;g ` 5 g oHdwy�g2: 50 lydlowtupHdymy 2 2to 3 55 3.-3^ ut Cop-1 Manewor - t 1w 29r 842 twh tatoon ttomd, - lukv caps 1 Uffiewer A t W 260 +1 w Gap 2 Manewer 260 • 1 694 stage 2 - - - 488 - s - — ha ":onlrrr ��'_;r4o L9'I s "Wi H.M tuIII QLAII Cm *ill We Q►Vow xti i�Sa�n Qlvn-C� Witt Rd- 21l?�D PM �ofamltted - t►o f1j (}�t131 �S�l1ne �yr�h� 1� Report Pam] 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1187 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 CA sl"Iur5c�:11;Jp kHFi U�'�l Vti'=� 1 _Fine Cbrt+ri,urFilc+n ` Ifa11ic VLI vof AI S66 iellr2'U'd 'filLIL+ti 556 :bill Itch q poem; , Alftf 0 Frt� F•rve Sign +��ar7[a free W{�51 !li k1 a,a* Hatt FadoI 93 93 leavy'Vehidas, % 5 5 tyNrN Arw wa 162 - �cal� �L 0 t1' Slop Stti� Metre 0 0 93 93 'U 5 L 5 5 ��rlhllr,:,c h�alar 1 M+ait�� I�aairi _ _ �!. r 1 di raj ROW AU 8 0 780 0 `215 Stage 1 - - - 598 11�ae:2 - - 617 r►tical Hd" - - 4.2 69 7 Critical ddely 5g 59 d t ry ;i,'g 59 �dlow up Hd+rq 2 25 3 55 3,35 vit rap-1 MahaLwar - - 814 170 eM '_-:ine 1 - - _ 504 492 - Loy gyp• I Mmew'er ' 814 186 688- ow C3p, 21JIaigeu+rer 138 Stage 1 - 504 - ha ^crnfni 174:1ar r} hl 1:t�rrirr► r194j; i;4) 2c� 9di F �� 1 �7 ;_'r�.��•',• E�t+rJ - �+I �I F;:.!-;'.U:16 Nf.i +;J sr. ii i l ��I 4 l' '.���' 1:!17!] � ` � _ ;., ; Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 188 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lanes, l�UlulIles, Timings 1 : Desoto Blvd Oil Well Rd Lane Gruirp EB T EBR W BL W BT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tt r tt Traffic ValUMe (uph) 556 109 140 585 112 109 Future Volume (tiph) 556 109 140 585 112 109 Ideal Flowrphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length fit) 240 340 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 Taper Length fit) 50 50 Lane Util, Factor 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Fa 0.850 0.933 Fit Protected 0.950 0.975 Satd. Flow (prat) 3438 1538 1719 3438 1646 0 Fit Permitted 0, 9 6 0 0.976 Satd. Flaw (perm) MU 1538 1719 3438 1046 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 182 48 Link Speed (mph) 55 55 45 Link Distance fit) 1083 949 621 Travel Time (s) 13.4 11.8 9.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heamr Vehicles 5% 5% 6% 5% 6% 5% Jj. Flow rph) 598 182 151 629 120 117 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (Uph) 598 182 161 629 237 0 Tura Tape NA Perm Prot KA Prot Protected Phases 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 6 Detector Phase 6 6 5 2 4 Switch Phase hdinirnurn Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 h,linimurn Split (s) 23.5 23.5 10.5 23.5 23.5 Total Split (s) 40.0 40.0 2?.0 67.0 33.0 Total Split (°/6) 40.0% 40.0% 27.0% 67.0% 33.0% Maximum Green (s) 34.5 34.5 21.5 61.5 27.5 'ellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 JkRed Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 LeadlLag Lag Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes 1+'ehicle Ekension (s) 3A 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode Min Min None Min None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (Ahr) 0 0 0 0 15ct Effct Green (s) 19.2 1942 11.4 32.3 13.2 ctuated glC Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.20 0.56 0*23 tilc Ratio 0.52 0,29 0,45 0.33 0.57 Control Delay 19 � 4.9 28.5 7.2 23.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DeSato Bled -Oil Well R1- 2030 FM Committed w Fj Improved 0713012020 Baseline U713olz020 Synchra 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 189 Longwoter Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes,l�ollames, Timings 1 : DeSoto Blvd y Oil Well Rd OTIM2020 Lane Getup EB T Total Delay 19.8 L08 B Approach Delay 10 A{�proach LOS B Queue Length Seth t�-90 Queue Length 95th (tt) 181 Internal Link Dist (it) 100;s TLIM Day Length fit) Base Capacity (tiph) 22ao Starwation Cap Reductn 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 Reduced We Ratio 027 Intersection Surt7 Area Type: Other Cycle Length:100 Actuated Cycle Length: 57.5 PJatural Cycle: 00 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated blaximum vk Ratio: 0.57 Irrtersection Signal Delays 15.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.Wn Analysis Period (min)15 IF I EBR 1n1BL 1JUBT N6L 4.9 0 42 24U 1064 0 0 0 0.17 riBR 28.5 7.2 23.7 C A C 11.3 23.7 B C 45 49 56 123 102 151 M 541 340 701 V224 G81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.22 0.20 027 Intersection LOS: B ICU Level of Service A S lits and Phases: 1: DeSoto Blvd &Gil VUell R<i 02 14 DeSoto Blvd -Oil UUell Rii - 2030 F M Corn rnitted w Fj Irnprnued 07,'30t2020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page �190 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS - Section 2 -August 2020 Larr. a,0. plumes, Tir7iingu 1 : Everglades Blvd & Oil Well Rd 02NU2020 Lane Grn�.ap EEL EBT EBR UUBL UUBT UUBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBK Lane Configurations 'Rj tt M ttt r '� ttt r '� ttt r Traffic Volume (uph) 117 236 50 21 257 10 134 96 21 26 136 165 Future Volume (tph) 117 236 50 21 257 10 134 96 21 26 136 105 Ideal Flow phpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 600 500 040 620 475 620 490 330 Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length fit) 100 100 100 100 Lane Util . Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 FIt Protected 0.960 0.960 0.950 0.960 Satd. Flow (prot) 3019 3282 102 3183 5036 1442 3273 4287 1538 3019 4610 1509 FIt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3019 3282 1482 3183 6036 1442 3273 4287 1538 3019 4510 1509 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTO R) 159 169 159 in Link Speed (mph) 45 45 45 45 lJnk Distance fit) 2390 1907 1479 1442 Travel Time (s) 362 29.8 22A 21.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0'" 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0'" 0'" 0'" 0.88 Heavy Vehicles A) 10% 10% 9% 10% 3% 12% 7% 21 % 5% 16% 15% 7% Adj. Flow (uph) 133 268 57 24 292 11 152 109 24 30 165 188 Shared Lane Traffic Ce/b) Lane Group Flow (vph) 133 268 57 24 292 11 152 109 24 30 155 188 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 7 4 4 3 8 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 12.0 12.0 5.0 21.0 21.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 blinimum Split (s) 13.8 20 � 20.8 13.8 55.3 55.3 13.8 18 0 18 0 13.3 55.3 55 3 Total Split (s) 19.1 60.9 60.9 13.8 55.6 55.6 20.0 62.0 6200 13.3 55.3 55.3 Total Split (°N) 12.7% 40.6% 40.6% 92% 37.1 % 37.1 % 13.3% 41.3% 41,a% 8.9% 3069% 36,1)% blaximum Green (s) 10.8 62.6 62.6 5.5 47.3 47.3 11.7 63.7 53.7 5.0 47.0 47.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.8 0 4.8 4 � 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 0 1-Red Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3 r 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 82 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 LeadlLag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Dead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Uension (s) 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 6erall Mode Min Min Min Min Tulin Min Min Miry Min Min Min Min Ub'alk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Pedestrian Calls (#=fir) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 7.0 1204 12.4 15.6 21.0 21.0 7.2 10,0 10.0 7.2 10.0 10.0 Actuated glC Ratio 0.09 0.16 0.16 0.20 0.27 0.27 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.13 0.13 vlr, Ratio 0.49 0.52 0.615 0.04 0.22 0.02 0.51 0.20 0.07 0.11 0.27 0.53 Control Delay 40.8 34.7 0.9 26.3 23.4 0.1 40.4 32.6 0A 33.8 33.1 11.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ().0 0.0 0.0 Everglades Blvd - Oil Well Rd -2019 AM 02A76020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 191 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — August 2020 Lanes, �lalLimes, Timings 1 : Everglades Blvd & Oil Well Rd I OMM2020 Lane Group EEL EBT EBR. WBL WBT 1WBR NBL NBT NBR. SBL SBT SBR, Total Delay 40.5 34.7 0.9 26.3 23.4 0.1 40A 32.6 oA 33.E 33.1 11.5 LOS D C A C C A D C A C C B Approach Delay 32.3 22.8 34.0 22.3 Approach LOS C C C C O,ueue Length 50th (tt) 32 64 0 4 40 0 37 17 0 7 25 0 Queue Length 95th (Tt) 59 102 0 14 65 0 65 34 0 19 46 55 Internal Link Dist M) 2310 -1 1399 1362 Tum Bay Length fit) 600 Ease Capacity (Uph) 416 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 Spillback Cap R.eductn 0 Storage Cap Redurtn 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.32 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:150 Actuated Cycle Length:78.5 Natural Cycle:140 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated blaximum vlc Ratio: 0.53 Irtersection Signal Delay: 27 9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 614M Analysis Period (min) 15 Salits and Phases: 1: Everglades Blvd &Oil hell Rd Intersection LOS: C ICU Level of Service B QZ OLn� 1 D;, 0 4,Mori Everglades Blvd -Oil UUell Rd -2019 AM 02146�2020 Baseline S}+nchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page i 192 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lanes, �#oltames, Timings 1 : E:rerglades Blvd � Oil 1�Jell Rd 1IO2n3rzo2o Lane Group EBL EBT EBP. UUB L UU BT UUBR NBL t167 NBR SBL SB T SBR Lane Configurations 1) tt r t� ttt r ttt Traffic Volume (vph) 156 313 67 28 341 14 178 128 28 35 181 219 Future Volume (vph) 156 313 67 28 341 14 178 128 28 35 181 219 Ideal Flow ephpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1%o 1900 Storage Length fit) 600 500 640 620 475 620 490 330 Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1` Taper Length fit) 100 100 100 100 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Fit 0.85o 0.850 0.850 0.850 FIt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prat) 3335 3438 1538 3335 4940 15N 3335 4940 1538 3335 4940 1538 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.960 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3335 3438 1538 3335 4940 1538 3335 4940 1538 3335 4940 15U Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTO R) 169 169 169 235 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 45 45 Link Distance qt) 2390 1 %7 1479 1442 Travel Time (s) 36.2 29.8 22A 21 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 06913 0 '�3 0.93 Heavy Vehicles 5% 5% 5% 5% 6%, 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Adj . Flow rph) 168 337 72 3o 367 15 191 138 30 38 195 235 Shared Lane Traffic (°k) Lane Group Flow (vph) 168 337 72 30 367 15 191 138 30 38 195 235 Tura T1pe Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 7 4 4 3 8 8 Switch Phase �dinimum Initial (s) 5.0 12.0 1200 5.0 21.0 21.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 1o.o 1o,o Minimum Split (s) 13.8 20.8 20.8 13 ,� 562 55.3 13.8 18.8 18 ,� 13.3 55.3 55.3 Total Split (s) 19.o 53.9 53.9 20.8 55.7 55.7 20.0 60.5 60.5 14.8 55.3 55.3 Total Spl it (°/o) 12,71 % a6 69°4 o 35.9% 13.9% 37.1 % 37.1 % 13.3% 402% 40,a% 9.9% 36.9% 36.9% Maxirnum Green (s) 10.7 45.6 45.6 12.5 47.4 47A 11.7 52.2 52.2 6.5 47,0 47.0 1`ellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 All -Red Time (s) 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 oA o.o o.o 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 8.3 LeadlLag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes `its Vehicle Ekension (s) 1.o 2.0 2.0 1.0 2 o 2.0 1.o 2.0 2.0 1.o 2.0 2.0 Recall blade Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min UUalk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Pedestrian Calls (#err) 0 10 0 0 Act Effct Green (>) 7.7 13.o 13.o 15.° 21.0 21.0 8.3 10.0 10.0 8A 102 10.2 A,3tuated g1C Ratio 0.10 0.16 0.16 0.20 0.26 0.26 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.10 o.13 0.13 vlc Ratio 0.53 0.61 0.19 0.05 0.28 o.o3 0.56 0.22 0.09 0.11 0.31 0.59 Control Delay 41,2 36.9 1.1 27.7 25,0 o.1 41.1 33.7 0.5 33.5 34 ? 11.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.o Everglades Blvd -Oil Well FYl -2034 Ab1 no PJ 02113020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Pagel Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page �193 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lat�e�,l�rol�ames, Timing 1 : Everglades Blvd ?Oil t�Jell Rd o2n3rzo2a � � �— � T line G rr�up Total Delay LOS �iproach Delay Approach LOS Queue Length Seth [�) Queue Length 95th �) Internal Dnh Dist �tj Turn Bay Length � j Base Capacity r<uph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap P,eductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced vlc Ratio Intersection Surnma EBL EBT EBR. 1NBL WBT 'r�16R NBL t•�BT NBR SBL SBT SBR 41.2 35.9 1.1 27 ? 25.G c7.1 41.1 33.7 G.5 33.5 34.2 11.7 D D A C C A D C A C C B 33.7 24.3 34.$ 22.8 C C C C 42 84 0 6 53 U 47 23 0 � 33 4 74 131 O 18 $S 0 �2 43 4 23 57 f5 2314 1 �87 139� 1362 600 SGO G40 524 475 520 49p 33q 444 1951 341 653 2:�1 S �72 485 3210 1055 354 289Q 997 Q 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 p U p 4 4 0 0 0 U U 4 0 0 4 O 0 p b 0 0 0 0 0 0 4."s3 U.17 4.0$ 0.45 4.13 �J.42 U.39 O.U4 O.U3 4.11 0.47 U.24 Brea Tppe: Other Cycle Length:l SO Actuated Cycle Length: �0.5 Platural CyrIe:140 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v,+r R;atio: 0.61 Intersection Signal Delay: 29.0 Intersection Capacity rtilia,�tion 63.0°io Anal;sis Fertod (min)15 Splrts and Fhases: 1: Everglades Byrd B�OiI UUell Rd Intersection LOS: C ICU Le•ael of Service B �1-- } �2 � � 1 I ��? u Everglades Bltrd -Oil Well Rd -2030 Ab1 no FJ 02J13t2020 Baseline Synrhro 10 P,eport Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page �194 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 �anVS, Volumes, Timings 1 : Everglades Blvd ? Oil Well Rd 02Ati6f2020 Lane p EBL EBT EBP. WBL WBT WBR NBL hJBT tJBR. SBL 56T SER Lane Configurations tt r � ttt ttt Traffic Volume (vph) 166 422 67 31 636 74 17E 12E 34 69 Ul 219 FutureVolume (vph) 166 422 67 31 636 74 17E 12E 34 59 1E1 219 Ideal Flow (aphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19QO Storage LenrJh fit) 600 600 640 520 475 620 490 330 Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length fit) 100 100 100 100 Lane Util . Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0,97 0.91 1,00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Fa 0.E50 0.E50 0.E50 0 a50 FIt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 3335 343E 153E 3335 4940 153E 3335 4940 153E 3335 4940 153E FIt Permitted 0.960 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3335 243E 153E 3335 4940 153E 3335 4940 153E 3335 4940 153E Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 169 159 169 234 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 45 45 Link Distance fit) 2390 1967 1479 1442 Travel Time (s) 36.2 29 ,� 22A 21 g Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles (°A) 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 6% 6% 5% 6% 6% 5% AJj. Flow rph) 16E 454 72 33 EE4 W 191 13E 37 63 196 235 Shared Lane Traffic (°lo) Lane Group Flow (vph) 16E 464 72 33 6E4 W 191 13<, 37 63 195 235 Tum Tape Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 E Permitted Phases 6 2 4 E Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 7 4 4 3 E E Sbuitch Phase Minirnurn Initial (s) 6.0 12.0 12.0 6.0 21.0 21.0 6.0 10.0 10.0 6.0 10.0 10.0 hdinimurn Split (s) 13.E 20.E 20.E 1 "s.E 55.3 56.3 13.E 1 E.E 1 E A 13.3 66.3 55.3 Total Split (s) 19.0 63.9 53.9 20.E 65.7 55.7 20.0 60.5 60.6 14.E 56.3 55.3 Total Split (o/O) 12.7% 36 *9% 35.9% 13.9% 37.1 % 37.1 % 13.3°0 40.3% 40.3% 9.9% 36.9% X6 Oeo Mafirnum Green (s) 10.7 45.6 45.6 12.5 47A 47.4 11.7 62.2 52.2 6.5 47.0 47.0 `ellow Time (s) 4.E 4.E 4.E 4.E 4.E 4.E 4.E 4.E 4.E 4,8 4.E U AJI-Red Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Last Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) E.3 E.3 E.3 E2 E.3 E.3 E.3 E.3 E.3 E.3 E.3 E 3 LeadiLag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes liehicle E)dension (s) 1.0 2.0 2.0 100 2,0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1 n 2.0 2.0 Recall Mode Tulin Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk 0�) 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Pedestrian Calls (#err) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 7.9 15.3 15.3 13.6 21.1 21.1 E.5 10.0 '10.0 E.7 10.3 10.3 Actuated gJ'C Ratio 0.10 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.26 0.26 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.13 vic Ratio 0.52 0.70 0.17 0.06 0.63 0.15 0.55 0.23 0.11 0.17 0.4<1 0.59 Control Delay 41.2 37.0 0 31.1 2E.1 0.6 40.9 34:1 0.7 34.1 NA 11.E Queue Delay 0.0 Ono 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Everglades Bh,rd -Oil Well R.J -2030 Ah,1 w PJ 02i1312024 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Pagel Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page �195 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes,llc�ltames, Timings 1 : E;rerglad�s Bl�tird u Oil 1�J�11 Rd II02,ti3rz020 � � � � ,� t � Lane Groirp EEL EBT EBR. WBL DUET 'U116R NBL t�lE7 NBR SBL SET SBR Total Delay h1.2 3?.0 0.9 31.1 28.1 0.6 �0.9 34.1 0 ? 34.1 "sd.4 11.8 LOS D D ,A C C a, D C A C C E Approach Delay 34.2 2�.5 3�t.3 23.6 Approach LOS C C C C O,ueue Length50th (Tt� 42 113 0 7 10a 0 47 23 0 1� 33 0 Queue Length 95th l�) ?6 166 0 22 161 0 �4 45 0 3d 68 f5 Internal ink Dist �) 2314 1887 1399 13�2 Turn Bay Length (�) 600 500 640 520 4?5 520 �90 330 Ease Capacity �tiph) 441 1940 93? 566 2597 96? 482 3191 �1049 364 28?3 992 .Starvation Cap R,:ductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SpillfJach tip P.eductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �� 0 0 Storage Cap Redurtn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v� Ratio 0.3$ 0.23 0.08 OA6 0.24 0.08 O.dO 0.0� 0,04 0.17 0.07 0.24 Intersection Surr7mar� Brea Ty�_�e: Other Cycle Length:150 Actuated Cycle Length: 31 Platural Cyrle:140 Control Tppe: Actuated -Uncoordinated blaximurr� u1r. Ratio: 0.?0 Ir�ersection Signal Delay: 29.0 Intersection Capac�y Uilization 63A�ro Anal;sis Period �min)1� �,nitts and Phases: 1: Everalades Elvd &Oil Well Rd Intervection LOS: C ICU Level of Service B ++F-- �2 � 1 } I C? u3 "'M'�6 T C�5 � �3 Everglades BhJd -Oil Well ai -2030 Af„1 w FJ 02t13fZ020 Baseline Synrhro 10 Report Page 2 Tre6ilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 196 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August zuzu Lane0, l�ol t.lme4, Ti mi ngo 1 : Everglades Blvd Oil Well Rd 1I02106r2020 11` t Lane Group EBL EBT EBP. 1NBL WBT 1ittBR NBL <<16T NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r ttt r '�'� ttt r +tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 359 220 37 48 269 35 61 122 11 17 84 52 Future Volume (vph) 359 220 37 48 269 35 61 122 11 17 84 52 Ideal Flow (kephpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length fit) 600 500 640 520 475 620 490 330 Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length fit) 100 100 100 100 Lane Util . Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0,9 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 It 0.850 0.850 0.850 0,350 FIt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 3127 3438 102 3273 4893 1568 3019 4631 1154 3099 4396 1563 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.960 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3127 3438 1482 3273 4893 150 3019 4631 1164 3099 4396 1553 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTGR) 159 220 220 220 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 45 45 Link Distance (tt) 2390 1967 1479 1442 Travel Time (s) 36.2 29.8 22A 21.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.95 Heavje Vehicles ('A) 12% 5% 9% 7% 0% 3°/6 16% 12% 40% l a% U% 4% Adj. Flow rph) 378 232 39 51 283 37 64 '128 12 18 88 55 Shared Lane Traffic (°k) Lane Group Flow (vph) 378 232 39 51 283 37 64 128 12 18 88 55 Turn Tape Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 7 4 4 3 8 8 Switch Phase h,tinirnLrrn Initial (s) 5.0 12.0 12.0 5.0 21.0 21.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10,0 hdinimum Split (s) 13.8 20 < 20.8 13.8 65.3 55.3 13.8 18.8 18.8 13.3 55.3 55.3 Total Split (s) 26.0 67.0 67.0 13.9 55.9 55.9 13.8 55.8 55.8 13.3 55.3 55.3 Total Split (°/6) 16.7 % 44 ,7% 4447% 9s3z% 372% 37.3% 9.2% 37.2% 37 2% 8.9% 36.9°16 36.9°,v Maximum Green (s) 16.7 58.7 58.7 5.6 47 f 47.6 5.6 47,5 47.5 5.0 47.0 47.0 1`ellorrd Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4 ,� 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 AJI-Red Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 35, 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8 s 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 LeadiLag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1*1'es Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2 0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min UUalk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Pedestrian Calls (Ahr) 0 0 0 0 Art Effct Green 0) 16.7 12.1 12.1 25.7 21.0 21.0 5.3 10.0 10.0 5.3 10.0 10.0 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.19 0.14 0.14 0.30 0.24 0.24 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.0E 0.12 0.12 v1c Ratio 0.62 0.48 0.11 0.06 0.24 0.07 0.35 0.24 0.04 0.10 0.17 0.15 Control Delay 37.1 38.0 0.7 22.0 26.8 0.2 44.3 36.0 0.2 39.4 35.4 0.8 O,Ueue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 000 0.0 0.0 0.0 Everglades Blvd -Oil Well Rd -2019 PM 02m6fzf)20 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g � 1197 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1 : E��erglades �I�fd � ail 1�Jell Rd II G2merzo2o Lane Gtrirp EBL EBT EBR. 1NBL U116T 1NBR NBL NET NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Delay "s?.1 38.0 0.7 22.0 2n.8 02 44.3 36.0 G2 39.4 35.4 4.8 LOS D D A C C A D D A D D A Approach Delay 35.2 23.5 36.5 24.0 A{�proach LOS D C D C Queue Length 50th �� 97 �2 0 10 45 0 17 23 0 4 16 0 Queue Length 95th �) 144 98 0 23 58 0 37 42 0 15 31 4 Internal Lintti Dist fit} 2310 1887 1399 13C2 Turn Bay Length �) ri0p 500 E40 520 475 520 490 330 Ease Capacity (Uph) 605 2342 1060 �74 2703 564 1�2 2552 734 185+ 2398 94? .Starvatior-� Cap F�ductn 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap peductn 0 0 0 0 0 G 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Redurtn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 Reduced vh. Ratio 0.62 0.10 0.04 0.05 4.10 0.04 6.33 0.05 0.02 0.10 0.04 0.06 ��tersertion Surrrmary Area TpX�e: Other Cycle Length:150 �rtuated Cycle Length:8E�.2 Natural Cyrle:150 Control Tppe: Actuated -Uncoordinated blaximurr7 vJr, Ratio: 0.62 Irrtersection Signal Delay:31 � Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity rJtilization 56.9°io IGU Level of Service B ,Anal}�sis Fertod (min)15 Splits and Phases: 1: Everalades Blvd &Oil UUell Rd +�i--- � �3 � s31 �'�-+ �' -, � - _� _ I � ; _ ..� i,� �'J 'a.1� �iJ �� Everglades Blvd -Oil UUell Rd -2019 P D,1 02�76�2020 Baseline S_ynchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 198 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 LatIes, l IJ UI I IeC�, Ti1 1 "yo 1 : Everglades Blvd ? Oil Well Rd 02r13r2020 Lane Group E5L EBT EBR WBL WBT 'JUER. NBL NET PdBR SBL SBT SBR no Configurations tt r ttt ttt r Traffic Volume (uph) 477 292 0 64 357 47 81 102 15 23 112 69 Future Volume (Wph) 477 292 50 64 357 47 81 162 15 23 112 69 Ideal Flow (ephpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 190.0 Storage Length (t) 600 600 640 520 475 520 490 330 Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length fit) 100 100 100 100 Lane Util . Factor 0.97 0.95 -1.00 0.97 0:)1 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Fa 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.350 Fit Protected 0.950 0.960 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flouv (prot) 3335 3438 1538 3335 4940 1538 3335 4940 1538 3335 4940 1538 FIt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3335 3438 1538 3335 4940 1538 3335 4940 1538 3335 4940 1538 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTU R) 159 159 169 159 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 45 45 Link Distance (tt) 2390 1967 1479 1442 Travel Time (s) 36.2 29.8 2204 21.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.05 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles (°i�) 5°% 5% 5°r6 5% 5°fS� Adj. Aovd 4�ph) 602 307 53 67 376 49 85 171 16 24 118 73 Shared Lane Traffic (°k) Lane Group Flo w (uph) 602 307 53 67 376 49 85 171 16 24 118 73 Tum Tape Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 7 4 4 3 8 8 Switch Phase hdinimum Initial (s) 5.0 12.0 1200 5.0 21.0 21.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 1090 Minimum Split (s) 13.8 20.8 20.8 13.8 55:3 6503 13 o� 18.8 18 13.3 55.3 55.3 Total Split (s) 25.0 63.1 63.1 17.8 55.9 55.9 13.8 53.3 5"s.3 15.8 55.3 55.3 Total Split M) 16*71 % 42,1 % 42.1 % 11.9% 37.3°fo 3 ,a% 9.2% 35.5°l° 35.5% 10.5% 36.9% 36.9% Maximum Green (s) 16.7 54.8 54,8 9.5 47.6 47.6 5.6 45.0 45.0 7.5 47.0 47.0 1`ellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 0 4.8 4.8 JI-Red Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 Lead1ag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Ekension (s) 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2,0 1.0 2.0 2.0 Recall Mode Min Min F11in Min Colin Min Min Min Min Min Min Min UUA Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Pedestrian Calls (Ahr) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green o) 16.7 12.6 12.6 25.1 21.0 21.0 5.3 10.0 10.0 5.3 10.0 10.0 %ctuated g1C Ratio 0419 0.15 0.15 0.29 0.24 0424 0.06 0 A 2 0.12 0*00 0.12 0.12 vSic Ratio 0.78 0.61 0.15 0.07 0.31 0.10 0.41 0.30 0.05 0.12 0.21 0.23 Control Delay 42,7 40.1 0.9 22.9 27.6 0A 45.3 36.5 0.3 39.6 35.6 1.7 O,ueue Delay 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Everglades Bind - Oil Well Rd -2030 P bi no PJ 02r13r2020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 199 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lane�,'JOltames, Timing 1 : E;rerglades Blvd � Oil 1�J�11 Rd o2,ti3rzo2o Lane Group EEL EET EER 1NEL WBT U11ER NEL t��ET NER SEL SET SBR Total Delay 42.7 40.1 0.9 22.9 27.6 0.4 45.3 36.5 0.3 39.6 35.6 1 LOS D D .�t C C A D D A D D A Approach Delay 39.2 24.3 37.1 24.5 F,pproach LOS D C D C Queue Length 50th l�) 135 a4 0 13 61 0 23 31 0 6 21 0 Queue Length 95th �) #�03 123 0 29 88 0 46 53 0 18 39 0 Internal �nh: Dist {�) 2310 1 �87 1399 13f2 Turn Eay Length {�) 604 aG0 640 5`LO 475 520 490 330 Ease Capacity (vph) 645 2184 103� 970 2726 920 212 2577 878 290 2692 910 Startration Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Redurtn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Reduced v� Ratio 0.7� 0.14 0.05 0.07 0.14 0.0� 0.40 0.07 0,02 0.0� 0.04 OA8 Intersection Summ area Type: Other Cycle Length:150 Actuated Cycle Length: �6.2 hJatural Cyrle:150 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated blaximurr7 vlr. Ratio: 0.7& Intersection Signal Delay:33.2 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capac�y Uilization 61.7°10 ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (mini 15 # 95th percentile volume e}xeeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shorron is maximum aftertv��a cycles. Elvd &Oil Well R.d Everglades Blvd -Oil Well Rd -2030 P ht no PJ 02t13l2020 Easeline Synrhro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page �200 Longwoter Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, TImIf1gS 1 : Everglades BI'A Oil Well Rd 02r13r2020 Lane Group EBL EBT EBP. UUBL 1tUBT UUBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configur1ions '� tt r ttt r ttt r I ttt r Traffic Volume (UT)hi 477 592 50 72 547 88 81 162 22 86 112 69 Future Volume (tiph) 47? 592 50 72 547 8E E1 162 22 86 112 69 Ideal Flow ttiphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1 %0 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length M) 600 500 640 520 476 520 490 330 Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length fit) 100 100 100 100 Lane Util . Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 0. E50 0.850 0.850 0.860 Fit Protected 0.960 0.960 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 3335 343E 153< 3335 4940 153E 3335 4940 153E 3335 4940 153E Fit Permitted 0.950 0.960 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3335 343E 153E 3335 4940 1538 3335 4940 153E 3335 4940 153E Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTO R) 169 159 159 159 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 45 45 Link Distance fit) 2390 1967 1479 1442 Travel Time (s) 36.2 29.E 22A 21.E Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.95 0,96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles (°i6) 5% 6% 5% 6% 5% 5% 5% 6% 5% 611r� 5% 5% Akij . Flow ph) 502 623 53 76 576 93 85 '171 23 91 11 E 73 Shared Lane Traffic (°%o) Lane Group Flow (Uph) 502 623 53 76 576 93 85 171 23 91 118 73 Tura Tape Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 E Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 7 4 4 3 S 8 Switch Phase blinimum Initial (s) 5.0 12.0 12.0 5.0 21.0 21.0 5.0 10.0 10,0 5.0 10.0 10.0 t�linimurn Split (s) 13.E 20.E 20.E 1 "s o 55:3 65.3 13.E 18.8 18 A 13.3 55.3 55.3 Total Split (s) 25.0 63.1 63.1 17.E 55.9 55.9 13.E 53.3 53.3 15.E 55.3 55.3 Total Split (/0) 101% 42.104 42.1 % 11.9% 37.3''Jo 37.3% 9.2% 35.5% 35.5% 10.5% 36.9% 36.9°,v Maximum Green (s) 16.7 54.E 54.E 9.5 47.6 47.6 5.5 45.0 45.0 7.5 47.0 47.0 1`ellow Time (s) 4.E 41 4.8 4.E 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 AJI-Red Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (6) E.3 8.3 E s E.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 E.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 LeadiLag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Dead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes �iehicie Ekension (s) 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk 40.0 40.0 40.0 40,0 Pedestrian Calls (Abr) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 16.7 19.2 19.2 18.6 21.0 21.0 6.0 10.0 10.0 6.0 10.0 10.0 fi%ctuated giC Ratio 0.19 0 22 0.22 0.21 0,24 0.24 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.12 0.12 vic Ratio 0.7E 0.82 0.11 0.11 0.4E 0.19 027 0.30 0.07 0.40 0.21 0.23 Control Delay 43.6 41.9 0.5 30.0 30.0 1.0 43.3 37.0 0.5 43.9 36.1 1.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0a0 Everglades Bind -Oil Well Rd -2030 PM w PJ 02i13i2020 Baseline Syr,rhro 10 Report Pagel Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1201 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lines, Voltames, Timings 1 : Everglades Blvd Oil Well Rd 02t1312020 -wee#� - t"' Lane Gra�_ip EEL EET E6P. 1�EL IiUET 1n16R tJEL tJET hd6R S6L SET SER Total Delay 43.6 41.9 0.5 3010 30.0 1.6 43.3 37.0 0.5 43.9 36.1 1.7 L03 D D A C C A D D A D D A Approach Delay 40.7 26.5 35.9 29.7 Approach LOS D C D C Queue Length 50th M) 136 172 0 17 98 0 23 31 0 25 21 0 Queue Length 95th fit) #E210 222 0 N 136 7 46 54 0 0 40 0 Internal Link Dist M) 2310 1 "7 1399 1362 Turn Bay Length fit) 600 500 640 520 476 520 490 330 sssss Ease Capacity (uph) 641 2103 1028 712 2706 914 2M 255$ M 2V 2611 904 starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 spillback tip Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced u/c Ratio 0.78 0.20 0.05 0.11 0.21 0.10 0.36 0.07 0.03 0.32 0.04 0.08 Ir�tersectian surrimar� Area Type: Other Cycle Length:150 Ar_.tuated Cycle Length: 86.9 hJatural Cyrle:150 Control Type: Actuated-Uncgordinated blaximurri v1r. Ratio: 0.82 Intersection Signal Delay:,?4.7 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity rJtiliaation 71.3°ro ICU Level of Service C Analysis Feriad (min)15 # 95th percentile valurr7e e�reeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is ma„imum after two cycles. stJlits and Phases: 1: Everglades Blvd &OiI1111e11 Rd 4- �� Evrerglades Blvd -Oil U11ell Rd -2030 F b1 au FJ 02l13t2020 Baseline S;rnchro 10 Repart Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 202 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Randall Blvd & Desoto Blvd Intersection H�;�rl �41 r� `1•w1Jw;� I : DeSoto Blvd Randall Blvd I)?,' 1 rs'2;Ar0 Latsl��:xxr. - -- Int Way, stweh+ 343 �41a• PmOrr+ JMWE - M Eta+' WK WET A ESR NBL NUT _ NBR • S5L 98T SSR L-r-qe CGNq�IgIjTahCna +T + 4+ fraft Vol re1Nr 28 U 2 2- 2 0 R 117 0 2 78 `#ice FutureVd. ueh2 2 0 82 117 0 t ;.g Odin Pry, A14f 0 0 0 ID 4 Q 0 0 15 'J 0 C Si99 tnlro Stop Stop Fn'ap Stop Stop S4op Free Free Free Free Fri'= rrrz�fj R 1 CNnnOvd Nar>aa - tNtJnlr one hl:an ► Sior�ge Lergta tieh oil $Adar► Sla dge #- r;;�cia, r', ,v lea N Hour Factor aa3 86 89 $8 M 816, 68 84 88 66 98 4P I1riot VeMes, % 19 2 -.2 2 4 v 2 r 15 4 MWrM Plow 32 0 24 2 2 0 93 1,?:3 0 2 &9 64 R1q=2rt o,mr MrW Wort hMajart Melcs2 Conf icti qg FWr A! 4415 444 12 4v6 47r; 113vm3 15 �� I� 13 +'� 0 + � 1 125 12:, 319 311 ED Sw3ge2 ;020 31y i.7 rrillrai 7 29 6.52 652 7 12 6,62 622 414 4 12 Critical I v; '�tg 1 n.'99 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - d1w H*r 1g 6 s 5 5"r - 6 >? 5,52 - - - - - - Fdlcw�up Hdyj _'. ;r' 14 r11!:, 4+ 5M s.51aa 4 016 J J i s 2.2.k. - 2.218 P I Cap-1 Mar[OuOer 495 5V, 855 515 488 %910t 1415 -_ .i452 _ - Qqwl i IC04I I ; 4t t�s:i 85,E SIge 2 rci 7 653 8% 768 r�lw Qqp-1 Manew% 466 471 855 47? 452 91, 1415 145: r1a�►CAp-7 Ma re n,� �6 471 d7:� �a`? Stage 1 780 790 CA4 15'07 hc�rvich C � 4yfl NB S6 t�itrr-r lan�►lliruliti►ri� a�P�lay i'�1�h1 I r1G'vi�v �w°ire HG� Calstrai A��law (�S HCL J 1_3rtu LC;i HCM 1 Ro4? queh'r 2 3 0 0 0 C u, D��r,•1:� 91'.�1- Ft�n3.� El•�r�-1v1J3+,!l1 �21i16�7;:��b Bt�isslin6 �yrrCt>ro 10 R�:per� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 203 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 iI•;Icirsc�:U��n �kah+eto I:�'t t:� l ��F� RNLI. ','�� I t����; II�L t'1C1, tJp=� 5�i. S•I'3T tilrFt �1�1�r�'u'r�l, i'�1;41 �� � t'i; :�• d G 1n+.�' 1 it :i 1��1 t ----- �ign ��ar°�d Stop- Sty Slop 5t� Stop 5t,�p frfe �r�o � T� rroe f'r�� fro$ �T Gh�annt�rt�� - Dane - - Pk+t►,d - - hac�nr: - l�on��� '•iF�?Yy �ICfIICl�, '�n QLi ri L. � � � �. � '� ry � �'vi�t Raw 4Q 0 •�ll 3 3 4 114 163 d � I�� fb �I�Mltmt li�t�ctrx_ Mtrx t �►1�lar t hial�x� �:.t?nitGhl'� Rq'�F,ii °�� C'd^• tA$ �:a,".�8d �i3 Ic�i' �,• �I '.t::� ';1 f - Ctt6c,a �dlov� u� HiT�a � 3 �45 A i�d5 3.�d5 � 5d5 d Od5 � �A5 2 2d5 2 7�5 • . �'gtip-1 Ma��eu►'er Qd3 dd� $51 +t19 $�'4 1 - - i�8 . — ��Gs�•I A4rnwuver 4�� 40(i �"�i 3S� 3 874 13r9 - '�a98 - 7Y7+�r} /tppr�rt'� �t:,h� �vnirri ��13Y ; 1 t.� t a 4 3� •�? 1 - lu4r�.r La��a It�i�f f�vr:tl � 11=L f 113T t•t�R �F�i n 11��CLr ► SfiL SEs � S� racy lv�f►�nj Ike; - �:j2 ?.�� I�t�+6 - - +•!uA{ �},^,�,{ Lang L��'+ � • A E; p �. ;?�'� E�v� - kanr�ll f��rd - ��:��.i r,�tia � u N�, 1�� iilas�iln� �yl :I,• �1;? R:}:�y I Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page l 204 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 H � ry'1 �� � r 4;tc�rsas:l;an !I�t Delay, smNeh _ rt�l E�F� 1'dL'L :'��I l'1'�F? t•IE,I I'IB7 '�!�'=�' S9l �g1 �;�,P �1�1u.�'d�l.`.�I•��YI ;Jr t1 ,�6 ;? 3 if �'2`` ?� d d 11�? r'., t41 Ci'tc3rf�lEXl�r3C - fete __ - f+iC�RcT_, ('�Ur1� - t'aut1C .SCvr•=J� Le�gl _ �•avy '��icic a, '�� S 5 � r 5 � S �- 5 5 yti, �►vrTk Rc+�v 4tl t] � 3 .� 0 243 � 0 3 19t1 70 �.�,niIGIICg Rrra,��~�E15 {►63 199 iCf1A �022 � 2�s a � 292 0 � - ��tIC3 �Ilr�a t:� H[1+r,"� ?. �';: � �1d.5° 3.3dr5 3i�i�+ d 0�� 3 345 2 "t+l•5 • ?.��5 tulaht G3E• t Dian�,r�er 1i�;3 tl�t t?3d 1;�8 I$ � ?4jJ 1:j11 �2�;j Mo�+Gsp-'t�faltyu'rr� 183 1�t 1� 1�= !lirs� La��h1„y�� Nivr�l r16L FiBT r,1€fR �€�? n Iti4'CLr l 3EiL :� i 5!? �:3� r�iy Ivuh'►ij 1:�11 - - 3P� ib�► 1�5� - - Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 205 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 ;I�rs��::ur,n ���� c��r��►►>�e�� 'fta�c Vol; v91r�h Ag �u1�D�'��I. `���l�m �r7 C:;atrl�efitt,g �t9s, 0#ta a ,Sign ���_�r��a Step �T �:hr�nn�¢�� - .St��r=�? La°tgti V�h l�l �r�d �,, vl����,� � - ��, �u Rel99c Hatr F��ipf 7� il-1e�vy'�f�id�, �=� irk Rai �� fl+�t7 wr ��� w� w�'r way _ r��� r�,��__ rlia� ��:__ ��r "�,� � �� ,a �1 ��� � d �� �fi a c 1��?� �� ii �+ 1 �'� � tl �"� ; r D p isi�1 � 0 D G U � � � 15 I] t� G �;c,t, ;1c� :3tt�' �f�p �,t�� i"r�e fr?e � 'r,� free `rF.� Prue � - - a - - � - - v �� � � �, - T9 7'B T� 79 r'� r� 7� 191 l9 7� 7�- .... - � y � � � f� it � $ 12 tU3 � p � 5d S5 � Q 13� A4 �.t'7fititfilr� �'fl'/� i`�i' �:.:�I JFS1� f ~',� �e �l! �f�1) '�# 1 i Ci I,:V rl `';ii '.I t �iar�a 1 1`a� 15A - ��d - - - - - - - i� ; .1 i9 6.52 6.2a r' <1 0_52 Ei � d �� � - - � ' i . �itiCer �iC!'Mj Mfg � �. ly � 5 � �� a.`�� F�dVry Slig � �.15 b.5�7 � � ;.' � 5: - �dl�w�u�Hdwy ?.�j►; 4�1t� 3.;�i1 :3.`���� dOf�' �:�1c1 'i1� ��:1t� � ��-1 Matlr�u►�er 56$ $7# 5'� 551 13.-�`� - - a A�� - - Sl*31g�: T'�t 733 - i53 - - - - - - - luica dap• I Men�wet' 544 87d 47 t 62� � 13;�& ?498 +�;�.� ��:;�'_' Nlsttv�uer �72 5d�1 d7' `�1 �i��t: i�7 70� - 7i� F5s - - - - _ .. �h,l �'onini �l�r t:�P:d L�=,:_� l�lt+cr L��� fa1�;c� 1Avml �a� �vet�nj ++:�A� L�n�'ti�IC I�afi�' �:r�l �faMrd ids}� ��) H,�i+l La n� L? ��+ +iGM �11� °�li(�.(�r�ftt 1 L�'. a t IbL f� fdL�T Pl�R �Ln14'�'C�I_r-`f� I_ - - �3d - 1�95 'I.�f� rl 1 � � n ;� - G 8 �� - - -- �,A� — - r::.� �v�- F�andall Blvd- ��d �;1� ��.,_�� �� P�sp7 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 206 H+itwrv�i _Ij 6 110; Y c� rt;lursr�aion r l ��c�s�t�, £�'avh �•.� i8na 4iI c 4 + 4 ((Mrirc Vol vam 60 0 I G'S ri g 56 99 0 a 131: 46 � %Xd4Ch PG te, WIV Q a u a 0 0 a o 0 a sign C_imJ Stop SW Stop abap Stop Stcp Free Free � ree Free Free Free i1 TGwnnu IzLc - - & - None - None Kane Storage Length - - - Veh to Mew 51+ r - - - 0 } 4a Haut Faclat 3 33 9t? y ri c�u $3 93 W 93 93 93 Omvy'�Isttidmo A 5 5 15 5 r; 5 �+vrr+i Row 65 9 113 0 9 9 ILL if r3 u Q 14LD 4U1 I�r:tN�llrrx ht►��t� IJ�r��t ; MHItr1 Malor2 nfidlN Row 1 3196 3% 1 M dr5p? .D WC: 194 I"• rl Lou J t; e 1 170 170 - 226 - - - uta e 2 226 2W. 2 1:+•t - Wal HcWy ,.15 656 6.25 7,15 6.55 6.25 415 - 4.15 + ticil +-It1/1y Sig 6.1v 5 K 6.?5 5,55 tWd H" Sag 2 0.15 5.56 - 615 555 follow• upf Httsr� f 3 F�M}., 41'�d� 3.345 3.a45� 4 0 93 315 2 245 2,245 v p-1 Mapawar 50 636 $66 5iS 520 040 1361 - - A67 - - S lampa 1 8235, 752 - 77C, loll - - - - - - - ±�atccin Giuked % - - itloV Cop, I Maneuver 639 511 8W 4W 496 O+W 1461 =46 !fir Cap 2 Maneuver 539 511 430 No - slap 1 71 7w 734 678 IMP rI6 � _ - t�M �IS{N Lanal h t Myml 1 IbL 11R i WAR 7BLn 11FOGL r 1 SE}L =`_+fi i S1?a +CM Le an'+,?;'C Patic +" 'i.14 :-I''r Hrpm Conird C'day (5.1 IN F, I E,1M Lane LC �3i r`a It E, !ti i-1Qm 9 111 Wile CAWlrl ':' 1 - 1 � .`.}E�.'-}•tt;:� �'V41- hanl:>�JI �lvCl - lC�� i14 �• �; I �,r�•7 ;; i , «; N `�' r�: l �• �� 1f) f� �;�::� I Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 207 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Herw'� �� � r_� �r�,�� ar,lerSfx:lro� _ �Ilt �E�aj', ��� ' �: 8�) F�li.rFl l �F31� '��iL'l '.'�!' I �N�I? P1CL I'JEt� fJ�'=+ 53: :ITT ti�R Tt>�(`►� ��� w�hJh �Q � ��I �.:' u u I3G 1t1f 0 [1 �1 Air 1=uI�IT9'dQ1,1�6i�h qi} l� :�I �"� C1 C 13f3 1fl.1 0 [1 �1 +JLi �ad«r:e+� a f] 0 � u �s � � o 0 4 a &inn �,-,n-�ea Step- 5.;�� Siap :St��� Slop �,t.�� (ree Free � rr,� Free Frei I"r�. i�f Gf�nne`I�e�: - - - k,�rra - - haone - � f•au,te V`ah l a A4er� �1gt8ge � 0 - - 0 - - � - - � - �:racle, '� a n �,� � - Q�ic Haut F��Idt S3 93 � y;J�"+ 3.i 9�3 83 � �Ci ��3 �4vy'd�i�crs,''� 5 5 �, L ti :5 5 �• 5 5 � 5 k►vt1+! AtINY �S � �4B rJ 0 � 1 :5 1��1 � l3 �� +4�IaNMlrar � 1Vytxsr s ht»Iai t M�t+�i� .�� �.pnlrGhrg R�r� pt� �i7 � �i� ?C�i'� �� � fi;��1 iti� �.3;i f;� � t9ti � li ►age 1 - 4<�� +�gl - - - ��Fti�a Hdhy° 7.1� 6.5rJ 6.�i 71� fi 55 ti � � 15 - - �. t5 - - r;,ll�,�,�. i.�� t11-�„°� ? �1�� �,7�. 3.:�FI :l �F' �.�I,� .� .-'i�J� � L�5 � 1��J J'Cik t;�p-t Ma�ieu►Far �D1 315 7'2� �A� ��G &� 1213 - - 13l9U - sstagr3.7 � 5�3 - 5� 6�b - - - - - - - �; � Cep• t #A�i�nrer �3 7� 14� ��4 83A 1213 :. �.. - _ _ . , . _- - - -__ �r Gsp 2 fJlane��r'er �;5 2?3 14v 2r;4 � -- 1 � � - d7� 1� - - - R 11�a�� La,�� l�iy i+lyml r IE�L f dE� i I•IijR �.d n 114'GLr l SEiL :�i7 s,FaN Ei"r�� L��r't��;t; Rain. �� 1'�" l�.u� t-h^.M Control Gelay (�) � 4 r� 2, � : n ;� - . - .-- - �tuM L��te L ,��, ;ti, - �9 r� f- ;',r:�'d�:':� FJaiJ - F�;�hd�ll t'd'� �I - iiJlJ i'tti4 e�' F'.I �;'1;���J2� �a.4�! r.:: �jt�:l�'� 1�;a h:�:��1 P:�:��. � Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 208 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — August 2020 Randall Blvd & Everglades Blvd Intersection HGM 201 O .AW SoCol I : Everglades Blvd Randall Hl'11 01(92020 (rrrar�:<,m ly Mcrrsln^rz E91. EBT EBR WHL �NBT 'NBR NSL NBT NBR SBL SST SEIR Tra0z Vol vehfh i 4 ;Y 86 8 16C% 111 218 12.' 1.3 6 163 16b Ful,ire V.J 1)efvb 4 ;i1 $;a a 1r:1 1G 218 122 15 6 163 1Efi Peak Hour Faylor 0 9.1 G �P) tl'iS 0.93 0.q. Q tr.3 D rt3 ';j 93 d 5+3 0193 0403 093 Hema-iPf'v2hides, 9% lil �4 i�1 2 2 22 M, 12 40 13 y hivn1" quw 8U 40 S $ 17e 11 2M 131 14 6 175 1 /0 NL1111k%f d Laney LI I CI a 1 Win"' Ee 1Arf No VP Ps NR C"Osing Lariee 1 1 1 1 Conficlinrg lW,, oKh LeA ._,E? NIB EB VVB C;onkfing Linos Left 1 I 1 1 CA I i c h 9, g i��giach R i g h I NE S8 vile EB C40chny Le les I?x tt! 1 1 1 1 HOt+ GcQ'm l Delay 144 I41 2 1.6 21.3 HCV LOS P 8 ,C c Line NRtn 1 EBU 1 WBLP 1 SBLI71 'Vol Thru Nt aS 19=A 9f7pl6 9946 ,on C"Ird slap slap Sb* stop iraf o c Vc; try.' Lire F�:� 33a LT Vd ' 216 14 8 6 RT Vcj 13 88 1+] Iti+i Lase 1l w Bale 80 214 :trAor, 364+; Geome y Grp 1 1 1 I D gtcoo cf I_Ilt IX O'.+672 0.404 G,378 {i_R55 17epfan-ore a�edmy yHd) &.372 6795 G 874 6W Carrvrgerc8, Y.1111 '1'vi Yas 'i'ea Yes cap rrcr, 626 20 W St'f ICLI ° 11110 i. 41 4 869 4 !'48 4 W9 HCt Lane Vn" R&1io 1.1 r;l I G 407 0,381 HS HCrV ; uplid U448y 2 1 E 14.4 141 213 14Cf'1~A Lane LOS B 13 G HGV2 ..=,6rh-hlt ti, 5 19 1.7 4.7 kvfxf4od" H-vd - RimJ31 91)).1 X VD A111 020:11.121320 Bind ne .5piclid 10 Roporl Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 209 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —August 2020 1; Everglades Blvd & Randall Blvd lnter,�cUat (� .,y �± - - Ini tLi } i�7 LJf aya iihi '�t 51 6 Intersecli0q Lei F I�nitirr>�natN EH� FAT E�Fi IN6L W8T Y��F? hJ�L tJ6i I!�Eia �,� �f3t S1?R l� ie Colo iguraliarrs r 414 *14 41, Traffic Vol, YeWo 96 46 114 11 215 13 2K, 151 F 6 0111 215 f u SIIL� Vd '1F:tilT 96 115 11» 11 E'.. t3 'L'�r' 112658 I Z11 215 f wk Him Faco 096 095 G % 095 0.95 099 0 2% tl Pb 0 C6 0% 0,95 0`6 Hlmy ' chic es, % 5 5 5 5 5 5 c �, 5 5 r f+Jfvrric Raw 1041 51 120 12 M t4 291 1► f, 15 8 222 72 tdi mtr-.r r� Imes C 1 Q 0 t n D 0 1 Ir' � 1NI3 M8 SS �pcslri�xxcac't 'aUE; 1-1' rLi Zirf i4ch Pg App7.gac.i Left .S6 NE, co '+Y� :gtttifaling Lanes Leff Drifding F,ppr �mlr Pilgtil NF1 1'�P f• 14nkUiig Lanes Rgnt t 1 1 1 HCu COnlyd rh Ry 24.6 23.5 7!9.:� 543.9 h1cm 16046 - + F F T1aru1 Id`cl S1grt atttrcll Sly? Stop Slop Tr fti, Vby Lane 45alp ' 258 239 4M LT Vd 262 96 11 8 Tlroilgh vd tea 48 215 2" " ft7 Vd 17 114 13 215 Larte flow Rate 461 2'72 2` Z 57 �eot , Gp C�e�.;ree el I_Ihl (X 1 (134 C, PO 0.593 0 9&3 ' fleparl" Hwdmy (Htl) 7 TN 8 529 80779 70586 :1orivergeftce, WN Yet Yes Yes Yes 467 426 413 41 W E'fVl4`E TIm3 5.92 G 23 ti. i a �4 5 5K ICU Lane VC Rabo 1.03 0 M 0.61 0 952 HCV C0I Q1 1)dFIV 7%93 24,6 2$J555 5:� Q L ICAA Lafle Lou i c F HCM t 60h-t1i)ri 144 Ad 1 3 i 11. r f�►+ar�a� �,r�- i�ahc�ll 1�v�-J�1 tw p� C�,'14f2+Qr�fi► east�u� Syt�ttta 19 R.�{:iorf �e 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1210 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 HCh�1 2{}1� �ta�'�� EtirF3F���+�E?S F�I���r:l �x Rartclall �I�c� �r�'1�'�0?� ilsl�f5r�t:il�n - --. r�ltrr�:liutt G�33s `''4$Il ".h st�iarse�bnn L[�S �� I�h+4merd EBL EB'T kBR 1k6L WET �J1'E�' t�1hL FJ$`f f�f� ::,E+L �P�i :�E.,R i,aile �::rirfi qureGi:aiE +� 1" - -- - - � �, - - '�ratfic w'd, vrlhl?i �'; 41S 114 11 21 a I a 2�L 15�i I i b � 11 "? I �� �u1��reb'd,k�ef•��h ��� �3 114 11 �1� I� 2�t I��'~ 1. E� ,�11 ^1�� giP�1t I�l4a,,ufr, Fartar C� _� i; :�5 �i. �5 Q.t� � � Guy � � C� �S r„ � � ii'rC• � ?5 ? �5 '' 7 K Sa l tl� � 1. �?5i FI Fi �i Fi ,r,'1 r,'i rj �l F r F� MyrT9Anw 1,�1 St 1� 12 Id ?'�i' 1�a 1► 6 ??� rr"� ,.Jiini�� ni Lz�tS � 7 '� Cl 1 �"� I 1 �"� f_i 1 7 �4Gtxr,�rr C}? Wll �•J8 SEA y �. C�pr�sing/�Gre.�l'i '�'�Ii. EE S@ hdC� G�pc�irtg Lance 1 2 .� � �;.�;,n1�Glir� r+��rr�::h L�li ��f3 t�E EB� 1"�'E C.ritri+�llrag L*1�+s Lett � � � 1 �,�rrt:chrE.HF;tx�rl-�;�nnt t�i' 41P �"dC'. El? C.,c��.i+tlir.� L�.�c� Right t 2 1 ,����!,. �' :� i-#Vht Contrci Gila}, � 4. � 2'.4 �a y !fi �� PagLn! N�Utit �BLni FHUi� Vµ8Lh1 S6Ln1 JBLn� 'ti'c3i i �f? c� -- I �;G"+: Cut, i� � �; ['��„ �vr?, �°•;, Cu` Va Thru, �6 � 9E9�6 Y39b 096 y� ��� t7ub �c� ��hl,'3b � I�J�� Q4a !�'L3K.� ti-,��� i��r� ir:A_l Sign f�orti�nl Slap Stop S#op S.t�:� ct�� Tta�ic 1Jd by L�r� �� 1?� 144 I�td �.�a �1L� 215� lt'Ud (.1 � � I1 6 p Thrt,trQh 5�� �� 1� 4t� � t1Y� 21' �� F�1' Vc� A 17 D I tq I:� Q �15 _.�t�e lawi�t4 2�,' ISA 1`� 12_� �5L '�3' ?'�S t�eam�alry � � � 7 T � � � l��cre@ �' 4�>tl {J4ti �} � �.�3 � 35i3 � ���+ �.`t�' � �� ��.�� tat�� H�edi�y (�dl 8 Q�iB 7.d811 8 �� ? +*fit P 1 +� r „� 4; g`11 �n1�er��ca, �(tN Y� 'Y'PS l�'es 'r'�s 'r'gc, 'r'es 'r as �15 A?~? �� t �0 f � d��! � 1 E ��ruiL� Tlrrr[a � �1 t �� � � �� e����i 5 2� �• I� `_..ir::�{� d ?.It 1-tCtil I a ae w1C R►�In Cf �� � 3�4 �? :i6t t? ?�i �� �=? C� d�1 � G35 Ht11�+ C�,rdrt�i t�el�'i 2� � ��.v� 15 t�.' �i �1 '�? zt tL. 1 hIEM Lang L4�5 Q E G 6 '� '.� �v J=VBr�Ades E�,:i - +-t�t:c:til E+Y� - �43�� ,�t�t n�� i-�� 1lnpt:x���d rr,;1 �'�l]�}:1 �s�i�re �y(t':f"ts� 1�u� h,cF�r:y I P��, i Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 211 Longwoter Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 H1%,Pf`Iv1 2010 , WOC 1 : Fvercllades Blvd Randr-311 Blvd �l �ldr5�:11on 1ilefsechon LOS E i one :�riiydraGc:•n�. Teafic Vol, vohr?r Oture ad, vefob Peak How Factor ► leavy Vellides. =sir fr�vtnl Flow �Ju rnrr-,r ni L'"m01e5 0`�'13�202Q �T 132 11 ��;3 1a itit 17 B 217 21` 132 11 :�• 13 a3 151 1? fi 217 2 E� �0 cfia G 95 0 9 N 0 R5 095 095 0,95 095 � 95 5 ;' F)Fi F 5 5 5 13~ 12 41 14 3157 159 16 8 228 228 r) Ll 1 4Ppraach E? _ Um SIB SB tspwi ng Lanes 1 2 2 tii,rl ^lire r� fir .:h LefI s8 'JE EE WB .':wL1:119g Lzim, Leff 2 AMM 2 2 1 Cbrifi llrAF1Yoarh;:'Igtrl NO SP WB EP WitcOng Lines Right 2 �, 2 1 2 E lC.M Contrd Dda'; 2M 1 6.r. 47.2 22 W6 HCM Lc4S C F F C 410 �10 Thru. OOA 90% 4$46 93%0 9ba:, CA, Vd i 1 h1. �➢6 0% 11750� 0No 1CC% 4% W, 03% Sign 3o*d SW Stop 4*oTo '.�r%,kp .SWp Slap S?�)p _ TTafiic Vd by L=re 339 178 187 132 ,357 225 215 t vr3 M 0 98 0 11 8 �1 TtT:;4t111h '1/0 U 10 5 91 10 2 1 r' a -'I Va 0 17 0 132 13 0 21 _ane elm Fsa;o 357 1F7 19? 139 376 237 2226 ;eorrdky Grp r* 1 7 7 6 7 knee Of Ld IX) 0 933 0,4519 0 5:31 0-335 0,95 HF5 0,531 Depe Ln I*ad [Hdl 9411 8.849 9.711 8 711 9101 9196 8 444 GonaerWce, YIN Yes Yes Yes Y'4W5 'Yes Yes Yers 401 372 413 2113 425 Serviuv Time 7 178 h 58b 7 478 64 8 ? 1n 1 6 9M 6 212 1-CM 1 a n12 VrC Rat10 4 827 0458 053 0 337 050 11 MJ ❑ 532 ,t'6't Control Dday fit 18 9 23 15.9 *34 5 M G�� 4 +-CM Wile LC KS F C C C F C C i4CM L ;h-i e C 10 23 3 t 5 1117 3 6 3 !w,ner�erlos i�wd-1;tanc�Il 91vd - 2Q3t� AM 1rn�r�v'et� w PJ 85(1�Q He�ln� �yrrCh►� 1fl Rapcxl Pala 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1 212 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 02�14tLo2o Lane Grn�.�p EEL EBT EER. U�1BL 1�UBT bUBR NBL tJET i•JBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configur,:tions +' r + '� li� +T r Traffic Volume (4)h) 96 91 132 11 a33 via 339 161 11 8 217 216 Future Volume (U ih) 96 91 132 11 333 13 339 161 17 g 217 215 Ideal Flow (Jphpl) I900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length fit) 0 235 0 0 235 0 0 235 Storage Lanes 10 1 0 0 l 0 0 1 Taper Length fit) 50 140 50 U Lane (Ail, Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1 woo 1 '00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.�5o 0.995 0.986 0.050 Fit Protected 0.975 0.998 0.950 0.998 Satd. Flow (prof) 0 1764 1 W3 0 1797 0 1719 17U 0 0 1806 15n Fit Permitted 0.533 0.9ft 0.612 0.991 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 964 1533 0 1779 0 1107 17U 0 0 1793 16U Right Turn on Red No Yes No Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) a 226 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 1 Ua a57 602 545 Travel Time (s) 16A GA 9.1 U Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 195 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 Heavy Vehicles 6% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 6% 5% r0% 6% 5% AJj . Flow (vph) 101 96 1 a9 12 351 14 357 169 U 8 228 226 Shared Lane Traffic (°A) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 197 l a9 0 377 0 357 1 W 0 0 236 226 Tura Type Perm NA Perin Perm NA Perm NA Perin NA Perm Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 4 8 Detector Phase 6 6 6 2 2 4 4 P S 8 Switch Phase hdinimurn Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 C) 5,0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 hdinimurr7 Split (s) 2a.5 23.5 23.5 2a.5 23.5 2a.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 2a.5 Total Split (s) 5200 52,0 5200 52.0 52.0 38.0 an.0 X0 3P.0 38.0 Total Split (�'lo) 5708% 57,8% 57,3% 57,8% 57,�% 42.2% 42.2% 42.2% 42 2% 42s21% Maximum Green (s) 46.5 46.5 46.5 46.5 46.5 a2.5 a2.t> a2.5 32.5 32.5 `ellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 a.5 a.5 3.5 a.5 3.5 a.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.o 0.0 0.0 Total LDst Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 6,6 5.5 LeadlLag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Ekension (s) 3.0 a.0 3.0 a.0 a,0 3 0 a.0 3 O a.0 3.0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min Min None None None None None UUalk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash DDnt Walk () 11.0 l l .0 11.o 11 O 11.0 l l .0 11.0 11.0 l l .0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (Ahr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Atmt Effct Green (s) 17.8 17.E 17.8 31.3 a1.a al .a al .a W.atuatedgIC Ratio 0 * a 0 0.30 Ova0 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 ti•Ic Ratio 0.69 oval 0.72 0.62 0.20 0.25 0.25 Control Delay 32'8 18.a 27.2 17.0 9.5 9.9 2A Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Everglades Bhud -Randall Blvd - 20a0 AM Improved w PJ w additional irnprovernergs 02t1412020 Baseline Synrhro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 213 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —August 2uzu Lanes, FOlLames, Timings 1 : Everglades Blvd ?; Randall Blvd 02A4r2020 Lane Gro�_rp EBL EET EER. tNEL DUET 1QtER PJEL tJET tJER SEL SET SER Total Delay 32.E 18.3 27.2 17.6 9.5 9.9 2A L08 C E C E A A A Approach Delay 26 ° 27.2 14.5 62 Approach LOS C C E A Queue Length 501h eft) 65 40 124 83 33 43 0 Queue Length 95th (t) 130 78 205 208 W 99 32 Internal link Dist fit) 1003 277 522 466 Turn Bay Length fit) 235 235 235 Ease Capacity (Uph) 752 1200 1M 603 972 977 941 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v.+c Ratio 0.26 0,12 0,27 0.59 0.19 0.24 0,24 Intersection Surr7man? Area Type: ether Cycle Length: 90 Arcuated Cycle Length: 0.2 tJatural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated blaximum vk Ratio: 0,72 Intersection Signal Delay,17.6 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 7$.O% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 Splits and Phases: 1: Etreralades Blvd &Randall Blvd Et+erglades Bltid -Randall Elbd - 2030 At�l Improved w PJ w additional irnprovements 02t14�2020 Easeline Synchro 10 report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page �214 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �i�iarsr�;tion A�aranem EFL IrB l k B'r '.`� L;L �0 0 T !�V E!;{ tJEtL t�tE'C tvQlR 3f�L �!?T �L�� ! 111FF 1''91. `4E'1"�11 ii+ 144 .._'14 10 -_i I+"+ 11' 1�ti�i 13 11 ICO 107 - iFiWN u^pposln9�+PRr:�-�:li '1!R EE 5E, r'ie. Oppesirrg Lanes 1 1 1 1 ant+vlir�T �a�{:trarh Ltll �B tJf� EE t'iE, �Ot1�x;llt?� I_�zi�s Lull 1 1 1 _ I C'�nt�llrg F+f�:rc►�rh �ii�41 '!H SB VYB kP. Ccaniti�lir� �� I�ght 1 1 1 1 Iona t`aBLn 9 EBLn � IN�4Ln 1 S�Lni - .�. . Vq� Thsu, � 55� 3046 �39s� �.396 ,# Sign ^�+n�r,d S� ;Stap i S Trai%�'M�1 fey L=re 2'4 457 1,03 ���' lfiwd 111 12� 11;+ tf Th��;tigh 'fri 1 f'�+ 1 �4 Syr 1 Rt Vci 1;4 :' I� l� liti1 - ai�v - ee � �m I;r ti 4.54► �. 0 242 � 4�5 Ser�r!�rr Tltr� 4 � rl� 1 L�;u1 4 59r 15�;�va HCM Ld n� 'd� G I�iap❑ �+ 54 { � 4 �44 0 �' L=,n�t�iarS�s L� �:1- n'ru�'dl Svc" - �u:', i �-+r�l I1�i0712�p l�asdar+4 ft�hf� 1�4 k�;ul P � Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1215 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — August 2020 1; Eyerola&5 Blvd 81 Rar-id ill Blvd 0142020 2020 NI ,luf'ses.UDB I' Iersec tlou DO ay Won 8JZ6 ate - :han LOS F �h�ralnt�rlt f�1L �S'( kP� 'N6L INBT UItQR 1JBL t+tft'( t��i SEiL S13T �� Inc +► ++ 4 Tra1Gc Vol, velarFr 15r 1a' r YJ 1113 13 144 11�4 17 15 1$�e` 131 i�,rJre 'd,,�,er4��, 1�� I�; +r 4 101 13 144 1,94 1"112 131 Peal; Hour Factur S�fj it .95 0,95 0 % 0! 5 095 0.95, 095 0 6 0,95 0 *95 0.95 t keavy Vvlic es, ''u 5 5 5 5 5 .5 F 5 5 5 vn 1^tuw 1N 1 Ir ?W? 76 108 14 152 204 16 16 1 r 1 I :sJ1 `Juntei� ni Lasie5 h � WF! s`a8 S6 Fposinrg Approze lr 'paD EE SP tile, i pfiwoing Lanes 1 1 1 1 i, jrflctircg 1�{fxr,:ai:h LefI so NB E6 1"iE w4cling Lx% 1e11 1 1 1 1 �;0111rvllrg,�fproarhRig,41 'AJH 5R WB EP' Z:olt I id ij1 Lm-iii Might +4�M Conind �ela�' MA.'' 03;3.5 � 992 MCM LO F �n� NBLn 1 E6Ln 1 VI�Ln f 5�U11 Vco Throe % 65% j0% 7JIles 53°ds poi Fght. % 5% 44% 90: 43% Sign Stop SCCCU, SIoi, Sr�p emihc Vol by Lare 355 631 14, 93rk t T Vd 144 167 F 5 15 TITOugh VO 194 1K Iw 1Fa2 IT Vd1 1, _alle l UOj t�;�1e 374 6'D4 148 324 �w"Ly Grp I 1 1 1 0769 1258 0.336 0-655 11 eWure Heado? w [Hdl 8145 16 10 8 553 8.0552 �mlerbgenm, WN yes YAMS 're 'r'rs 418 01 C 6 451 Servi,.ri Tima 145 4 86S r. 55• b 652 i-1 m (tine �rIG RWI❑ 0 LA5 125 0: '. 0 718 4CM Conlred Ddat ±ti 5 b53 1 16,3 6*2 40M Lavie LOS D F C Q CM 951lb ,i e ; in 3 5 4.6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 216 H�hY�1 �7 P �111+ i'Sye'4+�+ter 1. Fverc leadiias BIN)d Rarichill RIB; d �'14!202D r Aersechun aoay s,vem 21011 :ntemer-hon LOS r [w4ty►tWr�artl E6L E�'f l:BR ►1�6L WET ��1tP�i r•l6l tab f r.E� _:.NL_ _ Sl Traffic Vd vohlt, 167 187 2; 7 t5 1))3 13 144 LILM 17 15 182 131 + u1urevd, `ref ro tar 157 21r 25 1CO3 13, 1414 1ol `t4 I? 15 152 131 peg Hour FoIAur 0:X 0:095 0 C, `t,• C %w4 0 45 4_ r,• 45 k c 095 0.95 095 ovyr Vehi `.1e'3, `SiT 5 5 to 5 5 x r 5 5 1y /j'11r Fir ,v 170 1 Low 7r.rf 75 1INI 14 1 Ntd i4 I N I fi 1 T 1 IN!, 'J„ r7i t��jpP�4Jf<r L— L'1 A L' Upposing Appr,; aCh ^, n EE 1E• til01 Cppming Lanes 1 2 2 �or:firlir�7 'iftr.rh Lr11'8 `JP EP :, ?'bitkllrq I.aPes Lett 2 2 2 1 DII r11Ido Apopoarh RighI No `B �'iL'. FP Cbith li , Lames Right 2 2 1 2 +1;1�4 Cuntn_t C.3y 25:h `.t �F. y4.9 cm LOS 1�a _ N6Ln! NNF3Lr'� �BLtif �HLr►1 V1r�Ln1 SM�l.r±1 59Ln2 '4'C�`• L£11 "� 1lil:'�: RUB,, �� �'. ��rr.. Idti: aar� - ��. cd ihi,1, Rq. a°5 Q° ti�C LOOP oav r7 tORR Sign Oo*d stop stop S;op Sw Slop S We SA Tt`atfrc Vd by Large 144 211 354 27 14 S 1 r i 131 LT Vd 144 i9 167 0 25 15 01 . Ttxvughvd 0 1u1 187 I;D 1E 1v1 a RT Vd 0 17 0 111 13 0 131 _anu*l rj RaA 152 21 373 2'42 148 166 1a5 c GomB4 Grp 7 'r 7 7 71 free 1 Lid ; Y } 0 352 041? 0.782 UN 0.34 0 415 0 278 t3Wra Hea y [Hd} 8•34c�l 7,75 7 552 8 595 8.244 8 0415 7 249 ;orvergvi v, WN yes 'Yes Yes Yes •Yap, 'Yes Y'ey 454 481 545 435 4C% 195 €rvrtir Time 8103 5, 52`; L 3•61• 4.34E � u`�:hi 5, ; 7-:l 5 D b HCM Lalie V C Rallo 0353 0 418 0 Tru 0 W6 0 M 0 414 0 21$ NCM Control M. ay 15 6 1' 325 16 i 15 5 `18 4 12 8 140M Lam LOS C c d c C c (:I' ,11m 951. -lieC 1� �� '- 1 15 2 r� ��x�ar�5 L�Ivtii --i�oc�ll �+1� - 2Q3>1 �ht n� F�J trrt}�i::nad f' 14�2'I�:rsdiri� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 217 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TI ) — Section 2 — August 202u H %m4vl 2010 VV 1, Everglades Blvd #x Randall Blvd n�terse4�or► Jr 'Jer"8i_t+on LOS E �,at�� i:c�rtigur�4onu. Tra1<ic-Vd, vehrh ► lrlure VcA '4'e, An Peak, Flour Factor r ►eapq V'ehidees, % Row wntw of Lane: 5 J 02t141202+0 17 15 169 I.e 0 095 0 95 Ppp�c3^h L� ''�'F1 '•1E �E pposing Approwh INN EE OO HE C}ppwing Loner 1 2 ? ;or,Irtir�jIl E:rrerhtelt SB NE EE 1"gib birlicilrg Lines loll 2 7 2 1 �,ont.rhrg +�frgarh �;rr�nt t,lg SR + cml��lir 1e5 Right 2 Z 1 r 1,CM Control 04lay 224 20.3 7 4 cm Los F C C C I~anu N6Ln! f'QhLt� E�Lni FBLril� {11t13L1i1 s�i.nt �BLn� r� V. i EI' � 1 ill': t�, j Vot Thro. % C 92`65% 0% 8 CA, 6 41 INhr, % r_,�,_ a.4. 0% 1CC% 6 0%103 Sign Cordrd S*cr :s(cp Saw %* Stop 543P Tra$ic Vd trY Lary 1; 219 472 :i33 216 1F'a 131 lT vd 171 0 167 0 26 15 0 - TtTou9h Vci "+ 212 YX 1 Z5 l id: 'B I Vet 0 1? 0 3;�a I a 131 tai ie q or F :2:t) Ili 2013 i 497 351 227 1 iA 138 - ;eowy ifp 7 7 7 0 i _ ;free of LIE JK1 0461 0 5W ' 118 07,01 0 A15 0 4F 0,304 ure Mean [Hdj 9.24 8#164 8.103 7201 8.M 9 006 8 M c.Dnaergertre, YfN Yes Yes 'yes Yes 'few Yes Yes :s93 420 M $01 407 403 40 Servi,.. Torn ti_{�1 6,364 5 M 1193ti 6 4M 6 7M, 5 S 3 1CM We Vic Rdo 0 413 055 1 1 U 7'01 0 %6 0 461 0314 CM Control Delay IEi 5 20,% 1(Yz+7 25..2 22 1 t#S4 14.5 t 0M Lane Los C C F D 0 C + CM RIAhaie 0 24 31 17.3 5.4 32 24 13 - f=,�r�ades ka�:1- i-�auctll E+v`� - ��sG F'1�1 Im�ruve�1� I'� o�� 1$ii:4q �as��ne 7 Syt�hrt� 1U Ro�;t:+l Pad, 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 218 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS - Section 2 - August 2020 Lanes, �,raltames, Timings 1 : Everglades Blvd ; Randall Bled 02,ti41z020 �` %*v l 4/ Lane Groi_ip EBL EBT EBP. 1NBL Ui1BT 'UUBR NBL t°1BT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r +1: T +1 r Traffic Volume (vph) 167 305 333 25 178 13 177 202 17 15 169 131 Future Volume (vph) 167 306 333 25 178 13 177 202 17 15 169 131 Ideal Flow+phpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1940 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (it) 0 235 0 0 235 0 0 235 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 Taper Length V) 50 140 50 0 Lane fail, Factor 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .00 1600 1.00 1,00 1 M Frt 0.850 0.992 0.988 0.850 FIt Protected 0.983 0.994 0.950 0.996 Satd. Flow (Prot) 0 1779 1538 0 1784 0 1719 17H 0 0 1802 1538 FIt Permitted 00 0.924 0.636 0.963 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1453 1538 0 1659 0 1161 1788 0 0 1743 1538 Right Turn on Red No Yes No Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 5 138 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 45 45 Link Distance {tt) 1083 357 602 545 Travel Tirne (s) 16A 5.4 9.1 8.3 Peak Haar Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.95 0495 0.96 0.95 Heavy Vehicles {°/o) 5% 5% 6% 5% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 6% Adj . Flow ph) 176 321 351 26 187 14 186 213 18 16 178 138 Shared Lane Traffic {°h6) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 497 351 0 227 0 136 231 0 0 194 138 Tum Tppe Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 4 8 8 Detector Phase 6 6 6 2 2 4 4 8 8 8 Switch Phase tolinimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 f�linimum Split (s) 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 Total Split (s) 52.0 52.0 62.0 52.0 52.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 Total Split C/o) 57.8% 57.M 57 OM 570M 57,M 42.2% 42.2% 42.2% 42 2% 42.2% Maximum Green (s) 46.5 46.5 46.5 46.5 46.5 32.5 32.5 32.5 32.5 32.5 1`ellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 AJI-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Tirne Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 Tcdal Lost Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 LeadlLag Lead -Lag Optimize? tiehicle E)dension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min Min None None None None None Valk Time {s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Lunt Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (fibr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 Act Effct Green {s) 26A 25A 26A 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 Arotuated g1C Ratio 0A7 0.47 0.47 0929 0.29 0.29 0,29 ,fc Ratio 0.72 0.48 0.29 0.55 0.44 0, s8 0.25 Control Delay 18.6 12.5 9 0� 25.3 20.3 19.5 52 0,ueue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Everglades Bled -Randall Blvri - 2030 PM Improved w PJ w additional improvements 02t1412020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page �219 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Everglades Blvd Randall Blvd 02A4r2020 Lane Gtr�up EBL Total Delay L08 Approach Delay Approach LOS Queue Length 50th kit) Queue Length 95th (t) Internal link Dist (11) Turn Bay Length M) Eas e Capacity (uph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback crap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced We Ratio Intersection Surnm Area Type: Other Cple Length: 9G Actuated Cycle Length:53.7 PJatural Cycle:00 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated blaximum vlr, Ratio: 0.72 Irrtersection Signal Delay:162 Irdersection Capacity Uilization 76.5% Analysis Period (min)15 EBT EER. iNBL UUBT UtrBR NBL tdET t•1BR SBL SBT SBR 1 .6 12.6 9. 25.3 202 19.5 5.3 E B A C C _ B A 16 A {3.8 2206 jw 13.6 B A C B 103 62 35 45 53 44 0 234 171 101 144 M 134 U 1UO3 277 522 465 235 235 235 1229 1301 1404 775 1204 1173 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.40 027 0.16 0.24 0.19 0.17 0.13 Intersection LOS: B ICU Level of Service D Everglades Elud -Randall Elvrd - 2030 PM Improved w PJ w additional improvements 02114�2G24 Easeline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page l 220 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 18t" Ave NE &Desoto Blvd Intersection H�C,�1 L� 1 C� �w"� �� I: C�e��tr� B`'�,� �� 1?�tF�, �,'�'e P+1� ��t? � � �i:�ii'1 I f.lr�•'am4rc El-}l EE�7 Et%i V�'C' _ �'@�i '1�i@�F� f'IC�!` f'J►_� � h���N ,�E�l �@T Sdfa '�ra�tT� ��I � �} 8 � b � b 81; �r3 � d 75 � �,_ Ful;�ro `dui, uah�n 30 3 5c� C� � 4 $6 u3 d 4 7� �L CafiNcu�gg ►t�'hf Q 0 � 0 0 0 b ® 0 b 4 R �. S►gs� �nlroi Skap Stop �'� Sk4�� Skap wio� Fri Fri Fri Frei Fg� �=r� R� �..h�nr�Nz�s! f���r� � - FdOr� - - l�kttra f�Y�n���� w�eh �n Ian 5,1cxa;9e # - � - - 0 - - p - �i ;�„� p�Y, Fier F�GbN �� 8i �' �Z $� � $� A� $2 � $1 E3 I-I�at���y 5feh►d�, � ? 50 A i SrJL 2 � `�i 6; I�; t4 M+nnl Aotit ?r � �s o � � +� 1�5 1;3 a � �� � ��ir► llill+li: ��ifl 4.lai�_rrM,l:�;r M,i�ar'�; Mmerf f�4alcf`; A�elcx2 r�C�r,f IC6 rl� Flo�'i �'. �i� �?4 il' :U�� �lii � I I:� I'rl �: Q 11.'� i l �� S�3ge;� �� 32� la;; '►11 [�illr,,� I-rk�►}' � 1 � � �> > �i 7 �3 7 5 6 7.� 4 1;at � - 4 t i r�rilica t-�,�v� Sig i r�.t; 6 r�.t2 6.5 - - _ _ _ _ � -_ ___ __ Cr�llc&1 . F�iVy &Ig �' 61-r 8 - B � � 6 5 - - - - - - - '� Fdlryrr�p H�ti�i -� �#i� i. `� ;�.;i;i►..* :a.51� <.9 3.311� '?.�15 - - �.i3J3 - - P.�1 l;ap-! M�r�>�n1� �1 4F,�.. 9�f 484 �4 q$7 t'_,,�_ t 15� - - Mw G>�p�t Matra 41�� 419 $fj4 �2$ ti?�5 q�� f�� t 155� _ rl�' �:.�p-� Man�►r� 4�5 dig - d8 :�:i5 _ _ Saga i 32� 723 fi? r �� �� L--'-' `�'4L? Nf� tib F +�r A��Y 10 ki t�i �9 ? n �+',�' HG�ut I.�S k? MlfiOt�ti � trill f'1i;� �Rlnt Efi�7: i;Fit,n � �8l C�pr�IRy �� 13b5 4� �bS �:�s 11� I I�.b�t L3tr� ��',� F1£'�.14 O.Ui r, - �.r'i � 4.1}.r2 (1.[Mv�� � 1�:}�I HCl4t Ct�r�trd !?�Igy [s} ; 6 - - 4� � � � 15.lS 8 1 �, 16;11 r'.:'e - �:;oi;� I?a'.d - �� RM D7I14r�L''� �s=�llna ti;rnclJa to Rflp�r; R��a I Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 221 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 HC.ry1 ,'�'firtiM6i e• t . Dota Blvd & 18th #'go, NE :IcirS�+:iion �J":irel•►�t71 Fes.. t`B1 ��'F{ 1M�1. ili�l W�A' NE�L hl�l tit �i�a`�1 513Fi ,any .�;rti;�urrl�c:nf � �' f�• � �+ *� (afl�•::'v't�, v�al�h �� d (f5 ::.i C117 lit a 6 �? ti6 c�►�+can� ram, �rrf a r� a � a �� r� o o � a sign C�r7�a �t�p �;a;., 1� `�ts��iop �-t�p free Fr?.r � rr-,� Free FrFe Free �TClx�nnc�¢a� - - Ik�le �¢tiRv - - hJone - -Dane ,5r.,w{=ge Le�Qli 2i-K� 221 - 1��� �s'd� {trr{�IlElilS, ';'a 5 � JLi � � � � � •'] ry � �vnt� Flaw •��' A 70 Q 3 4 121y 1�4 0 6 I?4 7�i ��MII� � i�r:rrt htatprl Alalar� C.vr}iticli � RAH l� 4$8 4�; 1 �,�. 5f�;fi`�`.--a � yl j � r r• [� ' :',fl ;'� C - c - '�,.,r�tieal �dlaw ttp Hdsr,� :? �}� •7d� 3.�5 �.54� d.0#5 3 �#5 � dd5 - 2.��5 - ti::i��+ t;�p• t tUtatl�uver A�� 4a3 _ 3i 1 3�1 _��� 136_� -- ` - _ l�, • - ���s 1t mar, E6 ENE PJI3 �a l+�.r►�u La�telh ' � t11w,�rl � IL-L f JPi f•II~rR �t Ill CELr-�'�4�1Lri I � �� y3T a�R' - �.��urlly- +.a�� 1:81t�Awp pr��;�L�ud•�3�AIdt1aE�� �.�a i�1,�•:i:�'(},:.��I�i�_ �'rr�;lr��� 1;iF,:};���I Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e � 222 Long water Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —August 2020 H r'� �V ICI ,r r : De Sot) Blvd fi 1 Bth Avo NF 02114,020 >ii�I�rs�x:tlen 5I•v�,h: .A62.S 1 ESR WU '. OI _ WEI�t tlE;ttIH � !,1�j�`3A g (rallic Vd valti(h 39 100 65 244 24,3 240 112 121 96 1(r2. '!:' f UILP8'dd.'aOviii A JX Cab 2.a!"' 24:s �''it; 11: 1?.t !ark �C,;' :�, r; CtitelrcbrQ Rem, ::�llr D {l 0 G l7 0 {? 4 Li 0 0 6 Sign Gopi rcl Stop STp Stop Stop Slop Stcp Free Free }ree Free Free Free 5tjx:zge Levrgh 2G A 4 290 225 weh Iri +,�erl:am LAwP41p # 4 - - - - 0 0 - _far1=, r'y rl 0 Keay: Hour Fa�Iar gd 93 rtl w;; y,i 93 g3 93 as W 93 93 uy ' xliiaos, ':,� 55 5 5 5 5 5 L 5 5 f, 5 1W01 Flaw 42 I06 70 2`Ac 261 259 120 110 103 '115 104 13 �IaNMlnol �nar:2 idwr:,�r : Malt�'1 Ma1a'2 %cmlrehN Rr►,r, A � 100 f�147 1OA W61 9 �� 1 r r I' ;I : ?;; "I r; $ I 1324 324 - 422 422 - - - - - :gage 2 E531 47 4r0 .iy- CWall Hdny 1.15 655 6.25 'r 15 64.55 6.25 415 - 4. ?5 Crfica *idmi 5 ig ' 6. I V 5 5 6.'15 5*55 - fl►Ucat H" 5749 2 6.15 555 615 5 % - - - W �dl w up HC q? 5d5 4046 3.345 3 545' 4 045 3.345 2 245 2245 trot rap-1 Mirewer M 316 90 258 347 Sti 1361All - '• a17 stage 2 435 553 - 5V 59B - - - - - - at" blocved A, kv Gap• t manewer 262 9143 - 148 , 254 & 3 13.61 i a Rr' Gap-2 Maneu'rrf 2�`2 1748 � 254 • , • - Slop 1 673 W t 53i?; �1 Slue 2 V4 t 50, - KI 542. All, - AN, AN, - - - F t�i>�.r Le�e�it•1L;•c� M'i�f td6L IJC�T (�R �.6Ln1 EC! n.2'����Ln t °,•n CIO L3ge'',�,'C r V � a i ax Raii 1 .98, d 435 a.la. 3 ;: a - + oM Cordrd Cmc4ay is) 79 23 7S 972 6 8 Wit,'M Larne LGS A C F A it I�irMpp 9:s113'361i1e ��rl � a 091 p.3 - 1�15VY 4'i'unie exceed; capa'. ty S Dday excraeas X� � Ct'I ADumhon t'I.'t De5md A ma :f VCi 1T:1DIn piatxAq Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page �223 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lanes, VoILlmes, Timings 1 : Desoto Blvd 18th Ave NE 02,14t2020 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR. WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T 44p I t r Traffic Volume (vph) 39 100 65 240 243 240 112 121 96 102 97 n Future Volume (vph) 39 100 65 240 243 240 112 121 96 102 97 68 Ideal Flay (tephpl) 1900 1900 1WO 1900 1%0 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length M) 205 0 0 0 290 0 225 225 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 Taper Length fit) 50 50 50 50 Lane Util .Factor 1,00 1.00 1.00 *1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1 A00 1.00 1.00 Fa 0.941 0.955 0.934 0.050 FIt Protected 0 b�50 0.984 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prat) 1719 1703 0 0 1700 0 1719 100 0 1719 1810 1538 Ftt Permitted 0.363 0.820 0.690 0226 Satd. Flow (pearl) 657 1703 0 0 1417 0 1249 1690 0 590 1810 1538 Right Turn on Red No Yes No Yes Satd. Flow (RTO R) 29 77 Dnk Speed (mph) 45 45 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 1083 357 602 336 Travel Time (s) 16A 5A 9.1 12.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles (UA) 6% 5% 6% 5% F% 5% 5% 6% 5% 6% 5% 5% Adj. Flow rph) 42 10S 70 258 261 2R 120 130 103 110 0104 73 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Gaup Flow (vph) 42 178 0 0 777 0 120 233 0 110 104 73 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA pmv NA Perm Protected Phases 6 2 7 4 3 3 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Detector Phase 6 6 2 2 7 4 3 8 8 Switch Phase fdinimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5J) 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Adinimurn Split (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 10.5 16.0 10.5 16.0 16.0 Total Split (s) 64.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 11.0 37.0 19.0 46.0 45 O Total Split (�'/o) 53.3% 53.3°lo 53.3% 263% 9.2% 30 15.$% 37.5% 37*57% tulaxim um Green (s) 58.0 51 . 58.0 R.0 5.5 31.0 13.5 39.0 39.0 1`ellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 000 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 LeadlLag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Ekension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Tulin None None None None None Act Effc4 Green (s) 58.3 5U 5U 25.7 19.7 34.3 24.2 24,21 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.24 0.19 0.32 0.23 0.23 tilc Ratio 0.12 0.19 04" 0.37 0.74 0.37 0.25 0.1 Control Delay 14.9 14.1 51.7 2007 6505 276 33.7 7.4 Queue Delay 0.0 O.() 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 14.9 14.1 51.7 29.7 55.5 27.5 33 ? 7A L03 B B D C E C C A Approach Delay 14.2 51.7 46.7 24.6 1 zth Ave - Desoto Blvd - 2030 AM w PJ w Improvements 02t14t2020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 224 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes, Vollames, Tirnings 1 : DeSc�to �Ivd � 1 nth eve NE ci2,�41z02o Lane ��rr�i_rp A{�praach LGS Queue L�nc�th 5dtf�i fit} Queue Length 9btt-i (ft) Internal Link; Dist (�) Turn Bay Length �) Base Capacity (arph) Starvation Cap Reductn SpillbacK Cap Red�.rctn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced vli: Ratio Intersection Sumrnar�• EEL EBT EBR. 1�BL 1�16T blrBR NBL P1ET f•16R. SBL SBT SBR B D D C 13 5r �?3 57 '1�U 52 J? 0 39 119 94 99 2�1 91 1G2 32 10G3 277 522 756 205 290 225 22a 362 940 796 320 49$ 344 67'1 619 V Q V 0 q U 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 q U 0 0 U 0 U 0 0 U c).12 0.19 U.9< q.37 0.�7 G.32 0.15 Q.12 Area T��pe: ether Cycle Length:l2p Actuated Cycle Length:105.7 Natural Cyvfe: 90 Control Ty�ie: Actuated -Uncoordinated hdaxirnum vic Ratio: G.93 Intersection Signal Delay:40.9 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity i..tiliaation 87.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (mini 1r # 95th percentile volume exceeds rapacit;r, queue may be longer. O,ue�.�e shown is rnaximurn afterfi;ao cycles. Splits and Phases: 1: DeSoto Blvd &'18th Ave NE •#— bit =_ f � s �� �' . > 15 � � � +�3 _. 1 �tt-i Ave - DeSota Bl�n� - 2G34 Ab1 w PJ w Imprnvemerrts 02t14l2020 Baseline Synchro 14 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page �225 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 r : DP. ot� B vd 1 tith ,+ tire «E 1{'Idf$tk:11Dd k��r:11• ��ti 1rip1_ �Hna +��r4�ur�0cnr rfaffic a'd va Nh 22 F111WaVrj, ko�?hm 22 bd+c4rpg Fes, OF 0 &ign ConTol Stop 5tccr7=]e Le:irL I1i 2�5 yfP.h m M.Eda7i',AorNG A ._ ralle, % Pe.wK Hair Kaclar 62 !-lelavy'voidas, '% 30 NTIN ROW Sir jps 5 43 ; D Slop Stop . Pdr>afe is :3 '1 L 135 22 2 73 EA ry [I 135 7) SfUp Step Free Free. ree Free Frei Free 1br[e Patine None 2c-O 225 Iml V n ti^� 5t1 tf 2 2 2' 10 ", 2 2 11 10 Q 69 3 3 3 37 152 s 6 118 J5 �alc�tNllrx� r� #I�E1iX i htal�i M�l� ril;rfir RINAU 4144 447 218 "Yal 4$1 104 253 v {{ r J V U Stage 1 2 Q, 218 - 278 228 - - - - - `v;woe 2 231 22 274 253 - - - - ilicagdmi 1 A 7 638 71e 652 6 ti 42 - - d.12 - - ti:ritic3 ddlpl S:Q 6,4 n 6.12 .,12 We H" 54g i rid ti 6 042 552 - - 1=ollow up HcIvei .i 77 4 C5 3.462 3518 4 016 3318 229 2.218 of Cap-1 Mamwer 416 442 M 460 CZ M Q61 - - 1425 - - S.s�go 1 26 ti42 - 77` I5 - - - - stao 02 713 6M - 732 6% - - - - - - - #Im Gap, I "eww 461 429 763 421 471 8W 1267 `•425 r Q30 Maneuver 461 429 4i1 471 Slop 1 M4 542 763 6OA �m ,r, Pon aNE P1B (Z8 i+:_M L_;; 8 U, txr Ls,nail f.1%trf M4'mI thIE�L t-JR i rJmR MLn i CmLrs2'rMLn t S?Tz 5;IT SEtR �, :3rur.�ty 1'v3h!I;i I2� Nh 1 '21 534 142u - - k1. C,129 !.07 ro 107 tii.0'16 Mil C.oritrri Dd9l,k (till1 � 13.5 10 G 0 QW G i CM Lace L?,',5 A 6 is 6 r 1-IOM -gull °AilsC'rO) r: 1 02 04 01 G �;ir�;ftro 1� k�;ul Fad, 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 226 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —August 2020 1 DP.Sota B1vc! :fin 1 Rh Ave NF CI,!410211200 �I�,litl�:liGn I' I Delay, �s;W 2. +1�:�asr�►rsr►1 1 r"sT Ef3R w61. 4Y8'I V►'�� P1Kl t'JBi t4>a-e+' s�� wi31 �L�N Lana Got;fiprahontr— (wrm VC; Vehdh 29 7 61 3 3 3 30 122 3 0 129 cbid Caro Pect, , NO 0 0 a 0 a a 0 0 a a 0 a sign Gror1c Strap 51.tp Stop Stcp Step Stcp Free Free » roe Free Free Free T CWnnedzea- twe - 140ne - None - - None_ 5tivf'3ge Lengli 20F 290 225 weh In Me 51mvp 0 0 - 0 D - 0 =ract , I;, - 0 0 G 0 +'ea). Hutr Fa41nt 93 93 90 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 1v�'arriclm, 5 5 r 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 vn 9 gcwv 31 8 60 3 3 3 30 131 3 a 188 31 +�1�{rM1r>�i' M{i�r�. 1V61t�f1 M>'alGrt Mat�r� CCt�dic" N HOW A➢ 33t8 3w lab 4ms 416 1343 719 V 0 134 V 0 S14981 188 168 - W 197 - - - laae 2 X13 148 238 21 a - � ticat �HcMry 7 15 6 55 6.25 7,15 6.55 625 415 - - 4. t5 - - r6c,�l 5.55 hUe1 H" lg 2 G.15 5 56 6115 .5 55 _ �dlc-w up HLive q �A5 4 045 3.345 a 545 4.045 3,345 2 245 2.245 s W!Upl Maheavet AS W 846 5 5 523 U 1333 - - M32 - - S�sgu 1 807 739 - 798 732 - - - - - - - slage2 796 73 7% 716 - - - - - - - iat.com bay O;ed ' pi, - - - - lw Caps 1 Mimewer 554 53c a46 474 510 9W 1333 :432 +!VloM Cap121Aaneuver 560 53ow 474 510 smPI 7.8a ; 319 79 r 14 - - Sipage 2 77r.; 114 [tL;d i tea - - - - - ,ap�vY,r, EO wi} taB �B _ �#1h+ Cnnirri C�la1 1Q,fi 113 ' F0 iJitrcr Lan�m.ih1%ire MAyml ral5L 1411T 118R ;76+n1 CELr,2W7Ln1 ti.r4_ 587 5DR �tY [►ret�nj 13� - :isi ;'�{.! ���;� i4wt - Chi La ne VtC Ratio 0 024 _I.05 � C ;31 0.01 IGM contra Way (s) 78 11 C1 IQ 03 3 G CM Lane LOS A 6 8 E �-iCM 95411 a G(M)) 01 - - 02 0.3 01 r, Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page �227 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 H � 14'� ,�'r'N � tll 1 N 'et c ���� c�t:� f�l'�r�l tin 1 ��h ,�'�;� ICE ;:���, -i�j;_��i•�,;;� 11:18rS�:11Uti tit �i�ay, si�eik I k� �Hl- E� 14'�'t. '�Y�t �V�f# PILL t'1E1� r•tt-: �_�: S#1T tSf�R ---- - -- --- - ---- - t—c - Hne r�,nflr�ir>3�c�n� ri � �I �+ "� I �a1f�u Ud; voh�h ?5 �� ;� 167 16�' i57 �q 1�2 ��• 1�5 2g Fi�l�r�'ugi,'del�m ��l.F�i 56 1�? 18;� 1�� ;�7 I�`� ?�`� �``'� 1�,5 �g �rftchr� Pet�c, #�nf t7 0 � p 0 � U 4 � D 4 0 Sign t�•�n'rd SG,p �tc�p °�iop a"tarp �t�op Step free �r>;e �'i� Pree Fri Free ;Fii Ch�nneclza� - - tote - - hfitirce - - hJone - -Dane .�C�u�=Je LPngl 21;a �gG 22a 'Veh rn �Aer� S1�rtt� # - � - - 0 - - � - - � Peaic Halt FAt;lat �3 93 � � 9� � S�' g� rl3 �� 93 �J3 �avy'�/�iiatrr�,'"fi 5 � 5 t, 5 5 5 5 5 �� S 1�vr'n� A�1 31 2T8 60 1$0 1b�J t$�CI 32 t.�t 2;� ti I 1t�B ;31 t�errhitrrx fir? ldltxx i Me1of1 Alal�x� �.anlrctlr� R� All i7•l� 11{N, t�+..� 1?atr T[I:a.i �� d 1+� r' f� +1%�� 'I (] Marge 1 T3t� f�i - :� 3:i2 - - - - - - - +�►tic� I�cM+y l a � 5� G � � � � �.55 6 �� 41 a - - �.15 - - l.�t!C3 '�+i$�Pj � iQ '; ii. I v' S• �• t; �.� r7.�1 �I��� up Hdwwy a. �45 � ��• 3.3�5 3 `� �� d 0��� � �15 2 ,�4F� � �d5 �►t tap-1 �I�I�wer t4� - 1� �4� - �48 212 7� 13�3 - - t �3� Sited ? �# 55E - :�� � 1� - - - - - - - - aut;nt Gap•t 14darte�ntei' • - 1�6 8d4'i - 151 7� �� � � ;1�8 C:�p•2 Maneu'rer - � 1 a�'� -- i y i If;,M LC•a +-�:h1 �,ornrci [,�I��}' I,t i ,� F, �,, � E t a �� n i q��Gv - `�ai:'Ur!�k'• ��Xse� �"_r.�J�; hf :�, iJr117;� cl:i e��t7s ��F�h; - t'G�n:!t"'ahQn r�r��t �e`Ir}�� � �iti` rlia �tl�tlil�tre In ��li7t�:'1 ��I ,AVfl - IJE}�tJ�L`' {-� it+j - �� f � � I]� �4,� �iti`t1!',.�I-� ['Jtif.:� 111(' ��I%1+IFr� 1'.! ��::�iSi� � P3t,�; i Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 228 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS - Section 2 -August 2020 Lane, Vali.lmt: , Tjminclo 1 : Desoto Blvd 1 sth Ave NE 02114�z020 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR. WBL UI�BT UUBR NBL NBT NBR_ SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations `� '+ 412) 11 t r Traffic Volume (uph) 29 259 56 107 167 167 30 122 255 252 176 29 Future Volume (tiph) 29 259 56 167 167 167 30 122 25.5 252 175 29 Ideal Flowrphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 190o 1900 1900 1900 1900 190U 1900 Storage Length (tt) 205 0 0 0 290 0 225 225 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 Taper Length fit) 50 50 50 50 Lane Util, Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 too 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fa 0.973 0.955 0'8 9 0.850 FIt Protected 0 61950 0.984 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 1761 0 0 1700 0 1719 1627 0 1719 1810 1538 Flt Permitted 0.428 0.641 0.639 0.183 Satd. Flow (perm) 774 1761 0 0 1108 0 1156 1627 0 331 181 U 1538 Right Turn on Red No Yes No Yes Satd. Flow (RTO R) 29 77 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 45 45 Link Distance (t) 1 M 357 602 836 Travel Time (s) 16A 5A 9.1 12.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.g3 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 6% 5% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% A�lj . Flow tVph) 31 M 60 Uo Uo 180 32 131 274 271 1 U 31 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (iph) 31 338 0 0 540 0 32 405 0 271 188 31 Turn Tape Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NApm-tpt NA Perm Protected Phases 6 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 8 Detector Phase 6 6 2 2 7 4 3 8 8 Switch Phase t,linirnurn Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.o 11.0 11.0 11.0 10.5 16.0 10.5 16.0 16.0 Total Split (s) 64.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 11.0 Ma7.0 19.0 45.0 45.0 Total Split (°1/0) 53.3% 53,a% 5;.Ia% 53.3% 9.2% 300M 15.8% 37.5% 37.5% Maxirn um Green (s) %.0 58.0 58.o 58.o 5.5 31.o 13.5 39.0 39.0 1`ellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 AJI-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2A 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 O.o 0.0 Total Lost Time (6) 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 LeadlLag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle EAension (s) 3.0 3.o 3.o 3.o 61.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Mato Recall Mode Min Min Min Min None None None None None Act Effct Green fs) 56.5 56.5 56.5 36.6 Ma0.6 50.1 43.1 43.1 Actuated glC Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.31 0.26 0.42 0.36 0.36 vlc Patio 0.08 0.40 0.99 0.08 0'% 0.91 0.28 0.05 Control Delay 17.6 21.7 66.5 22.0 79.4 59.6 29.9 0.2 queue Delay 0.0 0.0 o.o 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.6 21.7 66.5 22.0 79A 59.6 29.9 0.2 L03 B C E C E E C A Af)proach Delay 21.3 66.5 75.2 44.5 18t1-i Ave - DaSoto Blvd - 2030 Fbi w PJ w Irnprnvements 02t14i2020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page i229 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1 : Desoto Blvd 18th Ave NE 0211412020 t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR. WBL INBT WBR NBL NET NBR SBL SBT SBR Approach L03 C E E D Queue Length 60th (t) NJ 163 380 14 all '142 109 0 Queue Length 95th (R) 31 2�A. #r534 35 #611 *B7 17:3 0 Internal Link Dist fit) 1003 277 522 750 Turn Bay Length fit) 206 290 225 226 Base Capacity (Th) M W 559 U4 427 299 660 610 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, Reduced vk Ratio 0% 0.39 0.97 00 0.95 0.91 0.23 0.05 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Lengthm,120 Actuated Cyr, le Len0h:118*1 Natural Cycle:90 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vie Ratio: 0." Intersection Signal Delay:53.6 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 10009% ICU Level of Servic.e G Analysis Period (min) 15 ## 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer-' Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. S lits and Phases: 1: DeSoto Blvd &IM Ave NE 02 \*03 t04 -M'S36 ? 03 1 nth Ave - DeSoto Blvd - 2030 Pbt w PJ w Improvements 02A 4020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page i 230 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 18th Ave NE & Everglades Blvd Intersection Lane, 1�`ol�_1me�3 gJ 1 : Everglades Blvd 181h Ave NE 1IO2,17r2020 t Lane Grnr_rp EBL EBT EBR 'uUBL 'uUBT UUBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ t t r Traffic Volume (keph) "r 30 8 141 30 M 14 193 155 122 164 3 Future Volume (tph) 7 30 8 141 3O M 14 193 155 122 154 3 Ideal Flow phpl) 190 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1906 Storage Length ('tt) 0 0 280 0 210 190 400 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 6. Taper Length fit) 25 50 50 50 Lane Uil _ Factor 1,00 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fit 0.975 O.v40 U50 0.997 FIt Protected 0.993 0.960 0.950 O:a50 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1765 0 1719 1601 0 1467 1667 1M 1770 1665 0 Fit Permitted 0.911 0.537 OQ6 0.452 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1619 0 972 1601 0 "0 1667 15$3 W 1666 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Floiiv (RTO R) 8 142 187 1 Link Speed (rriph) 45 45 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 1220 1795 1162 1329 Travel Time (s) 1U 27.2 17.6 2041 Peak Hour Factor 0M OM O'n 0.$3 OM OM O.E3 0.83 0.83 0.83 OM O.S3 Heavf Vehicles (°Ao) 17% 2% 2% 5% 14% 2% 2a% 14% 2% 2% 14% 2% Adj . Flow (vph) 8 36 10 170 36 142 17 233 1 �7 147 1 % 4 Shared Lane Traffic (°/6) Lane Group Flow (tiph) 0 54 0 170 M 0 17 'M 187 147 190 0 Turn Type Perin NA prri-+pt NA pi`r+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Protected Phases 6 5 2 7 4 3 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 4 Detector Phase 6 6 5 2 7 4 4 3 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 500 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 1 O.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 16.$ 10.6 26.E 26 � 13.3 55.3 Total Split (s) 24.0 24.0 2000 44.0 1200 61.0 61.0 15.0 64.0 Total Split Cleo) 2060% 20.0% 16.7% 36.7% 10.0% 50.M 50,M 12.5% 53.3% r�laximum Green (s) 17.2 17.2 13.2 37,2 6.6 664.2 64.2 � 2 67,2 Yellow Time (s) 4.8 0 0 0 3.5 4.8 4.8 4.x 4.8 AJkRed Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lnst Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.8 6.$ 6.S 5.5 6.8 6.8 6.� f3.8 LeadlLag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1+ehicle E:Qension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 6.0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min None Min Mirr Min Min Ajct Effct Green () 6.7 24.3 24.3 24A 17.7 17.7 31.5 30.1 Actuated 91C Ratio 0.10 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.25 0.25 0.45 0.43 fk Ratio 0.34 O'M 0.28 0.04 0.55 0.35 0,31 0.27 Control Delay 34.E 20.6 6.8 11.3 28,8 5.7 13.6 15.$ Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay X4 2040 6.� 11.3 28.E 5.7 13.6 15.8 L03 C C A B C A B B Approach Delay 34 6 13.5 18 2 14.9 1 ath Ave NE -Everglades Blvd - 2020 Aid 0211412020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page l 231 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1 . Everglades Blvd 18th Ave NE 02AM020 Lane Group EBL EBTBR VUBL Ui1BT tATBR NBL tIBT AIBFt. SBLBT SBA Approach LOS C B _.,..AW� B B Queue Length 50th fit) 19 53 10 4 89 0 36 48 Queue Length 95th LTt)' 52 103 46 13, 149 35 68 113 Internal Link Dist (ftt) 1140 1716 1082 1249 Tum Bay Length (t) 280 NOW210 190 400 Base Capacity (vph) 410 479 931 406 1313 1286 488 1377 Starvation Cap Reducin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Reduced vk Ratio 0.13 0.35 0.19 0.04 0.18 0.16 0.30 0.14 'Irtersection Summa Area Type: Other Cycle L.engih:120 Actuated Cyrle Length: 70.2 Natural Cycle: 90 Cordrol Type: Actuated- Uncoordinated Maximum vk Ratio: 0.55 Intersection Signal Delay:16.6 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)16 lits and Phases: 1: Ever lades Blvd &18th Aue NE 02 18th Ave NE -Everglades Blvd - 2020 AM 02L14�020 Baseline Synchro 10 R,eport Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1232 Longwoter Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Laries,l�oliamea, Timing 1 : Everglades Blvd � 1 gth Ave NE 02r14r2020 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR. t�BL UUBT WBR NBL tJ67 NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *i At � Of r � T Traffic Volume (Th) 10 39 11 183 39 163 19 250 201 168 200 4 Future Volume (vph) 10 39 11 183 39 153 19 250 201 168 200 4 Ideal Flow (x+phpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length fit) 0 0 280 0 210 190 400 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 Taper Length Qt) 25 50 50 60 Lane Util . Factor 1.00 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .O0 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Fit 0.976 0.880 0.860 0.997 Fit Protected 0.992 0,960 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1750 0 1719 1592 0 1719 1810 1538 1719 1804 0 Fit Permitted 0.893 0.546 0.621 0.404 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1576 4 988 1592 0 1124 1810 1638 731 1804 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow ((TOR) 8 165 216 1 Link Speed (mph) 46 46 46 46 Link Distance M) 1220 1795 1162 1329 Travel Time (s) 18.5 27.2 17.6 20.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 q.93 0.93 0.93 4.93 0.93 0.93 Hea) t Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5°fo 5% 6% 5% 5% 6% 5% 6% 6% 5% Adj. Flow (Jph) 11 42 12 197 42 166 20 269 216 170 215 4 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (Uph) 0 65 0 197 207 0 20 269 216 170 219 0 Turn Tppe Perm NA prr o NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Protected Phases 6 6 2 7 4 3 8 Permitter{ Phases 6 2 4 4 8 Detector Phase 6 6 5 2 7 4 4 3 8 Switch Phase blinirnum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 6.