Loading...
Agenda 06/08/2021 Item # 9B (Resolution - Bellmar Village SRA)06/08/2021 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item requires ex parte disclosure be provided by the Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in, Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners designating 999.74 acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District as a Stewardship Receiving Area, to be known as the Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area, which will allow development of a maximum of 2,750 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 68,750 and maximum of 85,000 square feet of commercial development in the village center context zone; a minimum of 27,500 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses in the village center context zone; senior housing including adult living facilities and continuing care retirement communities limited to 300 units and no commercial uses in the neighborhood general context zone; and 14.86 acres of amenity center site; all subject to a maximum pm peak hour trip cap; and approving the Stewardship Receiving Area credit agreement for Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area and establishing that 6742 Stewardship Credits are being utilized by the designation of the Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area. The subject property is located approximately 4 miles south of Oil Well Road, east of Desoto Boulevard between 4th Avenue NE and 8th Avenue SE in Sections 2, 3, 10 and 11, Township 49 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (This is a Companion Item to 11A and 111) [PL20190001837] 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). Bellmar Village SRA requires 6,742.0 credits to entitle 842.75 acres of development. No credits are required for the 156.99 acres exceeding 35% of the open space required within the Bellmar SRA. The Natural Resource Index Assessment documents the existing conditions and Natural Resource Index (NRI) scores within the proposed SRA for the Bellmar SRA. It should be noted that the NRI scores demonstrate that the Bellmar 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. Bellmar Village SRA is one of four village SRA projects that are under consideration by Collier County or have received an SRA designation. The other SRA Villages in the vicinity of Bellmar Village SRA along the future Big Cypress Parkway are Longwater Village (PL20180001836), Hyde Park Village (PL20180000622), and Rivergrass Village SRA (PL20190000044) which have received SRA designation. Longwater Village SRA is also scheduled for hearings at this time. The Bellmar Village SRA is 999.74± acres and consists of two context zones which are required per the SRA Overlay regulations: Neighborhood General and mixed -use Village Center. Bellmar Village will have access to the proposed Big Cypress Parkway with initial access provided by the developer along Packet Pg. 151 06/08/2021 Golden Gate Boulevard east of Desoto. The Village Center context zone is located along the future Big Cypress Parkway at the western edge of the proposed Village. The Neighborhood General context zone is located eastward of the Village Center. There is an extensive lake system that serves as part of the Bellmar Village stormwater system and acts as a deterrent to wildlife. The application for Bellmar Village SRA will include: • 2,750 residential dwelling units with a density of 2.75 units per acre (or 3.26 units per acre based upon 842.75 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 68,750 square feet and a maximum of 85,000 square feet of neighborhood scaled retail and office uses. a minimum of 27,500 square feet of civic, governmental, and institutional uses. The Village will also have other uses such as Amenity Centers, Park Preserves, and Parks. The required minimum of 35% open space is 349.91± acres, and 50.1% open space or 506.9± acres have been provided. For further information, please see the Attachment A -Proposed Bellmar 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 Bellmar 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 Bellmar Village. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed SRA application 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 petition and continued Petition SRA-PL20190001837, Bellmar Village SRA on April 1, 2021 and continued it to April 15, 2021 and continued it to April 19, 2021. The CCPC voted 5-0 to approve this petition subject to Staffs Conditions of Approval. For further information, please see Attachment A-1, CCPC Meeting Minutes 4119121. The agent has revised the SRA Document to comply with Staff s Conditions of Approval. Those revisions include the following: Packet Pg. 152 06/08/2021 1. Within 90 days of the approval of the first development order (SDP or PPL), the applicant shall pay $2,221,800.00 to fulfill the fair share mitigation for operation impacts as supported by the January 8, 2021, Fair Share Mitigation Operational Impacts document. 2. The Developer shall be required to improve both Golden Gate Boulevard and 6th Avenue South East from Desoto Boulevard to the project entrances to minimum 2-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 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 request. Evaluation of both sites will require standard TIS and operational review at time of permitting. Operational review will require a determination of 56d' and 2nd Avenue's ability to accommodate school operations and activities. However, it is noted in the commitment as stated acknowledges that 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. Bellmar Village shall commit that at least 10% of the units (275 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. 6. The Agreement to provide Potable Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation Water Utility Services shall be adopted prior to or concurrently with the Bellmar Village SRA. For further information, please see Attachment A - Proposed Bellmar Village SRA Resolution. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This petition requests the creation of the Bellmar 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 Packet Pg. 153 06/08/2021 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. 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-PL20190001837, Bellmar Village SRA, to the Board of County Commissioners subject to the approval of the companion Accela item 15689, Agreement to Provide Potable Water, Wastewater Packet Pg. 154 06/08/2021 Utility Services. Prepared by: C. James Sabo, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Manager, Zoning Division ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Final 1 Staff Report Bellmar Village 2-24-2021 (PDF) 2. [Linked] Attachment A Resolution Bellmar Village SRA 4-22-21 (PDF) 3. [Linked] Attachment A-1 CCPC Meeting Minutes 4-19-2021 (PDF) 4. Attachment B Bellmar Consistency Review Mem (PDF) 5. Attachment C Bellmar Interlocal Agreement Water Sewer - CAO stamped (PDF) 6. [Linked] Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (PDF) 7. Attachment F Peer Review Draft Jacobs 081720 (002) (PDF) 8. League Women Voters bellmar.2.26.iinal (PDF) 9. [Linked] Backup Docs Bellmar Village SRA (PL20190001837) (PDF) 10. [Linked] Opposition Documents - Bellmar (PDF) 11. legal ad - agenda ID 15666 (PDF) 12. Bellmar - Hybrid Virtual Quasi -Judicial Public Hearing Waiver - Collier Enterprises Management (1-25-2021) (PDF) Packet Pg. 155 06/08/2021 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 9.13 Doc ID: 16064 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 ex parte disclosure be provided by the Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in, Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners designating 999.74 acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District as a Stewardship Receiving Area, to be known as the Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area, which will allow development of a maximum of 2,750 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 68,750 and maximum of 85,000 square feet of commercial development in the village center context zone; a minimum of 27,500 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses in the village center context zone; senior housing including adult living facilities and continuing care retirement communities limited to 300 units and no commercial uses in the neighborhood general context zone; and 14.86 acres of amenity center site; all subject to a maximum pm peak hour trip cap; and approving the Stewardship Receiving Area credit agreement for Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area and establishing that 6742 Stewardship Credits are being utilized by the designation of the Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area. The subject property is located approximately 4 miles south of Oil Well Road, east of Desoto Boulevard between 4th Avenue NE and 8th Avenue SE in Sections 2, 3, 10 and 11, Township 49 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (This is a Companion Item to 11A and 11F) [PL20190001837] (James Sabo, AICP Comprehensive Planning Manager) Meeting Date: 06/08/2021 Prepared by: Title: Sr. Operations Analyst — County Manager's Office Name: Geoffrey Willig 05/26/2021 5:36 PM Submitted by: Title: Division Director - IF, CPP & PM — County Manager's Office Name: Amy Patterson 05/26/2021 5:36 PM Approved By: Review: Zoning Geoffrey Willig Additional Reviewer Skipped 05/26/2021 5:36 PM Zoning Geoffrey Willig Additional Reviewer Skipped 05/26/2021 5:36 PM Growth Management Department Geoffrey Willig Growth Management Department Skipped 05/26/2021 5:36 PM Growth Management Department Geoffrey Willig Additional Reviewer Skipped 05/26/2021 5:36 PM Growth Management Department Geoffrey Willig Additional Reviewer Skipped 05/26/2021 5:36 PM Packet Pg. 156 9.B 06/08/2021 Growth Management Department County Attorney's Office Growth Management Department Growth Management Department Office of Management and Budget County Attorney's Office Office of Management and Budget County Manager's Office Board of County Commissioners Geoffrey Willig Geoffrey Willig Geoffrey Willig Geoffrey Willig Geoffrey Willig Geoffrey Willig Geoffrey Willig Geoffrey Willig Geoffrey Willig Additional Reviewer Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Growth Management Transportation Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Additional Reviewer Level 4 County Manager Review Meeting Pending Skipped 05/26/2021 5:36 PM Skipped 05/26/2021 5:36 PM Skipped 05/26/2021 5:36 PM Skipped 05/26/2021 5:36 PM Skipped 05/26/2021 5:36 PM Skipped 05/26/2021 5:36 PM Skipped 05/26/2021 5:36 PM Completed 05/26/2021 5:55 PM 06/08/2021 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 157 9.B.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-PL20190001837, BELLMAR VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA (SRA), COMPANION TO SRA-PL20190001836, LONGWATER VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA (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 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 1 of 32 Packet Pg. 158 9.B.1 i r • u , ■�a��cao P, a� a ���I .��-I .dam -;�-i �� i199p1�9�o�l�i���9l��II I.■ I 161RIAI9II;��.��������ilEl�iil��llllp4,14�I�lIIEII,� I tl � � � I � dui IIli�iillaRllll�'i111646���!'ill9l�Is.11 I u.��I.��:il��nr.r���IIII���nlnll,�r��IIu,Allll3allllll■HIIIIIIIY�inll WiIIIYIIIIY�III111■■11111111111■Illlllllll111■IIE aB ND Z V k LLI ' � 0el n r (L Z J C1N a;n,l,p tau: rti`t` o y IS d7ll F.1_I .. J: u1 ui ✓� on J: f va � m :r :r. m a Wiwi Ow, O1% pjqsaw JW11140114- ,w� t d d L F H CI96 1 n'N N M TO 99 "I tul 311 a7 •C M 01 N ry Vzh A a 4v Mt t o 0G 50 7 1 a N Y' O 06 � Y7 u u BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 CO 400 O C) C) CD Ir— (y J a- �Ly W z C V Q) 11 LL m Q -A � {Ca Y J R L E z m Cl) CO O O O 0 N J a 0 Page 2 of 32 Packet Pg. 159 9.B.1 - -- Xswueummeorex srn<e c,%<9wnoxs. MIN.10'TYPE (A)L.B.E. xaA aouxonxv� ZONING r�seays. xo reR MeteR xeau L xAo 1p N*snpNs]pIv.AM NMufl fwoTx opts A•MHO•RLSAO excert AS NAv ee pe xn oxioA WATPx RexaceAG MExf rt Pp Nlo ix nvexnaewmfxorxs n. oxn Q _ „� CXµnEt! wmKALtRaxsmox LLPENe nLExR, fnPMW YAlrteoo¢ _ pJ nnmvnr Re.w. AN e]RAxarlox Q ZONING R A-MHO-RLSAO �PAnixex Fp ' , WRAxLAND USE SUMMARY 104 W ROAD ACCESS WITHIN WRA SYMBOL DESCRIPTION 0.CRE5 LANE TRACTS Includes LM. E. 81smn5 PfnNve 120.17 �eceesa0 . WRA ARE.W. Iiwlu0e5 LON%ellt ee;enenl 3.5] WRA AREA TOTAL 25' TYPE (0) G£ ^ CEME ZIR�L.B.E. J ZONING 10'U.E A•MHO•RLSAO 25' TYPE (D) L.B.E. MIN. 10' TYPE IA) L.B.E. OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS /qn� 200' R.O. W. SSA 18 SSA �s� ADJACENT TO AG OPEN ALONG ENTIRE EAST OPENSPACE '. BCSD PROPERTY POTENTIAL BOARDWALK -- LAND USE ACRES SPACE PROPERTY BOUNDARY PEROENrAGE ACRES LINE Dew t _ LAKES Go.— Dew MISC. OPENSPACE LAKE MADNENANCE EASEMENT(LKE.)L 8 PRESERVE 1VU OPEN SPACE 102.41 t0e.w% 102A1 ---- — VEHICULAR CROSSING D NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL 134_w 20.w% BB52 ROAD R.O.W. 1EE.20 15.w% 19." ZS'TYPEID) AMENITY CENTERS 14.00 E0.00% SAS L.S.E. PARKS 10.01 w.w% Sw PARR PRES AM 10D.w% E.44 B 10'U.E. V%LAGECENTER 216E =U.M ]D9 PERINETER BUFFERS 4.E0 100A0% A30 jr UMUTY EASEMENT 0.71 100.w% 0.71 OP XSPACE w6.90 PROVIDED IO.f w 25 TYPE (0) LB. E. ®MINIMUM REWIRED OPEN SPACE = 35%(3 111 M.) ONOEOOPEN SPACE=SD.TDY. ZONING ZONING AMHO.RLSAO a as �m A-Mh'O-RLSAD ➢iri OU � e __ �- e tnu.MR EnTERwtlses MaxaGEMO]r. Wcwu BELLNAR NLL4GE BRA SUBMIRA��Lss➢lAN9 e _ NA51�OyN �eLeR BELLNIAR VILLAGE sRA LAND USE SUMMARY NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL CONTEXT20NE i SYMBOL DESCRIPTON ACRES NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL 43x.BG ROAD R.O.W. IncluOee 410'wl4a multiuse u{emenffi 1A,20 E AMENfiY CENTERS PARKS f4.B8 10.01 PARK PRESERVE SA{ LAKES 272.50 LAKE M.E. &OPEN SPACE PERIMETER BUFFERS 102A1 43S tD UTILflY E]SEMENi 0.]] NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL CONTIMZONE TOTAL 8TF11 VILLAGE CENTER GONTEXT20NE NLUIGE CENTER M.i3 ' BRA BOUNDARY TOTAL 800.74 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners designating a total of 999.78± acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District (RLSA Overlay) as a Stewardship Receiving Area, to be known as Bellmar Village. And, the applicant is seeking approval for a stewardship receiving area credit agreement for the Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) and establishing that 6,742.0 stewardship credits are provided in the agreement. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 999.74± acres, is located east of Desoto Boulevard, about four miles south of Oil Well Road and east of the intersection of Golden Gate Blvd E. and DeSoto Blvd, in Sections 2, 3, 10, and 11, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (See the Location Map on page 2 of this Staff Report.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 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 2,750 dwelling units. The Village includes a 23.63± acre mixed -use Village Center providing for the required neighborhood -scaled BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 3 of 32 Packet Pg. 160 9.B.1 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. Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area includes development of a maximum of 2,750 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 68,750 square feet and a maximum of 85,000 square feet commercial space, a minimum of 27,500 square feet of civic, government, and institutional uses. The SRA Master Plan for Bellmar Village lays out the design and development intent for the proposed project. The Village contains two Context Zones: Neighborhood General (which is 976.11± acres in size) and mixed -use Village Center (which is 23.63± 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; • 25-foot wide Type D buffer adjacent to future Big Cypress Parkway ROW; • 10-foot wide 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. • The SRA contains 999.74 ± acres. • The SRA does not include any lands with a Natural Resource Index (NRI) greater than 1.2. • 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). • The SRA does not include any lands within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) Overlay. • The required minimum Open Space (35%) is 349.91± acres. The SRA master plan provides for 506.9± acres of Open Space (35% ±), 156.99± acres above the RLSA 35% requirement. • 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 includes neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, consistent with the ratios set forth in LDC Section 4.08.07 J.1. within the mixed -use Village Center, which is a minimum of 68,750 square feet and a maximum of 85,000 square feet. A minimum of 27,500 square feet of civic, government, and institutional uses is required. • The SRA allows for up to 2,750 dwelling units (2.6 dwelling units per gross acre), of which a minimum of 275 units will 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 1% of the SRA gross acreage (10 acres) will be provided in the form of Parks & Community Green Space. • The SRA will have direct access to future Big Cypress Parkway, which will be designed as an arterial road. The SRA will also connect to Golden Gate Blvd. and 6th Ave. SE. • 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 842.75 acres (total SRA acreage excluding open space exceeding 35%). At the required eight Stewardship Credits per acre, 6,742.0 Stewardship Credits are required to entitle the SRA. • Stewardship credits will be taken from Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) 15 (approved). BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 4 of 32 Packet Pg. 161 9.B.1 • The Village will be served by the Collier County Water and Sewer District. The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District (RLSA) was developed to protect natural resource areas and agricultural lands in Collier County. 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 SRA. Bellmar Village SRA requires 6,742.0 credits to entitle 842.75 acres of development. (Note: no credits are required for the 156.99 acres exceeding 35% of the open space required within the Bellmar Village SRA.) The Natural Resource Index Assessment (NRI) documents the existing conditions and NRI scores within the proposed SRA for Bellmar Village SRA. It should be noted that the NRI scores demonstrate that Bellmar Village SRA meets the Suitability Criteria contained in the LDC. Please see the Environmental Review Section covered later in the Staff Report for additional information. The Bellmar 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 Bellmar Village SRA along the future Big Cypress Parkway are Hyde Park Village (PL20180000622) and Rivergrass Village SRA (PL20190000044) which have received SRA designation, and Longwater Village (PL20190001836). 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, CLH, and CDC Stewardship Sending Area-17 and 18, (A-MHO-RLSAO-CLH, CDC-SSA-17 and 18) and a zoning designation of Estates (E) then to the far north is Oil Well Road, Minor Arterial Roadway. East: Undeveloped land and farmland with a zoning designation of Agriculture -Mobile Home Overlay -Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay -Barron Collier Investments/Barron Collier Partners -Stewardship Sending Area-18 (A-MHO-RLSAO-BCIBCP-SSA-18). South: Undeveloped land with a zoning designation of A-MHO-RLSAO. Proposed as SSA 18 West: Undeveloped land and developed land with a zoning designation of Estates (E), and some undeveloped land. BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 5 of 32 Packet Pg. 162 9.B.1 BELLMAR VILLAGE BRA AERIAL PHOTO BELLMAR VILLAGE BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 6 of 32 Packet Pg. 163 9.B.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. The size and base density indicated in the Bellmar Village SRA Development Document (dated 8/31/2020) are consistent with those set forth in Attachment C of the FLUE (requirements of the RLSAO). The Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review Memorandum is included as Attachment B. 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, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the 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 Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and 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. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways. " Staff finding: In evaluating the Bellmar Village SRA, staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) dated November 11, 2020 for consistency using the applicable 2019 and 2020 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). According to the SRA document and noted above, the applicant is requesting a maximum of 2,750 residential dwelling units, up to 85,000 square feet of retail/office uses, and 27,500 square feet of civic, governmental, and institutional uses. The TIS provided with the petition outlines a potential development scenario for 1,590 single-family residential dwelling units, 1,160 multi -family dwelling units, up to 27,500 square feet of governmental and institutional uses, 85,000 square feet of retail/office uses. BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 7 of 32 Packet Pg. 164 9.B.1 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 2,189 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 Link # Location AUIR Hour Peak AUIR P.M. Peak AUIR AUIR LOS Direction Remaining Hour/Peak LOS Remaining Service Capacity Direction Capacity Volume/Peak Project Direction Traffic 1 Oil Well Oil Well B 2,000/West 1,458 265/WB B 1,456 Road/ Grade to 121.2 Ave Maria Blvd Oil Well Desoto B 1,100/West 558 265/WB B 556 Road/ Blvd to 121.1 Oil Well Grade 2 Oil Well Everglades B 1,100/West 526 87/WB B 518 Road/ Blvd to 120.0 Desoto Blvd 2 Oil Well Immokalee C 2,000/East 808 67/EB C 633 Road/ Road to 119.0 Everglades Blvd Desoto Golden B 800/South 662 479/SB B 652 Boulevard/ Gate Blvd 138.0 to Oil Well Road Desoto I-75 to B 800/South 660 469/SB B 640 Boulevard/ Golden 137.0 Gate Blvd Everglades Oil Well C 800/North 308 43/NB C 240 Blvd/ Road to 136.0 Immokalee Road BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 8 of 32 Packet Pg. 165 9.B.1 Everglades Golden C 800/North 339 173/NB C 324 Blvd/ Gate Blvd 135.0 to Oil Well Road Wilson Immokalee B 900/South 549 125/SB B 550 Blvd/ Road to 118.0 Golden Gate Blvd Randall Everglades C 900/East 248 74/EB C 235 Blvd/ Blvd to 133.0 Desoto Blvd Randall Immokalee D 900/East 64 132/EB D 7 Blvd/ Road to 132.0 Everglades Blvd 3&5 Golden Collier D 2,300/East 570 360/EB D 390 Gate Blvd/ Blvd to 17.0 Wilson Blvd Golden Wilson C 2,300/East 1,016 499/EB C 845 Gate Blvd/ Blvd to 123.0 18th Street NE/SE Golden 18th Street C 2,300/East 1,025 574/EB C 855 Gate Blvd/ NE/SE to 123.1 Everglades Blvd Golden Everglades B 1,010/East 778 846/EB B 773 Gate Blvd/ to Desoto 124.0 Blvd 4 Immokalee Collier D 3,300/East 362 117/EB E 95 Road/ Blvd to 44.0 Wilson Blvd 5 Immokalee Logan D 3,200/East 284 117/EB D 435 Road/ Blvd to 43.2 Collier Blvd Collier Vanderbilt B 3,000/South 1,638 117/SB B 1,547 Blvd/ Beach 30.2 Road to Golden BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 a E z m M 00 0 0 0 M 0 N J a IRT 0 T T N 0 N N N E Z m T 0 a T c i- c as E a Page 9 of 32 Packet Pg. 166 9.B.1 Gate Blvd Collier Golden C 3,000/North 1,071 176/NB C 925 Blvd/ Gate Blvd 31.1 to Pine Ridge Road Pine Ridge Logan C 2,400/East 853 117/EB C 782 Road/ Blvd to 125.0 Collier Blvd ' Source for P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic is Section 1, November 11, 2020, Traffic Impact Statement provided by the petitioner. 2. 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 8tn 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. This link is included in the impact mitigation link analysis. The Fair Share portion of these impacts are included in the Impact Fee analysis for capacity on impacted adjacent roadway links. 5. This link has a committed parallel roadway improvement with Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension. This improvement is not reflected in the current or projected capacities and LOS. 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 161h Street • Vanderbilt Beach Road — 16th Street to Everglades Boulevard • 16th Street Bridge connecting Golden Gate Boulevard to Randall Boulevard • Randall Boulevard — Immokalee Road to 8th Street NE • Wilson Boulevard — Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee Road Section 163.3180 of the Florida Statutes requires a local government to satisfy transportation concurrency requirements if the applicant enters into a binding agreement to pay or construct their proportionate share. The Statutes further state that any facility determined to be transportation deficient with existing, committed, and vested trips, plus additional projected background trips from any source other than the development project under review, and trips that are forecast by established traffic standards, including traffic modeling, consistent with the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research medium population projections, 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. The improvement necessary to correct the transportation deficiency is the funding responsibility of the entity that has maintenance responsibility for the facility. The development's proportionate share shall be calculated only for the needed transportation improvements that are greater than the BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 10 of 32 Packet Pg. 167 9.B.1 identified deficiency. In addition, per the Statute the applicant is eligible for a dollar for dollar credit for the road impact fees anticipated for the development. The applicants proportionate share of eligible project impacts are included in the backup materials. It is anticipated that these impacts will be less than the road impact fees collected with the development. Based on this information, staff finds the application consistent. Policy 7.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: "Collier County shall apply the standards and criteria of the Access Management Policy as adopted by Resolution and as may be amended to ensure the protection of the arterial and collector system's capacity and integrity. " Staff finding: The Bellmar Village SRA is proposing access points on both Golden Gate Boulevard and 6th Avenue NE. Both Golden Gate and 6th will be extended east of DeSoto by the developer to provide access to the Village. The roadways extension will be constructed to county standards. Staff recommends approval of the proposed access points shown on the master plan for this petition, however nothing in this development order will vest the developer to anything more than the access shown. Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: "The County shall require, wherever feasible, the interconnection of local streets between developments to facilitate convenient movement throughout the road network. The LDC shall identify the circumstances and conditions that would require the interconnection of neighboring developments and shall also develop standards and criteria for the safe interconnection of such local streets. " Staff finding: The Land Development Code requires the applicant to create an interconnected street system designed to disperse and reduce the length of automobile trips (LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.a.iii). The proposed Bellmar Village SRA's Master Plan shows two internal interconnections that serve to balance trips between the two access points as well as the internal commercial center. Staff Recommendation: Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP. Conditions of Approval: • Within 90 days of the approval of the first development order (SDP or PPL), the applicant must pay $2,221,800.00 to fulfill the fair share mitigation for operation impacts as supported by the January 8, 2021 Traffic Impact Statement. • The Developer shall be required to improve both Golden Gate Boulevard and 61h Avenue South East from Desoto Boulevard to the project entrances to minimum 2-lane undivided rural roadway consistent with FDOT Green Book construction standards. These improvements are not eligible for road impact fee credits. • 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 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 11 of 32 Packet Pg. 168 9.B.1 TIS and operational review at time of permitting. Operational review will require a determination of 561 and 2nd Avenue's ability to accommodate school operations and activities. However, it is noted in the commitment as stated acknowledges that 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 has found this project to be consistent with the CCME & 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 15 has been approved for the petitioner to obtain credits for the development of the SRA. STAFF ANALYSIS: Environmental Review: LDC Section 4.08.07.A.1.d requires that Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA) with lands greater than 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 no areas within the proposed SRA that contain acreages with an NRI score above 1.2. The majority land within the SRA boundary was cleared of native 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 areas in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area is addressed by the creation of the required Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA). SSA 15 has been 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.I.b). There are no areas having an NRI value greater than 1.2; therefore, residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses may be sited on these lands. • 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 (LDC Section 4.08.07.A.1.c). There are no areas having an NRI value greater than 1.2; therefore, conditional use essential services, except for those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, and governmental essential services may be sited on these lands. • 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 4.08.0 7.A. 1. d). There are no areas having an NRI value greater than 1.2. BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 12 of 32 Packet Pg. 169 9.B.1 • 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 4.08.0TJ.6. An SRA may be contiguous to, or encompass, a WRA (LDC Section 4.08.07.A.Lg). The project does not encroach into an FSA, HSA, or WRA; it 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 GIS staff who provided the following information regarding generation of stewardship credits: The Stewardship credits for Bellmar Village SRA are generated from SSA 15 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. The credit calculation is based on the total acreage of Bellmar, which is 999.74 acres. The minimum open space requirement is 349.91 acres; the applicant has proposed 506.9 acres of open space. The total acreage that consumes credits is 842.75 acres. Therefore, Bellmar Village requires 6,742.0 Stewardship Credits. 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 2019. Minor changes have occurred to the Listed Species Habitat factor that affects index scoring for the SRA; however, no NRI value exceeded 1.2 within the SRA boundary. Bellmar Village SRA credits are generated from Stewardship Sending Area 15, which has 25,161.60 available credits. Site Description: The subject property consists of 999.74 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 area in the northeastern portion of the SRA boundary will be retained as a "park preserve." Wetland mitigation for impacts to the vegetated areas will be addressed through the South Florida Water Management District Environmental Resource Permitting Process. Listed Species: The Bellmar Village SRA is located within the boundary of the Big Cypress Stewardship District. Listed species surveys were conducted throughout the area in various years between 2007 and 2009. The surveys were conducted for wildlife species listed by the FWCC and the USFWS as endangered, threatened or species of special concern and plants listed by 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 the following species have been present within the Bellmar Village SRA boundary: American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja), wood BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 13 of 32 Packet Pg. 170 9.B.1 stork (Mycteria americana), Florida sandhill crane (Gnus canadensis pratensis), crested caracara (Caracara cheriway) and Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi). The current wildlife survey, conducted between 2019 and 2020, revealed the following species were observed onsite: American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), Florida sandhill crane (Gnus canadensis pratensis), wood stork (Mycteria americana), tri-colored heron (Egretta tricolor), crested caracara (Caracara cheriway), Everglades snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus), Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus) and Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi; see Appendix I of the Listed Species Survey). There are four protected plants listed in the LDC as "Less Rare Plants" that were identified within the project boundary: butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis), giant wild pine (Tillandisa utriculata), inflated wild pine (Tillandsia balbisiana) and stiff -leafed wild pine (Tillandsia fasciculata) as well as the state -listed endangered plant rigid epidendrum (Epidendrum rigidum). Environmental Review supports this petition subject to the following condition of approval: 1. 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. 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 and Longwater Village SRAs from the Northeast Utility Facilities (NEUF) site at 825 39th Avenue NE (adjacent to the Collier County fairgrounds), as illustrated in the attached "Collier Enterprises Villages — Public Utilities Transmission Main Connectivity Plan." 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 adjacent Hyde Park Village SRA. The pipelines were designed to provide a minimum service pressure of 60 PSI at the POC. The CCWSD will also 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. Furthermore, the CCWSD will construct necessary utility facilities at the site reserved within the Longwater Village SRA and will extend transmission mains to the Bellmar POC to establish potable water and wastewater services by September 30, 2024. The Bellmar POC is at the northwest corner of the project, as identified in Schedule B of the Agreement to Provide Potable Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation Water Utility Services, The developer will be responsible for design, permitting, construction, and conveyance of utility system infrastructure internal to the three SRAs pursuant to the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance (Ord. No. 2004-31, as amended). The developer will construct a separate I.Q. water supply and distribution system to serve residential areas and the Village Center. Deviation 3 in subsection 7.6 of the SRA document, contrary to LDC Section 4.03.08 C, allows for the I.Q. water distribution system to be conveyed to BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 14 of 32 Packet Pg. 171 9.B.1 and maintained by Collier County once County I.Q. water becomes available. This same deviation was previously approved for the Rivergrass Village and Hyde Park Village SRAs and is included in the SRA document for Longwater Village as well. The Interlocal Agreement for Water -Sewer is included as Attachment E. The Public Utilities Department supports this petition subject to the following condition of approval: The Agreement to provide Potable Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation Water Utility Services shall be adopted concurrently with or prior to the SRA ordinance. 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 Bellmar Village SRA is considered along with Rivergrass Village SRA and Bellmar 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 to 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 Site Development Plan or Plat, 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 Review staff has reviewed this petition and found it consistent with LDC standards and recommends approval. Landscape Review: The applicant is requesting one (1) landscape deviation as part of this application. See deviation discussion of this report. The proposed Master Plan demonstrates buffering consistent with LDC Section 4.06.02 and transition to adjoining land use per LDC Section 4.08.07 J.2.a.ix. Fire Review: Fire staff has reviewed this petition and recommends approval. Community and Human Services Review (Housinje) Review: As submitted, the Bellmar Village proposes to comply with FLUE Policy 4.7.2 that a village be, "...Primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village", by stating that, "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." Thus, according to the SRA document, Bellmar Village will contain 2,750 residential units, of which at least 10% (275 units) will be multifamily, at least 10% (275 units) will be single family attached or villas, and at least 10% (275 units) will be single family detached homes. The SRA Document does not BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 15 of 32 Packet Pg. 172 identify how Bellmar Village proposes to comply with the SRA Village Designation Design Criteria found in LDC Section 4.08.07-J.3.a.iv. which states that villages shall, "Offer a range of housing types and price levels to accommodate diverse ages and incomes." The Economic Assessment provided with the submission offers some details as to the types and proposed sales pricing of the proposed housing units. Table 2: Bellmar Residential Sales. Just. and Taxable Values Product TVDe Town Home Villa 1 Coach Villa 2 Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached Units Sales Value per Unit lust Value per Unit Taxable Value per Unit 216 $ 263,000 $ 249,100 $ 233,600 337 $ 276,000 $ 259,440 $ 243,940 273 $ 297,000 $ 279,180 $ 263,680 334 $ 329,000 $ 309,260 $ 293,760 154 261,005 SFD Product A < 4,000 scl ft SFD Product B < 4,000 sci ft SFD Product C < 4,000 sci ft SFD Product C < 4,000 sci ft Total SFD < 4,000 Scl Ft Total Single -Family Detached 522 $ 387,000 $ 363,780 $ 330,780 425 $ 424,000 $ 398,560 $ 365,560 461 $ 456,000 $ 428,640 $ 395,640 182 $ 488,000 $ 458,720 $ 425,720 1,590 $ 428,457 $ 402,749 $ 369,749 1,590 $ 428,457 $ 402,749 $ 369,749 Total Residential 2,750 Source: Collier Enterprises, Wrnberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2019 Staff Analysis- The Bellmar Village submission offers no details on how many residential units will meet the county's affordability standards for various income levels. It also offers no detail on the number of affordable units or price points that will be included to accommodate the need for affordable units created by the village itself. Without such details, it is not possible to evaluate the submittal to determine if it meets LDC Section 4.08.07 J. 3. a. iv. stating that villages shall... "Offer a range of housing types and price levels to accommodate diverse ages and incomes." What constitutes a range of housing types and prices, and which ages and incomes are intended to be served are policy interpretations that can be determined by the CCPC and BCC. Staff s function is to provide background and a reasonableness test in order to inform the deciding bodies of the intent of policy goals and LDC requirements. RLSA villages are intended to be innovative, compact, and residential in nature including supporting commercial and civic uses. Their intention is to be as self- sufficient as possible so as to not place an undue burden on other areas as residents travel from the village for goods and services, or as labor for travels to the RLSA for employment. A self-sufficient village should aim to accommodate the housing needs of those employees needed to work in the village. The Belmar Village SRA Document offers no accommodation for affordability to Very -low, Low, Moderate, or Gap income residents. Collier County's approved Housing Demand Methodology assigns a maximum purchase price of $330,000 as the top level of affordably for households at the ceiling of the Gap income level. Households at the Moderate -Income level require products priced less than $275,000. Households at the Low-income level require products priced less than $150,000, and those BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 16 of 32 Packet Pg. 173 9.B.1 at the Very -Low income require products priced less than that. The Economic Assessment indicates that 1,060 multifamily residential units in Bellmar Village may be priced near levels as to be affordable to some Moderate and Gap income households. The proposal does not seem to include any units that might be affordable for households at the Low or Very -Low income levels. Staff is unable to determine the SRA's compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07 J. 3. a. iv. stating that villages shall... "Offer a range of housing types and price levels to accommodate diverse ages and incomes." Bellmar Village Staff recommended condition of approval: It is recommended that: At least 10% of the residential units (275 units) be sold at purchase prices in 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 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 999.74± acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District as an SRA, to be known as the Bellmar Village SRA (Bellmar), allowing for the development of residential, commercial and civic/governmental/institutional land use components. Bellmar submitted an Economic Assessment, prepared by Development Planning and Financial Group, Inc, (DPFG) in accordance with the requirements of the LDC, which allows the use of an alternative fiscal impact model, approved by Collier County. DPFG measured the fiscal neutrality at the horizon year (Year 10/2033 buildout) using a "marginal/average cost hybrid methodology" to determine the project's impacts on capital and operating costs. DPFG 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 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. 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. BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 17 of 32 Packet Pg. 174 9.B.1 An outside peer review 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 Bellmar 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 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 the purpose of this analysis. Transportation — Fiscally Neutral. See Transportation Review Section of this Staff Report and Attachment E — 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 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 exceeded by the existing, committed, and vested trips, plus additional projected background trips from sources other than the development project under review, with the exception of one 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 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 basis for a capacity proportionate share calculation and also requires a credit for impact fees 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 additional capacity proportionate share payment can be required. The applicant will be paying impact fees for BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 18 of 32 Packet Pg. 175 9.B.1 the proposed land uses to off -set their growth -related demand for infrastructure. Based on a previously approved landowner contribution agreement, the applicant will also provide 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 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 SRA. Law Enforcement — Fiscally Neutral. DPFG worked directly with Collier County Sheriff's Office representatives regarding any specific needs (land, etc.) that would be created by the proposed development. The main demand generated by Bellmar will be 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 E - Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: DPFG worked directly with Collier County Collier County Emergency Medical Services representatives regarding any specific needs (land, etc.) that would be created specifically by the proposed development. EMS provided locations in the area that will service the proposed development, including the acquisition of a new site for a co -located EMS station at DeSoto Blvd. and Golden Gate Boulevard. This site is one of up to three that will utilize the One -Cent Infrastructure Surtax to provide certain EMS capital construction needs. Use of these funds will allow impact fees generated by Bellmar and other surrounding communities and development to be utilized for capital equipment needs and other EMS capital priorities and projects. Therefore, currently, there is not a need for a specific land site within this proposed development. 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. BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 19 of 32 Packet Pg. 176 9.B.1 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. 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 0.19 acres, therefore, it does not change the finding of fiscal neutrality for this category. 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 E - Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: DPFG collected information prepared for and directed by the Collier County 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 Interlocal Agreement that accompanies this petition, which must be adopted concurrently with or prior to the SRA ordinance. This Agreement also includes provisions related to the pre -payment of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees for the capacity equivalent of 650 ERCs for Water and 350 ERCs for Wastewater. The developer will 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 Procedures Ordinance (Ord. No. 2004-31, as amended). As provided in the review comments and the Agreement, water and wastewater services will be extended, as outlined, BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 20 of 32 Packet Pg. 177 9.B.1 to the Point of Connection (POC) for the Project to serve Bellmar's demand. The Landowner has agreed to provide the I.Q. water distribution system and supply System for Belmar. Stormwater Management — Fiscally Neutral. See Attachment E - 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 Bellmar 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 flow way systems as they transition between private and public lands. To the extent that Bellmar 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 E -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 which 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 E — Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: DPFG worked directly with Collier County Public Schools representatives regarding any specific needs (school sites, etc.) that would be created specifically by the proposed development. Currently there is existing or planned capacity, over a five-year period to serve the proposed development. However, when Bellmar is considered along with other neighboring development, "they collectively result in the School District exceeding its estimated capacity. " Therefore, the SRA document provides a commitment that the Developer will convey real property for a high school, middle school, and elementary school in exchange for impact fee credits. BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 21 of 32 Packet Pg. 178 9.B.1 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. 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. Zoninz Services Review: The Bellmar Village SRA Development Document sets forth the design standards for the Village. In accordance with Section 4.08.07.C.2 of the LDC, "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..." The Bellmar Village SRA consists of two context zones, Neighborhood General and Village Center. The Neighborhood General context zone is approximately 976.11± acres and allows for residential development consisting of single-family and multiple -family residential dwelling units. Senior/group housing, including but not limited to, Assisted Living Facilities (ALF), Independent Living Facilities (ILF), and Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRC) are permitted uses. The Village Center context zone is approximately 23.63± acres and is mixed -use, allowing for multi -family development, commercial, office, civic, governmental, and institutional uses. As previously stated, a minimum of 68,750 square feet and a maximum of 85,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and a minimum of 27,500 square feet of civic, governmental, and BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 22 of 32 Packet Pg. 179 9.B.1 institutional uses will be provided. The maximum zoned and actual building heights are 50 feet and 60 feet. The Bellmar Village Center is located on the northwest side of the SRA along the future Big Cypress Parkway. Additionally, Bellmar Village does not include a Neighborhood General Commercial Area like the Longwater Village proposal. DEVIATION DISCUSSION: The petitioner is seeking 12 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. Village Center Standards: Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.p)ii) "General Parking Criteria," which states "The majority of parking spaces shall be provided off-street in the rear of buildings or along the side secondary streets. Parking is prohibited in front of buildings, ..." to instead allow parking in front of buildings in the Village Center, when such parking is in support of a shopping center which includes a grocery store. A Type `D' buffer per LDC at time of permitting will be required when parking is adjacent to or abutting a road. Justification: The Village Center fronts on future Big Cypress Parkway and is separated from future Big Cypress Parkway by a 25 foot wide Type D Buffer. To be viable in the marketplace the Village center commercial uses need to be both accessible and convenient to motorists from future Big Cypress Parkway. This may warrant parking in what may be determined to be a front yard: however, with a 25 foot wide Type D buffer along future Big Cypress Parkway, such parking will be adequately screened from view. Without direct access (and exposure) to and from future Big Cypress 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 unique to the RLSA Overlay. 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.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 # 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.q), which requires that the majority of parking be located in the rear of buildings and prohibits parking in the front of buildings except on street parking within the right-of-way to instead allow parking in the front, side and rear yards, when such parking is in support of a shopping center which includes a grocery store. A Type `D' buffer per LDC at time of permitting will be required when parking is adjacent to or abutting a road. Note: This LDC Provision (and thus this deviation request) is unique to the RLSA Overlay. BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 23 of 32 Packet Pg. 180 9.B.1 Justification: This deviation is requested to allow parking in front, side, or rear yards in the Village Center in order provide for maximum design flexibility for what will be a relatively small amount of commercial uses providing neighborhood goods and services. Also see Justification for #2, above. Convenience and easy access are critical for achieving market viability for the nonresidential uses in the Village center, particularly for the pass by traffic which is absolutely necessary for the viability of the commercial elements. Design flexibility is also necessary. 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.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." SRA Document Section 7.2. 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 LDC 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. Deviation # 3 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. Justification: Community Centers, both within the north and south portions of the Village, 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 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.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 # 4 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.7.J.2.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 zero or five 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. 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 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 24 of 32 Packet Pg. 181 9.B.1 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 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 #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.e)i) and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii, "Maximum Multi -family lot size," which requires that multi -family residential lots be limited to a maximum of four acres, to instead allow lot sizes for multi -family to exceed four acres, when located within one-half (%2) mile of the Village Center boundary and limited to sites 25 acres or less. Justification: Limiting a multi family lot size in the Neighborhood General is not based on any recognizable beneficial outcome. Presumably it is applied to maintain a "Village" scale. However, a larger lot can also maintain the "Village" scale by use of multiple buildings (on larger parcel), and through design. There is no discernable benefit to limiting Zero Lot Line or Townhome style development to parcels of four acres or less. For that matter, more traditional multi family buildings may also be feasible on parcels greater than four acres in Neighborhood General adjacent to or near the Village Center. The entire Neighborhood General Context Zone is 26.1 acres in size and located proximate to the Village Center, which has no such restriction. There is no reason to arbitrarily limit the maximum parcel size to four acres, as all these types of housing styles are consistent with the Village definition which is as follows: 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. 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 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 7.3. Transportation Standards: BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 25 of 32 Packet Pg. 182 9.B.1 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 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 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 five feet verses six 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 00'(MIN.) R.O.W. - IMIN-) PLANTING 11.9' 1T.V PLANTING {MIH.I 1.0' SIDEWALK AREA 2.0' TR.EL LANE TPAYEL LANE YA' AREA SIDEWALK 1.0' e.a IMIN,� I I I r: \, LARGE CANOPY - \/`_ �/ FOR EARGE CANOPY TREES KEGUIRE ROOT TREES REgBIRE ROOT BARRIER PROTECTION - ._ ,... - �- - BARRIER PROTECTION POTABLE WATER OR *. POTABLE WATER OR IRRIOATR]N IMIN 5.9'{MIN.I EWER 'A. IMIN.I 9,p' IRRIGATIONMAIN %' GRAVITY S p,p5.0')MIN.I *HOPE FORGE MAIN CURB & GII TTER TYPIGRL BOTH SIDES {TYPE & MATE RIAL MAY VARY) SRA LOCAL STREET R.O.W. SEUMN Y'LOCATION OF GORCE MA1.-1. ROA.WAY AN. S' SETBACK-- u:Nn FROM R.O.W. LINE APPROVES A5 UTILITY DEVIATION ON ¢iinn�u, iu�. SPASUBIPITAL rvvV9 ." "^' --- )1115129200VPll0L1GOlILI7ES Staff Analysis Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that the RLSA cross sections show a 6-foot wide planting strip. However, LDC section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.r. allows for a minimum of a 5-foot wide planting area between the sidewalk and curb in the Village center provided there is root barrier or structural soil used. Two c.f. of structural soil per square feet of mature tree crown projection is the industry standard for the recommended quantity of structural soil. In accordance with 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." BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 26 of 32 Packet Pg. 183 9.B.1 Deviation # 7 seeks relief 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. 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. 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. Sign Standards: Deviation # 8 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 five 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 LDC Section 5.06.00 (Signs Regulations). Note that the deviation does not apply to such signs located along County Roads. 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 7.5. Landscape Standards: BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 27 of 32 Packet Pg. 184 Deviation # 9 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. 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. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in accordance with 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 7.6.Other Deviations: Deviation # 10 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04.G, "Parking Space Requirements," which requires one 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 one 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 one 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. 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." Deviation # 11 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 lakes 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 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 28 of 32 Packet Pg. 185 9.B.1 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. 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." The concentration of littoral plantings in lakes and waters of the proposed project will meet the intent of the littoral planting requirement, which 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 # 12 seeks relief 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 support by Utilities staff. 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." NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM on August 4, 2020, at 5:30 p.m. at New Hope Ministries Conference Center, 7675 Davis Boulevard, Naples, Florida. Approximately two residents attended the NIM. For further information, please see in the backup material. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's office reviewed the staff report for Petition Number PL20190001837, Bellmar Village SRA on February 5, 2021. The following criteria applies to the creation of an SRA: BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 29 of 32 Packet Pg. 186 9.B.1 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. 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. BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 30 of 32 Packet Pg. 187 9.B.1 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. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission, acting as the local planning agency and the Environmental Advisory Council, forward Petition SRA-PL20190001837, Bellmar Village SRA, to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to the conditions detailed here: 1. 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. 2. The Agreement to provide Potable Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation Water Utility Services shall be adopted concurrently with the SRA ordinance. 3. At least 10% of the residential units (275 units) be sold at purchase prices in 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 be reserved for the development of housing that is affordable. 4. Within 90 days of the approval of the first development order (SDP or PPL), the applicant must pay $2,221,800.00 to fulfill the fair share mitigation for operation impacts as supported by the January 8, 2021 Traffic Impact Statement. 5. The Developer shall be required to improve both Golden Gate Boulevard and 61h Avenue South East from Desoto Boulevard to the project entrances to minimum 2-lane undivided rural roadway consistent with FDOT Green Book construction standards. These improvements are not eligible for road impact fee credits. 6. 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 time of permitting. 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 acknowledges that 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) Attachments: Attachment A: Proposed SRA Resolution Belmar BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 31 of 32 Packet Pg. 188 9.B.1 Attachment B: Comprehensive Planning Consistency Memo Attachment C: Public Utility Connectivity Memo Attachment C-1: Collier Villages Connectivity Plan Attachment D: Bellmar SRA Economic Assessment Attachment E: Bellmar Interlocal Agreement Water Sewer Attachment F: Application Backup BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 32 of 32 Packet Pg. 189 9.B.4 4po---"o Growth Management Department Zoning Division CONS ISTENCYREVIEWMEMORANDUM To: James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: December 4, 2020 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review of Proposed Stewardship ReceivingArea PETITION NUMBER: SRA PL20190001837 Review of Submittal 6 PETITION NAME: Bellmar Village SRA NOTE: This Consistency Review is based on a number of submitted documents including: SRA document, narrative, deviations, and Master Plans that were submitted on 11-13-20. REQUEST: This petition seeks to establish a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) known as Bellmar Village on a f999.74-acre site in accordance with provisions of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO), as contained in the Collier County Growth Management Plan's Future Land Use Element and the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The SRA Development Document states the Village contains two distinct Context Zones: Neighborhood General and mixed use Village Center. The SRA Development Document Overview states that the Village includes primarily a residential community (of ±976.11 acres) and a f23.63- acre mixed -use Village Center which will provide neighborhood -scaled retail, office, civic and community uses. The residential portion will include a maximum of 2,750 dwelling units, with no fewer than 275 multi- family dwelling units (required 10%), up to 85,000 Square Feet (sq. ft.) of retail/office uses [the minimum sq. ft. proposed is 68,750 sq. ft. within the village center]. The Economic Assessment used the following development assumptions: • total condo, duplex, single-family attached = 1,160 units • total single family < 4,000 sq. ft. = 1,590 units • non-residential 50,001 — 100,000 sq. ft. = 85,000 sq. ft. of retail/office uses • neighborhood civic = 27,500 sq. ft. of civic, government and institutional uses The Project Narrative & Statement of Compliance states that the 35% Open Space requirement for an SRA m (which is ±349.91 acres) will be met and exceeded. The Master Plan shows a total of ±507.66 acres of Open c Space (including a % of road ROW, % of Amenity Centers, % of Village center, % of lakes, % of lake E maintenance easement, % of neighborhood general, % of perimeter buffers, and % of utility easement) which totals approximately 157.75 acres over the requirement. The Open Space totals listed on the Master Plan a include 4.64 acres of the 15.4 acres for amenity centers will be open space. The Project Narrative & Statement c of Compliance states there is to be a minimum of 10 acres for Parks & Community Green Space (1%). There is a Developer Commitment for only one children's playground with a minimum of 2,500 sq. ft. The location of this playground is to be identified at the time of subdivision platting or SDP. Q LOCATION: The ±999.74-acre property is located approximately 4 miles south of Oil Well Road, and approximately 1/3 mile east of DeSoto Blvd. (lying between 4t1i Ave. NE and 6t' Ave. SE); and lies within Sections 2, 3, 10, and 11, Township 49 South, Range 28 East. — 1 — PL20190001837 SRA Packet Pg. 190 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). The proposed Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) site is zoned A-MHO-RLSAO, Rural Agricultural within the Mobile Home Overlay and Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. Lands to the north are zoned A-MHO-RLSAO and contain Water Retention Area (WRA) and Open, and the SSA 17 and the SSA 15 to the north; lands to the east are zonedA- MHO-RLSAO and contain Habitat Stewardship Area (HAS), WRA, and Open, and SSA 6; lands to the south is zoned A-MHO-RLSAO and contain WRA and HSA and Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA) on the RLSAO's Stewardship Overlay Map in the FLUE; lands to the west are zoned A-MHO-RLSAO and contain Open and abut the proposed future Big Cypress Parkway right-of-way and a channel relocation; and, further to the west, lands are zoned Estates and designated Estates on the Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub -Element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Owners of property within the RLSAO may develop their property under the baseline conditions - agriculture and related uses, essential services, 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 Stewardship Program. The Stewardship Program 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 in the LDC. Details of the RLSAO are provided in the RLSAO Policies and RLSAO Attachment C, Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics, in the FLUE as well as the implementing RLSAO zoning overlay in the LDC - also referred to as the LDC Stewardship District. 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 overlay found in the LDC are taken into consideration. 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 Bellmar Village SRA development using the Rural Land 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 (draft uploaded 11/14/2019) for SSA no.18 and are under review from the Office of the Collier m Q -2- PL20190001837 SRA Packet Pg. 191 9.B.4 County Attorney to determine whether they have been reconciled, updated and may be found internally consistent with other proposed SRA materials. All SSAs must be approved and Stewardship Credits submitted before or concurrent with this SRA. 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. Typical Characteristics Village Size (Gross Acres) 100 — 1,000 acres; [The SRA is ±999.74 acres total.) Residential Units (DUs) per gross 1 — 4 DUs per gross acre; [2,750 DU/f999.74 acres = f2.75 DU/A acre base density proposed in the SRA. The acreage that are receiving credits is 841.99ac and that density calculates to 3.266 DU/AJ Residential Housing Styles Diversity of single-family and multi -family housing types, styles, lot sizes; [According to the SRA Development Document, the SRA includes a maximum of 2,750 DUs, with no fewer than 275 multi- family dwelling units (10% of DUs). According to the Neighborhood General Development and Design Standards, the other 2475 SF DUs can vary in DU types allowed, e.g. zero lot line, SF detached and attached, villas, townhomes, etc. Lot sizes vary also.] Staff hopes to see a mix of housing types more reflective of the housing types mentioned in the Economic Assessment including condo, duplex, single-family attached and single family detached. The Economic Assessment's Development Assumptions proposed a mix between single family and multi family housing with 58% single family and 42% multi family, which is similar to the countywide ratio and very different from the proposed SRA ratio.] Maximum Floor Area Ratio or Retail and Office - 0.5; [The Village Center Development and Design Intensity Standards Table states a minimum of 800 sq. ft. for commercial units.] Civic/Governmental/Institution - 0.6; [These uses are provided for in the mixed -use Village Center.] Group Housing - 0.45; [not required -ALFs (Adult Living Facility) and CCRCs (Continuing Care Retirement Community) proposed (with residential equivalency ratio).] 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; [2,750 DUs x 25 sq. ft./DU = 68,750 sq. ft. required. The SRA allows 68,750 to 85,000 sq. ft. of all commercial uses. No provisions are in place to ensure the minimum neighborhood scale goods and services in village center are provided however.] Water and Wastewater Centralized or decentralized community treatment system; [Served by centralized Countyfacilities.] Interim Well and Septic; [not required - not proposed.] Recreation and Open Spaces Parks and Public Green Spaces within Neighborhoods (minimum 1% of gross acres); [I0.0 acres are required (999.74 acres x I %), and 11.32 acres are to be provided as stated on page 3 of the Project Narrative and Statement of Compliance. However, in the Development Commitments of the SRA Document there is no m Q -3- PL20190001837 SRA Packet Pg. 192 9.B.4 commitment to provide the 11.32 acres for parks only a commitment to provide a 2,500 sq. ft. children's playground. Locations are shown on the Master Plan, Exhibit A. Approximately 26 79 ac of active and passive parks and community green space is provided.]_ Active Recreation/Golf Courses; [not required — not provided.] Lakes; [provided, covering more than ±283 acres.] Open Space - minimum 35% of SRA; [f350 acres of Recreation and Open Spaces required, ±511 acres provided.] Civic, Governmental and Moderate Range of Services - minimum 10 sq. ft./DU; Institutional Services [27,500 sq. ft. required (2,750 DUs x 10 sq. ft./DU); 27,500 sq. ft. proposed. No provisions are in place to ensure the minimum services are provided however.] Full Range of Schools; [not required - not proposed. School sites not set aside, improved, and/or dedicated for public use in the Village.] Transportation Auto -interconnected system of collector and local roads; required connection to collector or arterial; [a central roadway will loop through the entire residential village acting as the main connecting thoroughfare, loop will connect in two places to the future north - south thoroughfare of Big Cypress Parkway. A mostly -grid system of local streets is provided.] Interconnected sidewalk and pathway system; [will be provided:] Equestrian Trails; [not required - not proposed.] County Transit Access; [not required - not proposed.] 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 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. [The subject petition is for the establishment of a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA).] 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... and in accordance with the guidelines [previously] established in Chapter 163.3177(11) F.S. [now: 163.3248] the specific location, size and composition of each SRA cannot and need not be predetermined in the GMP. In the RLSA Overlay, lands that are eligible to be designated as SRAs generally have similar physical attributes as they consist predominately of agriculture lands which have been cleared or otherwise altered for this purpose. Lands shown m Q —4— PL20190001837 SRA Packet Pg. 193 9.B.4 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. [Land proposed for the SRA designation meets the suitability criteria and many of the other standards described in RLSA Overlay Group 4 Policies. The subject site is designated on the RLSA Overlay Map as eligible for SRA designation ("Open'). The site is not within the ACSC.] 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, 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 petitioner has submitted the required SRA application along with an SRA Master Plan as described in Policy 4.5.] Policy 4.4 is not directed toward individual applications. 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 noncompliance 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 o noncompliance with the LDC Stewardship District may also be matters of noncompliance with this Overlay. 1 Policy 4.6 is not directed toward individual applications. 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: 163.32481 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 m Q -5- PL20190001837 SRA Packet Pg. 194 9.B.4 by the overall area therein. The base residential density does not restrict net residential density of parcels within a SRA. The location, size and density of each SRA will be determined on an individual basis during the SRA designation review and approval process. [The SRA size, density, and uses are consistent with those set,forth on [FLUE] Attachment C, Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics, for a Village.] 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 and allows multiple DU types. A mix of uses are allowed — residential, recreational, civic/institutional, and commercial. The site comprises ±999.74 acres. Open space is provided throughout the SRA. The Village Center allows a mix of uses — multi family dwelling units; a variety of commercial uses (minimum of 68,750 sq. ft. required); and, civic, institutional and governmental uses (minimum of 27, 5000 sq. ft. required). Policy 4.7.2 refers to directions in Policy 4.15.1 provides, where one would expect smaller Villages (nearer 100 acres) to represent the lower end of the scale for diversity of housing types styles, [and] lot sizes, and mix of uses; while larger Villages (nearer 1,000 acres) would be expected to provide the greatest diversity of housing types styles, [and] lot sizes, and fullest range of uses — much in the same way the store with more floor area would provide a bigger variety of merchandise. Although the Economic Assessment, Development Assumption, Table 1, indicates a mix of housing of 1,590 single family with 1,160 DUs of Condo, Duplex, and Single Family attached creating a single family to multifamily ratio of 58%/42%. However, the proposed ratio committed to in the SRA Document is 90%/10% as compared to the countywide ratio of 50%/45% (remaining DUs are mobile homes, etc) — thus there is a disconnect between the DU mix assumed vs. that which is required/committed to; staff would prefer to see a more meaningful mix, more like the ratio shown in the Economic Assessment assumptions.] Policies 4.7.3 and 4.7.4 do not apply to this application. 00 T c Policy 4.8: E 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 Q WRA to be designated as a SRA in accordance with Policy 3.12 and 3.13. }; c [The SRA is contiguous to lands designated HSA and WRA. The project abuts WRA land uses (lakes and road E rights -of -way) that are "Preserve/Reservoir WRA (not within SRA) " according to Exhibit A Master Plan or calculated as project open space. The Master Plan does note HSA setbacks. FSA designated land is not Q contiguous to the SRA.J 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 -6- PL20190001837 SRA Packet Pg. 195 9.B.4 wetlands and critical habitat, 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. 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. [The SRA does not include any lands designated FSA, HSA or WRA, and there are no lands in SRA with an NRI score of > 1.2.] Policy 4.10: Within the RLSA Overlay, open space, which by definition shall include public and private conservation lands, underdeveloped areas of designated SSAs, agriculture, water retention and management areas and recreation uses, will continue to be the dominant land use. Therefore, open space adequate to serve the forecasted population and uses within the SRA is provided. To ensure that SRA residents have such [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. [Open space exceeds the minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage by over 157.75 acres. Approximately 349 acres are required (f999.74 acres x 3501o), and additional acres are provided. All 999.74 acres have an NRI Value of less than 1.2 in the Bellmar SRA Natural Resource Index Values.] 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. [All perimeter lands not abutting the future Big Cypress Parkway are planned to contain road rights -of -way, lakes or perimeter buffers. 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 an SRA adjoins a FSA, HSA, WRA or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map, best management and planning practices shall be applied to minimize adverse impacts to such lands. SRA design shall demonstrate that ground water table draw down or diversion will not adversely impact the adjacent FSA, HSA, WRA or conservation land. Detention and control elevations shall be established to protect such natural areas and be consistent with surrounding land and project control elevations and water tables. [The SRA is contiguous to lands designated HSA and WRA. The SRA is not contiguous to existing public or private conservation lands delineated on the Overlay Map. The project abuts WRA land uses (lakes and road rights -of -way) that are "Preserve/Reservoir WRA (not within SRA) " according to Exhibit A Master Plan or calculated as project open space. The Master Plan does note HSA setbacks. FSA designated land is not contiguous to the SRA. 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.] m Q -7- PL20190001837 SRA Packet Pg. 196 9.B.4 Policy 4.13: Open space within or contiguous to an 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. [The SRA is contiguous to lands designated HSA. The Master Plan notes 300 feet HSA setbacks. FSA designated land is not contiguous to the SRA but is contiguous to abutting HSA designated land. The SRA is not contiguous to existing public or private conservation lands delineated on the Overlay Map.] 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 via the future Big Cypress Parkway, a future collector roadway. Capacity analysis is deferred to Transportation Planning Section staff. Concurrency is determined at the time of subsequent development orders. This SRA project is just one ofseveral similarproposals, with its application materials templated upon, other SRA or SRA applications. Comprehensive Planning staff also asks that Transportation Planning Section give consideration to the cumulative effects or demands of these SRAs, rather than considering each one individually.] 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 includes mixed uses — residential, civic/institutional, recreational, and commercial uses similar to those in the LDC's C-3, Commercial Intermediate, zoning district.] Policy 4.15.2: The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) may, as a condition of approval and adoption of an SRA development, require that suitable areas for parks, schools and other public facilities be set aside, improved, and/or dedicated for public use. When the BCC requires such a set aside for one or more public facilities, the set aside shall be subject to the same provisions of the LDC as are applicable to public facility dedications required as a condition for PUD rezoning. [No acreage exceeding the minimum acreage is proposed for `public benefit use. " In the Developer Commitments a single 2,500 sq. ft. children's playground is to be provided. Open space is provided in excess m Q —8— PL20190001837 SRA Packet Pg. 197 9.B.4 of that required by 161 acres. Collier County Public Schools is working on a Developer Contribution Agreement, according to the Economic Assessment.] 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 in the development. The Public Facilities Report projects 670 new students to be generated from the 2,750 residences [4,175 permanent / 5,683 seasonal residents]. This overall student figure is allocated to the number of school -aged children for each type of school impacted (elementary - 305, middle - 148, high school - 217.) Staff defers review and comment on the adequacy and accuracy of data submitted with this application to School District personnel — which did not identify a need for a school site in this SRA.J Policy 4.16: Q 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 d 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 m exceeding one hundred (100) acres in size and may be required in CRDs that are one hundred n (100) acres or less in size, depending upon the permitted uses approved within the CRD. Centralized or c decentralized community water and wastewater utilities shall be constructed, owned, operated and maintained c i 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 — m treatment systems such as decentralized community treatment systems shall not be prohibited by this Policy m provided that they meet all applicable regulatory criteria. Individual potable water supply wells and septic 00 T systems, limited to a maximum of 100 acres of any Town, Village or CRD of 100 acres are permitted on an d interim basis until services from a centralized/decentralized community system are available. Individual z potable water supply wells and septic systems are permitted in Hamlets and may be permitted in CRDs of 100 r acres or less in size. Q [According to the Public Services Report, the demand for potable water will be approximately 1.14 million m gallons per day (average) and 1.66 million gallons per day (on a maximum monthly basis). Sanitary sewers must be designed to accommodate approximately 0.727 million gallons per day (average) and 1.091 million gallons per day (3-day maximum). Q Adequate infrastructure to develop the project is planned with centralized water supply facilities and wastewater collection and treatment services provided by Collier County. The application included a discussion of potential for reclaimed water for irrigation in the Public Services Report.] -9- PL20190001837 SRA Packet Pg. 198 9.B.4 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 an 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 countywide population as defined in Policy 1.1.2 of the CIE. Staff defers to the departments and agencies involved directly with Concurrency Management —for which review occurs at time of subsequent development order. The necessary information to evaluate the impacts on Category A is provided with the Public Facilities Report. This SRA project is just one of several similar proposals, with its application materials templated upon, other SRA or SRA applications. Comprehensive Planning staff also ask that the departments and agencies involved directly with Concurrency Management give consideration to the cumulative effects or demands of these SRAs, rather than considering each only individually.] 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 to Collier County in the analysis provided in the Economic Assessment Report. Staff defers to the other County staff involved in the review of the Economic Assessment Report. However, staff notes there appears to be a disconnect between the DU mix assumptions in the EA Report vs. that which is required/committed to in the SRA document.] 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 masterplan. [The proposed SRA comprises ±999. 74 acres; of those, ±841.99 acres require f6, 735.92 credits —157. 75 acres are for open space and do not require credits, and this 1: 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. - 10- PL20190001837 SRA Packet Pg. 199 9.B.4 [The Master Plan does not show any acreage set aside for public benefit. However, in the SRA's Developer Commitments it lists the 2500 sq. ft. for a playground, which is for public benefit.] 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: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41. Adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). [Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety, giving special consideration to the specific policies and provisions of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District in the LDC. The compatibility analysis is encouraged to be comprehensive and include reviews of both the subjectproperty and surrounding or nearby properties regarding allowed use intensities and densities, developmentstandards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location, traffic generation/attraction, etc. Like the subject property, surrounding or nearby properties are under review for SRAs or eligible for future SRAs; these may be viewed as an interrelated set of projects, each of which affects the others.] 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: 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 will front on the future N—SBig Cypress Parkway, classified as a future collector road in the Transportation Element. The SRA is designed to have two access points where the village east -west loop road intersects with the future Big Cypress Parkway along the western edge 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. [The Master Plan indicates a three -sided loop road that runs through the residential area and the village center tract. The project is proposed as a Village. The loop road acts as a connector road through the entire village. There is currently no connection between the proposed village and existing county roads.] 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 fronts the future N—S Big Cypress Parkway, classified as a future collector road in the Transportation Element, along the western edge of Bellmar. The proposed SRA is located south of the proposed Long -water Village. No interconnection is proposed between the two projects. Staff recommends interconnection be provided to the proposed Longwater Village to the northeast via the Open area to the N-NW and abutting the NE corner of this Bellmar Village SRA.J m Q - 1 1 - PL20190001837 SRA Packet Pg. 200 9.B.4 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. A deviation is being requested to allow a 10'sidewalk or multi -use pathway on one -side of the street only wherever there are houses on one side of the street only; as with other previous petitions, staff has no objection.] 1. The size and base density indicated in the Bellmar Village SRA Development Document (dated 8/31/2020) are consistent with those set forth on [FLUE] Attachment C of the FLUE (requirements of the RLSAO). 2. In the SRA document VIII Developer/Owner Commitments, Section 8.3 Transportation C., the applicant states "No more than 1,925 dwelling units will be issued certificates of occupancy until a minimum of 30,000 sq. ft. of the neighborhood retail and office uses have been developed and issued certificate (s) of occupancy." cc: Anita Jenkins, Director, Zoning Division Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, Zoning Services -12- PL20190001837 SRA Packet Pg. 201 9.B.5 AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE POTABLE WATFAANDWASI'EWATER UT11-ITYSERVICES THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ("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"), and Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Landowner"). RECITALS: WHEREAS, Section 163.01(4), Florida Statutes, the Florida lnterlocal 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 and wastewater 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 and wastewater 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 Bellmar Village; and WHEREAS, this Agreement is intended to reduce to writing the terms and conditions between the CCWSD, the District and the Landowner as to the exclusive provision of utility services by the CCWSD within the Bellmar Village area of the District. NOW, THEREFORE, the CCWSD, the District and the Landowner agree as follows: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference �f"AO Packet Pg. 202 9.B.5 The Landowner shall construct and pay for potable water mains and wastewater facilities within the Bellmar Village development including but not limited to gravity sewers, force mains and pump stations and a community pump station 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. 2004-31, as amended, otherwise known as the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures 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, CCWSD shall be responsible for maintenance and operations of such accepted facilities. 3. The CCWSD shall construct potable water transmission mains and wastewater force mains at the Bellmar Point of Connection (POC) which shall be available to serve Bellmar 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 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 POC by September 30, 2024. The developers, through their design(s), will size their system(s) as required. The CCWSD agrees to provide a wastewater system head value of 60 psi for the projected wastewater flows at the POC by September 30, 2024. The Landowner agrees to provide the IQ water distribution system and supply system for the Village. The Landowner will require all developers in Bellmar to install an internal residential IQ system to serve residential areas and the Village Center in accordance with the LDC. The Landowner within Bellmar Village agree to pre -pay water and wastewater impact fees to the CCWSD without expiration (the "prepayment"). Landowner shall reserve water capacity equivalent to 650 ERC's and wastewater capacity equivalent to 350 ERC's in advance. 9. The prepayment shall be due no later than thirty (30) days after Landowner's receipt and acceptance of: a. An approved and non -appealable SRA for the Bellmar 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 2 ''40 Packet Pg. 203 9.B.5 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. 10. This Agreement shall remain in effect until terminated by the CCWSD, the District or the Landowner. 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 District or the Landowner 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. 11. 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/Landowner: Patrick Utter, Collier Enterprises, Vice President of Real Estate and Club Operations, 999 Vanderbilt Beach Road, Suite 507, Naples, FL 34108. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. Recording. This Agreement shall be recorded in the Public Records of Collier County. The County shall beresponsible forrecordingthe same. Packet Pg. 204 9.B.5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year first written above. ATTEST: Crystal Kinzel, Clerk Clerk Approvedks to f m legal suffjciety _j Jeffrey A , County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA l Penny Taylor, Chair Packet Pg. 205 9.B.5 ATTEST: Vag P,� ATTEST: BIG CYPRESS STEWARDSHIP DISTRICT p 1, � I �- BY:aud '� Patrick L. Utter, President COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS, Ltd. BY: Patrick L. Utter, Vice President Packet Pg. 206 9.B.5 Q W J W U U) Z 0 F- a ly O N m a X a J J W m �So'o o00 F- O Vt l0 N N O N O O O � N N 0 N O M v0 N V N O � t0lt O O m N N N O n m Kj N N O O O O p Op O N N N o N O n ^ O w O m m$ m o v o m m N O N O NCn N � 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 m o m 0- o � o N C N 0 N o n N pp �1 O v) O Ln 1!1 O N O N O N n 0p N O N � N N n N m Ln VO N N n N N N n N o oo l0 N N o N 0 n O O o Oo Oo N 0 0 N N o d N N O � � ~ N O � C � N o U G V C E `v a ti N v E o E E N E - E E v v w o v o E °1 c > w � m oI� m N ry N � O 011 VI O N N y� O N � ry N 00 N O m .N-1 N a � m �0800 �n000 O ONI O DI CIO m m N N N tmrl pp N d m coo m O m a O N V? N VT u n 10 t0 N U N A « ¢ w m 3 w m 3 3 0 c a c m 0 0 � N NQ N A Q Packet Pg. 207 9.B.5 CO) _ � L = t G z'. m co - o N J a m 0 I d 4� � � U � aL� u 3 C 1.4 Cl) ago 'a ci L E 1. M . U d I o � s - s v E 8 R Y W FUTV�8IG GYPR£55 YPRKWP � � P�o g j � s� � a i Packet Pg. 208 MEMORANDUM Jacobs Collier County GMD - Peer Review of Bellmar 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 17, 2020 Introduction Collier County, Florida (the County) Growth Management Division (GMD) engaged Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (Jacobs) to conduct a peer review of the "Bellmar Village SRA Economic Assessment" (Report) prepared by Development Planning & Financing Group (DPFG) on behalf of Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. (the Applicant). The initial version of this report was dated November 11, 2019. The version reviewed herein, was most recently revised on June 3, 2020. The purpose of the peer review was to assess: • The reasonableness of the assumptions in the assessment. • The consistency of the assessment with the underlying assumptions. • The reasonableness of the anticipated future revenue from ad valorem taxes, impact fees, and other sources for the appropriate forecast period; and reasonableness of expenditures (capital and operating) for the appropriate forecast period. • The consistency of the recommendations and findings with generally accepted governmental accounting and finance conventions, financial forecasting, impact -fee -setting practices, balanced development concepts (growth pays for growth), and/or applicable County policies (such as the Collier County Land Development Code). 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 BELLMARVILLAGE PEERREVIEW DRAFT6 081720 (002)jAGOSS_GOLLIER GOWNTY_SELLMAR VILLAGE_PEER RPAEW_DRAFT6_ Packet Pg. 209 9.B.7 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR 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: Collier County, Florida — Peer Reviews of Fiscal Neutrality Analyses prepared for several proposed 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, School District, and Fire and Rescue District's costs and revenues at the horizon year or buildout of the proposed developments. 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 BELLMARVILLAGE PEERREVIEW DRAFT6 081720 (002) _ _ _ _ Packet Pg. 210 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR 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 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 preservation of the most important environmental lands, including large, connected wetland systems and significant habitat for listed species, by awarding higher credit values for high value preservation areas."1 Pursuant to the GMP 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 [emphasis added] based on a cost/benefit fiscal impact analysis model acceptable to or as may be adopted by the County. The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) may grant exceptions to this policy to accommodate affordable -workforce housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the analysis shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards." 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 BELLMARVILLAGE PEERREVIEW DRAFT6 081720 (002)jAGOSS_GOLLIER GOUPITY_SELLMAR VILLAGE_PEER REVIEW_DRAFT6_ Packet Pg. 211 9.B.7 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR 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 Bellmar Village SRA (Bellmar) to demonstrate fiscal neutrality using an Alternative Fiscal Impact Model, as defined by the LDC Section 4.08.07 L.Lb. 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 fundamental assumption, and DPFG's analysis is consistent with this assumption throughout the assessment. 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 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 compensatory public revenue stream from a new development to fund the necessary infrastructure and services. This lag effect is inherent in any new development plan, but its annualized impacts are beyond the scope of this peer review and are beyond the County's requirements for fiscal neutrality. 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 options 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 BELLMARVILLAGE PEERREVIEW DRAFT6 081720 (002) _ _ _ _ Packet Pg. 212 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR 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 Bellmar 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 DPFG's approach to "the fiscal impact analysis of Bellmar Village uses a marginal/average cost hybrid 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 marginal costs, DPFG applied the case study approach for the capital analyses of the: • Sheriff Department • Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Department • North Collier Fire & Rescue District • School District The case study approach is based on the analyst's determination that other standard approaches have material limitations, and as such a case study approach is a more appropriate application for the particular use. DPFG's approach also included an analysis of the fiscal impacts to the Unincorporated Area General Fund Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU). Overall, Jacobs agrees with the marginal/average cost hybrid approach taken in this analysis, and the case study approach applied to the referenced departments. Key Assumptions Jacobs was provided with DPFG's Report and their corresponding fiscal analysis Microsoft Excel model (filename: Bellmar SRA EA 2020.06.03 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 BELLMARVILLAGE PEERREVIEW DRAFT6 081720 (002)jAGOSS_GOLLIER GOUPITY_BELLMAR VILLAGE_PEER REVIEW_DRAFT6_ Packet Pg. 213 9.B.7 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR 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. Jacobs finds this use of Collier County's FY 2019 budget and FY 2020 budget for the Collier County Schools and North Collier Fire and Rescue District to be reasonable given the information that was available at the time the initial report was prepared. Impact Fees 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 underway for Transportation, Correctional Facilities, Parks and Recreation, and Schools.4 Taxable Real Estate Values To estimate potential tax revenues, DPFG based taxable values for residential (per unit) and non- 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 non-residential uses were based on R.S. Means construction cost data and/or comparable properties 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 costs from R.S. Means were multiplied by a construction cost index of 84% to arrive at adjusted square foot costs, which was then divided by a land and improvement conversion factor of 85%. Jacobs inquired on the basis for the use of this construction cost index and land and improvement conversion factor, and DPFG confirmed that the indexes are based on the indexes from RS Means, with a slight adjustment as Sarasota is more representative of the Collier County economy than Fort Myers. As such, the index applied is conservative.5 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 Not applicable. Millage Rates DPFG utilized current fiscal year (2019) millage (mil) rates as follows to determine annual ad valorem (property) tax revenues for the forecast period for the County, MSTD, and Water Pollution Control. • 3.5645 County General Fund • 0.8069 MSTD General Fund • 0.0293 Water Pollution Control 4 DPFG Email RE: Collier Lakes Village EA — Model, dated February 5, 2019. 5 DPFG Email RE: Bellmar Village DFPG Report, dated August 10, 2020. JACOBS COLLIERCNTY BELLMARVILLAGE PEERREVIEW DRAFT6 081720 (002) _ _ _ _ Packet Pg. 214 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR VILLAGE SPA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FY 2020 millage rates for Collier County Schools and the North Collier Fire and Rescue District were used to determine annual ad valorem (property) tax revenues for the forecast period for the School District and Fire and Rescue District, respectively. • 5.083 Collier County Schools (operating and capital) • 3.750 North Collier Fire and Rescue District 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, realizing that actual employment density may vary by specific project details. • Retail: 400 square feet per employee • Retail 50,001-100,000 Sq Ft Employment Coefficient: 2.50 The Bellmar employment coefficient was based on the square foot per employee assumptions in the 2016 Collier County EMS Impact Fee study, which was the most recent study available when the DPFG Report was prepared. Home -based employment was not specifically addressed. Bellmar Population Growth Forecasts DPFG used residents per housing unit data published in the Collier County Emergency Medical Services Impact Fee Update Study, dated October 10, 2016 to estimate residential seasonal population growth due to Bellmar. The seasonal population per unit assumptions utilized were: • Multi -Family (Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached): 1.26 • Single Family Detached < 4,000 Sq Ft: 2.65 Vacancy Rates Vacancy rates for determining occupied housing and commercial space assume a stabilized occupancy, consistent with best practices.6 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 6 Planners Estimating Guide: Projecting Land Use and Facility Needs by Arthur C. Nelson, FAICP, Planners Press, American Planning Association, 2004 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY BELLMARVILLAGE PEERREVIEW DRAFT6 081720 (002)jAGOSS_GOLLIER GOUPITY_BELLMAR VILLAGE_PEER REVIEW_DRAFT6_ Packet Pg. 215 9.B.7 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT ("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. 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. In addition, a water pollution control tax is 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 $1,000 of taxable value in the Big Corkscrew Island Service Delivery Area. As fire and rescue are labor intensive services, the majority of the District's expenses are personnel related. In order to sufficiently protect and serve the District's residents and the billions of dollars of property located within the District, it must maintain highly trained professional firefighters and paramedics and the necessary equipment to handle a myriad of emergency situations."? Collier County School District School districts in Florida utilize a State mandated accounting method which separates revenues and expenses into specific funds. Each fund is earmarked for a specified purpose or activity and carries specific requirements, restrictions, or limitations. Accordingly, the School District maintains and reports the following segregated major funds: general, debt service, capital projects, special revenue, and internal service. The General Fund covers the day to day operations of the School District and accounts for most operational expenses that are incurred. The Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) provides equalized per student funding for school districts. This concept guarantees that the availability of educational programs and services will be substantially equal for all students, regardless of geography and/or local economic factors. Funding for the FEFP includes required local effort property taxes that districts must levy, state taxes, and some local discretionary tax mills recommended by the State. For FY20, federal sources provided 8.45% of the School District's total revenue, state sources provided 14.36%, and local sources provided 77.18% of the School District's total revenue.$ Enterprise Funds Collier County maintains two different types of proprietary funds: enterprise and internal service. 7 https://www.northcollierfire.com/finance/ 8 https://www.collierschools.com/cros/lib/FLO1903251/Centricity/domain/86/budget%20dept%20main%20page/Budget%205ummary%2QPropo sed%20FY20.pdf JACOBS COLLIERCNTY BELLMARVILLAGE PEERREVIEW DRAFT6 081720 (002) _ _ _ _ Packet Pg. 216 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR VILLAGE SPA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 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 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 Bellmar 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."9 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. While the RSLA program requires that the fiscal impacts on the County's potable water, wastewater, stormwater, irrigation water, and solid waste enterprise funds be examined, 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. As such the fiscal impact of the proposed development is expected to be fiscally neutral to the County. Jacobs finds DPFG's exclusion of enterprise funds to be an acceptable and reasonable approach. Fiscal Impacts Recall that the fiscal impact analysis, at a minimum, "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," each of which is reviewed in the following sections. This peer review is presented in order of services listed in the LDC 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, Bellmar's annual total general fund operating expenditures are projected at approximately $3,239,000 against revenues of approximately $4,411,000, resulting in a fiscal surplus of $1,172,000. Bellmar's annual total MSTU operating expenditures are projected at approximately $518,000 against revenues of approximately $821,000, resulting in a fiscal surplus of $303,000. 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 9 DPFG Email Rivergrass Peer Review Response, dated August 6, 2019. JACOBS COLLIERCNTY BELLMARVILLAGE PEERREVIEW DRAFT6 081720 (002)jAGOSS_GOLLIER GOUPITY_SELLMAR VILLAGE_PEER REVIEW_DRAFT6_ Packet Pg. 217 9.B.7 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 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 occurring to fund the construction of growth -related improvements. Consistent with impact fee statutory requirements, these fees place a fair share of the 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, Bellmar Village will generate approximately $18.8 million in Road Impact Fee revenues to the County, based on the development parameters and current road impact fee rate table. This estimate significantly exceeds the Concurrency Fair -Share estimate referenced in DPFG's report of $3.9 million. 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 2034 traffic volumes"10. The landowner has also agreed to pay 100 percent as a supplemental alternative, which includes travel pavement widening, shoulder improvements for Golden Gate Blvd and 61h Ave SE, and an alternative landowner contribution of $700,000. Jacobs finds DPFG's determination of fiscal neutrality for transportation (road) impacts to be reasonable, subject to the approval of the companion Developer Agreement. Potable Water and Wastewater A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that outlines commitments from Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC and the Big Cypress Stewardship District, confirms that Collier County Water -Sewer District (CCWSD) will supply both potable water and sewer service to Bellmar. As the CCWSD is an enterprise fund, the costs to serve the Bellmar development will be recovered per the terms of the MOU between Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC, and the Big Cypress Stewardship District. It should be noted that there are 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. 10 DPFG Report, page 16 10 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY BELLMARVILLAGE PEERREVIEW DRAFT6 081720 (002) _ _ _ _ Packet Pg. 218 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR VILLAGE SPA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Irrigation Water The Bellmar 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,"11 and the developer aims to secure 100 percent of the project's irrigation demands from reclaimed water, Collier County is not expected to bear any responsibility for the cost associated with the Bellmar Village irrigation system. Jacobs finds DPFG's determination of irrigation water as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. Stormwater Management "The criteria used in the preparation of the stormwater management plan were 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."12 The developer of Bellmar will be responsible for all costs associated with the design, permitting, construction, and operation of the proposed stormwater improvements required to serve the Bellmar development. Because the flowways within this project are natural wetland systems, the capacity existing before this development will be the same as the capacity after. Considering that water quality treatment is primarily accomplished using wet -detention (lakes) located within the SRA and overlapping into the WRA areas, discharges from the SRA water management system to WRA areas will occur after water quality volumes have been achieved. All discharges to the WRA from development will only occur after water quality volumes have been provided in the development area. Buffer lakes and associated contaminant berms are permitted in select locations in the existing WRAs, with modifications confined to areas that exhibited heavy exotic infestation and had little to no habitat function. 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 28 12 DPFG Report, Page 26 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY BELLMARVILLAGE PEERREVIEW DRAFT6 081720 (002)jAGOSS_GOLLIER GOUPITY_SELLMAR VILLAGE_PEER REVIEW_DRAFT6_ Packet Pg. 219 9.B.7 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR 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 10.34 acres. Capital Impacts The County imposes separate impact fees for community and regional parks. Impact fee revenues of community parks were calculated to be $2,013,000 (plus other capital revenues of $33,000 for a total of $2,046,000) and regional parks were $5,711,000 (plus other capital revenues of $300,000 for a total of $6,011,000). The cost of estimated acreage ($282,573 per acre) required to achieve the County LOS for community parks forms the basis for capital impacts, which DPFG estimated at $1,927,000, leading to an estimated surplus of $119,000 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 $6,105,000. The cost of the regional parks is in excess of the estimated impact fee and other capital revenues of $6,011,000 of the regional parks by $94,000. 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 $25,000.' 13 DPFG's assumption that regional park acreage costs will reflect average costs is a conservative assumption compared to the relative 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. 13 Note: DPFG's report shows a Community Parks Facility and Equipment Cost per acre of $148,328, while the Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study (Tindal) shows a value of $149,328, a difference of $1,000 per acre. Correcting this difference would reduce the combined regional and community parks capital surplus from $25,000 to $18,000. 12 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY BELLMARVILLAGE PEERREVIEW DRAFT6 081720 (002) _ _ _ _ Packet Pg. 220 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 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 and was not available during the preparation of the Bellmar 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 $1,342,000 and other capital revenues at $243,000. Based on discussions between DPFG and law enforcement officials, law enforcement officials indicated that there is no need for a physical substation is needed to service Bellmar, 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 Bellmar Development and cannot be resolved by this development. Capital costs are included to equip the required number of officers, amounting to a total of $1,066,000. The estimated revenues exceed the forecasted direct capital costs and result in a fiscal surplus in the amount of $519,000. 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 Capital Impacts The capital needs for EMS were established using the case study approach. DPFG projects capital revenues of $328,000. According to EMS management, Bellmar will be served by a new EMS facility planned for the corner of Desoto Blvd/Golden Gate Blvd East scheduled to open in 2022. The cost of the new facility amounted to a total of $1,876,057, which was obtained from the 2019 AUIR. Bellmar's allocated share of the new facility is $191,000, which is less than the capital revenues the project will generate. The remainder will likely be applied to the related capital costs. Therefore, the impact is neutral. The cost of the new facility will be partially funded by the County's One -Cent Infrastructure surtax which was authorized in 2018.14 Jacobs finds DPFG's determination of emergency medical services as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. 14 DPFG report, page 19. JACOBS COLLIERCNTY BELLMARVILLAGE PEERREVIEW DRAFT6 081720 (002)jAGOSS_GOLLIER GOUPITY_SELLMAR VILLAGE_PEER REVIEW_DRAFT6_ Packet Pg. 221 9.B.7 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Fire & Rescue Operating Impacts Because the current operating millage of the Big Corkscrew Island SDA is geared to much lower density development, Bellmar is currently projected to generate significant operating surpluses. The current millage rate and the projected tax base of Bellmar results in annual ad valorem revenues of $3,400,000 The annual operating expenses to serve Bellmar population, based on an average of the fire district's existing stations and population served, are $1,500,000. Thus, there is a projected operating fiscal surplus. Capital Impacts The capital needs for fire & rescue were established using the case study approach. Bellmar will generate total capital revenues of $1,602,000 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 < 4,000 Scl Ft: 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 costs impacts, the calculations estimating the fiscal impacts on the County School District indicate that Bellmar is fiscally neutral. DPFG estimates ad valorem local millage revenues at buildout of $3,375,000, with matching levels of operating expenditures. Capital Impacts The capital needs for schools were established using the case study approach. The analysis uses the 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. There are no impact fees levied on non-residential units, as these units do not contribute students to the school system. DPFG uses adopted residential impact fees as of February 8, 2018 as follows: • 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 Bellmar 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 14 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY BELLMARVILLAGE PEERREVIEW DRAFT6 081720 (002) _ _ _ _ Packet Pg. 222 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 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."15 Revenue/Expense School Capital Revenues: School Impact Fee Revenue School District Capital Tax Revenue Total School Capital Revenues Capital School Impact Improvement Fee Revenue Tax* Total $17,274,000 $ 17,274,000 28,923,000 28,923,000 $17,274,000 $28,923,000 $ 46,197,000 Direct School Capital Expenditures: New Schools New School Buses K-12 Direct School Capital Expenditures: Other School Capital Expenditures: School Bus Replacement Cost Other Direct School and/or Systemwide Capital Expenditures Total School Capital Expenditures * Consistent with 25-Year Credit Period in CCPS School Impact Fee Study. Cost per Facility Costs Students Student Total School Facility Cost: Elementary Middle High Cost of New School Facilities 304 $ 36,058 $ 10,972,000 148 42,266 6,237,000 217 48,381 10,505,000 669 $ 41,426 $ 27,714,000 $ 27,714,000 734,000 $ 28,448,000 $ 734,000 17,015,000 $ 46,197,000 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."16 Jacobs finds DPFG-s determination of schools as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. 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. 15 DPFG Report, page 31 16 DPFG Report pg 31. JACOBS COLLIERCNTY BELLMARVILLAGE PEERREVIEW DRAFT6 081720 (002)jAGOSS_ _SELLMAR VILLAGE -PEER_ _ Packet Pg. 223 9.B.7 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 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 employment to calculate functional population. This methodology considers demand from commercial land uses. Combined revenues from impact fees and other capital revenues amount to $1,216,000, 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 $2,180,000, 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. The 2019 AUIR was adopted on November 13, 2018 and was not available during the preparation of the Bellmar Economic Assessment. Jacobs reviewed the 2019 AUIR and confirmed that the LOS was unchanged. Based on the analysis, there is an estimated fiscal surplus of approximately $172,000. Jacobs finds DPFG's determination of additional public services as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. Conclusions and Recommendations 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 Bellmar development is fiscally neutral, as defined, for Bellmar 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. 16 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY BELLMARVILLAGE PEERREVIEW DRAFT6 081720 (002) _ _ _ _ Packet Pg. 224 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR VILLAGE SPA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 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 DCAs, MOUs, and/or interlocal agreements. Careful negotiation, execution, and administration of DCAs, MOUs, 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 Bellmar 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 determination that the Bellmar Village development would meet the County's requirements for fiscal neutrality. JACOBS COLLIERCNTY BELLMARVILLAGE PEERREVIEW DRAFT6 081720 (002)jAGOSS_GOLLIER GOUPITY_SELLMAR VILLAGE_PEER REVIEW_DRAFT6_ Packet Pg. 225 9.B.7 APPENDIX A Sources and Assumptions Q r� w a� L R E z W M CO T O O CD T CD N J a 0 co T N 0 0 0 N 1- T oo 0 L d a U- r m E M U a E M a JACOBS COLLIERCNTY BELLMARVILLAGE PEERREVIEW DRAFT6 081720 (002) _ _ _ _ _ Packet Pg. 226 9.B.7 Collier Country Residential Impact Fees 2018 Impact Fee Schedule Checked Collier County Commercial Impact Fees 2018 Impact Fee Schedule Checked Collier County Commercial Impact Fees Q 2018 Impact Fee Schedule Checked U) Impact fee schedule Comm impact fee rev Checked Impact fee schedule Regional parks impact fee rev Checked Impact fee schedule Road Impact fee rev Checked L Impact fee schedule EMS Impact fee rev Checked E Impact fee schedule Govt blgs Impact fee rev Checked Impact fee schedule Library impact fee rev Checked m Impact fee schedule Law enforce impact fee rev Checked M 00 Impact fee schedule Jail impact fee rev Checked T- o Impact fee schedule Water Impact fees Checked 0 Impact fee schedule Wastewater impact fees Checked J Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Adopted a Budget County Inputs Checked Collier County 2018 AUIR County Inputs Checked Collier County 2018 AUIR County Inputs Checked Collier County CVB Profile- March 2019 County Inputs Checked c IMPLAN County Inputs Checked c Collier County 2016 EMS Impact fee update (Table B-6) County Inputs Checked o Collier County Property Appraiser County Inputs Checked -0 Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Adopted Budget General Fund Rev Demand Units Checked c� Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Adopted L Budget General Fund Rev Demand Units Checked 3 Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Adopted •! Budget MSTU Exp Demand Units Checked Calculation Residential Just+Taxable Value Checked Calculation Residential Just+Taxable Value Checked a Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Adopted LL c Budget General Fund Grouping Matrix Checked E Law Enforcement Impact fee study LAW Impact Cost per Res Checked Law Enforcement Impact fee study LAW inventory Checked Collier County 2018 AUIR Prop Share Law Enforce Capital Checked Q Collier County 2018 AUIR Prop Share CIF capital Checked Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study CIFImpact cost per Res Checked t Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study CIF Asset inventory Checked EMS impact fee study EMS Pop & Employ Checked Q Calculation EMS Pop & Employ Checked Calculation EMS Funct Res Non-Resid Checked Collier County 2018 AUIR Revised Prop Share EMS Capital Checked EMS impact fee study EMS Impact Fee Schedule Checked Library Impact fee study LIB Current LOS Checked Collier County 2018 AUIR LIB Current LOS Checked Library Impact fee study LIB Impact Cost Per Res Checked Packet Pg. 227 Calculation LIB Net Impact Cost Checked 9.B.7 COLLIER COUNTY GMD - PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT d t9 L E m M O T- O O O O� O N J d It t0 O t0 N O O O N ti T- O O to O v cC t9 L 3 as m L LL C d E t V Q t Q 20 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY BELLMARVILLAGE PEERREVIEW DRAFT6 081720 (002) _ _BELLMAR VILLAGE_ Packet Pg. 228 9.B.8 EAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS' OF COLLILR COUNTY February 26, 2020 To: Collier County Planning Commission Chairman Edwin Fryer Karl Fry Karen Homiak Paul Shea Christopher Vernon Joseph Schmitt Robert Klucik Re: Bellmar Village Dear Planning Commissioners: We submit the following comments on Bellmar Village. 1. Bellmar Village will be very damaging for Florida Panthers because it will be situated next to the Panther National Wildlife Refuge. Allowing Bellmar in this location would be contrary to the 1999 Final Administrative Order and the RLSA Program which require development to be directed away from listed species habitat. The County has a responsibility to make sure proposed development projects are consistent with this RLSA goal. The Applicant proposes to build Bellmar on 1000 acres that have been identified by panther experts as habitat essential to the long-term survival of the Florida Panther. A 2006 Study by six Florida panther experts specifically delineated the primary panther zone, that is the specific area essential to the long-term survival of the panther.' These experts determined the primary zone by considering landscape components, telemetry, land use and cover, and a few other variables. The spatial extent of land needed to support panthers who are wide-ranging, and connectivity of land cover were important factors. The USFWS has incorporated the study's findings and the Primary Zone into its regulatory framework and its 2008 Panther Recovery Plan. In the Recovery Plan, the USFWS urges that 1 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) Packet Pg. 229 9.B.8 conservation efforts focus on preserving the total remaining area of primary zone to prevent further loss of panther population viability. Pg. 89. The area of the Primary Zone is not nebulous. Applicants can obtain a GIS file from USFWS that allows them to zoom in on their property to determine whether it is in the Primary Zone and, if so, what portion. Bellmar is located 100% in primary zone habitat. It is also situated almost entirely on adult panther breeding habitat, according to a 2015 study by Dr. Frakes.2 Dr. Frakes concluded that loss of adult panther breeding habitat is likely to reduce the prospect for survival of the existing population. A. The Applicant tells us that the area on which Bellmar will be built has little or no value as panther habitat. The Applicant bases this position on its incorrect Natural Resource Index (NRI scoring for panthers. Shortly after adoption of the RLSA Program, the NRI was developed and a NRI score was assigned for land in the RLSA. This score was based on six characteristics, including a value for listed species. The purpose of the Natural Resource Assessment is to direct development away from important natural resources, most impprtantly listed species habitat. When a landowner applies to build a town or village, it must update the NRI scores for its land as part of the application. To score for panthers an Applicant looks at two things: whether (1) the land is "preferred or tolerated" habitat for panthers and (2) panthers are observed on its land. 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, 6172, 621, 6218, 6219, 624 and 630 is deemed to be preferred or tolerated habitat for panther for purpose of assigning a value for these indices." In updating the NRI scores for Bellmar, the Applicant did not correctly identify the preferred or tolerated habitat for panthers. Although the Applicant found there were panthers reported on the Bellmar Village site, the Applicant scored zero acres for panthers on Bellmar because the land within this SRA does not contain the FLUCFCS codes above. 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 17-18 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.) They determined that agricultural lands are important areas for panthers; they support panther home ranges, breeding, dispersal and large prey. z Frakes, RA., Belden RC, Wood, BE, James FE (2015) Landscape Analysis of Adult Florida Panther Habitat. PloS ONE10(7): e0133044. See also Dr. R.A. Frakes "Impacts to Panther Habitat from the Proposed Eastern Colllier Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan: A Quantitative Analysis. Oct. 2018. 2 Packet Pg. 230 9.B.8 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 ECPO's consultant, Al 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."' The LDC provision on listed species preferred habitat must be applied in accordance with the goal of the RLSA Overlay to direct development away from listed species and their habitat. That means in updating NRI scores 18 years after adoption of LDC 4.08.01Q, Applicants must apply the best available data in determining preferred or tolerated panther habitat. The Applicant refuses to consider the best available data, but the County has a responsibility to make sure this important panther science is considered. B. Bellmar is 100% primary zone panther habitat and over 90% adult breeding habitat —clearly preferred or tolerated panther habitat. The reported occurrences of panthers through years of telemetry data confirm panthers use the Bellmar site. To complete NRI scoring for Bellmar, the Applicant's consultant conducted day time surveys for panthers on the site. The Applicant also used one year (2019) of Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC) VHF telemetry data. Almost all VHF telemetry data, including the 2019 data, were recorded during daylight hours by aerial tracking of panthers. The VHF telemetry data have a public land bias and daytime location bias. However, panthers are mostly active at night, and are especially less likely to be on fields of row crops during the day for such areas as Bellmar. There are GPS telemetry data recorded 2005-2009 of radio -collared panthers that include nocturnal recordings of panthers. See the figure below showing FWC telemetry data for Longwater, Bellmar, SSA 17 and SSA 18. Note the brown dots show the GPS telemetry data. 3 Email between Al Reynolds, Stantec and Michelle Mosca, Collier County, Nov. 30, 2011. "Data and Analysis requirements for the RLSA 5-year Review." 3 Packet Pg. 231 9.B.8 !h Ave NE wig CONSERVANCY E of Southwest Florida z OUR WATER, LAND, WILOL I FE, FUTURE. 7, E EE 3rd Ave NE •• E • • E E Randall Blvd E • 1 • 18th Ave NE • E • E 0 `74 0• o $o � o o tbo o 0 ° 00 � 0 8 r_ O 0 00 OJ 8 0d Q Oq ° p�8 • O �r w ° °� ii m° 0 •{ o ° a o ,, . oo ° 8 °o o �° o0 i8° O��O OB v o o •�• O ° cA ¢L{pp O • • p O O° CII ftc o o ° �o 0 p�11 o • 6dd �(�0'v QQoO • �Q '• r7 O ° go ii 0 • • (Yp ® o ° 0 0 p o ° po o°� Q 0 0 p08 • o • o 0 0 0 o ° o z 6 DUO— 0 00 °o - o 0c pp y p° CD ) O° O O O�� O 8r'y t� y0 ` Q p p p 6 "O oo O OC 0 ° 8 SV1 o m o0 0 o ° �p o Copo 0 • 0 ��06 O �•®• °°q 06' c 0 #0 1� ag o o. "'40�y'1 ® ep M � o 0 O O E O E • Golder EL.. • F o 0 • •• _egend ° • Panther Telemetry GPS 2005-2009 • Panther Telemetry 1981 - 2020 E SSA 18 SSA 17 tiL Bellmar p Do0 • • � .O no0 °pO 0 O O LNS' ° p O W 00 mo • O 0 �O _p 0 •• �O �� �O• • O � ° O O °0•,NqO o°°� N o o pA ° °° m m o oo • ® go o s 's• 0 Q O M O O O O • 0o80 �� e ° 40 O L i'�,3rsfty of So 9,"y & Col . &110� Gainun, P SGSI-,. 7lhrd2 • p n 0 0 • NGA EK, • m0'°� 8 c • • ��.061 _ ee n m QQ 2/10/2021 Cn d tM z 00 ti M 00 O O O CD O N IL to O O r 4 Packet Pg. 232 Telemetry data are useful to provide information about where panthers go and the landscape they use. You can see the entire area where Bellmar will be built is used by panthers. (See also the Attached panther telemetry data map.) However, there are a limited number of collared panthers, that's why it's most important to consider the best available panther data along with telemetry data in determining NRI scores. The Applicant only considered one of the many years of panther telemetry data shown above, and of the limited data it used, the Applicant discarded all observances of panthers along the perimeter of Bellmar as "not within the SRA boundaries." The perimeters are in Stewardship sending areas 17 and 18. It should be noted that the Applicant proposes to destroy over 100 acres in these SSAs for its stormwater lake tracts. The Applicant also did not include panther occurrences within Bellmar because the particular acre(s) was not identified by a FLUCFCS code in the LDC provision discussed above. The purpose of NRI scoring is to serve the intent of the RLSA Program to direct development away from listed species habitat. Besides discarding perimeter panther observations, the Applicant carved out a strip through the middle of Bellmar where occurrences of panther were reported —this became part of SSA 18. Bellmar completely surrounds this narrow strip of SSA 18 with residential and commercial development and puts boardwalks through the area. So, in addition to the 1000 acres of Bellmar, the Applicant will be destroying many additional acres of primary zone habitat. These additional acres in SSA 17 and 18 should have been buffered from the intense village development by using low intensity land uses such as parks or passive recreational areas. LDC 4.08.05.J.3.d.vi. In conclusion, because the Applicant fails to correctly identify the preferred or tolerated panther habitat areas using updated best available science, it appears as if Bellmar would not be destroying panther habitat. This couldn't be further from the truth. In reality, the panther would be losing over 1,000 acres of lands essential to the species survival as a result of Bellmar. Please do not allow this to happen. As a final note, do you think it makes sense to put people and their pets in the middle of critically important panther habitat and next to the panther refuge? 2. Bellmar is not fiscally neutral because the Applicant does not mitigate the cumulative adverse traffic impacts of Rivergrass, Longwater and Bellmar to eight roadway segments. The traffic impacts of Rivergrass and Longwater should be considered as background traffic for Bellmar. Instead of mitigating traffic impacts from the combined traffic of these three villages, the Applicant only addresses mitigation for Bellmar's adverse traffic impacts. 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 5 Packet Pg. 233 9.B.8 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. The Applicant seeks to have the traffic impact of bellmar Village considered in a vacuum. The Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) for Bellmar shows three 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." The County reviewer is correct. When the Applicant finally provided an analysis of the cumulative roadway impacts of Rivergrass, Longwater and Bellmar, eight 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 Bellmar shows 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 level of service. The three villages have been planned together in close proximity to each other as the Villages of Big Cypress Stewardship District and have about the same buildout date. To be considered fiscally neutral, the Applicant should account for the adverse impact of the traffic from each of the villages as background traffic for the other villages. However, the County Staff is not requiring the Applicant to mitigate the eight additional adversely impacted road segments that result from the cumulative impact of traffic from Longwater and Bellmar. Rivergrass Village has already been approved and there appears to be no basis for not including Rivergrass traffic as background traffic in the Bellmar TIS. 3. Bellmar is not fiscally neutral because, along with Longwater, it does not provide a transportation network adequate to support the proposed development. Big Cypress a These eight 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, Golden Gate Blvd. from Wilson Blvd. To 16th St NE, Golden Gate Blvd from 161h St NE to Everglades 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. 0 Packet Pg. 234 9.B.8 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 for RLW." Nov. 1, 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, Bellmar will have access to one collector road, Golden Gate Blvd. 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, their traffic will severely impact Golden Gate Blvd. 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 close proximity to each other. "Based on 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." 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 Big Cypress Parkway, the Applicant will receive a substantial amount of impact fee credits for providing the Right of Way (ROW) for Big 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 ' 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. 7 Packet Pg. 235 9.B.8 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. 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. Yes, the County signed the Developer Agreement; but now the question before you is whether the Applicant has shown that Bellmar will be fiscally neutral. 4. Longwater and Bellmar Villages will not be fiscally neutral because their impact fees will not reimburse the County for the amount of capacity of the New North East Water and Wastewater facility that they consume. Yet, the New North East Water and Wastewater facility is being 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. 5. The Applicant has not demonstrated that its proposed mitigation for Bellmar's adverse traffic impact on segments of Vanderbilt Beach Road, Golden Gate Blvd. and Randall Road will restore or maintain the Level of Service (LOS) on these adversely impacted roadways. According to the November 2020 TIS section 1 for Bellmar, the project's traffic will adversely impact Vanderbilt Beach Road from Logan Blvd. to Collier Blvd., Golden Gate Blvd. from Everglades Blvd. to Desoto Blvd, and Randall Blvd. from Everglades Blvd. to Desoto 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 Bellmar's traffic will also adversely impact Randall Blvd. from Everglades Blvd. to DeSoto Blvd. But this segment is also 0 Packet Pg. 236 9.B.8 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 (Nov. 2020). 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 impact fees 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 towards mitigating the impacts created by the relevant development. Collier Enterprises must provide specific mitigation for the deficient road segments.' 6. County Staff did not consider Bellmar Village consistent with the RLSA Program, but withdrew its comments without obtaining changes to address the objections it raised. County Staff raised issues with Bellmar Village in its May 27, 2020 Consistency Review Memorandum. One of the general conclusions was that "The Bellmar Village 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 or gradient, interconnectedness, 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." This is clearly the case. Bellmar is a sprawling community without innovation, housing diversity, walkability or interconnectedness. It doesn't have a true village center, nor true internal capture. Bellmar is a typical suburban development. 7. The problems with Longwater and Bellmar cannot be fixed by dangling a proposed Town Agreement in front of you. We trust that the Planning Commissioners will not let the Town Agreement have any bearing on their decisions for Longwater and Bellmar Villages. Indeed, a town agreement may or may not come to fruition. The proposed Town Agreement is discretionary for Collier Enterprises on key aspects, but, if approved, would be binding on the County. What the Town Agreement proposes is extremely inconsistent with the RLSA Program. Collier Enterprises proposes setting aside 515 acres for some components of a town sprawled out along Big Cypress Parkway and Oil Well Road. The proposal does not join the villages together in any cohesive manner. The Agreement would constrain the County in its review of the future town application by including such things as restrictions on what can be considered for the Town economic assessment and Seethe 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. 0 Packet Pg. 237 traffic impact analysis. Most significantly, the Town Agreement will shift many of the costs of a town to the County and taxpayers, such as requiring the County to pay for additional infrastructure, the Community Park, permit fees and mitigation. Sincerely, League of Women Voters Collier County Environmental Committee Patricia Forkan Charlotte Nycklemoe Loralee LeBoeuf Susan Calkins Judy Hushon Alison Wescott Lynn Martin Bonnie Michaels Gaylene Vasaturo Attachment: Panther Habitat and Telemetry in the RLSA cc: Ray.Bellows@collliercountyfl.gov Jeff Klatzkow(@colllierizov.net 10 Packet Pg. 238 Ab JAL,, r 1� j,�. :rL►Ir /''�r-� its r r x 'J VVr yK ! YjOA, ---� r o � .,ems � ��' � s ' "'� • ,i• � , f �. r � .— i.!' ,7► a !� MotLegend RLSA Boundary PGPSCollqr ' 00k r;` : Florida ..; Proposed Rural Lands ZONE Pfimary Secondary �`�i�.:sil[.i.1.•`T _ ~i:` �; ����L �0, °4W""""J111IF.:-.:dfal.%iii. • .�:� 9.B.11 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 Tamiami Trail East, 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 W9.74 ACRES WITHIN THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT AS A STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA, TO BE KNOWN AS THE BELLMAR VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA, WHICH WILL ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A MAXIMUM OF 2,750 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 68,750 AND MAXIMUM OF 85,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE; A MINIMUM OF 27,500 SQUARE FEET OF CIVIC, GOVERNMENTAL AND INSTITUTIONAL USES IN THE VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE; SENIOR HOUSING INCLUDING ADULT LIVING FACILITIES AND CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES LIMITED TO 300 UNITS AND NO COMMERCIAL USES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL CONTEXT ZONE; AND 14.86 ACRES OF AMENITY CENTER SITE; ALL SUBJECT TO A MAXIMUM PM PEAK HOUR TRIP CAP; AND APPROVING THE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT FOR BELLMAR VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA AND ESTABLISHING THAT 6742 STEWARDSHIP CREDITS ARE BEING UTILIZED BY THE DESIGNATION OF THE BELLMAR VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 4 MILES SOUTH OF OIL WELL ROAD, EAST OF DESOTO BOULEVARD BETWEEN 4TH AVENUE NE AND 8TH AVENUE SE IN SECTIONS 2, 3, 10 AND 11, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL201900018371 �� } q0 I ~` O�_.y Oil Well RD `4 t Project - Location } ,; Golden;Gate BLVD" 'J E c°�I' .. . .. .. . .... .._ 1-75 S 1-75 N 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 item 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.Wily@colliercountvfl.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 bElsed. 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, located at 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 are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PENNY TAYLOR, CHAIRMAN CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK By: Ann Jennejohn, Deputy Clerk . NO-GC10fi 355-01 IX 0) d i� to to of m ti M 00 0 O 0 Cn 0 N J a 0 to W to _LO 0 c� C d ftl cC ftl Z� d C CD E s U M r Q Packet Pg. 240 9.B.12 Cofer 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 For Petition Number(s): Emergency/Executive Order 2020-04 Hearing of the Collier County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners Bellmar Village SRA PL-20190001837 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 i Signature' ❑ 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. co 0 W r Packet Pg. 241 RESOLUTION NO.2021 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DESIGNATING 999.74 ACRES WITHIN THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT AS A STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA, TO BE KNOWN AS THE BELLMAR VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA, WHICH WILL ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A MAXIMUM OF 2,750 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 68,750 AND MAXIMUM OF 85,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE; A MINIMUM OF 27,500 SQUARE FEET OF CIVIC, GOVERNMENTAL AND INSTITUTIONAL USES IN THE VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE; SENIOR HOUSING INCLUDING ADULT LIVING FACILITIES AND CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES LIMITED TO 300 UNITS AND NO COMMERCIAL USES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL CONTEXT ZONE; AND 14.86 ACRES OF AMENITY CENTER SITE; ALL SUBJECT TO A MAXIMUM PM PEAK HOUR TRIP CAP; AND APPROVING THE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT FOR BELLMAR VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA AND ESTABLISHING THAT 6742 STEWARDSHIP CREDITS ARE BEING UTILIZED BY THE DESIGNATION OF THE BELLMAR VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 4 MILES SOUTH OF OIL WELL ROAD, EAST OF DESOTO BOULEVARD BETWEEN 4TH AVENUE NE AND 8TH AVENUE SE IN SECTIONS 2, 3, 10 AND 11, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL20190001837] WHEREAS, Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. ("Applicant") has applied for Stewardship Receiving Area designation pursuant to Section 4.08.07 of the Collier County Land Development Code ("LDC") for the village of Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area [I 9-CPS-0 1957/ 1626089/11183 Bellmar Village / PL20190001837 4/22/21 Page I of 3 (herein referred to as "Bellmar Village SRA"), which is nine hundred ninety-nine and seventy- four hundredths (999.74) 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 Bellmar Village SRA by its approved SSA Credit and Easement Agreements; and WHEREAS, Applicant seeks to utilize 6742 Stewardship Credits generated from the Board's designation of CLH AND CDC SSA 15 to entitle designation of the Bellmar Village SRA, leaving some 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 Bellmar Village SRA the nine hundred ninety-nine and seventy-four hundredths (999.74) acres described in the legal description attached as Exhibit "A", subject to the requirements of the Bellmar Village SRA Development Document and the Bellmar 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 seven hundred forty-two (6742) 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 Bellmar Village SRA Development Document and depicted on the Bellmar Village SRA Master Plan. [19-CPS-01957/1626089/11183 Bellmar Village / PL20190001837 4/22/21 Page 2 of 3 THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED this motion, second, and favorable vote. ATTEST: CRYSTAL K. KBJZEL, CLERK Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: NFp,. v Heidi Ashton-Cicko `A'y Managing Assistant County Attorney day of 2021, after BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA FIV Penny Taylor, Chairman Attachments: Exhibit A — Legal Description Exhibit B — Bellmar Village SRA Development Document and Exhibits Exhibit C — Stewardship Credit Agreement [19-CPS-0 195711626ON/I 1183 Bellmar Village / PL201WO01837 e/2221 Page 3 of 3 Exhibit A 6 10Yd �3 V� N30100 40 "0, salv, 1 cz 30Yd N009 v 1 10 Fj I I Id 0 SaIVIS3 31" .120. S3 V., sj 3i Yo 13010D . 0 m gi $0, hc v v1 S d N 6t9 P III T!,11111illmi 7400 Trail Blvd.,# Naples,!: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF BELLMAR SRA TRACT 1 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 AFORESAID SECTION 3; THENCE N 13054'05" W ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 3 A DISTANCE OF 1850.80 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE N 76005'55" E A DISTANCE OF 221.22 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE S 85059'40" E A DISTANCE OF 167.52 FEET; THENCE S 54047'00" E A DISTANCE OF 106.93 FEET; THENCE S 35016'22" E A DISTANCE OF 158.78 FEET; THENCE S 34001'14" E A DISTANCE OF 140.68 FEET; THENCE S 54056'59" W A DISTANCE OF 260.23 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS N 60025'21" E AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2800.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10032'46" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 515.39 FEET. CONTAINING A TOTAL AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 2.29 ACRES. REFERENCE ABB DRAWING #12349-SD PAGE 20F10 i! . P • !i Naples,swowiftGNOU Y xwws#if* PH- t foommirwBA"ER R B-s swomemBRUNDAGE, INC. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF BELLMAR SRA TRACT 2 ALL THAT PART OF SECTIONS 2, 3, 10 AND 11, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF AFORESAID SECTION 10; THENCE N 82033'02" E A DISTANCE OF 322.19 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE N 00021' 13" E A DISTANCE OF 169.45 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2800.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19016'54" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 942.28 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 3000.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 30010'40" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 1580.10 FEET; THENCE S 89019'34" E A DISTANCE OF 172.73 FEET; THENCE N 89043'37" E A DISTANCE OF 154.09 FEET; THENCE S 89019'11" E A DISTANCE OF 140.65 FEET; THENCE N 89025'04" E A DISTANCE OF 144.18 FEET; THENCE S 89030'11" E A DISTANCE OF 189.08 FEET; THENCE N 88052'03" E A DISTANCE OF 252.46 FEET; THENCE N 89030'58" E A DISTANCE OF 226.20 FEET; THENCE S 89046'36" E A DISTANCE OF 167.61 FEET; THENCE N 86011'l0" E A DISTANCE OF 202.98 FEET; THENCE S 89018'32" E A DISTANCE OF 184.50 FEET; THENCE N 84055' 17" E A DISTANCE OF 152.81 FEET; THENCE S 79042'09" E A DISTANCE OF 192.26 FEET; THENCE S 34012'12" E A DISTANCE OF 110.57 FEET; THENCE S 40041' 18" E A DISTANCE OF 164.41 FEET; THENCE S 58001'04" E A DISTANCE OF 141.23 FEET; THENCE S 84038'53" E A DISTANCE OF 208.75 FEET; THENCE N 72029'42" E A DISTANCE OF 142.93 FEET; THENCE N 62058'40" E A DISTANCE OF 174.43 FEET; THENCE N 42006'20" E A DISTANCE OF 124.27 FEET; THENCE N 42051'l8" E A DISTANCE OF 137.02 FEET; THENCE N 81054'20" E A DISTANCE OF 68.38 FEET; THENCE N 89020'54" E A DISTANCE OF 253.03 FEET; THENCE S 89043'14" E A DISTANCE OF 159.63 FEET; THENCE S 87044'09" E A DISTANCE OF 214.85 FEET; THENCE S 79046'04" E A DISTANCE OF 131.30 FEET; THENCE S 86041'26" E A DISTANCE OF 139.13 FEET; PAGE 3OF10 THENCE N 8705717" E A DISTANCE OF 178.53 FEET; THENCE S 84024'04" E A DISTANCE OF 111.98 FEET; THENCE N 88012'24" E A DISTANCE OF 123.18 FEET; THENCE S 76048'56" E A DISTANCE OF 102.97 FEET; THENCE S 83028'19" E A DISTANCE OF 160.65 FEET; THENCE N 83040'14" E A DISTANCE OF 166.34 FEET; THENCE S 85046'00" E A DISTANCE OF 161.03 FEET; THENCE S 86047'32" E A DISTANCE OF 166.35 FEET; THENCE S 86027'23" E A DISTANCE OF 171.83 FEET; THENCE S 84055'04" E A DISTANCE OF 147.39 FEET; THENCE S 89006'30" E A DISTANCE OF 203.14 FEET; THENCE N 77059' 16" E A DISTANCE OF 122.56 FEET; THENCE N 07044'41" E A DISTANCE OF 112.21 FEET; THENCE N 62041'50" E A DISTANCE OF 68.17 FEET; THENCE S 86052'38" E A DISTANCE OF 114.46 FEET; THENCE S 84042'21" E A DISTANCE OF 220.39 FEET; THENCE S 30001'03" E A DISTANCE OF 76.84 FEET; THENCE S 11030'06" E A DISTANCE OF 99.31 FEET; THENCE S 13005'23" E A DISTANCE OF 86.14 FEET; THENCE N 89014'45" E A DISTANCE OF 147.05 FEET; THENCE N 88010'06" E A DISTANCE OF 141.00 FEET; THENCE N 88032'42" E A DISTANCE OF 201.14 FEET; THENCE N 84046'51" E A DISTANCE OF 177.14 FEET; THENCE N 84015' 16" E A DISTANCE OF 63.07 FEET; THENCE N 83033'12" E A DISTANCE OF 151.81 FEET; THENCE N 83019'06" E A DISTANCE OF 129.94 FEET; THENCE N 83006'44" E A DISTANCE OF 150.95 FEET; THENCE N 77039'02" E A DISTANCE OF 107.38 FEET; THENCE N 67059' 19" E A DISTANCE OF 121.22 FEET; THENCE N 31 °02'49" E A DISTANCE OF 97.77 FEET; THENCE N 01025'31" E A DISTANCE OF 90.48 FEET; THENCE N 00033'58" E A DISTANCE OF 60.97 FEET; THENCE N 59013'49" W A DISTANCE OF 66.55 FEET; THENCE N 71053'15" W A DISTANCE OF 177.60 FEET; THENCE N 70031'29" W A DISTANCE OF 158.64 FEET; THENCE N 71 °25'24" W A DISTANCE OF 251.25 FEET; THENCE N 72031'57" W A DISTANCE OF 214.19 FEET; THENCE N 70045'51" W A DISTANCE OF 199.98 FEET; THENCE N 72013'00" W A DISTANCE OF 162.93 FEET; THENCE N 72017' 12" W A DISTANCE OF 198.23 FEET; THENCE N 53005'35" W A DISTANCE OF 39.90 FEET; THENCE N 34047'10" W A DISTANCE OF 143.37 FEET; THENCE N 83048'47" W A DISTANCE OF 153.76 FEET; THENCE N 86008'27" W A DISTANCE OF 139.69 FEET; THENCE N 85054'58" W A DISTANCE OF 130.89 FEET; THENCE S 89038'06" W A DISTANCE OF 160.08 FEET; THENCE S 10046'32" W A DISTANCE OF 201.47 FEET; THENCE S 11 °08'56" W A DISTANCE OF 181.72 FEET; THENCE S 10052'50" W A DISTANCE OF 163.41 FEET; THENCE N 86007'31" W A DISTANCE OF 193.40 FEET; THENCE N 87013'41" W A DISTANCE OF 152.57 FEET; PAGE 4OF10 THENCE N 85010'55" W A DISTANCE OF 158.03 FEET; THENCE N 86018'39" W A DISTANCE OF 210.18 FEET; THENCE N 84050'09" W A DISTANCE OF 198.86 FEET; THENCE N 03033'34" W A DISTANCE OF 135.10 FEET; THENCE N 86046'12" W A DISTANCE OF 160.53 FEET; THENCE N 89028'44" W A DISTANCE OF 131.94 FEET; THENCE N 89028' 17" W A DISTANCE OF 150.09 FEET; THENCE N 89041'12" W A DISTANCE OF 204.86 FEET; THENCE N 89009'31" W A DISTANCE OF 188.75 FEET; THENCE S 89051'22" W A DISTANCE OF 183.13 FEET; THENCE N 88054'05" W A DISTANCE OF 156.52 FEET; THENCE N 8902701" W A DISTANCE OF 155.84 FEET; THENCE S 60022'50" W A DISTANCE OF 93.40 FEET; THENCE S 79053'40" W A DISTANCE OF 51.15 FEET; THENCE N 89034'18" W A DISTANCE OF 174.79 FEET; THENCE S 89013'48" W A DISTANCE OF 174.48 FEET; THENCE N 89036'26" W A DISTANCE OF 274.98 FEET; THENCE S 88023'06" W A DISTANCE OF 230.81 FEET; THENCE N 89007' 16" W A DISTANCE OF 197.92 FEET; THENCE S 89059'43" W A DISTANCE OF 179.15 FEET; THENCE S 89045'52" W A DISTANCE OF 228.41 FEET; THENCE S 89048'26" W A DISTANCE OF 196.96 FEET; THENCE S 89032'53" W A DISTANCE OF 202.81 FEET; THENCE S 89045'41" W A DISTANCE OF 199.57 FEET; THENCE S 88034'32" W A DISTANCE OF 186.13 FEET; THENCE N 31 ° 19' 14" W A DISTANCE OF 85.45 FEET; THENCE N 03004'23" W A DISTANCE OF 121.05 FEET; THENCE N 00046'59" W A DISTANCE OF 145.69 FEET; THENCE N 05049'37" E A DISTANCE OF 91.89 FEET; THENCE N 00018'49" W A DISTANCE OF 167.92 FEET; THENCE N 04053'30" W A DISTANCE OF 196.81 FEET; THENCE N 26007'01" W A DISTANCE OF 113.13 FEET; THENCE N 61 ° 14'43" W A DISTANCE OF 89.70 FEET; THENCE N 73052'09" W A DISTANCE OF 127.59 FEET; THENCE S 72048'00" W A DISTANCE OF 152.64 FEET; THENCE S 41002'30" W A DISTANCE OF 126.40 FEET; THENCE S 19040'22" W A DISTANCE OF 147.98 FEET; THENCE S 16045'24" W A DISTANCE OF 105.52 FEET; THENCE S 22034'50" W A DISTANCE OF 76.94 FEET; THENCE S 49004'49" W A DISTANCE OF 72.36 FEET; THENCE S 76045'08" W A DISTANCE OF 99.81 FEET; THENCE S 74059'41" W A DISTANCE OF 149.27 FEET; THENCE S 77023'34" W A DISTANCE OF 181.96 FEET; THENCE S 62042'20" W A DISTANCE OF 176.55 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 64048'51" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 3000.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09024'00" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 492.19 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2800.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 0205721" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 144.45 FEET; PAGE 5OF10 THENCE N 54056'59" E A DISTANCE OF 262.18 FEET; THENCE N 6103700" E A DISTANCE OF 153.45 FEET; THENCE N 67043'30" E A DISTANCE OF 109.12 FEET; THENCE N 06012'36" W A DISTANCE OF 104.06 FEET; THENCE N 67043'30" E A DISTANCE OF 26.02 FEET; THENCE N 53045'03" E A DISTANCE OF 28.88 FEET; THENCE S 06012'36" E A DISTANCE OF 111.32 FEET; THENCE N 67043'30" E A DISTANCE OF 15.04 FEET; THENCE N 53045'03" E A DISTANCE OF 228.37 FEET; THENCE N 47059'02" E A DISTANCE OF 168.56 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 03001'58" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 350.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06002'44" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 36.93 FEET; THENCE S 86059'14" W A DISTANCE OF 119.63 FEET; THENCE N 47059'02" E A DISTANCE OF 165.50 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS N 10003'42" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 550.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19014'36" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 184.72 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 975.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02036'30" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 44.39 FEET; THENCE N 41059' 10" E A DISTANCE OF 2.10 FEET; THENCE N 34021'56" E A DISTANCE OF 292.40 FEET; THENCE N 31 ° 18'43" E A DISTANCE OF 219.90 FEET; THENCE N 33026'21" E A DISTANCE OF 155.64 FEET; THENCE N 28029'33" E A DISTANCE OF 167.91 FEET; THENCE N 27037'30" E A DISTANCE OF 141.19 FEET; THENCE N 21 °36' 13" E A DISTANCE OF 132.89 FEET; THENCE N 06057'21" W A DISTANCE OF 110.95 FEET; THENCE N 11056'43" W A DISTANCE OF 98.96 FEET; THENCE N 00054' 13" W A DISTANCE OF 17.00 FEET; THENCE N 18032'23" E A DISTANCE OF 31.25 FEET; THENCE N 21005'05" E A DISTANCE OF 53.52 FEET; THENCE N 22013'59" E A DISTANCE OF 172.55 FEET; THENCE S 87041'29" E A DISTANCE OF 97.80 FEET; THENCE N 88025'28" E A DISTANCE OF 221.06 FEET; THENCE S 80033'54" E A DISTANCE OF 84.21 FEET; THENCE N 81 °09'20" E A DISTANCE OF 251.18 FEET; THENCE N 8403TI2" E A DISTANCE OF 116.76 FEET; THENCE S 79031'39" E A DISTANCE OF 92.73 FEET; THENCE S 76013'32" E A DISTANCE OF 44.55 FEET; THENCE S 82039'06" E A DISTANCE OF 44.01 FEET; THENCE N 80011'40" E A DISTANCE OF 251.15 FEET; THENCE S 84003'03" E A DISTANCE OF 502.15 FEET; THENCE S 49052'58" E A DISTANCE OF 50.53 FEET; THENCE S 19039'38" E A DISTANCE OF 89.51 FEET; THENCE S 15029'38" E A DISTANCE OF 80.89 FEET; THENCE S 13007'03" E A DISTANCE OF 94.09 FEET; THENCE S 09036'32" E A DISTANCE OF 101.22 FEET; PAGE 6OF10 THENCE S 15016'41" E A DISTANCE OF 84.62 FEET; THENCE S 15019'24" E A DISTANCE OF 106.87 FEET; THENCE S 20005'54" E A DISTANCE OF 112.59 FEET; THENCE S 15018'28" E A DISTANCE OF 158.31 FEET; THENCE S 60052'00" E A DISTANCE OF 38.92 FEET; THENCE N 85034'32" E A DISTANCE OF 48.31 FEET; THENCE N 88043'45" E A DISTANCE OF 69.25 FEET; THENCE N 86028'05" E A DISTANCE OF 161.06 FEET; THENCE N 89049'54" E A DISTANCE OF 117.91 FEET; THENCE N 88027'15" E A DISTANCE OF 65.99 FEET; THENCE N 80016'39" E A DISTANCE OF 86.44 FEET; THENCE S 89049'01" E A DISTANCE OF 100.11 FEET; THENCE N 23020'43" E A DISTANCE OF 51.15 FEET; THENCE N 00054'15" E A DISTANCE OF 64.40 FEET; THENCE N 02023'40" E A DISTANCE OF 71.97 FEET; THENCE N 00017'52" E A DISTANCE OF 106.74 FEET; THENCE N 03013' 18" E A DISTANCE OF 88.35 FEET; THENCE N 05054'02" E A DISTANCE OF 73.81 FEET; THENCE N 12020'29" E A DISTANCE OF 41.62 FEET; THENCE N 87050'05" E A DISTANCE OF 74.00 FEET; THENCE S 89033'00" E A DISTANCE OF 128.56 FEET; THENCE S 89046'09" E A DISTANCE OF 156.86 FEET; THENCE S 89058'44" E A DISTANCE OF 94.37 FEET; THENCE S 88025'15" E A DISTANCE OF 70.54 FEET; THENCE N 87053'23" E A DISTANCE OF 90.98 FEET; THENCE S 87018'08" E A DISTANCE OF 99.58 FEET; THENCE S 87001'27" E A DISTANCE OF 117.85 FEET; THENCE N 88012'02" E A DISTANCE OF 74.92 FEET; THENCE S 89006'49" E A DISTANCE OF 107.45 FEET; THENCE N 88002'36" E A DISTANCE OF 73.99 FEET; THENCE N 89030' 11" E A DISTANCE OF 78.24 FEET; THENCE S 87046'14" E A DISTANCE OF 88.31 FEET; THENCE S 88027'45" E A DISTANCE OF 119.80 FEET; THENCE N 89052'48" E A DISTANCE OF 87.64 FEET; THENCE S 87000'19" E A DISTANCE OF 136.22 FEET; THENCE S 89017'43" E A DISTANCE OF 114.17 FEET; THENCE N 86038'43" E A DISTANCE OF 74.24 FEET; THENCE S 85039'56" E A DISTANCE OF 101.82 FEET; THENCE N 88023'40" E A DISTANCE OF 108.51 FEET; THENCE S 86013'28" E A DISTANCE OF 113.86 FEET; THENCE N 03026'05" E A DISTANCE OF 117.49 FEET; THENCE N 07011'23" E A DISTANCE OF 131.68 FEET; THENCE N 00027'24" E A DISTANCE OF 90.39 FEET; THENCE N 06047'11" E A DISTANCE OF 134.47 FEET; THENCE N 06048'32" E A DISTANCE OF 127.67 FEET; THENCE N 01 030'42" E A DISTANCE OF 132.45 FEET; THENCE N 04031'31" E A DISTANCE OF 249.35 FEET; THENCE N 05049'46" E A DISTANCE OF 101.94 FEET; THENCE N 00007' 14" W A DISTANCE OF 96.31 FEET; THENCE N 04042'00" E A DISTANCE OF 72.04 FEET; THENCE N 04008'35" E A DISTANCE OF 56.72 FEET; PAGE 7OF10 THENCE S 85027'49" E A DISTANCE OF 1526.33 FEET; THENCE S 02059'04" W A DISTANCE OF 277.87 FEET; THENCE S 3403T41" E A DISTANCE OF 518.47 FEET; THENCE S 02059'04" W A DISTANCE OF 403.17 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 460.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34034'55" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 277.64 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 665.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 67032'13" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 783.86 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 260.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 49058'25" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 226.77 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 340.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 36014'50" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 215.10 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 190.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 108026'10" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 359.59 FEET; THENCE S 86013'22" E A DISTANCE OF 167.80 FEET; THENCE S 06020'53" E A DISTANCE OF 137.20 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 500.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 31 ° 16'32" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 272.93 FEET; THENCE S 37037'25" E A DISTANCE OF 579.77 FEET; THENCE S 01 °44'53" E A DISTANCE OF 577.31 FEET; THENCE S 88015'07" W A DISTANCE OF 48.28 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 64009'06" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 516.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 81007'38" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 730.62 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 60.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 68006' 15" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 71.32 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 700.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 22030' 17" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 274.95 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 760.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 24032'39" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 325.56 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 540.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 31055'44" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 300.92 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 60.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 45002'02" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 47.16 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 230.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 56007'22" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 225.29 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 260.00 FEET; PAGE 8OF10 THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 35057'30" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 163.17 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 211.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 33046'05" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 124.36 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 80.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 52023'49" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 73.16 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 123.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 118050'16" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 255.12 FEET; THENCE N 87035'47" W A DISTANCE OF 381.80 FEET; THENCE S 0001 l' 17" W A DISTANCE OF 874.65 FEET; THENCE N 68018'43" W A DISTANCE OF 692.71 FEET; THENCE S 00051'34" E A DISTANCE OF 9.00 FEET; THENCE N 6404 F55" W A DISTANCE OF 131.83 FEET; THENCE N 59029'55" W A DISTANCE OF 86.06 FEET; THENCE N 40021'24" W A DISTANCE OF 44.68 FEET; THENCE N 25053'08" W A DISTANCE OF 47.93 FEET; THENCE N 14057'50" W A DISTANCE OF 56.29 FEET; THENCE N 09048'35" W A DISTANCE OF 60.83 FEET; THENCE N 15008'34" W A DISTANCE OF 60.04 FEET; THENCE N 66052' 10" W A DISTANCE OF 36.81 FEET; THENCE N 73002'21" W A DISTANCE OF 78.55 FEET; THENCE N 73034'45" W A DISTANCE OF 113.59 FEET; THENCE N 72012' 13" W A DISTANCE OF 91.38 FEET; THENCE N 70038'37" W A DISTANCE OF 89.13 FEET; THENCE N 72006'41" W A DISTANCE OF 470.03 FEET; THENCE N 71032'50" W A DISTANCE OF 260.97 FEET; THENCE N 71 °55'00" W A DISTANCE OF 166.77 FEET; THENCE N 71 ° 18'03" W A DISTANCE OF 117.15 FEET; THENCE N 72017'23" W A DISTANCE OF 97.34 FEET; THENCE N 71015'41" W A DISTANCE OF 119.33 FEET; THENCE N 72029'30" W A DISTANCE OF 79.23 FEET; THENCE N 71 °22'03" W A DISTANCE OF 90.70 FEET; THENCE N 71025'45" W A DISTANCE OF 102.31 FEET; THENCE N 72051'34" W A DISTANCE OF 92.34 FEET; THENCE N 74021'09" W A DISTANCE OF 124.36 FEET; THENCE N 59048'05" W A DISTANCE OF 85.42 FEET; THENCE N 36020'36" W A DISTANCE OF 34.69 FEET; THENCE S 78001'36" W A DISTANCE OF 63.16 FEET; THENCE S 00013'07" W A DISTANCE OF 84.04 FEET; THENCE S 00025'18" E A DISTANCE OF 51.71 FEET; THENCE S 00018'38" W A DISTANCE OF 90.67 FEET; THENCE S 01031'06" W A DISTANCE OF 65.76 FEET; THENCE S 00019'38" W A DISTANCE OF 103.03 FEET; THENCE S 00006'14" W A DISTANCE OF 92.33 FEET; THENCE S 00030'33" W A DISTANCE OF 213.24 FEET; THENCE S 39039'17" W A DISTANCE OF 14.24 FEET; THENCE S 89033'11" W A DISTANCE OF 2490.10 FEET; THENCE N 01 °21'28" E A DISTANCE OF 28.73 FEET; PAGE 9OF10 THENCE S 89028'16" W A DISTANCE OF 2438.92 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. CONTAINING A TOTAL AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 997.45 ACRES. REFERENCE ABB DRAWING #12349-SD PAGE 10 OF 10 Exhibit B BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. 2550 North Goodlette Road, Suite 100 Naples, FL 34103 The Bellmar Professional Consulting Team includes: Agnoli, Barber & Brundage (ABB) — Engineering Coleman Yovanovich & Koester — Legal Counsel Development Planning & Financing Group (DPFG) — Fiscal Analysis Hole Montes, Inc. — Planning and Permitting Passarella & Assoc., Inc. (PAI) — Environmental Permitting Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, Inc. — Transportation Water Science Associates — Water Permitting CCPC DATE BCC DATE TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. OVERVIEW/VILLAGE DESIGN 3 1I. SRA STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE/SUITABLITY CRITERIA 3 III. REQUIRED PERIMETER BUFFERS 4 IV. MINIMUM REQUIRED & MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE 4 DENSITY AND INTENSITY V. CONTEXT ZONES 5 5.1 Neighborhood General 5 5.2 Village Center 7 VI. EXCAVATIONS 10 VII. DEVIATIONS 10 7.1 Deviations from Village Center Standards 10 7.2 Deviations from Neighborhood General Standards 10 7.3 Transportation Standards 11 7.4 Signs Standards 11 7.5 Landscape Standards 11 7.6 Other Deviations 11 VIII DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 12 8.1 Planning 12 8.2 Environmental 13 8.3 Transportation 13 8.4 Parks and Recreation 13 8.5 School 13 8.6 Other 15 EXHIBITS Exhibit A — Sheet 1: SRA Master Plan (Color) Exhibit A — Sheet 2: SRA Master Plan (Black & White) Exhibit A — Sheet 3: SRA Mobility Plan Exhibit A — Sheet 4: SRA Master Plan with Deviations Exhibit A — Sheet 5: SRA Master Plan with Deviation Description Exhibit A — Sheet 6: Typical Local Street Cross Section Exhibit A — Sheet 7: Loop & Connector Road Sections Exhibit B — Sheet 1-10: Sketch and Legal Description Tracts 1 & 2 Exhibit C — Sheet 1: Legal Descriptions for School Sites A & B Exhibit D — Sheet 1: Location Map Exhibit E — Sheets 1-10: Property Ownership/Statement of Unified Ownership Exhibit F — Sheets 1-42: Natural Resource Index Assessment Bellmar Village SRA Document [SRA- PL-201900018371 (4-26-2021) Page 2 of 15 I. OVERVIEW/VILLAGE DESIGN AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) is located in eastern Collier County in Sections 2, 3, 10, and 11, Township 49 South, and Range 28 East. Bellmar Village SRA ("Village") contains a total of 999.74E acres. Lands to the north are zoned A -Agriculture and are designated Water Retention Area (WRA) or SSA under the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay. Lands to the south are zoned A -Agricultural and designated WRA or SSA under the RLSA Overlay. Lands to the east are zoned A -Agricultural with portions designated HSA. Lands to the west are zoned A -Agricultural or E- Estates. To the west, the Village abuts the proposed future Big Cypress Parkway right-of-way (ROW) and lands zoned A -Agricultural or E-Estates. The lands within the Village SRA 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 2,750 dwelling units. The Village includes a 23.63± 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. 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 999.74E acres. 2. The SRA does not include any lands with a Natural Resource Index (NRI) greater than 1.2. 3. The Village SRA does not include any lands designated Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA), Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA), or Water Retention Area (WRA). However, in certain locations along the boundary of the Village, there is a perimeter lake system, designed for stormwater management purposes and as a deterrent to wildlife. Portions of that lake system, outside of the Village SRA boundary, are designated WRA. Portions of the SRA along the east boundary are also adjacent to an HSA. 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 349.91± acres. The SRA master plan provides for 506.90E acres of Open Space (50.70± percent), 156.99± 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. 7. The SRA provides parks within and accessible by neighborhoods. 8. The SRA contains two Context Zones (as required for the Village form of SRA): Neighborhood General and mixed -use Village Center. 9. Within the Village Center Context Zone, the SRA shall provide of the following: a minimum of 68,750 square feet and a maximum of 85,000 square feet of neighborhood scaled retail and office uses; a minimum of 27,500 square feet of civic, government, and institutional uses; and a minimum of 40 multifamily dwelling units. 10. The SRA allows for up to 2,750 dwelling units (2.75 dwelling units per gross acre, and 3.28 units per acres based upon the 842.75 acres requiring Stewardship Credits and excluding open space acreage above 35%). 11. 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 Bellmar Village SRA Document [SRA- PL-20190001837] (4-26-2021) Page 3 of 15 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. 12. Approximately 28.31 acres of active and passive parks and community green space is provided, including approximately 14.86 acres of amenity center sites and approximately 13.45 acres of parks and park preserves, exceeding the required minimum of 1 percent of the SRA gross acreage, which is 10 acres, rounded. 13. The SRA will have direct access to future Big Cypress Parkway, which will be designed as an arterial road. The SRA will also connect to Golden Gate Blvd. and 6th Ave. SE. 14. The SRA is consistent with the standards set forth in the RLSA Overlay Attachment C, applicable to Villages. 15. The total acreage requiring stewardship credits is 842.75 acres (total SRA acreage excluding open space exceeding 35%) acres. At the required 8 Stewardship Credits per acre, 6,742 Stewardship Credits are required to entitle the SRA. 16. The Village will be served by the Collier County Water and Sewer District. 17. 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 jurisdictional 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. III. REQUIRED PERIMETER BUFFERS' Adjacent to future Big Cypress Parkway Minimum 25' wide Type D Buffer 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 - RLSA— (Agriculture) Minimum 10' wide Type "A" Buffer per LDC Section 4.06.02.C.1. rabic 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 10-foot wide pathway may also be located within perimeter buffers that are less than 25' in width, however, in such cases, the buffer width shall be increased in width by 10 feet above the minimum required width. IV. MINIMUM REQUIRED AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY AND INTENSITY The maximum total number of dwelling units in the Village shall not exceed 2,750 dwelling units. Multi -family dwelling units may be located within both the mixed -use Village Center and the Neighborhood General Context Zones. The minimum required amount of neighborhood commercial development within the Village Center is 68,750 square feet and the maximum shall not exceed 85,000 square feet. A minimum of 27,500 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses is required. Bellmar Village SRA Document [SRA- PL-201900018371 (4-26-2021) Page 4 of 15 V. CONTEXT ZONES The village contains two distinct Context Zones: Neighborhood General and mixed use Village Center. 5.1 Neighborhood General Context Zone The Neighborhood General Context Zone includes approximately 976.11�z 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 %2 mile of the Village Center. 3) Senior/Group Housing, including but not limited to Assisted Living Facility (ALF), Independent Living Facility (ILF), and Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRC), not to exceed 300 units, subject to Florida statutes and the applicable provisions of LDC Section 5.05.04 - Group Housing, located within'/2 mile of the Village Center. 4) 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. 2) Model homes, sales centers, and temporary uses are permitted throughout Neighborhood General in provided for 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. Z Note: 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. Bellmar Village SRA Document [SRA- PL-20190001837] (4-26-2021) Page 5 of 15 5.1.2. Neighborhood General Development and Design Standards 5.1.2.A. Reauired Minimum Yards' & Maximum Huildino Heiuhtss SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY MULTI -FAMILY CLUBHOUSES/RECREATION AND FITNESS FACH.TIES SINGLE DEVELOPMENT L PERSSINGLE STANDARDS FAMILY ZEROLOTLINE ALF,ILF,CCRC& NEIGHBORHOOD D FAMILY ATTACHED &TOWNHOMEs OTHER RECREATION AREAS PER DETACHED &TWP MULTFFAMH.Y` FAMILY S.LLR(4) PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MIN. LOT AREA 5,O0OS.F./ 3,000S.F./ 2,500 S.F./UNIT 20,000 S.F./LOT N/A UNIT UNIT MIN.LOTWIDTH 40' 30' 20'111N1T 100' N/A MIN. FLOOR 1,200S.F. 1 M 1,200 ST./UT N 700 S.F.NIT' WA AREA UNIT IT U FLOOR AREA N/A N/A N/A OAS (only applies to N/A RATIO ALF/CCRC MIN. FRONT YARD' 22' 23' 22' 20' 20' MIN. SIDE YARD' 5' 0OR S' 0or 5' 10' 10' MIN. REAR YARD 10, 10' IS. 20' 10' MIN. LA RE SETBACK' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' MIN. DISTANCE I S' OR'h SUM of BH BETWEEN 10, 10, 10, for Structures 10, STRUCTURES Emeedin 35'BH MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT -ZONED 35' 35' 35' 3.5 Sturm WE 50' 3.5 Stories WE 50' MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT- 42' 42' 42' 62' 62' ACTUAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES MIN. FRONT YARD SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS MIN. SIDE VARD SPS SPS SPS SPS to, MIN. REAR YARD 5' S' S 5' S' MIN. LAKE SETRACK4 10, 10' S' S' S' 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 stmctum, WE — not to exceed; S.F. = square feet, RH = building height; N/A =not applicable 1. Setbacks from Park Preserves shall be as set th,th in LDC Section 3 05,07.H.3. 2. Front yards shall be measured as follows- - Ifthe pared has frontage on two stmets(comer lot), the frontage providing vehicular access to the unit shall be considered the font yard. The setback along the other frontage shal I be a minimum of 10'. — In no case shall the setback M less than 23 feet from the edge of an adjacent sidewalk, except in the case of side -loaded garages where Me garage is designed in such a way that a vehicle can he parked in the driveway without conflicting with, or encroaching upon, the adjacent sidewalk. 3. 5' minimum side setbacks for singlc-family attached, two-family, most be accompanied by another 5' minimum side setback on adjoining lot to achieve minimum 10' separation. 4. The required 20' lake maintenance easement shall be provided in a separate planed vast and the setback for both principal and accessory structures may he reduced to 0'. 5. Zero Lot Line and Townhome Development means 3 or more whiched units, typically one or 2 stories in height. 6. Other Multi -family means 3 or more units other than Zero Lot Lim or Townhome Development typically more than 2 stories in height. 7. Minimum floor ama is not applicable to ALF. ILF. or CCRC units. Minimum Roo, area per unit for moral apartments shall M 550 square feet Bellmar Village SPA Document [SRA- PL-201900018371 (4-26-2021) Page 6 of 15 5.2 Village Center Context Zone The Village Center Context Zone includes 23.63± 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 dwelling units, a minimum of 68,750 square feet and maximum of 85,000 square feet of neighborhood -scale commercial and office uses, and a minimum of 27,500 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 Multi -Family Dwelling Units subject to the applicable development standards set forth in Paragraph 5.1.2.A, Table 1.; and, • The following neighborhood -scale commercial and office uses, and civic, governmental, 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 (561 l - 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 (8351). 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 F.S. §400.402 and ch.58A-5 F.A.C.; and continuing care retirement communities pursuant to F.S. §651 and ch. 4-193 F.A.C.; all subject to Section 5.05.04 of the LDC. Bellmar Village SRA Document [SRA- PL-201900018371 (4-26-2021) Page 7 of 15 23) Hardware stores (5251). 24) Health services, offices and clinics (8011 - 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 (8231). 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. Bellmar Village SRA Document [SRA- PL-20190001837] (4-26-2021) Page 8 of 15 5.2.2. Village Center Development and Design Standards 5.2.2.A. Required Minimum Yards (Setbacks) and P ALF, ILF, CCRC & DEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS MULTI -FAMILY NON-RESIDENTIAL AND ONLY MIXED -USE BUILDINGS BUILDINGS MIN. LOT AREA 20,000 S.F. I0000 S.F. MIN.LOTWIDTH 100 100' 800 S.F. for Commercial Units MIN. FLOOR AREA 700 S.F. Per Unit' 700 S.F. for Residential Units MIN. SETBACK FROM FUTURE BIG CYPRESS 20, 20, PARKWAY AND ENTRANCE ROAD= FRONT YARDS 20' (For ITT MINIMUM SETBACK FROM A RESIDENTIAL T 20, TRACT MINIMUM SETBACK FROM A NONRESIDENTIAL 15' 5' TRACT MIN. LAKE SETBACK' 20' 20' MIN. PRESERVE SETBACK 25' 25' 15 Feet or Y Sum of BH, 15 Feet or'h Sum of BH, whichever MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 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 1. ILF, and CCRCi 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' Table 2: Village Center- Required Minimum Yams Maximum Building aeignt Fushutgs 1. Retail andoffice uses aresubject to amnximum FAR of0.5. Civic. governments, and instiamonalusesare subjectto attraction. FARof1.6. 2. Tracts abutting the minimum required 25'wide landscape buffer ilocand in a separate platted tact adjacent to Big Cypress Parkway) shall provide a front yard setback, measured from the abutting landscape buffer tract. Tmcrs abutting the project entrance road shall provide a front yard setback measured from the 10-fnot landscape buffer tract adjacent m the entry road. 3. The required 20' lake maintenance easement shall be provided in a separate planed but and the setback for both principal and accessory structures may be reduced to 0'. 4. The minimum Floor area is not applicable to ALF. ILF. or CCRC units. 5. The front setback may be increased in order in accommodate public spaces such as playas, outdoor dining areas, and courtyards. S.P.S. = same as for principal structure: NTE = not m exceed; S.F. = square feet: BH =building heighC N/A =not applicable VI. EXCAVATIONS The following criteria shall apply to excavations within the Bellmar SRA: All excavation permit applications within the Bellmar SRA and related Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) shall be Bellmar Village SPA Document [SRA- PL-20190001837] (4-26-2021) Page 9 of 15 reviewed as Development Excavation Permit applications. Within the boundary of the Bellmar 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). VII. DEVIATIONS 7.1. Village Center Standards 1) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.p)ii) "General Parking Criteria," which states "The majority of parking spaces shall be provided off-street in the rear of buildings or along the side secondary streets. Parking is prohibited in front of buildings, ..." to instead allow parking in front of buildings in the Village Center, when such parking is in support of a shopping center which includes a grocery store. A Type `D' buffer per LDC at time of permitting will be required when parking is adjacent to or abutting a road. 2) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.q), which requires that the majority of parking be located in the rear of buildings and prohibits parking in the front of buildings except on street parking within the right-of-way to instead allow parking in the front, side and rear yards, when such parking is in support of a shopping center which includes a grocery store. A Type `D' buffer per LDC at time of permitting will be required when parking is adjacent to or abutting a road. 7.2. Neighborhood General Standards (which apply per LDC Section4.08.07.J.3.d.iii) 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 4.08.7.J.2.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. 3) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.e)i) and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii, "Maximum Multi -family lot size," which requires that multi -family residential lots be limited to a maximum of 4 acres, to instead allow lot sizes for multi -family to exceed 4 acres, when located within one-half ('/2) mile of the Village Center Boundary and limited to sites 25 acres or less. 7.3 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 Bellmar Village SRA Document [SRA- PL-20190001837] (4-26-2021) Page 10 of 15 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, 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) for commercial development within the Village Center 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. 7.4 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 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. 7.5 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. 7.6 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. 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 system that runs along the perimeter of the SRA. VIII. DEVELOPER/OWNER COMMITMENTS 8.1. Planning Bellmar Village SRA Document [SRA- PL-20190001837] (4-26-2021) Page I I of 15 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.F, PUD Monitoring Report requirements. This entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all commitments set forth in the SRA Document and the 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 Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes, if applicable, an acknowledgement of the commitments required 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 form 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 Developer Commitments contained herein and in the Developer Agreement have been satisfied. 8.2. Environmental A. The 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. The Bellmar SRA shall utilize bearproof trash cans for both residential and commercial (nonresidential) development. Bellmar Village SRA Document [SRA- PL-20190001837] (4-26-2021) Page 12 of 15 B. The Bellmar SRA shall utilize "Dark Sky" lighting design principles for both residential and commercial (nonresidential) development, subject to public safety design standards for public areas. C. Prior to the issuance of the first SDP and/or PPL, a listed species management plan must be proved for review, with approval from FWCC and/or USFWS for management of the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) and all other listed species. 8.3. Transportation A. Intensity of uses under any development scenario for the SRA is limited to a maximum of 2,189 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. B. The Owner shall provide an easement in a form acceptable to Collier County, at no cost to County and free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, 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. C. No more than 1,925 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 must pay $2,221,800.00 to fulfill the fair share mitigation for operation impacts as supported by the January 8, 2021 Traffic Impact Statement. E. The Developer shall be responsible to improve both Golden Gate Boulevard and 6th Avenue South East from Desoto Boulevard to the project entrances to minimum 2-lane undivided rural 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 (56th 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 56th 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. Bellmar Village SRA Document [SRA- PL-20190001837] (4-26-2021) Page 13 of 15 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 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 Bellmar Village SRA Document [SRA- PL-20190001837] (4-26-2021) Page 14 of 15 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. 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. At least 10% of the units (275 units) shall be 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. Bellmar Village SRA Document [SRA- PL-20190001837] (4-26-2021) Page 15 of 15 IOui fou�n�i W � c �a o� F Tab iyi N a rn ad10 yy° v c�a tpgQy■harp» tmC i d f0�~Y� SYZQ 'O N CC N C d N .M N g 0 d C c o E N Uda Q aI c N d O Q N O vw o« y g dm ao, dr.. vaiL-y cA= m mID Jvt J 10v `� adaX3a C O O d 0M. C V ; w C« F :EWU' W 2 N y E a d L 0 h d $ c_ d3O EoN •c �E >my �mm E smCdd UYrnc He ma Ecp aJ�>o L Or -0-. x2 U=E L rnr EEd`o cc� oQm Wm0 ya 3 0-3 3 Coy d F p1 y; p m m Cy C N a. : O p1 d W ul O Y d .. 2�j d M0 O N N 3 N m O d `�• p7 O C N d 0— V •.i .d-. O d C U O C N d O L yip Q N. C N C m d E a 'md 0p ZE oo y0. Uid N t1�£ E d 2f d o y o CD VJ ��!� ym �E5y Nm C `O Y �d �� -0-o�8w o�Ec o§ d LJ N d dQ Ua Z N Eycei `oc c E. c Ewe En�E s$6 F- .E ad 0 O d L. rn 4 ,k-L co Q V C L y c crS 0 7 d S C w` c C Uj > U c OOp«fQ O. «L L.d- d °dp ° Od m m dd m3 Sm O is�a ;FJ m a O o, aQ>>o c a"yc�a L ayo.d adm" Q y Q�yEM m Qoai a O QgoQ�ac 4 rn SS{ ,crym.SE 30 «? cpdi� E w v, > E d v� g 0 o c m o d ions 0 n = CL r �u.m CL n .mo Nncc -�4 rno rn E ° d of 3 Z O D CD Nw O C N D7d ov:a �j < C d C b N y J _ N L E !p .O yNy d N �. _n m C m A m . C m ,J m _ C c J d • Z_ E _ E o n c d A J d m N oa�a cmmE yc �doE E`oFo 3diN M. p1 C E .x�( w N ° a d C m 4% C e C Q N IS, d N d C a 6 Q fp a y N % W 6 C d E C C C � E `. N d d J N ,9 d O d �O �Cp" •ri a'y d �'ki5 E y y d Q J y« N a y N m 0« N L O O d a dc'o,� >'�m m 2' °m E3° 0Uh15 dn°>•Om � 3; cp- �3`o EL E�yy Jam amv J °a7d'`oE Ee o+.!L rd �o o�� ai°OO y� dta dac.rn c43° r.o, �mLLlgrn �czzfi w dr5c o.rn«?c ?:o �N E ?mom B0'5oc mm Z a'e y yEy `o d o ,C c° O E '= a cd d a N `- o C C N — `"' W y J C M O L Z d- N j a N O C> a...`m�;e'�• d; O O L 'a •- a L a d dJ, E y� ' C N W O O 'C d O (q h"w:.�s�"w'ca i! a .d 'm. no+ M ; 8.e a rail s E 3EU�aE o £� opp� o f E Q d��E y�wm a� «d>Jo omy m�eUdE ULCpCpyc�addOd �r'jdc�' mmp _ «jLt�ayo�C�`Oyc° mcdO• ONN J aOM �r�mw��0 v!i vWdy« loOmCCd'jGN mdN oLy>«a uOa cm ° E£ a5 np O p �dQJ N N -0 o 'aO Ny a a«ydDON E OE N dH N dV d Q U) ocEd o L)o Nd �2 yyJi 3voo ^•po 3?`c°�°a e C d ; d 0. ? d E = T O L - N Of y am— - c �d 'y na9>n. ciao Dd 'm�`oa .d.EE ii>a� vdEZ,yo =�aH :=c�c oa F. :=_dud 9' a,L°(D a M(Do 'Q L O Q td pN d 'O N Z d _ « Cl d O C � 2 N U O- N m d N tip -i .L.. C N> d C C d O (n C O O d C iR rp O F _a ; O Myy yNy r V y O« C Q� C Q O a a E c aD d r a O c 0 N 1 0 L N O O O N n p d c a y d .0 c d v E E E v— J v y 5 v do LC a m 0.9 v y d � Ld w O C d 0) O« Tm C O d ° O y p Q O y i O O «L O tS d° 0 rn tS m ° t3 0 ii a Nc dC O v> d�+2' tnEodm d'2d 'Q uirnS o v��md3QE fn N o D« fp C� � N J a y c 'n 'o ._ •p L« 6. •r. d () ip 7 J (i 03 U E a N V« O '-E d �o OJ11 mmcm Ondn d yy O`pmcc ry Qom° dd 00.o.. v� E a o E N D d O E a E d a d J E J L N E d a E $ m H Q 'Sc o E�01§ a QyN E. LO, EE; c °v_�mc Qarna dpy c a o 3 c C L` L °O c p r rn c ay4i 0 L o 0 o N y N? 0 o Qll. p £ o c N > E O N U g E b d A d o vi d S e'mp�v Sadro r S�V SNom sdd H S�iRyod Sa.00'� Jx d`. d y d '� Q C d y N d d y, E O a w c my a y d a cm Lb a dL— as c E d Q j Q yy :o n p, Q c Q Z Q E Q t t Q LL� F Q pyi c E Q y E y ofo y£ U� O.' °O d d Q rl C O) U x� d y C .d.. 'O U C w maoizo �i Qd E23'd Fda M v�2E ddJ 0Oc 0 n N O N O_ N D O. N 1� w= .�- N �'�/i S S M 3« d r .�- d N O N Ci D N w O J IL z uQrc 9.2CL 4 QFde� rcrc� �� c ° OLLI W O ear O 1 L m d /y aD H(QQJ� �W 4d dab mx Ru 7 5 \//\\/�\ j/� -1m 1 gro:. CQ \� H CA-51 da i zvc 0: z lu ;W z o a // W O00 V Q �✓ ..� \\//\\/ Q G w; O� l o w rP US sag, q .�_� } F- Z V Q J ZdV a=6 pvu 0j;00 2 W Orc� Wa Ju.o ■ � 4P I( 0z o§ § B q c �� § §§ ` « £ �z ■� © 2 0� C 01 _ ° %�;'�«� - cc 2 . | 3 �§ § � ME EXHIBIT B TO BRA DOCUMENT • 0. 1 7400 Trail Blvd., Suite 200 iiiii GNOLI Naples, Fl. 34108 • PH: (239) 597.3111 ....0BARBER & ..w.ABBINC.<om ....N am RUNDAGE, INC. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF BELLMAR SRA TRACT 1 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 AFORESAID SECTION 3; THENCE N 13054'05" W ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 3 A DISTANCE OF 1850.80 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE N 76005'55" E A DISTANCE OF 221.22 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE S 85059040" E A DISTANCE OF 167.52 FEET; THENCE S 54047'00" E A DISTANCE OF 106.93 FEET; THENCE S 35016'22" E A DISTANCE OF 158.78 FEET; THENCE S 34001'14" E A DISTANCE OF 140.68 FEET; THENCE S 54-5659" W A DISTANCE OF 260,23 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS N 60P2521" E AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2800.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF I003T46" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 515.39 FEET. CONTAWING A TOTAL AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 2.29 ACRES. REFERENCE ABB DRAWING 012349-SD PAGE 2 OF 10 ■oomm' 7400 Troil Blvd., Suite 200 ::::: GNOLI Naples, FI 34108 :m"m'm'mv :: I PH:(239) 597.3111 ARBER & ::: www.ABBINC.com ■m:fa:rr' ::::o:: RUNDAGE, LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF BELLMAR SRA TRACT 2 ALL THAT PART OF SECTIONS 2, 3, 10 AND 11, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF AFORESAID SECTION 10; THENCE N 82033'02" E A DISTANCE OF 322.19 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE N 00021'13" E A DISTANCE OF 169.45 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2800.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19016'54" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 942.28 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 3000.00 FEET, THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3001040" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 1580.10 FEET; THENCE S 89019'34" E A DISTANCE OF 172.73 FEET; THENCE N 89043'37" E A DISTANCE OF 154.09 FEET; THENCE S 89019'1 V E A DISTANCE OF 140.65 FEET; THENCE N 89025'04" E A DISTANCE OF 144.18 FEET; THENCE S 89030'I V E A DISTANCE OF 189.08 FEET; THENCE N 88052'03" E A DISTANCE OF 252.46 FEET; THENCE N 890308" E A DISTANCE OF 226.20 FEET; THENCE S 8904636" E A DISTANCE OF 167.61 FEET; THENCE N 96011'l0" E A DISTANCE OF 202.98 FEET; THENCE S 890I8'32" E A DISTANCE OF 184.50 FEET; THENCE N 84055'17" E A DISTANCE OF 152.81 FEET; THENCE S 79042'09" E A DISTANCE OF 192.26 FEET; THENCE S 34012'12" E A DISTANCE OF 110.57 FEET; THENCE S 40041'18" E A DISTANCE OF 164.41 FEET; THENCE S 5800l'04" E A DISTANCE OF 141.23 FEET; THENCE S 84038'53" E A DISTANCE OF 208.75 FEET; THENCE N 7202942" E A DISTANCE OF 142.93 FEET; THENCE N 62058'40" E A DISTANCE OF 174.43 FEET; THENCE N 42-0620" E A DISTANCE OF 124.27 FEET; THENCE N 42051'18" E A DISTANCE OF 137.02 FEET; THENCE N 81054'20" E A DISTANCE OF 68.38 FEET; THENCE N 8902954" E A DISTANCE OF 253.03 FEET; THENCE S 89°43'14" E A DISTANCE OF 159.63 FEET; THENCE S 87044'09" E A DISTANCE OF 214.85 FEET; THENCE S 7904604" E A DISTANCE OF 131.30 FEET; THENCE S 8604176" E A DISTANCE OF 139.13 FEET; PAGE 3 OF 10 THENCE N 87057'17" E A DISTANCE OF 178.53 FEET; THENCE S 84024'04" E A DISTANCE OF 111.98 FEET; THENCE N 88012'24" E A DISTANCE OF 123.18 FEET; THENCE S 76048'56" E A DISTANCE OF 102.97 FEET; THENCE S 83028'19" E A DISTANCE OF 160.65 FEET; THENCE N 83040'14" E A DISTANCE OF 166.34 FEET; THENCE S 85046'00" E A DISTANCE OF 161.03 FEET; THENCE S 86047'32" E A DISTANCE OF 166.35 FEET; THENCE S 86027'23" E A DISTANCE OF 171.83 FEET; THENCE S 84055'04" E A DISTANCE OF 147.39 FEET; THENCE S 89006'30" E A DISTANCE OF 203.14 FEET; THENCE N 77059' 16" E A DISTANCE OF 122.56 FEET; THENCE N 07044'41" E A DISTANCE OF 112.21 FEET; THENCE N 62041'50" E A DISTANCE OF 68.17 FEET; THENCE S 86052'38" E A DISTANCE OF 114.46 FEET; THENCE S 84042'21" E A DISTANCE OF 220.39 FEET; THENCE S 30001'03" E A DISTANCE OF 76.84 FEET; THENCE S 11030'06" E A DISTANCE OF 99.31 FEET; THENCE S 13005'23" E A DISTANCE OF 86.14 FEET; THENCE N 89014'45" E A DISTANCE OF 147.05 FEET; THENCE N 88010'06" E A DISTANCE OF 141.00 FEET; THENCE N 88032'42" E A DISTANCE OF 201.14 FEET; THENCE N 84046'51" E A DISTANCE OF 177.14 FEET; THENCE N 84015'16" E A DISTANCE OF 63.07 FEET; THENCE N 83033'12" E A DISTANCE OF 151.81 FEET; THENCE N 83019'06" E A DISTANCE OF 129.94 FEET; THENCE N 83006'44" E A DISTANCE OF 150.95 FEET; THENCE N 77039'02" E A DISTANCE OF 107.38 FEET; THENCE N 67059'19" E A DISTANCE OF 121.22 FEET; THENCE N 31 °02'49" E A DISTANCE OF 97.77 FEET; THENCE N 01025'31" E A DISTANCE OF 90.48 FEET; THENCE N 00033'58" E A DISTANCE OF 60.97 FEET; THENCE N 59013'49" W A DISTANCE OF 66.55 FEET; THENCE N 71053'15" W A DISTANCE OF 177.60 FEET; THENCE N 70031'29" W A DISTANCE OF 158.64 FEET; THENCE N 7102524" W A DISTANCE OF 251.25 FEET; THENCE N 72031'57" W A DISTANCE OF 214.19 FEET; THENCE N 70045'51" W A DISTANCE OF 199.98 FEET; THENCE N 72013'00" W A DISTANCE OF 162.93 FEET; THENCE N 7201712" W ADISTANCE OF 198.23 FEET; THENCE N 53005'35" W A DISTANCE OF 39.90 FEET; THENCE N 34047'10" W A DISTANCE OF 143.37 FEET; THENCE N 8304847" W A DISTANCE OF 153.76 FEET; THENCE N 86008'27" W A DISTANCE OF 139.69 FEET; THENCE N 85054'58" W A DISTANCE OF 130.89 FEET; THENCE S 89038'06" W A DISTANCE OF 160.08 FEET; THENCE S 10046'32" W A DISTANCE OF 201.47 FEET; THENCE S 11008'56" W A DISTANCE OF 181.72 FEET; THENCE S 10052'50" W A DISTANCE OF 163.41 FEET; THENCE N 8600731" W A DISTANCE OF 193.40 FEET; THENCE N 87013'41" W A DISTANCE OF 152.57 FEET; PAGE 4 OF 10 THENCE N 85010'55" W A DISTANCE OF 158.03 FEET; THENCE N 86018'39" W A DISTANCE OF 210.18 FEET; THENCE N 84050'09" W A DISTANCE OF 198.86 FEET; THENCE N 0303334" W A DISTANCE OF 135.10 FEET; THENCE N 86046' 12" W A DISTANCE OF 160.53 FEET; THENCE N 89028'44" W A DISTANCE OF 131.94 FEET; THENCE N 89028' 17" W A DISTANCE OF 150.09 FEET; THENCE N 89041'l2" W A DISTANCE OF 204.86 FEET; THENCE N 89009'31" W A DISTANCE OF 188.75 FEET; THENCE S 89051'22" W A DISTANCE OF 183.13 FEET; THENCE N 88054'05" W A DISTANCE OF 156.52 FEET; THENCE N 89027'01" W A DISTANCE OF 155.84 FEET; THENCE S 60022'50" W A DISTANCE OF 93.40 FEET; THENCE S 79053'40" W A DISTANCE OF 51.15 FEET; THENCE N 89034' 18" W A DISTANCE OF 174.79 FEET; THENCE S 89013'48" W A DISTANCE OF 174.48 FEET; THENCE N 89036'26" W A DISTANCE OF 274.98 FEET; THENCE S 88023'06" W A DISTANCE OF 230.81 FEET; THENCE N 8900716" W A DISTANCE OF 197.92 FEET; THENCE S 89059'43" W A DISTANCE OF 179.15 FEET; THENCE S 89045'52" W A DISTANCE OF 228.41 FEET; THENCE S 89048'26" W A DISTANCE OF 196.96 FEET; THENCE S 89032'53" W A DISTANCE OF 202.81 FEET; THENCE S 89045'41" W A DISTANCE OF 199.57 FEET; THENCE S 88034'32" W A DISTANCE OF 186.13 FEET; THENCE N 31 ° 19' 14" W A DISTANCE OF 85.45 FEET; THENCE N 03004'23" W A DISTANCE OF 121.05 FEET; THENCE N 00046'59" W A DISTANCE OF 145.69 FEET; THENCE N 05049'37" E A DISTANCE OF 91.89 FEET; THENCE N 00018'49" W A DISTANCE OF 167.92 FEET; THENCE N 04053'30" W A DISTANCE OF 196.81 FEET; THENCE N 26007'01" W A DISTANCE OF 113.13 FEET; THENCE N 61014'43" W A DISTANCE OF 89.70 FEET; THENCE N 73052'09" W A DISTANCE OF 127.59 FEET; THENCE S 72048'00" W A DISTANCE OF 152.64 FEET; THENCE S 41002'30" W A DISTANCE OF 126.40 FEET; THENCE S 19040'22" W A DISTANCE OF 147.98 FEET; THENCE S 16045'24" W A DISTANCE OF 105.52 FEET; THENCE S 22034'50" W A DISTANCE OF 76.94 FEET; THENCE S 49004'49" W A DISTANCE OF 72.36 FEET; THENCE S 76045'08" W A DISTANCE OF 99.81 FEET; THENCE S 74059'41" W A DISTANCE OF 149.27 FEET; THENCE S 77023'34" W A DISTANCE OF 181.96 FEET; THENCE S 62042'20" W A DISTANCE OF 176.55 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 64048'51" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 3000.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09024'00" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 492.19 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2800.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02057'21" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 144.45 FEET; PAGE 5OF10 THENCE N 54056'59" E A DISTANCE OF 262.18 FEET; THENCE N 6103700" E A DISTANCE OF 153.45 FEET; THENCE N 67043'30" E A DISTANCE OF 109.12 FEET; THENCE N 06012'36" W A DISTANCE OF 104.06 FEET; THENCE N 67043'30" E A DISTANCE OF 26.02 FEET; THENCE N 53045'03" E A DISTANCE OF 28.88 FEET; THENCE S 06012'36" E A DISTANCE OF 111.32 FEET; THENCE N 67043'30" E A DISTANCE OF 15.04 FEET; THENCE N 53045'03" E A DISTANCE OF 228.37 FEET; THENCE N 47059'02" E A DISTANCE OF 168.56 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 03001'58" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 350.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06002,44" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 36.93 FEET; THENCE S 86059'14" W A DISTANCE OF 119.63 FEET; THENCE N 47059'02" E A DISTANCE OF 165.50 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS N 10003'42" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 550.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19014'36" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 184.72 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 975.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02036'30" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 44.39 FEET; THENCE N 41059'10" E A DISTANCE OF 2.10 FEET; THENCE N 34021'56" E A DISTANCE OF 292.40 FEET; THENCE N 31 ° 18'43" E A DISTANCE OF 219.90 FEET; THENCE N 3302621" E A DISTANCE OF 155.64 FEET; THENCE N 28029'33" E A DISTANCE OF 167.91 FEET; THENCE N 2703730" E A DISTANCE OF 141.19 FEET; THENCE N 21036'13" E A DISTANCE OF 132.89 FEET; THENCE N 0605721" W A DISTANCE OF 110.95 FEET; THENCE N 11056'43" W A DISTANCE OF 98.96 FEET; THENCE N 00054'13" W A DISTANCE OF 17.00 FEET; THENCE N 18032'23" E A DISTANCE OF 31.25 FEET; THENCE N 21005'05" E A DISTANCE OF 53.52 FEET; THENCE N 22013'59" E A DISTANCE OF 172.55 FEET; THENCE S 87041'29" E A DISTANCE OF 97.80 FEET; THENCE N 88025'28" E A DISTANCE OF 221.06 FEET; THENCE S 80033'54" E A DISTANCE OF 84.21 FEET; THENCE N 81009'20" E A DISTANCE OF 251.18 FEET; THENCE N 84037'12" E A DISTANCE OF 116.76 FEET; THENCE S 79031'39" E A DISTANCE OF 92.73 FEET; THENCE S 76013'32" E A DISTANCE OF 44.55 FEET; THENCE S 82039'06" E A DISTANCE OF 44.01 FEET; THENCE N 80011'40" E A DISTANCE OF 251.15 FEET; THENCE S 84003'03" E A DISTANCE OF 502.15 FEET; THENCE S 49052'58" E A DISTANCE OF 50.53 FEET; THENCE S 19039'38" E A DISTANCE OF 89.51 FEET; THENCE S 15029'38" E A DISTANCE OF 80.89 FEET; THENCE S 1300703" E A DISTANCE OF 94.09 FEET; THENCE S 09036'32" E A DISTANCE OF 101.22 FEET; PAGE 6 OF 10 THENCE S 15016'41" E A DISTANCE OF 84.62 FEET; THENCE S 15019'24" E A DISTANCE OF 106.87 FEET; THENCE S 20005'54" E A DISTANCE OF 112.59 FEET; THENCE S 15018'28" E A DISTANCE OF 158.31 FEET; THENCE S 60052'00" E A DISTANCE OF 38.92 FEET; THENCE N 85034'32" E A DISTANCE OF 48.31 FEET; THENCE N 88043'45" E A DISTANCE OF 69.25 FEET; THENCE N 86028'05" E A DISTANCE OF 161.06 FEET; THENCE N 89049'54" E A DISTANCE OF 117.91 FEET; THENCE N 88027'15" E A DISTANCE OF 65.99 FEET; THENCE N 80016'39" E A DISTANCE OF 86.44 FEET; THENCE S 89049'01" E A DISTANCE OF 100.11 FEET; THENCE N 23020'43" E A DISTANCE OF 51.15 FEET; THENCE N 00054'15" E A DISTANCE OF 64.40 FEET; THENCE N 02023'40" E A DISTANCE OF 71.97 FEET; THENCE N 00017'52" E A DISTANCE OF 106.74 FEET; THENCE N 03013' 18" E A DISTANCE OF 88.35 FEET; THENCE N 05054'02" E A DISTANCE OF 73.81 FEET; THENCE N 12020'29" E A DISTANCE OF 41.62 FEET; THENCE N 87050'05" E A DISTANCE OF 74.00 FEET; THENCE S 89033'00" E A DISTANCE OF 128.56 FEET; THENCE S 89046'09" E A DISTANCE OF 156.86 FEET; THENCE S 89058'44" E A DISTANCE OF 94.37 FEET; THENCE S 88025' 15" E A DISTANCE OF 70.54 FEET; THENCE N 87053'23" E A DISTANCE OF 90.98 FEET; THENCE S 87018'08" E A DISTANCE OF 99.58 FEET; THENCE S 87001'27" E A DISTANCE OF 117.85 FEET; THENCE N 88012'02" E A DISTANCE OF 74.92 FEET; THENCE S 89006'49" E A DISTANCE OF 107.45 FEET; THENCE N 88002'36" E A DISTANCE OF 73.99 FEET; THENCE N 89030' 11" E A DISTANCE OF 78.24 FEET; THENCE S 87046'14" E A DISTANCE OF 88.31 FEET; THENCE S 88027'45" E A DISTANCE OF 119.80 FEET; THENCE N 89052'48" E A DISTANCE OF 87.64 FEET; THENCE S 87000'19" E A DISTANCE OF 136.22 FEET; THENCE S 89017'43" E A DISTANCE OF 114.17 FEET; THENCE N 86038'43" E A DISTANCE OF 74.24 FEET; THENCE S 85039'56" E A DISTANCE OF 101.82 FEET; THENCE N 88023'40" E A DISTANCE OF 108.51 FEET; THENCE S 86013'28" E A DISTANCE OF 113.86 FEET; THENCE N 03026'05" E A DISTANCE OF 117.49 FEET; THENCE N 07011'23" E A DISTANCE OF 131.68 FEET; THENCE N 0002724" E A DISTANCE OF 90.39 FEET; THENCE N 06047'l 1" E A DISTANCE OF 134.47 FEET; THENCE N 06048'32" E A DISTANCE OF 127.67 FEET; THENCE N 01030'42" E A DISTANCE OF 132.45 FEET; THENCE N 04031'31" E A DISTANCE OF 249.35 FEET; THENCE N 05049'46" E A DISTANCE OF 101.94 FEET; THENCE N 0000714" W A DISTANCE OF 96.31 FEET; THENCE N 04042'00" E A DISTANCE OF 72.04 FEET; THENCE N 04008'35" E A DISTANCE OF 56.72 FEET; PAGE 7OF10 THENCE S 85027'49" E A DISTANCE OF 1526.33 FEET; THENCE S 02059'04" W A DISTANCE OF 277.87 FEET; THENCE S 34037'41" E A DISTANCE OF 518.47 FEET; THENCE S 02059'04" W A DISTANCE OF 403.17 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 460.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34034'55" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 277.64 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 665.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 67032' 13" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 783.86 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 260.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 49058'25" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 226.77 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 340.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 36014'50" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 215.10 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 190.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 108026' 10" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 359.59 FEET; THENCE S 86013'22" E A DISTANCE OF 167.80 FEET; THENCE S 06020'53" E A DISTANCE OF 137.20 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 500.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 31016,32" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 272.93 FEET; THENCE S 37037'25" E A DISTANCE OF 579.77 FEET; THENCE S 01044'53" E A DISTANCE OF 577.31 FEET; THENCE S 88015'07" W A DISTANCE OF 48.28 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 64009'06" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 516.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 81007'38" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 730.62 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 60.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 68006,151, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 71.32 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 700.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 22030' 17" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 274.95 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 760.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 24032'39" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 325.56 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 540.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 31055'44" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 300.92 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 60.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 45002,02" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 47.16 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 230.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 56007'22" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 225.29 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 260.00 FEET; PAGE 8OF10 THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3505730" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 163.17 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 211.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 33046'05" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 124.36 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 80.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 52023'49" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 73.16 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 123.