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10,0 hlinimurn Split (s) 12.0 12.0 1200 16.8 10.5 26.8 26.8 13.3 55.3 Total Split (s) 24.0 24.0 20.0 44.0 12.0 61.0 61.0 16.0 64.0 Total Split ( 3 ) 20.0% 20 wO% 16. % ,s6.7% 10.0% 50.8% 50.8% 12.5% 53.3% blarirnum Green (s) 17.2 17.2 13.2 37.2 6.6 64.2 54.2 8.2 67.2 1`ellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 3.5 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 AJI-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 090 060 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.8 6.8 6.8 5.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 LeadlLag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle E)dension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 5.4 Recall Mode Min Min Min Tulin None Min Min Min li in Act Effct Green (s) 7.3 26.7 25.7 25.7 19.1 19.1 32.7 29.8 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.10 U5 0.35 025 0.26 0.26 0.45 0.41 vlc Ratio 0.40 0.43 021 0.05 0.67 0.39 0.40 0.30 Control Delay 37.8 21.8 6.8 11.5 29.2 5.6 15.2 18.2 Queue Delay 0.0 q.0 0.0 4.q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 37.8 21.8 6.8 11.5 29.2 5.6 15.2 18.2 L08 D C A B C A B B Approach Delay 37.8 14.1 18.4 16.9 18th Me NE,,, Everglades Bind - 2030 Ab1 no PJ 0211412020 Baseline SSrnchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page l 233 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1 : Everglades Blvd & 18th Ave NE 02A4t2020 Lane Group �BL Approach LOS Queue Length 50th (it) Queue Length 95th (ft)` Internal Link Dist (it) Tum Bay Length lift) Base Capacity (Th) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced uic Ratio Intersection Sumrr�ar�• EBT EBR 11UBL VUBT SnTBR_ H9L I�BT NBR. SBL �BT D B B B 25 64 12 5 109 0 45 60 67 133 62 16 1$9 U $7 142 11 to 1716 10$2 1249 NO 214 190 400 3$3 4$0 903 469 1366 1213 43$ 1436 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0.17 0.41 0.23 0.04 0.20 0.1$ 029 0.16 Area Type: Other Cycle Length:120 Actuated Cycle Length: 73.2 Natural Cycle:90 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum uic Ratio: 0.57 Intersection Signal Delay:1706 Intersection LOS: B Ihtersection Capacity Uilization55.7% 10U_Level.of Service B Analysis Period (min)16 puts and Phases 1: Euerglades Blud &1$th Ave NE 1$th Aue NE - Euerglades Bled - 2030 AM no PJ 02L1412020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1234 Long water Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lanes,foltames, Timings 1 : Everglades Blvd 18th Ave NE 05114t2020 Lane Group EBL EBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 10 63 Future Volume (vph) 10 63 Ideal Flow ttrphpl) 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 Storage Lanes 0 Taper Length fit) 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 Fa 0.982 FIt Protected 0.994 Satd. Flow (prat) 0 1766 FIt Permitted 0.897 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1594 Right Turn on Red Satd. Flow (RTO R) Link Speed (mph) Link Distance fit) Travel Time (s) Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0 Heab e Vehicles (°ro) 6% PJj. Flow (aph) 11 Shared Lane Traffic. (°.6) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Tum Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 6 Detector Phase 6 Switch Phase hdinirnum Initial (s) 5.0 A,linimurn Split (s) 12.0 Total Split (s) 24.0 Total Split (°/6) 20.0% 2 Maximum Green (s) 17.2 1`ellow Time (s) 4.8 ?JI-Red Time 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) Total Lost Time (s) LeadiLag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize_? Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 200 Recall Mode Min 1lct Effct Green (s) Actuated g1C Ratio vJc Patio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay 03 Approach Delay EBP. WBL 0 350 1 r'19 0.509 921 1623 45 12 a.93 r i0 326 0.93 5% UUBR 213 213 19G0 a 0 q Yes 2 NBL P16T NBR 250 249 25a 249 190a 1900 190 1 1 .aa 1.Oq 0.850 SBL 182 182 1900 40q 1 5a 1.aa 0.95q 1719 181a 1538 1719 0.621 0.398 1124 181a 1538 720 Yes 268 6 SBT 18g4 91 hJ 26 335 0 2q 269 268 196 219 A prn-+pt h1A pm+pt NA Penn pm-�pt f�A 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 2 4 4 8 6 5 2 7 4 4 3 8 5.q 5.0 1q.q 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10A 12.q 12.0 16.8 10.5 26.8 26.8 13.3 55.3 24to 20.0 44.0 12.0 61.a 61.0 15.0 64.0 0.0% 161% 36.7% 10to% 50.8°a6 50'M 12,6% 53ffia% 17.2 13.2 37.2 6.5 5442 54.2 8.2 57.2 4.8 0 4� 3.5 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 a.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 a o 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 6.8 6.8 5.5 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 Min Min Min None Min Min Colin llin 8.5 28.8 28.8 26.8 20.2 20.2 34.0 31.0 a.11 0.37 0.37 025 0,26 0.26 0.44 0.40 0.51 OM0.51 ObO5 0.57 OAG 0.47 a.3a 42.9 29.q 17A 12.1 3q.2 5.7 175 19.0 a.a 0.0 0.0 a.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 rbb 4z.9 2900 17A 12.1 30.z 5.7 17:5 19.q D C B B C A B B 42.9 23.1 17.8 1 U% 18t1�i Ade NE - Everglades Blvd- 2a3q AM w PJ a5�`14l2g20 Baseline �BR 4 4 1900 a 0 0 'Yes T (J S5; nchro 10 Report Page 1 rebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 235 SBT 18g4 91 hJ 26 335 0 2q 269 268 196 219 A prn-+pt h1A pm+pt NA Penn pm-�pt f�A 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 2 4 4 8 6 5 2 7 4 4 3 8 5.q 5.0 1q.q 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10A 12.q 12.0 16.8 10.5 26.8 26.8 13.3 55.3 24to 20.0 44.0 12.0 61.a 61.0 15.0 64.0 0.0% 161% 36.7% 10to% 50.8°a6 50'M 12,6% 53ffia% 17.2 13.2 37.2 6.5 5442 54.2 8.2 57.2 4.8 0 4� 3.5 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 a.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 a o 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 6.8 6.8 5.5 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 Min Min Min None Min Min Colin llin 8.5 28.8 28.8 26.8 20.2 20.2 34.0 31.0 a.11 0.37 0.37 025 0,26 0.26 0.44 0.40 0.51 OM0.51 ObO5 0.57 OAG 0.47 a.3a 42.9 29.q 17A 12.1 3q.2 5.7 175 19.0 a.a 0.0 0.0 a.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 rbb 4z.9 2900 17A 12.1 30.z 5.7 17:5 19.q D C B B C A B B 42.9 23.1 17.8 1 U% 18t1�i Ade NE - Everglades Blvd- 2a3q AM w PJ a5�`14l2g20 Baseline �BR 4 4 1900 a 0 0 'Yes (J S5; nchro 10 Report Page 1 rebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 235 Longwoter Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes, VkJI tames, Ti mi rigs 1 : Everglades Blvd, 1 81h Ave NE 05t14i~z020 t low Lane Group A{cproach LOS Queue LengthGM fit) Queue Length 95th fit) Internal Link Dist fit) Turn Bay Length (it) Base Capacity (uph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reduc4n Reduced vk- Ratio Intersection Sum E6L E6T EBR. 1.tUEL 1.iU67 UUER NBL tJET hJ6R SBL SBT SBR D C B B 40 120 36 5 112 0 55 62 93 #E2n 1 v7 17 104 53 106 147 1140 1716 1 W2 1249 2$0 210 190 400 361 479 �36 457 1280 1166 422 1347 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 OM 0.40 0.04 0.21 0.23 0.46 0.16 Area Tyf)e: Other Cycle Length:120 Actuated Cyde Length: 77.6 tlatural Cycle: 90 Control Tyne: Actuated -Uncoordinated hdaximurn vic Ratio: 0.5° Intersection Signal Delay:212 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 16 # 95th percentile volume eneeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shoran is maximUm after two cycles. Rnl'rtc anri Rhacaq• •1 • Fvarrilarirr Rltirri R 18rh Atira NF 14 1 �tt� Ave NE - Eti�erglades Blvd - 2034 Ahd w PJ c}5t14r2020 Baseline Synrhro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page �236 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 �CU itv.S, fOltames, Timings 1 : Everglades Blvd &, 181h Ave NF 102A7LO20 Lane Grr�.�p E8L EBT EBP, WBL UUBT UUBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBfz Lane Configurations c '� t t Traffic Volume (tiph) $ 14 33 $2 21 76 20 206 33 30 240 $ Future Volume (Uph) $ 14 33 $2 21 76 20 206 33 30 240 $ Ideal Flow (dphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length fit) 0 0 2$0 0 210 190 400 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 10 1 1 1 0 Taper Length Qt) 25 50 50 50 Lane Util . Factor 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Ftt 0.91$ 0, 2) U60 0.995 FIt Protected 0.993 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prat) 0 1660 0 1012 1590 0 1410 1765) 1609 16$7 1740 0 Fit Permitted 0.922 0.527 0.554 0.430 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1641 0 $94 1596 0 $22 1759 1509 704 1740 0 IN Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTO R) 46 100 146 2 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 45 45 Link Distance M) 1220 1795 1162 1329 Travel Time (s) 1$.5 27.2 17.6 20.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0,72 0.72 HeavJe Vehicles (/o) 14% 2% 3°1a 12% 16% 2% 2$% $°/u 7% 7% $°k, 29% Arij . Flow rph) 11 19 46 114 29 100 2$ 2$6 46 42 333 11 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (tiph) 0 76 0 114 135 0 2$ 2$6 46 42 344 0 Tum Type Perm NA pm-+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm pm-tpt NA Protected Phases 6 5 2 7 4 3 $ Perm tted Phases 6 2 4 4 Detector Phase 6 6 5 2 7 4 4 3 $ Switch Phase hdinimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 blinimurn Split (s) 12.0 '12.0 1200 16.$ 10.5 26.$ 26.$ 13.3 55.3 Total Split (s) 24.0 24.0 20.0 44.0 12.0 61.0 61.0 15.0 64.0 Total Split (°lo) 20.0% 20.0% 16.7% 36.7% 10.0% 506VO% 50,$ 0 12.5% 53.3% Maximum Green (s) 17.2 17.2 13.2 37.2 6.5 54.2 54.2 8.2 57.2 'fellow Time (s) 4.$ 4.$ 4.$ 4.$ 3.5 4.$ 4.$ 4.$ 4.$ AlkRed Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.$ 6.$ 6.$ 5.5 6.$ 6.$ 6.$ 6.$ LeaWLag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes l'ehicle Ekension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 20 5.0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min None Min Mill Colin Min A,ct Effcl Green (s) 6A 22.6 22.6 25.9 19.0 19.0 29.$ 27.6 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.09 0.33 0.33 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.2$ 0.44 0.41 tilc Ratio 0.41 0.29 0 t3 0.0$ 05� 0.09 0.10 0.49 Control Delay 24.0 2000 7.3 10.$ 26.9 0.3 11.4 20.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 040 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 24.0 20.0 7.3 101 26.9 02 11 A 20.1 L03 C B A B C A B C A{)proach Delay 24.0 13.1 22.3 19.2 1$th Acre NE - Everglades BIvL1- 2020 Ptvi 02314,'2020 Baseline Synrhro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 237 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T/S — Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes, Vol Limes, Timings 1. Everglades Blvd 18th Ave NE 02A7)2020 Lane Groi_�p EEL EET EER. W'EL 1(UET 'r1rBR NBL t°lE7 PIBR SBL SBT SBR Approach LOS C B C B Queue Length 50th fit) 11 32 6 99 0 9 V Queue Length 95th (ft) 39 63 29 16 147 0 22 171 Irnernal link Dist (tt) 1140 1716 1 N2 1249 Urn Bay Length (t) 280 210 190 400 Base Capacity (xVh) 433 439 940 n2 1435 1255 455 1455 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillhack Cap RedUctn U 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vic Ratio 0.18 0.26 0.14 0.07 0.20 0.04 0.09 0.23 Intersection Sumrr� Area Type: Other Cycle Length:120 Actuated Cycle Length: W Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vic Ratio: 0.5 Intersection Signal Delay: 19.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.4% Analysis Period (min)16 plits and Phases: 1: Blvd &18th Ave NE 18th Ave NE -Everglades Blvd - 2024 PM 02i14�2024 Baseline Intersection LOS: B ICU Level of S emir, e Synchra 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1238 Longwoter Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lades, l ulumes, Timings 1 : Everglades Blvd 8A 181h Ave NE 021l4r2020 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR. UUBL UUBT UUBR NBL P1BT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations * t t r T Traffic ValUme (vph) 11 19 43 106 28 99 26 267 43 39 311 11 Future Volume (vph) 11 19 43 106 28 99 26 267 43 39 311 11 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 280 0 210 190 400 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 1, 0 1 1 1 0 Taper Length fit) 25 50 50 60 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.920 0= 0.850 4i.995 FIt Protected 0.992 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prat) 0 1651 0 1719 1595 0 1719 1810 153$ 1719 1800 0 Fit Permitted 0.917 0.529 0.553 0.4n Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1627 0 957 159p 0 1001 1810 15a 774 1800 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTO R) 46 106 146 2 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 45 45 Link Distance fit) 1220 1795 1162 1329 Travel Time (s) 1 �.5 27.2 17.6 2011 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heaby Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 6% 5% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Wj. Flow (uph) 12 20 46 114 30 106 26 287 46 42 334 12 Shared Lane Traffic (°/6) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 78 0 114 130 0 2v 2S7 46 42 346 0 Tum Tpe Perm NA prt7 v NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Protected Phases 6 5 2 7 4 3 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 4 S Detector Phase 6 6 5 2 7 4 4 3 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5,0 10.0 tolinimum Split (s) 12.0 M12.0 12.0 16.8 10.5 26.E 26 e 13.3 55.3 Total Split (s) 24.0 24.0 2040 44.0 12.0 61.0 61.0 15.0 64.0 Total Split ("lo) 20.0% 20.0% 16.7% 36.7% 10.0% 506v% 50.�% 12.5% 53.3% talaxirnum Green (s) 17.2 17.2 13.2 37.2 6.5 54.2 54.2 $.2 5712 1`ellow Time (s) 4.� 4.� 0 4.0 3.5 44$ 4.8 4.� 0 AJkRed Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.8 0.� 6.3 5.5 6.8 6.� 6.4� 6.8 LeadlLag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1+ehicle EAension (s) 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 14> 2.0 5.0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min None Min Min Min Min Act Effc4 Green Fs) 6.5 22.4 22.4 25.3 1 �.5 1Q.5 29.4 27.2 Actuated g!C Ratio 0.10 0.33 0.33 0.38 0.27 0.27 0.44 0.40 vk Ratio 0.41 0.27 0.23 0.06 0.58 0.09 0.10 0.48 Control Delay 24.0 19.3 7 2 10.7 26.7 0.3 11.4 1908 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 24.0 192 7.3 10.7 26.7 02 11 A 19.E L03 C B A B C A B B Approach Delay 24.0 12.7 22.1 18.9 1 Eth Ave fJE - Everglades Bivd - 2030 PM no PJ 0211412020 Baseline Synrhra 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1239 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes,l�`oltames, Timings 1 : E�:ergla�es �Ivd �; 18th eve NE G2t141%020 Lane Gr7�i.rp EEL Approach LOS Queue Length 5Ott�i fit} Queue Length 95tt-� (ft� Internal Liniti Dist �) T�_rrn Bay Length �) Ease Capacity (xrphj Starvation Cap Reductn Spillbach Cap Red�.rctn Storage Cap Reduitn Reduced vic Ratio Intersection S�_rmmar�� Area Tpf�e: Other Cycle Lengtt��:120 Actuated CY�.Ie Length: 67.4 hJatural CYvIe:90 Control Ty��e: Actuated -Uncoordinated f�la;€irnum vlc Ratio:O.S& Intersection Signal Delay:ls.9 Intersection Capacity utilization 51 A°lo Analpsis Period �min11€ EBT EBR. SNB L trU BT 7irrER NBL NE7 i�dER SEL SB T SBR C B C B 1 �� 31 u 6 3� U 9 86 57 �9 �48 20 194 0 28 229 11 �t0 '171 � 1082 1249 2a0 290 190 400 433 470 5�49 �64 1 �90 '1292 462 1 �50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0.1 S 0.24 0.14 0.06 0.19 0.04 U.09 0.22 Splits and Phases: 1: Everglades Blvd &18th Ave NE Intersection LOS: B ICU Level of S ervir, e ;� �M— :�2 J� �� ��S "'.:JFj L��t T �l� �'�� �� � L _ z E�►' 1 �tt-� Ave NE - E��erglades BIUd - 2030 Ffu1 no PJ 02r14,'202O Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page i240 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lanes, ol�ames, Timings 1 : Everglades Blvd � 18th Ave NE u2rl4��o20 Lane Gro�.ap EBL EBT EBR. UUBL t�UBT 1iUBR NBL h16T NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 t t r �i T• Traffic Volume (vph) 11 82 43 10 69 140 26 267 109 102 311 11 Future Volume (vph) 11 82 43 in 69 140 26 267 169 102 311 11 Ideal Flow (Jphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (fit) 0 0 280 0 210 190 400 0 Storage Lanes 10 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 Taper Length fit) 25 50 50 50 Lane Util, Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.967 0.899 0.850 0.996 FIt Protected 0.996 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prat) 0 1725 0 1719 1627 0 1719 1810 1538 1719 1800 0 FIt Permitted 0.946 0A04 0.553 0.308 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1638 0 731 1027 0 1001 1810 1538 702 1800 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTO R) 16 89 182 2 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 45 45 Link Distance fit) 1220 1795 1162 1329 Travel Time (s) 18 r\ 27.2 17.6 2041 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.9"s 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0 A3 0.93 0.93 Heavy+ Vehicles (°A) 6% 6% 5% 5% 6% 5°/0 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 6% Ak1j. Flow tVph) 12 88 46 202 74 '151 20 287 182 110 334 12 Shared Lane Traffic (°/5) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 146 0 202 226 0 28 287 182 110 346 0 Tum Tppe Perm NA ptt 40 NA pm+pt NA Perm pm Vt NA Protected Phases 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 4 8 Detector Phase 6 6 5 2 7 4 4 3 8 Switch Phase h,linimurn Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 6.0 10.0 blinimurn Split (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 16.8 10.5 26.8 26.8 13.3 55.3 Total Split (s) 24,0 24.0 2000 44.0 12.0 61.0 61.0 15.0 64.0 Total Split (0 ) 20.0% 20.0% 16.7% 36.7% 10.0% 5U% 50.8% 12.5% 53.3% Maximum Green (s) 17.2 17.2 13.2 37.2 6.5 54.2 54.2 8.2 57.2 1`ellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 3.5 4.8 4.8 4 a 4.8 All-Rled Time (S) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 OA 0.0 0.0 0 to 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.8 6.8 6.8 5.5 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 LeadlLag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag L;eg Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle E)dension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 2,0 5.0 Recall Mode Colin Min Min Min None Min Min Min Min Act Effcl Green fs) 10.7 29.4 29.4 27A 20.5 20.5 33.5 30.7 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.14 0.38 023 0.35 0.26 0,26 0.43 029 Uk Patio 0.61 0.48 0.34 0.07 0.60 0.34 0.28 0.49 Control Delay 441.6 22.4 1207 13.3 31.7 5.8 15.6 22.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 41.0 22A '12.7 13 s 31.7 5.8 15.6 22.9 L08 D C B B C A B C Approach Delay 41 6 17.3 21.2 21.2 18th Ave NE - Everglades Blvd - 2030 Fhd w PJ 02,`14020 Baseline Synrhro 10 Report Page 1 Tre�ilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 3 Page i241 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes, �lolt.lmes, 1 11111ngS 1 : Everglades Blvd 8. 18th Ave NE 02A4rz020 Lane G rasp A{iproach LOS Queue Length 50th fit) Queue Length 95th (tt) Internal Nnh; Dist fit) Turn Bay Length fit) Base Capacity (kj3h) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap RedLIctn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced vic Ratio Intersection S�.arnrr�ar�• EEL EET WWWWTV EER. tirUEL iNET UUER NEL NE7 t•lER SEL D E C 61 67 44 7 124 0 31 133 139 110 23 220 46 67 1140 01716 10�2 280 210 190 400 383 447 W 427 1292 1160 410 0 0 0 0 () 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0.33 0.45 0.27 0.07 0.22 0.'16 0.27 Area T�epe: �'7ther Cycle Length:120 Actuated Cycle Length: 78 Natural Cyvle:90 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Ma€imum vic Ratio: 0.01 Intersection Signal Delay: 22.0 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity [Jilization 62.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 1: Everglades Elvd &18th Ave NE EET EER o5�F 1iJ ru D E4 S 1 nth Ave NE - Everglades Blind - 2030 Ft.d w P,1 02r14r2020 Baseline Synrhro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1242 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Immokalee Rd 8E Oil Well Rd Intersection Lanes, Volrames, Timings Coil Well Rd &P Immokalee Rd 02t14t2020 Lane Gna�_ap irUBL '�IrBR NBIJ NBT hIBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations ir�t� �' tt r ttt Traffic Volume (1+ph) 1092 23 0 325 364 81 667 Future Volume (vph) 1092 23 0 325 364 81 667 Ideal Flow (rphpi) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length �It) 240 460 290 490 670 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length fit) 100 50 50 Lane Util . Factor 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0 Al Fit 0.850 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0 *1�50 Satd. Flow (prot) 4848 1417 1863 3282 1468 1641 4893 FIt Permitted 0.950 0.427 Satd. Flo w (perm) 4848 1417 1863 3282 1468 7U 4893 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flo w (RTO R) 24 383 Link Speed (rriph) 45 45 45 Link Distance (tt) 776 719 1028 Travel Time (s) 11.7 10,9 15.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.95 Heavy Vehicles t�lo) 5% 14% 2% 10% 10% 10% 6% Adj. Flow (vph) 1149 24 0 342 383 85 692 Shared Lane Traffic Lane Group Flaw (tijph) 1149 24 0 342 383 85 692 Turn Type Prot Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm4rd NA Protected Phases 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 6 2 Detelor Phase 4 4 1 6 6 5 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 20.0 2040 5.0 20.0 Minimurn Split (s) 51.5 61.5 9.5 43.1 43.1 12:1 50.8 Total Split (s) 70.0 70.0 10.0 50.0 50.0 30.0 70.0 Total Split (N) 46.7% 46.7% 61% 33.3% 33.3°fo 2060% 46.7% blaximum Green (s) 63,6 63.5 5.6 42.9 42.9 22.9 62.9 1`ellow Time (s) 4A 4A 3.5 4.8 4.8 4.8 4 AJI-Red Time (s) 2.1 2.1 1.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.5 6.5 4.5 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 LeadlLag Lead Lag Laid Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) %5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min Min Min Min UU@Ik Time (s) 7.0 7.0 1.0 7.0 Flash Dont UUalk (s) 33.0 33.0 29,0 29.0 Pedestrian Calls (Ohr) 0 0 0 0 A,ct Effct Green (s) 24.5 24.5 20A 20.4 34.5 26.2 Actuated gtC Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.27 0.27 0.46 0.35 vlc Ratio 0.72 0.05 0.38 0.56 0.19 0.40 Control Delay 24.9 7.5 24 % 6.7 12.7 19.6 Qi.ie ue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Imrnoi,alee Rd - Oil Well Rd - 2019 AM 02t14t2020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 243 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes, Vol tames, Timings Oil Well Rd & Immolelmlee Rd OMV2020 4 lop Lane Gro�_rp WBL 1�1BP. NBL1 hJBT PJBR SBL SBT Total Delay 24.9 7.5 24 ,� 6.7 12.7 19.6 L03 C A C A B B Approach Delay 24.6 15.2 18.9 Approach LOS C B B Queue Length 5(th k1t) 100 0 65 0 20 84 Queue Length 95th fit) 223 15 123 71 51 136 Internal Link Dist (t) 696 639 90 Turn Bay Length fit) 240 450 490 670 Base Capacity (tiph) 4260 1240 1907 1013 639 4268 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Redudn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vvc Ratio 0.27 0.02 0A 0'n 0.13 0.16 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle L ength:150 Actuated Cycle Length: 74.5 hJatural Cyr. le: 116 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated blaximum vir, Ratio: 0.72 Irtersection Signal Delay:20.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.2% Analysis Period (min)15 Splits and Phases: 3: Oil Well Rd &Imrrrokalee Rd Intersection L05: C ICU LPJeI of Service B Imrriokalee Rd - Oil UUell P,d - 2019 Abi 02�14i2020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 244 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lanes, �loli,�mes, Timings �: Oil 't�rell Rd �, Imrnolcalee Rd 42r14r2o2o #� fl Lane Group lfU6L UUBR tJBU hJBT t�JBR S6L SBT Lane Configurations �t�i�"i � ,!A �� �' � '�'��' Traffic Valurne (�h� 1449 31 G 44<2 483 148 872 Future VoUame (aph) 1449 31 0 432 483 108 872 Ideal Floav �trphpl) 19Gr) 1944 196b 1940 '1900 1940 1900 Starage Length �) 240 450 290 490 670 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length �) '140 50 54 Lane Util . Parlor G A4 1.U0 1.44 0.95 1.00 1 AO 0.91 Frt b,850 U.850 Fft Protected b.950 0 �50 Satd. Flaw (prot) 4848 1538 1810 3438 1538 1719 4940 Fft Permitted 0.950 b.322 Satd. Flow (perrr7) 4848 1538 1810 3438 1538 583 494b Rigf�h Turn on P.ad Yes Yes Satd. FlowfP,T��R) 33 508 Link Speed (mphj 4� 45 45 Link Distance 4�'1 775 719 1028 Travel Time (s) 11.7 10.9 15.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 U.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heaby Vehicles l`U�) 5°�O 5�Io 5°�0 5°r6 5°f'� 5°fo 5°rho A.dj . Fl ova �rphj 1525 33 q 455 50<s 114 918 Shared Lane Traffic (%aj Lane Group Floav (a��h) 1525 33 b 455 548 114 918 Turrr T1pe Prat Ferm prn+pt tyA Perrn prr�-+pQ hJA Protected Phases 4 �1 6 5 2 Perrnitteci Phases 4 6 6 2 Detectar Phase 4 4 '1 E ki 5 2 Sux�itch Phase hdinirnurn Initial (sj 5.0 5.0 5.4 2Q.0 20.0 5.0 2p.0 A�linimurn Split �s) 51.5 51.5 9.5 43.1 43.1 12.1 .50.8 Tatal Split (s} 7G.0 74.0 1b.b 50.0 50.q 3G.0 74.0 Total Split ��� 46.7"lu 46.7°:b �.7°Its 33.3$0 ,s3:3°l0 24.G°�i 46.7°in Maximum Green (sj 6"s.5 53.5 5 � 42.9 42.9 22.9 62.9 `�`ellorro Tirne (s) 4.4 4.4 3.5 4.8 4 a 4.8 4.8 I-+JI-Red Tirne (s) 2.1 2.1 '1.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Lost Tirne Adjust �s) 0.0 G.0 4 [� b.0 O.0 0.4 O.b Total Last Tirne �s) 6.5 r'>.5 4.5 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 LeadlLag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimise? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1+'ehicle Extension (sl 3.4 3.4 "s.�� 3.0 3.4 3.b 3.0 R?call Mode blin btin Min Min Min h,1in Min UUalk Time (sj 7.t� 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont 1Nalk �� j 33.0 33.4 29.r� 29.V Pedestrian Calls (#�nr} 4 0 4 a Ast Effct Green �} 37.'1 37.1 23.5 23.5 40.6 31.3 A;tuated giC Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.25 0.25 0.44 4.34 u!c P,atio 0.79 4.05 q v2 0 �6 4.3b rj.55 Cantral Delay 27 g t5.5 33.7 7.7 18.9 26.9 Queue Delay O.G O.Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 U.4 Imrnokalee P.d - Oil UUell Rd - 2b3U AM no PJ 02,`14.+2620 Easeline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1245 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes, Vol tames, Timings Oil Well Rd Immol.alee Rd MW2020 Lane Grri_rp U11BL WBR, NBU NBT NBR_ SBL SBT Total Delay 27.8 6.5 33.7 7.7 1�.9 26.9 LOS C A C A B C Approach Delay 27.4 20.0 26.0 Approach LOS C C C Queue Length Stith l) 255 0 118 U 38 155 Queue Length 95th l) 392 19 211 93 88 243 Internal Liniti Dist ) 695 639 W Turn Bay Length fit) 240 450 490 670 Base Capacity (Uph 3420 10�5 1633 998 550 3462 Starxration Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Redurtn U 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vtc Ratio 0.45 U.U3 0.28 4.51 0.21 0.27 Interser_.tion Surr�mar�r Area Type: Other Cycle Length:150 Actuated Cycle Length:92.6 Natural Cyrle:115 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated blahimum UJr, Ratio: 0.79 Intersection Signal Delay:25.0 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.5°io ICU Le�rel of Servire C Analysis Feriod �min)15 Snlits and Phase: 3: Oil 1Nell Rd &Imrr7okalee Rd ►� �31 � �Z T ��� Imrr7ot;alee R,d -Oil Well P,d - 203U Ab1 no PJ U2,`14t2020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page �246 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lanes, �Iollames, Timings 3: Oil 'ti�rell Rd �. Imrr�ol�alee Rd a2n4rzo20 it � �" # Lane Grnup UUBL 1NBR PJBU PdBT hJBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations �1�� � � '��I � � '�'�'� Traffic Valurne (t�ah;� 1E24 34 0 44<2 544 114 872 Future L'olume �tiph) 1 ri24 34 0 432 544 114 872 Ideal Flow �+phpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length Cff) 240 450 290 490 670 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length Qtl 100 50 50 Lane lttil. Factor 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 Frt 0.850 0.850 Fft Protected 0.950 0 �50 Satd. Flaav (prat} 4848 1538 1810 3438 1538 1719 4940 Fft Permitted 0.950 0.309 Satd. Flow (perm} 4848 1538 1810 3438 1538 559 4940 Rigf�t Turn an Thad Yes Yes Satd. Fla w i4P.TO R) 36 573 Lint; Speed (mph) 45 45 45 Link Distance �1 775 719 1028 Trati�el Time (sj 11.E 10.9 15.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0 g5 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 �5 Heavy Vehicles (°rf�) 5°� 5�� 5°!° 5°h 5�� 5°� 5°ti A�ij. Flarrd �rph) 1709 3� 0 455 573 120 918 Shared Lane Traffic (°!°j Lane Gaup Flaw �vph) 1709 36 0 455 573 120 918 Turrr Tape Prat Perm prn-{-pt t� Perrn prr�+pt NA Prote�a_d Phases 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases ���� 4 6 � 2 Detector Phase __ 4 4 1 E ti 5 2 Suvitch Phas e tolinirnurn Initial (s} 5.0 5.0 5.0 20.0 20.0 5.0 20.0 ��linimurn Split (s) 51.5 51.5 9.5 43.1 43.1 12.1 50 Total Split (s) 70.0 70.0 10.0 50.0 56.0 3G.0 70.0 Total Split (°�) 4G.7°� 46.7°,v �.7°�, 33.3°b ;s3.3°.b 20.0°h� 46.74,3 Maximum Green (sj 63.5 63.5 5.5 42.9 42:9 22.9 62.9 1`ellow Time (s) 4.4 4.4 3.5 4.8 4.0 4.8 4.8 A11-Red Tirne l�) 2.1 2.1 1.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Last Time Adjust �sj OA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Tirne �s) f.5 6.5 4.5 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 LeadlLag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes 1`es Vehicle Extension �sl 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3A Recall tulode tutin Min Colin Min Colin Tulin blin UUalk Time (s,� 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dant tir�alk lt•) 33.0 33.0 29.0 29A Pedestrian Calls �#�rr) 0 0 0 0 A�:t Effct Green (s1 43.8 43.8 24.4 24.4 42.4 32.8 A,tuated g!C Ratio t�,43 0.43 0.24 b.24 0.42 0.32 vlc Ratio 0.81 0.05 0.55 0.71 0.33 rj.57 Central Delap 28.8 6.0 38.1 8.7 22.4 30.5 O,ueue Dela�� 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Im rn ok alee P,d - Oi I UUeI I Rd - 2030 AM w Pj 02Lt 4,2020 Baseline S��nrhra 10 P.eport Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page i247 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 L nes, l oltame i3 Timings 3: Oil Well Rd Immok-alee Rd 02nar�'a2a Lane Gmi-gyp Total Delay L03 1pproach Delay Approach LOS O,ueue Length 50th M) Queue Length 95th eft) Internal Lint: Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length M) Base Capacity (uph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Redudn Reduced vk Ratio Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Len gth:160 Actuated Cycle Length:101 PJatural Cycle: 115 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated blaximum vk Ratio:0.81 Intersection Signal Delay: 26.9 Intersection Capacity Uilization 71.1% analysis Period (min) 15 its and Phases: 3: Oil Well Rid &Imrrrol,alee Rd Intersection LOS: C ICU Level of Servire C Imrr7okalee Rd -Oil Well Rr� - 2430 AM v�� Pj 02t14i2020 Baseline Synrhro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 248 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lanes3l.1oltames3 Timings 3: ail Well Rd Itrlmalcalee Rd 02rl4rzo2o Lane Grnup UUBL WBR 1JBU I`1BT t1BR SBL SBT Lane Configurations � � tt r '� ttt Traffic Volume (tph) 629 11 0 7N 700 64 346 Future Volume (vph) 529 11 0 798 700 64 346 Ideal Flow (dphpl) 1900 1900 1 WO 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length fit) 240 460 290 490 670 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length fit) 100 60 5O Lane Util . Factor 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.95 1400 1,00 0.91 Fa 0.350 0.860 FIt Protected 0.960 0.950 Satd. Flow (prat) 4343 1468 1863 3471 1EU 1671 00 FIt Permitted O.950 0.228 Satd. Flow (perm) 00 1468 1 %3 3471 15n 401 00 Ri11A Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 11 729 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 775 719 102� Travel Time (s) 11.7 1 O '� 16.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 ON 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hear,y+ Vehicles 6% 10% 2% 4% 5% 8% 7% Arij, Flow ph) 651 11 0 �31 729 56 360 Shared Lane Traffic (k) Lane Group Flow (tiph) 561 11 0 831 729 56 36O Turn Type Prot Perm pm+pt KA Perm prrl+ph NA Protected Phases 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 6 2 Detector Phase 4 4 1 6 6 5 2 Switch Phase hlinimurri Initial (s) 5.0 6.0 5.0 200 20,0 5.0 20.0 hdinimum Split (s) 61.5 51.5 9.5 43.1 43.1 12.1 60 Total Split (s) 70.0 70.0 10.0 50.0 50.0 30.0 70.0 Total Split 46.711/b 46.79rb 6.7% 33.3°fi 33.3% 2000% 4607% Maxim um Green (s) 63.5 63.6 5.6 42.9 4209 22.9 62.9 `ellow Time (s) 4A 4A 3.5 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.� ?JI-Red Time 2.1 2.1 1.0 22 2.3 2.3 2.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 O.o 0 to 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tcrtal Lost Time (s) 6.6 6.6 4.6 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 LeadlLacI Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 17ehicle Extension (s) 3.O 3.O 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.O Recall btode Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk;) 33.0 33.0 29.0 29.0 Pedestrian Calls (Orr) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 14.9 14.9 29.8 29 .� 42.0 NA %ctuated g1C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.41 0.41 0.57 0.47 �rJc Ratio 0.66 0.04 0.69 0,69 0.16 0.10 Control Delay 29.9 15.6 1 �.9 5.2 6.9 11.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 Imrr7okalee Rd -Oil Well Rd - 2019 PM 02114t2020 Baseline S+rnrhro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1249 Longwoter Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes,l of lames, Ti rni ngs 3: Oil Well Rd Immokalee Rd 02il4f2020 Lane Gaup UUBL 1AtBP. NBU NBT NBR SBL SBT Total Delay 29.9 15.5 1 v � 5.2 6.3 11.1 L03 C B B A A B Approach Delay 29.7 12.5 -10.5 Approach LOS C B B Queue Length 50th kt) 78 0 10 0 9 %>2 Queue Length 95th kt) 136 14 224 60 24 50 Internal Link Dist (ft) 695 639 90 Turn Bay Length fit) 240 450 490 670 Base Capacity (vph) 4199 1273 207a 1212 648 4169 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v!c Ratio 0.13 0.01 0.40 0.60 0.09 0.09 Intersertion Summar Area Type: Other Cycle Length:150 Actuated Cycle Length: 7?.5 Platural Cyr. le: 115 Control Type: Actuated- Uncoordinated tulaximum vk Ratio:0,69 Intersection Signal Delay: 16.0 Intersection Capacity [Jtilization 592% Analysis Period (min)16 Splits and Phases: 3: Oil Well Rd &Imrr7okalee Rr� Intersection LOS: B ICU Level of Service B Imrnokalee Rd - Oil UUell Rd - 2419 Ptu1 02t14t2020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcocl< Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 250 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lat-�eu3'rol�ames3 Oil Well Rd Timings mmokalee Rd Lane Gro�.�p WBL WBR NBU hJBT IaBR SBL SBT Traffi c Vo lum e {rph) 702 15 4 1459 929 ? 2 459 F�rture L'ohame {uph) 702 15 0 1059 929 ?2 459 Ideal Flow �phpl) 19G0 1904 1940 1900 194b 19G4 19Gv Storage Length fit) 244 454 290 490 6?0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length Qt) 100 54 5G Lane Util . Factor 4 A4 1.b4 1.00 0.95 1 AG 1 n0 0.91 Frt Q.v50 4.850 Flt Protected 0 �50 4.954 Satd. Flow (prof) 4848 1538 1814 3438 1538 1719 4940 Fft Permitted 0.95p b.144 Satd. Flow (perm) 4848 1538 1814 3438 1538 261 4944 Right Turn on P,,ed Yes Yes Satd. Flow {RTOR) 16 968 (jnk Speed {mph) 45 45 45 Link Distance fit) 775 719 1428 Tratel Time {s) 11.? 14.9 15.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 G.96 0.96 b.96 4 �6 0.96 4.96 Heatiy Vehicles {°h) 5% 5°J° 5°!0 5% 5°.'0 5°fU 5°�a ��ij . Flow �rph) ?31 16 4 1143 968 75 478 Shared Lane Traffic {°�� Lane Group Flow {uph) 731 16 4 1103 968 ?5 478 Turn Tape Prot Ferm prn+pt � Perrn prn-►pt h1A Protected Phases 4 1 6 5 2 Perrnitterl Phases 4 6 6 2 Detector Phase 4 4 1 6 6 5 2 Suvitch Phase blinirnurn Initial {s) 5.4 5.0 5.0 24.4 24.4 5.0 24.4 Minimum Split {s) 51.5 51.5 9.5 43.1 43.1 12.1 54 A Total Split {s) ?GA 70.4 10.4 5G.0 54.0 3G.0 70.0 Total Split {4�O) 44.7°r6 46.?°G �.7°�� 33.3°r5 s"3.3°�O 24 c)°,L, Qb.r3'G Maximum Green {s) 63.5 63.5 5.5 42.9 42.9 22.9 62.9 1`ellow Tirne {s) 4.4 4.4 "s.5 4.8 4 � 4.8 4.8 �JI-Red Tirne {s) 2.1 2.1 1.b 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Lost Time A�tjust {s) 4.4 G.0 4 ca 0.4 0.0 4.4 0.0 Total Lost Tirne {s) 6.5 6.5 4.5 ?.1 ?.1 ?.1 7.1 LeadtLag _ Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension {s) 3.b 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.G 3.4 3.0 Recall btode blip btin Min tulip tulip blip Min UUalk Time {s) 7.G ?.4 7.4 7.0 Flash U�nt Walk �,) 33.4 33.0 29.0 29.b Pedestrian Galls {#�'hr) 0 4 0 4 Act Effct Green {s) 19.2 19.2 43.G 43.0 56.9 48.6 Fu�tuated glt� Ratio 4.21 4 �1 4.47 G.47 4.62 4.53 vJc Ratio 4.72 G.05 4.68 0.?8 0.25 0.18 Contra) Delay 38.1 13.6 22.4 6.? 8.9 11.7 queue Delay 0.4 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.4 4.0 42n 4r1o24 Immokalee Rd -Oil Well Rd - 243U FM no PJ 02,`1412420 Baseline SSinrhro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 251 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes, 1�oltames, Timings 3: Oil 'ti�rell Rd �; Imrr�eEcalee Rd a2n4rzo?a I�ne Getup Ur1EL iNBR NEU NET t�1EP, SEL SET Total Delay 38.1 13.6 22.4 6.7 Q a 11.7 LOS D E C A A E Approach Delay 37.6 1�.1 11.3 Approach LO S D B E Queue Length 50th l�� 140 0 248 0 14 4� Queue Length 95th 41t) 1°7 17 378 �0 35 76 Internal Link Dist (ft) 6�5 63� 948 Turn E ay Ler-�gth �) 244 4�0 490 670 Ease Capacity (uphj 3376 1076 1617 1236 533 3407 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced u� Ratio 0.22 0.01 0.68 p.78 0.14 0.14 Intersection Surnmar•� Area TpF_�e: Other Cycle Length:150 Actuated Cycle Length: 91.5 Natural Cyrle:115 Control Tppe:Rctuated-Uncoordinated tuiaximum vlr. Ratio: 0.78 Intersection Signal Delay:1�.5 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity utilization 73.5°io ICU Level of Service D Anal��sis Feriod (rnin� 15 Snlits and Phases' 3: Oil 1Nell Rd &Imrr7ot,alee Rd T 1 �1 T �� 7 'J'-r trJ � ?i 71i .� � r'� 5 � 5 =1+' `' _ Imrrrokalee P.d -Oil Well Rd - 203p Pb1 no PJ 02,`14,rz620 Easeline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Rage �252 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lar�e�, �,�oliames, Timinq� 3: Oil 'tiN�ll Rd �; ImrnoE�alee Rd 42i14rz420 Lane Group UUBL 1NBR NBU hJBT t�aBR SBL SBT Lane Carrfigurations ��� � A �'� �' � �"�'� Traffic Volume (vph} 810 23 4 '1459 1143 79 459 Future Volume �tiphj 810 23 0 1459 1103 79 459 Ideal Floav �rphpl� 1900 1940 1940 1944 1900 1900 1940 Storage length l�) 240 450 294 49p 670 Storage tines 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length �) 144 54 5c] Lane lltil. Factor 0.94 1.60 1.40 4.95 1.00 1 �4 0.91 Frt 0 054 0.850 Fft Protected 4.950 0.950 Satd.Flow�irat} 4848 1538 181c] 3438 1538 1719 4944 Flt Permitted 0.954 0.134 Satd. Flaw (perm) 4848 1538 1810 3438 1538 242 4940 Rigf�t Turn an Rid Yes Yes Satd. Flaw i`RTO R) 24 991 Link Speed (mphj 45 45 45 Link Distance fit} 775 719 1028 Trati�el Tirne (s) 11.7 14.9 15.6 Peak Haur Factor 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.9G 0.96 0.96 Heatry Vehicles (%) 5°,fi 5°�6 5°!�, 5°I° 5°�° 5°r6 5°10 ,��ij . Fl avd �rph} 844 24 4 1103 1149 82 478 Shared Lane Traffic (°r5j Lane Gaup Flow (vph) 844 24 0 11t]3 1149 82 478 Turn T��pe Prat Ferrn prn+pt �lA Perrn prr�-��t t�JA Protected Phases 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 � 2 Detector Phase 4 4 1 6 5 5 2 S�vitch Phase blinirnurn Initial (s) 5.0 5.4 5.0 24.0 20.4 5.0 20.0 ftdinimurn Split (sj 51.5 51.5 9.5 43.1 43.1 12.1 50.8 Total Split (s) 70.0 74.4 10.0 50.4 50.0 3G.0 70.0 Total Split ��a 46.7°ti 46.7°v f.7°�� 33.3°'° ,s3.3°� 20 c7°� 4�.t°,G Maximum Green �sj 63.5 63 � 5.5 42.9 42.9 22.9 62 1`ellow Tirne (s) 4.4 4.4 3.5 4.8 4.8 4,8 4.8 AJI-Red Tirne (s) 2.1 2.1 1.0 2 � 2.3 2.3 2.3 Last Time �Jjust (sj 0.4 4.4 4.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 4.4 Total Lost Tirne (s) f.5 �i.5 4.5 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 LeadlLag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1?ehicle Extension �sl 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.4 Recall hlode Tulin Min Mir- hAin Tulin h,1in h,1in UUalk Time (si 7.4 7.4 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont 1Nalk �:� 33.p 33.0 29.0 29A Pedestrian Calls (#�'hr) 0 0 4 0 A,::t Effct Green �sj 22.4 22.4 43.1 43.1 57.7 49.1 �,.:tuated gIC R,3tio 0.24 0.24 4.45 0.45 4,�1 0.52 v�lc Ratio 4.74 4A5 0.71 G.93 4.29 0.19 Control Delay 38.2 11.5 25.1 18.6 10.6 13.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 Imrnokalee Rd -Oil Well P.d - 2030 Pfu1 �v Pj 02i14�2424 Baseline Synrhra 14 P,eport Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page �253 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Laneu, Voltame�, Timing 3: Oil 'fell Rd �, Imrr�c�kalee Rd G2tt4rzo2o Lane Group Total Delay LOS Appraach Delay F�praach LOS Queue Length 50th l�) Queue Length 95th �� Internal Dnk Dist ift) Turn Bay Length fit} Base Capacity+ �vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Redurtn Reduced v!c R;�ttio Intersection Su !~rea Tppe: Other Cycle Length:15p Actuated Cycle Length: 95.2 C`latural Cyrle:115 Control Tppe: Actuated-Uncaordinated blaxirnum v�r Ratia: 0.93 Intersection Signal Delay: `?4.1 Inta_rsection LOS: C Intersection Capacity ttilization 84.5°l� ICU Level at Service E Analpsis Feriad (minj 15 # �5th percentile ualurr�e e�xeeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue Sharon is maximum aftertwa cycles. Snlits antl Phases 3. Oil UUell Rr� S�Imrnakalee Rd ■1 �1 7 �� • L�-t i � 1 ;, �� S I =L�- �: Imrnokalee P,d - Oil UUell Rf� - 2430 Pb1 �� Pj 02t14t2d2n Baseline S�rnchra 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1254 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Immokalee Rd &Randall Blvd Intersection Lar�es,l�ol�ames, Tir��inc� 3: 4th St NE1Randall Blvd � Irnmo4��.lee Rd b2,`13�2 420 �"' � �' l Lane Graup EBL EBT EBR 1NBl. '�ittBT UUBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Canfigurations � �i� � � ��� � '� ��� Traffic Volume (trF�h� 3 2 6 959 2 39 6 748 247 5b 1869 b Future Valurne (t+ph) 3 2 6 959 2 39 6 74� 247 50 1869 b Ideal Flaw �rphplj 19bb 190b 19bU 19b0 19b0 1900 19b0 19b0 19bb 19bb 190b 190b Starage Length l�) 0 b 25b b 235 305 45b 235 Storage Lanes Q 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 Taper Length Qt) 5b 1 bb 5b 5b L;dne Lail .Factor 1.b0 1.bb 1 Ab b.91 b.91 1.bb 1.bb b.91 1 Ab 1.bb b.91 1.bb Frt 0.926 b.982 b.85b Flt Protected 0.957 b.950 b.958 b.950 b 35b Satd. Flaw �irot) b 1742 0 3139 1574 b 1770 4759 1482 16k7 494b 18ti3 Fft Perrnitted 4.987 b.95b U.95� U.954 0.95b Satd. Flo[ro berm) b 1702 b 31 i;9 1574 b 1770 4759 1482 1687 4940 1863 Rigf��t Turn an Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Fla au (RTU R� 6 5 255 Link Speed (rnphj 30 45 45 45 Link Distance l�) 493 775 719 1 b28 Travel Time (s) 11.2 11.7 14.9 15.6 Peak Harr Factor b.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 b.97 b.97 0.97 b.97 0.97 b.97 b.97 4.97 Heauy Vehicles �`°lo} 2°h� 2°l0 2°�0 3°b 2°l0 6% 2°�° 9�'° 9°k 7°6 5°� 2°fo Adj . Flaw (Jph} 3 2 6 9E9 2 40 6 771 255 52 t 927 0 Shared Lane Traffic (°�) 30°k Lane Grr�up Flow (ti.�rh) b 11 b 692 339 b 6 771 255 5`L 1927 0 Turn T�,e Split P!A Split t�lA Prat Pl,�t pt-+av Prat tJA Perm Pratected Phases 8 8 4 4 1 � 6 4 5 2 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 8 8 4 4 1 6 6 4 5 2 2 S�n�itch Phase Minimum Initial (s} 5.b 5.4 5A 5.b 5.4 15.b 5.0 15.0 15.b Minimum Split (s) 12.b 12.b 49.0 49,4 12.b 4�.1 12.1 40.0 4b.b Tatal Split (s) 1�'.b 16.0 62.b 62.4 13.b 4�.6 23.4 59.0 59.0 Total Split {°%°.i 10.7°�6 1b.7°,v 41.3°�0 41.3°b 8.7°�6 32.44�0 15.5°l0 39.3°rF, 39.3°r� Maximum Green (s) 9.0 9.b 55.b 55.b 6.0 41.6 16.4 52.b 52.0 'r'�ello[ni Tirne (sj 4,� 4.� 4.8 4.8 4.� 4.8 4.r? 4 � 4.$ r�Jl-Red Tirne (s) 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 Lost Time fidjust (sj b.b 4.0 b.b 0.0 O.b b.6 b.b b.b Tatal Last Tirne (s� 7.b 7 n 7.b 7.0 7.0 7.b 7.b 7.b LeadiLag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimiae? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle E;Qension (sj 3.6 3.0 3.b 3.0 3.4 3.b 3.b 3.b 3.0 Fvecall hlode Min hdin Min Min h,1in Min hiin h�in Min Ub'alk Tirne (s) 7.b 7.b 7.b Flash Dint UUalk (s) 35.b 35.b 32.b Pedestrian Calls (#ih�r) b b b Act Effct Green (s) h.2 37.9 37.9 5.8 28.7 66 � 29.5 5`L.4 Ar.�tuated g?C Ratio U.05 b.29 b.29 6A4 0.22 b.51 b.23 0.4b vtc Ratio 0.13 b.75 0.74 b.b8 0.74 b.29 b.14 b.97 Contral Delap� 47.8 47.b 5b.9 67 (� 52.1 1.6 48.E 53.4 Queue Delap� O.b 4.b 4.b b.0 O.b b.b b.b O.b Imrnafcalee Rd - Randall Elud - 2b19 Atut 02t13fL020 Baseline S+fnrhra 10 Report Fage1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 255 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes,lrollames, Timings 3:4th StNElRandall Blvd Irnmakalee Rd o2r13rzo2o Lane Grr�up EBL EBT EBR. 1NBL U1JBT 'riUBR NBL NBT t•JBR SBL SBT SBR Tatal Delay 47.E 47.0 50.9 67.0 52.1 1.6 48.E 53.4 LOS D D D E D A D D A{�proach Delay 47.v 0.15 39.7 53.3 Approach LOS D D D D Queue Length 50th (ft) 4 M M 5 220 0 35 564 Queue Length 95th (t) 27 366 402 22 290 19 90 M68 Internal Link Dist (ft) 413 05 639 M Turn Bay Length fit) 260 235 306 450 Base Capacity (Uph) 123 1354 671 81 162� 1143 ni 19m Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap R.eductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vfc Ratio 0.09 0.61 0.51 0 07 0.50 0.22 0.14 4.97 Intersection Summar• Area Tppe: Other Cp�le Length:150 Actuated Cy�Ie Length:130.4 hJatural Cyrle:120 Control Tppe: Actuated -Uncoordinated b1a�:imurn vlr. Ratio: 4.9? Intersection Signal Delay:48.5 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity tkilization 78.4°ro ICI, U;vel of Service D Analpsis Feriod (min)15 # 95th percentile volurr7e e,zeeds capacity, tlueue may be longer. Queue sho�.+un is maf�irnum after two cycles. lits and Phases: 3: 4th St NElRandall Blvd & Irnmokalee Rd Imrr7okalee Rd -Randall Blvd -2019 Ahd 0211312020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 256 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lanes, Volrames, Timings 3:4th StNElRandall Blvd � Irnrnokalee Rd 02l13lz 020 Lane GrrJup EBL EBT E6R. W6L W6T 'uU6R N6L t°16T N6R S6L S6T SBR Lane Configurations �, ��1� '� '� �'�'� �' �j �'�'� Traffic Valume �tiph� � 6 12 $12 $ 20i; $ 156$ 664 246 1916 5 Future Vohame (Uph� � 6 12 $12 $ 205 $ 15�$ 6b4 20� 1916 � Ideal Flow (�rphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 .Storage Length tftj 0 0 250 250 235 500 450 2:35 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length �) 50 FO a0 50 Lane Util . Fartor 1 [t0 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Ftt 0 �26 0.$5� 0.$�0 0.$50 Flt Protected 0.991 U.950 0.9�0 0.950 Satd. Flo�u (prat) 0 1661 0 4$4$ 1�47 0 1719 49�0 153$ 1719 49d0 1�B$ Flt Fermrtted 4.991 0.950 0.950 0.95i? Satd. Flaw sperm} 0 1651 0 4$4$ 1�47 0 1719 49d0 163$ 1719 4940 153$ Right Turn on P.ed Y'es No Yes Yes Satd. Flaw (RTGP.) 12 5$3 131 Link Speed (mph} 30 45 �5 4� Link Distance l�) 493 775 719 102$ Tra�,�el Tirne (s} 11.2 11.7 10.9 15.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Heatry+ Vehicles 4�ro) �°.0 5°�0 �°b 5°!(0 �°f�i 5°fU 5°�i 5°I° 5% 5°Fo 5°fo 5°�0 ,��ij. Flaw �rph) 4 6 12 $37 $ 212 $ 1 �16 6$5 212 1975 5 Shared Lane Traffic (°raj Lane Group Flaav (tiph) 0 22 0 $37 220 0 $ 1 �616 6$5 212 197� 5 Turn Tppe Split t1A Split NA Prot NA Free Frat NA Ferm Prate��ted Phases $ $ 4 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases Free 2 Detector Phase $ $ 4 4 1 6 5 2 2 Soti�itch Phase blinimurn Initial (sj 5.0 w.0 �.0 �.4 5.0 1 �.0 5.0 1�.0 15.0 hdinimurn Split (sj 12.0 12A �9.0 49.0 12.0 46.1 12.1 40.0 40.0 Total Split fsj 12.0 12.0 44.0 4�.0 17.0 E12.0 32.0 77.0 77.0 Total Split (°�O) $ cj°� $.0°v 29.s°fo 29.:3°.b 11 .3°ro 41.3°� 21.3°�i a1.3°r�i 41.3°•0 Maximum Green �sj 5.0 5.0 �7.0 37.0 10.0 55.0 25.0 70.0 70.0 1`ellow Time (s) 4.$ 4.$ 4.$ 4.$ �.$ 4.$ 4.$ 4.$ �.$ �11-Red Tirne (sj 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 22 2 � 2.2 2.2 2.2 Last Tirne Adjust �sj 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total LAst Tirne (sj 7.0 7 n 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7A 7.0 LeadlLag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Gptimize? Yes 't`es Yes Yes Yes 1+'ehicle EtQension (sj 3.0 3.0 �.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall blotie Colin Min Min Min Min Min Colin D,1in Min Walk Time (sj 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont tiU'alk �) 3�.0 ^sh.0 32.0 Pe�_iestrian Calls ��rrj 0 0 4 Aa:t Effct Green �Sj �.1 31.3 31 ? $.� 51.E 137.7 21.3 64.5 6�.5 t-�:tuated gIC Ratio 0.04 0.2� 0.23 0.06 0.37 1.00 0.15 0.47 0.47 vtc Ratio 0.31 0.76 0.62 0.0$ 0.$7 0.�5 U.$0 0.$5 OA1 Car�ral Delay �4.0 55.1 57.6 67.1 46.$ 0.9 79.5 37.d 0.0 Queue Dela}� 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Imrrtokalee Rd -Randall 61vd -2030 Atu1 no FJ 02l13l2020 Baseline Synchra 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page i257 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes, `Jaltames, Timings 3: 4th St N ElRandall Blvd Immrkalee Rd 02r13rzo2a Lane Grr��.rp EBL EBT EBR. UUBL W6T 'UUBR NBL NB7 PdBR. SBL SBT SBR Tcrtal Delay 54.0 55.1 57.6 67.1 46.E 0 g 79.5 37.4 0.0 L03 D E E E D A E D A Approach Delay 64.0 55.7 33.3 41.3 Approach LOS D E C D Queue Length 50th k'tt) 9 262 1 V 7 604 0 192 564 0 Queue Length 95th fit) 42 316 2°3 27 611 0 #4310 W 0 Internal Link Dist fit) 413 695 639 90 Turn Bay Length (t) 250 235 500 450 235 Base Capacity (Uph) 72 1313 420 126 1996 1538 315 2641 �54 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v.+c Ratio 0.31 0.64 0.52 0.06 0.81 0.45 0.67 0.78 0.01 Intersection Surnmary+ Area Type: Other Cycle Length:150 Actuated Cycle Length:137.7 PJatural Cyrle:140 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated tulahimurn vlr, Ratio: 0.3? Intersection Signal Delay:40.8 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity lJtilization 81.3°lc. ICU Level of Service D Analysis Feriod (min)15 # 95th percentile valurr7e e}..needs capacity, queue may be longer. Queue sho�.r�n is ma,:irnum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 3:4th St NE1Randall Blvd &Irr�mokalee R,d Imrnokalee P,d -Randall Blvd -2030 Aro1 no FJ 02l1312020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 258 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lanes, Volt. :o%3 Timings 3: 4th St NEIRandall Blvd & Immokalee Rd 05AU2020 log Lane Group EBL EET EER DUEL UUBT 'frtER NEL PJET NER SEL SET SER Lane Configurations + T ttt r ttt r Traffic Valurrie (vph) 4 6 12 W 8 206 1605 725 206 2031 5 Future Volume (vph) 4 6 12 N7 8 206 3 1605 725 206 2031 6 Ideal now (aphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1000 1900 Storage Length fit) 0 0 260 250 235 500 450 235 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length fit) 50 50 50 60 Lane Util, Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 0 .�26 0.855 U60 U50 FIt Protected 0.991 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1661 0 00 1547 0 1719 4940 153, 1719 4940 1r)U Fit Permitted 0.901 0.9o0 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1661 0 4W 1547 0 1719 4940 1538 1719 4940 16U Right Turn on Red Yes No Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 12 621 131 Link Speed (mph) 30 45 46 45 Link Distance (ft) 493 776 719 1028 Travel Time (s) 11.2 11.7 10.9 15.6 Peak Haar Factor 0.97 0.97 0,97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 6% 6% 5% 6°v 5% 6% 60/0 5% 5OA 6% 5% Jj. Flow rph) 4 6 12 1018 y 212 $ 1655 747 212 2094 5 Shared Lane Traffic (°k) Lane Group Flow (ti,ph) 0 22 0 1018 220 0 8 1665 747 212 204 5 Tura T1pe Split NA Split NA Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 8 4 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases Free 2 Detector Phase ° 8 4 4 1 6 6 2 2 Switch Phase hdinirnurn Initial (s) 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 15.0 6.0 15.0 15.0 hdinimurn Split (s) 12.0 12.0 49.0 49.0 12.0 46.1 12.1 40.0 4040 Total Split (s) 12,0 '12.0 49.0 49.0 241.0 66.0 33.0 6�.0 68.0 Total Split (°r6) $.0% 3Vo% 32.7% 32.7% 14to% 37sa% 22.0% 45.3% 450a% Maximum Green (s) 5.0 5.0 42.0 42.0 14.0 4 �.9 26.0 61.0 61.0 1`ellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4 9� 0 4.8 4.a 4.8 4.S JkRed Time ) 2 2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 OA 0.0 Total Lost Time (6) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.0 LeadlLag Lag Lead Lail Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes �iehicle E)dension (s) 3.0 43,0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min UValk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk k�s) 35.0 35.0 32.0 Fedestrian Calls (Ater) 0 0 0 V,at Effct Green 0) 5.0 37.2 37.2 10.2 49.1 141.7 22.2 61.2 01.2 actuated g1C Ratio 0.04 0.26 0.26 0.07 0.36 1.00 0.16 0.43 0.43 vlc Ratio 0.31 0.30 0.54 0.07 0.97 0.49 0.79 0.9% 0.01 Control Delay 54.9 54A 50.E 63.4 61.1 1.1 7�.9 55.5 0.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Imrnokalee Rd -Randall Blvd -2030 Ahil w Pj 05r1312020 Easeline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1259 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes,'JOltames, Timings :4th StNElRdndall Blvd IrnmOkalee Rd G5r13rzG2o t LaneGmup EEL EBT EBR. 11UEL WBT '�IfBR NBL tJE7 NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Delay 54.9 54 A 50'i 63.4 61.1 1.1 7 55.5 0.0 LOS D D D E E A E E A Approach Delay 54.9 53.7 4206 57.6 Approach LOS D D D E Queue Length 5Oth eft) 9 314 177 7 565 0 193 �716 0 Queue_ Length 95th (It) 42 M 270 26 0727 0 293 AM 0 Internal Lint; Dist M) 413 695 639 9 4 � Turn Bay Length fit) 250 235 500 450 235 Base Capacity (vph) 70 1442 460 170 1710 15U 316 2134 73� Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vic Ratio 0.31 0.71 0.48 0.05 0.97 0.49 0.67 0 % 0.01 Intersection Surnmar Area Type: Other Cycle Lsngth:150 Actuated Cycle Length:141 .7 hlatural Cyrle:140 Control Type: Actuated-Uncaordinatecl Maxim urn vJr. R;atia: 0.98 Intersection Signal Dela;r:50.7 Intersectian LOS: D Intersection Capacity tJtiliaatian �6.s°io ICU Level at Service E Analysis Periad (min)15 �Volume e,tceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue sharr�n is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume erreeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shaven is rna„irr�um after two cycles. and Phases Imrriakalee Pad -Randall Elvd -2G30 AD,1 w Pj 05t13t?020 Easeline Synchra 10 Repart Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1260 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 __ _. Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3:4#h StNElRandall �Ivd � Irnmakalee Rd 42r13tz424 Lane Group EEL EET EER. tiNEL 1fUET UUER. NBL hIET NER SEL SET SBR Lane Configurations � �1� � '� �"��` � � `f`�`�` i� Traffic Valurr�e (uph,� 3 0 2 350 4 28 8 1904 736 60 732 2 Future Volume (vph� 3 0 2 354 4 28 8 1904 736 64 732 2 Ideal Floav (aphpl� 1944 1904 1900 1900 1944 1900 1940 1940 1940 1940 1904 1904 Storage Length l�) 4 4 254 0 235 345 450 235 Storage Lanes 0 4 2 0 1 1 1 1 Taper Length ltt) 50 144 54 50 Lane Util. Farlor 1.40 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.44 1.04 0.91 1.40 1.44 4.91 1.40 Ftt 4.946 0.967 0.850 4.850 Flt Protected 0.971 4.954 4.964 4.954 0.950 Satd. Flaav (prat] 0 1711 4 3159 1557 0 1770 4988 1538 1703 4893 1583 Fft Permitted 0.971 t).950 0.964 4.954 0.950 Satd. Flaw (perrrr) 4 1711 0 3159 1557 0 1774 4988 1538 1703 4893 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes `(es Satd. Flow(RTOP,) 182 11 759 131 Link Speed (mphj 30 45 45 45 Link Distance �1 493 775 719 1428 Travel Tirne (s) 11.2 11.7 10.9 15.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 U.97 4.97 4.97 0.97 0.97 4.97 4.97 4.97 Heav)r Vehicles (°I°) 2°,� 2°�6 2°l0 4°r6 2°t� 2°�0 `L°� 4°I° 5°�6 6°'0 6°'0 2°r6 ;��ij. Floud �5rph} 3 0 2 361 4 29 8 1963 759 62 755 2 Shared Lane Traffic (°�j 27°� Lane Group Fla uv (vph j 4 5 4 264 134 4 8 1963 759 62 755 2 Tum Tape Split PJA Split hJA Prot t<1A pt+av Frot NA Perm Pratected Phases 8 8 4 4 1 6 6 4 5 2 Permitted Fhases 2 Detector Phase 8 8 4 4 1 6 6 4 5 2 2 S�ti�itcti Phase blinirnurn Initial (s) 5.0 5.4 5.4 5.4 5A 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 Adinimurn Split (s} 12.4 12.4 49.0 49.0 12.4 46.1 12.1 40.0 40.4 Tatal Split (s� 16.4 16.0 62.4 62.4 13.4 48.6 23.4 59.0 59.0 Total Split (°�b� 14.7°�i 14.7or° 41.3°v 41.3°�0 8.7°io 32.4°r6 15.6% 39.3°l° 39.3°ru Ma�irn um Green (s� 9.4 9.4 55.0 55.0 6.4 41.6 16.4 52.4 52.4 l`ellow Tirne (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.$ 4.8 4.8 4.8 r�Jl-Red Tirne (s} 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 22 22 Lost Tirne Adjust (s} 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0 (� 0.0 4.0 0.0 Tcrtal Last Tirne (s) 7.0 7.4 7.0 7.0 7.4 7.4 7.0 7.0 LeadtLag Lag Lead Lacl Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? 1`es `�`es Yes Yes Yes Vehicle E�ension (sl 3.4 3.4 3.0 3.0 3.4 s.0 3.0 3.4 3.0 Recall tulocie Colin Min rosin Colin Min bliri Colin totin blin UUalk Time (sj 7.4 7.4 7J� Flash Dant 1Nalk (:) 35.4 35.0 ;>2.4 Pedestrian Calls (#>a}ir} 4 0 0 Act Effct Green (S} 5.5 18.4 18.4 28.8 41.8 59.8 9.1 22.2 22.2 Actuated gtC Ratio 0.05 4.18 4.18 4 �8 0.41 4.58 4.49 4.22 0.22 tide Ratio 4.02 4.48 4.46 4.02 ci.g7 0.63 4.41 4.71 4.44 Control Delay 0.2 41.4 44.2 32.4 44.4 2.9 53.9 41.5 4.0 Queue Delay Ci.0 4.4 0.4 4.0 4A 4.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 Imrnokalee Rd -Randall Elud -2419 PAd 42�`1312420 Easeline S�nchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA F� a g � � 261 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 41h StNEJRandall Blvd Immokalee Rd 02AM2020 Lane Cra�_ip EBL EBT EBR. 1.fUBL 1fUBT UUBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Delay 0.2 41.0 40.2 32.0 44A 2.9 53.9 41.5 0.0 L08 A D D C D A D D A Approach Delay 0.2 40.7 32.E 42A Approach LOS A D C D Queue Length 50th t} 0 85 76 4 446 0 lt 39 167 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 132 145 18 *90 25 �7 225 0 Internal Link Dist (ft} 413 695 639 948 Turn Bay Length (t) 250 235 305 450 235 Ease Capacity (Uph) 316 1702 iW 496 2032 1Ml 273 2492 871 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced u+c Ratio 0.02 0.16 0.15 0.02 0.97 0.56 0,23 0.30 0.00 Intersection Surnmar? Brea Tppe: Other Cycle Length:150 Actuated Cycle Length:102.6 PJatural Cyrle:130 Control Tppe: Actuated -Uncoordinated blaximurn vlr, Ratio: 0.97 Intersectian Signal Delay:35.5 Intersection LOS: D Intersectian Capacity Utilization 71.4°ro ICU Level of Service C Analy5is Feriad (min} 15 # 95th percentile volurne e}reeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue sho�.ron is maximum aftertwo cycles. Splits and Fhases: 3: 4th St NE1Randall Blvd & Irrimokalee R>=1 Imrnokalee Rd -Randall Blvd -2019 PAd 02l13l2020 Baseline Synrhro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 262 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lines, l�roliame�, TimincJs 3:4th �tNEtRandall Blvd & Irnrn�kalee Rd o2ri3�zo24 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR. UUBL UUBT UUBR NBL h�16T t�JBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations c� ��j� '�i � �"��` �` *1 'f`�`�' i► Traffic Volume �Uph} 3 10 5 664 $ 16$ 5 1921 $36 16$ 1572 3 Futune Lrolume (�ph} 3 14 5 6�4 $ 16$ 5 1921 $36 16$ 1572 3 Ideal Floau �irphpl} 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1904 1900 Storage Length (ft} 0 0 254 254 235 544 454 235 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length fit} 54 54 50 u0 Lane Util. Factor 1.44 1.04 1.04 0.9� 1.04 1.00 1.40 4.91 1.00 1.06 0.91 1.40 Frt 0.962 U.$57 4.$50 4.$50 Fft Protected 0.992 4.954 0.954 4.9a4 Satd. Floav (prat} 0 1727 4 4$4$ 1551 0 1719 �19d0 153$ 1719 d940 153$ Ftt Permitted 4.992 0.9�4 4.950 0.950 Satd. Flaw sperm} 0 1727 4 4$4$ 1551 0 1719 �3940 153$ 1719 d940 153$ Right Turn on Red Yes No Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTO P.} 5 599 131 Lintz Speed (mph} 30 45 �5 45 Link Distance fit} 493 77;, 719 102$ Trar,�el Tirne (s} 11.2 11.7 14.9 15.6 Peak Hour Factor 4.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 p.97 0.97 4.97 4.97 0.97 4.97 4.97 0.97 Heavy Vehicles (�f,} �°�o �°/(0 50�° r�o� roro J% 5°�i �°l0 5°% 5°{0 �°r6 5°fo A�ij. Flood �srph} 3 10 5 �$0 $ 173 5 19$0 $62 173 1621 3 Shared Lane Traffic (°�} Lane G coup Flow (Wph } 4 1$ 0 6$4 1$1 4 5 19$0 $62 173 1 ti21 3 Turn Tppe Split t�JA Split NA Prot NA. Free Prat NA Ferm Protected Phases $ $ 4 4 1 6 ,� 2 Permitted Fhases Free 2 Detector Phase $ $ 4 4 1 6 5 2 2 S�uitch Phase ttdinirnurr� Initial (s} 5.0 �.4 �.0 a.4 5.4 15.0 �.0 1a.4 1�.0 btinimurn Split (s} 12.0 12.4 49.4 49.0 12.0 46.1 12.1 40.0 40.4 Total split (s} 12.4 12.0 35.0 35.0 27.0 71.4 32.0 76.0 76.0 Total Split (°�6) $A% $.4°to 23.3°'0 23.3°l0 1$.4°r� �7,3°l0 21,3% �4.7°l0 50.7°io Maxirnum Green (s} 5.0 5.0 2$.0 2$.0 20.0 64.0 2�A 69.0 69.0 '�'ellorro Time �s) 4,$ �.$ �.$ 4.$ �.$ d,$ d.$ 4.$ �.$ rill -Red Tirne (s} 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 Last Tirne Ar�just (s} 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 4.0 Total Lost Tirne (s} 7.0 7A 7.0 7.0 7.4 7.4 7.0 7.0 Lead?Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimise? Yes '�'es Yes Yes Yes 1+'ehicle E�ension fsl 3.4 3.4 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.0 3.4 3.4 3.0 Recall btode t�,1in blip h�in tulip Min blip Min h,1in Min Uilalk Time (s} 7.0 7.0 7.4 Flash Dant 1tUalk (s} 35.4 35.0 32.0 Fecfestrian Calls (#err} 4 4 4 A,:t Effct Green (s} 5.0 2�.3 25.3 23.1 �•2.3 139.$ 19.4 �$.2 5$.2 ><�:tuated g?C Ratio 4.44 0.1$ 0.1$ 4.17 0.45 1.44 4:14 0.42 4.42 v?c Ratio 4.27 0.7$ 4.65 4.02 0.90 0.56 4.74 4.79 0.04 Control Delay 65.9 �2.4 65.9 55.4 43.1 1.0 7$.2 3$.6 4.0 Queue Delay fi.0 0.4 0.0 4.0 OA 4.4 0.0 0.4 U.4 Imrnokalee P.d -Randall Elvd -2430 PM na FJ 42?1312020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 263 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes, 'Volumes, Timings 3: nth St NEIRandall Blvd Immokalee Rd 42L}3!2024 Lane Giyi_rp EEL EET EBR. 11b'BL UV ET 'OVER NBL MET NER SEL SBT SER Total Delay 65.9 62 o 65.9 65.0 43.1 1.5 78.2 38.6 0.0 L03 E E E D D A E D A Approach Delay 65.9 62.8 305 42.3 Approach LOS E E C D Queue Length 6Cdh fit) 12 215 158 4 618 0 167 480 0 Queue Length 95th fit) 42 274 252 18 746 0 243 517 0 Internal Link Dist fit) 413 695 639 948 Turn Bay Length fit) 260 236 500 450 235 Ease Capacity (�ph) 06 977 312 283 2276 1538 309 2453 830 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced We Ratio 0427 0.70 0.58 0.02 0.87 0.66 0.56 0.66 0.00 Intersection Surr7mary Area Tpt_ie: Other Cycle Length:150 Actuated Cycle Length:139.8 hlatural Cyr le: 150 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated blaximum vk Ratio: 0.90 I1ersection Signal Delay:39.5 Intersection Capacty rtilization8361% Analysis Period (min)16 Splits and Phases: 3:4th St NE1Randall Blvd &Immokalee RBI Intersection LOS: D ICU Level of Service E Immokalee Rd - Randall Blvd -2434 P(till no PJ 4211372024 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 264 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lanes,l�F�liames, Timings �: nth �tNElRandall Blvd � Irnmukal�� Rd Lane Grr�up Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vphj Future Volume (tiph) Ideal Flobv tirphpl) Starage Lenr4th l�) Storage Lanes Taper Length �� Lane lltil. Far�tor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flowav drat) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Right Turn on P.ed Satd. Flaw (RTG P.) Link Speed (mph Link Distance �) Travel Tirne (s� Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles (°r6) A.dj. Flaw ��pil� Shared Lane Traffic (°�j Lane Group Flaav (vph) Tura Type Pratected Phases Permitted Phases Detector Phase Su���itch Phase Minirnurr� Initial (s) blinimurn Split (s) Total Split (s) Tatal Split (°�� Maximum Green (s� `�`ellorro Time (sj All -Red Tirne (s) Vast Time Adjust (s) Tatal Lost Tirne (s) Lead�Laq Lead -Lag Optimi?a_? 1+'ehicle E�ension (sl Recall blade Walk Time (sj Flash laant 1.f�'alk (s} Pedestrian Calls (#err) Art Effct Green (s j Actuated g1C Ratia v'lc Ratio Cantral Delay Queue Delay 47�34>"zo2o EEL EET EER. 1NEL WET UtrBR NEL t�JET hJER SEL SBT SBR 3 10 � 76$ $ 16$ 5 2432 1414 16$ 1639 3 3 14 5 7E$ $ 16$ 5 2432 1410 164 1639 3 1944 1944 1944 1900 1944 1944 1944 1944 1944 1904 19b4 1944 4 4 254 2�4 235 544 454 235 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 54 54 �4 54 1.b4 1.44 1.40 4.94 1.04 1.44 1.44 4.91 1.04 1.b4 b.91 1.40 4.9E2 4.$57 4.$54 4.$�0 0.992 4.954 4.954 4.954 4 1727 4 4$4$ 1�51 0 1719 4944 153$ 1719 4940 153$ 0.992 b.9�4 4.954 4.95[) 4 1727 0 4$4$ 1551 0 1719 4944 153$ 1719 4944 153$ Yes No Yes Yes 5 6$4 131 30 493 11.2 4.97 4.97 �o� r�o� 3 14 0 1$ Split h1A $ $ $ $ 5.4 5.4 12.4 12.4 11.4 '11.4 7.3°rb 7.3°b 4.4 4.4 4.$ 4.$ 2.2 2.2 4.4 7.a 3.G 3.4 tutin blin 4.4 0.43 4.33 72 7 4.a 45 45 775 719 11.7 14� 4.97 4.97 4.97 b.97 4.97 4.97 0.97 �°�0 5°1�0 54fo 5°r� 5°Io �°l0 5°�0 5 792 $ 173 5 2095 1441 4 792 1$1 4 5 2495 1441 Split PJA Prot NA Free 4 4 1 6 Free 4 4 1 6 5.4 �.4 �.4 15.4 �39.6 49.b 12.0 46.1 39.4 39.4 30.b � 7.4 26.4°��0 26.4% 24.4°,'0 44.7°l0 32.4 32.4 23.4 64.4 4.$ d.$ 4.$ 4,$ 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.'2 4.4 p.4 4.4 4.4 7.4 7.4 7.0 7.4 Lag Lead Yes Yes 3.4 3.b 3.4 3.4 Min Tulin blin Min 7.4 7.b 7.4 35.4 3�.4 32.0 4 4 4 2$.6 2$.0 22.6 64.2 144.4 b.24 0.24 4.1 � 4.43 1.4b b.$4 4.57 cj.42 4.99 b.6$ 60.3 5$f3 54.4 56.3 2.4 4.4 0.0 4.4 b.4 4.0 Imrnokalee P,d -Randall Elvd -2434 PM w Pj 47�`�0�?424 Baseline 4L 142$ 15.�i 4.97 4.97 4.97 �°�$ $°4, 5°l0 173 1694 3 173 1694 3 Prat NA Perm . 2 2 5 2 2 6.4 15.4 15.0 121 40.4 40.4 33.0 74.0 70.0 22.4°!0 4�.7°fo 46.7°l0 26.4 63.4 63.4 4.$ 4.$ 4.$ 2.2 2.2 2.2 4.4 4.4 4.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 Leg Lead Lead Yes Yes Yes 3.4 3.4 3.0 biro blin Min 19.1 56.7 a�S.7 0:14 b.40 4.44 4.74 4.$4 4.44 77.5 42.4 4.4 b.b 4.4 G.4 Synchro 1 b Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page i 265 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes, l��altames, Timings �: 4th St N ElRandall Blvd & Irnrnr�kalee Rd U7/3Ufz024 Lane Cm�_rp EBL EBT EBR. UUBL W6T 'U11ER NBL td6T NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Dela} 72.7 eyU,3 5�.8 54.4 56.3 2.4 77.5 42.4 U.0 LOS E E E D E A E D A Approach Delay 72.7 60.0 38.4 d5.5 Approach LOS E E D D O,ueue Length Stith �'ft) 12 246 15U 4 �713 G 15C 544 U Queue Length 95th (ft) 42 312 ?43 18 #Ca13 U 241 S�?3 U Internal Linh Dist {ft� 413 C95 639 948 Turn Eay Length �tj 25U 235 SUU 450 235 base Capacity (Uph) 54 1112 355 291 2124 1538 32U 2231 7E6 Star�ration Cap f�,:ductn U 0 U U U U U 0 4 Spillbacf; Cap Reductn U U U U 0 0 U U U Storage Cap Redurtn U U U U U U U 0 0 Reduced vic Ratio U.33 U.71 U.51 U.U2 U.99 U.68 U.54 U.7� U.UU Intersection Surt�m Area Tppe: Other Cycle Lsngth:1 SO Actuated Cp�le Length:14U �latural Cprle:15U Control Tppe: Actuated -Uncoordinated folaxim urr7 vh: Ratio: U.9�3 Intersection Signal Gelay:44.•� Intersection LOS: D Irtersection Capacity utilization 87."s"in ICU Level of Service E Analpsis Period (min)15 Volume e,tceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shoran is maximum aftertwo cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may he longer. Queue shown is ma,�irr�um aftertavo cycles. Spl�s and Phases: 3:4th St NE;Randall 61vd �Irnrnokalee R�1 S3� �� s31 T ��4 �r6 �� 5 6? a �¢ •- .: Imrnokalee Rd -Randall Elvd -2U3U Pf'.� w Pj U7�'3U�?02U Baseline S;rnchro 1 U Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1266 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Development Accumulation -Capacity Analysis Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 267 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Trip Generation —Unadjusted ��� 7.= _ .�� �. Ern/ Esr l�r, �r�t�e►r+ai � 1 I �- � ! � �tl�� € � G �`�_ � `y' f 6 +a+ Y tactl�r, � ( � 4 i ' �1 gal � � f e �1 � E W, �. �_ __,___��_. ._. w � . y:,. � �_. _.� . .�,.. ��..�.,. �. � ,�� _. w� � .� x_ .�� ��_ %� � # j � �`�� fi�� � � � T�t� _ � � a*�� `f:,. i .. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 268 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T/S —Section 2 —August 2020 P�itlt�±+ �tl �� A�alys+ls fVa�ta~: irh� Dealt H�eur �r�Jett Aiamu : �lllfle,� MD: ��t�� at'1 �q�q Sl�t��`�r�ntlnte: � ��d s`Q�Un#r�; Clf4ni I�,7f1i�,; JMY'1��"a IMldr11�: Eclltiarl: Ind ���� IndePenderut �e 71m�e rraN�ad Varlebla ?1tr Sirs�l�-t�,arntt� III�Urtficc �5t���' 1++e�krlay,i�e�k [�eGa,ched tir�ustng Hour of {�nrraf �►cgt � Ut��rvStJ�eirf,�ny Tra�MY�, Qn� HpW B�O++�een7 end � a,m. 22$r Multiply Housl�tg ttrdw-�f�ej {�enet�i Uf�aNSul�r�atlj C;rRltr Park (iser�er'a! Urt�av+,rSu>hur�anj l5v�lling Urdu i�.1��1i 1Meekday, Pik Her �F AdJa�t 5treft Tr�t�1�, L��E Hour i�etw+ee� 7 and 9 a.m. 1;�i�0 �q. � �F.A 71�5 - ��4pP� Ciritu � �4 rt. i;f� ��� t�ener�i ttr6arir5rE�n� i' ,� Ir*.�i�tzf ar�all +ilt�tlf•_ pits. �a�� ��t-Q►uMy, 4Veakday� fyt�bk Hour of �dJbae�t 5trreat Tra�i�, ►one �fqur EJ�tvYeein 7 and 9 a,m. �leekday� yak Hour of a�a�nt �re�t Tr�l� Qn� Hour Hct�raKt 7 a[nd � a,m. f". Rest Ftt{�IN� t � �CJ.T1 t?�ii�l.� pest Flt �i.�G� lt1[Tj = G,�SIn�(Xj #-s].51 �eiE fist {Li Nj T- i�.� t15f.7$ tr+lp �� I►�an�uaA, 1�� Ed Ef1�► Eft Total f?i�1 �t144 ��� 7� 75ib �3 +131Jy sand � �n�ry +�dt�d �i�y �x�e u�o� �d�u �,� R�l��tf cn �'��-51r+�laaFamlly Dateched IHousirag �'2�1 AAuldrarrrllY Hau$ln� {LtMt=Rl�e} i5� - QRI�e Perk �Q't tsCi it "� Z4�4 � '9?� � Ll t � 4l 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 269 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 i F k ' Y i` "x ��� 1c�� �c���y r ���s�r�� -11�1 t�i�y► i���a�r� �>L� a �� t � rid ►; � � �� � ��r� � i�,����y � �� _ � E� m� �1Q�= 5i�t���nn�y a ��� �cl d i r � di Y F 3: 4 R �- r'. � � � i s !� i��Cit Ei� � �k �! ��� �� a .,; w %- � � ,, � r � �, if! - • i ", `� � :; r i 1 4 ,� r � '� �s: � � s:. � , � �� � � �� � �� _ s i i Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 270 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 ._��.� ����. _ �_ _�__�� . __ ._.___..�_ _ ��_ _u__.., _ _ _� ...�_ __ � � £ g ��� � � � € Y ��,. Yr..�..., , s : ,..... , ., ...,., ,.�: ,,,, a..m .._ ., m ., ......,, ,. _ .._. .w. .. ,� �a * j [�yt F � J _ � w P�:rk I �� � z i � �m�� � � iH�u�t�� �l��pr� � iH��lrr� � '�� � C 3 � � .. i � _ E.� w _ _ �_ 3,. �u P �� �I � �' �' � ��I� � �lr�� - �t�lFt1C� - �� Tel � t �rlp� !�� � { s. - ,., i � -� f 1 - !. ni . i � + � M Rlt�� ��i��t` Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 271 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T/S —Section 2 —August 2020 �naly�ls I� Pr�,ec�t M dace: �rglRrevh�; Country: M�lyst'a Name: land Imo® 3i1T �ingl�Far��l� t��r��e:i �i��u5►n� {�,:er�era I UthdN5�klCk�d�lj �.�- hAt�lkl��y I�iD1Llf1� (l.bW-�15l� {�enatal Urbar�5uttur�an� 7� � t�fif� mark (General Urtaau�iur6anj GPM Peak Hour � �Ilta�es �r��a�� Independent Varlahle IUrtg L�nl� 01N����ng ��t5i 1 �f�0 �q. fit. �Fa4. �� - 5hopping Center 1U�A �q. �#. GSA ltsneral urfiar�rSuhtrrk�anj �' E �'11�4 .��T�'►1h1�i �p�o Cllent �� Edl#lan: �e 'rlme �erlo+� A�khari 14 t�'' Weekday, Peek N lour oP �Jl �� Trg11i�, Qrte Hqur eet�en f �d b p.m, i�_1 j��1! 1Meekda�yr pr�ak Hear Cif �a�e 9tre�c TrattlG Qne Nvur �etiwreett 4 and � p.rn, �, �r}? We�tkdsy, Leek � lour aF A�iJarent 5itreet Tra»i�. Qne Hour B�et�en +� and 6 p,n,,, �45 4A+eakdayr Weak Motu of �a�t �rt� TrefiFl�, Ong Mourt�tween+� and 6 p,m, ��'� ir•7+c��rr� �r��ll.,��ir� Nr_a,uaecate��r, Eiest �1t�l.t3G� q+r*t Flt {l.�Gj LrrCr} = a,B91.r�kj �-�F�2 hest ract�.+��� �.nf1a • a,����x? +2,�� trip Ctn h4att�vai, 11]�t Ed Et1Cry1 �!� °fgCal �477 '� �S5 ��� 631i6 ��+ g�7 3'!'�b 5�9 �Z'9b 1�42 � i353 --- _ ._ iR.�iFFi� AE�fI�.��1�1N Leese{ 1�.s+e EWS�tan Ad,�tr�t�d E1i�/ �dt �edu�tlan 1��usted F�ttt tit-5lr+�I�Farn►ly Qetechad M�ou�ng � � Z��i' � �h 14�5 - M�dd�arr�ly fiou�ing(L�f•Rl�ej � `� 9 9b +4a�' ?5t1- [�Rl�e Perk ti �". 6 � P� 711 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 272 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �� r s f � � ����a �tl 455 [� rid � � � � ��d ry: �i �f6 {{� �� i�45 E�t�r �`77 �� rid � � � � acl�; fib; � �€� �fii�y.�f-��r���r t�: � � _ Perk �9�� �I-�a a list _ � ray �7 � � � � sD��e�d ���; � � c 1� � i°�t� T'r _ �i � ii� � a cue rt M,� ��Q �'�ta ! �ct�i 1 �rlps Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 273 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �� i �� �� 1! � M "F "ht�' i Ld a'id �°'� 4d "" Sa 5A 7a� p �'i' �1�d'�Sl � � c _._..__ � ._�__..� _..w _.... _� _. __. __..____.. .... ___.._._ _._ . _. ; I � i�!�Il�r � � � E � � � �r� 4 P 1� �H[ � � � ��wa� �u.» , �.w .�� �_�. � . a �.. e.a.�_ �wa _..� �_ � # � .� ._u _�W�. ��r�l�y � i Qu�lrr� � �h�E l z �o� �:+ � � s `s � �� � � to j 5�i6 i96� � � �� 1 �i {96� . . �3 �'�� r >� � G �1� � � ��t! �1� y %tom �ir�ap_ ' ' �- E� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 274 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Trip Generation — AM Peak Hour Adjustments Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 275 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �� �� ,�, �;, .. _ .._. _ �,. �-�r, �'� � �'� �4 }� ,� �� ti: ,. ». ate- � ^ID �� a:J �� �L tJ'Y E'er LLF i-{ t t3 � tie ',� , '� Sib � �� � � L �� �; r ii �_ _ � � � t a � � � �� ,�, �a �� �"" _ �..+ �= et �, .tom '� �'"i t.: 3 '"� i� � l� art ''� ,a- Pti1 � � � � � � fd 4� .�.' � '� �, a� a�,, _ >� es�c�t r-�. yg�� � �: .*� � �f s-q Cl a1,,�1� ;.ii# i±v fffi ? .�3 ��'i�p��, {�Xt Siw #. 'T'�t y9 T.t� ',. t5. �% � R.S., Sa..' !.� alp' .<`1 lli iw. � � ,i, 'V �" � [^ � '�f �1 '13. � � , x.. `.R. ; STY `� r� '�. � �Yt. �.. tai �,�� �i _, � G `- "" �� y l"9 yy �LL �. � �•� � �1' 3" i� 1'�. � � ill eat �^ '�'-Z'�r t+�+ i�i �i ,�i «�� �' , r � ,� � � ,� � � lli � .� � x3 1. `tea � � j � s7 � � t i {{,,� e-� ! � t�1 T� ,.�.! i ; �1 eii 1 � � s t� M� ' pr u.l �"� ..�tt �. ...a � �j � ssr �:C :za �'; r', '� �;� :'. �` t -�_, �, � a *'"-��, ^s } #� aT+ i�J /i`a t�` r�'` � �`Fi if: t7e.. "" ,�,a` �3 � 1»- � t� "�" Ir # rr � R�7 tfi �,;� art [.� c 1�# id'jj lam• � �l �# #sa � ��• u � t-�`i � .� v r,3 t-+t � : w 4 (�*' rei , i`� � rr� it. � f"3 t'f? � aar � � � � �.. a` ;r � � � Ili r. � � �� r�l rr"�' � fix: �n t.r3 -« � i-^ C I— � Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 276 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Trip Generation — PM Peak Hour Adjustments � ���' €—� u:- � � �a aYu. �� � �' a. �, � � � ��_ '� 13- =t � � �' � ��.t, � i�7 is S� " � � � r� �I �` � � � r- � � uti .i- '�° z'�i � � 4i �' 1= I ,� Ut i ,.:x :�' �€,`.:.. �, � � m� � sue. a °:1' {;+'s �- GY- r- �, � i Y� � � �? _.... .. k��*. < �y" � - ..i :.�. i ,� �' — � � ;� ., � �* L � � �` FJ � r-E '' 4� � � � Esc �+' � sue. �� is r9 �_, � `� �., `" -. csx •"��.. . ', �. �� r� � ,,� _ �3 � �� � �,�,, � per= � , ,; � � a. � is .__ Fes. �,,: "� � � c �� �, � � � ' °� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 277 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —August 2020 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 278 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 ADpendix H: Development�Accumulation -Roadway Segments Capacity Analysis Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA page � 279 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Roadway Segments —Peak Direction es.. =fl '?� M,� C,ff E`J 1."1 � G " x`9 :Y Y_ lTS C1 :5 �S. }"}! 3`v Y`. it yq �a a` �' �r*d +�{ La � � �s 9 ^� "� h� r r S'S `' 1 £.I � .,,z !r: . es � ,:.. s »±i a7 rev � � u: ra � » r� 'rir rf �s s 'n '"` � ' fn �a s� `'° � �s ! '3 °` k» !�. f'[. � `i ,d �' i- w( h a. tT3 C }� as• t,�i is '�'s� �R#. ffi3 s-� �;. r � 's ,.. � � ai" � Y*x � �,. - - � 9" Yf � ec. kd �. PJ$ *�' '� f+ €;" $pj ss« � f's+ � � }s'-. v.s N � 1b# � ' v�u � �,! + �:i � i=y Y� 4 �. � >� a Yr ai` �'. .' �� 1n �} 4k'' £a'j {� tY£ � ! " 3'$ �� ,�; �4 1� � .�° ��. r� cd ..# ,y. 9 i �`6 L3 f� �.E i,Y3 �, dS�! � q � (�' f�f 'sf n+}a iS � P � �'� ;��.. t "'�' �#:. 4 1 4« ��. e+ rid ���- �r} � @ *� i*f �-,,, �'v. "� d�. i. 6- ate- s... � .» e� � p i U'4 fit# a 6:! s L. ui b`_ �,y 3-u S-a �=: Pi '�' �... `s. �- � ±+� .� «," €" i'9 '�ti � 5}¢�� ?-, ,ye ,-.i .: 9 C'T ffiW 3Js �. .] � � k '� p���,{{ � L=y ++..�� i7 k� M is`s P I � 5 }#" � � 2�.v'Y "4 � � hti y+F� ll' ) ;Py ?t:,. 4�Y 3'{ ' $ �... FiP �l 3a'. P '�"' $+ ;�d '��f µ � AF` � �.$" t� { �* � A'e h1 afa !'9'. Rf xr EYx. g3' S- f �% ^i �` v,?s � Y.! i '4 z& �1 ERR %�. i'r; i�2 iW ;� ,`A S^� ,fix. x t�} $^!.. G, �� .r � '�i zrF f": �z: � �' 3 � � { esi na , , � s, r_ �S �s`^. S:t s� '�, �`' � #'`. f z� w c� � �z ,� r> S"` �' ¢"' a w �I� ' .An ,'� s'�' �* � �.. � «i s, �J.7 a ,rr �..� s+. ,^� � � � ,-! r= ra ra :a ..t � Via.:. � � � � -;+ �� � � � = � -, ; � _� ` ar, ��^�,, "'� u r ?� . �„ i1 iS ., n'': S`ro '�a �! at trE -ri .r +s r.� `� ,-� �-+ g-e ,� smt �' ?� --� .-t r! "� -: � r+ cc��(t9 gg �' �' 6 .+:i C1 1.'f ia' �C3 �'" r`" �. Li J: y l' .g.�. �, �: a.'E '"za s., svc �.«� t.". =3, P',d � S"J � 2�' 3':.' S,: o-"'d .-} � P�. �5. ` a'. � � --�ryy �3 �i', �y„, �7a to �"• � r3 s � �a z-; � is �q '�'3 rr*..3i r fs �9 =' : r � *'�� �'. 1 � � � #'c '+` €� ifi � � tt9 � pr, ''� ! �. st•;.. .-s ^r v � � � � .�; ,r. ir,, _ �.� � f'x =a t', v` �%` �i � =� `� 'J� i�. ',�', antes � �". 3�=: � �-' �';: r� "i'r4 �• a� -� ` :�-. :s �3 .a�. �i; � t.: � tl`' L' Y=x� ,2" 4� � s,.,., y`, �Te ; :i i3R `,t' .3 ,��, i"! 25 Li Y� ..Y it t,. y.� Pz i.P'. Y3 .9 �, iS ry ��... nq r'a -da r i .� P� =u ,� �., .- „r= P� '� �. x-r � d-> +- ,-� r. r '�4 r*a r� rr « r !- � � s . � �, . '�� u+' `��": r � =- e``" �,z :.-�. � -�'�` �' ;�'» ' � +��. d° �: �x ,t, a.v iF =s ' :.c v,. �, �a. zrr � � se' .� yF7 � :a r�? � 3y: '� � Pi �-' � ',e: !'7 s''. n �. ,� � s�', a� :�� L°F €`! ,� � r„r [',�: .�-. ;x�; .:.! ,�-�i ,`�' `, �' f� E,sl y�,�ri � � �.: P� C8 "u ea', y r� �^+ Y 3 xr� � ,.. � i� .� �., ;. L•: ,�# .^.3 � �, t4 � � �! ,z�: -�, *-z ,. ?x a� � .}� z L3 Es'+ YS' dr �, �: Ids ii �S }'..t aP' it` CI � 3 my � Imo.` t�'f 'v. �, _i �" M. 'A* a � �3 bd" � � "'1 P :l'. p *`x ,e,{ !. � � v'"i L FfF {� 4a c`S ' __. , _ ___ _. _, , �.�« �a'`�; � "s;�;. � `�' '� �� � �. i`! r� x' o� .ems t- M ;tip. �a'� �z^'' �."� ram' �#,. �+ t' � k¢ ..��""�� � �fs � � ¢tea tro � �M � TA S�{�; c� n ty 4? �� i�Y u'" �^' #� 3`... �" ixd a t"_1 �: �, L'^Y T 2'! �� � -,; € e � #�. %j � - L`I xi � L£ � _y ¢.. "' 7a �S � �. ..s � i3 43 s'2 is a. � b+` t3 �i � � � �.+ ,. �% re"'. ,e a"r � '�° a"� .d e � ate.. :i � � �; ,> �^ � f� c,� Ci) 's �t � ::ryry s} � � �. �` `� "-i <. d" 3_ r-3 S � !C if rn '� � i. X'?, �k'' k'3 & t Y`t ! i� J� Psi, �;( f*� r,C ('^ y�i 1%s �.°''m � j '$ I'i �3 'r�l 4F r� � +�' h k+ y. *"' '7° r4 z.8[ 4'°t P ! � �� r+ z � .. iT7 t� 9 3 erg 'S�'{i $� IIJ � '� Si � � � � � � 4'=A i� i Cz �, �! � :r.s � � 'i T9 � � �1, �, z�. ,sue.. .Cai g^t r � ''+fir @53 im"i 'su'7 n �� r � is � � .end '�..'v � x'Y & 6{` !h � S' T��j +i +T �: �' F 4h% %�`, t. T 1'T U' �$.'' # t § t Nei �3 :mod tl� i�€te i'°I ..,i` e � � „� � s�X �°i. a+# f(`i er^. {ln .f�'k 1't �["�"'° `'...: �' i� #� "i h �S � .i . s' � �..6 � �.k � Y'a f— 'ems: �j � i 1��`` t*vi �..� �^§ *i" i,i n+� � 6"�R sib.! Y" n'- �,`e � sY. «� Fa+ � � � �.., Lt �n Ps; � � 'LPA �l i^ y�y 7T,: e i �.+..s ry ,�. �' � � � Yi'.. tia '� «� r".�2. Cf1 s+ :"� - :aC' CTl � �.,` {�, li'! t#�6 �.B iii Rom+ t� tdi +'�+ .r .. ffi`s Lf4 �`. .,., z., p-gy � '.}J �, qv RF x6i 3f iFi 34 � �.' �'".. �� cN" Eff .x .i] >i= il� iid ttr ars ,� -1.• 1L aJ L3 e1e lA= }IE 3I *s,,e �y, � !J � n "3 �'.� .'w N "��3 #'? 9 s�:' � � � 1 �_ � � � ,�,. ,,�,,� � Yt wk. ts' nS tfi '� t� � i`a *� sa n" � ��' -" a >i � -t� y ..� S'� ten! �, �t„ � ��' �^j q�� .�'. °4s _ i« � L ` .a � L +.. ..r jg� �. �,Y, � �... 6.r � �� � aro3 Ste. 4- � � � `A, � � I� LLi !®.. --i i:� C ":. ..'! } 4:B 1 SJ �. „L +. tlr ?� ..,,{ � 3# � L � ,=:' ?,e. t.� '.1., �.. .» N'4 �, .� r, � as �- .ax !_ "' Y, �y to '" � � � � � Eq � T '�' F' s T�j CI 1 sr ft' d �. i� -s Y1 C .-; L:i r.�-! �5 itz i� C1 :iY .� as r_ � Y-% � t� N� - :v �..:7 �a ,..ab ._ .„x . ._.. _� _ .�a .� : s: ,��i � t rz � �`, C� � � �` m a:a � �< '� z _ -� LL: u! � 'ors � �a � � � � � y?p�{ � �. 2�d2 �O -. �. � S.a laT. f, t � i 4!r vt. ai. �. :.5i �� ta„ f1. Eiml �J .4 b �m % 4..� �..� � � 41 r? .b Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 280 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Roadway Segments —Non-Peak Direction s„ �_�, ��� � t�.r,��w, p� ��, �� ;�, . �. ��-:� �. � ,ram �, � �$ ������ m; , �� �� �- � ��, ��_��.� �r� �. �, ;� �,_ �. gig' .�. ��:� R_�� . r -� Yi s� �' �' T.�« � :sa e'—.f t5''" ry 3` .tnY `, .n`8. �. ��, ,.� ��. t a � � r3 .� � �: �� � � �e � : LT= �' :V-3 T'a ' a#' ra �... . rat ,� n ���.a ram$ � e� �' tt �� ic# � 'Ta = u,• � es t� L' "` �- � �;�" � � x u � � � � � � �' n � � � ±!f nL. � ` � r � �. �� � G � � � n er y"= � � �:� � u �: � �i G c% � �j" � #� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 281 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — HS —Section 2 —August 2020 i Development Accumulation -Traffic Projections and Synchro Reports Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 282 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Desoto Blvd —Oil Well Rd � lliffa�es Traffic By f'�er�entage Chi! Illt��l Rt� .�hr�u�h 'LV-C�C�°t6 +���°1� F�V-��0tra +l��f��jU sight L'�� - C a�'�'o +R � Q°�o �� Tr�f�� �nt�r�Exit � �©�r'o���t�°�'�� � _ �c�rrtm�r�i�f, R = R�sid�rt!ti�l �V= �ellrn�r 1�iil�g� LV= L�r��wat�r Village ��l= i�iver�r�ss 1rilta��e _- - L�ft ��SOt� Blvd m Thraugt� F�l�ht elf- G20��'� +f�15p�� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 283 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 3 Vrl'I�ag�� �taffic Y��r ���� �� All ���� ��t�r ail I/tl�ll Rd �fhrolJgh LV' -3+ 7t�= i 8 F#V-�*�183=�8� ��� IRj�ht B1/ - 1 +fir 23 L'� - 1 +��_ �� 59 T��fil� �ntec��xit � �i�t���y C = Commercial; R = R��i�iential �V= sellrr�ar Vill��� LV= Lnng�►rater �/illa�e RV= Riv�r�rass Village �`V-t � +8�i= fib) LV'-�1+iQr =1a8� 1�i Through R1l- �7 +�4 `1= G4 B� 8�� Lift BV- 2 f 4�= 4�6 ��_ ��� RV- �2 +1 ��= i �'�� 18�a F�i�nc F�11- � �+ 39= 41 1 ?'8 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1284 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 1lil���+�� �'raf�� 1�ear �O�C� �y P�{ Peak Hour �`� i I ����; � I �d T�hraugh LV//-18 +19�� 2i�8 ��� �I��� ��_��'��=�cJ LU - 4 +�9=1 C�3 17z �� C = �omrr�er�aa�, F� = F�asrd��ti�, ER'�t= P��ilrn�t ViF��g� L'V= Lc�ngw�ter Vill�g� R�'= Riv���gr�ss Vi(Ia�e Leti �V -�� -+��= 4Lp �4� �- • • + y Throix,�h LV- �1��-1�1=131� R�- �3��33�= �� �j 5� `i t_�fi� Lrl'- ��) ��- �� � + 7�=rr}�S�j G�3 �i�ht B�- t� � ��= ��) R1/- � � +131= 1 �i" ?_ 3'� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 285 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �'� � l � � � ��VTleSi` Ql - ���' �l�`�,��lL7 ill. ��L� �i P��l � it �'� �}�. � Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page (286 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 r � * � _ 1 ' � '_ ! � � � L i l � a i 1 � Li � i a � 1 � t Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 287 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lane Group EBT EBR UUBL UUBT hd Lane Configurations �� � � �� Traffi c Vo lum e (ti�h;� 650 93 267 1219 2 Future L'olume (Uph) 650 93 267 1219 2 Ideal Flot'v �+phpl) 1."�00 1944 1900 1900 19 Storage Length (ttj 240 340 Storage Lanes 1 1 Taper Length Off) 50 Lane lltil. Far_tor 4.95 1.04 1.40 4.95 1. Frt 0.850 4.9 Flt Protected 4.950 0.9 Satd. Flow (prof} 3438 1538 1719 3438 16 Fft Permitted 0:157 0.9 Satd. Flow (perm) 3438 1538 2$4 3438 16 Right Turn on Red Yes Satd. Flow (RTO P.� 140 Link Speed (mph) 55 55 Link Distance (ftj 1683 949 F TraW�el Time �s) 13.4 11.8 Peak Hour Factor 4.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 4. Heavy Vehicles (°k) 50% So�G 501° 5°� A�ij. Flour 45rph) 699 140 287 1311 2 Shared Lane Traffic (°�) Lane Group Floav (ti�ph} 699 10G 287 1311 Turn T}�pe NA Perrn pm+pt � P Prote�ed Phases 6 5 2 Permitted Fhases 6 2 Detector Phase 6 6 5 2 S�vitch Phase blinirnurr� Initial (s} 5.0 5.4 5.0 5.0 blinimurn Split (s) 23.5 23.5 10.5 23.5 3; Total Split (s) 24.4 24.0 27.0 51.0 4: Total Split (°�) 24.0°r6 24.0°l0 27.0°�a 51.4°r� 49.E Maxirnum Green (s� 18 � 18.5 21.5 45.5 4� 1`ellorro Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 AJI-Red Tirne �S) 2.0 2.4 2.0 2.4 Lost Tirt7e fidjust (s) 4.0 0.4 O.f) 4.4 � Total Lost Tirne �s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Lead?Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimiza_? Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Ea�ension �s1 3.0 3.4 3.0 3.0 Recall blade Min blin None liAin N�_ Urlalk Tlme (si 7.4 7.0 7.0 Flash Lint 1.N'alk (s) 11.4 11.0 0.0 2 Peiiestrian Calls (#,Mr) 0 0 4 Act Effct Green �} 19.6 19.6 40.9 40.9 3 l�ctuated g!C Ratio 0.23 4.23 4.48 0.48 0 v?c Ratio 4.88 0.23 0.72 0.79 4 Control Delay 48.7 9.1 29.2 24.5 3 Queue Delay 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 DeSato BI�rc1-Oil Udell Fr1- 2030 AM Corn rnitted ua Pj Irnpro�aed 05l221 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 288 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes, Voltam Tirnings 1 : DeSOte Blvd Oil Vtrzll Rd 05rMo?c, Lane G rr�up Total Delay L08 Approach Delay A{�proach LOS Queue Length Seth k t) Queue Length 95th (t) Internal Link Dist (it) Turn Bay Length tIt) Base Capacity (tiph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced vlc Ratio Intersection Sum Area Tppe: Other' Cycle Length:100 Actuated Cycle Length: 85.1 hJatural Carle: i5 Control Tppe: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vh: R;dtio: O.uB Intersection Signal Delay:32.