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 118050'16" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 255.12 FEET; THENCE N 87035'47" W A DISTANCE OF 381.80 FEET; THENCE S 00011' 17" W A DISTANCE OF 874.65 FEET; THENCE N 68018'43" W A DISTANCE OF 692.71 FEET; THENCE S 00051'34" E A DISTANCE OF 9.00 FEET; THENCE N 64041'55" W A DISTANCE OF 131.83 FEET; THENCE N 59029'55" W A DISTANCE OF 86.06 FEET; THENCE N 40021'24" W A DISTANCE OF 44.68 FEET; THENCE N 25053'08" W A DISTANCE OF 47.93 FEET; THENCE N 14057'50" W A DISTANCE OF 56.29 FEET; THENCE N 09048'35" W A DISTANCE OF 60.83 FEET; THENCE N 15008'34" W A DISTANCE OF 60.04 FEET; THENCE N 66052' 10" W A DISTANCE OF 36.81 FEET; THENCE N 73002'21" W A DISTANCE OF 78.55 FEET; THENCE N 73034'45" W A DISTANCE OF 113.59 FEET; THENCE N 72012'l3" W A DISTANCE OF 91.38 FEET; THENCE N 70038'37" W A DISTANCE OF 89.13 FEET; THENCE N 72006'41" W A DISTANCE OF 470.03 FEET; THENCE N 71032'50" W A DISTANCE OF 260.97 FEET; THENCE N 71055'00" W A DISTANCE OF 166.77 FEET; THENCE N 71 ° 18'03" W A DISTANCE OF 117.15 FEET; THENCE N 72017'23" W A DISTANCE OF 97.34 FEET; THENCE N 71015'41" W A DISTANCE OF 119.33 FEET; THENCE N 72029'30" W A DISTANCE OF 79.23 FEET; THENCE N 71022'03" W A DISTANCE OF 90.70 FEET; THENCE N 71025'45" W A DISTANCE OF 102.31 FEET; THENCE N 72051'34" W A DISTANCE OF 92.34 FEET; THENCE N 74021'09" W A DISTANCE OF 124.36 FEET; THENCE N 59048'05" W A DISTANCE OF 85.42 FEET; THENCE N 36020'36" W A DISTANCE OF 34.69 FEET; THENCE S 78001'36" W A DISTANCE OF 63.16 FEET; THENCE S 00013'07" W A DISTANCE OF 84.04 FEET; THENCE S 00025'18" E A DISTANCE OF 51.71 FEET; THENCE S 00018'38" W A DISTANCE OF 90.67 FEET; THENCE S 01031'06" W A DISTANCE OF 65.76 FEET; THENCE S 00019'38" W A DISTANCE OF 103.03 FEET; THENCE S 0000614" W A DISTANCE OF 92.33 FEET; THENCE S 00030'33" W A DISTANCE OF 213.24 FEET; THENCE S 39039'17" W A DISTANCE OF 14.24 FEET; THENCE S 8903T11" W A DISTANCE OF 2490.10 FEET; THENCE N 01021'28" E A DISTANCE OF 28.73 FEET; PAGE 9OF10 THENCE S 89028' 16" W A DISTANCE OF 2438.92 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. CONTAINING A TOTAL AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 997.45 ACRES. REFERENCE ABB DRAWING #12349-SD PAGE 10 OF 10 EXHIBIT C 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 89°34'07" 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 90000'00" W A DISTANCE OF 757.89 FEET; THENCE S 85°23'28" 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 449I' 11" W A DISTANCE OF 52.66 FEET; THENCE N 24' 11' 19" W A DISTANCE OF 44.76 FEET; THENCE N 08°43'43" W A DISTANCE OF 29.46 FEET; THENCE N 02°36'05" W A DISTANCE OF 530.00 FEET; THENCE N 14°26'23" E A DISTANCE OF 69.98 FEET; THENCE N 37°52'22" E A DISTANCE OF 42.57 FEET; THENCE N 44°45'04" E A DISTANCE OF 62.56 FEET; THENCE N 37053' 15" EA DISTANCE OF 15.92 FEET; THENCE N 09°00'32" EA DISTANCE OF 11.83 FEET;THENCE N 00006'35" W A DISTANCE OF 453.60 FEET; THENCE N 19°25'06" W A DISTANCE OF 13.09 FEET; THENCE N 59053'41" W A DISTANCE OF 33.08 FEET; THENCE N 00'26'12" 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 13°54'05" 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 76005'55" E A DISTANCE OF 210.47 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS N 75002'51" 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 EASTING 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 01 °03'04" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 51.37 FEET; THENCE N 13°54'05" W A DISTANCE OF 538.79 FEET; THENCE N 13°53'49" W A DISTANCE OF 560.43 FEET; THENCE N 76006'11" E A DISTANCE OF 981.28 FEET; THENCE S 15°22'35" E A DISTANCE OF 393.70 FEET; THENCE S 12044'47" E A DISTANCE OF 154.92 FEET; THENCE S 15°12'49" 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 12°54'26" E A DISTANCE OF 140.03 FEET; THENCE S 20°27'43" W A DISTANCE OF 41.00 FEET; THENCE S 66°58'09" 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 84°46'57" 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 84020'38" W A DISTANCE OF 108.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. CONTAINING A TOTAL AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 27.93 ACRES. REF. ABB DWG# 12442-SD Page 1 of 1 L�2it D to SRA Document � � O co v v V NFa� 0 ro E 01 E w Oil Well Rd m 0 Subject o Site Golden Gate Blvd N NTS 11141w 950 Encore Way BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA Naples, FL 34110 HOLE MONTES Phone: (239) 254-2000 LOCATION MAP ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS 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 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA (PL-20190001837) (Polio#s: 00354520003, 00354560005, 00354840000 & 00354880002) and legal described in Exhibit A attached hereto, The property described herein is the subject of an application for the Bellmar Village SRA, We hereby designate PATRICK L. UTTER, legal representative thereof, as the legal representatives of the property and as such, these individuals are 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: 1. 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 SRA 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 Bellmar 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 Bellmar Village SRA development must be consistent with those terms and conditions, 51 So long as this covenant is in force, Collier County can, upon the discovery of noncompliance with the terms, safeguards, and conditions of the Bellmar 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 Bellmar Village SRA and the County may stop ongoing construction activity until the project is brought into compliance with all terms, conditions and safeguar slothe B h a Illage SRA, . Patrick tier, ice President Collier Land Holdings, Ltd, By Collier Enterprises, Inc,, Its general manager STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY Or COLLIER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by means of o physical presence or o online notarization this t5,T- day of (Dcsn)$el-- , 2020, by PATRICIC L, UT —TER. VICE PRESIDENT Such person(s) Notary Public must check applicable box: AAre personally lauown to me o Has produced a current driver's license Aa "�o Valerie L Pike ❑ Has produced as identification i Commission N HH 32134 r Commission Expires 08-17.2024 \ �.° Bonded Through • Cyn motary Notary Signature: v - (J� F �° Florida • Notary Public �t 7400 Trail Blvd., Suite 200 iiii� GNOLI Naples, Fl. 34108 ����0� PH: (239) 597.3111 011:11 ARBER & www.ABBINC.com �■�:06 HIPBRUNDAGE, INC. • F :_ • 1 �,3`LET,Y'-7?L0.1&r�S�.Y•a.�HI:�:TN�r- 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 AFORESAID SECTION 3; THENCE N 13054'05" W ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 3 A DISTANCE OF 1850.80 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE N 76005'55" E A DISTANCE OF 221.22 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE S 85059'40" E A DISTANCE OF 167.52 FEET.' THENCE S 5404700" E A DISTANCE OF 106,93 FEET; THENCE S 3501622" E A DISTANCE OF 158.78 FEET; THENCE S 34*01'14" E A DISTANCE OF 140.68 FEET; THENCE S 5405G59" W A DISTANCE OF 260.23 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS N 60025 21" E AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2800.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1003T46" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 515.39 FEET. CONTAINING A TOTAL AREA OF APPROXIs4ATELY 2.29 ACRES. REFERENCE ABB DRAWING #12349SD PAGE 2 OF 10 •���trl 7400 Trail Blvd., Sul1e 200 MOMP GNOLI Naples, FL 34108 ������ PH: )239) 597.3111 ::� :I ARBER & ��..B�` www.ABBINC.com RUNDAGE, INC. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF BELLMAR SRA TRACT 2 ALL THAT PART OF SECTIONS 2, 3, 10 AND 11, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF AFORESAID SECTION 10; THENCE N 82033'02" E A DISTANCE OF 322.19 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE N 00°21'13" E A DISTANCE OF 169.45 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2800.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAE) CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1901654" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 94228 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 3000.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 30P10'40" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 1580.10 FEET; THENCE S 89019'34" E A DISTANCE OF 172.73 FEET, THENCE N 89°4337" E A DISTANCE OF 154.09 FEET; THENCE S 89°l9'11" E A DISTANCE OF 140.65 FEET; THENCE N 89'25'04" E A DISTANCE OF I44.18 FEET; THENCE S 89030'11" E A DISTANCE OF 189.08 FEET; THENCE N 88°52'03" E A DISTANCE OF 252.46 FEET; THENCE N 890308" E A DISTANCE OF 226.20 FEET; THENCE S 89°46'36" E A DISTANCE OF 167.61 FEET; THENCE N 86°1 PIW E A DISTANCE OF 202.98 FEET; THENCE S 89018'32" E A DISTANCE OF 194.50 FEET; THENCE N 84°55'17" E A DISTANCE OF 152.81 FEET; THENCE S 79°42'09" E A DISTANCE OF 192.26 FEET; THENCE S 34°1T12" E A DISTANCE OF 110.57 FEET; THENCE S 40"41'18" E A DISTANCE OF 164.41 FEET; THENCE S 58001'04" E A DISTANCE OF 141.23 FEET; THENCE S 84°3853" E A DISTANCE OF 208.75 FEET; THENCE N 72°2942" E A DISTANCE OF 142.93 FEET; THENCE N 62°58'40" E A DISTANCE OF 174.43 FEET; THENCE N 42°0620" E A DISTANCE OF 124.27 FEET; THENCE N 42°51'18" E A DISTANCE OF 137.02 FEET; THENCE N 81°5410" E A DISTANCE OF 68.38 FEET; THENCE N 8902954" E A DISTANCE OF 253.03 FEET; THENCE S 89°43'14" E A DISTANCE OF 159.63 FEET; THENCE S 87°409" E A DISTANCE OF 214.95 FEET, THENCE S 79°46 W' E A DISTANCE OF 131.30 FEET; THENCE S 86°4l'26" E A DISTANCE OF 139.13 FEET; PAGE 3 OF 10 THENCE N 8705717" E A DISTANCE OF 178.53 FEET; THENCE S 84024'04" E A DISTANCE OF 111.98 FEET; THENCE N 88012'24" E A DISTANCE OF 123.18 FEET; THENCE S 76048'56" E A DISTANCE OF 102.97 FEET; THENCE S 83028'19" E A DISTANCE OF 160.65 FEET; THENCE N 83040' 14" E A DISTANCE OF 166.34 FEET; THENCE S 85046'00" E A DISTANCE OF 161.03 FEET; THENCE S 86047'32" E A DISTANCE OF 166.35 FEET; THENCE S 86027'23" E A DISTANCE OF 171.83 FEET; THENCE S 84055'04" E A DISTANCE OF 147.39 FEET; THENCE S 89006'30" E A DISTANCE OF 203.14 FEET; THENCE N 77059'16" E A DISTANCE OF 122.56 FEET; THENCE N 07044'41" E A DISTANCE OF 112.21 FEET; THENCE N 62041'50" E A DISTANCE OF 68.17 FEET; THENCE S 86052'38" E A DISTANCE OF 114.46 FEET; THENCE S 84042'21" E A DISTANCE OF 220.39 FEET; THENCE S 30001'03" E A DISTANCE OF 76.84 FEET; THENCE S 11030'06" E A DISTANCE OF 99.31 FEET; THENCE S 13005'23" E A DISTANCE OF 86.14 FEET; THENCE N 89014'45" E A DISTANCE OF 147.05 FEET; THENCE N 88010'06" E A DISTANCE OF 141.00 FEET; THENCE N 88032'42" E A DISTANCE OF 201.14 FEET; THENCE N 84046'51" E A DISTANCE OF 177.14 FEET; THENCE N 84015' 16" E A DISTANCE OF 63.07 FEET; THENCE N 83033'12" E A DISTANCE OF 151.81 FEET; THENCE N 83019'06" E A DISTANCE OF 129.94 FEET; THENCE N 83006'44" E A DISTANCE OF 150.95 FEET; THENCE N 77039'02" E A DISTANCE OF 107.38 FEET; THENCE N 67059'19" E A DISTANCE OF 121.22 FEET; THENCE N 31 °02'49" E A DISTANCE OF 97.77 FEET; THENCE N 01025'31" E A DISTANCE OF 90.48 FEET; THENCE N 0003T58" E A DISTANCE OF 60.97 FEET; THENCE N 59013'49" W A DISTANCE OF 66.55 FEET; THENCE N 71053'15" W A DISTANCE OF 177.60 FEET; THENCE N 70031'29" W A DISTANCE OF 158.64 FEET; THENCE N 71025'24" W A DISTANCE OF 251.25 FEET; THENCE N 72031'57" W A DISTANCE OF 214.19 FEET; THENCE N 7004551" W A DISTANCE OF 199.98 FEET; THENCE N 72013'00" W A DISTANCE OF 162.93 FEET; THENCE N 7201712" W A DISTANCE OF 198.23 FEET; THENCE N 53005'35" W A DISTANCE OF 39.90 FEET; THENCE N 34047'10" W A DISTANCE OF 143.37 FEET; THENCE N 83048'47" W A DISTANCE OF 153.76 FEET; THENCE N 86008'27" W A DISTANCE OF 139.69 FEET; THENCE N 85054'58" W A DISTANCE OF 130.89 FEET; THENCE S 89038'06" W A DISTANCE OF 160.08 FEET; THENCE S 10046'32" W A DISTANCE OF 201.47 FEET; THENCE S 11 °08'56" W A DISTANCE OF 181.72 FEET; THENCE S 10052'50" W A DISTANCE OF 163.41 FEET; THENCE N 86007'31" W A DISTANCE OF 193.40 FEET; THENCE N 87013'41" W A DISTANCE OF 152.57 FEET; PAGE 4 OF 10 THENCE N 85010'55" W A DISTANCE OF 158.03 FEET; THENCE N 86018'39" W A DISTANCE OF 210.18 FEET; THENCE N 84050'09" W A DISTANCE OF 198.86 FEET; THENCE N 03033'34" W A DISTANCE OF 135.10 FEET; THENCE N 86046' 12" W A DISTANCE OF 160.53 FEET; THENCE N 89028'44" W A DISTANCE OF 131.94 FEET; THENCE N 89028' 17" W A DISTANCE OF 150.09 FEET; THENCE N 89041' 12" W A DISTANCE OF 204.86 FEET; THENCE N 89009'31" W A DISTANCE OF 188.75 FEET; THENCE S 89051'22" W A DISTANCE OF 183.13 FEET; THENCE N 88054'05" W A DISTANCE OF 156.52 FEET; THENCE N 89027'01" W A DISTANCE OF 155.84 FEET; THENCE S 60022'50" W A DISTANCE OF 93.40 FEET; THENCE S 79053'40" W A DISTANCE OF 51.15 FEET; THENCE N 89034' 18" W A DISTANCE OF 174.79 FEET; THENCE S 89013'48" W A DISTANCE OF 174.48 FEET; THENCE N 89036'26" W A DISTANCE OF 274.98 FEET; THENCE S 88023'06" W A DISTANCE OF 230.81 FEET; THENCE N 8900716" W A DISTANCE OF 197.92 FEET; THENCE S 89059'43" W A DISTANCE OF 179.15 FEET; THENCE S 8904552" W A DISTANCE OF 228.41 FEET; THENCE S 89048'26" W A DISTANCE OF 196.96 FEET; THENCE S 89032'53" W A DISTANCE OF 202.81 FEET; THENCE S 89045'41" W A DISTANCE OF 199.57 FEET; THENCE S 88034'32" W A DISTANCE OF 186.13 FEET; THENCE N 31019' 14" W A DISTANCE OF 85.45 FEET; THENCE N 03004'23" W A DISTANCE OF 121.05 FEET; THENCE N 00046'59" W A DISTANCE OF 145.69 FEET; THENCE N 05049'37" E A DISTANCE OF 91.89 FEET; THENCE N 00018'49" W A DISTANCE OF 167,92 FEET; THENCE N 04053'30" W A DISTANCE OF 196.81 FEET; THENCE N 260070 W A DISTANCE OF 113.13 FEET; THENCE N 61014'43" W A DISTANCE OF 89.70 FEET; THENCE N 73052'09" W A DISTANCE OF 127.59 FEET; THENCE S 72048'00" W A DISTANCE OF 152.64 FEET; THENCE S 41002'30" W A DISTANCE OF 126.40 FEET; THENCE S 19040'22" W A DISTANCE OF 147.98 FEET; THENCE S 16045'24" W A DISTANCE OF 105.52 FEET; THENCE S 22034'50" W A DISTANCE OF 76.94 FEET; THENCE S 49004'49" W A DISTANCE OF 72.36 FEET; THENCE S 76045'08" W A DISTANCE OF 99.81 FEET; THENCE S 74059'41" W A DISTANCE OF 149.27 FEET; THENCE S 77023'34" W A DISTANCE OF 181.96 FEET; THENCE S 62042'20" W A DISTANCE OF 176.55 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 64048'51" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 3000.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09024'00" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 492.19 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2800.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02057'21" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 144.45 FEET; PAGE 5OF10 THENCE N 5405659" E A DISTANCE OF 262.18 FEET; THENCE N 61037'00" E A DISTANCE OF 153.45 FEET; THENCE N 67043'30" E A DISTANCE OF 109.12 FEET; THENCE N 06012'36" W A DISTANCE OF 104.06 FEET; THENCE N 67043'30" E A DISTANCE OF 26.02 FEET; THENCE N 53045'03" E A DISTANCE OF 28.88 FEET; THENCE S 06012'36" E A DISTANCE OF 111.32 FEET; THENCE N 67043'30" E A DISTANCE OF 15.04 FEET; THENCE N 53045'03" E A DISTANCE OF 228.37 FEET; THENCE N 47059'02" E A DISTANCE OF 168.56 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 03001'58" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 350.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06002,44" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 36.93 FEET; THENCE S 86059'14" W A DISTANCE OF 119.63 FEET; THENCE N 47059'02" E A DISTANCE OF 165.50 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS N 10003'42" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 550.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19014'36" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 184.72 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 975.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02036'30" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 44.39 FEET; THENCE N 41059' 10" E A DISTANCE OF 2.10 FEET; THENCE N 34021'56" E A DISTANCE OF 292.40 FEET; THENCE N 31 ° 18'43" E A DISTANCE OF 219.90 FEET; THENCE N 33026'21" E A DISTANCE OF 155.64 FEET; THENCE N 28029'33" E A DISTANCE OF 167.91 FEET; THENCE N 27037'30" E A DISTANCE OF 141.19 FEET; THENCE N 21036' 13" E A DISTANCE OF 132.89 FEET; THENCE N 06057'21" W A DISTANCE OF 110.95 FEET; THENCE N 11056'43" W A DISTANCE OF 98.96 FEET; THENCE N 00054' 13" W A DISTANCE OF 17.00 FEET; THENCE N 18032'23" E A DISTANCE OF 31.25 FEET; THENCE N 21005'05" E A DISTANCE OF 53.52 FEET; THENCE N 22013'59" E A DISTANCE OF 172.55 FEET; THENCE S 87041'29" E A DISTANCE OF 97.80 FEET; THENCE N 88025'28" E A DISTANCE OF 221.06 FEET; THENCE S 80033'54" E A DISTANCE OF 84.21 FEET; THENCE N 81009'20" E A DISTANCE OF 251.18 FEET; THENCE N 84037' 12" E A DISTANCE OF 116.76 FEET; THENCE S 79031'39" E A DISTANCE OF 92.73 FEET; THENCE S 76013'32" E A DISTANCE OF 44.55 FEET; THENCE S 82039'06" E A DISTANCE OF 44.01 FEET; THENCE N 80011'40" E A DISTANCE OF 251.15 FEET; THENCE S 84003'03" E A DISTANCE OF 502.15 FEET; THENCE S 49052'58" E A DISTANCE OF 50.53 FEET; THENCE S 19039'38" E A DISTANCE OF 89.51 FEET; THENCE S 15029'38" E A DISTANCE OF 80.89 FEET; THENCE S 1300703" E A DISTANCE OF 94.09 FEET; THENCE S 09036'32" E A DISTANCE OF 101.22 FEET; PAGE 6 OF 10 THENCE S 15016'41" E A DISTANCE OF 84.62 FEET; THENCE S 15019'24" E A DISTANCE OF 106.87 FEET; THENCE S 20005'54" E A DISTANCE OF 112.59 FEET; THENCE S 15018'28" E A DISTANCE OF 158.31 FEET; THENCE S 60052'00" E A DISTANCE OF 38.92 FEET; THENCE N 85034'32" E A DISTANCE OF 48.31 FEET; THENCE N 88043'45" E A DISTANCE OF 69.25 FEET; THENCE N 86028'05" E A DISTANCE OF 161.06 FEET; THENCE N 89049'54" E A DISTANCE OF 117.91 FEET; THENCE N 88027' 15" E A DISTANCE OF 65.99 FEET; THENCE N 80016'39" E A DISTANCE OF 86.44 FEET; THENCE S 89049'01" E A DISTANCE OF 100.11 FEET; THENCE N 23020'43" E A DISTANCE OF 51.15 FEET; THENCE N 00054' 15" E A DISTANCE OF 64.40 FEET; THENCE N 02023'40" E A DISTANCE OF 71.97 FEET; THENCE N 0001 T52" E A DISTANCE OF 106.74 FEET; THENCE N 03013' 18" E A DISTANCE OF 88.35 FEET; THENCE N 05054'02" E A DISTANCE OF 73.81 FEET; THENCE N 12020'29" E A DISTANCE OF 41.62 FEET; THENCE N 87050'05" E A DISTANCE OF 74.00 FEET; THENCE S 89033'00" E A DISTANCE OF 128.56 FEET; THENCE S 89046'09" E A DISTANCE OF 156.86 FEET; THENCE S 89058'44" E A DISTANCE OF 94.37 FEET; THENCE S 8 8025'15" E A DISTANCE OF 70.54 FEET; THENCE N 87053'23" E A DISTANCE OF 90.98 FEET; THENCE S 87018'08" E A DISTANCE OF 99.58 FEET; THENCE S 87001'27" E A DISTANCE OF 117.85 FEET; THENCE N 88012'02" E A DISTANCE OF 74.92 FEET; THENCE S 89006'49" E A DISTANCE OF 107.45 FEET; THENCE N 88002'36" E A DISTANCE OF 73.99 FEET; THENCE N 89030'11" E A DISTANCE OF 78.24 FEET; THENCE S 87046'14" E A DISTANCE OF 88.31 FEET; THENCE S 88027'45" E A DISTANCE OF 119.80 FEET; THENCE N 8905248" E A DISTANCE OF 87.64 FEET; THENCE S 87000' 19" E A DISTANCE OF 136.22 FEET; THENCE S 89017'43" E A DISTANCE OF 114.17 FEET; THENCE N 86038'43" E A DISTANCE OF 74.24 FEET; THENCE S 85039'56" E A DISTANCE OF 101.82 FEET; THENCE N 88023'40" E A DISTANCE OF 108.51 FEET; THENCE S 86013'28" E A DISTANCE OF 113.86 FEET; THENCE N 03026'05" E A DISTANCE OF 117.49 FEET; THENCE N 07011'23" E A DISTANCE OF 131.68 FEET; THENCE N 0002724" E A DISTANCE OF 90.39 FEET; THENCE N 06047' 11" E A DISTANCE OF 134.47 FEET; THENCE N 06048'32" E A DISTANCE OF 127.67 FEET; THENCE N 01030'42" E A DISTANCE OF 132.45 FEET; THENCE N 04031'31" E A DISTANCE OF 249.35 FEET; THENCE N 05049'46" E A DISTANCE OF 101.94 FEET; THENCE N 00007'14" W A DISTANCE OF 96.31 FEET; THENCE N 04042'00" E A DISTANCE OF 72.04 FEET; THENCE N 04008'35" E A DISTANCE OF 56.72 FEET; PAGE 7 OF 10 THENCE S 85027'49" E A DISTANCE OF 1526.33 FEET; THENCE S 02°59'04" W A DISTANCE OF 277.87 FEET; THENCE S 34037'41" E A DISTANCE OF 518.47 FEET; THENCE S 02059'04" W A DISTANCE OF 403.17 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 460.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34034'55" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 277.64 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 665.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 67032' 13" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 783.86 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 260.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 49058'25" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 226.77 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 340.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 36014,50" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 215.10 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 190.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 108026' 10" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 359.59 FEET; THENCE S 86013'22" E A DISTANCE OF 167.80 FEET; THENCE S 06020'53" E A DISTANCE OF 137.20 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 500.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3101032" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 272.93 FEET; THENCE S 37037'25" E A DISTANCE OF 579.77 FEET; THENCE S 01044'53" E A DISTANCE OF 577.31 FEET; THENCE S 88015'07" W A DISTANCE OF 48.28 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 64009'06" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 516.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 81007'38" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 730.62 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 60.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 68006' 15" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 71.32 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 700.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 22030'17" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 274.95 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 760.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 24032'39" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 325.56 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 540.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 31055'44" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 300.92 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 60.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 45002,02" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 47.16 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 230.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 56007'22" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 225.29 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 260.00 FEET; PAGE 8 OF 10 THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 35057-30" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 163.17 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 211.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 33046'05" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 124.36 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 80.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 52023'49" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 73.16 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 123.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 118050' 16" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 255.12 FEET; THENCE N 87035'47" W A DISTANCE OF 381.80 FEET; THENCE S 00011' 17" W A DISTANCE OF 874.65 FEET; THENCE N 68018'43" W A DISTANCE OF 692.71 FEET; THENCE S 00051'34" E A DISTANCE OF 9.00 FEET; THENCE N 64041'55" W A DISTANCE OF 131.83 FEET; THENCE N 59029'55" W A DISTANCE OF 86.06 FEET; THENCE N 40021'24" W A DISTANCE OF 44.68 FEET; THENCE N 25053'08" W A DISTANCE OF 47.93 FEET; THENCE N 14057'50" W A DISTANCE OF 56.29 FEET; THENCE N 09048'35" W A DISTANCE OF 60.83 FEET; THENCE N 15008'34" W A DISTANCE OF 60.04 FEET; THENCE N 66052' 10" W A DISTANCE OF 36.81 FEET; THENCE N 73002'21" W A DISTANCE OF 78.55 FEET; THENCE N 73034'45" W A DISTANCE OF 113.59 FEET; THENCE N 72012'13" W A DISTANCE OF 91.38 FEET; THENCE N 70038'37" W A DISTANCE OF 89.13 FEET; THENCE N 72006'41" W A DISTANCE OF 470.03 FEET; THENCE N 71032'50" W A DISTANCE OF 260.97 FEET; THENCE N 71055'00" W A DISTANCE OF 166.77 FEET; THENCE N 71018'03" W A DISTANCE OF 117.15 FEET; THENCE N 72017'23" W A DISTANCE OF 97.34 FEET; THENCE N 71015'41" W A DISTANCE OF 119.33 FEET; THENCE N 72029'30" W A DISTANCE OF 79.23 FEET; THENCE N 71022'03" W A DISTANCE OF 90.70 FEET; THENCE N 71025'45" W A DISTANCE OF 102.31 FEET; THENCE N 72051'34" W A DISTANCE OF 92.34 FEET; THENCE N 74021'09" W A DISTANCE OF 124.36 FEET; THENCE N 59048'05" W A DISTANCE OF 85.42 FEET; THENCE N 36020'36" W A DISTANCE OF 34.69 FEET; THENCE S 78001'36" W A DISTANCE OF 63.16 FEET; THENCE S 00013'07" W A DISTANCE OF 84.04 FEET; THENCE S 00025' 18" E A DISTANCE OF 51.71 FEET; THENCE S 00018'38" W A DISTANCE OF 90.67 FEET; THENCE S 01031'06" W A DISTANCE OF 65.76 FEET; THENCE S 00019'38" W A DISTANCE OF 103.03 FEET; THENCE S 00006'14" W A DISTANCE OF 92.33 FEET; THENCE S 00030'33" W A DISTANCE OF 213.24 FEET; THENCE S 39039'17" W A DISTANCE OF 14.24 FEET; THENCE S 89033'11" W A DISTANCE OF 2490.10 FEET; THENCE N 01021'28" E A DISTANCE OF 28,73 FEET; PAGE 9OF10 THENCE S 89028' 16" W A DISTANCE OF 2438.92 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. CONTAINING A TOTAL AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 997.45 ACRES. REFERENCE ABB DRAWING 912349-SD PAGE 10 OF 10 EXIBIT F TO SRA DOCUMENT BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX ASSESSMENT Revised August 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. 18CEM3016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Introduction.........................................................................................................................1 2.0 NRI Assessment Methodology & Datasets.........................................................................1 2.1 Stewardship Overlay Designation............................................................... 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 ........................................................................................................ 6 E LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Spatial Datasets Used in the Bellmar Village NRI Assessment Model.................2 11 LIST OF EXHIBITS Page Exhibit 1. Project Location Ma E1-1 Exhibit 2. Aerial with Boundary .........................................................................................E2-1 Exhibit 3. Aerial with Stewardship Overlay.......................................................................E3-1 Exhibit 4. Aerial with FLUCFCS and Wetlands Map........................................................E4-1 Exhibit 5. Documented Listed Species Locations (2007-2009 and 2019-2020 Surveys).................................................................ES-1 Exhibit6. Soils Map...........................................................................................................E6-1 Exhibit 7. Stewardship Overlay Designation..................................................................I...E7-1 Exhibit8. Proximity Index.................................................................................................E8-1 Exhibit 9. Listed Species Habitat Index.............................................................................E9-1 Exhibit 10. Soils/Surface Water Index...............................................................................E10-1 { Exhibit 11. Land Use/Land Cover Index............................................................................El i l-1 Exhibit 12. Final NRI Assessment......................................................................................E12-1 Exhibit 13. Natural Resource Index Values.......................................................................E13-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Natural Resource Index (NRI) Assessment Report documents the environmental conditions and NRI scores within Bellmar Village SRA (Project) and demonstrates that Bellmar Village 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 SRA. • A summary of the refined and updated data incorporated into the Bellmar Village 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 Bellmar Village 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 SRA Designation Application involves the designation of 999.7t acres as the Bellmar Village SRA is located in Sections 2, 3, 10, and 11; Township 48 South; Range 28 East; Collier County (Exhibit 1). The location and extent of Bellmar Village is indicated on Exhibit 2. Bellmar Village 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. Bellmar Village 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 (Schinus terebinthifolia), non -forested uplands, forested uplands, and forested wetlands), all of which exhibit a high degree of disturbance. The acreage of agriculture and non -agriculture land 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 SRA 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 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 has been updated from the Baseline model. Table 1. Spatial Datasets Used in the Bellmar Village NRI Assessment Model Natural Resource Model Input GIS Dataset ! Source Date' Index Factors Stewardship Collier County Collier County Collier 2019 Overlay Stewardship Stewardship Areas County* Designation Areas Collier County Collier County Collier 2019 Stewardship Stewardship Areas County* Areas Proximity Conservation Collier Collier County 2019 Preserve Land Florida Managed FNAI 2019 Areas Florida Panther FWCC 2019 Telemetry Wading Bird FWCC 1999 Documented Rookeries Listed Species Listed Species Listed Species & Habitat Species Specific PAI 2020 Survey Results Habitat Type FLUCFCS PAI 2019 Soils/Surface Soils Soils for Lee, Collier USDA-NRCS 1990 Water and Hendry Counties 2 Table 1. (Continued) FNAI — Florida Natural Areas Inventory FWC — Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission USDA — United States Department of Agriculture NRCS — 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 part 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 groundtruthed data, the Stewardship Overlay digitized WRA boundaries were refined. The Bellmar Village SRA 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, groundtruthing by PAI in 2019 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 Bellmar Village SRA is presented in Exhibit 4. 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, and 2019-2020 were incorporated. A map of the updated listed species occurrences, listed species records, and Florida panther telemetry points is provided as Exhibit 5. 2.4 Soils/Surface Water The U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Services (USDA- NRCS) soils map for Bellmar Village 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 a Stewardship Sending Area (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 Bellmar Village 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 land cover dataset in the Bellmar Village NRI Assessment. 3.0 NRI ASSESSMENT The following section summarizes the results of the Bellmar Village 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. Most of the variation in the NRI Factor result between Bellmar Village and the Baseline are due to updated datasets. However, it is worth noting that while the Bellmar Village NRI Assessment was conducted for the proposed SRA boundary, the Baseline assessment was conducted for the entire RLSA area. This difference results in some minor variations due to the difference in scope between the two assessments and alignment of the model's one -acre grid cells. 3.1 Stewardship Overlay Designation In the assessment for Bellmar Village, there are no lands designated as FSA, HSA, WRA, or ACSC. Therefore, the entire SRA boundary received a score of 0 for this NRI Factor 4 (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 Bellmar Village assessment using SFWMD permitted boundaries. This adjustment accounts for the difference between the Bellmar Village and Baseline assessments. 3.2 Proximity For the Proximity Index, the Bellmar Village SRA boundary is within 300 feet of an HSA along portions of the eastern boundary. Cells that were within the 300 foot distance from the HSA scored 0.3, and 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 Bellmar Village had areas that score 0.4 for "other listed species habitat" and areas that received a score of 0 (Exhibit 9A). The areas which scored 0.4 had observations of listed species within habitats that are considered preferred or tolerated for that species. 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 raster 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 Bellmar Village assessment received scores ranging from 0 for non-hydric soils, to 0.3 for sand depression soils (Exhibit 10A). This scoring is supported by the Baseline assessment (Exhibit 1 OB). 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 Bellmar Village NRI Assessment. 3.6 Land Use/Land Cover In the Land Use/Land Cover Index Factor, the Bellmar Village assessment received scores of 0 to 0.4, as it contains FLUCFCS Code Groups 4 through 1 (Exhibit I IA). The majority of the Baseline assessment matches the assessment for Bellmar Village (Exhibit 11B). Differences between the two assessments are due to the use of updated and groundtruthed FLUCFCS mapping conducted by PAI in 2019. 3.7 Final Assessment Results The final model result is calculated by summing the raster cells for each of the NRI Factors. The Bellmar Village assessment demonstrates that no lands within the SRA boundary carry an NRI value greater than 1.2, with scores ranging from 0 to 1.1 (Exhibit 12.A). The majority of the Baseline model cells are in agreement with the Bellmar Village assessment (Exhibit 12B). Areas where scoring in the Bellmar Village 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 groundtruthed boundaries. The Bellmar Village NRI Assessment scores are presented graphically in Exhibit 12A and in table format in Exhibit 13. 4.0 NRI RESULTS SUMMARY The NRI Assessment for the proposed Bellmar Village SRA has been prepared with updated and refined datasets to reflect current conditions of the site. Comparisons between the updated assessment for Bellmar Village and the Baseline assessment indicate that the incorporation of updated and refined datasets have not had a significant change to the overall assessment scoring. Many of the index factors are still in agreement with the Baseline condition. The majority of changes are limited to the perimeter of the SRA boundary. This NRI Assessment for the Bellmar Village SRA indicates that no areas scored above a 1.2. Based on the results of this NRI Assessment, the Bellmar Village SRA satisfies the Suitability Criteria contained in Section 4,08.07 A.1. of the LDC. EXHIBIT 1 PROJECT LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT 2 AERIAL WITH BOUNDARY L Be.�inaa�vaurx ° F.L. U25,120 �i °a EXHIBIT 2. AERIAL WITH BOUNDARY ^"^•• °'^ 1ASSARELLA 6 R.C.P. l42n `2o BELLMAR VILLAGE _ & AssocixtTsk a EXHIBIT 3 AERIAL WITH STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY EXHIBIT 4 AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS MAP EXHIBIT 5 DOCUMENTED LISTED SPECIES LOCATIONS (2007-2009 AND 2019-2020 SURVEYS) I•ROJECT LOCATION V.W= BEIWAR VILUGE 2007 - 2009 LISTED SMIM SLIMY 2019 FWCC PARTNER TEIHIETRY • A AM9NCAN AWMATOR 20N L51ED $PECIEB $11RYEY • CRCA, CRESTED CARETAKE O AS, AMERICAR ALIIMATOR O MS. PARTNER SIGN ARE OBSERVATION • CRCA, CRESTED CIRACARA O WH. LITTLE BLUE 41M O ENCTAR. ENCYCLIA TEMPEWIS O REP. ROSEATE SPOOWU C EN RIG, EPREA'EAm RIWR A, O ENS, WGW ST. O WE. SANDMu CRANE 2020 L,ren sm., S-I $RAT, SNAIL KITE O CRCA. CRESTED CARALARA TCRE. TRo-MOR HERON A AA AMERICA. ALLIGATOR 0 TRBAL. TII.IANOSIA RLLRISIARA O TKYAS TILU DGIA FASGCLLAYA • TIL VTR. TRLYIMu UTAIWLALA O WB WOW STOM EXHIBIT S. DOCUMENTED LISTED SPECIES LOCATIONS (2007. 2009 AND W 19- 2020 SURVEYS) BELLMAR VILIAOE Rm A I., uie A, eKenert... ftPASSARELLA & ASSOCIATESY EXHIBIT 6 SOILS MAP PROJECT LOCATION 1 r 17! �oEnu a s �, zw..nwe..s.cem¢e r¢n pr{¢.buY¢¢¢�M¢nwW WIMIIIR WvsRa vnm.�¢w M.IW9M O.a4wlxic MM1 IIPMPv ¢¢0. 0 1Poo 4.000 Rsaa ee a¢.v.Piw ¢wui.w FY WMIBIT 6. SOILS MAP BELLMAR VILLAGE ftPASSARELLA & SSOCIATES4 EXHIBIT 7 STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY DESIGNATION INDEX PROD Wl LOCATION n � 0.6 oacwn.we mni•mexr ones o t.aoo s,oao F.t EXHIBIT 7B. BASELINE. SMWARDSNIP ..L wum PASSARELLA OVERLAY DESIGNATION R,—,yW N15/w BELLMAR VILLAGE 't & EXHIBIT 8 PROXINHTY INDEX EXHIBIT 9 LISTED SPECIES HABITAT INDEX Pao�u-r G� iC� LOCATION �{ u'�+ 'r R. 3 j a P Pbbm i VP}LE�ENU MICi_ nilxl NOxl 11 iiip � � U llll w`I! a 6 0.4 Deana ml. C T 1A00 T.OW Fwl t 9 "+ F.L. SM1W ' ,L j EXHH17P 9A. LISTED SPECIES HABPCAT INDEX •••••�•• •• lft PASSARELLA eELLMARVILLAGE KC.P. tvzsl wl & SSOCIATESI EXHIBIT 10 SOILS/SURFACE WATER INDEX EXHIBIT 11 LAND USE/LAND COVER INDEX EXHIBIT 12 NRI ASSESMENT EXHIBIT 13 SRA NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX VALUES BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX VALUES In�dez Value Percent of Total Open Acres Total, SSA Acres SRA Acrea' e 0.0 0.30 3.02 3.02 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.2 38.83 388.23 388.23 0.3 0.40 4.02 4.02 0.4 48.29 482.77 482.77 0.5 2.62 26.15 26.15 0.6 6.54 65.38 65.38 0.7 2.52 25.14 25.14 0.8 0.10 1.01 1.01 0.9 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.1 0.40 4.02 4.02 1.2 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 Totals 100.0 999.7 999.7 Lands > 12 0.0 0.0 0.0, . E13-1 EXH,8)-r 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 34109, for the purpose of designating the number of "Stewardship Sending Area" (SSA) Credits consumed in the designation of Bellmar 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 I. Applicant has applied for SRA designation for Bellmar Village and said SRA is approximately 999.74 acres in size. 2. The County has reviewed the SRA Designation Application, along with all support documentation and information required by Section 4.08.07 of the LDC and determined that SRA designation for the Bellmar 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. Page 1 of 16 H:@019Y2019051\SRA\I-25-20 I1 II. SRA Credit Agreement (1-25-2021) dace NOW THEREFORE in consideration 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 6,742 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 999.74 acres proposed in the Bellmar Village Development Document and summarized hereinafter. 2. Exhibit "A" is the legal description of the 999.74 acres that constitute the Bellmar Village SRA. 3. Attached hereto is Exhibit `B" the Bellmar Village Master Plan which depicts the land uses within the SRA. Also attached as Exhibit "C" is the Bellmar 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 Bellmar Village Master Plan. 4. Pursuant to Section 4.08.07.B.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 Bellmar Village. Applicant and Owner are transferring enough credits to allow development on 842.75 acres, since 156.99 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 6,742 Credits 6. Pursuant to Resolution No. (pending), the County has approved Bellmar Village as an SRA consisting of 999.74 acres and has approved the Bellmar 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. Page 2 of 16 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\1-25-2021\Bellmar SRA Credit Agreement (1-25-2021).docx 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: CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, Clerk Deputy APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: By: Assistant County Attorney WI�'Is(E� (Signature) q R (Print full) (SignTaaatture) QQro1 boor C� (Print full name) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Penny Taylor, Chairman COLLIER ENTERPRISES MANAGEMENT, INC. By. / �•'/' V h- Printed Name: Title: S ioe. \ue' 4� The foregoing Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement was executed before me this 2$ day of SAel Q4" , 2021, by means of PC physical presence or online notarization, by QACYai. L.U-ftL, as 5m Qcwia6or of Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. ,ya Valerie LPlks tar \Y s Commission MHHJ2131 Notary Public e Commission Expires 00-17-2024 Print Name 4tetr x +-•QJGt 5 BondedThroughCynaw— e Florida -Notary PuEllt Certificate No. IiN 32\3`A My Commissioner Expires iWb. Cl, a�1y Page 3 of 16 H12019\2019051\Sa \1-25-2021\Bellmar Sa Crt it Ag ment (1-25-2021).dwx WITNESS: (Signature) Va,QI� PIv� (Print full `name)D,.,�j xW'cvv�- (Signature) (Print full name) WITNESS: (Signature) li44t-le'� P (Print uIl name) �r CrL'tx-� (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 Flo ridaC ratioJnj it'�s%Gener�Pat r By: Printed Name: 'lCW l.• Title: V'iCtc nk�lOPrM' CDC LAND INVESTMENTS, LLC, A Florida limited liability company By: /'�V"- � 2 Printed Name: A1Y+cK-. i,—&18e- Title: VccE Q¢.ES.DeplT The foregoing Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement was executed before me this 2.6'day of 2021, by means of A physical presence or online notarization, by L.0 , as VICE QIt.ESao of Collier Enterprises, Inc., General Partner of Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. • Valerie L Plke ) `�-• commksion NNN3213a Notary Public n Comminian Ecpiras084r 202a Print Name Q�� Bonded Through-Cynancury ,I Florida -Notary Public Certificate No. VVIA 3Z134 My Commissioner Expires" %-I ) of q Page 4 of 16 H:\2019@019051VS \I-25-2021\Bellmm SR CrWit Agreement (1-25-2021).dccx STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement was executed before me this 2S day of a&Ajx" , 2021, by means of X physical presence or online notarization, by ?&xejL c. 4.Vae*-, as jLteykw. of CD Land Investments, LLC. 1159 ValerieLPNotary Public11 ,I�CommissloirHHJ21S< V CBonedThough-sOranot021 Prinf Name Bontletl Through � Cynanotary FloritleNolery Public Certificate No. OA 3z13�1 My Commissioner Expires - a- %l Page 5 of 16 H:12019\2019051\SMA1-25-2021\Bell.rSa Credit Ag onern(1-25-2021)d. EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF BELLMAR SRA TRACT I 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 AFORESAID SECTION 3; THENCE N 13054'05" W ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 3 A DISTANCE OF 1850.80 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE N 76005'55" E A DISTANCE OF 221.22 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE S 85059'40" E A DISTANCE OF 167.52 FEET; THENCE S 54047'00" E A DISTANCE OF 106.93 FEET; THENCE S 35016'22" E A DISTANCE OF 158.78 FEET; THENCE S 34001'14" E A DISTANCE OF 140.68 FEET; THENCE S 54056'59" W A DISTANCE OF 260.23 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS N 60025'21" E AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2800.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10032'46" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 515.39 FEET. CONTAINING A TOTAL AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 2.29 ACRES. REFERENCE ABB DRAWING #12349-SD Page 6 of 16 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\1-25-2021\Bellmar SRA Credit Agreement (1-25-2021).docx LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF BELLMAR SRA TRACT 2 ALL THAT PART OF SECTIONS 2, 3, 10 AND 11, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF AFORESAID SECTION 10; THENCE N 82033'02" E A DISTANCE OF 322.19 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE N 00021' 13" E A DISTANCE OF 169.45 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2800.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19016'54" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 942.28 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 3000.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 30010'40" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 1580.10 FEET; THENCE S 89019'34" E A DISTANCE OF 172.73 FEET; THENCE N 8904337" E A DISTANCE OF 154.09 FEET; THENCE S 89019'I1" E A DISTANCE OF 140.65 FEET; THENCE N 89025'04" E A DISTANCE OF 144.18 FEET; THENCE S 89030'11" E A DISTANCE OF 189.08 FEET; THENCE N 88052'03" E A DISTANCE OF 252.46 FEET; THENCE N 89030'58" E A DISTANCE OF 226.20 FEET; THENCE S 89046'36" E A DISTANCE OF 167.61 FEET; THENCE N 86011'10" E A DISTANCE OF 202.98 FEET; THENCE S 89018'32" E A DISTANCE OF 184.50 FEET; THENCE N 84055'17" E A DISTANCE OF 152.81 FEET; THENCE S 79042'09" E A DISTANCE OF 192.26 FEET; THENCE S 34012' 12" E A DISTANCE OF 110.57 FEET; THENCE S 40041' 18" E A DISTANCE OF 164.41 FEET; THENCE S 58001'04" E A DISTANCE OF 141.23 FEET; THENCE S 84038'53" E A DISTANCE OF 208.75 FEET; THENCE N 72029'42" E A DISTANCE OF 142.93 FEET; THENCE N 62058'40" E A DISTANCE OF 174.43 FEET; THENCE N 42006'20" E A DISTANCE OF 124.27 FEET; THENCE N 42051'l8" E A DISTANCE OF 137.02 FEET; THENCE N 81054'20" E A DISTANCE OF 68.38 FEET; THENCE N 89020'54" E A DISTANCE OF 253.03 FEET; THENCE S 89043' 14" E A DISTANCE OF 159.63 FEET; THENCE S 87044'09" E A DISTANCE OF 214.85 FEET; THENCE S 79046'04" E A DISTANCE OF 131.30 FEET; THENCE S 86041'26" E A DISTANCE OF 139.13 FEET; THENCE N 87057'17" E A DISTANCE OF 178.53 FEET; Page 7 of 16 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\1-25-2021\Bellmar SRA Credit Agreement (1-25-2021).docx THENCE S 84024'04" E A DISTANCE OF 111.98 FEET; THENCE N 88012'24" E A DISTANCE OF 123.18 FEET; THENCE S 76048'56" E A DISTANCE OF 102.97 FEET; THENCE S 83028'19" E A DISTANCE OF 160.65 FEET; THENCE N 83040'14" E A DISTANCE OF 166.34 FEET; THENCE S 85046'00" E A DISTANCE OF 161.03 FEET; THENCE S 8604732" E A DISTANCE OF 166.35 FEET; THENCE S 86"27'23" E A DISTANCE OF 171.83 FEET; THENCE S 84055'04" E A DISTANCE OF 147.39 FEET; THENCE S 89006'30" E A DISTANCE OF 203.14 FEET; THENCE N 77059' 16" E A DISTANCE OF 122.56 FEET; THENCE N 07044'41" E A DISTANCE OF 112.21 FEET; THENCE N 62041'50" E A DISTANCE OF 68.17 FEET; THENCE S 86052'38" E A DISTANCE OF 114.46 FEET; THENCE S 84042'21" E A DISTANCE OF 220.39 FEET; THENCE S 30001'03" E A DISTANCE OF 76.84 FEET; THENCE S 11030'06" E A DISTANCE OF 99.31 FEET; THENCE S 13005'23" E A DISTANCE OF 86.14 FEET; THENCE N 89014'45" E A DISTANCE OF 147.05 FEET; THENCE N 88010'06" E A DISTANCE OF 141.00 FEET; THENCE N 88032'42" E A DISTANCE OF 201.14 FEET; THENCE N 84046'51" E A DISTANCE OF 177.14 FEET; THENCE N 84015' 16" E A DISTANCE OF 63.07 FEET; THENCE N 83033'12" E A DISTANCE OF 151.81 FEET; THENCE N 83019'06" E A DISTANCE OF 129.94 FEET; THENCE N 83006'44" E A DISTANCE OF 150.95 FEET; THENCE N 77039'02" E A DISTANCE OF 107.38 FEET; THENCE N 67059'19" E A DISTANCE OF 121.22 FEET; THENCE N 31 °02'49" E A DISTANCE OF 97.77 FEET; THENCE N 01025'31" E A DISTANCE OF 90.48 FEET; THENCE N 00033'58" E A DISTANCE OF 60.97 FEET; THENCE N 59013'49" W A DISTANCE OF 66.55 FEET; THENCE N 71 °53' 15" W A DISTANCE OF 177.60 FEET; THENCE N 70031'29" W A DISTANCE OF 158.64 FEET; THENCE N 71 °25'24" W A DISTANCE OF 251.25 FEET; THENCE N 7203 V57" W A DISTANCE OF 214.19 FEET; THENCE N 70045'51" W A DISTANCE OF 199.98 FEET; THENCE N 72013'00" W A DISTANCE OF 162.93 FEET; THENCE N 72017' 12" W A DISTANCE OF 198.23 FEET; THENCE N 53005'35" W A DISTANCE OF 39.90 FEET; THENCE N 34047'10" W A DISTANCE OF 143.37 FEET; THENCE N 83048'47" W A DISTANCE OF 153.76 FEET; THENCE N 86008'27" W A DISTANCE OF 139.69 FEET; THENCE N 85054'58" W A DISTANCE OF 130.89 FEET; THENCE S 89038'06" W A DISTANCE OF 160.08 FEET; Page 8 of 16 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\1-25-2021\Bellmar SRA Credit Agreement (1-25-2021).docx THENCE S 10046'32" W A DISTANCE OF 201.47 FEET; THENCE S 11 °08'56" W A DISTANCE OF 181.72 FEET; THENCE S 10052'50" W A DISTANCE OF 163.41 FEET; THENCE N 86007'31" W A DISTANCE OF 193.40 FEET; THENCE N 87013'41" W A DISTANCE OF 152.57 FEET; THENCE N 85010'55" W A DISTANCE OF 158.03 FEET; THENCE N 86018'39" W A DISTANCE OF 210.18 FEET; THENCE N 84050'09" W A DISTANCE OF 198.86 FEET; THENCE N 03033'34" W A DISTANCE OF 135.10 FEET; THENCE N 86046' 12" W A DISTANCE OF 160.53 FEET; THENCE N 8902844" W A DISTANCE OF 131.94 FEET; THENCE N 89028' 17" W A DISTANCE OF 150.09 FEET; THENCE N 89041' 12" W A DISTANCE OF 204.86 FEET; THENCE N 89009'31" W A DISTANCE OF 188.75 FEET; THENCE S 89051'22" W A DISTANCE OF 183.13 FEET; THENCE N 88054'05" W A DISTANCE OF 156.52 FEET; THENCE N 89027'01" W A DISTANCE OF 155.84 FEET; THENCE S 60022'50" W A DISTANCE OF 93.40 FEET; THENCE S 79053'40" W A DISTANCE OF 51.15 FEET; THENCE N 89034' 18" W A DISTANCE OF 174.79 FEET; THENCE S 89013'48" W A DISTANCE OF 174.48 FEET; THENCE N 89036'26" W A DISTANCE OF 274.98 FEET; THENCE S 88023'06" W A DISTANCE OF 230.81 FEET; THENCE N 89007' 16" W A DISTANCE OF 197.92 FEET; THENCE S 89059'43" W A DISTANCE OF 179.15 FEET; THENCE S 89045'52" W A DISTANCE OF 228.41 FEET; THENCE S 89048'26" W A DISTANCE OF 196.96 FEET; THENCE S 8903253" W A DISTANCE OF 202.81 FEET; THENCE S 89045'41" W A DISTANCE OF 199.57 FEET; THENCE S 88034'32" W A DISTANCE OF 186.13 FEET; THENCE N 31 ° 19' 14" W A DISTANCE OF 85.45 FEET; THENCE N 03004'23" W A DISTANCE OF 121.05 FEET; THENCE N 00046'59" W A DISTANCE OF 145.69 FEET; THENCE N 05049'37" E A DISTANCE OF 91.89 FEET; THENCE N 00018'49" W A DISTANCE OF 167.92 FEET; THENCE N 04053'30" W A DISTANCE OF 196.81 FEET; THENCE N 26007'01" W A DISTANCE OF 113.13 FEET; THENCE N 61 ° 14'43" W A DISTANCE OF 89.70 FEET; THENCE N 73052'09" W A DISTANCE OF 127.59 FEET; THENCE S 72048'00" W A DISTANCE OF 152.64 FEET; THENCE S 41002'30" W A DISTANCE OF 126.40 FEET; THENCE S 19040'22" W A DISTANCE OF 147.98 FEET; THENCE S 16045'24" W A DISTANCE OF 105.52 FEET; THENCE S 22034'50" W A DISTANCE OF 76.94 FEET; THENCE S 49004'49" W A DISTANCE OF 72.36 FEET; Page 9 of 16 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\1-25-2021\Bellmar SRA Credit Agreement (1-25-2021).doex THENCE S 76045'08" W A DISTANCE OF 99.81 FEET; THENCE S 74059'41" W A DISTANCE OF 149.27 FEET; THENCE S 77023'34" W A DISTANCE OF 181.96 FEET; THENCE S 62042'20" W A DISTANCE OF 176.55 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 64048'51" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 3000.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09024'00" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 492.19 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2800.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02057'21" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 144.45 FEET; THENCE N 54056'59" E A DISTANCE OF 262.18 FEET; THENCE N 61 °37'00" E A DISTANCE OF 153.45 FEET; THENCE N 67043'30" E A DISTANCE OF 109.12 FEET; THENCE N 06012'36" W A DISTANCE OF 104.06 FEET; THENCE N 67043'30" E A DISTANCE OF 26.02 FEET; THENCE N 53045'03" E A DISTANCE OF 28.88 FEET; THENCE S 06012'36" E A DISTANCE OF 111.32 FEET; THENCE N 67043'30" E A DISTANCE OF 15.04 FEET; THENCE N 53045'03" E A DISTANCE OF 228.37 FEET; THENCE N 47059'02" E A DISTANCE OF 168.56 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 03001'58" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 350.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06002'44" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 36.93 FEET; THENCE S 86059' 14" W A DISTANCE OF 119.63 FEET; THENCE N 47059'02" E A DISTANCE OF 165.50 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS N 10003'42" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 550.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19014'36" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 184.72 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 975.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02036'30" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 44.39 FEET; THENCE N 41059'10" E A DISTANCE OF 2.10 FEET; THENCE N 34021'56" E A DISTANCE OF 292.40 FEET; THENCE N 31 ° 18'43" E A DISTANCE OF 219.90 FEET; THENCE N 33026'21" E A DISTANCE OF 155.64 FEET; THENCE N 28029'33" E A DISTANCE OF 167.91 FEET; THENCE N 27037'30" E A DISTANCE OF 141.19 FEET; THENCE N 21 °36' 13" E A DISTANCE OF 132.89 FEET; THENCE N 06057'21" W A DISTANCE OF 110.95 FEET; THENCE N 11 056'43" W A DISTANCE OF 98.96 FEET; THENCE N 00054' 13" W A DISTANCE OF 17.00 FEET; THENCE N 18032'23" E A DISTANCE OF 31.25 FEET; Page 10 of 16 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\1-25-2021\Bellmar SRA Credit Agreement (1-25-2021).docx THENCE N 21 °05'05" E A DISTANCE OF 53.52 FEET; THENCE N 22013'59" E A DISTANCE OF 172.55 FEET; THENCE S 87041'29" E A DISTANCE OF 97.80 FEET; THENCE N 88025'28" E A DISTANCE OF 221.06 FEET; THENCE S 80033'54" E A DISTANCE OF 84.21 FEET; THENCE N 81 °09'20" E A DISTANCE OF 251.18 FEET; THENCE N 84037'12" E A DISTANCE OF 116.76 FEET; THENCE S 79031'39" E A DISTANCE OF 92.73 FEET; THENCE S 76013'32" E A DISTANCE OF 44.55 FEET; THENCE S 82039'06" E A DISTANCE OF 44.01 FEET; THENCE N 80011'40" E A DISTANCE OF 251.15 FEET; THENCE S 84003'03" E A DISTANCE OF 502.15 FEET; THENCE S 49052'58" E A DISTANCE OF 50.53 FEET; THENCE S 19039'38" E A DISTANCE OF 89.51 FEET; THENCE S 15029'38" E A DISTANCE OF 80.89 FEET; THENCE S 13007'03" E A DISTANCE OF 94.09 FEET; THENCE S 09036'32" E A DISTANCE OF 101.22 FEET; THENCE S 15016'41" E A DISTANCE OF 84.62 FEET; THENCE S 15019'24" E A DISTANCE OF 106.87 FEET; THENCE S 20005'54" E A DISTANCE OF 112.59 FEET; THENCE S 15018'28" E A DISTANCE OF 158.31 FEET; THENCE S 60052'00" E A DISTANCE OF 38.92 FEET; THENCE N 85034'32" E A DISTANCE OF 48.31 FEET; THENCE N 88043'45" E A DISTANCE OF 69.25 FEET; THENCE N 86028'05" E A DISTANCE OF 161.06 FEET; THENCE N 89049'54" E A DISTANCE OF 117.91 FEET; THENCE N 88027'15" E A DISTANCE OF 65.99 FEET; THENCE N 80016'39" E A DISTANCE OF 86.44 FEET; THENCE S 89049'01" E A DISTANCE OF 100.11 FEET; THENCE N 23020'43" E A DISTANCE OF 51.15 FEET; THENCE N 00054' 15" E A DISTANCE OF 64.40 FEET; THENCE N 02023'40" E A DISTANCE OF 71.97 FEET; THENCE N 00017'52" E A DISTANCE OF 106.74 FEET; THENCE N 03013'18" E A DISTANCE OF 88.35 FEET; THENCE N 05054'02" E A DISTANCE OF 73.81 FEET; THENCE N 12020'29" E A DISTANCE OF 41.62 FEET; THENCE N 87050'05" E A DISTANCE OF 74.00 FEET; THENCE S 89033'00" E A DISTANCE OF 128.56 FEET; THENCE S 89046'09" E A DISTANCE OF 156.86 FEET; THENCE S 89058'44" E A DISTANCE OF 94.37 FEET; THENCE S 88025'15" E A DISTANCE OF 70.54 FEET; THENCE N 87053'23" E A DISTANCE OF 90.98 FEET; THENCE S 87018'08" E A DISTANCE OF 99.58 FEET; THENCE S 87001'27" E A DISTANCE OF 117.85 FEET; THENCE N 88012'02" E A DISTANCE OF 74.92 FEET; Page 11 of 16 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\1-25-2021\Bellmar SRA Credit Agreement (1-25-2021).docx THENCE S 89006'49" E A DISTANCE OF 107.45 FEET; THENCE N 88002'36" E A DISTANCE OF 73.99 FEET; THENCE N 89030'11" E A DISTANCE OF 78.24 FEET; THENCE S 87046'14" E A DISTANCE OF 88.31 FEET; THENCE S 88027'45" E A DISTANCE OF 119.80 FEET; THENCE N 89052'48" E A DISTANCE OF 87.64 FEET; THENCE S 87000' 19" E A DISTANCE OF 136.22 FEET; THENCE S 89017'43" E A DISTANCE OF 114.17 FEET; THENCE N 86038'43" E A DISTANCE OF 74.24 FEET; THENCE S 85039'56" E A DISTANCE OF 101.82 FEET; THENCE N 88023'40" E A DISTANCE OF 108.51 FEET; THENCE S 86013'28" E A DISTANCE OF 113.86 FEET; THENCE N 03026'05" E A DISTANCE OF 117.49 FEET; THENCE N 07011'23" E A DISTANCE OF 131.68 FEET; THENCE N 00027'24" E A DISTANCE OF 90.39 FEET; THENCE N 0604711" E A DISTANCE OF 134.47 FEET; THENCE N 06048'32" E A DISTANCE OF 127.67 FEET; THENCE N 01 °30'42" E A DISTANCE OF 132.45 FEET; THENCE N 0403 F31" E A DISTANCE OF 249.35 FEET; THENCE N 05049'46" E A DISTANCE OF 101.94 FEET; THENCE N 00007'14" W A DISTANCE OF 96.31 FEET; THENCE N 04042'00" E A DISTANCE OF 72.04 FEET; THENCE N 04008'35" E A DISTANCE OF 56.72 FEET; THENCE S 85027'49" E A DISTANCE OF 1526.33 FEET; THENCE S 02059'04" W A DISTANCE OF 277.87 FEET; THENCE S 34037'41" E A DISTANCE OF 518.47 FEET; THENCE S 02059'04" W A DISTANCE OF 403.17 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 460.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34034'55" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 277.64 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 665.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 67032'13" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 783.86 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 260.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 49058'25" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 226.77 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 340.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 36014'50" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 215.10 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 190.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 108026'10" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 359.59 FEET; THENCE S 86013'22" E A DISTANCE OF 167.80 FEET; THENCE S 06020'53" E A DISTANCE OF 137.20 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 500.00 FEET; Page 12 of 16 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\1-25-2021\Bellmar SRA Credit Agreement (1-25-2021).docx THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 31 ° 16'32" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 272.93 FEET; THENCE S 37037'25" E A DISTANCE OF 579.77 FEET; THENCE S 01 °44'53" E A DISTANCE OF 577.31 FEET; THENCE S 88015'07" W A DISTANCE OF 48.28 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 64009'06" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 516.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 81007'38" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 730.62 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 60.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 68006' 15" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 71.32 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 700.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 22030' 17" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 274.95 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 760.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 24032'39" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 325.56 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 540.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 31 °55'44" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 300.92 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 60.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 45002'02" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 47.16 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 230.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 56007'22" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 225.29 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 260.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 35057'30" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 163.17 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 211.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 33046'05" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 124.36 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 80.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 52023'49" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 73.16 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 123.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 118050' 16" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 255.12 FEET; THENCE N 87035'47" W A DISTANCE OF 381.80 FEET; THENCE S 00011' 17" W A DISTANCE OF 874.65 FEET; THENCE N 68018'43" W A DISTANCE OF 692.71 FEET; THENCE S 00051'34" E A DISTANCE OF 9.00 FEET; THENCE N 64041'55" W A DISTANCE OF 131.83 FEET; THENCE N 59029'55" W A DISTANCE OF 86.06 FEET; Page 13 of 16 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\1-25-2021\Bellmar SRA Credit Agreement (1-25-2021).doex THENCE N 40021'24" W A DISTANCE OF 44.68 FEET; THENCE N 25053'08" W A DISTANCE OF 47.93 FEET; THENCE N 14057'50" W A DISTANCE OF 56.29 FEET; THENCE N 09048'35" W A DISTANCE OF 60.83 FEET; THENCE N 15008'34" W A DISTANCE OF 60.04 FEET; THENCE N 66052' 10" W A DISTANCE OF 36.81 FEET; THENCE N 73002'21" W A DISTANCE OF 78.55 FEET; THENCE N 73034'45" W A DISTANCE OF 113.59 FEET; THENCE N 72012' 13" W A DISTANCE OF 91.38 FEET; THENCE N 70038'37" W A DISTANCE OF 89.13 FEET; THENCE N 72006'41" W A DISTANCE OF 470.03 FEET; THENCE N 71 °32'50" W A DISTANCE OF 260.97 FEET; THENCE N 71 °55'00" W A DISTANCE OF 166.77 FEET; THENCE N 71 ° 18'03" W A DISTANCE OF 117.15 FEET; THENCE N 72017'23" W A DISTANCE OF 97.34 FEET; THENCE N 71015'41" W A DISTANCE OF 119.33 FEET; THENCE N 72029'30" W A DISTANCE OF 79.23 FEET; THENCE N 71 °22'03" W A DISTANCE OF 90.70 FEET; THENCE N 71 °25'45" W A DISTANCE OF 102.31 FEET; THENCE N 72051'34" W A DISTANCE OF 92.34 FEET; THENCE N 74021'09" W A DISTANCE OF 124.36 FEET; THENCE N 59048'05" W A DISTANCE OF 85.42 FEET; THENCE N 36020'36" W A DISTANCE OF 34.69 FEET; THENCE S 78001'36" W A DISTANCE OF 63.16 FEET; THENCE S 00013'07" W A DISTANCE OF 84.04 FEET; THENCE S 00025' 18" E A DISTANCE OF 51.71 FEET; THENCE S 00018'38" W A DISTANCE OF 90.67 FEET; THENCE S 01031'06" W A DISTANCE OF 65.76 FEET; THENCE S 00019'38" W A DISTANCE OF 103.03 FEET; THENCE S 00006'14" W A DISTANCE OF 92.33 FEET; THENCE S 00030'33" W A DISTANCE OF 213.24 FEET; THENCE S 39039'17" W A DISTANCE OF 14.24 FEET; THENCE S 89033'11" W A DISTANCE OF 2490.10 FEET; THENCE N 01 °21'28" E A DISTANCE OF 28.73 FEET; THENCE S 89028'16" W A DISTANCE OF 2438.92 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. CONTAINING A TOTAL AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 997.45 ACRES. REFERENCE ABB DRAWING #12349-SD Page 14 of 16 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\1-25-2021\Bellmar SRA Credit Agreement (1-25-2021).docx SRA CREDIT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT 6(B99 Page 15 of 16 H:\2019\2019051\SR-A\1-25-2021\BellmarSRA Credit Agreement (1-25-2021).docx SRA CREDIT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT "C" Land Use Summary Use Density or Intensit Residential Up to 2,750 Dwelling Units Neighborhood Commercial Min, 68 750 and Max. 85,000 square feet Civic Governmental Institutional Min. 27,500 square feet • Bellmar Village SRA contains 999.74f acres. • Bellmar Village contains a minimum of 28.31 acres of active and passive parks and community green space, including 14.86 acres of amenity center sites and 13.45 acres of parks and park preserves, exceeding the required minimum of 1 percent of the SRA gross acreage, (10 acres). Bellmar Village includes 0 acres of lands with a natural Resource Index greater than 1.2. • Bellmar Village provides 506.90± acres of open spaces (50.70± percent) of Open Space, 156.99 acres above the RLSA 35% requirement for Open Space. • Total acreage requiring stewardship credits is 842.75 acres (total Village acreage excluding open space exceeding 35%). • At required 8 Stewardship Credits per acre, 6,742 Stewardship Credits are required. • Bellmar Village SRA does not include lands within ACSC Overlay. • Bellmar Village SRA does not include, lands designated Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA), or Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA). A portion of the SRA eastern perimeter boundary is adjacent to lands designated HAS. • Bellmar Village does not include any lands designated Water Retention Area (WRA). Page 16 of 16 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\1-25-2021\Bellmar SRA Credit Agreement (1-25-2021).doex April 19, 2021 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida Monday, April 19, 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 1:00 p.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Karen Homiak, Acting Chairman Karl Fry Joe Schmitt Paul Shea Christopher T. Vernon (appearing remotely when indicated) Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative ABSENT: Edwin Fryer, Chairman Robert L. Klucik, Jr. Page 1 of 73 April 19, 2021 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Good afternoon. This is the April 19th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission, an afternoon meeting where we tabled the items from April 15th, so the agenda will be the same. Would you all please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison, and the proceedings continued as follows:) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Could I have roll call, please. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Going a little bit out of order. I'm here. Chairman Fryer? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Chairman Homiak? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Vernon? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Klucik? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Madam Chair, we have a quorum of four. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. Addenda to the agenda. We have two -- the last two items will be -- we need a motion to continue them to the May 6th meeting. The Item 9A4, which is the -- I'll just read the numbers -- PL20190002292, the RLSA Overlay Growth Management Plan amendment, and 95A [sic], PL20200002234. That's the RFMUD. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: Madam Chair, how were we notified that these were continued? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Well, there was an email that the RLSA overlay was continued to May. COMMISSIONER FRY: Was it late yesterday or -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: No, it was last week. COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, prior to the 15th meeting? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Planning Commission absences. Is there -- is everybody going to be here on May 6th? Page 2 of 73 April 19, 2021 Yeah? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, let me look. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: All these people in the room, anyway. How about you? COMMISSIONER FRY: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: So at least we'll have a quorum? I guess, Joe, are you -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll be here. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: -- shaking your head yes or no? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. And there's no minutes. BCC recaps? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On April 13th, the Board of County Commissioners heard and approved a street name change from Lord's Way to Hacienda Lakes Parkway, and then on the summary agenda, they approved SSA 14, the amendment, and they approved SSA 17. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Chairman's report, I have none. Consent agenda, there's nothing. ***So we're going to get right on to the first 9A1 which is still Bellmar from what we continued from our last meeting. So it's PL20190001837, Bellmar Village SRA. And I believe we are -- oh, we're just at public speakers still or just had one? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I believe we still have some public speakers left. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Madam Chair, before we proceed, can I ask a procedural question? I did receive an email regarding the Rural Lands Stewardship amendment overlay. It had to do with, basically, stating that what was being proposed was illegal. It was a letter sent to Mr. Klatzkow, Attorney Klatzkow. And I believe that, just for clarity, I already asked -- I believe that letter is somewhat moot since the -- it had to do with a scrivener's error and it's already being corrected, so pretty much the letter is moot; is that correct, Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: No, I would not call it moot. I've asked Anita and Heidi Ashton to go through the entire ordinance to see whether or not there were other issues with it. They're doing that, and that work's ongoing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Would you -- could you, then, advise us prior to the hearing date for the Rural Lands Stewardship on your assessment of that letter. Can you send us information on that or -- MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, absolutely, absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: I just --we're trying to assess what the --what the extent of the issue is first, and then we'll -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: For those who reference, it was a letter from Arnold and Porter dated April 8th, 2021, and that was enclosed, a letter, and I believe it was in the same email that the Conservancy sent a letter, their latest presentation. So just for clarity, it was that letter. And so we have your assessment prior to the hearing date of the amendments. MR. KLATZKOW: We're doing our due diligence now. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay, thanks. Thank you. Thank you for allowing me to interrupt on that, because that was a point I wanted to clear. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay this time. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Okay. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Anybody wishing to speak on the item that is before us right Page 3 of 73 April 19, 2021 now, would you please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. YOVANOVICH: Madam Chairman, Mr. Schmitt, the letter you're referring to, was that about the RLSA program, or was it regarding the Bellmar petition? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: RLSA. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It was RLSA, but also in that same email was a presentation for today's Bellmar. It was an attachment -- attachment of that letter plus the attachment of the presentation. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: That was a separate -- those are separate ones. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I thought it was in the same email. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: No, no, no. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I'm sorry. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know that we've seen either document. If someone can just give me a copy while I'm listening to the public, I'd appreciate it. MR. KLATZKOW: Sure. Heidi will forward you a copy of it. (Commissioner Vernon is present remotely.) COMMISSIONER VERNON: Madam Chair? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yes. Who's that? COMMISSIONER VERNON: It's Commissioner Vernon. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Oh. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Sorry to interrupt. Just wanted to let you know I'm here. I'm going to try to put it on mute. I'm driving, but I'm listening in. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Oh, okay. Do we need a motion to allow him to -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make a motion to allow Commissioner Vernon to participate and when he can, if he can, ask questions and vote. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. COMMISSIONER FRY: May I ask a question? Chris, are you able to be a part of the proceedings the entire time? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: Fantastic. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yes. I'm on a long drive, and I'll stay on the line throughout the meeting. I'm going to mute it, so it may take me a second to jump in if somebody asks me a question. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay, thanks. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Disclosures. Anything -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Tom. MR. EASTMAN: Many meetings, correspondence with developer representatives regarding future school site agreement in exchange for impact fees. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Nothing since last time. Page 4 of 73 April 19, 2021 COMMISSIONER FRY: Nothing new since last time. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Only discussions briefly with the petitioner prior to the meeting just briefly, casually discussing some of the points, but also, in receipt of this presentation dated April 15th, 2021, Bellmar hearing that was submitted by the Conservancy. And I guess for the purposes -- can I get a clarification from staff? Had -- has this presentation -- has that -- a copy of this presentation been provided to the applicant prior to today's meeting? Is the staff aware of this presentation? MR. BELLOWS: We're not aware of it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have to ask again. We went through this probably two -and -a -half months ago when we first dealt with information coming into the commissioners. I got this probably Friday or -- Friday or Saturday in an email. I'd have to go back and look. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: It was before the last meeting. MR. BELLOWS: But I don't know if this is something staff sent. The applicant may have just -- or somebody may have just sent it directly to you. We can't control that. We do have a rule that we don't accept for the Planning Commission agenda packets information that comes with seven days or within or --as a matter of fact, we even hold the 10-day. So if they don't make the 10-day, then they don't make the agenda packet. So you don't have to -- MS. OLSON: This is just the same presentation that I'm going to give to you today, just as a courtesy in advance, but it's the same thing I'm going to give today. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I have to ask again, why not give it to staff and why not to the applicant? We've been -- April, we went through this two -and -a -half months ago when you first provided information. MS. OLSON: It's not additional information. It's just that what I'm giving today here at the presentation and -- you know, a lot of times we don't even give it in advance. It was just as a courtesy. But it's the same exact presentation you're going to see today. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I disagree. It's not the exact presentation. It's a new presentation. It may be some of the same information, but it's not the exact presentation. And you're representing it as such. It is not. MS. OLSON: It's -- it's the same. It's -- you'll see it today. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's the same information. MS. OLSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Not the same presentation. MS. OLSON: It's one -- like, two words on it are different. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, okay, I got it now. I understand. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just a clarification. MS. OLSON: I can point it out if you'd like on there when I get to -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just don't think it's right. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. This is -- MS. OLSON: It's a minor change. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: This is not time for this now. I agree the last time the Longwater and Bellmar was -- we were told that was just going to be that one presentation, and now it's not, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, it gives -- it gives the applicant no time to prepare any type of rebuttal. It's just not --it's not proper. We've been through this before with --and chastised staff over this. Yes, it was sent to us directly, to us on our county email. And then certainly the applicant has every -- or anybody has any -- the right to do that, and that's fine, but I think it's also out of nothing more than sheer courtesy to provide the applicant the same presentation. But we'll listen. Page 5 of 73 April 19, 2021 CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I agree. COMMISSIONER FRY: In way of a clarification. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Well, let's just get to the public speakers. We're not going to do this. What's the -- who is the first public speaker that we have? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Madam Chair, we have three public speakers here in person, and we also have two online. Our first -- our speaker is Jeanne Jain Perry followed by Dennis DuBois. MS. PERRY: Can I take my mask off? MR. KLATZKOW: Try not to sneeze. MS. PERRY: Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. It has been said here that Longwater and Bellmar Villages will not take away land that Florida panthers use regularly. Bellmar Village will take away another 1,000 acres of panther habitat or, at the very least, 1,000 acres of lands frequented by panthers and black bears, not to mention other listed species. One only has to peruse FWC's panther telemetry map to dispute that claim. In addition, more cars and traffic mean more panther and black bear deaths by vehicle collision. We purchased property adjacent to Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, as we were sure no development would take place that close to the Refuge. How sadly mistaken we were. The county informed us it was not possible for us to make a path on our partial wetlands property to install trail cameras to photograph wildlife, as no native vegetation can be removed, yet the county is considering developing another thousand acres of former wetlands in one fell swoop. The U.S. Department of Interior has advised the Planning Commission that the Longwater and Bellmar projects, quote, will encroach upon several current conservation areas such as the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, unquote. The department believes, quote, 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, unquote. This is a decision that cannot be reversed. It will mean higher taxes for all of us in the long run. As a property owner and taxpayer, I implore you to please reject the proposal for additional development in the RLSA known as Bellmar Village. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Madam Chairman, our next speaker is Dennis DuBois, followed by April Olson. MR. DuBOIS: Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Dennis DuBois, and I live at Sixth Avenue Southeast, east of Desoto. So I'm right on the borderline of this proposed Bellmar development. So I want to take a different approach than what all the other speakers are going to take with you against Bellmar, because I am speaking in opposition to Bellmar. I drive to Golden Gate Boulevard. It's only three streets away. That's the main entrance proposed for Bellmar. Traffic is horrible even though the road has been expanded recently to two lanes each way. If you get behind a school bus, you just sit there and wait until you can pass the school bus. So the traffic is very bad. One other observation as a homeowner there is that I drive down the side streets, and I see all of these new homes being built. I don't know if you've considered the extent to which building permits have been issued for single-family homes in Golden Gate Estates, but it's only going to get -- traffic is only going to get worse. The other reason I'm speaking against this is because I also moved out to the country at a dead-end street that I thought would always be a dead-end street, and now there's a proposal to add a second access point to Bellmar at Sixth Avenue Southeast. And if there's going to be a Page 6 of 73 April 19, 2021 north/south road called Big Cypress Parkway, it will be very easy for the Bellmar residents to get to Golden Gate and go west. I would like the Board to consider that if they approve Bellmar to make the access point at Sixth Avenue for emergency vehicles only -- and I speak for all of the residents on Sixth Avenue Southeast that live east of DeSoto. They're all opposed to Bellmar. That concludes my remarks, and thank you for listening. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Madam Chair, our next speaker is April Olson. April has had time ceded to her by seven other speakers. MS. OLSON: Good afternoon. April Olson here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida and our over 6,400 supporting families. We thank you for the opportunity to speak today on the application for Bellmar Village SRA. We stated at a previous meeting that our experts, Norm Marshall of Smart Mobility and Joe Minicozzi of Urban3, would not repeat the same presentation they gave at Longwater for Bellmar's hearing. This was as a courtesy to this board. But because their presentation and many of our comments and materials address both Longwater and Bellmar, we ask that all materials submitted for Longwater be incorporated into the record for Bellmar. We were very concerned at the April 1 st Bellmar hearing when the applicant's attorney asked to eliminate the public comment portion of the hearing. This is a democratic public forum. The RLSA is a community plan, and the proposed thousand -acre Bellmar project will impact numerous property owners and taxpayers of Collier County. The rights of other property owners and citizens of Collier County must be considered, not just the applicant's rights. Three or four hours of testimony at both the March 18th and the April 1 st Longwater hearing was dedicated to countering the Conservancy's argument, but we provided our comments at a previous meeting, so we were unable to respond to the many attacks against us, nor were we able to provide you with additional information that we feel you need to make an informed decision. This is our opportunity to provide you with information you did not receive for Longwater so that you can make a more informed decision for Bellmar. It is important to note that nothing that was stated at a previous meeting changed the Conservancy and our experts' views of both Bellmar and Longwater. Both projects are not fiscally neutral, and they do not even come close to meeting the requirements of Collier County's Growth Management Plan. Before we explain the many ways in which Bellmar is illegal and why the County's fiscal neutrality arguments do not add up, we would like to address some of your reasons for approving Longwater, as we are concerned you may consider those same reasons for approving Bellmar. First we heard Commissioner Fry state that while other environmental groups were willing to work with the developer and provide compromises, the Conservancy engaged in a zero -sum game. While we do agree that bear -proof cans, wider wildlife crossings, and smoke easements are important, these concessions do nothing to fix the real issues that stem from the project's poor designs and improper locations. How could we possibly compromise when we know that Longwater and Bellmar are illegal, as they do not come close to meeting the overlay's requirements? How could we compromise when we know that the projects will destroy large chunks of the last remaining habitat of the extremely endangered Florida panther? How can we compromise when we know that the projects are not fiscally neutral and will pass millions of dollars of costs onto the taxpayers? How can we compromise when our experts have shown us that the village will cause severe traffic congestion? These projects are illegal, so a compromise is not appropriate. Page 7 of 73 April 19, 2021 You even heard environmental speakers state that they believe Bellmar is not the best spot for development because of its close proximity to the panther refuge; however, they still will not oppose the project. Their reasons provided to support Bellmar is because other lands will be set aside as SSAs or preserves. And, quite frankly, they're only looking at half of the equation. The compromise struck with the RLSA wasn't that developers could have a free pass to develop whatever they please if they set aside SSA lands. The compromise was that in exchange for SSA lands, developers would be permitted to build innovative smart growth developments constrained by a number of requirements, including fiscal neutrality and avoidance of wetland and uplands habitats. If a project is not designed properly, like Longwater and Bellmar, what happens in the development areas will have an impact on the quality of preserves. And this map on the left is from Dr. Frakes. He's a leading panther scientist and author of a study that models the probability or presence of adult panther breeding habitat pre- and post -development. The Conservancy hired Dr. Frakes to apply his model to assess any loss of adult breeding habitat from construction of the applicant's villages, including Bellmar. And the red, orange, and yellow areas represent a significant loss of adult breeding habitat value. His map demonstrates that not only will the projects destroy adult breeding habitat within the SRA sites, but they will also destroy adult breeding panther habitat within the very lands that are set aside as preserves. And you can see that on the outside of Bellmar. This is due to light, noise, people, pets, and traffic coming from the developments. So, again, you can't protect the environment by simply looking at half of the equation. The Conservancy is not antigrowth. Where compromise is appropriate, we make every attempt to assure a win -win outcome. We base our reviews on science with analyses from professional staff and technical experts, as you have seen. However, if the bottom -line position for a landowner is not sufficiently protective of the environment and our quality of life, we must walk away from the negotiation table and stand up for our principles. On a few occasions during the Longwater hearing, we heard Commissioner Klucik state that he cannot recommend denial of an application simply because the project is not desirable, and we agree with him. That is why our review of development projects in our comment letters are always rooted in whether the project is consistent with the GMP and LDC. The bottom line is that Bellmar's design is nowhere near consistent, as the proposed project is merely a typical suburban gated -style community. But don't just take our word for it. Collier County's certified planning staff also concluded in their May 27th, 2020, review that Bellmar is not a village. Here's what they stated: Quote, 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 of gradient, interconnectedness, et cetera. 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, end quote. And, by the way, this statement was found -- a nearly identical statement in all of the villages by staff in their reviews. In that same review of Bellmar, staff also stated, quote, 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, end quote. So in order for the applicant to resolve that laundry list of issues that I just quoted by staff, the project would need to be completely redesigned. But was it? Let's compare Submittal 2 master plan that staff stated is contrary to what is intended in the RLSA to the -- on the left to the finer -- final master plan on the right. You can see that the two versions are nearly identical. Despite staffs concerns, the village center is still located on the edge, nothing is done to increase Page 8 of 73 April 19, 2021 compactness, and the street pattern is essentially the same. So why did staff end up of recommending approval when the plan still resembles a typical suburban planned development? Was staff asked to change their professional assessment to recommend approval? We may never know. At the April 1st meeting you were presented with an extremely one-sided view regarding the RLSA's design requirements, and it is beyond disappointing that Collier County planning staff changed their position to state that villages do not have to be innovative. Is it really the stance of Collier County's planning professionals that they're totally fine with having 45,000 acres worth of standard sprawling low -density type development in the RLSA? Here are the policies that you asked to see at the last hearing which proves that SRAs themselves, such as Bellmar Village, are required to be designed based on innovative and creative land planning techniques. But what sets apart a village from a PUD is that villages are required to have certain characteristics per these policies. You can see definitive words like "shall" and "will" in these policies. Unlike SRA villages, these characteristics are not required of a PUD. Furthermore, unlike villages, PUDs don't even have to be fiscally neutral or show that they are self-sufficient. Again, a village must be designed with all of these characteristics to earn the right to be called a village. Bellmar has not earned that right. And at the last Bellmar meeting, the applicant's attorney even went so far as to tell you that it's totally fine to have PUDs in the RLSA. It is not fine. Let me give you just one more example of how Bellmar's design is inconsistent with the GMP. In every review of all three of Collier Enterprises' villages, including Bellmar, staff expressed concerns regarding the lack of housing diversity. They explained that the developer only commits to providing 10 percent multifamily homes, which is a far lower standard than the county's average of 45 to 50 percent. Staff stated they would like Bellmar to include a more meaningful mix, closer to 42 percent of multifamily, that was provided in Bellmar's economic assessment. But, ultimately, the applicant is committing to only 10 percent multi -families, not the 42 percent. Again, the question needs to be asked: Are Collier County's planning professionals being required to recommend approval against their professional opinion? Again, we may never know. At the April 1st hearing, staff spent a lot of time attempting to deconstruct our arguments regarding fiscal neutrality. We were not at all surprised by their arguments. In fact, their statements confirmed what we already knew to be true; that the county's inappropriately treating Stewardship Receiving Areas, including Bellmar, as typical developments not subject to the fiscal neutrality requirements in the RLSA. But what staff has forgotten is that SRAs must be held to higher fiscal standards. So they shouldn't be using the same old business -as -usual approach. When staff walked you through the process of an economic assessment, and show you how they determined fiscal neutrality, they explained to you that they use an existing framework for determining SRAs fair share of cost. They further explained they pull from a basket of funding sources. As example, they used the example of fuel taxes and the infrastructure sales tax to insure that SRAs costs are covered and that the county maintains a balanced budget. However, the LDC explicitly states, quote, each SRA must demonstrate that its development as a whole will be fiscally neutral or positive to the Collier County tax base, end quote. Therefore, it is inappropriate to take from a basket of funds consisting of other tax revenue sources unless an analysis is done to demonstrate that the SRA is contributing the same amount of funds in that basket it has taken out of the basket, and this was never done. Staff also mentioned that the county must agree to the applicant's chosen methodology, but Page 9 of 73 April 19, 2021 if the methodology is flawed right from the start, then all reviews using that methodology are also flawed, including the third -parry review. So let me give you an example. An analysis of fiscal neutrality pertaining to water and wastewater is required under Policy 4.18 and the LDC; however, the applicant failed to provide this analysis in Bellmar and Longwater's assessment. They simply provided the anticipated water and wastewater demand created by the developments and then just showed you the dollar amounts of the anticipated impact fees, but they did not analyze whether the impact fees would actually cover the costs. But since the county accepted their methodology -- I'm sorry -- which excluded this important analysis, the third -party reviewer did not even assess whether Longwater and Bellmar were paying their fair share for water and wastewater impacts. In fact, the first time we ever saw a fiscal impact analysis for water and wastewater was April 1st, 2021, during the Longwater hearing. While we appreciate this analysis was provided, it should have been provided by the applicant during the application process for the public to review as the law requires. And we still have yet to see this analysis for Bellmar. So why didn't the applicant include a fiscal impact analysis for water and wastewater? DPFG claimed that they didn't need to because utilities are funded through self-supporting funds or user fees through the Collier County Water/Sewer District. County staff also mentioned this on April 1 st when they said that the water/sewer subdistrict is a separate district from the county. But is it so separate? While the water/sewer district is governed by the Board of County Commissioners, the Board of County Commissioners approves the water/sewer district budget. The water/sewer district's planning is in the AUIR, and, most importantly, most of the water/sewer district users are also taxpayers. So the applicant is simply splitting hairs in an attempt to get out of an important requirement of a water/wastewater fiscal impact analysis. Let me be perfectly clear; they are trying to get out of the assessment by complain -- by claiming that water/sewer district users are not taxpayers. Because the applicant did not provide this legally required analysis for Longwater and Bellmar, we analyzed the cost using data provided by numerous county sources. Our analysis was criticized by staff and this board because our analysis did not consider that the new northeast facility would be built in phases. While this is true, after receiving additional information from staff, we are still confident in our assessment that Longwater and Bellmar are not fiscally neutral for the water and wastewater impacts, and we will show you why. We based our analysis on a figure of 106 million for the cost of a new wastewater plant found in a staff report. This number, 106 million, is actually lower than the $108 million cost in the 2020 AUIR attributed to just Phase 1 of the wastewater treatment plant, which involves a four -million -gallon -a -day plant and is scheduled to begin in 2026. Mr. Bellone's analysis at the Longwater hearing noted and anticipated 105 million spent on the wastewater plant in Fiscal Year'25. But as you see here, the most recent AUIR represents that this is associated with building just Phase 1, 4 MGD plant, not all three phases of a 12 MGD plant. In addition, documents recently provided to us by the county demonstrate that the county has approved $77 million in costs for an interim wastewater plant being built to provide utility services to the northeast growing service area. In an attempt to be conservative, we allocated none of the $77 million to Collier Enterprises developments. In reality, their developments will likely consume the bulk of the interim capacity built by the county. Even when we reviewed staffs newly available analysis presented to you on April 1st, it is clear that the county is not assessing the fair share of costs for the villages. The county's analysis used an average daily flow to determine Longwater's fair share instead of a maximum three-day demand. Staff even mentioned to you on April 1st that Florida law requires that all new facilities are built per maximum three-day demand. Page 10 of 73 April 19, 2021 If Longwater's maximum three-day demand share is applied to the total cost presented by the county, the development is no longer fiscally neutral. Longwater would result in a $5.89 million deficit to Collier County Water and Sewer District. Furthermore, we have seen no such analysis, again, provided for Bellmar nor from the applicant. You also heard the County Attorney explain that it is a policy decision by the BCC that they do not collect the legally available impact fees, but the bottom line is since impact fees that are to be collected will not result in fiscal neutrality, and no supplemental payments are to be paid, Bellmar must be denied. On March 18th, staff spent a considerable time arguing that our experts' analysis of Bellmar and Longwater's fair share of traffic impacts was inaccurate. Staff argued at the Longwater hearing that transportation improvements are already being -- I'm sorry -- being planned and committed through the LRTP and AUIR process. Commissioner Shea then asked a very important question: He asked staff if the village traffic is the background traffic causing the need for some of the road improvements that the county commits to in the LRTP. Staff replied by stating that the background traffic is defined, quote, as existing committed and vested trips plus projected background trips from any other source than the development, end quote. Staff explained that they're simply planning for general population growth rather than growth attributed to the villages. But when you review the 2040 LRTP amendment and 2045 LRTP, a very different story emerges. It is crystal clear that the county has been planning for population increases in the RLSA because of Collier Enterprises' development, including Bellmar. So the traffic from the villages is the reason why some of the roads will become deficient and why the county is planning and paying for improvements as identified in the LRTP. It all started with Collier Enterprises' application for the Town of Rural Lands West in the general location of the three villages, which would have provided 10,000 homes, about 2,000 homes more than the three villages combined. And here is a quote from the 2040 LRTP amendment that shows that the MPO was contemplating amending the LRTP based on increases in population and employment from Rural Lands West. Here's another statement from the 2040 LRTP amendment showing that the county was planning for population increases and additional traffic for 8,000 of Rural Lands West's 10,000 homes. Here's yet another statement from the 2045 LRTP which shows that the county planned for road improvements due to population increases from Collier County Enterprises villages after the applicant replaced their town plan with plans for villages, including Bellmar. Bottom line, the village traffic is the reason why the county's planning for some of the roadway improvements. And staffs refusal to charge Collier Enterprises for any road improvements that are already committed in the LRTP is flawed, and it leaves the county paying for the vast majority of road impacts caused by these developments. As shown by our expert Norm Marshall, the applicant will leave a $125 million deficit to the county by not covering all costs for these road improvements necessitated by the villages. Bellmar's portion of that shortfall is $43.8 million; thus, Bellmar must be denied. Staff s solution to cover some of the costs for road improvements is to, again, tap into that basket of funding sources, and in this case it's fuel taxes. But this is not an option to achieve fiscal neutrality because, again, the projects have to be fiscally neutral to the county's tax base, and there is no analysis showing that fuel taxes resulting from this development will be sufficient to cover these costs. Furthermore, the county's ongoing reliance on fuel taxes needs to be reevaluated. Several auto manufacturers have already committed to building all electric vehicles in the near future. As an example, GM will do so by 2035, Volvo by 2030, and we all already know that Tesla's already Page 11 of 73 April 19, 2021 achieved this. So what will the county do when the fuel tax revenues dry up? We also cannot ignore the fact that Collier County is one of the most vulnerable places in the United States to sea level rise and flooding. The notion that residents will abandon their homes and immediately retreat inland is totally illogical. Step one is going to be enhanced resiliency, and the cost for making our coastal communities resilient by raising roads and improving infrastructure will be astronomical. We cannot allow SRAs to funnel the county's limited tax revenues to build, widen, and perpetually maintain roads out east when we will need those funds to protect the safety and property of existing populations. Now, we heard the argument from members of this board and other speakers who said that they support the villages simply because this is a voluntary program and it will result in thousands of acres of preservation. But just because a program is voluntary does not mean that the county should settle for subpar development plans that do not meet the rules of the program. Developers benefit hugely from the program. Just to mention one of the many benefits, they get a 20-fold increase in density. Instead of one home per five acres, they get to build up to four homes per acre. It is a privilege for them to be able to use the program, thus we must hold Collier Enterprises accountable to build SRAs that actually meet the rules of the program. For decades landowners have had the opportunity to build at the baseline zoning, and no one has stopped them. To our knowledge, they haven't even built one such development in the RLSA. Excluding all the benefits that they get, the -- another reason why they haven't built at the base density is because the road network needed for five -acre development simply does not exist. The cost to build such a road network would be astronomical. Yes, people are building homes in Golden Gate Estates, but that is only because the road network exists. And according to the 2017 white paper for the Golden Gate Area Master Plan restudy, the Estates, which is a far smaller area than the RLSA, is comprised of 813 miles of roads. Collier Enterprises won't even agree to pay for Big Cypress Parkway, the main arterial road for the villages, nor have they agreed to pay for Bellmar and Longwater's internal spine roads, which I remind you will be inside the gates. Since Collier Enterprises is trying to get out of paying for roads essential to their projects, it is highly improbable that they and other landowners would agree to pay to build hundreds of miles of new roads to accommodate five -acre ranchette development or even a Twin Eagle style development. It makes zero economic sense. This statement is from the landowners' very own representative, Al Reynolds, who's now with Stantec, and he wrote this during the RLSA Amendment Oversight Committee in 2002. And he says, quote, I am convinced that if you adopt an incentive -based policy that is properly designed and gives enough incentive to do the right thing, it will be the only choice because what person in the right mind would go out there and try to develop this stuff at one unit per five acres and eventually platted subdivisions knowing they're facing years and years of permitting and virtually no market for it as compared to being able to get some credit for protecting that and going and taking these rights and clustering them into a development pattern that's proven to add value, be more cost effective, be more economically sound? Who's going to do that? If you do this right, nobody's going to do the baseline conditions. That's my point. I couldn't have said it any better. In conclusion, please do not be lulled into thinking that if you recommend denial of Bellmar Village that landowners will have no choice but to cover the entire 300-square-mile area of the RLSA with five -acre development. It's a preposterous idea, and it cannot happen. In fact, Group 5 policies, which are for landowners who choose not to participate, include policies that protect flowways from development. All projects must meet the rules of the RLSA no matter what, and Bellmar does not. Please help our community ensure fiscally neutral smart growth development for the RLSA by recommending denial of Bellmar Village. Page 12 of 73 April 19, 2021 And I'm happy to answer some questions, and my colleague, Julie Ann Thomas, is here via Zoom to answer -- or to go over just a few minutes of the listed -species issues. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I have several questions. MS. OLSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And, certainly, I think we've given you more than ample time to respond. You made a statement about not being able to make public comment. I have no idea where that came from. That was a debate up here at the Board when we were talking about hearing the same information for both petitions. I certainly recall voting that -- and identifying that this was a public process and anybody would be allowed to speak again. So I thought that was a bit disingenuous. But with that, I don't need your comment. You made several comments. Despite this being a poor location -- and I'm not going to argue it, I mean, it is probably not the best location. But isn't and hasn't it been always identified as a receiving area? And what part of receiving area do I not understand? MS. OLSON: It is a receiving area, but it's also not meeting the goal of the RLSA, which is to direct incompatible uses away from wetlands -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS. OLSON: -- and upland habitat. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's your opinion, professional opinion -- MS. OLSON: That's the fact. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- professional assessment, or a legal opinion? Because you also state that this is illegal. And that's a pretty strong statement. You're not an attorney, correct? MS. OLSON: I'm not an attorney, but attorneys have reviewed this, my statement. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And their legal opinion is this is illegal? MS. OLSON: Yes, for the many reasons that I mentioned -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And that's in writing? MS. OLSON: Well, I will give you a copy of this afterward. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a copy. But "illegal" is a pretty strong statement. MS. OLSON: Yes, we do believe that this project is illegal. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It may be not consistent with the Comp Plan, but I guess your extrapolation is then is it's illegal? MS. OLSON: If it wasn't approved, it would be illegally approved because it does not meet the requirements of the Growth Management Plan for all the reasons that I just went over. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You also state that it was not designed properly. Again, is that -- that's a professional opinion based on your -- the consultants that you have hired to analyze this design. And so basically what I've heard through your entire presentation is this is what staff has said, and staff is wrong, and we're right. MS. OLSON: It is based on my professional opinion. It's based on our experts' opinion. It's based on the fact that the project does not meet the goals and objectives and policies within the Growth Management Plan and LDC, and I provided you with some of those policies -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, I have them. MS. OLSON: -- early on, a whole list of them. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Staff is -- MS. OLSON: Unfortunately, I don't know why staff came to the conclusion because early on I -- they said that they believed it did not meet the intent of the policy. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, in conclusion, then, you're basically saying everything that staff said is wrong, and all your statements are, in fact, correct. Page 13 of 73 April 19, 2021 MS. OLSON: I'm saying -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We heard from staff, and staff has pretty much stated that it's consistent with the Comp Plan. MS. OLSON: Based on our review of this and the policies that are within the RLSA overlay, this project does not meet the goals and objectives of the RLSA for numerous reasons. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And staff says otherwise. MS. OLSON: They obviously say otherwise. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS. OLSON: I'm not denying that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This says -- let me talk about a village, because you brought up about a village, and then can you go back -- can you go to the slide. MS. OLSON: Sure. This one? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Go to Slide 11. MS. OLSON: Okay. I don't know which one this is. I don't have them numbered up here. What is the slide? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It says, basically, LDC 4.08.07. Next one. Next one. MS. OLSON: Oh, that was on the bottom here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, keep on going, keep on going. I'll tell you when. Next one. Next one. This one. MS. OLSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let's just --you show a picture here. And on, I guess -- I'm looking at -- when I look at this on the right side of it, is that your interpretation of what a village should be, multifamily, multistory buildings, almost like a -- I would call it a European village look? Because somehow that connotes to me much more density and probably more significant impact population -wise than what's being offered. Is this your interpretation of what the village should look like? MS. OLSON: So this picture is from our community character plan. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm very familiar with that, yes. MS. OLSON: And, yeah, if they had -- if the design had followed the rules of the program, it would be more compact. They would have definitely more multi -families residences. As I mentioned, the county averages 45 to 50 percent. The economic assessment provides 42 percent multifamily so -- and to have more of a continuum as required by the RLSA. So, yeah, you're going to have a little bit more -- you're going to have more density near the village center, and then as the continuum goes out, the density would lessen. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This sort of implies, then -- it's a receiving area. And what did receiving area mean in the RLSA? MS. OLSON: Well, there's different receiving areas. Different types. There's villages, towns, hamlets, compact rural development. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Did it indicate that that's where growth would be allowed? MS. OLSON: Under the RLSA program, that's where the receiving areas are, but they also have to -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So I can take -- MS. OLSON: -- meet the goal. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- I could take Bellmar and create an entire village that looks like this, which would probably be four times the amount of density then what currently is shown. Is that a better design? MS. OLSON: If they meet the rules of the program, yes, it is a better design, yes. You create more walkability. You have more buffers around. You know, the density gets lessened. Page 14 of 73 April 19, 2021 It's better for the panther. If you remember that slide that I showed you how the SRA -- development in the SRA, because the road network is so spread out, that it's impacting the preserves as well. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Would this not mean that it would be greater density throughout the entire RLSA -- MS. OLSON: The applicant -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- SRA? MS. OLSON: -- is leaving density on the table. They're only about, what, 2.6, somewhere in there, 2.5. 1 haven't calculated it. But they're allowed to build up to four units per acre. And if you make it more compact, you would have greater density near the village center, and then you'd have a more walkable community. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But, logically, then, you would have more density, more people, more population, more impact, more -- significantly more impact on water and sewer and other infrastructure needs. MS. OLSON: Well, they would collect more in impact fees then. I mean, the program allows up to four units per acre. But it can be designed so it is more compact. And so you do have a more walkable village center, and that's one of the proponents of the program that we are trying to make sure the applicant -- well, the applicant is not meeting, unfortunately. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. I mean, I won't debate it, but I clearly don't understand, because what they're offering is less dense and less impact than what is shown here, what you seem to imply. Let me talk about diversity. You disagree with Mr. Giblin's assessment of diversity and housing and his acceptance of the affordable housing type requirements. Is that the issue about density and diversity? MS. OLSON: Well, I didn't make comments on the affordable housing, just on the requirement that they provide housing diversity and, yeah, I disagree that 10 percent is adequate when the county is 45 to 50 percent, and their economic assessment shows that they're going to have 20 -- I'm sorry -- 42 percent multifamily, but they're not committing to that. So we would prefer that they commit to what they're stating in the economic assessment. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So -- and the bottom line, I'm on Slide 11 again. Your statement was pretty strong in regards to the fiscal impact of water and sewer, not a -- not providing or assessing their fair share contribution, and then, of course, the funding for transportation, all of which you have pretty much refuted everything that was stated by staff in regards to -- because we -- during the Longwater presentation, we had staff kind of cover the funding for both water and sewer for both Bellmar and Longwater. And your statement now is that whatever Joe Bellone said, whatever Amy Patterson said is irrelevant or not -- not factual, I guess, because your statements are correct and theirs are false in their presentation. MS. OLSON: Well, what I'm saying is that the applicant is required to do a fiscal impact analysis on water and wastewater. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MS. OLSON: And this was never done. It was never done for Longwater or for Bellmar. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But that was based on a policy decision by the Board to expand the water/sewer district. MS. OLSON: But they have to show -- they have to provide this fiscal impact analysis for water and sewer that was never provided by the applicant. Now, staff did that for Longwater, and we reviewed it but, unfortunately, they did not conduct their analysis on the max three-day demand, which is what the DEP requires. You build a structure that can accommodate three-day max demand. But for Bellmar we've seen no such analysis for -- from the applicant or from staff, and it is Page 15 of 73 April 19, 2021 a requirement that they do that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I believe that's what staff testified to that they did, but -- I can -- we can probably -- MS. OLSON: The applicant has not, and DPFG did not in that statement that I read to you that they felt they didn't need to because it's impacting users and not the taxpayer. But, again, we disagree. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just the one last comment, because you kind of threw everything against the wall. It's kind of like throwing Jell-o against the wall. I had to figure out which point to kind of lend a value and credence. But then we got into talking about sea rise and the amount of money that it would cost for the county to take measures in raising roads and elevating roads. I mean, that's sort of an absurd argument. Do you believe that the county is going to spend that kind of money rather than -- I mean, we can discuss the merits of whether it's existing or not, but to throw that out as we should not spend money because we're going to need money to spend in the urban area is well beyond anything involved in regards to evaluating the consistency of this as a petition, but I just thought that was sort of an absurd argument. MS. OLSON: We need to be very fiscally conservative with our funds because, yes, we are one of the top places in the nation for sea level rise and flooding. And I know you probably know the ACUNE results are going to be coming out as well. So, yeah, we do believe in fiscal responsibility and that we should be a little bit more conservative. There already are roads that are under water during high tide. So it's -- it's a fact that our seas are rising here in Collier County. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. You said that, but how many centimeters has it risen in 25 years? MS. OLSON: I don't -- I don't know the answer, but I can find out. Off the top of my head -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's -- I don't need to explore anymore. Thanks. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: April, you brought up a variety of points, as Joe said. MS. OLSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRY: And some of which -- some of which are things that occurred to me also in review and some of the things we talked about. I feel like we vetted most of those issues with staff during the last meeting with the -- with an outcome where they seemed to address those concerns, at least to the extent that Longwater was approved. So I just want to clarify a couple points and tell you -- gating is one of the things you mentioned as one of my initial concerns, and one of my major surprises was I thought that the term "interconnected" meant we needed public roads, multiple ways in and out of these developments, and that that was keeping the traffic distributed, and not just on the main roads. But I asked that question directly of Trinity Scott and was surprised to learn that the county's preference was to not have the responsibility -- if they don't gate it -- my understanding is if they gate it, they are responsible for maintenance and building of the spine road. It is not the county's responsibility. And I'm bringing this up in case I'm incorrect. I do plan to ask staff just to clarify and, I guess, rebut some of the points that you've made. But I was told, really, I think the county didn't want the financial responsibility to maintain the spine roads inside, and they would prefer a gated development. You could have bowled me over with a feather when I heard that because of my implied definition of interconnected. But you're actually -- are you saying -- you seem to be saying that even if it's gated, they are not taking responsibility for the spine roads. MS. OLSON: Well, at one of the hearings we heard the applicant's attorney say that they were not -- they had not agreed to pay to build the spine road behind the gate. Now -- Page 16 of 73 April 19, 2021 COMMISSIONER FRY: And I don't know if -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: That's not even -- that's not how it works anyway. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They have to pay. It's their road. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: The developer builds the roads. Even if they turn them over -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MS. OLSON: I may be wrong on that point. Maybe it was maintenance. I went back and listened to it, and Mr. Yovanovich -- COMMISSIONER FRY: I don't want to offend procedure, but are we able to have Rich chime in? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's okay. You don't need to. I'm writing down all of the things that she said I said, and I'm going to ask her to point out in the record where I actually said those things. So I have some cross of her when it's my turn. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. I'd just point out that my understanding was that they would have to pay for the spine roads as part of the gating, and that was something the county preferred to my surprise -- maybe not to my satisfaction or joy. Is it your statement that the village center -- we talked about it as a context zone. The staff defined a village center as a context zone, not necessarily a geographic or physical location. Is it your statement that the village center must be geographically central to the development? MS. OLSON: Yeah. It should be more central, similar to Ave Maria, where you have the core and it radiates out. You have the gradient. Just like staff had said in that statement, it would be more of a village center if it was actually in the center. And it would create, you know, a more walkable neighborhood. You have it on Big Cypress Parkway. You're supposed to have a continuum of gradient. There is no development on the west side of it. And --in fact, let me just pull up the --so you don't have walkability on half of the property. COMMISSIONER FRY: While you're looking, I think what you've brought up are a number of issues where, sitting up here -- and I imagine some others agree with me -- we wish some of the terms were more -- were defined in a more concrete manner. "Innovative," you know, "diversity of housing," "continuum of density." They -- in our discussion with staff, they came to the assessment they had met all those criteria. Continuum, because they had the multifamily closer to the core and then less density outside. It wasn't like there was five layers of density. There were only about three: Village center, multifamily and then -- twin homes and then single-family. But a lot of these things are things that, in our role, I think you put us -- we're in a rock -- between a rock and a hard place in addressing your points, because you're asking us to say this is illegal and to deny it based on things that I believe are open to interpretation that we have vetted very well and, I think, come to the conclusion it's different from what you're stating. MS. OLSON: Yeah. I'm glad you brought this up, Commissioner, because these two slides, this one and the next one, were really for you, because I heard a lot of your questions. And for example -- because I heard the discussion about innovation and, unfortunately, staff said they don't need to be innovative, but that is not our take at all. Here are a couple policies right here. And they also have to be creative, right? So SRA characteristics shall be based on innovative planning and development as referenced in the statute, but also let's look at the bottom, the LDC. SRA developments are a compact form of development which accommodates and promotes uses that utilize creative land -use planning. Now, look at this; SRAs shall be used to facilitate the implementation of innovative planning. So they have to be creative and innovative. And then -- COMMISSIONER FRY: What is the definition of that? That is where -- MS. OLSON: Well, there are 430 PUDs in Collier County; we counted recently. And the applicant's attorney said at the last meeting, it's okay to have another PUD in the RLSA. It's Page 17 of 73 April 19, 2021 not okay. In order to be innovative and creative, they have to meet these characteristics right in front of you. To basically make them distinct from a PUD, they have to be compact. They have to be walkable, continuum, housing diversity, self-sufficient, fiscal neutrality. These are what make an SRA an SRA, what make a village a village. And that's why we said you have to earn the right to be a village. It can't be just another PUD. And the reason why is because these villages, these SRAs are 20 miles from the coast, 10 toll miles from 951. That's just the beginning of the RLSA. Then you've got another 10 miles out. So they have to be self-sufficient. They have to be walkable so we don't have traffic pouring out to the east. And so they have to be held to a higher standard. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'll make one final point and let this move on. MS.OLSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRY: It really has to do with the whole characteristic of the SRA, and I think Joe's alluded to it, something we dug into last time, the NRI values and, you know, why is 1.2 important and how really different are the receiving lands from the sending areas. And, you know, we arrived at the conclusion that there was a lot of forethought put into this and that when they had a value of less than 1.2, that was the less environmentally sensitive lands and, in that respect, better to build on than the more environmentally sensitive lands and that the Bellmar Village falls into the less environmentally sensitive lands; therefore, it is a receiving area. I pointed out that there -- the lands that are 1.2 and above, which are in sending areas, are much more environmentally valuable. So you have other environmental groups that also care about panthers, and I have assumed that we all care about panthers, too. But you showed us telemetry data and, literally, there was nowhere where there was not telemetry data showing the panthers were there. So the question is: What is the best area for the panther habitat weighing in all the other factors, and the plan arrives at the conclusion that it is the sending areas -- MR. KLATZKOW: Just as -- COMMISSIONER FRY: -- overall. MR. KLATZKOW: Just as a point. These SSAs and these SRAs, they all went to the Board of County Commissioners as part of a public hearing. If anyone at that point in time thought that it was inappropriate to designate them as an SSA or an SRA, that was their time to object. To my knowledge, that never happened. MS. OLSON: Well, the program was -- I wasn't around back in two thousand -- MR. KLATZKOW: Well, let me finish, all right. So what we have here is 20 years ago we agreed upon this method to build out this portion of the county. Over the course of a number of years, we set aside lands, some for environmental protection, some to be built on. And now that we're getting into the very end game on this after 20 years, okay, we're talking about, well, this land really isn't appropriate because there's panthers. That decision was made. And, quite frankly, the time to object has long passed on this, all right. We can't unscramble this egg at this point in time. So if the objection was to be made that this area was too environmentally sensitive, we shouldn't build on it, well, shame on you for not bringing this up years ago. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, that was my point. It's an SRA. At the time when this was passed and went through numerous public hearings, if there was a dispute, they could file. That's how we ended up with neutral lands, if you remember. And they were -- then we had the Hussey agreement. We had other type of agreements that adjudicated whether they were sending or receiving. This has long been identified as receiving lands and that it was eventually going to be a buildout. But I want to make sure we clarify this term "PUD." PUD is a zoning term, Planned Unit Development. It's a specific zoning. This area is already zoned. It's already zoned RLSA. This Page 18 of 73 April 19, 2021 is not a PUD. It looks to you like a PUD, but this is nothing more than an overlay proposal consistent with the RLSA zoning. It is not a PUD. I know, Karl, we talked about PUD because it looked like a PUD because we all think of PUDs as gated communities. But a PUD is a specific zoning ordinance designed to allow for site specific rules where they wanted to apply a development. It could be commercial. It could be residential. So we throw this term "PUD" around. It is not a PUD. And I don't know where you may have heard the applicant -- I don't recall -- and we'll wait to hear what Mr. Yovanovich says, but I don't hear him -- I don't hear anybody ever saying that, well, the SRA was a place for a PUD because it is -- it's inconsistent. It's not a PUD. The RLSA is already zoned. It is a zoning classification for land use. This is nothing more than the approval of an overlay to be allowed as a Stewardship Receiving Area within the RLSA. That's what it is. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you for that clarification, Joe. I just, I think the --when I say rock and a hard place, it does seem -- and to Attorney Klatzkow's point, you're asking us to change the rules that were set, and I don't think that's within our purview. MS. OLSON: I'm not asking you to change the rules. We're asking that these projects are designed to be a village, to be an SRA, to have all those qualities on that list that I just showed you. And according to staff, they say it's just a typical suburban development plan. I mean, that's why I showed you this. It's not meeting the benchmark of an SRA. And if you don't mind me real quickly touching on the telemetry data that you mentioned. The reason why not all of the telemetry is shown on those agricultural lands is because the panthers -- a lot of panthers are no longer collared, but the panthers that were collared, they would take that data during the daytime, and they found out later when they did the GPS collaring that they do use the agricultural fields. But a lot of the telemetry data was taken during the day when the panthers are hunkered down into the forests. And the other thing is, the program was approved before best available science came out about the panther. And there's many documents. The Immokalee area study said that it was going to be updated with best available science. Once that Kautz study was published -- and it never was, unfortunately. COMMISSIONER FRY: We have RLSA amendments coming up in the next meeting. To me it seems like some of these changes you're requesting, that would be the appropriate time. MS. OLSON: We have. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. I think that's great. MS. OLSON: We have, yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: But, I mean, you have had other environmental groups who have spoken to that nighttime telemetry issue and still said that these lands are a better choice to build on than the sending areas. And so we're trying to apply the rules. I'm going to let it move it from here, April, not to dispute this. I'm going to ask staff to clarify some of the points that you made. I'm sure that Rich has a few comments to make. MS. OLSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRY: And we have to make our decision based on the criteria that we have to work with. MS. OLSON: And this map right here just shows you of the adult breeding habitat loss that will come from Longwater and Bellmar Village. The red areas, the orange, the yellow areas, so it will be significant, a significant loss, I should say -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Paul? MS. OLSON: -- if these projects are approved. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: You have a question? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a quick question. You referred to Ave Maria as a better example of the continuum the density. Does Ave Maria have all this SSA and WRA type lands Page 19 of 73 April 19, 2021 intermingled in the middle of the property which creates a little bit -- it makes it a lot easier to have that central location and the continuity out. These lots, which are designated open space, it's a little more difficult there, I think, than Ave Maria. MS. OLSON: Well, let me back up. Ave Maria did -- it has that town core area, and since then I think it's been amended a lot, so it has become more kind of low density around and less compact. But these are -- Bellmar's a thousand -acre project. That's huge. If you remember Joe Minicozzi, when he provided that slide and he laid it over downtown Naples, it's a big area. They could have a more centrally located village area, but they're choosing not to. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a follow-up question. I know there's a lot of discussion about well -- whether a village center is in the center of the village. But when I look at this, and I look at the layouts and the transportation planning and with the goal out in that area to be to reduce the amount of traffic that finds its way back into the highways, it would seem to me -- and I'm looking to see whether you agree or not -- that locating the village centers on the perimeter end would provide access to the Golden Gate Estates and actually help further reduce the transportation issues than if it was -- if you had commercial in the middle of the property. By having it on the outside, you really open it up to the possibility of Golden Gate Estates using it as well and cutting down on future traffic. MS. OLSON: Well, having it on the outside, you're encouraging -- like what they're planning on the town plan is just the strip commercial where people are going to be driving by; it's going to encourage sprawl. If you have the village center centrally located and where you actually have a true village center where you can get a cup of coffee, get your hair done, that's walkable, that -- you're going to have more internal capture if you provide all those amenities inland -- I should say on the interior, but providing, you know, Big Cypress Parkway, you're going to have a lot of, you know, extra traffic that's going to be going outside of the village instead of maintaining that internal capture. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But outside of the village to the edge of the village where the commercial area is and also the areas to the west would also now migrate, whereas they're less apt to migrate to use those commercial facilities if they're in the center of the -- so that's just an observation. It would seem like to me that it would have a more positive impact on the traffic for the bigger area, not just the development. MS. OLSON: But the problem is, you're making it less walkable when you put it along Big Cypress Parkway. And the whole point of these SRAs, the towns and the villages, is that they're supposed to be walkable. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: "Walkable" is another word that I wish there was a tighter definition of. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: It doesn't mean you can't walk. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. That's what I was just going to ask you. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's where I think it's difficult for us to hold a hardline. But that isn't my point. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Paul, the reality is, if you had it -- you can have commercial in the center, but if there's no capture rate to support the businesses, all you're going to have is a bunch of empty storefronts. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, we -- there are developments here in this county that have attempted to do that, and they failed miserably. So it's -- I mean, even the standpoint when we talked about Ave Maria, just to get a grocery store out there, they were subsidized for Page 20 of 73 April 19, 2021 quite a while because of the capture rate. Talk to any grocer; he's going to tell you they need 6- to 10,000 homes for a capture rate. COMMISSIONER FRY: April, Rural Lands West was a town that didn't make it. It had -- I think to most of us had a much more dynamic continuum and had a center -- city center in the middle, or a town center in the middle. Where did the Conservancy stand on Rural Lands West? Were you in favor of it? MS. OLSON: Well, first of all, it's the location. We look at location, and we look at design. And the location was inappropriate because it was also in panther habitat and also bisected by Oil Well Road. But it did offer more commercial. But, you know, first and foremost, the location was inappropriate. COMMISSIONER FRY: But would it have been better than the three villages and backing into the town plan? MS. OLSON: I'll talk about the town plan when we get to that. COMMISSIONER FRY: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Tom. MR. EASTMAN: What was your review and opinion of the Hyde Park project? MS. OLSON: We -- Hyde Park was outside of Primary Panther Habitat, and, you know, it did have some issues, but it was also a sand mine, I believe. So they were more constrained in having -- they already had the lakes that ran throughout it, so they were more constrained in having that center area. It did provide a little bit more affordable housing. We did comment that it was not enough -- I'm sorry, housing diversity, excuse me. So we did provide some comments, but it didn't have as many issues as Bellmar. MR. EASTMAN: Did you do the same type of fiscal analysis and if it was going to have an impact or if it was neutral; did you go through all of those relative to Hyde Park? MS. OLSON: We did not for that project. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: My turn? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yes, your turn. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to follow up from where Mr. Eastman started, and then we'll -- I'll go back to other issues. Let's talk a little bit about Hyde Park. Where's the village center for the Hyde Park community? MS. OLSON: It's on the southeast corner, if I remember. I don't have the plan pulled up in front of me. MR. YOVANOVICH: Bob, would you put that up. It's actually not in the center, correct? MS. OLSON: Correct. Like I said, it had a lot of -- it was a mine. It had lakes throughout. MR. YOVANOVICH: Where's the amenity center for the Hyde Park SRA village? MS. OLSON: I don't remember. I'm here to talk about Bellmar today. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just wanted to -- you got up and started testifying about proper planning, and I want to understand the Conservancy's analysis as to proper planning. MS. OLSON: And we also did a much more deeper dive into Bellmar and Longwater. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I just want to understand how committed the Conservancy is to proper planning. Would you believe me if I told you that the amenity center for the Hyde Park Village was smack in the center of the village? MS. OLSON: I don't know. I don't have it in front of me. MR. YOVANOVICH: So I'm going to tell you it was, so it was possible to put the village center in the middle of Hyde Park, correct? Correct? Page 21 of 73 April 19, 2021 MS. OLSON: As I said, I did not do as deep of dive -- we did not do as deep of dive as we did on Longwater and Bellmar. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. MS. OLSON: It is a smaller project, and so the walkability was better; it wasn't as long as Longwater and Bellmar. It wasn't as big of a property. MR. YOVANOVICH: How many acres was the Hyde Park Village? MS. OLSON: I don't remember. That was months ago. MR. YOVANOVICH: So you don't really know how far -- MS. OLSON: Probably around 600. MR. YOVANOVICH: It was a section of land? MS. OLSON: From what I remember. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So the fiscal neutrality analysis that was used from Hyde Park, you would agree it was the same fiscal neutrality analysis used for Longwater and Bellmar, correct? MS. OLSON: I don't know. As I mentioned, we did not review their fiscal neutrality assessment. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, is the Conservancy not concerned with fiscal neutrality for all villages that occur in the RLSA program? MS. OLSON: Yes, we are. MR. YOVANOVICH: And you didn't think it was necessary to review the fiscal neutrality analysis for Hyde Park? MS. OLSON: At the time we -- you know, we've learned a lot since then, so if it were to come forward today, we would have. MR. YOVANOVICH: When did Hyde Park go through the process? MS. OLSON: You tell me. What, six months ago? MR. YOVANOVICH: Was it the same time as Rivergrass? MS. OLSON: Around the same time. We did not do a deep analysis. We have limited staff, so we cannot look at every single project. What we do is we look at projects who have -- that have extreme environmental issues and planning issues, but we don't have staff to investigate every single SRA or every single PUD that comes forward to Collier County. So we start with those that have the most severe issues first. MR. YOVANOVICH: Severe issues meaning severe planning issues? MS. OLSON: Planning, panther habitat, kind of -- you know, we look at the whole thing at a high-level view, and we prioritize. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So I want to understand -- you made the statement, in your professional opinion, we are not complying with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan. MS. OLSON: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: So I want to understand your professional credentials. Are you a certified planner? MS. OLSON: I have a master's degree in environmental studies with an emphasis in land use and planning. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you a certified planner? MS. OLSON: I am not. MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, you would agree that only -- only AICPs can prepare SRA master plans and SRA documents, correct? MS. OLSON: Let me explain my job to you a little bit. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no. I've asked you a question. MS. OLSON: This isn't a court of law, so -- Page 22 of 73 April 19, 2021 MR. YOVANOVICH: How about you answer -- I'll let you explain -- MS. OLSON: -- I don't have to answer yes or no. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, you do. The question I asked you was -- MS. OLSON: I do not. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, you do. You do. I've asked you a question. MS. OLSON: I'm not a -- I am not a planner. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. MS. OLSON: What my job is is to review development proposals that have significant environmental issues, and one of my -- an area that I look at a lot -- but not for every project because there's one of me. We do have a team, though, that can help somewhat, and we rely on experts -- is to look -- read the Growth Management Plan policies, read the land development policies, and see if the projects are consistent with those policies. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So I'm going to read you one of the policies. First of all, in the RLSA section of the Growth Management Plan, where does the word "walkability" appear? MS. OLSON: Did you say in the GMP or the LDC? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I said where in the Growth Management Plan policies specifically applicable to the RLSA area does the word "walkability" appear? MS. OLSON: Well, I would have to -- it says pedestrian a lot, pedestrian friendly. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that would be in Policy 4.7.2? MS. OLSON: You know what, there's several policies that say pedestrian friendly. I had a whole list for Rivergrass. If you want, you can bring that one out. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you have it. You showed it, so I'll read it to you. It says, villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway systems serving all residential neighborhoods, correct? MS. OLSON: Are you going to share -- pick one policy? Here we go. Walkable, Policy 4.7.2. Okay. Is that the one you read? MR. YOVANOVICH: I did. MS. OLSON: Let's look at -- let's look at Policy 4.08.07. Villages shall be designed in a compact pedestrian friendly form. MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, that's a Land Development Code provision. MS. OLSON: And in the Land Development Code applies villages -- or villages have to meet the Land Development Code as well. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just -- April, I'll let you clarify whatever you want to clarify. My question to you was, where in the Growth Management Plan does it say "walkable"? MS. OLSON: I don't have a copy of the Growth Management Plan in front of me. I mean, you think I would memorize every single policy? MR. YOVANOVICH: You put the word "walkable" there, and you cited Policy 4.7.2, and the word "walkable" does not appear anywhere in Policy 4.7.2, correct? MS. OLSON: I don't have the full policy in front of me, but if it says "encourage pedestrian," pedestrian is walkable. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it says through the provision of sidewalks and bicycle -- MS. OLSON: That particular policy. That particular policy, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, does the Bellmar Village have sidewalks on both sides of the street? MS. OLSON: Yes, but it doesn't -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Does it have a pathway system? MS. OLSON: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Does it connect all of the neighborhoods? Page 23 of 73 April 19, 2021 MS. OLSON: Probably, but there are other policies where it says they have to be pedestrian friendly, and you have to walk to the village center. You're not going over all of the policies. MR. YOVANOVICH: It says that you have to walk to the village center in the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan? MS. OLSON: It says that they have to be pedestrian friendly. I don't have a copy of the GMP in front of me or the LDC in front of me. You obviously do. MR. YOVANOVICH: I do. And -- MS. OLSON: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And you got up here and you testified to your expertise, and I'm just trying to understand the level of your knowledge of the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. I'm ready to move on. MS. OLSON: Okay. And our expert already did an analysis for you on the lack of walkability. That is in the record. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand what Mr. Minicozzi said and the standards that he applied. I'm trying to understand what this board or commission can rely upon upon your expertise, because you gave your professional opinion. Now, you're not an economist; do you agree? MS. OLSON: Uh-huh. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're not a transportation consultant, you would agree? MS. OLSON: Uh-huh. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you relying upon -- what was your transportation consultant's name? MS. OLSON: Norm Marshall. MR. YOVANOVICH: The same consultant that agreed that Trinity Scott was the actual expert in transportation issues. MS. OLSON: For Collier County, he agreed; for Collier County. But he's -- he is a transportation planner and expert, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: And this project's in Collier County? MS. OLSON: Yes. But it doesn't -- he knows how to do modeling. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll rely upon what Mr. -- what was the name again; Norm -- MS. OLSON: Norm Marshall. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- Norm Marshall said. Now, with regard to -- there's so many things you said that I said about the project. I'm pretty sure I never said there shall be no public comment on this petition. What I did say is there shouldn't be repeat people speaking again that already spoke on the project. That's what I said, correct? MS. OLSON: I went back -- no, I went back and listened, and you tried to thwart public comment. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I don't believe so. MS. OLSON: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Then you'll show me -- you don't need to show me now, but you'll show me in the record where I thwarted public comment. MS. OLSON: Sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: I want to know where it was -- you made these -- you made allegations through asking questions, things like, we'll never know why staff changed their opinion. MS. OLSON: Uh-huh. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you accusing staff of improperly changing their Page 24 of 73 April 19, 2021 recommendations on both the Bellmar and Longwater petition? MS. OLSON: I don't know what happened; that's why I asked the question, because it was very clear in that statement that they said this RLSA does not meet the intent of the policies, the program. MR. YOVANOVICH: And -- MS. OLSON: That was their statement. MR. YOVANOVICH: And you quoted something that was in May of 2020, and we're now almost in May of 2021, correct? MS. OLSON: Correct, and I showed you how the design had not changed. MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, are you saying that Mr. Giblin is now incorrectly determining that there is a variety of housing types in this project? MS. OLSON: It goes against what he had said in the past about other SRAs that he had mentioned that 10 percent wasn't enough. And now all of a sudden 10 percent, he's changed his professional opinion, so I'm not quite sure why. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, didn't Mr. Giblin testify that we were providing either sites within the project or in close proximity of the project for affordable housing? MS. OLSON: Okay. But that still -- 10 percent is the only commitment, and staff said in their document that they would like to see a 42 percent, close to what the economic assessment says. That's what they would have liked to have seen a commitment for. MR. YOVANOVICH: You'll agree with me that the 42 percent that's in the economic assessment included villas as part of the multifamily calculation? MS. OLSON: Villas are single-family detached [sic] homes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know what they are, but do you know how they -- MS. OLSON: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- were characterized in the economic assessment? MS. OLSON: As multifamily. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So the 42 percent in the economic assessment included villas in the analysis, correct? MS. OLSON: I was just reading a statement from staff. MR. YOVANOVICH: And staff, a year later, reviewed the project and determined we meet all of the criteria, correct? MS. OLSON: A year later; that's why we didn't -- you didn't make it -- the project is not at the 42 percent. MR. YOVANOVICH: The -- isn't it true that staff did, in fact, determine that our project is innovative? MS. OLSON: As I mentioned, nothing has changed -- I should say very little has changed from that first master concept plan where they made that statement that it was not innovative to the final master plan. So the question is, why? That's why I asked the question, because -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well -- and I'm sure the staff, when they get up, will explain the why, like they did in Longwater. So did you ask to meet with staff to go over your conclusions? MS. OLSON: No, I did not. MR. YOVANOVICH: So you've never given staff an opportunity to explain. You've just come in here and said, we don't understand why? MS. OLSON: Well, we've met with staff in the past about other Collier Enterprises projects, so there was really no need. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to let that sink in for a second. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. That's interesting. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to end it there. I'm done with my questions. Page 25 of 73 April 19, 2021 CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. MS. OLSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. So we're going to take a -- we haven't done the staff report yet, right? So we'll take a -- MR. BELLOWS: We finished all the online speakers? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Oh, there's one more speaker? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Madam Chair, we have one more online speaker, Bradley Cornell, and that will conclude all the speakers for this item. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Is that all right? Okay. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Cornell, if you would unmute your microphone. Are you with us? MR CORNELL: I am. Thank you. Madam Chair and Commissioners, I appreciate the opportunity to address you on the Bellmar SRA. I'll try and be as brief as I can. I know it's been a long and sprawling hearing on this over lots of days. So I'll start by just saying that Audubon's main concern about Bellmar has been this village as being sited too near the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. We've had that concern for a long time. And in following up on that, Audubon has spent over a year with our Conservation Collier colleagues at Florida Wildlife Federation and Defenders of Wildlife negotiating with Collier Enterprises to reduce the impacts of this village's siting. We have received several very important commitments from Collier Enterprises on conservation improvements, as I noted in my comments on Longwater. Those include restoring and protecting a panther wildlife movement linkage with three wildlife crossings under roads and widened dimensions for this large mammal pathway. Also, we received a commitment to a coexistence plan, which includes mandatory bear -resistant trash cans for businesses and residences in all the villages and the subsequent possible town. Also a commitment to international Dark Skies lighting criteria being required, increased stewardship credit consumption from eight to 10 credits per acre upon conversions to a town with Longwater and Rivergrass and also Bellmar, and commitment to smoke easements for regional prescribed burning, including Collier Enterprises SSAs and preserves. Collier Enterprises has also committed to establishing SSA No. 18 to entitle Bellmar, which is over 2,000 acres in the southeast end of the RLSA. It is an advanced SSA designation that they don't need for credits right now but that the public and wildlife will benefit from this early -- by doing this early conservation action. Also, this permanent conservation area will help discourage any agency, including Collier County, from extending Big Cypress Parkway to I-75 and trying to get an interchange built there, which Audubon strongly opposes. Now, regarding panther telemetry, I just want to note that FWC published a study of GPS data showing similar habitat usages to the VHF radio daytime data, and I've seen these data mapped for the RLSA. And, indeed, the panthers do not select the farm fields over the forested or wet prairies and those sorts of habitat. So I don't think it's accurate to say that the farm fields were more important in the -- in looking at GPS data. I also want to point out that mitigation for north Golden Gate Estates single-family home impacts to primary and secondary panther habitat is entirely paid for by Rural Lands Stewardship Areas SSAs. That's -- the north Golden Gate are actual forested primary habitat versus the cleared farm fields that are primary that are being discussed in connection with these villages. So I don't think it's entirely the same kind of primary, and it's important to remember the mitigation value of these Rural Lands Stewardship projects. My final point is that you have heard many opposing comments on this proposed village, Page 26 of 73 April 19, 2021 including the last speaker's comments, and as well as all the other villages that you've heard comments on and the different versions of a proposed town in this area. These comments are missing the conservation purpose of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area. While I agree, there are important ways to improve the sustainability and smartness of our urban developments in Collier County, including in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area. The Bellmar proposal conforms to the current Rural Lands Stewardship Program criteria, and there are improvements to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area standards being worked on now, including through the amendment process that you're about to look at some adoption changes. But please remember from Audubon's big -picture conservation perspective, Rural Lands Stewardship is the strongest land -use planning tool we have for permanent protection and restoration of 134,000 acres of imperiled Florida panther and wood stork habitats and farms. These are the patches or isolated pieces but connected regional scale SSA preserves. The 3,500 acres of three villages and their town conversion will be entitled by permanent protection of 12,200 acres of vital habitats in Camp Keais Strand unit of the CREW Florida Forever project, including 2,600 acres of upland and wetland restoration. That is an outstanding conservation outcome and is why Audubon Florida and Audubon Western Everglades believes these SSA conservation achievements, in addition to the conservation commitments on the SRA village, Bellmar, far outweigh the negative impacts of Bellmar's proximity to the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. So thanks for considering those comments, and I'm -- good luck in your deliberations. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Madam Chairman, my apologies. We have one more online speaker, Julie Ann Thomas. She will be our final speaker for this item. Ms. Thomas, are you with us? (No response.) MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I don't think Ms. Thomas is with us anymore. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Madam Chair, if we could ask if Chris has anything. I know he's on the road, and he may not have a chance to unmute, but if we can ask him if he has any questions. Chris? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Chris, do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, thanks, Commissioner Schmitt. No questions, but thanks for checking. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. MS. THOMAS: Excuse me. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: There's Ms. Thomas. MS. THOMAS: Sorry about yet -- tagnology. It's a good time. Thank you. Hi. My name is Julian Ann Thomas, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. My comments are limited and will be focused on listed -species issues for the Bellmar site. I will remind you that GMP goal for the RLSA includes directing incompatible uses away from upland habitat. Panther scientists have determined that panthers are wide ranging, secretive, and at current low densities. Panthers require large contiguous areas to meet their social, reproductive, and energetic needs. And this requirement is specifically being impacted by the Bellmar project. Panther habitat continues to be lost, in this case to a proposed residential development with a small commercial component. Panther scientists believe that any further loss of the primary zone as identified by biologist Randy Kautz and his associates or adult breeding habitat identified by Dr. Robert Frakes and his associates will negatively impact the survival and recovery of the Page 27 of 73 April 19, 2021 Florida panther. For the record, 83 percent of the site is adult breeding panther habitat, and 100 percent of the site falls within the primary zone. We also note for the record that this land has been in active agricultural for a long time. At least since 1970s, probably earlier. This is important to note because the authors of Kautz, et al, knew that this was active agriculture when it was designated as Primary Panther Habitat, and Frakes, et al, knew that this was active agriculture when designating it adult panther breeding habitat. We should not second guess the findings of these two publications, which are the bases of best available science for identifying necessary panther habitat. However, it is your responsibility to rely on the best available science when making your recommendation. The best available science states that losing any Primary Panther Habitat will negatively impact the survival and recovery of the Florida panther. This proposed development does more than destroy and fragment Primary Panther Habitat and adult breeding habitat on the project site. The proposed development will also bring new roads and increased traffic to this rural area as people come and go. The leading known cause of panther death is vehicle mortality and, as April noted, the indirect impacts of this development will bleed into the surrounding land. In addition to Primary Panther Habitat and adult breeding panther habitat, there is a caracara nest near the project boundary near the middle of the project site. Caracaras are federally threatened. Both adult and juvenile caracara were observed on the property alongside this active nest, and over 80 percent of the site falls within the buffer zone for this caracara nest, which needs to be protected. We also know that 100 percent of the site is proposed critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat and that 29 bonneted bat calls were recorded during the listed species survey in 2020. Ten different listed, threatened, or endangered species were determined to use this site based on the listed species surveys done by the applicant in 2019 and 2020. Due to the species richness of this property, it is not an appropriate location for the proposed development or increased development rights. This project does not direct development away from upland habitat, and we are asking that you consider these facts in your recommendation and that you recommend denial of the Bellmar application. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Madam Chair, just to point out, I did state prior to the meeting I have to make a 15-minute phone call at 3:00, and then we will not have a quorum during my 15-minute or so. And I don't know if Terri -- can we postpone then, or do we want to -- can you continue -- take a break now? MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I ask the previous speaker a couple of questions? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is she still there? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Is she still on the -- yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. I missed her name. Was it -- MS. THOMAS: My name is Julie Ann Thomas. MR. YOVANOVICH: Ms. Thomas, the studies you referred to are landscape -level studies, correct? MS. THOMAS: That's correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: They're not studying specific parcels of property? MS. THOMAS: They are not. MR. YOVANOVICH: And is it your testimony that panthers are actually breeding on these farm fields? MS. THOMAS: It's my testimony that Dr. Robert Frakes and his associates have Page 28 of 73 April 19, 2021 determined that this is a likely habitat that panthers would use to breed on. MR. YOVANOVICH: So these -- the landscape study, you're concluding that they're actually using farm fields to breed on? MS. THOMAS: I have read the studies, I've talked with the authors, and it is my understanding of their science that they believe that 83 percent of the Bellmar site is suitable for adult panther breeding habitat. MR. YOVANOVICH: So you don't really have a professional opinion on your own. You're just reporting what you believe the authors of these studies concluded? MS. THOMAS: I'm not a panther scientist. I am -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Thank you. MS. THOMAS: Sure. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. So that's it for public speakers. Okay. So we'll be done with the public speakers for now. And we'll go to the staff report. MR. COHEN: For the record, Thaddeus Cohen, department head, Growth Management. I'm subbing for Jim Sabo. So today what you will see is I'm here to support our staff. I think the presentations just done makes it even more important that you understand how we do what we do, the time and effort that has gone into other reviews and why we stand behind the recommendations that we make both to you and then on to the Board of County Commissioners. And so as you can see, what we'll be doing is talking about the Comprehensive Planning review and the process that we use for that; zoning; Cormac will talk about the affordable housing; environmental review infrastructure will be broken into two components, the utilities and transportation. We call it economic assessment, but that's the fiscal neutrality aspect; and then our recommendations. We have an extensive team that spends a lot of time and hours in their expertise in order to take a look at these petitions to have a greater understanding of why it is and how it is that we can make the recommendations that we make. We reach out both to the applicant and to stakeholders to be able to get clearer understandings of what these petitions mean so that we can provide you with meaningful information as part of your deliberations, and what we show here is those individuals that were directly responsible for coming up with the recommendations that you'll hear. From the Comprehensive Planning standpoint, one of the questions that was raised is innovation and what does innovation mean. As we said with Longwater, we believe the RLSA in and of itself is innovative. There's only two RLSA, as I understand it, in the state of Florida, with Collier County having the first one. It has already protected, as you well know from the other conversations we've had, 55,000 acres of SSAs are protected at no cost to the public. And I heard Brad Cornell also talk in terms of what you get for the exchange of development rights and protection of environmentally sensitive land. And I think as we go through this conversation, that ought not to be lost on the community as to that balancing act that we have. The RLSA, in and of itself, complies with Chapter 163.3168. So the program itself, statutorily, is compliant. And what we're bringing to you in a little bit, not today, will be some amendments to that program. So we feel comfortable that if you're in compliance with Chapter 163, which the program is, if you meet that, then, therefore, we are consistent in our recommendations. And, again, it's a voluntary program, which means that there's some level of give and take to -- from my aspect of it, if you're voluntary, there's something that we want, something that you give, and I think you've heard over time how we've opined through the policy those kinds of negotiations, aspect of what it is that we do in order to see how we can make improvements in the petitions as they come forward. So from the adoption process, it's been long held that there's a value and incentives to be Page 29 of 73 April 19, 2021 able to protect natural resources, retain agricultural lands, and plan for sustainable growth. As you know, Collier County grows at 2 percent per year basically, so how it is that we try to accommodate for that growth in a sustainable manner. And we believe that as we looked at this program and as we looked at the project in particular, that the proposed program or project is consistent with the RLSAO objective requirements, the Comprehensive Planning uses adopted RLSA documents, Attachment C, which we'll talk about in a moment, and the relevant policies, in particular, Group 4 policies we found that the project is consistent. That was something of debate by one of the advocates. So what does Attachment C do? As one of the advocates says, that you have a series of things that you can do in RLSA. You can provide a town, a village, a hamlet, currently, although we're recommending that hamlets be eliminated, and a compact rural development. So those are the things that you can do in a program that has been found consistent with Chapter 163. And then what we do is we go look at a village and we say, what are the criteria that we use in order to see whether or not you meet that requirement. Well, it says you must be at least 100 to 1,000 acres, so we find that it's consistent because it's 999.74 acres. Residential units per gross area needs to be one to four dwelling units per gross area. It's consistent because they're within that range. Residential housing styles must have a diversity between single-family, multifamily, types, styles, lot sizes. We say that's consistent. Maximum floor area ratio or intensity must have retail at .5. We see it's consistent. Must have civic and governmental institutions identified at .6, which they do, so it's consistent. Goods and services. The village center, with neighborhood goods and services within a village center must have a minimum of 25 square foot gross building area per dwelling unit. And when you do the calculations, they have 68,750 square feet. That would be the minimum that's required, and they're consistent because it falls within the allowable 65- to 85,000 square feet of commercial uses. Open space, consistent. Governmental civic institutional requirements, consistent. And the school was not considered at this point, so therefore it was not provided. So as you can see, as we start to go through that Attachment C, again, through the RLSA, which is part of Chapter 163, which in that document talks about its innovativeness because of the balance we provide between protection of environmentally sensitive land and development opportunities; that we then look at the entitlements as far as how do we protect those as far as credits, and the available credits are some 14,000 in SSA 15. So we show how many credits are required in order to entitle Bellmar and then how many credits are available in the sending area. And it says that the SSA must be established to entitle the SRA. Again, back to that balance between the two. And SSAs are reversible until an SRA is approved by the BCC. So that land is not protected until an SRA is able to go forward. And then the SRA must be entitled to ensure protection of the SSA. So as we have this conversation about design and what we hope to accomplish, we think it's important to keep in mind, as Brad Cornell have pointed out, what the importance of the program is and what it is that we're trying to accomplish between entitlements on the one hand and protection on the other. And there was much discussion about the Group 4 policies. We think that when you look at Policy 4.7, it has four specific forms, and we talked about those: The town, the village, the hamlet, and the compact rural development. But here the residential development of 1,000 acres or less provides for a center, provides for diversity of housing types, encourages public green space and pedestrian bike friendly areas, directs development away from the wetlands, and you'll hear that later in our conversations when we talk about the codes that are used, the fact that we actually Page 30 of 73 April 19, 2021 go on the site to see what the species are, and that perimeter of each SRA transitions from higher density to lower density so that there's a balance between the developments that take place. So with that, I'll hand it over to Nancy Gundlach who will talk to you about the zoning aspects of the project. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Joe has a question. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thaddeus, I have a couple questions. For the record, can you state what your position is? MR. COHEN: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm department head, Growth Management. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Growth Management. So the staff -- every -- the Growth Management staff, Transportation staff work for you? MR. COHEN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In any way, shape, or form do you feel or do you believe that your professional ethics, your professional competency either of you or your staff was in question in regards to reviewing this project? Because it seems to -- some testimony seems to have implied that staff rolled and made changes to its original position. And I fully understand that during the review process staff provides review comments, the applicant then resubmits. But in any way do you feel that either you have been put under pressure, your staff has been put under outside influences or pressure to make a decision of recommendation for this petition? MR. COHEN: No, at no time. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thaddeus, just to add on to that question, describe the process, because you have some comments that were made early in the review process by staff, concerns, no longer appear in the final recommendation. So describe the processes as to why those comments changed and why sometimes those concerns disappear. MR. COHEN: Yeah. What is interesting -- and I kind of learned this by going through the white paper process -- is that the stakeholders and the public have an opportunity to look over our shoulder, literally, while we are formulating our opinions, and we have an opportunity to opine on what we believe we want to see, what we encourage petitioners to do, what we think our best value judgment may be at any moment in time. But at the end of the day, it is the Land Development Code and our policies that govern. So we can have that conversation and interaction with an applicant and say, it would be nice if you were able to do this, and in some cases they're able to do that, and that's reflected in some early versions of our staff report, but at the end it is governed by our GMP and what the Land Development Code says. And sometimes we overreach in those conversations and we have to say, well, you know, that's not really what the LDC says, and that's what planning managers and division directors and department heads get to look at. And then that's when we sometimes make an edit or a change. So to the folks who are not part of that process, they believe it might be something different, but it's -- truly, that's what it is. COMMISSIONER FRY: There are a number of terms that have come up for review with people having different interpretations of what they mean. MR. COHEN: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is there -- in your opinion, is there a way -- is there a necessity to tighten up the definition of some of those terms? I'm talking about walkability, pedestrian friendly -- MR. COHEN: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- interconnectedness, diversity of housing, continuum of density. Those seem to be some nebulous areas. MR. COHEN: And what we've said is there is that opportunity, and it's been a very long Page 31 of 73 April 19, 2021 travel that we've been on. So once we're able to bring the amendments from the RLSA to you and get those approved, then we're able to take it back to the Board, take it to the DEO to get the final approval that will allow us, through that amendment, those changes, to then start addressing the issues in the Land Development Code. So most of what you've been hearing about, the design and concerns about what the design may be, that's a product of what we will be able to start taking a look at in the LDC. But we're not able to get there yet until we finally have the RLSAO finally approved. COMMISSIONER FRY: So GMP first, then LDC, and that's where those definitions reside? MR. COHEN: And that's been the struggle, because people have been trying to jump to the end product without us being able to get the overall master document completed. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. I think we'll take a break now till 3:15. (A recess was had from 2:58 p.m. to 3:31 p.m., and Tom Eastman is absent for the remainder of the meeting.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That was a long 15 minutes. COMMISSIONER FRY: And that concludes our meeting for today. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. We'll continue with the staff report. MR. COHEN: Sure enough. Again, for the record, Thaddeus Cohen, department head, Growth Management. I'd like to end, or at least begin the next segment, where we ended, which is bring you back to how it is that we think about these petitions as they come through, is the question that you asked, Mr. Fry. And what you'll see is that it's an iterative process, and what you'll also see is that at the end we still make our way back to our governing documents. And with that, I want to pass it on to Nancy who will then talk about the zoning review and the basis for being able to make the decisions that we've been able to make. And I know that during the Longwater conversations, it kind of moved in lots of directions but at the end hopefully you'll come and take a look at the slides that we present, because that's the bases of us being able to make the recommendations that we make. MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Nancy Gundlach, principal planner with the Zoning Division. And Bellmar SRA is consistent with the Land Development Code, Section 4.08.00. It provides two context zones, the neighborhood general, and the village center -- the village center zones. And village center is the little one, and the larger one is neighborhood general. And it's important to note that the village center's context zone is a location -- it's not a location. It can be located in the center of the village or at the edge of the village, and it has the greatest density, intensity, and diversity and can include commercial, institutional, civic, and residential uses. It demonstrates an urban to rural transition. It's compatible with the ag -- surrounding agricultural lands, and adjacent to those agricultural lands it provides a Type A landscape buffer, and along the major roadways, such as future Big Cypress Parkway, it would be a Type D buffer. And Bellmar SRA, it's walkable, and it provides interconnected sidewalks and roadways. And the LDC allows for a 2,500-foot block perimeter in the village center context zone, and in the neighborhood context zone it allows for a 3,500-foot block perimeter. And the LDC also allows for alternative roadway cross -sections. And it's important to note that there were no deviations requested from the required sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. And with that, if you have any questions, it would be my pleasure to answer them, or we can introduce Cormac to present our housing affordable review. Welcome, Cormac. Page 32 of 73 April 19, 2021 MR. GIBLIN: Good afternoon. For the record, Cormac Giblin. I'm the planning manager with Development Review. I'll go through the housing affordability review. And you'll remember from the previous presentation, there are really two main policies that I review. One is from the Future Land Use Element that says villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types, and then the second is in the Land Development Code that says villages will offer a range of housing types and price levels to accommodate diverse ages and incomes. From the economic assessment of the Bellmar petition, the applicant has described various different product types and price points that they plan to be included in the SRA. And as Mr. Yovanovich mentioned at the beginning of his presentation, the applicant has agreed to the following condition of approval that at least 10 percent of all the residential units built, 275, will be sold at purchase prices in the moderate and gap affordability ranges. Those would be those product types from the previous slide that were in the townhome, Villa 1, coach, and Villa 2 designs or, as an alternative, land or units in or proximal to the SRA will be reserved for the development of housing that is affordable, and that land for housing that's affordable shall be identified within 45 months of the SRA approval and be equivalent to 2.5 percent of the gross acreage of the SRA. You also may remember that the Rural Lands Stewardship amendments cycle that's coming forward at your next meeting has a -- this is modeled primarily on the recommendations that are in that. I'd like to address one last thing about the evolution of staff comments and staff s interpretations. My review and recommendation, actually on every SRA that has been brought to the county going back to Ave Maria, have always started from the same place. It says, show me how you're going to meet the previous two code citations that I just put on the previous slide. What we have here is the proof of that evolution is that by working with the applicant throughout the review process, we get them to a point -- or we get the project to a point where we have a workable solution that does meet the code and that the applicant has agreed to. With that, your next presenter is Jaime, unless there's questions. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Paul has a question. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Question. In April's presentation from the Conservancy, she kept referring to a 46 percent or a 40 percent number. Can you clarify for me what's the 40 percent versus the 10 percent? MR. GIBLIN: Sure. That wasn't from one of my comments. I think that was from one of my colleague's comments in a previous version of the staff report from Comprehensive Planning. But what they were saying was -- if you go back to this slide that shows all the different product types, if you were to add those up, this mix is 1,160 units in the -- or, I'm sorry. It's -- yeah, it's 1,160 multifamily units versus 1,590 single-family units. That's that 42/58 percent balance that is identified in the economic assessment. That is not identified in the SRA document, but that was different staff commenters. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I ask a follow-up while we're on that; do you mind? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you mind? I think, Mr. Giblin, the coach homes is the only true multifamily product in that. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Town. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. Where? Oh, I'm sorry. The townhome and the coach homes are the multifamily product. They're not the villas. So when you did the 1,160, you were including some traditional single-family product in those numbers. So I just wanted to -- MR. GIBLIN: Okay. This comes right from the economic assessment, so it's a -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. Page 33 of 73 April 19, 2021 CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: Cormac, the only reference to 10 percent is in terms of 10 percent of the total units, 2,750. So 275 units would be priced in the affordable ranges mentioned. MR. GIBLIN: That is correct, or land or units identified. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So it wasn't --that's the only reference to 10 percent. There was no reference that -- there's no requirement that those be townhomes or coach homes. It could be any of the above, correct? MR. GIBLIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: No? Thank you. MS. COOK: Good afternoon. Jaime Cook, principal environmental specialist with the Development Review Division, and I'm going to talk to you about the environmental review. So as I've told you for previous petitions, the environmental review for SRAs consist of two phases, including the document review, which includes the review of the listed species survey, the vegetation inventory, and the soils map. Staff works with the GIS staff to ensure that the GIS data that has been submitted is consistent with the documents. The second review that is done is on -site verification. Staff conducts site visits to the SRAs, and during the review of this petition, staff conducted multiple site visits to the Bellmar SRA. The Natural Resource Index Assessment is the basis for the environmental review. I won't go through all of this again, since we just went through it with Longwater, but it's important to remember that lands that score greater than 1.2 are required to be retained as open space in their predominantly vegetated state, and lands that score a value of less than 1.2 are eligible for development. So with respect to Bellmar, the NRI Assessment, which consists of six factors that you can see here, are scored on an acre -by -acre basis. For the stewardship factor, no lands within the SRA are designated as Flowway Stewardship Areas, Habitat Stewardship Areas, or Water Retention Areas, and none of the lands are within the area of critical state concern. So for this factor, all acres scored a zero. For proximity, none of the lands are enclosed by an FSA, an HSA, or a WRA; however, there are some acreages along the eastern property boundary that are within 300 feet of an HSA, so those areas scored a value of 0.3 for this factor, and the rest of the proposed SRA had a score of zero. For listed species habitat, this factor is scored based on the habitats that are listed as preferred and tolerated for the species as well as the documented observations of the occurrence of the species within its preferred or tolerated habitat. The listed species surveys must be done in accordance with LDC requirements, including that they be less than one year old. They must be conducted by a qualified individual, and they must be done in accordance with Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protocols. Within the Bellmar SRA, sandhill cranes and crested caracara were identified in the southern pasture -- in pasture land in the southern portion of the village, and an alligator nest was observed in the northeastern wetland area. So listed species survey values ranged from 0 to 0.4. For soils, those are classified based on the USDA NRCS soils map and South Florida Water Management District classifications. Higher point values are given for soils found in wetlands and more aquatic environments. Lower scores are given to soils that don't retain water as Page 34 of 73 April 19, 2021 well, including habitats such as pine flat woods and upland forests. Soil scores typically don't change much over time, and they changed from 0 to 0.3 throughout the SRA. Restoration potential is only scored during the designation process for an SSA, not an SRA, so it's not applicable for this petition. And then land use and land cover, this factor looks at the type of vegetation on site. Higher scores either indicate wetland or native upland habitats. Lower scores indicate nonnative or impacted sites such as ag lands. Most of the Bellmar SRA consists of active and passive agricultural uses with one isolated wetland. So scores ranged from 0 to 0.4. When the individual factors are added up, the GIS output results in the maps shown on the right of the screen indicate that zero acres of land within this SRA boundary scored a value of greater than 1.2. In comparing the NRI Assessment with the applicant's master plan, you can see that the isolated wetland in the northeastern portion of the property, which scored a 1.1 -- so below the 1.2 threshold -- is being retained as a park preserve on their master plan. The applicant has included setbacks to this park preserve area, and they agreed to follow the LDC requirements for preserves including 25 set foot backs [sic] for primary structures and 10-foot setbacks for accessory structures. That commitment is found as a footnote in the SRA document Development Standards Table for neighborhood general. So there are -- using credits from SSA 15 as of right now, since 18 has not been approved. So our review is based on SSA 15. SSA 15 is 5,253.4 acres, located north and south of Oil Well Road as part of the Camp Keais wetland flowway system. An amendment to the SSA was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in January of 2020 which awarded 31,367 credits to SSA 15. Early -entry credits were established for SSAs prior to 2009. So this SSA was established prior to that date. And early -entry credits are derived as a credit earned for each acre of land that is considered an HSA. There are 1,826.9 early -entry bonus -- early -entry credits. The base credits are generated as a mathematical calculation of the NRI score multiplied by the base credit score for the land -use layers removed multiplied by the acres of land use. So SSA 15 has 8,112.1 base credits. The R1 credits for designation of restoration are available; however, the R2 credits are not yet available, as the restoration has not been completed yet; therefore, 20,653 credits were available. 6,198.08 credits were used to entitle Rivergrass Village, so that leaves a remaining balance of 14,454.92 credits available in SSA 15, which exceeds the number required for Bellmar. The graphic on the right shows the NRI scores for SSA 15 and, again, it's important to note that the scale for this is different than the scale for the Bellmar SRA. So everything that is bright green, turquoise, and blue scores above a 1.2 NRI score. Of the 5,253 acres within the boundary, 4,715 scored above a 1.2, which is over 89 percent of this SSA. So upon review of the GIS data and field verification by the environmental planning staff, we agree with the applicant's NRI assessment that zero acres of land scored above a 1.2 on the NRI assessment. So environmental staff recommends approval of the SRA petition with the following condition: Prior to issuance of the first SDP and/or PPL, a listed species management plan must be provided for review with approval from Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for management of the Florida panther and all other listed species. Unless you have any questions, I will turn it over to Eric Fey for -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Karl has a -- COMMISSIONER FRY: I do. MS. COOK: Okay. Page 35 of 73 April 19, 2021 COMMISSIONER FRY: The last caller for the Conservancy mentioned some listed species, blue bonneted bat being one of them. Is it that management plan where those issues would be addressed? MS. COOK: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: So it sounds like there is a possibility that some listed species might be occupying an area that we're going to build on, and because it's only a component of the NRI assessment, they could be out voted, I guess, so that they might lose some nests in areas where they are hanging out; is that accurate? MS. COOK: They could, but it's -- the way the LDC is worded, it says not only that they're observed there, but they're observed in their preferred and tolerated habitat. Farm fields are not preferred or tolerated habitat for bonneted bats so, therefore, they don't actually receive a score just because they're there. They have to also be found in their preferred and tolerated habitat. COMMISSIONER FRY: And if they were but you didn't get to the 1.2 where it had to be protected or left as preserve, what happens then? MS. COOK: They could potentially impact that site, but they would have to have approvals from either Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. COMMISSIONER FRY: So it is considered? They are -- MS. COOK: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Listed species are considered in all cases? MS. COOK: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'll follow up on that, Karl. Just for clarity -- and Jaime, this does not in any way, shape, or form relieve the applicant of the responsibility to comply with the Clean Water Act or the Endangered Species Act; is that correct? MS. COOK: You are correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And in undergoing this process, they would have to go through --possibly through a jurisdictional determination for a 404 wetlands. Now, that is being done not through the Army Corps anymore in Florida. It's now through Florida Department of Environmental Protection. So they still would have to apply for a Florida DEP 404 permit for any wetland impacts; is that correct? MS. COOK: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This does not waive any requirements for 404? MS. COOK: You are correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And then also in conjunction with that is typically a 401 water -quality certification through -- that EPA empowers the State to enforce 401 quality -- water -quality certification. That's through South Florida Water Management District. The applicant still has to apply for a South Florida Water Management District permit, correct? MS. COOK: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Now, in that process, through the 404 and 401 process, any federal agency can comment specifically in regards to endangered species, and that was the comment brought up about endangered or listed species. In this case they brought up the caracara and the Florida bonneted bat. Now, my information may be a little old, but U.S. Fish and Wildlife was doing a complete study of South Florida in regards to a Habitat Conservation Plan. I think that the Florida bonneted bat is still part of the HCP. And is there not still an HCP being studied and looked at for this development as with the others? MS. COOK: Correct, it's still under review, yes. Page 36 of 73 April 19, 2021 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's still under review. So with all those questions --because I know the answer. I just want it to be on the record --do you follow up to make sure that they do the proper applications through the federal and state process, or is that pretty much just a state oversight to make sure it's done? I mean, does staff follow up to make sure that any listed species identified -- they're going to give you -- based on the process, a listed species habitat, but you do follow up to make sure, or do you -- MS. COOK: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- follow up to make sure they applied for the proper permits before anything is done? Even if they applied for a take permit or any other type of impact? MS. COOK: Correct. They would have to submit to us their permits before we can approve the SDP or PPL. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The bottom line -- and the one speaker did bring up great points. There's no argument. But if there are listed species, the agencies will advise the applicant on whether to avoid, mitigate, or compensate; is that correct? MS. COOK: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Great. Thank you. MS. COOK: You're welcome. Any other questions? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: No. Thank you. MS. COOK: Then I will turn it over to Eric Fey, who will discuss the utilities. MR. FEY: For the record, Eric Fey, principal project manager with Public Utilities. I'm going to refer, for the record, to March 18th testimony for Longwater and avoid being repetitive. But just a refresher, we have a northeast service area utility extension project that is in progress, the segments needed to provide service, potable water, wastewater, and irrigation -quality water to the Big Cypress Stewardship District, which includes the three Collier Enterprises villages. Those segments will be completed this year with the pipelines being done in June and the interim wastewater treatment plant being done in December. This is an overview of the project, and the segments I'm speaking of are the interim plant here and this pipeline segment to Rivergrass here. Like Longwater, we have just one condition of approval, and that is that the agreement to provide potable water and wastewater utility services be adopted concurrently with the Bellmar Village SRA resolution. Notice that I did not include irrigation quality, because that is actually, per the agreement, not being provided. So I'll just speak on the other differences between Longwater and Bellmar. As noted on this slide, the agreement to provide potable water, wastewater, and irrigation -quality water services to Longwater Village is a prerequisite to establishing potable water and wastewater services to Bellmar. That's just a matter of course because we will be routing water and wastewater services through Bellmar -- I'm sorry -- through Longwater to get to Bellmar. Another difference is the prepayment of ERCs. In the case of water, the landowner will prepay 650 ERCs, and in the case of wastewater, 350 ERCs, and that is to defray the risk to the water/sewer district on the initial capital costs. Lastly, the timing is different. The buildout schedule has services being extended to Bellmar by the end of Fiscal Year'24. And in the case of this interlocal agreement, the water/sewer district will be doing those improvements. For Longwater, it was -- the Big Cypress Stewardship District was doing the improvements, and the water/sewer -- Collier County Water/Sewer District was reimbursing. That's a difference between Longwater and Bellmar. In the case of Bellmar, Collier County Water/Sewer District will be doing the improvements. Those are really the only differences between this SRA petition and Longwater, so I will Page 37 of 73 April 19, 2021 be happy to answer any questions regarding my presentation, and any fiscal neutrality issues will be addressed later by Joe Bellone. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Paul? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, I was going to ask you about fiscal neutrality. So I guess that's not something you're going to share an opinion on? Somebody else will address that. MR. FEY: No. Joe and Amy will get into the economic assessment here after Transportation Planning. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. Thank you. MR. FEY: I know there were some questions about flows and demands, and I'd be happy to answer any of those questions at that time. Joe will present a slide addressing, you know, average daily flow versus three-day and max month. Just generally speaking, you know, it's only water treatment plants that are required to meet max day demand. I think it was misstated in earlier testimony that water and wastewater have to meet max day. That's not the case. For wastewater plants, typically in Collier County it's the monthly average daily flow, which is -- you know, you use peaking factors for -- you apply peaking factors to average day demand and flow to calculate what you need for the plants. Hopefully that helps, and if you have any questions in that regard during Joe's presentation, I'd be happy to answer them then. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. MR. FEY: Next will be Transportation Planning. I believe Trinity Scott will be presenting. (Music being played.) COMMISSIONER FRY: You needed some intro music. I think I found just the right song. That is Danger Zone by Kenny Loggins from Top Gun. MS. SCOTT: Wow. I don't know that my presentation will even come up to that level, but... COMMISSIONER FRY: Terri, did you get every word of that? MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning manager. I want to start with a few items that have been discussed today before I get into my presentation. I wanted to address specifically the gating. As we talked about during Longwater -- and my Planning and Zoning team members here will correct me if I'm wrong -- but we do not have anything within the Comprehensive Plan nor the Land Development Code that requires that these villages be open; not gated. So from a staff perspective, we don't have the hammer to say it has to be opened. With regard specifically to Longwater, we had discussed that the Board had looked at and studied whether or not there would be an arterial roadway that goes through the middle of that, and the Board chose a different alignment. So it was something that we studied, but it was something that the Board of County Commissioners opted for a different alignment. With that, I'm going to go into -- so county staff completed a cumulative analysis of all three of the villages. By the way, it's going to be really reminiscent of about a month ago, so sorry. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We need the refresher. MS. SCOTT: Beginning in 2015, the county embarked on the Oil Well Road/Randall study, which was an extensive study that looked at corridor alternatives to accommodate the existing and future growth anticipated in Collier County. The study identified the Network Alternative 2 Plus, which was adopted by the Board in 2019. This network was adopted by the Board because it was best for enhancing the future roadway network, relieves intersections along Immokalee Road, and provides grid connections Page 38 of 73 April 19, 2021 while maintaining context sensitive to the residents of Golden Gate Estates. This network adopted by the Board of County Commissioners was incorporated into the 2045 Long -Range Transportation Plan completed by the Metropolitan Planning Organization. The MPO is mandated by federal and state law to plan for existing residents and anticipated growth and develop a Long -Range Transportation Plan with a 20-year planning horizon. What the LRTP does not do is it does not approve individual developments. It looks at areas where we anticipate growth, and we anticipate growth in the eastern part of the Collier County. And so we are trying to plan and set the stage for a roadway network to accommodate the increased population that the MPO must plan for. The MPO's cost feasible plan fully constructs projects on the following roadways between 2026 through 2045: Everglades Boulevard from Vanderbilt Beach Road to Randall Boulevard; Randall Boulevard from Eighth Street to Everglades Boulevard; Everglades Boulevard from Randall Boulevard to Oil Well Road, all of which are directly impacted segments or parallel relievers to other roadways but, ultimately, these were identified as part of the county's planning study to set the stage for what the transportation network would look like in the future. The Long -Range Transportation Plan must be developed based on revenues that are reasonably expected between 2026 through 2045. This is an excerpt from the 2045 Long -Range Transportation Plan where we are utilizing transportation impact fees and fuel tax as our means of paying for capacity -adding projects. What you'll note is the sales tax, the one -cent sales surtax is not included because it's anticipated to sunset in 2026, and right now there's no provision to extend it. Any decision to utilize ad valorem funding is a policy decision by the Board, but we do not plan based on having an influx of ad valorem. We are planning solely based on the transportation impact fees that we anticipate receiving based on the growth and the fuel tax that we receive as part of our extra option local fuel tax. So going back to that original study that I discussed the viable Alternative 2 Plus that shows what's anticipated within the Long -Range Transportation Plan, that does not take into consideration the improvements that are anticipated to be completed in the next five years as identified in the Capital Improvement Element adopted with the Annual Update and Inventory Report each year. The following improvements are fully funded for construction in the five-year Capital Improvement Element: Vanderbilt Beach Road extension from Collier Boulevard to 16th Street Northeast, which is Phase 1; and Phase 2 is from 16th Street Northeast to Everglades Boulevard; 16th Street Northeast from Golden Gate Boulevard to Randall Boulevard, which is a new crossing that will connect those two major arterial roadways; Wilson Boulevard from Golden Gate Boulevard to Randall Boulevard; Randall Boulevard from Immokalee Road to Eighth Street Northeast; as well as Oil Well Road from Everglades Boulevard to Oil Well Grade Road. You will see with these planned and committed improvement that there are significant projects to implement the Alternative 2 Plus, which I remind you was chosen because it was best for enhancing the future roadway network, relieves intersections along Immokalee Road, and provides the grid connections while maintaining context sensitivity to the residents of Golden Gate Estates. When we looked at the cumulative impact of all three villages together, several roadways were deemed deficient based on the background traffic alone, and they're listed here. Per Florida Statute 163.3180, when we determine an applicant's fair share, we must remove the deficient roadway segments from that calculation. The improvement necessary to correct this type of deficiency is the funding responsibility of the maintaining agency. So looking at those individual roadway segments and then looking at the planned and committed improvements, you'll note that we have multiple planned and committed improvements to deal with those deficiencies. We are doing that through our planning process. Through that Page 39 of 73 April 19, 2021 shorter range Annual Update and Inventory Report that you see, we are planning for what those deficiencies will be based on growth in the shorter term. I do want to correct the record of something that was stated earlier is we are not saying that we don't calculate a proportionate share if a project is included in the Long -Range Transportation Plan. What we are saying is is that it cannot be included in the calculation if it's deficient based on background traffic alone. So whether it's funded in the Long -Range Transportation Plan, that's irregardless. It doesn't matter. It's whether or not it's deficient based on growth only. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can we ask a question on that before she goes? Because I get confused. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I'd like to let her finish. Well -- I'd like to let her finish, because Karl and Joe are in front of you, so... COMMISSIONER SHEA: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm definitely going to ask about -- drill into that one. MS. SCOTT: So while we're not here to talk about Rivergrass or Longwater, we did include them in our cumulative impact analysis, and because many of these roadways are constrained, such as -- policy constrained such as Golden Gate Boulevard from Wilson to Everglades and Oil Well Road from Immokalee to Everglades, it's necessary that we look at parallel roadways to determine if sufficient capacity is available based on planned and committed improvements. And when we do that, we come down to a few roadways that are -- would be part of a calculation for a proportionate share. So we calculated that proportionate share; the applicant calculated that proportionate share for the remaining roadways. So going back to the Florida Statute 163.3180, the county must allow an applicant to enter into a binding agreement to pay or construct their proportionate fair share. Those facilities that are determined to be deficient from existing, committed, and vested trips plus the projected background traffic have to be removed because the improvement necessary to correct that deficiency is the funding responsibility of the maintaining agency. And the applicant must receive a credit for the anticipated road impact fees. So, in essence, the applicant is required to pay the higher of either the proportionate share based on Florida Statute required calculation methodology or impact fees, so the roadway impact fees for the three villages, approximately $53.6 million, which is significantly more than what their proportionate share would be. So the applicant will pay the higher of the two numbers, the calculated proportionate share or the impact fees; they're going to pay the higher of those two numbers. That is the impact fees, the expected impact fees. So for the Bellmar-specific analysis, projects identified in 3, 4, and 5 of the Capital Improvement Element are considered for consistency purposes. I went through those roadways in my prior slides. There's a map, just so you can see. On the top are the roadways that are expected to be deficient without Bellmar. On the bottom you'll note that there's three roadways in blue: Vanderbilt Beach Road from Logan to Collier; Randall from Everglades to DeSoto; and Golden Gate Boulevard from Everglades Boulevard to DeSoto Boulevard. So the applicant calculated their proportionate share going back to the same items. So those deficient roadway segments have to come off the list because they're the funding responsibility of the maintaining agency, and the applicant must receive a credit for the anticipated road impact fees. The proportionate share, as calculated in the TIS, was $4 million. The applicant is required to pay the higher of either proportionate share or impact fees. Their impact fees for Bellmar are anticipated to be $18.7 million. So they would pay the Page 40 of 73 April 19, 2021 anticipated road impacts, not the calculated proportionate share. In addition, we looked at operational mitigation. The TIS guidelines allow for equal mitigation, alternative mitigation, or fair share mitigation. In 2015, Florida Statute 70.45 was enacted that prohibited -- prohibited exactions. So what that means is is that the county can't impose something on a property owner that lacks an essential nexus to a legitimate public purpose and is not roughly proportionate to the impact of the proposed use. So the applicant will pay their fair share mitigation of all needed improvements to bring the intersections to acceptable operating levels of standards. Operational impacts are typically not impact fee credible, and the applicant calculated their fair share mitigation for operational improvement which resulted in the applicant being required to pay approximately $2.2 million. That will be on top of their impact fees. So we have a few conditions for approval. Within 90 days of the approval of the first development order, which will be the Site Development Plan or the plats and plans, the applicant must pay the full $2.2 million for their operational impacts; the developer shall be required to improve both Golden Gate Boulevard and Sixth Avenue Southeast from the project entrance to DeSoto Boulevard to a minimum two-lane undivided rural roadway consistent with the Florida Green Book Construction Standards. These will not be eligible for impact fee credits -- for road impact fee credits, sorry. And with regard to the school sites, similar to the Longwater petition, the school sites have not been evaluated for transportation impacts. We'll do that as part of the school board review when the school sites come in. And it's noted in the commitment that Collier County Public Schools is responsible for the roadway improvements necessary for both school sites. And I go back to, the Florida Statute required calculation for proportionate share is $4 million, and the applicant will pay their anticipated impact fees of 18.7, which is significantly higher than what the Florida Statute calculated proportionate share would be. Shoot. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Having said that, the impact fees are intended to pay more than just for their proportionate fair share of road improvements, correct? MS. SCOTT: The impact fees are calculated -- and Amy can get into that more. Impact fees are calculated so that growth would pay for the amount of capacity that they're consuming. So that's different than a Florida Statute -related proportionate share calculation. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. And I'm hoping, Paul, maybe this is the question that you were after as well is, the point that was posed -- the question posed by -- during the Conservancy's presentation had to do with the background traffic, I believe, and how -- so I saw a slide that I believe clarified that when you consider background traffic, it is traffic other than that traffic generated by the proposed development. Can you clarify that? Because they seem to be saying or thinking that the background traffic included their traffic and, therefore, they were not having to pay a fair share for traffic that was, in fact, due to them. MS. SCOTT: So when the MPO, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, is doing their planning and their Long -Range Transportation Plan, they look at the county's county interactive growth model and where we anticipate growth. And so they place growth in areas in mainly in Eastern Golden Gate Estates, but other areas. We have PUDs that aren't built out, and so they will place that growth throughout the county and then run their traffic models. So when an MPO does that, that is not approving development. That is not approving that specific -- it's not approving that that -- in that initial traffic analysis zone that that is the density or intensity that's going to be approved ultimately. It is the best information that we have available to be able to look at our Comp Plan. So with that being said, yes, the growth -- we're planning for Page 41 of 73 April 19, 2021 growth. They're applying growth factors with regard to this. So it does not -- it's not specific to this development. COMMISSIONER FRY: But that would -- but it would include this development, theoretically, correct? MS. SCOTT: It includes all of our growth. Because when we're planning for the future, we're not looking at this project specific. We're looking at -- we're anticipating 300 -- or 500,000 population, and based on the MPO's plan, this is where we think it's going to be. When they do their traffic analysis, they're looking at growth factors, and so those growth factors, they're looking at that over multiple years based on their buildout of what traffic is anticipated during that time. Now, their buildout might only be 10 years from now. That's not all the growth that's in the MPO's Long -Range Transportation Plan. COMMISSIONER FRY: Can you go back a few slides to that particular section. There it is. MS. SCOTT: This, right. Facilities determined to be deficient with existing, committed, and vested trips, plus projected background traffic from any other source other than the development shall be removed from the proportionate share calculation. COMMISSIONER FRY: That would indicate that you must be backing out the traffic from their development from the projected total for the entire area. MS. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MS. SCOTT: I guess I should have just answered your question "yes" at the beginning instead of getting into a long drawn -out model thing. It's really late in the afternoon. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Paul may follow up on that, but I'll move on to one last question. You showed all the projected and funded road improvements, and there was one section that remained red. It was a section of Randall Boulevard. It was bright red the entire time. Is that mitigated by the -- keep going back. Is it mitigated by the other improvements? MS. SCOTT: Hold on. I have to get to that slide. COMMISSIONER FRY: There you go. MS. SCOTT: So that section of -- it's not red. This was part of the Alternative 2 Plus that the county looked at. And so that is one segment that is partially funded in the Long -Range Transportation Plan through 2045. It's not fully funded for construction. But you would have alternatives such as Oil Well Road widening that would help mitigate that. COMMISSIONER FRY: So while it is red -- MS. SCOTT: It's only red because of the map, not because it's -- COMMISSIONER FRY: There will be alternatives, and so it will not be a constant point of congestion? MS. SCOTT: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: A couple of questions. In the summary conclusions that -- from the Conservancy -- and Amy probably will ask -- have to answer this as well -- they state the three bullets. This is not fiscally neutral. From your perspective as regards to transportation, is that in your purview or Amy? Is this deemed to be fiscally neutral? MS. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because we talked -- also talked about gas tax. MS. SCOTT: Yes. So from -- the county is recommending approval. We did our analysis based on the fiscal neutrality and, yes, we believe that, from a transportation perspective, it is fiscally neutral. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One bullet said, the project will cause roads to fail, but Page 42 of 73 April 19, 2021 roads were going to be failing anyway, as you identified, all the roads that potentially could be developed. And the last point, because it's related, the threat of one per five, meaning one unit per five acres makes zero economic sense. Well, the fact is that it's zoned for one per five acres. The county would have had to accommodate for that development regardless; is that correct? MS. SCOTT: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So the threat of one per five, I guess, from the Conservancy's standpoint does not make economic sense, but you, as a transportation planner, would have to accommodate or to formulate planning for one per five acres if, in fact, they chose to do that, and in today's market that's feasible. MS. SCOTT: If that's what they chose to do, then we have to plan for what the future growth would be. And with regard to will this development cause roads to fail, this is why we go through -- so we have a Long -Range Transportation Planning -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MS. SCOTT: -- but we're also doing that short-range planning, and we're looking at the Annual Update and Inventory Report, and we're -- every year we assess the level of service on our roadways. We're watching that. We're doing projections for the five- and 10-year mark so that we can have roads online ahead of that. And it's not just impact fees that are from this development. There are other developments out in eastern Collier County. There's single-family homes in Golden Gate Estates that are developing, and all of those funds go into the hopper and are part of what we're doing. And when we're talking about that AUIR, it's a very important document. It's that short-range planning that we're doing, not just the long-range planning. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because we're not near in buildout at all in Golden Gate Estates, but the fact of the matter is it is zoned for development. It's zoned for permitting, and you can apply for a building permit. So the county has to do its long-range planning regardless of whether the RLSA was approved as your one slide showed, I think, five of the eight -- was it five of the eight? -- would have had to have been approved anyway. MS. SCOTT: It would have been -- they needed to be widened based on background traffic alone, which is why we have such a robust AUIR out in -- and five-year Capital Improvement Element in Eastern Collier County. There are a lot of roads that we're planning on building in Eastern Collier County in the next five years. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So the only way you would not do it, if there was some kind of moratoria saying, basically, all construction would stop. But we probably still would have to accommodate for approval. MS. SCOTT: If we have a requirement -- and Jeff will jump in -- we have to have the fix within I think it's 12 months. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Twelve months, yeah. Okay. You answered my question. I just -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Paul? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just more questions. Probably similar ones. I probably need to hear it spoken a little differently. But -- so when you say you're correcting deficient existing roadways, and you consider the problem, are you just solving the problem, or are you correcting it to build growth capacity into whatever capital expenditure you're doing? Are you doing just enough to solve the problem? MS. SCOTT: So if a roadway's deficient by 40 trips in the p.m. peak hour, I can't just add, you know, a quarter of a lane. You know, you've got to add a lane in each direction. But when we're doing that, we're also running those traffic models and looking at, what do we need to do in the foreseeable future. Transportation planning is a balance about having too much asphalt out there where we're maintaining it and we're not using it versus having enough capacity to where we're not out there Page 43 of 73 April 19, 2021 ripping up the road two years after we just finished it. So, yes, we look at that. We plan. In the past, we've gone -- on some roads where we thought maybe we should only do four lanes, we went ahead and went to six because we knew that that sixth -- that fifth and sixth lane were going to be needed. So we don't just go to where the cup's still full, you know. We have to plan ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So you are planning for growth and that growth isn't paying for itself unless the impact fees cover their share of it. MS. SCOTT: Well, I wouldn't say that the growth's not paying for itself. Their impact fees come in as they're developing, and their impact fees go into the hopper, and they're broken out by impact fee districts, to fund improvements in that general area or adjacent, if it's a regional roadway, but -- so if a village were to come in and they've built 100 homes and we're out there widening a road, their impact fees that they've paid on those 100 homes are going towards those improvements that we're doing. So it's not that they're not contributing. COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, I understand that. The question, I think, everybody has is, are they contributing enough? That's the real question is -- you know, you're planning for growth. We're paying -- the rest of the county is paying for that somehow, and then they come in and they pay impact fees, and the idea of fiscal neutrality to me is those impact fees pay for that share that we're kind of funding as we fix current problems and expand the roadways. Am I seeing that correctly? MS. SCOTT: Their impact fees go towards their share of the capacity that they're consuming. It's just that we are not charging them more than their impact fees because the Florida Statute requires how I calculate their proportionate share. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So if we didn't have a Florida Statute, would they be paying fair share? MS. SCOTT: If they didn't -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: If we didn't -- you always refer to this Florida Statute. Take that away and just look at the cost. Will the impact fees cover the costs if you didn't have that burden of the Florida Statute? MS. SCOTT: That's a hypothetical "what if," and I haven't done that calculation to tell you what that would be. It's a hypothetical "what if' that's not consistent with state statute. So unless I'm going to use some jail impact fees -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, no. That's a fair question. What you're saying is you can't charge more than impact fees. MS. SCOTT: Unless their proportionate share was higher than that. MR. KLATZKOW: Right. But what you're saying is that since the proportionate fair share that's calculated is lower than your impact fees, the most you can charge them are impact fees. MS. SCOTT: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Period. So that in one sense the question is, are they fiscally neutral is irrelevant; we can't charge them any more. But what you're being asked is, is the impact fees we're charging enough to satisfy the fiscal neutrality? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes, exactly. Thank you. MS. SCOTT: And I would defer that question to Amy because I look at it from a different perspective, and she's behind me. She's walking up. COMMISSIONER SHEA: She's coming. MS. SCOTT: A great segue. Any other questions? If not, I'll turn it over to Amy. COMMISSIONER FRY: One question. MS. SCOTT: Do you have entrance music for her? COMMISSIONER FRY: Electric cars -- no, it's for you. Page 44 of 73 April 19, 2021 MS. SCOTT: Oh, okay. Sorry, Amy. COMMISSIONER FRY: You did have a slide where you had an arrow to the fuel taxes, and electric cars were brought up earlier, and the transition to electric cars is accelerating which, theoretically, I guess, would removal the fuel taxes. And I don't know if Tesla charging stations collect taxes that would come to the county. But is that planned for in the future expectations of revenue? MS. SCOTT: So when we did our revenue estimates for the Long -Range Transportation Plan, what we're experiencing from fuel tax is that for right now they're remaining steady. And while, yes, there are more fuel -efficient vehicles and there are more electric vehicles on the roadway, the amount of vehicle miles traveled for the other vehicles are kind of keeping that as a steady thing. We did not project an increase in fuel tax over that time frame. We kept it steady. So we didn't go start saying, oh, we're going to get an abundance of fuel tax coming in. And that is a statewide issue that needs to be dealt with as part of -- through the Florida Department of Transportation and all counties together. MR. KLATZKOW: It's a federal issue, too, because they use gas taxes for the federal highway system. So sooner or later people are going to have to figure out, okay, if we don't get our money out of this pot, how do we create a new pot? COMMISSIONER FRY: They've always been very creative at that. MR. KLATZKOW: Very creative. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They will be created. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Paul, do you have -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. On the fuel tax, I guess, trying to understand that, that comes from all the residents of Collier County -- basically all the gas -- fuel that's sold in Collier County. So if you're funding part of that growth with the fuel tax from other -- that's paid by other people in the county, aren't existing people providing some money that goes into building the capital for the future development? MS. SCOTT: What I would say to you is so are visitors and so are people who are driving through Collier County and stop to fill up. You know, Alligator Alley's a really long way. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So growth pays for growth is my point. MS. SCOTT: To the maximum -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: It doesn't matter where it's coming from. It's not coming from the growth, is my point. MS. SCOTT: Growth pays for growth -- what does Amy say -- for the maximum legal extent that it can. So we utilize a combination of user fees, which are people utilizing the roadway, and the impact fees to pay for our capacity -adding projects. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You know, it's interesting because, I mean, we always say that, we're restricted by these laws and those laws, but it's supposed to be fiscally neutral. So absent all these other constraints, it should be fiscally neutral, right? You can't say it's fiscally neutral because I can't -- like you were saying, Jeff, you can't charge any more. And I get confused with that. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know what to tell you. It's -- for most of the county's history, there were no impact fees, yet somehow roads managed to get built. You know, I've been here 19 years now, and we've had impact fees, and roads are built. None of this analysis is taking the thought process these new homes and these new commercial properties are all going to be paying ad valorem taxes to Collier County once they're established. We're just looking at a small piece of this, the impact fee. So all I can tell you is that this is as prosperous a county as I know of, and I think this argument is very short term. I think the long-term -- the long-term financial outlook of Eastern Page 45 of 73 April 19, 2021 Collier County is spectacular, and I think that the Eastern Estates are going to be valuable property as anything in Collier County absent waterfront. You'll be having people on five -acre lots, you know, with immediate access to commercial. Sort of like the Logan Estates are now and Pine Ridge Estates are now. It's -- and nobody's talking about that. It's just going to be a tremendous increase in property value over the years. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Is that it? Okay. MS. SCOTT: With that, I'm going to turn it over to Amy Patterson for the economic assessment and fiscal neutrality. COMMISSIONER FRY: Would you like some exit music? MS. SCOTT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: I don't have a song prepared. MS. PATTERSON: Good afternoon. Amy Patterson, for the record. I'm the director of Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management. I have, basically, an identical presentation to the last one on the economic assessment and fiscal neutrality. I am going to be followed by Joe Bellone, who's going to be here to talk about the utility -specific issues. I don't know that anybody wants to hear any of this again, but we'll go through it quickly. Let's talk about how we pay for growth. And this is -- for the purposes of looking at the eastern lands, there's a requirement for an economic assessment; that gets into the fiscal neutrality. We're going to talk about the staff review, and then, like I said, we're going to talk to Joe about the Collier County Water/Sewer District. So the economic assessment is required by the Land Development Code. It is used to demonstrate fiscal neutrality and identify deficiencies. It's currently using a static model. We like to say this is very conservative. We have a long history with impact fees and other funding sources in this county. We know how they perform, we know the things that change them, and by not building in any type of index or escalator into this model, we've assumed a constant state of revenue, and that is most unlikely to occur. Even in periods of recession, you have periods of recovery, and these impact fees are not at the levels that they have reached in the past, but they are approaching them. So we understand how they perform, and that seems fair. This methodology was accepted by the county. It's an interactive process with the infrastructure facility managers. It relies on adopted data, which is adopted by the county, and it is peer reviewed just to be sure that we have a third set of eyes on all of this data. And I have to emphasize, with respect to the infrastructure facility managers, these are people like Trinity, the Sheriffs Office, EMS, Fire that come in and they sit down with the people performing these economic assessments. They talk about their needs. They talk about the need for new facilities or new growth -related equipment as well as their operating challenges. All of those things are discussed. So if there's an EMS station needed, if there's an ambulance, a fire station, any of those things, where they're needed, where they're planned, how they'll be placed, that's all part of this process. As the fiscal component, we don't pretend to assume to know everything about the way that these facility needs happen or the challenges that are being experienced actually in the real world out there. So we want to continue to emphasize this is not done in a vacuum; that these experts are brought in, and they're brought into this process. So fiscal neutrality, it's required to demonstrate the development is fiscally neutral or positive to the tax base. It's not required that they use impact fees to do that. Now, here in Collier County we do use impact fees, but if we were to be preempted by the legislature, if we were to have a Board of County Commissioners that took a position that said, we don't like impact fees and we're going to reduce them or eliminate them, that doesn't mean that the infrastructure wouldn't get built. It would be built differently, and this economic assessment and this fiscal neutrality Page 46 of 73 April 19, 2021 determination would go on under the set of rules in place at that time with those revenue and funding sources in place and whether or not it is a positive, neutral, or a negative to the taxpayers. So, again, we want to try to detach a little bit from this idea that we're having an impact fee methodology argument up here. Now, understanding that they're central to what we do in Collier County doesn't mean that it's the only way or that we wouldn't be able to achieve fiscal neutrality without those impact fees. And I do -- I will touch on at the end of this some comments about the way that the current transportation impact fee is calculated and to the comments from the last meeting about what are perceived as flaws in the current methodology. I'll get to that in a minute. So the framework and assumptions in this analysis should be consistent with county fiscal policy. Again, we use impact fees. If we were to not use impact fees, we, obviously, wouldn't rely on that. So this needs to be consistent with all of those funding sources I did refer to, and so have others, as the basket. But the basket of funding sources that are paid for by all taxpayers or developers or whoever the party may be. So it's appropriate to consider things in the basket besides just impact fees because, again, this is not solely an impact fee argument. And, secondly, in the basket with the impact fees are those things that keep us from having a 100 percent impact fee. And there's a difference between an impact fee and growth paying for growth. Again, as Trinity said, impact fees pay for growth to the extent that's legally permissible, but we cannot overcharge or double charge. So these other funding sources that come into play are the ones that have to be considered in the methodology for the impact fees to ensure that we are not double charging. If we're using infrastructure sales tax to construct parks or EMS stations, when we go to calculate those impact fees, we have to consider those revenue sources in as a credit. We're going to get into that in a second. You've all heard this. I'll try not to go into too much detail. So, anyway, this integrates analysis of funding sources as well as level of service. It's another really confusing piece of this is the way that we do our level -of -service calculations and then how you apply the financials to those levels of service. That's where all of our conversations about population come into play. Now, the -- there are strategies to address deficiencies if they're created specifically by the proposed development, but we cannot require a proposed development to cure an existing deficiency. We have several facilities right now that are running a level -of -service deficiency. We know why. We know how we're funding those deficiencies. We're filling the gap. But that is not what new development is required to do. This analysis should show us whether or not the capacity that's going to be consumed by the new development is paid for by the new development; no more and no less. So back to does growth really pay for growth? It can only pay for growth to the extent that's allowed by law. Developers, as I said, cannot be required to pay impact fees above and beyond the cost reasonably attributed to the demand created, and there are factors that limit that. There's been questions about Board policy on impact fees being at their maximum legal limit. This board and prior boards have adopted our fees at the maximum legal limit with some very specific exceptions. One was at the direction of the school board to --during just past the recession to lower the school impact fee. That's an impact fee that's on behalf of the school board, and their -- our Board of County Commissioners elected to take the school board's recommendation to lower that fee. There have been occasions where, inside of the methodology that some cost components had been adjusted, very infrequently. The most common thing that we do here is that we implement impact fees in phases. Sometimes when you have large impact fee increases it makes sense to put them in over a couple of years, still bringing them to the maximum legal limit. So sitting here right now, all of our fees, with the exception of one, are at the maximum legal limit at the time of their last study, and impact fees in Collier County are updated frequently, probably Page 47 of 73 April 19, 2021 more frequently than anywhere in the state of Florida. So even our impact fees that are sitting on four or five years of history are still probably more current than a lot of other places all over the state. I'm going to just scoot past this. You've seen this a whole bunch of times, and there's been some discussion about what's going to happen and all of this population not paying impact fees and there's going to be giant shortfalls in funding. That's absolutely not the truth or any way that we have seen it or calculated it, and I've really tried; tried changing populations, tried changing costs, tried changing units, and I still am ending up in the same place. So as far as our staff review, what goes into this? Well, it's a lot of different things. It's not just a straight line math. It's not just calculating revenue. We have to understand the funding sources and calculations. That's beyond impact fees. That's everything that goes into this both on the operating side of the house as well as on the capital. The knowledge of the application and calculation of level -of -service standards. There are lots of them, and they are applied differently depending on the facility that we're talking about. Understanding of existing level -of -service deficiencies. As I spoke about, there's reasons why there are deficiencies in some of these impact fees and adopted levels of service. It has to do with policy decisions made even simply about the ownership of public facilities. Knowledge of the difference between exactions, contributions, and other financial tools that are available to fund infrastructure. Trinity touched on this a whole bunch. We have, you know, statutory limitations and many, many other things that limit or help in some cases. There is extensive case law and Florida Statutes that provide some limiting factors and, again, or steer the way that we have to do this work. Population projections and datasets. I don't think anybody wants to hear me talk about population ever again, but that is something that has to be considered and understanding that you can take different populations, and by the time you're done, either factoring up or factoring down, you should end up in the same place. So this whole discussion about persons per housing unit and persons per household needs to be very carefully examined to ensure, number one, that we're being consistent in our approach and, number two, that we're not mixing datasets and, therefore, jumbling up the data to something that makes no sense. Methodology is an impact -fee specific item as well, but methodology makes a huge difference. I'm going to touch on that in a minute. And then the difference between planning and construction. And Joe will touch on this as far as how we plan utilities and how we actually go to construct them and the phasing and some different things like that. I'm going to go quickly through this. Common misconceptions, you've heard me a lot about this. It's applying a straight-line fiscal analysis to a complicated capital construction issue. Walking away from looking at engineering, how we plan, and how things are constructed, including phasing, can give you a wildly different picture than what actually happens in reality. And it actually, in this case, generates almost a "first in pays the most" type of scenario in the utility when, in fact, the most expensive of the infrastructure that's going to support multiple phases of expansion is going in the ground early. So you cannot assign all of that cost to the first people in. Overestimation, that goes to the overestimation of costs attributable to new developments. If you're first in, it doesn't mean you pay the most. It just --that's not the way it works. Overestimation of population projections by not considering vacancies in seasonal population. You've heard me talk about that way more times than I'm sure anybody cares to hear again. Same thing with the population numbers being mixed, which causes confusion in the dataset, also can change the numbers and make them look like something that is not reality. And then again, utilizing datasets for purposes other than their intended basis for Page 48 of 73 April 19, 2021 collection. So we have to make sure that when you're selecting a dataset and running your analysis that you really understand what that data represents, what its intended use is, and is it really appropriate for placement into that analysis. Okay. And this -- Joe's going to -- get over all of this in his presentation, so more on the decisions to expand the utility. I'm going to fast forward over this. He's going to touch on each of these things in his presentation. We've talked to you about the utility expansion and how we believe we have reviewed all of the financial data to support this finding of fiscal neutrality. Same thing with impact fees. We've talked about that. We have an aggressive program to update these impact fees; therefore, the assumptions made through this economic assessment and the finding of fiscal neutrality is reasonable and conservative. And while we understand that there are some concerns about the method or the approach, we have found no reason to doubt this, the way that this has been reviewed. We've had an outside peer reviewer as well as the staff who's run multiple calculations, and the DPFG who provided the economic assessment originally. We all took a different approach. We've spoken each together, but we looked at it all differently and still arrived at the same conclusion. With that, I just want to touch briefly on the methodology questions, and I will answer any of your questions you may have carried over from the last time, but I'm going to throw this slide up on the visualizer. There was a conversation about methodology for transportation specifically in that it's inappropriate or wrong, maybe, to use the same rate throughout the transportation system, that we should, in fact, have or it's required that we have a different rate for urban versus rural. So in truth, that's not true. The urban/rural mix is not required; however, every time we update the transportation impact fees, this issue is reviewed by our consultants, by our outside legal counsel, and the Board to decide if it's appropriate to do an urban and rural split or to have a different impact fee by impact fee district. There's a lot of different ways that this can be approached. Our Board of County Commissioners dating back many, many, many years have stayed with this average that we use here where you have one impact fee rate throughout the county. There are a number of reasons why. In part, and particularly to the villages, you may find in an urban and rural setup that you have an impact fee three or four times higher in the rural areas than you do in the urban areas; however, in a situation like these villages, by the time they gain any critical mass, they will come in and they will do individual studies or alternative fee studies, and they will bring those fees down by internal capture and trip length, and you'll be right back to where we are now, essentially with an impact fee rate that's the same as the urban area, potentially lower, and the rest of Golden Gate now paying an impact fee that's three or four times higher than the urban area. And this issue has been looked at all the way up one side and down the other, like I said, by not only the consultant but by our outside legal, and there is no issue with the way that these impact fees are structured; however, they are looked at every three years, approximately, where this issue will be reviewed again. We pull the data, we pull the costs, we pull all the information and present it to the Board in the event that they want to send us out to set up a different mix of rates. And like I said, they could be -- there are counties that have an impact fee for each individual road impact fee district. We have eight of them; six of them actually have fee. Urban/rural. There's a number of ways that this can be accomplished. Secondly, transportation impact fees, despite what the speaker said, are not a forward -looking fee, generally speaking. There are some components where we look to the future and look at the costs of things like overpasses and bring those into the calculation, but this is not a forward -looking fee like public utilities. Utilities uses a 10-year look to be able to bring projects into the program. This --the transportation impact fees rely on past data. So those are projects Page 49 of 73 April 19, 2021 we've actually completed, those costs. The consultant also pulls costs from similar and neighboring counties to ensure that the costs brought into the impact fee methodology are reasonable and accurate. So they maintain a database of costs from throughout the state. That way if we have anomalies in our costs, there's a way to fact check those, and you're not pulling extremely high or extremely low costs into your impact fee. Also, population's not a primary driver for transportation, but the interesting thing is is that losing -- in other population -driven -- very specific population -driven impact fees, using a lower population number actually drives impact fees up because when you're going to spread the cost across all of the users, if your number of users is smaller, that spreads the cost amongst less people, and that's that inverse relationship that people often don't think. So this whole idea that somehow our impact fees are being misstated or misrepresented because our population numbers are too low is not accurate. Also, again, methodology and data is independently reviewed by our outside legal counsel. Every single time we do an impact fee there's a separate outside legal review that's conducted, and anytime we have a question on methodology, on rates or any of these impact fee challenge type issues, we go to outside counsel for their review. They're experts in impact fees, and they provide us guidance. And their guidance sometimes is to do things differently, and we comply. So with that, if you have any questions, I'm available. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Amy, at the last meeting at the end of -- well, the last meeting that we actually had where we discussed this, Judy Hushon presented a two -and -a -half page letter representing the League of Women Voters and, in her testimony, had significant criticism with our methodology and our calculation of impact fees. Irrespective of that issue, the fact is we have a Board -approved policy, we have a Board -approved methodology, and that is the methodology we use, and that's the method you discussed. There's no other latitude? MS. PATTERSON: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Unless the Board changes the way it wants to apply or assess impact fees; is that correct? MS. PATTERSON: That's correct. And it's beyond the Board wanting to, because even if the Board wanted to make methodology changes, that would have to be reviewed by our own County Attorney as well as outside legal counsel for the appropriateness of those changes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And this gets into the whole dual rational nexus and all the other -- MS. PATTERSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. And also in this letter it made significant comparison to Ave Maria and made some rather significant statements that they paid for their own, well, why doesn't Collier -- Collier Enterprises pay for its infrastructure? Well, I don't know if that's entirely factual. MS. PATTERSON: It's not entirely factual. One, as discussed earlier today, there's no reason to believe that the private internal roads that will be in these villages and -- areas aren't going to be paid for by the developer through whatever funding mechanism they deem appropriate to do so, just like Ave Maria did. As far as the utility goes, that is -- that was then. There was not -- the utility was not -- the Collier County utility was not in the position to expand and to serve Ave Maria. They have now made the business decision, as well as the policy decision, to expand out into Eastern Collier and to serve these areas including these villages but not limited to them. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. It's no different than Orange Tree. When Orange Page 50 of 73 April 19, 2021 Tree was developed, Orange Tree developed its own utility plant many, many years later. Joe, I think, what, five years ago we took over? MR. BELLONE: Seventeen; 2017. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 2017 we took over Orange Tree as now a county utility, but at one time it was set up under its own authority. Because her quote, and she quotes, we are letting Collier Enterprise off the hook because they should have similar debt obligations for their development. She cited that the taxpayers are going to be -- they have to meet the funding obligations within the boundaries of the stewardship district, and she's claiming that -- the League of Women Voters are claiming that that should not be the burden on the taxpayer, but I don't -- I think based on your statements it is not; is that correct? MS. PATTERSON: That's correct. To the extent that we collect the fees to pay or other funding sources pay for the infrastructure associated to the new development, we have done the analysis to show that the funding is in place reasonably anticipated and that they will be fiscally neutral, or positive in some cases, by the horizon year. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And then they cited a $43 million shortfall. MS. PATTERSON: Which is not correct, and we've gone through that a number of times, that that is based on assumptions that are incorrect about the construction of the utility. And I have to say, as I did the last time that I stood in front of this very board as well as others on the Ave Maria discussion having a conversation about what a bad deal Ave Maria was at the time, it was a terrible deal, it was a burden to the taxpayers that we let Ave Maria get away with sticking the taxpayers with having to build a bunch of infrastructure, a road to nowhere. I mean, it went on and on and on, and now Ave Maria is being held up, as is fair, as excellent planning. So -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I recall those discussions about -- not Oil Well Road, but -- MS. PATTERSON: It was Oil Well Road. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oil Well Road, okay. MS. PATTERSON: Yep, yep. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Yeah, there was a lot of discussion about that. Okay. So but the other -- the other area you covered, she said that the county impact fee formulas are not and were never intended to be applicable to rural areas. You've already stated that, in fact, we have one rule that we apply across the board unless the commissioners decide to do otherwise. MS. PATTERSON: That's right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My recommendation, if the League wants to pursue this argument, that argument is probably not a very solid argument in regards to disapproval of this, but it may be an argument for future impact fees -- MS. PATTERSON: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- and how we calculate. MS. PATTERSON: Absolutely. And as I said, we evaluate this every time we bring the transportation impact fees forward. It is provided to the Board so that they can evaluate if they want to adjust the impact fee structure that we have throughout the impact fee districts. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Somehow I always wanted to forget those meetings, but now they're coming back, and now I'm suffering posttraumatic stress. Okay. MS. PATTERSON: Right? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. No. I just think, though the arguments were there, they're really not pertinent to this issue, because the impact fees are the impact fees, and those are based on the assessment. And just for Joe, I know you're going to get up and talk, but the accusations -- I'll call them accusations, because they were an inference that, in fact, the taxpayer -- the taxpayers are going to Page 51 of 73 April 19, 2021 be held -- I guess the water/sewer district ratepayers are going to be accountable for all of the expansion and that none of this is actually going to be passed off to any of -- the developer. Well, actually, it will be to the homeowners out there, but -- MR. BELLONE: True, impact fees, sure; water and sewer impact fees. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Paul still had a question for you. Sorry. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think we wore her out. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We wore her out. Amy says it's time to go home. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Very nice job. MS. PATTERSON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So you feel that the Bellmar Village application is fiscally neutral. MS. PATTERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And what does that mean to you? MS. PATTERSON: Well, by the requirements of our review, it means that they are not going to place the burden of the development or the construction of their infrastructure associated to the demand created by those developments onto the taxpayers. It does not mean that the taxpayers won't make a contribution into the basket or baskets as they do, but it is not going to be increased based on Bellmar being approved or being constructed. So to the extent that their tax dollars or General Fund dollars going into these various programs like EMS or any of the others, it may continue at their current funding levels, but it's not exacerbated by Bellmar and those units coming online. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Thank you. MS. PATTERSON: You're welcome. MR. BELLOWS: Good afternoon. For the record, Joe Bellone, the director of Utilities Finance. Many of these slides you've seen before, and I won't drag you through every single bullet. But on this particular slide, I just kind of want to point to the center, that the special act gives the Board the overall responsibility for provision of water and sewer services to prevent the proliferation of package treatment plants across the county. Imagine having so many multiple Orange Trees as we did. Going to the next slide. This slide, again, I presented to you on April 1st, the expansion timeline. Just the very first bullet is that the utility anticipated capacity expansion as far back as 2003. They purchased this site on Northeast Mecas (phonetic) with the foresight of the great leadership that we had at the time. That seemed to be the area that would be growing in this time frame. One last bullet on expansion. Right there near the top, on September 1 lth of 2018, the Board approved the resolution that expanded the service, again -- the service area, in accordance with the special act to serve the areas that are now included in the RLSA. This slide is exactly the same as you saw on April the 1st. I will draw your attention to the center because I will mention this: The water/sewer district will be building capacity in phases, both water and wastewater, and when I get to the very next slide, we talk about the Bellmar example, we'll talk about that for a second. So this slide -- and it's a little bit different from the one that I presented for Longwater. It's a little expanded thanks to Eric and my -- the principal project manager for utilities planning. He helped me out with these. At the very top you'll see the same two flows that I presented for Longwater: The average daily flow and the max three day. Let me just say something about max three day, and I'm sure Eric will run up and take over if I say something wrong. A max three day is a number that our utility uses to try to understand what the impact that Page 52 of 73 April 19, 2021 an unusual weather event may have on the utility and its ability to treat. It's not used for any other purpose other than internal purposes for us to figure out what might happen to the utility should we get one of these horrific weather events. Eric did help me with -- the Conservancy did have an issue with permitting, and so DEP permits are issued, and these are requirements for the two current regional plants that we have. So not knowing what our requirements will be for the new plants at buildout, we'll use those as an example. And these, again, are all based on peak factors. If -- I'll move you down to the bottom of the exhibit, if you might. You'll see for water and wastewater, the peak factors that are applied to the average flows to get to the max three day and the permit requirement flows. So for water they apply a 1.35 percent peak factor, and for wastewater a 1.2 percent peak factor. And we've applied those percentages across the board for daily flows, max three day, and permitted. In the very center of this slide, you'll see that we -- in addition to the residential anticipated revenues at buildout, I've also included an estimate of commercial, and that will depend on exactly what's built. Restaurants have more of an impact than a retail outlet. But these are just reasonable estimates, and you'll see they're small compared to the residential impact. So we would expect close to $10 millions in water impact fee revenue and about 9.8 million in wastewater revenue. There were some questions as we move down to the next section where we talk about costs. Those costs in FY'19 are those related to the bond that we took out in 2019. FY'21 costs are those that we are actually reviewing right now. We'll issue a 2021 series bond to fund this portion of the expansion. FY '25 we'll be doing some design on the new water plant, and then beginning construction at this point, talking about beginning construction on the wastewater plant, the four MGD wastewater plant, and thereafter we're looking at starting construction on the water plant in 2030. Now, as Amy mentioned, water and sewer impact fees are forward looking. It's a 10-year look. And when we did the impact fee rate study for water and sewer back in 2019, we were only looking out 10 years. We were looking out from '20 to '30, and the Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the expansion were not included in that because they were beyond the 10-year horizon. So they are not -- those costs are not reflected in the impact fee and, therefore, not reflected in the anticipated impact fee revenue. That's why those costs are not included in the cost. It's sort of an apples to apples, if you will. To include the costs down below and not the revenues above would be incongruous, I believe. So you'll see on the water side, even if you apply the 8 percent permitted capacity to the total cost, you'll see that it would be approximately $11.3 million fair share compared to 10 million in revenue. On the wastewater site, a little bit different. We're talking about applying that 5.9 percent permitted capacity requirement to the total cost, and that would be about $8.4 million. Net net, if you add the revenues together and you add the costs together or the fair share together, we're within $132,000 to the favor of the utility. So net, by this example, we can demonstrate that this particular village is fiscally neutral. I do want you to take note, I did put it in bold at the bottom that -- so that you know and we get on the record that the costs for Phases 2 and 3 were not included in the impact fee rate study and, again, depending -- we'll have a master plan for water and wastewater coming in June. That will have a 10- and a 20-year outlook that will help us identify when those costs will be incurred or anticipated to be incurred, and they may or may not be in the next water and sewer impact fee rate study, which we will start in 2022 to be in line for our Fiscal'23. And with that, I'll take any questions. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Joe. MR. BELLOWS: Sure. Page 53 of 73 April 19, 2021 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Joe, can you go back a slide. I've got a question. MR. BELLOWS: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In regards to -- looking at the second -to -last bullet there, it includes -- all those were once units served by Orange Tree. Now the new power -- new water/sewer plant, water plant and the sewer plant are servicing all those communities in addition to the SRAs? MR. BELLOWS: Well, right now, water in those communities is coming from the existing capacity in the two regional plants that we have. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. BELLONE: The four -square -mile Orange Tree, their wastewater service is coming from the existing wastewater plant that was the Orange Tree wastewater plant, that .75 MGD facility. Over time we anticipate that we'll have -- either keep that and use it as backup or we may divert all those flows to the new plant. But we've got a bit of planning to do about that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I guess, irrespective of the SRA, the expansion was required? MR. BELLOWS: Exactly, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In the analysis done by the Conservancy, I'm looking at their Slide 16, and it says, our analysis used -- I'm trying to -- basically -- they're basically stating, again, that it's not -- that all this cost is going to be passed off to the taxpayer. And the rest of the utility users within the county, we're all going to pay for this expansion and pay for the service to Bellmar. Is that, in fact, a valid statement or no? MR. BELLONE: That's not a valid statement. Let me just say that the utility, since its existence in Collier County, has never gotten a penny in general tax funds from taxpayers. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Will we, as ratepayers? MR. BELLOWS: As ratepayers, only once in the lifetime of the utility has the User Fee Fund had to make a loan to the Wastewater Impact Fee Fund, and that was during the recession when building slowed down, impact fees were not coming in. That was paid off within three years after the recession ended. So once -- that did happen once, but that was repaid, and it was considered a loan, and it had to be repaid. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll ask the same question from -- what Paul asked. From your perspective, this is fiscally neutral? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, Joe, from my perspective. We will do impact fee rate studies as often as we need to as construction costs increase. And as estimates and costs change, if we need to, we'll go back and do rate study updates -- impact fee rate study updates to ensure that those fees are sufficient to cover the cost of the expansion. MR. KLATZKOW: This is not fiscally neutral. We're making money on this, okay. This is better than fiscally neutral. We're expanding out. They're not -- we're not expanding out there with the thought that the rest of the county's going to subsidize us here. We're expanding out here with the thought that it's profitable. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, the good news also is it's supporting water/sewer and not creating places where we have to put in septic systems. MR. KLATZKOW: That's a side benefit, and I completely agree with you. But simply on the fiscal analysis of it, this is not fiscally neutral. We're making money on this. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. Thanks. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So Joe asked the first half of my standard question. The second half is, what does that mean to you, being fiscally neutral? MR. BELLOWS: Being fiscally neutral to me means that expansion costs for the entire area that this serves, not only Rivergrass and Longwater and Bellmar, but any villages or anything that comes up in that area will be -- will be able to be served by this capacity that we're building on Page 54 of 73 April 19, 2021 this site, the water quality will meet water -quality standards and wastewater will be treated on site. To me that means that the utility is planning years ahead to ensure that the fees and -- the fees that we're getting are in line with the services that are provided. So, yes, I would consider this to be fiscally neutral. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: The question was asked about peak daily demand versus the average daily demand and what the fees were based on. Did I hear you correctly; it's based on the average daily flow rather than the peak? MR. BELLOWS: Let me go back. On this example, if you go down to the bottom, Eric was kind enough to provide all three of those at the bottom of this slide. So if you look at the water column on the left side, the permitted capacity, which is what we're required to provide, at Phase 3 is 8 percent. If you take 8 percent of the $141,690,000 of water costs, that means it would be 11 -- essentially be 11.3 million would be fair share. That is slightly -- obviously slightly behind the revenues we anticipate. On the other side, on the wastewater side, that 5.9 percent at buildout, 5.9 percent of the 141,161,000, represents 8 -- a little over 8.3 million of costs, of costs, which is favorable. If you net -- and, again, we're -- these costs are changing, you know, consistently. But if you net the two revenues together and you net the two costs -- you net the two fair share costs at the permitted requirement, we're $132,400 favorable. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So it's just --it's based on the permitted quantity. Why is the permitted factor less -- on the water side the permitted factor is a little bit higher than the three-day peak demand, but on the wastewater side, it's actually three -tenths -- I believe I'm reading it right. Yeah, it's three -tenths of a point less. Why is that? MR. BELLOWS: I'll defer to Eric on that one. MR. FEY: Good afternoon. For the record, again, Eric Fey, principal project manager with Public Utilities. You know, the peak factor for water, as I testified earlier, is the maximum day. So as you widen your time frame, the factor goes down. So when you say maximum three day, that's going to be a lower factor than your maximum day -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Right. MR. FEY: -- because, you know, it's that bell curve. You're looking at the peak of the bell curve instead of a range within the bell curve. So does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, my question was, why is the permit factor different for wastewater than it is for water? Why is it higher? It's 1.35 compared to 1.3 on the maximum three day for water but, yet, on the wastewater side it's 1.5 for the maximum three day but it's only 1.2 permitted, which would support a question of when you look at fair share. If it's based on a lower number, then, of course, that fair share would come out less. MR. FEY: Sure. The maximum three day for wastewater is influenced by extreme weather events more so than water demand. So that's the reason you see a higher factor on the wastewater side than on water. The reverse is true for the permit requirement because, as I mentioned earlier, the plant capacity is permitted for a maximum monthly average daily flow. So you're looking at a 30-day period. It's spreading out those peak events over the course of a month; whereas, on the waterside we're looking at the maximum day. So for permit requirement, the 1.35 is higher on the water side than on the wastewater side because we're looking at different time periods. COMMISSIONER FRY: But in your opinion, basing the proportionate share on the permitted factor is fair compared to using the maximum three day? MR. FEY: Correct, because, you know, DEP regulates us based on what our permitted Page 55 of 73 April 19, 2021 capacity is. So, you know, when we start approaching that permit capacity based on apples -to -apples comparisons, that's when capacity improvements are required. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But that's what also has the biggest influence on the cost of the project is the permit, right? MR. FEY: Could you repeat the question. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm just saying for Karl's sake --and I'm not sure I'm right -- but the permit has the biggest impact on the cost of the project, the permit numbers, permit flow. MR. FEY: Correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That has the biggest single impact. MR. FEY: That's correct. I mean, to do apples -to -apples comparison, you know, the plant has to be able to meet, in the case of water, maximum day. So we presented these numbers for permit requirement and maximum day for water. Wastewater, again, max month. You know, I think that was one of the complaints in the Longwater presentation was we were looking at average day. So to address the concern of the Conservancy, we're doing an apples -to -apples comparison here for Bellmar. COMMISSIONER FRY: You're building to the permitted requirement, not the average, not the three day. You're building to the permit -- to clarify what he's saying, the cost is -- you're building to what is the permitted peak factor? Is that -- MR. FEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So that's what the proportionate share should be based on, because that's what affects your cost most directly. You're a water engineer, correct? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm saying you're right. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, I'm saying you're right. Thank you. I think I get it. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Eric, since you're up, Deviation 12 is asking that -- it says -- okay. Seeks relief from LDC Section 4.03.08.C, potable water system, which states, separate potable water and reuse water lines shall be provided by the applicant at no cost to the 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 appurtenances to be conveyed to and maintained by the county. So you concur with that? So, basically, the water/sewer system being installed by the developer will be conveyed to the county? MR. FEY: It will be conveyed to the county. I think that deviation is left over from prenegotiations on the IQ system. We had included deviations in Rivergrass and Longwater to allow the water/sewer district to own and maintain IQ infrastructure. As I mentioned earlier, the result of our negotiations was that we will not be supplying irrigation -quality water to Bellmar, so that deviation really should be taken out. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. That's my question is if they have consumptive use permit and provide their own water for irrigation, that is their responsibility. That will not be conveyed to the county; is that correct? MR. FEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And so that is a developer responsibility? MR. FEY: Correct. And -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm probably looking at an old staff report. I would ask Mr. Yovanovich, when he comes up, would he clarify that. It's Deviation 12. Because I think that's -- it says it would be -- I'm specifically talking about reuse water. There's not going to be reuse water supplied to Bellmar, so that should be amended. MR. FEY: I agree with that. Page 56 of 73 April 19, 2021 CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: There's only three deviations in the PUD, in this SRA agreement. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I was probably looking at Bellmar -- I mean Longwater, sorry. Okay. MR. COHEN: For the record, Thaddeus Cohen, department head, Growth Management. So I'm sitting in for James Sabo, who would do the close. But let me kind of recap what you've heard. And what I like to say is you've heard from serious people who do serious work. You've heard from utility planning and operations to give you the facts and figures to help you think in terms of whether or not these villages are financially feasible or neutral, and you've heard yes. You've heard from a nationally renowned -- actually, because she spoke in San Francisco at an impact fee conference on impact fees -- that we meet the standard. You've heard from our transportation planner about the relationship between the Long -Range Transportation Plan, the plan that the county has come up with in order to meet its expected growth needs, and how that then matches and parallels with what we can do from a statutory standpoint for new villages as they come online. You've heard from Cormac on the conversations that he's had on how to move a developer to think in terms of affordable housing, which is somewhat different from where we were just a year and a half ago. And you've heard that we actually go on site acre by acre to determine the environmental aspects of a petition that comes before us. And you've also heard from us the zoning aspect, that it meets the Land Development Code, and you also heard from us from a Comprehensive Planning standpoint that it meets the GMP. So I think from staff s standpoint that puts us in the position to make the following recommendations, and I'll paraphrase these because they're similar to what you saw in Longwater; that at least 10 percent of the residential units, that's 275, be sold at purchase prices moderate and gap affordability ranges or, as an alternative, that the SRA be reserved for development of housing that's affordable -- land reserved for housing that's affordable, and 48 months an SRA approval to be equivalent to 2.5 percent of the gross acreage of the SRA. Again, something that kind of mirrors what we're talking about for the RLSAO amendments that will be coming before you at the next meeting. We also recommend prior to the issuance of the first SDP and/or PPL a listed species management plan must be provided for review with approval from the FWCC or USFWS for management of Florida panthers and other listed species. So, again, we have that ability, as Mr. Schmitt asked, will we take a look at that document to ensure that those permits have been done, and we said yes. And you just heard about the agreement on potable water and wastewater shall be adopted concurrently with the Bellmar Village SRA. So you just heard that presentation on how it is that we'll go forward and the differences between what we're proposing and recommending for Longwater and the agreements that we have with Bellmar. And, again, within 90 days of the approval of the first development, the applicant must pay 2.2 million to fulfill their fair share of mitigation and operational impacts as supported by the applicant's Traffic Impact Statement. So questions of whether or not we're able or the developer is able to fund those improvements, you can see in Recommendation 4 as well as in Recommendation 5 that the analysis done by Trinity clearly provides for an opportunity to be able to maintain traffic as these villages come online. Recommendation 6 is -- and 7 are noted with the school district. The school sites have not been evaluated; that when they do come online, we'll use the standard Traffic Impact Statements and operational review at that time. And it was also noted that a commitment that the Collier County School Board shall be responsible for the roadway improvements necessary for both school sites. So, again, it's how to apply, where it is that we get those funding sources for those who Page 57 of 73 April 19, 2021 provide those impacts. With that, Madam Chair and Board, those are our recommendations. That's our presentation. If there's any additional questions, we've got staff here prepared to answer those, but we look forward to your decision, and we can take this to the next step. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: I think you also introduced another important piece of information, Thaddeus, in the presentation is that some of the conflicts we have have to do with the definitions of some terms in the policies and at the time where those can be resolved is in the -- after we approve and vet the GMP amendments is in the LDC follow-up to that, correct? MR. COHEN: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think that's a very important point. One last question I have is the genesis of the town plan, which we know is coming later -- have we had -- we have not had a -- I know I missed -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: We're going to. COMMISSIONER FRY: We're going to, but we have not yet had it, right? I only missed one meeting -- MR. COHEN: We had a one -hour conversation about the town plan before the town plan. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm just wondering what the genesis of it was. Obviously, you've come forward with a town plan. Who approached who? MR. COHEN: I would rather have that conversation on May 6th. What's before you today is moving forward with a recommendation of approval or not of Bellmar, and I think we can more fully -- or I guess I'll more fully explain, I think, how we've been able to get to where we are. COMMISSIONER FRY: Let me rephrase the question. Has the -- in your opinion, has the developer worked in good faith to negotiate issues and resolve issues along the way to get here? MR. COHEN: I would say yes, that it's -- it's taken longer than I believe they wanted to. But what I will say is, it's my belief that we needed to have lined up a series of things in order to help facilitate this opportunity. And I think as you look at the conversations we've had about the RLSAO and being able to move that forward as far as the GMP is concerned and some of the changes we've been able to make as far as the white paper and the five-year plan, I think helps us set the stage for the conversations that we then had on how do we go from three villages and the fact that the community and most folks wanted to have something of a town, and I think that we'll be able to talk about the iterations of that and the result of where we are. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Paul. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Question. Could you go back to Recommendation No. 1. I just wanted to make sure -- so what is the 48, land reserved for housing that is affordable shall be identified within 48 months of SRA approval. It seems like a long time. That's four years, if my math is right. Is that normal? MR. COHEN: I'd have to have Cormac speak to the length of time, but what I think you'll find is on May 6 we have the ability to resolve an affordable housing issue within the context of all the villages. MR. GIBLIN: Cormac Giblin, your planning manager, for the record. The 48 months was arrived at with -- between -- conversations between staff and the applicant. We were looking for a defined period of time. I think it was mentioned by one of your colleagues up here during one of the first Longwater hearings that we needed to have some kind of more specificity in this commitment, and that's where we added the second half of the commitment putting a size and a definite time frame. We worked with the -- talked with the developer over the course of a couple weeks, and we came up with the 48 months. I think given the horizon buildout date of the SRA, that's more than Page 58 of 73 April 19, 2021 reasonable. MR. COHEN: That was the point that I was going to make, that we tend to be talking about this as a project and, for me, if you're talking about a town, that's a much longer maturation process, and I think the key point here is that we're talking about having land reserved, which is something that we haven't been able to do before. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Paul, just to go through the federal permitting process, and I'm sure they may have started, it could be as long as 32 -- 24 to 36 months just to go through the federal permitting process. COMMISSIONER FRY: To break ground. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Before they even break ground, absolutely. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They've got to go through all the water management and go through the --well, Section 4.04 of the Clean Water Act and 401. So they've got to go through the permitting process. And, frankly, the issue in Florida now, because it's been turned over to DEP by the Army Corps of Engineers through state legislation, that is now being challenged in the courts. Who knows where that's going to go. Personal opinion, I think it's going to be back to the Corps. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So you think the 48 months is -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Probably. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- probably not even long enough, huh? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Probably -- it will be at least -- probably 36 to 48 months before anybody turns dirt out there. There may be a nice sign posted, but that's -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's all I had. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Nothing else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. MR. COHEN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I did make a mistake, Joe. There are 12 deviations. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There are 12, that's right. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I'm looking at the development document, and it's Section 7, and it's under other deviations, and it's the third one, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. And that deviation did state about reuse. So Rich will have to correct the record on that deviation. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Oh, do you need a break? Yes. Sorry. Ten minutes good? 5:35. (A brief recess was had from 5:26 p.m. to 5:35 p.m.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. We're ready, everybody. MR. YOVANOVICH: All right. Are we ready? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yeah. We're waiting for you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Waiting for me. Okay. Just real briefly, because I thought Mr. Cohen did -- he basically -- I was reading my notes, and he basically did my closing argument for me. What I think is really important for you to remember is what was the program when it was originally adopted, and the program is on your visualizer. The pink is where development goes, and the other areas were to become SSAs. That was the program, and that's what we're doing. We're developing -- and remember who were proponents of the program. You have Collier Audubon, which is Brad Cornell's group; you have Florida Wildlife, Meredith Budd's group; and you have the Conservancy. They were all proponents of this program in this map. We're developing where the map said we should develop. They want you to change the Page 59 of 73 April 19, 2021 program; "they" being the Conservancy. There's a process, and that process is not during this petition. So all of the competent substantial evidence that was before you says we meet all of the criteria. It was our experts, it was the county's experts, and in some cases, for fiscal neutrality, a third -party reviewer. We have satisfied all the criteria in your Growth Management Plan and your Land Development Code, and we have proven -- if you want to use the Conservancy's words -- our privilege to develop our land, which in Florida you have a right to develop your land. We've met our burden, and we are requesting that you make a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners for the approval of the Bellmar Village, and I'll try to be brief, be brilliant, and be gone, as the former County Manager, Jim Mudd, said. And with that, we'll answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I have one question in regards to one -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The one deviation needs to come out, you're right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The one deviation you recognize will come out. That was Deviation 12. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There are 12 deviations. Second, we had a resident talk about Sixth Avenue as an emergency entrance only. That's beyond your capacity because that's a -- Sixth Avenue is a public road. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So if action were to be taken on that, it would have to be at the direction of the Board of County Commissioners. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. And if you remember, the goal is to have interconnection. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Interconnection. MR. YOVANOVICH: Interconnection of roads, and that's what we're doing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And so that would have to -- the Board would have to take some kind of administrative action to create an emergency entrance of some sort. So that's beyond -- beyond your position, and I defer to the Board of County Commissioners in regards to that request, okay. I won't even ask Trinity for that. MR. YOVANOVICH: And as I opened up, we had agreed to all the staff conditions when we made our initial presentation, so that's not an issue. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm -- close the public hearing? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yeah. The footnotes, did you change them? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes; yes. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: All right. Thank you. Okay. We can close the public hearing now. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just want to, again, make a statement for the record, if I could. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You know, we started this petition it seems like six years ago, but I think it was only two months counting just this petition, and we heard opinions from numerous public speakers, and it certainly involved numerous points of concern and consideration that we were to take in our deliberation. But I do want to thank the League of Women Voters, they stepped up, the Conservancy, the Florida Wildlife Federation, National Audubon Society for their input and detailed presentations for both this and, of course, the Longwater, and I cited those Page 60 of 73 April 19, 2021 as well. But as I stated with the Longwater petition, we are not here to establish new rules and to establish new criteria for the proposed development. The proposed development was submitted under the RLSA criteria, and my position is that I'm compelled to follow the GMP and the LDC as passed. And in this case, as Attorney Klatzkow stated, these areas were identified almost 20 years ago as areas for development where we were going to steer development towards in order to save and preserve land. Bellmar is preserving 2,200 acres, SSA 15, and that's a significant issue. During the public hearing, we repeatedly heard of references to protect panther and panther habitat, and those giving testimony cited why panther habitat and Primary Panther Habitat should be protected, and not doing so would lead to the extinction of the Florida panther. That's our concern up here as well, but it was also why the RLSA was developed. The RLSA was developed to do just that, provide an incentive program for private landowners to put their land in preservation to develop on land that was identified as a Stewardship Receiving Area. And one of the authors that were cited, Ran Kautz, concluded that we need to develop an ambitious comprehensive strategy for working with private landowners to protect, enhance, and restore panther habitat within primary dispersal and secondary zones, and that was an essential part of the program. I believe that's what the RLSA was doing. It certainly meets the strategy regarding the primary and secondary zone, and the dispersal zone, as I understand, really is in Hendry County. With that, as I stated, the RLSA was developed over two years, exhaustive meetings, the intent covering 300 square miles, 193,000 acres, 102 -- approximately 102 -- 182,000 acres of private property, so about 94 percent put in preserve. Ninety-three thousand acres were identified as Stewardship Sending Areas. So that is the intent of this program. I see that -- my belief is that that's what this petition is doing. The goals are being met. The Collier County goal is to protect agriculture activities and to prevent premature conversion of agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses. That was Goal No. 1 of the RLSA program; to direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat; to enhance -- or to enable conservation of rural lands to other uses in appropriate locations, which is what the SSAs are doing; and to discourage urban sprawl. It was cited that these developments are really urban sprawl, but they are really not urban sprawl as what was originally approved out there at one per five acres. These are condensed developments. I'm not sure whether the answer is -- to even have more density is the answer. I believe what is being proposed meets the intent of the RLSA. And just for clarity, and I did state, the applicant still has to go through the federal permitting process. 1, too, am concerned about the location of the preserves -- of this development. It is an SRA, but it is an area that is very near to wildlife preserves and -- but the applicant has clearly understood that they may -- the residents may be impacted by smoke due to prescribed burns, and that is going to be clearly noted as one of the requirements in regards to this development. So with that, I recommend approval of SRA PL20190001837, the Bellmar Village, that includes Deviations 1 through 12 with the amendment of Deviation 12 that does not include reuse water that will be conveyed to the county, that remains with the applicant, and it includes approval of the recommendations as proffered by Staff Recommendations 1 through 6. So I propose to recommend approval as proposed with -- including Deviations 1 through 12 and, as noted for Deviation 12, eliminating reuse water, and with Staff Recommendations 1 through 6. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Second. Any discussion -- any more discussion? COMMISSIONER FRY: I would just like to say I do think there is room for us tightening Page 61 of 73 April 19, 2021 up some definitions in this process so that we can be in more agreement rather than -- a defined agreement rather than a "he said or she said" or whose interpretation of what one term means versus another. My opinion of this, I think, has changed over the course of all of this testimony, and I really -- even though, you know, we've got environmental groups and civic groups that have come in with different perspectives, I think we've benefited from everybody's perspective, and I would like to see -- I mean, the Conservancy has mentioned new and better data for panther that maybe is not built into the program. We have an amendment process, and I agree with what Joe said, that maybe that's not the purview of this meeting but that that is how this is supposed to work. We go back and change it, fine tune it, apply new information, define the terms that are nebulous, and we make this program better and better. I am, I think, also made more hopeful by the town plan even though at this point it's a nebulous concept, but I think the mere attempt to go back and bring in some of the positive attributes of the town that we lost with the Rural Lands West not being approved I think is actually -- it is a factor to me because there is a commitment -- even though we haven't had it defined, there is a commitment to come back with a town plan within 12 months to fill in that hole, and I think that represents an outreach, perhaps, from the county and good faith from the developer that we're all in this together and we all really have the same -- a positive objective for the outcome on the county in mind. So I just --I'd like to commend staff. I really felt that there were a lot of objections raised, and they were very solid objections. I felt that they stated -- they stated their case very well and helped me get over a lot of those objections, and if I was looking at this from kind of a burden of proof, I felt like I don't have enough seed of doubt that there's been anything missed by staff, so at this point I would -- I'll be voting for approval. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Wow. There's not much left to say. I share a lot of those same feelings, and I'm -- I think the town proposal is very exciting to me, and I think we actually chartered the group to go find out why we can't entice more of the development to be in the form of town, and I think in response to that challenge we gave them, I think they're coming back with something having worked very hard. And I, like Karl, was probably -- could go either way coming into this; some great arguments on both sides. I think when it was all said and done, though, I think it sums -- it basically sums up the way Joe described it. This was the intent of the plan. When I look at that plan that's up there, I can -- I look at all of the colored areas which are preserved areas, and so I support it as well. I think it's consistent with what our obligations are as commissioners, which is to follow that plan. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think it meets the intent of the overall project in terms of targeting development and preserving more environmentally sensitive lands. I do think there's room for perhaps reinterpretation of what each development looks like -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- moving forward. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We can find out what "center" actually means. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: It doesn't necessarily have to be in the center of anything. A center is just -- well, you know what I mean. Okay. There's a motion and a second on the floor. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. Page 62 of 73 April 19, 2021 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign. Is Chris still there? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is Chris still here? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, I'm still here, and -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Sorry. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And I'm voting -- you know, I will tell you that, you know, I was driving, so I couldn't look at the slides, and connections were going in and out and broken conversations. I swear I heard Rich say he was against it at one point. COMMISSIONER FRY: Then I change my vote. COMMISSIONER VERNON: But it's clear -- it's clearly better to be there in person. I don't have anything to add on what my fellow commissioners have said except -- and this is purely subjective by just listening by phone, you know, and I've seen this --I saw this with One Naples. I felt like -- and I definitely want to listen to people who object and really hear them out, and I respect their right to challenge the staff, and, you know, and I respect their desire to do it this way, and it's fine. And this is, again, purely subjective, and I know -- I think it's a good idea to list all the problems they see with the project. But just for people objecting in the future, I really like a theme, this is the real problem. I mean, you can tell me there's 20 problems with the project, but just sort of drill down what is your biggest concern about the project, because sometimes I feel like I'm being hit with a number of objections and kind of sift through them to what I think is the most powerful objection. I'd rather have the objector do that, because they're the ones that have the objection. So that's a very generic thought I had, but it did cross my mind as I was listening. But I will be voting in favor of it. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: We already voted, Chris. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: So that's 5-0. MR. YOVANOVICH: 5-0. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yeah. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Vernon, you need to get your connection fixed. COMMISSIONER FRY: You need to get here in person. COMMISSIONER VERNON: That's another problem with listening by phone. Can I second the motion now? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Vernon seconds, thirds. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: While we're waiting, just for the fellow commissioners, and this is -- unfortunately there was a conflating -- back about the time when this RLSA was developed, we also had what was the Community Character Plan made and developed by -- under contract by a company called Dover -Kohl, so a lot of people refer to it as the Dover -Kohl study. That's where some of this terminology came with compactness and walkability. The Community Character Plan proposed the street front porches, the old community type environment. Though it looked nice and it was, you know, kind of homesy type thing, it just was not marketable and nobody wanted it. But some of that -- that's what bled into some of the RLSA. So I don't even know if staff -- I'm sure they're somewhere in the archives, and somebody's footrest, the Community Character Plan. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have that plan, and it was used to help create a lot of goals and policies in the Growth Management Plan -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. Page 63 of 73 April 19, 2021 MR. BELLOWS: -- and LDC amendments. That was used as the basis for LDC amendments. So the plan is implemented through those amendments. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The first real attempt to use that was to do some redevelopment and restructuring of Naples Park. It was overwhelmingly turned down by the community in Naples Park. COMMISSIONER FRY: But, Joe, to play devil's advocate, Ave Maria is a much different vision than these three villages. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: And even backing into the town. And I think that what a lot of people are lamenting, including myself, is what's missing is the identity, the sense of identity from the communities that are suggested by terms like "village" and "town" and "hamlet." COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But when the Ave Maria came in, it was clearly defined as a town, and the intent was to build a town in conjunction with the university. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. But Ave Maria is a unicorn. It's not going to happen again. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's not going to happen again. COMMISSIONER FRY: Never? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you had Mr. Monahan come in and fund a lot of that. It's a university town. It's just -- it's an absolute unicorn. It's highly unlikely to ever happen again. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, but Rural Lands West was an attempt to do something similar. I mean, it appeared similar, very diverse and interconnected and roads and walkways and pathways and distributed village centers and town centers and things. It looked -- to me it looked a lot more like an Ave Maria than what we ended up with. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Let's get moving here. ***Okay. We're onto 9A2 and 9A3. We will be talking about them together, right, or separate? MR. ARNOLD: Would you --for the record, Wayne Arnold. They are separate items on your agenda. There is a relationship because of some ownership interests. I think we'll try to make presentation for each, and I'll probably just describe the overall relationship. I don't think, hopefully, these are going to be very lengthy in discussion on either one. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Because they're Growth Management Plan amendments. This is first transmittal for both, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Wayne Arnold representing the applicant. Rich Yovanovich is our land -use counsel. We have Jim Banks in the room, who's our traffic engineer. Marco Espinar is our environmental consultant. He couldn't be with us on the continuation hearing date, nor could Mark Minor from our office, who's the professional engineer. But I'm going to go through and make a short presentation. Karen, you may have been the only Planning Commission member on the Planning Commission when this was originally approved as the Estates shopping center. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I would say so. It was -- Joe was working here then? No. I don't know. COMMISSIONER FRY: Joe was just a child then. MR. ARNOLD: Joe was one of the staff members, I believe. And this project is located at the corner of Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard. It's undeveloped with the exception of single-family homes that have been built on it. This was one of those projects that was highly controversial back in the day because of its size and scope, and that went all the way to a ballot issue for the Golden Gate Estates folks to vote for this as to whether or not they wanted it, and it was overwhelmingly -- at the end of the day, they wanted a Page 64 of 73 April 19, 2021 grocery -anchored shopping center. But roll forward now, gosh, more than 10 years, and the same property owner is under contract to purchase the county's 50-acre parcel at Randall Boulevard and Fourth Street and Immokalee Road, which is your next item. But this is fairly straightforward. This was approved for 190,000 square feet of commercial space as part of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. What we're essentially doing is saying, we want to reduce our commercial component to 50,000 square feet, that 140,000 that's left over, we're going to shift that largely up to the Randall Boulevard property, and then we're making room here for a 10-acre property that will be owned by Collier County Government as part of this Estates shopping center property as well as another parcel that at the moment is destined to become Shy Wolf Sanctuary. If for some reason that doesn't occur, we've made provisions for there to be single-family residential just as if it were Estates residential zoned property. So, I mean, in a nutshell, that's exactly what we're doing. We're asking for a change in use as well to limit it to C-3 zoning rather than the very long, exhaustive list of uses that were approved as part of your plan amendment previously. Staff is supportive of the concept and is recommending transmittal, and we hope you will, too. And Rich and I are here to answer any questions that you may have. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I do recall this; very controversial at the time, yes. MR.ARNOLD: I would go onto say that we held a joint neighborhood informational meeting for both projects, and we did have a few people attend. But I think the sentiment is pretty consistent that they would rather us put the larger -scale commercial out on Immokalee Road rather than at this location. So the scale of commercial that you're getting is what was originally a neighborhood center to begin with. And it seems like there's wide support from everybody we've spoken to in the community for the change. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Didn't one of our planning commissioners have great opposition to this at one time? This is a significant -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Probably, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- reduction. We won't bring up that. MR. YOVANOVICH: The guy with the beard. MR. ARNOLD: One of the things I would point out -- it's not on the table, and I don't want to belabor the point -- but this was a conceptual plan that was approved with the original subdistrict, and the new one's going to look a lot more simple. I've got to change the abbreviated names. We originally started out by calling the westernmost parcel a semipublic use, which was sort of the Shy Wolf parcel, if you will. The P in the middle was the public use that's destined to be Collier County Government, and then the C on the hard corner of Wilson and Golden Gate is C. I think we agreed that we'd be changing the semipublic to something civic or educational or something like that. In our PUD it's just simply called out as Tracts 1, 2, and 3, and then we describe what would be allowed in each of those tracts. MR. YOVANOVICH: The only thing I would add, historically, where you see the C now, that was always a neighborhood center, so commercial was allowed on that corner anyway before we did the Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow the entirety of the 40 acres to be a shopping center. So we're essentially going back to what was originally the intended commercial under the Comprehensive Plan. MR. ARNOLD: Thanks, Rich. The other thing that was added here was specifically a library use. It wasn't one of the C-1 through C-3 uses. Staff was recommending the library use, and we have, obviously, no objection to that. COMMISSIONER FRY: Are we in a question -asking mode? Page 65 of 73 April 19, 2021 MR. ARNOLD: Sure, absolutely. COMMISSIONER FRY: The 50 residential dwelling units, can you walk us through that. MR. ARNOLD: I can. We've asked for 50 total units as part of the Comprehensive Plan. When you see our Planned Unit Development come through, it's going to be most likely less than that, so that number is one that may go down. We weren't clearly sure how some dormitory housing that was associated with Shy Wolf and some of their educational aspects would be counted. We also made provisions -- the county originally thought they might want to do some essential service personnel housing on their tract. I think that's now no longer on the table. And then there was also a provision that should none of this happen, we had always the right to go back to the 18 or 20 platted Golden Gate Estate lots that are there. So that's kind of how the residential component plays into this, Mr. Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So they would go on the semipublic and public parcels? MR. ARNOLD: Correct. And we made provisions for those to be in accordance with Estates zoning standards. COMMISSIONER FRY: So we would learn the details when the PUD comes through? MR. ARNOLD: You absolutely will, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: No. MR. ARNOLD: I don't know if there are any public speakers or anybody on Zoom or not. We didn't have a lot of participation. As I said, I think most people -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: No public? No, no speakers. MR. ARNOLD: Oh, I'm sorry, Anita; staff. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Staff. MS. JENKINS: Good evening. Anita Jenkins. I'm filling in for James Sabo. I won't pull up our presentation. It's very similar to what you've seen from the applicant here. Staff has reviewed this application thoroughly. There are no adverse impacts to infrastructure from the plan. We would note that the accessory uses for housing will be tied to Shy Wolf, and we would expect to see that when it comes back, that those uses are accessory to Shy Wolf use. Also, there is a maximum daily trip cap of 410 p.m. peak -hour trips, unless that's changed. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. And, I'm sorry I didn't bring this up. We will agree to the trip cap as part of the PUD. I've never seen it as part of a Growth Management Plan amendment. So we did have an objection to including it in the Growth Management Plan amendment, the trip cap. We will agree to a condition that there be a trip cap as part of the PUD but not the specific number as part of the Growth Management Plan. It will be part of the PUD. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yeah. I don't really think it belongs in the Growth Management Plan. MS. JENKINS: Right. And we're fine with it when it comes back, that they include both the accessory use of the residential to Shy Wolf and the trip cap when it comes back for adoption. Again, this is transmittal, so you will see this come back as a Growth Management Plan amendment for adoption as well as a Planned Unit Development. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. Do you have -- anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER SHEA: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: No? Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's it. Page 66 of 73 April 19, 2021 CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Anything else? MR. YOVANOVICH: No rebuttal. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. We're looking for a motion then. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion that we submit this petition for transmittal and for review as proposed. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I heard Chris say aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yes. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: ***So the next one, 9A3. MR. ARNOLD: All right. So, again, Wayne Arnold, for the record, and here representing the applicant. We have the same applicant team, so I'm not going to belabor that. But I would let you know that this is property that's currently owned by Collier County Government. It's a curved property that's located between Fourth Avenue Northeast and Immokalee Road just north of Randall Boulevard. The hard corner is currently used as a dry detention system for Immokalee Road project. As part of the contractual obligation, we'll be taking in that water management system and expanding upon it for some future roadway improvements that are planned at Randall and Immokalee Road, so that will be incorporated into our overall project. But in this particular case, we've asked for -- just show you the relationships. It's about 3.2 miles from the Estates shopping center property. It's also within the drive time that Mr. Weyer analyzed as part of the market -demand analysis. And as I mentioned, the 140,000 square feet we're taking away, we're asking for a maximum of 150,000 square feet for this subject district as well as up to 400 residential dwelling units. So we're creating our new subdistrict that will identify that as a mixed -use project. There's a companion mixed -use PUD that has been fled. It's winding its way through the process, and they'll obviously come back together. But we've asked for C-4 permitted and conditional uses. And I guess that's kind of deja vu. I had the pleasure of representing the Collier family on the parcel immediately north. And what they ultimately agreed to do, with your recommendation, was to come forward with C-3 plus uses, if you will. And we've had that conversation with Ms. Jenkins that we'd like to be transmitted with C-4 but acknowledging that our PUD as well as, if necessary, the subdistrict can come back in maybe a revised form to limit some of those C-4 uses. But one thing we did here -- it wasn't so much evident at the neighborhood meeting, but our client and Rich and myself and others have talked to several of the community leaders in the Estates, and to deliver some of the uses they want -- and we can't promise that we're going to have a large-scale big box hardware store or a large-scale membership club/warehouse type facility, but we can't get those if we're stuck with C-3 uses, and the community would really like to have those Page 67 of 73 April 19, 2021 services in that part of the county. And we'd love to try to deliver those, but I can't unless it's allowed as a permitted use. So no promises but, again, that's what we're trying to do. That's why the C-4 permitted and conditional are important to us. The other thing we've done here is we've made provisions to take in and do the water -quality pretreatment which affects sort of the development envelope, and I'm getting ahead of myself, because this is our PUD master plan. But the components of this I wanted to highlight are that we've got some substantial lake and preserve areas that are going to be included as part of this because we have that obligation to take in water management from Collier County. So that's driving part of our plan. We think there's a strong market out here for some non -single-family housing. And I don't think we've had any negative pushback. We did agree early on not to have any vehicular access to Fourth Street North -- Fourth Avenue South -- Northeast, sorry, and so our master plan does not note any vehicular access there. It does provide for pedestrian connection for those residents that live along Fourth that may desire to shop at this PUD. But this, obviously, shows an interconnection that you -all discussed for the other project to the north, and it does align, and there's an interconnection agreement in place or soon to be in place to handle that connection. So, again, I know that the details are in the PUD document but, again, here I think staff is making a recommendation for us to transmit. I think our only real disagreement here was over the intensity, and C-4 to us makes sense and, like I said, we will come back, and we can hone down on those uses that we know we need when you are looking at this for adoption. MR. YOVANOVICH: And also, they also -- this one recommended the trip cap be included in the Growth Management Plan amendment. I talked to Anita. We'll include that in the PUD and not the Growth Management Plan amendment. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Oh, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, Wayne -- yeah, Wayne. Wayne, I recall, and you stated -- did you represent the client that was developing just to the north? MR. ARNOLD: I did. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And we got into a lot of discussion on the intensity on that site, how much square footage. And then you came in with a larger intensity. We reduced it based on staff recommendation, but now we're adding more commercial out there. I guess Russ has already done a market analysis. I don't know if Russ wants to come up and state that, but from the standpoint -- come up. The market analysis is there to already -- that will work the demand, or do you want to do it? Whatever. I mean, I'm trying to sort through -- we were -- we're faced with quite a dilemma over reduction in the last petition you brought forward, and now we're asking for more commercial in, essentially, the same area. MR. ARNOLD: And this is a little different because we don't feel like there's the same justification required because we're transferring so much of that intensity from the Estates shopping center, Joe, to the site that's only three miles away. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. MR. ARNOLD: I think staff understands that concept as well, and they've been doing this Randall/Immokalee corridor study, and I think there's just an incredible amount and demand for commercial in this corridor because it's, one, such a heavily traveled roadway, and the Estates residents have clearly said we'd rather have the commercial on our perimeter than in our interior. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And, again, I don't argue that. I'm just now confused because the last petition we forced it down, by 10,000 square feet, if I remember. MR. YOVANOVICH: It was 20,000. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 20,000, okay. Page 68 of 73 April 19, 2021 MR. YOVANOVICH: But that's to be debated. That's going back to the Board of County Commissioners, and they're obviously seeking the full amount. And I can tell you just the amount of interest that's out here for commercial -- commercial users is incredible, you know, the amount of traction there is for this corridor. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, I have no argument. It's been discussed for years about commercial out there. All right. I understand. I just wanted to know -- all of a sudden now it's recommend approval when staff moved forward to reduce the last petition out there. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Karl, do you have -- COMMISSIONER FRY: No. I'll clear it. I'll wait. MS. JENKINS: Again, Anita Jenkins, the zoning director, for the record. And we have reviewed this petition as well. And, Mr. Schmitt, the demand area, the commercial area that was evaluated, is the same area as the other. So they are just basically taking this square footage of 140,000 square feet and transferring it. But it's the same area that we evaluated with the CIGM when we came to the recommendation for you. So we recognize the demand that is there. The CIGM demonstrated that as well. And this is the same demand area. So they're just moving it from a less attractive area to a more attractive area where they can handle the type of shopping that's needed. So staff was recommending a reduction to the 3-C uses, but I think that we've heard the applicant commit to a C-3 plus. So when they come back with the PUD, they'll be more specific in what those C-4 uses are so we can look at compatibility for the surrounding area for those uses, and we feel that that's fair. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: Anita, by transferring all this commercial up to Immokalee, which is a somewhat heavily traveled road, what about the impact on the traffic? MS. JENKINS: Well, I would have to ask Mike to address that for you for the traffic assessment, and I believe the applicant's transportation, is here as well. COMMISSIONER FRY: And are you satisfied -- maybe this is for you. Are you satisfied with the buffering in the southeast corridor? MS. JENKINS: Right. So generally when we come to you for transmittal for a Growth Management Plan, we're not at that level with buffering, but that will be something that we will discuss when we come back with the PUD. So when we look at that compatibility with the surrounding neighbors, then we'll talk about the buffering then. But for these specific uses, then, that's what we're looking at for transmittal of the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. MR. SAWYER: Good evening, Commissioners. Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. To answer your question, we have, obviously, looked at both the GMP as well as we're still reviewing the GMP. We've looked at the TIS that they've provided. In a lot of cases, just as you heard from Trinity this morning, or this afternoon, I should say, sorry, a lot of the roadways in this area are being improved over the course of the next five years or so. Those are being taken into consideration. These developers, just like anybody else, are going to be able to use that incremental increase in those improvements in their TIS. They will also be paying their fair share, based on their impact fees primarily. We're still reviewing everything, making sure everything is set, but it still looks like we're going to be able to say, similarly to the SRAs that we've been talking about, that they are meeting the needs and will -- and we will be able to service the project. COMMISSIONER FRY: Even this 3.2 miles shift to the north, this is -- this is -- you do believe this is a better location for the commercial rather than down closer in to a lot of the people Page 69 of 73 April 19, 2021 that don't have these -- the major commercial benefit. MR. SAWYER: You do have more development that is condensed, a bit more, as far as from a density standpoint in these particular areas as opposed to the Estates, which tends to be more spread out. So from that aspect, yeah, you're probably serving more numbers. You've got more rooftops to serve in this particular area. Additionally, you probably certainly have more units being -- more new units coming online in this particular area. COMMISSIONER FRY: But the people that would have been served previously are now going to drive farther to get services and -- MR. SAWYER: No. There's still going to be a certain amount of -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Commercial down there. MR. SAWYER: -- commercial down within the original location on Golden Gate. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just not the bigger commercial uses. MR. SAWYER: It's not going to be as big. It will be a different type. It will be more neighborhood orientated. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Do we have any public? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Oh, is there any public? I didn't think there was. No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion to forward this recommendation to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity as proposed by staff with the modifications as cited by staff. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: No. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Chris is there, too, so that's 5-0. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you very much. MR. YOVANOVICH: I want to thank you on behalf of my clients that are here today for coming in today to have this meeting and getting us back on track. I know it was a sacrifice, but I want to thank you all for that that -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: You're welcome. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- since we weren't able to do that on Thursday. COMMISSIONER FRY: You owe us bigtime, Rich. Leave it at that. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: We have one more -- there's no old business or new business, but we have meeting dates to discuss for -- MR. FRANTZ: That's right. Jeremy Frantz, for the record. Speaking of sacrifice, we do have a couple of LDC amendments that were initiated from the private side, and they will require a night hearing of the CCPC. We are hoping that we can Page 70 of 73 April 19, 2021 tack that night hearing onto one of your upcoming existing CCPC days so that we're not asking you for another day. So we had three dates available; May 20th, June 3rd, and June 17th. Looking for kind of a polling of your availability on any one of those dates. I think ideally we'd hope for the May 20th hearing date. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Well, that's the second -- well, that's fine with me. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm good with all of them. Prefer the 20th also. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I will not be here on the 20th, but hopefully we do have a quorum. I have to travel again that week. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Let's look at another date, because when we get into these, I really like to have your view on these things. COMMISSIONER FRY: Will you be here on the 3rd, Joe? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: These are LDC amendments. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm here the 6th, but what day do you want to do it? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Third. COMMISSIONER FRY: Third of -- wait, is that a CCPC day, the 3rd? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, 3rd of June. MR. FRANTZ: You know, Anita just reminded me, we are also --I think we had asked last time we were looking for a potential additional CCPC date for some other land -use petitions on May 26th. I think we were looking for your feedback on that date as well. We could potentially have these LDC amendments on that date. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Twenty-sixth works for me. I may be gone on the 3rd again as well, and I'm going to miss two meetings there, the 20th and then the 3rd. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: The 26th would be a -- from 9:00? MS. JENKINS: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The 26th works. COMMISSIONER FRY: What day is that; what day of the week? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Wednesday. MR. FRANTZ: That's a Wednesday. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: That's fine with me. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, if we had to do both that day, starting at 9:00 would be kind of -- don't you have to do -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: That's what you have -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, you have to do the evening. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: That's what the other date was, too, May 20th. They're all regular dates. COMMISSIONER FRY: But that was a piggyback to an existing meeting where we stay past 5:00 or come back at 5:00. So this one we'd have to meet, then come back at 5:00 that same night? I can't predict that far in advance with my business. MR. FRANTZ: I can't really speak at this point to how long May 26th might take, whether we would already be a full day anyways. We have such a backlog right now that I'm -- you know, it's likely that we could end up having a full day on the 26th, and we're not asking you to pause and then come back later. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What's our 6th -- what's the 6th May agenda look like? MR. FRANTZ: We have the two items that were continued today, the RLSA and the RFMUD, and then we also had, I don't remember off the top of my head, how many items already scheduled for May 6th as well. So we have a very full schedule for May 6th. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We have the town meeting then, too, right? Page 71 of 73 April 19, 2021 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And then the town meeting. MR. FRANTZ: Correct. And we wouldn't be able to hold these LDC hearings on that date because we need time to advertise. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: So the 20th is good for everybody but Joe, and we don't know about anybody else, though. COMMISSIONER FRY: And I do agree with Paul that Joe's history and expertise on the LDC -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm putting in for a pay raise. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I approve. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: And so the 3rd is not good either, June 3rd? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm out the 3rd as well. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: So May 26th we were talking about having a meeting that whole day. What about that day? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Not sure yet. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Commissioner Vernon's available May 26th. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'll make it work. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. So we have one, two, three -- we've got four available and one maybe. COMMISSIONER FRY: You have Ned and Robb still to check. MR. FRANTZ: We can reach out to them individually. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, the 3rd is iffy, but I'm pretty sure I'll be gone the 3rd of June. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But you'll be here on the 26th if we had a -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: So we need to have an extra day meeting anyway, right -- MR. FRANTZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: -- because we're backed up. So the 26th we know there's four people that will be here, so that's an in -the -room quorum. MR. FRANTZ: Okay, great. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: So let's do that and do the nighttime on that day? MR. FRANTZ: Perfect. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is that the proposal for -- what's that LDC amendment? MR. FRANTZ: We have two LDC amendments; one is in Goodland and the other is Chokoloskee. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Chokoloskee and Goodland, yeah, okay. MR. FRANTZ: Thank you all very much. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. So that's it. All right. Okay. MS. JENKINS: Again, Anita Jenkins. I just wanted to add one thing before you adjourn, and I'd like to thank and recognize Jeremy Frantz for his service to Collier County for over six years now. Jeremy's going to take another opportunity from the county, but I just wanted to recognize Jeremy and thank him for that and his service. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Oh, thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I hate to see you go. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Who approved his transfer? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yeah, who said he could go? Page 72 of 73 April 19, 2021 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Who said he could go? MS. JENKINS: Jeff. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Oh, bummer. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: Did you say Lee County? He's going to Lee County or another county? MS. JENKINS: Just another opportunity. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. That's it, then. With no further business, we are adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:23 p.m. .K�7�1�1�1 ZK�1�1►MM•/ ]rl:��l�ll�[KK�]�I�Mf.X�[�]►1 KAREN HOMIAK, ACTING CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 73 of 73 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 Bellmar Village SRA Economic Assessment Collier County Collier County Schools North Collier Fire & Rescue District Initial Submission: November 11, 2019 Revised: March 11, 2020 Roads Emergency Medical Services Water and Wastewater North Collier Fire & Rescue Revised: June 3, 2020 Revised: August 19, 2020 Revised: November 12, 2020 Roads Revised: January 8, 2021 Roads Water and Wastewater — Narrative Only Schools — Narrative Only F.L1 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING & FINANCING GROUP, INC. BELLMAR 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................................................................... 11 Collier County Capital Impacts.................................................................................................. 13 Collier County Capital Impacts by Department..................................................................... 13 NORTH COLLIER FIRE & RESCUE DISTRICT.................................................................................... 29 North Collier Fire & Rescue District Capital Impacts................................................................. 29 North Collier Fire & Rescue District Annual Operating Impacts ............................................... 29 COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOLS FISCAL IMPACT................................................................................. 30 Collier County Schools Capital Impacts..................................................................................... 30 Collier County Schools Operating Impacts................................................................................ 32 APPENDIX...................................................................................................................................... 35 GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS.................................................................................................. 51 2 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 1: Bellmar Development Program........................................................................................ 8 Table 2: Bellmar Residential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values........................................................ 9 Table 3: Bellmar Nonresidential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values .................................................. 9 Table 4: Bellmar County Tax Base at Buildout............................................................................. 10 Table 5: Collier County Millage Rates.......................................................................................... 10 Table 6: Bellmar Operating Annual Net Impact at Buildout........................................................ 11 Table 7: Bellmar Annual Operating Revenue Projections............................................................ 11 Table 8: Bellmar Annual Operating Expenditure Projections...................................................... 12 Table 9: Bellmar Impact Fee Revenue for Collier County............................................................ 14 Table 10: Bellmar Law Enforcement Capital Impacts.................................................................. 17 Table 11: Bellmar Law Enforcement Level of Service.................................................................. 17 Table 12: Bellmar Law Enforcement Equipment Cost per Certified Police Officer ..................... 18 Table 13: Bellmar Correctional Facilities..................................................................................... 18 Table 14: Bellmar Correctional Facilities Capital Cost................................................................. 19 Table 15: Bellmar Correctional Facilities Indexed Cost per Resident .......................................... 19 Table 16: Bellmar Allocation of New EMS Station Cost............................................................... 20 Table 17: Bellmar EMS Capital Cost............................................................................................. 20 Table 18: Bellmar Regional Parks Capital Impacts....................................................................... 21 Table 19: Bellmar Regional Parks Level of Service....................................................................... 21 Table 20: Bellmar Regional Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre ................................................ 21 Table 21: Bellmar Community Parks Capital Impacts.................................................................. 22 Table 22: Bellmar Community Parks Level of Service.................................................................. 22 Table 23: Bellmar Community Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre ........................................... 22 Table 24: Bellmar Libraries Capital Impacts................................................................................. 23 Table 25: Bellmar Library Facilities Level of Service.................................................................... 23 Table 26: Bellmar General Government Capital Impacts............................................................ 24 Table 27: Bellmar General Government Capital Cost.................................................................. 24 Table 28: Bellmar North Collier Fire & Rescue District Capital Impacts ...................................... 29 Table 29: Bellmar North Collier Fire & Rescue District Impact Fee Revenues ............................ 29 Table 30: Bellmar North Collier Fire & Rescue District Annual Operating Impacts at Buildout.. 30 Table 31: Bellmar Projected Public School Enrollment............................................................... 30 Table 32: Bellmar Projected Enrollment by School Type............................................................. 30 Table 33: Bellmar School Capital Costs........................................................................................ 31 Table 34: Bellmar School Impact Fee Revenue............................................................................ 31 Table 35: Bellmar School Net Capital Impacts — Total Cash Flow Approach ............................... 32 Table 36: Bellmar Local Ad Valorem School Operating Taxes at Buildout.................................. 34 3 BELLMAR 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, Bellmar Village ("Bellmar" or "Village"), is located east of Desoto Boulevard and south of Golden Gate Boulevard. In accordance with the Rural Lands Stewardship Area ("RLSA") Overlay definition of a Village, Bellmar is primarily a residential community which includes a diversity of housing types and a maximum of 2,750 dwelling units. The Village concept plan includes 85,000 square feet of commercial uses and 27,500 square feet of neighborhood civic space. The proposed Village is within the service area of a new County EMS facility planned for the corner of DeSoto Boulevard South and Golden Gate Boulevard East. The site for the new facility was recently purchased by Collier County. As reflected in the table below, Bellmar 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: Bellmar Village Fiscal Highlights Bellmar SRA Fiscal Highlights At Builclout At Builclout Collier County: Bel I ma r SRA Ad Va I orem Tax Base Bellmar SRA Net Annual Fiscal Benefit BellmarSRATotal Annual Operating Revenues BellmarSRATotal Annual Operating Expenditures BellmarSRATotal Annual Net Operating Surplus North Collier Fire Rescue District: Bellmar SRAAnnual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues* Bel I mar SRA Tota I Annual Operating Expenditures BellmarSRATotal Annual Net Operating Surplus Collier County Schools: Bel I mar SRA Ad Valorem Tax Base Bel I ma r SRA Net Fi sca I Benefit: Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Revenues Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Expenditures Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Surplus Bellmar SRA Annual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues: Collier County Collier County MSTU North Collier Fire Rescue District Collier County Schools -Ad Valorem Operating* Collier County Schools -Capital Improvement* Total Bellmar SRAAnnual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues Countywide MSTU $ 906,775,000 $ 906,775,000 Countywide MSTU $ 4,411,000 $ 821,000 3,239,000 518,000 $ 1,172,000 $ 303,000 Fire District $ 3,400,000 1,500,000 $ 1,900,000 School District $ 942,000,000 Annual Operating** Total Capital $ 3,375,000 $ 46,197,000 3,375,000 46,197,000 At Builclout $ 3,232,000 732,000 3,400,000 3,375,000 1,413,000 $ 12,152,000 4 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Impact Fee Revenue, Fair ImpactFee Fair Share Share Mitigation Impact Fee and Fair Share Mitigation Revenue: Revenue Mitigation and Contribution Community Parks $ 2,013,000 $ $ 2,013,000 Regional Parks 5,711,000 5,711,000 Roads 18,767,000 2,221,800 20,988,800 EMS 320,000 - 320,000 Government Buildings 2,109,000 2,109,000 Libraries 719,000 719,000 Law Enforcement 1,342,000 1,342,000 Jail 1,15 3,000 1,15 3,000 Water -Residential Only 7,046,000 7,046,000 Wastewater -Residential Only 7,428,000 - 7,428,000 Total Collier County Impact Fees $ 46,608,000 $ 2,221,800 $ 48,829,800 Collier County Schools $ 17,274,000 $ - $ 17,274,000 North Collier Fire & Rescue 1,515,000 - 1,515,000 Total I mpa ct Fee Revenue $ 65,397,000 $ 2,221,800 $ 67,618,800 *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, 2021 As demonstrated in this report, DPFG concludes that the proposed Bellmar 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: Bellmar Village Net Fiscal Impact Conclusions per Taxing Authority Jurisdiction Net Fiscal Jurisdiction Net Fiscal Collier County Collier County Annual Operations: Annual Operations and Capital: General Funds Grouping Positive Water Neutral MSTU Positive Wastewater Neutral Capital: Capital and Operations: Regional and Community Park! Positive Solid Waste Neutral Roads Neutral Stormwater Neutral EMS Neutral North Collier Fire & Rescue Government Buildings Neutral Annual Operations Positive Libraries Positive Capital Positive Law Enforcement Neutral Collier County Schools Jail Neutral Annual Operations* Neutral Capital Neutral * The Florida Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through statewide equalization formula Source: DPFG, 2020 5 BELLMAR 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, Bellmar is primarily a residential community and includes a diversity of housing types and a maximum of 2,750 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 Bellmar Village SRA. This report provides complete and transparent support for the methodology, assumptions, and calculations applied to demonstrate fiscal neutrality for the Bellmar 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 BELLMAR 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 Bellmar 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 & 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 & Rescue District 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 BELLMAR 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 Bellmar 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 Bellmar Village development program which was used to estimate the operating and capital impacts of the project. Table 1: Bellmar Development Proeram Land Use by Impact Fee Category Units Residential Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached Total SFD <4,000 Sq Ft Total Residential 1,160 1,590 2,750 Non -Residential Sq Ft Reta i 1 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft Total Non -Residential 85,000 85,000 Neigborhood Civic Grand Total Non -Residential (sf) 27,500 112,500 Source: Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2019 N. BELLMAR 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: Bellmar 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 216 1 $ 265,000 $ 249,100 $ 233,600 337 $ 276,000 $ 259,440 $ 243,940 273 $ 297,000 $ 279,180 $ 263,680 334 $ 329,000 $ 309,260 $ 293,760 1,160 $ 294,154 $ 276,505 $ 261,005 SFD Product A <4,000 sq ft 522 1 $ 387,000 $ 363,780 $ 330,780 SFD Product B <4,000 sq ft 425 $ 424,000 $ 398,560 $ 365,560 SFD Product C <4,000 sq ft 461 $ 456,000 $ 428,640 $ 395,640 SFD Product C <4,000 sq ft 182 $ 488,000 $ 458,720 $ 425,720 Total SFD <4,000 Sq Ft 1,590 $ 428,457 $ 402,749 $ 369,749 Total Single -Family Detached 1,590 $ 428,457 $ 402,749 $ 369,749 Total Residential 2,750 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," 40th Edition, 2019 and also considered values from the County Property Appraiser's database. Table 3: Bellmar Nonresidential Sales. Just. and Taxable Values Taxable Sales Value Just Value Value Non -Residential Sq Ft per Sq Ft per Sq Ft per Sq Ft Reta i 1 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 85,000 $ 189.50 $ 189.50 $ 189.50 Source: RS Means, Collier County Property Appraiser, DPFG, 2019 At buildout, the real property tax base generated for the County is estimated to exceed $906.8 million as reflected in Table 4. ' In determining just value, reasonable fees and costs of purchase (for example, commissions) are excluded. 4 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 4: Bellmar County Tax Base at Buildout Units or Taxable Value Land Use So Ft oer Unit/SF At Builclout Residential Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached Total SFD <4,000 Scl Ft Total Residential Non -Residential 1,160 $ 261,005 $ 302,766,000 1,590 $ 369,749 587,901,000 2.750 S 890.667.000 Reta i 1 50,001 - 100,000 Scl Ft 85,000 $ 189.50 16,108,000 Total Non -Residential 85,000 $ 16,108,000 Total Tax Base $ 906,775,000 Source: Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2019 Property Taxes 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 Bellmar Village at buildout. Bellmar Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to County's Operating Impacts. 10 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 6: Bellmar Operating Annual Net Impact at Buildout At Buildout Net Operating Impact Countywide MSTU Bellmar SRA Total Annual Operating Revenues $ 4,411,000 $ 821,000 Bellmar SRATotal Annual Operating Expenditures 3,239,000 518,000 Bel ImarSRA TotaIAnnua10peratingSurplus $ 1,172,000 $ 303,000 Source: DPFG, 2019 Collier County Operating Revenue Projections Projected County annual operating revenues at buildout are summarized in Table 7. Bellmar Village is projected to generate annual operating revenues of $4.4 million for the County's General Funds and $821,000 for the MSTU General Fund. Table 7: Bellmar Annual Operating Revenue Projections GENERAL FUND GROUPING REVENUES At Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes $ 3,232,000 Licenses & Permits 2,000 Inter -Governmental Revenues 8,000 State Revenue Sharing -Growth Portion 125,000 State Sa I es Tax 516,000 Charges for Services 366,000 Fines & Forfeitures 5,000 Miscellaneous Revenues 2,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous 11,000 Indirect Service Charge 74,000 Transfers from Constitutional Officers 62,000 Reimburse from Other Departments 8,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Revenues $ 4,411,000 MSTU GENERAL FUND REVENUES At Bui I clout Ad Valorem Taxes $ 732,000 Licenses & Permits 5,000 Charges for Services 32,000 Fines & Forfeitures 2,000 Miscellaneous Revenues 2,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous 1,000 Communication Services Tax 47,000 Reimburse from Other Departments - Total MSTU Annual Operating Revenues $ 821,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Collier County Operating Expenditure Projections Projected County annual operating expenditures at buildout are presented in Table 8. Bellmar Village is expected to generate annual General Funds service demand of $3.2 million and $518,000 of MSTU General Fund service demand. The Appendix contains a detailed breakdown of operating costs by line item category. 11 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 8: Bellmar Annual Operating Expenditure Projections GENERAL FUND GROUPING EXPENDITURES At Builclout Board of County Commissioners $ 32,000 County Attorney 13,000 Property Appraiser 75,000 Supervisor of Elections 25,000 Clerk of Courts 52,000 Sheriff 1,771,000 Tax Collector 136,000 Administrative Services 3,000 Human Resources 10,000 Procurement Services 9,000 Bureau of Emergency Services 31,000 Planning 1,000 Circuit & County Court Judges 1,000 Public Defender 4,000 State Attorney 5,000 Guardian Ad Litem Program - County Manager Operations 7,000 Office of Management & Budget 6,000 Public Services Administration 2,000 Domestic Ani ma I Services 43,000 Community and Human Services 48,000 Library 103,000 Parks & Recreation 127,000 Public Health 5,000 Public Transitand Neighborhood Enhancement 2,000 Facilities Management 155,000 Transfer to 101 Transp Op Fund 190,000 Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap 80,000 Transfer to 426 CAT Mass Transit 25,000 Transfer to 427 Transp Disadvantaged 33,000 Transfer to 490 EMS Fund 167,000 Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies 78,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Expenditures $ 3,239,000 12 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT MSTU GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES At Builclout Board of County Commissioners $ 18,000 Communications & Customer Relations Division 15,000 Growth Management Administration 6,000 Planning 19,000 Regulation 56,000 Maintenance 100,000 Bureau of Emergency Services 1,000 Project Management - Community and Human Services 2,000 Parks & Recreation 193,000 Transfer to 306 Parks Capital Fund 39,000 Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Cap 45,000 1 ndi rect Cost Rei mbu rsement 24,000 Total MSTU Annual Operating Expenditures $ 518,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Collier County Capital Impacts Collier County Capital Impacts bV 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 BELLMAR 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 Bellmar 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: Bellmar Impact Fee Revenue for Collier County Impact Fee Type Total Fees Community Parks $ 2,013,000 Regional Parks 5,711,000 Roads 18,767,000 EMS 320,000 Government Buildings 2,109,000 Libraries 719,000 Law Enforcement 1,342,000 Jail 1,153,000 Water - residential only 7,046,000 Wastewater - residential only 7,428,000 Total Collier County Impact Fees $ 46,608,000 Collier County Schools 17,274,000 North Collier Fire & Rescue 1,515,000 Total Impact Fees $ 65,397,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 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 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Collier County Road Capital Impacts The Bellmar Village SRA is a proposed mixed -use development in eastern Collier County located east of Desoto Boulevard and south of Golden Gate Boulevard. 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 $18.8 million and significantly exceed the Concurrency Fair -Share estimate of $4.0 million as shown in the "Preliminary Concurrency Fair -Share — November 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 Rd and Desoto Blvd intersection - signalization • Randall Blvd and DeSoto Blvd intersection — add eastbound right -turn lane on Randall Blvd • Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd intersection — signalization • Golden Gate Blvd and DeSoto Blvd intersection — signalization; intersection geometry as follows: on Golden Gate Blvd add eastbound shared right-turn/through lane and an eastbound left -turn lane, and provide a westbound shared left-turn/through lane and a 15 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT westbound shared right-turn/through lane; on Desoto Blvd add dual northbound left -turn lanes and a southbound left -turn lane. 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 2034 traffic volumes. 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 fair share operational contribution of $2.2 million shall be paid within 90 days of the approval of the first Development Order construction approval (plat, or site development plan, as applicable) for the SRA. In addition, as a site related expense (100 percent contribution), the developer is agreeing to provide roadway improvements for Golden Gate Blvd, segment from project entrance to Desoto Blvd and for 6th Ave SE, segment from project entrance to Desoto Blvd. Proposed site related improvements on Golden Gate Blvd and 6th Ave SE consist of travel pavement widening (to provide a minimum width of 22 ft.) and shoulder improvements (10 ft. wide on both sides of the roadway) and are estimated to cost $700,000 (Golden Gate Blvd and 6th Ave SE). 1: Bellmar Fair -Share Mitigation for Operational IIntersection Oil Well Rd and Desoto Blvd ■ Randall Blvd and Desoto Blvd Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd Golden Gate Blvd and Desoto Blvd Tota I Source: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA, 2021 cts 400.0 33.5% / 134.0 200.0 44.0% / 88.0 400.0 17.0% / 68.0 2,572.3 75.1% / 1,931.8 3,572.3 62.2% / 2,221.8 Bellmar 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. 16 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 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 Bellmar Village include the cost to equip certified officers. At this time, there is not the need for a specific land site within Bellmar 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 Bellmar Village's proportionate share. Table 10: Bellmar Law Enforcement Capital Impacts Bellmar SRA Funded Law Enforcement Facilities Law Enforcement Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue $ 1,342,000 Other Capital Revenues* 243,000 Total Capital Revenues $ 1,585,000 Direct Capital Costs: Law Enforcement Equipment Cost Equipment Value per Certified Police Officer $ 106,000 Certified Police Officers at Achieved LOS 10.1 Law Enforcement Equipment Cost $ 1,066,000 Total Law Enforcement Direct Capital Costs $ 1,066,000 Law Enforcement Capital Revenues in Excess of Direct Capital Costs $ 519,000 Law Enforcement Indirect Capital Costs: Law Enforcement Direct Capital Surplus $ 519,000 Land and Building Cost per Sq Ft $ 219 Additional Law Enforcement Facility Sq Ft Funded 2,370 Law Enforcement Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ - *Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 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 Bellmar Village. Table 11: Bellmar Law Enforcement Level of Service LOS Share Law Enforcement Facilities Peak Seasonal Population 5,683 Achieved LOS (Officers per 1,000 Peak Residents) 1.77 Funded Facilities and Equipmentfor Certified Police Officers 10.1 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 17 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 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. Table 12: Bellmar Law Enforcement Equipment Cost per Certified Police Officer Item Amount Equi pment I nventory Va I 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: Bellmar Correctional Facilities Bellmar SRA Funded Share Jail Facilities Correctional Facilities Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue $ 1,153,000 Other Capital Revenues* 63,000 Total Capital Revenues $ 1,216,000 Capital Cost (Land, Building, Vehicles, and Equipment) - Indexed $ 1,216,000 Correctional Facilities Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ - *Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis. Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 The capital cost for correctional facilities is calculated below. 18 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 14: Bellmar 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 1,590 2,876 Total Condo, Dupex, Single -Family Attached 0.94 1,160 1,090 Retail 50,001 to 100,000 sfgl a 2.46 85,000 209 Total Functional Population 4,175 Indexed Capital Cost per Functional Population $ 290.98 Total Capital Cost $ 1,216,000 Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 5,885 2018 Indexed Capital Cost per Peak Population $ 206.63 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 The indexed capital cost per bed is calculated in Table 15. Table 15: Bellmar 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, Bellmar 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. EMS Management has indicated that the capital impact from Bellmar Village will be limited to EMS vehicles. 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 Bellmar Village using a peak seasonal resident population approach. W BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 16: Bellmar 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 Bellmar Village Peak Resident Population 5,683 EMS New Station Cost Allocable to Bellmar Village $ 191,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 Table 17 compares the allocable cost of the new station to projected EMS impact fees for Bellmar Village. Table 17: Bellmar EMS Capital Cost Bellmar Village EMS Capital EMS Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue $ 320,000 Other Capital Revenues* 8,000 Total Capital Revenues $ 328,000 EMS New Station Cost Allocable to Bellmar Village $ 191,000 Net Capital Revenues Available for EMS Growth - Related Capital Needs 137,000 EMS Total Capital Cost $ 328,000 *Included in the Collier County General Funds net fiscal impact buildout analysis. Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 Bellmar 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 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 18: Bellmar Regional Parks Capital Impacts Bellmar SRA Funded Regional Park Facilities Regional Park Capital Revenues Impact Fee Revenue $ 5,711,000 Other Capital Revenues* 300,000 Total Capital Revenues $ 6,011,000 Regional Pa rk I ndi rect Ca pi ta I Costs IndexedLand&FaciIityCost per Acre $ 590,288 Regional ParkAcres atAchieved LOS 10.34 Bel I ma r SRA Fu nded Regional ParkAcres $ 6,105,000 Regional Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ (94,000) Community Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs 119,000 Total Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ 25,000 *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: Bellmar Regional Parks Level of Service LOS Share of Regional Park Facilities Regional Park Achieved LOS per County Staff 1.82 Bellmar SRA Peak Seasonal Population 5,683 Bel I mar SRA Community Park Acreage 10.34 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 The indexed capital cost per Regional Park acre is calculated in Table 20. Table 20: Bellmar 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 Bellmar Community Parks Capital Impacts Community Parks capital impacts are presented in Table 21. 21 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 21: Bellmar Community Parks Capital Impacts Bellmar SRA Funded Community Park Facilities Community Park Capital Revenues Impact Fee Revenue $ 2,013,000 Other Capital Revenues* 33,000 Total Capital Revenues $ 2,046,000 Community Park Indirect Capital Costs Indexed Land & Facility Cost per Acre Community Park Acres at Adopted LOS Bellmar SRA Funded Community Park Acres $ 282,573 6.82 $ 1,927,000 Community Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ 119,000 Regional Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs (94,000) Total Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ 25,000 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 Bellmar Village. Table 22: Bellmar Community Parks Level of Service LOS Share of Community Park Facilities Community Park Adopted LOS 1.20 Bellmar SRA Peak Seasonal Population 51683 Bel I mar SRA Community Park Acreage 6.82 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 The indexed capital cost per Community Park acre is calculated in Table 23. Table 23: Bellmar 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 Bellmar 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 BELLMAR 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: Bellmar Libraries Capital Impacts Bellmar SRA Funded Library Facilities Library Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue $ 719,000 Other Capital Revenues* 106,000 Total Capital Revenue $ 825,000 Li bra ryCapitaI Costs: Li brary Faci I ity Cost LibrarySq Ft at Achieved LOS 1,785 Library Facility Cost per Scl Ft $ 243.20 Li bra ry Fa ci I i ty Cost $ 434,000 Library Materials/Collections Unit Cost per Capita $ 38.62 Peak Seasonal Population 5,683 Total Items $ 219,000 Total Library Capital Costs $ 653,000 Library Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ 172,000 *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 Bellmar Village. Table 25: Bellmar Library Facilities Level of Service LOS Share of Library Facilities Peak Seasonal Population 5,683 Sci Ft per Peak Seasonal Resident at Achieved LOS 0.31 LibrarySq Ft (Achieved LOS) 1,785 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 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 26: Bellmar General Government Capital Impacts Bellmar SRA Funded Government Buildings Government Building Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue $ 2,109,000 Revenue Credits* 71,000 Total Capital Revenue $ 2,180,000 Government Building Capital Costs: Government Building Indirect Capital Costs: $ 2,180,000 Government Building Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ - *Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis. Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 General government capital costs are calculated in Table 27. Table 27: Bellmar 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 1,590 2,879 Total Condo, Dupex, Single -Family Attached 0.86 1,160 999 Reta i 1 50,001 to 100,000 sfgl a 2.46 85,000 209 Total Functional Population 4,087 Capital Cost per Functional Population $ 533.72 Total Proportionate Capital Cost $ 2,180,000 Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 5,885 Capital Cost per Peak Population $ 370.43 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Bellmar Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to County Capital impacts. Water and Wastewater The following table is a calculation of the Bellmar Village potable water demands and wastewater generation with all factors and assumptions: 24 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 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 gpd = 550,000 gpd 2,750 DU @ 300 gpd = 825,000 gpd Commercial 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 gpd 566,875 gpd = 0.57 mgd ADF 850,313 gpd = 0.85 mgd ADF M3D Factor = 1.5 M31) Factor = 1.3 M3D Flow = 0.85 mgd M31) Flow = 1.11 mgd Source: Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc., Hole Montes, 2020 Potable water services for the Bellmar 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 2,750 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 Bellmar Village development at buildout is projected to be approximately 0.85 MGD average daily demand and 1.11 MGD maximum 3-day demand. Wastewater services for the Bellmar 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 2,750 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 0.57 MGD on an average daily basis and 0.85 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. Bellmar Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to Collier County's Water and Wastewater capital and operating impacts. 25 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Stormwater Management The criteria used in the preparation of the stormwater management plan were 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 Bellmar Village is the existing agricultural water management system aka Water Retention Area ("WRA"), which ultimately discharges to the Merrit Canal via an unnamed wetland. 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 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 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. 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 26 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT these alterations have mitigation identified in the permit which will be made upon implementation of the impact. The water management concept for Bellmar 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. 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 Bellmar Village water management system; therefore, the fiscal impact to Collier County is neutral. Bellmar Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect of Stormwater Management capital and operating impacts. Irrigation Water The Bellmar 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 Bellmar 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 Bellmar 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 298 acres of landscaping and turf within the Bellmar Village development requiring irrigation. The project irrigation demand for this amount of irrigated acreage as determined using the SFWMD Blaney-Criddle method are: • 1.14 MGD on an annual average basis • 1.66 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 Bellmar 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 27 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 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 Bellmar Village irrigation system, therefore the fiscal impact to Collier County is neutral. Bellmar 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 Bellmar 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 Bellmar 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. Bellmar Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to Collier County's Landfill. 28 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT NORTH COLLIER FIRE & RESCUE DISTRICT North Collier Fire & Rescue District Capital Impacts The proposed Bellmar Village is within the service area of a new County EMS facility planned for the corner of DeSoto Boulevard South and Golden Gate Boulevard East. The site for the new facility was recently purchased by Collier County. North Collier Fire & Rescue District will co - locate at the new facility. The incremental capital cost of the new fire facility, as provided by District management, is shown in Table 28. Fire impact fee revenues generated by Bellmar Village are expected to exceed proportionate capital costs. Table 28: Bellmar North Collier Fire & Rescue District Capital Impacts Capital Impact at Buildout Capital Impact: Fire District Capital Revenues Impact Fee Revenue $ 1,515,000 Other Capital Revenue 87,000 Total Capital Revenue $ 1,602,000 Desosto Blvd/Golden Gate Blvd Station Cost Shared Station Construction Cost $ 1,000,000 Apparatus 400,000 Total Desosto Blvd/Golden Gate Blvd Station Cost $ 1,400,000 Fire District Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ 202,000 Source: North Collier Fire & Rescue District, DPFG, 2020 Projected impact fee revenues are presented in Table 29 and total $1.5 million. Table 29: Bellmar North Collier Fire & Rescue District Impact Fee Revenues Units or Fire Impact Fee Category Sq Ft Impact Fee Total Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached 1,160 $ 334.82 $ 388,000 Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,590 $ 658.09 1,046,000 Retail 50,001- 100,000 Sq Ft 85,000 $ 0.9485 81,000 Total Fire Impact Fees $ 1,515,000 Source: North Collier Fire & Rescue District, DPFG, 2020 North Collier Fire & Rescue District Annual Operating Impacts Because the current operating millage of the Big Corkscrew Island SDA is geared to much lower density development, Bellmar Village is currently projected to generate an operating surplus for the North Collier Fire & Rescue District. Annual operating revenues and expenditures are reflected in Table 30. 29 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 30: Bellmar North Collier Fire & Rescue District Annual Operating Impacts at Buildout Annual Operating Impact at Buildout Annual Operating Impact: Bellmar SRA Ad Valorem Tax Base $ 906,775,000 Big Corkscrew Island SDA Millage Rate 3.75 Annual Ad Valorem Revenues $ 3,400,000 $ 3,400,000 Desoto Blvd/Golden Gate Blvd Station Annual Expenditures Personnel and Operating Expenses 1,500,000 Annual Operating Surplus $ 1,900,000 Note: Annual operating costs of the new co -located station provided by North Collier Fire & Rescue management. Source: North Collier Fire & Rescue District, DPFG, 2020 Bellmar Village is deemed fiscally positive with respect to the North Collier Fire & Rescue District. COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOLS FISCAL IMPACT Collier County Schools Capital Impacts The projected enrollment of Bellmar Village on the Collier County Public Schools ("CCPS") is shown in Table 31. The student generation rates in the 2015 School Impact Fee Update, the most recent data available, were used to calculate enrollment. Table 31: Bellmar Projected Public School Enrollment Projected Residential Unit Type Units SGR Students Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached 1,160 0.11 128 Total SFD <4,000 Sq Ft 1,590 0.34 541 Total Residential 2,750 669 Source: Collier County School District, Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2019 Projected enrollment by type of school is shown in Table 32. Table 32: Bellmar Projected Enrollment by School Type Projected School Type Students Percent El ementa ry 304 45.48% Middle 148 22.06% High 217 32.46% Total 669 100.00% Source: Collier County School District, Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2019 30 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 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 Bellmar Village students are presented in Table 33 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. Table 33: Bellmar School Capital Costs Cost per Fa ci I i ty Costs Students Student Total School Facility Cost: Elementary 304 $ 36,058 $ 10,972,000 Middle 148 42,266 6,237,000 High 217 48,381 10,505,000 Cost of New School Facilities 669 $ 41,426 $ 27,714,000 Transportation and Ancillary Costs - Initial: Transportation 669 $ 1,097 734,000 Anxillary Facility 669 $ 1,206 807,000 Total Transportation/Ancillary 669 $ 2,303 1,541,000 Total Capital Costs $ 43,729 $ 29,255,000 Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2019 School impact fee revenue is shown in Table 34. Table 34: Bellmar School Impact Fee Revenue Units or School Impact Fee Category SgFt ImpactFee Total Total Condo, Duplex, Si ngl e-Fa mi I y Atta c hed 1,160 $ 2,844.19 $ 3,298,000 Total SFD <4,000 Sq Ft 1,590 $ 8,789.54 13,976,000 Total School Impact Fees $17,274,000 Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2019 31 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT As seen in Table 35, capital revenues consist primarily of ad valorem taxes (1.5 mills) and impact fees. The capital impact of Bellmar Village is favorable as 42 percent of the housing units are expected to generate only 0.11 students per household. Table 35: Bellmar 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 School District Capital Tax Revenue Total School Capital Revenues $ 17,274,000 $ 17,274,000 28,923,000 28,923,000 $ 17,274,000 $ 28,923,000 $ 46,197,000 Direct School Capital Expenditures: New Schools $ 27,714,000 New School Buses K-12 734,000 Direct School Capital Expenditures: $ 28,448,000 Other School Capital Expenditures: School Bus Replacement Cost $ 734,000 Other Direct School and/or Systemwide Capital Expenditures 17,015,000 Total School Capital Expenditures $ 46,197,000 * Consistent with 25-Year Credit Period in CCPS School Impact Fee Study. Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2019 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. 32 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Figure 3: Collier County School District Tax Roll and Millage History Tax Roll History (In Billions) 110.00 100.00 90.00 $97.91 $92.44 80.00 �$74.45 70.00 572_00 60.00 567.84 $63.49 .SC.?1 563.46 50.00 40.00 30.00 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 1S-19 19-20 School District Millage History 6.000 5.699 5.527 5.576 5-690 5580 S_480 5.239 5.245 5.122 5.049 5.083 5.000 4.000 3.451 3.279 3.32E 3-442 3.332 3.232 2.991 2.997 2.894 2.821 2.835 3.000 2.000 2.248 2248 2.245 2.248 2.24E 2.24E 2.248 2.24E 2.228 2.22E 2.245 1.000 0.000 i 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-1= -111111- R eq uired State Law Source: Collier County School District, 2019 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-19 1E-19 19-20 Discretionary Millage 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 36. 33 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 36: Bellmar Local Ad Valorem School Operating Taxes at Buildout Operati ng 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 Ad Valorem Local Millage Net Revenues Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2019 3.583 $ 3,317,000 3.583 58,000 $ 3,375,000 $ 3,375,000 Bellmar Village is deemed fiscally neutral respect to the Collier County School District. 34 BELLMAR 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 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 2: Bellmar Resident Population and Seasonal Population Coefficients Land Use by Impact Fee Category Permanent Population Per Unit Seasonal Index Peak Seasonal Persons Per Unit Residential (Units) Total Condo, Dupex, Single -Family Attached Total SFD <4,000 Sq Ft 1.05 1.20 1.26 2.21 1.20 2.65 Source: Collier Enterprises, Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Annendix Table 3: Bellmar Population and Emplovment 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 1,160 1.26 1,462 1.05 1,218 1,590 2.65 4,221 2.21 3,518 2,750 5,683 4,736 Non -Residential Sq Ft Employment Occup % Employees Reta i 150,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft Total Non -Residential 85,000 2.50 95% 202 85,000 202 Neigborhood Civic Grand Total Non -Residential (sf) 27,500 112,500 202 Source: Collier Enterprises, Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Appendix Table 4: Bellmar Population and Employment Summary Cumulative Population and Employment At Buildout Permanent Population 4,736 Permanent Population and Jobs 4,938 Residential Seasonal Population 5,683 Residential Seasonal Population and Tourists 5,683 Employment 202 Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 5,885 Residential Seasonal Population, Tourists, and Employment 5,885 Source: Collier Enterprises, Inc., Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Appendix Table 5: Bellmar Public School Enrollment Students Tota I Residential Population Units per Unit Students Total Condo, Dupex, Single -Family Attached 1,160 0.11 128 Total SFD <4,000 Sq Ft 1,590 0.34 541 Annual Total 2,750 669 Cumulative Total Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2019 36 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 6: Bellmar County Tax Base Units or Taxable Value Land Use Residential Total Condo, Dupex, Single -Family Attached Total SFD <4,000 Sq Ft Total Single -Family Total Residential Non -Residential Reta i 1 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft Total Non -Residential Total Tax Base Ft oer Unit/SF At Builclout 1,160 $ 261,005 $ 302,766,000 1,590 $ 369,749 587,901,000 2,750 $ 890,667,000 2,750 $ 890,667,000 85,000 $ 189.50 16,108,000 85,000 $ 16,108,000 906,775,000 Source: Collier Enterprises, Collier County, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2019 Appendix Table 7: Bellmar School District Tax Base Units or Taxable Value Land Use Sq Ft per Unit/SF At Builclout Residential Total Condo, Dupex, Si ngl e-Fa mi ly Attached Total SFD <4,000 Sq Ft Total Single -Family Total Residential Non -Residential 1,160 $ 268,755 $ 311,756,000 1,590 $ 386,249 614,136,000 2,750 $ 925,892,000 2,750 $ 925,892,000 Reta i 1 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 85,000 $ 189.50 16,108,000 Total Non -Residential 85,000 $ 16,108,000 Total Tax Base $ 942,000,000 Source: Collier Enterprises, Collier County, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2019 37 BELLMAR 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 BELLMAR 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 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 11: Bellmar General Funds Revenue at Buildout GENERAL FUND GROUPING $ Per REVENUES Demand Base Demand At Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes CUMULATIVE AV $ 3.5645 $ 3,232,000 Licenses & Permits PERMPOP&JOBS $ 0.42 2,000 Inter -Governmental Revenues PERMPOP&JOBS $ 1.55 8,000 State Revenue Sharing -Growth Portion PERMPOP $ 26.48 125,000 State Sales Tax PERMPOP $ 109.02 516,000 Charges for Services PERMPOP&JOBS $ 74.12 366,000 Fines & Forfeitures PEAKPOP $ 0.87 5,000 Miscellaneous Revenues PERMPOP&JOBS $ 0.38 2,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous PERMPOP&JOBS $ 2.18 11,000 Indirect Service Charge PERMPOP&JOBS $ 15.00 74,000 Transfers from Constitutional Officers PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 10.55 62,000 Reimburse from Other Departments PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 1.38 8,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Revenues $ 241.95 $ 4,411,000 Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2019 Appendix Table 12: Bellmar MSTU Revenue at Buildout MSTU GENERAL FUND $ Per REVENUES Demand Base Demand At Buildout Ad Va I orem Taxes CUMULATIVE AV $ 0.8069 $ 732,000 Licenses & Permits PERMPOP&JOBS $ 0.93 5,000 Charges for Services PERMPOP&JOBS $ 6.42 32,000 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 47,000 Reimburse from Other Departments PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 0.04 - Total MSTU Annual Operating Revenues $ 16.53 $ 821,000 Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2019 40 BELLMAR 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 BELLMAR 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 BELLMAR 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 BELLMAR 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 BELLMAR 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 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 18: Bellmar General Funds Expenditures at Buildout GENERAL FUND GROUPING $ Per EXPENDITURES Demand Base Demand At Builclout Board of County Commissioners PERMPOP $ 6.75 $ 32,000 County Attorney PEAKPOP&JOBS 2.25 13,000 Property Appraiser PEAKPOP&JOBS 12.75 75,000 Supervisor of Elections PERMPOP 5.26 25,000 Clerk of Courts PEAKPOP&JOBS 8.76 52,000 Sheriff PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 300.99 1,771,000 Tax Collector PERMPOP&JOBS 27.56 136,000 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 31,000 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 7,000 Office of Management & Budget PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.09 6,000 Public Services Administration PERMPOP 0.40 2,000 Domestic Animal Services PERMPOP 9.15 43,000 Community and Human Services PERMPOP 10.05 48,000 Library PEAKPOP 18.21 103,000 Parks & Recreation PEAKPOP 22.27 127,000 Public Health PERMPOP 0.99 5,000 Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement PERMPOP 0.48 2,000 Facilities Management PEAKPOP&JOBS 26.30 155,000 Transfer to 101 Transp Op Fund PEAKPOP&JOBS 32.21 190,000 Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap PEAKPOP&JOBS 13.67 80,000 Transfer to 426 CAT Mass Transit PEAKPOP 4.33 25,000 Transfer to 427 Transp Disadvantaged PERMPOP 6.93 33,000 Transfer to 490 EMS Fund PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 28.44 167,000 Distributions in Excess of Fees to GovtAgencies PERMPOP&JOBS 15.73 78,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Expenditures $ 566.99 $ 3,239,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 46 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 19: Bellmar MSTU Expenditures at Buildout MSTU GENERAL FUND $ Per EXPENDITURES Demand Base Demand At Builclout Board of County Commissioners PERMPOP $ 3.71 $ 18,000 Communications & Customer Relations Division PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 2.62 15,000 Growth Management Administration PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 0.99 6,000 Planning PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 3.22 19,000 Regulation PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 9.53 56,000 Maintenance PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 17.03 100,000 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 $ 33.90 193,000 Transfer to 306 Parks Capital Fund PEAKPOP $ 6.79 39,000 Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Cap PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 7.59 45,000 Indirect Cost Reimbursement PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 4.11 24,000 Total MSTU Annual Operating Expenditures 89.97 $ 518,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 47 BELLMAR 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 BELLMAR VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 21: Bellmar Impact Fee Revenues Land Use Demand Units Demand Unit Community Parks Regional Parks Roads EMS Schools Total Condo, Dupex, Single -Family Attached 1,160 Unit $ 528,000 $ 1,427,000 $ 5,620,000 $ 78,000 $ 3,299,000 Total SFD <4,000 Sq Ft 1,590 Unit 1,485,000 4,284,000 11,836,000 226,000 13,975,000 Reta i 1 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 85,000 Sq Ft - - 1,311,000 16,000 - Total $ 2,013,000 $ 5,711,000 $ 18,767,000 $ 320,000 $ 17,274,000 Total of Buildout Schedules $ 2,013,000 $ 5,711,000 $ 18,767,000 $ 320,000 $ 17,274,000 Water Wastewater Demand Government Law Residential Residential Land Use Units Buildings Libraries Enforcement Jail Only Only Total Condo, Dupex, Single -Family Attached 1,160 $ 515,000 $ 185,000 $ 344,000 $ 301,000 $ 2,972,000 $ 3,133,000 Total SFD <4,000 Sq Ft 1,590 1,486,000 534,000 933,000 794,000 4,074,000 4,295,000 Reta i 1 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 85,000 108,000 - 65,000 58,000 - - Total $ 2,109,000 $ 719,000 $ 1,342,000 $ 1,153,000 $ 7,046,000 $ 7,428,000 Total of Buildout Schedules $ 2,109,000 $ 719,000 $ 1,342,000 $ 1,153,000 $ 7,046,000 $ 7,428,000 Source: Collier County, Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2019 BELLMAR 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 Elementary Middle High Alternate Schools Workforce Programs Charter Schools To Balance to Budgeted FTE Total 18,948 10,162 13,524 962 No reference in budget 3,253 606 47.455 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 BELLMAR 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 January 2020, March 2020, June 2020, August 19, 2020, November 12, 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. PRE -APPLICATION MEETING NOTES [� ier Coulity COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliereov.net (239) 252-2400 Pre -Application Meeting Notes Petition Type: SRA fate and Time: Wednesday 8/28/2019 10 : 00 AM Assigned Planner: Gil Martinez Engineering Manager (for PPL's and FP's): Project Information Project Name: Bellmar Village (SPA PL##: 20190001837 00359520003,00354560005,0 3548 Op0,00354880002 ^T Property ID #: Current Toning: A-MHQ -RSLAQ 5075 golden Gate Blvd E. Project Address: City: ,Naples State: FL Zip: 34120 Applicant: Robert Robert J Agent Name: _ J.Mulhere,FAICP, Vice President, Hole Montes, Inc. Mulhere,FAICP, Vice President,Hole Montes, Inc. Phone: Agent/Firm Address. 950 En ore way City: Naples State- FL Zip- 34110 PropertyOwner: Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. -all parcels listed above Please provide the following, if applicable: is Total Acreage: 1000 ii. Proposed # of Residential Units: 2, 750 iii. Proposed Commercial Square Footage: 85,000 and 27,500 Civic, Gov't & Inst . iv. For Amendments, indicate the original petition number: V. If there is an Ordinance or Resolution associated with this project, please indicate the type and number: vi. If the project is within a Plat, provide the name and AR#/PL#: Updated 6/11/2019 Page 1 1 of 7 Coder County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colllerkov.net Meeting Notes c iL Z & rt✓ 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (Z39) 252-2400 As of 10/16/2017 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,collieroov.net/Home/ShowDocument?id=75093. -- � �f �r►Z G 17/I 1` $ /tr1'�`' j� 1'�i�,< r r,� u � �.#1 NYl 5 t Air' /?re .a �'r f'rcila. ✓ F� i t'' u ' 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 Wilitles and Planning Depts. - along with a request that they send us a letter or email of "no objection" to the petition. Bob Middleton RMiddlet n lee ov.com Allyson Holland AMHollaodOnaylesaov,cum Robin Singsr RSlnaerCa?naalesaov,com Erica Martin emartinCftaplesgo.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 Cade and LOC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required date for an applicatton may not fully outline what is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide all required data. JA- Updated 6/12/2019 Page I Xof 7 Cater County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 Meeting Notes As of 10/16/2017 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 hiteslJwww.colliergov.net/Home/ShowDocument?id=75093. LS 'y plcfaAK e- &4 LvrtGcni kue Jr,4,[v ,A rA►,5 A&t atec If 5ite is within the City of Naples Water 5pruice Area please send to Naples Utilities and Planning Dcpartmcnts. 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 RMiddleton na les ov.Com Allyson Holland AMHollarid(@naplosgov.com Robin Singer RSinaerBnap lesaov.cnm Erica Martin arlin na to V,CC)ITI 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 gray not fully outline what is needed. It Is the applicant's responsibility to provide all roquired data. Updated 6/12/2019 Page I Zof 7 Ca er Cau"ty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.coilier8ov.net (239) 252-2400 , tx n,► n - Meeting Notes - A) F1Pi0 I- 1 FZ-At), F)POr rOGG'SS bx 2,6 F"' S A C-rti o'er r�F �,a tr od tom w�tc,q ! L 'o Ia-f-+0C -r !~_rrzp-1 ,a-r z 9 - 77{/- 2 r< as rt)2 At>LArsnr?v A uQLtic tAT'1L,Z1,,�5 — fe,t[ Vxi y. Other required documentation for submittal (not listed on application): ■`� 32,2 AITWA40 9.2tA 4 t I_ A a wt & �� ,� t• tkiG1t N �1R� wrnw t.n 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 date for an application may not fully outline what is needed. It fs the applicant's responsibility to provide all required data. �0 Updated 6/12/2019 Page J-d of 7 ClarkeThomas From: FeyEric Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 5:43 PM To: ClarkeThomas; OrthRichard Cc: Sabolames; MartinezGilbert; SmithCamden Subject: RE: Rellmar 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, do not need to include any notes for the pre-app. Respectfully, Eric Fey, P.E. Principal Project Manager o iero1.-1ty Public Utilities Engineering & Profect Management Division Continuous irnprovement 3339 Tamlaml Trail East, Suite 303. Noptes. Florida 34112-5361 Phone: 237.252.1037 Cell; 23V.572.0043 "HOW ARE Ws DOING?- Please click here tar our Customer Service Survey From: ClarkeThomas tThomas.Clarke@coiiiercountyfl.gov> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 5:24 PM To: OrthRichard <Richard.Orth@colliercountyfl.gov>; FeyEric <Eric.Fey@colliercountyfLgov> Cc: 5abolames aJames.Sabo@colliercountyfl.gov>; MartinezGilbert <Gilbert.Martinez@colliercountyfl.gov>; 5mithCamden {Camden.Smith@col liercountyfl.gov> Subject: Bellmar Village SRA and Longwater Village SRA- Meeting !Votes 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. ?a 1 c Operations Coordinator- Zoning Division ClarkeThomas 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. 4 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>; 5mithCamden <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, 7eez7,/" Operations Coordinator - 2oning Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Phone; 239.252-2526 NOTE: Now Email Address as of 12/09/2077. $homos.clorkeG'Gglliercountvil.aov Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at httw://blt.ly/CoiiierZoninA. Cot r CoT4vtty Exceeding Expectations Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing_ cover County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT wwwxotlier ov.net Meeting Notes 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239)252-2400 96 ((iYIA V- LAG lc UA*; CASE PtQV3F. NA'46 'L flf�SbUrCE Tljkd ASSfSS"J MAP A,vd CAVU(a'4� 1s i FI-L F p A,j. SuPfari-pacua -ji-S. FfoM 5da+e �d FedcraL 64ge-cE$ X Ava,#,4,61e. E CAE( - I l'o u a 5 For P4.v 4g— Sa,j Ai,�ted ft 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 A f r Page f X of 7 B 0 L L- i` 4 dz '; OA SRAM. Designation Sufficiency Checklist (Environmental) 1. Provide the following Natural Resource Index Assessment and Support Documentation (LDC 4.08,07.D.3-4): 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 aswssnaent 2. Provide acreage caics. for lands being put into an SRA, including WRA,s 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) NR1 snap 4. Provide a RLSA Overlay map and aerial delineating the location boundaries of the area being designated as a SRA. (LDC 4.08.07.D.4.c-d) location mal, S. Provide a FLUCFCS map on an aerial photograph delineating the area being designated as SRA. (LDC 4.08.07.D.4.f) f LUCCS map 6. Provide a listed species occurrence niap delineating the area being designated as SRA. (LDC 4A.07.13.4.g) 7. Provide a soils map delineating the area being designated as SRA, (LDC 4.08.07.D.4.h) S. 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 SltA 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) Page 1 of 2 C,O er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.collie�et Meeting Notes r � Lu0R 284a NO H HOR5A5HOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 -I>' .S kG,rQ AVt 'C► , AWL,(Lf ► ZS v dc� 131z- Li?-'PGJ1 Other required documentation far submittal (not listed on application): � (L4 Mores 'T d-n.IN'� - Sf-e ArrtCA00 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 14 of 7 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 funding 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 owner's 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." T_r 4C ..Ac'_ 2\i��L7�c'i' Cyr rE�o(1Pn� Q-V%C ,OL%A , f' Mfi-A'#C irt, 6 ENT-4 l`y d a &4- e lau Ate [ evo*a7"m r &T-S Co*e.r Cmnty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.collierizov.net — - til'a L' 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 1239) 252-2400 A! Matt McLean, P.E. Development Review Director 252-8279 matthew.mclean@colliercountyfl.gov f. 1 Michele Mosca, AICP Capital Project Planning 252-2466 michele.mosca@colliercount tl, ov ❑ Annis Moxam Addressing 252-5519 annis.moxam@colliercourityfl.gov Richard Orth Stormwater Planning 252-5092 richard.orth@colliercountyfl.gov Brandy Otero Transit 252-5859 brandy.otero@rolliercotiptyfl.gov L.I Brandi Pollard Utility impact fees 252-6237 bra ndi. ollard@colliercount fL oy U Todd Riggall North Collier Fire 597-9227 teiggall@nDrLhcollierfire.com ❑ Brett Rosenblum, P.E. Development Review Principal Project Manager 252-2905 1 brett.rosenblum colliercoun fl. ov ames Sabo, AICP Zoning Principal Planner 252-2708 James.sabo@colliergo.net Michael Sawyer Transportation Planning 252-2926 michael.sawyer@coiliercountyfl.gov ❑ Corby Schmidt, AICP Comprehensive Planning 252-2944 corby.schmidt@colliercount fl,gov ❑ Chris Scott, AICP Development Review -Zoning 252-2460 chris.scott@colllercount fl. ov Linda Simmons North Collier Fire 252-2311 Lirtda.Simmons@colliercounty(l.gov PeterShawinsk Architectural Review 252-8523 peter.shawinsky@colliercountyFl.gov ❑ Camden Smith Zoning Operations Manager 252.1042 camden.smith@coillercountyfl.gov ❑ Mark Straln Hearing Examiner/CCPC 252-4446 mark.strain@coillerrountyfl.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.waish@colliercountyfl.gov David Weeks AICP Comprehensive Planning Future Land Use Consistent 252-2306 david.weeks@colliercounk fl_gov I� Kirsten Wilkie Environmental Review Manager 252-5518 kirsten.wilkie@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Christine Willoughby Development Review -Zonin 252-5748 chtistine.wiItoughby@colliercountyfl.gov i'Daniel Zunzune ui North Collier Fire 252-231D Daniel.Zunzunegui@colliercountyfl.gov Li Additional Attendee Contact Information: Name Representing Phone Email Cr tL 5-Lv-Vt -rs-6 c"-t- A mac_ d0714 -O(X I )Lj S t=s�1. �kA-. Ll- NsS St'1t_ C,a►k►c'2 i~rsTTVZ UQr } J T O a `� " C L X` L7 V K I bL Updated 6/12/2019 Page 1 7 of 7 Vu. L [ 4 L. Q C 1 Co*er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT _L 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE PRiVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 1.. s w1 wvrw.i-u nc Ku� (.��4K}17 t.CJ7J cJL-LYVV Pre -Application Meeting Sign -in Sheet pL# 20190001837 Collier County Contact Information: Name Review Discipline Phone Email ❑ David Anthony,Environmental Review 252-2497 david.anthony@colliercountyfl.gov I. I Claudine Auclair GMD Operations and Regulatory Management 252-5887 claudine.auclair@colliercount I. ov Sall Ashkar Assistant Count Attorne 252-8842 sally..ashkar@colliercountyfl.gov Steve Baluch Transportation Planning 252-2361 ste hen.baluch@colliercount fl.gov Ray Bellows Zoning, Planning Manager 252-2463 ra mond.beIlows@colliercount f1, gov Laurie Beard PUD Monitoring 252-5782 Iaurie.beard@colliE!rcountyfl.gov Craig Brown Environmental Specialist 252-2548 raig.brown@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Alexandra Casanova Operations Coordinator 252-2658 Alexandra.rasanova@cc11iercountyfl.gov i& Heidi Ashton Cicko Managing Asst. County Attorney 252-8773 heidi.ashton@colliercountyfl.gov Thomas Clarke Operations Coordinator 252-2584 thomas.clarke@colliercountyfl.gov JamieCook Prin. Environmental Specialist 252-6290 Jai me.cook@colliercountyfI. ov ❑ Eric Fey, P.E. Utility Planning 252-1037 eric,fey@)cDlliercountyfl.gov 9 Tim Finn, AICP Zoning Division 252-4312 timothy.finn@colliercountyfl.gov 1 Sue Faulkner Comprehensive Planning 252-5715 sue.faulkner@colliercountyfl.gov 1­1 Paula Fleishman Impact See Administration 252-2924 paula.fleishman@colliercountyfl.gov 11 James French Growth Management Deputy Department Head 252-5717 'ames.french@colliercount fl. ov ❑ Michael Gibbons Structural/Residential Plan Review 252-2426 michael.gibbonsL@colliercountyfl.gov 11 Storm Gewirtz, P.E, Engineering 5tormwater 252-2434 storm. ewirtz@colliercoun fi. ov L.1 Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA Zoning Division 252-2484 nano . undIach@colliercount fl. ov LJ Shar Kin son Greater Naples Fire District 774-2800 -5h!ngson@gnfiro.org f_1 John Houldsworth Enjineering Subdivision 252-5757 john.houldsworth@colliercountyfl.gov f J Alicia Hum hrles Right -Of -Way Permitting 252-2326 2licia.humphries@colliercountyfl.gov lid Erin Josephitis Environmental Specialist, Senior 252-2915 erin.josephitis@colliercountyfl.gov 11 Marcia Kendall Comprehensive Planning 252-2387 marcla-kendaII@coiliercountyfl.gov I John Kelly Zoning Senior Planner 252-5719 john.kelly@colliercountyfl.gov Diane Lynch Operations Analyst 252-8243 diane,lVnch@colliercountyfl.gov Gil Martinez Zonin _Principal Planner 252-4211 ilbert.martinez@coil iercount fl. ov Thomas Mastroberto Greater Naples Fire 252-7348 thomas.mastroberto@colliercountvfl.gov .11 Jack McKenna, P.E. Engineering Service5 252-2911 'ack.mckenna@colliercount fl. ov Updated 6/12/2019 Page 1 6 of 7 CeOfWr C;014-Kty Growth Management Department Zoning Division Applicant/Agent may also send site plans or milceprual plans for review in advance if desired. PL.20190001837 — 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 Hobert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Vice President Hale Montes, Inc. 2 39-254-2000 bob mulhere@hmeng com • Agent to list for PL# RobertJ. Mulhere, FAICP, Vice President Hole Montes, 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.) 5RA Pre -Application Meeting • Please list the density request of the project if applicable and number of homes/units/offices/docks (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 495, Range 281. 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]. Mulhere, FAICP Title: Vice President/Hole Montes, Inc. Email: bobmulhere@hmeng.com Phone: 239-254-2000 Cancellation/Reschedule Requests: Contact Danny danny.condomina@collierc.ountyfl Phone: 239-252 Services Supervisor Created April 5, 2017 `"" ` P �•(� Location: K:\C6E5 Planning 5ervices\Current\Zoning Staff information 2oniiig Oivimii . 2800 Nomth Horseshoe drive • Naplos, Florldi 34104.23�-252-2400-% wtv.colG gw.nci COST 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 1 NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX ASSESSMENT (LDC 4.08.07.D.3.) I. 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 scares 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 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 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 ASSESSMENT SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION (LDC 4.48.07.D.4.) T. Documentation to support the Natural Resource Index Assessment shall be provided for each SRA being designated a. Legal description, including sketch or survey. Is. 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 map(s) delineating the area being designated as an SRA. February 11, 2019 Cn�ier 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.collieraov,net g. Listed species map(s) 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 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 4.08.07.1. S. 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 ardor 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. Nurn6er 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 Cot fib r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE ❑RIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION 239) 252.2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.nct 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. 55A 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. 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. SECTION V STEWARDSHIP RMEV1NG AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT (LDC 4.08.07.D.11.b) I. 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 skull 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, ❑escription 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 The opplicant's commitment, if any, regarding conservation or any other restriction an development on any lands within the SRA including wetlands, as may be depicted on the SRA Master Plan for special treatment. February 11, 2019 ADDRESSING CHECKLIST co 16Y 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 personnel prior to pre -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) ❑ Carnival/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 Fill Permit) ❑ RZ (Standard Rezone) 7 OTHER SRA LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description maybe attached) Sections 2, 3, 10 and 11, Township 49S, Range 28E FOLIO (Property 1D) NUMBER(s) of above (attach to, or associate with, legal description if more than one) Folio #s: 00354520003, 00354560005, 00354840000, 00354880002 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) Bellmar Village SRA Name not yet approved PROPOSED STREET NAMES (if applicable) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for existing projects/sites only) SDP_- orAR or PL # Rev. 6/9/2017 Page 1 of 2 cO Y c0141 ty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.collieraov.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: Email ❑ Fax ❑ Personally picked up Applicant Name: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP. VP/Stephanie Karol. Permittino Coordinator Phone: 239-254-2018 Email/Fax: stephaniekarol@hmeng.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 00354520003 Folio Number 00354560005 Folio Number 00354880002 Folio Number 00354840000 Folio Number Folio Number Approved by:_0—_ Date, 8 / 9 / 19 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 AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMSERS(S) EELLMARVILLAGESRA(PL-20190001837) I, PATRICKL.LITTER (print name), as VICEPREM_NT (title, If applicable) of COLLIER ENTERPRIGES INC.., GENERAL PARTNER OFCOLLIER LNNOVIOLO1NG5, Lid, (company, If a licable), swear or affirm under oath, that I am the (choose one) owner= applicant =contract purchaser7and that: 1, I have full authority to secure the approval(s) 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 ROBFRTJ. MULHERE, FAICP & RICHARO YOVANOVICH, ESQUIRE to act as our/my representative in any matters regarding this petition including f through 2 above. "Notes: • If the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed by the Corp, pros, or v, pros. • 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 Cornpany's "Managing Member., • If the applicant Is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign an 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. Linder penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the fad rated In It are tru . Palrl,k ftsr, loePres. Signature Date Collier Land Holdings, Lr(]. Hy': Collier Enterprises, Inc_ its general manager STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing Instrument was sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me on 00'14• t7-J1041(date) by Wtiue_ L_ Q=f- (name of person providing oath or affirmation), as I k, w Pam;Ctw Mj� who Is personally known to me, .. ` 3TAMP13 L Sighrature of Notary Public fS'�''p"ems Valerie L. Pike ' NotaryPukllc-StateofFlorida ! ra c Conimission#GG22too •''anaFLa�� ExplraeU81171xa2a MOB-Con-ao r f s\r ss REV 3I24114 AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) DELLMARVILLAGE BRA (PL•201800018371 I, PATRICKL,LITTER _ _ _ (print name), as VICE PRESIDENT (title, If applicable) of COLLIER ENTERPRISE$.iNC„ GENERAL PARMEROFC.OLLIERLANDHOLDINGS. LW, (company, If applicable), swear or affirm under oath, that I am the (choose one) owner= applicant Mcontract purchaser and that: i. .I have full authority to secure the approval(s) 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 hand 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 ENTERPRISESMANAOMENT,ING, to act as ourlmy representative In any matters regarding this petition Including 1 through 2 above, *Notes. • If the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed by the Corp. Ares. or v. pros, • If the applicant Is a Limited Ltabtllty 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 f cts stateo in It are M Pa rick L. utter, vice pros, Signature Gate Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. ay. Collier EnterprimCa, Inc_ its general manager STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER T e foregoing instrument was sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me on m NI4• ft, 10(date) by .Ql_ (name of person providing oath or affirmation), as L �L' WKS who Is personally known to me STAMPISEAL Signature of Notary Public [0--�� L. Pike t06MQrlda 611 V12020 c1'108-coA-001151155 RPV 3124114 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORMS COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www,col liergov.net Co er C MMY 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM 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 b. c, ercentage or sucn interest: Name and Address of Ownership if the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the ercentage of stock owned by each: Name and Address % of Ownership If the property Is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the iercentage of interest: Name and Address % of Ownership Created 9/28/2017 page 1 of 3 Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 d. 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 100% Miles C. Collier 41.167% Barron G. Collier II 41.167% Miles C. Collier & Barron G. Collier II, Co -Trustees of Inglis U. Collier Trust 16.666% Collier Enterprises Management,Inc. l% e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the c` �I I IL.CI J, )Luq. IuIUCI J, VCI ICI IL.Ig11CJ, UI PCII LI ICI J. Name and Address I % of Ownership Date of Contract: f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust: Name and Address g. Date subject property acquired ❑ Leased: Term of lease years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT" www.calliergov.net Date of option. GOAT County 2900 NORTH HORSESHOE [DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-635B Date option terminates: , —, or Anticipated closing date: AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION 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 Department ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 I/ 1 gent/owner Signature Date Robert J. Where, FAICP, VP Agent/Owner Name (please print) Created 9/28/2017 Page 3 of 3 DEEDS 41 d 1JM 40JAU ji of 1011ppa •ttttrut Uf fttr I certify the attached is a true and correct copy of the Amendment to the Certificate of Limited Partnership, filed on March 10, 2005, for COLLIER ENTERPRISES, LTD. changing its naMajLo COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS, LTD., a limited partnership organize . t jhd3i f he State of Florida, as shown by the records of this office. The document number ol t C82E022 (2.03) --d 08 r-tneFahip is o%.. 1D VtT: AL 0 _a0P Retn:A7YH: CARO OD COLLIER ER?ERPRIB 3003 TAXTKAI 7R H 00 87 PG: 0944 )RD f OLLIER CCURTY, FL UGH ROCK, CLERK 51 RIC ism 1fl150 h Given under my hand and the Great Seal of the State of Florida at Tallahassee, the Capitol, this the Fourth day of April, 2005 .� .-- E . Ae'd (S1enbu'g. c'90nb erreturij of taxte OR; 3787 PG; 0945 CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OF Collier Enterprises, Ltd. Collier Enterprises, Ltd. (twat name m=vtly on Me with Flori& Dept of State) Pumuant to the provisions of section 620.109, Florida Statutes, this Florida limited partnership, whose certificate was Sled with the Florida Dept. of State on December 22, 1998 , adopts the following certificate of amendment to its certiflcate of limited partnership. FIRST: Ammdment(s): (indicate article nuumm�s�t a am or deleted) Article 1 Is hereb amended to reA s Ilows: Y �J "1. The name of the flmfted pa ldings, td " SECOND: This ortificate of amendment steal[ be e ee-m of its filing with the Florida Dept —Rent d'slat , THIRD: Signafi*s) Signattucofcurrentgeneralpartrtcr. Col !ier 8nterprises, Inc,, a Florida cad tion By: .. Robert D. Corina, Vice President Ej- (z-1 Signature(s) ofnewgeneral partne4s), ifapplicable: Two Wire nt Mpmtd by. wiuiw IL 01wil, IAUIre Buckirtghwn Dooiiid< & Bumw;iu, LLP 5551 R:dlwwoM ORiye SO4 701 NSPIMIJlaidr 340 2702584 OR: 2733 PG: 0951 r3CORDID in CWICIAL RICONS c! CULIIR W3?Y, FL 1011712000 at 02.itH. VVIGHT I. t3ROCKI CLERK NBC 1I3 W ;a ?I9S :0.a0 Rdt,:WR:X C1Lulfiii : L19R GiSVB�o�,rly? RAPH3 FL 31103 WARRANTY DEED (COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY) THIS INDENTURE, made this 16 � day of oc T08f"k _, 20M, by and between lsa toel Collier Read, MUt's Co Collier, Barron G. Collier 11, ludlvidURIV andlor as 'Ifrustee, and Miles C. Collier and Harrah G. Collier it, as Co-Trailees. GRANTORS, and Collier Enterprises, Ltd,, a Florida limited portnership, whose post office address is: 3003 Tamiami Trial Notch, Suite 400, Naples, Florida 03,G t EE. WITNESSETH, that sai � � RS, For nsideration of tho sum of TEN {S 10,00) DOLLARS, and other. � d val uable consideer ti n; said GRANTORS in hand paid by E aid GRANTEE, the recei t w ctWi!-Iiercb)- L , wledg granted, bargained, and sold to the said GRANTEE, G TEr ei and i orC cr, the following described pr0l>�: � �r��n �� i (i) the io �hVxt6M � t _ o rued by, or otherwise upon G RANTORS' predecessors i YA t) pursuant to t i t is set forth in Schedule "Al" t cl h=to { interests therein heretofore convey b . 0 tics the GRANTORS pursuant to the in % tcf atnd' so described in said Schedule "A2," and any and all rights of record in and to the minerals, oil, gas and other hydrocarbon substances in and under such real property. (ii) the oil, gam, and mineral rights, titles, interests, powers and privileges herotofore granted to, r=rved by, or otherwise conferred upon GRANTORS (or GRANTORS' predecessors in interest) pursuant to the instruments set forth in Schedule "B" attached heroto the real property or interests therein heretofore conveyed by there to palies other than tho GRANTORS pursuant to the instruments set forth and so described in said Schedule "B." A liisting of all tax identification (folio) numbers relating to the property conveyed hereby is atte+:hed as Schodulc"C." OR: 21133 PG: 0952 '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. Subjoct to casements, restrictions and reservations of record, and real estate taxes for calendar year 2000 and all subsequent years. Together with all the tenements, hereditarrlents, and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining, GRANTORS do hereby warrant that GRANTORS have full right and authority to convey the rights deselibed 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 transferring as agents for, Collier Entemp geS, Ltd., a Florida limited Partnership. Thf 5ybjeat real property conveyed h� on the same real property which has been previously contributed to the G T�� rFsi�jgr predecessor thereto pursuant to the pr0Yl5itan5 of Section 721 of the tt�tnt Revenue Code. The subject real property the provisions of Florida property in accordance with The transfer of title under t in t en it puns f to t latl certain Te6nieal Assistance Advisement Number 0011 ed em a �. 2 r M from the State of Florida Department of Revenue. '�The GRANTORS named herei really do not each;v it warrant that they hold title to any particular parcel of real props t o c ed_hem tit'`s�trF GRANTORS collectively warrant that they hold title, to the excluston o 'I i �}i sf such real property conveyed hereby. This document may be executed in counterparts. -2- OR; 2733 FG; 0953 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GRANTORS have hereunto set GRANTORS' hands and seals the day and year first above written. Signed, scaled and delivered in the presence of: Wilms #1 rnni N",A"., [kw-: rP w--4- -L "W-0� �� t .4P._ Z I�=� - Wttncss � �.•I F, I. �. eft_ G Isabcl Gollicr Road Witness #!2 . u.w�lAddMu 9�bw: OR; 2733 PG; 0954 Miles C, Collier, as Co -Trustee -g- , as Co -Trustee STATE OF .�Fl a IC� COUNTY OF RU m -fit t V 0R: 2733 FG: 0955 The foregoing instrument was UKnowlcdgW befort7 me this � day Of [_ ,d ✓ , 2000 by Isabel Collier Read [ ►� who is personally known to me or L who has produced as identification. STATE OF ilurtd) _ COIJNTY OF D! l I e f The Corr -going instrument was 2000 by Miles C. Collier L ✓ ] wh ug Not" FMy Comm.. �peldsdtlw $ervlco naurvxw STATE OF 6 COUNTY OF ' 0 NOTARY, Typed or pnntrd nfunc ofL otuy MY COMMISSION "PIKES: !1 5 Tk-00 ,k .� A1y Comirussl0n CC61aADe Expires May 12. M me this I LI day of OC-4 4f , ,,�e or [] who has produced a.\ -as identification. ARE Cl�-C'�l IL Noiwy )N EXPIRES: H�a5�3 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this t It day of 2000 by Barron G. Collier 11, Individually and/or as Trustee L`_J who is personally known to me or (___j who has produced _ identification. t?EOftAil L KUMM y C= ru *, SlAll, vt F1wW� My co+nm. explra Apr. t3.200� romm No CCA21164 I,D t048{2? iend�d M1rU c t N: I.'.. _: L1CL l orrfpYty, Ina. —5— [- b NOTARY PQ3L C Detki-at; f-urt�ka- Typed or printed nuns of Naluy MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: gj2T jMb3 OR; 2733 PG; 0956 S'rATE OF f l rdgI COUNTY OF e o r! i C r The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1 LP day of 000b[r 2000 by Miles C. Collier, as Co -Trustee [ `'] who is personally known to me or [____] who has produced as identification, _ try phdxa� v�.�u�lc� DtsCKAtt L KURMA NOTARY PUBLIC NoWyy 0"I . ttbk."f g ateAx of fioflda fly comm..Ypin+ Apr. ZnI��Z0Y0t� romm No. CCsMN i.o. °° Typed of printed narrc of Notary r r2—SeNi:�In_!r:., u�omvtnyinc. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES! �f fasJae03 STATE OF RJDrl'&4 ' COUNTY OF iffl f t'r The foregoing instru 2000 by Berroe G. CoHler has produced My com �1 ih'U Sc"V:.'.' IfY .NAP:ZWN_lM Ioil IMv:46AM Trustee M who �-iE C. �- am this 1 b day of CGfC&r , Wally known to me or LJ who as identification. c or Notary ^_ SION EXPIRES: NWX03 Sc „ OR; 2733 PG: 0957 (Collier County LAND DEEDS IN) Isal)el Collier Read, Miles C. Collier, Barron G, Collicr 11, individually and/or as Tnistce and Miles C. Collier and Barron G, Collier 11, as Co -Trustees, hold title to undivided 50a10, 16 2/3%, 16 2/3%, and 16 213% interests, respectively, in the real property heretofore conveyed to them (or their predecessors in interest) pursuant to and described in the following instruments; OFFICIAL RECORDS ROOK ANA PAGE, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA _ ORB 884 PAGE 1436* ••• ORI3 884 PAGE 1489* _ — ORD 949 PAGE 341 r ORB 987 PAGE 1171 * "* ORB 996 PAGE 66* *** ORB 1015 PAGE 1382*'*• _— ORB 1166 PAGE 1879* _ ORB 1223 PAGE 1624* ORB 1270 PAGE 955• — ORB t2_7? SAGE 938' _ 3 -- -4 ORB 1788 PAGE_I _ 060 PAGE 2383• - _ _ 2 W-PA,G9-2074• 0 4 E 49 50M _ O 4 328 * LESS AND EXCEPT any and all` in and under the real property, which **• LESS AND EXCEPT the follow " s and other hydrocarbon substances veyance. Section 22, Township 47 South, Range 28 East; LESS AND EXCEPT the Southerly fitly (50) feet thereof. Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 28 East. Section 13. 