� Intersection L05: C Intersection Capacity utilization 79.S�io ICU Level of Service D Analysis Feriod tmin)15 # 95th percentile volume e�xeeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is mafcimum after two cycles. finlitti anrf Phase�� 1 � Desoto BI•�d &Oil Well Rd S32 7 s�� Desoto Blvd -Oil Utrell ai - 2034 At�d Corn rnitted w Fj Irnprnved 45t22t202(� Baseline Synrhro 10 Report Page Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 289 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lane, Vc�lrames, Timinc�a 1 : DeS�to �Ivd &Oil V�rell Rcj o��3or�a2o --� �, ,�' '�-- ,,`1 �' line Group EBT EBR 'd�BL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations �� �' #j '�'� � Traffic Volume (vph) 1181 223 355 930 139 342 Future '+lolurn e ftiph� 1181 223 355 934 139 342 Ideal Fior�v �rphpl) 1900 1900 1900 190U 1900 1900 Storage Length �) 240 340 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 Taper Length Qt} 50 50 Lane lttil. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.G0 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.944 Flt Protected 0.950 0.986 Satd. Flow (prat} 3438 1538 1719 3438 1613 0 Flt Fermttted 0.093 0.986 Sdtd. Flomr �)erm) 3438 1538 168 3438 1 �:13 0 Riyf�n Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flou�a (RTU R) 219 123 Lint, Speed (mph) 55 55 45 Link Distance 4�) 1083 949 621 TraW�el Tirne (s) 13.4 11.8 9.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy+ Vehl Iles (°16) 5°�i 5°!�0 50� 50� 5ofr° 50� A,:lj. Flow �rpr�) 1270 240 382 1000 149 368 Shared Lane Traffic (°,b) Lane Group Flaw (i�phj 12�0 240 382 1000 517 4 Tum Tyt7e NA Ferm prn+pt t<� Prot Protected Phases 6 5 2 4 Perrriitted Phases 6 2 Detector Phase 6 6 5 2 4 Switch Phase biinirn�_rm Initial (s} 5.G 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 blinimuni Split (sj 23.5 23.5 10.5 23.5 32.5 Total Split (s) 43.0 43.0 24.0 67.0 33.0 Total Split �"°�� d3.0°� 43.0°�b 24.0°r6 E7.0°� 33.0°� btaximurn Green (s� 37.5 3�.5 18.5 61.5 27.5 Yellow Time (s� 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Rsd Tirne �) 2.0 2.0 2,0 2.4 2.0 Lost Time Acij�.rst (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (sj 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Lead;Lay Lay Lag Lead Lead -Lay Uptimize? Yes 1`es Yes Vehicle Extension (sl 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode blip Min None Min None UD'alk Tirne (sj 7.0 7.0 �.0 7 �) Flash Dont Walk �) 11.0 11.0 0.4 20.0 Pedestrian Calls (#t;Yrr',i 0 0 0 0 A,ct Eifct Green (s) 37.5 37.5 61.5 61.5 27.5 Actuated g!C R.atio 0.38 0.38 0.62 0.62 0.28 v,+c Ratia 0.99 0.34 0.98 0.4i 0.9i Control Delay 53.6 5.4 69.7 11.4 61.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Desoto BIUd -Gil Well F� - 2030 PM Cornmitteri w Pj Irnprn�red 07l30�2020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 290 Lane Z�l V U1 Llmes, Ti 1Tli ngs 1 : Desoto Blvd & Oil Well Rd Lane Grr�up Total Delay L08 Approach Delay Approach LOS Queue Length 50th (Pt) Queue Length 95th M) Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length ( t) Base Capacity (�ph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced leek Ratio Intersection Surnm EBT E6F. 1�16L lo1BT PJBL 53.6 GA 69.7 11 A 61 A D A E B E 45.9 27.5 01.4 D C E 416 8 193 167 260 #672 G8 #M 213 A70 1 G03 869 541 240 NO1289 713 390 2114 532 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.99 0.34 ON 0.47 0.97 P16 R Area Tyne: Other Cycle Length:100 Actuated Cycle Len gth:100 tdatural Cyr:le: 100 Corhol Type: Actuated- Uncoordinated Maximum vk Ratio: MO Intersection Signal Delay: 400 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity [Jilization 94,M ICU Level of Service F Analys.is Period (rnin) 15 # 95th percentile volume exn:eeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is rnaximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 1: Desoto Blvd &Oil Ulrell Rd 02 47l30t2 424 Lot .t Desoto Blvd -Oil 1�Uell Rd - 2434 PM Darn milted w Pj Irnpr�ved G7{3412G24 Baseline Synchro 14 Report Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 291 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Everglades Blvd —Oil Well Rd Eyer�lade� E�Ivti �� '�'ill�4es Traffic ��� ��r' f���Centage �hrauah LV- �5°r� +F#5'� Fight R�l� (CS�,'u file°'a} C�il'��le�I Fed ThrougC� ^M�ry ��� �`irf'� �1 ki.A f�'C� R,V-�3��� +h't55er� _� Traffic E►�terlExit - �0°�a,1��Q��'� j �' = �arrrmeroial; R =Residential �V= Bellmar Village L11= t,or�g�rr�at�r l��il�ge RV= RI V�it�c�� �� Through Rrght Through BV� (�5'4� +R���-,J L�- (� 9 ��n +R������ RV= �C3�°�'o +R��°�o� 1� eft, F�1,�- ��20°��a-�1�1 Q��a I�tV-G2Q°�a+� 1�0��� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 292 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 � 1�i1la�es Traffic Year �{�3� By Ate beak Hour Q� 11lV� 11 Ind 0 BV- 1 + t 1= 'i LV'- � + 8?= H� RV= d �14��48 ��� Tfaffi�c �nter+?Exit - �0!(�0� � � �ammer�ial; R � Re�d�ntlal EiV� B�Ilrtt�r VIII��� LV� I.s�c��vatet Villa�� f�V� Ft��rar�rass� Vill�g� +� � : s Thr���h C�V- � +11=1� �@I� RV• 1 +�3=j4 �� ����f� eV- �1 �3�4=��j �� �lght LV� 1 FiV-2+2�=�8 �, �; To Rjght r.u- {� ���= � �tV= (1 +4�= d�j �01 Through �V- �1 + 34= 3�i R1l= �� +�504=�� ��� L��i LV� ��� �5 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1293 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 3 Vill���s Tr�ffiG �� �'� Peak h�aur ���11�11��1 F�� __ v �� Thr�u�h iM E�1f- 3 + 31= �� �{�� �� `6'ret`itc �nterfExi# - �Q����;� = ��mm�t�i�l, R = Rc�sxc��r��]�i �V= �3�Ift�'r�r �Ill�g� LV= �Lan��w�t�r Vlll�g� ��J= Rr+�er�r��s Vill�g� Evergla��� Blv,� Lift L1!- � +� � = 53 �V- 3 1.31= 34 � a1 ��TT1 Through Ri�fik RV- {� f2�=� �_i �---- so �— r�i Right Tl�r�ugh ��� F�V- �;? � +48=��? �� L4�- � .1,�� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 294 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 s a i �' _ _� _ �- _ ,-� � �;� �a-� �a r+ � a rya ,� �� �,g '� 4— rj fir, � -aJ � ti5+:: k�8 r +- �' T' �. � fi �i � � � � ��+�� �-, �-'' ,-i 47� i �: H ' R �a t�,i r®t r � t45 C1 �. � r ria �_ � r� � :,� � �t _ _ _ __ __. � � �� �� -� _�� �,! � �; � � �� � h� � � I`i � � ,�` R=+ � ' p^:a � rr't �, r�.i � � ��'_ � � � � � � '-' � �" a..,� a. � �•, � � t� "9 rti; rh Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 295 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T1S —Section 2 —August 2020 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 296 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lane�,l�olLJme�, Tir��inc�s 1 : E'tirerglacjes Blvd �; Oil lNell Rd 05t22�t 020 Lane Gnau� EBL EBT EBP. WBL �+BT '�iUBR. NBL PJBT PJBR. SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations '�� �� � �t� '��� � �� ��� � '�� �'�'� Traffic I�olume (t+ph) 156 562 67 123 1153 115 178 163 57 67 193 219 Frrture'Uolume (vphj 15f 5t�2 67 123 1153 115 178 163 57 67 193 219 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1906 1904 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length �) 600 500 640 520 475 52q 490 334 Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length Qf) 100 100 100 100 Lane lRil. Fa��tor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0 �7 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 O.o50 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 U.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 3335 3438 1 �"s8 3335 4940 1538 3335 4940 1538 3335 4940 1538 Fft Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (perrn� 3335 3438 1538 3335 4940 1538 3335 4940 1538 3335 4940 1538 Right Turn on Rsd Yes Yes 4'es Yes Satr,1. Flow(RTOR) 159 159 159 193 Link Speed ¢nph) 45 45 45 45 Link Distance l�) 2s90 1967 1479 1442 Tavel Tirne (s) 3�.2 29.8 22.4 21.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hea'�y 1,ehicles (°lo) 5°� 5°Jo 5°� �% 56ffi 5°ffi �°!�0 5°b 5% 5°,ru �°fo 5°l0 A.dj .Flow �rphj 168 604 72 132 1240 124 191 175 61 72 208 235 Shared Lane Traffic f°,b} Lane Group Flow{ti.+ph) 1G8 6[74 72 132 1240 124 191 175 61 72 208 235 Turn Tyke Prot hJA Perm Prot P1A Perm Prot h1A Perrn Prat NA Perrn Pratected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Perritted Phases f 2 4 8 Detector Phase 1 E� 6 5 2 2 7 4 4 3 8 8 Sv��itch Phase Minimurn Initial (s} 5.0 12.0 12.0 5.0 21.0 21.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimurn Split (s) 13.8 20.8 20.8 13.8 55:3 55.3 13.8 18.8 18.8 13.3 55.3 55.,:t Total Split �s) 19.0 53.9 53.9 20.8 55.7 55.7 20.0 60.5 �0.5 14 � 55.3 55.3 Total Split �'?6} 12.7°lu 35.9°,b 35.9°0 13 �% 37.1 °l0 37.1��0 13.3°,fi 40.3°la 40.3°la 9 �°'0 36.9°l0 36.9°l`u Maximum Green (s� 10.7 45 � 45.6 12.5 47.4 47.4 11.7 52.2 52.2 6.5 47.0 47.0 1`ellow Time �s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 AJI-Red Tirne (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Lost Time Adjust (sj 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Tirne (sj 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 LeadlLag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Dead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes 1`es Yes Yes Yes '�`es Yes Yes Yes 1`es L�ehicle E�tensian iis',i 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 20 1.0 2.0 2.0 Recall Mode h,1in h.1in Min Min Min Min Min Min Min tulip Min h,1in U11alk Time �s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Cx�nt Walk �) 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.4 Pedestrian Calls (#khr} 0 0 0 0 Art Effct Green ��) 8.ri 22.4 22.4 16.9 30.7 30.7 9.4 10.3 10.3 10.E 11.5 11.5 Actuated g?C Ratio 0.09 0.24 0.24 0.18 0.33 0.33 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 4.12 0.12 v1r. Ratio 0.55 0.74 0.15 0.22 0.77 0.20 0.57 0."s2 0.20 4.19 U.34 0.66 Control Delay 50.0 39 � 0.6 35.6 32.3 2.6 49.4 43.1 1.4 40.7 41.2 20.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 p.0 0.0 Everr�lades Blti�i -Oil Well RtJ -2030 Ah,l o�a A�ccurnulation U5i22�L024 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Fac1e 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 297 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1 : E'tireYglacies Blvd � OII l�y`ell Rd o5r��.�zo�o Lane Group EBL EBT EBR 'UUBL 'rfUBT WBR tJBt tdET PdBR SBL SBT SBR Total Delay 50.0 39.5 0.6 35.E 32.3 2.6 49.4 43.1 1.4 �#0.7 41.2 �0.1 LOS D D A D C A D D A D D C Approach Delay 38.3 36.1 40.0 31,5 Approach LOS D C D C Q�_aeue Length 50th �a �� 170 0 34 235 0 55 35 6 20 42 2ts Q�.�e ue Length 95th �1t) 96 26� 0 70 331 21 107 59 0 45 75 107 Internal ink Dist �1 2310 1887 13�9 1362 Turn Bay Length fit) 600 500 640 520 475 520 49U 330 Base Capacity (ti.+ph) 38G 1695 $35 599 2533 8�5 42� 2785 9"s7 377 2511 876 Startration Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 (7 0 Spillbactti Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Reduced v�r Ratio 0.44 0.3E 0.0� G.22 0.49 0.14 0.45 0.06 0.07 0.19 0.08 0.`�7 Intersection Summar�� Area Type: Other Cycle Lengtfr.150 Actuated Cyr.le Length: 93.9 PJatural CycIe:140 Control T��pe: Actuated -Uncoordinated blaximurn u�lr. Ratio:0.77 Intersection Signal Delay:33.7 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.8°ro ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 S lits and Phases: 1: Eger lades Bltrd &Oil Ulrell Rd � z S31 ��? �C�3 55,?s 1�v 6r.r 5s xi,� "'�I35 G5 T r3 � �i: Even lades Blvd -Oil UUell Fd:i -2030 AM uv A,ccumulation 05l22�2020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 298 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1 : E:�erglades BI'�d � Oil V'tirell Rd � G7130fz020 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR U�1BL W BT UUBR NBL t<16T ��JBR SBL SB T SBR Lane Configurations �� '�'� � �� '�'�'� � '�� �"��` � �'� �`�`�` Traffic Volume (Uph} 477 1096 50 126 823 107 81 1$3 122 124 146 f9 Future Volume �tiph} 4?? 1096 50 126 �23 107 81 183 122 124 146 69 Ideal Flow (dphpl} 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19b0 190b 1900 1900 Storage Length �1t} 600 500 640 520 4?5 520 490 330 Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length fit} 104 100 100 14b Line lltil. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.b0 b.97 0.91 1 AO 0.9? 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 Fft Protected 0.950 0.950 b.950 0.950 S,�td. Flow �irot} 3335 3438 1538 3335 4940 1538 3335 4940 1538 3335 4940 1538 Flt Permitted 0.950 b.950 b.95b 0.95b Satd. Flow (perm} 3335 3438 1538 3335 4940 1538 3335 4940 1538 3335 4940 1538 Right Turn on Rsd Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR} 159 159 159 159 Lint, Speed (mph} 45 45 4a 4 Link Distance fit} 239G 1967 1479 1442 Trati�el Time (s} 36.2 29.8 22.4 21.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 q.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 b.95 Heat+jr Vehicles (�'o} 5°h, 5°rb 5°'0 5°r6 5°fu 5% 5°1�0 5% 5°% 5°'0 5afi 5°�° A�ij. Flow (vph} 502 1154 53 133 866 113 85 193 128 131 154 ?3 Shared Lane Traffic (°.�} Lane Group Flow (uph} 502 1154 53 133 866 113 85 193 128 131 154 ?3 Turn Tape Prot t�JA Perrn Prot NA Perm Prot NA Penn Prot NA Ferm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 7 4 4 3 8 8 Savitch Phase tolinirnurn Initial (s} 5.0 12.0 12.0 5.0 21 A 21.0 5.b 10.b 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 blinimurn Split (s} 13.8 20?� 20.8 13.8 55.3 55.3 13.8 18.8 18 � 13.3 55.3 55.3 Total Split (s} 25.b 63.1 63.1 17.8 55.9 55.9 13.8 53.3 53.3 15.8 55.3 55.3 Total Split (4�6} 16.?°�6 42.1 °n 42.1 °�� 11.9°h 37.3°l0 37.3°l° 9.2°'° 35.5°� 35.5°0 10.5°1° 36.9°l0 36.9°io Maxirnum Green (s} 16.7 54.8 54.8 9.5 4?.6 4?.6 5.5 45.0 45.0 ?.5 47.0 47.0 1'ellaw Time (s} 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 �11-Red Tirne (s} 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Lost Tirne Adjust (s} 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.Q b.0 0.0 0.0 OA 0.0 Total Lost Tirne (s} 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 LeadiLag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lail Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes 'res Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1'es 1+'ehicle E�ension (s} 1.0 2.b 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2A 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 Recall Mode Colin Min Min Min toiin totin Min Alin hdir7 Mire 6,1in Min Urlalk Time (s} 7.0 7.b 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont 1Nafk t�} 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Pedestrian Calls (#err} G 0 0 (� Fr.�t Effct Green (;} 23.4 39.8 39.8 8.3 24.8 24 ? ?.3 10.2 10.2 ?.1 10.1 10.1 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.24 0.40 0.40 0.08 0.25 0.25 U.b7 0.10 b.10 0.07 b.10 0.10 vlc Ratio 0.64 0.83 0.0? 0.47 0.?0 0.22 b.35 0.38 b.43 0.55 0.31 0.24 Control Delay 38.2 32.6 0.2 51.1 v<7.6 2.7 50.0 45,5 8.5 55:4 45.0 1.9 Queue Delay O.q 0.0 0.0 b.0 b.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.G 0.0 0.0 Everglades Blud -Oil UUell Rd -2030 Ph,1 au Accurnulation 07l30?2b20 Baseline SSfnchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1299 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Caries, �Jaltames, Timings 1 : Everglades Blvd �� Oil Vtfell Rd I a7r�orzo2o Lane Gro�.rp Total Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Queue Length 5ath 11t} Queue Length 95th 4�) Internal I.inl, Dist (�) Turn Eay Length �) Ease Capacity (>'ph� Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Rsductn Reduced u+c Ratio Intersection Surnrrt EBL EET EER WBI. WBT UIrBR NBL POET NER SBL SET SER 38.2 32.6 0.2 51.1 37.6 2.7 �a.0 45.5 3.5 55.4 45.a 1.9 D C A D D A D D A E D A 33."s 35:7 34.7 4a.a C D C D 146 334 a 42 182 a 26 42 a 41 33 0 213 434 a 79 249 17 5E 74 35 $a 62 a 231 a 1887 1399 13C�2 600 5aa f4o 5`La 475 52a 490 330 787 191° 928 322 2396 827 244 2264 791 254 2364 819 o a a o o a o 0 0 0 0 0 a a 0 0 0 G a a a a a a 0 a a a a a a a 0 a a 4 a.64 a.6a 4.a6 a.41 a.s6 a.14 a.35 a.a9 a.1�6 a.52 a.a7 a.a9 Area Tppe: Other Cycle Ler�gth:15a Actuated Cp�le Length:98.9 PJatural Cycle:15a Control Tppe: Actuated -Uncoordinated blaximurrt vlc Ratio: a.�3 Irtersection Signal Delay:34.9 Intersection Capacity r,tilization 74.6°� Analpsis Period .�min� 15 �,nlitc and PhacPG• 1 • Ftirarnlartas Rl�rr� R III torall Rd Irrtersection COS: C ICU Level of Service D �t— � �'`�� �z ''� � i c�� '--�6 �t`35 ■ �8 �7 Everglades Elvd -Oil Uitell Fri -2030 P b1 uv Arcurnulation 071�4.r2a20 Easa_line Synchro 1 a Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page i300 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Desoto Blvd —Randall Blvd '�fill��es Traffic �� PPrcenta�p Right RV- �C5°i° + R5°lOj Left R',� C� °1�, + RF0 0 i�antl�li Bivd R�r�ttall Qlvd Ra�d�il alvci Right 6Y'�l C1G°f° +R�Gf° LV= C10°o +R10°�° I�t< �c1n°,�° +R�°I°j Traffic EnteriExit - 20°�'(�0°{oj C = Commercial; R =Residential C��,f= Bellmar tillage Lt`-- Langwatertillage R'a�= Ri�rergrass tillage ThrGugh Et',� �3U°fo +R30°lo Rt± �C1f�°�o +R1�`Yoj N;arld411 Utvtl l;2and�ll E31v+1 Thrc�u,�h y R1f C'1 i�°f° + R10Gr° �.��� �l� �; Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1301 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 `Jilla�es Traffic '(ear �0:30� �y ��v1 Peak Hc��ar R��n�1af1 Blvd Randall Blvd Traffic EntpriExit - �Di(?17) � = Commercial; P, = Re�ir�ential C�•� Bellmar `a111��ge L`�f= Langu�ater Villag e R!r`= RiS+ergrass �Ilage [7 4 .... as �. z �� �• Right � Through - � LV= 1 +35= 36 1�8 Left R1� 1 +13=14 l�.�ra�.ltil E�IVd it�i?dall [3tyd aunda116{wf � Right B�,f- 1 +11=1� LV• 1 +3�= �F �#8 Y i nraugn ev r� +�a3= �o�� 3�30 �1� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1302 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 :� Vill�gas Tr�ffi�� `�e�r ?030 B�� PIv1 Pe��t Haur Right R� � +24=27� m a. Through B'V- 1 � +188=20� R1r- � + hi3= ?�? R'�/ 4 +44= 48 � 1 Randall Blvd R�t���l! glv�i ,��dall �1lv�l t!t�+,d�il sivd i�andr��i rB�v�1 k 1 L� 6 +.�1=3i L''++'- 9 + �'a=1 U8 '145 Traffic EnterrE:tit - 20�(��Ol G = Comr-ner�:ial; R =Residential fir`= Bellmar �/Ilai3e L'�� Long��ater '�iillag e R�L Rivergrass'Village �1�_ �� +19= 23� 90 tit 'Through L•JI_' �� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1303 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �t � ��",' -r, r-, r� `� � �' � � � � ���' � � � � � � � �� �a �° � � � � � � �. si � �, � � ";' � �� � �;` � � -�,; ,.� �� � � �� � r � � � � '� r: �� �� i e� � ,�3 ''�a { � � -�x ��� '� -, o ,� � � � �- � � � � � � a � �' �. �; ��*° � � � � w � � � � �� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 304 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 _ __ __ ___ �� � � � � � � �� �.� �, � � � � u* �;, � � � � 6 �� .'} {:f: .. 3: _. ._ _. � ' pppppp 1 �a �yyp yy��. L�l '�R (wag+ fie. LF � ry, yyS�yy !L'..t W � s TH ff" 1� �+ CY7 is �:. ._.... ��rr ,�yry '�.s '�mf. � y.. �f .. �_ f t !�' 4 �_.F L;� :x++ �„. r± � ``='' —s �. �` �+ �. � � x � ,,d"a � 3, �.` �, 'w2 �. ' ,s� �,i Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 305 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lanes,l�oli.imes, Timings 1 : Qeotf� Bl�fd �, Randall Bl�rd Q�rz6t�o2o Lane Group EgL EBT EBR. UUBL U116T 'uUBR NBL NBT tJBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Corrfigurations �r � c� � Traffic U'olume (Uph} 51 G 76 3 3 0 249 492 0 3 299 120 Future �,'olume �tiph} 51 0 76 3 3 0 249 492 0 3 299 120 Ideal Flaav ��rphplj 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1940 1900 1900 1900 Lane lJtil . Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 AO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .00 1.0c7 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.919 0.962 Fit Protected 0.980 0.976 0.953 Satd. Flow {trot) 0 1630 0 0 176E 0 0 1779 0 U 1741 0 Fft Perrnitted 0.�66 0.212 0.73<2 0.996 Satd. Flow (perrnj 0 1440 0 v 1469 0 0 1326 0 0 1734 0 izght Turn on Rsd Yes 1`es `des Yes Satd. Flaw (RTO Rl 82 4� Linic Speed (rnph� 45 45 4� 30 Link Distance (ff) 10�3 357 602 276 Trdtirel Tirne (s) 16.4 �.4 9.1 6.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 4.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heatry 1fehlCles (°I°) 5°f° 5°�`° �%� �°rb 5°l° 5°k� 6°�6 5% 5% 5% 5°ffi 5°ro Adj .Flow �rph) 55 0 �2 3 3 0 26� 529 0 3 322 129 Shared Lane Traffic (°�) Lane Group Flow (tiph) 0 137 0 0 6 0 0 797 0 0 454 0 Turn Type Perrn NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 6 2 4 � Perrr7itted Phases 6 2 4 Detector Phase 6 6 2 2 4 4 3 8 Switch Phase Minirriurn Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5A 5.0 Mir7irnurr� Split (s� 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 2s.5 23.5 23.a Total Split (sl 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 Total Split ('Dh) 40.0°I° 40.0°,fi 44.0°r6 40.0°l`0 60.0% 60.0°h, 60.0°ro 60.0°r6 blaxirnum Green (sj 18.5 18.5 10.E 18.5 30.6 30.6 30.5 34.5 fellow Time (sj 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.�� 3.5 AJI-RFd Time (sj 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust fs} 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.� 5.5 5.5 5.6 LeadlLag Lead -Lag Optimize? l,rehicle E�ension (s) 3.0 3.0 3A "s.6 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode �v1in Min Min Min None None iJone None UUalk Tirne (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7 ca 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont UUalk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (�t,r) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1�t Effct Green (s) 7.7 7.7 36.6 30.6 fi,ctuated g!C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.62 0.62 vh Ratio 0.47 0.03 0 ��7 p.42 Control Delay 14.6 17.2 39.5 6.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.p Total Delay 14.6 17.2 3k� c 61 LOS B B D � �iproaeh Delay 14.6 17.2 3:'�.6 6.1 De Soto BI�1-Randall Bled - 2030 AM w Accurnulation 05122f2020 Baseline Syr,chro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page �306 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: De�ata Blvd &Randall Blvd Lane Group Approach LOS Queue Length 50th fit} Queue Length 95th fit} Internal Lints Dist �) Turn Bay Length �) Base Capacity (tiph} Starvation Cap Reductr� Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Rer_iuced vic Ratio Intersection Surnmar o5r�sr�o2o EBL EBT EBR. U7iRL 'a1rBT U116R t�1BL tdBT tJBR ;BL SBT BR B B D A 14 2 172 45 52 140� 9 2?? #�65 522 114 195 592 552 821 1092 U 0 U 0 4 4 U 0 U 0 0 0 U.23 0.01 0.9? 0.42 Area Type: Other Cyr.le Lengtt��: EO A,.tuated Cyt;le Length:49.3 tJatural Cycle: �0 - --------__--�— Cor�trol Type: Artuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v!c Ratio: 0.9? �` �. , - - Intersection Signal Delay: 2�.1 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Ltilizatian 85.4°l� ICU Level of Ser,rice � Analysis Periori �min� 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 1: DeSoto Blvd &Randall Blvd DeSoto Blvd -Randall Blind - 2430 AM w Accumulation 05122i2420 Baseline Synchro 1 P Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1307 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lane�,l�c�liame�, Titriina� 1 : DeSc�to Blvd � Randall Blvd G?l3Gt2G2G Lane Gr��up EBL EBT EBR. UUBL V116T UUBR IJBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations � c� � Traffic Volume (��h) 108 0 250 U 0 0 146 389 U 0 502 ?3 Future �lolume (tiph) 1 U8 0 250 0 G 0 14ti 389 0 0 5G2 ?3 Ideal Flaav �rphplj 1940 19G0 19UU 19GU 1900 19UG 19UU 1940 1900 19UG 190U 190G Lane lltil . Factor 1 AO 1.OG 1 AO 1.GG 1.OG 1.U0 1.OG 1 AO 1.OG 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt G.906 0.983 Flt Protected U �85 0.98? Satd. Flaw (Drat) 0 1615 0 U 1510 0 0 1 ?86 0 U 1??9 0 Flt Permitted 0.898 0.596 Satd. Flaua (perrr�� 0 14?2 G U 1810 0 0 1 G?8 0 G 17?9 G Right Turn on R.ed Yes 1`es 't`es Yes Satd. Flow (RTO Ra 201 18 Link Speed (mph) �5 45 45 30 Link Distance 4�) 1083 35? 602 275 Tratirel Time (s} 1�i.� 5.4 9.1 �.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 G.93 p.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 U.93 G.93 Heati1]j lfeflicles (°.fi) 5% 5°l0 5°r6 5°,� 5°N 5% 5°r5 5°f° 5°l0 5°�0 5°r� 5°r� Adj. Flow �rph) 116 0 269 U 4 0 15? A18 G U 540 ?8 Shared Lane Traffic (°b} Lane Group Flow (�phj 0 385 0 G U 0 0 5?5 G 0 618 G Turn Type Perrn NA Perm NA PJA Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Perrr7itted Phases 6 2 � 8 Detectar Fhase 6 6 2 2 4 4 � 8 Suuitch Phase Minimum Initial (sj 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.G f.0 5A 5.0 5.q blinirnurr� Split (s� 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 Total Split (sl 24.0 24.0 24.0 2�1A 36.0 36.0 36.G 36.0 Total Split (°h) 4G.0°r5 �4.0°r� 4U.0°� �0.4°k 60.0°�6 60.4°k 6G.U°�o 6U.U°r6 Maxirnum Green (s) 18.5 18.5 18 � 18.5 30.5 30.5 3G.5 30.5 1`ellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 �VI-Red Time (s j 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Last Time Adjust (s) 0.0 O.0 U.G G.0 Total Lost Time (s� 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 LeadlLag Lead -Lag c�ptimiae7 Vehicle Er�ension (s) 3.0 3.G 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.G 3.0 3.0 Recall Made Min Min blin Min None None I�Jone t�lone UUalfs Time (sj ?.0 ?.G ?.G 7.0 ?.0 7.0 ?.0 ?.0 Flash aunt UValk (s) 11.G 11.0 11.0 11.G 11.0 11.0 11.G 11.G Pedestrian Calls (#kt�r) 0 G 6 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 12.3 3G.8 30.8 Actuated g!C Ratia G.23 G.5? U.5? w'c Ratio 0.?9 U.94 O.e�1 Contral Delay 21.5 41.9 12.0 Que�.ae Delay U.G 0.0 U.0 Total Uelay 21.5 �1.9 12.0 LO S C D B �proach Clay 21.5 41.9 12.0 L�eSata Bled -Randall Bled - 2U30 PM w Accumulation Ur'l3Ut202G Baseline Synchro 1 U Report Fage 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 308 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes, Val t�mes� Timings 1: QeSata Blvd � Randall Blvd 47l3012024 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR- U1rRL 'u1rBT b1rBR 1�15L r<1BT NBR SBL SBT SBR f�proach LOS C D B Queue Length 50th �Ytj 5`1 1 �4 114 Q�.reue Length 95th �tj 136 #kfp4 25�t Internal Link Dist �tj 14g3 277 522 195 Turn Bay Lengtt�� �tj Base Capacity (vphj 638 611 1617 Starvation Cap Redurtr, 0 (i 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 C� 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 it � Reduced v;c Ratio U.�O b.94 ii.61 Intersection Surrirnary .� . _ .__ _ _ _-- _ _, _ _-_... _, _ - _ � __-� area Type: Other Cycle Length: EU Actuated Cyrle Length: 54.c^ hJatural CycIe:70 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Manitnum v,'r. Ratio: 4.94 _ Intersection Signal Delay: 25.2 Ir�ter�ection LOS: C Intersection Capacity ltiliaatian 94.5°Jo ICU Leuel of service F Fnalysis Period (minj 15 # 95th percentile volume ewceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Itts and Phases: 1: QeSoto Blvd &Randall Blvd �� �1i5� Desoto Bled -Randall Blvd - 2030 PM w Accumulation 47I34�42O Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1309 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Everglades Blvd —Randall Blvd :� Villag�5 Traffic B� P� rc�t�ltag Thr t;iiurrl� t�1 !'1 -►�al►rk tii�r,61 of lnrtet rr Tf-truu_gh L1�- ty �o�o + R1 L1 �� f��f- ��� °,�a + R���o Through f3'V- ��� ;'n + R� o�� - m Rigf-�t �''+�- �� °�a Left �� o I rattle Cnter�Cxlt - �u r���t� �o� C = Garrrmercial; F� =residential L�t•� I�ellmar S�Ilage L'�f= Ler-�g���ater Ullage R'� Ri��ergrass'dillage Thrr�ugh �E�rid�H #�Ivd l�rattti�ll �i(��d I nrougn f�v'- �C�''fo + P�o,�a� L1� �C�ora� tZandnll �tv� Go� � gle Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 310 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 v ;� I�illage� Tr�ffi�, ��t'�c`�r �C�`�tl Bar �AP�1 Pe��� Hour m r. Through �' ,le�U� IJANSt R L'V 1 �„ R�,l- �1 +�E,= � � Through 6�1 � EiV- �1 + j4= 3�� Through L',�- f'1 +1>17=10a� Elf'- 1 + 1 '1— 12 R'V �'1 + ��;= s�� i L1�-1 + 3�= ?6 1 �� R4'-1 + 13= 14 E2 ., „U .„ fnr�ndaN �ivd i�atx��ll E�rti�a� Ron�all �tvd 4 �Ig Ilt ENV 11 L1r'- 1 r _ Through B� ��) L1•' �1 j L� R1� 1 +13= '1 � 87 �� �,� �: Traffic Enter!Exit - 20��2Lj °1 C = Gomrr�ercial; F� _ residential �^ E�',•r'= Bellmar ��Itage G L'�,�= Lor-�g5r�ater Ullage � R'��= Ri�rergrai , ��rllage �►o� alp Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 311 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 :� 1�ill�go� Traffic ��(oar ?' ��:�n B }{ Pi��l P e��f H our Th! ��sUa t"�eri�� I nrougn B'�'- � +31= 37 18� Right ENV- 31 LV 4� �Cl 'Traffic EnterfE>�it - 21J1�20j _ %;on-,rYiercial; R =Residential B'��= Bellrriar �fillage L1�= Long�+�ater Village R''e�= Fri►rergrao� S,tllage Through �f 3 +;�1=�4 L�r� 4 RV' � +��_ wry8 y BV= (1 �� LV- �`3l7'i �9 m Through BV' (4 +19= 23 j R�rr- �3 +?4= 113 4 h��rr��ll �il'Ytl i�tart�f�ll l�l�+d Through 81�� �� +19= 211 L'V- 43j 76 N1 Rsn�all �lvt1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1312 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 313 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 -- �__ _ _ w __. _ __ _ _. _. _ ___ __ _ _ _. � �� � �� =�� � � � � �, � �, �: .� � � �. �� d:� �� � � �; �- � � �� �� �s �k � +-; � _� � � =� � � ^� � �` -� w � _ � __ ___ ._ � � � �.; _ __ � � � � � �s erg' � � �( .� � y,� � � f �'� �.L � -�- �` � �' �-' � +� � �' � � � � � w e � � ��� _�' __ Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 314 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lanes, �Iol�ames, Timings 1 : E;rerglades Blvd �, Randall Blvd 4�.�2,�424 Lane Grouts EBL EBT EBR UUBL UrrBT U�iBR tJBL tdBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations �' � � � "� �` � Traffic Volume (tiph} 96 114 142 11 406 13 3�9 248 17 � 271 215 Future Volume (wph} 96 11U 142 11 4U5 13 3f9 208 17 � 271 215 Ideal Floau �rphpl} 19UU 19U4 194V 19U0 194U 194U 19UU 1944 194q 1904 1944 1900 Storage Length fit} 4 235 0 4 235 0 4 23w Storage Lanes U 1 U 4 1 4 4 .1 Taper Length fit} 50 144 50 4 Lane l.rtil. Factor 1.UU 1.44 1.40 1.40 1.UU 1.U4 1.00 1 .OU 1 t?0 1.G4 1.44 1.4U Frt 4.�50 U.99G 0.9�9 0.�50 Ftt Protected 4.977 4.999 U.954 0.999 Satd. Flow (prof} 4 176� 1538 U 184U U 1719 1794 4 U 180� 1538 Ftt Permitted 0.521 0.99U 4.5f7 U.992 Satd. Flow (perm} 4 943 1 �3� G 1784 6 1426 1794 U U 1795 153� Rigf�t Turn on Red No Yes No Yes Satd. Flow (RTrJ R} 3 22� Link Speed (mph) 45 45 4� 45 Link Distance fit} 1 U83 357 6U2 54;. Travel Time (s} 16.4 5:4 9.1 8.3 Peak Hour Fa��tor 4.95 0 �5 4.95 4.95 4.95 0.95 0.95 4.95 4.95 4.95 0.9� 4.95 Hea'Jy+ Vehlrles (�k} 5°/6 �°la 5°ti 5°,�0 �°lu 5°fu 5°h� 5°l0 5°,fa 5°,`0 �°r6 5°b A,dj. Flow ��rph} 101 116 149 12 426 14 3S8 219 18 R 285 226 Shared Lane Traffic �'r6} Lane Group Flow (���h} U 217 149 0 4�2 U 3�8 237 4 0 293 22tS Turn Tppe Perrt7 t�lA Perm Perm NA Ferm NA Perrn NA Ferm Protected Phases 6 2 4 S Permitted Phases 6 6 2 4 � 8 Detector Phase 6 C� 6 2 2 4 4 8 8 � Switch Phase Minirnurr� Initial �s} 5.4 a.4 5.0 5.4 �A 5.4 a.0 5.4 5.0 5.4 tulinimum Split (s} 23 � 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.h 23.5 23.5 23.5 '23 Total Split (s} 52.0 52.4 �2.0 52.0 52.4 38.0 3�.4 38.0 3Q.0 38.0 Total Split �!o} 57.i;�fu 57.8°,G 57 9°� 57.8°fi �7.$�f, 42.2°�6 42.2% 42.2°f£o 42.2°.� 42.2°� Ma�irnum Green �s} 46.5 46.5 46.5 46.5 46.5 32.5 32.E 32.W 32.5 32.5 `�`ellow Tirne (s} 3.� 3.� 3.5 3.5 3.� 3.� 3.5 3.5 3 � 3.� All -Red Time �s} 2.0 2.4 2A 2.4 2.0 2.4 2.4 2.0 2.4 2.0 Last Time Adjust r<s} 4.0 U (� 4.4 0.4 4.4 4.0 4.4 Total Lost Tirne fs} 5.5 5.� a.5 5.w 5.5 5.5 5 LeadlLag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle E�fensian fs} 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.4 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.0 3.0 Recall tulode blin Min Min Min btin tdone None PJone None hJone 1rUalk Tirne (s} 7.0 7.0 7.4 7.0 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.0 7.4 7.4 Flash Dont iNalk {s} 11.4 11.4 11.4 11,4 11.4 11 A 11.0 11.0 11.4 11.0 Pedestrian Calls ��rir} 4 G 4 4 U U 4 4 U U Act Effct Green �S} 21.3 21.3 21.3 32.8 32.8 32.8 32.8 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.33 4.33 U.33 4.5G U.54 U.SU 0.5U u�c Ratio U.71 0.30 4.77 4.75 4.2E 4.32 4.26 Cordrol Delay 32.2 17.4 29:1 27.2 11.7 12.3 2.8 queue Delay 4.4 O.0 U.4 4.6 U.4 4.6 4.6 Everrtlades Bled -Randall Blvd - 2030 Ab1 Improved w A,ccumulation 45t22t2424 Baseline Syr-,rhro 14 Report Fage 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P � g e 1315 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes, Voltames, Timings 1 : Everglades Blvd � Pandall Blvd 05f22r'2020 � a4-- Lane Group EBL EBT EER b1.iBL 'U11BT 'u1rBR tJBL t�1BT t�BR SBL `BT SBR Tatal Delay 32.2 17.4 29.1 27.2 11.7 12.3 2.� LOS C E C C E E A Approach Delay 2�.2 29.1 21.3 8.2 Approach LOS C C C A Queue Len��tt-� 50th 4�J 7�< 43 157 112 49 63 0 Que�_re Length 95th �) 143 82 2;�0 #�322 117 146 3a Internal Lintz Dist (ft) 100's 277 522 4f� Turn E ay Length fit) 235 235 235 Base Capacity (tiphj 678 1147 1285 �16 �00 903 8�6 Starvatian Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v!c Ratio U.32 0.13 0.35 0.75 0.2� 0.32 G.26 Intersection Surnrnar�• Area Type: Other C}�le tpngth: 90 Actuated Cycle Lengtt��:65.1 tJatural Cycle: 5� Cantral T}ape: Actuated-Uncaardinated Maximurn v1r. F�atia: 0.77 Intersectian Signal Delay: 20.5 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity t�tili�ation 87.3°h ICU Level crf Ser�rice E Anal}�sis Feriad (rnin)15 # 9�th percentile volurne exceeds capac�y, queue may be longer. Queue shawr�� is rr�aximurrr aftertavo cycles. Snlits and Phases' 1 � Everalades Bltrd &Randall BlvcJ 34 G-# _ � 1�I.� �:�5 T �30 J r_ :r � I•i' � Everr�lades Blvd -Randall BI•�cl - 2030 AM Irnpraved w Accumulation 05t2212020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page �316 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lane, Volumes, Timings 1 : Everglades Blvd &Randall Bhrd 07l30�2020 Lane Group EBL EBT EBl2 UUBL UUBT UUBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations �' �° � � � �' � Traffi c Vo lum e (Uph) 1 E�7 375 357 25 216 13 193 270 1 ? 15 230 131 Frrture Ualume (tiphj 167 ,575 357 25 216 13 193 270 17 15 230 131 Ideal Flow �rphpl� 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 190U 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length �tj 0 235 0 0 235 0 0 235 Starage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 b 0 1 Taper Length �tj 5b 140 50 0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 AO 1.00 1 AO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.993 0.991 O.SSb Flt Protected 0.985 0.995 0.950 0.997 Satd. Flow (prat} 0 1782 153� 0 17�Q 0 1719 1793 0 b 1804 1538 Fft Permitted 0 �12 0.92o b.549 b.9G9 Satd. Flora (laerm) 0 1469 1538 0 1667 0 993 1793 0 0 1753 153° Rigr,t Turn on P,ed No Yes No 'Yes Satd. Flood (RTOR) 5 138 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 45 45 Link Distance �) 10�53 357 602 545 Travel Tirrie �s) 16.4 5:4 9.1 �.3 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 b.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 6.95 4.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy+'4'ehicles (%} 5°�G �°�o �°�, 5°{� 5°� 5°rho �% 5°10 5°f° 54�0 5°fi 5°� A,�j .Flow (vpr�) 176 395 376 26 227 14 203 2S4 1 S 16 242 13v Shared Lane Traffic (°�) Lane Group Flaw �vph) 0 5?1 376 0 267 0 2b3 302 0 0 258 13� T�_un Type Ferro hJA Perrri Perrn NA Perrii r�JA Ferm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 4 8 Perrriitted Phases 6 5 2 4 s, v Dete��tor Phase 6 6 n 2 2 4 4 3 8 3 Switch Phase hlinirri�.�m Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimurri Split (s} 23 a 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.E 23.5 23.5 Total Split �s) 52.0 52.b 52.0 52.0 52.0 38.0 3�.0 38.0 38.0 3�.0 Total Split �^Pfa� 57 �°r6 57.8°!u 57.8°1b 57 ?°h� 57.A°lo 42.2t�b 42.2°l0 422°�fi 42.2°� 42.2°l0 t��laxirnurn Green (s� 46.5 46.5 46.5 46.5 46.5 32.5 32.5 32.5 32.5 32.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Tirne �) 2.b 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.b 2.0 2.0 2.0 Last Time.�Jjust �s) O.b 0.0 p.b 0.0 O.b 0.4 0.0 Tatal Last Time (sj 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Lead,'Lag Lead -Lag o�dtimize? �r'ehicle Extension (sj 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.b 3.0 P,ecall Mode h,1in blin b1ir� Min folio hJone None None None None 1ib'alk Time (sj 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.b 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont UUalk �) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls �#r?Yir� 0 0 0 6 U 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (sj 31.9 31.9 31.9 19 � 19.9 19.9 19 A,ctuata_d giC Ratio 0.50 b.50 0.50 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 v;c Ratio 0.7� 0.49 0.32 0.66 0.54 0.47 b.24 Control Delay 232 14.1 11.5 32.7 23.9 22.7 5.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 b.0 0.0 Everglades Blvd -Randall Blvd - 2030 Pb1 Improved w A,ccumulatian 0?ts0t2b20 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 317 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lane:, �Jalrames, Tit7�ings 1 : E��ferglades Bled � Randall Bl�fd _ _ o7.�or�a2a Lane Group EEL Total Delay LOS Approach Clay Approach LOS Queue Length 50th fit} Qua_ue Length 95tt�i �1t} Internal �nli Dist fit} Turn Eay Ler��gth (ft} Base Capacity (t�ah} .Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Redru:ed v!c Ratio Intersection Summa� Area Typa_: Uther Cycle Length: �30 Actuated Cycle Length: rs4.1 Platural Cy�.le: E�0 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maxirnurn v1c Ratio: 0.78 Intersection Signal Delay:l�.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.0°� Analysis Period (rain} 16 EBT EBR tiNBL 1.N'BT t�iBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 23.2 14,1 11.E 32.7 23.9 22.7 5.2 C B B C C C A 19.E 11.5 27.4 1 E.6 B B C B 160 86 �3 f6 �4 78 0 387 205 132 165 206 175 37 1003 277 522 465 23� 23� 23� 1105 1157 1256 563 1017 934 93'2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 4 0 a o a o a o c� 0.52 0.32 0.21 0.3� 0.30 0.26 0:15 Intersection L4S: B ICU Lsvel of Seruice E Slits and Phases: 1: Everglades Bltird &Randall Blvd rz i:�4 LL �h � ����� 5�z 1 -- - Everglades Blvd -Randall Blvd - 2030 Ptu1 Improved w A,ccurr7ulation 07tsOt2020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 318 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 18t" Ave NE —Desoto Blvd 3 Vill�g�� Traff�� Bar P�rcer�t��� 1 Bth AVM CIE Through �� Th rough 1-I'�fflG Ent�rr��tlt = 2���❑r����r•-�� �f = G�mr��rci�l; R � Re�id�nt�al E�V� B�ilm�r 1/iingo L'V- Lvng�vvat�r Village F�V= I�iv�rgras� 1�illag ��sc�to Byrd To L��. L�'- ���`'1n -�RL{�°�C� Through �!�'= (C4��ro R'�- � 10�°�¢ +RCS°fin j +R� �41Q Right, ���r��u�h l_�ft L�'= rfC�D�� +R��%� Right Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 319 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 ViII���s Traffic �'e�r �Q30 B� AM R+���: t��ur 18E�i Avg N� T�ra��gh �� Th raur�h 1"raffic EnterrExit - 2t����(3} � _ ��rr>!rr�I�r�i��; R = R�si��ntlai B�V� B�Ifm�r V"�Il�g� ��� LQl1�YVe�tf?f Vi��c��c RV- Riv�rgra�s 'Viil�gl ��S[:�?Q �I��t� Left LV- 3 +7Q- 73 Thr��c�h 6�- t� ���?_ �4 � � ��� Ta STOP Right LLB- (� �� �i �_ �� 1 ? T�rt�ugM ��� LV� �3 *Z14= �7?'� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 320 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 � Vilfa��s Taff � �v PM ���� 4�c�ur '1 ��t� 1�,���:= NE fihr�ugh �t C}��OrO �i�'V'� Thra��h f�i/^ ��} T ��8 ��� �t�� Tr�ffi�c En#�i'r'�Xit - 2���2�� �ca�m�r��l; R = R��i��nti�l BVr �eiirn�r V'ill�g�� � ��J= Lo�gvr�t�r Villsg� RV� Riv�rgr�s�'�ili�g� Lest L1l= �� �-���� �'1�i Thr�uc�h ��� 'Right LU- � � 3 �1�"1= 1�4y T�rrt�u�h l���t LV- {13 ����= 1��; fight L1�- �i 8 +� �8- �16 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1321 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �0�����0 �o�n■■■� eo■ ■■■■� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P age � 322 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �' �� _ ._ �_ _ � , (.� � r.=� �, I �-. � F �j �' i ,�; �. � r '�e..+. � �-s � � f �'r � � � � 5, `� °�1 a =r-. ., .. _ . __ ,� � I {,��. c �. �i r+, ... �#? � � �_ � � � �.,� �� N m � � � �� � � � � � � �1 u. is �,� "" ja. —.c � � e}r f'"i t �', . =° c�' + M ''� e$! e� ,- n1J w _ #— _ � � � �� ss � � � <F � � � � i_ � � = � y� � �+ �- Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 323 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lanes, �folLimes, Timings 1 : Desoto Blvd � 18th Ave NE G5�22,zG2G Lane Gr�o�_ip EBL EBT EBR_ 1NBL UIrBT U1�BR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBfz Lane Configurations � '� � '� '� � �` Traffic volume (uph) 39 77 65 217 220 217 112 389 73 79 271 68 Future lrolume �tiph) 39 77 65 217 220 217 112 389 73 79 271 68 Ideal Floty �+phplj 1900 1900 1900 1940 1900 19GU 1900 190G 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length l�J 2G5 0 G G 290 0 225 225 Storage Lanes 1 G G 0 1 U 1 1 Taper Length �t;� 5G 50 50 5G Lane lJtil . Fa��tor 1.00 1.00r �t .GG 1.OG 1.00 1 AO 1.00 1 .GO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.G0 Frt 0.931 0.955 0.976 G.850 Fft Protected G.950 G.984 0.95G G.950 Satd. Flo�v (prot) 1719 1685 0 0 17G0 0 1719 1766 G 1719 181 G 1538 Fit Permitted 0.378 G.830 0.323 0.176 Satd. Flouv (perm) 684 1685 0 0 14s'4 0 584 176E 0 318 1810 1538 Right Turn on Red `les Yes lr'es 1'es Satd. Floau tR,T� Rl 52 30 8 77 Link Speed (rriphl 45 45 45 45 Link Distance fit} 1083 357 602 836 Travel Time (sj 16.4 5:4 9.1 12.7 Peak Hour Fartar 0.93 G.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 G.93 G.93 G.93 0.93 G.93 G.93 Heavy 11ehlCles (%j 5°� 5°$ 5°l0 5°ru 5% 5°rho 5°�6 5°b 5°io 5% 5°�0 5°Fu pdj. Flova �rpt-�) 42 83 70 233 237 233 120 418 78 85 291 73 Shared Lane Traffic (°�) Lane Grnup Florro (t+ph) 42 153 G 0 703 0 12G 496 G 85 291 73 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA pm-�pt NA pm-Fpt NA Perm Protected Phases 6 2 7 4 3 8 Ferrriitted Phases 6 2 4 8 8 Detector Phase 6 6 2 2 7 4 3 8 8 St��itch Phase Minirnurn Initial (s) 5.0 5.G 5.0 5.0 5.4 1 G.0 5.0 10.4 10.0 Minimurti Split (s) 11.0 11.G 11.0 11.0 '10.5 16.G 1G.5 16.0 16.G Total Split �s} 67.2 67.2 67.2 67.2 15.0 42.0 10.8 37.8 37.8 Total Split 4�'fb) 56.0°�6 56.G°fo 56.G°io 56.G°lo 12.5°b 35.G°'o 9.G°�6 31.5°1�0 31.5°fo htaximurri Green fs� 61.2 61.2 61.2 61.2 9.5 36A 5.3 31.8 31.8 1`ellow Time (s) 4.G 4.G 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.G 4.0 ;�11-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 Last Tiriie Adjust (sj 0.0 U.G O.G G.4 O.G G.G 0.0 0.0 Total I�st Ti rn e () 6.0 6.0 6.6 5.5 6.0 5.5 6 A 6.0 LeadlLag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Ciptimi�e? _ _ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1}ehicle E�fension fs3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.G 3.0 3.G 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode Min h,1in Min hdin None None None tJone None Act Effct Green (s) 56.4 56.4 56.4 41.8 34.2 33.4 27.4 27.4 Actuated g1C Ratio 4.51 0.51 0.51 0:38 0.31 0.3G 0.25 0.25 vlc Ratio 0.12 G.17 0.95 0.38 G.90 0.52 0.65 G.17 Corral Delay 16.6 10.9 48.8 27.4 59.5 36.6 45.8 8.1 ►queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.G 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tatal Delay 16.6 1 G.9 48.8 27.4 59.5 36.6 45.8 8.1 LUS B B D C E D D A Fpproach Dalay 12.1 48 � 53.2 37.9 18th Ave - Desoto Blvd - 2030 AM w Accumulation G5122i2G20 Baseline Synchra 10 RPport Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page �324 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: DeSoto Blvd � 18th Ave �lE 06122i202o Lana Grni�p EPL EBT EBR. 1NBL tiUBT UUBR PJBL NBT tJBR SBL SBT 8BR A{aproach LOS B D D D Queue Length 50th �) 16 ;39 482 60 367 41 19� 0 Queue Length 95th tit) 38 �7 �?756 103 #6�7 77 2�4 �4 Internal Linfti Di::t (ft) 1043 2�7 522 756 Turn Bay Length �) 205 290 225 225 base Capacitp� (k+ph) 389 983 831 319 597 16� 5�6 510 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 Spillbacfc Cap R.eductn 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 4 0 0 0 6 C7 0 0 Reduced u+L Ratio 0.11 0.16 0.�5 0.:38 0.43 0.62 0.54 0.14 Intersection Surnmar�� Area Tape: Other Cyt:le Length:120 Actuated Cprle Length:111 .1 {,�_, � ��,_ Natural Cycle: 90 .� Control Tppe: Actuated -Uncoordinated �- Maxirnum trii: Ratio: 0.95 Intersection Signal Delay: 44.1 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Uili?ation 93.7°t'� ICU Leta) of Seruic� F Analysis Period (mini 15 # 95th percentile ttolume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. S tits and Phases: 1: DeSoto Bltrd &18th Acre NE #— C,? �32 ��3 I C5� V 1 � 4� I �'436 � 437 • DS 18th Ave -DeSoto Blvd - 2030 AM w A�ccumutation 06122�2020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 325 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lanes, Val�ames, Timings 1 : DeSeto Blvd 181h Ave NE G7l34i2024 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR. 1JUBL UUBT 7>1rBR NBL PJBT �:.NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations * '� T* t r Traffic Volume (uph) 29 223 56 137 137 137 30 370 219 216 475 29 Future l�olume �tiphj 29 223 56 137 137 137 34 370 219 216 475 29 Ideal Flory �vphpl) 1900 1900 1904 1904 1900 1940 1900 1900 1900 1904 1900 1900 Storage Length fit) 205 0 0 0 290 0 225 225 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 Taper Length) 50 54 50 50 Lane lJtil. Factor 1.Ob 1.GG 1.00 1.40 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.Ob Ftt 0.974 o'%5 0.944 0.850 Fft Protected 0.950 0.984 0.950 0.950 Satd. Floau (f�rot) 1719 1755 0 G 1700 0 1719 1708 0 1719 1810 1538 Fft Permitted 0.446 0.616 b.320 0.079 Satd. Flor,v (perrrr 807 1755 0 0 1063 0 579 1708 0 143 1 81 0 1538 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTO R) 12 25 28 64 Link Speed (rnphl 45 45 45 45 Link Distance (tt) 1083 357 602 836 Trd el Time (s) 16.4 5A 9.1 12.7 Peak Hour Factor b.93 0.93 4.93 G.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles (%j 5°I° 5°$ 5° i 5°fia 6% 5% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Adj .Flow �rphj 31 244 60 147 147 147 32 398 235 232 611 31 Shared Lane Traffic �°�) Lane Group Flow (vph 31 3b0 0 G 441 0 32 633 0 232 5111 31 Turn Type Ferm PJA Penn NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 6 2 7 4 3 8 Perritted Phases 6 2 4 8 Detector Phase 6 6 2 2 7 4 3 8 8 Sivitch Phase Minirnurn Initial (s� 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.0 10.0 10.4 10.0 10.G 10.0 hdinimum Split (s) 11 A 11.0 11.4 1160 16.0 16.G 16.0 16.0 16.0 Total Split (s) 53.G 53.0 53.0 53.0 16.0 49.0 18.0 51.0 51.0 Total Split �°,fi) 44.2°r� 44.2°fi 44.2°ti 44.2% 1 a,a% 40,8% 15.0% 42 5% 42,6% tUiaxirnurn Greens 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 11.0 44.0 13.0 45.5 45.5 1`ellow Time (sj 3.0 3.G 3.4 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Tirr7e Adjusts] 0.4 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time fs) 5.4 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.b 5.0 5.5 5.5 LeadlLag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag OptimiLe? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle E dension (s� 3.0 3.4 3.b 3.0 3.0 "s.0 3.G 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode Min hdin blin Min None None None None None Act Effct Green (sl 48.4 48.0 48.0 54.0 44.0 60.8 52.5 52.5 A, tuated g1C Ratio 0.4G 0.44 0.40 0.45 0.37 0.51 0.44 0.44 v!c Ratio 0.10 b.42 1.00 0.09 0.98 0.95 0.66 0.04 Cor�tral Delay 23.7 27.2 7U 15.2 68.1 79.9 3209 1.0 Queue Delay 0.4 0.G 0.0 0.G 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 23.7 27.2 7U 15.2 W1 79.9 32.9 1.0 LDS C C E B E E C A A{�proaeh Delay 26.8 7U 05.6 45.7 18th Ave - DeSoto Bled - 243p PM w A.ccurnulation 07I30�2020 Baseline Synchro 14 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1326 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes, Voltames, Timings 1 : Desoto Blvd & 18th Ave NE a7r�arza2a Lane Group EBL EBT EB}?_ bUBL bUBT UIrSR NBL PlBT N6R SBL SBT SBR Approach LOS C E E D Queue Length 50th (ft} 15 1v9 ��32E� 12 46t> 134 3�<4 0 Queue Length 95th �) 37 '� i� #550 23 #117 �L96 469 4 Internal ink Dist (Tt) 1003 277 522 75� Turn Bay Length �tj 205 296 225 226 base Capacity (v�ah) 322 709 440 369 644 243 791 709 Starvation Cap Reductn �0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 G 0 b 0 Storage Cap Reductn b a 0 0 b 0 0 0 P.educed v,+c Ratio 0.10 0.42 1.00 0.09 b.9& 0.9� 0.6� 6.04 Intersection Surnmar�� � - Area T��pe; Other Cycle Length:120 Actuated Cprle Length:120 Natural C��.le: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vac Ratio:1.00 Ir�ersection Signal Delay: �5.3 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Uiliaation 99.5°,o ICU Lsvel of Ser•aice F Analp��is Period (min115 1�olume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically irrtir�ite. O,ueue shown is maximum after two cycles. 95th percentile volume eixeed:> capac:it}+, q�.teue may be longer. Queue shown is maxirnum aftertwa cycles. S lits and Phases: 1: DeSoto Slvd &�8th Ave NE +�-- >r32 4� 3 � � �,� "'Mt36 # �8 18th Ave -DeSoto BItiCI - 2a3a Pb1 w A.ccumulation 07l3a�a20 Baselihe Synchro 10 R.eport Rage 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 327 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —August 2020 18th Ave NE — Everglades Blvd 'Villages Traffic 3y Percentage 1 Ll I P% Thre�gh LV- C5% +R5% Everglades Blvd Through Left BVr CIO% +R1O% LV- C5% +R5% F VT (C 1 C1% +1115%) T❑ LV- (C5% +R5%)1 Through LV� (C5% +R5%)' Left LV- (C I OO/o +R I O%) rraff« EntterlExlt - 20% (20%) Through rRIhtCommercial; RResidential BVm (C1i��',�o +j�IO%) - C10% +RIO% BV= Bellmar Village RV- CIO% +R5% LV= Lan,gwater Village RV= Rivergrass Village Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1328 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 3 Viil���s Traffic l�e�r �03 By ��UI (�e�k dour � nth ���� �JE i"hrp��h L1I-1 +1 �= � � _� Thro��h BV- 1 +�2�= 2� RV'- � 1 +46! 47� �� Litt T❑ �! fight LV- r~; f -���� 5�} Th�augh Lift Tr�f�i� Ent�r�Exit _ �0�{��� Thr�u�h Right � _ �s�mm�fcial; R = R��ic�entiat BV� � 1 +��= �9y LV= � +��= 38 841' = 8e11m�r Village RV- � +1 �__ �� i.�� L�n�r�r�ter �iN��� �� _ - i�CV� F�lv�r�res� �fil1�.C�� -- Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 329 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 i�il(�g�� T�`�ffi� By �� P'��k H�ou� 18tfi1 A�€� � E l�hrrougtr L�/- � �49= �3 ��er�l�d�s �31vtI �B11- b +�6�= f� ��l- ��► +2�4= 3a� �D �t�f�� �nt�rr��it - �fl���t�j �c�rrrm�r���i; � = R�sid�ntia( �V = ���Im�lr Vil{�g�e L�f= L������t�r �li�l��� f�V¢ Rivergr�s$ 1�i61��� L��. Thrt�i�gh R4�- 8 +4�= 52 �� �4 r Ri�hi LV- �� +��� 38� Th+'c�u�h Left �Rlght LV- � Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 330 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 r � �.s _ -- -- � _- r� � �" �` �,� � �, �' „" r,� `" ` � i �� � � -r � � � ��} fi� ,,,� rf � '� C '' w � � �: � �.`, .. �� � a -� � L� �— ra z � ,� �., � �u> r-� � �., �� �F � � � �—. � � fi � < .� � � � � — � � � =` � '� �, t+� s� � � tti N`a r�+D Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 331 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 a � � -� � � rw ,� �� - �, =., .� � � �- .--� � �r%� tit ;9 -1 � r-� tom- rac � — �. �� � �' � '� � � ;� ' h �-+ +�, , ri � � .� t � ��, ,-. � �.� �— � _ _ _- r= � � � �` � �' ��, � .-a ___ �� ua � � �-' � }= � �_ R., .. _ 4.� � � +� � Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page (332 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lanes, V��lumes, Timings 1 : E;rerglades Blvd � 18th Ave fJE asrz2tza2a Lane Group EBL EBT EBR. UUBL UttBT UUBR tJBL t�IBT tJBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations � '� '� � �' � � '� Traffic Volume �t+F�hj 1a �7 11 291 93 2a7 19 333 237 17� 270 4 Future L+olume (tiphj 10 57 11 291 93 207 19 333 237 176 270 4 Ideal Flow �rphplj 19a4 19a0 1900 190a 1904 19aa 19a0 19a0 1900 190a 1900 1900 Storage Length �tj 0 a 28a 0 210 190 4a0 a 5larage Lanes a 4 1 0 1 1 1 4 Taper Length �tj 25 50 sa 50 Lane l.rtil. Factor 1.aa 1.40 1.a0 1.aa 1.00 1.a0 1.00 1 .aa 1.00 1.aa 1.a0 1.a0 Frt 0.981 a �9G 0.850 0.99° Fft Protected a.993 0.9�0 U.9�0 6.95a Satri. Flo w (�rotj 0 1763 0 1719 1 �21 a 1719 1$10 1538 1719 1 S06 0 Flt Permitted a.892 a.�17 4.580 0.32a Satd. Flo�,v (permj a 1��3 a 936 1621 0 10�0 181a 1538 594 1806 a Right Turn an Red Yes Yes 1'es Yes Satd. Floau (RTC Rj 6 97 25 r 1 Link Speed (rrrphj 45 4� �5 45 Link Distance �tj 122a 1795 11 �i2 1329 Ttatrel Time (sl 1�.� 27.2 17.E 2a.1 Peak Haur Factor a.93 a.93 0.93 a.93 a.93 0 �3 0.93 0.93 a.93 a.93 0.93 a.93 Heatry Vehicles (°�j �°� r�c� �o,{� �o� ,r}o� 50�, r�o� �o� �o,{� ,r�o,� r�o� r�o,{� A�ij. Flov� 4srphj 11 61 12 313 1aa 223 26 3�8 255 189 29a 4 Shared Lane Traffic (°raj Lane Group Floav (a�phj 0 3� 0 313 323 0 '20 358 2�5 189 29� a Turn Type Perot t�lA pm+pt NA pm+pt f•JA Perrn pm+pt NA Protected Phases 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Perrrtitteri Phases 6 2 4 4 R Detector Fhase 6 � � 2 7 4 � 3 8 Suvitch Phase Minimum Initial (sj 5.0 5.a 5.0 10.0 5.4 10.a 10.0 5.a 10.0 blinimum Split (sj 12.0 12.a 12.a 16.8 10.5 26.8 26.8 13.3 55:3 Total Split �sj 24.a 24.0 20.0 4�.0 12.0 61.a Ei1.a 15.a 64.0 Total Split (°�6j 2a.a°N 20.a°�G 16.7°6 36.7°fo 1a.a°�6 5o.8°� 5a.$°� 12.5°'0 53.3°r6 Maxirrrum Green (sj 17.2 17.2 13.2 37.2 6.5 54.2 54.2 �.2 57.2 1`ellou�� Time (sj 4.� 4.8 4.� 4.8 3.6 4.8 4.8 4.� �.8 A11-Red rme �Sj 2.a 2.a 2 n 2.a 2.a 2.a 2.a 2.a 2 Last Time fldjust �sj a.a o.a a.a o.a a.a a.a o.a a.a Tcnal Lost Tirne fsj 6.8 f.� 6.8 5 � 6.� f.� 6.8 6.f� LeadlLag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag tag Lead Lag Lead-L3g Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes `fes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (sj 2.0 2.a 2.0 2.0 2.0 �.a 5.0 2.a 5.0 Recall Made Min Min blin h,1in PJone Min tulin Min Min Act Effct Green (s j �.5 28.7 28.7 31.5 24.9 2�3.9 33.7 3�.� Axtuated gJC Ratio 0.1 a 0.3� a.35 0.38 0.34 a.30 4.47 a.43 trio Ratio 0.5a O.E9 0.51 a.04 0.�5 O.da a.49 a.37 Control Delay 45.E 32.7 19.1 11.3 31.1 �.8 17.1 18.8 Quei_re Delay a.a 0.0 a.a O.a 0.0 a.a 0.0 O.a Total Delay+ 45 � 32.7 19.1 11.3 31.1 �l.S 17.1 18.8 LUS D C B B C A B B Approach Delay+ 45.6 2�:.8 19.9 18.1 1 Sth Acre tJE - Euerglades Bled - 2a3a Atot w A,ccumulation 05122t2020 Baseline Synchra 10 Report Fage 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 333 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes, Vol�lmes, Timings 1 : E;rerglades Blvd �, 18th Ave NE 05r22,'2420 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR. UttBL Ur+BT U�1BR NBL NBT tJBR SBL SBT SBR Approach LOS D C. B B Queue Length 50tf�i ��t) 38 125 87 5 15� 0 53 �7 Q�_aeue Length 95th (ft) �3 #�ci2 19� 16 260 49 100 196 Irrternal Linfti Dist l�) 1140 1715 10�2 1249 Turn Bay L,engtf�� tfit) 280 210 190 400 Base Caparity �vph) 341 453 797 472 1212 1114 333 1276 Starvation Cap Redurtn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Starage Cap I�ductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R.educa_d vrt: R;�tio 0.25 O.E� 0.41 0.04 0.30 0.23 0.4� 0.23 Intersection 5urnma Area Tape: Other Cycle Length:120 A,:tuated Cyrle Length: 82.3 Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated-Uncaardinated h�a,<irr�um vlc Ratio: 0.6� _ __ ____ Intersection Signal Delay:22.6 Intersection LOS: C Irtersection Capacity l�tiliaatian 67.1 % ICU. Level of Serrrice C Analysis Period (mini 15 # 35th percentile voUame er�eeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue sharron is maxirnum after two cycles. e .J es Blvd �1 i;th Ave NE 18th Aue NE -Everglades Bl�i - 2030 Ato1 w Accumulation 05.�22t2020 Baseline Synrhro 10 Report F age `? Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page i334 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1 : E:rerglades LEI;Id � 18th }S�'�fe �JE g7l3012g20 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR. UUBL U�1BT l�1BR tJBL h16T tJBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Corrfigurations � � '� � '� � � '� Traffic 1�'olume (uph} 11 72 43 173 61 132 26 361 151 92 410 11 Future 1fol�_ame (Uph} 11 72 43 173 61 132 26 361 151 U2 41q 11 Ideal Flow �irphpl} 19gq 1900 1 y0U 19gq 190q 1 �Oq 19g0 190q 19gq 19gq 1 �q0 19g0 Storage I�ngth fit} 0 0 28q 0 210 1 a0 400 0 Storage Lanes q q 1 0 1 1 1 0 Taper Length fit} 25 5q 5c) 5q Lane Util. Factor 1.q0 1.06 1 AO 1.q0 1.Oq 1.Oq 1 Aq 1 .qi,7 1.q0 1.qq 1.00 1.Oq Frt q.954 q.89� q.85q 0.996 Ftt Protected 0 g�6 q.�50 0.950 0.95q Satd. Flow (tarot} q 1719 0 1719 1625 q 1719 1 S1 G 153� 171 �� 1802 q Ftt Permitted 0.943 q.4g8 0.436 q.314 Satd. Floiu (germ} q 162f; 0 73$ 1�25 6 789 1810 1538 568 18g2 q Right Turn an Red Yes Yes 1`es Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR} 18 94 162 2 Link Speed (rnph} 45 45 45 45 Link Distance fit} 122q 1795 1162 1329 Travel Time (s} 1�.5 27.2 17.f 20.1 Peak Haur Factor 0.93 0.93 q.93 q.93 q.93 q.93 q.93 0.93 q.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy �,rehirles (°,fi} 5°fo 5°10 5°� 5°U 5°rfi 5°�G 5°k 5°� 5°k Sob 5°� 5°fa Arij. Flaw �rph} 12 77 4F 186 66 142 22 388 162 �3 441 12 Shared Lane Traffic (°fal Lane Gnoup Flaw (��ph} 0 135 0 186 20� 0 28 383 162 g9 453 0 Turn Type Perris NA prt7+pt NA pm+pt PlA Perm pm+��t NA Frr_rtacted Phases 6 5 2 7 4 3 3 Perrt�itteci Phases f 2 4 4 R Detector Ft��ase 6 C 5 2 7 4 4 3 8 Sut�itch Phase Minimum Initial (s} 5.q 5.0 5.q 1q.0 5.0 10.0 1q.0 5.q 1q.q Minimum Split (s} 12.0 12.q 12.q 16.E 1q.5 26.E 26.$ 13.3 55.3 Tatal Split (s} 24.q 24.0 2q.q 44.0 12.0 61.0 �1.0 15.q 64.q Tatal Split (°�j 20.q°�, 2q.q°lo 16.7°fi 3b.7°r'o 1q.0°Io 50.8°l0 50.8°f° 12.5°r'o 53.3°r6 Maxirr7um Green (s} 17.2 17.2 13.2 37.2 E7.5 54.2 54.2 3.2 57.2 1`ellow Time (s} 4.� 4.� 4.8 4.3 3.5 4.8 4.8 4.3 4.3 All -Red Time (s} 2.0 2.6 2.q 2.q 2.0 2.q 2.q 2.q 2 Last Time Adjust (s} 4.0 q,q q.0 q.0 q.0 0.0 O.q O.q Total Last Time (s} 6.8 f.8 5 � 5.5 6.8 E.3 6.8 6.8 LeadlL,ag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimise? Yes Yes 'fes Yes Yes 'fes Yes Yes �fer�icle E�ension fs} 2.q 2.0 2.0 2.q 2.0 5.q 5.q 2.0 5.0 Recall Made tulip t��in Min Min t�lone Min tuiin tulip Min Act Effct green (s} 1q.E� 2:�.3 29.3 33.3 2f.4 2�.4 39.2 36.5 A�:tuated g1C Ratio q.13 q.35 0.35 q.44 q.ti2 0.32 q.47 q.44 v1c Ratia U �1 0.47 q.33 0.07 0.68 q.27 0.27 0.5$ Cantral Delay 44.E 25.z'•. 13.5 12:3 32.1 5.q 14.5 23.4 Que�.ae Delay 0.0 q.q 0.0 q.q 0.0 p.0 6.q q.q Total Delay 44.6 25.8 13.4 12.3 32.1 5.0 14.6 23.4 LOS D C B B C A B C Approach Dalay 44.E 1 �.5 23.5 21.8 18th Ave NE - Etimrglades Blvd - 2g30 Ptu1 w Accumulation g7�4�2024 Baseline Synchro 1 q Report Fage 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 335 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes, V��lumes, Timil�igs 1 : E;rerglades Bl;fd � 18th �','tife NE o7.�or�o2o Lane Group EEL Approach LOS Queue Length 5Oth ��t) Queue Length �5th 4�) Internal ink Dist �) Turr�� Bay Length tqt) Base Capacity (tiph) Startration Cap Redurtn Spilltaack Cap Rsductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced vii: Ratio Intersection Surtimar�� Area Type: Other Cycle Lengtt��:12O ,W.tuated Cy�.le Length: 8�.7 Natural Cycfe:90 Contra) Type: Actuated-Uncaardinated blanirnum rric Ratio: 0.68 Intersection Signal Delay: 23.i Intersection Capacity l,tili�atian 53.6°Io Analysis Ferioci (min�1� EET EER. UtrBL i>7rBT LIVER tJBL NET tJBR SEL EET SER D E C C 64 70 41 7 1 ?9 G 23 159 134 147 111 22 302 �2 b1 345 11 �Q 1715 10�2 1249 284 21u 19U 400 364 418 793 :399 121 s 1084 383 1275 0 tl 0 0 4a 4 r� 0 4 0 4 0 C� 0 4 0 0 4 t� 0 fa 0 0 .4 t7.33 0.4d 0.26 (i.b7 4.;s2 b.'15 U.2� 0.36 Splits and Phases: 1: Everalades Blvd &18th Ave NE Ir��tersection LOS: C ICU Level of S eraic e B *F— ��5 —�6 � �? � �° ��. �� i=d E�!S 1 nth ,Ave NE - E�rglades Blvd - 2U30 Fb1 w Accumulation O7130t2420 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Fage 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e � 336 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Immokalee Rd —Oil Well Rd 31t�ill�ges Traffic �y P�rc�nia�� QII Weil Rd Tr�ffi� ��l��fl�X1t � 2C14�r�1���°'b� � = �Qmmer�ia�l; R = i�e�idential Fell+ �elimer lrill��e Lil= Lc��tgweter ifille�e PV= Rrver�r�ss Viliet�e Immoh�lee Rd , Left RV- � � q�'o Right t�V� ����1�� Rol= ��' 1 O`�la Left 1 41- ��50� +i�1�°,�� i ; .ti It , ,. t LV- �;���4 t�t� 1 ����� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page �337 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 3'Viil�+��� Tr�iffrc Year �4�Q �� ANI Peek dour Qit We11 Rd Tlra�fic �r�te��Exit - ��f(2Qj � = �orn�nerci�l, � = F��srd�ntial f�V= �ellmar Villat�� LV= Lc�r�gti�r�t�r V'ill�� 1�1�= Riv�r'c�ra�� 1�fill�q� Immokalee Rd LEft L V- 1 �— �� �� LV- �'I +�C[�� �1�1� ��7 Rj�l�t L4�- � f 5�- �� ITV- � +14�1� 1 �� t 9 �� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1338 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 1�i1{ages `t'ra�fi� Year �3(� B�v PM Peak Maur �l'�1�lI Rti Tr�#�i� �nt�rlEx�t - �t�,f���� � _ ��mrra�rGi�l; F = R�sid�ntial ��� ��!lmar'Vr�I��e LV� Lvn�ti�ter 1�ill�c�� Imm�k�Ne� Rd L��t '� LV- � � + �fl= 93j ��- �� +�����73 �-- ��6 Fight l..i�- 4 � `# �8� � �� R��'- 1 � �4�'! _ ��� ��� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 339 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 � ��'! � ����..� � A��1®AIL �WrECII. _. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 340 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 �k � � ` � 9. i a? "' $ � i a I,�II I� � � � � � ��I ,II IIII I� f � �I�, M� �I� ���� � r � � . � 1 �` r a � � � # � �`, a � i . � E I� t r . � � e s i � � : . � x j " ; � Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 341 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lanes, �lelumes, Timings 3: Oil Vy`ell Rd �; ImrT�OEtalee Pd o��z2r�o2o � � !� � t Lane Grnup UUBL UUBR. NBU NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations ��� � � �'� �� � '��`'� Traffic Volume (tiph� 2116 33 0 432 682 110 872 Firtun? Volume ftiph) 2116 33 0 432 682 11 U 872 Ideal Floav �rphpl} 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length �) 240 4�0 290 490 ri7p Storage Lanes 1 1 1 2 1 Taper Length �) 100 �0 50 Lane r_ttil . Far..tor 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.88 1.00 0 �1 Frt 0.8h0 0.850 Fft Protected 4 �50 0.950 Satd. Flow (protj 4848 1538 1810 3438 2707 1719 4940 Flt Permitted 0.9�0 0 266 Satd.Flow(�rerm;l 4848 1�38 1810 3438 2707 481 4940 Right Turn on Red Yes '.`es Satd. Flow(RTOR) 35 718 Link Speed (mph) 45 4v 45 Link Distance (ff) 77� 719 1028 Travel Tirne (s) 11.7 14.9 15.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0 �5 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heave Vehicles {°!°� �°�fa 5°r6 5°�i 5°!° �°!° 5°r° 5°rf° A,�ij. Floyd �rph) 222r' 35 0 4��5 718 116 918 Shared Lane Traffic (°�) Lana Grnup Flow �vph} 2227 35 0 4�5 718 116 918 Tum Tyke Prot Ferm prn+pt tilt Perm prri-+pt NA Protected Phases 4 1 � 5 2 Perrriitted Phases 4 6 6 2 Detector Phase 4 4 1 6 f; � 2 Stnaitch Phase rulinirr��_�m Initial (s} 5.0 5.0 5.0 20.0 20.0 5.p 20.0 blinimurri Split �s} 51.5 51.E 9.5 43.1 43.1 12.1 50.8 Total Split (sj 7GA 70.0 10.0 BOA u0.0 30.0 70.0 Total Split (°.�0� 46.7°!0 46.7°,u �.7°!0 33.3°!° 33.3°!0 20.0°!0 46.7°!° tulaxim um Green (s) 63.5 63.5 5.5 42.9 42.9 22.9 62.9 Yellow Time �sj 4.4 4.4 3.� 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 ,ill -Red Time �) 2.1 2.1 1 A 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Lost Time A<ij�.ast (s) 4,0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total List Time (s� 6.0 �.5 4.5 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 LeadlLag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize^ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle E>;fension �s� 3.0 3 �� 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 P,ecall Mode blin Min Miry Min blin Min Min liq'alk Tirrie �s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont UUalk l�) 33.0 33.0 29.0 29.0 Pedestrian Calls t#�Yir3 0 0 0 0 �,ct Effct Green (s) 63.8 �3.8 25.1 2�.1 43.2 33.7 actuated g+C Ratio 0.53 0.53 0.21 0.21 0.3� 0 �8 vlc Ratia 0.87 0.04 0.64 O.f4 0.40 O.C7 Control Delay 31.0 �.7 48.4 5.6 30.1 40.9 c��.ieue Delap� 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 Irtrrr�okalee Rd - Oil UUell P,d - 2030 AM w �rcumulation 05122l2020 Baseline Synchro 1 U Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 342 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes, Vol�Jmes, Timings 3: Oil Well Rd � Immokalee Rd o5�2�2020 � � � � Lane Grn�_rp UUBL UUBR h1Ei„! NBT NBR SBL SET Tatal Delay 31.4 5.� 4�.4 5.5 30.1 4G.9 LUS C �, D A C D A{�proach Delay 30.6 22.2 39.7 A{�praach LOS C C _ D C!ueue Length SCrth �� 513 0 172 0 61 232 Queue Length 95t1-i �) #€T76 19 23f 52 104 278 Internal Dnk Dist fit} �95 63� 948 Turn E ay Length fit) 240 454 490 57p Base Capacity ��4ah) 2550 825 1222 1425 408 2574 Starvation Cap Reductn U 0 0 0 4 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 U 0 Starage Cap Reductn 4 0 b 0 4 U Reduced vtc R�etio a.�7 0.04 �}.37 4.5G 0.2� U.3ti Intersection Summarz Area Type: otha_r Cp�cle LPngth:150 Actuated Cycle Length:121 .2 Natural Cyrle:125 Control Type: ���tuatec!-Uncoordinated Maximurn vh: Ratio: 4.3� Intersection Signal Dela;r:30.5 Intersec4ian LOS: C Intersection Capacity lJtilir�tion 80.3°n ICU Level of Servir.e D Anal�+sis Period (rnin)15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is rnaximurn after two cycles. its and Phases: 3: oil UUell Fbd &Immokalee R.d ��� Immokalee R�1- Oil UUell Rd - 2030 AM w A,ccumulation 05i22�2Q20 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1343 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lanes, �lol�ames, Titriings 3: uil �,+�ell Rd � ItrirnoEtialee Rd 4?i3arza2o Lane Group IfUBL U1rBR NBU NST PJBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations �l��l � � �'� �`�' • j '��� Traffic 1lolume (vph) 1a68 24 a 14�9 15?4 84 459 Future L�olume �tiph) 1068 24 0 1a59 1574 84 4�9 Ideal Flobv �trphpl) 1944 1944 19aU 194U 1944 194a 19aa Storage Length Cft) 24a 46a 29a 49U 6?U Storage Lanes 1 1 1 2 1 Taper Length tft) 10a sa a4 Lane Util .Factor U.94 1.aa 1.Ua a.95 a.88 1.0a U �1 Frt U.85a 4.850 Flt Protected a �5U a.9�0 Satd. Flow (protj 4848 1538 181 a 3438 2?a? 1 ?19 4940 Fft Permitted 4.95U a.112 Satd. Flo�u (�erm� 4848 1538 181 U 3438 2?U? 2a3 494a Right Turn on F.ed lr`es Yes Satd. FIow�RTOR) 25 164a Link Speed (rnphj 4� 4� 45 Link Distance �) 7?� 719 1 a28 Trartel Tirne (s� 11.? 14 � 15.6 Peal; Haur Factor 0.96 0.96 a.96 4.96 a.9G 0.96 a.96 Hea1+y 1�'ehirle:s (°�6) 5°�6 �°f6 5°� 5°� 5�fo 5°�fi 5°�6 Arij. Flow �rph) 1113 25 U 1103 164a 88 478 Shared Lane Traffic �°lol Lane Gr�rup Flow f��ph) 1113 25 a 1103 1f44 88 4?8 Turn Type Prot Ferm pm-�,t taA Pem� pm+pt P1A Protected Phases 4 1 6 5 2 Perrr7 fitted Phases 4 6 � 2 Detector Phase 4 4 1 6 G 5 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (sj �.4 5.a 5.6 24.a 2U.4 5.4 2U.4 blinimum Split �s� 51.E 51.5 9.5 43.1 43.1 12.1 �a.8 Total Split 4sj ?a.a ?4.a 1 a.a 5a.a SU.a 3a.a 7a.a Total Split �°�) 46.?°� 46.?°�6 b.?°r� 33.3°fi 33.3°f� 20.a°� 46.?°rG Maximum Green (sj 63.E 63.5 5.5 42.9 42.9 22.9 62.9 1`ellow Time (s) 4.4 4.4 3.5 4 � 4.8 4.8 4.4 All -Red Tirne (sj 2.1 2.1 1.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Dust Time Adjust (s� a.a 4.a 0 i) a.4 U.a 4.0 0.4 Total Last Tirne fs) �.5 � ^• 4.5 ?.1 7.1 ?.1 7.1 L,eadlLag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes 1'es �fehicle E;�ension fs} 3.4 3.a 3.a 3.a 3.a 3.a 3.4 Recall t��ode h,1in t�diri Min f"1in Colin h,1in hdin 1�1a1k Time (s) ? .4 ? .a ?.4 ?.0 Flash Dont 1.rUalk (sj 33.a 33.4 29.a 29A Pedestrian Calls ��rir) 0 a a 0 Ar.�t Effct Green �) 29.8 29.8 43.1 43.1 58.8 49.9 Actuated gIC Ratio a.29 U.29 a.42 a.42 4.5? a.48 ��c Ratio o.8a a.4� o.?? a.?9 4 v4 0 �o Control Delay 38 � 1 U.2 31.? 4.5 14.4 16.1 queue Delay a.o a.a a.a a.o a.a a.a Imrnokalee Pad - Uil UUell P.d - 2a3a Ptu1 w Accumulation a?13afz420 Baseline Synchro 1 U Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1344 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes, V��lumes, Titriinas 3: ail '��`ell Rd �; Imrr����tialee Rd a?�aarzaza Lane Grr�up WBL UUBR hJBU hJBT hdBR SBL SET Total Delay 38.9 1 a.2 31.? 4.5 14.4 16.1 LOS D E C A B E ispproach Delay s8.2 1�.4 15.9 �proach LOS D B E Queue Lenc�tl-� bath 4�) 239 0 322 a 2� 64 Queue Length 95th (fit) 3a4 2a 48? 47 u5 9� Irrternal I�rd� Dist 4�J 69� 639 948 Turn Eay Length l�) 24a 450 490 6?0 Base Capacity (uph) z990 9�� 1432 2a84 454 sa17 Starvation Cap Reductn a a a a a a Spillback �p Reductn a 0 a a a 0 Storage Cap Reductn a a t� a a a Reduced v!c Ratio a.37 a.03 0.?? a.?« a.19 a.16 Intersection Surrrrn area Type: Other Cycle Length:15a Actuated Cycle Length:laa.v hJatural Cycle:ll Control Tppe: ,Actuated-Uncaardinated Maximurn U!c Ratio: a.�0 Intersection Signal Delay: 21.3 Intersection Capacity l.tiliaation ?1.5°rG Anal��sis Period (rnin� 15 its and Phases: ?:Oil UUell P,d �Irnrr�akalee Rd �11 � �Z `i�J 5 I I �o Inters ecti an LO S : C ICU Letrel of Service C Imrnakalee P,d -Oil Well P.ri - 2a3a Ptu1 w Accumulation a?J3a,�Zci24 Baseline Synrhro 10 Repart Fage 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1345 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Immokalee Rd —Randall Blvd � vill�lges Tr�ffi� {immo�l+�� Rd B� �'ecc�nl�+�e Trough L+V''' �I�'t{7�f�� �Y' t���p�'}i�����Q� 4tt1 5t CIE Tr��fiG Eot�r�lExt>I � ����tti,�B��� �c�mmeroEal; R = Residen>:i�l BV= B�Ilm�r virile �V= L_c�rra��vat�r tt411age FEW= f�1��rgrC�sti vrll,�g� Tinrough �v- � i a�� 0 BY- il��"'lSa.j Lv- �{�...��� +R15�n J R�nd�il B.Ivd 1R��hi I3v- R�°lc� LV- ��¢f� +R 15�0 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 346 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 � Villages Traff`i� Ye�� 2t}�0 By AM beak l�i��r 4tt� Si N immc�k�l�a �� Thrqugt� IL�f- {� a�� ��� �� Traffic Enter; Exit - 2c�i��� j C = ��rmmerclal; � _ ����d�rttial S'�= S�ilmar VIIlag� L1/= Lvngwate3 �'iliage �'�= Rlv�r�r�s� 1lill�g� Thrc��� Lv- 35 RV� � +1 �'� _ �3 '# �8 To Lift ��� (�4 � L1C- ��1 +1Ei�}- 1��� 195 Ftancayt Bloc �`i�ht �'y�- 1 �� l�`�- 1 +-52= �� 6�I Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1347 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 3 �'ill����� Tra�fi� Y��r ��3t� �� PM P��k Fi�ur .�t� St N� Traffic Enf�rfExit - 20;'�2Q) �. = Ccmm�r�l�i, R = R��i��i-�tiial BV= 8e!lmar'Viliage iy1J= Lc�n�rv�te� Will�ge RV� Rit+�r����� V(II��� Im�n�k�l�� Rd Through �v- ���, (��_ ������T ���� _ - ��� Through �,1J- c�� ��� 9� *4��= �4� �4� �' �� TO ��� +��- � � �} LV- �� +gQ= Fl3� �1� F���n�iall �tv�t Right �V- �� i.�- �# + 1 �8= ��2 1�3 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 348 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 ��■�■■� ■■■■■� ������� 0■■0■�0 �■■���0 ■■��0� ■■0■■■ AO■0■■0 �0����0 0■�00■0 ■■��■� ■�0■0� ����■�� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P age � 349 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 --- s__ � � �, ,.,� �-- � � � � k,�i "�' � �,i r t{'i � � L? �' II"' � �#. '' t1, � c:� � t!Y ;, , � � �- � � r� � � r �, -- �, `� � R r: � rs �� � �� � ;� �+ - - - _ _ _ � �� �� � �` �. � �� �� �- aea k..t � � � � � � '. '^.���y} ..'._.. .�, 5- �,.i 4F � { � �": � � � � � � � �- r�* � ®a � � � �' `w .,,. _ __ . — — :� � � �, roc � r� ...� � i �.- _ �., C5 t� � ,� �- � � � � a— � ,�, � � �__ � �t �s �. �s nr �* � � �� � � �°� � � � � Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 350 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lanes, �lolramea, Timinc�� �: nth St IV E�`Randall Blvd �c Immalcalee Rd o5rz2>z02o Lane Grnup EfiL EBT EBR UUBL U�'BT 1rUBR NBL NBT NBR. SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ��� '� � ���► �' '� ��� Traffic Valume �Uph) 4 6 12 100? 8 206 8 1736 72i� 206 24�3 5 Future'�folume (tiph) 4 6 12 100? 8 206 8 1?36 ?2t� 206 24$3 5 Ideal Flow �rphpl� 1900 1900 1900 190U 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19G0 Starage Length �) 0 0 250 250 235 500 450 235 5tarage Lanes 4 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length Qt� 50 50 50 50 Lane lttil. Factor 1.00 1.OG 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.OG 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.926 0.855 0.�50 O.d50 Flt Protected 0.991 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow �prot} 0 1661 0 4848 154? 0 1?19 4940 1538 1?19 4940 1538 Fft Permitted 0.991 0.950 0.062 6.055 Satd. Flow ��erm) U 1661 0 4�48 154? 0 112 4940 1538 106 4940 153° Rigf7t Turn on Red Yes No Yes 'Yes Satd. Flo�u(RTOR) 12 57? 131 Link Speed (mph 36 45 45 45 Link Distance �1 493 ?75 7�19 1028 Trar,�el Tune (s) 11.2 11.7 10.9 15.6 Peak Haur Factor 0.97 0 �7 0.9? 0.9? 0.97 0.9? 0 �? 0.9? 0.9? 0.9? 0.9? 0.9? Heavy+ 5��ehicles (�'/o) 5a/u 50� 50� 50� 50�, 50� 5ojo 5a�o 50�, 5^�O 50� 5°io �xij. Flava �+ph) 4 6 12 1038 t} 212 8 1?90 751 212 2560 5 Shared Lane Traffic (�,bj Lana Grnup Flaw (uph) 0 22 0 1038 220 0 � 1790 ?51 212 25t�0 5 T�_rrn Type Split N,� Split t�JA prn+pt NA Free prrt-rp't NA Perm Pr��tected Phases � � 4 4 1 6 5 2 Perrr7itted Phases � Free 2 2 Detector Prase � � 4 4 1 � 5 2 2 S�n.�itch Phase Minirn�_rm Initial (sj 5.0 5.0 5A 5.0 5.6 1 tY.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 Minimum Split (s} 12.0 12.0 49.0 49.0 12.0 46.1 12.1 40.0 46.0 Total Split (s} 11.0 11.0 40.0 40.0 12.0 ?5.0 `L4A fl?.0 87.0 Total Split �^6fb) ? �°/u 7.3°fo 25.701a 26.?°% �.0°�G 50Aa� 16.0°fi 58.0°I�o 5$.0$fi h.4aximurr� Green (s) 4.0 4.0 33.4 33.0 5.0 C7.9 1?.0 50.0 80.0 1`ellaw Time (sj 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.� 4.� ,ill -Red Tirne �) 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 Dist Tirne �ijust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Last Time (s� ?.0 ?.0 7.0 ?.0 ?.1 ?.0 ?.0 ?.0 Lead;Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Leah -Lag Optimize^ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1+'ehicle E�fensian (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3 � 3.4 Recall Made h,1in Min Tulin Colin Min Min t��lin Min Min Ub'alk Tirr7e (s} ?.0 ?.0 7 [) Flash Dont 1Nalk �) 35.4 35.0 32.0 Pedestrian Calls (#;�r} 0 0 0 ��ct Effct Green {s) 4.0 33.0 33.0 ?0.1 65.0 150.0 92A 80.0 �0.0 Actuated g?C Ratio U.03 0.22 0.22 0.4? 0.43 1.00 O.t}1 0.5;3 0.53 v.+c Ratio C7.40 0.9? 0.65 0.0& 0.84 0.49 0.?? 0.9? 0.01 Control Delay 64.2 79.5 63.2 16.2 41.8 1.1 ?1.? 45.0 0.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Imrnofcalee P,t1-Randall Blvd -2030 Atu1 w Ar..curnulatian 051`z2t2020 Baseline S_ynchra 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 351 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes, Volrames, Timings �: nth �tIVEr`Randall �Ivd � Immelcalee Rd 05l2�t2020 Lane croup EBL EBT EBR 1NBL UUBT 1rUBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Delay 64.E 79.5 632 1 E>.2 41,5 1.1 i1.� �36.0 U.0 LOS E E E B D A E D A A{�proach Cplay 54.2 i6.7 29.7 47.9 Approach LOS E E C G Queue Length 50th {�) 10 3f0 198 3 h5U U 153 865 U Queue Length 95tt-i {fit) 4`z #456 294 10 607 0 #f302 #�1005 0 Internal Dnk Dist (�) 413 695 639 948 Tum Bay Length fit) 250 235 500 450 235 Base Capacity �t'ph� 55 1066 340 1 U6 2�36 1538 '376 '?634 881 Starkration Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 U Spillback Cap Reductn U 0 0 0 4 0 U 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v!c F;atio U.40 U.9� 0.65 U.U� U.BU 0.49 6.77 0.9? U.U1 Intersection Summar Area Ty��e: Other C��cle Length:1 �0 Actuated Cycle Length:l �U t�latural C1UIe:150 Control Ty�ae: A��tuated-Urn.oardinated Maximurn vlc Ratio: 0.97 Intersection Signal Delay:46.� Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Ltilization 95.E°lo ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (rriin� 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum aftertwo cycles. Splits and Phases: 3:4th St NEIRandall Blvd &IrnmoKalee R� 1431 u� �� G4 n � �# :� L.5 aCr �. Lii �.- ��� 1 �� 5 �� Imrnokalee Rd -Randall Blud - 203U Ab1 w A,crurriulation 05�2212020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1352 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -August 2020 Lanes, 1fc�lrarnes, Tir7�ings 3: 4th StNElRar-�dall Blvd � Imm�:�lcalee Rd o�i3or202o Lane Group EBL EBT EBR UUBL UUBT WBR NBL �16T NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations � ��� �, � ,�,,,�� � +� ,��,� Traffic Volume (t�ph) 3 10 5 ?72 3 163 5 2469 1019 163 1331 3 Future Volurrie �uph) 3 10 5 7ir2 3 163 5 2469 1019 163 1331 3 Ideal Flo�,v �rphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length fit) 0 0 250 250 235 500 450 235 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length fit) 50 50 50 50 Lane l�til. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.40 0.94 1 AO 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.962 0.357 0.350 0.350 Ffl Protected 0.992 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prat) 0 1727 0 4343 1551 0 1719 4940 1533 1719 4940 1533 Flt Permitted 0.992 0.950 0.072 0.0�2 Satd. Flow (i?erm) 0 1727 0 4343 1551 0 130 4940 1533 130 4940 1533 Rigt>t Turn on Red Yes No Yes Yes Satd. Flo��d (RTOR) 5 563 131 Link Speed (mph) 30 45 �5 45 Link distance fit) 493 775 719 1023 Travel Tirrie �s) 11.2 11.7 10.9 15.6 Peak Hour Factor U.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 p.97 0.9� 0.97 0.97 0.9? 0.9� 0.97 0.97 Heavy+'Jehirles (°�6) 5°�i 5°�6 5°�fi 5°i6 5dit� 5°l0 5`;b 6°l0 5°.r 5"fo 5°�fo 5°�u �,rij. Flow �rph) 3 10 5 796 3 173 5 2545 1051 173 1939 3 Shared Lane Traffic (�,b) Lane Group Flow (tiph) 0 13 0 ?96 131 0 5 2545 1051 173 1939 3 Tum Type Split hJA Split NA F?rn+pt t�JA Free prri+�-�t NA Perm Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 1 6 5 2 Ferrriitted Phases 6 Free 2 2 Detector Phase 3 3 4 4 1 h 5 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 15.G 5.0 15.0 15.0 Minimum Split �s) 12.0 12.0 49.0 49.0 12.0 46.1 12.1 40.0 40.0 Total Split (s) 11.0 11.0 34.0 34.0 23.0 35.0 20.0 �7.0 77.0 Total Split �"dfi) ?.3°!a 7.3°�6 22 ?�'i6 22.7°�0 13.7��0 56.70� 13.304 5'1.3°r6 51.3°fi Maxirnurn Green (s) 4.0 4.0 27A 27.0 21.0 73.0 13.0 70.0 r 0.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 ,�11-Red Time �S) 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 L,�,t Time �i]ust (s) a.o b.o b.a a.o u.c� o.o 0.0 O.o Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 ?.0 7.0 7.0 �.0 �.0 Lead, Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes 1'es Yes Yes Yes 1r'ehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3A 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode blip D,1in Min blin hdin Min t�>1in Colin Min Ub'alk Time (s) r.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont UUalk �S) 35.0 35.0 32 0 Pedestrian Calls (#�Ytr'� 0 0 0 duct Effct Green (s) 4.0 26.3 26.3 �3.0 73.0 149.E 63.3 63.3 63.3 Actuated g!C R.atio 0.03 0.13 0.13 0.52 0.52 1.00 0.46 0.46 0.46 tr�c Ratio 0.36 G.92 0.65 0.02 l�.s.39 0.63 0.33 0.36 r�.00 Control Delay 76.5 76.5 69.3 19.6 50.5 2.5 r 6.� 41.1 0.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Imrriokalee Rd -Randall Blvd -2430 FM w A.ccurriulation 07l30l2020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1353 Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —August 2020 Lanes, �Ir}Dames, Tir7�ings 3:4th �tNE1Rar-�dall Blvd � ImmoEca.lee Rd o?13012020 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR UUBL UUBT VUBR NBL NBT NBR �'BL StiT SBR Total Delay ?Es.S ?6.5 69.3 19.6 50.5 2.5 ?t>.7 41.1 0.0 LOS E E E B D A E D ,q A�proaeh Delay ?6.5 ?5.2 3�i.4 d4.0 t�proach LOS E E D p Queue Length 50th �� 13 2?� 166 2 8$2 0 11� f01 0 Queue Length 95tf�� (tt� 42 #�4� 254 10 �f1019 4 #�5u 668 0 Internal (jnh Dist �) 413 �g5 G39 ��� Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 235 500 �150 235 Base Capacity (k+��h) 50 8?4 284 30? 25?5 153p 197 2311 ?89 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced u�c Redo 0.35 (ti.91 0.65 0.02 0.99 O.f� 0 4� 0.84 Ci.00 Intersection Summa 1�t'ea T]+pe: Other Cycle Length:150 Actuated Cycle Lengtf��:149.6 PJatural C��.Ie:150 Control Tyke: Actuated-Unr_oordinated Maximurn u� Ratio: 0.99 Intersection Signal Dela]r: ��.5 Interjection LOS: D Intersection Capacity l.tilization 95.9°r6 ICU Leuel of Service F Anal]�sis Period (min} 15 # 95th percentile uolume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is ma,cimum aftertwo cycles. its and Phases 3: nth St NEiRandall Bltrd �Irnmokalee F�� u� O� 1 �1 i'3� �F -,-, • • - - - � 1 �� 6�G �S I ��i Imrnof;alee R.d-Randall Blud-2030 Prv1w.�,:curnulation 07I30t2020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 1"rebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 354 P6011COCK planning•engineering Fair -Share Mitigation for Operational Impacts Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) Prepared for: Collier Enterprises 2550 North Goodlette Road, Suite 100 Naples, FL 34103 Phone: 2394344015 Collier County, Florida 0/0/2020 Prepared by: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 28 )0 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-566-9551 Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz Long water Village — SRA — Fair -Share Mitigation for Operational impacts —August 2020 Fair -Share Mitigation 1. The Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) is a proposed mixed use development in eastern Collier County located east of Desoto Boulevard and south of Oil Well Road (CR 858). The subject project is less than 1,000 acres in size. 2. The landowner is responsible to pay an appropriate fee required by the County's Road Impact Fee Ordinance, as building permits are issued for the proposed project. 3. Proposed internal roads, driveways, internal alleys, internal sidewalks/pathways and interconnections to adjacent developments are site related improvements and are not subject to impact fee credits. In addition, the landowner is required to provide appropriate turn lanes at project entrances as required at the time of site development approval. These improvements are considered site related. It is noted that if turn lane improvements require the use of County's Right -of -Way (ROW) or easements, compensating ROW along the development frontage may need to be provided without cost to Collier County as a consequence of such improvement. 4. Operational impacts of the development project traffic are mitigated for those intersections failing to achieve acceptable performance characteristics. Consistent with the information illustrated in the adopted Collier County Traffic Impact Study guidelines, mitigation improvements are considered acceptable if capacity is added that restores or improves the delay and v/c (volume/capacity) ratio to the levels provided in the base scenario. Base scenario is defined as the analysis of existing traffic plus background traffic for the estimated build-oufi year (2030) on the E + C (existing plus committed) signcantly impacted roadway network. As illustrated in the Traffic Impact Statement associated with the zoning application for the subject development, Synchro 10 software was used to perform intersection Level of Service (LOS) analysis at specific locations. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA �' � � � 12 Longwater Village — SRA — Fair -Share Mitigation for Operational Impacts — August 2020 Based on the results of the Synchro intersection analyses, the following geometric improvements may be necessary to address project related level of service deficiencies. Oil Well Rd and Desoto Blvd intersection — signalization Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd intersection — signalization isth Ave NE and Desoto Blvd intersection — signalization; add southbound left -turn lane on DeSoto Blvd 5. Fair share percentage determination illustrates traffic impacts in the AM and PM peak periods. The project share of cost has been based on the proportion of the project peak hour traffic contributed to the improvement location relative to the total new peak hour 2030 traffic volumes. A cash contribution of $622,000 would be paid to go towards the intersection improvements. Contribution requirements for transportation related impacts are summarized in the Cost Allocation Table. Table 1 Cost Allocation Table Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd 400.0 1fi.1% / 64.4 Total 1,400.0 -` 44.4% / fi22.fl :Contribution towards items 1 & 2 & 3 fi22.0 100.0% / fi22.0 Note* - In addition, the developer is agreeing to provide roadway improvements for 18th Avenue NE, segment from project entrance to Desoto Boulevard., as a site related expense (100% contribution). Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA � � � 13 Preliminary Conic rrency _Fair Share for U The following roadway segments are adversely impacted by the projected traffic generated by �ongwater SRA. — Randall Blvd from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd Randall Blvd from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd —1.84 mi (measured) From 2040 LRTP Amendment Adoption Report, May 25, 2018 —Appendix 2040 Needs Assessment with Project Selection Criteria — ID 35 Randall —16th St NE to Desoto Blvd — 3.1 mi = $34,060,582 — expand from 2U to 4D arterial 1.84 mi = $20,216,604 Pj Trips Deficiency = 37 Net Increase in Capacity = 900 (2U) to 2,000 (41)) = 11100 Percent Pj Deficient = 37/1,Inn = 3.40Z net Estimate = $20,216,604 x 3.4% _ $688,000 Longwater SRA — To#al Concurrency Fair Share = $0.7M Orange County, CA Denver, CO Austin, TX Sacramento, CA Dallas, TX Tampa, FL Phoenix, AZ Orlando, FL Boise, ID Las Vegas, NV Research Triangle, NC Longwater Village SRA Economic Assessment Collier County Collier County Schools North Collier Fire &Rescue Initial Submission: November 11, 2019 Revised: March 11, 2020 Added 15,000 sq. ft. Commercial Roads Emergency Medical Services Water and Wastewater Revised: May 24, 2020 Roads - Narrative Only Revised: August 6, 2020 Roads —Fair Share Mitigation Revised: January 8, 2021 Water and Wastewater —Narrative Only Schools —Narrative Only DEVELOPMENT PLANNING � FINANCING GROUP, INC. LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table of Contents EXECUTIVESUMMARY.................................................................................................................... 4 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................a 6 METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................................. 6 MAJORASSUMPTIONS.................................................................................................................... 8 Development Assumptions......................................................................................................... 8 Revenue Assumptions................................................................................................................. 9 Sales, Just, and Taxable Values................................................................................................ PropertyTaxes....................................................................................................................... 1 ExpenditureAssumptions......................................................................................................... 10 COLLIER COUNTY FISCAL IMPACTS............................................................................................... 10 Collier County Operating Impacts............................................................................................. 1Q Collier County Operating Revenue Projections......................................................................... 11 Collier County Operating Expenditure Projections................................................................... 12 Collier County Capital Impacts.................................................................................................. 13 Collier County Capital Impacts by Department..................................................................... 13 NORTH COLLIER FIRE &RESCUE DISTRICT.................................................................................... 29 North Collier Fire &Rescue Capital Impacts............................................................................. 29 North Collier Fire &Rescue Annual Operating Impacts............................................................ 30 COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOLS FISCAL IMPACT................................................................................. 30 Collier County Schools Capital Impacts..................................................................................... 30 Collier County Schools Operating Impacts................................................................................ 33 APPENDIX...................................................................................................................................... 35 GENERALLIMITING CONDITIONS.................................................................................................. 51 2 LONGWA I LN VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 1: Longwater Development Program................................................................................... 8 Table 2: Longwater Residential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values..................................................6 9 Table 3: Longwater Nonresidential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values ............................................. 9 Table 4: Longwater County Tax Base at Buildout........................................................................ 10 Table 5: Collier County Millage Rates.......................................................................................... 10 Table 6: Longwater Operating Annual Net Impact at Buildout................................................... 11 Table 7: Longwater Annual Operating Revenue Projections......................................................a 11 Table 8: Longwater Annual Operating Expenditure Projections ................................................. 12 Table 9: Longwater Impact Fee Revenue for Collier County ....................................................... 14 Table 10: Longwater Law Enforcement Capital Impacts............................................................. 17 Table 11: Longwater Law Enforcement Level of Service............................................................. 17 Table 12: Longwater Law Enforcement Equipment Cost per Certified Police Officer ................. 18 Table 13: Longwater Correctional Facilities................................................................................. 18 Table 14: Longwater Correctional Facilities Capital Cost............................................................. 18 Table 15: Longwater Correctional Facilities Indexed Cost per Resident ..................................... 19 Table 16: Longwater Allocation of New EMS Station Cost.......................................................... 20 Table 17: Longwater EMS Capital Impact. a & & & 6 * & a & 6 a a * 6 6 4 6 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 & 0 0 a 20 Table 18: Longwater Regional Parks Capital Impacts.................................................................. 21 Table 19: Longwater Regional Parks Level of Service.................................................................. 21 Table 20: Longwater Regional Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre ........................................... 21 Table 210 Longwater Community Parks Capital Impacts............................................................. 22 Table 22: Longwater Community Parks Level of Service. a 0 see *00*66000 0000 0*60*00 we a pope Soo 00000*0 0*9 so&*** 22 Table 23: Longwater Community Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre ...................................... 22 Table 24: Longwater Libraries Capital Impacts............................................................................ 23 Table 25: Longwater Library Facilities Level of Service.....................pope ............ Soo ......................o 23 Table 26: Longwater General Government Capital Impacts....................................................... 24 Table 27: Longwater General Government Capital Cost............................................................. 24 Table 28: Longwater North Collier Fire & Rescue District Capital Impacts ................................. 29 Table 29: Longwater Fire & Rescue District Functional Population ............................................ 29 Table 30: Longwater North Collier Fire & Rescue Impact Fee Revenues. 30 Table 31: Longwater Big Corkscrew Island SDA Annual Operating Impacts at Buildout............. 30 Table 32: Longwater Projected Public School Enrollment........................................................... 31 Table 33: Longwater Projected Enrollment by School Type ........................................................ 31 Table 34: Longwater School Capital Costs................................................................................... 32 Table 35: Longwater School Impact Fee Revenue....................................................................... 32 Table 36: Longwater School Net Capital Impacts —Total Cash Flow Approach .......................... 32 Table 37: Longwater Local Ad Valorem School Operating Taxes at Buildout .............................. 34 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. is proposing the establishment of a Stewardship Receiving Area ("SRA") on a site less than 1,000 acres in site in eastern Collier County. The proposed SRA, Longwater Village ("Longwater" or "Village"), is east of Desoto Boulevard and south of Oil Well Road. In accordance with the Rural Lands Stewardship Area ("RLSA") Overlay definition of a Village, Longwater is primarily a residential community which includes a diversity of housing types and a maximum of 2,600 dwelling units. The Village concept plan includes 80,000 square feet of commercial uses and 26,000 square feet of neighborhood civic space. The proposed Longwater Village is strategically located within a mile of a planned fire facility which is owned by the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District. As reflected in the table below, Longwater Village will generate substantial tax and impact fee revenues for Collier County, the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and Collier County Schools. The results are presented at the project's buildout, as required by LDC. Summary Table 1: Longwater Village Fiscal Highlights Longwater SRA Fiscal Highlights At Buildout At Buildout Collier County: Longwater SRA Ad Valorem Tax Base Longwater SRA Net Annual Fiscal Benefit Longwater SRA Total Annual Operating Revenues Longwater SRA Total Annual Operating Expenditures Longwater SRA Total Annual Net Operating Surplus North Collier Fire and Rescue District: Longwater SRA Annual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues* Longwater SRA Total Annual Operating Expenditures Longwater SRA Total Annual Net Operating Surplus Collier County Schools: Longwater SRA Ad Valorem Tax Base Longwater SRA Net Fiscal Benefit: Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Revenues Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Expenditures Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Surplus Longwater SRA Annual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues: Collier County Collier County MSTU North Collier Fire & Rescue Collier County Schools - Ad Valorem Operating Collier County Schools - Capital Improvement Total Longwater SRA Annual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues Countywide MSTU $ 805,353,000 $ 805,353,000 Countywide MSTU $ 3,987,000 $ 734,000 31062,000 490,000 $ 925,000 $ 244,000 Fire District $ 3,020,000 1,042,000 $ 11978,000 School District $ 838,655,000 Annual Operating** Total Capital $ 3,005,000 $ 42,073,000 3,005,000 42,073,000 At Buildout $ 2,871,000 650,000 3,020,000 31005,000 11258,000 $ 101804,000 0 LONGWATEn VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Impact Fee Revenue Impact Fee Fair Share and Fair Share Impact Fee Revenue: Revenue Mitigation Mitigation Community Parks $ 11903,000 $ - $ 1,9031000 Regional Parks 51400,000 51400,000 Roads 17,737,000 622,000 18,359,000 EMS 303,000 - 303,000 Government Buildings 11993,000 - 11993,000 Li bra ri es 6801000 - 680,000 Law Enforcement 11268,000 - 11268,000 Jail 11088,000 - 1,0881000 Water - Residential Only 6/662/000 - 61662,000 Wastewater - ResidentialOnly 710231000 - 71023,000 Total Collier County Impact Fees $ 44,057,000 $ 622,000 $ 44,679,000 Collier County Schools $ 16,331,000 $ $ 16,331,000 North Collier Fire & Rescue 11432,000 - 11432,000 Total Impact Fee Revenue $ 61,820,000 $ 622,000 $ 62,442,000 *Based on FY 2020 operating millage for the North Collier Fire &Rescue District and the FY 2020 millage rates for the Collier School District. ** The Florida Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through statewide equalization formulas. Source: DPFG, 2020 As demonstrated in this report, DPFG concludes that the proposed Longwater Village is fiscally positive for the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and fiscally neutral, as defined, for Collier County and the Collier County School District. Summary Table 2: Longwater Net Fiscal Impact Conclusions per Taxing Authority Jurisdiction Net Fiscal Jurisdiction Net Fiscal Collier County Annual Operations: General Funds Grouping MSTU Capital: Regional and Community Parks Roads EMS Government Buildings Libraries Law Enforcement Collier County Annual Operations and Capital: Positive Water Positive Wastewater Capital and Operations: Positive Solid Waste Neutral Stormwater Neutral North Collier Fire & Rescue District Neutral Annual Operations Positive Capital Neutral Collier County Schools Jail Neutral Annual Operations* Capital * The Florida Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through statewide equalization formulas. Source: DPFG, 2020 Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Positive Positive Neutral Neutral 5 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT INTRODUCTION An Economic Assessment is required as part of the Stewardship Receiving Area Designation Application Package, and each SRA must demonstrate that its development, as a whole, will be fiscally neutral or positive to the County tax base at buildout. At a minimum, the Economic Assessment shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire, and schools. In accordance with the RLSA Overlay definition of a Village, Longwater is primarily a residential community and includes a diversity of housing types and a maximum of 2,600 dwelling units. The proposed Village Center provides for the required neighborhood -scaled retail, office, civic, and community uses. The SRA is designed to encourage pedestrian/bicycle circulation via an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving the entire Village and with an interconnected system of streets, dispersing and reducing both the number and length of vehicle trips. Development Planning &Financing Group, Inc. ("DPFG") was retained to prepare an Economic Assessment for the Longwater Village SRA. This report provides complete and transparent support for the methodology, assumptions, and calculations applied to demonstrate fiscal neutrality for the Longwater Village SRA for Collier County ("County"), the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and the Collier County School District ("School District"). METHODOLOGY The Government Finance Officers Association ("GFOA")1 outlines the most common methods for estimating service costs in fiscal impact analysis as: average cost, marginal cost, comparisons to other governments and econometric modeling. In many cases, fiscal impact analysis uses a combination of these methods to generate a projection. • Average Cost is the easiest and most common method and assumes the current cost of serving residents and businesses will equal the cost of serving the new development. The average cost method provides a rough estimate of both direct and indirect costs associated with development. However, this method does not account for demographic change, existing excess capacity or potential economies of scale in service delivery. Methods of calculating average cost include per capita costs, service standard costs and proportional valuation costs. • Marginal Cost uses site -specific information to determine services costs for a new development. A case study approach is typically necessary to gather detailed information about the existing capacity within public services and infrastructure to accommodate 1 Michael J. Mucha, "An Introduction to Fiscal Impact Analysis for Development Projects," (white paper, Government Finance Officers Association, 2007), www.gfoa.org LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT growth from a development project. This method assumes that information about local service levels and capacity is more accurate than standards based on average data • Comparable Governments incorporate the experience by similar governments with comparable development projects. Studying other governments before and after specific projects can provide useful information in determining additional costs and the increase in costs over a long period of time. • Econometric Modeling uses complex econometric models and is best used for estimating impacts from large projects that create many indirect effects on the existing community such as a utility plant or an entertainment center. The fiscal impact analysis of Longwater Village uses amarginal/average cost hybrid methodology to determine the project's impact on capital and operating costs. Personnel and operating costs were projected on a variable, or incremental basis, as were expenditures for certain capital improvements. Revenues, such as property taxes, were projected on a marginal basis whereas revenues attributable to growth were reflected on an average basis. Allocation bases include Permanent Population, Peak Seasonal Population, Peak Seasonal Population and Employment, and Peak Seasonal and Tourist Population and Employment. Persons per housing unit by product type and square feet per employee for the nonresidential land uses were obtained from the County's 2016 Emergency Medical Services Impact Fee Update, the most recently published source (see Appendix).z The analysis includes the following general funds:3 (001) General Fund, (003) Emergency Disaster, (007) Economic Development, (011) Clerk of Circuit Court, (040) Sheriff, (060) Property Appraiser, (070) Tax Collector, and (080) Supervisor of Elections. A reconciliation of these funds to the County's budget documents is provided in the Appendix. The analysis also includes (111) Unincorporated Area General Fund MSTU, the North Collier Fire Control & Rescue District, and the Collier County School District. The FY 2019 budget4 of the County and the FY 2020 budgets for the North Collier Fire Department and the School District form the basis for the service levels and revenue and cost assumptions. This "snapshot" approach does not attempt to speculate about how services, costs, revenues and other factors will change over time. Instead, it evaluates the fiscal impact to the County as it currently conducts business under the present budget. The impacts of self-supporting funds (e.g. enterprise funds) were not included in this analysis as is typical in fiscal impact analysis. Utility rates and capacity fees are established through Z Impact fee updates for Parl<s and Recreation, Correctional Facilities, Transportation, and Schools are currently underway. Collier County considers this listing of general funds as the "General Fund Grouping." The County's FY 2020 full budget document was not available when this report was prepared. The document is typically published in January. The FY 2020 millage rate did not change from the rate adopted for FY 2019. 7 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT independent studies. Public utilities generally benefit from economies of scale (i.e* more customers) since rate structures are dependent upon recovering fixed infrastructure costs. Based on pre -Application discussions with County staff, the County accepts the methodology described in this report and applied in previous Economic Assessment reports prepared by DPFG. In particular, the County accepts the preparation of the analysis at the year of buildout (or horizon year) under a snapshot approach which reflects the intended land uses of the project as a whole. In addition, there are no monitoring requirements with respect to the fiscal impact of an SRA Village. MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS Major assumptions supporting the Longwater Village Economic Assessment are summarized in this section. The financial model and assumptions are provided in the Appendix. Balance Carryforwards were excluded from allocation to avoid overstatement of revenues. Interfund transfers were analyzed in depth and their classifications in the model were carefully reviewed. Revenue and costs are projected inconstant 2019 dollars, with no adjustment forfuture inflation. The use of a constant dollar approach in fiscal impact analysis produces annual and buildout results that are readily comparable and understandable. Results have been rounded to the nearest one thousand dollars ($1,000). Development Assumptions Table 1 presents the Longwater Village development program which was used to estimate the operating and capital impacts of the project. Table 1: Lo I anti I IcP h Residential ent P roeram Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft Tntal Racirlantial Non -Residential Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft Neigborhood Civic Grand Total Non -Residential Source: Collier Enterprises, DPFG, �O�Q LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Revenue Assumptions Sales, lust. and Taxable Values Estimates of sales, just, and taxable values for the residential units are shown in Table 2. The sales values of the residential product types were provided by the Applicant. The eligible homestead percentage per residential product type used in computing the taxable value per unit was based on Collier County (unincorporated) averages published by the Shimberg Center for Housing Studies at the University of Florida. Table 2: Longwater Residential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values Sales Value Just Value Taxable Value Product Type Units per Unit per Unit per Unit Town Home 204 $ 250,000 $ 235,000 $ 219,500 Villa 1 Coach Villa 2 Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached SFD ProductA <4,000 sq ft SFD Product B <4,000 sq ft SFD Product C <4,000 sq ft SFD Product C <4,000 sq ft Tota I SFD < 41000 Sq Ft Total Single -Family Detached 319 $ 260,000 $ 244,400 228,900 $ 258 $ 2801000 $ 263,200 $ 2471700 316 $ 3101000 $ 291,400 $ 275,900 11097 $ 277,247 $ 260,612 $ 245,112 493 $ 3651000 $ 343,100 $ 310,100 402 $ 400,000 $ 376,000 $ 3431000 436 $ 430,000 $ 404,200 $ 371,200 172 $ 460,000 $ 432,400 $ 399,400 11503 $ 404,088 $ 379,843 $ 346,843 1,503 $ 404,088 $ 379,843 $ 346,843 Tota I Res :A ; a I 2,600 Source: Collier Enterprises, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2019 Table 3 reflects the estimates of sales, just5, and taxable values for the nonresidential land uses. Sales values were based on construction cost per square foot estimates from R.S. Means, "Square Foot Costs," 40th Edition, 2019 and also considered values from the County Property Appraiser's database. d Taxable l Tahle �� I nnFwater Nonresidential Sales. Just. anVaues Nnn-Residential Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft � Source: RS Means, Collier County Property Appraiser, DPFG, 2020 At buildout, the real property tax base generated for the County is estimated to exceed $805.4 million as reflected in Table 4. 5 In determining just value, reasonable fees and costs of purchase (for example, commissions) are excluded. 9 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 4: Longwater County Tax Base at Buildout Land Use Residential Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached Total SFD < 41000 Sq Ft Total Residential Non -Residential Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft Total Non -Residential Total Tax Base Source: Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2020 Property Taxes Units or Taxable Value Sq Ft per Unit/SF At Buildout 1,097 $ 245,112 $ 268,888,000 11503 $ 346/843 5211305,000 21600 $ 790,193,000 80,000 $ 189.50 15,160,000 80,000 $ 15,160,000 $ 805,353,000 Table 5 reflects the millage rate assumptions for Collier County used in the analysis. Table 5: Collier County Millage Rates 3.5645 County General Fund 0.8069 MSTD Genera I Fund 0.0293 Water Pollution Control Source: Collier County, 2019 Expenditure Assumptions A detailed evaluation of expenditures by the General Funds Group and the MSTU General Fund was performed to determine which were variable (i.e. assumed to fluctuate with growth) or fixed (i.e. not impacted by growth) in nature. For equitable matching of revenues and expenses, certain adjustments were made to account for funding sources from other funds. The primary demand bases in the average cost/revenue calculations were new population and employment for the County and new students for the School District. COLLIER COUNTY FISCAL IMPACTS Collier County Operating Impacts Table 6 presents the annual net operating fiscal impact of Longwater Village at buildout. Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to County's Operating Impacts. 10 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 6: Longwater Operating Annual Net Impact at Buildout At Buildout Net Operating Impact Countywide MSTU Longwater SRA Total Annual Operating Revenues $ 3/987/000 $ 7341000 Longwater SRA Total Annual Operating Expenditures 31062,000 4901000 Longwater SRA Total Annual Operating Surplus $ 925,000 $ 2441000 Source: DPFG, 2020 Collier County Operating Revenue Projections Projected County annual operating revenues at buildout are summarized in Table 7. Longwater Village is projected to generate annual operating revenues of $4.0 million for the County's General Funds and $734,000 for the MSTU General Fund. Table 7: Longwater Annual Operating Revenue Projections GENERAL FUND GROUPING REVENUES At Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes $ 2,8711000 Licenses & Permits 21000 Inter -Governmental Revenues 71000 State Revenue Sharing - Growth Portion 1191000 State Sales Tax 488,000 Charges for Services 346,000 Fines & Forfeitures 51000 Miscellaneous Revenues 21000 Interest/ Miscellaneous 10,000 Indirect Service Charge 70,000 Transfers from Constitutional Officers 59,000 Reimburse from Other Departments 81000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Revenues $ 3,987,000 MSTU GENERAL FUND REVENUES At Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes $ 650,000 Licenses & Permits 41000 Charges for Services 301000 Fines & Forfeitures 21000 Miscellaneous Revenues 21000 Interest/ Miscellaneous 11000 Communication Services Tax 451000 Reimburse from Other Departments - Total MSTU Annual Operating Revenues $ 734,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Collier County Operating Expenditure Projections Projected County annual operating expenditures at buildout are presented in Table 8. Longwater Village is expected to generate annual General Funds service demand of $3.1 million and $490,000 of MSTU General Fund service demand. The Appendix contains a detailed breakdown of operating costs by line item category. Table 8: Longwater Annual Operating Expenditure Projections GENERAL FUND GROUPING EXPENDITURES At Buildout Board of County Commissioners $ 30,000 County Attorney 131000 Property Appraiser 71,000 Supervisor of Elections 24,000 Clerk of Courts 49,000 Sheriff 11674,000 Tax Collector 129,000 Administrative Services 31000 Human Resources 10,000 Procurement Services 91000 Bureau of Emergency Services 291000 Planning 11000 Circuit & County Court Judges 11000 Public Defender 41000 State Attorney 51000 Guardian Ad Litem Program - County Manager Operations 61000 Office of Management & Budget 61000 Public Services Administration 21000 Domestic Animal Services 41,000 Community and Human Services 45,000 Library 98,000 Parks & Recreation 120,000 Public Health 41000 Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement 21000 Facilities Management 146,000 Transfer to 101 Transp Op Fund 1791000 Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap 76,000 Transfer to 426 CAT Mass Transit 23,000 Transfer to 427 Transp Disadvantaged 31,000 Transfer to 490 EMS Fund 158,000 Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies 73,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Expenditures $ 3,062,000 12 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT MSTU GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES Board of County Commissioners Communications & Customer Relations Division Growth Management Administration Planning Regulation Maintenance Bureau of Emergency Services Project Management Community and Human Services Parks & Recreation Transfer to 306 Parks Capital Fund Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Cap At Buildout 18,000 53, )00 95, )00 1,000 2, 000 1821000 36,000 42,000 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 231000 Total MSTU Annual Operating Expenditures $ 490,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 Collier County Capital Impacts Collier County Capital Impacts by Department Methodologies upon which the County's impact fees are based generally use the consumption or existing inventory replacement approach rather than an improvements -driven approach. For example, the County's Parks impact fee is calculated by dividing the existing inventory of park facilities, including land at current replacement value, by the existing population or relevant demand base. This methodology does not consider the timetable over which the existing facilities were acquired, available capacity within existing facilities, or long-range capital improvement plans with timetables for delivery of new facilities. Impact fee methodologies are typically designed to generate the maximum amount of impact fees a jurisdiction can legally assess. Impact fee calculations include a credit component to recognize future revenue streams which will be used to fund capital expansion and certain debt service payments. The credit component prevents new development from being charged twice for the same facility. The analyses of the General Funds and the MSTU General Fund account for these credits by recognizing capital outlays and applicable transfers (e.g. subsidized capital acquisition and capital fund debt service) as expenditures. This approach is very conservative because the associated expenditures include growth and non -growth related capital outlays and capital fund subsidies. In comparison, the credit component of the impact fee calculation is limited to certain growth -related capital outlays and capital fund subsidies. Impact fee updates for Transportation, Correctional Facilities, and Parks and Recreation were adopted in 2015, and the corresponding adopted rates have been indexed. EMS, Government Buildings, Libraries, and Law Enforcement impact fee studies were updated in 2016, and the associated rates were adopted in 2017. Impactfee updates for Parks and Recreation, Correctional 13 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Facilities, Transportation, and Schools are currently underway. Over buildout, new development will be charged impact fees at rates enacted by the County at that time. The capital needs of Longwater Village were discussed with the Sheriff, EMS, the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and the School District. The capital analysis for these services was prepared in accordance with their input. For the remaining service departments, when the achieved level of service ("LOS") for a particular public facility currently exceeds the adopted LOS, then the adopted LOS was applied in calculating demand to (1) recognize existing capacity and (2) avoid overstating demand. When the achieved LOS for a particular facility was less than the adopted LOS, then the achieved LOS was used when calculating demand to avoid charging new development for a higher LOS than provided to existing development. Data from the 2018 Audit Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities ("AUIR"), the most recent source available, was generally used to calculate the achieved LOS.' Other inputs were obtained from the relevant impact fee studies. Projected impact fee collections for Parks, Transportation, EMS, Government Buildings, Libraries, Law Enforcement, Jails, and Water and Wastewater are reflected in Table 9. Impact fee revenues for the North Collier Fire & Rescue District and the School District are presented in subsequent sections of this report. The County's impact fee schedule is included in the Appendix. Table 9: Longwater Impact Fee Revenue for Collier County Impact Fee Type Total Fees Community Parks $ 11903,000 Regional Parks 51400,000 Roads 17,737,000 EMS 303,000 Government Buildings 11993,000 Libraries 6801000 Law Enforcement 11268,000 Jail 11088,000 Water - residential only 6,662,000 Wastewater - residential only 7/023,000 Total Collier County Impact Fees $ 44,057,000 Collier County Schools 161331,000 North Collier Fire & Rescue 11432,000 Total Impact Fees $ 611820,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 6 DPFG reviewed the draft 2019 AUIR and noted overall consistency with the 2018 AUIR level of service standards and available inventory except for Regional Parks. A corresponding adjustment was made in the Regional Parl<s analysis based on County Staff recommendations. 14 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Collier County Road Capital Impacts The Longwater Village SRA is a proposed mixed -use development in eastern Collier County located east of Desoto Boulevard and south of Oil Well Road (CR 8S8). The landowner is responsible to pay an appropriate fee required by the County's Road Impact Fee Ordinance as building permits are issued for the proposed project. Road impact fees are estimated at $17.7 million and significantly exceed the Concurrency Fair -Share estimate of $700,000 as shown in the "Preliminary Concurrency Fair -Share — August 2020" document prepared by Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA. Proposed internal roads, driveways, internal alleys, internal sidewalks/pathways and interconnections to adjacent developments are site related improvements and are not subject to impact fee credits. In addition, the landowner is required to provide appropriate turn lanes at project entrances as required at the time of site development approval. These improvements are considered site related. It is noted that if turn lane improvements require the use of County's Right -of -Way ("ROW") or easements, compensating ROW along the development frontage may need to be provided without cost to Collier County as a consequence of such improvement. Operational impacts of the development project traffic are mitigated for those intersections failing to achieve acceptable performance characteristics. Consistent with the information illustrated in the adopted Collier County Traffic Impact Study guidelines, mitigation improvements are considered acceptable if capacity is added that restores or improves the delay and v/c (volume/capacity) ratio to the levels provided in the base scenario. Base scenario is defined as the analysis of existing traffic plus background traffic forthe estimated build -out year on the E + C (existing plus committed) significantly impacted roadway network. As illustrated in the Traffic Impact Statement associated with the zoning application for the subject development, Synchro 10 software was used to perform intersection Level of Service ("LOS") analysis at specific locations. Based on the results of the Synchro intersection analyses, the following geometric improvements may be necessary to address project related level of service deficiencies: • Oil Well Road and Desoto Blvd intersection —signalization • Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd intersection —signalization • 18th Ave NE and Desoto Blvd intersection — signalization; add southbound left -turn lane on Desoto Blvd 1s LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Fair share percentage determination illustrates traffic impacts in the AM and PM peak periods. The project share of cost has been based on the proportion of the project peak hour traffic contributed to the improvement location relative to the total new peak hour 2030 traffic volumes. A cash contribution of $622,000 will be paid for the intersection improvements. Furthermore, the landowner will improve 18th Ave NE from the project entrance to DeSoto Blvd at an estimated cost of $240,000. This onsite project improvement is in addition to the costs outlined in Figure 1. Contribution requirements for transportation related impacts are summarized in the Cost Allocation Table reflected in the "Fair -Share Mitigation Operational Impacts" report prepared by Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA. The landowner contribution of $622,000 will be paid in addition to the road impact fees of $17.7 million for a total of $18.4 million in transportation - related payments. Figure 1: Longwater Fair -Share Mitigation for Operational Impacts Cost Allocation Table Oil Well Rd and Desoto Blvd Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd 18'hAve NE and DeSoto Blvd Mitigation Contribution towards items 1 & 2 & 3 Source: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA, 2020 34.4% / 137.6 70.0% J 420.0 44.4% / 622.0 100.0% / 622.0 Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect of Road capital impacts. Collier County Law Enforcement Capital Impacts The Law Enforcement impact fee includes the capital construction and expansion of police service related to land facilities, and capital equipment required to support police service demand created by new growth. Facilities and equipment consist primarily of centralized and support buildings, patrol cars and other equipment. Fees are assessed at the recommended level. Revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating the Law Enforcement facilities and equipment are provided in the General Funds Operating Impacts section. Direct capital impacts on Law Enforcement are presented in Table 10. Based on discussions with the Sheriff's Office, capital demands from Longwater Village include the cost to equip certified 16 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT officers. At this time, there is not the need for a specific land site within Longwater Village for a substation; however, there may be need in the future for a work station to serve development in the area. As shown below, impact fees are adequate to fund Longwater Village's proportionate share. Table 10: Longwater Law Enforcement Capital Impacts Longwater SRA Funded Law Enforcement Facilities Law Enforcement Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue Other Capital Revenues* Total Capital Revenues Direct Capital Costs: Law Enforcement Equipment Cost Equipment Value per Certified Police Officer Certified Police Officers at Achieved LOS Law Enforcement Equipment Cost Total Law Enforcement Direct Capital Costs Law Enforcement Capital Revenues in Excess of Direct Capital Costs Law Enforcement Indirect Capital Costs: Law Enforcement Direct Capital Surplus Land and Building Cost per Sq Ft Additional Law Enforcement Facility Sq Ft Funded Law Enforcement Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 $ 1,268,000 2301000 $ 11498,000 $ 106,000 9.5 $ 11008,000 $ 11008,000 $ 490,000 $ 490,000 $ 219 2,238 The County's achieved LOS for Law Enforcement is 1.77 officers per 1,000 peak population; whereas, the adopted LOS is 1.84. As such, the achieved LOS was used to estimate the number A certified police officers needed to serve Longwater Village. Table 11: Longwater Law Enforcement Level of Service LOS Share Law Enforcement Facilities Peak Seasonal Population 5,373 Achieved LOS (Officers per 1,000 Peak Residents) 1.77 Funded Facilities and Equipment for Certified Police Officers 9.5 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 The $219 per square foot value of the satellite office in Table 10 was obtained from the 2016 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Update. The equipment value per certified police officer is calculated in Table 12. 17 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 12: Longwater Law Enforcement Equipment Cost per Certified Police Officer Item Amount Equi pment I nventory Va I ue Number of Certified Police Officers $ 70,020,524 Equ i pment Va I ue per Offi cer $ 106,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Collier County Correctional Facilities Capital Impacts The Correctional Facilities impact fee includes jail facilities (land and building) and equipment. Fees are assessed at the recommended level. Revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating correctional facilities and equipment are provided in the General Funds Operating Impacts section. Correctional Facilities capital impacts are presented in Table 13. Table 13: Longwater Correctional Facilities Longwater SRA Funded Share Jail Facilities Correctional Facilities Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue $ 11088,000 Other Capital Revenues* 60,000 Total Capital Revenues $ 11148,000 Capital Cost (Land, Building, Vehicles, and Equipment) - Indexed $ 11148,000 Correctional Facilities Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ - *Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis. Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 The capital cost for correctional facilities is calculated below. Table 14: Longwater Correctional Facilities Capital Cost Functional Land Use ft Single Family Detached Less than 4,000 sq Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached Retail 50,001 to 100,000 sfgla Total Functional Population Population Coefficient 2018 Indexed Capital Cost per Functional Population Total Capital Cost Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 2018 Indexed Capital Cost per Peak Population Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 1.81 0.94 2.46 Units/ Functional ware Feet Population 1,503 2,719 1,097 1,031 80, 000 197 1947 The indexed capital cost per bed is calculated in Table 15. 5,563 $ 206.36 $ 290.98 $ 111481000 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 15: Longwater Correctional Facilities Indexed Cost per Resident Description Figure Net Asset Va I ue - Indexed $ 111,592,344 Number of Beds 11304 Net Asset Va I ue per Bed $ 85,577 Current LOS (Beds per 1,000 Functional Residents) 3.40 Asset Value per Functional Resident $ 290.98 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Collier County Emergency Medical Services (EMSJ Capital Impacts According to EMS management, Longwater Village will be primarily served by a new EMS facility planned for the corner of Desoto Blvd./Golden Gate Blvd East. The County acquired the site in January 2020. The Greater Naples Fire Rescue District will co -locate a fire facility at the site. EMS management anticipates the station will be placed in service in 2022. The cost of the new facility will be funded by the County's One -Cent Infrastructure surtax which was authorized in 2018. If additional EMS capacity is needed to serve Rivergrass SRA Village, and potentially Hyde Park SRA Village and Longwater SRA Village, EMS management anticipates leasing space for an additional vehicle at the new NCFR station planned for 22nd Avenue/Desoto Blvd N. Because NCFR is planning to maintain an apparatus at the new EMS station, the two entities may enter into a mutual cost -sharing arrangement.' The EMS level of service in the County's AUIR is approximately 1 unit (vehicle, equipment, station space) per 16,400 populations however, in addition to this metric, EMS also relies on demand factors such as response time and call volume to site new facilities. Call volume is affected by demographics in the service area. For example, nearly 70 percent of the County's ambulance fee collections are from Medicare and Medicaid patients. Table 16 compares calculates the net allocable cost of the new EMS station to Longwater Village using a peak seasonal resident population approach. � As described in the 2019 AUIR, the County currently leases 14 EMS stations. For 10 of the 14 leased stations, no rent is paid but rather a shared monthly utility charged is assessed. Annual lease payments for EMS facilities are considered in the County operating impact section 01 this report. LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 16: Longwater Allocation of New EMS Station Cost Allocation of New EMS Station 2019 AUIR Cost of Shared Station: Facility Equipment Total Capital Cost of Shared Station Less One -Cent Infrastructure Surtax Funding Net Allocable Cost Demand Base Per Capita Cost Longwater Village Peak Resident Population Proportionate Allocation $ 1,325,000 551,057 $ 11876,057 (11325,000) $ 551,057 16,400 $ 33.60 5,373 EMS New Station Cost Allocable to Longwater Village $ 181,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 Table 17 compares the allocable cost of the new station to projected impact fees for Longwater Village, Table 17: Longwater EMS Capital Impact Longwater Village EMS Capital EMS Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue Other Capital Revenues* Total Capital Revenues EMS New Station Cost Allocable to Longwater Village Net Capital Revenues Available for EMS elated Capital Capital Needs EMS Total Capital Cost 303,000 $ $ 310,000 $ 181,000 129,000 $ 310,000 *Included in the Collier County General Funds net fiscal impact buildout analysis. Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 Longwater Regional Parks Capital Impacts The County imposes separate impact fees for community and regional parks. Revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating the County's Parks facilities are provided in the General Funds and MSTU Operating Impacts section. Regional Park capital impacts are presented in Table 18. LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 18: Longwater Regional Parks Capital Impacts Longwater SRA Funded Regional Park Facilities Regional Park Capital Revenues Impact Fee Revenue Other Capital Revenues* Total Capital Revenues Regional Park IndirectCapital Costs Indexed Land & Facility Cost per Acre Regional ParkAcres atAchieved LOS Longwater SRA Funded Regional Park Acres $ 5,400,000 283,000 $ 5,683,000 $ 590,288 9.78 $ 5,772,000 Regional Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ (89,000) Community Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs 1121000 Total Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ 23,000 *Included in the Collier County General Funds and MSTU expenditures analysis. Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 The County's adopted LOS for Regional Parks is 2.70 acres per 1,000 peak population. County Staff recommended the application of an adjusted achieved LOS of 1.82 acres per 1,000 peak population for purposes of this analysis. Table 19: Longwater Regional Parks Level of Service LOS Share of Regional Park Facties Regional Park Achieved LOS per County Staff 1.82 Longwater SRA Peak Seasonal Population 51373 Longwater SRACommunity Park Acreage 9.78 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 The indexed capital cost per Regional Park acre is calculated in Table 20. Table 20: Longwater Regional Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre Component Regional Park Land Purchase Cost per Acre $ 450,000 Landscaping, Site Preparation, and Irrigation Cost, per acre 40,000 43,634 $ 533,634 1.106 2018 Indexed Cost per Acre $ 590,288 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Longwater Community Parks Capital Impacts Community Parks capital impacts are presented in Table 21. 21 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 21: Longwater Community Parks Capital Impacts Longwater SRA Funded Community Park Facilities Community Park Capital Revenues Impact Fee Revenue Other Capital Revenues* Total Capital Revenues Community Park Indirect Capital Costs Indexed Land & Facility Cost per Acre Community Park Acres at Adopted LOS Longwater SRA Funded Community Park Acres $ 1,903,000 31.000 $ 1,934,000 $ 282,573 6.45 $ 11822,000 Community Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ 112,000 Regional Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs (89,000) Total Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ 23,000 Source: Collier County, Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2019 The County's adopted LOS for Community Parlcs is 1.20 acres per 1,000 peak population, and the achieved LOS is 1.47 acres. As such, the adopted LOS was used to estimate the number of Community Park acres needed to serve Longwater Village. Table 22: Longwater Community Parks Level of Service LOS Share ofCommunity Park Facilities Community Park Adopted LOS 1.20 Longwater SRA Peak Seasonal Population 51373 Longwater SRA Community Park Acreage 6.45 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 The indexed capital cost per Community Park acre is calculated in Table 23. Table 23: Longwater Community Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre Community Component Park Land Purchase Cost per Acre $ 107,000 Landscaping, Site Preparation, and Irrigation Cost, per acre 101000 Total Land Cost per Acre $ 117,000 Facility & Equipment Cost per Acre 148,328 Total Land & Facility Cost per Acre $ 265,328 2018 Index 1.065 2018 Indexed Cost per Acre $ 282,573 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Longwater Libraries Impacts Libraries impact fees include land, building, furnishings, and collection materials to serve the entire County. Fees are assessed at the recommended level. Revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating the County's Libraries facilities are provided in the General Funds Operating Impacts section. 22 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Libraries capital impacts are presented in Table 24 other Library capital needs. Table 24: Longwater Libraries Capital Impacts The calculated surplus will be used to fund Longwater SRA Funded Library Facilities Library Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue $ 680,000 Other Capital Revenues* 100,000 Total Capital Revenue $ 780,000 Library Capital Costs: Library Facility Cost Library Sq Ft atAchieved LOS 11687 Library Facility Cost per Sq Ft $ 243.20 Library Facility Cost $ 410,000 Library Materials/Collections Unit Cost per Capita $ 38.62 Peak Seasonal Population 51373 Total Items $ 208,000 Tota I Library Ca pi to I Costs $ 618,000 Library Ca pita I Revenues i n Excess of Ca pita I Costs $ 162,000 *Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis. Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 The County's adopted LOS for Library facilities is 0.33 square feet per 1,000 peak population; whereas, the achieved LOS is 0.31 square feet for owned facilities. As such, the achieved LOS was used to estimate the library square footage needed to serve Longwater Village. Table 25: Longwater Library Facilities Level of Service LOS Share of Library Facilities Peak Seasonal Population 5,373 Sq Ft per Peak Seasonal Resident at Achieved LOS 0.31 Library Sq Ft (Achieved LOS) 1,687 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 The library square foot value of $243, and the unit cost per capita value of $39 were obtained from the 2016 Library Impact Fee Update. Government Buildings Capital Impacts Government buildings impact fees include remaining non -enterprise County land, buildings, information technology and vehicles. Fees are assessed at the recommended level. Revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating the County's General Government facilities are provided in the General Funds Operating Impacts section. General Government capital impacts are presented in Table 26. LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 26: Longwater General Government Capital Impacts Longwater SRA Funded Government Buildings Government Building Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue $ 11993,000 Revenue Credits* 67,000 Total Capital Revenue $ 21060,000 Government Building Capital Costs: Government Building Indirect Capital Costs: $ 2,060,000 Government Building Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ - *Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis. Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 General government capital costs are calculated in Table 27. Table 27: Longwater General Government Capital Cost Functional Population Units/ Functional Land Use Coefficient Square Feet Population Single Family Detached Less than 4,000 sq ft 1.81 1,503 21722 Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached 0.86 11097 945 Retail 50,001 to 100,000 sfgla 2.46 80,000 197 Total Functional Population 31864 Capital Cost per Functional Population $ 533.72 Total Proportionate Capital Cost $ 21060,000 Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 50563 Capital Cost per Peak Population $ 370.30 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to County Capital Impacts. Water and Wastewater The following table is a calculation of the Longwater Village potable water demands and wastewater generation with all factors and assumptions: 24 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Fiaura �� I nnawatar Water and Wastewater Demands Longwater Water and Wastewater Demands Wastewater Potable Water Wastewater to water conversion = 1.5 Residential 2,600 DU @ 200 gpd = 520,000 gpd 21600 DU @ 300 gpd = 780,000 gpd Commercial 80,000 sf @ 0.15 gpd = 12,000 gpd 80,000 sf @ 0.23 gpd =F 18,000 gpd Civic 26,000 sf @ 0.15 gpd = 3,900 gpd 26,000 sf @ 0.23 gpd = 5,850 gpd 535,900 gpd 803,850 gpd 53S,900 gpd = 0.54 mgd ADF 803,850 gpd = 0.80 mgd AN M31) Factor = 1.5 M3D Factor = 1.3 M31) Flow = 0.80 mgd M3D Flow = LOS mgd Source: Agnoli, Barber &Brundage, Inc., Hole Montes, 2020 Potable water services for the Longwater Village project will be provided by the Collier County Water and Sewer District from existing and planned facilities per a proposed Interlocal Agreement that outlines commitments from Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC and the Big Cypress Stewardship District. The estimated potable water demand for residential development at the project is based on 300 gpd per D.U. (residential), and 2,600 residences. Potable water demand for commercial development is based on 23 gpd per 100 feet square or 0.23 gpd/sf. Using these assumptions, potable water demand for the Longwater Village development at buildout is projected to be approximately 0.8 MGD average daily demand and 1.05 MGD maximum 3-day demand. Wastewater services for the Longwater Village project will be provided by the Collier County Water and Sewer District from existing and planned facilities per a proposed Interlocal Agreement that outlines commitments from Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC and the Big Cypress Stewardship District. Anticipated wastewater generated by the development is based on a per capita daily volume of 200 gpd per D.U. for 2,600 residences. Wastewater demand for commercial development is based on 15 gpd per 100 feet square or 0.15 gpd/sf. This results in build out wastewater flows of 0.54 MGD on an average daily basis and 0.8 MGD on a maximum May basis. Refer to the proposed Interlocal Agreement for a description of the commitments, including the prepayment of a portion of water and wastewater impact fees. Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to Collier County's Water and Wastewater capital and operating impacts. 25 LONGWA I ER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Stormwater Management The projeCL S Stormwater management system has received a Conceptual Approval permit from the SFWMD (#11-03949-P). The criteria used in the preparation of this plan was based on the predevelopment agricultural stormwater management system currently in place. Stormwater discharges from the lands in question are equal or less pre versus post on both a peak rate and total volume perspective. As such, the discharges mimic that of undeveloped lands. Therefore, in the event of a change to the agreement between Collier County and the Big Cypress Basin concerning the lands to the south of 1-75, no impact on any downstream system above and beyond that of undeveloped land would be realized and thus there is no impact on County stormwater facilities caused by the development of this property above and beyond undeveloped land. Collier County currently maintains no onsite stormwater infrastructure and will not in the future. The receiving water of the stormwater discharges from Longwater Village is the existing agricultural water management system aka Water Retention Area ("WRA"), which ultimately discharges to the Merrit Canal via Camp Keais Strand. No WRA areas are included within the village SRA area. The peak allowable discharge rate in Collier County applicable to this project based on ord. 90- 10 is 0.15 cfs/acre. The proposed surface water management system will be based on the permitted agricultural system currently in place and operational. The peak discharge rate of 0.03 cfs/ac will be used to match that of the agricultural system in an effort to maintain the hydrological regime that has existed for many years on this site. The evaluation of offsite discharge rate shall be made at the outfalls of the agricultural system in accordance with the Conceptual Approval permit (11-03949-P) issued by SFWMD for this and its surrounding applicant owned property. The flowways within this project are natural wetland systems. The capacity that exists prior to development will exist after development and will not be increased nor decreased. No surrounding properties currently flow through the SRA area of this project. The same predevelopment drainage basin boundaries will be maintained by the proposed design. Stormwater water quality treatment within this SRA will be predominantly accomplished by wet detention (lakes) located within the SRA and overlapping into the WRA areas as permitted by SFWMD. Commercial areas will also utilize dry detention pretreatment areas in accordance with SFWMD requirements. Discharges from the SRA water management system to natural WRA areas will occur only after water quality volumes have been achieved and will be by permitted control structures and facilities. Initial phases of development may pump stormwater after treatment consistent with the pre -development drainage of the land. The provided water quality treatment volume of this SRA will be in accordance with the approved SFWMD ERP, inclusive of an additional 50 percent of water quality to be provided in excess of the calculated base water LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT quality volume for compliance with the interim watershed management plan. Water quantity treatment will occur in both the SRA sited lake system and the WRA areas in concert. Several alterations to the WRA areas adjacent to the Village were proposed and approved by SFWMD with the Conceptual Approval Permit. Stormwater management/buffer lakes and their associated containment berms have been permitted in select locations in the existing WRA's. These modifications were confined to areas of the WRA that exhibited heavy exotic infestation and had little to no habitat function. All of these alterations have mitigation identified in the permit which will be made upon implementation of the impact. The water management concept for Longwater Village involves the use of the existing agricultural water management system. The proposed system design will use permitted control elevations, discharge rates and discharge locations. The plan as proposed has received a Conceptual Approval Permit issued by SFWMD. All discharges to the WRA (wetland) areas from development will be made only after water quality volumes have been provided in the development area. Areas of the WRA will be excavated to form parts of the internal buffer lake system. Areas to be excavated are low quality exotic impacted areas and will be mitigated for through the SFWMD process. The only fill areas within WRA's will be berms associated with the surface water management system. which will be mitigated through the SFWMD process. No impacts are proposed to Camp Keais Strand by this project. Collier County will bear no responsibility for or cost associated with the Longwater Village water management system; therefore, the fiscal impact to Collier County is neutral. Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect of Stormwater Management capital and operating impacts. Irrigation Water The Longwater Village project site has a long history of permitted agricultural withdrawals from the Water Table and Lower Tamiami Aquifers that has not resulted in adverse impacts to natural environments. At build -out, the Longwater Village project will result in converting approximately 1,000 acres of agricultural land into a residential development. The agricultural water allocations currently permitted and used within the Longwater Village project area total approximately 3.37 MGD on an annual average basis and approximately 8.86 MGD on a maximum monthly basis. The transition of agricultural use to residential/commercial use will result in approximately 307 acres of landscaping and turf within the Longwater Village development requiring irrigation. The project irrigation demand for this amount of irrigated acreage as determined using the SFWMD Blaney-Criddle method are. • 1.18 MGD on an annual average basis • 1.71 MGD on a maximum monthly basis 27 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT The proposed change in land use is anticipated to result in a significant net reduction of irrigation water usage at the site. The Longwater Village project will obtain a water use permit from the SFWMD which will allow withdrawal from surface water and ground water sources onsite to meet irrigation demands. However, the developer is in discussions with the County to secure 100 percent of the project's irrigation demands from reclaimed water. In addition, the developer is working with the County to develop additional water resources onsite to meet public water supply needs throughout the County service area. If the County provides reclaimed water to meet all the project's irrigation water demands, the SFWMD permit will only be used for 30-day back up supply in the event that there is a disruption in reclaimed water supply. The onsite irrigation water supply system will include stormwater lakes and wells. The lake system will be used to supply irrigation water for the project and wells will be utilized to partially or fully resupply the withdrawal lakes. The proposed source aquifer for the wells is the Lower Tamiami Aquifer which is currently permitted to meet the existing agricultural water demands on the project site. The lake withdrawals will provide an efficient and low impact method for effectively harvesting available stormwater supplies. Lake volume storage in the lake system as well as re- supply by groundwater from the recharge wells will minimize potential impacts to surface and groundwater levels. The developer would be responsible for all costs associated with the permitting, construction, and maintenance of the irrigation system. Collier County will bear no responsibility for or cost associated with the Longwater Village irrigation system, therefore the fiscal impact to Collier County is neutral. Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect of Irrigation Water capital and operating impacts. Solid Waste Collier County's contractor hauler, Waste Management Inc. of Florida ("WMIF"), will collect solid waste generated within Longwater Village. Recycled materials will be collected from curbside recycling containers through contract haulers. Residential recyclables and horticultural waste will be collected at the curb on a weekly basis. Construction debris will be collected and processed by a local business specializing in the recycling of construction products. Commercial and institutional facilities will utilize dumpster containers for the storage of garbage and rubbish. Recycling containers will be used to store recyclables in the commercial and institutional areas. Solid waste collected within Longwater Village will be hauled to the Immokalee Solid Waste Transfer Station and from there transported to WMIF's Okeechobee Landfill. According to WMIF, the Okeechobee Landfill has adequate capacityfor the next 25 years. Alternatively, the Collier County Naples landfill also has capacity according to the Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report. Revenues and expenses of the solid waste operations described above are accounted for in the County's Solid Waste Fund, aself-supporting enterprise fund. 28 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to Collier County's Landfill. NORTH COLLIER FIRE &RESCUE DISTRICT North Collier Fire &Rescue Capital Impacts Longwater Village is located within the Big Corkscrew Island Service Delivery Area ("SDA") of the North Collier Fire & Rescue District ("Fire & Rescue District"). Based on discussions with Fire & Rescue District personnel, Longwater Village is within a mile of a planned fire facility which is already owned by the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District. Table 28: Longwater North Collier Fire &Rescue District Capital Impacts Capital Impact at Buildout Capital Impact: Fire District Capital Revenues Impact Fee Revenue Other Capital Revenue Total Capital Revenue $ 1,432,000 82,000 $ 11514,000 Fire District Capital Cost Capital Cost per Functional Resident (Indexed) $ 407 Functional Population 31721 Total Capital Cost $ 11514,000 Fire District Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ - Source: North Collier Fire &Rescue District, DPFG, 2020 Capital costs are estimated in Table 29. Table 29: Longwater Fire &Rescue District Functional Population Functi ona I Population Units/ Functional Land Use Coefficient Square Feet Population Single Family Detached < 4,000 s q ft 1.71 11503 21570 Multi -Family 0.87 11097 954 Reta i 1 100,000 gsf or I es s 2.46 80,000 197 Total Functional Population 31721 Source: North Collier Fire &Rescue District, DPFG, 2020 Projected impact fee revenues are presented in Table 30 and total $1.4 million. 29 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 30: Longwater North Collier Fire &Rescue Impact Fee Revenues Impact Fee Cat Units or Ft Fire Impact Fee Total Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached 1,097 $ 334.82 $ 367,000 Total SFD < 41000 Sq Ft 11503 $ 658.09 9891000 Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 80,000 $ 0.9485 76,000 Total Fire Impact Fees $ 11432,000 Source: North Collier Fire &Rescue District, DPFG, 2020 North Collier Fire &Rescue Annual Operating Impacts Because the current operating millage of the Big Corkscrew Island SDA is geared to much lower density development, Longwater Village is currently projected to generate significant operating surpluses. Annual operating revenues and expenditures are reflected in Table 31. Table 31: Longwater Big Corkscrew Island SDA Annual Operating Impacts at Buildout Annual Operating Impact at Buildout Annual Operating Impact: Longwater SRA Ad Valorem Tax Base $ 805,353,000 Big Corkscrew Island SDA Millage Rate 3.75 Annual Ad Valorem Revenues Annual Expenditures: 2019-20 North Collier Fire Budget: Personnel and Operating Expenses Debt Service Capital Total Expenditures North Collier Fire District Functional Population Operating Cost per Functional Resident Longwater SRA Functional Population Annual Operating Cost Annual Operating Surplus Source: North Collier Fire &Rescue District, DPFG, 2020 31020,000 $ $ $ 37,774,581 565,627 21889,975 $ 411230,183 147,405 $ 280 3,721 31020,000 $ 11042,000 $ 1,042,000 $ 1,978,000 Longwater Village is deemed fiscally positive with respect to the North Collier Fire &Rescue Control District. COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOLS FISCAL IMPACT Collier County Schools Capital Impacts The projected enrollment of Longwater Village on the Collier County Public Schools ("CCPS") is shown in Table 32. The student generation rates in the 2015 School Impact Fee Update, the most recent data available, were used to calculate enrollment. 30 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 32: Longwater Projected Public School Enrollment Projected Residential Unit Type Units SGR Students Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached 1,097 0.11 121 Total SFD <4,000 Sci Ft 11503 0.34 511 Total Residential 21600 632 Source: Collier County School District, Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2019 Projected enrollment by type of school is shown in Table 33. Table 33: Longwater Projected Enrollment by School Type Projected School Type Students Percent El ementa ry 287 45.48% Middle 139 22.06% High 205 32.46% Tota 1 632 100.00% Source: Collier County School District, Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2019 According to the School District, at this time there is existing or planned capacity within the next five years at the elementary, middle and high school levels for each village individually. However, the proposed Bellmar and Longwater Villages and the approved Rivergrass Village, collectively, result in the School District exceeding its estimated capacity. A stipulation to the proposed Development Order requires the developer to convey real property for two school sites (Site A shall be used only for a public high school and/or middle school and Site B shall be used only for a public elementary school) in exchange for educational impact fee credits. The proposed stipulation states, "With respect to the conveyance of real property, by the Applicant to the District, the School Reservation of School Site A and B to the District fully mitigates for the development's impact to the elementary, middle and high schools needed to serve Rivergrass, Longwater, and Belmar SRAs." At the time of site plan or plat, the development will be reviewed to ensure there is capacity either within the concurrency service area the development is located within or adjacent concurrency service areas. The capital costs of the Longwater students are presented in Table 34 and are based on the 2015 School Impact Fee Update which includes a capitalized interest component. These estimates are conservative compared to the November 2019 F.S. 1013.64(b) statutory cost caps of Elementary $23,284, Middle $25,144, and High $32,661 per student station. 31 --�--• 'ems`'-'ice=�=` LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 34: Longwater School Capital Costs Cost per Facility Costs Students Student Total School Facility Cost: El ementa ry 287 $ 36,058 $ 101365,000 Middle 139 42,266 51892,000 High 205 481381 91924,000 Cost of New School Facilities 632 $ 41,426 $ 26,181,000 Transportation and Ancillary Costs - Initial: Transportation 632 $ 11097 693,000 Anxillary Facility 632 $ 11206 762,000 Total Transportation/Ancillary 632 $ 21303 11455,000 Total Capital Costs $ 43,728 $ 27,636,000 Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2019 School impact fee revenue is shown in Table 35. Table 35: Longwater School Impact Fee Revenue Units or School Impact Fee Category Sq Ft Impact Fee Total Tota I Condo, Dupl ex, Si ngl e-Fa mi I Atta ched 11097 $ 2,844.19 $ 3,120,000 Tota I SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,503 $ 8,789.54 131211,000 Total School Impact Fees $16,331,000 Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2019 As seen in Table 36, capital revenues consist primarily of ad valorem taxes (1.5 mills) and impact fees. The capital impact of Longwater Village is favorable as 42 percent of the housing units are expected to generate only 0.11 students per household. Table 36: Longwater School Net Capital Impacts —Total Cash Flow Approach Capital School Impact Revenue/Expense School Capital Revenues: School Impact Fee Revenue School District Capital Tax Revenue Total School Capital Revenues Direct School Capital Expenditures: New Schools New School Buses K-12 Direct School Capital Expenditures: Other School Capital Expenditures: School Bus Replacement Cost Fee Revenue Improvement Tax* $ 16,331,000 $ 16,331,000 25,742,000 25,742,000 $ 16,331,000 $ 25,742,000 $ 42,073,000 Other Direct School and/or Systemwide Capital Expenditures Total School Capital Expenditures * Consistent with 25-Year Credit Period in CCPS School Impact Fee Study. Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2020 $ 26,181,000 693,000 $ 26,874,000 $ 693,000 14,506,000 $ 42/073/000 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Collier County Schools Operating Impacts The Florida Legislature establishes the school operating millage based on the General Appropriations Act. Legislative committees meet to debate continuing and new initiatives in education and set a budget based on these results within the General Appropriations Act. The State budget determines the Required Local Effort Millage ("RLE") for each school district. The RLE is the amount of funding that each district provides annually towards the cost of the Florida Education Finance Program ("FEFP"). The aggregate RLE for all school districts is prescribed by the Legislature as a specific line item in the annual General Appropriations Act. The Commissioner of Education is also authorized to adjust the millage rate to make sure no school district's RLE exceeds 90 percent of that district's total FEFP entitlement. The Legislature establishes a per student funding amount which is based upon the local authorities taxing of both the RLE and the 0.748 discretionary tax millage. According to the School District, the school tax millage for Collier County is much lower than the statewide average and typically ranks within the three lowest out of all Florida school districts. A comparison of the School District's millage history is shown in Figure 3. Figure 3: Collier County School District Tax Roll and Millage History I10.�D0 1Cr0DO a 5�0.00 &0.00 70.00 60.00 5)0.00 403.00 IBM 09-10 fla-flfl 11-12 Tax PQ11 His#ary (In Rillians ) 597.91 $86.16 574.45 6U 71 63.•06 '13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-2Q 33 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT School District Nlillar.e History 64000 5.599 _r, 52? 5.5f5 5•'S'J 5.239 5.t1C1G 3.�79 3.3�w 2.991 = *000 - ?.00G S.UrJG �0.�1CiG ?.248 2_;248 2.348, 2.248 G9-1Q Id-11 1=-1 � 12-13 m4lOaRecluiired S:C:=. Lavo Source: Collier County School District, 2019 5.5 Sri 5.4d� 5.245 SA22 SM049 5.083 3 �? 3.232 2.997 2.E94 2.8� 1 2.835 13-14 14-15 15-LCa 16-17 17-i8 18-19 aiscretioc�ary MN��age Total Millage Because the Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through a series of statewide equalization formulas, most fiscal analysts do not attempt to model school operating impacts. An estimate of local ad valorem school operating revenues is shown in Table 37. Table 37: Longwater Local Ad Valorem School Operating Taxes at Buildout Operating School District Operating Results Millage At Buildout Ad Valorem Local Millage - Residential Ad Valorem Local Millage - NonResidential Ad Valorem Local Millage Revenues Ad Valorem Local Millage Operating Expenditures 3.583 $ 3.583 54,000 $ 3,005,000 $ 3,005,000 Ad Valorem Local Millage Net Revenues $ - Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2020 Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral respect to the Collier County School District. 34 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT APPENDIX Appendix Table 1: Collier County Base Assumptions COLLIER COUNTY STUDY PERIOD FY 2019 County Budget Year COLLIER COUNTYWIDE POPULATION 376086 2019 County Permanent COLLIER COUNTYWIDE EMPLOYMENT 196,065 0.8897602 174,451 Collier County 2016 EMS Impact Fee Update FTE Conversion Factor - IMPLAN Collier County Employment COLLIER COUNTY PEAK TOURIST POPULATION 243,100 lCollier County CVB Profile - March 2019 7,842 1Peak Daily Tourists COLLIER COUNTYWIDE POPULATION AND JOBS 550,537 County Permanent Population and J COLLIER UNINCORPORATED COUNTY POPULATION 333,831 1.21 404,945 71,114 2019 Unincorporated County Permanent Population -Collier County 2018 AUIR Seasonal Unincorporated Population Coefficient- Collier County 2019 Unincorporated County Peak Seaonal Population - Collier County 2018 AUIR 2019 Unincorporated County Peak Seasonal Population COLLIER COUNTY UNINCORPORATED EMPLOYMENT 154,851 Allocation based on Collier County 2016 EMS Impact Fee Update COLLIER COUNTY UNINCORPORATED POPULATION AND JOBS 488,682 County Permanent Population and Jobs 559,796 1County Peak Seasonal Population and Jobs COLLIER COUNTY MILEAGE RATES 3.5645 0.8069 County General Fund MSTD General Fund COLLIER COUNTY %HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION Shimberg Center for Housing Studies - 2018 Final Tax Roll Year 66% Single Family Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 35 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 2: Longwater Resident Population and Seasonal Population Coefficients Land Use by Impact Fee Category Permanent Population Per Unit Seasonal Index Pea k Seasonal Persons Per Unit Residential (Units) Total Condo, Dupex, Single -Family Attached Tota I SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1.05 1.20 1.26 2021 1.20 2.65 Source: Collier Enterprises, Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Appendix Table 3: Longwater Population and Employment Estimates Land Use by Impact Fee Category Units Peak Seasonal Persons Per Unit Peak Seasonal Population Permanent Population Per Unit Permanent Population Residential Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached Total SFD < 41000 Sq Ft Total Residential 1,097 1.26 1,383 1.05 17152 11503 2.65 31990 2.21 3,325 21600 50373 41477 Non -Residential Sq Ft Employment Coefficient Occup % Employees Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft Total Non -Residential 80,000 2.50 95% 190 80,000 190 Neigborhood Civic Grand Total Non -Residential (sf) 26,000 1 106,000 1 1 1 190 Source: Collier Enterprises, Collier County, DPFG, 2020 Appendix Table 4: Longwater Population and Employment Summary Cumulative Population and Employment At Buildout Permanent Population 4,477 Permanent Population and Jobs 41667 Residential Seasonal Population 51373 Residential Seasonal Population and Tourists 51373 Employment 190 Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 51563 Residential Seasonal Population, Tourists, and Employment 51563 Source: Collier Enterprises, Inc., Collier County, DPFG, 2020 Appendix Table 5: Longwater Public School Enrollment Students Tota Residential Population Units per Unit Students Total Condo, Dupex, Single -Family Attached 11097 0.11 118 Total SFD < 41000 Sq Ft Annual Total Cumulative Total Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2019 11503 0.34 21600 514 632 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 6: Longwater County Tax Base Units or Taxable Value Land Use Sq Ft per Unit/SF At Buildout Residential Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached 11097 $ 2451112 $ 268,888,000 Total SFD < 41000 Sq Ft 11503 $ 3461843 521,305,000 Total Residential 21600 $ 790,1931000 Non -Residential Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 801000 $ 189.50 15,160,000 Total Non -Residential 801000 $ 15,160,000 Total Tax Base $ 8051353,000 Source: Collier Enterprises, Collier County, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2020 Appendix Table 7: Longwater School District Tax Base Units or Taxable Value Land Use Sq Ft per Unit/SF At Buildout Residential Total Condo, Duplex, Single4amily Attached 11097 $ 252,862 $ 277,390,000 Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 11503 $ 363,343 546,105,000 Total Residential 21600 $ 823,495,000 Non -Residential Retail 50,001- 100,000 Sq Ft Total Non -Residential Total Tax Base 80,000 $ 189.50 15,160,000 80,000 $ 15,160,000 $ 838,655,000 Source: Collier Enterprises, Collier County, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2020 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 8: FY 2019 Collier County General Funds Budget Summaries Inter- Fed Payment GENERAL FUND GROUPING Ad Valorem Licenses & Governmental State Revenue in Lieu of Charges for Fines & Miscellaneous Interest/ Indirect REVENUES AND SOURCES Taxes Permits Revenues Sharing Sta to Sa l es Tax Taxes Services Forfeitures Revenues Miscellaneous Servi ce Cha rge Carry Forward 001 General Fund $31408230600 $ 229,200 $ 453,500 $ 11,000,000 5 414000,000 $ 1,2501000 $ 14,214,100 $ 3920500 $ 208,100 $ 910,000 $ 81254,500 5 4103810100 002 Impact Fee Deferral Program - - - - - - - - - - - 200200 003 Emergency Relief - - - - - - - - - - 2,300 2850100 007 Economic Development - - 4001000 - - - - - - 18,600 - 10334,200 011 Clerk of Circuit Court - - - - - - 3,2141600 - - 360000 - - 040 Sheriff 060 Property Appraiser 070 Tax Collector - - - - - - 23,3770700 - - 2330500 - - 080 Supervisor of Elections - - - - - - - Total General Fund Grouping Revenues $3141823,600 $ 229,200 $ 853,500 $ 112000,000 $ 411000,000 $ 11250,000 5 40,B060400 $ 392,500 5 2080100 5 1,1981100 $_ 8,256,800 $ 43,0200600 Transfers from Transfers from Reimbursefrom GENERAL FUND GROUPING Communication Special General Fund Constitutional Repay IRMA Other REVENUES AND SOURCES Services Tax Assessments (001) Officers Other Transfers Loan Departments Total Less Restricted Total 001 General Fund - - - $ 6,6000000 $ 1,8151000 $ 11,7000000 $ 863,000 $ 455,094,600 $ (19,1910900) $ 435,902,700 002 Impact Fee Deferral Program - - - - - - - 20,200 - 20,200 003 Emergency Rel i ef - - - - - - - 287,400 (200) 287,200 007 Economic Development - - - - - - - 1,752,800 (21,000) 1,7311800 011 Clerk of Circuit Court - - 7,367,000 - - - - 100617,600 (159,200) 101458,400 040 Sheriff - - 187,203,400 - - - - 18702030400 - 187,2030400 060 Property Appraiser - - 6,9511000 - 8460100 - - 7,797,100 - 707970100 070 Tax Collector - - - - - - 23,6110200 - 230611,200 080 Supervisor of Elections - 3 893 000 - 30893,000 - 308930000 Total General Fund Grouping Revenues $ - $ - $ 205,414,400 $ 61600,000 $ 2,661,100 $ 11,700,000 $ 863,000 $ 690,277,300 $ (19,372,300) $ 670,905,000 Fund # General Fund Description Total Budget 001 General Fund $ 435,9021700 002 Utility Impact Fee Deferral Program 20,200 003 Emergency Disaster 2870200 007 Economic Development 1,731,800 011 Clerk of Circuit Court 10,458,400 040 Sheriff 187,2030400 060 Property Appraiser 7,797,100 070 Tax Collector 230611,200 080 Supervisor of Elections 3,8930000 Total General Fund Groupings $ 670,905,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 m LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Annendix Table 9: FY 2019 Collier County General Funds Revenue Demand Units General Fund Grouping Revenue Category Budget Demand Base Multiplier Base Demand $ Per Demand Unit Ad Valorem Taxes Licenses & Permits Inter -Governmental Revenues State Revenue Sharing - Fixed Portion State Revenue Sharing - Growth Portion State Sales Tax Fed Payment in Lieu of Taxes Ch a rges for Servi ces Fines & Forfeitures Miscellaneous Revenues Interest/ Miscellaneous Indirect Service Charge Carry Forward Transfers from General Fund (001) Transfers from Constitutional Officers Other Tra nsfers Repay IRMA Loan Reimburse from Other Departments Tota I $ 314,823,600 CUMULATIVE AV 1.00 N/A N/A 229,200 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 5501537 $ 0642 853,500 PERMPOP&JOBS 1600 550,537 $ 1.55 11042,000 FIXED 1000 - N/A 91958,000 PERMPOP 1600 3761086 $ 26048 41,000,000 PERMPOP 1000 376,086 $ 109402 1,250,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A 40,806,400 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 $ 74.12 392,500 PEAKPOP 1000 451,303 $ 0.87 208,100 PERMPOP&JOBS 1600 550,537 $ 0.38 10198,100 PERMPOP&JOBS 1800 550,537 $ 2.18 8,256,800 PERMPOP&JOBS 1000 550IS37 $ 15.00 430020,600 FIXED 1.00 - N/A 205,414,400 FIXED 1.00 - N/A 6,600,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1000 62S,754 $ 10.55 21661,100 FIXED 1000 - N/A 11,700,000 FIXED 1600 - N/A 863,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1000 625,754 $ 1.38 1 $ 6901277,300 $ 241095 Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2019 AnnPnriix Table 90� FY 2019 Collier County MSTU Revenue Demand Units General Fund Grouping Revenue Category Budget Demand Base Multiplier Base Demand $ Per Demand Unit Ad Valorem Taxes Licenses & Permits Charges for Services Fines & Forfeitures Miscellaneous Revenues Interest/ Miscellaneous Carry Forward Communication Services Tax Special Assessments Transfers from General Fund (001) Transfers from Constitutional Officers Other Transfers Reimburse from Other Departments Total $ 44,228,900 CUMULATIVE AV 1000 N/A N/A 452,300 PERMPOP&JOBS 1600 682 E48 $ 0093 3,136,200 PERMPOP&JOBS 1800 682 $ 6442 237,000 PERMPOP&JOBS 1000 488,682 $ 0048 231,400 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1000 559,796 $ 0441 120,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1000 559/796 $ 0021 61982,900 FI XED 1.00 - N/A 4,5001000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1800 559,796 $ 8604 33,000 FIXED 1400 - N/A 916,600 FIXED 1600 - N/A 200,000 FIXED 1600 - N/A 563,700 FIXED 1500 - N/A 21,500 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 $ 0504 $ 61,6231500 1 $ 16053 Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2019 39 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 11: Longwater General Funds Revenue at Buildout GENERAL FUND GROUPING $ Per REVENUES Demand Base Demand At Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes CUMULATIVE AV $ 3.5645 $ 21871,000 Licenses & Permits PERMPOP&JOBS $ 0642 21000 Inter -Governmental Revenues PERMPOP&JOBS $ 1455 71000 State Revenue Sharing - Growth Portion PERMPOP $ 26048 119/000 State Sales Tax PERMPOP $ 109.02 488,000 Charges for Services PERMPOP&JOBS $ 74612 3461000 Fines & Forfeitures PEAKPOP $ 0087 51000 Miscellaneous Revenues PERMPOP&JOBS $ 0.38 21000 Interest/ Miscellaneous PERMPOP&JOBS $ 2.18 101000 Indirect Service Charge PERMPOP&JOBS $ 15600 701000 Transfers from Constitutional Officers PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 10455 59,000 Reimburse from Other Departments PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 1038 8,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Revenues $ 241095 $ 31987,000 Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2020 Appendix Table 12: Longwater MSTU Revenue at Buildout MSTU GENERAL FUND $ Per REVENUES Demand Base Demand At Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes CUMULATIVE AV $ 008069 $ 650,000 Licenses & Permits PERMPOP&JOBS $ 0493 41000 Charges for Services PERMPOP&JOBS $ 6.42 301000 Fines & Forfeitures PERMPOP&JOBS $ 0.48 21000 Miscellaneous Revenues PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 0.41 21000 Interest/ Miscellaneous PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 0021 11000 Communication Services Tax PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 8604 451000 Reimburse from Other Departments PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 0404 - Total MSTU Annual Operating Revenues $ 16053 $ 734,000 Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2020 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 13: FY 2019 Collier County General Funds Expenditure Budget Summaries Transfers [o Transfers to GENERAL FUND GROUPING Personal Operating Grants and Advance/ IndirectCost Constitutional General fund Other EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES Services Services Capital Outlay Aid Remittances Repay Reimbursement Officers (001) Transfers Reserves 001 General Fund $ 341711,900 $ 360937,400 $ 420t500 $ 31624,600 $ 6,572,800 $ 445,000 $ - $221,2110500 $ 870497,800 $ 441481,200 002 Impact Fee Deferral Program - - - - - - - - 20,200 - - 003 Emergency Relief - 5%000 - - - - - - - 2370200 007 Economic Development - 211,000 - - 389,000 41100 - - - 1/1270700 011 Clerk of Circuit Court 8,6071800 1,7211100 129,500 040 Sheriff 1520433,800 26,926,900 70842,700 - - - - - - 060 P roperty Appra i ser 60045,100 11727,000 25,000 - - - - - 070 Tax Collector 110783,800 2/7430200 4240300 - - - - - - 080 Supervisor of Elections 2,351800 104930200 48,000 - - - - - - Tnral Gpnpral Fund GrouoineExpenditures $215.934,200 $ 71,809,800 $ 8,8901000 $ 31624,600 $ 6/9610800 $ 4450000 $ 4,100 $2211211,500 $ 20,200 $ 87,497,800 $ 45,8461100 Personal Services Operating Services Restricted for Distribution of Capital Outlay GENERAL FUND GROUPING Unfunded Excess Fees to Grants and Aid EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES Requests GovtAgencies Total Remittances 001 General Fund - - $ 435,902,700 $ 82,267,200 002 Impact Fee Deferral Program - - 20,200 - 003 Emergency Relief 287,200 50,000 007 Economic Development - - 11731,800 604,100 Oil Clerk of Circuit Court - - 10,4581400 101458,400 040 Sheriff - - 1871203,400 1871203,400 060 Property Appraiser - - 70797,100 7,797,100 070 Tax Collector - 8,659,900 23,611,200 14,951,300 080 Supervisor of Elections 30893,000 3/8930000 Total General Fund Grouping Expenditures 5 - $ 8,659,900 $ 670,905,000 $ 307,224500 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 41 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 14: FY 2019 Collier County Expenditure Budget Summaries Fund # General Fund Description Total Budget 001 General Fund $ 435,902,700 002 Uti I i ty I mpa ct Fee Deferra I Progra m 003 Emergency Disaster 007 Economic Development 011 Clerk of Circuit Court 040 Sheriff 060 Property Appraiser 070 Tax Collector 20,200 2871200 1,731,800 10,458,400 187,2031400 71797,100 231611,200 080 Supervisor of EI ecti ons 3,893,000 Total General Fund Groupings $ 670,905,000 Fund Type Operating Budget General Fund Groupings $ 307,2247500 Special Revenue Funds Trust and Agency Funds 156,082,600 Transfers and Reserves 1531874,700 Total Operati ng Services, Excluding Public Utilities $ 751,558,600 Division/Agency Operating Budget Board of County Commissioners $ 17,523,000 Constitutional Officers Administrative Services Growth Management Court Related Agencies Management Offices Public Services 243,879,300 Public Utilities -Facilities Management 17,4151900 Total Operating Services, Excluding Public Utilities $ 751,558,600 Public Utilities 238,142,800 Total Operating Budget $ 98%7011400 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 42 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 15: FY 2019 Collier County Appropriations by Program Budget Summaries General Funds Trust and Grouping Total General Funds Special Revenue Capital Funds Enterprise Internal Service Agency Funds Transfers and Less Division Groupi ng Total Funds Total Total Funds Total Funds Total Total Reserves Total Remittances Board of County Commissioners $ 100974,700 $ 3,539,800 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1405140500 $ 51080,100 County Attorney 2,815,500 193,000 - - - - 31008,500 20815,500 PropertyAppraiser 7,977,000 - - - - - - 71977,000 7,977,000 SupervisorofElections 3095%600 - - - - - 3/9590600 3095%600 Clerk of Courts 10,960,500 - - - - - - 100960,500 1%960,500 Sheriff 190,708,300 3,053,000 - - - - 31385500 197,146,800 1901708,300 Tax Collector 15,175,500 - - - - 8/659/900 23,835,400 15,175,500 AdministrativeServices 667,300 - - - - - - 667,300 667,300 Dori Slosberg Driver Education - 1210400 - - - - 1150000 2360400 - FleetManagement - - - 9,308,700 - 696,600 10,005,300 - Motor Pool Capital Recovery Program - - - 2,4521300 51485,500 - 11,562,300 19,500,100 - Human Resources 2,1731400 - - - - - - 21173,400 21173,400 Information Technology - 1,2211900 - - 91509,200 - 1,3801700 1201110800 - ProcurementServices 2,0161700 - - - - - - 2,016,700 21016,700 Risk Management - - - - 67,062,200 - 400610,500 1070672,700 - Communications & Customer Relations Division - 1,4671800 - - - - 1/4670800 - AdministrativeServices Grants 34,500 - - - - - 34,500 - Bureau of Emergency Services 31313,800 75,000 - - - - 237,200 31626,000 3,291,000 Emergency Medical Services EMS - - - 3100840400 - - 3,562,600 34,647,000 ire Districts - 21101,500 - - - - 317,800 21419,300 - GrowthManagementAdministration - 15,329,900 - - - - - 15,3291900 - Planning 107,300 3,477,800 - - - - - 3,585,100 107,300 Regulation - 260514,000 - - - - 1,9110400 2804250400 - Maintenance - 21,158,800 - - - - 872,700 221031,500 - ImprovementDistricts and MSTU - 2,086,700 - - - - 36,300 2,1231000 - Operations 9132%900 140,700 91470,600 Project Management - S,80S,000 - - - 93,800 508980800 - Airport - - - 3,815,900 - - 737,70D 4/5530600 - ReservesandTransfers - - - - - - 23,148,300 23,1481300 - CourtAdministration - 2,968,700 - - - - 235,200 3,203,900 - Circuit&County Court Judges 650900 - - - - - 65,900 65,900 Public Defender 308,400 - - - - - 3080400 308,400 StateAttorney 407r400 - - - - - - 407,400 407,400 Guardian Ad Utem Program 4,600 - - - - - - 4,600 40600 Court Related Technology - 1,068,500 - - - - 495,300 10563,800 - County Manager Operations 1,392,000 1,392,000 1/3920000 Corporate Compliance and Performancelmpr. 