14, and 15 Township 48 South, Range 28 East; LESS AND EXCEPT the Southerly fifty (50) fret thereof. Section 7 , 8 Township 49 South, Range 29 East; SUBJECT TO right of ingress and egress in favor of the United States of America, as contained in that Purchase of lands, dated October 31, 1988, recorded in December 21, 1089, in ORB 1402, page 1773. The West l/. of Section 9, Township 49, Range 29 East. All rQtordinS references arc to the Public Records of collier County, Florida. All the foregoing lands lying in Collier County. Florida 1e« and exsent the real property interests heretofore conveyed by them (or their predecessors in interest) pursuant to the following instruments: "hcdulc "A2" (Collier County LAND DEEDS OUT) CIR; 2733 PG; 0958 OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK AND PAGE, PUBLIC RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ORB 1 146 PAGE 1761 • ORB 1166 PAGF 1898' ORB 1201 PAGE 15074 ORB 1201 PAGE 1519' ORB 1214 PAGE 1492' ORB 1170 PAGE 898' ORB 1270 PAGE 906' ORB 1270 PAGE 964' ORB 1305 PAGE 348' ORB 1312 PAGE 2228' ORB 1376 PAGE 1800' ORB 1442 PAGE 1496' ORR )449 PA 2341' DRB 1540 PAGE 192 - R- 441 FOR 15� R3yj. b P%q 1 8 103 -�:�OIWY499 1187 ORB 1902 PAG 22' ORB 2060 PAGb • ORB 21481 40 2153 PAGE 1 O 9 �'' 9• ORB 2239 PAGE 1616 QRR 2249 PAGE 15790 ORB 2240 PAGE 1781+ ORB 7262 PAGE 20740 ORB 2262 PAGE 2083$ ORB 2267 PAGE_845• ORB 2482 PAGE 3045+ OPM 2482 PAGE 30561 ORB 2482 PAGE 3070*V On 2482 PAGE 30934 ORB 2482 PACE 3089• ORB 2482 PAGE 3095• ORB 2494 PAGE 5064 ORB 2494 PAGE 514• ^� ORB 2496 PAGE 6560 ORB 2599 PAGE 3199' Less and except any and all rights ol'record in and to the minerals, oil, gas and other hydrocarbon substances in and under the real property, which rights arc expressly not included in this conveyance, OR: 2733 PC: 0959 (Collier County OGM) Isabel Collier Read, Miles C. Collier, .Barron G. Collier 11, individually and/or as Trustee and Miles C. Collier and Barron G. Collier 11, as Co - Trustees, hold title to undivided 25%, 8 1/3%, 8 1/3%, and 8 1/3% interests, respectively, in the oil, gas and mineral rights, titles, interests, powers and privileges heretofore conveyed to them (or their predecessors in interest) pursuant to and described in the followinp, instruments: OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOT{ AND PAGE, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ORB 884 PAGE 1436 ' 4. 904 PAGE 15 9 PAGE 341 d OT O S 3 8 0 5 41 E 14 ORB 1223 PA-162_ ORB 1277 G 8 ORB 1303 PAGE t 4 2249 PAGE o/ .(�(�'% less and cxcent the oil, g rA3 rights, 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 Schcaulc'•C" *** OR; 2733 PG: 0960 *ww Cnllicr County Tax I.P. Numbers 66(i �+1 ' tir,l,r,+gpt�7;r r�,� .;r 0 by IeabuIl 1:6111or Macula Fr, Ly.nton nud WL1lS }m,Fl, .hrcut +ta ,tsya�L.�laa' urlcl++r' the i' t.,.Asta ❑raatnd for thu honegit of Y1:9112 Lt. C01116r, Mil®c C. ;T' I,'ra.11.lar bsul LlgCron C�. GnJ-li.lsr yT ltndrr fall PVI, Avn 11 og I'ilrt,grar-ri a'hlyd PA Else' iQil1 n['6117ui� {;lstasnl;.r. 11v��ala[111 lilrt,iratLsl. tll it. ri C[iun{-y 'YuslfJ[I'el4 �[+rk''4P[ Ceil liar Ctxurlr}'. 't'JOr�j.Kit1, 'in i!rial�r(r;c ' O�r14r' lspn 7r'lsaajp 1311. ISnYuls}nfYur cull[54 tht� LtianL0r8, WhonI3 i..�p�t'tSflClr[7'tiVritlY4jits, S(r47.1, Dlui flr`S'rilnl nr�lj''l'1�11. [$pjs'1ril., Fr,�ni.`lrlfj InedaeA rallienr Read and w1311nic W. rzrsut, or Lnu undrir rriifl t[It3TtA. hareinaftdC �° 8ux'v�vor pl` khorn, n.4 tiurtpCs Caned thc l}c7snLem], ,+rXlynn jwr ll rift f co 412101-onq .ilr .106S u6i Eki l'g6l.ami7i'1;rr.%Jj'.,'.N,+ti�ieV : T}.lclr•.i.dil JS'zAfr. 'r' 11fiCY1'Ai5 Oil LreCYfiber 1 19t;1,. ptirijIA"i± 'r-PnrBgTapk} + t , C� C,blxl D�IPntiuEil s�uditsld�''^ CiY,�cu4l. ui 1lnr.ill,l, lnlltar [:vuntY.. t•larlsla (Gpslp ljulnlipr 1454111E j'�++ii' tsL.riuliukar[1 lsajzal Gather [tr:Ltl, Gaorge''P, H111, Jr, and llprold l Lrl .'..T.ync[ar[' a,:p thrr 'rilri,}r. jsr,L-ifrcr Ilm G1, ''t, trh nrs{[ J13 „bf., gatSa .. } ll[Itf. l7rl Jil nl!']U��.1111j r;y"ilrr7U 11. Ni>'1,; Jr i'e!uyrl it>]d Nsr''ri l.s u[.aGrtrtl i1:tjn kruD tCC' h a Bt(p and 1411all; ;.ji ,I IrS�f q l' 17e1s1c' �Jr.19701 will cicC'tlit.Ccmrt appcovld t� iD nh5neJ4 4,f a f Ali ifIt. Ot C nrsijip, rlcte JaLliri tlTrlt .Willtiaili i7 I rn[iL '�i1''.a mu11�ir. {ii au ( E S tT'lfutgl���aftilXcf:Pt(Sr 1 to no,.nntire 111terecrC of [.cor[ie 0..11i1Le Jr„ S 7iPr uGS ce r' n t!I[7 +i7s+L•tn Ofu,si[i t[ut3tA♦. deelaYcd. :r r �he[tcJoIt 1'3rl c1u1*,4rhlnt:.,l'.[:usec�ra[, wFXel znoh CG111i`r r J[cl, ".ifu.r'rsld S,: Lyut[511 rIncL. S'fi111.a111 W. i?rnuc, Q.nd auth+5si•xad and R' ' P�pro�'.•;I n},1 implemcrlLaLt4nu cs[ t'.1 anuil4.r:K at the 1 ruat h6E to r cjtongeli 4VUUL4e>a, Dy [ire1, sf11i1C Juncp 24 jg7B xega'1a81 4"P.k�l��t' f, klead,.'I(uisr•7ri' W,,' klill, .7r: .until tin kil,d yntm':'as 6L1C11 rtSiiltals'n convuyed to ln,abpl co.11i.er'Aeadf Wirold G. I,yRton and William W 11 ,3041 xith; Flown }Yu :'I: :n.ii3. i:. � �•. f+.��':�' "�I •r.'I� �1! I { l [out Af, h,f h ti Ilivt.11o ol,l L.)r l,r'•.pwrlt rr Wp}�, r47R1:1 toa i1 k:10t, � �rrJff4Utlhrg. powei�ff )r[.lviduyrYal.ulili .Irrir:r r1u .f.ti ,.11 .+[wets tiC !laid k � ''�`�pii, orhOFls�, F �J�, f.h y1}t:i�i 7>t�:rS.r� I, �,r1,::SurJ}nq.ldit♦?iir,��}Nhi� . r (but witJl4t}i, inn) 4111 lhr,rlfl, lsc,f'ltlSY iA i'np.toV"Onk6 $6ai Vu' tium4, slid t Z a} i J.l`r{ kta[ni "yy 1 � �Erh iftll kJl !'7xi,u iA I iiv,Y'ha arr� Starr � r ;. v{ IT}��� is;h nurh kbn9a,i I�,yLJdtugs� ifill) ovie sr hppur enand a �f�cf'', +�notl'm'�hEu t'r]tln},•Vr�Llnht4 tr;3id.t3(sisl'�gl!��1#`�ittor, nl x�yii� aoqj)iCl, +r.� I psiiY4 +�r 4� ►violi„ t.bt 9tnt❑ of F;6rr F'a u1 n.ff itu yhpros naw 33.06d q1 k :Jun[, 27 , 177fi Nn rr>r,liL4�4c1 jn n�(je13.1 liocorcl Liovk ,77hr pagv 97J, ! '; %. ,�•} 't t+,.uf.. Lh,:i !'uly',1ic lirlr,tlt'tf.; iLL Gild, .l.,i 0f.Iin'Jlvl ,Y l lt64a1ds licolc, 164 pa4l 596, of tlra Pulallc hec0013, of Iiendsy lx"Counrk. ]'Ju',rlel;r [i'ir'd in Off.i, inl llerordu llook Lr'3Q�r. pnga,34'Ir o v �p�� 5!'the t+14i1'ic ur.,cardrl. of Lcai rorjiaty.; Flnrlcln.: Uf1', :Invkaal,<<r.;'t2.., 19AiJr F[rfroId S LyhUM F'CFkr]nFrl On n trlMtp[+ and .>nAAR1 Collier �+ r � �: y , iyd llillkam 11: ou1. ,ru r,uch #L'u::ttc::S nt,[,, ,r•Setl tu,th� ih, +[' i,rs. >tit'o ip.ta;rf:ni ni Irab l.i.a'llior til,,d, I[rstnld L,yraeon .a1,d JJ fl 1 t s I1},tr 'Ns.kliaU1 k; .It oUt 4P Mje-4 tr.uti Loon !h khc' nrvutr: nl' ,n id i'FiTn tP. !iill fl Decal ireon Implementing trarlafc7r OE th¢ trust a56elzs to 3afab�l co111pr head and william W. Prout as such trurstees. ,r [01i, lif(?11GP4kJ', irl.rnns,iS»rnt,itJn Oi'..CIY2'mS,ttdL`a . a ,r. .', f' S4.tis4Xrs,ici 'do'llaz WhUASs ,:eccipt is hereby ocknvwlcdy,rd. tirgj. hercby grant, tlitrLsfdr altd Convey to the, Grantees . 1 '` artd Clxaix svunooSitrlrs {1p,d rJasigns aJA ownornhipm, est:atell rights I. '', r ` :hltle:c, powerfi, prlviiegem and interests pf the GrantOF:i 1,11 all FrasAtii of slnid cruata, wherever ih the world located, incliiding 'wit-hi6 sueh Aosnli (but without )Lisgitatlonl All lands, bui2dinga,' } IliiopFavemente, appurtonane+as, aasemonts, reservations, and riparian 1'atid littoral rights. and al .fixtures hnU pdreone,l prapacty an or ! al r i .'4 4 F•' ' I 'I �9�, i7�. it i r can , .I'.. •'.,#'. �1 i p5' 1 l 1� I' i+ 959 DOO937 10 FE9 22 11 It 26 OR BOOK PAGE COLLIER COUMTY RECORDED TRUSTEE DEED ppr �F3_ THIS DEED is made this December 21 1981, among INT ISABEL COLLIER READ and WILLIAM W_ FROUT, as Trusteab under the Trust created for the benefit. of Inglis U. Collier under Subdivision 8 of paragraph Third of the Will of Miles Culli,er, deceased (probated in the County's Judge Cpurt for Collier County, Florida, in Probate Order Book 3, page ]32, 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 Wruat dated May 21, 1980, whose post of - rice address is J003,N61rt'"aaht11$a, Florida 33940, hereinafter refer �`rant eea )^ Irk an e sum of $1O.0O and 91b and valuable eonsideratio s, i nd--prwW-;\-Grartors hereby gran . bargain, sell, and c nvey in sl 1 Grantee the la ds d ecribad in Exhibit- "AF att lie r ec a n a d ere y confer on the Gra tee th pow r nd au ri o t, can erve, and to sell, a a 4., r C r,, or oth rw $e ir-M nage and di3poae o th Lands. This convaya "^1� is ma a to with any and all rig � t tic, and iat.erest of to a to any and all buildings, turee, and improvement itcg her with all tenements, here and appurten a all rights, powers, privilege i ates, z®versions, i remainders, e4sementa, and- ittoraL rights thereto belonging or in any wise appertaining. Inglis U. Collier joins in the making of this deed in order to convey any interest he may have in the Lands. Further, he joins to approve, ratify, and consent to any and all actionu, leases, conveyances or en❑umberances with reapact to tllo Lands made or done prior to the date of this dead by any or all of Isabel Collier Read, William W. Prout, Miles c. Collier, and Barron 0. Collier, II, acting as trustees. RECORl1 AND 4',T IN TO. POST i'F. „" 4 238 TAUT', 3e,01 nl$ InstrumanT Wa! prapored by JAMES PA- REED OF HOLLWWD & YhiSKT 1300 Emoionga (10[Vo�al B,;ak Bid& Tampa, Fig0a 33OU OR BOOK PAGE It is the intent of the parties hereto that all lands in the State of Plorida owned by Isabel Collier Read and William W. Prout, as trustees for Inglis U. Collier, be conveyed by this dead. The parties to this deed further agree that either Miles C. Collier, as Trustee of said trust, or Barron 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 1981 and subsequent years, all matters of record, and matters which an accurate survey or person s ecEi`29 ould disclose. IN WITNES F:�` t reto have executed � � fort this agreement � the dae set fort Igbel C 11'er Read as rustee Pr&,&t, rs rrus --' Inglis dually STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER g� TPe foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this December 1 , 1981, by Isabel Collier Read, as Trustee. Lr4�.1 f:i2 L! ✓ems"i c- Notary Publix 1 (AFFIX NOTARIAL SEAL My Commission Expires: NOTARY PMJJC STATE Of "IDA AT u11M �I $------" My COMMISSIOW EXPIFfS SECT 7 t96, GE"E L INS. u,MW14rFAS Received Documentary Stomp Tax Collier County, Florida Reagan, Clerk ,`�`+`ct}+'�'�'��A A William J. by y° a s•r 2 _ aoosss Ooos39 OP BOOK PAGE STATE OF FLMIDA COUNTY OF ODLLIER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this December 21 1 1981, by William W. Prout, as Trustee. Notary (AFFIX NOTARIAL SEAL)��:1•••A;,l� My Commission Expires: 4 r pOTAa}• :� f / NOIMY PUBLIC STAY! Of nMOA At tAIM j �•� j STATE OF C.0 9t L14/ HILI GGft+ElAl I► . UNOf7 1943 1�ti 01•:C� =�V� COUNTY OF `�" FC1 xvp ....•'' .•° ,��,.,.��.,,,t• ,yt EMI!*�'���`�� The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before m�NY1ai�N 1�98A, by Inglis U. Collier, individually, Notary Public :. WFIX N})TWAL SEAL) ~� My Commission Expires: My ARmbftNm E.arn, o_+. v, tse! F• . 103-deedL!] 11/20/81/20/81 - 3 - 00pp0959 000940 ExhibiQ'ABOOK PAgEof g All recording references are to the public records of Collier County, Florida, unless otherwise stated. All the following lands lying in Collier County, Florida: All of the SE 1/4 of Section 11, Township'46 South, Range 29 East, lying East of the ACL Railroad right-of-way. All of Section 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 f 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 25, Town }rrii Sp ange 29 East, less the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4,�'" s A All of Section p 46 Sou tn e East, less the South 1/2 of t 1/2. All_of Sect" ns and 18, Township 46 South, Rang 30 East. Allr of Sec ions 19 0, oVMM-�s' outh, nge 0 East; subject t Flo ida PoweLi. air Co. ea ement r cord d in O.R. Book 441, Pag � '� The West 23 re o e i K ns i 4 ou h, ange 30 East; su 'ect o lor' a o r IL' b'aCo ea eme t r corded in O.R. Boo 1 Pa e¢, All of Se ti"•on 29 and 30,�To nship Sout , Ra g' East; subject t TF ida Power $ Light Co, seme t, c� ed in O.R. Book 441, �� 98. ! P t`� .All of Secti Township 46 South, Ra 4 less the NE 1/4 of the of the SE 1/4 of the IE' 1 nd the East 1/2 of the SE 1/4 � 1/4 of the NE I/ All of Sections 1 ' nd4 o Range 28 East. All of Section 22, Toumees — ange 28 East; subject to S.R. 846 right-of-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 2S, Township 47 South, Range 28 East; subject to S.R. 840 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 28 East; subject to S.R. 846 right-of-way recorded in O.R. Book 31, Page 241. All of Section 28, Toumship 47 South, Range 28 East, lying East Of County Road; subject to S.R. 846 right-of-way recorded in O.R. Book 43, Page 271 and O.R. Book 31, Page 241. a All of Sections 34 and 35, Township 47 South, Range 28 East. i i M 000959 000 94 1 OR BOOK prof All of Section 19, Township 47 South, Range 29 Fast; subject to S.R.846 right-of-way recorded in O.R. Book 31, Page 241, All of Section 25,Township 47 South, Range 29 East. All of Section 6, Township 47 South, Range 30 E'asr, subject to S.R. 846 right-of-way recorded in O.R. Kook 13, Page 349. All of sections 14 and 27, 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 756, Page 863. All of Sections 21 and 22, Township 47 South, Range 30 East. All of Section 23, Township 47 South, Range 30 East, excepting oil, gas, and minerals in the North 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 reserved by prior owners in Deed Book 22, Page 131. All of Sections 24 and 25 -Township 47 South, Range 30 East, less 'the East 200 fee f 5-0.� All of Sections 2 J& �8-'fogs oath Range 30 .East. All of Sect' n Township 47 South, Ran 0 E t, less ACL right-of-w gu l cL� R. 29 right-of-wa rec dad in D.B. 9, Page 43 an sf�}b)ect td-Lo,e�Cy�un Electr c Co op easement recorded n U. B��f{e-�"35�3, Page 85&" .- -. All of S Gtio wi �;h "� 7 rrg N st, less ACL right -of way; u a 9 t o -►�y a ord d in D.S. 9, Page 36; nd sub ct to Le o t�r E C c o-o easement recorded in R. Book 35 , ag 5 . f 'A4 All of S i 41r wnsh atr ,rr Ran E �1 All of 5e �i 32, Township 47 South,; ange 30 #s less ACL right-of-w ,y b'ect to S.R_ Z9 ri ti ed in D.B. ] g - Y 9, Page 43 A subject to Lee Count le tr op easement recorded in ok 353, Page 858. All of sections n `4; L01TttL hi.p•4> •S i �ry Range 30 East. All of the North 1/2`h�elpn35, dip 47 South, Range 30 East.- �-n The North 1595 feet of Section 36, Township 47 South, Range 30 East, lying West of 5.R, 840A. All of Sections 2, 3, 10 and ll, 'Township 48 South, Range 28 East. All of Sections 13. 14 and 15, 'Township 48 South, Range 7.8 Enst, less the South 50 feet. All of Section 22, 'Township 48 South, Range 28 East, less the North 50 feet. All of Section 23, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, less the North 50 feet; and subject to Florida Power 4 Light Co. easement recorded in O.R. Book 625, Page 678. All of Sectio;, 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 E25L. L 000959 000942 OR HOOK PAGE 3 of 8 A portion of Section 2, Township 48 South, Range 30 East, described as follows: Begin at the SW 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 {Vest along the Southern boundary.line 1,505 feet to the point of beginning. All of Section 3, Township 48 South, Range 30 East. ` All of Section S. Township 48 South, Range 30 East, less ACL right-of-way; subject to S.R. 29 right-of-way recorded in O.R. Book 9, Page 436; and subject to Lee County Electric Co-op easement recorded in O.R. Book 353, Page 8S8. All of Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 30 East. All of Section 7, Township 48 South, Range 30 East. :.L All of the East 1/2 of Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 30 East. Seu . All of Section 11, .�' ns 30 East � �� g All of Section 1 gwf�ship 48 South, „ 10 ast, less the East 200 feett/f e' 6f for S.R. 840-A righ -a =1v +�, recorded in O.R. Boo 2i age 319; subject to S.R. 40 right-of-way recorded i O.R. llb, Page 511; and subj t to\easement recorded 0. B?Ok 728, All of Se do 18 Townsh�3 3 uth R n e•30 ast, lying North of S.R. 40; d�u j�e as u 1� 1 f Refining Company, reco a in R B ok 2 9 a 4 ,� n eas meet to Lee County E ct is C o r co d d .R B k 10, age 1253. All of S i �� n 'p 49 0 V 28 East. All of Se Tiqp 11, Township 49 South Mange 28 aG; less the South 176 . A ff ('ANA All of Sect o' Township 49 South, NaY All of Sectio �2 27, Township 49 Sou R�V'ige 28 East. All of Sections 35 -mow 9. Sertzth, Range 28 East, lying North of S.R. A- A- ) CA _ All of Sections 7, 8, 9, 10�;"33; "1"4;�I5, 16, 17, and 1.8, Township 49 South, Range 29 East. All 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. All 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 301, Page 550. • 000s�s . ooes�s OR BOOK PAGE4 of 8 All of the East 1/2, NW 1/4 and East 1,747 feet of the SW 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 550. All of Sections 22, 23, and 24, Township 49 South, Range 29 East. All. of Section 2S, Township 49 South, Range 29 East, ey.rept the oil, gas and mineral rights reserved by prior owner, recorded in O.R. Book 301, Page 550. All of Section 36, Township 49 South, Range 29 East. A11•of 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. 9, Page 226; and subject to Lee County Electric Co -Op easement recorded in O.R. Book 353, Page 858. ` All of Section 18, To $hrrP �9. 'fh;�Fange 30 East, less the ACL right-of-way; sub a 55 + , 2 ,_)H 4r -of-way recorded in D.B. 9, Page 227- d s lectric Co-op easement recor Book 353,.' All of Secti n�1„,4 ownship 49 South, Rang 0 st, less ACL right-o -way- subject to Lee County Ele ric o-op easement r cord d qn O---R—'Bgok 353, a 8S8. Y All of Se do s 20 and ..`9•�Top*ris ip 49 outh, Ra ge 0 East, less ACL nigh All of 5 3 is ip 4 u Ran e 0 E less the East 1/2 dt /4 9s, an t� L right- of-way; u' t to Lee County Elect 'c Co- ea recorded Book 353, Page 858. 5 of 8 All of Sections 1, 2, 3, 13, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, C�) Cm 27 and 28, Township 49 South, Range 32 East. o W . CO All of Sections 9, 10, 11 and 12, Township 49 South, Range 32 O Cn East; subject to pipeline right-of-way recorded in O.R. Book O is 181, Page 81. All of Sections 33, 34, 35 and 36, Township 49 South, Range 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, Township 49 South, Range 33 East. o 4 All of the West 1/2 of Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 33 b C► ' East, lying North of S.R. 84. 4o All of Sections 1 and 3, Township 49 South, Range 34 East. All of Section 5, Township 49 South, Range 34 East, lying East of the center line of L-29 Interceptor Canal; subject to pipeline right- of-way recorded in U.R. Book a B1, and subject to an easement recorded in 0. M3 S. All of Section 9, w s}rnzt r a4 st, lying North and East of the cent ' Interce C � subject to pipeline right- ecorded in O.R. Boo 1�,p ge 81; easement recorded in 0.. A. 238, page 165; and leas eco ded in O.R. Book 646, par 66. All of Sect•on 149 Sout RGn a 34 Ea t; s bject to pipeline ri ht- `f-way recoiled, 1 O.R. Bo k 181, ge 1. All of Sec ion o s i U. R a 3 t�. All of Sec ion 5, Town hi 4 S u h }NRa ge 4 ast subject to the ease me r o 0 R. Bo k 2 page 16 L, All of Sec `*� 3, Township 49 South, nge 3 as ,C ject to the easement re in O.R. Book 238, pa 165. All of Secti•� 5 Township 49 South, 3 E $4`q ubject to the easement ecdr d in O.R. Book 238, a e All of Section 7, �yhip 49 South, Range as All of Section 35 ofis "9vSaurh-tgast, lying North of State Road 84; sul ps d cvr in O.R. Book 23a, page 165.� X All of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Township SO South, Range 33 East, lying South of S.R. 84. All of Sections 7, 8, 9, l0, 11 and 12, Township 50 South, Range 33 East. All of the West 1/2 of Section 7, Township 50 South, Range 34 East. 000sss aoosas OR BOOK PAGE 6 of 8 The East 2,310 feet of the South 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Section -20, Township 50 South, Range 30 East. All -of Section 29, Township.50 South., Range 30 East, lying East of S.R. 29. All of Section 32, Township 50 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 of S.R. 29. All that part of Section 7f,­`Powghip �ST"5et�th, Range 30 East lying East of S.R. 29. �� ' _J 3•.�^..�... T All of Section 8, Gojjvr South, Ran 3Y r�U s , less lands described in O.R. W B, Page 27; and su '@act�` right-of-way easement for S.��SJ ecorded in D.B. 8, Page 4. All of, Sectio /17,� ship South,�Raj a 30 Ea t. All of Secti s IF andt, kiwis rip 51 Sou h, Rang 30 ast, lying East 0 S. . All of Secti n 2 T wns p 1 0 n 0 t. All of the 2 f ti n 0 o hip S S ut ge 30 East, and th rit9 a the f S ction 30 lying West o ESL right-of-way; and sub' ct to Lee Electric Co-op easemen �� rded in O.R. Book 353 Page 858 All of Section ownship 51 South, Ran 30 E �1 ing West of ACL right-o xcept that part of h of the North 1/2 of the lying West of ACL rig o y; and subject to Lee Co t l t4 ric Co-op easemep a ed in O.R. Book 353, Page 858 All of Section 6, Towns�g t �g`3d`'East, lying West of ACL right-of-way; and subje Le I ky Electric Co-op easement recorded in O.R. Book 353, Page 858, All of the West 1/2 and the NE. 1/4 of Section 7, 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 S15; D.B. 10, Page 552; D.B. 5, Page 352; D.E. 21, Page 73; and D.B. 21, Page 7S; 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. �•.'� 000959 000946 OR'BOOK FAGS 7 of 8 All of Sections 7 and 8, Township 52 South, Range 27 East, lying East of S.R. 92. All 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 f2_ ..All of Sections 20, 21, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 33, Township 52 South, Range 27 East. All of Section 5, 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 52 South, Range 28 East; subject to U.S. 41 right-of-way recorded in O.R. Book 21,Page 226. All of the West 1/2 of Section 9,,,_Township 52 South, Range 28 East, lying South o ."5' 141 y All of Sections l ; a, and � , IU9 2 South, Range 28 East. r All of the 1t' st V/ of Sections 21 and 28, fwns 'p 52 South, Range 28 Ea t. All of Se ion 29J3322 and 3 ;' ship 52 out Range 28 East. r All of -t a We 1 �t ow s ip Suth, Range 28 East•, All of t e e 1 2�p St'o 3 wnshi 53 So tL,, ange 28 East. All of Se t'�ic 4, Township 53 South, nge 8 E s� All of Sec Township 53 South, " ge 8� �s /less the West 163.5 All of Section 23, and`-t�s1ction 34, Township S2 South, Range 29 East. All of Sections 22 and 27, 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 Moorings Unit N4, Block 4, as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 102, described as; (1) An undivided 1/2 interest in Lot 2, less the East 1'61 feet thereof; subject to Florida Pocver F, Light Co. easement recorded in O.R. Book 487, Page 954; and (2) Lot 3; subject to Florida Power f, 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 315. 000959 00094 T OR BOOK PAGE 8 of 8 All recording references are to the public records of FiBndry County, Florida, unless otherwise stated. . All.the following lands lying in Hendry County, Plorida: All of Sections 34, 35, and 36, Township 46 South, Range 31 East, less the South 100 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 324; 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 Z, Township 47 South',- Range 31 East, subject to drainage easement to the State of Florida recorded in O.R. Book 2, P ge^71T-- """' All of Sections 7, 1I,14 ,4 l 3, 24, 27, 28 and 29; the North 1/2 0 ;a, t'a 2, 33 and 34; and the West 5/8 pp h iP�t 1/2 of Section a°; in Township 47 South, Range AIsl'' All of Section 4 a d5;ovrn ip 48 South, Rang 31 St. All of Sectio s 5 6, and 3 Towns ip 4 South, Range 32 Ease A SRA APPLICATION col ier 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 STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA (SRA) DESIGNATION APPLICATION The following documents the necessary Items, exhibits and agreements for the Stewardship Receiving Area Desicination Application. SUBMITTAL PACKAGE Submit the Application tot Growth Management Department Attn, Operations & Regulatory 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Maples 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 CCPC Legal Advertising $1,125 Transportation Fees —refer to pre-❑pplicatiort 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 addltionol information the applicant will be notified if the application is complete. 1 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. 1 EAC hearing per LDC 4.08.07 F.I .a. / The CCPC shall hold an advertised public hearing on the proposed appilcatlon and agreement. The notice of this hearing shall be given ten (10) days prior to the meeting date. 1 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 $hall consider an amendment to an approved SRA In the same manner as designated in this application. Febrom y 11, 2019 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND REGULATION {",Y County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPL.ES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.collieroov.net STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA (SRA) APPLICATION PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff DATE PROCESSED APPLICANT INFORMATION Name of Property Owner(s): Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. Name of Applicant If different than owner: Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. Address: 2550 Goodlette Rd., N., Ste. '10D City. . Naples state: FL ZIP: 34103 Telephone: 239-434-4015 _Cell: NIA Fax: N/A E-mail Address: PUtter@collierenterprises.eom Agent: Robert J. Where, FAICP, VP Firm: Hole Mantes, Inc. Address: 950 Encore Way Telephone: _239-254-2000 Cell: N/A City: Naples state: FL Zip, 34110 Fax: 239-254-2099 E-Mall Address: bobmulhere@hmeng.com PROPERTY INFORMATION You must Include the Counly's Properly Ownership Disclosure Form with this application In order for it to he considered complete. This form is localed of: https.././www.c91 I lergov.net /Home /ShowDocurnent?i d=75 09 3. Sections; 2, 3, 10 & 11 Section/Township/Ranger /49S 1 �$1E Zontngc A-MHO-RLSA,0 General Location and Cross Streets: See below Folio Numbers: 00354520003, 00354560005, 00364840000 & 00354880002 General Location: Approximately 4 miles South of Oil Well Road, East of Desoto Blvd. (between 411h Ave. NE. and 6th Ave. SE) Total Area of Project: 999.78t acres NIA List any previously approved or pending petition numbers affecting the property. Name of Agent: Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq Firm: Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. Address: 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, FL, 34103 Phone/Fax:239-435-3535,239-435--1218 Email:ryovanovichocyklawfirm.com February I X, 201.9 Coder county COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGFMPNT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND REGULATION 21100 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.r.ollier,gov.net ADJACENT ZONING/LAND USE Zoning Land use N A-MHO-RLSAO Ag, SSA 17 (sending lands) g A-MHO-RLSAO Ag E A-MHO-RLSAO Ag, SSA 15 (sending lands) w A-MHO-RLSAO Future ROW, AG, then Fstates LIST OF CONSULTANTS Name: Hole Montes, Inc. Phones 239-254-2000 Name: Coleman, Yovenovlch & Koester, PA Phones 239-435-3535 Name, Passarella and Associates phoney 239-274-0067 Name Trebilcack Consulting Solutions. PA Phone, 239-566-9651 Name, Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc. Phone, 239-597-3111 Mailing Address, 950 Fncora way, Naples. FL 34110 Mailing Addre$S1 40DITomlamlTr. N.,l4aplea,FL34103 Mailing Address, 13e20 MWopM Am„ Fun Myen. FL 33012 Mailing Address, 2090 oawa BNe. suite 20D, NaMe., FL 34104 Mailing Addresss 740""Blud-.a20""ImrL3410E Applicant is responsible for providing Finalized copies as required for public hearing. hereby submit and certify the application to be complete and accurate. Robert I Mulhere, FAICP, VP Printed Name of Agent Signature of Agent Date February 11, 2019 Co` lhkY C074Hty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMF-NT 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 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. Ouantify by type the acreage of agricultural 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 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. 5ECTION II NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX ASSESSMENT SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION (LDC 4.08.07.D.4.) I. 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 Mop delineating the area of the RLSA District being designated as an SRA. El. 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 map(s) delineating the area being designated as an SRA. Febroary 11, 2019 Co*ier 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.coliteroov.net g. Listed species map(s) delineating the area being designated as an SRA. h. Soils map(s) 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 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 4.08.07.1.. 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 Go er county -00-00��� COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.collier ov.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. 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. SECTION V 5JEWARDSHIP RECIEYINQRED REE (LDC 4.08.07.D.1 U) 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 Elan, which must include the following: 1. Identify the land uses ii. Identifying the number of residential dwelling units ili. 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. 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 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 an the SRA Master Plan for special treatment. Feblvary 11, 2019 AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) BELLMARVItLAGEBRAIPL-2OIDWO1037i 1, PAIRICKLUTTER _ (print name), as MEPREGIGEOT _ (title, If applicable) Of GOLLIEREWCAPAIS VC,.ofNMAUARTNERaFcoLLIERLANOHOL0IN6 Lhl. (company, If applicable), swear orafflrm under oath, that I am the (choose one) owner appllcW=contract purchaserand that: i. 1 have full authorlty to secure the approval(s) 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 applicatlon and the Land Development Code; 2. All answers to the questlons In this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application ate honest and true; 3. 1 have authorized the staff at Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of Investigating and evalualing the request made through this applicatlon; and that 4• The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. S. Well authorize RoBERTJ.MULHLk%FAICPBRICHARGYOVANOWCH,ESQUIRE to act as our/my representative. In any matters regarding this petition including i through 2 above. 'plates: • If the applicant Is a corporation, them it Is usually execulad by the carp. pres. or V. pres. - if the applicant Is a Lirltited Liability Company (L.LC.) or Limited Company (L.C.), than the dooumenls should typicaffy be signed by the Company's "Managing Member." ■ ff the applioant Is a partnership, then (ypically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. - ff the applicant Is a timiled partnership, theft the general partner must sign and be Identified as the ",general partner" of the named partnership. + ff the applicant Is a Irus4 then they must include the trustee's name and the words "as trvsfee". • In each Instance, ftmf delermine the epplioant`s status, e,g., Individual, corporate, ford, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have raW the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the fac tated In It pro tru . -A ---/ ) Pa—triaRL-Wer,111raRac. Signature collie& Land Holdings, Ltd. By, Callias BnLetVriece, Ina., itd gauarel manager STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLL11EER WC N. al 24i0t Date The foregoing Instrument was Saturn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me on • UL 101 (date) by �W'R (M- t-,Q�� _ (name of person providing oath or affirmation), as \J,,x" f,LJ@j&e►w co CAM: who Isperaonally known to me.erwho has -prod+ree4--- (lylpe4+WantitlealicR) F. wanuficaliep.4 sTAm12isqAL SlgYature of Notary Public S tier Valerie L. Rio '" �r, ��° NplaryPnbNa-SI�ts4fFlorldo I •. coomiraslan N 0022100 P�tR EKplresi 00117/2020 ci,wa-COA•0011MI SS 1LriV 3f201-1 AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUME RS(s) dent,rAnvuaAoesnA(rL•sornoaoraor) ---- 1, PATRICK L. MER _� (print name), as VICE PR2t#IDENT (title, If applioable)Of- COLLIER E ERPRises,INC.,aeNERALPARTNegopcoLLIeRrnNotioLoirrns,U (company,Ifa licable),swearoreffirm under oath, that I aril the (choose one) owner0 applicant contract purchasarand that: 1. .I have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and io Impose covenants and restrictions an 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 d. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions Imposed by the approved action. 5. Well authorize COLUERL'NTgAPAigeSMANAuMeMr INo. to act as ourlmy representative In any matters regarding this petition Including 1 through 2 above, *Notes: • Irthe applicant Is a corporation, than it is usually executed by the carp. Ares. or v, pray. • If fho applicant is a Limited Liability Company (L.L.C,J or Limited Company (L.C. ), than the documents should typically he signed by the Company's "Menaging Member." If the applicant Is a partnership, then (ypically a partner cart 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 !rust, then they must Include the trustee's name and the words es trustee" ■ In each Instance, first determine the applicant's status, e,g., Individual, corporate, fnjsf, partnorahlp, and then use the appropriate formal for that ownership. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the f ots state In It are �,7zw,#'A' BU, �- Pa rick L. Utter, Vice Pies. 8IgnatLlre Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. By. Collier Enterpris0e, Ino., ito gah—nl n4•neger STATE OF PLORIUA COUNTY OF COLLIER the foregoing Aflidavil of Authorization end that �a�;• %I, 71cy, a, onto T e foregoing instrument was sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me on . ON. -.o1Me) by JG 'UTr — (name of person providing oath or affirmation), as W, % who Is personally known to me,ar--wh"a"redaeed- -- �4atlhcaklc�entiftaaNerrE STAMPIseAL Signature of Notary Public 06,".)"1-11-1 Valarle L. Pllce NolaryPt,biic•Staig("lorlde r orlltnlaelon UGp 22100 Exptranogr1T1202o CM-COA-0011SMS RVV 3124114 PROJECT NARRATIVE & STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE Bellmar Village SRA Project Narrative & Statement of Compliance Revised 11-13-2020 The proposal is to establish a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) in the form of a Village. Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) is located in eastern Collier County in portions of Sections 2, 3, 10 and 11, Township 49 South, and Range 28 East. Bellmar Village SRA ("Village") contains a total of 999.74f acres. The Village is located approximately 4 miles south of Oil Well Road, and east of Desoto Blvd. (between 4th Ave. NE and 6th Ave. SE). Lands to the north are zoned A -Agriculture and are designated Water Retention Area (WRA) under the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay. Lands to the south are zoned A -Agricultural and designated WRA under the RLSA Overlay. Lands to the east are zoned A -Agricultural. To the west, the Village abuts future Big Cypress Parkway. The land within 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 2,750 dwelling units. The Village includes a 23.63f 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 Desien Criteria The SRA Master Plan lays out the design and development intent for this Village. Bellmar Village contains two Context Zones: Neighborhood General (which is 976.11f acres in size) and mixed - use Village Center (which is 23.63f acres in size). The SRA Document and Master plan also provide for the following perimeter buffers: Adjacent to A- RLSA/future Big Cypress Parkway Minimum 25' wide Type D Buffer All other Perimeter Buffers No Buffer Required (except as required by the South Florida Water Management Adjacent to Preserve or SSA District) Adjacent to A - RLSA— Minimum 10' wide Type "A" Buffer per LDC Section 4.06.02.C.1. (Agriculture) Adjacent to Roadway Along Minimum 25' wide Type "D" Buffer per LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4. SRA Western Boundary Page 1 of 29 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\4th Resubmittal\Bellinar SRA Narrative (rev 11-13-2020).doex NOTES: 1. WRA LAND USE IS WRl§N SSA AND ISAOT INCLUDED IN THE SRA BWN0.AR7. THE WFA AREA Is NOT NCWl IN THE OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS. 7- IYIERE THE WLLAOE IS A04ACENT TO ANSSA OR PRESERVE. NO PERIMETER SUPPER IS REGUAEO. EXCEPT AS MAY BE REOWRED BY WMH PLARSLL WA iFR AVLRa CEMF NT DISTRICT PERMIT OiTIOTES CONVEYANCE CMANNEL RELOCATION OF F] G REQL#LEG FOR FUTURE e1G C rPr>=5s KwAY RO. W- ZONING A-MHO-RLSAO SSA 1$ PANTHER FENCE - - `SSA 18' J za Imo' PrnNrvu.FLITURE � , RTTlREONNECTN7N ' LLAGE xs TYPE (o) CT ��NU� ® LELE. 10' LB.E. ® .200' R.O.W. RCSD PROPERTY "'RPOT£NTUIL BOARDWALK ® LINE - MISC. OPEN SPACE 8 PRESERVES TO• U 25- TYPE (D). L.B.E. L POTBlIIAL FUTURE I Rfr[RCONHEC7IOM � N W 26' TYPE iD} LB.E- ZONING - P xIF �4 NRN.10' TYPE {A) L$.E HSA 90UNJARY . ZONING . A-MHO-RLSAO A 7RLNSRION 5T . A AIWIP"N WII OF II Fr, AND AR AVERAGEYAOTM OF Z FT.ORA .. AG Q VERTICAL TRANSITION (Kraµ FE BCE, OR EgLIYALEHT}-A= APPROVED S5 PARTRT W 6F Ui A THE EiW PCRHN OR PERMIT NCDIFICATION, HSa SETB,iL%S I�nn smu BE PROVIDED ecTLYEER wr; SRA AND SSA AF:FAS UNLE55 T E TRAN51TION V _ Q FEATURE 15 A LAKE " SSA 17/B\ SELLMAR VILLAGE SRA LAND USE SUMMARY NE IG HHORHOOD GENE RAL CONTEXT ZONE SYM60L DESCRIPTION ACRES NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL 434.69 ROAD R.O.W. indudes. 4 19'wide mul5.use path WSe wfft 132.96 - AMENRY CENTERS 1547 PARK$ _ PARK PRESERVE LAKES 7-88 3-44 274-D8 LAKE M.E. & OPEN SPACE PERIMETER SUFFERS 4.35 10' UTILFTY EASEMENT NE IGHBORHOOD GEN ERAL CONTEXT ZONE TOTAL 0.71 97811 VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE VILLAGE CENTER 23-63 S RA 60 U N DARY TOTAL 999.74 C�DENOTLGFUi cDlnrry Rd AD RIGNT.G+yROT IN sRA. L WRA LAND USE SUMMARY SYMRpL DESCRIPTION ACRES AMFT _ LANE TRACTS [Includes L.M.E. S 42 Pc. WaM PreswW 12D.2O ROAD R.O.W. pnclutles boardwalk eaAlmenll 3.57 WRA AREA TOTAL 123.76 ZONING - SSA AaMHO-RLSAO j� MIN. 70' TYPE (A) LB.E. OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS +SSA 1SLd, A1..ONG ENTI REOEAST OPEN SSA 18 Q LAND USE ACRES OPEN SPACE SPACE PROPERTY BOUNDARY PERCENTAGE ACRES fn LAKES 274.06 100.OQ% 27406 LAKE MAINTENANCE 1 EASEMENT IL-WE-1 R + OPEN SPACE — 102-57 100.00% R02.Sf VEk1CULAR CRGSSING INE1G}iGOI:H000 GENERAL y1a-00% WI 68.94 AG/HSA ROAD R=D . 3Z2.sli 96 15,00% 19_94 AMENITY C.EILTERS is.47 30.00% 4,04 7,38 PARKS 7.88 50.00% 3.94 PRESERVEPARK 1 VILLAGE pE7iTER 2.3.63 30.00% Y-09 PERIMETER BUFFERS 4.36 100.00Y. 4-3S 10' UTILITY FASEMENT 0,71 100-00% 0.71 TOTALOPEN SPACE 'PROLIIDEO SD7.6R MINIMUM REQUIRED OPEN SPACE • S$%(3"-91 Ac1 PROVIDED OPEN SPACE = 50.78Y. ZONING 55A 18 p-MHO-2 LSAO THE mSrcR Pun 1s cONCEPMAL_ WERNAL ROAD _ AL ENTS. I.Am SMNG AN D CWFIGORAVOR OF OEYELOPMENTAFEASARESU ECTTO MODIFICATION MMN THE RLsA mIDEl➢IES AT TRTE OF FINAL DEVELO EM MGM ��.1k0l91NLROkA(,'i, 1P1C '— COLLLLCNTVbMSEES MANAGAcNLu POLra SRA SDBATTALPLANS H.r:aus1W=pdQLaR F SRA design criteria: The SRA contains 999.74f acres. • The SRA does not include any lands with a Natural Resource Index (NRI) greater than 1.2. • The Village SRA does not include any lands designated Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA), Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA), or Water Retention Area (WRA). The Village have lands designated HAS adjacent to portions of the eastern perimeter boundary. • The SRA does not include any lands within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) Overlay. • The required minimum Open Space (35%) is 349.91 ± acres. The SRA master plan provides for 507.66f acres of Open Space (50.78f percent), 157.75 acres above the RLSA 35% 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 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 shall provide of the following: a minimum of 68,750 square feet and a maximum of 85,000 square feet of neighborhood scaled retail and office uses; a minimum of 27,500 square feet of civic, government, and institutional uses; and a minimum of 40 multifamily dwelling units. • The SRA allows for up to 2,750 dwelling units (2.75 dwelling units per gross acre, and 3.28 units per acres based upon the 841.99 acres requiring Stewardship Credits and 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 26.79 acres of active and passive parks and community green space is provided, including approximately15.47 acres of amenity center sites and approximately 11.32 acres of parks and park preserves, exceeding the required minimum of 1 percent of the SRA gross acreage, (10 acres). • The SRA will have direct access to future Big Cypress Parkway, which will be designed as an arterial road. The SRA will also connect to Golden Gate Blvd. and 6th Ave. SE. • 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 841.99 acres (total SRA acreage excluding open space exceeding 35%) acres. At the required 8 Stewardship Credits per acre, 6,735.92 Stewardship Credits are required to entitle the SRA. • The Village will be served by the Collier County Water and Sewer District. 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 Page 3 of 29 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\4th Resubnrittal\Belllnar SRA Narrative (rev 11-13-2020).doex through long term agricultural operations. Under the RLSA Overlay, the property is eligible to be designated as an SRA. There are no lands within the Village scoring greater than 1.2 on the Natural Resource. The subject property does not include any designated Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSA) or Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSA), or Water Retention Area (WRA). There is a designated WRA that virtually bisects the proposed Village; and designated WRAs adjacent to the north and south. The Village does not include any lands that fall within a designated Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). SRA Master Plan The Bellmar 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 4.08.07.1c Transportation: See TIS. Sewer and Water: See separate analysis. Public Schools: See separate analysis. Economic Assessment (per LDC Section 4.08.07.L.) 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 29 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\4thResubniittal\BelhnarSRANarrafive (rev 11-13-2020).doex 1. Identify and propose measures to protect prune agricultural areas. Such measures should prevent the premature conversion of agricultural lands to other uses. 2. Direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat in order to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime as well as to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats. 3. Assess the growth potential of tine Area by assessing the potential conversion of rural lands to other uses, in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, directing incompatible land uses away Som critical habitat and camtraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques including, but not limited to, public and private schools, urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area -based allocations, clustering and open space provisions and mixed use development The Assessment shall recognize the substantial advantages of innovative approaches to development which may better serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas, maintain the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and provide for the cost- efficient delivery of public facilities and services. 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 +/-195,000 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 RLSU 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 29 HA2019\2019051\SRA\4th Resubmittahl3cU nar SRA Narrative (rev, 11-13-2020).doex Policy 1.1: 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: An SRA specific compliance analysis is not required for this Policy. 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 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: An SRA specific compliance analysis is not required for this Policy. Page 6 of 29 HA2019\2019051\SRA\4th Resubmitta1\13elbnar SRA Narrative (rev 11-13-2020).doex 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. Bellmar 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, Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, South Florida Water Management District, or a recognized statewide land trust; and (3) for each SSA, the Stewardship 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. Bellmar SRA proposes to use the required number of Stewardship Credits, from approved SSA(s), consistent with established procedures and requirements. Page 7 of 29 HA2019\2019051\SRA\4th ResubmittaMelhnar SRA Narrative (rev 11-13-2020).doex 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: An SRA specific compliance analysis is not required for 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 values and a corresponding adjustment in the credit value. The Index and the Index Map Series are adopted as a part of the RLSA Overlay. Compliance Analysis: An SRA specific compliance analysis is not required for 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: An SRA specific compliance analysis is not required for this Policy. The Policy addresses Stewardship Credit values (for SSA lands). Bellmar SRA proposes to use the required number of Stewardship Credits, from an approved SSA, 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 base credit in the Worksheet. The assigned percentage for each layer to be removed is added together and then multiplied by the Index value on a per acre basis to arrive at a total Stewardship Credit Value of the land being designated as a SSA. Compliance Analysis: An SRA specific compliance analysis is not required for this Policy. Page 8 of 29 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\4thResubniittal\Bellmat SRA Narrative (rev 11-13-2020).doex Policy 1.12: Credits can be transferred only to lands within the RLSA that meet the defined suitability criteria and standards set forth in Group 4 Policies. Such lands shall be known as Stewardship Receiving Areas or SRAs. Compliance Analysis: Bellmar 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: An SRA specific compliance analysis is not required for this Policy. 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: As part of the submission and review process, an applicant is required to demonstrate that the applicant has sufficient Stewardship Credits for the desired amount of residential or non-residential entitlements. 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 Bellmar SRA complies 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 SRA complies with the applicable polices of the RLSA Overlay, which has already been determined to be consistent with s 163.3168, F.S. See "Conclusion" section of this analysis starting on Page 28 for a summary of innovative elements. Page 9 of 29 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\4thResubn-ittal\Bellinar SRANaaativc (rev 11-13-2020).docx Policy 1.17: Stewardship Credits may be transferred between different parcels or within a single parcel, subject to compliance with all applicable provisions of these policies. Residential clustering shall only occur within the RLSA through the use of the Stewardship Credit System, and other forms of residential clustering shall not be permitted. Compliance Analysis: An SRA specific compliance analysis is not required for 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: An SRA specific compliance analysis is not required for this Policy. 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: An SRA specific compliance analysis is not required for this Policy. 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: An SRA specific compliance analysis is not required for this Policy. 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 29 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\4thResiibnittal\Bellmar SRANarrative (rev 11-13-2020).doex generated under the bonus is 27,000 Credits, and such Credits shall not be transferred into or used within the ACSC. Compliance Analysis: An SRA specific compliance analysis is not required for this Policy. 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: An SRA specific compliance analysis is not required for 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. Compliance Analysis: An SRA specific compliance analysis is not required for this Policy. Page 11 of 29 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\4thResubmittal\Bcllmar SRA Narrative (rev 11-13-2020).docx 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 Bellmar 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 Bellmar SRA required. Policy 2.4: The BCC will consider the recommendations of the AAC and facilitate the implementation of strategies and recommendations identified by the ACC that are determined to be appropriate. The BCC may adopt amendments to the LDC that implement policies that support agriculture activities. Compliance Analysis: No Analysis specific to Bellmar 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 Bellmar 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 Bellmar 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 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. Page 12 of 29 H:\2019\2019051\SRAN4thResubniittal\Bellinar SRA Narrative (rev 11-13-2020).doex 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 3 1, 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 flowway systems in the RLSA. The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect FSAs by the creation and transfer of Credits, elimination of incompatible uses, and establishment of protection measures described in Group 1 Policies. Not all lands within the delineated FSAs are comparable in terms of their natural resource value; therefore, the index shall be used to differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation. Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that FSA lands score within a range of 0.7 to 2.4; approximately 96% score greater than 1.2 while 4% score 1.2 or less. The average Index score of FSA land is 1.8. Compliance Analysis: An SRA specific compliance analysis is not required for this Policy. 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: An SRA specific compliance analysis is not required for this Policy. Policy 3.3: Further protection for surface water quality and quantity shall be through the establishment of Water Retention Areas (WRAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. WRAs are delineated on the Overlay Map and contain approximately 18,200 acres. WRAs are privately owned lands that have been permitted by the South Florida Water Management District to function as agricultural water retention areas. In many instances, these WRAs consist of native wetland or upland vegetation; in other cases, they are excavated water bodies or may contain exotic vegetation. The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect WRAs by the creation and transfer of Credits, elimination of incompatible uses, and establishment of protection measures described in Group 1 Policies. Not all lands within the delineated WRAs are comparable in terms of their natural resource value; therefore, the index shall be used to differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation. Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that WRA lands score within a range of 0.6 to 2.4; approximately 74% score greater than 1.2 while 26% score 1.2 or less. The average Index score of WRA land is 1.5. Page 13 of 29 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\4thResubmittal\Belhuar SRA Narrative (rev 11-13-2020).docx Compliance Analysis: An SRA specific compliance analysis is not required for 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 Bellmar 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 a FSA. Compliance Analysis: No Analysis specific to Bellmar SRA 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 Bellmar 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 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. Page 14 of 29 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\4th ResubmittahBelhnar SRANanrative (rev 11-13-2020).docx 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 Bellmar 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 Bellmar 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 Bellmar SRA required. 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 Page 15 of 29 HA2019\2019051\SRA\4tb Resubn ittal\Belhuar SRA Narrative (rev 11-13-2020).doex 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 further Analysis required. Policy 3.11: In certain locations there may be the opportunity for flow -way or habitat restoration. Examples include, but are not limited to, locations where flow -ways have been constricted or otherwise impeded by past activities, or where additional land is needed to enhance wildlife corridors. Priority shall be given to restoration within the Camp Keais Strand FSA or contiguous HSAs. Should a property owner be willing to dedicate land for restoration activities within 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 Bellmar 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 Bellmar SRA required. Policy 3.13: Water Retention Areas (WRAs) as generally depicted on the Overlay Map have been permitted for this purpose and will continue to function for surface water retention, detention, treatment and/or conveyance, in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permits applicable to each WRA. WRAs can also be permitted to provide such functions for new uses of land allowed within the Overlay. WRAs may be incorporated into a SRA master plan to provide water management functions for properties within such SRA, but are not required to be designated as a SRA in such instances. WRA boundaries are understood to be approximate and are subject to refinement in accordance with SFWMD permitting. Page 16 of 29 H:\2019\2019051\SRAWh ResubmittaBBelhnar SRA Narrative (rev 11-13-2020).doex Compliance Analysis: An SRA specific compliance analysis is not required for this Policy. 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: An SRA specific compliance analysis is not required for this Policy. 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: An SRA specific compliance analysis is not required for this Policy. 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 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: An SRA specific compliance analysis is not required for this Policy. Page 17 of 29 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\4thRestibrytittal\BellmarSRANairafive (rev 11-13-2020).doex 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: The Bellmar Village SRA is consistent with all applicable polices in the Overlay. 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 Commissioners. Compliance Analysis: No Analysis specific to Bellmar 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 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 Bellmar Village SRA Master Plan demonstrates compliance with all applicable policies of the. 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: No analysis specific to Bellmar SRA is required. Policy 4.6 simply acknowledges that the RLSA program was created pursuant to Section 163.3168(2), Florida Statutes, as an innovative planning and development strategy, and the SRA "characteristics" are embodied as SRA development standards within the GMT. Page 18 of 29 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\41h ResubmittaABellmar SRA Narrative (rev 11-13-2020).doex 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 during the SRA designation review and approval process. Compliance Analysis: No Analysis specific to Bellmar SRA required. 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 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 include 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 Bellmar SRA Village. 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 I'000 acres. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed -use village center to serve as the focal point for the conumir ity'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 Page 19 of 29 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\4thResubnuttal\Bellmar SRA Narrative (rev 11-13-2020).docx 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. Compliance Analysis: These are specific requirements that apply to the universally to the Village form of SRA. Policy 4.7.3: Hamlets are small rural residential areas with primarily single-family housing and limited range of convenience -oriented services. Hamlets shall be not less than 40 or more than 100 acres. Hamlets will serve as a more compact alternative to traditional five -acre lot rural subdivisions currently allowed in the baseline standards. Hamlets shall have a public green space for neighborhoods. Hamlets include convenience retail uses, in a ratio as provided in Attachment C. Hamlets may be an appropriate location for pre-K through elementary schools. Design criteria for Hamlets shall be included in the LDC Stewardship District. To maintain a proportion of Hamlets to Villages and Towns, not more than 5 Hamlets, in combination with CRDs of 100 acres or less, may be approved as SRAs prior to the approval of a Village or Town, and thereafter not more than 5 additional Hamlets, in combination with CRDs of 100 acres or less, may be approved for each subsequent Village or Town. Compliance Analysis: No Analysis specific to Bellmar Village SRA required. Policy 4.7.4: 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 of 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 Bellmar SRA required. Page 20 of 29 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\4th Resubmittal\Bell nar SRA Narrative (rev 11-13-2020).doex 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: Bellmar 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 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. Compliance Analysis: Bellmar 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, 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: Bellmar Village SRA complies with this Policy, providing +/- 50% 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: Bellmar Village SRA complies with this Policy. Page 21 of 29 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\4ttiResubmittai\Bcllinar SRA Narrative (rev 11-13-2020).doex 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 Bellmar Village SRA complies with this Policy. The Village is adjacent to HSA designated lands in one relatively small location and uses best management practices to avoid any adverse impacts to the HSA, where adjacent or in close proximity to the Village Boundary. 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. Compliance Analysis: The Bellmar Village SRA complies with this Policy. The Village is adjacent to HSA designated lands in one relatively small location and is appropriately buffered and employs open space, including a perimeter lake system to avoid any adverse impacts. 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 Bellmar 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, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 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 Page 22 of 29 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\4th Resubmittal\Bethuar SRA Narrative (rev 11-13-2020).doex Urban Area. By example, each Village or Town shall provide for neighborhood retail/office uses to serve its population as well as appropriate civic and institutional uses, however, the combined population of several Villages and Hamlets may be required to support community scaled retail or office uses in a nearby Town. Standards for the minimum amount of non-residential uses in each category are set forth in Attachment C and shall be also included in the Stewardship LDC District. Compliance Analysis: The Bellmar 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: 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 will be addressed as part of the SRA review process and may, as agreed to, be included in the Landowner Agreement. Policy 4.16: An SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or such infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand. The level of infrastructure provided will depend on the form of SRA development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC requirements. The capacity of 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 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 Page 23 of 29 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\4th ResubnvttaMelbnar SRA Narrative (rev 11-13-2020).doex governmental entity. Innovative alternative water and wastewater treatment systems such as decentralized community treatment systems shall not be prohibited by this Policy provided that they meet all applicable regulatory criteria. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems, limited to a maximum of 100 acres of any Town, Village or CRD of 100 acres are permitted on an interim basis until services from a centralized/decentralized community system are available. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems are permitted in Hamlets and may be permitted in CRDs of 100 acres or less in size. Compliance Analysis: These matters will be addressed as part of the SRA review process and, as necessary, in 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 information to evaluate the impacts on Category A public facilities is provided with application 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 Bellmar 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: No further Analysis required. These uses are located and quantified in the SRA master plan. Page 24 of 29 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\4th Resubmittahl3elhuar SRA Narrative (rev 11-13-2020).docx 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 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: These uses are located and quantified in the SRA master plan. 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, 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 Bellmar 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 1-4) as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in FSAs. Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, except those necessary to serve permitted uses or for public safety, shall only 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. Page 25 of 29 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\4th Resubmittal\Belhnar SRANarrative (rev 11-13-2020).doex Compliance Analysis: No Analysis specific to Bellmar 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: No Analysis specific to Bellmar 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. 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 Bellmar 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, as 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: Page 26 of 29 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\4tliResubrnittal\Belhnar SRANairative (rev 11-13-2020).doex A. 1. Suitability Criteria. The following suitability criteria are established to ensure consistency with the Goals Objectives 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. 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. Bellmar 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. Bellmar Village is not located within the ACSC. B. Establishment and Transfer of Credits Bellmar Village has provided evidence of having sufficient number of Credits to entitle the SRA, consistent with the County's requirements. Page 27 of 29 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\4th Resubmittal\Bellrnar SRA Narrative (rev 11-13-2020).doex C. Forms of SRA developments. 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. 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. Bellmar 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 commitments and staff support these requested deviations. Conclusion: The Bellmar Village SRA complies with all applicable GMP provisions. In addition, the Bellmar Village SRA complies with all applicable LDC provisions. In addition to meeting or exceeding the requirements set forth in the LDC for the Village form of SRA, Bellmar Village SRA incorporates a number of innovative elements, including: Providing interconnection between Bellmar 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); Page 28 of 29 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\4thResubrnittal\BcllinarSRA Narrative (rev 11-13-2020).doex BELLMAR VILLAGE MAIN LOOP ROAD 100' R.O.W. • TN ESEDIMENSIONSNAYVARYTOENAB MEANDERWGOFPATRSA WALKWAYS AND I OR INCREASE I DECREASE MEDIAN WIDTH •• PROVIDES SPACE FOR IT LEFT TURN LANE AND C TRAFFIC SEPARATOR DMUED I LANE 122'I DESIGN MAY BE UTILIZED IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS MAIN ON BOTH SIDES NOT REQUIRED AT SSA1A CROSSING _.._ ./.. 4.0. Y 1' _ 180' _ 11A' 8.0' S.0' 11.0' A '8.0'8.0' I 1• LARGECANOPY r TREES REQUIRE I.D. S9' 11 A' 11.0' 1[0' 8.0' 121Y IMINI 1 Z• Z' ROO PROTECTION i ER PROTECTION 1 � � I f LARCECANOPY IAgOE CANOPY ( Ie\ TREES REQUIRE • TREES REQUIRE `OPTIONAL IRRIOATK)N ROOT BARRIER ROOT BARRIER IRRIDATON MAIN PROTECTION PR07EC710N 5.0' MAIN LOCATION 5.0' WATER MAIN S.A• MIN, MIN. S.0' i S.0' MIN. FORCE MAIN LARGE CANOPY TREE8 ftED,,, MIN. SO' FORCE MAW® I IRRIGATION MAW Y WATER MAIN �' GE CAN BARRIER PROTECT ION BELLMAR MAIN LOOP ROAD 60' R.O.W. BELLMAR VILLAGE NORTH !SOUTH CONNECTOR ROAD BO' R.O.W. ®1 �.a'a+vr...sm.. s�� ��cr.�...nvnavxw ®I w, ....arrar_.v.� x•�.•r.ov.a:�v.. nro r q, DEVIATION APPROVAL DATE: MAY 11. 2020 .II - W' aPASVI�lTAL I4AAH5 E,w�T1a [cPPaCgMYow,ROAD :K • 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'/2 mile of Village Center boundary; • Providing neighborhood parks (exceeding the LDC required minimum amount) and miles of pedestrian friendly sidewalks, boardwalks, and pathways; • Providing 51% open space, exceeding the required 35% 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. Page 29 of 29 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\4thResubmittal\Bellinar SRA Narrative (rev 11-13-2020).doex SRA CREDIT USE & RECONCILIATION APPLICATION coffier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND REGULATION 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.collieMgv.net TMARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA ( A) CRE I`u" USE ARID R C NCILLIA n ION APPLICATION PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME COMPANION SRA # For Staff Use DATE PROCESSED PLANNER OWNER/APPLICANT INFORMATION f APPLICANT: Patrick Utter, Vice President FIRM: Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. 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. 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 I hereby submit and certify the application to be complete and accurate. Signature of Agent Date COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND REGULATION PROJECT NAME: Bellmar Village SRA o er 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. 74± Number of acres of the proposed SRA within the ACSC (if any): 0 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): 0 Number of acres of "excess" open spaces within the SRA that do not require the consumption of credits: 15 6. 9 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 4 2 . 7 5 Number of Stewardship Credits being transferred (consumed by) to the SRA (8 credits per acre of SRA): 6, 742 D 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): 15, , 9 Pending Companion SSA Application Number(s): , ! SSA Designation Resolution or Resolution Number(s): 2020-025, , Cofilic' TCounty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND REGULATION 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252-2400 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 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. Credits from SSA Credits from SSA Credits from SSA Total Credits No. 15 No. No. Total SSA Credits Originally Approved 31, 36.7. 00 Credits Previously Transferred to Other SRA(s) 6,198.08 Credits Being Transferred to This SRA 6, 742 Balance of SSA Credits Remaining 18, 426.92 PUBLIC FACILITIES REPORT & MAP BELLMAR SRA PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT P7,2020 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 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 generated within Bellmar. 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 Bellmar 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 beprepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as apart 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 6 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 01-08-2021- Bellmar.docx 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 discharge from the site will ultimately outfall, The receiving water of the stormwater discharges from Bellmar is the existing agricultural water management system aka Water Retention Area (WRA), which ultimately discharges to the Merrit Canal via an unnamed wetland. (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. (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. (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 Page 2 of 6 H:A2019\2019051\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 01-08-2021- Bell mar.doex 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. 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 Bellmar involves the use of the existing agricultural water management system. The proposed system design will use permitted control elevations, discharge rates and discharge locations. 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 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 Bellmar potable water demands and wastewater generation with all factors and assumptions: Page 3 of 6 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 01-08-2021- Bellmar.docx Bellmar Water and Wastewater Demands Wastewater Potable Water Wastewater to water conversion = 1.5 Residential 2,750 DU a 200 gpd = 550,000 gld 2,750 DU (,b 300 gpd = 825,000 gpd Commercial 85,000 sf t 0.15 gpd = 12,750 gpd 85,000 sf pi, 0.23 gpd = 19,125 gpd Civic 27,500 sf a 0.15 gpd = 4,125 gpd 27,500 sf 0,, 0.23 gpd = 6,188 gpd 566,875 gpd 850,313 gpd 566,875 gpd = 0.57 m d ADF 850,313 gpd = 0.85 m d ADF M3D Factor = 1.5 M3D Factor = 1.3 M31) Flow = 0.85 m d M3D Flow = 1.11 m d Potable water services for the Bellmar 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 2,750 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 Bellmar development at buildout is projected to be approximately 0.85 MGD average daily demand and 1.11 MGD maximum 3-day demand. Irrigation Water The Bellmar 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 Bellmar 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 Bellmar 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 298 acres of landscaping and turf within the Bellmar development requiring irrigation. The project irrigation demand for this amount of irrigated acreage as determined using the SFWMD Blaney-Criddle method are: 14 MGD on an annual average basis 66 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 Bellmar 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 Page 4 of 6 HA2019\2019051\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 01-08-2021- Belhnar.docx projects 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 projects 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 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 Bellmar 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 2,750 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 0.57 MGD on an average daily basis and 0.85 MGD on a maximum 3-day basis. School Concurrence The projected enrollment of Bellmar 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. P r of ected -Residential Unit Type Units SGR Students Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached 1,160 0.11 12S Total 5FD <4,000 5q Ft 1,590 0.34 5E41 Total Residential 2,750 . 669 Source: Collier County School District, Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2019 Page 5 of 6 H:\2019\201905I\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 01-08-2021- Bellmar.doex 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. 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. Fire and EMS The proposed Bellmar Village is within the service area of a new County EMS facility planned for the corner of Desoto Boulevard South and Golden Gate Boulevard East. The site for the new facility was recently purchased by Collier County. North Collier Fire & Rescue District will co - locate at the new facility. 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 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 6 of 6 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\1-7-2021Tublic Facilities Report 01-08-2021- Bellmar.docx ' � Y•i NORTH COLLIER FIREn CONTROL AND RESCUE; ? DISTRICT STATION 12i` « MEDIC 32 ESTATES i � ELEMENTARY , ELEMENTARY -'�• �' j SCHOOL"U" FUTURE COLLIER COUNTY SNERIY'F'S r i. r; • OPFICE DISTRICT 4 8 MEDIC 10 BATTALION - AVE MARIA' CHIEF 82 7 # • CORKSCREW MIDdLE M10QLE SCHOOL II � CORKSCREW �H,r FUTURE ELEMENTARY., PALMETTO RIDGE HIGH o- - NORTH COLLIER 1=IRE • i CONTROIANQ RESCUE DISTRICT STATION 10 CYPRESS PALM MIQQLE r a COLLIER CHARTER ACADEMY SABAL PALM ELEMENTARY 5 MILT, g M1�3� h tr E A s COLLIER CDUNTYi L a EMS STATION 71 _j FUTURE NORTH COLLIER FIRE CONTROL 8 RESCUE DISTRICT I GREATER NAPLES r FIRE RESCUE DISTRICT - REGIONAL EMS j 8 FIRE FACILITY .rore,r i .e � r • r -_ PUBLIC FACILITIES LEGEND N • FIRE I SHERIFF OFFICE C� u ,000 aouo SCHOOL 'QI MANAGMENT, INC. COLLIER ENTERPRISES EELLMAR VILLAGE o°hr"m Aua n.0 lnaaw�w I)ARBER& BRUNOAGE, INC. SRA SU MITTAI. P"NS w PUBLIC FACfLlTIES MAP rvuln I"'.1 r.,g1n Ft.nnm. Sun o 7=uY, ¢r Ion �n4 DEVIATIONS & JUSTIFICATIONS BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA DEVIATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS REVISED 6-15-2020 7.1. Village Center Standards 1) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.p)ii) "General Parking Criteria," which states "The majority of parking spaces shall be provided off-street in the rear of buildings or along the side secondary streets. Parking is prohibited in front of buildings, ..." to instead allow parking in front of buildings in the Village Center, when such parking is in support of a shopping center which includes a grocery store. A Type `D' buffer per LDC at time of permitting will be required when parking is adjacent to or abutting a road. Justification: The Village Center fronts on future Big Cypress Parkway and is separated from future Big Cypress Parkway by a 25-foot wide Type D Buffer. To be viable in the market place the Village Center commercial uses need to be both accessible and convenient to motorists from future Big Cypress Parkway. This may warrant parking in what may be determined to be a front yard: however, with a 25- foot wide Type D buffer along future Big Cypress Parkway, such parking will be adequately screened from view. Without direct access (and exposure) to and from future Big Cypress 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 unique to the RLSA Overlay. 2) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.q), which requires that the majority of parking be located in the rear of buildings and prohibits parking in the front of buildings except on street parking within the right-of-way to instead allow parking in the front, side and rear yards, when such parking is in support of a shopping center which includes a grocery store. A Type `D' buffer per LDC at time of permitting will be required when parking is adjacent to or abutting a road. Note: This LDC Provision (and thus this deviation request) is unique to the RLSA Overlay. Justification: This deviation is requested to allow parking in front, side or rear yards in the Village Center in order provide for maximum design flexibility for what will be a relatively small amount of commercial uses providing neighborhood goods and services. Also see Justification for #2, above. Convenience and easy access are critical for achieving market viability for the nonresidential uses in the Village center, particularly for the pass by traffic which is absolutely necessary for the viability of the commercial elements. Design flexibility is also necessary. 7.2. 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 Page 1 of 5 HA2019\2019051\SRA\2nd Resubmittal\Bellmar SRA Deviations & Justifcations (6-15-2020).docx 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, both within the north and south portions of the Village, 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 10 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 multi -family 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. 7.3 Transportation Standards 1) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.1.b(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 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 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 Page 2 of 5 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\2nd Resubmittal\Bellmar SRA Deviations & Justifcations (6-15-2020).docx 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. R.O.W. `.rZla.. • �J .. POTABLE WAiEP M IPRM3AlM)X NAIN IIN.I • NDFE FORCE MAIW SRA LOCAL STREET R.O.W.SEC710N t IAC— OF FORCE MAINMMM ROADWAYAND Y ME FROMRA.W WEAPPRWEDAeUM DEIMTIONON MR.-eY I.W. OIY.InE6 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, 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. 7.4 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 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. Page 3 of 5 HA2019\2019051\SRA\2nd ResubmittaRBellmar SRA Deviations & Justifcations (6-15-2020).docx 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. 7.5 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. 7.6 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 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. 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 lakes 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 Page 4 of 5 HA2019\2019051\SRA\2nd Resubmittal\Bellmar SRA Deviations & .lustifcations (6-15-2020).doex 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 support by Utilities staff. Page 5 of 5 HA2019\2019051\SRA\2nd ReSLIbinittakBellmar SRA Deviations & Justifcations (6-15-2020).docx TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT SECTION I TPODIICOCR planning -engineering Traffic Impact Statement Bellmar 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: 239-434-4015 Collier County, Florida 11/11/2020 Prepared by: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-566-9551 Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcack.bia Collier County Transportation Methodology- $500.00 Fee Collier County Transportation Review Fee* — Maior Study — $1.500.00 Fee Note — *to be collected at time of first submittal Bellmor Stewardship Receiving Area — T!S — Section 1 — November 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. 'ti1Ji11ri1irlj. Digitally signed o�•���E"'••ca�;-; by Norman * •: No 47116 * ;Trebilcock 0�., s-rATE OF :g Date: o ��'w� 2020.11.12 This item has been electronically signed and sealed Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, P.E. by Norman J. Trebilcock. P.E.. State of Florida license 47116, using a SliA-1 autheriticallon code_ FL Registration No. 47116 Printed copies of this document are not considered Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA signed and sealed, and the SHA-4 authentication code must be verified on any electronic copies. 2$0❑ Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Company Cert. of Auth. No. 27796 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA r' •3 V, e 12 Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1— November 2020 Table of Contents ProjectDescription.......................................................................................................................................4 TripGeneration.............................................................................................................................................6 Trip Distribution and Assignment.................................................................................................................7 BackgroundTraffic...................................................................................................................................... 13 Existing and Future Roadway Network....................................................................................................... 16 FY20 — FY24 Year Work Program/CIE......................................................................................................16 Collier 2040 LRTP — Highway Cost Feasible Plan.....................................................................................16 AdditionalConsiderations.......................................................................................................................17 Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network -Link Analysis..........................................................................20 Roadway Network— Non -peak direction analysis..................................................................................23 Site Access —Access Management Considerations....................................................................................24 Impacts to Agricultural Products Transport ................................................................................................ 25 ImprovementAnalysis................................................................................................................................ 25 Mitigationof Impact...................................................................................................................................26 Appendices Appendix A: Project Conceptual Site Plan................................................................................................. 27 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting)................................................................. 29 Appendix C: ITE Trip Generation Calculations...........................................................................................38 Appendix D: Rural Lands West SRA—Traffic Memorandum June 26, 2018 (Excerpts) .............................58 Appendix E: Traffic Growth Rates — Historic Peak Hour, Peak Direction Volumes .................................... 62 Appendix F: Collier County 2019 AUIR Attachment F (Transportation Planning Database Table)............ 64 Appendix G: Collier County FY20 — FY24 Five Year Work Program/CIE.....................................................69 Appendix H: Collier 2040 LRTP Table 6-1 and Table 6-2............................................................................72 Appendix I: Collier County 2019 AUIR — Attachment H............................................................................. 77 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA r a g e 13 Sellmor Stewardship Receiving Area — T!S — Section T — November 2020 Project Description The Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) is a proposed mixed use development In eastern Collier County located east of Desoto Boulevard and south of Golden Gate Boulevard. 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 N PROJECT LOCATION' Note - Illusttaled polect houndanes are schematic only f nr actual layout W., to the pwposed master plan, • a.—MCA* kq'n r 1� _. — [mil � ! �* •.,la Jq— i V ! r .n. • f i ya.... rrl ■ ! r X a �1 Go gle data 02019 Google, INEGI 1 ml t - I 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 B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting). Trebileock Consulting Solutions, PA P :i L c' 14 Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — T1S — Section 1 — November 2020 The Beilmar SRA will consist of 1,590 single-family and 1,160 multi -family dwelling units, 27,500 square feet (sf) of governmental/institutional land uses and 85,000sf of neighborhood commercial retail land uses. The proposed development parameters are illustrated in Table 1A. Table 1A Proposed Development Program Note: ill Multi -family includes attached villas, apartments, townhomes and condominiums for traffic analysis. For the purposes of this report, the future planning horizon year is assumed 2034. Traffic generation associated with the proposed development is evaluated generally based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 101h Edition and ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. In agreement with ITE Land Use Code (LUC) descriptions, the ITE land use designations are illustrated in Table 16. The proposed development parameters illustrated in Table 16 are intended to provide the highest and best use trip generation scenario with respect to the project's proposed development parameters. In order to provide more flexibility, the development will have the ability to adjust proposed parameters by converting residential units or commercial square footage, as applicable. Table 113 ITE — Development Land Use Designation 210 — Single Family Detached — [N/A] 1,590 dwelling units 220 — Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) — [N/A] 1,160 dwelling units 750 — Office Park — [All SRA permitted uses 27,500 square feet typical for governmental and institutional uses] 820 — Shopping Center — [All SRA permitted 85,000 square feet uses t yp pping center uses] typical for shopping Note(s): (')to allow for attached villas, apartments, townhomes and condominiums. The project proposes one direct access connection onto Golden Gate Boulevard and one direct access connection onto 6th Avenue SE. Refer to the proposed SRA's Master Plan (Appendix A). Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a = e 15 Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1 — November 2020 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. In addition, subject project will have provisions to accommodate the future Big Cypress Parkway as depicted on the project site plan. Trip Generation Consistent with the adopted Collier County Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Guidelines 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, 3' 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% of 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. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 16 Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1— November 2020 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 - 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 ITE 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 ITE LUC Single Family Detached Daily Two -Way Volume 13,250 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter 284 Exit 850 Total 1,134 Enter 911 Exit 535 Total 1,446 Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) 8,729 112 377 489 329 194 523 Office Park 424 36 4 40 2 27 29 Shopping Center 5,383 120 74 194 231 251 482 Total Traffic 27,786 552 1,305 1,857 1,473 1,007 2,480 Internal Capture 806 24 24 48 97 97 194 External Traffic 26,980 528 1,281 1,809 1,376 910 2,286 Pass -by Traffic 748 26 17 43 51 46 97 Net External Traffic 26,232 502 1 1,264 1 1,766 1,325 1 864 2,189 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 2,189 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 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 17 Bellmor Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1— November 2020 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. 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 of 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 and based on engineering judgement. 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 313 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 a g e 18 Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — TiS — Section 1 —November 2020 Table 3A Proposed Development - Traffic Distribution for PM Peak Hour 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 Volume M Enter WB — 265 Exit EB — 173 Oil Well Rd 121.1 DeSoto Blvd to Oil Well Grade Rd Com 20%; Res 20% WB — 265 EB -173 Oil Well Rd 120.0 Everglades Blvd to DeSoto Blvd Com 10%; Res 10% EB — 132 WB— 87 Oil Well Rd 119.0 Immokalee Rd to Everglades Blvd Com 5%; Res 5% EB— 67 WB— 43 Desoto Blvd 138.0 Oil Well Rd to Randal Blvd Com 30%; Res 30% SB-398 NB-260 Desoto Blvd 138.0 Randal Blvd to Golden Gate Blvd Com 45%; Res 35% SB — 479 NB — 319 Desoto Blvd 137.0 I Golden Gate Blvd to 6th Ave SE Res 40% SB 469 N B — 282 6th Ave SE N/A 4 DeSoto Blvd to Project Res 40% EB 469 WB — 282 Everglades Blvd 136.0 _ Immokalee Rd to Oil Well Rd Com 5%; Res 5% SB— 67 NB— 43 Everglades Blvd 135.0 Oil Well Rd to Randall Blvd Com 5%; Res 5% SB — 67 NB — 43 Everglades Blvd 135.0 Randal Blvd to VBR Com 10%; Res 10% SB— 132 NB— 87 Everglades Blvd 135.0 VBR to Golden Gate Blvd Com 20%; Res 20% SB — 265 NB —173 Everglades Blvd 134.0 South of Golden Gate Blvd Com 5% NB — 8 SB_ 8 16th St NE (2) N/A Randall Blvd to VBR Com 5% SB— 8 NB— 8 16th St NE (2) N/A VBR to Golden Gate Blvd Com 5%; Res 5% SB — 67 NB— 43 Wilson Blvd 118.0 Immokalee Rd to VBR Com 5%; Res 10% SB —125 NB— 79 Wilson Blvd 118.0 VBR to Golden Gate Blvd Com 10%; Res 5% SB — 74 NB— 51 Randall Blvd 133.0 DeSoto Blvd to Everglades Blvd Com 10%; Res 5% EB— 74 WB— 51' Randall Blvd 132.0 Everglades Blvd to 81h St NE Com 10%; Res 10% EB — 132 WB-87 Randall Blvd 132.0 8th St NE to Immokalee Rd Com 10%; Res 10% EB —132 WB — 87 Vanderbilt Beach Road (VBR) (2) N/A Everglades Blvd to 16thSt NE Com 10%; Res 10% EB-132 WB— 87 VBR (2) N/A 16" St NE to 8th St NE _ Com 5%; Res 15% EB-184 WB —114 VBR (2) N/A 8th St NE to Wilson Blvd Com 5%; Res 15% '! EB-184 WB —114 VBR (2) N/A Wilson Blvd to Collier Blvd Com 5%; Res 10% EB —125 WB— 79 VBR 112.0 Collier Blvd to Logan Blvd Res 5% EB— 59 WB— 35 Note(s): ili 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 —Traffic Memorandum dated June 26, 2018 (ref. Appendix D). Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 19 Bellmor Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1 —November 2020 Table 313 Proposed Development —Traffic Distribution for PM Peak Hour v Roadway Link Collier County Link No. 17.0 Roadway Link Location Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd Distribution of Project Traffic Com 5%; Res 30% PM Peak Hour Project Volume (1) Enter --- EB — 360 Exit _. WB — 220 Golden Gate Blvd Golden Gate Blvd 123.0 Wilson Blvd to 16th St NE Com 20%; Res 40% EB — 499 WB — 314 Golden Gate Blvd 123.1 16th St NE to Everglades Blvd Com 30%; Res 45% EB — 574 WB — 365 Golden Gate Blvd 124.0 Everglades Blvd to DeSoto Blvd Com 55%; Res 65% EB — 846 WB — 545 Golden Gate Blvd N/A DeSoto Blvd to Project Com 100%; Res 60% EB — 856 WB — 582 Immokalee Rd 44.0 Wilson Blvd to Collier Blvd Res 10% EB-117 WB— 71 Immokalee Rd 43.2 Collier Blvd to Logan Blvd Res 10% EB-117 WB— 71 Collier Blvd 30.1 Immokalee Rd to VBR Res 5% SB— 59 NB— 35 Collier Blvd 30.2 VBR to Golden Gate Blvd Res 10% SB — 117 N B — 71 Collier Blvd 31.1 Golden Gate Blvd to Pine Ridge Rd Res 15% NB —176 11 SB — 106 Collier Blvd 31.2 Pine Ridge Rd to Green Blvd Res 5% NB— 59 SB — 35 Pine Ridge Rd 125.0 Logan Blvd to Collier Blvd Res 10% EB —117 WB— 71 Note(s): Ili Peak hour, peak direction traffic volumes are underlined and bold to be used in Roadway Link Level of Service calculations. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 10 "T PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION BY PERCENTAGE CoM 5% R£S 5% Illustrated project boundaries are schematic only Cann tv% COM 205; For actual layout refer to the proposed master fan. REFCO—S 5% Y p p p RES 5% RES 104; R£S 20% )k ,i unvsnye r.�w LH-- sar r-km N.daa COM 5Y. j T c" 30 n eom mQ: - COM,,, R£5 5% ,j■j, COM 70°h W Q RES 10% RES 5% RES 30% k , c E ] H • )k .tern- 1 1 16ih Ar. NE ftES 10°a 1 �� — — — — — — — COM 5°ro � 1 COM 5 COM 5% 1: COM iO 1 � Res to•• p RES 5% VV" 1 1 1 1 COM 35FC % 5M, w r tw I.. w w• RES 35%V.-d.MIK a...t, Rd ErRES 20%0 w � CFC RES 20°I,w � w w ^ wwE)COM 10%RftE5 70% Mu" RES 1% COM 55% RES 105; RES W. 1 1 RES 6556 _ COM 100'/l a W • H E----� 4T� � � .RES 60% � V COM 20% ; COM 30% RES 50 ;; t ■ RES 30% RES 40% RES 45%6 ....... RES 95% 5rnave SE 1 � a■ a■ a a RES 10?b _ 15tn 5t nE 6ELLMAR )p Go gle Map data @2019 Google, INEGI 1 mi :- C m N a I Q to n 2 rr C Cr e ro n 3 h �1 CQ 10 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION BY PM PEAK HOUR NB 56 67 67 Illustrated protect boundaries are schematic only. For actual layout refer to the proposed master plan. WD 43 WB 87 W8 265 EB 732 1ES 173 EB G7 1I� E-----'y H . SB 398 ES 132 SB fi7 .4. EB 7S H WWW WS 71 Nr& 71 NB 79 T EB 117 EB 117 SB 125 .WI`. � ' — — _ — — — w S B 8 NB 87 NB 35 w SO-= SB 59 WB 11d WB 35 r r w w w w EB 783 wWII NO WE IN >• w NB 319 EB 59 r.rure rano.mirt Beach Ra Exton s�o i i NB 173 SB A79 �] mam s i am w w w w i , i WB 87 58 265 E--] N657 1 EB 132 •.a� NB 77 we 79 S8 7J NR 33 ; WH S35 #s • ■ r a r ■ SB W EB 125 SB G7 EB 8S6 �w WB 220 W8 314 WB 365 NB 282 s B E0 EB S99 EB573 58469 —* T N178 =.r III SS 106 6th Rre sE : �ie m 51 RE 161h91 NE 8ELLMAR T N8 59 1�`I 58 35 Go gle Map data 02019 Google, INEGI 1 mi,I In 4G C CD N b a ro D Cr C 0 7 tT fG Bl Pr m 4 C Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1— November 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 2034. Future 2034 background traffic volumes (without project traffic) for the future Vanderbilt Beach Road extension and 16th Street NE are extracted from the Traffic Memorandum for Rural Lands West SRA dated June 26, 2018, as illustrated in Appendix D. The peak hour peak direction traffic for the subject segments at 2034 traffic conditions without project are calculated as follow: — 16"StNE—Randall to VBR — SB = 414 vph — 16th St NE — VBR to Golden Gate Blvd — SB = 347 vph — VBR —Everglades Blvd to 16th St NE (segment is not illustrated in Rural Lands West report) — EB — 80% volume depicted for VBR from 16th St NE to 8th St NE — 0.8 x 445 = 356 vph — VBR —16th St NE to 8th St NE — EB = 445 vph — VBR — 8th St NE to Wilson Blvd — EB = 593 vph — VBR — Wilson Blvd to Collier Blvd — EB = 824 vph Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 113 Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS - Section 1- November 2020 Table 4A Background Traffic without Project (2019 - 2034) 2019 AUIR 2034 Pk Hr, Pk 2034 Pk Hr, Pk Traffic cc Pk Hr, Pk Dir Dir Background Dir Background Annual Roadway AUIR Roadway Link Background Growth Traffic Volume Trip Traffic Volume Link Link Location Traffic Growth Factor w/o Project Bank w/o Project ID # Volume Rate (trips/hr) (trips/hr) Trip (trips/hr) (/°/yr)(1) Growth Factor (2) Bank(3) Oil Well Grade Rd Oil Well Rd 121.2 390 4.00% 1.8009 703 152 "` 542 to Ave Maria Blvd Desoto Blvd to Oil Oil Well Rd 121.1 390 4.00% 1.8009 703 152 542 Well Grade Rd Everglades Blvd to Oil Well Rd 120.0 390 2.00% 1.3459 525 184 574 Desoto Blvd Immokalee Rd to Oil Well Rd 119.0 840 4.00% 1.8009 1,513 352 1,192 Everglades Blvd Oil Well Rd to DeSoto Blvd 138.0 130 2.00% 1.3459 175 8 138 Randal Blvd Randal Blvd to DeSoto Blvd 138.0 130 2.00% 1.3459 175 8 138 Golden Gate Blvd Golden Gate Blvd DeSoto Blvd 137.0 to 6`h Ave SE 140 3.59% 1.6973 238 0 140 Immokalee Rd to Everglades Blvd 136.0 490 2.12 % 1.3698 672 2 492 Oil Well Rd Oil Well Rd toRandall Everglades Blvd 135.0 410 2.00% 1.3459 552 51 461 Blvd Randal Blvd toVBR Everglades Blvd 135.0 410 2.00% 1.3459 552 51 461 VBR to GoldenGate Everglades Blvd 135.0 410 2.00% 1.3459 552 51 461 Blvd South of GoldenGate Everglades Blvd 134.0 530 4.00% 1.8009 955 0 530 Blvd 161h St NE (4) N/A Randall Blvd toVBR N/A N/A N/A 414 N/A N/A 16`h St NE (4) N/A VBR to GoldenGate N/A N/A N/A 347 N/A N/A Blvd ImmokaleeVBR Rd to Wilson Blvd 118.0 350 2.00% 1.3459 471 1 351 VBR to Golden Wilson Blvd 118.0 350 2.00% 1.3459 471 1 351 Gate Blvd DeSoto Blvd to Randall Blvd 133.0 652 2.00% 1.3459 878 0 652 Everglades Blvd - Everglades Blvd to Randall Blvd 132.0 8`' St NE 810 2.00% 1.3459 11091 26 836 8tn St NE to Randall Blvd 132.0 810 2.00% 1.3459 11091 26 836 Immokalee Rd Note(s): (1) Historical growth rate or 2% minimum - refer to Appendix E. (2) Growth Factor = (1+Annual Growth Rate)ls; (2) 2034 Projected Volume= 2019 AUIR Volume x Growth Factor; 13) 2034 Projected Volume= 2019 AUIR Volume +Trip Bank; and (4) Per traffic data illustrated in Rural Lands West SRA-Traffic Memorandum dated June 26, 2018, Attachment A-1-Appendix D. The projected 2034 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 P a g e 1 14 Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS - Section 1 -November 2020 Table 4B Background Traffic without Project (2019 - 2034) 2019 AUIR 2034 Pk Hr, Pk Dir 2034 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/o Project Bank w/o Project ID # Volume Rate (trips/hr) (trips/hr) Trip (trips/hr) Growth Factor(2) Bank(3) VBR I4) N/A Everglades Blvd N/A N/A N/A 356 N/A N/A to 16t" St NE VBR (4) N/A 16t" St NE to 81" N/A N/A N/A 445 N/A N/A St NE VBR (4) N/A 8t" St NE to N/A N/A N/A 593 N/A N/A Wilson Blvd VBR (4) N/A Wilson Blvd to N/A N/A N/A 824 N/A N/A Collier Blvd VBR 112.0 Collier Blvd to 1,640 4.00% 1.8009 2,954 204 1,844 Logan Blvd Golden Gate 17.0 Collier Blvd to 1,730 2.00% 1.3459 2,329 0 1,730 Blvd Wilson Blvd Golden Gate 123.0 Wilson Blvd to 1,270 2.00% 1.3459 1,710 14 1,284 Blvd 16t" St NE ^ _ Golden Gate 16t" St NE to 123.1 1,270 2.00% 1.3459 1,710 5 1,275 Blvd Everglades Blvd Golden Gate 124.0 Everglades Blvd 232 2.00% 1.3459 313 0 232 Blvd to Desoto Blvd Immokalee Rd 44.0 Wilson Blvd to 2,050 3.52% 1.6802 3,445 888 2,938 Collier Blvd Immokalee Rd 43.2 Collier Blvd to 1,930 2.97% 1.5512 2,994 986 2,916 Logan Blvd Collier Blvd 30.1 Immokalee Rd to 1,850 4.00% 1.8009 3,332 547 2,397 Collier Blvd 30.2 VBR to Golden 1,260 2.00% 1.3459 1,696 102 1,362 Gate Blvd Golden Gate Collier Blvd 31.1 Blvd to Pine 1,850 2.00% 1.3459 2,490 79 1,929 Ridge Rd Collier Blvd 31.2 Pine Ridge Rd to 1,850 2.00% 1.3459 2,490 107 1,957 Green Blvd Pine Ridge Rd 125.0 Logan Blvd to 1,540 2.00% 1.3459 2,073 7 1,547 Collier Blvd Note(s): Ili Historical growth rate or 2% minimum - refer to Appendix E. (2) Growth Factor = (1+Annual Growth Rate)ls; 2034 Projected Volume= 2019 AUIR Volume x Growth Factor; (3) 2034 Projected Volume= 2019 AUIR Volume +Trip Bank; and (4) Per traffic data illustrated in Rural Lands West SRA- Traffic Memorandum dated June 26, 2018, Attachment A-1-Appendix D. The projected 2034 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 P a g e 115 Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — TlS — Section 1— November 2020 Existing and Future Roadway Network The existing traffic conditions for the roadway segments understudy 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 3-lane section (2-lane divided section) from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd and 2-lane 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 Immokalee Rd to 8th 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 Street (Everglades Blvd per County staff input) —as reflected in the FY20 — FY24 Year Work Program/CIE — Bridge Program Funds — as reflected in the FY20 — FY24 Year Work Program/CIE — Randall/Immokalee Rd Intersection — as reflected in the FY20 — FY24 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 of this roadway segment is included as a committed roadway improvement for the purposes of this traffic analysis. Collier 2040 LRTP Table 6-1 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 P a g e 1 16 Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — T1S — Section 1— November 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 5-14-2019 (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 Blvd — 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 5A and Table 513. Based on our review of the current peak hour, peak direction traffic volumes forthe analyzed roadway segments (Table 4A and Table 4113) 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 a g e 117 Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1 — November 2020 Table SA Existing and Future Roadway Conditions CC 2019 2019 2019 Pk Dir, 2034 2034 2034 Pk Dir, Roadway Link AUIR Roadway Link Roadway Standard Pk Hr Roadway Standard Pk Hr Link Location Condition LOS Capacity Condition LOS Capacity ID # Volume Volume Oil Well Rd 121.2 Oil Well Grade Rd 4D D 2,000 (WB) 4D D 2,000 (WB) to Ave Maria Blvd Oil Well Rd 121.1 DeSoto Blvd to 2U D 1,100 (WB) 4D D 2,000 (WB) Oil Well Grade Rd 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 2,000 (EB) 4D D 2,000 (EB) Everglades Blvd DeSoto Blvd 138.0 Oil Well Rd to 2U D 800 (SB) 2U D 800 (SB) Randal Blvd DeSoto Blvd 138.0 Randal Blvd to 2U D 800 (SB) 2U D 800 (SB) Golden Gate Blvd DeSoto Blvd 137.0 Golden Gate Blvd to 6"' Ave SE 2U D 800 (SB) 2U D 800 (SB) 6m Ave SE i1i N/A DeSoto Blvd to 2U D 900 (EB) 2U D 900 (EB) Project 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 VBR Everglades 135.0 VBR to Golden 2U D 800 (NB) 2U D 800 (NB) Blvd Gate Blvd Everglades 134.0 South of Golden 2U D 800 (SB) 2U D 800 (SB) Blvd Gate Blvd 161h St NE (z) N/A Randall BRlvd to 2U D 900 (SB) 2U D 900 (SB) VB 16;h St NE izj N/A VBR to Golden 2U D 900 (SB) 2U D 900 (SB) Gate Blvd Wilson Blvd 118.0 Immokalee Rd to 2U D 900 (SB) 2U D 900 (SB) Wilson Blvd 118.0 VBR to Golden 2U D 900 (SB) 2U D 900 (SB) Gate Blvd Randall Blvd 133.0 DeSoto Blvd to 21.1 D 900 (EB) 21.1 D 900 (EB) Everglades Blvd Randall Blvd 132.0 Everglades Blvd to 81h St NE 2U D 900 (EB) 2U D 900 (EB) Randall Blvd 132.0 8th St NE to 2U D 9 )0 (EB) 4D D 2,000 (EB) i Immokalee Rd I Note(s): 2U = 2-lane undivided roadway; 4D, 6D, 8D =4-lane, 6-lane, 8-lane divided roadway, respectively; LOS = Level of Service. ili Standard LOS based on similar type facilities. (2) Per traffic data illustrated in Rural Lands West SRA—Traffic Memorandum dated June 26, 2018, Attachment A-1— Appendix D. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 18 Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — T1S — Section 1— November 2020 Table 5B Existing and Future Roadway Conditions CC 2019 Pk Dir, 2034 Pk Dir, AUIR Roadway Link 2019 2019 Pk Hr 2034 2034 Pk Hr Roadway Link Link ID Location Roadway Standard Capacity Roadway Standard Capacity # Condition LOS Volume Condition LOS Volume VBR(1) N/A Everglades Blvd N/A N/A N/A 2U D 1,100 (EB) to 16t' St NE VBR(') N/A 16" St NE to 8" N/A N/A N/A 2U D 1,100 (EB) St NE VBR(1) N/A 8tn St NE to N/A N/A N/A 2U D 1,100 (EB) Wilson Blvd VBR(1) 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 3,000 (EB) Logan Blvd Golden Gate 17.0 Collier Blvd to 4D D 2,300 (EB) 4D D 2,300 (EB) Blvd Wilson Blvd Golden Gate 123.0 Wilson Blvd to 4U D 2,300 (EB) 4U D 2,300 (EB) Blvd 16t' St NE Golden Gate 123.1 16" St NE to 4D D 2,300 (EB) 4D D 2,300 (EB) Blvd Everglades Blvd Golden Gate 124.0 Everglades Blvd 2U D 1,010 (EB) 2U D 1,010 (EB) Blvd to Desoto Blvd Golden Gate N/A DeSoto Blvd to 2U D 900 (EB) 2U D 900 (EB) Blvd(Z) Project Immokalee Rd 44.0 Wilson Blvd to 6D E 3,300 (EB) 6D E 3,300 (EB) Collier Blvd Immokalee Rd 43.2 Collier Blvd to 6D E 3,200 (EB) 6D E 3,200 (EB) Logan Blvd Collier Blvd 30.1 ImmokaleRe Rd to 6D E 3,000 (NB) 6D E 3,000 (NB) VB Collier Blvd 30.2 VBR to Golden 6D E 3,000 (SB) 6D E 3,000 (SB) Gate Blvd Golden Gate Collier Blvd 31.1 Blvd to Pine 6D D 3,000 (NB) 6D D 3,000 (NB) Ridge Rd Collier Blvd 31.2 Pine Ridge Rd to 6D D 3,000 (NB) 6D D 3,000 (NB) Green Blvd Pine Ridge Rd 125.0 Logan Blvd to 4D D 2,400 (EB) 4D D 2,400 (EB) Collier Blvd Note(s): 21J = 2-lane undivided roadway; 41), 6D, 8D =4-lane, 6-lane, 8-lane divided roadway, respectively; LOS = Level of Service. ill Per traffic data illustrated in Rural Lands West SRA—Traffic Memorandum dated June 26, 2018, Attachment A-1— Appendix D. (2i Standard LOS based on similar type facilities Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 119 Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1 —November 2020 Project 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 6113 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 8th St NE (completed) and at 16th 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 P a g e 120 Bellmor Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS - Section 1 - November 2020 Table 6A Roadway Link Level of Service (LOS) - With Project in the Year 2034 CC 2034 Peak Roadway Link Peak 2034 Peak % Vol Capacity Min LOS exceeded Min LOS exceeded Roadway AUIR Roadway Link Dir, Peak Dir, Peak Hr Link Link Location Hr Dir, Peak Hr Volume Impact without with Capacity ID # Volume (Project Vol w/Project** by Project? Project? Added)* Project Yes/No Yes/No Oil Well Grade Rd Oil Well Rd 1s.__ 21.2 2,000 (WB) WB - 265 968 13.3% No No to Ave Maria Blvd Oil Well Rd 121.1 DeSoto Blvd to Oil 2,000 (WB) WB - 265 968 13.3% No No Well Grade Rd Oil Well Rd 120.0 Everglades Blvd to 2,000 (WB) WB- 87 661 4.4/ No No DeSoto Blvd - _ Oil Well Rd 119.0 Immokalee Rd to _ 2,000 (EB) EB - 67 1,580 3.4% No No Everglades Blvd DeSoto Blvd 138.0 Oil Well Rd to 800 (SB) 5B-398 573 49.8% No No Randal Blvd DeSoto Blvd 138.0 Randal Blvd to 800 (SB) SB-479 654 59.9% No No Golden Gate Blvd DeSoto Blvd 137.0 Golden Gate Blvd800 SB SB-469 707 58.6% No No to 61h Ave SE 6th Ave SE N/A DeSoto Blvd to 900 (SB) EB - 469 469 52.1% No No Project Everglades 136.0 Immokalee Rd to 800 (NB) NB- 43 715 5.4% No No Blvd Oil Well Rd Everglades 135.0 Oil Well Rd to 800 (NB) NB-43 595 ° 5.4/° No No Blvd Randall Blvd Everglades 135.0 Randal Blvd to 800 (NB) NB - 87 639 10.9% No No Blvd VBR Everglades 135.0 VBR to Golden 800 (NB) NB - 173 725 21.6% No No __ Everglades 134.0 South of Golden 800 (SB) SB- 8 963 1.0% Yes Yes Blvd Gate Blvd 16th St NE N/A Randall Blvd to 900 (SB) SB - 8 422 0.9% No No VBR 16th St NE N/A VBR to GoldenGate 900 (SB) SB - 67 414 7.4% No No Blvd Wilson Blvd 118.0 Immokalee Rd toVBR 900 (SB) SB -125 596 13.9% No No Wilson Blvd 118.0 VBR to Golden 900 (SB) SB - 74 545 8.2% No No Gate Blvd Randall Blvd 133.0 DeSoto Blvd to 900 (EB) EB - 74 952 8.2% No Yes Everglades Blvd Randall Blvd 132.0 Everglades Blvd to 8" St NE 900(EB) EB -132 1,223 14.7% Yes Yes gm St toe Randall Blvd 132.0 2,000 (EB) EB - 132 1,223 6.6% No No Rd Immokalle e Note(s): *Refer to Table 3 from this report. **2034 Projected Volume= 2034 background (refer to Table 4) + Project Volume added. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 121 Bellmor Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 1 —November 2020 Table 6B Roadway Link Level of Service (LOS) — With Project in the Year 2034 J Roadway Min LOS Min LOS CC 2034 Peak Link, Peak 2034 Peak %Vol exceeded exceeded Roadway AUIR Roadway Link Dir, Peak Dir, Peak Hr Dir, Peak Hr Capacity without with Link Link Location Hr Capacity (Project Vol Volume Impact by Project? Project? ID # Volume Added)* w/Project** Project Yes/No Yes/No VBR N/A la Everglades Blvd to 1,100 (EB) EB - 132 488 12.0% No No 16 St - _ — — 16" St NEEto 8th St VBR N/A 1,100 (EB) EB -184 629 16.7% Noo No 8tn St NE to VBR N/A 1,100 (EB) EB —184 777 16.7% No No Wilson Blvd VBR N/A Wilson Blvd to 1,200 (EB) EB -125 949 10.4% No No Collier Blvd VBR 112.0 Collier Blvd to 3,000 (EB) EB — 59 3,013 2.0% No Yes Logan Blvd Golden Gate 17.0 Collier Blvd to 2,300 (EB) EB - 360 2,689 15.7% Yes Yes Blvd Wilson Blvd Golden Gate 123.0 Wilson Blvd to 2,300 (EB) EB-499 2.209 21.7% No No Blvd 161n St NE Golden Gate 16tn St NE to 123.1 2,300 (EB) EB-574 2,284 25.0% No No Blvd Everglades Blvd Golden Gate 124.0 Everglades Blvd to 1,010 (EB) EB-846 1,159 83.8% No Yes Blvd DeSoto Blvd Golden Gate N/A DeSoto Blvd to 900 (EB) EB—$56 856 95.1% No No Blvd Project Immokalee 44.0 Wilson Blvd to 3,300 (EB) EB-117 3,562 3.5% Yes Yes Rd Collier Blvd Immokalee 43.2 Collier Blvd to 3,200 (EB) EB —117 3,111 3.7% No No Rd Logan Blvd Collier Blvd 30.1 ImmokaleRe Rd to 3,000 (NB) NB — 35 3,367 1.2% Yes Yes VB Collier Blvd 30.2 VBR to Golden 3,000 (SB) SB —117 1,813 3.9% No No Gate Blvd Collier Blvd 31.1 Golden Gate Blvd 3,000 (NB) NB-176 2,666 5.9% No No to Pine Ridge Rd Collier Blvd 31.2 Pine Ridge Rd to 3,000 (NB) NB — 59 2,549 I 2.0% No No Green Blvd Pine Ridge 125.0 Logan Blvd to 3,000 (NB) EB-117 2,190 3.9% No No Rd Collier Blvd Note(s): *Refer to Table 3 from this report. **2034 Projected Volume= 2034 background (refer to Table 4) + Project Volume added. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 22 Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1— November 2020 Roadway Network - Non -peak direction analysis Roadway segment analysis illustrated in Table 6A and Table 613 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/assignment illustrated in Table 3A and Table 313, 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 413 and directional factor D associated with applicable segments as depicted in Appendix D: Rural Lands West SRA — Traffic Memorandum June 26, 2018 (Excerpts). The peak hour non -peak direction traffic for the subject segments at 2034 traffic conditions without project are calculated as follow: — Oil Well Rd Link # 120.0 Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd, D= 0.581 EB - 574/0.581— 574 = 414 vph — Everglades Blvd Link # 136.0 Immokalee Rd to Oil Well Rd, D= 0.598, SB - 672/0.598 — 672 = 452 vph — Everglades Blvd Link # 135.0 Oil Well Rd to Randall Blvd, D= 0.535, SB - 552/0.535 — 552 = 480 vph — Everglades Blvd Link # 135.0 Randall Blvd to VBR, D= 0.535, SB - 552/0.535 — 552 = 480 vph — Everglades Blvd Link # 135.0 VBR to Golden Gate Blvd, D= 0.535, SB - 552/0.535 — 552 = 480 vph — Collier Blvd Link # 30.1 Immokalee Rd to VBR, D= 0.583, SB — 3,332/0.583 — 3,332 = 2,383 Projected traffic impacts in reference to the peak hour non -peak direction on subject roadway segments are illustrated in Table 6C. Table 6C Roadway Link LOS — Background Traffic Non -Peak Direction — With Project in the Year 2034 CC Project 2034 Vol 2034 Vol % Vol Min LOS Min LOS 2034 Vol Capacity exceeded exceeded Roadway AUIR Roadway Link Service Non- Background Non -Peak Impact without with Link Link Location Volume Peak Dir, Non -Peak Dir, Peak Hr by Project? Project? ID # Peak Hr* Dir, Peak Hr w/Project** Project Yes/No Yes/No Oil Well Rd 120.0 Everglades Blvd to 2,000 EB —132 414 546 6.6% No No Desoto Blvd Everglades 136.0 Immokalee Rd to 800 SB — 67 452 519 8.4% No No Blvd Oil Well Rd Everglades 135.0 Oil Well Rd to 800 SB— 67 480 547 8.4% No No Blvd Randall Blvd Everglades 135.0 Randal Blvd to VBR 800 SB-132 480 612 16.5% No No Blvd Everglades 135.0 VBR to Golden 800 SB —265 480 745 33.1% No No Blvd Gate Blvd Collier Blvd 30.1 Immokalee Rd to 3,000 SB — 59 2,383 2,442 2.0% No No Note(s): * Refer to Table 3 from this report. ** 2034 Projected Volume= 2034 background + Project Volume added. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 123 Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1 —November 2020 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. The following impacted roadways are projected to exceed the adopted LOS standard under future 2034 background traffic conditions without project's traffic: — Everglades Blvd — segment located south of Golden Gate Blvd — Randall Blvd from 8th St NE to Everglades Blvd — Golden Gate Blvd from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd — Immokalee Rd from Wilson Blvd to Collier Blvd — Collier Blvd from Immokalee Rd to Vanderbilt Beach Rd The following impacted roadways are projected to exceed the adopted LOS standard under future 2034 background traffic conditions with project's traffic: — Everglades Blvd — segment located south of Golden Gate Blvd — Randall Blvd from 8th St NE to Everglades Blvd — Randall Blvd from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd — Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Logan Blvd to Collier Blvd — Golden Gate Blvd from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd — Golden Gate Blvd from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd — Immokalee Rd from Wilson Blvd to Collier Blvd — Collier Blvd from Immokalee Rd to Vanderbilt Beach Rd As such, the following roadway segments are adversely impacted by the project's traffic: — Randall Blvd from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd — Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Logan Blvd to Collier Blvd — Golden Gate Blvd from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd Site Access - Access Management Considerations The project proposes one direct access connection onto Golden Gate Boulevard and one direct access connection onto 6th Avenue SE. 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 facilitythe 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). 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. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 124 Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1 — November 2020 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 2,640feet (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 Big Cypress Parkway with the following recommendations: — Direct access at Golden Gate Boulevard and Big Cypress Parkway intersection — a full median opening is allowed at this location. — Direct access at 61h Avenue SE 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 for the 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 agricultural production from other counties, but its truck volumes are primarily anticipated to decrease slightly due to a net reduction in agricultural production as a result of urban growth in the county. 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 2034 future background traffic conditions without project's traffic: Everglades Blvd segment located south of Golden Gate Blvd, Randall Blvd section from Bch St NE to Everglades Blvd, Golden Gate Blvd from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd, Immokalee Rd from Wilson Blvd to Collier Blvd and Collier Blvd from Immokalee Rd to Vanderbilt Beach Rd. In addition, the report concludes that the following roadway segments are adversely impacted by the project's traffic: Randall Blvd from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd, Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Logan Blvd to Collier Blvd and Golden Gate Blvd from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 25 Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1 — November 2020 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 2,189 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 P a g e 126 Bellmor Stewardship Receiving Area — TiS —Section 1 —November 2020 Appendix A: Project Conceptual Site Plan Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 127 »OIEs: 1. IN THIS DOSE is ARY.TSSAFA AREA ,OTAZ R.(•LupEP W iuOlD IN OARr. THELYRALCE ATHOi 11 wCLUDEDw THE DPEHSPAEE CALCVLAnDkS. 1 INHERE THE r4LAOE is AW 40 TO AN ST OR MESEAVE" W nRIMETER9l1FFERMREOLLREO. E.�CC Pi AS NAY BC RCDlNPEO 01' N]lFTN F LORO4 WASLR MAHACE MEET MTR,CT PENMP 1 %� 01M01L5 COHVEYAf[CC V DNIVMEL BRED bN bF EiesTMr. REouFFEo FOR TARKH 91R CYVRESS ♦ARKwar R o w, ZONING A•MHO•RLSAO SSA 18 -Al: f . AND AN AVEU"A DTHI OF N107Mft 15 FT. AND AN AVERAGE NW OF 23FT.DMA DAErjLAL L*M1j..W N VIOVEFTHCL•REMS T" DRE WPER IT rt HE MW E6ASPART OF THE LMPERwTMPE TM MODIFFN1-R;A M. AM SHALL ME S wInE S BEr7 AA THE SRA AMID SEA AREAS lE YNECES THE }PANE]Tpek f FEAT UREiSAeAxr W � � � L11ti 111Y SSA 17, NSA 90i1NDARY -11 ZONING A-MHO-RLsaO AG A = A MSA C7 Q Fl. roTERruLt Flfruee MENTAL jTjRl ® LI_4CI: 25' TYPE {D} CI' LBE BELLMAR VB.LAC7E SRA LAND USE SUMMARY _ NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL CONTE%TZONE SYMBOL DESCRIPTION ACRES NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL 434.69 r:oaDR.❑.w. indLdsE � 16'MidanNl[OJae wLaaaemenLsis2" AAIENrt_Y_ CENTERS 15.47 - PARKS T. PARK PRESERVE 9.41 LAKES _ __ 27A.06 LAKE AI E 3L]PEN SPACE __ 702.57 PER, TAETER BUFFERS f - _ 4. 10' UTILITY EAS>=JIAENT 0.77 NEIGHBOR HOOD GENERAL CONTEXT ZONa"TOTAL 9nAl VILLAGE CENTER CON7E%T ZONE VILLAGE CENTER 23•u SRA BOLMDARY TOTAL 999.74 WRA LAND USE SUMMARY OESCAIPTiOH IC75�udes L.AL E.612 Pc ,ELrd Pleserv�Y_ • ]. W" (Includes beaEOwalk g7SlnnfFO ZONING SSA 18® 1 D'U. � � +}L_ I -� � Ad1Ai10-RLSAO L� OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS 2611' R.O.W. SSA 18 SSA 18/a�-� lAHDLSE ACRES OPEN SPACE SvacE BCSD PROPERTY POTE MAL BOARDWALK ® LIKE PERCENTAC$ ACRES LAKES 2U.015 100.O0Y_274.08 MISC. OPEN SPACE \ - } ! LAKE MAINTENANCE 3 PRESERVE \ L'^-J EASELl M.E.) 6 1 OPEH SPACE rLYj_S7' 790,60Y 702.51 ^.76 11tE• ` _ VEH[CD LAIR CROSSING I.GERH000 - - GENERAL 434.CJ1" _ ZE.46!I KIm __ AGIHSA�] `,ROAD R.O"W. 172,9i'. 15A0x. 19.94 26' TYPE 10j AMENITY CENTERS _ 1&0' 3M Mi 4.114 L.B.E. \ - ll PARKS _ 7.Y! SG= 7"94 PARK PRESERVE 3 d 100.00%' 361 ® 10'LI.E. I VILLAGE CENTER _ Y8.6ST_ 20.001 ' 7AS ro7oFn.A FMSRR! � --- r� 1 I FY eiP� PERIMETER BUFFERS _ Ra6l_ _766m7G--i.]a nmRCOnRECrlpf LJ l--"-- 10'U11LITY EASEMENT 0.71 1P7.on 0.71 TOTAL OPEN SPACE � ®� PROVIDED 507.66 Ac j FT INIuUu REOuiREO OPEN SPACE - 35% 1349.91 .I •.. ..J -"" f J i i.�.J. s!! ® PREINOED OPEN SPA[ F56.7 % _ W '26'TYPE {O] L•B.E. ZONING nrcumFR- A-MH0.RLSAO SSA 18 THEWSTER PLFR K CORCE PI DAL, INTERNS ROAD ' ZONING � ••!' � '.•'.' AlICHrLElI .SAME TITWC AkO COkFIGWtAi1ONOT SSA 18 �v. oEYELOPRpIrAREASAR[SFmec ro !_ 1 A-MHO-RLSAO SSA 18 uppiNaTON"TIM THE PE¢F CWOELWFE 41 TFRE OF FeY1MyaoFVEfR OR#R C�OLI CQLufR EXMLLUSEa ■LACE AIENT, AYC" @ELLMAF Y9LLAGE RL1ti DACE, IBC „� SRA SIrBNRTAi PLANS . . AfASIEIt PLAT! BLACK S WHRE tf>sF Bellmor Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1— November 2020 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 129 Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1 — November 2020 INITIAL MEETING CHECKLIST Suggestion: Use tlus Appendix as a worksheet to ensure that no important elements are overlooked. Cross out the items that do not apply, or NIA (not applicable). Date: September 9. 2019. Follow up December 31, 2019 Time: 10.00 AM Minutes Revised: September 26. 2019. January 7. 2020 Location: GMD Horseshoe Square South Conference Room. 2685 Horseshoe Drive S. Nanles. FL 34104 People Attending: Name, Organization, and Telephone Numbers 1) Michael Sawyer, Collier County Transportation Plamiing 2) Greg Root. AIM Engineering 3) Norman Trebilcock, TCS 4) Patrick Utter. Collier Enterprises 5) Ciprian Malaescu. TCS Studv Preparers Preparer's Name and Title: Nonnan Trebilcock AICP. PE Orgamization: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions. PA Address & Telephone Number: 2800 Davis Boulevard. Suite 200. Naples. FL 34104: ph 239-566-9551 Review er(s): Reviewer's Name & Title: kliehael Sawyer. Project Manager Collier County Transportation Planning Department Organization & Telephone Number: 239-252-2926 Applicant: Applicvrt's Name: Collier Enterprises Address: 2550 North Goodlette Road. Suite 100. Naples. F134103 Teleplone Number: 239-434-4015 Proposed Development: Name: Bellmar SRA Location: NE comer of Desoto Blvd and 6Ave SE intersection. in Collier County (refer to Figure 1) Land Use Type: Residential. Retail and Civic. Governmental acid histitutional Services ITE Code 9: LUC 210. 220. 750 and 820 Page 1 of 8 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 130 80mor Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 1-- November 2020 Description: Proposed nroiect will develop the following facilities: 1,590 dwellingtivits Ott) sin le-faamil I IGO du 1llnithf'alntll .r;af:utnraour 27000 Square lM tit of civic governments) and institutional Lixes and 85,000 %f'ofretail._ leiguix I — Project Location Map (N K_WCCt LBCATiolu' . �,w.o-mb pol.sl .. uHlnoc alb Fa Kruw 41W1 4Rs P.W.W f-W+ Go gle 1 tW w y - - r - - - - - . - - - 1 i u.nrl CRf37an—.. C(31 1...1. z0flim), Existing: Allotted Comprehensive plan reComtn4udation: No change. Requested: SRA approval for now development Findings of the Prclimina►ry Study: Stu e• Since estimated net ext • l AM or PM proiect tral]ic is &reater than 100 t%VO-WAV QCak hour trips. this study. c to ifics for a Major TIS si a ificant roadway 'a d/ore ,national im acts. Study'ry eL fnot net increase, operational mudy) Small Scale TIS ❑ Minor TIS ❑ iLr ris 0 Proposed TIS "gill include trip ccataration, Irallic distribution and a%si a . tts significance lest hascd on 2°/o/2%13% crilerion . Page 2 ol'R Trebkock Consulting solutions, PA P a g e 131 8ellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 1 — November 2020 The TIS will include a section outlining and describing, how distribution was detennined. In addition, the future Big Cypress Parkwav is not included in the estimated traffic distribution. Trip Generation —per ITE Trip Generation Manual 10i1' Edition. ITE_T_rip Generation Handbook. 33I Edition The TIS will provide existing LOS and document the impact the proposed development will have on designated arterial and collector roads. Roadway segment analysis — the analy7ed segments will reflect the locations of the proposed project access points. In addition, the highest directional volume condition will be analyzed for all roadway se nth Roadway concurrenev analysis — based on estimated net external PM traffic. The TIS shall be consistent with Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures. The TIS will provide two sections: 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 Pk Hr Intersection Analyses for the following locations: 1. Oil Well Rd and Desoto Blvd: 2. Oil Well Rd and Everglades Blvd: 3. Randall Blvd and Desoto Blvd. 4. Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd: 5. Golden Gate Blvd and Desoto Blvd: 6. Golden Gate Blvd and Everglades Blvd: 7. Golden Gate Blvd and 16 di St NE: 8. hntnokalee Rd and Randall Blvd An assessment of the Level of Service (LOS) and volume to eapaeity ratio (V/C) analyses of the subject intersections will be conducted using Svnchro 10 software. Intersection Configurations The existing intersection lane confimurations are depicted in this report based on existing field observations. Future 2034 intersection configurations are illustrated consistent with the adopted FY20 — FY24 Five Year Work Program/CIE for Collier Countv as follow: Randall Blvd/Immokalee Rd Intersection — At grade intersection improvements to include 4-lane widening of Randall Blvd, from Immokalee Rd to 8th St (FDOT Build Alternative Phase 1 — Triple Lefts) In addition. consistent with Collier 2040 LRTP — Hiehwav Cost Feasible Plan Highway Improvements Completed 2026-2030 and based on coordination with County staff. the 4 laninm 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 anal Intersection Traffic Parameteis Existing intersection traffic volumes will be reflected as follow: Oil Well Rd and Desoto Blvd — TMC collected on Wed, 04-17-19 for Rivermrass SRA Oil Well Rd and Everglades Blvd — TMC collected on Wed. 04-17-19 for River t ass SRA Randall Blvd and DeSoto Blvd — new traffic counts will be provided Page 3 of 8 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 132 Bellmor Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1— November 2020 Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd — new traffic counts will be provided Golden Gate Blvd and Desoto Blvd — new tragic counts will be provided Golden Gate Blvd and Everglades Blvd -- new traffic counts will be provided Golden Gate Blvd and 16 St NE — new traffic counts will be provided Inunokalee Rd and Randall Blvd — TMC collected on Wed, 04-17-19 for Rivergrass SRA Traffic count volumes collected are adiusted for peak season conditions by using the peak season conversion factor (PSCF) as illustrated in FDOT Peak Season Factor Catcgory Report. Future (2034) intersection traffic volumes will be reflected as follow: - Immokalee Rd(Randall Blvd intersection — by interpolating between the 2025 and 2035 peak hour volumes documented in the "Immokalee Rd at Randall Blvd Intersection PD&E Study Final Protect Traffic Report dated February 2019. - the other analyzed intersections will reflect a 2.6% growth for all movements consistent with Rivergrass SRA application and "Immokalee Rd at Randall Blvd Intersection PD&F. Study Final Project Traffic Report dated February 2019. Signal Timings — To support the signalized intersection analyses. the existing p ogranuned signal timings will be provided by Collier Countv Transportation staff, as applicable. Peak hour Truck (PHT) percentage — The existing peak hoar 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 2034 peak hour intersection analyses. Peak Hour Factor (PHF) —The intersection turning movement counts will provide PHF value for each intersection 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 analysed: As presented in this report Build Out Year: 2034, Planning Horizon Year: 2034 Analysis Tine Period(s ): PM Pk fir — Concurrence: AT%l-PM Pk Hr — Operational Future Off -Site Developments: N/A Source of Trip Generation Rates: ITE Trip Generation Manual. 10" Edition, ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3`d Edition Page 4 of 8 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 133 Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1— November 2020 Reductions in 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 Hoiizon Year Roadway Network Improvements: 2034 MethodoloEy & Assumptions: Non -site traffic estnnates: Collier County traffic counts and 2019 AUIR Site -trip generation: OTISS — ITE 101 Edition Trip distribution method: Engineer's Estimate - refer to Fieum 2 Key factors in determining the traffic distribution: 20% of the traffic will likely go east towards attractors located in the hnmokalee area or Ave Maria. In addition, SR 29 provides opportunities to travel to/from 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 Bellmar SRA will be absorbed within these projects. Likewise, due to the new traffic attraetos such as civic, retail, office and recreational uses proposed within Bellmar SRA, it is anticipated that some of the external trips generated by Golden Gate Estates and Ave Maria will be attracted by Bellmar 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 hnmokalee Rd/Randall Blvd or hnmokalee Rd/Collier Blvd intersections. Traffic distribution was revised per staff coordination. Traffic assignment method: project trip generation with background growth Traffic growth rate: historical growth rate or 2% minimum (concurrence analysis) Turning movements: Intersection Turing Movement Counts Page 5 of 8 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 134 PROJECT TR;P DISTRIBUTION BY P ERCE WAGE RE! ri vAtrr,Lla Drcmg amrrya nm are m �I-e-llatc on, Fo' aCua� Iayorrt rear b the Provo3e'd master van � „ RES +v\ rtEi Tex f H E-7 "' 4 � •:. .^ Ow tv% RES 7S COw 1T e Ras lcl% _ or sti ©Es f% ,... ..�» • ...... � H a ow m+r, RE7 ss% �,• • • • �'�+ 711v'y T Ei 15% t CC. lO'. T ES — RES 5% 1ly REi 10% I. yri T DY 7S dA 5% 1 REf nY _ . •. a RE5 1 `I/ REi sp% REl S% ��.- �) 9M 5= co.% AcL RDy T REi 7vti r RE7 ts� V. R E71of. .+r RES Sti 'IY. Go 9lQ EEtD Map data 02019 Gale. INMI 1 mi Beilmar Stewardship Receiving Area — 71S —Section 1-- November 2020 Special Fvatums: (from preliminary stud Accidcruw locations: NIA Sight distance: NZA Queuing: NIA Access location & configuration: NIA Tratlic control: MUTCD Signal system location & progression rice On -site parking needs: NIA Data Sources: CC 2019 ALIALIIR-. C'CTroth Base maps: NIA Prior study reports: NIA Access policy and jurisdiction: NIA Review process: Requiretimits: NIA Miscellaneous: NIA Small Scale Study — No Fee Minor Study - $750.00 Major Study - $1,500.00 Methodology Fee $500 Includes 0 intemmions Additional Intersections - $500.00 each .411jees will be agreed it) during the Melhudula nu r sign -of SIGNATURES _ ortn,t.clw, TrdbUopale Study Preparer—Nonnan Tmbilcock Reviewer(s) ikpplictml Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA r' f' t l 36 Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1 — November 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. Methodoloay 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. "Small Scale Study" Review - No Additional Fee (Includess one sufficiency review) 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 threshold compliance. "Minor Studv Review" - $750 Fee (Includes one sufficiency review) Review of tie 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. "Maior Studv Review" - $1,500 Fee (Includes two intersection analvsis 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, concurrency 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 the same parameters as outlined in the "Major Study Review" and shall apply to each intersection above the first two intersections included in the "Major Study Review" "Additional Sufficiency Reviews" - $500 Fee 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 P a g e 137 Bellmor Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1— November 2020 Appendix C: ITE Trip Generation Calculations Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 138 Bellmor Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS - Section 1- November 2020 ITE Trip Generation Manual -10t' 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. Atypical 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 sic 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) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 139 Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1— November 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 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 4:45 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 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. and 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. W Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition • Volume 2: Data • Residential (Land Uses 200-299) 29 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 140 8ellmar Stewardship Receiving Area - T!S -Section 1 -November 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) HF Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 141 8ellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 1 —November 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) 7 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 142 Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area - TiS - Section 1- November 2020 Land Use: 820 Shopping Center Description A shopping center is an integrated group of commercial establishments that is planned, developed, owned, and managed as a unit. A shopping 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 addition 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 g e 143 Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — T!S —Section 1 —November 2020 ITE Trip Generation Manual — 10th Edition — Trip Generation Calculations Project Information Project Name: Bellmar SRA - Proposed No: Date: 1/28/2020 Trip Generation Manual, Edition: 110th Ed Land Use Size Daily JAM Peak PM Peak Entry Exit Entry Exit Entry Exit 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing (General Urban/Suburban) 1590 Dwelling Units 6625 6625 284 850 911 535 Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal 133 70 6 10 49 17 Pass -by 0 0 0 0 0 0 Non -pass -by 6492 6555 278 840 862 518 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) (General Urban/Suburban) 1160 Dwelling Units 4365 4364 112 377 329 194 Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal 87 46 2 4 18 7 Pass -by 0 0 0 0 0 0 Non -pass -by 4278 4318 110 373 311 187 750 - Office Park (General Urban/Suburban) 27.5 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA 212 212 36 4 2 27 Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal 14 59 2 1 2 6 Pass -by 0 0 0 0 0 0 Non -pass -by 198 153 34 3 0 21 820 - Shopping Center (General Urban/Suburban) 85 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA 2692 2691 120 74 231 251 Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal 169 228 14 9 28 67 Pass -by 378 370 26 17 51 46 Non -pass -by 2145 2093 80 48 152 138 Total 13894 13892 552 1305 1473 1007 Total Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totallnternal 403 403 24 24 97 97 Total Pass -by 378 370 26 17 51 46 Total Non -pass -by 13113 13119 502 1264 1325 864 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 144 Bellmar 5rewardshlp Deceiving Area — Tf5 —Section 1 — November 2020 PERIOD SETTING Analysis Name: Daily Project Name : eellmar SRA - Proposed No : Date: 1/28/2020 City: StatutProvince: ZIplPostal trade: Country: Client Name: Analyst's Name. Edition: Trip Generation Manual. 10th Ed Land Use Independent Variable Size Time Period Method Entry Exit Total 210 - Single -Family Dwelling Units 1590 Weekday Best Fit (LOG) 6626 6625 13250 Detached Housing Ln(T) = 0.92Ln(X) 50% 50% (General +2.71 Urban/Suburban) 220 - Multifamily [Melling Units 1160101 Weekday Best Fit (LIN) 4365 4364 8729 Housing (Low -Rise) T = 7.58 (X)+.40.86 50% 60% (General Urban/Suburban) 750 - Office Park 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA 27.5(0) Weekday Best Fit (LOG) 212 212 424 (General Ln(T) . 0.69Ln(X) +3.1 50% 50% Urban/Suburban) 020 - 9hopping Center 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA 85 Weekday Best Fit (LOG) 2692 2691 5383 (General Ln(T) t 0.6BLn(X) 50% 50% Urban/Suburban) +5-57 (0) indicates size out of range. TRAFFIC REDUCTIONS Land Uae Entry Adjusted Entry Exit Reduction Adjusted Exit on Reducti210 - Single -Family Detached Housing 0 % 6625 0 % 6626 220 - MulUfamily Housing (Low -Rise) 0 % 4365 0 % 4W 750 -Office Park 0 % 212 0 % 212 820 - Shopping Center 0 % 2692 0 % 2691 INTERNAL TRIPS 210 - Single Famlly Detached Housing 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rlse) Exit 6625 Demand Exit: 0 % (0) Balanced: Demand Entry: 0 % (0) Entry 4365 Entry 6625 Demand Entry: 0 % (0) SalanQ d. Demand Exit! 0 % (0) Exit 4364 210 - Single-Famlly Detached Housing 750 - Office Park Exit 6625 Demand Exit: 2 % (133) Balanced: Demand Entry: 2 % (4) Entry 212 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P age 45 Sellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — TiS — Section 1 — November 2020 4 Entry 6625 Demand Entry: 0 % (0) 0 Balanced: Demand Exit: 1 % (2) Exit 212 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing 820 - Shopping Center Exit 6625 Demand Exit: 1 % (66) Balann6ced: Demand Entry: 12 % (323) Entry 2692 Entry 6625 Demand Entry: 2 % (133) Bal nc3ed: 13 Demand Exit: 10 % (269) Exit 2691 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) 750 - Office Park Exit 4364 Demand Exit: 2 % (87) Balanced: Demand Entry: 1 % (2) Entry 212 Entry 4365 Demand Entry: 0 % (0) Balanced: Demand Exit: 0 % (0) Exit 212 0 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) 820 -Shopping Center Exit 4364 Demand Exit: 1 % (44) Balanced: 44 Demand Entry: 5 % (135) Entry 2692 Entry 4365 Demand Entry: 2 % (87) BalaBnced: Demand Exit: 4 % (108) Exit 2691 750 - Office Park 820 - Shopping Center Exit 212 Demand Exit: 28 % (59) Balanced: Demand Entry: 32 % (861) Entry 2692 Entry 212 Demand Entry: 4 % (8) BalanBced: Demand Exit: 29 % (780) Exit 2691 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing Internal Trips Total Trips 220 - 1i Multifamily 1750 -Office Park 820 Shopping Tofal fff ` External Trips Housing (Low Center Rise) Entry 16625 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 133 (2%) ` 133 (2%) 6492 (98%) Exit 6625 (100%) 0 (0%) 4 (0%) 66 (1%) 70 (1%) 6555 (99%) Total 113250 (100%) 0 (0%) 4 (0%) 1 199 (2%) 203 (2%) 13047 (98%) 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) Internal Trips Total Trips 210 - Single- FamilyPark 750 - Office 820 - Shopping �PP Total I External Trips Detached 9 Center € Housing Entry 4365 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 87 (2%) i 87 (2%) 4278 (98%) Exit 4364 (100%) 0 (0%) 2 (0%) 44 (1%) 46 (I %) 4318 (99%) Total 8729 (100%) 0 (0%) 2 (0%) 1 131 (2%) 133 (2%) 8596 (98%) 750 - Office Park Internal Trips Total Trips 210 - Single- Family Detached € 220 - Multifamily (Low- 820 Shopping Center Total External Trips `Housing Housing Rise) Entry 212 (100%) 4 (2%) Wk € 2 (1%) 18 (4%) 14 (7%) 198 (93%) Exit 1212 (100%) € 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 59 (28%) 59 (28%) 153 (72%) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 146 Bellmor Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1— November 2020 Total 424 (100%) 4 (1%) 2 (0%) 67 (16%) 73 (17%) 351 (83%) 820 -Shopping Center Total Trips Entry j 2692 (100%) Exit 2691 (100%) Total j 5383 (100%) G Internal Trips 210 - Single- 1220 - Family Multifamily Detached Housing (Low - Housing Rise) 66 (2%) 44 (2%) 133 (5%) 87 (3%) 199 (4%) 1131 (2%) Land Use 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) 750 - Office Park 820 - Shopping Center Weekday Landuse No deviations from ITE. 750 - Office Total Park ! Extemal Trips 59 (2%) 1 169 (6%) 2523 (94%) 1 8 (0%) 228 (8%) 2463 (92%) 67 (1%) 397 (7%) 4986 (93%) EXTERNAL. TRIPS External Trips Pass -by% 13047 0 8596 0 351 0 4986 15 ITE DEVIATION DETAILS Pass -by Trips Non -pass -by Trips 0 13047 0 8596 0 351 748 4238 Methods 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) (General Urban/Suburban) The chosen method (LIN) is not recommended by ITE. ITE recommends Average based on the criterion. 750 - Office Park (General Urban/Suburban) The chosen method (LOG) is not recommended by ITE. ITE recommends Average based on the criterion. External Trips 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing (General Urban/Suburban) ITE does not recommend a particular pass -by% for this case. 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) (General Urban/Suburban) ITE does not recommend a particular pass -by% for this case. 750 - Office Park (General Urban/Suburban) ITE does not recommend a particular pass -by% for this case. 620 - Shopping Center (General Urban/Suburban) ITE does not recommend a particular pass -by% for this case. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 147 Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 1— November 2020 Total Entering Total Exiting Total Entering Reduction Total Exiting Reduction Total Entering Internal Capture Reduction Total Exiting Internal Capture Reduction Total Entering Pass -by Reduction Total Exiting Pass -by Reduction Total Entering Non -Pass -by Trips Total Exiting Non -Pass -by Trips 13894 13892 0 0 403 403 378 370 13113 13119 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 148 Bellmar Stewardship Recelving Area - T1S - Section 1 - November 2020 Analysis Name: Project Name Date: State/Province; Country: Analyst's Name: PERIOD SETTING AM Peak Hour Bellmar SRA - Proposed No : 1/28/2020 City: Zip/Postal Code: Client Name: Edition: Trip Ganaratlon Manual,101h Ed Land Use Independent Variable Size Time Period Method Entry Exit Total 210 - Single -Family Uwelling Units 1590 Weekday, Peak Best Fit (LIN) 284 850 1134 Detached Housing Hour of Adjacent T = 0.71 (X)+4-0 25% 75% (General Street Traffic. UrbanlSuburban) One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m, 220 - Multifamily Dwelling Units 11 gq(u) weekday, Peak Beat Fit (LOG) 112 377 4$9 Housing (Low -Rise) Hour of Adjacent Ln(T)=0.95Ln(X) 23% 77% (General StraotTraffic, +-0,51 Urban/Suburban) One Hour 130"on 7 and 9 a-rn- 750-Office Park 1000 Sq, Ft. GFA 27.5(0) Weekday, Peak Average 300) 411) 4011) (General Hour of Adjacent 1,44 90% 10% Urban/Suburban) Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. 820 -Shopping Center 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA 85 Weekday, Peak Best Fit (LIN) 120 74 194 (General Hour of AdJacent T = 0.5 (X)+151.78 62% 38% UrbardSuburban) Street Trefllo, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. (0) indicates size out of range. (1) indicates small sample Size, USG C.91'gfOly. TRAFFIC REDUCTIONS - -- — - - -- Land Use Entry Reduction Adjusted Entry Exit Reduction Adjusted Exit 210 - Singla-Family Detached Housing 0 % 284 0 % 650 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) 0 % 112 0 % 377 750 - Office Park 0 % 35 0 % 4 620 - Shopping Center 0 % 120 0 % 74 INTERNAL TRIPS Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 149 Bellmor Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 1 — November 2020 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing Exit 850 Demand Exit: 0 % (0) Entry 284 Demand Entry: 0 % (0) 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing Exit 850 Demand Exit: 2 % (17) Entry 284 Demand Entry: 0 % (0) 210 -Single-Family Detached Housing Exit 850 Demand Exit: 1 % (9) Entry 284 Demand Entry: 2 % (6) 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) Balanced: Demand Entry: 0 % (0) Entry 112 0 Balanced: Demand Exit: 0 % (0) Exit 377 0 750 - Office Park Balanced: Demand Entry: 2 % (1) Entry 36 Balanced: Demand Exit: 1 % (0) Exit 4 0 820 - Shopping Center Balanced: Demand Entry: 12 % (14) Entry 120 9 6 Balanced: Demand Exit: 10 % (7) Exit 74 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) 750 - Office Park Exit 377 Demand Exit: 2 % (8) BalanOced: Demand Entry: 1 % (0) Entry 36 Entry 112 Demand Entry: 0 % (0) Balanced: d: Demand Exit: 0 % (0) Exit 4 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) 820 -Shopping Center Exit 377 Demand Exit: 1 % (4) Balanced: Demand Entry: 5 % (6) Entry 120 Entry 112 Demand Entry: 2 % (2) Balanced: Demand Exit: 4 % (3) Exit 74 2 750 - Office Park 820 - Shopping Center Exit 4 Demand Exit: 28 % (1) Balanced: Demand Entry: 32 %(38) Entry 120 Entry 36 Demand Entry: 4 % (1) Balanced: Demand Exit: 29 % (21) Exit 74 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing Internal Trips Total Trips 220 - Multifamily 750 - Office Park 1820 - Total External Trips Housing (Low- Shopping Rise) Center Entry 1284 (100%) ` 0 (0%) 1 0 (0%) 6 (2%) 16 (2%) j 278 (98%) Exit 850 (100%) i 0 (0%) 1 (0%) 9 (1%) 10 (1%) 1840 (99%) Total 1134 (100%) 10 (0%) 1 (0%) 15 (1%) 1 16 (1%) 11118 (99%) 220 -Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) Internal Trips 210 - Single- 750 - Office Park 820 - Total Total Trips Family Shopping External Trips Detached ! Center Housing 1 0 { 2 2 110 Entry 112 (100%) (0%) f 1 0 (0%) (2%) (2%) (98%) Exit 1 377 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) } 4 (1%) 4 (1%) 373 (99%) Total 1489 (100%) 10 (0%) 0 (0%) 16 (1%) 6 (1%) 483 (99%) 750 - Office Park Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 150 Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1 — November 2020 y Internal Trips �210 z Total Trips - Single- Family � 220 - Multifamiiy i Housing (Low- 820- Shopping Total Extemal Trips Detached i Rise) Center 'Housing Entry 36 (100%) E 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 1 1 (3%) 1 2 (6%) 34 (94%) Exit 4 (10090) 0 (0%) j 0 (0%) j 1 (25%) 1 1 (25%) 3 (75%) Total 1 40 (100%) 1 (3%) 10 (0%) j 2 (5%) 3 (6%) 37 (92%) 820 - Shopping Center Internal Trips 210 - Single- 220 - Multifamily 750 - Office Total Total Trips Family Housing (Low- Park External Trips I Detached jHousing Rise) Entry 120 (100%) 19 (8%) 14 (3%) I 1 (1%) 14 (12%) 106 (88%) Exit 74 (100%) 6 (8%) 12 (3%) 1 (1%) 9 (12%) j 65 (88%) Total 1 194 (100%) 15 (8%) 16 (3%) j 2 (1%) 23 (12%) 171 (88%) EXTERNAL TRIPS Land Use External Trips Pass -by% Pass -by Trips ass -by Ts 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing 1118 0 0 1116 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) 483 0 0 483 750 - Office Park 37 0 0 37 820 - Shopping Center 171 25 43 128 ITE DEVIATION DETAIL. -- Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Landuse No deviations from ITE. Methods 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) (General Urban/Suburban) The chosen method (LOG) is not recommended by ITE. ITE recommends Average based on the criterion. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 151 Bellmor Stewardship Receiving Area — T1S —Section 1 —November 2020 Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. External Trips 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing (General Urban/Suburban) ITE does not recommend a particular pass -by% for this case. 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) (General Urban/Suburban) ITE does not recommend a particular pass -by% for this case. 750 - Office Park (General Urban/Suburban) ITE does not recommend a particular pass -by% for this case. 820 - Shopping Center (General Urban/Suburban) ITE does not recommend a particular pass -by% for this case. SUMMARY Total Entering 552 Total Exiting 1305 Total Entering Reduction 0 Total Exiting Reduction 0 Total Entering Internal Capture Reduction 24 Total Exiting Internal Capture Reduction 24 Total Entering Pass -by Reduction 28 Total Exiting Pass -by Reduction 17 Total Entering Non -Pass -by Trips 502 Total Exiting Non -Pass -by Trips 1264 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 152 Beflrnar Stewardship Receiving Area -- T!5—5eetlon 1— November 2020 PERIOD SETTING Analysis Noma: PM Peak Hour Project Name : Bell mar SRA - Proposed No Date; 1/26/2020 City: StatefProvinae: 2iplPostal Code: Country: Client Name: Analyst's Name: Edition= Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed Land Use Independent Size Time Parlad Method Entry Exit Total Variable 210 - Single -Family Dwallinp Units 1590 Weekday, Peak Best Fit (LOG) Dill 535 1440 Detached Housing Hour of Adjacent Ln(T) = 0.96Ln(X) +0.2 63% 37% (General Street Traffic, Urban/Suburban) One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. 220 - Multifamily Dwelling Units 11 6()d) Weekday, Peak Bast Fit (LOG) 329 194 523 Housing (Low -Rise) Hour of Adjacent LnM = 0.89Ln(X) 83% 37% (General Street Traffic, +-0.02 Urban/Suburban) One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. 750 - Office Park 1000 Sq. Ft- GFA 21 510) Weekday, Peak Average 21) 270) 290 ) (General Hour of Adjacent 1.07 7% 93% UrbanlSuburban) Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. 620 -Shopping Center 1000 Sq. FI- GLA 85 Weekday, Peak Best Fil (LOG) 231 251 482 (General Hour of Adjacent Ln(T) = 0.74Ln(X) 48% 52% UrbanlSuburban) Street Traffic, +2.89 one Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. (0) indicates size out at range- (1) Indicates small sample size, use carefully. Land Use 210 - Single -Family detached Housing 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) 750 - Office Park 620 - Shopping Center TRAFFIC REDUCTIONS Entry Adjusted Entry Exit Reduction Adjusted Exit Reduction 0 % 911 0 % 535 0 % 329 0 % 194 0% 2 0% 27 0 % 231 0 % 251 INTERNAL TRIPS Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a 6 e 153 Bellmor Stewardship Receiving Area — T1S — Section 1 — November 2020 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing Exit 535 Demand Exit: 0 % (0) Entry 911 Demand Entry: 0 % (0) 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing Exit 535 Demand Exit: 4 % (21) Entry 911 Demand Entry: 4 % (36) 220 -Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) Balanced: Demand Entry: 0 % (0) Entry 329 0 Balanced: Demand Exit: 0 % (0) Exit 194 0 750 -Office Park Balanced: Demand Entry: 42 % (1) Entry 2 Balanced: Demand Exit: 2 % (1) Exit 27 1 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing 820 - Shopping Center Exit 535 Demand Exit: 42 % (225) Balanced: Demand Entry: 7 % (16) Entry 231 16 Entry 911 Demand Entry: 46 % (419) Balanced: Demand Exit: 19 % (48) Exit 251 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) 750 - Office Park Exit 194 Demand Exit: 4 % (8) Balanced: Demand Entry: 15 % (0) Entry 2 Entry 329 Demand Entry: 4 % (13) Balanced: Demand Exit: 0 % (0) Exit 27 720 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) 820 - Shopping Center Exit 194 Demand Exit: 42 % (81) Balanced: Demand Entry: 3 % (7) Entry 231 Entry 329 Demand Entry: 46 % (151) Balanced: Demand Exit: 7 % (18) Exit 251 750 - Office Park 820 -Shopping Center Exit 27 Demand Exit: 20 % (5) Balanced: Demand Entry: 8 % (18) Entry 231 Entry 2 Demand Entry: 31 % (1) Balanced- Demand Exit: 2 % (5) Exit 251 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing Internal Trips _ Total Trips Multifamily 750 - Office Park I p Total I � External Trips Housing Shopping i Rise) Center i-- Entry 1911 (100%) j 0 (0%) 1 (0%) 48 (5%) -- — 49 (5%) — 1862 (95%) 4 Exit f 535 (100%) 0 (0%) 1 (0%) 16 (3%) j 17 (3%) } 518 (97%) Total 11446 (100°%) 0 (0%) 12 (0%) 64 (4%) 66 (5%) 111380 (95%) 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) Internal Trips 210 - Single- 750 - Office Park 820- Total Total Trips Family Shopping External Trips Detached Center Housing F Entry 329 (100%) 1 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 18 (5%) { 18 (5%) 311 (95%) Exit 194 (900%) £ 0 (0%) j 0 (0%) s 7 (4%) . 7 (4%) 187 (96%) Total 1 523 (100%) 10 (0%) 0 (0%) 125 (5%) 25 (5%) 498 (95%) 750 - Office Park Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 54 Bellmor Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 1 — November 2020 i Total Trips Entry C 2 (100%) Total 29 (100%) 820 - Shopping Center Internal Trips 210 - Single 1220 - Multifamily 820 - Total Family i Housing (Low- Shopping External Trips Detached i Rise) Center Housing I 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 2 (100%) j 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 0 (0%) 5 (19%) 6 (22%) r 21 (78%) 2 (7%) 0 (0%) 6 (21%) 8 (28%) 21 (72%) Internal Trips j Total Trips 210 - Single- i Family 220 - Multifamlly Housing (Low- 750 - Office Park Total External Trips [j Detached Rise) _I _ 1 Housing _. j Entry 231 (100%) 16 (7%) 7 (3%) 5 (2%) 28 (12%) 3 203 (88%) Exit 251 (100%) 48 (19%) 18 (7%) 1 (0%) 67 (27%) 184 (73%) Total 482 (100%) 64 (13%) 25 (5%) 6 (1%) 95 (20%) 387 (80%) Land Use 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) 750 - Office Park 820 - Shopping Center EXTERNAL TRIPS External Trips Pass -by% 1380 0 498 0 21 0 387 026 ITE DEVIATION DETAILS Pass -by Trips Non -pass -by Trips 0 1380 0 498 0 21 97 290 Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Landuse No deviations from ITE. Methods 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) (General Urban/Suburban) The chosen method (LOG) is not recommended by ITE. ITE recommends Average based on the criterion. Trebiicock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 155 Bellmor Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section I — November 2020 Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. External Trips 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing (General Urban/Suburban) ITE does not recommend a particular pass -by% for this case. 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) (General Urban/Suburban) ITE does not recommend a particular pass -by% for this case. 750 - Office Park (General Urban/Suburban) ITE does not recommend a particular pass -by% for this case. 820 - Shopping Center (General Urban/Suburban) The chosen pass -by% (25) is not provided by ITE. ITE recommends 34. SUMMARY Total Entering 1473 Total Exiting 1007 Total Entering Reduction 0 Total Exiting Reduction 0 Total Entering Internal Capture Reduction 97 Total Exiting Internal Capture Reduction 97 Total Entering Pass -by Reduction 51 Total Exiting Pass -by Reduction 46 Total Entering Non -Pass -by Trips 1325 Total Exiting Non -Pass -by Trips 864 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 156 Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — T1S —Section 1— November 2020 Bellmar - Trip Generattion PM PEAK HOUR - NET EXTERNAL (NON -PASS -BY) RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL COMBINED % Entry Exit TOTAL % Entry Exit TOTAL TOTAL Bellmar Buildout 100 1,173 705 1,878 100 152 159 311 2,189 65% 65 762 458 1,220 65 99 103 202 1,422 60% 60 704 423 1,127 60 91 95 186 1,313 55% 55 645 388 1,033 55 84 87 171 1,204 50% 50 587 353 940 50 76 80 156 1,096 45% 45 528 317 845 45 68 72 140 985 40% 40 469 282 751 40 61 64 125 876 35% 35 411 247 658 35 53 56 109 767 30% 30 352 212 564 30 46 48 94 658 25% 25 293 176 469 25 38 40 78 547 20% 20 235 141 376 20 30 32 62 438 15% 15 176 106 282 15 23 24 47 329 10% 10 117 71 188 10 15 16 31 219 5% 5 59 35 94 5 8 8 16 110 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 157 Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1— November 2020 Appendix D: Rural Lands `!best SRA - Traffic Memorandum June 26, 2018 (Excerpts) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 S8 Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1— November 2020 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 159 1 rD 0' n O n O 7 ca 7 to O C O 7 D C) O EXIUBIT d FUTURE PRASE 2 CON) TRAFFIC CONDITTONS WIT iODT PRO.IF.CT wfth- P H AUR 3017 K., P-j-d AVIR Nm+'P4t6a4 Taal AVER Y7C Ddlet.1 Cat Tad 3634 Non. Dolma ►DOT P4olta K TZWap FU& PeakH-eak Rase SaeY4 Rath PROM TO :b. 7R1►AIv► PSWADT MOO' AAIIT ►s 1m Ham D► w DMII NIT Sm WE SA3' V.1-0 PIT SAY Fmleil^N I&THAVBNusm 1&&S4.. DID Ew ale+NW 925 925 0.67 II05 I OA900 72 0.574 E 0i 42 3t 42 31 YA o"M 0D31 ISTHAVENUFNE Ew do MW. Da 9hd. 930 9W 0.&T S53 OQxO 77 0374 S 44 13 44 33 S00 0,0% owl 18THAVENUENE D,'-NW. Bixem.,Phw. MYA AN7A 0.97 RYA 04" OVA 0574 B MYA MYA AMA RVA 77A 0wk 4WA 56THAVENUENS EW1 daa NSd Daao B7M. 0 0 0.&7 0 OMM 0 O.V4 E 0 0 0 0 870 0000 0.0:0 6THAYMAMNE N-M7 d m 0 0 0" 0 OHJ00 0 0574 B 0 0 0 0 920 0,0W DOW 6 CAMPKEAISROAD A Mane means 3a+aBiln+Rd. e"t6A I3975 Im 0.S7 1215& ooe&6 torn 03/1 S 452 826 402 &6 1000 OAM 0,626 6L0 CAMPKEAI3ROAD Od W41 PA AWManaF-- 626A 6651 6651 067 57" OMM 513 OU1 S 215 29& 215 291 LOCO 0.20 0,2% 30.1 COLLIER BOULEVARD b-*4ae R5. Vavdmnih Bmcl Rd 6S3 40743 40745 017 35446 0C915 324_l 05&1 N IM W1 1119 W3 30)0 0.63D O01 2 COLLIER BOULEVARD V+Welvh Bead, Rl. GHm a- OM 54 46526 46326 0.17 4047& 009I5 YAM 0576 3 011 2111 1571 SIN "0 0.524 0710 SLI COLLIERBOULEVARD Otidma 04m 81-A P N eRd. 534 d5163 6$163 0.37 56� OHA13 51&5 9374 N 2916 310E 2916 2" m 099a 0736 312 COLLIER BOULEVARD N,R11 Rd. 01-PIA 134 56UL %6&1 0'" 0112 0C913 4510 0374 N 2369 1921 7599 1921 3W0 0.1d1 06D0 .1 OIL RBOU.EVARD G1emn BIM GHm Gate 49497 49497 Or 43M 0.0915 3939 0.570 H 2245 16N 2245 I&A 3000 0,749 0565 222 C012.lER BOULEVARD Gddma 0. 11-1 Swih 637 WUS 41W 047 417A7 00915 IE23 0380 N 22M 1606 221& W 3M 0,739 053. 1310 ESOTO BOULEVARD OAWdIRi. Ra4ddl km MA WD 310a O.E7 217 00&66 2. 0376 3 104 141 104 741 wo 0, 130 0.176 13&0 SOTO BOULEVARD RadaBB I AW. NE 63SA 3546 1546 or 30e3 00S&6 273 0$76 S WI U7 116 157 800 0.145 0.197 I310 ESOTO BOULEVARD MAW. NE OaHm 04b BIW. 63&A 394E 3919 0.67 3436 0.OW 304 0576 S 129 175 129 175 WO 0.161 11219 137.0 DOOM BOULEVARD Ooldea Gas 01W Sw 60A 7r%4 7994 0.17 6965 00&96 616 0,617 S 236 MO 236 3W WO 0.295 0. 475 160 EVERGLADES BLVD. laa.kd'e Rd 56thA NE 6315 2443 2440 0.&7 2123 OMM IE& 0.99E N 112 76 112 76 SOD 0. 141 0m 1360 EVERGLADSS BLVD. 5UKAw. NE 4kd AW, NE 6363 3963 395) 0.17 34D OMM X6 059& N 192 121 IQ 123 KO 0224 0153 136,0 GLADES BLVD, 43d AW. HE Oil W.1 Rd. 6313 14645 14W 0.67 12741 O,OW 1129 0.59& N 673 654 675 G4 Al 0.843 056& MO EVERGLADES BLVD. OHWIIIFW Radil7Md 6W 11251 I1251 0.97 97U 0M&3 361 o-W H 4" M3 464 403 WO 0.583 03N 135.0 EVERGLADES BLVD. Rzdd BIW. IMI Aw NE 6365 "is 10915 Obi 9406 0.0&&b 441 033$ N 450 39l 450 B91 !AO 0,563 01489 1350 EVERGLADES BLVD, IRAA, TIE GMm G-BIW. 636E 93+9 934 00 113A 009" 721 0335 N 96 335 U6 335 &7) 04&2 0.419 1340 EVERGLADES BLVD. O&dma Gs^Df:v. S.mm 637S 24M 2456& 0.97 21374 0MA N94 0359 3 759 1134 W9 1134 wo 094E 1,414 Y. 170 GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD 0Wa.d MW 23d34 SW $31 W15 33515 0.117 3437& OL915 31" 0.401 B 1910 1234 1910 T234 2360 0.131 0537 17D GOLDEN OATE BOULEVARD 23d St SW Wdwa BBd. 531 3&313 36311 0S7 33332 OPM 3049 0.601 E 1/51 1197 M52 1197 2300 0.6A6 052D 1230 GOLDEN OATS BOULEVARD MIM BIM. VhSL NE 652 36117 9117 0.17 51422 OU96 27U 0,412 E 1704 low N04 1080 2300 0.741 04A 1210 GOLDEN OATS BOULEVARD &0.S4 NE I" St NE, 02 31W 3190 O37 27911 00696 2464 0612 E IF9& 956 15" 966 23W 0656 0.416 1231 GOLDEN OATS BOULEVARD 1G&St. NS ah4 BIM 652 32T25 3272E 0.17 28471 00696 2523 0612 E 1544 979 1544 979 2m 0.671 0.42E 1240 GOLDEN OATS BOULEVARD Ew dm NM Drcro Shd. M-.1 10121 10321 0.17 4" 0'" 10d 0574 B 46e 314 464 3U4 1010 0,C9 oMI 42.1 WOKALEE ROAD Ai eRaai L-,n ftR. d 579 65597 659E 0.87 V417 0.0915 515I OMO W 2w,+ WS 200 3153 3100 0.677 7.017 Y+� 42.1 MOXALVE ROAD Lrwa FA US 679 7&951 71966 0.&7 61o5 009IS 6213 O.S14 E 3606 2675 360& 2675 m 1031 0,764 Ye. 43.1 I.fMOMEEROAD LpM JIM 101 715N 71504 0.67 a2D& 00915 m 036o S 31E6 2501 1166 2SO3 3500 0910 0715 42 WOKALEE ROAD L- Myd Bhd. 6dd 552W 55264 0.97 41007 OWLS 4397 03S1 E Z57 1941 2657 I&Al =0 arh 0575 "0 IMMOKALEE ROAD Coble MW. He' Bm BIW. 674 6566E 61$w OE7 11IN 00696 Sm 0602 B " 20t3 3W9 2013 3YA 0.924 0,610 440 IMMOXALE6 ROAD tint aBw Dh+3. val-Bhd. 674 6639E 6654E 0V 57935 00&S5 513S 0.60E E m RIC 302 2041 Wo 0.937 0.619 450 NNOKALEE ROAD W.1-EM. R.AuNW 671 67936 47936 0E7 W04 009% $231 0.6D6 £ M31 2006 3171 2066 3300 0.961 0426 60 IMMOKALSB ROAD RaadaB BIW Od W4 Rd 6% 49037 40037 0.67 424Q 00&M 37880 0.606 E 2289 1401 2299 1491 3#k0 OAW 0452 460 MO ER ROADO11W4IPA AhtA NE 672 25019 25014 0.67 2MA 00996 1924 0594 E 1145 71S INS 7d3 2900 0.X 0341 46.0 IMMOMEE ROAD 410AW. NE EWm ade+BlW 672 WO 6W Or 6w owm 539 0194 E 320 219 = 219 903 0.3% D243 46.0 MId OICALEBROAD Eve. de+91W Od IYmB O"A'Rd 672 4671 W1 on TM6 0061d 6(9 0"4 E 197 272 W7 272 900 O441 OKe 460 DINIOKAL .ROAD WWI RA Keais Rd 672 7060 7000 0.6E 614E 00&/6 5" 0"4 E 325 221 323 221 MO 0.W9 0246 460 MIOXALEE ROAD Can Xma+R3. C+ewm S3 672 I9900 I9900 0.&1 17311 00616 034 0494 E 911 (63 911 &) Boo 1012 0. 66M Ye 4Q0 BANOXALEE. ROAD Cam St SR29 672 22M 22W 0.17 2006 00696 1775 GM E MS 720 K63 720 2au 0.526 0.3d0 4&.o LO BOULEVARD mdrtiBB 1P d Pam Fi 517 9417 9417 0.17 1193 00915 70 0.53& N 433 M7 M3 347 1000 0.4X OM7 SOLD LOGAN BOULEVARD kmakYee Raal VmdaNU EarhRod 644 $561 3951 0.11 $437 00915 314 0579 N M2 132 192 132 IWO 0.16E 0,132 L013M BOULEVARD lmeekalee RoW tr18a Carom Liam 11735 IM7 0A7 I0209 00900 919 0574 H .127 4e1 527 Al low 0.517 0391 SLO LVINGSTONROAD h nal Slma EasdkdemB 1 611 6395E 63952 0,97 554M 00915 S059 0.353 N 711E 22V 2E12 2277 AUO 0837 O7m 520 LIVI4GSTONROAD 1-kg.. Ra+d V.datilt Se"Rod S74 $1640 5164) 0.17 44927 0.(9t$ 4109 OM N 2421 16M 221 16U 3100 0,761 0.5. 530 LNIN"ONROAD Vaxdel4te BauA P.os.' P.. My Rod 57S 56349 $9348 017 SD763 DOM 4613 0,5E S 1940 2703 IWO 2103 3100 0,626 062 CR 646 AViM6d 13323 ISM Obi 11591 0.0w IW3 U574 R 599 444 599 444 900 0.665 0A4 CR&46 BIW. Ent 13323 133U 0.97 11591 OOM I'M SN E S"444 `" 444 900 0. 665 0.494 470 LABS TRAFFORD ROAD L+keT4diad SR29 6D9 16711 167&1 0.17 14550 0,0911 1335 0561 E 774 8)0 0.969 0700 59.0 NEW MARKET ROAD 3R29A) SR2907alE1 I'd-Rfva S, 612 13163 ISM 0,97 13,9E 00915 t2m 05&7 E 'A71 900 O -0 056E 59.0 NEW MARKET ROAD fSR29A 1M. Rim St ma4lalk St 612 164aa 16440 O,P 14303 0091513M 05&1 B 760 ML 93D OEM59.0 NSWMAP.XETROAD SR29A CAalattm St. SR19 SanA 550 1114 1176E 0.67 1023E 00915 9M rrl &u E N/ 9CV 0, 04530 NORTH IST STREET SR 29 Nero MuY.mtRd. 590 6032 6M1 O.S7 $249 0�015 4W 0594 N 215 9N 0.317 02l6 { Yg4xa4nava6.201& 119v 1-wEU ROAD b.."tt Rd E••m c«prd 77s3 3v. SWA oat I bon 0C915 266T 05 g IN. VR3 UN w71 M4 0697 DW 1200 OE. WRL ROAD .BbA mpH GM LOW 16107 Dal 15921 0Wd loll OW W M CIO M CO 11W 05A Ole F21.1 011. wnt ROAD w MW o15C(r uPad 6V 1913s W35 00 1710 DOW 1511 OSEI w am M eA M I 050 ow] 1212 o1_WnL ROA➢ Ra N. 20M ws$ff 017 171C 00u6 k"n 014L w 679 91) 699 91a 2000 DIP 007 1212 OQ VMU POA9 Evt. m C 6.mr Rd Wpl am in& 047 71n OM6 636 oul w 266 n 266 YA a00 0M MO 011.WSU ROAD A..«P4 SR 29 01 16617 Im OV 17s1 oats 26 OUL w a ro 65 S aW Coal —!:M— 0117 =0 R AD Chlrr m.l sls Wn Wsib 0.47 Wo, 00015 2569 0601 t 461 10i6 1%1 IM6 2+)D Oul OM 1.520 R&MALL WgUVAPD 1m8.1n Rd t\St tF Wl 27140 =10 Or twx GMA ]T0+ ❑412 R PC 6@ 1015 662 900 1161 07M Tr. 1320 'MALL ROLUVARD al 760 7365 0a7 U41 DOpi6 016 0612 2 V1 235 371 2a5 9W 0412 02s1 0 V 16891w do Rl.d 67 5727 5721 Op -M Oft" N1 0611 11 270 111 2'Ai 111 90 o50D DIY+ Into AL. NQSVARD 3•e -NM BIK nU 2u1 U41 QV 2M DOM 219 0506 R 111 4 1H a9W Old 00' YD98.pVAFL pN p' .r. R.. 1pA "A YPA OET /VA 00570 WrA 0574 E IRA .WA "A I1VA 9W RVA WA a70 591L lam 14771 017 I7i57 DOPa6 lip OSa1 S M 6C an 60 6W 0197 0W aa0 29 a 51.2.. Ed Ml 60 NO® 3Cft 017 010 00915 I790 0=3 S LMJ PC& 1032 IM 900 64a1 16'p T« asa p fR ]56 Sk vld.nw R6 NM .2. hdwd Rd 4Q V947 Me 0gT in" 0(gls 1261 0a11 S 6M 0 6M &* 900 06p 0 )3 Is p ]:A 8! Tf.[lard Rd Srtv>kd.. ICU 1435t 06i 1612t ovau ]ITS Cal S 794 7T1 7D1 ul 907 07L7 Op6 1" 29 (Mu 2tl 1m.d•.l«Pe Sr. 40 2012 2"]2 0 V 21412 OW15 195a area S 9-0 R43 955 IMB 9W 10I4 1131 Y.r M V 29 0".T.1 A 1. at OCR Gas 666 2110 231 W 0 C! 30106 0%1$ 1 1) OUS W M MI M X07 17W 040 0592 V4 SR 20 to 1... 31 ICP1 .bSRd 1 &A H0955 x5ol 0aT u2s 0091$ 1"? 014 w 754 013 7$4 SIB I'M ow 053T 430 79 M.. Sri rlAdtnfN [$ CR a.6 665A i1a06 71" 0Ci 71621 Oils 1701 03M 71 $tii Tw 996 710 IT710 05U 0111 40 29 MU4 —W. -VOL 60A host 1664 0p Mal owls 1167 osu N MI ab5 611 at6 '{.a. CM 030 510 29 —W-rk-r.Wi Wwd1Ha 46$A 5216 52)6 0V 65$ 0%15 117 O5a3 N 1" 176 gas 17. Wr 0270 6191 axv 21 7r1W.11E)6 ].73 613A 5417 sari 0E7 4111 006aa I a1a 05H N 241 in 243 17! WE Dip 019a too 29 CR a?r) Sc..r Al LY. 615A 1179 1576 9i7 W) 0=4 122 0531 N 71 Sl 71 51 9W 04"1 Om a60 C MZ:� 66U 2073 2.771 O97 21551 COW 1910 0531 S W1 1109 601 1M 7fW 014 Dag: no v 6rlac.aM wean [Ynnrr U. WA M60A 2616L 697 232W 0GUA 2016 Dsal S w Iron GO 1PT1 am 0y75 0s19 too l RLT RHA R0Ah AM wn Hlw 57p Said: 76155 017 an6E2 00011 alb} 0600 W = 2at2 lip 26n2 lwl 01% 06D4 1112 A)aSERJMT REAUI ROM V m[ •>M WS 6% 55%5 5330 DIP 46M 00915 Cab DAN E 7154 Ina U66 LOW SON 0W 0560 ANDFRSLLREACRROAD i 7 Od!n Fdw Wd ce pp WA 1n31 I031 0Y7 Ma 0000 Wo 0"41 E W all ii4 611 IICO 076 0356 A7mFAHLTHFA.CRROAD wa-Rvl wA 11206 13204 067 INK? OOXO q34 0$74 9 AI, aai 195 act IRO 0319 0a00 A7�IDEIfEMT RFACH 10I 6nn)z ]YAA Iff WA ww $910 Dal n67a ocKo 176 057a E 44 M1 .0 no I 0Ito DMI logo 105%LEYARi] 1n4 Aw `>X Jra6•.ryA R•kA No PayAve., 6s0 9656 W)6 097 039 OM6 IS 0SIO S ys 106 W a06 9C0 479P. 0.51 InO WL=H 100LRVARD ..d.rgir 9. v.6 F4 Fusarm Odds Oa. Mad 6w 966 9556 Osi g314 Oa666 751 0N5 j 'A.. WD Su [9 SW 03M OLS. W 51 tp 41911d Ian An !LE 1756 Ind 032 On ')wo 1S7 Md a s9 w 59 79 9W 00uS D0la P6h!@ 116 A7[NE —.na S. Rd Exi. — 04 -M 0V 3$17 omo 116 057. S 135 362 I3$ In 9W Ot30 vim 95 ga d•. 0.. toad JO6 706 097 1Tp omo 160 057a $ 6a 92 66 9i 9W Dow ulo kw Sty d1 IN"It.1.Aw Mr96 Ii15A77F lim Aw T>F Vd6+kk BrW 6Wa•rm WIG $Q 16 0V W16 ey" 7(1 Ova 3 V1 .14 in lli 900 O]fi a.. 166 S5 He .np.bdr s[ra Ear.um Odd.a 6W B1r1 3697 SSP3 i n 6710 warn 605 0374 S A3L 567 tat 3ar 901 0206 D)a5 F�. 011 Perk d.w+m lc a0*h ()—Y"tlA M..arpr.3..[esd 413.n5¢. VAfb 01h. 00.aty20I7Ati11l,—p roar.-d p]Re kd.—. __ •e-AW—ftWem.d.r n4 wrq r Ac. [.17.a.s[dpra#A ps..M r6 AL7R A.16.ein.wn.f Eardmp.J:mv, pe�Ar.eCndPr4er.d6c l%1Ad7romd&wl r.g.3gm4.rd.i TA26r.aiwl.n pcsla2.., ad 3r«.am.1 S59 rr TAZ Ve urprb, 5k paald aAppgA%Fd W r..px 16]A+6dp.4 y.YR 16�L1I60 a Fl-&Su U1,.¢arp—.A.E.—Y W6.t6. Rry.1t ff. y%.Wrmbd.urnagmu[.rrd w•44, prgrc4d. a bm]r.dd fae WM r.p I 'W—M.M. I Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — T1S — Section 1— November 2020 Appendix E: Traffic Growth Rates - Historic Peak Hour, Peak Direction Volumes Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 162 20M 2019 56 20 Growth = [{Future VoliOld Vol] "{11nj - 1] Pcak [leak Peak 146 Minimum n= number of years 11-mr 11-ur ll-+ur AG or FAA Cut. ]fin Peak Ilk Elir ]leak I7ir NA Mr C-alculated Manual ]Uq C1Eh l'rnjk Road# Link Frnm To Rand Sla. -Md I7ir Srnicr ►',dune Volume CAGR Override 17.0 62 Cx3W l C`R87G Golden Cstr Boulevard Cal f3sxiivvard Wilson Raulr+aril 4❑ 53l U I: .2.3W '1.C313 1730 D.2CtM D.2CtM 2.GQrd 36.1 3Q.2 37 37 GSQ6l GSU6! CR951 CH951 Callicr Boulevard Coilicr Boulevard Imrrrol[slrr Road Wandcrhslt ilcach Rd, Vanderbilt Reach Rd. Ciolilrn Gstr lkwlrsanl G❑ GU GSS 584 F: F: \ \ 3,Upp ?.QOQ 1,120 1.822 1850 1260 4.005'. 2.00a ?l.l RS GS[15fi CR951 Coll i -r Ruulcvanl Cn�ldrn Gatc Fkw1c+•snl Pine Hid r Road 613 53G U \ }-ppp I,884 18Sp -IT.1 Ti 2.DD'x 31.2 85 Gt305G CR951 C'a[iis-r Roulst•snl Pine Rid c Rnsd Cinrn G!] 53G U \ }.Upp 1,884 1850 -U.S7'i 2.QQc�r. 43.2 CR846 lmmnkale� Rmd Logan Raulcvanl Col lirr SrnllcvarJ GU GSG E: E: 3-DO l:+'i9 14?p 2.97�e 2.97"r 44.0 71 G[1D18 CR84G Imm�tkal+r H[�ail Collier R�x�lrvani Wilson Radrvaril Gll G74 E: t: 3,300 1.401 2D5Q 3S2',� 3.52 k 112.Q 2•I C+3QSi CR862 Vanderbilt Reath Road Ln •an Ruulc+anl Col lirr Boulevard GU 580 F: E 3.QQ0 G24 1G4p 4.Qp!3 118.0 WiIsan RIvJ '+. of lmmakaltr R wJ Golden Ciatr Blvd.. 2I: 650 U ti 900 505 350 �.Up h 119.0 GCIO.W i;pp4; CR858 Oil Well Rnad Oil Well koarl ]mmol[alct Road l:+crglalrs Ei+r lades Boulevard UeSola [lil \YrllCirazlcRd. 2U «L' 7255 694 U [3 E F: 2,f100 I,IUD 525 397 840 39Q {,pprw 2.QQk 120.0 Cl[858 121.1 Oil Well Head Oil Wcll Road E7ctid+ [lil IYcll [indr Clil Wcll [iradr Ate Maria Blvd 181h Stec[ tilJSl: 4UBi: 694 694 652 ❑ ❑ U f: 1,I00 2.C100 2300 1.162 391} 3<]Q 127D p.BE'k 4.W 4.UOSY 2.C1Ur�v l?1.2 123.0 GOWO (n+ldru Gale Rivd, Wilson 123.1 G(1D40 Gn1Jcn Cislr Rlvd. 181d Sloe] NE1SE Everglades 4U;� GS2 l7 E 2.300 1,162 1270 p.81rd+ 2.(>0� [24.0 6OD40 Golden Clalr 131vJ. Fsvr la<Ics I7c5aln 2U Manua{ I) E I,010 1,162 232 •13.C+2 F 2.[10`Jr 125.0 CR896 Pine Ridge Road L n Boulevard Cdlicrl3nulcvaril 4❑ 535 U Er 2.400 1.5m 1540 0.19'rb 2.DDrn' 132.0 Randal. Blvd, ]mmoltaler EveWades 2U M1° I U E 9U0 686 810 1.32r7'n 2.[1Drk 133.0 Randal BIvd. F:vc fades IkSola 2U M;nwai U E 900 686 652 -0.46'.S 2.W`: 134.0 E IaJrs I-75 Cioldcn[P:Ic,• H1+11 2U 6375 U S 8[10 336 530 4.00r& 135.0 Ev lades Golden Gale Blvd- []i! Well 2U 636,S ❑ [i 8W 330 410 1.9`7'.:. 2.00`I l}G.Q F:r lades Oil Well Imrru+kslcr 2U 635S ❑ ti SW 389 490 2.125r 2.121: 137.p [h5rno Blvd- 1.75 Golden Ciaic 131vJ. 3U 639A ❑ 5 800 95 140 359'.0 3.Stl!: [38.p [7c•Sol0 RI+J- C;nldcn Gale }lied- [lii Well Rd- 2U 638A ❑ \ 800 107 130 1.61'. 2-00 Bellmor Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1 — November 2020 Appendix F: Collier County 2019 AUIR Attachment F (Transportation Planning Database Table) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 164 -1 5•d017 r-...S71019•Y.wl 1'pd-aed 1.a a.1. Reper+IAI'1 N3 Bnd w.Sdvpw•1 IAK rr/p lla.L. 1 raaM. 5'avat• 1'aaA 3Mt Idly IDI: :919 :elv :019 In01. f+r7Np live' IYvI IYa1. :Oli [. :Oli to ]n[Y 1n1v 1f- M3 Vw 1Va.1 I4 DL ]ber Ik.r :('le 201% rq k IRIYTR .074 IT 1-1 C-.h• 1nhl Fit a • 1. V.- Ynr MN Ce, NM IYx S+a•aW PnA INr IyAI>ra As I. Real S[a S+d DLa V.Aar 3aW Va . Ne Na k CL.v L'MYex Flip 20-9 61..A 5'WYar 7", B..A INp IF IeIR 66.A 1+'�TN Rra.a1.R 117.111 0 !'lfwr Y.[enlyd Thar 1-.a.L10 17C % 0t/kt.[ IM ir.a 10 1 60190 1 LiL 1 N[Ja.H N9w1 hearlphe Raab -__`_-CR.Ii _�3^-P'n Roal Vankr6•R l4xh RaM L'iL i n Re.l ,flaarree ]i1„a..m Slow V+pYrhk Bad.. _. 4D 1 55+ U x 2.•J00 x 122 I3 _ - _1 alY y L .. 16Q : i+•. - _3A51 - :5 I: iS e6T IS'4. I.1. Oi .1 --11� T-_0 --H l:1J �p 35�3V C _ Llor�l116'. 6P ff9 e Pert 1111d. find 6D 3a3 F! 34 1 112+ F. 2069 +1 Ei v. C 1A k MAI �V ,M NSW ' 11a.e Rrd.a Rad M1 , NI)«.[ Re.6� G[. 6D IM E N 3.IM :53 32 i'41 t 80 H 1 I366 R 1e S'3. 6 1 7Ji TS M D IA R.&. Rawl 6D 333 E N LM 2350 31 of ro -! [•+•. 337: 23• 73 vll5 Md 791ti D _ 3.0 CR3] •Y Ra.l FR.dar Rwd Da76 Baa1nard w CT01 .� n Rir! lk•1. Es ] d IN 41 (T--Ta .d ..•FIa3a6wr Aa ws Pi ,r.. mn7 Dnn 6D CR &15 klm.n lSraY ft..alTNrit .1 V'.xl.el.kl llaw HKLm EE6Wnvd JP 5" E M E IN:ao 1 701a �:a3 1050 1600 � o ax'•. -30.1.. 11 's 1 no 1723 11 11 61 tact' 7TR 1661 1 1036 =:ti 61.03• C C -- "1 P S I 610 _ to 11i in 167 I 7t9I011 4"% B 663 D E I 1 I030 Iro UY+ti v 1010 0 1030' 850 553% C 1®Kaln•fkn. C.�g Ram"Ro.l_nm•F1rv1nzJ �Jrlwe6e 3laa.m[kRad :11 610 B :i 1-i0 •'/d+' 0 370 0• 3w1 7W 30A1a IP S19 D S 0 0 1H JIM 31 i f 17 697 463 552% C kk, [•R'9 iCR� �1'S 11 aTaruma Ta.l �A a3o [' 211 3t2A D S I 1 I 0 0 160 0 1W ado 160w sRsl [lvr a. Fbclar.rd l'S +1 if+nnam+Tn15_'A[[pna Ra•1_ 6P SR& Nu P�dnxd �q..1Rwi Al L. dH.dnai AD Sks[ 'iHv.lhJwud 1�ti.*•.J lLWnW C mm R•6 JD x E R 161 16'A !1.9 -1 [ 1.Y. M 1666 55� 35 Ie5 I= $40% C VA D E 1 I330 2W a51Ly. 0 i'3� 0 IM 670 66.5% C 6fE D E 16: 1310 rlY+ -719'. y f731 el 61 I611 3RR 80b!6 P Ib.l 163 SR&k .11..v MtJ_d -n 1.. Rro1 3nr Baitr.I11ak.Ed 5F3[ !>•+n•HwJr. ad �S.nta lLviv.lS•de.>rd �R6An Rawl Ska+ Wn•Ixal. aid ivw .N.W -- 'CaiLs $aWwrd JP At P E 1 1A_ [5va -S C` Ift 1 It11 1H 1514 WY -.23% C 6D 71A 1 11 ] T+ 0 9 .'33 9M13 ffi IW� -5 1631 5115 :9:N B w f91 E W pop ]^ ii'+6 .0 2% I416 n. 214 18.•1 61f4' 6 Ilk I' 190 ClW'b •[]nldrnfl_O B.WnY.1 dk.f ]S,a...4 N'[La Bn.l.rad [T.+�1.wi5•�Inr4w L'S+l 1-1-.wi'�r.1 �� C0.aJ6 OaLkv rl+k iyl... pwm..rarlw RaJ .._. ID "1 D I: L• 171 1'a0 29 1 t ---� ti ItN �•.-01 1.1 0 0 1710 I 0. 0 3. v, I] 1730 570 Ix+} 1 f. T526. ✓Ina+. D 1s 6D _W E E :>v' 3 19}5 }I o: ) x63 M.aRtr: A 2D] f_R%w. GdJm Sir. P.S M+1 Rawl ,La Rom{ 6P 150t E f E 7a.50 _ 3M 17. 12 2WI I5� tl� 15 :w'1' 005 31.'M1 IF :a:•• - 'A'2 CNi1 SkW- :ta I[ L,ta.' I�iAiva�nee Revel w5 210 CR98e .13a+I,ym [:+SI PNl.m 1•:5 :5-bi D A.-d Oit 60 wl E 50 E ! 3_ r E ]?{A Inl :! S0.`0_ il0 I 360 1171 IS-17. 0 li 3610 3W a• _ a, 9 14. rir J 4 ]0�]_ •no _+[ i >d6 91.Ni 77_T% D C .1 .0.4 IS-0 730 x.] TBO Cllti61GnlJae vane l'nL S+Iea 86[bai Bra3nfr6 :d6er R9.1a•N CRESI '. MtS' -5"rW Nm1 IYemcdlar AdC A'wdnWl Bweh Ratl CI�SL [[:e.dla.lv}'R Rla1�''a'n.Le Ilfh hp_4 B1ow.m AD603 P E 1.NW 161 _-_jQ 13 le• M 3. 11 1601 Sv x •6 ii 0 13 71 0 .3 I�:x 72 %} 177 1453w %.OL S6}1 60.536 E 11 C 20:;L •` lU K6 D V 1.000 _ _. 0 17 10 O.aO\ 0.73% J6 73 1i6 160 JD 591 1 E 1 x MLM -TO CRd3I. [D.e•�rSMFa Rna1 _ r.Fa [Yn.m Li[w �Pw Rla�elLnd CRESS 'Gn+UArf•Vt�-,1 R.•al IN- lLJpe R�Gp Pallrry CR65I IGml:au-}ri�l R.•.1 •[.•lsni C.- iPail(r--Ir -h W AI E N 2.600 1RW 1 Ilt -' 11•. 0 1a0 N 0 L5,wf m 65.0% C -- --- - - 30f E x 3A00 I • i--t IF I= 6 0 D t'I6Q ]Oq 65.w C iD sm E N I"TGO JI I F+=Oi •:o+'•. 0 I+IO G. 0 i'160 i 'J0 ?.M C 27A ro.0 J0.1 TEO PrRa If..u.rnJ_ .av P.rl�a fl..dmrd Calla Eo�Md GdRlwrr l>mr [I[ii.3r.nu.• •VddIOI IYd R[rl CIM ylr - L _L+[•. R..d 5'.adahk Bad^.-m N 6/3 P 2 •100 71 W +Al•L a e60 10 0 ]0 'b • ISO Wo% D 2u V1s D 6!t •.F7_^�--SAW N I &DO -1". Ao _ "� 1:0 _ 36_b�a 101:n: 0 Sn I'.A_ _ 0 i411 1 0 ]0_0 • 5D0 3'H IF __"• . H7 603 M" 33 Sat CR93 ICm-Rwlanud md,h911ra��Npd llddrn0/a!I[JnTI - -_ �__ IJe�•�+h �4�Jn CivS IC 11dnwJ Yule NiJec Pm.1 Ons .P wiles' }_ ]+n S S 3.OW ti SA00 1rr.'.'.0 =L'• _ �D 1.JC• 11L 11Vi _ 32!317 [M2, 'eu iS.J if __ 1 1._ �1.+ =M �.iil•a 1� 3'r 1'�IO 1 T ].alp. e0 Eq s7411001a11{i CR951 Cdlaa PndnaJ GoYen Sna Pni7 :G[iAnlhee?1w. CamsJD 33.2 16W67 601 D 0[ ! Z.&M 13:0 1]fA [lo -0'1% 217 1387 1*2 161J 683 702% CCRSSI Cdlan lMdnad 6b[h. 4.4 M_C...I-"! 8D6M E x 3. W3 136D r10 •u ^3`. 32J 1691 79 I6P' IMF a'-IM P 3+.0CR"1ICu0r71e SM Cdlarr lfadnrd 01 -"iL d-s Lak-Id••r.1 D.dnwN 'Rxan..l.c I[J[ Ic Mold IR157} 8 x 3 _ ]020 [0 I03 290 ]2S0 T 3333 6D ISM 1 N ] ! La60 IN0 1 50e Jim 16 _y7 U20 Jt0 ffi.7N D 310 c&w- Cd7.•r3 vinad iR�hll»wl Rad itiS ll.--Te A bD 606 a N 7 I900 km 51M 3m 2736 :30 IY. xw 113 !i C .%I SRv11 CN1r![4Wc+R+6 DS 11 Tavel R'Y•]da[Pna w M S x 2,100 !3)0 I. 10 00% 'aft 170t if. =1 1761 739 mAlt. C 363 Sit"] InJ1a.r ]idn�ad :1d-Lim 17m'.w 'lEwk<1LoM 1D $57 D R IA00 15. 1360 Nl ilwd% $'.1 1757 N. 11 1 14:1 261 8hdn D 2m 3'0 SR931 CaDNr &WwM Y1w.aR�1 'ArrdlPat. dD !- D M 11- 16M o• ' •556•. In I Iml Pa" 10 20T 11T1 mi 3}. P 2m 380 SR931 Ceban BminaN .."_..dive Slam ]a6wl Bnfp gd6b P[i.3• Y it, Aaw G37 P A Irm 16M �•41 "JW. 34 1811 21 1: 33 ITIS 497 -,Pay D 39.0 CL+6 III�ASS1w6 Ni Sty D E _ 312 �40 _ I. I46 0 0 ]00 439 o n_ -- -0 31: m u5 +7I 31.Mt J9.1pa. p B a10 CiaM 111E A- N. __ V..dahR D- L'S 11rt..ve.Trd1 m HS D E ♦11.1 CIRSO G R-9 41(r� TIW rh..Rmw1'mA lbrd De6d+Do-F+uY R.r1-Arlp.-r+ R•+d R.-. %o E SV m .110 W I. 175 W5 Im 0 l YM1{' 1f3:' '3.3V C 6,3 E E k1 2 - ]6d0 70 0. All 2b73 --- 0 -- Al .65+ +06 -:,W 86.9y D M24 MU 61.I d21 C1IiR6 Y.adia. Rarl C31lC6 Rd6 36•+ E I w I 3.1 Imk 41+• 2W1 R ?11 s00A D :0`_s +2.^. TBD C1EW t.me0 Rood Rah Wt /13,70 679 E E I5, a10 •1 ! 69 I639 Y 0. 3- :w 913 73.oSr C 61.1 TBD C1iEd6 Yrtra4�r R[W LT3 Bollard 66>gl 7a1 E E 1_100 a30 -[ Vr St0 2470 J1'-: I70. 7t" 3417! \] M.:Sr I3 7PI9 n3 a.5lara Ra.te.w Yw 1loraard 12f10 1 .- _ L W. m11 7E: 'Al at6 2a16 2tS 91.15. a 2Cl1 4+.0 TV +40 rkraeal aCwnS.R Yd --_ .Cdlaa Fk ieaad W wv lkanv �rtAl 1 ��~ 6 1390 iYlp 1 1 1• fl i!o 730 -_ � 1![L � • ale- !7 .- d169 ]�a 361D 603' 199 1fa 1� �_ Y3R 1 3d3 _ •e i9.0\ P 30ie A i CR&6 b..Ade.Rrd 'Gl lS''IF-I SRN u' IU 67I 1D �W 0 12.307a m 166 578 Ioa 152 612" :ai b[or: C YbSI[R Ai.wixnt 1•:Ot9 M1Il10.11+[m -1 moghwn1'Y" Cd0 ('o.eI, M0 A. l Ulydete-A le•aeleey "R tAl'PM Baud oa .ubpvJ L[35, Trip IP.A aN 1nm. C.. ed V I',e1 5 p;u01[ I019 :019 2019 Tnmc IffY ldp llaae' 'lll[ 1\lea1. 1611a :91i en 1" 2519 f/Y :Yt9 Coear• ZD19 ertD Cw.l 3. L P-L DII hoer 11- 101A 3019 Tyal IM,h To ?-I- wr Tya1 c.9 - 1fie11; I' -I I- 3•r•r 1'nn R.N C- 31w ItaL -a " M1 Ln 1 LDlr Nei h .l 1rIC IRIF TNp Trip Trip 1FYTB Re6.a Wd 1#*TD [1 Mprclnt 1'..prnrd !De PYe ReW/ I.iiY FCaw T. kn.d W. yy Dk 5'q.wr VA... Vol- Gx CM iLnnL r 14nL i3aaL Dae1 5-elana C V' 8 peDdret f.K6veI 47.0 :LW TnPFrd Rad lc - Rd SR_+9 w elr•1 U 1, 5D0 10, 31 • '03 +a 5aV 242 ea..5% C LRD B.A. - J v-islak A.& l[I.J P- R.6_ =L fS1c _U .. x �(I1va ,000 6-0 49• 1v dl TN. in TOEY C _ 0..0 A...... l5r fti „... Be.lwrJ 16 VN b S 1900 1610 1 f11", of 1610 D IsIn 610 nt D 50.0 kmem BNIC-t Y-bh. Reed I'd Wt H-A Ii-i I5' ell n _N 1__LOW 570 M5.a6•. _ _ . 5. 49 6" 41 0.9% C 31.D L'Am Aaw - StrR/ I A." Rew -,R) :5 - Ti •• � I )an cta jLQ n, 611 1321 S9 12M 37+1 /SA1. B 52A C11AF1 _._. -- '- Ra/d .v..kAR. P(.a Rj I64 I - 1w ^`e•• Mi I6 ?A IM 13/ M c 510 cxm Ewd Y H Rmj 2,5 E I S Man 1e90 IM I0 Oe . /. I+9+ 6 15a6 l39a aft B 51.0 c'xm Awl Med oraww Gm 60 6A01 R R y,10O t550 a I �Q :6t•. 16 1176 33 ISri 1575 /91% B SSA an Rm Oeldei O[1F g :Raiewwd A03 68- i E !1 S.aA IR i60 MVIN F im 72 32 IS_'2 14%1 %?% B 5E.0 N. IRSeae 1.r 31ae[r Am1 SR.19 rsara w M D \ a50 OA 36 7.9 N 646 IS 3l 1.141 1" 79% D 54.0 Y9e•flwtN Rd 100-1 a SRSi ti 6l_-D E 540 1•Q 4./1. 15 605 IS 3 760 3/0FeIIA C - m.0 Komi. Odvid Rod Rw-dA.Rnad 3L' • 6;M. D i S 1 7w �Q N T." M4 Ay+ 13. 75•?+ /il 316 B 67.0 cww dd llS al L-c i- 17S!1 aiRRwTnd ti W D 1. 10- l --im 10"0 1 1910 0 �wi 0.0Mr 40• Ilia N 1099 mi F F. U," cyj% S(e Pai1s IE� BE/I a�wiTtil lD mi D Yl,!M 12IN •_il?e. Q 1" 10.10 eroA99F VS 11 Fi'ww.ed T146D 31Z E R �.p_• 6 1996 Hle I FF/65o _ ..Brl u' S1RN 6D Sla e w 159D 2000 1 1.01•' h' 15F6 300n '9+660 C'Ai9e Flr9 w99d 'Sry'p�r Sgee+ Rarq eD 315 E 6 «i0D :/'0 ":ci 291G 29E0 _ 1� ?70 17.FP% 2+ :"A d W :+ :63(. ,� 1, Fm[ : ECLI c1096 lair wwl Raw l mAAd bP 526 E E la-1 - 29 2679 23 23 Sups 1�1wd rnR� '1.73 6D 66:2 R P 3 3050 1010 �e•. 01p. It: 31a2 0f Sw �� F bMI ERmni CIm96 A.. Rd N5 Seelenlyd 6D d00 E E 21 II •!!"•• 1 2191 1 0. 1 3161 639D 99.0 A,7M Rwl Rwd !D MD L 1 11 Lo 118D •�0 0. ] INSaf4 11E6 614 639•. C _ 7o.0 CRiie wrk.Med Rwd .s�err+s Blr...IJ /D 525 I D E1 iliaIIM 30 4^ 6 Slay Vor.11•17 on 63.7% c 9niw BwWrJ 'ISwu 21.d rd 16amlm+W liaereerk.".•[AlllTrwe'TeiO BeYnW i !D eEf D 11: 1 6 `I T!0 t0}4 7'&•• "CiAF[ �D 514 rD Vv 1 0 0. l+S 11T3 Itl it IS" i1S• 61E aa.7�6 C w 1 Tea !'Y -a o4 119 9iA 117 i I I 2" 912 !9^ B cAaw _ _'.11sleak Aerl llrRAad:Ssd OwMn Ba -4 !O 13+ D w I.-- -6D -2D 6a0 •7_ r 1+7 i2 1 IM >b 10w0 a5� B 1.'PAe1 - 11.r.od•. Rawl sawn Ar6aR AaJ.r1 CbiSw Be91n-N eD Sli E w 550 Sao e0 I13 .' 1-0 7w T 1W 153 21C Pa a L SwaPmbr Vmkard ilhaa l4eie55ed G.IMaOMe m 329xS.i 13 0-M _3Ep30 0 i3W a o i130 4" �.I% D Sba. A9Yra Enel.nbd ^,• Orr [Iw4e Rer! nD 57i• E % 3,1 1880 15b0 1q i 4 191! 5a 5R 201Rys.wc 8wi-13ndwwd Radom RwlDw,aDNnn.l 6D 537 E H 3,1 1/ 1/:0 =Q••. 321 1671 3i1 2a1 1r61 IU7 ss6 CSaar BORi lRniknani Wtia Pomaa•1 R/1aw.�Hirwa+Ak Rd 6P SR 29 iL51T(Ti rt.Tr.il i7we. fJanai-G1 '- :LI T02 E3Al gyp W 10 10 ? S lW IRw 01 I]0 I700 19W bi'A B SAZ9 a15A D Y 1 1+0 v 110 0' a HO W1 ls.i 13 a1L`A SR ".9 iCk 81•Ilara Sase•E]n 1'S _..-.-.-__.�V 615A D R l 1i0 0 130 0 A: a la 7lA 13AM1 B 82A SR_T9 3R N .4_5 W WA Rad _ SLR Sk :9•i`R NA Sr9& Ilt 611<A D I R 1 110 410 _ 10 0 1 _ 95 315 ll-1_31,F ^9 2Te M I4y96 B gA SR29 665A D K 11 0 H !A! 1G. e9 t,1 +31 531.E C i!A SR79 SEI/ :CRNA� 9N36a1 i +0 .61 D W PP 1.• Ill . I C 3: 119 70[ 9" /1-1% p ESA SRN A29 9y11- CRIa.7 Nf 21d Ns i D S 110 -15w .6 Tab 11 93 -lel IFS T. 46 D ieA SRN SRN _ _ClL 2DA_1:onA SRIC zu SRN 1 C line 3R F7 217 661! D S 620 I!4! 115w TS T06 U [d NO :1+ Tr2% D ETA ERN WIA D S 1• 10 2 . II ail M !I W 390 410 44% 13 FEA SFi2 Rai 4.0 I.n. aK39 3V 661A D S 1 7 30 1}3 ye 79F 52 11 +9 -9q; ! 91A 91.0 VSli t1511 7anwn Ind ErI ILx. RwlwalJ Rl al 6D .7inwn�7ra�]fr� •.V P Rd •R Oft.A. Haaw t14.a6 6O SS 11 F. . L9pp 1 I. .3i01 .!"I' 126 200 l7- 2 09 1719 f 1R1 39]ti C -- - eDk E E 2.590 1Z50 -?5• 373 2FH 247 72- 255" MS SiT D 97A L6/f �T�.rn Trd lrl Ry.kwuL, llvoroct' --' Telagllr LleekSwa OO �Tw.4lLeJn..J ?72 E E 3.000 1 1 i]0 1_ 653 7372 all L33 iI 2+7A S.A F23% D 9J.0 45.1 LKl,I�7naa�el that TIW Y..re .Co16n DnJn�d yD T-Tnd Fsl •[I+I.n 1wr:Jn.4 N 1- 6C STl to P D P E 3,OD0 3.100 1 la low 13w1 -13 •+ 3.m +A2 561 21a2 Ism 35T 3 91 /+i SA I91a. Me 1620. laai 6) W 323E e H _ 95-7 ""1 Tnd EaI [wn Raw /0 sd__C. 211 fT�well7.J A.r1 •Sw �[.w• 1- •[Rom 2V 1� 0 1. 2.90 I 50 10 lb 1136 1311 e5.� C T:p:p-_1?ueuy 451 .. 50F I D F 1A'3 I M \a5 FS 1F75 1 77155 1143• 1IN0 111-' F w.A LIS/1 6lTA A R 1 M l0 . 0 am 2:.e 7T+ m2 . B 9-A I�S6t /rwi. Teal FaI Sk N hale L'nrn w. 2U 616A D e I,IXG IV 1 20 11 -e• 0 170 0 190 • S10 1 B ".a USAI ITailew Tra7 r.�r15 l.e.'• ap' 1,rie u'r,an, p.w }p.l 011 7an.rn 7111.w.>t •tia'iann. I.-R-i eyn.*a Awd 6D 3+6 R N 3.1 2 . KI .1 W. yT U17 K 57 216- III :v:+ 99.Q D5a1 S61 E K 7.IQD VW1 3 A 1 SI SO4 76 H r,m He #sti �D I DOA u"I IITs,.w. 7ra11oQh Lo-r S..J I.e1nlrJ I Br&Rima 66 samr Twil`tiea<1i •l-u.p.IMi l6xL R.rJ �IdfH.k f3n.e� eD am 7niltimfi •U&Nk[ n- •1'wr H.•krRwF 6R S77 E N 3,1M 1910 1• ilia 16 1"4 15 IS 11Df 1Z95 Sx 1.'•. C 10l.0 102.OI V5a1 113a1 36J E & 3,100 5.190 2 ._lol ail•. I 2+61 ! S62 E !/ _ 301 31 I70 A 2 TA12 1 I 3t9k 9G6• 70.7h C IOFOI w. gDmr _,Br1Tl.�.e Dn•e L\ 11 i1'rm,a.Taw1t _ f1 F_• 560 619 96 / e5D I>0 il]4 D Yu.. E..lrR.an a-figi0e31 IQ II.F. ku.4mi IV, CnIikr f'werr 1010 ren..11"pl.W nee I—t q Rrp.rl CAI IR1 T1avd ve .Uhvp I.M Trip ll.e l aed TMflc ['Dual• 1'.l :OI: :Dlv :n18 3019 2a1g 10H Tnlfit llf TA. liner' IY.I lYal :vt9u ♦'610 ir111. :01e Irr• 101} Cweba :0l9 w'!1E Cwgt IWek f<al P4 ]l..r !leer laf9 T"I 1Rte TII :0t0 tR I-1 racer• 1rt1i 78 C.m , I. Y- Twr 1:1 hr r.E %11e IYe\ hnke Rral llR 1M R Im Re.� I,I.I %r T. Re.d tits srd Bfr 5'yewe Vywe. fYvl ai, tirt v4-ei. E'Ireea N-.r CIIA_ 111P �-- trip lw.l i"vlmer bee! THp B�1 Trip 0eel inr ra. Stow mme iReT$ 1'e CareYr V,C O P_.pn F pr.1N % lb'_-d AUel.ee C51863 Vaa.WkkB '.... O fiinr[Mh Lis 41(Eaa T 'M'. n. 1.1 E E � 1 'HO q5p re0 MOP. 0 +^9 y]8I M: -704 C !L-O I,l !.I- a'R�abl VWnp'05.nnil Dloe.! r'llw: 5'nwkiW141weT Pwd .QJi Rxrian Inlr 'riwltenalYW:ffvd-.JM1"__ O�nq.aPrak M- ,F, nab .FwW !40-oDi f{A !a F 'me IN0 1J90 To b !J!r r T Nor1 113. rU.. D rn7 ice_-FW I'M I0 03r4 Ir}: it i< 1C1 F'9 ._y* C III 1 Ran. V.edo BBtL Rave - - .tnp- RTd 4..eEae<n Rvd eD }T9 1 E I A' S � W Iola i.Yi : ni4 d 1961 J 61 l!. C III : CRW: V-k h1l BO.b Red •L.neamO Rd b[1d en ben C E t 3 W-0 ;Ila Ie0 6 TI 1 Slal d � TI, 'fi34 D I'_ V CRee: Va _ . ^ - • f✓+e ilw Iw.e.d C•Jt.s Bde1..'rl W 38A p p 1 5 1690 i6.0 fah 359T19f! ]03 :AI jm 1 [$6 Ol34 C I140. C 1 p !LLS 'N b J .1 r. 115.0 CRoa! vW.rDb On+v u'd,rdox ROM fsn. Pw Rwd _ •m Rrod ] I l4 A.mur 'sR =+ ltr 5"A D I 1< 1= 4!9 0 3.005: 16' 40 131 13 1+1 519 47.1% B 11bA MY 1 61.1 D W 1100 :lo �aG rlvi -1 -•.`. of xlo G ]00 f0a 3501 s llrA 5120 i C_KM ASE�Pa.Rov1 BmL I AVan Bl.d `-� LaableR [In.e L-e.rr1.J.. NaJ - - L_s 11 li'aW�TrWll 'LW"Onr Wd..d :[I lr69 315 450 P R D S 1 Jro �NO A.Y 3 OW6 50, lev IJ I] 21. vs S13 47.54 8 ]5U 10 ^54.. DI 340 1 O 1 ]5! SOY ]904 53 -- A'1M --"0. e3i1 I 1 'EZ>.�.+---'-xgi ail =---- -�'-n `-ii+ y' TIT. Zi• ITS I e.� � 1 . 1 _1 . 1'3 Wn'dl Read �l A•r'!d-n_ efLLW +Q:.�.� S ` .SRC 2V dW D Y: SN 3W +0 11.bN. l70 3l0 SJ• 13 fU lSr eT"w. L 10o T'0 S yv 5 1 1 a. J4 0 C 4 1�11:i'�.i'li i •1 0r��ar +5+ +5 S3+A Wllr &OGIOs m Fs y...d Cdhp Beeln�d Rda11 Hryn•J Nen.yl.� R.4 EN -Inds B ..d JB }�� 3V 651 $ rr1+,` n E 1 � �yW NM 15+0 i l0 300 1-, 18.9ri -1 .'"'.. I31% !0 • Rd0 ! IM I% r i i56 5?5 bi W ]ti Y.9'.' c _ O �' ^a1 hod_x :.aryle_k4r lf�� of r.a�d�� 171E�nil�k�B`dr'ud Oa1rNW - Ai D S �50 a}a 60 1?+84 �µ�_ J10 F50 .Tv M]•1 C ��-�� I ?0 1380 .an awenad PRnv Fdnud •T1 'r�ynl urrE4ek yrd t .i i_rsr EM1 .ry H' p�Mj 1 :u a7M s o I s � --1:5 Ila JIO I" 16 '�Y -- IR.IM 1 W a i II- IE 0. l0 Il$ (d: .11, q �� ti:A u5a i e0C11 Qernr N1owm ]hr.c CRW.11 m M:r - �1apn NavJ Ien�nna R: si— :B -:cl Mr 61T p LL• n L� l» !00 -Im eG ] m t r Jlr l6 NF 1 !0 V 1 J0 lmt— ]I 130 s1-! ro. 11 n " M411 i1=T+) T Im,r11M 7' n • :M :0 , In ••. R 250 v =T• 1'3 :1+•. - n LNvl01 ""o tbindiRem ter lean fatted.!eW ane cel[W�OM Rr pui hart lfal0t m aloae,•� e.gTrwd ter roan inym e.erac. raen.n al IN edepe LOS- p/.i hue y[�tdatw ar 10. tiaNh h1oh- nun lb -Alen a 10 mereh prlpd lv0tltlrq F.Ln,ary -1Y.vcNl. w.lrh la rny.>rry .aviv0fer11 f0 tim 33 h0iahaM _ M. imp" ill! -M!, p.0ed" V. Raalah Olfe -V tap.fNlr pOJaH., [M ]Otlt Nghnl I.mr fu .1:mWnb PwVOtl a1 LOS*C' Oil h. Ailr 1L0C 6,06.07A] C.) Wl. ERAmer�ae f ti101REYt011+1v+ achment "F" Collier Coumly 2019 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) Based on Adopted LOS, Trip Bank and Traffic Counts 00 Peak 2019 2019 2019 2019 Hour' Peak 1171h 2019 Counts+ 2019 w/TB Peak Dir Hour Total Courts+ 1/7th TB Counts+ L Exist Col. Min Peak Service Peak Dir Trip 1171°TB Remaining 1/7u'TB O ID# Pro # Road# Link From To Road Sta. Sid Dir Volume Volume Bank Volume Capacity V/C S 17.0 CR876 Golden Gate Boulevard Collier Boulevard Wilson Boulevard 4D 531 1 D I E 2.300 1730 0 1730 570 75.2% D 30.1 CR951 Collier Boulevard Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 6D 655 E N 3,000 1850 547 2397 603 79.9% 1) 30.2 CR951 Collier Boulevard Vanderbilt Beach Road Golden Gate Boulevard 6D 584 E S 3,000 1260 102 1362 1638 45A% B 31.1 CR951 Collier Boulevard Golden Gate Boulevard Pine Ridge Road GD 536 D N 3,000 1850 79 19291 1071 64.3% C 31.2 CR951 JCStllierBoulevard Pine Ri<Ige Road Green Boulevard 6D 536 D N 3,000 1850 107 1957 1043 05.2% C 43.2 CR84G Immokalec. Road Lo an Boulevard Collier Boulevard 6D 656 E E 3,200 1930 986 2916 284 �. 91.1 ro D 44.p CR846 v _ - Immokalec Road ___-_ Collier Boulevard Wilson Boulevard 6D 674 E E 3,300 2050 888 2938 362 R9.05o D 112.0 CR862 Yanderbih Beach Road Logan Boulevard Collier Boulevard 6D 590 E E 3,0p0 1640 204 1844 1156 61.5% C 118.0 60229 lWilson Blvd Immokalec Road Golden Gate Boulevard 2U 650 D S 900 3501 1 351 549 39.0% ` B 119.0 CR858 Oil Well Road Immokalee Road Everglades Boulevard 4D 725S D E 2,000 IN 352 11921 808 59.6"% C 120.0 60144 CR858 Oil Well Road Everglades Boulevard Desoto Boulevard 2U 694 D W t 1,100 390 184 574 526 52.2% B 121.1 Oil Well Road Desoto Boulevard Oil Well Grade 2U 094 D W 1.100 390; 152 542 - 558 49.3% B 121.2 Oil Well Road Oil Well Grade Ave Maria Blvd 4D 694 D W 2,000 390i 152 542 I 1458 27.1 % B 1210 Golden Gate Boulevard Wilson Boulevard 181h Street NE/SE 4U 652 D E 2,300 1270 14 1284 1016 55.8°% C 123.1 60145 Golden Gate Boulevard l8th Strcct NE/STi Everglades Boulevard 4U 4D 652 D E 2,300 1270 5 1275 { 1025 55.4% C 124.0 Golden Gate Boulevard @vcrgladcs Boulevard Desoto Boulevard 2U Manual D E 1,010 232 0 232 778 23.0% B 125.0 CR896 Pine Ride Road La nn Boulevard l _ Collier Boulevard 4D 535 D E 2,400 1540 7 1547 853 64.5'% C 132.0 60147 & 60065 Randall Boulevard Immokalec Road Everglades Boulevard 2U 651 D E 900 810 26 836 64 92.9% D 133.0 60065 Randall Boulevard Everglades Boulevard Desoto Boulevard 2U Manual D E 900 652 0 652 248 72A % C 134.0 Ever lades Boulevard I-75 Golden Gate $lv<d 2U 637S D S 800 5301 0 530 270 66.3% C 135.0 Everglades Boulevard Golden Gate Boulevard Oil Well Road 2U 636S D N 800 4101 51 461 339 57.6% C 136.0 Everglades Boulevard Oil Well Road Immokalee Road 213 6355 I D N 800 490 2 492 ; 308 61.5% C 137.0 Desoto Boulevard 1-75 Golden Gate Boulevard 2U 639A D S 800 140 0 140 660 1 17.51,4, ! B 118.0 '.DeSoto Boulevard Golden Gate Boulevard Oil Well Road 2U 638A I D S 8001 1301 81 138 GCi2 17.3 ar B Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1 — November 2020 Appendix G: Collier County FY20 - FY24 Five Year Work Program/CIE Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 169 bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — PS —Section 1— November 2020 RnU1+cl if TA 14U (A241 FADED 60147 601TA 60215 60212 60212,1 TBO 60720 60145 60211 601A W" 02M 0219 60129 65061 (D144 33574 70167 6605r (-0bfh W2i3 TDD TEND 602pi TFI I T10 TDD 611016 31524 fi014R f/)214 6pK'S W226 C-0227 (4231 60230 50213 50112 60142 TBD E-0213 TOD 7DD TK) Swdrul 61001 60040 66055 50154 60M AttaChment D 2020 5 Year Work Program (Dollars shown In Thousands) Not UtuAFL Halm 105AF, FY10 FY20 FWI (Y22 FY23 Ty24 FY 2IL24 SUMr47ytY t'lF CT Atrnurn Alm urM Anuuid Aneltud Nuolul Almurd AnnwN _ •114r..11.11109M R-IlroUlaram, iral, 2T.15r AUVA 15.4e0 RfA 75,000 C tgmD PJIORmD0R11(L0111111o1110 015) I'NIVU A I30AOD DXM amp I I lirllfue Rrl.,,an m 1,075 M 31.Da5 C 32,010 R.ldAJI111r1 k1lw Rfral hione tlmr 221 D 960 DIR ABOD C 9,750 114p.11 Rd Val1lahle DCN MI to h r.N.HdW fill 61 3,GDD DAi 145M C N,50D 1rlm Ule uhmiviim 51 20111 It 11,M0 RIC 6.01.111, N L" Goldat Gale DlldaeR(111 150M DIC 0,120 DIC 10.000 DIC VIW6 471h Av. NC 0.000 DIC 91000 MIN SSlert NE erlllue A030 DIC 9.030 SirllTndkc 1,@7 DIC I I.Mil DIC DIC 2,531)1 D+[ 1 2,535 DfC 1p•1AD ddeA Gate DMI WIN St to tvel0lad.s 21,935 MiC - Dfa111eDlessom(AiR10rltoLMlrIJs101t1 20D S - derartsMaflorlJ 414) R 3.too RD 1;800 C 12,400 aloa the BondI All 0)541 to L et teettlpt11 004 D WO DrA qg(q G 9,400 43Ood4nitrlRaal(CR57A)Rb..1.&.1.rlrrrru.r-at 4,400 on Zm0 A AW C 6,IDu IIIq,00IVA11 3011 4,W0 DIC 4,I00 Ismile11fla11E7d(Lorfl's VVWIo CIIy GJe N) 3�4a! SIG 7,Wu C 7.UM WA 1,OIb JUA 1,141[I It I'mil WA 11.11100 R16Yoll FDllile 140 C 150 C 15D 011W61t(FtmlUlM**I00I will Cr M. 5A32,, NIOD A 300 A 300 A :010 A :01 A 1,1108 figtd Grert 7.952 (B5 605 Gtiaimas Cada ICNy GAN) RMI C D,ll)a Collier HMI(Grem to GG Ma41 Cm4l :(2al IVA 1,11111 10A 4;au A 15,1110 R411dJIRMr111r1nk10PIVW1 zero 1,sr11 A 1,590 Dell. Mwde '10 30 G uodletl. Rd NOR to hrdmkal.. Fief) 7.DW R1A ..wO DMP#A 6.r,11 A I1,Nru 51MIl11MI(Sal4a DallaaDMll to SlIMUrle) 500 S wo (54n 11M1(00 BM119 Ilmnkolm) f,l llrl n Il(t111 u-A tga00 C 27'000 aldd Litt D[h Rd (1RI1 taEWrylad4q ZIIBU DIRM 11,259 R3A 5-pull RA 19AMI Vim"St 045 Dot Ot5 hmmkaloo IM(LMMUsloo to Lo Iran) 10011 1 SA I i 1 1,1103 hda tl1di 1rd Irt141r.Val1ftldt S1.11IIdd Wiletkhe 2,112 315 390 300 �Irr.IUdderte F11nt1ADLr1 1,5RD Aellori Rd Dania HMI lnlasudmn 2,14H fH; Irunyk,�laxYNrndarei Ir11r ,,D(M) DC idu RMI(Culltd to 2.1fid St S.W.) 511.(d(Wa 175 D lent AVe(17m 51 Swrd 27D Si 5" 51101111.rs 15D D t, yrl 4: G.Mwaw Rlr(Lee County LAID) SlmMlax 1,:11h C 1,20D W MII Rd (Cane litrels Ad to SR 29) Sloulda s i410 IR6 ODD H mddl old hh.idh $1 D1Ws1o0pminu hyraos 100 D 4410 C 11M St Amr.Lm Sally 531 DC mMUXRW,l Dfokal Datll hAersodlon 111M DC Loft F1aR014 e 10111 S1 2 DC Rmd.0 RPM(4tilk Rd tO U.Ma RMI)SWL.Idd 1fr11 11f 1,450 C 1,560 C OAf1CleW Rd (Lee Cilry L ild la SR82 COW) %Aug C Rdt119113MIM EVerillalleSDMI eG", Ili 111 E 075 ennk Rrl el NiMhhm0k0 Drtlepwr BglBMI 1,4111 D- 1.000 _WiI]tAdLS DMI(Oil MAIM lrlela lMl)She111Da I I.W13 of 1.604 t.A115 13q - hdal Fft Wiudo'-A 1.031 Cf olduh GJ. UW NDs.0 1. MN 423 Collier DMI (UGH toGrulN 330 Il Ir11G11e I ZMA 545 - huimkdnr Ild 11—Tifdrdlml 3 C.idlnl]aiiy I.IJI 7E,061 1 1 51315 1514(Al 17dr-I tilat•,. I W,,'U Trebilcock Consulting Solutlons, PA P I g e 170 BoYmor S[ewnrdship Receiving Area — VS — Section 1 — Noven7ber 2020 66066 Onaalmx4minymnrdl+Prenrafns 141,914 P. 51n ----- 2,5m -- ---- 6.500 45m Qom ;'I.nll1 601A7 VeFIRwelRq,l4a•nmt 793 m 250 250 250 250 1,:,111 60131 Rued Rumm-pnu 111,1111 f4a7 dam IL50D 6.000 6.000 111,5110 .k'1fl11 60120 LlnlorochFlea,lCpluaPp,1111 1.047 Im 1411 60077 S1dnlim and tuiItiv p¢, tmo am Im6 aeg 950 1.1•01 60171 Tld uCP* 2,029 Im 7Q1 no 701 747 G:+I1 WIN LEI) Rmlacao)PANnur ii 1.110 6018) S10n R1trnn0w'm'Y 11-04d -d 21 011$ Co.,raMlrtu PatlW41151dAwdkS Nob PIL fLAP 1.066 2`A 350 300 750 740 f,lU1 49001 Pafhw4yx'S1d,nvdin lnku l nim& Mdrd C nh5n 24 60037 ARWI ra011$ 52) 451I im log Im 100 11'+1 60146 WCRaooaponT 03M t,i72 60191 lim Fadoly Fwo 310 l69 600 501) son 513D 500 7.''111 60131-3M Oman I'23�4,5,6Shlw+alll PA. 402 60101 Lap Oua1911 I.h= 112 SWtetal opm Cons hnpmmmi%x4yrigran5 27,2.10 V,I Jl t 1, Aml 15.150 Vulto.�I W%6 C011UeMllortMon40ae 910 00M TIS F-PA "r 305 Zm 5 2m S 250 S 2m S 250 S 1.250 10wo PUD M4paor4ll0 145 61107 Pfalrtnucona,pn0 443 600 S 5m S me S 500 S 5119 S z5m C0163 TfarneStudie9 636 300 360 wo 3m Sou 1,50o 50171 MIIII Iiolnd w Awaloe mey fa a& STW 141450 limad FoeRdmfls 11370 250 25R 250 250 253 1.259 oallt sumce Flmlr Onls 13,37b 1362M 13,131 13,131 13I13fi IA575 ril;.ly Total Naidno Ftae,loll all l mils .1 1 '++.u:u KA I 1 MI. v1 RL 4E N11F 5 Sdas Tau ii, IN $ ,lff; 26.973 31,6`!1 2R536 11YA6112 1njwl Funs Rwnnu 10.130 15MM 156sm 151560 m5m 77,0m COA Resume Gas TxRovume 2%975 now 24,000 2.000 24,000 24,010 11%oclu Gf..hW10idtr+f sonrad S' 1,095 1.90 4.934 4,1v0 11,362 oCAllilersGrA am14 L900 1,010 Ffal14d0011e 310 %5% R309 R550 O,556 1{556 %556 47,611 Ifarlalar 111143f0 4,250 4,000 15m 3,500 3,m 4' 0.5m 10.001 WE ad Gas l ax Impa;t f an 500 1.301 I,Om 1,m0 1,000 1,010 Vol CanyFolwan1313-31UTnp1r.I Far* 1290m 47,W* 47,57G Pr+tonII4DdltF,mdg0rinRnrlulNcur: 21%Om /7+ 5545 322ae EmmctorfT EMA"Oni5m mirror 0.5m 0,sm PRV5n114"Rm"'I 94 41,9191 (Z@25)2UZ 7075 10 r 1 01 Fetal 5Yeaf Rmenues I", 310 11QOr1 171.372 03,432 0J001 06'all 511,373 Gfbii$Ifl,Il135116MA11 47.516 317E (IA (10,127I S5',J 17+ - 1111� 10 Od A - Adv Cansfi Icllon 15 - Slub I O - goFiun �020 M - MRiodlnn f C - co"mr lslhtmm l R - ROPY 11ih 5m fhidgu 4,934 ca LS - Lmidspo I L-LRIgatlon I I-1nq,adlon furpgll VQR1n Wi k t,sm 4 928 AM-Acco5sbbhAlLP-99Le4nRmawnuM 17m ?3t 4112a o e @ - S m awmalo upplonrnlal Akio "The Scad Loral OUllan FUFI Tam Is eallmlhed lewads drill smAcc. hlldu9s, anll IF09mr t,nn I,nlnpvnm,LF, 601w Sam 1a%pfMMS: Vbpnt Lilt R-al F 9 14,010 WnI PI1.7 Rldde Fld¢MdUl166 WIN Sewall lupl 231om 46m II Uildoa R%Iaceitmils 1.0m W147 5h.r,k9lmudlRd6dd3edlad 1,m0 TO() Algiatl F4+IVOR1011MI Rd I'sm Zroo W215 Tt1rt,0kr9MLMih1141 UUtu 60212 Now Galdan6AoRddg-111) 16,06 661a1 tFLOW 7.300 4711tS1rod 0,1,fge 100D TRO 1Rns1red Rfldlle 4,0>Rt T80 Sldwndks 167T 1311 T14t1 75Y1 36 I I11al Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 11 ,1 1; e 171 EellmorStewardship Receiving Area —TlS—Section 1—November2020 Appendix H: Collier 2040 LRTP Table 6-1 and Table 6-2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 172 Betimar Stewardship Receiving Area — T15—Secrion 1 —No vernber2020 Table 6-1 1 Highway Cost FeasibIR Plan -- Highway Improvements Completed: 2021.2025 Description r .r 1 Alrpnn ^tilling Rd V inderLUt rnnu,k.,lrr Rd 4 Lane Ruadmiy la G lanes with Sidevrnlk, WY c lanes, .crd Curb $5.00 6r•,tdt Rd & Gutter jlncludes milllnd and resurfadng of) Culllei SWY CR951 Gulden Gr,r C,r-r. RIO 4 Law RU;+dw:ry to C L:lnrs With Sidew.-ll4, 91ke Lrnnes, and Curb $3U.tx) C.,nal & Gull('r (lnckjdes milllnd and resurfacing ) 3 Golden GaSc AS1-75 [New) 2-Lane Ramp P+rk+vay edtange irrtrtd 4 nr.unk:4rr 4J Ai 1.75 Inter&polon Tralllc Sgnalizatiurt 52 75 rrl�r+hanga 5 Plnr RiJge Rd Az lnMn#,:,ngr MWeSedian Traffre SignnllMlon $S,00 rrj 6 RanJ�rp Rlvd at I,rvnr�.�f,-r Rd R:h 5t At Gradr IntersocCon Improvement Indurlua 4 lane Irorn g4.nn urvnuk.der. nil Irnmukalee Rd to Bth 3t (future fly rncrJintrrrhnrtgc) 7 SR 29 Hord, of 5R 82 Gr,Ilin/rrrndiy 2 trine Rondway to 4 Urivs with 6utcide Shoulder Paved 57,89 tine Includes milirn and resurfac+n of exnPn l 8 g G Navcnn•gt} 8 US-1 tau t GnnJlre Intrrsediun Impruverncnts{;}{IJ7urn inrtcl $2.Op RJ 9 Vanderbllt Qeedt Cnllirr Plvd Bill St tFu,ind from 0& 2 lades to b0d 3l4nm of a 6 lane ultimate $59.96 Road Flit fiorn Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd, 2 lanes from Wilson to 81h St 10 1-75atCUllirrRlvJ' Interchange-5inglePulatUrWri $41.4D norm nr. 511dge Program $4.66 mop funds YM Wm, w CM5/ITS rwrds $9.32 Will NO' tih�,t,�an Aaffiwayrrogram $9.32 Mzp rw,de Add larle5 ■ New Roadway %Alim— tFunding F"Iprovem■ p',lerseclion FTypeImprovement IYOEI ■nlercl,rxge ImprQvemenl Bridges. CMS/ITS. and PURtiwoy Note: Figures ore In Mffifons of D❑liars 'Source: FDOT District One Droff TentoWe work Program Nl caf years 2017-2021 Wu Nor. so iP+di Tor+r_,7re)Wy I-ir7rr7r,7ri r, d; Ir'rspraucnal d5 Ire 1:1y Cast Feosibtt' 1 6-3 Trebilcack Consulting solutions, PA Page 173 13eftor Stewardship Receiving Area — T!S — Section 1 — November 2020 Table 6-1 i1 Highway Cost Feasible Plan — Highway Improvements Completed: 2021-2025 (continued) 10 I .. - r p[ I ROW iSr 1 alhPplt Pullh,g Rd 51.12 $6.35 2 c0ii,, RIO/cR S3,66 s38.10 951 Goldelti+Ptv S0.59 SES4 Parkway 4 I.nmok.d— Rd $4.00 5 Mae Ridge Rd $0,8n 55.35 RaadallBtvdat $5.08 Immokrlrr Rd 7 SR29 S10,02 $ UUJ 1 it Goudlett+ $0.3T 52.54 9 var.derkal:0trrdr 86 $76.15 10 I-75 of CWIVl Blvd 555.87 S" NIA O.M 4ridge r'mgram $4.66 Map ruride .40+ cr, C?,hs/JSFuId, 59.32 M.,P N'r S1,7 Pathway Program $9,32 p rw1d5 MPre-Engineering trrl ■ Right -of -Way (RO1Nl ,-Construction 10511 Note: Figures are in Mllrions of Dolk3rs We Plari s0 thal Tvwraw s Horl7.arr a as InspraucN,,o! a: Texloy',, $7.57 County $41.76 OA $3.13 OA $4.00 OA $7.15 OA $5.08 OA $10.02 515 $2.91 OA $8%01 County $55.87 5S5 $4.66 TMA $9.32 TMA $9.32 TMA $190 $165 --- $180 - _ $175 -- �' $17Q — 4 $165 — $160 $155 r Present Day Year of Costs Expanditur� (PVC) IYcrfl Cost Fedsibtr- 1 6-4 1'rebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 174 Sellmor Stewardship Receiving Area TiS —Section 1— November 2020 Tahle 6.2 1 Highway Cast Feasible Plan — Highway Improvements: Completed 2026-2030 2-1,'lnc Roadway to 4 Lanes with Sidewalk, Bikc Wrle, drld Culb & Irl7nrokttlte Rd Lanlp Kealti Rd Carver St Gutter {Includes tnllling ;and resurfacing) Oil Well Rd/ CR cwrgladrti 01' Wry' 2 Lune Roadway to 4 Lanes wilt[ Oulsidr.- Vuwldo Pilved gs8 Blvd Grade Rd itnclutics rnlnlrtl•,:md rt•5,rr11•1' itlej US 41/ i•ee/Cotner 2-Lunt• Roadway to 4 lanes with S!duwaik, Bike. Lane, and Curb & 3 Old 41 Rd 7amiami Trail Counly Line Gultei jlnWvdus rndling and rinurfacing) Callivr B'wl/ SR South of North of 4 LIITW ttu.rrlW.ry to f Lunr+s With SIr4+WA, Me Lanes, and Curb 4 951 Id,malee Rd TpW('r Rd & G,Ilter (Indudcs nPllrig and resurf,ttintll Vanderbilt Reach 41/ 4Lana Roadway to G Lanes with Sidewalk. Bike Lades,;)end Curb Rel f(irpprt RdUS TonhmiTralr i5 Guile, (IricWdcs milling and rcsurfanlny) Velerurn us 41/ 2 Lane Undivided Roadway will[ Sidewalk, Bike Lane and Curb & 6 Mnrnorlalglvd GvSngston Rd T.rrr,l.,rrNT.Ml. Gtl110r ka BridetP:ograrn VW" h Funds Map nr•t snow*, nrr CMS/ITS Funds Map M°r Pathway Prupam Sh—nn Funds M•,p Funding By: Improvement Type IYOF-) ■ Add Lanes ■ New Roadway Bridges, CMS/ITS, and Pathway Nate: Figure; are in MigbrM of Donors WQ Plan S3 Omt Torpkrrow's hb 1.ur1 n di os Triclay'S S25.ti4 S20on �! "a •43 ;1i zS 54.nB Sit nn ;4 bL ss.az $932 ■ County Funding By: Funding v OA Source L(YOE) TMA Cast Ftwsibkr 1 6-7 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a 6 v 175 6ellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — TTS — Section T —November 2020 Table 6-2 1 HighwaV Cost Feasible Plan — Highway Improvements- Completed r r r Furldrng Allatmd'u5 LRTP Fuddng Allociled in l Pl P fundml; All-M,d �n LRIP LRTP Map 20212025 ?0262bi0 nil 20;0 Funding ID Improvement w _� — Fluldny. FL Row csr Pt ' RoW_ CST Pt 1101 IIT Irex Sy Snuree 1 jMMokilee Rd 59 24 523.D1 537.56 I $65.$1 Cn,mly Z Oil Well Rd/ CR $34.00 $14.40 fpunly 858 3 Old 41 Rd $2.72 $22 55 $25,27 CIA d olnk-1 Blvd/ SR $2,0I $70.03 $22.05 OA 5 Vdnderbilt Ruach S!. L n $6 00 $9.14 Cncmty Rd VCtCllrrrl r1951 $12,00 $15.03 County Mmlorsul Sly.) Not �wffl Brid'geProgeam $469 $4,66 TMA Map Funds ,W sh-- cM5/IT$Fdnd% $9332 $9.32 TMA M.,P Nnt 3havm rM+ P;Ithway $9 17 $9.32 TMA 'Aw Prug+um Funds $200 $150 • Pre-Enghoorin0 FPFI b:, $100 •RIrjIU-u}-WnY{RUWi 4 0 Col1shuction [CST) $0 Present Day Year Of Casts Expenditure IPUCI IYO11 NdtB: Figures are in Minions of Dollars Wr Firx-, ;O that 7orrYJfrOW s Hoazntl E JS Today's Cost Fv.25ibIv 1 6-8 Trebilceck Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 176 Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 1— November 2020 Appendix I: Collier County 2019 AUIR - Attachment H Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 177 PME Pip7ry (FY2p191 F`wxue Staee F W np li Yer FAeeelee ONsaN Z�S M7fn.,y�[TCWA Wu f •Feaed De4� 202a Npuwa�[ TCNIA Ten E"aiim D.f w 20rr Nxu.eyst TCMA Dftw FV23 R W FY22 S FY23 AdVGST FY23d 2A vanaPom sewer Rd W —to Girr, :r C:'.'ues� FYZ020 ....�•._Im FY2922 fr r D Nw� cwfmW 00V*,4>•il A.glpy m a Y4y►xe0 x BrJII Cx TCFAA cam weD AA WNd ~DlIaw Ope�enlAl AAwyy1 R YBTaFeF YeerYht4t Impra.e�.ien ATTAcHmEmr N-i vewan F --iiI Ben EwRwue�E IMMOKALEE RO E Re1Ww 01-w lh. Rdb Yen EOMnm1 :D25 h..etw w n MVI onlwne TCMA Rowo.*,I FY202p DAP + A TFMl &Wig&r 471hAy NE CmRnCrn FY 2021 eu E.plew [ST Fv22 �CmAexhm FY2CM4 APFACN gH%.�ne Ml LoW BW N - L &hA A -T fYtOSi fC Y�WFedlen 1{iD SlfE] E� pet Fyp Iw- e ROW FYN AdT CatCrup�on FY2022 LLTER �4w 4. K IOIL �E/ / Wo' E.oeaad ware WELL I'D � A.pa l Rd Oewyt FYM Brtlpe [Ah St NE ROW M2020 [CvrpM[eml CST F W"22 vANOERB[LT ANDEAe ii.)JCH T - Q OEACH Rn ExT. � Ierwe-GOLDE71 wTE blw OW - SNmr FTlDL3 '-¢� w+W00nri llNlLrpMla W RIpGE _ 2w i EN ? RLVD WNm BwN 1 - cry Gabetrm mt 4rs CST 2019 6 2070 wr Eroaw RAO[O RC dee.nt Zap ' DAVIS BLVO W Nku Rpd Aar.CpailtS[n �000$024 a I IrNr+0L1 Fill, DA1L BIYD R F`O C a ekgYHCt� E YMr F �aefed ^-. -Rra 2029 �� A SNDy CaaPNed Yrtle[W DeeCi Re Eb RO :_� _-R4bMSkeetCSTrR1'22 +BbmE-vwnaw aR RAq& MFM ie Q w", Ae.CST FY27 d IN w &4;0.0 lem 91 NE DeegrA)Ae9� FT$BM1 cdws eLw • w m msw .e to.wvetbn Frxaa� DeF+sFY2Di2 ROW P'2M ematrgarw+ 0.9%wwI u dNC AF CST El'202 -N24 Vr+dabd BeaCn Rtl En xaa• Roq Re le cave 9.Lr+e1 omrar w to Rwe.a Cvgewn CF+ Lrmaeaka Rd arw Gmmr+ Ca+e ena I.75 D-V, FYYJ[g20+9 ROWd FY20,S_2= Cy Ore 0+ N C� t+^ FY202i IBy DIM"? Ease Cenbal TCdtA Cm7v�'rn Ceram Sarty Sewy4 ROW FY20+9 Cww-x:J +2022 rwrta rr4[4 Cnmplce. f'E dCSTIa Pere Y� Rggp RWa!Lry Ry t•te aR�eO' Vd-sw� b $4*ME'fy201B Crogrs��ad� CIE �n is K�Re Ve/r_^w•g IV __ - . Ady ROW FY202t-2029 RATTLESNAKE ft tt+Ttdor POdE FY typ fpr z *� g Yev Fnpevem Deneaen[p2T TOr Eepeded I"+rd+I2ekAA , S DA-I 2004 CST be' FDOT FM Yxr FApxbm Omtcwt 20021liw Cerwel TOdvL �de[W lPlryFe IA•�y Legend I we-C[�a+lmpr Fe ROW S CMSvuttC+ FY; 16y or ) -Imere W[,W-�'TOM How FY2p19.7o20 OnaevGm 1:N=1 M69— fMia.T 2021 INSET MAP lmmm[.v" Ei+wwCmwrt PR+aet OMk �ErFvq w�r.T Yeor E.ttc[w Odom[ 2027 1'ev E.peded D4F+twf 202E % PME O'i. Slum US e+ iCEA y'4tlen +e 6Ln g Pww.a S:Ne F+nenp Fn O_ ram, I d�PrgFCW GlPrlq � ST'Iw•, �PCryeCJtd Dvr*w T Ste +G'•:. �TCMAriCEASp.rdy hlano+ee Re [a Martial fl. Year EhMdVlD 4-M TA. Wnmr . PROJECTED COLLIER COUNTY DEFICIENT FY 2019 - FY 2029 ROADS _ .. B gMrfes .,...... NJ S9 TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT SECTION 2 TPeNCOCH glannino-enulneerinu Traffic Impact Statement Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area Section 2 - Intersection Analyses Prepared for: Collier Enterprises 2550 North Goodlette Road, Suite 100 Naples, FL 34103 Phone: 239-434-4015 Collier County, Florida 8/17/2020 Prepared by: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL R4104 Phone: 239-566-9551 Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz Collier County Transportation Methodology Fee* — $500.00 Fee Collier County Transportation Review Fee* — Maior Study — $1,500,00 Fee Note — *collected at time of first submittal Bellmor Village Stewardshlp Recefving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —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. TrebllooO, 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 coda must be verified on any electronic copies. :A�/ rr'� So �:. No 471CC Z i6:� !:-P STATE OF i LU 0 R 1�a Digitally signed by Norman Trebilcock DN: c=US, st-Florida, 1=Naples, o=Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA, cn=Norman Trebilcock, email=ntrebilcock@trebilcoc k.biz Date: 2020.08.1912:27:42 -04'00' Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, P.E. FL Registration No.47116 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL34104 Company Cert. of Auth. No. 27796 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA I' a g e 12 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Table of Contents Description...................................................................................................................................... 4 Intersection Configurations............................................................................................................ 4 Intersection Traffic Volumes........................................................................................................... 5 Intersection Capacity Analyses....................................................................................................... 6 SynchroAnalyses Results..........................................................................................................................7 Intersection Improvements............................................................................................................ 9 Current Traffic Conditions —without project............................................................................................9 Future Traffic Conditions (Existing Geometry + Committed Improvements, as applicable) — 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 ..................10 Future Traffic Conditions with additional project related improvements in place —with project ......... 10 Improvement Analysis and Mitigation......................................................................................... 10 Accumulation Traffic Impacts....................................................................................................... 10 TripGeneration.......................................................................................................................................11 RoadwaySegments — LOS Impacts.........................................................................................................13 Intersections — Capacity Analyses and Improvements...........................................................................14 Traffic Mitigation for Accumulated Impacts...........................................................................................14 Appendix A: Intersection Committed Improvements................................................................. 15 Appendix B: Raw Intersection Turning Movement Counts......................................................... 18 Appendix C: Projected Traffic at Subject Intersections............................................................... 35 Appendix D: Existing Programmed Signal Timings...................................................................... 58 Appendix E: 2018 Annual Vehicle Classification Report, Site 4187........................................... 149 Appendix F: Intersection Analyses — Synchro Reports.............................................................. 151 Appendix G: Development Accumulation —Trip Generation.................................................... 240 Appendix H: Development Accumulation — Roadway Segments Capacity Analysis ................. 252 Appendix I: Development Accumulation —Traffic Projections and Synchro Reports ............... 