664,200 - - - - - - 664,200 664,200 Office of Management & Budget 1,367,900 11310,600 - - - - 442,400 3,120,900 1,367,900 Tourist Development Council - 12,291,400 - - - - 5,588,400 17,8790800 - Amateur Sports Complex 2,194,900 ' 2,1941900 Pelican Bay Services - 4,930,300 - - - - 21708,600 7,6381900 - Business and Economic Development 2,0631500 - - - - - 31164,500 5,228,000 11019,100 Ave Maria Innovation Zone - 1,000 - - - - 204,800 2050800 - BayshoreCRA - 7,394,300 - - - - 3,5340600 10,9281900 - ImmokaleeCRA - 1,216,600 - - - - 11349,600 2,5661200 - Public Services Administration 297,400 - - - - - - 297,400 297:400 Operations and Veteran Services 1,083,900 - - - - - - 11083,900 11083,900 Domestic Animal Services 3,441,700 901500 - - - - 3130000 308450200 30441,700 Community and Human Services 7,557,300 1,171,900 - - - - 1,40%100 10,138,300 71557,300 Library 8,216,500 270,800 - - - - 21,200 8,5081500 81216,500 Museum - 21217,400 - - - - 280,500 2,4970900 - Parks & Recreation 101050,300 17,141,500 - - - 23,900 34,585,900 61,8010600 101050,300 University Extension Service 775,900 68,200 - - - - 22,100 866,200 775,900 Public Health 11861,000 - - - - - - 1,861,000 11861,000 Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement 359,000 - - 5,6340700 - - 480,800 61474,500 3590000 Improvement Districts and MSTU - 6,1850300 - - - - 662,500 6,8470800 - Facilities Management 161458,000 50,700 - - - - 907,200 17,415,900 16,458,000 Total $ 307,2240500 $ 156,082,600 $ - $ 42,987,300 $ 91,365,600 $ 23,900 5 153,874,700 $ 7511558,600 $ 3000262,700 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 16: FY 2019 Collier County General Funds Ex nana rtmant Rudeet nditure Demand Units $ Per Demand Base Multiplier Base Demand Demand Board of County Commissioners $ 5,080,100 PERMPOP 0.50 376,086 $ 6.75 County Attorney Property Appraiser 2,8151500 71977,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 1.00 625,754 6250754 $ 2.25 $ 12.75 Supervisor of Elections 31959,600 PERMPOP 0.50 376,086 $ 5.26 Clerk of Courts 10,960,500 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 $ 8.76 Sheriff 190,708,300 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 633,596 $ 300.99 Tax Col lector 15,175,500 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 $ 27.56 Ad mi n i s tra ti ve Servi ces 667,300 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 $ 0.53 Human Resources 2,173,400 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 $ 1.74 Procurement Services 21016,700 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 $ 1.61 Bureau of Emergency Services 31291,000 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 633,596 $ 5.19 Planning 107,300 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 $ 0.17 Circuit & County Court Judges 65,900 PEAKPOP 1.00 451,303 $ 0.15 Public Defender 308,400 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 $ 0.82 State Attorney Guardian Ad Litem Program 407,400 4,600 PERMPOP PERMPOP 1.00 1.00 376,086 3761086 $ 1.08 $ 0.01 County Manager Operations Corporate Compliance and Performance Impr, Office of Management & Budget 1,392,000 664,200 11367,900 PEAKPOP&JOBS FIXED PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 1.00 0.50 625,754 - 625,754 $ 1.11 N/A $ 1.09 Business and Economic Development 11019,100 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Public Services Administration 297,400 PERMPOP 0.50 376,086 $ 0.40 operations and Veteran Services 11083,900 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Domesti c Ani ma I Services 31441,700 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 $ 9.15 Community and Human Services 71557,300 PERMPOP 0.50 3761086 $ 10.05 Library Parks & Recreation 8,216,500 10,0501300 PEAKPOP PEAKPOP 1.00 1.00 451,303 451,303 $ 18.21 $ 22.27 University Extension Service Public Health 775,900 11861,000 FIXED PERMPOP 1.00 0.20 - 376,086 N/A $ 0.99 Public Transitand Neighborhood Enhancement 359,000 PERMPOP 0.50 376,086 $ 0.48 Facilities Management 16,458,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 $ 26.30 General Funds Grouping Totals Less Remittances $ 300,262,700 Remittances 6,961,800 FIXED 1.00 - N/A General Funds Grouping Totals Plus Remittances $ 307,2241500 Transfer to 101 Transp Op Fund 20,154,300 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 $ 32.21 Transfer to 103 Stormwater Utility 11474,300 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 111 Unincorp Gen Fd 916,600 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 298 Sp Ob Bond 2,775,900 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 299 Debt Service Fund 7031500 FIXED 1.00 N/A Transfer to 301 Capital Projects 15,335,700 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 306 Parks Ad Valorem Cap Fund 1,100,000 FIXED 1900 - N/A Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap 8,555,800 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 $ 13.67 Transfer to 314 Musuem Cap 200,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 325 Stormwater Cap Fund 2,500,000 FIXED 1.00 N/A Transfer to 426 CAT Mass Transit 1,952,900 PEAKPOP 1.00 451,303 $ 4.33 Transfer to 427 Transp Disadvantaged 2,604,700 PERMPOP 1.00 3761086 $ 6.93 Transfer to 490 EMS Fund 181018,600 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 633,596 $ 28.44 Transfer to 506 IT Capital 4301600 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 523 Motor Pool Capital 110,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 652 Legal Aid 147,700 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 681 Court Services 21012,400 FIXED 4Other 1.00 - N/A Transfers to General Fund (001) 20,200 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfers 81504,800 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Advance/Repayments 4451000 FIXED 1.00 N/A Transfers to Constitutional Officers 221,211,500 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Reserves 45,846,100 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies 8,659,900 IPERMPOP&JOBS 1 1.00 550,537 1$ 15.73 Total $ 670,905,000 1.00 $ 566.99 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 44 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 17: FY 2019 Collier Cou MSTU Expenditure Demand Units $ Per Ri rlaot rlamanri Raca Multinlier Base Demand Demand Board of County Commissioners 11237,900 PERMPOP 0.50 333,831 $ 3.71 Communications & Customer Relations Division 10467,800 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 559,796 $ 2.62 Growth Management Administration 556,100 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 $ 0.99 Planning 11804,700 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 $ 3.22 Regulation 51333,600 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 5591796 $ 9.53 Maintenance 91531,300 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 $ 17.03 Bureau of Emergency Services 75,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 $ 0.13 Project Management - PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 $ - Pelican BayServices 150,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A ImmokaleeCRA 212,500 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Community and Human Services 113,100 PERMPOP 0.50 333,831 $ 0.34 Parks & Recreation 13,729,100 PEAKPOP 1.00 404,945 $ 33.90 Transfer to 306 Parks Capital Fund 21750,000 PEAKPOP 1.00 404,945 $ 6.79 Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Cap 41250,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 $ 7.59 Transfer to 325 Stormwater Cap Fund 3,000,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Improvement Districts and MSTU 334,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A I ndi rect Cost Rei mburs ement 2,301,900 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 $ 4.11 Remittances 500,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfers 81383,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Advances 262,400 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Reserves 2,982,300 IFIXED 1.00 - N/A Total $ 58,974,700 1.00 $ 89.97 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 45 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 18: Longwater General Funds Expenditures at Buildout GENERAL FUND GROUPING $ Per EXPENDITURES Demand Base Demand At Buildout Board of County Commissioners PERMPOP $ 6.75 $ 30,000 County Attorney PEAKPOP&JOBS 2.25 131000 Property Appraiser PEAKPOP&JOBS 12075 71,000 Supervisor of Elections PERMPOP 5.26 24,000 Clerk of Courts PEAKPOP&JOBS 8076 49,000 Sheriff PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 300.99 11674,000 Tax Collector PERMPOP&JOBS 27656 129,000 Administrative Services PEAKPOP&JOBS 0653 31000 Human Resources PEAKPOP&JOBS 1674 10,000 Procurement Services PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.61 9,000 Bureau of Emergency Services PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 5819 291000 Planning PEAKPOP&JOBS 0017 11000 Circuit & County Court Judges PEAKPOP 0415 11000 Public Defender PERMPOP 0482 41000 State Attorney PERMPOP 1.08 51000 Guardian Ad Litem Program PERMPOP 0.01 - County Manager Operations PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.11 6,000 Office of Management & Budget PEAKPOP&JOBS 1009 61000 Public Services Administration PERMPOP 0040 21000 Domestic Animal Services PERMPOP 9015 41,000 Community and Human Services PERMPOP 10605 45,000 Library PEAKPOP 18.21 98,000 Parks & Recreation PEAKPOP 22427 120,000 Public Health PERMPOP 0099 41000 Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement PERMPOP 0.48 21000 Facilities Management PEAKPOP&JOBS 26630 146/000 Transfer to 101 Transp Op Fund PEAKPOP&JOBS 32221 179,000 Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap PEAKPOP&JOBS 13667 76,000 Transfer to 426 CAT Mass Transit PEAKPOP 4033 23,000 Transfer to 427 Transp Disadvantaged PERMPOP 6493 31,000 Transfer to 490 EMS Fund PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 28644 158,000 Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies PERMPOP&JOBS 15073 73,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Expenditures $ 566099 $ 31062,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 19: Longwater MSTU Expenditures at Buildout MSTU GENERAL FUND $ Per EXPENDITURES Demand Base Demand At Buildout Board of County Commissioners Communications & Customer Relations Division Growth Management Administration Planning Regulation Maintenance Bureau of Emergency Services Project Management Community and Human Services Parks & Recreation Transfer to 306 Parks Capital Fund Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Cap Indirect Cost Reimbursement Total MSTU Annual Operatin enditures PERMPOP $ 3.71 $ 17,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 2062 151000 PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 0.99 61000 PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 3.22 181000 PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 9.53 531000 PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 17.03 95,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 0.13 1,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS $ - - PERMPOP $ 0.34 21000 PEAKPOP $ 33.90 182,000 PEAKPOP $ 6.79 36,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 7.59 42,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 4.11 23,000 89.97 $ 490,000 47 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 20: Collier County Impact Fee Schedule Land Use Total Condo, Dupex, Single -Family Attached Single Family Detached <4,000 Sq Ft Living Reta i 150,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft Demand Community Regional Unit Parks Parks Roads EMS Unit $ 455.20 $ 1,230.24 $ 41844,91 $ 67.50 $ Unit $ 933.83 $ 21694632 $ 7,443.99 $ 142.07 $ Sq Ft $ $ $ 15.42477 $ 0,19230 $ Government Schools Buildings 2,844.19 $ 443.94 8,789,54 $ 934.34 $ 1627547 Demand Law Land Use Unit Libraries Enforcement Jail Water Wastewater Total Total Condo, Dupex, Single -Family Attached Unit $ 159.78 $ 296.56 $ 259.25 $ 2,562.00 $ 2,701.00 $ 15,864.57 Single Family Detached <4,000 Sq Ft Living Unit $ 336.05 $ 586.95 $ 499.19 $ 2,562.00 $ 20701,00 $ 27,623.28 Retail SO 001 - 100,000 Sq Ft Sq Ft $ $ 0,76499 $ 0,67846 $ $ $ 18.34 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 LONGWATER VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT dix Table 21: Lo Land Use r Imaact Fee Revenues Total Condo, Dupex, Single -Family Attached Total SFD <4,000 Sq Ft Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft Total Demand Demand Units Unit 1,097 Unit 1,503 Unit 650000 Sq Ft Community Regional Government Parks Parks Roads EMS Schools Buildings $ 499,000 $ 1,350,000 $ 5,315,000 $ 74,000 $ 3,120,000 $ 487,000 1,404,000 4,050,000 11,188,000 214,000 13,211,000 1,404,000 1/003/000 12,000 83,000 $ 1 903,000 $ 5,4007000 $ 17,S06,000 $ 300,000 $ 16,331,000 $ 1,974,000 Total ofBuildoutSchedules $ 1,403,000 $ 5,400,000 $ 17,5061000 $ 300,000 $ 16,331,000 $ 10474,000 Water Wastewater Demand Demand taw Residential Residential Land Use Units Unit Libraries Enforcement Jail Only Only Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached 11097 Unit $ 175,000 $ 325,000 $ 284,000 $ 2,811,000 $ 2,963,000 Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,503 Unit 505,000 882,000 750,000 30851,000 4,060,000 Retail 50,001- 100,000 Sq Ft 80,000 Sq Ft - 61,000 54,000 - - Total $ 680,000 $ 1,268,000 $ 1,08%000 $ 6,662,000 $ 7,023,000 Total of Buildout Schedules $ 680,000 $ 1,2684000 $ 11088,000 $ 60662,000 $ 71023,000 Source: Collier County, Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2020 LONGWATCIA VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 22: Collier County School District Base Assumptions STUDENT GENERATION RATES - 2015 IMPACT FEE UPDATE 0.11 Single Family Multi FamilyandSingleFamilyAttached Mobi I e Home FY 2020 SCHOOL FTE ENROLLMENT 18,948 E Workforce SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 2015 IMPACT FEE UDPATE 49% Elementary Middle High Total 23% 28% 100% FY 2020 MILEAGE RATES 2.835 0.748 3.583 1.500 5.083 2.835 2.248 5.083 Required Local Effort Discretiona Addiitional ry Millage Total General Fund Millage Capital Improvement Millage Total Millage Required by State Law Total Discretionary Local Total Millage Source: Collier County School District, DPFG 2019 LONGWATER VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the data contained in this report are accurate as of the date of this study; however, factors exist that are outside the control of DPFG and that may affect the estimates and/or projections noted herein. This study is based on estimates, assumptions and other information developed by DPFG from its independent research effort, general knowledge of the industry, and information provided by and consultations with the client and the client's representatives. No responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in reporting by the client, the client's agent and representatives, or any other data source used in preparing or presenting this study. This report is based on information that was current as of November 2019 (except for the sections identified as being updated in March 2020, May 2020, August 6, 2020, and January 8, 2021), and DPFG has not undertaken any update of its research effort since such date. Because future events and circumstances, many of which are not known as of the date of this study, may affect the estimates contained therein, no warranty or representation is made by DPFG that any of the projected values or results contained in this study will actually be achieved. Possession of this study does not carry with it the right of publication thereof or to use the name of DPFG in any manner without first obtaining the prior written consent of DPFG. No abstracting, excerpting or summarization of this study may be made without first obtaining the prior written consent of DPFG. This report is not to be used in conjunction with any public or private offering of securities, debt, equity, or other similar purpose where it may be relied upon to any degree by any person other than the client, nor is any third party entitled to rely upon this report, without first obtaining the prior written consent of DPFG. This study may not be used for purposes other than that for which it is prepared or for which prior written consent has first been obtained from DPFG. Any changes made to the study, or any use of the study not specifically prescribed under agreement between the parties or otherwise expressly approved by DPFG, shall be at the sole risk of the party making such changes or adopting such use. This study is qualified in its entirety by, and should be considered in light of, these limitations, conditions and considerations. Stephanie Karol From: Bob Mulhere Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 11:02 AM To: Bob Mulhere Subject: FW: Approval - Longwater SRA fiscal impact on North Collier Fire To: Valerie Pike <VPike@collierenterprises.com> Subject: Re: FW: Longwater SRA fiscal impact on North Collier Fire Good Morning Valerie, I will be joining the meeting via phone due to speaking engagement scheduled for 4:OOpm at headquarters, but I am sending Daniel Zunzunegui who is the NCFR Plan Reviewer assigned to your current projects I,have appxovede:the,nethodol%ogy used for Longwater Fiscal Impact and will be available via phone conference for any questions or concerns. Talk to you soon Eloy i Revised May 2020 Prepared For: Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. 2550 Goodlette Road North #100 Naples, Florida 34103 (239) 261-4455 Prepared By: Passarella &Associates, Inc. 13620 Metropolis Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 (239) 2 74-0067 Project No. OSCEM1481 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................ l 2.0 Previous Listed Species Surveys (2007-2017)..................................................................1 2.1 Big Cypress Stewardship District and Town of Big Cypress Listed Species Survey Results (2007-2009).....................................................................2 2.2 Rural Lands West Listed Species Survey Results (2014-2016) ............................2 2.3 Crested Caracara Surveys (2007, 2009, and 2016)................................................2 2.4 Red -Cockaded Woodpecker Surveys (2007 and 2014).........................................3 2.5 Burrowing Owl Survey (2008)..............................................................................3 2.6 Southeastern American Kestrel Survey(2017)......................................................3 2.7 Big Cypress Fox Squirrel Survey (2007-2008).....................................................3 2.8 Everglades Mink Survey (2017)............................................................................4 2.9 Florida Bonneted Bat Surveys (2007 and 2016)....................................................4 3.0 Methodology for Updated Survey.......................................................... ...........4 ................ 3.1 Literature and Database Review............................................................................4 3.2 Updated Longwater SRA Listed Species Survey(2019).......................................5 4.0 Literature and Database Review Results...........................................................................5 5.0 Field Survey Results{2019)...............................................................................................6 5.1 American Alligator................................................................................................7 5.2 Wood Stork............................................................................................................7 5.3 Florida Sandhill Crane...........................................................................................7 5.4 Roseate Spoonbill..................................................................................................7 5.5 Little Blue Heron..................................................................................................7 5.6 Tri-Colored Heron.................................................................................................7 5.7 Florida Panther........ **4*446 a a 04004* 0 0006*6** 0 * 00 0*06 .0 0 606**6 4 ***0*** ** &***07 6.0 Summary............................................................................................................................ 8 7.0 References..........................................................................................................................9 1 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Survey Dates and Weather Conditions (2019 Survey).........................................5 Table 2. Documented Listed Wildlife Species (2019 Survey)............................................6 Table 4. Summary of Documented Listed Species.............................................................8 Il LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Project Location Map......................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B. Aerial with SFVVMD FLUCFCS and Wetlands Map ........................................ B-1 Appendix C. Aerial with Permitting Boundaries.................................................................... C-1 Appendix D. Documented Listed Species Locations {2007-2009 and 2014-2016 Surveys}........................................................................................... D4 Appendix E. Florida Bonneted Bat Acoustic Stations............................................................ E-1 Appendix F. Aerial with 2019 Survey Area........................................................................... F-1 Appendix G. Aerial with Survey Transects............................................................................. G-1 111 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report documents the results of the listed species survey conducted by Passarella & Associates, Inc. (PAI) on August 8 and 9, September 17, October 22, and November 7, 2019 for Longwater SRA (Project). The survey was conducted to determine whether the Project was being utilized by state and/or federally listed wildlife species as identified by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern; and for plant species listed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) and the USFWS as endangered, threatened, or commercially exploited. For the purpose of this report, the survey area is comprised of the Longwater SRA Project boundary which totals 999.78± acres located in Sections 22, 23, 26, 27, 34, and 35; Township 48 South; Range 28 East; Collier County (Appendix A). The Project is located along the eastern boundary of Golden Gate Estates. Oil Well Road (County Road 858) abuts the northern edge of the Project site and Immokalee Road is located approximately two miles to the north. A total of 21 vegetative associations and land uses (i.e., Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) codes) occur on the property. The dominant land use on the property is agriculture. The land use types Row Crops (FLUCFCS Code 214) and Cropland and Pastureland (FLUCFCS Code 210) comprise 96.6 percent of the site. The native areas on -site are minimal but include Palmetto Prairie, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 3219); Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 4119); Live Oak, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 4279); Cabbage Palm, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 4289); Willow, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6189); Cypress, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6219); Hydric Pine, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6259); Wetland Mixed Hardwood Conifer, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6309); and Wetland Shrub, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6319). A FLUCFCS map of the SRA Project boundary is provided as Appendix B. 2.0 PREVIOUS LISTED SPECIES SURVEYS (2007-2017} The Longwater SRA is located within the boundaries of the Big Cypress Stewardship District (BCSD), the South Florida Water Management District Conceptual Environmental Resource Permit for Rural Lands West (RLW), and the previously proposed Town of Big Cypress (TOBC). An aerial depicting these various permitting boundaries is included as Appendix C. Listed species surveys were previously conducted by PAI for the BCSD, the TOBC, and RLW. The surveys were conducted in March through July 2007, October and November 2007, May through June 2014, June through October 2015, and November 2016. In addition to the listed species surveys, species -specific surveys were conducted for the TOBC between 2007 and 2009 and for RLW between 2014 and 2016. The results of these previous listed species surveys overlapping the Project site are summarized below. 2.1 Big Cypress Stewardship District and Town of Big Cypress Listed Species Survey Results (2007-2009) A survey was conducted for wildlife species listed by the FWCC and the USFWS as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern; and for plant species listed by the FDACS and the USFWS as endangered, threatened, or commercially exploited. In addition, the property was surveyed for bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and/or their nests since they are protected under Florida Administrative Code (FAC) 68A46.002 and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). The listed species surveys were conducted by qualified ecologists walking parallel belt transects and meandering pedestrian transects through suitable habitats to ensure that sufficient visual coverage of groimd and flora was obtained. The perimeters of active row crop fields were walked, and observations of listed species and/or their sign (i.e., tracks, scat) were recorded. Six listed wildlife species and/or their sign (i.e., tracks, scat) were documented. on the Longwater SRA Project site during the listed species surveys conducted between 2007 and 2009 for the BCSD and the TOBC. The listed species documented on the property were American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), tri- colored heron (Egretta tricolor), wood stork (Mycteria americana), Florida sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pratensis), and Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi). Appendix D depicts the locations of listed species and/or their sign (i.e., tracks, scat) documented within the boundaries of the Longwater SRA during surveys conducted for the BCSD and the TOBC between 2007 and 2009. 2.2 Rural Lands West Listed Species Survey Results (2014-2016) Four listed wildlife species and/or their sign (i.e., tracks, scat) were documented on the Project site during the listed species surveys conducted between 2014 and 2016 for RLW. The listed species documented on the property were little blue heron, tri-colored heron, Florida sandhill crane, and Florida panther. Appendix D depicts the location of listed species and/or their sign (i.e., tracks, scat) documented within the boundaries of the Longwater SRA during surveys conducted for RLW between 2014 and 2016. 2.3 Crested Caracas Surveys (2007, 2009, and 2016) A nesting territory survey for the crested cascara (Cascara cheriway) was conducted in February and March 2007 for the BCSD, which encompasses the Project site. In addition, at the request of the USFWS, a nesting season caracara survey was conducted on the Project site from January through April 2009. No crested caracaras or their nests were observed during the 2007 nesting season survey for BCSD. During the 2009 caracara survey, a crested caracara was observed and a nest was identified in the southern portion of the TOBC boundary, in the immediate vicinity of the Longwater SRA boundary (Appendix D}. The nest was observed in a cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) tree on the edge of a cypress dome surrounded by agricultural fields. In February and March 2009, the caracara pair 2 exhibited nesting behavior. In early April 2009, no caracaras were observed in the vicinity of the nest. The condition of the nest was inspected and the nest appeared to be destroyed. Raccoon (Procyon lotor) scratch marks were observed on the cabbage palm tree and fragments of eggshells were found on the ground under the nest tree. No further nesting activity was documented during the remainder of the 2009 survey. In spring 2016, an updated crested caracara survey was conducted by PAI for RLW. Adult crested caracaras were recorded foraging on the Project site during the survey and a crested caracara nest was documented in a cabbage palm tree located adjacent to Oil Well Grade Road and surrounded by agricultural fields. The location of this nest is approximately 3,920 feet north of the RLW boundary and over 23,000 feet north of the Longwater SRA boundary. 2.4 Red -Cockaded Woodpecker Surveys (2007 and 2014) Even though the Project site has limited habitat for red -cockaded woodpeckers (Picoides borealis) (RCWs), nesting and non -nesting season foraging surveys were conducted for the BCSD site since the property is located within the known geographical range of RCWs. The nesting season foraging survey was conducted in May and June 2007, and the non - nesting season foraging survey was conducted in October and November 2007. No RCWs or RCW cavities were observed on the Project site. An updated nesting season survey for the RCW was conducted for RLW in May and June 2014, and a non -nesting season foraging survey for the RCW was conducted in December 2014. No RCWs or RCW cavities were documented during the 2014 surveys. 2.5 Burrowing Owl Survey (2008) A survey for the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) was conducted for the TOBC in potentially suitable habitat in March 2008. No burrowing owls or their burrows were observed during the survey or during any other field work on -site. 2.6 Southeastern American Kestrel Survey (2017) A survey was conducted. wii thn potential Southeastern American kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus) habitat within the RLW boundary in May through July 2017. No Southeastern American kestrels were observed during the survey or during other field work on -site. 2.7 Big Cypress Fox Squirrel Survey (2007-2008) A survey to document the presence or absence of nest utilization by the Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia) (BCFS) for the TOBC was conducted in December 2007 and January 2008. No BCFSs were observed within the Longwater SRA boundary and no sign of nesting by fox squirrels was detected during the surveys. 2.8 Everglades Mink Survey (2017) For RLW, PAI conducted a survey for the Everglades mink (NBovison vison evergladensis) in May through June 2017 using floating camera traps. No Everglades minks were detected by the camera traps and no Everglades minks or their sign (i.e., tracks, scat) were detected during other field work on the site. 2.9 Florida Bonneted Bat Surveys (2007 and 2016) For the TOBC, PAI conducted a survey for the Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus) (FBB) in November and December 2007 using an AnaBat acoustic bat detector. No FBBs were detected by the AnaBat system during the survey. An updated FBB survey was conducted for RLW in May, June, and July 2016 using Song Meter (SM4BAT FS) full -spectrum bioacoustics recorders by Wildlife Acoustics. A total of 32 acoustic stations were set up across the RLW site. A total of 38 FBB calls were documented across 12 acoustic stations. Of these 12 acoustic stations, 6 stations were located within or immediately adjacent to the Longwater SRA boundary and recorded a total of 17 FBB calls. A map depicting the locations of acoustic stations within and in the immediate vicinity of the Longwater SRA boundary is provided as Appendix E. This map also identifies which stations recorded FBB calls during the 2016 survey. 3.0 METHODOLOGY FOR UPDATED SURVEY 3.1 Literature and Database Review Prior to conducting the updated listed species survey for Longwater SRA, existing literature and agency databases were reviewed to determine the potential La species to occur on the Project site. The literature search involved an examination of available information on protected species in the Project's geographical region. The literature sources reviewed included the FWCC's Florida's Endangered and Threatened Species (2018); Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies (Runde et al. 1991); USFWS Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region (1987); the Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan (Logan et al. 1993); the Landscape Conservation Strategy Map (Kautz et al. 2006); and the USFWS and/or the FWCC databases for telemetry locations of Florida panther, bald eagle, RCW, Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus), Florida scrub jay (Apheloconia coerulescens), crested caracara, and wading bird rookeries, such as wood stork, in Collier County. The wildlife agencies' database information is updated on a periodic basis and is current through different dates, depending on the species. The FWCC information reviewed for this report is current through the noted dates for the five following species: Florida panther telemetry — June 2018; bald eagle nest locations — April 2016; Florida black bear telemetry — December 2007; crested caracara — August 2016; red -cockaded woodpecker — August 2017, and wading bird locations — 1999. 3.2 Updated Longwater SRA Listed Species Survey (2019) An updated listed species survey for listed wildlife and plant species was conducted by Al for Longwater SRA on August 8 and 9, September 17, October 22, and November 7, 2019. An aerial with the SRA boundary and survey area is provided as Appendix F. The survey was conducted within the SRA boundary for wildlife species listed by the FWCC and the USFWS as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern; and for plant species listed by the FDACS and the USFWS as endangered, threatened, or commercially exploited. The FWCC Florida's Endangered and Threatened Species (2018), was used as a reference to identify the state status of listed species. The USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species Database System was referenced online for the updated federal status of listed species. The property was also surveyed for bald eagles and/or their nests since they are protected under FAC 68A-16.002 and the BGEPA. The listed species survey was conducted by qualified ecologists walking parallel belt transects and meandering pedestrian transects through suitable habitats to ensure that sufficient visual coverage of ground and flora was obtained. The perimeters of active row crop fields were walked and observations of listed species and/or their sign (i.e., tracks, scat) were recorded. Approximate survey transects are shown on Appendix G. At regular intervals the ecologists stopped, remained quiet, and listened for wildlife vocalizations. Surveys were conducted during daylight hours and were conducted with the aid of 8x or lOx power binoculars. Sampling dates and qualitative descriptions of weather conditions experienced during the listed species survey periods are included below in Table 1. Table 1. Survey Dates and Weather Conditions (2019 Survey) Date i Weather Conditions Temperatures in the low 80s to mid-90s, 25-50 percent to 50-75 August 8, 2019 percent cloud cover, winds W at 040 miles per hour. Temperatures in the upper 70s to low 90s, 50.100 percent cloud August 9, 2019 cover, scattered rain showers, winds W at 0-20 miles per hour. September 17, 2019 Temperatures in the low to mid 70s, 25-50 percent cloud cover, winds N at 0-10 miles per hour. October 22, 2019 Temperatures in the upper 70s to mid-80s, clear to 50-75 percent cloud cover, winds WSW at 540 miles per hour. November 7, 2019 Temperatures in upper 70s to mid-80s, 0-25 percent cloud cover, winds ENE at 5-15 miles per hour. The results of the literature search found documented occurrences for two listed wildlife species on the Project site. These include the crested cascara and the Florida panther (Appendix H). 5 The FWCC database also contains documented Florida black bear radio -telemetry locations adjacent to the Project site (Appendix H). Although no longer a listed species, the Florida black bear remains subject to the FWCC Management Plan. There are five plant species listed on the "Less Rare Plant" list per Collier County's Land Development Code (LDC) Section 3.04.03 (Requirements for Protected Plants) that could occur on the Project site. They include butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis), giant wild pine airplant (Tillandsia utriculata), inflated wild pine airplant (T. balbisiana), stiff -leaved wild pine airplant (T. fasciculata), and twisted airplant (T. flexuosa). Five plant species are listed on the "Rare Plant" list per Collier County 's LDC Section 3.04.03 (Requirements for Protected Plants). They include cowhorn orchid (Cyrtopodium punctatum), Curtiss' milkweed (Asclepias curtissii), clamshell orchid (Encyclia cochleata), ghost orchid (Polyrrhiza lindenii), and West Coast prickly -apple (Harrisia gracilis var. aboriginum). 5.0 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS (2019) A total of six listed wildlife species were documented on the property during the 2019 listed species survey (Table 2). Approximate locations of listed wildlife species observed during the 2019 listed species survey are shown on an aerial photograph provided as Appendix I. Table 2. Documented Listed Wildlife Species (2019 Survey) Common Name Scientific Name Listin Status USFWS FWCC Reptiles` American alligator Alligator mississi iensis FT(S/A) FT S/A Birds Florida sandhill crane Grus canadensis -- ST Wood stork M cteria americana FT FT Roseate spoonbill Platalea a'a'a -- ST Little blue heron Egretta caerulea -- ST Tri-colored heron E retta tricolor -- ST Mammals Florida panther Puma concolor co i FE FE FWCC —Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Coirunission USFWS — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FE —Federally Endangered FT —Federally Threatened FT(S/A) — Federally Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance ST — State Threatened C 5.1 American Alligator Adult and juvenile American alligators were documented on the Project site in association with the perimeter and internal ditches and berms within areas designated as Row Crops (FLUCFCS Code 214). 5.2 Wood Stork Wood storks were documented on the Project site foraging in the perimeter and internal ditches within areas designated as Row Crops (FLUCFCS Code 214). No nesting sites for this species were documented. 5.3 Florida Sandhill Crane Florida sandhill cranes were documented on the Project site foraging in the fields designated as Cropland and Pastureland (FLUCFCS Code 210) and Row Crops (FLUCFCS Code 214). No nesting sites for this species were documented. 5.4 Roseate Spoonbill Roseate spoonbills (Platalea ajaja} were documented on the Project site foraging in the perimeter and internal ditches within areas designated as Cropland and Pastureland (FLUCFCS Code 210) and Row Crops (FLUCFCS Code 214). No nesting sites for this species were documented. 5.5 Little Blue Heron Little blue herons were documented on the Project site foraging in the perimeter and internal ditches within areas designated as Cropland and Pastureland (FLUCFCS Code 210) and Row Crops (FLUCFCS Code 214). No nesting sites for this species were documented. 5.6 Tri-Colored Heron Tri-colored herons were documented on the Project site foraging in the perimeter and internal ditches within areas designated as Cropland and Pastureland (FLUCFCS Code 210) and Row Crops (FLUCFCS Code 214). No nesting sites for this species were documented. 5.7 Florida Panther Florida panther tracks were documented on the Project site on the berms associated with Row Crops (FLUCFCS Code 214). No panther dens were documented on -site. A total of four listed plant species were identified on the Project site during the 2019 listed species survey (Table 3). These plants occurred within remnant cypress habitats located within the active 7 agriculture operation. Approximate locations of listed plants species observed during the 2019 listed species survey are shown on an aerial photograph provided as Appendix I. Table 3. Documented Listed Plant Species (2019 Survey) Common Name Scientific Name Usti Status USFWS _ FDACS Butterfly orchid Enc clia tam ensis -- CE Giant wild pine Tillandsia utriculata -- SE Inflated wild pine Tillandsia balbisiana -- ST StifPleafed wild pine Tillandsia asciculata -- SE FDACS —Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services USFWS — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service CE — Commercially Exploited SE — State Endangered ST — State Threatened 6.0 SLT11�[MARY Listed species surveys were previously conducted for the BCSD and the TOBC in March through July 2007 and October and November 2007. The listed species survey was updated in May through June 2014, June through October 2015, and November 2016 for RLW. In addition to the listed species surveys, species -specific surveys were conducted for the TOBC between 2007 and 2009, and for RLW between 2014 through 2017. These surveys were conducted for RCW, crested caracara, burrowing owl, Southeastern American kestrel, Big Cypress fox squirrel, Everglades mink, and FBB. The updated Longwater listed species survey was conducted by PAI on August 8 and 9, September 17, and October 22, 2019. Tables 4 summarizes the listed wildlife and plant species documented within the SRA boundary during the 2007 through 2009 surveys, 2014 through 2017 surveys, updated 2019 survey, and other fieldwork. Nine listed wildlife species and four listed plant species have been documented within the Longwater SRA boundary. Table 4. Summary of Documented Listed Species Common Name 'Scientific Nance Listiu Status US�''WS FWCC/FDACS Reptiles American alli ator Alligator mississi iensis FT(S/A) FT(S/A Birds Little blue heron E retta caerulea -- ST Roseate spoonbill Platalea a'a'a -- ST Tri-colored heron E retta tricolor -- ST Wood stork M cteria americana FT ST E'� Table 4. (Continued) Common Name Scientific Name ListinLy Status.: ITSFWS FWCC/FDACS Birds (Continued) Crested caracara Caracara cheriway FT ST Florida sandhill crane Grus canadensis pratensis -- ST Mammals Florida bonneted bat Eumo s oridanus FE FE Florida panther Puma concolor cor i FE FE Plants Butterfly orchid Enc clia tam ensis -- CE Giant wild pine Tillandsia utriculata -- SE Inflated wild pine Tillandsia balbisiana -- ST Stiff -leafed wild pine Tillandsia asciculata -- SE FDACS —Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services FWCC — Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission USFWS — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service CE —Commercially Exploited FE — Federally Endangered FT — Federally Threatened FT (S/A) — Federally Threatened due to similarity of appearance SE — State Endangered ST - State Threatened 7.0 REFERENCES Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2018. Florida's Endangered and Threatened Species List (Updated December 2018). Kautz, R., R. Kawula, T. Hoctor, J. Comiskey, D. Jansen, D. Jennings, J. Kasbohm, F. Mazzotti, R. McBride, L. Richardson, K. Root. 2006. How much is enough? Landscape -scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation, Volume 130, Issue 1, Pages 118433 Logan, Todd, Andrew C. Eller, Jr., Ross Morrell, Donna Ruffner, and Jim Sewell. 1993. Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan South Florida Population. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Gainesville, Florida. Runde, D.E., J.A. Gore, J.A. Hovis, M.S. Robson, and P.D. Southall. 1991. Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies, Update 1986 - 1989. Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 10. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region. 9 �. � PROJECT LOCATION MAP 75 A. ANN yr 'J ffRY . A. EXIT ny. . (r� 11' ,�'. , ► `�.+/` -- Jilt Ail it QVILIP IAA to v Q f. ILOCATION WIN PROJECT tt ( . � t�1 i j Rio . • IL W l`LiR 1 E 1'11� ,ARAB�'1 —*-- �(ra tie t t LT Fw T VIAl.+td _� L i.?_ 7 W Y d�J�D� 4 Fr Q� } a _ n Nit A +. ,r.. -' W `-� `, VA DERBILT `I - , L 1 a 4 € tit BEACH;RD : a I W 3 -- > 4- j • m ATE'8LV ��; Z GOLDEj! G Fla i 41 r j"'1 Q _ I LrWI 1-7 s p o- It EXI I �INERIDGE-RD < 1017r TNl -1;. T �_ I I .y 5 ;s A �3r.,. •� ie{ �., .. - �Z. GREEN BLV4_. 1. L _+ - c n ncIri AIAr;s. - 3 Aldo C9 t N MINN. VAN 105 �4wA Bows IN I. ;: , 'I IVBB. � Q t mul�' ANN it war A tol EXIT lit A {I tv R 1 {E "i 7c BLVD -- - -- -- ",, _ _ AN lit. N c y� -^ .-1 - -i f -- _ - ��! r FLDCFCS CODES DESCRIPTIONS 100 RESIDENTIAL 155 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (AGRICULTURE OPERATIONS) 210 CROPLAND AND PASTURELAND 214 ROW CROPS 3219 Et PALMETTO PRAIRIE. DISTURBED (0-24 i EXOTICS) 4119 E1 PINE FLATWOODS. DISTURBED (0.24.: EXOTICS) i22 BRAZILIAN PEPPER 4221 BRAZIUAN PEPPER, HYDRIC 4279 E2 LIVE OAK, DISTURBED (25-49:' EXOTICS) 4269E1 CA86AGEPALM. DISTURBED (0-24i EXOTICS) 4299 E4 CABBAGE PALM. DISTURBED (76.100% EXOTICS) 514W DITCH, NrETLAND 530 RESERVOIR 61BOE3 VALLOW, DISTURBED (50.75:, EXOTICS) 6219E3 CYPRESS, DISTURBED (50.75:- EXOTtCS) 6219E4 CYPRESS, DISTURBED (76.100:1 EXOTICS) 6250E3 HYDRIC PINE, DISTURBED (50-75: EXOTICS) 6259E4 HYDRIC PINE, DISTURBED (76,WOF EXOTICS) UM E3 WETLAND MIXED HARDWOOD CONIFER. DISTURBED (50.75.: EXOTICS) 6319E3 NVETLAND S HRUB. DISTURBED (50.75 •i EXOTICS) 8146 UNPAVED ROAD TOTAL �I Yn OF ACREAGE TOTAL 022Ac • 0.09 392Ac o 0A i 219 14 Ac • 21.9 •: 7a6 IBAc • 74.6 4 oolac 0 0.0 1 35Ac r 0.1 209Ac • 0.2: 1 29Ac . 0.1 10, 003Ac 0.0i 1 07 Ac 0.1 i• 054Ac 0.1% 030Ac 0.Di 215Ac 0.2i 261Ac 0.3:• 1 76Ac 0.2:• 5 4BAc 0.5% 041Ac - 0.0i 023Ac 0.0: 007Ac 0,0 •: 232Ac 0.2': B63Ac 0.9 TO: 999,70AI iWO% ) h� 4: 1 ,�,s ., r ` Af ' ' "' If 1 ' I r , APPENDIX B. AERIAL WITH SFWMD FLtICFCS AND WETLANDS MAP LONGWATER LEGEND: SFWMD WETLANDS (14.47 AC.t) SFWMD OTHER SURFACE WATERS (2.15 AC.t) SURVE YED WETLAND LINE NOTES: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF DECEMBER 2018. PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER AGNOLI, BARBER, & BRUNDAGE, INC. DRAWING No.1233SRA05-LWV BOUNDARY-021320.Owc DATED FEBRUARY, 2020. WETLAND LINES PER ABB, INC. DRAWING No.JDL-N-WORKSHEET TO KPI5JUN07.DwG DATED JUNE 159 2007, FLDCFCS LINES ESTIMATED FROM I'=200' AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND LOCATIONS APPROXIMATED. FLDCFCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLDCFCS) (EDDY 1999). H.H. o8/is/i9 PASSARELLA iVIEWED BY DATE Pm:n:i.fa H.H. 02/13/20 APPENDIX C r, _ -� `'IMMOKALIEE DRY"IF la t $' zrl <� rWIMAINtST # Gd, IN 4,04 4f IF U FIN 44 FILL rr If IF PPIFIFF 011, s. .. F - u .� - _ IF • .. .-� 24TH�AVE NE ' is �+S'�y'�j 22NDAVENE Z `20TH AVE NIFNI �f}``�-y°18THAVE'NE. m JUNG BLVD Eli - O - 5 " •'16THAVE NE O �. 'rE'irr'r14TH AVE NE IF 12TH AVE N E 10TH AVE'NE "F, - 4 W w. w w W w .w " 8TH AVE NE, 1', . IF I i IF III ..I- t GTH AVE NE PI �.Y) c i 4TH,�AVE NE -- N .a � �' I ,2NDAV E NE 7_ i ' . i ,.. •I :_ ;q z -.;j . - 1 ---F GOL'DEN'G.ATE'BLVD E- - ` w 'w w w w w 41 w 2ND AVE SE' F p F- !-r F- F-.. F F `'' 4 T H AVE SEP o rn to cn . ( , cn � F x' x• x',S x _ 0 6TH AVE SE m � .O N a N $TH AVE SE % O i _ - 10TH'AVE SE O 12TH AVE SE'. I' o j O� 14TH AVE SE f' ' <y I 16TH AVE SE I ,IF - ,118TH AVE SE _. �.1 20TH-AVE SE'> -I — F.{{. 94� 22ND AVEISEF,, I . pp 24TH AVE-SE , : I ; . BENTON'RD i 26TH•AVE SE.'.' • ... 728TH AVE SE - - 30THAVE SE �T ;0 32ND AVEPSE - • m 34TH'AVE SE vi 36TH AVE SE _ o. -- 38TH•AVE SE �- 40TH AVE SE - 48THFAVEISE j - f 50TH rAVE'SE--i i i; OWN 1w DOCUMENTED LISTED SPECIES LOCATIONS 0 007-2009 AND 2014-2016 SURVEYS) FLORIDA BONNETED BAT ACOUSTIC STATIONS I y,. ,--,1•-33RD•AVE�NE� �,'�"' , -- 31ST-AVE+NE, - I - - -._ I -; 7r-129TH AVE NE-- 5 Ise 4. Am 1f .-I—,+ +-27TH •AV E'N E -- Yi + �a ----RAN DALL BLVDMAP i' { z —f24TH�AVE•NE—O O O w - :. o 22ND$AVE NE 1 F' - I 20TH,AVE,NE--- 1P It T 8TH AVE,NE - �y I i1 7 1 T H PAVE N E - h ' r•"� .fit+---••14TH AVE AN r� .I' II iti Ic - OIL�WELIL RDId "r l 1 :1 77 l it Amb - I h„ -numw nA-- Tiit Fiat,, k !P Ii, I �i i' { 1, i'. it - _ _ D S-5 M S-1 �4 a VIP :j r :i l I:�' ' �r�� �:i �l � . L � t � . � -OIL WFLL ROAD-' APPENDIX F. AERIAL WITH 2O19 SURVEY AREA LONGWATER i H.H. os/15/i9 ftEVIE\�BD BY DATE K.C.P. 08/15/19 RE\�ISED DATE H.H. o2/13/10 ;Q .:; +� t __- - LEGEND: 2019 SURVEY AREA NOTES: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF DECEMBER 2018. PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER AGNOLI, BARBER, 8, BRUNDAGE, INC. DRAWING No.1233SRA05,dd BOUNDARY-021320.DWG DATED FEBRUARY, 2020, PASSARELLA APPENDIX G mlommm, :i I I APPENDIX G. AERIAL WITH SURVEY "TRANSECTS LVNGWATER I � 1 H.H H.S. H.H a LEGEND: APPROXIMATE LOCATION SURVEY TRANSECTS NOTES: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH I THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF DECEMBER 2018. PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER AGNOLI, BARBER, & BRUNDAGE, INC. DRAWING No.1233SRA05-LWV BOUNDARY-021320.owG DATED FEBRUARY, 2020. 08/19/19 PASSARELLA DATE OS/19/19 ��"""'II`r` & ASSOCIATES DATE - Fcn:net.s u OZ/13/20 � � t G a ♦ ♦ PROJECT LOCATION • as �' '• its, • rn • • • • • • i • ' % r�' • • r .' • • i • • L • 1 • • • • • • : y i ♦ ♦ W • • I ela • ♦• ♦♦ • • •so • • • • • ••r° • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • • • • •t'f i .• ••i •• • i • ••• w•6 ♦ Y • • •"• f • • • • • " ♦ ♦ ♦ • • • • N •�•o1•j •w• • i i •' • •A ••• •f • f '• ti • • i•! • • • • i.•• ' • ♦ • • ♦ • 0� • • • • ♦ ♦ A& 1 i • • • * a • *0 • •♦ ' • •• M • '� • se �Y • • •t • • ♦ • ♦ • •• 0 • r• • t •iN• s0 • • ® • • 1 • •wA Its Y ' iiJaa 041 al 0 as st ♦ ♦ ♦ • ••' a 4L i ;f1• jZ1 • •. ♦ • • GOLDEN (ATEB.VD ♦ y * �i ♦ AL • • �• •1 ♦ �•• ♦ • • • • • t•• %.i •, 0 • , Al y. ••• ti ♦ .. 0 • R ti .. I'ah AAl ♦ _ . ♦ . •' '} •• • / :tea" A 48 * f A so All ♦ A ♦of a AL�y~ •t i i•• • is • skill!A ofso • ► AL6 iF as �i !! t ♦ • GAL • ♦ ♦ ♦ • • • • ••• 1 • • • a of H.H. 8/6/19 APPENDIX H. DOCUMENTED OCCURRENCES OF LISTED SPECIES EEVMWsDBY DATE C.C. 8/6/19 LONG WATER BhY6ED DATE H.H. 02/19/20 LEGEND LONGWATER BALD EAGLE NEST k CRESTED CARACARA LOCATIONS • FLORIDA PANTHER TELEMETRY ♦ FWCC BLACK BEAR LOCATIONS ® FWCC WADING BIRD LOCATIONS N R 0 1 2 Mllea NOTES: EAGLE NEST LOCATIONS WERE ACQUIRED FROM THE FWCC SEPTEMBER 2017 AND ARE CURRENT TO APRIL 2016, BLACK BEAR LOCATIONS WERE ACQUIRED FROM THE FWCC OECEMBER 2017 AND ARE CURRENT TO 2007, CRESTED CARACARA LOCATIONS WERE ACQUIRED FROM THE USFWS AUGUST 2017 AND ARE CURRENT TO 2016. PANTHER TELEMETRY WAS ACQUIRED FROM THE FWCC SEPTEMBER 2018 AND IS CURRENT TO JUNE 2018, RED -COCKADED WOODPECKER LOCATIONS WERE ACQUIRED PER THE FWCC AUGUST 2017. PASSARELLA ``�:`I�,y & ASSOCIATES ud��> APPENDIX I AERIAL WITH 2O19 LISTED SPECIES SURVEY LOCATIONS — _ - � ; of — 5 LEGEND �4 I t IIA I.14o 44'0I . IAAA;AI I AA LONGWATERs `' PIA aI IA.AA ACoAI \� - - - - - LISTED SPECIES SURVEY 2019 - _ __. _-- j� Fi ` „nL IA Jf IA IA Al Af . r= e - II AMERICAN ALLIGATOR r -- -- - - ' T _ �r nc{�� t �t+"•"�''c'�*� s 4 - 6;11 AT AMERICAN ALLIGATOR NEST I � f 1f .,_ . fAA AA yy?' AMERICAN ALLIGATOR SIGN f ` { y�. r. 0 ENCYCLIA TEMPENSIS ----- 'y F; 0 1,0�00 21000 ,' ,. p eF lr FLORIDA PANTHER TRACK _ - _ __ kL t ' IAI Ioo AofAdA - — F et oeRAN., O FLORIDA SANDHILL CRANE P:` { 4. `4` 0 O LITTLE BLUE HERON =-- -- - - —:;yam �+ - r XXh h toA _. - k r ., t Ar O ROSEATE SPOONBILL f F ; 1 � O TILLANDSIA BALBISIANA - - — --------- „ , 41 1Ik A.j w TILLANDSIA FASCICULATA , +�' - d O TILLANDSIA UTRICULALA -- -_.. -- r( ` } O TRI-COLOR HERON i -� - 4 tai lR i— -_ - - _ I l , , O WOOD STORK -- - - PROJECT 1 y, LOCATION t -s <<i i R - ' - �- J A_ a } r! �..�7 __— __. ___ --— —_._ _ f A UW �U.13 1.." • I'I + — -- l 'J rat _ r —1 , ° 11 sl( ''( l,llilli1 11; j'°t'4 �,1y't 1 �, �'�� __- ' ° 1:.1 l l 1 ,�,. �li,l 1 l�h i Q ffrvi �11 1 ) :. _ ==� rA wN V f. q ,, ' I`. I'fr -�, f e-I = - _ a ° ° - - V - - t / �f ® --°° ° o �1 O p !, I 14 - _ -_ - ° If A IA AA F;�TV �O .i 1ti �....t - - t - - If 9 _I x r I Q'J, ?'s _ 1 f ;y - 1 'r 8 � � ..t ,.1 11 I f � �AA A If A a a APPENDIX I. AERIAL WITH 2O19 LISTED SPECIES LOCATIONS LONGWATER DAAWN BY / REVffNED BY C.C. H.H. to AT NOTES: e AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH ryti ' THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE t �• - ---. __ WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF DECEMBER 2018. PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER AGNOLI1 BARBER, & 1'. BRUNDAGE, INC. DRAWING No.1233SRA05-LWV BOUNDARY-021320-owo DATED FEBRUARY, 2020, 8/6/19 DATE- �ASSARELLA 8/6/19 Consulting DACE - = _��°,°Ei'" cS�. ASSOCIATES /i9/20 NOTES: e AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH ryti ' THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE t �• - ---. __ WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF DECEMBER 2018. PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER AGNOLI1 BARBER, & 1'. BRUNDAGE, INC. DRAWING No.1233SRA05-LWV BOUNDARY-021320-owo DATED FEBRUARY, 2020, 8/6/19 DATE- �ASSARELLA 8/6/19 Consulting DACE - = _��°,°Ei'" cS�. ASSOCIATES /i9/20 BASELINE OUTPUT LEGEND LONG WATER SOILS GRID CELL CENTROID VALUE 0 i 0.2 0.3 S 0 400 800 Feet 2020 OUTPUT NOTES: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF DECEMBER 2018. DR_Y\\R7 BY unit SHEET 1 OF 2. AERIAL WITH BASELINE AND 2020 SOILS F.L. 5/is/2o REVIEIVED BY Dn� - �AS SA R E L LA SURFACE WATER INDEX H.S. 5/ 15/2o cusulng A J IAT ES LONGWATER REVISED DnrE °' A BASELINE OUTPUT s Q O 0 •. C f C .. C C G O _ � N N S • • � .. B Q ' Q C] S 0 N O N N O H N O N O N 1 Q Z a 2020 OUTPUT C E € f C G € f C f C f 6 G lei G f f _ f c 1 f i e • s � s e • � r C C € 1. C C f NOTES: E AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF DECEMBER 2018. S O Feet 400 800 O 0 SHEET 2 OF 2. AERIAL WITH BASELINE AND 2020 SOILS a SURFACE WATER INDEX LONGWATER N_ 7 DR.41VN BY DATE F.L• 5/15/20 REVIEIVED BY DATE �AS SAR E L LA Comke tin REVISED DATE _ EaoloNi ASSOCIATES J SOU I ri FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT MODIFICATION NO.11-01178.5 DATE ISSUED: MAY 14I 2012 RSV. 07/09 PERMITTEE: COLLIER ENTERPRISES MANAGEMENT INC (CAMP KEAIS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT) 975 NEW HARVEST ROAD, IMMOKALEE, FL 34143 ORIGINAL PERMIT ISSUED: JANUARY 13, 1994 ORIGINAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION:CONSTRUCTIONIOPERAT[ON OF A SWM SYSTEM TO SERVE AN 11074.7 ACRE AGRICULTURAL PROJECT DISCHARGING TO FAKAHATCHEE STRAND VIA STUMPY STRAND AND CAMP KEAIS STRAND. APPROVED MODIFICATION. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION AUTHORIZATION OF A SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO SERVE AN 11,649.40 ACRE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS CAMP KEAIS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT WITH DISCHARGE TO THE FAKAHATCHEE STRAND VIA STUMPY STRAND AND CAMP KEAIS STRAND, PROJECT LOCATION. COLLIER COUNTY , SECTION 20 27 34 36 TWP 48S RGE 28E SECTION 12 310 11 15 22 TWP 49S RGE.28E PERMIT DURATION: See Special Condition No:1. Pursuant to Rule 40E4.321, Florida Administrative Code. This is to notify you of the District's agency action concerning Permit Application No. 120209-2, dated February 9, 2012. This action is #aken pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and the Operation Agreement Concerning Regulation Under Part IV, Chapter 373 F.S., between South Florida Water Management District and the Department of Environmental Protection. Based on the information provided, District rules have been adhered to and an Environmental Resource Permit Modification is in effect for this project subject to: 1. Not receiving a filed request for an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57 and Section 120.569, or request a judicial review pursuant Section 120.681 Florida Statutes. 2. The attached 19 General Conditions. 3. The attached 20 Special Conditions. 4. The attached 3 Exhibits. Should you object to these conditions, please refer to the attached "Notice of Rights" which addresses the procedures to be followed if you desire a public hearing or other review of the proposed agency action. Should you wish to abject to the proposed agency action or file a petition, please provide written objections, petitions and/or waivers to: Elizabeth Veguilla, Deputy Clerk, MSC2440 South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 334164680 Please contact this office if you have any questions concerning this matter. If we do not he from you in accordance with the "Notice of Rights", we will assume that you concur with the District's action. CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the Staff Report, Conditions and Notice of Rights have been mailed to the Permittee (and the persons listed on the attached staff report distribution list) no later than 5:00 p.m. on this 15th day %J May, 2012, in accordance with Section 120.60{3), Florida Statutes, and a copy has been filed and acknowledged with the Deputy District Clerk. DEPU Y CLERK SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Attachments PAGE 1 OF 7 1. 2. 3. PERMIT NO: 11-01178-5 SPECIAL CONDITIONS The construction phase of this permit shall expire on May 140 2017. Operation of the surface water management system shall be the responsibility of the permittee. Discharge Facilities: Basin: WS4Q 1-70000gpm with pump on at elev. 12.5' NGVD 29 and with pump off at elev. 11.5'NGVD 29. Receiving body : Basin R4 Control elev : 15 feet NGVD 29, Basin: WS4P 1-52500gpm with pump on at elev. elev. 11.5'NGVD 29. Receiving body : Basin 4P Control elev : 15 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WSSA 1-60000gpm with pump on at elev. elev. 14'NGVD 29. Receiving body : Basin R5 Control elev : 16.5 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WSSB 1-60QQQgpm with pump on at elev. elev. 14'NGVD 29. Receiving body : Basin R5 Control elev : 16.5 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WSSC 1-425QOgpm with pump on at elev. elev, 13'NGVD 29. Receiving body : Basin R5 Control elev : 15 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WSSD 1-35000gpm with pump on at elev. elev. 13'NGVD 29. Receiving body : Basin R5 Control elev : 15 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WS6C 1-700QQgpm with pump on at elev. elev. 11'NGVD 29. Receiving body : Basin R6 Control elev : 14.5 feet NGVD 29. 12.5' NGVD 29 and with pump off at 15' NGVD 29 and with pump off at 15' NGVD 29 and with pump off at 14' NGVD 29 and with pump off at 14' NGVD 29 and with pump off at 12' NGVD 29 and with pump off at Basin: R6, Structure: D20A 1-60' WIDE SHARP CRESTED weir with crest at elev. 17.1' NGVD 29, 90 LF of 54" dia. CORRUGATED METAL PIPE culvert. Receiving body : Basin WS8D PAGE 2 OF 7 PERMIT NO: 11-01178-S PAGE30F7 Control elev : 14.5 feet NGVD 29. Basin: R61 Structure: D24 1-60' WIDE SHARP CRESTED weir with crest at elev. 16.4' NGVD 29. 90 LF of 54" dia. CORRUGATED METAL PIPE culvert. Receiving body : Basin R8 Control elev : 14.5 feet NGVD 29. Basin: R8, Structure: D178 75 LF of 30" dia. CORRUGATED METAL PIPE culvert. 148" dia, drop inlet with crest at elev. 14' NGVD 29. Receiving body : Stumpy Strand Control elev : 14 feet NGVD 29, Basin: R8, Structure: D20B 1-60' WIDE SHARP CRESTED weir with crest at elev. 16 NGVD 29. 90 LF of 54" dia. CORRUGATED METAL PIPE culvert. Receiving body : Basin WS8A Control elev : 14 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WS4G 1-17500UPI with pump on at elev elev. 13'NGVD 29. Receiving body : Basin R4 Control elev : 15 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WS4H 1-17500cfs with pump on at elev. elev. 13'NGVD 29. Receiving body : Basin R4 Control elev : 15 feet NGVD 29, 14' NGVD 29 and with pump off at 14' NGVD 29 and with pump off at Basin: WS41 1-17500gpm with pump on at elev elev. 12.5'NGVD 29. Receiving body : Basin R4 Control elev : 15 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WS4J 1-17500gpm with pump on at elev. elev. 12'NGVD 29. Receiving body : Basin R4 Control elev : 15 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WS4K 1-17500gpm with pump on at elev. elev. 11.5'NGVD 29. Receiving body : Basin R4 Control elev : 15 feet NGVD 29, 13.5' NGVD 29 and with pump off at 13' NGVD 29 and with pump off at 12.5' NGVD 29 and with pump off at Basin: WS4L 1-17500gpm with pump on at elev. 12.5' NGVD 29 and with pump off at elev. 11.5'NGVD 29. Receiving body : Basin R4 Control elev : 14.5 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WS4M 1-17500gpm with pump on at elev elev. 12'NGVD 29. Receiving body : Basin R4 Control elev : 15 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WS$A 1-25000gpm with pump on at elev. elev. 11.5'NGVD 29. Receiving body : Basin R8 Control elev : 14 feet NGVD 29. 13' NGVD 29 and with pump off at 12.5' NGVD 29 and with pump off at PERMIT N0: 11-01178-5 PAGE 4 OF 7 4. The permittee shall be responsible for the correction of any erosion, shoaling or water quality problems that result from the construction or operation of the surface water management system. 5. Measures shall be taken during construction to insure that sedimentation andlor turbidity violations do not occur in the receiving water. 6. The District reserves the right to require that additional water quality treatment methods be incorporated into the drainage sys#em if such measures are shown to be necessary. 7. Facilities other than those stated herein shall not be constructed without an approved modification of this permit. 8. Astable, permanent and accessible elevation reference shall be established on or within one hundred (100) feet of all permitted discharge structures no later than the submission of the certification report. The location of the elevation reference must be noted on or with the certification report. 9. The permittee shall provide routine maintenance of all of the components of the surface water management system in order to remove ail trapped sedimentsldebris. Ail materials shall be properly disposed of as required by law. Failure to properly maintain the system may result in adverse flooding conditions. 10. If prehistoric or historic artifacts, such as pottery or ceramics, stone tools or metal implements, dugout canoes, or any other physical remains that could be associated with Native American cultures, or early colonial or American settlement are encountered at any time within the project site area, the permitted project should cease all activities involving subsurface disturbance in the immediate vicinity of such discoveries. The permittee, or other designee, should contact the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Review and Compliance Section at (850) 245-6333 or (800) 847-7278, as well as the appropriate permitting agency office. Project activities should not resume without verbal and/or written authorization from the Division of Historical Resources. In the event that unmarked human remains are encountered during permitted activities, all work shall stop immediately and the proper authorities notified in accordance with Section 872.05, Florida Statutes. 11. The permittee acknowledges that, pursuant to Rule 40E-4.101(2), F.A.C., a notice of Environmental Resource or Surface Water Management Permit may be recorded in the county public records. Pursuant #o the specific language of the rule, this notice shall not be considered an encumbrance upon the property. 12. Land use within the permitted facilities is agricultural. Any proposed change in land use or crop type may require modification of this permit and must be reported to the District for a determination of permit requirements. 13. The exhibits and special conditions in this permit apply only to this application. They do not supersede or delete any requirements for other applications covered in Permit No. 11-01178-S unless otherwise specified herein. PERMIT NO: 11-01178-S PAGE50F7 14. Endangered species, threatened species andlor species of special concern have been observed onsite andlor the project contains suitable habitat for these species. it shall be the permittee's responsibility to coordinate with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for appropriate guidance, recommendations and/or necessary permits to avoid impacts to listed species. 15. A monitoring program shall be implemented in accordance with Exhibit No. 3.2-3.3. The monitoring program shall extend for a period of 5 years with annual reports submitted to District staff. At the end of the first monitoring period the mitigation area shall contain an 80°!o survival of planted vegetation. The 80% survival rate shall be maintained throughout the remainder of the monitoring program, with replanting as necessary. If native wetland, transitional, and upland species do not achieve an 80% coverage within the initial two years of the monitoring program, native species shall be planted in accordance with the maintenance program. At the end of the 5 year monitoring program the entire mitigation area shall contain an 80% survival of planted vegetation and an 80% coverage of desirable obligate and facultative wetland species. 16. A maintenance program shall be implemented in accordance with Exhibit No. 3.2 for the preserved/ehanced wetland/upland areas on a regular basis to ensure the integrity and viability of those areas as permitted. Maintenance shall be conducted in perpetuity to ensure that the conservation areas are maintained free from Category 1 exotic vegetation (as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council at the time of permit issuance) immediately following a maintenance activity. Maintenance in perpetuity shall also insure that conservation areas, including buffers, maintain the species and coverage of native, desirable vegetation specified in the permit. Coverage of exotic and nuisance plant species shall not exceed 5% of total cover between maintenance activities. In addition, the permittee shall manage the conservation areas such that exotic/nuisance plant species do not dominate any one section of those areas. 17. Activities associated with the implementation of the mitigation, monitoring and maintenance plan{s) shall be completed in accordance with the work schedule attached as Exhlbl# No. 3.3. Any deviation from these time frames will require prior approval from the District's Environmental Resource Compliance staff. Such requests must be made in writing and shall include (1) reason for the change, (2) proposed start/finish and/or completion dates, and (3) progress report on the status of the project development or mitigation effort. Prior to the initiation of wetland impacts that have been identified to be offset wtih Mitigation Phases 3-4 (47.44 acres of PFFW consisting of areas S-4 and S-2), modifications of the work schedule to include the appropriate Phase will be required to be submitted to District Envirommneta) Compliance staff. 18. The District reserves the right to require remedial measures to be taken by the permittee if monitoring or other information demonstrates that adverse impacts to onsite or offsite wetlands, upland conservation areas or buffers, or other surface waters have occurred due to project related activities. 19. The delineation of the extent of wetlands and/or other surface waters located within the limits of the proposed development and the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology {UMAM) scores shall be considered binding. A total of 32.78 UMAM functional units will be required to offset any future impacts to the 72.17 acres of hydric farm fields (PFFWs S-1 and S-3) depicted on Exhibit 3.0 for any modification to the surface water managment system authorized by the permit to a nonagricultural use which would cause a permanent loss of ecological functions provided by these PFFWs. 20. A mitigation program for Camp Keias shall be implemented in accordance with Exhibit No. 3.2. Phase 1 and 2 of the mitigation plan offsets 9.93 acres of direct wetland impacts and 30.39 acres of secondary wetland impacts. Phases 3 and 4 offset impacts to 47.44 acres of PFFWs S-2 and S4. The remaining 72.17 acres of PFFWs S-1 and S-3 will need to be mitigated in accordance with Special Condition No. 19. PERMIT NO: 11-01178-S PAGE 6 pF 7 LIMITING CQNDITIC?NS 1. The permittee shall implement the work authorized in a manner so as to minimize any adverse impact of the works on fish, wildlife, natural environmental values, and water quality. The permittee shall institute necesssary measures during the construction period, including full compaction of any fill material placed around newly installed structures, to reduce erosion, turbidity, nutrient loading and sedimentation in the receiving waters. 2. Water quality data for the water discharged from the permittee's property or into surface waters of the State will be submitted to the District as required by Section 5.9, "Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within South Florida Water Management District". Parameters to be monitored may include those listed in Chapter 62-302, F.A.G.. If water quality data is required, the permittee shall provide data on volumes of water discharged, including total volume discharged during the days of sampling and total monthly discharges from the property or into surface waters of the State. 3. This permit shall not relieve the permittee of any obligation to obtain necessary federal, State, local or special district approvals. 4. The operation phase of this permit will not become effective until the District's acceptance of certification of the completed surface water management system. The permittee shall request transfer of the permit to the responsible operation entity accepted by the District, if different from the permittee. The transfer request can be submitted concurrently with the construction completion certification. 5. All road elevations shall be set in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section 6.5, "Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within South Florida Water Management District". 6. All building floor elevations shall be set in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section 6.4, "Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within South Florida Water Management District ". 7. Off -site discharges during construction and development will be made only through the facilities authorized by this permit. 8. A permit transfer to the operation phase shall not occur until a responsible entity meeting the requirement in Section 9.0, "Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within South Florida Water Management District" has been established to operate and maintain the system. The entity must be provided with sufficient ownership or legal interest so that it has control over all water management facilities authorized herein. 9. The permit does not convey to the permittee any property rights or privileges other than those specified in the permit and Chapter 40E-4, F.A.C.. 10. The permittee shall hold and save the District harmless from any and all damages, claims, or liabilities which may arise by reason of the construction, operation, maintenance or use of any facility authorized by the permit. 11. This permit is issued based on the applicant's submitted information which reasonably demonstrates that adverse water resource related impacts will not be caused by the completed permit activity, Should any adverse impacts caused by the completed surface water management system occur, the District will require the permittee to provide appropriate mitigation to the District or other impacted party, The District will require the permittee to modify the surface water management system, if necessary, to eliminate the cause of the adverse impacts. 12. Within 30 days of issuance of this permit, the permittee or authorized agent shall notify the District (via the supplied construction commencement notice or equivalent} of the actual or anticipated construction start date and the expected completion date. 13. When the duration of construction exceeds one year, the permittee or authorized agent shall submit construction status reports on an annual basis (via the supplied annual status report or equivalent) beginning one year after the initial commencement of construction, PERMIT NO: 11-01178-S PAGE 7 QF 7 14. Wlthln 3fl days after completion of construction of the surface water management system, the permittee or authorized agent shall file a written statement of completion and certification by a Florida registered professional engineer. These statements must specify the actual date of construction completion and must certify that all facilities have been constructed in substantial conformance with the plans and specifications approved by the District (via the supplied construction completion/certification or equivalent). The construction completion certification must include, at a minimum, existing elevations, locations and dimensions of the components of the water management facilities. Additionally, if deviations from the approved drawings are discovered during the certification process, the certification must be accompanied by a copy of the approved permit drawings with deviations noted. 15. Within 30 days of any sale, conveyance or other Transfer of any of the land which is proposed for development under the authorization of this permit, the permittee shall notify the District of such transfer in writing via either Form 0483, Request for Permit Transfer, or Form 0920, Request for Transfer of Surface Water Managment Construction Phase to Operation Phase (to be completed and submitted by the operating entity), in accordance with Sections 40&1.6105 AND 40E4.351, F.A.C.. 16. A prorated share of surface water management retentionldetention areas, sufficient to provide the required flood protection and water quality treatment, must be provided prior to occupancy of any building or residence. 17. Astable, permanent and accessible elevation reference shall be established on or within one hundred (1 flfl} feet of all permitted discharge structures no later than the submission of the certification report. The location of the elevation reference must be noted on or with the certification report. 18. If* the responsibility of the permittee to insure that adverse off -site water resource related impacts do not occur during construction. 19. The permittee must obtain on Water Use permit prior to construction dewatering, unless the work qualifies for a general permit pursuant to Subsection 40E-20.3fl2(4}, F.A.C.. NOTICE OF RIGHTS As required by Sections 120.569(1), and 120.60(3), rid. Stat., following is notice of the opportunities which may be available for administrative hearing or judicial review when the substantial interests of a party are determined by an agency. Please note that this Notice of Rights is not intended to provide legal advice. Not all the legal proceedings detailed below may be an applicable or appropriate remedy. You may wish to consult an attorney regarding your legal rights. RIGHT TQ REQUEST ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING A person whose substantial interests are or may be affected by the South Florida Water Management District's (SFWMD or District) action has the right to request an administrative hearing on that action pursuant to Sections 120,569 and 120.57, Fla, Stat. Persons seeking a hearing on a District decision which does or may determine their substantial interests shall file a petition for hearing with the District Clerk within 21 days of receipt of written notice of the decision, unless one of the following shorter time periods apply: 1) within 14 days of the notice of consolidated intent to grant or deny concurrently reviewed applications for environmental resource permits and use of sovereign submerged lands pursuant to Section 373,427, Fla. Stat., or 2) within 14 days of service of an Administrative Order pursuant to Subsection 373.119(1), Fla. Stat. "Receipt of written notice of agency decision" means receipt of either written notice through mail, or electronic mail, or posting that the District has or intends to take final agency action, or publication of notice that the District has or intends to take final agency action. Any person who receives written notice of a SFWMD decision and fails to file a written request for hearing within the timeframe described above waives the right to request a hearing on that decision. Filing Ins#ructions The Petition must be filed with the Office of the District Clerk of the SFWMD. Filings with the District Clerk may be made by mail, hand -delivery or facsimile. Filings by a -mall will not be accepted. Any person wishing to receive a clerked copy with the date and time stamped must provide an additional copy. A petition for administrative hearing is deemed filed upon receipt during normal business hours by the District Clerk at SFWMD headquarters in West Palm Beach, Florida. Any document received by the office of the SFWMD Clerk after 5*00 p.m. shall be filed as of 8*00 a.m. on the next regular business day. Additional filing instructions are as follows: • Filings by mail must be addressed to the Office of the SFWMD Clerk, P.O. Box 24680, West Palm Beach, Florida 33416. • Filings by hand -delivery must be delivered to the Office of the SFWMD Clerk. Delivery of a petition to the SFWMD's security desk does not constitute filing, To ensure proper filing, it will be necessary to request the SFWMD's security officer to contact the Clerk's office. An employee of the SFWMD's Clerk's office will receive and file the petition. Filings by facsimile must be transmitted to the SFWMD Clerk's Office at (561) 68U010. Pursuant to Subsections 28-106.104(7)1 (8) and (9), Fla. Admin. Code, a party who files a document by facsimile represents that the original physically signed document will be retained by that party for the duration of that proceeding and of any subsequent appeal or subsequent proceeding in that cause. Any party who elects to file any document by facsimile shall be responsible for any delay, disruption, or interruption of the electronic signals and accepts the full risk that the document may not be properly filed with the clerk as a result. The fling date for a document filed by facsimile shall be the date the SFWMD Clerk receives the complete document. Rev, 4T14412U49 1 Initiation of'an Administrative Hearing Pursuant to Rules 28406.201 and 28-106.301, Fla. Admin. Code, initiation of an administrative hearing shall be made by written petition to the SFWMD in legible form and on 8 and 1/2 by 11 inch white paper. All petitions shall contain: 1. Identification of the action being contested, including the permit number, application number, District file number or any other SFWMD identification number, if known. 