255 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 13 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —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 - Golden Gate Blvd and Desoto Blvd - Golden Gate Blvd and Everglades Blvd - Golden Gate Blvd and 16" St NE - Immokalee Rd and Randall Blvd Intersection capacity analyses are evaluated based on the following scenarios: - Existing Conditions - Future 2034 Conditions without project - Future 2034 Conditions without project —with committed improvements in place, as applicable - Future 2034 Conditions without project — with non -project related improvements in place, as applicable (for deficient intersections only) - Future 2034 Conditions with non -project improvements in place, as applicable — with project - Future 2034 Conditions with project — with additional project related improvements in place , as applicable 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. The following intersections are currently under construction: - Golden Gate Blvd and Everglades Blvd intersection — buildout geometry per approach — 2 through -lanes, dual left -turn lane and a right -turn lane (refer to Appendix A) 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 P a g e 14 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —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 2034 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 2034 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 and Immokalee Rd and Randall Blvd. AM and PM peak period turning movement data were collected in 15-minute intervals from 7-9 AM, and from 4-6 PM. In addition, AM and PM peak hour traffic counts were collected on Thursday January 9, 2020 for the intersections of Randall Blvd and Desoto Blvd, Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd, Golden Gate Blvd and Everglades Blvd, and Golden Gate Blvd and 161h St NE, and on Wednesday February 5, 2020 for Golden Gate Blvd and Desoto Blvd intersection. 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 Bellmar Village SRA — TIS — Section 1 — Trip Distribution and Assignment). It is noted that no project traffic is expected to reach Immokalee Rd and Randall Blvd intersection. Conservatively, a 5% Residential traffic is considered to acknowledge potential localized traffic impact at this location. Intersection traffic projections are shown in Appendix C. The future 2034 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 g c 15 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —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 HCM-Based Level of Service and DelaM Ran es Average Delay Signalized Intersections Unsignalized intersections < 10.0 < 10.0 • A >10.0to<20.0 >10.0to<15.0 B >20.0to<35.0 >15.0to<25.0 C >35.0to<55.0 >25.0to<35.0 D >55.0to<80.0 >35.0to<50.0 E > 80.0 > 50.0 F Source: HCM 2010 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, LOS E — 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 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 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 16 Rellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 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 2034 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 2034 traffic conditions is considered as follow: - Oil Well Rd and Desoto Blvd intersection — PHF = 0.93 for AM and 0.93 for PM - Oil Well Rd and Everglades Blvd intersection — PHF = 0.93 for AM and 0.95 for PM - Randall Blvd and Desoto Blvd intersection — PHF = 0.93 for AM and 0.93 for PM - Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd intersection — PHF = 0.95 for AM and 0.95 for PM - Golden Gate Blvd and Desoto Blvd intersection — PHF = 0.95 for AM and 0.95 for PM - Golden Gate Blvd and Everglades Blvd intersection — PHF = 0.95 for AM and 0.96 for PM - Golden Gate Blvd and 16`h St NE intersection — PHF = 0.95 for AM and 0.95 for PM - Immokalee Rd and Randall Blvd intersection — 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 ? a 1 7 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Table 1A Operational Analysis — AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic No/No No/No No/No N/A No/No No/No No/No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes/Yes No/No No/Yes No/No N/A No/No No/No Yes/Yes N/A No/No Yes/Yes No/No Note(s): *For any movement LOS F and/or V/C ratio is greater than 1. **Assumes intersection improvements needed to correct transportation deficiencies without the project are in place, prior to the addition of project traffic. Table 113 Operational Analysis — AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic No/No No/No No/No No/No No/No N/A Yes/Yes N/A N/A No/No N/A No/No N/A N/A No/No N/A Yes/Yes No/No No/No No/No _No/No _ N/A N/A N/A Note(s): *For any movement LOS F and/or V/C ratio is greater than 1. **Assumes intersection improvements needed to correct transportation deficiencies without the project are in place, prior to the addition of project traffic. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a e 18 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —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 Based on the Synchro capacity analysis results, the analyzed intersections are expected to perform with no LOS deficiencies. Future Traffic Conditions (Existing` Geometry + Committed Improvements, as applicable) - 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 - Golden Gate Blvd and Everglades Blvd intersection - buildout geometry per approach - 2 through -lanes, dual left -turn lane and a right -turn lane - Randall Blvd/Immokalee Rd Intersection - at grade intersection improvements to include 4-lane widening of Randall Blvd, from Immokalee Rd to 8`h St (FDOT Build Alternative Phase 1 - Triple Lefts) The following impacted intersections are projected to exceed the adopted LOS standard under future 2034 traffic conditions without project's traffic: Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd intersection - Golden Gate Blvd and 16`h St NE 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 2034 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 - Golden Gate Blvd and 161h St NE intersection - signalization Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 19 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 1— Intersection Analyses —August 2020 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 2034 traffic conditions with project and non -project related improvements in place: - Oil Well Rd and Desoto Blvd intersection - Randall Blvd and Desoto Blvd intersection - Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd intersection - Golden Gate Blvd and Desoto Blvd intersection 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 Desoto Blvd intersection -add eastbound right -turn lane on Randall Blvd - Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd intersection - signalization - Golden Gate Blvd and Desoto Blvd intersection - signalization; intersection geometry to consist of the following: on Golden Gate Blvd - add an eastbound shared right-turn/through lane and an eastbound left -turn lane, and provide a westbound shared left-turn/through lane and a westbound shared right-turn/through lane; on Desoto Blvd - add dual northbound left -turn lanes and a southbound left -turn lane. 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 of 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 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 110 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 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. Trip 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. 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, 3`d 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, 3`d 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. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 111 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T1S —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 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 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. 2034 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 2% 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 2034. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 112 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 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. 2034 Accumulation Trip Generation - The estimated net increase in external traffic generated by the proposed developments at the year 2034 traffic condition is 5,001 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. Based on the LOS analysis presented in the TIS Section 1 associated with Bellmar 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 2034 background traffic conditions without project's traffic: - Everglades Blvd south of Golden Gate Blvd - Randall Blvd from 8th St NE to Everglades Blvd - Golden Gate Blvd from Collier Blvd to Wilson 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 - Collier Blvd from Immokalee Rd to Vanderbilt Beach 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 - Desoto Blvd from Randall Blvd to 181h Ave NE - Everglades Blvd south of Golden Gate Blvd - Randall Blvd from 8th St NE to Everglades Blvd - Randall Blvd from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd - Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Wilson Blvd to Collier Blvd - Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Collier Blvd to Logan Blvd - Golden Gate Blvd from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd - Golden Gate Blvd from Wilson Blvd to 16th St NE - Golden Gate Blvd from 16th St NE to Everglades 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 - Collier Blvd from Immokalee Rd to Vanderbilt Beach Rd Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 13 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 As such, the following roadway segments are adversely impacted by the project's traffic: — Oil Well Rd from Immokalee Rd to Everglades Blvd — Desoto Blvd from Randall Blvd to 18th Ave NE — Randall Blvd from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd — Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Wilson Blvd to Collier Blvd — Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Collier Blvd to Logan Blvd — Golden Gate Blvd from Wilson Blvd to 16th St NE — Golden Gate Blvd from 16th St NE to Everglades Blvd — Golden Gate Blvd from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd — Immokalee Rd from Logan Blvd to Collier Blvd Intersections — Capacity 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. Project related improvements needed to restore subject intersections to a minimum acceptable LOS are summarized below: - Oil Well Rd and Desoto Blvd intersection — signalization; add northbound right -turn lane on Desoto Blvd; - Randall Blvd and Desoto Blvd intersection — signalization; add northbound left -turn lane on Desoto Blvd; - Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd intersection—signalization; - Golden Gate Blvd and Desoto Blvd intersection — signalization; intersection geometry to consist of the following: on Golden Gate Blvd — add an eastbound shared right-turn/through lane and an eastbound left -turn lane, and provide a westbound shared left-turn/through lane and a westbound shared right-turn/through lane; on Desoto Blvd - add dual northbound left -turn lanes and a southbound left -turn lane. 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 P a g e 1 14 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses— August 2020 Appendix A: Intersection Committed Improvements Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 115 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area •- TIS Section 2 ...Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Immokalee Rd & Randall Blvd Intersection — Phase 1— Triple Lefts r� P ..r i • ' r �qrl i, h I I f ,r n 19 Innj 1 11" fn K xi fx;nwN CAB $TAjlQH ! j i I iRMANp PER MA 11 i PLAZA i ti j I i w � • � � I I i ! 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA I' 1 1 16 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Golden Gate Blvd & Everelades Blvd Intersection — Under Construction — Signalization Plans (Excerpt i= (.4 0115T. EV661ADE5- . , [] 1 H PROPOSED RM 630-2. 11 15 RUNS) ' (1 RUN) 630-2-11 z ; 11 RUN) 630-2-14 6333-13 ' qy[ Ln 639-1-122 660-1.105 1 p p t" 639.2.1 / 660.3.11 1 Q 639-3-11 663-1.111 '. (,. PROPOSED R/W 641.2-72 670-5.111 663-1 17 § 0 10 40 684.14 630-2- 11111 \ (1 RUN) 630.2-11 1 STA 225t53.66 633- 1 - 12I 685- l -11 !' OFF. 60.65 LT W (6 RUN \ Feet 633.2.31 633-3-11 (S RUNS) 630.1-I1 ••� 635-2-11 633-3-12 630-2-1) (2 RUNS) 635-2-12 630.2-77 15 ftuN51 7 RUN) 653.1 - ] 1 630-1-11 (3 RUNS) (SEE NOTE 51 630.2 -11 665- I -) 7 / 630-2-1 ] (2 RUNS) 2 RUNS • t t m c STA. 276t77.09 ,.,.. 630-Z-11 m m m m OFF. 603d LT k • •\ 630-2-t1 630-2-12 ' \ (S RUNS) 682-1-113 (6 RUNS) •• •• • ••_--i__•• Q - •• •• EL 163NI 649-27•]0 - 630 2 7I 715-5-31 ! 12 RUNS) R 1 EL 16.25 13 NSj 630.2-11 0 N� 4 SURVEY 6G8 --- POLE LOCATION= 649-7I-15 p 653 1 17 •© t 653-1-11 2 STA. 225+52.25 715-5-3] 665 1 17 W OFF. 53.07' LT z �� 4 Fl 1625 665-7-17 V2 )¢ f1 RUN) 630-2-11 2 57A 275+43A5 ,� 2 226 41 L - FA 226+89.56 ® 226 OFF. S09C ti % ti POLE LOCATION= r OFF. 5089 LT 660-1-706 5 22 N OFF. 53. 63' LT- _ US :E 630-2-12 L-5A 630-2-12 Il RUN) GOLDEN GATE BLVD L-le 649-21-15 76 RUNS) ❑1 EL 16A0 715-5-31 663-1-112 SEE NOTE 4 - 6 • 660.3-12 CONST. GGB- 7 EL 1615 M N „-630-2-71 (3 RUNS) POLE LOCATION- f6 RUNS) 630-2-)2 STA, 225+50 37 'K 649-21-10 6 653-1-11 EP OFF. 53.91' Al -� 1775.5-31 © . 665-1-ii F/ 1fi. O STA 226+88.97 STA 225+4333 PO POLE LOCATION- OFF. 51.47 RT OFF. 50.87 AT © STA 226+79 97 630-2-11 (2 RUNS) 12 RUNS) 630-2-11 OFF. 54.45' RT If RUN) 630-2•]1 653-1-11 EL 16.00 ^ 665-1-II 630-2 I1 f2 RUNS) (3 RUNS) 630-Z-71 SrA 225+53.01 Y n �.. 630-1-11 (1 RUN) OFF. 5821' AT - -' - '�653.7-tt 630.2.11 �� "" 665-1-11 PROPOSED A/W (2 RUNS) • STA ZZ -31, RT RT PfttlPOSEO R7W OFF. 6331' 630-2-17 (1 RUN) SOP 10 s m \ 630-1-11 (1 RUN) / P2 1 EXISTING SIGNAL f2 OR pal B' jp4 { REMOVAL PAY ITEMS — 631-7-6 P6 PHASE 4 I PHASE 6 PHASE 3 "� } 641-I-70 JF4 7 A � 670-5.600 PHASE 5 Trebilcock consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 17 Belimar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Appendix B: Raw Intersection Turning Movement Counts Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 118 Belirrlar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Desoto Blvd 5 - Oil Well Rd CITYATATL: Collier, FL QC108 #: 14905503 I)ATF: Wed, Apr 17 2019 0 0 Peak -Flour: 7:15 AM — 8:15 AM + . Peak 15-Min: 7:45 AM -- 8:00 AM • f) J l 0 • 314 lw t Fowl + ?56 5.4 * D J t 0+! 89 a + 'o 304 rt 14 '11 r 5B rt *8 39 0 1a3 F a: 10.`, + 7;13 ti r 1Y,I + H � 7.7 tl 54 sa 147 QuAi 1 i� �'` Ly Counts 195 &1 VA A 7✓ 1Ar ARIkeS COMMUNf71ES J J 4 L Yrl 0 J //��/��� t 0 o ti r o -1 0 0 0 4 Y 4 ti L 1ti r r 15-Min Count Perigd Beginning At Desoto Blvd S Northhound Desoto Blvd 5 Southbound Qil Well Rd Eastbound Oil Well Rd Westbound Total Totals Left Thru Right U Left Thru Ri ht u Left Thru Right U Left Thru Rlitht u 7:00 AM 7-ISAM 15 0 25 10 0 24 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 i5 57 9 ❑ 0 8 Is 49 0 0 51 0 0 171 169 7:30 AM 7A5 AM 11 0 21 14 0 29 0 n 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 5 100 2 0 0 13 11 73 0 0 71 0 0 108 227 755 8:00 AM 1 4 0 28 0 a 0 a 0 0 64 8 0 16 61 0 0 181 1 765 8:15 AM 7 0 z0 0 ❑ 0 a 0 0 63 5 0 15 59 0 0 169 755 8:30 AM 8:45 AM 4 0 22 4 0 16 0 0 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 0 0 ❑ 0 0 0 40 7 58 3 0 0 3 5 30 0 0 40 0 0 106 126 683 592 Peak15-Min Flowrdtes Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right u Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U A I Ve ices Heavy Trucks 56 0 %is 0 0 4 0 0 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 400 8 36 0 0 44 8 284 0 0 24 0 908 72 Pedestrians Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses COO?MCrfl5: Report generated on 4/29/2019 9:16 AM 50URCE' Quality Counts, LLC lhttp://www.qualitycounts.neti 1-M11-S) 0-221J Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a c e 119 Bellm❑r Village Stewardsi+ip Receiving Area — Tl5 —Section 2— Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume I OCAT ION: Desoto Blvd S -- Oil Well Rd CIIY/SIAI L; Collier, FL QC JOB 4: 14905504 DATE: Wed, Apr 17 2019 ❑ 4 Peak -Hour: 4:00 PM -- 5:00 PM a 0 • r ❑ 0 4 L Peak 15-Min: 4:30 PM •• 4:715 PM � a • 0 0 0 0 0 t i 4 L 311 «❑ i c a +4tti Mr Fool • 310 54+ 0 J 7.1 + R 0 0.59 •55 2%* 36 , r gy » pg w 1 r tt o leF a: Jsi t]], r7.4+ 7.7 ti► r as oF_ tit % QuaLity Counts &1 I KTA (FIAT RRIVSS COMMUNME$ 1000 L -. � —1 L 0 0 VWrI ❑ � t o Imo► 7 0 1 ! U � � 3 r a a a {1 ~ 1., 4 4 L + J M. t .nA � l " .m w� w� + e 1S-Min count Period Desoto Blvd 5 Northbound Desoto Blvd S Southbound Oil Well Rd [astbound Oil Well Rd Westbound Total Hourly Totals Hni;irmiVe At Inft I'hru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4 00 I'M 4:15I'm 4 0 25 1 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 6 U 55 13 0 fff 25 80 0 0 78 0 a 297 194 4 ja PM 7 0 13 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 0 57 a 0 30 89 0 a 204 4:45 PM 6 0 21 a a 0 0 0 0 54 9 0 22 63 175 760 5:❑0 PM 5:15 PM 2 0 15 6 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t1 0 67 12 0 68 8 0 18 23 60 74 0 0 174 197 141 750 530 PM 5:45 PM 7 0 i8 5 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 40 6 0 59 6 0 23 16 63 0 0 49 0 0 157 160 703 1 688 Peak 25-Min Northbound 5oukhbound Eastbound Westbound Total Flowrates LeR Thru Ri ht U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles Heavy Trucks 2S 0 52 4 a 12 0 0 ❑ 0 0 0 0 ❑ a ❑ 228 32 0 16 0 120 8 356 0 0 20 0 B26 641 Pedestrians Bicycles a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a i1 0 ❑ 0 a a 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Cnnurr�n! �: Report generated on 4/29/2019 9 16 AM 50VRCE: Quality counts, LLC (nttp:/fwww,qualitycounts.net) x till Stiu e[1L Trebileoek Consulting Solutions, PA i' a €', a 20 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Tvne of peak hour bein¢ reported: Intersection Peak Method for deleernining peak hour: Total Entering Vaiume LOCATION: Everglades Blvd N -- fail Well Rd CITY/STATE: Collier, FL QC JOB M 14905501 DATE; Wed, Apr 17 2019 313 211 Peak -Hour: 7:00 AM -- 8:01) AM 1115 17A • • 15g - 25 25G3 1 J ♦ 4 Peak 15-Min: 7:45 AM -- 8:00 AM • l46 16 4 4 L 98 - 112 J L 9 # 276 4.9 t 152! L 111+ 9.6 226 r ❑°- r N7 97 • O . a Set, • 46 1 r' 2a s 2n w ♦ r 10 92 F I1.1 + a3 l /' to • f0 t r 7 hL7 S t m Quality Counts >� >il PATH nrAT V1?1VES COMMUNITIES i I I J 4 L L U 0 L o f L u 1 r •❑ ~ w * r � I I I �r NA NA IS-Min Count Period Everglades Blvd N Northbound Everglades Blvd N 5outhbound Oil Well Rd Eastbound Oil Well Rd Westbound 101al Hourly tul❑Is Left Thru Right U left rhru Right U Left Thru Ri ht U Left Thru Ri ht U Beginning At g g 7AO AM 7:15 AM 52 13 2 26 21 3 a 2 7 4 26 46 0 51 56 0 39 24 63 34 48 s 0 0 3 5 60 1 0 58 0 0 346 305 7:30 AM 7.45 AM 24 31 6 21 27 9 3 0 8 6 20 15 0 33 41 0 25 24 44 2 71 4 0 0 7 5 57 3 0 72 5 0 245 318 1215 &Q0 AM 8715 AM iS 29 1 12 23 5 2 1 14 13 32 30 1 31 25 0 22 22 51 7 44 2 1 0 7 5 53 6 0 50 4 a 274 237 1141 1074 8:30AM 8:45AM 19 20 2 17 16 4 1 a 10 3 46 43 0 19 7 0 21 25 26 5 53 10 0 0 4 2 40 0 0 34 1 a 237 191 1066 1 939 Peak 35-Min Flowrates Northbound 5outhbound Fasthaund Westbound Total Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Ri t U Lett Thru Right U All Vehic es Heavy Trucks 84 1 12 24 0 24 4 132 164 0 16 16 3S 9 284 16 24 0 0 20 0 U13 20 ❑ 4 4 1272 112 Pedestrians eieycles 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 a 0 0 a 1 a 0 0 0 0 0 1 RallrOad $kOpped Busts Comments; Report generated on 4129120199,16 AM SOURct: Quality Lount5, ILL thttp:77www.quautyc0unts.ney 1•a17.5nu-cuc Trehilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 121 Rellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — Tl5 —Section 1— Intersection Analyses — August,20,20 Tvoe of Peak hour being reported: intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Everglades Blvd N -- Oil Well Rd QC log M 14905502 CITY/STATE: Collier, FL DATE: Wed, Apr 17 2019 146 49s Peak -Hour: 4:00 PM — 5:00 PM 123 10.9 a r 50 16 Peak 15-Min: 4:45 PM - 5:00 PM t 4 4 175 I25 r s r M4*345x L 33 r 337 2114 F • 258 7.1 •113! i 3 «5.6 a.7 ♦ r 58 $91 # 8S r 46 i M 58 ll7 10 88 + 8b 1 .. Y 65 ♦ 6.8 15S 1R 44 F 161 185 Quality Counts vs lab DATA fl-IATDRIVES COMMUNMES o t o rib � • +ems ram . t t �7 I I y1�� T r ii 47 Nh I NA 15-Min Count Period Everglades Blvd N Northbound Everglades Blvd N Southbound Oil Well Rd Eastbound Oil Well Rd Westbound Total Hourly Totals Left Thru Right U Left Thru Ri ht V Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U aeginning At 4:00 PM 4:15 PNI 20 38 2 12 31 1 0 3 1 1 21 12 17 7 U 0 95 94 51 9 0 56 9 n 13 11 65 4 0 64 6 0 331 312 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 8 21 6 15 27 1 0 d 3 10 21 17 21 14 0 1 74 81 53 7 0 51 10 1 11 11 72 16 0 57 7 0 109 107 1259 5;00 PM 5:15 PM 20 36 2 9 23 2 0 0 4 1 27 12 17 8 0 0 83 80 67 11 ❑ 71 14 0 14 8 36 4 0 63 9 0 316 305 1244 1237 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 13 27 2 6 25 0 2 1 3 1 20 13 28 11 b 0 96 99 44 R 0 57 7 0 5 1 $ 44 4 0 47 3 0 291 293 2209 1 1195 Pe k 15-Mfn F�owrates Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U A Vehic es Heavy Trucks 60 10 20 16 4 0 40 B 84 56 12 0 4 324 36 2❑4 40 4 8 ❑ 44 4 229 28 a 8 0 1228 11G Pedestrians 9itycics 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ U 0 U 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Camments: Report generated on 4/29/2019 9:16 AM SUUKIL: U1Uauty t Punts, LL<_ (ntip://www.quantycounts.netl a-si r-trsU-« 12 I Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA f' o R e 1 22 8ellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T15 —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses — August 2020 Tvoe of peak hour belne reoorted: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: DeSoto Blvd -- Randall Blvd CITY/5TATE: Collier, FL QC JOB u: 1SIS7401 DATF: Thu, Jan 9 2020 1+ arr 1r s2 r1 1 � Peak -Hour: 7:00 AM — 8:00 AM Peak 15-Min: 7:45 AM — 8.00 AM 1w 11 • 39 1s1 ❑ 14____ fad. 25 J k a • 2 4S 4 1) 1 f 1* 2 M . 192 J • _ 4. 0 i4A . 31E 1 -• � P D 4 u n Ito i � � 3,5 at 158 Quality Counts tat oarA Trier DRIVES COMMUMI055 J P L 1 a 4 0 1 n f 4 ;h ` lam. N/A• M P�t�A � f� NIA . 1 . of •a y 1 P ; F� r f r WA� � � r r r✓!h f R• RraR 15 Min Count 1�e�riod f]e5pto 91Vd forthbound UeSato Blvd 5outhbound Randall Blvd Eastbound Randall Blvd Westbound Total Hourly Totals Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R* Lek Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R. ffcginning At ~7WAM 7 15 AM 24 2 25 34 1 0 0 0 1 0 21 19 0 12 7 0 ❑ 0 5 1 0 a 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ❑ 0 1 0 ❑ 0 9 87 7:30AM 7A5 AM 13 27 0 0 15 23 a 0 0 0 0 0 17 13 0 23 13 a 0 a 5 10 0 4 0 a 13 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 a ❑ ❑ 79 Ia2 361 8.00 AM 8:15 AM 9 20 0 0 9 16 0 0 ❑ 0 0 0 12 13 0 13 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 14 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U ❑ 0 0 0 75 53 343 309 830 AM 8:45 AM 6 16 0 0 IS 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 9 0 32 4 0 a ❑ 13 4 0 9 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 69 55 299 1 252 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Flowrates Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R' Left Thru Right U R• LeR Thru Right U R* All Vehlcle5 Heavy Trucks 60 112 0 a 4 e a 0 0 0 92 52 0 16 0 ❑ 40 20 a 51 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 0 a 408 64 Buses Pedestrians Blcydes a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 Scooters Comfgwnrs.' Report generated on 1/1512020 1:12 PM 5UU1ict: Quality [punts, W, inup:llwww.quautycounts.nen .L.af Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g " 123 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area -- T15 —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Type of peak hour being reported; lnter!;eC00n Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: DeSoto Blvd -- Randall Blvd QC JOB 4: 15157402 CI tY/5l A 11 : Collier, FL DATE: Thu, Jan 9 2020 111 un n7a lleak-Flour: IS 4:00 PM -- 5:00 PM 4:00 PM 41S PM M. 123 # * 33 96 Peak -Mira: + L 13 ♦ n3 P o« u o.x o; n79 « o n W+ 4,7 s L u« ii 0♦ ru I A; I r o» a w F r 4n 71 n r 1) 0 i t Ii�, u�3 n ]74 n.71 Il] � fr.yyl1 QUOLi }} y Counts {1y 1 nATA THAT DRIVES COMMUNME5 1. • L 0 0 - 0 X 4 n 0 1 r o i + n n n a � WA L W#A 4 VA � � � • WA N/A . � « WA • 1 f` � MY I t r �# WA H-•HIOH IS -Min Count Period Ue50to Blvd Northbound t7e5oto Blvd Sorthbound Randall Blvd Eastbound Randall Blvd Westbound Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Leg Thru Right tf R* Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Ri ht U R* ;Op PM 13 26 0 0 0 0 33 11 0 0 13 a Is 0 0 0 114 4:15 PM 11 21 0 0 0 0 20 11 0 0 10 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9U 4;30 PM 4:45 PM 6 14 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 5 0 24 6 0 a 0 10 0 20 0 10 0 21 ❑ ❑ 11 0 4 0 D ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 76 81 36 L 5:00 PM 515 PM 6 16 0 0 6 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 7 0 22 7 0 0 ❑ 16 0 23 0 10 0 17 0 U 0 0 0 0 U U U 0 0 0 0 94 88 341 339 5:30 PM 5:45 PM B 17 1 0 7 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 4 0 15 6 ❑ 0 ❑ 11 0 31 0 10 ❑ 19 0 0 ❑ 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 ❑ 0 94 77 357 1 353 Peak 15•MIn Flowrates Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R* All Vehicles Heavy Trucks 52 104 0 0 12 28 0 0 0 0 132 44 a 8 a ❑ 2 0 72 U ❑ 0 12 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 456 68 Buses Pedestrians Bicycles D 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 0 ❑ (1 0 U 0 0 0 0 Scooter$ Comments; Report generated 4n 1115/2020 1: 12 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC ihttp://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Trehilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a R r 24 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses — August 2020 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Everglades Blvd -- Randall Blvd QC JOB H: 15157403 CITY/STATE: Collier, FL DATE: Thu, Jan 9 2020 193 1+ El Peak -Hour: 7:00 AM -- 8:00 AM 9E 1119 + isb >a1 ` L Peak 15-Min: 7:00 AM — 7.15 AM • I ,i 1+I w L 517•BJJ 4 7 r 1,1 tub 1s . 1M arr 5.4 +141J t.722+29 xY,. , . ty iss r ki s 7 r 51 C1 lza . 9k t r u y iw 115 12 FQal itY Counts1'� MTA rHAT 00vy $ COMMVNIIFES ' ° WA + ! N/A . C + + Wn .. .. 44 WA + ti • r WA • w • w WA • x - HTOR 15•Min Count Period Everglades Blvd Northbound Everglades Blvd Souhbound Randall Blvd Eastbound Randall Blvd Westbound Total HourTotals Left Thru Right U R ' Leh Thru Right U R' Lek Thru Right U R• Left Thru Ri ht U Ft' Beginning At 7:00 AM 54 34 2 0 0 2 51 39 5 12 0 0 4 49 3 0 0 271 7:15 AM 47 2S 4 0 0 1 so 45 0 0 18 4 13 0 0 1 48 2 0 0 258 7-30AM 7:45 AM 45 29 4 0 1 59 27 2 0 0 0 0 2 24 36 0 0 29 36 0 0 21 14 5 31 0 20 27 0 0 0 1 1 23 2 0 0 35 2 0 0 221 754 1004 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 65 26 0 U 48 24 5 U 0 U 2 0 36 40 0 0 21 27 0 0 14 17 18 28 0 10 19 ❑ 0 ❑ 4 3 19 4 0 0 23 1 0 0 257 198 990 930 8:30 AM 8:45AM 48 15 4 0 31 25 2 0 U 0 2 1 26 28 0 0 38 23 0 0 13 6 15 1R 0 8 19 0 0 0 1 2 12 3 0 ❑ 22 0 0 0 185 in 1 894 Sly Pe k 15 Min F owrate5 Northbound Snrdhbound Easthound Westbound Total Loft Thru Bight U R• Left Thru Right U R• left Thn, Right U R' Lett Thru Right U R• AllVehldes Heavy Trucks 216 136 8 0 24 24 0 0 8 0 204 15G 0 0 20 0 64 4 20 48 0 0 4 0 16 0 193 12 0 0 4 0 1094 80 Ruses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles ScoolerS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Contmenrs: Report generated on 1/15/2020 1:12 PM 5OURU; Quality CQUnt5, LLC Shttp'(lwww,pua0tycount5.net) 1-a77•5;$U-2212 Trebilcock Consulting 5olutlons, PA P a g v 1 25 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2-- Intersectlon Analyses —August 2020 I Tme of peak hour belog reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume I LOCATION: Everglades Blvd -- Randall Blvd QC JOB N: 15157404 CI IY/SfATE: Collier, FL DATE: Thu, Jan 9 2020 1l2 In + 087 + 5 1 9s u7 1tl Peak -Hour: 4:00 PM — 5:00 PM Peak 15 Min: 4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 9S 122 + • 7A ti 0 + 273 • 121 l r�1U7am3,I 9 • t0.1 �L 13; • L1 . 74 u74 �L1ll fil 4.M j ILIA ► I. 9B w + xl 457 y 201 t C 17 151 �K" a: 'm • ltl4 r 3,1 128 ''F 1 1 1i7F ❑ ualit Y Counts �� DATA THAT VRWS CCWMVN1T165 L ; ~ 0 t tl r r n � ' '1 w r r • f nUn L � 4 W✓t � 4 L WA nilik WA µ n, J R ' y ti • f r • r WA F Wn * R '.RrQR1 15-Min Count. Period Everglades Blvd Northbound Everglades Blvd Southbound Randall Blvd Eastbound Randall 0lvd westbound _ local Totals Left Thru Right U R' Left Thru Ri ht U R• Left Thru Right U R• Beginning At Left Thru Right U R. 4:00PM 4:15 PM 43 33 4 0 25 42 6 0 0 0 A 1 AD 26 0 32 31 0 0 ❑ 40 25 42 0 25 40 43 0 0 0 6 4 20 1 0 a 26 4 0 a 273 279 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 19 36 1 0 17 30 1 0 ❑ a 3 3 31 18 0 24 20 0 ❑ 0 31 32 58 0 25 38 58 0 0 0 4 3 13 1 0 ❑ 15 3 0 0 247 237 10M 5;00 PM 5:15 PM 26 27 2 0 26 29 6 0 a 0 2 3 25 is 0 33 26 a 0 0 29 41 58 0 32 29 63 0 0 0 1 3 9 0 0 ❑ 15 1 ❑ a 238 266 1003 988 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 23 30 5 0 23 37 4 0 0 0 8 3 29 19 0 30 19 0 0 0 26 46 55 0 45 28 56 0 0 0 7 L 14 4 0 a 11 1 0 0 261 258 1002 1023 Pk 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound westbound Total 2owrates Left Thru Right U R' Left Thru Ri ht U R' Left Thru Right U R• Left Thru Right U R' All Vehicles Heavy Trucks 100 16$ 24 0 0 74 4 0 4 a 128 124 0 8 8 0 100 160 172 0 a 20 20 0 16 8 104 16 a 0 4 12 1116 116 Buses Pedestrians Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 Stowers Cammu n6: I Report generated on 1/15/20201:12 PM SOURCE: quality Counts, LLC jhttp:ltwww.qualitycounts.netl 1-877.580.2212 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 126 eellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area -- TIS--Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Desoto Blvd -- Golden Gate Blvd QC JOB It: 15180501 CITY/STATE: Naples, FL DATE: Wed, Feb 5 2020 14 °❑ Peak -Hour: 7:00 AM •- 8:00 AM 15-Min; AM 8:00 AM 0-3 131 + +11 4 + 11 f ~ L Peak 7:45 -- 142 65 4 L oA4 L 0 « 1 to • 15.7 J a' `o,• 4 n r n «o 9L . 20 1 r 0. 1 147 (A w+ r X9 r 40 4 r 0. 0 ti r r 1a9 s1 091 z1F C� uAit Counts Q Y 96 &1F VATA THAt 6R1yp$ CO mmlftr?E5 �J L � I` I 4 L . I 0 j % %. n F ti ► r a a 0 F wA . « IVA S� WA . � . WA + N/A wA r 15•Min Count Period Desoto Blvd Northbound l7espto Blvd Southhound Go! en Gatc B v Eastbound Golden Gate Blvd Westbound Total Totals Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Lpft Thrtr Ri ht U heft 7hru Right U Beginning At 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 48 10 0 40 15 0 0 0 1 0 8 31 7 28 0 0 14 0 4 0 16 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 117 113 7:30 Ann 7A5 AM 25 21 a 34 18 a 0 a 1 0 4 25 12 29 0 0 19 0 6 0 21 0 6 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 120 451 8:00 AM 9:11 AM 16 25 1 18 11 o U a 0 2 14 13 13 32 0 0 20 0 a 0 19 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 a 98 102 432 421 8:30 AM 8;45 AM 17 L7 0 13 8 0 0 a a 1 5 20 8 12 0 a 17 0 1 0 15 1 9 0 0 n U 0 0 0 1 0 77 69 397 345 Pe k IS -Min Northbound 5outhbound Eastbound Westbound Total F�owrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Night U Left Thru Right U Al Ve icle6 Heavy Trucks 136 72 0 4 16 0 0 0 U 98 116 0 20 0 84 0 24 0 16 0 12 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 490 68 Buses Pedestrians RICycics 0 o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a (1 o a 0 0 scooters comments Report generated on 2/2012020 1217 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC lhttp://www.qualltVcounts.net) 1.077.580.2212 1 Trebllcock Consulting 5oiutlon5, PA P a g e 127 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — VS — Section 1— Intersection Analyses — August 2020 Type of peak hour being (eported; Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Val ume LOCATION: Desoto Blvd -- Golden Gate Blvd CITY/STATE: Naples, FL QC JOB il: 15180502 DATE: Wed, Feb 5 2020 1a �t. L Peak -Hour: 5.00 PM — 6:01) PM Peak 15-Min: 5:15 PM — 5:30 PM fig a4 g r L �1 ~ ~ vs ♦ i 3 • a I— I z « 10 7.2 « 5-3 ! C a . ❑ 0. o 241+ 144i r 0+ 4 49 38 0 �>� (1 4.1►351 e 0. 0 x6 F_ � 4gT $7 luali + 6y k.rol. nts J IA 46 LAM THAT DRIVES COMMUNME5 J Fes.. I u o L n o do o ( j+ a {� I 0+ r0 a r r o a o /A 4 L .n ~` J� WA r + WA J� WA r + WA � -► a .. r . � r WA F_ y r 15-Min Count Period Desoto Blvd Northbound Desoto Blvd Southbound Golden Gate Blvd Eastbound Golden Gate Blvd Westbound Total Hourly Totals Left Thru Ri ht U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Ri ht U Left Tbru Rig hk U Beginning At 4;00 PM 4:15 PM 14 a 0 15 9 0 ❑ 0 1 a 23 31 9 16 0 0 23 0 20 0 26 1 23 0 a 1 a 0 0 a 0 0 120 100 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 10 6 0 14 13 0 0 U 1 0 9 25 7 Z I a 0 28 1 24 U 20 1 22 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 1 0 104 99 423 5:00 PM 5:15PM 10 13 a 9 10 0 0 0 1 0 12 17 15 21 0 0 20 1 41 0 29 0 34 a 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 117 339 420 438 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 14 6 0 15 9 0 0 0 1 a 6 21 a 16 0 0 31 1 3 15 0 37 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 133 102 447 450 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U A Vehic es Heavy Trucks 36 40 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 60 84 0 a 0 116 a 136 ❑ t2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 472 24 cruses Pedestrians Bicveles 0 a 0 0 0 0 ❑ D 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 Scooters i onullents: Report generated on 2/10/202012:17 PM SOURCE: quality COMM, LLC (http,//www.quamycount5,net) 1-877-58o-zzlz Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA f' o is a 128 Sellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — 775 —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Everglades Blvd -- Golden Gate Blvd QC JOB 11: 15IS 7409 CITY/5TATE; Collier, FL DATE: Thu, Jan 9 202.0 4% 0 Peak -Hour: 7:00 AM -- 8,00 AM Peak 15-Min: 7:00 AM -- 7:15 AM + + 1m Y 103J 71 T Fil t 94. 2z ♦ 2711H] eq w low 26i 1101 �4W e6 25 k$G om 593 Quad Ly Counts 13.4 ,1 ta4TA 'MAT DRIVES COMMUNITIES o -1 0 u n L f1 1 i1 WA WA WA C. � � t r Wn F 17A r • + x• - aTne 15-Min Count Period Everglades Rlvd Northbound Everglades Blvd Southhound Golden Gate Blvd Eastbound Golden Gate Blvd Westbound Total Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right u R• Left Thru Right U A• Left Thru Right U R• Left Thru Fight V R• 7:00 AM 35 13 A 0 0 3 is 78 0 31 24 12 16 a 2 $ 7 0 0 426 15 AM 145 2 66 0 0 1 14 32 0 47 22 18 15 2 79 1 U 1 418 7:30 AM 7AS AM 92 26 110 20 5 0 8 0 1 1 3 2 14 28 0 17 27 0 50 39 30 27 23 23 0 19 2S 0 5 9 5 65 3 0 0 4 47 2 0 1 373 357 1574 8;00 AM 8:15 AM 96 34 74 24 3 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 17 20 0 16 36 0 47 38 24 31 19 20 0 17 13 0 10 4 4 32 0 0 2 1 46 1 0 1 331 304 1479 1365 8:30AM 8:45 AM 57 30 52 14 3 0 2 a 0 2 3 1 9 23 0 20 18 0 52 42 40 29 20 11 0 14 16 0 6 2 1 28 1 0 0 3 36 1 0 0 284 252 1276 1 1171 Peak 15•MIn Ftowfates Northbound Souhbound Eastbound Westbound Total Left Thru Ri ht U Ri left Thru Right U R• Left Thru Right U R' Left Thru Right U R* A Ve ireS Heauy7rucks 540 52 28 0 16 0 0 0 12 4 72 436 a 8 16 124 96 12 AS 100 a a 0 36 9 920 4 0 0 4 4 0 1864 94 BUSES Pedestrians Bieveles 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 ❑ 0 a 4 0 a 0 0 a 5rooters -,r11fr1eltrd: Report generated on 1/15/2020 1:12 PM SOURCE; Quality Counts, LLC thitp:f(www.qualitycount5-netl 1-$77-58u•221z Trehilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 129 Sellrrtar Village Stewardship Recef ving Area - TIS - Section 2 - Intersection Analyses -- August 2020 Type of peak hour being reported: Inter5ertiorl Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION, Everglades Blvd Golden Gate Blvd QC JOB M 15157410 CITY/STATE: Collier, FL DATE: Thu, Jan 9 2020 ;rA 339 °� Peak -Hour: 4:45 PM -� 5:45 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 42 9A ► + + I I+ Peak 15-Min: 4 AM + 769 -9 4 rt « W ❑9 791 .0 t t17 [H] l•J 55 + 43 u- $2 w l + 476 • 677 1 f 34 i 114 -14 � CE 72 * 52 'i f Hi r I; i -I' °� ❑ LJa�I Y V�+11 L�J' 47 DATA THAT nmo;_%1-01414UNITIF5 __1 L a ` `' I ° t 0 n • . 4 1 P I F 0 0 t ♦ • wA L J + 4 I WA 1 i 4 WA , + WA , t + Mini « WA WA !!1f ry WA r # 9 a' • Rt4R 15-Min Count Period tverwodes Blvd Northbound Everglades Blvd Southbound Golden Gate Blvd Eastbound Golden Gate Blvd Westbound Total Cloudsy Tota Beginning At Left Thru Ri ht U R* Lek Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R* 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 28 14 11 0 41 14 3 0 5 1 2 4 33 25 0 31 17 0 37 19 56 39 66 0 51 44 56 0 a 7 12 9 51 3 0 1 27 3 0 0 391 326 430 PM 4:45 PM 41 15 1 0 36 17 1 0 1 6 5 7 24 12 0 30 M 0 24 20 57 49 53 0 69 48 103 0 14 37 3 5 16 1 0 2 30 2 0 0 318 405 1440 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 43 13 2 0 37 12 3 0 1 1 3 9 20 12 0 33 14 0 20 20 69 78 104 0 54 63 78 0 7 16 6 7 35 4 0 1 24 0 0 3 417 372 1466 IS12 5:30 PPA 34 17 2 0 0 3 Zl 9 0 24 77 92 95 0 7 6 28 3 0 1 419 1611 _ 5:45 NA1 36 16 1 0 2 4 15 6 0 26 74 71 91 0 13 7 26 2 0 0 400 1 1608 Peak IS -Min Fiowrates Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Ri ht U R* Left Thru Right U R* Lek Thru Ri ht U It* Al Vehicles Heald Trucks 136 68 9 U 0 4 r1 0 2 a 84 132 0 4 0 96 30B 369 4D8 6 28 12 16 25 24 0 112 16 0 4 4 0 1804 68 Buses Pedestrians Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters - Comments. Report generated on 1115/20201:12 PM SOURCE: QualAV Counts, LLC ihttp:tiwww.quahtycounts.netJ Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a p e 130 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: 16th St NE -- Golden Gate Blvd QC JOB H: 15157411 CITY/STATE: Collier, FL DA1 F: Thu, Jan 9 2020 os7 Peak -Hour: 7:00 AM -- 8,00 AM 7:15 AM eJ +< u + LS I 0 L Peak 7 5 Min; 7;130 AM — &7 d 0 lil6 # d J L 0. 1$I �270 • F-1 . 1242E�J 51. (1 J L O# 5 98. • S 2!5 . 7 1 r 9 # 2W � t r F 93 # 2a6 i a + 75 a f' 0 # 93 r G 12058 Quality Counts .7 6g DATA THAT DRAIE5 COMMUNME5 J --1 J # 4 L r\ ' 1, 0 0 1 o 0 r 0 0 L +' ` L N/A • . • + +11A WA �. N,A I �� w° r� +� A +k1'Oa 15-Min Count Period 16th St NE Northbound 14th St NE Southbound Golden Gate Blvd Eastbound Golden Gate Blvd Westbound Total Hourly Totals lleginningAt Left Thru Right u R* Left Thru Right U R' LCfI Ihru Ri ht U R* left Thru Ri ht u R' 7:00AM 16 0 1 a a 0 0 7 0 0 1 56 1 2 0 0 355 0 1 0 44 1:15AM 14 0 ] 0 0 0 0 4 3 3 2 0 1 346 0 a 0 7:30AM 7A5 AM 13 a 2 a 10 a 1 0 a 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 76 1 2 75 2 a 0 0 2 1 2g2 0 2 259 0 2 0 0 384 352 1610 8:0a Am 8:15 AM 11 0 2 0 3 a 2 a 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 1 71Y 2 0 66 1 1 U a 1 2 221 0 a 207 1 a 0 a 311 287 1491 1334 9:30 AM 9:45 AM a a 0 0 6 a 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 ❑ 67 3 2 61 1 a a a 0 0 lag 1 a 157 0 0 a 0 276 228 1226 1 110E Peak 15-Min Flowrates Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbaund Total Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R' Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Rf ht U ft• AlVehides HC:lvy Tr11[k5 64 0 4 0 4 0 a 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 a 4 0 221 4 8 8 0 0 0 0 1420 0 4 7Z 0 0 1760 84 Ruses ppdeStrians Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 d 0 Scooters [.anrirK41l5: Report generated on 1115120201:12 PM SOURCE: quality counts, LLc tnttp:/(www.quautytounts. net) 2-ts77-bSu•ee 1[ Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 131 Heilmar Village 5teward5hlp Receiving Area — TI5 —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 1010 Twe of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Vahlrne LOCATION: loth St NE -- Golden Gate Blvd CITY/STATE: Collier, FL QC J 0 B It: 15157412 DATE: Thu, Jan 9 2020 5 21Peak-Hour: 4.45 PM — 5:45 PM 0 0 + 03 m 3 0 2 �J Peak 15-Min: 4:45 PM — 5:00 PM • 0 0 I + 0 L • 4L J * . 45. se J t 2 • m 093 1169 • 0 .432091 7. 0 J t 0. 73 ".I. on + 74 1717. )7 f 4 r 1161) +, ► r 16 0 7 `.,1 + 11,4 I + 0 6 ! 0 ♦ 95 r M129 m en 0 Quality Counts s9 DAM T11ArDRIVES COMMUNITIES �J J J 4 ` L 11 � � � 11 L 0J 0 ♦ t0 . tl 0 6 0 WA 1 • S yr WA J • 4 J IVA ♦ • WA I'VA • � . WA w � r W+A , •A + + a . RTOR 15•Mln Count Period l6t St NE Northbound ISth St NF Southbound Golden Gate Blvd Eastbound Golden Gate 81yd Westbound Total Hourly Totals Left Thrt1 Hi ht V A• Left Thru Ri ht U A• Left Thru Ri ht U R• Left Thru Right U R• Beginning At 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 a 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 208 5 0 3 179 5 1 0 0 1 0 139 3 2 114 1 3 0 0 367 311 4.30 PM 4:45 PM 2 a 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 (1 0 6 228 7 1 2 318 8 3 0 0 1 0 105 1 1 106 0 2 0 0 356 446 1480 5:15 PM 2 0 6 0 z ❑ 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 a 0 0 8 3 291 8 2 0 0 0 2 120 0 0 96 2 0 6 0 A18 406 15 1 1626 530 PM 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 290 10 3 0 0 110 0 0 0 423 1693 5,45 PM 2 0 3 0 0 0 (1 2 0 1) 0 259 13 3 0 3 93 0 0 0 379 1625 Peak 15,Min Fluwrates Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound fatal Left Thru flight U k• Left Thru Right U R• Left Thru RI ht U R• Left Thru Right U k• All Vehicles Heavy Trucks 20 0 4 0 0 (14 0 4 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 B 1272 32 12 0 84 0 0 0 0 424 0 8 28 6 0 JM4 11Ui Buses Pedeslrlans Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters CommenW Report generated on 1/15/2020 1:12 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1.877.580.2212 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 132 eellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS--5ecrton 2 —intersection Analyses —August 2020 Tvoe of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Immokalee Rd -- 4th St NE/Randall Blvd QC JOB If: 14905507 CITY/STATE: Collier, FL DATE: Wed, Apr 17 2019 Peek -Hour: 7:00 AM -- 8:00 AM 4,1 a� • r � 0 1797 a8 Peak 15-Min: 7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 4 4.T d3 4 t 7 J 1♦ l 37 • 96D law • 1 1—J 0 r U J L 54 + 2.7 0 r • 0 8 • 5 '3 r 94 • 2m 7L97 F 0 • 0 1 d- 76 r P4 7 89 IQl}d�l LYV+.+n4 4 89� DATA THAT DRIVES COMMUNITIE5 L I 4 r o � o +4A 44 �I * * + I4h • • fl4 � I I I' � wt, ?- F_ 15-Min Count Period Immokalee Rd Northbound Immokalee Rd Southbound 4th St NE/Randall Blvd Easthound 4th St NI/Randall Blvd Westbound Total HOur�y Totalls Left Thru Ri ht U Left Thru Right U left Thru Right U Left Thru Ri ht U Beginning At 7:00 AM 7:1$ AM 0 131 35 1 173 57 1 1 20 10 502 0 470 0 0 0 4 t 0 2 0 0 0 0 258 248 3 0 0 7 0 954 968 7:30 AM 7,45 AM 2 197 G 0 218 a5 0 ---C-408 12 0 417 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 —0 0 1 0 209 207 0 10 0 0 16 0 89F2 %6 3774 8:00 AM SAS AM U 1" 67 2 145 52 0 0 17 18 411 1 376 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 183 199 0 19 U 0 5 0 882 799 3702 3532 8:30AM 8:45 AM o IM 41 1 3 144 110 0 0 19 12 324 0 226 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 167 125 0 14 0 0 10 0 701 567 3337 1 2943 Peak 15-Min Flowratea Northbound Southhound Easthound Westbound Total Left Thru Flight U UAL Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U A Ve IdeS meavv Trucks 4 692 228 0 84 12 4 40 8 18B0 0 64 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 992 8 0 28 0 0 0 3872 176 Pedestrlans ajgcles 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 D n a 0 o u 0 0 Railroad stopped ed Buses ComrY1Nrfri. Report generated on 4/29/2019 9:16 AM 50URCF7 Quality Counts, LLC lhttp:llwww.quahtycotint5.net) 1-571-58U-1212 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 133 A ellmar Village 5rewardshi p Receiving Area — T/S — Secelon 2 — In tersedlon Analyses —A uqust 2020 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Immokalee Rd -- 4th St NE/Randall Blvd CITY/STATE: Collier, FL QC JOB fl: 149OSSOB DATE: Wed, Apr 17 2019 761 rasa A3 57 L peak -Hour: S:00 PM -- 6:00 PM Peak 15-Min: 5:45 PM 5:00 PM S4 3.1 { 4 SA 5-3 I L __j1. in r 7! 0 i J { V < M« MA � t 3 d • e 0• 11 J 0♦ 1� t 0• 36 . 0 r 3% ma rsr� a: 0 5') 4.7 r �� 11� 10-11 2 lJ iBLltOUr1tS CrATA THAT fsRtVFs COMMUNITIES L ]i # . 0 t 0 v� � a! to 0• r 0 r 0 1 r 0 w { r 0 0 0 � a t✓!4 { 4 L wt { L L � J NA � a � t t f� -� L * FN � 7. h * r � r r � �A { 15-Min Cnunt Period Ir7..T"""leC kd Northbound Immokalee Rd 5outhbound 4th $t NE/Randall Rivd Eastbound 4th St NE Randall Blvd Westbound 1•otal Houriy Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru RI ht U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 3 385 164 0 359 163 0 0 24 16 249 1 235 1 1 0 a 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 105 112 1 8 0 0 15 9 931 901 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 3 156 160 5 417 1$1 0 1 17 7 194 0 231 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 93 84 0 20 0 0 4 a 947 932 3611 5t00 PM 5:15 PM 1 441 169 1 463 177 0 ❑ 21 14 187 a 159 a a 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 87 0 10 0 2 3 a 919 906 3599 3604 530 PM 5,45 PM 1 435 157 1 3 491 2(14 0 1 7 1 15 200 0 157 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 ❑ a 0 92 68 0 6 0 1 7 0 899 949 3656 1 3573 Pe k IS -Min F vwrates Northbound SOULhbound Eastbound westbound 7ntal _ left Thru Right U Left Thru Right u Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Ve itcs Heavy Trucks 12 1964 816 0 56 24 4 60 0 629 4 20 0 0 A 0 a 0 0 0 0 27I 4 4 28 0 0 0 3796 Ion Padcstrians Blcycles Railroad 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a 0 0 0 0 5topped Bu5os Cnmiraenr s: Report generated On 4/29J2019 9:16 AM SUUKCEt tluaftty a_aums, LLL tnup:7rwww.quautycounis.net) i-a/ e-5tsu-[[ae Trebilerack Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 134 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — In tersection Analyses —August 2020 Appendix C: Projected Traffic at Subject Intersections Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 135 BeNmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS - Section 2- In tersectlon Analyses - August 2020 2018 PEAK SEASON FACTOR CATEGORY REPORT - REPORT TYPE: DISTRICT CATEGORY: 0300 COLLIER COUNTYWIDE MOCFs 0.89 WEEK DATES ;3F PSCY aaasas:.aaaaaa.o:asxaa----------taaata3- 2 01 07 2016 - 01 13 2018 0.94 1.06 4 (11/21/2018 - 01/27/2018 0.92 1.03 �* G 02/04/2010 - 02/10/2018 0.09 1±00 ^ 7Trl'�b 1 02/11/201 .8 * 8 02/18/2018 - 02/24/2018 0.86 0.97 * 9 02/25/2018 - 03/03/2010 0.86 0.97 *10 03/04/2018 - 03/10/2018 0.86 0.97 *11 05/11/2018 - 03/17/2018 0.86 0.97 *12 03/18/2018 - 02/24/2018 0.87 0.98 *13 03/26/2018 - 03/31/2018 0.88 0.99 *14 04/01/2010 - 04/07/2010 0.90 1.01 *16 04 15 2018 - 0442142012 0.93 1.04 18 04/29/201$ 0$/05/2018 0.90 1.10 19 05/06/2018 - 05/12/2018 1.01 1.13 20 05/13/201$ - 05/19/2018 1.04 1.17 21 05/20/2018 - 06/26/2010 1.05 1.18 22 05/27/2018 - 06/02/2018 1.06 1.19 23 Q6/03/2018 - 06/09/2018 1.08 1.21 24 06/10/2018 - 06/16/2018 1.09 1.22 25 06/17/2010 - 06/23/2010 1.08 1.21 26 06/24/2018 - 06/30/2018 1.08 1.21 27 07/01/2018 - 07/07/2018 1.07 1.20 28 07/08/2018 - 07/14/2018 1.06 1.19 29 07/15/2010 - 07/21/2018 1.06 1.19 30 07/22/2018 - 07/28/2018 1.06 1.19 31 07/29/2019 - O9/04/2010 1.06 1.19 32 08/05/2018 - 08/11/2018 1.06 1.19 33 08f12/2018 - 08/18/2018 1.07 1.20 34 08/19/2018 - OB/25/2018 1.08 1.21 35 0$/26/2018 - 09/01/2018 1.10 1.24 36 09/02/2010 - 09/00/2010 1.11 1,25 37 09/09/2018 - 09/15/201$ 1.113 1.27 38 09/16/2018 - 09/22/2018 1.12 2.26 39 09/2-3/2018 - 09/29/2018 1.10 1.24 40 09/30/2010 - 10/06/2018 1.09 1.22 41 10/07/2018 - 1.0/13/2018 1.09 1.21 42 10/14/2019 - 10/20/2010 1.06 1.19 43 10/21/2018 - 10/27/2018 1.04 1,17 44 10/28/2018 - 11/03/2018 1.02 1.16 45 11/04/2018 - 11/10/2018 0.99 1.11 46 11/11/2018 - 11/17/2018 0.97 1.09 47 11/18/2019 - 11/24/2010 0.96 1.00 48 11/2S/2018 12/01/2018 0.96 1.08 49 12/02/201B - 12/08/2018 0.95 1.07 50 12/09/2018 - 12/15/2018 0.94 1.06 51 12/16/2010 - 12/22/2018 0.94 1.06 52 12/23/2010 - 12/29/201$ 0.94 1.06 53 12/30/2018 - 22/31/2018 0.94 1.06 * PEAK SEASON 26-FEB-2019 18:31:28 030UPD 1 0300 PKSEASON.TXT Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 136 9ellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T!S —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Oil Well Rd & Desoto Blvd Intersection Project Traffic Percentage AM -PM Pk Hr ail Well Rd Right G-10% + R-10% 11 +39=50 15 + 117 = 132 Enter Traffic 250 Exit Traffic (250) Gommearcial+Residential Left C-10% + R-10% (5 + 121 = 126) (16+71 =87) DeSoto Blvd 0 Left C-20% + R-20% 23+78=101 30 + 235 = 265 Might C-20% + R-20% (10+243=253) (32 + 141 = 173) N Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 137 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION - DESOTO BLVD AND OIL WELL RD COUNT DATA - DATE - 04-17-2019 COUNT DATA - TIME - 7.00 AM - 9.00 AM PEAK HOUR - 7.15 AM - 8.15 AM AM PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRAFFIC OIL WELL ROAD DESOTO BOULEVARD WESTBOUND EASTBOUND NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU TOTAL THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT RIGHT TOTAL 2019 TMCS 58 256 314 280 24 304 39 108 147 PSCF (2018 DATA) 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 2019 BACKGROUND VOLUME 61 267 328 292 25 317 41 113 154 GROWTH RATE 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% YEARS TO BUILD -OUT 15 15 15 15 15 15 2034 BACKGROUND 90 393 483 430 37 467 61 167 228 PROJECT TURNING VOLUMES 101 0 101 0 50 50 126 253 379 2034 BACKGROUND + PROJECT 191 393 584 430 87 517 187 420 607 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 138 Belimar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION - DESOTO BLVD AND OIL WELL RD COUNT DATA - DATE - 04-17-2019 COUNT DATA - TIME - 4.00 PM - 6.00 PM PEAK HOUR - 4.00 PM - 5.00 PM PM PEAK HOUR FUTURETRAFFIC OIL WELL ROAD DESOTO BOULEVARD WESTBOUND EASTBOUND NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU TOTAL THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT RIGHT TOTAL 2019 TMCs 95 310 405 220 36 256 21 78 99 PSCF (2018 DATA) 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 2019 BACKGROUND VOLUME 99 323 422 229 38 267 22 82 104 GROWTH RATE 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% YEARS TO BUILD -OUT 15 15 15 15 15 15 2034 BACKGROUND 146 475 621 337 56 393 33 121 154 PROJECTTURNING VOLUMES 265 0 265 0 132 132 87 173 260 2034 BACKGROUND t PROJECT 411 475 886 337 188 525 120 294 414 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 139 Sellmar Village Stewardship Recelving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses — August 2020 Oil Well Rd & Everglades Blvd Intersection Project Traffic AM -PM Pk Hr Oil Well Rd Through C-5% + R-5% 6+19=25 8+59=67 p —41 I Enter Traffic 250 Exit Traffic (256) Commercial+Residential Everglades Blvd hrough �-5°/4 + R-5% +19=25 I+59=67 I 11 ThroughL / C-5% + R-5% (3 + 61 = 64) (8 + 35 = 43) El L r1 9 Through -5% + R5% (3+61 =64) (8+35=43) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 140 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -Intersection Analyses -August 2020 TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION - EVERGLADES BLVD AND OIL WELL RD COUNT DATA - DATE - 04.17-2019 COUNT DATA - TIME - 7,00 AM - 9.00 AM PEAK HOUR - 7.00 AM - 8.00 AM AM PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRAFFIC OIL WELL ROAD EVERGLADES BOULEVARD WESTBOUND EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 2019 TMCs 20 247 9 276 112 226 48 386 25 130 158 313 128 92 20 240 PSCF (2019 DATA) 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 2019 BACKGROUND VOLUME 21 257 10 288 117 236 50 403 26 136 16S 327 134 96 21 251 GROWTH RATE 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% YEARS TO BUILD -OUT 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 2034 BACKGROUND 31 378 15 424 172 347 74 593 39 200 243 492 197 142 31 370 PROJECT TURNING VOLUMES 0 64 0 64 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 64 0 64 2034 BACKGROUND+ PROJECT 31 442 15 488 172 372 74 618 39 225 243 507 197 206 31 434 TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION - EVERGLADES BLVD AND OIL WELL RD COUNT DATA - DATE - 04-17-2019 COUNT DATA - TIME - 4.00 PM - 6.00 PM PEAK HOUR - 4.00 PM - 5.00 PM PM PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRAFFIC OIL WELL ROAD EVERGLADES BOULEVARD WESTBOUND EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 2019 TMCS 46 258 33 337 345 211 35 591 16 80 50 146 58 117 10 185 PSCF (2018 DATA) 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1,04 1.04 1.04 2019 BACKGROUND VOLUME 48 269 35 352 359 220 37 616 17 84 52 153 61 122 11 194 GROWTH RATE 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% YEARS TO BUILD -OUT 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 2034 BACKGROUND 71 396 52 519 528 324 55 907 25 124 77 226 90 180 17 287 PROIECTTURNING VOLUMES 0 43 0 43 0 67 0 67 0 67 0 67 0 43 0 43 2034 BACKGROUND +PROJECT 71 439 52 562 528 391 55 974 25 191 77 293 90 223 17 330 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 141 Bellmar Vlilage Stewardship Receiving Area— TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses — August 2020 Randall Blvd & Desoto Blvd Intersection Project Traffic Percentage and AM -PM Pk Hr R, Through C-30% + R-30% 34 + 116 = 150 46 + 352 = 398 Right C-10% + R-54/a i.Illilnl hnnrl..Illi Halid allldlvil I±nndelloIKI pdndail[ilwl 11 +19=30 15+59=74 Left Through C-10% + R-5% C-30% + R-30% Enter Traffic 250 (5 + 61 = 66) (15 + 364 = 379) (16+35=51) (48+212=260) Exit Traffic (250) Go gle T� Rental ONd Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a p e 142 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -Intersection Analyses -August 2020 TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION - DESOTO BLVD AND RANDALL BLVD COUNT DATA - DATE - 01.09.2020 COUNT DATA -TIME - 7.00 AM -9.00 AM PEAK HOUR - 7.OD AM - 8.DO AM AM PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRAFFIC RANDALL BOULEVARD DESOTO BOULEVARD WESTBOUND EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND LEFT THOU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 2020 TMCs 1 1 0 1 26 0 19 4s 1 73 52 126 77 110 0 187 PSCF (2018 DATA) 1.06 I.O6 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1,06 1,06 1.06 1.06 1.06 106 2020BACKGROUND VOLUME 2 2 0 4 28 0 21 49 2 78 56 136 82 117 0 199 GROWTH RATE 2.6% 2.6% 16% 2.614 2.6% 2.6P.% 2AIX 26�4 2.61XI 2.6% 264. 261A YEARS TO BUILD -OUT 14 14 11 M 14 14 14 14 14 14 11 11 2034 BACKGROUND 3 3 0 6 41 0 31 72 3 112 81 196 118 168 0 286 PROJECT TURNING VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 I) 30 30 0 ISO 0 ISO 66 379 0 445 2034 BACKGROUND+ PROJECT 3 3 0 5 41 0 61 102 3 26Z 81 31% 184 547 0 731 TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION - DESOTO BLVD AND RANDALL BLVD COUNT DATA - DATE - 01-09-2020 COUNT DATA - TIME - 4.00 PM - 6.00 PM PEAK HOUR - 4.00 PM . 5.00 PM PM PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRAFFIC RANDALL BOULEVARD DESOTO BOULEVARD WESTBOUND EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 2020 TMCs 0 0 0 0 43 0 76 119 0 98 33 131 40 71 0 111 PSCF (2018 DATA) 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 2020 BACKGROUND VOLUME 0 0 0 0 46 0 81 1Z7 0 104 35 139 43 76 0 119 GROWTH RATE 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.G% 2.6% 2.6% YEARS TO BUILD -OUT 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 I4 2034 BACKGROUND 0 0 0 0 66 0 117 183 0 149 51 200 62 109 0 171 PROJECT TURNING VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 74 0 398 0 398 51 260 0 311 Z034 BACKGROUND + PROJECT 0 0 0 0 66 0 191 257 0 547 51 598 113 369 0 482 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 143 Bellmar VillQge Stewardship Recef oing Area — TIS —Section 2. — In tersection Anolyses —August 2020 Randall Blvd & Everglades Blvd Intersection Project Traffic Percentage and AM -PM Pk Hr Through C-5% + R-5% 6+19=25 8+59=67 Through C-10% + R-5% 11 +39=50 15+59=74 R7nrJ.JFl FIA ondoll HIVd Right C-O% + R-5% 0+39=39 0 + 59 = 59 Left C-0% + R-5% (0+61 -61) Enter Traffic 250 (0 + 35 = 35) Exit Traffic (250) Through C-10% + R-5% (5 + 61 = 66) (16+35=51) RII�,, nBNd kantl'ni l: Through C-5% + R-5% (3 + 61 = 64) (8 + 35 = 43) (30 ale Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 144 Belimar Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS-Section 2 - Intersection Analyses -August 2020 TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION - EVERGLADES BLVD AND RANDALL BLVD COUNT DATA - DATE - 01.09-2020 COUNT DATA - TIME - 7.00 AM - 9.00 AM PEAK HOUR - 7.00 AM - 6.00 AM AM PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRAFFIC RANDALL BOULEVARD EVERGLADES BOULEVARD WESTBOUND EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 2020 TMCs 7 156 9 172 69 34 83 186 5 153 156 314 205 115 12 332 PSCF )2018 DATA) 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 2020 BACKGROUND VOLUME 8 166 30 184 74 37 88 199 6 163 166 335 218 1Z2 13 353 GROWTH RATE 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.69A 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% YEARS TO BUILD -OUT 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 2034 BACKGROUND 12 238 15 265 106 53 127 286 9 234 238 481 313 175 19 507 PROJECT TURNING VOLUMES 0 66 0 66 0 50 39 89 0 25 0 25 61 64 0 125 2034 BACKGROUND + PROJECT 12 304 15 331 106 103 166 375 9 259 238 506 374 Z39 19 632 TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION - EVERGLADES BLVD AND RANDALL BLVD COUNT DATA - DATE - 01.09.2020 COUNT DATA - TIME - 4.00 PM - 6.00 PM PEAK HOUR -4.00 PM - 5.00 PM PM PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRAFFIC RANDALL BOULEVARD EVERGLADES BOULEVARD WESTBOUND EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 2020 TMCs 17 74 9 100 121 135 201 457 10 117 95 222 104 141 12 257 PSCF )2018 DATA) 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 2020 BACKGROUND VOLUME 19 79 10 108 129 144 Z14 497 11 125 101 Z37 111 150 13 1 274 GROWTH RATE 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.69A 2.6% 2.6% YEARS TO BUILD -OUT 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 2034 BACKGROUND 28 114 15 157 185 207 307 699 16 180 145 341 159 215 19 393 PROJECT TURNING VOLUMES 0 51 0 51 0 74 59 133 0 67 0 67 35 43 0 78 2034 BACKGROUND + PROJECT 28 265 15 208 185 291 366 632 16 247 145 409 194 Z58 19 471 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 145 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Are— TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Golden Gate Blvd & Desoto Blvd Intersection Project Traffic Percentage and Enter Traffic 250 AM-PM Pk Hr Through Left ExitTraffic 1 (250) R-20% C-45% + R• 15% 78 51 + 58= 109 235 68 +176= 244 Through C-55% + R-45% 63 + 175 = 238 84+528=612 Right R-20% 78 235 Left R-20% (243) (141) Right C-45% + R-15% (23 +182= 205) (72 +106= 178) Through C-55% + R-45% (28 +545- 574) (87 +317= 404) Through R-20% (243) GO le (141) Treilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 146 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2- Intersection Analyses -August 2020 TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION - GOLDEN GATE BLVD AND DESOTO BLVD COUNT DATA - DATE - D2-DS-2020 COUNT DATA - TIME - 7.00 AM - 9.DO AM PEAK HOUR - 7.00 AM - B.OD AM AM PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRAFFIC GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD DESOTO BOULEVARD WESTBOUND EASTBOUND SORTHBOUND NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 202OTMCS 0 1 2 3 70 1 20 91 2 31 113 146 147 64 D 211 P5CF (20 18 DATA) LOO 1.00 LOO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LOO LOD 2020 BACKGROUND VOW ME 0 1 2 3 70 1 20 91 2 31 113 146 147 64 D 211 GROWTH RATE 2.6% Z6% 2.6% 2.616 Z6% Z6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 16% 2.6% 2.6% YEARS TO BUILD -OUT 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 2034 BACKGROUND 0 2 3 5 101 2 29 132 3 45 162 210 211 92 0 303 PROJ ECTTURNING VOLUMES 0 574 205 779 0 238 78 316 109 78 0 187 243 243 0 486 2034 BACKGROUND+PROJECT 0 576 208 704 1 1D1 240 1 107 448 312 123 162 397 1 454 335 1 0 789 TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION - GOLDEN GATE BLVD AND DESOTO BLVD COUNT DATA - DATE - 02-OS-2020 COUNT DATA - TIME - 4.00 PM - 6.00 PM PEAK HOUR -SAD PM -6.00 PM PM PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRAFFIC GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD DESOTO BOULEVARD WESTBOUND EASTBOUND 50UTHBOUND NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIG14T TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 202OTMCs 0 1 3 4 9S 2 144 241 2 41 75 118 49 3B 0 87 PSCF (2018 DATA) 1.00 LOD LOD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LOD 1.00 LOD 1.00 1.00 2020 BACKGROUND VOLUME 0 1 3 4 95 2 144 241 2 41 75 118 49 38 0 87 GROWTH RATE 2_6% 2.61,6 16% 2.6% 2.61A 2.6% 2.6% Z6% 2.6% Z6% 2.6% 2.6% YEARS TO BUILD -OUT 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 2034 BACKGROUND 0 2 5 7 137 3 207 347 3 59 108 170 71 55 0 126 PROJECTTURNING VOLUMES 0 404 178 582 0 612 235 847 244 235 0 479 141 141 0 282 2034 BACKGROUND + PROJECT 0 406 183 589 197 615 1 442 1,194 247 294 108 649 212 196 0 408 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 147 BeRmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T!S — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses — August 1020 Golden Gate Blvd & Everglades Blvd Intersection Project Traffic Percentage and AM -PM Pk Fir C-20% + R-20% 23+78=101 30 + 235 = 265 Through C-30% + R-45% 34 + 175 = 209 Right C-20% + R-20% (10 + 243 = 253) 141 = 173) Through C-30% + R-45% (15+546=561) Left (48 + 317 = 365) 46 + 528 = 574 C-5% + R-0% Enter Traffic 250 Exit Traffic (250) (3+0=3) (8+0-8) Right C-5% + R-O% 6+0=6 8+0=8 Go gle Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PR r' a R e 148 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 - Intersection Analyses -August 2020 TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION- EVERGLADES BLVD AND GOLDEN GATE BLVD COUNT DATA - DATE - 01.09-2020 COUNT DATA - TIME -7.00 AM - 9.00 AM PEAK HOUR - 7.00 AM - 9.00 AM AM PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRAFFIC GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD EVERGLADES BOULEVARD WESTBOUND EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 2020TMCS 13 271 9 293 103 71 110 284 9 63 332 404 482 86 25 593 PSCF (2018 DATA) 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1,06 1.06 2020 BACKGROUND VOLUME 14 288 10 312 110 76 117 303 10 67 352 429 511 92 27 630 GROWTH RATE 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% YEARS TO BUILD -OUT 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 2034 BACKGROUND 21 413 15 449 158 109 168 435 15 96 505 616 732 132 39 903 PROJECTTURNING VOLUMES 3 561 253 817 0 209 0 209 101 0 0 101 0 0 6 6 2034 BACKGROUND + PROJECT 24 974 268 1,266 158 318 168 644 216 96 505 717 732 132 45 919 TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION - EVERGLADES BLVD AND GOLDEN GATE BLVD COUNT DATA - DATE - 01.09-2020 COUNT DATA - TIME • 4.00 PM • 6.00 PM PEAK HOUR - 4.45 PM - SAS PM PM PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRAFFIC GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD EVERGLADES BOULEVARD WESTBOUND EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 2020 TMCs 24 117 12 153 268 281 427 976 22 104 133 259 150 59 16 225 PSCF (2018 DATA) 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1,06 2.05 2020 BACKGROUND VOLUME 26 125 13 164 285 298 453 1,036 24 111 141 276 259 63 17 239 GROWTH RATE 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.69A 2.6% 2.6% YEARS TO BUILD -OUT 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 2034 BACKGROUND 38 180 19 237 409 427 649 1,485 35 159 202 396 228 91 25 344 PROJECT TURNING VOLUMES 8 365 173 546 0 574 0 574 265 0 0 265 0 0 8 8 2034 BACKGROUND+PROJECT 46 545 192 783 409 11001 649 2,059 300 159 202 661 228 91 33 352 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 149 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — il5 —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —Aug W2020 Golden Gate Blvd & 16h 5t NE Intersection Project Traffic Percentage and AM -PM Pk Hr Left C-5% + R-5% -, 6+19=25 8+59=67 Right C-5% + R-5% (3 + 61 = 64) (8 + 35 = 43) Through Through C-20% + R-40% C-20% + R-404/0 23 + 155 = 178 30 + 469 = 499 Enter Traffic 250 Exit Traffic (250) Google (10 + 485 = 495) (32 + 282 = 314) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1' :1 (: e 150 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS - Section 2 - Intersection Analyses -August 2020 TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION - GOLDEN GATE BLVD AND 16TH ST NE COUNT DATA - DATE - 01-09-2020 COUNT DATA - TIME - 7.00 AM - 9.00 AM PEAK HOUR - 7.00 AM - 8.00 AM AM PEAK HOUR FUTURETRAFFIC GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD 16TH STREET NE WESTBOUND EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 202OTMCS 9 1,242 0 1,251 8 270 7 285 0 1 15 16 53 0 5 58 PSCF(2018 DATA) 1.06 1.06 1.OG 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1,06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.OG 2020 BACKGROUND VOLUME 10 1,317 0 1,327 9 287 8 304 D 2 16 1B 57 0 6 63 GROWTH RATE 2.6% 2.5% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% YEARS TO BUILD -OUT 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 2034 BACKGROUND 15 1,987 0 1,902 13 412 12 437 0 3 23 26 82 0 9 91 PROJECT TURNING VOLUMES 0 495 64 559 0 178 0 178 25 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 2034 BACKGROUND + PROJECT 15 2,382 64 2,461 13 590 12 615 25 3 23 51 82 0 9 91 TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION - GOLDEN GATE BLVD AND 16TH ST NE COUNT DATA - DATE -01-09.2020 COUNT DATA -TIME -4,00 PM-6.00 PM PEAK HOUR - 4.45 PM - 5.45 PM PM PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRAFFIC GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD 16TH STREET NE WESTBOUND EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 202OTMCs 4 432 2 438 26 1,169 32 1,227 2 0 3 5 16 0 7 23 PSCF (2018 DATA) 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 2020 BACKGROUND VOLUME 5 458 3 466 28 1,240 34 1,302 3 0 4 7 17 0 8 25 GROWTH RATE 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 16% 16% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6%u 2.6% YEARS TO BUILD -OUT 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 2034 BACKGROUND 8 657 5 670 41 1,777 49 1,967 5 0 6 11 25 0 12 37 PROJECT TURNING VOLUMES 0 314 43 357 0 499 0 499 67 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 2034 BACKGROUND + PROJECT 8 971 48 1,027 41 2,276 49 2,366 72 0 6 78 25 0 12 37 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 151 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area -- TIS —Section 2 — intersection Analyses August 2020 Immokalee Rd & Randall Blvd Intersection Project Traffic AM -PM Pk Hr I 4th St NE Enter Traffic 250 Exit Traffic (250) Gommercial+Residential Ler�ftyy R t (0+61 =61) --(0+35-35) Immokalee Rd I T T T NF Right C-O% + R-5% 0 + 19 19 0+59-59 Randall Blvd Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA N a g e 152 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -Intersection Analyses -August 2020 TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION - IMMOKALEE RD AND RANDALL BLVD COUNT DATA - DATE - 04-17.2019 COUNT DATA - TIME - 7,00 AM - 9.00 AM PEAK HOUR -7.00 AM - &00 AM AM PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRAFFIC RANDALL BOULEVARD IMMOKALEE ROAD WESTBOUND EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 20197MCs 922 1 37 960 2 1 5 8 48 1,797 0 1,845 5 719 237 961 PSCF )2018 DATA) 4.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1,04 1.04 1.04 1,04 1,04 1.04 2D19 BACKGROUND VOLUME 959 2 39 1,000 3 2 6 11 50 1,269 0 1,919 6 748 247 1,001 GROWTH RATE 2,61A. 2.69t 216`5 2.654 2.6';4 2,6% 2.614 2.6'% 2,6`..t 2.654 2.15V: 2.6`/ YEARS TOBUIL"UT 15 15 15 15 1s 15 15 15 15 15 15 i5 2034 BACKGROUND4 895 10 216 1,121 4 8 17 29 216 2,050 5 2,271 8 1,678 732 2,418 PROJECT TURNING VOLUMES 61 0 0 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 19 2034 BACKGROUND + PROJECT 956 10 216 1,122 4 8 17 29 216 2,050 5 2,271 8 1,678 751 2,437 Notel - 2034 background traffic volumes are calculated by Interpolating between the 2025 and 2035 peak hourvolumes as illu5trateo in Immokale , Rd at Randall Blvd Intersection PD&E Study, dated February 2019, Figure 9, page 23 and Figure 11, page 25, TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION - IMMOKALEE RDAND RANDALL BLVD COUNT DATA- DATE -04-17-2019 COUNT DATA -TIME -4.00 PM -6.OD PM PEAK HOUR - 5,00 PM - 6.00 PM PM PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRAFFIC RANDALL BOULEVARD IMMOKALEE ROAD WESTBOUND EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 2019 TMCs 336 3 26 365 1 0 1 3 57 703 1 761 7 1,830 707 2,544 PSCF (2018 DATA) 1.04 lA4 1.04 IAM 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.01 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 2019 BACKGROUND VOLUME 350 4 28 182 3 D 2 5 60 732 2 794 8 1,904 736 2,548 GROWTH RATE 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.64 2.6% 2.6%.. 2.61, 2,61A 2.6°6. 2.6% 2.6% YEARS TO BUILD -OUT 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 2034 BACKGROUND' 728 8 176 912 3 10 5 18 176 1,662 3 1,861 5 2,055 896 2,956 PROJECT TURNING VOLUMES 35 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 59 2034 BACKGROUND + PROJECT 763 B 176 947 3 t0 5 18 176 1,682 3 1,861 5 2,055 955 3,015 Note• - 2034 background traffic volumes are calculated by interpolating between the 2025 and 2035 peak hour volumes as Illustrated in Immokalee Rd at Randall Blvd Intersection PO&E Study, dated February 2019, Figure 9, page 23 and Figure 11, page 25. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 153 Bellmar Village 5tewardsh1p Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Immokalee Rd at Randall Blvd Intersection --PO&E Stud Feb 2014 — fxcer is —Peak Hour Volumes !8 6i 185L �y• —9 a 6 ru�nio4,d.,., pd. L 515 � G W 138 1,68 j36 0 R y Lo 2 � ♦8 a e lit .40 11.3 }� 161 6 1203 oil well Rd W of � 96i 44L 7!II}7 7.9 22 W � ,�r♦;♦-- 36L prance Ilea Blvtl. WWY `YN I{091W )a 4E Putllix 17l ff ➢ublivCV5 14l 1717 JI S 1'JI! V L 193 717 SL 77 -r /9tl ae { 7 13 se] �f pa nd�ll 6ivd. f .11 U P 9 CR846I lmmokalee Rd.)at Randall Iflsd. I'D&i Project Traffic Report FF hlNn, 43536N-1.22-ill Collier County Page 22 Year2025 AM Peak Hour Design FDL]T� Hour Volumes Figure! 8 Tiebilcock Consulting 5olutlons, PA P a g e 154 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T!S —Section 2 —intersection Analyses —August 2020 +41 IM u9 �-411 allwellkd IqT 11 1143 bet 1409 It J2 W 7 Y 196 0—M. Tree Blvd. 1723 NU l0 Its.— 151 G1 T7 R•4 {03-. 1 <— 503 f III. r',}{�'953 Ili ll linl,.l!•'i lesl WI 1 r loo� 7l1 v'19 600 0 0 f r j31 56 1 g n d, m — G 4 CR 846( Immkalee Rd.).it Randall Blvd. PD&L• ProjeetTraffic Report FF A4 NmA3536S-1-22-lit Collier County Poem 23 t 92 Q'� 13 j — 63 19 ­2' R—dall Cilud. Year 2025 PM Peak Hour imHour FDC]T� Volumes rl�4ta' 4 Trehllcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a P. F 1 55 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T15 — Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 9 !LiL T E E W 219 &_ 111 fill Wrll Rd w�nl Tu,�e*�7 s lo]Y 672 1079 'S0 A /lam in T �I 7 Tpl 17n 71 .y1 PVWIM P11611r/CVs 1M3 S 212 CS y1> lz 79 GISl T ]IGB e5 q��i,,,�A.J�-.• FI J. W �- xle x4 916 <— 9V9 ,r 50 9 ]I I7t7y T W {, j I ft—d.11 tlW i 77A I I 77s -�y� ,Inl 7bk 8 6 'Y 15 W G 9 � $ .n a yy 7 Y 9 9 1 � CR 8461 Immokalee U.) at Randall Blvd. l'[)&U. Year 2035 AM Project Traffic Report Peak Hour Design e�� T�) FFi41NeA3536&-1-22.01 Hour Volumes r Collier County flpre: 10 Pegs 24 Trebllcock Consulting Solutions, PA P .I r 1 56 Rellmor VUlage Stewardship Receiving Area -- TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses --August 2020 On 174 4_ 174 7 I� ,n 1051 Od Wall Rd 14 1 M7 J117 1701 14 ,I,I`4 2A W 7 % 190 Dwpe Tr plvd. WWWW fr 1079 113 1I70 /{L �J 719 Puui,Jlvs 3r1 1709 3 17! JW�> 19 N r9 {j <— 1774 n J w .I. SF 6Ll INIn101.,1tr PJ. \��f`# 2159 <1 G I '437 434 04 0 0 17 N W W 7Ai \F 41 2_A' 13 r V 12 17 `Y 100 797 57 m CR 946( Inuuakalue Rd.) ,t Raudal[ III%, . ['D&F Project Traffic Report r 1 M N ).A35368-1.22-01 cot ivr Cou my PApq 25 t a 92 271 �Q�,_o, 19 Randall Blvd. Year 2035 PM Peak Hour Design Hour Volumes �D q\� Flpura; I] Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA F' .1 I; t. 1 57 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T1S —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Appendix D: Existing Programmed Signal Timings Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 158 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Oil Well Rd & Everglades Blvd Intersection MaxTime Basic Default Timing Sheet Corirolier tJumoer. , Cardrofler Name -Wni fvrT f— MinSt o Side Sl. v­gi..m._aaa Ip Address 1,'. tiTCIP.Recowe Pod A—- NTCIPSend Pad 1e: NTCIP rows f[�i� Unit Parameters 5ladup Flash Auto Ped COrD- 1. Red Revert a BechQ'nme 6q0 Ea Mede Etwele AI1Redfixll 0 Gm Flash Freq. fi0 Yel Flash Freq. 60 FACE Enebla Enable FACE Seq. 1 Primary Siva a Secondary Vad 0 1 Free Seq.. 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 159 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Phaca Pnramatarc Phases 1 2 1 3 1 4 5 6 1 7 8 9 1D 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Walk Time 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clear Time 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Don't Walk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min Green 5 21 5 10 5 12 5 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Passage 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max-11 20 30 20 30 1 20 30 20 30 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Max-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Yel Change 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Red Clear 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 11.51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Red Revert 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Initial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max Inihall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time 04 Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 1 0 1 0 Cars B4 Reduce 0 D 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 Time To Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Reduce By 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mtn Gap 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dyn Max Limit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dyn Max Stepil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 Delayed Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Delay Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alt Walk 6 0 0 6 0 ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alt Pod Cir 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pre Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pre Clearance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Add Red Clear 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phases 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Walk Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clear Time 0 0 0 ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 0 ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Don't Walk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Win Green 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o o o o Passage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Max-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mar-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yel Change 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Red Clear 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Red Revert 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Initial 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max Initial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time B4 Reduce 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cars 84 Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ❑ 1 0 Reduce By 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min Gap 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dyn Max Limit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dyn Me% Step 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Delay Ped 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 doEDelayed All Walk 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 aAll Ped Clr 0 ❑ 0 00 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 160 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Pre Green 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pre Clearance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Add Red Clear 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 D 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 D Oh... hnfinnc ��©®®®©®©©ssssssssssss soa�ssa®ess©essesessasss �s®sss©assess®sssssss �r:�sssssssssassssssssss ��ssssssssssssssssasss ©©©©o©o©ssssssssssas �s©sss©sssssassssssss �ssssasssssssssssssas ��sssssssssssssssssssa �sssssssssssassssssss �sss®®��©ssssssssssss �ssssssessssssssssass!, ��ssssssssssssssssssss �ssesssassessssssssss ■�aasaa���asaaaaaaaaa- ®ssssssssssssssssssss �asssssssssssssasssss �ssssssss�ssssasssess �ssssssssssasssssssss �sasssssssssssssassss ��■sesssssissssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssss �sasassssssssssssssss �ssssssssssesss-assay �ssssssssssasssssssss �ssasssssssssssssssss �sss-sssessssssssssss ��sssssssss�sssssssss A.ir ifinnal Phaco nnfinnc �sssssssssssssssssass �ssssssssss�ssessssss is��asssssssssssssssasss �sssssssssssssssssass essssssssssaasssssss ��ssssssssssssssssssss �sssssassssssssssssssl �mssessssessssssss-ass. �®sssssssssssssaasssss. sssssssassssssssssss �ssssssssssssssssssss �ssassssssssssseasssa �sssssss�ssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssss �ssssssssssssssasssss �sssssss�ssssssesssss Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 161 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2— Intersection Analyses —August 2020 �aa�-���■�■�saaaaase®aa ��aa�asa���aaaaa�a-sag �aa�aaa����aasaa®aria �aaaaaaaa�as-aaaaaaaa aa�aaaaa�a■�aaaaaaisaa • �sa�aswasaaaaaaaaaaaa i�-a�aseaa�aaaaa®aaaaa '�aas�aaaa�asaa-�aaaas �aa�-asa��asaaaaaaaaa �aa�aaaaa�a®aaa�aaaas i■�aa-asa�a�aaa®gaga®aa Phase Configuration Ph. Startup Ring Concurrent No Served Phases Phs Min Qesenphon 1 Phase Not On 1 516 0 2 Green No Walk 1 5,6 0 3 Phase Na On 1 7.8 0 4 Phase Not On 1 7.8 0 5 Phase Not On 2 12 0 6 Green No Walk 2 1,2 0 7 Phase Not On 2 3A 0 8 Phase Not On 2 3.4 0 9 None 0 0 10 None 0 0 11 None 0 0 12 None 0 0 13 None 0 0 14 None 0 0 15 None 0 0 16 None 0 0 17 None 0 0 18 None 0 0 19 Nate 4 0 20 None 0 0 21 None 0 0 22 None 0 0 23 None 0 0 24 None 0 0 25 Nate 0 0 26 None 0 0 27 None 0 0 28 None 0 0 29 None 0 0 30 None 0 0 31 Nona 0 0 32 Nate 0 0 33 0 0 34 0 0 35 ENone 0 0 36 0 0 Trebilcock consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 162 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 37 None 0 0 36 None 0 0 39 None 0 0 40 Nome 0 0 mm���o©0000nom�� mm�■�00000®�om� mm���■000©®0aom�� m����■�o©®AoOoom�� m®��00000000m�� ®�����m00000000m�� m■�����00000000m�� mm���00000000��� m®�■��o®000000m�� mm�■�000©0000m�r m��■�00000©oom�■� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 163 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Sequence Configuration Sequencel Sequence 2 Sequence 3 Sequence Ring Phases Ring Phases Ring Phases 1 1,2,a3,4b 1 2.1,a,3,4.b 1 4.2,a.4 S,b 2 5,6.a,T6,b 2 5.6.a,7,6,b 2 5,6,a,7,8.b 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 B 0 6 9 0 9 10 10 to 11 11 ti 12 12 12 13 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 15 i6 16 16 Sequences Sequence 6 Sequence 7 Sequence 8 Ring Phases Ring Phases Ring Phases 1 1,2.a.3.4.b i 2,1.a,3.4.b 1 1,2,a,4,3,b 2 6,5,e 7,8 h 2 6.S.a.7,8,b 2 6,S,a,7,8b 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 E 7 7 B 8 10 10 N12 1212 1313 v id 14 14 95 15 15 16 16 16 Sequence Sequence 10 Sequencell Sequence 12 9 $ Ring Phases 1 1.2,a,3,4.b 2 5.6,a 8,7,6 3 4 5 6 a 3 B 6 10 11 13 14 t Ring Phases 1 ? 5.6,a.8,7,b 3 a 5 6 7 B 4 10 11 12 13 14 O�l 0- o�� Ring Phases 1 2.1,a,4,3.h 2 5,6,a.7.8.b 3 4 5 fi 7 B 9 10 1i 12 13 14 IS 1fi Ring Phases 1 2.1,a,4.3.b 2 6.5.e,7.8;b 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 14 95 16 Ring Phases 1 2,i.a.4,3,b 2 5.6.a,8,7.b 3 a 5 6 Z 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P age 164 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 2,1 seauence15 seauence16 O I Rina I Phases I ©-II 0� m� I Ring I Phases I Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 165 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Vehicle Detection Pnrarnetnrs 000-�00000©0' ®o �a000Q®oo moo�o®a©00o® m®o�a0000a®© m©000©©©000 ®o®�oa®oao©o i �moo�oo®i��®oo ®oo�isoo©�®o�■ �o®��■so®©oaoo �®©moo©dooaoo i, mo�■�®mod■®®®� ®oo�00000®oo ®oo�a000�rsoo moo�a©000®o© ®oA�aot�sot��r�oo ®oo�aA©®0000 moo�0000©®©o m®®moo©000ao© ®©io�ao�oo®oo ©oar®ooa�®o© ®oo�a©00000© ®©ova©000®o� moo�a0000®oo ®oar©©o00©00 ®a®�0000®©oa ma©■�a0000®o© o©o�000©�aoo m0o�oo000®00 m00�®�■■�®o�Ao® mo®�0000®000 ®oo�aoo�■o®oo Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 166 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 m00�00000000 mO0�00000000 �00�00000000 l000�00000aoo moo�aa©00000 moo�000000©o imoo�00000©©o moo�a�000aoo moo�o©000aoo moo�a0000©oo moo�a0000000 moo�00000�r�oo vemcra eetamnn enunnc �asaaaaaa-aaaaaaaa�aa �ese�essa�a�a�aaa�®sa �asaaeaas��aessa��aaa �aaasaaaasaeaaa-aaasa '��aaeaeaaaaaaa®ae�aaae �aaaaaa-��aaaaasa��aa rasa-aaaa�aaaeaa���as �m©©®momimom®©mo®mmomm �asaaaa®®��I�a-aaa■�I■��a �aasaaae�aaaaaeaaesaa �Isass-aaaaaaaaaa�a�ae �asaeaea-���a-��aasale �aaaaa-�a�aaaaaa�a�ae ®s®eaaaa�aaaaaas�aaaa �as�ee®®s�®r�■lisr®r�e�e �aa�aaeaaaaaaaaaaesele �saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasaa aea�aa��aa-a-aas��sa. ���m�aaeae■�la�a�e��aa-�laa. i■�aaaaaaaaassaaaaaa®aa �saaaeaaaswaaaeeaes- �aasaaaaaaaaaasaaaaaa. �aaaeaaaaasaa �ssaaaa��asaa ��assaaaa��aaa �sse�sw-'•�aaa �sa��a�aa�aa� Pedestrian Detectors Gall Call No Max _ Dat Phase I Ovlp I Acl Presence Enedc CouM 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 4 d 0 0 0 0 6 5 0 0 0 0 6 fi 0 0 0 0 Data Cellaction Period 60 Cnil F Ca0 No M ax WDat Phase I OvIP Act Presence Erratic Count 21 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z3 a 0 a 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 ❑ 0 0 1 0 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 167 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 1— Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 168 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Coordination Parameters Dperetionat model correction Mode Maximum Made Force Made Max Cyc I_Inut 4i, Min Cyc Limlt % Automatic I Shonway (Auto) Per Pattern Floating 30 30 Patterns Phs Oat Ped Pett Cycle Offset 1 Offset 2 Oftset 3 Split Sequence Ref Color Max Made Pin a S r i l 6 Pin Pin 1 0 0 0 Q i 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 Z 1 2 D Q 0 D 2 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 2 7 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 2 1 4 U 0 0 U 4 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 2 1 5 0 0 0 0 5 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 Z 1 6 0 0 0 0 5 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 2 1 7 0 0 0 0 7 1 Green Max Inhibit t 2 1 8 0 0 0 0 8 1 Green Max Inhibit i 2 1 9 0 0 0 0 9 1 Green Max Inhibit t 2 1 10 U U 0 0 10 1 Green Max Inhibit i 2 1 11 0 0 0 0 11 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 2 1 12 D 0 0 tl 12 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 2 1 13 D 0 0 D 13 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 2 1 14 0 0 0 0 14 i Green Max Inhiblt i 2 1 15 0 0 0 0 15 1 Green -MaxInhiblt 1 Z 1 16 U tl 0 U i6 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 2 t 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit i 1 I 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max inhibit t 1 1 19 0 D 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 20 0 0 4 0 20 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 2 7 21 0 0 0 D 0 U Green Max Inhibit i 1 1 22 0 0 0 0 0 D Green Max Inhibit i 1 1 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 24 0 D 0 D 0 0 Green Max Inhibit i 1 1 25 D 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 28 0 0 0 0 0 Q Green Max Inhibit i 1 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 28 0 0 0 D Q D Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 29 0 4 0 0 0 D Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 31 0 D 0 D D D Green Max Inhibit t 1 1 32 D 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 34 0 D 0 0 0 o Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit i i 1 30 0 0 0 Q D 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 37 0 D 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 38 4 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 39 Q 0 0 0 Q 0 Green Max Inhibit i 1 1 40 0 D 0 0 0 D Green Max Inhibit i 1 1 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit i 1 1 42 0 0 0 0 0 4 Yello+v Max Inhibit 1 1 1 43 D 0 Q Q 0 D Yeller Max Inhibit i 1 1 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 d5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yeller Max Inhibit i 1 1 46 Q D 0 0 D Q Yeller Max Inhibit 1 1 1 47 0 D 0 0 0 D Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 I d8 0 0 0 0 Q D Yeller Max Inhibit 1 1 1 49 0 D 0 D 0 D Yellow Max Inhibit i 1 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 169 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 i 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max inhibit 1 1 1 fit 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 66 0 0 0 0 66 1 Green Max 2 1 2 1 67 0 0 0 0 67 1 Green Max 3 1 2 1 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 8o 0 0 0 0 a 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit I 1 1 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow✓ Max Inhibit 1 1 1 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 i i 92 0 0 0 0 -0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max inhibit 1 1 1 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max inhibit 1 1 1 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 too 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 101 0 0 n 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 102 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 103 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 104 0 0 0 0 0 D 1 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 170 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max k Split 1 Cood Ref _ Split 2 Coord Ref PH. Time PH PH Mode PH. Time PH PH Mode 1 0 None 1 0 None 2 0 X X None 2 0 X X None 3 0 Note 0 None 4 0 None 4 0 None 5 0 None 5 0 None 6 0 X X None 6 0 X X None 7 0 None 7 0 None 8 0 tune 6 0 None 9 0 None 9 0 None 10 0 None 10 0 None 11 0 Ncoe 11 o None 12 0 None 12 0 None 13 0 None 13 0 None 14 0 None 14 0 None 15 0 None 15 0 None 16 0 None 16 0 Alone Split Ceod Ref Split 4 Coo d Ref ]] PH, Time PH PH Made PH. Time PH PH Mode 1 1 0 None 1 0 None 2 0 X X None 2 0 X X None 3 0 None 3 0 None 4 0 None 4 0 None 5 0 None 5 0 None 6 0 X X None 6 0 X X None 7 0 None 7 0 None B 0 None 6 0 None inhibit 1 1 1 106 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 t 107 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yeliax Max Inhibit i 9 9 108 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Meg Inhibit i 1 1 109 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 I 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 T11 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 112 0 0 0 0 D U Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 113 0 0 D 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 114 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit i 1 1 116 0 0 0 0 0 tl Yellow Max Inhibitt 1 1 i 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 1118 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 119 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max inhibit 1 1 1 12D 4 0 0 0 0 o Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 121 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 I 122 0 0 0 0 D 0 Yellow Max Inhibit t 1 1 123 0 0 0 tl 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit i 9 1 125 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 126 0 0 b 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit i 1 1 127 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Nax Inhibit 1 1 I 128 0 0 0 0 0 0 -fellowMaz Inhibit I I 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g E 171 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Split 5 SP crrd a C R f lit 6 Split Coad Ref PH. I Time PH PH Mode PH Tima PH PH Mode 1 0 None 1 0 I None 2 0 X Y Nate 2 0 Y X None 3 0 None 3 0 1 Nate 4 0 None 4 0 None 5 0 None 5 0 None 6 0 X Y, Nate 6 0 Y X None 7 0 None 7 0 None 8 0 _ Nme 8 0 None 9 0 None 9 0 None 10 0 None 10 0 None It 0 None 11 0 None 12 0 None 12 0 None 13 0 None 13 0 Mcne 14 0 None 14 0 None 15 0 None 15 0 None 16 0 None 16 0 None split 7 Goad Ref Split 8 _ Coad Ref _ PH. ITime "PH Male PH.. Time PH PH Made_ 1 0 None t 0 None 2 0 X Y None 2 0 X Y None 3 0 Nate 3 0 None 4 0 None 4 0 None 5 0 Nate 5 0 None 6 0 X X None 6 0 X X None 7 0 None 7 0 None 8 0 Nate 8 0 None 9 0 None 9 0 None 1D 0 None 10 0 None 11 0 None 11 0 None 12 0 None 12 0 None 13 0 None 13 0 None 14 0 Nme 14 0 None 15 n None 15 0 None $ 16 0 None 16 0 None Split 9 C.d Ref Split 10 Coad Ref PH I Timel PH I PH Mode PH. Time PH PH Made 1 0 None 1 0 None 2 0 X Y None 2 0 X Y None 3 0 Norte 3 0 None 4 0 None 4 0 None 5 0 Nate 5 0 Nate 6 0 Y Y None 6 0 X X Nape I©oaa imoa�� i®oar moan m�aa��■ Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 172 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 7 0 None Split 9 Coxd Raf Split 10 Coord Ref PH. Time PH PH Mode PH Time PH PH Mode 10 0 None 10 0 None 11 D Plane 11 0 None 12ao None 12 0 None 13None 13 0 None 14None 14 0 one 15None i5 0 Nme 16None i6 0FT_ None Split 11 Coal Ref spill 12 Coord Ref PH, Time PH PH Mode PH, ilme PH PH Mode i 0 None 1 0 None 2 0 X X None 2 0 X k Nate 3 0 None 3 0 None 4 0 Nme 4 0 None 5 0 None 5 0 None 6 0 X X None 6 0 X X Plane 7 0 Nme 7 0 Plane 8 0 None 8 0 None 9 0 None 9 0 Plane 10 0 Plane t0 0 None 11 0 None 11 0 None 12 0 None 12 0 Plane 13 0 None 13 0 Nme 14 0 Pane 14 0 None 15 0 Nate 15 0 Plane 16 0 None 16 0 None Split 13 C=d Ref SpIIt 14 Coad Ref PH. Time PH PH _Mode PH. Time PH PH Mode 1 0 None 1 0 None 2 0 X X Nme 2 0 X X None 3 0 None 3 0 None 4 0 None 4 0 None 5 0 None 5 0 None 6 0 x x None 6 0 X None 7 0 None 7 0 None 8 0 None 6 0 None 9 0 Nme 9 0 Alone 10 0 Plane 10 0 None 11 0 Nme 11 0 Plane 12 0 None 12 0 Plane 13 0 None 13 0 Plane 14 0 None 14 0 None i5 0 None 15 0 Plane 16 0 Not 16 0 None Split 15 Coord P.ef _ split 16 Coord Ref _ —� PH Time PH PH Mode PH_ Time PH PH Mode 1 0 None 1 0 None 8 0 None 9 0 None Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 173 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T1S — Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 2 0 X Y. None Split 17 c—.d Raf split 18 Coord Ref PH. ❑me PH PH Mode PH. Time PH PH Mode 1 0 _ None 1 0 None 2 0 None 2 0 None 3 0 None 3 0 None 4 0 None 4 0 None 5 0 None 5 0 None 6 0 None 6 0 None 7 0 None 7 0 None 8 0 None 8 0 None 9 0 None 9 0 None 10 0 None 10 0 None 11 0 Woe 11 0 None 12 0 None J2 0 Nine 13 1 None 13 0 None 14 0 None 14 0 None 15 0 Ncne 15 0 None 16 0 None 16 0 None Split 19 Card Re/ Split 20 Coad Ref PH_ Time PH PH Made PH. Time PH PH Mode 1 0 None 1 0 None 2 0 Ncne 2 0 None 3 0 None 3 0 None 4 0 None 4 0 None 5 11 Nme 5 0 None 6 0 Nave 6 0 None Split 19 _ Ccord Ref Split 20 Cootd Rz1 _ PH. Time PH PH Mode PH Time PH PH _ Mode 7 0 None 7 0 None 8 0 Nine 6 0 None 9 0 None 9 0 None 10 0 Nme 10 0 None 11 0 Mane 11 0 None 12 0 Nme None 13 0 None None 14 0 None g4l 4 None 0Nme None 0 None 4 0 (Jane 5 0 fJme 6 0 X X Mane 7 0 Nate 8 0 None 9 0 None 10 0 None it 0 None 12 0 Nona 13 0 None 1q 0 None 15 b None 16 b 2 0 X X None 3 0 Nate 4 0 None 5 0 None 6 0 X X None 7 0 Nate 8 0 None 9 0 None 10 0 Nate 11 0 None 12 0 None 13 0 None 14 0 None 15 0 None i6 0 None Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 174 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Imnano©©®©©mmmmmma immmmmmmmmmmmmmmmma Priontor Settinas Prionta Primly Fh Output Oly 1 0 0 3 0 q n 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 Enabled Lock Out Time Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 175 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2— Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Schedules Day Plan M1 Description Sunday Days of Month Month of Year I Days of Week JFMAMJSMTWTFS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 11 12 13 14 15 16 X Y X X X Y X. X X X X X X X X X X J A 17 22 23 24 25 26 2728 31 XXXXXX X J X X X X X Day PianF-2-1 Description Weekday Days of Month Month of Year Da of Week J F M A M J S f• T TFS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11 9 0 11 12 16 XYXXXX.X X X X X Y X X X X K X X X AX O N D 17 18 9 20JS 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2139 3140 3151 XXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Day Plan F-3—i Description Saturday Days of Month Month of Year I Days of Weehl J F M AMJSMTWTFS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 16XXX XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XJ A S O fd 0 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 d1415 31XXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X Y. �1 ee■eeee■■■ee■a■■mas—aammammwam e■e■■■ mmmmmmmsmmmmmmm o©Qo©oam©a©©©o®®oa■�oo©®m®®m®m eeee■ee■e■eeemmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm oo©omo-mmmm®®®®®m®®mm®. eeee■e mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm �o ieeeeeeeeee■eemammmmmmmmmmmmmmi ■eee■e-®mmmmmmmsmmmmmm oo©amo©®o�©000■�■�oe�®m■�■�mm®mmm® eaeeeae■ee■eaammmmmmmmmmmmmmm oo©om© ®mmm®®®m®®®mm©® eeee�e_aaaaam®es-mmmmm� ■e■eeee■e■■■emmammmmmmmmammmm o�©o®o'mm®m®®®m®®mmmmm. e.eese mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm �o to©�©©�©�0e�■�©o®mmm®®mm �eeeaee■eeae■emmmmammmmmmmmmmm god®o®o��mmmm®®®m®m®mmm®� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 176 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 eons■■ e■a■■eMIaa■■ME111 ■®a- ®MOMMin. Act � oevo 64 van Halt Mln. Act Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA F a g e 177 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 e■ev■®■� ee■vo� aao� ®oo� 000� ©oo� o■e•o� ©oo� ©oor o©o� .. ® e0 oo©� 000■■ ova. ©oar ®oo� oevo� moos ■'.700� e�ev■v ■�■©eve ©oo�■ 000- ■�eo■■v■e �0© ■QO�� 0®■0■e ©00� ®00� 000� ©oo� ■moo©� ego■©� 000� ©oo� ��®cam o�■o� ®o■v� ©■©■vim 000� oe©■v� oe©o� moos Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 178 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 ®tee■■■■■■■■■■. ■■tea■■■■■■■■■■ ®yes■■■■■■■■■ ®use■■■■■■■■■ ®r�eee■ee■■e■■ ®IMOT-M.-m■ ■■■■■■■■■ ®cmm-WAI■�■■■■■■■■■ ®a ® ■■■■■■■■■ ®®eee■■■eeee■ m�■ee■■■■eee■ ®ease ■■■■■■■ ■0M=0M■■■ ■■■■■■■ oM=0■■■■■■■■■■■■ =M=1M■■■■■■■■■e■■ M�EM■■ ■■■■■■ Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 179 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Preemption Parameters Preempt 1 3 4 5 0 7 0 Link 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 Delay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mtn Duration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min Green 15 15 15 15 0 0 0 0 Min Welk 7 7 7 7 0 0 0 0 Ent. Pad Clear 255 255 255 255 255 255 255.255, Track Green 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Dwell Green 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 0 Max Presence 90 90 90 90 0 0 0 0 Enter Yellow 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 Ent -Red Clear 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 Track Yellow 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 ruck Red Clear 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 Exit Red 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 Exit Ped Clear 255 255 2515,255 255.255 255 255 Exit Yellow 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 Exit Red 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 PreemPt 12345678 t4cn Lock Mom Wat Ovende Flash X X X X olOveddehlexlPre Y. X X X . Flash Dwell Preemption Confiauration Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 180 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 I 10 Modules Channel Configuration i 10 Mod TYPE 1 1 Small ACon 2 TS2 MMU 3 TS2 TF1 61U 4 TS2 TF2 elU 5 TS2 DR1131U 6 None 7 None 8 None 9 Nana 10 None Channel Options Sfarinn C_IF.aranr_a Hold Tv�oe i-•sf )- d-Flash and 4=Air Flash Phase Intervals Pedestrian Intervals Countdown Display Display Ad has Tim Display Addr as Time Display Addr has Time Display Aden has Time 1 9 17 25 2 10 is JA 26 3 11 19 2i 4 12 20 28 5 13 21 29 We Cha Ctd Type ^ Source 1 Phase Vehicle 1 2 Phase Vehicle 2 3 Phase Vehicle 3 4 Phase Vehicle 4 5 Phase Vehicle 5 6 Phase Vehicle 6 7 Phase Vehicle 7 8 Phase Vehicle 9 9 Phase Ped 10 Nona 0 Chan Ctrl l' ¢ Source i 1 None 0 92 Phase Ped 9 13 None 0 14 None U 15 None U 16 None 0 17 None 4 10 None 0 19 None 0 20 Nona 0 •aa�asa�aaaa�aaa� -•aa�a����aeaeaaaa • aa-aa�■eaaassaaa®, -aaaaa��a�aaaaaa® aa-asa�aeasaaa�ai. Interval Description Red Vet Gm Type 1 ndAdive On Ott Off Rod 2 dltGrn On Ott Oft Red 3 PreGm Ott Off On Green 4 minGm Off Off On Green 5 gmExt Off Off On Green 6 gm6rwll Oft Off On Green 7 DreClear Off Oil On Green 8 yeiChenge Off On Of( Yellow 5 redClear On 0tT Oft Red 10 rrdDwell 0n Ofl Off Red 11 Bernier On Oft Ott Red 12 Internal Description DWI' ClR Wlk type 1 notAdfve On Oft Off ont Wa 2 dl[Ped On OR Off ont We 3 walk OR Off On Walk 4 walkl7well OR Off On Walk 5 flashOtWlk Flas On Off ed Cie 6 dWalk On Off Off Font ont Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 181 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2— Intersection Analyses —August 2020 =mmm mmmmmmmm mmm mmmm ®mmm ®mmm ®mmm =mmm mmmm mmmm ®mmm Manual Control Phase Groups are, I Gm 7 Gm 3 Grn d Gm 5 Gm 6 Gm 7 Gro 8 Ring Ph JRIn4 Ph IRIng Ph Ring Ph Ring Ph Ring Ph Ring Ph Ring Ph 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 7 0 7 0 1 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 10 0 10 ❑ 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 11 0 11 0 11 0 11 0 11 0 11 0 11 0 11 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 ❑ 13 0 13 0 13 0 13 0 13 0 13 0 13 0 13 0 1d 0 14 0 14 0 14 0 14 0 14 0 14 0 14 ❑ 15 U 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 U 15 0 16 0 16 0 16 0 16 0 16 0 16 0 16 0 16 0 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 182 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Peer Confiauration SMMP Pat Hot Pcrt Serial Pal Sepal Addr. Master Sect P2P TO CIO Peer 1 1P address Oesrppti n 1 0 1 161 80 0 0 0 15 2 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 4 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 5 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 6 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 7 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 8 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 9 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 10 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 11 0 i6i 80 0 0 0 15 12 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 13 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 14 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 15 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 15 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 17 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 18 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 19 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 20 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 21 0 161 80 0 a 0 15 22 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 23 0 181 80 0 0 0 15 24 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 25 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 26 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 27 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 28 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 29 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 30 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 31 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 32 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 33 0 1 161 60 0 0 0 15 34 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 35 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 36 0. 161 8o 0 0 0 15 37 0 161 80. 0 0 0 15 38 o 161 80 0 0 0 15 39 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 40 0 1 161 80 0 0 0 15 41 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 42 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 43 0 161 80 0 0 15 44 0 161 80 0 015 45 0 161 80 0 0 15 46 0 161 60 0 ro 0 15 47 0 161 80 0 0 15 48 0 161 Bo 0 0 15 49 0 161 80 0 0 15 50 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 51 0 161 80 1 0 0 0 15 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 183 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 52 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 53 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 54 0 lei 80 0 0 0 15 55 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 56 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 57 0 i61 80 0 0 0 15 58 0 161 1 80 0 0 1 0 15 59 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 60 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 61 0 i61 80 0 0 0 15 62 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 63 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 64 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 65 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 66 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 67 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 68 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 69 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 70 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 71 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 72 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 73 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 74 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 75 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 76 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 77 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 78 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 79 0 181 80 0 0 0 15 80 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 81 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 82 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 83 0 151 80 0 0 0 15 84 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 85 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 86 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 87 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 88 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 89 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 90 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 91 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 92 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 93 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 94 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 55 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 96 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 97 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 58 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 89 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 100 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 101 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 102 0 191 80 0 0 0 15 103 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 104 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 105 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 106 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 184 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 107 0 161 e0 0 0 0 15 108 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 109 0 18i 60 0 a 0 15 "1 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 111 0 16i 80 0 0 0 i5 112 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 113 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 111 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 115 0 i61 80 0 0 0 15 116 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 117 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 115 0 IN 80 0 0 0 15 119 0 16) 80 0 0 0 15 120 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 121 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 f22 0 16i 80 0 0 0 15 123 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 124 0 161 60 0 0 0 i5 125 0 16) 80 0 0 0 15 126 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 127 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 128 0 161 80 0 D 0 15 129 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 130 0 16f 80 0 0 0 15 131 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 132 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 133 0 18i 80 0 0 0 15 134 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 135 0 161 so 0 0 0 15 136 0 161 80. 0 0 0 15 137 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 138 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 139 0 101 80 0 0 0 15 140 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 141 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 142 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 143 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 144 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 145 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 146 0 161 8o 0 0 0 15 147 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 148 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 149 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 150 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 151 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 152 0 16f 60 0 0 0 15 153 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 154 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 155 0 161 60 0 D 0 15 156 0 151 80 0 0 0 15 157 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 158 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 155 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 160 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 181 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 185 Belimar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 162 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 163 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 164 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 165 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 166 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 167 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 168 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 169 0. 161 80 0 0 0 15 170 0 161 80 0 0 0 i5 171 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 172 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 173 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 t74 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 175 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 176 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 177 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 178 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 179 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 180 0. 161 80 0 0 0 15 181 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 152 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 183 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 184 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 185 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 186 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 187 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 188 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 189 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 190 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 191 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 192 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 193 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 194 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 195 0 191 80 0 0 0 15 196 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 197 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 198 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 199 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 200 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 201 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 202 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 203 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 204 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 205 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 206 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 207 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 208 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 209 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 210 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 211 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 212 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 213 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 214 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 215 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 216 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 186 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 217 0 161 60 0 0 0 1s 218 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 219 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 220 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 221 0 lei 80 0 0 0 15 222 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 223 0 161 80 0 ❑ 0 1s 224 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 225 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 226 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 227 0 lei 80 0 0 0 15 228 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 229 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 230 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 231 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 232 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 233 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 234 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 235 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 236 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 237 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 238 0 lei 80 0 0 0 15 234 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 240 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 241 0 161 80 0 0 0 is 242 0 161 80 0 0 0 is 243 0 lei 80 0 0 0 15 244 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 245 0 lei 80 0 0 0 15 246 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 247 0 161 8o 0 0 0 15 248 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 249 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 250 0 lei 80 0 0 0 15 251 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 252 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 253 0 161 80 0 0 0 is 254 0 161 60 0 0 1 0 15 255 0 161 60 0 ❑ 0 15 Section Conflouration Section Control Poll Req q Fail Time Adgoninm Period Desenplion 1 None 60 1 300 240 2 None 60 1 300 240 3 None So 1 300 240 4 None 60 1 300 240 5 None 60 1 300 240 6 None 60 1 300 240 7 None 60 1 300 240 8 [lone 60 1 300 240 9 None 60 1 300 240 10 None 60 1 300 240 11 None 60 1 300 240 12 None 60 1 300 240 13 None 60 1 300 240 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 187 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T1S —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 14 None 80 1 300R 340 15 None 60 1 MO 240 16 None B0 'I 309 240 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P age 188 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses— August 2020 Golden Gate Blvd & Everglades Blvd Intersection MaxTime Basic Default Tinting Sheet Conirtlier Number s. Contraber Name: MaraSt Sid, St. NTOP R,c*W. PoA A,— ---: 14TCJP Send Pori :«: NTCIP TimeaW t%nr Unit Parameters Sledupflashl 5 1 Auto Ped Ob Olsable R,d R6wd 4 Batkw Time BU Ed Mode Enable AV Red EAli Gm Fi,ah Fr,q. 6d Yel flash Fteq. A MCEEnabia Enable tdlCE seq. 1 PAmary:tart d Secondarys4na a Free Seq. 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 189 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Ph— Paramatarc Phases 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Walk Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clear Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Don't Walk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min Green 7 W 7 10 7 10 7 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Passage 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yet Change 4.8 4.8 4,8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.6 3 3 3 S 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Red Clear 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Red Revert 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Initial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1) 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 Max initial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 Time B4 Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 Cars B4 Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduce By o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min Gap 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dyn Max Limit 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dyn Max Slep 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 Delayed Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 Delay Ped 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ail Walk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alt Ped Clr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pre Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pre Clearance D 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Add Red Clearl 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 Phases 71 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 39 f 32 1 33 1 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Walk Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clear Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Don't Walk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Passage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max-1 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max-3 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yel Change 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Red Clear 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Red Revert 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Initial 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 Max initial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 D 0 Time B4 Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cars 94 Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0too 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduce By 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min Gap 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dyn Max Limit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D Dyn Max Step 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Delayed Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Delay Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Welk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alt Ped Clr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pre Green 0 0 U U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 190 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Preclearancel 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 10 0 0 Add Red Clearl 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 D 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Phase Ontions �aaa®aaa©aaasaaasaaaa ��■a��a©®-aaaais®aaaaaaaaaa ��saaaaaaaaassaaaaaaaa �aaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaa a©��a©���i■�a��aaaasai �aaaaaaa®aaa®saaaasaa ��aa�aaa®sass-saaaaaaa �aa�as-aa�aaaaa-aasae �aaa®aaa©saaaaaasaasa i��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaas i�mm®�®m®�mmm©mmm�mm®m i��aa®sasaaaaaaaaasaaaa i�as�-sae�s�aa�aasaaaa ��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa i■�aa�a®aaasaaaaaaaaaaa ��saaaaaa®saaaaaaaaaa ��aaaasaaaaaaaaaaasaaa ��a-��sasa�aaaaaas-ass �i�aaaasaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ��-ai�saaaasaasa�aaaasa �aasaaaaaaaaaaasaaaaa �aa asaaaaaasaaasaaaa I�aa e�aaa-aaaa�asaaaa Additional Phase Ontions �aaa-esisa�aaaaaaaisaaa -r�aaasaaasaaaaaasaaaaa -a�®sa�aaaaaaa®aaaaa aa�aaaae�a�s®aaaasaa i�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa i�aaasaa®-aaasaaaaaaaa �:�aa�aaaaaaasaaaaaaaaa. �aas�aaaaaaasa®asaaaa �r��sa��a����aas�aaaaaaa aaaaasaaassa®aaaaaaa �aaaaaaaaaaaasaaaaae�a �®s-asaaa�aaa��aaaaaa �aaaaasaa�aaaa®aaaaaa aaaaa����aaaaasa-aaa -asaaassaaaa�aassasa �m®®mm®®mmmmmm®®mm�mm Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 191 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2— Intersection Analyses —August 2020 �as�aaa���aaaaa-aaaaa OEM,aa�aaa��aaaaaa�aa®ea aaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaa • • aiss®aiaaa�aa�■a���®®aa �aa�aa-a�aaaaaa®aaaaa aa�aaaaa�-aaesesaa�a aaasaaaa�asaa-aasaaa aa�as��a�aaae�a�aaaaa �sa�e�sa®a�aaaaasaasaa Ph Startup Ring Concurrent Na Served Phases Phs Min DasrriGhai Y Phase Not On 1 5,6 0 2 Green No Welk 1 5.6 0 3 Phase Not On 1 7.8 0 4 Phase Not On 1 7.8 0 5 Phase Not On 2 1,2 0 6 Green No Walk 2 1,2 0 7 Phase Na On 2 3,4 0 8 Phase Not On 2 3,4 4 9 None 4 0 10 None 0 0 11 None 0 0 Y? None 0 0 13 None 0 0 14 None 0 0 15 None 0 0 16 None 0 0 17 None 0 0 18 Nona 0 0 19 None 0 0 24 None o 4 21 None 0 0 2? None 0 0 23 None 0 0 24 None 0 0 25 None 0 0 26 None 0 4 27 None 0 0 28 None 0 0 29 None 0 0 34 None 4 0 31 None 0 0 32 None 0 4 33 None 4 0 34 None 0 0 35 None 0 0 36 None 0 0 37 None 0 0 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 192 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 36 None 0 0 39 None 0 0 40 None 0 0 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 193 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Sequence Configuration Sequencel Sequence 2 Saquence 3 _ _ Sequence4 Ring Phases Ring Phases Ring Phases 1 i2,e.3.4,b Ring Phases Ring Phases 1 2,1.a.4.3.b Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 194 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 16 1 ::] 16 I = 1 16 1 1 16 Saquencel3 Sequence 14 Sequence IS Sequence 16 Ring Phases Ring Phases Ring Phases 1 1,2,a.3,4,b T 2.1.a.3.4,b 1 1.2.a,4.3.b 2 6,5.a,87.b 2 6,5,a,8,7,b 2 6,5;a 8,7.0 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 i 7 B 8 B 0 9 6 10 10 10 ii 11 11 1' 1 1 12 13 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 15 fib 16 16 Sequence17 Sequence18 Sequencei9 Sequence 20 _ Ring Phases Ring Phases Ring Phases Ring Phases 1 1 i 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 1 7 7 $ $ 8 8 g 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 15 15 i5 15 16 1G 16 16 a IO�I Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA F a g e 195 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Vnhwr nm—ti— Pa Em®mmm®®�®� ©aa�a©a®©aoo ®®o��aoo�o�o■v ®oo�®oe oar© oo©�ao■�oo®oo ooA�00000�000 m©ono®oao0oo modem®a®©�®o mo���s©ooio®oo m®®�000®©aoo mOA�aoa®®®oo ®©o�■00000®®o ®o�i�■i■000 t ■�000 ®00�0©000�00 �00�00®A�00© ®oa�aot©®�®oo ®oo�00000®A� moo�o®000®o© ©�■o�a©moo®oo moo�000�o©oo ®oa�0000®0�0 moo�a©oao®o© moo�a0000®oo ®oo�ao�000©© ®o®moo®ago©o ®oo�aoo©a®do ®o©�©000�000 ®oo�00000000 mo®�©000aooa moo�ao�■oo®oo Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 196 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 �oo�a0000000 m■�o�000©oaoo ®o©�00000000 moo�a0000aoo m■mo�oo�■0000■n� moo�o©000000 m00�00000000 m©©�00�00�00 moo�00000®oo moo�00000000 ®oo�oodm©©oo VeMcte Oetedlnn On0ons �aaaaasaaaaaaaassseae �aaeaees��saa-®a®�aea �aaaaaa®a��las®aa®aa■�a �aa©®®o©©©©aaaaaaaaea �saaaaasaaaaaaeseaaaa �m�eseeea�a��e�a�aaasa �asaasa-��aaaseae�saa. �aaaa®a-��aa®aaaaa�aa'. �asaeaa�e�a�aaaeae-ea �saasaeaa®aaaasa-�aaa� �a-�aa-saaaaaaa��aaael i�aaaaaa�aaaaaaa-aa�aa i��®aeaaaasaaaaasaaaae ��eaaaa-saga-eaaa���aa �isaaasaaaaaa�seeaaaaaa �aaaaaaaaasaaaaaaaaaa �saaaaea��sa�a�s�aasa ��aaaaaeaaaasaaaaaaasa �aaesae�®aaaaa-a�a®sa �asasasaaesaa aaeeae���ea- �eaaaaea��saa �aaaaaaaaaaaa �aaeaae���aaa �aaaaaesa�eaa �a�aaa�a�aaaa. Data collection Ponmi 1 60 Irian Detectors CO Call M. Mae [all Call No M" phase Ovlp Act Presence Erte6c Count Oet Phese Ovl Aet Presence Erm6c Gpunl 1 0 0 0 0 2t 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 s o o e o :3 o 0 0 1... 0d 0 0 0 0 2d 0005 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 00 0 0 0 Z6 0 0 00 00 027 0 Q 0 0 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 197 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 198 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 coordination Parameters Operational Mode Correction Mode I Maximum Mode Force Made Max Gyc Limit Automatic I Shonway(Auto) I Per Pattern Floating 30 Patterns J Pett. Cycle Offset 1 Offset 2 ORse[ 3 Split Sequence Ref. Color Max J 1 Llmft % % Min Gyc 30 Phs Del Ped 9 Mode Pln Pin Pin 1 0 0 0 D 7 1 Green Max Inhibit I 2 1 3 0 0 D D 3 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 2 1 4 0 0 0 0 4 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 2 1 5 U 0 0 0 5 1 Green Max Inhibit i 2 1 fi 0 0 D 0 6 1 Green Max Inhibit -1 2 i 7 0 0 0 U 7 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 2 1 8 0 0 0 0 B 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 9 0 0 D 0 9 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 2 1 10 0 0 0 0 10 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 2 1 11 0 0 0 0 11 1 Green Max inhibit 1 2 1 12 D 0 D 0 12 1 Gram Max inhibit 1 2 1 13 0 0 0 Q 13 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 2 1 14 0 0 0 D 14 1 Green Max inhibit 1 1 15 4 0 0 0 15 i Green Max Inhibit d 2 1 16 0 0 0 0 16 1 Green Max inhibit 1 2 1 17 0 0 0 D 0 0 Green Max inhibit 1 1 1 16 0 0 0 0 4 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 19 0 0 0 D 0 D Green Max Inhibit t 1 1 20 0 0 0 D 20 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 2 1 ?/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit i 1 i 22 0 0 0 D 22 1 Green Max Inhibit 2 2 1 23 0 0 0 0 23 1 Green Max Inhibit 3 2 1 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit i 1 1 26 Q 0 G 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 26 0 0 0 D 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 7 i 1 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max inhibit 1 1 1 32 0 0 0 Q 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 i 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 37 0 D D 9 D Q Green Max Inhibit i i 1 36 0 0 D 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 39 0 0 4 0 4 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max inhibit 1 i 1 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 YeI1aN Max Inhibit 1 1 1 43 A U 0 D 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 44 0 D 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 45 0 0 0 4 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit i 1 1 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 YellowMax Inhibit 1 1 1 49 0 0 0 0 D D YellowMax Inhibit 1 1 1 50 0 0 D 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 199 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max inhibit 1 1 1 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max inhibit 1 1 1 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 56 0 0 0 a 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit i 1 1 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 58 0 0 0 6 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max inhibit 1. 1 1 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max inhibit 1 1 1 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 66 0 0 0 0 1 66 1 Green Max 2 1 2 1 67 0 0 0 0 67 1 Green Max 3 1 2 1 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Mox Inhibit 1 1 1 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max inhibit 1 1 1 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 76 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max inhibit 1 1 1 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit i I 1 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max inhibit 1 1 1 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max inhibit 1 1 1 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 87 1 0 1 0 0 9 1 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit t 1 1 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit i 1 1 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit i 1 1 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit i 1 1 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max inhibit 1 1 1 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellaw Max Inhibit 1 1 1 10: 0 0 0 0 0 o Yellow May Inhibit 1 1 1 103 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 i i 104 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yell aw Max Inhibit 1 1 1 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 100 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 SPIft Parameters Split 1 Coad Ref Split 2 Coord Ref _ PH. Time PH PH Mode PH. Time PH PH Mode 1 0 None 1 0 None 2 0 X X None 2 0 X X None 3 0 None 3 0 None 4 0 None 4 Q None 5 0 None 5 0 None 6 0 X X None 6 o X X None 7 0 None 7 0 None 8 0 None 6 0 None 9 0 None 9 0 None 10 0 None 10 0 Nate 11 0 None 11 0 None 12 0 None 12 0 None 13 0 None 13 0 None 14 0 None 14 0 Nate 15 0 None 15 0 Nate 16 0 None 16 0 None Split 3 Coad Ref Split 4 Coord Re? PH. Time PH PH Male PH Tlme PH PH Mode 1 0 None 1 0 None 2 0 X X None 2 0 X. X None 3 0 None 3 0 None 4 0 None 4 0 None 5 o None 5 0 None 6 0 X X. None 6 0 X X None 7 0 None 7 0 None 8 0 None 8 0 None 9 0 None 9 0 None 106 0 0 0 U 0 0 'Yellow Maz inhibit 1 1 1 107 0 0 0 U 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit i 1 1 i08 U 0 0 0 0 0 Yellox Max Inhibit 1 1 9 109 G 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 i Ito D 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 i 1 111 0 0 0 0 0 Q Yellow Max Inhibit i 1 1 112 0 0 0 0 0 D Yellow May Inhibit i 1 i 193 0 D 0 0 D Yellow Max Inhibit Y 1 1 114 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 915 U 0 0 4 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 i 1 116 0 0 K(0) 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 117 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 116 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 119 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 121 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit Y 1 1 122 0 0 0 0 0 D Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 i 123 0 0 0 0 0 D 'Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 124 D 0 0 D 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 125 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 126 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 i 127 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1 101 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2— Intersection Analyses —August 2020 I 9 10 0 Nme a 11 0 None 12 0 None i 13 0 None ! 14 0 None } 15 0 None 1161 0 None 1 SPIi15 Coord Ref SP1116 Coord Rel _ PN. Time PH PH Mode IPH I Tma I PH I PH Mode 1 0 Ncne 1 0 None 2 0 X X None 2 0 X X None 3 0 None 3 0 None P 4 0 _ None 4 0 None 5 0 None 5 0 None 6 0 X I X None 6 0 X X hone 7 0 None 7 0 Nme 8 0 Nme 8 0 None i 9 0 None 5 1 0 None 10 0 None 10 1 0 Nme 11 0 None 11 1 0 None i 12 0 None 12 0 None 13 0 None 13 0 None 14 0 Nme 14 0 Nme 15 0 None 15 0 None 16 0 Nme 16 0 None Split 7 CWd FRef Split 6 Coati Ref PH. Time PH I PH _ Mode PH. Tlme PH PH Mode 1 0 Nme 1 0 Nme 2 0 X X Nme 2 0 X X Nme 3 0 Nme 3 0 None 4 0 Nme 4 0 Nme 5 0 Nme 5 0 None 6 0 X X Nme 6 0 X X Nme 7 0 None 7 0 Nme 8 0 Nme 6 0 Nme S 0 Nme 4 0 Nme 10 0 None t0 0 Nme t 1 0 Nme 11 0 Nme 12 0 Nme 12 0 ENone 13 0 None 13 0 14 0 _ None 14 0 15 0 Nme 15 0 16 0 Nme 16 0 Rat Split 10 Covtd Ref Split 5 c—.d _ PH.TT7me-1 PH I PH Mode PH. Time PH PH Mods 1 0 None 1 0 None 2 0 X x Nme 2 0 X X None 3 0 None 3 0 None 4 0 Ncee 4 0 None 5 0 Nme 5 0 None 6 0 x X Nrne 6 0 X X Nate 7 0 None 7 0 None moaa�r�� m�aa moaa�►lm� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 102 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T1S —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 E 0 None 8 0 None 9 0 None 9 0 None Split 9 Caad Ref -Pill 10 Coord Ret PH. T Time PH I PH Mode PH Tme PH PH MWe f0 1 0 Ncne 10 1 0 None 11 0 None 11 0 None 12 0 None t2 0 None 13 0 None 13 0 Plane 14 0 Nave 14 0 None 15 0 None 15 D None 16 0 None 16 0 Nme Split I _ Caord Ref Split 12 Coord Ref PH. Time PH I PH Mode PH Tlme PH PH Made 1 D None 1 0 Plane 2 0 X X None 2 0 X X None 3 0 None 3 0 None 4 0 None 4 0 None 5 0 Plane 5 0 None 6 0 X X Nme 6 0 X X Plane 7 0 None 7 0 None 8 0 None 6 0 None 9 0 None 9 0 None 0 None 10 0 None 0 Nme f 1 0 None 0 None 10None 0 [12 Nme 13 0 None 0 Nme 14 0 None 0 Nme 15 0 None 0 Plane 16 0 None Split 13 CWCl Ref Split 14 Cowd FReF1 PH. Time PH PH Mode PH. Time PH PH Mode 1 0 None 1 0 None 2 0 X x Nme 2 0 X X. None 3 0 None 3 0 None 4 0 Nme 4 0 None 5 0 Nme 5 0 None 6 0 X X None 6 0 X Plane 7 0 None 7 0 None 8 0 None 8 0 None 9 0 Plane 9 0 None 0 Nme 10 0 None 0 Plane 11 0 None 0 None 12 0 Plane 0 [16 None 13 0 None 0 None 14 0 None D Nane 15 0 None 0 Plane 16 0 None Split 15 Coord Ref Split 16 Coord Ref PH. Time PH PH Mode PH. Tme PH PH Mode 1 D None 1 0 None 0 X X Plane 1 2 1 0 X X Nane Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 103 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Split 17 Cead Ref Split is Coord Ref PH. Time PH PH Mode PH. Tlme PH PH Mode 1 0 None 1 0 Nate 2 a None 2 0 None 3 0 Nme 3 0 None 4 0 Nme 4 0 Nme 5 0 Nme 5 0 Nme 6 0 Nme 6 0 Nme 7 0 Nme 7 0 Nana 8 0 Nme 8 0 None 9 0 Nme 9 0 Nme 10 0 Nme 10 0 Nme 11 0 Nme 11 0 None 12 0 Nme 12 0 Nme 13 0 Nme 1"s 0 Nme tq 0 Nme 14 0 Nme 15 0 Nme 15 0 Nme i6 0 Nme 16 0 Nme Split 19 Coad Rat Split 20 Coord Ref PH, Time PH PH Mode PN- Tme PH PH Mode 1 0 Nme 1 0 Nme 2 0 Nme 2 0 Nme 3 0 Nme 3 0 None 4 0 Nme 4 0 None 5 0 Nme 5 0 Nme 6 0 Nme 6 0 Nme Split 19 Cacrd Ref _ _ Split 20 Coord Ref PH. Time_ PH PH Mode PH. Time PH PH Mode 7 0 Nme 7 0 Nme 8 0 Nme 6 0 Nme 9 0 Nme 9 0 Nme 10 0 None 10 0 Nano ti 0 Nme it 0 Nme 12 0 Nme 12 0 Nme 13 0 None 13 0 Nme 14 0 Nme 14 0 None 15 0 Nme 15 0 None i6 0 Nme i6 0 Nme 3 0 Nme 4 0 None 5 G l4me 6 0 X X Nme 7 0 None 8 0 Nona 9 0 None 10 0 Nme 11 0 None i2 0 Nme 13 0 None 14 0 Nme 15 0 None 16 0 None 3 0 None 4 0 None 5 0 None 6 0 X X None 7 o None 8 0 None 0 0 None 10 D Nme 11 0 Nme 12 0 Nme 13 0 Nme 14 0 None 15 0 Nme 16 0 None Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1 104 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Prioritor Settinas r ©tea Enabled Lock Out Time Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 105 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Schedules Day Plan 1 Descnpton Weekday Days of Month Month of Year Day.ofWeeki J F M A M J S M T W T F S 1 3 4 5 F 7 8 5 10 ti 12 13 14 15 18 XXXXXX X X X X X . X X X X X X X X X x X X X X x X J A XXXXXX S O P! D Description 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 X X x X X x X X X X X X X x X Da Plan 2 Saturday Days of Month Month of Year Days of Week JFMAMJSMT T F S 1 2 3 A 5 & 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 x X1X1X1X1X1.1A.1X x X X X X X X X X X X X X x X x J A S 0 F! D 17 18 19 20 21 _2 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 X X X X X X x X X X x X Y. X X X X X X X X Day Plan M Description Sunday Days of Month Month of Year Day-otWeekl JFMAMJSMT TFS 1 3 4 5 F 7 8 9L-,x 14 15 16 XXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X Y. X X X X X N D17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 26 29 30 31 XX XXX X X X. X X X X X X X X ��oo®®o�®®oe�e�ooe�ma®aaaa �eeeae■eeeeeeeaaaa��aaaaaa-a�a oo©moo ®aaa®®®a®a®aaam eeeeee_aaa®ae■aaaaaaaaa eeeeeeaeaeeeeaaaaa—a�saaaaaaa oo®o®© ®a®®®®®a®a®aa®a ,eaeeee_aaaaaaaaaaaaa-�� �o eeeeeeeeeeeeee■aaaa®aaaaaaes�e■- oo©o©a—®maa®aaaaaaaaa®■ eeeeee a-aa��aaasaaas� �loa�©©®�e�e�e�®e�oaa®mm®mi �eeeeeeeeeeeee-aaaa�asa�sa�aae ��oo®©mo aaa®®®aa®®mesa®a leeseee—aaaae■vaaae■-aaae■� .. " ©�®a�©o®®ae�ommmmmaai eeeeeee■eeeee■�aaaaaae■aaaaa��-i ®aaa®m®m®a®aaaa �oo©©ma eeeeeN aaaamaa-aassaaa� 'oo�e©�®�e�e�000e�a®a®aaa eaeeeaeeeaeeeasaae■ae■a®aaaaaaa as®a®®®a®a®aaaa �oo©©®a eeeeee_a■sa-�eaaaaaa®®a�� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 106 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 107 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 MW 0' 000� m""m 000� 000� mooa _ MEMEM� =©©= ©0oe� rvo■�� oa©■� mo©� MKMI= Elm ®oo� eoo� ooa� o®o� moos 000� aoo� 000� ®oo� no®� 000� moos moo®©o®©o©o®o ��ae®aeeo©oeo ®�v■■e■■■■■■■■ ®tea■e■■■■■■■■■ i 0®0� D00� 0®0� 000� ooa= ooa� a■�o� ®oo� 000� o©o� mo©� oao� ©oo� ©oo� 000� eoo� o©o� o©o� a©o� ®oo� 000� ®oo� 000� ®oo� moos m001♦ o®oi aoo� oo©� ao®� oo©� ©©ate moan 000� aoo� 000� 000� 000� 000� m©o� 000� 000� 000� ®Ova ©00� m00� ®ooi ©oo� 000� o®o� ®oo® ©oo� 000� ®oor oo©� ®oo� ■moo®� m©©r ®oo� ©oo� o©o� 000� oo■�� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1 108 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 �®was■■■■■■■■■. �m�e■■eiiiiiiiiN ®tee■e■■■■■■■■ ®wee■■■■■■■■■ ®ram®ee■■■■■■■■ mom■■■■■■■■■■■ Mom■■■■■■■■■■■ mcMIMMa ■■■■■■■■■ m�■�■■■■■■■■■ ®w"MI■■■■MEMO■■■ ® EEMEME■EE■■ ®�■■■■■■■■■■■ Wes■■■■■■■■■■■■ Mom■■■■■■■■■■■ ®�■■■■■■■■■■■ ®tee■■■■■■■■■■ Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 109 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — In tersection Analyses —August 2020 Preemption Parameters Preempt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Link 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 Delay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min Duration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min Green 15 15 15 15 0 0 0 0 Min Walk 7 7 7 7 0 0 0 D Track Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dwell Green 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 0 Max Presence 90 90 90 90 0 0 0 0 Enter Yellow 26 26 26 26 25 26 26 26 Ent. Red Clear 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 Track Yellaw 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 rack Red Clear 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 Exil Red 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 Exit Ped Clear, 255 255 255 255 255 255 255 255 Exit Yellowl 26 26 26 26 25 1 26 26 25 Exit Redl 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 1 25 Preemp11234567 8 Non Lock Mem Not Ovende Flash . otOvendeNextPre X X X X Flash Dwell . . Proamnfinn C_nnfinuration Preempt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Track phase Dwell Phase 2.6 4,8 2,6 4,8 Dwell Ped Exit Phase Z6 4,8 Z6 4,8 Track Overlap Dwell overlap Cycling phase Cycling Ped Cycing Overlap Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 110 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 10 Modules Channel Configuration 10 Mod TYPE 1 1 Small A Con 2 TS2 MMU 3 TS2 TF 1 BIU 4 TS2 TF2 BIU 5 TS2DR1 BIU 7 Nana 8 None 9 None 10 None Channel Options S tin Clearance Nn1A Tvne i_.,a r_n,. R=FIx6 snA A= All Fra<P Phase Intervals Pedestrian Intervals Countdown Display Display Add has Time Display Add has Time Display Addr ha Tim Display Addr he Time 1 9 17 25 2 10 18 26 3 11 19 27 4 12 20 28 5 13 21 29 6 14 ^2 3) Red Chan Cm Type Source 1 Phase Vehicle f 2 Phase Vehicle 2 3 Phase Vehicle 3 4 Phase Vehicle 4 5 Phase Vehicle 5 � Phase Vehicle 7 $ Phase Vehicle 9 9 None 2 10 None 4 Chan Ctrl Type Source 11 (done 8 12 None 8 13 None 0 14 None 0 15 Nana 0 17 None 0 18 None 0 19 None 0 20 None u -•aa�aaa�aaaaa-®aa =saa��s�s�aaaaa-- aaaaa-saaaa®aa�® ---------------- Interval Description Red Yet Gin Type 1 natAchve On OR Off Red 2 dllGrn On OR O% Red 3 PreGm Off OFF On Green 4 minGm Off Off On Green 5 gmF�ft Off Off On Green 6 gmpNep OFF Off. On Green 7 preClear Off Off On Green 6 yelChange Off On Off Yellow B redGeaf 0n On Off Red 10 redDwell On Oft Off Red 11 Barrier On Off Oft Interval DW ClR Wlk Type 1 On OffOltnt Wa2 On Off Oftont Wa 3 onotActive Ofl Off On Walk 4 OB Ott On Wnik FtasOn OftedCle- 6 On Off Oft nl Wa i 9 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page I 111 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 ©mmm ®mmm ®mmm®mmm. "mmm ®mmm �mmm "mmm Manual Control Phase Groups Grp 1 Gm 2 Grp 3 Grp 4 Grp 5 Gm 6 Grp 7 Grp 8 Ring Ph JRIn4 Ph lRing Ph Ring Ph Ring Ph Ring Ph Ring Ph Ring Ph 1 0 1 U 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 a 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 8 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 a 0 8 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 10 0 10 0 1 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 11 0 11 0 1 11 0 11 0 11 0 11 0 11 0 11 0 12 0 121 0 1 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 1 12 0 13 0 13 0 13 0 13 0 13 0 13 0 13 0113 0 14 0 14 0 14 0 14 0 14 0 14 0 14 0 15 0 15 0 15. 0 15 0 15 D 15 0 15 0 16 0 16 a 16 0 16 q 16 0 16 0 16 0 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 112 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Peer Configuration SNMP Pat Not Pal Sarlal Port Senel Ad& Master Sect. P2P TO CH Peer 1E iPaddress Description 1 0 161 1 80 0 0 0 15 2 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 3 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 5 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 6 0 181 60 0 0 0 15 7 1 0 1 161 80 0 0 0 15 6 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 9 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 10 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 11 0 161 j 60 j 0 0 0 15 12 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 13 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 14 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 15 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 16 0 161 60 0 D 0 15 17 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 18 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 19 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 20 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 21 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 22 0 161 80 0 0 0 is 23 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 24 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 25 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 26 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 27 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 28 0 16t 60 0 D 0 15 29 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 30 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 31 0 191 80 0 0 0 15 32 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 33 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 34 0 151 80 0 0 0 15 35 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 36 0 161 80 0 D 0 15 37 0 161 80 0 D 0 15 38 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 39 0 151 80 0 0 0 15 40 0 161 80 0 D 0 I 15 41 0 161 80 0 0 a 15 42 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 43 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 44 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 45 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 46 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 47 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 48 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 49 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 50 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 51 1 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 52 1 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 113 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 53 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 54 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 55 0 181 BO 0 0 0 15 56 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 57 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 58 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 59 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 60 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 61 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 62 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 63 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 64 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 65 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 66 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 67 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 68 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 69 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 70 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 71 0 161 80 1 0 0 0 15 72 0 161 80 D 0 0 15. 73 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 74 0 191 80 0 0 0 15 75 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 78 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 77 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 78 0 161 80 0 O 0 15 79 0 161 60 0 1 0 0 15 8o 0 181 80 0 0 0 15 81 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 82 0 161 BO 0 0 0 15 63 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 84 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 85 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 86 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 87 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 88 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 89 0 151 80 0 0 0 15 90 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 91 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 92 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 93 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 94 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 95 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 96 0 161 80 D 0 0 15 97 0 161 80 D 0 0 15 98 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 99 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 100 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 101 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 102 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 103 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 104 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 105 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 106 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 107 11 0 161 1 80 0 0 0 15 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 114 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 111s Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 163 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 164 0 161 60 0 0 0 i5 155 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 166 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 167 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 168 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 169 0 161 1 60 0 0 0 15 170 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 171 0 1131 80 0 0 0 15 172 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 173 0 161 00 0 0 0 15 174 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 175 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 176 0 161 co 0 0 0 15 177 0 161 80 0 1 0 0 15 178 0 161 80 0 0 0 i5 179 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 180 0 151 80 0 0 0 15 181 0 161 B0 0 0 0 i5 182 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 183 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 184 0 191 80 0 0 0 15 185 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 186 0 151 80 0 0 0 15 187 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 188 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 189 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 190 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 191 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 192 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 1931 0 1 161 80 0 0 0 15 194 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 195 0 151 80 0 9 0 15 196 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 197 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 198 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 199 0 161 60 0 0 0 i5 200 6 161 80 0 0 0 i5 201 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 202 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 203 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 204 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 205 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 206 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 207 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 208 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 209 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 210 0 161 80 0 6 0. 15 211 0 161 80 0 11 0 15 212 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 213 0 161 80 0 1 0 0 15 214 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 215 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 216 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 12171 0 161 80 0 0 0 1 15 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 116 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 218 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 219 0 161 -80 0 0 0 15 220 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 221 0 lei 80 0 0 0 15 222 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 223 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 224 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 225 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 226 0 lei 80 0 0 0 15 227 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 228 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 229 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 230 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 231 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 232 0 461 80 0 0 0 15 233 0 lei 80 0 0 0 15 234 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 235 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 236 0 1 161 80 0 0 0 15 237 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 236 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 239 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 240 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 241 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 242 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 243 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 244 j 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 2451 0 1 161 80 0 0 0 15 246 0 1 161 80 0 0 0 15 247 0 161 CO 0 1 0 0 15 248 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 249 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 250 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 251 0 lei 80 0 0 0 15 252 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 253 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 2541 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 12551 0 1 161 80 0 0 0 1 15 Section Configuration Section Control Poll Req # Fall Time Algorithm Period Description i None 60 1 300 240 2 None 60 1 300 240 3 None 60 1 300 240 4 Nene 60 1 300 240 5 None 60 1 300 240 6 None 60 1 300 240 7 None 60 1 300 240 8 None 60 1 3a0 240 9 None 60 1 100 240 10 None 60 1 300 240 11 None 60 1 300 240 12 None 60 1 300 240 13 None 60 1 300 240 14 None 60 1 300 240 Trehilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 117 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 15 Nate 60 1 300 240 16 None 80 1 300 240 User Pro ram Info Pgrm Descnp0on 1 preempt status 3 i 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 19 16 i 17 18 19 3 20 21 27 3 23 24 25 26 3 27 28 29 30 31 I 32 Trebilcock consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 118 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Immokalee Rd & Randall Blvd Intersection MaxTime Basic Default Timing Sheet Codmlier Plumber !T± Cnn40ar Nmne Win St. I Sid. St aa'dar:=.uaJrm IPAddress PITCIP RgMVP Pad h'a— NTOP Send Pad le; NTCIP TIM.Oal i", Unit Parameters Sladup rl.shl S 1 Aalo Ped Clr Disable Red Raved 4 Bb&W Time 600 Ed Mode Enable AU Red Emil 0 Gm Flash Freq. 60 Yelflasnrteq. 60 I MCEEnaNk Enab MCE Seq. 1 Polmary Mad 0 I Secondary SIMI 0 1Pao Seq. 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 119 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Phaca Parnme4arc phases 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 8 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Walk Time 0 0 6 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clear Time 0 0 0 35 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Don't Walk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min Green 5 15 0 5 5 15 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Passage 1 5 0 5 1 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max-1 15 50 0 30 20 50 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M3x-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yet Change 4.8 4 8 3 4.8 4.8 4.8 3 4.83 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Red Clear 2.2 2.2 0 2.2 2.2 2.2 0 2.2 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Red Revert 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Initial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max Initial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time B4 Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cars 84 Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduce By 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min Gap 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dyn Max Limit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dyn M. step 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Delayed Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Delay Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Walk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Ped Cir 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pre Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pre Clearance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Add Red Cleaf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phases 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 38 37 38 39 40 Welk Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 Clear Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Don't Walk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Passage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Max-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yet Change 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Red Clear 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5- Red Revert 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Initial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max inlial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time 24 Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cars B4 Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduce By 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min Gap 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Dyn Max Limit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DMax Step yn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Delayed Greenj 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 Delay Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aft Walk 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alt Ped CIrl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 D 0 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 120 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Pre Green 0 1 0 1 D 1 D 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pre Clearance 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Add Red Clear 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 Phase Ontions ©®a©©©a©aaasaaaaaaaa �aaa®a®rsais®--a®®ais®®a �a®aaa©aaaaaaa�aaaawa �aaaaaaasaaaaaaaa-aaa -a�s�a�sasaa�aaasaaa ©©a®o®�®aa�aaa�esaaa ®tea©aaa®aaaaa®aaaaaaaa �aaa®--aaaaaaasaaaaaa �aaaaaisasaaaaa�aaasaa �aa�saaaaaaaaaaassaaa ��aa��a��a�a�aaaa-aaas �aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa �aa�aa-aaaaasasaaaaaa �a�asaa��aaaaaaaaasaa �aa-a�s��aaa�saaaaaaas �aaaaaaaasaaaaaaa®aaa ��aa�a®a®asaaaasaaasaa �aa�a®aaaaaasaaaaasaa �aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa- -a��s■�sa��aaasaaaaae �ais��aaia��aaaaaaasaaa �aa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aa�aasaasaaaa-aaaaaa �aa�a®aaa�aaaaaaaaaaa ®�aasaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa �ssa®saa��aa-aaasasa- �aaaa�a��aa�a�aaae-as Additional Phase Ontions �aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa '��aa�aaaasaa�a�a�asaaa aaaaaaaaaa�asaaasaa- ��aaaaaaaaaaasaaaaaasa i�aaaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa ��®aa�asaaasaaaaa�aaaae a�aa®aaaaasaaaaaaasaaa --•�a��®a���aaa��a-aaaa �aaseaaaasaaa�aasaaaa �aaaaaaaaaaaa�aasaaaa �aaaa-aasaaaaaaaaasa® �aa®saaaaasa-aaaaaaaa �aasaa®��aa-aaaa-aaaa -aaaas�sas�aaaaasass �aa�aaa��aa�aaaasae�s Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 121 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 ���saiaa�aa�-aaaseaaaaaar ���aa�asa���aaaa�ae�sae �ssaaaa���aaaaaa�aaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaae -:®�ssaaisaia��aaa-isaarsa■■ '�aa�aaaaa�aa®aaaaaaaa i�aa-esaaaaasaaaaaaaas ���aa�aaaa®tea-as®�a�aaa �aa�aaaaa�aa�a�aaaaas ��aaaaae�a�saisss�aasaa Phase Confinuration Ph. Startup Ring Concurrent No Served Phases Phs Min Description 1 Phase Not On 1 5.6 0 2 Green No Welk 1 5,6 0 3 None 0 0 4 Phase Not On 1 0 5 Phase Not On 2 1,2 0 6 Green No Walk 1 2 1,2 0 7 None 0 0 8 Phase Not On 1 0 9 None 0 0 10 None 0 0 11 None 0 0 12 None 0 0 13 None 0 0 14 None 0 0 15 None 0 0 i6 None 0 0 17 None 0 0 18 None 0 0 19 None 0 0 20 None 0 0 21 None 0 0 22 None 0 0 23 None 0 0 24 None 0 0 25 None 0 None 0 None 0 None 0 ro None 0 [32 None 0 None 0 None 00 None 0 0 34 None 0 0 35 None 0 0 361 None 1 0 0 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 122 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 37 None 0 0 38 None 0 0 39 None 0 0 40 None 0 0 mm��o®A®®moom� mm�■�0000©�oom��� m®�■�000®®©oom�� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 123 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2— Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Sequence Configuration Sequences Sequence 2 Sequence 3 Sequence4 Ring Phases Ring Phases Rhig Phases Ring Phases 11 Ring Phases Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P age 1 124 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 i 3 15 15 15 � 1fr i 16 iG 16 a j Sequance13 Sequunce14 Sequence 15 Sequence 16 Ring Phases Ring Phases Ring_ Fba5es Ring Phases 1 1,2,a.3.4,b 1 2.1.a,3,4.b 1 7274,3,b 1 2,1 e,4,3 b I 6.5,a.8,7.b 2 6,5,a,e,7,G 2 6,5,a8,7 b 2 6,5.a,8,7,b 2 33 3 4 4 A 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 T 7 7 e a e a 9 9 5 9 10 10 10 10 11 it 11 11 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 Sequence17 Sequence 18 Sequence19 Sequence 20 Rmg Pneses Ring Phases Ring Fbases Ring Phases 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 E e a e 9 9 9 5 10 10 f0 10 11 11 11 11 17 12 1 12 12 13 13 13 13 14 1Q 14 14 15 15 15 15 i6 16 16 16 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1125 Belimar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 omo�■o©o�aoaoo ©oo�00000��o© ©®o■r���ova®o aoo�o©000®o© aoo�aoo©0000 o©o�00000a®o moo�000Ao�soo ®®o�■�n■0000®oe m�o�oo®ot�®©o m o�■�o®®��soo ®©�raoodo�soo m®�o■�00000�soe moo�a0000��oo ®oo�a0000000 ®oo�o�■00000© ®©io���o�o■�o® �o®��n■oo®oao® ®©m■�a0000000 moo��0000��oo ©oi ao©©a®moo moo�aoaoo®oo ®®®�a0000Qoo ®a®�000a®©oo ®do�a�000©a® m�o■�a0000�sAo m ono©o®o©a© �®ova©moo©®o© �oo�00000aoo moos©0000®o� ®000®©ono®oo m o�aoAoo®oo ©®0�a©0000© moo�a0000000 ®oo�000 Q®o© i m© �o ■°0000© m�ai��o�000®oo me®�is�■a©©ate© ®o®�aoo�0000 ®oo�ao©oo�s©o © o�a0000®oo ®�o�00000aoo ®�o�oo�©oaroo moo�a0000®oo ®oo�a©000®oo ®�o�®0000®�■� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 126 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 moo�a00000©o moo�00000aoo ®oO�0000ov00 000�a0000��oo moo��■a0000aoo mo©�00000��oo moo�ai0000000 msso�a0000aoo moo�a0000®oo moo�ao©00000 moo�00000��oo moo�a00000�oo was®©aao©ae©©sseaasas �eisaasaeesaeewasa®aaia aswaaaasasaea®e�aee- �aaaaasaa�aaaaeea�aa� ��maseaae��a®aaaa���ese ��aasaaaa��aaaaasesaaa �a®ssasaaesaaaaea�asa �m©©®mommom®©mo©mmo�mi �aaaeaas■��®eeoe�©®©©a ®is�s®a��®�■���sas��aera �aseaaaisaaaaaaaaaea0a �isoaasa�a�saa�a���asa �waaaa®�asaaaaae��aaa ��aaaaasaaaaaaaa�aaae �aseaaaae®es©©®saaeae �asaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa �asaasaa��ae�easaa�sa �aaaaawsaasaaasaaaaaa �aa�aa®ae�aeaaaeasasa �aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa �saaa�sasaasaa �eaaaaea��aaa �ssaaaaasaaas �eaaaaas��saa �aaaaaasa�eaa 000000 ®000ao ®aanaaa ®a000a� ©©ooao moonaaa 00000o m0000�a o®aoaa ®oaoaa ©aoo®a �aaoaa Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P age 1 127 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 128 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2— Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Coordination Parameters Dvershona! model Correction Made Maximum Mode Force Made Mex Cyc Limit A. Min Cyc Limit % Automatic I Shenwey(Auto( Max Inhibit Floating 30 30 Patterns Phs Pin Del Pin Ped Part Cycle Offset f Offset Z Offset 3 5pU1 Sequence Rer Color Max Mode Phi 1 130 83 0 Q 1 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 2 0 Q 0 Q 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 2 1 3 100 50 0 0 3 1 Green Max Inhibit i 1 1 4 t 10 90 0 0 4 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 2 1 5 0 0 0 0 B 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 2 1 6 0 0 0 0 6 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 2 1 7 0 0 0 0 7 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 i 6 0 0 0 0 8 1 Green Max inhibit f 2 1 9 0 0 0 D 9 i Green Max inh16G f 2 1 10 0 0 0 D 10 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 2 1 if Q 0 0 Q 11 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 2 1 12 0 0 0 0 12 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 2 1 13 0 0 0 0 13 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 2 1 14 0 0 0 0 14 i Green Max Inhibit i 2 1 15 0 0 0 0 15 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 2 1 16 0 0 0 0 16 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 2 i 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 IB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 t 1 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gram Max Inhibit t 1 1 20 0 0 0 0 20 1 Green Max Inhibit 1 2 1 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 i 2= 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Meu Inhibit 1 1 1 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 i 25 0 Q 0 0 D 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 28 0 Q 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 20 0 Q 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 30 0 0 0 0 tl 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit t 1 1 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit t 1 1 34 0 Q 0 0 0 Q Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 30 tl 0 0 0 Q 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 37 0 0 0 Q 0 tl Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 39 0 0 0 Q 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Max Inhibit 1 1 1 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 i 42 0 0 0 0 tl 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 t 43 0 Q Q 0 tl 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit t 1 1 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 yellow Max Inhibit t 1 1 46 0 0 0 0 0 D Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 47 0 0 0 4 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 48 0 0 0 Q tl 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 49 Q 0 0 0 Q 0 yell— Max Inhibit 1 1 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1129 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 53 0 0 0 0 A 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit I 1 1 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max inhibit 1 1 1 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max inhibit i 1 1 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 64 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 66 0 0 0 0 66 1 Green Max 2 1 2 1 67 0 0 0 0 67 1 Green Max 3 1 2 1 68 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 71 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max inhibit 1 1 1 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max inhibit 1 1 1 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 80 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit i 1 1 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 i 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit I 1 1 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max inhibit 1 1 1 87 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 ee 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 I 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 94 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 951 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max inhibit 1 1 1 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 102 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 103 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 104 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 130 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Spilt Parameters Split 1 Cowd Ref Split 2 Coord Ref PH. Time PH PH Mode PN. Time PH PH Mode 1 14 _ None 1 0 None 2 55 X X None 2 a X X None 3 0 None 3 0 None 4 46 None 4 0 None 5 20 None 5 0 None 6 49 X X None 6 0 X X None 7 0 Nona 7 0 None 8 15 None 8 0 None 9 0 None 9 0 None 10 0 None 10 0 None 11 0 None 11 0 None 12 0 None i2 0 None 13 0 None 13 0 None 14 0 None 14 0 None 15 0 None 15 0 None 16 0 Nme 16 0 None Split 3 Cmd Rat Split 4 Cowd Ralf PH. Time PH PH Mode PH, Tme PH PH Mode 1 17 None 1 17 None 2 40 X X _ None 2 50 X X None 3 0 None 3 0 None 4 26 None 4 26 None 5 22 None 5 22 None 6 35 X X None 6 45 X X None 7 0 None 7 0 None 8 17 None 8 17 None Inhibit 1 1 1 106 0 0 0 0 0 o Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 107 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit- 1 1 1 108 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit i 1 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 I 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max inhibit 1 1 1 /12 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 113 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 114 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max inhibit 1 1 1 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max inhibit 1 1 1 118 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 119 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit t 1 1 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Meg Inhibit t 1 1 0 0 0Yellwr Max Inhibll 1 1 I 0 0 0 0 Yellax Max Inhibit 1 1 1 0 D 0 0 Yellax Max Inhibll i 1 1 0 0 0 0 Yellax Max Inhlblt i 1 1 F 00 0 Yellax Mex Inhibit 1 1 1 0 00 0 Yellow Max Inhibll 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Yallaw Max Inhibit 1 1 0 U 0 0 Yellow Max Inhibit 1 1 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1 131 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Split 5 Coerd Ref Split 6 Coord Ref PH. Time PH PH Moda PH Tuna PH PH Made 1 0 None 1 0 None 2 0 X X None 2 0 X X None 3 0 None 3 0 None 4 0 None 4 0 None 5 0 Nme 5 0 None 6 0 X X None 6 0 X X None 7 0 None 7 0 None 8 0 None 8 0 _ None 9 0 None 9 0 None 0 None 10 0 None 0 None 0 None 0 None 0 None 0 [14 None 0 None 0 None 0 Nme 0 None 0 Nme 16 0 None 1610 None Split 7 Coord FReIF _ _ Split 8 Coord Ref _ PH. I Time PH PH Mode PN. Time PH PH .� Mode 1 0 None 1 0 None 2 0 X X None 2 0 X X None 3 0 None 3 0 None 4 0 Nme 4 0 None 5 a Nona 5 0 None 60 X X None 6 0 X X None 7 0 Nme 7 0 None 8 0 Nme 8 0 None 9 0 Nme 9 0 None 10 0 None 10 0 None 11 0 None 11 0 None 12 0 None 12 0 None 13 0 Nme 13 0 None 14 0 Nme 14 0 Nme 15 0 Wine 15 0 None 16 0 None 16 0 None Split 9 Ccrord Ref Split 10 Coord Ref PH, 1 Tim.1 PH I PH Mode PH FTim. PH PH _ Mode 1 0 None 1 0 Nme 2 0 .X X Woe 2 o X X None 3 0 Nme 3 0 None 4 0 None 4 0 None 5 0 Nme 5 0 None G 0 X 1,11me 5 0 X X None ®ova Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1 132 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 T 10I None 8 0 None 9 0 None F=_maa nm M®�� ©o_a lord Ref Spill10 1 Coral Ref PH PH Mode PH Time PH PH Mode None 10 0 None Ncne 1 1 0 None None 12 0 None None None None Split 15 Coad Ref __ PH Tme PH PHI Mode _ 1 1 0 1 1 None None split 16 Coord TR.fj PH I Time PH PH Mode 1 1 0 1 1 None Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 133 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses — August 2020 ? 0 X X None Split 17 Coad Ref Spill iB Coord Ref PH. Time PH PH Mode PH. Time PH PH Mode 1 0 None 1 0 None 2 0 None 2 0 None 3 0 None 3 0 None 4 0 None 4 0 None 5 0 None 5 0 fJme 6 0 None 6 0 None 7 0 None 7 0 None 0 0 None 6 0 None 9 0 None 9 0 None 10 0 Nme 10 0 None 11 0 Nme 11 0 None 12 0 None 12 0 None 13 0 Nme 13 0 None 14 0 Nme 14 0 None 15 0 None 15 0 None 16 0 None 16 0 None Split 19 Coerd Ref Split 20 Coord Ref PH. Time PH PH Mode PH Time PH PH Mode 1 0 Nme 1 0 None 2 0 We 2 0 fJme 3 0 None 3 0 None 4 0 None 4 0 None 5 0 None 5 0 None 6 0 s Nme 6 0 None Split 19 Coad Ref _ Split 20 Coard Ref PH. Time PH PH Mode PH Time PH PH Mode 7 0 None 7 0 None a 0 None 6 0 Nme 3 9 0 Nme 9 0 None i 10 0 None 10 0 None 11 0 Woe 11 0 None 12 0 Woe 12 0 None 13 0 None 13 0 None 14 0 None 14 0 None 15 0 None 15 0 None p None 4 D None 5 0 None 6 0 X X Nave 7 0 Nate 8 0 None Nme Flme None None [4D None NoneNone Nme 2 0 X X Norse 3 0 Noma 4 0 None 5 0 None 6 0 X X None 7 0 None Ji 0 None 9 0 None 10 0 None 11 0 None 12 0 None 13 0 None iR 0 None 15 0 None 16 0 None Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1 134 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 16 1 Q 1 1 1 None I ifi I 0 I I I None Prioritor Settings URN • r 0�® ®�0 ®tea o�® ®tea Enabled_ Lock Out Timc n Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 135 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2— Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Schedules DaY Plan r i I Description Sunday Days of Month Month of Year Day- of Week I J F M J W 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 1 2 13 14 15 16 X X XX Y. 12 X Y Y X XX.XXXX XXX X I X X X J A S O N D 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 XXXXXX X X X X X I X I X I X I X I X I X I % I X I X I X Day Plan F-2-1 Description Weekday Days of Month Month of Year DafW.ekl .1 F M A M J S p T T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Y.X X X X X _XXXXX Y. X X X Y. X X X I X X Y. Y. X X X X J A S O N D 17 18 19 20 21. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 XXXXXX X I X I X I X IX X Y. I X I X X X I X I X I X X Day Plan 3 Description Saturday Days of Month Month of Year Days of Week I J F M A M J S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 XXX XX X X X Y. X X X X X X X X Y. X X X X J A S O N D 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x X X X X X X �o ee■■eeeee■seeaaaaaaaaaa—aaaaw ooe©eo mm®w®®®mmm®ww®® �,reeee■■_awaww�aawwwwa-�� o©®o©o®©©©©oow®©o®000®mm®mm®m eeeaeeeeeseeaaawawaaaaawwaaaa oo®o©o_®m®�®®®®®m®mamm■ ee■eea aaaaa_aassa-awe o©e©�oe�e�®oom®®mm®m eeeeeeeaee�eeaaawwe•�awwasaw�a roe©©©o mmm®®®®m®®®mm®® �eeee.s�aaww��aawaaawwa ©o��©©�1©�®ego®e�omm®mmm® eaeeeeeeeeeesaaaaawawaaaawawa oo©m®o ®mmw®®®m®®®mimmm ■e■eee_a-awwaawaaaaaaw� mmm goo©ad■ea©©®©®o®®�ae�e�ooe�mmm®mmm i■e■eeeeeee�eeaawaaaaaaawaaaaa SOME= eeeese�waaaww-awawawa"m Day PianF-9-1 Month of Year Description Days of Week Days of Month J 1 EN A M J S M T TFS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 13 14 1 15 16 JlAlS101f,JlDl 17 1 18 1 19 1 20 1 21 1 22 J 23 1 24 1 25 1 26 1 27 1 28 1 29 1 30 1 31 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 136 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 ee■e■■ aINS mmmas-mamma o .- .. o ®� � eeo®� ®®� eeo®� oavo�e ©ogee meo■e©� : m oo®©®©®®o®o©o®mmm®mm® aeeeeeeeeeeeesaaaaaa�a-aa®aaa oo©o®o ®mmm®m®m®m®m®mm eeaeea aaaa�aa-aaaaaa� 3= m o©�©©�©��eeee�000mmm®en®ev eeee■eaaeeeae-aaee-a®a-aaa®asa oeoemo ®m®®®®®m®m®m®mom eee■ee aaaaeemaaaaaaaam NAM -MAdM_ oo©000©m©©©o©©®ao®oae�omm®mmmm eeeeeeeeeee■aeeaaaa�aaaaae■ae■�a 000n©o ®miv�®m®m®m®mom®m e■■eee smmmma eee■eseeeee■ea�aas�aae�saaa-�- eeaeea aa-aae■aasaaa®ate oo©a©o©ma�a©®o®ems®®®e�oe�mm®®m®® ■eseeeaaeeeea®aaae■ssas�aaaaaa oa©©mo ®emevm®®®m®m®m�mm eeaeea a®a®mmmaaaaaa®m ammo©oa©®mo©®oa®o®®©oommm®ea®m eeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaasaaaes-aa-aa ■eeeee aaa���ae■aaaaaaa vzn Hour Min. Act 1 a 1 64 2 6 0 1 3 9 30 2D 4 15 0 3 5 17 0 4 Act 10 Even Hour Min. PLI 80©� e��■e©ems 0®0� moe©� oe©�ae� aoev� ewe©eve oevo� e�oo� van Hc+�r NHn. Act Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1 137 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 000� ©00� 000� 000� a. - Q •. mi s. m . 00' 0- ©00 0®0� ©00� Ems= ErM ©00� 0®0� ©00� Q00� oo©� moos 000� ao©� ©ao� oo®� 000� 000� moos ��o©©n®©o©oon moo®oaeo©©o� ar�oeee■■■■■■■■ mr�»eea■■■■■■■■ ®�eee■■■■■■■■ ®wee■■■■■■■■■ 000� 0©0� ®Q0� ®00' ©00� 000� ®Q0� 0®0� ©00� m00� 000� Q©Q� 000� o®■vim ©oo� moos ooai ®oo� ®oo� 000� ©oo� ©oo� aoo� o®o� aoo� moos 000� ®00� 000� ®00� 000� ®00� ®00� ©Q0� ©00� 000� 000� ®00� ©oo� ®■vow oo©� ®oo� ooa� moos ®00� ®0v� ®00� ©Q0� Q®0� ©00- ©00 0©0� ©00� ®Q0� ®00� o®o� m©o� oo©� ©oo� oo®� 000� 000■� 000� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1 138 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 m"MM■■EE■■E■■e0'I mom■■■■■■■■■■■ m�M■■■EE■EEEM ®tee■■■■■■■■m■ mROMME■■EE■■■EEM ®®■MOME■ MEMO ®EMMM■■■MM■EEM■■ ®am-m- MeeeEEME■■■E OEM"- Meee■■■■■■■■ ®wee■ ■M■■EEM ®�■■■ ■■■OM■= mu-m-MIeee■■MME■E mom■■e�■■■■�■■. ®tee■e■M■■■■■■ �®Mee■■■■■■■■ ®wee■■■■■MM■■ ®OMUNMM■■■■MECE■■ ®0=0MENEENOM ONE Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g P 1 139 8ellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Preemntinn Parameters Preempt 1 3 4 5 6 7 6 Link 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Delay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min Duration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min Green 15 15 15 15 0 0 0 0 Min Walk Ent. PedClear 7 255 7 255 7 255 7 255 0 255 0 255 0 255.255, Q Track Green 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dwell Green 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 0 Max Presence 90 90 90 90 0 0 0 0 Enler Yellow 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 Ent. Red Clear 26 26 26 26 ^_--6 26 26 26 Track Yellow 26 26 26 25 26 26 26 26 rack Red Clear 26 26 26 26 26 26 1 26 1 26 Exit Red Exit Ped Clear 26 255 1 26 2$5 26 255 26 255 26 255 26 255 26 255 26 255 Fait Yellow 26 26 26 26 26 1 26 26 26 Exit Red 26 26 26 26 26 1 26 26 26 Preempt 12345678 Non Lock Mom Not Ovende Flesh X X X X . otOvendeNextPre X X X X . Flesh Dwell P-nfinn Cnn Finurafinn Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 140 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 10 Modules Channel Configuration 10 Mod TYPE 1 i Small A Om 2 T82 MMU 3 TS2 TF1 BIU 4 TS2 TF2 BIU 5 TS2 DR BIU 6 TS2 DR2 BIU 7 Nara 5 None 9 None It) None Channel Options SY_ . ariU.q C_laaranr_e hold Tyo i�,ff >�� 3=FIa�h �nA 6z Ah Flash Phase Intervals Pedestrian Intervals Court OWn Display _ Display Adds has Time K Time Display Addr has Tim Display Addr has Time 1 17 25 2 16 26 3 19 27 d 2020 5 21 29 Char. Ctrl Type Source 1 Phase Vehicle 1 � Phase Vehicle 3 None 0 4 Phase Vehicle 4 5 Phase Vehicle 5 6 Phase Vehicle 6 7 Plane 0 8 Phase Vehicle 8 9 None 0 10 Phase Ped 4 Chen Ctrl Type Source li phase Petl 8 12 None S 93 None 0 14 None Q 15 None 0 16 IJone 0 17 None 0 16 None 0 19 None 0 20 None Q aa�aa���aaaa®a�a i�m�mm®®®�®�®�mmmm -•aasaa®aaaaaaaaa® •�aaaa��aaaaaaaaa -aaaaa-aaaaaaseaa Interval Description Red Yet Gm Type 1 ndAclive On Oft OK Red 2 tllJGrn On Oft Off Red 3 PreGm off 0R On Green 4 minGm Off OR On Green 5 gmExt DK Ofl On Green 6 gmOwvll Ott On On Green 7 preClear Oft Off, On Green 6 yeiChange Off On OK Yellow 9 redClear On OK Off Red 10 redDwell On OK OK Red it Barrier On Oft OR Red 12 Interval Description DWI ClR Wik Type 1 notAclfve On OK Olf Pont We 2 dl[Ped On DK Off ant Wa 3 walk 07 Orr On Walk 4 walkL'well OK OK On Walk 5 flesftOtWlk Flas On OK ed Cie 6 dWalk On OK Off on1 We 7 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1 141 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2— Intersection Analyses —August 2020 mmom mmm 0�mmimmmm ®mmm mmmm ®Immm ME mmmm mmmm Manual Control Phase Groups Gm 1 Gm 2 Gm 3 Gro 4 Grp 5 Grp 6 Grp 7 Grp 8 !In Ph IRin_q Ph lRing Ph Iffin9l Ph lRing Ph IfUngl Ph Iffing Ph Ring Ph 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0- 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 G 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 U 8 0 8 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 11 0 11 0 11 0 11 0 11 0 11 0 11 0 11 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 13 0 13 0 13 0 13 0 13 0 13 0 13 0 13 0 14 0 14 0 14 0 14 0 14 0 14 0 14 0 14 0 15 U 15 U 15 0 15 0 15 U 75 0 15 U 15 0 16 0 16 0 16 0 16 1 0 16 0 16 0 96 4 16 0 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1 142 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Po rCnnfinuratinn SNMP Port Hot Pat Serial Pod Serial Addr, Maslen Sect. P2P TO Orl Peer IC IP address Desroplim 1 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 2 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 3 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 4 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 5 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 6 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 7 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 8 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 9 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 10 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 ti 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 12 0 161 8o 0 0 0 15 13 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 14 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 15 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 16 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 17 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 18 0 161 so 0 0 0 15 19 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 20 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 21 0 161 so 0 0 0 15 22 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 23 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 24 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 25 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 26 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 27 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 28 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 29 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 30 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 31 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 32 0 161 8o 0 0 0 15 33 0 161 BO 0 0 0 15 34 0 161 BO 0 0 0 15 35 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 36 0 161 80 6 0 u 15 37 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 38 0 161 80 0 0 1 0 15 39 0 161 8o 0 0 0 15 40 0 161 80 0 0 0 45 41 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 42 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 43 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 44 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 45 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 46 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 47 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 48 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 49 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 50 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 51 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 143 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 52 0 161 60 0 U 0 15 53 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 54 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 55 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 56 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 57 n 161 80 0 n n 15 58 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 59 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 50 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 61 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 62 0 161 60 0 n 0 15 63 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 64 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 65 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 66 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 67 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 68 0 IGt 60 0 0 0 15 69 0 151 60 0 0 n 15 70 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 71 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 72 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 73 0 181 86 0 0 0 15 74 0 161 80 0 D n 15 75 0 101 80 0 0 0 1S 76 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 77 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 78 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 79 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 80 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 81 0 161 80 0 n 0 15 82 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 83 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 84 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 85 0 181 80 0 0 n 15 (16 0 161 80 0 n r) 15 87 n 161 80 0 0 0 15 88 0 161 80 0 0 n 15 R9 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 90 0 161 80 D 1) 0 15 91 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 92 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 93 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 94 0 161 60 0 1) 0 15 95 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 96 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 97 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 98 0 161 AO 0 0 0 15 99 0 '1G1 80 0 0 fl iS 100 0 161 60 0 t) 0 15 101 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 102 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 103 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 moat 0 1G1 80 0 0 0 15 105 0 1G1 60 0 0 0 15 106 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 144 8ellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 107 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 108 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 109 0 '161 80 0 0 0 15 110 0 181 80 0 0 0 15 111 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 112 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 113 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 114 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 115 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 116 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 117 0 1 161 60 9 D 0 15 118 0 151 60 0 0 0 15 119 0 191 80 0 0 0 15 120 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 121 0 151 60 0 0 0 15 122 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 123 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 124 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 125 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 126 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 127 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 128 0 161 80 -0 D 0 15 129 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 130 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 131 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 132 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 133 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 134 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 135 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 136 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 137 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 138 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 139 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 140 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 141 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 142 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 143 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 144 0 181 80 0 0 0 15 1451 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 146 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 147 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 146 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 149 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 150 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 151 0 161 80 0 D 0 15 152 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 153 0 161 80 0 D 0 15 154 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 1551 0 1 161 60 0 o 0 15 1561 0 1 161 80 0 0 0 15 157 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 158 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 159 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 160 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 151 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 145 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 162 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 163 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 164 0 181 60 0 a 0 15 165 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 166 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 167 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 168 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 169 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 170 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 171 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 172 0 161 60 9 0 0 15 113 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 174 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 175 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 176 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 177 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 178 0 151 60 0 0 0 15 179 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 180 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 181 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 182 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 183 0 181 80 0 0 0 15 184 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 185 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 186 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 187 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 i88 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 189 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 190 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 191 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 192 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 193 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 194 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 195 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 196 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 197 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 198 0 161 80 0 0 0 i5 159 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 200 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 201 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 202 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 203 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 204 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 205 0 151 80 0 0 0 15 206 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 207 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 208 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 209 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 210 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 211 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 212 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 213 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 2141 0 1 161 80 0 0 0 15 2151 0 1 161 80 0 0 0 15 216 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 Trebilcock consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 146 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 217 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 218 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 219 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 220 0. i61 80 0 0 0 15 221 0 161 60 0 0 0 1s 222 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 223 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 224 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 225 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 226 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 227 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 228 0 161 00 0 0 0 15 229 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 230 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 231 0 161 80 0 0 a 15 232 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 233 0 161 00 0 0 0 i5 234 0 161 BO 0 0 0 15 235 0 i6f BO 0 a 0 15 236 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 237 0 161 60 0 a 0 15 238 0 181 80 0 0 0 15 239 0 161 80 0 a 0 15 240 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 2411 0 1 161 80 0 0 0 15 2421 0 1 161 80 0 a 0 15 243 0 161 60 0 0 0 15 244 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 245 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 246 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 247 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 246 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 249 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 250 0 161 80 0 0 0 15 251 0 i61 80 0 0 0Li 252 0 161 80 0 0 n 253 0 i61 80 0 0 0254 0 161 60 0 0 0255 0 161 60 0 0 0 �­Hnn Cnnfinnrafinn Section Control Poll Reg 0 Fail Time AJgonlhm Period Descnption 1 None 60 1 300 240 2 None 60 1 300 240 3 None 60 1 300 240 4 None 60 1 300 240 5 Nate 60 1 300 240 0 None W 1 300 240 7 None 60 1 300 240 8 None 60 1 300 240 9 None 6o 1 300 240 10 None 60 1 300 240 11 None 60 1 300 240 12 None 60 1 300 240 13 None 50 1 300 240 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 147 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 I 14 14 Nale 60 300 240 15 None 60 T 300 240 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P age 1 148 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —In tersection Analyses —August 2020 Appendix E: 2018 Annual Vehicle Classification Report, Site 4187 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 149 .i FLORIDA DEPARTXSENT OF TRANSPORTAT:ON ANNUAL V&RICLE CLASSIeICATION REPORT - REPORT TYPE: ALL COUNT YEAR 2018 COUNTY: 03 - CDLLIER SITE co SEC SUB MILEPOST DESCRIPTION 4181 03632000 7.900 CR-8581011 WELL RD. FUNC. CLASS: 06 - RURAL MINOR ARTERIAL SURVEY TYPE: PORTABLE DURATION: 1 UA!S CLASS 01 MOTORCYCLES CLASS 02 CARS CLASS 03 PICA -UPS AND VANS CLASS 04 BUSES CLASS 05 2-AXLE, SINGLE UNIT TRUCKS CLASS 06 3-AXLE, SINGLE UNIT TRUCKS CLASS 07 4-AXLE, SINGLE UNIT TRUCKS CLASS 08 2-AXL TRCTR WI 1 OR 2-AXL TRLR, CLASS 09 3-AXLE TRACTOR WI 2-AXI7 TRLRR CLASS 10 3-AXLE TRACTOR WI 3-AXLE TRLR C:.ASS 11 5-AALE MULTI-TRLR CLASS 12 6-AXLE MULTI-TRLR CLASS 13 ANY 7 OR MORE AXLE, CLASS 14 NOT 'USED CLASS 15 OTHER - 4.75 E/O EVyRGTrADES BLVD 3-AXL TRC'T3 WI I -A ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY SUMIWARY DAILY STATISTICS VOLUME $ DAILY D&SIGN HOU--Z 35 0.45 24T&B 9.48G D 7 , 5515 70.70 = 1510 19.36 24H - 6.765 OH3 3.38% 13 0.16 24M 2.72"S DH2 = I.36% 199 2.56 200 2157 122 1.56 132 1.69 70 0.90 SO4KARY DAILY 0 0.00 NEW HEAVY VERICLE CA^EGCIES 0 0.00 2411V - 9.48% 0 0.00 243 - 0.16t 3 0.04 24T 9.321 ❑ O.DU 24SU - 5.681E 0 ❑.OD 24C - 2.641 7199 99.99 SITE CO SEC SCE, MILEPOST DESCRIPTION 4S07 03631000 2_194 GOL7EN GATE PP.WY, W'OF CR 31/AIRPORT ROAD CC 507 FUNC_ CLASS: 16 - URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL SURVEY TYPE: PORTABLE DURATION: 1 DAYS ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY SUMMARY DAILY STATISTICS VOLU14E 9 DAILY DESIGN HOUR CLASS 01 MOTORCYCLES 133 0.28 24TSB - 4.17$ DRT - 2.081 CLASS 02 CARS 35863 '74.71 247 - 4.00 CLASS 03 PICA-UPSS AND VANS 100D3 20.84 24H - 1,56% DR3 - 0.73% CLASS 04 BUSES 61 0.13 24M - 2.611 DH2 - :.308 CLASS 05 2-AXLE, SINGLE UNIT TRUCKS 1191 2.48 CLASS 06 3-AXLE, SINGLE. UNIT TRUCKS 167 0.35 CLASS 07 4-AXLE, SINGLE UNIT TRUCKS 24 0.05 CLASS 08 2-AXL TRCTR W/ 1 OR 2-AXE TRLR, 3-AXL TRCTR WI 1-A 475 0.99 CLASS 09 3-AXLE TRACTOR W/ 2-AXLE TRLR 75 O.16 SUMMARY DAISY CLASS 10 3-AXLE TRACTOR WI 3-AXLE TRLR 5 0.01 NEW IfEAVY VEHICLE CATEGCIES CLASS 11 5-AXL? MULTI-TRLR 2 0.00 24HV - 4.17E CLASS 12 6-AXLE MULTI-TRLR 0 D.00 241S a 0.13% CLASS 13 ANY 7 OR MORE AY.LS 1 0.00 24T - 4.94% CLASS 14 NOT USED 7 0.00 243C - 2.991 CLASS 15 OTHER 0 0.00 24C = 1.16i 4eOOO 100.00 CrASSES: PASSENGER VEHICLES 01-03, TFUC{ 6 BUSES O4-13, TRUCKS 05-13, X--DIUM !RUCKS O4-05, HEAVY TRUCKS 06-13 36-MAR-2019 11:29:30 PAGE 40 480UPD 1 03 TRUCK.TXT Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Appendix F: Intersection Analyses - Synchro Reports Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 11S1 Bellmor Village Stewardship Recefvfng Area —T1S—Section 2—Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Desoto Blvd & ail Well Rd Intersection HCM 2010 TWSC ❑e5oto Blvd & Oil Well Rd 0N612020 Intemecliprl Inl Dray Vveh 3.7 Moveani EST FOR WBL WBT NBL NOR Lane Configurafions j► 4T Y Traffic Vd, vehlh 292 25 61 267 41 113 Fulure Vd, vahlh 292 25 61 267 41 113 Conllichng Peds, Whir 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None None None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 84 84 84 84 84 84, HeevyVeNdes,% 0 30 16 6 8 6 M4INFlow 348 30 73 318 49 135 Maga(Unor MNori MNgr2 Minarl -- Conflicting FlowA)l 0 0 378 0 827 363 Slage 1 363 - Slage 2 464 Critical Hdauy 4.26 6.48 6.26 Criicel IIdavy Sig 1 5.48 Critical Hdwy Sig 2 - 548 Hdlow-up Hdwy 2 314 3.572 3 354 Pot Gap-1 Maneuver 1106 333 673 Stage 1 691 - Stage 2 - 621 Platoon Necked, % Mov Cap-1 Menemer 1108 306 673 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 306 - Stage 1 691 Stage 2 571 Approach EB WB NO HCM Control Delay, s 0 1,15 16 HCM L05 C Minor LonefMajorMvmt N9Ln1 EBT EER WBL VVAt CBpaclty jV010) 510 1 Wit HCM Lane VIC Relio 0 3`k9 0 066 HCM Control Delay (sj 16 8.5 0 HCM Lana LDS C A A HCM 951h Wile 0(vehl 16 0.2 ^De$Qt4 pled Oil Well Rd • 2019 AM 02JO612020 Baseline Symhro 10 Report Pape 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1' �, is o 1 152 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS-• 5ecrlon 2— Intersection Analyses —August 2020 HCM 2010 TWSC 1: DeSoto Blvd & 011 Well Rd 0511512020 Inlersechon Int Delay, Wveh 43 Movement EBl E_ BR WBL WBT N9L NSR Lane Cvnfigwo ions t+ jr ) +t Y _ TmflicVd,vehih 430 37 90 393 61 167 Fulure Vd, vohih 430 37 90 393 61 167 Gonfiictiing Peels, INhr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Slgn Control Free Free Free Free Slop Slop RT Channelized Nano - None • None $forage Length 240 340 - 0 Veh in Median Slorsgo, # 0 0 0 Gwde. % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles. °!a 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mvml Raw 462 40 97 423 66 ISO or/Mina major MR1101 -mr4i CanilrctirgFlow 141 11 0 502 0 868 231 Stage 1 - 462 Stage 2 - 406 - Cnhcat H" 4.2 8.9 7 CrihC914" Sig 1 - 5.9 CriUS 110" Sig 2 5.9 Fdlow•upHdrry 225 3.55 3.35 Pot GSPA Manetrvet 103E 286 762 Stage 1 592 - 5tage 2 633 Platoon Waked, MovCaq•1Maneuver 1038 269 762 MDv Cap-2 Maneuver 259 - Stage 1 592 Stage 2 574 Apfmach Eta wl3 NB HCM Contra Delay s 0 16 189 I ICM LOS C Minor LanOMalorMvmt 1461.0 EHT EBR WEL WET Capacity (vehlhl 501 1038 HCM I_ana VIC Ratio 0.489 0093 HCM Control Delay {Q 18.9 8.8 HCM Lane LO$ C A - HCM 951h Wile Q(veh) 2.7 0.3 - OeSolo Blvd • Oil wail Rd- 2034 AM UMN111ed • n0 PI 45i151= Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solulions, PA P a g e 1 153 eellnlar Village Stewardship Receiving Area— TlS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 HCM 2010 TWSC 1: DeSoto Blvd & Oil Well Rd 051150020 Intersection lot Delay, slveh 144.7 Moyemard EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tt r ) tT Y Tralfir Vol, vehlh 430 87 191 393 187 420 Future Vel,vehlh 430 87 191 393 187 420 Confiding Pods, Whr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Fiee Free Free Free Strap Sla RT Channdized None . None None Storage Length 240 340 Veh in Median Storage, fr 0 0 0 -3fade, % 0 - - D 0 Peals Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 HeavyVehidfis, % 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mvmt How 462 94 206 423 201 452 MBOrlMinor Motor Me1or2 Mrnorl Conflicting flow All 0 0 556 0 1084 231 Stage 1 - 462 - Slage2 622 Critical Hf)Ny 4.2 69 7 Critical Why Sig 1 59 C ntied HdWy Stg 2 519 Fdlew,tip H" 225 355 3.35 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 990 207 762 Stage 1 592 - Stage 2 490 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 990 - 164 762 Mov Cap•2 Maneuver 1 CA Stage 1 592 Stage 2 389 �Rprqach Eli WB NB 7- HCM Control Delay, s 0 3 1 5 404 2 HCM I C]S F Minor LanelMaior Mvml NBLnI EBT EBR WBL WBT C:apocily (vehfh) 359 090 HCM Lana VC Ratio 1818 0207 HCM Control Delay (s) $ 404 2 9 F, - HCM Lane LOS F A HCM 951h Wile C1(vehj 425 08 - Mies Vafume exceeds capacity, S Way exceeds 300s +. Computation Not Defined ` All major volume in palcon DeSoto Blvd • Oil Wetl Rd, 2034 AM C ommilled w P1 0511512020 Baseline Syne..hro 10 Report Page 1 Trebllcock Consulting Solutions, PA P •I j'. 1, 1 154 Sellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS - Section 1- Intersection Analyses -August 2020 Lanes. Volumes, Timings 1: DeSoto Blvd & Oil Well Rd 000020 --. _)I1, 10\ /11, Lane Gmup 98T EBR. WBL WF1T 09L NOR - - - Lane Configurations TT r tT y Traffic Volume (ugn) 430 97 191 393 1$7 420 FOure Volume (Vph) 430 87 191 393 187 420 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1906 1900 1900 1900 000 1900 Storage Isnyth (n) 240 340 186 0 Storage lanes 1 1 0 0 Taker Length Qt) 60 50 Lana Lnd Factor 0.95 1200 1.00 0,96 1.00 100 Fit 0.$50 0.907 FIt Protected 0.960 0.985 said flow (prot) 3438 1539 1719 3438 1617 0 Fit Permitted 0.466 01985 Said Flow (perm) 343e 1533 $25 3435 1617 0 Wgrn Turn on Red No No Said Flow(RTOR) Link Speed (mph) 55 66 45 Link Distance (11) 10$3 949 621 Travel Time (a) 13.4 11.8 94 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0,93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles N 6% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% Adj. Flaw (vph) 462 94 205 423 201 462 Shared Lane TraTilc (%) Lane Group Flow (ph) 462 94 205 423 653 0 Turn Type NA Perm Perm NA Pro[ Proteded Phases 6 2 4 Perm mad Phases 6 2 Detector Phase 6 6 2 2 4 Switch Phase Minirnum Initial (5) 6.0 6,0 6.0 6.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 23.6 23b 23.5 23.6 23.6 Total SPI4 (a) 46.0 46.0 46.0 46,0 44.0 Total Spin eA) 61.1% 61.1% 51.1% 61.1% 42.9% Maximum Green (s) 40.6 40.5 40.5 40.5 3S.6 Yellow Time (S) 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.6 3b Al -Red rime (s) 2.0 20 2,0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (5) 6.6 6.5 5.5 66 6.6 Leac!Jug Lead -Lag 00imize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Modp On Min Min Min None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Cont. Walli (s) 1110 11.0 1110 1110 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (lilhr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Etta Breen {) 23.3 23.3 233 23.3 33 6 A,ctualed g1C Ratio 0.34 0.34 0a4 0,34 0.49 vk Ratio 0.40 0.1 S 0.73 0.36 0.83 Control Delay 18,1 16.9 36.7 17A 2$.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DeSoto 9lvd - Oil Well Rd - 2034 AM Cnm mMed w Pj Improved 00512020 9aseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trehllcock Consulting Solutions, PA p e3 11 E° 1155 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Lades, Volumes, Timings 1: Moto Blvd & ail Well Rd 0511612020 Larva Coup EBT BBR WGL WDT NBt. NOR Total Delay 1 s.t 16 9 36.7 17.9 2U LOS a t3 D D C Approach Delay 17.9 23.9 2313 , Approach LOS 9 C C Queue Lengthd0th (t) 02 29 s0 74 217 %iatie Length 961h tit) 119 60 167 log *72 Irdernal link Dist (71) 1603 969 641 Turn Day Length tit) 240 340 M Base capacity (vph) 2163 967 519 2163 967 " Starvation Cap Reducto 0 0 0 0 0 SpillbaCk Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 5lorage cap Reducin 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vie Ratio 0.21 0.10 0,39 0.20 0,64 Intersecllon Summary' Area Type: Other Cycle Lsnyth: 90 AClualed Cycle Lan1h.68.6 Natural Cycle:60 Control Type Actuated•Uncoordlnated Maximum vlc Ratio', 0,83 Intersection Signal Delay. 23,7 Imersectlon LW C Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.4% ICU Laval a1 Servkce C Analysis Period (min)15 # %th parcenlile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown Is maximum after two cycles S Ills and Phases: 1: DeSoto Blvd &Oil Well Rd a 0 02 4 �46 DeSolo Blvd • Oil Well Rd - 2034 ASS Committed w Pi Improved 061152020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebiicock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1156 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 HCM 2010 TWSC 1: DeSoto Blvd & Oil Well Fed 0210612020 Inferaectim IN Belay, dveli Movement 2.7 EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL N6R LawCanfgwaiions T+ A Y Traffic Vol, vehlh 229 38 99 323 22 62 Fulure Vd, vehlh 229 38 99 323 22 82 ConllicUng Pads, Whr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Slop Stop RT Chaandized None None None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage. tt 0 0 0 Grade,'A 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 W Heavy Vehicles, % a 12 8 6 5 9 Muml Row 246 41 106 347 24 88 MatorlMinor Matorl Mator2 Mmorl__ Confichng Flow All 0 0 287 0 626 767 Stage 1 267 - Stage2 659 - Critical Hdwy 4 18 6.45 6.4 Critical H(wy Stg 1 5.45 - Cobcd HMy Sig 2 5.45 - Fdlow-upHcWy 2.272 3.645 3381 Pot Cep-1 Maneuver i 1241 338 755 slags 1 - 771 - S1age 2 - 567 - Pialean hocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1241 302 756 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 302 Stage 1 771 Stage 2 507 oath EB we NB HCMConlydDel ay, s 0 19 178 14CM LOS B Mirror UnelMaror Mvnrt NBLn1 EBT EBR WOL WBT Capaaty(vehlh) $13 1241 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0 195 0 066 HCM Conlyd Delay (s) 128 8.2 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 951h Nile Q(veh) 07 0.3 - Dn5oto Blvd - 01 well Rd - 2019 PM OOE12020 BaseliRo Synchro 10 kepat Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA n H f: E� 1 157 BeHmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area -- TIS—Section 2 —Intersection Analyses—August2020 HCM 2010 7WSC 1: DeSoto Blvd & Oil Well Rd 0511M020 Intersection Int Delay, slvetr 3.1 M(wernenl EBT EBR W131 WBT NBL NBR Lavo Configurations TT if ) ZT Y Traffic Vd, vehlh 337 56 146 475 33 121 Future Vd, vahih 337 56 146 475 33 121 Conlichng Peds, i'Whr 0 0 0 0 0 0 99n Conlrol Free Free Free Free Slop Stop RT Channetlzed None • None • None Storage Length 240 340 0 Veh In Median Storage. 9 0 - - 0 0 Grade, wn 0 0 0 Peak Hour factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 HeavyVshides. % 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mvmt now 362 60 157 511 35 130 MaloriMinor Major Ma1or2 Won C rillichng Flow All 0 0 422 0 932 181 slags 1 - - - 362 — Stage 2 570 - Crihcal Hdwy 42 69 7 Critical H(Wy 519 1 59 Ctud HdruySig 2 - 5.9 - Fdlaw-up HcWy 2.25 355 3.35 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1113 260 821 — Slage 1 666 Stage 2 521 Plaloorl blocked, % Mov Cap -I Maneuver 1113 223 821 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 223 Stage 1 666 Stage 2 448 Aporoach 9 WB NB -- — -- HCM Control Delay s 0 21 15 1 HCM LOS C Minor LanelMaorMvmt NULn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Cepauly ivetVh) 521 1113 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.318 0 141 HGM Control belay (s) 151 68 HCM Lane LOS C A HCM 9514 Wile gvahj 14 06 DnSoto PAO - (.)it well Rd - 2034 PM Commilted no Pi 0511512020 Bmdino Synchro 10 Report Page I Trebllcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 158 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS—5ectlan 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 HCM 2010 TWSC 1, Desoto Blvd & Oil Well Rd 05+1512020 intemec6an lilt riday, srveh 1 � 1.9 Mavlxnant EBT EBR VVB1 WBT NBL NBR �. Lane Conhgtirations tT F ) TT ►ir Traffic Vol. vehlh 337 188 411 475 120 294 Future Vd, vahlh 337 188 411 475 120 294 Conflicting Pods, Ilthr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Conlyd Free Free Free Free Slop Slap RT Channelized None • None - None Storage Length 240 340 - Veh in Median Slorage. # 0 - 0 0 Grado, °!o 0 0 0 Peak Hour Faclor 93 93 93 93 93 93 HRavyVehides, % 5 5 5 5 5 5 Murnt Flow 362 202 442 511 129 315 Me1arlMrrlor MEgor 1 Malor2 knorl Conlicling Flow All 0 0 564 0 1602 181 Stage 1 362 Stage 2 1140 Critical Hd y 4 2 69 7 (Vital HtAvy Sig 1 59 Criticd H" Sig 2 - 5.9 - Fdlaw-upHdwy 2,25 355 335 Pal Cap-1 Maneuver 983 -• 109 821 Stage 1 666 Stage 2 261 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Meneaver - 983 - 60 821 MDv Cap-2 Maneuver - 60 Stage 1 666 Stage - 144 Approach EB WB NB HCM Conlyd Delay, s a 54 S 746 HCM LOS f Minor Lana/Major MvmI NBLn 1 E81 EBR WBL WBT Capaoly (vehlh) 176 983 -- HCM Lane V/C Ratio 2.529 045 HCM Contrd Way (s) S 746 110 HCM lane LOS F B HCM 951h Wide 4(vehj 36 2 4 Volume exceeds capacity S Delay exceeds 300s + CompOation Not Defined ' All males vdumn m plaloon DeSeto Blvd - Oil Well Rd - 2034 PM Committed w PI 0511512020 Baseline Synrhro 1R Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P , 1159 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area -- T15 - Section 2 - Intersection Analyses -August 2020 Lames, Volumes, Timings 1 : Desoto Blvd & Oil Well Rd 05116/2020 -.► -�v 'r *-- '4\ /0' Lane amup EBT ERR WBL WOT . N ' ®_ Lane Con11�uiations tt f fT y TmMt Volume (oph) 317 198 411 476 120 294 - FrAure Volume (4)11) 337 18$ 411 476 120 294 Ideal Flow �phpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length 0) 246 340 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 Taper Length Qt) 60 5o Lane Ud Factor 0.95 1-00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 Fit 0.860 0.904 Fit Protected 0.960 0.9$6 Satd. Fla (prot) 3438 1538 1719 3438 1613 0 Fit Permitted 0.348 0.988 Sald Flow(perm) 3438 1638 630 3439 1613 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flo w (RTO R) 202 143 Link Speed (mph) 56 56 45 Link Distance m) 1083 949 621 Travel Time (8) 13A 11.8 9.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0,93 0,93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles (Sbj 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% Ad] Flow (uph) 362 202 442 511 129 316 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Fim(riph) 362 202 442 611 446 0 Tom Type NA Perm pmapt NA PrO Protected Phases 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 [)elector Phase 6 G 5 2 4 GwItch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 23,5 2a.5 10.5 236 23.6 Total Split (s) 26.0 26.0 30.0 66.0 34.0 Total Split (A) 20% 2$.9% 33 3% 62.2% 37,0% Maximum Green (s) 20.6 20.6 24.5 50.6 2s.6 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.5 All -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) 6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 6.6 LeadlLag Lag Lag Lead Lead -Lag GlAimize? Yes Yes Yes Vehlela E14enslon (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode Min Mln None Min None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 74 7.0 Flash bunt iRtalk {s) 11.0 11.0 11,0 11'0 Pedestnan Calls (#br) 0 0 0 0 Act Eect Green 0) 13.3 13.3 40.2 40.2 1$ 7 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.67 0.67 0.27 vlc Ratio 066 0.45 0.66 ON 0." Control Delay 31.3 $.1 14.6 $.7 31.