2. The name, address and telephone number of the petitioner and petitioner's representative, if any. 3. An explanation of how the petitioner's substantial interests will be affected by the agency determination. 4. A statement of when and how the petitioner received notice of the SFWMD's decision. S, A statement of all disputed issues of material fact. If there are none, the petition must so indicate, 6. A concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged, including the specific facts the petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the SFWMD's proposed action. 7. A statement of the specific rules or statutes the petitioner contends require reversal or modification of the SFWMD's proposed action, 8. If disputed issues of material fact exist, the statement must also include an explanation of how the alleged facts relate to the specific rules or statutes. 9. A statement of the relief sought by the petitioner, stating precisely the action the petitioner wishes the SFWMD to take with respect to the SFWMD's proposed action, A person may file a request far an extension of time for filing a petition. The SFWMD may, for good cause, grant the request. Requests for extension of time must be filed with the SFWMD prior to the deadline for filing a petition for hearing. Such requests for extension shall contain a certificate that the moving party has consulted with all other parties concerning the extension and that the SFWMD and any other parties agree to or oppose the extension, A timely request for extension of time shall toll the running of the time period for filing a petition until the request is acted upon. If the District takes action with substantially different impacts on water resources from the notice of intended agency decision, the persons who may be substantially affected shall have an additional point of entry pursuant to Rule 28.106.111, Fla, Admin. Code, unless otherwise provided by law. Mediation The procedures for pursuing mediation are set forth in Section 120.573, Fla. Stat., and Rules 28-106.111 and 28-106,401-.405, Fla. Admin. Code. The SFWMD is not proposing mediation for this agency action under Section 120,673, Fla. Stat., at this time. RlCHTT4 SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW Pursuant to Sections 120.60{3} and 120.6t3, Fla. Stat,, a party who is adversely affected by final SFWMD action may seek judicial review of the SFWMD's final decision by filing a notice of appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110 in the Fourth District Court of Appeal or in the appellate district where a party resides and filing a second copy of the notice with the SFWMD Clerk within 30 days of rendering of the final SFWMD action. Rev. 07lQ1l2449 2 erp_staff report.rdf FINAL AYYKUVED IS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MAI' 14, 2012 Last Date For Agency Action: ,tune 10, 2012 INDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT STAFF REPORT Project Name: Camp Keats Agricultural Development Permit No.: 11-01178=S Application No.: 120209-2 Application Type: Environmental Resource (Construction/Operation Modification} Location: Collier County, S20 27 34 36/T48S/R28E S 12 310 11 15 22lT49S/R28E Permittee : Collier Enterprises Management Inc Operating Entity : Collier Enterprises Management Inc Project Area: 11,649.40 acres Project Land Use: Agricultural Drainage Basin: WEST COLLIER Sub Basin: FAKAHATCHEE STRAND Receiving Body: Fakahatchee Strand via Stumpy Strand and Camp Keats Class: CLASS III Strand Special Drainage District: NA Total Acres Wetland Onsite: Total Acres Wetland Preserved Onsite: Total Acres Impacted Onsite Total Acres PresvlMit Compensation Onsite: Mitigation Previously Permitted: Yes Conservation Easement To District : No Sovereign Submerged Lands: No PRt},IECT PURPOSE; :: 5483.25 5395.49 57.37 5405.12 This application is a request for a Permit modifica#ion to authorize Construction and Operation of a surface water management system to serve an 11,649.40 acre agricultural development known as Camp Keats Agricultural Development with discharge to the Fakahatchee Strand via Stumpy Strand and Camp Keats Strand. App.no.: 120209-2 Page 1 of 21 erp_staff report.rdf PROJECT EVALUATION: PRUJt:t; SITE DESCRIPTION: The Camp Keais Agricultural Devebpment is located in north Collier County, approximately ten miles southwest of Immokalee, Florida, adjacent to Camp Keais Strand slough. It is an 11,649.40-acre agricultural project that discharges to Fakahatchee Strand. The Golden Gate Estates residential development is located to the west of the property. The north border of the project, and interface with the adjoining Shaggy Cypress Agricultural Development project (Shaggy Cypress), is County Road 858 (CR 858/O11 Well Road). A location map is attached as Exhibit 1.0. The overalt project includes 5,483.25 acres of wetlands, 19.70 acres of surface waters, and 682.05 acres of native upland habitat. The wetlands extend north, south, and east of the property. Wetland habitats include willow marshes, cypress domes, pine/cypress/cabbage palm, hydric pine, hydric cabbage palm, mixed conifer wetlands, and freshwater marshes. Native upland habitats include pine flatwoods with pine, cabbage palm and live oak. Pursuant to Application No. 060803-2, the agricultural area includes 119.61 acres of permitted farm fields that were, at the time of the wetland delineation, fallow, and which exhibited characteristics under Rule 62-340 that constituted delineation as wetland. The proposed project includes some minor site changes to accommodate desired modifications to the agricultural operations of the site. On February 12, 2009, a major modification (Application No. 060803- 2} was issued over the agricultural portion of the property. Numerous internal structures, pumps, emergency structures, and outfall structures were established for the site. Since that time, the agricultural users have identified a few minor adjustments to better accommodate the agricultural operations on -site. The minor adjustments generally consist of the relocation of reservoir dikes into the farm fields to expand the reservoir areas and capabilities of several pumps. The structures identified in the current modification are being revised while the other structures from the previous application will remain as currently permitted. Stormwater continues to discharge offslte to the Fakahatchee Strand via Stumpy Strand and Camp Keais Strandas previously permitted by the District. The construction drawings consisting of the sub -basin maps, typical sections, reservoir plans, and Stormwater conveyance details are included as Exhibit 2A. The proposed modifications to the agricultural development plan do not result in new wetland impacts and do not change the previously approved footprint of the agricultural area. The Curren# application updates the mitigation schedule and modifies the mitigation plan into four (4) phases in order to tie specific wetland impacts to corresponding mitigation acreage (Exhibit 3.0). Application No. 060803-2 included mitigation for 9.93 acres of direct wetland impacts from the construction of storm water reservoir impoundments and 30.39 acres of secondary impacts to wetlands isolated in the farm fields. In addition, impacts to wetland functions provided by two existing permitted farm fields that may be converted to non-agricultural use in the future were included in the mitigation plan. As part of the wetland delineation in Application No. 060803-2, four (4) fallow farm fields encompassing 119.61 acres were designated as "permitted farm fields - wet" or PFFWs. These areas do not require mitigation for the continuing use of the areas under permitted agricultural operations. However, land use conversion of the PFFWs to non-agricultural use is anticipated in the future. Impacts to these areas by the conversion to non-agricultural uses were determined to require mitigation. The previously approved mitigation plan (Application No. 060803-2) to preserve and enhance 332.38 acres of wetlands and 9.62 acres of uplands generates enough functional gain to offset the 9.93 acres of direct and the 30.39 acres of secondary impacts to wetlands as well as mitigation for potential future impacts to App.no.: 120209-2 Page 2 of 21 erp_staff_report.raT PFFW Nos. S-2 and S-4 (47.44 acres}. Future conversion of the remaining two of the four PFFWs, S-1 (25.93 acres} and S-3 (46.24 acres), was not accounted for in the current mitigation plan. Any future impacts not associated with permitted agricultural practices to PFFWs &II and S-3 (total 72.17 acres) will require 32.78 functional units, per the previously approved mitigation analysis (Special Condition No. 19). As currently proposed, the boundary of the pending mixed -use development known as the Town of Big Cypress (Application No. 080103-6) includes the southernmost portions of Shaggy Cypress (Basins WS7C, WS7D, and R7) and the northwest portions of Camp Keais Agricultural Developments (Basins WS1A, WS1B, W31C, WS1D, WS1E, WS2, WS4A, WS4B3WS4C, WS4D, WS4E, W4F, W41, R1, R1A, RIB and R4). There are no Camp Keias PFFWs within the footprint of the Town of Big Cypress. The approximate boundary of the Town of Big Cypress as proposed under Application No. 080103-6 with respect to Camp Keals is shown on Exhibit 3.1. The current application does not change the previously approved 0.78 acres of direct impacts to other surface waters. Discharge Rate The project has been designed to provide attenuation under post development conditions. The anticipated project total post -development peak discharge during the 25 year, 3 day storm event of 289.1 cfs has been determined to be less than the allowable discharge rate of 304.2 cfs based on previously permitted allowable rate of 0.032 cfs/acre for the 4,253.0 acre portion of Shaggy Cypress agricultural area (Permit No. 11-00112-S) as well as the 0.027 cfs/acre for the 6,230.8 acres of agricultural development associated with the current application. affsite Flows: The current application provides conveyance for 4,253.0 acres of offsite flow area associated with the Shaggy Cypress (Permit No. 11-00112-5}Agricultural Development. App,no.: 120209-2 Page 3 of 21 erp_staff_report.rdf Control Elevation : Basin Area CtI Elev WSWT Ctrl Elev Method Of (Acres) (ft, NGVD 29) (ft, NGVD 29) Determination WS4N 144.60 15 Previously Permitted NS4O 266.40 15 Previously Permitted WS4P 161.30 15 Previously Permitted WSSA 188.20 16.5 Previously Permitted WSSB 231.60 16.5 Previously Permitted WSSC 83.90 15 Previously Permitted WSSD 99.60 15 Previously Permitted WSSE 71.20 15 Previously Permitted R5 262.70 15 Previously Permitted WS6A 160.30 14.5 Previously Permitted WS6C 200.30 14.5 Previously Permitted R6 126,00 14.5 Previously Permitted R8 317.40 14 Previously Permitted WS4G 72420 15 Previously Permitted WS4H 75.10 15 Previously Permitted WS41 102.40 15 Previously Permitted WS4J 101.30 15 Previously Permitted WS4K 87.70 15 Previously Permitted WS4L 50.30 14.5 Previously Permitted WS4M 108.10 15 Previously Permitted NSBA 160.20 14 Previously Permitted Receiving Body Basin Ws4o Ws4p Ws5a Ws5b Ws5C Ws5d Ws6C 16 R6 R8 R8 Ws4g Ws4h Ws4i Ws4j Ws4k Ws41 Ws4m App.no.: 120209-2 5tr.# Receiving Body WS4 Basin R4 O-P WS4P-P Basin R5 WSMA P Basin R5A WSSB-P Basin R5 WSSC-P Basin R5 WSMD P Basin R5 WSKC P Basin R6 D20A Basin WS6B D24 Basin R8 D17B Stumpy Strand D20B Basin WSBA WS4G-P Basin R4 WS4H-P Basin R4 WS41-P Basin R4 WS4J-P Basin R4 WS41<-P Basin R4 WS41.-P Basin R4 WS4M-P Basin R4 Page A of 21 erp_start report.rat Receiving Body : Basin Ws8a Str.# WS8A-P Discharge Structures: Note: The units for all the elevation values of structures are (ft, NGVD 29) Culverts: Basin Str# Count Type Width Length Dia. R8 D17B 1 Corrugated Metal Pipe 75' 30" Inlets: Basin Str# Count Type Width Length Dia. Crest Elev. RS 0176 1 Circular Drop Inlet 48" 14 Emergency Structures: Note: The units for all the elevation values of structures are (ft, NGVD 29) Culverts: Basin Str# Count Type Width Length Dia. R6 D20A 1 Corrugated Metal Pipe 90, 54" R8 D20B 1 Corrugated Metal Pipe 90, 54" Weirs: Basin Str# Count Type Width Height Length Dias Elev. RP R6 D20A 1 Sharp Crested 60' 17.1 (crest) R8 D20B 1 Sharp Crested 60' 16 (crest) SWM(Internal) Structures: Note: The units for all the elevation values of structures are ( ft, NGVD 29) Culverts: Basin Str# Count Type Width Length Dia. R6 D24 1 Corrugated Metal Pipe 90, 54" Pumps: Basin Str# Count Type Capacity Elev. WS4G WS4G-P 1 Pump 17500gp 14 (on) / 13 (off) m WS4H WS4WP 1 Pump 17500cfs 14 (on)113 (off) WS41 WS4kP 1 Pump 17500gp 13.5 (on)1 12.5 m (off} WS4J WS4J-P 1 Pump 17500gp 13 (on) / 12 (off) m WS4K WS4K-P 1 Pump 17500gp 12.5 (on)1 11.5 m (off) WS4L WS4L-P 1 Pump 17500gp 12.5 (on)1 11.5 m (off) iNS4M WS41VI-P 1 Pump 17500gp 13 (on) ! 12 (off) m WS40 WS40-P 1 Pump 70000gp 12.5 (on) ! 11.5 m (off) WS4P WS4P-P 1 Pump 52500gp 12.5 (on)111.5 m (off) WS5A WS5A-P 1 Pump 60000gp 15 (on)114 (off) m WS513 WS5B-P 1 Pump 60000gp 15 (on) / 14 (off) m App.no.: 120209-2 Page 5 of 21 erp_staff_report.rdf SWM{In ter"Cl lIStrUlu tu res : Pumps: WS5C WS5C-P 1 Pump 42500gp 14 (on) / 13 (off) m WS5D WS51D-P 1 Pump 35000gp 14 (on) / 13 (off) m WS6C WS6C-P 1 Pump 70000gp 12 (on) 111 (off) m WS8A WS8A-P 1 Pump 25000gp 12.5 (on) / 11.5 m (off) Weirs: Basin Str# Count Type Width Height Length Dia. Elev. R6 D24 1 Sharp Crested 60' 16.4 (crest) WATT WOUALITY The proposed project includes expansion of the existing reservoirs. No adverse water quality impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. WET Mitigation Proposal: Pursuant to Application No. 990107-4 {approved August 2001), which is the most recent modification prior to the 2009 permit, Impacts to 31.5 acres of mostly cypress wetlands isolated by surrounding agricultural activities and affected by water table manipulation were identified. The impacts were considered unavoidable due to necessary water table alterations for the continued farming operations. Approximately 449 acres of 'upland compensation areas' within Reservoir #4 were identified as mitigation for the wetland impacts (see Exhibit 15 Application No. 9901074). This application clarifies that the mitigation areas identified under Application No. 060803-2 supersede and replace the 449 acres of upland compensation areas. The mitigation area under Application No. 060803-2 consolidates the mitigation and moves the mitigation closer to Camp Keats Strand. The modification to the project area under Application No. 060$03-2 resulted in a re-evaluation of wetland impacts. The re-evaluation of wetlands and changes to the dike alignmen# of Reservoirs 5 and 8 resulted in a total of 30.39 acres of 100% secondarily impacted wetlands. In Application No. 060803-2, the 342-acre mitigation area (332.38 acres of wetland, 9.62 acres of pine flaiwood/upland} was divided into three phases, a!I approximately 114 acres, as manageable units for conducting maintenance and monitoring. The functional gain associated with each of the three phases was not identified with particular wetland impacts/functional loss. The current application divides the mitigation into four phases: Phase 1 and 2 are a total of 172.62 acres, Phase 3 is 137.61 acres, and Phase 4 !s 31.77 acres. The mitigation area for Camp Keais established under Application No. 060803-2 is located within the central northeastern portion of the project area (east of Reservoir #5). Phase 1 is located in the southern extent of this mitigation area. The Phases then extend north with Phase 4 located in the northern extent of the mitigation area (See page 10 of Exhibit 3.2). The mitigation activities were approved under Application No. 060803-2 and consist of hand removal of exotic and nuisance vegetation with supplemental plantings in areas with greater than 50°l0 App.na.: 1202Q9-2 Page 6 of 21 erp_staff_reportxdf exotic/nuisance vegetation if natural recruitment is not successful within two years. Exhibit 3.2 provides a summary of the previously approved mitigation activities. Exhibit 3.3 is the updated work schedule for Phases 1 and 2. Phases 1 and 2 of the mitigation area provide the compensatory mitigation for the 9.93 acres of direct and 30.39 acres of secondary wetland impacts. Due to economic and other factors, the anticipated conversion of the PFFWs to non-agricultural uses has been delayed. Therefore, specific dates in the work schedule for Phases 34 have not been included. Phases 3 and 4 of the mitigation area provide compensatory mitigation for PFFW 2 (6.32 acres) and PFFW 4 (41.12 acres). Per Special Condition No. 19 a mitigation activity schedule will be submitted prior to the conversion of the farm fields. In addition, ERP permits will be required to convert these areas to other land uses. Mitigation activities for Phases 1 and 2 have commenced. The baseline, enhancement activities, and time zero report has been submitted to District Environmental Compliance Staff for Phase 1. The baseline monitoring report and enhancement activities have been completed for Phase 2. In Application No. 060803-2, the wetland impacts and mitigation were assessed using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM). The current application divides the UMAM assessment into four phases so that the functional loss in each phase is offset by the corresponding mitigation phase. Wetland Inventory: The 600 FLUCCS code for the PFFW areas reflects hydric fallow farm field. The 600 FLUCCS code for 5-18 is for xeric oak. The 600 FLUCCS code for &13 is for hydric cabbage palm. The 57.37 acres listed on the first page of the staff report (authorized under Permit 11-01178-S) of impacts does not include the 72.17 acres of potential future impacts to PFFWs S"1 and S-3. The 57.37 acres of impacts includes 9.93 acres of direct wetland impacts and 47.44 acres of future PFFW impacts to S-2 and S-4, but does not include the 30.39 acres of 100% secondarily impacted wetlands (S-7, S-10, S11, S-13, 3-141 S-161 S-181 S-22, S-34, and S41) under Phases 1 and 2. Phase 1 and 2 provides mitiga#ion for direct impacts to 9.93 acres of wetlands and 30.39 acres of secondary impacts to wetlands. Phase 3 provides mitigation for future impacts to PFFW S-4 (41.12 acres) and Phase 4 provides mitigation for future impacts to PFFW &2 (6.32 acres). PFFWs SA and 3-3 are not currently included in the mitigation plan. Impacts to these areas will be addressed pursuant to Special Condition No. 19 in the event these areas are converted to nonagricultural uses. App.�o.: 1202Q9-2 Page 7 of 21 erp_stanr report.rdr Wetland Inventory : CONSTRUCTION MOD Site Site Id Typi -Camp Keais - weflands preserved Pre•Development Rost -Development Pre Pres. Fluc AA Acreage Current With Time Risk Adj. Post Adj Functional cs Type (Acres) Wo Pres Project Lag (Yrs) Factor Factor Fiuces Delta Gain I Loss Wi ON 600 Preservation Total: Wetland Inventory 4990.94 4990.94 CONSTRUCTION MOD -Camp Keais Phase 1 and 2 Sfte Id Site Pre•Development Post -Development .........Pre Pres. Fiuc Acreage Current I With Time Risk Adj. Post Adj Functional cs Type (Acres) Wo Pres I Project Lag (Yrs) Factor Factor Fluccs Delta Gain 1 Loss I EA ON 630 Preservation 11.39 .73 .80 1 1.00 1,00 070 .797 E-2 ON 630 Preservation 68.11 .73 .80 1 1.00 1,00 .070 4.768 E-2a ON 630 Preservation 37.05 .73 .80 1 1.00 1,00 .070 2.594. E-3 ON 630 Enhancement 28.23 .35 .80 6- 10 1.50 .240 6.775 E-3a ON 630 Enhancement 17.65 .35 M 6 -10 1.50 .240 4.236 E4 ON 630 Enhancement 2.47 .35 I .80 6 -10 1.50 .240 .593 E-4a ON 630 Enhancement 1.44 .35 .80 6 - 10 1.50 .240 .346 SAO ON 621 Secondary 2.06 .56 ' -.560 -1.154 S-11 ON 630 Secondary 8.16 .46 -9460 -3.754 S-12 ON 618 Direct .07 .50 -0500 -4035 S-13 ON 600 Secondary .40 A3 -.430 -172 S-14 ON 617 Secondary 1.61 .43 , -.430 -.692 S-16 ON 621 Secondary .48 .53 -.530 -254 i S-18 ON 600 Secondary 3.39 .53 -0530 A 397 S-19 ON 617 Direct 5.62 .70 i -.700 -3.934 S-22 ON 621 Secondary 3.80 .43 ( -.430 A0634 S-34 ON 630 Secondary 3.44 A3 -0430 -1.479 S-41 ON 630 Secondary 2.33 .43 -.430 -1.002 S42 ON 630 Direct .06 .70 -.700 -.042 S44 ON 630 Direct .35 .70 -.700 -0245 S45 ON 630 Direct .56 .70 -0700 -0392 S-46 ON 624 Direct .93 .70 -.700 -.651 S-47 ON 625 Direct 1.54 .67 -.670 -1.032 S-51 ON 625 Direct .80 .53 -.530 -.424 S-7 ON 617 Secondary 412 A6 -4460 -2.171 Up-1 ON 411 Preservation 1.42 .75 .85 1 1.00 1,00 .100 .142 Up-2 ON 411 Preservation 2.67 .65 ; .85 1 1900 1,00 $200 .534 Up-3 ON 411 Enhancement 2019 .37 .57 6- 10 1.50 .107 .234 App.no.: 1202Q9-2 Page 8 of 21 erp_staff report.rdf CONSTRUCTION MOD -Camp Keais Phase 1 and 2 Total: 212.94 .16 Wetland Inventory CONSTRUCTION MOD -Camp Keais Phase 3 Bite Site Id Typ Pre -Development Post -Development Pros. Pre Pro AA Acreage Current With Time Risk Adj. Post Adj Functional Flucs Type (Acres) Wo Pres Project Lag (Yrs) Factor Factor Fluccs Delta Gain i Loss E ON 600 Enhancement 5.37 .35 .80 6-10 1.50 .240 1.289 E-1 ON 630 Preservation 4.87 .73 .80 1 1.00 1.00 .070 .341 E-2 ON 630 Preservation 79.34 .73 .80 1 1.00 1.00 .070 5.554 E-3 ON 630 Enhancement 35.66 .35 .80 6 - 10 1.50 .240 8.558 E4 ON 630 Enhancement 9.02 .35 .80 6 - 10 1.50 .240 2.165 PFFWS40N 600 Direct 41.12 .43 -A30 A7.682 Up.1 ON 411 Preservation 3.35 Total: 178.73 023 Wetland Inventory CONSTRUCTION MOD -Camp Keais Phase 4 site site Id TOPre-Development Post -Development Pre J Pres. Fluc AA Acreage Current With Time Risk Adj, Post Adj Functional cs Type (Acres) Wo Pres Project Lag (Yrs) Factor Factor Fluccs Delta Gain / Loss E-2 ON 630 Preservation 29.00 .73 .80 1 1.00 1,00 .070 2.030 E-3 ON 630 Enhancement 1.76 .35 .80 6 -10 1.50 .240 .422 E4 ON 630 Enhancement 1.02 .35 .80 6-10 1.50 .240 .245 PFFWSMN 630 Direct 6.32 A0 -.400 -2.528 Total: 38.10 .17 Wetland inventory CONSTRUCTION MOD -Camp Keaas -potential future impacts to PFFWs Site d Type SitPre-Development Post•Development I Pre With Time Pres. Post Adj Functional Fluc AA Acreage Current Risk Adj. cs Type (Acres) Wo Pres Project Lag (Yrs) Factor Factor Fluccs Delta Gain / Loss PFFW1 ON 600 Preservation 25.93 PFFW3 ON 600 Preservation 46.24 Total: 72.17 App.no.: 120209-2 Page 9 of 21 erp_staff_report. rat FluTAW cs Code Description 411 Pine Flatwoods 411 Pine Flafirvoods -Hydric 411 Pine Flatwoods - Upland 600 Wetlands 617 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods 618 Cabbage Palm Savannahs 621 Cypress 624 Cypress - Pine - Cabbage Palm 626 Hydric Pine Flatwoods 630 Wetland Forested Mixed tNitdlife Issues:. .. Pursuant to Application No. 060803-2, the project site and the adjacent Camp Keais Strand contain preferred habitat for several wetland -dependent endangered or threatened wildlife species or species of special concern. The following species have been documented: American alligator, snowy egret, little blue heron, tricolored heron, white ibis, roseate spoonbill, limpkin, Florida sandhill crane, Florida panther, wood stork, and Florida black bear. In addition, there is potential habitat for red -cockaded woodpecker, Eastern indigo snake, and Big Cypress fox squirrel, The on -site mitigation and preservation areas have been identified as part of the Collier County Rural Land Stewardship Program Sending Areas. The proposed minor modifications to the agricultural operations are not anticipated to have an adverse impact on the available wildlife habitat within the project area. The mitigation area will be managed to provide optimal habitat in perpetuity for wildlife species that may inhabit Camp Keais Strand, Camp Keais Strand serves as valuable habitat and corridor for wildlife including several species listed as endangered, threatened, and species of special concern by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. This permit does not relieve the applicant from complying with all applicable rules and any other agencies' requirements if, in the future, endangered/threatened species or species of special concern are discovered on the site. CERTIFICATION AND MAINTENANCE,OF THE WATER MANAGEMENT SY$TEM:. It is suggested that the permittee retain the services of a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Florida for periodic observation of construction of the surface water management (SWM) system. This will facilitate the completion of construction completion certification Form #0881 which is required pursuant to Section 10 of the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District, and Rule 40E4.361(2), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Pursuant to Chapter 40E4 F.A.C., this permit may not be converted from the construction phase to the operation phase un#il certification of the SWM system is submitted to and accepted by this Distric#. Rule 40E4.321(7) F.A.C. states that failure to complete construction of the SWM system and obtain operation phase approval from the District within the permit duration shall require a new permit authorization unless a permit extension is granted. For SWM systems permitted with an operating entity who is different from the permittee, it should be noted that until the permit is transferred to the operating entity pursuant to Rule 40E-1.6107, F.A.C., the permittee is liable for compliance with the terms of this permit. App.no.: 120209-2 Page 1©of 21 erp_staif report.rat The permittee is advised that the efficiency of a SWM system will normally decrease over Time unless the system is periodically maintained. A significant reduction in flow capacity can usually be attributed to partial blockages of the conveyance system. Once flow capacity is compromised, flooding of the project may result. Maintenance of the SWM system is required to protect the public health, safety and the natural resources of the state. Therefore, the permittee must have periodic inspections of the SWM system performed to ensure performance for flood protection and water quality purposes. If deficiencies are found, it is the responsibility of the permittee to correct these deficiencies in a timely manner. App.no.: 120209-2 Page 11 of 21 erp_start repon.raf RELATED CONCERNS: Water Use Permit Status: Irrlgatlon for this project will be conducted pursuant to the previously authorized Application No. 060222- 22/Permit No. 11-00106--W. The applicant has indicated that dewatering is not required for construction of this project. This permit does not release the permittee from obtaining all necessary Water Use authorization{s} prior to the commencement of activities which will require such authorization, including construction dewatering and irrigation. GERP: The proposed project is not located within or adjacent to a Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project component. Potable Water Supplier: N1A Waste Water SystemlSupplier: N/A Right -Of -Way Permit Status: A District Right -of -Way Permit is not required for this project. DRI Status: This project is not a DRI. Historical/Archeological Resources: Pursuant to Application No. 060803-2, the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources has indicated that no significant archaeological or historical resources are recorded in the project area and therefore the project is unlikely to have an effect upon any such properties. This permit does not release the permittee from compliance with any other agencies' requirements in the event that historical and/or archaeological resources are found on the site. DEO/GZM Consistency Review: The issuance of this permit constitutes a finding of consistency with the Florida Coastal Management Program. Third Party Interest: The District received third party comments regarding #his project in a letter dated March 27, 2012 from the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. The concerns stated in the letter generally involve the timing of wetland mitigation activities for the PFFW areas, whether the previous permit modifications included mitigation for all of the PFFW areas, and the location of anticipated future land use intensification onsite in relation to the Town of Big Cypress permit application (Application No. 08010M). The applicant provided a response to these concerns in a letter dated April 27, 2012, The District also has been coordinating with App.no.: 120209-2 0age 40 of 01 erp.staff report.rdf the Conservancy to provide clarification on these issues. Enforcement: There has been no enforcement activity associated with this application, App.no.: 120209-2 Page i3 of 21 erp_staff_report.rdf STAFF REGOPJIMENnATION TQ EXECUTIVE QIREGTOR: The Staff recommends that the following be iss►aed : Construction and Operation authorization of a surface water management system to serve an 11,649.40 acre agricultural development known as Camp Keais Agricultural Development with discharge to the Fakahatchee Strand via Stumpy Strand and Camp Keais Strand. Based on the information provided, District rules have been adhered to. Staff recommendation is for approval subject to the attached General and Special Conditions. STAFF RE1,�IE1,'V: NATURAL RESOURCE ItjANAGEMENT At PRCD�/AL ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUAT[ON StJPERVlSUR Kart/ P,Ilman Laura SJRFADE !El'ATER MANAGEiVIENT APf ROVAL EP�G NEERIPJG E ALU TIE)N SUPER�FI n Jessica White, P.E. Daniel F. Waters, P.E. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMITTING BUREAU CHIEF DATE: �I Anita R. Bain F.EGULATlON DIVISION ; SSISTAPJT DlRECTOP, Anthony M. Waterho►_►se, P.E. �'1pp.ro.: i2J20�.2 ('age �� of 2 erp_staff_report.rdf LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. The permittee shall implement the work authorized in a manner so as to minimize any adverse impact of the works on fish, wildlife, natural environmental values, and water quality. The permittee shall institute necesssary measures during the construction period, including full compaction of any fill material placed around newly installed structures, to reduce erosion, turbidity, nutrient loading and sedimentation in the receiving waters. 2. Water quality data for the water discharged from the permittee's property or into surface waters of the State will be submitted to the District as required by Section 5,9, "Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within South Florida Water Management District". Parameters to be monitored may include those listed in Chapter 62-302, F.A.G.. If water quality data is required, the permittee shall provide data on volumes of water discharged, including total volume discharged during the days of sampling and total monthly discharges from the property or into surface waters of the State. 3. This permit shall not relieve the permittee of any obligation to obtain necessary federal, State, local or special district approvals. 4. The operation phase of this permit will not become effective until the District's acceptance of certification of the completed surface water management system. The permittee shall request transfer of the permit to the responsible operation entity accepted by the District, if different from the permittee. The transfer request can be submitted concurrently with the construction completion certification. 5. All road elevations shall be se# in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section 6.5, "Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within South Florida Water Management District". 6. All building floor elevations shall be set in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section 6.4, "Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within South Florida Water Management District ". 7. Off -site discharges during construction and development will be made only through the facilities authorized by this permit. 8. A permit transfer to the operation phase shall not occur until a responsible entity meeting the requirement in Section 9.0, "Basis of Review far Surface Water Management Permit Applications within South Florida Water Management District" has been established to operate and maintain the system. The entity must be provided with sufficient ownership or legal interest so that it has control over all water management facilities authorized herein. 9. The permit does not convey to the permittee any property rights or privileges other than those specified in the permit and Chapter 40E-4, F.A.G.. 10. The permittee shall hold and save the District harmless from any and all damages, claims, or liabilities which may arise by reason of the construction, operation, maintenance or use of any facility authorized by the permit. 11. This permit is issued based on the applicant's submitted information which reasonably demonstrates that adverse water resource related impacts will not be caused by the completed permit activity. Should any adverse impacts caused by the completed surface water management system occur, the District will require the permittee to provide appropriate mitigation to the District or other impacted party. The District will require the permittee to modify the surface water management system, if App.no. ; 120209-2 Page 15 o4 21 erp_staff_report.rdf LIMITING CQNDITIQNS necessary, to eliminate the cause of the adverse impacts. 12. Within 30 days of issuance of this permit, the permittee or authorized agent shall notify the Districk (via the supplied construction commencement notice or equivalent) of the actual or anticipated construction start date and the expected completion date. 13. When the duration of construction exceeds one year, the permittee or authorized agent shall submit construction status reports on an annual basis (via the supplied annual status report or equivalent) beginning one year after the initial commencement of construction. 14. Within 30 days after completion of construction of the surface water management system, the permittee or authorized agent shall file a written statement of completion and certification by a Florida registered professional engineer. These statements must specify the actual date of construction completion and must certify that all facilities have been constructed in substantial conformance with the plans and specifications approved by the District (via the supplied construction completion/certification or equivalent). The construction completion certification must include, at a minimum, existing elevations, locations and dimensions of the components of the water management facilities. Additionally, if deviations from the approved drawings are discovered during the certification process, the certification must be accompanied by a copy of the approved permit drawings with deviations noted. 15. Within 30 days of any sale, conveyance or other transfer of any of the land which is proposed for development under the authorization of this permit, the permittee shall notify the District of such transfer in writing via either Form 0483, Request for Permit Transfer; or Form 0920, Request for Transfer of Surface Water Managment Construction Phase to Operation Phase (to be completed and submitted by the operating entity), in accordance with Sections 40E-1.6105 AND 40E4.351, F.A.C.. 16. A prorated share of surface water management retention/detention areas, sufficient to provide the required flood protection and water quality treatment, must be provided prior to occupancy of any building or residence. 17. A stable, permanent and accessible elevation reference shall be established on or within one hundred (100) feet of all permitted discharge structures no later than the submission of the certification report. The location of the elevation reference must be noted on or with the certification report. 18. It is the responsibility of the permittee to insure that adverse off -site water resource related impacts do not occur during construction. 19. The permittee must obtain a Water Use permit prior to construction dewatering, unless the work qualifies for a general permit pursuant to Subsection 40E-20.302(4), F.A.C.. App.no.: 120209-2 Page 16 of 21 e rp_staff_report.rdf SPECIAI- CONDITIONS 1. The construction phase of this permit shall expire on May 14, 2Q17. 2. Operation of the surface water management system shall be the responsibility of the permittee. 3. Discharge Facilities: Basin: WS4O 1-70000gpm with pump on at elev. 12.5' NGVD 29 and with pump off at elev. 11.5'NGVD 29. Receiving body : Basin R4 Control elev : 15 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WS4P 1-52500gpm with pump on at elev. 12.5' NGVD 29 and with pump off at elev. 11.5'NGVD 29. Receiving body : Basin 4P Control elev : 15 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WSSA 1�60000gpm with pump on at elev. elev. 14'NGVD 29. Receiving body : Basin R5 Control elev : 16.5 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WSSB 1-60Q00gpm with pump on at elev elev. 14'NGVD 29. Receiving body a.Basin R5 Control elev : 16.5 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WSSC 1-42500gpm with pump on at elev. elev. 13'NGVD 29. Receiving body : Basin R5 Control elev : 15 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WS5D 1-35000gpm with pump on at elev. elev. 13'NGVD 29. Receiving body: Basin R5 Control elev : 15 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WS6C 1-70000gpm with pump on at elev. elev. 11'NGVD 29. Receiving body : Basin R6 Control elev : 14.5 feet NGVD 29. 15 ' NGVD 29 and with pump off at 15' NGVD 29 and with pump off at 14' NGVD 29 and with pump off at 14` NGVD 29 and with pump off ak 12' NGVD 29 and wikh pump off at Basin: R6, Structure: D20A 1-60' WIDE SHARP CRESTED weir with crest at elev. 17.1' NGVD 29. 90 l.F of 54" dia. CORRUGATED METAL PIPE culvert. Receiving body : Basin WS8D App.no.: 120209-2 Page 17 of 21 erp_staff_report. rdf SPECIAL CflNDIT[flNS Control elev : 14.5 feet NGVD 29. Basin: R61 Structure: D24 1-60' WIDE SHARP CRESTED weir with crest at elev. 16.4' NGVD 29. 90 LF of 54" dia. CORRUGATED METAL PIPE culvert. Receiving body : Basin R8 Control elev : 14.5 feet NGVD 29. Basin: R8, Structure: D17B 75 LF of 30" dia. CORRUGATED METAL PIPE culvert. 1-48" dia. drop inlet with crest at elev. 14' NGVD 29. Receiving body : Stumpy Strand Control elev : 14 feet NGVD 29, Basin: R8, Structure: D20B 1-60' WIDE SHARP CRESTED weir with crest at elev, 16' NGVD 29. 90 LF of 54" dia. CORRUGATED METAL PIPE culvert. Receiving body : Basin WSBA Control elev : 14 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WS4G 1-17500gpm with pump on at elev. elev. 13'NGVD 29. Receiving body : Basin R4 Control elev : 15 feet NGVD 29. 14' NGVD 29 and with pump off at Basin: WS4H 1-17500cfs with pump on at elev. 14' NGVD 29 and with pump off at elev. 13'NGVD 29. Receiving body : Basin R4 Control elev : 15 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WS41 1-17500gpm with pump on at elev. 13.5' NGVD 29 and with pump off at elev. 12.5'NGVD 29. Receiving body : Basin R4 Control elev : 15 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WS4J 1-17500gpm with pump on at elev. elev. 12'NGVD 29. Receiving body : Basin R4 Control elev : 15 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WS4K 1-17500gpm with pump on at elev. elev. 11.5'NGVD 29. Receiving body . Basin R4 Control elev : 15 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WS4L App.no, : 120209-2 13' NGVD 29 and with pump off at 12.5' NGVD 29 and with pump off at Page 18 of 2'I erp�staff_repork.rdf SPECIAL CQNDITIQNS 1-17500gpm with pump an at elev. elev. 11.5'NGVD 29. Receiving body : Basin R4 Control elev : 14.5 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WS4M 1-17500gprn with pump on at elev. elev. 12'NGVD 29. Receiving body : Basin R4 Control elev R. 15 feet NGVD 29, Basin: WS8A 1-25000gpm with pump on at elev. elev. 11.5'NGVD 29. Receiving body : Basin R8 Control elev : 14 feet NGVD 29. 12.5' NGVQ 29 and with pump off a# 13' NGVD 29 and with pump off at 12.5' NGVQ 29 and with pump off at 4. The permittee shall be responsible for the correction of any erosion, shoaling or water quality problems that result from the construction or operation of the surface water management system. 5. Measures shall be taken during construction to insure that sedimentation and/or turbidity violations do not occur in the receiving water. 6. The District reserves the right to require that additional water quality treatment methods be incorporated into the drainage system if such measures are shown to be necessary. 7. Facilities other than those stated herein shall not be constructed without an approved modification of this permit. 8. Astable, permanent and accessible elevation reference shall be established on or within one hundred (100) feet of all permitted discharge structures no later than the submission of the certification repork. The location of the elevation reference must be noted on or with the certification report. 9. The permittee shall provide routine maintenance of all of the components of the surface water management system in order to remove all trapped sediments/debris. AIE materials shall be properly disposed of as required by law. Failure to properly maintain the system may result in adverse flooding conditions. 10. If prehistoric or historic artifacts, such as pottery or ceramics, stone tools or metal implements, dugout canoes, or any other physical remains that could be associated with Native American cultures, or early colonial or American settlement are encountered at any time within the project site area, the permitted project should cease all activities involving subsurface disturbance in the immediate vicinity of such discoveries. The permittee, or other designee, should contact the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Review and Compliance Section at (850) 245-6333 or (800) 8474278, as well as the appropriate permitting agency office. Project activities should not resume without verbal and/or written authorization from the Division of Historical Resources. In the event that unmarked human remains are encountered during permitted activities, all work shall stop immediately and the proper authorities notified in accordance with Section 872.05, Florida Statutes. 11. The permittee acknowledges that, pursuant to Rule 40E4.101(2), F.A.C., a notice of Environmental Resource or Surface Water Management Permit may be recorded in the county public records. Pursuant to the specific language of the rule, this notice shall not be considered an encumbrance upon the property. 12. Land use within the permitted facilities is agricultural, Any proposed change in land use or crap type App.no.: 120208-2 Page 19 of 21 erp_staff_report.rdf SPECIAL CONDITICiNS may require modification of this permit and must be reported to the District for a determination of permit requirements. 13. The exhibits and special conditions in this permit apply only to this application. They do not supersede or delete any requirements for other applications covered in Permit No. 11-01178-S unless otherwise specified herein. 14. Endangered species, threatened species and/or species of special concern have been observed onsite and/or the project contains suitable habitat for these species. It shall be the permittee's responsibility to coordinate with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for appropriate guidance, recommendations and/or necessary permits to avoid impacts to listed species. monitoring program shall be implemented in accordance with Exhibit No. 3.2-3.3. The monitoring program shall extend for a period of 5 years with annual reports submitted to District staff. At the end of the first monitoring period the mitigation area shall contain an 80% survival of planted vegetation. The 80% survival rate shall be maintained throughout the remainder of the monitoring program, with replanting as necessary. If native wetland, transitional, and upland species do not achieve an 80% coverage within the initial two years of the monitoring program, native species shall be planted in accordance with the maintenance program. At the end of the 5 year monitoring program the entire mitigation area shall contain an 80% survival of planted vegetation and an 80% coverage of desirable obligate and facultative wetland species. 16. A maintenance program shall be implemented in accordance with Exhibit No. 3.2 for the preservedlehanced wetland/upland areas on a regular basis to ensure the integrity and viability of those areas as permitted. Maintenance shall be conducted in perpetuity to ensure that the conservation areas are maintained free from Category 1 exotic vegetation (as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council at the time of permit issuance) immediately following a maintenance activity. Maintenance in perpetuity shall also insure that conservation areas, including buffers, maintain the species and coverage of native, desirable vegetation specified in the permit. Coverage of exotic and nuisance plant species shall not exceed 5% of total cover between maintenance activities. In addition, the permittee shall manage the conservation areas such that exotic/nuisance plant species do not dominate any one section of those areas. 17. Activities associated with the implementation of the mitigation, monitoring and maintenance plan(s) shall be completed in accordance with the work schedule attached as Exhibitdeviation from these time frames will require prior approval from the District's Environmental Resource Compliance staff. Such requests must be made in writing and shall include (1) reason for the change, (2) proposed start/finish and/or completion dates; and (3) progress report on the status of the project development or mitigation effort. Prior to the initiation of wetland impacts that have been identified to be offset wtih Mitigation Phases 34 (47.44 acres of PFFW consisting of areas S4 and S-2), modifications of the work schedule to include the appropriate Phase will be required to be submitted to District Envirommnntai Compliance staff. 1$. The District reserves the right to require remedial measures to be taken by the permittee if monitoring or other information demonstrates that adverse impacts to onsite or offsite wetlands, upland conservation areas or buffers, or other surface waters have occurred due to project related activities. 19. The delineation of the extent of wetlands and/or other surface waters located within the limits of the proposed development and the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM) scores shall be considered binding. A total of 32.78 UMAM functional units will be required to offset any future impacts to the 72.17 acres of hydric farm fields (PFFWs S-1 and S-3) depicted on Exhibit 3.0 for any modification to the surface water managment system authorized by the permit to a nonagricultural use which would cause a permanent loss of ecological functions provided by these PFFWs. App.na.: 120209-2 Page 20 of 21 erp_staff_report. rdf SPECIAL. CC}NDITIONS 24. A mitigation program for Gamp Keias shall be implemented in accordance with Exhibit No. 3.2. Phase 1 and 2 of the mitigation plan offsets 9.93 acres of direct wetland impacts and 30.39 acres of secondary wetland impacts. Phases 3 and 4 offset impacts to 47.44 acres of PFFWs S-2 and S-4. The remaining 72.17 acres of PFFWs S-1 and S-3 will need to be mitigated in accordance with Special Condition No. 19. App.no.: 12©209-2 Page 21 of 21 Exhibit 1.0 Application No. 120209-2 Page 1 of 1 N O y•r ir i O 4 555 a� rn m p U Z E—' w��SoB�no w1<QW i w .e .a .o .s as z z i z MINOR I� I � ' .N- r .�• � r ram. �- '�"�' � Z U)U)OOI�JO0 1 N-,- h MIr h o n1a m� .�•I z CL �c0 QaC �. zwLL W cy) C*4 c W Crj W UJ RC�tieC>�CN�t LULJJ0�zoLL zp CL vv0, Noz ObZ� w Fm N�N iIIZj3 o aj Q �1 W( I N 1 Q c H- l l- Z o La� w m*n i Cool Z co: Coo ° O��o�UO �a Q�� WOO J a�zNtLJLw um acvisrommompa aateoW. Lu = °'- z s �--� cn U) w � Q --� <[c) zU�O r °�z° tP-- d LL1 r W Q-. I cj W ttOS Yt FSVa01 W 7K6 6/ 3w$,ixCl , , U) 1.gin%:. y .•� �i •yJt : ; s R, .xt,c�1Ja. fit' t..':.•7�.yr �• r. AM 14, f,(( dt ''•�.lJ` f, �. �is�i1,• �t-fit,+ ��,i: 4 A0 Ito Ore. 0 Its ol (D a pm 4 � 1 W%OS Ir /161M01 , I6/V5 {r W61:Y71 -y ARK =.I:31V3S :� �.._.. -N- LZ Q t. x7onnu r+a707s - LZ /_ p C KO N'l! M ,�1,1rN1] - • No ( 4LL a 7v�0 MGW7fltl - •---�^• 14"� - JY Ott /� Al .W A ZZ OtNbIOA)MM V Awmaima a vfd /Pa, kluldodd • �••—••— ( O ON3031 ( Q Z W 0 ©W U) eTs 1 Z d �r — � � v t . �s `1 O CL A7, owl No a r�J .otl •'An7 .uc -� i tj}W 66 YJ W «ram_« .aia ASn�aaf :R (LADI A211OAtJ3S3a QJ W _.. , m _ .Ott - •1) 001 1 NOV kv q , WON y...... • \.. Z W (l J6 rr. 04 6 , .r..r. 1 1 , m !^ f ) l 1 a t> Saw ' — — a .•� LPL+ �4Q'� x W VON1" zo 94 A S3H i LL t CE c z o lei 0 a £ • Y x ) a 1 / , 1 �ar • 1 a `�. iON IN '! •y I r gZ 9Z / `• i 1 `s9i 1]446ltll ) � / t oof 9N?�IOAT8 �p vtl7,a) y i I I 1 84N qi 393b r (a r. NOW 'AM a Owl .0'tt 'AD] lO gg 2v a all ° i 2)I�Ald j IOAM S3tl I \ a 1 9 is tiZ EZ ZZ 1 wl aor u.•w AIt • An7'0'Ol .091 NI) UMuO3 �v' t St v t4 H10AM353N N Q1 C7 N C7 N ti ZM O r r � N a •— n� i�Qa c t L`f,�` I aN32Jl © � i 4+ Q { lrJ.a/0Y>iallNor I Y1f 160fNJo9�9�Y 1L L �zZ 1 � s 1 .>M o .]. Ni AJart J n C a { V r'� 341 J01>rt� RC$ Q � 7 2', 9. Lr1 bionf' J I n+ � 0 � rt.a, D`ll Ml>RR 7 i W za r� j ff iAV.,� U)> > .it 1. N, fir *f> ® a• >. YIN w { t�>` • QLIL� 4 Foods •• PA .n tf •• °i �irim m�sua _MMOAY799tl L•%Mai } T' to A i 737'E Sit •fyYn YOW717b <J /O s t7M 3X C A"I Amon 9 r _ 9 .l 349 AJ>nLAW n '1 - (t 11 NO.4 lYtt xVrn �, u i is"4 to ,4 NI Alm 1 kiL.,. >n wra' •� of ENT] 1 w�i ecti. 1. 1Tr. A Wt fir• Comm O ON r� r.._.._.� { WAll At3 cc toymFY341tl nth Q N Igoe LL a 75 J9;'S Vs ' r. N't J J.n �fi + C4i AIM f— n A r J3ns fJY ! '" fry °n >u O -0I l:, �.{�e ya ?nJ i�' U ,obi JmotrnM 2 rns�L�:` nosn Zw = n.mra el - WON ' a 1 - flti V11 bad AM � 11 tl'D Vii3Y ief tea. ! J --- Pis It I zz > JM alp m>a N O N N N "5 � a N S $ P n^_ u C'q v �%< QtiFill - N 4 1 n i{�ij O cdJ o � wl 1 w 8 Ren �jr2NY gst. sN7s:rs r {,n �:E v/ z p LL J W c~nw W Z r-� W a= W .3 UU N 01 O N C3 N 0 Z In =�adci I N O IN N O ZM LD ,009 5)tl3v M ]bS /n3&u,N 03HSV31Yx - J+) iLl Otfin WOMIN X" J)S - 9 fSW1N SY}dU Vol p S, IIr t, tlW L SOPS 3 i 8O7Y)O3 NSY13X - L �Q } 1NN1n3 GFKSOO / 3013AN+S Y UM107 Y'IOAV)SM Av%IIdS A54"UIn7 - 0-- YMd / MN1V1S 4/r01 �.+'• � � •1 a7 :YdfJ n.d � •� ' 3.NJ 33VrmJ3 •• � •• •• •• , ) - - 3.q VV4353d i ) 3NV Yl11NxL - ava aaaaaaaaa 1 i , 1 ` I ` I ) ) ` 1 , 1 1 I , I I ' I (� ACI • :17,3 ]3H1)QJ I 3r 9"+C C`y 0t# alOAb�s32! , i to 010 Q= zz LiQ II i J i y r I ' OJSx ' S � y U JO 4 J33�+S 77S 1 ) ti aO 9 t334S 32S .� 31n3 )OIS'rt 1 .J. 3n,3 scam I 1 OA� U Q I r; L w. is ' e�o�bt24oHn �-�AP"RPaaFR�s:. �z I N m O N O 0 Z M C? p v- tV 44 O «. M 00 � �( LL) W Q d s °r ! M t f V. 0 ti V m W rir t � � M q 6 y W N a> 0 N 0 N O Z M O p N r Qrn �dd .a+ N I O N O ��aCV 0 zCe) O Q o ,N� m 0 � C3 Qa W tL a �It qv a a� AIL - .—..mot—.!..<.— , 1 I 1 1 It tt i g m b p O q q 4 v J w W w W aw W W a. w UU J y 0 & Q S0 Ci 1 1 . I 1 1 1 1 1 i I 1 I i W I i I I � I I I I � i I I I I S� I I I I I I I 1 I 1. 1 I.I .I I I I I I I 1 I i 5 Y 0 —8 — S yY 0 k4 NM 0 L p`t96 of tool Blt dioA '3S3d 01 91 VIOAOSM ONJE MN03 ND 1MS JO MW rp! , $ U7 dry oNT .I lrrl w� n pros of 100 ONVYIS SIV3N d1Yb3 j0 0NISSOHO OYOX JNt1S)X3 M1414% AYMM013 03Z17f Y15 ! $M.Jtn k U035 pNY r Y, pleas to toW .-, '0! S lTlvn m taW SM3N NY1d ONY Np113.� N tlY1S dWl1d 7YOldA1C„J (1raW O+d tt7M St eddrtnd rrr3B .l tYYN7/1 V1N OI1Avd+) Tp.Yd �+uYrlE YROM3 Ar3NJ -1 � dt•Af I I11111111 l/l lil ii 11 11111111� !I� 111111 I�1�/�1111 �I�1�1 i1�1 TNO JO aU! +It0aT7 Nt,60 ldr Ste31W pleas Ot lou} ONtS 0Zl3� YNYO l7Yjt(T(S JO NO!lO3S `� i b, f31A3 4t tON) 0�.�'9 SMf 2f3S32! 210 AYA7RdS A3N3O 3ri�J0 M31h h r 33S i .1 lsrl YTT -nr �p � I wtlo RESERYOR 41 a •"` �i o lesimmi N1 ..ff c•:'4 . K:dmmm Air ..• •••�. K}��.. ate' a•< .:1 •' KItself Mfal4•most M•I Kt. • IIF, K• see its M"inYMa. µ •" a u"is A ire iii,`i Kt;•'< me .aP wesso ba ..ro ,IJK •U"• me wY 6do it me nrl - •.5^E•. ww :.•:::•:•.•:: Lr!• A to PetARvON f1'.'.'.' Pt: All y tit+ w•• MY • osw NO. osw N0T4NPACTED osw IMPACT TOTAL 3.1 1.47AC.3 1.47 AC.t S•2 0.52 Aas 052 At.± Sd0 0.17 Am ± 0.17Ac.± S4 0.35Ac.t 0.35Aa± S•S 0A2 AC.t 0.42 AC.± S•0 O53AC.1 0.53Aa.n S-7 O.i3A0.± - 0.15 AC.± s•B 2.08 Ac.t 2.08Ac.1 &9 1.01 At.± 1,01 Ac.t Sa0 O.00AC.z O.W Ac.± 5-11 8.84 Ac.t 884 Act S•12 1.07Ac.z 1 CIAC 9 S•1a 1.99Ace I - 1.99AC.1 S•14 Oti Ac-± w 0.11 A0.2 S•15 CASAC.2 0-SSAC.t S•,a O.OSAo.t 005 Ae± TOTAL 1092 A6-± 0.78Ac.1 19.70AC.2 PFFW N0. PFFW IMPACT TOTAL Seel 25.93 Ac.t 25.93 AC.z S•2 032 ACC fi32 AC.± S•3 48N Acs 4821 Ac.t S•4 41.12Ac.1 41.120kc.2. TOTAL 118.61 Aa.z /19.81 Ac.r �, � � � CA4tP KEAIS STRAND P��ASSARELLA � w r 1�VETL.ANDIA4PACTMAP ��tSL riSSOCIATES� 1/ SCALE: V - 30M 1_1 SFWMD WETLAND NOT•IMPACTEO (5.442.93 Act) SFWMD WETLAND IMPACT (9.93 At L) SFWMD SECONDARY WETLAND IMPACT 130.39 Act) ®SFWMO PERWItED FARM FIELD (WEN IMPACT (119 61 At t) 1 I SFWMO OTHER SURFACE WATERS NOT -IMPACTED (16 92 At t) SFWMD OTHER SURFACE WATERS IMPACT (0.7b Ac.t) Y SURVEYED WETLAND LINE NOTES PROPERTY SOUNOARY FROM RAYMOND MARCK P.E.ORAWING NC.07.046M.6'AC OATEO OCTOOER Ib. 2007. AGRICVLTURAL PLAN PER COLLIER ENTERPRISE DRAWING N0. CAMPKEAISSWD201Z OWG DATED FEBRUARY 6. 2012. WEIIaND LINES PER ASS, INC. DRAWING No JDL-S•WORKSMEET TO KPtSJUN07,6*6 DATED JVNE IS, 2007 WETLAND IMPACTS WERE APPROVED PURSUANT TO SFWMD PERMIT N0. It-01174•S (APPLICATION N0. 060503-2) ISSUED ON i EBRUARY IL 2009. WH7U1N0 N0. I. WETLAND N0T46EPACTEO WETUWD IMPACT SECONDARY WETLAND IMPACT 70TAL 6.1 175AC 1 1 d 175Ac: S-2 2.42Ac.2 2.42 At Sd 14.52Ac.± - - 14.52Ac.c 64 603At.t - 4.03 At: S-5 ID.62Atz 10.m Acz S•e 36667Acz - 366.6TAc.z $.7 A72 At 472 At S•e 61a2Acz 5I.82 At S•9 1301 S Ac t 130.15 At z S•10 206Act 2.t6 At s•N Sl6At._ 816AC= S•12 007Ac.z d 0.07 At 5-13 04OAc i 0.40AC.z $•I4 ,fit ACM 1.61 Ac= S•IS 0WA: z OSOACz S•10 0ABAct 0.48Acb s n 138AC± t.38Ac.z S•18 - - 399Ac-± 3.39Acc SiB 12WS7At.± 5.62AC.± 127S.19ACz S•20 132 Ao.± 3.4 Ac± S2f 41062 At - - 410.52 ACn S•22 - 380Ac± 100 ACn 5.23 tat Ac± lZel Acz S24 288Act - 266Acz 6.23 033Act - 0.33Acz 5.26 094.05 Ac.z 894.03 AC z s-27 A70Ac2 - - U.7OAc= S•28 2.40Ata 24OAc= S•29 9$4 Ac.z - 984A4z 5-30 I A6 AC.= 1.65 At z S•3t 41.78Ac.t - 41.78Ae.= S•32 920c.z - 920AC.c $ 33 24.21 Aaz 2421 Ac= S•31 144 Ae.± 144Ac.= S•35 17.87 At.z 17.07ACo S-3e 34,72 Aat 34s2 At= 3.37 162 eO AC t tM60 At _ $•38 0.33 A" 0.33ACz 5 39 123E At. t 1234 At z 5.40 I12.ae As 11268Acn S•4ta 233 At 2.33 Acz S•42 ICU 31 At.± 000Acz 100.31ACt S•47 1.40AC.± & 140 At SM 77.11 Ac. 035At z - ».46AC.1 S•45 4.04 AC.t 0.56AC.z - 4.9J Acc S4B *353AC.z 0.93Acz - 4.76 Atz 5--47 t7703Ac.z 15ai - 176.37 At 4.4a 063A04: 063 At 9•d9 D.45AC.2 0.45 At: 550 LISAc3 - - 1ISACz S•SI 1457.14416t.t 080Ac.± 1457,94 Acz S•52 086 Ac± 086 At $53 5.53Acz - - 5.53 At= S•54 026ACz - 025Acc S-55 0.71 At.= 0.71 At z S•55 2.05 At - - 2.06 At= S•57 1.57 Ac z IXT At z TOTAL 544293Ac.± 993 At 30.39AC.± 548325Ac.= t3620%tcuu(3oIiLA+tnuc $+Ii[e 200 att�x.soe7 fort �(ytra, Florida 33912 K.C.P. Phone (239) 274-0OG7 un+10 lax(739)274(UG9 P.F. Exhibit 3.0 Application No. 120209-2 1 of 2 Exhibit 3.0 Application No. 120209-2 2 of 2 nr. ^r. ^r. 46FAYO Rol 4 m. nra r,CK fly: :v6:•::: ...'7L�1 •'Q true C U. rof At Q. •.'.•.' ..Q. ^rQ ^r �, nRa , nA• A _ o F CAMP KEA(S STRAND .t ��lET4\uD I�'iPACT \471P WITH '-` OVERLAl' OF APPLICATION No. 0801036 osw osw osw NO. NO7aMPACTEO IMPACT TOTAL S2 - 0.52Aa± 0.52Ac.x S-3 P 0WAt± 0.17 Ac.t S4 0.35 At.t 0.35Ac.± S15 0.42 At.± I 0.42Ac.t S-6 OS3Ac.1 0.S3 At.z S-7 0.15Ac.t - OA5Ac.± S-8 200 At.x 20BAcx S-9 1.01 At.± 1.01 Ac.± 5.10 1 OOQAcx 009AC± S-11 894 Ac.± B.84Ac.1 S•12 1.07 Ac.t 1,07 At± S-13 I.OBAc.± 199Ac.± S114 0.11 At - 011 At SL15 OBSAt± 085Ae% SAG OOSAc.± - 005Ac± TOTAL 1892 Ace 078Acz 1970 At PFFW PFFW NO, IMPACT TOTAL S•t 25L93 Ac.± 2593 Ac.x S-2 8.32 Aat 872 Acs 5.3 482a Act 4824 Ac.t S4 41.12AC.t 41A2Ac,1 TOTAL 1106I Ac. z 119.81 Act PASSARELLA - �_ tSc ASSOCIATES SCALE: I' - 3(W' LEGEND SFWMD WETLAND NOT•IMPACTED (5.414 93 Act) ®SFWMD WETLAND IMPACT (9.93 Act) SFWMD SECONDARY WETLAND IMPACT (50.39 Act) ®SFWMD PERMITTED FARM FIELD (WET) IMPACT (119. 61 At t) SFWMD OTHER SURFACE WATERS NOT•IMPACTED (18.92 At. t) ®SFWMD OTHER SURFACE WATERS IMPACT (0 78 At t) SFWMD PERMIT APPLICATION No 080103.6 V\ SURVEYED WETLAND LINE NOTES PROPERTY 000NDARY FROM RAYMOND MARCH. P,E DRAWING No.07.0A6M,owa DATED OCTOBER 16 2007. AGRICULTURAL PLAN PER COLLIER ENTERPRISE DRAWING NO, CAMPAEAISSWD2012. DWG DATED FEBRUARY 6. 2012. WETLAND LINES PER ABB INC. DRAWING No .AL-S•WORKSHEET TO KPISJUN07. owG GATED DUNE 15 2007. WETLAND IMPACTS WERE APPROVED PURSUANT TO SFWMD PERMIT N0. II.01176-S (APPLICATION NO, 060803.2) ISSUED ON FEBRVARY 12. 2009. SECONOMY WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND WE71JU4D NO. NOT -IMPACTED IMPACT IMPACT TOTAL S•1 1.75Ac.z 1.75Ac± S2 242AC.t - 242Ac± SJ 1452 Ac± - - 1452AC.I S1 603 At± - 60OAct S-5 1062 Att 1062 AC± S6 36667 At± 35667Ac.1 5-70 472 At± 4.72 At± SA 5182Act 51.62 Att S9 13015 Act - 1301S At 540 200 Ace 206At± S41 618Aca 616AC± 5.12 007Ac± 007At± S•13 04QACt 043At.± 1.61 Ate 161 AC.± S45 0WAt± 1 0.63Ac.z 548 - Q48AC± 04BAC.± S-17 138 At, - 1.38At± 5.18 339ACt 33OAct S99 126957 Acz 562 AC± 127519 Ac.z S2t7 332 At - 332Ac.± S41 41852 At - 41 a52 At 572 383Ac± 38OAc.z S•?3 134Act 1.34Ac.± S•24 29GAtt 2.85Act 5.25 033AC.± 033Ac.± S-2B 636406 At.± - - eG405 At t 527 07OAc± 070Ac± 528 24OACt - 243Act 5.29 9S4Ac1, 984Atx 9.3C 186ACx L86Act SJI 417a AC.± - - 41.78Ac.± 5-32 92OAC.± - 920Ac.± S•33 2421 AC.± - 2421 At.t 534 344At± 344Act S-35 1787Ac.1 - 17.97Act S •38 3472Ac± - 34.72Acz 537 16286Ac.t 162BBAct 5.38 033 Atx - Q33Ac.± 5.39 1234 AC.± 1234 At.± S•40 11268AC.t 11268AC.± S•41 - 233Acz 233Act S•d2 10031 At 006Act 10031Acx 5.43 14OACe I 1.43Ac.± S-44 771t Acz 035AC± 7740 At± 545 404ACt 058 At± - 463 Aa± S-48 383Act 093At± 4.76Atz 547 17703 Ac± 154AC± - 178 ST Act 5.68 063Ac.2 063Acz 349 045Act - 045Ac± 550 I.15AC.a tISAc.t S•51 1457,14 At 080Ac± 1457.94Ac.1 S•52 089Ac± OBBAtt 353 553Ac± SST At± S-Sa 025Ac2 - - 025Act 555 071 Act - 071 At± 5-56 20BAce 206Ac.z 5-57 1 67 Ac z 1.67 Ac. t TOTAL 5"2.93 At= 993 At 303BAez 548325AC.± 13620\lrtro1xilisAlenue j01. 12/14/07 Suite 2N Ci 51,-�106T nm it \1Yers, Florida 33912 IC.C.P• 1'_/li/07 Phone ('_39) ?74{1D67 cE:51t Derr I'ac(239)'_7h(1069 P.F. a/l9/12 Exhibit 3.1 Application No. 120209-2 1 of 1 CAMP I{EAIS STRAND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT WETLAND MITIGATION/MONITORINGIMAINTENANCE PLAN SFWMD PERMIT NO. 11-01178-S Revised May 2012 INTRODUCTION The following outlines the wetland mitigation, monitoring, and maintenance plan for the 11,649.42E acre Camp Keais Strand Agricultural Development (Project) located in Sections 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, and 36; Township 48 South, Range 28 East and Sections 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 15, 22, 27, and 34; Township 49 South; Range 28 East; Collier County. The Wetland Mitigation/ Monitoring/Maintenance Plan (dated November 2008) and incorporated in South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Permit No. I 1-01178-5, Application No.060803-2, approved by SFWMD on February 12, 2009, superseded and replaced the compensatory wetland mitigation plan incorporated in SFWMD Permit No. 11-01178-5, Application No. 9901074, issued by SFWMD on August 9, 2001. The Projec# modifications will result in unavoidable impacts to South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) jurisdictional wetlands. In order to offset these impacts, the wetland mitigation plan includes the enhancement of 332,38± acres of wetlands and 9.62± acres of uplands located within the Camp Keais Strand on the east side of the property. The enhancement and management of the 332.381 acres of wetlands within the mitigation area will offset 9.93± acres of direct impacts and 30.39± acres of secondary impacts to wetland functions. In addition, the wetland functional gain provided by the mitigation activities will offset 47.44E acres of impacts due to the future conversion of permitted farm fields - wet (PFFWs) to non -agriculture uses, specifically PFFW Nos. S-2 and S4. PFFW Nos. S-I {25.93� acres) and S-3 {46.244� acres) are not included in this mitigation/monitoring/maintenance plan. The locations of the direct and secondary impacts to the wetland and PFFW functions are shown on Sheet E4 of the environmental plans. Details of the mitigation area, and the mitigation and monitoring plan are depicted on revised Sheets E-5 and E-6. Enhancement will be accomplished by the hand removal of exotic vegetation and in the event that nattu•al recruitment of native vegetation is not successfiit within two years, and supplemental wetland plantings will be conducted where exotic vegetation currently exceeds 50 percent coverage. The wetland communities to be enhanced and managed consist primarily of cypress (Taxodium spp.) and mixed wetland hardwood forests, freshwater marshes, and hydric pine areas. The upland habitats consist of pine flatwoods communities. Both wetland and upland habitats contain varying degrees of exotic infestation, predominantly Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebifithifolius). The following are descriptions of the existing wetland and upland vegetative habitats and the listed species utilization within the mitigation area: Wetland Habitats Brazilian Pepper, Hydric iFLY.1CFCS Code 4221) The canopy and sub -canopy are dominated by $razilian pepper. The sub -canopy may also contain guava {Psidiuni spp.) and/or primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana). GI'ourld cover vegetation is Passarella &Associates, Inc. 1 of 8 Exhibit 3.2 Application N©. 120209-2 1 of 10 mostly absent, but may include scattered torpedograss (Panicum repens), paragrass (UYOchloa mutica), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), and/or Asiatic pennywort (Centella astatica). Willow, Disturbed (0-24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6189 El} The canopy and sub -canopy vegetation is dominated by Carolina willow (Salir caroliniana) with Brazilian pepper. Typical ground cover vegetation includes one or a combination of the following. wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), saltbush (Baccharis halitnifolia), primrose willow, sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense), cattail (Typha spp.), bushy broomgrass (Andropogon glomeratus), smartweed (Polygonum spp.), maidencane (Panicum hemitomon), alligator flag (Thalia geniculata), pickerelweed (Pontedaria cordata), arrowhead (Sagittaria lancifolia), climbing hempvine (Mikania scandens), torpedograss, and/or paragrass. Willow, Disturbed (25-49% Exotics�(FLUCFCS Gode 6189 E2} The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6189 E I,, except with 25 to 49 percent coverage by exotic species. Willow, Disturbed (76-10U%Exotics FLUCFCS Code 61$9 E4 are similar to FLUCFCS Code G189 E1, except with 76 to 100 percent The vegetation associations coverage by exotic species. Cypress, Disturbed (0-24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 62I9 E1} The canopy is dominated by cypress and may also include scattered red maple (ticer rubrum), pop ash (Fraxinus caroliniana), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), and/or dahoon holly (Ilex cassine). The typical sub -canopy species are Carolina willow, pond apple (Annona glabra), pop ash, myrsine (Myrsine guianensis), swamp bay (Persea palustris), and/or Brazilian pepper. Ground cover varies by location but usually includes a combination of the following species: maidencane, swamp fern {Blechnum serrulatum), arrowhead, spikerush (Eleocharis interstincta), alligator flag, bog hemp {Boehmeria cylindrical), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), leather fern (Acrostichum danaeifolium), horned beakrush (Rhynchospora inundata), corkwood (Stillingia aquatica), climbing hepvine, and/or primrose willow. In some locations, Japanese climbing fern (Lygodium japonicum) and/or Old World climbing fern (Lygodium m1crophyllum) are present. Cypress, Disturbed (25-49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6219 E2} The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6219 E1, except with 25 to 49 percent coverage by exotic species. Cypress, Disturbed (76-100% Exotics) FLUCFCS Code 6219 E4) The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6219 E1, except with 76 to 104 percent coverage by exotic species. Palm. Di The canopy vegetation includes a combination of cypress, slash pine (Pintts elliottii}, and cabbage palm of which no one of these species is dominant. The canopy also may include occasional strangler fig (Ficus aurea) and dahoon holly. The sub -canopy typically consists of cabbage palm, slash pine, cypress, myrsine, dahoon holly, strangler fig, and Brazilian pepper. Dominant ground cover species include swamp fern, wax myrtle, maidencane, sawgrass, corkwood, bog hemp, saltbush, and/or beakrusli (Rhynchospora spp.). Passarella &Associates, Inc. #OSCEMI4$1 Revised 05108/12 Exhibit 3.2 Application No. 12Q2Q9-2 2of10 Pine/Cypress/Cabbage Palm Disturbed (504 M/o Exotics} (FLUCFCS Code b249 E31 The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6249 E2, except with 50 to 75 percent coverage by exotic species. Hydric Pine, Disturbed (25-49% Exotics} {FLUCFCS Code b259 E2} The dominant canopy vegetation is slash pine with scattered cabbage palm. The sub -canopy may contain slash pine, cabbage palm, myrsine, and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover typically includes wax myrtle, swamp fern, sawgrass, saltbush, blue maindencane (Amphicarpum whlenbergianuin), torpedograss, cordgrass (Spartina bakeri), beakrush (Rhychospora spp.), musky mint (Hypos alata), bog button (Lachnocaulon spp.), Asiatic pennywort, and occasional saw palmetto (Serenoa repens). Hydric Cabbage Palm, Disturbed (50-75°10 Exotics�(FLUCFCS Code 6289 E3) The canopy consists predominantly of cabbage palm and may include occasional slash pine and laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia). The sub -canopy contains cabbage palm and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover vegetation includes wax myrtle, myrsine, saltbush, swamp fern, torpedograss, cordgrass, sawgrass, frog fruit (Phyla nodflora), bushy broomgrass, and Asiatic pennywort. i�rpri F-T�rriwnnt�_C'.nnifPr_ T�iSturhed t25-49% Exoti The canopy vegetation consists of wetland hardwood and conifer species, with neither dominating the stratum. The combination of species varies by location but typically includes cypress or slash pine and one or more of the following hardwood species: laurel oak, red maple, dahoon holly, and/or cabbage palm. The sub -canopy species include cabbage palm, pond apple, myrsine, and Brazilian pepper. Ground cover vegetation varies by location and typically includes swamp fern, bog hemp, wax myrtle, maidencane, sawgrass, beakrush, and/or saltbush. Wetland Mixed Hardwood -Conifer, Disturbed {50-7504Exotics} (FLUCFCS Code 6309 E3} The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6309 E2, except with 50 to 7S percent coverage by exotic species. Freshwater Marsh Disturbed 0-24% Exotics FLUCFCS Code 6419 E1 The canopy stratum is open. The sub -canopy may contain Carolina willow and/or Brazilian pepper. The ground cover vegetation varies by individual marsh. The ground cover may include any combination of pickerelweed, arrowhead, alligator flag, smartweed, spikerush, maidencane, horned beakrush, red -top panicum (Panicum rigidulwn), swamp sunflower (Helianthus atigustiifolius), water pennywort (Hydrocotyle spp.), primrose willow, cattail, paragrass, and torpedograss. Freshwater Marsh, Disturbed (2549% Exotics)(FLUCFCS Code 6419 E2} The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Coda 6419 El, except with 25 to 49 percent coverage by exotic vegetation. Freshwater Marsh, Disturbed (50-75% Exotics)(FLUC:FC;S Code 6419 >✓3 ) The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6419 El, except with 50 to 75 percent coverage by exotic vegetation. Marsh, Disturbed (76-100% Exoti The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Coda 6419 El, except with 76 to 100 percent coverage by exotic vegetation. Passarella &Associates, Inc. #05CEM1481 Revised OS/08112 Exhibit 3.2 Application No. 3 of 10 3of8 120209-2 ULland Habitats Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed 36ExoticsI(FLUCFCS Code 41191✓1 The canopy vegetation consists of slash pine and scattered cabbage palm, The sub -canopy includes slash pine, scattered cabbage palm, live oak (Quercus virginiana), Brazilian pepper, and/or melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia). The ground cover is dominated by saw palmetto and includes wax myrtle, gallberry (Ilex glabra), wiregrass (Artstida spp.), bushy broomgrass, beautyberry {Callicarpa americana), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), muscadine grapevine (Vitls rotundifolia), dog fennel, pennyroyal (Piloblephis rigida), and caesarweed (Urena lobata). Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (25 — 49% Exotics) tFLUCFCS Code 4119 E2) are similar to FLUCFCS Code 4119 El, except with 25 to 49 percent The vegetation associations coverage by exotic species. Fine Flatwoods, Disturbed (SO — 75% Exotics)�FLUCFCS Code 4i 19 E3 The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 4119 E1, except with 50 to 75 percent coverage by exotic species. WETLAND MITIGATION FLAN The wetland mitigation plan will be conducted in four phases and consists of etlhancitlg and managi ng ng a total of 342.00+ acres of habitat within Camp Keais Strand t332,38=h acres of wetlands and 9.62± acres of uplands). The phases of mitigation were delineated to offset specific wetland and PFFW impacts. Mitigation Phase Nos. 1 and 2, totaling 172.62± acres, offset the Project's direct and secondary impacts to wetland functions associated with the on -going and permitted agriculture use. Mitigation Phase No. 3 totals 137.61t acres and offsets potential impacts to PFFW No. S-4 functions when converted to non -agriculture use. Mitigation Phase No. 4 totals 31.77± acres and offsets potential impacts to PFFW No. S-2 when converted to non -agriculture use. The enhancement activities for each phase will be conducted concurrent with impacts to the corresponding wetlands and PFFWs. Enhancement consists of the hand removal of exotic and nuisance species. The exotic and nuisance species to be eradicated include, but are not limited to, Brazilian pepper, melaleuca, Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia), downy rose myrtle (Rhodomyrtus tomentosus), and cattails. The hand removal of exotic and nuisance vegetation will include one or more of the following methods: (1) cut exotics within 12 inches of ground elevation, hand remove cut vegetation, and treat remaining stump with approved herbicide; (2) girdle standing melaleuca and Australian pine with diameter at breast height (DBH) greater than 4 inches and apply approved herbicide to cambium; (3) foliar application of approved herbicide to melaleuca saplings, Brazilian pepper, Australian pine, and downy rose myrtle; and (4) foliar application of approved herbicide or hand pulling of exotic seedlings and cattails. In the event that natural recruitment is not successful within two years for areas where the density of exotics exceeds 50 percent (30.70� acres in Phase 1, 19.09� acres in Phase 2, 50.05� acres in Phase 3, and 2.77± acres in Phase 4), supplemental wetland plantings will be conducted. Tree plantings will include a minimum of 3 of the 6 species listed in Table 1, Shrub plantings will include a minimum of 2 of the 4 species listed in Table 1, and ground cover plantings will include a minimum of 6 of the 11 species provided in Table 1. Passarella &Associates, Inc. #OSCEMl481 Devised OSl08/t2 Exhibit 3.2 Application No. '120209-2 4 of l0 Table 1. Supplemental Wetland Planting List Common Name. Scientific Name Minimum H4elght . Minimum Container Size Planting Density On Center Tree Plantings . . . Cypress 7axodium spp. 5 ft. 3 al. 10 ft. Dahoon Holly Ilex cassine 5 ft. 3 gal. 10 fte Pop Ash Fraxinus carohniana 5 ft. 3 al. 10 ft. Red Maple Acer rubrum 51 3 gal. 10 ft. Laurel Oak Quercus lauri olio 5 fte 3 al. 10 ft. Slash Pine Pinus elliottii 5 ft. 3 al. 10 ft. WIN Shrub)?lantin s .. :.. Wax Myrtle hI rica ceri era 3 ft. 1 gal. 10 ft. M rsine Ra anea punctala 3 fte 1 gal. 10 ff Gallberry Ilex glabra 3 ft. 1 gal. 10 ft. Buttonbush Ce halanthus occidentalis 1 3 ft. 1 gal. 10 ft. Ground Cover Plantings Cord sass S artina bakeri 12 in. 4 in. 4 ft. Gulfdune Pas alum Pas alum monostach urn 12 in. 4 in. 4 ft. Tickseed Cored sis s ppq 12 in. 4 in. 4 fte Lovegrass Era rostis spp. 12 in. 4 in. 4 ft. Sawgrass Cladium anmicense 12 in. 4 in. 4 ft. Maidencane Panicum hemitomon 12 in, 4 in. 4 ft. Pickerelweed Pontederia cordata 12 in. 4 in. 41 Arrowhead Sa ittaria land olio 12 in. 4m.. 4 ft. Soft -Stein Bulrush Sc! r us validus 12 in. 4 in. 4 fte S ikerush Eleocharis interstincta 12 111. 4 in. 4 . ft Baco a Baco a caroliniana -- Liner -- WETLAND MITIGATION SUCCESS CRITERIA The following are the success criteria for the mitigation area: {1) initial eradication of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be completed; and {2} the wetlands and uplands within the mitigation area shall be free from exotic and nuisance vegetation immediately following a maintenance activity and will consist of no more than one percent cover for exotics and less than five percent cover for nuisance species. Exotic and nuisance vegetation species are identified as those species listed by the Exotic Pest Plant Council (EPPQ at the time of permit issuance. Following the completion of the initial exotic removal effort, annual inspections of the mitigation area will be conducted. During these inspections, the mitigation area will be traversed by qualified ecologists. Locations of nuisance and/or exotic species will be identified for immediate treatment with an appropriate herbicide. Any additional potential problems will also be noted and corrective actions taken to reduce the exotic/nuisance species levels acceptable limits (i.e., less than five percent cover for nuisance species and less than one percent for exotics). Passarella &Associates, inc. #05CEM1481 Revised 05/08/12 Exhibit 3.2 Application No. 5 of I U Sofa Maintenance will be conducted in perpetuity to ensure that the enhanced mitigation area is free of exotic vegetation (as currently defined by the EPPC) immediately following maintenance and that nuisance species wi11 constitute no more than five percent and exotics will constitute no more than one percent of total combined cover. MONITC)ItING Monitoring Methodology The proposed monitoring of the mitigation area will consist of baseline, time -zero, and annual monitoring of vegetation, and wildlife for each of the four phases of enhancement activities. The baseline monitoring reports will document conditions on the Project site as they currently exist. The time -zero monitoring reports will document conditions immediately following enhancement. The annual reports will document conditions following enhancement activities and document the extent of success of the mitigation activities. If needed, the annual reports will identify specific actions to be taken to improve the conditions within the mitigation area. Sampling transects and methodology for the baseline, time -zero, and annual reports will utilize identical methods of data collection from identical sampling stations. Vegetation Monitoring Wetland and upland vegetation will be monitored prior to and following enhancement activities. Sampling will involve canopy, sub -canopy, and ground cover stratum along monitoring transects established within the mitigation area. Canopy and sub -canopy vegetation species will be monitored within 20 x 50 foot plots established along the monitoring transects. Species richness and visual estimate of percent cover will be calculated for canopy and sub -canopy stratum. To facilitate an intensive, accurate, and repeatable sampling program, the point frame method (Bonham 1989) will be utilized for the ground cover strata. Point frames will be sampled at approximately 25 foot intervals along each monitoring transeet. Each point frame consists of a one meter square wire grid with 25 cross points. Any plant species directly below a cross point will be recorded, including bare ground. Each cross point represents four percent of the square meter. For each sampling station, identified species will be listed and percent cover computed and discussed. Wildlife Monitoring Regular observations of wildlife will be made during the monitoring eves}t by qualified ecologists. t}bservations will consist of recording evidence and signs of wildlife (i.e., direct sightings, vocalizations, burrows, nests, tracks, droppings, etc.). Fish and Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Qualitative sampling of fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates will be conducted using a standard D- fratne aquatic dip net, mesh size one millimeter. Sampling will be conducted along vegetation monitoring transects with am 1lit mum of two centimeters of standing water. The collector will work the net vigorously within the vegetation, open water, and surficial bottom sediments. Net contents mute Passarella &Associates, Inc. #OSCEMI4$I Revised OS/4$/12 Exhibit 3.2 Application No. 6of10 120209-2 will be placed in a white pan and sorted with forceps. Hard substrate, if any, will also be examined for the presence of aquatic macro invertebrates. Sampling will continue until no new species are encountered for ten minutes. Sample size and collection times will not exceed 200 organisms or one hour, respectively. Samples will be preserved in alcohol, returned to the laboratory, and identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible. When possible, fish will be identified in the field and released. Photographic Documentation Permanent fixed point photograph stations will be established in the monitored areas providing physical documentation of the condition and appearance of an area, as well as any changes taking place within it. Monitoring photographs will accompany vegetation data in each report. Locations of photograph stations will remain the same throughout the duration of the monitoring program. Rain Gauge anti Monitoring Weil Hydrological monitoring for the mitigation area will include the installation of a rain gauge and continuous recording monitoring wells. The continuous recording monitoring wells will be Infinities USA pressure water level loggers or equivalent. Water level data will be included in the annual wetland mitigation monitoring reports. MOI�YTORYNG REPORTS The permittee will submit annual monitoring reports for each phase of mitigation work to the SFWMD documenting the success of the mitigation program and general condition of the mitigation area. The baseline monitoring report for each of the phases of the mitigation area will be submitted to the SFWMD according to the permitted mitigation activity schedule. The time -zero monitoring report for each phase will be submitted within 60 days of completion of the mitigation activities. Annual monitoring reports will be prepared for a period of five years for each of the mitigation phases and will include the following information. • Brief description of mitigation and maintenance work performed since the previous report along with a discussion of any modifications to the mitigation or management program. • Brief description of anticipated mitigation and maintenance work to be conducted over the next year. • Results of quantitative vegetation monitoring conducted in the enhanced mitigation area and a list of observed wildlife species. • Monitoring photographs taken at photograph stations within the mitigation area. • Monitoring well and rain gauge data. Passareila &Associates, Inc. #OSCEM1481 Revised OSl0$112 Exhibit 3.2 Application No. 7 of I V 7of8 REFERENCES Bonham, C.D. 1989. Measurements for Terrestrial Vegetation. John Wiley and Sons, T�Iew York, New York. 1'assarella &Associates, lnc. #OSCEM1481 Revised OS/08i12 Exhibit 3.2 Application No. 12�209-2 8 of 10 PHASE NO.4 (31.77 Act) - IlS%t _OL /�9Ci �r 1Ds77ro �. •�- . .Oro a<p. !. _J e/ 1�l1lt+. Ualt Ate J/ aaa ) Ai7Ae)�� ISA� a y` axK} `tFAa Ko' •� �t1p AI1) ( . aASA�u ) 1 fuK2%R13 At PHASSEENO. 2 4, .y J j 1 uaKa �`. ., trim .. II ACU II If KJ. . L.-a.roE2 1 •�\ �)ouA�n1 j _tr It �\ V /7/aIKL WOrA - erq[T 1 ;'ytL�IAe-4k IF f . -. 1a21 K 1) ' . � 1 ,1 S LIR7 - .aNK 1) (' I177 A%J _ .1• . r� a -r fMrl� • \� i— �7 •/Olt '-.� AtUIF -. an1e1 a �n•I• .•�� qw ACU .. _ ._ ... — MKA Ia.Ib to as AA UII f1 AeU l ( 1 CAMP KEAIS STRAND AIITIGATI01\ AREA FLUCFCS ).1AP Bl' PNASE Lu; 3 Sv2Hr PHASE NO. J (137.61 Ac.a LEGEND S1`AM3 NETLAND WT16ATION AREA LEI (SL2.FA AL e) >,� SFATO NETLAhS xiTH.N •S) mTi4ATICN AREA (332 31 Ac e) _.._ MTIGATJON AREA PHASE eOLNC&RY LDLTS OF KT45AT10N MIA v\ SU'VEYEO %ETLANO USE NOTES PRCfERTY BOtROARY fROH RAYNOh'J NAKr1, P E CRApINO h0 07.OieN GkO DA1E0 OCT03ER II. ZW7. AO.9ICLLTJ7AL PLAN PER COLLIER Eh1ER>�L SE DRAMNO NO, CF."PAEA SSpa7512 0A4 DATED F(dRJAAY 6. ZO;2 WETLAND Wt.S PER Aid, INC. DRAWM4 NO.,AX-S W30(SHEET TO Ah SJUN07 CWD GATED 1 IS• 2007. FLLCFCS IJ.ti:S EST171ATED FROM F•2D7 AERLLL Pr,OT04RAPHS ANj LOCa7rOhS APNOARWTED, FWCfCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE. CO1'ER Av0 FCAMS CLASSIF)C.ATICH SYSTE)1 (FLUCFCS)(FDOT 1929) PHASE NO.I I113.7i Ac.z) MITIGATION AREA FLUCFCS BY PHASE FLUCFCS P)IA$E1 PHASE2 PHASE] PHASES TOTAL CODES DESCFlIPTONS ACREAGE AL'AEAGE ACAEAOE ACREAGE ACREAGE a115f1 W:eFrwodrtD6.Urbrd(P2a%Em1u) - a115E2 Rne P'Atwcods, DSLrbad RS<9%Eeooesl 143 Yat l.Id 1.98 119 f1t9E7 Mf Faro00a.DaLrbed (SP75t FaacY) 205 0.11 267 a179E1 Aced HwdWood Coma. Daturbed O'S24%E,rota) t.19 - 130 a221 &Atiu1 PoPPEr. Hydric - Cie 016 a16-,E1 weL , DkrXbM(0,24% Er03CA) - 531 5,31 616r£2 WIDOW, Dlsrbed (25.49% Em" 127 207 207 6199E4 WTO*, DaxVA(7fri00% ENSp) 026 - 043 - 170 6215E1 CWsq Dskwte3(0-24% E1n1ca) 1047 - - 27R 028 Ig219E2 C)Twm Dstited Ps A9 EcMa) 6652 1320 6219Ea C)Wess, DS I>e](76-100%E�x3) 261I 70.LN 2435 1603a 624t£2 CYPfMbPme.rAtba2e PSM, DeWrbed(25-A9% EAbca) Oa) 267 632 663 1.01 762 62A9E3 Cip(ess,'P)r.1;C6tb" PWM. DpaltOd(5075%umcs) 2505 1642 2360 - 11.46 6255E2 thdric Pne, D'64rbed (254%E,b cA) 6530 E23:E3 HY&k CatbaOf PAYn, DOZYbed(%75%Earxe) -1 465 465 6303E2 We%YAWed Hwd*00d Confw, Deirrbed(2it9% E.att) 002 S61 Ow - 063 6]Y,E3 Weland ArentKaA&A030 CoO.fw, 0eerbrd(50.7S%Emtu) - 1.23 1101 563 6a19E1 Frfsheltw hrar3h, 061vrted(p24%EmSa) 092 17a I403 6:19E2 Fre< du lJwsh, D61uhted(2"9% Emtcs) - 1- 071 092 6119E3 Frew, per NZnh. O*botad 15075%Emta) 315 - - 071 6a1DEe Fms.r+Yw WYfh D*hxb>7 (76100% es*ts) 219 095 270 - 315 TOTALS 113.74 $a.6a 137,61 31'77 S6e 342.00 PASSARELLA -- � & ASSOCIATES`: 136?Q1.(etruEvluAvcnu< c:-,A�sr v1rti Sui1c 2l) I•L 12/Il0 7 S RS::%i. A It1T1 Fort1.1)tn, Flurida )391: K.C.P. � 12/l�/J7 R Phont 239) 274Lt67 LFreu, n.n S F.Lr(239)?79Ct769 F.L, i 2/(/I: ; Exhibit 3.2 Application No. 120209-2 9of10 _ 1 t S/. y _ �,; l7C L rHtisEl.o.4 / y / ws#,,P- �55 F, MW-CKIIt lb w �- ' .. _ ... PHASE No. 2 • fSSMAc.$) T-6 _ . LEI PHASE)10.3 .(137.61 Aas) PHASE NO.1 (113.74 Ac.$) M1 L,7•'n re LEGt70. SPM7SD METLaI® SFWNO METLAMD EMIANCEMENT QWLA`O ENHANCEMENT (R AE AC 0 V SLW"ED WETIA.M0 L" —.._ MITIGATION AREA P4ASE SOtM&RT LDYTS Of IITIGATION AREA M0IRTO"G TRAWCT O TREE/SMRND PLOT TRANSECT M"EA �c PNOTO•STATION MOMTORING ML N3. ® MOMTOR" WELL MOTES PROP[Rtt BOu•OARr ANO SITE PLA11 PROM RAYMOAO NARCCII P.E.DRAM1Wa N0.07.OLpM.Dy DATID OCiOBER lA ED07. WEILaM LINTS PER AS&_ tK% OU"re W.JOL S-MORxSwEET TO KM"401 t.G GATED .PWE IS. EOa1. AGOC,LTtAAL PLAN PER COLLFR ENTEAyiiSE DRAWING N0. CAIWceAKSTNZOp.ORG DATED EEaRUA?� G. zoo? �` n � I 13620 Mtiropolts Avenue �� " � � � € CAMP KEAIS STRAND PASSARELLA s°'"�°� .: i MITIGATION AND MONITORING PLAN FOR Myth, Florida 33912 K.C.P. O0 '-- 8C A.