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 Desoto Blvd - Oil Well Id1- 2034 PM ODmmitled w PI hnproved 06116>2020 BAOIme Synenro 10 Reporl Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 160 Bellmor Village Srewardshlp Receiving Area — T15 — Section 2—Intersection Analyses —August: 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: DeSoto Blvd & Oil Well Rd 0511FR020 __j. ",V r,, '*'-- 4\ /0, LAnieGup EDT EBR WBL WBT NBL NUR Total Delay 31.3 S 1 14.f, 8.1 1�1.7 LOS C A EI A C Approach Delay 23.0 116 31.7 Approach LOS C B C Queue Leno sate (h) 80 0 99 62 129 Queue Length 961h 0) 137 64 212 102 269 Internal link Dist 0) 1003 F69 641 Tum Bay Length (n) 240 340 Base Capacity (vPh) 1061 610 7b7 2649 168 Starvation Cap Reducln 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap R.eductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reducln 0 0 0 U 0 Reduced We Ratio 0.34 0.33 0.68 0.20 0.58 IntersactIm Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Lenyln: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 70.5 Naiurai Cycle 66 Control Type Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum uh Ratio: 0 83 4116rseetiap $ignal Delay 19.4 Intersection LOB. B Aersettlon Capacity Uflizatlon 70.6% ICU Laval of Service C Analysis Period (Min)16 3 IHs and Phases: 1: DeSoto Blvd &Oil Well FW 02 04 ,has �6 DeSoto B14 • Oil Well FU - 2034 PM Commmed w PI Improved 06JIM020 Baseline Synthro 10 Report Page 2 Tre6Hcock Consulting 5olutlons, PA 1' a g e 1 161 Bellmer Village Stewardship Receiving Area - 1`15- Section 2 -Intersection Analyses -August 2020 Everglades Blvd & Oil Well Rd Intersection Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Everglades Blvd & Oil Well Rd 0210612020 -A , -'* j­ 4--- 4, 4\ t /W lv� : W LwaSmup EBL EBT ESR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SOL BUT SBR Lane Conliguretions ► ) TT r ► ) t4T f ► I t44 r M ttt r Traffic Volume (vph) 117 236 60 21 267 10 134 96 21 26 136 166 rdure Voiutne (uTrh) 117 236 60 21 257 10 134 % 21 26 136 165 Ideal Flaw ; Phpl) IWO 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 4900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Lerglh (It) 600 600 640 520 476 620 490 330 Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 I Taper Length 0) 100 100 100 100 Lane util. Factor 0-47 0.95 1.00 0-47 0.91 1.00 0.97 0,91 1.00 0.07 0.91 1.00 Fit 0.850 0.860 0.860 0.850 Fit Protected 01960 01950 0.960 0 950 Said. Flow (prof) 3019 32$2 1482 31$3 $036 1442 3273 42$7 1630 3019 4510 1609 Fit Perm ill ed 0.960 0.960 0.960 0,960 Satd. Flow (perm) 3019 3282 1 482 3183 6036 1442 3273 4287 1538 3019 4610 16M N9M Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Sato. Pow (RTO R) 159 169 159 1$8 Link Speed (mph) 46 45 46 45 Link Dislance fit) 2390 1%7 1479 1442 Travel Time 0) 36.2 29.4 22A 21.8 Peak Hour Factor 0,$8 0.88 0,8$ 0.$$ 0.88 0.88 00 ON 0.0 0,49 0.88 0,88 Heavy Vehicles (N 16% 10% 9% 10% 3% 120A 7% 21% 6% 16% 16% 7% IWj.FlQw �ph) 133 268 67 24 292 11 162 109 24 30 155 19$ Shared Lane Traffic (46) Lane Group Flow (ph) 133 269 57 24 292 11 152 109 24 30 155 188 Turn Tgpe Prot NA Perm Plot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Parmlled Phases 6 2 4 $ D@Iedcr Phase 1 6 6 6 2 2 7 4 4 3 $ 8 Switch Phase Minimum Inriial (s) 5.0 12.0 12,0 6,0 21.0 21.0 6.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 13.8 20.8 20.8 13.8 663 66.3 13.2 18,$ 10.8 13.3 56.3 66.3 Total Split (s) 19.1 60.9 60.9 13.8 66.6 66.6 20.0 $2:0 62.0 133 563 66.3 Total Split C%) 12.7% 40.6% 404 % 92% 37.1% 37.1R6 131% 41.2% 41.396 0.0% 30% aU% Maximum Green (s) 10.8 62.6 52,6 5,5 47,3 47.3 11.7 53.7 63.7 5.0 47.0 47.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.6 4.8 4.8 4A 4A 4.$ 4.8 4.$ 4.8 4.8 4.$ 4A AJI•Red Trme (t) 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.5 3,5 3.5 3,15 3.6 3.6 3.6 3,5 3.6 L4sl Time Adjust (1) 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lott Time (s) $.3 4.3 $ 3 $ 3 $ 3 $.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 3.3 8.3 8.3 Lead"q Lag Lead Lead iag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimizes Yes Yes Yet Yes Yet Yet Yea Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Eldension (s) 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.O 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 Recall Made Mill Min Mln Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Walk Time (s) 1.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash DDn1 Walk 40.0 40.0 40,0 40.0 Pedestrian Calls (Rho 0 0 0 9 H.cl EKI. preen () 7.0 12.4 12.4 15 6 21.0 21.0 7.2 10.0 10.0 7.2 10.0 10.0 Act uatedgJCRatio 0.0$ 0,16 0.16 OA 0.27 027 0.09 013 0,13 0.09 0.13 0.13 vh Ralio 0,49 0.62 0,16 0,04 0.22 0.02 0.51 0.20 0.07 0,11 0.27 0,63 Control Delay 40A 34.7 0.9 26.3 23.4 61 40.4 32,6 O.A 33.8 33.1 11,6 queue delay 00 0.0 010 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 Everglades Blvd - 0B Well lei •2019 AM 02)06)2020 Baseline Synchro 10 Rrpod Page 1 Tre611cock Consulting Solutions, PA 1' o F, F 1 162 I3ellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses --August 2020 Lanes. Volumes, Timings 1 i Everglades Blvd & Oil Well Rd o2ro6no2a _A _0, -,* "— 'k- 4N Lane Group 8BL EST ERR WBL WBT INBP NBL NBT NOR 5BL BOT OR Total Delay 40.8 34.7 0.9 26.3 23.4 01 40.4 32 F. 0.4 33.8 33.1 11.6 LOS D C A C C A D C A C C 8 Approach belay 32.3 22,8 14 0 22.3 N)proach LOS C C C C Queue Length 501h It) 32 64 0 4 40 0 37 17 0 7 25 0 Queue cen51195th (11) 59 102 0 14 66 0 65 34 0 19 46 55 tnterrol Link Dist M) 2310 1391 1399 1362 Tum Bay Length (It) 600 600 640 620 476 520 490 330 Base Capacity (aph) 416 2202 1046 633 3039 933 488 206 1103 276 2704 979 Stalvallon Cap Reducln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillhetk Cap Reduetn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stange Cap Reduc#n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vh Ratio 0.32 0.12 0.06 0.04 0.10 0.01 0.31 0.04 002 0.11 0.06 0.19 Irriatsectlon Summg Area type. Other Cycle length; 160 Actuated Cycle Length' 78.6 Natural Cycle:140 Control Type: Acttopcl-uncoordlnaled Mwimuin vlc Ratio:0.53 Irdeisecti0n Signal Delay.27.9 Intersection LDS C Intersection Capacity lsilization 612% ICU Level0l Service B Analysis Period (min)16 s Ifls and Phases: 1: Everglades Blvd & 0i1 Well NI 02 of ❑11 s 5 Ir-05 7 06 4\ 07 EvgigI ades Blvd - Oil Well Rd -2019 AM 0N062020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1' a is e 1 163 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area -- NS -Section 2 -Intersection Analyses ,August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Everglades Blvd & oil Well Rd 02AOJ2020 Lam Grow EBL EBT ESP, Wf3L WST WOR NBL NBT NBR SOL SST AM LaneConiiguralions Vill ft )) W r 1) ftf rr )) ftt If Traffic Votume (vph) 172 347 74 31 378 16 197 142 31 39 200 243 Future Volume (vph) 172 347 74 31 378 15 197 142 31 39 200 243 Ideal Flow (phpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 storage Length (tf) 600 $00 640 620 476 620 490 330 Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length 0) 100 100 100 100 Lane UIII Factor 0,97 0.96 1,00 0.97 0.91 1,00 0.97 0,91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1 AO I'd 0 850 0.$50 0.850 0460 Fit Prptstted 0.960 0,950 0.9$0 0.960 Said. Flow (prat) 3335 3438 1638 3335 4940 1538 3335 4940 1538 3336 4940 1539 F# Permmed 0.%o 0.950 0,980 0.950 said. Film (perm) 3335 343$ 163$ 3335 4940 1538 3336 4940 1638 3335 4140 1638 Right Turn 0n Red Yes Yes Yes Y% Said, Flaw (RTOR) 159 159 159 261 kink Speed (mph) 46 45 45 46 Link Distance 0) 23910 1967 1479 1442 Travel Timo (8) 36.2 29.8 22,4 21A Peak Hour Factor ON 0,93 093 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0 $3 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles (IN 6% 6% 9% 5% 60� 6% 6% 5% 6% 50A 6% 6% Adj. Flow (uph) 186 373 $0 33 406 16 212 163 33 42 215 261 Shared lane Tratlle (%) Lane Group Flow (uph) 186 373 80 33 4G6 16 212 153 33 42 215 26t Turn Type Prat NA Perm Prot hIA Perm Prat NA Perm Prot NA Perm Proleeted Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 E Pstmihed Phases 6 2 4 8 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 7 4 4 3 8 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 6.0 12.0 12.0 6.0 21.0 21.0 6.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum split (s) 13.8 20.8 20.8 13.8 66.3 662 13.8 18.8 18.s Ia.3 5613 65.3 Total Spfit (s) 19.0 63.9 53.9 20A 66.7 65.7 20.0 60.5 60.5 14.s 65.3 553 Total Split ("ib) 127% 36,9% 35.S% 13.9% 37.1lk 37.1% 13.3% 40.3% 40.35E 990r6 36.9% 36.9% Maximum Green (s) 10.7 46.6 45.6 12.6 47.4 47.4 11.7 52.2 522 6.5 47.o 47.0 Yellgw Time (s) 4.8 4.4 4.3 4A 4.8 4.4 4.8 4.2 4.9 44 4.8 4.0 All -Red Time () 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3,6 3.5 36 3.5 3.5 3. 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 Last 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 Leadiwg Lag Lead LoW Lag Lead Load Lag Lead Lead Log Lesd Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Nenslon (s) 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2-0 2.0 1.0 2,0 2.0 1.0 2.0 20 Recall Made Mln Min Mtn Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min W31k Time (s) 7.0 7,0 7.0 7.0 Flash 00111. Walk (S) 40.0 40,0 40,0 40.0 Pedestrian Calls (6hr) 0 0 0 0 Act Et1ct Green (s) $.4 135 13 6 16,$ 21,0 210 9.1 100 10.0 9.4 10.2 10.2 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.10 0,16 016 0.19 0.26 026 0,11 012 012 0.11 0.12 0.12 Vic Ratio 0.64 0.66 02i 0.05 0.32 003 0.57 0.25 0.10 0.11 0.36 0.62 Control Delay 416 38.6 12 28.8 262 0.1 41 A 34.7 0.6 33.4 352 12,0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 EVelrglatles Blvd -Oil Well tad -2034 AM n0 PJ 0210612020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA r i 164 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Everglades Blvd & Oil Well Rd 0210k= Lam0t0uti EBL EDT EBR WRL Wl3T WDR NOL NBT NSR $6L Nit $BR Total Delay 41.6 38.6 1 2 28 6 26.2 0.1 41.4 34.7 0.6 334 36.2 12.0 Lai D D A C C A D C A C D B Approach Delay 34.8 25 4 36.4 23.4 Approach SOS C C D C Queue LengthSM Qt) 47 95 0 7 61 0 $4 26 0 10 37 0 Queue Length Mth (t) 81 146 0 20 96 0 91 49 0 26 64 69 Internal Hnk Dist (1t) 2310 18R7 13$9 1362 Turn Bay Length It) 600 500 640 520 476 620 490 3S0 Base Capacity (uph) 435 1913 926 647 2868 %7 476 3148 1037 380 2434 993 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Splllback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductrl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vh Ratio 0.43 0.19 0.09 0.0$ 0.14 0.02 0.4f 0.05 0.03 0.11 0 08 0.26 Intersection Summary Area Type. Other Cy1le Length: 160 Actuated Cycle length: 821 Natural Cyele:140 Cnnttol Type: Actuated -uncoordinated Maximum vic Ratio 0.66 Intersecuon Signal Deny: 29.0 Irrler9ec110n 1,09: C Intersection Capacity UMzatlon 64.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Pailod (0n)16 3nllls and Phases: 1: Everaiades Blvd & 011 Well Pod 02 01 1 -04 3 t: " 006 4,05 08 07 Everglades Blvd • Oil Well M -2034 AM no N 02N6=0 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcack ConsuIt] ng Solutions, PA P , r, (_ 1 165 Bellmar Village Stewordship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -- Intersection Analyses --August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1 Everglades Blvd & Oil Well Rd a2narzaza 1.1m6l w - EBL_ EBT EeR_ - WOL_ _WHT WER NBL NBT NBR SOL SBT 809 Lana Configurations M tt )) ttt r )) tff it ))I ttt r Traffic Volume (vph) 172 372 74 31 442 16 _ 197 206 31 39 226 243 Future Volume (uph) 172 372 74 31 442 15 197 206 31 39 226 243 Ideal Flow (uphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Iwo 1900 1900 1500 1900 1900 1900 1%0 Storage Length fit) 60O 500 640 620 475 520 490 330 Storage lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length 0) 100 106 100 100 Lane Ulil Factor ON 0.95 1.00 0.97 0,91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0,91 1.00 Fit 0 ASO 0.860 0.850 0.850 FN Piolected 0,960 0.950 0.960 0960 Satd Flow (prat) 3336 3438 16U 3335 4940 1538 3336 4940 1538 3336 4940 1538 Fill Permitted 01960 0.950 0.960 0.960 Satd Fla 4erm) 3335 3438 163E 3335 4940 1538 3335 4940 1538 3336 4940 1638 Pighl Turn on Red Yes Yes Yet Yet Said. Flow (RT0 R) 159 169 159 261 L61k Speed (mph) 46 46 45 45 Unh Distance (R) 2390 1967 1479 1442 Travel Time (s) 36.2 29.8 22.4 21.8 Peak Hour FSCtor 0.93 0,93 0.91 0,93 0.93 0,93 0.93 ON 0.93 0.93 0,93 0 93 Heavy Vehicles CA) 6% 6% 6% 60A 6% 5% VA 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% Adl, Flow { ph) 186 400 80 33 476 16 212 222 33 42 242 261 Snared Lane Traffic eA) Lane Group Flo w(vph) 186 400 80 33 476 16 212 222 33 42 242 261 TUm TVA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Pr(aected Phases 1 6 6 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Detector Phase 1 6 6 6 2 2 7 4 4 8 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 6,0 12,0 12,0 5,0 21.0 2110 5.0 10.0 10A 15,1) 10.0 10.0 Minimum Spilt (a) 13.8 20.9 20.8 13.9 66.3 66.3 1$-8 18.3 18.8 13-3 56.3 66.3 Total Split (s) 19.0 63 9 53.0 20.8 66.7 66.7 20.0 60.6 60.6 148 66.3 66.3 Total $p1R (%) 12.7% 36. % 36.9% 13.9% 37.1% 37,1% 13.3% 40,3% 40.3% 9.9% 36 9% 36,9% Maximum Gteen (s) 10.7 45.6 46.6 12.6 47.4 47.4 11.7 62.2 62.2 6.5 47.0 47.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4A 4.8 4 8 4 $ 4.8 4A 4.8 4.1 4 8 4.8 Al -Red Time 0) 3.6 35 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.6 3,6 3.6 3.5 3.5 35 Last Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Loll Time (s) 6.3 8,3 83 83 8.3 8.3 8.3 8,3 6,3 8 3 8.3 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 Yes Vehicle Wralon (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 Mln Min Min Min Min Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash font Walls 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Pedestrian Calls (l:111r) 0 0 0 0 Act Elld43reen(s) 8,4 14,0 14.0 156 21,0 21.0 9.1 1010 10.0 9A 10.2 10.2 ,actuated 91C Ratio 0.10 0.17 0.17 018 0.26 026 0.11 0.12 0.12 Oil 0.12 0.12 Vk Ratio 0.54 0.68 0.20 0.05 033 0.03 0.57 0 37 0.10 0.11 0.39 0A2 Control Delay 41.6 39,8 1.2 292 26,7 01 41.3 36 $ 0,6 33,4 361 12.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 oA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Everglades Blvd • Oil Well R1 •2034 AM w PJ 02A)U2020 Basetine Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebiicock Consulting Solutions, PA I' i' - 1 166 Oellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1 '_ Pvriades klvd & Oil Well Rd azrlo7ta2o 4N t > Lane Gmup EBL EBT ESP, WOL WST WSR NBL NAT NBR SAL SBT SBR Total Delay 41.6 38A 1.2 29.2 26.7 41 41.3 36.8 0.6 334 35.7 12.0 LOS D D A C C A D D A C D B Approach Lelay 35.0 26.1 3151 242 Approach LOS D C D c Queue Length SOth (11) 47 102 0 7 73 0 64 39 0 10 42 0 queue Length 95th fit) 01 164 0 20 112 0 91 66 0 25 70 69 fraternal Link Dlst (it) 2310 1W 13" 1362 Turn Bay Length �) 600 500 640 620 475 620 490 330 Base Capacity (vph) 436 1913 926 W NP 957 476 3147 1037 300 2033 993 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spltfbact Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage cap Reducln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Petro 0 43 0.21 0.05 0.05 0.11 0.02 OAS 0.01 0.03 0.11 0.09 0.26 Inlersecllon Summe Area Type Other Cycle Length. 160 Aclualed Cyrrle Length: 02,1 Natural Cycle:140 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vk N110. 0'" Intersection signal Delay: 34.4 Inlersection LOS C Intersection Cap3dy 4tlllzation 64.01% ICU Level of Servkce C Analysis Period (mfn)15 3 14s and Phases; 1; Ever ladas 91vd &Oil pilell Rz! ■-- 02 01 I 04 3 �D6 f05 M 03 07 Everglades Dlvd - Oil Well Rd -2034 AM w Pi 0210612020 Dasellne Synchro w Report Page 2 T'robilcock Consulting Solutions, NA P a I, o 1167 8ellrrrai Village Stewardship Receiving Area - T15 - 5ectiorr 2 -Intersection Analyses -August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Tunings 1: Fverglades Blvd & Oil Well Rd 0210612020 .--, 1 r Lane are11p EBL EDT EBR W9L WBF_ WOR NOL NBT NDR JWL SOT GOR Lane CorligurRhons Tf )) ttt r )) t++ f )) ttf it Ti Volume (uph) 369 220 37 48 269 36 61 122 11 17 94 62 Future Volume (vph) 369 220 37 43 269 36 61 122 11 17 84 52 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1990 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (») coo 600 640 620 476 620 490 330 Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length 0) 100 1 n0 100 100 Lane tltil Factor 0.97 0$5 1.00 097 0.91 1,00 0i7 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Fit 0.850 0.060 0,850 0.850 Fit Protected 0.960 0.950 0.960 0.960 said. Flo w(prol) 3127 3439 1482 3273 4893 1668 3019 4631 1164 3099 439€ 1653 Flt Permitted 0.960 0.960 0.960 0mo Said. Flow(perm) 3127 34U 1402 3273 4893 1568 3019 4631 1194 3099 4396 1663 Rght Turn on Red Yes Yea Yes Yes Said, Flow(RTOR) 159 220 220 220 Unk Speed (mph) 46 46 46 46 Link Distance (R) 2390 1967 1479 1442 Travel Time (s) 36.2 29A 22.4 21.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 006 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles (°i>) 12% 6% 9% 7% 0% 3% 16% 12% 40% 13% 19% 4% Adj. Row (ph) 37t 232 39 51 283 37 64 128 12 18 88 55 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flaw (vph) 37$ 232 39 51 20 37 64 128 12 18 86 66 Turn Type Not NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prat NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Perm4led 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 too Minimum Split (s) 13.1 20.8 20.9 134 5+6.3 6613 131t 1$4 18 i# 13.3 $6.3 66,3 Total Split (s) 25.0 67.0 67.0 13.0 55.9 55.9 13.8 65.8 55,8 03 55.3 663 Total Split (46) 16.7% 44.7% 44.7% 9.3% 37,3% 37.3% r,2% 37.2% 37.2% 4Yk 36.9% 36.11% Maximum Green (s) 16.7 SU 587 6.6 47.0 47.$ 5,5 47,5 47,5 5.0 47.0 470 YOM Time (s) 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.9 4.$ 4.8 Al -Red Time (s) 3.6 3.5 35 3.5 35 3.6 315 3.6 36 315 35 35 Last time Adjust 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,o 0.0 0.0 Total Last lime (s) 8.3 8.3 83 8.3 63 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 1t.3 8.3 83 Leadllag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Load Lag load Lead tag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimli Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Eidenston (s) 1.0 20 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1,0 210 2.0 Recall Mode "in Min Min Min Mln Min Mln Min Min Min Min Min walk Time (s) 7.0 7,0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dart Walk (s) 40.0 40.0 400 40.0 Pedestrian Calls (0111r) 0 0 0 0 Act End Green 0) 16.7 12.1 12.1 25.7 21.0 21.0 6.3 10.0 10.0 6.3 10.0 10.0 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.19 0.14 0.14 0.30 0.24 0,24 0.06 0.12 012 0.06 0.12 0.12 vie Ratio 0.62 0.44 0.11 0.05 0.24 0,07 0.35 0.24 0.04 0.10 0.17 0.15 Control Delay 371 39.0 03 224 26.8 0.2 441 36.0 0.2 39A 36A O.t queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 oo 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Everglades Blvd - Oil Weil N -2019 PM 0210612020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1168 Belfmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area T1.S Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes. Timings 1: Everglades Byrd & Oil Well Rd 02ioQ020 ­1 —0. --v "r .4— '1- 4\ t Lana_Gmvp €BL FBT EBR WBL WRT 1NBR N6L NOT NOR SOL 691 Usk Total Delay 87.1 3s 0 07 22.0 26,8 02 44.3 36.0 02 39.4 36.4 0.8 US D D A C C A D D A D D A Appraach Delay 36.2 23.6 36.6 24.0 Approach LOS D C D C 4iu9U9 Lern}Ih 60th m) 97 62 0 10 46 0 17 23 0 4 16 0 Queue Length 96th m) 144 % 0 23 6$ 0 37 42 0 16 31 0 Hernal Link Dist (11) 2310 1887 13% 1362 Tum Bey Length 0) 600 500 640 520 475 520 490 330 Base Capacity(aph) 606 2342 1060 974 2703 H4 192 2M 734 189 2398 947 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Splllbeck Np Redu* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Rieducin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vK Ratio 6.62 010 0.04 0.05 O.i 0 0.04 0.33 005 0.02 0.10 004 006 hersec110A 5untm Area Type: Other Cyela Len0h.160 ktuatod Cycle Length; 86.2 Natural C rcle: ISO Control Type: Adk0ed-ftoordlnaled Maximum we Ratlo:0.62 Irdeiseclon Signal Delay 31.0 Irdersectlon LOB: C Imersetioit Capacity Uilization 66,9% ICU Level of Service b Analysis Podod (min)16 ;0fis and Phases: 1: Everglades 6lvd ti 0il Well Rd 02 01 I as 03 aIn ` 006 *"05 • 08 07 Everglades Bled • oil Well lai -2010 PM 0210612020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a I! e 1169 Bc1la wr Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TiS-Section 2-Intersection Analyses -August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Everglades Blvd & Oil Well Rd n2rosrza2o Lane Group EDL EDT EBR W8L WOT W6R Not _ NOT NOR SOL SBT 8BR Lane Configurations M Tt it )) ftf if )) TT? it M +f+ F TMftic Volume (uph) 628 324 65 71 J96 62 90 180 17 26 124 77 Ftdure Volume (vrh) 528 324 55 71 396 62 90 180 17 26 124 77 Ideal HOW N01101) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1"0 1900 1%0 1900 1900 i900 1900 1900 5larage Lenylh (it) coo 500 640 520 476 520 490 no Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 TaperLBngth F) too 160 100 too Lane UIII Factor 0.97 OS6 1.00 0.97 011 1,00 0.97 ON 1.00 0.97 021 1.00 NI 0.$60 0.950 0.85o 0 $6o Fit Protected 0.950 0,960 0.960 0.950 Satd. Flaw (prot) 3335 3438 1638 3336 4940 1638 3336 4940 1538 3336 4940 163$ Fit Permitted 0.9% 0.950 0950 0.950 Satd. Flaw (perm) 3335 3438 1538 3336 4940 1638 3336 4940 1638 3335 4940 1638 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flaw (RTp R) 159 169 169 159 Unk Speed (mph) 46 45 45 45 Link Distance 0) 2390 1967 1479 1442 Travel Time (s) 36.2 29.8 22A 21.0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0,96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.% 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles (° 6% 6% 5% 6% so/. 6% 6% 6% 5% 5,% 6% 6% nag Flow Oph) 666 341 68 76 417 66 95 199 18 26 131 81 Shared Lane Trallfc (%) Lane Group Flow (?ph) 666 a41 58 76 417 56 95 199 18 26 131 81 Tun Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prnt NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 S Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Oetector Phase 1 6 6 6 2 2 7 4 4 3 8 8 $witch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 120 12.0 5.0 21.0 21,0 5.0 10.0 10.0 6.0 10.0 10.0 Mlnimurn Split is) 13,8 20,s 20.8 1aA 662 66.3 13.8 144 18.8 13.3 66.3 66.3 Total Split (s) 26.0 63,1 63.1 IN 65.9 55.9 13.2 63.3 633 16.E 55.3 65.3 Total Split (6) i6,7% 42.1% 42.1% 11.8% 37.3% 37.3% 92% 36.6% 36.6% 10.6% 36S% 36.9% Maximum Omen (s) 16.7 64 8 54.8 96 47.6 47.6 6.6 46.0 45.0 75 47,0 47.0 Yellow Time (3) 4.8 4.8 4A 4A 4.8 4.8 4.8 0 4.8 4-$ 4.8 4.8 Al -Red Time 0) 3.5 35 a.5 a 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.6 36 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) 8.3 $ 3 $ 3 $ 3 s 3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8 3 8.3 LeadlLag Leg 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 Nension (s) 1.0 210 210 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 (9) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 40.0 40.0 400 40.0 Pedestrian Calls (Ohr) 0 0 0 0 Act Efftl Breen () K7 13.1 131 24.6 21,0 21.0 6.4 10.0 10.0 5.4 10.0 10.0 Attualad giC Ratio 0.19 0.16 0,15 6.29 0.24 0.24 0.06 0 112 012 0.06 012 0.12 vlc Ratio 0.96 0.66 0.16 ON 0.35 0.11 0,46 0,33 0.06 0,12 0,23 0.25 Control Delay 48,9 40.8 0.9 23.6 28.0 0.5 46.4 30 o,4 39.6 3154 1.9 que Lie Delay 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 010 0.0 0.0 0,0 010 Everglades Blvd - oil Well N -2034 P M no PJ 0244612020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebllcock Consulting Soldtlons, PA P a g e 1 1 /0 Bellew Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T15 — Section 2 — intersection Analyses —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Ever lades glad & Oil Well Rd 02N6l2024 Lane Group EDL EDT EBR WBL_ 'DST _ WSR NOL NOT NBR SOL 58T 88R Thal Delay 48.9 40.6 0.9 23.6 28.0 0.6 46A 36.9 OA 39.6 35.8 1.8 LOS D D R C C A D D A D D A Approach Delay 0_1 24.6 37.7 24.7 Approach LOS D C D C Queue Length 601h <") 162 93 0 16 63 0 26 3s 0 7 24 0 Queue Lenglh 951h OR37 133 0 32 97 0 60 67 0 19 42 0 IMernal unk Dist P 2310 1987 1399 1362 Turn Bay Length (it) 600 600 640 620 476 520 490 330 Base Qapagity (Yoh) 646 2193 1034 960 2724 919 212 2676 878 289 2090 $10 Starvation 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 Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vt Ratio 0.46 0.16 0% 0.08 0.16 0,06 OAS 0.07 0.02 0.09 0.06 0.09 Intersection Summary Area Type: other cycle Length. 15o Actuated Cycle Length: 86,3 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type' Actual ed-Uncoordinated Maximum Vk Ratio, 0.86 Intersection Signal Del ay: 362 1rderseCltorl LOS D Irderseclion Capacity Uillzation 727% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Padod (min)16 96th percentile volume exr.eeds capaAy, queue may be longer. Queue shown IS maximum after two cycles. Souls and Phases; 1; Everatades Blvd &{ill Well Rd A- 02 01 04 3 006 I 165 1 08 07 Everglades Blvd -Oil Well Id1 •2034 PM no PJ 0277612020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PR F' a t; e 1171 8ellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area- TIS -Section 2 - Intersettlon Analyses -August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Everalades Blvd & Oil Well Rd } 102M00020 Lane Group Ef3L F9T k0K W6L. _WQT WOR NBL NBT NBR SOL BST 8811 Lane Configuraiionc tT jr M ttt r )) f f t f )) tit r Trafilc Volume (uph) 620 391 56 71 439 62 90 223 17 26 191 77 Frdure Volume (Th) 628 391 56 71 439 62 90 223 17 25 191 77 Ideal Flaw �Phpl) 1900 1900 1900 1$00 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Riot age Length 0) 600 500 640 520 476 620 490 330 Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length 0) 100 100 100 ion Lane LAII . Factor 0.97 0415 1 A0 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 ON 0,91 1.00 Fit 0. so 0,$5o 0 860 0 $60 Fit Protected 0.950 0.960 0.960 0.950 Said. Ftow(prof) 3335 3438 1539 3335 4940 15" 3335 4940 1538 3335 4940 IS39 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.960 0,960 0.960 88td. Flow (perm) 3335 3438 1638 3335 4940 1538 3335 4940 153$ 3336 4940 1638 Wghi Turn 0n lied Yes Yes Yes Yes Said Flow (RTO R) 159 159 169 169 Link Speed (mph) 46 46 45 45 IJnk Distance �q) 2390 1967 1479 1442 Travel Time 0) 362 29A 22.4 21.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.06 0.96 0.96 OX 0,95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 Heavy Vehleles { 6% S% 6% 6% 5% 6% 6°A+ 6% 6% 6% 6% 616 Adj. Flow (uph) 656 412 68 75 462 66 95 235 1$ 26 201 81 Shared Lane Trallic (%) Lane Group Flow"h) 566 412 68 75 462 55 95 235 1a 26 2W B1 Turn Type Prat NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 $ Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Detector Phase 1 6 6 6 2 2 7 4 4 3 8 8 $WitCh Phase Minimum Initial (s) 50 12,0 12.0 5.0 21.0 21.0 5.0 100 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Spilt (s) 13.8 20.9 20.8 13.8 65.3 66.3 13.11 18.8 18.8 13.3 66.3 56.3 Total Spill (S) 26.0 63.1 63,'1 17,8 66.9 56.9 13.S 53.3 63.3 16 $ 55.3 66.3 Total Spilt C,6) 16.7% 41 .j% 42.1% 11-90A 37.3% 372% 9.2% 35.5% 35.611/b 10.6% 30% 36.9% Maximum Green (s) 16.7 64.8 64.$ 95 476 47.6 6.5 46.0 45.0 7,5 4T.0 47.0 Yellow Time Is) 4A 4.8 4.8 4.9 4,8 4.9 41 41 4.0 4 $ 4.8 4A Ail -Red Time (s) 35 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 35 3.6 3.6 WS1 Time A4Q$t M 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 rime (s) $ 3 83 8.3 8.3 92 8.3 $.3 $.3 2.3 83 8.3 3.3 UaWl.ag leg Lead Lead tag Lead Lead Lag Dead Lead Lag Lead lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle bdension (s) 1.0 2.0 2,0 1.0 20 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 RPCall Marie Min Min Min Min Min Mln Min Min Mln Min Min Min W814 Time (s) 7.0 70 7.0 1.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Pedestrian Calls (Ohr) 0 0 0 0 Act Etfd Oreen (s) 10.7 14,3 143 23.4 21.0 21.0 6.4 10.0 10.0 6.4 10.0 10.0 Actuated giC Ratio 0.19 0.17 4.17 0.27 0.24 0.24 0,06 0.12 0.12 0.06 0.12 0.12 vlc Ratio 0.0 0.72 0.15 0.08 0.38 0.11 0.46 0.41 0.06 0.13 0.36 026 Contraf Delay 40.0 41,7 0.8 24.9 28.4 0.6 46.4 37.8 04 39.8 371 1.9 queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 Everglades Sled - Oil Well N •2034 PM w PJ 02NMN20 Baseline Syrlchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA I' ., P, n 1 17) Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area - T!S -Section 2 - intersection Analyses -August 2020 Lames, Volumea. Timings 1: Everglades Blvd & Oil Well Rd D2mGl202n -.1 --* --* "r .4- t -*\ t r' �► l Lam atoup - - EBL OT EBR WBL WUT WUR NUL NUT NOR 'd61 98T 99R ToW Delay 48.9 417 0,$ 24.9 28.4 0.6 40.4 37.9 0A 394 371 1,9 LOS D ❑ A C C A D D A D D A Approach Delay 43.3 26.4 382 24.1 Approach LOS D C D C Queue Lenglh64th m) 762 113 0 1s 76 0 26 44 0 7 37 0 Queue Lsngtlt 96th 0) 4L37 166 0 34 t07 0 50 69 0 19 E0 0 Infernal Llnk Dist 0) 2310 107 1399 1362 Turn Bay Length (R) 600 600 640 620 475 520 490 330 Base Capacity(uph) 645 2183 1034 902 27z4 91A 212 2676 878 209 2690 910 Starvatlon Gap Redudn 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SptIIW0 Cap Reducttr 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 seduced uk Ratio 086 0.19 0.06 0.09 0.17 0.06 0,46 0.09 0.02 0.09 0.07 0.09 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: l50 Actuated Cycle Length: 86.3 Natural Cycle: ISO Control Type. AdtMed•UncoorcilrAed Maximum vk Ratio:0.86 Intersection Signal Delay 35.8 larersedion LOS D Irlersecttan Capacity Ullization 72.70,6 ICU Level 01 Service C ,analysts Pedod Qnln)16 # 96th percentile volume eroeeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queua shown Is maximum after two cycles. S Ills and Phases: 1: Ever lades Blvd &011 Well Rd tJZ 1 04 #❑3 D6 05 � ©a \ 07 Everglades Blvd - Oil Well Fd -2034 PM w Pi 02MN20 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a R a 1173 Hellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Randall Blvd & Desoto Blvd Intersection HCM 2010 TWSC 1: DeSato Blvd & Randall Blvd 0210020 ntereectiod Inl Delay, slveli Movement 'It 3 EBL EST ESR WSL WBT WBR NBI. NBl NBR SBL SST S_B_R Lane Configurahans 4% 4, + + Traffic Vol, vehril 28 0 21 2 2 0 82 117 0 2 78 56 future Vd, vehln 28 0 21 2 2 0 82 111 0 2 76 56 Canflichng Pecs, lWhr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Gambol Stop Slap Stop Slop Slop Scup Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channdized None - None None None Storage Length Van in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 0 Peals Hour Factor Be 86 88 88 68 68 88 86 88 88 88 88 Heavy Vehicles, % 19 2 32 2 2 2 4 9 2 2 15 4 Mvminow 32 0 24 2 2 0 93 133 0 2 89 64 Mulo► mirror Mmor2 Minor I Maldr 1 WW2 Co0iclingFlmAt 445 444 121 456 476 133 153 0 0 133 0 0 Stage 1 126 125 - 319 319 - - - Stage 2 320 319 - 137 167 Ctiticd H" 7.29 652 652 712 6.52 622 4.14 4 12 Critic 0HdwySlg1 629 5.52 6.12 5.52 - Critied Hc?Ny5tg 2 6,29 5.52 6.12 5.52 Fdlow-up H&wy 3.671 4.016 3.588 3.518 4.018 3.318 2,235 2 210 PolCep•I Meheuver 496 508 855 515 488 916 1415 1452 Stage 1 840 7S2 693 653 Stage 2 657 653 866 768 - Platoon docked, % Mop Cap-1 Maneuver 466 471 B55 473 452 916 1415 1452 Mov Cap-2 Mnne4N9r 466 471 - 473 452 - - Stage 1 780 790 644 607 Stage 2 608 607 840 766 Appra9eh EB _Vila NO so -- -- HCM Control Delay, S 119 129 32 01 HCM LOS 0 R Minor Laneftior Mvml NOL NOT NBR EBLn1WBLn l SOL SST SBR Capacity IveWhj 1415 579 462 1452 HCM Lane Vrr, Ratio 0.06r9 0.096 0.01 0.002 HCM Control Delay (s) 77 0 119 129 7.5 0 HCM Lana LOS A A B B A A HCM 95th %Oe 0(ven) 02 - 0.3 0 0 DeSato Olvd - Randall Blvd • 2020 AM 0210G'2020 Basetine Sync hro 10 Report Page 1 Trebllcock Consulting Solutions, PA P .1 p e 1 174 9ellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area -- TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 HCM 2010 TWSC 1: DeSoto Blvd & Randall Blvd 02JI012020 Inlersechon Inl Delay, Vveh 16 Movamanl EBL EBT EBR WBL WBl W8R NBL NBT NBR 5BL SBT 59R LaneConfiguralions 4+ +T+ +T+ +T+ Traffic Vol,vehih 41 0 31 3 3 0 116 166 0 3 112 81 Future Vol, vehlh 41 0 31 3 3 0 t 18 168 0 3 112 81 Conilicling Pods, IWhr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 Sign Conlyd Slop Stop Slop Slap Stop 51op Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None None Storage Length Veh In Medan Storage, I1 0 0 0 0 Grade, °/4 0 0 0 U Peak How Faclor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mvm1How 44 0 33 3 3 0 127 181 0 3 120 87 Ma or/Minor MOW Minorl Ma a1 Ma or2 ;q ConlliclingFlow All 607 605 le4 621 648 161 207 0 0 181 0 0 Stage 1 170 170 435 435 - - - Stage 2 437 435 186 213 - Glucal Hdwy 7 15 655 625 715 665 6.25 4 15 415 Critical Hdwy Slg 1 6 15 555 6 15 555 Critcal Hdwy Stg 2 6.15 5.55 6.15 5,65 - Fdlow-up Hctnry 3 545 4.045 3.345 3.545 4.046 3.345 2,245 2.245 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 404 408 873 395 385 854 1346 1376 Stage 1 825 752 - 594 575 - - Stage 2 592 575 - 809 721 - - - Platoon docked, % Mav Cap-1 Maneuver 368 364 873 349 344 854 1346 - 1376 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 368 364 349 344 - Stage l 73a 760 532 515 Stage 2 527 515 777 720 Approach Ell Wa NB $$0 HCM Contrd Delay, s U 7 156 33 01 I ICM LOS a C Mirror Laneftior Mvml NBL NBT NBR EBLn 1WLnl SBL SBT 85R CapmIly(vehlh) 1346 494 346 1376 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.094 0 158 0 019 0 0D2 HCM Control Delay (s) 6 0 137 15,15 76 0 HCM Lane LOS A A 6 C A A HCM 95th Wile Q(veh) 03 06 0.1 0 - - DeSota Blvd, Randall Blvd - 7.034 AM no PJ 0210£v?.020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page I Trebilrock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1175 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — 7'lS —Section 2 — intersection Analyses —August 2020 HCM 2010 TWSC 1-. QeSota Blvd & Randall Blvd 0211012020 Intersection It Dday, Uvch 5 Movement EEL EB'I EBR WUL VY81 WBR NHL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configur0ons eta +t► +tr +Tr Traffic Vol. vehlh 41 0 61 3 3 0 184 547 0 3 262 81 f'nlnre Vd. vehlil 41 0 61 3 3 0 184 547 0 3 262 61 Conflicting Peds. Whr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Slop Slap Slop Slap Siop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Cliannelized None None None None Storage Lenglh Veh in Median Storage H 0 0 0 R Gwle,,'/a 0 0 0 a Peak Hour ractor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 HemyWhides,% 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Muml Flaw 44 0 66 3 3 0 198 586 0 3 282 87 molyrlMinor MIM2 Minor M®1orl Ma1or2 Cannictimgnow All 1318 1316 326 1349 1359 5W 3ti9 0 0 688 0 0 Stage 1 332 332 984 984 Stage 2 986 984 365 375 Criticd Hdwy 7.15 655 6,25 7 15 6.55 625 4 15 4.15 CtitieN Hdq Slg 1 6 15 556 6 15 555 - - Crlticd HdwyStq 2 6.15 5.66 6.15 6.55 FdIOW sip HdM 3.545 4,045 3 345 3 545 4,045 3 345 2.245 2,245 Pol Cep-1 Maneuver 132 156 708 126 146 503 1173 973 Stage 1 676 639 295 323 - - Stage 2 294 323 648 612 - - - Platoon Ulocked, V/Q . Mov Cap•i Maneuver 104 116 708 92 109 503 1173 973 Mov Cap.2 Maneuver 104 116 92 109 Stage 1 506 636 221 242 - Staqe 2 217 242 W 610 Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Conlrol Or.lay, s 389 435 22 01 HCMLOS 1. E Minor LanelMalor Mvnil NBL NBT NBR EBLn1W8LriI SOL S8T SLUR _ Oppaclly (mvI ) 117j 212 100 973 - - HCM Lano VIC Ralio 0169 - OW 0 065 0 003 HCM Conlyd Delay (s) 87 0 30.9 43.5 87 0 HCM Lane LOS A A E E A A HCM 951h Wile a(veh) 06 - 27 0.2 0 Oe5oio Blvd - Randall Blvd • 2034 AM w PJ 0210612020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page I Trehilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a 4 o 1 176 9ellmar Vllloge Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 HCM 2010 TWSC 1: DeSoto Blvd & Randall Blvd 0JIW..020 Intersection in1 Delay. �lveh 4.3 Lane Configurations q' iw 4 + + Tralfiic Vol. vehih 41 0 fit 3 3 0 184 547 0 3 262 81 Future Vd. vehlh 41 0 61 3 3 0 184 547 0 3 262 81 Conllieting Pads $Yhr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Canhd Stop Stop Slop Stop Stop Slop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Clrkinnelized None None None None Storage Length 1% Vah in Median Storage. S- 0 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles. % 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mvmt Row 44 0 66 3 3 0 198 586 0 3 282 87 MaIorlMruar Minor2 Murori Maiorl Malar2 ConflicUngRaw WI 1318 1316 326 1349 i350 588 U9 0 0 588 0 0 Stage 332 332 - 984 964 Stage 2 986 984 - 365 375 Crldcsl Hddy 715 6.55 6,25 7 15 6.55 625 4 15 4.15 CnkcN HdW Sig 1 615 5.55 - 615 555 - C7iticol Hdoy Sig 2 6.15 5.55 • 6.15 5.55 - Follow-up Hilary 3.545 4.045 3.345 3 545 4.045 3 345 2.245 2.245 Pot Cap-1Me newer 132 156 708 126 146 503 1173 973 Stage 1 675 639 - 295 323 - - - Stage 2 294 323 648 612 - - - - Plaloonitiocked. % - - MovCep-1 Maneuver 104 116 70B 92 109 503 1173 - 9.73 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 104 116 92 109 - - - Stage 1 506 636 221 242 Stage 217 242 586 610 - - Approach ES WB NB SR HCM Control belay, s 117 43.5 2.2 0 I HCM LOS D E Minor LanelMalor Mvmt NEL NUT NBR EBL11 E8Ln2WB_ Ln1 $QL_ SST SBR Capacity (vehl h) 1173 104 708 100 973 I ICM Lane V/C Ratio 0 169 0 424 0 093 0 065 0 003 H'GM Control Delay (s) 8.7 0 63 106 43.5 87 0 I iCM Lane LOS A A r B E A A HCM 951h'Milo Q(Yeh) 06 is 0.3 0.2 0 DeSoto 9lvd - Randall Blvd • 2034 AM w Pi Improved 0210MO20 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a P, a 1 177 Bellmur Village Stewardship Recelving Area - Ti5 -Section 2 -intersection Analyses -August 2020 HCM 2010 TWSC 1; DeSoto Blvd & Randall Blvd 02J1012020 Intersection lilt Delay, slveh 4.6 Movement EBL EDT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SDR Lane Configurations +T+ 44 + 41+ Traffic Vol. vehih 46 0 81 0 0 0 43 76 0 0 104 35 Future Vcl,vohlh 46 0 61 0 0 0 43 76 0 0 I04 35 Conlichng Pods, Whr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Slop Slop Slop Stop Stop Star I'm Free Free Free Free Free RT Channeltzod None None None None Slorage Length Veh In Median Storage, is 0 0 0 0 Grade, % - 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 Heavy Vehndes, °% 5 2 9 2 2 2 13 U 2 2 6 12 Mvml Row 58 0 103 0 0 0 54 96 0 0 132 44 MalodMiw Minor2 Mrnorl MalQ1 Major2 ConflrchngFlow At 368 358 154 410 380 96 176 0 0 96 0 0 Slags 1 154 154 - 204 204 - - - - - - Stage 2 204 204 . 206 176 01ticalH&y 7.t5 652 629 712 6.52 622 4.23 412 Critical Hdwy51g 1 6 15 552 - 612 552 Cnticd Hdrvy5tg 2 6.15 5.52 . 6.12 5,52 - - - •-- Follow-up Hdwy 3.545 4.018 3 381 3.618 4 018 3.318 2.317 2 218 Pal Cap-1 Maneuver *2 558 874 552 552 900 1336 1498 Stage 1 841 770 798 733 - - Stage 2 791 733 796 753 - - Raloon blocked, % Mov Cop- 1: Maneuver 572 544 874 471 528 960 13M - - 1498 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 572 544 4T1 528 - - Stage1 805 770 764 70i - - Stage 2 757 701 703 753 Approach ED WB NS SB IjCM CoMrd Delay, s 113 0 28 0 HCM LO`} 8 A Minor Lanwme or mvnd NBL NST NOR 111801WBLnI SDL SBl SBR Capacity (vehlh) 1336 734 1498 HCM Lane V1C Ratio GUI 0 219 HCM Control Delay (s) 78 0 113 0 0 HCM Lane LIDS A A B A A HCM 951h 94le 0(veh) 01 08 0 GaSoto Blvd - Randall Blvd - 2020 PM 021061202.0 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Poge 1 Trebileock Consulting Solutions, PA I' , E 178 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T15 -• 5ection 2 — intersection Analyses —August 2020 HCM 2010 TWSC 1: DeSoto Blvd & Randall Blvd 0211012020 Interseclion lilt Delay, SIVeh Movement 5 181. FBT EBR WEIL W61 Welt NHL NOT NSR SSL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ .{'+ + 41, traffic vol. vehlh 66 0 117 0 D 0 62 109 0 0 149 51 Fulcra Vd, vehlh 66 0 117 0 0 0 62 109 0 0 149 51 Conflicling Pods, Phi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign t:anlyd Stop Slop Slop Slop Stop Slop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Chahnelized Nana None None None Storage Leogtlr Vah in Median Storage 11 0 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 0 Peak !•lour Factor 93 93 93 43 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehid as, % 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mvmt Row 71 0 126 0 0 0 67 117 0 0 160 55 1N- egorlMlnor Wag MinofI Ma1orl WOW Congichng Flow At 439 439 188 502 466 117 215 0 0 117 0 0 Stage 1 188 188 251 251 - - $lagr:2 251 251 251 215 0ACtlHdWY 7.15 6.55 6.25 715 655 625 415 4A5 Crllical HC Wy Slg 1 6 15 5.55 6.15 5 5:1 CrOW WWy Slg 2 6,15 5.56 6.15 5.55 . Falow up HdVvy 3.545 4 045 3.345 3 545 4.045 3.345 2 245 2.245 Pat Cap -I Maneuver 523 507 846 475 490 927 1337 14D Stage 1 607 739 747 694 - Slage2 747 694 747 T19 - - Hatoan U ocked Mov Cep -I Maneuver 502 480 846 388 464 927 1337 1453 Mov Cop-2 Maneuver 502 480 388 464 Stage 1 763 739 - 707 657 Stage 2 707 657 636 719 Approach ES we NS $8 I ICM Control Delay. s 12 5 0 ?8 0 I-ICM ir]5 11 A Minor LanelMaivr Mvml NOL NUT NUR LOWWBLn1 SUL SBT SBR Capacity (veldh) 1$37 678 1453 HCM i ane vfC' Ratio 0 05 - 0 29 - HCM Conlyd Delay (s) 78 0 125 0 0 HCM Large L05 A A B A A I ICM 95th 9s,tle Q(Yen) 02 12 (1 DeSoto Blvd • Randall Blvd - 2034 PM no PJ 02/0612020 Baseline Synchro iORepori Page I -1 rebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P i r; o 1 179 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 HCM 2010 TWSC 1: DeSoto Blvd & Randall Blvd 02JI012020 interaac5on Int Dday, slveh 18 Movenlenl EBL CBI ESR WBL WBT VV8R NBL NBl NOR SBL SBT S$R Lone Conflguralions + +j+ +Z+ +T+ Traffic Vol, ve% 66 0 191 0 0 0 113 369 0 0 541 51 r'ulure Vd, vehlh 66 0 191 0 0 0 113 369 0 0 547 51 Conflicting Peds. H1hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign C:anbal Stop Slap Stop Slop Slop Slop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT CIO nneltzed Notre Nora: None None 5loragc Length Veh In Median Storage, It 0 0 0 0 Grade % 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Paclor 93 93 <11 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 HaavyVeh�cles, °!a 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 MV1nI Row 71 0 205 0 0 0 122 397 0 0 $88 55 MeioriMmot MmW Mrisorl Mehl Majar2 Conflicting Row Al 1257 1257 616 1359 1284 397 643 0 0 397 0 0 Stage 1 616 616 641 641 - - - Stage2 841 641 718 643 Cfibuil Hdvy 7 15 655 6.25 7 15 6,55 6.25 415 4.15 C. illed H(" Sig 1 6 15 655 6.15 655 - - 000 Hdwy Sig 2 5,15 5.56 6.15 5.55 Pdlow up HdWy 3 545 4 045 3 345 3 545 4.045 3.345 2 245 2 245 - Pot Cap-1 Menetnrer 146 169 485 124 10 646 928 1145 Stage 1 473 47l 458 465 - Stage 2 458 465 - 415 464 Plaiaon blocked, °/q - Mov Cap-1 Manauvel 127 140 485 62 135 646 928 1145 Mov Cap•2 Maneuver 127 140 62 135 Stage 1 393 477 - 381 386 - Stage 2 381 366 239 464 - - Approach E8 we NB SB HCM Canlyd Delay, 6 09 5 0 2 2 0 NCM 105 f- A Minor LanelMmor Mvrn1 NBL NBT NBR EBLn WWBLn1 S13L SOT SBR Capacdy (Vehlh) 928 281 1145 HCM la Ro VIA: Ralio 0131 - 0 993 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.5 0 895 0 0 HCM Lane LOS A A F A A HCM 951h Wit a 0(veb) 0.5 - A 9 0 DeSoto Blvd - Randall Blvd • 2034 PM w PJ 021W2020 Baseline Synchro 10 Reporl Page 1 Trebllcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 180 Be11mar Village 5teward5hlp Receiving Area — Tf5—5ectlon 2 —In ter5ection Analyses --August 2020 HCM 2010 TWSC 1-. DeSoto Blvd & Randall Blvd 02JI012020 Intersechan__-- lilt D&Iy, 51Veh 6.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WOR NSL N81 NOR SBL SOT SBR Lane Con¶gnralions IT r 4 41 4. Traffic Vd. vehfh 66 0 191 0 0 0 113 369 0 0 547 51 Fulure Vd, vehlh 66 0 191 0 0 0 113 369 0 0 547 51 Confllcluig Pods, w1l1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign cannel Slop Slop Stop Slop Slop Slop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Chaw*fized None None None None 5lorage Lenglh . 135 Veh in Median Storage, P 0 0 0 0 Grade• °/a 0 0 0 0 Paak Hour FacIcK 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 43 Heavyvehldes, % 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mvml Row 71 0 205 0 0 0 122 397 0 0 588 55 Malwimm4r MOW Wall Marl WOO Conflicting flow Al 1257 1257 616 1359 1284 397 643 0 0 397 0 0 Stage 1 616 616 - 641 641 Stage 2 641 641 . 718 643 - Criheal Hciwy+ 7 15 6.55 6,25 715 6,55 625 4 15 - 4.15 Cr1110 Hcmy Stg 1 6 15 555 6 15 555 - - - Cnbcal Hdwy 5tg 2 6.15 5.56 6.15 5.55 Fdlow-up H" 3 545 4 045 3 345 3 545 4.045 3 345 2 245 2 245 PolCap- 1 Maneuver 146 169 485 124 163 646 928 1145 Stage 1 473 477 - 458 465 - 5tage2 458 465 415 464 Plaloonblocked % _ Mov Cap•l Maneuver 127 140 485 62 135 646 928 1146 Mov Cap-2 Manewa 127 140 62 135 Stages 393 477 - 381 386 - stage 2 381 386 739 464 - Acnroach Es ors NO S6 _ HCM Control Way, 5 298 0 22 0 HCM LOS G A Minor LaneWaior Mvn11 NUL NUT NBR EOLn1 EBLn2WULn1 SBL $BT SBR Capactly (vetdh) 928 127 486 1145 11CM Lape v!C Raiio 0 131 - 0 5M 0 423 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.5 0 64 4 178 0 0 HCM Lane LOS A A F c A A HCM Wh %ile Q(vah) 05 2.7 2.1 - 0 Desoto Blvd • Randall Blvd • 2034 PM w PJ Improved 0210612020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilceck Cohsultirrg Solutions, PA 11 o ,, r, 1 181 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS -- Section 2 — Intersection Analyses — August 2020 Randall Blvd & Everglades Blvd Intersection HCM 2010 AWSC 1: Everglades Blvd & Randall Blvd 01012020 Intersection 111tersection Delay, siveh 189 Intoraocllon LOS C mmmmid EBB EBT ESR W8L WBT W8R Na♦_ NST NOR SBL 5131 Safi Lane Configurations + 4+ T. 4- Traffic Vol, With 74 37 88 8 166 10 218 122 13 6 163 166 Fultire Vd, Willi 74 37 88 8 166 10 218 122 13 6 163 1M Peak Hour Factor 093 0.93 0.93 0.93 093 093 0.93 093 0,93 093 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehides, °h 10 24 10 2 2 22 8 12 8 40 13 5 Mvml HOW 80 40 95 9 178 11 234 131 14 6 175 178 NumherofLarim t} 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach ES W9 Na SB �N9 OpposingApprcach WB EB $B Opposing Lanes I 1 I 1 ConfllclingAplxaacliLell SB NE E13 WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 (AA) AictingApixamhRight N6 Se WB EB Conflicting Lams Right 1 1 i 1 HCM Control Delay 14.4 14.1 21.6 21.3 HCM LOS B B C C Lane_ . N8Ln1EBLn1 WK0 S1301 111, Vol Leff. % 62% 37% 4% 2% Vol That, % 35% 0% 90% 49% Vol Right, % 4% 44% 5% 50°!n Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lone 353 199 184 335 L I Vol 218 74 8 6 Through Vd 122 31 1W 163 RT Vd 13 88 10 166 Logo Haw Kate 380 214 198 360 Geometry CAp 1 1 1 1 Degree of UN (x) 0 672 0 404 0 378 0 655 Departure Headway IHdi 6 372 6 795 6 874 6.545 Convergence, YIN Yes yes Yes Yes Cap 568 526 520 551 Service Time 4.435 4,859 4,948 4 609 NCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.671 0.407 0,381 0 653 HCM Conlyd Delay 21,6 14.4 14,1 213 HCM Lane LOS C 6 B C HCM 95th-llle Q 5 1.9 1.7 4.7 Ever jades Blvd • Randall Blvd - 2020 AM 00712020 9a5dine 5ynchro'10 Report Page I Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1192 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 HCM 2010 AWSC 1: Ever lades Blvd & Randall Blvd 02JI012020 tnknechon niter5echon Delay, &Nan 937 Intersection LOS F Movement ESL EBT EHR VVHL W13T WEIR NBL N6f NBR SBL SOT OUR Lane Configurations 4, 4+ 4+ 4+ Trafk Vd, vehrh 106 53 127 12 238 15 313 176 19 9 234 236 Fulure Vd, vehrh 106 53 127 12 238 t5 313 175 19 9 234 238 Peak How Factor 095 095 04 0.96 0.95 0.95 096 0.95 0.95 095 096 095 Heavy Vehicles. % 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 Writ Row 112 56 f34 13 251 16 329 184 20 9 246 251 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 R 1 0 ApWch Eli W6 N9 SB Opposing Approach WB EB 5B NB Opposing Lanes I I 1 1 CvnOicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes letl 1 I 1 I Conlhcting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting lanes Rlghl 4 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 337 319 1486 105.4 HCM LOS 0 0 F F Lane NIBLnl EB01 WRLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 62% 37% 5140 26/0 Vol Thru, % 35% 19% 90% 49% Vd Right. % 4% 44% 6% 49% Sign Control Stop Stop Slop SIOp Trattrc Vd ny Lane 507 286 265 481 LT Vd 313 106 12 9 1 Waugh Vd 175 53 238 234 RT Vol 19 127 15 238 Lane Row Rafe 534 801 279 WU Geometry Grp 1 I I 1 Degree of Uhl (X) 1.227 0.72 0.686 1,109 Departure Headway (Hdl 8 636 9.59 9 872 8 453 Convergence, Y1N Yes Yes Yes Yes Gap 427 379 368 435 Service Time 6.06 7 59 7.872 6 453 HCM lane WC Ratlp 1251 0.794 0 758 1 163 HCM Control Delay 1486 39.7 319 1054 HCM Lane LOS F D D F HCM951h•Ule0 21 55 49 165 Everglades Blvd • Randall Blvd • 2034 AM no PJ 02107120M Rmelinr. 5ynchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebitcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1, .1 g L. 1183 Rellmar Vifloge Stewardship Recelving Area — r15 — 5ectlon 2—lnter5ection Analyses —August 2020 HCM 2010 AWSC 1: Everglades Blvd & Randall Blvd 05/1612020 Inlarsachon Inleisechan Delay, slvch 242 Inlerser lion LOS (I Movement ESL EST EBR WBL WST WBR Nk NSF N8R SSL SBT $BR Lane Corfigurefio�s 4 r 4. 1+ 4 e Traffic Vol, vehlh 106 53 127 12 238 15 313 175 19 9 234 238 Fulore Vol,v01h 106 53 127 12 238 15 313 175 19 9 234 238 Peak Hour Faaiar 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 O.95 095 0.95 0.95 Q95 0.95 0.95 0,95 Heavy vehicles,% 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mvmt Row 112 56 134 13 251 16 329 184 20 9 246 251 Nnrnt)er o1 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 ch _!_, E73 1w WB N9 Opposing Approach W8 F13 SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 2 2 2 ConOicling Approach Left SB Ne EB VVB Conflicting Lanes Leff 2 2 2 1 Confhchnl1Approach Right NB SH WB EB ConAlcting Lanes Right 2 2 1 2 HCM Control Delay 167 28.3 299 204 HCM LOS C D D C Lana N8LnI N8Ln2 EBLn1 E130ry�2 W0Ln1 SBLni S1302 Vol Left. Rio 100% 0% 67% NP 5°h 4% 00/0 Vol Thru, % 0% 90% n% 0% 90% 96% 0% Vol Right, % 09% 10% 0% 10D°/P 6% 0% 10011A Sign Conlyd Slop Slap Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 313 194 159 127 266 243 238 LT Vd 3f3 0 106 0 12 9 0 Through Vd 0 175 53 0 238 234 0 RT Vd 0 19 0 127 15 0 238 Lane Row Rate 329 204 167 134 279 256 251 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 Degree of Um (x) 0.793 046 0 426 0.3 0 678 0 59 0.526 DeparlureHeadmy(Hd) 6667 8.102 9153 8061 8749 5311 7.564 Convergence, YIN Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 418 445 393 445 416 435 476 Service Time 6.414 5.025 6.901 5 828 6.752 6.058 6.312 HCM Lane WC Ratio 0.787 0,458 0.425 0,301 0.671 0.589 0.527 HCMConlyd Delay 375 176 186 143 283 224 184 HCM Lane LOS E C C B D C C HCM951h -file 0 7 24 2.1 1.2 49 37 3 Evergades Blvd - Randall Blvd - 2034 AM na P3 Improved 0511512020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page I Trebilcock Consulting 5oluticins, PA P a g e 1184 aellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — 5ection 2 —In tersection Analyses —August 2020 HCM 2010 AWSC 1: Everglades Blvd & Randall Blvd 051150020 Inler5e<ton Delay, slveh 46 I InICr5CC110n i.Q$ F Movement E8111. EST OR WSL WBT WSR N8L NST MR Sal, 68T _ SBF$ Lane Corrfiguralinns .T r 4+ 1. +T r Imilic Vol, vohlh 106 103 166 12 304 15 374 239 19 9 259 238 FulureVd,vehih 106 103 1115 12 304 15 374 239 19 9 259 236 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.0 0-95 0-95 0.95 1leavy Vehicles, % 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mvm1 Row 112 108 175 13 320 IG 394 252 A,,20 9 273 251 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Approach R Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 2 2 2 Conflicting Approach Lelt SB NB EB WS Conflicting Lanas Left 2 2 2 1: Conflicting Approach Right NL 58 WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 1 2 l CM Control Deiay 2.28 57.9 677 28.6 HCM LOS C F F Lane NRLn1 N8Ln2 FUn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 SBLnt SBLn2 Vol Left % 1009% 0°% 51% 011/t 4°% 3°% 04% Vol Thru, % 0% 03% Q% 0% 92?ra 07°% 09% =. Vd Right, % 0110 7% 0% tO(r/c 5"% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Slap Slop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lone 374 258 209 166 331 2bg 238 LT Vol 374 0 106 0 12 9 0 Through Vol 0 235 103 0 304 259 0 RT Vol 0 19 0 166 15 0 238 Lane now Rate 394 272 220 175 348 282 251 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 Degree or UN (X) 1.056 0 685 0 594 0 425 0 907 0 722 0 591 Deparlure Headway (l id) 9 661 9.083 10.03a 9.04 9.843 9 506 8 753 Cerivergence,YIN Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 378 399 363 400 380 384 416 Service Time 7 41 `1) ii 836 7 738 6.14 7 643 Y 206 6453 HCM LaneVIC Ratio 1.042 0682 0,606 0.438 0.916 0.734 0.603 HCM ('.antral Dday 94 1 29.5 264 183 57.9 33.3 23.3 HCM Lane LOS F D D C F D C HCM 951h•Iil80 135 49 31 21 9.3 5$ 37 Everglades Blvd - Randall Blvd • 2034 AM Improved wPJ 05/1512020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page I Trobticock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 185 i3ellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 --intersection Analyses -August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Everglades Blvd & Randall iAlVd o2rlorza2o -A -- t 1, *-- 'i 41 I �* Lane Group 69L i W 1TU9L WOT WBR. 1 NBT NBF. SBL GOT SUR Lane CorfiguiVions 4 11" 4 1. IT r Tralflt Volume (vph) 106 t03 166 12 304 15 374 239 19 9 269 23$ rttureVolume (14an) 106 103 1% 12 304 15 374 239 I 9 259 238 Ideal Flow �phpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (tt) 0 236 0 0 235 0 0 235 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 Taper Length fit) 60 140 60 0 Lane Util . Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1100 1.00 1100 1.00 1.00 Fit 0,850 0,994 0989 0.850 Fill Protected 0,976 0.998 0360 0."$ Satd. Fin w(pret) 0 1704 1530 0 1796 0 1710 1790 0 0 1906 1638 Fill Permitted 0.647 0.984 0.587 0.990 Satd, Flow(perm) 0 990 1638 0 1110 0 1062 1790 0 0 1791 1636 i Turn on Red No Yes No Yes Said. Flow (RTO R) 4 261 unk Speed 11 66 65 45 30 IJnk Distance (h) 1083 357 602 546 Travel Time (s) 73.4 4.4 9.1 12.4 peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.95 0 95 0.95 0,95 0.95 0.95 095 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 6% 06 6°% 6% 6% 6% Ft1j. Flow (uph) 112 10s 175 13 320 16 394 262 20 9 273 261 Shared Lane Traffic (°6) Lane Group Flow(tph) 0 220 175 0 349 0 394 272 0 0 292 261 Tum Type Perm NA Perm Penn NA Penn NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Pormsied Phases 6 6 2 4 9 S Detector Phase 6 6 6 2 2 4 4 8 8 8 Switch Phase Minimum InitiM (9) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6,0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 1 6.0 Minimum Split (8) 23.5 23.6 236 23 5 23.6 23.5 235 23,5 2U 22.5 Total Split (9) 62.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 62.0 38.0 38.0 Wa U.0 38.0 Total Spit (%) 6710% 674% 11 671% 57 8% 42.2% 422% 42.2% 42.2% 42.2% Maximum Green (s) 46.5 46.6 46.5 Of 46.5 32.5 32.5 32.6 32.6 `s2.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3-6 3S 3-6 36 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 All-iTime(s) 2.0 20 2.0 20 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2,0 2,0 Lost Time Ad}ust (s) 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Last rime (s) 6.5 6.6 6.5 5,15 1 6.5 6,6 Leacili Lead -Lay 01 Vehicle EMenston (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 30 3,0 Recall Marla Min Mln Min Min Min None None None None None Yuan; Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7,0 TO 7.0 Flasnbon*AIR (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11,0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11,0 Pedestiiart Calls (fFhr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green 1 16.7 16.7 111 32.7 32.7 32.7 32.7 Actuated 94 Ratio 0.24 0,20 0,28 0,64 0.54 0$4 Ob4 VA'. Rana 0.81 0.41 0.71 0.69 0.2s 0.29 0.27 Control Delay 43.1 20.6 27.9 20A 9.6 9.6 2.3 Queue Delay 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 EVerglades Blvd - Randall Blvd - 2034 AM Improved w PJ w additional Improvements 02107MO Baseline Sync hro 10 Repad page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 11 .1 i, o 1 186 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T15 — 5ectlon 2 — Intersection Analyses --August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Everglades Blvd Randall Blvd 02110f2020 Lane Group EBL EDT EUR WBL 1018T xyBR NBL N13T NF1P. SBL 89T MR Total Delay 43.1 205 27.9 20.1 9.s 9.6 23 LOS D C C C A A A Approach Delay 332 27.9 16.8 6.1 Approach LOS C C B A Queue Length Stith 0) 74 61 112 94 48 So 0 Queue Length 951h 0) 4AQ 98 189 h273 109 114 32 Internal Link Dist (Tt) 1002 277 622 465 Turn Bay Length (11) 235 235 235 Base Capacliy(uph) 766 1188 1870 574 967 964 947 Starvatlen Cap RedUtIn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Splllhack Cap Reducln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Redudn 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 keduced vic Ratio 0.29 0.16 0.25 0.69 0.28 0.29 0.27 Mterseclion Surnmm Area Type: other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 60.4 Natural Cycle, 60 Cantrol Type, Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vh Ratio: 0.91 Haisectien Signal belay 18.9 Intersedlon LOS B Intersection Capacity Llillzailon 82.01A ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (mtn)16 II/ 951h percentile MUM eneeds Capacity, queue may tie longer'. Queue shown Is maximum after Iwo cycles s lits and Phases 1: Everglades MW & Randall Blvd 4 02 I ti9 P 1 0a Everglades Blvd - Randall Blvd - 2034 AM Improved w PJ w additional Improvaments 02ro72020 688ehne 8ynchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebllcock Consulting Solutlons, PA P 7 g o 1187 Aellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T15 — section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 HCM 2010 AWSC 1: Everglades Blvd & Randall Blvd 020012020 Intemechan Intersection Way, Vveh 24.6 Intersection LOS C MovemWnt EBL EST EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NOR M SOT SBR Lane Contgurations 4- 4. + +;. Traffic Vol, velrlh 129 144 214 19 79 10 111 150 13 11 125 101 FulweVd,vehlh 129 144 214 19 79 10 Ill 150 13 11 125 101 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 Vehid es, % 8 10 10 35 8 44 4 13 17 2 12 7 Mvmt Row 139 155 230 20 85 11 119 161 14 12 134 109 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Awmch EB WB Opposing Approach AID EB 513 NB apposing Lanes I 1 1 1� Conflicting Approach Left SG N5 1r13 WB Conflicting Lanes Lafl t 1 1 11� Conflicting Approach Right NO SB WB EB ConlIcting Lanes Right I 1 1 1� HCM Conlrcl Delay 35.9 13 17,6 14.9 HCM LOS E B C O`er Lane NOW EBLn9 WBLn I SUM Vol Left, % 41% M% T80/ 5"% Vol Thru. % 55% 30% 73% 53% Vol Right, % 5°/a 44% gv4 43% Sign Control stop Stop stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 274 487 108 237 LTVd Ill 129 19 11 Through Vol ISO 144 79 125 RT Vd 13 214 10 101 Lane Rory Rate 295 524 t 1G 255 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Ulrl (X) 0.547 0.866 0.242 0.456 Departure Headvay (Hd) 6.68 5,951 7.512 6.468 -- -- . -- _ Convergence, YIN Yes Yes Yes Yes Cep 539 607 476 556 Service Time 4.746 4 004 5.597 4.539 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.547 0.863 0,244 DAM HCM Control Delay 176 359 13 149 HCM Lane LOS C E B B HCM 951h•tle Q 33 9.8 0.9 24 Everglades Blvd - Randall 91vd - 2020 PM 0210712020 Baseline Synchro 10 Repel Page I Trebilcock CGnStllting SolutlunS, PA P a g e 11ag Bellm❑r Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 HCM 2010 AVVSC 1: Everglades Blvd Sr Randall Blvd 02M/2020 Inlel96ctrarl interseclian Dday, srvelt t34,2 Iwerseenon LOS F Movernent E81_ EBT EBR WBL WST WSR AL NST NBR SBL SBT SB_R Lane Configurolions 4. 4- 4. • 1, Traffic Val,vehlh 185 207 307 28 114 15 159 215 19 16 180 145 Fulve Vd,veh1h 185 707 307 28 114 t5 159 215 19 16 160 145 Peak Hour Factor it 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.96 095 0.95 0.95 0.95 CIA5 0.95 095 0.95 Heavy Veludes, % 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 MVM1Row 105 218 323 29 120 16 167 226 20 17 169 153 Numtnr of Lanc5 0 1 0 0 1 0 q 1 0 a 1 0 Approach W(3 Opposing Apprnach WB EB Sly NB Opposing Lalle5 1 1 — * 1 w 1 Conflicting Approach Lefi 56 NB EB WB Contlichtlg Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Con1chug Approach Right NB 513 WB E13 Conflicting Lanes Fbghl 1 1 1 1 HCM Conlyd Delay 254.5 195 515 35.5 HCM LOS F C F E Lade NBLn1 E9Ln1 491-n1 S8Ln1 Vol Left, Ok 40% 26% 18% 511/6 Vol Thru, 1/0 55% 30% 73% 63% Vol Rig hl,% 5% 44% 10% 431YD Sign Cantrd Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by We 343 699 157 341 LT Vol 159 185 28 16 Through Vd 215 207 114 180 RT Vd 19 307 15 145 Lane Flow Rate 414 736 165 359 Geomelry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree or DId (K) 0 885 1 497 0.399 076 ❑eparture Head&ny IHcQ 9 043 7.326 10.011 9.011 Convergence, YIN Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 405 5M 362 406 Service Time 7 043 5.406 8.011 7 011 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 1.022 1472 0.456 0.894 HCM Contrd Delay 515 2545 19.5 35.5 HCM Lane LOS F F C F HCM g5th-tile 0 9 37.5 1 9 6.2 Everglades A1vd - Randall EJvd - 2034 PM no PJ 02/07/2020 Baseline $ynchro 10 Repw Page I Trebllcock Consulting 5oluklon5, PA P a g e 1 189 Nellmor Villoge Stewardshlp Receiving Area — TiS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses — August 2020 HCM 2010 AWSC 1: Everglades Blvd & Randall Blvd 02JI012020 lowmection InlersecLon Delay, shell 26.8 Intersection LOS D Movement EBL EST ESR WHL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lams Configurations +T it 4. j. +T r Traffic Vol vehlh 185 207 307 26 114 15 159 215 19 16 180 145 Fulure Vd,v01h 185 207 307 28 114 15 159 215 19 W 180 145 Peak Hour Kactor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 095 095 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.95 HeavyVelrides, % 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mvm1Raw 195 218 323 29 120 16 167 226 20 17 189 153 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Opposing Approach WB EB Sit NR Opposing Lanes 1 r 2 2 2 C011flichng Approach Lclr S© Na EB Wn Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 2 1 Conflicting Aplxoa0i Right NO $a Wa ES Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 1 2 HCM Conlyd Delay 37 8 176 19.6 17 HCM LOS E C C C Lane NBLn I N13Ln2 EEILn I EBLn2 WB1 M S1301 SBLn2 Vol Lefl, % 100% 0% 47% (M 18°/a 8% 4110 Vol Thru, % 0% 92% 53% 0% 73% 92% 0% Vd Righl, % {1% 81ya 0% 100% 109/0 0% 100% Sign Control stop stop Stop Stop Slop Stop stop Traffic Vol by Lane 159 234 392 307 157 196 145 LT Vd 159 0 186 0 28 16 U Through Vd 0 215 207 0 114 180 0 RT Vd 0 19 0 307 15 0 145 Lane Row Rate 167 246 413 323 165 205 153 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 Degree of Uld {X) 0 408 0.561 0.91 0.626 0.401 0,464 0,37U Departure Headrmy (HcQ 6.77 8. i$3 794 6.979 8 739 8.453 7.684 Convergence,WN Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 410 438 458 517 412 425 07 Service Time 6 536 6.959 5,703 4 742 6.817 6221 5.453 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0,407 0.562 0.902 0•625 0.4 0.485 0.328 HCM Control Delay 175 21 512 2.6.8 17.6 19 14 2 HCM Lane LOS C C F C C C B HCM 951h-hle Q 19 3.4 101 4 3 19 2.6 14 Ever jadss Blvd - Randall Blvd - 2034 PM no PJ Improved 02/07/2020 Baseline Synchro 10 Reporl Page l Trebilc:ock Consulting Solutions, PA 1' a j, c� 1 190 eellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — 775 , Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 HCM 2010 AWSC 1; Everglades Blvd & Randall Blvd 02110/2020 Intersection___ lWersMon Dday, slveh 553 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EST EBR W8L WBT WBR NBL NETT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Coniigurations -T r 4- 1+ •T r Traffic Vol, Vehlb 185 281 166 28 165 15 194 258 19 16 247 145 rumre VU,veldh 185 281 366 28 165 15 194 256 19 16 247 145 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0,95 0.95 0,% 0.95 0,95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehides. °A 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mvmt Row 195 298 395 29 174 16 204 272 20 17 260 153 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Approach EB WB _ Opposi ng Approach WB LB SB No Opposing Lanes 1 2 2 2. Connichng Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 2 1 --- _ _ Conflicting Approach Right NO $9 WB EB Conlicting Lanes Right 2 2 1 2 HCM Cartlyd Dday 93.4 24.7 275 2!r 1 HCM LOS F C D D LMe NBLn1 NBLn2 E801 EBLd2 WBLnl SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, °!° 10004 0°!° 40% y/ 13% 6% NO Vol Thru, Tb 0% 93% 60% 01A Mo 94% 0°/o Vd Right, % 0°!0 79/u 0% 100°!e 1% 0% 100%n Sign Conrd Stop Stop Stop Stop Slop Slop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 194 277 4% 366 208 26$ 145 LT Vol 194 0 185 0 28 16 0 ThroughVol 0 2M 281 0 165 247 0 RT Vd 0 19 0 366 15 0 145 Lane Flow Ratn 204 292 491 385 219 277 153 Geornalry tarp 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 Degree of Wil (X) 0.526 0.707 1.192 0.036 0 569 0 659 0 349 DeparlureHeadmy(Hd) 9649 9,077 8,745 7,815 9,662 9,341 8577 Convergence,YIN Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cep 376 402 417 462 377 390 421 Service Time 7.349 6.777 6.49 5.56 7 662 7 041 6277 HCM Lane VIC, Ratio 0.543 0,726 1,177 0.833 0.581 0,71 0.363 HCM Control Delay 226 309 1358 39.4 24,7 30,3 15,8 HCM bane Las C D F E C 0 C HCM 951h•Me0 29 53 19.3 62 34 5 15 Everglades Blvd - Randall Blvd • 2034 PM Improv" wPi 0210712020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 11 a 1; e 1 191 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area - 715 -Section 2 -Intersection Analyses -August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings I : Everglades Rlvd & Randall Blvd 02110,2020 -.4 --1.. --v f,*-- 4 t r `► 1 Ian Group EBL EBT EBR VVBL WHT Weft NBL NOT NOR SOL BBT OR Lane CQnfigURhOni #' r T 1} {t F TrMic Volume (vph) 186 291 366 28 165 15 194 260 19 16 247 146 Future Volume {54rh) 185 281 366 28 165 15 194 258 19 16 247 146 Ideal Flow Nphpl) 1900 1900 I Wo 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1940 1900 storage Length (h) 0 235 0 0 235 0 0 236 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 Taper Length 0) 50 140 5o 0 Lane Oil Factor 1.00 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 1 AO 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fit 0.860 0.990 0.990 0.850 Fh Protected 0.981 0.9n 0.960 0.997 Satd. now (prat) 0 1775 1638 0 1779 0 1719 1791 0 0 104 1538 Fit Permitted 0.792 0.911 0.643 0.970 Said. now (perm) 0 1433 1638 0 1632 0 90 1791 0 0 1755 1538 Rip Turn on Red No Yes NO Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 7 153 Lurk Speed (mph) 66 66 45 30 Link Dlstance (h) 1083 367 602 646 Travel lime (S) 13.4 4.4 9.1 12,4 Peak Hour Factor OX 095 0,95 0.95 0,96 0,96 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.96 Heavy Vehicles { 5% 5% 6% 6% S% 6% %6 5% 6% 5% 5% 6% Adj. Flow (�ph) 06 29G 385 29 174 16 204 272 20 17 260 162 Shared Lane TrzRic (%) Lane Glnrlp Flow (vph) 0 491 385 0 219 0 204 292 0 0 277 163 Tum Type Perm NA Perm Penn 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 e 8 Swilch Phase Minimum Initial(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 50 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum 5pltt (s) 23.6 23.6 23.5 23.6 23-6 22.6 23.6 23.5 23.6 23-6 Total Split (s) 62.0 52.0 62.0 52.0 62.0 38.0 U.0 30.0 38 0 32.0 Total Split C/o) 57,4% 67A% 57.9% 67.S% 67.9% 422% 42.2% 42; 9% 42.2% 42.20A Maximum Green (s) 46.6 46.5 46.6 46.5 46.6 32.5 32.6 32.5 32.5 32.6 Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.5 35 3.5 NI -Reed Time 0) 20 20 2.0 2.0 2,0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (3) 0.0 0.0 0-0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.6 6.6 6 6 6.6 6.6 55 5.6 LeadlLag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle EMensfon (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.o 31 3.0 3.0 3-0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min Min None None None Now None Walk Time (9) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash I)ontWalk(s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11,0 11,0 11,0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (Nhr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Earl Green (5) 277 27.7 27.7 19.5 1 9 5 19 5 19.6 Actuated g1C Ratio 0 46 0.46 OA6 0.33 0.$3 0.33 0.33 vk Ratio 0,74 0.54 0.29 0.64 0.50 0.48 0.26 Control belay 2i.5 16.2 11.3 29.7 212 211 0 Queue 0e1ay 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Everglades Blvd - Randall Blvd - 2034 PM Improved w PJ w additional Improvements 02/0712020 Baseline SynchrO 10 Report Page 1 Trehilcock Consulting Solutions, PA r, a h e 1 192 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Everglades Blvd & Randall Blvd --1, ---v } • t j021I0V20 ♦ 4/ Lam Group EBL EBT EBR VVHL 11118T WBR NpL_ MKT N9R _ 99L 99T — -21.1 89R Tate) delay 21.5 152 11.3 29.7 21.2 d $ LOS C P B C C C A Approach Delay 18.7 11.3 247 16.3 Approach L08 B D C 8 Queue Length 501h (It) 123 85 40 57 77 73 0 Queue Length95th fit) 310 21.1 103 10 198 188 39 Internal Link Dist (tf) 1003 277 522 465 Tum Say Length (t) 235 235 235 Base Capacity (vph) 1134 1217 1293 609 1110 1088 1012 Starvation Cap Redudn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Qp Reductn 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap RedUCln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vh Ratio 0.43 0.32 017 0.33 0.26 6.26 0.16 li tersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Lenoll'.94 Actuated Cycle Length .69.7 Natural Cyc lei 66 Control Type' Actual ed-Uncoordinated Maximum v1c Ratio, 0.74 Inteisechan Signal Delay 12.7 Irderseclion LOG, B Irdeiseclien Capacity Utilization 631% ICU Level of 9ervlce E Analysis Period (mtn)16 > lils and Phases: 1: EVer lades BK(d &Randall BIW 4- 02 04 �fJ4 09 Everglades Blvd - Randall Blvd - 2034 PM Improved w PJ w addifional improvements 02110712020 Baseline 3ynchro 10 Repart Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA I' r 1 193 Bellmar Village Stewardship Recelving Area -- TI5 — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Golden Gate Blvd & Desoto Blvd Intersection HCM 2010 AWSC 1, Desoto Blvd & Golden Gate Blvd 0211012020 Inlersechon intersection Dday, slveh 88 Intersection LOS A Movement ERL IEBT 65R WBL WBT WEIR — — NBL — — NBT NSR SBL SRT 86N Lone Configiwahans 4. a$. 44 4. Traffic Vol, vehlh 70 1 20 0 1 2 147 64 0 2 31 113 Future Vd, vehlh 70 1 7.0 D 1 2 147 64 0 2 31 113 Peak Haw Factor 094 094 0.94 094 094 094 0.94 094 094 094 0.94 0.94 Heavy Vehldes, % 16 2 40 2 2 2 7 11 2 2 7 14 Mumt Raw 74 1 21 0 1 2 156 68 0 2 33 120 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 D 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approftich ER we NB SB Qppv,inq Approach WB ES so Nk Oppwing Lanes 1 1 1 I Codicling Approach Left SR NB EB VV8 Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Cooliding/4)jxoxhRighI NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Conlyd Delay 89 76 9.4 78 HCM LOS A A A A Lane N9Lnl E9Lnl WBLn1 .5601 vd Lefl, % 7T16 77 % 01/0 1% Vd Thm. % 301% 1% 33% 21% Vd Rghl. % flu/ 22% 679s 770% Sign Conbd Slop Stop Stop Slop Traffic Vd by Lane 211 91 3 146 LT Vol 147 70 0 2 Through Vd 64 1 1 31 R1 Vd 0 20 2 113 Lane Roue Rate 224 97 3 155 Geomelry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degreeol Uhl JXj 0.7.85 0135 0004 0 172 Departure Heartway (Hr) 4.569 5 037 4 505 398 Convergence, YIN Yes Yes Yas Yet, Cap 786 713 793 902 Service Time 2.585 3062 2.538 1.997 HCM Lone VIC Relio 0.284 0,136 p.004 0172 HCM Contrd Delay 9.4 89 76 78 HCM Lone LOS A A A A HCM 951h-lile Q 1.2 0,6 0 0,6 DeSoto Blvd • GGB • 2020 AM 0211112020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page I Trebllcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a p, P 1 194 l3ellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — 77S —Section 2— Intersection Analyses —August 2020 HCM 2010 AWSC 1; DeSoto Blvd & Golden Gate Blvd 0211012020 Inlefsection _ Inter5Bchon Uduy, 5ivcti 10.1 Intersection LOS B Movement E8L EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR N8L NBT N_BR SBL SST SSR _ Lane Configurations _ _ 4 - +Y+ ott 4+ 110flie Vol, Veto, 101 2 29 0 2 3 211 92 0 3 45 162 Future Vd, vehlh 101 2 2s.1 0 2. 3 211 92 0 3 45 162 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 `; Mvmtflow 106 2 31 0 2 3 222 97 0 3 47 171 NmrWr of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB AM Opposing Approach W0 EB 5B NB Opposing Lanes 1 I I 1 Conflicts q Approach Left 56 NB ED WB Confliehng Lanes Left 1 1 # 1 Conflicting Approach Right NR SB WB BB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 I 1 HCM Contrd Delay 96 82 112 89 HCM Los A A R A Lame NBLnt EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLnI Vol Left, % 70% 77% 0% 1% Vol Trim. % 301rl, 2% 40% 21% Vol Right, % NO 2M 60% 77% Sign Control Slop Stop Slop Slop Traffic Vd by Lane 303 132 a 710 LTVd 211 101 0 3 Through Vol 92 2 2 45 RT Vd 0 29 3 t52 Lane now Rato 319 QL9 5 221 Geornelry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree Df Util (X) 042 0 702 0 007 0 263 Deparlum Heackay (Hd) 4 738 5.221 5 057 4 278 Convergence,Y1N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 759 E84 701 838 Service Time 2 778 3 279 3,133 2 319 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.42 0.203 0.007 0.264 HCM Control belay 1 1 2 9,6 8.2 89 HCM Lane LOS B A A A HCM 95Ih-tile Q 21 0.8 0 11 DeSoto Dlvd • GGB •2034 AM no PJ 0211IM20 Basdine Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA I' ,, i; r 1 195 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area -- TIS —Section 1— Intersection Analyses —August 1020 HCM 2010 AWSC 1: DeSoto Blvd & Golden Gate Blvd 0512812020 Interseclion_ Inlersection Delay, Vvch 4403 Intersettion LOS F Movement ESL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NOR SO1, 581 SP Lane Configurations T. .. .#. *1� Traffic Vd,vehlh 101 240 107 0 576 208 454 335 a 112 123 162 f!UtureVd, Ve11111 101 240 107 0 576 208 454 335 0 112 123 162 Peek Haut Faclol 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.05 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.95 OM 0.95 0.95 HcavyVehides, % 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mvmt Flow 106 253 113 0 606 219 478 353 0. 118 129 171 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB Opposing Approach WB EB 5B N13 Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Lell SB NB E8 we Conflicting Lanes Leit 1 1 1 1 -m Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB Eli Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 t 1 HCM Control Delay 1977 575.6 609.2 147.5 HCM LOS F F F Lane N9Ln1 El UI WBLnl SBLn Vol Left, % 58% 23% 0% 11 28°h Vol TThru, %^l 42% 54% 73% 314 b Vol Right, % U /9 24% 27% 4106 Sign Cantrd Stop Stop Slap Slop Traffic Vol by Lane 789 448 784 397 LT Vd 454 101 0 112 Through Vd 335 240 576 1233 RTVd 0 107 208 162 I ane now Rat$ 831 472 825 418 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree o1 Uld (X) 2.26 1.255 2 183 1.102 Departure Hiss&my (Hd) 14415 1897 14563 19.822 C.onvergerice, YIN Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 266 198 256 188 Service Tirno 12415 16.97 12.563 17822 1IN Law VIC Ratio 3124 2,364 3.223 Z223 HCM Control Delay 6092 197.7 5756 1475 1 tCM Lnhe LDS F F F F HCM SSth-lde4 441 12.9 41.4 99 Desoto 61vd • GGB • 2034 AM w PJ 0512812WO Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page I TreWlcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 196 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area T15 Section 2 - Intersection Analyses -August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1, DeSoto Blvd 050)2020 Lane Group EOL EDT EBR WBL WOT WEIR NOL NOT NBR SOL SOT SO Lane Ccrfiguiatims t'+ 4T# )I T* ►� 4 Traffic Volume (uph) 101 240 107 0 676 200 454 335 0 112 123 162 Fulumvolume(uph) 101 240 107 0 576 208 454 335 0 112 123 162 IdealElpW (phpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1100 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 5lorage Length (t) 236 236 0 236 235 0 236 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 Taper Length Q) 5o 140 50 5o Lane L&I . Factor 1.00 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.40 1,00 Fit 0.954 0.960 0.914 Fit Protected 0 960 0.960 0.950 Wd. Floca(prot) 1719 3280 0 0 33o1 0 3335 1810 0 1719 1664 0 F# Permitted 0.130 0160 0.950 said. Flow(perm) 235 3280 0 0 3301 0 3336 1810 0 1719 1664 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Y65 Said. Flow(RTOR) 59 35 46 Unk Speed (mph) 46 46 46 45 Lit* Distance fit) 321 836 602 633 Travel Time (s) 4.9 12.7 9.1 9.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0 % 0.95 0,95 0,96 0,96 0,95 0.95 0,96 0.95 0.% 0.95 Heavy V6hiclga (4(,) 5% 15% 6% 6% 60/6 6% 611,b 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% &j. Flow (uph) 106 253 1113 0 $06 20 471 353 0 118 120 171 Shared Lane Tratiic (%) Lane Group Flo w(rjah) '106 36e 4 0 925 0 478 353 0 110 300 0 Tun TWe pm-9 NA NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 1 6 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 Detector Phase 1 6 2 2 7 4 3 8 Skdtch Phase Minimum Initlat (s) 510 100 100 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 1010 Minimum Spin (s) 10.5 156 16.6 16.6 10.6 16.6 105 16.6 Total Spin (s) 14.0 69 0 $1.0 61.0 32.0 69.0 12.0 49,0 Total Split (A) 12.0% 46.0% 34.0% 34.0°.6 21.3% 46.0% 8.0% 32.7% Maximum Green (s) 12.5 05 45.5 46.6 26.5 63.5 6.5 43,5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 316 3,6 3.5 3.6 315 a.6 AI -Red Time (s) 2 0 2,0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.o 2.0 Last Time Adjust (a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 010 Total Lost Time (s) 5.5 55 6.5 5.6 5.5 6.5 5.5 LeadUp (sad lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimlw Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle EMension 0) 3.0 30 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 Recall Mode None Min Min Min Mln Min Min Min Act 00 Green (s) 60.0 50.0 34.4 22.0 29.9 16.7 24.6 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.44 0,44 0.30 0,19 0.26 0.15 022 * Retia 0.46 0.26 0.41 0.74 0.74 OA7 0,77 Cordrol Delay 27.8 18.1 43.3 63.4 50.3 56.9 50.6 queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 27.8 18.1 43.3 53.4 60.3 56,9 60.6 LOS C B 0 0 b F D Approach Delay 20.3 43.3 52.1 52.1 DeSoto Blvd - GOB - 2034 AM w PJ Improved 050020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting 5olutlons, PA P a g e 1 197 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — Tl5—5ectlan 2 — lntersectlon Analyses —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1. DeSolo Blvd o6f264o20 L&*caoup EEL EBT E8R WBL W97 MR NBL NBT NOR SOL SST SIA Approach LOS C D D D Queue Length 0th 01 46 72 2g4 172 242 61 1$1 Queue Length 9Rh fit) 99 128 � 436 296 398 171 323 trAernal Link Dist (R) 241 755 622 563 Turn Bsy Length fit) 236 W 236 Base Capacny(�ph) 273 1938 1400 812 1056 262 M Starvation Cap Raducln a 0 o a 0 0 0 9pilihack Cap Reducln 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 Storage Cap Redudn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced ulc Ratio 0.39 0.19 0.r+9 oS9 0.33 0.47 0.44 kA*Wucl Summary Area Type: 01her Cycle Len0h.164 Actuated Cycle Length: 113.8 Natural Cycle: to Cordrol Type: Actuaied•Oncooreinaled Maximum v!c Patio:0.41 Intersection &gnal Delay 43.3 Intersection LOS D Irdersectlan Capacity Utilization SO.3% ICU level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 16 3 lits and Phases: 1: De Soto Bind 01 02 04 ! 03 �06 07 • 03 De5ota BIUd - r308 - 2034 AM w PJ Improved 06282020 Baseline Synrhro 10 Report Page 2 Trebileock Consulting Solutions, PA 11 a P e 1 198 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T1S —Section 2 — In tersection Analyses —August 2020 HCM 2010 AWSC 1, ae5ota Blvd & Golden Gate Blvd 0211112020 Intersection Inicrsuwuon 0duy, slvch 8.9 Intersechon LOS A Movement _ESL EST M WOL WET WOR N13L NAT NER SBL SOT M Lane Configurations 40 41 +Ta 111a Traffic Vol, vehlh 95 2 144 0 1 3 49 36 0 2 41 75 FulureVd, Willi 95 2 144 0 1 3 49 38 11 2 41 75 Peak Hour Factor 0,95 0,95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 095 095 095 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles. % 19 2 32 2 2 2 4 9 2 2 15 4 MumtRow 100 2 152 0 1 3 52 40 0 2 43 79 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 OpposingAppraach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 I I Convicting Approach Lell SB NB LB N1B Convicting Lanes Left 1 1 I 1 ao ichngAppraaehRight NB S8 WB EB Convichng Lanes Right 1 1 1 I HCM Conlroi Delay 95 7.3 85 $ HCM LOS A A A A Lane NOW EBLn1 WHO SBln1 Vol Left, °% 56°/6 39% 0% 20A Vd Thru, % 44% 1% 25% 35% Vol Right, % 0% 60% 75% 64"A Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop irafh . Vd by Lone $7 241 4 118 LT Vd 49 95 0 2 Through Vd 38 2 1 41 RT Vd 0 144 3 75 — — Lane Flow Rate 92 254 4 124 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Uhl (X) 0 123 0.313 0,005 0.147 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.823 4.444 4.269 4.273 Convergence,YlN Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 745 809 837 840 Service Time 2.847 240 23 2296 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.123 0.314 0.005 0.148 HCM Control Delay 8.5 95 73 8 HCM Lane LOS A A A A HCM 95th-Ide Q 04 13 0 05 DeSoto Bivd - GGB - 2020 PM 0211112020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report page I Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1' cz p c 1 199 Sellmar V111❑ ye Stewordshlp Receiving Area — T15 — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses — August 2020 HCM 2010 AWSC 1: Desoto Blvd & Golden Gate Blvd 05+1412020 Intersechan Inlersection Delay, slveh 10.3 lalersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR W8L WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR �— SSL SOT W Lane COO91'raliorls 4+ 4+ 4. 4* Traffic Vol, vehlh 137 3 207 0 2 5 71 55 0 3 59 108 Fultne Vd, vehlh 137 3 207 0 2 5 71 55 0 3 59 108 Peah Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0-95 095 0,95 0,95 0 95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mfvml Flow 144 3 218 0 2 5 75 56 0 3 62 114 NmnWr of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 &prooch E13 WS NB Oppesingllpproach WB E5 so NB OPposirrg Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approxh Loll Sfl NB EB W9 Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Canflickg Approach Right NB $13 WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Canlrci Delay 11.2 79 95 9 1 HCM LOS 13 A A A Lane. NBLn1 EBLnl MW Sl3Ln1 Vd Left, 1k 5NO 39% 0% 2010 Vd Thru, % 44% 1% 29% 35% Vol 131gh1, 1/0 01/0 60% TM 64% Sign contrat Stop Slop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 126 347 7 170 LT Vol 71 137 0 3 _ ThrOUgh Vd 55 3 2 59 RT Vd 0 207 5 108 Lane Flaw Rate 133 365 7 179 Geometry w 1 1 1 1 Degree o1 UUI (x) 0 191 0 453 001 0 231 Departure Headway IHd1 5 181 4 467 4 71A 4 F48 Convergence, YIN Yes Yos Yes Yes Cap 688 804 746 768 Service Time 3.244 2.512 2.84 2 707 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.193 0.454 0.009 0.233^-- HCM contrd Delay 9.5 11.2 7.9 91 HCM Lane LOS A B A A HCM 951h-tile 0 0.7 24 0 09 llnsolo PAW - GGf3 - 2034 PM no PJ 0511412020 Baseline Synehro 10 Report Page t Tre611cock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1200 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area— TlS —Section 2 --Intersection Analyses —August 2020 HCM 2010 AWSC 1: DeSoto Blvd & Golden Gate Blvd 0811112020 Intersection Inlerse�tiun Ddly, "van 654.6 Intersection Las F Movement Ek EBT RR WLWBT.. _ WBR _ _ NBL NBT N613 SBL SST SM Lane (onEguralions 4. 414 44 4+ TrafficVd,vehlh 137 615 442 0 406 183 212 196 0 247 294 IM Fulure Vd,vehlh 137 615 442 0 406 183 212 196 1) 247 294 108 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 096 0.95 0,95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0M 0195 0.95 Heavy Vehid es. % 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 MvmlRow 144 647 465 0 427 193 223 206 0 260 309 114 Murbor of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB Ns SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Oppwing Lanes I I 1 1 CoMiding Approach Len se NB CB We Conitichng lanes Lefl 1 1 1 1 Lo0icling Approach Right NB SB WB E0 Conflicting lanes Right I I 1 1 HCM Conlld Delay 1079,1 359,3 186,2 436 1 HCM LOS F F F F Lane NBLrnI EBLni WBLnI SBLnl Vd Lefl, %, 57% 1 I'% 0% 38% Vd Tliru, %v 48% 52% 69%v 45% Vd Right, % CM 37%c, 31% 179/6 Sfgn Control Stop Stop Stop Slop Traffic Vd by Lane 108 1191 589 M9 LT Vd 212 137 0 247 Through Vd IS6 615 406 294 RT Vol 0 442 183 108 Lane now Rate 429 1257 620 683 Geomohy Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util lX) 1 167 3.311 1 635 } 833 Depafhire Heederay�Hd) 25015 15,025 2205 19446 Cunvergence,YIN Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 150 264 174 198 Service Tone 23 015 13 025 2005 17 446 HCM Lane V/0 RaO 2.86 4.761 3.563 3.449 HCM Conlyd Dday 1862 1079 1 359 3 435 t HCM Lane (OS F F F F 11CM95lhd11ep 96 73.3 184 245 DeSola Blvd • GGB • 2034 PM W PJ MI1=0 Baseline Synenro 10 Report Page I Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P ,i r; 11 1201 Belbnor Village 5tewardshlp Receiving Area - TIS - Section 2 -- Intersection Analyses--August+2020 Lanes. Volumes, Timings 1: DeSoto Blvd OW)2020 laneemup - E9L EPT FOR N16L WBT WBR NBL NBT OR 98L SOT - aaR Lane Cordlgwations fl� d& M p *� % Traffic Volume (vph) 137 616 442 o 406 10 212 1% 0 247 294 109 FLOure Wfurn8 (iph) 137 616 442 0 406 183 212 196 0 247 294 109 Ideal Flaw(uplrpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1800 IWo 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (tt) 235 235 0 235 235 0 236 0 910r9ge Lanes 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 Taper Length fit) 60 140 100 60 Lane W Factor 1.00 0,96 0.96 0.06 0.96 0.96 ON 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.937 0.953 ONO Fit Protected 0.960 0.960 01950 $aid Flow, (Prot) 1719 3221 0 0 3277 0 3335 1810 0 1719 1737 0 Fit Permitted 0.190 0.960 0.950 Said. Flow (perm) 344 3221 0 0 3277 0 3335 1810 0 1719 1737 0 M9111 Turn on Ped Yes Yes Yea Yes &H. Flaw (RTO R) 140 47 12 Link Speed (mph) 46 46 45 45 Lnk Distarce It) 321 836 602 633 Travel Time (s) 43 12.7 9.1 9.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.96 ob6 0.96 0.96 0.95 0,95 0.95 0,95 0.95 0.96 0.96 Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 6% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 611,6 6% 6% 6% Acll Flow (rph) 144 647 466 0 427 193 223 206 0 260 309 114 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Grout] Flow (%$)h) 144 1112 0 0 620 0 223 2OG 0 260 423 0 Turn Type pml t NA NA Prot NA Prot NA jU Protected Phases 1 6 2 7 4 3 S Permitted Phases 6 2 Det@ tOr Phase 1 6 2 2 7 4 3 9 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 6,0 100 10.0 10.0 6A 10.0 6,0 10,0 Minimum Split (>t) 10is 16.6 16.6 16.6 10.5 16$ 16s 16.6 Total Split (s) 19,0 63.0 44.0 44.0 40.0 65.0 32.0 47,0 Total $plil (%) 12.7% 42.0% 29.3% 29.3% 26.7% 36.7% 21,3% 31.396 Maximum Green (s) 13.5 67,6 38.6 38,6 24.5 49.6 26.5 41.6 Yellow Time (s) a.$ 3,6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 36 AUI-Red Time (s) 2.0 2,0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.o 20 Last Time Adlust 0) 0.0 010 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0,0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.5 56 6.6 6.6 6.6 5.6 5.6 Lead/Ug Lead leg Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Opvin1 ze? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle blenston (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3,0 Recall Mode Min Mln Min Min Min Min Min Min Act Ettd Green (s) 43.7 43.7 26.6 13.3 18 s 272 32.7 Actuated 91C Ratio 0.41 0.41 025 0.12 0.18 0.25 031 vk Ratio 0.50 0,90 0,73 ON 0.66 0.59 0.7E Control Delay 282 29.7 40.6 52.1 53 6 43.9 45,8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 total delay 28.3 29.7 40.6 52.1 S3.6 0,9 45.8 LOS C C D D D R D Approach Delay 29.6 40,6 52,8 46.1 De Sulu Blvd - G013-2034 PM w Pi Improved 08A112020 Baseline Synchro'10 Repoli Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P ar la e 1202 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TlS—Sectlon 2 — lntersectlon Analyses —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes. Timings 1- DaSolo Blvd 0$11lt2020 -,4 t 1 4/ Lane i3mup F8L M FBR IV8L W8T W8R NBL NBT NOR GEL SST 88R Appro,uh LOS C A D D QUelie Length 60th fit) 64 312 194 7G 134 158 257 Queue Lengh y5th (R) 124 462 294 136 246 298 454 Internal Llnk Dist Ql) 241 756 522 553 Tum Bay Length fit) 236 236 236 Dase Capacity (vph) 321 1966 1259 1121 $73 486 710 Starvatlon Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SpAback Cap Reducln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 u o 0 Reduced vk Ratio 0 4S 0.60 0.49 0.20 0.24 051 060 hltersecuon bummary Area Type: other Lytle Length:160 Actuated Cycle Leng1h.100.9 Natural CyC le' 70 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maxlmum u!c M10; 0.80 Intersection Signal Delay:38.7 Inlersection LOS D Intersection Capacity Uflizatlon 04.7% ICU Level a1 Service F Analysls Periad (min)16 S 1 .,mu Phases; 1; DeSolo Blvd 01 02 a9 43 —+0 e1 n� as MENU Desoto Blvd - 0OD - 2034 PM W PJ Improved 0M 1)2020 gasellne Synthro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P ,3 R P 1203 J3ellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area - 77S - Section 2 - Intersection Anal yses - A agust 1020 Golden Gate Blvd & Everglades Blvd Intersection Lanes, Volumes, Timings I : Gver lades Blvd & Golden Gate Blvd uznlnOzu Lane Group ESL EBT EBR 1WOL INOT WBR NBL NBT NOR SOL _ _ GOT OUR _ Lane Configuratlans f r 1'+ T f F Traffic Votuma (uph) 110 76 111 14 289 10 611 92 27 10 67 362 Future volume (al)h) 110 76 117 14 28$ 10 511 92 27 10 67 252 Ideal Flow (aphpl) 1000 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Ravage Length (it) 440 326 230 0 410 0 135 616 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 Taper Length F) 60 60 60 50 Lane Ll it atlor 1.00 1.00 1,00 1 A 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1 A0 1.00 1.00 Fit 0.850 0.996 0.966 0.850 Fit Protected 0 950 01950 0 950 0,%0 Said. Flo m)(prat) 107 1727 105 1374 100 0 1719 106 0 1167 1597 1568 Fit Permihal 0.962 0.952 0.000 0.000 Satd.Flow (perm) 1690 1727 1495 1381 1836 0 0 1696 0 0 1601 11 RJght Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Ygs Said. Flout (RTO R) 176 1 12 262 link Speed (mph) 46 46 4S 45 Link Distance (4) 1717 1242 1196 4$8 Travel Time (9) 26.0 1818 1$2 14.6 Peak Flour Factor 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0 92 0,92 NeevyVehicles ('4y) 7% 10% S% MOA 351, 2% SO4 6% 16% 66% 19% 3% Ad), Flow (rph) 120 $3 127 16 313 11 655 100 29 11 73 383 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (uph) 120 83 127 15 324 0 656 129 0 11 73 383 Tum Type pri NA Perm pM-0 NA PIT! I" NA pm40 NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 6 2 7 4 3 $ Permitted Phases 6 6 2 4 8 Detector Phase 1 6 6 6 2 7 4 3 $ 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 50 12.0 12.0 6.0 12.0 5.0 10.0 6.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum split (s) 12.0 19.0 19.0 12.0 19.0 12.0 19.0 12.0 19.0 19.0 Total Split (s) 16.0 49.0 49.0 17.0 50.0 45.0 71.0 13.0 39.0 39.0 Total Spit (%) 10.7% 32.7% 32.1% 11.3% 33.3% 3010% 47.3% 4.7% 26.0% 26 0% bdaxlinum Green (s) 92 42.2 42.2 10.2 432 38.2 64.2 6.2 32.2 32.2 Yellow Time (s) 4 8 4.9 4A 4A 49 4.8 0 Ca 4.9 4.8 AJI•Red Time 0) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2,0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost AmeAdjust (s) 00 00 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6A 6.9 6,$ 6.9 6.8 6,8 6.$ 6.8 6.8 6.8 Leadli-ag Lead lead Lead Jag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Y69 Yes Yes Ye9 Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 Recall Made Min Min Wn Min Muti Min Min blip Min Min ,fit EIN Ctreen 0) 12.9 12.9 12.9 23.9 239 30.4 13.6 37.9 14.9 14.9 Actuated giC Rollo 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.21 021 0,33 0.12 0.34 0,13 0.13 vk Ratio 0.62 0.42 0,39 0A5 0.82 0.99 0,60 6.03 0,34 0.88 Cowol Delay 66.9 0.0 6.6 371 60,6 75,7 57.4 29.6 61.3 38.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Detay 659 59.0 5.6 37.1 605 75.7 57.4 29.0 61.3 3$ 3 LOS E E A D E E F C D D Approach Celay 40.7 $04 7212 40.1 Golden Gate Blvd - Everglades Dlvd - 2020 AM 0211112020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Pagel Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P 1 it e j 204 Belimar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Everglades Blvd & Golden Gate Blvd 02l1102WO la emup EBL EBT_ [BR _ WSL WOT WBR NOL NBT NOR 80L SOT SRR Approoch LOS 0 E E 0 Queue Lenglh ON It) V 56 0 9 220 378 to 5 49 88 Queue Lerrgih 951h at) 116 127 19 29 371 029 10 22 104 231 Internal Link Dist (I) 1637 1162 1118 878 Turn Bay Longlh (H) 440 32b 230 410 135 616 Base Capacity(bph) 195 668 686 301 727 602 1003 381 471 647 staw'Vion Cap Izaducln 0 0 1] a a 0 0 0 0 0 Splllback Cap Raductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reducln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PlEdUced vk Ratio 0,62 0.12 0.19 0,06 OA5 0.92 0.13 0.03 0.16 0 59 trdwsactron Summ . _ ___ Area Ty) e: Other Cycle 1_e0gth:160 Aclualed Cyc. a Length 111.9 Natural Cycle: 90 C❑ntrol Type, Actual ed-Uncoordlnaled Maximum vfc Raflo:0.99 Intersectfon Signal Delay' 56.9 InterSectien LOS: E lnteisection Capacity Ulllzallon $2.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysls Period (min)16 * %th percentlle volume emeeds capacity, queue may pe longer Queue shown Is maximum after two cytles. Splits and Phases: 1: Ever lades Blvd & Oclden Hate Blvd 01 OZ 04 63 ­006 4-OS 07 • 03 GaIden Gate Blvd - Everglades Blvd - 2020 AM 0P{I1 202o Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA p a V, e 1205 BeUrrrar Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS-Section 2 -intersection Analyses August 1020 Lanes, Volumes. Timings 1: Everglades Blvd & Golden Gate Blvd ozn2rzozo Uh* ftxy EBL E9T EBR WDL WBT WBR NBL NBT N9k 99L 813T Lane Configurations 11 tt it TT r i ?? r M ++ Traffic Volume (vph) 169 199 168 21 413 16 732 f 32 39 16 % 606 Future Volume (a)111 158 109 164 21 413 16 732 132 39 16 96 506 Ideal now (phpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19oo Storage Length (ff) 440 326 230 230 410 260 236 515 storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length M) 100 100 loo 100 Lane Litil . FaNr 0,97 0.96 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.47 0.96 1.00 0.97 0-% 1.00 Fit 0.$50 0.850 0.850 0.860 Fit Protected 0,960 0.960 0.960 0.950 Satd. Flow (prof) 3336 3438 1638 3335 3438 1538 3335 3438 1539 3336 3438 1538 Fit Permitted 0.950 0,960 0.960 0.950 Satd Flow (perm) 3336 3438 1581 3335 3438 163$ 3335 Nat? 1638 3335 s438 1538 Wgh1 TOM On Red Yes Yes Yea Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 276 276 276 532 Unk Speed(mph) 46 46 46 45 Link Distance (it) 787 649 771 720 Travel TImB (s) 11.8 9.3 11.7 10.$ Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.9E 0,95 0.95 0.95 0,95 0.95 0.95 0,96 Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 6016 6% 696 50A 6% 6% 6% 6% 60/0 6% 5% Md Flow (vph) 166 116 177 22 436 16 771 139 41 1B 101 632 $hated Lane Traffic 06) Lane Croup Flow (,ph) 166 116 177 22 436 16 771 139 41 16 101 532 Tum Type Prat NA Free Not NA Free Prat NA Free pint NA Free Prcrtected Phases 1 6 5 2 1 4 3 $ Permitted Phases Free Free Free Free Detector' Phase 1 6 6 2 7 4 3 $ Switch Phase Minimum initial (s) 5,0 120 6.0 12.0 6.0 1o,0 6.0 10.0 Minimum spld (s) 12.0 43.9 12.0 53.8 12.0 43.9 12.0 63.0 Total Split (s) 14.0 92 12.8 64.0 28.0 66.0 17.0 54.0 Tclal Spill (%) 9.3% 36.8% $.6% 36.0% 14.1% 43.3% 11 3% 36.0% MaKimum Green (s) 7.2 48A 6.0 47.2 212 58.2 102 472 Yellow Time (s) 48 4.8 4A 4.8 4.4 4,8 4,9 4 t AkRed Tim-, (s) 2.0 2,0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 Losl Time Adjust (s) 0,0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Last Time (s) 6.8 6A 13A 6,8 6.$ 6.3 6.8 6.9 LeadlLag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Ddension (8) 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.o Recall Made Min Mln Min Min Min Mn1 Min Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7,0 Flash Dint Wail; (s) 30.0 30.0 300 30.0 Pedestrian Calls (4#hr) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green 0) 72 12.0 $0.2 9.7 14.6 $0,2 21.2 10,0 90.2 21 2 10.0 $0.2 Aclualod g1C Ratio 0.09 0.16 1,00 0.12 0.10 1,00 0.26 0.12 1.00 0.26 012 1.00 vk Ratio 0,56 0.22 0.12 0,05 0.70 0.01 0.07 0,32 0,03 0,02 0.24 0.85 Control Delay 43.1 31.9 02 30,9 37.3 0.0 41.4 349 0,0 22.9 33.9 0.6 quaue Delay 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 G0 B - Everglades Blvd - 2034 AM no Pi 02M 112020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Pagel Trebilcock Consulting Solutlonsr PA I, a g 0 1206 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area -- TIS — Section 2 —Intersection Analyses—Augasr 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Everglades Blvd & Golden Gate Blvd 02A212020 --,, --.--w f-*-- 4\ t e. 1* 1 */ Urk Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WEIR NBL PJB NEIR SBL SOT ORR Total Delay 43,1 31.8 0.2 30.9 37.3 0.0 41.4 34.9 0.0 22.9 33.9 06 LOS D C A C D A D C A C C A Approach delay 23.7 35.T 38.7 6.3 Approach LOS C D d A Queue t Pillh 501h (K) 41 26 0 6 108 0 189 33 0 3 24 0 Queue LenTri 361n 0) 75 53 0 15 156 0 M1307 63 0 10 49 0 Internal Un% Dist M) 707 469 891 640 Turn Bey Length (11) 440 325 210 230 410 260 235 616 Base Capacity (vph) 299 2077 163$ 404 2026 1638 S82 2497 1638 882 2026 1638 Starvalion Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillnack Cap Reducin 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 vh Ratio 0.66 0.06 0.12 0.06 0.21 0,01 0.87 0.06 0.03 0.02 0106 0.36 Mterseetion summ";ry Area Type: Other Cycle Length:160 Actuated Cycle Length: to 2 Natural Cycle 146 Control Type: Aouated-Uncoerginafed Maximum vk Ratio: 0.8T Intersection Signal Delay. 271 Intersection LOS, C Intersection Capacity uillzation60.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Perlod (min)15 of 95th Percentile volume Pmeads capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue MOM Is maximum after two cycles. 3 Ills and Phases: 1: Ever lades Blvd & Golden Gate Blvd 1001 02 Qb3 b6 4,05 07 03 g13B - Everglagaa 81W - 2034 AM no PJ 02M 1 PO20 Baseline Synchr010 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting 5olutlons, PA f' a c e 1 207 8ellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -Intersection Analyses -August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Everglades Blvd & Golden Gale Blvd 02n2a020 Lam Group E61- OT OR *91- W81 W9R 14BL N8T NOR SOL 68 . n38R Lane Ccrfigtirallons 11 +T rrt )I tt ff r M r Tratlic Volume (uph) 158 318 168 24 974 26$ 732 132 45 116 96 605 (=inureVOIUrrie(v)11) 1S8 31? 16R 24 974 268 732 132 45 116 % 606 Ideal Flow Nphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19o0 1900 1900 Slorage Length (11) 440 325 230 230 410 260 235 615 Storage lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length 0) 100 too 100 100 Lane L11il Factor 0,97 015 1.00 697 0.95 1.00 0.97 019$ 1.00 0.97 0,96 1.00 Fit 0.860 0.860 0.850 0 t 60 I'll Protected 0.9% 01950 0.960 OS50 satd. Flow (Pr0t) 3336 3438 1689 3336 3438 1538 3335 3438 1538 3335 3438 1638 Fit Permitted 0.960 01960 0.950 0.960 Said, Flow (perm) 3335 3438 1639 3336 3438 1W3 3336 3438 153$ 3335 3438 16M No Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTQ R) 276 275 275 441 Link Speed Qhph) 46 46 46 45 Unk Rslance (11l) 787 549 771 720 Travel Time N) 11.9 $ 3 11.7 10.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.95 0.05 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 5% 6% 6% 6% 5% 6% 5% 6% 5% 5% 5% M Flow Qiph) 166 335 177 25 1025 282 771 139 47 122 101 532 Shared Lane Traffic ?A) Lane Gimp FIDw(vph) 166 336 177 25 1025 282 771 139 47 122 101 532 Turn Typo Pro[ NA Free Prot NA Rea Prot NA Free Prot NA Frag Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 S Permitted Phases Free Rea Free Free Detector Phase 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Switch Phase Minimum Iniiial (9) 5,0 12.0 5,0 12,0 5,0 10.0 6.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 43.8 12.0 63.8 12.0 43A 12.0 63.8 Total SPlil (s) 14,0 66.2 12,8 54.0 310 66.0 170 50.0 Total Split (A) 9.3% 36.8% $$% 36.0% 212% 43.3% 11.3% 33.30A Maximum Green (s) 7.2 48.4 0 47.2 25.2 58.2 10.2 43.2 Yellow Time (s) 4 $ 4A 4,$ 4,8 44 4.8 4.8 4.9 NI -Red Time (s) 2,0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 010 010 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 010 0.0 Total Last Time (s) 68 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 LeadiLag Lead Lear) Leg Lag Lead Lead Lag lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Nenslon (s) 1.0 2.0 1.0 2,0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 Recall Made Min Min Min Min Mln Min Min Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Cont Walk t5) 30.0 30.0 30.0 X0 Pedestrian Calls (4Mir) 0 0 0 0 Act UO Green 0) 7.2 15.6 109.3 312 39.6 109.3 253 10,3 1093 24.9 10.0 109.3 Actuated giCRatio 0.07 094 1.00 0.29 0,36 1,00 0.22 0.09 1.00 0.23 0.09 1.00 vk Ratio 0.75 00 0.12 0.03 042 0,18 1.00 0,43 0.03 0,16 0.32 0.36 CaMrO Delay 73.1 6U 02 28.7 39.0 0.3 76.1 $22 0,0 36.0 60.9 0A Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GOB • Everglade8 8140 - 2034 AM W PJ 02A J J2020 B86WI Ine $ynChr010 Raport Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P 6 g e 1 208 aelbnor Village Stewardship Receiving Area - T!S - Section z - Intersection Analyses -Aug ust 207, 0 Lanes. Volumes. Timings 1: Everglades Blvd & Golden Gate Blvd _ 02=020 } --* -,* 'r 4--- 4-- 4\ t 10 1* Lwe, Group EBL EBT EBR Ul. WST 1NBR NBL IVBT N9R 36L SO 01 70181 Delay 73.1 62.5 0.2 2V 3e.0 0 3 76.7 622 0.0 36.0 50.9 0.6 LOS E D A C D A F D A D D A AAprNth Delay 42.9 29.5 68.6 13.1 Approach LOS D C E B Queue Length 501h fl 60 120 0 6 339 0 —207 50 0 36 35 0 queue Lengh 951h (n) f1123 173 0 17 420 0 0466 86 0 67 67 0 Internal Link Dist (t) 707 469 691 040 rum Pay Len011 0) 440 325 230 230 410 260 235 616 Base Capacity "h) 220 1626 163$ 961 1468 1639 770 1936 1638 761 1362 1638 Stanratlon Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback (gyp Raductn 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Peducin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vk Ratio 0,76 0.22 0.12 0.03 0.69 0.18 1.00 0 08 0.03 0.16 0.07 0.35 Area Type. other Cycle Length 160 Actuated Cycle Length.109 3 Natural (;yCie:146 Cordrol Type, Actuated- Uncoordinated Maximum V!C Ratio' 1.00 IYdersectlon Signal Delay: 39.0 tntersedian LOS D Intersection Capacity "Hization 83.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Pentad (min)16 Volume exceeds capacty,queueis Ill ally inlinte Queue shown ISMUIMUm BitAt two cycles, # 961h percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe Longer. Queue shown Is maximum 81W two cycles. t30 B - Evaryl ades BIW - 2034 AM W PJ 02I11 f2420 Bawllne Synchr010 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a p e 1209 Rellmar Village Stewardship Rerelving Area - TIS -Section 2 - Intersection Analyses -August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Everglades Blvd & Golden Gate Blvd 02r1172020 J __I, -V '` T / ► 1 _q/ Lane Group EDL 'EMEME nBT. WBR NOL NOT NOR .__SOS- 5BTB_aR Lane Conllguratians t it I il� t. T r TraW volume (uph) 246 299 463 26 125 13 159 63 17 24 111 141 Future Volume (11)11) 286 298 463 26 125 13 159 63 17 24 111 141 Ideal Flow (Uphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1500 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 S(oraye Length (11) 440 326 230 0 410 0 135 616 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 Taper Lenyrh0) 60 60 s0 60 Lane Lnil Fedor 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1 A0 1.00 1-00 Fit 0.860 0.986 0.969 0150 Fit Protected 0.954 0.960 aS50 0,950 Said Flow (prat) 1687 1727 106 1378 1820 0 171$ 1708 0 1157 1607 160 Fit Permitted 0.000 0.000 Satd Flow(perm) 1776 1727 1496 1460 1820 0 0 1703 0 0 1697 1669 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Y06 Satd. Flo vo(RTOR) 492 3 9 176 unk Speed (mph) 46 46 46 46 unk bistance fit) 1717 1242 1198 958 Travel Time (s) 26.0 18.8 182 14.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.$2 0,92 0 92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 HeaW Vehicles N 7% 10% 8% 319A 3% 296 6% 656 16% 66% 19% 3% Adj. Flow (upli) 310 024 492 28 136 14 173 68 1$ 26 121 163 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane GIOUp Flow (1ph) 310 324 492 28 160 0 173 86 0 26 121 153 Turn Type pm-0 NA Perm pm jA NA pm+pt NA pm-V NA Perm Protected Pi'18368 1 6 6 2 7 4 3 9 Parmi»ed Phases 6 6 2 4 8 8 Detettar phase 1 6 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 12.0 12,0 5,4 1210 5,0 10,0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 19.0 19.0 12.0 10.0 12.0 19.0 12.0 19.0 19.0 Total Split (s) 46.0 71.0 710 14.0 39.0 32.0 61.0 14.0 33.0 33.0 Total spin NO 30.7% 47.3% 47,3% 9.3% 26.0% 21,3% 34,0% 9.3% 22.0% 22.0% MaxiinunlGreen(s) 39.2 64.2 642 72 32.2 26.2 44.2 72 262 26.2 Yellow Time (s) 4 8 4.8 4.8 4.8 411 4.$ 4.9 0 0 4.0 Ali -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Last Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 010 010 Total lost Time (9) 04 0.8 6.8 6.9 68 6.8 6.$ 6.8 6A 6.8 Lead"g Lead Lead Lead Leg Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle E4erlslon (s) 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2A 1.0 2.0 2.0 Recall Made Min Wn Min Min Min Min Miry Min Min Min Act Etict Oreen (s) 21,11 21.9 21.9 13.9 13.9 12.9 111 14.3 12.6 12.6 ktualerl grC Ratio 0.25 0.25 0,26 0.16 0,16 0,16 0.13 0.17 0.14 0.14 vA Ratio 0.69 0.74 0.66 0.12 0.61 0,68 0.38 0.14 0.63 0.41 Control Deiay 38.7 41.6 7.6 38.2 43.0 60.7 41.9 34.8 47,0 8.0 Queue balay 0,4 0,01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 010 0.0 0,0 Total Delay 39.7 41.6 7.6 39.2 43.0 60.7 41.9 34.8 47.0 8.0 408 D D A D D D D C D A Approach belay 25.9 42.2 47.8 26.0 a0B-Everglades Blvd- 2020PM 02AU2024Baseline Synchro10Repod Pagel Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1210 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1 . Everglades Blvd & Golden Gate Blvd 02A112020 -'V 4--*--- 4- 4N t o 4 jen 13MO, ESL EST COP 1NBL IIVBT vul R _ - —W-99F � §BL_ J-9I SW Approach LOS C ti D C Queue Length 50th (d) 140 148 0 13 70 k3 M 1 I 58 0 Queu9 Lehglh 96th (It) 292 309 85 46 172 194 107 41 147 43 IrAernal Unk Dist 0) 1637 1162 1 1'I x 878 Turn Say Wort (1I) 440 326 230 410 136 515 Base Capacity4h) 819 1336 1267 232 707 521 flo 132 503 615 Starvallon Cap Raducin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Spilluack rap R.eduCln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Raductn 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vk Rallu 0.38 0.24 0.39 0.12 0,21 0.33 0.09 0.14 0.24 026 hrtersectlon SUMMBr Area Type: 01e1 Cycle Lenglh.160 Actuated Cycle Length:86.4 Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type. Aduated•Uncaordinated MBNtMW v/c F1gNo: 0.74 Intersectton Signal Delay.30.6 Intersection LOS: C inter$SCtt4n C$FMCity Ltilization 602% ICU Level Of Service d Analysis Period (min)16 3 Iits and Phases: 1: Ever lades Blvd & Golden Qale UN \11-10 01 02 04 f 3 �pF • OS � 07 • 08 COB • Everglades Bled • 2020 PM 02111020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1' 1 r'. o 1 211 Bellrrrar Ologe Stewardship Receiving Area - TiS - Section 2 - intersection Analyses - August 2020 Lanes. Volumes, Timings 1: Everglades Blvd & Golden Gate Blvd 02r12n020 EBL EDT EBR WB L W Br 14DL Lane Configurations r Tt M ft r 11 tT f< Traffic 1lofume (vph) 409 427 649 38 140 19 228 91 26 36 169 202 Frdure Volurne (4)h) 409 427 649 3$ 180 19 228 91 25 36 159 202 Idea$ Flow (uphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Lenglll (tt) 440 326 230 230 410 250 236 615 Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length fit) 100 100 100 100 Lane Vil Factor 0.97 0.96 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 097 0% 1,00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Fit 0.860 0.860 0.850 0.950 Ft Protected 0.960 0 460 0.950 0.950 6atd. Flow (prct) 3335 3438 1539 3335 3438 1639 3335 343S 1538 3335 3438 1538 Fit Permitted 0.960 0.960 0.960 0.950 Satd.Flom (perm) 3336 3438 1638 3335 3438 1638 3335 3438 1638 3336 3438 1630 Right Turn on Red Yes Ye$ Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTO R) 03 275 276 276 Unk Speed (mph) 45 46 45 45 unA Distance fit) 787 549 771 720 Tiavet Time (s) 111,9 8.3 11.7 10.9 Peah Hour Factor 0,96 0.95 0.95 0,95 0% 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.9s 0.96 016 095 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 6% 6% M 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 6% Adj Flow (ph) 431 449 683 40 189 20 240 96 26 37 167 213 Shared Lane Traffic CA) Lane Group Flow (rqh) 431 449 683 40 189 20 240 96 26 37 161 213 Turn Type Prot NA Free Prot MA Free Prot NA Free Prat NA Free Protected Phases 1 6 6 2 7 4 3 s Permitted Phases rlee Roe Free Free Delettor Phase 1 6 6 2 7 4 3 & Switch Phase Minimum initial (s) 6.0 12.0 5.0 12.0 6,0 10,0 50 10.0 Afnlmum Split (s) 12.0 43,8 1210 63.4 12.0 43A 12.0 63A Total Split (s) 19.0 65.2 17A $40 23.0 600 17.0 64.0 Total epin (%) 12.7% 36,8% 11.9% 36,0% 16.3% 40.0% 11.30/0 36.0% Maxlrnurn Green is) 12.2 48.4 11.0 472 16.2 532 10.2 47.2 Yeltow Time (s) 44 4.0 4.8 4,8 44 49 4.8 4.9 All -Red Time () 2.0 2.0 2.0 2,0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Last 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 6.9 U 64 6.3 6.8 6A 6.0 Lead"g Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag tag Lead -tag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VehlCle EMenslOh (8) 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2A 1.0 2.0 Recall Made Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7,0 7.0 Flesh font walk 0) 30,0 30.0 30.0 3010 Pedestdan Calls (Mio 0 0 0 0 Act Etict Green 0) 12.2 14 o 70.3 10.2 12.0 70,3 87 10.0 70.3 8.9 10.1 70.3 ktuated g/C Ratio 0.17 020 1.00 0.16 U-17 1,00 0.12 0 14 1.00 0,13 0.14 100 v1c Ratio 0.74 0.66 0.44 0.08 0.12 0.01 0 68 0.20 0.02 0.09 0.34 0 14 Cordrol Delay 37b 30.9 0.9 29.1 279 0A 34.9 29.6 0.0 27.1 297 0.2 Queue Delay OA 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 C30 B • Everglades Bld - 2034 PM no Pi 02A IM20 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1' a g c 1 212 Bellmar Vflfage 5tewordship Receiving Area — PS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Lanes. Volumes, Timings 1: Everglades Blvd & Golden Gate Blvd 02AM020 'A , N >(,- 4, -"' t 1 / j8t1gQl0 EBL EBT EBIR WBL VAT WBR NBL NOT NOR _SOL 6BT 98R Tn1a1 Delay 37.5 30.9 0.9 29.1 27.9 0.0 34.9 29.5 0.0 27.1 297 02 LOS D C A C C A C C A C C A Approach Delay 19.6 26.8 30.7 144 Approach LOS B C C B Queue Length 501h (t) 91 96 0 7 37 0 61 19 0 7 34 0 Queue Length A5111 (t) m63 139 0 23 70 0 x5 42 0 19 64 0 infernal Unk Dist It) 707 469 691 W Turn Bay Length tit) 440 326 230 230 410 250 235 S16 Base Capacity (vph) 679 2369 1 M 546 23t39 1634 769 2603 1638 604 2309 1539 Slaivation Cap Redudn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Splllback Cap Reducln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap RPM& 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.74 0.19 044 0.07 0." 0.01 0.31 0.04 002 0.07 0.07 0.14 Iltterseclion Surrimary Area Type: 01her Cycle Won: Actuated Cycle Length: 79.3 Natural Cycle:146 ConUol Type: Actualed-Uncoordinated Maximum vR Ratio: 0.74 Intersection Signal Delay.20.9 Irdersectlon LOS: C Intersection Capacity 1.11llzatien592% ICU Level of 6ervlce O Analysis Period (min)16 71 95th percentile volume eANCIs capaay, queue may lae longer Queue shown Is maximum after t= cycles, 3 Ills and Phases: 1! Ever lades Sled & Ootden Gate Blvd 01 02 04 NORA —006 1 05 07 • 08 00 B • Everglades Blvd - 2034 PM no PJ 02111 i2020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting 5olutlons, PA P ', 11 1 213 Rellmor 1111age Stewardship Receiving Area - TI5 -Section 2 - Intersection Analyses - August 2020 Lanes. Volumea. Timings 1: Ever lades Blvd & Golden Gate Blvd 02fl2f2020 16911 *DL Lf1IBT WOR NBI Lane C001[}uratlons tt r M TT r "S't tt r M tt F Traffic volume (uph) 409 1001 649 46 645 192 228 91 33 300 169 202 Frrture Volume (u1m) 409 1001 649 46 545 192 228 91 33 300 169 202 Ideal Flaw (phpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 ftrage Lf�ngth (1t) 440 325 230 230 410 250 236 $16 Storaga Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length 0) 100 100 100 100 lane Oil FaCtpr 0.97 0.96 1.00 0,97 0.96 1,00 0.97 0.96 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Fit 0,850 0.860 0.850 0,850 FIf Protected 0.960 0.960 0.960 0.950 Said, Pow(prot) 3335 34U 1638 3335 3438 1638 $336 3438 i538 3335 3438 IS38 Ftf Permitted 0960 0.96o 0-$60 0,950 Satd F1oin (perm) 3336 3438 163E 3336 3438 163$ 3336 3436 1638 MIS 3438 1638 Wght Turn an Fled Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd Fbw(RTOR) 413 276 276 275 Link Speed (mph) 46 46 45 45 Link Distarice 0) 787 649 771 720 Travel Time (s) 1119 $2 11.7 109 Peak Hour Factor 0,96 0,95 0.96 0,95 0.96 0,95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles (4 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% Adj.flow (uph) 431 10S4 683 4$ 574 202 240 96 36 316 to? 213 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Gmuli Flow (�Vh) 431 1054 683 4$ 674 202 240 98 36 316 167 213 Turn Type Prot NA Free Prat NA Free Prot NA Free Prat NA Free Protected Phases 1 6 6 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases Prea Free Free Free Detector Phase 1 6 6 2 7 4 3 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 6.0 12.0 6.0 12.0 5,0 too 6.0 10.0 Winlmum Va (a) 12.0 43.8 12.0 63.8 12.0 43.8 12.0 63.8 Total Split (s) 19.0 55.2 17.$ 64.0 23.0 60.0 17.0 64.0 TOW l3plk CIA) 121% 361% 11.9% 36.00/9 16.3% 40.0% 112% 36.0% Maximum Green (s) 12.2 48.4 11.0 47 2 16.2 63.2 10.2 47.2 Yellow Tone (6) 4$ 4.8; 4.$ 4.$ 4A 4•0 4.$ 4.$ Al -Red Time (S) 2.0 2,0 2.0 2,0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2,0 last Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 r 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (9) 6.$ 6.$ 6.0 6 $ 6.4 6.8 6.8 6.8 Laadit.ag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ve1110e Eklensr0n (S) 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 Recall Made Miry Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk t5) X0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Pedestrian Calls (0hr) 0 0 0 0 Act Eltct Green (s) 12.3 36.9 9o.$ 5.4 24.9 90A 10.7 10.1 90.8 12.0 11.4 94.8 Acluated gIC Ratio 0.14 0.35 1.00 0.06 0,32 1.00 0.12 0.11 1.00 0.13 0,13 10 Vh Rat10 0.95 0.79 044 0.24 0.53 0.13 0.61 0,26 0.02 0.71 0.39 0.14 Control Delay 731 28.7 0.9 47.0 27.0 02 46.2 41.7 0.0 48.6 417 0.2 Queue Delay 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0,0 GOB • Everglades Bled • 2034 PM w Pi 0211112020 Baaellne Synchro 10 Report Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1214 13ellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS --Section 2— In tersection Analyses —August 2020 Lanes. Volumes, Timings 1: Everglades Blvd & Golden Gate Blvd 02AM020 '# t LSN ofwp EBL EBT EBIR I AL WBT W6R NBL '' SBL 687 8BR Total Delay 73.9 28.7 0.9 47.0 27.0 0.2 46.2 41.7 0,0 48.6 417 02 LOS E C A o c A D D A 17 D A Approach [play 28.9 21 X 40.3 32.1 Approach LOS C c D C Queue Length 601h (e) 125 260 0 13 136 0 57 26 0 90 46 0 queue 1_e1`10i19611 (h) #Q74 382 0 36 202 0 119 69 0 160 91 n internal 1i Dist (11 707 499 691 640 Tum Bay Length ¢t) 440 326 230 230 410 260 235 616 Bate Capacity "h) 462 1860 1638 408 1804 1639 600 2034 4638 442 1804 15" Staivatlon Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillbacic Cap k8ductn 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 vk Ratio 0.95 0.67 0,44 0.12 0.32 0.13 0.40 005 0.02 0.71 0.09 014 Intersection Summ3 Area type. Other Cycle Lenylh: '150 Actuated Cycle Length: 90.8 Natural Cycle:145 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordhated Nlaximurn vk Ratio: 0.95 Intersection Signal Delay 29.1 Intersection LOS. C Intersection Capacdy lkiration 71 4"X, ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (win)15 # 951h percentile volume exceeds capacdy, queue maybe longer queue Si is maximum after two cycles Splits and Phases: I: Everglades Blvd &0viden Hale Roo O1 1 Oi dos I*' _1? 00 B - Everglades 91v1- 2034 I'M w PJ 02111 n02O Baseline Sync hro'10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA I' " r 1' 1 225 8ellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — 77S —Section 2— Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Golden Gate Blvd & 1611h St NE Intersection HCM 2010 TVVSC 1: 161h St NE & Golden Gate Blvd 02/1012026 �nterset:tlon Int Dday, slveh 1 9 • Movement E13L EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR N13L N©T NOR_ SBL SOT S13R Lane C0nrguraii0ns ) ?} e ) Tt l' 4- 4 jr TraUtc Vol, vehlll 9 287 8 10 1317 0 57 0 6 0 2 16 Futum Vd,vehlh 9 287 8 10 1317 0 57 0 6 0 2 16 Confliding Peds. Whir 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Contid Free Flee Free Free Free Free Slop Stop Slop Stop Slop Slop RT Clianndizad - None None Nona None Slorage Length 280 160 250 160 10n Veil in Median Storage, N - a - - 0 0 0 Grads, % 0 0 - - a - 0 Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 41 91 HeavyVehides, % 2 10 29 2 5 2 8 2 2 2 2 7 Mvir n0W 10 315 9 11 1447 0 63 0 7 0 2 18 MWIMuwr miyorI WW2 Minorl Mini Cofiflm,litlgFlamAll 1447 0 0 324 0 0 1082 1804 158 IFW IB13 724 Slago 1 - - - 335 335 1469 1469 Stage 2 - 747 1469 175 344 C7ihcsl11 4.14 4.14 766 654 694 754 6.54 704 Critical FldWy Sig 1 6.66 554 6.54 5.54 Crilicd Fldrry $ig 2 6.66 5.54 6-54 5 54 rdlow-UPHdwy 2.22 2.22 3.58 4.02 3.32 3.62 4.02 3.37 Pot Cap. 1 Maneuver 464 1233 lti4 79 859 65 78 357 Stage I - 636 641 - 134 190 Stags 2 - 358 190 806 635 - Platoon 1AC"ket1 °/b MOV Cap-1 M3netNer 464 1233 149 77 859 63 76 357 MovCap -2Maneuvey 149 77 63 76 Stage 1 622 627 131 168 Stage 2 333 186 783 621 Approach E8 WE NB Be HCM Control Delay, s 0 4 0 1 42 9 19.6 "CM LOS E C Minor LanelMa or Mvm1 NBLn 1 EBL 58T EBR WOL W0T VVBR SOU Sl3tn2 Capacity (veh+lr) 162 464 1233 76 357 KM kane VIC Ratio 0427 0021 0000 0029 0049 HCM Control Delay (s) 42.9 112.9 79 538 156 HCM Lane LOS E 8 A F C HCM 951h °Mile Q(Veh) 1.9 01 D 01 0.2 16th • GGS • 2020 AM 02/1112020 Basdino Synchro 14 Report Page 1 Trebllcock Consulting Solutions, PA I' a r e 1 216 Rellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 -- Intersection Analyses —August 2020 HCM 2010 TWSC 1: 16th 5t NE & Golden Gate Blvd 020012020 fntmechon Int Uday, slvoh 13 Mbvenrent EFIL EBT EBR WBL WBT W@R NBL NBT NUR S8L 5@T SBR LaneConhgurahons ) TT r ►f TT F $. 4x if Traffic Vol. vehlh 13 412 12 15 t887 0 82 0 9 0 3 23 Future Vd, vehlh 13 412 12 15 1887 0 82 0 9 0 3 23 Canflicbng Peds, Whf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free FreL f-ree Free Free Slop Slop Slop Slop Slop Slop RT Channellzed - None None None None ,Storage Length 280 160 250 150 10U Veh In Me6ian Storage, N- 0 0 0 0 Gm de. % - 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Faclor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mvml Raw 14 434 13 16 1986 0 86 0 9 0 3 24 MajoriMinor Majorl Melar2 Minor WoQ Conti ding Flow Al 1986 0 0 447 0 0 1489 2480 217 2263 2493 993 Stage 1 - - • 462 462 - 2016 2016 Stage 2 1027 2018 . 245 475 Critical H&y 4.2 4.2 7.6 6.6 7 76 6.6 7 Crdlcd HftyStg 1 6.6 5.6 - 6.6 5,6 - Crrtical Hdkvy 5tg 2 6.6 5.6 - 6.6 5.6 Fdlow-upHcfrry 2.25 225 3.55 4.05 3.35 3.55 4.05 3.36 Pol Cap-1 Maneuver 275 1089 -•83 26 778 21 27 239 Stage 1 541 566 - 58 97 - stage2 - - 245 97 728 548 - Fla loop) Uacketl % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 275 1089 - - -64 26 778 20 25 239 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 64 26 - 20 25 - Stage 1 613 628 65 96 slage 2 210 96 6113 520 Approach E8 WB N@ 5@ HCM Control Delay s 06 01 $ 3a5 6 386 HCM LOS F E Mum Landitor Mw:it NBLn l EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SE 1 SBUI Capacity (vetUh) 70 275 1089 25 239 HCM Lane WC Ralie 1.368 0.06 0 014 C 126 0 101 HCM Control Oday (s) $ 335 6 18.8 64 1608 216 HCM Lane LOS F C A F C HCM 95th Wile Q(veh) 78 02 0 04 0.3 Notes - VLlu111e exceeds capeedy S Delay exceeds 306s + Compulation Not Defined '. Al major volwne In platoon 16th - GG@ - 2034 AM no PJ 0211 V2020 Baseline 5ynchro 10 Reporl Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P I r L. 1 217 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TJS -Section 2 - Intersect►an Analyses -August 2020 Lanes, Volufnes, Timings 1 : 1 Gth St NE & Golden Gate Blvd ri5715f2020 Lane Group 59L EOT ERR VV8L WOT WOR NBL NOT NBR, SBL SOT OR Lane Configurations tt r tt r rya 4 r Ironic Volume (Lph) 13 412 12 15 1881 0 82 0 9 0 3 23 Frrlure Volume (vph) 13 412 12 16 1887 0 82 0 9 0 3 23 Ideal Flow �phpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length fit) 280 160 260 160 0 0 0 100 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 Taper Length 0) 50 60 26 26 Lane Ulil Factor 1.00 0415 1,00 1.00 0.S6 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1100 1.00 Fit 0.850 0.987 0.850 Fit Protected 0960 0.960 0.967 Satd, FtOw ({trot) 1719 3438 1638 1719 3438 1810 0 1709 0 0 1810 1638 Ft Permned 0.069 0,600 0.744 Said, row (perm) 125 3438 1538 905 3438 '1910 0 1329 0 0 1810 1638 fZg1 t Turn on Red No Yes No No 8atd, Frooi(RTOR) Link Speed (mph) 45 46 46 46 Link Distance (1t) 1083 607 602 633 Travel Time (s) 16.4 912 9.1 9.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 6.96 0.05 0 96 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.95 Heavy vehicles N 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 5% 6% 6% Ad]. flow (uph) 14 434 13 16 1986 0 4 0 9 0 3 24 Shared Lane Tratlic (%) Lane Group Flaw (tips) 14 434 13 16 1936 0 0 96 0 0 3 24 Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm-0 NA Perm Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 4 4 8 Detector Please 1 6 6 6 2 2 4 4 8 8 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 6.0 6.0 5,0 5,0 5.0 5.0 5,0 6.0 5,0 5,0 5.0 Minimum Spin (s) 10.6 236 23.6 10.6 23.6 23.5 23J5 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 Total Split (S) 10.6 56,0 66,0 10.5 56.0 56.0 23.6 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.6 Total Split (%) 117% 62.2% 02.2% 11 7% 62.2% 62,2% 26J% 26.1% 26.1% 26-1% 26,1% Maximum Green (S) 6.0 60.5 $0.5 5.0 60.6 50.6 18.0 18.0 18.0 I8.0 18A Yellow Time (s) 35 3b 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3,5 3,5 3.6 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.6 Lost Time A dIlISi (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total LoM Time (s) 6.5 5.6 5.5 5.9 5.6 6.5 6.5 5.5 56 LeadlLag toad Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lsad•Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle EaderWon (s) 3A 3.0 3A $ 0 3.0 3-0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None Min Min None Min Min None None Norte None None Walk Time (s) 1.0 7.0 ?A 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Cogs (ONhr) 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 Act Etfd Green �) 692 59.6 69.6 59,2 69.6 11.0 10.8 10.8 Acluated 91C Ratio 0.74 0-76 0.76 0.74 0.76 014 0,14 0.14 vk Ratio 0,07 017 0.01 0,02 0.77 0.52 0 01 0,12 Control Delay 4.4 6.1 61 4-1 13.0 42.1 283 30.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 I Oth - GC O - 2034 AM no PJ improved 05n 62020 Basellne SynChro IQ Report Page 1 Trehilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 .1 n o 1 218 Belln)ar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2D2Q Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: 161h St NF & Golden Gate Blvd 0511512020 --* 4, 4� t / Lane Group E81. ERT EBR NAVE tnr8T WBR NBL SBL SBT 8BR Total Delay 4 s 6.1 0.1 4.1 13.0 42.1 28.3 30.4 LOS A A A A B d C C Approach Delay 6.1 12.5 42.1 302 AW08Ch LOS A a D C Queue Lerlglh 50th (1) 2 2e 1 2 272 44 1 10 Queue Length Kth P) 7 93 it 8 #181 94 9 33 Internal Unit Dist (h) 1003 627 622 563 Tum Bay Length fit) 260 160 250 100 Base CBpaliy (uph) 194 2571 1150 724 2671 302 412 360 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spill back Cap Rodvctn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reduttn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced We Ratio 007 0.17 0.01 0.02 0.77 6 3 I 0.01 0.07 Nitersectlon Summary Area TYPO. Other Cycle Length 90 Aclualad Cycle Length: 70.6 NAturol Cycle 90 Control Type: Actuated-ftowdlnated Maximum vk Ratio, 0.77 tntersectlon 9lgnal Delay, 122 Intersection LOS B Intersection CapacOy U+Uzalion 76.2% ICu L9vei of Semite O Anelysls PBtlod (min)16 if 961h percentile volume emee0s capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue shown Is maxlmum alter two tygles. i Ids and Phases: 1:16th 8t N� & 4old®n Oate Blvd lJ 1 02 03 1111011— 16th - GG 8 - 2034 AM no Pi improved QWQ020 Welln8 Synchro 10 Repart Page 2 Trebllcock Consulting Solutions, PA 11 a S e 1 219 ©ellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area -- TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analyses -August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1 : 1 G1h St NE & Golden Gate Blvd WIU2020 --* --p. --* t �► 1 We d=P EBL EBT CAR WOL WBT WBR NBL N T NOR SBL 89T 899 Lane Cor111quialivns ►j tt r I Tit r 41. 4 Traffic Volume (ysh) 13 690 12 16 2302 64 82 0 9 26 3 23 Future volume (ij)}i) 13 590 12 16 2382 64 $2 0 9 26 3 23 ideal now {phpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Sloraga Lengilt (it) 2$0 160 260 160 0 0 0 100 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 Taper Length ('f) 60 60 25 26 Lane U111 Pactor 1.00 0.95 1 A0 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 Fit 0.860 0.860 0.987 Fit Protected 090 0,960 0.967 0,967 Said. Fldw (prat) 1719 3438 I Q8 1719 UU 163$ 0 1709 0 0 1732 1638 Fit Permitted 0.60 0.413 0,726 0,753 Said. Flow(perm) 125 3438 163$ 747 3438 1538 0 12% 0 0 1363 1638 Oht Turn on Red NO Yes No No Said. Flow (RTO R) 97 Link Speed (mph) 45 46 45 4$ Unk Distance (it) 1083 607 602 633 Travel Time (s) 16A 9.2 9.1 9.6 Peek Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.95 0 96 005 0.95 0.96 0.95 Heavy Vehicles (%) IM 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 6% SA 6% 60,i6 6% 6% Ad). Flow (mph) 14 621 13 16 2507 67 s6 0 9 26 3 24 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane G10uP Flow (iph) 14 021 13 16 2607 67 0 96 0 0 29 24 Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm prroo NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 6 2 4 9 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 4 S 8 Detector Phase 1 6 6 6 2 2 4 4 8 8 8 Switch Phase MinimominWal(1) 6.0 50 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 SA 6.0 5,0 5.0 6.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.6 23.6 23.6 10.6 23.6 23.6 23.5 23.5 23.6 23.6 23.5 Total Split (s) 10.6 56.0 56.0 10,6 66.0 66.0 23.6 2aS 23.5 235 23.6 Total Split (PA) t1 7% 62.2% 62.2% 11.7% 622% 622% 26.1% 26,1% 26.1% 26.1% 26.1% Maxlmurn Green (s) 5,❑ 50.6 60.6 6,0 60.6 50.5 18.0 18.0 1$.0 19.0 1$,0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.6 3,6 3,6 3,6 AI-REd Time (s) 2.0 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 OA 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 Tolai Lost Time (9) 6.5 5.6 6.5 6.6 5.5 6.6 5.6 S.6 6.5 Leadll-ag Lead Leg Lag Lead Lag Lag Dead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle EAension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 a.o 3.0 3.0 Recall Made None Min Min None Min Min None None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7,0 Flash Dent Walk (5) 10 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11,1) 11.0 11.0 -11.0 Pedestrian Calls (00 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 0 0 0 Act 00 Gri3en (s) 68.6 68.9 681 60 58.9 68.9 11.1 10.9 109 Actuated 91C Ratio 0.74 0,74 0,74 074 0,74 0,74 014 0.14 0,14 vk Ratio 0.07 0.24 0.01 0.03 0.93 0.06 0.62 0.16 0,11 Control Delay 4A 6.5 6,1 4.2 29a 1.0 42.1 31.0 30.0 Queue Delay 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 16th - GGa - 2034 AM Improved w PJ 0511512020 Baseline SyrlChro 10 Report Page 1 Trehilcock Consulting Solutions, PA I' i g i' 1 220 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T15 —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1' 161h 5t NV & Golden Gate Blvd 05fl52R2R _j* __V '(- 4_ 4\ t r* Lanaeraup VOL EBT EBR WBL IWBT WBR NBL NBT NBR 82L 68T _ 8B_R Total Delay 4 $ 56 6.1 4.2 28.9 10 42.1 31.0 $0.0 Los A A A A C A ❑ C C Approach Way 5.5 24.0 42,1 30.6 Approach Los A (I D C Queue Length 501h Qt) 2 43 1 2 " 5a$ 0 42 12 10 Queue Length 9$lh M) $ 122 it $ HI089 10 94 37 33 internal unit Dist Qt) 1003 527 522 563 Turn Bay Length fit) 200 160 250 160 100 Base Capacity(vph) 104 2660 1146 616 2560 1170 297 312 352 Starvation Cap Reducin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Splllback Cap Reducln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vt Rana 007 0,24 0.01 0A3 0 9$ 0,06 0.32 0.09 0,07 lihmsectlan summary Area Type: Other Cycle Len5h:90 klualed Cycle Length, 79 1 Natural Cycle 140 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vk Ratio:0 98 Irrtersection Signal Delay: 241 Intersection LOS C tntersecllon Capacity 4liliza!Wn 88,9°k, ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 Volume exceeds capacty, queue Is theoretically infinite Queue shown is maximum attertwo cycles, N 951h percentile volurne exceeds capacity, queue may be Longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 3 Ins and Phases: 1:16th St NE &Golden Gate Blvd 01 02 t04 05 �hJB ♦ 03 16111 - GG B - 2034 AM Improved w PJ 0511512020 Baseline Synchro 10 Deport P age 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a r; e 1221 BellmorVillage Stewardship Receiving Area TIS—Section 2—IntersectionAnalyses —August 2020 HCM 2010 TWSC I ; 161h St NE & Golden Gate Blvd 02110/2020 lnlersec4on lilt belay, SIVeh 1.1 Movement EBL. EBT EBR WSL 111181 WSR NBL NST NOR SBL 561 58R Lane Configurations ) tt r I TT r 4r 4 r Traffic Vol. vehlh 28 1240 34 5 458 3 17 0 8 3 0 4 Future Vd,vehlh 26 1240 34 5 458 3 17 0 8 3 0 4 Conlicting Peds, Whr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Slap Stop RT Channehzed - None None None None Storage Leoglh 280 160 250 160 100 Veh in Median Slorage, el- 0 0 0 4 Grade, % 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Faclar 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy VehAss, 916 2 5 3 2 7 2 2 2 43 2 2 2 Mvml Row 29 1305 36 5 482 3 18 0 8 3 0 4 MajorlMinpr Milan Melarl Minor MIna2 Conflichng AowAl 486 0 0 1341 0 0 1614 1858 653 1203 1891 241 Stage - 1363 1363 - 4W 492 Stage 2 251 495 - 711 1399 CrIflcal Hdwy 4.14 4.14 754 654 776 754 6.54 694 Critical H" Slg 1 554 5.54 - 654 5 54 C{Iticd Hdwy Sig 2 - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6,54 5.54 Follow-upHchvy 222 2.22 352 402 3.73 352 4.02 332 Pot Cap. I Meoeuver 1074 510 69 73 326 140 69 760 Stage I - 156 214 - 527 546 - Stage 2 - 731 544 - 390 206 - Naloo) tUocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1074 510 - 87 70 325 133 66 760 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 67 70 133 66 Stage 1 152 208 513 541 Stage2 720 54 $70 200 Approach EB WB NS SB HCM ConhdDelay. s 02 01 CA 196 HCM LOS F C Mimi Landitor Wall: NBLnI ESL EBT EBR WBL W11T WBR SBUI SBLh2 Capacity (Yell!") 90 Vol 510 133 750 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.292 0.027 0.01 0 024 0 000 HCM Conlyd Delay (s) 608 B.4 12.1 327 98 HCM Lane LOS F A B D A HCM 951h %do 0(veh) 1 1 01 0 01 0 161h -GGB - 2020 PM 02111/2020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page I Tre611coc& Consulting 5olutlons, PA I' L I. 1 222 8ellmar Village Stewardshlp Receiving Area - Ti5 -Section 2- Intersection Analyses -August 202D HCM 2010 TWSC 1: 16th St NE & Golden Gate Blvd 02110/2020 Intarsecllon liltuelay, rJVeh 8.7 Movement ESL EST ESR YVBL WBT 1N8R NBL NBT NBR SBL SHT 5BR Lane Configuraliom 11 TT r ) TT a 4- 4 if Tralric Vd, vehlh 41 1777 49 8 $57 5 25 0 12 5 0 6 FutureVel.vohih 41 1777 49 8 657 5 25 0 12 5 0 B Conliichng Peds,lkhr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Ftee Free Free Free Stop Slop Slop Slop Stop Stop RT Channelaed - None None None Nona Storage Length 280 160 250 1W 100 Veh In Median Storage # - 0 - 0 0 0 + Grade. % 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy vehicles, % 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mvmt Row 43 1871 52 8 692 5 26 0 13 5 0 8 MatorlMinar Ma1or1 ftr2_ _ Mmgrl Mrnor+2 Condichng Flow All 697 0 0 1923 0 0 2319 2670 936 1730 2717 $46 Stage - 1957 1951 - 708 708 - Stage 2 - 362 713 . 1022 2009 CrilleEtHdWy 4.2 42 76 6.6 7 7.6 6.6 7 t`nhcal HrFWyStg 1 6.6 56 - 6.6 5.6 - C1u icef Hdmy Stg 2 6,6 516 - 6.6 5.6 Follow-up HdWy 2Z 225 355 4.05 3.35 3.55 4.05 3 35 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 875 292 -19 21 261 55 20 641 Slage1 - 63 105 - 385 429 - Stage 2 - 621 426 - 247 99 - Fla loon blocked, % Mov Cap -I Maneuver 875 - 292 - - - 18 19 261 49 19 641 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 18 19 - 49 10 Stage 60 100 366 417 Stage 2 5% 414 223 94 Awcach EB Wg NS 5B HCM Conlrol Delay. s 02 02 S 580 G 454 HCM LOS F E Mmor Lane/Major Mvrnt NBLnl EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SUn2 Capacity(vehlh) 26 875 292 49 641 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 1.498 0 049 0 029 0 107 001 HCM Control Wsy (S) $ 5809 9.3 177 n71 107 WCM Lane LOS F A C F B HCM 951hWileg(veh) 47 02 01 03 0 Notes - VlAume exceeds capacity V Delay exceeds 300s + Computalmn Not Defined ' All rnalor volume us platoon _ 1 161h - GGS - 2034 PM no PJ 02/110020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report 11'1wE I Trehllcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1' •) 1 ?23 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -Intersection Analyses -August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 16th SI NE & Golden Gate Blvd 05fd6r2020 Lartt3rodp E L EST EBR WSL 1MBT WBR NBL NBT 14BR _ 88L SOT SOR Lane Coitliguralions I Tf r 4j Tf jy + 4 0 Traffic Volume (vph) 41 1777 49 a 667 6 25 0 12 5 0 6 Figure Volume (vph) 41 1777 49 8 667 5 25 0 12 6 0 6 Ideal Flow (Arphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length 0) 280 160 260 160 0 0 0 100 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 Taper Length qt) 5o 60 26 25 Lane All Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 AO 1.00 1.00 Fit 0ASO 0.050 0,966 Q.W) Fit Protected 0960 0.960 0.00 0.960 Said. Flour (prct) 1719 3438 16a 1719 3438 t538 0 1673 0 0 1719 1638 Fit Permitted 0.371 0.040 0,797 0.09 Said. Flow(pean) 671 3438 1638 145 3438 1538 0 1377 0 0 1609 1638 Right Turn on Red No Yes No No Said. Ftow(RTOR) 97 Lank Speed (mph) 45 46 46 45 Link }stance Qt) 108 607 602 633 Travel Time (a) 16.4 9.2 9.1 0 Peak HourFaclor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0,95 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.96 Heavy Vehlcles (%) 6% 5% 6% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 6% 511A Ail). Flow (uph) 43 1td71 52 8 692 5 26 0 13 5 0 6 Shared Lane Tragic (%) Lane Group Flow (u)h) 43 1971 52 8 692 5 0 39 0 0 5 6 Turn Type pinIx NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 1 0 6 2 4 S Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 4 S 6 Detector Phase 1 6 6 6 2 2 4 4 8 8 $ Swgch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 6A 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5,0 5.0 5.0 Mlnlrnum Spill (a) 10.6 23.6 23.6 10.6 235 235 23.5 23,6 22.6 23.5 23.6 Total Split (s) 10.6 66,0 60.0 10.6 66.0 66.0 23.6 23.6 2a.5 23.6 23,6 Total Spin C/6) 11.74A 62.2% 62.2% 11.7% 62.2% 62.2% 26.1% 26.1% 26.1% 26.1% 26.1% p4@Aaiiim Green (g) 6.0 60,6 60.6 6,0 50.6 50.5 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Yedlow Time (s) 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.6 as 3,6 Ali -PRO Time() 20 20 2.0 20 2.0 20 20 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 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5b U 6.5 5.6 6.6 6.5 6.5 5.6 6.6 LeadlLag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vahlcle Eldenslon (s) 3.0 3,o 3A 3'0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Made None Min Mn None Mln Min None None None None None Walk Time (a) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.o Pas nDontWalk (s} 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11,0 11.0 1'10 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (flint) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ki LHct Green (s) 52.3 543 64.3 50.3 60.6 60.6 7.6 7.4 7.4 Actuated g1C Ratio 0,79 0.92 0A2 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.11 0.11 0,11 Vk Matzo 0.07 0.66 0.04 0,03 0.26 0.00 0.26 OW 0.04 Cordial delay 2.9 tr.2 4.2 3.2 6.8 0.0 34 A 30.6 30.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 161h - 00 B - 2034 PM no PJ tmproved 06OR020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Treblleaek Consulting Solutions, PA P a R e 1224 Sellniar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — Ti5 — Sectioln ,2 — intersection Analyses --August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1. 161h St N l= & Golden Gate Blvd 05116/2020 .,* ,-'t (-+-- 4,4., t �► 1 / Lane GrOUP EBL EBT EBR 1NBL UAT wBR NoL NBT NBR SBL SOT 889 Total Delay 2.9 8.2 42 3.2 G.$ 0.0 X13 We 304 LOS A A A A A A C C C Approach Delay 7.9 6.8 34.9 301 Approach LOS A A C C Queue Length both (h) 4 186 6 1 72 0 18 2 3 QLleLle Length 5th 0) 12 615 23 4 112 0 47 12 14 Internal Link Dist It) 1003 527 622 663 Turn Bay Length It) 2$0 160 260 160 100 Basa Capacity(vph) 611 2766 1237 233 2694 1220 3$9 464 434 Starvation Cap Reducln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spiliback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Redutedvh"lo 0.07 0,6$ 004 0,03 0.26 0.00 010 0.01 0.01 irwsactton sumtoa Area T1pe; other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 66.3 Natural Cyde 90 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vk Ratio; 0 66 Irdeisection Signal Delay: 7.9 Irderseellan Los. A Inter M;Orl Capacity QI11zat1Dn07.1% ICU Level of Senhce C Analysts Period (mtn)16 3 llls and Phases: V 10h St NE &U0lden pale eivd 01 02 04 05D6 T ae 161h - 000 - 2034 PM nD PJ Improved 0512012020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1225 BeUrnor Vllloge Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2- Intersection Analyses -August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1 ; 161h St NE & Golden Gate Blvd a6n6rza2a Lane Group t13L t t3T EBR WBL WBT Wil( ' eL_ _ BBfi_--_YON Lane Caniiguralions I tT jr I tt r 4. 4 r Traffic Volume (uph) 41 2276 49 8 971 48 26 0 12 72 0 6 Ftiture Volume (4ih) 41 2276 49 8 971 48 25 0 12 72 0 6 ideal Flow Nplipl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (1t) 200 160 260 160 0 0 0 100 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 Taper Length (r) 5o 60 26 26 Lane lull . Factor 1.00 a.96 1.00 1,00 0.96 1,00 1.00 1 A0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Fit 0.860 0.060 0.966 0.a60 Fit Protected 0.950 0.960 0,962 0.960 Satd. Rovi (prat) 1719 3438 1638 1719 3438 1638 0 1673 0 0 1719 16N Fit Permitter! 0.23$ 0.073 0.753 0.732 Satd. FLOW (Perin) 431 343$ 15a$ 132 3438 1638 0 1 301 0 0 1326 1538 Wght Turn on Red No Yes No No Satd. Row (RTO R) 97 link Speed (mph) 46 46 46 45 Link Distance 0) 1083 $07 602 633 Travel Time (s) 16A 9.2 9.1 96 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 096 0.95 0 95 0.96 0.95 0.96 0 96 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.95 Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 60A 5% 6% 5% 5% 6% 6% 5% 6% 6% 6% Adj. RUN (upn) 43 2396 52 8 1022 51 26 0 13 76 0 6 Shared lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (tiph) 43 23% 52 8 1022 61 0 39 a 0 76 6 Turn Type pm-" NA Perm pm-0 NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 6 2 4 8 Parmthed Phases 6 5 2 2 4 $ is Defector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 4 4 8 8 8 SvAlCtl Phase Minlmurn frlllal (S) 5,0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 10,6 23.6 23,6 105 23.6 23.6 23.5 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 Total Split (S) 10.6 56.0 56.0 10.5 56,0 66.0 23.5 21.6 2a.5 23.6 2a.6 Total epld CA) 117% 622% 621% 11.7% 622% 62.2% 26.1% 261% 261% 26,1% 26,1% Maximum green (s) 6-0 60.6 60.5 6.0 50.6 60.6 18,o 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 ais U 3.6 3.6 3.6 All -Red Time (s) 2,0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost lime Adjust (s) 0-0 0.0 0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6,6 6.6 55 5.5 5.5 S.6 5.6 6.5 5.5 LeadlLag Leed Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lsad•L,39 Oolmi2e9 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle EAensfon (s) 3.0 3jo 3,0 0 3-0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 Recall Mode None Min Min None Min Min None None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7,0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash EontlAralk (5) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11,o 11.0 11.0 11,0 11.0 Pedestrian calls (Ohr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green p) 67.8 58.1 W1 65.4 53.6 63.6 9.7 9.8 9.$ Actuated VIC Ratio 0,76 0.75 0-76 0.72 0.69 0,69 013 0,13 013 vlc Ratio 0.11 0.93 0.04 0.04 0,43 0.05 024 0.46 0.03 Control delay 4.1 20.4 6,3 4.2 9.6 0.6 33.6 40.0 29.0 Quoue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0-0 0.0 16th - S3r3B - 2034 PM Improved w PJ a611612020 Baseline SyWhr010 Report Pagel Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 226 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes. Timings 1: 16th SI NE & Golden Gale Blvd asn612020 4\ 1 � Lane Group ESL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NST NBR SSL BST OUR Total Delay 4.1 20A 6.3 4.2 $.6 0.6 33.5 40.0 29.0 LOS A C A A A A C 0 C Approach Delay 19.9 $.1 33.6 39.2 Approach LDS B A C D Queue Length Wh 01) 4 413 6 1 132 0 16 31 2 Queue Length 961h Ot) 16 M81 26 5 210 4 47 7$ 14 Irdemal unti Dist #t) 1003 627 622 663 Tum Bay Length (ft) 280 160 260 160 100 Basa CsPsoly(uph) 407 2508 1167 199 26as 1191 305 311 361 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reducih 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reducln 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vk Ratio 0.11 0.93 0.04 0.04 0.39 0.04 013 024 0.02 Irdersmilon Gummary Area Type: Other Cycle Length 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 77.2 NAural Cycle:130 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v1c Ratio: 0.93 Inlersection Signal Delay 17.0 intersection LOS: S Intersection Capacity Ltilizallon 80.9% ICU Level of SerMe 0 Analysis Pedod (Mtn) 16 # 96111 percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown IS mBklmdm alter two cycles. 3 Ills and Phases 1.161h $t ME KGolden Gate Blvd �- .14t71 02 04 �d5 Safi � d8 16th - 000 -2034 PM Improved w PJ OSAS,'2020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a f' 1 227 aelAnar Vifloge Stewardship Recelving Area - T!S - Section 2 - lntersectlon Analyses -August 2020 Immokalee Rd & Randall Blvd Intersection Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3; 4th St NEIRandall 6Ivd & Immokalee Rd 02110t2020 Lane Group EBL EDT ESR WOL WST WOR NBL NUT NOR SOL _ $6T 8BR _ Lane Cortliguratlons 4- M + I +tf it ) tff f Traffic Volume Nh) 3 2 6 959 2 39 6 74$ 247 60 1$69 0 Riture Volume (uph) 3 2 6 959 2 39 6 748 247 60 1869 0 rdeai now ophpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19DO 1900 1900 Storage Length (it) 0 0 250 0 235 305 450 235 Storage Lanes 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 Taper Length 0) 50 100 50 60 Lane Ulil Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0,91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Fri 0 926 0.982 0,950 Fit Protected 0."7 0.960 Wt 0,950 0AI50 Satd. Flow (prof) 0 1702 0 3189 1674 0 1770 4765 1482 1697 4940 1163 fit Permitted 0$87 0,960 0.96t 0.960 0950 Said. Flow (perm) 0 1702 0 3189 1674 0 1770 4769 141)2 107 4940 1863 Right Turn on Rsd Yes Yes Yes Yea Said. Flour (RT0 R) 6 6 256 Unk Speed (mph) 30 46 45 46 Link Distance (tt) 493 776 719 1028 Travol Time (s) 11.2 11.7 10.0 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 ksaW Vehicles CA 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 6% 2% 9% 9% 7% 50A 2% Adj. Flow (ph) 3 2 s 989 2 40 6 771 255 62 1927 0 Shared lane Traffic (%) 30% Lane Group Flow (Th) 0 11 0 692 339 0 6 771 255 62 1927 0 Turn Type Split NA spot NA Prot NA p14ov Prat NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 4 4 1 G 64 6 2 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 8 8 4 4 1 6 64 6 2 2 Switch phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 1 sA i .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 SPI4 (s) 16.0 16.0 62.0 62.0 13.0 06 6 23.4 69.0 59.0 Total SPIV (°,6) 110.7% 10.7% 41.3% 41,3% $.7% 32,4% 16.60A 39^ 39.3% Maximum Green (s) 9.0 9,0 65,0 55.0 6.0 41,13 16A 62.0 62.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.8 41 4.6 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.$ 4 $ 4.8 All -Rea Time 0) 22 2.2 2.2 22 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 Last Tim aAdjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Lead/lag Lag Lead tag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimizes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes V9hlela Extensmn (s) 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3A 3.0 3-0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min Mln Min Min Mtn Min Walk Time (a) 7.0 70 7.0 Flash DOnI Walk (s) 35.0 350 no Pedesidan Calls (41hr) 0 0 0 Pct Eflct Green 0) 62 37,9 37.9 5.8 28.7 $0.6 29.5 62.4 Actuated 91C Ratio 0.05 0,29 029 0.04 022 0.61 0.23 0.40 vkl Ratio 0.12 0,75 0.14 0,08 0.74 0.29 0,14 0.97 Cord rot aaiay 47.$ 47 0 60.9 67.0 $2.1 1.6 499 63.4 quoue Delay 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 ImMokalee Rd • Randall 810 -2o1 9 AM 021i'112020 Baseline 5ynchro 10 Report Page'I Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P 0 r; F° 1228 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TI5 —section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Lanes. Volumes, Timings 3: 41h St NE/Randall Blvd & Immokalee Rd 0211M020 _11 __*� --* 4_ 1 janpQwtit E9L EBT E8R W6L_ WRT WSR NOL NST NBR 86L SBT $BA _ Total Delay 47 8 47,0 50,9 67,0 62.1 1,6 46.8 PA LOS D D D E D A D D Approach Delay 47.8 48 3 39,7 53,3 Appraactl LOS D D D D Queue Length 601h (R) 4 209 278 6 220 0 36 664 Queue Length 951h (11) 27 30 402 22 290 19 % OW internal Llnk Dlst 11) 413 695 639 948 Turn Bay Length M) 250 235 306 460 ease Capacity (vph) 123 1364 671 81 1628 1143 381 1983 Staivation Cap Reducin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8pillback Cap Redueth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reducin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.09 0.61 01 0.07 0.60 022 0.14 0.97 krtersectlon Summary -- Area Ty je. 011101 Cycle Lenon:150 Actuated Cycl6 L6ngth;130A Natural Cycle 120 Control Type, Actuated -Uncoordinated MaHimum Vk Ratio' 0.97 Intel section Signal Delay 40.6 Intersection LDS D Intersection Capasdy UNzation 79.4% IW level of Service O analysts Perind pn1n)15 #f 950 percentile volume egreeds capacity, clueue maybe longer QU9Ue 9hNNrt IS maXIMUM after tw3 cycles. Splits and Phases: 3, 41h Bt NERandail Blvd mmmekalea Rd 02 0, Viol 8 lmmokalee Rd • Randall Blvd •2019AM 0211UMQ0 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 229 lmmokalee Rd • Randall Blvd •2019AM 0211UMQ0 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 229 Beilmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area - 715 -Section 2 - Intersection Analyses --August 2020 Lanes, Volumes. Timings 3' 4th S NE/Randall Blvd & Immokalee Rd 46R15r2020 Lane Group_= EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT *OR NBL NBT _ NOR _ SOL 8BT 8BR Lane c❑oigurAlons 4# W t. I ?44 r ) TT4 r Tratllc Volume (vph) 4 8 17 e$5 10 216 8 1674 732 216 2050 5 Fr4�+rp Volume (yph) 4 8 17 895 10 216 8 1678 732 216 2050 6 Ideal Flow (ephpl) I900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (tt) 0 0 260 260 235 coo 450 235 Movage Lanes 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length 0) 50 60 60 60 Lane Util . Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 100 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.919 0,856 0.950 0.050 FM Prolected 0993 6,960 0.960 0.950 Satd Flow fprot) 0 1651 0 4849 1649 0 1719 4940 1638 1719 4940 1638 Ft► Permitted 0.993 0$50 0.950 0.960 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1651 0 4848 1649 0 1719 4940 1638 1719 4940 1639 fZgN Turn on Pad Yes No Yes Yes Satd, Flow (RTO R) 18 60-0 131 Unk Speed (mph) 30 46 45 46 Link Dlslanee fit) 493 776 719 1028 Travel Time (s) 11.2 11 7 10.9 16.6 Peak Hour Factol 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0,97 0.97 0.97 0.97 keaw Vehicles () 6% 6% 5% 6% 5% 5% W SOA 5% 6% 6% 5% Ad]. Flow kph) 4 $ 18 923 10 223 8 1730 766 223 2113 6 Shared Lana Trattlt (a6) Lane Gmup Flow oph) 0 ao 0 923 233 0 8 1730 755 223 2112 6 Tum Type spilt NA Split NA Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Protected Phases $ 8 4 4 I 6 6 2 Permitted Phases Free 2 Detector Phase $ 8 4 4 1 6 6 2 2 switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 6,0 6.0 5.0 5.0 160 6,0 16,0 16.0 Minimum Split (8) 12.0 12,0 49.0 49.0 12.0 46,1 12.1 40.0 40.0 Total Spin (5) 12.0 12.0 44.0 44.0 20.0 5$.0 36.0 74,0 74,0 Total Spill (°k) 3.0% 8.0% n2% 292% 1a'a% 3$.7% 24.0% 493% 49-3% Maximum Green (s) 5.0 5.0 37,0 37.0 13.0 60.5 29.0 67.0 670 Yellow Time (s) 4 $ 4.8 4.9 4-8 4.8 4.$ 4.$ 4.8 4.8 All -Pod Time (8) 2.2 2.2 2.2 212 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 Lost ilme Ad(ust 0) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 OV 0.0 Total Last Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7,0 71 7.0 7.0 70 LeadiLag Lag Lead Lag Lead Load Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Nenslon 0) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Rec$11 Mode Min Min Min Mln Min MI n Min Mln Min Walk Time (s) 74 7.0 710 Flash Dont Walk 0) 35,0 36.0 32,0 Pedestrian Calls (0111) 0 0 0 Act Effd Green (s) so 33.3 33.3 9.5 51.1 141.2 23.6 662 66.2 Actuated gic Patio 0,04 0.24 0.24 0,06 0.36 100 0.17 OR OR Vie Ratio 0,40 0,81 0.64 0.08 0.97 0,0 0,78 0.91 0,01 Control Delay 03 67.4 67.8 651 69.6 1.1 16.6 42,6 0,0 Queue Delay 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 010 010 0.0 Irnmokalee Rd - Rwidall 6lvd -2034 AM no Pj 06l1612020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA I' ,1 it o 123D Rellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — lntersectlon Analyses —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: 41n 81 NE/Randall Blvd & Immakalee Rd 05l15f2020 -.,* 4— Lane Ginu E9L EDT ESR W8L W8T WSR NBL NBT NBR 5B1, 613T 98Ft Total Delay 53 <� 67A 67.8 65.1 59,6 1.1 75.6 426 0.0 Los D E E E E A E D A Approach Delay 63,9 67.6 41.9 456 Approach LQs D E D D Queue Length 691h (1t) 11 28$ 194 7 W 0 202 659 0 Queue Length 95th 0) 49 363 300 26 4A58 0 301 01619 0 Internal Llnk Nst (It) 413 996 639 90 Turn Bay Length m) 250 236 500 450 235 Base Capacity (vph) 75 t274 407 168 1746 169 364 2362 $00 Starvation Cap Redudn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback tap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reducin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vic Ratio 0.40 0.72 0.67 0.05 0.97 0.49 0.63 0.90 0.01 Intersection Summary Area Type. other Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Len0h:141.2 Natural Cycle 140 Control Type: Actuated•Uncoard[nated Maximum vh Ratio.0.97 IrdeiseCllon Signal Delay 46.A Interzedlon LOi3', D Intersection Capaclty Wization 06.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (mIn)15 # 95th percentile valurne eraeeds capacity, queue maybe longgr. Queue shown is maximum after two Cycle$. 5 Ills and Phases: 3:41h St NE/Randall Blvd B,Immtlkalee Rd 021.Otoa9 I d6 05 Immakalee Rd • Randall Blvd -2034 AM n0 PI 0511612020 8asaline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a p, e 1231 Bellrnar Village Stewardship Receiving Area - T15 -Section .2 - Intersectlon Analyses -August 2020 Lanes, Volumes. Timings 3:41h SINE/Randall Blvd & Immokalee Rd 451i5l2020 L" umup EBL EBT E95 61t6L WBT WBR NOL NOT NOR SOL ._ SOT 609 Lane Conflyuralions 41 W 1w I W r ) ftf r TraHlc Volume (uph) 4 8 17 $56 10 216 8 1679 761 216 2050 6 Future Vcfurne (w )h) 4 8 17 956 10 216 8 1671 761 216 2050 5 Ideal now Npllpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (H) 0 0 260 260 235 600 450 236 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper length 0) 50 56 50 61) Lane Lllil Factor 1100 1,09 1.00 0.94 1,00 1 00 1.00 6.91 1.00 1,00 0.91 1,00 Fit 0.919 0.866 0,960 0.850 Fit Piotpeted 0.993 0.950 0.$50 0.950 Said now(prol) 0 1651 0 4U8 1549 0 1719 4940 1538 1719 4940 1538 Fit Permiied 0.993 0.%0 0960 0.950 Satd. Flow(perm) 0 1651 0 4848 1549 0 1719 4940 1538 1719 4940 1538 Right Turn on Red Yes No Yes Yes Sato Floini(RTOR) 18 615 131 Unk Speed (mpn) 30 46 45 46 Link DiSlanCe (l) 493 776 719 1028 Travel Time (s) 11.2 11.7 10,9 156 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 097 0,97 0,97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0,97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 6% 5% 5% 6% 5% 6% 5% 50A 5% 5% 6% Add FloA kph) 4 8 is 986 10 223 8 1730 774 223 2113 6 Snared Lane Traffic CA) Lane Group Flow (mph) 0 30 0 096 233 0 8 1730 774 223 2113 6 Tum Typri Split NA Split NA Prat NA Free Not NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 4 4 1 6 2 Permitted Phases Free 2 Dstedor Phase 8 8 4 4 1 Fi 6 2 2 Switch Phasa Minimurn initial (s) 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 16.0 5 4 16,0 16,0 Minhoum Split (a) 12.0 12.0 49.0 49.0 12,0 46.1 12.1 40.0 40.0 Total Split (s) 12.0 12.0 44.0 44.0 20.0 58.0 36 0 74.0 74.0 Tutsl Bplit ('14b) 8.0% 8,00% 294% 29.3% 13.39b 3817% 24.0% O,a% 49,3% Maximum Green (s) 5.0 6.0 37.0 37.0 13.0 50.9 29.0 $7.0 67.0 Yellow Time (s) 48 4.8 43 4.0 4.9 0 44 4,8 0 Al -Red Time (s) 22 2,2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 Last Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 010 Total Lost Time (9) 70 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.0 LoadlLag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle EMettslon (s) 30 3.0 3.0 3-0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Made W) Min Min Mln Min Min Mln Min Min Walk Time (a) 7.0 7.0 7,0 Flash Dont Walk 0) 35,0 36.0 32,0 Pedestrian Calls (Ahr) 0 0 0 Act EHEt Green (s) 5.0 34.0 34.9 9.6 51.0 143.0 24.0 66 6 666 Actuated g1C Ratio 03 0.24 0.24 0.06 0.36 1.00 0.17 OA7 047 Vk. Ratio 0.40 0.$3 4,62 0.08 0.99 0.60 0.77 0,92 0.01 Contras Delay 64.3 581 66.7 66.4 632 1.2 76,8 43,$ 0.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 n,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ImmdRalee Rd • Randall Blvd -2034 AM w PI 0611512020 Baseline $ynchr010 Report Pagel Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1' o i; a 1232 9ellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses -- August 2020 Lanes. Volumes. Timings 3:4th StN2/Randall Blvd & Immokalee Rd o5n5rro20 r 4_ 4\ t /.W ef15Wp e8L E13T_ ERR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NOR SBL 69T GBR Total Delay 64 3 6$,8 5& 7 F5.4 63.2 12 764 43.9 0.0 LOS D E E E E A E D A Approach Delay 64 3 50.4 44.1 46.9 Approach LOS 0 E D 0 Queue Length 501h (t) 11 310 194 7 595 0 206 676 0 Queue Length 95111 F) 49 3S 1 NO 26 *758 0 301 *19 0 Internal Link Dist (tt) 413 696 639 948 Turn Bay Length fit) 250 235 500 450 236 Oase Capacity ( Ph) 76 1256 401 166 1761 1639 349 2319 794 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillbatk Cap Reducin 0 0 d 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Redudn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vk Ralio 0.40 0.19 0.0 0,05 ON 050 0.64 0.91 0.01 Intpxseellon Summary Area Type: Other' Cycle tenoll: 150 Actuated Cycle Length;143 Natural cycle'.140 Cordrol Type, Actuated•Uncoordlnaled Mammum Vk Rat& 0.98 Iraersectlon Signal Delay 01 Intersection LOG: D Intersection Capacity Wizati❑n 86.8% ICQ Level of Service E Analysts Period (min)15 0 951h percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. queue 04wr11s mgstlt om after two cycles. > Ilts and Phases; 3; 4th St NEIRhndall EIUd & Trirnokalee Rd 02 4\ Ot 04 9 t065 Irnmakalee Rd • Randall Blvd -2034 AM IN pI 00SP020 Baseline Syncnro 10 Report Paste 2 TrehIIcock Con suIt] ng Solutions, PA P a g e 1 233 Rellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area - VS -Section 2 - Intersection Analyses -August 2020 Lanes. Volumes, Timings 3: 41h 81 NE/Randall Blvd & Immokalee Rd ra2nono2a UM Gmup €6L bT 08K WOL *11T WOR NBL 14BT NBR SBL 813T 989 Lane Coi*gurallons 414 rj +T# ) +ft r ttf f Tra11iC VOWM8 (uph) 3 0 2 350 4 2$ 8 1904 736 60 732 2 Riture Voluble (ph) 3 0 2 350 4 2$ $ i 904 736 60 732 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 ism 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length fit) 0 0 260 0 236 306 450 235 Storage lanes 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 Taper Length 0) 50 100 60 6o Lane Utll. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1,00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Fit a.946 0.967 0,860 0.$60 Fh Protected 0.971 0.960 0.964 0,960 0.950 Satd.Flow (prol) 0 1711 0 3159 1567 0 1770 49$8 1538 1703 4893 150 Fit Permitted 0971 0.960 0.964 0,960 0.950 Satd Flow(perm) 0 1711 0 3159 1567 0 1770 4%$ 153$ 1703 093 1593 Rlghl Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd, Flow (RTOR) 182 11 769 131 Link Speed (mph) 30 46 45 46 Unk Distance (R) 493 776 719 1029 Travel Time (s) 11.2 11.7 10.9 15.6 Peak Hour Factor OW 0.97 0,97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0,97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Heavy VaNdes (W 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 2% 2% 4% 6% 6% 6% 2% Adj, Flow Oph) 3 0 2 361 4 29 8 1963 769 62 755 2 Shared Lane Tra111c (%) 27% Lane Group Flow (sph) 0 5 0 284 130 0 B 1962 769 62 755 2 Turn Type Splik NA 6p4t NA Prol NA pl-+ov Prot NA Perm PrMpOed Phases 8 8 4 4 1 6 64 6 2 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 11 8 4 4 1 b 64 5 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5,0 5A 5.0 6.o 6.0 16,0 5.0 16.0 15,0 Minimum Spill (s) 12.0 12.0 49.0 49.0 12.0 46,1 12.1 40.0 40.0 Total Split (s) 16.0 16.0 62.0 62.0 13.0 48.6 23A 690 69.0 Total spit (%) 10.7% 10,7% 41 ^ 41.3% 8.7% 32.4% i5.6416 39.A 39. % Maximum Green (s) 9.0 9.0 56A 55.0 6.0 41.6 16.4 62.0 62.0 YellowTime W 4.8 4R 48 4.8 4-9 4.9 4A 48 4A Fll-Red Time (s) 22 2,2 2,2 2.2 22 2,2 2.2 2.2 2.2 Last Time Adjust (s) 0.0 010 010 0,0 0.0 0.0 OA 0.0 Total thtt Time (9) 7,0 70 7.0 7A 7.0 7,0 7.0 7.0 LaadJlag L8g Lead Lag Lead triad Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Nension (s} 30 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3 0 3.0 3.0 Recall Made Min Min Min Min Min Min Mln Min Min Walk Time Is) 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash DOM Walk (s) 36.0 35.0 32.0 Pedestrian Calls (Or) 0 0 0 Act ElictGreen(s) 6.5 1$.0 I80 28.8 41.$ 0t 9.1 22.2 22.2 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.05 0.18 0.18 ON 0,41 0.68 0.09 0.22 0.22 We Ratio 0.02 0.48 0.46 0.02 0.97 0.63 041 0.71 0.00 Control Delay 0.2 41.0 402 32.0 44.4 2.9 53.$ 41$ 0,0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 Immokalee Rd - Randall Blvd -2019 PM 02A 112ON 888ellna Synchto 10 Report Pagel Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P r1 i, F- 12,34 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T1S --Section 2 — Intersettlan Analyses —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: 4111 SIN PRandall Blvd & Immakalee Rd 02rI01ZD20 Lane (31oue EBL EST EBR WSL WBT WBR NBL NOT NOR SBL SOT sBR Total Delay 0.2 41 A 40.2 02,0 44.4 2_<] 53.9 41.5 0.0 LOB A D D C D A P D A Approach Way 0-2 40.7 32 r 42'E Approach L08 A D D Queue Lenoh 50th (h) 0 $5 76 4 446 0 39 161 D queue Length 951h M) 0 132 145 10 A690 25 87 226 0 Internal LIAX Dist (1t) 413 695 839 049 Tum Bay Length (h) 260 235 306 450 236 Base Capacity(uph) 316 1702 $44 496 2032 1361 273 2492 271 5tarvalion Cap Reducin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SplNback Cap Radudn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vie Ratio 0.02 016 0.15 0.02 0.97 0.66 0.23 0.30 0,00 httersection Summ Area Type; Other Cycle Length: 160 Actuated Cycle Len0h;102.6 Natural Cyclw 130 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vk Ratio; 0 97 Intersactton Signal Delay 36.6 Intersedlon LOS. D Intersectton Capachy Uil4zatlon 71 4% ICU Level 01 Service C AhnSysis Period (min) % Al 95th percentile vohirr,e exceeds cap achy, queue may Lae longer Queue shown is maximum after two CyCIeS 3 Ihs and Phases: 3:41h St NEJRandall Elvd Wmmokalee Rd 02 � 01 V! 04 �t]B %1. '*b5 Immakalee Rd - Randall Blvd -2019 PM 024112020 Basellne Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P + a'. N 1235 Rellmar Village Stewordshlp Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 - Intersection Analyses -August 2020 Lanes. Volumes, Timings 3: 4tn St NE/Randall Blvd & Immokalee Rd o5n6rzo2o ­1 --* N 4- *-- *,- fi l COL EDT EDP Lane Coniigurafiors 4. W 1� I ++r F wr f+ + r Traffic Volume (uph) 3 10 6 728 a 176 6 2056 06 176 142 3 Future Volume (uph) 3 10 6 728 8 176 6 2055 896 176 102 3 Ideal Flow (bphpi) 1900 1900 1900 1000 1900 1900 1900 1900 t900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length M) 0 0 260 260 236 600 450 235 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper (pnyh fit) 5o 60 60 60 Lane 'Ail Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0,91 1.00 Fit 0.962 0.866 0.860 0.850 Fit Protected 0,992 0.560 0160 0.960 Satre. Fbw (prat) 0 1727 0 4848 1649 0 1719 4940 1639 1719 4940 1538 Fit Permitted 0.992 050 0960 0.950 Sat(]. Fiow(perm) 0 1727 0 4848 1649 0 1719 4940 1638 1719 4940 1638 Right Turn on Red Yes No Yes Yes Satd. Flom (RT4 R) 5 600 192 Link Speed (mph) 30 46 46 46 Unk Distance 0) 493 775 719 1028 Travel Time (a) 11.2 11.7 10.9 16 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 Heavy Vehicles (04 6% 6% 6% 5% 6% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 61/16 Adj, Flow (uph) 3 10 5 761 8 181 5 2119 924 191 1734 3 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flaw (rVh) 0 18 0 751 189 0 6 2119 924 191 1734 3 Turn Type Split NA Split NA Not NA Free Prat NA Perm Protected Pleases 8 8 4 4 1 6 5 2 Peemilled Phases Flee 2 Detedcr Phase 8 0 4 4 1 6 6 2 2 Sireltch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.O 16,0 6.0 15.0 16.0 Minimum Spilt (s) 12.0 12.0 49.0 49.0 12.0 46.1 12.1 40.0 40.0 Total Split (s) 12.0 12.0 36.0 36.0 43.0 69.0 33.0 59A 59.0 Total Split (Ph) 8.0% 8,0% 24.0% 24.0% 28 7% 46,0% 22.0% 39.3% 39-3% Ma#imurer Green (s) 5.0 5.0 29.0 29.0 36.0 62.0 26.0 52.0 52.0 Yellow Time (s) 4* 4.9 4.8 4.8 44 41 4.8 4A 4.0 All•R6d Time () 2.2 2.2 2.2 2,2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 Last Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Tim@ (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Laadkaq Lag Lead Lag Lead Laad Lead -Lag Optlmlxe7 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VehlOe E*Mfon (8) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode NI1n M41 Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Cunt Walk 0) 36.0 36,0 32.0 Pedestdan Calls (Ohr) 0 0 0 Act 00 Green (s) 5.0 26.9 26.8 29.9 62.2 141.9 19.t 62.2 52.2 Actuated gfCRatio 0,04 0.19 0.19 0.21 0.44 1,00 0.14 0.31 0.37 W, Ratio 0,28 0.82 0.65 0.01 0.98 0.60 0.76 0.95 0.00 Control Delay 66.2 63.8 66-0 44.2 64.6 1.7 79.2 67.0 0.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 O,o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Imrnokaiee Rd • Randall Elvd -2034 PM no Pj OSA572020 Baseline Synfto 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a is e 1 236 Selfmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — US--Sectfon 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Lanes. Volumes. Timings 3: 4(h St NEYRandail Blvd & IMmokalee Rd o niroza Lane otoup EBL EBT EBR WaL W BT WEIR NEIL --ROT MR 80L SOT M Total Delay 66 2 63,8 65.0 44.2 64.6 1.7 i9.2 57.0 u,o LOS E E E 0 D A E E A Approach Delay 662 64.0 38.6 69.0 Approach LOS E D Ili Queue Length 501h (it) 12 230 164 4 720 o 1166 606 0 queue Length 951n (h) 42 302 261 16 moo 0 251 K47 0 Idernat L M Did fit) 413 695 639 449 Tum Bay Length (it) 254 235 544 460 236 9ase Capadly "h) 65 994 317 437 2165 1638 315 1816 680 Starvation Cap Reducin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 spillpack Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vIc Ratio 0.28 0.76 000 0.01 0198 060 0.57 0,06 0,00 Wersecllon Summary _ Area Type. Other Cycle Length:150 Actuated Cycle Lenglh-141.9 Natural Cycle.150 Control Type: Actuated -uncoordinated Maximum Vic Ratio:0.98 Intersection Signal Delay, 49.2 Intersection LOS D Irdersectlon Capably uoization 87.5% ICV Level of Service E Analysts Periad (min)15 # 95th percentile volume ezeads capacity, queue maybe longer. gUelle shown IS maximum after two cycles, i lits and Pha$@$' 3:4th St NE/Randall BIV6 &IMMOkalee Kd 02 o 101� tQ6 �o5 Immokaiee Pd - Randall 91Vd -2034 PM 110 PI 05A5ly020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 TrAilcock Consulting 5olutlons, PA t' a C <' 1237 Beftar Village Stewordshlp Receiving Area - TIS - Section 2- In tersection Analyses -August 2020 Lanes. Volumes. Timings 3: 4th St NE/Randall Blvd & Immokalee Rd a6n61zo2o -A --I. N 4- 'T 4-- -N t l Lane q uq GYL E'6T EBii3�67 WIFIA WIL Yd R Sk GOT S6R Lane Conligurations + W t+ ) +++ r ) +ff F Tratltc Volume (vph) 3 10 6 763 8 176 5 2066 966 116 1682 3 Future Volume (VPIl) 3 10 6 763 8 176 S 2066 966 176 1682 3 Ideal Flaw (uphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1 %0 19oo 1900 1900 1900 1900 1904 1900 51ora9e 1 enroh 0) 0 0 250 260 236 Soo 460 236 Storage Lanes 0 a 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length 0) 50 6o 60 50 Lane Lail Factor 1.00 1.00 1,00 0 94 1.00 110 1.00 0.91 1.00 1,00 0.91 1.00 Fit 0.962 0.866 0.860 0,950 Fit Protected 0.992 0,950 0.950 0.960 Said. Flow (prat) 0 1727 0 048 1649 0 1719 4940 1S38 170 4940 1638 Fit Permitted 0."2 0,960 0.960 0,950 Satd. Nim (perm) 0 1727 0 4848 1649 0 1719 4940 1638 1719 4940 1638 Right Turn an Fled Ws No Yes Yes Satd. Now (RT0 R) 5 640 192 Unk Speed (mph) 30 46 46 45 unk Distance 01) 493 776 719 1028 Travel Time 0) 112 11,7 10,9 16.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 097 o.97 o.97 o.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.07 Heavy Vehicles ("1b) 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 604 6% f% 6% 6% 6% Aril. Flaw (uph) 3 10 5 787 8 181 5 2119 985 181 1734 3 Snared Lane TraNlc (?h) Lane Group Flow(Th) 0 18 0 787 189 0 6 2119 99 l81 1734 3 Tun Type Split NA Split NA Prat NA Free Prot NA Perm Prt4eaed phases 9 a 4 4 1 6 6 2 Permitted Phases Free 2 Detector Phase 8 8 4 4 1 6 5 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum InitiV (s) 5.0 6,0 5.0 5.0 6.0 16.0 5.0 16.o 16.0 Minimum Split (a) 12.0 12.0 49,0 49.0 12.0 46.1 12J 40.0 40.0 Total Spin (s) 12,0 12,0 36 0 36.0 43.0 69.0 33.o 69.0 69.0 Total 6pllt (°i6) 6,0% B.O% 24.0% 24.0% 28.7% 46.0% 22.0% 39.3% 39,3% Maximum Green (s) 5.0 so 29,0 29.0 36,0 62,0 26.0 62.0 52.0 Yellow Time (s) 49 4,8 4.9 4.8 4.9 44 4.8 41 4.0 All. Red Time (s) 22 2.2 2.2 2.2 22 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 Total Last Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 LeadlLag Lag Lead Lag Lead lead Lead -Lag 00imize7 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VOW@ Elitenslon (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3A Recall Mode Min Min Mln Min Min Min Min Min Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 1,0 7.0 Fresh Don1 Walli (s) 36.0 36.0 32.0 Pedestdan Calls (Ohr) 0 0 0 Act 00 Green (s) 5.0 27.4 27.4 29.a 62.2 142.4 194 62.1 62.1 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.04 0.19 0.19 0,21 0.44 1.00 0.14 0.37 0.37 vk Ratio o28 0,85 0.64 0.01 0.99 0.64 0.70 0.96 0.00 Control Delay 663 662 64.3 44.2 66.6 2.1 79.6 67.9 0.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 Onmokalee Rd • Randall Blvd • 2034 PM w PI 05fl SJ2020 Baseline Synchru 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P , P c 1 238 Bellmor Village Stewarriship Receiving Are❑ — T1S — Section 2 — Mtersectlon Analyses — August 2020 Lanes. Volumes, Timings 3. 41h SIN FIR&ndall Blvd & Immokalee Rd 06116)2020 We amp EBL 15BT EBk WIRL W8T WBR NBL NBT NOR sBL 68T 96R Total Delay 66.3 66.2 $4.3 442 66.6 2.1 79.6 67.9 00 LOS E E F D E A E E A Approach Delay 66.3 66.0 38.6 69.8 Approach LOS E E D E Queue Length 501h (n) 12 262 164 4 720 0 166 H6 0 Queue Length 9Sth 0) 42 31 B 261 16 4906 0 261 #0747 0 Mrl121 Link Dist (It) 413 695 630 949 Turn say Lenglh (II) 260 236 600 460 236 Base Capacity(vph) 66 989 316 435 2169 163t 314 1$08 670 Starvation Cap Reducin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 spilldatk Cap Redutin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sturage Cap Reducln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vh Ratio 0124 0.80 0.60 0.01 0.90 0.64 0.66 0,96 0.00 Wersection Summay Area Type' Other Cycle Length: 160 Actuated Cycle Lan0h:142 4 Naturat Cycle 160 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordtnaied Maximum vk Ratio: 0 96 lrtersectlon Signal Delay 49.7 Inie[sectlon LOS D Intersactlon Capacky (AHIzatlon 8810,E ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)16 � ssth percentile volume eraceeds capactty, queue may qe longer. Queue shown Is maximum after two cycles. B Ins and Phases'. 3.4th St NElRandall Blvd Mmmokalee Rd 02 01oa 8 hnmOkaiee Rd - Randall Blvd -2034 PM w PI 0SAM020 sasekne synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P .I g e. 1289 8ellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T1S —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Appendix G: Development Accumulation - Trip Generation Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 240 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T1S — Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Trip Generation — Unadjusted l k Pro)ectName: 3VIllages Na I bate: 5119/2020 City: State/Province ZIp/Postal Code; Country: Client Name: Analyst's Name: Edition: Trip Gen Manual, loth Ed AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR �..__ .�. SIZE Entry Exit Entry Exit 210-SingleFamllyDetached Housing (General Urban/Suburban) 1450717/I $01 ( 2404 2477 1455 Reduction f 0 0 0 0 Internal f 0 0 0 0 Pawby ( 0 0 0 0 Non -pass -by $01 2404 2477 1455 220- Multifamily Housing (Low-Rlse)(General Urban/Suburban) !3343IV 308 1030 845 497 Reduction 1 0 0 0 0 Internal 0 0 0 0 Pawby 0 0 0 0 Norrpass-by 308 1030 845 497 750- Office Park(GeneralUrban/Suburbon) 78.5 101 12 6 78 Reduction 0 0 0 0 Internal 0 0 0 0 Pawby 0 0 0 0 Nompass-by 101 12 6 78 $20- Shopping Center (General Urban/Suburban) i 24543V 170 104 506 549 Reduction 0 0 0 0 Internal 0 0 0 0 Pawby 0 0 0 0 Non -pass -by 170 104 506 549 Yµ Total - 1380 3550 3834 2579 Total Reduction 0 0 0 0 Total Internal 0 0 0 0 Total Pass -by 0 0 0 0 Total Non -pass -by 1380 3550 3834 2579 m o,�esalsrn,�s � raosy. a c.,sa Rl 1VLV_q. R CJA jj Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 241 Bellrnar V!liage 5tewardsh)p Recefving Area - T)S -Section 2 - lntersectlon Analyses --August 2020 'EF'Ir P SETIINC- Analysis NaM&.' AM Peak Hour Project Name: 3 UHlages No Oats; 5/19/2020 City: StatelProwlnce: bp/Postal Code: Country; Client Name; Analyst's Name: Edition; Trip Gen Manuat, 1Oth Ed Land Use independent Sine T1mePerlod Method Entry E)dt Total Variable 210 - SIngie-Farnlly Dwelling Units nSU r(01 Weekday, Peak BeSt At (LIN) Sol 2404 3205 Detached Housing Hour of T - 0.71 (X)+4,9 25% 75% (General Adjacent Street UrbardSuburban) Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. 220- Muitlfamily Dwelling Units y�_13(01 Weekday, Peak BestFIC(LOG) 308 1030 1339 Housing (Low -Rise] Hour of Ln(T) - 0.950(%) 23% 77% (General Adjacent Street +-0.51 (irbardSuburban) Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. 750- OMce Park 1000 5q. FL GFA 78.5 Weekday, Peak Average 1010) 120) 1130) (General Hour of 1.44 85% 11% Urbontsubtirban) Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. 920-Shopping Center 1000Sq.FLGLA 245 Weekday,Peak BestFit(LIN) 170 104 274 (General Hour of T • 0,5 (1i)+151,79 62% 33% Urban/Suburban) Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. (0) Inditms sir* out of range. il) Indicates small sample sixes usecarelUNy. TRAFFIC REDUCTIONS Land Ubeuedan Adjusted Entry Eidt Reduction Adjusted Fidt lilled 210 - Single-T-amlty Detached (Housing 0 % Sol 0 % 2404 220. Multiramlly Housing (Low-RI54) 0 % 308 0 % 1030 750.01711ce Park 0 % 101 0 % 12 Ttebilcock Consulting Solutlonsr PA P a g e 1 242 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Land Use Entry on Adjusted Entry Exit Reduction Adjusted Exit Reducti820 - Shopping Center 0% 170 0% 104 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing Exit 2404 Demand Exit: 0% (0) Entry 801 Demand Entry: 0% (0) 210-Single-Family Detached Housing Exit 2404 Demand Exit: 0 % (0) Entry 801 Demand Entry: 0 % (0) 210-Single-Family Detached Housing Exit 2404 Demand Exit: 0 % (0) Entry 801 Demand Entry: 0% (0) 220 -Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) Exit 1030 Demand Exit: 0% (0) Entry 308 Demand Entry: 0% (0) I NTERNAL TRI PS 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) Balanced: Demand Entry: 0 % (0) Entry 308 0 Balanced: Demand Exit: 0 % (0) Exit 1030 0 750 - Office Park Balanced: Demand Entry: 0 % (0) Entry 101 0 Balanced: Demand Exit: 0% (0) Exit 12 0 820 - Shopping Center Balanced: Demand Entry: 0 % (0) Entry 170 0 Balanced: Demand Exit: 0% (0) Exit 104 0 750 - Office Park Balanced: Demand Entry: 0% (0) Entry 101 0 Balanced: Demand Exit: 0% (0) Exit 12 0 220- Multifamily Housing (Low-Rlse) 820 - Shopping Center Exit 1030 Demand Exit: 0 % (0) Balan0ced: Demand Entry: 0 % (0) Entry 170 Entry 308 Demand Entry: 0 % (0) Balanced: 0 Demand Exit: 0% (0) Exit 104 750 - Office Park 820 - Shopping Center Exit 12 Demand Exit: 0 % (0) Balan0ced; Demand Entry: 0% (0) Entry 170 Entry 101 Demand Entry: 0% (0) Balan0ced; Demand Exit: 0 % (0) Exit 104 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing Internal Trips TotalTrl s �-Multifamily[750-Office p Park FS20- Total External Trips Housing (Low- Shopping i I € Rise) j Center Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 243 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -Intersection Analyses -August 2020 Entry 801 (100%) 1 0 (0%) 0 (0%) ` 0 (0%) 0 (0%) E 801 (100%) Exit 2404 (100%) j 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2404 (100%) Total 3205 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10 (0%) 0 (0%) 3205 (100%) 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) Internal Trips Total Trl s 210 - 5Ingle- 750 -Office Park 820 Total External Trips p j Famlly Detached : Shopping p HousingCenter Entry 308 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) i 308 (100%) Exit 1030 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) f 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 11030 (100%) Total 1338 (10D%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10 (0%) 0 (0%) 11338 (100%) 750 - Office Park Internal Trips Total Trips 210-Single 220-Multifamily 820- Total External Trips Famlly Detached ! Housing (Low- Shopping Housing Rise) 1 Center Entry 101 (100%) 0 (0%) 1 0 (0%) 10 (0%) 0 (0%) 101 (100%) Exit 12 (100%) 0 (0%) j 0 (0%) 1 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 12 (100%) Total 113 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) ( 0 (0%) 1 0 (0%) 1 113 (100%) 820 - Shopping Center i Internal Trips Total Trips 1-210-Single-1220-Multlfarnlly?750-Office Total External Trips FamilyDetached Housing(Low- Park Entry 170 (100%) j Housing ! 0 (0%) Rise) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) j 0 (0%) 170 (100%) Exit ( 104 (10096) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) I 0 (0%) i 0 (0%) 104 (100%) Total 1 274 (100%) ( 0 (0%) 10 (0%) I 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 274 (100%) --- - EXTERNAL NAL TRIPS Land Use 210-Single-Family Detached Housing 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) 750 - Office Park 820 - Shopping Center External Trips Pass -by% 3205 0 1338 0 113 0 274 0 Pass -by Trips Nan -pass -by Trips 0 3205 0 1338 0 113 0 274 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 244 Roflrriar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — 1115 --Section 2 —in teTSection Analyses—Augu5t 2020 f fi 5E T IIr.tr: AnalyslsName: PM Peak Flour Projert Name! 3 VIIIA es No: Date; 5/19/2020 city: State/Province: rip/Postal Code: Country: Client Name: Analyst's Name: Edltlon: I rip Gen Manual, 1Dfti Ed Land Use independent Size Time Period Method Entry Exit Total Variable 210 - Single -Family Dwelling Units 4507{T'J Weekday, Peak Best Fit (LOG) 2477 1455 3932 Detached Housing Hour of Lri(T) = 0.96LrKX) 40.2 531% 37% (General Adjacent Street Urban/Suburban) Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. 220 - Multifamily Dwelling Units 3343(0) Weekday, Peak Best Fit (LOG) 845 497 1342 Housing (Low Rise) Hour of LrX1j = 0.89LrKN 63% 37% (General Adjacent Street 4-0.02 Urbarvsuburhan) Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 P.M. 75u- Office Park 10D0 5q. Ft. GFA 76,5(01 Weekday, Peak Average ", 11 (General Hour of 1.07 7% 93% Urban/Suburban) Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.rn. 820 -shopping Center 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA 245 Weekday, Peak Rest Flt (LOG) 506 549 1055 (General Hour of Ln(T) p 0.74Ln(X) 48% 52% Urban/Suburban) Adjacent street 42.89 Traffic, One Hour between 4 and 6 p.m. (o) indicatr5 Size out of range. (1) Indicates small sample site, use cardfutly- 'fg4PFIC REDUCTIONS Land Use Entry Adjusted i±ntry Exit Reduction Adjusted EWt Reductlon 210 - Singfe• Family Detached Housing 0 % 7471 0 % 1455 220 - Multifamily Houslilg(LOW-Rlse) 0 % B45 0 % 497 750 - Ohice Park 0 % fp 0 % 76 Trehilcock Consulting Solutions, PA I' , I245 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Land Use Entry Reduction 820 - Shopping Center 0 % Adjusted Entry Exit Reduction Adjusted Exit 506 0 % 549 INTERNAL TRIPS 210- Single -Family Detached Housing Exit 1455 Demand Exit: 0 % (0) B Entry 2477 Demand Entry; 0 % (0) 210-Single-Famlly Detached Housing Exit 1455 Demand Exit 0 % (0) Entry 2477 Demand Entry: 0 % (0) 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing Exit 1455 Demand Exlt: 0 % (0) Entry 2477 Demand Entry: 0 % (0) 220 -Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) Exit 497 Demand Exit: 0 % (0) Entry 845 Demand Entry. 0 % (0) B 220- Multifamily Housing (Lo-Rlse) Exit 497 Demand Exit: 0 % (0) Entry 845 Demand Entry. 0 % (0) 750- Office Park Exit 78 Demand Exit: 0 % (0) B Entry 6 Demand Entry: 0 % (0) B 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing j Internal Trips Total Trips ;22O-Multifamily 750- 1 Housing (Low - Rise) 220- Multfamily Housing (Low -Rise) glanced: Demand Entry: 0 % (0) Entry 845 0 Balanced: Demand Exit: 0 % (0) Exit 497 0 750 - Office Park Balanced: Demand Entry: 0 % (0) Entry 6 0 Balanced: Demand Exit; 0 % (0) Exit 78 0 820 - Shopping Center Balanced: Demand Entry: 0 % (0) Entry 506 0 Balanced: Demand Exit: 0 % (0) Exit 549 0 750 - Office Park Balanced: Demand Entry: 0 % (0) Entry 6 0 w alanced: Demand Exit: 0 % (0) Exit 78 0 820 - Shopping Center Balanced: Demand Entry: 0 % (0) Entry 506 0 Balanced: Demand Exft: 0 % (0) Exit 549 0 820 - Shopping Center alanced: Demand Entry: 0 % (0) Entry 506 0 alanced: Demand Exit; 0 % (0) Exit 549 0 Office Park 820 - Total External Trips Shopping Center Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 246 Office Park 820 - Total External Trips Shopping Center Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 246 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Entry 2477 (100%) i 10(0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 12477 (100%) Exit i 1455 (100%) } 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 11455 (100%) Total ! 3932 (100%) d 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 0 (0%) 13932 (100%) 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) InteE-Irnal Trips _ j Total Trips 210-Singlele_ B - 750-Office Park 820- Total External Trips Family Detached Shopping Housing Center Entry 845 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10(0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 845 (100%) Exit ( 497 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 497 (100%) Total 11342(100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 0(0%) 11342 (100%) 750 - Office Park Internal Trips TotaITrips 210-Single- 1220- Multifamily Family Detached Housing (Low- ,820- ! Shopping Total External Trips Housing Rise) Center Entry --- -- j 5 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10 (0%) 1 6 (100%) Exit 178 (100%) ; 0 (0%) 0 (0%) ! 0 (0%) I 0 (0%) ( 78 (100%) Total ! 84 (100%) j 0 (0%) [ 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) f 84 (100%) 820 -Shopping Center Internal Trips Total Trips 210-Single- i220-Multlfamlly;750-Office !Total External Trips Family Detached Housing (Low, Park Housing Rise) Entry 505 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10 (0%) 506 (100%) Exit 1 549 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 549 (100%) Total 1055 (100%) ` 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) j 0 (0%) 11055 (100%) Land Use 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) 750- Office Park 820 - Shopping Center EXTERNAL TRI P5 External Trips Pass -by% 3932 0 1342 0 84 0 1055 00 Pass-byTrlps Non -pass -by Trips 0 3932 0 1342 0 84 0 1055 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 247 i v y N A oo 3 Villages Internal Capture -AM Peak Hour. IC % 29% 32% IC % IC V. 52% 80% IC % Demand 30 54 Demand Demand 54 736 Demand Balanced �4 Balanced Balanced 54 136 Balanced IC % :4% 28% IC % IC % 45% 16% IC % Demand 4 3 Demand Demand 499 549 Demand IC% 80% Balanced 4% IC% Demand 81 81 137 Demand IC% 3S% � Balanced 33% IC Demand 366 Demand Project Trips Net 4348 External Land Use B-Otiiice RE Code 750 Total Internal External Enter 101 85 16 Exit 12 7 5 -total 113 92 Zl % 100% 81% 19% P8 Land Use A 25% Enter Exit Total 7 12 19 Land Use A -Retail ITE Code 820 Total Internal External Enter 17D 139 3] Exit 104 58 46 Total 274 197 77 100% 72% 28°.� Net External Trips -Total Internal Capture Rate Land Use Land Use Land Use TotaliC Total Trips A B C Rate External - Enter 31 16 1051 1098 EMernal -EXIt 46 5 3217 3268 External - Total 77 21 4268 4366 Total External+Internal 274 113 4543 4930 11% Land Use C• Residential RE Code 210,220 Total Internal External Enter 1109 58 1051 Exit 3434 217 3217 lotai 4543 2/S 4268 % 100% 6% 94% 7D y m N A SF MF OFFICE RETAIL Project Horizon du du sf sf SF= Single -Family Rivergrass 2030 1414 1086 25000 80000 MF= Multi -Family Longwater 2030 1503 1097 26000 80000 du = dwelling -unit Bellmar 2034 IS90 1160 27500 85000 sF= squarefeet 3 Villages 4507 3343 78500 245000 Trip Generaion Residential Office Park Retail 3 Villages Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit 1109 3434 101 12 170 104 Internal Capture 58 217 85 7 139 58 External 1051 3217 16 5 31 46 Pass -by 0 0 0 0 7 12 Net External 1051 3217 16 5 24 35 Trip Generaion 5F I MF Unadjusted Enter I Exit I Enter Exit Percentages 72.23% 1 70.01% 1 27.77- 29.99% Trip Generaion SF MF Office Park Retail Net External Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit 759 2252 292 965 16 5 24 35 Rivergrass 238 707 95 313 5 1 8 12 Longwater 253 751 96 317 5 2 8 11 Bellmar 268 794 101 335 6 2 8 12 Trip Generaion Residential Commercial Total Net External Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit 1051 3217 40 40 1091 3257 Rivergrass 333 1020 13 13 346 1033 Longwater 349 1068 13 13 362 1081 Bellmar 369 1129 14 14 383 1143 2034 Traffic Adjustments Oil Well Rd 2019 2034 Net Oil Well Rd Reduction WBBackground 390 703 313 D Enter Exit Rivergrass Reduction 50% 156 (Exit) 0.586 110 156 Bellmar Built 100% Buildout in 2034 Trip Generaion Residential Commercial Total Net External Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Rivergrass 226 866 9 11 235 877 Longwater 349 1068 13 13 362 1091 Belimar 369 1129 14 14 383 1143 3 Villages 944 3062 36 38 980 3100 y Ul 0 3 Villages Internal Capture- PM Peak Hour IC % 2% 8% IC % IC % 56DA 26% IC Demand 11 40 Demand Demand 307 132 Demand Balanced 16 Balanced Balanced 307 132 Balanced IC% 31-- 20% IC% IC% 46% 42% IC% Demand 2 16 Demand Demand 1528 820 Demand Land Use a - IC % 57% Balanced 4% IC % Demand 3 3 � 78 Demand V. Ima 48% Balanced 6% IC% Demand 37 37 149 DemandPB Project Trips N et External 5270 Office ITE Code 750 Total Internal External— .Enter 6 5 1 Exit 78 53 25 Total 84 58 26 100% 69% 31% Land Use A 25% Enter Exit Total 89 60 149 Land Use A -Retail ITE Code 820 Total Internal External Enter 506 148 358 Exit 543 309 240 Total 1055 457 598 100% 43°/n 57% Net External Trips -Total Internal Capture Rate Land Use Land Use Land Use Total IC Total Trips A B C Rate EMernal - Enter 358 1 2978 3337 External -Exit 240 25 1817 2082 External - Total 598 26 4795 5419 Total 1055 84 5274 6413 15.5% EMernal+Internal Land Use C -Residential ITE Code210,Z20 Total Internal External Enter 3322 344 2978 Exit 1952 135 1817 Total 5274 479 4795 % 100% 4°0 91% SF MF OFFICE RETAIL Project Horizon du du sf sf SF= Single -Family Rivergrass 2030 1414 1086 25000 80000 MF= Multi -Family Longwater 2030 1503 1097 26000 80000 du= dwelling -unit Bellmar 2034 1590 1160 27500 85000 sF= square feet 3 Villages 4507 3343 78500 245000 Trip Generaion Residential Office Park Retail 3 Villages Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit 3322 1952 6 78 506 549 Internal Capture 344 135 5 53 148 309 External 2978 1817 1 25 358 240 Pass -by 0 0 0 0 89 60 Net External 2978 1817 1 25 269 180 Trip Generaion SF I MF Unadjusted Enter Exit Enter Exit Percentages 74.56% 74.504 25.44Yu 25.46% Trip Generaion SF MF Office Park Retail Net External Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit 2220 1354 758 463 1 25 269 180 Rivergrass 697 425 246 150 0 7 88 59 Longwater 740 452 249 152 0 8 88 59 Bellmar 783 477 263 161 1 9 93 62 Trip Generaion Residential Commercial Total Net External Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit 2978 1817 270 205 3248 2022 Rivergrass 943 575 88 66 1031 641 Longwater 989 603 88 67 1077 671 Bellmar 1046 638 94 71 1141 709 2034 Traffic Adjustments Oil Well Rd 2019 2034 Net Oil Well Rd Red uction WB Background 390 703 313 D Enter Exit Rivergrass Reduction 50% 156 (Exit) 0.586 110 156 Bellmar Built 100% Buildout in 2034 Trip Generaion Residential Commercial Total Net External Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Rivergrass 841 435 79 50 920 485 Longwater 989 603 88 67 1077 670 Bellmar 1046 638 94 71 1140 709 3 Villages 2876 1676 261 188 3137 1864 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Appendix H: Development Accumulation - Roadway Segments Capacity Analysis Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 252 ro Cr n O n n 0 G Oo L,n O C 0 7 2034 Capacity Peak Dir 2019 2034 2034 V/C LOS Fail Riverg ongwater 8ellmar 3V Traffic 2034 V/C LOS Fail Segment From To Back r Back r Back r w/o 3V Com Res Trips Com Res Trips Core Res Trips Total Backgr w Pi, Backgr w Pj w 3V Oil Well Road Oil Well Grade Rd Ave Maria Blvd 2000 WB 390 703 35.15% No 20% 1591. 142 20% 2091. 215 20% 20% 228 585 1288 64.42% No Oil Well Road Project Oil Well Grade Rd 2000 WB 390 703 35.15% No 20% 15% 142 20% 2091 215 20% 20% 228 585 1288 64,42% No Oil Well Road Desoto Project 2000 WS 390 703 35.15% No 80% 8591. 410 20% 20% 134 20% 20% 228 772 1475 73.7491. No Oil Well Road Everglades Desoto 2000 WB 390 574 28.70% No 60% 70% 335 2591 30% 198 101% 101% 71 603 1177 58.85% No Oil Well Road Immokalee Everglades 2000 ES 840 1513 75.65% No 35% 55% 490 15% 25% 260 5% 5% 57 808 2321 116.05% Yes Desoto Blvd Oil Well Rd Randall Boo SB 130 175 21.88% No 20% 1591. 75 10% 10% 108 30% 30% 342 525 700 87.49% No DeSoto Blvd Randall 18th AV NE 800 SB 130 175 21,88% No 10% 10% 49 20% 20% 215 45% 1 35% 408 672 847 105.91% Yes DeSoto Blvd 18th Av NE Golden Gate Boo SB 130 175 21.08% No 10% 10%ED 20% 20% 134 45% 35% 408 591 766 95.74 % No Desoto Blvd Golden Gate 6th Ave S 800 5B 140 238 29.7590 No 0% 0%0% 0% 0 0% 40% 418 418 656 82.05% No Everglades Blvd lmmokalee Oil Well Rd Boo NB 490 672 84.00% No 5% 5% 5% 5% 34 5% 5% 35 93 765 95.65Y. No Everglades Blvd Oil Well Rd Randall Boo NB 410 552 69.00% No 20% 10% 5% 0% 4 5% 5% 35 140 692 86.47% No Everglades Blvd Randall 18th AV NE Boo N8 410 552 69.00% No 10% 5% 5% 5% 34 10% 10% 71 154 706 88.29% No Everglades Blvd 18th Av NE VBR 800 N8 410 552 69.00% No 10% 5%10% 10% 108 3095 10% 71 229 781 97.57% No Everglades Blvd VBR Golden Gate Boo NB 410 552 69.00% No 10% 5% 5% 0% 3 20% 20% 142 195 747 93,39% No Everglades Blvd Golden Gate South Boo 58 530 955 119.38% Yes 0% 0%0% 0% 0 5% 0% 4 4 959 119.82% Yes 16th St NE 18th Av NE VBR 900 56 414 46A0% No 0% D%r46 0% 5% 30 5% 0% 5 35 449 49.87% No 16th St NE VBR Golden Gate 900 58 347 38.56% No 0% 0% 0% 0% 0 5% 5% 57 57 404 44.89% No Wilson Blvd Immokalee VBR 900 SB 350 471 52.33% No 5% 15% 5% 5% 34 5% 10% 109 211 682 75.73% No Wilson Blvd VBR Golden Gate 900 s8 350 471 52.33% No 0% 0% 0% 0% 0 10% 5% 62 62 533 59.19% No Randall Blvd Desoto Everglades 900 EB 652 878 97.56% No 5% 5% 10% 10% 108 10% 5% 62 215 1093 121.499, Yes Randall Blvd Everglades Sth St NE 900 EB 810 1091 121.22% Yes 5% 5% 5% 15% 153 10% 10% 114 313 1404 155.97% Yes Randall Blvd 8th St NE Immokalee 2 000 EB 810 1091 54.55% No 5% 5% 5% 15% 153 10% 10% 114 313 1404 70.19% No 18th Av NE Desoto Everglades 800 EB 44 5.50% No 0% 0%20% 20% 215 0% 0% 0 215 259 32.43% No l8th Av NE Everglades 16th St NE Boo EB 42 5.25% No 0% 0% 0 5% 5% 54 0% 0% 0 54 96 11.98% No VBR Everglades 16th St NE 1100 356 32.36% No 5% 0% 4 10% 10% 108 10% 10% 114 226 582 52.88% No VBR 16th St NE 8th St NE 1100 445 40.45% No 5% 0% 4 10% 15% 157 5% 15% 162 323 768 69.79% No VBR 8th St NE Wilson 1.100 593 53.91% No 5% 0% 4 10% 15% 157 5% 15% 162 323 916 83.25% No VBR Wilson Collier 1200 824 68.67% No 0% 15 Y. 126 5% 20% 202 5% 10% 109 438 1262 105.14% Yes VBR Collier Logan 3000 EB 1640 2954 98.47% No C% 10% 84 0% 10% 99 0% 5% 52 235 3189 106,31% Yes Golden Gate Collier Wilson 2300 ES 1730 2323 101,26% Yes 0% 10% 84 0% 10% 99 5% 30% 319 502 2831 123.07% Yes Golden Gate Wilson 16th St NE 2300 EB 1270 1710 74.35% No 5% 15% 130 5% 15% 153 20% 40% 437 720 2430 105.65% Yes Golden Gate 16th St NE Everglades 2300 ES 1270 1710 74,3595 No 5% 15% 130 10% 15% 157 30% 45% 499 786 2496 108.53% Yes Golden Gate Everglades Desoto 101C EB 232 313 30.99% No 5% 10% BB 15% 20% 211 55% 65% 732 1031 1344 133.03% Yes Immokalee North of Oil Well Rd 900 EB 460 829 92.11% No 10% 0% 5 5% 0% 3 0% 0% 0 8 837 93.04% No Immokalee Oil Well Rd Randall 330C EB 2460 4430 134.24% Yes 15% 55% 474 5% 15% 153 0% 0% 0 627 5057 153.25% Yes Immokalee Randall Wilson 330C EB 246C 4430 134.24% Yes 15% 55% 474 51% 25% 252 0% 0% 0 726 5156 156.24% Yes Immokalee Wilson Collier 3300 EB 2050 3445 104.39 % Yes 10% 35% 302 0% 20% 198 0% 10% 105 605 4050 122,72% Yes Immokalee Collier Logan. 3200 E6 1930 2994 93,56% No 0% 25% 210 C% 10% 99 0% 10% 105 414 3408 106.49% Yes'. Collier Immokalee. VBR 3000 NS 1850 3332 111.07% Yes 0% 5% 42 0% 5% 49 0% 5% 32 123 3455 115.18% Yes Collier VBR Golden Gate 3000 SB 1260 1696 56.53% No 0% 5% 22 0% 5% 30 D o 11% 105 157 1853 61.75% No Collier Golden Gate Pine Ridge 300D Ng 1850 249D 83.00% No 0% 10% 114 0% 10% 99 0% 15% 157 340 2a30 94.33% No Collier Pine Ridge Green Blvd 3000 NB 1850 2490 83.00% No E. 590 42 0% 0% 0 0% 59; 'S2 94 2584 86.15% No Pine Ridge Collier Logan 2400 EB 1540 2073 86.38Y. I No 1 0% 1 0% 0 1 05'. 5% 49 09/. 10% 1 105 154 2227 92.79% No 2 334 Non Peak D 2034 2034 V/C LOS Fail Rivergrass Longwater Bellmar 3V Traffic 2034V/C LOS Fail Oil Well Road DeSoto Project 2000 EB 0.581 507 25.35% No 80% 85% 742 20% 20% 206 20% 2095 134 1082 1589 79.47% No Oil Well Road Everglades Desoto 2000 EB 0.581 414 20.70% No 60% 70% 607 25% 30% 305 ICY. 10% 109 1021 1435 71.76% No Everglades Blvd Immokalee Oil Well Rd Soo SB 0.598 452 56.50% No 5% 5% 44 5% 5% 52 5% 5% 55 150 602 75.26% No Everglades Blvd Oil Well Rd Randall 800 SB 0.535 480 60.00% No 20 % 10% 48 5% 0% 2 59h 5% 55 1D4 584 73.01% No Everglades Blvd Randall 18th AV NE Soo 58 0.535 480 60.00% No 10% 5% 24 5% 5% 52 10% 10% 109 185 665 83.09% No Everglades Blvd 18th Av NE VBR Soo SS 0.535 480 60.00% No 10% 5% 24 10% 10% 63 10% 10% 109 197 677 84.56% No 16th St NE 18th Av NE VBR 900 NB 0.574 307 34.11% No 0% 0% 0 0% 5% 47 5% 0% 2 49 356 39.61% No Wilson Blvd Immokalee VBR 90D NS 0.535 409 45.44% No 5% 1540 124 5% 5% 52 5% 10% 65 241 650 72.21% No Collier Immokalee V R 3000 SB 0.583 2383 79.43% No 0% 5% 211 0% 1 5% 30 0% 5% 1 50 101 2484 82.81% No Collier par, Golden Gate 1 3000 1 NB 1 0.577 1 1243 1 41.43% No i 0% 1 5% I 0 1 0% 1 5% 1 47 1 0% 1 10% 1 63 1 151 1394 46.46% No Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Appendix I: Development Accumulation - Traffic Projections and Synchro Reports Trebilcock consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 255 Belimar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —In tersection Analyses —August 2020 Desoto Blvd - Oil Well Rd 3 Villages Traffic By Percentage C)il Well Rd Through LV- (C15% +R20%) RV- (Cfi0% +R70%) Left BV• C 20% +R 20% LV- (C 5%) Through RV- (C20% +R15%o) L.V -C20% +R20% RV -C60%n +R70% Right BV - C1011/o +R10%o LV- C 5% +RIO% Left Right Traffic Enter/Exit - 20%/(20%) BV-(C1Q% +R10%0) BV-(C2o% +R20%a) C = Commerciale R = Residential LV-(C10% +RIO%) RV- C20%o +R15% BV- Bellmar Village LV- Longwater Village Desoto3lVd RV= Rivergrass Village Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA F' a F e 1 256 Beilmar Village Stewardship Reeelving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 3 Villages Traffic Year 2034 By AM Peak Hour ail Well Rd Through LV -3 + 70= 73 RV -5 +158=163 236 Right BV - 1+37= 38 LV - 1+35= 36 74 —4w+ Traffic Enter/Exit - 201(20) C = Commercial; R T Residential BV= Bellmar Village LV= Longwater Village RV= Rivergrass Village oeSoto Blvd Through LV- (2 +214 = 216) RV- (7 +606 = 613) 829 Left BV- 3 + 74 = 77 LV- (1) RV- (2 +130 =132) 210 Left Right BV -(1 +113 =114) BV-(3 +226 - 229) LV -0 +107 = 108) RV- 2 + 34 = 36 222 265 Trehilcock Consulting Solutions, PA I' 1 I; e 1 257 Belimar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 3 Villages Traffic Year 2034 By PM Peak Hour 0 C)�I Well Rd Through LV - 18 +198= 216 RV- 47 +589= 63F $52 Right 8V - 9 +105z! 114 LV - 4 + 99= 103 217 Traffic Enter/Exit - 201(20) C = Commercial; R = Residential BV- Beilmar Village LV= Longwater Village RV= Riverarass Villaae DeSoto Blvd Through LV- (10 +121 =131) RV- (30 +305=_335) 466 Leff BV- 19 +209= 228 LV- (3 ) RV- (10 + 65= 75) 306 Left � night BV-(7 +64= 71) BV- (14 +128= 142) LV-(7 +60` 07.) RV- 16 +126= 142 136 284 Trebilcock Consulting Solutlons, PA P a li a 1258 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION - DESOTO BLVD AND OIL WELL RD COUNT DATA - DATE - 04-17-2019 COUNT DATA - TIME - 7.00 AM - 9.00 AM PEAK HOUR - 7.15 AM - 8.15 AM AM PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRAFFIC OIL WELL ROAD DESOTO BOULEVARD WESTBOUND EASTBOUND NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU TOTAL THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT RIGHT TOTAL 2019 TMCs 58 256 314 280 24 304 39 108 147 PSCF (2018 DATA) 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 2019 BACKGROUND VOLUME 61 267 328 292 25 317 41 113 154 GROWTH RATE 2.694. 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% YEARS TO BUILD -OUT 15 15 15 15 15 15 2034 BACKGROUND 90 393 483 430 37 467 61 167 228 3 VILLAGES TURNING VOLUMES 210 829 1,039 236 74 310 222 265 487 2034 BACKGROUND + PROJECT 300 1,222 1,522 666 111 777 283 j 432 715 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1259 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION - DESOTO BLVD AND OIL WELL RD COUNT DATA - DATE - 04-17-2019 COUNT DATA - TIME - 4.00 PM - 6.00 PM PEAK HOUR - 4.00 PM - 5.00 PM PM PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRAFFIC OIL WELL ROAD DESOTO BOULEVARD WESTBOUND EASTBOUND NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU TOTAL THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT RIGHT TOTAL 2019 TMCs 95 310 405 220 36 256 21 78 99 PSCF (2018 DATA) 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 2019 BACKGROUND VOLUME 99 323 422 229 38 267 22 82 104 GROWTH RATE 2.6% 2.6% 2.69/o 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% YEARS TO BUILD -OUT 15 15 15 15 15 15 2034 BACKGROUND 146 475 621 337 56 393 33 121 154 3 VILLAGES TURNING VOLUMES 306 466 772 852 217 1,069 138 284 422 2034 BACKGROUND + PROJECT 452 941 1,393 1,189 273 1,462 171 405 576 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 260 Bellrrrar Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS - SPCtlon 2- In tersection Analyses -Aug us t 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: DeSoto Blvd & Oil Well Rd oanlrzo2o -4. -It LaneRrnup _ EBT EBR W6L rNOT _ NUL NAR Lane Coniiguiaticn, tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 666 ill 300 1222 283 432 FOUR? VDklme(1)h) 666 ill 300 1222 283 432 Ideal flow (uphpl) 1900 1900 1000 1900 1900 1900 ft%e Length 0) 240 340 186 240 Storage Lanes 1 1 0 1 taper Length 0) 50 50 Lane l44 Factor 016 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 Fit 0.860 0.460 Fit Ptotected 0,960 0.960 Said. Flow (Prot) 343$ 1638 1719 3438 1719 153$ Fit Permitted 01162 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3438 153$ 276 3438 1719 1638 Right Turn on Red No No 5atd. Flew (PTO P) Link Speed (mph) 66 66 46 unk Distance It) 10$3 949 $21 Travel Time (s) 13.4 11,8 9A Peak Hour Factor 0,93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 4.93 heavy VehlCle& (V4 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% Aol. Flaw (vph) 716 119 323 1314 304 466 Shared One Trft (%$) lane Group Flaw (vph) 716 119 323 1314 304 466 Turn Type NA Perm ptn+7 hdl Pe1m Pmm Protected Phase& 6 6 2 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 4 Peledcr Phase 6 6 5 2 4 4 SWI1Ch Phase _ Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 5,0 5.0 Minimum Wit (s) 23-6 22B 10.5 23.6 233 23.5 Total Split (s) 29.2 29.2 220 51.2 3& 8 38.8 Total split (%) 32,496 32A% 24-4% $$,9% 43.196 43-1% Maximum Green (s) 23.7 23.7 16.5 46.7 33.3 33.3 Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 All -Red Time (s) 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 Total Lost Time (s) 6.5 6.5 5.5 55 5.6 5,5 Le4d&ag Lag Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Uension (s) 3.0 3A 3.0 0 3-0 3.0 Recall Made Min Min None Min None None Act Elfct Green 0) 21.0 21.0 41.9 41.8 20A 28A Actualed gic Ralia 0.26 0.26 0.61 0.61 0.35 0.36 vrc Rath 0.81 0.30 0.79 0.74 0.61 0.87 Control Delay 37.6 20.5 32,9 19.5 25,0 Q.$ queue Delay 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 37.5 2$.5 32 9 19,5 250 43.8 LOS D C C B C D Approach Delay 36.2 22.1 36.3 DeSoto Blvd - Oil Well W .2034 AM Commilled w Accumulationj Improved ORA12020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Pagel Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 11 1 R e 1261 +9elimar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses — August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings I : DeSolo Blvd & Oil Well Rd 08111I1020 Lam Group EBT EDP WBL WBT ' (M-_ Approach LOS U C p Queue Length Nth It) '199 54 118 297 130 235 Queue Length 96th 0) 266 101 f963 302 207 *401 Internal Unk Dist (tt) low 969 541 Turn Bay Length (h) 240 340 186 240 Uase capacily(�Ph) 1024 458 440 1975 710 044 Starvation Cap Reductri 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap P2ducln 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reducln 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v1c Ratio 0,70 0.26 0,73 0.67 0.42 072 Intersection Sumro Area Type. Other Cycle Lfngth:90 Actuated Cycle Leng1h:81 6 Natural Cycle: 70 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vt Ratto: 0,87 Intersection Signal Delay, 29.1 ki @Tseclion LM C Inleisectlon Capacity l llllzallon $4.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (Mill) 16 dl 96th percentile volume e)eeeuv capacity, queue maybe longer Queue shown Is maximum after Iwo cycles. Solfts and Phases: 1: DeSolo Blvd &OII Well Rd 02 04 'r'fl 5 De3oto Blvd - oil Well Fd - 2034 AM 07mmItted w Arcumulationl Improved W/I12020 Baseline Synchr410 Reporl Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P .i �: o 1 262 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 - Intersection Analyses -August 2020 Lades, Volumes, Timings 1: Moto Blvd & Oil Well Ind OAU2020 Lane Group €BT €BR WBL WBT NBL NBR la.neConfigurations tt r ►j tt I it Tmffit volume (uph) 1189 273 462 941 171 406 FOureValume(vph) 1189 273 452 94t 171 405 Ideal Flaw (uphpl) 1900 1900 1$00 1900 wo 1900 Storage Length 0) 240 340 0 240 Storage L9n84 1 1 1 1 TapeT Length 0) SS) 60 Lane UIII Factor 0.96 1.00 11.00 0-96 1-00 1.00 Frt 0.90 0.960 Fit Protecled 0.960 0,950 Satd. Flow (prof) 3438 1538 1719 34U 1719 15A Fit Permitted 0.700 0.950 SaId. Now (perm) 3438 1538 161 3438 1719 1538 R1gM Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 294 414 Link Speed (mph) 66 65 46 link Distance M) 104 $49 621 Travel Tlm a (s) 13.4 11-8 9.4 Peak Hour Factor 0-93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehlcles (°/T) 6% 6% 5% 6% 6% 6% Adj now �ph) 1278 294 486 1012 184 435 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane 0 mup Flow (9h) 1279 294 48G 1012 194 435 Tum Type NA Perm pm -IA NA Perm Perm Protected Phases 6 6 2 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 4 D6tador PIM6 6 6 5 2 4 4 Swllch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 6.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 6.0 5.0 Minimum Split (a) 23.6 23.5 10,6 236 23,6 23.6 Total 8PR (5) 40,3 40.$ 26.Q 66,5 23.5 23.5 Total spit C?k) 44.8% 44.t% 29.1% 73.9% 26.1% 26.1% Maximum Green (s) 34.8 34.E 20.7 61.0 18A 1$.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.6 3.5 35 3.5 3.5 -_ All -Red Time 0) 2.0 210 2,0 210 2.0 2,0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lail Time (s) 6.6 6.6 6.6 5,6 5.6 5.6 Leadl"q Lag Lag Lead Lead -Lag OptlmizeT Yes Yes Yes Vehicle € denslon (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 30 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode Min Min None Min None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 Flash font Walk (S) 11.0 11.0 Pedestdari Calls (Ohr) 0 0 Act Oct Green (s) 34.4 344 $0.7 607 13,$ 13,9 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.71 0.71 0.16 0.16 -- -- • -- - -- vk Ratio 0,92 0.37 0.97 0.42 0.66 0.73 Control Delay 379 3A 6$,0 69 45-6 12A Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 Desoto Pied - r)il lNell Rd - 2034 PM Com mltled w Arcumulalion Improved 061112020 BBselins Synehro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P ,1 g c 1 263 Rallmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TI5 -- Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: DeSoto Blvd & Oil Well HJ wfliko2o -w 4 LaneGroUp EBT EBP. WBL 1NpT NHL NBR Total Delay 378 3.8 5a 0 6 1 46.G 12.4 LOS D A L k D B Appraacn Delay 31.4 22. 222 Approach LOS C C C Queue Length 6011) 0) 339 0 210 101 95 10 ' Queue Len0h95th 0) 01515 49 0939 166 162 100 internal LIM Dist (») 1003 869 641 Rum Bay Length P) 240 340 240 Base capacity (rphj 1400 801 501 2456 362 $60 Starvation Cap Redudn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Splllback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reducin 0 4 0 0 0 0 Reduced vh PAW 0.91 0.37 0.97 0.41 0.61 0.67 Inlersection Summary —0 Prea Type. Other Cycle Lenyth: K Actuated Cycle Lenglh: 96.6 Natural Cycle:90 Confrol Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vk Ratio; 0.97 Irdetseciion Signal Delay.,26.6 Imersedlon LOS: C latersedien Capacity uilixallan 91.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 # 96th percentile volume ew:eecls capacity, queue maybe longer, Queue shown Is maximum atier 1w0 cyaes. 3 l4s and Phases, 1: DeMa Blvd & Oil Well Rd 02 04 4�'05 --D176 DeSoto Blvd - Qil Well RU - 2034 P M Wm miffed w Accumulation Improved 08111 MG20 Ba$alinp Synchro 10 Repart P age 2 Trehilcock Consulting Solutlons, PA P ;, r� e 1264 Beftar Vllloge Stewardship Receiving Area — T1S—Seetlon 2 —Intersection Analyses --August 2020 Fverplades Blvd — Oil Well Rd 3 Villages Traffic By Percentage Oil Well Rd Through �♦ BV-05% +R5% LV- C15% +R25% RV-C;35% �R55% 0 Traffic Enter/Exit - 20%/(20%) C = Commercial; R = Residential BV= Belimar Village LV= Longwater Village RV= Riverarass Village Everglades Blvd Left Through LV- C5% +R5% BV-05% +R5% RV-05% +R5% 4l I T T T Through BV- (C5% TEI �71Right LV- (C5% +R5%) RV- (C6% +R5%) 411 Through BV- (C5% +R5%) LV- (C16% +R25%) 4 RV- (C35% +R55%) �-- Left LV- (C5%) RV- (C20%+R10°!o) r [t Right LV- C5% RV-C20%+R 10% Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA I' : I; i 265 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area - T15 - 5ection 2 -Intersection Analyses -August 2020 3 Villages Traffic lEverglades Blvd L Year 2034 - 6 AM Peak Hour �V1 +17= 18 Y Through RV- 1 +11= 1.2 BV- 1 +18= 19 30 It_ Right LV- (1 +53= 54) RV- (1 +43= 44.) Oil Well Rd 4 98 Through 4 BV- (1 + 56= 57) LV- (2 +267= 269) RV- (4 +476= 4tO) 806 Through Left BV- 1 + 18= 19 LV- (1) LV- 2 + 87= 89 RV- (2+87=-U). RV- 3 +124= 12-7 90 2351 Traffic Enter)Exit - 201(20) 1 1 T T T r C = Commercial; R = Residential Through Right BV= Bellmar Village BV- 0 +56= 57) LV- 1 LV= Longwater Village RV-2 +23= 25 RV= Rivergrass Village 26 Trebllcoek Consulting Solutions, PA I' r, e 1266 pellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area - 175 - Section 2 - intersection Analyses -- August 2020 3 Villages Traffic IlEverglades Blvd Year 2034 Lent B PM beak Hour BV- LV- 4 +49= 53 BV- 5 +52= 57 RV-4 +42` 46 H 99 Right LV- (3 +30= 33) RV- (3 +22= 25) pil Well Rd] 58 Through BV- 5 + 52= 57 LV- 13 +247= 260 RV- 28 +463=-49A 808 Traffic Enter/Exit - 201(20) C = Commercial; R = Residential BV= Bellmar Village LV_ Longwater Village RV= Riverarass Villaae Through 4 BV- (4 + 32- 36) LV- (10+151=161) RV- (18 +239= 257) 4 454 ,67-- Left LV- (3) RV (10 +44=54) .�— 57 I T r lit Through Right 13V- (4 +32= 36) LV- 4 RV-16 +84=140 104 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a p e 1 267 TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION - EVERGLADES BLVD AND OIL WELL RD COUNT DATA - DATE - D4-17-2019 COUNT DATA - TIME - 4.00 PM - 6.00 PM PEAK HOUR - 4.00 PM - 5.DD PM PM PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRAFFIC OIL WELL ROAD EVERGLADES BOULEVARD WESTBOUND EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 2019TMCS 46 258 33 337 345 211 35 591 16 80 50 146 58 117 10 185 PSCF(2018 DATA) 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.D4 1.04 1.04 1.04 2019 BACKGROUND VOLUME 48 269 35 352 359 220 37 616 17 B4 52 153 61 122 11 194 GROWTH RATE 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% YEARS TO BUILD -OUT 15 15 15 15 15 15 is 15 15 15 15 15 2034 BACKGROUND 71 396 52 519 528 324 55 907 25 124 77 226 90 180 17 287 3 VILLAGES TURNING VOLUMES 57 4S4 58 569 0 808 0 8D8 99 57 0 156 0 36 104 140 2034 BACKGROUND+ PROJECT 128 85D 110 1,088 528 1,132 SS 1,71S 124 181 77 382 90 216 121 427 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -Intersection Analyses --August 20.20 Lanes, Volumes, Timings _Everglades Blvd & Oil Well Ind 06128i2020 Lane Gioup EBL EBT EBR WOL "WBT *911 NBL NBT NBR SBL 6BT SBR Lane Calfigurationz M tt r M ttt it �1 fft r 11 ttt r Traffic Volume (vph) 172 582 74 121 1194 113 197 199 67 69 219 243 Ftturevelum e (vph) 172 $92 74 121 1194 113 197 199 57 69 219 243 Ideal Flaw (uphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1$00 1900 Iwo Storage Length (t) 600 500 640 620 476 620 490 330 Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Taper tength 0) 100 100 too 100 Lane tAil Factor 0,97 0,96 1.00 OV 0,91 1.00 0.97 011 1.00 097 01 1.00 Flit 0.860 0.860 0.060 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 OS50 0 960 0.950 Satd Flow(prat) 3336 3438 1638 3336 4940 1539 3335 4940 1639 3336 4940 1539 Ft Permihed 0.960 0160 0.950 0.950 5atd. Fioia "rin) 3336 3438 1638 3335 4940 1638 3336 4940 1638 3335 4940 163.8 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes 5atd. Fla (RTOR) 169 169 169 19? Link Speed (mph) 46 46 45 45 Link VisWnce m) 2390 1967 1479 1442 Travel Time (s) 36.2 29.8 22.4 21.8 Peak Haur Faclor 093 0.93 0.93 0 93 093 0,93 0.$3 0.93 ON 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles 6% $% S% 6% 6% 60A 6°,6 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% Adj Row oph) 186 626 80 IN 1273 122 212 214 61 74 235 2131 Shared Lane Traffic (96) Lane 03roup Fla ni(?Vh) 135 626 0 130 1273 122 212 214 61 74 235 2G1 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prat 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 t Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 12.0 12.0 6.0 21.0 21.0 6.0 10.0 10.0 6.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 13.8 20.8 20.8 13A 56.3 913 13.8 18.8 18.8 1313 66.3 9.3 Total Spirt (s) 19,0 63.9 539 20.8 55.7 55.7 20.0 606 60.6 14.8 65.3 65.3 Total Spit pb) 12.7% 35.996 36.996 13.9% 37.1 % 37.1 Na 13.3% 402% 40.3% 9.9% 36.5% 36.9% MaxirnumGreen (s) 10.7 45,6 45G 'I2.5 47A 474 11.7 $22 622 6.5 47,0 47.0 Yellow Tirne (s) 4 $ 4.t 43 4.3 4.8 4.8 4.8 0 4.9 0 4A 4.9 All -Red Time () s.5 3.S 3 6 3.6 36 3.6 3,6 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.5 Lost lime 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 Last Time (s) 92 8.3 83 8.3 83 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 4.3 8.3 8.3 Laaditag Lag Laad 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 EMenslan (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 Mln Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash ponl Walk (s) 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Pedestrian Calls (0110 0 0 0 0 Act Eftr.1 Green (s) 02 23,6 23.6 17.9 32.2 32.2 10.1 10.6 10.6 12.1 12.6 12.5 AFtuated giC Ratio 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.19 O,33 0,33 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.13 vR Ratio 0.69 0.76 0.16 021 0.78 0.20 0.61 0.40 0,20 0.18 0.37 0.72 Control Delay 63.0 41.6 0.7 37.0 33.8 2A 62A 46A 1A 41.2 42.2 26,0 Queue Delay 00 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 fat -2034 AM w Accumulation 0512872020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Treblicock Consulting Solutlons, PA P a g f 1 270 Belimar Village Stewardship Receiving Area— T!S —Section 2 -- Intersection Analyses --August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Everglades Blvd & Oil Well Rd 06rzsr202o -A --I. # 'l— " T ure GMUP ESL EBT EBR WOL WST WER NBL NBT NBR SUL SBT 800 Total Delay 63.0 41.G 07 370 336 2A 52A 46.6 1.4 41.2 42.2 26.0 LOS D D A D C A D D A D D C Approach Delay 40.3 31.6 43.0 34 2 Approach LOS D C D C Queue Length 601h k1t) 66 184 0 34 262 0 63 46 0 21 49 40 queue Leng1h951h (h) 110 293 0 72 367 20 123 85 0 47 85 137 Internal Link Dlst (TI) 2310 1247 1399 1362 Turn Bay Length m) Q0 600 640 620 476 620 490 334 Base Capacity(vph) 370 1630 013 SU 2435 838 406 201 907 411 2414 049 Slarvalian Cap Redodn 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 Splllnach Cap 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 vX Ratio 0.60 0.34 0.10 021 062 016 0.62 0.09 0.07 0.18 010 0.31 hlterseeUOn Summer) Area 7yae: Other Cycle Length:150 Actualed Cycle Langth:97.9 Natural Cycle:140 Control Type: AcluVed•Uncootolnated Maximum vlc Ratio' 0.78 Intersection Signal Delay 35 9 Irdersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Ulliaatlon694% ICU Level or Service C Analysis Period (min)16 S tits and Phases: 1. Ever lades Blvd &Oil Well Rd •T 02 � 65 i 09 03 04 O5 0a Q7 Eveiqlades Blurs • Oil Well Rd -2034 AM w Accumulation 050f2024 Baseline 3ynehr410 Repad Page 2 Tre611cockConsuiting Solutions, PA P :i g e 1 271 Be11mar V11fage stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 - Intersection Analyses -August 2020 Lanes, Volumes. Timings 1: Ever lades Blvd & Oil Well Rd 081i1f202O Lane Group F8L EBT EBR WBL WBT WOR NOL NOT NOR SOL t3OT 61OR Lane Configuiallons 11 TT �+ )) ?fit )) fft r )) ttt F TratiicVolume(vph) 52$ 1132 66 129 860 110 90 216 121 124 1,91 77 Future Volume (.ph) 624 1132 5$ 128 850 110 90 216 121 124 161 77 Ideal Now (uphpl) I900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (h) 600 600 $40 520 476 620 490 330 Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Lenglh0) 100 100 100 100 Lane Util Factor 0.97 0.96 1.00 ON 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 ON 0.91 1.00 Fit 0.90 0.860 0.850 0.950 Fit Pintected 0.950 0,960 ONO 0.960 Said Flow (Prot) 3335 NU 1638 3335 4940 1638 3336 4940 1538 3336 4940 1538 Fit Permitted 01950 0.960 0.960 0160 sa1d. Flow (perm) 3335 3438 1538 3335 4940 16U 3336 4940 1638 3336 4940 1538 RIgh1 Turn on Iced Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. POW (RVO R) 159 159 169 169 Link Speed (mph) 46 46 46 46 Unk Distance M) 2390 1967 1479 1442 Travel Time 0) 362 29.8 22.4 21.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 096 0.95 0.% 0'95 0,95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles (N 5% 5% 6% 5% 5% 6% 6% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% Adj. now kph) 6% 1192 68 135 $96 116 95 227 127 131 191 $1 Shared L2ne Traffic (%) LAW Group Flow (vph) 56fi 1152 58 115 89$ 116 96 227 127 131 191 $1 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Penn Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Pro1961ed Pjn2so5 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 $ parmtled Phases 6 2 4 8 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 7 4 4 3 $ 8 SWitch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 6.0 12.0 12.0 6.0 21.0 210 6.0 10.0 100 5.0 100 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 13A 20.8 20.8 1318 552 66 3 13.0 18.9 1011 1313 6613 6S13 Total Split (s) 25.0 (13.1 63.1 17.8 65.9 55.9 13.$ 53.3 533 15.8 66.3 66.3 Total Split </v) # 16.7% 42.1% 42.1% 11.9% 37.3% 37.3% 9.2% 36.6% 36.5% 10.6% 361% 36.9% Maximum Greed (s) 16.7 54.4 64,8 9.5 47.6 47.0 6.6 45.0 45,0 7.5 47.0 47.0 Yallm Time (s) & 4A 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.0 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.0 4.4 4A AI -Red Time 0) 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.5 36 35 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.6 36 3.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 4e' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Last Time (s) 8.3 93 8.3 $.3 $ 3 U 82 8.3 8.3 $ 3 8.3 $.3 LaadXag 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 Eldenslon (s) 1.0 2.0 2.0 t .0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 20 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 rlasti Dort Walk (s) 40.0 40,0 40.0 40.0 Pedestrian Calls (latrr) 0 0 0 0 Pct Effct careen 0) 2155 43.3 43,3 7.7 26.6 26,6 7.4 10.6 10.6 7.1 10.2 10.2 Actuated 91C Ratio 026 0.42 OA2 0.08 0.25 026 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.10 6.10 vlr, Ratio 0A7 0.92 008 0.64 0.72 0.23 0.39 0.46 0.42 0,56 0.39 0,27 Control Delay 392 31.4 0.2 66.6 39.6 3.0 62.6 47,9 9.2 68.2 47.6 2.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0'0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 Everglades Blvd - Oil Well Rd -2034 PM W Accumulation 0 n 112020 Baseline 5ynchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebllcock Consulting Solutions, PA 11 a P e 1272 SellmorVlllage Stewardship Receiving Area — 715 —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Lanes. VoluMes. Timings 1; Everglades Blvd & Oil Well Rd oan1r2o20 ­0' --), * *- �*' t Lane Ofoup -- FOL EEIT EBR WBL WST %UBR tli]L NaT MR EBL SBT $BR Total May 39.2 31A 02 65.6 395 3.0 62.6 47,8 4.2 53,2 47,5 2.3 LOS ❑ C A E o A D D A E D A Approach Oelay 32.9 37.7 VA. 419 Approachr LOS C b D ❑ Queue Length 501h (1} 16B 'M 0 44 19t 0 31 52 0 43 44 0 Queue Length 95111 (n) 243 460 0 83 269 24 63 87 34 82 76 0 Internal Unk Dist (11) 2310 lot? 1399 1362 Tum Bay Length fit) coo Sao 640 620 476 520 490 330 Base Capacity(vph) 831 IS69 904 312 2320 SOO 241 2193 771 246 2291 798 Starvation Cap RQductn 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BpiPb0 CsP Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reducln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.67 0,04 o.06 0.43 0." 0,14 039 010 016 OS3 0.08 0.10 Ihlemection Summary Area Tppe_ Otner Cycle Length 160 Actuated Cycle Len0h:1022 Natural Cytle: 150 Control Type Au1Ualed•UMOOWinated Maximum vk Ratla' 0.82 Irdelsection Signal Delay 364 Irltermllan LOS D Interseclion Capacity Ltilizalion 75.6$6 ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) IS y 14s and PhMs! 1' Everglades Blvd & Oil Well Rd 02 1 ❑4 3 O6 OS 48 07 Everglades Blvd -Oil W0 Fdi • 2034 PM w ACC[Imuiatlon 0811 t2020 Baseline Synchro 10 Repart Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA (' a e 273 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TI5 —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses -- August 1020 Desoto Blvd — Randall Blvd a ro v'o 0 3 Villages Traffic E By Percentagez () 0 a Through Right w EV C30% + R30% RV (C5%+R5%) LV- C10%+R10% IRV- (CIO%+R10°k) e RV C5%+R5% Randall Blvd Randall Blvd Traffic Enter/Exit. 200/al(20N C = Commercial; R = Residential 13v`= Rellmsr Village LV~ Longwater Whge RV= Rivetgrass Village —J' Randall Blvd Right t3V CIO"%+R5% LV- CIO%+R10% Left DV- (C10% + R5%) LV (C10%+R10°k) 0 rt a 2 kNndell $lv6 Randall Blvd Through BY (C30%+R30%) LV- (CIO%+RIO%) RV. C10%+R10% Coo . gle Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 274 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area —PS— Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 3 Villages Traffic Year 2034 By AM Peak Hour Randall Blvd Right RV 0 +43= ]44) e RV 1 +11=12 Randall Blvd Randall Blvd Traffic Enter/Exit • 20420) C = Commercial; R = Residential 60— Bellmar Village LV- Longwater Village RV= Rivergrass Village 0 ro ur a 0 a v yr a o Through Lu EV- 4+111=115 LV i + 35= 36 RV (1 + 87=— ] 239 Right 13V i +18=19 55 Left By (1 +56= 571) LV- (1 +107= I= 165 0 m a z PamJall 1310 Randall Blvd Through E V- (4 +339= 343) LV (1 +107- 108) Rv 1 + 28= _9. 475 Go gle Trebllcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 275 Bellmar Village 5tewordshlp Receiving Areo — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 G 3 Villages Traffic m Year 2034 n By PM Peak Hour a Randall Blvd Randall Blvd Ttaffic Enter/Errit- 20/(20) C = Commercial; R = Residernlial 8\/-- Bellmar Village LV" Longwater Village RV`-- Rivergrass Village 0 N :n J a Through Night BV 28 +314= 342 — LV 9 + 99=1013 RV• (5 + 44n_e 499 Le RV- 4 +42�` 46 ll'md.O i;lvrl Right 13V- 9 452= 61 169 Left BV q +32= 39) LV- (7 i60=.w 106 o a rn c a z itundnll plvd Through MV. (21 +191=212) LV• (7 + 60= 67) RV- 6 + 84= 371 Go gle Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 276 TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION - DESOTO BLVD AND RANDALL BLVD COUNT DATA - DATE - 01-09-ZD20 COUNT DATA - TIME - 7.00 AM - 9.00 AM PEAK HOUR -7.OD AM - 8.00AM AM PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRAFFIC RANDALL BOULEVARD DESOTO BOULEVARD WESTBOUND EASTBOUND SOLTHBOUND NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 202OTMCs 1 1 0 2 26 0 19 45 1 73 52 126 77 110 0 1.87 PSCF (2018 DATA) 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 L06 L06 1.06 1.06 1.06 L06 L06 L.06 2020 BACKGROUND VOLUME 2 2 0 4 28 0 21 49 2 78 56 136 82 117 0 199 GROWTH RATE 2.6% 2.6°% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6°% 2.6°% 2.6% 2-6°% 2.6% 2.6% YEARSTO BUILD -OUT 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 2034 BACKGROUND 3 3 0 6 41 0 31 72 3 112 81 196 118 168 0 286 3 VILLAGESTURNING VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 12 0 55 67 0 239 44 283 165 475 0 640 2034 BACKGROUND+PROJECT 3 3 0 6 53 0 86 139 3 351 125 479 283 643 0 926 TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION - DESOTO BLVD AND RANDALL BLVD COUNT DATA - DATE - 01-09-2D20 COUNT DATA - TIME - 4.00 PM - 6.00 PM PEAK HOUR - 4.00 PM - 5.00 PM PM PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRAFFIC RANDALL BOULEVARD DESOTO BOULEVARD WESTBOUND EASTBOUND 50UTHBOUND NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 2020TMCs 0 0 0 0 43 0 76 119 D 98 33 131 40 71 0 111 PSCF (2018 DATA) 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1-06 1.06 1.06 1.06 2020 BACKGROUND VOLUME 0 0 0 0 46 0 81 127 0 104 35 139 43 76 0 119 GROWTH RATE 2.6°/u 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 26°% 2 6°% 26°% 2.6°% 2.6% 2.6% YEARS TO BUILD -OUT 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 2034 BACKGROUND 0 0 0 0 66 0 117 183 0 149 51 200 62 109 0 171 3 VILLAGES TURNING VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 46 0 169 215 0 499 25 524 106 371 0 477 2034BACKGROUND +PROJECT 0 D D D 112 0 286 398 0 649 76 724 168 480 0 648 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area - T75 -Section 2 - In rersectlon Analyses -August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings i : DeSoto Blvd & Randall Blvd 050J 020 ,,, --1, ­v 1- -*- k -*I Lai* Group EBL COT UR WBL 1MBT WOR N9L NOT NOR SBL 66T t39R Lane CiDnliguralions 4+ 4 T+ + Tra41c Volume (uph) 53 0 $6 0 a 0 283 643 a 3 351 126 Future Volume (vph) 53 0 $6 0 0 0 283 643 0 3 361 125 Ideal Flaw (phpl) 1900 1900 1$00 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage tength (I) 0 0 0 0 240 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 a Taper Length 0) 100 140 S0 26 Lane Ulil 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 Fit 0.917 0.966 Fit Protected 0.9$1 0.950 Said. Florv(prol) 0 1628 0 0 1$10 0 1719 1810 0 0 1746 0 Fit Permitted 0.874 0302 0.996 Said. Flo w(penn) 0 1460 0 0 1810 0 567 1910 0 0 1739 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 97 26 Unk Speed (Mph) 45 46 46 30 Unk Distance Qt) 1083 357 602 276 Travel Time (s) 16.4 6A 9.1 6.3 Peah Hour Factor 0.133 0.83 0.93 0.93 093 0.93 0.0 0,90 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy vehicles (%) 6% 6% 6% 60/0. 50r0 6% 6% S% 5% 6% 6% 60A Adl. now Oph) 57 0 92 0 0 0 304 691 0 3 377 134 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (qph) 0 149 4 0 0 0 304 011 0 0 514 0 Turn Type Perm NA pm»pt NA Perin NA Protected Phases 6 2 7 4 8 Parmitted Phases 6 2 4 8 OOW& PhA99 6 6 2 2 7 4 $ $ Switch Phase Minimum initial (s) 4.0 4.0 1.0 10 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Spill (s) 11 A 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11,0 11.0 11.0 Total Split (s) 32.0 32.0 32,0 32.0 12.0 58A 46.0 40.0 Total Spilt (%) 36.6% 35.6% 366% 35-8% 13 2% 64.4% 61.1% 61.1% Maximum Green (s) 26.5 20.5 26.6 26.5 6.6 52.6 40.5 40.6 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 a.5 3.5 3.6 3.5 a's 3.6 3.5 All -Red Tme 0) 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2,0 2.0 Last lime Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.6 5.6 6.6 5.5 6.6 Lead"q lead Lag Lag Lead•Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Uenslon (s) 3A 30 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Itacall Mode Min Min Min Min None None None None Act E1lct Green (s) 8.2 32.6 32.6 20.2 Actuated 91C Ratio 0.16 0.62 0.62 0.39 vk Ratio 0.48 0.61 0.81 0.76 Control May 15.8 10.8 8,9 20.6 aueue Delay 0.0 0.0 0 0A Total Delay 15.8 16.9 $.9 20.5 LOS B B A O Approach Delay 15 $ 9.6 20.6 Oe5010 Bled - Rsrulall stud - 2034 AM w hQ1111ulati0n 0512M020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebllcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 279 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS—Section 2— Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1 : ae8oto Blvd & Randall Blvd c6rzsrrn2o _# ^. , 4_ 4\ t /W Lana Group t=_K EBT EDR WBI. 1111[T WSR N81- N87_. NBR SOL BBT OBR Approach LOS B A C T Queue Length 601h m) Queue Leilgih95th Qt) 14 66 32 81 98 233 '116 24'ttikoo lirternal Llnk Dist fit) 277 522 195 Turn Bay Length m) 240 Base Capacity (uph) 809 498 1697 1403 starvation Cap fteductn 0 0 0 0 Splllb'lck iap Reductn Storage Cap Reducin 0 o 0 0 a 0 a q-40 Reduced A Ratio 0.18 061 0,41 0.37 Iltersecllan Summary . Area Type Other Cycle Length: $10 Aclualed Cycla Length: 52.2 Natural Cycle:65 Control Type Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vh Ratio' 0.75 Intersection Signal Delay 13.5 Intersection LOS: B Irerseciron Capacity LUlizatlan 82.196 ICU Level of Ser%Ce E Analysis Penod (min)16 3 Ilts and Phases: 1: Dauto Blvd &Randall 1910 02 OA —006 07 1� 08 De Soto Mud- Randall BIA - 2034 AM w Accumulation 06 M2020 MOM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a t; e 1 280 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TiS-Section 2 -Intersection Analyses -August 2020 Lanes, Volumes. Timings Di3S010 Blvd & Randall Blvd aan11�n2o -A --Ii ­;il, .4-- t Lang Groulo FBL EDT EBR WBL UUBT WRK NBL NBT NBR W SO bbN Lane Configurations 4+ + rj I. + TtdttiG V01i (y1h) 112 0 286 0 0 0 10 480 0 0 649 76 Ftff lfe Va41me (Lp11) 112 0 286 0 0 0 168 480 0 0 648 76 Ideal Flow Ophpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 190o 1900 1900 Storage Length pt) 0 0 0 0 240 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Taper Length Qt) 100 146 GO 25 Lane Ulil Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1100 1100 1,00 Fit 0,903 0.986 Fit Protected 0.986 0-460 Sa1d. Flow (prat) 0 1011 0 0 1810 0 1719 1810 0 0 1784 0 F8 Permitted 0.905 0.090 Ud,Flow (perin) 0 1479 0 0 1910 0 163 1810 0 0 1784 0 Right Turrl on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes 5atd. Flaw (RTOR) 146 9 Link Speed (mph) 46 45 45 30 Link Distance (4) 1083 357 602 275 Travel Time (s) 16A 6A 9.1 63 Peak Hoer Factor 0.93 0,93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 093 ►teary vehicles (^) 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% S% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% Adj. now oph) 120 0 308 0 0 0 181 616 0 0 697 82 Shared Lane Trani( (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 426 6 0 0 0 191 516 0 0 779 0 Turn Type Perm NA pm*pt NIA NA PrutRcled Phases 6 2 7 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Detector Phase 6 6 2 2 7 4 8 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4,0 4.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Spirt (s) 1110 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Total Spit (5) 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 12.0 58.0 46,0 46.0 Total Split (%) 35$% 36.6% 35k% 35.6% 13.3% $4.4% 61.1% 61 A% Maximum Green (s) 26.5 26.6 26.5 26.5 6.5 52.6 40.6 40.6 Yellow Time (s] 35 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 All -Red Time 2.0 2.0 20 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 Last Time (S) 6.6 5.5 6.5 5.5 6.6 LeadiLag lead Lag Lag Lead -Lay Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Vehicle EMensim (S) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 Recall Made Min Min Min Min None None None None Act E110 Oreen 0) 21.6 61,0 61.0 W9 Actuated gio Ratio 0.26 0.61 0.61 0.41 uk Matto OU 0.82 0.47 0.94 Control Delay 39.8 45.2 11.5 42.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 39.3 46.2 11.6 42.4 Las D ❑ B D Approach Delay 39.4 20.2 42.4 Desoto Blvd - Randall Blvd - 2034 PM w Accumulation 03A 112020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Tre6ilcack Consulting 5nlutlons, PA P a P. P 1 283 Sellmor Village Stewardship Recelving Area — TlS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Desoto Blvd & Randall Blvd Wl1l2020 -," --, --,, * *--*\ r ,- �. 1 r LAnaGroup, EBL EBT FOR ML WET WER NOL NOT NOR, BBL BEST OR Approach LOS D C D Queue Lenglh50lh (h) 150 0 1418 393 Queue Lengih951h (tt) A907 4A72 47 *0 Internal Link Dist lr) 1003 277 622 11)5 Turn Bay Lengtn (h) 240 1� Base Caparlty 4h) 673 221 1160 379 5larvatlnn Cap Reductn 0 0 0 li a SpWbark Cap Reducin 0 0 0 0 Storage flap Reducln 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc ROo 075 0.82 0.46 (1.89 1ronocuorl SOMM Area Type: other Cycle Length:90 Atlualed Cycle Length 83.6 Natural Cycle 80 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vie R81V 0.94 Intersecti❑n Signal Delay.33.7 intersection L08: C Innersection Capacity ltllizatlon 101.6% lCU Lavel Of $erdice d Analysis Period (min) 15 0 95th percentile volume e)c8e ds Capa ty, queue maybe longer. queue shown is maximum after two cycles 5 W 8nd Pha5e5' 1 Desma Blvd &Railuall Nlvu 02 t04 --P'Q6 D7 1 68 De9914 BIKI Randall Elul - 2034 PM IN Accumulation 0811112020 Baseline Sy%hro 10 Peporl Page 2 Trebilcack Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1292 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TI5 —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Lverslades Blvd — Randall Blvd 3 Villages Traffic By Percentage a Through BV C5% +1145% LV- C5 % RV- (C10% +R5%) m n 7 Through BV C10 +R5% LV C5%+R10%4 RV C5 %v + R5% Piing it Woo l Right BV- R5% LV R5% Left BV (R5°/a) LV- (R5°lo) m ra IC nter! xit - 2 5 C = Commercial; R = Pasidential BV-- Bellmar Village a LV= Longwater Village RV= RivergrassMllage To Through BV- (CIO% +R5%) LV (C5 +Rio°/a) RV (C5 +R6u/*) 77 Ra1� li a75 nw dall Blvd Randall Blwkl Through BV- (C5%+R5%) LV (C5,Yo) RV CID%+R5% oogle Trebilcock Consulting Solutlons, PA P a p, e 1 283 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 ro w m 3 Villages Traffic ❑ Year 2034 By AM Peak Hour Through m BV- 1 + 1 B= 19 ro LV- I n' i!'11i'l1'.l lilts RV- (1 +43=44) 64 `m a Through Through BV 0 + 56= 57) BV• 1 + 18=19 LV (1 +107=108) LV 1 +35= 36 RV 0 +43= A41 RV 1 + 11 _2 209 67 I{an�FJI Hlvd 1{;�n , 11 1�14 liasi t +tl 111v11 Randall UIvd � m Ig 7. HV• 18 LV 17 35 Left roug HV- (56) BV 0 + 56= 57) LV LV (1) 109 RV 1 +11=J2 { 70 cu Traffic Enter/Exit - 20:Resi:dEeinfi] C = Commercial; R =BV= Bellmar VillageLV= Longwaler Villa2 RV= Rsvergrass Villa Go gle Trebilcock Consulting 5olutlons, PA P �i f{ 1: 1 284 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS --Section 2 - intersection Analyses -August 2020 f7: 3 Villages Traffic Year 2034 By PM Peak dour m r� n r +o i Through " BV- 5 + 52= 57 LV 4 RV (5 +22=.27.1 a Through Through 88 BV (7 +32=39) BV 9 + 52= 61 LV (3 460= 63) LV- 4 +99=103 RV (3 +22=_25i RV- 4 + 42=-Afi 127 210 i, ,, ii .� qan 1i 134vd Randall Blvd Randall 91ud m Righl L V- 49 1 ii 1Through Lefl BV- (4 +32= 36) B'W- (32) LV 3 LV- M RV 6 + 42=_M 62 $9 Traffic nter xit 01() C = Commercial; R = Residential BY- Beilrnar Village n LW Longwater Village z RV= Rivergrass Village Google Trebllcoek Consulting Solutions, PA P a p e l 285 TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION - EVERGLADES BLVD AND RANDALL BLVD COUNT DATA - DATE - 01.09-2020 COUNT DATA - TIME - 7.00 AM - 9.00 AM PEAK HOUR - 7.00 AM - 8.00 AM AM PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRAFFIC RANDALL BOULEVARD EVERGLADES BOULEVARD WESTBOUND EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 202DTMCs 7 156 9 172 69 34 83 196 5 153 156 314 205 115 12 332 PSCF (2018 DATA} L06 1.06 L06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1-06 1-06 L06 2020 BACKGROUND VOLUME 8 166 1D 184 74 37 88 199 6 163 166 335 218 122 13 353 GROWTH RATE 2 6°% 2.6% 26D% 2.6°% 2.5D% 2.6°% 2.6% 2.6°% 2.6% 26°% 2.6°% 26°% YEA RSTOBUILD-OUT 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 2034 BACKGROUND 12 238 15 265 106 53 127 286 9 234 238 175 19 507 3 VILLAGE5TURNING VOLUMES 0 209 0 209 0 67 35 102 0 64 0 t64109 70 0 179 2D34BACKGROUND+PROJECT 12 447 15 474 1D6 120 162 388 9 298 238 245 19 686 TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION - EVERGLADES BLVD AND RANDALL BLVD COUNT DATA - DATE - D1-09-2020 COUNT DATA - TIME - 4.0D PM - 6.00 PM PEAK HOUR - 4.DD PM - 5.00 PM PM PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRAFFIC RANDALL BOULEVARD EVERGLADES BOULEVARD WESTBOUND EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 2020 TMCS 17 74 9 100 121 135 201 457 10 117 95 222 104 141 12 257 PSCF (2018 DATA) 1.06 1.06 1,06 1.06 1,06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 L06 202D BACKGROUND VOLUME 19 79 10 108 129 144 214 487 11 125 101 237 111 150 13 274 GROWTH RATE 2.6°% 2.6% 2.6°% 2.6°% 2 645 2.6°% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6°% 2.6°% 2.6% YEARS TO BUILD -OUT 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 2034 BACKGROUND 28 114 15 157 185 207 307 699 16 180 145 341 159 215 19 393 3VILLAGESTURNINGVOLUME5 0 127 0 127 0 210 101 311 0 88 0 88 62 89 0 L51 2034BACKGROUND +PROJECT 28 241 15 284 185 417 408 1,01D 16 268 145 429 221 304 19 544 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -Intersection Analyses -August 2020 Lades, Volumes, Timings 1: Everglades Blvd & Randall Blvd 060r2020 Lane owup EBL tRT. EPR IIUBL WET dUBR NUL NBT NBR SBL SET 813R Lane Conliguratio«s *' fir + wj T� d r Traffic Volume (oph) 106 120 162 12 447 15 422 246 19 9 298 236 Fc4ureVolume(uph) 1% 120 162 12 447 15 422 245 1$ 9 2" 238 Ideal Flow Ophpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1s00 1960 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (11) 0 236 0 0 236 0 0 235 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 Taper length (tt) 50 140 54 0 Lane LAK Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 140 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.860 0.996 0 989 0.050 Fit Protected 6.917 0.999 0.950 0.999 Said. Flow (()rot) 0 1768 1538 0 1800 0 1719 1790 0 0 1$48 1538 FH Permihed 0.494 0190 0.629 0.01 Satd. Flaw {pawn) 0 $94 1638 0 1784 0 A67 1790 0 0 1793 1538 RDghl Turn on Red N0 Yes N0 Yea said. Flow (RT0 R) 3 251 Onk Speed (mph) 45 46 46 45 Link Distance 0) 1083 367 602 545 Travel Time (s) 16A 5A 9A 83 Peak Hour Fact or 0.96 0.96 0,95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.95 4.95 0,95 0 95 0.96 0.95 Heavy Vehicles 6% 6% Vk 6% 59G 6% 5% 6% 6% 6% 5% 6% Adj. Flow Opt)) 112 126 171 13 471 16 444 258 20 9 314 251 Snared lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow(Th) 0 234 171 0 Soo 0 444 272 0 0 323 251 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Penn NA Perm NA farm 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 9 8 Switch Phase Minimum Iniliat (s) S.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 Minimum 6`PIR (s) 23b 23.5 23.6 23.5 23.6 23.5 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 Total $plit (s) 52.0 520 62.o 52.0 62.0 39.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 Total Split (%) 57A% $7.8% 67.8% 67.8% 67.8% 42.2% 422% 422% 422% 42,2% Magirrium Green (s) 46.5 46,6 46.6 46.5 46.6 32.6 32.6 32.5 32.5 32.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3b 3S 3.5 3.s 3.6 3.5 3.5 a$ All -Red Time (s) 2.0 20 20 20 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 Total Lost Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.5 LeadlLag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Uenslon (e) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3A 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3-0 Recall "000 Min Min Min Min Mir) None None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7,6 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont VNalk (s) 11,0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11,0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (Oho 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act ENd Green (s) 23.8 23.8 23.8 32.8 32.8 32.8 32.8 Actuated 91C Raffia US 0.36 0.35 0.48 OAS 0.44 0.49 Vk Ratio 0.76 0.32 0.79 0.96 0.32 0-37 0.29 Control Delay 36A 17.0 29.5 65.6 13.6 14,2 3.0 Queue Delay 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Everglades Blvd - Randall Blvd - 20a4 AM improved w Accumulation 050I1020 Baseline Synchr010 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1' a g e 1 299 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS—Sectlorr 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Everglades Blvd & Randall Blvd 06128l2020 ^. 4" t 1 UM Glaup ESL EBT EBR VOL %VBT WRR NOL NOT -HRR GOL SBT O Total delay 36.4 17.0 29.5 66.6 13.6 142 3.0 L0S D B C E 9 B A Approach Delay 277 29.6 39.4 5.3 Approach LOS C C 0 A Quaue Length 60th Qt) 85 50 180 162 64 77 0 Queue Length 95th (tt) 164 91 282 M26 161 177 41 Internal Link Dist (It) 1003 277 622 469 Turn Bay Length (R) 236 235 235 Base GBpACity (vph) 619 1065 1237 463 867 868 $74 Starvatton Cap Redudn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spllluack Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Redudn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced ak Rath 0.38 0.16 0,40 0.96 032 0 37 029 Ints"aclion Rummmy Area Type: Other Cycle Length 90 Acluated Cycle Length- 67.7 Natural Cycle. 65 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vm Ra1io:0,96 trlteiseclon Signal Delay: 271 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 0) 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue shown Is maximum after two cycles. Ills and Phases: 1: Ever lades Blvd &Randall BIW 0� 04 --Pt75 ` 08 Everglades Blue - Randall Blvd • 2034 AM Improved w Accumulation 06012020 Baseline Synchro 10 Repoit Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting solutions, PA I' ) F. c 1 289 eellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TiS -Section 2 - latersection Analyses -August 2020 Lanes, Volumes. Timings Everglades Blvd & Randall Blvd _ 0$111Q020 UM GOU EBL EBT EBK WBL WBT WOR NOL NBT NBR ('-Bl SOT OR Lane Configurations 4T r 4. 1 T+ *T r Tlatfit VOIUma 6ph) 1% 417 408 28 241 16 221 304 19 16 26e 146 Future Volume "h) 195 417 403 28 241 16 221 304 19 16 268 146 Ideal Flow Ophpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (R) 0 236 0 0 236 0 0 236 Storage Lanes 0 1 4 0 1 0 0 1 Taper Lenoh fit) 50 140 50 0 Lane Utll Factor 1.00 1.00 1100 1.00 I'm 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fit 0.850 0.993 0.991 0-860 Fit Protected 0.985 0.995 0260 4.997 Said. Flow (prot) 0 1782 1538 0 170 0 1719 1793 0 0 1804 1638 Fit Permitted 0,789 0.917 0.476 0.970 Satd.Flow (perm) 0 1428 108 0 164tr 0 $61 1793 0 0 1765 109 Right Turn on Red No Yes No Yes Said. Flow (RTD R) 6 153 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 46 45 Link Distance M) 1083 357 $02 546 Travel Time (s) 16A 6.4 9.1 92 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 096 0.95 0.95 0.95 0,95 0.96 0.96 0,95 0.05 Heavy Vehicies ( 4) 6% 5% M 6% 5°.6 5% 696 6% 5% 6% 6% 6% Ail Flow �ph) 196 439 429 29 254 16 233 320 20 17 2$2 163 Shared Lane Tratllc (96) Lane Group Flow O ph) 0 634 429 0 299 0 733 340 0 0 299 163 Tum Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Farm Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 4 4 Detector Phase 6 6 6 2 2 4 4 8 $ 8 $Witch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 $'0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.5 23.6 23.6 23.5 22.6 23.5 Total SpA (s) 62.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 62.0 39.0 38.0 38.0 38-0 38.0 Total Split (%) 57.8% 57.$% 57,11% 01% 67.4% 42.2% 42.2% 42.2% 42 2% 42.2% Maximum Green 0) 465 46.6 46.5 46.6 46.5 32.5 326 32.5 326 32S Yellow Time (s) 3b 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.5 3b 3.5 U 3.$ All -Red T1me �) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.o 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Tlme Adjust (S) 0.0 OA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.6 5.5 56 5.5 6.6 5.6 5G Lead)Lag Lsad•Lag OptimlxO Vehicle Eldension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3-0 3.0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min Min None None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 1.0 7-0 7,0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Writ Walk t5) 11,0 110 11.0 11 A 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Cells (fto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Rid Green (s) 39.0 39.0 39-0 25.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.61 0,51 0.51 0.33 0.33 0,33 0.33 vh Ratio 0.87 0.55 0 35 0.$1 0,57 0.51 0 25 Control Delay 34.0 16.5 13.1 41.7 26.2 25.0 4.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 OA 0.0 0.0 0.0 Everglades Blvd - Randall Blvd - 2034 PM Improved w Accumulation 08112020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1' , y! " 1 290 Sellrnar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — Tt5 —Section 2 —in tersection Analyses —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Everglades Blvd & Handall Blvd 06MIt2020 -,* -• -,* 'e 4--- -*\ t r `- 1 41 Lane Gmue EBL EBT ERR WRL WBT WBR NBL NBT N9R S6L SBT 3BR Total Delay 32.0 16.5 131 07 262 26,0 4.9 LOS C B B D C C A Appro3cll belq 25.7 t3.1 35,3 12,2 Approach LOS C B D 13 Queue Length50th fit) 274 146 ft7 M 150 in 0 Queue Length 95th Qt) M22 243 160 A236 234 205 39 Internal Link Dist (t) 1003 277 622 466 Tuin Bay Length It) 235 235 235 988eCapaclty(bph) 932 1003 1077 393 919 901 786 Starvation Cap Reducln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Splllback Cap Raducin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reducln 0 b 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced urc fto 00 0 43 0.29 0.0 0.42 0.37 0.19 Intersection Summary Area Type: 01her Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length-761 Natural Cycle.60 Control Type; Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vlk R&OI O 87 Intetsectlon Signal Delay, 25,0 Intersection LQS. C Intersection Capacity Ltiiization 97 80,6 ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 # 951h percentile Velutne e)tteecis capacity, queue may be longer Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Nnases 1; Ever lades tllva 8,uanaw mw 42 04 —Oa5 1 � 08 Eveiglades Blvd - Randah BlvCd - 2034 PSI Improved w Accurnuiation W11020 Baseline Synchto 10 Repolt Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1' ;1 i, e 1 291 Beilmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS - Section 2 - Intersection Anolyses -August 2020 Golden Gate Blvd — Desoto Blvd 3 Villages Traffic By Percentage ThIeUgh : 19V R20% Right Left LV- (C15%+R20%) IHV- C45%+R15% RV- (C5% + R10%) l Right LefLV� C15°fo +R2p°lo SV• (C45°/%+R15 RV- C5%+R10°f8 Through BV- C55%+R46°le . fight � E3V R20% Left sv- (R2o%) @TID Through BV- (C55%+R45%) rough Traffic Enter/Exit d(2 K) 8V (R20%) C = Cummarcial; R = Residential BV= Bellmar Village LV= LongwaterVillage RV-- Rivergrass Village o QIe Trebilcock Consulting Solutlons, PA 1' z g e 1 292 Bellmar Vlfloge Stewardship Receiving Area — T15 — 5ectian 2 — In tersectian Analyses —August 2020 3 Villages Traffic Year 2034 By AM Peak Hour w w z Through Right 6V 74 LV- (2 +214= 216) RV (1 + 87= —= Le 304 G�• 6a5=ta7 LeftIlRiahl LV 2 +70= 72 D; (6+169=175) RV 1 +23 96 96 TO Through " t3V• 8 +166t 174 i�� r Through EN- (8 +508=516) Right 9\4 74 m FOR Through Traffic Enterffixil 2000) - 6V (226) QV Zg C= Commercial; R=Residential Bellmar Vllage LV= LongwaterVillage RV-- Rivergrass Village le Tra6ilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a I' e 1 293 Bellmar Villoge Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS— Section 2 —Intersection Analyses —August 2020 3 Villages Traffic Year 2034 By PM Peak Hour P O C Right rO_u LV (10 +121= 131) BV 209 RV- (3 + 44= —411 176 Left /- 42+157= 198 eit � LV- 13 +198= 211 t RV 4 + 84=� BV 32,96299 = 126J Through ITV- 52+471=523 °'t Through Y 6V- (39 +287= 328) Right BV 2 99 Leff rough E3V` (128) 1 1 ENA 12B) ST r. I... _ ' 1�,.1I Traffic nter xii C = Commercial, R =Residential B\,A-- Bettmar MIlage LV= LongwalerVillage RV= RivergrassVillage Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1 294 TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION - GOLDEN GATE BLVD AND DESOTO BLVD COUNT DATA - DATE - 02-05-2020 COUNT DATA - TIME - 7.00 AM - 9.0D AM PEAK HOUR - 7.00 AM - 8.D0 AM AM PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRAFFIC GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD DESOTO BOULEVARD WESTBOUND EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 2020TMCS 0 1 2 3 70 1 20 91 2 31 113 146 147 64 0 211 PSCF (2018 DATA) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0D 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0D 1.00 1.00 LDD ZDZ0 BACKGROUND VOLUME 0 1 Z 3 70 1 20 91 2 31 113 145 147 64 0 Zll GROWTH RATE 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% YEARS TO BUILD -OUT 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 2034 BACKGROUND 0 2 3 5 101 2 29 132 3 45 162 210 211 92 0 303 3VILLAGESTURNINGVOLUME5 0 516 175 691 96 174 74 344 61 74 304 439 226 22 00 452 2034 BACKGROUND +PROJECT 0 518 178 696 197 176 103 476 64 119 466 649 437 318 D 755 rr pr n 0 C oa 0 c 0 v D TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION - GOLDEN GATE BLVD AND DESOTO BLVD COUNT DATA - DATE - 02-05-2020 COUNT DATA - TIME - 4.00 PM - 6.00 PM PEAK HOUR - 5.00 PM - 6.00 PM PM PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRAFFIC GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD DESOTO BOULEVARD W E5TBOUND EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUN D NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 2020 TMCS 0 1 3 4 95 2 144 241 2 41 75 118 49 38 0 87 PSCF (2018 DATA) 1.00 1.00 1.00 L00 1.00 1.00 1.00 L00 L0D 1.00 1.00 1.00 2020 BACKGROUND VOLUME 0 1 3 4 95 2 144 241 2 41 75 118 49 38 0 87 GROWTH RATE 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% YEARSTO BUILD -OUT 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 2034 BACKGROUND 0 2 5 7 137 3 207 347 3 59 108 170 71 55 0 126 3 VILLAGES TURNING VOLUMES 0 326 128 454 299 523 209 1,031 199 2D9 178 596 128 128 0 256 2034 BACKGROUND+PROJECT 0 328 133 461 436 526 416 1,378 2D2 268 286 756 199 183 0 382 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS - Section 2 - Intersection Analyses - August 2020 Lanes, Volumes. Timings 1: OeSoto Blvd 05.012020 Lane Group EBL W ERR WDL 1ABT WBR NBL NOT N9R SOL BBT SOR Large Configurallons +I* 4j4 A TO Traffic Volume (Wh) 197 176 103 0 618 178 437 319 0 64 119 466 Future Volume (uph) 191 176 103 0 518 170 437 319 0 64 119 466 Ideal naUr (vphpl) 1900 Iwo 1900 1900 11900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 5lorage Lstlgth 0) 23v 236 0 235 235 0 235 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 Taper Lenglh0) so 140 50 50 lane Ulil Wtor 1.00 0.96 0,95 0,95 0.96 0.95 0.$7 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.945 0.962 0.880 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0 $SO Said. Flow(prol) 1719 3249 0 0 3307 0 3336 1810 0 1719 1592 0 Fit Permitted 0.106 0.950 0.950 Sold. Flow (porm) 190 3249 0 0 a307 0 3336 1810 0 1719 1592 0 Nit Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes 521d, Flow (PTO R) 89 29 149 Link Speed (mph) 46 46 45 46 Linh Dislance (tt) 321 836 602 633 Travel Time (S) 4.9 12.7 9.1 0 Peak Hour FBttor 0 ?5 0.95 0.95 0,95 0.96 0.95 0.96 095 095 0 95 0.96 0.96 Heavy Vehicles (IN 6% 6% 6% 646 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% AdJ. Flow ( ph) 207 186 109 0 645 187 460 335 0 67 125 491 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flaw (}Vh) 207 293 0 0 732 0 00 33s 0 67 616 6 Turn Type pm1A NA NA Prat NA Prot NA Protected Phases 1 6 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 Detettor Phase 1 6 2 2 7 4 3 8 Switch Phase Minimum lnilol (s) 5.0 10.0 10A 10.0 5.0 10,0 50 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 10,5 16.5 15.6 166 10.5 16.6 105 16.6 Total SI3In (S) 220 600 38.0 34.0 30.0 78.0 120 60.0 Total spin (%) 14.7% 40.0% 261% 25.3% 20,0% 52.0% 9.0% 40.0% Maximum Green ($) 16.6 54.6 32.5 325 24.6 72.5 6.5 54.6 >� Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 Al -Red Time l) 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2,0 2,0 20 2.0 Last Time Atqus1 (s) 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OA 0,0 Total Lest Time (s) 6.5 5.5 6.6 5.5 5.5 5.6 6.6 L,eadit.ag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle EAenslorl (8) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Act Oct preen (s) 64.0 64.0 32.7 22.2 33.5 38.7 49.3 Actuated g!C Ratio 0.38 0.38 0.23 0.16 0.23 0.27 0.35 A AMID 0.96 0.23 094 0.06 0.79 0.14 0-96 Confrol Delay 69.2 22.2 72.9 70.2 651 43.3 60.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DO 0.0 Total Delay 692 22.2 72.9 76.2 66.1 43,3 60.1 Los E C E E E D E Approach Delay 41.7 72.9 71.5 68.6 Oe Sato Bled - 008 - 2034 AM w Accumulation 0472912020 Baseline Synchro 10 Reporl Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P r' g c, 1297 Bellniar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — VS —Section 2 — intersection Analyses —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes. Timings 1: DeSoto Blvd 05292020 .A , � '- � t t � 4 � */ Lane Gin up HL CIT EBR WOL WEIT WBR NOL NOT NOR SBL seT SUR Approach LOS D E E E Queue length 60th It) 162 71 366 229 312 48 464 Queue Length 96th Qt) 901 lot *07 M11 392 99 910 44 Internal ink Dist Qt) 241 76S 522 553 Tum Bay Length (lt) 236 235 236 .IN" Base Capacity (4ph) 249 430 780 576 926 466 702 Marvatlan Cap Radudn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Rgductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5tarage Cap Reductn 0 O F 0 0 0 0 0 Raduced vh Ratio (11a 0.22 0.94 0.80 0.36 0.14 0.88 Intersection Eummary Area Type. Other Cycle Lengih:150 Actuated Cycle Length;142,e Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated-1lncoardinated Maximum vit Patin, 0.95 Inersection Signal Delay:63.1 Intersection LOS E Intersection Capacity Ullization 96.7% M Level at Servlce F Analysis Pend (min)15 W 95th percentile volume ewe eds capacity, queue maybe longer Queue shown Is maximum alter two cycles. s Ills and Phases: l: UeSoto Blvd F C1 t 02 04 03 6 '\ 07 • 08 r oesate Bivq - GGB - 2034 AM �v Accum ulAon 052M020 Baseline synchro 10 Pepott Page 2 7rebllcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1' i1 t, (- 1 298 8ellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area - T!S -Section 2 - Intersectlon Analyses -August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: DeSoto Blvd W11200 Ume Group €BL EBT EBR WBL Vti9T WOR NBL NOT NSR SBL BUT SBR Lane Configurations ) 0 +TT► !i) T. 1s Traffic Votume "h) 436 626 416 0 328 133 199 103 0 202 268 286 FulureVolume "h) 436 626 416 0 328 133 1$$ 183 0 202 268 286 (deal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (h) 235 235 0 235 235 0 236 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 TalAr Length 0) 60 ion 100 50 Lane QJ. Factor 1.04 0.95 0.95 0,96 0-96 0.95 OW 1 00 1.00 1100 1.00 1.00 Fit 0.934 0.967 0.923 Fit Protecled 0.950 0%0 0.450 Satd. FtoiN (prat) 1719 3211 0 0 3290 0 3336 1810 0 1719 1670 0 Fn Perm"ad 0.171 0.960 0.950 Satd Flow (perm) 308 3211 0 0 3290 0 3336 1slo 0 1719 1670 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flaw (RTOR) 178 37 37 Unk Speed (mph) 46 45 45 46 Ut* Dislance (ft) 321 $36 602 633 Travel Time (S) 4,9 12.7 9.1 9 6 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 U5 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.95 095 Heavy Vehicles (°6) 6% 6% 6% 611A 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 50,5 6% 6% Adj. Flow (uph) 459 654 438 0 345 140 209 193 0 213 232 301 Shared Lane Traffic (R6) Lane Group Flow (,-ph) 459 992 6 0 465 0 209 193 0 2i3 583 0 Turn 7ppe pmypt NA NA Prot NA Prot NA Protaded Phases 1 6 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 Detector Phase 1 6 2 2 7 4 3 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (S) 5.0 10,0 10.0 10.0 6.0 10,0 5.0 10.0 Minimum Spit (s) 10.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 10.5 15.6 10.5 16.6 Total Split (s) 39.0 75.0 37.0 37.0 22,0 66.0 19,0 63.0 Total SPllt (0r6) 25 3% 60.0% 24.7% 24.7% 14.7% 37.3% 12.7% 36-3% Maxiintim Green (s) 32.5 69.5 31.5 31.5 16.5 50.5 13.6 47.6 Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.5 35 3,6 3§ 3.6 3.6 All -Red Time 15) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2,0 2.0 2.0 = lest time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0-0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TataiLost Time (s) 5b 6.5 6.6 6.5 56 55 5.6 Lead/Lag Load Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag ophmlte^ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Umtata (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 2-0 3,0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min kt Effcl Green 0) 62,3 62.3 24.4 133 20.6 40.S 47.6 Actuated g1C Bodo 0.44 0.44 0.17 0.10 0.15 029 0,34 vk Ratio 0.99 0.66 0.81 0.64 0.73 0.43 0.98 Control Delay 77.8 26.7 62.4 71 A 733 46.9 76.9 queue Delay U 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 77.8 26.7 62A 71.1 73.7 45.9 76.9 LOS E C E E E D E Approach Delay 42.9 62.4 _ 72.3 66.0 De Sato Blvd -96S-2034 PM w Accumulation 0$rl12020Baseline Synchro 10 Reparl Page 1 Tr9bllcock Consulting Solutions, PA P *' I'. e 1299 eellmar 11lfloge Stewerrdshlp Recelvfng Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Lakes, Volumes, Timings 1. T_leSoto Blvd 03r11!'42� Lam Gmup EUL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NVL NBT NDR 0141. 89T 88R Approach LOS D F E E Queue Lerigth601h 01) 356 305 210 96 171 10 606 queue Length 961h (h) *23 30 279 146 269 273 A36 lydernal Link Dist 11) 241 765 522 553 Turn Bay Length (1t) 236 235 235 Base Capacity (%4)h) 05 1686 770 393 664 $00 592 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reducin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 storage Clip Reduclo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RBdtlCed vlc Patio 1J.99 0.59 0.63 0.63 0.30 0.43 0.98 tilt rudit Surnrnsry Area Type: Other Cycle Length' 160 Actuated Cycle Lengih:140.2 Natural Cycle 90 Control Type: Acluated•uncoorcilnated Maximum vlc Ratio:0.99 Intersection Slgnal Delay: 56 2 Inteisedion LOS E Intersection Capacity Ldllzatlon X$% ICU bevel of Sef*e F Analysls Period (min)15 # 951h percentile vduma etxeeds capacity, queue may W longer Queue shown 1s meximurn after two cycles 3 Ilts and Pheses: 1: De5ota Blvd 01 q2 Io1 as DeSdo Blvd - (308 - 2034 PM w AcCumtUlon 0$n1r2020 Baseline Synchro 10 Repo t Page 2 Trehticock Consulting Solutions, PA P a 8 e 1300 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TlS —Section .2 —intersection Analyses —August 2020 Golden Gate Blvd — Errerglades_81►rd 3 Villages Traffic By Percentage Leff ri 13V. C20%+R20% LV C5% Right RV (Rs %) Right yytf�1 .ti BVLV_ (C20% +R20"/6) L 0_ft o RV• R5°J° * ■� Though HV (C30%/ +R45 LV. (C10N + R15'1/0' RV (C5%+R1O% rqugh BV- C30%+R45% Left BV (C50%) LV Clo%+R15% RV C5% +R1t7°I° IRight ra is nter iflt °�4) g C = Commercial; R = Residential E3V- C5% I BV= Bellmar Village LV= Longwater Village RV= Rivergrass Village Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 11 a a e 1 .401 Bellmar Village Srewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 -- inrersection Analyses —August 2021) 3 Villages Traffic Year2034 By AM Peak Maur N Left t3V- 3 +74= 77 LV Right 78 RV- (43) ght BV• (3 + 226= 229) LV LPh 230 Through R�' I-,- BV (4 4508= 512) LV (1 +160= 161) Fu..i c r.no- RV 0 + 87= —M 761 Through Le t BY. 4+166= 170 BV (1) LV 1 + 5 2 = 5.a RV• 1 + 23=--29 247 Ritlht Traffic Enter/Exit R—N I C = Commercial, R = Residential 113\EN= Bellmar Village LV= Longwater Village RV= Rivergrass Village Trehilcack Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1302 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 :3 Villages Traffic Year2034 By PM Peak Hour i Left B\I- 19 +209= 228 LL' 4 RV- (22) 232 I_efl RV- 42 hruugh 13V 28 +471 T 499 LV- 9 +148=1 �7 RV- 4 + 84=_Q 744 F t(14 + 128=142) __._a 145 rough RA r r:n'd - (21 +287=306) (7 + 90= 97) fR Left V (3+ 4 4 = 9V (4) 452 Right Traffic Enter/Exit ) G = Commercial R = Residential BV= Bellmar Village LV= Longwater Village RV= Riuergrass Village Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a r? e 1 303 TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION - EVERGLADES BLVD AND GOLDEN GATE BLVD COUNT DATA - DATE - Dl-1)9-2D20 COUNT DATA -TIME - 7.D0AM -9.DD AM PEAK HOUR - 7.0AM - 8.0 AM AM PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRAFFIC GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD EVERGLADES BOULEVARD WESTBOUND EASTBOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 2020TMCs 13 271 9 293 103 71 110 284 9 63 332 404 492 86 25 593 PSCF (2019 DATA) L06 1.06 L06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 L06 L06 1.06 1.06 1.06 ZD20 BACKGROUND VOLUME 14 289 10 312 110 76 117 303 1D 67 .352 429 511 92 27 63D GROWTH RATE 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.60/a 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% YEARS TO BUILD -OUT 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 2034 BACKGROUND 21 413 15 449 158 109 168 435 15 96 505 616 732 132 39 903 3 VILLAGESTURNING VOLUMES 1 761 230 992 11 247 0 258 78 0 43 121 0 0 1 1 2034 BACKGROUND + PROJECT 22 1,174 245 1,441 169 356 168 t 693 93 96 548 737 732 132 40 9D4 cr n 0 n n 0 c oa 0 c 0 N TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION - EVERGLADES BLVD AND GOLDEN GATE BLVD COUNT DATA - DATE - 01-09-2020 COUNT DATA - TIME - 4.00 PM - 6.00 PM PEAK HOUR -4.45 PM - 5.45 PM PM PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRAFFIC GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD EVERGLADES BOULEVARD WESTBOUND EASTBOUND 5OUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 2020TMCs 24 117 12 153 268 291 427 976 22 104 133 259 150 59 16 225 PSCF (2018 DATA) 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 L06 L06 L06 1.06 1.06 1.06 2020 BACKGROUND VOLUME 26 1Z5 13 164 285 298 453 1,036 24 111 141 276 159 63 17 239 GROWTH RATE 2.6% 2.6% 2.60A 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% YEARS TD B UILD-OUT 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 2034 BACKGROUND 38 180 19 237 409 427 649 1,485 35 159 202 396 228 91 25 344 3 VILLAGESTURNINGVOLUMES 4 452 145 601 42 744 0 786 232 0 22 254 0 0 5 5 2034 BACKGROUND+ PROJECT 42 532 164 938 451 1,171 649L271 267 159 224 650 228 91 3D 349 Bellmar Vill(7ge Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 -Intersection Analyses -August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Everglades Blvd & Golden Gale Blvd 06/29020 UM amup EBL EBT FOR 11112.E W9T IIVOR NOL NBT NBR SOL SOT SOR Larne configurations tt r 1) f T r TT r m f t f Traffic Vulumo (Vh) 169 366 168 22 1174 246 732 132 40 93 96 649 Future Volume (vph) 169 366 168 22 1174 24S 732 132 40 93 96 648 Ideal Flaw Nphpl) i900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1940 1900 1900 1900 1900 1904 1900 Slar age Length 0) 440 326 230 230 410 250 236 5T 5 Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Letlglh ;ff) 100 100 100 100 Lane tltil Factor 0.97 US 1.00 ON 0.96 1,00 0.97 0,96 1.00 0.97 0.96 1.00 Frt 01$50 0160 o.860 0.850 Fit Protected 0,960 0.960 0,950 0.950 8atd. Flow (pr0t) 3335 3438 1638 3335 3438 153$ 3335 3438 1538 3336 3438 1638 Fit Permitted 0.950 OMO 0950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3335 3439 1630 3335 3438 1538 3335 3438 1638 3336 3438 ISM Pight Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTO R) 276 276 276 360 Lank Speed (mph) 45 46 46 45 link Distance Qt) 7117 649 771 720 Travel Time (s) 11.9 $ 3 117 10.9 Peak Hour Factor 0,95 0.96 0.95 0 95 0.95 096 0.95 0.96 0.96 0'$5 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 6% 6% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 6% 60/0 Arai. How (Uph) 170 375 177 23 1236 26$ 771 la$ 42 98 101 577 Sh8red Lane Traffic (%) Lane Croup Flow (vph) 178 375 177 23 1236 258 771 139 42 98 101 577 Turn Type Prot NA Free prat NA Free Prot NA Free Prot NA Free Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 $ Permitted Phases Free Flea Pros Free Detector Phase 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 $ 5wifth Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 12,0 6.0 12.0 5.0 10.0 6.0 10.0 Minimum Split (S) 12.0 43.9 12.0 53.8 12.0 43A 12.0 63.$ Total Split (s) 16.0 SS.2 14.8 64.0 40.0 63.0 17.0 40.0 Total fiplit (%) 10.7% 36 8% 91% 36.0% 267% 42.0% 11.3% 261% Maximum Green (S) 9.2 49.4 8.0 47.2 33.2 56,2 10.2 33.2 Yellow Time 0) 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 0 All -Red Time (s) 210 2.0 2.0 2,0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lest Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OD 0.0 Total Last Tune (s) 6.8 0.0 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Oplimixe7 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 Recall Made Min Min Min Min Min Min Mln Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 TO Flash Dont Walk (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Pedestrian Calls (i<Nhr) 0 0 0 0 Act Effd Green {) 9.0 Ia2 126.6 38.0 47.2 126.6 33.2 10.6 126.E 32.7 10.1 120.6 Actvated gIC Ratio ON 0.14 1.00 0.30 0.37 1.00 0.26 0.09 1.00 0.26 0.08 1.00 uh` fto 0.76 0.76 0.12 0.02 0,96 0.17 0.0 0.48 0,03 0.11 0,31 0.38 Central Delay 79.1 62.3 0.2 33,2 67.3 0.2 67.7 61.4 0.0 36.9 "is 0,7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 000 • Everglades Blvd - 2034 AM w Accumulatlon 0512912020 Baseline Synch(o 10 Report Page 1 Trehilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 306 Sellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — Tl5 —Section 2 — intersection Analyses —August 2020 Lades. Volumes. Timings 1 : Everglades Blvd Golden Gate Blvd 05f2912420 Lang Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WOR NEIL NOT NBR SOL BBT S0111 Toilet Delay 78.1 62.3 0.2 332 57.3 0.2 67.7 61.4 0.0 30 69.6 0.7 LOS E E A C E A E E A D E A Approach delay 51.1 47.2 56.7 12.9 Approach LUG D D E B Queue Length 60Ih (it) 76 167 0 6 615 0 314 68 0 31 42 0 Queue Length g51h (H) M28 206 0 19 W,77 0 0121 92 0 56 72 0 Irdernal Link Dist 0) 707 469 691 640 Tum Bay Length (t) 440 326 230 230 410 260 236 515 Base Capacity (vph) 242 1314 1638 09 MI 1639 $74 1626 163E 861 901 1638 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spill6ack Cap Reducin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a Storage Cap Reducln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vit I7Etlo 0.74 0.29 0.12 0.02 0.96 0,17 0,88 0.09 0.03 011 0.11 0.39 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cy>;la Length-' 1So Actuated Cycle Length_ 126 6 — — Natural Cycle 145 Control Typ@: Aciu3led Uncggrdlnal8d Maxim4rm vk Ratio: 0.96 Intersection Signal Delay 43.3 Interse0lgn LOS' D Intersectiati Capacity Uilaation 892% ICU Level Of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 0 %th percentile volume @needs cap acily, queue may lae longer. Queue shown Is maximum after two cycles. 3 tits and Phases: 1: Ever lades Blvd &Golden Gate Blvd 01 02 04 03 —Pot, 03 (30 B -Everglades Blvd -2034M4wAccumulatiall 05f2812020Basaline Synchro 10 Reporl! p ege 2 Trebllcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 307 Bellmor Village Stewardship Recovinq Area - TIS - Section 2 - Intersection Anolyses -• August %07.0 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Everglades Blvd & Golden Cate Blvd Of! 1r202o Un Oroup EOL EFIT M 1 RIL WBT 1W811 NOL NBT NSR 88L $9T SIM Lane Con1101LIMti6n6 11 tf r M tT r M fT r 11 Tt r Tralfle Volume "h) 451 1171 649 42 632 104 228 91 30 247 169 224 Ftiture Voli.,me (+Th) 451 1171 $49 42 632 164 229 91 30 267 169 224 Ideal Flaw (uphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Slorage Length fit) 440 326 230 230 410 250 236 615 Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Taper Length V) 100 100 100 106 Lane LNI . Factor 0.97 096 1,00 097 095 1.00 0.07 0,56 1.00 0.97 0.96 1.00 Flt 0.850 0.860 0.050 0,860 Fit Protected 0.960 0,950 0.950 0450 Said. Flow (prat) 3334 3438 1638 3335 3438 1539 3335 3438 1538 3335 3438 1638 Fit Permitted 0,960 0-950 0,950 0.960 Ud, Flow (17errn) 3336 3438 163E 3335 3438 1538 3335 3438 16$8 3336 3438 153$ Right Turn on Red Yes Ye$ Yes Yes 9atd. Flow (RTOR) 364 276 275 276 Link Speed (mph) 45 46 45 46 Link Distance S) 787 549 771 720 Travel Time (s) 119 4.3 11.7 1U Peak Hour Fad or 0.95 0.96 0.95 0,95 095 0,95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heauy Vehicles (4G) 6% 5% 5% 6% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% Ml.Flow (ph) 475 1233 683 44 665 173 240 9G 32 2$1 167 236 Shared Lane Trafllc (%) Lane Graup Flow (Th) 476 1233 683 44 665 173 240 96 32 281 101 236' Turn Type Prot NA Free Prot NA Free Prot NA Free Prot NA Free Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 $ Permitted Phases Free Rea Free Free Detedor Pnase 1 6 6 2 7 4 3 s Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) SO 12.0 6.0 12.0 6.0 1010 6.0 10.0 Minimum Spill (8) 12.0 43.8 12.0 53A 12.0 0.8 12.0 MA Total Split (s) 27.0 65.2 17.8 46.0 23.0 60.0 17,0 54.0 Total Split 0/0) 18.0% 36 A% 11,9% 30-7% 15 -a% 40-0% 11.3% 36.0% Maximum Green (s) 20.2 48A 11.0 39.2 16.2 53.2 K2 47.2 Yellow Time (a) 4.$ 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.8 44 Al -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Last Time Adjust (s) O.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0-0 0.0 Total Last Time (s) $ 8 61$ 6,8 6.8 6.8 6.8 68 6.8 Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag 01 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Uenslon (s) 1,0 2.0 1-0 20 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dent Walk t5} 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Pedestrian Calls (4ihr) 0 0 0 0 Act Ef l Green (s) 20.2 4$.6 103.8 6.3 33.6 103.3 10.9 100 1033 12.3 113 103.3 Actuated gtC Ratio 020 0.47 1.00 0.06 0.33 1.00 0.11 010 1.00 0.12 0,11 1.00 Yh Rana 0.73 0.76 0.44 0.26 060 0.11 00 0.29 0.02 0.71 0.44 0.16 Control Delay 46.8 27.1 0.9 51.7 32.2 01 64.7 48,6 0.0 54.3 47.7 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OP O.0 0.0 0.0 010 0.0 0.6 00 OOB- Everglades Blvd -2034 PM wRcCumulation 09A1a020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting 5olutlons, PA P a g e 1 308 Bellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T15 —Section 2 -- lntersectlon Analyses — August 2020 Lanes. Volumes, Timings 1: Everolades Blvd & Golden Gate Blvd OM112020 -A --* *— *-- t - i Lane Oro EBL EBT EDP WDL llllBT WBR NBL NBT NOR 60L BBT BHk Total Delay 46.8 271 o,9 MY 32.2 0.1 54,T 40.6 0.0 64.3 471 0.2 LOS D C A D C A D D A D D A Approach Delay 23.6 26A 47.9 34-0 Approach LOS C C D C Queue length 60th M) 148 329 0 14 187 0 78 30 0 92 64 0 Queue Length 9501 qt) 223 480 0 34 270 0 122 60 0 137 83 0 It tarnal LIM DIM (it) 707 465 "1 946 Tum Bay Length fit) 440 326 230 230 410 250 236 515 Base Capacity (uph) 663 1612 1538 365 1306 1638 623 1772 1638 396 1672 1638 Slanration Cap Reducln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap ReMIA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sturarge Cap FZPiuctn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlt Ratio 0.73 0,76 0.44 0.12 0.51 0.11 0.46 0 AS 0.02 0.71 0.11 0.16 Intersection Bummary Am Type: Other Cycle Length: I SO Acluated Cycle Length: 103 3 Natural Cycle 146 Control Type: Actuated•uncoordinatad Maximum vk R8110 0.76 Irfsection Signal Delay:27,9 Intersection LOB; C Intersection Capacity Uil}nation 76.2% ICU Level of service D Analysis Period (mhl)16 3 lits and Phases: 1: Ever lades Blvd Golden Date BIVU 114 at ox oa II 3 lii GG B - Everglades Blvd • 2034 PM W Accumulalton 0811172020 MOM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 TrL:N[cock Consulting Solutions, PA P , r'. 309 Bellmor Wilage Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses — August 2020 Golden Gate Blvd — 161h 5t NE Trallfic rater/M • 20 1PI 14 :3 Villages Traffic C=Commercial, R = Residential By Percentage BV= BellmarVillage I`J LV-- Lon gwater Village RV-- Rivergrass Mliage Left 19V- C5%+R5 Pight B Y- (C5 / +R %) 1" Gnlden Gete Blvd f L } Golden Gaw N'Yd C Through 8V- (C20%+R40°h) Through LV- (CIO% + R1511/6) BV C20%+R40% RV- (C5%+Rica°/o) LV- C10%+RlS% RV C5%+R15% Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA f 310 Sellmar Wh2ge Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 3 Villages Traffic FRY-Rwergrass er xi • 2C1 (20) Year 2034 ercial; R = Residential By AM Peak Hour ar Village N 7 water Village � Village r Left BV- 1 +18=19 i t BV (1 +56= 57) vl u f�ftitl f •ui+s. ,a�« mvrt F GohlgrF Gate Alvd E rough BV- (3 +452= A55) hraugh LV (1 +160^ 161) BV 3 +148= 151 RV- (1 +13n--±-! 1 j LV 1 + 52T 53 747 RV 1 +34=A5 239 Trehilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1 311 Sellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T1S —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses --August 2020 3 Villages Traffic ra is Enter/Ex f- 20/(20) Ye ar 2 034 C = Commercial; R = Residential By PM Peak Hour _ BV= Bellmar Village ftil a LV= Longwater Village RV-- Rivergrass Village Left BV- 5 452= 57 ig 1 " EW (4+32= 36) r Golden GateBird E fold +t1te Plvrl f Golden Gale Mvd E Through hraug 7 BV (14 +255= 269) 13V 19 441 Rn 437 LV- (7 + 90= 97) LV 9 +148=157 RV- (3 + 65=—M RV 4 +126= ]M 434 724 Trebllcock Consulting Solutlws, PA P a f, e 1 312 TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION - GOLDEN GATE BLVD AND 16TH ST NE COUNT DATA -DATE - 01-09.2020 COUNT DATA -TIME - 7.00 AM - 9.00 AM PEAK HOUR - 7.00AM - 8.01) AM AM PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRAFFIC GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD 16TH STREET NE WESTBOUND EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 2020TMCS 9 1,242 0 1,251 8 270 7 285 0 1 15 16 53 0 5 58 PSCF(2018 DATA) L06 L06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 L06 L06 L06 1.06 L06 L06 2020 BACKGROUND VOLUME 10 1,317 0 1,327 9 287 8 304 0 2 16 18 57 D 6 63 GROWTH RATE 2.6°% 2.6°% 26°% 2.6°% 2.6°% 2.6°% 2.6°% 2.6% 2.6°% 2.6°% 2.6°% 2.6°% YEARSTO BUILD -OUT 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 2034 BACKGROUND 15 1,897 0 1,902 13 412 12 437 0 3 23 26 82 0 9 91 3 VILLAGES TURNING VOLUMES 0 747 57 804 0 239 0 239 19 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 2034 BACKGROUND PROJECT 15 2,634 57 2,706 13 651 12 676 19 3 23 45 82 0 9 91 TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION - GOLDEN GATE BLVD AND 16TH ST NE COUNT DATA - DATE - D1-09-2020 COUNT DATA - TIME - 4.01) PM - 6.00 PM PEAK HOUR - 4.45 PM - 5.45 PM PM PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRAFFIC GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD 16TH STREET NE WESTBOUND EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 202OTMCS 4 432 2 438 26 1,169 32 1,227 2 0 3 5 16 0 7 23 PSCF (2018 DATA) 1.06 1.06 L06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 L06 L06 1.06 2020 BACKGROUND VOLUME 5 458 3 466 28 1,240 34 1,302 3 0 4 7 17 0 8 25 GROWTH RATE 2.6% 2.6DA 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% YEARS TO BUILD -OUT 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 2034 BACKGROUND 8 657 5 670 41 1,777 49 1,867 5 0 6 11 25 0 12 37 3 VILLAGES TURNING VOLUMES 0 434 36 470 0 724 0 724 57 0 0 57 0 0 0 0 2034 BACKGROUND + PROJECT 8 1,091 41 1,140 41 2,501 49 2,591 62 D 6 68 25 D 12 37 Rellrrrar Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 - Intersection Analyses -August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: 161h St NE & Golden Gate Blvd 06I2912020 -1, --• -.�' r �- k *\ f ` 1 Lam Group ER EBT EBR WBL N1BT WER NBL N8T NBR SOL GOT GOR Lane Corfiguralions tt r I tT r + 4 r Trdttit Volume (lob) 13 661 12 16 2634 67 $2 0 9 19 3 23 RAuro Volume (u(Sh) 13 651 12 16 2634 67 $2 0 9 1$ 3 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1000 1900 1WO 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (t) 280 160 260 160 0 0 0 100 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 Taller Length ift) 60 50 26 25 Lane lull Factor 1.00 0.96 1,00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1-00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Fit 0,850 0.860 0.987 0.850 Fit PrOlecled 0.960 0.950 0,957 0.968 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3438 1538 1719 3438 153$ 0 1709 0 0 1734 1638 Fit Petmilled 0.041 0.391 0.730 0803 Satd. Flow (perm) 74 3438 1638 709 343$ 153$ 0 1304 0 0 14Q 1538 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 23 47 23 23 Link Speed (mph) 46 46 46 45 Link Distance (n) 1083 607 602 633 Travel Time (s) 16 4 9.2 9.1 9.6 peak Hour Factor 0,95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.95 0,95 0.95 0,95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles N) 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 6% 64.6 6% 6% Adj. Flow Oph) 14 US 13 16 2773 60 86 0 9 20 3 24 Shared Lane Tralltt: ($6) Lane Group Floiru (vph) 14 686 13 16 2773 60 0 95 0 0 23 24 Turn Type Perm NA perm Perm NA Perm Penn NA Pon NA Perm Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 4 8 8 0840or Phase 6 6 6 2 2 2 4 4 8 8 8 Switch Phase Minimum initial (s) 5.0 5,0 5,0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 50 5.0 5.0 Mlnlmtmi Split (s) 23,6 23,6 23,6 236 23.6 23.6 10.5 10b 10 6 106 10.6 Total Split (s) 102.0 102.0 102.0 102,0 102.0 102.0 18,0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Total Spirt (%) 86.0% $6.0% $6.0% 45 0% 86.0% 86,0% 16.0% 16.0% 16.046 16.0% 15.0% Maximum Green(5) 96.5 96.5 96.5 965 965 96.6 12.5 12.6 12.5 126 12.5 Yellow Time (s) 3,6 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.S 3,$ AI -Red Tlme (s) 20 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 0.0 0.0 OA 0.0 0.0 Total Last Time (s) 5.6 6.6 5.6 6.6 5.6 6,5 6.6 5.6 66 Lead/Lag Lsad•Lag Oplimize'? Vehicle bilenslon (s) 3.0 3.0 3A 3b 3.0 3A 3.0 3.0 3-0 3.0 3-0 Recall Mode Min Mtn Min Min Mln Min None NON, None None None Walk Time is) 7.0 7.0 7,0 7,0 7.0 710 Flash Danl Walk (5) 11.0 11.0 11,0 11.0 11.0 11,0 Pedestrian Calls (Ohr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Old Green (s) 93A 9aA 98A 98.4 98.4 98.4 1016 10,6 10.6 Actuated glC Ratio 0,22 0-$2 0-02 0.82 0.82 0,82 009 0,09 0.09 vic Ratio 0.28 0.24 0.01 0.03 0.38 0,05 0 70 0.1$ 0.16 Control Delay 12.8 2.8 0b 2b 24.9 1.0 06.2 519 21.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 161h - (30 B - 2034 AM Improved w Accumulation 060)2020 Baseline Syrtcnro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1315 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TlS —Section 2 — intersection Analyses —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1 1 1 Gth St NE & Golden Gate Blvd 05I29l2020 4\ T A- `► 1 Itania Groue EBL EBT EBR VVRL WBT WBR NOL NOT NOR SBL SOT 9BR Tetal Delay 12.8 2.8 OS 2.6 24.9 16 662 52 .� 21.3 LOS B A A A C A E D C Approach delay 2.9 243<mj=dfid& 662 36.$ ApPreach LOS A C E D Queue Length 6(Xh fit) 2 63 0 2 904 2 54 17 1 Queue Length 951h (tt) 13 70 2 6 W06 9 _f12' 43 2T rnlernal Link Dist (I) 1o03 527 ' 522 663 Turn Bay Length qt) 2$0 160 250 160 100 Base Capacity Wh) 60 2920 1265 660 2926 12M 166 151 180 5larvallon Cap Reductn 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Slorage Cap Rsducllt 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced a Latin 0.23 024 0.01 0.03 0.91r 0.05 0.61 0.16 0.13 Interseclion Summary Area Type: Other Cytl8 Lenore: 120 Actuated Cycle Length:120 Natural Cyde 90 Control Type, AC149164• UnC00rdln3l6d Maximum WC Ratio' 0.98 Intersection Signal delay. 21 A InlerSatllon LOS: C Intersection Capacity Uilization 95.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysls Period (min)16 # 95th parcentiie Volume mteeds capacity, queue in ay be longer Queue shown is maximum after Iwo cycles. 3 Ills and Phases: 1:16th St HE &Golden Data Blvd 02 1I144 moo® i os 16th - i30O - 2034 AM Improved w Accumulation 0150 2020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Trebilrock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 a g 0 1 316 Rellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS -Section 2 - Intersection Analyses -August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings i : 16th St N E & Golden Gate Blvd 4$il1l2020 lane 0mvp E8L QT, EG& 1W81, W BIT WOR NOL RaT NOR 138L 88T WR Lane rsenfi((juralions f t f It r 4+ +T r Traffic Volume (vph) 41 2601 49 8 1091 41 26 0 12 62 0 6 Rituo? Volume (vph) 41 2501 49 8 1091 41 2$ 0 12 62 0 6 Ideal Flow (aphpl) 1900 1900 1000 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage length (t) 280 160 250 160 0 0 0 100 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 Taper Length 0) 50 60 26 25 Lane Util Factor 1.00 0.95 I bo 1.00 0,96 1.00 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fit 0.950 0.8$0 0 965 0 960 Fit Protected 0.950 0,950 0.963 0.950 Satd, Flow (prot) 1719 3438 1638 1719 3438 1638 0 1673 0 0 1719 1538 Fit Permitted 0.214 0.060 0,760 6.909 Said. Flow (perm) 367 3438 1638 109 3438 1538 0 1313 0 0 1646 1638 Right Turn on Red No Yes No No Md. Flow (RTO P.) 97 Link Speed (mph) 46 45 45 45 Link Distance (It) 1083 $07 602 633 Travel Time (s) 16A 92 SO 9.6 Peak How Factor 016 0.% 096 0.96 0.96 0,95 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles (rib) 6% M 6% 69b 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% Adj. Flaw kph) 43 2633 62 8 1148 43 26 0 13 65 0 6 Shared Lane Traffic (°k) Lane Group Flow (�rph) 43 2633 62 8 1148 43 0 39 0 0 65 6 Turn Type pmapt NA Perm pM-0 NA Perm Perm NA Form NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 4 Detector Phase 1 G 6 5 2 2 4 4 8 $ B Switch Phase klinimum Initial (s) 5.0 6.0 50 5,0 so 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 so Minimum Split(s) 10.6 23.6 23.5 10.6 23,5 23,6 10.6 10.6 10.5 10.6 105 Total Split (s) 11.0 68.0 ss.0 11.0 68.0 6s0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11 0 Total Split (9b) 12.2% 76.6% 75.S% 12.2% 76.6°% 76.6% 12.2% 12.2% 122% 12.2% 12.2% Maximum Green (s) 5 5 62.5 62.6 6.5 62.5 62.6 5.5 5.6 5.5 55 6.6 Yellow Time (8) 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.6 3-6 35 3.5 3.5i 3.5 36 U Al -Red Time () 2.0 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.5 5.6 55 5.6 55 55 6.6 6.5 6.5 LeadlLag lead Lag Lag Lead Lag lag Lead-La3 01AImIie7 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 U 3,0 3.0 3.0 3-0 Recall Mode None Min Min Nine Min Min None None None None None Walk Time (s) T.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dent Walk 0) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (14nr) 0 0 0 0 Act Etfd Green (s) 69.6 07 69.7 67.3 65,0 66.0 5.5 6.5 5.5 Actuated glCRatio O.s2 0.12 on 0.79 0,76 0.76 0,06 0.06 0.06 v1: Ratia 0,11 0.93 0.04 0.04 0.44 0.04 0.46 0.6t 0.06 Contral Delay 23 17.3 2.9 2.2 51 0,0 66.7 64.2 38.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 16th - GU • 2034 PM Improved w Accumulation 09111Y2020 Basellrle Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Treblicock Consulting Solutlons, PA P a g e j 317 Rellmor Village 5tewardshrp Recelving Area — T15 —Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Lades, Volumes, Timings 1. 161h St NE & Golden Gate Blvd 08MV2020 --* --p- --* 1r '4— '1,1 # /,- ' 41 we (310up EEIL EBT EBR INNBL WBT WOR MUL NUT_ NSR — SOL WT — SBR T0181De18y 2.3 17.3 2,9 22 58 U') 56.7 64.2 3B.8 LOS A A A A A A E E D Approach Delay 10's 5.0 66.7 62,0 Approach L05 B A E E Waue Length 60th 3 433 4 1 135 0 1� 32 Queue Length96th Qt) 8 M041 18 3 176 1 *4 NIOo 16 Internal Unk Oisl (it) 1003 527 522 653 Turn Day Length (if) 280 160 260 160 100 Dase Capacity(vph) 403 2819 1261 190 2919 1279 $6 107 99 Starvation Cap Reducln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sp ilback Cep Aeductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 011 0.93 0.04 004 041 0,03 046 061 0.46 hersectlon 84MMRn - Area Type'. Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 86 Natural Cycle 110 CoNrol Type! Actuated, Uncoordinated Maximum VA: Ratic:0,93 Irdetsectian Signal Delay,14,7 Inte,seclton LOB. B Intersectim Capacsy Utilization $71% ICU Levei of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 � 96th percentile uelwrle esoceeds capac�y, queue may be l0ncler. Queue shown Is maximum alter two cycles. 5 Irls and Fhases: 1:101h tit NE 1k(iordar� 13a19 diva 1001 02 o-1 435 06 1 08 16th • 038 - 2034 FM Improwo w AccutntilMian OSII t12020 Baseline Synchra 10 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 318 Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T15—Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Immokalee Rd - Randall Blvd 3 Villages Traffic By Percentage WMM Immokalee Rd Through LV- (R10%) RV- (C15% +R50%) Y Traffic Enter/Exit - 20°/b1(20%) C = Commercial; R - Residential BV= Bellmar Village LV= Longwaler Village RV= Riverarass Village ,C-- Left BV- (R5%) LV- (C5% +R15%) Randall Elvd I T T T r Through Right LV- R10% BV- 115% RV- C15% +R50% LV- CS% +R15% Tre611cock Consulting Solutions, PA 11 a R e 1 319 I3elfmur Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS —Section 2— Intersection Analyses —August 2020 3 Villages Traffic Year 2034 By AM Peak Hour 4th St NE Traffic Enter/Exit - 201(20) C = Commercial; R = Residential BV= Bellmar Village LV;;: Longwater Village RV= Riverwass Village Immokalee Rd Through LV- (107) RV- (2 +433= 05) 542 ITT Through LV- 35 RV- 1 +113= 114 149 Let BV- (56) LV- (1 +160= 161) 217 Randall Blvd T r Ff BV- 18 LV 1 +52= 5� 71 Trebllcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 $20 aellmar Village Stewardship Receivfmg Area - Tf.S •-Secrfon 2 - Intersection Analyses -August 2020 3 Villages Traffic Year 2030 By PM Peak HOW Gr 1191111 : CI IUN IMAIL- 4Wfk4U) C = Commercial; R = Residential BV= Bellmar Village LVT Longwater Village RV= Riverarass Villace Immokalee Rd Through LV- (B0) IRV- (8 +218= 22$,) 2$6 ITT Through LV- 99 RV- 12 +421= 433 532 Left BV- (32) LV- (3 +90= 93) 125 RSndBA E3lvd Iffmil BV- 52 LV- 4 +148= 152 204 Trehilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 11 a f, t. 1921 rr n O n �c- 0 C c oa Ln O c 0 D TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION - IMMOKALEE RD AND RANDALLBLVD COUNT DATA - DATE - 04-17-2019 COUNT DATA - TIME - 7.00 AM - 9.00 AM PEAK HOUR - 7.00 AM - B.DD AM AM PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRAFFIC RANDALL BOULEVARD IMMOKALEE ROAD WESTBOUND EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 2019TMCs 922 1 37 960 2 1 5 8 48 1,797 0 1,845 5 719 237 961 PSCF (2018 DATA) 1.04 1.04 1.04 L04 1.04 L04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 L04 1.04 2019 BACKGROUND VOLUME 959 2 39 1,000 3 2 6 11 50 L869 D 1,919 6 748 247 1,001 GROWTH RATE 2.6% 2.6°% 2.6% 2.6°% 2.6°% 2.6°% 2.6°% 2.6°% 2.6°% Z6% 2.6°% 2.65A YEARSTO BUILD -OUT 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 2034 BACKGROUND* 895 10 216 1,121 4 8 17 29 216 2,050 5 2,271 8 L678 732 2,418 3 VILLAGES TURNING VOLUMES 217 0 0 217 0 0 0 D 0 S42 0 542 0 149 71 220 2034 BACKGROUND+PROJECT 1,112 10 216 1,338 4 8 17 29 216 2,592 5 2,813 8 1,927 903 2,638 Note* - 2034 background traffic volumes are calculated by interpolating between the 2025 and 2035 peak hour volumes as illustrated in Immokalee Rd at Randall Blvd Intersection PD&E Study, dated February 2019, Figure 9, page 23 and Figure 11, page 25. TURNING MOVEMENTS INTERSECTION - IMMOKALEE RD AND RANDALL BLVD COUNT DATA - DATE - D4-17-2019 COUNT DATA -TIME -4.00 PM - 6.00 PM PEAK HOUR - 5.00 PM - 6.00 PM PM PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRAFFIC RANDALL BOULEVARD IMMOKALEE ROAD WESTBOUND EASTBOUND 5OUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 2019TMCs 336 3 26 365 2 0 1 3 57 703 1 761 7 1,830 707 2,544 PSCF (2018 DATA) 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.D4 1.04 1.04 1.04 1,04 1.04 1.04 1.04 2019 BACKGROUND VOLUME 35D 4 28 382 3 0 2 5 6D 732 2 794 8 1,904 736 2,648 GROWTH RATE 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% YEARS TO BUILD -OUT 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 2034 BACKGROUND* 728 8 176 912 3 10 5 18 176 1,682 3 1,861 5 2,055 896 2,956 3 VILLAGESTURNING VOLUMES 125 0 0 125 0 0 0 0 0 286 0 286 0 532 204 736 2034 BACKGROUND + PROJECT 953 8 176 1,D37 3 10 5 18 176 1,968 3 2,147 5 2,587 1,100 3,692 Note* -2034 background tratric volumes are caiculatea ny inierpviavng Detween the /025 ana waa peak nvur vviuinea do muau dLev H] Immokalee Rd at Randall Blvd Intersection PD&E Study, dated February 2019, Figure 9, page 23 and Figure 11, page 25. Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area - 77S--Sectfon 2 -Intersection Analyses -August 2020 Danes, Volumes, Timings 3: 4th St NE/Randall Blvd & Immokalee Rd 060212020 4�. t �► l um oroup EBL E8T ESR WBL WOT WBR NBL NBT N8K "BL $6T Still L3r1e Calllkgwalkons +j'+ W X+ 'r W r ) tff r Traffic Volume (vph) 4 9 17 1112 10 216 a 1827 803 216 2692 6 Frltute Volume (vph) 4 8 17 1112 10 216 8 1927 803 216 2692 5 Ideal HOW (uphpl) 1900 1900 1900 two 1900 100 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage LRlgh (t) 0 0 250 250 236 500 460 235 Storage lanes 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper length fit) 50 50 60 60 Lane Vil Factor 1.00 1-00 11.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1,00 0.91 1.00 1,00 0.91 1,00 FA 0 919 0.856 0.860 0.860 F4 Protected 0.993 0.960 0.950 01%0 Said. KlaINoxct) 0 1651 0 4846 1549 0 1719 4940 163$ 1719 4940 1639 Fit Permitted 0.993 0.950 0-052 0.062 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1651 0 484tt 1649 0 94 4940 1639 94 4940 1538 Right Turn on Red Yes No Yes Yes Said Flow (RTOP) 18 498 72 Link $peed (mph) 30 45 46 46 link Distance 0t) 493 775 719 1028 Travel Time (s) 11.2 11.7 1019 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 Heavy Vehicles (4(r) 6% 5% 5% 6% 5% 5% 5% 6% 5% 51A 6% 6% Adj. Flom (uph) 4 8 18 1146 10 223 8 1884 828 223 2672 6 Shared Lane Trallkc (%) Lane Group Flow (uph) 0 30 0 1146 233 0 Ir 1984 828 227 2672 5 Turn Type Split NA Spot NA pm*pt NA Free pm4pt NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 4 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 6 Free 2 2 Detector Phase 8 8 4 4 1 6 5 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum inilial (s) 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5,0 16.0 60 15,0 19.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 12.0 49.0 49.0 12.0 46J 12,1 40.0 40-0 Total Spil (s) 12,0 12.0 63.0 63.0 12.0 74.0 41.0 106.0 106.0 Total SPIA (°r6) 0% 6.6% 29.1% 29.196 6.6% 40.7% 22.5% 67.7% 57.7% Maximum Green (s) 7.0 7.0 48,0 4s.0 7.0 69.0 3610 100.0 100.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0 4.0 4.0 4.0 AR -Red Time{s) 1,0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1-0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Last Time (s) 6.0 6.0 510 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag tag Lag Lead Wad Lead Lead-tarU Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (a) 3.0 3.0 3-0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Undo Min Min Min Min Min Min Mlq Min Min Walk The (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Donf Walk 0) 35.0 36.0 32.0 Pedestrian Calls (0hr) 0 6 0 Act Eflct Green 0) 6,4 46.9 0 9 82.4 82.4 178.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 Actuated gic Ratio 0,04 0.20 0.26 OAS 0.46 1.00 0.60 06 0,66 Vitt ratio 0.39 0.90 0,67 0.09 0.33 0,64 0.96 0.97 0.01 Control Delay 611.9 741 $3.7 39.6 46A liA 79.9 48.8 0.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 immokalee Rd- Randall 8lvd-2034 AM wAccumulation 06129/2020 Baseline synchro10 Report Page 1 Trebikcock Consulting $olutlons, PA P a g e 1 324 Sellmor Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T!S — Section 2 — In#ersection Analyses —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3. 4111 SIN F/Randall I;Ivd & Immokalee Rd aslrsrzaza lama Group EUL EBT I.6R W81- WRT 1Ai8R NBL NBT NBR 89L 881'_ _ SPR Total Delay 69.9 74 1 63.7 39.5 46.8 1.4 79.9 48.4 0.0 LOS E E E D D A E D A Approach Delay 69.9 72.4 33.0 511 Approach LOS E E C D Queue Lerryth 6(4h (Tt) 14 467 241 6 713 0 211 1100 0 Queue Length 951h 0) $4 529 342 19 $57 0 305 +n 183 0 "ernel Link Dist (N) 413 696 639 948 Tum Bay Length It) 260 235 Soo 460 235 Base Capacity(uph) 81 13a1 416 107 2276 1638 379 2762 $92 Starvatlon Cap tpductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Splllback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 Reduced VX Rated 0.37 0 88 0166 0.07 0.63 0.64 0.69 0.97 0.01 Area Type. Other Cycle Langtn: 192 Actuated Cycle Length:178.8 Natural Cycle,160 Cantrot Type: Adualed•UncoordiRatet] Mauimum vrC Ratio! 0.97 intersection Signal Delay 48.3 hersedlori 1_09: D intersection Capacity Utilization 94 611/, ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)16 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown Is maximum after two cycles, Immakale6 Ltd • Randall Blvd -2034 AM w Accumulation 050,fR020 Baseline Sy11C111010 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1325 Reflmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area - 715 - Section 2 - lnterseetion Analyses --Augc+st 2020 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3, 4th Si NE/Handall Blvd & Immokalee Rd * 0 .111i202041 Lam Gmup 80L EDT EBR WBL WBT WOO NOL NBT NBR BBL BBT SOR LaneConfigurtlons spa ))) ll� ) W r ) +ft r TOIC v0tumo (uph) 3 10 5 $63 8 176 5 2W 1100 176 1988 3 Future Voli.rme (5ph) 3 10 6 863 $ 170 5 297 1 t40 176 1 %8 3 Ideal Flow(uphi 1900 1900 1900 1$00 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1"0 1000 1900 Slorage Length (It) 0 0 260 250 236 Soo 450 235 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 t Taper Length it) 60 60 60 60 Lang W . Factor 1,00 1,00 11.00 0.94 1.00 t .00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1,00 0,91 1.00 Fill 0.962 0.856 0,860 0.860 Fill Protected 0.992 0.960 0,960 0.960 Said. Flow {prat) 0 1727 0 4848 1649 0 1719 4940 1634 1719 4940 1638 Fit Permitted 0.992 0.950 0.062 0.002 Wd,Flow (Perm) 0 1727 0 4848 1649 0 112 4940 1538 112 4940 t639 Nght Turn on Red Y$$ Yes Yes Yes 5atd. Flow (RTOR) 5 181 487 73 Link Speed (mph) 30 45 46 46 Link Distance fit) 493 776 719 1028 Travel Time (s) 11.2 11.7 10.9 166 Peak Hour Fattor 0.97 0,97 0$7 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0,97 0,97 0.97 0,97 0.97 Heavy Vehicles N 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 6% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% Adj. Rare �ph) 3 10 6 879 $ 181 5 2667 1134 191 2029 3 Shared Lane Tra1tlC (%) Lane Group Flow (iph) 0 18 0 879 189 0 5 2667 1134 131 2029 3 Turn Type 5p14 NA Split NA pm+pt NA Free pm-0 NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 4 4 1 6 6 2 Permitted Phases 6 Free 2 2 Detector Phase 8 8 4 4 1 6 6 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5,0 6.0 6.0 6.0 15,0 5.0 15.0 16.0 Minimum spilt (s) 12.0 12.0 490 49.0 12.0 461 12.1 40.0 40.0 Total Split (s) 12,0 120 44.0 44.0 34,0 101.0 23.0 90.0 900 Total Split (Q 6.1% 6.7% 24.4% 24.40A 1$.9% 66.1% 12.8% 60.0% 60.0% Maximum Green (s) 7.0 7.0 39.0 39.0 29.0 90.0 1810 8510 85,0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0 7U6Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Must (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 010 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 60 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 Leadi Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead -Lag OptimitO Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Exienslon (s) 3.0 3 0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Made Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dort Walk 0) 36.0 350 320 Pedestrian Calis (Ohr) 0 0 0 Act Elict Green 0) 6.4 36,9 36.9 96.1 96.1 176.E $1,8 81.8 81.8 Actuated g1C Ratio 0,04 0.21 0.21 ON 0.54 1.00 0.46 0.46 *A$ ulc Rollo 0,27 0.87 0,40 0.01 0.99 0.74 0.8$ 0.$9 000 Control Delay 76.6 77.5 10.9 22.4 649 3.2 86A 48.9 0.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 Immokalee Rd - Randall Blvd-2034 PM inAccumul81i0h 08A1P2020 Baseline synchro 10 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA I' , p c 1926 Bel/mor Village 5tewardship Receiving Area — T15 — Section 2 — Intersection Analyses —August 2020 Lanes, Volumes. Timings, 3: A.th SME/Randall Blvd & Immakalee Rd osMMozo brow 511L EDT EBR 1slBL 0IBT 11d8R - - NOk NOT NBR SOL BBT 3BR Total Delay 76,5 _ 77.6 10.9 22.4 60 a.2 $$A 4$.9 0.0 LOS E E O C d A F D A Approach delay 76.6 0.7 39.6 61 8 Approach LOS E E D 6 Queue Length 601n fit) 16 356 8 3 -1176 0 161 778 0 Queue Length 95th (Q 46 412 $1 10 $01276 0 #B04 $43 0 hllernal Unk Dist fit) 413 695 09 949 Turn Day Length (n) 260 236 Soo 450 235 Base Capadly (vph) 73 Ion 483 346 2690 163$ 216 2361 719 Starvation Cap Reducln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap RBdactn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Slorage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced We Ratio 0.25 082 0.39 0.01 0,99 0.14 014 0.66 0100 Intersection summa Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 180 AMaled CyCia Langth:176.6 Natural Cycle 160 Control Type, Actualed•Unc00r0nated Maximum VX Ratio: 0.99 Intersection Signal Delay:47.4 InterieMlon LOS: O Irderseclion Capaclly Udixalion 95.1% lCi1 Level or Seroice F Analysis Period (min)15 VCIUrrle exceeds capacity, queue Is tlieoretically inilnite. Queue shown Is maximum otter two cyCles. �# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue shown Is maximum after two cycles. and Phs$6s1 3, 4th St NEIRandall Blvd & lmrnokaiee Pd IN 61 Immakalee Rd - Randall Blvd -2034 PM w Accumulation 0811 020 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Psge 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA N a g e 1 327 PRELIMINARY CONCURRENCY FAIR SHARE Preliminary Concurrency Fair Share for Bellmar SRA November 2020 The following roadway segments are adversely impacted by the projected traffic generated by Bellmar SRA. — Randall Blvd from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd — Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Logan Blvd to Collier Blvd — Golden Gate 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 —16t" 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 = 52 Net Increase in Capacity = 900 (21J) to 2,000 (4D) = 1,100 Percent Pj Deficient = 52/1,100 = 4.7% Cost Estimate = $20,216,604 x 4.7% = $950,180 = $1.01VI Vanderbilt Beach Rd from Logan Blvd to Collier Blvd —1.9 mi (measured) Estimate capacity improvements at Vanderbilt Beach Rd and Collier Blvd intersection Intersection Improvements = $6.OM Pj Trips Deficiency = 13 Net Increase in Capacity = 3,000 to 3,200 = 200 Percent Pj Deficient = 13/200 = 6.5% Cost Estimate = $6,000,000 x 6.5% = $390,000 = $0.4M Golden Gate Blvd from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd — 2,0 mi (per LRTP) — measured 1.84 mi From 2040 LRTP Amendment Adoption Report, May 25, 2018 — Appendix 2040 Needs Assessment with Project Selection Criteria — ID 8.1 Golden Gate Blvd — Everglades to Desoto Blvd — 2.0 mi = $22,261,375 — expand from 2U to 4D arterial 2.0 mi = $22,261,375 Preliminary Concurrency Fair Share — Bellmar SRA — November 2020 Pj Trips Deficiency = 149 Net Increase in Capacity = 1,010 (2U) to 2,300 (4D) = 1,290 Percent Pj Deficient = 149/1,290 = 11.6% Cost Estimate = $22,261,375 x 11.6% = $2,582,320 = $2.6M Bellmar SRA — Concurrency Fair Share = $4.OM Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 2 AIR SHARE MITIGATION OPERATIONAL IMPACTS TPeNCOCH planning -engineering Fair -Share Mitigation for Operational Impacts Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) Prepared for: Collier Enterprises 2550 North Goodlette Road, Suite 100 Naples, FL 34103 Phone: 239-434-4015 Collier County, Florida 1/8/2021 Prepared by: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Phone; 239-566-9551 Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz Bellmar Village SRA — Fair -Share Mitigation for Operational Impacts —January 2021 Fair -Share Mitigation 1. The Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) is a proposed mixed use development in eastern Collier County located east of Desoto Boulevard and south of Golden Gate Boulevard. 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 -out year (2034) 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 Rd and Desoto Blvd intersection—signalization - Randall Blvd and Desoto Blvd intersection — add eastbound right -turn lane on Randall Blvd Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 12 Rellmor Village SRA — Fair -Share Mitigation for Operational Impacts —January 2021 - Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd intersection —signalization - Golden Gate Blvd and Desoto Blvd intersection—signalization; intersection geometry to consist of the following: on Golden Gate Blvd — add an eastbound shared right- turn/through lane and an eastbound left -turn lane, and provide a westbound shared left-turn/through lane and a westbound shared right-turn/through lane; on Desoto Blvd - add dual northbound left -turn lanes and a southbound left -turn lane. An additional traffic operational analysis was conducted for the intersection of Golden Gate Blvd and Desoto Blvd. Based on the results of this analysis, a roundabout with one additional turn lane for each approach will provide adequate performance characteristics at future 2034 buildout conditions. The signalized option also provides adequate level of service at build -out traffic conditions at this intersection and it is also considered for the purposes of this report. 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 2034 traffic volumes. The Fair Share operational contribution of $2,221,800 detailed in Table 1 shall be paid within 90 days of the approval of the first Development Order construction approval (plat, or site development plan, as applicable) for the SRA. Contribution requirements for transportation related impacts are summarized in the Cost Allocation Table. Table 1— Cost Allocation Table* Oil Well Rd and Desoto Blvd Randall Blvd and Desoto Blvd Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd Golden Gate Blvd and Desoto Blvd Total 400.0 33.5 % / 134.0 200.0 44.0 % / 88.0 400.0 17.0 % / 68.0 2,572.3 75.1% / 1,931.8 3,572.3 62.2% / 2,221.8 Notes: * In addition, as a site related expense (100% contribution), the developer is agreeing to provide roadway improvements for Golden Gate Blvd, segment from project entrance to Desoto Blvd and for 62h Ave SE, segment from project entrance to Desoto Blvd. Proposed site related improvements on Golden Gate Blvd and 62h Ave SE consist of travel pavement widening (to provide a minimum width of 22 ft) and shoulder improvements (10 ft wide on both sides of the roadway) and are estimated to cost $700,000 (Golden Gate Blvd and 6th Ave SE). Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 13 ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Orange County, CA Denver, CO Austin, TX Sacramento, CA Dallas, TX Tampa, FL Phoenix, AZ —"R Orlando, FL Boise, ID Las Vegas, NV Research Triangle, NC Bellmar Village SRA Economic Assessment Collier County Collier County Schools North Collier Fire & Rescue District Initial Submission: November 11, 2019 Revised: March 11, 2020 Roads Emergency Medical Services Water and Wastewater North Collier Fire & Rescue Revised. June 3, 2020 Revised: August 19, 2020 Revised: November 12, 2020 Roads Revised: January 8, 2021 Roads Water and Wastewater— Narrative Only Schools— Narrative Only Fm, i h h.. D P F G DEVELOPMENT PLANNING 4 FINANCING GROUP, INC. 6ELLMAR VILLAGE $RA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................... .......... ............................................................... 4 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 6 METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................................. 6 MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS.................................................................................................................... 8 Development Assumptions......................................................................................................... S RevenueAssumptions................................................................................................................. 9 Sales, Just, and Taxable Values................................................................................................ 9 PropertyTaxes....................................................................................................................... 10 Expenditure Assumptions......................................................................................................... 10 COLLIER COUNTY FISCAL IMPACTS............................................................................................... 10 CollierCounty Operating Impacts.............................................................................................10 Collier County Operating Revenue Projections.........................................................................1.1 Collier County Operating Expenditure Projections...................................................................11 Collier County Capital Impacts..................................................................................................13 Collier County Capital Impacts by Department..................................................................... 13 NORTH COLLIER FIRE & RESCUE DISTRICT.................................................................................... 29 North Collier Fire & Rescue District Capital Impacts................................................................. 29 North Collier Fire & Rescue District Annual Operating Impacts ............................................... 29 COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOLS FISCAL IMPACT...................................,............................................. 30 Collier County Schools Capital Impacts..................................................................................... 30 Collier County Schools Operating Impacts................................................................................ 32 APPENDIX...................................................................................................................................... 35 GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS.................................................................................................. 51 K BELLMAR VILLAGE 5RA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table I- Bellmar ❑evelopment Program.......................................................... ........................ 1—— 8 Table 2: Bellmar Residential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values........................................................ 9 Table 3: Bellmar Nonresidential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values .................................................. 9 Table 4: Bellmar County Tax Base at Buildout............................................................................. 10 Table 5: Collier County Millage Rates.......................................................................................... 10 Table 6: Bellmar Operating Annual Net Impact at Buildout........................................................ 11 Table 7: Bellmar Annual Operating Revenue Projections............................................................ 11 Table 8: Bellmar Annual Operating Expenditure Projections...................................................... 12 Table 9: Bellmar Impact Fee Revenue for Collier County............................................................ 14 Table 10: Bellmar Law Enforcement Capital Impacts. ................................................................. 17 Table 11: Bellmar Law Enforcement Level of Service.................................................................. 17 Table 12: Bellmar Law Enforcement Equipment Cost per Certified Police Officer ..................... 18 Table 13: Bellmar Correctional Facilities..................................................................................... 18 Table 14: Bellmar Correctional Facilities Capital Cost................................................................. 19 Table 15: Bellmar Correctional Facilities Indexed Cost per Resident .......................................... 19 Table 16: Bellmar Allocation of New EMS Station Cost............................................................... 20 Table 17: Bellmar EMS Capital Cost............................................................................................. 20 Table 18: Bellmar Regional Parks Capital Impacts....................................................................... 21 Table 19: Bellmar Regional Parks Level of Service....................................................................... 21 Table 20: Bellmar Regional Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre ................................................ 21 Table 21: Bellmar Community Parks Capital Impacts.................................................................. 22 Table 22: Bellmar Community Parks Level of Service.................................................................. 22 Table 23: Bellmar Community Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre ........................................... 22 Table 24. Bellmar Libraries Capital Impacts................................................................................. 23 Table 25: Bellmar Library Facilities Level of Service.................................................................... 23 Table 26: Bellmar General Government Capital Impacts............................................................ 24 Table 27: Bellmar General Government Capital Cost.................................................................. 24 Table 28: Bellmar North Collier Fire & Rescue District Capital Impacts ...................................... 29 Table 29: Bellmar North Collier Fire & Rescue District Impact Fee Revenues ............................ 29 Table 30: Bellmar North Collier Fire & Rescue District Annual Operating Impacts at Buildout.. 30 Table 31: Bellmar Projected Public School Enrollment............................................................... 30 Table 32: Bellmar Projected Enrollment by School Type............................................................. 30 Table 33: Bellmar School Capital Casts........................................................................................ 31 Table 34: Bellmar School Impact Fee Revenue............................................................................ 31 Table 35: Bellmar School Net Capital Impacts —Total Cash Flow Approach ............................... 32 Table 36: Bellmar Local Ad Valorem School Operating Taxes at Buildout.................................. 34 3 BELLMAR 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, Bellmar Village ("Bellmar" or "Village"), is located east of Desoto Boulevard and south of Golden Gate Boulevard. In accordance with the Rural Lands Stewardship Area ("RLSA") Overlay definition of a Village, Bellmar is primarily a residential community which includes a diversity of housing types and a maximum of 2,750 dwelling units. The Village concept plan includes 85,000 square feet of commercial uses and 27,SOO square feet of neighborhood civic space. The proposed Village is within the service area of a new County EMS facility planned for the corner of Desoto Boulevard South and Golden Gate Boulevard East. The site for the new facility was recently purchased by Collier County, As reflected in the table below, Bellmar 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: Bellmar Village Fiscal Highlights BelimarSRAFiscal Highlights AtBuiIdout AtBulIdout Collier County: Bellmar SRAAd Valorem Tax Base Bell mar SRA Net Annual Fiscal Benefit Bellmar SRATotal Annual Operating Revenues Bellmar SRATotal Annual Operating Expenditures Bellmar$RATvtal Annual Net Operating Surplus North Collier Fire Rescue District: Bellmar SRA Annual Ad ValoreM Tax Revenues* Bellmar SRATotal Annual Operating Expenditures Bellmar SRATotal Annual Net Operating Surplus Collier County Schools: Bel I mar SRA Ad Valorem Tax Base Countyw1de MSTU $ 906,775,000 $ 906,775,000 Countywide MSTU _ $ 4,411,000 $ 821,000 3,239,000 518,000 $ 1,172,000 $ 303,000 Flre District $ 3,400,000 1,500,000 $ 1,900,000 School District $ 942,000,000 Bellmar SRA Net Fiscal Benefit: Annual operating" Total Capital Annual Ad VatoremOperating/Total Capital Revenues $ 3,375,000 $ 46,197,000 Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Expenditures 3,37S,000 46,197,000 Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Surplus $ Bellmar SRA Annual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues: At Bul Idout Collier County $ 3,232,000 Collier County MSTU 732,000 North Collier rlre Rescue District 3,400,000 Collier County 5rhools - Ad Valorem Operating* 3,375,000 Collier County Schools - Capital tmprovement* 1,413,000 Total Bellmar SRAAnnual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues $ 12,452,000 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT I mpatt Fee Revenue, Fair Impact Pee FaIrShare Share Mitigation Impact Fee and Falr Share Mitigation Revenue: Revenue Mitigation and Contribution Community Park$ $ 2,013,000 $ $ 2,013,000 Regional Parks 5,711,000 - 5,711,00(1 Roads 18,767,000 2,221,800 20,988,800 EMS 320,000 - 320,000 Government Buildings 2,109,000 20109,000 U bra ries 719,000 719,000 Law Enforcement 1,342,000 2,342,000 Jail 1,153,000 1,153 0000 Water - Residential Only 7,046,000 7,046,000 Wastewater • Residential Only 7,4289D00 - 7,428,000 Total Col Ile( County Impact Fees $ 46,608,000 $ 2,221,800 $ 48,829,800 Collier County Schools $ 17,274,000 $ $ 17,274,000 North Collier Fire& Rescue 1,515,000 L515oc)OD Tota I lmoact Fee Revenue $ 65,39T000 $ 2,221,800 $ 67,618,800 *Based on FY 2070 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, 2021 As demonstrated in this report, DPFG concludes that the proposed Bellrnar 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. Summery Table 2: Bellmar Village Net Fiscal Impact Conclusions per Taxing Authority Jurisdiction Net Fiscal Jurisdiction Net Fiscal Collier County Collier County Annual Operations: Annual Operations and Capital: General Funds Grouping Positive Water Neutral MSTU Positive Wastewater Neutral Capital: Capital and Operations: Regional and Community Park! Positive Solid Waste Neutral Roads Neutral Stormwater Neutral EMS Neutral North Collier Fire & Rescue Government Buildings Neutral Annual Operations Positive Libraries Positive Capital Positive Law Enforcement Neutral Collier County Schools Jail Neutral Annual Operations* Neutral Capital Neutral * The Florida Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through statewide equalization formula: Source: DPFG, ZU20 6ELLMAR 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, Bellmar is primarily a residential community and includes a diversity of housing types and a maximum of 2,750 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 Bellmar Village SRA. This report provides complete and transparent support for the methodology, assumptions, and calculations applied to demonstrate fiscal neutrality for the Bellmar Village SRAfor Collier County ("County"), the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and the Collier County School District ("School District"), METHODOLOGY The Government Finance Officers Association ("GFDA")' 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 6 BELLMAR 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 Bellmar Village uses a marginal/average cost hybrid methodology to determine the project's impact on capital and operating costs. Personnel and operating casts 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 & 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 & Rescue District 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 2 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 BELLMAR VILLAGE 5RA 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 Bellmar 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 Bellmar Village development program which was used to estimate the operating and capital impacts of the project. Table 1! Bellmar Develonment Proeram Land Use by Im act Fee Ca tegory Units Residential Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached Tota i SFD c 4,000 Sq Ft Total Residential 1,160 1,590 2 750 Non -Residential Scl Ft Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft Total Non-Resi dentia I 95,000 85,000 Neighorhood Civic Grand Total Non -Residential sf 27,500 112,500 Source: Collier Enterprlses, DPFG, 2019 BELLMAR VILLAGE 5RA 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 unlit was based on Collier County (unincorporated) averages published by the Shimberg Center for Housing Studies at the University of Florida. Table 2: Bellmar Residential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values ProductType Units Sales Value per Unit lust Value per Unit Taxabie Value per Unit Town Home Villa 1 Coach Villa 2 Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached 216 337 273 334 1,160 $ 265,000 $ 249,100 $ 233,600 $ 276,000 $ 259,440 $ 243,940 $ 297,000 $ 279,180 $ 263,680 $ 3291000 $ 309,260 $ 293,760 S 294154 $ 276,505 $ 261,005 5FD Product A <4,000 sq ft 522 1 $ 387,000 $ 363,780 $ 380,780 SFD Product B <4,000 sq ft 425 $ 424,000 $ 398,560 $ 365,560 5FD Product C < 4,000 sq ft 461 $ 456,000 $ 428,640 $ 395,640 5FD Product C < 4,000 sq ft 182 $ 488,000 $ 458,720 $ 425,720 Total SFD <4,000 5q Ft 1,590 $ 428,457 402,749 $ 369,749 Total Single-Famlly Detached 1,590 $ 428,457 $ 402,749 1 $ 369,749 Total Residential 2,750 Source; Collier Enterprises, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies jUnly. of FL), DPFG, 2019 Table 3 reflects the estimates of sales, justs, 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 Casts," 40th Edition, 2019 and also considered values from the County Property Appraiser's database. Takla 2. Ra11rri3r Mnnrrcirlantial %aIs h,0 -I Tw-1610 VAWA4 Taxable Sales Value Just Value Value Non -Residential Sq Ft per Sci Ft per Sq Ft per Sq Ft Retai150,001 - 100000 Sci Ft 85000.0 189.50 $ 189.50 $ 189.50 Source: R5 Means, Collier County Property Appraiser, DPFG, 2019 At buildout, the real property tax base generated for the County is estimated to exceed $906.8 million as reflected in Table 4. 5 In determfning just value, reasonable fees and costs of purchase (for example, commissions) are excluded. 9 BELLMAR VILLAGE 5RA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 4: Bellmar County Tax Base at Buildout Units or Taxable Value Land Use Sq Ft per Unit/SF At Buildout _ Residential Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached 1,160 $ 261,005 $ 302,766,000 Total SFD a 4,000 Sq Ft 1,590 $ 369,749 587,901,000 Total Residential 2,750 $ 890,667,000 Non-Resldential Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 85,000 $ 189.50 16,108,000 Total Non -Residential 85,000 $ 16,109,000 Total Tax Base $ 906,775,000 Source: Collier Enterprises, ❑FF6, 2019 Property Taxes Table 5 reflects the millage rate assumptions for Collier County used in the analysis. Table 5: Collier County Mlllage 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) orfixed (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 Bellmar Village at buildout. Bellmar Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to County's Operating Impacts. 10 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 6: Bellmar Operating Annual Net Impact at Bulldout At Buildout Net Operating Impact Countywide MSTU Bellmar SRATotal Annual Operating Revenues $ 4,411,000 $ 821,000 Bellmar SRATotal Annual Operating Expenditures 3,239,000 518,000 Bellmar SRATotal Annual Operating Surplus $ 1,172,000 $ 303,000 Source: DPFG, 2019 Collier County Operating Revenue Projections Projected County annual operating revenues at buildout are summarized in Table 7. Bellmar Village is projected to generate annual operating revenues of $4.4 million for the County's General Funds and $821,000 for the MSTU General Fund. Table 7: Bellmar Annual Operating Revenue Projections GENERAL FUND GROUPING REVENUES At Bui I clout Ad Valorem Taxes $ 3,232,000 Licenses & Permits 2,000 Inter -Governmental Revenues 8,000 State Revenue Sharing - Growth Portion 125,000 State Sa I es Tax 516,000 Charges for Services mis,000 Fines & Forfeitures 5,000 Miscellaneous Revenues 2,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous 11,000 Indi rect Servi ce Charge 74,000 Transfers from Constitutional Officers 62,000 Reimburse from Other Departments 8,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Revenues $ 4,411,000 MSTU GENERAL FUND REVENUES At Bui Idout Ad Va I orenn Taxes $ 732,000 Licenses & Permits 5,000 Charges for Services 32,000 Fines & Forfeitures 7,000 Miscellaneous Revenues 2,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous 1,000 Communication Services Tax 47,000 Reimburse from other Departments - Total MSTUAnnual OoeratinRRevenues $ 821,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Collier County Operating Expenditure Projections Projected County annual operating expenditures at buildout are presented in Table 8. Bellmar Village is expected to generate annual General Funds service demand Of $3.2 million and $518,000 of MSTU General Fund service demand. The Appendix contains a detailed breakdown of operating costs byline item category. 11 BELLMAR VILLAGE 5RA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 8: Bellmar Annual Operating Expenditure Projections GENERAL FUND GROUPING EXPENDITURES At Buildout Board of County Commissioners $ 32,000 County Attorney 13,D00 Property Appraiser 75,000 Supervisor of Elections 25,000 Clerk of Courts S2,000 Sheriff 1,77 1,000 Tax Collector 136,000 Administrative Services 3,000 Human Resources 10,000 Procurement Servl ces 9,000 Bureau of Emergency Services 31,000 Planning 1,000 Circuit & County Court Judges 1,000 Public Defender 4,000 State Attorney 5,000 Guardian Ad Lltem Program - County Manager Operations 7,000 Office of Management & Budget 6,000 Public Services Administration 2,000 Domestic Animal Services 43,000 Community and Human Services 48,000 Li brary 103,000 Parks & Recreation 127,000 Public Health 5,000 Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement 2,00D Facilities Management 155,000 Transfer to 101 7ransp Op Fund 190,000 Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap 00,000 Transfer to 426 CAT Mass Transit 25,000 Transfer to 427 Transp Disadvantaged 33,000 Transfer to 490 EMS Fund 167,000 Distributions In Excess of Fees to GovtAgencies 78,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Expenditures $ 3,239,000 12 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT MSTU GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES At Builclout Board of County Commissioners $ 18,000 Communications & Customer Relations Division 15,000 Growth Management AdmInistration 6,000 Planning 19,000 Regulation 56,000 Maintenance 100,000 Bureau of Emergency Services 1,000 Project Management - Community and Human Services 2,000 Parks & Recreation 193,000 Transfer to 306 Parks Capital Fund 39,000 Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Cap 45,000 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 249000 Total MSTU Annual Operating Wenditures $ 518,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 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 BELLMAR VILLAGE 5RA 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 Bellmar 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 2-018 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 col Iectionsfor 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: eellmar Impact Fee Revenue for Collier County Impact Fee Type Total Fees Community Parks $ 2,013,000 Regional Parks 5,711,000 Roads 18,767,000 EMS 320,000 Government Buildings 2,109,000 Libraries 719,000 Law Enforcement 1,342,000 la i I 1,153,000 Water- residential only 7,046,000 Wastewater - residential only 7,429,000 Total Collier County Impact Fees $ 46,608,000 Collier County Schools 17,274,000 North Collier Fire & Rescue 1,515,000 Total Impact Fees $ 65,397,000 Source: Collier County, ❑PFG, 2D19 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 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Collier County Road Capital Impacts The Bellmar Village SRA is a proposed mixed -use development in eastern Collier County located east of Desoto Boulevard and south of Golden Gate Boulevard. 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 $18.8 million and significantly exceed the Concurrency Fair -Share estimate of $4,0 million as shown in the "Preliminary Concurrency Fair -Share — November 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 an 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, 5ynchro 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 Rd and Desoto Blvd intersection - signalization • Randall Blvd and Desoto Blvd intersection —add eastbound right -turn lane on Randall Blvd • Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd intersection—signalization • Golden Gate Blvd and Desoto Blvd intersection — signalization; intersection geometry as follows; on Golden Gate Blvd add eastbound shared right-turn/through lane and an eastbound left -turn lane, and provide a westbound shared left-turn/through lane and a 15 SELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT westbound shared right-turn/through lane; on Desoto Blvd add dual northbound left -turn lanes and a southbound left -turn lane. 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 2034 traffic volumes. 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 fair share operational contribution of $2.2 million shall be paid within 90 days of the approval of the first Development Order construction approval (plat, or site development plan, as applicable) for the SRA. In addition, as a site related expense (100 percent contribution), the developer is agreeing to provide roadway improvements for Golden Gate Blvd, segment from project entrance to Desoto Blvd and for 6th Ave 5E, segment from project entrance to Desoto Blvd. Proposed site related improvements on Golden Gate Blvd and 6th Ave SE consist of travel pavement widening (to provide a minimum width of 22 ft.) and shoulder improvements (10 ft. wide on both sides of the roadway) and are estimated to cost $700,000 (Golden Gate Blvd and 6th Ave SE). Figure 1: Bellmar Fair -Share Mitigation for Operational Impacts Intersection WA%WJTZ7VJWDR:_�i Intersection Improvement Costs Percentiage/Cost i0r r00 Oil Well Rd and Desoto Blvd 400.0 33.5%/ 134.0 Randall Blvd and Desoto Blvd 200.0 44.0% / 88.0 Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd 400.0 27.0% / 68.0 Golden Gate Blvd and Desoto Blvd 2,572.3 75.1%/ 1,931.8 Total 3,572.3 62.2%/ 2,221.8 Source: Trebilcock consulting Solutions, Pk 2021 Bellmar 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. 16 BELLMAR VILLAGE 5RA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 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 Bellmar Village include the cost to equip certified officers. At this time, there is not the need for a specific land site within Bellmar 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 Bellmar Village's proportionate share. Table 10: Bellmar Law Enforcement Capital Impacts Bellmar SRA Funded Law Enforcement Facilities Law Enforcement Capital Revenues: impact Fee Revenue $ 1,342,000 Other Capital Revenues* 243,000 Total Capital Revenues $ 1,585,000 Direct Capital Costs: Law Enforcement Equipment Cost Equipment Value per Certified Police Officer $ 106,000 Certified Police Officers at Achieved LOS 10.1 Law Enforcement Equipment Cost $ 1,066,000 Total Law Enforcement Direct Capital Costs $ 1,066,000_ Law Enforcement Capital Revenues In Excess of Direct Capital Costs $ 519,000 Law Enforcement Indirect Capital Costs: Law Enforcement Direct Capital Surplus $ 519,000 Land and Building Cost per 5q Ft $ 219 Additional Law Enforcement Facility Sq Ft Funded 2,370 Law Enforcement Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ *Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis. Source: Collier County, OFFG, 2019 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 Bellmar Village. Table 11: Bellmar Law Enforcement Level of Service LOS Share Law Enforcement Facilities Peak5ea5onal Population 5,683 Achieved LO5 (Officers per 1,000 Peak Residents) 1.77 Funded Facilities and E ul mentfor Certified Police Officers 10.1 Source: Collier County, OPFG, 2019 17 BELLMAK VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 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. Table 12: Bellmar Law Enforcement Equipment Cost per Certified Police Officer Item Amount Eq u i pment I nventory Value $ 70,020,524 Number of Certified Police Officers 660 Equipment Value per Officer $ 106,000 Source: Collier County, OPFG, 2019 Collier County Correctional Facilities Capital Impacts The Correctional Facilities impact fee includes jail facilities Bland 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: BellmarCorrectional Facilities Bell mar SRA Funded share Jail Facilities Correctional Facilities Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue $ 1,153,000 Other Capital Revenues* 63,000 Total Capital Revenues $ 1,216,000 Capital Cost(Land, Building, Vehicles, and Equipment) - Indexed $ 1,216,000 Correctional Facilities Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ - *Included In the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis. Source; Collier County, OPFG, 2019 The capital cost for correctional facilities is calculated below. is BELLIVIAR VILLAGE 5RA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 14: Bellmar Cotrectional Facilities Capital Cost Functional Population Units/ Functional Land Use Coefficient Square Feet Population Single Family Detached Less than 4,000 sq ft 1.81 1,590 2,876 Total Condo, Dupex, Single -Family Attached 0.94 1,160 1,090 Retail 50,001 to 100,000 sfgla 2,46 85,000 _ 209 Total Functional Population 4,175 Indexed Capital Cost per Functional Population $ 290.98 Total Capital Cost $ 1,216,000 Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 5,885 2018 Indexed Capital Cost per Peak Population $ 206.63 Source. Collier County, OPFG, 2015 The indexed capital cost per bed is calculated in Table IS. Table 15: Bellmar Correctional Facilities Indexed Cost pet Resident Descrl tion Figure Net Asset Va lue - I ndexed $ 111,592,344 Number of Beds 1,304 Net Asset Va lue per Bed $ 85,577 Current LOS (Beds per 1,000 Functional Residents) _ 3.4Q AssetValueper Functional Resident $ 290.98 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Collier County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Capital Impacts According to EMS management, Bellmar 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 cast of the new facility will be funded by the County's One -Cent Infrastructure surtax which was authorized in 2018. EMS Management has indicated that the capital impact from Bellmar Village will be limited to EMS vehicles. The EMS level of service in the County's AUIR is approximately 1 unit lvehicle, equipment, station space) per 16,400 population; however, in addition to this metric, EMS also relies an 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 Bellmar Village using a peak seasonal resident population approach. 19 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 16: Bellmar Allocation of New LIVI5 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 Bellmar Village Peak Resident Population 5,683 EMS New Station Cost Allocable to Bellmar Village $ 191,000 Source: Collier County, UFFG, 2020 Table 17 compares the allocable cost of the new station to projected EMS impact fees for Bellmar Village. Table 17: Bellmar EMS Capital Cost Bellmar Village EMS Capital EMS Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue $ 320,000 Other Capital Revenues* 8,000 Total Capital Revenues $ 328,000 EMS New Station Cost Allocable to Bellmar Village $ 191,000 Net Capital Revenues Available for EMS Growth - Related Capital Needs 137,000 EMS Total Capital Cost $ 328,000 *Included in the collier County General Funds net fiscal impact buildout analysis. Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 Bellmar 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 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 18: Bellmar Regional Parks Capital Impacts Bell mar SRA Funded ReglonaI Park Faci I iti es Regional Park Capital Revenues Impact Fee Revenue $ 5,711,000 Other Capital Revenues* 300,000 Total Capital Revenues $ 6,011,040 Regional Park Indirect Capital Costs Indexed Land & Pacility Cost per Acre $ 590,288 Regional Park Acres at Achieved LOS 10.34 Bel Imar SRAFundedRegionaIPark Acres $ 6,105,000 Regional Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ (94,000) Community Park Capital Revenues In Excess of Capital Costs 119,000 Total park Capital Revenues In Excess of Capital Costs $ 25,000 *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 LDS of 1.82 acres per 1,000 peak population for purposes of this analysis. Table 19: Bellmar Regional Parks Level of Service LOS Shareof Regional Park Facilities Regional Park Achieved LOS per County staff 1.82 Bell mar SRA Peak Seasonal Population 5,683 Bell mar SRA Communi tv Park Acreage 10.34 Source: Collier County, MFG, 2019 The indexed capital cost per Regional Park acre is calculated in Table 20. Table.20. Bellmar 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 Fac i I ity & 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 Bellmar Community Parks Capital Impacts Community Parks capital impacts are presented in Table 21, 21 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 21: Bellmar Community Parks Capital Impacts Bellmar 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 Bellmar SRA Funded Community Park Acres $ 2,013,000 33,000 $ 2,046,000 282,573 6.82 $ 1,927,000 CommunItyParkCapltaI Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ 119,000 Regional Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs (94,000) Total Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ 25,000 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 Bellmar Village. Table 22: Bellmar Community Parks level of Service LOS Share of Community Park Facilities Community bark Adopted LOS 1.20 Bellmar SRA Peak Seasonal Population 5,683 Bel I mar SRA Communitv Park Acreage 6.82 Source: Collier County, DPFG, zo19 The indexed capital cost per Community Park acre is calculated in Table 23. Table 23. Bellmar 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 FaciI Ity & Equipment Cost per Acre _ 148,128 Total Ladd & Facility Cost per Acre $ 265,328 2018 Index 1.065 2018 Indexed Cost per Acre $ 292,573 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Bellmar 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 BhLLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSE55MEIVT Libraries capital impacts are presented in Table 24. The calculated surplus will be used to fund other Library capital needs. Table 24: Bellmar Libraries Capital Impacts Bellmar SRA Funded Library Facilities LlbraryCapital Revenues: ^ Irnpact Fee Revenue $ 719,000 other Capital Revenues* 106,000 Total Capital Revenue _$ 825,000_ Library Capital Costs: Library Facility Cost Library Sq Ft at Achieved Las 1,785 Library Facility Cast per Sq Ft $ 243.20 Library Facility Cost $ 434,000 Library Materials/Collections Unit Cost per Capita $ 38.62 Peak Seasonal Population _ 5,683 Total Items $ 219,000 Total Library Capital Costs $ 653,000 Library Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ 172,001) *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 Bellmar Village. Table 25, Bellmar Llbrary Facilities Level of Service LOS Share of Library Facilities Peak Seasonal Population 5,683 Sq Ft per Peak Seasonal Resident at Achieved LOS 0.31 Li bra ry Sq Ft (Ach l eved LOS) 1,795 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 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 26: Bellmar General Government Capital impacts Bellmar SRA Funded Government Buildings Government Building Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue $ 2,109,000 Revenue Credits* 71,000 Total Capital Revenue $ 2,180,000 Government Building Capital Casts: Government Building indirect Capital Costs: $ 2,180,000 Government Building Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ - *Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis. Source: Collier County, QPFG, 2019 General government capital costs are calculated in Table 27, Table 27: Bellmar General Government Capital Cost Functional Population Units/ Functional Land Use Coefficient Square Feet Population 51 ngle Fa mi I Detached Less than 4,000 sq ft 1.81 1,590 2,879 Total Condo, Dupex, Single -Family Attached 0.86 1,160 999 Retail 50,001 to 100,000 sfgla 2.46 85,000 209 Total Functional population 4,097 Capital Costper Functional Population $ 533.72 Total Proportionate Capital Cost $ 2,180,000 Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 5,885 Cadltal Cost uer Peak Population $ 370.43 Source: Collier County, dPFG, 2019 Bellmar Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to County Capital impacts. Water and Wastewater The following table is a calculation of the Bellmar Village potable water demands and wastewater generation with all factors and assumptions., 24 BELLMAR VILLAGE 5RA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Figure 2. Bellmar Water and Wastewater Demands Betlma► Water and♦' Wastewater Demands Wastewater Potable Water Wastewater to water conversion 1.5 Residential 2,750 DU @ 200 gpd 550,000 gpd 27750 DU @ I 300 g d 825,000 gpd Commercial 8s,000 sf @ 0.15 gpd - 12,750 gpd 85,000 sf @ 0.23 gpd = 19,125 pd Civic 27,5000 @ 0.15 pd = 4,125 gpd 27,500 sf @ 0.23 gpd 6,188 gpd 566,875 gpd 850,313 gpd 566,875 gpd = 0.57 m d ADF 850,313 gpd I = 0.85 mgd ADF Map Factor 1.5 M3D factor = 1.3 M31) Flow - 0.85 mgd M3D Flow = 1.11 mgd source: Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc., Hole Montes, 2020 Potable water services for the Bellmar 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 2,750 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 Bellmar Village development at buildout is projected to be approximately 0.85 MGD average daily demand and 1.11 MGD maximum 3-day demand. Wastewater services for the Bellmar 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 2,750 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 flaws of 0.57 MGD on an average daily basis and 0.85 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. Bellmar Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to Collier County's Water and Wastewater capital and operating impacts. 25 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Stormwater Management The criteria used in the preparation of the stormwater management plan were 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 Bellmar Village is the existing agricultural water management system aka Water Retention Area ("WRA"), which ultimately discharges to the Merrit Canal via an unnamed wetland. 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 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 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. 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 26 BELLMAR VILLAGE 58A ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT these alterations have mitigation identified in the permit which will be made upon implementation of the impact. The water management concept for Bellmar 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. 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 Bellmar Village water management system; therefore, the fiscal impact to Collier County is neutral. Bellmar Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect of 5tormwater Management Capital and operating impacts. Irrigation Water The Bellmar Village project site has along 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 Bellmar 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 Bellmar 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 298 acres of landscaping and turf within the Bellmar Village development requiring irrigation. The project irrigation demand for this amount of irrigated acreage as determined using the SFWMD Blaney-Criddle method are: • 1.14 MGD on an annual average basis • 1.66 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 Bellmar 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 27 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT supply needs throughout the County service area. If the County provides reclaimed water to meet all the project's irrigation water demands, the SFWMQ 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 Bellmar Village irrigation system, therefore the fiscal impact to Collier County is neutral. Bellmar 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 Bellmar 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 Bellmar 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. Bellmar Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to Collier County's Landfill. 28 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT NORTH COLLIER FIRE & RESCUE DISTRICT North Collier Fire & Rescue District Capital Impacts The proposed Bellmar Village is within the service area of a new County EMS facility planned for the corner of DeSoto Boulevard South and Golden Gate Boulevard East. The site for the new facility was recently purchased by Collier County. North Collier Fire & Rescue District will co - locate at the new facility. The incremental capital cost of the new fire facility, as provided by District management, is shown in Table 28. Fire impact fee revenues generated by Bellmar Village are expected to exceed proportionate capital costs. Table 28: Bellmar North Collier Fire & Rescue District Capital Impacts Capital Impact at Buildout Capital Impact: Fire District Capital Revenues Impact Fee Revenue $ 1,515,000 Other Capital Revenue 97,000 Total Capital Revenue $ 1,602,000 Desosto 81vd/Golden Gate Blvd Station Cost Shared Station Construction Cost $ 1,o00,000 Apparatus 400,000 Total Desosto Blvd/Golden Gate Blvd Station Cost $ 1,400,000 Fire District Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ 202,000 Source: North Collier Fire & Rescue District, ❑?FG, 2020 Projected impact fee revenues are presented in Table 29 and total $1.5 million. Table 29: Bellmar North Collier Fire & Rescue District Impact Fee Revenues Units or Fire Impact Fee Category Sq Ft Impact Fee Total Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached 1,160 $ 334.82 $ 388,000 Total SFD < 4,000 5q Ft 1,590 $ 659.09 1,046,000 Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 8S,000 $ 0,9485 81,000 Total Fire Impact Fees $ 1,515,000 Source: North Collier Fire & Rescue District, DPFG, 2020 North Collier Fire & Rescue District Annual Operating Impacts Because the current operating millage of the Big Corkscrew Island SIDA is geared to much lower density development, Bellmar Village is currently projected to generate an operating surplus for the North Collier Fire & Rescue District. Annual operating revenues and expenditures are reflected in Table 30. 29 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 30: Bellmar North Collier Fire & Rescue District Annual Operating Impacts at Buildout Annual Operating Impact at Buildout Annual Operating Impact: Bellmar SRA Ad Valorem Tax Base $ 906,775,000 Big Corkscrew Island SDA Millage Rate 3.75 Annual Ad Valorem Revenues $ 3,400,000 $ 3,400,000 Desoto Blvd/Golden Gate Blvd Station Annual Expenditures Personnel and Operating Expenses Annual Operating Surplus 1,500,000 $ I,900,000 Note: Annual operating costs of the new co -located station provided by North Collier Fire & Rescue management. 5ourte: North Collier Fire & Rescue District, DPFG, 2020 Bellmar Village is deemed fiscally positive with respect to the North Collier Fire St Rescue District. COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOLS FISCAL IMPACT Collier County Schools Capital Impacts The projected enrollment of Bellmar Village on the Collier County Public Schools ("CCPS") is shown in Table 31. The student generation rates in the 2015 School Impact Fee Update, the most recent data available, were used to calculate enrollment. Table 31: Bellmar Projected Public School Enrollment Projected Residential Unit Type _ Units SGR Students Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached 1,160 0.11 128 Total 5FD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,590 0.34 541 Total Residential 2,750 669 Source: Collier County School I)Mrlct, Collier Enterprises, I?PFG, 2019 Projected enrollment by type of school is shown in Table 32. Table 32: Bellmar Projected Enrollment by School Type Projected School Type Students Percent Elementary 304 45.48% Middle 148 22.06% High 217 32.46% Total 669 100.00% Source: Collier County School District, Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2019 30 RELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 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 8 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 Bellmar Village students are presented in Table 33 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. Table 33: Bellmar School Capital Costs Cost per Facility Costs Students Student Total School Facility Cost: Elementary 304 $ 36,058 $ 10,972,000 Middle 148 42,266 6,237,000 High 217 48381 10,505,000 CostofNewSchool Facilities 669 $ 41,426 $ 27,714,000 Transportation and Ancillary Costs - Initial: Transportation 669 $ 1,097 734,000 Anxillary Facility 669 $ 1,246 807,000_ Total Transportation/Ancillary 669 $ 2,303 1,541,000 Total Ca p ItaI Costs 43,729 $ 29,255,000 Source; Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2019 School impact fee revenue is shown in Table 34. Table 34: Bellmar school Impact Fee Revenue Units or School Impact Fee Category Sq Ft Impact Fee Total Total Condo, Duplex, Single,FarnilyAttached 1,160 $ 2,844.19 $ 3,298,000 Total SFa <4,000 Sq Ft 1,590 $ 9,789.54 13,976,000 Total School Impact Fees $17,274,000 Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2019 31 HELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT As seen in Table 35, capital revenues consist primarily of ad valorem taxes (1.5 mills) and impact fees. The capital impact of Bellmar Village is favorable as 42 percent of the housing units are expected to generate only 0.11 students per household. Table 35: Bellmar 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 School ❑istrlct Capital Tax Revenue Total School Capital Revenues Direct School Capital Expenditures: New Schools New School Buses K-12 DlrectSchool Capital Expenditures: $ 17,274,000 17,274,000 28,923,000 28,923,000 $ 17,274,000 $ 28,923,000 $ 46,197,000_ $ 27,714,000 734,000 $ 28,448,000 Other School Capital Expenditures: School Bus Replacement Cost $ 734,000 Other Direct School and/or Systemwide Capital Expenditures 17,015,000 Total School Capital Expenditures $ 46,197,000 * Conslstentwith 25-Year Credit Period in CCPS School Impact Fee Study. source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2019 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. 32 SELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Figure 3: Collier County School District Tax Roll and Millage History Tax Roll History (In Billions) 110.00 100-00 90.00 - 597.91 80.00 588.57 592.40 586.1C 70.00 572.00 574-45 60.Q4 567.84 50.00 $63.49 560.27 560.71 553.06 40.00 30.00 ---- r 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-23 13-14 14-15 15.16 16.17 17-18 18-19 19-20 School District Millage History 6 Q0p 5.699 5.527 5.576 S-690 5.580 5-480 5.239 � 5.245 5.122 5.000 k--- 4.000 3.000 2.000 1.000 S.449 5.083 3.451 3-779 3.328 3.442 3.337 3.232 2.991 2.997 g_Syq 2.821 2.835 2.248 2.248 2.249 2.248 2.248 2.248 2.249 2-248 2.228 2.228 2.248 - 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 -41linkequired State Lave Source: Collier County School District, 2019 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-10 18-19 19-20 Discretionary Millage +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 36. 33 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 36: Bellmar Local Ad Valorem School Operating Taxes at Buildout Operating School District Operating Results Millage At Buildout Ad Valorem Local Millage- Residential 3.583 $ 3,317,000 Ad Valorem Local Millage, NonResidential 3.583 58,000 Ad Valorem Local Millage Revenues $ _3,375,Op0 Ad Valorem Local MiIlageOperating Expenditures $ 3,375,0110 Ad Valorem Local Millage Net Revenues $ Source, Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2019 Bellmar Village is deemed fiscally neutral respect to the Collier County School District, 34 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT APPENDIX Appendix Table L Collier County Base Assumptions COLLIER COUNTY STUDY PERIOD FY2019 County Budget Year COLLIER COUNTYWIDE POPULATION 376,086 2019 County Permanent Population -Collier County 2019 AUIR 1.20 Seasonal Population Coefficient -Collier County 451,303 2019 County Peak Sea onal Population - Collier County 2018 AUIR 75 217 2019 County Peak Seasonal Population COLLIER COUNTYWIDE EMPLOYMENT 196,065 Collier County 2016 EMS Impact Fee Update 0.8897602 FTEConversionFactor- 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 lCounty Permanent Population and Jobs 625,754 County Peak Seasonal Population and Jobs 633,596 County Peak5easonal 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 - CollierCounty 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 lAllocation based on Collier County 2016 EMS Impact Fee Update COLLIER COUNTY UNINCORPORATED POPULATION AND JOBS 488,682 lCounty Permanent Population and Jobs 559,796 lCounty 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 Shi mberg Center for Hous i ng Studies -2018 Final Tax Roll Year 66% Single Family 31% Condominium $ 50,000 County Homestead Exemption $ 25,000 School Homestead Exemption Source; Collier County, DPFG, 2019 35 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Annendix Table 2: Bellmar Resident Population and Seasonal Population Coefficlents 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 F't Source: Collier Enterprises, Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Appendix Table 3: Bellmar Population end Employment Estimates Land Use by Impact FeeCatqgory Units Peak Seasonal Persons Per Unit Peak Seasonal Po ulation Permanent Population Per Unit Permanent Population Residential Total Condo, Duplex, Single -Family Attached Total SPD <4,000 Sq Ft Total Residential 1160 1.26 1,462 1.05 1,218 1,590 2.65 4,221 2.21 3,518 2,750 5,683 4,716 Non-Resldential Sq Ft Employment Occu % Employees Reta1150,001- 100,000 Sq Ft Total Non -Residential 85,000 2.50 95% 202 85,000 202 Neigborhood Civic Grand Total Non -Residential sf 27,500 112 500 202 source: Collier Enterprises, Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Appendix Table 4: Bellmar Population and Employment Summary Cumulative Population and Employment At Buildout Permanent Population 4,736 Permanent Population and Jobs 4,938 Residential Seasonal Population 5,683 Residential Seasonal Population and Tourists 5,683 Employment 202 Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 5,885 Residential seasonal Population, Tourists, and Employment 5,885 Source: Collier Enterprises, Inc., Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Appendix Table 57 Bellmar Public School Enrollment Students Total Residential Population Units per Unit Students Total Condo, Dupex, Single -Family Attached 1,160 0.11 128 Total SF <4,000 5q Ft 1,590 0.34 541 Annual Total 2,750 669 Cumulative Total Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2019 36 SELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 6: Bellmar County Tax Base Units or Taxable Value Land Use Sq It per Unit/SF At Bul ldout Residential Total Condo, Dupex, Single -Family Attached 1,160 $ 261,005 $ 302,766,000 Tota 1 51`0 a 4,000 Sq Ft 1,590 $ 369,749 587,901 000 Total Single -Family 2,750 $ 890,667,000 Total Residential 2,750 $ 890,667,000 Non-Residentlal Reta i 1 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 95,000 $ 189.50 16 108 DOD Total Non -Residential 85,000 $ 16,108,000 Total Tax Base $ 906,775,000 Source: Collier Enterprises, Collier County, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2019 Appendix Table 7: Bellmar School District Tax Base Units or Taxable Value Land Use Sq Ft per Unit/SF At Buildout Residential Total Condo, Dupex, Single -Family Attached 1,160 $ 268,755 $ 311,756,000 Total SFD <4,000 5q Ft 1,590 $ 386,249 614,136,000 Total Single -Family 2,750 $ 925,892,000 Total Residential 2,750 $ 925,892,000 Non -Residential Retail 50,001-100,000 Sq Ft 85,000 $ 189.50 16,1(mool) Total Non -Residential 85,000 $ 16,108,000 Total Tax Base $ 942,000,000 Source: Collier Enterprises, Collier county, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), dPFG, 2019 37 BEILMAR VILLAGE SPA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appondix Table 6: FY 2019 Collier County General Funds Bud 6t Summarfat Intw- Frd Payment QENLRALFaROGRGUFIhG Advelar" 1044nFMd POW-1 smvRe-- In U"Or Chen. for FIne6 Mlscdren.4ui lmtew l Inslrecr REVENLIE1 AND%0UPW To— Pumps Revenues sww scang swuTax T.— F-1c. PorldturM P m Mlecdlenmus S-1ceCher a to r;y 0o—rd 001 Gen Wal Fund 6314,873,600 5 229.200 5 453,50G 511,000,000 341.000,000 $ 1,250=0 ; L4,214,100 $ 192,504 $ 205.400 ; 910,000 ; 8,254,500 541.181,100 002 Irrow ree DA60,4I Probe,- - - - - - - 1Q,700 a07 terr84^cy Rd lH - - - - - - - - - - 1,300 285,100 007 [woft 04rdop—, a - - 400,000 - - - - 19,6pp 1,334,2Ga 011 Clak of Circuit Court - - - - 3,214,600 - - 36,000 - 040 iherlN 060 P,*P4rW APPuIeer - - - - 010 Tis 0pu4culr - - - - - 23.577,700 - 233,500 CEO supervisor of Sidon - - Total Gm —I Fund Grovel ra Rv,4eves 1314,823,600 $ 219,100 ; 933,500 5 11,11M,000 _$ e1p00,GGa g 2.250,000 g 4G,ra6,400 $ 397,50u ; 208.L00 ; 1,193,100 1,'56,800 $ 43A70,400 Y,ensfera from Trawlers from aelmhuriefrom GENERALFUNO GROOPIN9 Cammuplcatlan Spe lel WwA1 Fund 1owfltu9pnel Reply IRMA Other RMNUFSANO SOURCES SefylePS Tax Assossmmts 801 Orows Oth4r Tr ensrere Lain DipbeWOU Total Lms-kaylrmd Tatar _ 6di Geneol Fund - 5 a.6G0,0a0 ; 1,a15,O08 $ 11,700,000 5 853,000 5 455,1194.600 $ 119A91,9001 $ 435,901,700 Q03 Impact Fw 00-1 Pm6raln - - - - - 191200 20.200 not Em4r6entY x611e} _ _ - - 267,48G pGOi 287,200 007 FR4nomlr Onedapment - - - - 1,752,800 {21pm1 1.731,a00 011 Clerk of Cffivlt Court - - 7.367,00 - - 10,61700 1159,1001 10,451,401) ma Sheriff - 197,203.400 - 167,103,4W - 167,201A00 060 Property AppralFer - - 6.951,Uuo ao • 7,797.100 7,790,300 070 Tam CollKtor - - - - 23,51IM99 13,611.200 oe0 Suoervlier of Elections 36930an _ 3,693.000 Tefal Gmeral Fund Grouping 11—el S S - 5 205414,400 $ 5AC13000 $ 7,661-100 ; 11700,000 $ 863MO0 $590,177,3a0 g i19,372.306y g670,90S.000 661 General Fund 5 435.902,700 002 Utility Impact Fee Deferral program 201200 003 Emergency ills aster 297,200 007 Economic Development 1,731,900 Oil Clerk oftlrcultCourt 10,45RA00 040 Sheriff 187,203,400 060 PropertyAporai$er 7,797,300 470 Tax Collector 23,611,200 080 Supervisor of Oecllons 3,893,0oO Total General Fond groupings $ 670e905,666 SGurce: Wllor County, OPFG, 2919 93 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AnnendixTahle 9: FY 2019 Collier Countv General Funds Revenue Demand Units General Fund Group! nRevenue Category Budget Demand Base Multi tier Base Demand $ Per Demand Unit Ad Valorem Taxes Licenses & Permits Inter -Governmental Revenues State Revenue Sharing- Fixed Portion State Revenue5haring- 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 Tra ns fers Repay IRMA Loan Re! mbu rs e f ram Other Departments Total $ 314,823,600 CUMULATIVE AV 1.00 N/A N/A 229,200 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 1$ 0.42 853,50 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 1,199,100 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 $ 2.18 8,256800 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 2661100 FIXED 1.00 NA 11 700,000 FIXED 1.00 N/A 863,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 $ 1.38 $ 690,277,300 $ z41.95 Source: Collier County, OFPG, 2019 Annendix Tahle 10: FY 2019 Collier Countv MSTU Revenue Demand Units General Fund Group nRevenue 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 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 231400 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 4,500,00❑ PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 $ 8.04 31,000 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 S 16.53 Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2019 39 BELLMAR VILLAGE 5RA ECONOMIC A5SE55MENT Appendix Table 21: Bellmar General Funds Revenue at Buildout GENERAL FUND GROUPING $ Per REVENUES Demand Base Demand At Bulldout Ad Valorem Taxes CUMULATIVE AV $ 3.5645 $ 3,232,000 Licenses & Permits PERMPOP&JOBS $ 0.42 2,000 Inter -Governmental Revenues PERMPOP&JOBS $ 1155 8,000 State Revenue Sharing -Growth Portion PERMPOP $ 26.48 125,000 State Sales Tax PERMPOP $ 109.02 516,000 Charges for Services PERMPOP&JOBS $ 74.12 366,000 Fines & Forfeitures PEAKPOP $ 0.87 5,000 Miscellaneous Revenues PERMPOP&JOBS $ 0.38 2,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous PERMPOP&JOB5 $ 2.18 11,000 Indirect Service Charge PERMPOP&JOBS $ 15.00 74,000 Transfers from Constitutional Officers PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 10.55 62,000 Reimburse from Other Departments PEAKPOP&J09S $ 1.38 8,000 Total General Funds Annual Operatiniz Revenues $ 241.95 $ 4,411,000 Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2019 Appendix Table 12: Bellmer MSTU Revenue at Buildout MSTU GENERAL FUND $ Per REVENUES Demand Base Demand At Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes CUMULATIVE AV $ 0,8069 $ 732,000 Licenses & Permits PERMPOP&JOBS $ 0.93 5,000 Charges for Services PERMPOP&JOBS $ 6.42 32,000 Fines & Forfeitures PERMPOP&JOSS $ 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 47,000 Reimburse from Other Departments PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 0.04 Total M5TLJAnnuaI OneratinJtRevenues $ 16.53 $ 821,000 source: Collier County, DFPG, 2019 40 DELLMAR VILLAGE SKA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 13: FY 2019 Collier County General Funds Ex aOditur0 Budget Summaries Trani Fero 64 T7atlafefs to GENERALFUNG GROUPING Perlonel Operating Grants and AdrAns4i Indlrect Cast tanstilu8unal General Fund Other EXPENDITURES CKPENW5 S.M. to tel buds Aid A —nuances Away Relftursement 4lflcws Ippsl R--- 001 Genera! Fund $ 34.711,900 5 36,937,400 $ 430.590 S 3,674,61M S 6,57Z.SGG $ 445=0 $ $}21,211500 $ 87,497,BDO $ 44,482,200 002 Impa4T Fee O4hrgl Program - no3 E—g—r Rdlef - 50,000 - - - MAN 007 Ltendhit Derelopm6m - 211,000 3a9,000 4,f00 - - 1,127,7gG 013 Clarkilfarcuittcurt IIAO7,800 11721,100 129.500 - - - - 040 MUIR[ 353g33,400 14A21y900 7,842,700 - - - - - OGO Property App,alsa 6p45,100 L717ADO 25,000 - - - - 070 Tax Collector 11,743,$00 2,743,00 424,100 - - - - - OA0 Super %or of fleedpnt 21351,900 1 4N3 100 48,000 Wall Ganwal Fpnd Grguping Erpendltuem $215,914,200 $ 11,809,800 5 8,890.000 S 3,624,600 $ 6,952,800 S 445A00 $ 4,1GO $221,111,sG0 $ 26200 527A07.800 S45,845,10D F—anal Serarcea Opersting 5erylcaF Restrlct4dfor Pfltrib0110not C.PNalClutlay GENERAL FUNOGROUPING Unfunded Uaelt Feel ae GrentF and Aid EXPENDITURE51EXPEUSES _ W.W. G-t AR—Im TOW Remlmnger _ 001 General Fund - $ 43%902,700 S 41,257,200 002 Ir0p44t F94P4f4rrel Pmgralm • 20,2D0 - 003 Bmeramcy Rellef - l,0,700 50,000 007 E4anoml t 4erdgpnr - - 2,731,100 504,10O Oil Clerk df Cieeult Court - - 10A RA00 10A511 00 040 shwff - - 187,203,400 147,203A00 060 Property App,mlser 7.797,100 7,797,1DO 070 Tax Cullectur - 81659,909 23,611,200 14,951,300 080 SOppnicor gf Electlons 3893000 9891000 TCTAI Genn4l Fond Grooelog Eapendilurel $ $ 4.459900 S Wb,405000 S 30224500 $eyrGe; Collier County, DPFG, 2019 41 13ELLMAR VII-LAU 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 UtilltylmpactFee DeferraI Program 20,200 003 Emergency Disaster 287,200 007 Economic Development 1,731,800 Oil Clerk of Circuit Court 10,458,400 040 Sheriff 197,203,400 060 Property Appraiser 7,797,100 070 Tax Collector 23,611,200 080 Supervisor of Elections 3,893,000 Total General Fund Groupings $ 670,9o5,00o 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 F 238142,800 Total Operating Budget $ 989,701,400 source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 42 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table Is. FY 2019 Collier County Appropriations by Program Budget Summaries General Funds Trust and Grouplol T4til 4ennal Funds SReelof Rarsnue Capital Funds Fntersirlle Internal 5erylce Alen Funds Teensfers and 4 "1 01.131on Grouoln47oul Funds Tpul Teal Fund. Total Funds Toal Soul Aware. Total kemlmnts Board oftounly Commlasloners 5 16,974,700 5 3,SABD0 5 5 3 S S - 5 14,slksd0 5 5.080,100 CeurlVA9arftW 3,815,500 193,000 - - - - - 3P9,500 2,915,500 Property Appealsv 7,977,000 - - - - - - 7,977AD0 7,977,000 Superyl5or of Ewlions 3,9S9,d00 - 1,959,600 1195900 clerk of courts 1010,500 10,960,500 101960,S00 Sheriff 190,703,300 5,053,000 - - - 3,585,500 197,146,800 190,7D8,100 Tax Collector 15,175.500 - - - - - 0,559,900 23,835,400 15,175,500 Admml.1,.6-1er0ces dd%w - - d67,300 687,300 ban 5lm6er86rlry Education 121Adb ISS,600 MAN Fled Maneflinwl - - - 9,508,700 696,600 10,005,300 - Motor Pool C9pinlRecWnyPrOlrlm - - 2,452,390 5AB5,500 - 11,562,300 19,500,100 - HumanResuures 2,173,400 - - 2,173.400 2,171A00 Information Technology 1,221,960 9,104,200 1,16o,700 12,111.800 Pr4eulem 015-1941 2,016,700 - - - - - 2,016,700 ;iM5,700 Risk MahaBelneht - - - - 67,052,100 - 40,620,500 107,572,700 - tumrn.rl- inm d C.O.- Relations DNI.1on - IA67,800 - • IAd7,800 - A4mIn113r4*a eSsrvlcel¢raNs 34,509 - 34,6¢0 Bur44a of tmNaM4y Services 3,313,800 75,000 - - Wing 3,6,AOX0, 3,2$1,000 Emarlency ns.dlc.l Sarvkes DAS - - 11AR4,4D0 - - 1,S67,600 14,647A00 - FuaOlstrlcts - 2,101,500 - - 31T,800 2,419,500 - amirltAdminhVisti 0roMhman16n 15,379,900 IsN9.1on Plsnnfnt 107,308 9A77POP - - 3,915,100 107.400 kaduledon - i:514:GN - - - 5,411A00 29,425,400 - M.Inunanc. lt,156,800 - - - 872,700 2%031,500 - IlnproysirmtDlatrrclsend M51V 2,4g6,700 - 361900 2,123AI30 - Operefons 9,379,999 - - 140,700 9.470.600 - Prol. fil-agament - SAN,= - - - - 93AGO 5,69ii'M - A2rport - - - 3.913,9D0 • 7171700 4,553,600 - Rei4,.4Mid Tr.ni(arc - 23,146,300 23,14I,300 CBVet Adrtfir,i7[r.eipi, Z,9611X0p - 235,200 3,203,900 ClrculL& County Courtludires 65,900 - - - - - - 65,900 4519D0 Publlc Odasder 30BA00 - - - - - - 3041,000 309,400 SrateAnorn4y, 407,400 467A66 407,4D0 ¢uardlan Ad 1-1l4mprolr.m 4,6D0 - 4,600 4,600 Court Related Technoloh - i,06fl,500 - - - - 495,100 11563,800 - CountyMangerOperadpns 1,392,000 - - - - - - 1,392A00 1,397ADD Corpor.te Compiunceand Performinc.tmpr. 664,t0D 664,200 664,260 ullYSeof M.a.l.menC 2L 6udlar 1,367400 1,11o,6DD 442A60 3,126,900 1,347,960 Toolst 01velop,"nt Caudell - 12,741,400 - - - - 5,58400D 17,979,800 - AmrSort, Coopls. - 2,.94,900 r - - - - - 3,194,900 - Pdman8ay3e1vkes 4,930,100 2,7011 00 7AW900 Businars and Ec-nde Development 2,01SIA00 3,t64,500 5,228,000 1,019,100 Art Mu16 In. otion Ease - 1A00 - - - - 2:4,600 2 5,800 - U,thotecM - 7,394,300 - - - 3,534,'00 10,928,900 - rmmoM.laaClW 1,716,600 1.249.600 2,566.100 - Public SvvicaAdministration 297A00 2917.400 297A00 QAer4dahl ld444tNed 53rVlcd 1,00,900 - - - - - IA83,900 1,083,900 Domestic Ahlhtel SeMcm 3,441,700 10,500 - - - 313,000 3,045,100 3,441,700 Community and Human Servkm 7,6S7a00 1,171,900 - - - 1A09460 10,t1fl,100 7,357$00 Dbrary 8,21d,S00 170,160 - - - 21,200 d,a031560 8,214.500 m4t41Im - 2,327,400 - - - 2a0,600 2A97,900 Far16 A WcwtiCn 10,050,300 17,141,500 - 23,900 34,585,500 61.801,50e 10A50,300 ltnlvemlty dtsrssi-dervke 775,900 40,200 - - - 22,100 866,200 775,900 public Realth lAdtA00 - - - 1.861.000 1,Bd 2.000 Paplle Transit and Nalghhprhead Fn hadcement 359,000 5,634,70C - 460.500 6,474,S00 359,000 Impwilm hi Wsrd4ti ul4 MSTII - 44185,300 - 662,500 6,847,800 fadlllla M.nelem.nt 16AS8,000 30,700 - - - - 907,200 17,415,900 16,458p00 Tara1 $ 307,224,500 S 1560RZA011 $ $ 42,987,300 S 91,365,500 S 23,9D0 $ 153,374,700 $ 75 L,558,600 S 300,262,700 Source: Collier County, ❑PFG, 2019 43 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix'Fahle 16: FY 2019 Collier County General Funds Expenditure Demand Units $ Per Denartment Bud¢et Demand Base Multtolier Base Demand Demand Board of County Commissioners 5,980,100 PERMPOP 0.50 376,086 6.75 County Attorney 2,815,500 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 $ 2.25 Property APpralser 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 PE,AKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,734 8.76 Sheriff 190,708,3013 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 633,596 300.99 Tax Cal lector 15 175 5D0 PERMPOP&JDBS 1.00 550 537 $ 27.56 Administrative Services 667 30D PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 $ 0.53 Human Resources 2,173 400 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0150 625 754 1.74 Procurement Services 2 an no PFAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 1.61 Bureau of Emergency Services 3,291,00 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 633,596 $ 5.19 Planning 107,300 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 $ 0.17 Circuit & CountyCourtJud es 65,900 PEAKPOP 1.00 451,303 0.15 Public Defender 308,40 PERMPOP 1.00 376 086 0,82 Stat@Attarn2y 407400 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 $ 1.08 Guardian Ad Utem Program 4,600 PERMPOP 1.00 376,096 $ 0.01. County Manager Operations 1392 000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0,50 625,754 $ 1.11 Corporate Corn IlanceandPerformancelm r. 6642OO FIXED 1,00 N/A Office of Management & Budet 1367900 PFAKPOP&JOBS 0.5D 625,754 5 1.09 Business and Economic Development 2 019 100 FIXED 1.00 N/A Public Services Administration 297400 PERMPOP 0.50 376,086 $ 0,40 operations and Veteran Services 1083900 FIXED 1.00 NA Domestic Animal Services 3,441,700 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 5 9.15 Community and Human Services 7 557 900 PERMPOP 0,50 376,086 $ 10,05 Libra r 8,216,500 PEAKPOP 1.06 451,103 $ 18.21 Parks & Recreation 10 050 300 PEAKPOP 1.00 451,303 $ 22.27 UniversitV Extension Service 775900 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Public Health 1,861,000 PERMPOP 0.20 376,085 $ 0.99 PubllcTranslt and Neighborhood Enhancement 359,000 PERMPOP D_50 376,086 $ OAS 1 acillties Management 16,458,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1,00 625,754 $ 2630 General Funds Grou in Totals Less Remittances $ 300 262,700 Remittances 6,961,800 FfX6D 1,00 - N/A General Funds GroupingGroupirig Totals Plus Remittances $ 307,224,500 Transfer to 101 Tran3p Op Fund 20,154,300 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 32.21 Transfer to 103 Stormwater UtliltV 1474 300 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 111 uni ncorp 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 Deist Service Fund 703 500 FIXED 1.00 N/A Transfer to 301 Ca Etal 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 Transortation Cap 8,55S,800 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625 754 $ 13,67 Transfer to 314 Musuem Ca p 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 1952 900 PEAKPOP 1.00 451 303 4.33 Transfer to 427 Transp Disadvantaged 2,604,700 PERMPOP 1,00 376086 $ 6.93 Transfer to 490 EMS Fund 19.018 600 PFAKPOPTOUR&J08S 1.00 633,596 28.44 Transfer to 506 IT Capital 430,600 FIXED 1.00 N/A Tra nsfer to 523 Motor Pool Ca pita 1 110,000 FIXED 1.00 N/A Transfer to652LeaIAid 147,700 FIXED 1.00 N/A Transfer to 691 Court Services 2,012,400 FIXED 1.00 N/A Transfers to General Fund (001) 20,200 FIXED 1.00 N/A Other Transfers 8p504,800 FIXED 1.00 N/A Advance Rea ments 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 Govt Agencies 8 659 900 PERMPOP&JOBS 1,00 550 537 $ 15.73 Total 670 905 Oo0 I I 1A0 S66.99 Source: Calker County, UFO, 2019 44 6ELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 17: FY 2019 Collier County MSTU Expenditure Demand Units $ Per ❑cnartment Budrtet Demand Base Multlnlier Base Demand Demand Board of County Commissioners 1,237 900 PERMPOP 0.50 333,831 3.71 Communications & Customer Relations Dlvlslan 1,467,600 PEAKPOP&LOBS 0.50 559,796 $ 2.62 Growth Mona gementAdministrati on 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 1100 559,796 $ 9.53 Maintenance 9,531,300 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559796 17.03 Bureau of Emer enc y Services 75,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 $ 0.13 Pr!pl ect Management - PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559 796 $ Pelican Ba y Services 150000 FIXED 1.00 N/A lmm4kaleeCRA 212,500 FIXED 1.00 N/A Community and Human Services 113,100 PERMPOP 0.50 333,831 $ 034 Parks & Recreation 13,729 100 PEAKPOP 1.00 404945 $ 33-90 Transferto306Parks Capital Fund 2.750000 PEAKPOP 1.D0 404945 $ 6.79 Tra nsfer to 310 Growth Mgt Ca p 4 250 000 PEAKPOP&JO B5 1.00 559 796 $ 7.59 Transfer to 325 Stormwater Ca Fund 3 000 000 FIXED 1.00 N/A Improvement Districts and IVISTU 334,000 FIXED 1.00 N/A IndlrectCost 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 S 58,974,700 1.00 89.97 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 45 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 16: Bellmar General Funds Expenditures at Buildout GENERAL FUND GROUPING $ Per EXPENDITURES Demand Base Demand AtBulldout Board of County Commissioners PERMPOP $ 6.75 $ 32,000 County Attorney PEAKPDP&JOBS 2.25 13,000 Property Appraiser PEAKPDP&JOBS 12.75 75,000 supervisor of Elections PERMPOP S.26 25,000 Clerk of Courts PEAKPDP&JOBS 8,76 52,000 Sheriff PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 300.99 1,771,000 Tax Collector PERMPOP&JOBS 27.56 136,000 Administrative Services PEAKPDP&JOBS 0.53 3,000 Human Resources PEAKPDP&JOBS 1.74 10,000 Procurement Services P5AKPOP&JOBS 1.61 9,000 Bureau of Emergency Services PEAK POPTOU R&JOBS 5.19 31,000 Planning PEAKPDP&JOBS 0.17 1,000 Circuit& County Court Judges PEAKPDP 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 7,000 Office of Management & Budget PEAKPDP&JOBS 1.09 6,000 Public Services Administration PERMPOP 0.40 2,000 Domestic Animal Services PERMPOP 9.15 43,000 Community and Human Services PERMPOP 10.05 48,000 Library PEAKPDP 18.21 103,000 Parks & Recreation PEAKPDP 22.27 127,000 Public Health PERMPOP 0.99 5,000 Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement PERMPOP 0.48 2,000 Facilities Management PEAKPDP&JOBS 26.30 155,000 Transfer to 101 Transp Op Fund PEAKPDP&JOBS 32.21 190,000 Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap PEAKPDP&JOBS 13.67 80,000 Transfer to 426 CAT Mass Transit PEAKPDP 4.33 25,000 Transfer to 427 Transp Disadvantaged PERMPOP 6.93 33,000 Transfer to 490 EMS Fund PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 28.44 167,000 Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies PERMPOP&JOBS 15.73 78,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Expenditures $ 566.99 $ 3,239,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 46 RELLMAK VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 19: Bellmar IVI5TU Expenditures at Bulldout MSTU GENERAL FUND $ Per EXPENDITURES Demand Base Demand At Buildout Board of County Commissioners PERMPOP $ 3.71 $ 18,000 Communications & Customer Relations Division PEAKPOP&.JOBS $ 2.62 15,000 Growth Management Administration PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 0.99 6,000 Planning PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 3.22 19,000 Regulation PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 9.53 56,000 Maintenance PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 17.03 100,000 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 $ 33.90 193,000 Transfer to 306 Parks Capital Fund PEAKPOP $ 6.79 39,000 Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Cap PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 7.59 45,000 Ind!rect Cost Reimbursement PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 4.11 24,000 Total MSTU Annual Operating~ Expenditures 89.97 $ 518,000 Source: Colller County, DPFG, 2019 47 BELLMAR VILLAGE 5RA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 20, Collier County Impact Fee Schedule Demand Community Regional Government Land Use _ unit Parks Parks Roads EMS Schools BulldinRs_ _ Tota! Cando, Dupex,Sln816-FamilyAttached Unit 5 455.20 5 1,230.24 5 4,844,51 $ 67.50 $ 2,944.19 $ 443.94 Single Family l7etashed<4,0005gFt Living Unit $ 933.83 $ 2,694.32 $ 7,443.99 $ 142.07 5 8,789.54 $ 934,34 Retail 50,001-100,000SgFt SgFt $ $ $15.42477 $ 0.19230 $ $ 1.27547 Demand Law Land Use unit abrades Enforcement tali water wastewater Total Total Condo, Wpm, Sln01e•FamilyAttached Unit S 159.78 S 296.56 5 259.25 S 2,562.00 $ 2,701.00 $ 15,864.57 Single Family Detached <4,0095gFtLiving Unit $ 336.05 $ 536.95 $ 499,19 $ z,562.0o $ 2,701.00 $ 27,623,28 Retail 50,001-200.000 Sa Ft So Ft 5 - $ 0.76499 $ 0,67846 $ $ - $ _18.34 _ source: Collier County, OPFG, 2019 48 BELLMAR VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT A tndIx Tabl• 21: $ellMar Impact Fee Revenues Demand Demard Community Regional Land Use Units Unit Parks Parks Roads EMS Schools Total Condo, Dupex,$In&$e-Family Attached 1,160 Unit $ 528,000 $ 1,427,000 $ 5,620,000 $ 78,000 $ 3,299,000 Total 5F0 ❑ 4,000 Sq Ft 1,590 Unit 1,485,000 4,284,000 11,836,000 226,000 13,975,000 Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 85,000 Sq Ft __ - - 1,111,000 16,000 - Tatal 2,013,000 5,711,000 18,767,000 320,000 $ 17,274 000 Total of Bulldout Schedules 2 013 000 5,711,000 $ 18 767,000 $ 320,000 $ 17,274,000 water Wastewater Demand Government Law Residential Residential Land Use Units Buildings 1.16rarles Enforcement Jail Only Only Total Condo, Pupex,Single-FamllyAttathed ijw $ 515,000 $ 185,000 $ 344,000 $ 301,000 $ 2,972,000 $ 3,133,000 Total SFO <4,000 Sq Ft 1,590 1,486,000 534,000 913,000 794,OOD 4,074,000 4,295,000 Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 85,000 108,000 - G5 000 58,000 - - Tota1 $ 2 104000 719,000 5 1,342,000 $ 1,153,000 $ 7,046,000 5 7,429,000 total of Bulldout Schedules $ 2,109,000 $ 719,000 $ 1.342,000 $ 1,153,000 $ 7,046,004 $ 7,428,0 00 Source: C?11IvrCounW,CgIli4rEMvIVd#e3,nPFG,2019 49 BELLMAR VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 22: Collier County Schaal District Base Assumptions STUDENT GENERATION RATES - 7015 IMPACT FEE UPDATE 0.34 Si ngl a Fa ml I y 0,11 Multi Family and Single Family Attached 0.28 Mobile Home f z0Z0 SCHOOL FTE ENROLLMENT Elementary Middle High Alternate Schools Workforce Programs Charter Schools To Balance to Budgeted FTE Total 18,948 10162 13,524 962 No reference in bud et 3,253 606 47.455 SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 2015 IMPACT FEE UIDPATE 49% Elementary 23% Middle 28% High 100% Total FY 2020 MILLAGE RATES 2.835 Required Local Effort 0.748 Discretionary - Addiitional Millage 3.583 Total General Fund Millage 1.500 Ca pita I Improvement Mi Ilage 5.093 Total Millage 2,835 Required by State Law 2.248 Total Discretionary Local 5,083 Total Millage $ource: Collier County School District, DPFG 2019 SELLMAR 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 January 2020, March 2020, June 2020, August 19, 2020, November 12, 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. NORTH COLLIER FIRE '�+ CONTROL AND RhSCUE I DISTRIC7 STATION 92 1 ; "--? • MEDIC 32 TCM scluM 9.ct 11.8 MILES TO ""ID 6ELLMAR VILLAGE FROM STATION 12 _, r• .11• r COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S yy E I d Y e amnstm Ny 1U,7 MILES TC � r BELLMAR VILLAGE FROM MERIC 14 � • 9.1 MILES T4 "' ��,r � 13-7 MILES TO A � LONGWATER VILUYOE BELIMRR VILLAGE FROM STATION 10�, �y FROM mg e R NORTH COLLIER RIREUtW=" CONTRflLpNDRESCUE � ■ Dlffi7RIC7 STATION 70 ' 1 e 7.9 MILES T4 BELLMAR 0.5 MILES TO BELLMAR R r VILLAGE FROM S7AYION 77III,PILLAGE FROM FUTURamIc STATI�IS Q k f L E y iJ f h, r MPN GQULIER COUNTYOJV400FUTURE FIRE &EMS STATION a 1 EMS STATION 71 L Tacu Elmm" tuzzov CmaL camura on PUBLIC FACILITIES LEGEND 9 FIRE I EMS STATIONS -------- 4 19W 94V4 EMS TRAVEL ROUTES 'yjC;NOL1 COLLIER ENTERPRISES MAMADEMEMT, INC. JiELL" R VILLA OE UARDER & SRUNnnc:e, lrrc GEl I Cmcryn4l�ndi.=pc r SRA SUElMITML PLANE I., R,q EMS TRAVEL ROUTE MAP ni�6 '_1 l'npiin n 1a7eY - I n 1 LISTED SPECIES SURVEY REPORT BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA LISTED SPECIES SURVEY REPORT Revised August 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) 274-0067 Project No. 18CEM3016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................1 2.0 Previous Listed Species Surveys (2007-2009)..................................................................1 2.1 Listed Species Survey Results (2007-2009).............................................................1 2.2 Crested Caracara Surveys (2007 and 2009)..............................................................2 2.3 Red -Cockaded Woodpecker Surveys(2007)............................................................2 3.0 Methodology for Updated Survey.....................................................................................2 3.1 Literature and Database Review...............................................................................2 3.2 Updated Bellmar Village SRA Listed Species Surveys (2019-2020) ......................3 4.0 Literature and Database Review Results...........................................................................4 5.0 Field Survey Results..........................................................................................................5 5.1 Listed Species Survey Results 2019.........................................................................5 5.1.1 American Alligator.......................................................................................5 5.1.2 Tri-Colored Heron........................................................................................5 5.1.3 Florida Sandhill Crane ..................................................................................6 5.1.4 Crested Caracara...........................................................................................6 5.1.5 Wood Stork...................................................................................................6 5.1.6 Everglade Snail Kite.....................................................................................6 5.1.7 Listed Plant Species......................................................................................6 5.2 Species Specific Survey Results 2020......................................................................7 6.0 Summary ............................................................................................................................8 7.0 References..........................................................................................................................9 1 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Survey Dates and Weather Conditions (2019 Surveys)........................................3 Table 2. Documented Listed Wildlife Species (2019 Surveys)..........................................5 Table 3. Documented Listed Plant Species (2019 Surveys)...............................................6 Table 4. Summary of Documented Listed Wildlife Species...............................................9 11 LIST OF APPENDICES Page Appendix A. Project Location Map......................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B. Aerial with FLUCFCS and Wetlands Map ........................................................ B-1 Appendix C. Aerial with Permitting Boundaries.................................................................... C-1 Appendix D. Aerial with 2007-2009 Listed Species Locations .............................................. D-1 Appendix E. Aerial with 2019 Listed Species Survey Area ................................................... E-1 Appendix F. Aerial with Survey Transects............................................................................. F-1 Appendix G. Documented Occurrences of Listed Species ...................................................... G-1 Appendix H. Aerial with 2019 and 2020 Listed Species Locations .................... Appendix I. Aerial with Florida Bonneted Bat Acoustic Stations ...................... Appendix J. Aerial with Caracara Nest Locations .............................................. iii .......... H-1 ......... I-1 ........ J-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report documents the results of the listed species surveys conducted by Passarella & Associates, Inc. (PAI) for the Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) (Project) site in March and April 2019. The surveys were conducted for wildlife species listed 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 Bellmar SRA boundary which totals 999.74f acres located in Sections 2, 3, 10, and 11; Township 48 South; Range 28 East; Collier County (Appendix A). The Project is located east of Golden Gate Estates and approximately 4.5 miles south of Oil Well Road (County Road (CR) 858). A total of 23 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, with land use types Cropland and Pastureland (FLUCFCS Code 210) and Row Crops (FLUCFCS Code 214) comprising 95.7 percent (956.34:L acres) of the site. The native wetland areas on -site are minimal and consist of Willow, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6189); Cypress, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6219); Cypress/Pine/Cabbage Palm, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6249); Hydric Pine, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6259); and Wetland Mixed Hardwood Conifer, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6309). Native upland habitats are also minimal and consist of Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 4119). A FLUCFCS map of the SRA Project boundary is provided as Appendix B. 2.0 PREVIOUS LISTED SPECIES SURVEYS (2007-2009) The Bellmar Village SRA is located within the boundaries of the Big Cypress Stewardship District (Appendix Q. Listed species surveys were previously conducted by PAI for the Big Cypress Stewardship District (which encompasses the Bellmar Village SRA boundary) in March 2007 through July 2007, October 2007, and November 2007. In addition to the listed species surveys, species -specific surveys were also conducted between 2007 and 2009. The results of the previous listed species surveys overlapping the Project site are summarized below. 2.1 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) 68A-16.002 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 ground and flora was obtained. The perimeters of row crop fields were walked, and observations of listed species and/or their sign (i.e., tracks, scat) were recorded. Seven listed wildlife species and/or their sign (i.e., tracks, scat) were documented on the Project site during the surveys and other field work conducted between 2007 and 2009. The listed species documented on the property were American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja), wood stork (Mycteria americana), crested caracara (Caracara cheriway), Florida sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pratensis), and Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi). Appendix D depicts the locations of the listed species and/or their sign (i.e., tracks, scat) documented within the boundaries of the Bellmar Village SRA during surveys conducted for the Big Cypress Stewardship District between 2007 and 2009. 2.2 Crested Caracara Surveys (2007 and 2009) A nesting territory survey for the crested caracara was conducted in February and March 2007 for the Big Cypress Stewardship District, which encompasses the Project site. An adult crested caracara was observed flying east to west over the southern area of the Project site on January 15, 2009. No caracara nests were observed within the Project site. 2.3 Red -Cockaded Woodpecker Surveys (2007) Even though the Project site has limited habitat for red -cockaded woodpeckers (Picoides borealis) (RCW), nesting and non -nesting season foraging surveys were conducted on the Big Cypress Stewardship District 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 during the surveys. 3.0 METHODOLOGY FOR UPDATED SURVEY 3.1 Literature and Database Review Prior to conducting the updated listed species survey for the Project, existing literature and agency databases were reviewed to determine the potential for listed 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 (2015 and 2018); Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies (Runde et al. 1991); USFWS Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle (Raliaeetus leucocephalus) 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 N and/or the FWCC databases for telemetry locations of Florida panther, bald eagle, RCW, Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus), Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), crested caracara, and wading bird rookeries, such as the wood stork, in Collier County. The wildlife agencies' database information is updated on a periodic basis and it is current through different dates, depending on the species. The FWCC information reviewed for this report is current through the noted dates for the four 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 Bellmar Village SRA Listed Species Surveys (2019-2020) Updated surveys for listed wildlife and plant species were conducted by PAI for the Project in March through April 2019 and September 2019. An aerial with the SRA boundary and survey area is provided as Appendix E. 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 publications, "Florida's Endangered Species, Threatened Species and Species of Special Concern," updated September 2015 and December 2018, were used as a reference to identify the status of listed species. The USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species Database System was referenced online for the updated federal status of listed species. In addition, the property was surveyed for the bald eagle 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 F. At regular intervals, the ecologists stopped, remained quiet, and listened for wildlife vocalizations. The survey was conducted during daylight hours 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 in Table 1 below. Table 1. Survey Dates and Weather Conditions (2019 Survey) Date Weather Conditions March 14, 2019 Temperatures in the upper 70s to low 80s, 30-50 percent cloud cover, winds SSE at 0-5 mph. March 15, 2019 Temperatures in the mid-70s to low 80s, 50-80 percent cloud cover, winds ENE at 5-10 mph. March 28, 2019 Temperatures in the mid-50s to low 80s, 10-30 percent cloud cover, winds NE at 15-25 mph 3 Table 1. (Continued) Date Weather Conditions March 29, 2019 Temperatures in the upper 70s to low 80s, 50-60 percent cloud cover, winds ENE at 10-15 mph. April 5, 2019 Temperatures in the mid-60s to upper 80s, 50-60 percent cloud cover, winds ranged from ESE at 10-15 mph to S at 5-10 mph. April 10, 2019 Temperatures in the low to upper 70s, 20-40 percent cloud cover, winds W at 10-15 mph. April 11, 2019 Temperatures in the low 70s to mid-80s, 0-5 percent cloud cover, winds S at 0-5 mph. September 18, 2019 Temperatures in the low 80s to low 90s, 25-50 to 50-75 percent cloud cover, winds N at 5-15 mph. In addition to the updated listed species surveys, species -specific surveys were conducted in spring 2020 for the Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus), Everglades mink (Neovision vision evergadensis), Southeastern American kestrel (Falco spaverius paulus), and crested caracara. The results of these surveys are summarized in Section 5.2. 4.0 LITERATURE AND DATABASE REVIEW RESULTS The results of the literature search found documented occurrences for one listed wildlife species, the Florida panther, on the Project site (Appendix G). Telemetry data obtained from the FWCC demonstrates that Florida panther activity occurs within the Project site, predominantly along the perimeter of the agricultural fields (Appendix G). The FWCC records show a crested caracara occurrence approximately 1.5 miles north of the site and a wading bird occurrence approximately 1.5 miles to the northeast (Appendix G). The FWCC database also contains documented Florida black bear radio telemetry locations along the boundary of the Project site. Although no longer a listed species, the black bear remains subject to the FWCC Management Plan. Five plant species are 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 within the native habitats on the Project site. They include the butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis), giant wild pine airplant (Tillandsia utriculata), Northern needleleaf (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's milkweed (Asclepias curtissii), Florida clamshell orchid (Encyclia cochleata), ghost orchid (Polyrrhiza lindenii), and West Coast prickly - apple (Harrisia gracilis var. aboriginum). 4 5.0 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS 5.1 Listed Species Survey Results (2019) A total of six listed wildlife species, and/or their signs (i.e., tracks, scat), 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 provided as Appendix H. Table 2. Documented Listed Wildlife Species (2019 Surveys) Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status USFWS FWCC Reptiles American alligator 7J7Alli ator mississippiensis FT(S/A) FT(S/A) Birds Tri-colored heron E retta tricolor -- ST Florida sandhill crane Grus canadensis pratensis -- ST Wood stork M cteria americana FT FT Crested caracara Caracara cheriway FT FT Everglade snail kite Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus FE FE FWCC — Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 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 5.1.1 American Alligator Adult and juvenile American alligators were documented on the Project site in association with an on -site ditch (FLUCFCS Code 514) and in a area designated as Fallow Cropland, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 2611). An American alligator nest was documented within a remnant wetland within the active farm field in an area designated as Brazilian Pepper, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 4221). 5.1.2 Tri-Colored Heron Tri-colored herons (Egretta tricolor) 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 tri- colored heron nesting activities were observed on the Project site. 5.1.3 Florida Sandhill Crane Adult Florida Sandhill cranes were documented on the Project site foraging and loafing in fields classified as Cropland and Pastureland (FLUCFCS Code 210) and Row Crops (FLUCFCS Code 214). No Florida Sandhill crane nesting activities were observed on the Project site. 5.1.4 Crested Caracara Adult crested caracaras were documented on the Project site foraging in the fields classified as Row Crops (FLUCFCS Code 214). Juvenile crested caracaras were documented on the site in fields classified as Row Crops (FLUCFCS Code 214). No crested caracara nests were observed on the Project site during the listed species survey. 5.1.5 Wood Stork Adult and juvenile wood storks were documented on the Project site foraging in Row Crops (FLUCFCS Code 214). No wood stork nests were observed on the Project site. 5.1.6 Everglade Snail Kite An adult Everglade snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus) was observed flying low above areas designated as Cropland and Pastureland (FLUCFCS Code 210). No Everglade snail kite nests were observed on the Project site. 5.1.7 Listed Plant Species A total of five 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 agriculture operation. Approximate locations of listed plants species observed during the 2019 listed species survey are shown on an aerial photograph provided as Appendix H. Table 3. Documented Listed Plant Species (2019 Surveys) Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status USFWS FDACS Inflated wild pine Tillandsia balbisiana -- ST Stiff -leafed wild pine Tillandsia asciculata -- SE Giant wild pine Tillandsia utriculata -- SE 0 Table 3. (Continued) Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status USFWS FDACS Butterfly orchid Enc Ilia tam ensis -- CE Rigid e idendrum E idendrum ri idum -- 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 5.2 Species Specific Survey Results (2020) In addition to the updated listed species surveys, species specific surveys were conducted in spring 2020 for the Florida bonneted bat, Everglades mink, Southeastern American kestrel, and crested caracara. Reports describing the methodology and results of these surveys will be prepared under separate cover. The results of these surveys are summarized below. A Florida bonneted bat acoustic survey was conducted by PAI for Bellmar Village SRA between February and March 2020. The acoustic survey documented Florida bonneted bat calls on the property. One acoustic station (AS-12) was located within the SRA boundary and seven others were located within 600 feet of the SRA boundary (Appendix I). A total of 29,362 bat calls were detected at these eight stations, of which 29 calls were determined to be Florida bonneted bat calls. Acoustic Station No. 12, located within the SRA boundary, detected one of the 29 Florida bonneted bat calls. An Everglades mink camera trap survey was conducted by PAI for Bellmar Village SRA between March and April 2020. No Everglades minks were recorded on the Project site during the survey. However, one trap located within the northwest portion of the SRA boundary documented an American alligator. This listed species observation is included in Appendix H. A Southeastern American kestrel survey was conducted by PAI for Bellmar Village between March and April 2020. The survey documented foraging kestrels during the early weeks of the survey, but not during the latter weeks. The Southeastern American kestrel is found in Florida year round, while the American kestrel is only found in Florida during the winter months, typically migrating from the north in September and departing by March (Florida Natural Areas Inventory 2001). The migrant American kestrel is not a state or federally listed species. Therefore, the migratory American kestrel may have still been present during the initial weeks of the survey, and it cannot be confirmed that the observed kestrels were Southeastern American kestrels. No nesting behavior by kestrels was observed during the surveys. 7 An updated crested caracara survey was conducted by PAI for Bellmar Village SRA between January and April 2020. Adult crested caracaras were recorded foraging on the Project site during the survey and a crested caracara nest was documented in a Water Retention Area (WRA) that is surrounded by the Bellmar Village SRA (Appendix J). This is a previously undocumented nest. 6.0 SUMMARY Listed species surveys were previously conducted for the Big Cypress Stewardship District in March 2007 through July 2007; October 2007; and November 2007. In addition to the listed species surveys, species -specific surveys were also conducted over portions of the Project site for the Big Cypress Stewardship District between 2007 and 2009. These surveys were conducted for RCW and crested caracara. An updated survey for listed species for the Bellmar SRA was conducted by PAI in March through April 2019 and September 2019. In addition to the updated listed species survey, a Florida bonneted bat acoustic survey was conducted A Florida bonneted bat acoustic survey was conducted by PAI for Bellmar Village between February and March 2020. The acoustic survey documented Florida bonneted bat calls on the property. An Everglades mink camera trap survey was conducted by PAI for Bellmar Village SRA between March and April 2020. No Everglades minks were recorded on the Project site during the survey; however, one American alligator was recorded. A Southeastern American kestrel survey was conducted by PAI for Bellmar Village between March and April 2020. The survey documented foraging kestrels during the early weeks of the survey but not during the latter weeks. The migratory kestrels that winter in Florida may have still been present during the initial survey weeks; therefore, the results cannot confirm presence of Southeastern American kestrels. No nesting behavior by kestrels was observed during the surveys. An updated crested caracara survey was conducted by PAI for Bellmar Village between January and April 2020. Adult crested caracaras were recorded foraging on the Project site during the survey, and a crested caracara nest was documented in a WRA that is surrounded by the Bellmar Village SRA. This is a previously undocumented nest. Table 4 summarizes the listed wildlife species documented within the Bellmar SRA boundary during the 2007 through 2009 surveys, updated 2019 survey, 2020 species -specific surveys, and other fieldwork. Ten listed wildlife species were documented within the Project boundary. Five listed plant species were observed within the SRA boundary. Table 4. Summary of Documented Listed Wildlife Species Common Name7 Scientific Name Listing Status USFWS FWCC Reptiles American alligator Alligator mississi iensis FT(S/A) FT(S/A Birds Little blue heron Egretta caerulea -- ST Tri-colored heron Egretta tricolor -- ST Roseate spoonbill Platalea gja -a -- ST Florida sandhill crane Grus canadensis pratensis -- ST Wood stork M cteria americana FT FT Crested caracara Caracara cheriway FT FT Everglade snail kite Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus FE FE Mammals Florida bonneted bat Eumo s oridanus FE FE Florida panther Puma concolor coryi FE FE Plants Inflated wild pine Tillandsia balbisiana -- ST Stiff -leafed wild pine Tillandsia asciculata -- SE Giant wild pine Tillandsia utriculata -- SE Butterfly orchid Enc clia tam ensis -- CE Rigid e idendrum E idendrum ri idum -- 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. 2015. Florida's Endangered and Threatened Species. Official Lists, Bureau of Non -Game Wildlife, Division of Wildlife. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2018. Florida's Endangered and Threatened Species. Official Lists, Bureau of Non -Game Wildlife, Division of Wildlife. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2001. Falco spaverius paulus. Field Guide to the Rare Animals of Florida. 9 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 118-133 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. 10 APPENDIX A PROJECT LOCATION MAP EXIT I F; IR COLLIEff al g in kx:11 LF to H I-M. 1­1 Iql) 9A EXI I I F) 7 121, cp lols ECK 1 75 .�IGLVD. - r.T E.1 fLESA! fl 4— APPENDIX B AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS MAP :I T ti'- - r• APPENDIX B. AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS MAP PELLMAR VILLAOF IM,?!!rfrlGi[Ifil!I! lji�!iii;!'jfll�r�Ilul IIIIIh . .. 1� 1. 1J.i 'f6uni hll,l li ��111rii";f'yi',�;;�; hiul'�'�11' i ^! +1��1p'I�f' �'`•I�' I IipIN ��'i � l4rlr�hti'lil�l���ir� �i►'� .I i!� ': `VII'If14J'�'ifl4;i'�' I r 9 T i n LEOENO: GPWnO TL.anoG ti9.53 ACi4t1 ®GIWHO OTHER GURfAGE WATERG I2.60 A4.0 'N^ SURVEYED WETtANO LINE • I I1'�jfllJ�IllJfl!! Iljh,l .,1', i IGI _ � aa1 IjIryI�I � I f��II;II+:�'';�I,..�,I, ,I• GI01L{ �,� `I lIIIII .r— f(t,1PL4 { AROL.7 Ij7] 01 _- Ill I1 i L, I hi uA4RD�e-Plan 4N4ncsl 61d�e PQN0 DB14{,_ M.OIPIUPMD o11do,- Al Learie4. 01."'Rlt0� u7me,c i, olmune An A Dm xa WI _ IG F111[,PISINAELP .,NP wnPMMPWPW PLA.PgryApgP I.w Awe 35 FAfllu!$1 ea uno, nroloC "AtA I! 19{Asr NoTEs AERIAL PH4TO4,RAPHS WERE ACOUAftk, MRONGM THE LOP. COUNTY P 109FO Y APPRA,I%ER'$ OFFICE WITH A FLIDHT DATE OF DECEMBER 24I4- PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER A644LI. MEDER. R RR1INDAOE• INC. DRAWING ND.BELLMAR uRA BOUNDARY, DN4 DATED AI)WAT 20. 9090 WETLANR LINE$ PER ABU, INC. DRAWiNC, NO.JDL-N-WVRNSMIET T4 KPI5JUlN07. t— DATED JUWE M 2807. FLUCFCS LINES ESTIMATED FROM 1'•200' AERIAL PHOTOORAPN$ AND LOCATIDNS APPROXIMATED. FLUCFCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORM". CLASSIFTCAT10N SVSTEM IFLUCFCSI IFDOT I970h H.H. 8/*5/19 K,C,P 0/70 "PASSARELLA Iui;a & SSOCIATES N 13s[ I. M120120 APPENDIX C AERIAL WITH PERMITTING BOUNDARIES • I LJ [Y.I ,.72.NUA,FNF� lok : I , 7OTH AVr'NE, •, 04TH AV}_ NE - •'S 62ND AV I-. Nr •� , . - , 6ATH AVE NE EI F �- BELLMAR VILLA43E BIG CYPRESS STEWARDSHIP DISTIjICT .., — �I IYF BIG CYPRESS STEWARDSHIP DISTRICT BELLMAR A NOTES: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF DECEMBER 2019, - n PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER AGNOLI, BARBER. A BR,INDADE, INC. DRAWING NO.BELLMAR SRA BOUNDARY.6014 DATED AUGUST 20.2020. COUNTY INFORMATION WAS ACQUIRED III FRDM THE FLORIDA GEOGRAPHIC DATA LIBRARY WEBSITE. ROADWAY NETWORKS WERE ACQUIRED FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GAS WEBSITE HTTP;I lWWW. DDT.STAY9. iL. UVfLANHW0/ %T•TI5TLCrtG&A0AD.&HTH JJLY 2016 Danwner H.II. vAT,I B/G/14 APPENDIX C. AERIAL. WITH PERMITTING BOUNDARIES REVIEWED VT D"T`10. AS SA R E L i. aA BELLMAR VILLAGE 'C' arE D.TE „u —/�� �+r / �7 �7-7_ & 1 gSC)ClA 4 S niv[AED ali. slzalzn APPENDIX D AERIAL WITH 2O07-2009 LISTED SPECIES LOCATIONS APPENDIX E AERIAL WITH 2O19 SURVEY AREA APPENDIX F AERIAL WITH SURVEY TRANSECTS APPENDIX G DOCUMENTED OCCURRENCES OF LISTED SPECIES dLWELLNo A=�=r« • ; • • • Iw '� A • ; LEGEND w . • • ! aIy A. �• � NCLIN AR VILLAGE • •! ! . .�• r•.t • er.b [.cue Naar Wc.i-,-. • w • i 1 14• Y • T ■ ,y� �I • • • ! � • • • = • y / 3ml WFPIli4 GIFP LP411SIVN6 • * w • •40 • + • • • • •, 0•••1 • !!•i• •,9{pl••+S7' A BLACK BEAN LOCATI&M • A. • • • • �• • • A • • tir • = i • "F/ • "R bA PAUTN[R TRLLNi l• •y •• !M -S A,• ` • A - t# • • .Lana +� LN • • • !+ �La •P_ • ,+ • ! . • • " 1 ! . • • w � Ala «w! . . • • • .• . •!• fr �• /!,/. • ••••*i 1. �,•• • ' •/ wr •• * • PROJECT LOCATION ; ± '•,� ` • h • •.,/�W•N � ' • + • / • + . A• � A x ff . .`yid GOLC EMM IL A vi pp a + d- A, J. t A dF I A L • . • y • .. ! !�••. ,• • t A. ..+� . f •f • •� "' viz _ ` AM AA% A. r •. . .:. ,a ter .,; : � ' • �• ••. �• a • r! rAGLC M iT L-W-o 4 rCKI atdbAdu h« , i .• • ' a. A ! ? i AA • * �• # ti • I ! O r I« q i lW4+i TeiPmr.ac[ueR tb�a F,�b tiK y, a ,}�6Ri ,• f f A. Aa4 . • •1 aid •�,Ia!•t •• a ji «. a r aacK erMr LuuTwKs wne .co.ro i • + • • ! L. r rmm iw rwcc CN cocom 7ma AN • I' wt A. %• • r/4 ¢'• ••�r Al i+ ` M rANPO. TnofTft W4 A-URkb F i • • ♦ • ..a.+ i Pw1#I Ce Cx bLfR tma AND a • . . .•: Q r '/I ~�'• Ts 4Lwlar TP,AiNe za+. • A + • ,r •• `+� ! wFOPP si lo naoKTacs weR., •c oLL,Ca • • • •' • »+ r •; MOO THE rwce OCTPoen aC19 LNG AM A • • . •f • * A VARENT To WOO. u 3 u 11_IL. s/calla i APPENDIX G. DOCUMEKIED OC:CIAMP VCES OF LISTED SPECIES PASSA R E LLA = BELLMAR VILLAGE CC- fi/G/la ,L',�1, m &, SS(7C]ATM APPENDIX H AERIAL WITH 2O19 AND 2020 LISTED SPECIES LOCATION PROJEcr LOCATION - It j J11 i.7 :,�I. 1. ! :il:l■}�+� -� -73 i SELLMAA VIILLAU AA. AMCRITAN ALLIGATOR AAN, AM MAN ALLI6ATOR NEST 4 CC. Cbt*icP t-W.AA G NCR. SA97NILL CRANE SNKt. SNAIL KITC TCHE• TRI-C6L4R HERON 0 WGST, WOOD STORK NOTC9 aEMAL IxOTQgM-s "M A[Ou—p IN%VON TxC LTC PO -Tr CR 1-11 aRRaRCR-$ 4r1m4C wlnl A ri1E11Y hn1E OF blc&u9R Mk R+6RRTY 9OWPAF7 CCR a4xoL1, AaIaIW, 4 6RVNPAGC, 44 PRAwIxG w.h lTLruPo ASA PPWPARY.P.a oalxo au:u Al ttl, Jdau. H-H. i/iv/T4 APPENDIX H. AERIAL WITH 2O19 AND 2020 LISTED WWI" LOCATIONS ASSA K E L LA BELLMAR VILLAGE C•C. 4/Z9l19 Vzt� -, H.H. Bl20l2D APPENDIX I AERIAL WITH FLORIDA BONNETED BAT ACOUSTIC STATIONS 1. �![+"�.-'• } . ,y�r. y )'., b, I 1 ' PROJECI •. LOCATLON JIIJi ILL OMM 16If�'r �I1� . dfl,,l;fil II l� 3 'I AFPMDLX 1. AERIAL WITH FLORIDA SUNNETED BAT ACOUSTIC STATIONS BELLMAR VILLAGE L.F:G EIN 1111nnu vuI L•_ n s WC•G n491aw n Al ALfROU H 7 C LEE C- TNC LEE E WM FL1I AM11�I8[R'8 ORISC WITw A n WPM nnlr AMAISR P PM MIK. aniu mrE"v HLNGIf+".-GK,4 aR•m•N, 88RUIDA6L MCARAWINp Na,nll l.lNN HRA BM IDARYLIMI DI NI -T TQ•T81Q. �.L. s/7r�Q �PASSARELLA II.s. s��lao 4 &--A99 C'IATESk len454�ii APPENDIX J AERIAL WITH CARACARA NEST LOCATION '• YM APPENDLXJ• AERIAL W11 rJ CARACARA NEST LOCATION 131I.I.NiAIi VILLAGE PROJECT LOCATION �II o ! .J'r^ - ill, I•.il L?;i. h� I� I i I! 111I :Li 117tIT1 }II!. ! LEGENQ �CIL HAR YIunG[ fanaCaRa NEST HOTEa MIN- E T4ER s VIED ACOuRED THROVEH THE LEE C9WTY TAORRIT AFFRAMER'4 OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT 00.7E CF DKEHIRER EON, ITDI'CTTT EDLNDART reR Agwu FFwm _ a llmmA4E. IRC. DM117RF M4mLp1aR 9M RDINDARY.wrc DATED AWUST M, H2O. 5J7120 PASSARELLA its � sl7liu ,w •,�,,,, L^� ' & ASSOCIATES c E T.I1. Ji/za/ru WRA DELINEATION REPORT BELLMAR SRA WRA DELINEATION February 2020 Water Retention Areas (WRAs) are defined in Section 4.08.01 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) as, "Privately owned lands delineated on the RLSA [Rural Land Stewardship Area] Overlay Map, that have been permitted by the SFWMD [South Florida Water Management District] to function as agricultural WRAs and that provide surface water quality and other natural resource value." Collier County's RLSA Overlay Map was produced by digitizing SFWMD permit boundaries on an aerial photograph at scales that were appropriate for comprehensive planning. However, the RLSA Overlay Map should be reviewed on a project level scale to determine if inaccuracies in this digitization process are revealed. These inaccuracies are recognized by Policy 3.13 of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP), Future Land Use Element which states that, "WRA boundaries are understood to be approximated and are subject to refinement in accordance with SFWMD permitting." The Bellmar Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) is within the limits of SFWMD Conceptual Camp Keais Strand Agricultural Operation Permit No. 11-01178-S. An aerial depicting the Bellmar SRA boundary in relation to the Camp Keais Strand Agricultural Operation SFWMD permit boundary is provided as Exhibit 1. In the preparation of the SRA application for Bellmar, the RLSA Overlay Map indicated that there were small areas of the WRAs that fell within the boundary for Bellmar. A Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis of these areas was conducted and compared against the boundaries of the SFWMD permitted agricultural development and field delineated wetland boundaries. This analysis revealed that inaccuracies as recognized by Policy 3.13 of the GMP occur within the limits of the Bellmar SRA. Attached as Exhibit 2 are examples of the inaccuracies of the County's RLSA Overlay Map within the Bellmar boundary. In these exhibits, numerous instances of the WRA boundary extending past the permitted wetland boundary and over the permitted agricultural berm and ditch system can be seen. To refine these boundaries to be in accordance with the SFWMD permitting, the boundaries were adjusted to stop at either the edge of the permitted agricultural development or at the extent of the permitted wetland boundary. These refined boundaries are depicted in Exhibit 3. In summary, this analysis revealed that when inaccuracies from the original digitization process are corrected, there are no WRAs that are within the boundary of Bellmar. Passarella & Associates, Inc. 1 of 1 #18CEM3016 02/24/2020 'I��II jj I I I , iii �,l i►���i li �i�i►iiii►���iii � 1 iI1 -�I� II► � .�.� � I III III 11 �1 I I�, I I III` I, I , � , f+l� i 1► � i '� jil'' I I ili'll � ��,1 it ��I���''�I; IlllI�i� II�f, � �i jI I► JI�I i I � j �j � � , ! I llfi���i��+d19,.�1,114a�� III III I I 111�1 i —m 00NO, 3FWMD WETLANDS PER PERMIT NO. 6-9sa49-P ® SFWHD OTHER BURPAC! YrATFFS FLOW -WAY LTEwARDSHIP AREA - 2tr62 (FSA) HABITAT STEWARDSHIP AREA , YOp2 (H3A) 11-11 RETENTION AREA , 2002 IWRAII AERIAL: _�� . ......., •aft AERIAL PM4T94RAPHS WERE AcpulREp THROUGH THE LEE OOUN Y PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE W174 A FWQHT DA7F OF DECEMDER 2016. 9ELLMAR SRA GOUNDARY PER AGNOLI PARDER, B BRLNDA49, INC. DRAWING N6.12S29GRA96-021729.6w0 DATEo FEBRUARY, 1920. CAMP KEAIS STRAND BOUNDARY PER COLLIER ENTERPRISES, INC. DRAWING AIS9ARY7u'a DATEDFEBRUARY 1,020. SURVEYED WETLAND LINTS PER ABS, INC. DRAWING NA.JDL-S-WORKSHEET TO KPISJUN97,DW9 AHDJDL-N-WORKSHEET TO KPISJLN07,.—OATED JUNE 16, 2007. GTEWARDEHIP AREAS WERE ACOUIREO PROM - THE COLLIER COUNTY CIS AEBSITE MAY P,019. EXHIBIT ZA- AF,AIAL WITH i 5�"CWAF�dSHiP OVERLAY AND 9F^Wt�Aa WETLANDS H.H- a:/o41=a "PASSARELLA BELLMAR K.C.P. oila4/zo & ASSOCIATESY H.H. =0/20 !f�{�lilii�i�if��illlf��r LeaeND: SPWMD WETLANDS PER PERHIT NQ, IIfLIillli "-D64�p-� +r ++� ® GFWMD OT141P SURFACE WATERS STEWARDSHIP - Y662 111fiJj ARGA F )I yI I HAYhTAT :TIWARDShIR AREA - 2101 ff!! 1 [HSA) jj 1�,•d^}-�� �_y - WATER RETENTION AREA , $Q°Y 99111l1##III{illllal!1!If+ (WRAI i „ny#;ttYilttjd+Ii11}�R�� � lll�ll�l i11��11j IFFIIi1I�IIff T � 1 �; 4llli 1�111'Ei�� IIIIII �� - #1 Olt-, > H.H_ EXHIBIT 213. AERIAL WITH STEWARDS111P OVERLAY AND SFWMD WETLANDS BELL -MAR K.C.P 1 MAP KEY NOTES AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS InFRE ACQUIRED 7HROUGH OUN THE t.EE [TV PROPERTY APPRAISERS OFFICE WITH A PLIGNY 641E OF DECEMBER 2010. BELLMAR SRA BQUNDARY PER AGNOU. 031ER. a BRUNDA41. INC. ORA ZING N. 1232Q9RA01$•021720.pw DATED IrfSRUARY, MO. CAMP KFAIS STRAND BOUNDARY PEN COLLIER GNTERPRI$ES, INC. DRAWING NO A AMPR1AISPROPERTY10UNOA1tT.Dwo DATED FEBRUARY 3, 2O2a. �.- - GURYlYED WETLAND LINEG PER ABB. INC. �. DRAWINO Hp,JOL-S WQRKSNEET TO RISJUNVAWA ANOJOL-N-WORIIGMFFr TO KPPISJVNW,Dwp,DATED DUNE M. SOOT, STEWARDSHIP ANEAS WERE ACOWRED FROM To COLLIER COUNTY GM WEBSITE MAY YOI9, �PASSARELLA SSOC[ATESM LEOEND: • {' .©. . SFWHb WETLANDS PER PERMrt NO. II.059A9-P ® SFWMD OTHER SURPACE WATERS PLOW -WAY STEWARDSHIP AREA - 2002 IFSAI +"r • r HABITAT STEWARDSHIP AREA • 240E t - - • -... I -.. k i RIFIN10 WAYIR 14119NTIDN - 2019 AREA IWRAY l;Xl Ul 1 3, ALIUAL WITH REFINED WRAC AND SINVNiD WETLANDS BELLMAR I'lla GERillmA l—A -—�' _- - NbTEs: Al RIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACOO1REo THR9V9H THE lEE COUNTY PROPERTY bPPRAIS[R'S OFFICE WITH A IL W mT DATE OF DECEMBER 2014 DELLMAR SRa BOUNDARY PER AGNOLI, BARa[R. 6 SRUNOAGE, INC. bRAwiNG No.12329311403-0217Y0.01009 DATED _ FEBRUARY. 262G. CAMP Nl Al^a STRANb 9GUNDARY PER COLLIER ENTERPRISES. INC. DRAWING NO.CAMPKIAIGPAOPlRTYBCUNbARY.Dwa DATED FEBRVAR7 S, 2020. { k I .- Pl� �y . iVR4E7E0 WETLAND EASIER PER ABB. INC. DRAWiNO No,JOL-S-WORKSMEET TO KPI5JUN07.awa ANDJOL-N-WOAE'uHLdT TO 9P15JUN07,Dw0.DATED JUNE IS, 2007, STEWARDSHIP AREAS WERE ACQUIRED FROM - THE COLLIER COUNTY GIB WebVlt[ MAY 2019. P&ASSARELLA ",q,2/;2z2, SSOCIATM i + �� Ili I il'11h1!Ialllllllllllll!If!illl !`!fl II �.i I. I Illli'�i 1_ 11 IRI lill�ll 61i II' :1 Jl�lf u �1�1i`iII ��� III%I�i ,i I _ �I11111i11;� Ili I ` �IjII� 1 spWno WETLAND$ PER PERMIT N0, II-D1444-P j! I� 1 I I 1 71 tI(Ijl{fI i ® '.FAMO OTHER SURFACE WATERS II 11 l�l — WAY SSEwARbsHlp AREA EDdt IIISAI I11III Ii f irll(/ __ .IIr� I I11_ �.. __ HABITAT $TEWARD$HIP AREA - i99! IHSA) IIIr�lIII{II {I��I+j I.. REFINED WATER RETENTION • E919 AREA IWRAI MAP KEY NbYEG: dERIAL PHOTOGRAPH". WERE ACaUI THROUGH THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAIDER'S OFFICE WITH A PLIGHT DATE OF UECEMBEH 2O15. BELLMAR ERA BOUNDARY PER AGNOLI. i ARRER. A BRUNdADE. INC, DRAWING _ No.12d24SRA0S 021720.OW0 DATED F46RUARY,2620, CAMe HEAIG STRAND 04UNDARY PER COLLIER ENTERPRIEEE, INC. DRAWI ND N9 CAMPNEAI•PROPERTYROUNDARY 0W4 EXHIBIT 3A. AERIAL WITH REFINED WRAs AND SFWMD WETLANDS BELLMAR 6ATED FEBRUARY !. SDSD. SdRVEYED WETLAHb LINES PER Aid. INC. DRAWING N..J3L,S-WORK9HEET TO K PISJUN67.oWA AndadL-N-WDRHSHlET TO K PISJUN07.nwc. DATED JUNE 16, 2007. 