�oc��' S � PhDne (239) 2744Y�67 �m — Fax (239) 2140069 F.j, 12�1vo7 s 2 Application No. 120209-2 10 of 10 South Florida Water Management District Work Schedule Requirements Application No : 120209-2 Mitigation Plan ID: CAMP KEAIS PH 1 Activity .. Due Date SUBMIT FIRST MONITORING REPORT 30-JUN-12 SUBMIT SECOND MONITORING REPORT 30-JUN-13 SUBMIT THIRD MONITORING REPORT 30-JUN-14 SUBMIT FOURTH MONITORING REPORT 30-JUN-15 SUBMIT FIFTH MONITORING REPORT 30-JUN-16 SUBMIT TIME ZERO MONITORING REPORT 30-JUN-12 SUBMIT FIRST MONITORING REPORT 30-JUN-13 SUBMIT SECOND MONITORING REPORT 30-JUN-1�t SUBMIT THIRD MONITORING REPORT 30-JUN-15 SUBMIT FOURTH MONITORING REPORT 30-JUN-16 SUBMIT FIFTH MONITORING REPORT 30-JUN-17 Exhibit 3.3 Application No. 120209�2 'i of 1 STAFF REPORT DISTRIBUTION LIST CAMP KEAIS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT Appficatfan No: 120209-2 Permi# No: 11-01178-S INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION X Jessica White, P.E. X Karyn Allman X Permittee - Collier Enterprises Management Inc X Laura Layman X Env Consultant" Passarella And Associates, Inc. X Daniel F. Waters, P.E. X Owner - Collier Land Holdings L T D X A. Bain X A. Waterhouse X C. Tears GOVERNMENT AGENCIES X ERC Engineering X ERC Environmental X Div of Recreation and Park - District 4 - FDEP X Fort Myers Backup File X Fort Myers Service Center Director OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES X Permit File X Audubon of Florida - Charles Lee X Conservancy of South West Florida Amber Crooks SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT NO. 11-03949=P DATE ISSUED: APRIL 3, 2018 PERMITTEE: COLLIER ENTERPRISES MANAGEMENT INC See atttached COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS LTD for address BIG CYPRESS STEWARDSHIP DISTRICT CDC LAND INVESTMENTS LLC (RURAL LANDS WEST) PROJECT DESCRIPTION CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (SWMS) SERVING A 61708.62- ACRE MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS RURAL LANDS WEST. (NO CONSTRUCTION IS AUTHORIZED BY THIS PERMIT.) PROJECT LOCATION: COLLIER COUNTY , SECTION 3, 10-15122-27, 34-36 TWP 48S RGE 28E PERMIT DURATION. See Special Condition No:1. This is to notify you of the District's agency action concerning Permit Application No. 160711-8, dated July 11, 2016. This action is taken pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes (F.S.). Based on the information provided, District rules have been adhered to and an Environmental Resource Permit is in effect for this project subject to: 1. Not receiving a filed request for an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57 and Section '120.569, or a request for a judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. 2. The attached 18 General Conditions. 3. The attached 29 Special Conditions. 4. The attached 3 Exhibits. Should you object to these conditions, please refer to the attached "Notice of Rights" which addresses the procedures to be followed if you desire a public hearing or other review of the proposed agency action. Should you wish to object to the proposed agency action or file a petition, please provide written objections, petitions and/or waivers to: Office of the District Clerk South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, FL 33406 e-mail: clerk@sfwmd.gov Please contact this office if you have any questions concerning this matter. If we do not hear- from you in accordance with the "Notice of Rights", we will assume that you concur with the District's action. CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT this written notice has been mailed or electronically submitted to the Permittee (and the persons listed on the attached distribution list) this 4th day of April, 2018, in accordance with Section 120.60(3), F.S. Notice was also electronically posted on this date through a link on the home page of the District's website (my.sfwmd.gov/ePermitting). By • DEPUT RK SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Attachments PAGE 1 OF 8 PERMIT NO: 11-03949-P PAGE20F8 SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. The conceptual phase of this permit shall expire on April 3, 2038. 2. Operation and maintenance of the stormwater management system and mitigation areas including all conservation areas shall be the responsibility of the Big Cypress Stewardship District. 3. Discharge Facilities: Refer to Exhibit 2.0 Pages 18 and 20 of 23. 4. Lake side slopes shall be no steeper than 4:1 (horizontal:vertical) to a depth of two feet below the control elevation. Side slopes shall be nurtured or planted from 2 feet below to 1 foot above control elevation to insure vegetative growth, unless shown on the plans. 5. Astable, permanent and accessible elevation reference shall permitted discharge structures no later than the submission reference must be noted on or with the certification report. 6. Minimum building floor elevation: Basin: 01 - 25.70 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 02 - 25.30 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 03 - 21.50 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 04 - 19.60 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 05 - 19.40 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 06 - 19.70 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 07 - 19.00 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 08 - 18.50 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 09 - 18.40 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 10 - 16.80 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 11 - 16.80 feet NAVD 88. 7. Minimum road crown elevation: Basin: 01 - 24.10 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 02 - 22.70 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 03 - 20.30 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 04 - 19.50 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 05 - 19.50 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 06 - 19.20 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 07 - 19.00 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 08 - 17.70 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 09 - 17.70 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 10 - 16.20 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 11 - 16.20 feet NAVD 88. be es#ablished on or within one hundred (100) feet of all of the certification report. The location of the elevation 8. The permittee shall utilize the criteria contained in the stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Exhibit 2.2) and on the applicable approved construction drawings for the duration of the project's construction activities. 9. The Urban stormwater Management Plan shall be implemented in accordance with Exhibit 2.3. 10. (a) This conceptual approval permit only authorizes design concepts operate, maintain, remove, or abandon projects that require an individi does not authorize any construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, and operation of a mitigation bank, or relieve the permit holder of any Conditions 1, 3, 41 61 71 16 and 18 are not applicable until an Individui or a master or future plan to construct, alter, al permit under Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S. It removal, or abandonment, or the establishment requirements to obtain such permits. General I Permit authorizing a phase of construction is PERMIT NO: 11-03949-P 17_L�3�c�ir�:3 issued. (b) Subsequent applications to construct and operate activities shall be prepared and submitted using the procedures in Rules 62-330.060, 6M30.061, and 62-330.071, F.A.C. (c) Issuance of this conceptual approval permit is a determination, within the level of detail provided in the application, that the activities approved in this permit are consistent with applicable rules at the time of issuance. This permit provides the conceptual approval permit holder with a rebuttable presumption, during the duration of this permit, that the engineering design and environmental concepts upon which the designs approved herein are likely to meet applicable rule criteria for issuance of permits for subsequent phases of the project, provided all of the requirements of Rule 62- 330.056(7)(a) through (d), F.A.0 are met at the time of receipt of a complete application to construct and operate the future phase(s). (d) If changes are proposed to the design of existing or future phases, or where there have been changes to state water quality standards, special basins, or site characteristics as described in rule 62-330.056(7)(a) through (d), F.A.C, during the duration of this permit, the applicant must modify this permit if it wishes to continue to rely on it as a basis that reasonable assurance exists for the Agency to issue future construction or operation permits. If the permittee fails to do this, this conceptual approval permit can no longer be relied upon as a basis, in part or whole, for permits to construct or operate future phases, and the Agency will reevaluate the terms and conditions of this permit at the time a permit application is received to construct the next phase of activities. (e) The duration of this conceptual approval permit is 20 years, provided that, within five years of issuance of this permit: 1. The permittee applies for and receives an Individual Permit for the initial phase of construction or alters#ion and 2. The authorized construction or alteration has begun and the work remains in compliance with the terms and conditions of both the conceptual approval permit and all permits authorizing construction or alteration, including required operation. These time periods will be tolled if the Agency is notified, in writing, within five years of issuance that administrative review under either of the following is pending: a. The project approved by the conceptual approval permit is undergoing Development of Regional Impact review pursuant to Section 380,06, F.S., and an administrative appeal of that review has been filed; or b. The issuance of the construction permit for the first phase is under administrative review pursuant to Sections 120.569 or 120.57, F.S. 11. A mitigation program for Rural Lands West includes the enhancement and preservation of 3,659.31 acres. However, mitigation credit is only being received fior 3559.19 acres which includes the enhancement and preservation of 3,300.36 acres of wetlands, 3.37 acres of wetland restoration, 20.72 acres of PFFW restoration, and 32.61 acres of wetland creation, 191.09 acres of upland enhancement and preservation, and 11.04 acres of upland restoration. There will be 13.91 acres of OSW preservation and 0.36 acres of upland buffers that will not be used as mitigation. The mitigation plan is attached as Exhibit No. 3.7. 12. Upon submittal of an application for construction approval, the permittee shall submit an updated wetland mitigation, monitoring and maintenance plan with details specific to the mitigation phase being implemented that will include but not be limited to: exhibits depiciting the specific mitigation area, exotic removal, planting, and prescribed burn details (including access points for burning), and a mitigation work schedule for review by District staff. The plan shall be subject to the approval of District staff and the environmental criteria in effect at the time of the construction permit application, and shall also be reviewed for consistency with the conceptual mitigation plan authorized in this permit. 13. Upon commencement of construction, the permittee shall implement the wetland mitigation, monitoring and maintenance plan in accordance with Exhibit No. 3.7, inclusive of any updates. The monitoring program shall extend for a minimum of 5 years, with annual reports submitted to District staff. At the end of the first monitoring period, the mitigation area shall contain an 80% survival of planted vegetation. The 80% survival rate shall be maintained throughout the remainder of the monitoring program, with replanting as necessary. If native PERMIT NO: 11-03949-P wetland, transitional, and upland species do not achieve an 80% coverage within the initial two years of the monitoring program, native species shall be planted in accordance with the maintenance program. At the end of the 5 year monitoring program the en#ire mitigation area shall contain an 80% survival of planted vegetation and an 80% coverage of desirable obligate and facultative wetland species. Exotic and nuisance vegetative debris shall be removed from the conservation areas to the extent practicable. Temporary trails that may be used for removal of nuisance and exotic vegetative debris are depicted on the monitoring map included in Exhibit No. 3.7. 14. Prior to the commencement of construction, a maintenance program shall be implemented in accordance with Exhibit No. 3.7 for the preserves on a regular basis to ensure the integrity and viability of those areas as permitted. Maintenance shall be conducted in perpetuity to ensure that the conservation areas are maintained free from Category 1 & 2 exotic vegetation (as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council immediately following a maintenance activity). Maintenance in perpetuity shall also insure that conservation areas, including buffers, maintain the species and coverage of native, desirable vegetation specified in the permit. Coverage of exotic and nuisance plant species shall not exceed 5% of total cover between maintenance activities. In addition, the permittee shall manage the conservation areas such that exotic/nuisance plant species do not dominate any one section of those areas. Exotic and nuisance vegetative debris shall be removed from the conservation areas to the extent practicable. Temporary trails that may be used for removal of nuisance and exotic vegetative debris are depicted on the monitoring map included in Exhibit No. 3.7. 15. Upon commencement of construction, permanent physical markers designating the preserve status of the wetland preservation/conservation areas and buffer zones shall be placed at the intersection of the buffer and each lot line in residential areas, or at appropriately spaced intervals in non-residential areas. These markers shall be maintained in perpetuity. 96. At the time of applica#ion for construction of future phases, the permittee shall submit an updated summary and map which shows the location and acreage of the wetlands) impacted #o date, and the the status of existing mitigation areas for the entire project. 17. At the time of application for any phase of construction that includes wetland impacts, the permittee shall demonstrate that an adequate portion of the mitiga#ion plan has been or shall be executed and completed in a timely manner (i.e., concurrent with the wetland impacts) and that the specified mitigation will adequately offset the wetland impacts associated with that phase. 98. If monitoring reports or other information show the preserved wetlands have been negatively affected by the permitted development in a manner that is irreversible (such as impounding the wetland and drowning the existing vegetation or a reduction in the hydroperiod resulting in the transition of wetlands into upland/transitional habitat), the permittee shall be required to submit a remedia#ion plan within 30 days of notification by the District's Environmental Resource Compliance staff of such conditions. The remediation plan may include onsite or offsite mitigation as necessary to address any deficiences. 19, Areas to be temporarily disturbed by the installation of control structures in wetlands and conservation easement areas will be backfilled and replanted in accordance with Exhibit No. 3.7 within 30 days of installs#ion. Monitoring of temporary impact areas shall be done concurrently with other required monitoring for Rural Lands West. 20. Endangered species, threatened species and/or species of special concern have been observed onsite and/or the project contains suitable habitat for these species. It shall be the permittee's responsibility to coordinate with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) anator the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for appropriate guidance, recommendations and/or necessary permits to avoid impacts to listed species. Updated wetland -dependent species surveys may be required with subsequent applications for phases of construction as required by FWC and State Law. Big Cypress fox squirrel surveys shall be conducted prior to the commencement of construction. The applicant shall implement the Rural Lands West Listed Species Management and Human -Wildlife Coexistence Plan (LSMP) attached as Exhibit 3.14. The applicant shall follow the wildlife requirements of any federal authorizations received. Please refer to Exhibit 3.13 for the currently proposed Panther Habitat Assessment/Habitat Compensation Plan, which requires federal approval from the FWS. PERMIT NO: 11-03949-P PAGE50F8 21. A) At the time of application for construction approval, the permittee shall submit for review and approval, one copy of the following as a package for review by District real estate staff: 1. Project map identifying conservation areas 2. Legal description of conservation areas 3. Signed conservation easement form (prior to construction permit issuance) 4. Sealed boundary survey of conservation area(s) by professional Land surveyor 5. Title Review Information and Title insurance commitment for the conservation easement naming the District as beneficiary using approved valuation. 6. Data in accordance with paragraph E (below). B) The real estate information referenced in paragraph {A) above shall be reviewed by the District in accordance with the District's real estate review requirements. The easement shall be granted free of mortgages, liens, easements or other encumbrances or interests which the District staff states are contrary to the intent of the easement. The easement shall not be recorded until such approval is received. C) Prior to the commencement of construction, the permittee shall record the conservation easement(s), utilizing the form attached as Exhibit No. 3.5, over the real property designated as conservation/preservation areas. The conservation easements shall be granted to the District. D) In the event the conservation easement real estate information reveals encumbrances or interests in the easement which the District staff states are contrary to the intent of the easement, the permittee shall be required #o provide release or subordination of such encumbrances or interests. If such are not obtained, permittee shall be required to apply for a modification to the permit for alternative acceptable mitigation. E) A CD or DVD containing the easement data supplied in a digital ESRi (',eoda#abase (mdb), ESRI Shapefile (shp) or AU %J Drawing Interchange (dxf) file format using Florida State Plane coordinate system, East Zone (3601)I Datum NAD83, HARN with the map units in feet, shall be submitted. F) The permittee shall record the conservation easement in the public records of Collier County, Florida within 30 days of construction permit issuance and prior to the commencement of construction. Upon recordation, the permittees shall submit one certified copy of the recorded conservation easements for the preservation/mitigation areas, and title insurance policy, via ePermitting or to the Environmental Resource Compliance staff in the local District service center. 22. At the time of application for construction approval and prior to the commencement of construction, the perimeter of conservation areas shall be stakedlroped/silt fenced to prevent encroachment into the protected areas. Using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology, the perimeter of the preserve area(s) shall be identified for future reference. The data shall be differentially corrected and accurate to less than a meter (+/- one meter or better). Electronic copies of the GPS data shall be provided to the District's Environmental Resource Compliance staff. The permittee shall notify the District's Environmental Resource Compliance staff in writing upon completion of staking/roping/silt fencing and schedule an inspection of this work. The staking/roping/silt fencing shall be subject to District staff approval. The permittee shall modify the staking/roping/silt fencing if District staff determines that it is insufficient or is not in conformance with the intent of this permit. Staking/roping/silt fencing shall remain in place until all adjacent construction activities are complete. 23. Upon submittal of an application for construction approval involving wetland impacts or proposed mitigation, the permittee shall submit a work schedule, subject to District staff review and approval, specifying completion dates for each mitigation, monitoring and maintenance task. 24. Irrigation withdrawals for the proposed uses and construction dewatering are not authorized until construction approval is obtained. 25. The delineation of the extent of wetlands and other surface waters in Exhibit No. 3.1 shall be binding for the duration of PERMIT NO: 11-03949-P the permit. 26. Prior to any future construction, the permittee shall apply for and receive a permit modifica#ion. As part of the permit application, the applicant for that phase shall provide documentation verifying that the proposed construction is consistent with the design of the master stormwater management system, including the land use and site grading assumptions of the conceptual approval permit. 27. This permit is issued based on the applicant's submitted information which reasonably demonstrates that adverse water resource related impacts will not be caused by the completed permit activity. Should any adverse impacts caused by the completed stormwater management system occur, the District will require the permittee to provide appropriate mitigation to the District or other impacted party. The District wi!! require the perrnittee to modify the stormwater management system, if necessary, to eliminate the cause of the adverse impacts. 28. Modifications of Permits No. 11-01178-S and 11-00112-S as well as Oi! Well Road Segment 3 (Permit No. 11- 01745-P) shall be required prior to the issuance of construction and operation authorization to address changes of the stormwater management systems serving these agricultural developments and roadway improvements due to the proposed development. 29. The following are exhibits to this permit. Exhibits noted as incorporated by reference are available on the District's ePermitting website (http://my.sfwmd.gov/ePermltting) under this application number. Exhibit 1.0 Exhibit 2.0 Exhibit 2.1 Exhibit 2.2 Exhibit 2.3 Exhibit 3.0 Exhibit 3.1 Exhibit 3.2 Exhibit 3.3 Exhibit 3.4 Exhibit 3.5 Exhibit 3.6 Exhibit 3.7 Exhibit 3.8 Exhibit 3.9 Exhibit 3.10 Exhibit 3.11 Exhibit 3.12 Exhibit 3.13 Exhibit 3.14 Exhibit 3.15 Exhibit 3.16 ion LocatMap Conceptual Plans stormwater Management Summary and FEMA FIRM information stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Urban Stormwater Management Program FLUCCS Map Wetland/Other Surface Water Identification Map Previously Authorized Impacts & Mitigation and Current Plan Summary Map Wetland/Other Surface Water Impact Map Summary of Conservation Area Acreage Conservation Easement Form UMAM Summary with Breakdown of Habitat Assessment Areas Mitigation, Monitoring and Maintenance Plan Map of Project relative to Camp Keals Strand Location Map for Eagle Nest and Audubon's Caracara Nest Location Map of project relative to Wood Stork CFA & FWS Consultation Areas FWC Letter dated January 16, 2018 Wildlife Crossing Locations Panther Habitat Assessment Rural Lands West Listed Species Management and Human-Wildllfe Coexistence Plan (LSMP) Panther Telemetry Data Map of SSA and Conservation Lands PERMIT NO: 11-03949-P PAGE70F8 GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. A!I activities shall be implemented following the plans, specifications and performance criteria approved by this permit. Any deviations must be authorized in a permit modification in accordance with Rule 62-330.315, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Any deviations that are not so authorized shall subject the permittee to enforcement action and revocation of the permit under Chapter 373, F.S. 2. A Recorded Notice of Environmental Resource Permit may be recorded in the county public records in accordance with Rule 62-330.090(7), F.A.C. Such notice is not an encumbrance upon the property. 3. Activities shall be conducted in a manner that does not cause or contribute to violations of state water quality standards. Performance -based erosion and sediment control best management practices shall be installed immediately prior to, and be maintained during and after construction as needed, to prevent adverse impacts to the water resources and adjacent lands. Such practices shall be in accordance with the "State of Florida Erosion and Sediment Control Designer and Reviewer Manual" (Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Florida Department of Transportation June 2007), and the "Florida Stormwater Erosion and Sedimentation Control Inspector's Manual" (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Nonpoint Source Management Section, Tallahassee, Florida, July 2008), unless a project - specific erosion and sediment control plan is approved or other water quality control measures are required as part of the permit. 4. At least 48 hours prior to beginning the authorized activities, the permittee shall submit to the Agency a fully executed Form 62-330.350(1), "Construction Commencement Notice" Indicating the expected start and completion dates. If available, an Agency website that fulfills this notification requirement may be used in lieu of the form. 5. Unless the permit is transferred under Rule 62-330.340, F.A.C., or transferred to an operating entity under Rule 62- 330.310,the permittee is liable to comply with the plans, terms and conditions of the permit for the life of the project or activity. 6. Within 30 days after completing construction of the entire project, or any independent portion of the project, the permittee shall provide the following to the Agency, as applicable: a. For an individual, private single-family residential dwelling unit, duplex, triplex, or quadruplex- "Construction Completion and Inspection Certification for Activities Associated With a Private Single -Family Dwelling Unit"[Form 62- 330.310(3)]; or b. For all other activities- "As -Built Certification and Request for Conversion to Operational Phase" [Form 62- 330.310(1)]. c. If available, an Agency website that fulfills this certification requirement may be used in lieu of the form. 7, if the final operation and maintenance entity is a third party: a. Prior to sales of any lot or unit served by the activity and within one year of permit issuance, or within 30 days of as - built certification, whichever comes first, the permittee shall submit, as applicable, a copy of the operation and maintenance documents (see sections 12.3 thru 12.3.3 of Applicant's Handbook Volume 1) as filed with the Department of State, Division of Corporations and a copy of any easement, plat, or deed restriction needed to operate or maintain the project, as recorded with the Clerk of the Court in the County in which the activity is located. b. Within 30 days of submittal of the as- built certification, the permittee shall submit "Request for Transfer of Environmental Resource Permit to the Perpetual Operation Entity" [Form 62-330.310(2)] to transfer the permit to the operation and maintenance entity, along with the documentation requested in the form. If available, an Agency website that fulfills this transfer requirement may be used in lieu of the form. 8. The permittee shall notify the Agency in writing of changes required by any other regulatory agency that require changes to the permitted activity, and any required modification of this permit must be obtained prior to implementing the changes. 9. This permit does not: a. Convey to the permittee any property rights or privileges, or any other rights or privileges other than those specified PERMIT NO: 11-03949-P herein or in Chapter 62-330, F.A.C.; b. Convey to the permittee or create in the permittee any interest in real property, c. Relieve the permittee from the need to obtain and comply with any other required federal, state, and local authorization, law, rule, or ordinance; or J. Authorize any entrance upon or work on property that is not owned, held in easement, or controlled by the permittee. 10. Prior to conducting any activities on state-owned submerged lands or other Lands of the state, title to which is vested in the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, the permittee must receive all necessary approvals and authorizations under Chapters 253 and 258, F.S. Written authorization that requires formal execution by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund shall not be considered received until it has been fully executed. 11. The permittee shall hold and save the Agency harmless from any and all damages, claims, or liabilities that may arise by reason of the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, abandonment or use of any project authorized by the permit. 12. The permittee shall notify the Agency in writing: a. Immediately if any previously submitted information is discovered to be inaccurate; and b. Within 30 days of any conveyance or division of ownership or control of the property or the system, other than conveyance via a long-term lease, and the new owner shall request transfer of the permit in accordance with Rule 62- 330.340, F.A.C. This does not apply to the sale of lots or units in residential or commercial subdivisions or condominiums where the stormwater management system has been completed and converted to the operation phase. 13. Upon reasonable notice to the permittee, Agency staff with proper identification shall have permission to enter, inspect, sample and test the project or activities to ensure conformity with the plans and specifications authorized in the permit. 14. If any prehistoric or historic artifacts, such as pottery or ceramics, stone tools or metal implements, dugout canoes, or any other physical remains that could be associated with Native American cultures, or early colonial or American settlement are encountered at any time within the project site area, work involving subsurface disturbance in the immediate vicinity of such discoveries shall cease. The permittee or other designee shall contact the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Compliance and Review Section, at (850) 245-6333 or (800) 847-7278, as well as the appropriate permitting agency office. Such subsurface work shall not resume without verbal or written authorization from the Division of Historical Resources. If unmarked human remains are encountered, all work shall stop immediately and notification shall be provided in accordance with Section 872.05, F.S. 15. Any delineation of the extent of a wetland or other surface water submitted as part of the permit application, including plans or other supporting documents#ion, shall not be considered binding unless a specifiic condition ofi this permit or a formal determination under Rule 62-330.201, F.A.C., provides otherwise. 16. The permittee shall provide routine maintenance of all components of the stormwater management system to remove trapped sediments and debris. Removed materials shall be disposed of in a landfill or other uplands in a manner that does not require a permit under Chapter 62-330, F.A.C., or cause violations of state water quality standards. 17. This permit is issued based on the applicant's submitted information that reasonably demonstrates that adverse water resource -related impacts will not be caused by the completed permit activity. If any adverse impacts result, the Agency will require the permittee to eliminate the cause, obtain any necessary permit modification, and take any necessary corrective actions to resolve the adverse impacts. 18. A complete copy of this permit shall be kept at the work site of the permitted activity during the construction phase, and shall be available for review at the work site upon request by the Agency staff. The permittee shall require the contractor to review the complete permit prior to beginning construction. PERMIT NO: 11-03949-P APPL NO: 160711-8 COLLIER ENTERPRISES MANAGEMENT INC (RURAL LANDS WEST) 2550 GOODLETT&FRANK ROAD NORTH UNIT 100, MAPLES, FL 34103 COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS L T D (RURAL LANDS WEST) 2550 GOODLETTE ROAD NORTH, MAPLES, FL 34103 BIG CYPRESS STEWARDSHIP DISTRICT (RURAL LANDS WEST) 2550 GOODLETTE ROAD, NAPLES, FL 34103 C D C LAND INVESTMENTS L L C (RURAL LANDS WEST) 2550 GOODLETTE ROAD NORTH, NAPLES, FL 34103 NOTICE OF RIGHTS As required by Sections 120.569 and 120.60(3), Fla. Stat., the following is notice of the opportunities which may be available for administrative hearing or judicial review when the substantial interests of a party are determined by an agency. Please note that this Notice of Rights is not intended to provide legal advice. Not all of the legal proceedings detailed below may be an applicable or appropriate remedy. You may wish to consult an attorney regarding your legal rights. RIGHT TO REQUEST ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING A person whose substantial interests are or may be affected by the South Florida Water Management District's (SFWMD or District) action has the right to request an administrative hearing on that action pursuant to Sections 120,569 and 120.57, Fla. Stat. Persons seeking a hearing on a SFWMD decision which affects or may affect their substantial interests shall file a petition for hearing with the Office of the District Clerk of the SFWMD, in accordance with the filing instructions set forth herein, within 21 days of receipt of written notice of the decision, unless one of the following shorter time periods apply: (1) within 14 days of the notice of consolidated intent to grant or deny concurrently reviewed applications for environmental resource permits and use of sovereign submerged lands pursuant to Section 373.427, Fla. Stat.; or (2) within 14 days of service of an Administrative Order pursuant to Section 373.119(1), Fla. Stat. "Receipt of written notice of agency decision" means receipt of written notice through mail, electronic mail, or posting that the SFWMD has or intends to take final agency action, or publication of notice that the SFWMD has or intends to take final agency action. Any person who receives written notice of a SFWMD decision and fails to file a written request for hearing within the timeframe described above waives the right to request a hearing on that decision. If the District takes final agency action which materially differs from the noticed intended agency decision, persons who may be substantially affected shall, unless otherwise provided by law, have an additional Rule 28-10691111 Fla. Admin. Code, point of entry. Any person to whom an emergency order is directed pursuant to Section 373.119(2), Fla. Stat., shall comply therewith immediately, but on petition to the board shall be afforded a hearing as soon as possible. A person may file a request for an extension of time for filing an petition. The SFWMD may, for good cause, grant the request. Requests for extension of time must be filed with the SFWMD prior to the deadline for filing a petition for hearing. Such requests for extension shall contain a certificate that the moving party has consulted with all other parties concerning the extension and that the SFWMD and any other parties agree to or oppose the extension. A timely request for an extension of time shall toll the running of the time period for filing a petition until the request is acted upon. FILING INSTRUCTIONS A petition for administrative hearing must be filed with the Office of the District Clerk of the SFWMD. Filings with the Office of the District Clerk may be made by mail, hand -delivery, or e-mail. Filings by facsimile will not be accepted. A petition for administrative hearing or other document is deemed filed upon receipt during normal business hours by the Office of the District Clerk at SFWMD headquarters in West Palm Beach, Florida. The District's normal business hours are 8:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m., excluding weekends and District holidays. Any document received by the Office of the District Clerk after 5:00 p.m. shall be deemed filed as of 8:00 a.m. on the next regular business day. Additional filing instructions are as follows: • Filings by mail must be addressed to the Office of the District Clerk, 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406. Rev. 11108116 • Filings by hand -delivery must be delivered to the Office of the District Clerk. Delivery of a petition to the SFWMD's security desk does not constitute filing. It will be necessary to request that the SFWMD's security officer contact the Office of the District Clerk. An employee of the SFWMD's Clerk's office will receive and file the petition. • Filings by e-mail must be transmitted to the Office of the District Clerk at clerk(@sfwmd.gov. The filing date for a document transmitted by electronic mail shall be the date the Office of the District Clerk receives the complete document. A party who files a document by e-mail shall (1) represent that the original physically signed document will be retained by that party for the duration of the proceeding and of any subsequent appeal or subsequent proceeding in that cause and that the party shall produce it upon the request of other parties; and (2) be responsible for any delay, disruption, or interruption of the electronic signals and accepts the full risk that the document may not be properly filed. INITIATION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING Pursuant to Sections 120.54(5)(b)4. and 120.569(2)(c), Fla. Stat., and Rules 28-106.201 and 28-106.301, Fla. Admin. Code, initiation of an administrative hearing shall be made by written petition to the SFWMD in legible form and on 81 J2 by 11 inch white paper. All petitions shall contain: 1. Identification of the action being contested, including the permit number, application number, SFWMD file number or any other SFWMD identification number, if known. 2. The name, address, any email address, any facsimile number, and telephone number of the petitioner and petitioner's representative, if any. 3. An explanation of how the petitioner's substantial interests will be affected by the agency determination. 4. A statement of when and how the petitioner received notice of the SFWMD's decision. 5. A statement of all disputed issues of material fact. If there are none, the petition must so indicate. 6. A concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged, including the specific facts the petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the SFWMD's proposed action. 7. A statement of the specific rules or statutes the petitioner contends require reversal or modification of the SFWMD's proposed action. 8. If disputed issues of material fact exist, the statement must also include an explanation of how the alleged facts relate to the specific rules or statutes. 9. A statement of the relief sought by the petitioner, stating precisely the action the petitioner wishes the SFWMD to take with respect to the SFWMD's proposed action. MEDIATION The procedures for pursuing mediation are set forth in Section 120.573, Fla. Stat., and Rules 28-106.111 and 28-106.401—A05, Fla. Admin. Code. The SFWMD is not proposing mediation for this agency action under Section 120.573, Fla. Stat., at this time. RIGHTTO SEEKJUDICIAL REVIEW Pursuant to Section 120.68, Fla. Stat., and in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110, a party who is adversely affected by final SFWMD action may seek judicial review of the SFWMD's final decision by filing a notice of appeal with the Office of the District Clerk of the SFWMD in accordance with the filing instructions set forth herein within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed, and by filing a copy of the notice with the clerk of the appropriate district court of appeal. Rev. 11J08/16 2 erp_staff_report.rw Last Date For Agency Acton: April 5, 2018 •Im II •=1 11i INDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT STAFF REPORT Project Name: Permit No.. Application No.: Rural Lands West 11-03949-P 160711-8 Application Type: Environmental Resource (Conceptual Approval) Location: Collier County, S3, 10-15, 22-27, 34-36/T48S/R28E Permittee : Collier Enterprises Management Inc Collier Land Holdings LTD Big Cypress Stewardship District CDC Land Investments LLC Operating Entity : Big Cypress Stewardship District Project Area: 6,708.62 acres Permit Area: 10,264.63 acres Project Land Use: Residential Commercial And Services Recreational Drainage Basin: WEST COLLIER Sub Basin: FAKA UNION CANAL Receiving Body: EXISTING AGRICULTURAL SWM SYSTEM Class: CLASS III Special Drainage District: NA Total Acres Wetland Onsite: Total Acres Wetland Preserved Onsite: Total Acres Impacted Onsite : Total Acres Presv/Mlt Compensation Onsite: Conservation Easement To District : Yes Sovereign Submerged Lands: No 4791.85 4248.46 543.39 (115.02 acres previously permitted) 4504441 This Environmental Resource Permit authorizes conceptual approval of a stormwater management system (SWMS) serving a 6,708.62-acre mixed -use development known as Rural Lands West. The project is a multi -phased mixed -use development. Conceptual stormwater management plans are attached as Exhibit Issuance of this permit constitutes certification of compliance with state water quality standards in accordance with Rule 62-330.062, F.A.C. App.no.: 160711-8 Page 1 of 34 erp_staff_report.rdf PROJECT EVALUATION: The site is located in Eastern Collier County. Oil Well Road (CR 858) bisects the northern and southern project areas. The site is located east of Golden Gate Estates and is bounded by applicant owned agricultural lands to the north and south. A portion of Camp Keais Strand, a regional flowway which serves as a wildlife corridor connecting Lake Trafford to the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, is located in the eastern portion of the site and extends offsite. A location map is attached as Exhibit 1.0. The project site consists of pasture, agricultural lands, undeveloped uplands, and wetlands. The site is currently permitted for agriculture, and contains active and ongoing agricultural operations and stormwater management systems. There are two permits that authorize construction and operation of the existing stormwater management system. The Shaggy Cypress Agricultural Development (Permit No. 11- )011M) encompasses the land south of Immokalee Road (CR 846) and north of Oil Well Road (CR 858). The Camp Keais Agricultural Development (Permit No.11-0117M) includes the applicant's lands south of Oil Well Road. These two existing agricultural permits extend beyond the boundaries of the proposed Rural Lands West (RLW) project site. The two existing agricultural sys#ems operate in a similar fashion. Active farm fields are drained by pumps located in perimeter ditches around each farm field. The pumps discharge stormwater from the ditches into nearby reservoirs, which are above ground impoundments. The reservoirs provide water quality and attenuation for the pumped stormwater prior to offsite discharge into the receiving waters. The northern portion of the Shaggy Cypress Agricultural Development discharges east into the Camp Keais Strand. The southern portion discharges south into the Camp Keais Agricultural Development. The site contains a tots! of 4,791.85 acres of wetlands which includes 303.19 acres of jurisdictional wetlands known as "Permitted Farm Fields Wet" (PFFW), and 4,488.66 acres of other jurisdictional wetlands. The site also contains a total of 29.56 acres of other surface waters (OSW). All wetlands received a binding wetland jurisdictional determination under Application Nos. 060803-3 and 060803-2 pursuant to Chapter 62-340, F.A.C. For more information on the wetlands and OSW, please refer to the Wetlands and Other Surface Waters section of this staff report. Refer to Exhibit No. 2.0 Page 8 of 23 for a land use summary table of Basins 01 through 11. Discharge Rate The applicant's engineer of record demonstrated through design calculations that the project discharge is within the allowable limit for the area, based on the previously permitted discharge rates for the Shaggy Cypress Agricultural Development (Permit No. 11-00112-S) and the Camp Keais Agricultural Development (Permit No. 11-01 V&S). The allowable discharge for Basins 01 through 11 are not identified in the table below since these basins discharge into existing reservoir areas, part of the stormwater management system serving the Shaggy Cypress Agricultural Development and Camp Keais Agricultural Developments. The drainage basin numbering system is project specific. Therefore, the stormwater management system serving the proposed development in these basins has not been designed to limit discharge for the design event to a specified rate. The points of compliance used in determination of the maximum allowable discharge rate App.no.: 160711-8 Page 9 of 34 erp_staff_report.rdf for the project are at the outfall locations of the existing agricultural developments, previously permitted under Permits No. 11-00112-S and 11-01178-S. The offsite discharge rate during the 25 year - 3 day storm event from the drainage area totalling 12,038.20 acres will be decreased from the previously permitted discharge rate of 317.23 cfs to 309.38 cfs. Information on the stormwater management system including the maximum allowable and design discharges for the project is summarized in Exhibit No. 2.1. The maximum allowable discharge rate for the Shaggy Cypress and Camp Keais Agricultural Developments were previously permitted at 0.75 inch per day (0.032 cfs / acre) and 0.65 inch per day (0.027 cfs / acre), respectively. As previously permitted, the existing agriculture developments within the Shaggy Cypress Agricultural and Camp Keais Agricultural Developments that will remain post - development of the project are required to limit the offsite discharges to these rates. Modifications of Permits No. 11-01178-S and 11-00112-S as well as Oil Well Road Segment 3 (Permit No. 11-01745- P) will be required prior to the issuance of construction and operation authorization to address changes of the stormwater management systems serving these agricultural developments and roadway improvements due to the proposed development. The staff has also coordinated with the Big Cypress Basin staff to ensure that there will be no adverse discharge impacts to the downstream stormwater management facilities. Reasonable assurances were therefore provided that there will be no adverse water quantity impacts to the receiving waters and adjacent lands. Discharge Storm Frequency : 25 YEAR-3 DAY Design Rain#all : 10.87 inches Basin Allow Disch Method Qf Peak Disch Peak Stage {cfs) Determiination (cfs) { ft, NAVD 88) 01 n/a n/a 27.02 24.07 02 n/a n/a 107.57 22.62 03 n/a n/a 932.63 20.26 04 n/a n/a 275.94 19.29 05 n/a n/a 121.01 18.96 06 n/a n/a 495.1 1962 07 n/a n/a 1133061 18.58 08 n/a n/a 952.63 17.55 09 n/a n/a 881.8 17.31 10 n/a n/a 445.15 15.76 11 n/a n/a 704.38 15.76 Finished Floors Building Storm Frequency : 100 YEAR-3 DAY Design Rainfall : 13.59 inches Basin Peak Stage Proposed Min. Finished Floors FEMA Elevation (ft, NAVD 88) { ft, NAVD 88) ( ft, NAVD 88) 01 25.67 25.7 23 02 25.24 25.3 22.5 03 20.69 21.5 21.5 04 19.58 19.6 19.5 05 19A 19A 19 06 19.67 19.7 19 App.no.: 160711-8 Page 3 of 34 erp_staff_report.rdf Basin Peak Stage (ft, NAVD 88) Proposed Min. Finished Floors (ft, NAVD 88) FEMA Elevation ( ft, NAVD 88) 07 18.97 19 18.5 08 18.41 18.5 18.5 09 18.39 18.4 17.5 10 16.79 16.8 15.5 11 16.75 16.8 16 Road Design Road Storm Frequency : 25 YEAR-3 DAY Design Rainfall: 10.87 inches Basin Peak Stage Proposed Min. Road Crown ( ft, NAVD 88) ( ft, NAVD 88) 01 24.07 24.1 02 22.62 22.7 03 20.26 2063 04 19.29 19.5 05 18.96 1905 06 1902 1902 07 18.58 19 08 17.55 17.7 09 17.31 17.7 10 15.76 16.2 11 15.76 16.2 Flood Plain/Compensating Storage: The applicant's engineer of record provided reasonable assurance through design calculations that the project will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, as the runoff volume exported offsite after development will not exceed the volume exported from the site based on existing conditions. These reasonable assurances also demonstrate that the project will not cause adverse flooding to onsite or offste properties. Control Elevation Basin Area Ctrl Elev WSWT Ctrl Elev Method Of (Acres) (ft, NAVD 88) (ft, NAVD 88) Determination 01 140.67 21.5 21.50 Monitoring Data 02 168.41 20 20.00 Monitoring Data 03 1033056 18 18.00 Monitoring Data 04 361.28 17.5 17.50 Monitoring Data 05 90.85 17.5 17.50 Monitoring Data 06 558.49 17.2 17.20 Monitoring Data 07 799.06 17 17.00 Monitoring Data 08 730.78 15.7 15.70 Monitoring Data 09 379.64 15.7 15.70 Monitoring Data 10 265.29 14.2 14.20 Monitoring Data 11 153.99 14.2 14.20 Monitoring Data App.no.: 160711-8 Page 4 of 34 erp_staff_report.rdf Water quality treatment will be provided in an interconnected wet detention system. As identified in the table below, the project provides the total water quality treatment volume of 858.42 acre-feet, which is greater than the required treatment volume of 603.62 acre-feet. The required water quality treatment volume is determined based on the land use assumptions in each drainage basin. The project is located within WBID 3259� (Camp Keais Strand), which the Florida Department of Environmental Protection designated as impaired for nutrients. Since the receiving waterbody is designated as impaired, the District considered measures proposed by the applicant that cause a net improvement in the water quality in the receiving waterbody for nutrients (See Section 373.414(1)(b)3., Florida Statutes). Utilizing the guidance o#Appendix E, Environmental Resource Applicant's Handbook Volume II (Volume I1), additional measures will provide reasonable assurances that the proposed activities will not contribute to the existing nutrient impairment in Camp Keais Strand. The measures include an additional 50% treatment above the requirements in Section 4.2, Volume 11. The Applicant provided a site -specific water quality evaluation which included pollutant loading calculations based on the removal characteristics associated with the proposed system. The calculations demonstrate that the proposed SWMS will reduce the post development loading of nutrients to levels less than the loadings generated under the pre -development condition as permitted by the District. This means there will be a net improvement in nutrient water quality and the proposed activities will not contribute to the existing nutrient impairment. The applicant, therefore, provided reasonable assurance that the project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that state water quality standards will be violated. The project will implement a Storrnwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Exhibit No. 2.2) and an Urban Stormwater Management Program (Exhibit No. 2.3) as additional reasonable assurance of compliance with water quality criteria during construction and operation. Basin Treatment Method Vol Req.d Vol (ac-ft) Prov'd 01 Treatment Wet Detention 19.63 19.73 02 Treatment Wet Detention 27 27.46 03 Treatment Wet Detention 129.2 165.62 04 Treatment Wet Detention 45.16 72.78 05 Treatment Wet Detention 11.36 15.21 06 Treatment Wet Detention 75.39 89.5 07 Treatment Wet Detention 99.88 143.2 08 Treatment Wet Detention 91.35 122.42 09 Treatment Wet Detention 50.57 69.33 10 Treatment Wet Detention 33.16 86.04 11 Treatment Wet Detention 20.93 47.15 Wetlands And Other Surface Waters: The site contains a total of 4,791.85 acres of wetlands which includes 303.19 acres of jurisdictional wetlands known as PFFW, and 4,488.66 acres of other jurisdictional wetlands. The site also contains 29.56 acres of OSW. The 4,488.66 acres of onsite wetlands are cypress, cypress -pine, mixed forested, App.no.: 160711-8 Page 5 of 34 erp_staff_report. rdf wet prairie, and freshwater marsh wetland communities with varying degrees of coverage by nuisance and exotic species. The 303.19 acres of PFFW wetlands are permitted agricultural areas that, at the time of the wetland delineation for the site, were fallow and exhibited wetland characteristics under Rule 62- 340, F.A.C. A Florida Land Use, Cover, And Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) map is attached as Exhibit No. 3.0 and a Wetland/Other Surface Water Identification map is attached as Exhibit No. 3.1. There are 282.33 acres of direct wetland impacts, 143.69 acres of direct impacts to PFFW wetlands, and 15.65 acres of direct OSW impacts associated with this project. There are also 101.79 acres of direct impacts to PFFW and 13.23 acres of direct wetland impacts that were previously authorized and mitigated for by the Shaggy Cypress Agricultural Development (Permit No. 11-00112-S) and the Camp Keais Agricultural Development (Permit No. 11-01178-S). The total direct wetland impacts are 543.39 within the project boundary. The direct wetland impact acreage on the first page of the staff report also includes the 2.35 acres of 100% secondarily impacted wetlands, as discussed in the paragraph below. The direct wetland impacts represent 12% of the wetland acreage within the project boundary and are concentrated in the farm fields and along the edges of the wetlands. A map depicting the previously permitted wetland impacts and mitigation, as well as areas previously permitted for impacts that will be preserved in this permit is attached as Exhibit No. 3.2. Secondary wetland impacts were assessed primarily due to the lack of an upland buffer with a minimum width of 15 ft. and an average width of 25 ft. abutting those wetlands that will remain under the permitted design in accordance with Section 10.2.7(a) of the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant's Handbook Volume I (Volume I ). The project will result in a total of 37.81 acres of secondary wetland impacts, consisting of 31.26 acres of onsite secondary impacts, 2.35 acres of 100% onsite secondary impacts, 2.11 acres of offsite secondary impacts, and 2.09 acres of secondary impacts to PFFW that were not previously authorized under the Shaggy Cypress Agricultural Development and Camp Keais Agricultural Development. There are no secondary impacts to OSW. Secondary impacts were evaluated based on an area of 25 feet beyond the limits of the direct impacts for areas where there are existing farm fields or roadways and for proposed trails/recreational facilities and 50 feet beyond the limits of direct impacts for new roadways. Wetland 13 (shown as 13 & 13A in the wetland inventory table) is considered 100% secondarily impacted due to no remaining functional value in the post -construction phase of the project. Wetland/OSW impact maps are attached as Exhibit No. 3.3. The conservation areas for this project total 3,659.31 acres. However, only 3,559.19 acres of the total conservation acreage will be used as mitigation. To mitigate for the direct and secondary wetland impacts, the applicant will enhance 3,300.36 acres of wetlands, restore 3.37 acres of wetland, restore 20.72 acres of PFFW, and create 32.61 acres of wetlands. The applicant will also enhance and preserve 191.09 acres of upland, and restore 11.04 acres of uplands. The remaining 100.12 acres that will not be used as mitigation represent areas assessed for secondary impacts, areas internal to the development, other surface waters, or passive recreation areas. A breakdown of the 100.12 acres that will not receive mitigation credit is attached as Exhibit No. 3.4. A total of 3,659.31 acres which includes the 3,559.19 acres to be utilized as mitigation and the 100.12 acres that will not be used for mitigation will be encumbered by a passive recreational conservation easement, utilizing the form attached as Exhibit No. 3.5, as part of future construction modifications. Passive recreational facilities may include boardwalks, observation decks, trails, or other permitted passive uses. The impacts associated with these facilities are accounted for in the wetland impact analysis and the mitigation for these areas is incorporated into the proposed mitigation plan. These facilities are shown on both the engineering and environmental plans. The total acreage of preservation shown on the first page of the staff report is 4,504.41 acres. This acreage includes 4,248.46 acres of wetlands that includes 815.86 acres of previously authorized wetland mitigation, 32.61 acres of wetland creation, 3.37 acres of wetland restoration, 11.04 acres of upland restoration, 191.09 acres of upland preservation, and 17.84 acres of uplands previously authorized as mitigation for previous permits. The wetlands and uplands previously authorized as mitigation under the existing agricultural permits did not receive additional mitigation credit as part of this application. The acreage of these areas is included for reference as part of the total preservation acreage within the proposed permit boundary. App.no.: 160711-8 Page 6 of 34 erp_staff_report. rdf The amount of mitigation to offset direct and secondary wetland impacts was determined using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) in Chapter 62-345, F.A.C. The analysis was conducted #o demonstrate that the project's wetland impacts will be offset and will not result in adverse secondary impacts to water resources pursuant to Rule 62-330.301(f), F.A.C. and Section 10.2.7, Volume 1. According to the analysis, the total functional loss is 218.17 units and the total functional gain is 243.13 units, resulting in a net gain of 24.96 functional units. A UMAM summary that references the scoring for the UMAM parameters and habitats within each assessment area is attached as Exhibit No. 3.6; please refer to the Wetland Inventory table for the final approved functional values. The Wetland Inventory table shows a functional gain of 0.01 units for PFFW secondary impacts due to the enhancement of these areas; however, no mitigation credit was given. REDUCTION AND ELIMINATION: The applicant demonstrated that the project meets Section 10.2.1.2(b), Volume I regarding reduction and elimination of wetland impacts. This rule states that an applicant is not required to implement practicable design modifications to reduce or eliminate impacts when the applicant proposes mitigation that implements all or part of a plan that provides (1) regional ecological value and (2) greater long term ecological value than the area of wetland or other surface water to be adversely affected. The mitiga#ion will provide greater long term ecological value than the area of wetland or OSW to be adversely affected. As described below, the proposed mitigation implements part of a plan that provides regional ecological value and provides greater long term ecological value than the areas of wetland or other surface waters to be adversely affected. In addition, 24.96 excess mitigation units have been generated from the proposed mitigation activities, which will not be utilized for future mitigation. The onsite mitigation provides a regional benefit due to its connectivity with the Camp Keals Strand which extends from Lake Trafford to the north to the Picayune Strand Restoration Area and the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge to the south. The onsite mitigation activities will enhance a significant portion of the Camp Keals Strand, and the project includes two wildlife corridors connecting the internal Shaggy Cypress Swamp with Camp Keals Strand, as well as several wildlife crossings to enhance wildlife movement in the area. The wetlands are currently fragmented by surrounding farm fields and existing agricultural roads and berms (i.e. Shaggy Cypress Swamp is separated from Camp Keais Strand by farm fields and is also separated from the wetlands to the south due to Oil Well Road). The mitigation plan is phased to correspond with the construction phasing of the stormwater management system basins of the development. The preserve areas will be enhanced via hand and mechanical removal of nuisance and exotic vegetation followed by supplemental planting or natural recruitment. Supplemental planting will be conducted in areas that contain 25 to 50 percent (E2) and 50 to 75 percent (E3) coverage by exotic vegetation, if after two years, sufficient coverage of desirable native vegetation has not been achieved. Areas with 75 percent or greater coverage of exotic vegetation (E4) will be planted immediately after exotic and nuisance vegetation removal. Prescribed fire will be conducted to maintain the target habitat types. Details of the mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring plan are attached as Exhibit No. 3.7. Monitoring will be conducted by the permittee for a minimum of five years. Exotic and nuisance vegetative debris shall be removed from the conservation areas to the extent practicable, as determined by District Staff. Temporary trails that may be used for removal of nuisance and exotic vegetative debris are depicted on the monitoring map included in Exhibit No. 3.7. Additionally, 872.52 acres which includes 840.27 acres of farm fields in the southern portion of the site and within the boundaries of the Camp Keais Strand will be restored to native wetlands and uplands along with 34.9 acres of PFFW wetlands. These areas will be restored to support panther and wood stork habitat, as part of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Program and the Federal Listed Species Review process. No wetland mitigation credit is requested for these restoration activities. A map depicting the limits of Camp Keals Strand from the report "Hydrologic -Hydraulic And Environmental Assessment for the Camp Keals Strand Flowway (August 2006)" relative to the project boundaries is attached as Exhibit No. 3.8. App.no.: 160711-8 Page 7 of 34 erp_staff_report.rdf MAINTENANCE OF SURFACE OR GROUND WATER LEVELS: The applicant demonstrated that the project meets Rule 62-330.301(g) because it will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows established pursuant to Section 373.042, F.S. The control elevation of the site was determined using biological indicators and onsite and offsite monitoring well data. The hydropenod of the wetland preserves will be maintained via treated discharge from the stormwater management system. There are preserve areas located within the controlled basin area within the existing agricultural reservoirs and outside of the controlled basin area in the eastern portion of the site. Modeling was conducted for the wetlands in the controlled basin area to demonstrate that the hydroperiods will be maintained. The wetlands located outside of the controlled basin will be maintained via flows through Camp Keais Strand. Construction plans include turbidity and erosion control measures. In addition, specifications were included to ensure bare earth areas are stabilized immediately upon reaching final grades when work is being conducted adjacent to wetlands and/or draining to receiving water bodies. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS: Pursuant to Section 373.414(8)(b), Fla. Stat., if mitigation is proposed in the same drainage basin as the impacts and the mitigation offsets the adverse impacts, then the activities meet the cumulative impact requirements. The mitigation is located within the same drainage basin as the impacts. The proposed wetland mitigation fully offsets the proposed impacts. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 62- 330.302(b), the project will not result in unacceptable cumulative impacts to the wetlands and other surface waters within the West Collier Drainage Basin (Refer to Section 10.2.8, Volume 1). Wetland Inventory: FLUCCS Code 600 represents the following: -wetland cu# other surface waters (FLUCCS Codes 525W and 514W) -hydric disturbed areas (FLUCCS Code 740) -hydric melaleuca (FLUCCS Code 424) -hydric Brazilian pepper (FLUCCS Code 422) A "Site ID No." that contains a letter (i.e. 1A) is part of the wetland number shown that has multiple assessnen# polygons for the UMAM assessment .For example, Wetland 1A is an assessment polygon for Wetland 1. A "(zite ID No." with an asterisk (i.e. 10*), indicates a wetland with multiple habitat types; however, only one FLUCCS code is listed. A detailed breakdown of the habitat types are shown on Exhibit No. 3.6. App.no.: 160711-8 Page 8 of 34 erp_staff_report.rdf Wetland Inventory CONCEPTUAL NEW -Direct Impacts Site Site Id Site Pre-Development Post -Development Pre Pres. Fluc AA Acreage Current With Time Risk Adj, Post Adj Functional cs Type (Acres) Wo Pres Project Lag (yrs) Factor Factor Fluccs Delta Gain / Loss 1 ON 6AA Direct 12.50 .50 -.500 -6.250 10* ON 621 Direct 1.96 .70 -.700 A a372 10A* ON 631 Direct 3.86 .67 -.670 -2.586 1013* ON 631 Direct 19.03 .63 -.630-11.989 10C* ON 631 Direct 10.22 .57 -.570 -5.825 1OD* ON 600 Direct 10.68 .50 -.500 -5.340 10E* ON 600 Direct 8.24 .50 -.500 4.120 11 ON 617 Direct 2.85 .63 -0630 -1.796 12* ON 617 Direct .09 .70 -.700 -0063 12A* ON 617 Direct .34 .67 -.670 -.228 12B* ON 617 Direct 10.64 .63 -.630 -6.703 12C* ON 600 Direct 5.85 .50 -.500 -2.925 14 ON 631 Direct .01 .60 -.600 -.006 14A ON 600 Direct .13 .50 -0500 -0065 15* ON 621 Direct 3.02 .67 -.670 -2.023 15A* ON 621 Direct .01 .63 -.630 406 15B* ON 630 Direct 1.16 .60 -.600 -0696 15C* ON 600 Direct .90 .50 -.500 -A50 17 ON 621 Direct .33 .60 -.600 -0198 17A ON 624 Direct .03 .60 -.600 -.018 17B* ON 600 Direct .34 .50 -.500 -.170 19 ON 630 Direct .03 .60 -4600 -.018 19A ON 600 Direct .07 .50 -0500 -0035 1A ON 600 Direct .60 .50 -0500 -300 2 ON 6AA Direct 9.81 .50 -4500 4.905 20 ON 600 Direct .38 .43 -.430 -6163 20A ON 600 Direct 1.37 .43 -0430 -0589 21 ON 618 Direct .04 A3 -0430 -.017 21A ON 625 Direct .38 .50 -.500 -0190 22 ON 621 Direct 1.66 .53 -.530 -0880 22A ON 625 Direct .02 .50 -.500 -4010 22B ON 600 Direct 1.22 .43 -A30 -.525 22C ON 600 Direct 1.50 .43 -.430 -9645 23* ON 618 Direct 7.10 .47 -.470 -3.337 23A ON 600 Direct .24 .40 -.400 -.096 24 ON 618 Direct .05 .50 -.500 -.025 26* ON 621 Direct 8.85 .63 -.630 -&576 26A* ON 624 Direct 12.41 .57 -.570 -7.074 26B ON 600 Direct 14.31 .50 -.500 -7.155 26C ON 600 Direct 29.74 .50 -.500-14.870 App.no.: 160711-8 Page 9 of 34 erp_staff_report.rdf CONCEPTUAL NEW -Direct Impacts ite Site pre -Development Post -Development ld Typ 27 ON 618 Direct .57 .63 -.630 -359 27A ON 621 Direct 1.99 .60 -9600 -1.194 2713 ON 625 Direct .77 .57 -.570 -.439 27C ON 630 Direct .08 .50 -.500 -6040 27D ON 600 Direct 4.09 .50 -.500 -2.045 27E ON 600 Direct .87 .50 -.500 -0435 29* ON 621 Direct 18.72 .53 -.530 -9.922 29A ON 600 Direct 4.77 .53 -.530 -2.528 29B ON 600 Direct 2.92 .50 -.500 A *460 2A ON 641 Direct 1.05 .63 -.630 -0662 32* ON 618 Direct .42 .53 -.530 -.223 32A ON 600 Direct .78 .50 -0500 -0390 4 ON 6AA Direct 5.03 .50 -.500 -2.515 40* ON 618 Direct .57 .67 -9670 - 382 40A ON 621 Direct 12.99 .53 -.530 -6.885 40B ON 600 Direct .13 .53 -.530 -A69 41 ON 621 Direct 1.34 .60 -.600 -.804 42* ON 621 Direct 1.77 .67 -0670 -1.186 42A ON 621 Direct 1.09 .60 -.600 -.654 44 ON 641 Direct .07 .67 -0670 -0047 44A ON 641 Direct .18 .63 -.630 -.113 4413* ON 621 Direct 1.52 .60 -.600 -.912 44C* ON 621 Direct 21.71 .53 -.530-11.506 44D ON 6AA Direct 6.91 .53 -.530 -3.662 44E ON 600 Direct .82 .50 -.500 -.410 45 ON 621 Direct .37 .53 -.530 -.196 45A ON 600 Direct .33 .53 -6530 -.175 47* ON 621 Direct .28 .60 -0600 -.168 49* ON 618 Direct .65 .63 -.630 -.410 4A ON 641 Direct .55 .60 -5600 -0330 6 ON 641 Direct .27 .63 -.630 -0170 6A ON 643 Direct 1.71 .60 -.600 -1.026 7 ON 631 Direct 3.49 .57 -.570 -1.989 8 ON 625 Direct .55 .43 -A30 -.237 8A ON 600 Direct .62 .43 -4430 -.267 9 ON 600 Direct .38 .43 -.430 -4163 Total: 282.33-153.21 Wetland Inventory App.no.: 160711-8 Page 10 of 34 erp_staff_report.rdf CONCEPTUAL NEW -PFFW Direct Impacts Site Site pre -Development Post -Development Id Typ Pre Pres. Fluc AA Acreage Current With Time Risk Adj. Post Adj Functional cs Type (Acres) Wo Pres Project Lag (Yrs) Factor Factor Fluccs Delta Gain / Loss 1 ON 6AA Direct 10.91 .30 -.300 -3.273 1A ON 600 Direct Al .30 -300 -.123 3 ON 6AA Direct 1.33 .30 -0300 -399 4 ON 6AA Direct 10.53 .40 -.400 4.212 5 ON 6AA Direct 4.77 .47 -0470 -2.242 6 ON 6AA Direct .05 .43 -1430 -0022 7 ON 6AA Direct 112,76 A7 -0470-52.997 8 ON 6AA Direct 2093 .50 -4500 -1.465 Total: 143.69 -64.73 Wetland Inventory CONCEPTUAL NEW -PFFW Preserved Not Mitigation Si#e Site Id Typ Pre-Development Post -Development Pre Pre AA Acreage Current With Time Pres. Risk Adj. Post Adj Functional Fluc Type (Acres) Wo Pres Project Lag (Yrs) Factor Factor Fluccs Delta Gain / Los: 1 ON 6AA Preservation 34.90 Total. 34.90 Wetland Inventory CONCEPTUAL NEW -PFFW Prev Permitted &Mitigated Impactsl1-00112-S/11- Si#e Site Id Type Pre -Development Post -Development Pre AA Acreage Current With Time Pres. Risk Adj. Post Adj Functional Fluc Type (Acres) Wo Pres Project Lag (Yrs) Factor Factor Fluccs Delta Gain / Los: cs 1 ON 6AA Direct 101.79 .000 .000 Total: 101.79 .00 Wetland Inventory CONCEPTUAL NEW -PFFW Restoration Site Site Id TypePre-Development Post -Development Pre Pre AA Acreage Current With Time Risk Adj, Pres. Post Adj Functional Flucs Type (Acres) Wo Pres Project Lag (Yrs) Factor Factor Fluccs Delta Gain / Loss 1 ON 6AA Restoration/Creation App.no: 160711-8 1.38 .30 Page 11 of 34 .67 11 - 15 1.50 .169 .233 erp_staff_report.rdf CONCEPTUAL NEW -PFFW Restoration Site Site Id Typ Pre -Development Post -Development 1A ON 600 Restoration/Creation .37 .30 .67 11 - 15 1.50 A69 .063 5 ON 6AA Restoration/Creation 3.94 .43 .67 11 - 15 1.50 .110 .432 6 ON 6AA Restoration/Creation 2.44 .43 .70 5 1.00 .237 .578 6A ON 6AA Restoration/Creation 11.45 .43 .70 11 -15 1.50 .123 1.412 7 ON 6AA Restoration/Creation .18 A7 .70 11 - 15 1.50 .105 .019 8 ON 6AA Restoration/Creation .96 .50 .70 11 - 15 1.50 .091 .088 Total: 2012 2.83 Wetland Inventory CONCEPTUAL NEW -Prey. Mitigation for 11-00112-S111-01178-S Site Site Id Typ Pre -Development Post -Development Pre Pres. Fluc AA Acreage Current With Time Risk Adj, Post Adj Functional cs Type (Acres) Wo Pres Project Lag (Yrs) Factor Factor Fluccs Delta Gain J Loss UP ON 400 Preservation 17.84 WL ON 600 Preservation 815.86 Total. 833.70 Wetland Inventory CONCEPTUAL NEW -Prey. Permitted &Mitigated impacts-11-00112-S & 11-01178- Site Site Id Typ Pre -Development Post -Development Pre AA Acreage Current With Time Pres. Risk Adj, Post Adj Functional Fluc Type (Acres) Wo Pres Project Lag (Yrs) Factor Factor Fluccs Delta Gain / Loss cs WL ON 600 Direct 13.23 .000 .000 Total: 13.23 .00 Wetland Inventory CONCEPTUAL NEW -Secondary Impacts Site Site Id Typ Pre -Development Post -Development Pre Pres. Fluc AA Acreage Current With Time Risk Adj. Post Adj Functional cs Type (Acres) Wo Pres Project Lag (Yrs) Factor Factor Fluccs Delta Gain / Loss OS* OFF 618 Secondary .19 .67 .60 -0070 -.013 OS -A OFF 621 Secondary .28 .63 .57 -.060 -0017 Ann .no.: 160711-8 Page 12 of 34 erp_staff_report.rat CONCEPTUAL Site Site Id Typ NEW -Secondary Impacts Pre -Development OS-B* OFF 625 Secondary .58 .60 OS-C OFF 600 Secondary 1.06 .53 1 ON 6AA Secondary .38 .50 10 ON 600 Secondary .04 .50 10A* ON 617 Secondary 1.56 .70 1013* ON 621 Secondary 2.47 .67 10C ON 631 Secondary .14 .63 1OD ON 621 Secondary .05 .57 10E ON 600 Secondary .09 .50 12 ON 600 Secondary .25 .50 12A* ON 617 Secondary .15 .67 13 ON 621 Secondary 1.20 .57 13A ON 630 Secondary 1.15 .47 15 ON 600 Secondary .46 .50 15A ON 621 Secondary .52 .67 15B ON 621 Secondary .16 .63 15C ON 630 Secondary .80 .60 19 ON 600 Secondary .12 .50 21 ON 618 Secondary .21 .53 21A ON 625 Secondary .19 .53 22 ON 600 Secondary .09 .43 22A ON 621 Secondary .97 .53 22B ON 625 Secondary .09 .53 22C ON 600 Secondary .40 .43 26 ON 621 Secondary .55 .67 26A* ON 621 Secondary 3.73 .63 26B ON 600 Secondary .94 .57 26C ON 600 Secondary 3.34 .53 27 ON 618 Secondary .01 .67 27A ON 621 Secondary .38 .63 27B ON 630 Secondary .15 .53 27C ON 600 Secondary .36 .50 27D ON 600 Secondary .24 .50 29* ON 621 Secondary A9 .50 29A ON 600 Secondary .39 .53 29B ON 600 Secondary 1.30 .60 32 ON 600 Secondary .08 .60 32A* ON 618 Secondary .52 .63 4 ON 6AA Secondary .16 .50 40* ON 618 Secondary .69 .67 Post -Development .53 -.070 -.041 47 -.060 -.064 57 .070 .027 60 .100 .004 67 -4030 -.047 67 .000 .000 67 .040 .006 67 .100 .005 60 .100 .009 60 .100 .025 67 .000 .000 00 -.570 -.684 00 -.470 -.541 60 .100 .046 63 -.040 -.021 63 .000 .000 63 .030 .024 60 .100 .012 50 -.030 -.006 53 .000 .000 53 .100 .009 53 .000 .000 57 .040 .004 53 .100 .040 67 .000 .000 67 .040 .149 67 .100 .094 63 .100 .334 60 -.070 -.001 60 -.030 -0011 60 .070 .011 57 .070 .025 57 .070 .017 60 .100 .049 63 .100 .039 50 -0100 -.130 50 -.100 -.008 53 -2100 -.052 60 .100 .016 60 -.070 -.048 Ann .no.: 160711-8 Page 13 of 34 erp_staff_report.rdf CONCEPTUAL NEW -Secondary Impacts Site Site Id Type Pre -Development Post -Development 44 ON 641 Secondary 1.17 .53 .60 .070 .082 44A ON 641 Secondary .05 .60 .67 .070 .004 446* ON 630 Secondary .33 .63 .67 .040 .013 44C* ON 621 Secondary 5.44 .57 .63 .060 .326 44D* ON 600 Secondary 1.39 .57 .63 .060 .083 47* ON 621 Secondary .34 .60 .60 .000 .000 4A ON 641 Secondary .07 .60 .60 .000 .000 Total: 35.72 -023 Wetland Inventory CONCEPTUAL NEW -Secondary Impacts-PFFW Site Site Id Type Pre -Development Post -Development Pre Press Fluc AA Acreage Current With Time Risk Adj, Post Adj Functional cs Type (Acres) Wo Pres Project Lag (Yrs) Factor Factor Fluccs Delta Gain / Loss 1 ON 6AA Secondary .31 .30 .33 .030 .009 1A ON 600 Secondary .05 .30 .33 .030 .002 5 ON 6AA Secondary .01 A7 .43 -0040 .000 6 ON 6AA Secondary 1.51 .43 .43 .000 .000 7 ON 6AA Secondary .21 .40 .40 .000 .000 Total: 2.09 .01 Wetland Inventory CONCEPTUAL NEW -Upland Enhancement & Restoration Site Site Id Typ Pre -Development Post -Development Pre Pres. Fluc AA Acreage Current With Time Risk Adj, Post Adj Functional cs Type (Acres) Wo Pres Project Lag (Yrs) Factor Factor Fluccs Delta Gain / Loss 1 * ON 411 Enhancement 22.04 .65 .75 5 1.00 .088 1.933 2* ON 411 Enhancement 34.67 .60 .75 11 - 15 1.50 .068 2.375 3* ON 411 Enhancement 4.60 .50 .75 11 - 15 1.00 .171 .788 4 ON 422 Enhancement 2046 .50 .75 11 - 15 1.00 .171 A21 5* ON 740 Enhancement 8.02 .50 .75 11 -15 1.00 .171 1.373 6* ON 740 Enhancement .54 .45 .70 11 -15 1.00 .171 .092 7* ON 100 Enhancement 11.04 .40 .70 11 - 15 1.00 .205 2.268 App.no.: 160711-8 Page 14 of 34 erp_staff_report.rdf CONCEPTUAL NEW -U Total: nd Enhancement &Restoration 83.37 9.25 Wetland Inventory CONCEPTUAL NEW -Upland Preservation Site Site Id Typ Pre -Development Post -Development Pre Pres. Fluc AA Acreage Current With Time Risk Adj. Post Adj Functional cs Type (Acres) Wo Pres Project Lag (Yrs) Factor Factor Fluccs Delta Gain / Loss 1* ON 411 Preservation 114.89 .70 .75 1 1.00 .80 .040 4.596 2* ON 411 Preservation 3.87 .65 .70 1 1.00 *80 .040 .155 Total: 118.76 4.75 Wetland Inventory CONCEPTUAL NEW -WL Preserved Not Mitigation Site Site Id TypePre-Development Post -Development Pre AA Acreage Current With Time Pres. Risk Adj, Post Adj Functional Fluc Type (Acres) wo Pres Project Lag (Yrs) Factor Factor Fluccs Delta Gain / Los: cs 1 ON 600 Preservation 43.27 Total. 43.27 Wetland Inventory CONCEPTUAL Site Site Id TYp NEW -Wetland Enhancemen# Pre -Development Post -Development Pre Pres. Fluc � Acreage Current With Tirne Risk Adj, Post Adj Functional cs Type (Acres) 1No Pres Project Lag (Yrs) Factor Factor Fluccs Delta Gain /Loss 1 ON 6AA Enhancement .87 .50 10* ON 621 Enhancement 37.62 .67 10A* ON 618 Enhancement 13.65 .67 1013* ON 621 Enhancement 46.74 .63 10C* ON 618 Enhancement 6.14 .63 1013* ON 621 Enhancement 3.37 .57 10E ON 631 Enhancement 1.03 .57 10F ON 600 Enhancement 1.85 .50 10G ON 600 Enhancement 2.96 .57 10H* ON 600 Enhancement 5.44 .50 12* ON 617 Enhancement 6.21 .67 12A ON 618 Enhancement 17.29 .67 1213* ON 617 Enhancement 34.76 .63 App.no.: 160711-8 Page 15 0€ 34 .67 6 - 10 1.50 .091 .079 .77 5 1.00 .088 3.300 .77 5 1.00 .088 1.197 .77 11 -15 1.50 .064 2.988 .77 11 -15 1.50 .064 .393 .77 11 -15 1.50 .091 .308 .77 11 - 15 1.50 .091 .094 .70 11 - 15 1.50 .091 .169 .77 11 - 15 1.50 .091 .270 .70 11 -15 1.50 .091 A97 .77 5 1.00 .088 .545 .77 5 1.00 .088 1.517 .77 11 - 15 1.50 .064 2.222 erp_staff_report.rdf CONCEPTUAL Site Site Id Type NEW -Wetland Enhancement Pre -Development 12C ON 618 Enhancement 1.97 .63 12D ON 600 Enhancement 2,61 .53 12E ON 600 Enhancement 4.56 .50 14 ON 621 Enhancement 1.16 .60 14A ON 631 Enhancement 7.78 .60 14B ON 630 Enhancement 7.08 .53 14C ON 618 Enhancement 2.53 .53 14D ON 600 Enhancement 1.09 .50 15 ON 621 Enhancement .81 .63 15A ON 630 Enhancement 4.88 .60 15B ON 600 Enhancement 1.24 .50 17 ON 621 Enhancement 46.80 .63 17A* ON 624 Enhancement 13.39 .60 17B ON 618 Enhancement 4.57 .60 17C ON 625 Enhancement 1.20 .53 17D ON 600 Enhancement 5.64 .53 18 ON 600 Enhancement .52 .53 18A ON 600 Enhancement ,37 .53 19 ON 600 Enhancement 3.16 .57 21 ON 618 Enhancement Al .57 21A ON 625 Enhancement 1.49 .53 22 ON 621 Enhancement 4.78 .53 22A ON 625 Enhancement .03 .53 2213 ON 600 Enhancement 3.06 A7 22C ON 600 Enhancement .70 A3 24 ON 618 Enhancement .32 .57 25* ON 618 Enhancement 93.73 .70 25A* ON 618 Enhancement 7.69 .70 25B* ON 617 Enhancement 22078 .67 25C* ON 618 Enhancement 3.37 .67 25D ON 621 Enhancement 20.45 .60 25E* ON 618 Enhancement 1.84 .60 25F ON 600 Enhancement .80 .60 25G ON 600 Enhancement .28 .60 25H ON 600 Enhancement 9.42 .60 26 ON 621 Enhancement 104.13 .67 26A ON 618 Enhancement 2.01 .67 26B* ON 621 Enhancement 154.32 .63 26C ON 618 Enhancement 5.31 .63 26D* ON 624 Enhancement 14.78 .57 App.no, : 160711-8 Page 16 of 34 Post -Development 77 11 - 15 1.50 .064 .126 73 11 - 15 1.50 .091 .238 70 11 - 15 1.50 .091 .416 70 11 - 15 1.50 .046 .053 70 11 -15 1.50 .046 .355 70 11 - 15 1.50 .078 .550 70 11 - 15 1.50 .078 A 96 67 11 - 15 1,50 .078 .085 70 5 1.00 .061 .050 70 11 - 15 1.50 .046 .223 67 11 - 15 1.50 .078 .096 70 5 1.00 .061 2.874 73 11 -15 1.50 .059 .795 73 11 -15 1.50 .059 .271 73 11 - 15 1.50 .091 silo 73 11 - 15 1.50 ,091 .515 70 11 - 15 1.50 .078 .040 70 11 - 15 1.50 ,078 .029 73 11 - 15 1.50 .073 .231 63 5 1.00 .053 .006 63 11 -15 1.50 .046 .068 60 5 1.00 .061 .294 63 11 - 15 1.50 .046 0001 63 11 - 15 1.50 .073 .224 60 11 - 15 1,50 .078 .054 63 5 1.00 .053 .017 80 5 1.00 .088 8.222 80 5 1.00 .088 .675 80 11 - 15 1.50 .059 1.352 80 11 - 15 1.50 .059 ,200 80 11 -15 1.50 2091 1,868 80 11 - 15 1.50 .091 4168 80 11 - 15 1.50 .091 ,073 80 11 - 15 1.50 .091 .026 80 11 - 15 1.50 .091 .860 73 5 1.00 .053 5.481 73 5 1.00 .053 .106 73 11 - 15 1.50 .046 7.047 73 11 - 15 1.50 .046 .242 73 11 - 15 1.50 .073 1.080 erp_staff_report. rdf CONCEPTUAL NEW -Wetland Enhancement Site Site Id Site Pre-Development Post -Development Typ 26E ON 600 Enhancement 11.07 .57 26F ON 600 Enhancement 1.20 .53 27 ON 621 Enhancement .14 .63 27A ON 630 Enhancement .52 .53 27B ON 600 Enhancement .21 .50 27C ON 600 Enhancement .23 .50 29* ON 621 Enhancement 21.01 .53 29A ON 600 Enhancement 2.04 .53 29B ON 600 Enhancement .17 .50 32* ON 621 Enhancement 52.01 .63 32A* ON 621 Enhancement 20A9 .60 3213* ON 621 Enhancement 37.60 .53 32C ON 618 Enhancement 7.65 .53 32D ON 600 Enhancement 7.08 .50 33 ON 624 Enhancement .60 .57 34 ON 617 Enhancement .40 .57 35 ON 624 Enhancement 1.61 .57 36 ON 621 Enhancement A8 .57 37 ON 624 Enhancement 1.38 .60 38 ON 621 Enhancement 2.53 .60 38A ON 600 Enhancement .86 .50 4 ON 641 Enhancement 1.25 .60 40* ON 621 Enhancement 118.65 .67 40A ON 641 Enhancement .42 .67 40B* ON 621 Enhancement 9.44 .63 40C ON 641 Enhancement .68 .63 40D* ON 621 Enhancement 61.54 .57 40E ON 641 Enhancement 1.43 .57 40F ON 600 Enhancement 8.80 .57 40G ON 600 Enhancement .30 .53 43 ON 630 Enhancement .09 .67 44 ON 631 Enhancement 1.36 .67 44A ON 641 Enhancement .49 .67 44B ON 621 Enhancement 28.40 .63 44C* ON 641 Enhancement 1.14 .63 44D* ON 621 Enhancement 109.61 .57 44E ON 631 Enhancement 10.68 .57 44F ON 600 Enhancement 1.76 .57 44G ON 6AA Enhancement 3.25 .57 44H ON 600 Enhancement .31 .57 App.no.: 160711-8 Page 17 of 34 73 11 - 15 1.50 .073 .809 73 11 - 15 1.50 .091 .110 73 5 1.00 .088 .012 70 11 -15 1.50 .078 .040 67 11 - 15 1.50 .078 .016 70 11 - 15 1.50 .091 .021 70 11 - 15 1.50 .078 1.631 70 11 - 15 1.50 .078 .158 70 11 - 15 1.50 .091 .016 73 5 1.00 .088 4.562 70 11 - 15 1.50 .046 .936 70 11 - 15 1.50 .078 2.919 70 11 -15 1.50 .078 .594 70 11 -15 1.50 2091 .647 73 11 - 15 1.50 .073 .044 73 11 - 15 1.50 .073 .029 73 11 -15 1.50 .073 .118 73 11 - 15 1.50 .073 .035 77 11 -15 1.50 .078 .107 73 5 1.00 .114 .289 73 11 -15 1.50 .105 .090 67 5 1.00 .061 .077 73 5 1.00 .053 6.245 73 5 1.00 .053 .022 73 11 -15 1.50 .046 .431 73 6 - 10 1.50 .053 .036 73 11 - 15 1.50 .073 4.496 73 6 - 10 1.50 .085 .122 73 11 - 15 1.50 .073 .643 73 11 - 15 1.50 .091 .027 73 5 1.00 .053 .005 73 5 1200 .053 .072 73 5 1.00 .053 .026 73 11 -15 1.50 .046 1.297 73 11 -15 1.50 .046 .052 73 11 - 15 1.50 .073 8.008 73 11 - 15 1.50 .073 .780 73 11 -15 1.50 .073 .129 73 6 - 10 1.50 .085 .277 73 11 - 15 1.50 .073 .023 erp_staff _report.rdf CONCEPTUAL NEW -Wetland Enhancement Site Site Id Typ Pre -Development Post -Development 47* ON 621 Enhancement 20.91 .67 .73 5 1.00 .053 1.101 47A ON 641 Enhancement 2.13 .67 .73 5 1.00 .053 .112 47B* ON 621 Enhancement 141,25 .63 .73 11 - 15 1.50 .046 6.450 47C* ON 618 Enhancement 2005 .63 .73 11 -15 1.50 .046 .094 47D* ON 621 Enhancement 24.10 .57 .73 11 - 15 1.50 .073 1.761 47E ON 600 Enhancement 5.50 .57 .73 11 - 15 1.50 .073 A02 48 ON 618 Enhancement .01 .63 .77 11 - 15 1.50 .064 .001 49* ON 621 Enhancement 41.54 .67 .80 5 1.50 .076 3.158 49A* ON 621 Enhancement 35.53 .63 .80 11 -15 1.50 .078 2,758 49B* ON 618 Enhancement 50.49 .63 .80 11 -15 1.50 .078 1919 49C ON 630 Enhancement 7.20 .57 .80 11 - 15 1.50 .105 .756 49D ON 618 Enhancement 22.74 .57 .80 11 -15 1.50 .105 2.388 49E ON 600 Enhancement 1.33 .57 .80 11 -15 1.50 .105 .140 49F ON 600 Enhancement .61 .57 .80 11 -15 1.50 .105 .064 4A ON 6AA Enhancement .27 .50 .67 6 - 10 1.00 .136 .037 50 ON 624 Enhancement 1,86 .67 .80 5 1.00 .114 .212 Total: 1627.09 108.20 Wetland Inventory CONCEPTUAL NEW -Wetland Preservation Si#e Site IPre-Development Post -Development d Typ Pre Pres. Fluc AA Acreage Current With Time Risk Adj, Post Adj Functional cs Type (Acres) Wo Pres Project Lag (Yrs) Factor Factor Fluccs Delta Gain ! Loss 10* ON 617 Preservation 788.75 .70 .77 1 1.00 1.00 .070 55.213 12* ON 617 Preservation 161.13 .70 .77 1 1.00 1.00 .070 11.279 15* ON 617 Preservation 14.94 .67 .70 1 1.00 080 .024 .359 25* ON 617 Preservation 582.14 .73 .80 1 1.00 1,00 .070 40.750 40* ON 621 Preservation 49.20 .70 .73 1 1.00 1,00 .030 1.476 43 ON 621 Preservation .31 .70 .73 1 1.00 1,00 .030 .009 44* ON 641 Preservation 3.54 .70 .73 1 1.00 ,$0 .024 .085 46 ON 621 Preservation .43 .70 .73 1 1.00 1,00 .030 .013 47* ON 621 Preservation 46.07 .70 .73 1 1.00 1,00 .030 1.382 49* ON 618 Preservation 26.76 .70 .80 1 1.00 1,00 .100 2.676 Total: 1673.27 113.24 Wetland Inventory App.no.: 160711-8 Page 1$ of 34 erp_staff_report.rdf CONCEPTUAL NEW -Wetland Restoration &Creation Site Site Pre -Development Post -Development Id Type Pre Pres. Fluc AA Acreage Current With Time Risk Adj. Post Adj Functional cs Type (Acres) Wo Pres Project Lag (Yrs) Factor Factor Fluccs Delta Gain / Loss 1 ON 740 Restoration/Creation 3.37 .50 .80 11 - 15 1.75 .117 .396 2 ON 214 Restoration/Creation 32.04 .45 .80 11 - 15 1.75 .137 4.389 3 ON 740 Restoration/Creation A2 .45 .80 11 - 15 1.75 .137 .058 4 ON 422 Restoration/Creation .15 .50 .80 11 - 15 1.75 .117 .018 Total: 35.98 4.86 Fluccs Code Description 100 Urban And Residential 214 Row Crops 400 Upland Forests 411 Pine Flatwoods 411 Pine Flatwoods - Hydric 411 Pine Flatwoods - Upland 422 Brazilian Pepper - Upland 422 Brazilian Pepper - Wetland (Ff) 422 Brazilian Pepper - Wetland (Fh) 422 Brazilian Pepper - Wetland (Sf) 600 Wetlands 617 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods 618 Cabbage Palm Savannahs 621 Cypress 624 Cypress - Pine - Cabbage Palm 625 Hydric Pine Flatwoods 630 Wetland Forested Mixed 631 Wetland Scrub 641 Freshwater Marshes 643 Wet Prairies 6AA Hydric Pasture 740 Disturbed Lands App.no.: 160711-8 Page 19 of 34 erp_staff reportxaT In accordance with Section 10.2.2 of Volume I, a wildlife survey may be needed if the site is used by listed species and the bald eagle. Since listed species are known to be present on the site, the applicant's consultant conducted wildlife surveys for wetland -dependent, and listed species during various time periods during 2007 to 2009, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. Please refer to the ePermitting file to review the surveys and biological assessments. Additionally, species specific surveys for the Florida bonneted bat, Everglades Mink, Big Cypress fox squirrel, Audubon's crested caracara, and Red -Cockaded Woodpecker were conducted. The surveys indicate that Big Cypress fox squirrel, American alligator, Audubon's crested caracara, American bald eagle, roseate spoonbill, Florida sandhill crane, little blue heron, tricolored heron, wood stork, and other wading bird species were observed. Additionally, bears and a panther were observed as well as signs of these species (i.e. tracks, scat, etc.). There is an American bald eagle nest located in the north central portion of the project along Oil Well Grade Road. There is an Audubon's crested caracara nest located 3,920 feet north of the project boundary along Oil Well Grade Road, however, a portion of the northern project area is located within the secondary buffer zone of this nest. The location of the American bald eagle and Audubon's crested caracara nests are depicted on Exhibit No. 3.9. The project area lies within the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Consultation Area and Focal Area for the Florida bonneted bat, the Everglades Snail Kite Consultation Area in non -critical habitat areas, and the Primary & Secondary Zones for the Florida panther, the Core Foraging Area (CFA) for five wood stork colonies, and the known range for the Everglades Mink and Red -cockaded woodpecker. The project is not located within the FWS Consultation Area for the Red -cockaded woodpecker. Based upon the results of the wildlife surveys, Everglades Mink was not observed within the site and no signs of the species were observed. However, based upon acoustic surveys the Florida bonneted bat is present within the project boundaries. No Red -cockaded woodpeckers or cavity trees were observed. Please refer to Exhibit No. 3.10 for the project location relative to the CFA for the wood stork colonies and various FWS Consultation Areas. The we#lands or surface waters to be impacted provide habitat for wetland -dependent species. The site is designed to concentrate development within existing agricultural fields and edges of the wetlands to minimize potential impacts to wildlife that may utilize the site. Wetland -dependent listed species will benefit from enhancement and preservation of 3,659.31 acres of wetlands, uplands, and other surface waters. The preserve areas will be enhanced through removal of nuisance and exotic vegetation, supplemental planting, and prescribed burns. Additionally, the mitigation provides connectivity with Camp Keals Strand, extending from Lake Trafford to Picayune Strand Restoration and the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. In accordance with Section 20.331, F.S., the FWC provided comments and recommendations during the review of this permit application. The FWC's final correspondence is attached as Exhibit No. 3.11. To address Sections 10.1.1, 106242, 10.2.7 and 10.2.8 of Volume I, and FWC recommendations, several parameters were included in the design of the project. a. Perimeter lakes around the development areas serve as buffers to prevent panthers and other large mammals from accessing the development areas. The lakes range between 150 feet wide during the dry season to 180 feet wide during the wet season. Fencing is proposed in conjunction with the wildlife crossings described below, in areas where the lake buffer is not present. b. Two wildlife corridors are incorporated into the project design in the northern portion of the site to allow panthers and other large mammals access between the Shaggy Cypress Swamp and Camp Keais Strand. These wildlife corridors are depicted on Exhibit No. 3.12 Cl" on the engineering plans (Exhibit No. 2.0). App.no.: 160711-8 Page 20 of 34 erp_staff_repork. rdf c. Design features include habitat restoration and large mammal wildlife crossings to provide a habitat connection between Shaggy Cypress Swamp and Camp Keais Strand. Several other wildlife crossings are proposed throughout the site where roads cross wetland areas. These other crossings will accommodate usage by smaller mammals and maintain the internal connectivity of preserves. d. Pan#her conservation and habitat assessment details are included in Exhibit No. 3.13. e. The "Rural Lands West Listed Species Management and Human -Wildlife Coexistence Plan" (LSMP) is attached as Exhibit No. 3.14 and will be implemented prior to construction, as well as for the life of the Project. This plan addresses wildlife -human interactions and listed species including, but not limited to, the Eastern indigo snake, Big Cypress fox squirrel, Florida panther, and Florida black bear. In addition to the protective measures outlined in the LSMP, updated wetland -dependent species surveys will be submitted with an application for construction as may be required by FWC and State Law. The applicant will continue to coordinate with FWC and pre -construction surveys will be conducted in forested areas to be cleared to identify potential Big Cypress fox squirrel nests and wading bird nesting sites. The applicant is coordinating with FWS regarding federally listed species that include but are not limited to the Florida panther, Florida bonneted bat, wood stork, and Audubon's crested caracara through the development of the Eastern Collier Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Section 7 Consultation process. In addition to the onsite mitigation activities, the applicant provided a plan to offset the direct and indirect loss of Florida Panther habitat via the protection and restoration of 12,000 acres of Florida Panther habitat through the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) program, as outlined in Exhibit 3.13. The project site is located within the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA). The RSLA program provides incentives to private land owners to preserve environmentally sensitive lands that include large connected wetland systems and habitat for listed species located within their property. Areas within the RLSA are designated as Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA) and Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA). Through this program, SSA can be approved for the purposes of preserving lands to create credits which entitle SRA (areas designated for development such as towns, villages, and compact rural developments) to be developed. There are three SSAs located within and adjacent to the project (SSA 14, SSA 15 South and SSA 17). SSA 15 North is adjacent to the north project boundary and SSA 16 is located northeast of the project. Collier County approved SSA 14, SSA 15, and SSA 16 in 2008; SSA 17 is still under review by the County. These SSA have been established to preserve natural resources and various levels of agricultural uses, while removing the potential for higher -intensity incompatible future development (such as residential, commercial, industrial, etc). These SSA have been strategically located in documented wildlife corridors and/or flow -ways (including Camp Keais Strand) and will help to ensure that future incompatible development will not occur within or adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas. The preservation, enhancement, and restoration activities within SSA 14, SSA 15 North, SSA 15 South, SSA 16, and SSA 17 will provide ecological benefits to the Florida panther, other large mammals, and other wetland -dependent species. In particular, there are 872.52 acres located in the southern portion of the site which includes 840.27 acres of farm fields, along with 34.9 acres of PFFW wetlands that will be restored to support panther and wood stork habitat. This area is also within the boundaries of the SSA 15 South and Camp Keais Strand. The onsite panther telemetry data depicted in Exhibit No. 3.15 corresponds with the applicant owned SSA and other conservation lands shown in Exhibit No. 3.16. Portions of SSA 15 North, 15 South, and 17 are being utilized as compensatory mitigation for the project's wetland impacts. In accordance with Rule 62-330.301(1)(d), F.A.C. (see also Section 10.1.1(a) of Volume I), the applicant provided reasonable assurances that wetland -dependent, and listed or protected species will not be adversely Impacted. This permit does not relieve the applicant from complying with all applicable rules App.no.: 160711-8 Page 21 of 34 erp_staff_report.rdf and any other agencies' requirements if, in the future, endangered/threatened species or species of special concern are discovered on the site. PUBLIC INTEREST TEST: The applicant provided information to demonstrate that the public interest test requirements outlined in Section 373.414(1)(a), Florida Statutes, Rule 62-330.302, F.A.C., and Section 10.2.3 of the Environmental Resource Applicant's Handbook, Volume I (Volume 1) have been met (see Permit file). The District balanced this information against the seven factors of the public interest test and found that the applicant provided reasonable assurances that the project is not contrary to the public interest. The mitigation area will be encumbered by passive recreational conservation easements dedicated to the District with third party enforcement rights granted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and FWS, utilizing the form attached as Exhibit No. 3.5, as part of future construction modifications. The conservation easements will be recorded prior to the commencement of construction. Some of the conservation areas contain multiple mitigation areas associated with the phased mitigation plan that will be implemented concurrently with phases of construction that include wetland impacts. The conservation easements will be recorded over entire conservation areas, so that entire wetland systems are legally protected at one time, irrespective of the mitigation phasing plan (i.e. conservation easement recordation will not necessarily correspond with the mitigation areas identified in the phased mitigation plan and may be larger than a given mitigation phase). The conservation easement forms, associated conservation easement boundary surveys, title review and title commitment insurance, GIS data and work schedule for the mitigation activities will be provided when an application for construction authorization is submitted. Financial assurance documents are not required because the Big Cypress Stewardship District is a co- permittee (Section 10.3.7.1(d) of Volume 1). Big Cypress Stewardship District is an independent special district, created pursuant to and existing under the provisions of Chapter 2004-423, Laws of Florida, Acts of 2004, and established by the Florida House of Representatives' approval of House Bill No. 923 on June 17, 2004. The Big Cypress Stewardship is a co-permi#tee and also the operating entity for this project. App.no.: 160711-8 Page 22 of 34 erp_staff_report.rdf RELATED CONCERNS: Water Use Permit Status: Information was provided to demonstrate the options regarding the availability of potable and irrigation water for the development. Potable water and sanitary sewer service will be provided by one of the fioilowing: Collier County Utilities, Ave Maria Utilities, or the construction and operation of onsite facilities dedicated to serve the Rural Lands West Development. The project is within the footprint of two agricultural water use permits, Shaggy Cypress (Water Use Permit No. 11-100112-W) and Camp Keals (Water Use Permit No. 11-0010&W) which are currently active. Based on the analysis provided in the Request for Additional Information (RAI) response dated October 19, 2017, the consumptive use demands for the proposed development will be less than the current agricultural use. This permit does not release the permittee from obtaining all necessary Water Use authorizatlon(s) prior to the commencement of construction dewatering and irrigation. The proposed project is not located within or adjacent to a Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project component. Potable Water Supplier: Prior to the issuance of cons#ruction and operation authorization, the potable water supplier will be determined and supporting documentation confirming the supplier as well as the availabilty for the project demand will be provided. Waste Water System/Supplier: Prior to the issuance of construction and operation authorization, the waste water treatment service provider will be determined and supporting documentation confirming the service provider as well as the availabilty for the project demand will be provided. Right -Of -Way Permit Status: A District Right -of --Way Permit is not required for this project. Historical/Archeological Resources: The District received correspondence from the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources (DHR) dated August 1, 2016, indicating that no significant archaeological or historical resources are recorded in the project area and therefore the project is unlikely to have an effect upon any such properties. The DHR requested that a condition be added to the permit regarding unexpected discoveries during ground disturbing activities on the property. Please refer to General Condition No. 14. This permit does not release the permittee from compliance with any other agencies' requirements in the event that historical and/or archaeological resources are found on the site. DEO/CZM Consistency Review: The issuance of this permit constitutes a finding of consistency with the Florida Coastal Management Program. Third Party Interest: App.no.: 160711-8 Page 23 of 34 erp_staff_report. rdf The District received correspondence from interested parties expressing concerns regarding the proposed change in land use, proposed wetland impacts, and protected species concerns. Please refer to the permit file in ePermitting to review the correspondence. The parties which expressed concern are being copied on the permit. Enforcement: There has been no enforcement activity associated with this application. App.no.: 160711-8 Page 24 of 34 erp_staff report.rdf STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: The Staff recommends that the following be authorized: Conceptual approval of a stormwater management system (SWMS) serving a 6,708.62-acre se development development known as Rural Lands West. Based on the information provided, District rules have been adhered to. Staff recommendation is for approval subject to the attached General and Special Conditions. STAFF REVIEW: NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT APPROVAL ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUAT1O11� SUPERVISOR Jew�l�ne S. Harris T Laura Layman SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT APPROVAL ENGpIN�EMERING EVALUATION SUPERVISOR Pakorn Sutitarnnontr, P.E. Brian Rose, P.E. ENVIRONMENWL RESOURCE COMPLIANCE BUREAU CHIEF DATE: April 2, 2�18 IVJSION ASSI 'ANT DIRECTOR DATE: ony M. Waterho`t�e, P.E. App.no.: 160711-8 Page 25 of 34 4/2/18 erp_staff_report.rdf 1. All activities shall be implemented following the plans, specifications and performance criteria approved by this permit. Any deviations must be authorized in a permit modification in accordance with Rule 62-330.315, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Any deviations that are not so authorized shall subject the permittee to enforcement action and revocation of the permit under Chapter 373, F.S. 2. A Recorded Notice of Environmental Resource Permit may be recorded in the county public records in accordance with Rule 62-330.090(7), F.A.C. Such notice is not an encumbrance upon the property. 3. Activities shall be conducted in a manner that does not cause or contribute to violations of state water quality standards. Performance -based erosion and sediment control best management practices shall be installed immediately prior to, and be maintained during and after construction as needed, to prevent adverse impacts to the water resources and adjacent lands. Such practices shall be in accordance with the "State of Florida Erosion and Sediment Control Designer and Reviewer Manual" (Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Florida Department of Transportation June 2007), and the "Florida Stormwater Erosion and Sedimentation Control Inspector's Manual" (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Nonpoint Source Management Section, Tallahassee, Florida, July 2008), unless a project -specific erosion and sediment control plan is approved or other water quality control measures are required as part of the permit. 4. At least 48 hours prior to beginning the authorized activities, the permittee shall submit to the Agency a fully executed Form 62-330.350(1), "Construction Commencement Notice" indicating the expected start and completion dates. If available, an Agency website that fulfills this notification requirement may be used in lieu of the form. 5. Unless the permit is transferred under Rule 62-330.340, F.A.C., or transferred to an operating entity under Rule 62-330.310, F.A.C., the permittee is liable to comply with the plans, terms and cond#ions of the permit for the life of the project or activity. 6. Within 30 days after completing construction of the entire project, or any independent portion of the projectI the permi#tee shall provide the following to the Agency, as applicable: a. For an individual, private single-family residential dwelling unit, duplex, triplex, or quadruplex- "Construction Completion and Inspection Certification for Activities Associated With a Private Single - Family Dwelling Unit"[Form 62-330.310(3)]; or b. For all other activities- "As -Built Certification and Request for Conversion to Operational Phase" [Form 62-330.310(1)]. c. If available, an Agency website that fulfills this certification requirement may be used in lieu of the form. 7. If the final operation and maintenance entity is a third party: a. Prior to sales of any lot or unit served by the activity and within one year of permit issuance, or within 30 days of as- built certification, whichever comes first, the permittee shall submit, as applicable, a copy of the operation and maintenance documents (see sections 12.3 thru 12.3.3 of Applicant's Handbook Volume 1) as filed with the Department of State, Division of Corporations and a copy of any easement, plat, or deed restriction needed to operate or maintain the project, as recorded with the Clerk of the Court in the County in which the activity is located. b. Within 30 days of submittal of the as- built certification, the permittee shall submit "Request for Transfer of Environmental Resource Permit to the Perpetual Operation Entity" [Form 62-330.310(2)] to transfer the permit to the operation and maintenance entity, along with the documentation requested in the form. If available, an Agency website that fulfills this transfer requirement may be used in lieu of the form. App.no.: 160711-8 Page 26 of 34 erp_staff_report.rdf 8. The permittee shall notify the Agency in writing of changes required by any other regulatory agency that require changes to the permitted activity, and any required modification of this permit must be obtained prior to implementing the changes. 9. This permit does not: a. Convey to the permittee any property rights or privileges, or any other rights or privileges other than those specified herein or in Chapter 62-330, F.A.C.; b. Convey to the permittee or create in the permittee any interest in real property; c. Relieve the permittee from the need to obtain and comply with any other required federal, state, and local authorization, law, rule, or ordinance; or d. Authorize any entrance upon or work on property that is not owned, held in easement, or controlled by the permittee. 10. Prior to conducting any activities on state-owned submerged lands or o#her lands of the s#ate, title to which is vested in the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, the permittee must receive all necessary approvals and authorizations under Chapters 253 and 258, F.S. Written authorization that requires formal execution by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund shall not be considered received until it has been fully executed. 11. The permittee shall hold and save the Agency harmless from any and all damages, claims, or liabilities that may arise by reason of the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, abandonment or use of any project authorized by the permit. 12. The permittee shall notify the Agency in writing: a. Immediately if any previously submitted information is discovered to be inaccurate; and b. Within 30 days of any conveyance or division of ownership or control of the property or the system, other than conveyance via a long-term lease, and the new owner shall request transfer of the permit in accordance with Rule 62-330.340, F.A.C. This does not apply to the sale of lots or units in residential or commercial subdivisions or condominiums where the stormwater management system has been completed and converted to the operation phase. 13. Upon reasonable notice to the permittee, Agency staff with proper identification shall have permission to enter, inspect, sample and test the project or activities to ensure conformity with the plans and specifications authorized in the permit. 14. If any prehistoric or historic artifacts, such as pottery or ceramics, stone tools or metal implements, dugout canoes, or any other physical remains that could be associated with Native American cultures,. or early colonial or American settlement are encountered at any time within the project site area, work involving subsurface disturbance in the immediate vicinity of such discoveries shall cease. The permittee or other designee shall contact the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Compliance and Review Section, at (850) 245-6333 or (800) 847-7278, as well as the appropriate permitting agency office. Such subsurface work shall not resume without verbal or written authorization from the Division of Historical Resources. If unmarked human remains are encountered, all work shall stop immediately and notification shall be provided in accordance with Section 872.05, F.S. 15. Any delineation of the extent of a wetland or other surface water submitted as part of the permit application, including plans or other supporting documentation, shall not be considered binding unless a specific condition of this permit or a formal determination under Rule 62-330.201, F.A.C., provides otherwise. App.no.: 160711-8 Page 27 of 34 erp_staff_report. rdf 16. The permittee shall provide routine maintenance of a!I components of the stormwater management system to remove trapped sediments and debris. Removed materials shall be disposed of in a landfill or other uplands in a manner that does not require a permit under Chapter 62-330, F.A.C., or cause violations of state water quality standards. 17. This permit is issued based on the applicant's submitted information that reasonably demonstrates that adverse water resource -related impacts will not be caused by the completed permit activity. If any adverse impacts result, the Agency will require the permittee to eliminate the cause, obtain any necessary permit modification, and take any necessary corrective actions to resolve the adverse impacts. 18. A complete copy of this permit shall be kep# at the work site of the permitted activity during the construction phase, and shall be available for review at the work site upon request by the Agency staff. The permittee shall require the contractor to review the complete permit prior to beginning construction. App.no.: 160711-8 Page 28 of 34 erp_staff_report.rdf ��a1�. _ *TiP►I�ti�CiPt�� 1. The conceptual phase of this permit shall expire on April 3, 2038. 2. Operation and maintenance of the stormwater management system and gation areas including all conservation areas shall be the responsibility of the Big Cypress Stewardship District. 3. Discharge Facilities: Refer to Exhibit 2.0 Pages 18 and 20 of 23. 4. Lake side slopes shall be no steeper than 4:1 (horizontal:vertical) to a depth of two fee# below the control elevation. Side slopes shall be nurtured or planted from 2 feet below to 1 foot above control elevation to insure vegetative growth, unless shown on the plans. 5. Astable, permanen# and accessible elevation reference sha!! be established on or within one hundred (100) feet of all permitted discharge structures no later than the submission of the certification report. The location of the elevation reference must be noted on or with the certification report. 6. Minimum building floor elevation: Basin: 01 - 25.70 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 02 - 25.30 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 03 - 21.50 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 04 - 19.60 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 05 - 19.40 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 06 - 19.70 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 07 - 19.00 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 08 - 18.50 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 09 - 18.40 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 10 - 16.80 feet NAVD 88, Basin: 11 - 16.80 feet NAVD 88. 7. Minimum road crown elevation: Basin: 01 - 24.10 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 02 - 22.70 feet NAVD $8. Basin: 03 - 20.30 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 04 - 19.50 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 05 - 19.50 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 06 - 19.20 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 07 - 19.00 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 08 - 17.70 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 09 - 17.70 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 10 - 16.20 feet NAVD 88. Basin: 11 - 16.20 feet NAVD 88. 8. The permittee shall utilize the criteria contained in the stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Exhibit 2.2) and on the applicable approved construction drawings for the duration of the project's construction activities. 9. The Urban stormwater Management Plan shall be implemented in accordance with Exhibit 2.3. 10. {a) This conceptual approval permit only authorizes design concepts for a master or future plan to construct, alter, operate, maintain, remove, or abandon projects that require an individual permit under Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S. It does not authorize any construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, or abandonment, or the establishment and operation of a mitigation bank, or relieve the permit holder of any requirements to obtain such permits. General Conditions 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, App.no.: 160711-8 Page 29 of 34 erp_staff_report.rdf SPECIAL CONDITIONS 16 and 18 are no# applicable until an Individual Permit authorizing a phase of construction is issued. (b) Subsequent applications to construct and operate activities shall be prepared and submitted using the procedures in Rules 62-330.060, 62-330.061, and 62-330.071, F.A.C. (c) Issuance of this conceptual approval permit is a determination, within the level of detail provided in the application, that the activities approved in this permit are consistent with applicable rules at the time of issuance. This permit provides the conceptual approval permit holder with a rebuttable presumption, during the duration of this permit, that the engineering design and environmental concepts upon which the designs approved herein are likely to meet applicable rule criteria for issuance of permits for subsequent phases of the project, provided all of the requirements of Rule 62-330.056(7)(a) through (d), F.A.0 are met at the time of receipt of a complete application to construct and operate the future phase(s). (d) If changes are proposed to the design of existing or future phases, or where there have been changes to state water quality standards, special basins, or site characteristics as described in rule 62-330.056(7)(a) through (d), F.A.C, during the duration of this permit, the applicant must modify this permit if it wishes to continue to rely on it as a basis that reasonable assurance exists for the Agency to issue future construction or operation permits. If the permittee fails to do this, this conceptual approval permit can no longer be relied upon as a basis, in part or whole, for permits to construct or operate future phases, and the Agency will reevaluate the terms and conditions of this permit at the time a permit application is received to construct the next phase of activities. (e) The duration of this conceptual approval permit is 20 years, provided that, within five years of issuance of this permit: 1. The permittee applies for and receives an Individual Permit for the initial phase of construction or aIteration and 2. The authorized construction or alteration has begun and the work remains in compliance with the terms and conditions of both the conceptual approval permit and all permits authorizing construction or alteration, including required operation. These time periods will be tolled if the Agency is notified, in writing, within five years of issuance that administrative review under either of the following is pending: a. The project approved by the conceptual approval permit is undergoing Development of Regional Impact review pursuant to Section 380.06, F.S., and an administrative appeal of that review has been filed; or b. The issuance of the construction permit for the first phase is under administrative review pursuant to Sections 120.569 or 120.57, F.S. 11. A mitigation program for Rural Lands West includes the enhancement and preservation of 3,659.31 acres. However, mitigation credit is only being received for 3559.19 acres which includes the enhancement and preservation of 3,300.36 acres of wetlands, 3.37 acres of wetland restoration, 20.72 acres of PFFW restoration, and 32.61 acres of wetland creation, 191.09 acres of upland enhancement and preservation, and 11.04 acres of upland restoration. There will be 13.91 acres of OSW preservation and 0.36 acres of upland buffers that will not be used as mitigation. The mitigation plan is attached as Exhibit No. 3.7. 12. Upon submittal of an application for construction approval, the permittee shall submit an updated wetland mitigation, monitoring and maintenance plan with details specific to the mitigation phase being implemented that will Include but not be limited to: exhibits dUpiciting the specific mitigation area, exotic removal, planting, and prescribed burn details (including access points for burning), and a mitigation work schedule for review by District staff. The plan shall be subject to the approval of District staff and the environmental criteria in effect at the time of the construction permit application, App.no.: 160711-8 Page 30 of 34 erp_staff_report.rdf and shall permit. also be reviewed for consistency with the conceptual mitigation plan authorized in this 13. Upon commencement of construction, the permittee shall implement the wetland mitigation, monitoring and maintenance plan in accordance with Exhibit No. 3.7, inclusive of any updates. The monitoring program shall extend for a minimum of 5 years, with annual reports submitted to District staff. At the end of the first monitoring period, the mitigation area shall contain an 80% survival of planted vegetation. The 80% survival rate shall be maintained throughout the remainder of the monitoring program, with replanting as necessary: If native wetland, transitional, and upland species do not achieve an 80% coverage within the initial two years of the monitoring program, native species shall be planted in accordance with the maintenance program. At the end of the 5 year monitoring program the entire mitigation area shall contain an 80% survival of planted vegetation and an 80% coverage of desirable obligate and facultative wetland species. Exotic and nuisance vegetative debris shall be removed from the conservation areas to the extent practicable. Temporary trails that may be used for removal of nuisance and exotic vegetative debris are depicted on the monitoring map included in Exhibit No. 3.7. 14. Prior to the commencement of construction, a maintenance program shall be implemented in accordance with Exhibit No. 3.7 for the preserves on a regular basis to ensure the integrity and viability of those areas as permitted. Maintenance shall be conducted in perpetuity to ensure that the conservation areas are maintained free from Category 1 & 2 exotic vegetation (as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council immediately following a maintenance activity). Maintenance in perpetuity shall also insure that conservation areas, including buffers, maintain the species and coverage of native, desirable vegetation specified in the permit. Coverage of exotic and nuisance plant species shall not exceed 5% of total cover between maintenance activities. In addition, the permittee shall manage the conservation areas such that exotic/nuisance plant species do not dominate any one section of those areas. Exotic and nuisance vegetative debris shall be removed from the conservation areas to the extent practicable. Temporary trails that may be used for removal of nuisance and exotic vegetative debris are depicted on the monitoring map included in Exhibit No. 3.7. 15. Upon commencement of construction, permanent physical markers designating the preserve status of the wetland preservation/conservation areas and buffer zones shall be placed at the intersection of the buffer and each lot line in residential areas, or at appropriately spaced intervals in non-residential areas. These markers shall be maintained in perpetuity. 16. At the time of application for construction of future phases, the permittee shall submit an updated summary and map which shows the location and acreage of the wetlands) impacted to date, and the the status of existing mitigation areas for the entire project. 17. At the time of application for any phase of construction that includes wetland impacts, the permittee shall demonstrate that an adequate portion of the mitigation plan has been or shall be executed and completed in a timely manner (i.e., concurrent with the wetland impacts) and that the specified mitigation will adequately offset the wetland impacts associated with that phase. 18. If monitoring reports or other information show the preserved wetlands have been negatively affected by the permitted development in a manner that is irreversible (such as impounding the wetland and drowning the existing vegetation or a reduction in the hydroperiod resulting in the transition of wetlands into upland/transitional habitat), the permittee shall be required to submit a remediation plan within 30 days of notification by the District's Environmental Resource Compliance staff of such conditions. The remediation plan may include onsite or offslte mitigation as necessary to address any deficiences. App.no.: 160711-8 Page 31 of 34 erp_staff_report. rdf SPECIAL G4NUIT1%J 19. Areas to be temporarily disturbed by the installation of control structures in wetlands and conservation easement areas will be backfilled and replanted in accordance with Exhibit No. 3.7 within 30 days of installation. Monitoring of temporary impact areas shall be done concurrently with other required monitoring for Rural Lands West. 20. Endangered species, threatened species and/or species of special concern have been observed onsite and/or the project contains suitable habitat for these species. It shall be the permittee's responsibility to coordinate with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for appropriate guidance, recommendations and/or necessary permits to avoid impacts to listed species. Updated wetland -dependent species surveys may be required with subsequent applications for phases of construction as required by FWC and State Law. Big Cypress fox squirrel surveys shall be conducted prior to the commencement of construction. The applicant shall implement the Rural Lands West Listed Species Management and Human -Wildlife Coexistence Plan (LSMP) attached as Exhibit 3.14. The applicant shall follow the wildlife requirements of any federal authorizations received. Please refer to Exhibit 3.13 for the currently proposed Panther Habitat Assessment/Habitat Compensation Plan, which requires federal approval from the FWS. 21. A) At the time of application for construction approval, the permittee shall submit for review and approval, one copy of the following as a package for review by District real estate staff: 1. Project map identifying conserva#ion areas 2. Legal description of conservation areas 3. Signed conservation easement form (prior to construction permit issuance) 4. Sealed boundary survey of conservation area(s) by professional Land surveyor 5. Title Review Information and Title insurance commitment for the conservation easement naming the District as beneficiary using approved valuation. 6. Data in accordance with paragraph E (below). B) The real estate information referenced in paragraph /AN above shall be reviewed by the District in accordance with the District's real estate review requirements. The easement shall be granted free of mortgages, liens, easements or other encumbrances or interests which the District staff states are contrary to the intent of the easement. The easement shall not be recorded until such approval is received. C) Prior to the commencement of construction, the permittee shall record the conservation easemen#(s), utilizing the form attached as Exhibit No. 3.5, over the real property designated as conservation/preservation areas. The conservation easements shall be granted to the District. D) In the event the conservation easement real estate information reveals encumbrances or interests in the easement which the District staff states are contrary to the intent of the easement, the permittee shall be required to provide release or subordination of such encumbrances or interests. If such are not obtained, permittee shall be required to apply for a modification to the permit for alternative acceptable mitigation. E) A CD or DVD containing the easement data supplied in a digital ESRI Geodatabase {mdb), ESRI Shapefile {shp) or AutoCAD Drawing Interchange (dxf) file format using Florida State Plane coordinate system, East one (3601), Datum NAD83, HARN with the map units in feet, shall be submitted. F) The permittee shall record the conservation easement in the public records of Collier County, Florida within 30 days of construction permit issuance and prior to the commencement of App.no.: 160711-8 Page 32 of 34 erp_staff_report.rdf construction. Upon recordation, the permittees shall submit one certified copy of the recorded conservation easements for the preservation/mitigation areas, and title insurance policy, via ePermitting or to the Environmental Resource Compliance staff in the local District service center. 22. At the time of application for construction approval and prior to the commencement of construction, the perimeter of conservation areas shall be staked/roped/silt fenced to prevent encroachment into the protected areas. Using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology, the perimeter of the preserve area(s) shall be identified for future reference. The data shall be differentially corrected and accurate to less than a meter (+/- one meter or better). Electronic copies of the GPS data shall be provided to the District's Environmental Resource Compliance staff. The permittee shall notify the District's Environmental Resource Compliance staff in writing upon completion of staking/roping/silt fencing and schedule an inspection of this work. The staking/roping/silt fencing shall be subject to District staff approval. The permittee shall modify the staking/roping/silt fencing if District staff determines that it is insufficient or is not in conformance with the intent of this permit. Staking/roping/silt fencing shall remain in place until all adjacent construction activities are complete. 23. Upon submittal of an application for construction approval involving wetland impacts or proposed mitigation, the permittee shall submit a work schedule, subject to District staff review and approval, specifying completion dates for each mitigation, monitoring and maintenance task. 24. Irrigation withdrawals for the proposed uses and construction dewatering are not authorized until construction approval is obtained. 25. The delineation of the extent of wetlands and other surface waters in Exhibit No. 3.1 shall be binding for the duration of the permit. 26. Prior to any future construction, the permittee shall apply for and receive a permit modification. As part of the permit application, the applican# for that phase shall provide documentation verng that the proposed construction is consistent with the design of the master stormwater management system, including the land use and site grading assumptions of the conceptual approval permit. 27. This permit is issued based. on the applicant's submitted information which reasonably demonstrates that adverse water resource related impacts will not be caused by the completed permit activity. Should any adverse impacts caused by the completed stormwater management system occur, the District will require the permittee to provide appropriate mitigation to the District or other impacted party. The District will require the permittee to modify the stormwater management system, if necessary, to eliminate the cause of the adverse impacts. 28. Modifications of Permits No. 11-01178-S and 11-00112-S as well as Oil Well Road Segment 3 (Permit No. 11-01745-P) shall be required prior to the issuance of construction and operation authorization to address changes of the stormwater management systems serving these agricultural developments and roadway improvements due to the proposed development. 29. The following are exhibits to this permit. Exhibits noted as incorporated by reference are available on the District's ePermitting website (http:/lmy.sfwmd.gov/ePermitting) under this application number. Exhibit 1.0 Exhibit 2.0 Exhibit 2.1 Exhibit 2.2 Exhibit 2.3 Exhibit 3.0 Exhibit 3.1 Exhibit 3.2 Location Map Conceptual Plans stormwater Management Summary and FEMA FIRM information stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Urban Stormwater Management Program FLUCCS Map Wetland/Other Surface Water Identification Map Previously Authorized Impacts & Mitigation and Current Plan Summary Map App.no.: 160711-8 Page 33 of 34 erp_staff_report.rdf Exhibit 3.3 Wetland/Other Surface Water Impact Map Exhibit 3.4 Summary of Conservation Area Acreage Exhibit 3.5 Conservation Easement Form Exhibit 3.6 UMAM Summary with Breakdown of Habitat Assessment Areas Exhibit 3.7 Mitigation, Monitoring and Maintenance Plan Exhibit 3.8 Map of Project relative to Camp Keais Strand Exhibit 3.9 Location Map for Eagle Nest and Audubon's Caracara Nest Exhibit 3.10 Location Map of project relative to Wood Stork CFA & FWS Consultation Areas Exhibit 3.11 FWC Letter dated January 16, 2018 Exhibit 3.12 Wildlife Crossing Locations Exhibit 3.13 Panther Habitat Assessment Exhibit 3.14 Rural Lands West Listed Species Management and Human -Wildlife Coexistence Plan (LSMP) Exhibit 3.15 Panther Telemetry Data Exhibit 3.16 Map of SSA and Conservation Lands App.no.: 160711-8 Page 34 of 34 f . �. - G01 CR-84kkk - i .i 0 v4 it r Q i Exhibit Created On: COLLIER COUNTY, FL Exhibit NO: 1 2016-07-12 REGULATION DIVISION Project Name: RURAL LANDS WEST ® Application Application Number: 160711-8 .�-' N 0 34,500 69,000 r f�.i by Feet South Florida Water Management District Exhibit 1.0 Application No. 160711-8 Page 1 of 1 STAFF REPORT DISTRIBUTION LIST RURAL LANDS WEST Application No: 160711-$ Permit No: 11-03949-P INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION X Jewelene S. Harris X Pakorn Sutitarnnontr, P.E. X Permittee - Collier Enterprises Management Inc X Laura Layman X Permittee - Collier Land Holdings LTD X Brian Rose, P.E. X Permittee - Big Cypress Stewardship District X A. Waterhouse, P.E. X Permittee - CDC Land Investments LLC X Agent - Agnoli Barber & Brundage Inc X Env Consultant - Passarella & Associates Inc GOVERNMENT AGENCIES X City Engineer, City of Naples X Collier County Summer Brown Araque X Div of Recreation and Park - District 4 - Chris Becker, FDEP X Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Darrel Land X Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Marissa Kruger X US Fish and Wildlife Service Kenneth McDonald X US Fish and Wildlife Service Kevin Godsea OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES X Audubon of Florida -Charles Lee X Conservancy of SW Florida Amber Crooks X Conservancy of Southwest Florida X Dr. Judith Hushon, Ph D. X Drew Martin X Gaylene Vasaturo AGRE ' IVIENT TO PRC)VIDh2j I "TABLE WATER, WAKffi WATERAND IRRIGATION WXFERMILITY SERVICES rI'IIIS IN'T'ERLC�CAI� ACIRFIIVII?NT ("Agreement"} is made and entered into this _ day of , 2021 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting ex-officio as the Governing Board of the Collier County Water - Sewer District (hereinafter referred to as the "CCWSD"), the Board of Supervisors of the Big Cypress Stewardship District (hereinafter referred to as the "District"), CDC Land Investments, L,LC and Collier Land Holdings, Ltd, (hereinafter referred to as "Landowners"). 12EC:I'I'ALS: WkIEI�L;AS, Section l 63.01(4), Florida. Statutes, the Florida interlocal Cooperation Act of 1969 (the "Act"), authorizes the joint exercise of any power, privilege or authority that the public agencies involved herein might exercise separately; and WI-3I+�I�EAS, the CCWSD anc� the Distx°ict are public agencies within the meaning of the Aet and desire to engage in the joint exercise of power that each might exercise separately; and WI-IEItEAS, the CCWSD provides water, wastewater and irrigation watez: service (collectively known as "utility services"), in ari economical and environmentally beneficial manner to much of the unincorporated area of Collier County; and WgIERE.A.S, the District also has statutory authority to provide utility services within the District, but intends to authorize the CCWSD to provide utility services within certain designated areas of the District; and WHL+ REAS, the CCWSD's service boundaries encompass the District; and W]EIIJREAS, the CCWSD shall incorporate certain designated kinds .and property withi�� the District into CCWSD'a service area to exclusively provide retail potable water, wastewater and irrigation water (including effluent irrigation water, when available) utility services in the same manner and pursuant to the same ordinances and policies as CCWSD currently provides service to all other customers located throughout the unincorporated set •vice area of Collier County, Florida; and WHEREAS, the District acknowledges the CCWSD's right to offer utility services within the District and further authorizes the CCWSD to exchtsively provide utility services inside a portion of the District's jurisdictional area known as Longwater Village; and is intended to reduce to writing the terms and condit WHEREAS, this Agreement tons between the CCWSD, the District and the Landowners as to the exclusive pr•ov�sion of utility services by the CCWSD within the Longwater Village area of the District. NOW, THEREFORE, the CCWSD, the District and the Landowners agree as follows: l . The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. shallhe Landowners potable.: r na stations ity sewers, force mc%ns, wastewater pump ravi and ! (collectively known as "wastewater facilitAes") within the • providedter Village development and convey such facilities to the CCWSD in the manner f r#' amended,CCWSD policies and County ordinances, including but not Imilited to Ordinance No. 2004� #llier County Utilities Standardsmid Procedures Ordinance (the "Utilities Standards Ordinance"), of be amended Board of County Commissioners # Upon final acceptance CCWSD shall be responsible for maintenance and operations of such accepted facilities. facilities Irrigation water transmission ;'gwater Point of # 1between Rivergrass Village ! Longwater Village which shall be available demand in accordance#lschedule as defined Mi Schedule shallPOC be as defined on ScheduleB. identifiedtransmission mains, i Schedule Rivergrass Village so that sufficient flows are aval Hable to service the Longwater Village. Pointpotable/fire water design flows at a minimum pressure system at the Rivergrass developers, through- design their system(s) as required. of sufficient size tip to and including 16" needed by the District to serve the Bellmar _located !' #.# other acceptable to the District and the wastewater force main will terminate at the m'tersection of the spine road and the future Big Cypress Parkway, while the ipotable w ill terminate at the uti I ity site and flirther agree to provide..... approvalbasis of des'gn for review and The Landowners will require all developers in Longwater to install an internal, residential the Point of Connection. •. IQ meters anct managet. consumptionCCWSDapproved s tes for the IQ service provided regardless of the CCWSD's water # services area suitable for the construction and operation of the facilities necessary to provide sufficient utility services. All lands shall be conveyed to the Collier County Water� Sewer District, The value of these lands shall be determined by two accredited Real Estate basedAppraisers, each varty will secure their own accredi Real Estate Appraiser. The purchase price shall be on # of ,f to include any entitlements based upon an agreed date of value, The aforementioned date must be before SRA action, increased density or any other up zoning entitlements to the property. The final price per acre sliall be equal to the average of the two independent appraisal reports. �ecti��� 1 � �fihc _��c��rass ���•ee���er�t, Si��, Fades 33�7-331�, shad be celetec� i its entirety. fees to "prepayment"). # - _ water capacity equivalent to 3 5 0 ERC's and wastewater capacity equivalent to 3 5 0 ERC's .advance, 1�. �`he prrepa�z�er�t shad � �.�� �� lacer than thirty ��� days after I.andc�vvnez•s' receipt a�.d acceptance cif: `. f irea ana o Mppe awe permits Yrorn Me 371.111M.Cutriva Management waterThe prepayment shall be at the then current CCWSD Board approved rates for for • f wastewaterimp identifiedherein shallMreduced!; of prepayment per ERCfor each buildingesi 'f thereon until the development completed are as provided Collier County Impact Fee Ordinance. The developer shall be responsible for any difference between the prepaymentamountper t time of building application The CCWSD agrees to reimburse the District for the cost of the POC as identified in 1• , r # mains • # an shallnot to exceed $2,700,000 identified by Schedule C as signed and sealed by the District's Engineer of Record, The CCWSD amount# ! l'. days of receipt of the Longwater• prepayment, District or the Landowners commit any affirmative act to construct or provide potable water, wastewater or irrigation water utility service within the District, including but not limited to entering into an agreement hiring a contractor or a consultant to provide utility construction -related services in furtherance of this Agreement. Any attempt to terminate the Agreement once any party has incurred any expense in furtherance of fulfilling its duties under the Agreement, without the express written consent of the other parties, shall be considered a nullity. Termination shall be effective one hundred eighty (180) days after receipt of said written notice. This Agreement may be amended from time to time upon the written consent of all parties. Any amendment to the Agreement must be in writing and must be executed with the same formalities as this original Agreement. _� _ -• +� • T Tr 0' Officeoffices* For the County*, _ County Manager, Naples, Florida 34112. For theDistrict/LandolArnerst Patrick Utter, _ _ Vice President of Real Estate and Club Operations, 999 Vanderbilt Beach Road, Suite 507, Naples, FL 34108t defend and hold harmless - other,; t members,councilf and employees • and r, demands, liabilities,#settlements,judgmentsand awards r and actions of whatever kind or nature, including attorney's fees and costs (and costs and fees on appeal) t 4amages (including, but 4 actual 1 any g_illfal misrepresentation ;material • Agreement party,boardmembers,#members, if 4 agents or employees. The foregoing indernm ication shall not constitute a waiver of the CCWSD or the District's sovereign immunity beyond the limits set forth in Florida Statutes, Section 768.28, nor shall the same be construed to constitute agreement by any party to indeninity another party for such other party's negligent, willful or intentional acts or omissions. f thereon and all of which shall together constitute one and the same instrunient. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year first written above. Crystal l�inzel, Clerl�: CCLL IJ '"�'ffi BY: Clerk �� fenny Taylor, Chair ApprovecqlS to legal suffi lei y t .leffi•ey A. F�Iatzlc��v, �:nunty Attorney S 1'I"I' r1jo . N.� A Patrick L. the President Patrick L, fluter, Vice President Patrick. L. Utter, Vice President CJ tci; ra �n, c� ul cS i, rc' o 0 00 ID Ant in tD O O 3 n rN N in in CD in in (n m in N N in t l C) ri n rN N CD in Ln in ,7 m O IN ey cat N ts'4 O O r4 fq,, N n O Lnn in C> CC) k w m its m N N N O r^ an Mi (D N' N rd W N N N in in nO nain �f to N N N O N O h N C) p tO CCDD N N r-t to N m ry 0 0 0 0 0 C:5 O O in to A in O in 0 in O in ri to m ri e N O N O N O P^+ N O Ol in C)0000 in w i+3 r9 a-1 In O O O a Cl 0 0 Q in in ti to 0� in n in O ul to < 4 va tf3 A N O N O N O h C) h n N R t10 al i5 y C) r� r i i et L n U) N to fit m �O o o a is a a in in a cc in O in O in in E ri tt? m H of rN A N O N h 3 m V) `' O N iti p U O r{ i--i "A sr O ,�j N Otn O C)n in W H w to ca N O N (N n ca N N r �; r � m C) C) in C) o C9 in Hm m in a r� N N N A n O Ql in in Q CCD ri t+l N N O CJ a O a in C7 in to in O O to V4 rr 00 to N tN N h to n r. m n N C) o ry 0 o a d oa m if)`�iP inm N N N r-i ul N in rt a a cv ti7 N N gT c¢ m fN in tN rt O O N N o m r� rl O m in N r-i ri � a-i ri O N N O 7 N a.: y N ice.. ti N is 's'a 'ia C C1 G ¢7 C OJ Ql � 93 E N .N U 4 41 a G cr v a= a a: u to e_ is ro Ln E is 0 N i� U) r tli in r-'' in N t ri o r•i � N N ` 43 Tni N v in W' in O fq r3 0 N c) ",:� in N m f: m 0 O Q M m O Ql m im 00 n m VI ) rl in ai rq p O V a`i at N in LU w. M to c m a v v u is In �/NJ tto `—m m o a m ui0 LU u to O •4) Q ,n U 'N U 'D it tJ tC u [C V CC Q ro toto to iQ M E "!i, W st a� P 0 AGNOLI r•.N & "r ,Nf t iti.11VD.C)'l E, iNco I'rofessionar Friggineers, Phs" ers, sarveyars 6c (arsdscape Architects Pipe Upsizing at�d tVew Pipe Ua�det' Cannecfnr F�oad Potable L. .. 4 L .. .. • V WaterLength Length i Iength II Pipe Cost .• Valve Cost Valve Cost • ♦ 401 1 0 • 1 1 ($1841074)• ($140,598) . ■ • F' • • • • . ($207,208) ($50,940) ($641540) TOTALCOST Potable Water Wastewater MIM. as •• ,.• ,MIj .... Subtotal • • • Pipe Cost PipeCostCost Valve Cost Valve Cost Cost 1 1 '1 1 • i • 1 WastewaterTOTAL COST Potable Water g NOW MINIMMM— /zz/zozo This Opinion of Frobah(e Construction Cost (OnCj has been prepared by Agr�oli, [3arber, � Eirundage, tnc. {AHB) at the request of owner or as a requirement of a governr��entat agency. AE1E3 has based the unit costs of this OPC on previous work history with similar projects or on vaiues provided by reputable eontractors v.+e have worked vuith. fn accordance tuith Q.A.C. 61G-1518.t?12, this is not a guarantee or warranty expressed or h-riplied as to the: construction cost that may be obtained by owner using competitive bidding. If such a guarantee is needed, it is recommended that owner procure the services of a professional cost estimator or obtain a binding bid frorn a Contractor. ya�t�t�ttErt:�p� Di tra ps?gnad by a``4 C' , St AM/co 4r. bagn9nick !. Armor, Jr. ��P� Tilts'its m has been eleciranfimiry signed and sealed 6y i)orrrinrtk !. Qrrvlto, It., F[, pN:4p q on09fi2f2p2iJ: CND 0omrnickl a D : No. 393i32 ':'tn d3�Cic`tssrnkk Printed copies of this dacstrneat are not carz:Edered signed nrad sno4ed, c ; Arnica, t—#Nodes. cY', STATE OF 5 florskits,CWUS 2Q2@ Dora: ti.k8.22`CQR{t?P i6:oB:it4 tsa'g)o s "SIONAi.ti ..,� NIM Summary Longwater Village SRA (PL-20190001836) Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 5:30 PM New Hope Ministries, Lecture Hall — Room 211 7675 Davis Boulevard, Naples, Florida 34104 The NIM was held for the above referenced petition. The petition is described as follows: A petition to designate a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) within the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay District in the form of a Village consisting of 999.78+ acres of land located i On eastern Collier County. The SRA is to be known as Longwater Village. Longwater Village SRA is proposed to allow up to 2,600 dwelling units of which a minimum of 10% will be multi -family, a minimum of 10% will be single-family detached, and a minimum of 10% will be single-family attached or villas. Longwater Village will include a minimum of 65,000 square feet and a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and a minimum of 26,000 square feet, of civic, governmental and institutional uses. Note: This is a summary of the NIM. An audio recording is also provided. Attendees: On behalf of the Applicants: Pat Utter, Senior Vice President of Real Estate, Collier Enterprises Valerie Pike, Director of Real Estate, Collier Enterprises Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, President, Hole Montes Richard Yovanovich, Esq., Coleman Yovanovich Koester Norm Trebilcock, AICP, PE, Trebilcock &Associates County Staff: Nancy JUL AICP, RLA, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section Two members of the public attended. Mr. Mulhere started the presentation by introducing himself, the other consultants, and County Staff. He went on to provide an overview of the project. Following the presentation there was approximately five minutes of questions from the public in attendance. Two questions were asked: (1) What is the approximate length of the proposed main spine road? (2) When will construction begin? Mr. Utter responded that the spine road is approximately three miles long, and he expects construction to begin in approximately 18 to 24 months. The meeting concluded at approximately 5:45 PM. H:\2019\2019050\SRA\NIM\Longwater Village SRA NIM Summary (6-25-2020).docx HOLE MONIES ASSOCIATES ATTN STEPHANIE KAROL 950 ENCORE WAY NAPLES FL 34110 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WISCONSIN COUNTY OF BROWN Before the undersigned they serve as the authority; personally appeared Joe Heynen who on oath says that he serves as legal clerk of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida; that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida , for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. 6/9/2020 Subscribed and sworn to before on June 9, 2020: Notary, State of WI, County of Brown My commission expires: August 6, 2021 Publication Cost: $945.00 f\d No GC10�i31792 Customer No: �30712 PO#: LONGWATER VILLAGE NIM The public is invited to attend a neighborhood information meeting held by Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, President of Hole Montes, Inc. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. on behalf of the property owner at the following time and location: Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. New Hope Ministries, Lecture Hall -Room 211 7675 Davis Boulevard, Naples, FL 34104 The following formal application has been made to Collier County: Petition SRA-PL20190001836 — A petition to designate a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) within the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay District in the form of a Village consisting of 999.78± acres of land located in eastern Collier County. The SRA is to be known as Longwater Village. Longwater Village SRA is proposed to allow up to 2,600 dwelling units of which a minimum of 10% will be multi -family, a minimum of 10% will be single-family detached, and a minimum of 10% will be single-family attached or villas. Longwater Village will include a minimum of 65,000 square feet and a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and a minimum of 26,000 square feet, of civic, governmental and institutional uses. The subject property is located south of Oil Well Road, west of the intersection of Oil Well Grade Road and Oil Well Road, in Sections 22, 23, 26, 27, 34 and 35, Township 48 South, and Range 28 East. 950 Encore Way Naples, 1=L 341'I 0 HOLE {�,1t[}NTES Phone: {239} 254-2000 F4YYFR: • F; Wk�F - R,f'�iYiAR WE VALUE YOUR INPUT L�3N�WATER VILLAGE SI�A Business and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation and discuss the project with the owners and Collier County staff. We will be adhering to social distancing protocols during the meeting. If you would rather not or are unable to attend the meeting and would like to view a video of the meeting, please email us at NeighborhoodMeetinq@hmeng.com and we will send a link of the video. You may also email any comments or questions to NeighborhoodMeeting@ hmeng.com. Please reference Longwater Village SRA in subject line. Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP; President, Hole Montes, Inc., 950 Encore Way, Naples, FL 34110 Phone: 239-254-2000 NO-GC1047179i-Ot i V) a) W) Ri L O L `a 41 CO E E U O O 4— O O O O a) i C 'FJ O ° O M .s a C. L mm O o E a� _ � o s o a ca c ra .o ojc+� c� CL :3 -a O 'a cu �farmmq ra H a4 3 w•L Q) >. O u. c L O O O O a� a , o 47 O �° ao .= c o s u ° N w a) cn o °! N V ,,= CU OwrMNH CSa�=3 U � o .° O O. _� co Q O o Nq � o o � o U lot cn M� � °° O <C u- �cu C7Lw LaL a O ° -Lw ° �M O V U �{ ° }1 (n L W ® J"a.0 O O !� O u O O U L Q. > O U t0 O O 4wJ O > O cu (U O .0 C = 4vOi O O ' V) U O W O O O .a c� O wo Q7 4+ O m .O s a)' E pai .� O O O • 'tII L L s i� W CL N cz #J U L -- LMZk cl 6 � 0 i i � I 4 June 9, 2020 950 Encore Way � Naples, Florida 34110 � Phone 239.254.2000 � Fax: 239,254.2099 Re: Longwater Village SRA (PL-20190001836) HM File No. 2019.050 Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, President of Hole Montes, Inc. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. on behalf of the property owner, have filed the following application to Collier County: A petition to designate a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) within the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay District in the form of a Village consisting of 999.78� acres of land located in eastern Collier County. The SRA is to be known as Longwater Village. Longwater Village SRA is proposed to allow up to 2,600 dwelling units of which a minimum of 10% will be multi -family, a minimum of 10% will be single-family detached, and a minimum of 10% will be single-family attached or villas. Longwater Village will include a minimum of 65,000 square feet and a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and a minimum of 26,000 square feet, of civic, governmental and institutional uses. The subject property is located south of Oil Well Road, west of the intersection of Oil Well Grade Road and Oil Well Road, in Sections 22, 23, 26, 27, 34 and 35, Township 48 South, and Range 28 East. In compliance with the Land Development Code requirements, a Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held to provide you an opportunity to hear a presentation about this petition and ask questions. The Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held on Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. at New Hope Ministries, Lecture Hall -Room Z11, 7675 Davis Boulevard, Naples, Florida 34104. We will be adhering to social distancing protocols during the meeting. If you would rather not or are unable to attend the meeting and would like to view a video of the meeting, please email us at Nei�hborhoodMeeting_(a,hmeng com and we will send a link of the video. You may also email any comments or questions to Nei�hborhoodMeeting,(a�hmeng com. Please reference Longwater Village SRA in subject line. Very truly yours, HOLE MONTES, INC. Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP President RJM/sek H:\2019\2019050\SRA\NIM\Longwater Village NIM Property Owner Letter (6-9-2020).docx Naples � Fort Myers AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-41, of the Collier County Land Development Code, I did cause the attached newspaper advertisement to appear and I did give notice by mail to the following property owners and/or condominium and civic associations whose members may be affected by the proposed land use changes of an application request for a rezoning, PUD amendment, or conditional use, at least 15 days prior to the scheduled Neighborhood Information Meeting. Foy the purposes o, f this �equi�ement, the names and addresses of p�ope�ty owners shall be deemed those appeasing on the latest tax polls of Collies County and any other persons oN entities who have made a foNmal Nequest of the county to be notified. The said notice contained the laymen's description of the site property of proposed change and the date, time, and place of a Neighborhood Information Meeting. Per the attached letters, property owner's list, and copy of newspaper advertisement which are hereby made a part of this Affidavit of Compliance (Signature of Applicant) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing Affidavit of Compliance was acknowledged before me this 9th day of June, 2020 by means of ,. physical presence or online notarization, by Robert J. Mulhere, who is personally known to me _`_ or who has produced ��. ;; ,, � ignatdre of Notary Public intec� Name of Notary as identification. (Notary Seal) 51'EPHANIE KAROL Notary Public -State of Florida Commission � GG 965839 My Comm. Expires Mar 9, 2024 Bonded throu3h National Notary Assn. H:\2019\2019050\SRA\NIM\Affidavit of Compliance (6-9-2020).doc �'�'® 09 �t3/09 �SCQ t�aan� aan� algl�.�dtuaa aaaa Lg x u��u 0� �euJ.�o� ap a�.tanbl�� 09 G8/09 G�® f+�ar�°� �I�IM algl��du.�aa «�/� � x « � azls laq�l �� ®_ 131EVERSC LLC 12995 S CLEVELAND AVE STE 219 FORT MYERS, FL 33907---0 ABIN, ANTONIO 1681 GOLDEN GATE BLVD W MAPLES, FL 34120---0 AGUTAR, LUIS 1620 N E 160TH ST NORTH MIAMI BEAC, FL 33162---4735 ALFARO, ZULIMA 3240 29TH AVE NE MAPLES, FL 34120---3203 AMIOT,GARCIA, GRETCHEN OSVALDO B GARCIA GRACIELA GARCIA 2975 DESOTO BLVD N MAPLES, FL 34120---8994 ARTETA, NORIS 7410 SABAL DR HIALEAH, FL 33014---2525 BCF/NORTH COLLIER FIRE RESCUE 1885 VETERANS PARK DR MAPLES, FL 34120---1355 BLAKE, MATTHEW T & AUDREY R 12700 SW 111�H CT DAVIE, FL 33325---5551 BRUNET, DANIEL 610 21ST ST N W MAPLES, FL 34120---0 CADAVID, ALEJANDRO TERRATRUST LLC 917 VENICE AVE LEHIGH ACRES, FL 33971---0 ABATE, MARIE � ABIN, ANTONIO ' MILDRED SULLIVAN :. 1681 GOLDEN GATE BLVD W 223 STILLWATER CIR � � MAPLES, FL 34120---0 i BROOKFIELD, CT 06804---0 i ACHINO, ELIZABETH A i � At)AN, CARLOS A 4412 MANSFIELD EST LN � 3810 16TH AVE NE LOUISVILLE, KY 40299---0 MAPLES, FL 34105---0 i ! i AGUIRRE, DAVID ALEJANDRp � � AH INVESTMENT PROPERTIES 1245 DESOTO BLVD N ' 7943 NW 158TH TER MAPLES, FL 34120---0 i MIAMI LAKES, FL 33016---7112 j I i AMIOT, GRETCHEN i AMIOT, GRETCHEN OSVALDO GARCIA ' OSVALDO GARCIA 2975 DESOTO BLVD N � 2975 DESOTO BLVD N � ! � i MAPLES, FL 34120---0 j I MAPLES, FL 34120---0 I i i I ANTELO, MARIO HURTADO ARIAS, JOSE A 3510 SACRAMENTO WAY � � MIRIAM ARIAS MAPLES, FL 34105---0 PEDRO ARIAS I ( � ( 13911 CYPRESS CT � � MIAMI LAKES, FL 33014---2950 j BALSAMO, FRANCESCO �'I BARUH, KADDYAMI CARMEN UZCATEGUL ! DAVID PEREZ 14743 INDIGO LAKES CIR � 265 DESOTO BLVD S � � � MAPLES, FL 34119---0 I MAPLES, FL 34117---0 i j i BCF/NORTH COLLIER FIRE RESCUE `, � BEVERLY GRIFFITHS REV TRUST 1885 VETERANS PARK DR � 17823 SW 47TH ST MAPLES, FL 34120---1355 ,, I MIRAMAR, FL 33029---5053 i i i BOYD, GARY M BRUNET, DANIEL MELISSA B LOWE 610 21ST ST NW 3904 NOLEN AVENUE S E MAPLES, FL 34120---0 H U NTSVI LLE, AL 35801---1255 � � I I '� � BUNNELL, GERALD EUGENE j CABLE HOLDCO II INC � TAMI LEA BUNNELL � ATTN: PROPERTY TAX DEPT ' 1225 DESOTO BLVD N i j 1701 JOHN F KENNEDY BLVD FL 32 MAPLES, FL 34120---9100 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103---2855 i i CALAFELL; MARIA ELENA CASTELLANOS, LILA 424 PARK AVE APT 601 � 18143 NE 19TH AVE RIVER FOREST, IL 60305---0 j NORTH MIAMI BEAC, FL 3316Z---1605 R ��� 4" :3 � label size 1" x.2 5/i3" cam�atik�le With Avery ®5150/0"160 Efiiquette da format 25 r��m x 07 nirri cam}�atil�le avec/ivery ®51%0/8�160 '��� 09 G�/09 L�® �(aan� �an� a�q�J��uJo� u!w LO x uau� �� ��u�.so�. op a��enbl�� 09 GS/091.9® �iaen� ���inn e�q���duaoa „�/� Z x „ � azls laq�� CCR DEVELOPMENT LLP 7145 LILAC LN NAPLES, FL 34120---2585 CDC LAND INVESTMENTS LLC 2550 GOODLETTE RD N #100 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 � , CDC LAND INVESTMENTS LLC � 2550 GOODLETTE RD N #100 NAPLES, FL 34103---Q !i i � � j CDC LAND INVESTMENTS LLC � 2550 GOODLETTE RQ N #100 I NAPLES, FL 34103---0 i' ®���`� c� CDC LAND INVESTMENTS LLC 2550 GOODLETTE RD N #100 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 CDC LAND INVESTMENTS LLC 2550 GOODLETTE RD N #100 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 CECLIAS TRUST 1 � CHAPARRO, ANDRES & LOURDE 'I i CHAVEZ, LAZARA 1940 DESOTO BLVD N i � 2826 NW 4TH ST ; 461 GOLDEN GATE BLVD E NAPLES, FL 34120---0 i CAPE CORAL, FL 33993---7033 ( i NAPLES, FL 34120---0 i i � I i CLERJUSTE, CARLO /� �' COFFMAN, JASON W `�I � COLLIER CNTY 5609 MARIGOLD WAY APT #103 � � JENNIFER G KIDD � C/0 REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT NAPLES, FL 34109---0 10124 MIMOSA SILK DR �. � 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101 �. FORT MYERS, FL 33913---0 � I NAPLES, FL 34112---0 I _ - E E I �_. COLLIER CNTY � COLLIER CNTY � COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS LTD C/0 REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT � C/0 REAL PROPERTY MANAG M NT � 2550 GOODLETTE RD N #100 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101 � 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101 � � NAPLES, FL 34103---0 NAPLES, FL 34112—�-0 ; NAPLES, FL 34112---0 i i � i COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS LTD 1 COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS LTD � COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS LTD 2550 GOODLETTE RD N #100 2550 GOODLETTE RD N #100 j 2550 GOODLETTE RD N #100 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 � NAPLES, FL 34103---0 i I NAPLES, FL 34103---0 %, i � �; it ' COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS LTD ,� i COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS LTD .I i COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS LTD 2550 GOODLETTE RD N #100 � i 2550 GOODLETTE RD N #100 I 2550 GOODLETTE RD N #100 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 � � NAPLES, FL 34103---0 I �. COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS LTD .I COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS LTD ` ! �'� COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS LTD 2550 GOODLETTE RD N #100 2550 GOODLETTE RD N #100 � 2550 GOODLETTE RD N #100 ', NAPLES, FL 34103---0 � .NAPLES, FL 34103---0 � I NAPLES, FL 34103---2714 � i � � i �i �! !� CORDERO, JOSEPH � CORDOVA, DAYANA `�, CRIBBS, GENEVIEVE P � 375 11TH ST NW � 4320 62ND AVE NE ! � PO BOX 303 NAPLES, FL 34120---0 � ; NAPLES, FL 34120---0 � BARTOW, FL 33831---303 � l i I I � i i � � CRUZJR, GREGORIO `� � CUEVAS, DOSE ISMAEL NOVO � � CUSTOM HOMES BY KAYE INC LEA CRUZ � I 11890 SW 6TH ST � � 163 EDGEMERE WAY SOUTH ' 7705 TARA CIRCLE #205 � � MIAMI, FL 33184---1708 i NAPLES, FL 34105---0 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 � � � i ; !' i ����E � � � � ® label size 1 " x 2 5/8" cempatible ��ith /leery ®5�160/3160 ":� � � -� � ��,�,�t � EtiquQiie do �s�rmat ?_5 mm x 67 m:n ce���pa��b�e avec l��der� ®5J 50/8i 60 ��%' 09 G8/09 GAO !any oan� alglt�duJao aJui Lg x iuua �Z ?�uJao� ap a�a�7blt� 0018/09 ��® /faa�y ullnn alglt�d�uoo 1f8/J � x ,� � azls laq�l D &J NAPLES INVESTORS LLC DE CESPEDES, FRANCISCO 1900 EMPRESS CT � ROSA DE CESPEDES NAPLES, FL 34110---1004 � 275 HIGHLAND AVE PASSAIC, NJ 07055---8603 I i �� � E ����� � �� DEAN, LEON DAMES 8067 DANCING WIND LN #20p5 NAPLES, FL 34119---0 DEAN, LEON DAMES DESRAN GGE LLC � DEWRELL, TR�ACEY &MARA 8067 DANCING WIND LN#2005 239 BAYFRONT DR I 336 S ESPLANADE NAPLES, FL 34119---0 � BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 ALPHARETTA, GA 30009---0 i i� � DEWRELL, TRACEY &MARA DIAZ, EVALDO DIAZ, MARIBELT 336 S ESPLANADE � � MARTHA ACOSTA i � MANUEL A AMADOR ALPHARETTA, GA 30009---0 ! 3845 27TH AVE NE 4240 22ND AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120---0 NAPLES, FL 34120---0 i I DORIA, ZOILA C `; DUDZINSKI ET AL, EUGENE � DUNCANSON, KETURAH R 2710 SW 76TH AVE � 5579 S RIVER DR I PO BOX 11123 MIAMI, FL 33155---2742 ! NEWAYGO, MI 49337---9023 � NAPLES, FL 34101---1123 i EDWARDS, LINCOLN PAUL 1 ERZAK ENTERPRISES LLC � FABRIZIO EST, MARY TERRATRUST LLC � ' 3932 VALENTIA WAY % ANGELINE KOULIANOS 1810 GLOVER ST NAPLES, FL 34119---7513 � 612 DURMON AVE REDLANDS, CA 92374---0 � CAMPBELL, OH 44405---0 I i FERNANDEZ, MARINA FERNANDEZ, RICARDO & ILEANA FERRIS, JOSEPH R 4514 4TH STREET W j � 1340 DESOTO BLVD N DAVID LEE FERRIS LEEHIGH ACRES, FL 33971---0 j ; NAPLES, FL 34120---9025 ! ROY SCOTT FERRIS � ' 617 TAMPA RD i � � ESSEX, MD 21221---6038 i FORD, TIMOTHY & MICHELLE C � G & R CORSA IRREVOCABLE TRUST i G R A PROPERTIES LLC 2060 DESOTO BLVD N � 9501 W CLUSTER AVE � PO BOX 156 NAPLES, FL 34120---8937 i � TAMPA, FL 33615---2768 � OLDSMAR, FL 34677---156 i' G S BEARDSLEY REV LIVTRUST GARGIULO INC GARGIULO INC 2360 19TH ST SW ! 1500 OLD US 41 N 1500 OLD US 41 N NAPLES, FL 34117---4720 � NAPLES, FL 34220---0 NAPLES, FL 34220---0 i i� i GARGIULO INC '� GARGIULO INC � GARGIULO INC 1500 OLD US 41 N i � 1500 OLD US 41 N i 1500 OLD US 41 N � NAPLES, FL 34220---0 ! NAPLES, FL 34220---0 NAPLES, FL 34220---0 I GARGIULO INC GARGIULO INC '� GINORIS, SERGIO J 1500 OLD US 41 N � 1500 OLD US 41 N � 4580 22ND AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34220---0 NAPLES, FL 34220---0 NAPLES, FL 34120---8954 �� ��" -� �� '�® label size � " x.2 518" compatible ��lith A�+ei'y ®5`! 60I8160 �� J� ���_ �� ��-��� �- ��; ��� Etiquefte do format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec A��ery ®a160/8160 �� 09 G8/09 i-0 �� f�any oar�� algl�.��u�oo u�Lu lg ;; u��� g� �.euJJof an a7-?anr�i}� 0918/09 i•00 �i•;and �I+Inn algltecluioo :;g/g z x ,: I- azls laq�l GOLAN, GUYJ '� ! GOMEZ, ILEANA PADRON 19111 COLLINS AVE APT 801 � I 11325 SW 47TH TER SUNNY ISLES BEAC, FL 33160---2379 j � MIAMI, FL 33165---0 GONZALEZ, RICARDO & OLGA R � GOI�SSE, ANGELO &MARIE M 20952 60TH TER I 17466 SW 29TH ST LIVE OAI<, FL 32060---0 MIRAMAR, FL 33029---5565 GRANT, KELSEY 73 MERRITT DR BELLA VISTA, AZ 72714---0 GRONCZEWSKI, HENRY 9222 134TH 5T SEMINOLE, FL 33776---2341 GUZMAN, MARIA ISABEL 703 N E 74TH ST MIAMI, FL 33138---5231 HERNANDEZ, JUAN R SUNILDA RAMOS 4585 RANDALL BLVD MAPLES, FL 34120---8914 IVEY SR, DAMES E & CAROLE J 453018TH AVE NE MAPLES, FL 34120---8921 DAMES F ASCHER LIV REV TRUST 3510 WILD INDIGO LN BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---7977 DAMES-MICHAEL RICE & GRETCHEN 830 DESOTO BLVD N MAPLES, FL 34120---9016 GRIFFITHS, BARBARA C 11208 STEPHEN LN BELTSVILLE, MD 20705---2827 GRUMBERG, MICHAEL MARIE MURPHY GRUMBERG 15015 WINDOVER WAY DAVIE, FL 33331---3203 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY COLLIER COUNTY INC � 1145 TAMIAMI TRL E j MAPLES, FL 34113---0 I I. '� IANTOSCA, KELLY MARIE i I 2085 OUTRIGGER LN MAPLES, FL 34104---5202 ''� r� JACKOVICH, PAUL N 14800 WALSINGHAM RD APT 211 LARGO, FL 33774---3306 j DAMES F ASCHER LIV REV TRUST 3510 WILD INDIGO LN BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---7977 li i i I I j � I II 1 , I �. ,-� GONZALEZ, JOBANNY A WUENDY PRIETO 1865 DESOTO BLVD N MAPLES, FL 34120---0 GRAMANZINI, MASSIMO & ALYCIA 1080 NW 116TH AVE PLANTATION, FL 33323---2518 GRIFFITHS, WALDIN & BEVERLY 17823 SW 47TH ST MIRAMAR, FL 33029---5053 GUPTATR, OM P SATYA G U PTA TR OM P & S GUPTA REV/TRUST UTD 8/12/02 7537 EMERSON ST MORTON GROVE, lL 60053---1148 HAMM, DOROTHY J DOUGLAS R BEEHNER 1280 DESOTO BLVD N MAPLES, FL 34120---9101 IBARRA, MIREYA 4581 22ND AVE NE MAPLES, FL 34120---0 j JACKSON JR, EVORAL AMELIA JACKSON ` 30 NE 146 STREET MIAMI, FL 33161---0 I i i DAMES-MICHAEL RICE GRETCHEN ANNE RICE 830 DESOTO BLVD N MAPLES, FL 34120---0 �i .._. -- .. _ _....I .. JANSEN, DAVID WILLIAM & KARA L `' i 2475 DESOTO BLVD N MAPLES, FL 34120---0 � !� ,I i i ! � KIRLEW, WILLIAM A & SVIVIA J � � KiRLEW, WILLIAM A & SYLVIA J 'i � 2430 56TH AVE NE � I 2430 56TH AVE NE MAPLES, FL 34120---1479 � MAPLES, FL 34120---1479 � . j JIMENEZ, DOSE MARIA GRACIELA VERA 224 BOLA CIEGA RD MASCOTTE, FL 34753---0 KRYGER, GITAY 5 AGAS ST ROSH HAAYIN 4857011 ISRAEL ��G� � � � label size i " x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160/8� 60 ��,--,t,�� � �tiqueife da format �5 miry x 67 mm compaiible avec Avery �5160/8100 �`tf�� OJ i�4/091.�0 f•►an� aan� a�q���di,�oa Luau �,g x uJua �� �.�ivaa� op a�anb��� 09 �S/09 �90 l(��nV �I�ir�n a�gi��duioa �t4/� Z � �t G aZis iaq�� KWIK STOP LLC 215 SW 125TH AVE PLANTATION,�FL 33325---0 LE, LINH DUY TRANG N T LE 912 HERITAGE PKWY S ALLEN, TX 75002---5762 LEWISJR, ROBERTJOSEPH ANDREA LEWIS 4590 16TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120---0 LOUISY ET AL, EMMANUEL 2061 DESOTO BLVD N NAPLES, FL 34120---0 LUKACS, JOSEPH F 2580 DESOTO BLVD N NAPLES, FL 34120---8973 MARKS, LINA 2620 DESOTO BLVD N NAPLES, FL 34120---8949 MARTINEAU, JOSEPH CAROUNA HERNANDEZ 4345 SW 10TH ST MIAMI, FL 33134---0 MC CHESNEY, JON &ELSA 6872 TRAIL BLVD NAPLES, FL 34108---0 MCCASKEY, LEON D 1200 LASTRADA LN NAPLES, FL 34103---8943 MIRTA LEALTRUST 20310 SW 48TH ST SOUTHWEST RANCHE, FL 33332---0 LA, MICHAEL 2609 YUI<ON CLIFF DR RUSKIN, FL 33570---0 LENNON, DAMES P & SHARON A 4540 27TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120---8923 �� w r � �, �� r�� � - �, � �,� LE, LINH D &TRANG NT 912 HERITAGE PKWY S ALLEN, TX 75002---5762 j LEON, BENITO RAMOS . ROSALIA TEJADA j 2571 WILSON BLVD N NAPLES, FL 34120---0 LONG, ROBERT P & ELEANOR � � LOPEZ, GARDENIA 59 MUDGE ST � 4480 32ND AVE SW LYNN, MA 01902---0 NAPLES, FL 34116---0 i i ; i ' i i ; LOVELOCK, CHARLES MARTIN i ; LUKACS JR, TODD A CLOVER GEM LOVELOCK � JENNIFER ERIN LUKACS 13165 NW 18TH ST � 2075 DESOTO BLVD N j PEMBROKE PINES, FL 33028---0 � NAPLES, FL 34120---0 I ' i� �� �� LUTTON, PAUL �. MARACINEANU, MARCEL 307 W PROSPECT AVE � ! 4640 31ST AVE NE I LANGHORNE, PA 19047---3915 � i NAPLES, FL 34120---0 � f i MARTIN, ASHLEY MARIE ; MARTINEAU, JOSEPH � MATTHEW COREY MARTIN 4345 SW 10TH ST I � 2771 DESOTO BLVD N ; j MIAMI, FL 33134---0 I i NAPLES, FL 34120---0 i j MARTINEZ, ALBERTO D MAYORQUIN, ROSA A � � 1885 DESOTO BLVD N GENARO ARAGON NAPLES, FL 34120---0 � i 10402 NW 133RD ST � HIALEAH, FL 33018---1125 � � `� � MC KINLEY, BRADLEY MCCASKEY, LEE D � JOAN DOMMISSE 1200 LASTRADA LN CAROL BROST � i NAPLES, FL 34103---8943 312 W RIGG ST � i � NEW CARLISLE, IN 46552---Q I � MCCHESNEY, JON &ELSA � MCMICHAEL JR, ROBERT � ` 6872 TRAIL BLVD � 1485 DESOTO BLVD NAPLES, FL 34108---0 � i NAPLES, FL 34120---0 I� i MONTALBAN SR, ANGEL I � MORGAN, DONALD G &RUBY M 3545 31ST AVE NE i 1201 KALMIA RD NW NAPLES, FL 34120---0 � WASHINGTON, DC 20012---1442 ���� ��� �� � 3� la�aei sizti 1 " x.2 SitJ" cam�aiibie with Avery U5J GO181 GO ������� � � �.�� ��� �tiquetie do farma't 2.5 mm X S7 mm compatible aver Avery C�5i GO/8160 ��`�� 0318/�91.G® f�a�n�/ �an� �igl,�d�u�a u.�u.� L9 :� uJ�.0 �Z ��u.r!o� �p a�anbl>. =��� � � �� 09 G8/G9 GAO �aan'� �tlnr: alt�i�erJwo� �,8/� � x « � azls hq�l � ��� ��� �� � �� MSNO PROPERTIES LLC 10399 CYPRESS LAKES PRSV DR LAKE WORTH, FL 33449---0 NEVADOMSI<I, CYRILA 2835 DESOTO BLVD N NAPLES, FL 34120---8952 NORMANDIN, CHAUNCEY & JOANN 460016TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120---0 PEARSON, PATRICIA M 833 VANNAH AVE LOUISVILLE, KY 40223---2746 PLAMONDON, PAUL MARK CAROL ANN PLAMONDON DENNIS ROBERT PLAMONDON LAURA M PLAMONDON 330 24TH AVE N E NAPLES, FL 34120---2333 RAMEY, DENNIS S 2485 DESOTO BLVE N NAPLES, FL 34120---8922 REYMARRE CORP 821 NW 32ND CT MIAMI, FL 33125---3909 ROCHAJR, ADALBERTO 1845 DESOTO BLVD N NAPLES, FL 34120---8944 RODRIGUEZ, ROBERTO 451 W 36TH PL HIALEAH, FL 33012---5139 S R IVIORICONI REV LIV TRUST 6920 SABLE RIDGE LANE NAPLES, FL 34109---0 MYJESUS MERCY MINISTRIES INC RR 1 BOX 74 PLEASANT MOUNT, PA 18453---0 NGUYEN, JOHNNY ASHLEY NGUYEN 135 41ST AVE NW NAPLES, FL 34120---0 OLIVER, CLAUDIA A 5134 19TH AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34116---0 PEART, HAZEL GLENROY SHAW 1191NE166THST NORTH MIAMI BEAC, FL 33162---3810 PONS, VIVIAN 6360 SW 29TH ST MIAMI, FL 33155---3025 � RAZI, MOHAMMAD 35463 DOVE TRL WESTLAND, MI 48185---9100 I I RICE, JAMES-MICHAEL & GRETCHEN 830 DESOTO BLVD N NAPLES, FL 34120---9016 \i I` RODRIGUEZ, ESTELA B 130E 55TH ST HIALEAH, FL 33013---1439 RUIZ, EDDY BARBARA LOPEZ RODRIGUEZ 2770 DESOTO BLVD N NAPLES, FL 34120---0 SCHANK TR, JOAN D FLA LAND TRUST UTD 12/23/03 8004 NW 154TH ST # 218 MIAMI LAKES, FL 33016---5814 l f' I � � I .� �- `I MYJESUS MERCY MINISTRIES INC RR 1 BOX 74 PLEASANT MOUNT, PA 18453-=-0 NGUYEN, STEPHANIE 110 ENCHANTED OAKS CT SPRING, TX 77388---6004 PAUL W JONES REV LIV TRUST MARY ELLWGTON 1245 IOWA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520---0 PLAMONDON, CAROLANN &PAUL M 330 24TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120---2333 PROSCENO, JOE 1620 DESOTO BLVD N NAPLES, FL 34120---0 RAZZ, MOHAMMAD 35463 DOVE TRL WESTLAND, MI 48185---9100 ROBERT W MCMICHAEL REV TRUST i 1485 DESOTO BLVD N NAPLES, FL 34120---9061 RODRIGUEZ, NILDA M FERNANDO GUADARRAMA SR 2635 DESOTO BLVD N NAPLES, FL 34120---8950 - - ._.... RUSSELL, SANDRA ROBERTA A KESSLER 607 OGONTZ ST SANDUSKY, OH 44870---3852 SCHOOL DISTRICT-GAC SUPERINTENDENT 5775 OSCEOLA TRL NAPLES, FL 34117---0 �� �� -�� �� �� - �® l��bel size 1" x 2 5/8" co►7ipaii%le with Avery ®5160/8160 �`_ �_��� �- ��—.,�: rtiq�i�tte d� format 25 mm x 67 i�rn compatil7le avecA�rery ®5160/8160 � `t 09 i.8/Og �9® �taand oan� airai��duloo uJu� lg x uJio 9Z leul.lo� ap a�tanbi�;� 09�8/09l•9® �(�an�!i�.in� a;giz�d�uao «S/g � x «l. azis iagai SCHOOL DISTRICT-GAC SUPERINTENDENT 5775 OSCEOLA TRL NAPLES, FL 34117---0 ST FORT, REGINALD JACKIE PROSPER-ST FORT 5 PRIMROSE LN VALLEY STREAM, NY 11580---2131 TARPON IV LLC 18305 BISCAYNE BLVD STE 400 AVENTURA, FL 33160---2172 TEMES, CARMEN 601 SE 4TH PL HIALEAH, FL 33010---5431 TOAL, PRANCES A KRIS MAZZARELLA 69 CENTRAL AVE TAPPAN, NY 10983---1902 V Y & M V RAJADHYAKSHA TRUST 3535 ENTERPRISE RD E SAFETY HARBOR, FL 34695---5408 VARGAS, YERYE & SONIA 2845 DESOTO BLVD N NAPLES, FL 34120---8952 WASHAM, WILLIAM D & DENISE E 305 TOWER HILL RD CHAPLIN, CT 06235---0 WINCHESTER LAND LLC 100 N TAMPA ST # 3700 TAMPA, FL 33602---0 ZHANG, MINGLUN 515 QUIMBY CT SAN RAMON, CA 94582---5796 SINNING, DINOCRATES 729 CURTISS PI<WY MIAMI SPRINGS, FL 33166---7103 I i i SPENCE, ALTHEA & GALBERT D 4006 21ST ST SW LEHIGH ACRES, FL 33976---0 STEVENS TR, DONALD TA, MACKENZIE NGUYEN UTD 4/26/01 � � LEANN LINH TA � MARY M STEVENS TR 3713 TULIP TREE DR � �JTD 4/26/01 I � FORT WORTH, TX 76137---0 � I 6281 SEA GRASS LN i ( NAPLES, FL 34116---5435 � j '� TEITELBAUM, ROBERT D &THERESA � � TEITELBAUM, ROBERT D &THERESA I 2037 TEAGARDEN LN 2037 TEAGARDEN LN NAPLES, FL 34110---1095 � NAPLES, FL 34110---1095 I � i I TIMMIS, LAURA TIMMIS, LAURA � 5168 TAYLOR DR � � 5168 TAYLOR DR AVE MARIA, FL 34142---0 '� AVE MARIA, FL 34142---9555 i � I TOME, ABDEL E & CARMEN A TUAR, PAUL 2247 DESOTO BLVD N � F 370 MCCOWAN RD #406 NAPLES, FL 34120---8964 ! � SCARBOROUGH M1J 1 CANADA i, V Y& M V RAJADHYAKSHA TRUST i VARELA REALTY LLC 3535 ENTERPRISE RD E ; 34 BEACHFRONT LN SAFETY HARBOR, FL 34695---5408 j � NEW ROCHELLE, NY 10805---3301 i i i I VERGUL, ESREF 1106 GREENWOOD AVE LEHIGH ACRES, FL 33972---0 i � � WARR, JEAN M 811 COLONIAL LN BIRM(NGHAM, AL 35235---1203 � 'I WASZKOWSKI, DANIEL ANDREW I WELSBY, MICHAEL 3880 50TH AVE NE 4620 8TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120---0 i I NAPLES, FL 34120---0 i ZAFRANI, ABRAHAM i � ZELEDON, JASMINE JOSEPH A NACHIO JR � 5454 KERWOOD TER 5830 SW 64TH AVE � ' CORAL GABLES, FL 33156---2148 DAVIE, FL 33314---7114 i.! �� Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Assoc, P.O. Box 990596 Naples, FL 339�6 i i �-� � ��� �� � � �� � lai�el size �! x.� 518' compatible ��i�ii Avery ®5160/8 � GO ,.� � .� � � � ��,�� ���� htique�iie do farrnat 25 a�n� x 67 mm compatible aver Avery C�5160/s1 �0