4TEWAR6$4IP AREA$ WERE ACaUIRED FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY GIS WRBSITE MAY R01a. n./ PASSARELLA ftv=�& SSoC[A'TES' �VVIDOY H.H. m/fin/zo LEGEND: SPWMD WETLANDS PER PERMIT NO. If 16-03aL9-p ® SFWMD OTHER SURFACE WATER& II F A -WAY STIWARD&NIP ARIA . 3002 HABITAT STEWARDSHIP AREA - 20E (HSA} fi! + 911 REPINED WATER RETENTION - 2019 4 1 - I iii f AREA {wRAI _ .II i 1111�I ir �I+i,ll il'i l�!,I it lil,�fl, "'' , ,�� � I�1• �_��� - _-_ _ __ � Imo` �, `�-I-= I=f-f i I'll � •I, I , l _ � '� I •r -T - ,.'I_-�= � III I , '�'"� I 1 �, • �I' i AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE AC OW RE6 1:x111131,1 38. AERIAL WITH REFINED WRAR AND SFWMD WETLANDS BELLMAR T-ROUGH THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF DECEMBER 3014, 6ELLMAR M 40UNOARY RER AONOLI• r--r-� BARBER, B BRUNDAGE, INC. DRAWING _ Fes, `'� NO.IS729:RA0}-431TY4Ow4 DATED I• =1. FEBRUARY, 2020. } CAMP NEAIS STRAND YOUNOARY PER COLLIER ENTERpRICEB• INC, DRAWING 1E N0. CAMPILEAISPROPERTYBOUNDARYA" DATED FEBRVARY 5, 2020. SURVEYED WETLAND LINES PER ABB, INC. DRAWING Ne.JDL-G-WORRGHEET TO HPI$JUN07.-1 ANDJDL-N-WORR&HEET 70 NPIEJUNOT.DWa.0ATE4 JUNE 15. 2OD7, EWARDSMIP AREA. WERE ACQUiRlD FROM THECOLLIER COUNTY GIS WEBEITEEBSITE MAY 1Lti• oa/oq/±o PASSARELLA rautm&LSSOCIATES�. H.H. o±/so/±o MMMMAMIIIII�' 1 1: 111!1-�Ililr iiiiiiii!ii � 1111111 BASELINE OUTPUT LFnGEND, Soli_s GRID CELL I • CENTROIO VALUE fit' — E C 0 1 0.2 --' 0 300 Sao Fast SHEET 1. AERIAL WITH BASELINE AND 2020 SOILS SURFACE WATER INDEX g BELLMAR `7 P.L. =79M H_S. R6VlaF 2020 OUTPUT NOTES: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF DECENDER 2016. PASSARELLA & SSOCIATES SFWMD RLW ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT NO. 11-03949-P DATE ISSUED: APRIL 3, 2018 PERMITTEE: COLLIER ENTI=RPRISES 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 6,708.62- ACRE MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS RURAL LANDS WEST. (NO CONSTRUCTION IS AUTHORIZED BY THIS PERMIT.) PROJECT LOCATION: COLLIER COUNTY, SECTION 3, 10-15. 22-27, 34-36 TWP 488 RGE 28E PERMIT DURATION: See Special Condition No:1. This is to notify you of the District's agency action concerning Permit Application No. 160711-81 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 t❑: 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: cleric@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.govlePermitting). By DEPUT RK SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Attachments PAGE 1 OF 8 PERMIT NO: 11-03949-P PAGE 2OF8 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. 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. 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. 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, 16 and 18 are not applicable until an Individual Permit authorizing a phase of construction is PERMIT NO: 11-03949-P PAGE 3 OF 8 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 alteration 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 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 PAGE 4OF8 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 wetland(s) 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 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 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. PERMIT NO: 11-03949-P PAGE 5OF8 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 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 Zone (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 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 PERMIT NO: 11-03949-P PAGE 6 OF 8 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 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 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://my.sfwmd.gov/ePermitting) under this application number. Exhibit 1.0 Location Map Exhibit 2.0 Conceptual Plans Exhibit 2.1 Stormwater Management Summary and FEMA FIRM information Exhibit 2.2 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Exhibit 2.3 Urban Stormwater Management Program Exhibit 3.0 FLUCCS Map Exhibit 3.1 Wetland/Other Surface Water Identification Map Exhibit 3.2 Previously Authorized Impacts & Mitigation and Current Plan Summary Map 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 PERMIT NO: 11-03949-P PAGE 7OF8 GENERAL CONDITIONS 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 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 PAGE 8OF8 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 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 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. 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 GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD NORTH UNIT 100, NAPLES, FL 34103 COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS L T D (RURAL LANDS WEST) 2550 GOODLETTE ROAD NORTH, NAPLES, 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. $tat.; 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 28-106.111, 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 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 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. ov. 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 8112 by 11 inch white paper. All petitions shall contain: t . 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 SFWMI)'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. $tat., 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 120.573, Fla. Stat., at this time. RIGHT TO SEEK JUDICIAL 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, arid by filing a copy of the notice with the clerk of the appropriate district court of appeal. Rev. 1110T 1G erp_staff_report.rdf FINAL APPROVED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR APRIL 3, 2018 Last Date For Agency Action: April 5, 2018 INDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT STAFF REPORT Project Name: Rural Lands West Permit No.: 11-03949-P Application No.: 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/Mit Compensation Onsite: Conservation Easement To District : Yes Sovereign Submerged Lands: No 4791.85 4248.46 543.39 (115.02 acres previously permitted) 4504.41 PROJECT SUMMARY: 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 No. 2.0. 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: PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION: 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- 00112-S) encompasses the land south of Immokalee Road (CR 846) and north of Oil Well Road (CR 858). The Camp Keais Agricultural Development (Permit No.1 1-01 178-S) 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 systems 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 total 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. LAND USE: Refer to Exhibit No. 2.0 Page 8 of 23 for a land use summary table of Basins 01 through 11. WATER QUANTITY s , ... 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. 11-01178-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 2 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 Rainfall : 10.87 inches Basin Allow Disch (cfs) Method Of Determination Peak Disch (cfs) Peak Stage ( 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 19.2 07 n/a n/a 1133.61 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 (ft, NAVD 88) Proposed Min. Finished Floors ( ft, NAVD 88) FEMA Elevation (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 19.4 19.4 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 20.3 04 19.29 19.5 05 18.96 19.5 06 19.2 19.2 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 offsite 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 1033.56 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: 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 3259L (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 of Appendix E, Environmental Resource Applicant's Handbook Volume II (Volume II), 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 II. 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 Stormwater 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 (ac-ft) Vol 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: 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 to 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 I. 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 mitigation 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 Keais 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 Keais Strand, and the project includes two wildlife corridors connecting the internal Shaggy Cypress Swamp with Camp Keais 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 Keais Strand from the report "Hydrologic -Hydraulic And Environmental Assessment for the Camp Keais 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 hydroperiod 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 cut 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 assessnent polygons for the UMAM assessment. For example, Wetland 1A is an assessment polygon for Wetland 1. A "Site 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 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 1 Loss cs 1 ON 6AA Direct 12.50 .50 -.500 -6.250 10* ON 621 Direct 1.96 .70 -.700 -1.372 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 10D* 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 -.630 -1.796 12* ON 617 Direct .09 .70 -.700 -.063 12A* ON 617 Direct .34 .67 -.670 -.228 1213* 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 -.500 -.065 15* ON 621 Direct 3.02 .67 670 -2.023 15A* ON 621 Direct .01 .63 -.630 -.006 1513* ON 630 Direct 1.16 .60 -.600 -.696 15C* ON 600 Direct .90 .50 -.500 -.450 17 ON 621 Direct .33 .60 -.600 -.198 17A ON 624 Direct .03 .60 -.600 -.018 17B* ON 600 Direct .34 .50 -.500 -.170 19 ON 630 Direct .03 .60 -.600 -.018 19A ON 600 Direct .07 .50 -.500 -.035 1A ON 600 Direct .60 .50 -.500 -.300 2 ON 6AA Direct 9.81 .50 -.500 -4.905 20 ON 600 Direct .38 .43 -.430 -.163 20A ON 600 Direct 1.37 .43 430 -.589 21 ON 618 Direct .04 .43 -.430 -.017 21A ON 625 Direct .38 .50 -.500 -.190 22 ON 621 Direct 1.66 .53 -.530 -.880 22A ON 625 Direct .02 .50 -.500 -.010 22B ON 600 Direct 1.22 .43 -.430 -.525 22C ON 600 Direct 1.50 .43 -.430 -.645 23* ON 618 Direct 7.10 A7 -.470 -3.337 23A ON 600 Direct .24 A0 -.400 -.096 24 ON 618 Direct .05 .50 -.500 -.025 26* ON 621 Direct 8.85 .63 -.630 -5.576 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 Site Id Site Typ Pre -Development Post -Development 27 ON 618 Direct .57 .63 -.630 -.359 27A ON 621 Direct 1.99 .60 -.600 -1.194 27B ON 625 Direct .77 .57 -.570 -.439 27C ON 630 Direct .08 .50 -.500 -.040 27D ON 600 Direct 4.09 .50 -.500 -2.045 27E ON 600 Direct .87 .50 -.500 -.435 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 -1.460 2A ON 641 Direct 1.05 .63 -.630 -.662 32* ON 618 Direct .42 .53 -.530 -.223 32A ON 600 Direct .78 .50 -.500 -.390 4 ON 6AA Direct 5.03 .50 -.500 -2.515 40* ON 618 Direct .57 .67 -.670 -.382 40A ON 621 Direct 12.99 .53 -.530 -6.885 40B ON 600 Direct .13 .53 -.530 -.069 41 ON 621 Direct 1.34 .60 -.600 -.804 42* ON 621 Direct 1.77 .67 -.670 -1.186 42A ON 621 Direct 1.09 .60 -.600 -.654 44 ON 641 Direct .07 .67 -.670 -.047 44A ON 641 Direct .18 .63 -.630 -.113 44B* 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 -.530 -.175 47* ON 621 Direct .28 .60 -.600 -.168 49* ON 618 Direct .65 .63 -.630 -.410 4A ON 641 Direct .55 .60 -.600 -.330 6 ON 641 Direct .27 .63 -.630 -.170 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 -.430 -.237 8A ON 600 Direct .62 .43 -.430 -.267 9 ON 600 Direct .38 .43 -.430 -.163 Total: 282.33 -153.2 Wetland Inventory : App.no.: 160711-8 Page 10 of 34 erp_staff_report. rdf CONCEPTUAL NEW -PFFW Direct Impacts Site Id Site 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 / Los- cs 1 ON 6AA Direct 10.91 .30 -.300 -3.273 1A ON 600 Direct .41 .30 -.300 -.123 3 ON 6AA Direct 1.33 .30 -.300 -.399 4 ON 6AA Direct 10.53 .40 -.400 -4.212 5 ON 6AA Direct 4.77 .47 -.470 -2.242 6 ON 6AA Direct .05 .43 -.430 -.022 7 ON 6AA Direct 112.76 .47 -.470 -52.997 8 ON 6AA Direct 2.93 .50 -.500 -1.465 Total: 143.69 -64.73 Wetland Inventory : CONCEPTUAL NEW -PFFW Preserved Not Mitigation 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 / Losa cs 1 ON 6AA Preservation 34.90 Total: 34.90 Wetland Inventory : CONCEPTUAL NEW -PFFW Prev Permitted & Mitigated Impacts11-00112-S/11- Site Site Id Typ 01178 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 Typ Pre -Development Post -Development Pre Pres. Fluc AA 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 Restoration/Creation 1.38 .30 I .67 11 - 15 1.50 App.no.: 160711-8 Page 11 of 34 169 .233 erp_staff_report.rdf CONCEPTUAL NEW -PFFW Restoration Site Id Site Typ Pre -Development Post -Development 1A ON 600 Restoration/Creation .37 .30 .67 11 - 15 1.50 .169 .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 .47 .70 11 -15 1.50 .105 .019 8 ON 6AA Restoration/Creation .96 .50 .70 11 - 15 1.50 .091 .088 Total: 20.72 2.83 Wetland Inventory : CONCEPTUAL NEW -Prev. Mitigation for 11-00112-S/11-01178-S Site Id Site 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/Los! cs UP ON 400 Preservation 17.84 WL ON 600 Preservation 815.86 Total: 833.70 Wetland Inventory: CONCEPTUAL NEW -Prev. Permitted & Mitigated Impacts-11-00112-S & 11-01178- Site Site Id Typ Is Pre -Development Post -Development Pre AA Acreage Current With Pres. Time 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 �` 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 OS` OFF 618 Secondary .19 .67 .60 -.070 -.013 OS -A OFF 621 Secondary .28 .63 .57 -.060 -.017 App.no.: 160711-8 Page 12 of 34 erp_staff_report. rdf CONCEPTUAL NEW -Secondary Impacts Site ld Site Typ Pre -Development Post -Development OS-B* OFF 625 Secondary .58 .60 .53 -.070 -.041 OS-C OFF 600 Secondary 1.06 .53 .47 -.060 -.064 1 ON 6AA Secondary .38 .50 .57 .070 .027 10 ON 600 Secondary .04 .50 .60 .100 .004 10A* ON 617 Secondary 1.56 .70 .67 -.030 -.047 10B* ON 621 Secondary 2.47 .67 .67 .000 .000 10C ON 631 Secondary .14 .63 .67 .040 .006 10D ON 621 Secondary .05 .57 .67 .100 .005 10E ON 600 Secondary .09 .50 .60 .100 .009 12 ON 600 Secondary .25 .50 .60 .100 .025 12A* ON 617 Secondary .15 .67 .67 .000 .000 13 ON 621 Secondary 1.20 .57 .00 -.570 -.684 13A ON 630 Secondary 1A5 .47 .00 -.470 -.541 15 ON 600 Secondary .46 .50 .60 .100 .046 15A ON 621 Secondary .52 .67 .63 -.040 -.021 15B ON 621 Secondary .16 .63 .63 .000 .000 15C ON 630 Secondary .80 .60 .63 .030 .024 19 ON 600 Secondary .12 .50 .60 .100 .012 21 ON 618 Secondary .21 .53 .50 -.030 -.006 21A ON 625 Secondary .19 .53 .53 .000 .000 22 ON 600 Secondary .09 .43 .53 .100 .009 22A ON 621 Secondary .97 .53 .53 .000 .000 22B ON 625 Secondary .09 .53 .57 .040 .004 22C ON 600 Secondary .40 .43 .53 .100 .040 26 ON 621 Secondary .55 .67 .67 .000 .000 26A* ON 621 Secondary 3.73 .63 .67 .040 .149 26B ON 600 Secondary .94 .57 .67 .100 .094 26C ON 600 Secondary 3.34 .53 .63 .100 .334 27 ON 618 Secondary .01 .67 .60 -.070 -.001 27A ON 621 Secondary .38 .63 .60 -.030 -.011 27B ON 630 Secondary .15 .53 .60 .070 .011 27C ON 600 Secondary .36 .50 .57 .070 .025 27D ON 600 Secondary .24 .50 .57 .070 .017 29* ON 621 Secondary .49 .50 .60 .100 .049 29A ON 600 Secondary .39 .53 .63 .100 .039 29B ON 600 Secondary 1.30 .60 .50 -.100 -.130 32 ON 600 Secondary .08 .60 .50 -.100 -.008 32A* ON 618 Secondary .52 .63 .53 -.100 052 4 ON 6AA Secondary .16 .50 .60 .100 .016 40* ON 618 Secondary .69 .67 .60 -.070 -.048 App.no.: 160711-8 Page 13 of 34 erp_staff_report.rdf CONCEPTUAL NEW -Secondary Impacts Site Id Site Typ Pre -Development Post -Development 44 ON 641 Secondary 1.17 .53 .60 .070 .082 44A ON 641 Secondary .05 .60 .67 .070 .004 44B* 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 -.23 Wetland Inventory : CONCEPTUAL NEW -Secondary Impacts-PFFW Site Id Site Typ Pre -Development Post -Development Pre Fluc AA Acreage Current With Time Pres. Risk Adj. Post Adj Functional Type (Acres) Wo Pres Project Lag (Yrs) Factor Factor Fluccs Delta Gain / Los: cs 1 ON 6AA Secondary .31 .30 .33 .030 .009 1A ON 600 Secondary .05 .30 .33 .030 .002 5 ON 6AA Secondary .01 .47 .43 -.040 .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 2* ON 411 Enhancement 34.67 .60 3* ON 411 Enhancement 4.60 .50 4 ON 422 Enhancement 2.46 .50 5* ON 740 Enhancement 8.02 .50 6* ON 740 Enhancement .54 .45 7* ON 100 Enhancement 11.04 .40 App.no.: 160711-8 Page 14 of 34 75 5 1.00 .088 1.933 75 11 -15 1.50 .068 2.375 75 11 - 15 1.00 .171 .788 75 11 - 15 1.00 .171 .421 75 11 - 15 1.00 .171 1.373 70 11 - 15 1.00 .171 .092 70 11 - 15 1.00 .205 2.268 erp_staff_report. rdf CONCEPTUAL NEW -Upland Enhancement & Restoration Total: 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 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 600 Preservation 43.27 Total: 43.27 Wetland Inventory : CONCEPTUAL NEW -Wetland Enhancement Site Id Site Typ Pre -Development Post -Development Pre AA Acreage Current With Time Risk Pres. Adj. Post Adj Functional Fluc Type (Acres) Wo Pres Project Lag (Yrs) Factor Factor Fluccs Delta Gain / Loss cs 1 ON 6AA Enhancement .87 .50 .67 6 - 10 1.50 .091 .079 10* ON 621 Enhancement 37.62 .67 .77 5 1.00 .088 3.300 10A* ON 618 Enhancement 13.65 .67 .77 5 1.00 .088 1.197 106* ON 621 Enhancement 46.74 .63 .77 11 - 15 1.50 .064 2.988 10C* ON 618 Enhancement 6.14 .63 .77 11 - 15 1.50 .064 .393 10D* ON 621 Enhancement 3.37 .57 .77 11 - 15 1.50 .091 .308 10E ON 631 Enhancement 1.03 .57 .77 11 - 15 1.50 .091 .094 10F ON 600 Enhancement 1.85 .50 .70 11 - 15 1.50 .091 .169 10G ON 600 Enhancement 2.96 .57 .77 11 - 15 1.50 .091 .270 10H* ON 600 Enhancement 5.44 .50 .70 11 - 15 1.50 .091 .497 12* ON 617 Enhancement 6.21 .67 .77 5 1.00 .088 .545 12A ON 618 Enhancement 17.29 .67 .77 5 1.00 .088 1.517 12B* ON 617 Enhancement 34.76 .63 .77 11 - 15 1.50 .064 2.222 App.no.: 160711-8 Page 15 of 34 erp_staff_report. rdf CONCEPTUAL NEW -Wetland Enhancement Site Id Site Typ Pre -Development Post -Development 12C ON 618 Enhancement 1.97 .63 .77 11 -15 1.50 .064 .126 12D ON 600 Enhancement 2.61 .53 .73 11 - 15 1.50 .091 .238 12E ON 600 Enhancement 4.56 .50 .70 11 - 15 1.50 .091 .416 14 ON 621 Enhancement 1.16 .60 .70 11-15 1.50 .046 .053 14A ON 631 Enhancement 7.78 .60 .70 11 - 15 1.50 .046 .355 14B ON 630 Enhancement 7.08 .53 .70 11 - 15 1.50 .078 .550 14C ON 618 Enhancement 2.53 .53 .70 11 - 15 1.50 .078 .196 14D ON 600 Enhancement 1.09 .50 .67 11-15 1.50 .078 .085 15 ON 621 Enhancement .81 .63 .70 5 1.00 .061 .050 15A ON 630 Enhancement 4.88 .60 .70 11 -15 1.50 .046 .223 15B ON 600 Enhancement 1.24 .50 .67 11 - 15 1.50 .078 .096 17 ON 621 Enhancement 46.80 .63 .70 5 1.00 .061 2.874 17A* ON 624 Enhancement 13.39 .60 .73 11 - 15 1.50 .059 .795 17B ON 618 Enhancement 4.57 .60 .73 11 -15 1.50 .059 .271 17C ON 625 Enhancement 1.20 .53 .73 11 -15 1.50 .091 .110 17D ON 600 Enhancement 5.64 .53 .73 11 -15 1.50 .091 .515 18 ON 600 Enhancement .52 .53 .70 11 -15 1.50 .078 .040 18A ON 600 Enhancement .37 .53 .70 11 -15 1.50 .078 .029 19 ON 600 Enhancement 3.16 .57 .73 11 -15 1.50 .073 .231 21 ON 618 Enhancement .11 .57 .63 5 1.00 .053 .006 21A ON 625 Enhancement 1.49 .53 .63 11-15 1.50 .046 .068 22 ON 621 Enhancement 4.78 .53 .60 5 1.00 .061 .294 22A ON 625 Enhancement .03 .53 .63 11 -15 1.50 .046 .001 22B ON 600 Enhancement 3.06 .47 .63 11 -15 1.50 .073 .224 22C ON 600 Enhancement .70 .43 .60 11 - 15 1.50 .078 .054 24 ON 618 Enhancement .32 .57 .63 5 1.00 .053 .017 25* ON 618 Enhancement 93.73 .70 .80 5 1.00 .088 8.222 25A* ON 618 Enhancement 7.69 .70 .80 5 1.00 .088 .675 25B* ON 617 Enhancement 22.78 .67 .80 11 -15 1.50 .059 1.352 25C* ON 618 Enhancement 3.37 .67 .80 11 -15 1.50 .059 .200 25D ON 621 Enhancement 20.45 .60 .80 11 -15 1.50 .091 1.868 25E* ON 618 Enhancement 1.84 .60 .80 11 -15 1.50 .091 .168 25F ON 600 Enhancement .80 .60 .80 11 -15 1.50 .091 .073 25G ON 600 Enhancement .28 .60 .80 11 -15 1.50 .091 .026 25H ON 600 Enhancement 9.42 .60 .80 11 -15 1.50 .091 .860 26 ON 621 Enhancement 104.13 .67 .73 5 1.00 .053 5.481 26A ON 618 Enhancement 2.01 .67 .73 5 1.00 .053 .106 26B* ON 621 Enhancement 154.32 .63 .73 11 -15 1.50 .046 7.047 26C ON 618 Enhancement 5.31 .63 .73 11 -15 1.50 .046 .242 26D* ON 624 Enhancement 14.78 .57 .73 11 - 15 1.50 .073 1.080 App.no.: 160711-8 Page 16 of 34 erp_staff_report. rdf CONCEPTUAL NEW -Wetland Enhancement Site Id Site Typ Pre -Development Post -Development 26E ON 600 Enhancement 11.07 .57 .73 11 - 15 1.50 .073 .809 26F ON 600 Enhancement 1.20 .53 .73 11 - 15 1.50 .091 .110 27 ON 621 Enhancement .14 .63 .73 5 1.00 .088 .012 27A ON 630 Enhancement .52 .53 .70 11 - 15 1.50 .078 .040 27B ON 600 Enhancement .21 .50 .67 11 - 15 1.50 .078 .016 27C ON 600 Enhancement .23 .50 .70 11 - 15 1.50 .091 .021 29* ON 621 Enhancement 21.01 .53 .70 11 - 15 1.50 .078 1.631 29A ON 600 Enhancement 2.04 .53 .70 11 - 15 1.50 .078 .158 29B ON 600 Enhancement .17 .50 .70 11 - 15 1.50 .091 .016 32* ON 621 Enhancement 52.01 .63 .73 5 1.00 .088 4.562 32A* ON 621 Enhancement 20.49 .60 .70 11 - 15 1.50 .046 .936 328* ON 621 Enhancement 37.60 .53 .70 11 - 15 1.50 .078 2.919 32C ON 618 Enhancement 7.65 .53 .70 11 - 15 1.50 .078 .594 32D ON 600 Enhancement 7.08 .50 .70 11 - 15 1.50 .091 .647 33 ON 624 Enhancement .60 .57 .73 11 - 15 1.50 .073 .044 34 ON 617 Enhancement .40 .57 .73 11 - 15 1.50 .073 .029 35 ON 624 Enhancement 1.61 .57 .73 11 - 15 1.50 .073 .118 36 ON 621 Enhancement .48 .57 .73 11 -15 1.50 .073 .035 37 ON 624 Enhancement 1.38 .60 .77 11 - 15 1.50 .078 .107 38 ON 621 Enhancement 2.53 .60 .73 5 1.00 .114 .289 38A ON 600 Enhancement .86 .50 .73 11 - 15 1.50 .105 .090 4 ON 641 Enhancement 1.25 .60 .67 5 1.00 .061 .077 40* ON 621 Enhancement 118.65 .67 .73 5 1.00 .053 6.245 40A ON 641 Enhancement .42 .67 .73 5 1.00 .053 .022 40B* ON 621 Enhancement 9.44 .63 .73 11 - 15 1.50 .046 .431 40C ON 641 Enhancement .68 .63 .73 6 - 10 1.50 .053 .036 40D* ON 621 Enhancement 61.54 .57 .73 11 - 15 1.50 .073 4.496 40E ON 641 Enhancement 1.43 .57 .73 6 - 10 1.50 .085 .122 40F ON 600 Enhancement 8.80 .57 .73 11 - 15 1.50 .073 .643 40G ON 600 Enhancement .30 .53 .73 11 - 15 1.50 .091 .027 43 ON 630 Enhancement .09 .67 .73 5 1.00 .053 .005 44 ON 631 Enhancement 1.36 .67 .73 5 1.00 .053 .072 44A ON 641 Enhancement .49 .67 .73 5 1.00 .053 .026 44B ON 621 Enhancement 28.40 .63 .73 11 -15 1.50 .046 1.297 44C* ON 641 Enhancement 1.14 .63 .73 11 - 15 1.50 .046 .052 44D* ON 621 Enhancement 109.61 .57 .73 11 - 15 1.50 .073 8.008 44E ON 631 Enhancement 10.68 .57 .73 11 - 15 1.50 .073 .780 44F ON 600 Enhancement 1.76 .57 .73 11 - 15 1.50 .073 .129 44G ON 6AA Enhancement 3.25 .57 .73 6 - 10 1.50 .085 .277 44H ON 600 Enhancement .31 .57 .73 11 - 15 1.50 .073 .023 App.no.: 160711-8 Page 17 of 34 erp_staff_report.rdf CONCEPTUAL NEW -Wetland Enhancement Site Id Site 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 2.05 .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 .402 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 3.919 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: 1627.09 108.2[ Wetland Inventory : CONCEPTUAL NEW -Wetland Preservation Site Id Site Typ Pre -Development Post -Development Pre AA Acreage Current With Time Risk Pres. Adj. Post Adj Functional Fluc Type (Acres) Wo Pres Project Lag (Yrs) Factor Factor Fluccs Delta Gain / Los: cs 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 .80 .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 .80 .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: 1673.27 113.22 Wetland Inventory: App.no.: 160711-8 Page 18 of 34 erp_staff_report. rdf CONCEPTUAL NEW -Wetland Restoration & Creation Site Site Id Typ Pre -Development Post -Development Pre Pres. Fluc AA Acreage Current With Time Risk Adj. Post Adj Functional Type (Acres) Wo Pres Project Lag (Yrs) Factor Factor Fluccs Delta Gain / Los: cs 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 .42 .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_report.rdf Fish And Wildlife Issues: 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 wetlands 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 Keais 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, 10.2.2, 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 and on the engineering plans (Exhibit No. 2.0). App.no.: 160711-8 Page 20 of 34 erp_staff_report. 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. Panther 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 (USACE) 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 1), 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. LEGAL ISSUES: 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-permittee 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 following: 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 Keais (Water Use Permit No. 11-00106-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 authorization(s) prior to the commencement of construction dewatering and irrigation. CERP: The proposed project is not located within or adjacent to a Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project component. Potable Water Supplier: Prior to the issuance of construction 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 mixed - use 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 ENVI ONMENTAL EVALUA"'0 Jew ne S. Harris SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT APPROVAL SUPERVISOR Laura Layman ENGINEERING EVALUATION SUPERVISOR poldw Pakorn Sutitarnnontr, P.E. Brian Rose, P.E. ENVIRONMEN 9 L RESOURCE COMPLIANCE BUREAU CHIEF: DATE. April 2, 2018 T SION ASSISTANT DIRECTOR: DATE: 4 / 2 / 18 thony M. Waterh6t e, P,E. App.na.: 160711-8 Page 25 of 34 erp_staff report.rdf GENERAL CONDITIONS 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 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. 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 GENERAL CONDITIONS 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. 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 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 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 GENERAL CONDITIONS 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. App.no.: 160711-8 Page 28 of 34 erp_staff_report.rdf 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. 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. 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. 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 not 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 alteration 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 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, App.no.: 160711-8 Page 30 of 34 erp_staff_report.rdf SPECIAL CONDITIONS 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 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 wetland(s) 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 offsite mitigation as necessary to address any deficiences. App.no.: 160711-8 Page 31 of 34 erp_staff_report.rdf SPECIAL CONDITIONS 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 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 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 Zone (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.: 160711-5 Page 32 of 34 erp_staff_report.rdf SPECIAL CONDITIONS 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 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 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://my.sfwmd.gov/ePermitting) under this application number. Exhibit 1.0 Location Map Exhibit 2.0 Conceptual Plans Exhibit 2.1 Stormwater Management Summary and FEMA FIRM information Exhibit 2.2 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Exhibit 2.3 Urban Stormwater Management Program Exhibit 3.0 FLUCCS Map Exhibit 3.1 Wetland/Other Surface Water Identification Map Exhibit 3.2 Previously Authorized Impacts & Mitigation and Current Plan Summary Map App.no.: 160711-8 Page 33 of 34 erp_staff_report.rdf SPECIAL CONDITIONS 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 Exhibit 1.0 Application No. 160711-5 Page 9 of 1 STAFF REPORT DISTRIBUTION LIST RURAL LANDS WEST Application No: 160711-8 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 s SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT MODIFICATION NO. 11.01178-S DATE ISSUED: MAY 14, 2012 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:CONSTRUCTION/OPERATION 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 1 2 3 10 11 15 22 TWP 49S RGE 28E PERMIT DURATION: See Special Condition No:1. Pursuant to Rule 40E-4.321, 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 taken 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 120.68, 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 object 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 33416-4680 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 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 of May, 2012, in accordance with Section 120.60(3), Florida Statutes, and a copy has been filed and acknowledged with the Deputy District Clerk. By DEPU Y CLERK SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Attachments PAGE 1 OF 7 PERMIT NO: 11-01178-S PAGE 2 OF 7 SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. The construction phase of this permit shall expire on May 14, 2017. 2. Operation of the surface water management system shall be the responsibility of the permittee. 3. Discharge Facilities: Basin: WS40 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: WS5A 1-60000gpm with pump on at elev. 15' NGVD 29 and with pump off at elev. 14'NGVD 29. Receiving body: Basin R5 Control elev: 16.5 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WS5B 1-60000gpm with pump on at elev. 15' NGVD 29 and with pump off at elev. 14'NGVD 29. Receiving body: Basin R5 Control elev : 16.5 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WS5C 1-42500gpm with pump on at elev. 14'NGVD 29 and with pump off at elev. 13'NGVD 29. Receiving body : Basin R5 Control elev: 15 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WS5D 1-35000gpm with pump on at elev. 14'NGVD 29 and with pump off at elev. 13'NGVD 29. Receiving body: Basin R5 Control elev: 15 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WS6C 1-70000gpm with pump on at elev. 12' NGVD 29 and with pump off at elev. 1 VNGVD 29. Receiving body: Basin R6 Control elev : 14.5 feet NGVD 29. Basin: R6, Structure: D20A 1-60' WIDE SHARP CRESTED weir with crest at elev. 17.1' NGVD 29, 90 LF of 54" die. CORRUGATED METAL PIPE culvert. Receiving body: Basin WS8D Control elev: 14.5 feet NGVD 29. Basin: R6, 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: WS41- 1-17500gpm with pump on at elev elev. 11.5'NGVD 29. 13'NGVD 29 and with pump off at 12.5' NGVD 29 and with pump off at 12.5' NGVD 29 and with pump off at PERMIT NO: 11-01178-S PAGE 3 OF 7 Receiving body: Basin R4 Control elev : 14.5 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WS41VI 1-17500gpm with pump on at elev elev. 12'NGVD 29. Receiving body: Basin R4 Control elev : 15 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WSBA 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 NO: 11-01178-S 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 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. 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. 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. All 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 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 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. 11-01178-5 unless otherwise specified herein. PERMIT NO: 11-01178-S PAGE 5OF7 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. 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% 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 i 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 Exhibit 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 Envirommnetal 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 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. PERMIT NO: 11-01178-S PAGE 6 OF 7 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.C.. 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 OF 7 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 40E-4.351, 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.. NOTICE OF RIGHTS As required by Sections 120.569(1), and 120.60(3), Fla. 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 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 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 Instructions 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 e-mail 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) 682-6010. Pursuant to Subsections 28-106.104(7), (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 electronlc 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. 07/01/2009 Initiation of'an Administrative Hearing Pursuant to 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 8 and 112 by 11 inch white paper. All petitions shall contain: t. 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. 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. A person may file a request for 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 120,573, Fla. Stat., at this time. RIGHTTO SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW Pursuant to Sections 120.60(3) and 120,68, 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. 07i01/2009 2 erp_staff_re port. rdf FINAL APPROVED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Last Date For Agency Action: June 10, 2012 MAY 14, 2012 INDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT STAFF REPORT Project Name: Camp Keais 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 1 2 3 10 11 15 22/T49S/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 Keais Class: CLASS III Strand Special Drainage District: NA Total Acres Wetland Onsite: 5483.25 Total Acres Wetland Preserved Onsite: 5395,49 Total Acres Impacted Onsite : 57.37 Total Acres Presv/Mit Compensation Onsite: 5405.12 Mitigation Previously Permitted: Yes Conservation Easement To District : No Sovereign Submerged Lands: No PROJECT PURPOSE; _ .. This application is a request for a Permit modification to authorize Construction and Operation 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. App.no, : 120209-2 Page 1 of 21 erp_staff_report.rdf PROJECT EVALUATION: PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION: The Camp Keais Agricultural Development 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 8581011 Well Road). A location map is attached as Exhibit 1.0. The overall 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, pinelcypresslcabbage 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, PROPOSED PROJECT: 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 offsite 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 2.0. 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 current 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.rdf 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 S-1 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, WS1C, WS1D, WS1E, WS2, WS4A, WS4B, WS4C, WS4D, WS4E, W4F, W41, R1, R1A, R1 B 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 Keais 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. WATER QUANTITY 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. Offsite Flows: The current application provides conveyance for 4,253.0 acres of offsite flow area associated with the Shaggy Cypress (Permit No. 11-00112-S) Agricultural Development. App.no.: 120209-2 Page 3 of 21 erp_staff_report. rdf Control Elevation : Basin Area (Acres) Cirl Elev (ft, NGVD 29) WSWT Ctrl Elev Method Of (ft, NGVD 29) Determination WS4N 144.60 15 Previously Permitted WS4O 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 14.6 Previously Permitted WS6C 200.30 14.5 Previously Permitted R6 126.00 14.5 Previously Permitted R8 317.40 14 Previously Permitted WS4G 72.20 15 Previously Permitted WS41-1 75.10 15 Previously Permitted WS41 102.40 15 Previously Permitted WS4J 101.30 15 Previously Permitted W34K 87.70 15 Previously Permitted WS41- 50.30 14.5 Previously Permitted WSW 108.10 15 Previously Permitted WS8A 160.20 14 Previously Permitted Receiving Body: Basin Str.# Receiving Body Ws4o WS4O-P Basin R4 Ws4p WS4P-P Basin R5 Ws5a WSSA-P Basin R5A Ws5b WSSB-P Basin R5 Ws5c WS5G-P Basin R5 Ws5d WSSD-P Basin R5 Ws6c WS6C-P Basin R6 R6 D20A Basin WS68 R6 D24 Basin R8 R8 D17B Stumpy Strand R8 D20B Basin WS8A Ws4g WS4G-P Basin R4 Ws4h WS4H-P Basin R4 Ws4i WS41-P Basin R4 Ws4j WS4J-P Basin R4 Ws4k WS4K-P Basin R4 Ws41 WS41--P Basin R4 Ws4m WS41VI-P Basin R4 App.no.: 120209-2 Page 4 of 21 erp_staff report.rdf Receiving Body: Basin Str.# Receiving Body Ws8a WS8A-P Basin R8 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. R8 D17B 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 Dia. Elev_ 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 WS41-11-P 1 Pump 17500cfs 14 (on)113 (off) WS41 WS41-P 1 Pump 17500gp 13.5 (on) / 12.5 m (off) WS4J WS4J-P 1 Pump 17500gp 13 (on) / 12 (off) m WS4K WS4K-P 1 Pump 17500gp 12.5 (on) / 11.5 m (off) WS41- WS4L-P 1 Pump 17500gp 12.5 (on) / 11.5 m (off) WS41V! WS4M-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) / 11.5 m (off) WS5A WS5A-P 1 Pump 60000gp 15 (on) / 14 (off) m WS5B WS5B-P 1 Pump 60000gp 15 (on) / 14 (off) m App.no.: 120209-2 Page 5 of 21 erp_staff_report.rdt SWM(Internall Structures: Pumps: WS5C WS5C-P 1 Pump 42500gp 14 (on) / 13 (off) m WS5D WS5D-P 1 Pump 35000gp 14 (on) / 13 (off) m WS6C WS6C-P 1 Pump 70000gp 12 (on) / 11 (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) WATE QUALITY The proposed project includes expansion of the existing reservoirs. No adverse water quality impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 1NETILAN.DS Mitigation Proposal: Pursuant to Application No. 9901074 (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. 990107-4). 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 Keais Strand. The modification to the project area under Application No. 060803-2 resulted in a re-evaluation of wetland impacts. The re-evaluation of wetlands and changes to the dike alignment 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 flatwood/upland) was divided into three phases, all 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 is 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% App.no.: 120209-2 Page 6 of 21 erp_staff_report.rdf 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 3-4 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 S-18 is for xeric oak. The 600 FLUCCS code for S-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, S-11, S-13, S-14, S-16, S-18, S-22, S-34, and S-41) under Phases 1 and 2. Phase 1 and 2 provides mitigation 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 S-2 (6,32 acres). PFFWS S-1 and S-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.no.: 120209-2 Page 7 of 21 erp_staff_report.rdf Wetland Inventory : CONSTRUCTION MOD -Camp Keais - wetlands preserved Site site Id Typ Pro -Development Post -Development Pre AA Acreage Current Pres, With Time Risk Adj. Post Adj Functional Fluc Type (Acres) Wo Pres Project Lag (Yrs) Factor Factor Fluccs Delta Gain / Los: cs wi ON 600 Preservation 4990.94 Total: 4990.94 Wetland Inventory: CONSTRUCTION MOD -Camp Keais Phase 1 and 2 Site Id Site Typ Pre -Development I Post -Development Pre AA Acreage Current With Time Risk Pres. Adj. Post Adj Functional Fluc Type (Acres) Wo Pres Project Lag (Yrs) Factor Factor Fluccs Delta Gain / Loss cs E-1 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 .80 6 -10 1.50 .240 4.236 E-4 ON 630 Enhancement 2.47 .35 .80 6 -10 1.50 .240 .593 E-4a ON 630 Enhancement 1.44 .35 .80 6 -10 1.50 .240 .346 S-10 ON 621 Secondary 2.06 i .56 -.560 -1.154 S-11 ON 630 Secondary 8.16 .46 -.460 -3.754 S-12 ON 618 Direct 07 .50 -.500 -.035 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 S-18 ON 600 Secondary 3.39 .53 -.530 -1.797 S-19 ON 617 Direct 5.62 .70 -.700 -3.934 S-22 ON 621 Secondary 3.80 .43 -.430 -1.634 S-34 ON 630 Secondary 3.44 .43 -.430 -1A79 S-41 ON 630 Secondary 2.33 .43 -.430 -1.002 S-42 ON 630 Direct .06 .70 -.700 -.042 S-44 ON 630 Direct .35 .70 -.700 -.245 S-45 ON 630 Direct .56 .70 -.700 -.392 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 .63 -.530 -.424 S-7 ON 617 Secondary 4.72 .46 -.460 -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 1.00 1.00 .200 .534 Up-3 ON 411 Enhancement 2.19 .37 .57 6 -10 1.50 .107 .234 App.no.: 120209-2 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 Site Id Site Typ Pre -Development Post -Development Pre AA Acreage Current With Time Risk Pros. Adj. Post Adj Functional FFre l Type (Acres) Wo Pres Project Lag (Yrs) Factor Factor Fluccs Delta Gain I Los; cs 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 E-4 ON 630 Enhancement 9.02 .35 .80 6 -10 1.50 .240 2.165 PFFWS40N 600 Direct 41.12 .43 -.430 -17.682 Up-1 ON 411 Preservation 3.35 Total: 178.73 •23 Wetland Inventory: CONSTRUCTION MOD -Camp Keals Phase 4 Site Id Site Type Pre -Development Post -Development Pre AA Acreage Current With Time Risk Pres. Adj, Post Adj Functional Fl Fluc Type (Acres) Wo Pres Project Lag (Yrs) Factor Factor Fluccs Delta Gain! Los: cs 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 E-4 ON 630 Enhancement 1.02 .35 .80 6 - 10 1.50 .240 .245 PFFWS2ON 630 Direct 6.32 .40 -.400 -2,528 Total: 38.10 •17 Wetland Inventory: CONSTRUCTION MOD -Camp Keias - potential future impacts to PFFWs Site Site Id TYPI Pre -Development Post -Development Pre AA Acreage Current With Pres. Time Risk Adj. Post Adj Functional Fluc Fl Type (Acres) Wo Pres Project Lag (Yrs) Factor Factor Fluccs Delta Gain! Los: cs 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.rdf Fluccs Code Description 411 Pine Flatwoods 411 Pine Flatwoods - Hydric 411 Pine Flatwoods - Upland 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 Wildlife 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 SYSTEM:. 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 40E-4.361(2), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Pursuant to Chapter 40E-4 F.A.C., this permit may not be converted from the construction phase to the operation phase until certification of the SWM system is submitted to and accepted by this District. Rule 40E-4,321(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.G., the permittee is liable for compliance with the terms of this permit. App.no.: 120209-2 Page 10 of 21 erp_staff_report.rdf 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_staff_report. rdf RELATED CONCERNS: Water Use Permit Status: Irrigation 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. CERP: The proposed project is not located within or adjacent to a Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project component. Potable Water Supplier: N/A Waste Water System/Supplier: NIA 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/CZM 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 this 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. 080103-6). 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 Page 12 of 21 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 13 of 21 arp staff—report.rdf STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: The Staff recommends that the following be Issued : Construction and Operation authorization of a surface water management system to serve an 11,649.40 acre agricultural development known as Camp Keals Agricultural Development with discharge to the Fakahatchee Strand via Stumpy Strand and Cramp Keals 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 REVIEW; NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT APPROVAL ENVIRONMENTAL, EVALUATION !Cary Allman ' SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT APPROVAL SUPERVISOR Laura ayman EN G NECRII'1G E�(A U T� SUPERVISOR ie ica White, P.E. Daniel F. Waters, P.E. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMITTING BUREAU CHIEF, / DATE: I Anita R. Bain REGULATION 131VISION ASSISTANT DIRECTOR : DATE: Anthony M. Waterhouse, P.E. App.no.: 120200•2 Pogo 14 of 21 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,C.. 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 App.no.: 120209-2 Page 15 of 21 erp_staff_report.rdf LIMITING CONDITIONS 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. 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 40E-4.351, 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 erp_staff_report.rdf SPECIAL. CONDITIONS 1. The construction phase of this permit shall expire on May 14, 2017. 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 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: WS513 1-60000gpm with pump on at elev elev, 14'NGVD 29. Receiving body: 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: WSSD 1-35000gpm with pump on at elev elev. 13'NGVD 29. Receiving body: Basin R5 Control elev : 15 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WS6C 1-70000gpm with pump on at elev elev. 1 VNGVD 29. Receiving body: Basin R6 Control elev: 14.5 feet NGVD 29. 12.5' NGVD 29 and with pump off at 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 WSBD App.no.: 120209-2 Page 17 of 21 erp_staff_report. rdf SPECIAL CONDITIONS Control elev: 14.5 feet NGVD 29. Basin: R6, 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. 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 eiev. 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. 14' NGVD 29 and with pump off at elev. 13'NGVD 29. Receiving body: Basin R4 Control elev: 15 feet NGVD 29. Basin: W34H 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 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: WS41- 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 App.no.: 120209-2 Page 18 of 21 erp_staff_report.rdf SPECIAL CONDITIONS 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. 13' NGVD 29 and with pump off at elev. 12'NGVD 29. Receiving body: Basin R4 Control elev : 15 feet NGVD 29. Basin: WS8A 1-25000gpm with pump on at elev, 12.5' NGVD 29 and with pump off at elev. 11.5'NGVD 29. Receiving body: Basin R8 Control elev: 14 feet NGVD 29. 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. 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. 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. All 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 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 crop type App.no.: 120209-2 Page 19 of 21 erp_staff_report.rdf SPECIAL CONDITIONS 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. 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% 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 Exhibit 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 Envirommnetal 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. App.no.: 120209-2 Page 20 of 21 erp_staff_report. rdf SPECIAL CONDITIONS 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 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.: 120209-2 Page 21 of 21 Exhibit 1.0 Application No. 120209-2 Page 1 of 1 CAMP KEAIS STRAND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS a PERMIT# 11-01178 2012 MODIFICATIONS LEGAL DESCRIPT.ON : SECTIONS 22 - 27 & 34 - 36 TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST WEST 1/2 SECTION 1, SECTIONS 2,3,10,11,15, 22, 27 AND THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST ` COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PREPARED FOR PREPARED °Y !oF! i = RAYMOND MARCH, P.E. FLORIDA REGISTRATION NO, 41986 �oF+ 975 NEW HARVEST RD. IMMOKALEE, FL. 34142 soF' �oF PH. (239) 657-5133 FAX {2397 657-5297 'OF • .. - _ �,, •„�•s�x �y �0 aoF iOF E100F SHEETINDEX Exhibit 2.0 Application No. 120209-2 Page 1 of 13 'A N N Z co r) CN%j C04 CIO, J 04 C14 V) ---------- 41 T �g --j---- j T MOND MARCH, P.E. CAMP KEAIS STRAND TOPOGRAPHIC MAP FLORIDA REGISTRATION NO. 41996 AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 1� NEW KARVEST RD. 1-10K�F FL.341 cm)�657-simE42 COLLIER ENTERPRISES 12 FAX. (239}657-529? rXIMUIL 4,V Application No. 120209-2 Page 2 of 13 A. s-T-e • C C,)" ') tj r LC) C4 to R co ------ 4— It. z RAYMOND MARCH, N-��' P.E.P E REGISTRATION ND. 419M CAMP KEAIS STRAND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT OVERALL DRAINAGE LAYOUT 9)5 NEW HARVEST IMMOKALEF FLW42 (279}557.5P9) COLLIER ENTERPRISESFAX Mxnivii t.0 Application No. 120209-2 Page 3 of 13 CYrwfri eel CLL,Q1rs we S eCY Mr[nr5 w•C m K KR� e� IQ te[wn vr[90 t.ir [1arf.]- w w flit a4KAr- w oY o4si.rs .K m K r[v1.I[to r,mCO gl.4eY pumo-if [e,R esy .uq,wF wafer twit rutlipr- a Gsr ev.Nnr- i wr. N r r . .w (cw. e,almal .�r+c I+Kcr rK KV ear [yrpri IK m K ]�f1', rli •IXI•a [O/irlR Mrte2 aa�gr- « rvy,_ frY r•Sr tygrr_ « w rand M X+em�aRrhh I•L r0 ![ ]-K. b'• Nd. •MAr fiNrMr p B! rfM COUNTY ROAD 858 ' _RESERVOIR #1A- DJ I L- ( / _ -ll `ems / I L 4 •YO ` 04 // `axo ' D 16 I I D2 1 _ 0a jj i Di _ J —s xv r^ 1! r N r 06 tr If D6 RESERVOIR #1 is:«. I �I cro,"`[ 1 m_g° a �a O , VM, 'r'.Ir f I--.`��./ M41f , � �W^�%•rnSG, GASaI }T.N I 1W d D2 ! i I ! , yr 1 t 1 r .sns wsx cars .rn o . 1 11 C1 0 l Lu CC / , �• ��� / SCALE:1'= 600' \� !/ t•-,ryy--I w b- astn L m .0 , .. a r , �. ra3. /e «D)Fi O L�1 (� �]b.ry.. / ,� ,•.ie•\ ', `__mil, r=tf=«�.,�rT.��. ri ESERVOIR#5A 4 f � n � :n .a•'. acv. ! sa :c �t //`/ ,eta f�i'c - xa• � i I D8 1 02 1 022 l u� ib•,emr li ax�.tc t{l e 1 Os 'W jl 1 06 D5 ----- ------------ -- � CR RAYMOND MARCH, P.E. "—CAMP KEAIS STRAND �L AREGI$TRATIONNO.et9W AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT OVERALL DRAINAGE LAYOUT'A' 3 97$NEW HARVEST RD. rtn" '• • � —^ IMMDNALEE.FL M142 COLLIER ENTERPRISES 12 PN. Q39f957-5111 - FA%. {i39}657.5297 Application No. 120209-2 Page 4 of 13 (� it �~ I. 34 � {, D2 j, Dra 36 RESERVOIR#5 \\\ 022 J I - I D15 r D1a ll j » y Da �- 171.3 ' 1 -------------'-- / �•re° 'ate RESERVOIR#4 �l `l � � r �. - .s.m• -N- i D1 111 O 111 11 if v>W c.x 1 ll d D2 r,4XI,1i Da - — _ - - SCALE:1 = 600' RESERVOIR #4A .sa]� D77 D17 D75 r B cwmm(� - Y.s• � D78 rtxa wY xo cP.Y 11I � rt r RAYMOND MARCH, P.E. "CAMP KEAIS STRANDONN FLGRIOA REGI A ��. AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT OVERALL DRAINAGE LAYOUT-'B' 4 I.at9B4 _ - 975 NEW RARVES7 RO, r. r • INPH.(239E65.3a14 COLLIER ENTERPRISES �r•, , .....0 12 PR. ((234 667 = FAX. f239}6573t97 Application No. 120209-2 Page 5 of 13 9p �•.J +� it - r - I RESERVOIR #4A I pq� �. 6 �, Gf✓ . , l „ �.y ,� 8 1 D19 RESERVOIR## 02 024 .., i 1��I1! �11^ ------------------------- II � 012 1 0 D4 aaca co... -—' I -N- _ - _ _ - _ = 022 v.vao De , On 020 � \ I p ' RESERVOIR!!8 ` ' hS' _ �.. iu• � O / I SCALE: t'= 600' 411 D16 D16 DIO 11 rc�i ul I II �1 L Dia OJ 15 u. �wr x. v.rc+11 •r xr s.cc d -: scc �T, rc� 9 RAYMOND MARCH, P.E. "CAMP KEN S STRAND OVERALL DRAINGELAYOUT -'C' >.. FLOMAREG19TRATIONNO.a1969 AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT _ q J 915 NEM' HARVEST RO. ""^ ' IMMOKAIE457.51144 COLLIER ENTERPRISES FAX �(]J97.6 9 Application No. 120209-2 Page 6 of 13 1 8 or 15 SCC�lKE) ! M i] SEE S.CEf ! 0) 1! Tt� I I 05 O o20 ,�esN n 022 wa OPi] p _ 22 i ��m Q y� c I II 0/7 ° D wo i oa l RESERVOIR 010 n.P c n[e - co rcv aror mrs nr+ :'is• ------- - --- � r I I �� 27 0z v' z q 15 z�o� Ae �" LEGEND '1 ............ vxart�, eowrow. SCALE:1-= 600' 3 4 7 p! O Di 7 - iasiw<`u ai..ii�E seas ] nd.a u a n 15 q/i0 - .�iFPlKO nuvFfP/ f¢[ w .(n[9 Nq�? -.-Gr DI TYP(Cd� SE[DON DF AFRlMFTFR DM NND CANA A JACFNT TO PROPFF iv INF hn' srxC) 02 TYRCAL SECrONDF A1�RA ANAf �10� DS TYPf A S CRON OF P Rf TR DIKE AND CANA ADJA Ni TO C.R. 8 f+v+ro;CRfl Od 7Y✓I A DDN OF R RYlJfR DiK AND DRRDW CANA $ he+m Yxq 05 D R1M R KF aN0 CANA po+ ro San RAYMOND MARCH, P.E. w. "-CAMP KEAISCSTRAND p� //�� GR nNDACNIT �rnnc SECTIONS &DETAILS COLLIER ENTERPRISES - - - 12 Exhibit 2.0 Application No. 120209-2 Page 8 of 13 >u� D6 iYPfCA 5 CDON OF PERIM R DfKE a f.ANRI fwr a sc.�.f DT SEL nON OF RESERv01R DfK£ AND BORROW CANAL AOJaL£NT TO PRQPER lY LlNE (— m —1 O8 SfCTTON 0� PERIM RR DIK AND CR A NT TO fONVFYANCF ANd '-Fr . —"' D9 SEC RON OF PRlNClPAL DlSCNaROE STRUCTURE FOR R£SER M I !b"^ Sewn dv, -'� .S rifCOfE �y avw[rtn u+G 15 !. a 'p EMSMKIIQ+ rvw SOY PY. Y• � N 5�� q(5(egw at 1 /r0 I DIO S£CTfON DF RESCRVOIR 8 & 10 DfKE AND BORROW CANAL ADJACENT 7O PROPERTY LINE l�or ro suGN DI I CRON P RMETER DINES ANO TPALL CANALA jACENT rn PR PF TY I hor A SGuO "' °"`CAMP KEAIS STRAND RAYMOND MARCH, P.E. AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT SECTIONS & DETAILS 8 _ FLORIDA REGISTRATION NO.4190E _ •, , 9T6 NEW HARVEST RD. cra IMFH.( E66T_9133E.FL.34142 COLLIER ENTERPRISES M 12 PO ALE �.-w.� rev ro• Exhibit 2.0 Application No. 120209-2 Page 9 of 13 012 SECTION OF PERIMETER DINE AND OUTFALL CANAL FROM RESERVOIR —T-- " cwswucrt9 PLAN MF, W Rrd •' r.0� Y o} 6' ��r SEGnul Ntw RESERVOIR 5 DISCHARGE STRUCTURE — PLAN AND SECTION N WS IMOi 'O swan DiS wa. rv.s srx�c S r. Mwlea'c /arM xr [[f pKn.K lNw 40W BEO ncv. v ace- Tao' aa.cx: >v DIAE� n0N OF CONNfCTiNC CULVERT FOR RESER VOrRS .�[c•n, ryor r9 scvcl opt o r90 cuwrrs sxaw. ­ j RAYMOND MARCH, P.E. �' �� SECTIONS &DETAILS ­9 FLOR STRATIONNO.919BB AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 6TSNEW HARVEST 142 IMMONALEE, FL ]9M192 COLLIER ENTERPRISES 12 -CAMP KEAIS STRAND PIL an)657.5133 Exhibit 2.0 Application No. 120209-2 Page 10 of 13 -v'na'rrwo. —wra- �u,E— - u.rwAt nano DIS R RV R 414 DrSCNARCE STRUCTURES —PAN AND SECTION NEWS M r •o seni[I 'J �`�"J�vJi ��ti�1i a•¢`c`� ha iS ��J'O aJ�'�3��b�i:` oTc���'.r� JO"so g; i-ti�,�`�;;iy"bJ,ovJ.n.....v<�'?J''lc �L���JaJv���rJvJr���..�..✓. iFT�✓T`12a"�i.T,`�vo �n000vro�oo O1EzDON OF RESERVOIR OWE AND EORROVI CANALS FOR RF.5EFVOIR5 02,15,0 41 110 PAS r4 sc�u) RAYMOND MARCH, P.E. --CAMP KEAIS STRAND SECTIONS & DETAILS F ORIOAREGISTRATIONNO.a59B8 AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT _ 975 NEW HARVEST R0. IulAOKN.EE, F456N2 COLLIER ENTERPRISES W.�... 10 Exhibit 2.0 Application No. 120209-2 Page 1 l of 13 _____ _________ _ WmNy 4MY. ` C[M�NCIED P s'! i Y.IY� f �� 'G-�1l0ttt•��� �aa® ._._....,.._.•......,.w;G`1.n`�T.........1.'»....�.�).�,.zM.�-�.Ra.Fm�m'i�:viyrmwc. 07 PRINCIPAL OfSCNARLE STRUCNRE P AN ANp C7)ON NEWS FOR R S R R A & t0 (i.or ra ;uttl ODiFALI CANAL ROAD GROSSING Dr — wA. s.• ow wKnrs YK m w uncM. 9w,pv u.u( 5ER OPENtNC AS -BUILT DtNENyONS �.,. v a oar I mcmucuo Ar rx r.r+. - 1 Pt AN —W SFr.•TION NFW 0r9 PRINCIPAL OrSCNARCE TR CTVRE P/AN AND SE n N W5 FOR RESERVOIR �`OI tO '°''�� RAYMOND MARCH, P.E. .. — CAMP KEAIS STRAND SECTIONS & DETAILS L A NN .A19W AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT tl r 975 NEW HARVEST RD. `•'0 ''�` IMPH.(NLEE.7-5133A2 COLLIER ENTERPRISES � ....n.. PH. ALEF-5 -MI v>mn ..ram .ro:u 11 12 Exhibit 2.0 Application No. 120209-2 Page 12 of 13 WIN a jell B arCLla353a 01 91 S?QA&353a 111131NN07 3an17nalS JO M]41 110�1 s� ` , N ,,m�maa srn 01 rn��v _ 1 p � qq� f e-n O' n* ,V,-. , N 1 5 lnrx a,wJ S%3K NVId ONV NOIIJJS NOUYIS d6Od IVDIIJAI vu Ypyr ,x� enne J+O N NI D'Nl x, DI ]tl, SIJ11V YO _Or v�� I JI 10 N01103S ntnt D„oxJ olf omv b '9# SsV—lrz-rwN bo 'dS',U4.�.a. 1<:!„ �?..'�,...�:s:!.vc�.o!a✓'<.v� r/. '�. �1!�Y ?.(. � vo�i.9 �Je�rwt� �Jeur rEJdrui 6 � C 9 � a � w 0 od ' i z 77 `O 9 L 1 U w C/) r Z f Z U) w W a- 0 z L 1 f W v'3 w W .+^J 0 W Y p W UU J J g Q 6U W U �C G z CO G N . 4A .,, ................ .......... �. . ......... .. X ................. ............... SCALE: V 3000' ........... .......... LEGEND ........ llWMD WETLAND N114111hllll ISAQ.95 k2; Q 11WID *111111D IMPACT 49 93 A[ I) SECONDARY WETLAND IMPACT ffnSFWKD Is* 39 A.) Nz ... ...... ..... IFY0N0 PERMITTED 'AINFIELD IKII IMPACT... (I.. fil A[ 1) SFwmO OTHER "FACE WATERS NOTANI'ACIED ... .... 04 92 & 0 ...... SFWMD OTHER SURFACE WATERS IMPACT SURVEYED WETLAND LINE ... NOTES PROPERTY BOUNDARY FROM RAYMDND 4A CH P.E.DRAWING No,D7 ir R DATED OCTOBER 11. ZODY. AGRICULTURAL PLAN PER COLLIER ENTERPRISE ORAWINO NO. ... CAWKEAISSWO2012 OWG DATED FEBRUARY 6. 2012. WETLAND LINES PER Afill. INC, DRAWING No jDL-S-WORKSHEET TO KPISJUNly DATED NNE IS. ZEST WETLAND IMPACTS WERE APPROVED PURSUANT TO SFWHO PERMIT NO, It-01179-5 (APPLICATION He- 06DJOS-2) ISSUED ON FEBRUARY 12. 2009. SECONDARY 1117 WIrD W11 11 ..T,=.. IN C, .ACT I. S.t 175AQ I S-2 2.Qk.t 2.42 z IlwA— BQ)k i 114 A O?A, s-5 -WA— To, ACz SB wok, : ", 7— Ink! Ink- s-o Im'sk, TPA— 15A, 206k, 2—, ll'sAo'2 115A, 512 wA— o. 7A.= 040A,z D.A.- !LT. t alftl S-45 TWA 4 ow ACx 0.4E Acz S IQ IMIlAt. IVA jO9Acl &wA.= 0sw DSWo'W SW I=Alz ""A' . ll.tPA. TOTAL IT 418WA- 4UA'- ... s-I '"AtIIIA1.1 3MA,T Iw Al . s-2 D.A— 04 —A— s4 UlTA.! 0.17A= S-24 AMAL- 2IISA a. 13SA— B Wk.1 5-25 030k2 ODDkt 5.5 %.2,,A9 O,QA- S-25 woA— 6940sk- -8 WA— 053ftz 5-V (115A— CAs., ABA— 528 :" 240,ft= N. 39 ZOR A— LOOM, tot M.x 1.01 u, S-n lial., S.Io tMA. x 9S4k- lOQAo,l Am 0.71k.. 4: tl Acz ............ :-N? OHM A, k iklft.. I . '923i sn k 21.21 20A.: 2424 kw I I N ft S-I1 0.11 A0.11 —A- 1741A- 171,ft= ............ Is Ki :rx u A— 72 . , I .14 S �7 Two— 16285— TOTAL o�CSA­ A— VIA- C. k S lo I2IMAc "34 A� FFFW PFFW 5.0 112.k.. 112. Ac z N0. _1111AT TOTAL s., SR 100 31 ft. o0a�z 2 U A, 2 1. A. w 'D)v k ..........'. Sl k2 km 5 k V V. '. S.2 GD2k* A— SH I711 AA.xA, . S,3 1A21A— 4624A.2 45 104A- 450A- $41-12A'l 94. ]VA— 090 Al 16TAL 119111 A. IT-BI 5-17 1710TA I 54AcZ SCIA, 919 D.A_ 1) A. D.A zz S . S51 1457.1. A- owk 1 "I c 1457.w A, z S52 0 M A., 9.k .......... 5.51 55]A z 5.S3 A, ............ X S-" all A S.m 2.DSA- .. ......... ........ . ......... S5 7 1 "t 1" Act ..... TOTAL ��AGZt 9IiDAct �O�A— fH832y5kz CAMP KEAIS STRAND So'� 2w ft&PASSARELLA Fl.d& 3391'17 K.C.P. 14 7 \VETLAND IMPACT MAP ASSOCIATESY Ph—(139)274*067 ;r,7,—D V-(239) 274'W9 P.F. 3/6/12 Application No. 120209-2 1 of 2 ' �'• SCALE: I' - 30W •�.�• a ��� ay : e.. : LEGEND: ttt tu. SF WHD WETLAND HOT-InPACTEO (54t29] ACf) WETLAND IMPACT ®SFWMD Iv,9] Acfl SECONDARY WETLAND IMPACT ®SFWI/D 1]A.09 A,0 .-i'f1�71dS •/���':yy'.....;:.:;: BiwnD PEflH17 TE0 "IN fIELO (wETI In PgCT ''''-''' �. !vninief •,-•'-•' :fIt ddlii• • ' 1 I 1 SFWMO OTHER SURFACE WATERS NOT -IMPACTED 1 1 1 1 (16,92 AC. f) SFWMD OTHER SURFACE WATERS IMPACT • 9 . SURVEYED WETLAND LINE NOTES. PROPERTY BOUNDARY FROM RAYMOND MARCH. P.E.ORAW]NO N0.01-916M.6!9 DATED OCTOBER IB. Z00T. a N.+'el r,.• AGRIMWRAL PLAN PER COLLIER ENTERPRISE DRAWING NO, _ CAMPAEAl SSWO2012 DWG DATED firm— FEBRUARY 6. 2012 WETLAND LINES PER MR, INC. DRAWING _ :,:�Lr+e.oA Pt •.-:,' ;..:.•_• ; ::.; ,.• ..:... :.:: :.. • . N°.JDL-S-WORKSHEET TD KPISJUNO/.Awt GATED JUNE 16, 7001. WETLAND IMPACTS WERE APPROVED PURSUANT TO $PWhD PERMIT NO. II-01N6•S (APPLICATION NO- 060A03-2)1SSUED ON FEBRUARY 12 2009. ::::• -"•' - IMPACTS AND OFFSETTING MITIGATION PHASES K :: :0:;... ;...:•.: A A :.: <(4': z i :':• I 6 •:-:-:. i 1 9 O ti:•:•:•: �: �: :•i::. A 6 1 3 E E n CAMP KEAIS STRAND 13610 l.1<Irorofn A,<N,.r)/6/1' sm'l Imt'°a K.C.P' °'" 3/6/1'WETLANAIMPACTLOCATIONSMAP •�^� ,, ftPASSARELLA 64)vlsPI id.)3912 Pl('19)27+OD67 AND OFFSETTINGMITICATION & L'�SSQCIATESa Ft.(2)9)27+W69 IMPACT WETLANOI IMPACT OFFSETTING MITIGATION TYPE PFFW N0. ACRES MITIGATION ACRES PHASE NO. saz D.D7 5-19 5.p2 i DIRECT S-c2 O.Oa 1 WETLAND 5-4L 0.55 IMPACTS S-c6 5.46 0.56 0.93 S-L7 1.6L S-SI 0.80 I AND 2 172.p2 I S-7 5-10 4.72 2,Ofi I 5-11 0,1p j 0.60 SECONDARY WETLAND SL IMPACTS3.39 S-ia O.LB S•22 3.80 I S•3L 3.44 PFFW PFFW N0. LI t2 3 137,p1 IMPACT S-4 PFFW PFFW No. a.32 A 31.77 IMPACT S-' TOTALS BIJ6 34Z.00 �nI nuu u.0 Application No. 120209-2 2of2 .."s" LetrxD SRISMD W7 PLANP NOT -IMPACTED hF WMO WE TL AND IMMLI to es Ao1 VW.0 9ES6NhAR1 WETLAND IMPACT Irmo PfRM41TFO$ARM FIEL91W $IxPAA1 Si WMP 9TI0 $M FA?.9 WATERS ROT•IMPACTE9 PA 97 Ac 1) a. q } - - - L 3PwC A1) fl TAIRFA{i WAlnli lryP4CI [6 f {EWMO rERryIT hPFLiCe11ox 1164i1113-6 usivmb wk100 LINE WEI PRPkERT7 OWNPARY FROM RAYMOND xiRLH P E DRAWING, Ni 41-ILPM A- M" DATED OC I9AER11 l6Oi •� � ; a hORiWL111RAL FLAN PER COLLIEd CAWRl eISLRlp}bl}6WPP4AlEP jfeieii•, FEAIUARY A {ATE WETLAND LIxlf ER aPA INC d ^a •,pl.,•:•:•:':•: �': �•�:'�': �'�'� x6 AL-3�wbiASNEE7 I6 NPI{JuNe?VXW Ar8 OAIEO JUNE is A40 wMl M1 WjjL­iO .T TPA¢IS WERE MIT NO PNRSIIAnI TO WWMP P[RXIT NO 11-0II T13 gS1AN4eeA (APFLICATIdN NO beOIS{-!) 11VAD ON FE7RUA71r It 7P49 7. NinAxP wttLma winms w"m xd, NotAWRM115 INPAiI IAIEF A4YAL As 14AC - 241 A4! hl A,- 14ykt 31 /mAL iWAPa &A low A.A IQtljk! _ - AA EI6e7Aca X4eSACt e•7 eal4. ,YA Aei •"•" i:,' rtrt:.'�r•••ti /,7 1A116AGA IAl1Ska 2 4••.'•�•: -':L:i 1•ii i•. 11 7ma[a YChA[[ !•: j}'S AAA ■IeAev hll Lee •" 1: ••�• V`nl'.•. /.11 9PrAS• - hVAee � C,1� •• -, 7d7 - 4tlALa l484[t ,.._::•: -r r':, il:�':^s d:�.�1 n. 7.H _ ,.Alkt 41 Ax /•t/ 40SAG1 AUAos �;.;,•,', �;.. •: :•. [ i.17 191AiA ,.dlkf :;;••: LIA I[Ai7Ai= 14i AGa IN& Is AY! o/w ww e}W 911 Aihc, 6WA¢x - - A•:�::•:•'• 110. NO74kPA£Tl PAd$ ToIAL - 411n A. ;;a:•,:.•:..':}::: P1PI lit 4,IwAer e., TAT kA 1.47 k,! }.y4 AEOAea i41ACA 7E P49 Aii 4Mk.t {p! Ixb[G INm.. 9•A 41x Ant 411ka A id PmRC.i - oOSka i.0 P}l filer bli A¢a 8.6 6UACA - /4AA.A i.p4 edam A2G IAA C4Z -- i-0 6W AGa - d47ka },Rr h7d A[. OnACA : •L••, i-7 P74AGY - O1Aka }, itlAer iWAei ij•:!:};.�.• 11-e EOIACY 7191A¢! i.¢y tlMkr APA. «P, iP I0I44 I41A¢a /•11 OTOAex OO4Ace }� ltlka II1ACl },jl 4, MAex 4171 A4G - - /•Il i4AiY 7NA9.■ }.� tlllks P79Asr ••' •'•'::•::•: i•17 IPrACx 19/AG■ S.� 74Atk! Ae i, Ac9 :;:;:r�1{LrQi: A,4, :':'�: i•IA APP A<4 199Ace /.+ IN A91 PA1AG, i•M PI,k! O71Mi 7.AS ,rATA,A It Ir A[a lly�} il{ PRlkf PIFA.. 136 /11AAc1 >1RCGr --�!�;-;'N• do Aea !At 1tl MAST ee IllA,= V, Tom I.mm. 678A. a 197OA2e 7.7A O71 k.A '6yeG= fO1 IE iAAc[ I-e 1124TAil PIFW AIMIntl lane! xm, mid_ 9.41 2'd1AtA ?}IAL! e•1 ALWAit 7Pmk.A 6.4f MAN kA 4OAAca Im 7r A[ Y f-r AAA A. Is 1, 44 nItW f■ InAet •Y 39 41 IsMf 4e24 Ae.a /• 9JIAGi Tf AN V /•4 i1.li_+La eI,Ii Ae.! i46 104ACA IMACA - I.AlA -- 4 TOIAC 41/41Ma 159 Al Alf 'a A. a77AGi AAei /47 ITT4$Afi IN-, Ira hl AA! •:'�y}�I� A41 IW At btl! 41 '', 744 4a7 AS• bNkkx 74G, 11- I.17AAA 741 IU$If .A4 A4a PiIAGa IUlAim ,! Am 9AIk L - /11k 1 I.W eiik a hS1Ac A S N A77ka - dll AC lr a-YS 4F1 ALa - o71API 4.IP Efeki 4138ka U. Afll 7pTAL iW WAz: AMA- A MA1 bW2k c. T NR ! Ifb:n+l.Ixq uAASeNN. I. Lv1�lPr CAMP KL"AIS STRAND %PASSARELLA '""° r,xl }i}t'Th 1'maaA))01: K.C.P. Lvlif{,) $ WETLAND IMPACrNArWITH g� ASSOCIATES fnNn,.l:wfars�aa) OAKAYOFAPPLICAI•ION N-c+anfnf� rA4Ltl91:T46Oh9 r.'F. 4119lIS Exhlpit 3.1 Applicellon No, 120209-2 iof1 I CAMP KEAIS STRAND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT WETLAND MITIGATION/MONITORING/MAINTENANCE 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. 11-01178-S, 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-S, Application No. 990107-4, issued by SFWMD on August 9, 2001. The Project 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 332.381 acres of wetlands and 9.62E acres of uplands located within the Camp Keais Strand on the east side of the property. The enhancement and management of the 332.38E acres of wetlands within the mitigation area will offset 9.93± acres of direct impacts and 30.39E 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 S-4. PFFW Nos. S-1 (25.93f acres) and S-3 (46.24f 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 E-4 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 natural recruitment of native vegetation is not successful 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 terebinthifolius). The following are descriptions of the existing wetland and upland vegetative habitats and the listed species utilization within the mitigation area: Wetland Habitats Brazilian Pamper Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 4221) The canopy and sub -canopy are dominated by Brazilian pepper. The sub -canopy may also contain guava (Psidium spp.) and/or primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana). Ground cover vegetation is Passarella & Associates, Inc. HOSCEM1481 Revised 05/08/12 1 of 8 Exhibit 3.2 Application No. 120209-2 1 of 10 mostly absent, but may include scattered torpedograss (Panicum repens), paragrass (Urochloa mutica), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), and/or Asiatic pennywort (Centella asiatica). Willow Disturbed (0-24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6189 E1) The canopy and sub -canopy vegetation is dominated by Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana) with Brazilian pepper. Typical ground cover vegetation includes one or a combination of the following: wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), saltbush (Baccharis halimifolia), primrose willow, sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense), cattail (Typha spp.), bushy broomgrass (Andropogon glonzeratus), smartweed (PolygonamT spp.), maidencane (Panicum heinitomon), alligator flag (Thalia geniculata), pickerelweed (Pontedaria cordata), arrowhead (Sagittaria lancifolia), climbing hempvine (Mikania scandens), torpedograss, and/or paragrass. Willow Disturbed (25-49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6189 E2) The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6189 E1, except with 25 to 49 percent coverage by exotic species. Willow Disturbed (76-100% Exotics) FLUCFCS Code 6189 E41 The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6189 El, except with 76 to 100 percent coverage by exotic species. Cypress Disturbed (0-24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6219 E1) The canopy is dominated by cypress and may also include scattered red maple (Ater 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 aguatica), climbing hepvine, and/or primrose willow. In some locations, Japanese climbing fern (Lygodium japonicum) and/or Old World climbing fern (Lygodium microphyllum) are present. Cypress, Disturbed 25-49% Exotics FLUCFCS Code 6219 E2 The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6219 El, 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 El, except with 76 to 100 percent coverage by exotic species. Pine/Cypress/Cabbage Palm Disturbed (25-49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6249 E2) The canopy vegetation includes a combination of cypress, slash pine (Pinus 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 beakrush (Rhynchospora spp.). Passarella & Associates, Inc. #05CEM1481 Revised 05/08/12 2of8 Exhibit 3.2 Application No. 120209-2 2of10 Pine/Cypress/Cabbage Palm Disturbed (50-75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6249 E3) 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 6259 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 muhlenbergianunr), torpedograss, cordgrass (Spartina bakeri), beakrush (Rhychospora spp.), musky mint (Hyptis alata), bog button (Lachnocaulon spp), Asiatic pennywort, and occasional saw palmetto (Serenoa repens). Hydric Cabbage Palm Disturbed (50-75% 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 nodiora), bushy broomgrass, and Asiatic pennywort. Wetland Mixed Hardwood -Conifer Disturbed 25-49% Exotics FLUCFCS Code 6309 E2 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 (50-75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6309 E3) The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6309 E2, except with 50 to 75 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 rigidulum), swamp sunflower (Helianthus angustifolius), water pennywort (Hydrocotyle spp.), primrose willow, cattail, paragrass, and torpedograss. Freshwater Marsh Disturbed 25-49% Exotics FLUCFCS Code 6419 E2 The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6419 E1, except with 25 to 49 percent coverage by exotic vegetation. Freshwater Marsh Disturbed 50-75% Exotics FLUCFCS Code 6419 E3 The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6419 El, except with 50 to 75 percent coverage by exotic vegetation. Freshwater Marsh,.Disturbed (76-100% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6419 E4) The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6419 El, except with 76 to 100 percent coverage by exotic vegetation. Passarella & Associates, Inc. #05CEM1481 Revised 05/08/12 3of8 Exhibit 3.2 Application No. 120209-2 3of10 Upland Habitats Pine Flatwoods. Disturbed (0 — 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4119 ED 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 (Aristida spp.), bushy broomgrass, beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), muscadine grapevine (Vitis rotundifolia), dog fennel, pennyroyal (Piloblephis rigida), and caesarweed (Urena lobata). Pine Flatwoods. Disturbed (25 — 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4119 E2) The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 4119 El, except with 25 to 49 percent coverage by exotic species. Pine Flatwoods Disturbed (50 — 75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4119 E3) The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 4119 El, except with 50 to 75 percent coverage by exotic species. WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN The wetland mitigation plan will be conducted in four phases and consists of enhancing and managing a total of 342.00± acres of habitat within Camp Keais Strand (332.38f acres of wetlands and 9.62f acres of uplands). The phases of mitigation were delineated to offset specific wetland and PFFW impacts. Mitigation Phase Nos. 1 and 2, totaling 172.62t 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 137.61f acres and offsets potential impacts to PFFW No. S-4 fimctions when converted to non -agriculture use. Mitigation Phase No. 4 totals 31.77t 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 (30.70t acres in Phase 1, 19.09± acres in Phase 2, 50.05f acres in Phase 3, and 2.77t 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 l 1 species provided in Table 1. Passarella & Associates, Inc. #05CEM1481 Revised 05/08/12 4of8 Exhibit 3.2 Application No. 120209-2 4of10 Table 1. Supplemental Wetland Planting List Common Name Scientific Name Minimum Height. Minimum Container Size Planting Density On Center Tree Plan tin s Cypress Taxodium s p, 5 ft. 3 gal. 10 ft. Dahoon Holly Ilex cassine 5 ft. 3 gal. 10 ft. Pop Ash Fraxinus caroliniana 5 ft. 3 al. 10 ft. Red Maple Acer rubrum 5 ft. 3 gal. 10 ft. Laurel Oak I Quercus lauri olia 5 ft. 3 gal. loft Slash Pine Pinus elliottii 5 ft. 3 gal. 10 ft. Shrub PlanPla' tihizs Wax Myrtle M rica ceri era 3 ft, 1 gal. 10 ft. M rsine Ra anea punctata 3 ft. 1 gal. 10 ft. Gallberry Ilex jzlabra 3 ft. 1 gal. 10 ft. Buttonbush Ce halanthus occidentalis 3 ft. 1 gal. 10 ft. Ground Cover Plantin s Cordgrass S artina bakeri 12 in. 4 in. 4 ft. Gulfdune Pas alum Pas alum monostach um 12 in. 4 in. 4 ft. Tickseed Coreo sis spp. 12 in. 4 in. 4 ft. Lovegrass Era rostis spp. 12 in. 4 in. 4 ft. Sawgrass Cladium 'amaicense 12 in. 4 in. 4 ft. Maidencane Panicum hemitonion 12 in. 4 in, 4 ft. Pickerelweed Pontederia cm -data 12 in. 4 in. 4 ft. Arrowhead Sa ittaria lanci olia 12 in. 4 in. 4 ft. Soft -Stem Bulrush Scir us validus 12 in. 4 in. 4 ft. S ikerush Eleocharis interstincta 12 in. 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 (EPPC) 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. 905CEM1481 Revised 05/08/12 5of8 Exhibit 3.2 Application No. 120209-2 5of10 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 will constitute no more than five percent and exotics will constitute no more than one percent of total combined cover. MONITORING 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 transect. 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 event by qualified ecologists. Observations 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- frame aquatic dip net, mesli size one millimeter. Sampling will be conducted along vegetation monitoring transects with a minimum of two centimeters of standing water. The collector will work the net vigorously within the vegetation, open water, and surficial bottom sediments. Net contents Passarella & Associates, Inc. #05CEM1481 Revised 05/08/12 6of8 Exhibit 3.2 Application No. 120209-2 6of10 will be placed in a white pan and sorted with forceps. Hard substrate, if any, will also be examined for the presence of aquatic macroinvertebrates. 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 and Monitoring Well 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. MONITORING 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. Passarella & Associates, Inc. 405CEM1481 Revised 05/08/12 7of8 Exhibit 3.2 Application No. 120209-2 7of10 REFERENCES Bonham, C.D. 1989. Measurements for Terrestrial Vegetation, John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. Passarella & Associates, Inc. R05CEM1481 Revised 05/08/12 8of8 Exhibit 3.2 Application No. 120209-2 8of10 I, I.. runsel.lX4 KEY MAP 4 L07.61 AcA] ll4LRv 174 f.I4,0 f] ' T It, Rrwre �n]x]wlnuR !' ,r`P4NIil Ills f.11l[IpMITf . I •�� ..1 - 1 �� IIWTIar WS,LYTIaM •1!l . l ^MNv ••' �� I1Rrh@Mh4d IN 'r�i nt� r.nna rAM[Rtt I4uAMr ! Ran lurnola . .PXA6lNO, 21 Y"•,�N!f - _r�#:°"�' .►cnrlor.NlwlloP:aL�Qev xr45 �'�•1. WS!}4[T411R 11, 14P7. -MMTlr4l Rw — [r.IKR II.TIR/y1[ M4MM1T. 1p �4wT 1 ',-nx , :. [wflRlNwrolo..a wrS4 V .•xr'.! ! �An '•..". - nRRW 4WI rM NI. m. Dm—m Igrx'4-.OkjP"1 Il v,uuproq .. a 11 •, a � �-L�! �i � r � �..`r- _ [ le ,vy 0.. 794r. kI" •1 •�:, r_ _ - rlW<]Vlli l[lYLLlrl lRp, R•GIO1lIrv1+10 ��� a'� lau7gMi SMllluu7lq � ( .r =•; hl[rt4lll rlmoa 4fW l61. �- 11' •'rr 4R OM a'NFw CWi Tl /�-��s (1• I - ,` n �'�! TTIILn IhIRlLil lr/gr m97 y ��j` _ _•�y� - �rwsewa,l 111174 Aral —.�. I — . . v \ - w I I I CAMPKEAISSTAAND 7 MITIGATION AREA FLUCFCS MAP BY PHASE 4 5CME, V-aG0 MITIGATION AREA FI,UCPCS BY PHASE FI],[rC} MNl[ [ il,rsrl MVA[7 0AW4 TOTR] 'x'.�al PwAW pxla erbl ay r'+ wal4iYrwtl W}Ioti, [,uKµ I�iPIP .ni 1,• 11T I\v lrrnw¢.,arwNIMl51 e•mnl [q an TII liI 4],]il l]•r4,WM.yp7 CpMM. Vu4,TH A]1\ra,[y oil aq 4n1 NN+r1]. Mink I77 I5r i Y[ISrv,garglq pY74'7,r�JL4r1 Ifr 04] l'hLf R[[4 N'14-. Glwosfl%lmala+tq 4N - 471 g1rf1 �i'Rr�bYrMtllgNk r.r.r,l 64.r - !n 11]4 fj �.�, �4Si15++r.r4 by mil Taal NY ,p11 • u59EP [hPnIR YF'N' P4.u14a S'i 1P0R lyd4y 4l.7F} Gypi„ l'/5M1aiJ[!W rLM or,n,�y w 1.01 7 M a ¢1.K I.o.o} gh4Rla 6Ypw['rF1'WFp4 WNt O,ewof r.a•.tS ] u1 •q IIM lxirri 11M. [f 71]a.�/Nl, O1NMtlftl 1py Ccwc,1 ]}m lart []p - aM IISo M I -W] 1r catbp4 P.m. G,.e.n.a Mrsr r.p+rrl 410 4Jo } kwKk Irswa7 Cu•,r. G4vwe F]17�E+14N MM5 W.1yra Vr4tl Wv.ow t—o•-,LL-•Nnti [•Crwl 6aQ 111 Im IIM I.R }R7 rs4a k I MII[, fn�„��urw,nrrtaf 011, E—) old nu Mlr[i r .Nx>++r�.ol.+tw, f7f 4sr lre,y7 671 - 071 L MIM}TWA* Nwwrr lW,n. Gf]new Polar rwl4u i,] - - 71a 7 S•k-.__3'` IH 2I 136W Menapnlu Alrnw I. w �.I I i PASSAREL A �1wi11: `IIFOT M& SSOC ATES i ran1,1]�n.Flu�lRawn rnq 4(t]v177amd7 K.C.P. 1u1v�r _ FS]l2l4i211i: F,L rrvi7 Exhlblt 12 Application No. 120200,2 0ofi0 V-A CAMP KEAIS STRAND P MITIOATIONAND MONITORING PLAN PHASE NO.3 AWAI &4 PAMLNQ i 0 i 3,T7 Am) ftPASSARELLA & MCWTESII ILEX MAP Aam SCALE 4w atop I"'^7 srmre.errya vane alnx4l�MxICIMnn ia1 a Aa.{ i„-1 t1 a ar rt �� YAR,•t,ea.n,t,.4Ly4 _..--. nna.fe. N71 hWt Ya,wta. �. wr71 a niw.,+M ui. .. �ea.�,Pbea nararsr C3 ,AL4ra•.4P n07 >ir rrWtP9u,W1 MWI ,eba,al.Aaa7LL* wrt. Yl�aµn� ur arW 41! R.tX ruAi•1 Y Y haw�w M.arifylpry Paf1l flarGLt11 u ipp] O�,fO AM N, Ip1, FMOr M1 ALRgy,i/14IUN 1!A 14XW L+,G�lwfaa7GL hr4 6lV7tiY InNafl � r4l L36lDMenap&k,A,r4,* - .l. ,,ete z� Pare M".. AP.tr6 73911 K.C.P. PhanL{!1S}!74 i Wa .lull. " F.L "illwt �-1 AppZallon No. 120200-2 10 of 10 South Florida Water Management District Work Schedule Requirements Application No : 120209-2 Mitigation Plan ID: CAMP KEAIS PH 1 Activity . . SUBMIT FIRST MONITORING REPORT SUBMIT SECOND MONITORING REPORT SUBMIT THIRD MONITORING REPORT SUBMIT FOURTH MONITORING REPORT SUBMIT FIFTH MONITORING REPORT Mitigation Plan ID: CAMP KEAIS PH 2 Activity SUBMIT TIME ZERO MONITORING REPORT SUBMIT FIRST MONITORING REPORT SUBMIT SECOND MONITORING REPORT SUBMIT THIRD MONITORING REPORT SUBMIT FOURTH MONITORING REPORT SUBMIT FIFTH MONITORING REPORT Page 1 of 1 Due Date 30-JUN-12 30-JUN-13 30-JUN-14 30-JUN-15 30-JUN-16 Due Date 30-JUN-12 30-JUN-13 30-JUN-14 30-JUN-15 30-JUN-16 30-JUN-17 Exhibit 3.3 Application No. 120209-2 1 of 1 STAFF REPORT DISTRIBUTION LIST CAMP KEAIS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT Application No: 120209-2 Permit No: 11-01178-S INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION X Jessica White, P.E. X Karyn Allman X Laura Layman X Daniel F. Waters, P.E. X A. Bain X A. Waterhouse X C. Tears X ERC Engineering X ERC Environmental X Fort Myers Backup File X Fort Myers Service Center Director X Permit File EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION X Permittee - Collier Enterprises Management Inc X Env Consultant - Passarella And Associates, Inc. X Owner - Collier Land Holdings L T D GOVERNMENT AGENCIES X Div of Recreation and Park - District 4 - FDEP OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES X Audubon of Florida - Charles Lee X Conservancy of South West Florida Amber Crooks INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE POTABLE WATEI, ANDWAS MAT R UTILITYSERVICES THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT("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"), and Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Landowner"). 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 and wastewater 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 and wastewater 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 Bellmar Village; and WHEREAS, this Agreement is intended to reduce to writing the terms and conditions between the CCWSD, the District and the Landowner as to the exclusive provision of utility services by the CCWSD within the Bellmar Village area of the District. NOW, THEREFORE, the CCWSD, the District and the Landowner agree as follows: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 2. The Landowner shall construct and pay for potable water mains and wastewater facilities within the Bellmar Village development including but not limited to gravity sewers, force mains and pump stations and a community pump station 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. 2004-31, as amended, otherwise known as the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures 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, CCWSD shall be responsible for maintenance and operations of such accepted facilities. The CCWSD shall construct potable water transmission mains and wastewater force mains at the Bellmar Point of Connection (POC) which shall be available to serve Bellmar 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 CCWSD agreed to provide the necessary potable/firewater design flows at a minimum pressure of 60 psi in the potable water system at the POC by September 30, 2024. The developers, through their design(s), will size their system(s) as required. The CCWSD agrees to provide a wastewater system head value of 60 psi for the projected wastewater flows at the POC by September 30, 2024. 6. The Landowner agrees to provide the IQ water distribution system and supply system for the Village. The Landowner will require all developers in Bellmar to install an internal residential IQ system to serve residential areas and the Village Center in accordance with the LDC. The Landowner within Bellmar Village agree to pre -pay water and wastewater impact fees to the CCWSD without expiration (the "prepayment"). Landowner shall reserve water capacity equivalent to 650 ERC's and wastewater capacity equivalent to 350 ERC's in advance. The prepayment shall be due no later than thirty (30) days after Landowner's receipt and acceptance of. a. An approved and non -appealable SRA for the Bellmar 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 2 Y� 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. 10. This Agreement shall remain in effect until terminated by the CCWSD, the District or the Landowner. 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 District or the Landowner 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, 11. 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/Landowner: Patrick Utter, Collier Enterprises, Vice President of Real Estate and Club Operations, 999 Vanderbilt Beach Road, Suite 507, Naples, FL 34108, 12, 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 rnisconduct, lumowing 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. 13. 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 andthe same instrument. 14. Recording, This Agreement shall be recorded in the Public Records of Coll ier 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: Crystal Kinzel, Clerk Clerk Approve s to f `rm legal surf%tt: ey l Jeffrey A. Klatzko, County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: 4 Penny Taylor, Chair ATTEST: ATTEST: \j BIG CYPRESS STEWARDSHIP DISTRICT BY: 'v Patrick L. U er, President COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS, Ltd. BY: Patr'ick L. Utter, Vice President BELLMAR ABSORPTION SCHEDULE A Infrastructure Litigation/Permit Construction By Year 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027- 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 Total Rivergrass Residential 210 200 200 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 200 40 25041 Commercial 50,000 6,000 6,000 18,000 80,000 Longwater Residential 55 200 200 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 135 0 0 Commercial 40,000 5,000 5,000 30,000 80,000G Bellmar Residential 110 200 225 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 215 Commercial 50,000 6,000 6,000 23,000 85,000 Total 175 400 510 700 725 750 750 750 750 750 700 425 250 215. - Litigation/Permit Construction Cumulative 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 Rivergrass Residential 110 310 SO 760 1,010 1,26.0 1,510 1,760 2,010 2,260 2,460 2,500 Commercial Longwater Residential 65 265 465 715 965 1,215 1,465 1,715 1,965 2,215 2,465 Commercial Bellmar Residential 110 310 535 795 1,035 1,285 1,535 1,785 2,035 2,285 2,535 Commercial Total Residential 175 575 1,085 1,785 2,510 3,260 4,010 4,760 5510 6,260 6,950 7,385 7,635 Commercial 0 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Bellmar Advance ERC's Water 650 650.0 $95.0 495.0 322.5 257.5 132.5 ERC's at 50% (55.01 (100,.01 (m2-5) (125.0) (125:0) (132.5) Balance ERCs 595.0 495.0 382.5 257.5 132.5 0.0 Water $3,382 2025 2026 2027 2028 Advance ERC's Wastewater iSp ,: 350.0 295.0 195.0 82.5 ERCs-at50% (55,0) (100,0) (1,12S) (82-5) Balance ERC's 295-0 195.0 82.5 M Wastewater $3,324 650 Water $2,198,300 350 Wastewater $2,154,100 Total Advance $4,352,400 NIM DOCUMENTS NIM Summary Bellmar Village SRA (PL-20190001837) Tuesday, August 4, 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 Bellmar Village. Bellmar Village SRA is proposed to allow up to 2,750 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. Bellmar Village will include a minimum of 68,750 square feet and a maximum of 85,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and a minimum of 27,500 square feet, of civic, governmental and institutional uses. Note: This is a summary of the NIM. An audio recording is also provided. Attendees: Four members of the public attended via Zoom: Meredith Budd, Charlotte Nycklemoe, Nicole Johnson and April Olson. On behalf of the Applicants: 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 Heather Phillips, Ecologist, Passarella & Associates County Staff: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section 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 ten minutes of questions from the public in attendance. The following questions were raised: Village Design Questions were raised regarding the location of panther fencing, if the Village will utilize wildlife friendly/dark skies light and bear proof trashcans, and if the buffers provided utilize any of the suggestions from the 2006 East Collier Wildlife Movement Study prepared by Dr. Daniel Smith. Perimeter panther fencing will be located wherever there is not a lake perimeter buffer. It is too early in the process for lighting design; however, the applicant will research wildlife friendly/dark skies lighting. During the permitting process, the County requires a Co -existence Plan that will be HA2019\2019051\SRA\NIM\Bellmar Village SRA NIM Summary (8-4-2020).doex made available to residents that educates them on the proximity of wildlife and, among other things, the necessity of bear proof trash cans. The proposed buffers meet RLSA requirements and may not be identical to those suggested in the East Collier Wildlife Movement Study. General/Misc. A member of the public asked if the applicant has applied to establish SSA18. The applicant has not applied. Questions were asked regarding co-ordination with the nearby wildlife refuge areas with regards to land management and prescribed burns. During the permitting process, the applicant will work with the refuge to coordinate any necessary prescribed burns. In an adjacent Village, a condition was put in place that agreed to include notification that prescribed burns will occur in the HOA documents, and that residents will be provided notification when these burns occur. A question was asked regarding the grading of the proposed density. Although it is too early for specifics, the applicant has made a commitment that the Village Center will include multi- family family development, so it has been designed to incorporate compact, higher density. The applicant anticipates additional multi -family development in close proximity, with lower density development closer to the perimeter of the project. The meeting concluded at approximately 5:50 PM. H:\2019\2019051\SILO\NIM\Bellmar Village SRA NIM Summary (8-4-2020).doex Nalitts "i3 a," tils �N- LJOIN PART OF7HE USA TODAY NETWORK Published Daily Naples, FL'34110 HOLE MONTES ASSOCIATES INC 920 ENCORE WAY SUITE 200 NAPLES, FL 34110 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WISCONSIN COUNTY OF BROWN Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared said legal clerk who on oath says that (s)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. 07/20/2020 Subscribed and sworn to before off:July 31, 2020: Notary, State of WI, County of Brown TARA MONDLOCI-I Notary Public State of Wisconsin My commisslon expires; August 6, 2021 Publication Cost: $945.OD Ad No: GCI0454986 Customer No: 324483 PO#: 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: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. New Hope Ministries, Event Center, Lecture Hall — Room 211 7675 Davis Boulevard, Naples, FL 34104 ;The following formal application has been made to Collier County: Petition SRA-PL20190001837 — A petition to designate a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) within the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay District in the form of a Village consisting of 999.78t acres of land located in eastern Collier County, The SRA is to be known as Bellmar Village. Bellmar Vlllade SRA is pr' ' ed to atbw.°'up to 2,750=dwbIIing units of which .a,.m i.Imum of 1 °X will be muj�i-family, a mina, ... of 10% will be single-family detached, and a minimum of 10% will be single-family attached or villas. Belln*r Village will include a minimum of 68,750 square feet and a max m—.,tjm of 85,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and a minimum of 27,500 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses. The subject property is located east of Desoto Boulevard and south of Oil Well Road in eastern Collier County in Sections 2, 3, 10, and 11, Township 49 South, and Range 28 East, WE VALUE YOUR INPUT 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 Nelgi borhood.Meet�ii.ggi meng gm. and we will send a link of the video: Yob may'also email any comments or questions to : c k l7c .h'0odMeeting'Q.h`m.erig.co:m. Please reference Bellmar Village SRA in subject line. Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, President, Hole Montes, Inc., 950 Encore Way, Naples, FL 34110 Phone: 239-254-2000 NPCC104SOW01 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA (PL-20190001837) TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2020 AT 5:30PM PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY ***Pease be advised*** The information on this sheet is to contact you regarding this project and future public meetings. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses, phone numbers and certain home addresses are public records once received by a government agency. If you do not want your e-mail address, phone number or home address released if the County receives a public records request, you can refrain from including such information on this sheet. You have the option of checking with the county staff on your own to obtain updates on the project as well as checking the County Web site for additional information. 950 Encore Way ^ Naples, Florida 34110 o Phone 239.254.2000 . Fax: 239.254.2099 July 20, 2020 Re: Bellmar Village SRA (PL-20190001837) HM File No. 2019.051 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 Bellmar Village. Bellmar Village SRA is proposed to allow up to 2,750 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. Bellmar Village will include a minimum of 68,750 square feet and a maximum of 85,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and a minimum of 27,500 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses. The subject property is located cast of Desoto Boulevard and south of Oil Well Road in eastern Collier County in Sections 2, 3, 10, and 11, Township 49 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 Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. at New Hope Ministries, Event Center, Lecture Hall - Room 211, 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 participate via Zoom or view a video of the meeting, please email us at NeighborhoodMeeting_ghmen .com and we will send you a link. You may also email any comments or questions to NeighborhoodMeeting_@hmeng.com. Please reference Bellmar Village SRA in subject line. Very truly yours, HOLE MONTES, INC. Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP President RJM/sek 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. For the purposes of this requirement, the names and addresses of property owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tax rolls of Collier County and any other persons or entities who have made a formal request 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 27th day of Jul-- , 2020 by means of physical presence or online notarization, by Robert J. Mulhere, who is personally known to me_ or who has produced as identification. Signature of Notary Public Printea Name of Notary (Notary Seal) E v�rSTEPHANIE IUDFlorjda- -& Notary Public StateCommission 9 GG My Comm. Expires MBonded through National N H:\2019\2019051\SRA\NINBAffidavit of Compliance (7-27-2020)Aoc W70 09 [9/09190 k10AV 0001 algiJedwoo tutu Lg x ww 9Z JetuJoJ op aljanblt� - dV-.LS 0918/0949® haaAVgjI n algltedwoo „g/g Z x „I. azis Iggel o '_° 1110 GGE LLC 1 4830 LOT LLC A & M AMERICAN INVESTMENTS LLC 239 BAYFRONT DR PO BOX 457 I 5278 GOLDEN GATE PKWY BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 --- 0 ROSCOE, NY 12776 --- 0 I NAPLES, FL 34116 --- 0 ABASCAL, WILFREDO i I ADAN, CARLOS A ALBARRAN, JOSEPH 24540 SW 122ND AVE i i 3810 16TH AVE NE I ' WENDI MALONE HOMESTEAD, FL 33032 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34105 --- 0 I 521 SW 11TH ST i FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33315--- 1266 ALEJANDRE, J REYES ALVAREZ, OREL RODRIGUEZ I i APPU DURAI, SANTHANA i MARTHA CID DE ALEJANDRE I ARLETYS Y BORMEY SANTANA j HARDAT LALLA % GLORIA PERLOWIN i 4663 2ND AVE NE 4470 GOLDEN GATE BLVD E 15237 CORTONA WAY NAPLES, FL 34120 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34120--- 9044 I NAPLES, FL 34120 --- 0 I I ARTILES, MARLENE LEON i ASTUQUIPAN, ELKY R I ( ASTUQUIPAN, ELKY R 4931 10TH AVE SE ISMAEL HERRERA JR ! ISMAEL HERRERA JR NAPLES, FL 34117 --- 0 4206 BELLASOL CIR #721 4206 BELLASOL CIR #721 FORT MYERS, FL , 33916 --- 0 FORT MYERS, FL 33916 --- 0 BAILIE, LAWRENCE G BARRON COLLIER P'SHIP LLLP ( BARRON COLLIER P'SHIP LLLP MARIANNE D BAILIE I 2600 GOLDEN GATE PKWY # 200 2600 GOLDEN GATE PKWY# 200 4881 TEAK WOOD DR I NAPLES, FL 34105--- 3227 NAPLES, FL 34105--- 3227 NAPLES, FL 34119---2501 { I BEEZLEY, M H BELANGER, DONALD J 1 BOCANEGRA, JENNIETEMPRANA C/O LORI MEYER 560 DESOTO BLVD N j I 701 E 24TH ST 54 FLEETWOOD RD NW I NAPLES, FL 34120--- 9021 i HIALEAH, FL 33013-- 3927 CEDAR RAPIDS, IA 52405 --- 0 i BOND, JUDITH E BRAVIN, BEN I f BROOKS, JEFFREY 747 92ND AVE N DAN BRAVIN 4825 6TH AVE SE NAPLES, FL 34108--- 2432 2360 PELHAM AVE NAPLES, FL 34117--- 9040 LOS ANGELES, CA 90064--- 2212 i I I I i ( CADETTE, EDMOND & SELMA I i CALAFELL, MARIA ELENA 1 CANODE, KEVIN 14723 229TH ST I 424 PARK AVE APT 601 i 2400 6TH ST NW SPRNGFLD GDNS, NY 11413--- 4430 I RIVER FOREST, IL 60305 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34120 -1365 f CANTAVE, GARY & BERNADETTE I iI CASTELLANOS EST, ROBERTO j CASTILLO, FRANK 4645 GOLDEN GATE BLVD E l % CARMEN M TALAVERA I 4675 4TH AVE NE i NAPLES, FL 34120---9026 14011 SW 28TH ST I I NAPLES, FL 34120--- 9011 MIAMI, FL 33175--- 6666 CDC LAND INVESTMENTS LLC ( CDC LAND INVESTMENTS LLC , CDC LAND INVESTMENTS LLC 2550 GOODLETTE RD N #100 2550 GOODLETTE RD N #100 ' 2550 GOODLETTE RD N #100 i NAPLES, FL 34103 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34103 --- 0 ` NAPLES, FL 34103 --- 0 ® i label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery ®5160/8160 STAPP- � etiquette do format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec,Avery 05160/8160 04A CHAND, GURUDEO & BIBI 6670NW 101STTER PARKLAND, FL 33076---2923 CHOUCOUNE, JEAN CLAUDE EVELINE CHOUCOUNE VALDE 660 DESOTO BLVD N NAPLES, FL 34120---0 COLLIER CNTY C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS LTD 2550 GOODLETTE RD N #100 NAPLES, FL 34103 --- 0 COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS LTD 2550 GOODLETTE RD N #100 NAPLES, FL 34103 --- 0 COTO, JUAN & LINDA 3900 NW 79TH AVE HOLLYWOOD, FL 33024--- 8330 CRUZ, LEANDRO TERRATRUSTLLC 4550 SW 133RD AVE MIAMI, FL 33175 --- 0 D ANDREA, ARMAND %NICK D ANDREA 1309 GLENWOOD AVE JOLIET, IL 60435--- 5827 DON MAR INVESTMENTS LLC 1840 GLENMONT DR NW CANTON, OH 44708 --- 0 ERZAK ENTERPRISES LLC 3932 VALENTIA WAY NAPLES, FL 34119--- 7513 091-5/09 [90 IlaaAV 99AU alg1ledw00 LUW �9 x WW 9Z jewAol. op a3,19nb11� 0948/0919® AJaAV Eldon alglyedwoo „9/9 Z x „I. azls lagel CHAND, GURUDEO & BIBI 6670 NW 101STTER PARKLAND, FL 33076---2923 I I CODMAN, JOHN C & ANNE W 825 DESOTO BLVD N j NAPLES, FL 34120---9018 j i � I COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS LTD 2550 GOODLETTE RD N #100 I NAPLES, FL 34103 --- 0 i j fl COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS LTD 2550 GOODLETTE RD N #100 I j NAPLES, FL 34103 --- 0 COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS LTD l 2550 GOODLETTE RD N #100 NAPLES, FL 34103--- 2714 I CRUZJR, GREGORIO LEA CRUZ 7705 TARA CIRCLE #205 NAPLES, FL 34104 --- 0 I CRUZ, LEANDRO D i TERRATRUST LLC 4550 SW 133RD AVE j MIAMI, FL 33175 --- 0 I I I DALIAN, ANTOINETTE &JOSEPH 8484 EATON RD DAVISBURG, MI 48350--- 1502 j i j . EASTERN COLLIER PROPERTIES LLC j MARTIN GENAUER 3.450 BRICKELL AVE #1900 MIAMI, FL 33131 --- 0 I ' I ESCOBAR, ETELBERTO 6245 SW 192 AVENUE PEMBROKE PINES, FL 33332 --- 0 i label size 1" x.2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160/8160 Etiquette do format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 CHAPARRO, ANDRES & LOURDE 2826 NW 4TH ST CAPE CORAL, FL 33993--- 7033 COLLIER CNTY C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS LTD 2550 GOODLETTE RD N #100 NAPLES, FL 34103 --- 0 COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS LTD 2550 GOODLETTE RD N #100 NAPLES, FL 34103 --- 0 CORTES, CARLOS 2325 51ST ST SW NAPLES, FL 34117--- 3317 CRUZ, ALEJANDRO MONICA CRUZ 540 N DESOTO BLVD NAPLES, FL 34120 --- 0 CUSTOM HOMES BY KAYE INC 163 EDGEMERE WAY SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34105 --- 0 DAVIS, RONALD & DELORIS 160 GILROY AVE UNIONDALE, NY 11553--- 1249 ECHAGARUA, JESUS 8000 SW 210TH ST APT B-504 CUTLER BAY, FL 33189--- 4037 ESTRADA, MAGDIEL REYES 4815 GOLDEN GATE BLVD E NAPLES, FL 34120 --- 0 04A 09 1-9/09 G9OO AJaAV oaAe algedwoo WW L9 x LULU 9Z jiumo} op allanb1q 0918/091900 tiiaAV gjlm apledu103 „2/9 Z x „ 1. azls lagel oaMdVIS FAM, SAMUEL A FORD, ANITA B FRESNEDA, TERESA 2917 E LEE AVE WENDELL FORD 4570 8TH AVE NE ALEXANDRIA, VA 22306--- 1721 4875 2ND AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--- 9058 NAPLES, FL 34120--- 9057 I I GARCIA, GREGORIO J & MIRIAM V I I GARCIA, NICOLAS RENE & MIRIAM i � GARCIA, SANDRA ROMERO 7250 14TH CT NE CANDIDA DAYAMI GARCIA ! 561 5TH ST SW i SAINT PETERSBURG, FL 33702--- 4602 ! 2911 SW 92ND CT i NAPLES, FL 34117 --- 0 iMIAMI, FL 33165--- 3131 { I� GARGIULO INC li GARGIULO INC i 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 I NAPLES, FL 34220 --- 0 I GARGIULO INC I i i l GARNER, TIMOTHY E 1 i GOLDEN GATE SQUARE LLC 1500 OLD US 41 N ! l 4890 10TH AVE SE j 901 BRICKELL KEY BLVD #908 NAPLES, FL 34220 --- 0 I NAPLES, FL 34117 --- 0 II ! ' l ' ! MIAMI, FL 33131 --- 0 1 GOLDEN GATE SQUARE LLC II GRISELL PLASENCIA REV TRUST j GRODE EST, LIONEL i , } 90.1. BRICKELL KEY BLVD #908 229 LANDINGS BLVD ! 430 DESOTO BLVD N MIAMI, FL' 33131 --- 0 WESTON, FL 33327---1106 ! NAPLES, FL 34120---9054 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY j I HANCOCK BUILDERS LLC 1 ( HANCOCK BUILDERS LLC OF COLLIER COUNTY INC I %THE LIGHTSTONE GROUP i %THE LIGHTSTONE GROUP 11145 TAMIAMI TRL E + 1985 CEDAR BRIDGE AVE STE 1 1985 CEDAR BRIDGE AVE STE 1 NAPLES, FL 34113--- 7753 ! LAKEWOOD, NJ 08701--- 7031 i f LAKEWOOD, NJ 08701--- 7031 HARPIN, MILDRED A HEMMINGS, JOYCE ? HERRERA, OSCAR DANIEL GARCIA l GILBERT W HARPIN I 3190 VENICE WAY RESIDENCIAL MONSERRAT 555 CAPE FLORIDA LN MIRAMAR, FL 33025--- 4285 I CASA 6H NAPLES, FL 34104--- 4146 I TRES RIOS CARTAG COSTA RICA HIMMELMAN ET UX, DALE E l HOANG, THANH HOWARD, J STEVEN & KARLA l318 MCKINLEY AVE I 5751 58TH AVE N 19381 HOSHEL RD NORTH MANKATO, MN 56003--- 22.29 I ! ST PETERSBURG, FL 33709--- 2049 i THREE RIVERS, MI 49093--- 9316 HSALKHLI LLC I r HSALKHLI LLC I ! ( IRVIN, JAKE 922 BANKS RD I i 922 BANKS RD 4845 2ND AVENUE SE COCONUT CREEK, FL 33063 --- 0 COCONUT CREEK, FL 33063 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34116 --- 0 i I JAMES-MICHAEL RICE ; JAMES-MICHAEL RICE & GRETCHEN i i JFD NAPLES LLC ! GRETCHEN ANNE RICE , 830 DESOTO BLVD N I i 11693 BALD EAGLE WAY 830 DESOTO BLVD N NAPLES, FL 34120--- 9016 I ! NAPLES, FL 34120--- 4320 NAPLES, FL 34120 --- 0 i 1 li r,,� I' � I ( I l label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160/8160 L— i� rtinuQtte do format 25 mm x 67 mm comoatible avec Avery OO 5160/8160 VS10 0912/09 1-90 A.IaAV 02Ap algltedwoo ww L9 x ww 9Z lewJo) op 914anb!t3 4 0918/091S® AjoAV yt!M algedwoo „9/9 Z x ,, I. az!s lapel o JOHN KENNETH JOURDAN, DAVID B & KATHI L JUAN FUMERO REV TRUST 520 DESOTO BLVD N 4870 12TH AVE SE 1230 SW 78TH CT NAPLES, FL 34120---0 NAPLES, FL 34117--- 9384 MIAMI, FL 33144- 4310 JUDSON, CAROL E ' I i ! KAZMAJ, FATMIR i I KNR-WCP INC JOHN W GREEN I 50 WICKLIFFE DR I 1915 HARRISON ST 2ND FL 5397 GUADELOUPE WAY j ' NAPLES, FL 34110--- 1332 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33020--- 5017 NAPLES, FL 34119--- 9579 i I LALLI, EDMUND & BARBARAJ ' LINGER, WILLIAM j LOPEZ, JUAN F 1302 BIGLER ST i 155 STARMOND AVE i ISRAEL PACHECO PHILADELPHIA, PA 19148--- 4929 ; CLIFTON, NJ 07013--- 3432 j I 570 NW 123 AVE i MIAMI, FL 33182 --- 0 LUTTON, PAUL LYONS, WAYNE & KRIS MACDONALD, ADAM 307 W PROSPECT AVE j 5650 WHITAKER RD # 102 4995 PALMETTO WOODS DR LANGHORNE, PA 19047--- 3915 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 � i NAPLES, FL 34119--- 2811 MANCINIJT REVOCABLE TRUST i MANCINI, EITORE & MONIQUET MARTINEZ, REVUELTAJOSEFINO 5581 WENDY LN 5581 WENDY LN ' CARRETERAJOROBAS NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34112 --- 0 I 5270 17TH AVE SW j I i i NAPLES, FL 34116--- 5663 MARZUCCO, MERISCHA MARIE I MARZUCCO, MERISCHA MARIE MAYORQUIN, ROSA A NATOSHA LYNN MARZUCCO i ! NATOSHA LYNN MARZUCCO GENARO ARAGON JESSICAJONIE MARZUCCO JESSICAJONIE MARZUCCO 10402 NW 133RD ST 3791 1ST AVE SW j j 3791 15T AVE SW I HIALEAH, FL 33018--- 1125 NAPLES, FL 34117 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34117 --0 i MEDEIROS, VICTOR S & CIDALIA B I MILIAN, ALBERTO J MIRAVISTA CORP 2260 19TH ST SW i MARIA R MILIAN I 4099 TAMIAMI TRL N #403 NAPLES, FL 34117--- 4722 j 20385 NE 22ND PL I NAPLES, FL 34103 --- 0 MIAMI, FL 33180--- 1318 MONTALBAN SR, ANGEL i MORIEKO, RANDY & CATRINA MSNO PROPERTIES LLC 3545 31ST AVE NE 4920 6TH AVE SE I 10399 CYPRESS LAKES PRSV DR NAPLES, FL 34120 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34117 --- 0 I i i LAKE WORTH, FL 33449 --- 0 MURATORE, STEVEN M & DONNA M I � ' i I MWC HOLDINGS LLC MWC LAND LLC 4785 2ND AVE NE 541 EVERGLADES BLVD N 4620 8TH NE NAPLES, FL 34120--- 9051 I NAPLES, FL 34120 --- 0 i i I' i NAPLES, FL 34120 --- 0 NODAL, HUMBERTO J NODAL, OMIRCA R NODAL & LUIS H OLSEN, AMMON J & TIFFANY E 4790 GOLDEN GATE BLVD E j 4780 GOLDEN GATE BLVD E 4720 4TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120---9070 NAPLES, FL 34117 -0 :. ( I � NAPLES, FL 34120-- 0 , II I f)I ii� i � ���® label size 1" x.2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160/8160 kr a -lin rin fnrmnt 95 mm u R7 mm rmmnntihla avac Avr.ry n,1 Pnlpino 4�4l� 0919/091 g® AJGAVl)@Ae algpdrUoo ww 19 x ww gz ILw.io} op 91,ianblj] 09 I.4/09l tJ® AaeAb ublM algltedLU00 ,r8/9 Z x rr i ozls lagel o dV PAPE, BLAISE I PAUL W JONES REV LIV TRUST PEART, HAZEL 1010LIVEWOOD DR MARY ELLINGTON GLENROY SHAW LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 --- 0 ! 1245 IOWA ST I 1191 NE 166TH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 --- 0 NORTH MIAMI BEAC, FL 33162--- 3810 PENA, JOSE M PEREIRA, JORGE ANDRES I PEREZ, LAURIE 165 SW 130 AVE I URBANIZACION i 4250 SW 108TH AVE MIAMI, FL 33184---0 I C/2 CASA #11 MIAMI, FL 33165--- 4849 i CANADA PALITIA SPAIN jl PEREZ, LETICIA PEREZ, RAUL PERLOWIN, CRAIG & GLORIA 4785 4TH AVE NE LETICIA PEREZ I 7421 EMILIA LANE NAPLES, FL 34120 --- 0 I I 4785 4TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34116 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34120--- 9087 i I � PETERS, LIS f POOLE, ELIZABETH i PRYCE, JESSICA 599 SCRUBJAY DR II l MARK POOLE i 47 SUNRISE DR JUPITER, FL 33458 --- 0 ; 240 9TH ST NW I MIDDLETOWN, NY 10940--- 2729 NAPLES, FL 34120--- 5008 j I PRYCE, JESSICA ! i RAMOS, DAIRON FRIAS RICE, JAMES-MICHAEL & GRETCHEN 47 SUNRISE DR i 2820 12TH AVE NE I 830 DESOTO BLVD N MIDDLETOWN, NY 10940--- 2729 i NAPLES, FL 34120 --- 0 I NAPLES, FL 34120--- 9016 RINEHART, CLOYD L I i RODRIGUEZ, ELDA 1 ROMAN, SHAMISA VERNA L WRIGHT I 440 DESOTO BLVD N I 142 DORAL CIR 5286TEETER RD ! NAPLES, FL 34120--- 9054 NAPLES, FL 34113--- 7417 BUTLER, OH 44822---9685 I l ROSA, YULEIDYS ROUGHGARDEN, DAINA RPCR PROPERTIES LLC 4792 10TH AVE SE ( 10505 CANAL BROOK LN 1580 31ST SW NAPLES, FL 34117 --- 0 LEHIGH, FL 33936 --- 0 I I I NAPLES, FL 34117 --- 0 RUSSELL, SANDRA I I l r S R MORICONI REV LIV TRUST I SAHIN, ANTHONY ROBERTA A KESSLER I 6920 SABLE RIDGE LANE I 344 VALLEY STREAM CIR 607 OGONTZ ST NAPLES, FL 34109 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34113--- 7634 SANDUSKY, OH 44870---3852 i I � SAKSEN , DEBORAH A I I SANCHEZ, ENRIQUE H & DEANA M SCHOOL DISTRICT-GAC 231 GODFREY RD I 4603 SW 185TH AVE %SUPERINTENDENT NORTHVILLE, NY 12134 --- 0 + i l MIRAMAR, FL 33029 --- 0 I 5775 OSCEOLATRL i I NAPLES, FL 34117 --- 0 i SCHOOL DISTRICT-GAC l l i / SIEGRIST, RALPH H & SHELLEY SIEGRIS'r, RALPH H & SHELLEY SUPERINTENDENT I I 4035 PACIFIC WAY ! I 4035 PACIFIC WAY 5775 OSCEOLA TRL LONGVIEW, WA 98632 --- 0 i LONGVIEW, WA 98632 --- 0 NAPLES, FL 34117 --- 0 l i I label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery @5160/8160 __. rRm,,m I/Riffl 11A vi po 09 i.8/0919® AJaAV oene elgijedwoo ww z.g x ww gZ >ewaol op a149nbii , 09 1.8/091-g F,iaAd QM algl}eduioo „g/9 Z X „I. ezis logei o SIEGRIST, RALPH H & SHELLEY SIMONS, ERICJ & LOIS M STARRETT, DAVID J & DEBORAH M 4035 PACIFIC WAY 1092 LAC VUE RD 4880 4TH AVE SE LONGVIEW, WA 98632---5334 BOYNE CITY, Mi 49712 --- 0 j � I NAPLES, FL 34117--- 9010 STARRETT, DAVID JAMES � I STOEL ET AL, J H STOVER, BONNIE DEBORAH MARIE STARRETT % EVERT GERBEN STOEL I NANCY VOGT 48804TH AVE SE I SEESTR.WEST58 ( 1108 CIRCLE HIGH DR i NAPLES, FL 341,17--- 9010 j 88090 I BURNSVILLE, MN 55306--- 4907 IMMENSTAAD GERMANY i I TEITELBAUM, ROBERT D &THERESA i TOMBO, MAYKY HERRERA TOQUICA, LILIANA MARGARITA 2037 TEAGARDEN LN i NORDELEYS MORALES GALLOSO MAURICIO AREVALO NAPLES, FL 34110--- 1095 4760 GOLDEN GATE BLVD E 4760 10TH AVE SE i NAPLES, FL 34120 --- 0 i NAPLES, FL 34117 --- 0 i VANRHEE PROPERTIES LLC i VELIAN, MARRILENA VORTHERMS, WENDY L i 710 31ST ST SW ( 8350 NW 44TH CT ' 4840 2ND AVE SE i NAPLES, FL 34117---3114 I LAUDERHILL, FL 33351--- 5500 I ,I NAPLES, FL 34117--- 9041 j I WALSH, CHRISTINE Y & ANTHONY J WASZKOWSKI, DANIEL ANDREW WELSBY, MICHAEL 570 DESOTO BLVD N 3880 SOTH AVE NE 4620 8TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120 --- 0 I NAPLES, FL 34120 --- 0 i NAPLES, FL 34120 --- 0 WORRIE, MICHAEL A ZIEBA, ZBIGNIEW i ZUNK, JEFFREY } 611 14TH ST SE NEWMAN HOUSE 4104 SW 5TH AVE NAPLES, FL 34117--- 3696 COWLEY RD CAPE CORAL, FL 33914 --- 0 LITTLEMORE OXFORD OX44JX UNITED KINGDOM Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Assoc. P.O. Box 990596 Naples, FL 33916 I ;I I � i • 3 i I I I I 9 li label size 1" r,.2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160/8160 I Ftin;;atta rin in;-mnt 9.r, mm v R7 nim rmmngf!hIa aver Avpry nri1 Fnmi Ff) .;a/d ly l LEAGUE of WOMEN VOTERS iylt . OF COLLIER COUNTY 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 a town —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 the 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 16th 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. 1, 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 residentsz 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 close proximity to each other. "Based on 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." 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 Big Cypress Parkway, the Applicant will receive a substantial amount of impact fee credits for providing the Right of Way (ROW) for Big 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. Z 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. 21 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 Desoto 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 impact 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. 111" 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. 9 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. PloS 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, 6172, 621, 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. !3 ° o o° r5 th Ave NE • Y ° O • O p cc CONSERVANCY E ° 8 9�° oe Southwest Florida E Z ° o ° 0 (DOm 8 0' 02461 OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Ul µA�e ❑ O C ° E C o !� ° •• O o 3rd Ave NE o • 000 0 0 ° E• • 80 ° �00 8booq jglo E • ° g ° o °°o Re p 0 ° 0 E 1 ° • • 40 ® o°O 00 ° •°° ° ° ° F. • � 00 E • • • �Oe • �° ° ° 080 0° o ° 01 ° o O° ° Randall BIV❑ 0 o o Oa, o ♦ am O cQ�SCbk� E 0 O • O O O ° A ° O O Z p ®o O O O 18 th Ave N E m • °0° a ° ° �p ppOpo��ppOpoo�� 0 ° eaki I 8 Q •• a • O 000 'Skid o • o0 0 80 CQ. o • ° 0B °�a8 • •••• 0oll 02 �° 8 ' ° �D o �p o 0 E o �• •"�t5 "°a ° cAo° ® • o ° 8o m E • ° 6 40 ° oo °°° 9 0 o o° o • • E • ®° • o 9 mo E Golden Gate EI �° °0� 0 cp o E • • • _ fcp So° o� o Legend ° �� • �gD a ° � • Panther Telemetry GPS 2005-2009 0 �• ° o � 00 0 • Panther Telemetry 1981 - 2020 E ° ° 08 0b° °® OO p O SSA 18 0 0 °� a p� . *so s � . o SSA 17 "r7, 0 Fyn rsity of Sn l I I�it3 my df Col', � 00 Bellmar o ° '•® °O °•GariT, �'V,N�P� SGS MELTa�`. Lz Lon water sk • • o •=00� • ° o NGA E� `, �Qo 8 2/10/2021 9 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 of 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, Al 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."' 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 a high -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 Al 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.' 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 ' See The Sixth Extinction Chapter IX "Island on Dry land" by Elizabeth Kolbert. 12 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. February 16, 2021 Collier County Planning Commission Karen Homiak, District 1 Christopher Vernon, District 2 Karl Fry, District 3 Edwin Fryer, District 4 Robert Klucik, Jr., District 5 Paul Shea, At Large Environmental Joseph Schmitt, At Large Environmental Thomas Eastman, School Board (non -voting) Re: Bellmar Village SRA Application Dear Chairman Fryer and Planning Commissioners: sent via email On behalf of our 6,400 supporting families, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida is writing in opposition to the proposed Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) application to create Bellmar Village. The project is inconsistent with Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) and Land Development Code (LDC). We request that you vote to recommend denial of the Bellmar Village SRA to the Board of County Commissioners. Bellmar should be recommended for denial for many reasons. Among those reasons are the survival of the Florida panther, the inadequacy of the Natural Resource Index (NRI) scoring, and failure to meet the goals and objectives of the Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) program. INCONSISTENCIES WITH GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE RLSA In a Consistency Review dated May 27, 2020, Collier County staff stated on page 11: 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, 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 Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 2 of 19 mix of uses, use density/intensity continuum or gradient, 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 in the RLSAO. We agree with this assessment. Bellmar is suburban sprawl without innovation, without housing diversity, without true internal capture, and without a true village center, among other problems. Bellmar is nothing more than a typical suburban development. This is not what the RLSA is intended for, and is not how it should be used. How can the County approve a proposed development where the County's own professional staff concluded that the proposal does not meet the intent of the Growth Management Plan? Why do we even have a Growth Management Plan in Collier County if such blatant disregard for it is allowed? But, frankly, it gets worse. Curiously, the language quoted above is not included in the most recent Consistency Review available through CityView dated December 4, 2020. Yet, only minor changes were made to the site plan from May to December. The curious deletion of Staffs findings should be of critical concern to the Planning Commission! Why was this finding removed from the County's review? The Planning Commission should demand an explanation. Who decided to remove this language? Why? Was the developer or its representatives involved in these discussions? Were there any instances of conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts? Good governance in Collier County requires that all of us understand why the County staffs conclusion was removed when nothing material in the Bellmar project was changed. With regard to the substance, the Growth Management Plan (GMP) Policy 4.6 states that 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. Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 3 of 19 Bellmar does not conform to this standard. There is nothing innovative about suburban sprawl. Bellmar is 97.5% residential use with a small portion of multi -family units— no affordable housing is provided; and there is only a commitment to build 10% multi -family homes of the total housing units - the remaining 90% can be single family attached or detached homes. This is not a range of housing uses and is not innovative. It is not clustered and does not protect environmentally sensitive areas. Florida Statutes address rural land stewardship areas in Section 163.3248. Section (1) states: Rural land stewardship areas are designed to establish a long-term incentive -based strategy to balance and guide the allocation of land so as to accommodate future land uses in a manner that protects the natural environment, stimulate economic growth and diversification, and encourage the retention of land for agriculture and other traditional rural land uses. Bellmar does not protect the natural environment and will not diversify or stimulate economic growth. Simply put, Bellmar is suburban sprawl without balance resulting in the destruction of important environmental lands while simultaneously creating burdens for transportation, water, and sewer services that will be borne by the entirety of Collier County. The Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) provides guidance for SRA Designation in Section 4.08.07, stating: 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 to accommodate population growth by the establishment of SRAs. (emphasis added) Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 4 of 19 There is nothing innovative or creative about Bellmar. It is a cookie cutter community like hundreds of others scattered throughout Lee and Collier County. It is not compact, it is not mixed use, it does not promote walkability. This is primarily single family suburban sprawl. There is no downtown or true village center. There is nothing that makes this proposed development any different than the hundreds of similarly designed planned unit developments outside the RLSA. This alone makes Bellmar inconsistent with the fundamental purpose and intention of the RLSA. 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." (emphasis added) Bellmar's Village Center is clearly not the focal point of the community as it is located nowhere near the center. Instead the Village "Center" - which is a mere 24 acres on the 1000 acres site - is located on the extreme northwestern edge of the property, alongside the future taxpayer -funded Big Cypress Parkway. The applicant is placing the commercial "center" along a future county road, presumably in the hopes of taking advantage of drive - by -traffic, instead of designing an actual village center to provide its residents with walkable access to goods and services to maximize internal capture, as is required by the Overlay. Bellmar is not innovative planning, as the RLSA requires. Bellmar is quintessential suburban -style development. If the same type of planned developments are approved, the same type of sprawl development will occur and Collier County will get more of the same instead of meeting the requirements of the RLSA to have innovative, compact, walkable developments. We understand that the foundation of the RLSA program is a balance between development and conservation, however, that balance still must conform to the letter and requirements of the GMP and LDC. In this case, Bellmar does not meet the intent of the RLSA program. NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX The current Natural Resource Index (NRI) scoring system is not based on the best available science and does not adequately protect panthers, listed species, or their necessary habitat. Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 5 of 19 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. (emphasis added) Policy 1.8 describes how NRI values were determined in 2002. There are several things to note about this policy. First, these values are purportedly relative to other lands. Relative in what way? Determined by who? Considering which factors? The policy claims that the 2002 NRI values were objectively determined, however, there is no methodology provided in order to determine how objective the factors were, if any of those factors have changed, or how to mitigate for the changes that have occurred since 2002, nearly 20 years later. There is also no notes to indicate how certain scores for each index were determined. And since we don't know what the original values were based on, it is impossible to recalibrate the model to work under existing conditions. We reviewed this document/presentation to help us understand how valuation was determined. While there are many Presented to: Collier County aspects of the entire presentation that Board of County Commissioners Presented by: Alan Reynolds, AICP President/CEO wilsordvliller,Inc. hure 12, 2002 (Updated for presentation to RLSA Retiew Committee December 4, 2007) may be useful in understanding the NRI system, a startling fact was discovered regarding panther telemetry and panther habitat. In 2002, the presentation claimed that 91% of all panther telemetry occurred in the Stewardship Areas. It is unclear whether Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 6 of 19 the presentation is referring to all Stewardship Areas or only the Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs). The presentation seems to imply that protecting the Stewardship areas are enough to protect habitat for the Florida Panther. While this may have been the extent of knowledge in 2002, it is not true in 2021. In 2021, when we analyzed publicly available telemetry through 2020, which included GPS and VHF telemetry, we discovered that only 84% of telemetry points occur in the stewardship areas.' That is substantially less and a clear • 36,000 acres of private land delineated as HSAs. (40,000acres as adopted) • 91 % of Panther telemetry points are included in stewardship areas. Includes native uplands and farm fields not otherwise protected by regulation. indication that protecting stewardship areas is not enough to protect land vital to the recovery and survival of the Florida panther. The NRI methodology is flawed, and cannot be relied on. It is also important to note that only a small number of panthers, historically and currently, have been collared and able to provide telemetry data points. Telemetry points provide limited information about where some panthers have been and landscape that some panthers use. Further, a majority of the historical telemetry data was provided by VHF collars where data was collected during daytime hours, and not during the crepuscular or evening hours when panthers have a more expansive use of non -forest landscapes. Because of this, relying too much on telemetry and not considering panther habitat zones and adult breeding habitat mapped and studied by leading panther scientists is an unsound practice from both a policy and science standpoint. We recommend utilizing best available science to help support the recovery and survival of the Florida panther. This issue is expanded upon below. 1 Please note that if the 2002 presentation was only referring to HSAs, only 49% of panther telemetry is found in HSAs. Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 7 of 19 FLORIDA PANTHER 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. Bellmar does not contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development. It destroys 1,000 acres of primary panther habitat, and nearly 800 acres of Florida Panther adult breeding habitat. The survival and recovery of the Florida panther are dependent upon maintaining, restoring, and expanding the panther population and its habitat in southern Florida. Specifically, the recovery of the Florida panther population is dependent on maintaining the ability of the Primary, Secondary, and Dispersal Zones, as identified by expert panther biologists in Kautz et al. (2006)1, to contribute to a viable population. Habitat loss and fragmentation are the greatest threats to the Florida panther; these threats are primarily a result of rapid population growth and conversion from natural habitats and agriculture to urban land use.2 LDC 4.08.05.J.2 states If listed species are directly observed on the site of the project or are indicated by evidence, such as denning, foraging, or other indications, first priority shall be given to preserving the habitat of such listed species a minimum of 40% of native vegetation on site shall be retained, with the exception of clearing for incidental purposes. LDC 4.08.05.J.3.d.vi. directly addresses the Florida panther, stating that for projects located in Priority I or Priority II Panther Habitat areas, the management plan shall discourage the destruction of undisturbed, native habitats that are preferred by the Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi) by directing intensive land uses to currently disturbed areas. Preferred habitats include pine flatwoods and hardwood hammocks. In turn, these areas shall be buffered from the most intense land uses of the project by using low intensity land uses (e.g., parks, passive recreational areas, golf courses). Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 8 of 19 There is a constant chipping away at the necessary range for the Florida panther that is rarely considered. Each individual project slowly limits the range for the Florida panther both through destruction of habitat, fragmentation of habitat and fragmentation of movement corridors. This project both destroys and fragments important Florida panther habitat as well as eliminating movement corridors. If even one project in the RLSA ignores the best available science, there will be a detrimental impact on the Florida Panther population. This is particularly true given the way the Natural Resource Index Value is being interpreted and implemented for listed and endangered species. LDC 4.08.01.Q. is about the Listed Species Habitat Indices stating that one of the indices comprising the Natural Resource Index Value, with values assigned based upon the habitat value of the land for listed species. 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, 6172, 621, 6218, 6219, 624, and 630 was deemed to be preferred or tolerated habitat for panthers for the purpose of assigning a value for these indices. An intersection of at least one data point establishing the presence of a listed species within a geographic information system (GIS) polygon of preferred or tolerated habitat for that species shall result in the entire polygon being scored as occupied habitat. The FLUCFCS codes deemed preferred or tolerated do not limit the County from including other codes to qualify as preferred or tolerated habitat based on best available science and panther data available at the time this application is reviewed. The FLUCFCS codes listed in the LDC need to be considered the bare minimum and not the only FLUCFCS codes tolerated, preferred, or needed for the recovery and survival of the Florida panther. This policy was crafted in 2002, and could have been based on the best available data 19 Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 9 of 19 years ago. We know a lot more about the Florida panther now, and practices should be based on the best available science. In 2012, the US Fish and Wildlife Service revised their Panther Habitat Assessment Methodology for the agency to utilize in assessing the functional value of panther habitat. While there are flaws within this system, the federal wildlife agency utilizes this methodology, which incorporates both the Kautz zones and other scientific information related to land cover valuation, for its permitting decisions. As seen in the below table, a review of literature that was done in production of this document, shows row crops as an average 4.8 (where the lowest value is 0 and the highest value given is 9.5). The document further shows that land covers in the "4-6" valuation are considered "neither selected nor avoided," i.e. tolerated. Table Ph47. Summary of Ranking Values Habitats Kautz compositional second order Kautz Euclidean second order Cox Euclidean second order Cox Euclidean third order Land VHF Euclidean third order Land GPS Euclidean third order Avers e Hardwood swamp 10 7 9 10 10 9 9.2 Pineland 9 8 10 10 10 10 9.5 Cypress swamp 8 9 9 10 10 9 9.2 Upland forest 10 6 8 10 10 10 9.0 Dry prairie 6 5 8 6 6 7 6.3 Slvub and brush 7 3 no data no data 6 6 5.5 Xeric scrub 8 1 no data no data no data no data 4.5 Marsh 6 1 6 3 6 6 4.7 Unimproved pasture 4 3 8 6 6 7 5.7 Barren 5 1 7 6 6 6 5.2 Improved pasture 2 4 7 6 6 6 5.2 Urban 3 2 7 6 6 6 5.0 Cropland 2 2 7 6 6 6 4.9 Citrus 1 2 7 6 6 6 4.7 Coastal wetlands 0 2 no data no data no data no data 1.0 Open water 1 0 no data no data 6 6 3.3 Exotic plants STA Reservoir habitat selection 7,8,9,10 neither selected nor avoided 4,5,6 habitat avoidance 0,1,13 As shown in the map below, Florida panthers have been documented in multiple FLUCFCS codes throughout the site. Many of these FLUCFCS codes - particularly the large green area (214, Row Crops), also have other documented listed species. The NRI value for the green area, however, for listed species is 0. This 0 is condoned because 214, under the Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 10 of 19 RLSA program, is not deemed to be preferred or tolerated for listed species even though we know by virtue of their presence that this area of Bellmar is, at minimum, tolerated by listed species including the Florida panther, wood stork, sandhill crane, tri-color heron, and crested caracara. A scoring system that ignores the rich diversity of land "tolerated" by at least 5 listed species is fatally flawed and should not be relied on to appropriately guide development. ° ❑ ❑ ❑° ❑ ° ❑ o ❑ ❑ 0° ° 0 ❑ 0 0 ° 0 0 ° v ° � o m° o 0 0 0 0 CONSERVANCY 0 or Southwest Florida 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a 689 0 0 ❑ 0❑ 0 0 0 0 0 o ° 00 `� ° 0 0 S90 ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UJUP o 0 0 0 0° 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 6) 8 0 0 0 ° o 0 0 0 ° v o0 ° o ® 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 'P O ® 0 0 o 0 0 0 ° 0 0 00 CP �niv�Qsi� of South &,id,. Cddnty of tallier, ERE, Car min. INCREMENT PUSCS. EPA. 00 0 00 ° 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 ❑bSDA ° 0 O PGPSCoIIar Q 41IDEI PINE FLATWOODS, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS) Q 6249E3 CYPRESS/PINE/CABBAGE PALM, DLST (3o-75% EXoTICs) ❑ Florida_ Panther_Telemeli to June 2019 4119E2 PINE FLATWOODS, DISTURBED (25-49% EXOTICS) 0 6259E4 PINE, HYDRIC, DISTURBED (76-100% EXOTICS) 4221 BRAZILIAN PEPPER, HYDRIC O 6309E3 MIXED WETLAND FOREST, DrSTURBED (50-75%EXOTICS) Bellmar_Species_FLUCFCS_0150820 0 514 DtTLH 0 74U DISTURBED LAND Desc 0 s14W DTTCH, WETLAND 0 7401 DISTURBED LAND, HYDRIC 0 210 CROPLAND AND PASTURELAND �1 525 CATTLE POND ® 747 BERM Q 214 ROW CROPS GIH9E4 Wr1A.OW, DISTURBED (76-100% EX❑TICS) 0 BI46 UNPAVED ROAD 0 0.13 0.25 0.5 Miles 0 2611 FALLOW CROP LAND, HYDRIC 5219E4 CYPRESS, DISTURBED (76-700% EXOTICS) <all other values, I 1 i I I I 1 I I Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 11 of 19 p O p ° 0 0 00 O Qpp o p r4"i66 }_c0 O 0 0 0 ° o p ° ° o • •► • o O ° O ° O 0 0 0 ° ° o • o ► O 0 CONSERVANCY or Southwest Florida O O O O O O O •° O O 0 0 O O O ° ► 00 � O p O O VO O O O 0 O O ° QtF 0 ° O °• O O p • • p p • O EM�M U o • p0 O O 98 • • • Q O O O O O O O p • 6 O O O OO O CID O 0 O C O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O ° O O °*0- O O O O O O O O O o o p o CPUn'-16itygf South Florida,°CouRty of Collier, ERn, HERE, Garmin, INCREMEN9 P, 8SGS, META 00 o 00 ° ° 0 00 90 o 0 o NASA EP=E1T)A o o PGPSCollar • Crested Caracare • TITandsia Utdoulata O Florida Panther This shows 4 listed species surveys O Florida_Panther_Tdemetryto June 2019 0 Encydia Tempensis o Tri—I., Heron O Little Blue Heron provided to Collier County by ° Epidendrum Rigid— • wood stork o Roseate spoonbill the applicant from 2019 and 2020 • American Alligamr • Sandhill Crane • <all otlrer values> • Wood Stork $ Cles � 0 Snail Kite • <ali other values> • American Alligator Nest O Tlllandsia Balbinana Species • American Alli t or • Cara —B&052020 ._ • Ameriwn Anigabar ° Tillandsia Fasciculata ga D 0.13 0.25 0.5 MIIBS 0 Tillandda Utnoulala • Crested Caracare eellmar I I I Staff is not considering the actual presence of listed species when scoring the project. The land development code should be used as guidance not relied on as absolute when determining whether a specific FLUCFCS code is preferred or tolerated by a species. Presence of a species is evidence that a FLUCFCS code on a specific site is, at a minimum, tolerated by a listed or endangered species. There are numerous documented presence locations for these species within the proposed Bellmar footprint. Why the Scoring Matters The basis of the RLSA classification of lands as Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSA), Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSA), Water Retention Areas (WRA) or Open Lands, utilized a numeric scoring system created specifically for the RLSA. This system considered a number of data Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 12 of 19 layers, such as soils, land use and restoration potential (as discussed earlier in this letter). In total, there are 6 categories that, when added up generate a number ranging from 0 to 2.4. The number generated from each of these 6 categories is called the Natural Resource Index (NRI) incide, or value, and was created and is unique to the RLSA. The composite total of these 6 scores is referred to as the NRI score, and again, was created and is unique to the RLSA. Each acre of land is intended to be scored individually to create a specific NRI score. When the RLSA program was designed, the program creators, WilsonMiller working on behalf of their landowner clients, arbitrarily selected 1.2 to be the cutoff of lands allowed for future intensification (as Stewardship Receiving Areas, or SRAs) versus lands where development intensification would be directed away from (FSAs, HSAs and WRAs). While there was no scientific methodological basis for allowing SRAs on lands that scored 1.2 or below, that is how the program is established. Most of these NRI values are relatively constant, such as the soils category. However, the category where there is the most potential for significant change is the Listed Speices Habitat Indices. This category must be evaluated so that scores are based on best available science at the time a new application comes forward. The importance of this is because the presence of listed species results in a much higher NRI indice value. If that value, as combined with the other 5 indices, results in the total NRI score being above 1.2, then those specific acres, while still being allowed within the footprint of a SRA, cannot be intensified and must be retained in their natural state. If any part of Bellmar exceeds 1.2, then development is not allowed on those lands. As you will see below, the Conservancy has calculated there are indeed acres within the footprint of Bellmar that exceed 1.2. While it appears that most of the acres which score over 1.2 are in lakes or preserve, there may be a few which occur in the area marked as village center. This issue should be clarified by staff. The below maps demonstrate why appropriate scoring matters, as it can dramatically change the resulting NRI score and ultimately the footprint of SRA development. Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 13 of 19 Collier County & Applicant Listed Species Scores Legend a 0.4 COSWFL Listed Species Scores Legend COSWFLspecies 0 0.6 0.5 ❑ate: 21812021 Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 14 of 19 Changing the Listed Species score also changed the final NRI scores for the property. Collier County & Applicant NRI Values Legend 1.1 0-8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0,2 - 0 CO SWFL NRI VALUES 4r6❑ acres score 1.2 or abo';-e Legend - 16 - 1-5 0 12 0 � 0.9 0-8 0-7 0.5 ■ ❑ate- 21812021 Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 15 of 19 Moreover, it is not just panther zones adopted by USFWS that the County needs to be Impacts to Adult[Breeding Panther Habitat Loss in P Value 010.2 0 0.21 - 03 0 0.31 - 0.4 0.41 - 0.5 0.51 - 0 6 0.61 - 0.7 _ a.71 - 0,85 ® Village Boundaries _ Lakes L� �� RLSA_Boundary concerned with. Dr. Robert Frakes, a leading panther habitat modeler, published a paper in 2015 identifying the most important breeding areas for the Florida panther. Dr. Frakes provided the Conservancy with a map showing the location of where significant loss in function of Adult Breeding 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. The inserted graphic shows the loss of Adult i" Breeding Habitat value from the 1 JSGS,NASA.ESA1 proposals, with the shaded 1 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 would also result in habitat function loss. Adult breeding habitat is not considered in any way for the NRI value or score. We note that if approved, there will be additional detrimental impacts by building the main road - Big Cypress Parkway - as Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 16 of 19 well as any connector roads between villages. As a reminder, vehicle collisions are the leading known cause of panther mortality. The survival and recovery of the Florida panther are dependent upon maintaining, restoring, and expanding the panther population and its habitat in southern Florida. Specifically, the recovery of the Florida panther population is dependent on maintaining the ability of the Primary, Secondary, and Dispersal Zones, as identified by expert panther biologists Kautz et al. (2006)2 to contribute to a viable population. Habitat loss and fragmentation are the greatest threats to the Florida panther; these threats are primarily a result of rapid population growth and conversion from natural habitats and agriculture to urban land use.3 Panthers are wide ranging, secretive, and occur at low densities.4 They require large contiguous areas to meet their social, reproductive, and energetic needs, a requirement that is being compromised by rapid development.5 Panther habitat continues to be lost to urbanization, residential development, conversion to agriculture, and mining.6 Because of this, there is a need for land use planning that incorporates panther conservation and recovery. Protection of the remaining breeding habitat in south Florida is essential to the survival and recovery of the Florida panther.? Further loss of adult panther breeding habitat is likely to reduce the prospects for survival of the existing population, and decrease the probability of natural expansion of the population into south-central Florida$. z Kautz, R. et al, How much is enough? Landscape -scale conservation for the Florida panther, BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 130 (2006) 118 — 133 3 Kautz, R. et al, How much is enough? Landscape -scale conservation for the Florida panther, BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 130 (2006) 118 — 133 4 Frakes RA, Belden RC, Wood BE, James FE (2015) Landscape Analysis of Adult Florida Panther Habitat. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0133044. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133044 6 Kautz, R. et al, How much is enough? Landscape -scale conservation for the Florida panther, BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 130 (2006) 118 — 133 6 Kautz, R. et al, How much is enough? Landscape -scale conservation for the Florida panther, BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 130 (2006) 118 — 133 7 Kautz, R. et al, How much is enough? Landscape -scale conservation for the Florida panther, BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 130 (2006) 118 — 133 8 Frakes RA, Belden RC, Wood BE, James FIE (2015) Landscape Analysis of Adult Florida Panther Habitat. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0133044. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133044 Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 17 of 19 Florida Bonneted Bat There is also potential impact to the Florida bonneted bat. Florida bonneted bats are different from most other Florida bat species because they are reproductively active through most of the year, and their large size makes them capable of foraging long distances from their roost9. Consequently, this species is vulnerable to disturbances around the roost during a greater portion of the year and considerations about foraging habitat extend further than the localized roost. Note that the protected species assessment dated August 2017 states "[w]idely scattered pine tree snags with potential bonneted bat cavities were observed." The United States Fish and Wildlife Service provided the included Figure 1 showing the consultation area in 2019.10 v.p ker.uo! b nuseacow� y c orcFOLa r r4Lw fl,� j anrnra Jkaan r� IIIOI A,1RNLlT YMIl,C! IIRbYC oe so-n SARr.SLTh OKlCC`C'{! T LIC y{\ 1 I�exLaxo� k ti 4 urll�� >k LSC HMS WINB64. M lMllnt �{yl,�Fl<I = Ir' f W_ �{solo raw�rw aLlw�.. _ 0 r2 6 25 d4 tee! I I - Flgure I. Flunda Iloam- Lcd 13a1 Conxulla[ion Area FIatchcd uea q Flgurc aF idk LiMe Ihp urbum dk clopm L houn&w in NIjulu-flock and Breiwwd Caumty- Apphcmlts vak projects m 6. sbwld —L-L the 5cz,­ FLU sprkdie gu,darlkc adds ng tha a 4 and mdnvld=1 kom A tion. The Conwlt.LL Kuysh—L3-1 be sized for pr j-u!n ihls area. The bonneted bat was listed as endangered in 2013, but we do not see evidence that a consultation was completed for this species. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service updated their consultation key for the bat, and Figure 1 shows the consultation area, of which this project falls within.11 Before this application can be approved, the applicant needs to provide information to the agencies to determine if there are foraging or roosting bonneted bats on -site or in the vicinity. 9 Ober, H. 2016. Annual report to USFWS for calendar year 2016. Permit number TE2358313-1. University of Florida, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, North Florida Research and Education Center. Quincy, Florida. 10 httr)s://www.fws.izov/verobeach/ProRrammaticPDFs/20191022 letter ServicetoCorps FBB- ProgrammaticKey.pdf 11 httr)s://www.fws.izov/verobeach/ProiarammaticPDFs/20191022 letter ServicetoCorps FBB- ProgrammaticKey.pdf Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 18 of 19 Additionally, as shown on the included map, 100% of the Bellmar site is proposed critical habitat for the Florida Bonneted Bat.12 Consideration of how the proposed development would impact this proposed13 habitat is also warranted. Bellmar Village & Florida Bonneted Bat Proposed Critical Habitat Legend Bellmar Village Boundary Flonda Bonneted Bat Cntial Habitat (Proposed) CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida ��. OUR WATER, LAN], WILUL-FE, EUTU9E. S. n ce; Esri. Di3rtalGbna. G-Epe, Eadhs[a G g phics rI FGIAirhus DS, USDA, USGS, - -- — 4 Cs.IRI.D. 13N_ antltho GIS,Ow —Linit, Date_ 211212021 In conclusion, the Bellmar Village SRA application is an inappropriately designed project in a completely unsuitable location. Bellmar does not meet the intent of the RLSA program, does not meet the standards required of a village in terms of diversity or building in a location that will not result in extreme environmental harm. We request that your recommendation be to deny this application. 7z Shapefile provided by US Fish and Wildlife Service. 7s Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 112, P. 35510. June 10, 2020. Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 19 of 19 Please feel free to contact me if you have additional questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Julianne Thomas Senior Environmental Planning Specialist (239) 262-0304 x 252 iuliannet@conservancy.org cc: Ray Bellows, Collier County Zoning Services, Planning Manager James Sabo, Collier County Comprehensive Planning, Planning Manager Sue Faulkner, Collier County Comprehensive Planning, Principal Planner Nicole Johnson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Director of Environmental Policy April Olson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Senior Environmental Planning Specialist SaboJames 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; HomiakKaren; Shea Paul; SchmittJoseph; VernonChristopher; KlucikRobert Cc: Patricia Forkan Subject: LWVCC Environmental Committee Letter re: Longwater/Bellmar 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. I LEAGUE of WOMEN VOTERS N[ - OF COLLIER COUN i r 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—just for informational purposes. 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 I 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 ra 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. 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. February 16, 2021 Collier County Planning Commission Karen Homiak, District 1 Christopher Vernon, District 2 Karl Fry, District 3 Edwin Fryer, District 4 Robert Klucik, Jr., District 5 Paul Shea, At Large Environmental Joseph Schmitt, At Large Environmental Thomas Eastman, School Board (non -voting) Re: Bellmar Village SRA Application Dear Chairman Fryer and Planning Commissioners: sent via email On behalf of our 6,400 supporting families, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida is writing in opposition to the proposed Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) application to create Bellmar Village. The project is inconsistent with Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) and Land Development Code (LDC). We request that you vote to recommend denial of the Bellmar Village SRA to the Board of County Commissioners. Bellmar should be recommended for denial for many reasons. Among those reasons are the survival of the Florida panther, the inadequacy of the Natural Resource Index (NRI) scoring, and failure to meet the goals and objectives of the Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) program. INCONSISTENCIES WITH GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE RLSA In a Consistency Review dated May 27, 2020, Collier County staff stated on page 11: 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, 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 Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 2 of 19 mix of uses, use density/intensity continuum or gradient, 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 in the RLSAO. We agree with this assessment. Bellmar is suburban sprawl without innovation, without housing diversity, without true internal capture, and without a true village center, among other problems. Bellmar is nothing more than a typical suburban development. This is not what the RLSA is intended for, and is not how it should be used. How can the County approve a proposed development where the County's own professional staff concluded that the proposal does not meet the intent of the Growth Management Plan? Why do we even have a Growth Management Plan in Collier County if such blatant disregard for it is allowed? But, frankly, it gets worse. Curiously, the language quoted above is not included in the most recent Consistency Review available through CityView dated December 4, 2020. Yet, only minor changes were made to the site plan from May to December. The curious deletion of Staffs findings should be of critical concern to the Planning Commission! Why was this finding removed from the County's review? The Planning Commission should demand an explanation. Who decided to remove this language? Why? Was the developer or its representatives involved in these discussions? Were there any instances of conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts? Good governance in Collier County requires that all of us understand why the County staffs conclusion was removed when nothing material in the Bellmar project was changed. With regard to the substance, the Growth Management Plan (GMP) Policy 4.6 states that 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. Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 3 of 19 Bellmar does not conform to this standard. There is nothing innovative about suburban sprawl. Bellmar is 97.5% residential use with a small portion of multi -family units— no affordable housing is provided; and there is only a commitment to build 10% multi -family homes of the total housing units - the remaining 90% can be single family attached or detached homes. This is not a range of housing uses and is not innovative. It is not clustered and does not protect environmentally sensitive areas. Florida Statutes address rural land stewardship areas in Section 163.3248. Section (1) states: Rural land stewardship areas are designed to establish a long-term incentive -based strategy to balance and guide the allocation of land so as to accommodate future land uses in a manner that protects the natural environment, stimulate economic growth and diversification, and encourage the retention of land for agriculture and other traditional rural land uses. Bellmar does not protect the natural environment and will not diversify or stimulate economic growth. Simply put, Bellmar is suburban sprawl without balance resulting in the destruction of important environmental lands while simultaneously creating burdens for transportation, water, and sewer services that will be borne by the entirety of Collier County. The Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) provides guidance for SRA Designation in Section 4.08.07, stating: 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 to accommodate population growth by the establishment of SRAs. (emphasis added) Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 4 of 19 There is nothing innovative or creative about Bellmar. It is a cookie cutter community like hundreds of others scattered throughout Lee and Collier County. It is not compact, it is not mixed use, it does not promote walkability. This is primarily single family suburban sprawl. There is no downtown or true village center. There is nothing that makes this proposed development any different than the hundreds of similarly designed planned unit developments outside the RLSA. This alone makes Bellmar inconsistent with the fundamental purpose and intention of the RLSA. 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." (emphasis added) Bellmar's Village Center is clearly not the focal point of the community as it is located nowhere near the center. Instead the Village "Center" - which is a mere 24 acres on the 1000 acres site - is located on the extreme northwestern edge of the property, alongside the future taxpayer -funded Big Cypress Parkway. The applicant is placing the commercial "center" along a future county road, presumably in the hopes of taking advantage of drive - by -traffic, instead of designing an actual village center to provide its residents with walkable access to goods and services to maximize internal capture, as is required by the Overlay. Bellmar is not innovative planning, as the RLSA requires. Bellmar is quintessential suburban -style development. If the same type of planned developments are approved, the same type of sprawl development will occur and Collier County will get more of the same instead of meeting the requirements of the RLSA to have innovative, compact, walkable developments. We understand that the foundation of the RLSA program is a balance between development and conservation, however, that balance still must conform to the letter and requirements of the GMP and LDC. In this case, Bellmar does not meet the intent of the RLSA program. NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX The current Natural Resource Index (NRI) scoring system is not based on the best available science and does not adequately protect panthers, listed species, or their necessary habitat. Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 5 of 19 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. (emphasis added) Policy 1.8 describes how NRI values were determined in 2002. There are several things to note about this policy. First, these values are purportedly relative to other lands. Relative in what way? Determined by who? Considering which factors? The policy claims that the 2002 NRI values were objectively determined, however, there is no methodology provided in order to determine how objective the factors were, if any of those factors have changed, or how to mitigate for the changes that have occurred since 2002, nearly 20 years later. There is also no notes to indicate how certain scores for each index were determined. And since we don't know what the original values were based on, it is impossible to recalibrate the model to work under existing conditions. We reviewed this document/presentation to help us understand how valuation was determined. While there are many Presented to: Collier County aspects of the entire presentation that Board of County Commissioners Presented by: Alan Reynolds, AICP President/CEO wilsordvliller,Inc. hure 12, 2002 (Updated for presentation to RLSA Retiew Committee December 4, 2007) may be useful in understanding the NRI system, a startling fact was discovered regarding panther telemetry and panther habitat. In 2002, the presentation claimed that 91% of all panther telemetry occurred in the Stewardship Areas. It is unclear whether Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 6 of 19 the presentation is referring to all Stewardship Areas or only the Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs). The presentation seems to imply that protecting the Stewardship areas are enough to protect habitat for the Florida Panther. While this may have been the extent of knowledge in 2002, it is not true in 2021. In 2021, when we analyzed publicly available telemetry through 2020, which included GPS and VHF telemetry, we discovered that only 84% of telemetry points occur in the stewardship areas.' That is substantially less and a clear • 36,000 acres of private land delineated as HSAs. (40,000acres as adopted) • 91 % of Panther telemetry points are included in stewardship areas. Includes native uplands and farm fields not otherwise protected by regulation. indication that protecting stewardship areas is not enough to protect land vital to the recovery and survival of the Florida panther. The NRI methodology is flawed, and cannot be relied on. It is also important to note that only a small number of panthers, historically and currently, have been collared and able to provide telemetry data points. Telemetry points provide limited information about where some panthers have been and landscape that some panthers use. Further, a majority of the historical telemetry data was provided by VHF collars where data was collected during daytime hours, and not during the crepuscular or evening hours when panthers have a more expansive use of non -forest landscapes. Because of this, relying too much on telemetry and not considering panther habitat zones and adult breeding habitat mapped and studied by leading panther scientists is an unsound practice from both a policy and science standpoint. We recommend utilizing best available science to help support the recovery and survival of the Florida panther. This issue is expanded upon below. 1 Please note that if the 2002 presentation was only referring to HSAs, only 49% of panther telemetry is found in HSAs. Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 7 of 19 FLORIDA PANTHER 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. Bellmar does not contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development. It destroys 1,000 acres of primary panther habitat, and nearly 800 acres of Florida Panther adult breeding habitat. The survival and recovery of the Florida panther are dependent upon maintaining, restoring, and expanding the panther population and its habitat in southern Florida. Specifically, the recovery of the Florida panther population is dependent on maintaining the ability of the Primary, Secondary, and Dispersal Zones, as identified by expert panther biologists in Kautz et al. (2006)1, to contribute to a viable population. Habitat loss and fragmentation are the greatest threats to the Florida panther; these threats are primarily a result of rapid population growth and conversion from natural habitats and agriculture to urban land use.2 LDC 4.08.05.J.2 states If listed species are directly observed on the site of the project or are indicated by evidence, such as denning, foraging, or other indications, first priority shall be given to preserving the habitat of such listed species a minimum of 40% of native vegetation on site shall be retained, with the exception of clearing for incidental purposes. LDC 4.08.05.J.3.d.vi. directly addresses the Florida panther, stating that for projects located in Priority I or Priority II Panther Habitat areas, the management plan shall discourage the destruction of undisturbed, native habitats that are preferred by the Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi) by directing intensive land uses to currently disturbed areas. Preferred habitats include pine flatwoods and hardwood hammocks. In turn, these areas shall be buffered from the most intense land uses of the project by using low intensity land uses (e.g., parks, passive recreational areas, golf courses). Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 8 of 19 There is a constant chipping away at the necessary range for the Florida panther that is rarely considered. Each individual project slowly limits the range for the Florida panther both through destruction of habitat, fragmentation of habitat and fragmentation of movement corridors. This project both destroys and fragments important Florida panther habitat as well as eliminating movement corridors. If even one project in the RLSA ignores the best available science, there will be a detrimental impact on the Florida Panther population. This is particularly true given the way the Natural Resource Index Value is being interpreted and implemented for listed and endangered species. LDC 4.08.01.Q. is about the Listed Species Habitat Indices stating that one of the indices comprising the Natural Resource Index Value, with values assigned based upon the habitat value of the land for listed species. 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, 6172, 621, 6218, 6219, 624, and 630 was deemed to be preferred or tolerated habitat for panthers for the purpose of assigning a value for these indices. An intersection of at least one data point establishing the presence of a listed species within a geographic information system (GIS) polygon of preferred or tolerated habitat for that species shall result in the entire polygon being scored as occupied habitat. The FLUCFCS codes deemed preferred or tolerated do not limit the County from including other codes to qualify as preferred or tolerated habitat based on best available science and panther data available at the time this application is reviewed. The FLUCFCS codes listed in the LDC need to be considered the bare minimum and not the only FLUCFCS codes tolerated, preferred, or needed for the recovery and survival of the Florida panther. This policy was crafted in 2002, and could have been based on the best available data 19 Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 9 of 19 years ago. We know a lot more about the Florida panther now, and practices should be based on the best available science. In 2012, the US Fish and Wildlife Service revised their Panther Habitat Assessment Methodology for the agency to utilize in assessing the functional value of panther habitat. While there are flaws within this system, the federal wildlife agency utilizes this methodology, which incorporates both the Kautz zones and other scientific information related to land cover valuation, for its permitting decisions. As seen in the below table, a review of literature that was done in production of this document, shows row crops as an average 4.8 (where the lowest value is 0 and the highest value given is 9.5). The document further shows that land covers in the "4-6" valuation are considered "neither selected nor avoided," i.e. tolerated. Table Ph47. Summary of Ranking Values Habitats Kautz compositional second order Kautz Euclidean second order Cox Euclidean second order Cox Euclidean third order Land VHF Euclidean third order Land GPS Euclidean third order Avers e Hardwood swamp 10 7 9 10 10 9 9.2 Pineland 9 8 10 10 10 10 9.5 Cypress swamp 8 9 9 10 10 9 9.2 Upland forest 10 6 8 10 10 10 9.0 Dry prairie 6 5 8 6 6 7 6.3 Slvub and brush 7 3 no data no data 6 6 5.5 Xeric scrub 8 1 no data no data no data no data 4.5 Marsh 6 1 6 3 6 6 4.7 Unimproved pasture 4 3 8 6 6 7 5.7 Barren 5 1 7 6 6 6 5.2 Improved pasture 2 4 7 6 6 6 5.2 Urban 3 2 7 6 6 6 5.0 Cropland 2 2 7 6 6 6 4.9 Citrus 1 2 7 6 6 6 4.7 Coastal wetlands 0 2 no data no data no data no data 1.0 Open water 1 0 no data no data 6 6 3.3 Exotic plants STA Reservoir habitat selection 7,8,9,10 neither selected nor avoided 4,5,6 habitat avoidance 0,1,13 As shown in the map below, Florida panthers have been documented in multiple FLUCFCS codes throughout the site. Many of these FLUCFCS codes - particularly the large green area (214, Row Crops), also have other documented listed species. The NRI value for the green area, however, for listed species is 0. This 0 is condoned because 214, under the Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 10 of 19 RLSA program, is not deemed to be preferred or tolerated for listed species even though we know by virtue of their presence that this area of Bellmar is, at minimum, tolerated by listed species including the Florida panther, wood stork, sandhill crane, tri-color heron, and crested caracara. A scoring system that ignores the rich diversity of land "tolerated" by at least 5 listed species is fatally flawed and should not be relied on to appropriately guide development. ° ❑ ❑ ❑° ❑ ° ❑ o ❑ ❑ 0° ° 0 ❑ 0 0 ° 0 0 ° v ° � o m° o 0 0 0 0 CONSERVANCY 0 or Southwest Florida 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a 689 0 0 ❑ 0❑ 0 0 0 0 0 o ° 00 `� ° 0 0 S90 ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UJUP o 0 0 0 0° 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 6) 8 0 0 0 ° o 0 0 0 ° v o0 ° o ® 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 'P O ® 0 0 o 0 0 0 ° 0 0 00 CP �niv�Qsi� of South &,id,. Cddnty of tallier, ERE, Car min. INCREMENT PUSCS. EPA. 00 0 00 ° 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 ❑bSDA ° 0 O PGPSCoIIar Q 41IDEI PINE FLATWOODS, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS) Q 6249E3 CYPRESS/PINE/CABBAGE PALM, DLST (3o-75% EXoTICs) ❑ Florida_ Panther_Telemeli to June 2019 4119E2 PINE FLATWOODS, DISTURBED (25-49% EXOTICS) 0 6259E4 PINE, HYDRIC, DISTURBED (76-100% EXOTICS) 4221 BRAZILIAN PEPPER, HYDRIC O 6309E3 MIXED WETLAND FOREST, DrSTURBED (50-75%EXOTICS) Bellmar_Species_FLUCFCS_0150820 0 514 DtTLH 0 74U DISTURBED LAND Desc 0 s14W DTTCH, WETLAND 0 7401 DISTURBED LAND, HYDRIC 0 210 CROPLAND AND PASTURELAND �1 525 CATTLE POND ® 747 BERM Q 214 ROW CROPS GIH9E4 Wr1A.OW, DISTURBED (76-100% EX❑TICS) 0 BI46 UNPAVED ROAD 0 0.13 0.25 0.5 Miles 0 2611 FALLOW CROP LAND, HYDRIC 5219E4 CYPRESS, DISTURBED (76-700% EXOTICS) <all other values, I 1 i I I I 1 I I Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 11 of 19 p O p ° 0 0 00 O Qpp o p r4"i66 }_c0 O 0 0 0 ° o p ° ° o • •► • o O ° O ° O 0 0 0 ° ° o • o ► O 0 CONSERVANCY or Southwest Florida O O O O O O O •° O O 0 0 O O O ° ► 00 � O p O O VO O O O 0 O O ° QtF 0 ° O °• O O p • • p p • O EM�M U o • p0 O O 98 • • • Q O O O O O O O p • 6 O O O OO O CID O 0 O C O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O ° O O °*0- O O O O O O O O O o o p o CPUn'-16itygf South Florida,°CouRty of Collier, ERn, HERE, Garmin, INCREMEN9 P, 8SGS, META 00 o 00 ° ° 0 00 90 o 0 o NASA EP=E1T)A o o PGPSCollar • Crested Caracare • TITandsia Utdoulata O Florida Panther This shows 4 listed species surveys O Florida_Panther_Tdemetryto June 2019 0 Encydia Tempensis o Tri—I., Heron O Little Blue Heron provided to Collier County by ° Epidendrum Rigid— • wood stork o Roseate spoonbill the applicant from 2019 and 2020 • American Alligamr • Sandhill Crane • <all otlrer values> • Wood Stork $ Cles � 0 Snail Kite • <ali other values> • American Alligator Nest O Tlllandsia Balbinana Species • American Alli t or • Cara —B&052020 ._ • Ameriwn Anigabar ° Tillandsia Fasciculata ga D 0.13 0.25 0.5 MIIBS 0 Tillandda Utnoulala • Crested Caracare eellmar I I I Staff is not considering the actual presence of listed species when scoring the project. The land development code should be used as guidance not relied on as absolute when determining whether a specific FLUCFCS code is preferred or tolerated by a species. Presence of a species is evidence that a FLUCFCS code on a specific site is, at a minimum, tolerated by a listed or endangered species. There are numerous documented presence locations for these species within the proposed Bellmar footprint. Why the Scoring Matters The basis of the RLSA classification of lands as Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSA), Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSA), Water Retention Areas (WRA) or Open Lands, utilized a numeric scoring system created specifically for the RLSA. This system considered a number of data Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 12 of 19 layers, such as soils, land use and restoration potential (as discussed earlier in this letter). In total, there are 6 categories that, when added up generate a number ranging from 0 to 2.4. The number generated from each of these 6 categories is called the Natural Resource Index (NRI) incide, or value, and was created and is unique to the RLSA. The composite total of these 6 scores is referred to as the NRI score, and again, was created and is unique to the RLSA. Each acre of land is intended to be scored individually to create a specific NRI score. When the RLSA program was designed, the program creators, WilsonMiller working on behalf of their landowner clients, arbitrarily selected 1.2 to be the cutoff of lands allowed for future intensification (as Stewardship Receiving Areas, or SRAs) versus lands where development intensification would be directed away from (FSAs, HSAs and WRAs). While there was no scientific methodological basis for allowing SRAs on lands that scored 1.2 or below, that is how the program is established. Most of these NRI values are relatively constant, such as the soils category. However, the category where there is the most potential for significant change is the Listed Speices Habitat Indices. This category must be evaluated so that scores are based on best available science at the time a new application comes forward. The importance of this is because the presence of listed species results in a much higher NRI indice value. If that value, as combined with the other 5 indices, results in the total NRI score being above 1.2, then those specific acres, while still being allowed within the footprint of a SRA, cannot be intensified and must be retained in their natural state. If any part of Bellmar exceeds 1.2, then development is not allowed on those lands. As you will see below, the Conservancy has calculated there are indeed acres within the footprint of Bellmar that exceed 1.2. While it appears that most of the acres which score over 1.2 are in lakes or preserve, there may be a few which occur in the area marked as village center. This issue should be clarified by staff. The below maps demonstrate why appropriate scoring matters, as it can dramatically change the resulting NRI score and ultimately the footprint of SRA development. Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 13 of 19 Collier County & Applicant Listed Species Scores Legend a 0.4 COSWFL Listed Species Scores Legend COSWFLspecies 0 0.6 0.5 ❑ate: 21812021 Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 14 of 19 Changing the Listed Species score also changed the final NRI scores for the property. Collier County & Applicant NRI Values Legend 1.1 0-8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0,2 - 0 CO SWFL NRI VALUES 4r6❑ acres score 1.2 or abo';-e Legend - 16 - 1-5 0 12 0 � 0.9 0-8 0-7 0.5 ■ ❑ate- 21812021 Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 15 of 19 Moreover, it is not just panther zones adopted by USFWS that the County needs to be Impacts to Adult[Breeding Panther Habitat Loss in P Value 010.2 0 0.21 - 03 0 0.31 - 0.4 0.41 - 0.5 0.51 - 0 6 0.61 - 0.7 _ a.71 - 0,85 ® Village Boundaries _ Lakes L� �� RLSA_Boundary concerned with. Dr. Robert Frakes, a leading panther habitat modeler, published a paper in 2015 identifying the most important breeding areas for the Florida panther. Dr. Frakes provided the Conservancy with a map showing the location of where significant loss in function of Adult Breeding 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. The inserted graphic shows the loss of Adult i" Breeding Habitat value from the 1 JSGS,NASA.ESA1 proposals, with the shaded 1 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 would also result in habitat function loss. Adult breeding habitat is not considered in any way for the NRI value or score. We note that if approved, there will be additional detrimental impacts by building the main road - Big Cypress Parkway - as Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 16 of 19 well as any connector roads between villages. As a reminder, vehicle collisions are the leading known cause of panther mortality. The survival and recovery of the Florida panther are dependent upon maintaining, restoring, and expanding the panther population and its habitat in southern Florida. Specifically, the recovery of the Florida panther population is dependent on maintaining the ability of the Primary, Secondary, and Dispersal Zones, as identified by expert panther biologists Kautz et al. (2006)2 to contribute to a viable population. Habitat loss and fragmentation are the greatest threats to the Florida panther; these threats are primarily a result of rapid population growth and conversion from natural habitats and agriculture to urban land use.3 Panthers are wide ranging, secretive, and occur at low densities.4 They require large contiguous areas to meet their social, reproductive, and energetic needs, a requirement that is being compromised by rapid development.5 Panther habitat continues to be lost to urbanization, residential development, conversion to agriculture, and mining.6 Because of this, there is a need for land use planning that incorporates panther conservation and recovery. Protection of the remaining breeding habitat in south Florida is essential to the survival and recovery of the Florida panther.? Further loss of adult panther breeding habitat is likely to reduce the prospects for survival of the existing population, and decrease the probability of natural expansion of the population into south-central Florida$. z Kautz, R. et al, How much is enough? Landscape -scale conservation for the Florida panther, BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 130 (2006) 118 — 133 3 Kautz, R. et al, How much is enough? Landscape -scale conservation for the Florida panther, BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 130 (2006) 118 — 133 4 Frakes RA, Belden RC, Wood BE, James FE (2015) Landscape Analysis of Adult Florida Panther Habitat. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0133044. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133044 6 Kautz, R. et al, How much is enough? Landscape -scale conservation for the Florida panther, BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 130 (2006) 118 — 133 6 Kautz, R. et al, How much is enough? Landscape -scale conservation for the Florida panther, BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 130 (2006) 118 — 133 7 Kautz, R. et al, How much is enough? Landscape -scale conservation for the Florida panther, BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 130 (2006) 118 — 133 8 Frakes RA, Belden RC, Wood BE, James FIE (2015) Landscape Analysis of Adult Florida Panther Habitat. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0133044. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133044 Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 17 of 19 Florida Bonneted Bat There is also potential impact to the Florida bonneted bat. Florida bonneted bats are different from most other Florida bat species because they are reproductively active through most of the year, and their large size makes them capable of foraging long distances from their roost9. Consequently, this species is vulnerable to disturbances around the roost during a greater portion of the year and considerations about foraging habitat extend further than the localized roost. Note that the protected species assessment dated August 2017 states "[w]idely scattered pine tree snags with potential bonneted bat cavities were observed." The United States Fish and Wildlife Service provided the included Figure 1 showing the consultation area in 2019.10 v.p ker.uo! b nuseacow� y c orcFOLa r r4Lw fl,� j anrnra Jkaan r� IIIOI A,1RNLlT YMIl,C! IIRbYC oe so-n SARr.SLTh OKlCC`C'{! T LIC y{\ 1 I�exLaxo� k ti 4 urll�� >k LSC HMS WINB64. M lMllnt �{yl,�Fl<I = Ir' f W_ �{solo raw�rw aLlw�.. _ 0 r2 6 25 d4 tee! I I - Flgure I. Flunda Iloam- Lcd 13a1 Conxulla[ion Area FIatchcd uea q Flgurc aF idk LiMe Ihp urbum dk clopm L houn&w in NIjulu-flock and Breiwwd Caumty- Apphcmlts vak projects m 6. sbwld —L-L the 5cz,­ FLU sprkdie gu,darlkc adds ng tha a 4 and mdnvld=1 kom A tion. The Conwlt.LL Kuysh—L3-1 be sized for pr j-u!n ihls area. The bonneted bat was listed as endangered in 2013, but we do not see evidence that a consultation was completed for this species. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service updated their consultation key for the bat, and Figure 1 shows the consultation area, of which this project falls within.11 Before this application can be approved, the applicant needs to provide information to the agencies to determine if there are foraging or roosting bonneted bats on -site or in the vicinity. 9 Ober, H. 2016. Annual report to USFWS for calendar year 2016. Permit number TE2358313-1. University of Florida, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, North Florida Research and Education Center. Quincy, Florida. 10 httr)s://www.fws.izov/verobeach/ProRrammaticPDFs/20191022 letter ServicetoCorps FBB- ProgrammaticKey.pdf 11 httr)s://www.fws.izov/verobeach/ProiarammaticPDFs/20191022 letter ServicetoCorps FBB- ProgrammaticKey.pdf Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 18 of 19 Additionally, as shown on the included map, 100% of the Bellmar site is proposed critical habitat for the Florida Bonneted Bat.12 Consideration of how the proposed development would impact this proposed13 habitat is also warranted. Bellmar Village & Florida Bonneted Bat Proposed Critical Habitat Legend Bellmar Village Boundary Flonda Bonneted Bat Cntial Habitat (Proposed) CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida ��. OUR WATER, LAN], WILUL-FE, EUTU9E. S. n ce; Esri. Di3rtalGbna. G-Epe, Eadhs[a G g phics rI FGIAirhus DS, USDA, USGS, - -- — 4 Cs.IRI.D. 13N_ antltho GIS,Ow —Linit, Date_ 211212021 In conclusion, the Bellmar Village SRA application is an inappropriately designed project in a completely unsuitable location. Bellmar does not meet the intent of the RLSA program, does not meet the standards required of a village in terms of diversity or building in a location that will not result in extreme environmental harm. We request that your recommendation be to deny this application. 7z Shapefile provided by US Fish and Wildlife Service. 7s Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 112, P. 35510. June 10, 2020. Conservancy of Southwest Florida Bellmar Village SRA Page 19 of 19 Please feel free to contact me if you have additional questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Julianne Thomas Senior Environmental Planning Specialist (239) 262-0304 x 252 iuliannet@conservancy.org cc: Ray Bellows, Collier County Zoning Services, Planning Manager James Sabo, Collier County Comprehensive Planning, Planning Manager Sue Faulkner, Collier County Comprehensive Planning, Principal Planner Nicole Johnson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Director of Environmental Policy April Olson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Senior Environmental Planning Specialist 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 SaboJames From: Jessica C <jessicac9987@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 12:45 PM To: SaboJames Subject: Bellmar Village 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. Good afternoon Mr. Sabo, My family and I live in the Southeast section of the Golden Gate Estates off of Desoto Blvd. I read the public hearing notice posted on the corner of Desoto and Golden Gate Blvd about the potential Bellmar community and after researching the details, your email was provided for comments. I find it important to share with you that the development of this village, especially in addition to the others proposed, would have significant negative impacts on our area. Not only would this be devastating to our wildlife and habitat, but it would affect all of the taxpaying citizens of the estates. As you know, GG Blvd is our only main road to travel into town from the SE side. With the potential of 6,000 more vehicles being added to this road, there will be an increase in travel times and in vehicle accidents. It already takes over an hour on some days with usual traffic, school busses/zones, and other hold ups along the way. In most cases, there are not turning lanes for individual driveways along the boulevard and there are few lights to manage the amount of traffic that will be added. The area that Bellmar is proposed to be developed in has a high volume of wildlife. I, myself, see deer, bear, bobcats, and more, on a daily basis. With all of the building being done in the estates and surrounding area already, there will be more "nuisance" animal complaints, more vehicle collisions caused by crossing wildlife, and an increasing amount of habitat devastation. As a Collier County citizen, a Golden Gate resident, and a hardworking taxpayer, I cannot stress my disappointment with this proposed village enough. Collier County has done a wonderful job in maintaining our wildlife areas and caring about its residents, please don't let that change now. I completely understand this is a rapidly growing area, but there is plenty of space for everyone --I see countless developments already in the works closer to town and there are dozens of homes being built by the month in that area. Our animals, forests, and citizens should not have to pay the price to accommodate the unwanted growth to our community Please let me know what I can do moving forward to be involved in making the voices of the estates residents heard. Thank you for your time, Jessica Liria CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Protecting Southwest Florida's unique natural environment and quality of life ... now and forever. February 25, 2021 Collier County Planning Commission Karen Homiak, District 1 Christopher Vernon, District 2 Karl Fry, District 3 Edwin Fryer, District 4 Robert Klucik, Jr., District 5 Paul Shea, At Large Environmental Joseph Schmitt, At Large Environmental Thomas Eastman, School Board (non -voting) Re: Bellmar Village SRA Application Dear Chairman Fryer and Planning Commissioners: sent via email On behalf of our 6,400 supporting families, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida is writing in opposition to the proposed Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) application to create Bellmar Village. The project is inconsistent with Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) and Land Development Code (LDC). We request that you vote to recommend denial of the Bellmar Village SRA to the Board of County Commissioners. This is an addendum to our Bellmar Letter dated February 16, 2021. Since that submittal, we have reviewed additional documents pertaining to the site uploaded by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) on February 19, 2021. In our review of the SFWMD application for Bellmar Village (Application 201995-4401), we found a map showing the location of a previously undocumented caracara nest. This map from the SFWMD application is attached for your review. Fifty-two (52) acres of the site falls within the primary zone of the nest, and 828 acres (83% of the site) fall within the protective buffer zone area of this nest. Crested Caracara Potential impacts to crested caracara nest site must be avoided. While we understand it may be difficult to rework site plans, modification of the design should be the priority in order to avoid impacts to the Threatened caracara. We cannot stress strongly enough that mitigation should only be an option after avoidance and minimization have been exhausted. 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 The US Fish and Wildlife Service defines the caracara Primary Zone as 985 ft (300 m) from the nest, and the caracara Secondary Zone as 4,920 ft (1,500 m) from the nest. The secondary zone is also called the protective buffer area. The caracara Primary Zone buffer is particularly important, and the applicant must take all action to avoid those areas. If avoidance is impossible, we ask that the applicant minimize activity in that area to the greatest extent practicable, which includes avoiding construction during breeding season. The caracara is non -migratory, uses their territory year round, and has strong nesting site fidelity.' Although breeding activity can occur from September through June, the primary breeding season is considered November through April.Z Nest initiation and egg -laying peak from December through February. Caracaras construct new nests each nesting season, often in the same tree as the previous year.3 Thus, as surveying efforts continue we note that the US Fish and Wildlife Service's guidelines state that "a nest should not be considered abandoned until it is not used for three consecutive breeding seasons or no other active nests are found within 0.5 km (0.31 mi) of the nest."4 Therefore, the continued surveys should include the project area as well as areas outside of the Village footprint up to the full extent of the 1,500-m buffer zone around the perimeter of the project area to account for off -site nest trees. If found, these nest trees may have Primary Zone or Secondary Zone buffer areas that might overlap onto the project area and require further avoidance and minimization measures.5 This additional information supports our contention that this site is not suitable for the proposed development. Please feel free to contact me if you have additional questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Julianne Thomas Senior Environmental Planning Specialist (239) 262-0304 x 252 juliannet@conservancy.org cc: Ray Bellows, Collier County Zoning Services, Planning Manager James Sabo, Collier County Comprehensive Planning, Planning Manager Sue Faulkner, Collier County Comprehensive Planning, Principal Planner Bellmar Caracara Nest Date: 212512021 Map from Applicant included in SFWMD application for Bellmar -W. I LEAGUE of WOMEN VOTERS" . OF COLLItR COUNTY 4000 February 26, 2020 To: Collier County Planning Commission Chairman Edwin Fryer Karl Fry Karen Homiak Paul Shea Christopher Vernon Joseph Schmitt Robert Klucik Re: Bellmar Village Dear Planning Commissioners: We submit the following comments on Bellmar Village. 1. Bellmar Village will be very damaging for Florida Panthers because it will be situated next to the Panther National Wildlife Refuge. Allowing Bellmar in this location would be contrary to the 1999 Final Administrative Order and the RLSA Program which require development to be directed away from listed species habitat. The County has a responsibility to make sure proposed development projects are consistent with this RLSA goal. The Applicant proposes to build Bellmar on 1000 acres that have been identified by panther experts as habitat essential to the long-term survival of the Florida Panther. A 2006 Study by six Florida panther experts specifically delineated the primary panther zone, that is the specific area essential to the long-term survival of the panther.' These experts determined the primary zone by considering landscape components, telemetry, land use and cover, and a few other variables. The spatial extent of land needed to support panthers who are wide-ranging, and connectivity of land cover were important factors. The USFWS has incorporated the study's findings and the Primary Zone into its regulatory framework and its 2008 Panther Recovery Plan. In the Recovery Plan, the USFWS urges that 1 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) conservation efforts focus on preserving the total remaining area of primary zone to prevent further loss of panther population viability. Pg. 89. The area of the Primary Zone is not nebulous. Applicants can obtain a GIS file from USFWS that allows them to zoom in on their property to determine whether it is in the Primary Zone and, if so, what portion. Bellmar is located 100% in primary zone habitat. It is also situated almost entirely on adult panther breeding habitat, according to a 2015 study by Dr. Frakes.2 Dr. Frakes concluded that loss of adult panther breeding habitat is likely to reduce the prospect for survival of the existing population. A. The Applicant tells us that the area on which Bellmar will be built has little or no value as panther habitat. The Applicant bases this position on its incorrect Natural Resource Index (NRI scoring for panthers. Shortly after adoption of the RLSA Program, the NRI was developed and a NRI score was assigned for land in the RLSA. This score was based on six characteristics, including a value for listed species. The purpose of the Natural Resource Assessment is to direct development away from important natural resources, most impprtantly listed species habitat. When a landowner applies to build a town or village, it must update the NRI scores for its land as part of the application. To score for panthers an Applicant looks at two things: whether (1) the land is "preferred or tolerated" habitat for panthers and (2) panthers are observed on its land. 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, 6172, 621, 6218, 6219, 624 and 630 is deemed to be preferred or tolerated habitat for panther for purpose of assigning a value for these indices." In updating the NRI scores for Bellmar, the Applicant did not correctly identify the preferred or tolerated habitat for panthers. Although the Applicant found there were panthers reported on the Bellmar Village site, the Applicant scored zero acres for panthers on Bellmar because the land within this SRA does not contain the FLUCFCS codes above. 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 17-18 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.) They determined that agricultural lands are important areas for panthers; they support panther home ranges, breeding, dispersal and large prey. z Frakes, RA., Belden RC, Wood, BE, James FE (2015) Landscape Analysis of Adult Florida Panther Habitat. PloS ONE10(7): e0133044. See also Dr. R.A. Frakes "Impacts to Panther Habitat from the Proposed Eastern Colllier Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan: A Quantitative Analysis. Oct. 2018. 2 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. ECPO's consultant, Al 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."' The LDC provision on listed species preferred habitat must be applied in accordance with the goal of the RLSA Overlay to direct development away from listed species and their habitat. That means in updating NRI scores 18 years after adoption of LDC 4.08.01Q, Applicants must apply the best available data in determining preferred or tolerated panther habitat. The Applicant refuses to consider the best available data, but the County has a responsibility to make sure this important panther science is considered. B. Bellmar is 100% primary zone panther habitat and over 90% adult breeding habitat —clearly preferred or tolerated panther habitat. The reported occurrences of panthers through years of telemetry data confirm panthers use the Bellmar site. To complete NRI scoring for Bellmar, the Applicant's consultant conducted day time surveys for panthers on the site. The Applicant also used one year (2019) of Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC) VHF telemetry data. Almost all VHF telemetry data, including the 2019 data, were recorded during daylight hours by aerial tracking of panthers. The VHF telemetry data have a public land bias and daytime location bias. However, panthers are mostly active at night, and are especially less likely to be on fields of row crops during the day for such areas as Bellmar. There are GPS telemetry data recorded 2005-2009 of radio -collared panthers that include nocturnal recordings of panthers. See the figure below showing FWC telemetry data for Longwater, Bellmar, SSA 17 and SSA 18. Note the brown dots show the GPS telemetry data. 3 Email between Al Reynolds, Stantec and Michelle Mosca, Collier County, Nov. 30, 2011. "Data and Analysis requirements for the RLSA 5-year Review." 3 !h Ave NE wig CONSERVANCY E of Southwest Florida Ez OUR WATER, LAND, WILOL I FE, FUTURE. 7, E E 3rd Ave NE •• E • • E E Randall Blvd E • 1 • 18th Ave NE • E • E 0 "4 o• o $o � o o tbo o 00 o p o0 CID 8 oe Q Oq ° p619 • O �r w ° ° m° 0 •{ o �j 00 ° E •O • 00 0 O �° OQ i v 0 ° •\• 0 0 ° cA ¢{pp o • • p o 00 CII ftc o o ° 0 qq77 Q, o •/qp0 00°O 0 • Odd '��1/'OO'""�� 00 • • (Yp ® � o ° 0 O ° p0 0°0 08Di 9 o o O08 • o 0 0 0 o ° o z 6 0 00 0o U0 po o cb 0co p p y p° 0 00 O O Oqg o 9 Q p p 0 6 "O ooCD co 00 0 ° 8 SV1 o m o0 0 0 0 o c' P o 0 96 0 #0 1� ag o0O0o '40"' ® qc)M o o 0 O E O E • Golder EL.. • F ° o • •• _egend ° • Panther Telemetry GPS 2005-2009 • Panther Telemetry 1981 - 2020 E SSA 18 SSA 17 tiL Bellmar p Do0 • • � .O no0 °p0 0 O O LNS' ° p O W °0 mo • 0 0 -O 0 0 •• �O 0 819,qO O 0 oo°� °0•N N o • 8A^ gca° 08° o o • ® so g cc o 0A ° °° m m 0 oo • ® go o s 's• 0 Q O M O O O O 0080 e ° 40 0 L i�,3rsfty of So• 9,"y L, Col . &110� 0 0 P • •- bsq ° F&Garrr+n, P SGS ME�.�'.L lhrd2 • 0 0 • NGA EK, • �o0 8 c 2/10/2021 4 Telemetry data are useful to provide information about where panthers go and the landscape they use. You can see the entire area where Bellmar will be built is used by panthers. (See also the Attached panther telemetry data map.) However, there are a limited number of collared panthers, that's why it's most important to consider the best available panther data along with telemetry data in determining NRI scores. The Applicant only considered one of the many years of panther telemetry data shown above, and of the limited data it used, the Applicant discarded all observances of panthers along the perimeter of Bellmar as "not within the SRA boundaries." The perimeters are in Stewardship sending areas 17 and 18. It should be noted that the Applicant proposes to destroy over 100 acres in these SSAs for its stormwater lake tracts. The Applicant also did not include panther occurrences within Bellmar because the particular acre(s) was not identified by a FLUCFCS code in the LDC provision discussed above. The purpose of NRI scoring is to serve the intent of the RLSA Program to direct development away from listed species habitat. Besides discarding perimeter panther observations, the Applicant carved out a strip through the middle of Bellmar where occurrences of panther were reported —this became part of SSA 18. Bellmar completely surrounds this narrow strip of SSA 18 with residential and commercial development and puts boardwalks through the area. So, in addition to the 1000 acres of Bellmar, the Applicant will be destroying many additional acres of primary zone habitat. These additional acres in SSA 17 and 18 should have been buffered from the intense village development by using low intensity land uses such as parks or passive recreational areas. LDC 4.08.05.J.3.d.vi. In conclusion, because the Applicant fails to correctly identify the preferred or tolerated panther habitat areas using updated best available science, it appears as if Bellmar would not be destroying panther habitat. This couldn't be further from the truth. In reality, the panther would be losing over 1,000 acres of lands essential to the species survival as a result of Bellmar. Please do not allow this to happen. As a final note, do you think it makes sense to put people and their pets in the middle of critically important panther habitat and next to the panther refuge? 2. Bellmar is not fiscally neutral because the Applicant does not mitigate the cumulative adverse traffic impacts of Rivergrass, Longwater and Bellmar to eight roadway segments. The traffic impacts of Rivergrass and Longwater should be considered as background traffic for Bellmar. Instead of mitigating traffic impacts from the combined traffic of these three villages, the Applicant only addresses mitigation for Bellmar's adverse traffic impacts. 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 5 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. The Applicant seeks to have the traffic impact of bellmar Village considered in a vacuum. The Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) for Bellmar shows three 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." The County reviewer is correct. When the Applicant finally provided an analysis of the cumulative roadway impacts of Rivergrass, Longwater and Bellmar, eight 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 Bellmar shows 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 level of service. The three villages have been planned together in close proximity to each other as the Villages of Big Cypress Stewardship District and have about the same buildout date. To be considered fiscally neutral, the Applicant should account for the adverse impact of the traffic from each of the villages as background traffic for the other villages. However, the County Staff is not requiring the Applicant to mitigate the eight additional adversely impacted road segments that result from the cumulative impact of traffic from Longwater and Bellmar. Rivergrass Village has already been approved and there appears to be no basis for not including Rivergrass traffic as background traffic in the Bellmar TIS. 3. Bellmar is not fiscally neutral because, along with Longwater, it does not provide a transportation network adequate to support the proposed development. Big Cypress a These eight 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, Golden Gate Blvd. from Wilson Blvd. To 16th St NE, Golden Gate Blvd from 161h St NE to Everglades 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. 0 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 for RLW." Nov. 1, 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, Bellmar will have access to one collector road, Golden Gate Blvd. 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, their traffic will severely impact Golden Gate Blvd. 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 close proximity to each other. "Based on 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." 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 Big Cypress Parkway, the Applicant will receive a substantial amount of impact fee credits for providing the Right of Way (ROW) for B 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 ' 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. 7 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. 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. Yes, the County signed the Developer Agreement; but now the question before you is whether the Applicant has shown that Bellmar will be fiscally neutral. 4. Longwater and Bellmar Villages will not be fiscally neutral because their impact fees will not reimburse the County for the amount of capacity of the New North East Water and Wastewater facility that they consume. Yet, the New North East Water and Wastewater facility is being 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. 5. The Applicant has not demonstrated that its proposed mitigation for Bellmar's adverse traffic impact on segments of Vanderbilt Beach Road, Golden Gate Blvd. and Randall Road will restore or maintain the Level of Service (LOS) on these adversely impacted roadways. According to the November 2020 TIS section 1 for Bellmar, the project's traffic will adversely impact Vanderbilt Beach Road from Logan Blvd. to Collier Blvd., Golden Gate Blvd. from Everglades Blvd. to Desoto Blvd, and Randall Blvd. from Everglades Blvd. to Desoto 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 Bellmar's traffic will also adversely impact Randall Blvd. from Everglades Blvd. to DeSoto Blvd. But this segment is also 0 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 (Nov. 2020). 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 impact fees 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 towards mitigating the impacts created by the relevant development. Collier Enterprises must provide specific mitigation for the deficient road segments.' 6. County Staff did not consider Bellmar Village consistent with the RLSA Program, but withdrew its comments without obtaining changes to address the objections it raised. County Staff raised issues with Bellmar Village in its May 27, 2020 Consistency Review Memorandum. One of the general conclusions was that "The Bellmar Village 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 or gradient, interconnectedness, 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." This is clearly the case. Bellmar is a sprawling community without innovation, housing diversity, walkability or interconnectedness. It doesn't have a true village center, nor true internal capture. Bellmar is a typical suburban development. 7. The problems with Longwater and Bellmar cannot be fixed by dangling a proposed Town Agreement in front of you. We trust that the Planning Commissioners will not let the Town Agreement have any bearing on their decisions for Longwater and Bellmar Villages. Indeed, a town agreement may or may not come to fruition. The proposed Town Agreement is discretionary for Collier Enterprises on key aspects, but, if approved, would be binding on the County. What the Town Agreement proposes is extremely inconsistent with the RLSA Program. Collier Enterprises proposes setting aside 515 acres for some components of a town sprawled out along Big Cypress Parkway and Oil Well Road. The proposal does not join the villages together in any cohesive manner. The Agreement would constrain the County in its review of the future town application by including such things as restrictions on what can be considered for the Town economic assessment and Seethe 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. 9 traffic impact analysis. Most significantly, the Town Agreement will shift many of the costs of a town to the County and taxpayers, such as requiring the County to pay for additional infrastructure, the Community Park, permit fees and mitigation. Sincerely, League of Women Voters Collier County Environmental Committee Patricia Forkan Charlotte Nycklemoe Loralee LeBoeuf Susan Calkins Judy Hushon Alison Wescott Lynn Martin Bonnie Michaels Gaylene Vasaturo Attachment: Panther Habitat and Telemetry in the RLSA cc: Ray.Bellows@collliercountyfl.gov JeffKlatzkow(@colIIier2ov.net 10 Ab JAL,, r 1� j,�. :rL►Ir /''�r-� its r r x 'J VVr yK ! YjOA, ---� CAI# or r � .— i.!' ,7► a !� MotLegend ' RLSA Boundary Proposed Rural Lands ZONE Pfimary Secondary �`�i�.:sil[.i.1.•`T _ ~i:` �; ����L �0, °4W""""J111IF.:-.:dfal.%iii. • .�:� United States Department of the Interior - W ' AEM"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, Digitally signed by Kevin GodsKevin Godsea Date:2 Date: 2021.03.01 13:54:16 -0"()0. 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 SaboJames From: ThomasClarkeVEN Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 4:21 PM To: GundlachNancy; SaboJames Cc: FrantzJeremy; AlexandraCasanovaVEN; Young bloodAndrew Subject: Public comment FW: Stop Longwater & Bellmar James, Nancy, Public Comment for the Above - CCPC March 4" Tom Operations Coordinator - Zoning Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-2526 From: MKR <wdrmkrl506@gmail.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. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. To whom it may concern, My name is Michele Range and reside in Collier County. Im unable to attend the hearing but would like to voice my opinion, Im 100 percent against the Longwater & Bellmar developments! 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. 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. SaboJames 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, ply husband and myself wish to make it known that we are against developing Longwater Village SRA and Bellmar Village SX4. Our to ,,es wouldgo up to help fund these projects. We do not have the infrastructure to support these projects. They would have a severe negative impact on the wildlife in the areas. Sincerely, Kathie and Tom Gilginas 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 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 SaboJames From: Anis Khalil <anis@defactoinc.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 5:34 PM To: ThomasClarkeVEN; GundlachNancy; SaboJames Cc: FrantzJeremy; YoungbloodAndrew Subject: RE: Public Comment re: Longwater and Bellamr Villages from Anis Khalil 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. Thank you both Much appreciated Best, Anis Khalil I Agency Director De facto: 325 West 381h Street, Suite 1703 New York, NY 10018 212.627.4700 to view portfolios go to www.defactoinc.com follow us on Instaeram The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains information that may be confidential, may be protected by the attorney -client or other applicable privileges, or may constitute non-public information. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete all copies of it from your computer system. Any use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this 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@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: FrantzJeremy <Jeremy.Frantz@col liercountyfl.gov>; YoungbloodAndrew <Andrew.Youngblood@colliercountyfl.gov>; Anis Khalil <anis@defactoinc.com> Subject: Public Comment re: Longwater and Bellamr Villages from Anis Khalil Nancy, James, Please 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.IV/CollierZoning doter foL4"ty From: Anis Khalil <anisC@defactoinc.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 5:02 PM To: ThomasClarkeVEN <Thomas.Clarke@colliercountvfl.gov> Subject: Longwater and Bellamr Villages 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. Hello Thomas Please enter this in the public record regarding the above: I am completely and adamantly opposed to any development in the RLSA , and especially of Longwater and Bellmar Villages Collier County needs to build in in -fill areas and already developed areas and not encroach on any Wilderness left in the County. Another issues is the low and inadequate impact fees that do not fully cover the actual growth created by developers This cannot stand. Anis Khalil 182 Sunset Cay Naples FL 34114 Anis Khalil I Agency Director De facto: 325 West 38th Street, Suite 1703 New York, NY 10018 212.627.4700 to view portfolios go to www.defactoinc.com follow us on Instagram The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains information that may be confidential, may be protected by the attorney -client or other applicable privileges, or may constitute non-public information. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete all copies of it from your computer system. Any use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. 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. SaboJames From: BellowsRay Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 5:19 AM To: SaboJames; GundlachNancy Subject: FW: Bellmar Village Attachments: Saturday March 27 2021 fire at Ava Maria.pdf, immokalee much fire jones rd. 4 28 2017 stareted Friday.PNG; 13 May 2020 fire Golden Gate Estates..JPG; Miami Gardens, N Miami Beach, Hialeah.doc Importance: High FYI R" Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Zoning Division - Zoning Services Section Growth Management Department Telephone: 239.252.2463; Fax: 239.252.6350 Co 6'r County Exceeding expectations, every day! TO us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at https://goo.gl/eXivgT. From: Rae Ann Burton <raburton@embargmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 8:07 PM To: BellowsRay <Ray.Bel lows@colliercountyfl.gov>; Eastman, Thomas <ThomasEastman@colliergov.net>; KarlFry <Karl.Fry@colliercountyfl.gov>; FryerEdwin <Edwin.Fryer@colliercountyfl.gov>; HomiakKaren <Karen.Homiak@colliercountyfl.gov>; SchmittJoseph <Joseph.Schmitt@colliercountyfl.gov>; VernonChristopher <Christopher.Vernon@colliercountyfl.gov>; KlucikRobert <Robert.Klucik@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Bellmar Village 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. 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. Dear Planning Commissioners, Since I spoke on Longwater at the March 4 meeting and the developer requested that speakers could not speak again at the next meeting, I am writing about the Bellmar Project 9 A-2 PL 20190001837 will create traffic congestion and more loss of wildlife habitat. One such habitat is the Panther which are suffering some sort of debilitating disease, per local news. Could a cause be inbreeding - due to loss of habitat? This development of 2,750 units x only 2 people per unit is 5,500 more cars on Immokalee, Randall - if the Big Cypress Parkway is built will congest Immokalee and Randall and Everglades (which regardless of what their lawyer stated March 4 meeting) was needed when Rural Lands West was the project and is SHOWN as an entrance/exit for Longwater Village. Approving Bellmar village and Longwater and combining them with Rivergrass is a CHEAP way to eliminate their Town restrictions and service costs. Which are connected a road. It will Burden the Taxpayers who are now suffering with loss of the quiet environment, and open spaces, already congested longer traffic commuting which can only be worse during hurricane evacuation or fires. The compact village layout can also create more storm damage insurance claims and even add fuel to fires. Attaching some of the fires in the area - last Saturday one near AVA Maria - if the wind had been blowing a different direction - it could have been Ava Maria - I am only 7 miles away. Also told that people want to move here - Florida has 3 of the most miserable cities in the States, 2 are in Miami, which Golden Gate Estates does not want to be the 4th. Please consider all issues - not just the Developers - theirs is only financial gain - not the concerns for the Estate Residents, Wildlife or the environment, what they set aside is not sufficient for the wildlife and will create more Human and animal encounters - of which only farm animals and pets have suffered and died- so far. This board is the Judge and Jury of what happens in the Estates, our livelihood, our environment, our safety is in the decision of the board. So do what is best for all - so all benefit - slow down this growth spurt - check out the areas - the estates is a unique place. NOT filled - YET- with high-rises, massive cookie cutter homes of the post war Boom of WWII laid out in a congested maze. . Thank you for your time, Regards, Rae Ann Burton 2530 31st AVE NE Naples, FL 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 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 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.